Alleged gay basher Slade Mead accuses Jan Brewer of “striving to lead us back into the ’50’s”

On his blog, The Dry Heat, former State Senator Slade Mead expresses his dismay that Secretary of State Jan Brewer might become Governor should Janet Napolitano resign to head the Department of Homeland Security.

Mead writes:

“We are going to see a stream of legislative garbage flow over her desk and happily get signed into law because Brewer, in my opinion, is striving to lead us back into the ’50’s.”

This is an interesting assertion coming from Mead, given his own efforts to ‘turn back the clock.’

During his 2006 race for Superintendent of Public Instruction, Mead was accused of using the sexual orientation of his opponent, Jason Williams, as a campaign issue.

This what the Tucson Citizen reported at the time:

“During a recent television interview in Tucson, [Jason] Williams announced he is gay. Then he accused Mead of engineering a whispering campaign about his homosexuality.

It was an extraordinary exchange when the two candidates appeared on “Arizona Illustrated,” the nightly local news program on KUAT-TV, Channel 6.

After a friendly, 15-minute discussion in which Mead and Williams agreed on most everything, it was time for each to make a closing statement.

Mead went first, stressing he has long been active in Arizona public schools “as a father, as a site council member, as a PTA volunteer.”

The comment about being a father touched a nerve with Williams.

“With all due respect, Slade, I have to say one comment that you made, too, about being a parent, I feel there is something that I do need to address here tonight in light of just basic fairness,” Williams said.

” … We agreed that we were going to run a clean and honest campaign, and frankly, I’m deeply concerned over comments some of his supporters have made to some of my supporters in recent weeks insinuating that because I am a single gay man, that they should be afraid to vote for me to become the nominee of this party,” he said.

…Williams said that when he made campaign appearances, Mead supporters infiltrated the audience. “They said, ‘You know how Slade is a parent and Jason is a single gay man and we don’t think he should be school superintendent,’ ” Williams said.”

 

 If bashing the sexual orientation of a political opponent isn’t 1950’s type behavior, what is?

 


Comments

  1. Precinct Committeeman says

    I am no fan of Slade Mead. But, equating praising parenthood with anti-gay slurs is strange. If running for a school office, no matter the sex or sexual orientation of my opponent, I would certainly point out that I have been an active parent in schools while my opponent is single. That happens to be an advantage for understanding the system and challenges for parents of students. Slamming Mead for that is just stretching the issue a little far. There was no claim in the broadcast of any anti-gay comments – only a factual claim from Mead of being a parent involved in school.

  2. Sonoran Sam says

    I am fond of Slade, and on that basis I thank “Precinct Committeeman” for seeing through the spin to the truth.

    Anyone who knows Slade, like him or hate him, knows that his kids are the center of his universe. He was led into politics because his special-needs daughter required him literally to attend classes with her, which gave him an insight into the need to improve education.

    And he NEVER used his opponent’s orientation in any way, shape or form, and SPECIFICALLY DISCOURAGED any use of it as a political tool.

    As for his comments about a Brewer administration, well, I guess that’s open to interpretation at the moment.

    I guess we’ll see.

  3. Hay, the Fifties weren’t such a bad time, it was called the American decade, with peace and prosperity during the Eisenhower administration and no one was talking about gay marriage back then. In the Fifties the meaning of gay was happy, not perverted.

    BOB HARAN,
    LD 6

  4. Veritas Vincit says

    Back to the 50’s?? LETS GO!!

    We didn’t have a looming depression; we were still a world power with the best manufacturing base on the planet; children actually learned something (other than sex) in school; families stayed together…

    The list can go on and on. From first hand experience (in the 50’s) what was wrong?

    Oh, mother’s stayed home? Most folks could afford their two cars and homes? People went to church and actually tried to practice what they preached?

    Didn’t see any Gansta in your face crap… cops were peace officers rather than enforcers. Oh, and we still had GLBT’s but they were pretty much in the closet not in our faces. Knew several in Hollywood who had a very pleasant life together so its hard to believe the myths being spun today by folks who weren’t there.

    If people under 30 today could actually experience a week back in the 50’s they would vote immediately for anything that would take us back.

  5. Veritas Vincit,
    I am with you! Let’s go!

  6. Let’s go back to the 50’s when the income tax rate was about 10% and a single income actually could support a household.

    I will vote for the first person who is willing to lead me there.

  7. The top income tax rates was over 90% for all of the 1950’s.

    Economic growth took place entirely through the government sector and through income tax loopholes.

  8. So true Veritas! And more! In Brooklyn growing up was integrated and the ‘colored’ as they were then known, behaved in no diferent manner than we behaved. They were middle class, dressed the same, (I guess we all had Brooklyn accents), went to the same schools, had parents that went to church, had jobs and careers and THEN…..I went back to that neighborhood in 1999 and it was poor and ugly and all ‘black’ as they call themselves now and dangerous and VERY UNHAPPY.

    The 50’s were great, but by the mid sixties we had the early results of Saul Alinsky (both Barack and Hillary were his ‘students’) and we had Teddy Kennedy and the 1965 Immigration law that wasn’t going to change our nation. And the 60’s civil rights movement that was going to free the ‘colored’ so they could lose their families and the happiness they once enjoyed…as did we, the whole nation. Gasoline was 25 cents a gallon and a candy bar was a lot bigger and only a nickel.

    But what we lost can never be measured in coin.

  9. Iris – if things were so great for blacks, then why did the civil rights movement (which was going strong in the 50) enjoy such support in the community.

    BTW, Obama was never a student of Alinsky, which is really too bad as Alinsky did a great deal to help the poor and dispossessed in the halcyon 1950s.

  10. George W has a very good point – in the 50s the top rate was 90%. Also during the 50s 25-30% of federal revenue came from corporate taxes and now it is more like 10%. The burden was shifted from corporate taxes to personal income taxes.

  11. Todd, the civil rights movement was in the south. Brooklyn was, and still is, in New York, which had integrated in ways that have still not been achieved with the so-called civil rights movement(40 + years later!). Even in the south, which was segregated, the ‘colored’ enjoyed a middle class existence in their own neighborhoods and by that, I am not implying that the system was as it good as it could have been, but the trend was right. The Democrats fought like hell to keep the south segregated, long after the Civil War. Even so, their way of life for the average ‘colored’ person was not as bad as it is today in the cities. And, they have certainly had a fair number of ‘blacks’ integrate into an elite white society that was not available to them in the 60’s. But then, there are still plenty of whites who don’t qualify. Still, as a group, one tends to believe that with a 90% plus vote based on race, they are no happier and maybe are less happy than they were then. Please remember three-fourths of the country was far more advanced as far as integration was concerned even back then. When we moved to California in 1958, we moved into a ‘mixed’ neighborhood and it was crime free and friendly. Not so today. Of course, these remarks are based on my personal life experiences, not the biased media’s distorted version of history.

  12. PS. I heard otherwise regarding Oback and Alinsky. After all, Alinsky wrote two books, one of which I am enjoying right now: Rules For Radicals. Of course, I am not interested in co-opting other people’s power, so I find it quite amusing. However, I can see how it would be of great interest to young people who have not yet experienced the joy of self-empowerment and have no interest in enslaving others in any fashion.

  13. Iris,
    Do you think maybe your personal experiences are distorted? What are you suggesting? That the Voting Rights Act should not have been fought for or the Civil RIghts Act.

    I am not sure what you mean “vote based on race?” Do you mean that 90% of African-Americans vote for Democrats for President? You are quite right that the Democrats have a terrible legacy in the South and was a party that was split on Civil Rights. However, there is a reason why African-Americans vote more heavily Democratic and a large part of it has been how the GOP has used race in elections in the past 50 years.

    As far as Obama and Alinsky – Alinsky died in 1972 so I am not sure how he would have been Obama’s teacher. I am sure Obama is familiar with Alinsky’s writing but it is fairly clear he has rejected Alinsky’s viewpoint by focusing on electoral politics.

Trackbacks

  1. […] 2006, Mead allegedly engaged in gay bashing as part of his unsuccessful campaign for Superintendent of Public […]

Leave a Reply