Some Democrats Blame One of Their Own

[Freddie Stubbs]

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 4 - A year into his job, Mayor Gavin Newsom could hardly be more popular. A survey last weekend put his approval rating among San Franciscans at 80 percent.

Polls show that a mainstay of the Democratic mayor's support has been his stance on same-sex marriage. But with his party reeling from Senator John Kerry's defeat on Tuesday, Mr. Newsom's decision in February to open City Hall to thousands of gay weddings has become a subject of considerable debate among Democrats.

Some in the party were suggesting even before the election that Mr. Newsom had played into President Bush's game plan by inviting a showdown on the divisive same-sex-marriage issue.

Most of the talk has been behind closed doors. But when Senator Dianne Feinstein, a fellow Democrat and Newsom supporter, answered a question about the subject at a news conference outside her San Francisco home on Wednesday, the prickly discussion spilled into the open.

more: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/politics/campaign/05newsom.html

I find it truely ironic that a year ago many here on DU supported Newsom's Green Party opponent because Newsom was TOO MODERATE.

[TomClash]

1. Don't blame him

This guy had nothing to do with it.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court decision set off the firestorm.

Phony issue - most homosexuals couldn't care less about getting "married." They basically want the benefits - which they should be entitled to.

The right would have run with this with or without Newsom.

[Sara Beverley]

2. It was Rove's stroke of genius to push Bush into the amendment thing.

Otherwise, this issue had no real legs. It too a complex issue and made it very simple. The Bible is against homsexuality. "Marriage between gays goes against the Bible. We need a constitutional amendment against gay marriage to protect us this sin."

Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed guaranteed that to frame this issue in terms of a constitutional amendment would deliver the evangelical vote to Bush. It's just the simple and just that frightenting. And the Dems were not prepared to re-frame the issue to their advantage.

"The man who doesn't read has no advantage over the man who can't."

[lefthandedskyhook]

3. Not genius, just ruthless brutality

Let's call it what it really is.

[TomClash]

6. Maybe so . . .

. . . but we never frame the response in religious terms. Kerry opposed marriage between gays. And he made it about "amending the constitution," like some Yale lawyer, as if anyone gives a fuck about that. Clinton would have said, "Jesus loves everyone and while I don't support marriage between homosexuals, I don't have enough hate in my heart to persecute them either."

I don't buy the "Rove is brilliant" thing. If this strategy was so great, why was Bush coming out for civil unions late in the campaign?

Here's the real deal - the economy is humming along reasonably well for most people, the US has not had a terrorist attack in three years, Kerry's "New England charm" didn't sell well with a lot of voters and the country is at "War" and most voters are completely unaffected by that and they want it to stay that way. No one cares about the deficit - that was true 40 years ago and it is true today. Military service and heroism matters to very few voters today; they don't even know what it means. Kerry's message was : "I'm not Bush." A lot of people said, "What's so great about that?" or "That's not enough."

[David__77]

4. It's not a phony issue.

I'm gay and my partner and I would be legally married if that option were available. Recognizing same-sex marriages is absolutely important to gay people. It's crucial to do so in order to facilitate full civil rights in the society.

Democrats could not counter-attack on this issue because they weren't prepared to make a ringing defense of gay people. I'm not saying that I don't understand why this is the case.

It can be argued that civil rights for Black people cost Hubert Humphrey the 1968 election. We know what Nixon meant by "law and order candidate." But the Democrats stood on the right side of history, and that's why, to this day, 90%+ of Black voters will simply not support the Republicans. In a few years, the same will be true of lesbians and gay men.

[okieinpain]

5. that is quite possible, but blacks also help themselves by protesting

in a way that benefited the cause. do you think the movement would have made it if blacks marched with signs that said "fuck whitey"

[David__77]

18. Actually the radical Black revolutionary movement did help...

The specter of a unified revolutionary Black people scared the crap out of the white establishment more than did the older liberal civil rights movement. It did help. Malcolm X deserves as much credit as MLK. I'm not arguing for that position for gay people, but I see no need to be a political pansy about it.

[TomClash]

11. Of course it's a phony issue

There is no real difference between marriage and civil unions - it's semantics. African-Americans weren't marching to be called blacks rather than Negroes - they were marching for the right to vote, for equal accomodations, to end discrimination.

If you want that for gays and lesbians, I'm with you. Gay and lesbian partners should get the same rights and benefits as married men and women. But if you want to force states and their churches and synagogues to recognize your "marriage," who's marching in the heat in Selma and getting shot in Jackson for that? Not me.

[readmylips]

7. ExMayor of San Francisco on Jim Leahr(?) News...

said that bush was right to win. He's the man to clean up and has a plan to win Iraq. Willie something...you know he's a black old guy. I always thought he was against the war and was often on TV (Fox) arguing shit. He said last night, like New York's ex-mayor Koch, he was for bush.

[NNguyenMD]

8. I find that very hard to believe

Willie Brown has been on the channel talk shows for the last 3 years dressing down Mr. Bush and the Republicans with no repudiation. If what you say is true then I suspect that ex-SF Mayor Brown must have suffered a massive stroke after having horrifically witnessed the Democratics public beating.

[Gato Moteado]

9. wasn't he warned by condi not to fly on 911?

he could be connected to the bush cabal in some way

[davidinalameda]

10. Willie Brown was not for Bush

he may be a lot of things but he would NOT come out for Bush

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. The transcript doesn't have him saying that

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec04/secondterm_11-04.html

[devilgrrl]

12. What a bunch of hooey!

Give me fucking break!

:nuke:

[Kimber Scott]

14. Fallujah waited until after the election. Maybe, gay marriage should have

too.

:shrug:

[sonicx]

15. maybe, but...

i'm not sure how you'd go about telling that to the couples who first sued.

[Kimber Scott]

19. Well, the fight had to start sometime. Just the timing was unfortunate.

Of course, if Bush stole the election, it doesn't matter anyway. John Kerry could have been the epitomy of Christ, he couldn't have won.

[NoBorders]

16. Ever since Johnson signed Civil Rights Act, we haven't won the South

...Comment made this morning by Newson on local *sports talk* radio. Not sure why he was on. Anyway, he made the following points:

-He stood on principle.
-What if Johnson had decided it wasn't popular to sign the Civil Rights Act? And Dems haven't 'won' the South since then...
-If we Dems as a political party have to abandon the fight for equal protection and equal rights, he wants no part of it.
-Bush had already mentioned his opposition to gay marriage in his state of the union speech.
-Admitted that he was secretly a tool of the GOP, as some have accused him (yes, he was kidding).

[Amigust]

17. Gavin Newsome had little to do with it.

Jerry Falwell had already determined to make a bigoted anti-gay push his number one issue for the year.

Bush was already prepared to push an antigay marriage amendment before Newsome's bold move.

BushCo lied as usual, claiming that Newsome was a principal reason for his amendment push, when they were actually already planning to do it -- just waiting for the moment.

Gavin Newsome and the other like-minded mayors performed a great service by showing the human face of the "dreaded faggot non-human" beings.

It was not gays or their supporters who catapulted this issue into the spotlight. It was the GOP strategists and religious extremists working together who made it a gold-plated wedge issue. The Dems had no ethical alternative than to oppose their barbarity.

Going after Newsome is nothing but the Democrats' ritual circular firing squad. Don't fall for it.

Don't scapegoat gays or those who support their equal rights struggle for this election theft. Go after the criminals who engineered the computerized theft AND the American Taliban who promoted the hatred.

[llmart]

20. Come on people.... use some common sense here....

Don't buy into this media shit about how the election was all about gay marriage and morals. That's what they want you to believe. Can anyone here remember all the numerous polls taken in the months before the election? Was moral values and gay marriage anywhere near the top for what Americans were concerned about the most? This is absolute horse hockey and don't buy into it. Let's stop this shit in its tracks. It was hardly even a blip during the debates and Bush and Kerry pretty much had the same stance on it if I remember correctly.