Reply #25: How about if it's a REALLY BIG mistake?

[PurityOfEssence]

Surely there's some single act he could perform that would scotch the deal, isn't there? Obviously having a known anti-gay preacher-man onstage huckstering godstuff to the holy doesn't rise to the occasion, but there must be some example of ONE act that would rise to the occasion.

If not, then it's not rational support based on causal activity; if he's to be given a blank check because of past actions and whatnot, then the support is not policy-based but stems from something else.

One of the things that's really bad about this is precisely that he HAS been rather outspoken on the rights of gays in the past; this brings his word seriously into question if he's so willing to jettison some inconvenient group or other in the quest for a big bloc of votes. Had he been a little more standoffish or non-committal, it wouldn't be such a hit to his integrity.

Lest we forget, this is being played out in the arena of religion, which is the epitome of not playing fair; appealing to faith is circumventing reason and plurality and going straight for the core emotional beliefs. To dis-include a group in this arena is really bad.

Personally, I think this rises easily to the really bad mistake level, and I'm shocked people don't see it. To diminish this is to be oblivious or to put one's own needs above those of another group's. You seem rational, but for some reason you don't see the extreme nature of this.

Beyond all that, the handling has been dreadful. Adding in the gay preacher will just piss off some of the ones he's trying to get wholesale; it's a move more befitting Senator Clinton.