Democrats can do is not offend Republicans.

Bryant

He has good company in the Governor of Kentucky, another 'Democrat' rat fink retrobigot.

is better for LGBT issues on the whole and on all the other issues, knock yourself out and stay home.

"Well, if you think the republican candidate is better for LGBT issues on the whole"

The poster never even referenced or alluded to republicans. Really a cheap shot and shows a complete lack of compassion.

Staying home is just as damaging as voting for republicans. That you can't see that is not my problem. I'm too old to think there are perfect candidates that will agree with my issues 100% of the time. I find single issue voters tiresome and selfish.

Maybe you would get it if the hate was directed at you. No one who supports lgbt should ever tell someone what you just told that poster. And no, there is no difference in some democrats and republicans when it comes to fomenting hate against our brothers and sisters. "I'm too old" Maybe that is a part of it. "I find single issue voters tiresome and selfish." Yes, selfish for not supporting people who foment hate to the point that you have to hide who you are. Have to worry about getting assaulted when leaving a bar. Yeah, those single issue mother fuckers.

is not as bad as portrayed in the Daily Kos post.

From the article:

"The mayor “opposes any kind of discrimination,” Jones’ spokeswoman, Hawley, said at the time.

“As you may know, he issued the city’s first executive order barring discrimination in city government. He has also honored Richmond’s Transgender Day of Remembrance with a proclamation speaking out against violence and promoting tolerance, understanding, compassion, and acceptance of the diversity of any individual or group of individuals."

Richmond under his tenure also added a LGBT liaison to the city police force.

Like Obama, his views on marriage equality are changing. While his current views on the subject are wrong, like Obama's were, they don't seem to come out of hate.

The man is personally against gays being able to marry. The distinction is made that he supports equality in some ways, although that is not fully clear. His personal feelings are clear. When people make their belief that lgbt are less than public, then they are scum and should not be elevated to this political position. His public position is that gays should not be able to marry. At the same time, he respects equality with respect to the government.

I support equality with respect to the law....I feel that gays are less than. That is his position. “While he is unwavering in those views, he is not ready to commit to an endorsement of marriage for same-sex couples. … The mayor has specifically said, ‘This is one issue that President Obama and I disagree on.’?”

This still has nothing to do with the manner in which the poster I replied to came off.

Perhaps he opposes some kinds of discrimination, but he sure as hell favors the Big One that allows the rest to function. He just is uncomfortable admitting that his views are wildly discriminatory.

In my experience, that really just means, "I'm not particularly concerned about this issue".

Like it or not, the Democratic Party is a coalition party. That means you stand up for the issues of all the big parts of that coalition-- if you want to get elected, of course.

and it holds a politician to an impossible standard. That you don't think I care about LGBT issues is entirely your problem and part of your fevered imagination.

is circle D, which is fine but it is hypocritical to beat a drum when reality is you only care about one damn thing yourself.

equivalent to demanding perfection? Just how little does one have to do to be considered a Dem? Wear a blue jersey instead of a red one?

If none of the candidates are supporting your civil rights, then none of them deserve your support.

recently changed his position on gay marriage, can I assume you did not vote for him in 2008? That's the issue on the table.

two evils" and "the perfect is the enemy of the good" arguments since then.

I thought all I had to do was wait for the perfect candidate - one that believed exactly as I did - I was probably in my late 30s before I realized that was never going to happen. I always voted but sometimes not very enthusiastically. It was a hard pill to swallow but I'm just too far to the left when compared to the "average American". A real liberal is never going to get elected. It's the same as a Michelle Bachman standing zero chance although her base loves her.

The Party has no motivation to change if we keep propping up DINOs.

It's not like there is some central agency forcing candidates on us. That was effectively debunked in 2008. The far left is under the same illusion the far right is under - that there is some secret majority who really, really want this country to turn hard left (or hard right). That simply is not the case.

Stop putting words in my mouth - I never said support for gay marriage is hard left and I only need to point out all the recent polls on the issue to prove that. What I said was that the candidate who agrees with me on every single issue - 100% agreement - simply does not exist and to threaten not to vote because of one issue is beyond stupid. I stand by that 100%.

but a lot of people who claim that others are doing so.

Democrat is going to pull some republican bs.

is this person - who is not an elected official who makes policy - trying to make?

you're a very simplistic thinker. I can't help with that.

If a Democrat denies me my rights, is it somehow more palatable than if a Republican does it? Is that why so many defenders of the Democratic Party staunchly defend the NSA for spying on people? Are those "our" spies and that makes it a good thing? Does that mean that we have to wait until a Republican is elected to stand for privacy rights?

If denial of rights is the issue, why does it matter who is denying the rights? Shouldn't the fight for the rights be paramount?

Selecting a bigot who denies people their rights to head up the state party is unacceptable. We would object if a Republican did it, and we should reject it when it is the party we support. Bigotry wrapped in any political party is unacceptable. Violation of Civil Rights wrapped in any political party is unacceptable. That is the message we should be sending.

We shouldn't be shrugging and saying at least it isn't a Republican doing this. That is putting politics before principle, and it is abhorrent to any thinking person.

Did you consider Pres Obama a bigot before he supported gay marriage?

Sigh.

Democratic base. We get up every morning, and face the same shit we've had to deal with seemingly for as long as we can remember.

that did express concern about this guy.

Really makes you want to think before just marking the name with the D after it.

and yes, sadly no matter how moderate or DLC rightward McAuliffe shifts, things still look better than the alternative...

Gay marriage is, at the same time, a civil rights issue and a theological issue. If you think that God doesn't like gay marriage, then that's your interpretation of scripture and (this being America and all) you're welcome to it. The problem is when you take your interpretation of scripture and attempt to make it the law of the land.

If Dwight Jones, as an ordained minister, thinks that gay marriage is theologically wrong, he's welcome to believe that (and still be a good Democrat) provided that he separates his religious views from his duties as mayor -- which this article indicates that he has done.

What's more, the Chairman of a State Party isn't necessarily the person who shapes policy or the party platform. He or she is responsible for the nuts and bolts of messaging, fund raising, and getting out the vote. Those duties have nothing to do with any particular position that one might hold on the issues.

marriage.

This will put a chill on fundraising as well. Bigots in charge are a repellent to most Democrats.

but I had my doubts about him. He reminds me of a local Democrat around here whose best buddies are Republican.

there was a Dem on a local ballot that I didn't vote for. I just left that space blank. I asked around and most of the Dems weren't happy that the guy was running - DINO. He barely won.

He tried to run against an incumbent Democrat in a primary. Only got two percent of the vote. Most of those votes came from my community.

Back in the 90's?

the author needs to proof read their article....

"nominated the Reverend Dwight Jones of Richmond to be the governor's to become chairman of The Democratic Party Of Virginia. "

DLC! DLC! DLC!

we dont need purity tests for dems. even a bad dem is better than a good GOP

staying home only elects more rethugs

We should do better.

we need to stfu and mark our ballots for them?

I'm sorry, but no. They need to be held accountable, and earn my vote. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that feels this way.

I don't like this development worth a damn, and I will convey that message to McAulliffe as well as my state senator and my delegate. But the governor's race was WAY closer than it had any business being; and if not too many more voters had stayed home after being dissuaded by the "He's DLC, he's Republican lite" mantra, then I and millions of other progressive Virginians are the ones who would have paid the price in the form of a Governor Cuccinelli (FUCK, just typing that was painful!)

Does this include the Democratic representative in Kansas that pushed a bill for more intense corporal punishment in schools?

"Democratic Rep. Gail Finney has introduced a bill that would allow parents, teachers and caregivers to spank children hard enough to leave redness or bruising. Under current state law, spanking that does not leave marks is already permitted."

http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/is-harsher-corporal-punishment-for-children-coming-to-kansas-85899540911

Pretty low standard, I would think.

We also have Jan Pauls who helps author the hate the gays bills and the hate the women who use BC and really should not have reproductive freedom bills. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LET THEM GET AWAY WITH BEING DINOS. Then we have our candidate against Brownback/Koch brothers, Paul Davis who announced that the latest REFRA bill, the most recent of the hate the gays bills was just a distraction that most Kansans did not care about. YAY us. YAY voting for the guy with the D behind their name just cause, ya know, party?

This is what happens people. Just look at us. Once we started just paying no attention and pushing the D button the national party split and left us on our own. We would vote for a dog turd if it had a D after it so why did they need to help fund actual Democrats? Look what happens when your party has no courage. There is more coming, much more from our wonderful Kansas Democratic Party. Just wait, it gets ever so much better.

among "good hearted, but easily deceived" folks that they are Democrats.

to balance out his white, NoVa self. But he couldn't find one who supports marriage equality?

One of my friends said, "The Republicans must have worked really hard to find a black judge that mediocre."