Kerry criticizes Mass. Democrats for gay marriage support (Thread 2)

[nodehopper]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2005/05/06/kerry_criticizes_mass_democrats_for_gay_marriage_support/

BATON ROUGE, La. -- U.S. Sen. John Kerry, visiting Louisiana for a forum on children's health care, criticized the Massachusetts Democratic Party for its expected approval of a statement in the party platform in support of same-sex marriage.


"I think it's a mistake," Kerry said. "I think it's the wrong thing, and I'm not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state."

Kerry made the comments to The Boston Globe after hosting the event on his proposed KidsFirst Act, which would bring health care to uninsured children.

Kerry's opposition to gay marriage puts him at odds with the chairman of the Massachusetts Democrats, Philip W. Johnston, who said that the senator's stance will not change the expected approval of the language at next weekend's party meeting in Lowell.

[jasmeel]

1. Is this really LBN?

[nodehopper]

3. It's a continuation of an LBN thread that got too large and locked

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

2. Kerry is still trying to figure out who he is

always trying to pander to whomever can get him elected.

Its really quite sad. John knows in his heart what is right, like he did with the IWR, but panders to the so called middle, making him look confused and lost.

It never works pretending to be what you are not.

[Southsideirish]

4. I think it begins with a "flip".

[tedzbear]

24. ...and then a flop to the right...

...let's do the Kerry warp now!

[mondo joe]

37. Maybe he has it plotted out on MICROSOFT excel.

I think they now include a Kiss The Right's Ass formula built in.

[w13rd0]

5. Granted...

...he is a Senator, but I fail to see how anything Kerry says is all that relevant. Gore came away from 2000 seeming like he'd learned a great many things. Kerry still sounds like he hasn't learned much of anything. At least in this case. It should be recognized that the religious right, for years now, has been using cultural issues, and their ties to corporatists, to enforce on the american people choices that have NOTHING TO DO with them, or the role of government. Rather than concentrating on reducing poverty, growing the economy rather than the beauracracy, you know, doing THEIR JOB, they get to spend all their time going on golf junkets and ranting about the threat issue AB or C are to the "amurikan way of life".

Just think how different the world would be today if politicians serving now had served during the civil rights era, or sufferage, or the civil war...

[EC]

6. I think he is saying that it is a mistake

to make this any part of our platform, not for or against the fact, just not to use it as an issue...I agree...

I have a guy daughter and she is really tired of this being dragged into the news all the time, highlighting it as an issue the rest of the country should have any say about...she wishes the courts could just take care of it, without all the publicity...

[cyr330]

22. But. . .

The right has already made a HUGE issue out of this, and if we don't respond (i.e. Democratic leaders like Kerry), then we'll have nothing. Kerry already voted for the war on Iraq, so he doesn't have much credibility with me. In fact, he has NONE, and I would NEVER votte for him in a million years. He's a yellow ass fucking traitor, and I hate him.

[blogbear]

7. As someone who supports the notion of life, liberty, and the pursuit of

happiness for ALL Americans I unwantedly find myself at odds with Sen. Kerry on this..Kerry's homophobic stance provides too much unsolicited information..Instead of giving so much negative information on this subject I would prefer that he open up more to the true diversity, culture, and present day realities..

[mitchtv]

8. a new candidate for the "pink Brick" award

for damaging gay rights. It was won by Dianne Feinstein, beating out Lou Sheldon.

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. Even Barbara Boxer voted for the Defence of Marriage Act

The voters keep electing these politicians. Perhaps they like what they are getting.

[mitchtv]

19. Barbara has since redeemed herself

threefold.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. Kerry didn't have to redeem himself for voting for that law

He actually voted against it. ;)

[Mass]

36. What about Byrd

total gay basher.

[MisterP]

9. the excuse is that it'll "gain him votes,"

but that is the "conventional wisdom," which is usually neither conventional nor wise.

[Liberal Veteran]

10. Well, I am sorry I voted for and supported him.

If he is unwilling to take a stand to support my civil rights, then I certainly feel no obligation to further support him. I have a very low tolerance for cowards.

[keopeli]

12. Amen, brother

[paulk]

27. do you also have a low tolerance for candidates who win elections?

because that's what this is about.

you can take small steps in the right direction (like civil unions), or you can shoot for the moon and end up walking backwards.

it seems a pretty simple choice, but reading the posts on this thread I guess many DUers would rather be right and powerless than wrong and in a position to eventually get what they want.

[Liberal Veteran]

28. Whatever dude. I'm tired of being told to sit in the back of the bus.

For the sake of spineless politicians who keep stabbing me in the back whenever they feel the least bit threatened.

It makes me feel so much better to know that certain "progressives" feel like my civil rights aren't worth the political liability. I mean, who cares about right and wrong when there are elections to be won, right?

Oh, and on edit, I'll support whichever candidate I damn well please. Kerry lost MAJOR respect in this one. If he is unwilling to defend my civil rights, then it's pretty fucking lame to believe I am going to support him. It's a pretty simple equation. I have grown weary of spineless dems worried more about elections than taking a principled stand for what is fair and right.

And if your attitude towards this is indicative of what I can expect from the majority of progressive democrats, then perhaps I should consider taking my vote, my time, and my checkbook to a different party.

[paulk]

29. Kerry supports civil unions and the legal rights that go with them

but that's just not good enough, is it?

As for spineless, Kerry voted AGAINST the Defense of Marriage Act. But it's "what have you done for me lately", I guess.

what do you think politics is? Do you really understand what you're saying when you use phrases like "political liability"? Political liabilities LOSE elections, especially when they're non-issues like this one. When you lose, you for sure stay in the back of the bus.

Right now, the country will NOT support "gay marriage" It WILL support civil unions. No amount of righteous indignation is going to change that.

[Logician]

30. Never again

I will no longer support weak-kneed politicians like Kerry. By his actions and words, he seems to support equal rights for all until.... he is under the spotlight on these issues... then he regresses towards the right-center (at best), even hurting vulnerable minorities like LGBT folks to gain political favor.


Of course in the end, if it is Kerry or someone like a Dubya, there is not choice for me. But given even the chance of putting someone in the White House who is educated, brave, outspoken, and who walks their talk, I will fight for them to defeat the Kerries of the Democratic Party. The old order and the old, tired strategies do not work.

And what would happen, if, just for the sake of argument, we elect a weak, middle of the road politician for four years? Will he or she be able to vote as a progressive or as a liberal? GET REAL: they will vote to ensure that they are not thrown out of office in the next election. Which means they will not support abortion rights for women, gay rights, or anything out of the political center to right.

No, I won't get fooled again..

[blm]

43. I doubt it. I think you are targeting Kerry specifically and drawing the

worst conclusion to his remarks with a specific purpose to alienate him from his supporters.

Fortunately, there are too many of us with strong comprehension skills who understand that Kerry's remarks are actually stating the truth...that gay marriage doesn't belong in the Democratic platform unless there is consensus within the party for it.

Right now, there is not, and you cannot put that horse before the cart. You must handle the issue deliberatively to get the end results you want.

[AlGore-08.com]

85. Speaking of comprehension skills, what Kerry said

Was that he didn't think it should be in the Mass Dem Party platform. He was asked this question because the Mass Dems are expected to vote to add support of gay marriage into the Mass Dem Party platform. There is no doubt this will happen. When it does happen, it will mean that there is a consensus within the Mass Dem Party to support gay marriage.

If Kerry objected to it being in the national platform, you might have a point about there not being a consensus in the national party about gay marriage. But Kerry objected to it being in the Mass Dem platform, where there is a consensus to support gay marriage.

[AlGore-08.com]

33. The problem is he's letting the far right win the spin wars

The far right is using opposition to gay marriage to help them sell a historic assault on the constitution.

Kerry is asked about gay marriage, and instead of using the question as an opportunity to talk about the country becoming more liberal, or the country rejecting the far right's brand of hate, or to talk about the need for civil rights for all Americans (even if it includes the caveat of 'Now, I'm for civil unions rather than gay marriage'), once again he lets the far right frame the issues. Given the opportunity to talk about Massachusetts's' action as a victory of some kind, he says instead gay marriage is a political third rail.

What if this was the 1950s, and somebody asked Kerry about folks like Rosa Parks and the early civil rights movement? Would it have been okay for Kerry to have said "I think supporting desegregation is wrong politically"?

What if this was the 1930s, and somebody asked Kerry about the growing oppression of Jews in Nazi Germany? Would it have been okay for Kerry to say "I think pressuring Germany over it's treatment of its Jewish citizens is wrong politically"?

[paulk]

60. it's not just the "far right"

there are many people, of all political affiliations, who are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage. This isn't going to be changed overnite.

It's a mistake to cast the gay marriage issue as strictly "a far right against everyone else" thing. It took many years to win the fight over civil rights, (in fact you could argue that the fight isn't won).

It will take many years to win the fight over gay rights. Societal changes that large change incrementally.

[Liberal Veteran]

67. Which is why we need LEADERS not wimps.

It's this pollyanna crap that is costing the party. Is it any wonder the democratic party is losing seats when we refuse to stand up for what we believe in?

[paulk]

77. that's all you have to add?

you don't think the gay marriage issue hurt us in the last election?

Leadership doesn't always imply tilting at windmills.

There are other, more important, battles to fight.


And it might be instructional if you investigated where we lost seats.

[mondo joe]

78. If gay marriage hurt dems it wasn't because of anything they actually

DID but how the repubs framed them.

And John Kerry did as little to fight that as he did the swiftboat liars.

[Liberal Veteran]

82. Well, I guess we know where you stand.

One can infer you see gays as a liability to the party.

If so, I'd be happy to take my support, my checkbook, and my vote elsewhere.

On edit: Yeah, it may seem selfish to look after my own interests but it is becoming abundantly clear I cannot count on my party to watch my back, so I have to take it upon myself and perhaps see if there is not a better use for my time and resources than aligning myself with a party who has apologists for violating my civil rights.

[paulk]

93. is "gay marriage" the only issue important to gays?

I see the use of the term "gay marriage" as a political liability, which is a long way from seeing gays as a liability.

[JRob]

96. It probably made the difference in the election

but isn't it more about focus? Isn't this more Rove strategy? The GOP frames a divisive issue and the corp media put everyones focus on it.

Why not get aggressive and use these same tools to illustrate issues that actually affect their lives?

Crap that is outrageous gets written into law all the time, buried in this bill or that bill and few people ever know. If gays want to get married it's their right to do so...

We need to work to take focus off of this shit and get it on the issues that actually impact everyone.

Why did he need to say anything? Bush provides non-answers all of the time.

[paulk]

97. the problem is, as usual, the media

Kerry's position on this is no different than what he ran on. Bush said in the debates that he supported civil unions. Did the press jump all over that like they have Kerry's recent statement?

Kerry was speaking at a forum on children's healthcare. Did the press focus on that? Obviously not - they took something he said, something with the potential to divide Democrats, and made it the headline.

Kerry made a few missteps in the campaign which turned into front page news. Ever single day Bush said stupid things - barely a whisper in the media. They did the same thing to Gore in 2000.

If Bob Schrum had the media on his side the way Rove does, we'd be calling him a genius.

That's what we're really up against here - a media that is totally in the pocket of the other side. That's willing to spin, twist, and distort to help the right wing agenda. To get liberals fighting amongst themselves.

It sucks that so many on the left fall for it.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

98. Good point, actually.

eom

[JRob]

109. I agree on the media and do not fall for any of it...

The so-called liberal media is probably my biggest issue! Still, realizing where we are and knowing the amount of work necessary to catch up, we need to be as perfect as possible. Organize our own action groups that bombard the media daily, pound on Congress etc. squeaky wheel...

The right is organized and disciplined and can generate millions of calls, emails and letters to media, corporations and the government in a minute.

If we can generate the same energy to that end (esp. to the media and corps who look to generate $$$) maybe we can get a voice in the game.

[AlGore-08.com]

81. Again, people were "uncomfortable" with having racially mixed schools

People were "uncomfortable" with having Jews and gentiles living the same apartment building.

People were "uncomfortable" with women having the right to vote.

People were "uncomfortable" with ending slavery.

People were "uncomfortable" with America becoming an independent nation.

Those changes didn't come after the majority "got comfortable" with those events changing. Those changes occurred because somebody stood up and said "There's a principle at stake here" - - and then went on to persuade other people that it was time to make a change. People only "got comfortable" with those ideas after those changes were made and they lived with them awhile.

[paulk]

88. you're missing my point

polls have shown that a majority of people are comfortable with civil unions.

That's what we should be working toward right now.


BTW - how many years and lives did ending slavery cost? we had a civil war over it!

same with American independence.

how long did it take for women to get the right to vote?

None of these things happened overnight. Now is not the time to further jeopardize the progress that's been made on gay rights by allowing the Republicans to distract with terms like "gay marriage".

It's an emotionally loaded term. Karl Rove sure understands this.

[AlGore-08.com]

100. Fair, I s'ppose, 'cause you're missing the main point

Kerry was asked a question about gay marriage at a time when gays are being demonized by the far right.

Kerry had an opportunity to say something positive about civil unions at that point. Or to say something positive about civil rights in general. Or to say something very negative about the way that Karl Rove is manipulating public opinion with this issue. Or to totally ignore the issue of gay marriage and answer with his current spin points on medical coverage for children or social security or whatever.

Instead, he chose to criticize the Mass Dem Party for approving gay marriage in their platform.

He chose to criticize his own state party as out of touch with the people of his own state.

You think that's going to help Dems run for state and local office in Mass this year and in '06, to have one of their Senators go on record as saying the state party is embracing positions that most folks in MA disagree with?

You think folks like Rush and Faux are going to say, "I know Kerry just attacked his own party for being out of touch with America, but we can't use that sound byte because he really meant well"?

Whether he dissed the Mass Dem Party because he honestly thinks that, or because he's so selfish and cynical he only cares about how the actions of the Mass Dem Party might play in the middle of Alabama to a crowd of far right wingnuts who wouldn't vote for a Democrat even if he was a cure for cancer is moot. He just handed the opposition yet another sound byte to help them win even more elections.

That's the point.

[Logician]

103. Amen

Well put. These days I am just so disgusted by political pragmatists who play the center, instead of courageously taking the moral high road, and educating citizens on issues, and why they should not support conservative positions... from everything from gay marriage to the Iraq war.

[mondo joe]

39. What is he doing to get traction on civil unions?

If he was making PROGRESS you'd see a lot less dissatisfaction.

[renaissanceguy]

42. paulk, if you were gay

or if you were ever a second-class citizen, you'd understand. Otherwise, I really don't want to hear it

[paulk]

55. that is the weakest of arguments

that is saying that ALL GLBT persons agree with you on this issue.

I doubt that even the majority of gays agree with you -

[Logician]

108. we do agree, in large part

PaulK-- you are wrong here.

The sad part is, is that heterosexuals, especially white men, cannot truly empathize with gay men and lesbians who are told often that they are second class citizens by legislative actions, and more subtle forms of homophobia and the corresponding heterosexism.

Kerry's rhetoric does not help at all. Look at his statement... all of it. He did not have to go on about not at all being in favor of gay marriage, once he made the initial statement about gay marriage and the party platform. But he just *had to * reassure middle America that he was one of 'them'.

I could just puke.

[cyr330]

74. Well

If that's the case, don't you think the country should have voted for George Wallace in 1963? Nobody ever thought Johnson would support the Civil Rights Act, but he did, and he was never punished for it (it was Vietnam that brought him down).

Furthermore, having the attitude of, "what can you do for me?" is not something gays should be ashamed of. Think of Republicans who have brought down municipal laws banning bullying in schools, because they fear that it will protect gays.

I, for one, have supported the Democratic candidate financially and with my time since 1972, and I am sick to death of being pandered to. Kerry is done as far as I'm concerned, and I'll have to see what candidate the Dems can produce in 2008 before I can make a judgment. Just being a Democratic is no longer good enough.

On edit: George Wallace ran in 1972.

[Mass]

40. So may be you may want to check their position on the issue

Some have surprising records. Or may be you are condemmed to support Nader.

As for sitting on the back of the bus, I am wondering what black people who suffered from discrimination (or still suffer) think of that.

[mondo joe]

44. I can tell you what SOME of those black people think of it - Coretta Scott

King and Julian Bond have lent their support on gay civil rights.

How appalling of you to suggest this infringement on civil rights is somehow lesser.

[Mass]

45. Sorry I have seen that compared to slavery in other places

While I support totally gay marriage, I find the comparison offensive.

[Liberal Veteran]

48. I didn't see a comparison to slavery....I saw a comparison

...to a minority being treated as second class citizens.

You know. Separate but equal? Miscegenation laws. Jim Crow. Lynchings. Hate crimes. Entrenched systemic racism. Ghettoization. Scapegoating.

All those things happened AFTER slavery.

With gays it's: Denied marriage rights. Entrenched systemic homophobia. Constitutional amendments being passed to stop gays from marrying. Lyinchings. Hate crimes. Parental rights nullified. Don't ask, don't tell. Ghettoization. Scapegoating.

The way gay people are being treated is much the same way that blacks were treated after the civil war until the 1960's (and still the fight goes on).

The parrallels are too similiar to ignore. Pretending like everything began and ended with slavery is short-sighted. The treatment of African-Americans post-emancipation was appalling and the treatment of gays in society today is appalling.

[mondo joe]

49. The comparison was the back of the bus, not slavery, Stop making

shit up.

[Mass]

52. Did I say it was in this thread!!

You are making s* up because somebody does not agree with you 100 %. I love that.

I sincerely hope you find what you want, but dont expect other people to let them walk over them for that. As I said, I agree 100 % for gay rights including full blown marriage, but this type of exchange certainly is not going to push me to be active in promoting it. Respect goes both ways.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

56. That "collective punishment" idea irks me.

It's like you're saying, "I'm going to punish all of you for the transgressions of the few." If you don't support gay rights, fine, don't support them. If you do, great, continue doing so for the same reasons you did before a nasty exchange here. But don't treat us like we are all cut from the same cloth. That makes me suspicious of your real motives.

I'm not trying to hassle you, but you're not the first to talk that way, so I just wanted to say that to everyone who would use support for gay rights as a kind of bribe. thanks. :hi:

[Mass]

62. You are right and I should not have said that

This is just a knee-jerk answer to being agressed because I dont have a 100 % agrement with them.

I know I will continue to support those rights because the right of all are important, and I guess I should just avoid this type of thread because I have trouble dealing with intolerant people (not your case, far from it). This makes me suspicious of their motives as well.

[mondo joe]

58. If you look back at this thread, it was SPECIFICALLY in response to

comments about "back of the bus" that you posed your query about what blacks would think.

So excuse ME for thinking your respobse to a comment actually had something to do WITH THE COMMENT.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

46. Carol Mosley-Braun supported gay marriage right from the start

"Oops. Guess we who don't support gay rights can't point to civil rights pioneers. We'll have to come up with something else." :sarcasm:

That said, I'm coming around to Kerry's position, but I still feel it was an incredibly un-nuanced thing to say, and gays have a right to be pissed off about it.

[Mass]

47. I agree with what you say

Just find that comparing gay marriage with slavery is a little bit unnuanced too.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

50. I suppose so.

It's still a civil rights issue, though, even if not as extreme.

[freestyle]

99. Stop treating Black GLBT people like we don't exist.

There are millions of people who live at the intersection of race and ethnicity and sexuality, who are "other" in multiple ways and want to be treated as whole people. Learn some history. The main organizer of the 1963 March on Washington was Bayard Rustin, who was black and gay. James Baldwin was a powerful pen and voice. Angela Davis, June Jordan, Audre Lorde, and quiet as it has been kept, Barbara Jordan. There is no honest way to separate anyone from the ongoing and multifaceted struggle for human rights.

[mondo joe]

38. And what steps is Kerry taking toward civil unions ("the right direction")

anyway?

[paulk]

57. he's saying he supports them

with the Republicans controlling our government, what else can he do?

That's the whole point - until Democrats have the political power to change things, nothing will happen. Republicans use issues like "gay marriage" as wedges. A good argument can be made that this issue cost us the last election. Kerry is saying that MA, in using the term "gay marriage" is throwing gas on the fire the Republicans started.

Better to take that issue away from them, win some elections, then move toward something more Americans (and more Democrats) would support - civil unions.

[mondo joe]

59. Woohoo - he says he supports them. Big f'ing deal.

When he makes a real committment to civil unions you might find more people willing to accept that.

The problem is people like Kerry keep saying "I don't support marriage, I suppotr civil unions" but doing jack shit to GET to civil unions, so gays end up with NOTHING anyway.

[paulk]

61. clearly, the tenor of your post here, and elsewhere on this thread

show that you are not prepared to have a meaningful discussion on this subject.

have a nice day

[mondo joe]

64. Fine - ignore the points if you like. But the fact is that

Kerry and a number of other dems have given pure lip service to the issue. Saying "I support civil unions" but not doing anything to make them a reality does not provide a viable alternative. So don't be surprised when people find it an inadequate response.

With regard to Kerry in particular, he's just contributing to his own reputation as a flip flopper and equivocator who won't take a real stand.

I plugged my nose and contributed more to his campaign than any other I have ever given to. I won't make the same mistake again.

[paulk]

79. I haven't ignored your points,

but you've ignored mine. You've basically made the same post over and over again on this thread.

Goodbye, and thanks for repeating the RNC spin on Kerry. It says a lot about your true motives.

[Liberal Veteran]

65. That's an unbecoming tactic on your part.

Accuse the other person of being unreasonable and avoiding having to defend your support of Kerry in this.

But the poster is right. Kerry (and you) are sacrificing the gay community on the altar of political expediency.

If the gay community loses no matter which path we take, I'd rather side on standing up for what is just and fair and losing than compromising my values and losing anyway.

We have already made too many sacrifices, too many compromises, too many retreats. And what has it gotten us?

If you refuse to stand for your principles because you fear the price your stance, then you are tacitly allowing others to make your principles for you.

[mondo joe]

70. And I'd be fine w Kerry supporting civil unions as an alternative if

he actually did anything to really make civil unions available.

I think same sex marriage has been played as a wedge issue by the right but the left has failed to make its own play: advocate STRONGLY for civil unions as a matter of basic decency and let the right declare oppose them.

[Liberal Veteran]

72. Exactly...it's like Bush saying he supports insurance for the uninsured.

Yet doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to make that happen.

I didn't just say "I support John Kerry for President" last year. I donated money I really didn't have, I spoke to friends to drum up support for him, I defended him when he was attacked, I placed a bumpersticker on my car and handed out fliers in support of him.

That is what SUPPORT is. What has Kerry offered in way of "support" for civil unions other than empty words? Has he introduced a bill into congress. Has he stumped for it?

From where I stand, his words seem to be nothing more than air crossing a voice box for the all the real action behind those words.

[mondo joe]

76. Right - when the DNC asks for my support it expects time, $, votes.

I want a similar tangible show of Kerry's "support".

[paineinthearse]

11. I am a delegate to next week's party convention

I shall be distributing this far and wide.

[TayTay]

31. I am also a delegate.

I intend to vote FOR the Gay Marriage plank in the platform. (If there is a resolution calling for withdrawal from Iraq, I'll vote for that too!)

That said, I don't see the big deal. Kerry hasn't changed his position. He still has a 100% Human Rights Campaign voting record in support of civil rights for GLBT people. This is his position according to Human Rights Campaign: http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Campaigns_and_Elections&CONTENTID=23414&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

Relationship Recognition
Supports civil unions with federal benefits, domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples and the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, which would treat binational same-sex couples like opposite-sex couples.

Give me a friggin break. That is not exactly Wingnut territory. I know a lot of people in MA who are not yet at support for full Gay Marriage. They are strong supporters of civil liberties for all citizens. The non-support of Gay Marriage doesn't make them enemies of freedom. (It means they are not there yet.) Barney Frank, a gay Congressman from MA, is not in support of Gay Marriage. (He has concerns about it as a political tactic.) Does that make him an enemy of the GLBT civil rights movement?

[Mass]

34. Concerning Iraq

I have heard there is no resolution. Is it true and if yes what happened.

For Kerry and the gay marriage, a lot of time spent on old news.

[TayTay]

41. I have heard both. (Figures)

A number of other State cons have had resolutions advising withdrawal from Iraq. I was told that MA may have one. But it is also possible that they didn't get it ready in time.

[TahitiNut]

13. I guess when you run for office where the majority favor lynchings ...

... you take a principled stance for softer ropes and stronger trees. :shrug:

After all, who can argue with pragmatism? :eyes:

[davidinalameda]

14. brava!!!!

excellent reply!

[Dhalgren]

54. T-Nut, you hit it square on the head - as usual.

Everyone says that you have to abandon your principles to win election. Well, the Democrats have been abandoning their principles by the bucket-full and NOT winning. Standing up for your principles and sticking to what you believe in and losing is much preferable to pandering to the Christian right, selling your self respect and losing. Poor Democrats - they don't know who the fuck they are...

[ikojo]

15. This is why so many people have given up on

politics all together. Democrats continue to allow the Republicans to set the agenda and they try to run as pug lite. What has the Dem party not learned from 1994, 2000, 2002 and 2004?

[AlGore-08.com]

18. I agree that letting the GOP set the agenda is the issue

And in doing so, it plays into their own memes about how useless the Dems are: we make ourselves look like weak, ineffective, flip-flopping liars who will sell out their base in a heartbeat.

If we want the conventional wisdom to be that we're fighters, that we stand up for our base, then our leaders have to draw lines in the sand and say "I will not compromise on this principle".

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

17. As I said in Thread 1, he's not such a bad guy, but I won't support him

for another run.

He's really working that triangulation BS, but he does it so sloppily.

No, thanks.

[MaryBear]

20. It seems to me he is being consistent.

It seems to me his statement is in line with his beliefs. Isn't Kerry a commited Catholic? From the above thread apparently all he said is that to support it is not a good idea. This isn't a case where he can say government should stay out of it. I do think BTW that to say nothing might have been better in the larger picture, but he has a history of saying it like it is. If it comes to a vote he will have a time balancing his point of view with his faith and the will of the people he represents. Tough one.

[Piperay]

21. The problem with the Democrats

is they have no guts in standing up for controversial issues. One thing you can say for the RW repukes is that they lay their stands right out there. The repukes have been doing that for years and years and where has it gotten them....into the Whitehouse and controlling EVERYTHING. Until the Democrats get some guts we will get losing. Yeah controversial stands may hurt you in elections for awhile but you have to be willing to lose to win in the end. That is one thing that can be learned from the repigs.

[MaryBear]

23. Democrats are not a monolithic force.

That is both good and not good.

[shoopnyc]

26. Kerry should just stay out of the conversation..

...the media won't care anyway; UNTIL the next election...

[gauguin57]

32. Very, very disappointing.

Our candidates keep losing (excuse me, letting the Repugs get enough votes to keep it close enough to steal the election) by not standing up for what the Democratic party is supposed to believe in!

Our candidates should be PROUD to be Democrats! Proud to support the rights of all people!

[Mass]

35. Again

This subject has been rehashed again and again. What do you expect to achieve by posting it again.

[Liberal Veteran]

51. I don't have any problems with a coward being called out for his cowardice

And this latest thing (as well as his feeble post-election fight and feeble response to the Swift Boat Liars) has forced me to re-examine him.

In short, I have weighed him against my own set of values and expectations for a leader and found him sorely wanting.

[Mass]

53. Your absolute right!!

Still the subject has been rehashed and rehashed IMHO.

[mondo joe]

66. Bingo. When he failed to defend himself against the swiftboat liars

he did more damage to himself than all their ads combined.

I think voters appreciate a fighter - especially in the terrorism hysteria climate these days.

[Laughing Mirror]

69. What do you expect to achieve by stifling the debate?

After all, it was Mr. Kerry who brought the subject up, out campaigning, just the other day, so it is only natural on a political website people would want to discuss it.

Why do you want to shut down the debate?

[second edition]

63. I think those of you just criticizing Kerry on this are wrong.

1. His opinion has not changed.
2. He supports civil unions.
3. His opinion differs very little from most Dems.
4. He was asked the question in regards to the Mass. Convention

Our candidates are not perfect. You may not agree with all of their positions. Frankly, I don't think there is a candidate that would please some of you, no matter what they did.

John Kerry is out there trying to do what is right for those who voted for him. He has a consistent and complicated opinion on this issue. Actually, many people are uncomfortable with this issue and I see nothing wrong with approaching it slowly.

I support Kerry and I think you who feel a need to criticize everything he does need to GIVE IT A REST, CONCENTRATE ON THE REAL ENEMY-THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

[Liberal Veteran]

68. It's as simple as this: Kerry is wrong on this issue.

And that needs to examined in the context of this and his other failings.

Chosing a course based on political expediency is a slap in the face to the millions of people who are gay, lesbian, bi, transgendered.

It is asking far too much to tell us to sit back and be silent while we are being sold down the river.

[blm]

71. I submit your analysis of Kerry's position is WRONG. Why don't you explain

how you derived at your conclusion?

I factored in all of Kerry's comments about this over many years, and his past advocacy where he took the lead for gay rights issues and have concluded that Kerry is for full rights for gays and wants the legislation to be based in a solid DELIBERATIVE process. One exacting legal step at a time. The issue of marriage must have a foundation where it is spelled out only in civil terms and the religious aspect is held separately as a separate, additional, optional event.

It's like Ruth Bader-Ginsburg's criticism of Roe v. Wade as a poorly deliberated legal document. She is in no way against the conclusion of Roe v. Wade, but recognizes the way in which it was handled WITHOUT a full, deliberative process which dealt with every aspect of the debate fully and in excruciating detail, has enabled the pro-life movement to create challenges throughout the years that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

[second edition]

75. I won't get into an argument over who's right and who's wrong.

I will say, I don't think you need to worry about being "sold down the river" by John Kerry. He is a man of integrity. He has his opinion on this, and he is not out to harm anyone. I also don't see him using this to gain support. I was aware of his views during the election. He has been consistent. I think you sell him short too quickly, he has a wonderful record on civil rights.

[renaissanceguy]

84. I'm just pissed that he said anything at all

even if he was asked the question. When Howard Dean is asked about it, he spins the question in support of civil unions and equal rights. He does not outright say that "gay marriage" shouldn't be supported, either.

By speaking out like it, Kerry is trying to win votes in 2008, and it just won't work. Without his base (liberals, whether you admit it or not), he won't win the nomination in '08, either. Look at what happened to Lieberman.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

95. Yup - remember during debates how Bush answered everything the same way

"No Child Left Behind!" "Education is important!" Answered all these tough question Kerry threw at him with platitudes, and effectively declined to answer the questions.

Why couldn't Kerry do that, too, in this one instance?

I don't think we should make this into the end of the world, but that is just not the way to handle such a question. And considering how much loved Teresa was/is in the gay community, it's really disappointing.

I'd give him a second chance, since he IS a dem, but how many chances will the MSM give him if he makes such a gaffe during the primaries?

[erichzann]

91. Are you gay?

1. his opinion is wrong
2. Separate but equal was wrong when it was used to discriminate against blacks, and its wrong now
3. Most dems are as cowardly and wrong on this issue as southern democrats were in the 1960s.
4. It is irrelevant what the question was in regards to. Morally right is morally right. And defending the rights of people to be treated equally under the law and regonized equally under the law is a moral imperitive.

John Kerry is not out there trying to do what is right fo all those who voted for him - just the straight people.

People who play fast and lose with the rights of people ARE my enemy - whatever "side" of the political spectrum they claim to sit on.

[Megahurtz]

73. Kerry said this?

:wtf:

[Laughing Mirror]

83. Kerry said this:

"I'm opposed to it being in a platform. I think it's a mistake. I think it's the wrong thing, and I'm not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state ... I'm opposed to gay marriage."

[Liberal Veteran]

86. And now I am "opposed" to John Kerry.

Screw this separate but equal shit.

[gavodotcom]

80. Kerry's just found his excuse, that's all.

His defeat certainly couldn't have come about through incompetence of his staff or advisors regarding the Swifties. It has nothing to do with his Senate voting record (not that he has a "bad" one; that he has one at all leaves him open for attack). It has nothing to do with "I have a plan," or "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it," or that Republicans managed to outflank him time and time again on just about every issue, if Kerry ever stated a clear plan or showed clarity of any particular an issue. It wasn't that Kerry never managed to show the country in what direction he wanted to lead the country. Or that Bush seems to be the Teflon President and even if the media managed to find something, it wouldn't 'stick.'

The only reason Kerry lost is because gays want to get married, and the fact that a lot of Democrats would rather lose and be right, than to win and be wrong on this civil rights issue, well, that's just not how someone in the Beltway would think.

I voted for Kerry, and I liked and respected him throughout the campaign. But for a Dem, and supposedly a liberal one, not to understand or appreciate the civil rights nature of the issue, is beyond inconceivable for me.

[JRob]

87. Gay marriage SHOULD NOT be an issue!

Even if everything else was copacetic why is this an issue? Let these people live their lives!!!!

Kerry is an IDIOT for allowing himself to be drawn into what amounts to one of the biggest SMOKE SCREENS in American election history!

I'm sure Bush, Rove and company are laughin' their asses off!

[janx]

89. Oh man.

He's never going to get away from this.

[erichzann]

90. I think John Kerry is a mistake.

He's the wrong thing, and I'm not sure he reflects the broad view of the Democratic party in our state.

[1956]

92. I still think most of ya'll have taken it out of context.

And furthermore,Kerry supports the gays,always has. And more than that, my God,no candidate is going to be perfect, and most of all, let's all concentrate on the possibilty of impeaching that embaressing Shrub! The Bush/Blair secret war leak is BIG,BIG,BIG!!
On the scale of importance, I'm sure we can all agree on the timeliness of the fact that if the Amer. people can see how we have been lied to, it may somehow stop the June war planned for Iran!!

[erichzann]

94. Nice "support."

I'm sorry, but "Separate but Equal" is not support of gays. It's support of discrimination and inequaltiy.

[Bluebear]

101. "Kerry supports the gays"

Not when he criticizes his own state party which overwhelmingly favors gay marriage, which is legal in Massachusetts. What support should "the gays" assume from his comments?

[mondo joe]

102. When the DNC calls me for "support" I will offer the same "support"

if - heaven forbid - Kerry is the candidate.

[PATRICK]

104. But then the context

as pure politics is troubling enough when after two heated threads people are still saying "I think he meant". That is an 800 pound ambiguity in the living room while we get into the issue itself or the pro and con Kerry thing.

Shooting fast and loose into one's foot is one thing. Shooting into your constituents in any shape or form in response to the fascist fantasy voting bloc is another.

Both parties must thank God every day there is nothing sanely better on the gamed horizon.

Notice I am not giving the statement itself any argument. The media context makes these snippets more poisonously irrelevant to me than (unfortunately) to the politicians themselves. This is hardly a time to close doors and make RW concessions when we have no real power one way or another except possibly to enable their crimes.

Face it too, Kerry has a real problem now with the papacy that makes the the Swift Boats thing look like the Love Boat. One BIG gorilla in the living room is how this outside influence damages his future candidacy. There is little Kerry could except make this worse. Horrible but true. Further unjust constriction of the candidate pool to a "safe" type.

[Deja Q]

107. I had my doubts with his quick concession. My doubts are gone.

Do I regret voting for him? A hard question given his post-election reactions and his 5 month delay before decrying the corrupt election. And there are too many variables to consider if Kerry had won.

But am I glad he lost? Increasingly, yes. Especially if peak oil is true as the current sitting president (**) will get the blame; with nobody bothering to care about the last 25 years' worth of waste and Reagan's nixing of energy programs CARTER had created.

[queerart]

105. Typical.........

[Deja Q]

106. Hmmm. Ignore big issues and home in on wedge topics and memes instead.

I've nothing left to say about that character at all.