I’ll make this real simple, Stoid: would you vote for anyone who presented his/her opponent’s friendships and associations with homosexuals as a reason to vote against the opponent?
If yes, how can you live with yourself?
Sua
Sua, as long as I’m hairsplitting, I’ll agree with you: you make a fine distinction between homophobia and gaybashing. I’ll agree with you (and disagree with Stoid) that Sanders’ comments constituted gaybashing: the man made a statement that amounted to, “Living with gay men doesn’t constitute South Carolina values.”
He may have made this statement through rhetorical questions; he may have slithered around the actual question; but that was the essence of what he was saying. Even if this statement rolls off Stoid’s ears, it’s calculated to make people think that homosexuality is incompatible with SouthCaroliniality, with decency.
He may have been bashing gays for cynical reasons, but he was doing it nonetheless.
(My only reservation about this is that I wish there were a word for what Sanders was doing: “gaybashing” to me means physically assaulting a person because the assailant believes the victim is homosexual, and what Sanders did, while despicable, wasn’t that despicable. Gaybashers should face prison for their acts; Sanders shouldn’t).
Daniel
First, I doubt I’d ever be facing such a decision. I have never yet voted for a Republican, and any Democrat pulling crap like that in California would obviously be politically suicidal.
But I’ll pretend for the moment that I moved to South Carolina for the beauty of it. (The south is gorgeous, that’s for sure.)
I would not make my decisions about a vote based on this. I’ve already explained what I think this was. Skanky campaigning. Hypocrisy. Bad, bad, bad. If the candidate who did this had a voting record that I liked, had a resume I liked, and had demonstrated a commitment to a majority of issues that was in line with my own, and the opposing candidate was less skanky in his campaigning but made all the wrong votes and decisions, then yeah, I’d vote for the skanky campaigner with the right ideas, and hope he cleans up his act or someone with the right ideas and more integrity comes along soon.
And I’d feel fine about it.
That’s what’s wrong with the way people vote, ** Sua, ** they vote based on moments in time. Politicians are so afraid of saying one wrong word that they have to script every moment they are being heard by anyone, and as a result, what we see doesn’t end up having that much to do with the truth. We are a soundbite political culture, people making important voting decisions based on tiny little bits of evidence, and that’s a travesty.
stoid
No, it is not voting based on “moments in time,” nor is it a result of a “soundbite political culture.” It is voting based on principles. A candidate may agree with 99% of my positions, but if they take even one position that is antithetical to my principles, I will not vote for them.
And you are foolish to think that a combination of right ideas and bad integrity works for you. The only thing that a politician sells is promises. If they promise that they will work for the “right ideas,” but don’t have any integrity, it’s pretty dumb to believe that they will lie, cheat and steal about everything else except for those precious ideas.
Sua
Stoid, this phrase seems almost to concede Sua’s point.
** Sua, ** I think you are deliberately ignoring the modifications I stated to my position.
Each campaign is not born anew out of nowhere. I quite specifically used the words “demonstrated a commitment” - this indicates action, not mere promises. If the guy who said what Sanders had said, in that situation, but had * shown by his actions * in the past that he was the candidate who was going to do what I wanted to see done, then I would be disappointed in his words, but I would vote his actions.
And how nice for you that you always find candidates who are 100% in line with every single principle you hold.
By the way, do you just refrain from voting altogther with someone who is 1% different from you in his principles, or do you give your vote to the guy who is 85% different from your principles? (The effect is the same, you know)
Stoid I don’t think Sua is arguing for the case of voting against a candidate who is some percentage different on their opinions of the issues than yourself. I think he’s arguing against the candidate who would betray his stated ideals to win an election. It’s not the issues themselves, it’s the integrity of the candidate in supporting the issues. If they’ll turn traitor to an issue they previously supported whole-heartedly, they’ve proven themselves a faithless representative to anyone who supported them due to their position on the issue they betrayed. Let’s look at a hypothetical candidate. Candidate A supports abortion and the second ammendment and makes them part of his platform. He gets some votes from supporters of abortion and some votes from supporters of gun ownership. He supports both those issues well during his first term, and both groups of voters are happy with him. Now he’s up for re-election and he doesn’t change his platform, and he’s never taken action against abortion or gun ownership, but he demonizes, during his campaign, another candidate who also supports abortion. He demonizes the other candidate BECAUSE they support abortion. He betrayed his stated position of supporting abortion. Now the pro-abortion voter has to make a decision. Given that Candidate A has already shown he will suspend his support for an issue in one circumstance, dare the voter put Candidate A back in office? What if he betrays his support for abortion again?
This also puts the pro-gun voter in a bind. His candidate has shown to be faithless on something he was previously faithful for. The pro-gun voter’s issue falls into the category of something the candidate was faithful to as well. Dare he take the risk of Candidate A proving faithless on gun control as well?
It’s about integrity. This is THE single most important quality in a representative of the voters. The ability to fairly represent your constitutants. If you prove faithless, without one DAMN GOOD REASON, then you should not be a representative, IMHO.
Enjoy,
Steven
Actually, no. I was deliberately dismissing them, as pathetic attempts to justify your desire to vote for anyone bearing the Democrat label, regardless of what kind of person he/she is.
And “what you wanted to see done” was pandering to bigotry?
Actually, it’s remarkably common. My principles are simple:
- Don’t engage in bigotry or pandering to bigotry;
- Support freedom of speech, press, religion, and civil liberties in general; and
- Don’t commit fraud, theft, or violent crimes.
Everything else are positions, not principles.
It’s really simple: anyone who is a bigot, advocates the deprivation of civil liberties, or who has committed one of the enumerated crimes is eliminated from consideration.
Of the remaining candidates, I examine their positions and determine which one’s positions on issues most agree with my own.
I then pull that person’s lever.
That’s my system. I like it better than yours, which appears to be voting for a bigot if he/she supported national health care, opposes welfare reform, etc.
Sua
Golly, good thing I have you around to figure out what I really mean and what I’m really thinking. Thought for a minute there I was actually able to communicate my thoughts and intentions…whew!
Why yes, of course!
Damn good thing. Be a shame if you liked mine better and stuck with yours anyway.
These matters aren’t the ones that would pop into my mind immediately, but sure, someone can be all kinds of bigot, so long as they job they do is unaffected by it, and the job they do is the job I want to see done. That does pretty much sum up my considerations.
See, I look at elections as folks applying for a job. I really don’t give a flying fuck how they really think or how they conduct their private lives. It’s not germane to the gig. If they live exemplary lives and radiate goodness, that is certainly a great bonus that I’m happy exists, but no, it’s not the core issue. I’m much too interested in practical results. (Hey, Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, something I find deeply repugnant. But he was a helluva politician and leader.)
What I care about is how they are going to do the job they are applying for. If they are going to do it the way I want to see it done, that’s really the only important thing.
And as hard as you try to shame me for that, I just don’t feel ashamed.
Oh well 
stoid
That’s exactly the problem when a candidate betrays their ideals. As I’m sure you’re aware, the US has no strict party discipline. You want to be sure your candidate will continue to support the values you elected them for, and will carry through with their platform once they are in office? Selecting a candidate with great personal integrity is the best way to make up for the lack of party discipline.
A candidate who reveals a lack of integrity during their campaign does not deserve to be a representative of the people, IMHO. I think we agree on this point because of the statement I quoted above. Now the distinction seems to be what qualifies as proof of lack of integrity. Sua and some others in this thread think Mr. Sanders demonstrated a lack of integrity. It seems you think differently. Fine, but both sides agree that integrity is important, they just say it differently.
Enjoy,
Steven
Sua:
Who the hell do you find to vote for? Hell, even Paul Wellstone, about the closest one comes to a completely principled politician voted for the “defense of marriage act” which I think qualifies for at least mild pandering to bigotry.
That’s what third parties are for, IMO; when you cannot in good conscience vote for either of the major party candidates.
Of course, jshore, you bring a good point up: you approach voting the way Stoid does, and the result is monstrosities like DOMA, voted for by all those Democrats brimming with “integrity” and signed by yet another one.
Sua
Well, if you’re looking for an employee, consider that the only product politicians produce are their thoughts. So it’s highly germane to the gig.
Sua
Not at all, or if it is said of politicians, the same can be said of any non-manufacturing job.
And even if it is true, I say again: So? If a politician is secretly thinking to himself that all homosexuals should be caged and sent to Iceland, but he votes AGAINST the DOMA, then that’s all that concerns me. Why should I care what is in his head, so long as I get what want from him or her? We ain’t gettin’ married.
Both sides also agree that he demonstrated a lack of integrity. To refresh, my point was that he was not gay-bashing, but he was doing something lacking integrity, no question.
And it is people like you, so wedded to your principles that you will sacrifice results, that are responsible for putting Koko in the White House.
We each make our choices. Yours is to stick to your own principles, no matter what the cost. Mine is to make the most effective choice I can, given the reality of political life in the United States.
stoid
Do you think you could find a third party in South Carolina that wasn’t bigoted?
Yeah, I can understand that, having voted for Nader in the last election. But, then again, I live in New York State…If I had lived in a competitive state, I would have gritted my teeth and voted for Gore no question.
I agree with Stoid that at some point one has to be able to compromise one’s principles to some degree for effectiveness or one gets stuck where we are now!
A few days ago, I had asked december:
He responded:
Where? I mean, you quoted one instance that might be interpreted this way. I want to know where this myth is and how exactly you are fighting it by posting a thread to the SDMB where you have tacitly admitted that the myth is not alive.
Sua, you surprise me - I didn’t think you were naive. It’s certainly not the same as deciding that none of the applicants for the job meet your standards, so you’ll just do without for awhile until one you like comes along. Someone is going to get the job and will take actions he thinks are best and meet the desires of the people who hire him. If you prissily decide not to vote at all, why should he take that as a sign of disapproval instead of apathy?
Nope, gotta pick the candidate, from among those who have a chance of winning, that you think will come closest to doing the job the way you want it done (so what about his thoughts? Actions are what count). Nobody will meet every standard you might like to put in place, so your responsibility is to put that aside and vote for what you think is best.
Hell, I don’t always agree with myself. How can I demand that someone else always agree with me?
David B, I’m happy to respond to your questions. However, if you want to go into detail, perhaps we should consider a separate thread.
Taking your three points in reverse order, David B, I agreed that that myth is seldom alleged on SDMB. However, there may be people at this site who believe the myth, even though they don’t post here. Furthermore, there are some posters who do seem to buy into the myth, such as AceOSpades.
I am fighting the myth by pointing out examples to show that Democrats aren’t all always morally perfect. I know this seems obvious. But, some who accuse the Republicans in general of being bad people think their case is proved by finding a few examples. When I do the same for Democrats, it destroys their argument.
As for where the myth is, all I can do is offer some examples or statements by those who believe in it or those who promote it.
We, as gay Democrats, are [often seen as] the good guys, and gay Republicans are the bad guys.
[It can be seen on the news, read in political columns, and heard in conversation: it is the belief that the Republicans are doing what they are doing because they want to hurt you. Their actions, say this attitude, have objectively negative effects, and they know this and like it.
They are reducing environmental regulations because they want the water to be dirtier and the air to be smellier. They are lowering the annual increase in Medicare funding because they want old people to die slow, painful deaths. They are ruthlessly slashing PBS because they want children to grow up without Sesame Street. And they know, deep down in their hearts, that cutting welfare will hurl the poor into an even deeper abyss of hopeless poverty, and that this effect will trickle upward, making us all a little worse off.](http://lou.jeansonne.com/republicans.html)
Katie Couric: “Then the fallout from the death of Matthew Shepard. The tragic beating of the college student in Wyoming has some activists in this country saying there is a climate of anti-gay hate that’s been fostered by a provocative advertising campaign by the political right in this country. We’re going to get into that debate after news and weather.” — October 13, 1998 show.
“Let’s talk a little bit more about the right wing because I know that’s something you feel very strongly about. But this is actually not necessarily about the right wing, but perhaps a climate that some say has been established by religious zealots or Christian conservatives. There have been two recent incidents in the news, I think, that upset most people in this country, that is the dragging death of James Byrd Junior and the beating death of Matthew Shepard.” – *To former Texas Governor Ann Richards as she hosted a 92nd Street Y appearance in New York City on March 3 shown by C-SPAN on April 3, 1999. *
At the risk to myself of bringing up a thread that nearly got me lynched, I’m going to step in to clarify something.
That is not the belief at all. That is what Republicans who feel unjustly picked on characterize the belief as.
While certainly some liberals believe some Republicans are evil, the “myth” you speak of is not that. The beef with Republicans as a party is that (some believe) the underlying philosophy that drives the decisions and positions of the Republican party is a selfish one, which naturally leads to the pain and suffering of others, and that, rather than actively desire the pain and suffering of others, Republicans will work hard to convince themselves that their (selfish, self-serving) desires and goals are not, wrong and will * not * cause harm, and will actually do the reverse. (Kinda the way Creationists will fight like hell to justify their beliefs) In other words, it is not a belief that Republicans willingly signed up with Satan, it’s that they made it a point not to read what they were signing because they didn’t want to know. (Because of course, being fundamentally decent people, they couldn’t in good conscience embrace Republicanism if they looked it right in the eye and saw what it was.)
Whether this is a true statement about Republicans and Republican philosphy or not is not what I am saying, and not what I’m going to discuss (been there, done that, have the scars to prove it). I just felt the need to see to it that the liberal viewpoint is properly presented. (And I grant that I am not all liberals, but I will say that 9 out of 10 liberals I know, and I know alot, would pretty much agree with me on this.)
Carry on.
Stoid