I gather it is your view (though not mine, since I consider the concept comical) that Bush will not appoint a homosexual as ambassador ONLY if he believes that person will "promote" his homosexuality to "influence policy."
(I believe that is your 'take' on his remarks as reported by the conservative Christian group, isn't it?)
Do you believe that there is reason to think Hormel would promote his homosexuality to influence policy in Belgium?
I should think you would be sure he wouldn't! After all, how could his "promoting" homosexuality "influence policy" in a country that you describe as 95% Catholic? How counter-productive, policy-wise, "promoting his homosexuality" would be, don't you think!!!
If you interpret what Bush said to the Christian conservatives as does Bill Vaughn, which I think is the case, you surely understand that Hormel is most definitively not disqualified, under your interpretation, to be ambassador, based on his record. Bush would have no problem with him, in other words. According to your interpretation and Bill's. |
