Fred Karger and I worked together on establishing the NOM-LDS connection. Now hes the GOPs first declared 2012 presidential candidate and has just released his first ad.
I’d love to see Fred debate Mike, Mitt, Sarah and the rest of the (more-or-less anti-gay) 2012 Republican field. Campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire is the surest route to securing a spot on the stage.
Linkage:
Fred got CA and ME to investigate NOM and the Mormon church and is now charting a course to debate Mitt. Follow his tweets @fredkarger
Fred Karger Presidential Exploratory Committee
Fred Who? – First-in-the-Nation Commercial to Run in New Hampshire
GOP 12: Karger releases first TV ad of 2012 cycle
Fred Karger: Good Morning, New Hampshire
Openly Gay Presidential Hopeful Fred Karger Releases First Ad
Karger forms exploratory committee, uses Scheffler comments to raise cash
In Wake of Ballot Initiatives, Questions About the National Organization for Marriages Funding
Catching up with Fred Karger in Iowa and Netroots Nation
Go Fred!
I’ll vote for him. <3
I don’t know if I can vote for someone who talks on his cell phone while driving. 😛
D’oh! Thanks for the heads up. I’ll remind Fred to avoid calling out Mitt for strapping the family dog to the roof of the car or risk facing chanson’s zinger by way of reply.
I can just see the mud-slinging commercials now: “Fred Karger endangers New Hampshire drivers while on his way to campaign — in fact, he’s so proud of doing it, that he put it in his campaign commercial!” lol,
But seriously, I agree it would be cool to see him debate the rest of the (more-or-less anti-gay) 2012 Republican field.
Speaking of campaigns, check out this link:
T&S vs. BCC vs. MSP
Last month, Main Street Plaza had more unique visitors than Times & Seasons. That’s a first. That’s a milestone. And that’s why I’ve asked a T&S admin to include this MSP post in their “Notes From All Over” sidebar. 😉
And we’re now on track to pass both Feminist Mormon Housewives and By Common Consent in early 2011:
FMH vs. BCC vs. MSP
Moments like these, I recall how Russell M. Ballard’s wonderful words of encouragement catalyzed my own commitment to this exciting new online world:
And so — as T&S, FMH and BCC increasingly find themselves
choking on our dust,sucking our exhaust, squinting ever more tightly to catch that last glimpse of our plume before we vanish at mach speed over the horizon — I’d encourage our brothers and sisters in the bloggernacle to take heart in Ballard’s observation that this is still just the beginning. You’ve still got plenty of time left to figure out a way to catch up later.And to MSP readers, I’d simply say “Thank you.” You rock. Especially those of you who’ve taken Ballard’s advice to heart and regularly link to MSP on your Facebook walls and in your blog posts and tweets.
Chino — That is so cool! 8)
Yeah, well, I probably need to get back on topic. The folks over at r/atheism are upvoting this post as I type, but I worry that all this ‘inside baseball’ Mormon blogging jargon is gonna turn them right off if they do actually bother to click through and read comments here. My bad. 😉
Just a shout-out to the r/atheism crew, if you’re reading, thanks again for upvoting the link:
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/diaem/meet_the_republican_who_got_california_and_maine/
Cheers!
Props to us! Now I just need to find some time to do some more posting.
I still say there’ll be no gay president until 2084. I’m realistic.
And puzzlingly specific. Why 2084, exactly?
And I think you meant ‘openly gay’. We’ve already had several gay presidents.
Which ones?
The confusion is that men bedded and lived together all the time prior to the 20th century, but certain presidents seemed to have close relationships with men that would point to “homosexual” status by today’s standards. Lincoln had a close friendship with a guy and seemed distant toward women. But a lot of men were distant toward women back then, and only courted them out of propriety since they didn’t find women to be “equals.” Buchanan lived with a man for many years and the public questioned this relationship. He also died a bachelor, but there’s also the story of his undying love for a woman (who died) and pledging himself a bachelor. So who knows.
Personally, I think men were just more intimate with one another back then, and though they didn’t likely engage in sodomy (since people had strange notions about sexual release…for example, thinking that semen was tied to longevity), they probably were quite romantic with one another. If there were “gay men” back then, they could probably successfully have a relationship with “straight men” up to a certain age, as which point there’d be an expectation of marriage.
Semen is tied to longevity. At least, lack of masturbation correlates with urinary tract cancer.
Here you go: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3072021.stm