The Log Cabin Republicans are not happy with Obama. Bob Kabel, the former LCR national board chairman, thought Obama’s administration ended up being “a disappointment,” and wanted to see the President do more to reach across the aisle:
“I, frankly, was one who really believed that perhaps we were at a moment in history where his sort of optimism and sort of self-stated ability to bring people together would actually make a difference.
“But what we’ve seen in the execution during his administration has really been very disappointing – it’s actually the opposite. He’s extraordinarily partisan, he’s extraordinarily liberal, he’s really made very little effort, if any, to bring certainly Republicans and more conservative people together to resolve the nation’s issues.”
But are the LCR actually onto something? More gay people than ever are now supporting Republican candidates: 31 percent of gay and lesbian voters during the midterm House races voted for the GOP – an increase from the 19 percent who did the same in 2008. And Republican candidates are experiencing an increase in gay support by over 10 percent since 2008. Gay people who are not die-hard liberals might actually exist, everyone, and the LCR is depending on them to oust Obama from the White House in 2012.
The cohesion of the LGBT voting bloc has officially been disrupted. Over what? Kabel wants Republicans to capitalize on the economy and stray from social issues when appealing to The Gays this election season, especially since Obama is the man who repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and kind of got working on the Defense of Marriage Act. And as we’ve already observed here at Autostraddle, gay voters are super important in this upcoming election: Obama needs our money to succeed. And well, we need his support to get gay rights legislation moving anywhere. But gay voters shifting away from Obama are not alone – there’s a lot of liberal discontent with his first term. (Not that gay discontent is really a Thing. After all, the HRC already endorsed Obama.)
There are a few things to think about after the LCR’s assertion that Obama should no longer serve, like where are all of these gay people voting for Republicans? And who exactly do they plan on putting into the Oval Office who would actually care about gay rights? Do gay rights have to be the only thing you care about as a gay person? And no, really, who exactly do they plan on putting into the Oval Office, and why?
Your gay vote is more important than ever right now. Isn’t that exciting?! The only thing you have to do by election day is decide who you’re voting for. That might be a little harder for some LGBT voters than it was last election, or the election before.
interesting. interesting.
as far as im concerned, if you are LGBT and vote republican, you give up your right to whine about your civil rights later.
the day that republicans and democrats treat gays on equal footing is the day you can start whining, but if both parties did this then you wouldnt have anything to whine about because the world would be magical and filled with rainbows and unicorns and have lady gaga blaring from minarets. you can love economic conservatism, but it comes down to economics > social issues, well then i guess, there you go.
second-class citizen five!
This!
I mean, okay, if you’re a wealthy LGBT person and your pocketbook is what influences your voting decisions, fine, be that way. (I’m not going to say “economics is what matters to you,” because frankly, Republican economic policies aren’t good ones for the vast majority of people in the country, and they’re not really interested in balancing the budget – or they’d be cutting programs that actually take up a sizable chunk of it, not just ones that cost mere pennies per tax-payer but which they just happen to not like).
But LGBT Republicans must realize that by doing so, they are voting against their civil rights, so they don’t get to complain when the John Boehners and Tim Pawlentys of the world want to re-instate DADT or protect DOMA. When you pulled the lever for a Republican, you decided that wasn’t all that important compared to other things.
Yeah, the Democrats don’t completely get it, but at least they’re on their way. The Republicans just seem to revel in their ignorance.
Oh well. When it comes time to “rally the base” as the primaries get closer, the various Republican candidates will probably start showing their true (anti-gay) colors – and I think more people will come to their senses.
yeah. because you like 1 republican candidate who isnt anti gay, you have to realize the person whos getting elected PRESIDENT is most likely going to be, since their voter base doesnt seem too concerned with civil rights.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Unfathomable.
This is extremely interesting. I’m not sure how I feel about this just yet. It’s actually surprising when it is said that Obama and his administration hasn’t done much, because they have been one of the most active administrations in a while. Pushing and fighting for bills that may or may not have passed. I mean, I cant say that I fully support everything that Obama and his administration has tried to pass, but I can say that they have been pretty busy. Also, I dont think people understand that these things don’t happen quickly. Especially when there is such polarization as now and there are large numbers bumping heads on both sides. Nonetheless, interesting. Eh.
Where are the gay Republicans? Well here’s one right here. *raises hand* There are several candidates up for GOP nomination that are not against gay rights. Gary Johnson for one, Giuliani for another. I’m rooting for Giuliani myself.
There is a vast difference between traditional conservatism and the Religious Right. The traditional view is for small government and freedom…the RR are looking to control people through the government. As for the truly awful GOP candidates. Huckabee has already dropped out, as well as Trump and Palin will drop out once she’s had her 15 minutes of fame. That’s all she really wants.
As for Obama helping gay rights…well I ask you one thing. Why did he wait to repeal DADT until AFTER there was a Socially conservative majority again? He had two years where it would have been as easy as can be to repeal it. Why did he wait until it would be a huge battle? I can think of two reasons. He sees gay voters as a group of one-trick ponies that only care about gay rights, not the rest of the USA’s issues and he wanted BIG publicity from the DADT repeal. Or, second choice, he wasn’t all that interested in helping gay people at all…
That’s just my opinion. You’re free to disagree.
I think Obama gets a lot of blame for delay on DADT, but in the U.S., the president’s relationship with the military is really complicated. There are a lot of restrictions and limitations on the president’s power over the military, and even if the president can wield some influence over it, the Joint Chiefs have proven that they can very effectively change, defer, or alter the president’s motion. Repealing something like DADT would take a lot of planning behind the scenes.
If you’re interested, this article (which has more to do with the foreign-relations aspect of the military, but applies to this situation as well) actually goes through a list of the strategies presidents have taken in the past to try and work around those limitations:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20037908?seq=1
The list starts on page 313, if you want to skip the intro.
I’ll check it out, but it seems to me that Obama spent those first two years kicking around the healthcare plan that, ultimately, half the states have already said they don’t want and the pilot program for it in Massachusetts has already failed horribly.
I’d like to add one more reason to answer your ‘why did he wait to repeal DADT’…how about the economy coming a hairsbreadth away from collapsing? Which is what it would have done, had there not been as extreme of an intervention as there was. Wall street was not capable of policing itself, and look at what happened.
The first two years were largely filled by the financial intervention, the auto industry intervention [which ALSO all but collapsed], getting the health bill signed [again, because companies apparently aren’t capable of policing themselves], the intervention in the housing sector, financial regulation, and the tax deal.
Perhaps I’m undervaluing myself and our community, but I was HAPPY to take a back seat during all of this. I also think a lot of people [especially people under the age of 25] never realized just how close we were to collapse. Can you even imagine what would have happened?
Also, people are always so happy to focus on what he DIDN’T do, I’m gonna point out a few things his administration HAS DONE:
–Supported the repeal of DADT
–Signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act
–Eliminated the foreign HIV traveler entry ban [which had, since 1987 prevented non-US citizens from being able to enter the country if they had HIV/AIDS]
–Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, federally instituted fair pay for women
–Presidential Memorandum extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees
–Presidential Memorandum protecting gay/lesbian partners visitation/healthcare decision-making rights
–Signed the Matthew Shepard Act, which expanded the hate crime law to include gender and sexual orientation [and disability]
These are the main ones that directly benefit lesbians, our community. He also signed several additional acts that added such benefits for women, people with disabilities, and racial and ethnic minorities.
Though I disagree with it, I totally respect traditional conservatism. I have true Republican and fiscally conservative Independent friends. I take no personal issue with what Republicans are supposed to be: fiscally conservative and wishing for a smaller government. It’s the Religious Right I have problems with, and the fact that so many Republicans pander to that vote.
My personal view is: give the guy a break, he’s had a LOT to deal with [he looks about a decade older than when he first took office] and it’s not like he’s literally done NOTHING for us. I’d rather have him and Biden in office than McCain and Palin any day. At the worst, NOTHING would have changed, versus having my rights slowly stripped away under the McCain/Palin Administration.
If anyone wants links to the Obama Admin Accomplishments as proof, send me a message or an @me, though it’s pretty easy to find them yourself ;)
As one of the few “under 25” crowd that actually does understand how close we came to economic collapse in some industries (my family was heavily effected by the housing collapse, I live in Arizona which took a huge hit) I still don’t agree with the bail outs. Companies should rise and fall on their own merit, cut the dead weight, don’t float it along and let it drag everyone else down slowly.
The housing collapse was partially caused by the government requiring banks to give out high risk home loans, with little chance they would be repaid, because of a ridiculous idea that everyone needs to own a home as part of the “American Dream”.
That being said, I might have voted for McCain…if he hadn’t selected Palin as his VP. That was a horrible horrible choice on his part.
And if Obama had actually fixed the economy, I would have no problem at all. The problem is…he didn’t fix it. Our deficit is worse than ever, he’s still pretending that throwing money at problems will magically fix them and we all might as well start learning Chinese now…considering the fact that China basically owns our country’s soul now.
Really? Rise and fall on their own weight? And if the collapse of one company causes the collapse of several other firms that up until that point had been fully functioning, that’s perfectly acceptable? If all of the people working for said companies lose their jobs? If competition in the relevant markets declines to a degree such that the remaining firms are able to implement oligopolistic/monopolistic prices?
For a liberal, I tend to be in favor of less intervention in markets, as long as there are appropriate regulatory schemes to deal with those who would rather not play by the rules. But at the same time, it’s not always the case that dog-eat-dog capitalism is good for society as a whole….
Perhaps the first bail out was necessary, but when you hand a company a load of, essentially, free money and say “Here, save yourself. You’re too important for us to lose.” and they continue to make bad business decisions…that’s not the time to hand them another check and say “Let’s try this one more time.” If they companies are being run by people who are incapable of making smart business decisions then they need to go. Continuously bailing them out is not doing anyone any good.
Omg I totally agree on China kinda owning our country’s soul…creeps me the hell out. Did you hear about them asking for our National Forests as collateral for loans? >_<
As for the bail outs, they weren't my favorite, but the companies were called Too Big To Fail for a reason. What was a better option?
As I understand it, the subprime mortgage crisis occurred more because of government DEregulation and failed regulation of Wall Street's investment banks and rating agencies. [Although if you're talking about HUD and the Freddie/Fannie debacle, I agree that HUD ignoring the warning signs of it's researchers {2004?} was an epic fail] But the signs were showing and deregulation still occurring despite the signs, long before Obama took office. He just happened to take office when it all came to a head.
The idea of Palin being elected as President terrifies me. Fortunately, I don't think it'll happen. I always figured if a woman was going to make it into the Presidency by 2020 it would be Hillary Clinton, who also terrifies me, but in a comforting sort of way.
I would have voted for Hillary. I grew up in Arkansas and I know that she has some crazy ideas…but at least she’s honest and up front about them.
The Clintons are good politicians…in so much as any politician can be “good”.
Yep, that’s pretty much how I feel. There’s one president I wish that there wasn’t the two term limit…maybe a three term limit.
I feel like after three, most people would just kick the bucket. I’m surprised FDR kept it up as long as he did.
And I kind of wish FDR hadn’t kept it up as long as he did. I’m not a fan.
I think most people under 25 do understand the economic collapse. Certainly I do, as it cost my parents jobs and forced us to move to another state (we’re from Michigan, one of the states worst affected by the collapse).
However, I fail to see how they’re doing anything to address it. Cutting NPR, PBS, Planned Parenthood and other programs that cost mere pennies per taxpayer are not going to cut it. Cutting defense will. But – oddly, they increase defense spending every chance they get! That doesn’t sound like “fiscal responsibility” to me, that sounds like “I’m going to use the budget as an excuse to cut programs I’ve never liked!”
You can complain about FDR all you want, but at least his policies were *somewhat* effective in rescuing the economy and giving jobs to millions of people. Reagan’s “trickle-down economics” got us into a recession.
“They” in the second paragraph meaning Republicans.
Anyway, I find it really arrogant of you to assume that being a Republican means you somehow understand the economic collapse better than other people. Just because people don’t have the same ideas about economics as you do, doesn’t mean they are disconnected or misguided.
If anything, I’d say Republicans are more disconnected from the concerns of regular people. They’re the ones who are always quick to lower the taxes of the wealthiest 1% – aka the people most able to pay said taxes – and lower them for the ailing middle class. And in recent years, Democratic economic policies have done more to balance budgets than Republican ones. In addition to the examples cited above, there’s the fact that Clinton turned a huge deficit into a surplus by the time he left office. Bush quickly ran that into the ground, turning it into a massive deficit again. Yeah, I can’t really see Republicans as the more “fiscally responsible” of the two parties.
As for the fact that Obama hasn’t fixed our economy yet…I don’t see why people expect this to happen overnight.
“lower them for the ailing middle class” should be “raise them for” argh – typos!
The condescension that hardly anyone under 25 understands the economic collapse rubs me the wrong way – it cost me my job, my dream college, and the house my family lived in. So I would say that most people that live comfortably above or within their means are who doesn’t understand, not people under a certain concocted age line.
*rubs me the wrong way as well
Why can’t we have edits on comments? Sigh.
Exactly what I said!
The fact that we don’t agree with MeredithAncret’s solution to it doesn’t mean we haven’t been impacted by the recession. On the contrary, I don’t see why anyone who has been seriously hurt by the recession should be voting Republican, since their policies have never benefited anyone except the super-rich.
I feel like there should be some clarification in your statement that Obama “waited for a conservative majority” to push for DADT repeal. He in fact got the law passed with a democratic majority in both house albeit it was during a lame duck session. But it does fly in the face of the argument that he could have easily had the repeal passed if he relied on a party line vote. Even with Democratic majorities he needed republican help to repeal (and major concessions on tax break extensions)due to the filibuster. IMO the congress would not have been able to repeal if it wasn’t for the last minute trading during the lame duck session. So when people make statements that he didn’t do enough on that one issue or he could have done it so easily I really think they should pause and consider how much was given up to get it rid of DADT. Also for people who say he should have just used an executive order (I’ve seen this argument before on this site) I really think that would have been self defeating. First an executive order from my understanding can be easily removed and is not a good substitute for actual legislation. Thus any future president can change the order easily. A full blown repeal ensures that the law is gone for good. Also I feel by using an executive order it would have given congress an excuse not to act on the bill and ultimately taken pressure off of congress to do anything or possible anger republicans that see it and executive over reach. Thus, making any compromise by Obama out of reach. Sorry for the essay but I really in this regards I find it really hard to fault Obama he seems like he played it as well as possible given the circumstance and ultimately got it done. Yes it wasn’t ideal but it’s a heck of a lot more than anyone else has done.
The popularity of the Tea Party pretty much guarantees the Republican candidate for 2012 will be antigay in the extreme. Soooooo yeah. My hope is that they will alienate the independents while attempting to court the uberconservative party base, and then split the Republicans between the moderate side of the party and the far-right side, thus ensuring Democratic victory, and kittens for everyone*.
*Not endorsed by the Democratic campaign or really anyone but me, and I can’t even vote.
i would like a tiger-stiped or holstein kitteh, please. thank you.
Idk. I’m voting for the first time in the upcoming presidential election, and the more I look at my choices, the more unhappy I am about the situation. On the one hand, I truly am utterly convinced that our government is headed on a path for economic ruin on a national scale if they cannot fucking get their SHIT TOGETHER, but on the other hand, honestly, NOBODY, not the Democrats or the Republicans, seems to be interested in making that happen. On that issue, the Republicans seem to be the lesser of two evils: at least they’re not quite as bad as the Democrats. But when it comes to the Republican bench and my civil rights, I am staring at a bunch of penises who want nothing more than to fuck me over. Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty?! What a nightmare for all the gains we’ve made on marriage rights, yeesh! Can’t the Libertarians front a candidate? They’re pretty much the only party I’d feel comfortable voting for… *sigh*.
The economy is my main concern right now. Do I want Santorum or Pawlenty or Romney in charge? No way! For one thing, Romney is as economically liberal as any democrat (or GW Bush).
I’d prefer a candidate who is neutral about the topic of gay rights and will fix the economy rather than someone who is pro-gay rights and will screw up the economy even more. (because, if we go into another Depression…our civil rights will be the least of our worries. Some things are bigger than us and what we want, that’s just the truth.)
This is a serious topic…and it both interests me and causes me some concern, but I completely agree with this statement. As of right now I’m more concerned about the economy being uplifted and not having our whole country being run by foreign trades such as China. I know civil rights is important, but if we hand over our country to China…it won’t matter if your gay or straight, there will be zero rights.
I’m old enough to remember that people said this same thing about Japan in the 1980s. It was ridiculous then and it’s ridiculous now.
China owning our debt isn’t the same thing as China owning our country. It has some pretty unpleasant potential consequences geopolitically – we’re sort of stuck being China’s ally if we want them to keep buying up our debt – but they’re not going to magically own all of us.
Ron Paul 2012!
Ron Paul and libertarians are a special kind of “Republican.” They are liberal enough fiscally that hardcore free market Republicans like them and liberal enough socially that ACLU “no rules for anyone” types love them. But I think for most people in the middle, if you really look at what he stands for, he is too far on either side. I think a lot of times he makes good sense. But other times, he’s a bit wacky. Not nearly as hypocritical, contradictory, dishonest or self-serving as his son Rand, but still just kinda wacky.
Ron Paul is not really all that socially liberal. For starters, he:
a) is extremely opposed to abortion
b) supports the Defense of Marriage Act and thinks the federal recognition of same-sex marriage is “an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
There’s also the fact that he’s a virulent racist with ties to white-supremacist organizations:
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-racist-newsletters/
Ah, I guess he is EXACTLY like his son Rand after all. Truth be told, I know everything about Rand’s positions but only what I’ve casually seen from Ron. So they are both hypocritical, contradictory and paranoid assholes, aren’t they?
a) I do disagree with his position on abortion. Conveniently he’s running for federal office and thinks it should be left to the states, so I don’t feel that voting for him is voting against my uterus. He also has no problem with stuff like the morning after pill.
(This is especially frustrating to me because the school of thought that he’s from has some very pro-choice property rights based arguments. For example, Paul has a picture of Murray Rothbard in his office. In “The Ethics of Liberty,” Rothbard writes that while fetuses are people, women have an absolute right to abortion because if they don’t want the fetus, it is invading their property, i.e., their body.)
b) Erda, I feel that you are mis-representing his position on gay marriage and DOMA. Paul voted for DOMA because it was a blow against states’ rights. He thinks that the government should not be involved in marriage at all, and has said that he supports gay marriage in the same way he supports hetero marriage – everyone should be able to contract freely. He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.
“Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it will qualify as a civil contract if desired.”(1)
and
“I personally identify with the dictionary definition of marriage: “The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live together as husband and wife by legal commitments or religious ceremony.” If others who choose a different definition do not impose their standards on anyone else, they have a First Amendment right to their own definition and access to the courts to arbitrate any civil disputes.”(1)
c)From other things that I’ve read, he didn’t author the racist drivel. He’s said that he was convinced by a campaign manager not to try and explain that it was a ghost writer earlier, and most people involved think that they were written by Lew Rockwell.(2) Which doesn’t excuse him from liability, but needs to be seen in the context of a group (anarcho-capitalists/austrian economists/the people at mises.org) who are fond of making deliberately non-PC hyperbolic statements to prove relatively inoffensive points.
He has a chapter on racism in “Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom” which is very anti-racist, and I don’t think that it’s just lip service from the way it’s written.
Ron Paul isn’t quite a proper libertarian but he’s better than anyone else running. AND HEY, LEGALIZING HEROIN GUYZ.
I hope I haven’t offended anyone as I thoroughly respect your opinions. I just like to put the libertarian position out there when I can.
———————————-
1. Paul, Ron (2011). Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. Grand Central Publishing. Kindle Edition.
2. http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter
I would believe that it was about “states’ rights” (which, in my opinion, are a sorry-ass reason to deny people basic liberties, and I feel like they’ve historically been used that way more than any other way – after all, they started out as a pro-slavery argument) if he were also trying to take away the federal recognition of opposite-sex marriages. It doesn’t look like he is. No, he’s just trying to deny something to same-sex couples that opposite-sex couples already have.
So he voted for some pro-gay legislation, and maybe he’s better than most Republicans. I am not trying to deny that. I’m just saying that he’s far from a great ally.
As for the racism thing – he can write anti-racist things after the fact, but what he writes in those newsletter articles, when he had less people to please, speaks for itself, I think. I just cannot trust the anti-racist credentials of someone who is on record saying that 95% of Black people are politically ignorant. Everything that has come since just seems like back-pedaling to me.
As for the abortion issue – I don’t personally like the “states’ rights” approach to this, because I don’t think it is fair that women in states like Mississippi and South Dakota – where abortion is set to be outlawed the second Roe v. Wade is overturned – should have a different set of rights from women in more pro-choice states like Maryland or California. There’s already enough of a division by state as it is, since Supreme Court cases since then have made it so that states can put any restrictions on abortions they want up to completely outlawing it. As it happens, Mississippi has one clinic that is constantly surrounded by protesters, looking to get it shut down, and there are no Medicare benefits for abortions, that poor women have a significant burden placed on them when they need an abortion – they have to look endlessly for a place, possibly hundreds of miles away in a different state, that offers abortions, they somehow have to scrounge up the money themselves. Meanwhile, rich women can simply fly to another state and get it done. This doesn’t benefit anyone, since it just leads to more mothers and children on welfare, it leads to higher rates of infant mortality and in general, more of a burden on the government, on charities, and on society at large. This would be even worse if these states were allowed to completely ban abortion.
While I agree with the whole idea of states’ rights for certain things – for example, I think the drinking age is something that should be decided by states, not at the federal level as it is now – I do not think it should be up to the states to decide on basic civil liberties. And I think that sexual rights – whether they be the legality of certain sexual practices (sodomy, sex toys, etc.), equal access to birth control, or a woman’s right to choose – are basic civil liberties. I feel, like the Supreme Court in Roe, that they are guaranteed under the 4th Amendment (privacy) and the 14th Amendment (equal protection). I also feel this way about equal marriage rights, which is why I, again, think the states’ rights solution here is unsatisfactory.
FYI my info on Mississippi I got from an episode of Frontline that is a few years old, so it has possibly changed since then for better or for worse.
I apologize for commenting on Ron Paul when I clearly don’t know his positions well. (It does sound like he is with Rand on a lot, so maybe I know more than I think), but either way, interesting discussion. I haven’t necessarily decided how I feel about the Pauls policy-wise. (Personally, I think Rand is an arrogant, lying ass.) My guess is I like them more than, say, Jim DeMint. :)
Obama ‘extraordinarily liberal’? Perhaps from where you stand…
Yeah, seriously? He’s been EXTRAORDINARILY bi-partisan. I mean, extending the Bush tax cuts? That’s “extremely liberal”? The dude compromises TOO much!
I’m extraordinarily liberal, in US terms. I’m on the moderate left in global terms. Obama is nowhere near me – I wish he was, I really truly do, but he’s not. Anyone complaining that this president is “too liberal” is lying or parroting what they’ve heard; he’s not any more liberal than our Republicans used to be before they went nuts.
interesting. people often vote against their own interests for many different reasons. with obama and the gays, i have to wonder if it is something to do with group affiliation, i.e. gay white men associating more with the party of white men.
I can’t speak for all gay Republicans, but as an Irish/Native American/who the heck knows lesbian…I can definitely say that’s not the case for me.
That was my first thought, Sjz. And I also have a feeling that white gay men are probably the most vocal about this issue right now. Did you take a look at the Log Cabin link? It probably can’t really be ignored that the photos taken at the 2011 convention contained mostly white male faces.
There are some things I agree with Republicans about. If there is a serious pro-gay rights Republican candidate on the ballot, I would consider voting for him/her.
That being said, I’m not going to vote for anyone at all who doesn’t want to give me basic rights. End of story.
Yay!
I feel like, if everyone sat down and thought about it, we would all agree with Reps on some things and Dems on other things. And it saddens me that some people think they should only ever consider voting for one party because they assume that party represents them and their opinions. Or worse, the people who allow a political party to supply them with opinions. Sad. So sad.
It is weird for me to think about who I would vote for right now because all of the people who we are assuming will run, haven’t even announced their candidacy yet. It seems so premature.
I have yet to see a Republican candidate for president that I would even consider voting for considering I don’t agree with them on economic or social issues.
I guess some gay people are content enough with the state of gay rights in this country, that they no longer feel compelled to vote on gay rights. I don’t believe that being gay predisposes anyone to a specific set of economic values, for instance, so that would make sense… but if these people think the work in gay rights is done, I really question their judgment in the first place.
Personally, I consider myself pretty moderate with economic policy. Although I believe regulation is important and the wealthiest Americans don’t need tax breaks, I do believe in a very free market, I do believe that classes need to exist for capitalism to work and I don’t believe in spending all our money on programs to help everyone do everything. But on social issues, there’s no question. I am pro-women (pro-choice), pro-gays — just pro-civil rights and pro-freedom. There’s always a trade-off, and when you consider that Republicans haven’t exactly fiscally conservative, then the choice is pretty clear. Democrats aren’t liberal enough for me socially, but I have no choice (unless I become the genius who figures out how to circumvent the two-party system. If that were the case, however, my guess is I wouldn’t be posting here).
I knew a lesbian once who was a Republican. She said she hated how everyone thought because she was gay she should be a Democrat. Her family was involved in the military, she eventually joined the AirForce and she thought women dressed as sexy soldiers was hot (weird). She said she didn’t think marriage was a right, but a privilege so she wouldn’t just vote on gay marriage. I thought she was nuts. I never understood why Republicans have usurped the role of patriotism. Like, if you’re a Democrat, you love America and freedom a little less. I guess not liking wars makes you hate freedom? I’m still not sure how that works.
A part of me wants The President to lose just so we can get a Republican who will screw over the LGBT so hard……….just so they can realize how ridiculous it was to vote Republican.
But you’d think eight years of Bush – and now, two years of the John-Boehner-controlled House – would teach people that? I just don’t see why people have to learn the same lessons over and over again.
2 years? Do you mean 8 months? And while it’s clear from your comments that you disagree with the more socially liberal GOPs on fiscal issues, do you not see that Bush and Boehner are not representative of who they support?
I’m not trying to be troll-ish, but it’s strange to me that you are insistent that they’re wrong no matter what–that it’s impossible that you might just disagree with them on some things.
Ugh, the “31% of *self-identifying* gay people voted for Republicans” number comes from a single. CNN. exit. poll. The sample size was very small.
Don’t draw conclusions from this. The surge could just as well be because gay conservatives are finally coming out of the closet.
I also heard it was largely because there were less gays voting in 2010 than in 2008, and the ones that voted were more likely to be Republicans expressing dissatisfaction with Obama. Also, gay issues weren’t a big part of the conversation during the 2010 election. Hopefully, as the various Republican presidential candidates amp up their far-right credentials in preparation for the primaries, we’ll see more of their true (anti-gay) colors and this will reverse itself.
Also, I don’t see why the fact that a group called Log Cabin Republicans supports Republicans is a shock to anyone.
2008 was the first election in which I chose not to vote, because there were no candidates that I could ethically vote fore, and because I think our elections are a charade.
i cried when i voted in 2008. true story.
Aww that is so cute. I would have hugged you!
I cried when Obama won. I locked myself in a bathroom and sobbed. All of these feelings were running around about my brown babies being president if they wanted to. I don’t even have babies. Just feelings.
My mom was all weepy when Obama won, too. She can remember back in 1968 when MLK died and she started crying, and her racist father called her a “n*gg*r lover.” Or when her parents wouldn’t let her play with her Black friends. She said she never thought she’d live to see the day when we’d have a Black president and it made her so happy she just started bawling.
And what exactly was it that you guys were crying about? I’m not being a wiseass here, I’m interested to hear you describe it. I pretty well get the picture, but I’d like to hear your thoughts.
I am speaking for my mom, not myself, but I think my earlier comment describes it well enough – she had lived through a time when Black people were still fighting for basic civil rights, and where blatant, in-your-face anti-Black racism (as opposed to more subtle racism, which is still common) from Whites was still very common and socially acceptable. Being able to be elected president, especially by the huge majority he got, is kind of the ultimate expression of social acceptance, and something she had once thought she would never see within her lifetime. She was happy to see that proven wrong.
Damn, that’s supposed to be “for,” not “fore,” like I’m yelling on a golf course.
I feel sad when I think about American politics. Even as a Swede I think the idea of America is the most perfected one that humanity has mustered. Shame the execution of it is and remains so shit.
I read this comment earlier today and I know you were kind of shitting on how we do things here a little bit, but it made me feel kind of grateful for my country and it affected me. It was weird. But to be fair, I had just woken up and was half asleep.
It’s our collective best stab at civilization. It’s frustrating to watch it being squandered, that’s all. Then again, thought the formulation is American, the aspiration is global. So I have as much responsibility in realising that ideal as you.
For what it’s worth, I absolutely agree with you… and I’m American, and one who is frequently accused of being un-American, unpatriotic, etc. I really dislike the way my country does things… well, nearly all the time.
But the fact remains that when we started this country, it was a new idea and a good one. A republic. Representative rule. Good public education, an educated polity. Not a democracy, mostly because the voices in favor of democracy lost the argument, but still a far cry from the various forms of monarchy out there. No hereditary power, no absolute leaders, checks and balances and a rational system founded upon the concept of the rights of both individuals and nations.
Not so awful, really.
We kind of screwed up with some of it, though. We ended up with too much money in politics and a predictable election cycle that means we’re sort of in permanent campaign mode, which cripples our elected leaders’ ability to get anything done and wastes TONS of resources. The four-year-term thing might have seemed like a good limit, but I think it generally works against us.
I could go on about this, but it mostly comes down to: as long as corporate interests essentially control our elections, we’re really nothing like the republic that was envisioned – and even though we were first, there’s no reason to believe we’re best! Others have improved on this model, since. Often with our help.
I’m going to stick my political scientist/Canadian nose in and say that–from up here*–it looks to me like the Democrats squandered the single greatest opportunity for progressive federal policy initiatives since Roosevelt was in office.
They played by Republicans’ rules during the healthcare debacle and let the corrupt Blue Dog minority from the centre right of their OWN PARTY control the path of the legislation. The ambition for a single payer system (universal healthcare) went straight out the window.
The massive majority the Dems had prior to the midterms could’ve changed lives and saved folks homes, saved folks kids from fighting in imperialist wars and saved the American people a hell of a lot of money wasted on corporate tax breaks and tax cuts for the (obscenely!) wealthy.
Democrats lost the majority not because everyone, all at once, suddenly realized that the Republican party platform was amazeballs (because it’s not), but because people couldn’t be bothered to go out and vote for an administration that promised change and then didn’t deliver. By then, the Democratic base was, from what I can gather, feeling a little burned and burnt-out. There were some really awesome, but not super glamourous legislative victories (interest/contract protections for credit cardholders and restrictions on predatory lenders, to name a few) that did actual, measurable good for the American people. However, they let Republicans run the media coverage!
Midterm elections always struggle with voter turnout to a somewhat greater extent, but those results showed us that pandering, gutless policy-“making” gets you nowhere fast. I hesitate to say it, but I think that folks are genuinely too smart for that. So, who the heck were they supposed to vote for? Sell outs on the left of me, corporate/fundamentalist puppets on the right of me.
Democrats need to start fielding genuinely progressive, smart candidates with some integrity but FAST. Who knows, though, it might already be too late.
*”up here” being in reference to my Northern geographical position, as well as being vertically up…on my high horse.
What. Why!
The system is such that he can’t be that progressive his first term in office. If he’s re-elected, then he doesn’t have to worry about his next term and can just go all out.
Also, fuck teh syst3m!!11!!
You guys! Some Republicans are good guys. I saw it on Rachel Maddow. I don’t recall the details though…
Perhaps the increase in gay voters supporting Republicans is the perception that elections are no longer about “social issues” (such as our civil rights) and everybody says all they are gonna focus on is JOBS, ECONOMY, and BUDGET.
What would fixing the economy look like? And for whom would it be fixed?
Conservative, Liberal, etc. etc. I just don’t want anyone freezing under a bridge, or to be 11 again, living on the street, feeling hungry and not safe. Safety is a common-bond I hope we can all want and work together for regardless of party line. I’m not sure if we have that candidate yet. But, i’m gonna look for the one that I think gets closer to it.