Boycott...Target?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

The thing is, if one really believes that abortion is the killing of a baby that should have the right to live (which I do not, just illustrating a point), or that opposing gay marriage rights is just as wrong as prohibiting interracial marriage, it changes the game. If a candidate supported your economic policies but was a self-declared racist, would you still vote for him? Don't tell me there are no make-or-break issues.

Of course I wouldn't vote for a declared racist, but I think you are comparing apples to oranges, at least in the time we are living in today.

At the funeral of Robert Byrd, Bill Clinton said we needed to cut some slack to him because he joined the KKK so he could get elected. That is really quite a statement about the times and area he was living in. There has been a complete paradigm shift in that while it may have been an asset in the 1940s to be in the KKK in certain areas of the country, today it would make someone so unelectable that a given main stream party would never nominate someone or select that person in a primary to run in the general.

Today, whether you like it or not, the country is mostly anti same sex marriage, and pretty evenly split on abortion. Be default this does not make those people unelectable, as there is not an overwhelimg sense of moral right and wrong on either side of the issue. We all have our beliefs on those two issues, and I don't think any of us would consider ourselves out of the mainstream on them.

This is why I said, at least in political terms, being a one issue candidate more often than not ends up hurting you. Let's say someone like ISM decides that since Obama is against (or at least has not supported) gay marriage that he will not vote for him (I don't recall if he said he did or didn't), and ISM holds such name recognition and clout in the gay community that he convinces every homosexual in the country to vote against Obama or at very least abstain. Obama then loses by 1% point or some other hypothetical number.

In reality, who is more likely to appoint a supreme court nominee in favor of same sex marriage on a constitutional basis? Or to sign legislation that would repeal DOMA? So not voting for that candidate hurts ISM. Yeah, maybe he wasn't the perfect candidate, but he was the one who was going to do more for ISM and his pet issue than the other guy, who might actaully work against that issue.

And we could do the same example with abortion, taxes, gun rights, ad infinitum. There is no perfect candidate.

In speaking that way, I am going to find myself voting for John McCain in the republican senate primary in AZ and then again in the general. I don't like his opponent (for a variety of reasons), and I am 100% certain I will not vote for the democrat opposition, because no matter how much I dislike McCain, my core values are WAY more in line with him than with his unnamed opponent. Everyone here who has read anything political before the last Presidential knows I do not like McCain at all....but why shoot myself in the foot on several issues just because I don't agree with him on several other?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I understand about PACs. I still feel that if you give money to a PAC and the PAC passes it on to something you do not support, you need to react. Yes, Target did not deliberately give the money to an anti-gay cause. But once the information is out there, I believe the burden lies with Target to make it right. That's what I would expect of myself in the same situation.

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

It's exhausting trying to be a responsible consumer.

True. Target is definitely the Walmart of the liberal set, and going elsewhere is hard. This may push me to shop online more (at various stores), which would actually be more convenient in some ways.

Bed Bath and Beyond is a good alternate for certain things, though I'm sure they've done something annoying as well.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Today, whether you like it or not, the country is mostly anti same sex marriage, and pretty evenly split on abortion.

True. The only way these things change is if people speak up and put their money where their mouth is.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Let's say someone like ISM decides that since Obama is against (or at least has not supported) gay marriage that he will not vote for him (I don't recall if he said he did or didn't)

If I remember correctly, iSm wasn't an Obama fan at all, at least for much of the campaign, due to Obama's stance on gay marriage, and even threatened to not vote for him, though I think he did end up voting for him. Anyway, the point is taken, I knew that, and I have definitely voted for people that had issues I wasn't happy with.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

But once the information is out there, I believe the burden lies with Target to make it right. That's what I would expect of myself in the same situation.

I understand why you think Target should be boycotted, my question is what makes them uniquely deserving of such since pretty much every major corporation, regardless of how gay friendly they are in practice, has committed the same sin of giving money, indirectly or directly, to impure candidates on this issue.

I know you use Sprint everyday. So far in this election cycle they've donated money directly to James Webb, Lamar Alexander, Roy Blunt, Richard Burr, Jim DeMint, John Isakson, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Harry Reid, etc. All of whom oppose legalization of gay marriage. Are you equally torn about continuing as a Sprint customer as you are continuing as a Target customer?

Moving online with your shopping probably won't help much unless you're going to stay away from brands. Google isn't clean. Amazon isn't clean. Here are the direct federal candidate contributions by Disney so far this cycle. I'm guessing there are at least 2 dozen people on that list opposed to gay marriage.

So converse to the question "if Target then why not everybody else?" I'd ask "who is sufficiently pure?"