LGBT people need to wake up and smell the coffee

[dsc]

As bad as yesterday's threads on this subject were, they are but a pale imitation in both tone and substance of what will happen in our corridors of power within our party. We are denying reality if we don't admit that hatred of gays is a powerful force driving a huge slice of our electorate. 22 percent of voters felt moral issues were most important. They split 80% Bush, 18% Kerry, and 1% Nader. Among the 37% of voters who want no legal recognition of gay relationships, Bush 70%, Kerry 29%. LGBT voters voted 23% Bush, 77% Kerry and made up 4% of the electorate. The 25% who favor legal marriage for gays split 22% Bush, 77% Kerry, 1% Nader. Any number cruncher looking at these figures is going to make the suggestion we either soft pedal or abandon LGBT issues. Given that our haters are more motivated to vote against us then we ourselves are to vote for us, it shouldn't come as a total shock.

Our first step to rehabilitate our political power needs to be confronting the fifth column among us who vote for people like Bush. What was once eccentric and pitiful has become dangerous and lethal. They helped send the message to political pros that we won't stand up for ourselves to a great enough extent that politicians will stick their necks out for us. I don't think it occured to our leadership that such a large percentage of LGBT voters would vote for Bush after Bush attacked us as he did. Yet Bush only got 2% fewer LGBT votes in 2004 than in 2000 and may actually not have lost any votes given the larger electorate. We can't allow that message to be sent anymore. Yes, it was and is important to increase LGBT turnout. But it is even more important to be sure that we are voting for the right people. The Log Cabin crowd needs to be cowed by every means necessary. Our very lives depend on it.

Then we can go to the Democratic party and show them we can deliver. In the meantime we will have to hope that the common sensical idea that the Democratic party can't out hate the Republican one so we should stand up for our ideals carries the day. I am not terribly sangine about that but it is our last, best hope until we get our own house in order.

[JI7]

1. they only made up 4 percent of the electorate ?

i thought it would be around 10 percent at least. are you sure that number is correct ? do you know what the population of GLBT is in the country as a whole ?

[dsc]

5. This is self identified, openly LGBT

so it probably is an under count. Also, it would be skewed by age toward people less likely to vote (more LGBT people who are under thirty are openly LGBT than over thirty). The Clinton campaign used the figure of 6% in their calculations and that is probably close to right.

[Justice]

2. Thank you for the honesty in your post

I was shocked to read yesterday that 23% of gay people voted for Bush. Absolutely shocked.

[Bluebear]

4. I would love to know the methodology for that 'statistic'

I read that figure too, with the same skepticsm of posts I read that say "I am a libby, never voted for a Republican but I am in W's coroner."

[dsc]

7. ask CNN it is their statistic

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

Even given the error margin and the like I don't think anyone thought Bush would get above 10% of the LGBT vote. Instead he appeared to double that.

[Bluebear]

10. CNN? Ha ha ha ha ha

Hahahahahahaha. Did Candy Crowley stand outside the polls and "guess" who the gays were? Totally unreliable number.

[dsc]

12. I admit that the figure could be wrong

but the 25% that they had for 2000 also was in the NY Times exit polls. In absence of better mathematical evidence I have to accept the exit polls. In any case, to whatever extent that the Log Cabin vote didn't fall to around 10% that Bush 1 and Dole got in 92 and 96, represents a house cleaning we need to be doing.

[Bluebear]

13. In any case.

I don't mean to change the importance of the thread. I said in 2000 that there were 537 or whatever the number was gay voters in Florida who couldn't be bothered to vote and that cost us all of this.

[dsc]

16. Or worse yet, 269 of LGBT voters who voted for Bush

Every LGBT voter should have known better.

[CBGLuthier]

14. W's coroner??

I don't think I should even comment on that typo lest I get a visit from the SS. :) :)

[sonicx]

6. 2000 wasn't much different

which makes it even sadder.

[KharmaTrain]

3. Full Agreement...It's Strategy Not Personal

Be prepared for massive flaming here, but your saying words that need to be said, heard and interpreted properly. Unfortunately, at this point, the passions and emotions are too raw for some here to look at this from a political, not a personal perspective.

The Repugnicans and Rove know how polarizing gay issues are with their base and how it does get acceptance in the "hetero" world as well and they played it like a violin throughout the last campaign. He created the Gay Marriage Ammendment to both energize his fundies with a good round of gay baiting and dividing the Democrats by creating an over-reaching from gay factions from within which occured.

You back up in figures what I couldn't in my attempts to discuss this issue and I'm sadly not surprised at what you post. However, it's going to all upon deaf ears here who will miscontrue your intentions. This is very sad since it's creating a wedge between gays and many of us here who respect their cause, but not at the sake of losing elections or making that a larger issue that pulls away focus and resources.

I've been through devestating Democratic losses in '68, '72, '80, '84, '88, '00 and '04. This one hurt the worst, and I'm tired of losing. If the Democratic party is serious about being a national, not a regional party, a change in tactics and attitudes have to start and very, very soon.

Thank you for your post!

[Toucano]

21. Stand on principle.

Or be a loser AND a coward.

[KharmaTrain]

22. Keep Losing Elections And See Where Principal Gets You

Put the cart before the horse. We are at point zero...no House, no Senate, ever-hostile courts. Until we turn these places around principals will mean nothing when the will of the Repugnicans go unchecked.

Some of our greatest Democratic successes...from Social Security to the Civil Rights Act to Medicare all came when the Democrats had majorities in the House & Senate and an atmosphere where our voices weren't just heard, they were respected.

We need to separate politics from personal lest get clobbered on both ends. I'm tired of losing the good fight, I want to find ways we can win them.

[Toucano]

23. It is the core of what being a Democrat is about

You seriously don't get it.

It isn't personal at all. It's part of the core values of the Democratic party. Equality for all, justice for the little guy, a voice for the voiceless.

Why can't you see that this is part of the Rovian plan?

As soon as we dump equality from our list of values, they'll swoop down and call us panderers and flip floppers. You won't win by abandoning people.

And where will it end? 38% of union members voted for Bush. Let's stop supporting worker's rights and we'll get more corporate donors! Then we can really buy some attack ads!

And 25% of Jews voted for Bush. I think they cost us the election because they don't love Jesus!

What we need are leaders who can clearly and passionately articulate the values of the Democratic party AGAINST the DISTORTION of our values by the Right-wing media.

[sweetheart]

8. We stand for equal rights for all people

You folks arn't on your own. We are all part of minority alphabet
soup: Disabled people, elderly poor, non-white people, non-citizens,
Cannabis smokers, perscription recreational drugs takers, women,
MS sufferers, non christian people, and veterans. All of these
minority groups have the same problem you mention... too many are
voting for the enemy of their own interests.... in strategic personal
denial.

We must universally embrace equal rights for all, and stand for
making sure that those rights translate to voting rights, equally
counted, WITH RECEIPTS! I hope that we can step above our tiny
self interest groups to realize that we are the majority of this
country... and to assume our rightful place in representation.

[FreeState]

9. We need to change the language

We need to stop using 'gay marriage' and use marriage equality. We need to take the focus the relighous right is trying to win with and that is the SEX part of it away and let is be seen for what it is. That being humanistic equality. All persons treated with dignity and respect.

The only way to win this is to change the arguments. Now they are agruing about the name (one they chose). Lets put the focus back on human dignity and equality. We do this by framing our arguments as pieces. There are couples that do not get thte same rights- leave gay out of it and the public will understand- even the dumb ones.

All in my opinion:)

[Mike L]

15. Reality Check

"We need to stop using 'gay marriage' and use marriage equality. We need to take the focus the religious right is trying to win with and that is the SEX part of it away and let is be seen for what it is. That being humanistic equality. All persons treated with dignity and respect."

Do you REALLY think this will change the way middle America views the issue? Don't be naive.

[FreeState]

18. Yep I do

Look at how Rove framed the arguments this time around. People fell for it. Why can't we do the same?

[brentspeak]

11. Well said.

Too many people here feel like the Democratic party should be like a Stonewall reanactment. It's not gay Democrats' fault that Kerry lost the election; partially, it's the party's inability/unwillingness to counter Rove's distortions on gay issues. Nevertheless, this party has to work hard to convince the ignorant and scared heartlanders that it is not and never will "foist" or "force" anybody else's values on them. And it has to reassure gay Democrats that it is not going to force other people's values on THEM.

[tedzbear]

17. I'm fed up with showing the Democratic Party!

I'm abandoning ship.

[sandersadu]

19. Slow down

There's no need for LGBT to leave the Democratic party.

All some of us are saying is that it's a matter of political strategy. Was it really necessary for Mayor Newsome to hand out wedding licenses, in defiance of state law might I add, in February.

Knowing that a presidential election was coming up, he could have waited til, oh how about now AFTER THE ELECTION, so as not to hand a Rove a wedge issue on a silver platter. Yes, the Massachusetts courts started it, but the mass weddings in San Francisco were definitely a spectacle that got lots of people riled up. If you want them riled up, wait til AFTER THE ELECTION. Better yet, if we had any "party bosses" they would have pulled Mayor Newsome aside and told him to wait until AFTER THE ELECTION to go on a crusade. Obviously we don't have that leadership.

This is not a matter of not valuing gays, just political strategy pure and simple. Until we realize that, we're bound to lose.

[Toucano]

20. Soft pedal or abandon?

Have I missed the "hard pedal"?

Please don't take this the wrong way, but your posts are almost exclusively about LGBT issues. That itself isn't really a problem, but I wonder if it isn't symptomatic of a self-centered component within the community. Do you care nothing about the war? the upward concentration of wealth? the minimum wage? the environment?

I've seen you criticize every major Democrat except Howard Dean because they weren't taking a tough enough pro-LGBT stance. Now you suggest a soft-pedal is the answer?

The LGBT community wasn't insinuating itself into the debate. The right-wing threw us into the debate to drive a wedge. We aren't responsible for that.

The Democratic party MUST not back away from the support for equal rights for all. We have to hold steadfast to our core values, or everything they say about us will be true. If we back away, we deserve to lose.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

24. Indeed, and when Kerry dared to throw Mary Cheney into the debate

they became oh so fucking indignant.
I wish the hell Kerry had shoved her right the fuck down their throats, so the fundie Christians could see the sleazy and calculated hypocrisy of their trying to have it both ways on gays.

[dsc]

25. actually I defy you to name any posts I made at all in the last

say month to month and a half aside from the last few days. I know search isn't working but when it does please go find them. I am not saying that the party should soft pedal (maybe you should reread my post) I am saying they will soft pedal them and that they will due to what they perceive as political reality. The simple fact is that as long as we have a fifth column voting for Bush.

Oh, and on the subject of my posts and Howard Dean, I posted on his tax plan, his health plan, his enviromental record, and his NRA record maybe you should read some of those. But that often is too much to ask of people here.

[dsc]

26. by the way I went back and looked

I posted 5 threads in the last few days. Two were about gays, one about my dad and voting, and 2 about the election without mentioning gays. Unless I forgot math that is 40% on gays, 20% on voting problem, and 40% on the election. All is 100% which is more than 40% the last I checked. But I guess I could be wrong about math.

[Toucano]

28. Perhaps you should reread my post

I didn't say 100%. But that's probably too much to ask. ;)

I wasn't referring to the last few days. I think you're going to hit 80% when search is reactivated and we look at the last year.

But again, that's not a problem necessarily. I just wonder if it doesn't say something about the GLBT wing of the party that we tend to focus too much on GLBT issues and fail to connect with other important issues.

I didn't mean to seem harsh to you. It's appears as though you're recommending the party "soft pedal" in light of the spin, and I don't think that's accurate.

[LiberteToujours]

27. Very good point

We can't rely on the Democratic party to do all our work. We need to continue pushing, putting ourselves out there. Respectfully but unwaveringly.

[Sapphocrat]

29. Uncle Tom's Log Cabin Republicans...

...are THE biggest thorn in my side. They have absolutely no shame, so it's a complete waste of time and energy trying to open a dialogue with them. (Believe me, I've tried.)

They can, however, be persuaded -- and there's only one way to do it. The ONLY thing they care about is money, and the ONLY place to hit them where it hurts is right smack in their fat wallets.

How? Piece of cake: Simply identify as many LCRs as possible, and add their business interests to our boycott list. Then let them KNOW we -- and our allies -- are actively boycotting them. Perhaps then we can capture their attention.

(Hey, Sapph! WHAT "boycott list"? Why, the one a few of us DUers are building right at this very moment! And it's not a list, but a Yahoo!-style searchable directory. Ask me about it again in a couple of days, if I don't bombard you all with posts the moment it's launched.)