Gay voters angry at Democrats could sway election

[foxfeet]

Some are upset about the lack of progress on issues important to them
By TAMMY WEBBER
The Associated Press

CHICAGO — Kate Coatar is seriously considering voting for Green Party candidates instead of Democrats, whom she normally supports. James Wyatt won't cast a ballot at all because he no longer trusts anyone to fight for causes important to him.

If Democratic candidates are counting on long-standing support from gay voters to help stave off big losses on Nov. 2, they could be in for a surprise.

Across the country, activists say gay voters are angry — at the lack of progress on issues from eliminating employment discrimination to uncertainty over serving in the military to the economy — and some are choosing to sit out this election or look for other candidates.

President Barack Obama's hometown of Chicago, with its large, politically and socially active gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, offers a snapshot of what some are calling the "enthusiasm gap" between voters who came out strong for Obama and other Democrats in 2008 and re-energized Republican base voters, including tea party enthusiasts who say they are primed to storm the polls.

Full Article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39821451/ns/politics-decision_2010/

Gee, it's not just an issue for LGBTQI DUers.

[movonne]

1. Would they do better with repugs hate the gays?????

[davidinalameda]

16. "they"

so it's us and them now

silly me-I thought we were all on the same side

I guess you're okay with supporting candidates that don't support gays then

[Egnever]

96. They = people who dont vote

and yes it is us against them.

[sabrina 1]

194. It doesn't say 'they' won't vote, it says some people will vote their

consciences now and others may not vote at all.

If enough Americans start feeling this way in general, who knows, a few third party candidates may just win some of these elections. If they defeat Blue Dogs and Republicans, that is fine with me.

Civil Rights is a big issue for anyone, Gay or not, who truly believes that this country is what it claims to be.

When we have Democrats telling people that they have to put their pet issues aside in favor of, well, what exactly? What is so much more important an issue than Civil Rights?

Anyhow, Politicians have for far too long felt they do not have to earn votes. Maybe that is about to change. And if Republicans win, the blame will got to the leadership of the Democratic Party who chose, after being elected, not to listen to those who elected them. You just can't keep doing that.

[nofurylike]

118. delete

[iamthebandfanman]

154. i thought we were too

but clearly we arent if they decide to not vote.

[Dark]

40. Please name an accomplishment that Obama or the Dems have gotten for the GLBT movement.

We had to go to court to end DADT.

We had to go to court to end Prop 8.

We had to push for employers to accept us (which they don't technically have to do.)

I'm one of them, and I'm only voting for my rep because the establishment has thrown him under the bus. So I can relate...

[Touchdown]

50. It's like a bully demanding lunch money for "protection".

Vote for Democrats, because Republicans will cram you into a locker!

[Lucky 13]

103. +1

They use us for our money and grassroots outreach during election time... convince us to comply with promises and threats... then when they get elected, they distance themselves from the queers. Use the stall tactic for 4 years, then lather rinse repeat.

Fuck em. I've had it.

[readmoreoften]

113. +1

[walldude]

161. +1

Vote for us, we won't throw you in a locker we'll just ignore you and call you names.

[Lorien]

175. Bingo. It's a shitty way to make a sale

instead of using the "you're either with us or with the terra'ists" argument, the party needs to be WITH US; the ones who originally voted them into office. Attacking liberals and the GLBT community while coddling conservatives isn't doing ANYONE the slightest bit of good!

[Bluebear]

55. He let us roll Easter eggs on the White House lawn.

[Sub Atomic]

88. There's that, plus he....uh,

well there's that.

[Touchdown]

89. He'd probably thought we'd lay more.

:hide:

[readmoreoften]

112. +1

[JTFrog]

140. Just one?

Reversed an inexcusable US position by signing the UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Endorsed the Baldwin-Lieberman bill, The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, to provide full partnership benefits to federal employees

Signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act

Lifted the HIV Entry Ban effective January 2010

Awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Harvey Milk and Billie Jean King

Appointed the first transgender DNC member in history

Issued diplomatic passports, and provided other benefits, to the partners of same-sex foreign service employees

Conceived a National Resource Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Elders -- the nation's first ever -- funded by a three-year HHS grant to SAGE

Testified in favor of ENDA, the first time any official of any administration has testified in the Senate on ENDA

Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expanded existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability -- the first positive federal LGBT legislation in the nation's history

Hired and appointed a record number of qualified LGBT Americans, including more than 10 Senate-confirmed appointments

Sworn in Ambassador David Huebner

Named open transgender appointees (the first President ever to do so)

Banned job discrimination based on gender identity throughout the Federal government (the nation's largest employer)

Dispatched the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to call on the Senate to repeal Don't Ask / Don't Tell, in the meantime dialing back on discharges

Launched a website to gather public comment on first-ever federal LGBT housing discrimination study

Appointed long-time equality champion Chai Feldblum one of the four Commissioners of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Eliminated the discriminatory Census Bureau policy that kept gay relationships from being counted, encouraging couples who consider themselves married to file that way, even if their state of residence does not yet permit legal marriage

Produced U.S. Census Bureau PSAs featuring gay, lesbian, and transgender spokespersons.

Instructed HHS to require any hospital receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds (virtually all hospitals) to allow LGBT visitation rights."

Of course, until everyone has full equal rights there is more work to be done. I believe our President is going to get that work done.

[RKP5637]

183. I agree with you. In RW America, it's an uphill battle IMO. Yes, there is more

work to be done, but IMO some has certainly been done as you've listed.

[Lucky 13]

102. So that's our choice? A party who hates us and a party who uses us to get elected... then hates us.

I don't vote for anyone 'cause I have a knife in my back. It's time to start supporting third party candidates. Otherwise gay rights are going nowhere.

[Arkana]

2. And I'm sure with Republicans running things they'll get everything they want.

[donco6]

81. Well, at least "they" aren't "you."

Glad we got that cleared up.

[Lucky 13]

104. "They"

[ima_sinnic]

145. and I'm sure with Democrats "running things," "they" REALLY will

NOT

[county worker]

3. Well that's a real smart move. Even the repubs in Arizona are telling Latinos not to vote because

of something or other. Now I wonder why the repubs don't want Dems to vote? It can't be because it helps out the right wing in any way can it?

[Aramchek]

4. this is a sure fire way to get rid of DADT and legalize Gay Marriage.

:sarcasm:


I really don't believe anybody is this stupid.
Sure, when upset, I can understand people saying they would do this,
but when it comes to actually voting, are gays really going to help elect Repukes??

[Lucky 13]

105. I won't work to elect Repubs. Will work to elect anyone who will work for my rights...

even if they are a 3rd party.

[BzaDem]

119. Except by not helping Democrats, you ARE working to elect Republicans, whether you acknowledge it

or not. It is mathematically indisputable. You may soothe your conscious by telling yourself something different, but that doesn't make it accurate.

[bobburgster]

130. Agreed!

No matter the rationale, that way of thinking helps the Republicans.

[MNBrewer]

155. Not really

Saying it's the case doesn't make it true.

[BzaDem]

173. Sure, saying it doesnt make it true. It is objectively true regardless of what anyone says about it.

You could, for example, say otherwise, but you would be wrong. Or, you could acknowledge it and be right. Regardless, it doesn't matter, because the truth doesn't depend on whether or not you agree with it.

(Though I have to admit, I find it surprising that you even contest this. Most pro third-party people freely acknowledge that not voting for Democrats enables the Republicans -- they just justify it by some "long term strategy" bullshit. Even the few that don't acknowledge this directly just try to change the subject. They don't actively try to deny it like you apparently are.)

[MNBrewer]

197. Is not

:beer:

[ampad]

162. Ok

But would it not be more beneficial to do that during the primaries?

[MNBrewer]

169. Primaries and General Elections, both

If anti-equality/go-slow-on-equality/obstructionist politicans win the primary over pro-equality candidates, what good does it do in the long run to vote for the former?

I live in a district where even if I DO vote for the pro-equality candidate (as I did in my state House election) the anti-equality Dem incumbent still wins by a huge margin. THis is a Democrat that voted for Minnesota's "Defense of Marriage" act. But he's basically set for life as long as he wants the job. NO republican can win in this district. The DFL candidate regularly wins with >70% of the vote. If I vote for a 3rd party, or NO party's candidate, the Dem will still win.

What incentive is there for Joe Mullery, who told me to my face that same-sex marriage "is not an issue", to change his attitude toward same sex marriage? None!

We here in MN have an opportunity to pass marriage equality in the next legislature, with a Democrat as Gov (even the Independence candidate supports equality). What's the difference between having an anti-equality Dem vs. an anti-equality Rep? If the vote is "no" either way, who gives a crap?

And, bring on the "congratulations on being a single-issue voter" BS... That "single issue" is called my LIFE.

[BzaDem]

174. Would your life be better spent trying to scrounge up for private insurance when you are 65?

Because the defining issue of the party you are enabling is going to be voucherizing Medicare, where the vouchers don't even grow with medical inflation.

You could deny that now, but you won't deny it when it happens. The only question is: do you and reality have a meeting-of-the-minds moment now, or do you see it AFTER the damage has been done? It's a question of if -- not when. (See 90% of Nader's voters leaving him in 2004.) Eventually you will capitulate and become rational -- a survival instinct is only human after all. Eventually people stop trying to touch the oven when it's on.

Though the question does seem pertinent to the issue you mention as well. By voting third party, you are just signaling to the Democrats that they need to move further to the right to make up for your lost vote. The third party still has no chance of winning -- all you did was move the Democratic party to the right (whether you like it or not). How that's productive for anyone here is anyone's guess.

[MNBrewer]

177. That's an opinion

They could also get the signal to move further left. You and I have different opinions, but only I get to determine how my vote is cast.

[Odin2005]

5. "BUT IT'S JUST ONE SONG!!!"

[liquid diamond]

6. Go ahead and shoot yourselves in the foot. n/t

[Smashcut]

73. I guess it's your feet that will be getting shot, too, then.

[readmoreoften]

114. You shot yourselves in the foot by shooting us in the back.

[ima_sinnic]

146. that is a dead foot, sorry, has to go (n/t)

[Behind the Aegis]

7. And so it begins....

[mitchtv]

12. OMG! so early in the day

I have to go work in the garden. BTW I had one downticket "Dem" who didn't make the cut. I just couldn't vote for a homoophobe who had already voted againt me once. Yes , I take it personally.Sorry, I couldn't do it so I wrote in the candidate from the primary who lost by 22 votes

[foxfeet]

66. Did you really expect anything else?

Figurative gay-bashing is all the vogue these days.

[Behind the Aegis]

199. No, not really. I actually guessed it would have been earlier.

It just goes to show queer-bashing just isn't calling people "fags/dykes" anymore.

[mkultra]

164. is it my imagination

or are these threads MEANT to cause problems and division?

[Behind the Aegis]

198. Not knowing the levels of your imagination...

...I can say these threads are meant to shine a light, albeit a harsh one, on the realities of the situation. Perhaps, you should imagine yourself from the point of view of gay people who are disillusioned by the promises made, yet unfilled, all the while trivial (and yes, a few "niceties") things are being flaunted in our face as if to call us ungrateful, then comes the hand; "more money, please."

[Kookaburra]

8. Tammy Webber? Really?

You know she writes for GOPUSA, right? I would take anything she writes with a great big boulder of salt.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2010/09/chicagos-daley-bows-out.php

[davidinalameda]

19. no she doesn't

the GOPUSA article is a reprint of an AP article

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_chicago_mayor

nice try though

[laughingliberal]

47. Good catch! nt

[davidinalameda]

53. thanks

:toast:

[Guilded Lilly]

9. Everyone should vote their gut feelings and

obviously has the right to stay away from the poles this election or place a vote of *disapproval*.

Unfortunately in our governing system that would solve nothing. That would prove nothing and that would advance nothing. Vote your heart and mind for the best candidate that could possibly do SOMETHING that would move your personal causes and beliefs forward. The *punishment* of voting for another party candidate that would not benefit ANYONE for any cause is more than just a statement of personal disappointment, it is a betrayal to yourself.

Everyone I know anywhere is angry. Show your anger from within your party.

[Lucky 13]

106. What happens when showing our anger from within the party doesn't work?

How do we then get ANYONE to give half a fuck about our issues?

[readmoreoften]

115. +1

[WCGreen]

116. Work harder in the primaries....

[Guilded Lilly]

190. It is a crappy place to be...

I absolutely empathize, but this is what I tell myself as well when I am ready to explode from the frustration.

I truly believe that anger directed towards my party still does more to benefit me than giving a vote towards someone I know doesn't have a holy chance in hell of ever doing anything to help and could, in fact be much worse.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. When proposition hate passed in California...

there was an effort in the media to blame blacks.

Now, if Republicans win a midterm, that they are expected to win just due to normal historical cycles, someone wants to blame gays.

Yes, lets blame 1.5%, or 3% or 5% or 10% of the voters. Let's create a scape goat.

That is just fucked up.

So, if republicans lose, will somebody blame that on the "Gay agenda?"

[QC]

24. People here have been blaming The Gays for every Democratic setback since 2004.

It's a long and cherished DU tradition.

[donco6]

82. Won't be the first time. n/t

[MuseRider]

11. They have every right

to vote their issues. They have every right to vote their heart or are we going to bully them into not having that freedom as well? It would do the Democrats a world of good to start worrying about everyone in the party instead of just those who send big bundles of corporate cash.

[ruggerson]

13. Well then the answer is not to say: "hope they enjoy life under the Republicans"

the answer is to say: "We need to examine why such an important constituency in the Democratic party feels this way and what can we do to fix it and reaffirm our goals for LGBT Americans and around the world."

Signed,

Someone who already voted straight down the line Democratic.

[bsiebs]

17. Well said ruggerson

However, we generally know why such an important constuency feels this way... how many more lifetimes must come and go before the LGBT community can finally stop hearing so-called progressives say "not yet... wait...". I, too, will vote for the progressives that can win, which generally means Democrats, but at some point, after decades of waiting, waiting, waiting... and decades of people that do not experience the discrimination first hand lecturing me on how short-sighted I am to demand my full rights... if not now, when?

[JohnnyLib2]

22. Agreed.

[liquid diamond]

38. The anwer is we are making progress though it is slow.

The irrational people in our party aren't satisfied with that, so they are willing to indirectly elect republicans that don't give a fuck about them.

[ruggerson]

42. No that doesn't cut it

and who are these "irrational" people you're referring to?

[liquid diamond]

43. The people that call Obama a homophobe. The people that

say he has not done enough for the gay community. The people that say they will sit out the election which will be one less vote against surging republicans. Those people.

[ruggerson]

46. So, mostly gay folks and their friends and family speaking out in their self interest

and yet I assume you reserve the right to speak out in yours?

What do you think politics and social movements are all about?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

69. It is in all of our self interest to ensure that the Republicans lose!

Why?

Because they are holding up the "Bully Bill" legislation. In other words, Republicans won't vote to outlaw bullying because it includes bullying and violence against LGBT!

So, stay home. Don't vote for Democrats. Let's see how far we get when the Repukes are back in power and making things worse!

Get out there, hold your nose, and vote Democratic!

Then, tell every one of your friends and family to do the same!

I have a black, gay father who is proudly voting Democratic and all of his gay friends--of all colors--are voting!

JUST VOTE!! :toast::toast:

[ruggerson]

71. I already did

see post 13

:hi:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

78. Excellent! That's great news! I went to vote early yesterday here in Maryland.

And let me tell you, it was PACKED!! They didn't have enough poll workers to mind the voting booths. It felt great to vote! I don't believe any of the naysayers...

[political_Dem]

77. +1000000. We cannot sit out of this election. A lot is riding on it.

If the Teabaggers get in, it is a guarantee that no one's interests will be considered. We need to work on getting people in Congress who are willing to work on these issues instead of channeling a hundred percent of the anger at the POTUS.

[donco6]

84. Already did, as did my partner.

But we'll never, ever be quiet about getting our rights recognized. No matter how "irrational" we appear.

[MNBrewer]

54. Someone who believes that gays shouldn't be able to marry legally

because "god's in the mix" is, at some level, a homophobe. Maybe not a raving lunatic a la Fred Phelps, but certainly someone with a reservoir of homophobia somewhere deep inside, no matter how small.

[liquid diamond]

124. Your name calling won't get you shit. n/t

[donco6]

144. Your name-calling will get you nothing BUT shit. n/t

[MNBrewer]

150. It's just a description, not a name

I maintain that President Obama has some level of his own homophobia to deal with, otherwise he would support full legal equality.

[Starry Messenger]

193. Since when did a technical descriptor become name-calling?

Move out of kindergarten and crack open a dictionary.

[Zhade]

95. He IS a homophobe. His stance on equal right to marriage is homophobic!

NT!

[NorthCarolina]

148. Actually, fact of the matter

is Obama is a homophobe, and while I do not intend to support him personally in the primary elections (keeping all fingers crossed for a Progressive primary challenger to Obama), Obama is not running in this election cycle. My partner and I both intend to vote this election.

[RKP5637]

44. The "R's" will take this place back to the 50's or worse for the gays. A vote for

other than "D" is just helping to ensure a return to decades past. I grew up back in the 40's/50's, so I can firsthand say that is one period one does not want to return to...

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[theHandpuppet]

128. "These people"... "Their issue"

Wow.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dragonfli]

134. somebody had to say it

he should apologize to you.

[Dragonfli]

133. "these people" are our people, oh and by the way nothing is more important than equality..

..in a Democracy.

you need to stop thinking of this as a game of chess with "others" as nothing more than useful pawns (with useful money) that you can sacrifice.

I also disagree that my gay friends are impatient with slow progress, I believe it has more to do with a party leader that has made the decision to actively fight against them in court for what can only be either political reasons or some form of repressed religious bigotry.

Your words are divisive and hurtful, please apologize as it appears you are immune to the rules that should have had some of your posts deleted.

If you have any honor, apologize you will.
"Those people" are your brothers and sisters and as such your equals, they are not beneath you.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

143. Well, at least he/she didn't call us "darkies." So there's that. n/t

[sudopod]

59. I guess you think that the "Fierce urgency of now"

can take a hike?

Appropriate avatar is appropriate.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

83. Irrational now?

Kum Bay Ya, my lord . . . kum bay ya . . .

[Touchdown]

92. Interesting how that...

name calling post (irrational... then goes on to define it as us homos) isn't deleted yet. Hmm.

[Lucky 13]

108. There's the problem. It doesn't have to be slow.

If we don't make some leaps and bounds during a Democratic Presidency with a Democratic House and Senate... then when?

We were lied to. They do not give a fuck about us. They use us and our money to get elected, then distance themselves the moment the poles close. It taken me 3 or 4 go-rounds to catch on. But my eyes are wide open now.

[foxfeet]

63. Thanks, ruggerson. My partner and I voted last week.

Straight D. We are lucky to live in Seattle, where our concerns are taken seriously. I'm particularly proud of our Congressman, Jim McDermott, a progressive voice on many issues.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

79. You are so lucky to have Jim on your side fighting for you. I have Chris Van Hollen...

....but I don't think he's progressive enough. Jim is. He's a warrior! A brave warrior!!

[foxfeet]

68. Dupe. Apologies.

[JonLP24]

139. Best post in the thread

Things would certainly get better with this kind of attitude and I also believe if Dems confronted each issue like this they would be much more attractive to the general public IMO.

[donco6]

142. And if they felt we were important -

heck, if they just stopped thinking about how "icky" we are - they might actually be able to think that way. I'm not entirely sure they're capable of it.

[Creideiki]

147. That would be the "turn the other cheek" mentality

It's very un-American to turn the other cheek. Apparently.

Although, my liberal Lutheran pastor made sure we all learned that lesson as part of our confirmation process.

[no limit]

160. You really don't know why this group of Dem voters feels this way?

Have you been living under a rock?

[leeroysphitz]

14. Tell that to Chief Justice Sarah Palin on Nov 4th!

[Fla_Democrat]

37. You think the President willl...

nominate her?

/palm



:smoke:

[proud2BlibKansan]

110. Sarah Palin is a lawyer? Don't you need a law degree to be on the SC??

And wouldn't OBAMA have to nominate her? I can't see that happening, can you?

[a2liberal]

152. no you don't

I don't think there is any actual legal requirement that SC justices be lawyers... it's more of a de facto that's how it's been done for many decades now

[davidinalameda]

15. just tried to recommend this post

and the recommends came up zero

[QC]

23. Looks like someone activated the bat signal. n/t

[davidinalameda]

27. it's up to 5 recommends

guess my post in the GLBT forum asking people to recommend this thread is working

:bounce:

[lunatica]

18. Oh please! Being angry doesn't make gays stupid.

Why do we have to listen to idiots pontificate on their broad brush simplistic biases? That's so fucking stupid.

[FreeState]

20. 2004 all over again - blame the gay n/t

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

21. I've gotten soooo cynical I think newstories like these...

.. are just PLANTS to GIVE groups IDEAS...

Like we'll if THEY are doing this, then I MUST too.
(The damn mob mentatlity).

BUT I FOR ONE KNOW FIRST HAND this is not 100% true.

[RKP5637]

48. Propaganda works extremely well in this country. All one has to do is start something, a blog, MSM,

whomever and suddenly all of the pros and cons appear. Just PLANT something in the fool American society and various groups will go off on ideas. Some of the grand manipulators of populations in decades past would have had a ball with Americans today. Just PLANT the idea for what you want and Americans will follow right along.

[Vincardog]

25. FOCUS people this is GEmsnbc's effort at voter suppression. Don't buy it

[snot]

26. K&R'd

[Duncan Grant]

28. Let's blame the gays and not the policies of the administration for the mid-term results.

This administration has made carefully crafted policy decisions from health care to jobs to Wall St. -- the responsibility for the mid-term results is theirs alone.

As for the gay-baiting on DU: Knock it the fuck off. This vilification of a progressive constituency is disgusting to watch. You can't blame this on gay people.

[mitchtv]

65. and less can they bully people into voting

for Dems who just hate them. I vote mostly dem, But no votes for homophobes. Sorry, Just won't do it

[mkultra]

165. Does it not seem that this MSM piece is trying to do just that

[RKP5637]

184. Yep, I think it is... Looking at all of the conflicts it stirred up on DU, a group

supposedly with common interests, I can just imagine what it does in the general public. People really need to look behind the curtains to see who is pulling the levers. This country is so controllable by propaganda it's most concerning... And anyone who pays attention to MSM is just so damn gullible and naive IMO.

[mkultra]

192. in a facist regime, guns are used to control the people

and keep them down. In a democracy, propaganda is that tool.

[RKP5637]

201. Sometimes I wonder/worry if we will ever cross that line... Kent State left quite

an impression in my mind.

[mkultra]

203. I think conservatives carry that potential

which is why i dislike them so.

[rucky]

29. I can't tell if DU is taking this as a cautionary message...

or ammo for scapegoating if we lose next week.

[QC]

39. If we do well next week, it will be used as proof

that The Gays need to stop it with their petulant, prissy pony-demanding because they have no real influence and should be happy with what the party is willing to give them in its infinite grace and mercy.

If we do badly next week, it will be used a proof that once again The Gays have acted as a fifth column and betrayed all that is good and decent.

That's the way things have been here ever since 2004, when Kerry's loss came not because of his lifeless campaign or his refusal to fight Bush, but because The Gays selfishly insisted on getting married.

[Touchdown]

30. I already voted, and I didn't do what she thinks I should.

:eyes:

[donco6]

86. I don't know of anyone following her recc either.

I don't think it's in our nature. Or mine, at least.

[Liberal Veteran]

31. If the republicans win big, the right will just say this proves the US doesn't want gay equality.

And they will do their damnedest to undo any progress made in the fight (no matter how slow that progress has been).

[struggle4progress]

32. The wedge-drivers are busy, I see

[The Philosopher]

33. I can't believe

some of the replies in this thread. There's so much bigotry expressed, how can you alert it all?

We're not stupid for having an opinion about what our Democratic President should be doing. We're not stupid for having anger and disapproval of what our Democratic President is doing. If our Democratic President decided to switch parties, I think we all would be angry. So let's just stop this false assumption that LGBT Democrats want a Republican in charge because they're angry and vocal about it.

And you want proof of the maliciousness of thought in saying "You think you would have it better under a Republican?" The other day I overheard a man say he wasn't going to vote for the President after what he did. "They can do what they want; I will do what I want." He didn't say he wanted a Republican in charge. He said he was going to withdraw himself from political life. Others when they express an unwillingness to vote for the President in 2012 don't mean they're going to vote for a Republican; they mean they're going to vote for ANOTHER DEMOCRAT. But those who want to yell at us automatically jump to the Republican accusation.

There's more than one Democratic candidate. There's more in the future, there's potential all around. Every time someone is voted in, they have to understand it's only temporary. The voters have to understand this, too. Between the win and the next election people will and should be looking for a replacement Democrat. That's just one of the ways to get a person to do the job they were elected to do. Another is to be vocal when a job is being done bad. If you shut up and express approval no matter what, you're not a voter, you're merely a slave. And that's not a value of our party.

[RKP5637]

72. The 2012 primaries should prove quite interesting, particularily the lineup of

democratic challengers for the presidency run and what they claim to support.

[Tesha]

97. Some of them...

...will claim to support us, the people.

They will be quickly eliminated by the media noise machine for
a variety of mostly-spurious reasons.

Some of them will obviously support the corporations and the
powers that be and will equally-obviously not give a damn
about us. One of those folks will emerge as the "winner".

This is how it always plays out.

Tesha

[DevonRex]

34. K&R.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pacalo]

36. I'm recommending this.

I have one very special dear-to-my-heart interest that would benefit my son's future quality of life, & I know which party is more likely to address his needs.

It sure isn't the party of hate.

Just because Duers are upset at the sit-out-the-vote tactic doesn't mean they're against the GLBTers, they're against the idea of sitting out.

[Occulus]

136. Read liquid diamond's posts above.

I think you're wrong, at least about some DUers. Yes, I do in fact mean to say that there are plenty of DUers who do not support GLBT equality. Examples are above.

[BlueIdaho]

45. Yet another republican voter suppression effort.

First Latinos, now Gays.

[spanone]

49. how stupid would that be....do not believe shit from the media

[davidinalameda]

58. you don't think that gays are angry with the Democrats?

[mkultra]

166. even if a great segement of that dmeographic is....

doesn't mean that they will actually sit out. anger and error are to different things.

[reggie the dog]

51. i know that there are Democratic

senators and reps who are shittying on the gay community but there are plenty of Democratic senators reps etc. working for establishing equality and i dont think but a few if any Republicans do that. I am pissed off too that democrats dont all want weed legal but there are more democrats than republicans that want it so i mostly vote for democrats, i lived in illinois in the past before france so i cant vote for state elections as i dont live there anymore but i would vote green this time around for governor because i that that whole bit of selling obamas senate seat was really shitty. I am confident that the legislature of illinois will be either all democrat or at worst a split legislature so if a republican gets in for 4 years due to the corruption of governor blago then perhaps the illinois democrats need that especially since blago ran against the republicans who had their own governors corruption scandal involving selling drivers licences.

[MNBrewer]

52. One or two election cycles of withholding our votes

from the Dems who don't REALLY support equality (e.g., those who don't support marriage equality), and those politicans will wake up and realize that we expect more than words and symbolism.

[Bluebear]

56. If we do badly next week I'm sure gays will be blamed.

[Meeker Morgan]

57. The lesson to gays in this election is ...

... the "gay vote" does not matter, unless it's a local race in a big city.

[foxfeet]

60. My apologies for disappearing; I was called away unexpectedly just after I posted.

My interest in making the OP was due to the fact that the MSM has picked up on this issue. Some folks here seem to treat it as if it were only an intramural squabble within DU. The thread is, thus far, pretty much what I expected.

[EFerrari]

62. If you haven't been marginalized on DU

you're not trying.

lol

:grouphug:

[leeroysphitz]

90. Very true. n/t

[EFerrari]

61. And it's not just "gay voters", it's ALL of us

who have recognized our stake and place in this struggle.

The Democrats minimize this at their own risk.

[flyarm]

99. there is alot of that "RISK" going around !! eom

[Touchdown]

64. *sigh* the responses here.

Always with the boot on my face, pushing it in the mud, saying... "What are ya gonna do? Vote Republican? Just go ahead and try it, Fairyboy!"

Sickening!:puke:

[foxfeet]

70. And it happens over and over and over.

I'm still trying to figure out how to carry Mace on a message board.

[laughingliberal]

74. +1000. The lack of ability to see how abusive the message sounds to others is appalling. nt

[QC]

76. Around here, something is homophobic only if it involves Fred Phelps.

Just about anything short of that, no matter how offensive, is apparently considered nothing more than spirited discussion.

[laughingliberal]

80. Well, lowering the bar is certainly one way to look successful with meeting goals. nt

[Skittles]

125. sad but predictable

lots of idiots on DU

[bullwinkle428]

163. And it's always the same handful of posters doing it. Yet somehow,

they're allowed to continue.

[QC]

172. Funny how that works, isn't it? n/t

[Starry Messenger]

67. Gay voters are an incredibly loyal constituancy to the Dems.

It's the muddled moderates the press should be aimed on. But I guess that isn't as eyeball grabbing.

[David Zephyr]

85. Yes. This is, in many ways, like the "Don't Vote" message to Latinos by the GOP.

As you correctly said, Starry Messenger, Gay voters are an incredibly loyal constituency to the Democrats.

I think that this article has the flavor of the GOP's pathetic and transparent "Don't Vote" message to Latinos in Nevada.

[southmost]

94. exactly!

I'm tired of being stereotyped as a vapid or ignorant single issue voter , I got plenty of other pressing issues in my survival which I base my vote on. Withdrawing myself from political life by not voting would just be irresponsible.

[David Zephyr]

98. And thank you, southmost for saying so.

And I love your avatar, too! :)

[southmost]

132. thanks

Frida has been a influential GLBT and indigenous figure for me

[Starry Messenger]

159. Good to see you David!

I just wanted to say hi. :hug:

[krabigirl]

75. Good for them.

[TriMera]

91. Kick and rec. n/t

[quinnox]

87. They gotta do what they gotta do

I don't think hardly any would vote for the GOP, most likely they would withhold votes from Democrats or vote for alternatives like the Green party.

[mahina]

93. Take a peek over here at Hawaii,

where our very deep blue candidate for Governor, Neil Abercrombie, clearly supported equal rights when the red shirted anti folks were packing the legislature with literally thousands of people.

He took a principled stand, knowing it was going to be costly. We are now barely ahead of the super fundie 'Hawaii is God's country' Republican candidate who has journeyed to Argentina to speak at the International Transformation meetings. So creepy, so hate-filled, and so close to winning the Governor's race here, it is alarming.

[BlueCheese]

100. The Obama administration...

... with its emergency motion to stay the DADT order, has gone from malign indifference on gay issues to affirmative opposition to equality and progress. They went from saying that they were helpless on gay rights (if only we had 60 votes!) to actively fighting against positive change on their own volition.

Who wouldn't be angry? Gay or straight, this is wrong. Should voters withhold their support at the ballot box? That's their choice. I don't think I should judge them for it.

[LiberalAndProud]

101. The thing that bothers me about this article, is that it seems like it sets "them" up

to take the blame for Dem losses ... again. Even so, I would argue that there is a valid reason to be disaffected. I haven't come to the choice to withhold my vote yet, but that isn't to say that I won't. Broken promises just don't inspire loyalty.

[Iggo]

107. Those stinkin gays don't know how good they got it!

[scheming daemons]

109. This article is propaganda meant to suppress the LGBT vote...

99% of LGBT folks are not going to stupidly vote against their own self interest.


LGBT folks are politically smarter than that.

[MNBrewer]

153. Of course not

But that doesn't necessarily require a Dem vote. It's possible that withholding my vote from an insufficiently supportive politician IS in my self interest.

[mkultra]

167. +1000 its meant to be an intraparty wedge issue

[readmoreoften]

111. i.e. "If the Dems win; gays don't matter. If the Dems lose; its all the gays fault."

Basically the Dems have framed themselves against us. We have been triangulated out of any representation whatsoever.

[ThomCat]

179. You are exactly right. The democratic party has found a perfect

way to move to the right and exclude us, and yet blame us for that exclusion. It's all our fault we don't have our rights, donchaknow. x(

[readmoreoften]

117. Most LGBTs are still voting. A number are not. But most are. HOWEVER...

If all LGBTs stopped voting along with strong allies there is no way the Democrats could win.

[BzaDem]

123. That is true. And Democrats would sit back and wait until people got sick of Republican rule

while in the meantime earning multiple times in the private sector than what they were making in politics. Meanwhile, when the people finally have had enough of Republicans and capitulated to electing Democrats, the resulting Democratic party would probably be more to the right than the previous one.

Not sure how anyone sees that as a productive state of affairs for GLBT issues or other issues.

[BzaDem]

120. could sway the election ... to a party who would kill any nominee to the Supreme Court that might

see gay marriage bans as unconstitutional. Yeah, that's super productive.

:sarcasm:

[Touchdown]

129. So it's all gay people's fault. Vichy Dems are blameless.

Do you want my lunch money for not tripping me and knocking my books out of my hands?

EDIT: I must've read you wrong. I thought you were doing the "So what are ya gonna do about it?" thing. I guess I was wrong.

[meowomon]

126. The Log Cabin Rethuglicans will be responsible for ending DADT.

Thanks a whole hell of a lot, Democrats.

[Jamastiene]

127. We in the GLBT community seem to be sharing the blame this year.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9381751

What kills me is that the election results are not even in yet, but they are already looking for somebody (anybody) to scapegoat.
:silly:

[BootinUp]

137. Allowing the Repukes to win big will do more to set the gay agenda back

than anything Obama has or hasn't done. What is so hard to understand folks? It is exactly the drubbing at the polls that makes Dems less aggressive on these issues. This is like kindergarten level math.

[MNBrewer]

151. I disagree with you

1. If Dems lose because they're not sufficiently aggressive in defending their constituents, maybe they'll grow a spine and start to do the right thing.

2. Your use of the term "gay agenda" is telling. Ask any gay person what type of person usually uses that phrase.

3. Our "agenda" will come to pass. It's inevitable. Republicans, like certain Democrats, can only delay it. They can't stop it.

[BootinUp]

157. thats fine, I didn't use the phrase,

to upset anyone. You got me, I displayed some ignorance of politically incorrect phrases.

The withhold votes to force spine arguments is very self destructive in my opinion, and I stand by it.

I should have just stayed out of the stupid thread.

[MNBrewer]

170. and in my opinion, it's required

[BzaDem]

176. What makes you think their spine will move the party to the left, as opposed to the right?

That's what I don't get about this argument. Any candidate facing a third party problem OF COURSE would move to the right. Independent voters are MUCH easier to persuade by acting centrist than third party voters, who they aren't going to please anyway. Any voter irrational enough even to consider voting third party is not going to be persuaded by reason, so why even bother to try?

Furthermore, a centrist independent going from R to D is +2 difference, whereas a 3rd party voter to D is only +1 difference.

Tell me again why voting third party doesn't just push the Democratic party further to the right?

[MNBrewer]

178. and a win will move them to the left?

How long has it been since the party moved left BECAUSE of leftist support?

It's taken for granted, so they move right. I maintain that voting for a rightward moving party will only reinforce that trend.

[BzaDem]

180. Now, you are making the assumption that just because they aren't to your liking WITH your support

doesn't mean that they won't be even FURTHER from your liking without your support.

Of course, they will be MUCH further from your liking without your support. No support from you means more centrists and center-right independents they need to get votes from.

Just because X doesn't get you what you want, doesn't mean "NOT X" won't be even worse. Yet you keep assuming that if X doesn't get you what you want, "NOT X" must make it better somehow.

Think about it this way. Some people hit their computer doesn't do what they want. But that doesn't really help them. They end up with a computer that still doesn't do what they want, but NOW it's even more damaged than before. You might say, well, I wanted to start hitting it, because not hitting it wasn't getting me anywhere. Surely, if not hitting it didn't get me what I want, hitting it must get me what I want. Or something.

[MNBrewer]

182. and you're making the opposite assumption

Ass-u-me.

[BzaDem]

185. I'm not making an assumption at all. I'm explaining the relatively trivial political math behind why

it is true. I'm not just assuming.

You, on the other hand, are assuming it on faith.

[MNBrewer]

186. your failure to see your own reliance on assumptions is astonishing

politics isn't math, nor is it science. and, you assume.

[BzaDem]

187. That doesn't mean certain things in politics aren't eminently predictable.

I rely on assumptions the same way you would assume that an apple would fall down. Which is to say, I don't rely on assumptions on faith at all. You are the one that constructs assumptions on faith, out of the cognitive dissonance that occurs because you for some reason have to assume that what you want is always actually achievable (and that you have to come up with some fake method for making that happen, like voting for a third party and enabling a Republican).

[BootinUp]

188. an example, if I may.

Assumption: A wedge will cease to be a wedge issue once it is shown to be ineffective.


Therefore: The best way to advance gay rights is to win at the polls in spite of them being used as a wedge issue.

[BzaDem]

189. But that would involve using facts and logic instead of made-up-out-of-whole-cloth assumptions.

Therefore, the poster in question would not agree.

[MNBrewer]

191. Who has empirical facts on their side?

You pretend that your analysis is somehow inevitable, observable and reproducible, with a gravity-like force of nature. Please demonstrate your theory with a proof.

Here are the facts:
Gays support the Democratic Party at a rate of between 70-80%
We routinely get screwed by Democrats
The party moved right, despite our consistent support with votes/volunteers/$

What are your facts?

[BzaDem]

195. Me?

People supported Nader in 2000. We got 2 wars, trillions in tax cuts for the rich, and Justice Roberts/Alito for the next 30 years, whose appointments single-handedly allowed the Citizens United decision and a lot of other bad decisions, and a lot of future bad decisions over the next 30 years.

And then we got a presidential nominee who was more conservative than the previous one. (And 90% of Nader voters actually flocked to him, just like you will eventually flock to whatever Democrat running after you've reached your breaking point. Apparently one term of Bush was enough to focus the minds of Nader voters.)


Your facts don't prove anything. Even if we assume them all as true (and they aren't), they simply attempt to show that Democrats are moving right. But they do not even ATTEMPT to show that Democrats won't move even MORE right in the face of a 3rd party challenger.

[MNBrewer]

196. IN what way does any of that support your assertion

that not supporting the Democrats will push them to the right?

Please clue me in. I don't see it.

Does anyone else here get what BzaDem is talking about?

[BzaDem]

200. Nader supporters didn't support Democrats. The next nominee was further to the right.

Heck, the next nominee wholeheartedly embraced the Iraq war because he was so afraid of what independents might think.

If Nader instead dropped out in 2000, Gore would be running for re-election in 2004, with a good economy, and likely would not need to be worried about independents.

Hence, third party voters in 2000 moved our nominee in 2004 to the right of where they otherwise would have been (and certainly not to the left).

Any questions?

[MNBrewer]

202. Ralph Nader pushed the Democratic Party to support the Iraq war?

ORLLY? THAT'S your analysis?

The vast majority of the Democrats in congress went along with that.

You're blaming it on Nader?

[BzaDem]

204. Of course I'm blaming it on Nader - if Nader never ran, there wouldnt have BEEN an Iraq war!

Duh.

I'm just also pointing out that on top of that, Kerry had to move MORE towards the middle (on the war and other issues), to make up for any potential lost third party votes. The idea that Nader's run moved Kerry to the left is bullshit -- it moved Kerry to the right.

[mkultra]

168. a loss to the republicans at this juncture

will move the center more to the right. The center only moves through political dominance.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

138. ASSociated Press?

I'm getting so sick of their sabotage.


Still, we need every vote possible for progressive liberals. Helping the pukes by letting our rage do our voting, whether it's this or any other issue would be letting the puke noise machine do to us what it's doing to stupid morans connived into fighting against their own (and everyone's) best interests.

Voting for Nader, no matter how good the intentions, made the pukes/corporatists VERY happy. A house divided, is a truth we need to remember.

[KharmaTrain]

141. And In Which States/Districts Will These Be???

After another weekend of depressing polling, the economy is issue ONE, TWO and THREE. There are a lot of stupid people this year who have bought the right wing talking points of the government spending too much and blaming this administration on all the economic woes. They're voting pocketbook and blaming the Democrats.

Now which races will the LGBT vote affect? The largest voting blocs I know of are in predominately deep blue areas that has clout in its given area but not on a statewide total.

If an election is lost by a handful of votes, there's plenty of blame to go around...singling out LGBT voters is playing right into the hands that would love to see Democrats be and stay divided. Sorry, not playing that game here.

[MadHound]

149. That's what happens when you berate, belittle, and attack a core constituency,

Especially after having promised to bring CHANGE on issues that effect that constituency. This applies not only to the LGBT community, but teachers, anti-war folks, and liberals in general.

[depakid]

156. Where did the notion that Democrats can win without enthusiastic support of constituencies come from

I'd really like to know, because it's been something of a theme for awhile now.

[The Uncola]

158. I had to stop reading ..

.. the replied to this thread, as the anger and resentment was building in me far too quickly for this time of the morning. There are times it's indeed a VERY good thing that some people aren't standing in front of me when they say the crap they do. Though I'm not gay, I am in concert with the same sense of letdown that the Dems we worked so hard to put in office have left us with. Wishy-washy, "just hang on, we MIGHT address your issues later" pablum isn't cutting the mustard for me either. I can't be scared any more with the "but they're so much worse" meme, as the difference between the two, is barely discernible. If the Dems lose, they have no one to blame except themselves. We put the tools at their feet, they CHOSE not to pick them up and use them.

[RKP5637]

171. Yep, IMO the majorities were completely squandered by the D's in office. n/t

[closeupready]

181. I am a fierce advocate to the GLBT community.

Now watch my administration appeal to re-instate DADT policy, to fiercely advocate DADT to the GLBT community. :sarcasm: