Michael Hamar

The Case for Not Voting on November 2nd

Filed By Michael Hamar | October 16, 2010 2:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics, The Movement
Tags: Barack Obama, Congressional Democrats, Donnie McClurkin, lies and liars, November 2, played for fools, Rick Warren

I realize up front that I will likely be savaged and trashed for my opinions in this post. ballot box.jpgHowever, after receiving a plethora of e-mails from Democrats with the catch phrase "Not Voting is a Vote for Tea Party Republicans," I am beyond over the standard Democrat bogey man ploy to sucker LGBT voters into voting for those who have no intention of actually furthering our equality. Thus, I have been responding with this catch phrase: "Not Voting is Saying No to Being Played for a Fool Yet Again."

I first cast a vote in an election over 38 years ago and since that time I have never failed to vote in any city, state or federal election. That track record may change on November 2, 2010, as I seriously consider not voting. Yes, that's right, I may not vote in the coming election. From conversations with others I am not the only one who is leaning toward staying home from the polls.

The common statement I am hearing is that voting will "make no difference." Typically, the speakers making these remarks then launch into a discussion of the debacle of the Democrats, who were given a mandate and commanding margin in both houses of Congress and control of the White House only to see the huge advantage all pissed away. Obama blames the Congress; the House blames the Senate; and the Senate blames the White House and everyone else. No one takes responsibility either individually or on the part of the national Democrats as a whole.

Frankly, I share the above sentiments of these individuals to some extent myself. My larger reason for staying home, if that is what I choose to do, is that I refuse to once again be played for a fool and a cretin by the Democrats. It is one of the few tools I have to protest the incessant lies and deceptions. Yes, most Democrats say all the right words while campaigning but then they deliver nothing once in office. As a community, LGBT Americans are rewarding the Democrats for their lies and betrayal if we yet again and again give them what they want - our money and votes - with no accountability demanded or consequences being inflicted for betrayal and broken promises.

The message to the Democrats from the LGBT community is clear: you can lie with impunity, you don't need to keep any of your campaign promises, and you don't need to deliver on anything because the idiot LGBT voters will still come out and vote for them no matter what. With this constant message being sent by the LGBT community to Democrats of all stripes, why on earth should the Democrats ever change? They are getting exactly what they want and do not need to do anything to get it.

Indeed, at times the cynic in me believes that the actual Democratic Party goal is to keep LGBT citizens inferior indefinitely. That way, each campaign cycle the bogey man in the form of the GOP can be trotted yet again. Yes, the GOP may be worse, but then Democrats haven't done anything of substance for LGBT Americans either.

My second reason for not voting relates to the recent wave of gay teen suicides. It's true that the Christian Right, Mormons and Roman Catholic Church bear the greatest responsibility for the unrelenting anti-gay message that forces youth to see suicide as their best solution - a point I reached myself twice in the past. But by failing to act to repeal DADT, enact ENDA and repeal DOMA, the Democrats also bear responsibility.

First and foremost among the Democrats sending out a message of hopelessness to LGBT youth is Barack Obama. Oh yes, he says nice things in pretty speeches, but if one follows his actions, it becomes clear that the pretty words mean NOTHING to him. Just as, in my opinion, LGBT lives and the careers of LGBT servicemembers in the final analysis mean nothing to Obama.

And I suspect our gay youth are savvy enough to figure out that we are all being played. They realize that there is no guarantee that "it gets better." Their proof: the continuation of DADT and DOMA by a president who claims to oppose them and the fact that ENDA has gone nowhere even in the Democrat controlled House of Representatives. Almost two years and we have made zero substantive progress.

My third reason if I choose not to vote is to make my open disgust with Obama tangible beyond merely writing blog posts. It is becoming more and more clear, at least to me, that Obama is part of the problem no matter what his apologists may say. In evaluating a politician, I look at action and results, not lip service and obviously insincere statements.

That said, let's look at Obama's actions versus his disingenuous rhetoric - rhetoric that I experienced first hand when he spoke in Virginia Beach in February, 2008. Rhetoric aimed solely at securing votes and money. First, during the campaign, who does Obama select for appearances at campaign functions? Anti-gay, ex-gay supporter Donnie McClurkin. And when confronted with McClurkin's anti-gay positions and slimy ex-gay past, what does he do? Obama keeps McClurkin on the program.

Then let's move to the inauguration. Who does Obama select to deliver the invocation? Rick Warren, homophobe extraordinaire whose finger prints are all over anti-gay agendas in Africa and whose church website had anti-gay rhetoric all over it.

Then, of course, we have the on going DOMA and DADT litigation. What do we see from Obama? A vigorous defense of the anti-gay policies and, based on the latest reports, and appeal of the DADT ruling and worldwide injunction against DADT discharges.

And just this past Thursday, Obama made statements promising that DADT "will end on my watch", yet he has zero ability to make that happen if he proceeds with an appeal of Judge Phillips rulings. There is zero guarantee that the Senate will ever vote to repeal DADT. Likewise, given the Christian extremists among the conservative block on the Supreme Court, there is zero guarantee that DADT will not be upheld if the case makes it to the Supreme Court. Ditto for DOMA

The sad truth is that the LGBT community is being played again. Obama believes that we are simpletons and fools and wants us out voting on November 2, 2010. My message to Obama and all Democrats: you want my vote, then all Democrats as a whole need to start delivering. I want to and will hold them jointly and severally responsible. I am over being played and cynically lied to. If the GOP benefits in the short term, that is the price to be paid in ending Democrat indifference and outright lies.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

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.


infulleffect | October 16, 2010 2:22 PM

I agree with you 100%...thanks for your post.

in agreement...

Not that I don't share your general disgust with politicians, but here are the problems I have with your proposal:

1) Whether or not we're disgusted with the president and Congress, there are local races that are often far more important than the national ones at least as regards your everyday life and community. Most people pay very little attention to these, which is a shame. So, find out who's running for school board, and while you're at the polls is it really going to hurt to vote against a Republican congressional candidate?

2) I think you're taking this too personally, in the sense that your identity as a gay man overshadows your responsibility as a citizen. If you make the whole thing about pleasing the gays, you turn the process into a game of trying to please different groups of people and satisfy their demands rather than trying to do what's best for a community, a state, a nation, etc.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 17, 2010 3:57 AM

Voting for any Democrat or any Republican validates the bigotry of those parties. A vote for a local Democrat is a vote for the increasingly blatant bigotry of Obama and Congressional Democrats.

Do you think it's our 'responsibility as citizens' to support Obama's mass murder of civilians and his sacrificing of the live of GIs for Big Oil. Is it our responsibility to support the trillions in handouts to the looter class and the Democrats attempt to break the UAW? Is it our responsibility to support the racist denial of health care to imported workers? How about FISA? What about the policy of kidnapping, torturing and then murdering political and military opponents of US wars of aggression in Palestine, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Please, explain why those policies are responsible and why we should support them?

I also agree with you 100%. Obama is a bigger disappointment than I could have ever imagined. He had accomplished nothing for the GLBT community and has exerted zero influence on behalf of our community. I am tempted to vote republican - at least they are honest in that they won't do anything for us and I might even get a tax break too! Sadly, I was a HUGE supporter of Obama. Those days are over. He is pretty much a big whimp.

Although I share your disappointments, there is such a thing as the lesser of two evils.

On the federal level, we can not afford the appointment of more Scalias , Alitos, Clarence Thomas's , etc to the US Supreme Court. Nor can we afford the lower federal court to be packed with homophobes approved by NOM.

With the democrats in power, our issues improve very slowly. With the Republicans in power, the issues get worse very fast.

It's better to have painfully slow improvement, than to turn the clock backwards.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 17, 2010 4:12 AM

That comment betrays a profound lack of historic knowledge.

Who gave us DADT? It wasn't the Republicans although some supported it and a few opposed it because it wasn't bigoted enough.

Who gave us DOMA? Democrats and Republicans both voted overwhelming for it after Clinton championed it. He signed it immediately and ran ads boasting about his support for bigoted christian cults and sects, his opposition to late term abortion and his pig headed opposition to same sex marriage.

The Supremes and the lesser courts respond to mass movements and mass pressure for change. Their primary emphasis is on protecting the wealth of the wealthy, not our rights or anyone else's for that matter.

Rick Sutton | October 18, 2010 6:38 AM

Bill: be angry all you want. Stomp and pout. Storm off with your toys.

But don't EVER claim that court-watchers have a lack of historical context. Because you'd be, uh, wrong.

I was around when Clarence Thomas, that oaf, was nominated. A few changed minds, and he'd be writing books and "lecturing" via the FoxNews gab channel.

Give me a smart Scalia any day. If we drop our guard, regarding the Senate confirmation process, during this very important time, we risk a generation of bad decisions.

Cert is granted much more quickly these days. That's history for ya. Important cases get often get the to SCOTUS bench in record time.

Senate control is in peril. Lovers of liberty have to pay attention. History demands it.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 18, 2010 2:24 PM

Rick, whine and bleat all you want. Nothing you say will make us like the bigots in the White House or on both sides of aisle in Congress.

The politics of appeasement are a disastrous failure. Voting for Democrats and Republicans is unprincipled. There are no excuses for voting for war, economic collapse and bigotry, as you suggest we do.

Court watchers are as irrelevant as high school civics, PoliSci 101 and the opinions of analysts on Sunday talk shows. The courts are there to protect the rich and only respond in our favor under pressure. Republican courts support us as often as Democratic (sic) courts (same sex marriage in Massachusetts and California).


Rick Sutton | October 18, 2010 9:20 PM

No whining and no bleating. Just facts.

It's been a long time since I was so summarily put-down by so faint an opinion. I bounce back pretty easily- the blow was glancing, void of substance.

Who the hell peed in your Wheaties? How sad to be that sour about everything.

There's hope, pal. It's called voting. You should try it.

"Just facts."

Next time try providing some.

Rick Sutton | October 19, 2010 2:41 PM

OK, Bill, here's a fact or two.

Five of the six most-important civil rights cases in the last 3 years were decided by 5-4 SOCTUS votes. In each and every one of those cases, Mr. Justice Kennedy was the swing vote. He often asks the most intellectual questions during orals. (He asks, while Clarence snores...but that's another subject) In short: he cna be influenced by logic and reason, particularly from colleagues. Multiple court books indicate he's the most outgoing among the justices, and he often listens intently to others' opinions.

Madame Justice Ginsburg is ill. Perhaps seriously so, and obviously frail. Her replacement might be required in the next session of Congress.

I want Sen. Sessions placed into an isolation tank during the next two years. Not placed in charge of that process. He's a scary right-wing homophobe. Even by Alamaba standards.

How any more facts do you need?

Joseph Kowalski | October 16, 2010 2:51 PM

While I share your opinion of President Obama and the Democrats on gay issues, refusing to vote isn't the answer.

As citizens, it's our civic responsibility to vote in all elections. If you don't like the options given on the ballot, write in your choice or leave that particular office blank.

I think too many people believe in politics and yet there is no rationale for that. Politics is a business and losing "us" as an issue will effect revenues. We'll continued to be "played" until enough constituents/voters are on our side. Only then does a politician change his mind/vote - when his voters make it necessary for his/her survival.

LGBT-issues are "moral issues," especially for those against us and those people come in Republican and Democrat. We need to educate, enlighten and enroll people regardless of party affiliation if we want to stop being used by both parties.

No matter how our community votes this November we are going to take either "some" punishment or "more" punishment. That's not a very good choice.

We have to acknowledge (someday) that there is no "political solution" to our equality and that nobody is going to "save" us - we need to do it ourselves.

The sooner, the better.

I don't understand why anyone would choose not voting at all over just voting for the Green Party candidate or leaving a particular item blank.

I voted Green Party in 1996 and 2000. Now I realize I need to vote against the Republican Party, and so I vote Democratic. I also usually leave offices blank if there's only one person running for it, because that's not voting in my view.

The only message not voting sends is that you're apathetic. If you voted for a liberal third party, or left that spot blank it would send a message that that's a vote the Democrats lost. It shows when they count the difference between how many ballots were cast versus how many voted on a particular item.

Look at it this way: even if the Democrats aren't willing to fight for your rights, the Republicans are willing to fight AGAINST your rights. By not voting for whatever vaguely pro- or not-anti-gay entity you choose, you are unable to negate someone else who DOES vote for an anti-gay entity.

Just because we haven't been getting our rights doesn't mean we should stop voting to keep the people who aren't anti-gay out of office. This election, it's possibly than many more anti-gay voters will be electing their chosen anti-gay officials, so not voting is the best way to see that our rights are taken away, rather than left alone or advanced.

At this point, you're not voting for the rights you want to gain. Now, you're voting for the rights you want to keep.

Rick Sutton | October 16, 2010 3:39 PM

I feel your pain. Believe me.

But when in the hell did we become so damned impatient? I don't get it.

Yeah, Rahm Emmanuel ran a lousy White House staff. They picked fights that didn't need to be picked, and didn't fight when they should've. Thankfully, that pip-fart is gone. He'll be a perfect Chicago mayor.

Lest we forget: it could've been President McCain and Vice President Palin. Airheads of the world, unite.

I have just five words for you, which should send shivers down your spine. These five words, in addition to the McCain-Palin thing (which made me throw up in my mouth a little), not only could happen, but will, if the Republicans retake the Senate. And it has lifelong implications because of the federal judiciary tenure:

Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeff Sessions.

See? Elections have consequences. Ergo Associate Justices Satomayor and Kagan, instead of some rightwing nutjobs to engage in mental gymnastics with Clarence Thomas. As if that would occupy much time.

I've posted it here before, and it should scare us to death. Sessions is a disgusting little toad. Goggle his activity as an (Alabama) US attorney, if you want a preview of the chilling effect his reign would have on civil rights. He thinks the era of powdered wigs and chastity belts is just fine. Among other frightening thoughts.

If we can keep the Senate in Democratic hands, do I want to open up a Demo ass-kicking season Nov. 3? Yep. 2012 is too close. Pres. Obama needs to buck up and act like a progressive Democrat. I think he will.

We can't sit home. In our lifetimes, there might not be a more-important election.

But yeah, we can complain. And we should.

And if Dems lose the Senate, pray mightily for the health of Associate Justice Ginsburg.

David Brian Holt | October 16, 2010 3:52 PM

I think a far better option than not voting is to vote for a third-party candidate who actually supports our community. How about voting for a socialist candidate this election?

http://www.dsausa.org/about/index.html

The democrats consistently raise a specter of "hope." From the 2004 "Hope is on the way" speech, to the elements that "hope" played in Obama's campaign. I realized a while ago that this hope doesn't seem to be based in anything at all. More than anything false hope was on the way, and now that the democrats have been in power, false hope is what they delivered.

I wish they would sometimes just come out and be honest about it. My slogan for them these days is "Vote Democrat: Because False Hope is Better Than No Hope At All."

Maybe I'm just deluding myself. Maybe false hope is worse. In any case, I'm pretty torn.

There is only one race in my district where the republican is running with opposition and that dem is anti-choice and I could not in good conscience vote for him. The only third party candidates are far right ones (one of them is so neo-nazi scary that he makes the republican look rational and friendly). So, I could take the time and effort to get my absentee ballot just to write in a list of protest votes, or I could not bother. The results are the same anyway and I could use the money I would spend on postage to buy a candybar. It would be money better spent that way.

Kevin Erickson | October 16, 2010 4:32 PM

If you don't vote you're really being played for a fool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_U6WX98buk

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 17, 2010 4:23 AM

If you vote for a Democrat or a Republican you're being played for a fool.

Jayne A Maynes | October 16, 2010 4:48 PM

Reading what is said both in the post and in the comments I have to wonder how many really do understand what is at stake.

Not voting is everyone in this countries right if they so choose, but then so is voting. That said; to not vote is to give up your voice in who is or isn't elected to office. To not vote means someone you may not agree with, someone who would make things even worse is choosing for you in part because you gave up your right to cancel out their vote, thus making their vote count twice.

Yes it is time to hold those seeking our money and support accountable. God knows they haven't shown they care about anything but our money thus far. voting to keep them in office in many cases would be more wrong than getting them out and letting someone else have a chance. But; what is the alternative this go round? do we want what the Republicans with the Tea Party are offering even if it is just for two years?

If we want to make change then we have to be willing to step up and offer change. Rather than not voting it would be better to vote for those you feel you can support and leave blank those you cannot. then next election run for office yourself. Change takes time and yes many promises have been made that were never intended to be kept by those making them. Let's find someone who can keep their promises next time. Let's make sure those who lied are out in the cold. Let's send a clear message that liars don't get a second chance. You make a promise then you better be ready to back it up with action.

Just my two cents on the matter. Remeber not voting is like casting two votes for someone you may not want.

I'll be spliting my ballot between Democrat votes (when the candidate supports us) and third party votes or write-in's (when both major candidates are unacceptable).

As others have said on this thread, I consider voting to be a duty of citizenship, and I do not consider not voting at all to be a responsible path.

I'm an apologist, so be it. Not voting isn't an option. I will use every means available to me to effect change.

We can't be silent. We need to bitch, demand, and continue to scream. Voting is just another means.

Legislation and/or political policy alone will not stop violence, discrimination, or oppression. Its but a piece of the picture.

While the political process is not efficient and fraught with deception, peril, corruption, or whatever negative value one might assign, there is value.

That value is in the fact that the issue of oppression is kept in the conversation in the town square. It gives me the ground upon which I can continue to bitch, scream, and fight. I can't advocate for change if I don't at least participate in the process.

How much depends directly on the number of voices keeping the issue on the front burners.

Telling people to not vote, or suggesting they don't is counter productive and negative.

If you're going to suggest that people disengage from the political process, then at least provide an alternative positive action.

The message of not voting, disrespects every gay member of the military.

The message of not voting is telling people there is no hope, just fucking give up. Without hope, how many more will commit suicide?

Its fucking tough and its so discouraging at times. Throwing in the towel plays into being a victim. Lets at least be survivors. Survivors fight and use whatever means are available to survive. How else does it get better?

Castigating any ally for everything not done just so is counter productive. There's no doubt candidates for office are out there, who are allies, and deserve our vote. There are those who need to be schooled. Not voting, only helps those who we know full well what they think of us and probably celebrate every suicide as another justification to say see, its such an unhealthy life style.

I'm voting & I sure as hell am not voting for a single tea bagging, right wing, homo/trans phobic, hypocritical, republican. My vote is my slap in their face. Its a great big fckh8 vote. And it only takes a few minutes to do. As soon as I vote I can go back to screaming, bitching, and kicking every chance I get to effect change. I can make sure that my allies are better equipped to help me, my community is engaged, and the haters can no longer spew.


"If you're going to suggest that people disengage from the political process, then at least provide an alternative positive action."

Talk to neighbors, friends, co-workers and even strangers. Educate, enlighten and enroll.

Our equality is our responsibility. We've been hiring politicians for decades and we still have nothing to show for it.

Andrew, my state has things like protection against employment and housing discrimination. That is important and, guess what, politicians passed those laws. To separate yourself from the political process is to concede and be defeated.

Yes, it is a long, slow, and hard process. No shit. We've been making progress, slow progress, but still progress. The last thing we need is a bunch of reactionaries in office to make our lives even more difficult.

Also, [url=http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/143160.pdf]this[/url] now exists thanks to the Democrats and the Obama administration. It means a lot to me because my gf is trans. That would never have happened under a Republican, if anything, they would have made it harder.

Also, also, my congressional reps really are lgbt friendly, why would I vote against them (or not vote, which accomplishes the same thing)? I want them to remain in office.

And I fucked up the link with bbcode instead of html
Here it is again.

I said "equality" not laws you refer to as "protections." They are very different. Equality is better and it doesn't come from politics - it comes from our fellow citizens.

How else do you think equality is enforced? Was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not a step towards equality? It's the same damn thing.

Also, the passport thing, that is of huge important to me. It was done by a politician, not the community. The community doesn't have the power to do it.

The Civil Rights act made the practice of racism illegal and punishable. At best it created a deterrent, not a cure. Today, after 46 years, more than one-third of Americans admit to being "racist." Making something "wrong" doesn't make something go away - it makes those who continue to do it become more creative.

If we were able to demonstrate that two-thirds of Americans support our full equality we wouldn't need "laws." The Hate Crimes Bill doesn't protect anyone, it makes idiots "think twice" (which is helpful) but it is only a way to punish people. Don't misunderstand me, I agree with punishing these hateful morons, but that doesn't change hearts and minds.

Equal Rights and Equality are two very different things. I prefer Equality.

Did the Civil Rights act improve things? Do you seriously believe it is possible to have equality without equal rights?

It is entirely possible to have equality without equal rights laws. Having equality means we don't need "equal rights." We also don't need to be defined as a minority needing protection. We would be equal.

So, yes I prefer equality over laws that don't protect or change minds - they just punish bad behavior. I'd much rather our fellow citizens believed we were equal than telling them they have to conform or they face punishment.

Then you have no idea how those laws work. It doesn't just protect the minority group, it protects everybody. For example, in my state, there is anti discrimination laws for housing. This doesn't state that you can't deny housing to LGBTs, it says you can't deny it based on orientation. It has the effect of protecting the minority, but the reality is that the majority also receives the same protection. And I would love to change minds, but it's a shame that you never propose a way to do it. It's also a shame that it's an impossible goal, there will always be bigots. As such, it is the responsibility of the gov't to protect its citizens against them.

Laws don't come with bodyguards 24/7. When we enroll the majority of our fellow citizens in our full equality THEY will become our bodyguards.

I agree there will always be bigotry and bigoted beliefs - we need to marginalize them by becoming a powerful majority.

Asking is better than ordering. Think about it.

I am not suggesting that some laws have been helpful, but they do not solve our problem. To solve it we need people standing with us - the majority of people.

Yes - it is possible and it is coming soon.

How the fuck does the LGBT crowd become a majority? We make up maybe 5-10% of the population and that number is a constant. This is population dynamics, we simply can't be a greater number.

How the fu*ck? Charming.

The new majority is us + enough Americans that will support our full equality. Achieving that and it's game over. We have to ask for support. It's there, but we have to ask.

There is no purpose in being permanently defined as a "minority." Is that your preference?

Not "f*ck" "fuck." It's a word, I will use it. Profanity is not the enemy.

Also, that's not what minority means, at all. By that logic black Americans are no longer a minority. You should go tell them that. Allies are not gay, they are a good thing and worthwhile, but they are not gay. They will never know what it's like to be gay. Saying they are is an insult to those of us who have to contemplate who we should and shouldn't reveal our orientation to and it's an insult to those of us who have suffered because of bigotry.

You ask Blacks, I already have. They DO NOT want to be permanently defined as a "protected class." They'd like to be simply a numerical minority. That would mean we would no longer need laws to protect or punish. It is a much better result.

And now you just moved the goalposts. First it was to no longer be a minority, now it's to no longer need to be protected. I don't want to need protections either, but they are needed. In reality, they are necessary. Consider them a necessary evil if you want, but they are needed because we will always be a numerical minority and we will always be different. And different is "bad" and hated.

You simply want to be "protected" forever. I don't.

And you have hit fallacy number 2, strawman. What part of "I don't want to need protections either" implies that I want to be protected forever? You are a very silly person living in a very silly reality. I envy you.

And you, Vene, are a very wise person.

I now advocate that we say the same thing to the Democrats as the unions did to Arlen Spector:

"You want my vote? I want YOURS!"

Simple, direct, and leaves no space to misconstrue or compromise. It's really the only way we can ever be sure the Democrats, or any politicians really, will do what they say they will.

We've spent decades funding and voting for failure, now it's time for Dems to keep their promises BEFORE we support them again.

california panda | October 16, 2010 6:01 PM

Oh I will be voting all right but here's what I intend to do. I have made up a list of questions I want answered from each candidate that affects my life in some way. from local school board officials to Fed govt pols. The questions run the gamut from Do you passionately support repeal of DOMA, DADT in your next term of office and what do you intend to do about it? Do you support Equal Employment Non-Discrimination for LGBT people, and specifically Transpeople, in both Federal, State and Local business and what specifically do you intend to do to move ENDA forward during your next term of office. I will then email the questions to each candidate listed on my ballot and the response or non-response to these questions will condition my vote for or against that particular candidate. No candidate responds -- no candidate gets my vote. A spin answer gets no vote. I may even make a website to publish such answers so that others can see where the candidates stand on issues important to LGBT people. Only if they can answer with definite a plan to move these issues forward will they get a vote from me. Like many of you, I'm tired of pretty words and foot/knuckle dragging. I'm tired of stonewalling and promises not kept. I'm tired of pols trying to defend the indefensible. If they don't have time to answer me, I don't have time to vote for them.

I feel your pain, Michael, but I'll just say that they will not receive your message if you don't vote. The Democrats, if losses are big will learn: We moved too far to the left so we need to go to the right. That's it. They'll interpret your not voting as someone who got mad that they were too pro-gay (they already think that they're way to far to the left as it is, big losses at elections will only serve as confirmation).

Not that I have a better solution.

The only problem with that Alex is having just "two" parties is about to be upended by a Third Party. The "middle" is the biggest unorganized party in the U.S. and efforts are underway to field a Presidential candidate in 2012.

This effort is centered around dismissing the "extremes" of both parties. From what I've seen it makes the Perot runs in '92 and '96 look like the carnival they became. It's very thoughtful and it makes sense. So far, it looks good for the LGBT community because it is "socially Liberal."

OK, I'll bite. Are you referring to Michael Bloomberg or any of the other billionaires America's glitteratti want to run because they think being socially liberal and insanely rich means someone speaks the language of the people?

I honestly haven't seen much evidence that there's a large "middle" in the country, when we divide people along ideological lines. Sure, lots of people are neither dems nor repubs, but that doesn't mean that those people are happily in between the two parties.

The other third party option is from the far-right, which is funded well enough to put someone out there. The choices may be Democrat, Republican, or tea bagger. Fun.

Either way, anyone who's willing to run third party right now is going to be to the right of the Democrats on almost every issue except maybe LGBT rights and abortion, and even those two aren't givens. The main problem is that power has gotten more and more concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, who are usually conservative, and that makes it difficult to get the government to be responsive to the needs of the weak and oppressed.

The "equality" comment above was for Vene.

Alex, the emerging third party is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. This group represent the majority of people who are tired of "moral" issues and government involvement, but they also want us to prosper. This neuters the extreme left and the extreme right. I'm okay with that.

I said "equality" not laws you refer to as "protections." They are very different. Equality is better and it doesn't come from politics - it comes from our fellow citizens.

LMAO

"Emerging third party."

Are you freaking serious?

Thanks for the Saturday chuckle. I'll drink what you're drinking.

Gin and Tonic. Cheers.

I want to thank everyone for their comments whether you agree with my possible decision to not vote or not (NOTE: For the record, I haven't made a final decision). I also want to make clear that my focus is not solely LGBT issues. Obama and the Democrats have dropped the ball across the board in my view because Obama is utterly spineless and a liar.

I also appreciate the suggestions to vote for a third party candidate. Unfortunely, the third pary candidate in my congressional district is pretty much as anti-gay as the GOP candidate. I should also note that given the way our election cycles work, only federal candidates are on the ballot this election - city council elections, etc., were back in June (when the boyfriend and I backed a gay friendly candidate for city council and got him elected by a narrow margin that was likely made up of the gay votes we brought to him) and state elections are next fall.

The bottom line issue is that of deciding what can we as members of the LGBT community do to make the Democrats realize that they CANNOT take our votes as a given. The "Don't Ask, Don't Give" campaign and similar efforts have significantly reduced LGBT dollars going to the DNC and other Democrat organizations. However, despite the drop in monetary donations, if the Democrats still know that they will get our votes despite their lies and betrayals, we again have to face the reality we create: they have no reason to deliver on promises since in the last analysis they keep getting our votes.

It is a very disturbing situation and I believe that lies and betrayals need to have consequences.

I don't think there is any evidence that LGBT donations have declined. Democrats (for what it is worth) suggest they have raised more money from the LGBT community this year than in 2008.

I don't think not contributing or not voting are real consequences. We're just not that influential politically. I wish we were, but we're not.

Rick Sutton | October 18, 2010 6:42 AM

A liar? Obama? Seriously?

Here's a hint: in serious discussions, hyperbole never gets you anywhere.

Disappointing? Hell yeah. Badly advised? You betcha.

But liar? Please. Here's another take:

Seriously under-equipped and ill-advised to deal with a rabid far-right agenda. Which should've been shot like an angry pit bill on the front porch of our liberty.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 18, 2010 4:17 PM

Stop the lying.

Like most Democrats, all Obama does is lie to us. He has no other choice. He's a bigot (or a functional bigot). At the same time as he pigheadedly opposes our agenda for equality he needs our votes. His wars, mass unemployment and Depression have made him and the Congressional incumbents very unpopular.

The fierce lie: "Obama, who often mentioned his support of gay rights in stump speeches, though not gay marriage, said today that he is a “fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans,” adding, “It’s something I’ve been consistent on.”

What else is he going to do but continue to lie.

How long did it take Obama to react to the judicial decisions to end Democrat Bill Clintons DADT and DOMA. A weekend for DADT. A week or so for DOMA. Now that's what I call fierce... fierce bigotry, that is.

How long will it take Obama's DoJ to prosecute someone under the ineffective Hate Crimes bill. We may never know.

How long will it take the Democrats to pass ENDA. The public support for ENDA is overwhelming.

How long to repeal Clintons DADT and DOMA. Twenty more years? Last I looked about 75% of the public supported repeal of DADT, but the Democrats don't or they would have repealed it in January, 2008.

The Democrats have had huge majorities in the House and the Senate since 2006 and super majorities the last two years. They sat on their asses for the last four years, refusing to pass ENDA or to repeal DADT and DOMA. Obama said he'd push for repeal but he's done just the opposite.

He's a fierce liar, not a dummy as you suggest. He's a constitutional scholar and he knows exactly what he's doing.

I have something I'd like to point out that I haven't really heard. Even if the conservatives (Tea Party plus Repubs) clean up on November 2, have a majority in the House and even the Senate, it doesn't put them in the position to really change much unless they get a super majority in the Senate, which they won't.

Filibusters and holds will still apply, and unless the Dems just completely roll over (which they did all through the Bush years), the conservatives can't anymore pass things than the Dems could. Plus, Obama can veto things. Then they can say, "Look, you voted these ppl in to change things, and they haven't done a thing!"

So it really isn't the end of the world if the conservatives do well, just as it wasn't a wonderful new world when the Dems won both houses of Congress and the White House. It just means it is time for the Dems to wake up and grow a spine and realize that if they want to win in the future, they need to quit lying to their supporters.

I agree, we're in political grid-lock for another 10 years or more.

I have no qualm with what you said except, perhaps, one thing.

The Dems will never be as cut throat and vicious as the Repugs. They're (we're) just not built that way. Much of what separates us from them is the we are basically civil, caring, fair-minded individuals. They are ____ _____ _____ _____ ..... well, I'll leave the blanks for you to fill in.

I agree that over the next 2 years, without a super majority, the Repugs will not be able to pass much legislation. But what can and will be able to do is de-fund all of the progressive programs that have been put in place over the last 2 years. The Congress controls the purse strings. Without money, nothing moves forward.

What "progressive programs have been put in place over the last two years?" I haven't seen any progress or progressive programs. I haven't seen anything.

Roberta sklar | October 17, 2010 1:20 AM

there is no viable rationale for not voting, none!

Michael and Carol and all the other "I'm-fed-upAINGTTIAM's" out there - Elections have consequences - and especially this coming election.

(1) In most states, the legislators elected in November will re-align congressional districts based on this year's census - giving the winning party the opportunity to gerrymander U.S. congressional districts that favor's its candidates significantly for the next 10 years.

2) one-third of the Senate will be elected this year for 6-year terms, and the vast majority of Republican candidates are incumbents or are significantly more socially conservative than the Senators (R. or D.) they would be replacing. This election will shift the Senate further right from it's current center-right status. If enough socially liberal (gay, union, other disenchanted) voters stay home or vote for third parties, we could end up with a Senate that thinks Jim DeMint really has the answers. Since ENDA, repeal of DADT and DOMA, and any other legislative fix has to pass the Senate, anything that does not pass in the lame duck session is surely not going to pass in a Republican-majority Senate.

3) Supreme Court nominees need Senate approval, which is subject to filibuster. Within the 6-year term of the Senators elected this year, there are likely to be two vacancies on the SC - the first of them involving a "liberal seat." The consensus is that Obama's first two appointments moved the SC "to the right" - because the two appointees appear more moderate than the liberals they replaced and more liberal nominees would have been unconfirmable by the present Senate. A significantly more conservative Senate will mean the next SC appointment(s) will shift the Court even further right, raising the likelihood of a more conservative SC for decades to come. The outlook for all the lgbt cases that are heading toward the SC - the DADT case, the MA and CA marriage cases - is iffy at best under the current composition of the SC. The rightward shift of another justice would probably doom those cases and would even give Antonin Scalia hope that he might realize his goal of reversing Lawrence v. Texas.

4) If you persuade enough Iowans to stay home in November, the Iowa SC justices who said marriage inequality was against the state constitution will be recalled, and the anti-equality forces there and in places like New Hampshire will renew their push to rescind marriage equality.

A massive defeat of Dems in November will move everything to the right - on social and economic issues - not for two years, but for at least six, maybe for a decade. The stakes are too high to sit this one out.

I had forgotten about the redistricting, that is a great point. Otherwise, I still feel the same. Look at how many judges and other nominees that Obama has in the queue. That can work both ways. Again, if the Dems would stand up for their principles like the Repubs do, no conservative SC judges will make it to the court (personally, I still can't believe they let Roberts through, to me it was obvious from his smug attitude how he would be just the way he has been).

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 17, 2010 4:47 AM

Here's the reality.

We do have allies, but they aren't in the Democratic or Republican Parties. Those parties are run by bigots. McCain is a bigot. Palin is a bigot. The Clintons are bigots. Obama is a bigot. Biden is a bigot. They're the enemy.

What was not so clear to lots of us in 2008 is abundantly clear now that the hype of the presidential campaign has been replaced by the hype of Presidential/Congressional pandering.

Our allies are in unions, in the fighting organizations of people of color, in the communities of imported and immigrant workers and in the women's, environmental and antiwar movements.

Of all the struggle movements we're furthest along in our understanding of the reactionary nature of the Democrats. They're owned by the rich and they do what they're told by their owners. ENDA or an inclusive constitutional CRA amendment will eat into their profits and the rich aren't having it. That's why Quisling Frank gutted it in 2007 and why Obama and Congress ignored it from then 'til now.

We have to lead the way in breaking with the twin parties of the rich by being independent, fighting our own fight and promoting mass actions/direct actions as a way of confronting bigots like Obama.

After decades of debilitating dependence on bigots like the Clintons, the Bushes and Obama it's our time to take the lead in forging our own movement independent of and in opposition to the twin parties of bigotry. It our time to lead by example with direct and mass actions.

Those other communities are quiescent and still in shock as the horrors of mass unemployment, Depression and pauperization take their toll. It's up to us to lead the way.

On Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010 and Tuesday, November 4th, 2012 refuse to validate the bigotry of the two main parties. Vote against Democrats and Republicans. Vote left, write in someone or sit it out (unless there are important referenda, initiatives or propositions on the ballot).

Bill, I loved this comment. Just wanted to second it.


As I heard President Clinton say last night: "We have anger on the right, apathy on the left and amnesia all around."

The California Democratic Party has been good to you. Its members have repeatedly passed pro-LGBT legislation and twice passed marriage equality bills. Two of our top candidates for office this November worked tirelessly for LGBT equality, committing political suicide for us on several occasions yet they are the favorites.

The LGBT community's frustration of Congress and the President's failure to act should not distract us from the fact that we are voting for only two candidates for federal office this coming election. Two, the rest will run our state. There are precisely zero excuses to not vote on November 2nd.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 17, 2010 5:04 AM

"Although I share your disappointments, there is such a thing as the lesser of two evils".

"I feel your pain, Michael..."

"I feel your pain. Believe me."

"Not that I don't share your general disgust with politicians..."

"While I share your opinion of President Obama and the Democrats on gay issues..."

But we get so lonely waiting for the Obus to run us over, won't you join us? One more time, for old times sake?

Michael, I disagree with your decision to not vote for all the reasons that have been previously stated by others. I sincerely hope you change your mind and come out and vote.

But I vehemently disagree and am truly disturbed by the myriad comments from our friend Bill Perdue. Bill, every time the subject of the president or our party comes up, you spew the same outrage and anger. We get your point. Some of us agree and some of us disagree... and some (like myself) think you have many valid points, but disagree with your conclusions.

Now matter what you say and no matter how many times you use different language to say it, with the Dems in power we are advancing toward our goals. With the Repugs in power, especially with the coming infusion of the Tea Party extremists, every advance that we've made is in real danger of being lost.

You will obviously disagree with that. But, just as it's your right to repeatedly express what I perceive to be your negative attitude and adding nothing new to your argument, it's my right to tell you that what I believe what you're doing is severely hurting our mutual cause.

The vast majority of Dems are on our side... the vast majority of Repugs are against us. That is a fact!

Correction: it's my right to tell you that I believe what you're doing...

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 17, 2010 4:47 PM

"The vast majority of Dems are on our side..." That's absolutely not true and the actions of the Democrats prove it. The vast majority of Democrats voted for DADT and DOMA elected a leadership that refuses to repeal them or pass ENDA.

"...the vast majority of Repugs are against us. That is a fact!" Well at least you got one right. The key difference between the parties is that Republicans no longer bother to lie about their bigotry. The Democrats still do and still hoodwink some people, but the number is declining fast. November 2nd will give a good idea of how fast and how much.

"With the Repugs in power, especially with the coming infusion of the Tea Party extremists, every advance that we've made is in real danger of being lost." The danger comes from careless dependence on bigots like Obama, Biden, etc. That kind of thinking gave us DADT and DOMA and denies us ENDA or an inclusive CRA. The Teabaggers are to Republicans as the Dixiecrat/DLC groups are to Democrats. Both groups pander to bigots and both groups move their parties further and further to the right.

"I believe what you're doing is severely hurting our mutual cause." Your cause is partisan support for the Democrat party, mine is LGBT equality. They're mutually exclusive.

You are 100% incorrect in every one of your retorts.

Just one example... the Dixiecrats were Southern Dems who left the Dem party and became Repugs as the Dem party started to push for civil rights for blacks. They were strong racists and found themselves at odds with the Democratic Party. Dixiecrats no longer exist. What used to be Dixiecrats are now the Southern Repugs who have never given up trying to dismantle the advances of the civil rights movement.

When the the Repugs took over the congress in '94, as they may very well do in Nov., Clinton's social agenda was effectively scuttled.

Because he was suddenly working with a hostile congress, he was forced to make some (what turned out to be) lousy compromises. DADT was one of those compromises. It was struck when Clinton was pushing to completely end the banning of gays from the the military. It was never meant to be used to out service members. It was meant to keep them from outing themselves. It has been grossly misused by the powers that be in the military.

You are totally wrong about me. Yes... my cause is partisan support for the Democrat[sic] party, because the Democratic Party stands for principles that I strongly support. All one must do is read the platforms of the 2 parties to see the differences between them.

It seems to me that our biggest difference is that although we both strongly care about GLBT equality, I care for far more than just my own personal issues. As a citizen of this nation and of the world, I care for fair treatment of all people, regardless of race, class and economic status. I care for health care for all of us. I care for rebuilding what's left of the middle class, after it's having been plundered by conservative policies over the last thirty years. I care about re-regulating industry and making the playing field an equal place for ALL people to succeed and share in the abundance of resources and the wealth that our nation has to offer.

The GOP and these concerns ARE mutually exclusive. The Democratic Party is completely in line with all of these issues, including our GLBT equality.

To call our president and our vice president bigots is ridiculous. It's more than that... it's delusional.

I'm sure that you'll vehemently disagree with everything I've said. But I have no interest in continuing this conversation. So, I'll allow you to have the last word... have a go at it.

You're wrong, as usual.

"...the Dixiecrats were Southern Dems who left the Dem party..." Why would say that? Read a little history. A tiny few Dixiecrats like Thurmond and Helms did leave. But most like Senatotrs Robert Byrd, John C. Stennis, J. William Fulbright, James Eastland, Harry Byrd, Gore, Holland, Russell Long, Richard Russell, Olin Johnston, Lister Hill, Sparkman, McClellan, Talmadge and George Smathers stayed until they died, resigned or were defeated by the new generation of Southern Republicans.

Southern Republicans are the legacy of Nixon and Reagan's Southern Strategy, not Dixiecrat defections

"When the the Repugs took over the congress in '94, as they may very well do in Nov., Clinton's social agenda was effectively scuttled". Bill Clinton and the DLC crowd are rightwing Dixiecrats who attacked working people via NAFTA, deregulation, draconian cuts in welfare and social services, a genocidal war against children in Iraq and by flooding the streets with more cops instead of more jobs, more housing, socialized medicine and free education. The rest of his social agenda consisted of DADT and DOMA. He's a bigot.

"... I care for far more than just my own personal issues..." Voting for Democrats is a vote for the murder of muslim civilians and wasting the lives of GIs to steal oil. It's a vote against socialized medicine, a vote for bailouts and handouts to the rich and attacks on workers standard of living and our unions. Voting for Democrats is a vote for bigots and bigot panderers, misogynists and racists. With 'caring' friends like Democrats who needs enemies.

" To call our president and our vice president bigots is ridiculous. It's more than that... it's delusional." It was a bigot named Obama who scuttled same sex marriage in California. It was a bigot named Biden, US Senator from the Bank of America, who voted for DADT and DOMA. The claim that they're not bigoted is partisan and flies in the face of the facts. It's DNCelusional.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 18, 2010 2:31 PM

Enjoy your Democrat-Republican Depression, wars and bigotry. But don't get upset if the rest of us don't join you.

Have a happy November 2nd. You deserve it.

And you enjoy living the hell that you've created for yourself!

For further clarification, I was addressing federal election voting only. The sole candidate on the ballot if I vote is for the local congressman - who has been less than satisfactory. Virginia's state elections are in odd years and federal elections on even years - were have an election every year, so it's never ending campigning.

Most other states DO have other positions that need to be supported. I did not mean to not vote in these other contests. As I see it, it's the national Democracts that are the problem.

That said, saying "there is no viable rationale for not voting, none!" must be music to Tim Kaine's ears. He did little or nothing for LGBT Virginians as governor - he did not even stand behind his own executive order - and now he's doing the same at the national level.


I agree that the effective Democratic slogan of, "We suck and rip you off, but the Republicans sucks much worse," while disgustingly true, is not much to campaign on.

But not voting will have the same effect as voting for Nader did, not just in Florida, which everyone knows about, but also in New Hampshire, which cost our country eight years of misery and corruption.

New Hampshire

Bush: 273,559
Gore: 266,348
Nader: 22,198

Is this part of the base "motivated"? No. Will this part of the base vote? Yes, with my nose wrinkled


I don't know how the ballot works in your state, but here, in Nevada, I'll be voting--and making liberal use of the selection "None of the Above." Somehow, a recorded vote of "no-confidence" seems more powerful to me than staying home, although I'd like to do that too...

I'm in California, and I'm going to vote for Jerry Brown for Gov. because I'm scared shitless of Meg Whitman, and her cynical neo-liberal, 'no-government, cut public investment of all kinds and de-regulate to make the world safe for robber barns and baronesses like herself to plunder the carcass of this country and leave its' people and our future to rot' - brand of republicanism. I'd feel the same if I were ( god forbid) straight. And I'm going to vote for Barbara Boxer because I'm scared shitless of Carly Fiorina. Same story there. I actually don't think we can afford to be one-issue voters. And we can't afford to ignore real differences between specific candidates in local and state races. And by 'we,' I mean anyone who doesn't want to see this country continue to devolve toward third world socio-economic conditions ruled over by a populist-fascist junta.

That said, I don't believe the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress ever had any real commitment to advancing the big-ticket HRC-style agenda of DADT, ENDA, DOMA repeal. LGBTQ voters, donors, and organizers who supported them on that basis were taken for a ride. Trying to be DC power players hasn't worked for queers and I don't think it will work in the foreseeable future.

" I don't believe the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress ever had any real commitment to advancing the big-ticket HRC-style agenda of DADT, ENDA, DOMA repeal."

Well, they never had the 60 votes in the Senate. Does that count?

While I can understand the thought to protest against the lack of progress and fulfillment of promises made by the Democratic Party to the LGBT community, by withholding contributions, refusing to be included in polling data, and so on, I see little good to me done by sitting at home and not being part of the elective process. I can see merit in voting for a third or forth party or the none of the above choice in some states but allowing the Republican Right have their way and suffer through two, four, eight, or more years of their closed minded stupidity is just not something I am prepared to do willingly. So I will be voting if I am physically able to do so. I will vote against those endorsed by the Tea Party not because I disagree with their supposed premise that we need to take control of our government, but because those who seem to have taken control of their movement are by and large bigots, or just the same old far right wing people in new wrappers, who we not barely are two years from living under. You know, the type that thought George W. Bush was a great president. It may be a useless exercise on my part given the millions of dollars special interests from big business have poured into the campaigns, but I see no need to surrender what little say I have in things by not participating in the process by voting. My voice may be small, and my vote of little use locally but it is one of the few real rights I have.

Rick Sutton | October 18, 2010 9:05 AM

Back. Away. From. The. Gin.

It's deluding your thought process. In the hangover stage, are you aware you gave credence to an emerging third-party movement?

Ross Perot wishes it were so.

There is not now, nor has there in recent history ever been, nor is there likely soon to be, anything approaching an "emerging third party movement." The ballot-access process is stacked against them. That's probably not good, but it's not changing anytime soon. Instead, reformers have to Trojan-Horse their own party. There is no emerging third party.

Just annoying political gnats, like those yappy lap dogs biting your ankles. I love dogs, but the yapping ankle-biters are annoying as hell, and in the end-game, (thankfully) not statistically significant.

Before you point to the Tea Partiers as evidence, they're almost all far right-wing Republicans pissed off that we elected a black president. Wolves in sheep's clothing.

Alas, all that's happened since the 2008 election, is that we've become much more shallow and impatient as an electorate. And I didn't think that was remotely possible.

No Third Party because YOU say so? How bizarre.

Yeah, it's coming and the Plan is brilliant.

I personally doubt a Third Party will ever be much more than a spoiler in this country. After all I cannot count how many times growing up when educators spoke of the the political process in this country as "American's Two Party System". Too many are therefore stuck into the idea of two political parties to really develop an effective third or possibly even a viable forth party in American politics from what I see. This is indeed sad when given the two choices we seem to have before us are as described on South Park once a few years back as a choice between a Giant Douche and a Terd Sandwich.

Thank you Michael for your blog. I have been seriously considering not voting myself, for a lot of the reasons you mention. It is not easy to find others that agree or even try to understand.
I do not want to participate in a process that I believe no longer works. Voting for a democrat because I don't want a republican in office no longer feels like a good enough reason. When I look at the 'big picture', it's becoming difficult to see a real difference between democrats and republicans. In order to become elected both have to move to the center.
A big reason I do not want to participate in the proces is the incredible amount of money involved. Close to $5 billion will be spent on the mid term elections. $5billion! Corruption has become expensive.
I have read the comments about your blog and have not been convinced that voting doesn't imply consent in what seems to me to be a corrupt process. What are we getting for $5billion dollars? Candidates that are now financed by (and must answer to) corporations and buisness rather than constituents. That is not the democracy I fell in love with.
Peace.

@ Jeff A: Just because we disagree does NOT mean we don't understand!

Voting is more than electing people. Please consider the ballot initiatives in your area as those will straightforwardly affect day-to-day life.

Voting is more than electing people. Please consider the ballot initiatives in your area as those will straightforwardly affect day-to-day life.

Not voting at all doesn't send a message to the dems that you are upset with them. It is business as usual in the US. On the other hand, millions of ballots that are cast, with no votes for the elected officials, but weighing in on initiatives, shows that there IS an engaged, active, and voting electorate. "But... why didn't they vote for us? Hmmm..." THAT would send a message to the parties.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 18, 2010 2:23 PM

Rick, whine and bleat all you want. Nothing you say will make us like the bigots in the White House or on both sides of aisle in Congress.

The politics of appeasement are a disastrous failure. Voting for Democrats and Republicans is unprincipled. There are no excuses for voting for war, economic collapse and bigotry, as you suggest we do.

Court watchers are as irrelevant as high school civics, PoliSci 101 and the opinions of analysts on Sunday talk shows. The courts are there to protect the rich and only respond in our favor under pressure. Republican courts support us as often as Democratic (sic) courts (same sex marriage in Massachusetts and California).

Blah, blah, blah... yada, yada, yada.......

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | October 19, 2010 8:46 AM

Very entertaining.

Do you stick out your tounge when you do that?

Could you send us a picture.

I am happy to see that I generated some great debate with my post. Haing done so, I need to report that despite my inclination to not vote in our local congressional race - it's the only item on the ballot given our other elections cycles - an event today tipped me towards voting despite my utter disgust with Obama and the Congressional Democrats.

What was it? The chairman of the Virginia Beach GOP - Virginia Beach is Virginia's largest city in terms of population - got caught sending out a vile racist "joke' that equates blacks with lazy black dogs who can't speak English and who don't know who their father is. It's beyond disgusting. Blue Virginia has the details here: http://www.bluevirginia.us/diary/2026/virginia-beach-republican-committee-chair-forwards-racist-email

I simply cannot sit by and allow Scott Rigell - a racist homophobe in my view - to win without opposing him and his party to the maximum extent possible. Thus, I WILL be voting and my Glenn Nye yard sign is going back up.

Muuuuuuuuuuuah!!!