Gays used by Democrats once again

You are acting like gay people vote Democrat only because they only want gay rights legislation. Maybe more gay people are liberal? And the Democratic party is more liberal than the other choices?

 

I think that's a fair point (although I wasn't "acting" as if the gay community voted only on gay issues, just that if one is voting on gay issues, the current Democrats may not be the best bet).

 

the other option/party may be the best bet for their interests then??? The one who's frontrunner has gone on record claiming the gay community is "part of satan"? Thats who you're suggesting might support them best on gay issues?

no matter what political stance a party takes, it's going to turn off some groups of people. Today's Cons pander to factions extremely opposed to the gay community (among others). The Dems don't deliver on all their rhetoric to any group (just like no party does), but they don't hate them as part of their uniting core values.

STOMP

 

I don't understand why this concept is so hard to understand. My suggestion is to dump the current crop of Democrats (taking a step back) and support people who will actually do something for the gay community (taking two steps forward). Look at what the Tea Party did with the Republicans that spent like Democrats. That pathetic group is gone, replaced by people who actually refuse to overspend.

And please don't talk about Bachmann like she's going to be the GOP candidate. She's Howard Dean.

 

oh please, there are still plenty of entrenched Republicans that overspend. It's a matter of what who you represent values. More tax breaks for the rich is costly for everyone who isn't rich. Etc... here's another example that no tea party folks opposed

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-17/...s-prices-maine-s-olympia-snowe?_s=PM:POLITICS

if the Cons are to kneel to the demands of the tea party sect, I expect them to be marginalized and then absolutely trounced in the upcoming election. The GOP has an in-party civil war going on that is hardly settled history. The big business/banking faction they count in their corner wants different things then the tea party. No matter which candidate the party settles on in the end it will be a compromise much of the party will be uncomfortable with, but my bet is on Big Money winning out. In the same way, if the Dems were to bow to the gay communities wishes (or one of their many factions) they would alienate more voters then they would endear.

Party election strategy has long been to promise a lot of things to various groups and then deal with the governing after-words as best they can. The various groups know they aren't going to get everything they want but will keep pushing for as much as they can get today in hopes of eventually getting their goals. I really don't think the gay community is big enough to drive an election or the Democratic party... hell, despite being very politically organized and active they don't get all they want in the Bay Area. But while they don't get everything they want, through the Democrats they are attaining some progress.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=8250671

I agree that her campaign will probably flame out as her massage/history is way too at odds with those of the American public. But there is no denying she's the frontrunner today or the darling of Tea Party (who's value to the GOP you were just espousing) and there is no denying that some of her appeal to the base is her evangelical condemning views on gays. Those views reverberate within the GOP. I think it's better for the Cons to have those sorts of views implied then out in the open. By implying them they enliven their base, out in the open it enlivens the Dem's.

STOMP

 

It's been one election. Talk to me in 2014.