Bill Brownson’s Disgusting Print Ad
This ad is for a Franklin County REPUBLICAN PARTY ENDORSED candidate for Columbus city council, which was in the Columbus Outlook Weekly (a homosexual publication). Click the image below to see the ad:
I don’t know what else to say, other than I wouldn’t vote for a candidate who, in an official campaign print ad, is openly flirting with promiscuous homosexuals in hopes of earning their vote.
(Hat Tip: Jerid… yeah , not the Subway Jerid, but BSB’s Jerid. How else would I find an ad in a gay publication?)
Jerid said,
Wrote on August 5, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
I thought you’d be a little more supportive for one of your endorsed candidates. I mean, homosexuality has never been an issue at RAB in the past, right?
Matthew said,
Wrote on August 5, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
MY endorsed candidates?
Why ‘gay Republican’ is usually an oxymoron « Blogesque said,
Wrote on August 6, 2007 @ 1:01 am
[…] 6th, 2007 at 12:01 am (Ohio Politics) RAB’s headline calls Republican candidate Bill Brownson’s campaign ad in a Columbus bar paper […]
TNP said,
Wrote on August 6, 2007 @ 11:08 am
“Homosexual Republican” (I don’t use the phony word, “gay,” which means carefree and happy) may be an oxymoron, because more often than not, Republicans oppose same-sex “marriage,” oppose so-called “hate crimes legislation” as condemnation of thought, oppose adoption of children by same-sex pairs and take very strong positions on the sanctity of traditional marriage (one man/one woman for life). It makes sense that homosexuals feel uncomfortable with most GOPers. That is as it should be. And all of this helps to explain why Rudolph Giuliani will never get the Republican nomination for president.
Now go ahead and start crying to the heavens that I’m a hate-filled danger to society. But know this: I hate homosexuality for the same reasons I hate bestiality, pederasty, adultery, theft and murder. There is no right way to do a wrong thing. I don’t hate homosexuals or thieves or pedophiles. I pray for them instead.
cynic said,
Wrote on August 6, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Doesn’t the City of Columbus have more gays than Republicans? If the GOP wants to be serious about writing off the gay vote, it needs to just write off the big cities. And some other places, too.
TNP said,
Wrote on August 6, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
Homosexuals are welcome to be Republicans and vote for GOP candidates. My point was and is that by and large GOPers advocate positions that the majority of homosexuals seem to oppose.
If you review a blue-area/red-area map of the US, it looks like the Dem/libs have a codlock on most urban areas already.
Columbuser.com said,
Wrote on August 6, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
[…] Naugle is disgusted by a gay Republican’s campaign ad in a “homosexual publication”. The ad’s a bit dumb, but I can’t imagine […]
Daniel said,
Wrote on August 6, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
Matt, get a sense of humor. The ad is obviously not intended to be entirely serious.
And “openly flirting with promiscuous homosexuals”? Someone’s been watching a bit too much of The 700 Club.
VikingSpirit said,
Wrote on August 6, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Matt, I’m failing to see the problem with this. To win in Columbus, we need to reach out to people that aren’t in the Republican base. Brownson is our only candidate who has ANY chance at winning in Columbus, and we need to back him. Honestly, what’s the problem with a gay Republican?
Matthew said,
Wrote on August 6, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
I never said there was something wrong with a gay Republican- In fact, with the Republicans strong pro-law enforcment and anti-tax positions, the Republican party is the best party for gays to vote for.
However, I don’t want my party to endorse a candidate who is so open about his lifestyle that he publishes ads about it. Wouldn’t gays who go about their lives, minding their own business, not want their orientation exploited like that? I would think gays would be offended about such an ad.
Jerid said,
Wrote on August 6, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
Matt -
I believe you’ve also said homosexuality is immoral. Don’t forget to mention that too. I mean, it’s what you believe, right?
Matthew said,
Wrote on August 6, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
Yes, but that doesn’t change the fact that the GOP has the best platform for homosexuals with their anti-tax pro-law enforcement positions.
Jerid said,
Wrote on August 6, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
Well of course.
The civil rights act wasn’t in african american’s self interest either.
Matthew said,
Wrote on August 6, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
First of all, it is stupid to try to compare homosexuality with the struggles that blacks faced in America.
And, if you like the 64 civil rights act- Fine. Tell that to Al Gore’s father who voted against it or Bill Clinton’s mentor J. William Fulbright, who also voted against it. It has been the Republicans who have always stood up for civil rights, while the Democrats were the party of the Klu Klux Klan and racist southerners.
Jerid said,
Wrote on August 6, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
Nice ad hominem attack. Doesn’t really stand up, but A for effort.
Also, prior to the party shift I might’ve been a Republican - I’ve got no shame in saying that. Heck, in the 50’s my grandfather was GOP all the way. However, like they say, “It ain’t your father’s Republican Party” anymore.
While you folks were busy propping up Thurmond, we were shoving Wallace out of our party. But whatever.
Instead, why don’t you tell me why the civil rights act is faulty government intrusion or some other bs.
Matthew said,
Wrote on August 6, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
the act is unconstitutional, but plenty of things congress does is also unconstitutional.
Jerid said,
Wrote on August 6, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
And you wonder why you can’t get the black vote.
Daniel said,
Wrote on August 6, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
“Wouldn’t gays who go about their lives, minding their own business, not want their orientation exploited like that? I would think gays would be offended about such an ad.”
I got a brochure from a state rep candidate in the mail today. He was pictured on the back with his wife and his kids and his dog. And here I was trying to go about my life, minding my own business as a married father and proud dog owner, and this disigenuous Republican politician had to come along and exploit my lifestyle. How offensive.
Screaming loud. said,
Wrote on August 6, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
What party is it that just loves the ku klux klansman bob bryd? Did it not take a Republican president to make the National Guard finally allow the Blacks the right to attend the school of their choice despite what the STILL rascist democrat party desired? The analogy some people use any whites in the one party who voted for strickland were racists and the blacks who voted for him did not know what they were doing. What did Martin Luther King say about earning what you want with a color blind society? However I see what type of people have hyjacked the communist, I mean the democrat party.
Ms. Begorrah said,
Wrote on August 6, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
You know I always tried to figure out the deep need to portray the male candidate as a family sort of guy with all the trappings clearly displayed on the literature. Is this so the voters don’t identify him as a womanizer? As a woman I don’t think I would feel a need to display my husband of 38 years on some brochure with me if I were running for office. After all who would the voters be voting into office? My family including pets or me as a candidate?
Elliott said,
Wrote on August 9, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
This might be a stale thread at this point, but —
the civil rights act is unconstitutional? On what grounds?
Matthew said,
Wrote on August 9, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
It is an expansion of the original intent of the commerce clause. Barry Goldwater, at the time, talked to Justice Rehnquist and Robert Bork, and they both agreed it was unconstitutional.
But Congress does plenty of things that are unconstitutional. Even if it was constitutional, I don’t want a federal government that is large enough to enforce morality on the private sector- The 64 civil rights as is an infringement on the rights of private property owners.