I'm voting for an anti-choice candidate for the first time in my life.

I've been reading these gay/anti-gay threads all day and I strongly disagree with the notion that having "the gay issue" on the table will win or lose us an election. Gay people are not our fallback scapegoats.

On the other hand, I do take issue with some of the people in those threads who say things like, "I would never vote for someone who wouldn't support gay rights."

Oh really?

I'm about as close to a single-issue voter as you're going to come across. Pro-choice is vitally important to me. And I'm voting for Bob Casey. Clothespin firmly attached to nose, barf bag at the ready, but the level will be pulled for Casey.

The reason I am doing this is because other people on DU screamed and screamed and screamed that the only thing that matters this midterm election is numbers - taking back Congress. And I believe them. So I'm looking at it not as a vote for Casey, but as a vote for Democratic majority. And I think all good Democrats should do the same.

All this "throw them under the bus" talk. I feel as if I am throwing all my feminist ancestors under a bus by casting this vote. But I'm going to do it, because I believe it's the right thing to do. LESS morally repugnant than the alternative.

I hate that I have to make this choice. But I would say to all "single-issue" voters who say things like, "I would never...", to remember, you just might have to one day.

I held my nose and voted for Bill Nelson.

But I did it.

And I suppose I'll do it again, absent another viable candidate.

The bigger picture is more important right now.

I am proud of you.

Sheldon Whitehouse also I have gotten told also acts antichoice. Why does the Democratic party recruit these conservative Democrats. In the house races I believe Rahm Emmanuel has recruitd alot of conservative Democrats as well.

You've got to remember, PA is Philly and Pittsburgh with a whole lot of Kentucky between them. Hard to elect a liberal Dem Senator here.

sorry-I'm gay and I would never waste my vote on someone who does not support my basic civil rights

for senate in Pennsylvania? I'm a woman, and I would "never waste my vote" on someone who doesn't believe in my right to control my own uterus, but I'm doing it anyway. Don't you think there's a bigger-picture argument to be made here?

Casey has come out and said that he won't try to outlaw abortion, right?

I'm sorry-I'm really tired of the "bigger picture" argument-if we don't demand that candidates support basic civil rights for all Americans, we'll get what we deserve

our 2004 presidential candidate stabbed the GLBT community in the back when he said that he would support legalizing discrimination in Missouri and in Massachusettes

I didn't vote for him either

But I'll make it anyway.

Right now, with the ostensible destruction of habeas corpus, we DON'T TECHNICALLY HAVE ANY civil rights... at all... for anyone. I don't want to seem alarmist, but if we don't start taking our pet issues and putting them aside, not for the bigger picture, but for the GREATER GOOD, we won't have to worry about making distinctions between the GLBT community and the hetero community, both will be equally without remedy or rights. In a twisted way, we'll be getting the equality we're talking about, and we still won't be pleased with the results.

so you want us to be happy in the back of the bus for the greater good?

thanks but no thanks

Not trying to be argumentative here, but how specifically is that kind of a statement helpful?

I don't believe I EVER suggested that people relegate themselves to second-class citizenhood. My main point is that right now, we are ALL second-class citizens... we're ALL going backwards. Unless this can be turned around and some of the policies of the last few years reversed, everything else will be secondary because our other rights are predicated upon the right to face those who would aspire to take them away.

While I sympathize with your position, and certainly understand how this is very important to you, it seems to me a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I'm sure that another 10 years of Republican majority will result in a much better future for the GBLT community.

so please don't compare yourself to the last group of Americans which it is okay to demonize and discriminate against

take a look around DU sometime-take a look at the homophobia that goes on here

did you read any of the Foley threads? you had so-called progressives and liberals and leftists trying to link Foley to the gay community and other equally disgusting things

don't kid yourself; the heterosexuals on this board and in this country and not second class citizens and will never will be

How many times have you heard anyone tell straight people to tone it down; be quiet; just wait or whatever the current popular comments are about rights

I'm sick and tired of people like John Kerry and Bill Clinton trying to bargain away what should be basic civil rights for a few votes

how about doing the right thing instead of doing the popular thing

Without the ability to face our accusers, we absolutely all are second-class citizens.

What is the right thing? As far as I know, you can't legislate away prejudice. Discrimination? Certainly. But prejudice? How do you legislate away thought without BECOMING the other side, the thought police? I absolutely have been told to tone it down, to be quiet, to just wait... I'M A LIBERAL living in a country whose government has been totally taken over by EXTREME-RIGHT-WING-PANDERING CHICKEN-HAWK PREJUDICIAL ASSHATS.

Sure, I'd love to see the GBLT community get what they want vis-a-vis marriage, but there are much bigger problems in the world. We have no rights, in any real way anymore. Our environment is being befouled to dangerous limits. People are being tortured against the proscriptions of the Geneva conventions. We are involved in an unjust war that's killing off Americans every day and destroying an entire country in the Middle East. We're bargaining American young adults for access to resources.

Other than this, I see your point. This is your touchstone issue. To make this work, you have to...

1) Get Republicans out of office because they will NEVER be friendly to your issues, Dems just might.
2) When Dems have the control of the conversation, then and only then can you broach this with potential positive results.

I know it's political gamesmanship and as such frustrating, but if you have a better way, you just let me know. To get things done in this country you HAVE to play the game.

We need a majority in congress to get the work done for your civil rights (and ours). Even if the candidate in your area does not share your views on your major issue, if they get elected and have a majority their vote and voice will empower other dems (through sheer numbers) to enact the laws you feel are important to pass.

Some may say by not voting for that one candidate you are jeopardizing your own civil rights as you are now risking the power to have the laws you need passed (and while most dems share your views there will be a few who don't on this issue, but a majority of dems and those who vote for them do share such views).

I don't agree with a lot of dems on a lot of things, but I know as a whole the party stands together on some issues - and even if they don't fully at this time once in power they will look back at who got them there and think twice about ignoring them.

You have no chance with the repubs in office. Zero. With dems in power you can at least have a group to lobby and influence, and threaten to eject with a better dem in their district if they don't do the right thing.

Yeah, it sucks. But it is reality.

Thanks.

That kind of logic makes me vomit. Saying Kerry was anti-gay civil rights is the most detached from reality thing I've heard in quite some time. Seriously, if you are helping elect the worst president of all time, you deserve whatever the fuck happens as a result.

The problem is, the rest of us that BUSTED OUR ASSES to elect Kerry DON'T deserve Bush. But we got him, thanks to the freepers and the purity police.

he was nearly as bad as Bush

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

interesting though

I like that. I'm going to start using that.

your sig line is very ironic relative to your arguments in this thread.

peace

bodies. Women must get back to teaching each other mentrual extractions.

Because if you dont vote for Dems, thats who you are voting for.

I cant believe people STILL DONT GET IT.

and vote a straight Democrat ticket.

:-)

At any rate, I'm just going to pull the lever once.

It is the Democratic Party and the members of the party are Democrats

To call the party Democrat is a ploy of the repunks and we shouldn't let them get away with it

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005

"The American Heritage College Dictionary, for example, defines the noun "Democratic Party" as "One of the two major US political parties, owing its origin to a split in the Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828." (It defines "Democrat n" as "A Democratic Party member" and "Democratic adj" as "Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party," but gives no definition for -- indeed, makes no mention of -- "Democrat Party n" or "Democrat adj".) Other dictionaries, and reference works generally, appear to be unanimous on these points."

It was an important point.

and every time I hear a repunk do it I usually scream something very nasty at the Teeee Veeeee

to get somebody to vote for your party.

somebody I might be trying to get to vote for my party are most likely not in my living room when I'm screaming nasty things at the TV....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...the alternative. I'm not holding my breath, but it's got to happen one day, right?

The last time was my enthusiastic vote for Gore in 2000.

me of how damned lucky I am. I regularly have the opportunity to vote enthusiastically for candidates. This year I get to vote for Bernie for the Senate, and Peter Welch (who's terrific) for Bernie's House seat.

Mostly, we only get to choose which bite of the shit sandwich we want.

Nader


:yoiks:

if we don't get back the Majority, it doesn't matter who gives a shit about who's rights, were all screwed when Repugs are in charge.

but if you keep pressuring the entire party to be pro-choice then the party will be pro-choice.

I think that is entirely different from the people who want all GLBT people to simply wait until some future ideal moment to even bring up the idea of equal rights.

But I can understand voting for Casey. Rick Santorum is completely insane and must be cut out like a cancer.

If a vote for Casey is "throwing all feminist ancestors under a bus", I can't imagine what you think a vote for Santorum is throwing them under... maybe a Terex earthmover? Honestly, having a Dem majority in at least one house of Congress is much more important than any single issue right now. It will increase the number of pro-choice voices at the Federal level and allow the Democratic agenda a VOICE... something that is sorely lacking right now. What I do know for certain is that if the Dems are in charge of the conversation, at least we can be relatively well assured that conversation on this issue CAN take place, even if a few of their membership are not pro-choice, which is a helluva lot more than what can be said right now.

I would have a hard time voting for Casey but I would do it.

I am also firmly pro-choice and pro-gay rights and marriage, but given the current environment we just have to deal with whoever we can get elected in order to have ANY voice.
Compromising on some issues is how the Repubs were able to seize power in the first place. I hope that we can do it without losing integrity, but at the moment I don't see where we have much choice.
There are more fundamental issues on the table - like basic civil rights, uncontrolled militarism, spiraling deficits, healthcare shambles.....it goes on and on.

because the Dem on the ballot was a weasel and there is no way I'd vote for a pubbie. It's a local office, though.

I honestly don't think I could vote for any antichoice candidate. It's that important.

Plus, if they fail to recognize that most basic right of over half the population, what else are they going to miss? Where else will their religious opinion going to intrude into secular law?

I'm just glad I don't have a dog in the Pa. fight. I'm thoroughly sick of trying to choose between perfectly awful and maybe a little less awful.

What would you do if it was between Specter and Casey?

Specter is slightly better, in that he support stem cell research and occasionally would throw a bone to NARAL (ex - I believe he opposed the bill that would have excluded military wives from contraception overseas). But they are both BLERGH. Don't forget, as I said above, there are huge swathes of Pennsytucky...erm, Pennsylvania that are NOTHING like my daily life here in Philly.

that is the only choice I get. Although some of the republicans are seriously balls to the wall, anti-stem cells, no exceptions for rape, would probably be first in line to ban contraceptives if they got abortion banned. That's got to be some motivation for people that give much weight to that issue.

I suppose I should feel lucky. :puke:

Primaries are times for your issues and your perfect candidates, but now is the time to defeat Republicans.

I've been one of the screamers. Casey will get back-benched when this issue comes up.

but I'm voting straight party. We need to get the numbers.

If you are a one-issue GLBT voter, I guess you rarely vote. I vote on who is ever closest to my left-libertarian values. Generally in this order: Abortion, Labor/Economy, everything else. Of course, all things being equal I will fight for the underdog who supports GLBT rights as well, even over well-funded well-liked incumbents. I would vote for a candidate who is silent on GLBT issues but pro-choice, pro-worker, and anti-war above a right-libertarian candidate who is anti-worker, pro-war, and pro-GLBT.

If we get the majority, it's not just the moderates that benefit. It's all of us. The war is an even more important issue for me, and Casey also isn't so good at that. But you know he'll at least try to push for an exit strategy.

Just sayin'. Your energy WILL go where you put it. I will NOT vote for evil, lesser or not.

Not everyone who is anti-abortion are right-wing knuckleheads.

I'm against reauthorizing a Federal ban on semi-automatics, but I've voted for Democrats who said they'd reinstate the ban partially because I knew what to expect from their Republican opponents.

But got to keep the Dem momentum going here. Very important.

single issue that there is would be taking back congress. That is the single issue. Thanks for your selfless recognition of that. I salute you for it.

:toast:

sometimes we have to compromise, although I know this will get me flamed

I am sick of the lynching of canidates that arn't 100% pure. We have to remember that we are stuck with a 2 party system, the Democratic Party is equivalent to a coalition of parties in a multi-party system, we MUST allow a diversity of viewpoints. We must also rember that there are millions of Americans who are left-wing on economic issues yet are anti-abortion.