Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Let's Skip Campbell

Skip Campbell is the Theocratic—oops, Democratic—candidate for Attorney General of Florida.

Campbell is running against Republican Bill McCollum, who was one of the House impeachment managers back when Bill Clinton was the anti-christ. McCollum has often worn his christianity on his sleeve, supporting a Constitutional amendment to allow school prayer and taking the expected “pro-life” stand against abortion.

He is clearly not a choice for those of us who believe strongly in the separation of church and state.

McCollum is not totally controlled by the Christian Right, however. In the past, he has come out in favor of federal funding for stem cell research. “That’s pro-life, too," he said.

The Republican candidate also once co-sponsored a U.S. bill to designate violence against gays as a hate crime. Of course, that stance offended the holy crowd, which believes that beating up homos is god’s wet dream.

McCollum is not as popular with the goddies as he could be.

Along skips Campbell, eager to seize an opportunity. Perhaps he can out-god his opponent. In a recent campaign ad, Skippy tells viewers, “I spent six years in the seminary ... My faith and my family are what I hold most dear.” A picture of a little girl clutching a teddy bear is flashed on the screen—accompanied by the caption: “protecting children.”

In Campbell’s mind, apparently, the words “seminary” and “faith” are supposed to get the electorate shouting hosannas in the voting booth.

But unless you’re brain-dead, you’re well aware that the seminary is not exactly the place to look for child-protectors. Go to your favorite search engine and type in “priest” and “pedophile,” or “Catholic” and “sexual abuse,” and you’ll get enough hits to keep you reading until the second coming. How dare Campbell couple the terms “seminary” and “protecting children.”

And as far as his faith being what he holds most dear: That could have been said equally well by the men who flew the planes into the World Trade Center.

Now, I’m certaintly not accusing Campbell of being either a pedophile or a terrorist. But his words don’t prove that he isn’t.


John Evo said...

Well, I figured I might as well be the first commenter EVER on your blog (since you barely beat me over at You Made Me Say It)!

No one can accuse YOU of inconsistency. This post would fit right in with what you post now. So whatever happened to "skippy"?

I don't envy the position you put yourself in. While I roll my eyes at theistic statements from Dems (and in some few cases it can be downright infuriating, I'll admit), I still will always see this battle as "lesser of evils". If I guy like The Skipster couldn't meet the expectations of the religious right (and, especially, if his opponent could) then he's my guy - until there's a better option.

See, I think the whole idea that if Dems are going to express any religious notions then we might as well vote Republican is exactly how we ended up with George W. Bush.

The Exterminator said...

Man, I really don't wanna have this conversation back in October of '06. But I've gotta respond.

See, I think the whole idea that if Dems are going to express any religious notions then we might as well vote Republican is exactly how we ended up with George W. Bush.

That's NOT how George W. Bush got in. George W. Bush got in because the Democratic candidates were namby-pamby, not because they actively tried to appeal to the religious right. Blatant pandering to the fundies is a new idea for '08. So now the Democratic candidates are still namby-pamby, but they're also catering to the worst elements in American society. I'd like to send them a message, LOUD AND CLEAR. For every "social conservative" you win by resorting to this disgusting tactic, you lose two honest-to-goodness freethinkers.

What difference does it make to me if Mike Huckabee caters to the theocrats or if Barack Obama does? If Rudy Giuliani supports the status-quo in Iraq or if Hilary Clinton does? If Mitt Romney wants to redistribute the wealth to the very rich or John Edwards wants to redistribute it to the very poor (and the very rich)? I'm still fucked. So far, I haven't seen a convincing reason to support any Democratic candidate in the next election.