Which candidate will do the most for the glbt cause?

[deliciously_naughty]

Mosley Braun?
Dean?
Kerry?
Lieberman?
Gephardt?

What do you think?

Discuss

 

[LarzMachine]

None of them. They might pay lip service to the GLBT "agenda" but they won't dare actually do anything for fear of repercussions. Hell, Billy Jeff Clinton was the one who signed the "Defense of Marriage" Act into law.

 

[Phil333]

Basically, all G/L need right now is someone other than President Bush in the White House because he is against the cause. No specific Dem will come out heavily in favor, as well they shouldn't, because then they will get creamed and that won't be any better for Gays/Lesbians.

 

[Pookie]

None of them.

The branch of government to focus on is the judiciary. At this point, it's up to the Courts to give us back what is rightfully ours ... our Constitutional rights. The President can do little even if he/she wants to. Most of the laws that discriminate against us are state and local laws. The Legislative branch has done plenty of harm to us over the years. Because of previous legislation and court decisions, the private sector freely establishes rules that discriminate against us. It will now take major decisions by the Courts to straighten out the mess created over a long period of time. It will take the Courts to re-affirm what should be rightfully ours.

What all of us should do is try to send representatives from our districts to Congress that will look out for our rights. It's hard for the President to sign a law that hurts us, if Congress doesn't send him/her a passed bill. The same goes for State governments too.

 

[Queersetti]

To answer the narrow question, any of the Democrats, except possibly Leiberman, would be a very big improvement over Bush, but Dean, Sharpton and Mosely Braun have been the most willing to speak up on gay rights issues.

But I also thing it's worth noting that there is a lot more to politics besides elections, and the gay rights movement stands as a great example of how political change can be effected through organizing, information campaigns and direct action, even in the absence of significant electoral victories.

 

[deliciously_naughty]

Even if you're only worried about the judiciary branch, you have to worry about the pres, b/c that person nominates the major judges, both high circuit and supreme courts.

 

[Pookie]

Very true. And the Congress has to confirm the nominees. I just don't see any of the Presidential candidates as being the vehicle to re-claim and secure our rights.

 

[Etoile]

I've been leaning toward Dean, not that I know why. I'll do more research when it gets closer, I guess. Then again, I've also been leaning toward moving to Canada. http://www.amanita.net/images/smilies/look-away.gif

 

[Phil333]

Dean is a horrible choice for the Democreats just cause he will get creamed. It wouldn't be Reagan in '84 but it would be close. He's a Democrat fron the North. Only chance a Dem has in a middle of the road one from the South. Only non-Southern Dem elected in the past 50 yrs has been Kennedy, and that was one of the closest races in history. LBJ-Carter-Clinton.

Lieberman if he wasn't Jewish probably could break that streak (and this is coming from someone who is Jewish). He is a Republican on foreign-policy, which is Bush's strongest point. Edwards experience is limited, but he is a good looking (compared to most ) Dem from the South, with a ton of money. Some of his pro-business policies I like (starting a national VC fund to go along with grants to spur national businesses)

 

[Sillyman]

I've been leaning toward Dean, not that I know why. I'll do more research when it gets closer, I guess. Then again, I've also been leaning toward moving to Canada. http://www.amanita.net/images/smilies/look-away.gif

I'm with you on both points.

 

[Sillyman]

No Democrat is going to win though. none will have Bush's spending power, none will be able to break through the voting chunk in the South, and chances are good they will tear through each other come nomination time the same way the Republicans did with Clinton's second election.

The Dems are so dead.

 

[Queersetti]

No Democrat is going to win though. none will have Bush's spending power, none will be able to break through the voting chunk in the South, and chances are good they will tear through each other come nomination time the same way the Republicans did with Clinton's second election.

The Dems are so dead.

In the Zogby poll that came out yesterday, only 29% of respondents said that they definitely support Bush's election, while 42% said they definitely oppose it. In most other recent polls, Bush's "generic re-elect" numbers are in the low to mid 40s. It's the general wisdom that incumbents with generics under 50% are in trouble.

So, I don't consider Bush unbeatable by any means.

 

[Pookie]

As the voters attention moves more away from Iraq and to domestic issues, Bush probably will begin to have problems. Even Iraq could become a liability for Bush, depending on how things progress and any revelations of misconduct on the part of his administration.

POLL ANALYSES
September 5, 2003

Foreign Affairs Aiding Bush Job Rating
Rated most positively on terrorism

by Jeffrey M. Jones
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- President Bush's job rating has settled down into the high 50s and low 60s as the rally effect that resulted from the Iraq war has faded. Bush's most recent job rating of 59% is slightly above Gallup's historical average approval rating of 56% for all presidents since Harry Truman, but is also below Bush's term average of 68%. For most of his presidency, Bush has been rated much more highly for his handling of foreign affairs than for his handling of domestic issues such as the economy, and a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows the trend continuing. Bush receives high marks on terrorism, Iraq, and foreign affairs, but lower marks for several domestic issues. The poll also finds that a majority of Americans say they are more likely to vote for Bush than the generic Democratic candidate in 2004.

The poll, conducted Aug. 25-26, asked Americans to rate the job Bush is doing in each of nine issue areas, including three international and six domestic issues. Bush gets the highest marks for his handling of terrorism, with 66% approving of him in this area. Interestingly, this is the only issue area in which Bush receives a substantially higher approval rating than his 59% overall job rating.

GEORGE W. BUSH JOB APPROVAL ON ISSUES

2003 Aug 25-26

(sorted by "approve")

Approve

Disapprove

%
%

Terrorism
66
31

Overall Job Approval
59
37

The situation with Iraq
57
41

Foreign Affairs
55
42

Taxes
52
44

Energy policy
47
44

The economy
45
52

Healthcare policy
43
48

Medicare
40
48

The federal budget deficit
39
55



Bush's next-highest scores also come with respect to international matters -- 57% approve of his handling of the situation with Iraq, and 55% approve of his handling of foreign affairs more generally.

On only one domestic issue -- taxes -- does a majority of Americans approve of Bush. More Americans approve (47%) than disapprove (44%) of Bush's handling of energy policy, but his approval falls below a majority. On four issues, more Americans disapprove than approve of the job Bush is doing -- the economy, healthcare policy, Medicare, and the federal budget deficit. In fact, a majority of the public disapproves of Bush's handling of the economy and the deficit.

Majority Support Bush Re-Election Effort

Despite several negative numbers, Bush still does well when Americans are asked to indicate whether they are more likely to vote for Bush or for the generic Democratic candidate for president in 2004. The latest poll shows 51% of registered voters saying Bush, and 39% saying the Democrat. Since the war with Iraq began, support for Bush on this question has ranged from 46% to 51% among registered voters, while support for the Democrat has hovered between 36% and 42%.

The data may suggest the terrorism issue, on which he is rated most highly, is propping up Bush's job approval ratings and re-election prospects. Some experts credit the terrorism issue with helping Republicans gain control of the Senate and increase their number of seats in the House of Representatives in the 2002 congressional elections. Bush's overall approval rating still remains above where it was just prior to the terrorist attacks (51% in a Sept. 7-10 Gallup Poll), and the public does not give Bush exceptionally high marks on most other issues.

However, a special analysis of the data shows that Bush's general rating on foreign affairs is most strongly related to his current job rating. For each issue, we performed a correlational analysis to measure the strength of the relationship between the rating people give Bush on a particular issue and the overall rating they give Bush. In the following table, a correlation of 0 would indicate no relationship between the issue rating and Bush's overall approval rating, and a correlation of 1 would indicate a perfect 1-to-1 relationship. The analysis shows foreign affairs has the strongest relationship, followed closely by the situation in Iraq. Terrorism comes further down the list, with taxes, the economy, and energy policy bearing a stronger relationship to one's overall view of Bush than terrorism bears.

RELATIONSHIP OF BUSH RATING ON ISSUES TO HIS OVERALL APPROVAL RATING


Correlation


Foreign Affairs
.79

The situation with Iraq
.75

Taxes
.64

The economy
.64

Energy policy
.63

Terrorism
.60

The federal budget deficit
.58

Healthcare policy
.57

Medicare
.57



A more detailed analysis of these data supports these basic findings, and shows that even after taking into account one's partisan affiliation, a person's rating of Bush on foreign affairs is the strongest predictor of one's overall view of him. This analysis also shows that in addition to foreign affairs ratings and party affiliation, ratings of Bush on Iraq, taxes, and energy policy help predict whether a person approves of Bush, but ratings of Bush on the deficit, healthcare, Medicare, terrorism, and the economy do not.

These results indicate that most Americans' current evaluations of Bush are strongly influenced by their perceptions of his job of handling foreign affairs. The president's accomplishments in that area (military success in Afghanistan and Iraq) have so far overshadowed his efforts to help jump-start the struggling economy. Whether this is a result of an increased international outlook for the American public following Sept. 11 is unclear. However, Bush's ability to deal with post-war Iraq and other international matters (Liberia, North Korea, and the Middle East) could be crucial in determining public support for Bush in the future, even if the economy does not fully recover.

Survey Methods

These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,009 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Aug. 25-26, 2003. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030905.asp

 

[deliciously_naughty]

I think that there is a good chance Bush will get kicked out of office, especially if the economy continues to tank. Historically, when the economy is in the crapper, the country swings the other way.

The important thing is to find a candidate with good international savvy, and a personality. Although Bush did technically lose the popular vote, the last election was so close in part because of how boring both candidates were.

When Clinton ran against Bush Sr, his victory was in large part due to his personality. Whatever you want to say about Clinton, he had a commanding personality. Voters want to pick someone who is interesting to them. Keep in mind most "average" voters don't know any of the facts about the economy or don't understand them (making them vunerable to spin), and don't really care about the "issues". JFK wasn't elected for his brilliant political strategy...he was elected b/c he was cute.

As to the idea that the president can't do much for the cause, how soon you forget. Clinton helped the community come out of the closet. And although he didn't go nearly as far as he could have, he did lay a lot of the legal framework we're standing on now. Just as the current administrations attempts at a marriage bill could set us back a LOT. Yes, the Congress is important. Very important. But we need a president who will support the cause.

Of course, I'm also looking into Canadian citizenship.

 

[Queersetti]

I think that in these areas, the most important thing about the Presidency is not any powers the President exercises, but the tone he sets.

When you have a President (or someone masquerading as one) who makes positive gestures towards the gay community, the message goes out to the public that we are equal members of society. When he stands in the "bully pulpit" and exhibits a negative attitude towards us, he is sending out the signal that discrimination is tolerable.

 

[Pookie]

I think that in these areas, the most important thing about the Presidency is not any powers the President exercises, but the tone he sets.

When you have a President (or someone masquerading as one) who makes positive gestures towards the gay community, the message goes out to the public that we are equal members of society. When he stands in the "bully pulpit" and exhibits a negative attitude towards us, he is sending out the signal that discrimination is tolerable.

Excellent point.

I just hope the gay community doesn't put too much hope in a presidential candidate, as far as doing something for the GLBT cause. It might help attitudes, which is needed. But he/she will have no power to get our rights back, and secure them so we don't lose them again.

It's going to take the Courts to undo the harm already done, just as it did in Canada. Also, if we have a Congress that represents everyone, and looks out for the rights of everyone when writing laws, it shouldn't matter too much who the President happens to be. It's hard to sign discriminatory bills into law, if the Congress doesn't send one.

Don't get me wrong, the President is important in all of this. I just don't see that office as the vehicle to gain back and secure what is rightfully ours.

 

[Sillyman]

I still have my doubts. Predominately it's that whatever I want to happen will not happen, therefore Bush will be re-elected. I'm more superstitious than many people here.

It's really odd how high his approval rating is on those issues considering his foreign policy has been to give everyone the finger, his terrorist policy has been undermine the infrastructure of the country in favor of random bombing of third world nations, and his tax policy won't do jack for the vast majority of people.

Yes, I'm bitter, and I have every expectation for the man to play dirty.

 

[MzChrista]

I still have my doubts. Predominately it's that whatever I want to happen will not happen, therefore Bush will be re-elected. I'm more superstitious than many people here.

It's really odd how high his approval rating is on those issues considering his foreign policy has been to give everyone the finger, his terrorist policy has been undermine the infrastructure of the country in favor of random bombing of third world nations, and his tax policy won't do jack for the vast majority of people.

Yes, I'm bitter, and I have every expectation for the man to play dirty.

Like Bill Maher said republicans will do anything to win except get the most votes.

They are going to cheat in every way possible.But Im still hopeful he will get his ass handed to him since hes got the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover.

 

[69forever]

None of them.

The branch of government to focus on is the judiciary. At this point, it's up to the Courts to give us back what is rightfully ours ... our Constitutional rights. The President can do little even if he/she wants to. Most of the laws that discriminate against us are state and local laws. The Legislative branch has done plenty of harm to us over the years. Because of previous legislation and court decisions, the private sector freely establishes rules that discriminate against us. It will now take major decisions by the Courts to straighten out the mess created over a long period of time. It will take the Courts to re-affirm what should be rightfully ours.

What all of us should do is try to send representatives from our districts to Congress that will look out for our rights. It's hard for the President to sign a law that hurts us, if Congress doesn't send him/her a passed bill. The same goes for State governments too.

While I agree in principle to relying on the courts to guarantee
rights that should aready be ours, we have all seen the backlash
after the Supreme court's ruling in the Texas case. The Dems are
checking in with the Republicans, to pre-empt same sex unions
from having the rights of any other married couple.

I do think in areas were there is enough of a GLBT presense that
electing people to local, state and Sen./Rep.s is the way to go.
They have to come home to their districts, you can get in their
face to hold them responsible for their votes/stands on issues that concern you.

I've had alot of experience with dealing with politicians, and I
don't trust very many that I've met. Only when you have them by
the balls about getting re-elected can you really know they are
going to go your way on the issues. And then that's not always
a done deal, because of back room deals and the big money checking in.

Cynical, fuckin-A. But I got this way trying to deal within this
system that preaches one thing and does the oppisite.

Where's that link for Canadian citizenship?

 

[LarzMachine]

Like Bill Maher said republicans will do anything to win except get the most votes.

They are going to cheat in every way possible.But Im still hopeful he will get his ass handed to him since hes got the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover.

Incidentally, it was Gore who tried to sidestep election law by running to the Supreme Court to have himself appointed President. In case you don't actually know how elections work in this country, the popular vote isn't what elects the President, and for good reason. If it was solely the popular vote, New York and California (both of which are traditionally left of Stalin and Mao) would appoint the President every year.

It also wasn't the Republicans who tried to use Wellstone's corpse as a flag (or accuse the opposition of assassinating him by tampering with the plane) to draw voters last year either. If you want to complain about shady electoal practices, start by examining Billy Jeff and other Democrats. They're every bit as dirty as any Republican has ever been.

 

[Queersetti]

Incidentally, it was Gore who tried to sidestep election law by running to the Supreme Court to have himself appointed President. In case you don't actually know how elections work in this country, the popular vote isn't what elects the President, and for good reason. If it was solely the popular vote, New York and California (both of which are traditionally left of Stalin and Mao) would appoint the President every year.

It also wasn't the Republicans who tried to use Wellstone's corpse as a flag (or accuse the opposition of assassinating him by tampering with the plane) to draw voters last year either. If you want to complain about shady electoal practices, start by examining Billy Jeff and other Democrats. They're every bit as dirty as any Republican has ever been.

I briefly considered rebutting your remarkably inaccurate post, but when you make remarks like "New York and California are to the left of Stalin and Mao", then it's clear that reasonable discourse on the subject would not be possible with you.

 

[LarzMachine]

I briefly considered rebutting your remarkably inaccurate post, but when you make remarks like "New York and California are to the left of Stalin and Mao", then it's clear that reasonable discourse on the subject would not be possible with you.

Ad hominem, pretty obvious logical fallacy.

Are New York and California anything but far-left?
Did Gore NOT run to the Supreme Court when he lost?
Are the Democrats completely blameless (or even any better than the Republicans, for that matter) when it comes to campaign finance and other scandals?
Is the Electoral College system not yet another check or balance in the handling of government?

What exactly was inaccurate?

 

[deliciously_naughty]

Ad hominem, pretty obvious logical fallacy.

Are New York and California anything but far-left?
Did Gore NOT run to the Supreme Court when he lost?
Are the Democrats completely blameless (or even any better than the Republicans, for that matter) when it comes to campaign finance and other scandals?
Is the Electoral College system not yet another check or balance in the handling of government?

What exactly was inaccurate?

New York City is leftist, yes...but you obviously have never been to upstate New York. California is liberal on social issues, but not often on economic ones.

My main comment to you sweetie is that while you cherish waving Gore's appeal to the Supreme Court, you seem to forget that the state with all the problems just happens to be run by our Moron in Chief's brother. Sorry, that was hardly coincidence. I have zero doubt that Gore won in Florida, and that the government in FL skewed the results. Considering the family connection, Gore was certainly right to go the Supreme Court.

Further, California has a huge number of electoral votes, as does New York as compared to states like Kansas. Which is why they are considered lynchpin states and vital to winning. (Along with TX and several others). They do have the power to swing the election results.

To address the idiocy of your comment that implied that the popular vote was skewed by the NY/CA vote...since when do they have 51% of the population between them? The reality, you right wing freak, is that the majority of Americans DID (and rightly) want Gore in office, and it was only by shady circumstances that W got in.

 

[Queersetti]

Ad hominem, pretty obvious logical fallacy.

Are New York and California anything but far-left?
Did Gore NOT run to the Supreme Court when he lost?
Are the Democrats completely blameless (or even any better than the Republicans, for that matter) when it comes to campaign finance and other scandals?
Is the Electoral College system not yet another check or balance in the handling of government?

What exactly was inaccurate?

How can my opinion of your openness to discussion be a logical fallacy?

No, New York and California are not far left. New York, you make have noticed, has a Republican governor.

The case that awarded the presidency to Bush was titled "Bush v. Gore" not "Gore v. Bush" because Bush was the plaintiff.

The democrats are not blameless, particularly when it comes to campaign financing, but there is a question of proportionality involved in this issue. The impeachment of Clinton, the disenfranchisement of minority voters in the 2000 election, the usurpation of the political process in Gore V.Bush, the unprecendented redistricting schemes in Texas and Colorado, and the absurd californis recall, all add up to a pattern that makes Maher's statement that MzChrista quoted quite reasonable.

I have no qualms with the Electoral College. That's not an issue in my opinion. My opinion that the selection of George Bush to the Presidency is illegitimate rests on Article II section 1 of the Constitution, which clearly vests in Congress, and not the Supreme Court, the authority to settle a disputed Presidential election.

 

[Phil333]

I live in NY. The state will probably go Dem, but that person will still need to do plenty of campaigning. We do have a Rep Gov here, but that is not because the state is republican, it is because there were no good Democratic candidates. NYC is heavily Dem, and we have a moderatly Republican mayor.