Would I vote for a racist just because they had a "D" by their name?

[VMI Dem]

This is what I asked myself. Because for years, I have voted for Democratic candidates despite knowing they are homophobes, and I asked myself why. Is it because homophobia is more widely accepted? Is it because I don't have to face the daily onslaught of hatred that gays do? Racism is immediately recognized and called out by Democrats. A good example is my own Senator Webb recently with his essay on the "myth of white privilege". Or the tea party's obvious bigotry.

We make excuses for homophobia though. Especially when it is a Democrat. "They are just saying that to get votes" is a common excuse. Are the same types of excuses made for racist behavior by those in our own party?

When would it have ever been acceptable to espouse separate but equal civil unions for interracial heterosexual couples? And just because you think it is ok for gays to fight and die in our military, it doesn't mean you can oppose civil rights for these same gay citizens and claim some moral high ground.

When did fundamental civil rights become a "pet cause" or a "pony"? When did oppressed members of a minority become "whiners" or "complainers"? When did their legitimate anger become "daily outrage" or "pouting"?

I would not vote for a racist candidate, and I will not vote for a homophobic candidate. They are the same in my eyes - unacceptable bigotry. I don't feel comfortable doing it and I've drawn the line. These are my standards. Others have their own.

[Tailormyst]

1. Thank you for saying this.

[Heidi]

2. Recommended.

:kick:

[QC]

3. Thank you! n/t

[NMMNG]

4. Thank you. K&R

[Catherina]

5. War and homophobia are my lines. No more compromises. n/t

[joeybee12]

6. Agreed, and I won't vote for an enabler of homophobia, no matter what

the party affiliation.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. A good argument can be made that what Webb says is wrong.

It is a more difficult argument to say that it's racist.

But if you think you'll have better luck voting for the "R"...

[Orsino]

27. Webb's recent position paper is his own argument against our supporting him.

He makes a strong case.

[Johonny]

46. I think it would be nicer to say

Webb and others are making a good case for moving toward socio-economic arguments for social programs rather than just socio-institutionalized arguments. Adding more rhetoric that appeals to non-minority based voters that are poor is not a "bad" thing. Although I would not argue the point in the language of Webb. It is not uncommon or unpopular language for the voter base he is looking to attract to the party. It is true however if the Democratic party is going to take a Republican voter base that really has nothing to gain from Conservative politics it needs to talk to them and how our programs do in fact effect them. The Democratic party isn't the party of minority voters and concerns, but a party for socio-economic rights. Can Democrats appeal to those that are often racist in their world view, but that don't actually gain politically from being racist without making ill their traditional bases? IDK. A few Jim Webbs isn't horrible, but it feels these days Webb wants that to be the future of the party and I'm not sure the traditional base is all that excited with that future.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. I'm okay with color-blind economic populism.

But the "economic populism" part is a requirement.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Wait for the they're "not as bad" homophoes and "you must want Palin" replies. K&R

[LostinVA]

32. Or, at least we aren't hanged here like in Iran

My personal fave.

[DirkGently]

9. Decades or centuries from now, sepia-tinged photos

of screaming, anti-gay bigots will feature on Ken Burns' grandchildren's documentaries, and we'll once again shake our heads at how our culture had to go through each and every instance of sweeping hatred of people based on their group status, one at a time. Skin color. Gender. Religion. Sexual orientation.

There's a car in the lot at work with a bumper sticker for Florida's Prop 9 ("Prop 2")with cartoon stick figures and some caption about "Marriage = One man, One woman." No different from "Marriage = One white man ... or One Christian man ...

And yet the person probably doesn't see themselves as anything like a race bigot.

We are one thick-headed species.

More to your point, though. Nope. No reason to support anyone who would countenance those views. No one is excused because the culture at large hasn't caught on yet.

[uncommon]

13. Those stickers make me cringe -

wearing your hatred on your sleeve like that, for everyone to see. It's scary that these people aren't even shamed into keeping their bigotry to themselves.

[DirkGently]

18. And it's all with the cheerful colors and "happy" little stick

figures. Like it's some kind of rainbow puppy hang-in-there-kitten sweetness, instead of vicious, baseless hatred. My own personal bigotry? All those cars drive like @ssholes.

[cbdo2007]

10. I know racists who voted for Obama just because he had a "D" by his name.

[political_Dem]

11. Bless you for your comments. This is a demonstration of true principles.

Not many people would be as candid about how they view such issues that hinder the rights of disenfranchised groups in this society. It is indeed special when someone uses their moral center and applies it in order to support human and civil rights--especially when such demonstrations are needed in situations that are morally bankrupt.

Jim Webb's comments were rather clueless and demonstrative of someone who doesn't truly understand the issues related to race in this society. And it is a moral dilemma to support a candidate who has questionable attitudes when party politics are at stake.

That is why it is a true pleasure when someone lays out a clear examination of how they would choose principle over political expediency.

Bravo. Well done.

[Ignis]

50. +1. It's clearly stated and well argued.

DUers might not agree with the argument, of course, but they have the opportunity to present their own clear, well-argued responses.

[LWolf]

12. k&r

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Very well said and thanks for saying it

No more support for bigots of any sort. A bigot is a bigot is a bigot. A bigot by any other name would smell as foul.

[treestar]

15. So don't vote for them.

Who is running against Webb and is not a homophobe?

[VMI Dem]

16. Webb?

Huh?

[treestar]

22. Did you give an example of a homophobe? I guess not.

who is it that is running as a D and is a homophobe? why are they are homophobe? Who are you going to vote for instead? Hard to believe the Republican is not also a homophobe. Therefore, who will you be voting for? Green party candidate? Do you know for sure they aren't a homophobe?

[VMI Dem]

40. You can look in your sig picture I guess.

:shrug:

[treestar]

42. So you are saying Biden is a homophobe?

On what do you base that accusation?

[VMI Dem]

43. I say that anyone that says they oppose gay marriage is a homophobe.

Don't you agree.

[treestar]

48. That's a bit too broad

If he actually opposes gay marriage, I would disagree with him, but not label him a homophobe or consider him forever unfit for office.

I don't think a person has to categorically be a homophobe for opposing gay marriage.

[VMI Dem]

49. So, he opposes gay marriage for religious reasons and that is not homophobic?

Ok. We are done.

[Nye Bevan]

56. Absolutely. I don't think blacks should be allowed to marry whites, either.

But you wouldn't label me a racist, or consider me unfit for office. Would you?

[U4ikLefty]

73. So would someone who opposes interracial marriage may not be racist?

You would feel uncomfortable calling someone who opposes interracial marriage a racist...really?

C'mon...I know you love shaking your pom-poms, but jeez!!!

[Bluenorthwest]

19. So you will vote for a homophobe?

And that does not matter to you? Why does it not matter to you? Would you pick a homophobe over a non bigot?

[treestar]

25. Simple tit for tat

Who will you be voting for who is not a homophobe? Who do you advocate we vote for?

It would help if you told us which D where is running and is a homophobe, and which opponent of that D is not a homophobe, so you could tell us who we should vote for.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. I asked you a question, which you did not answer

None of the Democrats I will be voting for are homophobes. This is not an issue here, in my election. The question I asked was direct. Would you vote for a known homophobe over a non bigot? And you simply evaded that question. On another thread, you are claiming to be good at spotting homophobes. Which is it, are you able to spot them or do you need others to tell you?
I asked you a question, and you did not even have the respect and courtesy to answer it. You replied with a question.

[treestar]

41. Isn't it against the rule to talk about other threads?

No, I would not vote for a homophobe.

[geek tragedy]

17. The truth?

Discrimination against GLBT citizens is considered much more socially acceptable than is racism. Sucks, but true. Think of the 1930's and 1940's--racism was as socially acceptable then as homophobia is now. And, racism was not only tolerated but propagated from Franklin Delano Roosevelt on down. There would have been no New Deal without the support of Southern Segregationists. And there isn't a majority for progressive change on other issues in this country that doesn't include homophobes (as we saw in California).

[Silent3]

20. Would you have voted for Lincoln in 1860?

By today's standard, Lincoln was a racist. He didn't even plan to free the slaves when elected, he was just hoping stop the spread of slavery to new states and keep the country together.

A vote for Lincoln, however, did black slaves much more good than any ideological purist sitting home not voting, or writing in an obscure radical (radical by 1860's standards) abolitionist, ever would have done.

I'm not saying you have to like the current situation. I'm not saying what you have to do (a necessary disclaimer on the Internet, where everyone seems to confuse criticism of particular courses of action, or the mentioning of problems with particular courses of action, with some jackbooted thug ordering them at gunpoint that they aren't ALLOWED to take those courses of action). I am saying that there are times when pragmatism, and that ugly word "compromise", get you more real results than inflexible adherence to principles, even good, well-justified principles.

[LostinVA]

34. I really hope we aren't expected to use 1860 mores as our standards

:wtf:

[Silent3]

39. While gay rights aren't as far back as black rights in 1860...

...they aren't as far forward as people might hope. Think about where black rights were when blacks couldn't marry whites -- that's about where we are now. At that time, a candidate who supported some compromise like civil unions would have been a better choice than a rabid anti-miscegenist or a supporter of full marriage rights who was too obscure to have a chance to win.

If you don't think I personally know anything about having to compromise my values, I'm an atheist. I have to put up with politicians and candidates blatantly disregarding separation of church and state all of the time, and I know that I personally wouldn't have a ghost of a chance in a major election as a candidate unless I hid my atheism and spouted lots of "God Bless America!"s to keep the anti-atheist public happy.

[kiva]

21. K&R n/t

You're right, we all have - or should have - our standards, our line in the sand.

[TheKentuckian]

23. I don't see how it can be seen any differently and have any integrity in AMERICAN VALUES

or even western values, in my opinion.

We shouldn't even be talking left/right about civil rights and civil liberties, it is madness.

Personally, I'm very hesitant to vote for economic royalists as well but I can accept on some points there is room for debate and give and take. There is no room for compromise in my mind that all people are created equal and each of us have God/nature/Universe given right and power of self determination.

Thanks for the thread.

[Loudmxr]

24. You don't reward bad values with your vote. Simple.

Please don't confuse racism with bigotry. If they have hate in their heart. That is racism. Anything else is BIGOTRY. I'm really trying to make people see the difference.

If confronted with two evils, two or more bigots don't vote. Seriously. Don't lend that part of your soul to them. You will feel better. There are lots more candidates and issues on a ballot you can vote for. Just don't vote the bigot.

I know when i had a business there were employees that refused to work on certain advertising product. I said "Sure!" Because they did not want to lend their soul to advertising evil things. Like Republicans.

Fortunately I had other whores working for me.... but I understood my more principled employees and supported them.

BTW we would never know who our political clients would be working for. Usually Demos but they would sneak a Republican in every now and then. One time one client got off the phone and just stood there looking at the phone. He said "I just got off the phone with Ted Kennedy." We stood around and looked at the phone and said "Wow...!" Hey its California...we talk that way.

[uncommon]

28. Bigots don't have hate in their hearts? Bullshit.

[pecwae]

74. I want to thank you

for enlightening me so. I now know that all homophobes are merely BIGOTS who are filled with love and apparently terribly misunderstood. Bless their hearts!

[Froward69]

26. I have a state senator who is a "d". ~Chris Romer

Son of a former Governor I like... but I will NEVER vote for him. in fact on the primary ballot I refused to mark his name even though he is unopposed democratically. (I wrote NO next to it.) Not that he is a homophobe nor a racist. But rather he is 1)afflicted with reefer madness. 2) is a shameless opportunist. 3) insane

He spearheaded the biggest reversal of the peoples will in our states Medical marijuana laws. Requiring all dispensaries to pay 25,000 in (yearly) licensing fees as well as simple possession on your record forbids you to be a dispensary owner/worker.

He appeared in public (in spandex) to protest BlackHawck's No bike riding ordinance. Blackhawk forbids riding bikes through town as the streets are narrow winding and with gaming, very busy. the law is intended to provide safety to the cyclists. but NO Romer shameless as he is shows up in spandex with a physique that proves he rides his bike less than I do... never or once a year. to protest a law intended to save cyclists lives.



when he went to the "indoor gardeners convention" he was shocked that so many people were there and They were supportive of peoples right to choose between Liquor and Pot. he certainly is NOT. As well as How many uses hemp has. then proceeded to tax brownies cookies clothes and anything else related to marijuana. STEEPLY TOO five figures every year??? fucker

He might as well be a republican, as he is far too conservative to be any where near a Democrat I trust. I told one of his volunteers as much at my door. "Romer can kiss my ass and suck my dick, he is worthless to a free society."

[MineralMan]

29. Which homophobic Democrats have you voted for?

Seriously. I'm not familiar with every Democrat. I'd certainly oppose such a candidate anytime there was a chance to do so. In the primaries, especially. Names, please.

[Nye Bevan]

30. Barack "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" Obama

and don't tell me that it's not homophobic to oppose gay marriage. If that is the case then logically it is not necessarily racist to support anti-miscegenation laws.

[uncommon]

33. +1

[LostinVA]

36. +2

[racaulk]

37. +3

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. +4

[noamnety]

59. +5

[FreeState]

63. +6

[defendandprotect]

66. +7

Bothers me --

[LAGC]

71. +8

I do wish he'd come around on this issue.

[Agony]

75. +9

[Hosnon]

78. +10

[mitchum]

79. +11

[Tailormyst]

35. Any Democrat who is against equality in marriage and is for DADT is a good place to start

[LostinVA]

31. I quit voting for homophobes in 2008

And, never will again.

[bvar22]

45. To the racists, bigots, and homophobes who won't get my vote,

I will add the Union Busters and Anti-LABOR "Democrats".


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[VMI Dem]

54. Agree.

[JonLP24]

47. K&R

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. 3/10

[MadMaddie]

53. I can agree with you but we need to go a step further

If we have Democratic candidates that are Homophobic or racist we need to put up qualified Candidates that can compete and beat the Racist Homophobe.

[defendandprotect]

67. Agree . . . we need to challenge them with more qualified Democrats --

[scheming daemons]

55. Hasn't been a prominent racist with a "D" after their name since Strom and Jesse switched parties

[VMI Dem]

57. Been some prominent homophobes though.

[dsc]

58. I have voted for my share of homophobes

and depending on definitions I probably still do vote for them, but I do think I have to take other issues into account as well in voting in general elections. I was less than thrilled with our governor but she is good on education and has tried to save us from budget cuts. It is sad that racism is treated differently. I admit I couldn't vote for Byrd who was such a vocal and notorious homophobe but I did vote vote for Hagan who isn't exactly stellar. In MS I voted for even worse.

[Ross K]

60. K&R

[TriMera]

61. Excellent post. +1

It needed to be said.

[noamnety]

62. All of that

but for myself I have to add sexism (most recently in the form of withholding health care to women) and warmongering to the list.

[FreeState]

64. I will never again vote for anyone who opposes full equality under the law for all

I will not lend my voice to bigotry. All of my elected officials are pro marriage equality except one and he will not get my vote next time unless he publicly changes his stance and shows through his actions that he is more than talk in regards to full equality.

[defendandprotect]

65. That Obama feels justified to state he is anti-gay marriage disturbs me . . .

I don't know that he has ever explained his view --

[VMI Dem]

68. The Bible told him so.

Quite simple.

[defendandprotect]

69. I think that's probably so -- but I'd like to see him questioned on that ---

Meanwhile, for all we know, "Jesus" was bisexual -- !!

Recall there is at least one or two mentions in the Bible of his having a lie down

with a male --

[FreeState]

72. Here you go: "my religious beliefs say that marriage is... between a man and a woman"

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm

Bigotry based on religion is still bigotry. It is absolutely shameful that Obama ever uttered this.

[defendandprotect]

77. Claims to being "a Christian" seem to me like saying, "Obviously you can trust me" -- !!

:rofl:

although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue,

Where do we go to find assurances of that -- ??

Obama's been more than foot dragging on DADT -- shameful!

Thanks for the info --

:)

[Swamp Rat]

70. k&r

[mod mom]

76. Good for you. It should be principle over party. I join you but add....

corporatists into the mix as well. I support progressive values and will support (vote/contribute/GOTV) for only candidates that reflect my values. I believe supporting others just because they have a D enables the party establishment to keep these candidates in office. No more, I've washed my hands of them.