First openly gay presidential Canidate!!!!!

[guywithashovel]

No matter how you want to split the hairs, supporting equality for the GLBT community is a liberal stance. However, if someone supports GLBT, yet is conservative on most everything else, then that person could possibly call themselves conservative.

Thing is, the right here in the US has managed to completely demonize the word "liberal" to the point where people don't want to pin that label on themselves, even if it is the correct way to describe them. For example, I have heard people saying things like "Well, I support gay rights. I'm pro-choice. I also think universal health care is a fairly good idea, but I still call myself conservative because of "x," y," and "z." Actually, no, you're not conservative. You're a flaming liberal.

[KnitShoni]

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

Not really. There's more to being conservative than your stance on gay rights.

[Ghel]

a conservative gay rights activist

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

[lordlundar]

his chances range from slim to none. One of the questions posed to potential candidates at the RNC is "How would you go about preventing gay people from having the right to legally marry" and other obviously anti-gay rights questions.

[Hyena Dandy]

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but let's be honest. The media picks the frontrunners as much as the people do. If Fox, CNN, NBC, et al don't treat you like a serious candidate, you will not get elected.

Of course, I don't want to go too far. Clearly, the people have a say too. The media treated Fred Thompson like a shoo-in for nominee in 2008, and he ended up pretty far behind.

I don't think there's some sort of vast conspiracy. They do not intend to be kingmakers. But the way the news works ends up with a spiral. They tell us who's 'electable'. We use that to tell them who we want. They use that to determine who's electable. Which we use to tell them who we want. Its not that they want to do it. They have to focus on what's important. There's no way to give everyone equal time.

What, me double post?

I suppose if some sort of moderatey type wants to merge my posts, I wouldn't object.

[Hyena Dandy]

He won't get the backing he needs, as much as I would love to vote for him. He won't be covered, so he won't get votes. He won't get votes, so he won't be nominated.

Besides. An endorsement from the Huffington Post will not help you win the Republican nomination.

[guywithashovel]

I seriously doubt he's going to get the party's backing. Fact of the matter is, he is in a party that, for the most part, doesn't support him. Yes, there are some that do, but they are outnumbered by those who are prejudiced.

He would be better off joining another party or running as an independent, IMHO.

It does feel strange that we're seeing serious contenders for the 2012 race, though. To me, it still kind of seems like we just got through the 2008 elections.

[BlaqueKatt]

and yes He is a REPUBLICAN!

I really hope he gets the party backing. Though sadly I know there are some people that would look at nothing more than his political affiliation and vote against him(he presents himself as a single issue candidate -- a conservative gay rights activist)

Huffington post

365gay