Kerry refused to take Clinton's antigay advice

[Quetzal]

Kerry refused to take Clinton's antigay advice

A new report from inside the John Kerry campaign suggests that in the final weeks of the campagin former president Bill Clinton advised Kerry to come out in favor of ballot measures that wrote antigay marriage discimination into the constitutions of 11 states. According to the latest issue of Newsweek, "Looking for a way to pick up swing voters in the red states, former president Bill Clinton, in a phone call with Kerry, urged the senator to back local bans on gay marriage. Kerry respectfully listened, then told his aides, 'I'm not going to ever do that.'"

The advice is not inconsistent with Clinton's record: He is the chief executive who signed the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and leaves gay and lesbian couples legally married in Massachusetts since May 17 in legal limbo. The federal DOMA also prevents those couples from acquiring access to the Social Security and other benefits that other legally married couples have.

Similarly, Kerry's response to Clinton's advice is consistent with his position on same-sex couples. Kerry, who voted against DOMA in 1996, told The Advocate that although he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, he favors the establishment of civil unions that included all the rights and responsibilities of marriage and opposes the federal constitutional amendment to ban marriage that President Bush supports.

more...

Kerry refused to take Clinton's antigay advice

[eleny]

1. Politics would drive Jesus to a bar stool

[everythingsxen]

3. Who's to say in Jesus' day, it didn't?

I mean after all, if you could turn water towine, wouldn't you? :D

[eleny]

71. Thanks! That's really good

I needed the grins!

[Thurston Howell IV]

84. That's why he said "My kingdom is not of this world."

It'd be great if his evangelical followers read his words more closely.

[0007]

224. The Evangelical followers don't read and many can't.

They rely upon FAUX news to do their thinking. Then on Sundays, the fat Pharisee leaders that talk of botherly love in the name of brotherhood leads the flock into prayer while picking their pockets while striking fear in the heart.


A hypocritically self-righteous person.
A true money lord

[The_Counsel]

143. True. After All, It Was Politics That Orchestrated His Crucifixion. n/t

What part of "n/t" did you NOT understand...? :-)

[sendero]

153. LOL..

.... now that's funny :)

[rooboy]

2. People who hate gays that much deserve George Bush, not John Kerry. n/t

[Mend]

129. I Do Not Deserve Bush!

This is not about gays, this is about America....a minority group should expect respect and dignity but we have to be in power first. That means soft-pedaling some issues during a campaign. You don't have the clout to demand front and center of any platform and up wards of a quarter of gays voted repuke anyway. Now you have nothing and we have nothing.

[jdj]

142. amen.

[TankLV]

154. No fucking way.

WE gay people compromised and it got us SQUAT!

No more compromising!

Either a candidate COMPLETELY AND FULLY supports my positions, or he doesn't get my vote. Period.

I once thought that "for the good of the party" or "wait till we get electect first" but no more.

If the Democratic Party wants to go in that direction, they can count me out. And I will work to ensure that others leave, too.

NO MORE COMPROMISES!

Fuck all you bigots!

[KitSileya]

168. Yeah, I see where you're coming from.

Who do you want to deal with? The guy who openly says I won't help you, or the guy who says, I can help you, if you do this first, and then dumps you after you do? At least, if you refuse to fall for the second guy, you'll save some money and some time!

KitSileya

[JohnOneillsMemory]

214. Simply put: 'Fags' are the new ' niggers' as a hate weapon for Rove.

AND 'liberals' are the new 'jews' in the Dominionist effort to eliminate the US Constitution.

Dems agonized over how far they could affirm the humanity of African Americans without being lynched themelves in the 50s and 60s.

Now they are afraid to affirm the humanity of gays and lesbians out of fear of being tied to a fence and beaten like Matthew Shepard.

Clinton felt the heat immediately when he affirmed gays and beat a hasty retreat to survive politically. That's what he tried to tell Kerry:
Our Fallow Merkins really ARE that ignorant and hateful.

Sad but true. And now Fascism marches on 'vociferously.'

[Turbo]

218. If that's what Clinton did, then he is....

"Clinton felt the heat immediately when he affirmed gays and beat a hasty retreat to survive politically."

If true, then Clinton doesn't have the faith of his convictions, and he too is a wimp. What a sorry mess, I'm afraid.

[ermoore]

238. Clinton doesn't have convictions

Never has, never will. He only does whatever brings the most advantage politically. It's his biggest flaw. From DOMA to ignoring the genocide in Rwanda, it's why he was only a slightly better than average president and not a great president.

[jackson]

303. But Bush does what is politically expedient to a new level beyond Clinton.

Let's not get so down on Clinton we lose perspective.

[lanparty]

240. Democrats were a clear majority when Johnson reigned!!!

Johnson LOST the South. Guess what we haven't got it back yet despite his prediction of 30 years!!!!

Now you're asking Democrats to sacrifice the Midwest as well!!!! For WHAT???

For the right to have a job... NO
For the right NOT to be lynched ... NO
For the right to live where you like ... NO
For the right to an equal education ... NO
For the right of equal pay ... NO
For the right to proper health care .... NO

Those are the questions that drove the civil rights movement!!!! And giving up the midwest over this piddly ass gay marriage issue is foolish political suicide???

We have driven society farther culturally than they're ready to accept. We have pushed the envelope as FAR as it can go for now. And now we're BACKSLIDING because the Republicans are in charge!!!! Keep this up and we'll lose EVERYTHING we've gained since the 1930s.

Ask yourself this.

Is middle America ready to sacrifice social security for gay marriage????

Are black and hispanic America ready to sacrifice civil rights for gay marriage???

Are islamics ready to hold themselves to ridicule and have themselves interned as some have suggested for the sake of GAY MARRIAGE???

Are poor and middle class Americans ready to sacrifice their economic prospects for gay marriage???

Are we ready to sacrifice our national security for gay marriage???

Are we willing to allow the abomination of electronic voting machines to proliferate by supporting gay marriage???

You answer these questions for YOURSELF and ask yourself what your political prospects are. The rest of us will stick up for your right to be gay and live as you please. But we will NOT sacrifice our futures for the sake of redefining a word!!!

Do the math and face REALITY!!!! All you're doing is driving people to the Republican Party. And your response that I SHOULD go join the Republicans is indicative of what it will do to everyone else!!!!

[ExclamationPoint]

264. Amen to that!

That is a great argument. I wish we could post that on the door of every evangelical church in america.

[Q3JR4]

272. I that's how you think they feel about it then

fuck middle America.

I busted my ass in this election. I registered a hundred new people myself and was responsible for three student organizations running a registration drive on campus. I even drove people to their polling places on election day.

Now you're telling me, "Sit in the back of the bus and don't make a sound. We'll get to you eventually." Fuck that. If you or any other Democrat wants to stick a nife in my back then fuck you too.

[Hoping4Change]

333. And where does that attiyde get you?

[TankLV]

335. Well, we certainly know where compromising your beliefs and ideals got us.

WE STILL LOST!

Better to fight the noble an honerable fight and lose than to spin and triangulate and sell your soul and LOSE!

JUST WHAT DID "WE" GAIN BY SELLING OUT?

SQUAT!

[Hoping4Change]

337. I don't know how old you are but I'm in my forties. In the 70's

homosexuality was not even mentioned n the news, it was referred to obliquely. It really wasn't really till the nineties that mainstream media mentioned homosexuality as a matter of course. And what happened since the nineties is a sky-rocking profile. This is 120% great. However I come from a very traditional family, the vehemence that any overt sexuality provokes is mind-numbing. Being a intimate witness to both worlds, I have come to the conclusion however unpalatable it may be that gays should have bided their time and let the million s of people who are flummoxed by homosexuality becoming part of mainstream culture time to acclimatize. Is it just to delay same sex unions? No not at all. But how has pushing this agenda helped anyone? Having patience is not throwing principles aboard.

[CAcyclist]

274. That's your opinion - it's not mine

I am not gay,but I stand by the gays. This spineless willingness to throw away important members of the progressive base whenever it is expedient is one reason why we lost and why the Greens are rising.

Democrats better stand on their principles of fairness and equality for all or they will have no party and nothing.

This election was stolen, but it could have been won if the Democrats were willing to call for a New New Deal and openly court the poor and disenfranchised. We didn't go far enough back to the base - the Republicans went to their base and "won"

The only thing we should be copying from the Republicans is to go back to our base the way they did theirs.But on different ideals.

Our base overlaps theirs when we start talking about busting the trusts, getting the mills runniing again, raising the minimum wage, guaranteeing good education for all.
We don't need to start talking about marginalizing gays and women's rights to an abortion - we need to talk about economic issues!

[TaleWgnDg]

286. I strongly and vehemently disagree.

1.) Clinton signed DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which is a federal law that prohibits same sex marriage from being recognized state-to-state, and prohibits same sex couples from federal law benefits.

2.) Clinton knew DOMA would not and will not survive a U.S. Supreme Court review, after all, Clinton was a constitutional law school professor. Note what Scalia in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas stated. Politics is the art of compromise . . . quid pro quo. And if there is no long-lasting harm but for window dressing then there's no damage.

3.) Kerry has been and continues to be an advocate of "individual rights" which includes the right of individuals such as gays to be equal in law as straights. What would Kerry have lost by "endorsing" several states constitutional amendments for hetero-only marriage? After all, these state constitution amendments will fail before the U.S. Supreme Court as well re Lawrence v. Texas . I fail to understand why, if this third-hand story is true, Kerry did not do what Clinton is alleging to have "advised" Kerry to do.

This entire issue is so damn stupid. And, oh, btw, I, myself, have assisted gay couples in Massachusetts seek court redress in many areas of law, as well as in other states where I am licensed to practice law.

The sole impediment in this premise is that if, repeat if, the U.S. Supreme Court is packed w/ justices who are willing to overturn the privacy prong of case law and equal protection as to gays where it's been ruled upon favorably recently.

[rhyfeddu]

326. "No long lasting harm"???

You may see some genius double-agent strategy, that escaped me, to Clinton signing DOMA - but what gay-bashing thugs see is confirmation of their sicko world views: "See, even that pinko President knows gays aren't normal, and not as good as us".

Crap. If you sell your values out to get on top, even if you win, you lose. Selling out anyones right to further some political goals is what I expect from the Right, not Dems.

[Name removed]

239. Deleted message

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

[Q3JR4]

275. Democrats have to ask themselves.

So people like you would turn your backs on the downtrodden masses, people that Democrats have historically stood up for. I don't believe I'm seeing this. On a Democratic board no less.

The only thing I have to tell you is exactly what I've posted on this thread before.

I don't need this shit, none of us does. If you don't want our support in the next election, keep it up. If the party that is supposed to safeguard individual rights refuses to do so, then this country isn't worth fighting for.

All Democrats who think like this person here can kiss my ass and fuck off. I refuse to be part of anything that would take away rights from one group of people for political gain.

[jwirr]

297. If the Democrats lost because of the gay-marriage/abortion

issue then I would ask you: Will you gain anything by leaving the party if it recognized that now is not the time? Have you a party to go to that will win for you and make a difference? As it stands there is not a gay party strong enough to win alone and going to the repugs will set the gay movement back years. Anyone working for a cause knows that it takes years and compromise to win. It will not be any different for this issue. The abortion issue had just barely settled down and then it reared its head to couple with this gay-marriage issue. That did us in.

What I would suggest is that the use of the term "gay-marriage" as opposed to the term "civil union" is the problem. In a nation that was founded on separation of church and state the first term implies a religious connotation. The second term is government related. The first is an effort to tell churches what to do while the second is a government function. Civil unions deals with the rights of one partner to another, regardless of gender, in a secular situation. This would allow a partner to collect social security benefits (if we have any when bushie gets done) from the other regardless of gender from a secular institution. I think we are always going to have opposition when we try to dictate religious terms to the churches (that is why many of them immigrated here in the first place) but when it comes to equality in government practices it is another matter.

In any issue we must always realize that an inch is progress but a lose is just that: a lose.

[Hoping4Change]

334. You are not even deliering your base to the Democrats. Why

do so many gays vote repuke?

[CAcyclist]

280. Gays didn't get any advances by keeping a low profile

Give me a break, read some history.Start with And The Band Played On, by Randy Shilts

Gays started getting some breaks after AIDS started killing gays and they woke up and realized that they better stand together and out themselves as gays and demand their rights or they were going to die.

Nobody "gave" gays anything - they fought and died for their rights.

Gay marriage isn't going to hurt anyone and once people , even right-wing lunatics, have a chance to live with it, they will see there's no point in hurting themselves by supporting a party that is hurting them economically.

Even California, that supposed bastian of liberalism, has an anti-gay marriage statute. That didn't stop people from supporting Kerry this year. People change - what is important in one year will seem like an overreaction later.

[Hoping4Change]

332. You quick to call people bigots. Why did so many gays vote

repuke?

[JusticeForAll]

202. Do you have the statistics to back up your 25% claim?

Please post them. 2004. Presidential election.

[ablbodyed]

225. I've seen several>>>>

places that said that 23% of my gay brothers and sisters voted *.
No links, sorry, but I don't like your tone. It's bad enough that 23% said please kill me; don't need your attitude, pal.

[CAcyclist]

282. self-delete

[JusticeForAll]

300. Rolling my eyes right now

You know what? I am just as GAY as you, and want to verify statistics that may soon be used by our OWN party to throw us the fuck overboard. I live in a red state that denied my GAY organization the amazing opportunity to have Mayor Newsom honored as a headliner at our annual dinner.

Why? because we might damage the PARTY and its reputation. Yes, representatives from the Kerry Edwards campaign advised us not to have this "controversial" event during their campaign season.

You got it....Roll the fuck over gay people, take it up the ass like you like it. We'll get to your needs when we win. So sit quietly. Well we didn't have the headliner which would have greatly benefited the PARTY and the promotion of family values for ALL in our state. And further, we STILL lost the ten fucking votes that our state could have brought.

Soooo, I'd much rather have evidence than hearsay before they try to sell us down the line, wouldn't you?

And please, accept my cynical questioning attitude, and instead question your own willingness to swallow the propaganda that others want you to believe.

Proof is all I asked.

Thanks,

JusticeForAll

[delete_bush]

226. From CNN

ARE YOU GAY, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL?
BUSH KERRY NADER

Yes (4%) 23% 77% 0%

No (96%) 53% 46% 0%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

[lanparty]

237. AMEN!!!!

I'm 100% for passing all these anti-gay marriage amendments now. In fact, I think Democrats need to get off their duffs and start PROPOSING them!!!!

This will take neutralize the issue for the next election!!!!

Sorry gay friends. If they come to take you away, I'll be their with a gun to defend you!!! But I will NO LONGER stand by this position that is getting us CREAMED in the electorate!!!

EVERYONE must be willing to sacrifice some of their positions for the greater good. Those who do not, are only being selfish!!!

The Republicans are playing for keeps!!! They are trying to END Democracy through those fucking voting machines. That does NOT seem to register with the gay marriage advocates(GMA)!!! Why are you WASTING all this fucking valuable bandwidth on this issue!!! I am NOT willing to give up Democracy for the sake of gay marriage!!!!

I wise lady once said, "When the house is burning down, it's not time to redecorate"!!! Well guess what, the house is burning down and the gay marriage advocates are worried about changing the signs on the doors to reflect that gay marriage is "just fine"!!!!

We are NOT arguing here!!! People are TRYING to tell the gay advocate folks that YOU WILL BE ABANDONED AND ISOLATED if you do NOT drop this issue!!!!

The ONLY response we get from the GMA is that we should turn Republican!!! Is that your message for electoral success??? If you don't like gay marriage vote Republican. GUESS WHAT???? THEY DID, THATS THE FUCKING PROBLEM!!!!

No I will not accept Republican doctorine wholesale like the GMA seems to advocate. But I am perfectly WILLING to adopt some of their tactics to WIN in order to preserve rights for gays for domestic partnerships.

We seem to be locked in a Shakesperean struggle between Romeo and Juliet. "Does not a rose by any other name smell as sweet." Isn't gay marriage cloaked as "domestic partnership" just as sweet????

You may not think it's as sweet??? But it's a hell of a lot sweeter than the sanitoriums the Republicans will send you to if they gain complete control. It's a HELL of a lot sweeter than forcing gays BACK into the closet!!!

Sorry, but those are the facts. And Democrats will soon be forced to jettison gays altogether if they do NOT stop this gay marriage shit!!!

[Catholic Sensation]

256. This kind of thinking led to the holocaust

[CAcyclist]

283. You do not speak for the Democratic Party

You do not speak for me.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

320. Bigotry and small mindedness won in this election. Why be like the

Republicans? If you want to be like the Republicans, join their party.

[CAcyclist]

271. This isn't the fault of the gays!!!

I am proud of Kerry for not compromising his ideals. This election was stolen and the anti-gay marriage bills just provided political cover.

We aren't going to win by turning our backs on our base and gays are our base.

[okieinpain]

186. well I have to give it to jkerry, he didn't flip/flop on that one. he held

his ground. my hat is off to him.

[The Traveler]

4. He's a flip flopper

except when there is a moral principle directly involved. Then he is stubborn and inflexible. Oh, Jeeze ... John Kerry is a far better man that I thought he was ... too good for this country, apparently.

(No. I refuse to believe that! There must be some way to make people see.)

[AlCzervik]

5. He is a better man, a man with principles

who wont sell out human beings so he can win the office.

[The Traveler]

9. This country deserves and needs a man like JFK

a truly decent and intelligent man. John F Kerry.

[lanparty]

245. He's a great philosipher ...

... but he's a poor leader. He was too afraid to do what it takes to win and serve the greater good!!!!

[PittLib]

277. you mean ...

too steadfast to sell out. I don't think standing your ground qualifies as afraid. I am apalled by your argument.

[JoFerret]

325. Rubbish

.

[vs the introvore]

345. i always thought of the US prez as a MANAGER

I have still to meet ANY human to consider my leader. (of course i am willing to respect and acknowledge the skills and capabilities of ALL humans exclusive of their prediliction to 'pave way.') yet, i will never believe the STRONGEST & MOST-FEARED LEADER should even imply such leadership. why does anyone want to recognize a singular entity of hyperbolically-measured power. such a 17th century revelation, eh?! US function under a BOARD of DIRECTORS. that is why the refuxlicans kill. way more frikkin influence on the spectrum of ideological consumers, the patriots & the symbolic americans.

we must smack a liberal ideology right back. in said face, i might add. NOBODY wants to defend themselves thru a victimization scandal implying unfairness and discrimination. it reeks of misery and desperation. but americans do not discriminate, do we? faggots and fundies are both fargin americans! WE DO NOT DISCRIMINATE! we are americans. we are competing/colluding/conspiring with the rest of the world. the NON-americans. americans, whoever they may be, ARE ON OUR SIDE!

does anybody understand this??? you walk straight up to a red-stater, right after church and ask him/her why he/she doesn't want you to get married. of course talk small and compliment the service or the sermon and talk about faith and belief and the GIGANTIC CHASM OF RIGHTS between a good, honest revival and a state-run bureaucracy for jesus. sell some m***erf***ers yout product, man. sell em back some more good ole america like they thought it was. we all have already bought it before.

[henslee]

74. Agree. At the end of the day, all you got is what you believe in. Chimp,

was that really you posting earlier under a psued because your pc was in the shop?

[AlCzervik]

167. Sorry, i'm not sure what you're talking about

could you elaborate?

[henslee]

169. Never mnd it is in the past. Maybe I am mistaken but a low count

freepy poster took offense to being called out and I thought he said he was actually chimpsrsmarter but that he lost his password. I could be wrong. Its in the past, no worries.

[AlCzervik]

171. ok.

[DBoon]

103. My respect for JK just went up

If he lost it was in part on principal

[Crunchy Frog]

109. Mine too. n/t

[Goldmund]

155. Mine three.

[msturgis524]

204. I agree

[prairie populist]

312. BINGO! Plus Clinton left us with the don't-ask-don't-tell cop-out.

[lanparty]

244. This is true ...

I don't think Kerry could reasonably start supporting gay marriage bans when he had opposed them for so long. That would have only reinforced the Republican stereotype of John Kerry as a political opportunist!!!

One must do their political calculation WELL before they run!!!

For the record, the ONLY flip-flop I ever detected from John Kerry was his refusal to admit that he owned SUVs!!!

Altogether though, I'm PISSED at John Kerry for NOT attacking GW Bush on his failure to prevent 9/11 through due dilligence. I'm also pissed that Kerry has CONCEEDED when we needed his leadership to fight these vote stealing Diebold machines!!!!

In the end, John Kerry was NOT a strong enough leader. A strong leader will sacrifice a platoon to save a division!!! A strong leader will sacrfice HIMSELF and his reputation for a greater vision.

To this, we must give Barry Goldwater credit. He went down in flames and ashes. But he is revered and remembered as a martyr among conservatives!!!! It's too bad Kerry did not have the same strength!!!!

[PittLib]

279. Seriously ...

Do you actually have principles? Could you elaborate on the "greater good" for which you are so quick to sacrifice someone else's rights?

[fearnobush]

6. Wow, I have more respect for JK than ever .

He is a true progressive.

[Maat]

50. I agree.

n/t

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

321. My respect has grown for JK more, too. My heart has grown heavier as

well, knowing he will not be leading us for the next 4-8 years, too.

[WindRavenX]

7. sigh

JK you are just too cool ;( ;(

[President Kerry]

174. this country just missed out on having perhaps the greatest president

in recent history... Right up there with JFK and Clinton. Instead it settled for an ideological non-intellectual failure. Shame on you America! Shame on us.

[JusticeForAll]

206. After what this article had to say

I would not put Clinton on a list of greatest presidents. He did great for the country but in doing so, damaged a minority population's civil rights for a long long time.

[unblock]

8. i hate to say it, but clinton was right.

don't get me wrong, i'm a STRONG supporter of gay rights, gay marriage among them. however, i'm also a realist, and the battle to get even to something approaching fair treatment of gays in this country is a LONG battle, and we were never going to win on this particular issue at this particular time.

kerry should have condoned the idea of those ballot measures, without any harsh anti-gay language, just musing about "reservations" and touting how wonderful hetero marriages are.

then win the election.

then, AS PRESIDENT, work quietly to improve the situation for gays, noting that what happens at the federal level can trump those state measures anyway.

[AndyTiedye]

13. It Would Not Have Worked

The bigots will always go Republican, no matter how much we pander to them.

[Kber]

35. Agree - Never try to out bigot a true bigot

Wouldn't have fit right anyway (I hope).

[Prodemsouth]

66. It did work for Blanche Lincoln in ARK

n/t

[SpaceCatMeetsMars]

166. I agree. If the Democrats go in that direction,

I won't be on board. If the Democrats stand up and fight the bigots, I will be there.

[okieinpain]

191. then we need to get our own bigot. I'm not saying we have to believe that

crap, shit just lie to the idiots in those areas. man we need a man of the people, someone that can look them straight in the eye and lie his ass off.

that's what the repugs do, shit man they haven't done one thing that has made it better for one white male, not one thing. It's like a saying in a movie called blue collar. yaphet kotto, said, they pit the young against the old, whites against black, baptist against jew, anything to keep you from seeing what they are doing.

we've got to fight fire with fire.

[AndyTiedye]

223. If You try to Fight This Fire with Fire

You just end up with a bigger fire.

You would also drive away our most loyal constituancies.

[CAcyclist]

287. We need to out the fascists in the Republicans Party

and call them for what they are. We can unite the rest of the country against the fascist and the haters.

But first, we need to know that those who would redirect our focus to attack the most vulnerable among us are those who are weak and afraid. And I will never heed the call of a coward.

[THUNDER HANDS]

15. and if you believe that

I got a fucking brige in Brooklyn I'd like to interest you in.

I don't care why Kerry lost. But if not taking Clinton's advice on this was the reason why, I can go to bed satisfied that Kerry is a much better man than I ever thought he was. And I thought he was a hell of a man before.

God bless you John Kerry. You are the best president this country never had.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

38. I agree. If Kerry lost over this, then, well the country deserves

what it got.

[unblock]

41. oh no, WE don't deserve this. the red states, maybe, but not the country.

the country deserves a media system that hasn't been corrupted by republican politico-corporate power. the country deserves fair campaigns that don't consist mostly of lies and smears.

the country deserves to have democracy restored.

right now, it is in the grips of power who do everything they can to undermine informed choice. it's hard to blame the country, or even most red-staters, when you know that the real problem is the information they're getting.

[JoFerret]

327. This moral values reason is bullshit

...in my uneducated ignorant opinion.

[okieinpain]

349. repugs talk about values, but rush and oreilly are flying higher then

ever so much for values.

[Prodemsouth]

68. And yeah we are all better for it. thanks to Mass ruling even domestic

partnerships have been outlawed in certain states.

[freetobegay]

27. You say your a strong supporter of Gay rights?

Give me a fucking break!

[unblock]

34. give ME a fucking break!

do you honestly think gays are better off with bush as president?

supporting a cause, even strongly supporting a cause, does not always mean taking one particular side of every single issue that comes up, especially when the other side has chosen the topic and the timing.

as i explained, kerry would have been in a position to improve the situation for gay over the course of 4 or 8 years at the expense of looking the other way on one particular wedge issue at one particular time.

instead, he made a stand on principle, and as a result we are saddled with those rotten ballot measure anyway, and 4 more years of gay bashing from republicans on top of it all.

which is better for gays?

enjoy your dubious, moral victory. let's just hope that bush et al. don't move on to banning gays from teaching or adopting....

[Ol Sugar Coat]

81. Dude, I am gay. You'd throw me to the wolves? What does that make you?

A bit of a hypocrite, right? Willing to sell out a large piece of the Dem's very HUMAN constituency to advance am increasingly compromised agenda? Are you fucking nuts?

[unblock]

88. selling out? hardly! fighting FOR is more like it

you're missing the forest for the trees.
bush and the republicans are VERY VERY BAD for gays. i wouldn't think this would be too difficult a point to sell.

gay marriage ban, AT THIS TIME, IN THIS ELECTION was ALWAYS going to go in the republicans' favor. most of those ballots initiatives were going to pass anyway. kerry's nominal support for them wouldn't have changed a damn thing as far as gay rights and legislation go, the same initiatives would have passed anyway. but it WOULD have gotten kerry into the white house where he could have done quite a lot to help gays on MANY fronts, not just the gay marriage issue, which is NOT the single all-important issue to the gay community.

it's called picking your battles. if you think that kerry's victory along with his (secret) principled stand, would have won the war for gays in any meaningful way, then YOU are fucking nuts.

gays and gay rights have a LONG, UPHILL battle in this country, and you can't win a long term war by expending all your ammo on losing battles of your enemy's chosing.

your uncompromising philosophy is intellectually admirable, but politically suicidal.

[Ol Sugar Coat]

92. I have dealt with intolerance my entire life. Spare me.

What I find most disturbing is your "win at any cost" political fantasy. It's oh so easy to become the enemy you're trying to subvert. Don't you think your approach, yes SELLING OUT the gays in the democratic party makes you ONE OF THEM? It's possible to win by doing the right thing you know. You're feeling defeated, and I understand that, but don't turn into a cannibal.

[unblock]

95. ok, i'm "one of them" who disagrees with them on pretty much everything.

whatever.

and i also never said win at ANY cost. i don't advocate violence or anything illegal. i'm just advocating political pragmatism and giving the republicans a taste of the slimy political tactics we've just blithly taken for too many years without a proper fight.

[amazona]

165. does any of this remind anyone of George Wallace?

He dreamed of being a progressive, then woke up after losing some election or other and famously said, "I'll never be out-n*****d again." And then he became what he hated. Yeah, he became a powerful governor and a powerful figure -- but he stood for what he hated. And he spent his old age going to the black churches and begging for forgiveness.

Kerry is right not to even start down that path. A compromise or a game turns into your whole life spent keeping innocent people down to appease the bigots. You can't help people by selling them to the bigots.

[rhyfeddu]

331. You say pragmatic, I say cynical

I'd rather lose and die with my soul intact, than win with a face I don't recognize...

Fear (or "Terror", of other) is why the Red states put chimp in, against their own best interests. Now, I'm seeing all this fear on this Dem board - but its call pragmatism and realism. Fear and panic makes you sell yourself out. After you've sold out others first. Or along with. Either way, you're screwed.

We're not extra baggage to cut loose at the first sign of trouble. And my wish to live in dignity and respect is not a "piddly-assed" or "stupid" waste of time issue to us. It scares me that it is to some of you.

[TankLV]

157. Spin it all you want, we ain't buyin what you're sellin.

Stuff it.

I will vote on my principles from now on.

Voting for some possible gains while voting against my self interest and core beliefs has gotten me squat - I might have as well vote directly for these idiots.

NEVER!

ALL PEOPLE MUST VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE FROM NOW ON!

STICK TO YOUR PRINCIPLES OR DIE - because we will surely die if we compromise any futher!

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

193. This is where you are wrong:

"...but it WOULD have gotten Kerry into the white house...."

Huh-uh. It wouldn't have. Like someone said above, you CANNOT OUT-BIGOT A BIGOT.

And why would you try?

You've got no soul, man.

[ExclamationPoint]

269. MY GOD STOP FIGHTING!

Don't you see? This is what the republicans want, for us to split and become weaker. WE NEED TO UNITE AMONG OURSELVES!

[JusticeForAll]

306. Without resolving this conflict "we" will never be "united"

We "the party" have four years to resolve this issue and its stance.

[AndyTiedye]

293. Aside from Being Wrong, It Would Not Have Worked

Flip-flopping on civil unions would not get us any votes. Not one.
It would lose us some gay votes.

You are falling into the Rovian trap. It is meant to divide us.

[JoFerret]

328. Time to separate MARRIAGE from Civil Unions

The religious can have the word. Let's have all adult civil unions be legally recognized as such. Split the word. It is the LEGAL rights that are needed...not the sanction of religiosity.

[unblock]

89. oh and by the way, where's the "hypocrisy" in anything i've posted?

i gather you meant to insult me, feel free to do so.
but at least pick one that's germaine.

[Ol Sugar Coat]

93. You're a hypocrite when you claim to be a Dem

but you're talking crap about jettison human rights to achieve "power." You're not a Dem, my friend. Re-examine yourself.

[unblock]

98. the democratic party isn't, and has never been, philosophically pure

winning politicians of all parties have always made compromises, some of them distasteful. it's the nature of the beast. you have to look at which party/candidate mostly aligns with your own interests because you're never going to find one that matches 100%, and even if you did, they'd have to compromise anyway from time to time to get anything accomplished.

so don't pretend that anyone who suggests a political compromise or who picks battles or talks about power and politics in the same breath as "not a dem". true, republicans have far fewer reservations about getting dirty and ugly, and they definitely cross the line into criminal. but democrats also have a history of playing dirty and ugly, and at times, in certain circumstances, it has its necessary place.

and if you still don't believe me, then enjoy being in academia or being a philosopher or a writer, because your perspective is well suited for those worthy disciplines. but don't take cheap shots at those of us who want to actually win elections.

we simple can't afford to let republicans chose wedge issues and red meat issues at election time and let them frame the debate time and time again. we MUST fight back, in part by getting our own wedge issues into the debate, and in part by neutralizing theirs.

[sarahlee]

323. Winning at any cost is what my enemies do

What you are advocating unblock, is no different than publically saying you will agree that any kind of descrimination - be it gender, racial or sexual preference is ok.

Talk about slapping your constituency in the face!

Talk about giving the Republicans cannon fodder!

Talk about loosing your soul!

Clinton just proved to everyone that he is indeed a man without ethics.

[unblock]

94. oh and no, i would not "throw you to the wolves"

you make it sound like i wouldn't defend you if they came to lynch you. hardly, i'd risk my own life to stop that kind of injustice.

suggesting that kerry might have tweaked his position on an issue whose outcome was well known is hardly throwing anyone to the wolves. most, if not all, of the states that banned gay marriages didn't allow it in the first place, so little has changed.

kerry already was in favor of civil unions rather than gay marriage, so supporting the ballot initiatives and then, as president, pushing for civil unions federally, is hardly anything near as horrible as what you are accusing me of.

kerry in the white house could have worked to ensure that gays couldn't be fired for being gay, could have improved the status of gays in the military, could have increased funding for aids research, and generally pushed for greater social acceptance of gays.

but i guess you're not really interested in any of that at a price of a small sacrifice of philosophical purity.

enjoy the bush administration, i hope it treats you better than i fear.

[Ol Sugar Coat]

96. You think I'm looking forward to this?

Smug away. Between the two of us, I'm going to be the one dealing with the hate. So you can continue to browbeat me for imploring the party to not toss a core value. I know I'm right and deep down you do too. Tossing human rights just because it's politically expedient to do so is a dangerous game to get into. Don't admonish me that it's a good thing to sacrifice people in the short term to achieve longer term political goals. I'm choosing to believe it's possible to have it both ways.

[unblock]

100. gay marriage is not a "core value" of the democratic party

better, and ultimately fair and equal, treatment of all people, is.

gay marriage is, at best, a very LONG term goal, once we've achieved the necessary social acceptance of gays. but we're unfortunately not there yet.

gay marriage suddenly became an issue in this election because republicans wanted it to be, because they knew they'd win votes on it. it's not like kerry proposed it out of the blue.


take a step back and consider a different issue. free speech is obviously a "core value" of the democratic party, and i fully support this as well. but let's say, right before an election, republicans get some yahoo to scream something truly horrible, say, advocating raping babies or whatever. republicans lay the trap by saying he should be arrested for saying that. democrats of course feel that even such disgusting speech should be free from governmental punishment.

but right before an election, i'm not advising kerry to come out and say anything that could remotely be seen or painted as siding with the guy advocating raping babies.

if you don't buy this, then they've got your number, and you'll lose any election you'd ever care to run in.

[Kilroy003]

111. Good point. Advocating baby rape is terrible politics.

What about the people with the "God hates Fags" signs? Repubs wouldn't want to limit what dumb can assholes say. If they did, they'd need to find a whole new way to energize their base?

[JoFerret]

329. It''s noy gay marriage but CIVIL RIGHTS that matters.

.

[xchrom]

124. uh -- i wouldn't trust you to get my back

nor would your help be welcome after what you've posted.
it's slimy -- and i don't want it on me.

[TankLV]

158. Thank you.

Slimy, smarmy, hypocritical.

"I'll support you if they come to lynch you" BULLSHIT!

By then IT'LL BE TOO LATE!

YOU WILL NOT, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE I LIVE, AND YOU'LL BE TOO BUSY SELLING YOU SOLE JUST TO "GET IN THE MASSA'S HOUSE".

We don't need your king of "help" or "support".

[AndyTiedye]

296. Not True. Most Ballot Initiatives Banned Civil Unions Too

To support those would have been a total cave-in.
He would have lost the respect and support of a part of his base.
This would not convince a single bigot to vote for him.
You have to actually hate all the people they do to get their vote.

"We Must All Hang Together or We Shall Surely Hang Separately."
Ben Franklin

[Occulus]

108. I'm gay too

and I posted a thread earlier regarding this issue and it dropped like a rock.

Guys, I think I may have the solution to the whole issue, right here in my head. I call the proposal a "joined household tax credit".

Here's how it would work: any two adults of any gender would qualify provided they have shared a single residence for more than two years. For apartment dwellers, this would apply to units with up to three bedrooms for each pair of adults living in the residence.

As for who this is directed toward: students and senior citizens, but anyone could benefit provided they meet the simple requirements listed above. For two seniors who don't want to get married but would find it much easier to get by on a joined income, this could be an excellent alternative. For college students who don't want to live in dorms, this eases their financial obligation during the "last two years" and any beyond provided they have the same roommate for that period. This would enable them to file a joint return, for instance, without declaring themselves married. You could call it a "single, but joint" return or something.

As for gays: not mention us. At all. Period. For this to be passed, it would have to be made absolutely clear in the legislation that it has nothing at all to do with marriage and everything to do with helping each other get by a little easier.

Two straight men could do this for economic reasons, and just be roommates, but still get the credit. So could a straight man and woman who do want to get married but want to live together a few years first to see if they can tolerate each other. Seniors would benefit as well.

It's a good idea for a big swath of the population. This could pass, but not gay marriage. I don't ever want to see that issue on the ballot again because this nation isn't ready for it.

If I'm going to publicly marry the guy I love, I expect to live in peace afterward. Right now, that just isn't even remotely a possibility.

[unblock]

113. exactly! i advocated this (obviously not on du) twenty years ago

but no one on campus would listen to me.

a great way of working it all would be to defend marriage as "sacred" and as a religious blessing and commitment before god and so on. get all the "values" buzzwords in.

then say you're defending it by getting the government out of the "marriage" business, leaving the churches free from government's hand the entire topic, because the government has no business stepping on the church's domain.

then say that the government has a public policy interest in people designating someone to share money and hospital rights with and so on.

this could cover married couples, gay partners, seniors, good friends, old cousins, etc. the important thing is that the nature of the relationship, sex (and gender) in particular, has nothing to do with it; the government is silent on that topic.

i agree, this could work. certainly it has a far better shot than gay marriage.

[Zhade]

116. I'm queer, and I don't care WHAT you call it.

Just let me have the same rights as hetero couples.

These are two good posts with good ideas.

[demokatgurrl]

151. As a straight woman who has lived with my partner

for three years, I LOVE this.
I'm bothered, though, that we would have to "hush up" that it would benefit gay couples.
What a country this has become.

I wish I could KNOW the original post is true (not that I don't trust the original poster- I just don't know the trustworthiness of the source). It would elevate Kerry even higher in my eyes (if possible) and sadly, diminish my hero Clinton.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

172. I am deeply sorry that "hushing up" is the best option we can provide.

Words can't express how horrible it is that we still live in such a society. Unfortunately, that does seem to be the reality of the situation. Please have faith and patience in us. The vast majority of our party IS working towards equality for ALL people, including gay and lesbian Americans. It will take time though and the change will not and cannot occur overnight. We're fighting quite literally hundreds of years of prejudice, after all.

[President Kerry]

189. Clinton could not have had a political future in Arkansas

without some strategy, and short term losses for long term gains. I'm grateful for all he has done in this country, even if he made decisions in his career i don't agree with. You do not often succeed as a dem in Arkansas. While I don't advocate "selling out" I live in the heart of blue America--for me it's easy to say. Understand, people, that progressive thinkers in the South are MARGINALIZED. If you always say what you mean, you'll never get elected, and will not contribute to our party in the way Clinton did.

IMHO it's a powerful argument on both sides. Dems have it much harder in the South, and I will not be the cynic to tell them they can't only pick battles they can win. People need to be smarter, and keep the ultimate prize in sight. If gays and others defect to greens or don't vote we're done FOREVER! Is that what you people want?

[RaleighNCDUer]

236. Just so, and think about it.

After this debacle, where a northeast liberal couldn't unseat an incumbent who has started an illegitimate war, alienated our allies, devastated the economy, and now threatens (and we all knew it was coming) to gut social security and renew the draft, people are saying we need a southerner or westerner or anything but a northeast liberal next time out. But nobody coming from the right region is going to have the liberal purity required to satisfy the party's left.

No matter what the wingnuts say, Clinton is not a far left liberal de facto commie. He is a product of the moderate democrat south, and without the twin abilities of charming and compromising with the conservatives of that region he could never have become president.

In NC we just re-elected a Dem governor. He's a former prosecutor who is pro-death penalty and he is extremely pro-business. I would love to see a more liberal person in the governor's house. But he did beat back a republican challenger who was far more conservative, who was cast in the mold of the new southern republican majority. And not only we the dems win a majority of the local races, unfortunately losing Edwards' senate seat, but even Bush lost points as he carried NC by a slimmer margin this time than last.

The point is, if liberal dems insist on absolute purity over pragmatism, they might as well join the Greens and resign themselves to never winning anything higher than councilman.

There is a difference between compromising and compromising effectively. Give the Xtian right marriage for now -- it shouldn't be the government's business anyway. Insist on civil unions, equal rights. When the morality of the country catches up, marriage will come.

[lanparty]

253. If you want Democrats to lose EVERY seat in congress ...

If you want Democrats to lose EVERY seat in Congress, just get the DNC to adopt that in their platform.

"Democrats seek to END MARRIAGE!!!! Democrats DEVALUE MARRIAGE!!!!" etc...

That plan sounds good at first glance, but when you consider the broader ramification of how the GOP would spin it, it's the worst possible thing you could EVER do!!!!!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

170. Thank you for your comments.

They are the most pragmatic, realistic, and intelligent I've heard on this issue on DU in a long, long time.

Speaking to every gay DUer here, please let me also say that I am very sorry it has to be this way and as a part of the Democratic Party, I will continue to help your fight for equality. It will take some time, unfortunately, and I know this is difficult to ask, but PLEASE, express some patience with us Democrats. We are not miracle workers. We cannot change the situation overnight. It did not happen with women's right, nor did it happen with african-american's rights. It will not happen with gay rights.

[CAcyclist]

302. It doesn't have to be this way

and it isn't.

The Democrats didn't "give" women or minorities rights. We fought for them.

No one who ever won anything ever won by waiting until "the time was right"
The time is never right; it is always too soon.

But as MLK,Jr. said, sometimes there's only so much time and then the opportunity is gone - it's too late.

But this thread is about blaming gays for losing this election and for that to become the common wisdom would be absolutely tragic and untrue.

[JusticeForAll]

212. Gay marriage is NOT just a tax issue

It's so much more complex than that.

Please, I admire what you propose, but look at what you are missing:

http://www.marriageequality.org/1049.pdf

One-thousand-forty-nine other rights that this "definition" denies us.

[lanparty]

254. Nuance is DEAD ...

Sorry, but our voting population just doesn't "GET" nuance. So stop trying to sell it!!!!

Nuance is something you do in private. BLUNT SIMPLE RHETORIC is something you push in public.

[JusticeForAll]

281. I'm not selling anything. We have a RIGHT to DEMAND equality.

Your attitude is what leads to revolts, as is mine.

I'd like to get to equality without resorting to the need to revolt.

If you want my point without so-called nuance, here it goes:

EQUALITY FOR GAYS

Go sell your lame-ass partial rights shit to the Republicans.

[JoFerret]

330. "It's the rights stupid":

They can keep their marriage.

[RaleighNCDUer]

215. Excellent point. My great aunt lived with her widowed sister in

one household for 40 years. This would cover them, just as it would cover my current roommates. It doesn't require, or ask, the government to peek into our bedrooms. It is simply acknowledging that millions of people share residences on a long term basis for many, many reasons.

The government could get behind a 'joined household' proposal, and once there, get out of the marriage business once and for all. As an atheist, it really offended me when I first got married, in Missouri, that I had to have a minister sign the marriage certificate. The gov't has no business 'sanctifying' my living arrangements -- it violates the separation of church and state.

Though gay marriage took a bad setback the other day, the numbers are still there -- 27% support gay marriage; another 35% support civil unions, which your 'joined household' clearly encompasses. That's 62%, and a significant majority, who favor equal rights. Of the remainder, many would go along with it, as they did when miscegenation laws were overturned -- they'll retreat to their churches which are free to discriminate as much as they want, safe in the knowledge that the rest of us are damned for eternity.

Once the 'joined household' laws are in place, if your church wants to join gays in marriage there will be no way to stop it because of that precious separation.

Fight for civil unions, and you will get marriage.

Fight for marriage, and you will get nothing.

[rhyfeddu]

338. It WAS about civil unions, too!!

The Ohio Issue One put one man-one woman in the state constitution, but ALSO the wording outlaws anything resembling marriage and the rights thereof : ie civil unions and partner benefits.

If Kerry would've supported this Issue in swing-state Ohio, he would have been for kaboshing civil unions TOO.

Calling it different things means nothing in this case. They had all bases covered. Their bigotry was very thorough.

You can't hide from these nutjob bigots. You can't give them an inch to validate their bigotry.

[lanparty]

252. But you're not calling it gay marriage ...

And thats what all this seems to be about. It's the PRINCIPLE that those crackers in the south HAVE to recognize a gay domestic partnership as "marriage" instead of an "abomination to god."

Any solution that effectively granted the rights without disturbing other peoples opions on marriage would fall short of the REAL point. It's the PRINCIPLE, not the effect.

You know what, this is the rule in politics today. It goes for the FAR RIGHT as well as the FAR LEFT.

For the right, it's the PRINCIPLE that there are two men living together and acting like their man and errr... bitch. It's not the effect (or lack thereof) on their household or their particular marriage.

For the left, it's the PRINCIPLE of gay marriage rather than domestic partnerships that is the same thing with a different name!!!


Reason is dead. Hail the age of Rhetoric over substance because both homosexuals and queer-bashers have embraced it!!!!

[President Kerry]

179. some games are too slimy to play..

JK is a BETTER man for not selling out. I don't care even if it DID cost us the election. How much is your integrity worth?

[lanparty]

250. What do GMAs and Ralph Nader have in common ????

Gay Marriage Advocates and Ralph Nader Advocates

They both don't realize that they are defeating their own best interests!!!!

[loveable liberal]

29. i disagree.

If the results would have been the same he would have lost the election and respect. He did the right thing. Face it, gay haters are idiots. Nothing we can do about that or the Christianity cult mentality going on now. When we have to argue about human rights something is effed up here. The Euro's know it, so does china. They are going to sit back and watch us protect marriage and go bankrupt. Soviets did it, so can we. Funny, involved Afghanistan.

[karlrschneider]

33. I have to agree, mostly, with you on this.

There really are times when political reality requires a bit of dissembling (not lying, as the Repugs are wont to do) to achieve the larger goal. I know it's "spin" and we generally dislike that, but goddammit, when we are fighting against cheating criminals, it's necessary. Remember "nice guys finish last"? That bromide doesn't exist for no reason.

[unblock]

37. thank you! politics is an ugly business

you can have a gentlemanly race, with fair debate, but only if BOTH sides agree to that.

the republicans make outlandish accusations, are constantly painting negative images of their opposition, and view legislation mostly as a tool to further their political aims, rather than the other way around.

it doesn't pay to be gentlemanly when the other guy is coming at you with a knife. we have to be mean, ugly, and dirty at times in order to compete.

once we have power and respect, we can work on restoring dignity.

in the meanwhile, we need to do what it takes to get the power in the first place.

[Ol Sugar Coat]

82. Wow, the more I read from you, the more I think you're a Rethug

And I don;t care how many posts you have here. You exhibit very thuggish attitudes. "Get power, then restore dignity." Do you even hear yourself?

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

194. Your problem is in thinking

we can roll around in the slime and mud to get elected, then once elected, it just showers off.

It doesn't. It's not just surface stuff. It's called moral compromise.

You can't wash it off with soap and water, it ain't that easy.

I'm not even looking at the road Clinton offered to Kerry and I'm glad he didn't, either. Just makes my respect level for him rise.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

221. Jews were shoveled into the ovens with their principles. Want that?

We face the prospect of NAZI domination of the planet unless we are EFFECTIVE in fighting back.

No, we don't want to become the monster we are fighting.
But we will all die if we don't make survival of the species and the planet's ecosystems paramount.

A REAL LEADER (not Kerry) would have made the effort to wave the JESUS FLAG OF LOVE AND HUMANITY and deal with the hateful religious crazies so we could all survive.

I respect Kerry for refusing to embrace bigotry obviously. But many folks in our national boat are hateful and would sink it 'because the Bible told them so.'

We must not let the crazies take us all down nor throw gays overboard to the sharks.

Kerry is NOT the catalytic visionary for change we needed. BUT now we know and we must find someone who understands the psychology of the people in our boat who would kill us all 'for God.'

Kerry did not deal with the American Taliban and now we are fucked.

HEY, DEMS. LEARN SOMETHING FROM THIS AND FAST!!

[Kber]

243. The Jews were shoved into the ovens, regardless of their principles

The rest of the world, however, was forever tarnished by not standing up, and possible preventing, their deaths. Hitler's whole strategy was "throw me this group, Jews, Catholics, dissenters, etc, and I'll leave you alone". Didn't work and the appeasers went to their deaths along with those who they threw to the wolves to save themselves. The exception? The Christian Danes wore the yellow star along with their Jewish neighbors - preventing the deportations and thousands of deaths.

Frankly, Hitler doesn't make a good poster child for the merits of appeasement and moral compromise.

And he started with the gays, btw. Pink triangles anyone?

[lanparty]

258. AMEN!!! (nm)

[CAcyclist]

298. Jews were shoved into the ovens

because other people stood back and did nothing to stand up for them.
The Nazis also went after gays and gypsies.

This election's loss cannot be blamed on the gays like the last election's loss was blamed on Nader. Not if we want to ever succeed.

This election was *stolen* and nothing would have changed that. We have to focus on making our election process clean and fair and verifiable and we have to go after the people who engineered this if we can.

[rhyfeddu]

336. Respect?

You may get the power, but you won't have MY respect. Nothing you are advocating would lead to respect.

You can HAVE that power, at that price...

:puke:

[mike_c]

44. this is why I fear for the democratic party more than ever....

There WILL be calls to embrace republican issues and tactics in order to win votes at any price.

We need to rebuild the democratic party from the grass roots. Most of the leadership is rotten-- what you suggest will DEFINITELY be on the DLC agenda soon, if it isn't already.

Look, what the right has done during the last 20 years or so has slowly cultivated linkages between their political philosophy and single hot button issues among the vast centrist middle, often getting voters to ignore other, potentially more important issues in the process. So for instance, someone votes for a candidate that will ultimately destroy their livelihood, or prevent them from ever gaining access to quality, affordable health care, or who will steal their retirement savings, because they oppose gay marriage. But it must be emphasized that the right has not embraced the center or the left in the process-- if anything it has succeeded while maintaining it's core philosophical base intact. We must do the same.

Voters in this election were NOT voting against affordable retirement or against access to health care-- rather, the republicans linked their agenda to some of peoples' real concerns and convinced them to ignore other, ultimately more pressing concerns.

The progressive movement needs to do the same thing. We need to work at the grass roots to insure that those "moral issue" voters say "the liberal candidate is looking out for me, and if gay people want to marry, well, I'm not gay so that doesn't matter to me as much as having a good job and prospects for the future."

We need to examine EVERY SINGLE issue that motivates centrist voters, and if we cannot accept the republican position on those issues then we need to provide voters with substitutes that are more important to them and which the republicans are equally uncomfortable dealing with. The answer is not to become republicans, not to emulate conservatives, and most especially not to let them set the agenda and frame the debate, but to educate voters and lead them to an understanding of the importance of progressive issues in their own lives.

[Zhade]

117. Best post in the thread.

Thank you.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

195. I agree.

VERY good post Mike_C. Awesome and right on target.

[lanparty]

259. Plan for issues ...

Social: Conservative
Move to the right in principle. Stay where we are in substance. Offer all kinds of silly resolutions pandering to "morality" keept the law open to equal access and opportunity.

Economics: Progressive.
It's time to re-ignite the class war and make it clear that Republicans are only out for the big guy. If we're blamed of waging class warfare our answer is ... DAMN STRAIGHT!!!!

At the same time, consumer advocacy is a CAPITALIST value for arming consumers to regulate the free market. We punish those who act unethically to ensure fair competition for those who do good business that serves both a profit, their customers, and society at large!!!!

Civically: Liberal
We maintain the role of government for serving needs that the private sector is unwilling or unable to handle in an effective manner!!! We defend social security. And we stand up and reinforce that the US Army is a LIBERAL institution.

We scrap all the anti-gun atuff and put the libertarian BACK into liberal!!! We'll make it so that NO conservative can claim we'll take away their guns. We maintain support for bans against MILITARY weaponry (mortars, grenade launchers, automatic rifles) in civilian life. We advocate laws allowing concealed carry of weaponry (I have a feeling we'll need those guns SOON!!!)

We proactively introduce legislation AGAINST partial birth abortion performened when the mothers life is NOT at risk. On principle, this is reprehensible. But partial birth abortions are performed ONLY when the mothers life is at risk!!!! It has ZERO real effect and neutralizes this wedge issue!!!!

The bottom line is to NEUTRALIZE the hot bottom issues that we're going to lose ANYWAY!!! Than the Rethuglicans will have revert to the issues that WE WIN ONE, The Economy, the miserable state of the war, etc...!!!!!!

And finally, Black Box Voting is our #1 issue!!!! And I damn well hope the Democratic party has the sense to send in an army of lawyers for Betty Castor to CHALLENGE the results of EVERY vote cast in an electronic polling place!!!! We need to PUSH this issue because it LITERALLY is the future of Democracy!!!!

[Maat]

53. I so disagree...

there are times when one has to stand by one's principles.

[unblock]

64. i wholeheartedly agree. most times, in fact

this just wasn't one of them.

if you always stand on your principles, then you let yourself get set up in just this fashion. the republicans made gay marriage a big issue in this election precisely because they banked on kerry standing on principle.

poppy pulled the same stunt against dukakis with the flag-burning crap. dukakis stood on principle and opposed the stupid amendment, and as a result, lost the election.

when will we learn?

[Kool Kitty]

106. When we will learn what, exactly?

That you jettison your principles and do whatever is necessary just to win? How can you possibly justify that? How would you have felt if you lived in the "jim crow" days and rights for blacks was the issue? I respect John Kerry for what he decided to do. Should we be as hypocritical as the republicans, with their claims to a "culture of life" horseshit, all the while sending young (and not-so-young) people to die in a needless war?

[RaleighNCDUer]

227. When will we learn how to stand firm on principle without throwing

the election out the window.

This issue was/is only possible because of the way the right has blurred the line between church and state. They say that everything is black and white, but they continually bring up these issues that dwell in the gray.

Marriage is a sanctification of a union. Sanctification, i.e., none of the government's business.

A civil union is the state sanctioning of equal rights. Exactly the govenment's business. And a stand that 62% of the populace supports.

If you want equal rights, go to the govenment. If you want marriage, go to church. And keep each one's fingers out of the other's pie.

If he had taken that stance, it would have diffused the issue, IMHO. The whole issue exists not because of homosexuality, but because of the blurred line between religion and government.

[funnymanpants]

70. No, it wouldn't have helped anyone

>>then, AS PRESIDENT, work quietly to improve the situation for gays, noting that what happens at the federal level can trump those state measures anyway.

Yes, just as Clinton signed the anti-welfare bill so he could retain power and *later* fix it. Only he never did.

Postponing rights hardly ever works. Look at how Whites told Blacks forever to just wait. Blacks finally got sick of waiting and took matters into their own hands.

[Ol Sugar Coat]

85. Hello! Gay man here! A fellow human being! In the room!

Go ahead and sacrifice us. Sell your fucking souls for power. I'm so ashamed of many of you here tonight.

[TankLV]

159. Thank you.

Couldn't agree more.

I fear if this is the "new direction" then I'm not a democrat anymore.

You all can kiss my vote goodbye if you sell us out.

NO WAY, NO HOW!

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

196. Hello!

Fellow straight human being digusted at how my gay brothers and sisters are treated in the room here! Can I go vomit now? Are these really Democrats?

Oh and I didn't JUST get disgusted by how they are treated, I've BEEN disgusted by it since I was nine and saw how the lesbian couple of many years down the street got their windows broken out with rocks on a monthly basis.

Playing politics with people's lives, nice. Very nice.

[JusticeForAll]

217. You rock Moonbeam

I love every word of your posts. Thank you for fighting alongside of us for what is right.

:hug:

[socalover]

72. I agree 100%

[socalover]

73. .

[yardwork]

86. If we cave on this, the rethuglicans will find something else

It's not the issue - it's the way they demonize it and brainwash millions into believing it's the most important issue in the world.

Think about it. Millions of people ignored a failing war, ignored every one of their own self-interests - to keep gay people from living together????

That's the stupidest imaginable issue to care about when you and your family are on the edge of the brink. Yet Rove convinced millions that that was far more important than any other issue.

Good for Kerry not to cave on this.

[Zhade]

114. Thanks. Being queer, this means a lot.

</sarcasm>

[GiovanniC]

123. What WOULD You Fight For?

If not gays, then who? Blacks? Women? Muslims? Liberals? Jews?

If not now, then when? Tomorrow? Four years from now? Ten? Ever?

If not this, then what? Lynchings? Concentration camps? "Separate but equal" schools? Lack of suffrage for ALL Americans?

I am glad that at pivotal points in our history, proud and brave men like Martin Luther King, Jr. did not stand up and say, "I have a dream. A dream that we tell the American people that it is okay to hate us! A dream where we tolerate and even endorse racism and bigotry in the hopes that we can eventually end them somewhere down the road, at some unspecified time! A dream where I simply accept that my children will be judged by the color of their skin and not the content of their character, because Americans are fucking racist! So join with me, my brothers and sisters, as we try to out-Klan the Ku Klux Klan! I have a dream! I have a dream!"

[PittLib]

289. I so just want to give you...

a great big kiss right now. You too, Moonbeam ... but I better clarify that is from one hetero female to another - otherwise it might be deemed unacceptable by some of those in our ranks.

[The_Counsel]

148. You're Right; Clinton Was Right, But So Was Kerry. Here's Why...

Clinton was right to suggest capitulation in order to get more swing votes in the red states. He did it himself in '96 with the Welfare Reform Act.

What Clinton hadn't recognized was that Kerry already publicly supported the right of the states to ban gay MARRIAGE if they wanted to. Kerry mentioned it at least twice in the debates that I can remember.

And yes, once in office, Kerry could have worked to get those same gay couples rights like health benefits, death benefits, etc. Who's to say that wasn't his plan?

Blind hatred and stupidity lost John Kerry this election, and it wasn't HIS hatred and stupidity... :-(

[Strawman]

182. Deleted for posting in wrong spot

[RaleighNCDUer]

241. There is something to be said for the tactic of keeping it at

state level, to forestall a national constitutional amendment. If Kerry won, and had named two or three new SCJs, these state initiatives could be overturned as unconstitutional. Having lost, I'm afraid a national constitutional amendment is inevitable.

[TankLV]

156. Yeah, let's just first vote to kill all gays and liberals

"just to get elected" then we can "fix it later".

How do you unkill people?

Tell that to the gas chamber victums of WWII.

If you all believe that, then go fuck yourselves!

NEVER!

If this is where the party is headed, I'm outta here!

[President Kerry]

176. we would not have taken any of the red states, and we'd have

lost the gay vote to apathy. We won Ohio anyway - you can't play against a stacked deck. There was NOTHING John could do to get evangelicals. Probably nothing he should have done either. He's too good for shameless pandering.

[gasperc]

177. here in MI Kerry won even though the anti-gay measure got >60%

I think it totally dubious to say that a different stance on this may have swung enough voters but as close as the election was in Ohio and when you calculate how many democrats voted for Bush who is to really say. But from the exit polls in Ohio, the democratic vote didn't break any more for Bush than it did in any other states. Although self identified conservatives did vote as a higher percentage in Ohio.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

192. Then even if he had won the presidency

he would have looked like a liar and a sham for saying the things he said before.

He also would have lost a lot of respect from the LGBT community, which, let us remember, includes a LOT of people like me, straights who fully support the fight for equal rights and equal treatment.

[ArtVandaley]

229. Yes, it would've won votes, but he certainly wasn't RIGHT

Supporting gay rights is a controversial position, but it is moral and an essential quality in a true leader.

[lanparty]

249. AMEN (nm)

[JoFerret]

324. Sell-out crap

Kerry ALREADY made compromises. he was already IN the middle ground. No doubt many of your best friends are gay.

[gottaB]

10. Kerry is a mensch -n/t

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

322. Kerry is a mensch...took the words right out of my mouth.

[freetobegay]

11. I have just lost all respect for Bill Clinton!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

18. See post #16 (nt)

[THUNDER HANDS]

19. hear hear

The Clintons, both of them, care only about themselves. They have no principles.

My opinion of him just went into the tubes. I hope this story isn't true, but if it is - Clinton is scum.

[Maat]

57. Here! Here!

Sometimes, in trying to win, we wander way too far from what we're about, for me.

There comes a point when I would drather lose than spout vile drivel in order to win.

[TankLV]

160. YES!

[yardwork]

87. The story might not be true. The Clintons get lied about a lot.

Unless I hear Bill Clinton say this himself, I won't believe it.

[noamnety]

12. Time's Honest Man in Politics - 1996

He would risk everything before sacrificing his ideals. That's why I love him.

[kikiek]

14. Good for Kerry. Shame on the people of this country who fell for the lies.

Kerry believed in civil unions. Gives couples legal rights that married people have. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion. Can get a church to recognize it on your own. My husband and I married at the justice of the peace. Some wouldn't consider us married since we never went through a church. Lets see them ban divorces. Where does it stop? Cohabitation, premartial sex, adultary?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

16. WHAT evidence do we have that Clinton REALLY said this? (nt)

"A new report from inside the John Kerry campaign suggests that..."

I call bullshit. Until Clinton comes up and says that hinmself, I'm going to assume this false. Divisive lies.

[Blue_Tires]

20. yeah, that's my question...

what's the source?

[freetobegay]

22. The Advocate is a well respected & reliable news source

I will believe it until proven otherwise.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. Now. You've waken up Obi.

At this time in the night his connection to the Force is not the best possible, but still.

[RummyTheDummy]

91. Reliable my ass

Newsweek is just another member of the corporate media cabal. There's no such thing as a well respected and reliable news source in this country. Get a fucking clue.

[freetobegay]

102. Do you even fucking know who the Advocate is?

I didn't think so. You my friend need to get a fucking clue!

[CarolynEC]

23. I agree. Sounds like yet another effort to smear Clinton...

... and divide Democrats in the process.

[VTHoosierPatriot]

359. Exactly

Just an internal wedge device.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

31. It's from a NEWSWEEK article

According to the latest issue of Newsweek, "Looking for a way to pick up swing voters in the red states, former president Bill Clinton, in a phone call with Kerry, urged the senator to back local bans on gay marriage. Kerry respectfully listened, then told his aides, 'I'm not going to ever do that.

[freestyle]

132. Clinton really SIGNED DOMA

Clinton really signed Don't Ask Don't Tell. Clinton really did not push for ENDA. Clinton really threw GLBT people over to save his ass. Clinton really did repeatedly stomp on black women to save his ass. I have no doubt that he did this, and I voted for him twice because the alternatives were worse. This black gay man has never had any illusions about Bill Clinton and if you look at it objectively, he enacted anti-gay legislation and set back civil rights. Oh yeah, Clinton said it, because Clinton has done it.

[JusticeForAll]

220. Right on Freestyle, End of argument

His actions spoke volumes. Clinton was not a friend of the gay people, but the alternatives were worse. or were they? Would these same bills have needed to come up to "save (a repug's) ass"

* has done a lot of horrible things that affect gays (reduced AIDS funding, promoted Faith-based initiatives), but nothing against gays that is as permanently damaging as either DOMA or Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

[Selwynn]

309. D O M A

[monobrau]

17. Let's take the high road instead

Besides, The number of voters that would sit it out (myself included) would have opened up a wider margin. How in the hell would Kerry pull voters from Bush if they were the kind of people who are motivated by homophobia? They see Kerry as a fraud - he can't erase his support for reproductive rights.

[OutsourceBush]

21. This is exactly what the fuck is wrong with Democrats

The repukes will say one thing and do another. That is all Clinton was telling Kerry to do. Come out against Gay marriage but go ahead and give benefits and call it fucking civil unions.

Anyone that would rather have the Nazi Bush than have "Civil Unions' with exactly the same privs as marriage is NOT a friend of the Democrats. You are the enemy, and let me just say to you FUCK YOU for giving me Bush.

[THUNDER HANDS]

26. false

Kerry could have come out with a barrel full of gay people and tossed them into the East River and it wouldn't have made a difference.

You hate gays? You vote Republican.

You don't hate gays? You vote Democrat.

[OutsourceBush]

32. You are politically naive

Christians want to protect THE FUCKING WORD "MARRIAGE'.

Once you understand that they are ONLY interested in the WORD you will get a clue. They don't care if you call it BANANA PUDDING and give it exactly the same rights as marriage. Get it? They are simple minded and think the WORD is sacred. Get it? Well if you don't you got 4 years to get it.

[unblock]

39. exactly. he could have picked up 3% in ohio on this easily.

[OutsourceBush]

42. Sometimes I think there are some gay Repukes F'ing us up the ass

on these issues and we fall for it every time. We can't keep shooting ourselves in the foot over stupid shit like WORDS! ('marriage' instead of 'civil unions') Is it worth 4 more years of Fascism?

[THUNDER HANDS]

48. excuse me

Kerry said he was against the word MARRIAGE

didn't exactly work, now did it?

You wanted a parade of shakeled gay people lining the streets on the way to the stockades.

Maybe that would have convinced them. Oh wait, there was always abortion too.

Yes, the election came down to linguistics. :eyes:

[OutsourceBush]

51. "Yes, the election came down to linguistics"

You are right, Kerry should have just campaigned in French, since linguistics don't matter. Yea, or Spanish. Why should a presidential candidate even speak English, they are just fucking words, who listens? gawd...

[GiovanniC]

125. I Have to Assume That No One Listens to the Words

How else do you explain George W. Bush?

[rhyfeddu]

340. Again. It WAS about civil unions too...

That was on the block in Ohio, as well. The wording blocked any rights even RESEMBLING marriage.

Word play will get you no where on this. They've stripped us of our rights, no matter what you want to call it.

[Maat]

60. Nope.

This has nothing to do with a sincere desire to protect 'marriage.' Guys like 'Dr.' D. James Kennedy, and 'Dr.' James Dobson need the money flowing in. They couldn't give a flying f*ck about whether or not gays get married. They just use this to focus the flock on sending money for a cause.

And the flock needs an excuse to focus on something other than the bills at home.

It's a game.

And selling out our principles would not change that.

[antonialee839]

75. That may be true for some Christians

but I can remember dragging my husband out of our Catholic church a few years ago when they sent around a petition at mass opposing benefits Ed Rendell, who was mayor of Philadelphia, wanted to extend to partners of gay city employees. Rendell hadn't said a word about marriage, it was the very idea of recognizing a gay relationship that outraged them. I'll never forget that, I still get pissed off when I think about it.

[OutsourceBush]

99. I think that is against IRS law

we really need to start holding the so called 'religious institutions' accountable for law breaking.

[tishaLA]

219. I remember when that happened too

Cardinal Bevilaqua was a motherfucker and worked hard to form alliances with hatemongers so he could step on the necks of queers.

[oldmanpeacenik]

78. Ain't so.

Lots of the anti-gay-marriage proposals that were passed actually ban civil unions. They talk about "marriage, or situations similar to marriage." Go look.

I'm afraid it's worse than you think it is.

[yardwork]

90. No need to shout and I don't think you understand

I watched Jesse Helms win using this strategy for decades in North Carolina. When his opponent caved on one issue or attempted to refute the charges, Jesse's operatives changed the subject.

If it weren't gay marriage it would have been prayer in schools, or dancing, or anything - anything at all.

It's the strategy we have to fight, not the issues themselves. We have to support equal rights for everybody. That is fundamental to the Democratic Party.

[OutsourceBush]

101. You have to fight lies with lies, let the best liar fucking win

call George Bush the fucking anti-Christ and mean it. Show proof he is the anti-Christ. Show photos of him eating dead babies. Put 666 on is forehead. Make up stories about Lora bush fucking the football team. Act like a fucking Republican if you want to win dammit. Then control your own government and fuck the repukes like they have never been fucked. Sick the IRS on every last one of the ass holes. Shut down their churches for sneezing. Raise their taxes. Make zoning laws to outlaw churches within 100 miles of a city. Smack em with one hand and punch them with the other.

[VTHoosierPatriot]

360. YES

Finally, someone who's on the same page. It's war, and we can't stop until Republican is bad word. Rich boys making poor boys fight for their trust funds. Bad mouth them at every opportunity, i quit giving a fuck about what people thought after I had family go to Iraq. It's life or death, wear a helmet.

[socalover]

197. Christians, Jews, Muslims, aren't they all against gay marriage?

Who are we to think we can alienate ourselves from all religious people and their religious beliefs and still expect to win? I think we must respect their views.

[eurolefty]

213. No, so called "christians" want to lynch gays

They can't quite do it yet, but they sure are fighting for it.

[antonialee839]

56. What about gays who vote Republican?

Something I could never understand. Who do they hate?

[THUNDER HANDS]

61. themselves

[AndyTiedye]

43. That's What Kerry Said

> Come out against Gay marriage but go ahead and give benefits and call it fucking civil unions.

That WAS Kerry's position on the issue, but even if he had supported
the FMA it woudn't have made a bit of difference.

The fundies won't be satisfied until they're stoning gays to death.

[fob]

231. That's the way I read it too. I mean if the greatest politician since ???

gives you advice, FIND a way to take it. Here's how I would have advised Kerry to use Bill's advice.

In speeches in these states remind them that his stance was that it's up to the states to determine and he could then have mentioned the Propositions by name in each state. He could restate that he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman and that while he supports civil unions, that he does not for same-sex marriage (NEVER using their term of gay marriage). For example right here in Ohio there is Prop. #Whatever on the ballot, so as the great and compassionate citizens of this fair state YOU decide, not the federal government, we don't need the long, drawnout, divisive process of amending the constitution to put hate INTO it.

Of course after he won, I would advise to undermine that in a below the radar fashion.

[RaleighNCDUer]

251. Exactly right -- and at the same time he could have attacked

many of the amendments saying "but this goes far beyond that -- it proposes to strip American citizens of their civil rights, it makes them 2nd class citizens", and emphasise the difference between same sex marriage (supported by 27%) and civil unions (supported by 35% plus, presumably, the previous 27%).

Do a Rove. Attack them at their perceived points of strength.

[Imalittleteapot]

24. JK = integrity. Proud to have voted for him.

Bill Clinton, you should be ashamed.

[OutsourceBush]

36. A LOSER with integrity is still a LOSER

You might like losing but Bill Clinton doesn't and neither do I, thank you very much.

[WI_DEM]

40. yeah the end justifies the means

Kerry is a loser because he stood for something he believed in. It's about time there were more profiles in courage like John Kerry.

[OutsourceBush]

45. You have a loser mentality

When you are in a street fight and someone pulls a knife, you better pull a knife back or kick them in the nuts. We are in a street fight! You can't sit here and talk holier than thou horse shit when they don't play by your Pansy ass rules.

[Minstrel Boy]

104. If it's a street fight, what you're suggesting

is teaming up with the other thug to go gay bashing.

[Bush was AWOL]

183. AMEN!

We need more Democrats like you and we'll start winning.

[Selwynn]

350. You have the attitude of a neo-con - which is worse?

the ends justify the means is the exact core philosophy of neo-conservatism

[ArtVandaley]

230. I like having integrity more than winning

The thought of Bush losing was what kept me going for 4 years, but I'm not going to sacrifice essential beliefs in freedom and equality to get that.

[Sapphocrat]

25. Nice...

...coming from a man who didn't have the good sense to keep his Oval Office blow jobs more discreet.

Frankly, I don't give a damn if he slept with half the population of D.C., in or out of office, married or not -- I make no judgments about ANYONE's sex life. But since so many are so anxious to lay blame somewhere, let's face it: It was Bill's own carelessness* in his indiscretions that galvanized a disgruntled Right Wing into the rabid "moral values" lynch mob they are today.


* By carelessness, I mean: WHAT was he thinking getting mixed up with such a brainless idiot like Monica Lewinsky? He could have had his pick of countless less delusional (and far more trustworthy) women than the stupid, gullible little girl who blew his cover.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

30. SEE POST #18 (nt)

[PlanetBev]

67. Sapphocrat, you hit the nail on the head

When you're in the position of power that Clinton was, you have to stay above reproach. Especially when you know you are being watched and hounded by your enemies. At the very least, if he had gotten involved with an older professional woman, she might have kept it to herself. No, instead, he got involved with a little empty-headed hose-bag who could'nt blab it fast enough. Diddling a young intern, who is esentially your employee is unforgivable. Unfortunately, Al Gore suffered for it. The wingers painted him to look like the piano player in Clinton's house of ill repute. Clinton was a selfish motherfucker who didn't care about his family, his vice-president or his country, just his dick.

And the rest of us, pay and pay and pay.

[Guaranteed]

46. GOOD FOR KERRY!

THAT'S my man!

[Obviousman]

47. this is interesting

kudos to kerry for standing up for what is right on this one.

[OutsourceBush]

54. If I was a Republican I would say the same thing to him.

[private_ryan]

49. politics

is not for honest people. You have to say and do things you don't believe or wouldn't do in normal circumstances. Kerry could've helped the gay community a lot more if he was elected.

[OutsourceBush]

52. ding ding ding ding ding

you got it

[kikiek]

63. He did say he was against gay marriage. Was for civil unions. It didn't

matter. They were being told by their churches to vote for Bush. He could have said anything and it wouldn't have changed it. Look at how he lined up his ducks. He made sure the media would support him because he will increase the number of markets they can be in. He made sure the church's would support him because he is destroying separation of church and state and giving them our tax dollars. He promised the evangelicals constitional ammendments to ban gay marriage, and also overturn Roe v Wade. He signed a major corporate tax break just before the election. Paid them off. Drug companies don't have to negotiate prices with Medicare, and it is illegal to do it. Financial institutions backed him and gave bullshit economy reports because they want the money we pay in to social security for investing when they privitize S.S. Add the corporations to the list that the govt picks to receive the S.S money for investments. Enron was under reported for a reason. Wouldn't look good to hear about the corporate scandals when you're trying to privatize SS. The insurance companies will benefit by limiting malpractice awards. I mean this list could go on and on. His election is not a mandate. It was bought and paid for. They all helped feed bullshit to the ignorant population that got him elected.

[Toucano]

112. Here's the ding ding ding!

Why won't people understand that it isn't our position on the issues -- Karl Rove is sitting around laughing his ass off at Dems trying to blame each other.

The Republicans LIE about our positions on the issues.

Thank you kikeik for being rational! :)

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

198. Read above

where someone said he coulda dumped a barrel of gay people in the East River that he killed himself and repukes/homophobes STILL WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR BUSH.

Why do you not understand that? Kerry apparently understood it.

[jpgray]

55. Kerry, you made the right move there.

I hope fewer people here will call you a coward as a result. :(

[kodi]

58. clinton's triangulation schemes cost the dems the house in '94

and has about wrecked the party at the congressional level.

[Prodemsouth]

76. You got the Cart before the horse on dates. The Trangulation schemes

you speak of happened after the 94 election - and Clinton was relected
because HE took Morris's advice- because Morris is like Rove and he knows how to win. The Dems picked up seats in 96. And in 98!! they picked up seats, something rare in politics for the serving Presidents party to do.

[kodi]

152. nope, the scheming started before the 94 elections

just read george stepthanopolis' book "more than human"

[Pirate Smile]

59. Clinton is a good politician but Kerry is a good man. Probably too

good a man to be a really good politician - not a good enough liar.

You get what you deserve. Thanks you 59 million assholes! What "values" you have!

[TheDonkey]

62. I agree, I'm so proud of Kerry.

We need to find away to beat the thugs down without having to sell out our rights.

[PittLib]

294. yes! i'll take a good man over a good politician any day.

at least i know what i'm getting. he can't turn around and abandon me for "political expedience" or to further his own career. i vote integrity not charisma.

[sr_pacifica]

65. Clinton wanted military gays and lesbians to be accepted

The don't ask, don't tell was signed by him because congress wouldn't go for an openly gay military. It was the best he could get out of them.

I think this news is b.s. and if it's true, I'm glad Kerry didn't go for it. Anybody who thinks he should have---how far do the democrats have to go to imitate the republicans in order to get elected? It cancels out the whole reason there are 2 parties IMO.

[xchrom]

126. people died for that stupid regulation

and careers were ruined -- here in norcali -- one airman had his life sorted out in the media because of that stupid ''don't ask don't tell''.
if that's the best hetero politicians can do for gay folk -- STOP HELPING!

[RaleighNCDUer]

257. I hope you're not saying that gays weren't being hounded out

of the military before 'don't ask, don't tell'. Clinton's policy was deeply flawed, but it was an attempt to prepare the military for the 21st century. Sure, it was just the closet by a different name, but it did forbid CO's from deliberately prying and spying. Before that, if a CO asked one of his command if he was gay, the soldier could either admit it, and be discharged, or lie to his CO, which is a punishable offence under UCMJ, in the hope that the CO had no evidence. And if the CO had evidence the soldier would be punished for disobeying a direct order "Tell me the truth, are you queer?" and then discharged anyway.

You can't fault Clinton for at least trying.

[daleo]

69. Here is my advice

Make sure all the votes get counted! Cave-in Kerry.

[JI7]

77. this fucking makes me want to cry

makes me want to cry because it just shows what a wonderful man he is and why i supported him.

but also makes me want to cry because i think if he would have taken clinton's advice he wouldn't have had so many come out for bush thinking kerry was going to legalize gay marriage. and he would have had ohio.

[medeak]

79. I don't believe this

no matter how well respected this journal is.

Family worked with Clinton (one a lesbian).. he wouldn't do something like this.

[oldmanpeacenik]

80. Clinton is one of the best pols of the century

Clinton knows how to win. He doesn't know how to keep his privates in his pants, and he's not an honest kind of guy, but more than anything else he knows how to win.

The Repubs used the gay-marriage amendments to get anti-gay folks to the polls. Kerry didn't make an attempt to pick up on those people.

Clinton was probably right on the facts. Right on morality...that's a different story. I do think the Repubs would've eaten Kerry alive if he'd gone back to the left after going to the right in the election. The flip-flopper charge really would stick then.

Hillary in '08, huh? Between this and her war vote, I'm just not sure.

[Furity]

83. After seeing these anti-gay pigs in action

Who could not support gay rights? Have you seen the grotesque signs and attitudes that these idiots have? I'm not gay myself, but I would never vote for a person that would condone this type of shit. Period. Good for Kerry.

~Furity

[pnorman]

97. We can assume that, unlike 2000, there'll be no "valid"

reason to have this Election "corrected". We have to minimize this self-destructive finger-pointing and concentrate on the important points. Other than what took place in Florida in 2000, I've avoided like the plague almost all the conspiracy theories that have been going around. But what has recently appeared on DU about the SIGNIFICANT difference between exit polling and "actual" votes is too strong by any measure. I'm "buying" it.

I'm bookmarking those sites, and am passing them around. I do NOT expect Kerry or the DLC to follow up on them, but WE can. Oily North was confident that all his incriminating stuff was shredded, but he forgot about all the automatic backups that a networked system performs. Remain patient, and remain CREDIBLE. And remain ALERT. Despite very tight security, the Pentagon Papers came out. And My Lai showed us that there are ordinary and "non-political" people who will risk all to do the right thing. I'm betting on that, and I'm staying alert.

pnorman

[deadparrot]

105. Just convinces me more and more that Kerry is an amazing man

America doesn't deserve him. They missed an opportunity to elect one of the greats.

Fuck this country. I hate what we've become.

When this administration starts coming apart at the seams for all of America to see, I'll simply say "fuck you" to Bush supporters. I wanted the other guy. The real man. The real leader. The class act. I'll always admire Kerry for his work in public service.

I'll always be proud to have worked for this man, the "Massachusetts librul."

[Dogmudgeon]

107. Sounds fishy to me

"A new report from inside the John Kerry campaign suggests ..."

This story stinks like week-old fish. It sounds like a Republican or a Clinton-hater at The Advocate or inside Team Kerry wants to split the party and/or alienate the Clinton supporters.

Rovian? You bet.

What amazing True Lie will we be hearing next? "A new report from inside the John Kerry campaign suggests that Jesse Jackson advised Kerry to publically sacrifice a white baby as a way to apologize for slavery ..."

--bkl

[July]

138. Yeah, eye on the ball.

The language SUGGESTS that we can't take this report seriously until someone is willing to be quoted on the record.

SOP since 2000.

[wjsander]

110. Homophobe... Yup, that sounds like Clinton!

NOT!

[killbotfactory]

115. Good

[bklyncowgirl]

118. Bill Clinton is a better politician / John Kerry is a better man

Folks, here's the sad truth about our country.

John Kerry is an honorable man. I think that's his greatest weakness as a politician. He plays the game straight down the line and he finds it hard to believe that others will not do the same. He's clearly not comfortable when he has to compromise his principles (his zigzagging over Iraq for example) but there are lines he will not cross.

Kerry appears to have a deep and abiding belief in the intelligence and honor of the American people.

Bill Clinton is the most successful Democratic politician of our lifetime because he's willing to play the game the way the Republicans do. We're talking about a guy who left the campeign trail to preside over the execution of a mentally retarded black man, who used a back door smear that launched stories that one of his opponents used to have his rock star buddies over for drug parties while he was governor of California, who got into a dust up over rap lyrics with Sistah Souljah and who signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

Sad to say that Bill Clinton probably has a better grasp on the mentality of the American people. I truly wish we could have a good man like John Kerry as our President and I'm grasping like many of you at the straw of voter fraud.

I do believe that Clinton believes that he will do more to effect change by being in office but that first he has to get into office. If going against his private beliefs and throwing part of his natural consistuency to the wolves will get him into office, he is willing to do it.

[saigon68]

121. Don't blame the Big Dog--Blame the Homophobes

Like Ralph Reed and KKKarl Rove. They hate gays and lesbians. If given a chance they would have death camps to eliminate "This scourge" their words.

The failure to get out more votes was the key to this loss.

There are a lot of religious fascists in this country and apparently 98% of them voted for their deliverer.

[Mend]

128. And Bill Clinton Was a Great President

you have got to win the office first....duh! I felt safe for eight years with Bill and now I hear about emigration, splits in the party, etc. The first thing Bill did was try and make it better for gays in the military and got his butt kicked for his efforts.

[blueblitzkrieg]

119. Honestly, I never believed John Kerry was against gay marriage.

On election night I remember the whores on MSNBC were talking about how they never thought John Kerry was truly against gay marriage, it was just a position he had to take to avoid political suicide.

I agree. I don't know if he would have done anything after being elected, but in my heart I think Kerry supports equal marriage rights for everyone. It would be consistent with who he is, as an honorable, kind, good person. This article just further reaffirms that feeling in my gut.

America really screwed itself over by not putting this guy in.

[JI7]

140. right, he was never truly against gay marriage, it was a political move

he was already on record as speaking out against attempts to ban same sex marriage before he ran for president. he has attended many same sex weddings himself.

[WillyT]

120. Good !!!

:kick:

[Moderator]

122. Kick

:kick:

[girl gone mad]

127. The replies on this thread are inspiring.

Clinton was wrong, and Kerry was right on this issue.

[Mend]

130. Now Watch for the Constitutional Ammendment

banning all gay rights. That would have never happened under Clinton or Kerry....

[Merlin]

131. Bill Clinton was right. Bleeding hearts are wrong. This is NOT anti-gay.

It IS pro traditional-values.

Gay marriage is a picayune, inconsequential, fatuous gambit that Rove rolled out there at precisely the right moment, knowing that foolish liberals -- as opposed to wise ones -- couldn't help grabbing for the bait.

It is in no way, shape or form essential for gay unions to be accorded the legal imprimatur of "marriage" by our government. It IS essential that they be granted the same rights as married couples under arrangements known as "civil unions." But the public is too stupid to know the difference. So dramatic steps must be taken to make clear a candidate--like Kerry--does not support gay marriage.

Kerry doesn't understand that. Bill Clinton does. So do most Americams. And to the fuzzy headed idealists who insist on making the good an enemy of the perfect it somehow became a moral imperative to fight for the meaningless ruse of gay marriage, despite the unmitigated fear it obviously incites in the hearts of huge segments of America.

The reason wedge issues work so well against us Democrats is because so many of us think with our hearts instead of our heads.

I can fully imagine in the next election Rove & Co. will trot out a proposal to ban flag burning in public schools--just so those liberals whose grasp of reality is tenuous can begin a campaign FOR flag burning in schools, demanding it is our right as Americans to do be able to dance around the flaming embers of Old Glory right there in the middle of Mrs. Smith's third grade classroom as a matter of free expression protected by the American constitution.

God, almighty, we can deal with our enemies. Please, please save us from our friends.

[Bush was AWOL]

187. You are exactly right

Conservatives think with their head and unfortunately many liberals think with their heart.

[Merlin]

200. Thank you for your blessed support. I thought I was all alone.

Nice to know there's at least one more out there with the courage to speak out against mindless, knee-jerking.

[RaleighNCDUer]

260. I'd amend that to say

Conservatives think with their guts, but strategize with their heads, while Liberals think with their heads but strategize with their hearts.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

201. How in the world can you compare

flag burning in school to a gay couple wanting to have not only the same rights but the same SOCIAL STATUS as their hetero peers?

Why shouldn't gays be allowed to be married?

Rove didn't come up with that notion as a red herring, I've wondered it half my life.

Yes, indeed, please save us from "friends" like you.

[Mend]

295. MY CHILDREN ARE DRAFT AGE

You want to compare my children dead or maimed in some stupid war to whether you marry or have civil unions? That's what it came down to and that is just plain wrong.

[JusticeForAll]

311. Wow where will you stop?

Ignore our rights and the rights for your children, gay or straight, to be free will be jeopardized.

Enslave the gays so that we can stop the war. What a beuatiful sentiment. Your argument works both ways.

Give me liberty or give me death.

[President Kerry]

207. EXCELLENT POST. Thank you! n/t

[enki23]

222. in case you weren't paying attention

most (all?) of these ballot measures also outlawed civil unions. and kerry ALREADY said, a number of times, that he wanted to protect "marriage" as being between a man and a woman. that WAS his position.

bill told him to take a stronger position, one which would have changed his position and explicitly backed provisions which outlawed civil unions in many states around the country. sort of the reverse of what bush did by pushing a FEDERAL amendment which banned meaningful civil unions for all gays in all states, then said on some frivolous daytime talk show that he favored civil unions.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

248. Great post! Right on! READ THIS, Y'ALL!

This is the lesson we anti-fascists must learn THIS TIME, NOT NEXT TIME.

>It will take time to teach old dogs new tricks so don't get eaten alive. That just feeds the old dogs and makes them stronger and the hatred will last longer.

Understand psychology. Hitler and Rove did. Kerry didn't.

It will be harder to gain acceptance for 'gender' minorities than 'ethnic' minorities because sexual issues are a much more primal part of our brains.

[Blasphemer]

267. Sadly, I must agree

My heart says "Right on, John Kerry" but what does that get us when * can move the Supreme Court sharply to the right and prevent any Judicial advances in the fight for equal rights? Sure, it hurts to have a candidate spewing that kind of crap from our side but does anyone really believe JK would have done anything but appoint SC justices who would absolutely support equal rights for gays? Can't say the same about Bush. The Republicans will do any say anything to get themselves into office, and they can flip, flop, backpaddle 'til the cows come home AND still get massive support from their base. Dems have a harder road because, we can't say the same. We have such high standards that in recent history only one man (with extraordinary political skills) was able to navigate the mindfield and have a successful 2 term presidency despite harsh criticism (not to say that the criticism wasn't deserved) from his own party. Something tells me that after 8 years of a disastrous * administration, the Repubs still won't have to worry about their version of a Nader. Facing reality about the current state of the nation and making a calculated political move doesn't automatically mean the death of our ideals when you take the big picture into account and I'm as far left as you can get.

[sr_pacifica]

285. All right---then what's your solution to the abortion issue?

If the public is "too stupid" to know the difference between Gay marriage and civil unions, then they must really be confused by Kerry's statement about abortion---he cannot legislate his own "article of faith"---so while he personally opposes abortion under certain circumstances, he supports a woman's right to choose.

Abortion, IMO, was the bigger "moral value" issue of the two---gay rights and abortion.

And I would say the issue was not gay marriage, but gay rights. Marriage isn't all the right is afraid of.

[wellstone dem]

133. God Bless You

John Kerry.

If he'd followed Clinton's advice, he would not have won, and would simply have been labeled a flip flopper, and would have deserved the label.

[bitchkitty]

134. Good for Kerry, and shame on Bill

I don't think that homophobia cost Kerry the election.

[many a good man]

135. Lose the battle, lose the war

I applaud John Kerry for having the courage to stick to his principles.

But the sad reality is it may have cost us the Supreme Court for a generation. When that happens say goodbye to any prospect for gay rights in the next 30 years.

Democrats now must vociferously state the case for liberal ideals or else all civil rights will slowly be taken away. We must make the case for tolerance and explain our concept of a moral government. We must sharpen the way we speak about our reality-based solutions because the oppositions's solutions will destroy this country.

[Snellius]

136. Moral scapegoating of any minority is despicable. Period

Anyone who condones it in any form for political expediency is worse than the bigot. At least the bigot believes in his prejudice.

What the Republicans did blaming the "gay agenda" for trying to corrupt the moral purity of the god, country, and family was pure fascism, plain and simple. Gays were the new "Jews".

[Merlin]

139. Shake the cobwebs out of your brain. This is NOT moral skapegoating.

Gay marriage is NOT essential to the lives of gay couples. The rights accorded them under Civil Unions IS essential.

Too many liberals are incapable of discerning the difference. Rove & Co. understood that and played it perfectly.

Clinton asked Kerry to make a dramatic gesture IN SUPPORT OF KERRY'S ANNOUNCE--BUT UNEMPHASIZED--POSITION AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE.

Sometimes I think most people on this board couldn't think their way out of a paper bag.

[many a good man]

147. The slippery slope toward POLYGAMY

Civil Union vs. the word "Marriage"

The Massachusetts Supreme Court decided its case the same way any Court beholden to Constitutional principles would. From an objective, secular viewpoint, refusing to call a civil union "marriage" automatically connotes a second class status. Bush's support of a hopeless Constitutional amendment would be the ONLY way to prevent the SCOTUS from ruling the same way.

Let me tell you a mind boggling personal story I have from working at the polls Tuesday.

At about 7:30pm turnout dwindled and the only two leafleteers remaining were the Bush/Cheney/Floyd guy and me. I had to endure his pontification for a few minutes when he lowered his voice and offered to tell me the REAL REASON behind the gay marriage issue and conservative fears of Kerry packing a liberal Supreme Court...

He asked me "Do you know what the two fastest growing religions are in the United States? The Church of Latter Day Saints, that's the Mormons, and the Muslims. Both of these 'religions' have polygamy at the core of their religious beliefs. If Kerry puts activist judges on the Court the next thing we'll have is legalized POLYGAMY AND POLYANDRY."

My entire body shook with fear when I heard that. But probably not for the same reasons as millions of others who have been fed this line....

[Snellius]

149. They will always find someone to blame their fears on.

Clinton advised K to support a BAN on gay marriage. Since you are so clever as to think your way out of a paper bag, you obviously recognize that the issue is not about gay marriage. Just as abortion is not about abortion. It's about human rights. What we are talking about are laws to prohibit others "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Who says "Gay marriage is NOT essential to the lives of gay couples"? Who says banning gay marriage is essential to preserving the moral purity of American family life? Why this issue is important is not really for practical reasons but for cultural and symbolic ones. It goes to the heart of what freedom means. If African Americans or real Jews are no longer politically expedient, it will be homos and lesbos. Or hippies. Or godless baby killers. Or maybe anyone who doesn't want their kids to bow down to Jesus every time they go to school. Don't fool yourself that this is just a matter of political strategy.

[Merlin]

175. You're thinking like an ideologue, not a realist.

What do you mean "the issue is not about gay marriage" ?

What do you mean "abortion is not about abortion" ?

Your assertions remind me of the NRA. When we say we want to register handguns the say "Oh, no you don't. You really want to take all our guns away!"

Gay marriage is not in the least about human rights. One can make an argument that civil unions IS a matter of at least equal rights. But not gay marriage. Nobody has a human right to have a government grant a non-standard relationship the status of "marriage." By the same token, nobody has a human right to require a government to assign the status of "corporation" to a non-standard business entity.

These are simply government terms. They are not human rights. Their absense deprives nobody of anything at all essential to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I never said "banning gay marriage is essential to preserving the moral purity of American family life." What I said was that millions upon millions of otherwise decent, non-fundamentalis red-state church goers DO believe approximately that. And this is a country where MAJORITY RULES. Remember?

With all due respect, your assertion that requiring the government assign the status of "marriage" to gay unions "goes to the heart of what freedom means" is utterly preposterous. Freedom is nothing so irrelevant and inconsequential.

Freedom means the right to speak out, to organize, to enjoy privacy from unreasonable governmental intrusion, to receive fair and prompt justice, to worship as you like, and to try to persuade others of the rightness of your cause. THAT is true freedom. Our forefathers did not fight and bleed and suffer and die for the frivolous misplaced "right" of a gay couple to be deemed by our government to be "married."

I am determined to continue to speak out on this because I know I am right. And I know that if intelligent liberals like you do not realize these truths, then we will continue to make the same stupid mistakes, bite the same kinds of Rovian bait, relegate our cause to permanent minority status, and allow the evil right wing to take over the world. I refuse to sit back and permit that to happen.

Please consider what I am saying.

[Snellius]

185. America is NOT just a state where "majority rules"

What makes America free is not the rule of the 51% but the protection of the rights of those who do not conform to the "tyranny of the majority".

I am not in favor of gay marriage, but I defend anyone's right to live like anyone else. I am not in favor of abortion, but I defend the right of women to do what they want with their own bodies. The Republicans use these wedge issues not only because they believe they are doing the right thing, but because they are cynically rubbing salt into the wounds of the basest human instincts and fears. They are a form of cultural terrorism and, if you think this is all just a matter of political expediency, you are making the same pact with the devil that many Democrats made under Clinton, a compromise of principle that has led to the defeats we are suffering today.

[Merlin]

199. The pact we made under Clinton got us 8 pretty good years.

Listen to your own words:

"...I defend anyone's right to live like anyone else."

What in the flaming, freaking godam hell does that have to do with gay marriage? Who is saying anything about infringing on the rights of gay couples to "live like anyone else" ? Not I. Not John Kerry, who OPPOSED gay marriage. Not even Satan's own George W. Bush.

So stop trying to blow smoke up peoples asses, and start thinking before you blow off steam, will you.

Do you have the capacity to question your own judgment? Can you second guess your reasoning at all? Are you able to critically analyze your assumptions and your goals and your methods and see if they are all consistent?

What in god's name do you think you are doing giving me a lecture on wedge issues? I know wedge issues inside out and backwards. I also know how Rove & Co used this one to sucker non-thinking liberals into playing right into the stereotype the red-staters have of us.

If people like you would start thinking and stop jerking your liberal knee at every "politically correct" thought, we might be able to get this fucking party straightened out and win a few elections.

[Snellius]

211. "People like you"?

Why am I always afraid of people who call other people "people like you."?

You seem to want to fight more than you want to talk. So I suppose I should let you have the last word and be done with it. I understand your frustration but I guess it all comes down to how far we are willing to go in order to "win a few elections". To characterize someone's defense of what I consider basic American rights as "knee jerk political correctness" is were we part company.

[Merlin]

261. That's right.

"People like you" are the bane of the liberal existence. No offense.

It's one thing to have admiral liberal goals: decent housing, incomes, education and healthcare for all, care for the underprivileged and aged and disabled, peace where possible, and on and on.

It's quite another to extrapolate from that agenda the notion that everybody is entitled to get exactly what they want so long as they aren't part of the ruling class, they aren't a corporation, and they aren't hurting anybody else. That is simply not true.

America is a nation where people of many different viewpoints must coexist. Stable governance requires majority support. The opposition will always hold the view of a minority to a strict interpretation.

In this case, the strict interpretation of rights under the American constitution does not in any way shape or form apply to gay marriage. It arguably does apply to civil unions. But that's entirely a different matter.

"People like you" do not recognize the truth of what I have just taken the trouble to explain to you, and you thereby all run together, like birds in a flock, proclaiming how good you are andhow right your views are and how what you proclaim must be a protected right because it sounds so good and on and on. I've been through this for decades. I know what I'm talking about.

During Vietnam, "people like you" were responsible for dragging out the war for another few years because you couldn't grasp the fact that carrying signs denouncing the US and praising Ho Chi Minh did not go over well with the American people. Ho was a champion of his people you thought. So let's proclaim it. Well, Ho was indeed a champion. He was a great patriot and a great man. But to think the American people had the capacity to understand that is to think pigs can fly. It's not a perfect analogy to the present situation. But it does illustrate how utterly naive and unthinking and ideological and follow-the-leaderish liberals can be. And it really, really hurts.

Reality. That's what we're dealing with here. As JFK said, "Politics is the art of the possible.

[RaleighNCDUer]

266. Reading the discussion here I see two people who fundamentally

agree, but find agreement impossible because of semantic differences.

We will continue to lose as long as we let Rove write the definitions.

Some people believe heart and soul in same sex marriage. Others see the word 'marriage' as being the hanging point, and prefer the term 'civil union'.

Both believe in the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to have equal rights of all citizens. Some, when they see another opposing 'gay marriage' assume the other is a bigoted homophobe. Others, when they see someone insist on 'gay marriage' see a threat to basic religious principles, despite their support of equal rights.

If we agree that 'marriage' is a sacrament, therefore a religious term, can we move on? Once civil unions are legitimized by the state, there will be no way to prevent 'marriage' because the further step of marriage would be performed by a religious authority. Gay churches, as well as many serve congregations that are not specifically gay, would authorize gay marriages and the state could not interfere because of the separation of church and state. Those who do not believe that marriage is a sacrament would be satisfied with their civil unions and probably call themselves 'married' as shorthand -- besides, saying they are unionized or civilized would just confuse people.

The prize is equal rights. What those rights are called is just semantics.

Fight for civil unions.

[Snellius]

270. Sometimes semantic differences have real consequences

I think what I'm trying to say is that this issue entails more than just whether we call it "marriage" or "civil unions". We are involved in a cultural war. And in a cultural war symbol and semantic differences can be as significant as policy differences.

The original ques ion here, as I understand it, is whether it was acceptable for Kerry to support these state-wide propositions legally banning gay marriage. Some say what's the difference if we call it marriage or whatever, as long as ones civil liberties are preserved. But to me, the clear intention of these propositions is not so much legal as cynically political, using hatred of a defenseless, vilified minority to scare an ignorant public that their moral purity and way of life are under attack. It's the domestic counterpart to what Bush is doing to flame the fears of terrorist attack. To go along with this kind of tactic only seems to condone it.

[Merlin]

346. And sometimes a door is ajar.

But this was clearly a legal question of where the line should be drawn as to MARRIAGE -- a legal and moral condition sanctioned by the state, and shared in by THE VAST MAJORITY OF RED STATE VOTERS. This isn't mere semantics to THEM. It's the damn law!

You say "...to me, the clear intention of these (state gay marriage banning) propositions is not so much legal as cynically political, using hatred of a defenseless, vilified minority to scare an ignorant public that their moral purity and way of life are under attack."

But the "ignorant public" is already scared that "their moral purity and way of life are under attack." And they aren't so ignorant that they don't understand what it means when two women or two men want their state to sanction their relationship as MARRIAGE.

Marriage IS the point at which the church and state mix. It's been true from the beginning. Churches may perform the rite. But the partners require a license from the state before the ritual may occur.

Marriage has enormous, profound, deep and abiding religious overtones. It goes to the heart of what a family is. It is deeply meaningful to that "ignorant public," and they do not want to see an institution that has been around for 3 millenia "corrupted" by extending it to relationships which they consider to be--with the support of 95% of their religious authorities--immoral and in fact sinful.

So it's not JUST semantics. In this case semantics are everything.

Most -- not all, but most -- of the "ignorant public" will support civil unions. And most gays are satisfied with civil unions and do not NEED their relationship sanctioned as a "marriage." But well meaning, knee jerk liberals are not content to leave well enough alone. With utter contempt for the sensibilities of middle America, they want to force gay marriage down their throats, like it or not.

[Merlin]

344. Agreed. Civil unions are sufficient to satisfy most gay couples.

I agree with your sentiments.

[noiretextatique]

246. and only 8 years...then a stolen election

and now, another one. perhaps clinton needs to address voter disenfranchisement and voting machine fraud instead of gay marriage or civil unions. that's another way to win.

[Merlin]

262. I'm sure he'll address it just as soon as you can PROVE it.

It's one thing to advance a lot of theories.

It's quite another to have proof.

Believe me, I'm a veteran of many years of banging my head against the wall trying to get the American people to understand that there was indeed a conspiracy in the JFK assassination.

But I've learned that without proof, I got nothin'.

As far as gay marriage, please remember the distinction between that and civil unions. Nobody is calling into question the need for or legitimacy of civil unions. But even John Kerry himself opposed gay marriage. All Bill Clinton was doing was suggesting a dramatic move so Kerry could make his position--that he had kept deliberately low key so he could have it both ways--clear to the red state Americans who had been falsely told Kerry was for gay marriage.

Gay marriage is not a right in America, no matter how you cut it. And it is violently offensive to many Americans. If we liberals can't understand that, then we do not deserve to govern the nation.

[noiretextatique]

291. there is PROOF of disenfranshisement

in florida, for example...their ambitious voter-purge of so-called "felons," was a deciding factor in 2000. it is not a stretch to believe that happened again, since it was so successful and unchallenged the first time. there is proof in this election of fraud too.
i can understand that ordinary citizens like yourself can't prove anything, but if the democratic party can't manage to prove what ordinary citizens can...

civil unions...it might have made a difference to make that distinction, but it probably makes more sense to demand an audit of the election results (given that they don't mesh with pre-election polling, or exist polls (at least pre-scrubbed exist polls).
it probably makes more sense to challenge ambitious felon purge that net non-felons somehow.

why not fight the battles that truly matter to the health of this democracy, rather than parsing phrases to appease bigots? gay marriage or gay civil unions...those against the former are probably also against the latter.

[Merlin]

343. That is NOT proof, dammit. That is suspicion.

Learn the difference, will you, please.

[noiretextatique]

354. for pete's sake...there is PROOF

perhaps not of intent, but that is self-evident. um. jeb: did you purge voters to help your brother win florida, or for some other, unrelated reason...perhaps your own election and re-election? or perhaps for some reason totally unrelated to any election? yep...no proof at all.

[Merlin]

355. Proof of selective disenfranchisement is not proof of a "Stolen Election"

"Stolen election" is what you charged. It may well have been. But--and I say it again--unless you can prove it, your suspicions don't mean diddly.

With a 3-1/2 million vote plurality, if it was stolen, the theft was on a gargantuan scale. If they were able to pull that off undetected, then it's our fault for being so damned incompetent we were unable to even notice.

[noiretextatique]

358. what is the point of 'selective disenfranshisment' if not to

limit the number of votes? and what is the point of doing that?
we are too incompent to even notice...we dimiss it with phrases like "selective disenfranchisement." it's not that it's undetectable; in some cases it is legal (felon purge laws), in some cases, it's just standard practice (part of "our way of life"). and we keep accepting it...yes, we are incompetent.

[sr_pacifica]

292. You've got to be kidding!

"Too many liberals are incapable of discerning the difference" between civil unions and gay marriage.

"Most people on this board couldn't think their way out of a paper bag."---I don't see that your thinking is so pragmatic. You are basing your argument on erroneous assumptions. One, that liberals didn't vote for Kerry based on the gay marriage issue. Two, that the gay marriage issue was a deciding factor. What about abortion, what about the terroris threat and the notion that only a republican can protect us in times of war (war on terror). I don't think you're reading of the mindset of the American people is cogent.

[Merlin]

341. Your response proves my point.

Did abortion play a role? Absolutely. But it's been a monkey on our back for a generation. What's new? Why weren't we able to expand on Gore's plurality in 2000? The answer -- backed by polls and agreed to by ALL talking heads of both stripes -- is gay marriage.

And the crazy thing is, our candidate was OPPOSED to gay marriage. Which bitch slaps your silly notion that liberals voted for Kerry because of it. Most gays I know are damned intelligent. They DON'T NEED gay marriage. The DO NEED civil unions. That's what we promised. That's what American's would support. But because Kerry didn't make it crystal clear he was opposed to gay marriage, he allowed himself to be falsely defined in the minds of red state voters.

You don't think that's pragmatic reasoning? Dream on. The "mindset of the American people" is not the same as your mindset.

[sr_pacifica]

352. Where did I say that liberals voted for Kerry because of gay marriage?

I believe I said Kerry took the correct stand for electability---pro civil union, anti-Gay marriage.

Kerry did not "allow" himself to be falsely defined. The neocons, fundamentalist, and right-wing have defined ANYONE as pro-gay marriage as long as he or she does not come out as supporting the federal DOMA.

The mindset of Americans---intellectually lazy.

It seems to me your methodology follows that of the single-issue fundamentalists who look to one variable. It seems to me you may be harboring some homophobia since you continue to harp on this one factor.

[Merlin]

357. Why not read your own post to find out?

Here's what you said:
"You are basing your argument on erroneous assumptions. One, that liberals didn't vote for Kerry based on the gay marriage issue..."

If you remove the double negatives, you wind up with "Liberals voted for Kerry based on the gay marriage issue." And that is false. Kerry was opposed to gay marriage. But he supported civil unions.

And there's more evidence of faulty logic. First you say "Kerry did not 'allow' himself to be falsely defined." Then you say the right wing (falsely) "defined ANYONE as pro-gay marriage as long as he or she does not come out as supporting the federal DOMA"

Think about your logic. If Kerry was opposed to gay marriage, and he was painted as favoring it, wasn't that a false portrayal? And if he didn't respond to that, didn't he "allow" them to get away with it?

And you accuse others of being intellectually lazy!

Then you have the temerity to suggest that I am homophobic because I don't support the right of gay couples to have the word "married" applied to their relationships by the government.

Please do me a favor. Please, please, please THINK before you express your political views. It's not good for our side when such half-baked reasoning is used in defense of liberalism.

Liberalism has very, very important items on its agenda. They are of so much greater consequence than gay marriage that there is no comparison. Please, please, please start thinking in terms of priorities, rather than a selfish desire to have everything your way.

[PittLib]

301. yeah ... well, some of us have conviction

and see the danger of "compromise". I don't try to defeat my enemy by becoming my enemy.

[Merlin]

342. Think harder.

The only time compromise is a "danger" is when you can not trust yourself to stand by your core principles.

Through compromise, you don't become your enemy. You agree to coexist with your enemy. Think about it. Compromise is the entire underpinning of democracy. Think about it.

In any case, who's talking compromise? Gay marriage is NOT a right and it's not something essential to gay couples. Civil unions ARE essential, and something we should fight for.

Please try thinking harder. These issues are way too important for otherwise intelligent liberals to fail to understand.

[PittLib]

348. Due to message board rules ...

I can't tell you what I think of you and your opinion right now. Do you honestly believe that these people differentiate between civil unions and marriage? I don't think any amount of word shuffling is going to win them to our side. And I will not move from my position if I feel that it means that it will give them room to write this discrimination into the constitution. You can continue to believe my responses to be "idiotic" ... but I don't believe in political bartering. I won't sell out my ideals.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04311/407474.stm

[Merlin]

356. Nobody asked you to sell out your ideals.

If you want to keep losing, then just keep deluding yourself into thinking nobody in the red states is smart enough to know the difference between gay marriage and civil unions.

That is such an incredibly arrogant, unbelievably naive, fantastically out of touch statement, I barely believe you can believe it and still be able to complete a sentence!

You honestly think the people in the red states are dumb? So dumb they can't distinguish between gay marriage and civil unions?

You honestly think the difference between the two amounts to "word shuffling?"

Let me tell you something. You don't have to worry about "selling out your ideals." Because with the inability of people like you on our side to be realistic about politics and have the good sense to aim for reasonable compromise, what we have to look forward to is being totally steamrolled by the right wing.

So for your incredible determination to avoid rationality on the pitifully inconsequential subject of gay marriage, you will forfeit every other dam thing you believe to be important and give the other side Carte Blanche to have their way in America.

What phenomenal short sightedness! It boggles the mind.

[noonwitch]

137. I understand Clinton's pragmatism, but respect Kerry's ethics

It's discrimination against gays. Just because it's popular, doesn't make it right. It was once popular in Germany to kill jews.

[Merlin]

141. Oh, please. Ethics my ass.

A lot of good "ethics" does for a losing cause.

Clinton was simply urging Kerry to make a dramatic move to illustrate KERRY'S OWN announced but unemphasized position AGAINST gay marriages (but FOR civil unions).

If seemingly intelligent liberals like yourself can't tell the difference between these two concepts, how the hell do we expect the American public to -- absent dramatic gestures like the one Clinton urged and Kerry was too dense to grasp.

[JusticeForAll]

314. Now you've done it.

You just lost any shred of credibility you may have possessed.

Renounce your ethics and please go win some other party's election. I can think of one that does that all the time. It's clear that all that is important to you is winning. Please go find your unethical candidate who will be willing to talk your talk on the issues you support. I guarantee you, he will later sell you down the line and ram you up the ass, where your ethics apparently reside.

You want compromise and guerrilla campaign warfare at all costs? You will reap what you sow and deserve the leadership of the unethical leaders you support.

Possibly in your blindless you have also lost what it means to feel.

[CWebster]

144. Now watch 'em push Hillary

Some have suggested it was the plan all along.

Can there be no greater polarizing figure? A sure fire way to lose just to embrace power. But what is left to win, if winning means following the Republican model?

No, being a Democrat means having an identity which opposes Republican manipulation not subscribing to it. All that "triangulation" achieves is greater support for Republicans and leaves Democrats lost and without purpose.

No damn unity with criminals, fascists and cult-like religious Right wackos.

[The_Counsel]

145. ...And People Say John Kerry Is A "Flip-Flopper."

John Kerry has said all along that while he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, he believes dedicated gay couples should have the same rights as everybody else. The right to heath benefits, etc.

He's also said that same sex marriage bans should be left to the states, so essentially he DID support the eleven bans that passed in the states on Tuesday. So, I'm sorry: I just don't see how John Kerry comes out on the losing end of this "morals" issue...

[moose65]

146. I think the real issue was.....

Once again, "we" allowed the Repubs to frame the issue. They were able to spout their soundbite of "protecting the sanctity of marriage" without ever having to explain what that really meant. Kerry could have led the debate over what that really meant, i.e. asking how allowing gays to marry would undermine marriages of straight people. He could have stressed his support for civil unions and hammered home the message that he wanted all people to enjoy the benefits of "marriage". Instead, he ran away from the issue as well, and now we have what we have.

I am a gay man, and I really don't care if we call it "marriage" or not. I just want some protections. I want to be able to share in the benefits of marriage with my partner, whether we call it marriage or civil unions. "Marriage" is a religious term. In the eyes of the state, a marriage is nothing but a legal contract. Two drunken Vegas convention-goers can get married in a drive-through chapel by an Elvis impersonator after they have known each other for half an hour. How does THAT protect the "sanctity of marriage?" Quick, we need a constitutional amendment to ban drunkenness!! Oh dear......

[moose65]

150. oh, and another thing....

We didn't hear much regarding those "activist judges" either, which I think might have been a good way to dilute some conservative voices. After all, it was "activist judges" who forced us to desegregate schools, allow African-Americans to vote, and essentially make us comply with the law. Since when is it ok to demonize one branch of our government?? Anyone ever heard of checks and balances??

It was also "activist judges" who put the Chimp in office to start with, defying the will of the people. I see many parallels there, things that would have made good talking points. Alas, so many lost opportunities!

As far as ballot initiatives go, do these amendments automatically become law now, or are they subject to "fine-tuning" by the respective state legislatures? The idea that voters get to decide by majority rule is frightening: ANY minority could be oppressed that way! If the Southern states had voted on desegregation back in the late 50s, who do you think would have won? Scary!!

[Chiyo-chichi]

161. But my beer-buddy W and Unka Dick said...

that Kerry "Panders" and "would say anything mto get elected." I am sooooooooo confused!

(not)

[Gothmog]

162. Client told me the same story

I heard the same story yesterday from a client who has given a great deal of money over the years to the party. Clinton is probably right in that this move would have neutralize some of the bush support.

[amazona]

163. God bless John Kerry, he did the right thing

You can't keep telling people, one day, one day, they will have civil rights. LBJ didn't tell African-Americans one day, one day. He did the right thing, even at a cost.

Doing the right thing is not always cheap and easy.

We forget how angry we were with Clinton over some of his compromises. Clinton is a good man, but he is not the Oracle of Delphi.

I believe Kerry could have sold the gay vote and all that would have happened is that he would be out the gay vote, without any corresponding pick-up from the hatriots.

Let the haters and the bigots have their own party, they will anyway.

Kerry is still a hero to my eyes. Clinton, too, but in this case Clinton was just wrong.

[cindyw]

164. I think at the core of everything those ammendments are why we lost, but

thank you Kerry for not supporting those amendments. I just hope that all of the gay activists (and there were many who supported Kerry too) I fought with this election who swore up and down that Kerry is exactly like Bush on this issue are "happy" in the knowledge that Kerry had the opportunity to sell them up the river for a win and did not.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

173. Well God bless Senator John Kerry

I don't know if it is this specifically or everything that's happened, but I'm crying again. I don't even know why. The shame of Clinton asking him to do such a thing? The happiness I feel that Kerry said no?

You start compromising your principles to gain power and all is lost. And this is NOT A MINOR ISSUE. This is the issue of a group of Americans being treated like SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS. I have the feeling if this were almost any other group of people, there'd be massive outrage.

Clinton did a lot of good in office and I'm not so idealistic that I can't see the place that that kind of bare-knuckled advice would come from, but that advice suckity-suck-sucked. I am proud the Kerry campaign didn't sell their soul on that issue.

[norml]

178. My Thread Just Started In The Meeting Room.. Please Copy & Distribute

norml (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-05-04 03:35 PM
Original message
The "Conservative" Sermon On The Mount


Blessed are the rich for all good things trickle down from them. Cursed are the poor for poverty results from their moral failings. Blessed are the war makers for they keep freedom on the march. Cursed are the peacemakers for they shall be called appeasers. Blessed are those who inflict harsh punishments for they maintain law and order. Cursed are those who forgive for they shall be called soft on crime. Blessed are those who pray loudly standing in the churches and on the corners sounding the trumpet before them. Cursed are those who shut the closet door and pray in secret for their prayers are not heard. Blessed are those who cast the first stone for the sake of sexual morality for that is the only morality that matters. Cursed are those who see sexuality as a private matter for marriage must be defended against them.



By me,Brian Shawn Mary

[desertalien]

180. One of the many reasons

to admire Senator Kerry.

[On the Road]

181. It Was a No-Win Situation

Completely apart from conviction, neither Clinton's advice or Kerry's course of action would have won the election. In retrospect, the deciding event was the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision. Democrats became associated with support for nationwide gay marriage no matter what a candidate said.

[Ficus]

184. They only have 20 years left for this

There is a huge devide between younger and older voters on this. Not only will this be a loser as a wedge issue for them, we will turn the tide on this bigotry.

[Strawman]

188. Maybe JK should have told Clinton

That winning is great but it also feels good to actually be able to look at yourself in the mirror.

Plus it wouldn't have done a damn bit of good. JK would never be credible as a homophobic good ol' boy. It would have been a pathetic laughable effort and a miserable failure. They would have seized that and said "See John Kerry will say anything to get elected."

Bill Clinton isn't half the man that John Kerry is. He's defnitely a better politician, and I don't dislike him, but JK is really a thoroughly decent man. And he carried my state even though the gay marriage ban won with 59%. He could have won (and but for spoiled votes and provisional ballots perhaps did win) Ohio and the Presidency without selling out.

[msmcghee]

190. What's so bad about losing an election or two ?

The whiners here are most likely white males who don't like the idea that they can't have the power they think they deserve. Their answer, well let's throw a few faggots in the fire. That will make the right wing bigot voters think we're just like them and vote for our candidates. Do you realize how absurd you sound?

Wake up and smell the bonfire baby - it's meant for me and thee. I've been a minority from the day I was born. In 1964 when the anti-war effort first started, there was almost no-one who agreed with what were seen as our anti-American efforts. It took six years but we eventually stopped that fucking war. I got my head busted and I got shot at by cops. Nixon didn't even slow us down.

You people should get used to the idea that you (we) are a permanent minority in this country - at least those who are not ready to trade your principles for power. And this could last for a hell of a long time.

Liberals will always be a minority because the powerful will never give up their privilege easily - and they'll always have the money and the guns and the connections to get their way. It's the war that started when the first human community gathered enough excess wealth that some asshole came up with the idea of the "haves" and the "have nots".

Stop whining about being out of power and start throwing sand into the gears of this theocracy. Make them pay for their hypocracy. That's the only language they understand. And it's the only way the have nots and minorities will ever get justice in this world. It's always been that way and it always will.

********************

The good part is that thanks to this election, the youth in America are finally going to get out of their dot.com idiocy and become real people again. This has already started and there are many young liberals in this forum - and that swells my heart. I foresee a glorious blossoming of the counterculture fueled by beautiful youthful liberal ideology - with music becoming a wonderful experience again - a unifying factor across generations in the coming struggle.

Bring it on baby. I'm sixty-two and ready to rumble.

[freedom_to_read]

203. thank you thank you thank you

for this post. we need this kind of attitude, now more than ever.

come on people, do you have any idea how much sacrifice it took for the labor movement to even get us a freaking weekend? or for women to get the vote? Zinn should be required reading for all y'all.

right now things look very very grim. perhaps they aren't as bad as that -- but if they are, we had better be prepared for a lot more than just the humiliation of a lost election!

Kerry did the right thing: we should not sell our gay brothers and sisters for votes.

"For what is a man profited, if he gain the whole world, and lose or forfeit his own self?" --Luke 9:25

[JusticeForAll]

315. thank YOU too!

msmcghee, F_T_r, and Moonbeam you are each voices of reason in this thread!

Perspective is what is needed.

This sums it up the best:
right now things look very very grim. perhaps they aren't as bad as that -- but if they are, we had better be prepared for a lot more than just the humiliation of a lost election!

We're in for a good, long, fight.


What a totally awesome quotation, too, as a result of this thread it may become part of my sig line...if they ever return!!

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

205. I like this post msmcghee

in my own small way, I am already working to "throw sand in the gears" by keeping as much of my money as possible out of the economy, joining and supporting the ACLU, HRC, and other organizations that work hard for social justice and civil rights, and I am carrying out my own little economic blockade against republican owned, run, or donating businesses and corporations.

I also think Kerry voters ought to start networking hard to help each other find jobs, better places to live, etc.

I see this country in three groups after Tuesday's election: Kerry voters, bush voters, and those who didn't care enough to vote. Those who aren't eligible to vote are obviously not in there. I support and help and am loyal to Kerry voters only.

[ArtVandaley]

232. here here

I'm a 21 year old liberal in Ohio (sorry! Kerry did win my county though!), and I realize that the only thing that can stop Bush is public opinion. If people become more educated about the real issues (Iraq, gay rights) they'll come around and even the republicans will have to listen to us. This fight is long from over!

[Political_Junkie]

318. APPLAUSE

And thank you from the bottom of my heart.

[wryter2000]

208. Now I *am* crying

Just look at what we've lost.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

209. Thank you Mr. Kerry...

This straight Dem thanks you for refusing such a craven political move.

[MacDo]

210. We will never win

until we stop politicizing God, Gays, and Guns. The time for everything comes, but it's not here yet.

[Political_Junkie]

319. We didn't politicize those things,

they did!

[keith the dem]

216. Kerry actually read what Jesus said

Hatred of the downtrodden is not a Christian value!! Bush won with Hatred disguised as a "moral" value. Kerry had the high ground on real moral values and the big mistake of his campaign was not to lower himself to their level as Clinton apparently suggested but to not expose the hypocritical disguise of the so called Christian right.

[ArtVandaley]

228. Good for Kerry

He pissed me off a lot during the campaign, but I think he was ultimately a very moral person and truly would have made a good president. Clinton's a fun guy, a great speaker and he knew how to win, so we all love him. But really, Clinton was a very sleazy guy, very political and I don't think he will have a good legacy. Welfare reform, NAFTA and allowing major conglomerats to merger will be the lsting effects of his presidency. Sure he balanced the budget and we had a good economy, but what do we have to show for that now? Other than the Brady Bill, everything lasting things Clinton did was very conservative, and I quite frankly do not want his wife in the office next to do the same sorts of things. He gave us a sense of false hope; he destroyed the core of the party by co-opting republican issues in order to secure his own power and popularity.
Sure, supporting gay rights isn't popular right now and may lose us a good number of votes. But it's the right thing to do, and that is what leadership is. In the 50's it wasn't popular to support equal rights for blacks, but the public eventually saw the light, as I believe they will someday in regards to homosexual rights.

[mirandaod]

233. I'm proud of Kerry,

and disappointed with Clinton. After this disaster, I don't think we should try to pander to the right anymore. We should stick to our principles. I don't want to see our gay brothers and sisters thrown under the bus to just so we can "win". Like Clinton, we might win an election, but lose our own souls in the process. And then the wolves on the right will just turn around and devour us again.
On the marriage issue, what makes most sense to me is this: Every union, either gay or straight, is a civil union in the eyes of the state. That gives every union the same legal rights and privileges and obligations. If a couple so desires, they can have a marriage ceremony at their own church, to solemnize their spiritual union. Churches, being separate from the state, can provide the ceremony to the people they choose to provide it to.
Makes sense, dontcha think?

[DemMother]

234. To those of you who think we should back down, this is what you get

when you don't stand on principle...

"A State Board of Education member stalled a vote to approve middle school health textbooks Thursday by saying the books should condemn homosexuality and make clear that marriage exists only between men and women," reports the Austin-Statesman.

"Board member Terri Leo, R-Spring, called for about 30 changes to teachers' and students' editions of proposed health books in grades six through eight.

"The board skipped a preliminary vote on the books after a representative for the books' publisher, Holt Rinehart and Winston, said the company would consider Leo's changes and report back before today's final vote...."

http://americablog.blogspot.com

THESE PEOPLE WILL NOT QUIT. I think those of you using the term "politically naive" must be pretty new to politics. We give in on this, they go after us on something else. The right-wingers WILL NOT QUIT. We have to figure out other ways of dealing with them and BACKING DOWN is not the answer. It will only embolden them to strip away more rights.

We need to point out to red state voters that they are being played. They are being taken for a ride by a party that could give a damn about them. They are being tricked and deceived and treated like rubes. It is in the repubs and corporate interests to have a permanently undereducated, lower class that will be the backbone of companies like Wal-mart, funding the five-car garages of corporate executives, sacrificing their health care and pensions so some asshole can throw a multi-million dollar birthday party for his wife. If anyone holds these people in disdain, it's the repubs. We have to start pointing this out.

What did they get for their social agenda...a partial-birth abortion bill that's being held up in the courts, an underfunded faith-based program...Bush didn't even talk much about his social agenda because he knows he has the "rubes" in his pocket. He talked mostly about a flat tax and social security privatization (which he lied about in the campaign--saying he wasn't for it).


Gay marriage is a smokescreen. We have to battle through it to the real issues. We cannot play their game. It wouldn't matter to them if Kerry had supported those ballot initiatives. They would have continued on script. We cannot match them on this. We have to change the script.

We have to let the red staters know that the boogieman in the closet is not a gay couple or a terrorist. He's wearing a suit and tie and is not interested in prayer in schools, or gay marriage, but in corporate profits, in military excess, in reducing capital gains taxes, in gutting the environment, and in jeopardizing the futures of all our children.

[klook]

263. GREAT post

Thanks for this intelligent analysis. I consider the Republicans terrorists at this point, and we all know that negotiating with terrorists never works.

[slor]

235. What can I say...

It may have been the politically expedient thing to do, but I am glad he did not do it.

[MISSDem]

242. I knew that Kerry was something special and

this proves it. No wonder I am so depressed.

[Sequoia]

247. It would not have helped since * stole the election again.

That's why the WH was so certain at 3:30AM EST on November 3. Good for Kerry to stand by his principles and not want to change the Consitution. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) said we Dems should've be more conservative. Right, like that's going to help. No way, I will not be a goose-steeping fool.

[LibInternationalist]

255. I don't belive this for a second

[shuffnew]

265. I have difficulty believing that rumor...

I have a difficult time to believe that Clinton actually pursued that. If true (which I doubt), I am glad Kerry refused!

[KamaAina]

268. And to think, yesterday I wanted Clinton to head up the DNC

Bzzzzzzzzzzzt! McAuliffe still needs to go, but we're gonna need someone with more spine than that to take on the fascists.

Bear in mind that the gay and lesbian community raised MAJOR bucks for Big Dog's campaign -- and all they got was this lousy T-shirt :-)

[PATRICK]

273. Great, but does that suggest

They needed to outrageously sellout because they weren't going to face the issue of fraud or get enough of an obvious poll edge to drown out the illusory vote totals?

Nary a whimper or whisper why anyone should go along crawling on our bellies like curs because the vote fraud issue is taboo or absent from the cunning minds of our professional protectors.

The margin of cheating had already been factored according to traditional methods long ago. Pragmatic compromise is democracy. The best we could do. Hey ho. The decay of the national forums, the new, simple massive fraud goes hand in hand with Democrats ABDICATING their very existence at each challenge- in silence, and forcing silence on truth tellers and the people they purport to represent.

Sorry this is pure DLC CLinton. That only flew because of you, not because of the wonderful value of selling one's soul. This tossing our hapless issues and leaders to the wolves as we retreat retreat retreat retreat, counting our accidental blessings.

Is there no where where they will take a stand that matters? In the real world I mean, not in those convoluted speeches they drone into the Congressional record from their sad dwindling seats?

What exactly IS the duty we are reporting for? I'm already a sucker by birthright as a citizen of this farce. There are actually few requirements to be a sucker intellectually and fewer in actual deed unless I am on the bottom of the food chain. I am not supposed to recognize if I am a sucker down there though. The only law of might is that we will not be suffered to fight back. Telling the truth is an appendix being taken care.

It's so easy to martyr your soul and everyone else's. Don't hurt me, please. Suckers are permitted all sorts of hop, and delusions come in a bunch of democratic flavors.

I am not going to tell Clinton to stick this where the sun doesn't shine because obviously we are all there already. I am not going to one hand applaud Kerry for vestigial purity. He can take that unspotted soul to his Maker. Pointless. irrelevant. We are nothing but universal, equal suckers. The significance of this leak is absurd, irrelevant, valueless and shows what kind of idiots we still have behind those scenes. Martyr your bartered souls someplace else. We are looking for the work of today's enslaved body politic.

This is bull and a waste of time. We don't have to care what they think. Tyranny- anarchy. We are off the surfboard, funlovers. Wrap your minds around resistance. This is Iraq. The challenge remaining in the absence of legitimate government is to avoid violence to get it back. The challenge is get AT LEAST a coalition like the anti-war movement to save our own goddamned necks.

We were supposed to go to the streets. Afraid without the institutional leader? Too busy? too comfortable? Too unprepared. Too few? I am all those things. Too hopeless(no,it might work)?

[sr_pacifica]

276. To Every one who supports the premise that Kerry lost on gay marriage

You are dead wrong.

Kerry made it clear that he opposed redefining marriage. How you think the loss of the election had to do with gay marriage is beyond me.

What MAY have lost it is fear-mongering amonst the fundies and neocons that gave people the PERCEPTION that America was heading for a degradation of "moral values." Imagine: teaching that gay is OK in the schools, seeing people act as though their partnerships were loving, having gayness "in your face" and more---don't underestimate the imagination of the right.

The people who voted * back do not use reason. They vote on hazy perceptions.

If Kerry had gone so far as to stick his nose in other states' business and voice support for 11 states' constitutional amendments, he would have LOST votes. Don't you get where his support lies? With those who believe in civil rights. I will emphasize here---THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REPRESENTS CIVIL RIGHTS. If the party turns into what some of you are suggesting, I will never vote Democrat again. I am a Democrat because of the values it represents. If your strategy is adopted by the party, I'm out.

[riffraff_va]

278. Good News

The air is going to be toxic, we aren't going to be able to afford health care, the war is going to kill more innocent people, more jobs will be outsourced, the unemployment rate is going to be sky-high, the debt is going to be over 500 billion dollars, more families will live in poverty, our social security money will fall in the hands to big businesses, college will be unaffordable, but look on the bright side....AT LEAST THEM BUTT-F*CKING FAGGOTS CAN'T GET MARRIED!

[President Jesus]

284. Kerry 08. (nt)

[malatesta1137]

288. Thank you Mr Kerry

I have even more respect for you now. BUT BUT BUT, if you had to go against us gays just to free America from tyranny, I wouldn't mind that either. I know how you truly feel about us being gay. And Clinton feels the same way, but he's willing to compromise (*don't ask/don't tell*), you're not. Maybe the Democratic candidate in 2008 (if America isn't wiped off the face of the Earth by then, that is) should listen to Bill Clinton more carefully.

[MadHound]

290. Good for Kerry

No further erosion of the barrier between church and state, simply to win an election.

This trashing of our Constitution by the religious right has to stop, and giving in to them simply to pick up votes is not the way you stop them. Besides, even if we had done what Clinton had wished, we still wouldn't have picked up enough votes to win. Why will people vote for Bush lite when they can get the real thing?

I'm sorry, but this strategy of trying to outflank the 'Pugs on the right should have a stake driven through it's heart and declared dead. After seeing how abysmally it failed in the past three election cycles hopefully the party gets the message. Instead, we need to go back to our roots, stake out positions on the left and give people a real choice, not a faux one. Point out in clear language about how this assault on women, abortion and the homosexual community is nothing more than creeping theocracy,an ever growing flood designed to wash away the barrier between church and state that has stood us in such good stead since the founding of our country.

[whistle]

299. That would have been a good flip/flop for John Kerry to take....

...and perhaps it might have forced Bush to say he was for gay marriage. Afterall, Dubya did breakdown and openly stated that he was for gay civil unions, although the White House damage control squad cut that one off at the pass. How do democrats fight these so called "moral values" issues when there is not allowance from the conservative right to give one inch on them (i.e. constitutional ammendments to ban gay marriage and nothing else, repeal of Roe v Wade abortion and nothing else, rejection of any gun control legislation and nothing else, prayer in public schools and nothing else, God and religious documents and icons displayed in public buildings and nothing else, refusal to allow sex education in public schools and nothing else, private school vouchers for students in for poor test performing public schools and nothing else, etc.)

The conservative relgious right allows for NO DECENT or deviation from their agenda, at all! So, with that type of intolerance and beligerance, how can there be any co-existance or political coalition on positions. Look at trhe issue with the Iraq War. That became Bush's religious crusade and there was then no way to stop the Iraq invasion and no listening to reason, even when the issue came down to defeat terrorism or get Saddam, the right who gave full support to Bush and called everyone else traitors, totally ignored internal voices of reason, world opinions and common sense (Saddam had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks but the right believes he did) and attacked and occupied Iraq anyway. This is what we have to look forward to for the next 51 months, I guess and perhaps much worse.

[Anakin Skywalker]

304. John Kerry - A Man of Integrity!

Wow. Upon hearing this, I like him even more! Kerry has all the good principles and he stands by them. It really should be President John F. Kerry, NOT a smug lamebrain G. W. Bush.

[fortyfeetunder]

305. I agree with Kerry. Don't compromise your principles

Kerry said once he had opinions about these issues but would not let them use his thoughts to judge others. And gay marriage is one of these opinions.

Now, if Americans are so fucking stupid to vote on a worthless idiotic piece of trash because of an issue that has NOTHING to do with them, does not threaten their livelihood, then dammit, they deserve everything they get from this POC we are now obligated to call President.

Clinton was obviously pandering. And he wasn't running for President.

[LondonAmerican]

307. Good for Kerry

The Democratic party has to stand for something if it wants to get the presidency again. Kerry did the right thing.

[sangh0]

308. As a typical psychotic DUer

I don't believe Clinton would make such a suggestion but I do believe that Kerry rejected it.

:-)

[Selwynn]

310. God bless you, John.

[Divine Discontent]

316. God bless John Kerry

and if he's really in bed with all the others, which I doubt but my brother insists,well, he'll get his. But I don't believe any of this, and I believe this election was #1 STOLEN, #2 somewhat poorly run by Cahill, #3 pandered by Bush to the wacky right wing sector to get them to vote, and it appears to have worked. But I insist on #1 being the most obvious...


shame on anyone on this board for wanting to sell out any sector of the democrats to get a politician elected.

get the effen out of my face if you're like that. we are alllllllllllllllllllllllllll God's children, and if we can't stand up to facism then, dammit, some of you are just as guilty as the Christians in Germany were for turning a blind eye to Der Fuhrer!

[Snivi Yllom]

313. Fuck Clinton

Fuck that asshole and all his DLC shit.

Fuck him and his triangulation moderate bullshit.

[Divine Discontent]

317. got2bme

as Sammy Davis said, "I gotta be me"


that means YOU, Democratic Party.


We are what we are, we are for civil rights, not against them. We will win soon, this country is sorta screwed for the next 2 years, but I believe sadly, things will get worse, and their will be a great exodus from the folks who voted for Bush, going to the Democratic candidates in 06, it may be hopeful dreaming, but what else do we have?

check michaelmoore.com out for a list of reasons to be happy!

[BeatingBushes]

339. This is my first post

I've been reading this board for a couple months and this is the first time I've felt I just had to post something.

I haven't read this whole thread yet; only about half, but if I don't post now, this will eat me up inside. I've been crying all day. I was literally nauseus when I read that link. I almost wish I was never born.

No matter how liberal or humanitarian you consider yourself, most of you have NO IDEA what we gay people go through.

I'm not talking about the verbal abuse and ridicule which is so common even from school kids. The last time a gay bashing received widespread media recognition was Matthew Shepherd. But gay bashing IS A DAILY OCCURANCE IN THIS EVIL EMPIRE! Thousands of cases of violence are reported each year and possibly more go unreported over fear of being exposed.

We've been lulled into a false sense of security just because there is a horrible show (which I find so stupid, I can't even bear to watch) called "Will And Grace" on the boob tube. But I had the displeasure of driving home from a bar last year a gay man who had his face bashed in and two front teeth knocked out of his mouth due to a gay bashing that happened right out front of a gay bar.

DO YOU THINK FOR ONE MOMENT THAT THIS ATTITUDE COMING FROM SO-CALLED "CHRISTIANS" DOESN'T FUEL HATRED AND VIOLENCE AGAINST MY PEOPLE?!?!?!?

THINK AGAIN.

Many in this thread said we have to fight for the future of the Democratic Party. I don't think you get it at all. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS DEAD. They've won the Supreme Court for the next forty years. They've got the senate and the house. We keep putting up the same party shills year after year and they lose PRECISELY BECAUSE they don't have the balls to stand up for their principles like John Kerry did. Kerry didn't lose because of gays. He lost because the media wanted him to lose.

I promise you, if the Democratic party puts up another Clinton (or someone similar) in 2008, I will defect and go to a third-party. And I will bring as many people with me as I can. I'm not sure there will even be a 2008 for America or for the world if something doesn't happen to remove this MONSTER from power before then. But if there is, then this party had better damn well grow a pair of balls.

[uncertainty1999]

347. Who is expendable for the goal of winning?

Gays? Women? People of color? Poor people?
I DO NOT THINK SO!

[PretzelzRule]

351. DOMA

is why i voted 3rd party in '96

FUCK CLINTON :grr:

[VTHoosierPatriot]

353. SPIN

Why can't we try to change the argument toward supporting gay monogamy (I hate it but we're in a sound bite/buzzword culture)? I mean it's not as if banning the marriages bans homosexuality. Why do the fundamentalist want to disallow a more stable lifestyle for all? This is America. If you ban something, it does not prevent it from happening, and in some cases the rule further promotes it, i.e. underage drinking/prohibition, drugs, a president with a functioning nervous system, electioneering, preventive war, etc.

Abortion is more like the Drug War, in that if you don't allow and regulate you just drive the people out of state where it is legal or to the streets where safety is greatly diminished.

Sorry, I just remembered who I was talking to (preaching to the choir). Why must my home be a red state?!?!?