Senator Satveer Chaudhary Comes Out of the Closet???
Last week at Irondale High School there was a debate between incumbent DFL Senator Satveer Chaudhary and the Republican endorsed challenger Rae Hart Anderson. Most of the debate came off in the typical way one would expect it to with the candidates responding to the same questions posed by the audience, which in this case were all Irondale students.
In the final question before final statements things started to get a bit interesting. The question at hand was support of Governor Tim Pawlenty's proposal for state paid tuition for the first two years of college for students who graduated high school in the top 25% of their class. Rae Anderson led off, saying that she considered education very important and would support the Governor's proposal. Senator Chaudhary followed and stated that he favored the proposal, but added that he has known Governor Pawlenty for ten years going back to their days as state representatives and asserted "not one time in those ten years he [Pawlenty] has even spoken the words 'free tuition', and so I find it a little disingenuous that in an election year, in fact, two or three weeks before an election, to come out with a proposal for free tuition to get the college vote" (Note to Senator Chaudhary: Governor Pawlenty issued an official press release on the proposal on June 27, 2006).
OK, so far nothing really unexpected. A candidate answering a question in a way that would play well with his audience and attempting to weaken the credibility of the opposition party that supports the same position, augmented with a little "sanding off of the truth", a technique that he and colleague Senator Dean Johnson used as part of their obstructionism to keep voters from voting on the Defense of Marriage Amendment. No serious problem so far. That's the way the game is played.
Rae Hart Anderson then used the opportunity of her closing statement to call Senator Chaudhary on his assertion that Governor Pawlenty had never spoken the words "free tuition" in the last ten years. Having a little fun with Senator Chaudhary's obvious exaggeration, Ms. Anderson approached the senator on stage like Perry Mason used to approach the witness stand just before he asked the question that caused the witness to break down and confess to the crime. The following exchange then occurred:
In a way I have to hand it to Senator Chaudhary. He was backed into a logical corner by Rae Anderson's question and came up with a funny retort in order to avoid answering the question. Even if one doesn't find the Senator's response humorous, they should encourage him to quit his day job (or rather force him to by voting him out of office, not for this statement, but for his poor overall job performance).
I was not offended by the Senator's performance (I fully endorse him leaving office and doing stand-up or anything else not involved with government), but I can't help but think that if the situation had been reversed, i.e. a conservative making a remark that could be construed as being disrespectful to the "gay community" or to a DFL governor, there would be hell to pay.
Think about it. Here we have one of the foremost supporters of gay and lesbian issues with a 100% vote rating from Out Front Minnesota, the self-proclaimed Minnesota's leading Gay/Lesbian/Bi-Sexual/Transgender Organization, making a joke about and trivializing gay relationships. Senator Chaudhary's statement could also be construed as being disrespectful to the Minnesota House, the Office of the Governor of Minnesota, and to Governor Pawlenty personally. If Senator Chaudhary was a conservative, it is not out of the realm of possibility that the liberals would call for his resignation.
It is also interesting to note that, since Rae Anderson had led off the final statements, Senator Chaudhary had the last word and had the full time of his final statement to set things right. He could have emphasized to the audience that he had made a joke in poor taste in the stressful environment of an unscripted debate and that he did not intend to disrespect the gay community or the Governor. Such an apology would not have appreciably cut into the time available to make his political points (in fact, the senator did burn some time in thanking the school and calling for some applause for the student moderator, and still managed to get his political points in within his alloted time).
And to top it off, the Senator was demonstrably wrong with the facts in his answer of the question that started things.
Oh, well. At least he's consistent.
In the final question before final statements things started to get a bit interesting. The question at hand was support of Governor Tim Pawlenty's proposal for state paid tuition for the first two years of college for students who graduated high school in the top 25% of their class. Rae Anderson led off, saying that she considered education very important and would support the Governor's proposal. Senator Chaudhary followed and stated that he favored the proposal, but added that he has known Governor Pawlenty for ten years going back to their days as state representatives and asserted "not one time in those ten years he [Pawlenty] has even spoken the words 'free tuition', and so I find it a little disingenuous that in an election year, in fact, two or three weeks before an election, to come out with a proposal for free tuition to get the college vote" (Note to Senator Chaudhary: Governor Pawlenty issued an official press release on the proposal on June 27, 2006).
OK, so far nothing really unexpected. A candidate answering a question in a way that would play well with his audience and attempting to weaken the credibility of the opposition party that supports the same position, augmented with a little "sanding off of the truth", a technique that he and colleague Senator Dean Johnson used as part of their obstructionism to keep voters from voting on the Defense of Marriage Amendment. No serious problem so far. That's the way the game is played.
Rae Hart Anderson then used the opportunity of her closing statement to call Senator Chaudhary on his assertion that Governor Pawlenty had never spoken the words "free tuition" in the last ten years. Having a little fun with Senator Chaudhary's obvious exaggeration, Ms. Anderson approached the senator on stage like Perry Mason used to approach the witness stand just before he asked the question that caused the witness to break down and confess to the crime. The following exchange then occurred:
Rae Hart Anderson: "Mr. Chaudhary, have you been with Governor Pawlenty 24/7 for the past 10 years, or have you been doing other things?"This exchange, as well as the entire debate, has been captured on video tape in the Media Library of Irondale High School.
Senator Satveer Chaudhary: "Yes I have. In fact, he and I are gay lovers."
[Senator Chaudhary's flippant remark drew a long round of cheers and cat-calls from the student audience as the senator leaned back in his chair with a smug expression]
Rae Hart Anderson: (addressing the audience after they had settled down) "Do you believe him?"
Audience: (among more cheers and laughter) "Yes!"
In a way I have to hand it to Senator Chaudhary. He was backed into a logical corner by Rae Anderson's question and came up with a funny retort in order to avoid answering the question. Even if one doesn't find the Senator's response humorous, they should encourage him to quit his day job (or rather force him to by voting him out of office, not for this statement, but for his poor overall job performance).
I was not offended by the Senator's performance (I fully endorse him leaving office and doing stand-up or anything else not involved with government), but I can't help but think that if the situation had been reversed, i.e. a conservative making a remark that could be construed as being disrespectful to the "gay community" or to a DFL governor, there would be hell to pay.
Think about it. Here we have one of the foremost supporters of gay and lesbian issues with a 100% vote rating from Out Front Minnesota, the self-proclaimed Minnesota's leading Gay/Lesbian/Bi-Sexual/Transgender Organization, making a joke about and trivializing gay relationships. Senator Chaudhary's statement could also be construed as being disrespectful to the Minnesota House, the Office of the Governor of Minnesota, and to Governor Pawlenty personally. If Senator Chaudhary was a conservative, it is not out of the realm of possibility that the liberals would call for his resignation.
It is also interesting to note that, since Rae Anderson had led off the final statements, Senator Chaudhary had the last word and had the full time of his final statement to set things right. He could have emphasized to the audience that he had made a joke in poor taste in the stressful environment of an unscripted debate and that he did not intend to disrespect the gay community or the Governor. Such an apology would not have appreciably cut into the time available to make his political points (in fact, the senator did burn some time in thanking the school and calling for some applause for the student moderator, and still managed to get his political points in within his alloted time).
And to top it off, the Senator was demonstrably wrong with the facts in his answer of the question that started things.
Oh, well. At least he's consistent.
posted by Right Hook at 12:01 PM |
Printable Page
|
Toggle 9 Comments
|
9 Comments:
Perhaps Senator Chaudhary should change his first name to "Thatqueer". Might be more appropriate....
Seems to be a lot gayness goin' on out there with the DFL!
http://www.residualforces.com/http:/residualforces.com/index.php/2006/10/29/the-im-out-test/
Appropriate? Politically correct? "Coming out..." at the Irondale High School educational seminar on elections? What's to be implied by this situation?
so.....there's a problem with being gay?
Whether or not there is a problem with being gay is not the issue here. The issue is one of a double standard of political correctness for liberals and conservatives.
Satveer Chaudhary has been one of the leading, if not the leading, advocates of gay causes in the Senate. His "joke" trivializes and ridicules gay relationships. If a Republican had made a similar joke targeting a prominent DFLer the "gay community" and the liberal media would be outraged and there would be hell to pay.
i attend irondale highschool and was at that debate. you truely would have had to be there to understand how appropriate his comment was. Rae Hart Anderson is not a candidate who is going to be supported by her conservative views by highschool students. She however talked to us like we were 10 years old, and talked about christianity like it was the only way (this is not appropriate in a highschool setting). When she was asked how she fealt about gay/lesbian marraige by a student who was in the gay/strait alliance she told us her views on how gay marraige was wrong, marriage was ment for a man and a woman, sex was only for marriage, and we needed to keep our clothes on. Most of us stood up and boo'd her on how innapropriate and controvercial that was. A few guys in back cheered because they were homophobic and she proceeded to say "those are the real men here!" THAT is Chaudry made that remark. Also her argument that he had not been with Pawlenty was an irrelivent attack because it was NOT a big point in either of their speaches. She knew she was loosing and she had to make one last attack. Unforchinatly she had already made a food out of herself and she was being mocked
Erica -
I did see the entire debate.
Besides paying a little more attention in your English and Composition classes, you should probably consider learning about the US Constitution and the First Amendment.
You don't have to agree with Ms. Anderson, but she was not teaching a class at the time and had every right to express her views on homosexuality and her faith as part of a political debate. You are free to evaluate her candidacy and vote for her or not.
If you review the full tape of the debate you'll find that Mr. Chaudhary did get his facts wrong about when Governor Pawlenty proposed the free tuition (which, by the way, I strongly disagree with). Ms. Anderson was merely having a little fun with pointing out that the Senator has a history of playing fast and loose with the facts, just as she had a little fun demonstrating how politicians can manipulate things to get the outcome they want (and a couple of you students made a little money in the process).
By the way, marriage IS defined by state law as being between one man and one woman. Senator Chaudhary was instrumental in denying we the people the opportunity to vote on whether or not the law should be given the protection afforded by a constitutional amendment.
One day when you grow up you may discover that conservatism rocks and the liberal views many high school students hold are actually detrimental to freedom and a robust economy.
Thanks for checking out our blog.
Erica,
I'm thrilled that you are taking the time to check out our blog and to participate in the discourse.
I'm also curious. Why is it inappropriate to express the view that marriage is for a man and a women and sex is only for marriage? How has it come to pass that this is a controversial view point? Further, how is it that a controversial view should not be discussed in school?
The concept of marriage between a man and a women is one that has stood the test of time. There is a good reason for this. (Hold on to your socks here.) Marriage is not defined by love, it is defined by biology for it takes exactly two of the opposite sex to create a child. And the potential for marriage to result in the creation of children – of future taxpaying citizens – is the primary reason that government endorses the institution.
When you redefine marriage to be based on love, you dilute the institution into destruction. The argument today is that two of the same sex who really love each other, should have the right to marry. But, if marriage is redefined by love, the argument tomorrow will be which type of love is worthy of marriage? What about two brothers (or two sisters)? What if there is a deep love between them and a desire to stay together, but no desire to be physically intimate. Must the government then judge the relationship based on the nature of the love and of the physical contact that results?
What happens when three people of any gender mixture discover genuine love among themselves? If marriage is redefined by love, then how can government deny it to these three? Or to four? Or to five?
The issue of protecting marriage is all about protecting the needs of children before the wants of adults. There are undeniable benefits for a child born into a family of both a mother and a father. As a father, I realize that my daughter will experience physical and emotional changes in her life that I could never fully appreciate. I can offer compassion and attempt understanding, but no matter how much I try, I cannot give her the support, the comfort, and camaraderie that my wife can. Simply by my wife's daily presence, my daughter will always be comforted in the knowledge that mom has conquered the art of growing up, so it can be done. Two daddies, no matter how much they try, cannot fake motherhood. Likewise, two mommies cannot fake fatherhood – no matter how much time they spend at Home Depot or how proficient they become with the remote control.
For more, I encourage you to review these posts on the subject:
Do Dads Still Matter?
Marriage: Not Defined By Love
Legalizing Gay Marriage Adopts Discrimination
Regarding abstinence until marriage, there are genuine benefits – both physical and emotional – to waiting. I would argue that high-school is the perfect place to offer this idea. We live in the time of "I want it now", where every urge must be satisfied today. But there are benefits to learning restraint and self-control.
When two people put sex on hold while dating, they spend far more time getting to know each other. The purpose for being together is more motivated by the desire to simply spend time in each other's company. One learns a lot more about their partner and about their relationship when their time together is not clouded with the ulterior motive to satisfy a physical urge. Those who choose to wait often find that their relationship is far deeper and far stronger than one that was built upon immediate satisfaction. Moreover, there is far more meaning – and genuine satisfaction – when the waiting is over and the wedding rings are on. I know, you're rolling your eyes now. But some old fashioned ideas are worth considering.
I don't see the comment as trivilializing gay relationships. I do think it's disrespectful to Governor Pawlenty in the same way Michele Bachmann's blatherings about President Bush being "buff" on Jason Lewis were disrespectful of Bush and the office of the presidency.
Clearly the people on this blog do have problems with gays. I've read enough of the posts to see that. The blog also supports Intelligent Design creationism getting taught in science classes. (ID isn't science not because it challenges parts of Darwins theory of evolution, but because it's not falsifiable, and uses supernatural explanations. Supernatural explanations are not scientific.)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home