« Romney Reveals He's Worth As Much As $250 Million | Home | Poll: More Dems Think Hillary, Not Obama, Will Bring Change »
Richardson Explains Remark On Homosexuality: "I Always Love The Word 'Choice'"
Okay, this is a perfectly sensible explanation...
Bill Richardson is now attempting to clarify his stumbling answer at last week's Human Rights Campaign forum, in which he said that homosexuality is a choice. Here's what he had to say today in an interview with Sirius radio:
And, I always love the word 'choice.' I’m for freedom of choice, I have in my health care plan a choice where everybody can keep their health care plan. And so I always kind of feel it's a golden word, and I didn't think through what Melissa was asking me.
Yes, Governor, "choice" really is a nice word. Perhaps one might choose to steer clear of this topic going forward?
Advertisement
That's a marginally better excuse than saying it was only a woman talking so naturally he had half an ear cocked to the ballgame.
He pulled Whizzer White out of his ass as his dream Supreme Court nominee just because JFK picked him without even bothering to send a junior aide to check to see what kind of justice he'd been and got pinned down by McJoan at Yearly Kos who recited White's less than sterling record (voted against Roe vs Wade for instance).
He's gonna have to take his homework a little more seriously than that if he expects us to hand him the nomination or the second spot.
August 13, 2007 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hang it up, Bill.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
August 13, 2007 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That dog won't hunt. Melissa gave him a second chance to answer, prefacing it with, "Governor, I don't think you understood the question..." If that didn't telegraph the message, "Listen up -- you're in danger of digging yourself into a very deep hole," then markg8 is right, he doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
It's a pity, because he has some interesting credentials. But we've already seen what happens with a president that doesn't pay close attention to what is being said to him, and who shoots off his mouth without plugging his brain in. No more, please.
August 13, 2007 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be honest, that's exactly what I figured had happened. He knows nothing about the topic or the debate surrounding it, heard the word choice, and jumped on it, thinking it must be the right answer.
August 13, 2007 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone know the rules on mulligans in televised presidential debates? Surely Richardson must be well over the limit already, or else he owes serious money to some democratic charity ... NARAL/HRC??
August 13, 2007 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's gonna have to take his homework a little more seriously than that if he expects us to hand him the nomination or the second spot.
Actually the VP choice will be made by the delegates to the 2008 Democratic convention and they will probably follow the suggestion of the presidential nominee. I am not sure that anyone who is not a delegate will much to say about it.
Mrgavel
August 13, 2007 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, is Richardson really supposed to be up-to-the-minute on the nature/nurture issue as regards homosexual behavior? His opinion on this issue, as a non-scientist, is valueless anyway.
There's nothing wrong with his explanation. It rings quite true. The latest anti-gay bigotry isn't at the forefront of his consciousness. So what? Besides, his record on gay, civil, and human rights has been pretty much impeccable. Just because he doesn't have the PC answer to this question down pat is no reason to give him all this grief.
August 14, 2007 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're comparing Richardson to Bush? Get off it. So he doesn't have a pat answer to one of a million questions he's asked every day. Big deal.
The fact is, not all homosexual behavior is nature, and not all is nurture. There is no doubt that some people are truly bisexual and choose to be gay; and no one has yet excluded the possibility that for some people, sexual preference might be determined while the nervous system is developing in the first few months of life. It isn't all necessarily genetically wired in.
Of course it's contemptible for bigots to assume sexual preference is invariably a matter of conscious decision-making, and to use that as a club to beat up on gay people. One wonders when it was that they "chose" to be straight, and how that's working out for them.
I personally don't remember ever "choosing" my sexual preference. It was just there. But I don't know how or when it got there, and I don't expect Bill Richardson to know either.
August 14, 2007 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why does this site continue to pile on Richardson over this issue? Did I miss something, and has it been scientifically proven that people are born gay?
Many "gay" people have had straight sex at least once in their lives. Did they choose that?
Maybe being gay is a choice, and being straight is a choice too. People do have the right to choose, don't they?
August 14, 2007 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you, as witness my posts above, but the relatively small number of posts about this is fortunate--and don't exactly constitute 'piling on.'
You're right that it hasn't been "proven" that sexual orientation is genetically determined in everybody--but there have been indications that in some people it is no more of a choice than hair color.
It's also true that bigots assume that sexual preference is strictly a conscious decision, and use that erroneous assumption as a bludgeon against gay people as "immoral by choice", and as an article of faith in their efforts (usually destructive) to "deprogram" gay kids.
Experience and observation suggests that sexual preference for most people is NOT a conscious decision--but just when it is determined and how is not yet understood.
August 14, 2007 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richardson stumbles and fumbles around on many things.
I was rather awed by his explanation of his support for Alberto Gonzales long after others had abandoned him because both were Hispanics. Brutal honesty came to mind. He speaks lines right out of the DLC catechism and could easily have played the gun nut on the Youtube debates with his assault rifle. Yet Richardson has some decent instincts down there somewhere.
It's unimaginable to me Richardson is going to be nominated but probably wouldn't be the worst of the bunch.
The gay issue is just another in his catalogue of stumbles. His excuses are even worse. I doubt gays have anything to fear from the man. Richardson is just a totally inept speaker and apparently not overly eager to do his homework.
All JMO.
Best, Terry
August 14, 2007 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink