I really don’t mean to be a dick here but can I ask an honest question?
Why are people blasting a politician who recognizes the political realities of the electorite for which he/she represents?
Seriously, even the CFO of the Kentucky Democratic Party admits it wouldn’t fly with the voting public. Is that the political party’s fault or the public’s lack of tolerance/understanding?
MeanJoe - Who, for the record, is a Publican too but in favor of gay-rights and has a vitrolic dislike of the Religious Right’s influence within the Grand Ole’ Party.
Hardly a fair assumption based upon a limited comments by Tattrie. Do you have anything to support your opinion, the comments in the article certainly do not.
Finally - Hooray for Dean, we need more like 'em! I hope he doesn’t get McCain’d. (Who will always have my respect for speaking out against the Religious Right in the 'Publican party. Too bad it cost him his campaign.)
No one’s blasting individual politicians for stating political realities. The thread is blasting the Republican Party for fostering those realities while continuing to tell the “Big Tent” lie.
As a gay Southerner, I’m in complete agreement with SweetLucy’s opinion. There are plenty of gay Southerners, and a rich culture–admittedly more in the “New South” states along the East Coast.
I’d be downright impolite to condemn the decent, neighborly, god-fearing queers at the local/grass-roots level. Making it a national issue makes it a those-bastards-down-in-Washington-tellin’-us-what-to-do situation, which is never pretty.
Of course, I don’t cast my votes based on gay politics, and I’d think non-gays would have even less of a reason to do so.
And when Clinton was president, he nominated a whole bunch of NORML members to the court, demonstrating the hippies’ clout in the party, right?
Poly, Northeastern Republicanism is way left of the GOP mainstream. Dunno about the Research Triangle area, but city residents are generally more liberal than rural folk, as evidenced by the infamous map of “Red America” and “Blue America” after the 2000 election.
But you asked for a cite. The best I could do was this poll, which doesn’t get you there directly.
83% of Americans call themselves Christians; 37% of those consider themselves evangelical Christians, for about 31% of the population as a whole. If a little over half of them would fit whatever definition one might have of ‘religious right’, whether you’d have about half of the GOP depends on who’s polling for party affiliation, and how hard they try to push independents into leaning one way or the other. But overall, a good guess is that about 1/4 of America is independent, with the other 3/4 evenly divided between the two parties. If not half, then pretty close.
No, really. In the south especially, a lot of them may feel quite in the mainstream while supporting Pat Roberton’s entire agenda. And you do notice what it said about the regional distribution of evangelicals.
Sure. Your cite though, rather than supporting your statement seems to again highlight that your estimate looks very high unless you choose to define “religious right,” in a broad and inclusive fashion.
1.) I am not involved , by my definition of “involved”, in the local or state or (God forbid) national level politics. If I were involved, at least locally, I actually believe it would not be a “death blow” here in Columbus, Ohio. This is actually a fairly progressive city and has one of the largest (per capita) gay communities in the nation.
Beyond the local level, well… I guess that is my point - let’s not brow-beat someone for simply acknowledging the politic reality in some parts of the country.
2.) I suppose the argument could be made that I am not a part of the solution since I am not actively involved at the local level at a minimum. Since this is not GD, I will only respond with “I vote!” :wally
Seriously though, I could/should do more than I do. I’m mostly overwhelmed at times and do not find time for that, or volunteer work, or “cleansing” myself properly, or even getting dressed sometimes.
My involvement tends to fall along the lines of enjoyment of the artistic areas of our town (The Short North) and the galleries, going to the Gay Pride parades to support my friends who typically march each year, etc. Not exactly the activist, huh?
Otto said:
I’m sorry, it seemed to me that was exactly what was going on. I had not seen much in the way of argument about “fostering those realities” in this thread. I appreciate what you are saying to clarify the OP.
I am curious, although I probably do not disagree with your observations so far, but how are they fostering those ideas and why is the “Big Tent” a lie? At least in regards to the “Big Tent” lie, to me even if it does not have the loudest voice there is still a significant amount of the party that is not in favor of the religious right’s agenda and hijacking of the platform. As with all major changes, the shift to the religious right didn’t happen overnight and it’ll take time to (hopefully) get the more moderate or “social liberals” in the party to have influence.
Another thing that bugs me about the article: the survey mentioned in the story says that most Americans don’t want homosexuality to be illegal, even if they do think it’s immoral. Even if that’s a true “political reality,” the Republican party still seems to be doing everything it can to MAKE it illegal (or at least restrict their lives legally in as many ways as possible), in clear opposition to the nation’s apparent will.
This reminds me of something. I was living in Hawaii when the Gay Marraige amendment (?) was in the polls. You SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE COMMERCIALS. They make what you posted seem tame. Ugh. Sickening, absolutely sickening. I’m not gay, but I was offended by them, as I think any decent person would be. Ugh. Thinking about them makes me queasy.
If I can find some transcripts or video or something, I’ll post a link, but don’t hold your breath – I’m not exactly in a hurry to further scar my retinas by seeing those bigoted pieces of crap.
This is interesting. I’m a third generation Californian and have lived here all of my life and am really taken aback by this. I’ve always lived in or very near large cities (the Napa Valley, where I live now, is the farthest away from a big city i’ve lived) and I’ve never really seen too much racism. I say that because I’m white, so I may not notice things others do. I’ve also lived in places where being white, I’m in the minority, and didn’t see much racism then, either. Where in California have you visited??? Outside of the Central Valley maybe, I’ve got no idea what the hell you’re talking about.
I do not think we need to really explain the factors involved with the Religious Right’s influence being in excess of their true numbers do we?
I believe that it’ll be a long time coming before a large enough influence is applied within the GOP to result in a platform change to favor gay-rights initiatives. Think civil rights, we are over 30 years removed from marches and we’ve still got good old boy racists in the South (East, West, and North too but they dress better!) I am not arguing that the Republican party is at the forefront of this issue, not with a straight face at least. Any legislative changes in the near future will most likely be Democrat initiatives. However, keep in mind that not all Republicans are automatically anti-gay. Some of us love you alternative lifestyle types. (That was a joke, relax.)
In a two party system, you have to go with the lesser of two evils at times. I disagree with the Republicans in this case. I happen to think sexual orientation is determined by brain chemistry at birth, and therefore not a choice made to offend the anal-retentive and the homophobic. That said, I find the positions on the left for the most part to be naive and unworkable without moving toward a socialistic society. Therefore I vote Republican…but sometimes I don’t like it.
(That was a joke, relax.)