Skip to main content

Harold Ford:

"I do not support the decision today reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage, and have voted twice in Congress to amend the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. This November there's a referendum on the Tennessee ballot to ban same-sex marriage - I am voting for it."

First of all, what New Jersey does is none of Ford's business.

Second of all, the NJ court didn't mandate gay marriage. It mandated equal protection under the law. How fucking awful! It's a disgrace! Equal rights? Pshaw! How dare the NJ Supreme Court refuse to allow discrimination?

Yeah, I want Ford to win. But I won't cry when he doesn't.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 12:56 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Totally agree (34+ / 0-)

    Opportunist pol!

    "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

    by LV Pol Girl on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 12:58:00 AM PDT

    •  This is kos' (26+ / 17-)
      • what shall we call it? -

      the daily kos 'small tent' strategy??

      I doubt that Harold Ford or his father will cry when kos doesn't get elected to anything state-wide in Tennessee, either.

      Come to think of it, I rather doubt that the Democrats would be sweeping Arkansas with the gay-marriage-is-the-Democratic-non-negotiable message, either.

      Hang out a sign on the Democratic Party: RNNA

      "Religious Need Not Apply!"

      •  Do you subsist (8+ / 1-)

        by eating your young????

        "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." -Karl Rove

        by Voxbear on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:06:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't forget Ford endorses joementum (16+ / 0-)

          harold ford also went out of his way to endorse lieberman as late as 2 weeks ago.

          he doesn't need to pick someone to endorse in connecticut but he did anyway.

          I sense he is probably too slimy to make a real difference in the senate even if he gets elected.

          I understand connecticut is not tennessee but he need not go out of his way to support joementum

          •  so saying he supports lieberman (6+ / 0-)

            during a discussion about lieberman by a radio talk show host is "going out of his way" to endorse him?

            •  Yes. He should have endorsed the Democrat. (20+ / 0-)
              What's complicated about abiding by the will of the Democratic primary voters?

              It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation.

              by martianchronic on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:59:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Running for Senate in Tennessee (n/t) (7+ / 0-)
                •  Nothing about running for the Senate in... (16+ / 0-)
                  ...Tennessee requires undermining Democratic candidates in other states.  It's disloyal, and since when is disloyalty such a selling point with voters?  All Ford needed to say is that while he might have political differences with Lamont, he respects the will of the voters in Connecticut.

                  Ford certainly expects the same courtesy doesn't he?  I'm sure there'd be loud objections if liberal Dems openly endorsed a third party candidate in Ford's race because they considered Ford unacceptably onservative and, in general, a douche.

                  It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation.

                  by martianchronic on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:23:38 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Most in TN don't view it as a party loyalty issue (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gkn, GoldnI

                    There are hardly any Democrats in TN who are so loyal to the Democratic party that they would abandon Harold Ford, from the most best-known TN Dem family there is, just because he refused to endorse a Democrat in another race.  Hell, his father is endorsing an independent over the Dem nominee in the Fords' old district.  Granted, it's his son and Ford's brother...

                    Endorsing Lieberman helps reinforce the moderate Dem image that Ford NEEDS to project in order to win in TN.  He could have refused to endorse anyone, but that would go against the candid image he has given throughout the campaign - particularly since he was asked point blank who he endorsed.

                    He didn't go out of his way.  And people need to get off their high horse about "undermining Democratic candidates."  I thought we were the party that tolerated dissent within our ranks, not the one that tried to stamp it out.

                    •  dissent is one thing (0+ / 0-)
                      Disloyalty is quite another.
                    •  Voters are running from Ford (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      sjs1959

                      you are mis-informed by some paid bloggers for Ford, some on Kos have been his piad interns, who have many on Kos thinking TN voters are all dumb, they don't have any legitment views on not wanting Ford to be in the Senate.

                    •  Tolerating dissent is not the same thing as... (6+ / 0-)
                      ...putting up with disloyalty.  Reid dissents on issues like abortion, Lieberman is fucking disloyal, and he undermines the effectiveness of the Senate Dems in advancing the Democratic agenda.

                      It isn't going to do the Democrats a lot of good having a majority if there's no unity in the caucus.  At best, it'll be a slim majority.  Is Ford going to be playing the Lieberman games of personal advancement by making himself the constantly wooed undecided vote and thereby undermining the Democratic agenda and message in the process?  Will Ford be the hook that future "The Democrats are in disarray" stories get hung upon?

                      I didn't suggest loyal Dems in Tennessee would abandon Ford for disloyalty to the Party -- I'm suggesting that loyalty is a positive character trait that appeals to all voters, and that supporting the Democratic nominee in Connecticut -- not Lamont, personally, but the Dem nominee -- would not have hurt Ford with the voters.  Does Ford stand for any Democratic principles, or, like Lieberman, does he stand for saying whatever he thinks will get him elected?  People like Feingold and Schweitzer have proven that voters -- even conservative voters -- care more about strength of vision and sincerity than ideological differences.  They'll agree to disagree if they respect you.  I can't tell you the number of yards I saw in Wisconsin that had Bush and Feingold signs in them during the last elections.  Feingold is not getting reelected just by appealing to liberals.

                      It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation.

                      by martianchronic on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:58:27 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  But it's absolutely absurd... (0+ / 0-)

                        to say that he is disloyal to the party because he supports Lieberman.  If you took a poll of all Democrats, I'm sure you would find that most would not consider someone a disloyal Democrat merely because they endorsed Lieberman, particularly since Lieberman is going to caucus with the Democrats despite the fact that he is running on an independent ballot line (and all the conspiracy theories to the contrary are BS - Reid will let him retain his seniority, and he will caucus with the Democrats).

                        Making support for Lieberman a litmus test for party loyalty is a surefire way to shrink the tent of the Democratic party.

                        •  First, Lieberman is not a Democrat. (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          sjs1959, HillaryGuy, leonard145b
                          Second, we are not talking about all Democrats, we are talking about Dem politicians.  

                          What kind of effectiveness can a party expect to have if there is no party discipline whatsoever?  Supporting fellow Dem nominees for office or at least keeping your mouth shut about it is really the bare minimun of discipline here.  It is hardly shrinking the tent -- just asking that there be a tent that is defined by Democratic voters.  You know, the people Joe Lieberman couldn't bother to respect?

                          And don't pin your hopes on Lieberman's good behavior.  If he manages to get elected and, god forbid, is the 50th vote, he'll go to the highest bidder.  Even if he stays Dem, he'll hold the Dem agenda hostage while everyone lines up to kiss his ass in turn.  If you care at all about the Democrats having a unified message, supporting Lieberman undermines that.  Fox News and the RNC will be co-sponsoring the parade if Joe wins.

                          It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation.

                          by martianchronic on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 12:37:33 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Three things (0+ / 0-)

                            I) I never said Lieberman was a Democrat.  He's an independent who will caucus with the Democrats, just like Bernie Sanders.

                            II) I love all the accusations you make against Lieberman without any proof.  Who says he's even thinking about caucusing with the GOP?  You?  Other people in the blogosphere who are anti-Lieberman?  Anyone else?  Has ANYONE who has talked to Lieberman about his plans even HINTED that he might do anything other than what he's said - caucus with the Dems.  The irony is that you make two assertions against Lieberman that are contradictory: 1) He is going to caucus with the GOP; 2) He will do anything to get reelected.  Well, the worst thing he could do if 2 is true is break his oft-repeated promise from 1.  He's made such a big deal out of that promise, that he would be sealing his fate in 2012 if he broke that vow.

                            That said, Reid isn't an idiot.  He's not going to even take even a 1% chance that Lieberman will jump ship, so he will offer him his seniority.  And that's all Lieberman needs.  This "highest bidder" bullshit is just stuff that people who already hate Lieberman spew because they view him as barely better than Stalin.  Since there's no proof of any of your assertions, all you can do is bluster.

                            III) You still talk like a GOPer about Ford's endorsement of Lieberman.  When he was asked who he supported in the CT-Sen race, what was he supposed to do?  Lie?  Not answer the question?  He supports an independent candidate who is going to caucus as a Democrat.  Would you lynch him for daring to endorse such a Dem-turned-independent?  Again - if so, you are shrinking the tent of the Dem party.  Rank-and-file Dems who support Lieberman (including over 30% of CT Dems) would be turned off by the Dem party if they saw Dem candidates who support Lieberman getting blasted.  And we can't afford to lose that many voters.

                          •  Correction (0+ / 0-)

                            Contradictory assertion 2 wasn't made specifically by you, but rather is a charge often hurled at Lieberman.

                          •  Asking that Dem politicians support Dem... (0+ / 0-)
                            ...nominees is "shrinking the tent"?  So, basically, respecting the will of Democratic primary voters isn't very important.  Anything goes and Democratic politicians have no obligation to build the party by supporting actual Democrats.  If Democratic politicians can't be depended on to support the party, if political affiliation is so meaningless, then why should the voters get overly invested in it?  

                            You conceded the highest bidder "bullshit" argument when you claimed that Reid would give Lieberman seniority to avoid having him jump ship.  Unless you honestly think Reid has nothing to worry about, because Lieberman will caucus with the Dems just like Bernie Sanders without the blackmail payoff?  You know, just on principle?

                            If anybody has a right to complain about the tent shrinking it's all the primary voters in Connecticut who voted for different representation and who, if Lieberman wins, can probably look forward to Lieberman resuming his senority and influence in the Democratic party like nothing happened, like they never even voted.  That's more than 50% of the Dems in Connecticut being disenfranchised.  Funny that you're not worried about any of them being turned off the Dem Party.  

                             

                            It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation.

                            by martianchronic on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:19:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And that's exactly what (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            autoegocrat

                            Ford does, and continues to do. He is Holy Joe's doppleganger.

                          •  Nice try (0+ / 0-)

                            So, basically, respecting the will of Democratic primary voters isn't very important.  Anything goes and Democratic politicians have no obligation to build the party by supporting actual Democrats.  If Democratic politicians can't be depended on to support the party, if political affiliation is so meaningless, then why should the voters get overly invested in it?

                            That was a lame-ass effort to put words in my mouth, set up a straw man, and knock it down.  I am saying that we shouldn't accuse people of being disloyal candidates just because they endorse ONE independent candidate who says he will caucus with Dems over ONE Democratic candidate in ONE race.  To demand absolute loyalty to the candidates of the party is, frankly, Stalinist.

                            I should certainly hope that every Dem candidate supports all other Dem candidates, or at least the vast majority.  But it shouldn't be a litmus test that Democrats must endorse every single official Democratic candidate in the country, especially when the non-Democrat in question IS GOING TO CAUCUS AS A DEM.  Everyone outside DailyKos and CT doesn't give two craps out this race because they all know that, for the purposes of determining which party controls the Senate, it's really a contest between two Democrats.

                            The only value that the race really has is symbolic.  Replacing Lieberman with Lamont won't end the Iraq War, it won't get progressive judges confirmed or stop conservative ones from being confirmed...I could go on forever.  To be blunt, it wouldn't make any difference beyond being a moral victory for the progressive wing of the party.

                            So what possible incentive does Ford have to not endorse Lieberman?  To appease people like you?  Most Democrats don't think the way you do.  Even most people (like myself) who do endorse every Democrat don't shun those who don't.  Because party label is NOT everything.  If there were a hypothetical race between Bob Toricelli and Linc Chafee, you better believe I would be voting for Chafee.  And so would 85% of Americans and many Democratic members of Congress.  In Ford's case, endorsing Lieberman makes sense in a state where he needs to project a moderate image and where most Dems don't give a damn about Lamont-Lieberman.

                            If Ford was endorsing a number of non-Democrats, I would be fine with criticizing him.  But he's not.  He's endorsing a single independent candidate who has served as a Democratic Senator for 18 years and who is promising to caucus with the Democrats.  To threaten to turn Ford out just because he endorsed one independent over one Democrat in one race that will NOT determine who controls the Senate is absolutely a strategy that would alienate many moderate Democrats and unaffiliated voters.

                          •  One independent other than his brother, you mean. (0+ / 0-)
                            Or is Ford endorsing the Democrat in that race?

                            Believing that politicians should respect the results of the voting process is Stalinist, now.  Good one.

                            Lieberman is not just any random independent candidate.  He lost the Democratic primary and, by running as an independent, is subverting the Democratic nomination process.  If Lieberman wins you can expect other candidates running in states without some kind of "Sore Loser Law" to start doing the same if they lose a close primary because, hey, why the hell not?  Is this really a precedent you want to see set?

                            And who threatened to turn out Ford?  I'm not even advocating withholding votes from him since he's all we've got.  I'm just making the normally uncontroversial observation that Democratic voters should be able to rely upon Democratic candidates to respect the Democratic nomination process and the will of the voters.  

                            So, seeing as how there's no difference no matter who wins the Connecticut race 'cause dear old Joe is surely going to caucus with the Dems, why is it that the Republican donors are pouring money into the Lieberman campaign, and why is it that the Republican party won't support their own candidate and has all but endorsed "moderate" Lieberman?  Curious Stalinists everywhere would like to know.

                            It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation.

                            by martianchronic on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:52:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So the voters' will that Ford should worry about (0+ / 0-)

                            the most is the will of Democratic voters IN ANOTHER STATE?  You seriously would rather he play himself to out-of-state liberals rather than Tennessee moderates??  If that's his strategy, he loses by 40 points in TN.

                            First, it's incredibly easy to explain why some big-time GOP donors are backign Lieberman despite the fact that he won't caucus with him: He's the best they can get in CT this year.  The GOP made an effort to shove Schlesinger off the ballot because the Alan Gold scandal broke after filing closed for the GOP nomination - rumor had it that Nancy Johnson was ready to run in his place.  But Schlesinger didn't budge, and the GOP knew they were stuck with a hopeless nominee.  ANY GOPer would have a helluva time winning in CT; a dishonest and gambling-addicted GOPer would have absolutely no chance, even in a race with 2 Democrats running.

                            The GOP knew that.  And given the choice between Lieberman and Lamont, the only two candidates with any chance of winning, of course they went with Lieberman.  He's a reliable vote for the GOP on foreign policy and national sercurity, even though he won't caucus with them.  That's a helluva lot better for them than Lamont, who will vote against them on everything AND not caucus with them.  That's a no-brainer for the GOP.

                            You keep talking about Lieberman subverting the nomination process.  Well then, why don't we just bar third parties and independent candidates altogether?  It seems to me that half the purpose of such candidacies is to provide people with an opportunity to run for office when their views are such that they can't win the primary of either of the major parties.  Lieberman was a Democrat for forty-something years.  Of COURSE he was going to run in the Dem primary first, but he told everyone that he would run as an indy if he lost.  He didn't mislead the voters or subvert the democratic process.  On the contrary, he was open to all voters about his intentions, and he followed the laws that exist in every American state allowing someone to run as an independent candidate.

                            And it wasn't a "do over" and he wasn't being a "sore loser."  He knew that a plurality of CT voters would vote to reelect him.  But not all CT voters could participate in the Dem primary, including his largest group of supporters - unaffiliated voters.  The general election is a completely different animal than a primary.  It's not a do-over; it's a completely different type of election.

                            I have a serious question for you - are you still going to be talking about how Lieberman subverted the democratic process if CT voters elect him on 11/7?  If so, you don't really mean "will of the voters" in an honest sense of the term.  You mean "the will of the voters most likely to agree with me."

                          •  States like Ohio have laws in place to prevent... (0+ / 0-)
                            ...candidates from doing what Lieberman has done.  They are called "Sore Loser Laws" because, yes, it is a do-over and, yes, Lieberman is a sore loser.  And, yes, I will continue to say that Lieberman is subverting the Democratic nomination process -- large D, as in the Democratic party process -- because that is what he is doing.  You are misstating what I have said.

                            Do you really think that Democratic politicians should feel free to ignore the results of the Democratic primaries if they lose and just run in the general anyway?  You can't see the drawbacks in denying the party base its voice in the direction the party will take?  Because I have a strong feeling  you'd be howling about the injustice if the situation were reversed and, say, Ford had a strong chance of being beaten in the general by a candidate he'd already beaten fairly in the primaries.

                            It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation.

                            by martianchronic on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:34:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I actually think it WOULD be a good thing.. (0+ / 0-)

                            if state laws allowed people to run in the general even if they lost a party primary.  You call it "ignoring the results of the primary."  I call it "giving all voters the chance to decide which candidate they want to represent them."  As long the rule applied to Republicans as well as Democrats, I think it would be a good thing for the system.

                            It would mean the political parties could no longer demonize the moderates in their ranks, and would actually be forced to listen to their views.  It would force both parties closer to the center, and would ensure that the candidate preferred by the most voters in each state would serve them in the Senate.  It would be bad for the 20-25% of voters on each political extreme, and great for the rest of us.

                            You're right about one thing, though - Lieberman did lose the primary fair and square.  But now he is going to win the general fair and square.  He didn't subvert the Democratic primary process; he simply realized that it didn't reflect the opinion of ALL the voters in the state on him.  And since small-D democracy is not limited to the will of the voters from a single party, what he did is perfectly justifiable, except to those who already opposed him.

                            (By the way, you and others who blast Lieberman for being a disloyal Democrat should all be so proud of yourselves.  The howls that he was not a loyal Democrat became a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The only thing that the campaign against Lieberman will have accomplished in the end is that still-Senator Lieberman will be even further to the right).

                            I would certainly not be howling about the injustice of the situation if Ford had a chance of being beaten in the general by a candidate he lost to in the primary.  I like Ford a lot, but I don't think any politician is above the will of the voters - that is ALL the voters - of his or her state.  Again, I think the candidate preferred by the most voters should be the one to represent them.

                            I would prefer this be coupled with a runoff election in the case of no candidate receiving a majority or, better yet, an instant runoff system.  But even without those, it's always better to err on the side of giving all the voters of a state the choice, and letting them decide.

                          •  Lieberman will be as rightwing after this election (0+ / 0-)
                            ...as he was before it.  The big bad Lefties didn't make Joe a Fox News Democrat.  He's actually been tracking left on his public positions ever since the primary started which means, if he wins, we'll get to hold him accountable for claiming to be the Democrats biggest defender of Social Security when Bush starts going after it again.

                            I can't tell if you're advocating for some sort of party-less system -- of which I can think of no real world working examples -- or a multi-party system.  Multi-party systems are favourable to the radical Left and Right.  The wheeling and dealing to put together a governing majority often means that concrete concessions have to be made to the smaller, more radical parties to get them into the coalitions.  The Greens, for instance, would be empowered by a multi-party system in the U.S. as they have been in Europe.  The dual party system tends to favour moderates since the they outnumber the radicals or progressives on both the Right and the Left.  The current situation amongst the Republicans is a weird one since it involved essentially a years long, planned and well-funded take over of the party by it's more radical elements.  The Democrats are dominated and run by moderates -- there aren't more than a handful of real consistent progressives in the House or the Senate.  

                            Whatever the case, in the dual party system that we have, should Joe Lieberman succeed in being elected he will have deprived the majority of the Democrats in his state of their voice in the direction of the national Democratic party.  Since a weak opposition party has been one of the reasons that the Republicans have rampaged unchecked, that is not a good thing.

                            It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation.

                            by martianchronic on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 07:19:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  NJ vote ratings show Lieberman... (0+ / 0-)

                            Was more liberal than 74% of the Senate on economic policy and 65% of the Senate on social policy (in 2005).  Back up to 2004, and those numbers were even higher.  It was only foreign policy that he was "right-wing."

                            I'm willing to bet real money that those numbers drop in 2007.

                            I don't advocate a multi-party system.  I think the two party system should remain in place, but candidates shouldn't be barred from running for office simply because they can't win the primary of one of the two major parties.  The system we have naturally lends itself to a two-party system, and since most states have rules like CT regarding primary and general elections, that system is obviously not at risk as a result of these laws (see Duverger's Law).

                            Situations like Lieberman's arise only rarely, because the structural advantages of running with one of the two major parties are nearly always impossible for independents to overcome.  That won't change.  There's absolutely no need to make it even harder for independent and third party candidates to win by passing a law barring candidates from running in a general if they can't win one of the major party primaries.

                            Whatever the case, in the dual party system that we have, should Joe Lieberman succeed in being elected he will have deprived the majority of the Democrats in his state of their voice in the direction of the national Democratic party.

                            No.  Their voice was heard - they picked Lamont over him.  Only an idiot would think that the national party didn't take notice of the result and its implications.  That argument is as absurd as saying that Oklahoma Democrats were deprived of their voice because the Democratic party as a whole preferred Kerry.  Their voice was heard, and then rejected by the broader group of relevant voters.  Similarly and unfortunately, the voice of a majority of ALL CT voters are about to reject the voice of a majority of CT Dems.

                            Lieberman wasn't elected to serve the Democrats of CT.  He was elected to serve all the voters of CT.  Much as I wish he wasn't going to win, the truth is that there's more important things in a democracy than Loyalty to The Party.

                          •  Lieberman is running to the left to get votes. (0+ / 0-)
                            If he runs to the right after taking office, it won't be because that's what he believes his constituents want or he'd be running to the right already to get their votes -- they obviously prefer more liberal positions.  If Lieberman trends further right, it will be because it's what he, personally, wants to do.

                            So far as Lieberman's voting record, he has a long history of strategic voting.  He'll often hang back and give bipartisan cover to the Republican positions and undermine the Democratic opposition before casting his vote with the Dems once the loss (or, rarely these days, the win) is a foregone conclusion.  Take a look at the way his support for affirmative action comes and goes, or how he was just about the last Dem on board to oppose the Social Security "reform", or the way he voted against Alito, but undermined the Dem attempts to organize a filibuster and put up real resistance.  And considering the catastrophic waste of blood and treasure that is the Iraq war, Lieberman's support for the neocon Bush policies is no small thing.  Lieberman's cheek by jowl with Cheney on foreign policy -- how much more rightwing could you possibly get?

                            For better or for worse, we have a partisan system and the political parties ideally act as checks on one another.  If Lieberman wins and resumes his seniority and privileges within the Democratic party then, yes, he has deprived the Connecticut Dems of their voice within the caucus on an ongoing basis, because he will not be acting as an an outsider or Independent, he will be taking the place within the caucus that the Connecticut Dems intended to go to a Democrat with different visions and goals.  Lieberman is likely going to get to have his cake and eat it too.  All of the political perks of being a Dem without the accountability to Democratic voters.  Of course Lieberman would be representing his entire state in the Senate -- Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike -- but within the Democratic party caucus?  There he'll be representing the Republicans and Independents and giving them a voice in Democratic party strategy sessions, undercutting the opposition to the Republican agenda.  The Democrats back home voted him down.

                            It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation.

                            by martianchronic on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 11:32:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  Let Ford say (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ihlin, Philosopher, tikkun, Gator Keyfitz

            what he needs to say to win.  So far he's hung tough in a red state.  Bottom line is that if the dems control the senate, and they need Ford to win to do so, then there will be no vote on dumb-fuck amendments to the Constitution.

          •  Ford endorses joementum (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sjs1959, b2witte, HillaryGuy, leonard145b

            Not only does Ford endorse Joementum, he has a bother who lost the Democratic Primary for some race in TN and then "pulled a Lieberman" and is now running against both the Democrat and Republican as an Indepentent. Now Ford is attacking the Democratic candidate on behalf of his brother. If Ford wants Dem support, he needs to also give support. We don't need anymore of these "Bluedogs" spending all their time attacking the Democratic Party from within the Party and siding with Republicans everytime.

            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

            Republicans: "They are more interested in protecting themselves than minors." Joe Scarborough.

            by William Domingo on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 10:26:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Hmm (36+ / 0-)

        So if you're religious, you automatically are against gay marriage?

        People who try and use the bible to justify their pathetic homophobia should try reading the damn thing some time.

        Here's some fun facts:

        Did you know that the passage that supposedly condemns homosexuality only says that a man shall not lay with a man as he lays with a woman?

        So, as long as a man is not having anal sex with women, pretty much anything he does with a man is just fine. And of course, lesbians are totally free to do anything they want to each other, no prohibition there at all.

        Now, on the other hand, if they eat three day old leftovers, that is an abomination before the lord.

        Oh, and having sex with animals isn't so bad, its just confusing.

        Is the above stuff really what you want to use as the basis of a moral code?

        - Its time we stopped dealing in words, and started Dealing in Lead.

        by walkingshark on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:10:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  you're an idiot or a troll (11+ / 0-)

        i'm goin with idiot and troll.

        Fight the Foley Five!

        Send these GOP Child Sex Predator Enablers packin on November 7th!

        by tlh lib on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:25:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  So we should support descrimination? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sui Juris, theran, sjs1959, tlh lib

        FREE TRADE ISN'T FREE!

        by Intercaust on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:40:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  would you prefer the alternative (Corker)? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandy on Signal, GoldnI
        •  last time i checked (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          savvyspy, TrueBlueDem, whick, altscott

          gays could marry. just not each other.  No court has ever ruled that there is a federal right to marry who you want to marry.  the right to marry is a fundamental right. but the right to marry anyone you want is not.

          •  that is a pathetic point of view (24+ / 0-)

            and very religious rightwing.  Where in heaven's name does that opinion come from FA?
            Marriage in this country is a legal contract between two people.  It is only religious if you chose to make it so.  The religious definition of marriage has no place in this argument when we are talking about equality under the law.

            •  I guess I'm not "married" (18+ / 0-)

              Because my wife and I were married in a 100% secular, absolutely NON-religious ceremony.  No prayer, not Jaysus, no Buddha, no Allah, no Yaweh, no Cthulu.  So...we aren't "married" then, is that it?  Apparently the nutbag anti-gay marriage crowd MUST make this contention in order to make their position tenable or self-consistent.

              In no way, shape, or form is my marriage endangered by the marriage of two men or two women next door, in the next city, or anywhere for that matter.  The strength and validity of one's marriage is entirely within the hearts and minds of the participants and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the hearts and minds of OTHER people, married or not.

              We don't need this shit in a true People's Party.  It reeks.  It spits on the Constitution in a way that ONLY the GOP can spit on it.  Equal protection under the law.  PERIOD.

              •  No, you're married, and I"m not. (0+ / 0-)

                Because if marriage is just a contract, I didn't sign anything, didn't take any vows, didn't even nod my head in agreement.

                Oh, wait, here's what says I'm married.  A certificate on file with the County Clerk.  

                It's the proto-fascism

                by Inland on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:35:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Only if (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gkn

              any gay marriage law protects churches from having to perform the ceremony.

              If that protection is in the law then I think you would see about a 10-15% shift away from being against gay marriage laws.

              The term "marriage" means a union in faith for many people in the christian church. You will never be able to separate the religion from marriage whether you want to or not.

              The better approach would have been to established the rights first, permit civil marriage, and exempt any church from being forced to perform the ceremony if the congregation was opposed to it.

              I know the church I belong to would most likely not have a problem with it and I'm sure most progressive churches would welcome these ceremonies. Many right-wing churches wouldn't want to do it but as I understand the law they don't have to perform heterosexual marriages either.

              In that regard I think its unfair to say FleetAdmiralJ's comment is "pathetic". The law is actually on his side. His personal feelings on the issue don't really have anything to do with it. I think what he is saying is you aren't going to win the gay marriage fight by suing govenments on a basis that people have the right to make churches marry them. That right does not currently exist in the law.

              •  WHAT? How about the First Amendment?? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                YucatanMan, esquimaux, chgriffen

                You say that such a law would be ok as long as:

                any gay marriage law protects churches from having to perform the ceremony.

                If that protection is in the law then I think you would see about a 10-15% shift away from being against gay marriage laws.

                FIRST:
                No law in this country has EVER forced a church to perform ANY religious ceremony against its will.  

                SECOND:
                No low in this country ever COULD force a church to perform ANY religious ceremony against its will... because of a little thing that you religious nuts prefer to forget: the First Amendment.

                SO:
                I guess you have your "law [that] protects churches from havin to perform the ceremony."  
                Now where is your "10-15% shift away from being against gay marriage laws"??

                •  The problem (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sjs1959

                  is that the people who vote in favor of these initiatives don't understand your "first" and "second."

                  Hence, no shift.

                  Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

                  by gkn on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:05:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Wow. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    sjs1959

                    You may be right.  Scary.

                    •  I agree 100% (0+ / 0-)

                      No one ever says anything about the exemption of churches having the ability to decide.

                      FIRST:
                      That's the problem with using the term "marriage". That is 100% my point. If you use "marriage" people believe churches will be forced to marry gay couples. They will think that because they believe marriage is a faith-based union, period. They almost always take place in churches and even a higher % involve clergy.

                      SECOND:
                      I still don't see where the new law would exempt churches. The current law doesn't force churches to do anything because the current law doesn't guarantee the right to marry.

                      THIRD:
                      The Minnesota Conceal & Carry laws didn't exempt churches in MN from banning weapons initially. Even the the revised law says churches needed to place signage up saying whether or not they allowed weapons in the sanctuary. I don't think a church should have to do anything to guarantee that people don't show up for church packing heat. The law put a burden on businesses and churches that didn't exist before. The gay marriage laws need to have this exemption EXPLICITLY stated before the protection is understood by people. Sorting it out after the fact doesn't make any sense.

                      •  You really don't understand (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        TheCrimsonKid

                        ... so I guess I should try to explain.

                        If you use "marriage" people believe churches will be forced to marry gay couples.

                        So we should not fight for equality for all just because somepeople are so stupid they don't understand the most basic civics principals?  

                        I still don't see where the new law would exempt churches. The current law doesn't force churches to do anything because the current law doesn't guarantee the right to marry.

                        1. what law are your referring to?  I am only aware of judicial decisions which require STATES to stop denying rights to certain classes of people (e.g., stop denying them marriage licenses, stop denying them tax benefits, etc).  NONE of these opinions force any private parties to do anything - they merely tell state governments what they have to STOP doing.
                        1. Guaranteeing a right does NOT force anyone (except for state governments) to do ANYTHING.  The Constitution guarantees the right to do lots of things.  The Constitution guarantees the right to produce pornography.  That doesn't mean that churches have to produce pornography, does it?  

                        The Minnesota Conceal & Carry laws didn't exempt churches in MN from banning weapons initially.

                        1. The MN Carry law is a statute that places burdens on private individuals.  In contrast, we are discussing judicial opinions which define RIGHTS - rights that cannot be tramples by STATES.  That has nothing to do with private actors.
                        1. The MN Carry law does not force churches to perform any particular religious ceremonies.  That would violate the First Amendment.

                        I hope that helps.  But I'm sure it won't.  If you didn't understand before now, it's because you don't want to.

                      •  A simpler question (0+ / 0-)

                        Name one US statute, constitutional rule or judicial opinion that forces churches to perform a particular religious ceremony.

                        Can't think of any?

                        Ever wonder why that is?

              •  the Constitution (0+ / 0-)

                is blind to religion.  That was the whole point of the First Amendment.  Or did you miss that class in school?

            •  Why regulate marriage? (4+ / 0-)

              Why should marriage be an 'official contract'?  Women aren't property anymore.

              Get rid of government approved marriage and create a legal social contract ANY amount of people can sign to have rights and responsibilities over each other.

              If I seem a little insensitive or clueless it is due to my having Asperger's Syndrome.

              by altscott on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:32:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  If that were true, gays could simply sign papers. (0+ / 0-)

              But of course, it's not.  It's a societal, legal definition that involves legal duties imposed by the state with or without the consent of the married.  It's the involvement of the state that makes the difference, and that's the rub.

              It's the proto-fascism

              by Inland on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:33:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Now there's an oxymoron .. (11+ / 0-)

            if there ever was one.  Some guy says:

            gays could marry. just not each other.  No court has ever ruled that there is a federal right to marry who you want to marry.  the right to marry is a fundamental right. but the right to marry anyone you want is not.

            What an idiot.   This is the same rant used by the rabid right.  What are you some kind of "compassionate conservative" passing as a Democrat?  Marriage for heterosexuals in America is all about choosing whom you marry. Why should it be any different for homosexuals?  

            Whether you agree with the issue of same sex marriage or not,  reaching for the canard of "gays are free to marry just like everyone else, someone of the opposite sex" is best left to those with no common sense.

            I would prefer that Ford win over Corker.  I grew up in the greater Chattanooga area, and I understand that a politician who doesn't espouse Ford's stance on same sex marriage doesn't stand a chance in hell of being elected.  With that said, I wouldn't spend one ounce of time working for his election, but I would have enough sense to know that if I didn't pull the lever for him on election day and Corker won, and the Republicans keep control of the Senate by getting Corker elected, all progress for rights for gays and lesbians will be even harder than if Democrats control the Senate, even with non gay friendly folks like Ford.

            Now I live in Florida.  Rumor has it that Crist (R candidate for governor, frontrunner) is closeted.  I will not vote for even a closeted homosexual who is a Republican because he carries their agenda of oppression for equal rights.

            Bottom line: Republicans keep control of our government, and we get nothing, in fact, we take major steps backward for years thru far right judicial appointments.  Democrats win control, and we at least begin to see some light at the end of the tunnel, years down the road, but still there eventually.

            I'm sick of America being covered by conservative crap

            by emsprater on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:32:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  so (0+ / 0-)

            Is your marriage a loveless marriage then?  Are you cool with that?

          •  asdf (6+ / 0-)

            the right to marry is a fundamental right. but the right to marry anyone you want is not.

            This is an excellent argument for only allowing marriage to someone of your own race.  

            Do you support that?

          •  Wrong. Anti-interracial marriage laws ... (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mik, synth, YucatanMan, gkn, chgriffen

            ... are unconstitutional because you have a RIGHT to marry the person of your CHOICE.  

            Also, the Supreme Court has specifically stated in more than one case that the right to make unfettered personal choices regarding marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.

            For example, in Lawrence, the Court stated,

            The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

            "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."

            (citations to Casey omitted).

          •  wtf? (9+ / 0-)

            that's like saying that you have the right to free speech so long as you only say things that george w. bush would approve of.

            or saying that you have the right to pick your religion so long as you pick southern baptism.  

            or saying that you have the right to eat food so long as you only eat green beans.

            or, saying that you have the right to marry the person so long as you marry someone in your own "race."

            in short:  complete & utter bullshit.

            this is a way of saying you have the freedom while rendering that freedom utterly.  meaningless.

            so, not only NO but FUCK NO.  the right to marry includes the right to marry the person of your choice regardless of race, gender, creed, sexual orientation or whatthefuckever.  its an individual's choice & the government should stay out of it.
            s.

            the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity --w.b.yeats the second coming

            by synth on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:43:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Are you a lawyer? (0+ / 0-)

            Do you know constututional law as good as me as a constitutional civil rights lawyer?  

            If not, then you should shut your mouth on something you know shit about, k?

            Hillary cannot be swiftboated because everything is already known about her, unlike anyone else who is running. Hillary for President 2008!

            by HillaryGuy on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:51:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  It never ceases... (16+ / 0-)

        to amaze me when people respond in ignorance to a clear and well-articulated argument. Here's what Kos said:

        the NJ court didn't mandate gay marriage. It mandated equal protection under the law.

        Perspective responds with this:

        I rather doubt that the Democrats would be sweeping Arkansas with the gay-marriage-is-the-Democratic-non-negotiable message

        What didn't he understand? Is Perspective so upset about today's ruling that he'll just fly off the handle at any mention of equality? Did Perspective read the diary?

        Gill for Congress! Il-15

        by Potus2020 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:43:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, RBNNA or RANNA or RABNNA (7+ / 0-)

        Religious bigots need not apply
        Religious assholes need not apply
        Religious ahohole biggots need not apply.

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein

        by dkmich on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:03:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  it's not about that (23+ / 0-)

        Ford doesn't even have to call it "gay marriage"--since that's not what it was about.

        Ford can easily say,

        "Churches should be free to do what they want.  This isn't about marriage.  It's about whether all Americans can have the opportunity to choose who can visit them in a hospital, and whom they can will their property to.  It's a question of basic human dignity."

        Ever wish there were One Big Wiki-Style Clearinghouse for all the GOP Scandals? Well now there is.

        by thereisnospoon on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:08:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I would very much like (7+ / 0-)

        to support Ford.  Especialy after the overt racism that he has been a victim of.
           I will not support Mr Ford financially because he does not extend the same level of protection of others rights that I believe needed.  I do hope he wins the election and comes to a place where he learns more and changes his views.  A hero of mine is Paul Wellstone,  Paul made a similiar mistake and I believe if he had been allowed a longer time on earth he would have changed his views also.  Let us hope that Ford thinks deeply about discrimination, and comes to a realization that it is not acceptable.

        trying to thing of something new - watch here for results

        by norahc on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:38:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  get real (3+ / 0-)

          hope will get you nowhere.

          you either support someone to change the majority or you support the majority as it stands.

          get a fuckin clue.   my senator, a democrat, voted for the torture bill.  do you think ousting a democrat is going to do anything for that?  nope.  

          there is only one thing we can do for progressives.... get a majority.....then we can actually debate shit on the floor and put bills up for a vote.

          you can hope all you want.   your hope amounts to a hill of fuckin beans.

          i donated money that i didn't have.   thanks for being an asshole and not realizing the bigger picture.

          Fight the Foley Five!

          Send these GOP Child Sex Predator Enablers packin on November 7th!

          by tlh lib on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:45:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Whoa (23+ / 0-)

            Just a quick check here... I'm an asshole because I won't send my money to someone that is discriminatory?  
                I will not send my money to a racist, nor will I send my money to someone that discriminates based on sexual orientation.  You are free to send you money to whoever you chose.  
                I have been working over 4 hours a day since May on this election, I will thank you for not calling me an asshole.  peace

            trying to thing of something new - watch here for results

            by norahc on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:09:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you are advocating NOT supporting Ford (5+ / 0-)

              get over yourself.

              read your comment i replied to.

              I applaud you on whatever the fuck you've done.  Your post which amounts to promoting people to not donate to Ford is absurd.

              I give to Democrats.   I support a Democratic majority....not an idealistic majority.   I'm not a fuckin moron and I'm not naive.

              Keep working.... just don't promote people not giving to Democratic candidates and I won't call you an asshole.  If you're fighting for what we are fighting for then you won't take away a goddamned cent from Democratic candidates and won't post against people contributing towards a Democratic majority in either house.

              I'ts quite fuckin simple.

              :-)

              Peace.

              Fight the Foley Five!

              Send these GOP Child Sex Predator Enablers packin on November 7th!

              by tlh lib on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:18:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh I nearly forgot (7+ / 0-)

                the Pierce county board of health meeting at 5 today also, that makes 3 meeting this week for me, find the callender here
                http://www.co.pierce.wi.us/...

                Please stop attacking hard working democrats and get out and do some work

                trying to thing of something new - watch here for results

                by norahc on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:35:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Correction (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                norahc

                "....not an idealistic minority..."

                "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

                by Alice in Florida on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 04:44:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Chill (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                IseFire, YucatanMan, MO Blue, norahc

                How is calling him an asshole going to elect Harold Ford Jr?

                (-5.88, -6.46) Democracy is what happens between elections.

                by autoegocrat on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 04:58:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  How is... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sjs1959

                  ...electing Harold Ford Jr going to make the country better?  

                  •  do you understand the concept of a majority? (0+ / 0-)

                    with no majority we can't bring anything to a debate or a vote.  with a majority we decide everything that gets debated and voted on.

                    you're missing the point by a mile.

                    Fight the Foley Five!

                    Send these GOP Child Sex Predator Enablers packin on November 7th!

                    by tlh lib on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 04:13:37 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Who says he'll even vote for Reid, if he's the (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      autoegocrat, HillaryGuy

                      swing vote?  Look, this fool has been MY congressman for a decade, and I wouldn't trust him as far as he could pick me up and throw me, and I weigh 300 pounds.

                      If we could trust him to do the right thing, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, I'd be making phone calls for him.

                      Stop trying to elect Lieberman II in my home state, will ya?

                      •  The alternative at this point is Corker (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm sure he thanks you for your support and promotion of his campaign which is, in essence, exactly what you are doing.

                        While you're at it, get the campaign going to unseat Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Ken Salazar, and others who are far more to the right than Ford and vote party-line 99% of the time.

                        If you want a better Democrat for Senator in Tennessee, the primary was the time.  Ford won the Democratic nomination and he is now who this community should be supporting across the board.   It's now time to elect Harold Ford unless you'd rather have Corker.  It's that simple.

                        As for your home state?  I don't care what state a senator represents when it comes to achieving a majority.  Every senator is a representative of this entire nation as the GOP congress has shown.  So spare me your advocacy for Corker.   I'd rather have a Democrat elected.   Don't like Ford?   Elect someone in the Democratic primary next time that you like better.   I bet a more liberal candidate would get TROUNCED in TN.  

                        Of course, principle over electoral victory and majority is more important to some people.

                        Fight the Foley Five!

                        Send these GOP Child Sex Predator Enablers packin on November 7th!

                        by tlh lib on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:25:21 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The primary didn't happen in TN (0+ / 0-)

                          Ford's only major opponent was pushed out by Schumer.

                          Of course, principle over electoral victory and majority is more important to some people.

                          Damn right it is. The ends never justify the means.

                          (-5.88, -6.46) Democracy is what happens between elections.

                          by autoegocrat on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:09:21 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  not in the Senate (0+ / 0-)

                      It is true that in the House, the majority rules.  With an iron fist.  

                      In the Senate, however, 51 seats does not bring operational control.  Not even a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats brings complete control, as any single Senator has the power to extend debate or put an anonymous hold on legislation.  

                      In other words, a one-vote margin in which the one vote is a DINO does not do us a whole hell of a lot of good, and has the potential to do great damage, as former Majority Leader Tom Daschle discovered in 2002.

                      •  and that's why the Republicans have controlled (0+ / 0-)

                        everything that this Senate has done, from debate to votes to control of committees for 4 years now?  because a small majority doesn't give complete control to the senate?   good thing for that or we'd have had a helluva lot of right wing garbage passed by the gop senate and hardly any Democrats would even be able to bring a debate to the floor.

                        oh wait.

                        Fight the Foley Five!

                        Send these GOP Child Sex Predator Enablers packin on November 7th!

                        by tlh lib on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 10:04:18 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Come On (7+ / 0-)

                Your comments and name-calling are way over the line.  There is nothing in the post to which you originally responded urging others not to donate to Ford; all norahc said is that she(?) will not donate her personal money to Ford because he is fanning the flames of bigotry and discrimination.  It is, to state the obvious, norahc's right to choose where her money goes.  Yet, for that, you feel entitled to call her an asshole?  Why don't you go back and read the original post, and explain how she is urging others to withhold funds from Ford?  Have we now gotten to the point that merely explaining the personal choice that one has made is deemed to be urging others to make the same choice, which in turn entitles you to come along and label the person an asshole?  Are all Democrats who make a different choice than you made about where to donate funds automatically assholes?

                The substance of your point is one that has been stated here frequently over the years, namely that we need not care how odious a candidate is if he/she will give us a majority in the Senate/House.  Kos himself trumpeted the candidacy of Stephanie Herseth under this very rationale, arguing that "she will vote for a Speaker Pelosi," and that's all that matters.  I find that thinking to be specious and extraordinarily simplistic.  How far are you willing to take it?  What if a Democratic candidate were to advocate a ban on interracial marriage, a return to Jim Crow, or some similarly asinine position?  Would you simply say "oh well, the person will give us a majority, so I'm going to donate my time and money to help this person win?"  Is there no limit to what we will tolerate in the name of getting a majority?  Is there no position that a candidate could take that is so awful that you would feel hard-pressed to fork over your hard-earned cash to that person?

                And what happens if we disregard our disgust and work hard toward electing a bunch of racists, homophobes, torture-lovers, and other despicable characters who happen to have a "D" after their names?  Just because we would have a majority and control the agenda doesn't mean that we're going to have their votes, does it?  Look at Herseth, who was falling all over herself to support torture by King George.  

                Nobody wants a Democratic majority more than I do, and nobody more clearly sees the danger of continuing Republican control.  For that reason, I would certainly urge folks in TN to hold their noses and vote for Ford, and I definitely do not advocate that we collectively should abandon him (financially or otherwise).  At the same time, I think his bigotry puts many people in a real moral dilemma about whether to lend their financial support to him -- a dilemma that cannot be blithely dismissed by simply noting that he could give us a majority.  This is a difficult and deeply personal issue, and those who feel that their consciences will not allow them to donate money to a bigoted candidate are no more assholes than are those who hold their noses and donate.  

                •  hear hear (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SVDem, LeftOverAmerica, norahc

                  Thanks for returning some thoughtfulness to this thread.

                  Because for Zen surrealism, you can't beat living in the Bible Belt...

                  by salvador dalai llama on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 09:36:33 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Thank you very much (0+ / 0-)

                  One small correction if I may, I am very much a he.  The name norahc comes from the reverse of charon, I am a biotechnology major in school and hope to use this to restore life where possible.  Again thanks and peace

                  trying to thing of something new - watch here for results

                  by norahc on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 10:01:14 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My apologies... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    norahc

                    and duly noted.

                    •  no apologies needed (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      SVDem

                      it is awfully hard to tell from a computer screen.  Again, thanks for the well reasoned post above.  I think we all are looking foward to a nice long nap (16 hours would suit me fine) Nov 8th.

                      trying to thing of something new - watch here for results

                      by norahc on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 10:14:18 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

                        It is often hard to tell, and I hate repeatedly having to do the "he or she," "his or her," etc. thing...

                        Anyway, thank you for all of the hard work that you have done -- and are doing -- on behalf of Democratic candidates.  I saw the other comment you posted here in which you mentioned that you are still in college; it gives me great comfort to know that young folks like you are out there working to reclaim our country.  Keep up the great work!

              •  I could give a shit who you support. (0+ / 0-)

                How does THAT sound?

                Hillary cannot be swiftboated because everything is already known about her, unlike anyone else who is running. Hillary for President 2008!

                by HillaryGuy on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:06:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  BTW (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SVDem, theran, YucatanMan, MO Blue, sadpanda

            I like and appreciate your comments normally, You often have wise things to say.  I will forgive you for you comments about me, and I advise you to take a nap. You are getting inappropiate and grumpy at people that deserve much better.

            trying to thing of something new - watch here for results

            by norahc on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:18:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And as I said (6+ / 0-)

              I will not donate money to Ford.  I will match you dollar for dollar in a donation to a candidate of my choice (Lamont or the Progressive patriots fund, your call) up to $100 (I am a college student after all) With any donation you make today to a candidate of your choice.  There is plenty of work to be done in the morning, we can both be better using our time and money than arguing with each other.  I have to tommorow, work a table at the UWRF student center, prepare a GOTV mailing, work with the Student Newspaper to be sure that registration information for students appears in the paper, help my local assembly candidate with his literature and ad buys, and prepare a 1 hour radio show for broadcast Friday at 5pm.
              you can listen to my radio show streaming tommorow through this link
              http://www.uwrf.edu/...

              Again, peace

              trying to thing of something new - watch here for results

              by norahc on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:28:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  send me an email at the address (0+ / 0-)

                in my profile explaining exactly why you will not support Ford....

                i have nothing left to give really but i'll pull what i can out, i've gotta look at my check tomorrow to see.....i'm livin week to week and have to see what my last donation will be....

                if you make the case then i'll take you up on it.   i don't see your case made at all.   i'll check my email tomorrow.   if you don't make your case for not supporting ford and thus supporting us not taking the senate .... which is what you propose..... then there are others where my tiny donation will go to.

                good night.  thanks for your engagement.

                Fight the Foley Five!

                Send these GOP Child Sex Predator Enablers packin on November 7th!

                by tlh lib on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:55:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Honestly, and others have said it, (4+ / 0-)

                  I don't get what has you all riled up, tlh lib. Let's go by what Granny said in her diary the other day (sorry, Grandma, I forgot your screen name):  try to be kind and understanding to each other while focusing our FURY on the Freaking Republicans.  A lot of time was wasted in this thread on fussing between two hard working Democrats.  That is a distraction we do not need.

          •  "Progressive majority" without progressives??? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sjs1959, norahc

            How can you get your "progressive majority" if we elect people who are not progressives?  

            Just because someone is a Democrat doesn't mean he should be considered "progressive" - and electing non-progressive dems does nothing to create a "progressive majority"

      •  Just another stooge (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sjs1959, HillaryGuy

        planted by a Democratic candidate. Kerry's got 'em in here, too. Screw the lying Ford and the Military Commissions Act he road in on...

        Talk to the Republican-Voting Chickenhawks who will not serve. Shame them in public.

        by LandSurveyor on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:56:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm nobodies stooge... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gkn

          ... and the only realistic alternative for a candidate wishing to be elected statewide in Tennessee is to run far far away from gay marriage.  

          You can have an anti-gay marriage Democrat or an anti-gay marriage Republican.  It's really that simple.  

          And the perceptioin is what matters.  Of course New Jersey isn't in Tennessee.  And equal rights are different from gay marriage.  In the campaign, the reality matters far less than the perception.

          So do you want a Democratic majority in the Senate or not?

          The grass is greener where it's watered.

          by decon on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:59:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I see a lot of cynicism from people in the middle (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gkn

            Because they claim that Democrats won't be any different from Republicans.

            And they're right.

            There's no difference between a red elephant and a blue elephant.

            Somebody really needs to tell the White House that "1984" is a cautionary tale, not a political guidebook.

            by jabbausaf on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:51:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's not "the middle" (0+ / 0-)

              Nobody here is "the middle". People who impose litmus tests for the left are the mirror image of the Club for Growth on the right.

              (-2.38, -3.28) Independent thinker

              by TrueBlueDem on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:48:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wasn't talking about anybody here (0+ / 0-)

                I was talking about the people I know in real life who aren't dedicated politicos, devoted to either R or D. The voter dissatisfaction isn't just with the Republicans, it's with the Democrats. While that favors the incumbents, the Democrats would be pretty stupid not to realized that the average man or woman on the street doesn't see much of a difference.

                Somebody really needs to tell the White House that "1984" is a cautionary tale, not a political guidebook.

                by jabbausaf on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 11:58:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Ah, (0+ / 0-)

            the old "politically expedient" argument.

            I'd love to know who you tell if he's just taking the politically expedient line?

          •  you almost sounded reasonable (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HillaryGuy

            And then you let loose with this dandy:

            And equal rights are different from gay marriage.  

            Um, no, marriage rights are part of the package of freedom.  Can't just cut that part out because you have a problem with it.

            •  i don't ... (0+ / 0-)

              ... have a problem with it.  About 70% of the electorate in Tennessee does.  And they aren't going to change their minds in the next two weeks.

              The grass is greener where it's watered.

              by decon on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 11:36:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                You said in your own post "equal rights are different from gay marriage".  

                First, that's not true.  I pointed that out upthread, and you sidestepped my point with a political argument.  

                Second, that you can't see the relationship is indicative that in fact, you do have a problem with it.  If you didn't have a problem with gay marriage, why try to assert a false distinction that only serves to undermine it?

                •  asdf (0+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hidden by:
                  Big River Bandido

                  Equal rights for non-married couples is not equivelent to marriage.  If you wish to believe it is, and if you wish to accuse everyone who doesn't share that perspective of homophobia, go right ahead.  But don't be shocked when some of them, like myself, tell you to go fuck yourself.

                  The grass is greener where it's watered.

                  by decon on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:41:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Pretzel Logic (0+ / 0-)

                    Using the fact that gay people cannot legally marry as justification for why they should not be allowed to.  Pretty clever, but I'm not fooled.  I have enough experience with homophobes to know the language when I hear it.

                    And I would be perfectly justified in troll-rating your Cheneyism toward me, but with all the good news we've been hearing about our Democratic Party, I'm in too good of a mood, so I'll hold off for now.  It may take a few more years, but my side will eventually win this debate.

                    •  go fuck yourself (0+ / 1-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Hidden by:
                      Big River Bandido

                      ... you fucking homophobe.  Only a homophobe would so carelessly try to make enemies out of friends.

                      And I just bet you are a lying SOB that can't troll rate me because you aren't a TU.  
                       

                      The grass is greener where it's watered.

                      by decon on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:40:12 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  you just jumped the shark (0+ / 0-)

                        Let's parse that post of yours:  

                        ... you fucking homophobe.

                        I'm as queer as a three-dollar bill, thank you very much.  A cursory review of even my recent comment history would likely indicate that.

                        Only a homophobe would so carelessly try to make enemies out of friends.

                        Friends???  Let's see...you just spent several posts insulting my intelligence and telling me to go Cheney myself...apparently because I express disdain for a politician who is willing to sell out my civil rights so that he can get elected.  And that's two days after the same politician whips up progressive outrage over a race-baiting campaign commercial.  This is how he expresses his gratitude?  This is how he tries to strengthen the Democratic coalition?  And I'm supposed to think of him, and you, as a "friend"? And assume responsibility for converting you into an "enemy"?  

                        Good Lord, just where did you find that high horse?  

                        And I just bet you are a lying SOB that can't troll rate me because you aren't a TU.  

                        Well, you're 1/3 right on that.  I can't prove that I'm not an SOB.

      •  How is oppositon to equal protection (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sjs1959, d7000

        under law a religious political position? If a religion fosters impermisible discrimination - it can hardly be called a moral stance.

        "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

        by bobdevo on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 04:54:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I am religious (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sjs1959

        and I am disgusted with Ford's point of view.  I would be perfectly happy if the sign said IRNNA, Ignorant religious need not apply.

      •  ahh that victim mentality (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sjs1959, mik, gkn, esquimaux, chgriffen, boltgirl

        "oh no us poor religious people!  nobody loves us!"

        yes, how can anyone practice their religion anywhere  when the possibility exists that two men or two women might live together happilly with some level of legal protection?  

        you don't believe in Civil Rights and equality of opportunity?  that's your choice, I guess.  but you can't expect someone like Kos to not say something about this shameless pandering and wrong-headed logic.  gay marriage is not "the Democratic non-negotiable" - its been plenty negotiated, you obviously aren't paying much attention.  but watching someone comment on matters out of state that have no bearing on their own standing in their own state in a way that cuts down fellow Democrats' belief in equality under the law, Ford can expect to get some negative feedback, and he deserves it.  and yeah, I dont' really want this guy in there as a Dem. if he can't / won't support this obvious and inevitable societal development.  loser.

        just be thankful for what you've got

        by itsbenj on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:34:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Rather (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SVDem, sjs1959, HillaryGuy, MissPilkington

        Hang out a sign -- at least in Tenn -- that reads:

        Democratic Party: It's not about equality anymore, it's about winning. Hell, it's not even about Tennessee anymore.

      •  Religious? Gay Marriage Is Bad, Torture Is Good (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sjs1959, HillaryGuy, esquimaux, MNW

        Yep, that type of religion is definitely needed in the party.

      •  Could someone review the Troll Rating requirement (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        decon, InsultComicDog

        The comment by Persective is a shot against a perceived "anti-religion" bias on the site.

        Its an opinion NOT fact.

        It was a little snarky but we have to have thicker skin than that.

        This isn't even in the troll rating ballpark.

        Think about it before you abuse the system.

        And while you're at it could someone track down that jackass that troll rated my comment yesterday that the democrats would ONLY win a net 6 governor, 10-12 House, and 4 senate seats. I sure he was pissed that I said only a couple of state legislatures would flip to the democrats too and we would make gains in statwewide races nationwide too. And why shouldn't I be banned for suggesting that Dean's 50-state strategy will pay even bigger benefits in 08 and beyond if we're patient.......

        Cripes.

      •  everyone who troll rated perspective's comment... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sui Juris, InsultComicDog

        ... is abusing troll ratings.  

        I could give a shit less about getting troll rated myself.  But I'm passionate about free speech, and ya'll are all way out of line.  

        The grass is greener where it's watered.

        by decon on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:54:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The decision does not mandate gay marriage. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IseFire, sjs1959, YucatanMan, gkn

        It mandates EQUAL PROTECTION.

        Can you see the difference?

      •  Amen! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueDem, palmaresguy

        It's an attitude like this that will provide the death knell for a Democratic majority.  I can just see myself telling stories to my children someday about how there once was a national Democratic Party:
            "Son, many years ago, there used to be a political party called the Democrats.  We stood for working families, the poor, a smart national security policy, and civil liberties.  But then, some people in the party disagreed that marriage, an institution that has only been between a man and a woman since time immemorial, should be extended to include two men or two women, all in the name of 'progress.'  The battle was epic, and ended abruptly when the preachers of tolerance and political correctness retreated to their urban bastions and left the dissenting Democrats to fend for themselves in the nation's Republican suburban and urban enclaves.  Now, you won't find a Democrat in these parts.  Maybe someday I'll take you to New York or Boston so you can see one.  Perhaps we'll even go to San Francisco where you can meet Kos, the man who helped fuel this diviseness within the party."

        Twelve days away from the election, and we're whining about a candidate who can help us retake the Senate?!  We should be on the offensive against the Republicans, not forming a circular firing squad on each other.

        •  Nobody can see what it feels like unless (6+ / 0-)

          they're in the situation.
          I don't have health insurance because my bf's company doesnt give it to domestic partners.  Do you know how it feels to be singled out as "unfit"? You bastards who have never even felt the slightest discrimination pooh-pooh it like its nothing, but this is real life god damn it.

          •  How Dare You (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TrueBlueDem

            You better believe that I've been subjected to discrimination.  How dare you infer otherwise and call me a 'bastard.'  

            You've been discriminated against because your boyfriend's company wouldn't give YOU health insurance?  Try being a different race.  If your 'discrimination' amounts to having to pay for your own health insurance, then I wish I was in your position.

            •  So you tell me you understand discrimination (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sjs1959, HillaryGuy

              and yet you condone it?  You are a bastard then.

              •  Calm down (0+ / 0-)

                You simply cannot come to grips that a Democrat could possibly disagree with you, so you lash out rather than debate the issues.  Apparently, everyone is wrong but you.  

                The truth is, gay marriage has never been allowed in recorded history.  Granted, there are some who do not want gay marriage because they are just hateful people, but I guarantee you that the majority of people opposed to it are mindful that marriage has always been considered between a man and a woman.  Is this wrong?  Absolutely not.  Is it debatable?  Absolutely.  Instead of recognizing that educated minds may differ on this issue, you resort to shameless name-calling.  You're hurting your own cause by trying too hard to force change on society.  This turns off a great deal of people around the country who are open to hearing your arguments, but offended by your insistence on change.  Simply put, you can't just insist on changing thousands of years of tradition by calling everyone who doesn't agree with you derogatory names.

                I have to get back to work helping out these Southern Democrats you hate so much. If we win back the House and Senate, you should learn to respect their opinions, because Lord knows that we wouldn't have won without them.  

                •  Again, (0+ / 0-)

                  this is a patently false statement:

                  The truth is, gay marriage has never been allowed in recorded history.
                  ...
                  you can't just insist on changing thousands of years of tradition

                  As such, your argument is based on a lie.

                •  You just dont get it, do you... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  IseFire, fxdudeinmia

                  I dont care what you call it, but if I want to spend my life with someone and leave him my estate when I die, the government does not have the right to tax him any differently than they would another mans wife, due to the fact that we had the same kind of relationship.  Neither does a hospital have the right to not discuss his health care options with me.  Neither should I be denied any of the rights afforded anyone else who is actually married.

                  Instead gay people have to hire lawyers to make all kinds of documents that may or may not work, depending on the judge involved.  I cant file income tax like a married person.  There are hundreds, literally hundreds of laws that are applicable.  But because you want to accomodate religion(superstition in my view)you accept this kind of discrimination.  Would you accept it for a black man. Hispanic man?  Asian Man?  Would you accept it for any other class of person other than a gay man?

                  •  And, god damn it... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    IseFire

                    Remember, slavery was considered acceptable by the BIBLE, and wasnt considered unacceptable until recently.  If you want to say we can't just throw out thousands of years of tradition just look at what we did with slavery.  Exactly that!!!!!

                    •  FUCKIN A WELL TOLD, BRO!!! (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      IseFire

                      I am a gay gay who is happily married in Massachusetts.  I'd like to see what that motherfucker would say if Zell Miller was the nominee someday.  He'd probably say, "well, he hates blacks and gays, but hey, at least he's a Dem!!!"

                      Fuck that guy.

                      Hillary cannot be swiftboated because everything is already known about her, unlike anyone else who is running. Hillary for President 2008!

                      by HillaryGuy on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:23:59 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  I think you misunderstood me (0+ / 0-)

                    Sorry for taking so long to reply, I was volunteering on a campaign.

                    Anyway, I know where you're coming from brother, but I still have to respectfully disagree.  It is still my contention that reasonable minds can differ on the gay marriage argument.  Personally, if two people are in love with each other, then I wish them the best.  Nevertheless, I still believe that 'marriage,' in the traditional sense of the word, cannot support gay marriage.  This does not mean that a couple (gay or straight) should not be afforded visitation rights, joint tenancy, etc.  These rights can still be endowed without making the relationship a marriage per se.  This is why I favor civil unions.  It retains the legal rights afforded to heterosexual couples, without changing the traditional interpretation of marriage.  I'm sorry if you disagree with me or even hate me.  This is just how I feel, and it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs, even though you've taken a jab at that as well.  

                    I'm a minority.  I've been discriminated against.  I know that it hurts even if I have not experienced the same discrimination as you.  As for your statements about slavery and discrimination against other races, let me tell you this:  If there was incontrovertible scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic, I would gladly support gay marriage, because then it is beyond your control and deserves the greatest Constitutional protection.  Although there are studies with evidence that homosexuality is genetic, it has not yet been proven.

                    •  How can it not be genetic, Southern Blue Dog? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      IseFire

                      If there was incontrovertible scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic, I would gladly support gay marriage, because then it is beyond your control and deserves the greatest Constitutional protection.  Although there are studies with evidence that homosexuality is genetic, it has not yet been proven.

                      I can never understand the mentality behind this statement. Never, ever. As a gay person who suffered enormous mental anguish in my teens and 20s about being gay, you are just going to have to believe me when I  say I was born gay. Fortunately, I finally came to grips with my sexual orientation and dealt with it.  My life turned out okay.  I often thought it would be ruined because of my sexual orientation.

                      Please tell me why you believe someone would choose a certain sexual orientation when it can jeopardize everything in your life: your relationship with family and friends, your personal health and well being, your education, your career, your happiness?  I'm sure I'm leaving a few things out here.  Don't you realize how many gay teens commit suicide every year, and how statements like Harold Ford Jr.'s embolden  and empower the vicious homophobes in Tennesse and elsewhere?  If it weren't genetic, wouldn't it just be a better option to say ''oh I'll just be heterosexual instead" rather than commit suicide?

                      Also, please tell me exactly at what point in your life that you made the conscious decision to be heterosexual?

        •  Not a very good student of history, are you? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IseFire, sjs1959

          Nothing personal, but this statement:

          But then, some people in the party disagreed that marriage, an institution that has only been between a man and a woman since time immemorial, should be extended to include two men or two women, all in the name of 'progress.'

          shows a woeful ignorance of the history of "marriage."  Marriage in its current form only dates from the middle ages, if not much later than that. In fact, marriage between equal partners wasn't possible until after women gained the right to vote (and thus be viewed less as 'property' of the husband) until the 1900s.

          In FACT, partnerships - included blessed marriages were performed in the years with AD after them, including some within the Holy Roman Church.  Your ignorance - "since time immemorial" - is not an excuse for the endorsement of bigotry.  

          Let me close with a Biblical quote from "time immemorial":  "And David's love for Jonathan was great, passing that of women."  

          That's King David, btw.

          •  Au contraire (0+ / 0-)

            No matter what women's status in society was, there was still a marriage, and it was still between a man and a woman.  No matter how deplorable our male ancestors were in the treatment of women, the fact remains that marriage had one definition, and one definition only.

            I am still of the belief that reasonable minds can differ on this subject.  Disagreement does not make me a bigot, just like dissent does not make me unpatriotic.  Sometimes the more we criticize the other side, the more we become just like them.  'We often give our enemies the means of our own destruction.' ~ Aesop

            As for your King David quote, please don't insult my intelligence.  I'm far too used to Republicans taking immaterial or innocuous words/events and twisting them into wretched distortions.  Just look at what's happening to Arcuri up in NY-24.  One of his staffers accidentally dialed a phone sex line because the number was almost identical to a NY state criminal justice enforcement agency.  The GOP has been airing constant ads about that.  The same holds true here.  First of all, King David was still married.  Second, historical evidence points to the fact that King David was a sadistic SOB who unfortunately had no respect for women or his fellow man.  Your quote has nothing to do with marriage.

            •  No, you are wrong (0+ / 0-)

              Males were married to males. There was a specific ceremony outlined in the ancient Roman Catholic Church.  You are simply wrong and refuse to admit it. You base your statements on lies.

            •  Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (0+ / 0-)

              By John Boswell

              Diligently researched and documented, this immensely scholarly work covers everything from the "paired" saints of Perpetua and Felicitas and Serge and Bacchus to lesbian transvestites in Albania. Examining evidence that the early church celebrated a same-sex nuptial liturgy, Boswell compares both Christian same-sex unions to Christian heterosexual unions and non-Christian same-sex unions to non-Christian heterosexual unions. Appendixes contain, among other things, translations and transcriptions of cited documents. Whether or not minds are changed on the matter will probably fall along sectarian lines, according to current attitudes on homosexuality.

        •  your strawman argument won't work (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IseFire

          By the looks of it, you would have said the same thing about segregation to help keep a majority.

          Hillary cannot be swiftboated because everything is already known about her, unlike anyone else who is running. Hillary for President 2008!

          by HillaryGuy on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:20:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Since when is equal protection... (5+ / 0-)

        ... a "small tent?"

        It's one thing to be personally against gay marriage, but realize that being an American means accepting that laws should be applied to everyone equally, including those you may disagree with. That's fine. Welcome to the Democratic Party.

        It's another to be for taking rights away from people and sanctioning government based discrimination because they don't conform to your own personal world view. That's not fine. Welcome to the Republican Party.

      •  Crucifying Dems on the "Cross of Gay Marriage" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueDem

        I agree with Perspective and respectfully disagree with kos.  Gay marriage should not be the litmus test for progressive politics or for the Democratic Party. While I personally agree with the New Jersey Supreme Court, whose majority carefully and wisely drew a distinction between the rights of marriage and the right to marriage for committed same-sex couples, I accept that reasonable Democrats may disagree.

        Gay marriage is just not the political hill that I'm prepared to die on. The broader social and economic agenda of the Democratic Party is just too important for a single litmus test. To paraphrase the late William Jennings Bryan: "Do not press down upon the brow of progressives this crown of thorns. Do not crucify the Democratic Party on the cross of gay marriage."  

        •  KOS never said it was a litmus test (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IseFire, sjs1959

          He said he wants Ford to win, but he won't be torn up over his losing. If you want a guy to WIN, how is that a litmus test?

          Hysteria, thy name is fag-bashing....  Crucify the Democratic Party?  Holy batshit!  

          Gay marriage, i.e., Equal Rights under the law, is crucifixtion?

          Hysteria....
        •  So what you're saying is... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sjs1959, HillaryGuy, fxdudeinmia

          ...equality under the law and equal civil rights for gay people should not be and is not all that important to the Democratic party?

          If that's what you mean...then FUCK YOU!

          This is one gay Democrat that will just as easily stay home and not vote for anyone and change my affiliation to independent if you believe it's just and fair to deny my marriage the same equal rights as yours.

          I will just as easily stop giving money and time to Democratic candidates and the Democratic party...and save my money to move to another country where I'm respecting.

          It's people like you who so easily buy the Republican propaganda that make it more difficult for minorities to belong to "your" party. This issue isn't about marriage AT ALL. This issue is about civil rights. PERIOD. And until people like you figure that truth out, the Democratic party will continue to flounder in no-man's land...oblivious to reality and what matters in the world.

          Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear. - Ambrose Redmoon

          by MNW on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 10:01:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, what I'm saying is... (0+ / 0-)

            If staying home and leaving the government in the hands of the right serves your long-term interests as a gay person, then by all means do what you have to do.

            But you misstate my argument when you say "equality under the law and equal rights for gay people...is not all that important to the Democratic Party."  No, gay marriage is not all that important to the Democratic Party.  There is a difference.  The notion that gay marriage is synonymous with equal rights is of very recent vintage. Are issues such as the ability to serve in the military, freedom from employment and housing discrimination, and freedom from hate crimes now passe?  Have these rights been secured? Should those who support you on those issues be told to fuck themselves because they don't support you on the other?

            In politics, as in most things, the good should not be the enemy of the perfect.

            •  The notion? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sjs1959, HillaryGuy

              The notion that gay marriage is synonymous with equal rights is of very recent vintage.

              I am married.

              I am married in my heart.
              I am married in the eyes of my church.
              I am married in the eyes of my God.

              I AM MARRIED.

              What rational argument can you provide for the government to deny my marriage the same legal recognition that everyone elses marriage receives?

              This issue is not about marriage. It never has been and it never will be.

              This issue is about civil rights and having the government and the law treat everyone equally.

              If the legal recognition of my marriage is not important to the Democratic party, then there's no reason to give a damn about the Democratic party or this country. But, I don't think that's true about the Democratic party...I think it's true for ignorant people like you.

              Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear. - Ambrose Redmoon

              by MNW on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 11:18:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Clearly, (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IseFire, sjs1959, HillaryGuy, MNW, fxdudeinmia

        we fags need not apply, either.

        Yet another justification for why so many of my friends are in-process with their immigration papers for Canada.  Clearly we are not welcome in this country, despite places like MA & NJ.

        Eminem? Yeah. He's hot. I'd do him.

        by aggieric on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:28:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Are you saying that religion makes you a bigot? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fxdudeinmia

        One must oppose equality to be religious?

      •  RNNA? I think not! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IseFire

        Unless by "Religious" you mean "Socially Conservative (and maybe Religous)."

        Seriously - by no means do all religious people and denominations believe that marriage equality is a bad thing.  Several significant Christian denominations have been performing "Union services" for decades.

        IMO, it is too bad that Ford didn't see fit to distinguish between Civil Rights and Religious Rites, especially given how carefully the NJ court articulated their position.  Instead he jumped right into another state's deliberations without any evidence that he understands what is going on.  Sad - but still better him than a 'pub with the same lack of understanding.

        Never wear your best trousers when you go out to fight for freedom and truth. -- Henrik Ibsen

        by mik on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 09:41:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, Hang Out A Sign (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HillaryGuy, fxdudeinmia

        Keep your state politics home.

        Those states that don't support equal protection for all should not be visited by people who do.  I will not be spending money in Tennessee anytime soon.

        Click here to educate New York voters. John Sweeney

        by tikkun on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 09:49:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  bullshit (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IseFire

        I'm religious. Very much so.

        and gay

        How amazingly ignorant to think that opposing gay marriage is 'religious'

        tell that to the UCC, Episcopals, millions of mainstream Christians, a lot of Buddhist and a bunch of other RELIGIOUS people.

      •  There is no excuse for troll rating his comment (0+ / 0-)

        The troll rating is not for expressing disagreement, it's for marking troll comments.

        His comment is not trollish ... it's a legitimate point of view that I happen to agree with.  Yes, Ford is no liberal.  He's wrong on a bunch of issues.  But it's fucking Tennessee.  He's in for the fight of his life, and even with his moderate stances on social issues he's getting hammered as a "liberal."  You can't expect a Tennessee candidate like Ford to vote like Barbara Boxer or Charlie Rangel.

        A vote for Ford is a vote for Harry Reid.  Attacking our own candidate, who happens to be a great candidate in a tough race, is counterproductive and stupid.  I expected better from Markos and the dKos community.

        •  Ford could have shut up. (0+ / 0-)

          Instead he attacked me and MY marriage.  For that, he can fuck off and fuck his senate race.

          If he still loses, then what did attacking gays like me get him?

          Hillary cannot be swiftboated because everything is already known about her, unlike anyone else who is running. Hillary for President 2008!

          by HillaryGuy on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:31:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Good for Ford (0+ / 0-)
        I just sent him $50. I don't know any Dem politicians that favor gay marriage. It's a loser issue. If the Dem party wants to start winning elections consistently again, they've got to get away from these East-West coast cultural issues...gay marriage, no or few restrictions restrictions on abortion, gun control, etc. Stick to economic and national security issues. Get the hell away from these loser social, cultural issues.
      •  Good for Ford (0+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:
        Rita in DC
        I just sent him $50. Gay marriage is a loser issue and Ford knows it. The American public dosn't want it. I don't know of one Dem politician that supports it. If the Dem party wants to win consistently again it has to get away from these East-West cost cultural issues. They're killing us. Gay marriage, little or no restrictions on abortion, gun control, etc. These are loser issues. Get back to core issues...the economy, national security. Lose the social, cultural issues that have been costing us for over 30 years.
    •  Call it a preemptive strike (32+ / 0-)

      It's a totally different ball game for Democrats in deep red states. I'm in Georgia and even here conservative Democrats are painted with a broad brush by the Republicans as being for gay marriage even though some of them are not. The level of demonization here cannot be understood by some of you folks in blue states.

      It's very, very easy to criticize Ford. Ford is working hard to appeal to rural, traditional Republicans. This pre-emptive statement from Ford is smart politics as the ruling comes from a typical blue "librul" state. Deep down, Ford is nothing like what Kos and others here are making him out to be.

      Katherine Harris. "That gal knows how to shake a possum," the auctioneer drawled.

      by blueday on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:35:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sick of excuses for ignorance that teems (26+ / 0-)

        in red states.  Ugly is as ugly does. Red states are full of ugly people.

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein

        by dkmich on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:05:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why can't Ford keep his mouth shut? (41+ / 0-)
          This decision really has nothing to do with his race...nothing at all.

          It's hard to share a party with an idiot like this who clearly doesn't care about equal rights. How would he feel were he the one being discriminated against? Not very good, I'm sure!

          It takes courage to stand up to fear and bigotry. Dr. Martin Luther King and others have done it. Too bad Ford cannot.

          Even in red states, Democrats do not need to "move to the right" to win. We simply need to communicate with the electorate better. We need to convince them that Democrats agree with them more often than the GOP. A hard task, but something that must be done.

          •  Ford should have kept his mouth shut. (18+ / 0-)

            If asked, he could have done the old,  "I personally disapprove of ________, but I don't think the government should intrude on peoples private lives or be the one to make that decision. He reminds me of Obama. Obama is another one that is a complete waste as far as my values go.

            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein

            by dkmich on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:45:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What about interracial marriage? (26+ / 0-)

              The same bigots today who so vociferously oppose gay marriage are the same reactionaries who once opposed interracial marriage. Traces of this bigotry now inform a TV ad used against Ford, who obviously has both Black and White ancestors, and who is reminding me of the token Black preachers used by White fundie preachers campaigning for these anti-gay hate amendments around the country.

              I'd thus like to know if Ford opposes interracial marriage, which is one of my standard questions for right wingers (and those who cowtow to them) opposed to gay marriage.

              Stop bitching and start a revolution!

              by Randian on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:18:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Good question. (3+ / 0-)

                My guess is black/white is skin of his nose, so of course that would be wrong.  Gay, on the other hand, is no skin off his nose, so screw them.  It kind of goes with pander and self serving.  WYSIWYG

                "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein

                by dkmich on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:28:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Exactly (17+ / 0-)

                  "Support me when I'm attacked by bigots, support me when I launch a bigoted attack on others."  Nope.  Screw you.  You don't believe in equal rights for all Americans, and you of all people should know better.  I am done with you.

                  --- So, you voted for Bush...how's that working out for you?

                  by dspiewak2634 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:52:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My thought exactly! (11+ / 0-)

                    Why should we come running to his "rescue" over the bigoted campaign ads against him if he's simply going to turn around and be bigoted against another group of people? Does he not understand the very simple Universal principal that like attracts like? If he behaves like a bigot, then others will be bigoted against him.

                    I'm very grateful I don't live in TN. I wouldn't want to vote for him, even if there's a D by his name.

                    •  Short answer (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MJB, dkmich, gkn

                      Well, the short answer would be that even bigot are not "deserving" of being subject to bigotry.

                      But your larger point is taken.

                      Sure takes the wind out of your sales, stepping up for this guy on the basis of a minoroty rep'g 14% of the country so he can sell out a minority making up 10%.

                      Better than Corker, but when the chips are down, what can we count on from Ford?

                      I guess we take the better (not the supurlative "best") we can get.

                      Gotta concur with the folks upstream, though, why not just STFU?

                      It's a "partial repeal of the First Amendment" not a "flag burning" amendment.

                      by MRL on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:47:39 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  until they show that sexual orientation is "born" (1+ / 2-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gpm
                  Hidden by:
                  Voxbear, willers

                  which, by the way, they haven't proven yet, analogies between gays and african americans are invalid.

                  •  So, if no one's "born" with a preference, (5+ / 0-)

                    then ask these people how long they spent debating the merits of being gay or straight? How long did they "notice" members of both sex before they "chose" one? If they don't believe people are "born" with a sexual preference they must have had to consider both options as they reached sexual maturity before settling on a choice. Just remind them that by that logic boys and girls both looked good to them. And then they "chose" one.

                    Right.

                    The polls don't tell us how a candidate is doing; they tell us how the media is doing.

                    by Thumb on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:30:59 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not necessarily, but (0+ / 1-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Hidden by:
                      Big River Bandido

                      but attempt to analogize one group which was discriminated against by something they were inherently born with and cannot change vs. a group which is being discriminated against for things which they may or may not be born with (sexual orientation) and is something which they can, for all intents of purposes, "stop doing" (you can't stop being black, you can't stop being female, at least genetically, but you can stop homosexual behavior) is, in my view, a completely invalid analogy.

                      Now, if it is actually proven (well, to the extent that things like this can be proven) that it is in fact something they are "born" with, then that does change the equation.  However, you still have the issue that there is a difference between "being" gay and involving oneself in homosexual activity.

                      Hypothetically speaking is part of "being X" involved some sort of criminal activity, that wouldn't mean that we should automatically legalize that activity or else we're discriminating against X.

                      Gays hate it when pedophilia is brough up, but it is almost the perfect example of why homosexual behavior - and gay marriage - shouldn't be automatically protected, even if sexual orientation is born.  If it were shown that pedophilia was born, and "being a pedophile" includes going after little kida, I highly doubt anyone would argue that we should then legalize adults going after little kids because, after all, that's what pedophiles do and it's inborn!

                      That's not to say that homosexual behavior is anywhere near the same level of pedophila.  The point is that behaviors that are a part of "being" any group are not and should not be automatically protected.

                      •  can't light-skinned . . (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Thumb, sjs1959

                        can't light-skinned people "pass" as white?

                        in that sense, isn't it in some sense a "choice"?

                        Is Derek Jeter "black?"
                        Is Jason Kidd "black?"
                        Is Mariah Carey "black?"

                        If so, why?  And who decides?

                        Whis is a kid who has a white parent and a black parent "black" and not "white?"

                        Races is not as "immutable" as you suggest.  Arguably (at least on a macro level) it may even be more mutable than sexual orientation.

                        It's a "partial repeal of the First Amendment" not a "flag burning" amendment.

                        by MRL on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:00:03 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Even if I took what you said is true (0+ / 0-)

                          First, for the vast majority of people in today's society, there would be no question how they would be classified, so what you're bringing up is the exception, not the rule.

                          Second, Blacks were/are discriminated against solely for something which they have no control over - skin color.  Even if one has the ability to socially choose to be white or black, that still doesn't change your skin color, and doesn't change the fact that someone could still choose to discriminate against you for it.

                          There is no action or behavior that someone of a particular race has to partake in for discrimination to take place.

                          That isn't necessarily the case with gays.  If someone were "born" gay and someone was "born" straight, and they stood next to each other, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.  In that sense, people aren't being discriminated against because of sexual orientation because there is no way to identify it without a behavior.

                          However, behavior - gay sex for example - would not be confined to those who are "born" gay.  In fact, anyone, whether born gay or straight or bi could partake in those activities.  It is true that those who are gay are more likely to do so, but it is not an absolutist position by any stretch of the imagination.

                          Similarly, gay marriage is defined by the behavior of the participants and not the sexual orientation of the participants because, it is quite possible that someone who is born straight could be involved in a gay marriage, or vice versa.

                          Thus, in this sense, even if sexual orientation were genetic, gay marriage isn't strictly based on sexual orientation but on the sexual behavior of it's participants.

                          I'm not sure I would personally go this far, but I think it could be legitimately argued, then, that the definition of marriage is now reduced to the sexual behavior of the two people involved and that would, of course, beg the question whether that's what we would really want marriage to be.

                          Now, in judicial cases involving gay marriage, whether one believes that things like procreation provide a rational basis for restricting marriage is certainly up for debate.  Thus far most courts say that it is.

                          However, if gays were given protected status, it would be the first time that I'm aware of that a group would gain said status based on discrimination against it's behavior istead of some sort of unchangeable trait.

                          •  So i guess my question is still out there though? (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Thumb, IseFire, sjs1959

                            Derek Jeter -- black or white?
                            Jason Kidd -- black or white?
                            Mariah Carey -- black or white?

                            Identifying with a "black culture" for some is a "choice."

                            Gay people are discrminated against not because of what they do, but because of who they are.  As you even note, "straight" people can engage in "gay" sex, but they aren't discriminated for their conduct.

                            Also, how many effeminiate young boys are teased mercilessly for "being gay" regardless of their sexual orientation (even at ages when they don't yet have one)?

                            My point, which you are missing, is that the "choice" aspect is meaningless in terms of discrmination.

                            It's a "partial repeal of the First Amendment" not a "flag burning" amendment.

                            by MRL on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:27:43 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Couple more things (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sjs1959

                            Status v. Conduct - anti-gay discrimination is not based on concuct but on status, of "being gay" and only tangentially what it is presumed that gay people do sexually.  But a celibate, gay, teen is as subject to anti-gay hate as a sexually-active gay person.

                            Also, on the difficulty in changing what you term "immutable" characteristics, here's a question:

                            Would it be easier for you to appear black or to start fellating other men?

                            It's a "partial repeal of the First Amendment" not a "flag burning" amendment.

                            by MRL on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:38:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Apples to apples (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Thumb, fxdudeinmia

                            So you are saying that it is wrong to discriminate against people based on their natural traits, but it is ok to discriminate against behavior.  Ok, I am with you so far.  But let's continue your comparison of sexual orientation and race.

                            If it is ok to bad homosexual marriage, why is it not ok to ban black marriage?  As you say, marriage is an action, not something you are born with.  And while we are at it, what is wrong with banning black voting?   Again, voting is an action.  

                            Or maybe we could have laws that allow blacks the same legal rights as whites, as long as they don't "act black".  They have a choice when it comes to their clothing and dialects.  Blacks who "act white" could have access to marriage.

                            "it would be the first time that I'm aware of that a group would gain said status based on discrimination against it's behavior instead of some sort of unchangeable trait."

                            I suggest reading the US Constitution.  Protected status based on personal choices is right there in the First Amendment.  You may or may not like the idea of Catholics getting married, but their right to equality is part of our founding document.

                          •  Religion. Religion. Religion. is behavior (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sjs1959

                            not birth.

                        •  You mean, lightskinned like Ford? (0+ / 0-)

                          Yeah, nobody knows he's black at all.

                          It's the proto-fascism

                          by Inland on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:51:44 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Whine, whine, whine. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Thumb, YucatanMan, esquimaux

                        "This discrimination is worse than that discrimination!"

                        I, for one, am very tired of the homophobia coming from African American communities, especially with the wretched "You rights our not the same as our Civil Rights!"

                        It's gross.  And you win yourself no friends.

                      •  okay, one more time (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Thumb, TheCrimsonKid

                        Equating inborn sexual orientation with inborn tendency to pedophilia or other criminal behavior is fallacious because the standard is consent. Pedophiles cannot change their orientation, but acting on that orientation should never be sanctioned simply because children cannot consent to sexual activity with an adult. No more than you can consent to a kleptomaniac stealing your silver candlesticks. Consensual sexual relations between competent adults of the same gender causes no harm, and is in no way comparable to pedophilia.

                        It's an old, tired canard that doesn't come close to passing logical muster and is long past due for retirement. We hate it not because it contains any kernel of truth, but because it's an intellectually lazy banner that's gleefully waved by people without critical thinking skills in order to deny us full civil rights. Try again.

                        Iron bars do not a prison make--but they do approximate it fairly well. http://boltgirl.blogspot.com

                        by boltgirl on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:55:31 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  you know, FleetAdmiralJ (5+ / 0-)

                        I have read your posts and comments on this board for well over a year, and while we've had our disagreements, I was happy to let them go and believe in your sincerety and dedication to Democratic causes.  

                        But this comment of yours completely crosses the line and shows you to be ignorant, ugly and hateful.  I had to make sure my browser hadn't warped me over to Little Green Footballs.  

                        I don't know what your problem is with gay people, why you are so prejudiced.  But you ought to deal with it.  That kind of hate can easily destroy the one who holds it.

                      •  IT ISNT A BEHAVIOR (4+ / 0-)

                        I AM FUCKING GAY THIS VERY SECOND.  I DO NOT BECOME GAY GAY WHEN I TOUCH MY LOVER

                        Would you just admit the gays gross you out.

                      •  Nobody cared about blacks until they got "uppity" (7+ / 0-)

                        and nobody cared about gays until they got uppity.

                        And, by the way, you can't stop BEING homosexual just because you don't act on it. Are you only heterosexual on days you have sex?

                        ---

                        Now, I am going to try to say this without ranting. Homosexuality is likely innate. Pedophilia is likely innate. Schizophrenia is likely innate. Left-handedness is likely innate. How do we decide which of these we will outlaw and which we will allow as within the acceptable social norm?

                        I have always believed that my rights end when they infringe upon someone else's rights. Molesting children infringes on their rights. Schizophrenia can be dangerous to those around the afflicted person. Homosexuality just seems to bother people who find it "icky." I am tired of all the biblical excuses and the need to determine whether gays can "help it or not." People are grossed out and so they find any excuse in the book, so to speak, to discriminate.

                        The fact is, however, being and ACTING gay doesn't affect anyone's rights but those of the gay person. Civil rights are not a zero sum game -- we can give them to everyone and not lose a thing. Anything short of that is an excuse fueled by bigotry -- I don't care how well-meaning, politically savvy or godly you are.

                        Finally, when you say what you believe your audience wants to hear even though you may believe something else, that's PANDERING. It doesn't matter what your ulterior motive may be. It's no damn wonder that people see both parties as the same -- that they don't trust any politicians -- when both sides will say whatever it takes to get elected.

                        I'm done now.

                      •  OH this has got to be one of the (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        sjs1959, fxdudeinmia

                        most ignorant comments of all time.

                        "Being gay" is not 'behavior'. It is your Actual IDENTITY.  It is WHO YOU ARE.

                        My God.

                        Let's run your analogy against "Freedom of Religion":  Holy Rollers can stop rolling any time they want, so discrimination based on religion is OK.  Right?  It is just fine?

                        I think I agree: Religion should not be protected. It is not something you are born with (some groups aside). Religion is purely a personal choice. So, it is open season on discrimination for religious reasons.

                        Let's pass laws against Methodists. Or, hey, how about those "whole body dunking" Baptists?  Yeah, that's some perverse behavior right there:  Going all the way under for your baptism is just .. .just.. unnatural, that's what it is!  If God meant people to be baptized all the way under water, he would have given them gills!  Since we don't have gills, then baptism should just be a little sprinkle, sprinkle of Holy Water, just like ALL the Normal People Always Do.

                        oh man...

                  •  another religious right (6+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MRL, rick, sjs1959, YucatanMan, jfadden, esquimaux

                    point of view.  Where does this come from?  You think gay people chose to be gay?  
                    Analogies are valid, bigotry and discrimination is not  okay for either group.

                    •  its not a religious right point of view (0+ / 0-)

                      and funny to say that considering i'm agnostic.

                      It's purely a logical point of view.

                      Inborn unchangable characteristic (ie skin color) vs....what?

                      Even if sexual orientation is inborn, banning gay marriage is banning behavior - behavior that wouldn't even have to be confined to those who would be "born" being gay even if that were the case.

                      •  skin color is immutable? (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        sjs1959, MJB, willers

                        why do folks tan?  why do folks bleach their skin?

                        is Michael Jackson "black?"

                        If so, why?

                        It's a "partial repeal of the First Amendment" not a "flag burning" amendment.

                        by MRL on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:02:07 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Why "ban" behavior that harms no one? (6+ / 0-)

                        And that makes some people who engage in it happy?  Why is it any business of yours what goes on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their home?  If it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your nose, what business is it of yours?     Inborn or not, it's none of my business - or yours either.

                      •  you flip the nature of equal protection on its (6+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Rebecca, sjs1959, MJB, d7000, YucatanMan, esquimaux

                        head- rather than the majority having to prove that it has a right to discriminate against the minority, you require that the minority prove that it has a right that the majority agrees with by majority vote. a truly bizzare definition of the word

                        Fear is not a winning strategy.

                        by bruh1 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:57:47 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  That's the Antonin Scalia definition of "rights" (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          IseFire, sjs1959, YucatanMan

                          You have no rights today unless today's majority agrees that you do, and you have no rights tomorrow unless tomorrow's majority also agrees.

                          In that world, our children and their children -- and Harold Ford's children -- would still be attending segregated schools, and walking into public building through doors labeled "whites only" or "colored".

                          But Harold would be happy about that, because his little mind would be free of any worry about gays and lesbians getting married.

                          Q: Where does Brian Bilbray really live? A: Not in CA-50!

                          by MJB on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:22:52 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  the problem is that (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rebecca, IseFire, MJB

                            they, by they- I mean my fellow African Americans- to a large degree misunderstood the movement. For them it was about "their rights" rather than about larger principles of equality under the law. As a result, folks like Fleet what ever his racial background- today think of this as some kind of unique event the black civil rights movement rather than a confirmation of a larger principle of equality. Hence the idiotic discussion we are having about concepts such as equality under the law, which despite his description isn't always depend on immutable character (assuming his argument were true.).

                            Fear is not a winning strategy.

                            by bruh1 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 09:15:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Can I ask you something.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sjs1959

                            Blacks dont like gays is a concept many gays believe.  I have always thought it was cultural thing.  The "strong black man" macho thing.

                            But a few weeks ago I was reading comments on another board.  A pretty angry black man was ranting about Foley.

                            His premise was that young black boys were used as sex toys by closeted white owners and subjected to sexual abuse.  

                            I am wonder if this is indeed a seed of hatred that has been passed down thru the decades or just this one man's prejudice.

                          •  do a search of gay and blacki (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sjs1959

                            there was an excellent diary on the subject by terrencedc I believe- really its about in part the idea of black sexuality in general. what makes fords comments so particularly interesting is that he examplifies that on both accounts- the tenous nature of black men and sexuality.

                            Fear is not a winning strategy.

                            by bruh1 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 11:50:09 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Problem is thinking only majorities grant rights (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sjs1959

                            The problem with his idea is that he thinks majority rule trumps any civil rights or human rights that any of us have.  Marriage rights? Only if granted by majority vote, he says. Of course that means that interracial and interreligious marriage would never have been allowed unless first blessed by the legislature in every state. And it means that a lot of the rights that we take for granted in 2006 would not be on the books, because they would have been blocked if they had to go through the legislative process.

                            If it was up to the state legislatures, would you have the right to an attorney when charged with a crime? The right to be free from the police breaking down your door in the middle of the night? The right to free speech, or freedom to practice any religious faith you choose?
                             

                            Q: Where does Brian Bilbray really live? A: Not in CA-50!

                            by MJB on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 10:38:41 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  So your answer is "yes." You think it's a choice (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        chgriffen, boltgirl, fxdudeinmia

                        Are you heterosexual?  Did you make that choice?  Could you just as easily choose to be gay?  I have never met anyone who could honestly say that they think their sexuality is a totally arbitrary choice.  But somehow, they think that other people's sexuality is such a choice.  

                        AMAZING.  

                        And if it's not a choice, then how is it not immutable?

                      •  That's not the reason why race is different. (0+ / 0-)

                        Not that it is biologically immutable and preferences aren't.  Race itself is a social construct, even if skin color isn't.

                        Race is different because that discrimination based on that social construct managed to keep people enslaved for four hundred years and largely in peonage for another hundred.  Discrimination based on race was the law and the practice.  

                        One can draw analogies to racebased discrimination, but it's just an analogy. It's not the same. There simply is no other evil in America that comes close to the breadth and depth of racial discrimination, historically, geographically, morally.  There is nothing else that is quite so unfair yet quite so pervasive and quite so demanding of the attention of every american.

                        Therefore if I have to pick between our first post reconstruction black southern senator who is the subject of a racist campaign and some self destruction demand for purity, well.

                        It's the proto-fascism

                        by Inland on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:59:13 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Here is the fucking difference (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          sjs1959

                          If you are black and someone is prejudiced against blacks then they act up their predjudice the first time they encounter you.

                          Now imagine you have a co worker who is your buddy.  One day you say Oh BTW, I'm gay.  

                          Suddenly their entire demeanor changes and you are no longer thier buddy and they treat you like you have the plague.

                          Or if you are black now one is going to tell nigger jokes infront of you.  But as a gay, chances are you will be told a faggot joke sometime in your life.

                          •  That is a difference. (0+ / 0-)

                            What you are saying is that if you are gay, you have half a chance before being treated like the plague.  You might have all sorts of encounters where nobody knows, at least at first.

                            It's another reason why race is different.  

                             

                            It's the proto-fascism

                            by Inland on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 09:48:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm hoping (0+ / 0-)

                      that he's just explaining the likely legal/popular challenges to our position.  If he's doing that, he's absolutely right.

                      Otherwise...well, I'll keep my mouth shut.

                      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

                      by gkn on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:18:49 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  get out of (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MJB, michael1104, jfadden

                    the stone age

                    just be thankful for what you've got

                    by itsbenj on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:47:32 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Proof (6+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MJB, michael1104, jfadden, gkn, willers, boltgirl

                    They also have never "proven" that blacks aren't intellectually inferior...as it's almost impossible to "prove" anything. Does that mean we can still discriminate against them in job hiring?

                    Oh, and i'm sure animals learn to be gay from the liberal media too. yup.

                    •  well (0+ / 0-)

                      first off, the null hypothesis would be that they aren't inferior, so the burden would be on those who would want to prove that it is

                      second, being black is genetic.  is is unchangable.  This is a genetic and scientific fact.  Yet you're saying that we should just skip the scientific riggor part when claiming gays are "born" with it?

                      •  Being black is what? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        willers

                        Black is genetic?

                        Who says?  Are the bi-racial descendants of Thomas Jefferson "black" or "white"?  And why?

                        It's a "partial repeal of the First Amendment" not a "flag burning" amendment.

                        by MRL on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:03:26 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Indeed (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          sjs1959, gkn, esquimaux

                          At what blood percentage is one considered to be of a particular race? Is there some kind of test?

                          That makes two people I used to respect yesterday -- Ford and FleetAdmiralJ. Oh well.

                        •  being black is what? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MRL

                          well, I think in this case being black is one reason anyone takes Ford very seriously.  Its oddly enough an asset for him within the democrat tent, because its past time we saw someone leading us who wasnt an old white dude.
                           Then you have the typical biggots who only like whites, so for them its a negative, but who cares what they think anyways.  
                          I Do think Ford gets a bit of a free ride on his non-whiteness.  He needs to perform a bit, then we can decide if he is "amazing".  
                          His speech that everyone lauds as groundbreaking was pretty ho-hum for me.  Recycled memes of other peoples' speeches.  And the religousity of it in some places turned my stomach.  He helped pave the way for scalito (are we going to forget that now?  that was a HUGE impact on our country HUGE), and now he is coming down with a republican-liteness on gay rights.  And his support of that turd Joe Lieberman over a running democrat also kinda sucks.  That's a lotta negatives for a Freshman who just hit the scene.  I mean, what's next?  I dont expect great things from Ford at this point, given his record up to now.  I predict he will end up being a problem child for the democrats (of which I am a member) and end up flushed down the same toilet pipe as Lieberman.  Maybe he can go join the Lieberman party then.  We need a third party too, after all.  Might as well start with those two fuckwits.

                      •  Well gee.... (0+ / 0-)

                        When I was 6 I wanted to get it on with other little boys.  I didnt even know hwat gay was so I couldnt make a choice to engage in behaviors.  ALl I know is that I thought Billy Jack was to die for. I dont even know what behaviors we engage in,

                      •  Maybe you could just ASK THE FUCKING GAYS (0+ / 0-)

                        it doesnt really need scientific investigation.....  

                  •  How about until you prove to me otherwise . . . (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    d7000, willers, chgriffen

                    . . . we go with "I didn't choose a sexual orientation that subjects me to ridicule, ostracizaation, and sometimes, violence."  Seems that's the more logical way of looking at it, doesn't it?

                    Besides, Harold Ford is only "black" because of our social constructs -- that guy is as white (looking, sounding, etc. -- whatever that means, my own inherent prejudices confessed here) as anybody.

                    Its only because of left over racism that people like Derek Jeter, Mariah Carey, Harold Ford, Jr., Jason Kidd, etc. are deemed "black."

                    "Black" is not always just a skin tone, its also a social construct.  Some people have the ability to opt in or opt out of that.

                    So when is it that someone who can "pass as white" but "chooses" not to is the subject of our scorn for that choice?

                    Ironically, IMHO, there will come a time that "being black" will be more of a "choice" for people than being gay is, in your view.

                    It's a "partial repeal of the First Amendment" not a "flag burning" amendment.

                    by MRL on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:55:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  my other question would be . . (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gkn, willers, emsprater

                    . . . when did you "choose" to like girls instead of boys? (or vice versa).

                    It's a "partial repeal of the First Amendment" not a "flag burning" amendment.

                    by MRL on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:56:54 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That's a question ... (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MRL, gkn, willers, boltgirl

                      I always ask those who insist that being gay is a "choice".  Funny, none of them can ever relate when they were able to choose which sex they are attracted to.

                      . . when did you "choose" to like girls instead of boys? (or vice versa).

                      I always follow with if it is a choice, then they must at some time or another have been aroused by a member of the same sex and choose not to act on it.  They usually recoil in disgust, but most understand my reasoning.

                      I'm sick of America being covered by conservative crap

                      by emsprater on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:19:07 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  people aren't born (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    IseFire, sjs1959, chgriffen, boltgirl

                    christian or jewish yet we protect them. that logic is flawed in terms of what we require under equal protection. and yes outside of the excercise clause there are equal protection arguments for why faith is protected. its the same reasoning that made hardwick such a fucked up decision, and why less than 2 decades later the s ct had to do something it rarely does- reverse itself over the course of a short period of constitutional law time. all of your arguments are specious when it comes to concepts of equal protection. the job of the majority in such debates is to show harm, not just that they dont like it. the majority didnt like blacks- indeed, apparently the majority in TN maybe doesn't like blacks sleep with white women- that doesn't make it the morally right answer.

                    Fear is not a winning strategy.

                    by bruh1 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:54:50 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh. It's invalid because you say so. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TheCrimsonKid, boltgirl

                    Good.  I'm glad that's settled.  FAJ says that "analogies between gays and african americans are invalid" so it must be true.

                    There are lots of bases for an analogy between the two other than genetics:

                    • both have been the object of historic official discrimination (jim crow laws, criminalization of homosexual sex, failure to give equal legal rights and privileges to gay couples)
                    • both have been the object of historic social violence and ostracism (lynchings; gay bashing)
                    • there is good evidence that both are immutable
                    • both have been traditional victims of stereotyped assumptions and societal prejudice

                    Why are you in favor of discrimination anyway?? Why not just ask the government to treat people equally??  The only person who could possibly be against treating people equally is a bigot.

                  •  Geez.... (0+ / 0-)

                    Fleet's been a productive member here for a long time, but wtf was that about?

                    "I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

                    by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:18:45 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Silliness, those troll ratings. (0+ / 0-)

                    A troll is someone whose only purpose here is to disrupt.  I can't believe anyone who has been here long enough to be a TU thinks that of FAJ.

                    Please remember, there is a difference between being wrong and being a troll.

                    ----------------
                    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are always cocksure and the intelligent are always filled with doubt. -- Bertrand Russell

                    by gpm on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:22:54 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  ? (0+ / 0-)

                      So you're saying that since someone has been here for a while they'll never troll?

                      - Its time we stopped dealing in words, and started Dealing in Lead.

                      by walkingshark on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 11:06:11 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No. (0+ / 0-)

                        I am saying FleetAdmiralJ, who is a frequent and thoughtful contributor here, will never troll.

                        At no point did I suggest that users with low UIDs will not troll.  Please do not put words in my mouth.

                        ----------------
                        The trouble with the world is that the stupid are always cocksure and the intelligent are always filled with doubt. -- Bertrand Russell

                        by gpm on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 04:37:34 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Fuck you Fleet Admiral (0+ / 0-)

                    You fucking make me sick.  And fuck the military, too, because they discriminate against gay people.

                    How does that sound?

                    I don't give a fuck about what you think.  And neither does my legal husband up here in Massachusetts.

                    Hillary cannot be swiftboated because everything is already known about her, unlike anyone else who is running. Hillary for President 2008!

                    by HillaryGuy on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:36:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  keeping mouths shut (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MRL

                Reminds me of when Pelosi just had to speak up and say she wouldn't vote for Feingold's resolution to censure the prez. Like she even had a vote in the Senate.

                CO-04: Say no to bigots in Congress like Marilyn Musgrave.

                by OLinda on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:54:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Saying (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jlamkin, Moesse, J Royce

            nothing implies agreement. What I keep telling people is that politicians are followers not leaders. The gay community needs to be the one who convinces other southerners that equal protection is the right thing.

            I'm too disgusted right now to think of a sig.

            by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 04:17:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It has nothing to do with anyone's races (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Geekesque

            except when they take the position that agrees with yours.

          •  Yes it does! (0+ / 0-)

            What, do you think the residents of NC don't watch the news?... that they wouldn't extrapolate the gay marriage idea out to him?

            You folks have your blinders on so tight, you can't see straight.

            Thanks,

            Mike

          •  Coretta Scott King would have told Harold Ford Jr (0+ / 0-)

            that he is way out of line.  Pandering to people's base prejudices is disgraceful.  Period.  Now we know that Ford is just as bad as Corker and the RNC ads that are racebaiting TN voters.

            And, yeah I'm still hoping Ford wins because the Dems need this seat to control the Senate.  However, I have lost all respect for the man as of today.

        •  Ah ah ah!! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gkn

          Let's not be starting that again! And especially not now, so close to the election.

          Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Well, come on, doesn't anybody know!?!?

          by Erik the Red on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 04:07:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Back to the 18 state strategy. (6+ / 0-)

          Dems went to red states, saw who lived there, decided it best to voice disgust and leave.

          Ah, it's so peaceful here, because the truly conservative people can't reach into our blue states and hurt us, right?  Right?

          It's the proto-fascism

          by Inland on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:22:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I prefer the one state strategy (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sjs1959, fxdudeinmia

            It's called state's rights.  That way, I can stay in the northeast and not have southern christian morality forced on me to the sound of jackboots.

            All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. - Voltaire (-7.38, -5.49)

            by TheCrimsonKid on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 11:28:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yep, only in red states (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gkn, willers

          No ugly ignorant racists up North.  

          Once again - slamming the people of the south really doesn't help the cause.

          "Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle."

          by Phatty McButterpants on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:59:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Understood, but these are not "traditional" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kosophile

        Republicans, IMHO.

        They are bigots born of their local culture who happen to have been attracted to the racial bias magnetism of unscrupulous Republicans since reactions to the Civil Rights Act made this a political hot potato in the modern day.

        And Ford is apparently all for that dank, bygone aspect of the culture.  At least, in public.

        Hopefully, that's the dankest he gets.

        So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way.

        by wader on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:23:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely (21+ / 0-)

        Look, here's what it comes down to...do you want Ford to be in favor of gay marriage, or do you want him to win the election? You can't have it both ways. Ford is running in TN, not MA or CA.

        Ford has run a remarkably intelligent campaign to get to where he is today, and this is another good move on his part. By beating Corker to the issue, he not only gets free air time, but doesn't give Corker a chance to define Ford on the issue. I mean, where do you think Corker stands on this issue?

        I have liked how Ford has run his campaign so much that I have given some thought to voting early in LV and flying to Memphis (where I lived briefly in the 80s) to volunteer for him. By dissing him here, you're only helping him, you know.

        •  Remember how much this killed us in 2004 -- (4+ / 0-)

          at least enough to provide an explanation for all the late swings to Republican in states. "Values voters"... If that explanation is to be believed, gay rights is like our kryptonite in this election.

          If I were Ford, I'd be perfectly happy being tagged with the "flip flop" moniker if I could get in and change my mind later on.

          •  What late swings (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            IseFire, sjs1959, hhex65, gkn
            1. There were no late swings, according to the polls... Bush led consistently from Labor Day on.
            1. Why would gay marriage have caused a late shift, when key events happened in 11/03, 2/04, and 5/04?

            I don't deny that gay marriage was one of several issues that led people to support George W. Bush as a moral, conservative man who would save America from Arabs, but it well overstates the case to call it kryptonite or a silver bullet when it was one a of a series of issues that pushed people to vote Bush over Kerry.

            •  BS! Kerry was called by even Tucker Carlson. (5+ / 0-)

              It pisses me off to hear people judge this action when they have no clue about Tennessee.  If he gets in (and it is so hair-squeakingly tight right now) he can alter course.  Remember, it will only take six seats to win the senate.  

              With all the bashing he's taken and the deficit he started with vis a vis his family, he is performing brilliantly.  Once in, he can show principaled statesmanship and eradicate those deficits by his actions.  For now, let him get in there.  After all, by the RNC and Corker ads, he's painted as "the most liberal of all Tennessee's legislators".  Laughable, we know, but most voters aren't as savvy.

              I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: that all men are created equal.

              by Moesse on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 05:41:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  For what it's worth (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aquarius40, gkn

                First, I'm not criticizing Ford. Even being gay, I recognize the situation he is in and don't want gay marriage to be the issue that decides control of the Senate.

                Secondly, whether people predicted Kerry to win or not is different from whether there was a late swing to Bush, and whether that swing was caused by gay marriage. There's no evidence on either count. People thought Kerry would win in spite of polls showing Bush with a narrow lead because they predicted undecideds to swing to Kerry. What happened was that Bush's base turnout was beyond past models. This is a surprise on an Election Day, but only because it shows that predictive models were wrong. People made up their minds weeks before, and if gay marriage was involved, it wasn't a late factor.

          •  a myth (8+ / 0-)

            Lots of people talked about how "gay marriage" killed the Democrats.  It was like how "values voters" were considered to have turned the tide in Ohio, when about 19% of the electorate listed "values" as their primary concern.

            Do you want to believe spin or not?  

            •  when you only need to win by 0.1% (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LordMike, Clem Yeobright, Moesse

              19% is fucking huge.

              The Massachusetts SC decision on gay marriage had a small but critical impact on the election, because it galvanized the anti-gay marriage movement and boosted turnout amongst people sharing that view. It could credibly be called the difference in Ohio, especially given the voting booth shenanigans the GOP engaged in to suppress Democrat votes.

              You can call it spin or not, but turnout is the main thing that turns "likely voters" into "voters", and this will bring out the likely GOP vote in places where we were hoping we could win a close race. This effectively counteracts the effects of the Foley scandal.

              -7.75,-7.54; The road to hell is paved with Republicans!

              by erik in grayslake on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 04:53:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  When you need to win by 0.1% (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sjs1959, klayman, chgriffen

                ...then people concerned about Martian mind-rays penetrating our ozone layer are a critical factor.

                I'm not disputing your main point--that gay marriage was an issue in 2004--but just your logic. While the country as a whole shifted 3% to Bush, Ohio actually voted MORE Democratic than it had in 2000. If anything, Ohio is a case of us doing everything right, but the country moving against Democrats as a whole that year.

                Don't get me wrong. The fact is that gay marriage was an issue, as were several other issues that made people come together and support George Bush as the conservative, ordinary Christian man who would defend America from the Arabs. Abortion, gay marriage, gun control, Teresa Heinz Kerry, Iraq, and terrorism all played a part in building up support behind Bush. Massachusetts wasn't alone--certainly the specter of elected officials in CA, NM, and OR openly defying the law and issuing licenses made people feel like the system was out of control and Republicans could fix it.

                Since then, much has changed. Republicans ran on gay marriage and failed to deliver. Instead, values voters got Foley. Nothing has happened on abortion and the number of people who support Bush's Iraq policy and feel he has made them "safe" has dropped through the floor. Republicans can't yank one issue out of the past and use it in isolation to recreate their glory days.

                I think that people who took away one message from 2004--"gay marriage" did us in, everything else was going right--can't back yourselves up with the evidence and do our candidates and volunteers no service with the chicken little routine. "Neutralizes Foley"? Bullshit! You're looking for a scapegoat for any close race that doesn't go our way this year and now you've found one. Well, I won't have it.

              •  Also (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                IseFire, gkn, willers

                19% is people who voted on "values", not "gay marriage." Democrats get painted into that corner on a bunch of issues, foremost of them being abortion, but also prayer in schools, Kerry's perceived secularism, and guns.

              •  19% is less than 30% (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                IseFire

                which is the number of people who would vote for Bush if he crawled out of a grave with bloody fangs while holding a 7-year old girl with bite wounds on her neck.

                My point is that we know who these people are.  We know that they think that they represent American values.  They don't.  My other point is that "values" only got 19% (well, 22% actually) while many other issues together got 78%.  And the reason they got less than 22% was because "Iraq" was listed as one issue, "terrorism" was listed as another, etc.  Furthemore, "values voters" didn't vote as a bloc for Bush and most Americans don't really align their values with what Bush and the theocrats say "values" are.

                See herefor more.

          •  this was all (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            IseFire

            discredited shortly after the last election

            just be thankful for what you've got

            by itsbenj on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:49:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  NO! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            IseFire, willers

            Every analysis of the election, after the punditry died down, showed that VALUES were not the issues that drove people to the polls or to vote for bush. it was security. They didn't trust Kerry to keep them safe. It was very much "If he can't stand up to Bush, how can he stand up to XXXX."

        •  This was NOT a smart move by Junior. (10+ / 0-)

          Ford HAS to know that the activist wing of the Party - the progressives - are going to be pissed about this and he's handled it all wrong.  This is often the case when Ford has to thread the needle on issues that progressives hold dear; his knee-jerk reaction is to run right.  Always.

          What Ford should have done was to either:

          1.  Kept quiet about it.  Tennessee's local press corps isn't exactly the Times or the Guardian.  Even if someone did question him on it, he would easily have been able to shrug off a reporter; they wouldn't have pressed it.
          1.  Used the bully pulpit to go ahead and EDUCATE the public on the difference between gay marriage and civil unions.  A person with Junior's debating skills could easily have crafted a concise statement that allowed him to be against gay marriage and yet, simultaneously support the idea of equal rights under the law.  Even Tennesseans are capable of understanding (and supporting) that concept.  Despite what many people on Kos think, most Tennesseans are NOT racist homophobes.  Only the ones with the microphones and the money are.  And those people weren't voting for Ford no matter what.

          As one of the other posters said, Ford could easily have cited good examples of the rights issue using language from MLK Jr. and his own personal stories of discrimination.

          As usual, Ford's triangulation is going to hurt him.  Especially when liberals here - especially in Memphis - are fuming over the Jake Ford debacle.

          I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Corker is not going to beat Ford in this race - it will be Junior who does himself in.  It's moves like this that just prove it.

        •  I want Ford. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NickM, sjs1959, esquimaux, fxdudeinmia

          To keep his goddamn mouth shut about the issue.

          No one here expected Ford to come out in favor of gay marriage, or to run on it.  That's a false dichotomy.

          You do what other politicians have been saying: Pelosi, Granholm, even Barney Frank to an extent -- you say it is an issue that is distracting us from the main issues: the war, the economy, education, and healthcare.

          You don't have to cheerlead for it.  And, similarly, you don't have to keep it in the closet.  You make your point, move on, and hammer home with "Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, Healthcare, Healthcare, Healthcare."

          Ford took an historic ruling by the NJ Supreme Court and decided to piss on it to cater to a few of the "salt of the earth" people of rural Tennessee.  Not true.  Like most Americans, no. one. cares.  Does not affect Tennesse, is not happening in Tennessee.

          But that didn't stop Ford from finding an in to use the lives of gays and lesbians as a political tool.  Which is hurtful, naive, and just plain dumb.  It didn't need to be said to win, but he said it.

          So he can piss off.  No one expected rainbow confetti, but this was simply uncalled for.

      •  so if i am a Dem in what is called a red state (14+ / 0-)

        (and a red state refers to the results of a past election or past elections) i should do the following:

        support torture
        support the destruction of habeas corpus
        support the appointment of more judges like Scalia
        support economic policies that exacerbate the distance between rich and poor
        support policies that harm the environment for the economic advantage of a slender, priveleged sector of the population

        oh, and why we are at it, let's throw in, i, as a ' red state'  democrat, should oppose the election or appointment of any black person to any official position unless that black person is an extreme rightwinger, like Clarence Thomas.

        Gee.  And what would it mean, then, to be a Democrat?

        Human rights are human rights, and a state is only as red as its last election.  The Democratic Party kept a Solid South for decades by tolerating racism by its southern officeholders.  Had that entente not been broken, Harold Ford would not even have been able to run.

        Politics is not arithmetic. It's chemistry.

        by tamandua on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:36:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        baronzito, Longstaff, grzelakc

        Ford will be representing TN, not the US.  He needs to craft his message specific to his hillbilly state.
        Not only that, but I read on Dkos yesterday that 19% of TN blacks are supporting Corker, no doubt because of homophobia.

        •  STFU (17+ / 0-)

          with the "hillbilly state" stuff.  I live here, and I'm not a hillbilly.  Ford and Corker are running neck and neck, so clearly close to half the registered voters here responding to polls aren't hillbillys.

          Further, until 2004, Dems were in control of both houses of the state legislature.

          When you smear an entire state, you're smearing some of your fellow Kossacks.  The arrogance of some of the posters here is unbelievable.

          •  Well said. (5+ / 0-)

            After all, New Jersey (my home state) just refused to recognize gay marriage.  Please understand the majority opinion: they refused to allow gay marriage.  Both its Senators, may their souls know eternal torture, voted to abolish habeas corpus.  Filter out the rehtoric, and the results in NJ and TN would likely be the same.  Yes, TN is more conservative - which means that slightly more people in TN than NJ would support the more conservative of two options.  It does not mean the people are any less intelligent, caring or decent than the people of any other state.  That kind of thoughtless demonization is not only self-defeating but inimical to governing if in fact we take the majority.  We have to win voters over to our side, not repel them with insults.

            It is the folly of youth to think they can change the world; it is the folly of old age not to try. -- Winston Churchill

            by penguins4peace on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 05:48:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think that's accurate (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              penguins4peace

              The decision specified that there must be equal protection under the law, but that it doens't have to be called "marriage" - and left it to the Legislature to craft a law which supports the decision.  If the Legislature makes a law saying that gay marriage is legal, the decision doesn't prevent it, does it?

              just be thankful for what you've got

              by itsbenj on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:58:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, it doesn't (0+ / 0-)

                but the majority refused the plaintiffs' demand that it construe the marriage statute to encompass same-sex couples, leaving that to the legislature.  The minority would have granted the plaintiffs their relief and held that marriage is available to same-sex couples.

                It is the folly of youth to think they can change the world; it is the folly of old age not to try. -- Winston Churchill

                by penguins4peace on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:21:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you (7+ / 0-)

            I am so goddammed tired of this hillbilly mumbo-jumbo. I'm from Tennessee and am sick of it too.

            What the hell is it with all the Ford bashing around here? Is it because it's such a high profile race? There are plenty of dems running for election or re-election in other states who are much more conservative than Ford. Ford might not be the perfect dem candidate, but he's a damn sight better than Corker and the only choice we have right now.

            Every single solitary democrat in this country better start praying now that Ford wins this race. It just might mean the difference between taking back Congress and not taking back Congress.

            The world is weary of statesmen whom democracy has degraded into politicians.

            by JenD on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 05:57:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Very well said (2+ / 0-)

            The South bashing is getting very old.

            What, no fucking ziti?

            by quaoar on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:01:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  it was a poor choice of words on my part. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            autoegocrat

            I'm sorry.

        •  I am so sick of it (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ginatx, tabbycat in tenn, willers

          People who don't live here constantly insulting an entire state.  WTF are you trying to prove by calling everyone in TN a hillbilly?  I am so sick of those who sit comfortably in a blue state insulting the efforts of people in TN trying to get a Dem in the Senate.  Of course he's not perfect but STFU and worry about your own state.

          "Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle."

          by Phatty McButterpants on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:10:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And hell, even counties within states (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Phatty McButterpants

            I'm in a red rural county of California -- I get the same insults, and the Dems have been ignoring us too until about 6 months ago.

            I'm SO glad to see people here finally beginning to call out these disgusting, insulting, demeaning, condescending, dehumanizing and just plain WRONG steriotypes of "dumb hillbillies" in red and/or rural areas.

          •  a new yorker agrees (0+ / 0-)

            i think you make a very good point. too much painting with broad brush strokes on this forum, relative to state or regional identities. actually, i've complained about it from the other direction--sometimes i feel a real anti-NYC bias in comments on dKos, albeit it's very different from what you're getting at. it's as if NYC is synonymous with the DLC or "institutional"/"old school" Dem party, &/or as if everyone in NYC was a big rich donor with an Ivy League MBA. As a work-a-day NYCer who sees dedicated liberals here of all ages thanklessly volunteering at phone banks calling into not only NYS but all across the country while working very hard during the day and bearly making rent, etc., etc. I don't like that anti-NYC bias I find on dKos sometimes (not in this FrontPage post though, thankfully) So, even though I'm in a very different place geographically from you, I understand what you're saying, and I also think the broad attacks are out of line.

      •  If you think Ford is bad... (0+ / 0-)

        ...you should see his constituents.

        This is how it works in local or statewide politics.

      •  bull-fucking-shit (0+ / 0-)

        unless you're in his immediate family and have something to tell us, there is NO FUCKING REASON WHATSOEVER to assert ford is nothing like his every spoken hateful word on this subject.

        people like you, who tell these kind of lies trying to steal people's suppor and votes, mke me sick.

      •  Not just Red States, but those states (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theran, sjs1959, Benito

        that live in the thrall of Christian fascism.  For people who go around saying how much they love Jesus and love their neighbor so much, those people in the Christian fascist nation sure hate alot of shit.  Yeah, I know, we hate the sin, but love the sinner, but that's just another way of saying that we feel we have the right to regulate the way that you live.  The rampant hypocrisy of the of those who cloak their bigotry in guise of religion is stunning.

        And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

        by MrJersey on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 05:52:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The new Corker ad comes out and says Ford is for (0+ / 0-)

        gay marriage.  Ford needs to strike back and do what Kos and all you fools says he must do to not be swiftboated.  See, and when he does fight back hard YOU dont like it.  You are such hypocrites.

      •  It's quite obvious... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sjs1959, fxdudeinmia

        ...that you must be from one of those backwoods, ignorance-ridden red states.

        What Harold Ford, and people like you, are doing is falling into the Republican trap...again and again and again.

        The issue of gay marriage IS NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN an issue about marriage.

        It's a civil rights issue. PERIOD.

        What Harold Ford is saying is that he, like his Republican counterparts, does not believe that gay people should be treated by the law with the same respect as everyone else. Until Democrats, and IN PARTICULAR, Democrats in ignorance-ridden red states stand up and clarify that this is not an issue about marriage but an issue about civil rights and treating everyone with the same respect under the law, the issue will continue to plague Democrats, particularly those Democrats running for office in the heartland of ignorance and stupidity.

        Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear. - Ambrose Redmoon

        by MNW on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 10:07:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  name me the non-opportunistic politician (7+ / 0-)

      I dare you.  If you think there is a single Dem politician who wouldn't compromise their personal morality from time to time for political expedience you are dreaming.  Whether it's voting yes on anti-bill of rights legislation so they can get the 200 million for their district or state's highways or some other "political tap dance" you are living in a non-reality based world if you think most dem politicos are on a pedestal far above the likes of HFJr.

      Last I checked politics was a game of survival of the fittest not the "super nice people" brigade.  

      Tired of the lies? That makes 60% of us!

      by Bill O Rights on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:17:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Totally Disagree (13+ / 0-)

      The fine points of the decision are irrelevant to the Tennessee voters. This is political survival plain and simple and it's going to happen across the country.  Don't you think Dems everywhere are going to be asked this question?  I am surprised by Kos' post on this considering his numerous posts saying suck it up we have to deal with Dems that don't always agree.  Get Ford in the Senate first. Sure we would all like for the world to be accepting and for this to sweep the nation, but it's not going to happen in TN in the next 2 weeks.

      •  Bradnickel is dead on (12+ / 0-)

        Memphis dem here (transplanted from Ohio back in 1996).

        I share the frustration of all of you who are lashing out at Ford. His voting record (he's been my Congressman) has been distressingly conservative over the years.

        But, and this is as cynically realistic as I can get, he has always had his eye on a Senate run, and, given this state's extreme conservative leanings (particularly in the Eastern half (Knoxville and into the mountains) and his skin color, that voting record was cultivated to allow him to have a realistic run at the seat.

        That background is necessary to understand that statement from Ford. If he is to have ANY chance, ANY chance at all of upsetting Corker (forget the polls, if he wins, it's an upset), that is the kind of statement he has to make. It is simply the reality of Tennessee, unfortunately. I know that is hard for a lot of you to understand, but it is what it is.

        And, for me, and for a lot of us down here, holding our noses and voting for Ford and trying to get a dem majority in the Senate is more important in the short term than stressing over Ford pandering to the close-minded. In TN, the close-minded are a significant voting block, and you cannot win without them.

        Peace.

        •  Yep, and anyway... (5+ / 0-)

          as awful as the substance of his comments is, as Kos said, what happens in NJ is none of his business.  If Ford wins, he'll vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader.  And having Democrats in control of the Senate will be a step forward for gay rights, even if one of their number has to resort to homophobic rhetoric to get there.  That's the bottom line here.

          •  OMG NO (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sjs1959

            It doesn't matter if you have a majority, if when vote time comes on different issues, you have members afraid to stand with the majority. If we have a 1-2 seat majority, and a crazy right-winger gets appointed to the court, and the repugs can peel off 1-2, then what the fuck does it matter if Reid is leader???

            •  It does matter... (0+ / 0-)

              ...how many RINOs have voted against their principles in the past 6 years when presure was applied.

              Seriously, the left wing here is going off the deep end wanting to cut off their nose to spite their face!!

              Thanks,

              Mike

            •  Because (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ginatx

              When Reid is leader, these gay-bashing legislative initiatives will never make it to the Senate floor.  Also, when Reid is leader, Ted Kennedy will chair the Judiciary Committee.  So with the way the Senate works, you can prefer that Ford lose, and increase the chances that the Republicans will keep bringing these bullshit issues to the floor (and pave the way for any future Bush Supreme Court appointments) or you can hold your nose, prefer the homophobic Ford to the homophobic Corker, and get Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy into positions of greater authority.  That's the choice here.  Long-term we need to change attitudes in the South, but that ain't gonna happen in the next 12 days.

        •  Senator Nelson pisses me off weekly, but I am (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LordMike, tabbycat in tenn, willers

          sure as hell not voting for Katherine Harris now am I.  That is our reality today in Florida. I think it's changing, but not next week.

        •  I agree with your point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          esquimaux

          But I don't agree that people shouldn't feel free to criticize Ford for his statement.  People posting criticism of Ford's take on this decision are not going to win or lose the election for him.  Its just people praticing their right to free debate and free speech.  I'm surprised that so many Dems follow the Republican-like "fall in line, speak when you're spoken to" mentality.  Part of the whole selling point of Dems is that we don't do that.  We allow free thinking.  Most of the time...

          just be thankful for what you've got

          by itsbenj on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:02:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I simply cannot believe (11+ / 0-)

      we are going to play another day of bash-the-Dem less than 2 weeks away from the most strategicly crucial election day I have ever faced in my life-time. I am thinking maybe we need to focus on the loss of all our civil liberties at the hands of a Rep. controlled mini-Congress that bows down to a unitary executive. Gee, maybe I should put my head up my ass to wash the big picture out of my eyes.
      Look, here's what I need from dKos right now: I need mentorship. I have never volunteered for a campaign before. I need support, RTP & GOTV strategy ideas, pep-talks, energized excitement & especially the belief that this can and must happen, despite enraging negative adverstising and a bombardment of swift-boat bullshit that claims Jr is giving the abortion pill to school girls. Literally people, that is what the fucking RNC ad says!!
      Now, I am going to drop my son off at pre-school and go about my normal day which will include a combination of the following as it has since last week: go to the party office, pick up signs to be delivered, sit down and make some morning calls, put the signs at the polling place (where they get stolen from every nite), come home with some groceries, make some recruitment calls, pick up my son, run more errands, pay some bills, and go to evening phone bank. All so that YOUR Senators can be committee chairs, control the agenda, uncover & release incriminating hidden documents, maybe get to hold some investigative hearings, and generally reestablish a Democracy on American soil. Jesus christ in pajamas, would you people get a grip????

      •  i don't care (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sjs1959

        I don't care if we can investigate bush, if electing Ford does nothing to change the Anti-Gay amendment vote in the Senate. If you think the MCA went agains the constitution, putting discrimination into it is the deathblow to our democracy.

        •  If democrats control the senate.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GoldnI

          ...there will be no ant-gay ammendment vote...  It won't even get to the floor!

          get it?

          Thanks,

          Mike

          •  that isn't the all-defeating point (0+ / 0-)

            that you think it is.  why?

            because the amendment has NO chance of passing.  none.  it won't become law.  so, why does Ford not know this?  guess what?  he does!  just doesn't care. he could easily voice disagreement with the term 'gay marriage' (which would still be weak, IMO, but if he needs to CYA...) without stating that a state court decision to allow equal protection under the law is wrong.  its not wrong!  he gave NO legal basis for his disagreement.

            just be thankful for what you've got

            by itsbenj on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 10:14:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Column gets it exactly right (0+ / 0-)

      Please read this Star Ledger column- about what the NJ Supreme Court really did - and failed to do.

      Timid justices lacked courage to say, 'I do'

      http://www.nj.com/...

    •  He had to do this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pkjnew, DarkestHour

      The RNC and that sleeze Corker would have had ads up today saying Ford supports the NJ decision and he'll bring the "gay agenda" into TN and steal their guns and promote children's pornography.

      Its good strategy and not worth getting so wound up over. Harold Ford will have NOTHING to do with whether or not NJ state legislature votes for gay marriage.

      •  But he will be a Democratic vote for (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emsprater

        the gay marriage ban amendment when it comes before the Senate again. I realize Corker would be too, but its still depressing.

        •  Nope... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GoldnI

          ...if dems control the senate....  it will never come up for a vote...

          got it?

          Now step up and help this guy.... otherwise, you are going to be toast!!

          Thanks,

          Mike

        •  They don't have the votes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sjs1959

          The GOP doesn't have the votes to pass the amendment with a 55-44 majority. They certainly won't have the votes with a 52-48 majority.

          That's why you don't torpedo democratic candidates less than 2 week to election day with crap like this.

          The NJ Court said the NEW JERSEY STATE LEGISLATURE needs to address this issue. Last I checked Harold Ford is a US Congressman for Tennessee. I don't know how many votes Ford gets in the NJ State house but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess zero for now.

  •  Put me in that category (23+ / 1-)

    I dont want the Senate at the price on narrow-minded SOBs like Ford and Leiberman. Pelosi and the Democratic House will do me just fine till we elect a Dem Prez in "08.

    "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." -Karl Rove

    by Voxbear on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:00:31 AM PDT

    •  Me too (20+ / 0-)

      let's get a couple of things clear here:

      1. Harold, you should take your own damn advise and stop trying to interfere in the business of other states.  You don't like us West or East coasters telling your state how to run things, do you?  So stay the fuck out.
      1. If you believe that taking potshots at gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual Americans at every opportunity is how you want to get votes - by dividing Americans - then I have doubts not just about your policies, but your character.

      I will stand up and defend Harold Ford every time he is attacked because of his minority status of being black.  But he will not defend me when I am attacked because of who I fall in love with.  That's because I'm a liberal, and he's, well, a conservative.

      •  What is to be gained... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        yashko, ArcXIX, Longstaff

        by political suicide by Harold Ford for Gays and Lesbians?

        It sucks. We would like the whole world to be on of principals and brave acceptance, but its not.

        •  Ford didn't need to take a stand on this issue (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sjs1959, gmb

          It's NJ, not TN.

          •  Actually, he did (5+ / 0-)

            Unfortunately, the gay marriage issue plays in TN and is something that actually drives the churched the polls. Even gay marriage in NJ.

            My elderly next door Baptist neighbors brought my wife a tract from their church after we put our Kerry/Edwards sign up in the yard back in '04 with 25 reasons not to vote for Kerry, and one of them was a gay marriage line item. Ford's only chance to get ahead of this issue is to wallow to the lowest common denominator.

            If it is imprtant enough to folks on here to throw away the chance to win the seat, then fine. I am not the biggest Ford fan, but I want a dem Sentator from the this state, and am curious if his voting record will moderate a bit if he can win it. And winning it is a tall task in any event...

            •  Ford has miscalculated on this (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              IseFire, sjs1959, Aquarius40, MO Blue, grzelakc

              Unfortunately, the gay marriage issue plays in TN and is something that actually drives the churched the polls.

              You (along with many other people on this thread) have to understand who votes in Tennessee and how.

              TN is a super low turnout state - one of the lowest in the country.  Always has been.  Especially in midterm elections.

              Having said that, it's been proven over and over again that elections in Tennessee are largely determined by BASE VOTERS, not Independents.  It's a numbers game and whichever Party has a candidate that inspires its base and has the better GOTV operation wins.  It's really that simple.  The so-called "swing voters" - real undecideds - probably only make up about 4% of the electorate right now.  That won't change because of what Ford said today and they will literally make their choice in the voting booth.

              The truth is that the people who are anti-gay marriage - the "values voters" - had already decided months ago to vote for Corker.  They are part of the Republican base vote and Ford's comments about the New Jersey issue was not going to convert them.  This has only served to cut into the Democrat base vote.  

              Once word of this gets out (and it will because Democrats of all stripes in TN are paying close attention to the campaign) Ford probably just cost himself about 8,000 votes from gays, lesbians, and straight progressives who have been leary of Junior from the beginning and were not sure whether they were going to pull the lever for him on Election Day.  Those people are staying home now and it is very possible that those 8,000 votes swing the race.

              Ford should have kept his mouth shut, but anyone who is familiar with him - and I am - knows that that is something that is practically impossible for Junior.

              •  Disagree. Don't you think Gay Vols Are Smart ... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                GoldnI, Phatty McButterpants

                enough to know what he's doing? They live there for goodness sake and if you want to talk about pissing off the base, just walk into a Black Southern Baptist church and tell them you are for Gay Marriage.  Please....

                •  The "Gay Vols" know EXACTLY what Ford is doing... (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  IseFire, sjs1959, esquimaux, MO Blue, emsprater

                  ...appeasing bigots to get elected.

                  And they are not happy about it.

                  Should Junior want to take the chance that these folks decide that instead of "holding their nose" that they will just stay home?  He should have just kept quiet and you know it.

                  And regarding the Black Southern Baptist churches...

                  Trust me when I tell you that they are voting first to get an African-American into the Senate, not to keep out someone who supports gay marriage.  It is possible, btw, for voters to be against gay marriage and still support civil unions.  Once it's framed as a rights issue, as it should be, even "Black Southern Baptists" come around on it.  I know, I've "converted" some of them already just in brief conversations.  And I don't even look as pretty as Junior.

                •  I'm a gay voter. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bradnickel, sjs1959, deaniac83

                  And if Stabenow or Levin said as much from my State, you can bet your bottom dollar I'd leave the ballot blank.

                  It's just reality.  I've heard far too much homophobia in my everyday life to support an elected official's bid for office on it.

              •  I think this comment is (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sjs1959

                right on.  Why are the Republicans so good at identifying their base and getting them to vote and Democrats repeatedly miscalculate and suck up to people who are not going to vote for us anyway and by doing so alienate our own base.  It is wrong because it shows a lack of real principle on top of being politically retarded. Arghhhhhhhhh

            •  did your wife take that opportunity (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sjs1959

              to educate your elderly neighbor?  Rather than telling us that we don't understand the south, perhaps democrats should be doing something to educate their neighbors.
              Do you think we don't have bigots here in the "north".  Well we do and I know quite a few , even those who vote democratic.  I have had many arguments with friends about Immigration, racism and gay rights.

              •  Re: My Wife (0+ / 0-)

                The neighbors are 90 years old (approximately) and set in ways that date back to Jim Crow. Um, no, it wasn't a real good chance at dialogue. They are so throwback that when our Asian or African-American friends visit, they come over to make sure we are okay.

                No offense, but in some ways, it is as foreign from what you can imagine in the "north". And, I came to Tennessee (Nashville and now Memphis) after spending my whole life in Ohio (Cincy and Columbus), so I do have a little perspective.

                It is a different world down here, in a lot of respects. I don't like it, but there is not a lot I can do about it either. Oddly enough, it's radical enough in some ways just putting out democratic signs in the yard (including the one advocating against the anti-gay marriage issue on our ballot).

    •  Hmmm. (6+ / 0-)

      Yeah, when John Paul Stevens retires (or dies) let's see Nancy Pelosi kill the Albert Gonzalez nomination in committee...

      OH! That's right -- the house has no power over LIFETIME SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS.

      And Ford (if elected) won't even serve on the judiciary committee, Pat Leahy and Ted Kennedy WILL...unfortunately, probably in a powerless minority if this site has anything to say about it.

      I have no love for Ford, but I have affirmative hatred for MAJORITY LEADER MITCH FUCKING MCCONNELL.

      WTF People? Nose, Face, Spite. Man oh man.

      --------
      When facts interfere with faith, I remember the immortal words of R.W.Reagan: "Facts are stupid things." Hmmmmm.

      by PBJ Diddy on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 04:32:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sure. Let's Have Corker For 6 Years (11+ / 0-)

      A democratic majority in the Senate means that gay-bashing bills don't even come to the floor for votes, and Ford never gets a chance to "betray" you (if you are even his constituent).

      Corker being elected almost assures that they DO come to the floor.

      •  Comparison (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sjs1959, lovin lansing MI

        Virginia is more religiously-crazed than Tenn. It's been that way for about ten years, and any examination of the state legislature will approve it. And you know what, you don't see Jim Web saying anything like this shit. Why, because OMG, the former republican, is actually more of a democrat than the actual democrat. Imagine, and AMERICAN, not letting religion dictate their LEGAL opinions. OMFG!

    •  Because Corker as a Senator and McConnell (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TrueBlueDem, Clem Yeobright

      as Majority Leader will be much better.

  •  Yuck! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sjs1959, Voxbear, Junior Bug

    Even if he is playing to the hill folk why did he have to be so inaccurate? Sounds like he's setting up straw men that he doesn't need to construct, unless he's simply parroting those who use these.

    Could be he's using a time-tested method - immitation because surely he must know better.

    -4.25, -6.87: Someday, after the forest fire of the Right has died we'll say "Whew, I'm happy that's over."

    by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:00:34 AM PDT

    •  I am sure that any GOP attach ads (5+ / 0-)

      would be sure to point out the fine distinctions in the NJ Court decision - NOT.

      Ford's statement on gay marriage is, unfortunatly, necessary for him to win a close Senate race in TN.

      Welcome to the dark side of the 50 state strategy.

      (-2.75,-4.77) America let Bush play with its Army and he broke it.

      by Sam I Am on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:28:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The 50 SS EXPLICITY EXCLUDES (23+ / 0-)

        diving Americans to win.  Howard Dean has said this over and over and over again.  One thing we don't do as Democrats is divide and scapegoat people to win - regardless of the basis: race, gender or sexual orientation.

        Another thing.  Ford isn't talking about an abstract thing there.  He is talking about MY LIFE.  And so are you.  MY LIFE is not your political football, and I resent the implication deeply that it somehow is.

        •  Thank you. It is my life also. (10+ / 0-)

          Thank you!

          Ford is playing politics with my life also, and the lives of others I care about.

          I recently sent him a contribution.

          No more.

          The bastard probably really DOES hate gay people.

        •  That's How Politics Works (7+ / 0-)

          The issues at play in this election, and in all elections, affect MY life and YOUR life and THEIR lives.  There is nothing unique in this situation, that Ford is playing politics with your lives.

          There is only one way to have country that supports gay rights.  And that is to have as many Democrats elected to as many offices as possible.  Ford, with his vote, may oppose gay marriage, or civil unions (at least during a campaign).  But if Ford, as a Democrat in the Senate, gives us the majority, that is worth oe hundred times more than his vote.  It means our legislation comes up.  It means civil liberties becomes an actual part of the political discussion of the majority party.  

          When we are in the majority, then the progressive wing of the Democratic power can really start to affect the course of events in the country, and maybe even bring democracy back to our land.  But first things first - we have to win.  

          I don't believe in standing on principle when the world is literally burning.  We need our party to take over, and then we need to take over our party.

          •  I am not disagreeing with that (6+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sjs1959, Ian S, larala, Timoteo, kdrivel, esquimaux

            I am under no illusion that Democrats need Harold Ford just as much as Republicans need Lincoln Chaffee.  But that's not what I'm talking about.  I am talking about the fact that I have taken way too much crap in for being gay and I'm not taking it anymore.  I don't care whether the bigotted politician is a Democrat or a Republican.  I'm going to speak out against that.  It doesn't take away from my desire to gain Congress back.

            However, understand this: were I a TN voter, this would have broken the camel's back.  I would have left the Senate race blank on my ballot.

          •  Keep your eye on the prize (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Longstaff

            When DEMS win, we then can have a real impact.  As sorry as I am that Harold Ford is speaking this way, I see it as a purely political position that he needs to take to win.  He ain't that liberal generally, folks.  Let's just admit that.  Many southern DEMS are just not that liberal, because they couldn't win if they were.  So let's just win, and then we can convert.

            Pro-Choice and Proud of It!

            by powwow500 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:21:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  It's actually the lives of the military in Iraq (0+ / 0-)

          and women seeking abortion for medical reasons.

          It's your marriage.  I'm married and believe me, there's a difference between one's very life and one's marriage.

          Also, if the division is whether there should be gay marriage, there is a divide, and Ford's on the bigger side of it, at least among Tennessee dems.  Unity doesn't mean they join us on every issue, necessarily.

          It's the proto-fascism

          by Inland on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:29:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Have you ever visited someone in the hospital (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sjs1959

            because they were beaten up so bad they were barely alive simply because they're gay?  Have you ever been to a funeral of a young man when people held out signs outside the church saying "God hates fags"?  Have you ever?  Do that and then tell me it's not about our lives.

            Have you ever seen a little girl laughing and running and playing with her two daddies and their friends and their pet dog?  Have you ever seen the joy in the eyes of those fathers?  Have you ever seen gay and lesbian foster parents who are giving children in the child welfare system a home, a family, and much needed love?  Have you ever seen them take those kids who had been written off from society and raise them and send them off to college?  I have.  I work for a foster care agency.  See that and tell me it's not about our lives.

            While not all of this requires equal marriage, the same bigotry that denies us the right to marry extends to those horrendous situations above, and an unequal status as parents.

            •  "While not all of this requires equal marriage" (0+ / 0-)

              Yeah, no shit.  In fact, none of it requries equal marriage.  None of it requries marriage of any kind.

              Indeed, what it needs is equal adoption rights, which Ford is for.  I don't expect you to thank him for that, but don't use his stance on gay marriage to pretend like he's actually against gay adoption despite being for it.

              Because, you see, it's not the same bigotry.  It's a completely separate bigotry based on it's own rationale, which is why it plays pretty darn well in states that have all sorts of hate crimes laws.  Here in Illinois, we have hate crimes laws, we have laws prohibiting discrimination against gays in employmnet, and we just barely missed getting a const. referendum banning gay marriage forever.  

              So no, you can't put marriage into a life or death situation.  It's not a seamless web wehre one can't distiguish being put in a hospital bed and being single.  It's breathless hyperbole at best, and insult to the people who really are dying over issues that really are in play in this election.

              It's the proto-fascism

              by Inland on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 10:37:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why don't you tell black people (0+ / 0-)

                that hate crime laws, instead of full integration in school, is good enough for them?  Why don't you go and tell them that it is in fact possible to be equal but separate?

                When I say something is about my life, it's not the same as saying that without it I will die.  How ridiculous of you to assume that when I say something is about my life, it's life and death.

                But yes, it IS the same bigotry (just varying degrees of it) that in one degree condones hate crimes against gays, or denies us adoption rights, or any sort of legal arrangement, or deny us the basic right that everyone else takes for granted, to marry the person of our choosing.  Just different degrees.  Just like it is the same bigotry, but with varying degrees that once made African Americans ride in the back of the bus and in another degree simply banned interracial marriage.

                Bigotry is bigotry.

                Another thing: if you expect me to be thankful because Ford wants to give us half the rights of everyone else instead of taking all of it away, you are barking up the wrong tree.

  •  WTF??? (6+ / 0-)

    Ford has all rights to express his opinion on very important subject. If his description of NJ Supreme Court decision is incorrect - you have all rights to correct him (as you do). But he has all rights to be AGAINST "gay marriage", as even many Democrats do. What's the matter??? Why such outrage?? Is he obliged to follow your wishes??

  •  You know, (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sjs1959, Hatu, Chamonix, gmb, Easterling, Dave in PA

    it occurs to me ...
    he could have kept his fucking mouth shut!
    What an asshole!
    But he wants to make certain that the good people of Tennessee know he is a homophobic fuckwit.

    If I lived in Tennessee, I would fucking vote Green!

    Not because we disagree on "gay marriage." But because he couldn't wait to make such an assholish statement.

    America: It's a good IDEA for a country ...

    by Tony Seybert on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:02:24 AM PDT

    •  If I lived in TN I would still vote for him... (4+ / 0-)

      He's no doubt better than Corker.  And don't think Corker doesn't hold the same opinion.  I just think Ford made a bad tactical move when he might easily have just kept his damn mouth shut.  He couldn't wait to go on the record about this thing, when he could have downplayed it and not said anything about it until asked.  He's running the risk of pissing off the few TN liberals he needs in order to be elected.  

      In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

      by Asak on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:38:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lesser of 2 evils? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tabbycat in tenn, Longstaff

        Corker,the adds here about his back room deals arent just politics.In 2001 environmentalists sued Corker on one of his land development deals(for Walmart no less).It recently settled out of court with the understanding that no details of the statement be revealed until after the election.
        I dont necessarily like Ford,but at least you know who youre dealing with.
        Corkers a BAD man.

  •  It's state politics (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jethropalerobber, Caldonia, jorndorff

    What's the rumpus?

    So how does it play in Tennessee?

    •  If he wants to "out-corker" Corker (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      diana04

      then for Christ's sake, lets just elect Corker.

      "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." -Karl Rove

      by Voxbear on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:05:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and guarantee a GOP controlled Senate? (9+ / 0-)

        No thanks

        Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

        by moon in the house of moe on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:06:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree VEHEMENTLY (5+ / 0-)

          We dont need yet on emore Leiberman in the Dem caucus. I can do without a turncoat who will kiss the GOP ass when the Fundies come running.

          "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." -Karl Rove

          by Voxbear on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:08:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh he's a moderate conservative (7+ / 0-)

            and does surprisingly well in that state being as moderate as he is.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            I like this bit from Wikipedia:

            In November 2005, when Ohio Republican Congresswoman Jean Schmidt implied that Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha was a "coward" in response to Murtha's proposal for a redeployment of American forces in Iraq, Ford charged across the House floor to the Republican side during the resulting uproar in the chamber, shouting "Say it to Murtha!" (or "Say Murtha's name!" depending on the source) while waving his finger at Schmidt. Like many Congressmen, Ford believed Schmidt's remarks (which she later withdrew) were an unwarranted "cheap shot" against Murtha, a veteran of the Marine Corps [12].

            For his voting record, plenty not to like - but good stuff too. And you must consider the state - that is the people he works for.

            He's a blue dog democrat

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            region appropriate.

            Not a Leiberman by a long shot.

            Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

            by moon in the house of moe on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:19:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  That's nuts (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Robert Davies

            Ford is Lieberman?  Whatever.  Ford is trying to play to the electorate of his state.  But yeah, you're right, better to let the GOP just have the seat without even fighting for it.  

            Tired of the lies? That makes 60% of us!

            by Bill O Rights on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:27:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What kind of POS reply is that? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sjs1959, supersoling

              We cant "WIN" by taking their position. We WIN by persuading the thoughtful that equal rights are just... not bash gays in hopes of another D in the Senate.

              "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." -Karl Rove

              by Voxbear on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:32:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  well there won't be a 'we' hopefully (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joynow

                I don't see dems in many other states taking this move by Ford and adding it to their playbook. That's an overreaction to say they would. But, Ford will have to be watched in his time in the Senate, assuming he were to win.

                Someone should pee on this man. Richard Pombo

                by ucla grad102 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:39:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  So what are you proposing? (4+ / 0-)

                I agree 100% that gay  I don't think anyone here is proposing that "we" take their position.  I think it's valid to refuse to vote for Ford, if you're a Tennessee voter.  But suggesting that we're going to run an ideal social progressive for Tennessee Senator and win is simply a pipe dream.  Doesn't a Tennessee candidate have the right to take positions that match those of the electorate?  Indeed, isn't that exactly how representative democracy works?

                One fantasy that progressives love--hell, I engage in it a fair amount--is that all people can potentially be persuaded in the rightness of our position, and that this can happen in our lifetimes (indeed, it can happen within a couple election cycles).  This is not true.  If you can show me one society in history that has ever united around a position of tolerance and equality, I mean completely united around it, then I'll grant you that it's possible.  From where I'm sitting, there are always going to be conservatives, and a democratic system is always going to contain a spectrum of beliefs on every issue.  So we can have an anti-gay marriage senator who works with the Democrats (NOT a Lieberman, who does not work with the Democrats), or we can have one that works with the Republicans.  Don't pretend you don't see the logic in that, even if you (again, reasonably) personally don't work to make it happen.

              •  not a pos reply (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VaAntirepublican, ManhattanMan

                you are the one rolling through the entire thread shouting at the top of your lungs that its all about YOU!.  Sorry, I disagree.  I want dems elected first and foremost and I'll worry about making it better in the long run.  I want my states own Senator dino Salazar to face a strong primary opponent in 010.  If not I will vote for him because better a guy who shares my view on 60% of issues than 2%.

                But you want everything now, your way, no exceptions.  "how does it affect ME"  well i don't give a shit how it affects you or me or the poster below or the poster above.  I am worried about the good of the nation.  The good of the nation = sane debate on Iraq debacle, sane debate on education, health care, and yeah even gay rights, pay inequality between men vs women in same job, medicare, tax rates....but those debates aren't going to happen if we just let the Corker's win because a few of us can't stomach the fact that some of our elected officials aren't looking out for our individual issues as fast as we'd like.  

                Some dude far below brings up our "hatred" of Nader voters.  Its true.  Some of us do hate Nader voters because although he is more in line with our way of thinking we knew he had a zero chance of winning.  But nope, it was better for the thousands of voters to throw their vote behind the person who had no chance to help them instead of the person who agreed with them on many issues but was "too corporate, too DLC, too DNC."  Simple fact, Gore or Kerry would have been better for America than two terms of GW and while I'm all for excercising your right to vote for whoever the fuck you want, there are times when you need to choose prudence over perfection.  But nope, they didn't learn in 2000 so in 04 they back Nader again and we get a president who has failed at everything he has attempted.

                i hate Marilyn Musgrave more than any person in my state.  Hate, not dislike.  She is the top of the heap on the 'hate those who aren't like me' scale.  She won't lose in her district to a dem candidate who isn't similar to her on "morality" issues.  I may disagree with that candidate's support for whatever issue it happens to be but there isn't a dem alive who could be as bad as Musgrave so therefore i would support them through and through, taking the bad knowing that there was more good.  

                Tell me what else about Ford you hate?  Do you even have another reason?  Or are you just jumping on this one issue because it happens to relate to you in a personal way?  

                POS?  It was short and actually made sense.  If you still have questions after this you are on your own.  I'm not trying to change your mind about the one issue.  I'm trying to make you see the bigger picture.  The one where any blue candidate who votes along party lines more than 75% of the time is a good candidate.  Fine, you don't like Ford cuz he "wants to throw you under a bus", but how about the 75% of issues he's going to go along with your viewpt on?  Should those issues be sacrificed so you can make an example out of Ford?  Would you be better off with Corker in DC?  Would the nation be better off with Corker in DC?

                You throw out one line criticisms like you have all the answers.  So does GwB.

                Tired of the lies? That makes 60% of us!

                by Bill O Rights on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:43:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  no... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tzt

              that's wrong. We can fight for a seat by fighting for our own principles. If a Democrat has to act like a Republican to win a seat, it's probably better to that a Republican has the seat. Enough of the pandering. People will never come around to our point of view if we never offer a point of view in the first place.

              Aren't you sick of people saying Democrats and Republicans are the same?

              Gill for Congress! Il-15

              by Potus2020 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:16:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I have lived in both states (5+ / 0-)

            and CT ain't TN.

            Ford's postion is absurd in CT but could spell the difference between victory and defeat in TN.

            (-2.75,-4.77) America let Bush play with its Army and he broke it.

            by Sam I Am on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:36:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Bullshit (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ManhattanMan

            You can't do with Corker in a 50-50 senate the Republicans control.

            This is a narrow minded nonsense demand for ideological purity.  Do you think the Republicans would rather have Dems in the dozens of Congressional seats held by pro-choice Republicans?  Enough to give the Democrats power in the House?

  •  How pathetic (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joynow, gmb, julifolo, majcmb1, ER Doc, chgobob

    The only politican I really respect is David Van Os, the Democratic candidate for Texas AG.

    If we can get him into office, Bush will suddenly be fighting the congress on the front lines while his logisitcal support in Texas is crushed from the rear by Van Os actually enforcing Texas anti-trust laws on Big Oil.

    Wouldn't that be a sight to see?

    - Its time we stopped dealing in words, and started Dealing in Lead.

    by walkingshark on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:03:43 AM PDT

  •  ugh... (12+ / 0-)

    If Webb can win in Virginia, I'd definitely be willing to forfeit this seat this year.  It'd be one less bigot we'd have to hold our noses and defend.  Politics of contrast and all that.

    And yes, I stand 100% behind calling anyone who supports same-sex marriage bans bigots.

    From the Southland? Join us at SoCalKossacks

    by midvalley on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:04:54 AM PDT

  •  Ford never said it "mandated" (26+ / 0-)

    gay marriage, merely that it "regarded" it.  I'm gay, and I still want him to win, because he'll vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader.  Party-line purity is for losers.

    •  Cheeses, what are (0+ / 0-)

      N in Seattle, Dood Abides, thereisnospoon, blueday & ER Doc doing up at this hour?

    •  Thank you (9+ / 0-)

      A lot of folks critizing Ford don't live in deep red states like Tennnessee. Once you're a Democrat here, you're autmatically branded as being pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage.

      Very difficult to run against the deep, seated tide. Ford wants to win, and he has to cut off the "librul" attacks pretty effectively in order to prevail.

      Cut him some slack, please.

      Katherine Harris. "That gal knows how to shake a possum," the auctioneer drawled.

      by blueday on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:26:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, I get it (7+ / 0-)

        but I don't like it. What's it gonna be -- like, 3006 -- before getting elected in Tennessee doesn't involve going all intellectually and ethically neanderthal?

        I'm just so tired of this crap. I can't think of a society that was crushed by giving too many rights to people. But I can think of a great many that died from its parsimony of humanity.

        "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt

        by JuliaAnn on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:36:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Backwards culture in the U. S. (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eeff, sjs1959, tzt, majcmb1, melvin, esquimaux

          Compare the EU Parliament's resolution on homophobia from the beginning of this year:

          1. Strongly condemns any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation;
          1. Calls on Member States to ensure that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are protected from homophobic hate speech and violence and ensure that same-sex partners enjoy the same respect, dignity and protection as the rest of society; (italic part was kept in with a majority of 539 in favour and 58 against, roll call vote list in attachment)
          1. Urges Member States and the Commission to firmly condemn homophobic hate speech or incitement to hatred and violence, and to ensure that freedom of demonstration – guaranteed by all human rights treaties - is respected in practice;
          1. Calls on the Commission to ensure that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all sectors is prohibited by completing the anti-discrimination package based on Article 13 either by proposing new directives or by proposing a general framework, covering all grounds for discrimination and all sectors;
          1. Urges Member States and the Commission to step up the fight against homophobia through education – such as campaigns against homophobia in schools, in universities and in the media - as well as through administrative, judicial and legislative means.

          Can you imagine the House, the Senate or any state legislature passing such a resolution?

        •  i'm tired of it too (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JuliaAnn, Longstaff

          but remember that ford didn't create that reality, he's merely a reflection of it. supporting ford or not supporting him won't change that reality.

          a democratic senate is crucial, above all, for its power to curb bush's next SCOTUS picks. a federal guarantee of marriage equality is still many years away. but it could be that much longer if bush gets one or two more totally unhindered appointments.

          a democratic senate needs ford to take TN.

      •  I spent 5 years on the buckle (5+ / 0-)

        of the bible belt, Dallas TX, and I REFUSE to stoop to that level. Southerners fought civil rights for 30 years, but eventually came to understand it was the RIGHT thing to do. The gay issue is also a civil rights issue. Letting Ford gay-bash to win votes isnt going to get us any closer to that important understanding.

        "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." -Karl Rove

        by Voxbear on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:40:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Raised in Kentucky and schooled in Tennessee (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          esquimaux

          I understand the closet and pandering to bigots to get by, get what you need, stay safe or whatever.    

          Whether your telling or just smiling at the "__ and Grand Dragon go into a bar" joke, these things come at a price.  The effect of the mask is never completely temporary.  

          The idea that Harold Ford will dissemble to get what he wants or that so many find those means justified by the potential end saddens me.  If we must become what we hate before we can start the "good work" we are already in quicksand.

          Ford's statement makes me angry because it is wrong on so many levels.  However, I prefer to believe that Ford is honestly stating his position, that we disagree on the issue, that my party's tent is big enough to include him and that he will learn from this mistake, maturing to a more humane position.  

          Call me naive or deluded, I just can't stand the alternative.

          Loyalty and responsibility toward the people and the fatherland are most deeply anchored in the Christian faith. - Adolf Hitler

          by FeastOr on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:42:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  My money is on this: (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sjs1959, gmb, Timoteo, kdrivel

      this statement Ford just issued will HURT him more than it will help.  How?

      1. Bigots will vote for Crocker anyway.
      1. People who care about equal rights - and gays in TN - and thought Ford was halfway decent will be turned off and either stay home or not vote in the senate race.  Here I'm talking about regular people, not us political junkies.
      1. Given that this race will be close, a Republican will always win a race between a Republican and a Republican-lite.

      I can't tell you how much I hope to capture the Senate.  But not only SHOULD we not win by dividing, we CANNOT win by dividing.

      •  exactly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sjs1959

        its that lack of differentiation that hurts Dems nearly every time.  over and over again!  "Look at me, I can be just as much of a bigot as my opponent!" does not win ANYONE over!  how many times do we have to learn this lesson?

        just be thankful for what you've got

        by itsbenj on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:37:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  not surprising, but perhaps disappointing. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pHunbalanced, joynow, JuliaAnn, majcmb1

    Gay marriage is a tricky issue for Democrats, because only the Liberals (or progressives, if you will) in the party really support it. And incidentally I loaded up that data and crunched it, and broke it down for self-identified registered Democrats on the question:
    Q.36Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose [...]
    b.Allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally
    7% – Don’t Know
    17.7% – Strongly Favor
    21.4% – Favor
    21.1% – Oppose
    32.7% – Strongly Oppose

    So actually a majority of Democrats opposed gay marriage, according to Pew's Dec 2004 data.

    •  I respect data (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pb, bawbie, sjs1959

      but we arent talking marriage... NJ says civil union is OK. Hell, even GWB said he supported that in 2004. Try again.

      "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." -Karl Rove

      by Voxbear on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:13:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, Harold Ford is talking gay marriage. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joynow, Longstaff

        And I think it's pretty clear why he's doing it, too--what I cited was national data, it's no doubt more conservative in TN, where they're currently running against him by calling him a liberal. There's probably no better way to distance yourself from liberals (and piss off liberals in the process) than to repudiate gay marriage. Of course, if Harold Ford later decided to support civil unions, that wouldn't be a flip-flop, he could still say he opposed gay marriage. But I can also see why he'd rather talk about gay marriage now, instead of talking about civil unions.

    •  lots happened since 2004 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pb, sjs1959

      It's amazing how far we have come in 2 years.  In the largest state in the union - California - a Democratic legislature passed (albeit to be later vetoed) marriage equality.  Every statewide candidate running in California (for state offices) that are on the Democratic ticket explicitly support marriage equality, and has promised to work for it once they are elected.  It wasn't this way 2 years ago.  In fact, the last poll numbers that came out in California had an even 47-47 split among ALL Californians (not just Democrats) in the support of marriage equality.  And that was about a year ago.  I think Democrats nationally have moved quite a bit too.

  •  agreed (7+ / 0-)

    he didn't need to do that.  I wrote a diary today explaining what even the most conservative Dems can easily say about this issue.

    This was an utter cop-out.

    Ever wish there were One Big Wiki-Style Clearinghouse for all the GOP Scandals? Well now there is.

    by thereisnospoon on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:10:47 AM PDT

    •  This may be part of a larger meme (4+ / 2-)

      in the Ford campaign message.

      Taken together with the Playboy brew-ha-ha and Ford's statement to the effect that I-like-football-and-women-and-I-make-no-apologies-for-either
      the meta-message is that:

      Harold Ford is young and virile (not gay), whereas

      Coker is a wimp.

      So the statement about the NJ court decision (which is a national issue, after all) is part of a larger message, as well as Ford's own policy and also the belief of his constituents (70+% of them).

      This is very far from opportunistic.  Different from Berkeley and from the politics of northern California, but not opportunistic.

    •  disagree (0+ / 0-)

      this has been his position all along, so why should he keep it a secret?

      corker would loooove to run up to election day pressing ford to clarify his position on this, whether it's relevant to TN or not ( and i imagine a lot of tennesseans feel it is, since they're voting on a referendum on the subject ).

      sure we could all offer ford some carefully crafted response that still affirms equal rights, but really (and sadly) anything less black and white than what he easily be misrepresented.

      as is, corker has absolutely nothing to work with on this issue. so that one less issue he can use to distract with.

      i don't like ford's anti-marriage position, but he's only one senator and in a democratic senate the FMA never even comes up for a vote.

  •  I am no less a human being for the way I was born (13+ / 0-)

    than Harold Ford, Jr.

    The Federal Marriage Amendment writes me out of the founding document of this nation. It might as well say "three-fifths."

    Let's leave it at this: I wouldn't vote for him.

  •  Wax On, Wax Off (0+ / 0-)

    On topic:  I got a call today from the "LGBT" coalition supporting Villagarosa.  I thought, "who the hell is paying for this?"  Seriously.  It was that lame.

    Off Topic:  (since I couldn't find an "Open Thread" for miles)  Why do we hang pictures of the men we hate all the time?  Why don't we (I'm speaking of the photos in the ad next to my post) instead hang pictures of true, albeit Democrat, heroes?  As a Democrat, this confuses me.  Perhaps we are waiting for that true hero.

  •  whine and bitch about dems (8+ / 0-)

    not doing what it takes to get elected.

    Memo---Ford is campaigning for a Senate seat in TN.  How many blacks win Senate seats in the south?  So he's trying to pick up some extra votes from the "hate crowd" who also probably hate him because he's black. It's ironic that he'd try and win votes from the people who aren't going to vote for him anyway but politicians in the south don't win on anti-gun, pro-gay marriage platforms.  It sucks.  We know it sucks...I guarantee Harold Ford knows it sucks but thats the way it is so fucking deal with it.  

    Memory serves kos, you were pumping the dem from OK v Coburn last go around and he wasn't exactly a beacon of progressive thought.  You want dems elected or you want to "stay the course" on sticking with platforms that don't play locally.  Marilyn Musgrave wins against good opponents because she lives in a part of Kansas..er CO, where Bible before Constitution is the ideology.  No Dem is going to beat her unless they subscribe to at least a handful of the bullshit conservative values like banning gay marriage, banning stem cell research, being pro-life etc.

    fucking pretty hypocritical to voice your favor for some dems who are staunchly anti-abortion (Casey) but you take Ford to task for taking a stance that will make him look more appealing to TN voters.  Um, Santorum will win unless Casey continues to make the PA voters think he has the same morality as the person they've elected in previous elections.  

    Tired of the lies? That makes 60% of us!

    by Bill O Rights on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:18:28 AM PDT

    •  Why did he have to comment on it at all? (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sjs1959, joynow, JuliaAnn, cosette, Voxbear

      If he wanted to show tacit support for the TN referendum, he could simply have stated that NJ has made their decision and TN will have the opportunity in 2 weeks to make theirs.

      -6.00, -7.03
      "I want my people to be the most intolerant people in the world." - Jerry Falwell

      by johnsonwax on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:27:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  he was speaking to voters in TN (6+ / 0-)

        not to the people of NJ, there is a difference.  And if people would bother to look up Ford's voting record they would see that he isn't remotely a GOPer in disguise.  Course, Lieberman's voting record is far more liberal than some here want to believe so it's not surprising that so many are so quick to label Ford a dino.

        I don't apologize for Lieberman's decision to support Bush's follies because I don't give a shit about him.  If Lamont wins fine.  If its Joe, I can live with that because I'd rather have Joe than a GOP alternative and sure as hell would rather have Ford than Corker.

        If I thought utopia could be attained I wouldn't be an atheist.  Since I don't even believe in a divine sanctuary I have no reason to expect a man made Utopia here on earth.  But what I can hope for is that people will support the dems at least long enough to get the wheels of change rolling and then worry about pushing things farther to our side of the political spectrum.  Everybody has a "need it now" mentality.  Well we need to think it baby steps.  Win one or both houses of Congress by whatever slim margin and then worry about winning the presidency and a few more seats in 08, then trying to prove that we are the better alternative by 10 and 012 so we can hold the wh, get a few of our own Scotus nominees.  But the change from wedge issue driven politics to humanity driven politics isn't going to happen overnight because the Gop has instilled the "morality' hot button in too many people.  Bush could order troops into a Bighorn like massacre in Iran and then say "gay marriage bad, low taxes good" and the majority of the GOP base would say "what massacre, gotta keep them taxes low and them gays from gettin married."

        I'm a progressive liberal.  I want fewer guns on the streets.  I am pro-choice.  I am pro gay marriage, pro gay adoption.  I am pro energy independence, pro environment.  I'm anti special interest money of any kind.  I'm pro federal election funding etc. etc... What I am doesn't mean shit except to me.  The people i cast my vote for don't know me, don't give a fuck if i'm alive or dead as long as the vote I cast goes next to their name.  Realizing that I choose the best candidate available, the one who is in line with my beliefs moreso than other candidates and I vote for him or her, gop or dem or green or indie.  I voted for Perot.  Not ashamed of it.  I voted for Clinton.  Not ashamed of it.  I voted for Gore and I voted for Kerry and none of them supported every single belief I hold but they were the best choice, the most electable candidates available at the time.  

        People who wait for the nationally funded candidate who is in complete lockstep with their own interests and beliefs are people who are waiting for a candidate that is not forthcoming and if they do happen to show up they probably won't be electable because they'll be too liberal for many of the voters.

        This isn't directed totally at you but I decided to finish saying what I had to say at once instead of posting on several more comments.  

        Tired of the lies? That makes 60% of us!

        by Bill O Rights on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:02:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          beachmom

          I support the right of people to prioritize their issues. Gay marriage isn't necessarily a dealbreaker for me--I voted for Kerry--but I fully understand that it is for others.  What I don't respect is the wait for the Political Messiah.  Refusing to sully your hands by voting for a candidate who doesn't meet all of your criteria is basically a refusal to take part in the political process at all, which is one of the things that the GOP wants from left-wingers.

        •  I think you and I align VERY (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sjs1959

          closely on issues. I voted for Perot as well and agree with everything you've stated here.

          My hope for Dems is that they'll appropriately compartmentalize their responsibilities. Family rights isn't a federal issue. It's never been a federal issue. Gay marriage has no business AT ALL at the federal level. Be for it or against it, I don't much care - it's a state issue. Civil rights is a federal issue. So, ban gay marriage in 50 states if you must, but either you need to erase all rights granted to married couples or you need to extend those rights to all comparable unions - but the rights need to be equal.

          Fords offense, in my view, is nationalizing the issue and not recognizing the distinction between marriage and civil rights. As an African-American, that's a real shame. It wasn't that long ago in the south that he would have been denied the right to marry whoever he wanted - and the rights that went along with it. That he fails to see this makes me question his judgement. I judge people more on their reasoning then on their decisions. People can decide the same situation differently given different external conditions - understanding their reasoning is how we differentiate between those that make these decisions at random and those that make them for good reason. I question his reasoning here.

          He could easily have stayed connected to his constituents without pushing beyond the bounds of TN. That he chose to do that makes me very nervous about him.

          -6.00, -7.03
          "I want my people to be the most intolerant people in the world." - Jerry Falwell

          by johnsonwax on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:22:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree completely (0+ / 0-)

            but he's also a black man trying to get elected in a good ol boy state that happens to like wedge issues more than they like rational "homers" like Gore.  Gore won election after election in TN, meaning he got shit done that was in the interests of TN but when it came time for TN voters to pony up with support for his Presidential run they decided that Bush was right about the inconsequential bs of the wedge issue.  That "faith-based" politics mattered more to TN voters wasn't a shock, what was a shock was their turning their backs on a man they'd elected repeatedly because all of a sudden he wasn't pro-life enough, wasn't pro-NRA enough etc.  It shouldn't shock or surprise anyone that a dem running for office in TN now panders to the conservatives of the state from time to time.  

            And this is for all:  Ford didn't make this a national issue.  Gay marriage has been a hot button issue in the last several elections across the country.  Ford may have singled out NJ because the Bushites love the activist judge meme and by denouncing a judicial decision, in the eyes of either Ford or his handlers, was worth more politically than simply stating his opposition to gay-marriage at a town hall meeting.  Senate races are national politics not just state politics.  He isn't running against just Corker, he's running against the RNC which has the money to attack him from all angles.  It may not be a choice we agree with but it's smart politics to try and limit the ammo available for the RNC.  

            Tired of the lies? That makes 60% of us!

            by Bill O Rights on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 09:04:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  maybe because of this... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hhex65, tabbycat in tenn, willers

        Corker for Senate, 10/25/2006 Press Release:

        Today’s decision by the NJ Supreme Court ... blah blah ... activist, liberal [Republican appointed] judges ... blah blah ... Harold Ford, however, voted in 2004 against allowing individual states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in other states.

        corker also claims he voted for the TN anti-marriage amendment on the "first day" of early voting.

        and he used an extra big red X to mark his ballot too. just kidding.

    •  I guess we'll see which voters he picks up (7+ / 0-)

      because I certainly know which ones he lost. And yes, I'm from Tennessee, Memphis in fact. Harold Ford's congressional district. Although maybe Memphis has completely changed since I moved from my old home two years ago.

      And what a bone headded move. Right now the story is all about how terrible the Republican Racists are. Right in the middle of this great momentum shift, he gives a big middle finger to a chunk of his base, absolutely unprovoked. And from reading some of the blogs, his base ain't exactly energized to turn out right now.

      Not That Kind of Purist
      How Many Ways to Lose this Election
      A Brief History of Why We are at This Point

      And, good Lord. The irony of the whole thing. And you call Markos a hypocrite?

      Tennessee deserves so much better than a battle between who can capture more of the hate vote. How sad.

      YearlyKos mmmmhmmm.

      by gina on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:06:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He was calling Kos a hypocrite (0+ / 0-)

        for criticizing Ford (anti-gay in a red state) while defending Casey (anti-choice in a blue state).  I honestly don't see how that could be anything other than hypocrisy.

        That said, you raise an interesting point: if Ford's statement becomes news outside of this site (which may be a big if), it changes the media narrative in an unattractive direction.

        •  so, what (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sjs1959, esquimaux, GoldnI

          this thread is about Markos? Who cares what Markos is? He's not running for office!

          This is about Ford. Ford is willing to sell out a chunk of his base because he imagines picking up a sliver of the hate vote. That's sad.

          It's also dang boneheadded when his sorely neglected base was finally finding an excuse to hold their noses and push the button.

          As an aside, I have been amazed at how Rook has been able to generate excitement here for Ford. It's a tribute to the diarest's talent and understanding about how this community works.

          Bless Rook's heart. The boss just made that job a hell of a lot harder. Nothing like good work trashed.

          YearlyKos mmmmhmmm.

          by gina on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:28:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How could it not be (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            diplomatic, jorndorff

            about Kos?  The whole site is about Kos, whether you (or he) like it or not.  The URL is DailyKos.com.  The content of his statements are important, yes, I think so.

            Kos didn't just put up a link and say "What do you guys think of this"; he expressed some fairly strong opinions about Ford.  That's obviously his right, but I don't see why it's out of bounds to point out when his position conflicts with his previous positions.  If Kos wants his site to help achieve a Democratic majority, it matters when he works against that purpose.

            •  again... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sjs1959

              who cares about Markos. If he made his primise stating he was Jesus Christ, it would still have nothing to do with Ford. I don't care about the personalities on this site or any other.

              I'm talking about Ford. Defend Ford's hate vote pander. Defend his boneheadded move against his base. But there is no defense. It was poorly calculated opportunismn.

              With Corker's crooked past and those hateful ads, Ford had a chance to come out as a uniter with a positive message rejecting the politics of hate. He freaking blew it.

              I hope he still pulls it off if only for that very first vote about who sets the agenda. But I doubt it. A Democratic majority is rising up in this nation, and they are tired of the same old divisive crap. They want to be inspired by their leaders. Ford had the opportunity to inspire, but chose to take the low, and I believe losing, road.

              Other than that very first vote, other than the alternative being a racist crook like Corker, why should the base vote for Ford? Tell me who Ford has inspired in Tennessee?

              Defend Ford. Convince me to believe in him.

              YearlyKos mmmmhmmm.

              by gina on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:22:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The Defense (0+ / 0-)

                Defend Ford. Convince me to believe in him.

                He's a Democrat.  It's good enough this year.  In six years, when you're done burning yourself out on YearlyKos you can run against him.  

                Now GBTW! :)

                --- The path to hell is paved with good intentions. Bush invaded Iraq based on good intentions. Thus we are staying the course on the path to hell.

                by sterno on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 12:23:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  as if! (0+ / 0-)

                  I can't imagine subjecting myself to being the center of a campaign.

                  I said he would get my theoretical vote. It's just painful to see such cynicism at work in my home state.

                  you gbtw!

                  YearlyKos mmmmhmmm.

                  by gina on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 12:28:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  yeah its sad (0+ / 0-)

        that I want someone who votes with his party most of the time to win.  It's sad that hate matters.  It's sad that wedge issues play a role in politics.  But it is reality and you throw up a big middle finger to all who support Ford in TN and from afar.  Just saw an interview a day or so ago with Ford at UT.  All the thousands at the rally are idiots huh?  Their support of Ford is worthless?  Huh.  

        And yeah Kos is a hypocrite.  No wedge issue should matter but they do so you can't back an Pro-life guy while attacking a anti-gay marriage guy.  Sad that you can't see the hypocrisy.

        Tired of the lies? That makes 60% of us!

        by Bill O Rights on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:44:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  bullshit (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sjs1959

          http://cohenforcongress.com/

          Anyone that says a progressive can't win in TN and using that as a pass for Ford needs to check out Steve Cohen. Steve is running for the seat Ford is vacating, and winning. Steve beat Ford's cousin, Jake, in the primary. Jake, and the Ford family, like Lieberman, refuse to accept the will of the Democratic voters. Steve is winning, as a progressive, against the strongest machine in west Tennessee.

          From a blogging buddy in Memphis

          Harold Sr. is
          renting out buses to take supporters to the polls for
          both Jake and Jr, Jr. had an official rally paid for
          by his campaign where the main speaker was Sr. who
          spent the whole time attacking Cohen and pushing Jake,
          Jake called Cohen gay at the debate, and Jr. went on
          the record attacking Cohen as being like a Republican
          and being pro-gay marriage, pro-amnesty, and
          pro-marijuana.  Plus loads more fun.  After all that,
          I couldn't stomach voting for Jr.  I hate to do it,
          but I really do care more about ending this machine
          then putting a Democrat-hating Democrat in the Senate.

          Yes, I want to win, and if I were still living in Memphis I would hold my nose and push the button, and probably not feel so good about myself afterward, but comfort myself with the hope of a primary challenge in 12.

          YearlyKos mmmmhmmm.

          by gina on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 10:59:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  TN-9 (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gina, sjs1959

            Steve Cohen beat Joe Ford Jr. in the primary and is the Democratic nominee. Jake Ford is running as an independent. The Harold Ford family is support Jake along with Harold Jr. Some of the rest of the Ford family is supporting Steve Cohen.

          •  Civics 101 (0+ / 0-)

            No one is saying that no progressive can win any election campaign, anywhere, in the South.  What we're saying is that a progressive is not going to win this Tennessee Senate race, which, obviously, is statewide.  Barbara Lee can be elected to Congress, so why doesn't she run for Senator?  Or President!  Answer: because Berkeley and Oakland do not accurately represent the rest of the state.

            •  well, we'll see (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sjs1959

              which hate vote is stronger, I suppose. Because all Tennesseeans are small minded bigots of one kind or another that need to be pandered to, according to your thesis.

              How cynical.

              YearlyKos mmmmhmmm.

              by gina on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 11:42:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, no, no (0+ / 0-)

                I haven't said anything even remotely close to that.  I believe that there are progressives everywhere; I've even met some from Tennessee.  But you're not seriously going to claim that Tennessee is not more conservative than, say, California?

                I'm not even defending Ford, exactly; I also disagree with his statements, and they make me less enthusiastic about his candidacy, just as Casey's opposition to abortion does.  I just think the people who are shocked--shocked!--that a Tennessee Senate candidate would be more socially conservative than they are are being really disingenuous.

      •  Thank you, Gina! (0+ / 0-)

        and say Hi to Rob for me!

    •  I'd vote for Ford, but (0+ / 0-)

      something about him smells like Zell. Yes, he's a Dem and some degrees better than your run-of-the-mill Republican.  His defense of Murtha was good.  I know gay marriage is a hot-button issue for busybodies who don't have enough real shit to worry about, and that Ford's got an uphill fight running for statewide office as a Black man in a Southern state.  

      But, c'mon.   Can't he turn it around a little?  
      "I don't support what NJ did, but it has the right to interpret its Constitution as it sees fit.   But people should recognize that this gay marriage "debate" is invented by Republicans to  distract from real problems - the destruction of the middle class, rising inequality, out-of-control budgets, the Iraq War debacle.   Who's marrying who in Hoboken isn't going to affect your ability to get a good job in Memphis or Nashville. Voting for a Democrat like me will."

      There's a right way to distance yourself from the liberal wing of the party and a wrong way.   See Schweitzer, et al for the right way, Lieberman and Ford for the wrong way.   Ford seems like the type who likes to go out of his way to bash liberal Dems - and that's got to stop.  We need an 11th Commandment too.

  •  Either you're for something or against it. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JuliaAnn, Clem Yeobright

    Either you're for Issue X or Candidate X.

    At crucial times

    Yeah, I want Ford to win. But I won't cry when he doesn't.

    there is a bit of conciliation in the best of us.

    Democrats: Putting Intelligence Back Into National Security

    by Robert Davies on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:18:49 AM PDT

  •  Um, Kos (10+ / 0-)

    What the heck is the difference between Ford's anti-gay marriage stance and Bob Casey's pro-life stance, which you've consistently defended?  Am I the only one who remembers your contempt for single-issue pro-choicers?

    I don't know who I'd vote for if I was in Tennessee (or Pennsylvania); it's a heck of a quandary.  But surely we can be consistent in who we condemn and who we don't?

    •  The difference is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ucla grad102

      he CHOOSE to make this an issue when he could have easily cast it aside. He is trying to play to the religious base, and if he wins on that basis, he will throw us under the bus over and over. At least Casey didnt pretend to be something he wasnt till the last 2 weeks of a close race.

      "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." -Karl Rove

      by Voxbear on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:22:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you on needle drugs? (12+ / 0-)

        "Pretend to be something he wasn't"?  A week ago I was reading a USA Today article that stated clearly that Ford opposes gay marriage.  USA Today!  He has not kept his feelings on the matter secret.  Now, you can take that as a dealbreaker or you can not, but it's disingenuous to say that this is any kind of surprise.

        Plus, even if Ford had somehow dissimulated, what is your position?  That what matters isn't the candidate's position on the issues, but just that he gives his position by a certain deadline?

        I love the Democrats, I love the netroots, but some people honest-to-heck seem to think that we can elect 100 beautifully progressive senators.  The Dem majority will have some conservatives.  It just will.

  •  He did vote for the constitutional amendment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jethropalerobber, sjs1959, Voxbear

    banning gay marriage, so this is hardly a surprise. Which shows he's A-OK with throwing the Constitution under the bus to satisfy the radical right. Hmmm...what happened with the last amendment that tried to restrict people's rights...oh yeah, there's another amendment devoted to repealing it.

    Ford may get us to 51, but he'll be a pain in the ass for Reid. Unlike Ben Nelson, Ford won't be content to vote conservative and stay quiet. He'll make a big stink about defying the party leadership and criticize them for being out of touch liberals and the media will just eat up every word. I'd prefer Webb to win over Ford if it came to a choice between them, but I think we'll probably need 52 seats to keep Joementum from going G-Joe-P on us.

    If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

    by dole4pineapple on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:20:31 AM PDT

  •  Harold Ford is part of the Democratic problem (12+ / 0-)

    I've had it with sanctimonious "who else is expendable, who else's rights are negotiable?" Democrats like Harold Ford. He's part of the problem, not the solution.

    Kos is right. Capitol Hill Democrats are a disease. Eventually, every one of them will die, retire, or get primaried. If and when Ford goes to Washington, it's time to line up a primary challenger in 2012. It can't come soon enough for me.

    "I'd rather ride the buses in the minor leagues than practice law for a living."--Tony LaRussa

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:21:31 AM PDT

    •  I detect some bitterness in that comment (0+ / 0-)

      ...care to elaborate????

      "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." -Karl Rove

      by Voxbear on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:24:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The only solution to chronic cowards in the (3+ / 0-)

      Democratic caucus in Washington is to elect a strong Democratic president who will not be afraid to tackle big issues. The public at large agrees with the Democratic position on most issues, despite people like Ford, who feel that they have to apologize for their party affiliation. The DC Democrats are cowards and will always take the path of least danger, so unless you've got a strong president of their party leading them, they'll be weak and divided. As it is, we're probably going to need at least a 15 seat majority in the House to offset the Blue Dogs (remind me how many people in their districts wanted "bankruptcy reform?").

      If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

      by dole4pineapple on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:28:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That "capitol hill democrat" (0+ / 0-)

      just happens to agree with the vast majority of Tennesseans, and the majority of TN democratic voters, on gay marriage.

      Ford's problem with kossacks isn't that he's out of touch with his constituency.  It's that he's very much IN touch with them, and not us.

      I bet if I posted a diary praising Dean for his fifty state strategy, I'd get a million recs for his wisdom in bringing the dem message and orgainzaiton and democrats running close races in red states.  Then I could post a diary complaining aobut conservative stands of those same candidates and get a million recs FROM THE SAME PEOPLE.

      Kos is stepping on his own strategy.

      It's the proto-fascism

      by Inland on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 05:49:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Call it a pre-emptive strike (4+ / 0-)

    It's a totally different ball game for Democrats in deep red states. I'm in Georgia and even here conservative Democrats are painted with a broad brush by the Republicans as being for gay marriage even though some of them are not. The level of demonization here cannot be understood by some of you folks in blue states.

    It's very, very easy to criticize Ford. Ford is working hard to appeal to rural, traditional Republicans. This pre-emptive statement from Ford is smart politics as the ruling comes from a typical blue "librul" state. Deep down, Ford is nothing like what Kos and others here are making him out to be.

    Katherine Harris. "That gal knows how to shake a possum," the auctioneer drawled.

    by blueday on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:22:26 AM PDT

  •  i hate to compare harold ford to bill clinton (5+ / 0-)

    but for some reason my brain did it before I could stop the thought. hmmm

    I don't want to publicly support lying (see: triangulation) , and I could never run for office with a straight face and oppose gay marriage, given that my sister is a lesbian. CHeney, however, can have his cake and eat it too without a red face. what a guy.

    yeah, i want ford to win bad. real bad.

    Someone should pee on this man. Richard Pombo

    by ucla grad102 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:23:26 AM PDT

  •  I'll take this over... (8+ / 0-)

    people who claim to have no problem with gay marriage and then do their best to a) blame electoral failures (which have not even happened yet!) on gays and on the NJ ruling, and b) constantly claim that Democrats lost in 2004 because of gays. I saw this reaction today on this blog over and over, just as it was used by people like Feinstein back in 2004.

    I'd rather someone be open with their contempt than have someone who knifes you in the back when you become inconvenient.

  •  I am dispointed by this (5+ / 0-)

    But I still Support Ford and he one new Senator I really want to see, we need more minority senators. Did you guys see the ad he doesnt support the estate tax repeal, wants gun control laws, and doesnt support the patriot act so he hassome democratic qualities.

    "There is nothing wrong with America can't be cured by what is right with America" -Bill Clinton

    by SensibleDemocrat on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:25:23 AM PDT

  •  okay look, (8+ / 0-)

    As a gay man myself, I feel this is very skeezy--no, wait, this is very SHITTY of Harold Ford Jr.

    But at the same time, I somewhat endorse his tactic [whether or not he really is THAT anti-gay]--Harold Ford has been losing some religious conservatives the past few days, partially from the confrontation, and partially from those terrible, racist ads that the Repubs ran. If Ford wants any chance at winning, he needs to win those people over [Corker is sketchy to them since he was pro-choice in 1994].

    I'm not going to cry when Harold Ford becomes a US Senator from Tennessee. He's isn't 100% anti-gay [based on what I've read on his gay rights stances], but for goodness sake, this IS Tennessee we're talking about.

  •  All MEN are created equal ... (0+ / 0-)

    MEN and WoMEN.

        Ford is running in Tennessee for crissakes. He has to appeal to the NASCAR fundie Rebel Yell 'The South will rise Agin' crowd too.

        New Jersey is so 2006

        Tenesee is so 1862

    •  See, but this is the problem the Dems have. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sjs1959

      Tennessee isn't 1862. (At least spell the state right if you're going to insult them).

      They're not that far off the baseline than the rest of us - but generally, they're going to take the states-rights stance on things. They don't agree with the direction that other states want to go in, but they don't necessarily agree that those other states should be overruled. They know they are in the minority population-wise. I think a lot of TN residents would trade off gay marriage in NJ for gun rights in TN if it came down to a battle of national policies. Their fear of Dems is that we want to nationalize gay marriage and gun control and everything else, rather than let TN decide what's best for TN.

      Simply by supporting the states-rights view, he appeals to the TN demographics he needs without trampling on NJ as he's done here.

      -6.00, -7.03
      "I want my people to be the most intolerant people in the world." - Jerry Falwell

      by johnsonwax on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:34:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's the deal (0+ / 0-)

        This is all I'm going to post on this, personally - the thread already has so many replies it took about 12 years to load and I'll be amazed if this posts, honestly...

        Six months ago the Tennessee state House and Senate voted to put a gay-marriage constitutional amendment on the ballot.  Since Tennessee Democrats stupidly went along with this idea - and gay marriage is currently being demagogued on TN talk radio right up there with Hillary for President - the Repugs are using the topic to flog the hell out of their base and get all the wingers to the polls.

        I'm not thrilled this issue has come to the fore, as a progressive with may gay friends and relatives.  However, Ford is running as a black man and a Democrat, a double whammy in the South. Whether we like it or not, his taking any position remotely aligned with pro-gay-marriage is going to result in instant electoral death.

        As a person who's spent many hours on the ground trying to organize for labor, anti-death-penalty and similar, it pains me that this issue is becoming such an organizing point for folks now, two weeks before the election - when so many times I've been to rallies organized by groups like No on One (the state group working to oppose the hideous Constitutional amendment), the state AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood, you name it - and nearly nobody's there.  These groups struggle to raise money, to get folks to help them write letters, etc.

        When people don't get involved?  Which has been what's happening in Tennessee for years and years now - this is what you wind up with.  If the folks who spent many hours this week lambasting Ford for various reasons had spent half that time over the past six months donating to outfits like the Tennessee Coalition for State Killing, Tennessee Planned Parenthood, or the judicial group that opposed 300,000 people losing their health care last year - we might not be in this position.

        Politicians are going to pander to the public.  It's just that simple.  Our job as progressives is to try to change people's attitudes over the long haul, not only right before an election.

        I'm not in agreement with Ford's position on this and a few other things.  But Republicans are in lock step on their plans for world domination, and gee whiz - it sure would be nice to take the Senate away from them.

        Right now I'm pretty demoralized from logging on here and reading how most Kossacks hate the South, resent us for various reasons and think nothing we do is good enough.  I'm not to the point of a GBCW, but I'm done reading nearly so many threads until folks start talking about what it would take to fix problems like this one.  More money for education, for one thing.  Crashing the state Democratic Executive Committee so they have to run candidates who are more progressive on social issues (I can't tell you how many people don't even know there are such things as Executive Committees.)  Even going to DNC meetings, getting to know the players, would help - so the state Party has to take progressives into account.

        Some of us are trying really hard out here to be part of the solution, but it doesn't help to log onto a place that purports to be a haven of liberal and progressive thought and be told how stupid and worthless you are, and that nobody's interested in finding solutions - even if the national DNC didn't spend any money in the South in 2000 or '04, or even show up here much until Dean got to be Chair.  The state Democratic operation is rightward leaning and until we can find some people to help out on the ground doing something about that - instead of merely lobbing insults - I am really worried that nothing much constructive is going to happen in the coming years.

        EA in TN

        Google Bomb: Bob Corker
        VOTE FORD: www.fordfortennessee.co

        by Eleanor A on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:43:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  most Kossacks hate the South (0+ / 0-)

          Not hate ... just not respect. Seriously everytime I see the rebel flag I want to puke. To me it is the same as the Nazi flag. Its about racial superiority and actually owning people. Southern values?

              I live in upstate N.Y. This area is as racist as Tennessee ever was or is.

              The reality is that if Mr. Ford wants to secceed he must pander to his demographic blocs.

             

  •  I was worried about Scott Kleeb, too (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joynow, cosette

    That ad that went up Monday. "Conservative on Social Issues" kinda worried me.

    I said then

    What does that mean?

    Is that short form for anti-choice?

    Anti-gay?

    Pro personal use of AK-47s?

    It makes me worry when I see all of these VERY conservative Democrats being touted as the future of the Democratic Party.

    These candidates seem to be saying that integrity is a Democratic virtue, but that progressive social values are no longer so important.

    What does the party lose when its new stars are conservative on social issues and promote a strong version of American militarism? How does the party promote positive social change with these members of congress? I just don't get the code that Kleeb is using here: will he protect a woman's right to choose or not?

    Or do we worry about that after we get the House back?

    More worried than ever now.

    •  well, the co-opting isn't that 'deep' (0+ / 0-)

      I don't see Kleeb going into Congress his first year and trying to introduce 'social conservatism' in his bills. I see him working with the Democratic caucus. He will probably defend himself as need be, i would guess, by not publicly stating his liberal beliefs. I hate to say it so baldy, but hell this is politics and its fucked up.

      Someone should pee on this man. Richard Pombo

      by ucla grad102 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:42:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  BOTH Ford's and Kos's statements piss me off. (18+ / 0-)

    One of the surest ways to get slapped around here at dKos is to point out that the Greens are more progressive than the Dems, that the DLC Dems are essentially Republican Lite and conservative Dems (like Lieberman) are just Republicans wearing donkey ears.

    Anyone who says they are voting Green because they don't want to vote for a Lieberman gets shot down.  They're told that solidarity trumps all other considerations and that this site is all about electing Democrats.  

    Electing Democrats is the dKos Prime Directive; all other considerations are secondary.

    Now, Ford has essentially pulled a DLC/Lieberman and given the Gay-Bashing, Religous Right wing of the Republican Party a passionate French kiss.

    But, there is little doubt that taking this repugnant stand has enhanced his chances to obey the dKPrime Directive and get his Democratic Ass Elected.

    Kos, I have tremendous respect for what you've done for netroots in general and what you've done with dKos in particular.

    But I really think that in this instance, you've let your personal feelings overcome your political discipline.  Your statement about Ford runs counter to the dKPrime Directive, a Directive that you have formulated.

    I happen to agree with your opinion concerning Ford's outburst.  But considering the dKPrime Directive and how Greens have been treated around here, I think what you've done is not only hypocritical, it's also counter-productive.  Your statement does not enhance Ford's chances to get his Democratic Ass Elected; quite the contrary: because of your standing and influence, you've actually hurt his chances.

    Speaking for the pilloried and maligned Nader 2000 voters everywhere, what you've just done to the Ford campaign really pisses me off.

    -5.75 -4.72 3.14159 2.71828

    by xynz on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:36:22 AM PDT

    •  Strange (15+ / 0-)

      I know you're right:

      Electing Democrats is the dKos Prime Directive; all other considerations are secondary.

      But I was just sitting here thinking for a minute. I'm a 50 year old white woman. What if I was hearing politicians wax and wane on whether 50 year old white women deserved equal rights, equal benefits, or equal protection? What if my heart rose and fell with every bit of political posturing? I can't even imagine what that would be like.

      Mayke Kos, like so many of us, just has to say it every now and then. Otherwise, the steam will explode inside our heads and blow our brains out.

      For such a young, brash, bold country that thinks it's teaching the world how to do democracy and equality and all that jazz, we really do stink, you know?

      "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt

      by JuliaAnn on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:46:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We're not so young anymore (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JuliaAnn

        The United States is hardly progressive, and it hasn't been for a very long time. To people like Bush, "democracy" is a brand name like Lexus or something...devoid of meaning. The U.S. a very religious and superstitious country, and that is the territory Ford is running in.

        Kos, on the other hand, is still young (he looks and acts even younger sometimes, like right now). He seems to be tossing a fit in this diary, ignoring his own advice, advocating for the Green point of view.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 05:01:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with the lesson xynz is giving (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JuliaAnn

        on the purpose of this site, and the need for party discipline, which the Repubs have in spades, but I agree with your comment too, JuliaAnn.  Granted that we need to win elections to make policy; still, the policies we want to make are important too, and we can't afford to turn our backs too long on the principles we say we believe in.  Ford's gay-baiting and votes for the detainee bill are a hard pill to swallow, even though on balance he's preferable to Corker.

    •  not this again (4+ / 0-)

      The point right now is to get Dems elected so as to break the Republican stranglehold of death on our country.  Until we do that we can accomplish nothing.  You do realize that, right?
      Republican will continue running this country into the ground unless stopped and the only way to stop them is to take away their majority.  And getting a  Green elected but leaving the Republicans in power is pointless and would change absolutely nothing.
      To most of us this is a simple concept and very obvious.

      "This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ Not with a bang but a whimper." - T. S. Eliot

      by sadpanda on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:46:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So, how did Kos's statement further that cause?nt (0+ / 0-)

        -5.75 -4.72 3.14159 2.71828

        by xynz on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:49:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  in the same way as pointing out Lieberman's flaws (0+ / 0-)

          A politican says something that sounds like something a republican who say and you start to question whether or not he's actually an asset to us.  Just as Lieberman wasn't much help to us as a faux Dem, this guy might not be either.  
          Simply put - electing Dems is the goal, but if they are only DINO its really not much help.

          "This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ Not with a bang but a whimper." - T. S. Eliot

          by sadpanda on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:55:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How is this the same as getting rid of Lieberman? (4+ / 0-)

            Lieberman was deposed in a Democratic primary battle so that a (hopefully) real Democrat could (hopefully) take his Senate seat.

            This is the general election and Ford's opponent isn't a real Democrat, Ford's opponent is a real Republican.
             

            -5.75 -4.72 3.14159 2.71828

            by xynz on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:01:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you so much (0+ / 0-)

              Way too many people use "Lieberman" to mean "Democrat I disagree with on some things."

            •  ? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sjs1959

              Is Ford a real Democrat? If he's not then he does not fit into the so-called prime directive.

              After call there is no much difference b/w having a real Republican and a fake Democrat win.  One could be slightly better than the other, but that really not by much.

              Not identical but the same problem.  A DINO is not really any use to us.

              "This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ Not with a bang but a whimper." - T. S. Eliot

              by sadpanda on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:58:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  A DINO is useful if it gives you a majority. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Alice in Florida

                Especially when the DINO won't have any seniority... like say a new member of the Senate....like say Ford.

                If Ford gives the Dems the 51 seats that they need to take control of the Senate, then his usefulness as a part of that majority far outweighs his uselessness as a DINO.

                -5.75 -4.72 3.14159 2.71828

                by xynz on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:07:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  not necessarily (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sjs1959

                  Not if he doesn't vote with you.

                  If he's in-line with the Republicans he's just as likely to vote their way.  Republicans vote party line and they only need to pick up one "Dem".  He might be an easy target and then they essentially have a majority.

                  "This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ Not with a bang but a whimper." - T. S. Eliot

                  by sadpanda on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:11:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't think you've thought this through. (4+ / 0-)

                    You're essentially saying that having Corker as a true Republican Senator is preferable to having Ford as a DINO Senator.

                    You're saying that, given the choice, you would prefer to be in the minority with 49 "true" Dems and 1 caucusing independent, than to be in the majority with 49 "true" Dems, 1 caucusing independent and 1 DINO...because the DINO might bolt to the other side and put you into the minority that you would be in if the DINO hadn't been elected in the first place.

                    That makes absolutely no sense at all.

                    The true Dem case gives you NO chance for majority status while the DINO case at least gives you a chance.

                    -5.75 -4.72 3.14159 2.71828

                    by xynz on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:58:50 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  no (0+ / 0-)

                      Ieally I'd prefer 51 real Democrats.  

                      And really I'm just responding to your attack that Kos was being inconsistant. I don't think he is.

                      However, I never said whether I wanted Ford to win or not.  I do.  Because you are right, he is marginally better and because he might give us hope. And so does Kos.  He's just not happy about it.  At most it will be a hollow victory.

                      Do I have to be excited about his winning.  Nope.  I also can choose to focus my energies on other deserving candidates. We have a lot.  He is simply not one that should we win it I'm not goint to be over-joyed.

                      My point to you has always been that questioning whether someone is really a Dem and really going to be useful to use is not out of step with the purpose of this blog. If we want to elect Dems the first question should be is that person really a Dem and what will the really bring us.  If someone is a DINO is name only, they may not bring us much if anything.  And knowing and admitting that is important.  I reject the idea that just because someone adopts the Dem label we are required to support them without questioning whether their believes are in line with ours.

                      I'm not saying that I don't want Ford to win.  Everything else aside he is slightly better than the alternative.  But I do think some of the other amazing candidates that are truly represent the Dem philosophy will be more useful to us. And on principle I'd rather focus my energy on them.  I can't stand up for racist or homophobes - that's would be a betrayal of myself.  I'm lucky though.  I lucku though.  He's not on my ballot so I don't have to make the choice between my conscience and practicality to vote him in and a repug out.

                      "This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ Not with a bang but a whimper." - T. S. Eliot

                      by sadpanda on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:04:46 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Did Kos's commment help or hinder the Ford.... (0+ / 0-)

                        ....campaign?

                        It's a simple question.

                        If your answer is "yes", then how did it help?

                        If your answer is "no", then how is that consistent with the dKPrime directive?

                        If your answer is "neither", then you are not being realistic.

                        -5.75 -4.72 3.14159 2.71828

                        by xynz on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 08:11:27 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  You don't understand how Congress works (3+ / 0-)

                    If you're in the minority, especially the way the current Republicans run things, you don't even get to have votes on your bills. If Reid is majority leader, the matters that are voted on would change. The committee assignments would change. It would be a whole different ballgame. (For example, the marriage amendment probably wouldn't even come up for a vote, so it wouldn't matter what Ford thought of it.)

                    "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

                    by Alice in Florida on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 05:12:20 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  What the hell is a "real" Democrat? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                scrutinizer, tabbycat in tenn

                Right now, it's anyone running on the "D" line. It's whoever will vote for Reid or Pelosi instead of Frist or Hastert.

                What's the point in joining the "big tent" party and then throwing half of the other people out of the f***ing tent?

                By the way, it may be instructive to note that Karl Rove never pulls this crap on his "RINOs" at election time.

                "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

                by Alice in Florida on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 05:08:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Personal feelings? What planet are you on? Ford (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sjs1959, gmb, sadpanda, drettmann

      and everyone in an uproar about a rascist ad, and then Ford turns into a fucking Homophob. If anyone knows what it is like to be a minority and has to struggle daily in a minority, Ford should know. And what about the constituiton. What about Equal Rights under the fucking Law. I am proud that Kos has spoken up. Ford really had to come out and talk about another State that he has no business in (NJ) and make a negative comment about? Then go into how he would support a fucking constitutional ammendment to ban Gay Marriage. Then we have Racist Repub Allen in VA, with his noose and Confed Flag and the new story in todays WaPo. I have been around here for two years now and to see Ford making statements like this, that weren't even necessary, Kos may not cry if Ford doesn't win, I just might not Care. I am instead keeping my eye on VA, & MO and will donate more to Claire and Jimmy and perhaps phone bank from LA if possible. I am Pissed.

      I am typing my fingers to the bone for Harry, his little hippie River, us, and America.

      by Chamonix on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:50:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Everything you said is correct... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alice in Florida, scrutinizer, peeder

        ...but I'm not the one who made the rules for this website, Kos did.

        The #1 Rule is: Get Dems Elected.

        Kos just broke his own rule, are you ok with that?

        Are you ok with the fact that Kos jumps on people who have done EXACTLY what Kos just did?

        Everything that Kos said about Ford was right on the mark.  But from the point of view of political discipline and getting this particular Democrat elected, it was dead wrong.

        -5.75 -4.72 3.14159 2.71828

        by xynz on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:57:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  sigh (0+ / 0-)

          But what is a Dem? How do you define a Democrat?

          If being a Dem is only the label a politican chooses there is no problem.  Obviouly you have to wonder about a supposed Dem who says something like this.

          Unless your one of those fools who thinks there is no real difference b/w Dems and Repugs that is...

          "This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ Not with a bang but a whimper." - T. S. Eliot

          by sadpanda on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:02:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Did you read what you just wrote? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sjs1959, supersoling

            First you say:

            Obviouly you have to wonder about a supposed Dem who says something like this.

            Then you contradict yourself:

            Unless your one of those fools who thinks there is no real difference b/w Dems and Repugs that is

            I got a newsflash for you: if your supposed Dem isn't really a Dem, then there ISN'T any real difference between that "Dem" and a Repug.

            -5.75 -4.72 3.14159 2.71828

            by xynz on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:08:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  original reply gotten eatten (0+ / 0-)

              Those do not contradict.

              They are unrelated points.

              1- I am questing whether ONE "DEM" is actually a Dem.
              2- I'm trying to point out how Kos would seem to be violating the purpose of the site if you thought that Dem and Repubs are the same and the only difference is the label.

              If you think that there is an actual difference b/w the parties and that Dems stand for something different, then questioning whether a Dem is actually a Dem is important when trying to elect Dems.  If you think the only difference is the label (as people frequently come here and argue, saying that both parties are the same and you should vote for neiter - and then ususally suggest voting Green) then Kos's statement would be problematic because he is not just pushing the self-labeled Dem.

              Kos is looking past the label to the content.  

              "This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ Not with a bang but a whimper." - T. S. Eliot

              by sadpanda on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:16:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your statement makes absolutely no sense: (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                scrutinizer, illinifan17

                If you think that there is an actual difference b/w the parties and that Dems stand for something different, then questioning whether a Dem is actually a Dem is important when trying to elect Dems.

                No, such questions are only important when picking between Dems in the primary.

                Once the primaries are over and the Dem is on the general election ballot, then if your objective is to get Dems elected in the general election, asking such questions is counter-productive.

                What possible good does it do for the cause of electing Dems to attack a Dem in the general election?  How has Kos's statement about Ford helped the Democratic party in its bid to take over the Senate in 2006?

                -5.75 -4.72 3.14159 2.71828

                by xynz on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:50:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  it might not (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rabid Lambert

                  but if the choice is really Republican vs. Republican pushing the Republican in Dem clothing doesn't help us elect Dems.

                  If nothing else speaking out about this makes it clear the WE are not big fat morons that will vote for anything just because it calls itself a Dem.  WE have standards. We are Dems specifically because we have certain values and we have to be true to those values.

                  And maybe this doesn't bother you because its homosexuals, but if someone said the same thing about race would you honestly expect me to support him no matter what he choose to call himself.  There are certain core principals to being a Dem, I think this is one of them.  The main reason I (and many others) vote Dem is because we are not the party of intolerance.  Quite honestly if the party were to embrace homophobia and racism, I wouldn't be a Democrat. Period.  If this is what WE are I want out. Some things are that basic and that atrocious.

                  "This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ Not with a bang but a whimper." - T. S. Eliot

                  by sadpanda on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:17:19 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Let's ask TN dems to define it. (4+ / 0-)

            Oh, wait, they already did.  Harold Ford.  My guess is that anyone who wanted to argue that a democrat categorically has to support gay marriage could have raised gay marriage as an issue in the primary.  Oh, wait, they did that too.

            Funny thing about the fifty state strategy and wanting to be a majority party...you have to actually accept the primary results of the fifty states, or accept the republican.

            My guess is that the only fools who can't see the difference between Corker and Ford are the ones who can only see one issue.

            It's the proto-fascism

            by Inland on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 05:03:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Have you read CTG? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sjs1959

          Read the discussion on pp 65-66 regarding the Coalition for a Better Colorado and the Alliance for a Better Colorado. These organizations were set up to ensure that single-issue groups were not forced to support candidates at odds with their core missions. That way everyone is happy and energized in support of candidates they can get behind fully. And Dems got elected as a result. The same concept is applicable to individuals - don't try to shame me into supporting a homophobe like Ford because he is a Dem. That just creates resentment. Instead, show respect for my beliefs, be positive and simply encourage me to support other Democratic candidates - which I do. That way we all win. It's simply not necessary that every Dem has to support every Dem candidate for the "#1 Rule" to be achieved. Indeed to insist on that is ultimately counter-productive

    •  Totally agree, xynz! (0+ / 0-)

      Electing Democrats is the dKos Prime Directive; all other considerations are secondary.

      But, there is little doubt that taking this repugnant stand has enhanced his chances to obey the dKPrime Directive and get his Democratic Ass Elected.

      Kos, I have tremendous respect for what you've done for netroots in general and what you've done with dKos in particular.

      But I really think that in this instance, you've let your personal feelings overcome your political discipline.  Your statement about Ford runs counter to the dKPrime Directive, a Directive that you have formulated.

      Kos, everyone here is working really really hard to get out from under this crushing oppression from the right.  People are donating their hard-earned cash to candidates spread out all over the country.  You could have held off on your opinion until AFTER the election.  Who needs Rove when you are dropping an October surprise two weeks before the election?  

      Get some sleep, Kos.  I think you are wearing yourself too thin and it is affecting your judgement.

      •  Or, maybe Kos is a genius (0+ / 0-)

        It just occurred to me that with all of the attention this Ford quote is getting after Kos' post it may be what saves Ford.

        Ford might possibly lose a couple of dem votes, but he'll pick up thousands of republican ones.

        Maybe you're not as sleep-deprived as it seems, Kos.

  •  first they came for the gay marriage ... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sjs1959, JuliaAnn, Chamonix, gmb, Voxbear

    ... and then they came for the white women.

    :-p

  •  It's the dream of everybody who's ever been... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JuliaAnn, gmb, Timoteo

    descriminated against to one day have the power to descriminate against somebody else.

    FREE TRADE ISN'T FREE!

    by Intercaust on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:39:34 AM PDT

  •  Damn, Felix Allen's statement is a garbled mess (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sjs1959

    And Ford's statement is so crisp and lean.

    Future generations will laugh their heads off at both someday.

  •  My email to his campaign: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sjs1959, JmWillFixIt, Voxbear

    Subject: It's not about marriage, it's about rights.
    From: Me
    To: Him

    "I do not support the decision today reached by the New Jersey Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage, and have voted twice in Congress to amend the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. This November there's a referendum on the Tennessee ballot to ban same-sex marriage - I am voting for it."

    Asshole.

  •  yeah, I want him to win too BUT (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe, gmb, sadpanda

    I am starting to get a little worried that some of these people we are rooting for are going to be right of Ben Nelson. I am starting to wonder what kind of a win that would be? I guess baby steps. This guy makes Lieberman seem like Boxer. I have offically taken my eye off FORD and am concentrating on VA & MO. Ford is on life support to me.

    I am typing my fingers to the bone for Harry, his little hippie River, us, and America.

    by Chamonix on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:42:34 AM PDT

  •  Kos calm down. There lots of thing I won't cry (8+ / 1-)

    about but certain emotionally-tinged statement are better kept within us.  Sir, Ford is in heck of a war. It is easier for an armchair quarterback like you and me to question his opinion. You don't have to agree with everything he says or his opinions but he has the right to express them.

    I agree with you that

    First of all, what New Jersey does is none of Ford's business.

    but saying that

    Yeah, I want Ford to win. But I won't cry when he doesn't.

    is not helpful to our cause and very vindictive.

    We Democrat should accept us. What do you think of Bob Casey on abortion? You have too much following here, sir. This statement would have been better if it was not expressed in the front page. Thanks for your services as always.

    •  our cause? (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sjs1959, Chamonix, gmb, Timoteo, Rabid Lambert

      unless our cause is to empower homophobes, whis statement does serve our cause.

      Your right, Kos does have power and he is using that power to speak out against intolerance - like a true Democrat. If we stand for anything don't we stand against intolerance.

      I think that this sends the perfect message.  This sight supports Dems, but just calling yourself one won't get us to fight for you.  You have to act like one.

      "This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ Not with a bang but a whimper." - T. S. Eliot

      by sadpanda on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:58:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A-Fucking-Men n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sjs1959, gmb

        I am typing my fingers to the bone for Harry, his little hippie River, us, and America.

        by Chamonix on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:20:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  thanks for understanding that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sjs1959

          Glad you could even understand that with all the typos.  I'm having a bad morning and hanging out here to keep from screaming at a friend.  
          Looks like repressing rage is not good for my typing...

          "This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ Not with a bang but a whimper." - T. S. Eliot

          by sadpanda on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:40:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Emotionally tinged? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chamonix

      In light of this statement:

      "I oppose gay marriage, and have voted twice in Congress to amend the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage."

      I'd say Marcos's criticisms are perfectly founded. I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" regarding campaign statements of Democrats in deep red states vs their potential voting records. But here you have a guy who proudly "voted twice" to shit on the rights of others.

      Political coalitions require compromise but they do not require rooting for people who want permanently write bigotry in the U.S Constitution.

      •  If there's a Dem majority (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        beachmom

        I bet they don't even hold a vote on the Marriage amendment. If Ford's opponent wins, he is guaranteed to vote for it, and you know it will be brought up for a vote.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 05:29:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the same (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sjs1959

          forces that would a llow a harold win would mean there would be a vote regardless of a democratic or republican win. some of you dont get that about politics. its as much how you win as whether you win. if the kind of forces harold is trying to placate are what are perceived as the reason why the democrats won thne you want see much difference in congress from what you got now. they will tweak the edges to placate folks like you who are so starved for anything, but in reality, nothing really will change because the other side isn't static- they can see what is going on and how to push the buttons to get what they want. in this case, ford is perfectly willing to cry foul over race baiting, but also perfectly willing to gay bait. the moral value in a public rather than personal sense of that phrase is really, really bad for any idea of a common good- which is the concept that democrats will be working on if they want to govern.

          Fear is not a winning strategy.

          by bruh1 on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 05:38:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There are different priorities (0+ / 0-)

            on the Democratic and Republican sides. Marriage and Family law are properly state matters...the only reason there is a Federal Marriage Amendment is as a publicity stunt for right-wing Republicans to pander to their fundamentalist constituency. Fundamentalists are not a major constituency of the Democratic party, so they have no need to pander to them. (They need to get busy pandering to working people for a change!) Anyway, most polls show around 50% of Americans are OK with civil unions, up significantly from 2004. The anti-gay movement is truly vile, but it is fading and will continue to fade. An overwhelming number of young people are refreshingly free of sex-orientation bias....as the pre-Kinsey generation dies off, it will become less and less of an issue.

            Regarding your argument that if "the kind of forces harold is trying to placate are what are perceived as the reason why the democrats won"--there is zero chance of that. The Republicans have it all over us on that side, hands down, no contest. If Dems win the majority, it will be (rightly) considered a loss for the knuckle draggers, even if we have a few in our caucus.

            "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

            by Alice in Florida on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 09:49:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I would give you two troll ratings if I could (2+ / 3-)
      Recommended by:
      MJB, gmb
      Hidden by:
      Alice in Florida, scrutinizer, ameri

      the nerve suggesting or telling Kos what belongs on the front page of his blog. Stop with the Bob Casey and abortion straw man. Grow the fuck up. "thanks for your services as always" what a patronizing statement.

      I am typing my fingers to the bone for Harry, his little hippie River, us, and America.

      by Chamonix on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:18:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ford=Matheson (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jethropalerobber, joynow, jorndorff

    Ford reminds me of Jim Matheson here Utah's 2nd district. Of our 2 senators and 3 representatives, he is the only Democrat. But you wouldn't know it by his voting record as he votes with the Republicans most of the time. But the reality is that here in the reddest state in the nation that is the only way for a Democrat to survive. I will hold my nose as I vote for him.

    When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross--Sinclair Lewis

    by rmonroe on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:49:39 AM PDT

  •  the way I deal with Dems like this (5+ / 0-)

    is to just treat them as an abstract number so we can build a Congressional majority. Other than that, they don't even register as human fucking beings as far as I'm concerned.

  •  Oh, one thing I do remember... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hhex65, Chamonix

    None of the 2004 Dem Senate candidates who supported a federal ban on gay marriage won. The only 2 Dem senators who won (not reelected, I mean new senators) were Salazar and Obama, who opposed the amendment.

    I have the feeling the same will probably be true for htis year.

  •  There will still be over 60 pro-torture Senators (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosette, rmonroe

    Our only hope to prevent future torture legislation is the House. We have pro-torture Democrats running in TN, OH, and probably PA, and the RI race isn't going to change anything. Was 66 pro-torture Senators before, best case we're looking at 62-63 after this election.

  •  What a jack-off (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sjs1959, benheeha, 0wn

    Wonder if he would take the same stand if this was about the Loving v Virginia (which is no different really) a ruling that allowed them there uppity niggers to marry white women?

    Ford comes from the equal rights for me none for you fags school of moral fuck-headedness.

    cheers,

    Mitch Gore

    Want control of Congress? Put you money where your mouth is

    by Lestatdelc on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:59:12 AM PDT

  •  Strange Brew. I'm out of this bar tonight (0+ / 0-)

    Won't be back till after the election. If Lieberman wins and Ford loses, won't be back at all.

    Democrats: Putting Intelligence Back Into National Security

    by Robert Davies on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:00:51 AM PDT

  •  *When* he doesn't? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pointsoflight

    Shouldn't that be if?

    Or is this your personal kiss of death?

    'Everybody's born-again these days; if you're not born-again you're dead, you're out of touch, yours is a minority view, you lose.' Barthelme 'Nat.Sel.'

    by jorndorff on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:01:07 AM PDT

    •  Totally fair (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sjs1959

      If you want people to vote for you, you have to be for something they're for. To date, I haven't heard of a single thing Ford is for that Corker isn't. And if he thinks people are going to vote for him just out of outrage against possible racism, he needs to move to another state.

  •  Ford isn't Dean, and Dems are still only human... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rmonroe

    it is the repugs that make a concerted effort to target the weak and dogpile onto the the vulnerable groups.

    Curiosity brings truth to power, Incuriosity brings the villiage idiot to power.

    by sexton on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:01:48 AM PDT

  •  The fact that Ford (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    matt n nyc, CommandoAndy, rmonroe

    Decided to nationalize his opinion on this, in this way,  at this time is a bit of a shocker.  However, as much as I want Ford to win..I was never truly excited about him. My intuition rader never got that "genuine" vibe from him. In fact, he kinda seems like a prick. He's far too much of a slick opportunist, but still...alot better than Corker policy wise.  I would still encourage anyone from TN to still activley encourage everyone they know to vote for Ford. Hell, I gotta vote for Sen Herb Kohl this year, whose not exacly a bold progressive...but, compared to his religous right, rethug opponent, Kohl looks like Ralph fucking Nader.
    Anyway, I'm glad Kos had the guts to call like he saw it, if we turned a blind eye to this sort of stuff, it would only make us hypocrites.

    "I don't wanna listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore!" -Howard Dean

    by astronautagogo on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:03:05 AM PDT

  •  He has to fight the homophobes and race baiters (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia, Clem Yeobright, OWTH, rmonroe

    Its a tough race. I may not agree with his actions but we have to remember politics is all about winning the election.

    Ford will be able to "come to Jeus" after he wins the election. He will then be in a position to educate the voters down home about equal protection adn how we are all safer with the protection of law.

    •  that doesn't mean we stay silent (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sjs1959

      I expect integrity from my politicans.  That said I understand not getting it at election time : ) However, doing anything to win is not ok.

      That said, just because I understand a little politicing at times doesn't mean that I ever tolerate intolerance and will ever do anything but condemn homophobes.  

      Do we have principles any principles at all. Hell its fine we me if our only principle that we are better than the Republicans.  However, this is not better than the Republicans - its is the Republicans.  If we become like what we are opposing then we have nothing.  It serves no purpose to win if we just become like what we dispise.  

      And if we are seen to tolerate it we as individuals lose our integrity.  Quite simply, we are Dems and liberals because we don't not tolerate this stuff.

      "This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ This is the way the world ends/ Not with a bang but a whimper." - T. S. Eliot

      by sadpanda on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:06:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Come to Jesus? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sjs1959, sadpanda, norahc

      When exactly will that be?  After he's elected?  Considering this is the same guy who says he voted against it twice, I don't think he'll do that any time soon considering he's been in the House for a decade. Likewise, don't tell me the fact that he uses the word "marriage" in the statement isn't calculated. And 4 times in 3 sentences is a nice touch of rhetorical overkill.

    •  No, he IS a homophobe (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sjs1959, norahc

      Repeat after me: Anyone who thinks gay people do not deserve basic human rights for their relationships is a homophobe.

      And, it can't be pointed out often enough, anyone who voted for the "Detainee Bill" is a perverted sadist and a monarchist.

      Ford is all of the above. If he wins, fine. More power to Harry Reid. If he doesn't, fine too. We wouldn't have been able to depend on his vote on anything important anyway.

  •  Bush on civil unions (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jethropalerobber, rmonroe

    I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so.

    Of course he was likely lying about his true views because it was right before the 2004 election.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/...