Really Can't See Myself Voting Republican

Comments

1
Agreed-

There are third parties that WILL do things about gay rights (and all the other issues that the dems largely ignore) I'm mostly looking at the Green Party.
2
Yep -- this is among the reasons we need to look beyond the (R) or (D) when voting and why the two-party system sucks.
3
So where do we go from here? Do we keep supporting the Democrats who do nothing for us, because they're slightly better than the other guys?
4
I agree with Dan, I would vote for a trained chimp before I would vote for a Republican - granted, the Republicans have run some pretty impressive trained chimps in the past. I would LOVE to have a viable third party option, but at this point any third party vote from a liberal might as well be a vote for the Republicans. We can't afford to split what little bit of unity we can find to another party. Let the Republicans and Teabaggers split their votes and see how well that works for them.
5
All true, Dan, all true. But, when I contemplate the alternative scenario (Republicans in charge of our Government) I cannot bring myself to vote anything but Democrat.

The Democrats might not be helping us, at the moment, but they do help other groups in need, and that is more than the Republicans will ever do.
6
Obama, who I supported as much as I could (not an American), has been a failure on nearly every front. Such an epic, unending disappointment.

And, lets not make a mistake about it. He is a hateful, hateful bigot. He refuses to support gay marriage (and I don't mean legislation; I mean just saying something, anything) despite that he himself is the product of a marriage that was illegal (based on the race of his parents) in parts of the US the day he was born.

Reflect on this: in Canada, Obama is on the right-wing.
7
@1 & @2:
Yes, the two party system sucks, but it's a function of our winner-take-all electoral system. Unless we move to a system of proportional representation, there will always be just 2 realistic parties to choose from, and your vote for the 3rd party will be even more useless than the Democratics have been.
8
The gay voting bloc is becoming or has become noteworthy. It behooves the Republic Party to try to break off chunks of it, and the R's are doing it not the upfront, righteous way by including gay rights in its platform, but by have a few high-ranking Republicans coming out and a few others supporting issues like marriage equality. Sneaky. Still another reason not to vote Republican.
9
All I'm gonna say is that I understand all too well why so many people just say "fuck it" and don't bother voting at all.
10
One could argue that if the introduction of two likely anti-marriage-equality justices to the Supreme Court during the Bush administration hasn’t yet done the gay community appreciable harm, it very well could in the near-to-distant future. That seems like a significant amount of *ground lost* to me.

Conversely, the prospect of Obama having the opportunity to replace ONE single republican-appointed justice could represent a significant amount of *ground gained.*
11
@6:"He is a hateful, hateful bigot.... He refuses to support gay marriage (and I don't mean legislation; I mean just saying something, anything)"

Wow. You are as horribly misinformed as those who think Obama is a Muslim. Although Obama hasn't done anything, he is no bigot, and he has said plenty.

12
The status quo you're talking about seems to rely on the Republicans successfully continuing their current balancing act in perpetuity; recent events suggest they may not be able to continue promising their rank and file a theocratic police state forever without delivering on their promises.

13
Well, what people can't do is to roll over and do nothing. Democracy doesn't work if people don't pay attention to what their elected officials are doing, and if they don't vote. It really does (have a bit of) influence on our elected officials when their constituents write to them and voice their views.

Your vote may not mean much in a presidential election, but it does when electing local school board members, city council, etc. The conservatives got to their place in power by starting at the bottom.

When casting a ballot, you may be casting a vote for the lesser of the evils, but if you don't vote, the eviller one may very well win.
15
Dan: Your first two sentences make no sense. Even if you were a single issue voter, why would you vote Republican?
16
I'm not gay first and American second. I'm a proud American. I'm a veteran. I'm a taxpayer. I'm a feminist and I'm an evironmentalist. And I will protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And I'm gay. And for those reasons and more I will vote for Democrats because they are closest to what I see as the best chance for our country and all our people. Are they perfect? No! But after the last decade, they are saving this nation from the repeated errors of the Republicans that brought us to the brink.
17
@1 and 2: 7 is right. And can you imagine American politicians having to form coalition governments and actually, maturely negotiate with each other in a multiparty system?
18
@11 "I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman." --http://www.equalitygiving.org/Barack-Oba…
19
do you really only see things through the lens of gayness?
20
@11 -- I am assuming of course that you would consider a president who said "I do not support interracial marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between different races and genders" to be a bigot. I would.
21
If it weren't for Bill Clinton, gay sex might still be illegal in many states. (Ginsburg, Breyer, Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). And now Obama has brought us Sotomayor and Kagan.
22
"Being reminded that DOMA and ENDA were signed by a Democratic president—thanks again, Bill—didn't move many of us into McCain's camp in 2008." Dan, I think you mean "DOMA and DADT." ENDA would have been a good thing.
23
@ 19, since Dan clearly says he's not a single-issue voter, I think that's a pretty clear "no."
24
[sigh]

We have had enormous, unprecedented progress on LGBT issues in the last two years. If you expect instant gratification then yes, you will be disappointed. The Federal government moves slowly. Activism is not a matter of showing up to an anti-Prop 8 rally, and expecting that that will make it all better. Activism needs to be sustained over a period of years, building relationships with communities, constituencies, legislators and officials.

If you want to quit investing your money and your time, then quit. I'd rather you didn't, and I'd really rather you stop urging others to give up. Instead, let's see the progress we've made on DADT, ENDA and DOMA through to victory. And let's all work together this fall to keep the Democratic majorities we need, in order not only to advance LGBT rights, but also to fix the economic and foreign policy disasters created by the Republicans.
25
I'll always vote, and I'll always vote for Dems. That's not the issue. The issue is: will I and my big gay self donate money to Dems? will I go canvass or phone bank for them? Not on this record.
I'm sending my cash and my volunteer time to the ACLU and Freedom to Marry - the folks who are actually doing something - instead.
26
Bloomberg 2012.

And what is this enormous progress again #24?
27
Oh, geesh.

Just vote Green and then you can whine for eight years while the GOP take away your rights even more and get us in a Third War in Iran that won't be paid for ...
28
It's nice to hear you admit it. I vote Republican and yet I'm here, too. Because some of the things you say make a lot of sense to me and I agree with them completely. Some of the things don't. My cousin and his partner split their political vote because one is more concerned about gay rights and the other is more concerned about money.

There's good and bad in everything. I believe that people should be able to marry the folks they love, raise bright and loving children, be able to be who they are without anyone telling them they can't. I also believe in the rede, "'An it harm none, do what thou will."

In the accepted American arena, there's no right and no wrong... just the lesser of two evils.
29
Don't forget that there's much more to consider here than Federal-level politics.

At the state level, there have been serious gains when Democrats have control of Legislatures and Governorships - and corresponding regression when Republicans are in control.
30
@26: Just off the top of my head:

DADT is on track to being repealed this year - something none of us in the movement thought possible - with both the House and the Senate including DADT repeal in the 2011 Defense Authorization bill. President Obama and Secretary Gates have exerted strong personal leadership on this issue, and will deserve full credit when the repeal comes through.

DOMA - is flagrantly unconstitutional, and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are sure to recognize that. Regardless of some people's hyperbolic reactions to Administration legal briefs in DOMA cases, the Administration does have a duty to defend the constitutionality of DOMA, just as criminal defense lawyers have a duty to defend clients they believe might be guilty.

ENDA - this time including transgender protection - now has majority support in the House, and is getting close to 60 votes in the Senate. Hard to see how this would be so in a Republican-controlled Congress.
31
The REAL-LIFE, PRACTICAL difference between bitchy, whiney, didn't-get-my-way Dems who suddenly decide to vote Republican and bitchy, whiney, didn't-get-my-way Dems staying home on election day to flop around and moan about their sad lot in life? ZIP. ZERO. NADA. GOOSE-EGG. So if you fit either of those categories, just stay home, save gas, and keep the lines at the polls or the post office shorter.
32
The Huffpost article you are quoting is total B.S. It says "some Democratic operatives" are "concerned." But there is only one "operative" quoted, and he/she is quoted anonymously. There is no there there.
33
I totally agree with this post. It sums up my feelings pretty well. The only thing I'd add is if Obama had not made all these promises to us, I would have still given him money and still voted for him because I support the rest of the platform and I wouldn't counting his broken promises to the gays. Instead, I feel used and tricked into supporting him.
34
Dan, it's like this: we're mere votes away from passing Inclusive ENDA and getting rid of DADT permanently--if we'd just get some help from loud voices like yours to lobby the few remaining "leaning Yes" votes and undecideds into Strong Yes votes. Wanna see who? Go to www.actonprinciples.com for whip counts. That's how it works. Enough of the Obamessiah Syndrome: he's gonna sign these bills, but he can't sign what doesn't make it to his desk. So our focus should be on CONGRESS not on buyer's remorse because Obama didn't walk across the Mall reflecting pool and magically grant all the LGBT wishes. Which would be a miracle, or would you like a refresher course on bills? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-…
35
Prediction: in a GOP controlled Congress or with a GOP President significant change (ending DADT, federal recognition of same-sex marriage) will be proposed and approved and twenty years later the GOP will crow about it like they supported it forever.
36
That said, much as I regret the death, destruction, and blow-jobs for the wealthy perpetrated by Republican administrations, I have come to the conclusion that I, personally, day-to-day, tend to feel better when the Dems are on the outs. Johnson was the last ass-kicking Democratic president (who also enabled a lot of death and destruction). Carter, Clinton, and Obama got bogged down in the baiting games and the much more evil machinations and traps of the right wing. When Republicans are in power, the lunatic fundie fringe quiets down, the power-brokers don't play to them, and they all feel safe enough to be "magnanimous" every once in awhile.

Would I vote (or not vote) in such a way as to bring about that state of affairs? NEVER.
37
And just because they didn't get "appreciably worse" before under GOP rule doesn't mean in this hyper-inflammatory, partisan environment, they won't roll back things this time, Dan.
38
Joe Sestak is a reliable Senate vote: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=14…

Donate $25 to him or another.
39
What about Sam Reed he's a good Sec of State?
40
Any gay that votes republican is an Uncle Tom
41
The constant here is that change is hard, with many opportunities for opponents of progress to throw sand in the gears... and yet Obama has so far managed to prevent a second Great Depression, withdraw troops from Iraq, reform health care, reform Wall Street, save the American auto industry, sign a pact with Russia to dismantle one-third of our nukes, etc., all despite an unprecedented level of obstruction from congressional Republicans.

Meanwhile, the John Birch Society rejects who think Obama is a deep-cover mole have taken control of the GOP, so that this year's crop of Republican candidates are either (a) pretending to be wild-eyed lunatics for the sake of "turning out the base" or (b) are actual wild-eyed lunatics who think the United Nations is plotting against us.

So, yeah. I've been frustrated by the lack of progress on issues ranging from closing Guantanamo to ending DADT - and don't even get me started on warrantless wiretaps - but I see this year's election as a choice between continuing to make slow progress with the Democrats, or letting the asylum inmates shut down the government for two years.
42
In reality, we don't have a two-party system. We have two factions of the same right-wing, pro-corporate party. Their methods may differ slightly--and they let us get worked up about issues they don't really care about like abortion and gay rights--but their goals are the same.
43
@35 We have a winner.
44
I'll always vote, that is a given. I'm frustrated that next several years look like they may be a whole lot of nothing. It doesn't help that I have Australia envy today after reading the NYT this morning. I wish our Green Party could become more like the Greens Party and actually be a viable option.
45
So many unhappy LGBT voters loudly proclaim that due to the inaction of the current administration and Congress they'll vote Republican or sit out the election entirely. That would likely result in a Republican-controlled Congress and Sarah Palin and her hillbilly gang moving into 1600 Penn in 2012. If you think things are bad now, just close your eyes for a moment and imagine enduring that for four to eight years. Go ahead. I'll wait.....

Let me just remind everyone that the key to citizens controlling their government is to speak up on important issues. Call or write your representatives at the state and federal level and let them know what they're doing wrong... or right. Use your vote as a weapon if you must, but get involved.

And Dan... using "are" in place of "our" twice in one post earns you a time out. Go to your corner. If you need a proofreader, I'm looking for a new job!
46
Hey Dan, remember when you, Pam, Joe Jervis, Kos and Aravosis said you'd shut down the gayTM and that we'd be okay and that if anything happened to the dems, it's their own fault?

How's that workin' out for you guys?
47
Actually, DADT is already effectively over. From what I understand from friends in the armed forces, there is already a de facto end date in a few months. It might be scuttlebutt, but I think everyone sees the writing on the wall.
48
Dan, this is remarkably short-sighted thinking. But I don't blame you. you're like the puppy pictured here:

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-07-29-…
49
wow.

being a faggot must really suck.
totally.

being a Democrap is the shittiest.
ever.

Liberal?
the "18% and dropping" Left?
pathetic.

so being a Liberal Democrap faggot must be the shittiest suckingest most pathetic "existence" imaginable.
just like Danno said.

the only thing worst might be envying the Australian Greens, maybe.....
50
@ 44 - Hmm, I hadn't realized that Greens had managed to actually achieve representation in the Australian parliament. Conventional wisdom says that single member plurality districts pretty much always lead to two parties (like we see in the U.S.); but Australia also had SMP districts, and they seem to have a bit more room for minor parties. I think it's still fair to say that Australia is a two-party nation as a whole, but minor parties are exerting influence (and getting senate seats) to a far greater extent than they are here.

Thanks for flagging that.
51
re: my comments @49
HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS!!!
52
Dan, put down the crack pipe and recall how many state constitutions were amended at the behest of Rove and Bush, and tell me that bad things don't happen under Republicans. This is hands down the stupidest thing you've ever written--including your endorsement of the Iraq war. I can't believe, after all your sensible comments on the Nader debacle in 2000, that you've joined the troupe of Slog dimswits who are still throwing tantrums because we don't have 60 senators from the Socialist party. Grow up. With 10 percent of the population out of work, can't you think of something less annoying to whine about?
53
#4, Splitting the conservatie vote would make it ok to vote for a Nadar. That's why I;m hoping for Glen Beck 1012!!!
54
Dan what on earth are you thinking? Things do get worse for gays when Republicans are in office. Do you realize how much scientific study of sex and even HIV get slashed once they take office? Not to mention how much worse things get for LGBT persons, especially those in deep red states and rural areas?
55
Or 2010
56
I knew this basic premise that both parties....or any party will do nothing. I knew this in 1995 in South Dakota. Oh, I'll probably vote...but it's the one true thing in life that makes me gag every time I do.
57
@49 and 51: Being unregistered is the lamest and most pathetic of all.
58
Dan's comments may apply to congressional Democrats for not having been able to succeed enough in the face of unified Republican hostility on LGBT issues, but the same is absolutely not true of Democrats in our state legislature who have delivered on hate crimes, anti-bullying, and the state's huge domestic partnership bills, the last of which was successfully defended at the ballot box in the form of Referendum 71.

The trouble with the ennui the Dan is expressing, is that it's going to cause a lot of Democrats in the legislature to lose their seats, perhaps enough to lose the majority in the legislature. Our state legislative Democrats don't deserve to lose. And, we don't deserve to be ruled by the crazy Republicans in our legislature.
59
@48 I don't think that it's short-sighted thinking just because it ignores the problems with congressional rules. I think the filibuster can be a huge problem AND voters can see the Democrats as weak-kneed because they haven't fought for what they said they would. Those don't seem mutually exclusive to me.

But you're right - the supermajority has undoubtedly been a huge factor in Democratic failures. We might well have real progress on DADT and ENDA by now had the supermajority not been a de-facto requirement. It's made partisanship and secret politicking observably more intense.
60
On Monday, former McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt argued that there was a "strong conservative case to be made in favor of gay marriage" and that more and more Republicans are dropping their opposition to the cause.

Under the limited or restricted government philosophy of conservatism, there's definitely a case to be made in favor of gay marriage. Also in favor of things like legalized prostitution and pot. Unfortunately, most conservatives only seem to want the government out of people's lives when it comes to business, taxes and guns. When it comes to sex, or drugs that you smoke (as opposed to drugs that you drink) then they're in favor of the government being all over people's backs.
61
Dan, you give the whole reason the Republicans can peel off gay votes in your second sentence. You are not a single issue voter, so you vote Democratic. There are plenty of gays out there who are not single issue voters either and who would otherwise lean Republican but the fact that the R's are bad on gay issues stops them.

That may be because they are single issue voters and once their issue is resolved they will vote on other things, or it may be that they weigh a number of factors and the Republicans being against them is just enough to force them over the line. It may not be a large proportion of the gay vote that goes Republican if the R's embrace gays, but I bet it will be a large proportion of the rich gay vote. It's not like everyone who works at Goldman Sachs is straight.
62
@1 and @2 -- The problem is this, though. If a viable third party ever showed itself, there would suddenly be actual bipartisanship out of nowhere as the R's and D's would bend over backwards teaming up to make sure it stood no chance. As has happened on the local level in the past, you'd see big-party candidates for office making deals where the Republicans let the Democrats have one office in exchange for letting the Republicans have another so they don't have to compete against each other just to beat the little guy.

The Republicans and Democrats know just how much they can milk this 'my team versus their team' football-fan mentality to their advantage; they're not going to let anyone fuck that up. And the sheer number of voters who don't want a ballot more complicated than "Home and Away" are their willing accomplices.
63
As Dan points out, it pays to go beyond single-issue voting--particularly because, surprise, queer folks are affected by a range of issues just like other humans. Here's a few:

-Ann Coulter fantasies about monied gay radicals aside, the majority of queers are poor (and, in the case of queer youth, many are homeless.) Lisa Duggan and Queers for Economic Justice are both good resources on this. Point being, do you really want to vote for the guys who believe that abolishing Social Security, unemployment benefits, and Medicare is the key to economic recovery?

-Queer youth continue to experience disproportionately high rates of depression, substance abuse, unsafe sex, and suicide, thanks in large part to the abstinence-only sex education curricula that Republican legislators gleefully reauthroize every year--curricula that tells gay youths, at best, that they don't exist, and, at worst, that they are a biological abomination.

-Republican fetus-lust threatens everything from the right to an abortion (which queer women sometimes need, too) to meaningful advances in stem cell research (last I checked, gays get diseases like Parkinsons, Crohns, and ALS just like everyone else), and even techniques like in-vitro fertilization (which a lot of couples, including gay ones, utilize.)

-Repealing DADT would be pretty sadly ironic if your gay ass had to go die in Canada, or wherever President Palin decided to invade first.

Like it or not, the recent political history of this country shows that a less-than-ideal candidate can nonetheless make the difference between a frustrating and sometimes ineffectual administration and a disastrous, world-altering one. This is no time to stay home from the polls, and no time to fuck around with third parties--how many times do you fuckers need the Electoral College explained to you?
64
@7 & @44

seandr, proportional representation is not necessarily needed to make voting for "third" parties a reasonable option. Preferential ballots would be enough to ensure that a persons vote is never discarded just because their first choice did not receive enough votes.

kim in portland, same as above. People would be fully free to vote their conscience if they had preferential ballots, as they do in Australia. If you're not already aware, look up "Instant runoff".
65
I love you Dan, but have to disagree. Democrats have made some progress - passage of hate crimes into law; some gays call this "low hanging fruit" but it took a decade after the murder of Matthew Shepard to get it enacted into law and the Repubs fought it every step of the way. The House has passed an overturn of DADT. And the rhetoric coming from Congress is no longer the Ken-Mehlman-fags-suck-and-your-life-is-a-waste-because-you-are-homo. It's language that tells Americans that it is ok to be LGBT, and to support your LGBT family and friends. Democrats have done tons on LGBT civil rights, and we will see how much they have done if the Repubs win Congress this year because some gays stay home under their all of nothing policy, which is not realistic in democracy
66
I just don't get how so many of you can be so aware on one issue and so blind to others. I agree that voting republican isn't the answer, but even if you aren't a single issue voter, dan, how can you claim the dems are better on ANYTHING. I just read this McClatchy article opener two seconds ago "

"Democrats in Congress are poised to play a leading role this month in thwarting their party's effort to raise income tax rates on the wealthy."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/01/99…

Obama has given us Alan Simpson and the cat food commission intent on destroying Social Security. He has abdicated on his promise to pass FOCA and has continued to fund abstinence only sex ed programs. He has ramped up the war in Afghanistan while pulling a "mission accomplished" in Iraq. He continues spying at will on American citizens, assassinating foreign nationals, and detaining indefinitely at Guantanamo. So what issue is it that keeps you voting Democrat Dan?
67
"Yes, the two party system sucks, but it's a function of our winner-take-all electoral system."

Both Canada and the UK manage to have multiple party systems still using FPTP elections. The UK currently has 9 parties represented, and 1 independent MP. It's a feature of the way the big parties rigged the American system, not the system itself.

68
Soapbox, briefly:

If you vote, for whatever reasons, and however sensibly or stupidly I feel your reasons were, then I support your participation in the subsequent discussion about how it all turned out and what the bastards who got in are doing at that point.

If you stay home, then shut the fuck up about politics until you vote in another election. If you are eligible to vote and don't, then you don't deserve to have anyone listen to your opinion.

Even if you can't vote FOR someone, you should be able to at least vote AGAINST someone with a clear conscience.
69
Let's not forget that the official GOP party platform (2008) contains a radical, divisive bit of prose regarding this issue:

(from http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.h…)

"Preserving Traditional Marriage

Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation’s most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families.

Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.

As the family is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental rights. "
70
Why would you still vote for them then? If they aren't going to forward your issues, DO NOT VOTE FOR THEM. Do not give them money. Do not volunteer.

I don't get the half assed "i'll still vote for them, but i'll hold my nose" attitude. If you do that, they DO NOT CARE why you voted for them, or gave them money.. only that you did.

Stop giving them what they want until they give you what YOU want.

Don't vote for them. Don't give them money.

Send Barack a nice note saying "I'm going to give your re-election the same level of support you gave my equality."
71
Don't you think AIDS and Reagan's neglect permitted the GOP to rid itself of some inconvenient closet cases?
72
There is no appreciable difference between pubs and dems. They exist to provide a false choice and only maintain the status quo. Until enough voters go third party nothing will ever change.
73
I don't agree anymore. I now AM a single-issue voter.

I have supported the Democratic Party for 25 years, through one broken promise after another, always subordinating gay issues to the greater good.

Well, you know what? I'M NOT DOING IT ANYMORE.

I'm not contributing this year. I'm not fundraising this year. I'm not cavassing or phonebanking this year. And I'm only voting for candidates committed to full equality, including marriage.

I will no longer bargain away my equality for the greater progressive good as long as the greater progressive keeps stabbing me in the back the day after the election. I will no longer subsidize a de-gayed greater progressive agenda. Let the greater progressive good finally do something on gay rights! Until then, the greater progressive good can pay for its own damned de-gayed agenda!

As long as we keep making Dan's deal with the devil, we keep enabling the cycle of battery by the Party. When Robert Gibbs says, "You faggots don't have anywhere to go," my response now is: watch me.
74
@ 52: "Dan, put down the crack pipe and recall how many state constitutions were amended at the behest of Rove and Bush, and tell me that bad things don't happen under Republicans. This is hands down the stupidest thing you've ever written--including your endorsement of the Iraq war. I can't believe, after all your sensible comments on the Nader debacle in 2000, that you've joined the troupe of Slog dimswits who are still throwing tantrums because we don't have 60 senators from the Socialist party. Grow up. With 10 percent of the population out of work, can't you think of something less annoying to whine about?"
___________________________________________________

I will never again be bullied, bashed, and abused by this kind of personal attack into donating one more penny to the Democratic Party or casting one more vote for a sniveling Democrat who doesn't support full equality.

Pass ENDA, pass the DADT repeal, and stop the DOJ's crusade against our constitutional rights, and then I'll reconsider. Now before and not until. And browbeating, mocking, bullying, and bashing only lock my wallet tighter. Go mock, belittle, and bash someone else. I refuse to take one more second of it from this manipulative, incompetent, abusive Party. Period.
75
I was sad when Obama became the Democratic nomination because I knew that he was all words and he wouldn't do anything. Unfortunately, I was right.

I will not be voting for Obama. I hope he bows out in 2 years and lets someone else run.

I will no longer vote for ANYONE for strategic reasons. I will be counted along with my friends. Obama is not a friend.

Obviously I won't be voting Republican.

You call me a fool for letting the Republicans win. I call you a fool for believing empty promises.
76
Saying "The Reagan administration failed to act and allowed gay people to die—with an invaluable assist from a gay sex culture bent on suicide and self-destruction" is really showing that you have no interest or knowledge of gay history. (or history of that time period either)

This wasn't a case of gay people wanting to be suicidal or self destructive. It was a group of people who had been marginalized by society and told what to do from the beginning of time FINALLY getting rights and feeling free. Finally getting a piece of the sexual revolution themselves after years of oppression.

Suddenly you had people wagging their fingers, judging them for their actions and telling them what to do sexually again? There was bound to be a backlash from the gay community over that. ANd Pat Buchanan in the White House blaming people for their deaths from a disease while 23 year old men were dying in THREE WEEKS! Incredible.

It's little offhand comments and thoughts like this which just buy into AIDS being a gay plague and our "fault". (Which in reality came from some probably straight man in Africa eating a diseased Monkey - should we blame ALL the black people? C'mon)

Get a history book already.
77
Lymis: "If you stay home, then shut the fuck up about politics until you vote in another election."
______________________________________

Wrong. I will speak whenever I damn well please and you can shut the fuck up about it. Refusing to pick between the bigot and the do-nothing IS A STATEMENT.

So spare me your Democratic Party bullying. Yes, we know, desperate bullying, mocking, belittling, and antagonizing is all the Party has left to motivate people, having utterly and completely squandered its time in office.
78
77:

You can say whatever the fuck you like; voting is still the absolute minimum level of participation in a democracy. If you can't pick a lesser evil, so be it.

Suggesting that things will turn out worse if, say, Rossi is elected, however, is not an attempt to bully anyone. It's a statement of fucking fact. It may have no impact whatsoever on equal rights, but that's not at all the same thing as saying the result will be free of negative consequences.

If that's what happens, though, who's more to blame? You or me?

I'm at least going to vote.
79
I may vote Democratic, but I won't donate.
If democrats don't have the balls to stand up for our civil rights
I will have to hope that twenty years brings a change in the
Republicans with a new generation.

I am willing to look at Green party candidates for the Senate because that
Is where the problem is most profound. One impressive aspect of the
Tea party movement is their willingness to get rid of incumbants.
I certainly believe that deems like Ben Nelson and Max Baucus need to go.
It just may be that the only way to get rid of the is if the lose to a republican.
Then hopefully six years later a new progressive democrat can win the seat.
80
If you guys think it's bad now, just wait til you see what happens when there's a Republican Congress.
81
@67: You SO don't want election results comparable to the British ones. Of the 10 or so British political parties that got seats, several are from parties that only run in Northern Ireland. You should be happy you have no regions with comparable politics to Northern Ireland. Of the 6 parties that won seats outside Northern Ireland, 2 are openly separatist regional parties and 1 got exactly one seat, ever, so if they count then the US should count as a 3-party system on the basis of Bernie Sanders. So basically the Brits have 3 parties compared to your two. Similarly, Canada has 3 national parties and one openly separatist regional party. It's an improvement on your two party system, kind of, sometimes, but it's certainly not a lot better. The downside is that we have constituencies where the right-wingers win with 40% of the vote against 60% split between 3 or 4 other parties, seats which would be left-wing in a two-party system.
82
* I'm setting Reagan and AIDS aside, and that's one great, big, enormous, huge set-aside, I realize. But that was a pretty exceptional circumstance (that's why we called it the "AIDS crisis"). The Reagan administration failed to act and allowed gay people to die—with an invaluable assist from a gay sex culture bent on suicide and self-destruction—but Reagan "revolutionaries" didn't undo what few rights we enjoyed when they were swept into office.
83
Dan, there is one note I would like to add to your "set-aside":

"* I'm setting Reagan and AIDS aside, and that's one great, big, enormous, huge set-aside, I realize. But that was a pretty exceptional circumstance (that's why we called it the "AIDS crisis"). The Reagan administration failed to act and allowed gay people to die—with an invaluable assist from a gay sex culture bent on suicide and self-destruction—but Reagan "revolutionaries" didn't undo what few rights we enjoyed when they were swept into office."

As follows: At that point in our history gay men were often more comfortable coming out to family via HIV than otherwise. See psychologist Walt Odet's work.

Tragically this is still true for some men. I feel it shows the depths of homophobia that too many still live in as well as the source of the self-destructive behavior.

Homophobia breeds self destruction, once you buy in then you're on that downward spiral.

I was fortunate, I came out at nineteen, met Harvey Milk personally and was surrounded by life affirming gay men. What a blessing in retrospect.

It certainly helped me stay alive and have a chance at a happy life.
84
I will continue to vote for democrats and republicans alike who support with their money, power and votes equality for GLBTQs.

So far, Obama has provided pretty speeches and little else. 2012 is his election to lose, and the way things look, he is speeding god speed in that direction.

If Obama comes out in favor of equal civil rights for all Americans, and makes substantive moves in that direction, he will have earned my vote. So far this has not happened and as of today I would not vote for him again.

Yea, yea, yea, I know, I should continue to vote for asshole democrats who could give a rats ass about me except during campaign season, but somehow I can't seem to follow this logic. So for all of you with this opinion, do you also advise spousal abuse victims to return to their abusive spouses? Not the same thing you say? Really? I don't stay with abusive persons, no matter how pretty or polished they are in the public square.

Single issue voter? You're damn right I am. My civil rights are worth more to me than anything other than my family and my health.
85
@77. I don't give a fuck who you blame or what tantrum you throw when I finally pull your cock out of my mouth and refuse ever again to service you for free.

I will never again take abuse from a bunch of self-centered straight Democrats who discard every gay interest the day after the election and order us all to push the de-gayed agenda that caters to their wants.

To them I say welcome to the underside of the bus. How do YOU like it?
86
You know, even if the leadership of the Democratic party is completely neglecting its base, some individual Democrats are not. Instead of giving to the DNC or congressmen that have ignored you, perhaps you should give directly to the ones that haven't, and who consistently do fight for you. The party should get the message from the money flowing into the coffers of the progressive elements. Don't give in to apathy if you can help it.
87
Apathy is not what I see in the gay community. Acts of civil disobedience against this president do not reflect apathy. They reflect rage against betrayal. People are engaged, just not in support of the Party that has finally betrayed them and defied them to do anything about it one too many times. The camel's back is broken.

Yes, some people can fund and support Democrats that are truly committed to full equality AND are DEMONSTRABLY committed to ACTIVELY pursuing it. (Never again will we take Democratic assurances at face value, you see.) It's fine if some want to do that; I respect that course. But I won't follow it. The Party is one big money-shifting machine. Every dollar I give to a progressive candidate is a dollar the Party won't have to give that candidate and can divert to one of their loathsome sell-outs. Every dollar you give a Patty Murray is a dollar the Party doesn't have to give her and will send straight to a Blanche Lincoln. I'm not playing that shell game game because it is about much more than just feeling good about the particular candidate; it is now a crusade against a systemic cycle of abuse.

I prefer to cut the Party off entirely until it learns and internalizes genuine respect. I raved against Nader supporters and worked hard for Gore, notwithstanding the Clinton betrayals. I held my nose and supported Kerry. I worked and gave and busted my ass for Obama and the Party in '08. But now? Going forward, I'm very actively focused on ending what Obama has now unmistakably proved is an endemic, decades-long cycle of domestic violence by that Party against its gay supporters. Positive participation through donating, fundraising, volunteering, and voting has done nothing in 25 years to change it--or even seriously mitigate it. I have concluded that positive participation WON'T change it. We have tried it and tried it and tried it. It failed. The time for begging is over.

The spokesman for the president himself defied us to cut the Party off, and that's exactly what I intend to do--fully aware of the consequences and fully prepared to accept them. I will not be their house faggot anymore, and I understand the potential cost that entails. But I absolutely will not take one more of their betrayals and crawl back asking to be hit again. The gay community is not their personal prostitute to rape and pillage during the campaign and then murder and dump in an unmarked grave the day after the election. When I say never again, I mean never again. It stops NOW. It's not apathy. It is rage.

Of course, all the backstabbing and betrayal has been about currying favor with the Rick Warrens of the world. So I suggest Obama drop by the Saddleback Church and start making some fundraising pitches there. They like him; he pandered to them by telling them "God's in the mix" when it come to those faggot marriages. Maybe they'll toss him a penny or two. Regardless, this gAyTM is closed until further notice.
88
@84 and @87: You two are just Republicans who happen to be gay. Sorry to lose your vote, but oh well. I'll trade that for not having to hear your whiny rationalizations.
89
For anyone who thinks that third (and fourth) parties are the answer (and I don't disagree), we have to look at government structure. The U.S. is a capitalistic country, far from a democracy. It can exist because it essentially allows for only two parties. It thrives because the President can be from the minority party, and because there is no incentive to get things done (hence, sloooowww government action). The parties (except the Republican clones) do not necessary allow for cooperation amongst the elected individuals (see how votes are bought from individuals at the expense of the taxpayer). It takes a Parliamentary system (as found in much of the rest of the world) to get things done. No one votes for a Prime Minister, as seen in Britain. He (or she) is generally the leader of the party (and, hence, most likely an experienced LEADER). The majority party tends to vote for his (or her) program (refreshing), and, if not, there can be a call for new elections. Third parties figure well here, because, many times, they are needed to form a government, and, in this way, their platform can be adopted, in part. (Imagine the Greens, with a few representatives in Congress, being needed to form a government....what a boon for an environmental agenda!). A government such as ours works (or doesn't work, actually) because it is intended not to do so. See how long it takes for major changes to occur. If the majority party in a Parliamentary system supported DADT, it would have passed quickly. Remember, a capitalistic society works only if there is a large poor class that is fed on by a miniature rich class. If we all somehow moved toward equality, the wealthy would sink in the mire. Time to create a new system that actually works for all of us.
90
From the boxed quote (source?), I would say that the Mehlman matter and the 'change of heart' by Republican politicians on the issue washes out as a purely cynical ploy on the part of the GOP to get gays to vote Republican or not vote Democratic. (And be sure to watch the Daily Show segment on Mehlman's 'outing.'

What no one above seems to mention is that a significant reason that no more has been accomplished on on a federal level is that the Republicans, before Obama opened his mouth after inauguration, pledged to oppose everything he did, and have done so. And out of the other side of their faces, now of course decry all the 'partisanship' in Congress.

I also don't see mentioned above any of the other 'minor' issues that have occupied the President, such as the Great (and ongoing) Recession, energy policy (failure to pass a bill, due to deliberate spread of misinformation and Republican opposition, funded by deep pockets of industries supporting the status quo).

Remember in the Clinton administration that women threw fits because Bill hadn't named enough women to executive posts? [Disclosure: I'm a woman.] He called them bean-counters, and I agreed. There were a few other items on the agenda then, too.

We gotta keep our eye on the big picture.
91
My eye is on the big picture, Shepherdess, and, for me, the big picture is not the de-gayed progressive agenda of the Obama adminstration. Sorry, but we don't exist to service straight Democrats election after election after election.

Neither Republican obstructionism nor the recession explains or excuses the deliberate decision of the Obama administration to toss the gay community overboard. Those things do not explain the failure to even hold hearings on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which has the support of Maine's Republican senators, polls at greater than 85 percent, and has been languishing in Congress FOR NEARLY FORTY YEARS.

Neither Republican obstructionism nor the recession explains or excuses the deliberate decision of the Obama administration to have the Justice Department undertake a crusade to convince courts that anti-gay discrimination never triggers any meaningful constitutional review or, in other words, that gays and lesbians are constitutional outcasts entitled to no right to the equal protection of the laws.

Neither Republican obstructionism nor the recession explains or excuses the deliberate decision of the Obama administration to pressure progressive members of Congress into cancelling hearings and burying the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in committeee. That the repeal isn't completely dead is a result of massive civil disobedience and gay-loyal members of Congress. It is DESPITE the aggressive push by the Obama legislative team to kill repeal this year, notwithstanding Barack Obama's high-profile lie to the contrary in the State of the Union Address.

I could go on, but suffice it to say the Obama administration's betrayals have not been induced by either Republican obstructionism or the recession. They have been motivated by the same thing that has motivated Democratic betrayals for decades: a refusal ever to spend one bit of political capital on the gay community as long as scare tactics, bullying, and bashing are sufficient effective at keeping gays and lesbians donating, volunteering, and voting.

That cycle of domestic violence ends now. Spend some political capital on the gay community for once or try to limp to victory without our money, our work, and our votes--and trying doing it over heckling of your speeches and zaps of your events. Begging has failed. It is time to try disobedience.
92
@ 88, my partner and I raised over $50K for Obama in '08. We are talking that ball and going home. Enjoy working your snide ass off to make up for it.