Bil Browning

A poll that Hillary doesn't win!

Filed By Bil Browning | June 25, 2007 11:00 AM | comments

Filed in: Living, Marriage Equality
Tags: Bill Richardson, election 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, presidency, survey

What's this!?! There's a presidential candidate poll that Hillary doesn't automatically win?! Apparently, there is...

Our poll question from last week was, "Who do you think is the most LGBTQ friendly?" And the answers you provided actually stunned me. I thought Dennis Kucinich would win for his full support of LGBTQ issues like civil rights, DADT, and civil marriage through both of the last campaigns. Instead, he came in third. (Which says quite a bit about Kucinich's floundering long-shot campaign!)

Instead, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel tied for the win with the same amount of votes. You can see the rest of the rankings below. Of particular note: Hillary comes in fourth, while Edwards ties for sixth with Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani. Ron Paul fared the best of Republican candidates, even beating out Edwards.

Agree? Disagree? Let's hear it...

  1. Bill Richardson & Mike Gravel 27%
  2. Dennis Kucinich 19%
  3. Barack Obama 8%
  4. Hillary Clinton 7%
  5. Ron Paul 5%
  6. John Edwards & Rudy Giuliani 3%
  7. Chris Dodd & Other 1%

Recent Entries Filed under Living:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


The only reason that Dennis Kucinich didn't win the poll is because poeple simply don't know enough about him. He is the only candidate who is 100% in full support of equal rights, in all realms - no questions asked - no asterisks.

The other candidates are, including Bill Richardson, are more publicized and are doing quite well on GLBT rights and that's why they won the poll.

I am going to support Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson because they are both GLBT friendly and because their positions on all issues most closely match mine. I love Dennis Kucinich, but he cannot win a national race because he's practically a socialist.

It's kinda funny that people are putting the blame on Kucinich being a relative unknown, you know, because that Mike Gravel is a celebrity. What I think puts Gravel a step above Kucinich is that he supports all that in terms of the common GLBT issues but also that he made that speech where he said that he loves him some same sex love and because he refused to answer the HRC's questionnaire. That was a pretty sweet move - my positions can't be reduced to a little check mark. Of course, Rudy G isn't answering that questionnaire, but I think it's for different reasons.

Bil,

I think you are correct about Dennis. He is by far the most LGBT friendly candidate for the reasons you state.

One potential reason for the result is that some LGBT people are not totally informed about where the candidates really stand on LGBT issues.

The more probably reason is that LGBT people vote for candidates based on many reasons and being LGBT friendly is not one of the highest.

So the result indicates who LGBT people like and not really which candidate is most LGBT friendly.

Good points about Kucinich. Most folks don't know anything about him, but as Alex says, most folks don't really know Mike Gravel either. Gravel though, has had the luxury of being all over the LGBT press and blogs lately for his statements. He's fresh in people's minds.

One thing that candidates like Gravel and Kucinich have accomplished - while they won't come close to being elected - is to force the Dems further towards LGBTQ equality. (See my post about Elizabeth Edwards from today.) Let's hope they keep up the good work!

beergoggles | June 25, 2007 12:38 PM

Well, 25% of gay folks voted for Bush in 2004, so it's not surprising that there are plenty of willfully ignorant folks voting against their self-interest.

Though, I may agree that anyone that voted for Bush, especially in '04, made an ignorant choice... "self interest" isn't really "self interest", is it? Because it sounds more to me like "group interest."

So, does belonging to a group, even though it is not the only group one belongs to, mean that one's vote should belong to the group?

Is every person that is part of the GLBT community expected to vote for the interests of the group?
And, if one chooses to vote as an individual, does this mean that the individual is being willfully ignorant?

beergoggles | June 25, 2007 2:20 PM

Well Kelly, if some gay folks are unwilling to vote for candidates that offer them stepping stones to their own civil rights, I don't know how much clearer an example you need to view it as voting against their self interest. After all, as a homo, you don't have to vote for what's good for every other homo, just for yourself, and being able to marry the person of your choice is about as personal and individual as it gets.

I don't see how the only way to achieve these stepping stones is to vote for the candidate who panders most successfully?

Especially when one examines the rest of the things they want to do, and all of what they haven't done since gaining a majority.

Gay marriage is not the only issue in this country.
So, yeah, it will be great when it gets here and this country collapses in upon itself, but I'd rather make sure that when gay marriage does get here, we still have our other existing rights, as well as more than 40% of our income left over after we've been taxed to death.

If it means keeping our liberties and freedoms as individuals, and keeping the government out of our lives, and changing our foreign policy (meaning getting far away from the idea of a nuclear first strike on Iran), then I can wait for my gay marriage.

Good God, I have to agree with a Ron Paul Conservative here. Then again, I don't think anyone's really saying that they will vote for someone solely based on gay marriage, or that anyone should. It always seems to me that when conservative queers say "Marriage isn't the only issue", it's as if there's someone out there who actually believes that, and that's the only reason that queers are more likely to be liberal than not. Ummm, no, it's complex and there are lots of reasons that queers are liberal, and it ain't just marriage. It's just that the point of this survey was to see what people thought just on the LGBT issues, not on anything else.

Sure, every issue is an LGBT one in some way.... actually, it sounds like there should be a "but" there but I'm going to leave it at that. No, I don't think that following in Ron Paul's plan to cut taxes by taking money away from social programs is going to help anyone, just as Bush's plan to cut taxes by borrowing money from China didn't help anyone either. Maybe what I am saying is that I'm fed up with marriage being labeled the "only gay issue", especially since the US census showed us that only about less than one-fifth of queers live with a same-sex partner. It just leaves a lot of us in the dark. Sure, it's an issue, and I'm willing to give it the, as we say in Spanish, "Mierda veo, mierda quiero" support, as well as the "In understand this is important to some people and it may be important to me one day" support, but it just seems to be another way for one segment of the queer population to hijack the entire community's political power for one project that doesn't represent us all, as well as reductive of queer experiences to say that it's the only reason that gays are more likely to be liberal.

Like what happened to building more safe places for homeless LGBT youth? What happened to making sure that AIDS meds are affordable? And what about taking the issues that same-sex marriage raises (lack of health care, lack of retirement benefits, etc.) and making marriage a starting point to expand those programs? I feel bad for the guy who can't get on his partner's insurance policy because they're a same-sex couple, but that doesn't mean that I don't feel bad as well for the woman who can't get on anyone's insurance policy because she's happily single.

So I can't really get behind a "Let's lower taxes so we can smoke cigars while people suffer in the street" mentality, but I can understand when people say that marriage isn't the only LGBT issue. I'm just thinking that people already realize that, and it's why gays are more likely than straight to support universal health care, etc. Being in a position where those benefits are harder to get makes us empathize more with those who don't have them.

beergoggles | June 25, 2007 4:10 PM

Kelly, the politicians who are for civil rights for gays are also the ones most likely to uphold civil liberties for everyone else. So you create a false dichotomy by asking folks to chose between equality vs. a sane foreign policy or civil liberties vs. 40% of your paycheck.

"Kelly, the politicians who are for civil rights for gays are also the ones most likely to uphold civil liberties for everyone else. So you create a false dichotomy by asking folks to chose between equality vs. a sane foreign policy or civil liberties vs. 40% of your paycheck."

Hmmmm, let's think about this... what does it say about equality and civil liberties when all of the Democrat and Republican frontrunners claim that they will not take a nuclear first strike on Iran off the table? I mean, really, I can't reconcile that one. Hurray! I can get married and everyone has to hire me and the government can pay all of my medical bills, so then... it's okay to spread democracy through the barrel of a gun in Iraq, and take out the Iranians with a nuclear first strike, all the while inspiring more hatred, and our soldiers are stuck fighting, being wounded, and dying.

These are not the kind of equalities I want to celebrate.

And Alex, lowering taxes does not equate smoking cigars while people suffer in the street. Americans would never allow people to suffer in the street. Americans are generous people, and having more of the income that they worked for would only make them more generous.

Americans would never allow people to suffer in the street.
AAHHH!!!! Have you ever been outside your house????? OMG!!!! Yes, Kelly, there are homeless people in this country. I agree with you that Americans are generous, as individual people and as a culture, it's just that a lot of them don't see a problem and the ones who have the resources to solve it won't because the selfishness that got them those resources is the exact thing that prevents them from wanting to help others.

But seriously, there is a homelessness problem, and lowering taxes, as we found out through the Bush admin, doesn't mean that people are going to donate more money. Although I do hear that yacht sales have been up since he lowered the capital gains tax....

LOL! Yes, Alex, I've been outside of my house- and as a matter of fact, I grew up on the border of Hammond and Gary, so I've seen plenty of suffering.

I agree, homeless people exist, but, honestly no matter how much money the federal government takes from us, homelessness will still exist.

Americans gave 300 billion dollars last year in private donations, a record amount- and you're going to tell me that lowering taxes will make Americans more greedy?

When the government can do just one thing, and do it well, I'll listen.

Until then, I'll agree to disagree.

OK, one more comment and then I'll shut up on this thread, lol. I think the government does do a lot of things well. The postal service is a good example. Mail delivered quickly and daily to just about anywhere in the country for a really low price - I'd say that's a pretty good job. The fire department also does well - those brave people risk their lives every day to keep us safe, and I don't think there's widespread fire fighter incompetence (there might be and I just don't know about it). Let's see, the health care coverage that representatives and Senators provide for themselves is pretty good, I hear. That can be expanded.

I think the government can do lots of things well, especially if people started to see it as a tool to get things done instead of some outside, inherently oppressive body. And I think that the people with the latter worldview end up making the government worse. People like Bush, who's always talking about reducing the size of the governemtn, took a cynical approach to governing because his whole ideology was based on the government being bad, and look what happened. We have his friends appointed to key positions when they aren't qualified, like in FEMA, etc., and taxes being reduced while we have to borrow money from other countries to cover that. When people don't like the government, they find really creative ways to screw it up, I've found. But this is the same government that pulled America out of the Great Depression, ended the Holocaust, and showed the world what democracy meant. I'm not saying that Americans aren't generous, I'm just saying that people who complain with things like "I don't want my tax dollars going to homeless people" or "I don't want immigrants to have access to our schools" or "I don't want my money going to support AIDS medication for sinners", shouldn't run the government because I genuinely question their generosity. But regular Americans? They're generally pretty cool. And I'd suspect that the lion's share of that $300 billion isn't coming from people who want to lower taxes at the expense of the working/impoverished classes.

Ok, Kelly, I'm done for the day and I'll get back to work. I do enjoy debating you, and, yes, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Hooray for big bloated government, yes let us have Washington DC manage the homeless problem just as effectively as Washington manages to "educate" our children, handle natural disasters, save for our retirements, provide health care to our vets, etc.

Let me see, we have the highest spending per pupil in our nation's history and yet the school district with the highest per pupil average, (Washington DC, ironic) has 3 out of 4 students failing arithmetic.

Let us let big government take more taxes so they can "give" us all wonderful government health care. Seems to make no sense when the government cannot even "give" health care to those already promised the benefits, namely the veterans who must put up with numerous second rate facilities like Walter Reed. Yes go ahead and tell me how government will somehow cover 300 million Americans when it cannot even cover the 18% it is responsible for now.

Oh wait, lets look at big government hurricane relief....FEMA just misappropriated another $495 million in tax dollars "helping" out the citizens of New Orleans. Whereas Galveston, Texas which was completely wiped off the map in a 1901 hurricane rebuilt the city from the ground up with private contributions and help from local government which resulted in a sea wall which is still standing and has resisted countless hurricanes since 1901.

Need I remind you that there was no big government FEMA agency after the Chicago Fire?

So please, please, please tell me how you think that big government could solve the homeless problem seriously. So some government bureaucrat is going to solve this problem from Washington as effectively as the Department of Education and FEMA has each respective of their own sectors?

Do you realize that our current debt is $8.8 Trillion dollars and when you factor in our guaranteed obligations for just Social Security and Medicare it balloons to $58 Trillion? And yet you want more government and politicians promising you things they will never deliver on - really?

Do you really find it moral to leave our children this overwhelming, republic crushing, mountain of debt? If so then keep begging for more big government and big government solutions, because it only serves to mortgage our children's future.

And just as an aside Americans are the most generous individuals when it comes to charity, seeing how private donations just set another record for the year 2006.

Article: http://tinyurl.com/2cngot

Liberty in Our Lifetime,

Allison

beergoggles | June 26, 2007 9:34 AM

Hmmmm, let's think about this... what does it say about equality and civil liberties when all of the Democrat and Republican frontrunners claim that they will not take a nuclear first strike on Iran off the table?

Well if all of them have the same position on Iran, then you won't lose anything by supporting the most gay friendly one right? lol. The place to stop a first strike on Iran is in congress since they're the ones who need to authorize it, and I'm not entirely sure that Americans would care enough to NOT want a first strike on Iran.

I mean, really, I can't reconcile that one. Hurray! I can get married and everyone has to hire me and the government can pay all of my medical bills, so then... it's okay to spread democracy through the barrel of a gun in Iraq, and take out the Iranians with a nuclear first strike, all the while inspiring more hatred, and our soldiers are stuck fighting, being wounded, and dying.

There are several candidates out there who want withdrawal from Iraq. Iran is a completely different scenario and as I mentioned earlier, the American public isn't pro-active enough in demanding their politicians back off on Iran. If there was a market for an anti-first-strike-against-Iran candidate, there would be a popular candidate for it.

And spare me the boohoo about the soldiers, I certainly don't consider them a sacred cow although every single politician does. They joined the military knowing full well that they'll be used and abused by the political machine. If they have a problem with that they can be a conscientious objector and risk the court martial like several other soldiers have done. But obviously the soldiers don't seem to mind what they are doing as well.

These are not the kind of equalities I want to celebrate.
I'm sorry there isn't a market for your kind of equalities, but picking a candidate has always been a matter of picking the lesser evil and it will be so until the republic falls. Face reality or pull a Bush and bury your head in the sand and create your own reality.


And Alex, lowering taxes does not equate smoking cigars while people suffer in the street. Americans would never allow people to suffer in the street. Americans are generous people, and having more of the income that they worked for would only make them more generous.

Generosity has nothing to do with providing a baseline resource so Americans do not starve or die of exposure to the elements. And lowering taxes is pointless without a corresponding cut in government spending, but you know that will be impossible since government spending has always increased and people keep voting for politicians that bring home the pork. Again it's an issue of not accepting the reality that people want lower taxes AND government handouts. Republicans provide this by inflating the dollar and borrowing, preferring to leave the mess for the following administration to clean up. Democrats on the other hand are more honest and provide the government handouts but end up raising the taxes to pay for it. Those are your only two choices.

BeerGoggles said:
"And spare me the boohoo about the soldiers, I certainly don't consider them a sacred cow although every single politician does. They joined the military knowing full well that they'll be used and abused by the political machine."

This statement is abhorrent. So by them knowing, this somehow abdicates the government from fulfilling their promise to provide the veterans with 1st class medical care?

And yet there is rejuvenated talk about "universal health care" for all Americans, do we realize what we are asking for?

So since we know how poorly the veterans health care is, does this mean we should shut up and grin when the health care received from "universal health care" is second rate? Your health is your responsibility, not mine, and not anyone else's.

Why should I be held accountable if you eat fried food all of your life and need a heart transplant in your forties? Moreover, why should you pay for my own personal choice to smoke? Let me pay my own higher policy premiums for making that choice. Should any of us pay for the moron on the motorcycle who refuses to wear a helmet and gets into an accident? - hell no!

The fact is health care costs are spiraling out of control due to government interference. Insurance costs began truly escalating out of control after passage of the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. This created HMO's, exempted Federally Certified HMO's from state regulations and mandated that employers with more than 25 employees provide Federally Certified HMO's to their employees. (nice catch-22 - huh?)

The problem with government mandates is that they cause more problems than good, simply because of the broad nature in which they must be applied.

For instance, the "group" premium is how employers decide how much to charge employees for their insurance. So if good old John Smith has 2 or 3 heart attacks, Jimmy Whatnot has cirrhosis of the liver, and Jane Smith needs prenatal care for her baby, all employees must absorb the additional use of the policy through higher premiums, which equals smaller paychecks. And let us not even go into how mandated coverage provides an incentive to employers to "lay-off" or "fire" employees who are in their 40's and 50's. It is an unintended consequence of the government mandate.

Whereas, if each had in place their own private policies, those individuals affected would pay the increase in premium based upon their use of the policies coverage. Additionally each would also receive about $5- $10k more in gross salary from their employers annually. As this is the average cost per employee to cover them for insurance yearly to an employer. The net gain from this works out to be approximately $2,300 to $3,600, after they pay for their own private policy and depending on the individuals tax bracket.

It is a huge misnomer that private insurance is somehow too expensive.The simple fact is that individuals can obtain an Medical Savings Account and catastrophic policy,for their entire family for less than half on average of what the bloated policy from their employer would provide. Policies like this cover hospital and emergency room visits and allow for a percentage of wages to be set aside tax free as long as they are spent on health services. Yes it takes work to tweak the policy, but god love the internet and someone with the slightest bit of gumption can accomplish this in a few hours.

So what about prescription drugs you ask? Well again individuals need to take responsibility for their own health. All of the evil, greedy pharmaceutical corporations offer prescription assitance where some individuals will receive their medicine for no cost while some will pay a reduced rate for their medicine from the manufacturer. Again this takes getting off one's bum calling the pharmaceutical companies and getting in touch with the representative to walk one through the process. But if you can use the internet, then you damn sure ought to be able to use an old-fashioned phone.

Moreover, many of the major pharmaceutical companies now belong to the "Partnership for Prescription Assistance" which has made the process even that much easier.

In the end big government does not work, and more government to fix the last problem created in and of itself by government will not work either. Take responsibility for you and your own family first. Then help your extended family if the need so arise.

But do not dare force government through their coercive taxes to make me responsible for you.

Liberty in Our Lifetime,

Allison