This happened quite some time ago, and he's already apologized, but it seems that back in the day Bill Richardson was yukking it up with Don Imus and both men were showing off their knowledge of Spanish-language homophic slurs.
« Family Structure Blogging | Main | Merit Pay: So What? »
The Ghost of Scandals Past
11 Jul 2007 12:40 am
Comments (22)
Richardson and Tommy Thompson are living proof that a strong resume is about the twelfth most important factor in choosing a President.
Did they make any slurs against semi-literate bloggers who think that 'homophic' is a word?
I didn't hear it, but I possibly like that they were able to trade folklore. Really good insults in mexican spanish are pretty funny sometimes, and not just crude.
Richardson is unimpressive on tv. Maybe he's a diplomat.
Oh please. This stinks to high heaven of primary infighting. Richardson's gay rights record is unimpeachable by national standards. The comments were baited and ill considered, but his record should be taken into account:
1.) He made sure sexual orientation was included in New Mexico's hate crimes legislation.
2.) He backs same-sex civil unions.
3.) He's been against Don'tAskDon'tTell since it's inception.
4.) The same-sex domestic partners of New Mexico state employees have health coverage per Richardson's executive order.
5.) He's won and lost a series of political knifefights over the Defense of Marriage Act.
Does that sound like a homophobe? He's solid. But all that stuff gets buried twelve paragraphs after the lede. The only thing most Democratic primary voters will absorb is "Richardson says 'faggot'", and the keep their checkbooks closed. He's the most pro-gay candidate in the primary, hands down. The GLBT community would do well to keep that firmly in mind before they give this story legs. I'll take the pol who votes right and occasionally spouts wrong over the polished equivocator any day.
Now that I've read the rap sheet, I'd say that it's a bafflingly, and transparently stupid ritual ('who's a 'maricon'?) which goes on with boring regularity - from everyone's point of view - every day all around you in spanish and english. It's sort of designed to expiate imaginary gay guilt from a lot of 'straight' guys, but it's also just so stupid - and so ritualized - that it practically doesn't mean anything at all. We're too literalistic about this stuff, which I think can at times even be insulting to regular gay folks. Regular People have a better sense of humor than this.
Make no mistake: gay people deserve total civil rights that everyone has (or should have). State Marriage is one of those terrible ideas, like strict local control of schools, that have been grandfathered in. They need to go. Equal civil rights for everyone, including a sane health care policy, is the only way. Pathetic assholes like Imus don't stand in the way of that, really. People like him are like terrorists - losers, howling into the wind. Richardson, or any Democrat, can 'get right' on this issue - if they aren't already - in about 2 minutes. Nobody MY's age is going to stand for crude displays of impotence like joshing about 'who's a maricon'. Or rather, it wlll have to at least be more sophisticated - it has to be funny, or it's just sad. Just look at it the way it actually is, and move on.
The whole 'fag' thing is basically over, to many people's chagrin, both gay and straight.
sangfroid writes: "He's solid. But all that stuff gets buried twelve paragraphs after the lede. The only thing most Democratic primary voters will absorb is "Richardson says 'faggot'", and the keep their checkbooks closed."
Let people decide for themselves whether Richardson is solid or not, without censoring the news. It's sheer anti-democratic elitism to censor the news for some perceived greater good.
I like Richardson and would like to see him doing better in the polls, but March 2006 is quite some time ago?
That one boxer done killed the other for calling him a maricon back in the day, right? That has nothing to do with how one should react to Richardson's use of that slur (and more importantly on a lefty blog, how it's totally different from Coulter's application of its English equivalent to Edwards), but unsourced and unenlighteninh pesudo-pedantry is exactly what you can expect to find on my blog, the greatest in the world.
That one boxer done killed the other for calling him a maricon back in the day, right? That has nothing to do with how one should react to Richardson's use of that slur (and more importantly on a lefty blog, how it's totally different from Coulter's application of its English equivalent to Edwards), but unsourced and unenlighteninh pesudo-pedantry is exactly what you can expect to find on my blog, the greatest in the world.
That one boxer done killed the other for calling him a maricon back in the day, right? That has nothing to do with how one should react to Richardson's use of that slur (and more importantly on a lefty blog, how it's totally different from Coulter's application of its English equivalent to Edwards), but unsourced and unenlighteninh pesudo-pedantry is exactly what you can expect to find on my blog, the greatest in the world.
I clearly did not intend to post three times.
It's sheer anti-democratic elitism to censor the news for some perceived greater good.
I enjoy the idea that if you don't make a huge flap about a single offensive comment, while burying the balance of Richardson's GBLT record 12 paragraphs into the article, you're engaging in "censorship."
You can certainly put an event like this into context without whitewashing it. Questioning editorial decisions is not the same as censorship.
"homophic" slurs? When I first read it I thought it said "homophonic slurs" and I wondered how many slurs in Spanish sound the same in English. Then I realized that I'd been "Yglesiased" again - well played Mr. Yglesias, well played.
Anyway, this comes as no surprise to me. Imus always brought out the worst aspects of his guests, and finding out that Richardson has a bit of anti-gay prejudice at his core really comes as no surprise to me (the man's not of the right age to have grown up in a time or place where he wouldn't have been exposed to it consistently). His voting record should be taken into account and he's done a lot of good things there. He may not be the type of guy I'd want to buddy around with (because, frankly, anyone who would go on Imus's show and make the types of prejudicial jokes that Imus always found funny isn't someone who would be in my circle of friends), but since I don't pick my Presidential candidate by "who I'd like to hang out with on a Friday night", it's less important to me than his actual record (since he actually HAS a record that can be examined, unlike some of the other candidates this cycle).
Having said that, this does show yet AGAIN that Richardson is very nearly politically tone deaf. This was in March of last year -- he knew he was going to be running for president in the party that counts gays and those who support gays among their base. This would be like a Republican candidate going on TV and bashing libertarians or conservative Christians -- what does he hope to gain by it? On paper the man looks reasonable, but every time he opens his yap another bit of stupid falls out and makes me shake my head and wonder how he thinks he can be President.
Re sangfroid826
Mr. sangfroid826 is absolutely correct, judge a man on his record, not on occasional verbal lapses. For instance, Harry Truman was notorious for using slurs to refer to blacks and Jews. However, when the rubber hit the road, his civil rights record was unprecedented for the time. He jeopardized his reelection chances in 1948 by insisting on a civil rights plank in the Democratic platform at the convention and ordered integration of the armed forces against the advice of General Marshall, a man who he admired above all others. In addition, of course, was his recognition of the State of Israel, again against the advice of General Marshall, his Secretary of State at the time.
Agree with sangfroid826 and SLC. Everyone says stupid things sometimes. Judge the guy by his record not one stupid word he used sometime in the past (that he apologized for anyway).
Of course this should be balanced against this record, but it's also obvious the social climate of 1948 is very different in 2006. It's simply not acceptable to say these things anymore. Truman in 1948 was simply the least racist major politician out of a bunch of racists. So is Richardson the least homophobic guy who likes to say "maricon" on national radio programs?
I know I'm a bad liberal for denying that letting certain words escape your lips automatically makes you a bad person, but there's a big difference between using a slur to put someone down and using a slur in the context of joking with someone where the target doesn't mind. No one contends that Bernard McGuirk was offended here.
The offense here is comparable to saying "dude, that's so gay!" It's juvenile, and not particularly Presidential, but it's hardly worth making a big production out of. The guy admitted it was inappropriate and apologized, there's no evidence that he routinely does this kind of thing, I see no reason why the PC police should continue extracting pounds of flesh.
This is minor compared to the main black mark against Richardson: Wen Ho Lee.
Steve,
Good point.
If ANY use of a possibly loaded word is lost, we'll lose great comic riffs like the "I know that you're gay because" sequence in "The 40 Year Old Virgin".
Problem is that a lot of people seem to lose context on some of these issues.
OTOH, as a Latin American, I can tell you that sometimes "Maricón" is used as an insult without it necessarily meaning that the person really is gay (sort of like the use of the word "Hijo de Puta", where the person saying it doesn't necessarily think that the recipient's mother was indeed a whore/prostitute).
Oh, who gives a chingado about this?
I'd like to echo what sangfroid, Steve, and a couple others have said. Gov. Richardson's comment was dumb, but not hateful. He does not hold any prejudices for any groups, including any based on sexual orientation. His consistent, proactive, record working to ensure equal civil rights for everyone means more than this one juvenile comment. He should be above using that word, he certainly should, but I believe his apology was sincere, and I believe he hasn't nor will he ever use it again.
I'd encourage you all to check out this article about the whole thing in addition to the others out there:
http://www.queerty.com/news/richardson-apologizes-for-anti-gay-moment-20070710/
Comments closed July 25, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
A couple of months ago I decided to give in to Obama-mania and stop feeling guilty about writing off Richardson (I had been pulling for him in 2004). I haven't had a reason to rethink that decision yet. I'm not sure he'd even be good in State.
Posted by Chris | July 11, 2007 12:58 AM