How the Dems really feel about Gays

[KYTOP]

For those that haven't heard or followed the DNC's catfight with some in the Gay Community here is a recent Washington Blade Editorial for some insight.

What happens when one party takes a group for granted? Wonder how many of our Gay friends STILL praise Howard Dean?

http://washblade.com/2008/1-18/view/editorial/11894.cfm

[TotallyOz]

The last paragraph:

This doesn’t mean gay voters should pull the lever for any of the Republicans now in the running. Rather, gay voters, donors and campaign staffers need to learn the art of the barter system: you give something, you get something.

How on earth is this possible in the gay community. We seem so divided on our own which only goes to our own downfall. How is it possible to get this group organized and rally together?

[caeron]

The last paragraph:

This doesn’t mean gay voters should pull the lever for any of the Republicans now in the running. Rather, gay voters, donors and campaign staffers need to learn the art of the barter system: you give something, you get something.

How on earth is this possible in the gay community. We seem so divided on our own which only goes to our own downfall. How is it possible to get this group organized and rally together?

Do the republicans even know who the Blade is? I can't imagine them having a "gay outreach director".

It's great in theory to play both sides of the fence to get what we want, but the other side of the fence has the religious right so far up its ass it burps lube. As long as that's the state of affairs, the DNC knows that the vast majority of us are going to vote democratic pretty much no matter what.

[KYTOP]

the DNC knows that the vast majority of us are going to vote democratic pretty much no matter what.

Exactly, and Mr Dean has made it known he has our vote no matter what, because Gays mostly vote Democrat. On another site Gay guys talk all the time of NEVER voting for anyone but a Dem.

[Guest epigonos]

What gays who want to be politically relevant need to do is THINK LOCAL. Forget the presidential candidates. All the candidates from BOTH parties want is your money and then that you disappear so they aren’t embarrassed by your presence is places like the Midwest and the South. They will promise you the world in “private†and then ignore you in “publicâ€.

Tip O’Neal one of the great 20th century Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives once said “remember all politics is local and if you forget it you looseâ€. Forget about the national elections and those for governor and U.S. senators. Those constituencies are simply too large and gay money cannot BUY enough influence there to make a difference. Put your money where it can count, in elections for local city councils, local members of state legislatures and members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Form political action committees (P.A.C.’s) and pool money. Ten thousand dollars is peanuts in a presidential, gubernatorial, or senatorial election BUT with a decent candidate it can make a major difference in a local election.

Some additional thing to keep in mind is that local doesn’t necessarily mean where you live. It would be a waste of money in the district in which I live to attempt to elect a gay rights candidate. My district is rock rib right wing, religious right Republican. In districts like mine gays need to look for an outside district where their money can get a candidate elected. They also need to get involved in the local Democratic or Republican groups so as to become familiar with possible candidates to promote.

[Guest BewareofNick]

Here's the bottom line for me: When the Republicans jettison the hateful rhetoric of the Religious Right (and the Religious Right themselves), maybe I'll think about becoming a Republican.

[caeron]

I agree with the think local sentiment.

I'm working to support a county commissioner in a non-partisan race because I think she's great for our county.

I'm not going to give nationally again.

[Lucky]

Here's an interesting view from the NY Times:

For Gays, a New Era in Politics

By ANDREW JACOBS

Published: January 28, 2008

The impromptu debate, over light beers and dirty martinis, was at once mundane and remarkable. Provoked by a reporter, four middle-aged men at a Greenwich Village gay bar made fiery pitches for the Democratic presidential front-runners. Two backed Senator Barack Obama, one argued for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the fourth made an emotional plea for the cause of John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina.

“Edwards is the only one who really cares about the underdog,†one of the men, Farid Martinez, 41, a clothing designer from Brooklyn, shouted above the din at the bar, the Monster, across from Sheridan Square. His friend Edmund Taylor, 37, disagreed, and nearly sputtered with rage: “The guy is a millionaire lawyer obsessed with his hair. Obama is the only one who can really transform this country.â€

What was notable about the exchange last week was what was not mentioned: the word “gay.â€

For the first time in two decades, gay voters find themselves in an unusual, if happy, predicament. The three leading Democrats have staked out similar positions on issues that resonate with gay men and lesbians. Although none of the three candidates back gay marriage, they all support same-sex civil unions and say they would fight to repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell†policy. And each of them says he or she would champion a federal anti-discrimination law that would protect lesbians and gay men.

“You would need a magnifying glass to see any real or substantive differences between the three candidates,†said Alan Van Capelle, the executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights group in New York.

The Republican field is a different story. All of the candidates hold opposite positions from the Democrats on those matters, and although gay rights have not dominated the Republican contest so far, if past elections are any guide, they will become an issue after the primaries, political strategists say.

For the moment, however, gay voters in New York are looking past the issues that have long guided them toward a candidate. They are talking about the conflict in Iraq, universal health care and whether it is more important to have a president with experience or exuberance.

“I think there’s also a lot of excitement over having someone other than George Bush in the White House,†said Matthew W. Carlin, president of the Stonewall Democratic Club, a gay political group that endorsed Senator Clinton in September. “And there’s a feeling that people could be happy with any of the Democrats.â€

In what many gay leaders described as a fairly momentous occasion, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards showed up at a forum in August sponsored by the gay cable channel Logo and talked about the bravery of gay soldiers, adoption rights for same-sex couples and the problems faced by homeless gay teenagers. All three candidates employ gay strategists at the national and state levels, and in the two weeks leading up to the New York primary on Feb. 5, representatives from each campaign said, they planned to concentrate on the state’s gay vote through mailings and rallies.

“We’re going to get the word out best we can to show that Hillary has done more for the community than any other political figure in America,†said Ethan Geto, a veteran Democratic consultant who is the Clinton campaign’s senior policy adviser on gay and lesbian concerns.

Although an exact count is elusive, pollsters estimate that lesbians and gay men make up between 5 and 13 percent of the Democratic vote in New York; even if the lower figure is accepted, it is a voting bloc worth courting. Ken Sherrill, a political scientist at Hunter College who studies the gay electorate, said lesbians and gay men are far more likely to be interested in politics than are mainstream voters. “This is a group of people whose lives are intimately affected by government policy,†he said.

With about a week left before the primary, the gay vote appears to be mirroring the statewide electorate, which is leaning toward Senator Clinton but has yet to coalesce around one candidate. As one of the state’s most powerful politicians, Mrs. Clinton enjoys widespread institutional support in the gay community; most of the city’s gay Democratic groups have endorsed her, as have the state’s highest-ranking openly gay officials, including the speaker of the New York City Council, Christine C. Quinn, and State Senator Thomas K. Duane of Manhattan. Last week, The New York Blade, a local gay newspaper, endorsed Mrs. Clinton as well.

But the campaigns of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama have been eagerly courting — and raising money from — gay men and lesbians, and both have put together lists of prominent gay supporters.

“Hillary has an advantage, but she certainly does not have a lock on the gay vote,†said Matt Foreman, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, who has remained neutral.

The Democratic field stands in contrast to the Republican contenders. Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, has not repudiated his suggestion, made in 1992, that people with AIDS be isolated from the general population. He and the other leading candidates — Senator John McCain of Arizona, former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York and Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor — are opposed to same-sex civil unions and any compromise that would allow gays to serve openly in the military.

Still, compared with the last two presidential elections, when gay rights were a call to arms among conservatives and an issue to be avoided by Democrats, many political experts agreed that this year, gay-related themes had been overshadowed by the economy, the war in Iraq and illegal immigration.

Much seems to have changed since 1988, when the Democratic nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, turned down an offer of a gay fund-raising campaign. Four years later, gay delegates threatened to storm out of the Democratic convention unless Bill Clinton mentioned gays in his acceptance speech. (He did.)

In an address last week honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at a black church in Atlanta, Senator Obama made waves by lecturing the audience about homophobia. “We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them,†he said during the speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church, where Dr. King served as co-pastor with his father.

Joe Solmonese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay lobbying group, said he thought Mr. Obama’s speech was the first time a presidential candidate had brought up gay issues in front of a nongay audience without being prompted to do so. “This is dramatically refreshing,†he said. “It’s a great day when we can look at a field of candidates and determine that we are comfortable with all of them on gay rights and move on to other issues.â€

Still, many gay leaders said they are unhappy that none of the Democrats have embraced the cause of gay marriage, even if they understood the political calculus at play.

“There’s a feeling that supporting gay marriage would be politically unacceptable,†said Mr. Geto, the Clinton strategist. “Still, we’ve come a long way. Four years ago, civil unions created such a huge firestorm. I think things will be different one or two election cycles from now.â€