[dkstories] I feel like venting

[brax]

Soooo yeah... I sent an email to both democratic candidates for Governor in Ga... i only got a response from one of them and I really wouldnt call what i got back a response... the response is rediclious. It's like she's trying to say "we dont want to answer because we dont care enough to risk anything." I asked for opinions NOT a response telling me to keep in mind that she will "welsome" people. Thats like saying "I only let you live because I have to..."

 

I really am now torn as for which candidate i should vote for in the primaries... Do i vote for the person who never responded, or do i vote for the person who trys to avoid the issue and tries to act like they care when they dont... If you dont care dont act like you do... thats stupid... hell... at this point im almost tempted to vote for the damn incumbent republican... notice i said ALMOST.... i still think this country needs a change of pace in the leadership department.... BLAH

 

 

________________________________________

From: Shana Seawell [mailto:shana@cathycox.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 12:06 PM

To: 'Braxton'

Subject: RE: A few questions about your opinions

 

Braxton,

Thank you for contacting the Cathy Cox for Governor Campaign. We understand that the topic of gay rights is of importance to you. I assure you that as Governor Cathy will address the issues that matter, and not the issues that divide us. Eventhough, she has said that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman does not mean she does not care for this community. She is going to be the Governor to welcome you or someone of different race, religion, culture and so on and so on to the table to listen to what you have to say. So, please when going to vote keep that in mind. Look at what she had done and what she will continue to do for this GREAT STATE of Georgia.

 

Shana Seawell

Cathy Cox for Governor

Ph: 404-633-2006

Fx: 678-916-4049

 

 

________________________________________

From: Braxton [mailto:brax@...]

Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 12:56 PM

To: office@cathycox.com

Subject: A few questions about your opinions

Hello, Ms Cox.

 

The reason I am writing you today is to inquire about your opinions on the topic of gay rights. Do you believe there should be equal rights for homosexuals? What is your opinion on gay marriage? To what means will you go to work for equal rights in this topic? How do you plan on making a difference in this area? How do you suggest that people who wish to make a difference in this area do so? It is hard to believe that in this day of age anyone does not have equal rights in our country. We pride ourselves on being a free country where EVERYONE is free and equal, however, that is not so. As a member of the state government and possible future governor of Georgia your decisions could affect millions and possibly even the entire world. I am a 20 year old male and will be voting in the elections this year to choose our future leaders. The opinions and actions of the candidates in that election will strongly affect my vote in the upcoming elections.

 

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Braxton Bragg

[dkstories]

Wow Braxton!

 

 

How many people have ever gone through this level of effort to find out about a candidate running for office in their area? (Robert and I don't count...)

 

I'll tell you what...even though this candidate didn't give you the response you hoped for...at least they are willing to sit down at the table with gay people. I'd rather deal with them than someone who doesn't want to talk to me (or people like me). There's always a chance that some good efforts will bring them around.

 

Then again, both are somewhat better than someone calling us deviants or perverts, and demanding we be kept away from 'decent' people.

[NickolasJames8]

I think you should just say screw both parties and vote for a third party candidate...I mean, if neither party wants to support gay marriage, and the idea that marriage is sacred between a man and a woman is total BS, then why give it to either one??? Screw the Democrats and screw the republicans...no self respecting gay person would give them a second of their time or a single vote, in my opinion.

[Matthew]

Cathy will address the issues that matter, and not the issues that divide us.

 

I think the issues that matter are what divide us. If everybody agreed on them, they wouldn't matter.

[Demetz]

Wow... this candidate is sounding pretty pathetic... it just reeks of "I'm gonna try to get elected, and to do that I'll sell my soul... and yours while I'm at it, to people who would just as soon vote for the devil himself as vote for me" This is precisely the kind of democrat that needs to not be rewarded with votes. The other one may not have staff that bothers to respond for them, but maybe they'll at least have some backbone to them. Anybody who panders to the fundamentalists' perceived right to rule the personal lives of others is not worth a second look until they've undergone some serious reflection on how sad they've become and figured out how to show basic respect for other people - rather than make a sorry attempt at pretending to have it.

 

And if she's actually sincere in her belief that gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage... I have no reason to think she's competent enough to deserve a single vote.

 

I read her position as "we want your vote too, but we want the vote of people who hate you more," which indicates to me that this is how she intends to treat gay people once she gets into office too, assuming she gets there.

 

I'd suggest checking the website of the other candidate to see if they have a more favorable position, an if not, vote for a third party candidate. If Democrats have to keep losing to figure out they need to not be copycat republicans then so be it. I wouldn't vote for a republican at this point, I won't vote for a democrat who wants to be one either.

[Trebs]

While I don't even like what she wrote, in a way I do understand what she is trying to say (just in a very stupid way). Many liberal/Democratic candidates right now (and the last election) were pinned down over issues such as gay marriage and flag-burning. It's in part what the Republican leadership of Congress is trying to do right now. At least this year, the media is calling them on it, at times. At a time when we have major problems with our continued presence in Iraq, problems still with our infrastructure and the other lessons and aftermaths of Katrina, major healthcare issues... the Republicans take the time in the US Senate to debate flag-burning.

 

Yes - the issue is important. But using the "wedge" issue, they can motivate evangelicals to turn out and vote against those flag-burning homosexual-loving liberals.

 

I had a friend get very frustrated trying to do the reverse - she was helping a friend who was running in Nevada. So she tried to walk door-to-door and talk to people about her Democratic friend who was running, and was campaigning in some very rural poor areas. But she would get people saying "But isn't he for gay marriage?" Her response was - he is also for health-care, and for good schools. Which affects you more - some two guys getting married that you don't even know, or your children being able to see a doctor and get a good education?

 

Unfortunately, they (and many) don't tend to look at the total package...

 

In California, we were VERY fortunate last year. Assemblymember Mark Leno introduced a bill, gender-neutral marriage, which would have legalized gay marriage. At first it failed in June, but through a manuever, he was able to have it come up again and the State Senate actually passed it (needed 21 votes - got 21... hmmm, all Democrats in fact).

 

So the bill goes back to the Assembly. And with 80 members, he needed 41 votes. And there are some Democrats there, who when the bill came up in June had voted no, or abstained. But you know, sometimes, when it really matters, people think twice over what they should do. I think Dan blogged about how I had to put together a presentation recently of clips of the speeches from that floor debate.

 

Two moments for me were when one member said "The last time this bill came up I didn't vote. But when I say the pledge of Allegiance, I say those words 'With liberty and justice for all'... justice for all... I really believe that. I truly believe that. And I think, if I hadn't passed the last time, we could have gotten this done then, and for that reason I'm voting for this bill."

 

The other - an Assemblymember I actually personally worked with back in 1996. He was the California Clinton/Gore campaign representative that year, and did various other things before running again 2 years ago for Assembly again (he had been in before). Now while he was a very good man (with some faults - though who doesn't) - he also represented part of Orange County which is the heart of the Republican party in California. So while he was a Democrat from Orange County, the people he was representing... well... tended to be a little bit more conservative than say residents of San Francisco. In the first vote in June, he voted against the bill, one of the few Democrats to do so. So when he raised his mike signaling he wanted to speak in the debate, it wasn't known which way he would go. He talked about being castigated for his previous vote - and that was from his friends. He talked about what it means to serve - whether you are there to follow the wishes of those that elected you, or, if you believe in your heart, you veer from those wishes to lead to a place where you feel the right thing has been done. He talked about not so much caring what people felt about him and his vote later this year or next year - he was more concerned with what his children would say 20 years from now - that he had ducked on an important issue - or, would they say that when it came to being counted, he stood up and lead. With that, he said that he chooses to lead, and so that was why he was voting FOR the measure. Watching the tape of the debate - there was an interruption then as the people in the gallery started cheering. I even saw a smirk on the presiding officers face for a moment before she called order and reminded the gallery that outbursts could cause the gallery to be cleared.

 

At the end of the debate - the rolls were opened. Assemblymembers vote by pushing a "yes" or "no" button on their desk. The Republican "No"s went up very fast as did some Democratic "yes" (and a few Democratic "No"s). The yes tally climbed to 40 and stayed there a while. Then finally, one of the last holdouts, another Democratic Assemblymember from a more rural, conservative farming area, cast his vote "Yes."

 

While I don't like every person who is a Democrat... nor do I dislike everyperson (or even many people) who are Republicans... I do personally think, when push comes to shove, I know which I perfer to be in various positions in government. Not just for lesbian/gay issues... but also for social welfare and trying to address many of the other issues that "matter".

 

 

-----

PS If anyone didn't know, I actually do work for the Democratic Party here in California. But it's more my views which drew me to my work, rather than my work dictating my views...

[C James]

Soooo yeah... I sent an email to both democratic candidates for Governor in Ga... i only got a response from one of them and I really wouldnt call what i got back a response... the response is rediclious. It's like she's trying to say "we dont want to answer because we dont care enough to risk anything." I asked for opinions NOT a response telling me to keep in mind that she will "welsome" people. Thats like saying "I only let you live because I have to..."

 

I really am now torn as for which candidate i should vote for in the primaries... Do i vote for the person who never responded, or do i vote for the person who trys to avoid the issue and tries to act like they care when they dont... If you dont care dont act like you do... thats stupid... hell... at this point im almost tempted to vote for the damn incumbent republican... notice i said ALMOST.... i still think this country needs a change of pace in the leadership department.... BLAH

 

Kudos to you for GETTING INVOLVED!

 

I have no idea if this is even possible in your case (I don't know if the cantidate has held prior offices?), but I've found it very helpful to look up the candidates voting record for prior offices they may have held (or the one being contested, if they are the incumbent).

 

Take a look at how they voted on*all* the issues that matter to you.

 

And if she's actually sincere in her belief that gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage... I have no reason to think she's competent enough to deserve a single vote.

 

I read her position as "we want your vote too, but we want the vote of people who hate you more," which indicates to me that this is how she intends to treat gay people once she gets into office too, assuming she gets there.

 

I'd suggest checking the website of the other candidate to see if they have a more favorable position, an if not, vote for a third party candidate. If Democrats have to keep losing to figure out they need to not be copycat republicans then so be it. I wouldn't vote for a republican at this point, I won't vote for a democrat who wants to be one either.

 

Checking the policy statements (the website) is a good idea. Unfortunately, IMHO, one problem is that campaign promises (and thus website&policy statements) are often lies. I wish there was an easy answer to this, but the best I can suggest is to also check the candidates voting record in any prior office.

 

I do strongly agree with your stance of holding both parties' feet to the fire in issues that matter. Personally, I'd like to see "none of the above" as a ballot option, as all too often there isn't an acceptable choice.

 

I don't know whether the candidate that replied to Brax would fit the description, (The flip side of the coin is that Politics is the art of the possible) but it galls me when I see a candidate (And a great many from both parties do this) cherry-picking issues and stances just to get elected. It reminds me of one politician, who, though personally opposed to Socialism, pressed his newly-adopted party into embracing it due to political expediency (it was popular at the time.) This resulted in, amongst other things, a change of the parties' name. This maneuverer also enabled the politician to become the leader of the party. The year was 1921, and the new name was the National Socialist German Worker's party. The politician? Adolf Hitler.

 

I certainly can't support a Republican (or anyone) who uses homophobia (or Racisim, as was the practice of many Southern Democrats not so long ago) in the same way that the German National Socialist party used Anti-semitism in the early 1920's: as both a wedge issues and as a distraction, and to engender an "us against them" mentality for political expediency. I see disquieting similarities between some on the right and the machinations of the German National Socialist Party circa 1925. The plethora of anti-gay ballot initiatives in 2004 (and now in 2006) concern me greatly, more for this reason than their actual content.

 

I do not trust either of the two main US political parties (or for that matter any of the others) at this time and my reasons go far beyond gay issues.

 

While I don't even like what she wrote, in a way I do understand what she is trying to say (just in a very stupid way). Many liberal/Democratic candidates right now (and the last election) were pinned down over issues such as gay marriage and flag-burning. It's in part what the Republican leadership of Congress is trying to do right now. At least this year, the media is calling them on it, at times. At a time when we have major problems with our continued presence in Iraq, problems still with our infrastructure and the other lessons and aftermaths of Katrina, major healthcare issues... the Republicans take the time in the US Senate to debate flag-burning.

 

They also took the time to debate the anti-gay-marriage amendment, which all other considerations aside had no chance of passing, and thus was an utter waste of time (as well as being reprehensible).

 

Yes - the issue is important. But using the "wedge" issue, they can motivate evangelicals to turn out and vote against those flag-burning homosexual-loving liberals.

 

Wedge issues, unfortunately, are much loved by both parties. The Democrats, for example, have been using the minimum wage in this very way, in spite of the fact that, while it might sound like a good idea, it makes bad sense economically (most economists, who rarely agree on anything, do agree on this issue) and most harms those who it is intended to help. A willingness to trample on 2nd amendment rights when expedient to do so would be another.

 

Unfortunately, they (and many) don't tend to look at the total package...

 

Sad, but true, and IMHO exacerbated by the nature of modern media, and its love of "sound bytes" at the expense of all else. IMHO, this discourages the electorate from looking at a candidate in toto, and instead to fixate upon a few hot-button issues. For all the marvels of modern communication technology, is there anyone who will seriously debate the statement that the average voter at the dawn of the 20th century had a better grasp of the issues than the average voter of today, the dawn of the 21st century? In the first decade of the 20th century, the proposed constitutional amendment was what became the 16th amendment, and the text was published far and wide, and debated in all walks of life. Debated, not merely rallied around or opposed, but actually discussed.

 

But now, in the 21st century, we have a proposed amendment to ban gay marriage. This would, I would think, be of the greatest concern to Gay Americans? Yet, be honest, how many here actually know the wording of those two sentences without looking? Or the legal ramifications that go FAR beyond gay marriage? (such as the 2002 version that would have banned civil unions as well). Or that fact that many legal scholars believe that the current version (2004 wording) would also likely destroy existing civil union and domestic partnership rights?

 

At the end of the debate - the rolls were opened. Assemblymembers vote by pushing a "yes" or "no" button on their desk. The Republican "No"s went up very fast as did some Democratic "yes" (and a few Democratic "No"s). The yes tally climbed to 40 and stayed there a while. Then finally, one of the last holdouts, another Democratic Assemblymember from a more rural, conservative farming area, cast his vote "Yes."

 

Than you very much for that inside view of the process. That, indeed, is what leadership is all about. Doing what is right often not the same as doing what is popular.

Edited June 29, 2006 by C James

[dkstories]

Robert really did a good job of showing why exactly it is better to vote for a Democrat, period.

 

The Assemblymember he was discussing went from a No vote to a Yes vote in the course of a few months because he was at least willing to listen to what people were telling him...and to think about the issue.

 

That is why I would much rather hear that someone is willing to think or listen about an issue than a flat 'no' or no answer at all. It is with our voice, our money, and our votes that we can make a difference. However, if no one is listening, we're only wasting our voice, and yes our money and our votes as well.

 

Let's be honest here, not even the openly gay Republicans in office are likely to vote in support of gay rights or gay marriage because in their next election they will lose to a conservative from their own party. That is the power and the influence of the conservative right on American politics today.

 

Democrats aren't necessarily the best at times, they have their flaws, but when it comes to supporting the LGBT community, they have proven they are the best we have, and with some work they keep getting better.

[C James]

Robert really did a good job of showing why exactly it is better to vote for a Democrat, period.

 

The Assemblymember he was discussing went from a No vote to a Yes vote in the course of a few months because he was at least willing to listen to what people were telling him...and to think about the issue.

 

How does that make it "better to vote for a Democrat, period"?

I fully agree that any politician, on any issue, who is willing to listen, learn, and make politically courageous choices is one worthy of enthusiastic support. I'd certainly support the aforementioned assemblymen.

However, it certainly does not apply to all Democrats! Let's not forget that we have the head of the Democratic party appearing on Pat Roberson's TV show to proclaim that the Democratic Party position is that Marriage is between a man and a woman! It would also be well not to forget that it wasn't a Democrat who recently chided Republicans for making Gay Marriage a campaign issue, it was Laura Bush! It is always, always better to look at each candidate individually, and never generalize and assume that all of party X are superior to party Y.

 

Credit where credit is due: The only Republican in Congress to vote against DOMA was Steve Gunderson, who at the time was the only openly Gay Republican in congress, and who was from a rural, conservative district. That was an act of great political courage, just like some of the Democrats Trebs mentioned.

 

On the flip side, the one and only openly gay Republican currently in Congress did indeed vote for DOMA. It was that, in fact, that which resulted in his becoming an openly gay Republican: He was in the closet at the time, and was threatened with outing by some withing the gay community over his vote. I found that to be disgusting. I certainly wasn't happy with Jim Kolbe's (Arizona 8th) vote, but I despise "outing", especially when used as a form of blackmail.

 

That is why I would much rather hear that someone is willing to think or listen about an issue than a flat 'no' or no answer at all. It is with our voice, our money, and our votes that we can make a difference. However, if no one is listening, we're only wasting our voice, and yes our money and our votes as well.

 

Let's be honest here, not even the openly gay Republicans in office are likely to vote in support of gay rights or gay marriage because in their next election they will lose to a conservative from their own party. That is the power and the influence of the conservative right on American politics today.

 

Democrats aren't necessarily the best at times, they have their flaws, but when it comes to supporting the LGBT community, they have proven they are the best we have, and with some work they keep getting better.

 

Yet, they aren't. Take a look at Democratic policy trends on gay issues over the past five years. More and more, they are putting Gay issues on the back burner, sacrificed to the alter of political expediency. The assume, wrongly, that they are guaranteed the support of the LGBT community, so feel free to "Triangulate" and move to the center on this issue.

 

UNLESS their feet are held to the fire on this and other important issues, I can see Democrats returning to power, temporarily, and paying lip service at this and other important issues. All too soon, they will revert to being what got them rightfully thrown from power in the first place: Giving lip service at best to rights issues, robbing the taxpayers blind in order to buy votes through endless "social" programs, abd being utterly incompetent, at best, on national defense and security. In other words, the Democratic Party of the Carter Era.

 

Then what happens? In a few years, perhaps as early as 2008, they are thrown out of power, again. This will lead to a resurgence of the PRESENT form of a the Republican party, not a reformed one. A resurgent Republican party that tramples on some of our rights (marriage, abortion, etc) while having embraced the bad old ways of the Democrats by using massive spending (and corruption) to secure incumbency. (The Republicans have the nerve to call themselves the party of smaller government? I'd love to see that rammed down their throats in November!)

 

So, for the good of both the Party and the Country, the Democratic party must not be given a blank check of support, but rather a tentative and cautions chance to prove that they have learned from their history, and have changed, and are ready to move forward rather than back to the bad old days of their recent history.

[old bob]

Hey everybody !

This discussion about gay influence in politics was the most interesting I red since long. Just a question to anybody who could answer : How strong GBLT people are organised in the States ? I mean "shadow organisation for lobbying and same actions" ? For instance, in France, gay politicians are openly active and powerfull (the Maire of Paris, for instance, is gay and could be a candidate for next precidency run next year) . The economic power of gay people is not under-estimated and play a role in politics. My opinion is that you have a lack of organisatiion-talent, or are gays to "individualist" ?

Old Bob

[C James]

Hey everybody !

This discussion about gay influence in politics was the most interesting I red since long. Just a question to anybody who could answer : How strong GBLT people are organised in the States ? I mean "shadow organisation for lobbying and same actions" ? For instance, in France, gay politicians are openly active and powerfull (the Maire of Paris, for instance, is gay and could be a candidate for next precidency run next year) . The economic power of gay people is not under-estimated and play a role in politics. My opinion is that you have a lack of organisatiion-talent, or are gays to "individualist" ?

Old Bob

 

That, Bob, is a very interesting question indeed!!!

At a national level in the US, there are only three openly gay politicians, all members of congress (two Democrats and one Republican).

 

One interesting statistic: No openly gay person has ever been elected to the US Senate. This is not, however, true of openly dead people (dead long before the election). In other words, the statistics indicate that it's easier to be elected to the US Senate if you are Dead than if you are Gay. Another way of saying it is that if you are running for the Senate, it's ok to come out of the casket, but not the closet.

 

In State and local politics, there are many more, but I'm largely ignorant on state and local matter so I don't really know enough to have an opinion on those. So far, our one admittedly gay State Governor was a disaster. He was caught in a scandal: appointing his utterly unqualified (and not even a US citizen) gay love interest to head the State's Homeland Security department. His love interest was filing a sexual harassment suit against him, which would have exposed the Governor as being gay. He then resigned from office, citing his homosexuality as the reason for his resignation (to try and cover up the fact that it was the corruption and the harassment suit that was the real reason). Thus, he IMHO did a lot of damage IMHO to the GLBT cause.

 

IMHO, GLBT people are not well organized here. IMHO. one reason for that is that many are in the closet, and would eschew "organization" of any sort.

Edited June 29, 2006 by C James

[brax]

honestly, i think Cathy Cox's group's response probally hurt my vote for her more than helped. They didn't seem interested in any feedback, any opinions of mine, or anything i might be thinking or feeling. The response didnt say anything about an advisor to "homosexuality" i mean hell... even Arnold the republican could do better than that... how sad is that. the more i think and hear about politics the more it makes me want to get involved and try to change things. its just plain agrivating sometimes... It seems to me that people would be more upset about the government becoming too strong and acting like the USSR and nazi-germany than worring about if a protester can burn the flag. Do they not understand that today it's burning the flag and tomorrow its burning a picuture of the Bush Faimly? I dont know about you, but that scares me... we're getting closer and closer to that every day. I'm all for the security of our country, i dont want to die from a terrorist attack, but i dont want to not live because the government is watching everything you do... who likes someone watching over their shoulder all the time? NO ONE.

 

got off on a tanget... oh well

[old bob]

Yet, they aren't. Take a look at Democratic policy trends on gay issues over the past five years. More and more, they are putting Gay issues on the back burner, sacrificed to the alter of political expediency. The assume, wrongly, that they are guaranteed the support of the LGBT community, so feel free to "Triangulate" and move to the center on this issue.

 

LESS their feet are held to the fire on this and other important issues, I can see Democrats returning to power, temporarily, and paying lip service at this and other important issues. All too soon, they will revert to being what got them rightfully thrown from power in the first place: ....... abd being utterly incompetent, at best, on national defense and security. In other words, the Democratic Party of the Carter Era.

 

So, for the good of both the Party and the Country, the Democratic party must not be given a blank check of support, but rather a tentative and cautions chance to prove that they have learned from their history, and have changed, and are ready to move forward rather than back to the bad old days of their recent history.

Hi James :2hands:

I like to discuss US politics from my point of view I know it is easy to give good advices from abroad, but I dont agree with your opinion of the Democratic Party.Forget the Carter Era. As you know (see my blog), I followed the US politic from 1939 to now and am an old supporter of the democrats, from Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945), than Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. The only republican I like is Reagan (I liked him more after reading of the DO saga ) . IMPOV the only chance we have as LGBT (not only in the States but in all the free world) is a strong return of a leadership of the democrats in 2008.

 

In the past, the democrats were supported by the workers union. What is the position of these organisations in the matter of the LGBT community ? What can you (I mean all the LGBT community) do to bring them back in the state of the New Deal and of The Civil Rights Movement, with the hope they brought to small and simple people in towns and countries ?

 

You should show more enthousiasm in your political attitude !!

 

Old (perhaps too old) Bob

 

PS : I answered your questions about the swiss rifle in DIR chapter 14 ob June 24. Perhaps you didnt read it. Check it !!

Edited June 30, 2006 by old bob

[C James]

Hi James :2hands:

I like to discuss US politics from my point of view I know it is easy to give good advices from abroad, but I dont agree with your opinion of the Democratic Party.Forget the Carter Era. As you know (see my blog), I followed the US politic from 1939 to now and am an old supporter of the democrats, from Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945), than Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. The only republican I like is Reagan (I liked him more after reading of the DO saga ) . IMPOV the only chance we have as LGBT (not only in the States but in all the free world) is a strong return of a leadership of the democrats in 2008.

 

Hi, Bob!

 

I'm not sure that you can disagree with my opinion on the Democratic party, because I'm not sure that I have one!

 

Seriously though, I'm not opposed to most (though certainly I'm opposed to to some!) of them at the moment, but my view is probably best described as exceedingly cautious. Frankly, given their recent history (meaning the Carter era, and up until the Clinton years) I do not trust that they have changed. I hope they have, and I think most have, but I'm by no means certain. Hence, I'm very cautious in my support.

 

During the Carter era and up until the Democrats were faced with a Republican resurgence, the old accusation that "they never met a spending program that they didn't like" was in most cases accurate.

We ended up with tax hike after tax hike, and an ever-growing government. The Democrats of that era were also no defenders of rights, as they, like the Republicans, would pick and choose which rights they thought you should have.

 

The Republicans threw the Democrats out of Congress in large part because people were fed up with the waste, corruption, incompetence (especially on defence) and outright robbery. The Republicans have since become exactly what they professed to oppose, and now they too are raiding the treasury to buy votes via "giveaway" programs. Hopefully, the Democrats will seize the opportunity to become the party of smaller government, but I'm highly skeptical. I'd certainly never vote for a Democrat (or a Republican) who supports raising taxes or continued deficit spending.

 

 

In the past, the democrats were supported by the workers union. What is the position of these organisations in the matter of the LGBT community ? What can you (I mean all the LGBT community) do to bring them back in the state of the New Deal and of The Civil Rights Movement, with the hope they brought to small and simple people in towns and countries ?

 

Thankfully IMHO, the Unions in the US do not have anywhere near the political power that they do in Europe. When I was growing up I spent my summers in the UK (where my family is from) and saw just what the power of the unions could do. They nearly succeeded in destroying the UK's economy, and had utterly no respect for some individual liberties.

 

I'm not aware of any union positions on gay issues, except for the fact that some have pushed for domestic partnership rights. This (my lack of information) is most likely due to ignorance on my part rather than a lack of involvement on theirs, but the crux of the matter is that I simply don't know (and that's something I should correct).

 

You should show more enthusiasm in your political attitude !!

 

But I do! I'm a very enthusiastic cynic!

 

Seriously though, I sincerely wish that I could. I know that I envy people like DK and Trebs who can do so. I, however, cannot support one political party completely. I have grave differences of opinion regarding many element of policy (both their stated and actual policies) with both main parties. So, I, out of necessity, evaluate each candidate individually, paying special attention to their voting record. However, I still often blunder, my own current congressman (Rick Renzi, R-Arizona) being a glaring example of someone I deeply regret voting for.

 

One problem is that I am not a one issue voter. LGBT issues are very important to me, but they are by no means my only concern, and in some cases they aren't my most important issue.

 

My first reason for being skeptical of the democrats could be illustrated by the following question: Which party has, as it's chairman, an individual who has repeatedly reached out to the religious right by proclaiming that his parties platform says that marriage is between a man and a woman? Hint: It's not the Republicans.

 

This is where the issue of tentative Vs. unquestioning support comes in. With unquestioning support, there are no consequences for such behavior. With tentative support, there are.

 

Incidentally, one of my reasons for being a bit skeptical of the Democrats is that they saw fit to appoint Howard Dean to head the party, a move which hardly engenders confidence. (Though, not everyone is opposed to Dean. His chairmanship was received with utter delight among Republican strategists such as Carl Rove).

 

My second reason is more pragmatic: I think it is bad for both the country and the party to blindly trust any one party. History does not lie: When either party is in full and uncontested control for long, they make an utter mess of things, often betraying even their own core beliefs. If anyone disagrees with me regarding this paradigm, please cite me one contrary example in US national politics within the last two centuries.

 

However, divided government (no one party in full control) seems IMHO to work best. During the Clinton years (after the first mid-term elections), with the Republicans newly in control of Congress, there was actual progress! The Deficit was reduced, long-overdue welfare reform was enacted, wasteful programs were (sometimes) trimmed, and vital rights-based legislation such as the Patent's bill of rights were passed.

 

In a nutshell, my theory is that divided control has two benefits. Firstly, the intense rivalry seems to result in more responsible behavior, out of fear that the opposition will use any questionable action against it's originator. Secondly, the gridlock effect seem to prevent either party from enacting the extremist parts of it's agenda.

 

My long-term preference at this point is for Republican control of the house, and Democrat control of the Senate. However, given the recent outrageous behavior of the Republicans (on many issues) I'd like to see them suffer a huge defeat in November.

 

My main reason, though, for being skeptical about the Democrats is this: unflinching support is more likely to lead them back to their bad old ways, and the result of that will be, in a few years, the resergance and

return to full control of the Republican party in it's present form, which is something I'd rather not see. Instead, I'd prefer to see a Democratic party held to it's reforms, providing responsible government, and thereby a major long-term defeat for the Republicans, thus forcing they, in turn, to reform. One unavoidable fact in American politics is that control always shifts back and forth, so no matter what, the Republicans will be in control again one day if they lose in November. Therefor, I'd like to see them forced (via a string of defeats) to reform, rather than become resurgent and return to power due to the Democratic party reverting, thanks to unquestioning support and unopposed power, to it's old ways that caused it's defeat in the first place.

 

Old (perhaps too old) Bob

PS : I answered your questions about the swiss rifle in DIR chapter 14 ob June 24. Perhaps you didnt read it. Check it !!

 

I saw it, thanks very much for the info! I didn't reply at the time as I didn't have much to say, and also because the DIR Ch17 thread was very active and I didn't want to distract from it. (this board displays the most recently active thread first).

 

Edit to add:

Well, I've just seen something that makes me more comfortable with Democrats: A strong sign that many Democrats have truly rejected their penchant for raising taxes.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/01/nj....t.ap/index.html

 

In brief, Democrats in the State Assembly have shut down the New Jersy state government due to objecting to a tax hike demanded by the Governor (also a Democrat). I'm delighted to see such a principled stand against tax hikes.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democrats really ought to make a central issue of government spending and deficits, and ram down the Republican's throats the fact that the Republicans have betrayed their own core values, and have also broken the "contract with America" that bought them to power. This is a golden political opportunity, and I hope it is seized.

Edited July 2, 2006 by C James

[mgh397]

I really don

[C James]

I really don

[mgh397]

I don't mean for it to be changed in all aspects, what I meant was to change it *only* for the election of the President; I guess that when the system started, it was done this way because the US wasn't as homogenized as it is nowadays, I don't think that the origin of a presidential candidate is a heavy issue for the elecction (it may be an issue, bur ussually is not, and if it is, certainly is not the main one); the system you use is closer to the "Representative Majority" and, I think, would be good for the election of the vice-president, but not for the election of a president; in fact, this "Representative Majority" is being propposed (or was) for the election of the president of the EU, as it gives all member states' candidates the same chance, at least as long as the people in the EU have this "national" divisions in their mind.

[brax]

I dont think a system where EVERYONE votes for presidnet will work in the united states until there is a standard sytem used, somthing computerized that is free from minipulation and secure. It must be a system the people trust. This just wont happen in the near future... you dont want hanging chads, and all that, but you also dont want hackers naming themselves as president or naming the most lenient president... our country is not ready for it.

[mgh397]

I dont think a system where EVERYONE votes for presidnet will work in the united states until there is a standard sytem used, somthing computerized that is free from minipulation and secure. It must be a system the people trust. This just wont happen in the near future... you dont want hanging chads, and all that, but you also dont want hackers naming themselves as president or naming the most lenient president... our country is not ready for it.

No-one is ready for it... I'm in/from Venezuela, and all elections here have been fraudulent since 1999 onwards, that was the year where completely computarized elections started, and be aware that the very same company that is doing the fraud here is trying to get the contract to run the elections over there in the US, so far (I understand) they've done it in 2 counties, with the same result as here (projections and polls give a result completelly different than that of the "election"); for more info on electronic fraud, watch

.

[C James]

I don't mean for it to be changed in all aspects, what I meant was to change it *only* for the election of the President; I guess that when the system started, it was done this way because the US wasn't as homogenized as it is nowadays, I don't think that the origin of a presidential candidate is a heavy issue for the election (it may be an issue, bur ussually is not, and if it is, certainly is not the main one); the system you use is closer to the "Representative Majority" and, I think, would be good for the election of the vice-president, but not for the election of a president; in fact, this "Representative Majority" is being propposed (or was) for the election of the president of the EU, as it gives all member states' candidates the same chance, at least as long as the people in the EU have this "national" divisions in their mind.

 

The electoral college isn't really concerned with the state of origin of the President, though there is a clause in the constitution prohibiting the President and Vice President being residents of the same state (often circumvented by having the VP declare a house in a different state "home".).

 

The concept of the electoral college is mainly to minimize the power of the larger states, regardless of where a Presidential candidate hails from. Also, as I mentioned, I don't see how it could ever be changed, as I can't see the smaller states who benefit from it ever being willing, in sufficient numbers, to give it up. (when it comes to ratifying a constitutional amendment, each state, regardless of size or population, has an equal vote).

 

I dont think a system where EVERYONE votes for presidnet will work in the united states until there is a standard sytem used, somthing computerized that is free from minipulation and secure. It must be a system the people trust. This just wont happen in the near future... you dont want hanging chads, and all that, but you also dont want hackers naming themselves as president or naming the most lenient president... our country is not ready for it.

 

The concept of computerized (or worse, Internet) voting scares the heck out of me. It has enormous risks for vote fraud on enormous scales. The only electronic method I could ever favor is one where the voter marks a paper ballot, which is then scanned and retained as a paper record (for recount purposes if nothing else). Positive identification also needs to be required. HEck, I'm over 30 and can't buy a beer or drive a car without positive ID, so why should I be able to vote without one?

 

For a really scary scenario, think of this: The day after a presidential election, it is discovered that the electronic records have been altered (or corrupted) during the balloting, and thus no actual reliable tally exists. That would make for a doozy of a constitutional crisis. This is part of why the move away from original hard-copy paper records scares the heck out of me, and the idea of Internet voting gives me nightmares.

 

No-one is ready for it... I'm in/from Venezuela, and all elections here have been fraudulent since 1999 onwards, that was the year where completely computarized elections started, and be aware that the very same company that is doing the fraud here is trying to get the contract to run the elections over there in the US, so far (I understand) they've done it in 2 counties, with the same result as here (projections and polls give a result completelly different than that of the "election"); for more info on electronic fraud, watch

.

 

I was personally appalled when Jimmy Carter (former US President) certified the election of Chavez in spite of ongoing challenges and disputes. I always suspected that election was heavily tainted.

[mgh397]

I was personally appalled when Jimmy Carter (former US President) certified the election of Chavez in spite of ongoing challenges and disputes. I always suspected that election was heavily tainted.

He (Carter) and Cisnenros (one of Venezuela's richest man and a personal friend of Carter) met with nutman one week before the recall and Cisneros suddenly changed sides; Venevisi

[C James]

He (Carter) and Cisnenros (one of Venezuela's richest man and a personal friend of Carter) met with nutman one week before the recall and Cisneros suddenly changed sides; Venevisi

[old bob]

These are some of the reasons that I find the idea of touch-screen voting or Internet voting to be incredibly dangerous! This danger cannot be understated: far too much is at stake for this reckless course to be considered, let alone implemented. Yet, it's getting closer and closer. I just hope people wake up to the dangers before a major disaster is caused by this.

Hi C James

You know that the swiss folk has a lot to vote on local, "cantonal" and national level. At present ,we study in Geneva a voting system trough Internet, which works as follow :

1. each voter receive by GPO a personal code a few days before the voting date.

2. he uses this code and his name entering the site of the government and gives his vote

3. the software check if the name correspond with the code

4. If yes, the vote is registered.

What you think of this system ? It has nothing to do with a touch-screen voting and I think its safe.

Dont you agree ?

Old bob

[C James]

Hi C James

You know that the swiss folk has a lot to vote on local, "cantonal" and national level. At present ,we study in Geneva a voting system trough Internet, which works as follow :

1. each voter receive by GPO a personal code a few days before the voting date.

2. he uses this code and his name entering the site of the government and gives his vote

3. the software check if the name correspond with the code

4. If yes, the vote is registered.

What you think of this system ? It has nothing to do with a touch-screen voting and I think its safe.

Dont you agree ?

Old bob

 

Speaking as someone who has been a consultant on electronic security, my opinion is that, based on your description, it is not safe at all.

 

The idea of a personal code linked to a name probably wouldn't work in the US, as voting is by "secret ballot". The system you describe has the potential to link the Voters ID with the actual vote.

 

Even if the above system was acceptable here, it has some security achilles heels. The key problem is in line #3, specifically the word "software". Any time you have computers involved, you run the risk of tampering on a vast scale. In times past voting machines were sometimes rigged, but software and networks give the ability to rig them in unprecedented numbers.

 

There are further vulnerabilities, including data alteration during Internet transfer.

 

The other (and bigger) problem with the above system is that there is no paper record that is machine-independent, so if the validity of the data is ever called into question, there is no chance of a recount.

 

The final problem with the above system is that there is no reason to do it. I have never seen a justification for either electronic or Internet voting that makes sense. It's simply not worth the money it's claimed it would save (and I have serious doubts on that). The other justification is the even more dubious quest for higher voter turnout via "convenience". I am opposed to that as its fairly clear from many studies that the more informed and interested a vector is, the more likely they are to vote. Pushing the uninterested and uninformed to the polls is counter-productive, as it merely dilutes the informed votes further. If a person does not care enough to inform themselves on the issues, I would certainly prefer that they stay away from the voting booth, as their uninformed opinion is by definition based on little or nothing, and thus near worthless.

 

For an example of what might be the worst idea in modern politics, I'll site Arizona's (My own state) new law that turns the voting booth into a lottery: Voters who vote are entered into a lottery to win huge amounts of money. The result is easy to predict: many people who haven't got a clue voting, just to try for the cash prizes. Ugh...

 

EDit to add: I am not criticizing normal "get out the vote" type drives, or most forms of encouraging people to take an interest and voting, but the idea of in effect handing people lottery tickets to get them to vote is IMHO horrible. Why am I not surprised that it is happening in Arizona? Ugh.

[mgh397]

Hi C James

You know that the swiss folk has a lot to vote on local, "cantonal" and national level. At present ,we study in Geneva a voting system trough Internet, which works as follow :

1. each voter receive by GPO a personal code a few days before the voting date.

2. he uses this code and his name entering the site of the government and gives his vote

3. the software check if the name correspond with the code

4. If yes, the vote is registered.

What you think of this system ? It has nothing to do with a touch-screen voting and I think its safe.

Dont you agree ?

Old bob

Speaking as someone who has been a consultant on electronic security, my opinion is that, based on your description, it is not safe at all.

 

The idea of a personal code linked to a name probably wouldn't work in the US, as voting is by "secret ballot". The system you describe has the potential to link the Voters ID with the actual vote.

 

Even if the above system was acceptable here, it has some security achilles heels. The key problem is in line #3, specifically the word "software". Any time you have computers involved, you run the risk of tampering on a vast scale. In times past voting machines were sometimes rigged, but software and networks give the ability to rig them in unprecedented numbers.

 

There are further vulnerabilities, including data alteration during Internet transfer.

 

The other (and bigger) problem with the above system is that there is no paper record that is machine-independent, so if the validity of the data is ever called into question, there is no chance of a recount.

 

The final problem with the above system is that there is no reason to do it. I have never seen a justification for either electronic or Internet voting that makes sense. It's simply not worth the money it's claimed it would save (and I have serious doubts on that). The other justification is the even more dubious quest for higher voter turnout via "convenience". I am opposed to that as its fairly clear from many studies that the more informed and interested a vector is, the more likely they are to vote. Pushing the uninterested and uninformed to the polls is counter-productive, as it merely dilutes the informed votes further. If a person does not care enough to inform themselves on the issues, I would certainly prefer that they stay away from the voting booth, as their uninformed opinion is by definition based on little or nothing, and thus near worthless.

 

For an example of what might be the worst idea in modern politics, I'll site Arizona's (My own state) new law that turns the voting booth into a lottery: Voters who vote are entered into a lottery to win huge amounts of money. The result is easy to predict: many people who haven't got a clue voting, just to try for the cash prizes. Ugh...

 

EDit to add: I am not criticizing normal "get out the vote" type drives, or most forms of encouraging people to take an interest and voting, but the idea of in effect handing people lottery tickets to get them to vote is IMHO horrible. Why am I not surprised that it is happening in Arizona? Ugh.

That system doesn't work either; here, elections are held (as I said before) with electronic machines, and the fraud is hard to catch because half of the machines are tampered with directly, while the other half have the results altered while in transfer, as the results are transmitted via internet to the National Fraud Council, er... the National Electoral Council; the thing is that the only viable and trustfull way to held elections are manual vote and manual voting, plain and simple.

 

As for the Arizona thing... I really don't know why someone actually tought that was a good idea... They are buying votes! As simple as that! In such a nationalistic country as the US I think the best approach would have been (as the opposition is doing here to call oppositiones to be more active) to call people to not just be nationals but to be citizens.