What good will your issues do you if we slide into military dictatorship?

[pnwmom]

I'm so tired of hearing people on these boards making threats to not vote for Dems if they fail to live up to whatever issue(s) the particular poster deems the most important.

The neocons are on the verge of solidifying an breakable lock on government. Everything else pales beside this.

Our three most important priorities should be 1) eliminating election fraud, 2) electing Democratic majorities (allowing Democratic chairmanships) in House and Senate, and 3) electing a Democratic president, who may well end up appointing at least a couple of S.C. justices.

You think you have issues that are more important, or equally important? How far will you get with those issues if the neocons are able to obtain the permanent lock on the government that they are striving for?

[atreides1]

1. It's called Internal Conflict

If you want something bad enough, if you truly believe in a cause, then you will do what you list as the three most important priorities, first.

And hope that it works.

But there will probably come a time when we will have to make the same decision that our Founders made, because they too played it straight and by the rules, but in the end they had to resort to
Revolution.

Something to seriously consider, but only after everything else has been tried!!!!!

[HereSince1628]

2. The neocons are NOT solidifying a lock on government...

Available evidence suggests that the PaleoCons (those who read Buchannan and Buckley are splitting with the neocons.

The moderate republicans (those who read Paul Craig Roberts) are looking hard at the Libertarians and they too are splitting with the neocons.

Both groups seem to be nauseous over the influence of the religious right.

The Republican party is experiencing reality. Power in the hands of a single party doesn't prevent factions from inside the party seeking control and splitting the party into factions.

Personally I hope they fracture into a million pieces.

[pnwmom]

6. If the trend toward fraudulent elections isn't stopped, no future election

will matter at all.

[HereSince1628]

8. But that has NOTHING to do with NeoCons.

That is about an over-developed willingness to win at any cost. The NeoCons aren't the vote stealers. The partisans at the state level who are mostly paleocons are at the root of that.

[pnwmom]

15. They're all working together, just as Delay worked with the Texas

Republicans.

And now we're hearing that even the phone jammers were in contact with the White House.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

49. Do you honestly believe that the massive election fraud of 2000,....

...2002, and 2004 was the result of independent partisans operating at the state level?

After everything we've learned about the NeoCons to date, you still want to believe that they're really not involved with election fraud?

[spag68]

3. Your

premise is not valid, because in the end, dems. are not going to vote r. So what if there are disagreements, the underlying philosophy is still strong in all our quarters.

[pnwmom]

5. No, Dems won't be voting for Repubs., but many here talk about not

voting for anyone if the Dem candidate doesn't support all their issues

[spag68]

7. Voting

is the single most important thing we, as citizens do. Everyone, or as many as possible, should vote. I hope many more of the non-voters will participate. We have to make our opinions as clear and hope for the best.

[RufusEarl]

4. That's the ticket!

I have always thought that a voter should vote for whomever they thought was the best candidate, but i've changed my opinion. No more third party to make a statement vote for me, no more they're all the same vote, no more i don't like any of them so who cares votes, no more.

Nope no more! I'm going to vote in ever election, i'm going to pick the most likely Democrat to win and then i'm going to start working to get them elected. I'll spend my money, i'll knock on doors, i'll set up chairs, i'll fill the balloons, whatever needs to be done i'll be there to do it.

I firmly believe that 2006 will be my last chance to save my country, so no more if only votes from me. I'll work and vote for a Democrat..

[MadHound]

9. What good is a vote,

When both parties are controlled by the same corporate master? What good are issues when they're not going to get a hearing by either party? Who will you support when both parties put up a pro-war candidate in '08?

Sorry, but we need some real difference here in this country, and while no Republicans are providing that, it is only a very few Democrats that are doing so. Most of the party has gone rightward, and right into the pockets of Big Business.

So, you break a pro-corporate RW government, only to put in a pro-corporate Democratic government. Where does that leave you, with a pro-corporate government.

[pnwmom]

11. You're spouting the Nader line. We wouldn't be in Iraq right now, if

Gore had been elected. We would be trying harder to protect the environment, rather than trashing it and selling it off. We wouldn't have a "Patriot Act." We wouldn't have had two more far right wing Supreme Court Justices.

Yes, the corporate influence has to be resisted, but the answer isn't to write the Dems off. The two parties are NOT the same.

[spag68]

18. Nader

Nader is a prime example of a really good, honest man who may have screwed up our whole system.

[sui generis]

21. Nader

may have been good and honest two decades ago, but in his last campaign he was a querelous spiteful angry man, without a real reason for his spite and without a strong strategy.

[MadHound]

23. LOL, you read a lot into a post that isn't there friend

And you are sadly lacking in your historical knowledge, both recent and long term.

We are facing the same problems today that our forefathers faced over one hundred and thirty years ago, back in the First Gilded Age. Back in the days of robber barons and cut throat corporatists. And back then, it didn't matter whether the Dems or 'Pugs were in power either, because both were bought and paid for corporate hacks. The First Gilded Age ended with the Great Depression, a crash that has had no equal. However, we have passed many of the records of the First Gilded Age, in this the Second Gilded Age, and many were passed back at the end of the Clinton era. Wealth ownership, gap between the rich and the rest of us, all of these and more have been smashed. And gee, if we're breaking these sorts of records, what the hell is our crash going to look like.

Back in '00 Phillip Morris donated 2 million to both parties, and many other corporations have double donated for years and decades. It is how politicians are controlled, no matter who wins, corporate America has the rein in hand. Otherwise how do explain such legislation such as the '96 Telecom bill, NAFTA, welfare "reform" and other Clinton era corporate give aways?

Further evidence of corporate control of politics come from the '00 elections, in Florida. Gore could have picked up almost 200,000 registered Dem votes, and another 400,000 votes of self described liberals if he had done one and only one thing. And that was to oppose oil drilling off the coast of Florida. But instead, he bowed to the wishes of his corporate masters at BP and those 600,000 voters decided to double screw Gore, and voted for Bush. Nothing, nothing that Nader did in Florida made as much as a difference to the Gore campaign as this position by Gore did.

And at this point in time, I have to write the Dems off. Excepting a few notable exceptions, the Democrats of today are not the Dems of yesteryear. Rather than being concerned about their constituents and the little guy, all they are concerned about now, for the most part, is pleasing their corporate masters. Vote after vote over the past six years confirms that.

The only possible thing that I think could reverse this situation and save our country is to mandate across the board publicly financed elections. We have got to take the corporate money out of our government. We fail to do that, it isn't going to matter who is in office, because it will be Corporate America who plays the tune, one that we will all have to dance to.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[MadHound]

39. LOL, that's a good one friend

I'm "sadly lacking in common sense" because I speak the truth? Whoa, talk about a Bizarro world point of view:crazy:

And we'll never know whether or not Gore would have led us into war with Iraq or not, since he concentrated so much on pleasing his corporate masters that he failed to win the election. Judging from the previous Democratic President's actions, I would say it's about a 50-50 toss up. Clinton was carrying on a genocidal attack against Iraq the entire time he was in office. Through sanctions and thrice weekly bombing runs, over 500,000 innocent men, women and children were killed as a direct consequence of Clinton's actions

Would Gore have carried this further into an actual attack:shrug: But I do know that getting to those precious oil fields in Iraq has been a high administration priority for a long while, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. I would highly recommend that you read the new book by Kevin Phillips, "American Theocracy". It gives a great run down of how the conquest of Iraq has been a bipartisan affair for years now, and how the oil companies are the driving force behind this goal, no matter which party is in power.

[Xipe Totec]

77. Well Argued.

Reminded me of Thomas R. Dye - "The Irony of Democracy"

:thumbsup:

[sui generis]

12. the principle of canceled votes

every anti-abortion anti-gay pro-war democrat from Kansas cancels out a pro-choice pro-gay anti-war democrat from Ohio. Net sum = ZERO.

Be choosy or your vote won't mean anything anyway.

[pnwmom]

16. Committee chairmanships are important, and you get them by having

majorities. Not by how pure your individual candidates are.

[sui generis]

20. well in practice

when you call a marginal vote on the senate or house floor every vote counts.

So I'm not giving anti-progressive candidates a vote. They can change or they can go away. It's not the end of the world.

My vote is not free.

[sui generis]

10. why whatever are you talking about?

spit it out. Please. Feel free to speak plainly.

I will. (sorry pnwmom - this hostility isn't directed at you personally)

Every goddamn election we've had since I've been alive has been the one that was going to spell the end of the world as we know it.

If we're talking about gay issues, then don't be shy. Let's talk about them and then move on. But not talking about them appears to be what we do best, and we end up talking about "it" and "those issues" and crap like that. Address it, then put it aside. When your family has no civil rights or legal protections and you can't dispose of your property as you see fit or visit your loved ones in the hospital or even have a contract that approximates some benefit of marriage, please get back to me.

If you can fit five points on your election plan, then make room for one more. That is all. If you need our vote, address our issues. Stop asking for a free pass.

We'll support every democratic candidate that supports us and our issues. The rest are indistinguishable from the other side on that issue and their vote would count for nothing in those battles. We're done being martyrs for the cause.

Example: if you're a single mom raising kids and the prevailing social sentiment is that it should be illegal and your kids should be taken away from you, are you going to vote for a democratic politician who either supports that or carefully has no opinion on it, just to avoid neocons taking over? Would you vote against your own family? We're voting for people who DO address "our issues", who can talk about it deftly, and move on to other issues, not "more important" issues, just other issues.

It's that serious. We're not being selfish. We're looking after our survival. Do not minimize our issues, because you're minimizing our families.

[pnwmom]

14. Every election has seemed this urgent? I'm fifty, and I have never

seen the country in a situation as dire as we are in right now. With the voting machine apparatus now being put in place, we are in danger of having no more free elections. Period. How can this not be everyone's first priority?

[spag68]

17. fifty year old

Welcome to the world. I'm 64 and have been following this crap since Ike and believe me ,I thought Nixon was scary, but this is so much worse because this time they have a better plan I think.

[pnwmom]

26. I agree. Bush is much scarier than Nixon. Who would have thought we'd

be longing for the good old days?

[sui generis]

19. my family comes first

I do have discretion in casting my vote.

If the ONLY issue in your mind is that the candidate is a democrat then that's irrational.

The sky has been falling for us for the past century. Somehow we manage to get by. We want democrats who represent us, not just some dork with a big D tattood on his or her forehead.

If the democratic party can't win by supporting us openly (apparently even you are having a hard time articulating why you think we should be ignored), then we really don't need the democratic party in this form.

There are good candidates who deserve our vote. There are other candidates that are provisionally less progressive than their opposition party candidates, who don't deserve a vote at all. I am telling you that a candidate who says he or she would sign the FMA but is for all kinds of lovely progressive ideals is not a progressive, and doesn't get my vote.

What is the big deal with gay issues anyway? Why is it so incredibly difficult to just say, "we're going to support you, we give you our word if you give us your vote"?

But for the most part, the people even here on progressive DU won't even go that far. But you still want our vote. Why is that?

:shrug:

[pnwmom]

29. I'm not picking on gay issues here.

I'm talking about people who say that ANY particular issues are a reason not to vote, thereby allowing the Republicans to finish the permanent takeover that they are expressly aiming for.

If you don't like the govt. we have now, just wait and let the Repubs finish their takeover. We haven't seen anything yet.

[serryjw]

22. We can't fix the voting problem UNTIL

we take control. So what does that mean........?? We need to win by a landslide, so they CAN'T steal it..None of this 50.1 vs 49.9 bushit

We need a chandidate that will apeal to the broadest base and still be a populous. IMHO, That's Wes Clark!Hiliary is too polarizing, Biden is history and Edwards is a good man in a different time. When we get the WH in 2008 we need someone to fix this shit...Clark is the only one that can. ( Sorry, Gore isn't running and I won't give Kerry a 2nd chance).I'd love Kerry as Sec'y of State

[pnwmom]

30. I agree, Clark looks like a good candidate. I don't know who I'll work

for yet in the primary. But in the general election, I'll support whoever the Democratic candidate is.

[pnwmom]

24. And no, sui generis, I wasn't talking about gay issues specifically.

I see this attitude everywhere. Over and over, on different threads, I hear the same thing. On threads about Iraq. On threads about specific "DINO's." On threads about Hillary Clinton. On threads about the environment. And yes, on threads about GLBT issues. Over and over, people are threatening to make their favorite issues the one thing that will determine whether they vote or not.

None of our issues will matter one bit if the Republicans solidify one party rule and move toward their theocratic fundamentalist wet dream of a government. And no one's vote will count if the voting machine system isn't fixed.

[sui generis]

27. well agreed for sure on voting machines

I have gone several rounds with our state election board on their audit criteria, and we always end up with the same vapid responses that are equivalent to "don't you worry your pretty little head about it, the professionals know what they're doing".

And I agree that committees that will overturn the use of voting machines and invalidate those contracts have to have a majority agreement to do that, but they also need to get those agreements out in time to contract and print and distribute paper ballots and optical readers, et al back into counties and districts that use touch screen voting today.

For me the criteria is not a "favorite" or "pet" issue - it really is the immediate security of my family. Democrats have to distinguish themselves from republicans in this regard. I wouldn't stop at withholding my vote for a particular candidate, I'd be in their face, office, mailbox, inbox, fundraisers, dinner parties, everywhere challenging them to broaden their stance before I did anything so drastic as withhold my vote for that candidate.

But, and with a heavy heart, if we ended up with a democratic candidate who promised to sign the FMA or other anti-family measures, I could not in good conscience vote for that person. I'm hoping that's hypothetical, so that talking about withholding my vote is hypothetical, but I am prepared for grim reality too.

I just want any democratic staffer reading this to know that you do not get a free pass from me just because you're a democrat. Pay attention. If you need our vote to win, then go about it the right way.

[pnwmom]

31. I didn't mean to diminish your concerns by using the phrase

"favorite issues." Of course civil rights is a major issue. My scariest, most urgent issue at the moment is Iraq, Iran, and Bush's plan for world domination. I feel that the threat of a draft is very real, and I have teenage sons.

But I'm not going to use specific peace issues as a make or break reason to not support a Democrat. My number one priority is to take the current government down. Then move on from there.

[troubleinwinter]

28. It's called

'cutting off one's own nose to spite one's face'.

Surley, we each must cast our votes as we see fit. I don't much appreciate the threats by 'progressives' to not vote, paricularly when the consequences are so dire, and so many have been disenfranchised from voting.

To me, it is a temper tantrum of the "I'll hold my breath til I turn blue" sort of immaturity, and this aint a game.

Vote for one's candiadate, buy VOTE, DAMMIT!

[sui generis]

32. browbeating

You're being dishonest, and it's a little creepy.

You're right, this ain't no game. If you want my vote, promise you'll support me. If you can't even promise that, then fuck off and die. You can't even promise support but you're ready to hand out the shit if we don't vote for you. Worse, some candidates have promised the AFA they'll vote AGAINST my family, and you still think we should vote for those candidates. No. Simple little word. If you want those kinds of candidates, vote for them yourself. Worse, tell every democrat who reads DU that you'll vote for them no matter what just because they claim to be a democrat. That's even more disturbing - no standards.

How's that for honest? I doubt in reality that we'll get an anti-gay candidate. I'll work hard to see that we don't. And I doubt that I'll have to come down to the wire about whether I'll cast that vote for that person, because hopefully our party is going to give us a progressive candidate and all of this bellyaching will be just a bad memory. But I'm not supporting anyone in our lineup who has taken a public stance against us, or who is more willing to talk to the other side than to the real people whose lives this crap directly affects.

No, I'm not going to vote for an anti-gay candidate of any party because that would just be cutting off my nose without the benefit of spite.

Your argument is just crazy. Vote for us even though we hate/dislike/barely tolerate you! You're being immature if you don't! Vote for us even though we think your silly little petty civil rights issues are less important than (your issue goes here).

If you need our vote but can't address this critical issue in our lives why should we trust you with anything else? Because the sky is falling? We'll vote, but this is most certainly NOT a game and anyone who thinks we're playing a game is in for a very unpleasant surprise.

It's easy. Just say you'll support us. That's the first step. Why is that so hard? I'll tell you why - it's because a great many "progressives" don't believe gays should have the right to legal civil marriage, not really. You think that's going "too far". That would include nearly every single front running democratic presidential candidate who has ever been foisted upon us, with the exception of Kucinich. But you still want our vote.

[pnwmom]

33. Does this mean you are excluding "nearly every single front running

democratic presidential candidate"? That you'd rather the Republican win?

[sui generis]

35. self deleted

too grumpy

[sui generis]

38. okay, less grumpy attempt

Yes. That's the short answer. Why on earth would I vote for someone who is planning to vote against my family? Why should I be forced to settle for the least worst candidate?

I hope this time around that we get a candidate in the presidential race who can lead instead of hide on this issue. It's not a category killer and there are plenty of great examples for dealing with it in a debate and moving on, leaving the other side flapping their lips. It won't cost us the election, but if we play hide and seek with it, they'll hang us with it. Even if we suddenly say we are completely anti-gay, they'll hang us for not sticking to our principles.

Nobody is taking away the rights of any religious group to hate us. Nobody is telling Americans they even have to like us. But we have to be able to manage our legal affairs and protect our families, and for many of us to also protect our children, just like any other taxpaying American.

So for many of us who have gay families, it is the first issue ahead of all others because it impacts our lives so dramatically every day. If I died in traffic on the way home today, my SO and my family, even with a will in hand are going to face the most amazing challenges having my will executed according to my wishes, and there is even a remote possibility that my life insurance might claim that my contract with them approximates the benefits of marriage to my beneficiary and is therefore an attempt at fraud. It's possible - and it would absolve them of paying out the extraordinary policy.

We essentially don't have those rights in any form in 19 states right now because other peoples' religious stances and made up "tradition" trumps our basic civil rights IN AMERICA of all places. No, if a candidate has a strong possibility of winning in part because he is taking an anti-gay stance, he will have to maintain that stance to remain elected. There is no "hope" for us in that battle, and no point in endorsing that strategy with our vote.

It is absolutely sickening to me to be put in that position. I know what my vote is worth. I do NOT want to be outside the political process by withholding my vote but there is a time when you have to take a stance on issues that merit it. I hope that time is not 2008 - so we all have to work hard to figure out if equality issues are part of the democratic ticket or not, candidate by candidate.

[pnwmom]

40. Why?

I do understand how you feel about family issues. But I still think there are good reasons for holding your nose and voting for the Democrat who wins the nomination, period.

We can't have any more Iraqs. We've got to stop the idea of a 70 year war.
We can't continue to destroy the environment.
We've got to do something about the trillions of dollars of debt that we are building up.
None of us wants to find ourselves living in a theocracy in another ten years.

All of these things will affect gay families, too, just as much as the issues that are critical to you now. Your children won't want to live in the world that the Republicans are busy creating. Especially if we wind up in a theocracy.

What I believe, but you don't seem to, is that we could end up much much worse than we are now. These guys just don't want to deny gay rights . . . they want to turn back the clock on gay rights. Some of them are actually in favor of criminalizing gays. And if you allow them to stay in power, you'll be helping them achieve their ends.

[sui generis]

43. I will spell it out for you now.

Your arguments are convincing NOBODY.

1. We aren't going to vote for a candidate who doesn't support us.
2. You will lose without our vote - we are over 15% of the democratic base.
3. I promise.

You figure out the rest.

End Of Discussion.

[pnwmom]

44. You don't speak for 15% of Dems. You speak only for yourself.

Just as I can speak only for myself.

[sui generis]

45. you're a bit wrong there

but you go right ahead and keep deluding yourself.

We're fed up with the bullshit.

pnwmom, I'm out of patience with this. You tell me in plain english why you think a democratic candidate should get into office who REFUSES to support us?

I'm waiting.

[pnwmom]

46. First, could you tell me which Democratic candidates have

refused to support gays? You say that you won't support any of them except for Kucinich, but I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about refusals.

[sui generis]

48. now you're playing semantics

every single candidate except Kucinich (and possibly Nader, not sure) said they would sign the FMA or that the legislation that was in place was enough to "defend" marriage.

You're playing dumb. Let me tell you what I think. I think that in the event that Hillary ends up with the nomination and she still says to the people ACROSS THE AISLE and our very own under-progressive democrats that she will sign the FMA if it comes to that, or that she is for states rights and civil unions not recognized by the federal government, then I won't vote for her.

I doubt that she (or someone like that) would get there on that platform, but if it happens and she remains firm in that position, there are millions of gays who likely, and regretfully will withhold their vote.

I hope it doesn't happen, but there is a chance it could.

I'm still saying what I think. I believe that people who push as hard as you do to get us to vote against ourselves also probably believe that gays cost us the last election, and that's why it's okay to nudgenudge winkwink get them to vote for us anyway but appease the conservatives this time.

Well we are the base too. If you don't represent the base we could give a crap about anything else that happens to democrats or republicans; we KNOW we'll survive. Our legal lives are already miserable, but we're old hands at surviving.

What about you? Can you afford your attitude? Can you really afford a candidate who thinks gays shouldn't have full equality? I'll tell you something for certain: we CAN afford to wait for another election until you come to your senses no matter how much "sky is falling" rhetoric we hear.

Figure it out.

[pnwmom]

52. I guess our main difference is that I believe that incremental progress

still is progress. That as more and more states recognized civil partnerships, the general public would become more supportive of gay-led families, and the logical next step would be marriage. And that at the current rate of change, this won't take long.

On the other hand, I think if the Republicans achieve a lock on the government and the fundies have their way, we could end up taking a giant step backward.

But, as I said, I don't speak for all children of gays, even as you don't speak for all gays.

[pnwmom]

50. Never mind. I see that I already answered you, in plain enough English,

in post 40 above.

Maybe this is a difference in our perspective due to our ages. The changes in the last ten years or so -- which I view as having been brought about more by TV and movies than by anything a politician could do -- have given me hope that the tide has already turned.

In the absence of a huge backlash (fomented by fundies), or a slide into dictatorship, the battle for the hearts and minds has already been won.

[sui generis]

51. and very carefully avoided the bomb in #48

Our hearts and minds, in the gay community, are very very far from won.

You still have not answered anything; your avatar name should be teflongirl, not pnwmom. :P

I know we're basically on the same side, but we disagree on where the line in the sand is, and I don't believe you have really put yourself in our shoes, or that you even can.

That's fine - but we ARE serious. Pick up any gay community rag to see the discussion - it's hardly even a debate any more.

[pnwmom]

53. I talk to children of gays all the time. I came here to find some

of their parents. (My father died a couple of years ago.)

[sui generis]

54. sorry my bad - I remember the post now

It is perspective, and incremental change, but you have to have the leadership there.

I just hope that we don't get a leader whose strategy is to let someone else initiate those incremental changes, or even who gets in the way of those incremental changes, or who views us as a political liability instead of the deep pockets and passion for ALL of the issues that we bring to the table as assets.

And of course there are only two tools at our disposal - our willingness to get on their calendar and in their scope and change their mind if possible, and the only thing left if all else fails, which is our vote.

I couldn't do anything else for my family.

[pnwmom]

55. I agree with you 99%. It's that last little bit that sticks in my craw.

And, as I said, our differences might stem a lot from our ages and our life experiences. To me, things seem almost unbelievably better than when I was growing up. So that's probably why it's easier for me to feel more patient.

Do you have kids, by the way?

[sui generis]

57. more than one generation!

long story. plus I think I'm an ex fairy grandfather a couple of times too now, although to be fair that would make my ex fairy grandkids only 28 and 32 years younger than me.

Life is strange. Downright weird sometimes. Yes it is both better and worse. Better because it's more "tolerated". Worse perhaps because we have dared to have and be role models, and dared to feel and be "normal", and dared to begin discovering ourselves as real people not on the margin. In an odd way that makes it even more painful to think that some abstract idea about what we do or don't do with our gonads should matter to anyone outside of our bedrooms.

And having a family to care for of any size changes your political priorities if those politics touch your family, as you know.

[pnwmom]

60. Okay, I'm getting the picture. Grandkids. Geez.

Maybe I'm messing up the math here, but my situation sounds not all that dissimilar, since my father's partner is only 5 years older than I. (I'm figuring that you were the younger one and that's how you ended up with ex-grandkids?) Now the partner has adopted sons who are, surprise, surprise, younger than my own. (Always a little weird to get new brothers when you're over forty, but that's another story.)

I know what you mean about getting closer to a goal, too. To have a goal so achingly close -- and then to feel that it might get snatched away -- is very painful.

[pnwmom]

56. Maybe you already know this site. It's a good one.

I wish more parents would read it.

http://www.familieslikemine.com/

[troubleinwinter]

34. Two things:

1) I misread, and thought it was regarding those here who say they will not vote, period, if they don't get their way with a Dem candidate. THAT is the 'cut off nose to spite face' reference I meant. Please note the wording of my comment: "Surley, we each must cast our votes as we see fit. I don't much appreciate the threats by 'progressives' to not vote, paricularly when the consequences are so dire, and so many have been disenfranchised from voting."

2) I do not understand how you see my post as dishonest.

I agree that if you do not support a candidate, it is your vote to cast as you see fit. Frankly, I am not of the "Demos no matter what" camp. I think voting is more important than to be forced by any party to vote THEIR chosen way... my vote belongs to ME. In fact, I am a progressive liberal, registered to vote, but am not registered to any party. I am officially registered as "Decline to State (party affiliation)", though I nearly always vote Dem.

Further, there was once a poll here, asking what issues each of us simply could NOTNOTNOT 'give' on. I thought is was a good moment for each of us to reflect. Aside from fair elections, I had two that I CANNOT 'give a milimeter' on. GLBT rights of every single kind, including full-on, full-fledged marriage, if the government is going to recognize marriages. I don't even compromise with "civil unions". NO compromise. "Marriage" for all or "civil unions" for all. Absolute equality for all. While I am not gay, it is NOT something I will give on. The other 'no-give' issue is a woman's control of her body.

I misread postings, and I think you misread my meaning.

[sui generis]

36. my apologies - I figured some of this out on the way home

yesterday --

I agree the idea that there are people who won't vote is different than people pushed to the wall on a "NOTNOTNOT" issue, and I appreciate your thoughtful analysis.

I also know from recent battles here that there are some people who think there should be no "NOTNOTNOT" issues, which is just puzzling to me. How on earth do we have a say in our own party if we don't set standards, with our voice, and ultimately with our vote?

Anyway thanks for the support and understanding -

-sui

[readmoreoften]

58. I'm with Sui Generis.

I can't vote against my own rights. It's absurd. If you're a dem and you come out supporting some newfangled, DOMA, religious right moonbat bullshit then, in my estimation, you're just a DINO whose only use is to temporarily slow America's eventual slide toward theocracy. We need an opposition candidate or we're dead anyway.

You can't make deals with terrorists. The neo-cons and the RR are terrorists.

[pnwmom]

61. You can't make deals with terrorists. But if they're Repubs, you CAN

vote against them.

[readmoreoften]

65. not when the other candidate is a collaborator.

Then there's no choice. I'm not going to vote for an anti-gay, pro-life, pro-corporate wimp.

And the whole thread is relatively ridiculous because our votes don't count anymore anyway.

[pnwmom]

66. Then we can probably agree that fixing the elections should be top

priority.

[readmoreoften]

59. I'm with Sui Generis.

I can't vote against my own rights. It's absurd. If you're a dem and you come out supporting some newfangled, DOMA, religious right moonbat bullshit then, in my estimation, you're just a DINO whose only use is to temporarily slow America's eventual slide toward theocracy. We need an opposition candidate or we're dead anyway.

You can't make deals with terrorists. The neo-cons and the RR are terrorists.

[Duncan Grant]

63. Perfectly stated, sui generis. I'm with you, too.

Bookmarked for future reference. :thumbsup:

[Just Me]

13. We haven't already slid into the military/industrial/corporate control,...

,...of our country?

And you have the balls to challenge people who simply can NOT compromise on their strict sanctity?

You have the wherewithall to ask rational questions about outcomes of such behavior?

GOOD ON YOU!!! :applause: KEEP ASKING THE RATIONAL QUESTIONS AND DEMANDING RATIONAL REACTIONS! :applause:

[enid602]

37. military coup

I think the real threat of a military coup comes from military brass who are allegedly upset over Bush's policies. They might get rid of him, especially if he tries anything with Iran.

[Cleita]

41. I don't think there's a chance for a military dictatorship under

Bush as the military behind the scenes have been calling for Rumsfeld's resignation and Bush is ignoring them.

If there is a miltary coup, and I believe it could happen, then we would have a military dictatorship, because none of the brass left in the Pentagon after Rummy's purges are able to bridge the gap between democracy and military authoritarianism.

Either scenario sucks.

[Lorien]

42. Well, not everything else. Climate change could even make a dictatorship

seem like a small obstacle to overcome. Hard to worry about other issues when you can't grow food-or even breath (see the environment and energy forum before you dismiss those concepts-or Al Gore's new film).

[porphyrian]

47. They'll make us feel better about getting shot?

Oh, you're trying to get us to prioritize. Good luck.

[Duncan Grant]

62. Why should I sacrifice my fundamental civil rights for your peace of mind?

Using this argument against GLBT people is wrong. I vote, and if you or any other Democrat expects me to take one for the team (yet again) you have another thing coming.

You should be guilt-tripping all those folks who can't be bothered to vote, not me.

edit: word choice

[pnwmom]

67. Maybe because ALL of our civil rights are at issue here, not just

those related to GLBT issues. You are not defined solely by being GLBT, are you?

[Duncan Grant]

71. So let me get this straight. You're asking me to care about your rights -

now that you're worried and afraid. Oh.

Well, welcome to my world.

Perhaps you didn't notice that during the last election cycle the Democrats couldn't run fast enough from GLBT issues? You want me to stick up for the civil rights of Democrats when all they could tell me during the last election cycle was "You're moving too fast. You must wait for your civil rights." What a bold request.

No, I don't define myself solely by being GLBT. I do intend to take a personal stand about what is politically acceptable regarding GLBT rights and issues. With that in mind, let me assure all who read this - I will no longer be complicit in my own oppression.

I have allied with the Democratic party for over 25 years and will never vote for a Republican. Why does it seem so difficult for Democrats to publicly ally with me now? Why ask me yet again to defer my access to equal rights by voting for your candidate(s) who have no intention of being my representative(s)?

[pnwmom]

73. You don't get it. I'm talking about all our rights. Democracy is

at stake. Good luck with GLBT issues in the theocracy they're planning, that Christian nation that the Repubs are planning.

By the way, I grew up in your world. I'm not an outsider, just someone who disagrees with you.

[Duncan Grant]

76. I've known this for years. I absolutely "get it".

I'm not afraid of the theocracy anymore and I've been more directly affected by their power more than most here at DU. I'm simply not willing to continue my altruistic existence with the Democrats - it's time for them to start sticking up for me.
edit: subject line

[Terran1212]

64. The Dems will probably help it become that if we don't fight them

[pnwmom]

68. Why are you a DU'er if you feel "the Dems" have to be fought?

[Terran1212]

70. Because that's what democracy is all about

You make your leaders do what you and the people want. If the Dems don't do what we want, they don't deserve to stay. They will be replaced by other people (they can be dems or republicans or any party) -- they just have to believe in democracy and LISTEN to us, which many of them are not doing.

[BlooInBloo]

69. Nothing matters except my narcissistic one issue!

I don't care HOW bad off the country will be as a result of my not helping to get the republicans out of power! Let the entire country - even the world burn, so that my holier-than-thou attitude will be justified! Why are you all such vote-nazi-goose-step walkers?


That's all I hear when anyone talks about not voting for Democrats these days...



EDIT: spelling (i've had better days - lol)

[Duncan Grant]

74. Please don't trivialize those who don't see the world as you do.

Speaking of narcissism and all...

And FYI, I was going door to door in the rain for 3 days in Akron, OH getting out the vote for Kerry - not to mention 25 years worth of activism on behalf of the Democratic party.

Just when, may I ask, can I start taking a stand for my own interest? And when will Democrats actively ally with me legislatively? I'm tired of waiting for leadership on my issues.

[BlooInBloo]

75. Hate to tell ya this, but they don't need ME to trivialize them....

They do an admirable job of that themselves.

As soon as you explain to me how a republican in power furthers your "own interest", I'll appreciate your views a bit better.

[Duncan Grant]

78. Not accepting your premise about the Republicans.

I'm not afraid of the Republicans anymore.

As I mentioned up-thread, my loyalty to the Democratic party is no longer going to be some altruistic exercise - one in which everyone gains at my expense.

I would caution Democrats not to take GLBT votes for granted. To dismiss us as narcissists would be the final arrogance of a party who wants our money and votes but offers nothing except the feable claim that they're better than the Republicans.

[BlooInBloo]

80. (shrug) It's your vote...

... and I fervently believe that people deserve what they vote for.

[Duncan Grant]

81. So far, that's how it's played out for GLBT people with the Democrats.(nt)

[BlooInBloo]

82. Riiiiight..... depressing the Democratic vote doesn't help repubs...

... good luck selling that sack of shit.

[Duncan Grant]

83. What sack of shit are you referring to?

The one in which GLBT people are ask to do heavy lifting while enjoying none of the benefits?

Seems to me the only thing GLBT people have these days is their own collective networks and their votes. What do we have of value when negotiating with "our" party for legislative leadership? The leadership of the party needs to have a better negotiating tool than the platitudes I heard last time around.

When will the Democrats embrace the correct side of history? When will they take leadership regarding full equality for GLBT people?

Let's talk about that. After which, I'd be happy to discuss (or attempt to sell) as many sacks of shit as you like.

[sui generis]

85. if the democratic vote wants us, then address us

duh.

what's your problem with that? Spell it out for us. Yes, you do indeed smell a trap.

Here's my theory. If a candidate comes along (hopefully not) who thinks that ignoring gays or promising to vote for the FMA is the way to get elected, and you're okay with that, then fuck you you don't need our vote anyway. I don't care if you spell bigot with a capital "D" instead of a capital "R", it all smells like shit.

[sui generis]

86. that's the stupidest argument I hear repeated.

If we don't vote because you decided our issues are worthless, then YOU will get what you deserve, because bubba, you gonna lose. You can't afford to toss aside 15% of the democratic vote and our money, support, and effort.

I hate to rub your face in it, but there comes a point when common sense falls on deaf brains.

Anyway bloo, do you really think you're making convincing arguments here? Nobody's telling you that you have to like us or our issues, but they ARE our issues and we need representation. If we don't get represented, you don't get our vote.

Easy math.

[sui generis]

84. first of of all, civil and legal rights are NOT the same thing

as whether we spend money on war or not.

It affects my family directly. It affects the families of people I care about directly. Your statement is insensitive and says you don't give a crap about the civil rights of some Americans - it's just a "side" issue. It may well be a side issue to you, but it's our central issue. If we get sick, or die, or face a challenge in court, we don't get time-outs and re-dos.

We don't have the luxury of gambling on a candidate so we are damn well going to shape that candidate. If you think that we should put a candidate in office in any race, big or small, who is anti-gay or quiet and unable to speak out of "political expediency" then don't expect our vote on that candidate.

Why does that hurt your feelings so much? If you think you can afford to give up 15% of the vote by putting out a dumbass democrat who can't speak to gay issues and move on, then go right ahead, you didn't need our vote anyway.

All the rest of your line of pure shit is just that, added to the fact that you clearly didn't read or comprehend a damn thing above your first post.

[DanCa]

72. And let's not forget the Supreme Court.

Do you really want R Wingers to get the chance to put more Sam Alitos on the high court?

[Generator]

79. And what good does it do if the Democrats we vote for do nothing

to stop the military dictatorship, the war, the lies, the lies, the lies? Sure, I'll vote Dem but I'm not deluding myself into thinking they are magically going to change even if they hopefully have a majority. My faith in the Dems we have is at a historical LOW. The time is now. They are fiddling while Rome burns. IF they vote to demand any accountablity I will be SHOCKED, shocked I tell you. If they support John Conyers-yeah I know they have no subpoena or anything else power right now-but they majority don't even support him because it's the fucking right thing to do in a time of crisis. No, I have no faith. Zero. I have faith in my ability to not delude myself. I cannot live in the "Democrats are our saviors". They are are not. When I find someone that does something I support them. I say out of 500 there are about 50. What does that tell you? That tells you the numbers are not on our side. The complicity is obvious. I could, yes, cut it with a stick. A very silent one.

[magellan]

87. The Neocons have been in government for a long time

As an ideological group, they aren't voted in and out with elections. They inhabit the agencies and institutions that advise the government. They make their presence felt no matter what party's in power. The same goes for the Neolibs -- the "Free Market" gang i.e. corporatists. Obviously neither is good for this country or the world.

Neoliberalism appears to be more prevalent among the Dems than neoconservatism. But it wouldn't surprise me if neoconservatism explains the hawkish thinking of Dems like Lieberman. I suspect many in government -- regardless of party -- have adopted both mentalities to varying degrees, because the goals of one are often aided by the methodology of the other. They're tangled up together.

This is why I think people like Wolfowitz reject the neocon label. There's no word for being a mix of both...other than un-American. But that also describes either/or.

For this reason I don't believe it's possible to excise the threat of these ideologues by voting one party in or out. Vote the Dems in and you put the brakes on the neocons...but you don't stop them entirely. They bide their time and wait for the next opportunity to exert their power. Meanwhile, the neolib rationale comes to the fore.

So I think the question really becomes, how do we fight an idea? Particularly when most Americans aren't even aware of these ideologues and how they've infiltrated all sides of government.

[pnwmom]

88. It was nice while it lasted

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20619

SNIP

"Bush and the people around him appear to have genuinely believed, for at least the four and a half years since 9-11, that the President by definition is incapable of breaking the law. On his sole authority laws can be ignored, overridden, or changed. Even implicitly. Even retroactively, as when some unappetizing piece of this puzzle inadvertently comes to the public's attention.

"Combine this with an administration more intent on secrecy and lack of transparency than any other in U.S. history, and you have a recipe for, well, a dictatorship. Which is exactly what it appears Bush and company believe they are operating in. Oh, of course, in normal times America is a democracy, but these aren't normal times, are they? Why? Because we're at war. Why are we at war? Because the President said so. How long will the war last? Several generations. After that, presumably, the Constitution will be in force again, and Congress and the courts can re-convene if they like."

SNIP

"It is more evident than ever that this President and Vice President need to be impeached. Not because it is or isn't politically expedient; not even because their successors might be any better, or because it will be an advantage for one or another party in 2008. But because this sort of behavior in the most powerful job in the world must be punished, in the clearest possible manner. Justice demands it. Setting an example, to try to prevent similar abuses by future leaders from any party, demands it.

Otherwise, we might as well cancel that 2008 presidential election and be done with this farce we call an electoral process. Sooner or later, should Bush go unpunished, somebody in power is going to try to do exactly that sort of thing. When they do, they'll cite national security and the need for stable and experienced political leadership in a time of war, and when they do, they'll cite the precedents set by George Bush and permitted by the Congress, courts, and American public of his day. And our country's long, mostly successful experiment in representative democracy will be over."

SNIP

And there go ALL our rights . . .