Gov. Richardson would not accept honorary BSA chair if elected

[BrentAllen 10]

Trev,

I admit I am basing my opinion on the performance of gay marriage intitiatives, which have been pretty well shot down across the country. Maybe the two aren''t related (gays being allowed to join the BSA & gays being allowed to marry), but I see a correlation between the two, suggesting that attitudes aren''t changing as much as some claim.

[Gonzo1 10]

Brent, I agree, politicians will say about anything to get votes, and the the gay vote is what domocrats want, they''ll cater to that crowd.

 

Trevorum,

I disagree, I believe the BSA holds the "moral high ground" and that is what upsets democrats and liberals. Liberals in general don''t like (rather despise) that BSA doesn''t allow homosexuals as members.

 

But, then again, there is Sprial Scouts, they would gladly have homosexuals as members and I''m glad they do. I wish them well.

 

Mr. Richardson can decline to be Honorary President of the BSA is elected POTUS, and WE can vote for someone else. He may cater to the gay vote, but like Levi Strauss, doesn''t care for BSA members.

 

 

[Eamonn 61]

I''m not going to lose any sleep over this.

Ea.

[evmori 11]

Regardless of what the candidate thinks, he knows that a large segment of the voting population - large enough that he wants their votes - no longer sees the BSA as reflecting positive moral values.

 

Not true. The BSA''s moral values & his moral values, or lack of them, aren''t the same. Makes no difference is they are positive or not! And I wouldn''t say it''s a large section of the population. But a section that he can spin a message to to get their vote!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Trevorum 24]

I am still curious as to what BadenP thinks about Fred Thompsons wife: is having a much younger wife a good thing or a bad thing, and why?

 

[Hunt 11]

It appears to me that Richardson did this to make up for his prior statement that homosexuality is a "choice"--if he hadn''t made that gaffe (if it really was a gaffe), he probably would have dodged the question. I''ll bet you that none of the top Democratic candidates will give any answer to that question--why lose any votes over a hypothetical question about a symbolic position? And when it comes to actually deciding whether to accept BSA''s honorary presidency, they''ll make a similar calculation about which decision will likely hurt them in future votes--and then, I predict, they''ll accept the presidency while making some statements about how they hope BSA will move toward broader inclusion.

[scoutingagain 20]

Hey, I give Gov. Richardson credit for at least actually answering the question. As noted earlier I bet you couldn''t get an answer from any of the other Democratic Candidates.

 

As for pandering to a particular constituency, well it would be hard to top our ex-gov Mr. Romney in the pandering dept.

 

SA

 

 

[eisely 13]

Pandering is what politicians do. It is a question of egregious (sp?) pandering versus simply responding positively to the demands of a constituency with which you already have broad agreement.

 

At least Richardson has some bona fide executive experience he can claim as a governor, as can Romney and Giulianni. If memory serves me correctly all the other candidates have been only legislators. I for one don''t think that being first lady should count as real experience, unless you want to give Hillary credit for screwing up her husband''s health care initiative.