When Did Some Dems Start Caring More about Senate Seats Than Human Rights?

[CorpGovActivist]

In the 88th Congress, the Democrats held 66 Senate seats: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

In that Congress, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 finally got passed (despite fierce opposition from certain quarters of the Democratic Party): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Following the election after that landmark law's enactment, the 89th Congress saw a pickup of two more Democratic Senate seats, to 68: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

Putting basic human rights first did not hurt the Party's Senate calculus one bit.
************************************************************************************

Fast forward to 2006: now we have hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth over how the NJ Supreme Court's timing on the gay marriage question might cost a tight Senate seat race, and with it, perhaps, control of the Senate come January.

Rather than taking a good, hard, honest look at why such a reliably Democratic seat is in danger in the first place, is it really easier to scapegoat the plaintiffs' choice of timing their lawsuit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_United_States_Senate_election%2C_2006

I grew up steeped in New Deal Democratic politics (indeed, I wrote my senior paper on how the Democratic Party broke the New Deal bonds with key constituencies, including Appalachian voters). I remember going to rallies as a child in which the standard chants included, "Justice delayed - justice denied!"

I don't remember a verse that said, "Except for gays and lesbians."

Maybe if the long-range goal of equality and basic human rights for all retook center stage on the Democratic Party platform (instead of being hidden in the closet), short-term niceties like Senate seats would take care of themselves again.

Elizabeth Edwards was 100% right when she called out Lynne Cheney for her response to the Mary Cheney discussion in 2004; unfortunately, Lynne Cheney isn't the only family member that would prefer to sweep her gay and lesbian "family members" under the rug.

If Menendez loses his re-election bid, he'll have himself to blame. If the Democrats remain in the wilderness for 2 more years in the Senate, maybe that will give them time to think about how to replicate the honorable pickups between the 88th and 89th Congresses.

- Dave

[RB TexLa]

1. A long time, that is why most all advancement in civil rights have

come from judicial branches.

[CorpGovActivist]

2. What Have You Done for Me Lately?

That might as well have been the anthem in West Virginia in 2000, when those 5 measly Electoral College votes would have swung the election to Gore.

When was the last time that someone of the stature of a JFK or an RFK paid the least bit of attention there?

WV was taken for granted in 2000 - and it was lost.

NJ was taken for granted in 2006 - and it hangs in the balance.

- Dave

[UTUSN]

3. Uh, seats count, THEN you get policy n/t

[greeneyedboy]

6. when isn't there a campaign going on?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/25/nj-supreme-court-gay-couples-entitled-to-equal-spousal-rights/

[UTUSN]

10. Sorry, I'm missing the theme of the thread, but I'm for Dem human rights n/t

[CorpGovActivist]

34. The Theme Is Simple

Think strategy, not tactics, and find your way back to a Democratic Senate majority.

The scapegoating of gays and lesbians for daring to seek equality at an inconvenient time does not honor the spirit of such principled Democratic stands as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

33. I Respectfully Disagree

1. Put forward a comprehensive agenda.

2. Explain that agenda to the electorate.

3. Gain the required House and Senate seats to implement the proposed agenda.

- Dave

[lukasahero]

41. May I expound on item 3?

Perhaps offer an item 2.5?

"Gain the"... respect of your constituents for truly understanding the point of public service and offering leadership.

I believe there is a fundamental misunderstanding (or at least a momunmental difference of opinion) about what is required to win elections. First you define your values/platform, then you win elections.

If you can't define what you stand for, why would I vote for you? Give me a reason to vote for you and I will.

[CorpGovActivist]

53. Good point...

... and I would argue that neither party has done a stellar job this go-around.

- Dave

[Tyo]

99. So support whatever you need to support to get elected

and then reveal your true agenda?

[lukasahero]

101. Well it works for Ahnold

Not that I agree with it, just making a point.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

4. I'm sure that this wasn't timed by them - it was the NJ Supreme Court

This had to have gone through the regular courts and then to the Supreme Court of NJ so this has to have been around for a couple of years.

[CorpGovActivist]

35. Agreed...

... courts generally have rules for when appellate decisions must be handed down by.

The 4 judges in the majority *could* have notified their colleagues that they weren't quite ready with the majority opinion yet, and *could* have sought an extension until after the election.

So if anyone had control over the timing of the release, it was the 4 progressive judges who ruled in favor of greater equality.

- Dave

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

63. It has been around since 2002. nt

[napi21]

5. In both cases, they were concerned about the majority.

If you don't get elected, you cant keepor get the majority, and cant push any votes through.

Johnson said, as he signed the Civil Rights bill that he was loosing the south for the Party for decades.

That's the same problem now.

[greeneyedboy]

8. despite the spin, the majority favors equality under the law.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2481558&mesg_id=2481558

[CorpGovActivist]

36. Except the Demographics Are So Different...

... the Democrats stand to reap a tidal wave of votes, if you simply look at the demographic breakdown of who supports equal rights for gays and lesbians.

The "decades to come" notion doesn't hold water nowadays, on this issue. Why?

Because the younger the age group, the more overwhelming the majorities become in favor of equal rights.

- Dave

P.S. The South of today is filled with many more transplants than the South of the 60s.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[stillcool]

11. Three (3) STOLEN elections...

a corporate media...and the dems offer you nothing? You give no credence at all to those democrats, and there are many, who have been speaking out, gathering evidence...etc...like Conyers, Kerry, Waxman, Boxer, Stabenow, Kuccinich, Kennedy, Jackson, Meeks..etc., The worth of their work is not measured by sound bytes coming from your television screen. A perfect system it ain't, but it is what it is. I can't imagine why anyone would diss the entire democratic party..it's the only hope I've got.

"Beyond Vietnam"
Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements, and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us. http://www.mlkonline.net/

[LiberalUprising]

14. I haven't forgotten the few who have

spoken up, however they have no backing or support from the 'mainstream' Dems, hence no chance to make change happen.

If the Dem party is your only hope, I feel for your disappointments, present and future.

A radical change in the system is not only needed but necessary to prevent a bleak future of serfdom for us and our children's children.

Do you really want to leave them the present system?

On edit

I haven't watched tv news in 4+ years and have consequently opened myself to a whole new world of ideas and thoughts. I am no longer bound to think in terms of the pablum of the spin machine, where you are allowed to hear only what the corporate controlled media wants you to hear and think about.

[stillcool]

17. I have no control...

over anyone's future...and I am happy to have any hopes at all. My disapointments, present and future, are mine alone, and I will cherish them for what they will teach me. The bleak future of serfdom is here and now, and the 'system' will change...like everything else in life... in the meantime, I will choose to admire those persons who attempt to influence power towards just causes.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[stillcool]

20. maybe because we're on the...

eve of another stolen election?

[LiberalUprising]

22. And why is that do ya think?

Don't worry though they will have to let the Dems win one to keep up appearances, remember this thread when you get what you want and nothing of importance changes. Will you then look at the big picture?

[stillcool]

28. the big picture...

ah...I have been waking up slowly and have run the gamut of emotions with each new epiphany. Ironically, I've ended up exactly where I started out. The first election I was eligible to vote in was 1974. I did not vote, as I was convinced that it was all a con. Now, not only do I find the electoral process to be a con, but also the entire public arena, and all it entails. Still, I have this crazy belief in the power of good. Now, I choose, to live according to the truth that (I) know, and the life I find myself living. I can not opt out of this society...until it is forced upon me. At that time, I will do what I've always done...which is breathe.

[LiberalUprising]

29. 74 eh?

Me too. I have been down the same long road from what you say, I just don't happen to believe the Dems are gonna save us.

It is up to us, not some club of the wealthy, the majority, (enough to make it so)
will always vote in their own intrests first and give the people the crumbs.

History shows this time after time

Sorry if I came across as rude or offensive

Best of luck to all of us

[Lex]

21. If comments are deleted it is only because they violated DU Rules

and nothing more or less.

[LiberalUprising]

23. Right....

:eyes:

[Lex]

25. Right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Lex]

27. I've been here since 2001 as well.

There's been no nefarious or secret shift in DU posting policy.

[LiberalUprising]

30. Hmmmm

I wonder where all those hundreds of prolific posters ran off to and why.

[The empressof all]

9. I'm not sure what "some" Dems you are referring to

The majority of Democrats support civil rights and are not concerned about the ruling today in New Jersey. The majority of citizens of New Jersey support equal marriage rights for gays. This is not an issue IMO that will impact the New Jersey election. People there also understand that this particular action is a state action not a federal one.

If Menendez loses it won't be because of this issue.

[NavyDavy]

12. I agree with you...excuse me but the repukes have blocked

almost everything the minority party(Dems) tried to pass.....so I don't get what liberaluprising is saying....

[LiberalUprising]

15. Take a look at the Dems voting record

all you need to know.

Same old same old

[CorpGovActivist]

38. NavyDavy

Thanks for your service. I was a "NavyDavy" once too, until DODMERB caught its error (Crohn's)!

: )

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

37. The Ones Who Posted Threads Saying Gays Lost NJ and the Senate

There were several threads to that effect yesterday.

It looked like Chicken Little run amok.

- Dave

[Jack Rabbit]

13. The Southern Senators in the sixties were all Democrats

The South was virtually a one-party system for ninety years after the end of Reconstruction until the passing of the great civil rights legislation in the mid-sixties.

That party was the Democratic Party; Southern Democrats in Congress were almost universally segregationists.

That counted for more than a handful of those 66 or 68 Senate Democrats of which you speak. They voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By the way, one of the strongest supporters of that measure was Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader of the Senate. There was even some talk after the measure passed of citing it as the Humphrey-Dirksen Act.

[CorpGovActivist]

42. Excellent Points

As I said in the OP, there was fierce opposition to the Civil Rights Act from within some quarters of the Democratic Party at that time; conversely, there were progressive Republicans at that time who played a pivotal role in bringing it about.

I have often said that the Democrats who bemoan the near disappearance of Nelson Rockefeller Republicans have only themselves to blame: the failure to share the credit on landmark pieces of legislation, and to publicly proclaim that bi-partisanship was a necessary and key ingredient to passage, cut the legs right out from under the moderates, progressives, and libertarians in the GOP.

- Dave

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Lex]

24. The DU Rules are no secret. They are linked in bunch of places

on this site. If you can't follow them, your comment gets deleted.

No one is forcing anyone to continue to post here if they are not happy here.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. The senate passed a torture bill because we lack those seats.

Human rights are important. Important enough that the ends justify the means. Torture is an equal opportunity crime against humanity.

Whether the NJ gay marriage issue is a real political hurdle is a different conversation - personally I don't think it is, but I'm firmly of the opinion that we need to win by whatever means necessary, if that means having these conversations in two months time, so be it. Bait and switch? You bet.

BTW, politics in 1968 was radically different than today.

[magellan]

32. The Dems would need a hefty pickup in the Senate to stop that

Seeing as 11 (12 if you include Lieberman, which I don't) of them voted in support of that heinous bill.

[CorpGovActivist]

45. No, That Passed Because...

... too many Democratic Senators pandered out of fear of being labeled soft on terror, instead of invoking the fillibuster and standing on principle.

- Dave

[lumberjack_jeff]

232. It would never have emerged from a committee run by democrats.

[CorpGovActivist]

233. It Would Never Have Gotten to Bush's Pen...

... with a filibuster run by real Democrats.

- Dave

[lynne]

31. " When Did Some Dems Start Caring More about Senate Seats Than Human Rights...

- When DOMA was signed.

[CorpGovActivist]

46. DOMA? That's Ancient History to Many...

... Dems, who also forget that Democratic Senator Sam Nunn was one of the key architects of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

- Dave

[flvegan]

39. Johnson signed Kennedy's Civil Rights Act in 1964, then won

in an absolute slaughter, taking what, 44 states? Yeah, how easily "some dems" forget.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. Then A Scant Four Years Later

The forces of reaction (Nixon and Wallace)garnered nearly fifty eight percent of the vote. And in 1972 Nixon consolidated those forces via the "southern strategy" and carried forty nine states.

Support for civil rights is fundamental but I can't submit to watching history rewritten...

[CorpGovActivist]

54. Nixon and a Democratic Senate

Yes, let's not re-write history. The Senate was held by Democrats throughout Nixon's Presidency: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

The OP deals with the hand-wringing about Senate seats, vis-a-vis the NJ Supreme Court ruling.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. Well

That's because most of the southern Democrats of the Nixon era who helped form the Democratic Senate majority were holdovers from the pre civil rights era like John Stennis and James Eastland:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eastland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Stennis


Look... Opposing civil rights is for retrogrades, reactionaries,philistines, and yahoos but the historical record doesn't lie...

[CorpGovActivist]

66. Why Are You Insisting...

... on taking my argument beyond where I staked it?

If you want to talk about how support for gay rights could cost the Dems the Presidency in 08, that's another thread.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. I Don't Think The Issue Properly Framed* Will Cost Us Anything

I'm just protecting the historical record...




* I hate the "framing" argument. It strikes me as so much gobbleygook or being phony.


I just think you can discuss issues and bring reluctant people to your cause without hollering at them or patronizing them...

[CorpGovActivist]

77. Protecting It from What?

An argument I didn't make in the first place?

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

84. I Agree With You On The Gay Marriage Ruling..

I disagree with you when you say the Civil Rights movement didn't radically alter the party identifications of southerners.

You seem to be arguing that Democrats supported civil rights for Africans Americans at no political cost so therefore they can support gay rights at no political cost.

IMHO, you would have been on firmer ground by saying supporting equal rights for gay couples like support equal rights for African Americans is the right thing to do...

[CorpGovActivist]

86. QUIT Putting Words in My Mouth - PLEASE

"I disagree with you when you say the Civil Rights movement didn't radically alter the party identifications of southerners."

Where did I say that?!?

- Dave

[seabeyond]

40. as long as you are reality base enough not to be the one that yells

loudest when our minority dems are not able to stop repug policy or implement our own democratic policy do to being the minority.

[CorpGovActivist]

48. You're Missing the Point...

... Dems who focus on the short-term tactics - instead of developing and articulating a long-term strategic message that looks, feels, and indeed is, authentically Democratic - aren't likely to be the ones to lead the party back to a Senate majority.

Scapegoating gays and lesbians for seeking full equality in NJ - instead of honestly owning up to the weak Menendez candidacy - is short-sighted, and does not honor the spirit of a party that passed the Civil Rights Act.

- Dave

[seabeyond]

50. i had a very specific and limited point. no i am not missing the point

i personally allow things as they are and for this issue to come up now, as it has, during the election.... is the reality. instead of emotional attachment to it.... i allow it to be. saying, i dont have a dog in this battle of having gay issue now or tomorrow. the reality though... throughout the nation, the gay issue and abortion issue is used by repugs to get out the vote and it works. period. yes i agree with the weak candidate argument. so what. that wasnt my point.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. I'm For Gay Marriage... I'm For Equal Rights For Everybody

But the argument that support for civil rights didn't cost the Democrats the south is ahistorical...

I'm sure you're familiar with this:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

[CorpGovActivist]

Please Re-Read

"But the argument that support for civil rights didn't cost the Democrats the south is ahistorical..."

... not to mention, one that i did NOT make. I argued that between the 88th and 89th Congresses - despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Dems enjoyed a pickup of 2 Senate seats. I did not make the argument that it did not cost the party dearly in the Old South. (Indeed, my OP mentioned that fierce opposition to the Civil Rights Act came from certain quarters of the Democratic Party itself - meaning those Southern segregationists at the time - and that the Party, knowing the price it would pay, took the principled route anyway.)

Now, we're hearing arguments that gays and lesbians should choose more expedient timing for pursuing their equal rights.

- Dave

[KharmaTrain]

43. So A Continued GOOP Control On Power Will Solve Things?

Yep, they would and there wouldn't be many happy campers here. The politics of this issue is too juicy for the GOOP to let go that easily. If they see they can milk votes from Gay issues, just like they did with anti-black votes and then with abortion, they will. They also will play around with the issue to keep it a political hot potato for as many elections as they can go to the well with it. They have no principals...not just to civil rights, but even to their own base who, especially if they pull out a victory in this election, will give the national party this feeling of invisibility to further divide and polarize people. Now if this is what you'd like, then yep, taking a stand now on this issue and taking it out on Democrats who aren't quite on the same page as you are is valid.

Human rights is a legal, not a legislative issue. It's not the Massetchussets or New Jersey legislatures that decide this issue, the courts are the final arbeiter. The legislative only stirs the pot...and then almost always for partisan purposes. A Repugnican dominated House & Senate will mean more anti-gay bills and dog & pony shows that will be used for unifying Repugnicans and dividing Democrats. If you'd like to see legislation that advances health care and a wide range of issues that help all...which is a major focus of the gay marriage issue, you'll see that with a Democratic House.

If the Democrats lose this election it won't be 2 years in the wilderness, it could be a lot longer. A loss...especially in light of how many are expecting a Democratic victory, will make me swear off DU for at least 6 months as the angst here will be a mile thick.

Think carefully about priorities here. This election is to put the brakes on the excesses of the Repugnicans and to prevent DOMA initiatives from ever being a legislative issue. Electing Democrats to state legislatures ensures this issue doesn't get traction on that level. But it's gotta start somewhere...and there are far greater human rights issues at stake on November 7th...like that of the lives of those involved in the bloodbath taking place in Iraq.

[CorpGovActivist]

49. That's a Logical Non-Sequitur...

... I was taking those Dems to task who were moaning and bewailing the timing of the gays and lesbians who sought full marriage equality in NJ.

"Couldn't they have waited for their justice?" was the meme that was emerging.

This used to be a party that held rallies in which "Justice Delayed! Justice Denied!" reverberated off every wall in the public square.

- Dave

[KharmaTrain]

57. Change Take Time...Even Among Democrats

I totally agree with you that the hypocrisy here needs to be addressed, and I expect it will be. As gays and gay marriage become more accepted in "mainstream America", so will the views of the politicians...including Democrats. My hopes are in 10 years to look back on anti-gay sentiment as backward-thinking people in a dark time...like we had about Jews and Catholics in the 30's and blacks in the 50's.

It's almost a pavlovian reflex around here when a gay issue comes up for a heavy dose of emotion to flow before we all take a step back and see the realities of the situation.

Some here missed how DOMA was used as a weapon against Democrats in '04...only saw the after-effects when polls showed it to be an issue in some of the swing states that determined important races/elections. They didn't see the months of astroturfing and networking that went on in these states and districts that made this an issue in that election and how Rove was able to play over-reaction in the corporate media and the gay community to his advantage. That was 2004...this year gay issues are far down the list of issues...in essence, with all the scandals and crap the Repugnicans have created, they can't run on the gay bashing card. That's an offensive tool, they're definitely on defense. The only way it becomes an issue is if Democrats make it such and because we're too busy fighting each other over it...and you gotta believe that's Rove's greatest wish.

My initial reaction when I heard the decision was mixed. There was elation that the courts have enabled gays to be full-fledged responsible citizens...but then the lurch as to the timing of the decision. I admit I wish this decision would have come down after the election only that its infusion in the campaign at this late date serves no positive purpose for Democrats and muddies waters of issues of far more importance to ALL Americans.

Cheers...

[CorpGovActivist]

62. Putting Tom Kean, Jr. on the Defense on Gay Marriage...

Instead of all this hand-wringing about how this hurts the Dems in NJ, why hasn't the DNC given air cover to Menendez, and put Kean on the defensive?

Run a commercial, talking about how the man who raised KKKarl Rove (who Rove thought was his biological father) was gay, and ask Tom Kean in the ad if he thinks that KKKarl Rove was damaged by gay parenting.

Brutal? Yes.

Good bang for the DNC buck? Yes, because such a breathtaking ad will also draw national media attention, put Kean on the defensive, and allow Menendez to start appealing to the nobler instincts of NJ voters, while Kean struggles to explain where he stands on the issue, in a way that sits well with the unique streaks and stripes of NJ voters, while still sounding like a Republican.

- Dave

[KharmaTrain]

69. Make Him Accountable For 9/11 First

I'd rather see a commercial out there asking why Kean Sr. was a paid consultant on a partisan attack on his own commission's report? Or ask about how Kean Jr. would vote if he had to commit more troops or another extended resolution that coughs up another 3 billion to war profiteers. This is an issue that affects 100% of the New Jersey electorate. This is where the focus should be.

Or let's ask him about his changing stand on privitizing social security or how he stands on the minimum wage. Or how about how he feels about the insurance companies playing god in determining a person's health care based on their economic status.

I wish for the "halcion days" when human and gay rights were a the most important issues...but that's not what's at stake in this election. Not when we have a black hole of a war going on in Iraq and the economic exploitation and destruction of the middle class and social order of the country.

Cheers...

[CorpGovActivist]

72. Well, I Accepted the Premise of the Chicken Littles...

... who said that the NJ Supreme Court decision had just "cost" the Dems the NJ Senate seat.

If that issue portends doom, then it would seem that it is "the" issue to fight back on.

I think you just made my original point - that the Chicken Littles who are running around saying that the NJ Supreme Court decision just "cost" that seat are not seeing the forest for the trees (and they're sure as hell not honoring the spirit of what the Dems once stood proudly for).

- Dave

[KharmaTrain]

78. If Mendendez Loses...

...it's because he deserved to. He's run a lackluster campaign and has his own ethical messes that have been as much a drag on his electability than this issue. Here's a state that hasn't elected a Repugnican to the Senate since the 70's...the fact Menendez finds himself struggling this late in the campaign says more for the poor campaign he's run than on the specific issues. But then I remember predictions Lautenburg wouldn't win in '04 and it wasn't even close.

The elephant in the room in some of these states and races is affect Gay marriage has on some traditional Democratic voters...notably Catholics and blacks. In 2004 this turned enough votes away from Democrats to make a difference in some close races...but again, this was a targeted plan by the Repugnicans that we're not seeing in play this election.

I've agreed with your point...just doint it in my conveluted manner.

Cheers..

:hi:

[donco6]

187. Ten years, huh?

Wow, guess we gays have to just "be patient" and continue to contribute our millions while being patted on the head for doing such a great job out there supporting candidates - all while bus tires are rumbling over our flattened bodies.

Gays have been around as long as minorities, religions and cultures, and only now are we beginning to find our voice. Why should we have to wait longer than any of these other groups to have our wrongs redressed?

[CorpGovActivist]

191. To Paraphrase Bella Abzug...

... if you took away all the gay contributions to human civilization, you'd pretty much be left with, "Let's Make a Deal".

Can you imagine how much creativity, activism, and passion could be re-directed and unleashed - if only the Democratic Party would make one final push for equality?

With that out of the way, the gay and lesbian community could channel all that time, money, and grass roots activism into other progressive causes (not that we don't already, but there'd be fewer demands on our time, so we could re-direct the time and energy spent on our own equality battle into other avenues).

- Dave

[KharmaTrain]

196. What Are You Expecting?

Social change is slow. The modern gay rights movement is relatively new compared to other struggles that still are fighting for some kind of respectability. There's one battle to fight against laws that discriminate against gays which the courts will ultimately determine and will be in favor of gay marriage. The key to prevent these laws and ammendments from ever becoming an issue is to keep Repugnicans out of power...especially on the state level.

There's the "social" side...one that does take years, generations to overcome. In most cases they will never be overcome. Blacks sadly will be discriminated against due to the color of their skin simply cause it serves someone's purpose to divide. The same can be said about Jews or Catholics or Moslem. And gays can and will be used as a wedge where it serves someone's purpose.

Many groups in this country are awaiting redress...take a number. Few, if any, have ever had a wrong rectified through legislation...the best we all work for is understanding and tolerance...things that are learned through education, not through legislation.

[donco6]

198. "Take a Number???"

That's the Dem response to those of us who have worked our asses off to get Dems elected - "take a number"???

You take the cake.

[KharmaTrain]

201. Sorry...Want Some Frosting?

My family has worked for nearly a century almost exclusively for Democrats...all I care for is an accountable government that represents ALL, not just one segement of the party or population.

If all you're working for is your own special interest, you're wasting your electrons. If the Iraq war, health care, the plundering of the treasury and the destruction of ALL our liberties are secondary to your special interest, then you have wasted your time and mine.

Peace...

[donco6]

203. Peace? After that snarky comment?

Wow. You've got to be kidding.

[CorpGovActivist]

205. Your Family...

... have any gay or lesbian members in it, to your knowledge?

Or do they get to take a number, too?

- Dave

[KharmaTrain]

209. Yes, I Have Gay Family Members...

What does that have to do with Harold Ford? Or about winning on November 7th?

We have a first cousin who lives with her married partner...two children and we accept them as any member of the family. Again, what does this have to do with a wide range of very important issues other than to create further angst and flaming here.

Being Jewish, I've experienced the first hand stories of my grandmother about her stetl in Eastern Europe, the stories from my parents about the discrimination about where they could go to school, live or work and my own experiences as being the only Jew in the area. Does that discrimination mean I should be expecting something for all my family or I have experienced? The only thing I can do and do do is work to make sure those who least represent my interests (and my religion is well below that of the interests of my family and community) are kept out of office and to find common cause with others who have faced discrimination or oppression to create a more just society. We ALL take equal numbers.

Peace...

[CorpGovActivist]

211. Thanks for Clarifying...

... the "take a number" remark.

Ever had a really in-depth conversation with your first cousin about the legal challenges they face to their family?

- Dave

[KharmaTrain]

214. Yes And Other Gays As Well

They were married in the mid 90's...and they took a lot of grief from ignorant family members who thought the stereotype, not the people...one was one of the fathers...he was from a very strict Irish-Catholic background...it took him some coming around, but today he's a proud grandpa and his views on many issues have soften in the process.

For several years I worked with a gay radio program...one that spotlighted a lot about the legal and social issues facing the gay community. If anything, I was "discriminated" against...per se...as I was called "The Breeder" and heard my share of nasty and snarky remarks shot in the other direction. People are people.

There should not be any laws that single out a specific type of person or prevents and individual from designating who represents them or who is their beneficiary. That issue we all need to fight because it is one of common human and civil rights. Unforunately, there's the moral and ethical side that will always be debated...especially when religion is involved.

[CorpGovActivist]

216. I Was up in Cambridge for the Head of the Charles Last Weekend...

... and if the Democratic Party had an 8-person team, it would be going in circles, or capsized, with this "Take a number" crap.

It is entirely possible for the Democratic Party to pursue multiple tracks, simultaneously, pulling in the same direction.

The point of my OP was that those Dems who are spouting this "take a number/time your lawsuits better" crap over the NJ Senate race should take a good hard look in the mirror, to make sure they're still Democrats.

In 1964, the Democratic Senate passed the Civil Rights Act. The next election, the Dems picked up two more seats.

In 2006, some Democrats would rather see gay and lesbian couples "take a number," or "wait their turn," or "wait until after November" to seek redress of their grievances.

That's not only downright un-American, it smacks of desperation, and it is unworthy of the Democratic Party's legacy on human rights.

Once upon a time, this party could walk and chew gum at the same time - keeping multiple progressive irons in the fire at once.

Now, it's most vulnerable constituency groups are told to "take a number."

- Dave

[KharmaTrain]

228. Will The GOP GIve You A Better Hearing?

Apparently some gays, like Ken Mehlmann and Mark Foley think so, but that's another issue.

Again, the take a number remark was both mis-stated on my part and mis-interpreted by others. My point is parallel to yours that the gay rights (marriage is one of many) need to be addressed, but not as a central theme in the closing days of this election. Making a furor about it diverts attention away from the bigger picture of ousting a rubber stamp Repugnican House and/or Senate that has put us all in the back seat and won't even give us a number.

The problem with the Democrats in recent elections isn't the lack of issues...it's too many. If we are in legislative mode, I would hardily agree that we can operate on several tracks to address civil and legal wrongs. However, in election mode...which is where we are dividing into fractions at a crucial stage defeats even the chance to get those issues on the right tracks and moving in the right directions.

When it comes to having to take a number, no group has suffered more under this regime than the handicapped and the elderly.

[CorpGovActivist]

230. Thanks for the False Choice...

1. An honest critic is a friend. Just ask Benjamin Franklin.

2. The Dems held all the cards when Don't Ask, Don't Tell was implemented.

3. Bill didn't even do a symbolic veto of this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

"Again, the take a number remark was both mis-stated on my part and mis-interpreted by others."

Just say, "Dick Morris made me say it," and be done with it.

"My point is parallel to yours that the gay rights (marriage is one of many) need to be addressed, but not as a central theme in the closing days of this election."

Tell that to the psuedo-Dems who started with the "gays just cost us the NJ Senate seat" threads yesterday. In addition to "taking a number," I suppose those of us who were on the receiving end of that scapegoating should also "hush up" about it, and let that charge go unanswered? From where I sit, you should be taking those scapegoaters to task - not those of us who said, "Nope. Menendez is his own worst enemy, don't blame us."

"Making a furor about it diverts attention away from the bigger picture of ousting a rubber stamp Repugnican House and/or Senate that has put us all in the back seat and won't even give us a number."

Actually, it highlights a central reason why this isn't shaping up to be a Democratic rout of the Mastadons. There is ZERO excuse for any Democrat scapegoating gay and lesbian couples for what's going on in New Jersey. And if the DNC had a lick of sense, they'd have Kean on the defensive on this, instead of the other way around.

"The problem with the Democrats in recent elections isn't the lack of issues...it's too many."

I'd take it one step beyond that: it's almost as if the DNC has grown shell shocked, and is afraid to articulate a comprehensive message.

1. Cut and Run. For crying out loud, there should be a national ad campaign, showing every single Democratic candidate who has served honorably, with Tammy Duckworth and other war-wounded candidates front and center, narrated by Max Cleland. Instead of "Cut and Run" Democrats, the tagline *could* be "Bled and Crawled" Democrats. "No, Mr. President, and no, Karl: unlike some of you who dodged, we bled and crawled for our country."

2. Gay rights: This is so damn easy. Reframe this as true family values. "The GOP is asking you to put your loyalty to the party ahead of your own loved ones."

3. Timetable for withdrawal: Again, easy. "Real family values don't divide military families for wars of choice. The divorce rate in all four branches has soared by x%, due to long - and unnecessary - deployments. We want to reunite these families, bring our troops home with honor, and see the mission through to a stable and just resolution. As General Powell said, if we break it, we buy it. Bush broke it. We bought it. But that doesn't mean we have to spend decades paying for it."

"If we are in legislative mode, I would hardily agree that we can operate on several tracks to address civil and legal wrongs."

Why would a swing voter buy that pig in a poke? Why not tell the swing voters what they'd be getting with a Democratic majority? Lay out the proposed legislative priorities.

If a consumer kicks the tires on a car, and wants to see the full package of options, why wouldn't a voter? Maybe some people buy a used car, sight unseen, but most people want to kick the tires.

"However, in election mode...which is where we are dividing into fractions at a crucial stage defeats even the chance to get those issues on the right tracks and moving in the right directions."

To your way of thinking, would this preclude a last-minute, nationwide push by the DNC to set forth a "close the deal" message, laying out the top X priorities?

"When it comes to having to take a number, no group has suffered more under this regime than the handicapped and the elderly."

I'll agree with you that they've borne the brunt of many cuts.

But they haven't been made the rhetorical punching bag of one party, and the prospective "why we didn't retake the Senate this time" scapegoats of the other.

Did you post a single rebuke to a single thread that suggested that the NJ race had just been lost due to the equality-seeking gay and lesbian couples? If not, why not?

- Dave

[donco6]

238. I'm only hearing the crickets, Dave.

Great post.

[CorpGovActivist]

245. Mouthy PseudoDEMS...

... huh?

- Dave

[LostinVA]

258. Notice people asking us to "take a number" were waited on a long

time ago...

[CorpGovActivist]

260. Yup...

... it really does remind me of how few repaid the debt owed to Bayard Rustin, when he shifted his emphasis from racial issues to his "other" difference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin

Ain't that gratitude for ya?

- Dave

[LostinVA]

261. "Rights delayed are rights denied." -- MLK, Jr.

[CorpGovActivist]

263. I Remember When Dems Chanted That...

... so loudly, it reverberated off every wall in the public square.

- Dave

[LostinVA]

266. I wonder what Dr. King would think...

[CorpGovActivist]

267. I Think Had He Lived...

... he would have been the first in line to repay the debt owed to Bayard Rustin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin

That's what I think, and I think the lovely Coretta Scott King must have thought so, too: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=coretta+scott+king+gay+rights

- Dave

[LostinVA]

268. Mrs. King said that more than once...

[CorpGovActivist]

270. And Who Are Today's DNC Midgets to Argue with Her?

That's what I want to know.

- Dave

[LostinVA]

271. Preaching to the choir!

[CorpGovActivist]

273. Can I Get...

... an "amen"?

: )

You can take the gay boy out of the Pentecostal Church, but you can't take ...

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

281. Yeah, Those Crickets...

... just keep getting louder.

- Dave

[donco6]

237. The last defense of the wicked.

"You misinterpreted me". Bosh. You spoke loudly and clearly - don't back away from it now. Unless you haven't the courage of your convictions.

Further - and with all due respect to the handicapped and elderly - I don't recall them being used as poster children for everything that's evil and immoral in America today. To be sure, they've suffered (did anyone miss Michael J Fox's interview with Katie Couric tonight?), but they are not purposely blamed for the world's ills as we are.

What do you think a young gay man feels when he sees this portrayal on television, in political ads and newspaper articles? "You're evil!" the papers scream. "You CHOSE to be this way," the churches say. And how do you think gays feel when they find NO ONE who will speak up for them, clearly and unequivocally - even the people you've worked to support with your time and money? Further compound this by years and YEARS of promises and assurances that, "after the next election, we'll fix that 'gays in the military' problem - that unrecognized relationship problem - that medical rights problem" only to find that *no one* is helping. I'll tell you, it makes you as hopeless as the OP.

The solutions I've found have been solutions that have existed for decades - power of attorney, power of medical attorney, changing titles to joint with suvivorship, etc. etc., each costing hundreds in legal bills that *I* can afford, but many cannot. What has changed in the last 20 years? I can't think of much - except that somehow gays have found the courage to live openly, even when it means scorn and contempt from those who should be our fellows at arms.

So, sorry to disappoint you, but I for one will NOT BE SILENT! I'm tired of being the compliant little background helper - the one who can be depended on for that "over the top" donation, that work stuffing envelopes and canvassing. Oh, I'll still do it, but I won't be putting my issues on the back burner. Not any more. I'm getting too old to wait another ten years to legally join my partner of 10 years. And if you and your ilk don't think it's "strategically effective" . . . that's just tough shit.

[KharmaTrain]

242. Who Said Be Silent?

Yes, I've been very misrepresented here...and so be it.

No, handicapped people aren't used as poster children...they're hidden away in homes and suffer silently as their funding is cut. Many are wards of the state who have no advocate to speak out for them and live in barely third world conditions. They have seen millions cut from funding in the past 6 years as "faith-based" operations have tried to move in and tap into federal money at the expense of these people. Of course you don't hear them...I'll bet you don't know where there's a home housing handicapped or ever visited a nursing home for those with little to no money. Be grateful you DO have a voice, and I will always stand with you for your right to speak up and out and never be silenced. In many of these cases power of attorney and other fiduciary powers are controlled by the state...

If wishes were ponies, we could handle all issues at once but the primary issue here is which two political parties get control of the levers of power. While Harold Ford may not be your ideal, at least his vote means a Patrick Leahy becomes head of the judiciary committee...a man who will respresents your interests far more than Arlen Specter does...or I would hope so.

Sorry if you feel you're being bilked for your cash. I could say the same thing as I've supported decades of losing candidates who stood for issues I felt near and dear about but that's not why I'm out knocking on doors, making phone calls and working my ass off to ensure at least a Democratic House. When I speak with people, they're concerned about Iraq, the economy and health care...gay marriage has not come up in any of my many calls. It hasn't been an vast majority of the House and Senate races...not like how
+
It's so many of our common issues...ones that are more serious threats...such as wiretapping our phones or snooping in our emails (or DU posts...note Skinner's post about the Secret Service stopping in), raiding our treasury that has affected all of our lives in higher prices and lost income, a regime that discriminates not just against gays but blacks, hispanics, women and many others for their profit and political gain. Maybe you're here for one issue and one issue alone, I'm not.

I'm sorry you're affronted by my position. My observations are strictly of political aspect...as this is a political discussion board. Please don't try to assume how I feel as I don't assume how you do...as my bets are we're in agreement way more of the time than we are in a contrary position. I favor the rights of ANY person to designate who is their beneficiary, has power of attorney, can act on a DNR if needed, manage estate matters and other issues that gays couples are prohibited from. The legal aspects of this I can and will stand strong with you as this is discrimination that must be eliminated.

Above all, I'm not here to judge, but to learn. There are many things I've learned about the problems facings gays and many other through my association on DU and being able to dialogue.

Peace...

[donco6]

243. Interesting

Kharma Train, you're a curious person. Maybe it's just your writing. Why, for example, would you write something like this: "Of course you don't hear them...I'll bet you don't know where there's a home housing handicapped or ever visited a nursing home for those with little to no money."

I work in a school, so I work with handicapped kids all the time. My nephew is schizophrenic and was declared a ward of the state when he was in high school so that he could afford treatment. So yes, I know where the handicapped are. I just wonder why you would feel compelled to place such a snarky accusation in your post when you have absolutely no basis for it. It's curious.

And then this: "If wishes were ponies . . . " Again, another snotty comment akin to your "take a number" et al. And I've never mentioned Harold Ford or whether I would vote for him or not. I live in Colorado, so it's not even an option for me. I most certainly will vote straight Dem as I usually do - albeit holding my nose occasionally.

Don't you find it a bit surprising that, if no one cares about gay marriage, why it's such a radioactive issue? If no one cares, why don't Dems just come out and support it, rather than these weak-kneed stands you usually see. It doesn't really make sense if it's so politically deadly.

You can read through all my posts to see what issues I'm concerned about - again no basis for such a ridiculous accusation as "Maybe you're here for one issue and one issue alone."

Oh! The old backhanded apology, "I'm sorry you're affronted . . . " That's like saying, "I'm sorry you have a problem" Funny. And after all the baseless assumptions you've made about me (as delineated above) I'm curious that you would be affronted about my simple observations of you. But, as you said, this is a poltical board, and not for the thin-skinned.

I'm so glad you support my choice of beneficiary and power of attorney. We have a saying here, "That's white of you" - considering a challenge is not really in question and that wasn't the point. The point, as you know, was that even though I've lived with my partner for 10 years, bought three houses together, etc., Brittney Spears' 45 minute marriage in Las Vegas has more legal recognition than my relationship. And was a lot cheaper.

But you know, the thing I find the most curious is your insistence on tagging each post with "Peace". As if that absolves you from the mud and bile you've thrown throughout this thread. But, I guess I just have to rest on the fact that kharma has a way of catching up to a person. Good luck with that.

[KharmaTrain]

252. Thanks For Putting Words In My Mouth

You don't know me...so please don't attempt to read my mind and misinterpret my posts. As is the case, cherry picking the points you want to pounce on while not looking at the overall. How "white of you" to condescend and attempt to paint me as someone I know I'm not and you have no right to pick the words to parse for your agenda and dismiss the point that there are many people who are being discriminated and that somehow your suffering is more important than someone elses speaks loudly to your own selfish intentions.

You obviously are afronted...and you've launched a bunch of baseless assumptions as well. Now we can keep playing this game, or attempt to work at righting things we both agree are wrong.

But then you're looking for things to divide, not unite. Find someone else to play that game.

And yes, PEACE...as in may you find peace with this world, be healthy and prosper. If you find that insulting, you really do have problems.

[CorpGovActivist]

254. Shenanigans!

I call "shenanigans" on this poster.

It is not "divisive" to point out the hypocrisy of pseudo-progressives who were ready to scapegoat gay and lesbian couples.

BTW, what did you mean by that "frosting" remark, and how do you think your lesbian cousin would have viewed that flip comment?

- Dave

[donco6]

255. Talk about cherry picking, eh?

I've said my piece with that one. He revealed his nature with the "take a number" comment. Glad to hear he's "fighting the battle", I just hope it's a few trenches over.

[CorpGovActivist]

256. I Really Would...

... love to get his first cousin's reaction to his backpedal, and see if it holds water with her.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

247. Part of the Problem...

"There are many things I've learned about the problems facings gays and many other through my association on DU and being able to dialogue."

Have you learned yet how attitudes like yours impede gay equality?

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

244. Calling Him out for the Coward He Was...

... good for you, for calling him out on this.

He should have said, "That was a lousy thing for me to say - and I'm sorry for the 'frosting' crack, too," or he should have said, "That's my opinion, and I stick by it. Lump it."

My partner of 12 years and I are tired of being told to take a number. I have checked my birth certificate several times.

Nowhere is it stamped: "second class".

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

218. I Support Equal Pay for My Sister...

... she supports equal marriage rights for me.

Those are the sorts of real family values that the DNC could be talking about.

Take a number, my pale white...

- Dave

[LostinVA]

257. They weren't married in the 90's, that's the point n/t

[CorpGovActivist]

259. Now You're Just Confusing Him...

... with the facts.

Quit it!

: )

- Dave

[LostinVA]

262. *sob* I'm sorry for being a factual queer *sob*

[CorpGovActivist]

264. Can't You Go Cry in the Closet?

Please ... you're embarrassing the Lynne Cheney Democrats!

: )

- Dave

[LostinVA]

265. I just crawled way into the back, where no one will see me....

[CorpGovActivist]

269. Is Mary Cheney in There with You?

If so, tell her that some Dems are dressed up like her mommy for Halloween this year.

- Dave

[LostinVA]

272. Yes, she and her "roommate"m are drinking some Coors and watching

the "L-Word."

[CorpGovActivist]

274. How Does She Do That Corporate Outreach...

... with the original Lynne Cheney so ashamed of her?

- Dave

[LostinVA]

275. Seriously...

[CorpGovActivist]

276. The Women in My Family...

... would chew Lynne Cheney up and spit her out like the hypocrite she is.

I'd put money on any one of them in a one-on-one debate with her, about the true meaning of motherhood, Christianity, and where a mother's priorities lie when choosing between the party line and the welfare of her child.

- Dave

[LostinVA]

277. My Mom loathes her, for publicly dissing her kid

Of course, she also loathes Mary Cheney.

My Mom is straight!

[CorpGovActivist]

278. Yeah, My Mom Says Lynne Has All the Motherhood Instincts of...

... well, she keeps making it more and more vicious, but it's fun to listen to her latest choice of animals.

; )

My younger siblings and I get such a kick out of her, when she gets on this subject. They're straight, but not narrow.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

213. I Wonder What Your Cousin...

... would think of the "frosting" crack and the "take a number" remark?

Try that one at your next family gathering, and see who has your number.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

202. No, I Won't Take a Number

Women's rights and minority rights have been advanced in tandem.

There is no line. But there is an opportunity for each group to work cooperatively with each other to further each other's equality agendas.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Support For Civil Rights Is Fundamental

But let's not rewrite history...

The South went from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican as a result of Democratic advocacy for civil rights...

The whole southern strategy begun by Richard Nixon was built on peeling off disaffected white southern voters...

[CorpGovActivist]

52. Yes, Let's Not Re-Write History...

... the Dems still maintained the Senate, even after the regional deluge, and often with fillibuster-proof majorities:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

"The South went from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican as a result of Democratic advocacy for civil rights..."

Here we are 40 years later. When is the DNC going to stop writing off the Old South? The Old South has changed a lot in those 40 years.

"The whole southern strategy begun by Richard Nixon was built on peeling off disaffected white southern voters..."

And you just hit the nail on the head. What's the DNC's long-term "southern strategy"?

Blank sheets of paper don't count.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. I Don't Have To Look At "No" Charts

There are twenty six senate seats from the Old Confederacy in the Senate. Out of those twenty six seats , six are now held by Democrats...That's 23%...

In the last two presidential elections Democrats have carried a total of zero southern states despite having southerners on both tickets...

I don't think there's one southern congressional delegation that has a Democratic majority.

Was supporting civil rights the moral thing to do?

Absolutely....

But to deny that it didn't come at a cost is at odds and in conflict with the historical record.

[CorpGovActivist]

58. When the Dems Start Looking at Today's South...

... and selling a cogent message there, instead of explaining away the lack of a southern strategy of its own by pointing to 1964, that might begin to change.

- Dave

[geek tragedy]

60. What cogent message would that be?

I'm for full GLBT rights, abortion rights, against the death penalty, etc etc.

And I also recognize that someone with my views couldn't get elected dogcatcher in a statewide race down in old Dixie.

Maybe an economic-oriented message would play better.

But, more likely, we're seeing a regional fracturing of the American populace. Even with Republicans doing as poorly as they are, they still very well could hold onto their Senate seats in Missouri, Virginia, and Tennessee.

[CorpGovActivist]

64. Start with the Purple Border States

Gain back West Virginia, Arkansas, and Virginia (run Mark Warner as Veep in 08, and I would bet you $100 to your favorite charity that the Dems win the whole enchilada).

Appalachian voters embraced the Kennedy economic uplift agenda. The DNC has lost its roadmap for how to campaign there.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. I Don't Think Mark Warner Supports Gay Marriage

And we had a Dem on the top of the ticket in 00 and on the bottom of the ticket in 04 and still lost the entire south...

We came close in Florida both times but Florida is an atypical southern state. But even in this atypical southern state the GOPU still practically "owns" the place...

Obviously it's a bit more complex...

[CorpGovActivist]

76. Where Are You from, If I May Ask?

"And we had a Dem on the top of the ticket in 00 and on the bottom of the ticket in 04 and still lost the entire south..."

That was a pretty funny Freudian slip. Gore was the "Dem" at the top of the ticket in 00 (what does that make Lieberman?), and Edwards was the "Dem" on the bottom of the ticket in 04 (what does that make Kerry?).

Gore's family may have hailed from the South, but TN voters didn't exactly embrace him as one of their own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore#Early_life

Edwards' impact - like many VP nominees' - was fairly limited, especially given his scant record.

Virginia has 13 electoral votes. By dint of its location, its key media markets also reach across state lines. Warner is a former Governor (and an extremely popular one at that). The two Southerners you mentioned were both Senators. Warner's visibility, his personal fortune, and his still-intact grass roots organization could easily flip VA.

As for his support of gay rights: he staunchly opposed the GOP legislature when it brought up - and ultimately passed - an anti-gay law that is among the most reactionary in the nation. What he would do on the issue as VP might be very different than what he could do as Governor of a state in which both houses were held by the opposing party. In any event, he'd tow the line taken by the top of the ticket.

- Dave

[benEzra]

248. Also keep in mind that civil rights issues aren't the only issue here...

the gun issue was a HUGE factor in '00 and '04. Prior to the passage of the 1994 Feinstein ban, Dems had a lot easier sledding in the South and West than they did after '94. Gore and Kerry/Edwards misunderstood the gun issue badly, and it hurt them at the polls. (I actually corresponded with Senator Edwards a bit on this issue, as he was my senator at the time.)

Don't forget that a lot of southern states (including mine, NC) have mostly Dem governments. Our governor, lt. governor, sec. of state, attorney general, etc. etc. etc. are Dems. Florida's governor was a Dem until the early '90s.

Pointing the finger at desegregation as the reason Dems haven't been doing so well in the South lately is about 20 years behind the curve. IMHO, there are different issues in play today.

[CorpGovActivist]

249. Agreed...

"Also keep in mind that civil rights issues aren't the only issue here..."

I've done my bit for King and Country on some of those other issues: http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=smith+david+allen&CIK=&filenum=&State=&SIC=&owner=include&action=getcompany

"the gun issue was a HUGE factor in '00 and '04. Prior to the passage of the 1994 Feinstein ban, Dems had a lot easier sledding in the South and West than they did after '94. Gore and Kerry/Edwards misunderstood the gun issue badly, and it hurt them at the polls. (I actually corresponded with Senator Edwards a bit on this issue, as he was my senator at the time.)"

I still maintain that the DNC could score a KO on KKKarl: here's a college dropout, who illustrates the Peter Principle, who has no business holding the security clearances he holds, and who marketed God, Guns, and Gays in spite of the facts that:

1. GOD. KKKarl is a self-described agnostic. (Think the heartland "values voters" knew that? Nope? Why not? Because the DNC plays tiddlywinks instead of politics, that's why.)

2. GUNS. KKKarl dodged the draft, using his (incomplete) college education to obtain deferments during Vietnam. He couldn't be bothered to pick up a gun in defense of his country, and he has a service age son who appears ready to dodge with daddy. (Think the Second Amendment voters in the rural South, Appalachia, and the West knew about that? Nope? Why not? Because the DNC plays tiddlywinks instead of politics, that's why.)

3. GAYS. KKKarl was raised by a stepfather who was gay. He grew up thinking this man was his biological father. Think "family values" voters would think it's odd that KKKarl reviled the man who parented him? Think they knew about this? Again, DNC - playing tiddlywinks, instead of politics.

One almost wonders whether the DNC leadership would rather have KKKarl around as the punching bag, to distract attention from their own ineptitude.

"Pointing the finger at desegregation as the reason Dems haven't been doing so well in the South lately is about 20 years behind the curve. IMHO, there are different issues in play today."

Agreed. That canard is used by DNC "leaders" who can't come up with a "southern strategy," more than 40 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

- Dave

[benEzra]

250. Exactly. (n/t)

[CorpGovActivist]

253. The Southern Strategy: Phase I

Here's a modest proposal for Phase I of the Democratic Southern Strategy, since the Ivy Tower DNC "leaders" can't seem to find their roadmap:

1. Start with the purplish border states. Don't go for broke, or waste the party's limited resources, in deep red areas. But DO put up a vigorous fight for the border states.

2. Hire a campaign director for each of the purplish states, who actually understands those voters (read: grew up there). Believe it or not, there are Ivy League-educated political types who hail from these states (if the DNC is going to insist on that credential, it might as well find those who are equally at ease at a Manhattan cocktail party and in an Appalachian hunting camp).

3. For the love of God, stop treating religious/spiritual voters with contempt. Yes, there are *some* voters in this group who - based on a single issue, such as abortion - are not persuadable. But for every one of those, there is at least one other who will take a broader view of the interplay of their religious values and their vote. My Southern Baptist grandmother is a prime example: she is one of those "alien" voters who still attends church services weekly. But - like many border state voters - she has a very strong "live and let live" streak, rooted in (believe it or not) a Biblical principle: "judge not, lest ye be judged." If the DNC leadership would just come to understand that many of the secular humanistic principles *do* have analogs in (and, quite often, are derived from) religious principles, they'd find a common vocabulary with these voters.

- Dave

P.S. A new movement is even gaining momentum: "red letter Christians," named after the fact that in many denominations' version of the Bible, words attributed to Christ are printed in red. These "red letter Christians" take a very progressive view on many modern-day political and policy issues - and they cite the teachings of Christ as support for their stance.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. The Anti-Death Penalty Argument Would Be Hard To Sell But Not Impossible

But a smart Democratic politician could "square the circle" on gay rights and choice...

[CorpGovActivist]

71. Oh, For Heaven's Sake...

... Southerners are not some mystical, far-off, foreign creature. The DNC does not need to hire Indiana Jones to go in search of the Rosetta Stone, to learn how to speak to Southern voters.

It doesn't require a "smart" or a "clever" politician; it requires one who speaks from the heart on these values issues.

A public servant who can walk into a small Southern church pulpit, and speak from the heart about "red letter" Christianity embracing the poor and the downtrodden, the weak, the powerless - and not setting anyone on a lower rung in society - that's all that is needed.

It's not a tall order. The DNC and all its focus groups have whipped themselves into a froth over this.

Bill Clinton was a smart, erudite, scholarly candidate from a culturally Southern border state. The playbook is not written in ancient Sanskrit.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. Bill Clinton

You mean the Bill Clinton who signed DOMA and ran ads on fundamentalist radio touting that fact or the Bill Clinton that said "abortion should be safe legal and rare"


But the Bill Clinton example is an apt one. He tried to talk about these issues in a non threatening way...


For instance some say abortion is essentially a medical procedure. Obviously if Bill Clinton thought it was essentially a medical procedure like, say, a angioplasty, Clinton wouldn't have said it should be "safe, legal, and rare."

You can't get in people's faces about some issues... That seems , well, axiomatic..

[geek tragedy]

81. Bill Clinton--the DLC'er who made his living triangulating

Republican ideas?

Bill Clinton--who signed the DOMA?

[CorpGovActivist]

83. I'm Not Crazy about Bill's Lack of a Spine on Gay Issues...

... for instance, he should have told Sam Nunn to go to hell on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and he should have offered him the use of Air Force One to get there.

However, if the Dems want a strategy for peeling off just enough of the "culturally Southern" states, they could do a lot worse than tapping Mark Warner for the Veep spot in 08.

Look at the maps that show not just one shade of red and one shade of blue for each state. Look at the county-by-county hues - the purples with only the slightest tint of red.

With an effective ground campaign and a strong, cogent message, the Dems could flip enough border states to begin the first stage of its own "southern strategy," which will have pundits 20 years from now saying that 2006 was the beginning.

- Dave

[geek tragedy]

91. 2006 will be very informative.

If we take Virginia and Tennessee, then that's encouraging.

However, if we can't defeat people like Allen and Corker with candidates like Ford and Webb in a year so hostile to Republicans in those border states, then it's probably time to look west (Burns is a goner) for expanding our coalition.

[CorpGovActivist]

100. If At First You Don't Succeed...

... whine, whine again.

No, wait, that's not what Benjamin Franklin wrote in Poor Richard's Almanac, is it?

So, let me get this straight. Virginia has a popular Democratic former Governor (who was term-limited out, but would have won easy re-election), who was succeeded by his Lt. Governor, Jim Webb is running in a dead heat, and the solution is to abandon this momentum, and go West?

- Dave

[geek tragedy]

109. We'll know in two weeks.

Hopefully, Mark Warner will run for John Warner's seat.

However, one wonders how those races are this close with a political atmosphere downright poisonous to Repukes.

[CorpGovActivist]

115. Mark Warner/Close Border State Races

"Hopefully, Mark Warner will run for John Warner's seat."

Mark Warner is hanging loose, and warming up for:

1. A late entry into the primaries, after the "leading" candidates dust each other up; or

2. The Veepstakes.

Accordingly, I doubt he'll run for John Warner's seat.

"However, one wonders how those races are this close with a political atmosphere downright poisonous to Repukes."

Failure to craft a message, or recruit candidates, that "work" in border states. No mystery here. The DNC is overly-populated with those who don't "get" the culture.

One of the reasons that Jim Webb is within striking distance is that he has many Reagan Democrats from the rural southwestern counties of Virginia taking a good hard look at him.

- Dave

[benEzra]

279. Clinton's miscalculations...

cost the party the House AND Senate on his watch, and he would possibly have lost the presidency in '96 had Bob Dole not spent so much of his campaign carpet-bombing gun owners and civil libertarians.

Clinton is a wonderful speaker, a compassionate person, and a highly intelligent strategist. But even he fell into inside-the-Beltway thinking once he got to Washington, and it cost the party a lot.

[CorpGovActivist]

280. I Blame Sam Nunn...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask_don%27t_tell

Sam Nunn crippled the new President right out of the gate, emboldening the Gingrichites.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. I'm Not Smart Enough To Have An Answer.

I do know that moderate Dems can win in the south.

And it's possible to support civil rights without alienating a majority of voters which is what you need to win as long as there only two candidates. However getting in people's faces and pissing on their most cherished beliefs no matter how absurd you think those beliefs are is a recipe for electoral disaster...

[CorpGovActivist]

82. Speak to Southerners from Their Pulpits

That's how to get them.

- Dave

[The2ndWheel]

56. The institutions we've built

are more important than people.

[LostinVA]

67. OMG -- I can't believe I just read this on here

[The2ndWheel]

70. Why?

Not true?

[CorpGovActivist]

85. Please Parse Your Cryptic Message

"The institutions we've built are more important than people."

Which institutions?

Who's "we"?

Which people and whose rights can be expended?

Thanks. I just want to make sure I understand before I respond.

- Dave

[The2ndWheel]

90. Not a problem

"Which institutions?"

All of them? Global trade organizations, corporations, governments, states. All far more important than any person. Which isn't ridiculous, since we live in a large scale hierarchy, with increasing complexity within it, which requires a loss of diversity within anything outside that structure.

"Who's "we"?"

The royal we. We as a species. It's mostly the elite, powerful, and wealthy that build such entities, but we(the royal one again) rabble do enjoy the luxuries they provide, even if it comes at the expense of other life. Such as a 6 year old girl in some country that makes shoes. Or baby chickens that have nothing to live for, other than to be thrown around on long metal machines figuring out which one will reproduce, and which will be dinner.

"Which people and whose rights can be expended?"

When those institutions require it for growth, every person, and all rights, are expendable.

[CorpGovActivist]

94. I Tend to Subscribe to Emmanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative...

... myself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

It essentially secularizes many of the great religions' "golden rules," and mandates that every single person be treated as an end unto him/herself, rather than as a means to an end.

- Dave

[The2ndWheel]

98. Sounds great

But our globalized world is far too big for that to happen. There must be order for it to work properly, and the only way to have that happen is for every form of life to be a means to an end. What the end is, I still don't know.

I'm not agreeing with it. That's just the reality that I see the world in. What I would like to see, and what I actively see, unfortunately are very different.

[CorpGovActivist]

102. If You Can't Beat 'Em...

... join 'em?

- Dave

[The2ndWheel]

112. Absolutely not

But that's what we(royal) all do when we keep getting up early to go to work for 40-some years. Those work years will also increase as our lifespans do.

Obviously we can't stop getting up to go to work though, since we have ourselves, and in most cases our kids to feed as well. We(royal) are all basically dependent on large scale food networks, which exist because we(yeah, you know) enjoy that security. That's where the order comes into play again, which requires us to be a small specialized part of the global machine. Now that corporations have access to billions around the world, each of us becomes that much smaller, and all the more expendable.

All this is held together by energy, and these institutions must have energy to survive, as we all do. However, large scale institutions have much more control over the planet than anyone, and to survive, will take whatever you have(your life, land, child, whatever), in large quantities, when the time comes.

It's no so much that we can't beat them, it's that they already won the fight a long time ago. Those institutions control basically every aspects of our lives. We need them to survive at this point.

[CorpGovActivist]

118. Interesting Philosophy...

... but a bit too deterministic for my taste.

I still subscribe to the quaint notion that individuals are capable of transcendent, system-shaking feats.

As you craft your response, please remember that we are having this conversation thanks to one such feat of individual ingenuity (and no human system or institution has been the same since): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html

- Dave

[The2ndWheel]

130. Yeah, that is true

I'd rather know you and be able to communicate with you on a human level, but this is the world we live in.

Only deterministic because we keep building the house on the same foundation, yet trying to force new rooms into it. Which is why the same problems show up, only shaped differently. Then each time we think we solve something, new problems come from our solution, but they're the same problems as before, just bigger in scale.

[CorpGovActivist]

132. If It Weren't for the Law of Unintended Consequences...

... future generations wouldn't have challenges to solve.

- Dave

[The2ndWheel]

149. Very true

And all it ever does is come back to more problems for the generation after that. We increase complexity to deal with the problem at hand, only to cause more unintended consequences, then increasing complexity again to deal with those new problems. We never get over that hump, because we can't.

I also like that I use problems, and you use challenges. Always an interesting use of language.

If it wasn't for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, we could all live forever. All those consequences are as a result of us attempting to stop entropy from happening, even though it never does. Like I said, maybe we'll cure death one day. Although the universe will probably implode when we do, just to prove something to us.

[CorpGovActivist]

152. Entropy

I was going there next. You beat me to the punch.

: )

- Dave

[mondo joe]

74. When civil rights becomes a political impediment to Dems it's time to give it up.

Seriously.

There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with our political identity and strategy in that scenario.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. Is It Possible To Discuss The Issue Without The Dichotomies

One third of Americans support gay marriage... One third of Americans support civil unions... If you add up the two you get a plurality of Americans who support equal legal rights for gay couples.


But the "bad" guys add up those who oppose all legal rights for gays couples to those who oppose gay marriage (or) those who favor civil unions rather than marriage and come up with a pluraity that oppose legal rights for gay couples.

The bottom line is there is a plurality of Americans out there who support legal rights for gay couples.


If I'm running for president and I say " I don't care what you call it but gay couples deserve the same rights as the rest of us" do I get your vote?

[mondo joe]

87. I don't think we're in disagreement.

I do think when a case before the court that advances those legal rights we agree on is considered politically unfortunate, then we're on the wrong path.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

96. The NJ Supreme Court Decision Was Unremarkable...

They said gay couples deserve the same rights as the rest of us but it's up to the legislature to give these arrangements a name...

Non-story...

[CorpGovActivist]

104. The Reaction to It Was Very Remarkable...

... and excuse my partner of 12 years and me for saying so, but the NJ Supreme Court ruling was very remarkable to us.

So was the attitude, coming from some quarters, that gay and lesbian couples should have sat at the back of the bus until after 2006, because the timing wasn't expedient for short-term gains.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

114. It Was Unremarkable In That It Was Not Unexpected

eom

[CorpGovActivist]

122. Tell That to the Couples...

... who waited on pins and needles yesterday, to see if they had a place to go get married.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

124. Anybody Who Studies Supreme Court Rulings Should Have Expected This One.

eom

[CorpGovActivist]

127. Vermont Model, or the Massachusetts Model

Actually, it could have gone either way.

Where can I purchase one of the crystal balls you're using?

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

133. It Wasn't Much Different From Either

Except the jurists in Massachussetts want to mix religion with governance.

For the life of me I don't know why.

[CorpGovActivist]

135. It Was Very Different...

... in Vermont, you have two "separate, but unequal" statuses for partnered couples.

... in Massachusetts, you have a single, unified status for partnered couples.

"Except the jurists in Massachussetts want to mix religion with governance."

Keeping the term "marriage" for that unified status does not mix religion with governance. Nor did the MA SJC compel religious institutions to perform any religious ritual against their respective teachings.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

164. The Vermont Decision Was Flawed.

"... in Vermont, you have two "separate, but unequal" statuses for partnered couples."

IMHO, it violated the First Amendment. As I have clearly demonstrated defining religion in a secular society is a role for the church. Defining contractual relationships is the proper role of a legislature...

[CorpGovActivist]

172. Nah

"As I have clearly demonstrated defining religion in a secular society is a role for the church."

(or the mosque, or the synagogue, or the temple, or the...)

"Defining contractual relationships is the proper role of a legislature"

And you still haven't made a cogent argument for why both - the civil, contractual state AND the religious ceremony that some may choose to tack on to it - can't both be called "marriage."

If you look at any dictionary, you'll find that many words have shaded meanings, defined by the context.

So, "marriage" can - and indeed, already does - mean two things: (1) the civil state; and/or (2) the religious ceremony.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

89. Sure, You Get My Vote, on One Condition...

... if you want me to call you "Mr(s). President," can you explain how your position doesn't amount to separate but equal?

I'll be over here, drinking out of the other water fountain, waiting for your answer.

- Dave

[geek tragedy]

92. You get 'married' in a church. The state is in the business

of regulating legal rights and relationships.

[CorpGovActivist]

97. You'll Find Many Churches...

... with rainbow symbols on their outdoor signs nowadays, signifying that gay and lesbian parishoners are welcome.

Like many gay and lesbian couples, my partner and I understand the distinction between the civil benefits of marriage, and the religious rituals that accompany that new status.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many (any?) gay or lesbian couples who would advocate transgressing against the separation of church and state, by trying to force religious organizations to perform rituals against their teachings.

But what the *government* calls it *does* matter.

As Judge Louis Brandeis penned: "Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."

If the government sends the signal that there is a "separate, but equal" status for gays and lesbians, that teaches "the whole people by its example."

- Dave

[geek tragedy]

111. And that's what the fundies are going to war over--the

big ol' evil government telling them that marriage isn't what their church tells them it is.

Give gays the same legal rights under a different term, and in ten years nobody will give a shit if you call it gay marriage or civil unions.

[CorpGovActivist]

117. Let Them Go to War...

... they're on the losing side of history, and they're on the losing side of the demographic tidal wave.

If the Dems embrace this issue now, they'll solidify their "street cred" with the younger voting demographic blocs at a crucial time in their political imprinting.

According to some demographic studies, Gen Y will make up fully one-third of the electorate in 10 years - and they overwhelmingly support gay marriage in poll after poll.

Certainly the Socialist wing of the Democratic Party can get behind a "Ten Year Plan" for a more reliable working majority?

; )

- Dave

[geek tragedy]

121. From a tactical point of view, it's a matter of whether there

are more single-issue voters on one side or the other.

For instance, the great majority of Americans are pro-choice, but there are far more single-issue anti-choicers than there are pro-choicers.

Doesn't mean we should pander or restrict abortion, but it's something the Republicans exploit, and we need to be able to counter.

[CorpGovActivist]

126. When the GOP "Leaders" Get Angry with Fake Indignation...

... that means the Democrats are "too close for comfort" to the counterargument.

Exhibit A: Lynne Cheney's faked-up indignation about the Mary Cheney issue in 2004.

My Southern Baptist grandmother adores my partner. She has given him family recipes. Throughout America, you have "values voters" like my grandmother who have firsthand experience with a loving gay couple.

The Kerry/Edwards campaign allowed themselves to be rolled on this. I give Elizabeth Edwards HUGE points for calling Lynne Cheney out. Lynne put the GOParty Line ahead of her family values, and the Kerry/Edwards campaign should have gone for the jugular.

"Lynne and Dick, do your so-called family values call for other GOP voters to put their loyalty to the party ahead of their love for their gay or lesbian family members?"

The righteous indignation we saw from Lynne (a real beast - she was at the K School when I was in undergrad there) was the clearest signal that the Dems were "too close for comfort" to the antidote to one part of KKKarl's God, Guns, and Gays formula in 04.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. I Want The Government Out Of The Marriage Business...

I didn't go to the DMV to get baptized...

[CorpGovActivist]

106. No, But You Had a Civil Birth Certificate Recorded...

... right?

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

113. They Are Creating A Legal Record

Just as they will be creating a legal record when they give everybody a civil union.

[CorpGovActivist]

119. So, the Argument Becomes...

... lower the brass ring?

For one moment, put yourself in the shoes of a gay or lesbian couple who has fought for these civil protections on equal footing.

Don't you think it's a little insulting to say, "We'll just call what everyone gets a civil union, to strip it down to the lowest common denominator?"

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has compiled a list of the thousands - yes, literally, thousands - of benefits that automatically convey to a married couple (and that's just at the Federal level): http://www.thetaskforce.org/theissues/issue.cfm?issueID=14

Are you advocating that every single one of these Federal laws be re-written, to remove references to marital status?

Wouldn't it be easier - and nobler, and more consistent with core Democratic values - to keep the brass ring right where it is?

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

125. It's Not About A Brass Ring But Separating Religion From State

In a pluralistic society government shouldn't be in the business of mediating religious disputes.


I trust in a higher legislature...

[CorpGovActivist]

128. So, You Wave Your Magic Wand...

... and everyone in the nation starts saying, "I'm getting civil unioned this weekend."?

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

129. I Want The Government Out Of The Marriage (And) Religion Business...

I'm surprised you want it in...

Maybe we should have a state church too...

[CorpGovActivist]

131. False Argument...

It's a logical fallacy to say that keeping the label "marriage" injects religion into the civil status.

If you want to send out "civil union" invitations to make your point, nobody's stopping you.

"I'm surprised you want it in..."

I don't. You present a false, binary choice.

You might look at how Canada handled this issue for the "third way" - keep the term "marriage" for all, while setting down that religious institutions cannot be compelled to perform the ancillary religious services. The core of marriage has been defined as the equal civil benefits - and the religious trappings are treated as a distinct, separate issue that doesn't affect those civil benefits one way or the other.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

134. You're Repeating Yourself...

You're saying government should define what marriage is. That's the role of the church...

[CorpGovActivist]

138. Marriage Pre-Dated "The Church"

Nice try. Civil societies throughout the ages recognized marriages.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

141. Marriage Pre-Dated The Constitution

If marriage pre-dated the Constitution how come most of it's framers were married?

[CorpGovActivist]

143. What's Your Point?

The Constitution is silent as to marriage.

However, the Constitution *does* include the full faith and credit clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_faith_and_credit

That clause allows any straight couple in the U.S. to fly to Vegas for a quickie wedding or a quickie divorce, and to fly back and have that public act recognized by their home state.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

146. You Answered Your Own Question

The Constitution doesn't define marriage and I don't want it to start defining it now...

I thougt that's why we opposed the anti-gay marriage amendments which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman...

[CorpGovActivist]

150. I'm Glad We Agree Then...

... gay couples should be allowed to marry, and have that new civil status recognized under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, without the need to define what marriage is at the Federal level.

Now, you understand why what it's called in NJ matters.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

157. I Don't Want Our Government To Define Marriage For Anybody.Period

Because if you allow them to define marriage then you are compelled by logic to allow them to define the responsibilities of marriage which belongs in the spiritual or religious realm. For instance some Southern Baptists believe that as Christ was the head of the church that man is the head of the household and women should meekly submit to his wishes and commmands.


"Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior." (Ephesians 5: 22-23)


Obviously, this isn't workable with two men or two women.

That's why government should stay out of the marriage business. I don't know why you want to put it back in.

[CorpGovActivist]

163. Ugh...Haven't Heard That Tripe Since I Was 16...

... we Pentecostals do church 3 times a week (twice on Sunday, once on Wednesday to keep from "backsliding"). I've got enough church banked up to last me until I'm 48.

Paul was a real piece of work, and Peter cautioned those reading his letters/epistles to not be led astray by Paul's imperfect understanding of Christ's message.

I want the civil government to be in the business of extending all these rights to my partner and me. We pay our taxes too.

http://www.thetaskforce.org/theissues/issue.cfm?issueID=14

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

167. No Disagreement From Me

"I want the civil government to be in the business of extending all these rights to my partner and me. We pay our taxes too"


I want the government to define contractual relationships and a union between two people of any orientation is a merely a contractual relationship.


Now, if people want to go to their place of worship and have that relationship further defined that's their right.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

151. We're Talking About The United States

The Constitution is a secular document.

And in the civil societies you allude to most of them were hardly secular...

[CorpGovActivist]

154. Bottom Line It For Me...

... because your circular logic is giving me a headache.

1. Equal civil rights for gay partners or not?

2. Abolish the term "marriage" for all or not?

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

159. I Have Been Clear...Respectfully Most People Understand My Position

I want the government out of the marriage business for everybody....

If Joe and Jane want to get married they can go to their place of worship. If they want a civil union they can to their courthouse...Same for Jane and Jill...


Equal rights for everybody...

I want government out of politics and politics out of government... Both institutions will be the better for it..

[CorpGovActivist]

166. Sounds Like the Canadian Model...

... to me.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

139. If Government Defines What Marriage Is

If government defines what marriage is which is a proper role for the church what other activities should they define.

"Render under onto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and render onto God that which is God's.

[CorpGovActivist]

142. Mind If I Ask...

... what denomination you were raised in?

Please remember that the Romans were marrying people off long before The Church came along.

So, yes, render unto Caesar...

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

144. I Was Raised As A Southern Baptist

I love em... Well I love some of em... But I don't want them to be defining marriage and the roles of the parties involved for the nation.

[CorpGovActivist]

147. Justice of the Peace, Versus Church Wedding

OK.

Being a Southern Baptist (my grandmother's one, too), you'll understand that many "shotgun weddings" take place in two steps:

1. The justice of the peace ceremony, to get it official.

2. The church ceremony, to add the religious blessing.

Keeping the "marriage" label for all couples - gay or straight - allows for the survival of this duality for all, while preserving the right of each denomination to decide for itself whether to allow step #2 to take place within its doors.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

162. You Reinforced My Point

The "shotgun wedding" was a function of addressing a sin... In this case the sin was fornication...The sinners needed to make it right with the church by getting married. They had no legal obligation to civil society...

[CorpGovActivist]

170. OK, Thanks for Playing

I appreciate your viewpoint. We've reached an impasse.

- Dave

[Zhade]

239. FALSE. I was married at City Hall. No church was involved.

I was still married.

Marriage is NOT solely a religious arrangement.

[CorpGovActivist]

246. Maybe When the KKKarl KKKool-Aid Wears off...

... these pseudoDEMs will grasp the duality of marriage - (necessary) civil protections and (optional) religious rites.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

88. Can You Imagine Someone Saying that About Brown v. Topeka?

"Gee, I wish the Supreme Court hadn't ruled on Brown during an election year."

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

174. I Oppose Government Defining Marriage

I oppose government defining marriage for the same reason I oppose prayer in school...

Some things are so sacred and private they should be beyond the reach of the magistrate...

[CorpGovActivist]

176. Marriage Is Not "Sacred" Only

It's civil, too.

In order to qualify for the thousands of benefits that come with the status, it has to first be defined.

Assuming you're married, how do you know which box to check on your tax return? Because the church tells you that you're married, or because you have a marriage license from the state?

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

178. Marriage Is Defined By The Church

Relationships between ( all ) people is defined by the legislature.

[CorpGovActivist]

180. Keep Repeating That Mantra...

... but marriage pre-existed The Church.

Saying it over and over doesn't make it so.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

181. And Those Marriages Always Were Between A Man And A Woman

Because those civil societies were influenced by religion.

The Constitution is a rational and secular document. As I said before why you want to make it a religious document is beyond me.

[CorpGovActivist]

183. Non-Sequiturs Are Not Arguments

"The Constitution is a rational and secular document."

The same cannot be said of those who think "marriage" is a uniquely religious term, coined or invented the moment Christ was born.

"As I said before why you want to make it a religious document is beyond me."

That does not follow from anything I've advocated.

"And Those Marriages Always Were Between A Man And A Woman"

And miscegenation was banned once, in this country, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation

Traditionalism, taken to an extreme, is what leads to Scalia opinions.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

186. I Never Said The Christian Church Invented Marriage.

You're just making things up...

It seems that not only do you want to turn America into a theocracy but you want to define what the governing theology is ...


Government exists to protect our property and our rights... It doesn't exist to define what marriage is and isn't...


If you and your male partner want a civil union that is your right as it is my right to have a civil union with my female partner.

If you or I want to get married we should go to our respective houses of worships...

I don't see why you want to use the awesome power of the state to tell me what marriage is or isn't...

As far as miscegenation laws if there are churches that won't sanctify an interracial relationship that is their right. However I don't know what Biblical principles they would be basing it on.

[CorpGovActivist]

190. Putting Words in My Mouth and Trying to Define My Arguments

... is a Rovite tactic.

"You're just making things up..."

... says the person who keeps insisting on taking my arguments where I didn't.

"It seems that not only do you want to turn America into a theocracy but you want to define what the governing theology is ..."

No, it seems as if your reading comprehension is off, or you're on a mission to twist my arguments into something they're not.

"Government exists to protect our property and our rights... It doesn't exist to define what marriage is and isn't..."

Marriage is all about property rights. In fact, go dive into the Old Testament, and see all the divorce measures that were laid out, for splitting the property. Or, see all the marriage property joinder provisions. It's right there in the first Five Books, as any Pentecostal knows.

Whether you're talking ancient Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Germanic, etc. marriage - you're talking the duality of civil property rights AND the religious ceremonies. Marriage, throughout the ages, has had that dual nature in human civilization.

Marriage rights = property rights

"If you and your male partner want a civil union that is your right as it is my right to have a civil union with my female partner."

Actually, it's not our right yet. And why limit us to that? Because you happen to think that marriage is a peculiarly religious concept, devoid of civil meaning?

"If you or I want to get married we should go to our respective houses of worships..."

Or, to our local justice of the peace. You're conflating the civil and religious aspects, which isn't necessary.

"As far as miscegenation laws if there are churches that won't sanctify an interracial relationship that is their right. However I don't know what Biblical principles they would be basing it on."

Well, there's a Biblical argument to be made for slavery and polygamy, too, but the Bible isn't the source code for our Constitution. As for miscegenation, I'd actually argue that the marriages of certain kings (e.g., David, Solomon) could have been used against the fundies back in the day.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

194. Wow

I think the government debases marriage by defining it.


Marriage should be defined by those that choose to enter it not by some cold and detached bureaucrat.

[CorpGovActivist]

195. Or Leviticus...

... for that matter.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

200. Exactly...

After you or I get our civil union and a church or synagogue feels bound by that particular scripture then we will have to find different places to marry us but our relationships will be equal in the eyes of the law...

This has been an interesting discussion...

As long as the law treats us equally I'll be satisfied...

[Zhade]

240. Bullshit. Marriage SOMETIMES is religious.

Or are you suggesting there's no such thing as atheist marriages, wherein both partners are not in any way religious?

[readmoreoften]

197. What are you talking about? The church is PRESSURING gov't to define marriage.

It's pressuring the government to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Government isn't being called on to DEFINE marriage by gay people. It's being called on to stop discriminating. Your church can discriminate against me all in wants. But you can't keep me from having legal benefits in a equitable society.

[CorpGovActivist]

204. Nicely Put...

... and I think the obtuseness to which you are responding may be manufactured.

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

206. I Don't Have A Church

I have never typed in caps on this board and I think I have over 20,000 posts but I will type in caps now.


I WANT THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS FOR EVERYONE. CIVIL UNIONS SHOULD BE ISSUED TO ALL COUPLE SEEKING LEGAL RATIFICATIONS OF THEIR RELATIONSHIPS REGARDLESS OF THE GENDERS OF THE PARTIES. I HAVE SAID THIS AD IN FINITUM AND AD NAUSEUM.

CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL WHO WANT THEM. MARRIAGES BY THE RELIGION OF YOUR CHOICE FOR ALL WHO WANT THEM.

[CorpGovActivist]

208. Ad nauseum...

... I'll agree with that.

; )

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

210. That's Because I Defend Jefferson's Wall Of Separation And Church

As a Virginian you should applaud me...

[CorpGovActivist]

212. As a Virginian...

... I understand that separation of church and state has nothing - NOTHING - to do with allowing gay and lesbian couples to call their partnership a "marriage," just like any other couple.

Marriage rights = property rights

- Dave

[DemocratSinceBirth]

215. You Can Call It Anything you Want ButThe Govt. Shouldn't Be In The Marriage Biz

For anybody...

[CorpGovActivist]

217. Just So I Understand What You Mean...

... by getting the government out of the "marriage business" ...


Are you advocating that all of these Federal laws be re-written, to remove all references to marriage or marital status?

http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/GAOBenefits.pdf

Just so we know what you mean by getting the government out of the marriage business...

- Dave

[KittyWampus]

79. The States Need To Stop Marrying People & Provide ALL Couples

the opportunity to sign a Civil Union Contract.

Any two people who want to join households and share joint priveledges and responsibilities should go to the courthouse and sign a binding contract.

Then afterwards, if they please, they may go get married however, wherever they choose or NOT>

It's that simple and gay people aren't doing themselves or anyone else a favor by not grasping this simple strategy.

[Zhade]

241. Your "simple (minded) strategy" entails rewriting over 1,000 laws.

NT!

[Mz Pip]

95. Strawman argument

These things are not mutually exclusive. We need contol of the Senate to fix what's broke in our democracy.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[CorpGovActivist]

107. Senate Control Will Follow...

... when the Dems start acting like Dems again.

- Dave

[gully]

137. Indeed!

nt

[Orsino]

171. And I suspect that folks really willing to compromise all...

...are as rare or nonexistent here as are those hypothetical DUers eager for continued GOP rule.

Some compromise is necessary, and we must also compromise on what can be compromised, so to speak.

[CorpGovActivist]

175. Just Be Honest About the Ballast You're Tossing Overboard...

... when you say that equal rights for gay and lesbian couples are expendable this election cycle, in the name of the expedient short-term goal of reclaiming the Senate.

But be sure that the soul of the Democratic Party itself isn't in one of those ballast barrels you're heaving overboard: advancement of equal human rights is a pretty big part of the core identity.

Knowing what can be compromised - and what can't - is going to be a big part of whether the Dems get out of the wilderness, and stay out of it.

- Dave

[Orsino]

251. Yeah. Be honest about the *people* you're dismissing...

...through compromise.

[leftofthedial]

103. when fascists took over our entire government

[Beelzebud]

105. Umm, maybe 6 years of imperial neo-con rule?

I'd rather get the imperialists out, and worry about gay marriage later...

We don't have the luxury of going after wedge issues.

[CorpGovActivist]

108. Fine, But Menendez Was His Own Worst Enemy...

... leave the gay and lesbian plaintiffs out of it. It's not their fault that Menendez is teetering on the edge of defeat in NJ.

- Dave

[Virginia Dare]

110. On a somewhat similar note...

I would like to see Democrats be much more upfront about embracing the separation of church and state.

I don't want to see anymore Democrats getting in touch with their faith in the context of their run for national office. Their particular faith is of no interest to me whatsoever.

That part of Obama's message turns me off.

But I agree with your original statement, the Democrats need to reframe the same sex "marriage" issue as a civil rights one, not a moral one. I think most reasonable people could get behind that.

We here in Virginia have an anti-same sex marriage referendum on the ballot. It goes so far off the deep end that advocates for domestic violence victims are worried that some of the laws as written will be unenforceable
for victims who are not "legally" married.

I have a neighbor who put out a sign that said simply "Read It ALL" "Vote No on #1".

[CorpGovActivist]

116. Virginia Is on the Fast Track...

... for a Supreme Court showdown over its laws in this arena.

As for separation of church and state: spoken like a true Virginian!!! Hear, hear!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mason

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights

- Dave

[bearfan454]

120. For quite some time now nt

[mdmc]

123. Corporations don't care about human rights

why should the DLC?

[gully]

136. This post is absurd, sorry.

Do you think Republicans in power = civil rights advances for Gays.

No one here is suggesting that we not have civil rights for all, but we have to win to achieve that. Gays are tired of being used to rally the bigots. That's what some fear, and rightfully so.

[CorpGovActivist]

140. And We're Tired of Fair-Weather Friendship from the DNC

"Gays are tired of being used to rally the bigots."

The Chicken Little argument yesterday - that the NJ Supreme Court ruling was going to cost the NJ Senate race, and with it, the control of the Senate - was a form of soft bigotry, coming from a surprising quarter: Dems.

- Dave

[gully]

153. It's not bigotry, it's knowing what motivates bigots.

Putting gay marriage on the ballot in 04 did drive many on the right to the polls. However, with the latest Foley scandal I think they've lost their gimmick.

It's not bigoted to be "aware" of what bigots do.

[CorpGovActivist]

155. It's Most Certainly Soft Bigotry...

... to try to tactic out of avoiding the argument, rather than making the head-on, direct case for equal rights ...

... you know, like Dems used to do, once upon a time.

- Dave

[gully]

158. It's easy to do when you have power.

We haven't any, and I don't think the R's are going to use this court ruling with Foley-gate in the background anyhow.

[CorpGovActivist]

165. Powerless Dems Forget How to Fillibuster...

... and forget how to vote against the suspension of habeas corpus, right before the mid-terms?

"We haven't any (power)"

Yes, the Dems do. The DNC has coffers full of money to run ads. The DNC has access to top law firms, to file lawsuits.

How is it that the GOP minority was so effective in the 60s, 70s, and 80s - sometimes in spite of fillibuster-proof majorities in the Senate?

"I don't think the R's are going to use this court ruling with Foley-gate in the background anyhow."

Which made it all the more insulting and disgusting to hear Dems being the ones to use gay and lesbian couples as the scapegoats in NJ, when Menendez is the weak candidate that the Democratic establishment rallied around.

- Dave

[gully]

168. Actually the VAST MAJORITY did vote against Bush's "interrogation" bill.

We're about to take back the house, then you'll see what the Dems can and will do. I'm not going to discuss every issue under the sun with you, let's stick to the subject matter.

And in doing you, you may want to read this?

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/gays_and_lesbians

[CorpGovActivist]

173. Discretion Is the Better Part of Valor; Or How Dems Got out of Dodge

OK. The Senate Dems could have filibustered the suspension of habeas corpus, and the GOP didn't have the numbers - acting alone - to force the cloture motion. This would have forced a national debate on the issue of how we as a nation are conducting this so-called "war on terror," and how we want to conduct it.

So the prevailing apology for the turncoat Senate Dems seems to be that they acted out of expedience, with the mid-terms looming, rather than stand on principle and force the Administration to actually debate the practical import of this new extra-Constitutional law.

"No man is justified in doing evil on the grounds of expedience." -- Teddy Roosevelt

Don't look for any of those Senate Dems who acted out of expedience to have their faces added to Mount Rushmore.

- Dave

[gully]

177. Again, this is another debate.

Ever hear the term "all politics is local" that's why people like Harold Ford voted for the "terrorist interrogation" bill. I get it, you don't.

And, I really don't expect Ford to be elevated to Mount Rushmore status, but the fact that a black man is competing in the Tennessee Senate race (and could win it) speaks for itself.

[CorpGovActivist]

179. Tip Was Right...

... all politics is local, and I most certainly get it.

Harold Ford ought to be able to explain - in terms that his local constituency would understand - why the bill was un-American. If someone at his level cannot do so, then the DNC needs to recruit better candidates who can.

"And, I really don't expect Ford to be elevated to Mount Rushmore status, but the fact that a black man is competing in the Tennessee Senate race (and could win it) speaks for itself."

So long as he's willing to vote the expedient way on extra-Constitutional laws, without even taking a stab at explaining to the folks back home why their values demand that he stand up for the Constitution, miss a few extra days on the campaign trail, and participate in at least a one-day filibuster?

- Dave

[gully]

182. Right, just like people should have been able to explain that Iraq was

not connected to 911? That Saddam didn't have WMD's?

[CorpGovActivist]

184. Yes, Just Like That...

... an excellent example of another instance of Senate Dems not standing on principle, just before another mid-term election.

Well put.

- Dave

[gully]

188. Bullshit, it's an example of the media not doing their jobs.

Over 130 Democrats voted against the war in spite of the climate of lies and fear.

[CorpGovActivist]

192. BS Right Back at You...

... when the Senate Majority Leader calls a press conference, or the opposition party holds a filibuster, it gets covered.

The MSM can be blamed for many things - but NOT for failing to pick up those gavels in 2002. You have to be a Chair to do that, and the Chairs of the Senate in 2002 were running scared, instead of standing tall.

- Dave

[gully]

223. Yea, but I'd rather they cover the war personally.

A filibuster could have meant we would not be poised to take back the house.

"running scared instead of standing tall" sounds like a Rove talking point. "Waving the white flag of surrender" "Stay the course."

:eyes:

[CorpGovActivist]

224. Or, It Could Have Meant Keeping the Senate in 02...

... by actually forcing the Administration to lay out its case, before troops were sent to Iraq.

I suppose "don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes" sounds like a Rovite tagline to you, too?

I'm sorry, but the Daschle Dems BLEW IT in 02. Jeffords handed them the Senate back on a silver platter. If they were so afraid of going down in the 02 mid-terms, the least they could have done would have been to have gone down in a blaze of glory.

THAT would be a helluva record to run on now.

- Dave

[gully]

229. I don't think so. I think it comes down the the "local politics" point.

As I said, Lieberman is proof that reaching out to moderates of all stripes is a success in CN.

I'm done.

Cheers.

[CorpGovActivist]

231. The Gavels That Didn't Bark...

... that *should* be the historical post-mortem of how the 2002 mid-terms went down.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

185. In Fact, Let's Not Forget...

... that in the lead-up to the 2002 mid-terms, the Daschle Dems even had the gavels with which to hold hearings, issue subpoenas, etc.: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

So please spare me the argument that "once we get the gavels, then you'll see."

Been there, done that, got the two new Supreme Court Justices to prove it.

- Dave

[gully]

189. The house hasn't had the gavel for 12 years.

And the climate was much different, so spare me your change of subject since your OP couldn't hold water.

[CorpGovActivist]

193. The Climate Was Different...

... and the Daschle Dems ran scared, instead of jumping into the fray and seeking to change the climate.

Leaders do that.

- Dave

[gully]

220. "Corpgovactivist" suits you.

nt

[CorpGovActivist]

222. Assuming You Understand What It Means...

... yes, it does.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

226. What It Means...

Corp = Corporations, Corporate America

Gov = Governance

Activist = self-explanatory

With all the caterwauling about the pervasive influence of Corporate America, you'd think more Dems would have caught on to the notion that ownership of these corporations (via even 1 share of stock) allows them to have a say in reprogramming these man-made behemoths.

Many social responsibility investing companies (as well as union pension plans and other money managers) have caught on, and have done incredibly useful and groundbreaking work - e.g., forcing companies to change work practices to be more friendly to working women, forcing companies to extend DP benefits, forcing companies to change suppliers from repressive regimes, etc.

- Dave

[nedbal]

145. if You get no Senate Seats Then you get NO (what U call) Human Rights

[CorpGovActivist]

148. How to Get Those Senate Seats...

... start acting like Dems again.

- Dave

[gully]

156. Like Lieberman?

He's beating Lamont in spite of Ned's "Democratic" ideals.

It's not anti-Dem to be aware of the political climate.

[CorpGovActivist]

161. I Have Yet to See...

... a DNC ad blitz, that helps to explain what the party would do with a majority.

I have yet to see a DNC ad blitz, body slamming the Rovites for the "cut and run" label. That is soooooooooooooo easy to counteract.

As I posted in a prior message, the "cut and run" label could be replaced with the "bled and crawled" label - showing Tammy Duckworth and all the other current candidates who have served honorably, and narrated by Max Cleland.

The DNC needs a spine transplant, and a purge of the latte-sipping elitists who fancy themselves message crafters.

- Dave

[nedbal]

235. "a spine transplant," Loose Seats and get NO (what U call) Human Rights

in the post you responded to was a excellent example of Ned Lamont showing some dem spine, now what did we do, we have Liberman taking away a dem seat. what does a dem seat mean even if it's liberman that holds it:

if we take back power, the following will happen:

- At least 9 Congressional Progressive Caucus Members would become Committee Chairmen or Chairwomen
- An additional 35 Congressional Progressive Caucus Members would become Subcommittee Chairmen or Chairwomen.

The following Progressive Caucus Members would become Committee Chairs:

- Congressman George Miller, Chairman of Education and Workforce Committee
- Congressman Barney Frank, Chairman of Financial Services
- Congressman Henry Waxman, Chairman of Government Reform
- Congressman Bennie Thompson, Chairman of Homeland Security Committee
- Congressman Tom Lantos, Chairman of International Relations Committee
- Congressman John Conyers, Chairman of Judiciary Committee
- Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, Chairwoman of Rules Committee
- Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, Chairwoman of Small Business Committee
- Congressman Charles Rangel, Chairman of Ways and Means Committee

The following Progressive Caucus Members would become Subcommittee Chairs:

- Appropriations Subcommittees -- Congresswomen Rosa DeLauro and Marcy Kaptur and Congressmen John Olver, Jose Serrano, and Ed Pastor
- Armed Services Subcommittee, Congressman Neil Abercrombie
- Education and Workforce Subcommittees, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and Congressman Dennis Kucinich
- Energy and Commerce Subcommittees, Congressman Ed Markey and Congresswomen Jan Schakowsky and Hilda Solis
- Financial Services Subcommittee, Congresswoman Maxine Waters and Congressman Luis Gutierrez
- Government Reform Subcommittees, Congresswoman Diane Watson and Congressmen Dennis Kucinich, Elijah Cummings, Danny Davis of Illinois, and William "Lacy" Clay
- International Relations Subcommittee, Congressman Donald Payne
- Judiciary Subcommittees, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee and Congressmen Jerry Nadler and Melvin Watt
- Interior Subcommittees, Congressmen Raul Grijalva and Tom Udall and Congresswoman Donna Christensen
- Rules Subcommittees, Congressman Jim McGovern
- Small Business Subcommittees, Congresswomen Madeleine Bordallo
- Transportation and Infrastructure, DeFazio, Filner, Holmes-Norton, and C. Brown
- Ways and Means Subcommittees, Congressmen Pete Stark, Jim McDermott, and John Lewis of Georgia


So lets loose some more seats just to show some spine right before the election. keep pushing the glbt agenda

[CorpGovActivist]

236. Despite the Incoherence of Your Post...

... I fervently pray that those will be the Chairs of the respective House committees you cited.

And the "glbt agenda" (as you call it) is about very basic equality - something that those progressive caucus members support.

The original post was meant to highlight the scapegoating that some are already building in to explaining away the loss of the NJ Senate seat. That's patently unfair; Menendez is to blame for the race being so close.

If the Senate equivalents of those progressive House caucus members you named don't also get the gavels - due to a loss in NJ - will you join the voices saying that those pesky gays should time their lawsuits better (and forego their fight for equal rights), or will you join the voices saying that Menendez should have run a better campaign?

- Dave

[LSK]

160. what did you do in the Primaries???

Im afraid you missed them.

[CorpGovActivist]

169. Spent a Lot of Time...

... sharing evidence with Democratic and moderate GOP staffers.

- Dave

[readmoreoften]

199. Yeah, I spent the majority of the primaries being called "divisive" on DU.

I supported the gay marriage candidate Democratic in my state. I was told that my candidate might as well've been a "green".

[CorpGovActivist]

207. Maybe Those Are the John Mayer Democrats...

"...waiting on the world to change..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2480875&mesg_id=2480875

As for me and "all" my friends, we choose to act to bring that change about - and we're not into "taking numbers," or "keeping quiet" for an expedient short-term partisan goal.

These are our lives and our basic human rights. The Democratic Party leadership can take a number and stand in line behind those concepts.

- Dave

[Name removed]

219. Deleted message

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

[CorpGovActivist]

221. No, It Isn't...

... and why is it that anytime an honest critic of the DNC position on this issue speaks up, s/he is suspected of that?

- Dave

[brentspeak]

225. What does an "honest critic of the DNC position" have to do with you?

On a related note, tell us what the DNC position is (on whatever it is you're talking about).

[CorpGovActivist]

227. What's Your Beef with the OP?

That would help me to answer.

- Dave

[IdesOfOctober]

234. The rainbow to the NJ cloud?

Hey, maybe the silver lining (or the rainbow) in NJ will be something like this:

1. With the NJ high court throwing it back to the legislature, gay voters (as well as their family members, loved ones, and friends) will be highly motivated to go out to the polls, thinking that the legislature is also up for election (it's not; odd numbered years, I checked).

2. With this gay-friendly turnout, Menendez squeaks through.

Ides

[CorpGovActivist]

282. Interesting Take...

... on how this could blow up in KKKarl's face after all.

- Dave