And Im going to tell you why thats a good thing.
I can feel straight democrats and anti-bushites squirming around the country. Why, oh why are they doing this now? In an election year, why did they have we have to force the issue. But maybe, just maybe, the democrats can save this for themselves.
If they listen to me...
Your probably going to have to clean up the language a bit but here is the thrust of the message..."Which is more important to you right now, finding a job and having social security around when you retire, or weather or not a buncha queer people marry?".
You see, we're tired of being the part of the Democratic Party the Democratic Party doesnt like to talk about. Pickering was a bone thown to our republican versions. We got Hormel, although all things considored, I think I would have perfered a federal judgeship. I mean, c'mon guys...Luxemburg?
But the issue is forced. Weather by judges, on San Francisco, or Bush or the Republican base. Democrats have to keep what is being said BY republicans in the spotlight. What your going to be heard is going to be either vitriolic or painfully convoluted. Thats the beautiful part. The Democratic attitude toward sexual orientation can be described as libertarian. Fiscal conservatives, already shaken by Bush's handaling of the economy are further turned off by what this "shrinking of government so small it can fit in your bedroom". What your basically doing is asking working people and fiscal conservatives is "when things are this bad for you, why are the republicans wasting energy on this?".
It wont bring you anyone from the republican ideological base, but you dont want that anyways. Thats why you didnt vote for Joe Liberman.
PS Fair warning, we are going to have to start a national dialouge on sex if Bush is ousted. His policys on sex and reproduction have been a retrogressive, hetronormative, evangelical playground from day one.