Time for a Scorched Earth Strategy

[Brian_Expat]

I've been reflecting on the state of gay politics the last couple of weeks (see my earlier thread here) and have come up with a couple of ideas.

It's clear that the Democrats have declared to the Republicans that it's OK to target us. In fact, several Democrats are joining the fray now that the Marriage Amendment has been revived.

I suggest that perhaps we should illustrate to Democrats the dangers of abandoning gays -- that by doing so, they also lose what THEY think is important. Some ideas:

1) Frequent sponsors of anti-gay legislation like the anti-gay Amendment in red states should be targeted for being politically knocked down. Stephanie Herseth, the Dakota Democrat who is an enthusiastic supporter of the amendment banning marriage and civil unions, and an outspoken opponent of DP benefits, would be one. Jennifer Granholm, the Michigan Democrat governor who cancelled the health care benefits of gay state employees' families, would be another.

They should face a primary challenger in the next Dem primary. If that fails, then gay community activists should endorse and campaign for a third party candidate or even give money to their Republican challenger. Ugly, yes, but it sends a clear message -- if you're a Democrat, extreme homophobia will not "save" you, it will BURY you.

2) Social Security is being turned into a big free-for-all by Democrats and Republicans alike. Both sides are using it as a cudgel against gay families (especially the Republicans). Since gay families are mostly excluded from SS benefits anyway (except personal benefits), the gay political establishment should announce that it doesn't care what happens to SS as long as gay people are shut out. Any party that brings gay people into Social Security will receive the first endorsement -- be it the Dems, the Reps or a third party.

We should also be taking steps to develop our own pension funds for gay people and ensuring that there are gay-friendly retirement options for gays and lesbians (there are very few at the moment and they're all for the wealthy). Put our money where our mouths are and build up an investment fund of our own to take care of our own. Once Democrats and Republicans see we're emancipated from their SS politicking, they might reconsider their respective positions.

In fact, it might be a good idea to set up a fund ANYWAY, especially if the Republican privitization plan railroads ahead.

This is scorched earth politics, but we cannot count on our allies to help us anymore, this much is clear. If Dems are going to stick us in the middle of the battlefield and use the heavy artillery on us from the rear (and tell us to stop complaining because Republicans are using nukes), we should form a circle and bring out our own heavy weaponry. We've been far too compliant to the DLC types for too long and it's literally killing us.

[papau]

1. When Log cabin types use scorched earth politics, maybe Dems

should also -

otherwise one simply gets the GOP position put into power.

[Brian_Expat]

2. I think we should involve the LCR and anyone else who wants to participate

Respective partisan gay groups will get upset when their sacred cows are slaughtered (Stonewall Dems or LCRs), but as a registered independent since the Dem primaries, I don't give a damn.

If Democrats are going to focus on a singular agenda that doesn't include me or my people, well, they'll have to suffer a similar stance from us. And they cannot win without us, contrary to their dreams, as the Reps can always get those "centrist" voters and we can peel off lots of disgusted progressives from the DLC candidates.

Scorch that earth, it's high time it was done!

[kweerwolf]

3. Well said!

For the first time in two decades I've been identifying myself as an independent and not a Democrat. I've even proposed my LGBT Democratic club switch its affiliation to a "progressive" political club.

Watching a ban on same-sex marriage get approved by a 70-30 percent margin here in Missouri last August while the majority of the Democratic party and candidates either were silent or distanced themselves from the issue has energized me to look outside the bounds of the Democratic Party for candidates who aren't afraid of supporting LGBT issues.

My first step was resigning from doing volunteer work for Kerry when he first praised the same-sex marriage ban in Missouri, then came back a few days later and said he hadn't meant to say that since he didn't realize the ban was for civil unions, too. I certainly didn't feel like promoting his candidacy among people who felt Kerry was a "flip-flopper" when I found myself sharing their belief.

[Brian_Expat]

6. Now that the election is over. . .

. . . me and lots of other people can voice our concerns about Kerry.

Even my Republican mother who voted for him couldn't stand him and thought he was weak. Just not as weak as Bush.

Me, it was hold-my-nose and vote, as usual, and it didn't work this time. It won't work again either. Either Dems get on board and fight for their lives (and ours), or we'll fight for our lives by ourselves.

They need an ultimatum just like the Republicans get from the religious right.

[iconoclastNYC]

4. Wedges are for REPUBLICANS n/t

[Brian_Expat]

5. No, they're for POLITICIANS

And if you want to wedge me out and leave me in the cold as a supposed "ally," don't be surprised when I take you with me out into the blizzard!

This election has radicalized me. Not because of the actions of Republicans so much as the actions (and inaction) of DEMOCRATS, who were supposed to be "our friends" and who consumed a lot of our political capital without giving anything back (and in some instances, HURTING us).

[iconoclastNYC]

7. You are so selfish

Unlike the Republicans you are using the WEDGE to spinter YOUR natural base of support. Thats just a boneheaded thing to do.

If every constituent group were like you we'd have no Democratic party, just a bunch of splintered groups, the gays, the blacks, the feminists, the atheists.

Identity politics is the biggest reason why were are a minority party. NO GREATER GOOD, just ME ME ME ME ME.

Just ignore all that has been accomplished on gay rights, ignore how the whole culture is becoming more tolerant of gays (save for the mainstream focus on the fundy haters), and risk the entired Democratic movement by seeking your radical vengance.

Now, as is your practice, you'll reply to this, careful to ignore every point I've made. I made the mistake of giving you too much attention on another thread, so I'll leave you with the last word.

[Brian_Expat]

9. Please, this is such a tiresome argument

The selfish ones are the Democrats who refuse to stand up for the human rights and dignity of gay people, and envelope their selling-out of gay families and support for anti-gay constitutional amendments as "noble altruism" for which "gay people must sacrifice."

Just ignore all that has been accomplished on gay rights

Mostly by people who didn't interact in traditional politics at all.

The Democrats had majorities in the House and Senate AND the Presidency in the early 1990s. We couldn't even get ENDA?

Then Bill Clinton signed DOMA.

Then he botched up Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Now we have Democrats amending state and federal constitutions to make gays permanent second class citizens, and if we fight against that, we're "selfish."

If every constituent group were like you we'd have no Democratic party

We have no Democratic Party, just a bunch of "timid opponents" who mostly voted to confirm a known liar and incompetent (Condi Rice), and many of whom voted with the Republicans to make gays permanent second class citizens.

Incidentally, blacks, feminists and others are starting to think the same way I am, now that Democrats are equally willing to vote to slash inner city school funding and "compromise" on the right of women to determine their own reproductive freedom.

Now, as is your practice, you'll reply to this, careful to ignore every point I've made. I made the mistake of giving you too much attention on another thread, so I'll leave you with the last word.

You're not interested in addressing any of the points I've made, just screaming about how selfish I am and how I should get back on the Democrats' plantation and vote for Clintons and Herseths and others who vote to sell me down the river. A typical hit and run.

Nuh-uh. From now on you have to EARN my support and the support of lots of others as well. We tried "your way" three times -- 2000, 2002 and 2004. Each time, we lost even more. Either stand up and fight the Republicans, or get the hell out of our way and let us do it with a party that actually believes in fighting rather than liquidating its less popular constituents in an effort to get the Republicans to "like them."

[queerart]

13. Another Brow Beater........

>>>risk the entired Democratic movement by seeking your radical vengance<<<

>>>Identity politics is the biggest reason why were are a minority party. NO GREATER GOOD, just ME ME ME ME ME<<<
---------------------------------------------------------

This is typical of "The You Better, Rhetoric"........

You better not ask for anything more, you better not leave, you better keep voting the way we want you to, you better keep giving us your money, you better not say anything, and you better shut up.........

Not to forget...... you better blah, blah, FUCKING BLAH!

How often would you you like your ass kissed today, SIR?

Would 3 times today be enough, SIR?

Do you need your boots polished, SIR?

The me, me, me, me, bullshit seems to be oozing from somewhere....

But I got news for everyone.......

It's NOT coming from the Queer corner of the room!

...... and I'll leave you with the last word as well, Sister!

[Brian_Expat]

17. As I noted earlier. . .

. . . the post you're responding to is very, very, VERY similar to the talking points being distributed by certain lobby groups within the Dem Party. I'm not saying anything about the poster himself, just his message, it's awfully similar to the political posturing I've seen before.

There are LOTS of "fake gays" who haunt message boards like DU and post DLC propaganda "as gay people." Interestingly, some of the most repetitive here on DU (who often post cut-n-pastes!) haven't yet found the gay part of the site, but only post in "general." I'm bracing myself for fake gay DLC spam to eventually hit this part of the board too, although I sometimes wonder if they don't purposefully avoid this section because they know we'd see through them easier than the average straight DUer? :)

[iconoclastNYC]

25. Oh right everyone who disagrees with you is 'fake'

Very mature tactic you employ.

[Brian_Expat]

27. I notice you never actually debate, you just throw out talking points

Why not prove you're for real? Engage with our concerns and treat us as team members, rather than dismissing us and treating us with the sort of contempt that makes many of us snicker when you present yourselves as our fellow team-mates with a common cause.

[justin899]

26. No, Heteorsexist Democrats are SELFISH!

"Unlike the Republicans you are using the WEDGE to spinter YOUR natural base of support."

What natural base of support? You mean the heterosexist Democrats in blue states like HI, OR and MI who voted in droves to insert discrimination in their constitutions? Some support :eyes:

"If every constituent group were like you we'd have no Democratic party"

Every constituent group DOES demand something from the party, and the party delivers. Do you suffer from the delusion that if the party didn't support affirmative action or gave up on abortion rights completely that the groups directly impacted wouldn't demand a change or leave the party or just sit out elections? If so you're living in some alternate universe!

"Identity politics is the biggest reason why were are a minority party."

No! Identity politics are precisely the reason Republicans are in the majority! Unlike the Democrats they don't go out of their way to pander to phantom "middle of the roader" independents to the exclusion of their base. Democrats (at the federal level and to a lesser degree at the state level in most states) haven't done one damn thing for gays-ever!

"Just ignore all that has been accomplished on gay rights"

Exactly what has been accomplished at the federal level (or for that matter state level in 35 states) in the area of gay rights?

*Bill Clinton signed the most anti-gay law in history and then went on Christian radio stations bragging about how he 'saved the institution of marriage' (never mind the fact that he was cheating on his own wife when he did that). His compromised DADT policy has resulted in increased discharges over the years. He still to this day advises Democrats to run on bigoted platforms. He told Howard Dean in IA he shouldn't even run because of his signing civil unions into law. He tried to get Kerry to openly endorse all of the bigoted anti-gay amendments during the election.

*The Democratic party chose not to speak out against any of these damn bigoted amendments so they all passed easily. In fact, the party platform couched marriage equality in terms of states rights--you know the ideology that gave us slavery and segregation. Few Democratic politicians in congress argue for equality under the law. Their only objection to the federal amendment is that it "isn't needed." So if DOMA (which passed because most Dems voted for it) ever gets overturned their only argument against the amendment goes out the window, and I have no doubt most of them would vote for it at that point.

*Finally and most importantly there have been NO federal laws passed at the federal level. 30 years of blind support for the Democratic party and not one damn thing to show for it!

Gays are the ONLY minority which aren't included in any federal anti-discrimination laws. Even when they controlled both houses of congress and the presidency, Democrats didn't bother to include gays with EVERYONE ELSE. So we face discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations and have no we don't even have any recourse to sue in most states when discriminated against! If you think for one minute that any of the other groups you mention would support a party for over a quarter of a century with nothing to show for it you have a serious problem with reality.

"and risk the entired Democratic movement by seeking your radical vengance."

The Democratic party does that on its own by taking part of its constituency wholly for granted. Oh and BTW there is nothing radical about demanding equality under the law.

"careful to ignore every point I've made".

You've not made any points. All you've done is mouthed the same old tired bigoted nonsense that the party has to ignore gay rights or the bigots might get upset.

I would suggest to you that pandering to bigots by the Dems and placing bigots in leadership positions by the Repubs is precisely the reason half of voting public doesn't bother to vote!

[Brian_Expat]

28. Quite right, and very eloquently stated.

The Libertarians and Greens look more inviting by the day, eh? At least to me. :P

[queerart]

31. Greens For Me!

:hi:

[Sapphocrat]

41. Yawwwwwwwnnnnn...

Do you have any new arguments we haven't heard before?

I sure wish I were black and this were, oh, 1962, so I could hear you tell us how ungrateful we are for all that has been accomplished in Negro rights, shame us for failing to recognize how white society has become ever-so-tolerant of us, and call us "miltants" (that, not "radicals," was the word they used for blacks so silly as to insist on equal rights).

When are you going to GET IT? Our LIVES are not a farking ISSUE. Thanks to people who A) want my vote, B) want my money, yet C) refuse to stand up for my rights, the reality of my life as a gay person in this country is a living hell. Don't believe it? Go ask my partner, whom I'm not only prohibited from marrying, but prohibited from so much as living with. Every day, I'm getting older, and every day I'm being shoved further and further back into the closet.

Have you got that problem? I didn't think so.

By the way, you haven't made any points at all. "Identity politics" -- what kind of b.s. is that? Would you say the same thing to an African-American? A Native American? A Mexican-American? I'd love to see you try.

As for "the greater good": We vote for Democratic candidates too spineless to stand up for us, we give them money, we volunteer for their campaigns... and what do we get for our loyalty? Tell me, exactly what? When Lawrence v. Texas goes belly-up and we're being arrested again for having sex in the privacy of our own homes, is knowing that we helped stop the privatization of Social Security supposed to come as some great consolation during the ride to the police station?

[Dark]

44. Why should we support democrats actively working AGAINST us?

[queerart]

8. I Honestly Think This Is A Good Idea........

The problem I see.........

And I know I'm Going To Get A Black Eye For Saying So....... BUT...

Put 3 Queers in a room, and try to get them to decide/agree on a color for the walls.......... let alone a Political Agenda, you know?...... (and yes, I include myself here)

I honestly don't think Gays (Moderate/Rational Gays) will ever be a great Political force in the U.S., say like the "LCR's" are..... with out belonging to a larger diverse group......

I wished that were not true... But I really think that is accurate.

Even tho I loathe the LCR's, I have to give them kudos that they stick with the program... even tho they are hated by everyone, including themselves...... they direct their vision, and rarely loose sight of the prize.

There has to be a focus to be successful..... and alot of Gays (NOT ALL, but many) are...... in Freudian terms....... "ID" oriented..... and that kind of behavior would not lend it's self to a Political victory for our side......

[kweerwolf]

10. I can see your point ...

... I've often said that what Will Rogers said about Democrats ("Tell them to form a firing squad and they stand in a circle") could just as easily be said about the LGBT community.

But ... I see our present position as highly tenuous. We literally will have to fight for our rights now. We cannot depend on our nominal "allies" to look after our interests when they are so afraid they may lose a few votes if them piss off the fundies or other lower life-forms. We need to let them know that they will lose our support if they do not stand with us.

This is an extremely dangerous time for the LGBT community. We have made slow, steady progress. The changes I have witnessed in my lifetime have been tremendous. But those changes have produced what I learned way back in college sociology class as "the revolution of rising expectations."

Look at the Civil Rights era, for example. Blacks, in general, were victims of their own passivity during the years of Jim Crow laws. It was only after they began it win their rights (and understood for the first time how far they had to go) that militancy broke out in the black communities. I see the same thing happening now among the gay community. Equality is a wave that must keep moving forward or it will explode.

[Brian_Expat]

12. And we're being moved backwards by Democrats in a lot of cases

Making anti-gay moves politically fatal for Democrats should be a top priority of the gay movement.

Endorse an anti-gay law, or worse, constitutional amendment (state or local?) Kiss your political ass goodbye, because you've just mobilized several hundred people who will make sure ALL your opponents get plenty of campaign cash and peel off fair-minded voters and gay-supportive voters from your campaign.

After a few campaigns like that, the Dems will begin to reconsider their "fuck over the gays and expect them to keep giving money and votes to us." After the DISGRACE of the 2004 elections, it's the right thing.

BTW -- Have I mentioned that I'm aware that there are paid operatives for the DNC on this board? I won't name names (because I don't know who they are for sure), but there are people who pose as gay and post "I don't care about marriage, I'm endorsing the anti-gay Democrat for the good of America!" I know this because a friend of mine runs one of the companies who does this. They also do PR postings on boards where "new artists" have a fan who appears out of nowhere.

This past election they've been used on gay forums extensively by all the primary candidates in the Dem presidential primaries as well as during and after the election. They've been given a list of talking points that they're paid to spam on bulletin boards. Often, several different people who seem a bit, ehrm, "automated" are actually the same person spamming under different usernames to make a position appear popular.

Interesting to note given some of the postings I see in "general" that you don't see here in the gay section of DU. Also, interesting to note that some of those talking points are only NOW beginning to show up here.

(Totally unrelated to your posting but I figured I'd post this information before I forgot to make this point). :)

[Brian_Expat]

14. PS, I would go further

We need to let them know that they will lose our support if they do not stand with us.

I would say go a step further and make it clear that they might as well not even run for office if they're going to stand against equal rights, because they WILL lose. We'll start with challenges in the primaries, and if that doesn't work. . . We'll make it easy for third party pro-gay candidates to get plenty of funding and even work with the LCRs to promote the Republican candidate as the "honest homophobe" (or even pro-gay in rare cases in California and the Northeast) and the Democrat WILL LOSE.

[queerart]

15. I Honestly Couldn't Agree With You More!

:hi:

[Brian_Expat]

11. A few gays who share common tactical goals can work together on this

Hell, I think we should raise money for Herseth's Republican opponent and third party opponent, and promote his candidacy based on gay rights. If Herseth is going to be indistinguishable, it's more important that the Republican win than we send a "Democrat" to Washington who will vote to fuck gays over, or even better, send a loud protest vote in terms of a significant percentage of votes going to a Green, Libertarian or non-party-affiliate.

You could get moderates, Republicans and liberals all on board. Rather than endorse a specific candidate, instead endorse the idea of "anybody but Herseth."

The Democrats are far from winning a majority anyway, so now is the time to take down the DINOs and build a Democratic Party that will fight for what's right again -- or if that still doesn't work, build a replacement for the Democratic Party.

[queerart]

16. With Out A Doubt........

Good Solid Points! :hi:

[Sapphocrat]

42. No black eye from this corner...

Only -- sadly -- complete agreement.

Case(s) in point: foreigncorrespondent and I have founded and worked our butts off on several LGBT-activism projects, and there are times (most of the time, in fact) we both throw our hands in the air in utter disgust. I have no idea why, but I have NEVER seen such apathy... and I'll stop there, or I'll end up saying things about a community I adore. (No names, and I don't mean anyone on DU.)

We, as a group, however, just piss me off beyond belief.

Maybe it's the "I don't belong to any organized party -- I'm a Democrat" syndrome. You're right about the LCRs; as much as I despise everything they stand for, I admire their tenacity -- but I guess whatever drives them (er, money) is what drives the GOP at large.

It's not an easy truth to swallow, but there it is. The day after the election, Karel, the gay host who sometimes substitutes on KGO-AM, read on the air a piece he wrote, which was extremely uncomfortable to hear (or read), but should be required for every LGBT person who wants equality, but isn't willing to do the work for it. Some excerpts:

...the fact is, we’re big losers, and (Matt) Foreman was right: Our side does not have the time, the resources, or the infrastructure to beat back the zealots.

And why don’t we? Because not enough of us care about it, because not enough of us want it, that’s why. Don’t give me all this disempowered, disenfranchised, battered, low-self-esteem don’t-blame-us psychobabble. If we all wanted same-sex marriage or federally recognized civil unions, we’d have them. Because trust me, as a collective, we’ve got nothing but time and more resources at our disposal than our nongay counterparts, and if we connected ourselves to something more than online meeting places, we’d have quite an infrastructure.

But we simply don’t want it.

...

Most of you don’t even know what states voted yesterday to outlaw marriage equality (they were Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah) but can tell me when the next circuit party, fund-raiser, or group meeting is, or what’s in the deleted scene from Collin Farrell’s new bioflick, Alexander. Many of you may not even know what your workplace’s or state’s stance on domestic partnership is, what benefits may or may not be granted to you or your partner. Many more couples haven’t even filled out the agreements. Not surprising, since 50% of you don’t have wills and 100% of you are going to die.

I’m just as guilty. It took Andrew and me 10 years to fill ours out. Who knew he’d die a little over a year later — 10th anniversary present and all.

...now we’re knee-deep in a battle in which many of us have been too apathetic to even fight, disjointed soldiers in an army with no real plan for the peace or strategy for success and no real commander in chief guiding our forces. We let the president set the agenda for our battle, siding behind marriage when he threatened to amend it away. An obvious choice — even I did — but either a dumb move on our part or a smart move on his. We, as a community, are much like the United States itself: fractured, apathetic, and given to the attitude, “my way or the highway.”

...

The whole piece:
http://advocate.com/html/stories/926/926_bouley_election.asp

[Brian_Expat]

43. While I agree with some of his points. . .

. . . Bouley is part of the problem. He was a big advocate of not stopping anti-gay violence in school because HE survived it and it made him "stronger" and "understand homophobia better."

What WE need to do is stop listening to a few "leaders" who have their own agenda, and press ahead with a community-based approach to our priorities. That means scorched earth and a few other things.

[kweerwolf]

18. Wow ... These are ideas I really needed to hear.

Thursday night my LGBT Democratic Club is having a meeting that will include a panel discussion on the 2004 election and where we go from here. One of the panelists will be head of the state Democratic Party.

After reading the posts here and realizing I'm not alone in feeling like the Democratic Party has locked LGBTs away like a "not quite right" relative kept in the attic, I'm looking forward to bringing up many of these points ... and I think they are points the party leadership needs to hear.

I don't see gay rights as a "single-issue" type of voting bloc ... but one that's the natural continuation of Democrats' commitment to equal rights for all persons.

[Brian_Expat]

19. Let your group know that there's a group of us who are planning to jump

into action in 2006 if this problem isn't fixed by then.

We will lobby hard on the ground for people in focused primary challenges, and if that fails, we will target around five to ten anti-gay Democrats in "close races" to take down to defeat in Congressional or Gubernatorial elections. The goal would be to ensure that a majority of them (hopefully all of them) lose their elections to Republicans, with a clear message that future anti-gay Democratic candidates are guaranteed the same result.

I'd love to find additional volunteers. . .

[kweerwolf]

20. Count me in ...

In addition, I'm web master for my club's web site and have just starting "blogging" so I can help spread the word through those venues as well.

[davidinalameda]

21. yes and no

we need to take a look at exactly why the politicians aren't supporting us

Jennifer Granholm supports gay marriage

http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriag1/a/granholm.htm

we need to support those politicians

the rest like Stephanie Herseth, I have no problem in kicking to the curb--she doesn't support us, we don't support her

I don't care how much "she representing her constituents".

This is one of the reasons I'm having such a hard time staying in the Democratic Party. There are plenty of good Democrats out here in California that support GLBT issues. But then you have conservatives like Herseth who don't support us.

But one thing I am afraid of is replacing even bad Democrats with worse Republicans

[Brian_Expat]

22. This is the sort of dialogue we should have. . .

. . . including what criteria renders a Dem "targetable."

[davidinalameda]

23. you're going to have some that rather have a bad Democirat

than an even worse Republican, and like I said in my previous post, I do worry about that

I'm not a complete idealist who believes that just because you have a "D" after your name, you're the best thing since sliced bread

but if someone like Senator Byrd, who has been horrible on GLBT issues is replaced by a Repuke, I know that the Repuke will be horrible not only on GLBT issues, but all the issues--environment, the war, etc

do we want to be seen as single issue voters. Can I support someone who is for gay marriage but against abortion or is for the war in Iraq?

How do we balance this, or can we even hope to?

I saw where some were criticizing the HRC for donating $100,000 to tsunami relief becasue that money should have been going to lobbying for GLBT issues and not for humanitarian relief.

I think those critics over-reacted, but I also see their point.

[Brian_Expat]

24. I think if we surrender on some causes, we deserve to lose on ALL of them

Democrats who are "good for the environment" but sell out women, minorities and gays, will eventually have to sell out the environment, health care, etc. to continue moving right and "winning" with that formula.

As for the campaign, I'm not seeing it campaigning FOR pro-gay candidates so much as targeting anti-gay candidates. It would be a limited effort that would probably not be the only political action coming from the gay community. It's a scorched earth campaign, for endorsements of existing candidates we've got groups like NGLTF and HRC. Gay Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, and independents can all have their political disagreements on who to vote FOR and still participate in this particular campaign -- it brings unity to an otherwise fragmented community.

How do we balance this, or can we even hope to?

Keep it limited in scope and focus. Target and bring down five to ten anti-gay Democrats who cite their anti-gay stance as "proof" than anti-gay wins elections in close states. Once that meme's been slaughtered, and it's clear that anti-gay Democrats lost as a result of being anti-gay, our immediate scorched earth work is finished. It's important we draw a line that's impossible for Democrats to cross, otherwise, we'll continue drifting further and further into anti-gay territory as we've seen over the past three elections.

We could call it "Scared Gay" (a play on the "Scared Straight" series of films from the 1980s) ;)

[Q3JR4]

29. It will be bad and for a while one can even say that we'd be

fucking ourselves over, but the democrat would eventually get the point. If they want to continue recieving time, money, and energy directed on their behalf from the gay community, we need to make it perfectly clear that we expect something in return.

[Q3JR4]

30. All right,

we need to target a list of democrats who consistently vote against us at every turn (4-5). If you have a suggestion, post it to this board or PM me with the information for another message board post.

We then need to email the democrat in that state who is anti-gay and let them know that if they don't change, we will have machinery in place to change them in the next election. We need to let that person know that we will be supporting the greens, the independents, or even the republican (you know what to expect from a man who hates you to your face) above them.

We would need to form groups of people in those states who are willing to get the word out that you're either with us or against us. Those groups need to find challengers for the democrat, and run that person. The rest of us must provide some financial backing, but that can be set up as it goes.

Anyone know anything about setting up a PAC?

If we're going to do more than talk about it, then we need to do it.

[Brian_Expat]

32. Stephanie Herseth should be target #1

Not only did she take a hypocritical stance on gay marriage but she's a co-sponsor of the failed anti-gay amendment that would also ban civil unions. She also voted for the "Marriage Protection Act" which would ban civil unions in every state and ban the Supreme Court from ever hearing a challenge to the law. Better still, Ms. Family Values is a hypocrite -- according to several news sources, she's shacked-up with another Congressperson -- UNDERMINING MARRIAGE! :)

http://www.outletradio.com/lloydletta/archives/000883.php

Stephanie Herseth (D, South Dakota) was one of the Democrats who voted for the so called marriage protection act. However it seems that while she is willing to blame gays for undermining the institution of marriage, in her own personal life, she is shacking up.

From Roll Call on Herseth's romance with Texas congressman

It's hard to find a better Dem politician to start with, particularly as she's hailed as a "rising star" in the Dem Party.

[Ian David]

33. How to beat Santorum in Pennsylvania

The general idea is to register someone as a third-party candidate on an outrageously conservative platform for the purpose of acting as a spoiler to split the reich-wing vote.

*Remember: Alan Keyes carried 30% of Illinois. As Jon Stewart put it, "30% of people in Illinois wear tinfoil hats and diapers."* If an Alan-Keyes imposter ran against Santorum and got even 5% of the vote...


1) Register someone to run in Santorum's district as an independent candidate.

2) Campaign on the most fundamentalist, anti-gay platform you can imagine. Wake-up in the morning and say to yourself, "Today, I am going to pretend to be Alan Keyes."

3) Reach-out to fundamentalists, evangelicals, and other un-enlightenment types.

4) Your platforms are going to be "protecting" marriage, denying civil unions, keeping gays out of the military, making sure that private companies are not allowed to extend domestic partnership rights, gay people can't file domestic abuse cases against their partners, banning gay-straight alliance groups and tolerance training from public schools, forbidding gay pride events, etc.

5) Here are some other things you will promise:

a) You're going to say you want to make sure the government can fund charter schools, even if they are religious schools.
b) You want the 10 commandments posted in every courthouse, classroom, police station, and in the passenger seat of every police cruiser where handcuffed suspects can read them.
c) You want rooms set aside in public schools for "voluntary prayer."
d) Students will have the option of adding the words, "We ask these things in
Christ's name o Lord, Amen" to the end of the pledge.
e) The pledge will always be followed by the song "God Bless America."
f) Gay people will not be allowed to name one another as beneficiaries.
g) Gay people will have their "medical proxy" rights weakened, so that "blood relatives" can over-ride the instructions of their partner.
h) All abortions will be considered murder, with both the abortionist and the mother put on trial.

6) You are going to run as the most godwhacked fundamentalist theocratic fundie that Pennsylvania has ever seen. This will split Santorum's vote, giving the Democrat a better chance.

7) You are going to liberally quote Fred Phelps and Alan Keyes, and perhaps even invite them on your campaign trail.

8) On the off chance that you're elected... well, politicians never keep their promises anyway, do they?

Remember: The goal is to split the bigot-fundie vote between Santorum and yourself.

CLEAN-UP THE SANTORUM!
NO MORE FROTHY LIQUID IN PENNSYLVANIA!

[Brian_Expat]

34. The problem with this. . .

. . . is that Santorum would simply co-opt your positions! :crazy:

[Ian David]

35. In which case, the same thing would happen anyway

:)

[Q3JR4]

37. santorum

would be a good target, but he's not a dem. We won't influence his beliefs with this process because we're not in his base.

There are other groups who are fighting santorum and his ilk, for them your points are completely valid.

[Q3JR4]

36. Stephanie Herseth

will be our first target.

We need to hit her fast and hit her hard. Any SD dems should write her and let her know that if she doesn't change tacts, they'll be supporting whomever her opponent is in the next election. They need to tell her that a Republican, someone who hates us to our face, might get in but that that would be for the greater good (other dems would be less willing to oppose us).

If anyone knows anyone else in SD (even DUers) that would be willing to run in the Democratic primary against her, I'll be supporting you in whatever way I can.

SD DUers should be the first wave that gives her a taste of what she has to look forward to.

After a few of them have contacted her office (phone, written letter, or email--in that order), the second wave can begin. I will be drafting a letter to send to her from Idaho. My letter will basically reiterate some of the above, but I will make it known to her that I (another dem) is prepared to dump as much money as I can into her opponent's campaign be him/her an independent or republican. My support will settle on whomever has the best chance of winning above her (even a republican).

Both groups should make it very clear that we're prepared to loose another senate seat to a rep. to make our message heard.

[xchrom]

38. it's common sense really

and pardon me for seing as part of a larger issue.

to me this is like the struggle between progressives and dlc types up and down the democratic board.

that being said this is the human rights struggle for these current times.
and it's past time to see this as a struggle for survival -- especially in light of legislation like ''don't ask, don't tell''.
our ''friends'' have to know there is a line in the sand where we walk away.

there are elctions where if we do walk away -- the democratic losss would most certainly get attention.
seems to me 06 is a good time to experiment.

[Ian David]

39. I'm on-board with scorched earth...

But can we get the Log-crammer Republicans to do the same withing THEIR party?

Even when they "refused to endorse" Bush, they still refused to endorse or support Kerry.

Here's also something we can do when we decide to support their opposition.

1) Make photocopies of the canceled checks from donations you've made to them in previous years.
2) Make a photocopy of the canceled check from the donation you've made to their opposition this year.
3) Send the photocopies to the candidate together with an explanation of why you think they've got
Santorum stuck in their ears.

[xchrom]

40. good thinking.