Reader comments · Conservatives hire Obama campaign chief linked to homophobic ad · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Conservatives hire Obama campaign chief linked to homophobic ad

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Not a smart move for the Conservatives.

    1. They are showing their true colours. After the go home posters in London that should be enough for any decent human being to know what they are about. If you support the Tories then it’s clear what type of person you ate

      1. James Sutherland-Harper 3 Aug 2013, 5:44pm

        Don’t you think that’s a bit of an ignorant sweeping generalisation James?

        1. Indeed and your point is toryboy? I’ve seen what the condemns have done to the most vulnerable with bedroom tax atos tests , go home posters , tax cut for people earning over £100k. It you can support people who would do that to the most vulnerable then I have no time or respect for you

          1. vversatile 4 Aug 2013, 1:51am

            James! While I agree with you, the Atos tests were actually put in place by the last Labour government.

          2. And if you knew anything the “bedroom tax” was also introduced by Labour, a fact so often neglected by people when they talk about it.

            And as for the tax cut, well the tax returns to HMRC have actually increased seizable for top rate tax payers since the tax cut from 50p to 45p. Now i don’t know about you but having a lower rate that brings in more money is much better for the country as a whole than a tax rate that makes you feel happy but generates less money. Also the top rate of tax has been higher under this government than under the last labour one. Who had a top rate of tax of just 40p.

  2. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Aug 2013, 12:15pm

    Lynton Crosby is no better and a very bad choice for the Tory party’s campaign strategist and no progressive either.

  3. Not quite sure what to make of this story !

    Sure, the negative campaign ad dating back to 2002 may have a slight whiff of homophobia, but I wouldn’t have been outraged by it.

    It’s nonsense to talk about ‘porno music’ – it’s only the sort of anodyne musak clip that’s used for Music on Hold or a Newsbeat background track. Similarly, the claim about ‘appearing to reach towards the man’s groin’ is absurd.

    I’ve absolutely no idea whether Messina is a nasty character or a good guy, and this article leaves me none the wiser, especially as it ends with an unexplained U-turn by praising him for being part of the push to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell !

    1. What I get from all that is that he’s got a machiavellian streak.
      He can turn his politics on a dime when it suits him and plays to whichever gallery is bankrolling him.
      In the first instance the dogwhistle implications of the “hairdresser” campaign ad are that Mike Taylor makes passes at other guys in hairsalons and thats “not the way we do things in Montana”, playing to a homophobic crowd.
      Then when tasked with being Obama’s chief of staff he pushes to repeal “don’t ask dont tell”.
      Seems he takes his moral cues from whoever is signing the cheque.
      Something of a Nick Naylor type

    2. David Waite 3 Aug 2013, 1:46pm

      1. It is nonsense for you to talk about what you never saw, and opine that you wouldn’t have been offended. It offended a whole lot of people at the time and was duly reported to have done so. It wasn’t a “slight whiff,” it was full-out homophobia being successfully invoked, and it forced Baucus’ opponent from the election. Beside that being filthy politics, this article makes clear that the ad was illegal.
      2. The article doesn’t praise Messina for being part of the push to end DADT, it correctly and without editorial comment reported that such was his ASSIGNMENT from the Obama administration in 2010.

      1. @ David White

        You are mistaken ! I DID see the ad: there’s a link in the PN article. Here it is again in case you missed it.

        I don’t like the ad because it’s negative campaigning. But I really can’t say that I’m particularly offended by its content. Focusing on the candidate’s 1980s commercial isn’t very relevant – there must surely have been more recent footage of him campaigning or making political speeches that they could have used. So that choice certainly makes it a bit dodgy, but not quite the Shock ! Horror ! that I was expecting. The main issue seems to be the allegation that the candidate had been involved with financial irregularities, and if that’s true then that would certainly explain why he lost.

        1. Whoops, @ David Waite.

    3. . You’re a useful idiot to them and when they are finished with you I’ll have a good laugh. They way the condemns are treating black and disabled people shod be enough for any self respecting gay man to run a mile. Your sir are either a fool or a self hating self serving pig

      1. @ James!

        No, my comments weren’t supposed to support any party. I simply observed that IMHO complaints against the US TV political commercial were exaggerated and rather silly (porno music, reaching to the groin etc).

        In fact, I’m far more concerned about Lynton Crosby’s possible involvement with stopping plain packaging for cigarettes being adopted. That really is a scandal of the first magnitude. There’s no need to wait years to see whether PP works in Australia – we should implement it NOW in order to save lives. It obviously works because Big Tobacco is so scared of it, which I why I support it.

        It may well be that be that Jim Messina is a nasty person and the Tories should never have engaged him; I simply don’t know. But the PN article hasn’t made a sufficiently good case to convince me, so the jury is still out.

  4. Oh dear. I wouldn’t worry though, political propagandists do whatever their masters tell them. I think it’s safe to say David Cameron is “pro-gay” so the only thing we have to worry about is why he felt the need to hire an American Propagandist for his campaign….

    Mr. Pink

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Aug 2013, 2:42pm

      I agree, I don’t see why an American strategist is necessary, although I believe Blair hired one too if I’m not mistaken. What I don’t like is that the Tory Party hired Aussie Lynton Crosby, a homophobe and panderer to the right wing. I think he’s bad for their party and I have a suspicion his strategy will be to enable the back bencher bigots to take the party back to its nastier days. Bad move in my view. I wonder if Cameron’s former openly gay strategist resigned voluntarily or was asked to?

    2. No Cameron is pro white male abel bodied wealthy gay. Anyone else is not welcome. How can you not see that or don’t you care?

      1. I said he was “pro-gay” because of the Equal Marraige thing. I didn’t say he was pro-people of colour or pro-poor… I’ve already said many times I wouldn’t vote tory in a million years, no matter how pro-gay Cameron is.

        Mr. .Pink

        1. Well you should say he is pro-power he wouldn’t do anything that would lose him votes

          1. GulliverUK 3 Aug 2013, 4:33pm

            Equal marriage isn’t a vote loser, it’s a vote winner, because what they desperately need, like the GOP, is young voters, who are put off by the homophobia of the Tories and GOP. Equal marriage was an opportunity to show young people that the Tory party wasn’t homophobic, which was one of the things many young people perceived. Shame that half the Tory MPs destroyed that pot of gold with their very homophobic displays during the debates.

            It’s worth noting that most Catholics here and in the US do support equal marriage, and most Catholics, here and the US, do not vote for right-wing Tory / GOP parties. There’s no reason to believe Catholic would start voting Tory in numbers because Cameron passed equal marriage. There are still too many reason for Catholics to not vote GOP/Tory.

            So basically I don’t know where the Tories “imagine” they are going to get new supporters from. What fantasy group do they think will vote for them?

            Nope. I’m calling it. Tories will lose.

          2. I’d hope so but I think people will vote with their pockets so expect bank and post office shares on the cheap with a tax cut funded by the poorest

  5. GulliverUK 3 Aug 2013, 3:20pm

    The Conservatives should ask the Pope for a miracle – they haven’t got a chance in hell of getting back in, they’ve upset so many people, and I don’t mean equal marriage, I mean austerity, bashing the unemployed and disabled, punishing practically everybody in society, the inept management of the economy, the lack of debt reduction yet all this pain, the heartlessness of denomising immigrants. I can’t really think of anybody who isn’t pissed off with them. Student fee rises – do you think any student would vote for them?

    Labour will get in, or at the very worse it will be Labour and LibDems (which I like the idea of). I think what’s really going on now is a ‘scorched earth’ policy, sell off anything in such a way that it cannot be put back in public ownership when they are gone – like they did with BT, British Gas, utilities, railways, etc.

    1. I wouldn’t be so sure of anything. This site alone, is what Ken Livingstone would call, “riddled” with gay Tories. Students don’t vote in enough numbers to count and older people tend to get stuck in voting habits and lean right.

      The liberal democrats will be punished for the sins of this government, the Tories will get away with it.

      A coalition government is quite likely and it will be down to low turnout and apathy.

      I think if Scotland become independent I’m going to emigrate… to Scotland.

    2. Jane McQueen 5 Aug 2013, 12:21am

      Actually they stand a better chance than you think. At this point before the 2010 General Election Cameron had a 20+ point lead in the poll’s which is what you at least need if you are to stand a chance at winning a general election.

      However Red Ed at the moment has a lead that fluctuates between 8 points and 3 points, which is essentially terrible. As you need a 20 point lead, because once you start announcing policy and what you would do spending wise if you were to win, you inevitably lose some of the support you have gained by simply being in opposition.

      Then there is the polling of the 18-35’s and that has shown a massive support base for the conservative part, as sizable as the over 60’s. This is the reason Jim Messina has been brought in, as he got that age group out to vote for Obama in both elections. So it’s a very smart move by Cameron

      1. “Red Ed” really?

  6. These political scumbags would throw their own parents under a bus if they thought it would win them an election.

    I only have to point to Ken Mehlman, who orchestrated the 2004 anti-gay marriage witch-hunt that elected George Bush to a second, disastrous term.

    And the rabidly anti-gay political strategist Karl Rove, whose father was gay.

    Both of these men hob nobbed with gays and counted them among their best friends (and lovers) but saw no problem in sacrificing the entire gay community on the alter of political expediency.

  7. I’m not quite sure why a prominent ally of Obama would have any interest in supporting the Tories, or why an expert on US politics based in the US would be able to provide any useful advice to the Tories, but whatever.

    1. Firstly money. He’s getting paid probably quite an immense sum of money.

      Secondly he’s an expert in spin and PR and is thus universally useful to politicians (well maybe just western politicians).

  8. Yankee doodle went to London…

    1. “While I will not be moving to London”

      He’s not even going to bother

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.