Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

  1. in many ways the poll choices aren’t mutually exclusive.  Personally, I believe that all of the Democratic presidential choices will help improve legal status for the GLBT community, in the military, the work place, and in the home.

    <

    p>
    Will (m)any of them secure full 100% protection in all [or any?!] of those areas in 4 years?  Nope.  None of them are going to single handedly eliminate the United States’ contribution to Global Warming either, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t on the right track on environmental issues either.

    <

    p>
    So, I trust all the Democratic candidates on GLBT issues, and I hope like heck that states less enlightened than Massachusetts will continue to expand rights and protections relating to the GLBT community, so that the window of acceptance moves in their direction, helping to pave the way toward complete equality.

    <

    p>
    P.S. It would be nice if this presidential forum, which is a great idea BTW, would get more coverage on the channels with higher ratings…

    • excellent!  i think you selected “f) all of the positive ones above”.  i’m glad you didn’t feel constrained by the poll, and i hope your optimism is rewarded.

      <

      p>
      i agree about the coverage.  i don’t know the story behind it, but somehow i’m not surprised that the major networks didn’t fight over covering a first-ever forum about LGBT stuff.  i anticipate it getting a lot of after-the-fact video viewers – perhaps more than other standard debates and fora, since they seem to cover the same ground over and over = getting boring.  and print media i hope will cover it.  the journalist and moderator are both Washington Post people.  Ya suppose it’ll get any attention from the blog-o-sphere? đŸ˜‰

  2. If so, I don’t remember.

    <

    p>
    Regardless, good luck to all the candidates replying to the questioners while the Republicans have their TIVOs going.  Talk about Scylla and Charybdis…

  3. After seeing the line up for this forum, I was interested to learn why there were no Republican attendees, or talk of a separate Republican forum.  After poking around on the HRC website, i found this explanation

    We did make an effort to have a Republican debate as well.  The Foundation’s first ground rule was that we needed to get confirmations from at least two of the top three candidates on either side before we’d proceed with any forum.  On the GOP side, Mitt Romney said no — and we never heard back from Rudy Giuliani or John McCain.  That’s right: no response. Furthermore, none of the Republican presidential candidates returned HRC’s questionnaire. Without any responses from any of the top three Republicans, there would obviously be no GOP debate.

    I wonder how republicans reading this blog feel about their candidates dodging these issues.  I know many republicans are not anti-gay and are disturbed by their party inserting itself in people’s private lives.  What say you?  Are your candidates not participating because they don’t really support anti-LGBT measures?  Or do they not want to be seen spending an hour talking negatively?  I would think they would jump at the opportunity to moralize freely and publicly.  Or is it something else?

    • Republicans include both social conservatives and libertarians; they include both people opposed to tolerance (because it leads to degeneracy) and people in favor of kindness. A whole hour devoted to LGBT issues would consist of nothing but squirming and positioning as they tried to simultaneously say:

      • Gayness is totally icky.
      • Gay people are fine people especially if they do fine, non-gay things.
      • There are all ready too many rights for gay people.
      • Some gay person they briefly met at a friend of a friend’s wedding or knew 600 years ago was a fine person.

      John Avaravosis would get enough videos and exclamation points out of it to fill an entire month of entries.

    • I wonder how republicans reading this blog feel about their candidates dodging these issues.  I know many republicans are not anti-gay and are disturbed by their party inserting itself in people’s private lives.  What say you?

      <

      p>
      I don’t think it’s a gay/anti-gay issue as much as it is a “why bother?” issue.

      <

      p>
      Let’s face it, they’re not going because the majority of people in the LGBT community are not going to vote Republican under any circumstance. It’s the same as the NAACP forum. The NAACP has a long history of supporting Democrat candidates.

      <

      p>
      Neither of these fora would be considered friendly to the GOP and could even be considered “hostile” by some folks. Would the Dem Presidential candidates debate at an NRA-sponsored forum? I don’t think so.

      • I’d love to see a GOP forum sponsored by the NRA or even better Focus on the Family, so those candidates have to walk the fine line ours will be at this forum.

      • although the GOP does court the black vote.  as to your “why bother” point, although no one can claim that the GOP courts the gay vote, it is no secret that many republicans are gay, and that many non-gay republicans favor civil equality for their gay family members on the principle that the government shouldn’t intrude in private lives.  that’s why bother.  that is, if you’re not a christianist republican, i sppose.  the funny thing to me is that none of the current GOP candidates are credible christianists.  and they won’t fool the purists.  so why bother trying?  why not serve the muzzled majority of the party, which is supposed to stand for fiscal responsibility and social fairness?

        <

        p>
        you comparison to an NRA forum is interesting.  the dems certainly do seem to have capitulated on gun control.  i’d love to see them and their GOP counterparts debate the meaning of the constitution in an NRA forum.

        <

        p>
        thanks for your insights.

        • so why bother trying?  why not serve the muzzled majority of the party, which is supposed to stand for fiscal responsibility and social fairness?

          <

          p>
          Maybe they don’t want to piss off the base. While a lot of Republicans would never vote for a Dem, many of them might stay home.

          <

          p>
          Anyway, debating in front of an LGBT or NAACP crowd can only hurt them, not help them, IMO.

    • The Foundation’s first ground rule was that we needed to get confirmations from at least two of the top three candidates on either side before we’d proceed with any forum

      <

      p>
      Why?  Is that like saying – we want an education debate, but the only people who can participate must have been endorsed by the MTA…whoops!  They’re all Democrats!

      <

      p>
      The Foundation would have been much better served to hold the GOP debate, and announce that those who fail to respond would have empty podiums, and those who decline would be represented by a cardboard cut-out.  THEN let the Log Cabins go to work on them!  (btw – I would advocate the empty/cardboard format for any Democrat who failed to respond too).

      <

      p>
      I think that it could have been turned around, in much the same way as the You Tube debate seems to be – the GOP aren’t hardline doctrinaires like the Dems who are still afraid to appear on Fox.

      <

      p>
      And there are other issues to debate – parenthood, military service, access to credit and housing, and so on.  To me, it’s a missed opportunity.  The Foundation appears to want the anti-GOP talking point more than they want the discussion, and are thus contributing to the continued Balkanization of politics.

      • I like that cardboard idea!  LOL!

        <

        p>
        But in practical terms, do you really think that the GOP could be shamed into appearing?  I just don’t think so.  Quite the reverse – they’re afraid of associating with gay anything for fear of “the base” getting upset. 

        <

        p>
        I think you’re right that the GOP isn’t all hard-line doctrinaires.  However, it is the hard-line doctrinaire that the GOP candidates are scrambling to satisfy, isn’t it?  More’s the pity, for all of us.

        <

        p>
        As for the Foundation supposedly prefering an anti-GOP talking point to actual debate with the GOP, that’s just nonsense.  I had to dig through a blog’s responses to find that quote.  To my knowledge, there was no press release on the subject, nor a mention of it on the main HRC pages.  Rather, the GOP candidates were given the same opportunity at the same time as the Dems to complete the survey and respond to the invitation.  Face it, PP, your candidates gave up a great opportunity to, as you so correctly point out, discuss important issues such as parenthood, access to credit & housing and the military.

        • But in practical terms, do you really think that the GOP could be shamed into appearing?  I just don’t think so.  Quite the reverse – they’re afraid of associating with gay anything for fear of “the base” getting upset.

          <

          p>
          That could be true. But reverse the question: Could Democrat candidates be shamed into appearing at an NRA-sponsored debate?

          <

          p>
          Hell, they wouldn’t even appear on a debate televised by Fox! Love them or hate them, Fox has some damned impressive ratings and the Dem candidates should have used that as outreach. The person who wins the Presidency in 2008 is going to need some swing voters as the bases are pretty solid.

          • the republicans aren’t participating because the forum will be on Logo?  I find that frankly hard to believe.  But really, neither of us can say for sure, since the GOP candidates themselves never bothered to communicate their reasoning.

            • I’m not saying that. I’m saying they won’t appear because the greater LGBT community is unlikely to vote for them no matter what they say.

              • i’m sure you’re right that few LGBT people will vote for a republican who is working to keep them separated from their rights as citizens.  that would change should immediately the GOP go back to the previous model of fiscal conservative, social libertarian.  LGBT people are no different than heteros in their desire for fiscal responsibility. 

                <

                p>
                i don’t think this forum is just for the LGBT community.  i think it is for the electorate, just like other fora held in other venues.  the subject matter, civil rights and fairness for legally marginalized Americans, is relevant to everyone, just like an NRA-sponsored forum would be.  i know the GOP understands that fairness to LGBT citizens is of general interest, because if they didn’t they wouldn’t have bothered to sponsor amendments in most states to prevent fairness and equality!  honestly, i find it cowardly that GOP candidates support stripping rights from LGBT people, but don’t have the balls to defend their reasoning in public.  if it’s all based on morals and such, they should welcome the opportunity to hammer the truth home and prove their anti-gay bona fides.  otherwise, they just look like opportunistically mean old men.

      • for having the grace to actually respond to the invitation, even if his answer was “no”.  When simple politeness becomes noteworthy, it says something not very flattering about the field, imho.

  4. I hope questions are asked about the epidemic of homelessness among queer youth, and plenty of transgender issues.  However, I highly doubt the HRC which has contributed to maintaining the republican majority for some time now, and which was late to add trans rights to their mission and continues to dismay the trans community, will ask questions of concern to the queer community. We need to go beyond the discussion of gay marriage/partnerships and begint o talk about the reality and complexity of LGBT families and support networks.

    <

    p>
    HRC consistantly serves upper class gays and lesbians.  Their endorsement of pro-life cdandidates and war mongers like Joe Lieberman is only a sampling of the horrific-ness that this corporate machine-like nonprofit that organizes from the top down has done for the LGBT community. It’s too bad NGLTF isn’t hosting the debate so at least it would come from a place founded in social justice.

    • if they spent the entire 2 hours on marriage equality alone.  In fact, I’m betting that emphasis is on other, more generally “acceptable” subjects like ENDA, DADT and UAFA.  I am not blanket defending HRC – they’ve made some decisions that I have been witholding my dues over – however, they have managed to get every Dem candidate (minus Dodd) on cable tv publicly discussing LGBT issues (previously, Clinton would only have closed-door sessions with them.  shhh!  don’t be seen talking to the queers!).  I’m completely happy to give them the benefit of the doubt and praise them unreservedly for setting this up.  I see no benefit in thrashing them before the event even occurs.  As for NGLTF, yes it would have been great, but did they even attempt doing what HRC has done?  Give credit where credit is due.

      <

      p>
      If you could set the agenda, what issues/legislation would you have them address?  In any particular order?  How would you like to see your questions pitched?  I’ve pitched my marriage question on another thread – it went something like this:  Dear Candidate, if civil unions are as good as civil marriage, will you lead the nation by example and replace your marriage with one?

Archives