Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Democrats comment on Pelosi gay rights flip-flop

Did we say that Democrats were the party of gay rights? Ooops, we meant, gay rights aren't that important:
Having Frank and Meehan move on this right away and lose catastrophically, amidst intense media and Republican garbage about how the House is repeating Clinton's mistake of 1993, making gays in the military one of his very first priorities


Doing this in a few months, after carefully laying the plans for a floor debate, and actually having a chance of getting it passed in both the House and Senate -

Which makes more sense both for gays and lesbians in the military currently and for getting other things like ENDA further down the road?
more . . .
I wasn't aware it was an either-or situation!
Do you remember 1993?

When Clinton tried to do this? The press is majorly homophobic and they will be goaded on by the Republican party. If she tried to do this right away, regardless of what polls say, she would be fried in the media and it would have huge reverberations for the rest of the Democratic agenda. SAN FRANCISCO VALUES would be trumpeted in the headlines of major newspapers across the country. I fervently hope this will be addressed, but to expect her to make it one of her first priorities is not realistic, considering the huge shitstorm that would erupt from the Republicans and the media.
Well, at least they're willing to take risks!
It's a big "culture war" issue and it's not something they evidently think is wise to bring to the forefront early on. Like I said, I'd rather they pass it down the road than bring it up right away and have it turn into a media firestorm about how out of touch Nancy Pelosi is with America's priorities.
I suppose that without this issue, the Republicans will instead insist that Ms. Pelosi is in touch with America's priorities.
We are about to lose the war in Iraq no matter what we do. Do you honestly want them to be able to blame it on our making "drastic" changes in the military during a time of crisis? I don't.
We already saw how effective scapegoating "the gays" was for the Republicans in the last election (not very).
I hate to say this, because it's revolting, but this is a game. A very high stakes game. Stamping our foot and demanding doesn't cut it. If there is no strategy then there is no win.
I thought the strategy was, to summarize gay Democratic groups, "vote Democrat, get rights, vote Republican, lose them?" Now it looks a bit more like "vote Democrat, sit down and shut up, you're humiliating us."
a lot of dems think clinton lost the congress because the first thing he tried to do was to allow gays in the military.
But "some people say" they're all wet.
But you just have to look at the political terrain right now and see that it's just not going to happen this Congress. I agree, we have a far better chance of passing ENDA (and I think I'll contact my Representative, Jan Schakowsky, office about being a sponsor).
Except that largely-symbolic, substance-free legislation like ENDA isn't even on the Pelosi radar screen.
I'm not gonna get my panties in a wad if they don't tackle DADT right away. Deal with the meaty, significant issues first, while you still possess some capital from the landslide election.
I suppose that the whole "constitutional rights" thing is a piddling, minor issue in comparison to developing socialist medical care, or hiking the minimum wage.
I agree with Pelosi. I think one of the dumbest things Bill Clinton ever did was getting tangled up in this issue right out of the gate. And I agree there are far more pressing issues.
Hmmm, it's a shame that Democrats didn't campaign on this message *before* demanding gay votes.

Keep in mind that DADT is a profoundly unpopular policy with very little civilian support, and the easiest gay-rights issue to "lead with." But when Democrats won thanks to gays, gays were told to get back in the back of the bus -- as usual.


Because the Democratic Party, dear friends, is homophobic. They lied to millions of Americans in their campaign promises -- just to get our cash and votes.

And if they're willing to sell gays down the river after receiving tens of millions of gay votes and gay campaign dollars, how much further are GLBT voters willing to ride the ruinous rapids of "reframing" before they realize they've been had?