Patricia Todd, an openly lesbian Democratic who narrowly won a primary race for the Alabama legislature, has been disqualified by the party committee based on a seldom used filing technicality. Todd is quoted by the AP saying that she believes the challenge has nothing to do with the fact she is gay but is about the fact that she is white and won in a majority black district. She blamed Joe Reed, longtime chairman of the black Democratic caucus, who wrote a letter before the election urging black leaders to support Todd's black opponent and stressing the need for keeping the seat in black hands.
But that can't be, because only whites are racists, right?
Update. Todd has been reinstated. The glare of publicity again proves the best tonic for political corruption.
18 Comments for “Alabama ‘Democracy’”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Not necessarily a gay issue, but it does show how the Demopublican cries of “let the people decide! Democracy for all!” are a load of bullshit.
Republicans love majoritarian democracy when it means no gay marriage, but hate hate hate it when it means their guy loses the White House.
Democrats love majoritarian democracy when it means their guy will get power, but hate hate hate it when it comes to Democrats selecting their own candidates in primary elections for office.
It’s not surprising to anyone who has already figured out the two-party scam. It doesn’t make much of a difference who you “elect,” because they’re both the same in practice — and if you make the “wrong” choice, the powers-that-be will step in to invalidate it. They also work hard to ensure that real alternatives from the Libertarian, Green and independent lines of thought never even get a chance to express themselves as part of the political process.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
NL’s comments seem a desperate attempt to use a news story to flog his trite “they’re all the same” rhetoric. The multi-faceted recklessness of the Republican-run federal government makes that line hard to take seriously. Libertarian candidates are relegated to the miniscule “other” category in elections because people don’t agree with them.
Getting back to the subject of Steve’s post, the treatment of Patricia Todd is outrageous and is a blatant an act of racism. If Democrats allow this result to stand, they will be damaged and ought to be.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Partisan Democrats seem awfully smugly assured that, in their rightness of purpose, the empirical facts don’t matter.
The reality is that liberal blogs would be trumpeting this as proof of GOP racism (and homophobia) if the shoe was on the GOP foot. Conservative blogs are now doing the same.
The other reality is that this is par for the course for both parties, because neither party stands for anything other than the acquisition of power for itself and its corrupt ingrained interests.
Democrats are “pro-gay” and “anti-racist” yet ban a white woman from running in a “black” district, and were instrumental in passing the Defense of Marriage Act (which bans gay marriage and civil unions) and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the military. Their presidential candidate John Kerry had his first major press conference after the election not to call attention to voting irregularities, but rather to condemn gay marriage. No real difference from the Republicans when one gets past the semantics there.
Republicans, on the other hand, are all about small government and low taxes — or so they say. Then they get into office and increase spending and government employment at unheard of levels, institute the creation of 37 new federal bureaus and divisions, hike taxes over the long term with high deficits (and resulting bonds which need to be paid back) and institute a new, expensive prescription drug program. That’s just as big-spending and reckless as their Democratic “opposition.”
The response to this from Demopublicans? Point out that other parties and perspectives have no traction.
Why is that? Ballot access laws, mostly, plus regulations which create heavily-scripted “debates” between their tweedledee and tweedledum candidates.
The reality is, for gay people, it doesn’t really matter if Democrats or Republicans are in office. Both parties are two sides of the same coin on what really matters — the issues. That’s not going to change, regardless of how many swipes they take at the Libs, the Greens, or independents.
One doesn’t change the status quo by voting for either of the two old parties. One endorses it.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
As for “desperation,” it comes not from the third-party folks working hard to craft meaningful policies which differ from the Demopublicans, but rather from the powers-that-be which claim that they really stand for something unique and the reason why their opponents with truly different ideas aren’t winning has *nothing* to do with their punitive ballot access laws, their campaign finance rules which favor the old parties, and the influence-peddling which is standard operating procedure within both parties.
Sorry, the indictment against the Republicrats stands starkly, empirically, and without ambiguity.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
NL, you paint with way too broad a brush. You are so determined to show your utter and complete disgust with the Democratic and Republican parties that you sabotage the discussion. Bush won the White House because of self-marginalizing leftists who insisted, falsely, that there was no meaningful difference between the two parties or their candidates. The result has been the most reckless presidency in living memory. Needless to say, it is not only leftists who commit this folly: Dogmatists of every stripe view the world through their chosen distorting lens.
Racial pandering is the Democratic party’s achilles heel, because time and again it has put them at the mercy of opportunists. Clinton showed one way out with his outmaneuvering of Jesse Jackson in 1992. Newark Mayor Cory Booker represents another hope for post-racial politics with his refreshing contrast to the old-school corruption, incompetence, and rule-by-division of predecessor Sharpe James. In Illinois, Barack Obama won in the white “collar counties” because of his positive message and his avoidance of traditional race-mongering politics. Of course there are plenty of counter-examples, but the point is that the parties are not monolithic. I am a centrist Democrat who has campaigned for a Republican and written for Log Cabin’s think tank. There are plenty of people like me who are not especially partisan, and are open to candidates of any party who can make their case. Angry rants about “Demopublicans,” however, accomplish nothing. Looking at how the current President has alienated the entire world against America and if anything helped recruit more terrorists than he could ever kill, the two parties sure don’t look indistinguishable to me. If that sounded like a glowing testimonial for the Democratic Party to you, then you are not paying attention. Even if it’s a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils, or simply ensuring a divided government to put the brakes on foolish, wasteful, I’ll take it until something better comes along. But having rejected the Catholic Church’s dogma 36 years ago, I’m not about to embrace anybody else’s.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Good news on Patricia Todd: the Victory Fund has just reported that “the Alabama Democratic Party executive committee voted 95-87 to reject a challenge to her election and declare her the winner of the Democratic nomination for the state’s 54th legislative district. Patricia will likely now become the first openly gay elected official in the state’s history….”
Thank goodness they didn’t drag this out.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
You are so determined to show your utter and complete disgust with the Democratic and Republican parties that you sabotage the discussion.
The old parties (and their supporters) do that, not people who recognize the empirical reality. For example:
Bush won the White House because of self-marginalizing leftists who insisted, falsely, that there was no meaningful difference between the two parties or their candidates.
There was no meaningful difference between the two parties or their candidates.
Both Kerry and Bush supported the Iraq War.
Both Kerry and Bush support growth in government spending and taxation.
Both Kerry and Bush support a large, intrusive federal government surveillance program.
Both Kerry and Bush support constitutional amendments banning gay marriage — Bush at a federal level, Kerry at a state level (a semantic difference without distinction). Both Bush and Kerry said they support civil unions, too.
Both Kerry and Bush believe that we need more government in our lives.
Both Bush and Kerry support expensive, time-consuming military adventures abroad which harm American credibility and involve us in problems which are none of our business.
Need I go on? I can for quite some time.
Dogmatists of every stripe view the world through their chosen distorting lens.
People who have drunk from the two-party hemlock cup are dogmatists of the ultimate order. Their “two choices” philosophy states that two very indistinct shades in one tiny part of the political spectrum should rightly represent all choices which we have, and that all people who choose to vote their brains, their conscience, or demand that politicians earn their votes are “deluded and sabotage the discussion.”
There are plenty of people like me who are not especially partisan, and are open to candidates of any party who can make their case.
That’s not true — you wrote off the Libertarian (and Green) parties without any consideration whatsoever.
Angry rants about “Demopublicans,” however, accomplish nothing.
I am slow to anger, and devestating details about the Demopublican (or Republicrat, if you prefer) dynamic are hardly “rants.” Rants are more specifically assigned to tracts from those who don’t consider the empirical evidence, or who dismiss entire parties while claiming they “carefully consider every candidate.”
The reality is, for me and lots of other people, gay and straight, neither Democrats nor Republicans have earned our vote. This is why an average of 50% of eligible voters don’t show up to the polls. . . the tweedledee/tweedledum dichotomy bores them, as do the pretentious declarations of political animals that rejection of the substandard status quo represents “stupidity,” “angry ranting” or most hilariously, “sabotage.”
Looking at how the current President has alienated the entire world against America and if anything helped recruit more terrorists than he could ever kill, the two parties sure don’t look indistinguishable to me.
Firstly, anti-Americanism is nothing new. If you think that Bush hatred turned America hatred is some transformation of perspective, rather than an excuse to allow latent dislike for Americans out, you need to travel more. If you think that the terrorist attacks in 9/11 were a result of the Bush administration, you’re simply deluded. And if your solution to the Iraq War — running a candidate who loudly and vocally supported the war, with a vice presidential candidate who also voted for the war — you’re just plain out of touch.
On Iraq and foreign relations, those who opposed the war and support a non-aggressive foreign policy had *no* choice amongst the tweedledeedum parties in 2004. Arguments that Kerry would have done “a better job than Bush” are completely hollow because Kerry supported every element of the Bush foreign policy agenda when it came to his Senate vote.
If that sounded like a glowing testimonial for the Democratic Party to you, then you are not paying attention.
No, it sounded like desperate insistence that the Democratic party represents a meaningful difference from the Republicans — which they don’t. The voting record and policy stances are what mattered, and on the Iraq War, like so many other policy issues Democrats claim to care about, the reality is that their standard-bearers spoke one line yet acted on the Bush one.
Give such people power, and there’s no reason whatsoever to think that their “rhetorical slight difference but vote in line with Bush thinking” stance would change at all.
Even if it’s a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils, or simply ensuring a divided government to put the brakes on foolish, wasteful, I’ll take it until something better comes along.
A vote isn’t “choosing lesser of two evils” — it’s a policy endorsement. By voting for a candidate who supported the Iraq War, but merely insisted he’d run it better, you tell him and his supporters that you support his war policy.
Insisting it’s a substantive difference is just plain foolish.
having rejected the Catholic Church’s dogma 36 years ago, I’m not about to embrace anybody else’s.
But you already have. You’ve embraced the “lesser of two evils” dogma, the “Democrats are significantly different despite ALL empirical evidence” dogma, the “anyone who doesn’t embrace the system as defined by the monopolists is crazy” dogma, and not a little bit of political Stockholm syndrome.
Good news on Patricia Todd: the Victory Fund has just reported that “the Alabama Democratic Party executive committee voted 95-87 to reject a challenge to her election
The fact her election was challenged in the first place demonstrates that the Democratic Party machine, for all its “count the votes” rhetoric, cares little about everyday voters and more about the votes of the connected power brokers in the smokey back rooms of its corridors of power. And *this* is the “superior alternative to Bush” that you’ve got to offer?
We can do much, much better. And we will. 🙂
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
NL wrote (among much else): “You’ve embraced the ‘lesser of two evils’ dogma”
Nope. I did not say that phrase summarized my entire political outlook. Calling any statement a dogma does not make it so. I am simply inclined to be pragmatic as a voter, which does not mean I let my brain fall out of my head. A dogmatist, such as so many leftists in the 2000 election, make the best the enemy of the good — which is to say, if they don’t stand to get everything they want (or most of it), they say to hell with it and either stay home or make what amounts to a protest vote. That is their right, of course, but in 2000 it left us with G.W. Bush, who as I say has been the most reckless president in living memory. You have made up your mind, NL, but you are wrong. The political parties are not monolithic.
“the ‘Democrats are significantly different despite ALL empirical evidence’ dogma”
Nope. If the empirical evidence is against me, then I will change my mind. But it is not. Since in fact YOU are the dogmatist and thus the one who ignores evidence, I am not going to spend a lot of time on this, but one example is that Clinton was not remotely as reckless as Bush, and did not go out of his way to destroy America’s standing in the world. It is just absurd to insist as an article of faith that the major parties are indistinguishable, just as it would be absurd to accept uncritically the output of either of their press offices.
“the ‘anyone who doesn’t embrace the system as defined by the monopolists is crazy’ dogma”
Nope. Again, you are treating the major parties monolithically, which is particularly silly at this point given the internal fights going on within each of them. Beyond that, I am tired of libertarians complaining about what you call the “monopolists,” when no one is impairing your freedom of speech. It is a little phony to constantly beat the drum of free markets while refusing to notice libertarians’ own manifest failure in the marketplace of ideas.
posted by dalea on
Democrats are not fungible, nor are Republicans for that matter. Which NL and the author seem to be ignoring.
Barney Frank once did an analysis of why for gay people any Dem running for federal office is better than any Rep. It was very convincing as it showed that when in power dems are always more gay positive as a group than reps.
Third party advocacy is sometimes trollish, but necessary for discussion.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
A dogmatist, such as so many leftists in the 2000 election, make the best the enemy of the good
A dogmatist insists that the unacceptable is “good enough” and refuses to consider new points of view.
in 2000 it left us with G.W. Bush, who as I say has been the most reckless president in living memory
Yet you continue to ignore the fact that the Democrats — including the opponents put up against him in 2004 — fully supported his recklessness.
Why do you do that?
Clinton was not remotely as reckless as Bush, and did not go out of his way to destroy America’s standing in the world
If “America’s standing in the world” is the only thing which is important to you, then Clinton has a slight edge on Bush. Of course, the foreign policy activities which enraged terrorists in the first place happened under Clinton as well — hence the motivation for the 9/11 attacks and the World Trade Center bombings on 1993, and the African embassy bombings.
you are treating the major parties monolithically, which is particularly silly at this point given the internal fights going on within each of them.
Internal power struggles for personal power aren’t evidence of difference. As I’ve demonstrated, there’s no significant policy difference. Oh, sure, Tom DeLay doesn’t like Nancy Pelosi, but they both supported the Iraq War, for instance. The fact they dislike each other, or that Hillary Clinton doesn’t want Howard Dean to get more power (but they both oppose gay marriage) means little.
I am tired of libertarians complaining about what you call the “monopolists,” when no one is impairing your freedom of speech
Freedom of speech means little when Democrats and Republicans work tirelessly to constantly raise the ballot access limits — requiring us to spend millions of dollars to get our candidates on ballots with no money left over for campaigning (and often failing to do even that).
In many states, the number of votes the winning Democrat or Republican gets in the primary is less than a quarter of the number of signatures we need to get just to show up on the ballot.
And when old-party dogmatists such as yourself work overtime to exclude us, citing the phoney Republicrat dichotomy and giving us an anti-gay big government Democrat who is “very good” when compared to his anti-gay big government Republican competitor because the French like him more, well, what more can one do other than laugh and roll his eyes?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Barney Frank once did an analysis of why for gay people any Dem running for federal office is better than any Rep. It was very convincing as it showed that when in power dems are always more gay positive as a group than reps.
Barney Frank also tried to shut down the gay marriage revolution and mentioned that he’s a “Democrat first.” And if Democrats in power are always more gay-positive than Republicans, where are the civil union provisions and legal gays in the military from 1993 and early 1994, when Democrats had a majority in the House and the Presidency?
The only gay bills the Democrats passed with gusto that whole decade were a bill solidifying the ban on gays in the military (which had Frank’s support and which has resulted in a sharp increase in discharges) and a ban on gay marriage/civil unions across the whole country from a federal perspective.
That’s an apalling record, not one to celebrate.
posted by kittynboi on
NEL, I like your contributions here, but I don’t think you should try to hijack every single thread and make it a plug for libertarianism.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I’m not plugging libertarianism, I’m plugging independent thought. As I’ve noted, the Greens and other groups are shut out of the tweedledee-dum debate as well.
Bring some Greens and Libs into a room full of Republicans and Democrats, and who has the new ideas and constructive approaches to the issues? Who will have strong disagreements and unique points of view? Not the Republicrats.
Gay people have made and unmade political movements in the recent past. If gay people have the clout to institute gay marriage despite the abandonment of our supposed “allies” on the Democratic left, we have more than enough clout to demand and implement some diversity in our political process as well and open it up to real competition from people who represent interests other than the entrenched and corrupt Demopublican monopoly.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
NL, referring to me, you say “old-party dogmatists such as yourself….”
Since you are a regular poster on the IGF comment boards, I assume you also read the articles published by IGF, which include about 20 by me. No one who reads my writing can reasonably arrive at the characterization that you make. My nonpartisan record as an activist also refutes your characterization, since GLAA and I have worked with and given high ratings not only to Democrats and Republicans but to independents and third-party candidates (which here in DC means Statehood-Green). Have the final say if you insist (I am not going to keep disputing your falsehoods endlessly), but the word “dogmatist” does not mean whatever you say it does, and you are misusing it. Dispassionate readers of this thread will figure out which of us is the dogmatic ideologue. Hey, if you are so convinced that your ideology is correct and will eventually win the day, then own up to it and stop pretending that those of us who are not impressed must necessarily be dogmatists of some other stripe. As kittynboi says, “I don’t think you should try to hijack every single thread and make it a plug for libertarianism.” All that you will accomplish by persisting is to drive people away from these comment boards.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
the word “dogmatist” does not mean whatever you say it does
Apparently, your argument is that it means what you say it does. And your fluidity in moving between the Dem and Rep parties only underscores my point about the relative lack of differentiation between the two on most policy issues.
if you are so convinced that your ideology is correct and will eventually win the day
It’s not about “my ideology,” but rather my observation of the lack of real policy differences between the two old parties — that’s what set you off so violently and led you to invoke the “dogmatism” canard.
All that you will accomplish by persisting is to drive people away from these comment boards.
You’re the one trying to drive people away from the boards by insisting that those of us who don’t fall into line with your ideology are “dogmatists” — despite the fact that many of us present empirical evidence of our contentions.
Last time I checked, this wasn’t the “Democratic-Republican Gay Forum.” You should consider that sometime.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
No, NL. I am happy to admit error if shown that I am wrong. That is the antithesis of a dogmatist. But something is not true merely on account of being asserted. Arguments and evidence are required. Your postings on this thread display quite sufficiently your unreasonableness. And it is not multiple people that I’ve accused of being dogmatists, it is only you. NL, you are being boorish. Would it kill you or harm libertarianism to recognize that?
By the way, whatever my beliefs are, I have the guts to sign my real name to them.
posted by etjb on
“because only whites are racists,”
An African American can be predujice, and can say and do stupid things. I think that you problem is that you are not sure how to define ‘racism’, but you do not like how other civil rights supporters
define it.
American voters tend to vote for candidates that have a similar background, ethnicity, religion, class, etc.
A system such as full representation would eliminate much of the problems around ‘minority-majority districts.’
posted by etjb on
“Barney Frank also tried to shut down the gay marriage revolution…”
Well, gay conservatives have attacked the ‘going-through-the-courts’ or ‘I-say-so’ method at the IGF, which is what happen with the ‘revolution.’
The reality is that when Democrats are in power gay rights will either (1) move ahead or (2) stay the same. When Republicans are in power the situation tends to be (1) stay the same or go back.
Libertarians or Greens do not really matter under our current set of election laws.
“Where are the civil union provisions…”
Well, their was Howard Dean…
“gays in the military from 1993 and early 1994.”
Well religious right screamed bloody murder on that one. ‘DODTDH’ is better then the original policy. The rise in discharges has come about largely because gays are not in the closet.
Bob Dole pushed for the federal DOMA in 1996.
The reality is that in our current electoral system, gay voters end up looking at the lessor of the two evils.
Clinton got us anti-discrimination polices in federal, civilian employment. He got us equal opportunity in security clearences. We almost got ENDA and the HCPA in 1996, but the Democrats lost the House in the ‘Republican Revolution.’
Clinton also gave us the USSC justices to give us Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.