Well Rep. Matheson (D - UT) just lost my vote.

[Sean Reynolds]

2nd District Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson immediately embraced Bush's request this week for Congress "to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife."


http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02282004/utah/143257.asp

TWO words to Matheson, FUCK YOU.

I was thinking about not voting for this ass, but knew how important it was. Well that ends today - I will NEVER cast my vote for Matheson, whether it's a close election or not.

Meet Matheson. DINO in training!

The funny thing about this article? Both of Utah's REPUBLICAN senators, and Utah's OTHER Republican congressman have their doubts about the amendment.

[West Coast Democrat]

1. Contact Rep. Matheson's office, then.

He probably doesn't read DU. Give him a piece of your mind or vote for the Republican in November. It's your choice.

[FeebMaster]

14. yeah

those are the only 2 choices. haha

[West Coast Democrat]

2. And another thing, Democracy is about more than voting...

or withholding votes. It's about contacting your representatives. It might sound futile, but it can work. My Dad, who would NEVER vote for a Republican, was actually able to change Orrin Hatch's mind on a particular issue after gently pestering him about it over time. He considered it a personal victory. One person can make a difference.

[Sean Reynolds]

3. Oh I'm going to call him and give him some heavy words.

[bryant69]

4. Actually it makes sense

If you are a Republican you are allowed to have doubts; you're still on the right team. It's only a Democrat who has to convince utah that he believes in what they believe.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[PROGRESSIVE1]

19. Because this is Utah, he has to do this. In other moderate/normal states.

....you do not have to support this horrible amendment.

[cosmicdot]

5. is it too late for someone to seek the Democratic nomination?

a window of opportunity for you or someone else to challenge the seat?

[NewJerseyDem]

6. The seat is overwhelmingly republican

Out of the 300 million or so people in this country there is exactly one person who can win this seat as a democrat and that is Jim Matheson. Matheson narrowly won in 2002 and will have a narrow fight again. He is a moderate to conservative democrat but has voted against the partial-birth abortion ban at severe political risk. In a district that gave 67% of its votes to Bush I'll take a democrat who has voted against ANWR drilling, partial-birth abortion, faith-based charity funding, barring funding for the international court, school vouchers, limiting the patient bill of rights and ending civil service rights for Homeland security workers.

Even if he supports FMA, there is no better option for this seat from Utah.

[Sean Reynolds]

7. Problem is, a lot of those votes came before they gerrymandered.

His old district was pretty moderate to left leaning, being it was just Salt Lake County. But now they've changed his district to fit in rural Utah and thus he's had to change too. So now he'll vote Republican almost every time.

[jsw_81]

8. Who would you rather see in that seat?

A moderate Democrat like Matheson who votes with the GOP 15-20 percent of the time or a conservative Republican like Cannon who votes with his party 100 percent of the time?

And lose the hammer and sickle already.

[Sean Reynolds]

9. Does it matter?

If he's going to vote Republican on the biggest issues, why should I support him?

I'm sorry, I don't compromise.

And the only way you'll get my hammer and sickle is if you pry it from my cold, dead hands! :D

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Dupe

Hate when this happens...

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Because of the one vote that really matters, who gets to be Speaker...

We can stop a lot of Republican agenda before it even reaches the floor if we control the house.

[Sean Reynolds]

13. Well then if Democrats want MY vote....

They should support MY views. Like I said, I don't compromise my beliefs.

[paulk]

20. if you don't want to compromise

you should run for office as a communist. You won't win, of course, but someday the revolution will come. Just think, when you take over you can kill all the people who you don't like! Whoever's left will be sure to support your views.

[Sean Reynolds]

21. Yup!

Viva la Revolution! :eyes:

[Hippo_Tron]

10. You know you're a DINO when...

You support a gay marriage Ammendment that Orrin Crotch does not.

[KharmaTrain]

15. Flaming A Democrat Is What Rove Wants

FMA is a distraction, a non-issue to the majority of voters.

Besides pumping up the religious flying monkey right with an ammendment that doesn't stand a chance of passage (surely Rove whipped this one before he rolled it out) and created this as a wedge issue for local races to use.

It's also intended to divide our ranks as there are many who, while favoring equal rights for gays, don't have the passion. Thus you can see the infighting that is occuring here...and to isolate the gays even within the Democratic party. By flaming a Democrat...or even worse, emailing or calling that Congressman plays right into this divisive strategy...and don't think that's a big part of the GOOP game plan.

Remember, Matheson is elected to represent the general interests of his constituents, not to serve solely as a whipped vote...that makes us just as bad, if not worse than Repugnicans. Look at a Chris Shays or a Lincoln Chaffee who are with us more than against us...alienating anyone at this time destroys what we need most to achieve the main objective of ousting this repressive regime.

If we win in November, there's gonna be a lot of mess to clean up and that in-time gay marriage or civil unions or some form of economic and civil equality in marriage laws will be codified into the laws of the land (on state levels).

Right now let's not forget who made this an issue and wants to keep it in the headlines for as long as possible...and why!

[Brian_Expat]

16. The FMA is an issue to these people. . .

. . . and some Democrats seem to be more than willing to abandon gays and lesbians to people like this:



If hatred like this is a "non-issue" to the Democratic nominee, the Democratic nominee is a "non-candidate" to this Democrat.

[KharmaTrain]

17. Mr. Rove Thanks You

I sure don't see any Democrats condoning hate crimes or any kind of discrimination against gays...and I'm not gonna play into your game, either.

Yep, right now, Gay marriage is a non-issue on the Federal level...should be strictly a state one, and not relevant to the major problems facing this nation. I think the killing of Americans in an illegal invasion, the raping of our national treasure and the ruin of our middle and lower classes are paramount now to any other.

Definitely state your feelings about how the party should deal with this issue, but don't burn bridges that you'll need later. Unless you live in that district, his stand on this issue mean nothing. If anything we should focus on getting him more Democrats in the House so this ammendment never reaches even a sub-committee. Then let the states sort things out.

Cheers

[David Zephyr]

18. Sean, Thanks!

What is the purpose of working on behalf of people who ultimately can always be counted upon to betray us all?

Were you here when Zell Miller had his cheering crowd and scolded those of us who criticized him? Do you remember that? Not a peep from them today.

I think you are just swell!

:thumbsup:

--DZ