Skip to main content

View Diary: The diary that will probably get me banned from Daily Kos (216 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  ...and i didn't appreciate the TDP (5+ / 0-)

    using its platform process at the 2010 convention to water down its support for the GLBT community in order to win elections, either.

    there's plenty of blame to go around for the lousy state of the TDP/corporatist dem party...starting with boyd richie.

    when the "tent" is big enough for henry cuellar and gene green, it's gotten a little to big for some of us.

    "I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage..." and, also: "Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix." ~ barack obama

    by liberaldemdave on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 06:16:31 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  to be clear about my refusal to EVER support (5+ / 0-)

      a candidate (regardless of the letter of the alphabet behind their name), this is from the embedded article above (emph. added):

      1. Two Democratic congressman from Texas were among those who voted in favor of an anti-gay amendment on the House floor Thursday. The amendment to a Defense appropriations bill, which passed 248-175, reaffirms the Defense of Marriage Act by prohibiting the Pentagon from spending funds in violation of DOMA. The Human Rights Campaign says the amendment is “unnecessary” and called on the Senate “to reject the House’s return to using LGBT Americans as a wedge issue.” All but five Republicans voted in favor of the amendment by Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., while all but 19 Democrats voted against it. Two of those 19 Democrats were Rep. Gene Green (Houston, Baytown) and Rep. Henry Cuellar (San Antonio, Laredo, Seguin).

      the list of the 19 who should be, imo, expelled from the party are:

      FROM THE NEW CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT:

      So, here are the anti-​gay voting Democrats who decided voting to reaffirm DOMA was the way to go: Reps. Jason Altmire (D-​Pa.), John Barrow (D-​Ga.), Sanford Bishop (D-​Ga.), Dan Boren (D-​Okla.), Ben Chandler (D-​Ky.), Jerry Costello (D-​Ill.), Mark Critz (D-​Pa.), Henry Cuellar (D-​Texas), Joe Donnelly (D-​Ind.), Gene Green (D-​Texas), Tim Holden (D-​Pa.), Larry Kissell (D-N.C.), Dan Lipinski (D-​Ill.), Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), James Matheson (D-​Utah), Collin Peterson (D-​Minn.), Nich Rahall (D-W.V.), Mike Ross (D-​Ark.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.).

      shame.

      "I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage..." and, also: "Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix." ~ barack obama

      by liberaldemdave on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 06:33:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Doubt we will have a meeting of the minds (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Whimsical, sewaneepat, Ahianne

        But...

        It looks like you have one specific issue that is of overriding concern - a sort of litmus test. I do have several issues that are dear to me (in fact, yours is one of them), but when it comes down to it I will support an "electable" D who has a decent record on several of them over an "unelectable" 3rd party candidate who has a stellar position on many of them. I especially weigh the likelihood of my "electable" candidate to be able to take a more liberal/progressive position given their constituency (i.e. more forgiving flexibility for a West Texas candidate than for an urban Houston candidate).

        The thing is (being one of those dreaded pragmatists) that I can't get behind cutting off my nose to spite my face in order to cast a "teach them a lesson" vote. It comes down to two choices: 1. A candidate who has  a good chance to win, and who can go into state/fed legislature and further at least some aspect of my agenda or 2. A candidate who has no chance to win, but if they did would strongly speak to much of my agenda.

        •  glbt equality hits me where i live, so if you wish (5+ / 0-)

          to call that a "litmus test", so be it. NO, i will NEVER vote for a candidate, no matter how "good" on other issues that does not fully support my basic human civil rights (and, unfortunately, that includes the sitting president in 2012)...

          i live in texas. his "state's rights" position on marriage equality isn't fair...or equal. in fact, his position (that he continues to hold, despite any mythical "evolution") is clear as quoted in my signature line. i won't support that...nay, with all due respect catte nappe, i can't support that.

          would you support a candidate, to use an extreme hypothetical, that would support reinstatement of miscegenation laws if they were good on "everything else"?

          "I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage..." and, also: "Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix." ~ barack obama

          by liberaldemdave on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:15:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fortunately on the "extreme hypothetical" (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Whimsical, liberaldemdave, Ahianne

            The worst extremists don't show up in the Dem party.

            If I were going to come back at you in that regard - where would you stand with a candidate who supported gay rights but refused to take any position on abortion and birth control, and also wanted to pull out of the United Nations and wanted to eliminate paper money?

            As far as Obama's record, he's been so much more supportive on gay issues than any President before him that  it's breathtaking to me. Of course, I'm pretty old and have a pretty long view on where we have been, where we are, how long it took to get here, and the expectation of how long it might take us to get where we want to go.

            •  there are at least 19 of the "worst extremists" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Maikeru Ronin, Uberbah

              already in congress under the "D" label...at least on what i see as my  most fundamental human right: the ability to have my marriage recognized at the federal level (which would grant an entire cornucopia of other rights and render any other discriminatory laws completely unenforceable, not to mention unconstitutional).

              where would i stand on your hypothetical? well, unfortunately, i would have to vote for what is best for me and the community with which i most strongly identify. that's just me. we all have to draw our lines in the sand...as humans, 99.999999999% that will be for selfish (either personal "self" or community identity "self") reasons.

              as for obama's record, it can also be said that george w. bush was the "most 'progressive'" on stem cell research. (funny how that can be flipped :), no?)

              obama's being the most progressive on glbt equality has far more to do with societal changes than anything he's actually done...every thing he's done on glbt issues, IMO (stressed), has been done through a prism of political calculation.

              i'm pretty old, too...and my husband is even older (at 67). i came out when the dallas police department was still arresting and getting convictions for "public lewdness" for couples merely holding hands...in the heart of the gay 'hood.

              thanks, again, for the agreeable though disagreeing dialogue. this is how productive exchange works and, frankly, does the entire community a service when they see that we can talk TO each other instead of PAST each other (and without resorting to "you poppyhead" tactics at the drop of a hat).

              "I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage..." and, also: "Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix." ~ barack obama

              by liberaldemdave on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:54:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  p.s. and i think it important to say: (4+ / 0-)

          thank you for having a respectful dialogue on the issues when it would be so easy to make it "personal".

          "I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage..." and, also: "Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix." ~ barack obama

          by liberaldemdave on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:18:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It's a fair point, but the flipside of that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ahianne

      argument is that a big tent = majorities = control of a chamber of the legislature, and that's kind of a big deal.   The switch from a Democratic House to a Republican won wasn't nearly as dramatic as the switch from a Democratic Speaker to a Republican one, because I'd much rather Pelosi in charge of what makes it to the floor than Boenher.  

      But it's a tough choice sometimes, and can be difficult in conservative-to-moderate districts where progressive voters are few and far between.  I've drawn lines down over a few candidates I just couldn't stomach, but if a majority came down to a single seat, would I bite my tongue?  Yeah, because it's about more than individuals.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 06:54:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's kind of a big deal... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Maikeru Ronin, Uberbah, DMiller

        UNTIL the senate has 58 dems and 2 independents caucusing (one of whom who fought harder for a dadt repeal than the democratic president, quite frankly) with it and a sitting vice-president to break a majority tie...and then being told, "we don't have the votes".

        "I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage..." and, also: "Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix." ~ barack obama

        by liberaldemdave on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:17:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  *shrugs* (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ahianne

          The Senate's been broken forever, which is why I didn't address it.   The Republicans had the same problem when they controlled it, which is why they were clamoring for filibuster reform back then.

          The House, though, is a different matter.  People may not like to hear this, but the majority of our problems with all these budget debates comes from one and only one source: the fact that Republicans control the House.  It's not about the numbers or the relative ideologies, it's about the small number of individuals who control the committees and the agenda.  That's a fact.

          So, you can reply to my comment with a feint by talking about the Senate instead, but you know exactly the point I'm making and why.  If we fail to understand that simple dynamic, we're doomed to keep spinning our wheels, like we always do.

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 11:10:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (129)
  • Community (63)
  • Bernie Sanders (44)
  • Elections (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (28)
  • Culture (27)
  • 2016 (27)
  • Climate Change (26)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Science (22)
  • Environment (22)
  • Labor (18)
  • Law (18)
  • Spam (18)
  • Republicans (17)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • Media (17)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (15)
  • White House (14)
  • International (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site