What They Deserved.

From analysis in the Milwaukee Sun Sentinel, on the Wisconsin vote (for Democratic candidates and the anti-gay-marriage initiative):

By putting the same-sex marriage and death penalty measures on the same ballot....Republican leaders in the Legislature ended up drawing the wrong type of voter to the polls-Democrats, especially conservative ones. Those people voted for the ballot proposals but against Republican candidates....

"It was a lose-lose situation," [U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Menomonee Falls Republican] said. "You had Reagan Democrats and socially conservative union members who wanted to vote yes and yes (on the referendums) and then voted for [Democratic Gov. Jim] Doyle."

But I kinda wish LGBT Democratic activists, who spend so much energy denouncing gay Republicans, would devote just a bit of their efforts at anti-gay Democrats (since, after all, it's their party that our national LGBT organizations work so tirelessly to fund).

22 Comments for “What They Deserved.”

  1. posted by j griffin on

    Don’t you guys spend enough time denouncing anti-gay Democrats. I haven’t seen an instance that you all have yet to pass on, from belittling the HRC, Hillary and anyone else from New York or New England that actually have the guts to denounce the Republican Party.

    When have you all denounced anti-gay republican or profiled a Pro-gay republican. I haven’t seen any interviews with any Pro-gay Republicans. Infact, all of the articles on here are op/ed pieces. Are you journalists or pundits?

    yours,

    nylibretarian

  2. posted by Bobby on

    “When have you all denounced anti-gay republican”

    —Dude, like all the time! Let me tell you how IGF works ideologically.

    Any republican that doesn’t support same-sex marriage, is a goddamm homophobe.

    Any republican that isn’t centrist or a moderate, is a far right element that is ruining the party.

    And according to Northeast Libertarian, we’re all republicrats taking this country to hell 🙂

  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Steve: “… since, after all, it’s their party that our national LGBT organizations work so tirelessly to fund …

    I contributed a chunk of money this year to my senator, Russ Feingold, when he came came out in favor of same-sex marriage. I will contribute a like amound to any major Republican office holder (Wisconsin Assembly, Wisconsin State Senate, Wisconsin statewide office, or Congressman from Wisconsin) who does the same before December 31, 2007. I don’t think, somehow, that I’m going to have to set aside a reserve.

    The reason that Democrats in Wisconsin get funded heavily by gays and lesbians is because Democrat politicians stand with us, albeit imperfectly, while Republican politicians stand against us. I’ve cited the party-line legislative vote on the amendment as an example in another thread, and there are plenty of others.

    The popular vote on the amendment was interesting. I posted a link to the exit polls in another thread. I suspect, from looking them over again last night, that Sensenbrenner is right — in this election, a good number of the “Reagan Democrats” (conservative Catholics, Evangelicals, the “values voters” who left the Democrat Party for the Republican Party during the Reagan years) switched parties in this election, voting for Democrat politicians while voting for the amendment.

    I can’t say that I’m happy about the vote on the amendment, but I think that the “values voters” would have voted for the amendment regardless of who they voted for otherwise.

    I’m glad these folks came over and voted Democrat in the Governor’s race and in the Congressional races.

    Because of the Democrat majority in the House, the FMA is graveyard dead, and Marilyn Musgrave can blow it out of her, uh, ear. I’m glad of that. Without the crossover from the “Reagan Democrats”, we wouldn’t have that …

    Because Governor Doyle was reelected, we can count on a veto if the legislature caves in to the FRI and goes after adoption and foster care, which is what the FRI is now touting. Without the crossover from the “Reagan Democrats”, we wouldn’t have that …

    Nonetheless, we have a new Republican AG in Wisconsin, and that is going to cost us, because we can count on no support from the government in the lawsuits that will attempt to eliminate government agency domestic partner benefits. It was very close, and a recount might still change the result, but I’m not hopeful.

    So it is something of a mixed bag in Wisconsin. Tough times are at hand, of course, because social conservative activists are reading the size of the vote as a green light to roll back gay and lesbian rights in other area, but a few bright spots do exist.

    In a purely vindictive mode, and I’m purely vindictive in this case, I’m glad to see that John Gard, late the Republican Speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly, took it on the chin.

    Gard is a nasty bit of goods, and the architect of the amendment vote and timing of the vote — he used the power of the Republican legislative majority to move the timing of the vote away from the primary to the general election, on the theory that it would lead to a Republican sweep.

    As it turned out, he hoisted himself on his own petard. Gard ran for Mark Green’s “safe” congressional seat when Green vacated it to run for Governor, and he was defeated.

    I told my brother two years ago that the last thing I ever expected in life was to spend my old age as a “gay activist”. But here I am, out in the newspapers and raising hell, not by desire but because the cynical “faggot, faggot” political strategy that developed in the several years.

    I am aligned, now, with the Democrat Party in Wisconsin.

    Why? I still believe in individual liberty, constitutional conservatism, small government and fiscal sanity, just as I did in 1964. I haven’t changed all that much.

    It is the Republican Party that has changed, just as Goldwater predicted that it would once the party started pandering to the radical, religious right.

    I don’t, as people who follow this blog know, disparage gays and lesbians who want to stay in the Republican Party and fight within it. More power to them.

    But I’m not there anymore, because I don’t think that the modern Republican Party stands for anything I believe in. If the Republican Party still stood for any core conservative principles, I might not be aligned with the Democrats. It doesn’t, though, as I see things out in the sticks.

  4. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    Don’t you guys spend enough time denouncing anti-gay Democrats. I haven’t seen an instance that you all have yet to pass on, from belittling the HRC, Hillary and anyone else from New York or New England that actually have the guts to denounce the Republican Party.

    Well, that’s because we can’t figure out for what they’re denouncing them.

    Hillary Clinton still supports DOMA and state constitutional amendments and legislation stripping gays of rights.

    HRC endorsed and gave tens of millions of dollars to people like John Kerry, who supported state constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights, and Howard Dean, who went on “The 700 Club” to pander to antigay bigots and who rewrote the Democratic Party platform on the spot to discriminate against gays.

    And Joe Solmonese, the current head of HRC, is even willing to endorse and give money to Democrats who support the FMA — because they’re Democrats.

    So, in short, they’re denouncing Republicans for doing something that they themselves practice, support, and pump tens of millions of dollars into endorsing themselves.

    I still believe in individual liberty, constitutional conservatism, small government and fiscal sanity, just as I did in 1964. I haven’t changed all that much.

    And you gave Russ Feingold money?

    This really is why Republicans don’t bother. They know that, when it comes right down to it, gays only vote gay, and are concerned with nothing else — and they aren’t into the pandering and identity politics that the Democrats use.

  5. posted by Northeast Libertariam on

    ND30, an outspoken supporter of Congressmen preying on young teenage boys, said:

    This really is why Republicans don’t bother. They know that, when it comes right down to it, gays only vote gay, and are concerned with nothing else — and they aren’t into the pandering and identity politics that the Democrats use.

    Republicans don’t bother because they’re not into individual rights, small government or personal liberty either. Just look at their massive deficits, swelling government spending, liberty crushing laws (ala the Patriot Act and Real ID Act), and contempt for habeus corpus.

    As for not believing in identity politics, your Republican Party invented the category, focusing on such categories as “Bible Believing Christians” and “true Americans.” As well as ardently standing by individuals such as you and your ilk who passionately defend Congressional predation against teenaged boys.

  6. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Tom: “I still believe in individual liberty, constitutional conservatism, small government and fiscal sanity, just as I did in 1964. I haven’t changed all that much.

    ND30: “And you gave Russ Feingold money?

    Sure, even though Russ isn’t any better on some of the issues to me than Republicans are these days.

    And my offer stands: I’ll give a like amount to any major Wisconsin Republican office holder who comes out for gay marriage.

    I don’t demand ideological purety.

    But I can’t say I’m enthusiastic about it. I would be an enthusiastic supporter of a candidate who believed in all or even most of the principles I believe in.

    The problem is finding one.

    NEL says that libertarians do, but the libertarians in Wisconsin are moribund. So it gets down to making choices between Democrats and Republicans, at least around these parts.

    And that means a choice between two parties who don’t believe in much that I do. The major difference between the two is on “values” issues, and I see a clear distinction on that score. So I held my nose and voted Democrat. Beats the alternative — holding my nose, voting Republican, and helping the social conservatives shit on me. So be it.

  7. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    NEL says that libertarians do, but the libertarians in Wisconsin are moribund.

    Actually, Ed Thompson (L) was one of the loudest and most committed opponents to the anti-gay amendment in Wisconsin. While many Democrats rushed out to endorse and vote for the amendment, Ed and his team were busy fighting it.

    A bit more support from people supporting anti-gay Democrats could have resulted in the amendment going down to defeat, as the Libertarian Party’s successful campaign in Arizona helped to do.

  8. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    First, to NL.

    Second, to his statement:

    Republicans don’t bother because they’re not into individual rights, small government or personal liberty either. Just look at their massive deficits, swelling government spending, liberty crushing laws (ala the Patriot Act and Real ID Act), and contempt for habeus corpus.

    You seem to forget, NL, that liberty is a two-way street.

    One of these days you may actually demonstrate why you oppose what you have mentioned on the basis of practicality rather than in terms of ideology. Meanwhile, most of us prefer for our government to be dealing directly with people who have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are more than willing to take advantage of our liberty to kill us.

    I don’t demand ideological purety.

    But I can’t say I’m enthusiastic about it. I would be an enthusiastic supporter of a candidate who believed in all or even most of the principles I believe in.

    Then why are you wasting money on people who you can’t be enthusiastic about?

    Overcome the notion, Tom, that giving money to politicians is some sort of mandate in the gay community. There are any number of worthier causes on which you can spend your money.

  9. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    NEL: “While many Democrats rushed out to endorse and vote for the amendment …”

    NEL, I’d like to get the names of Wisconsin Democrats who endorsed the amendment.

    The state platform opposed it, all of the Democrats running at statewide level opposed it, and the Democrat candidates running for Assembly and State Senate seats in Sauk County opposed it. I imagine that a few Democrats in other areas of the state might have endorsed it — lockstep uniformity is not a Democrat characteristic — but I’m curious.

    NEL: “Ed Thompson (L) was one of the loudest and most committed opponents to the anti-gay amendment in Wisconsin. While many Democrats rushed out to endorse and vote for the amendment, Ed and his team were busy fighting it.

    Well, I know Ed — he’s my age and from this area of Wisconsin, so we’ve run into each other — and he worked hard against the amendment. But his day has come and gone, and his team is small.

    Do you have names?

  10. posted by raj on

    From the post:

    But I kinda wish LGBT Democratic activists, who spend so much energy denouncing gay Republicans, would devote just a bit of their efforts at anti-gay Democrats (since, after all, it’s their party that our national LGBT organizations work so tirelessly to fund).

    Um, Stevie, as I’ve said so many times before, you are more than capable of getting off your sorry, nuveau “conservative,” butt and set up an LGBT organization–whether or not it is national–that will fund parties and candidates that are more to your liking. The reason that you and like minded compadres do not do so is–what?

    My goodness, why do gay conservatives–a term I use half in jest, since the Republican party since (and including) Nixon has been far from conservative–whine so much?

  11. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    I’d like to get the names of Wisconsin Democrats who endorsed the amendment.

    The state platform opposed it, all of the Democrats running at statewide level opposed it, and the Democrat candidates running for Assembly and State Senate seats in Sauk County opposed it. I imagine that a few Democrats in other areas of the state might have endorsed it — lockstep uniformity is not a Democrat characteristic — but I’m curious.

    I’m talking the actual Democratic voters.

    The vote returns show that something like 1/3 of all Democratic voters (minimum) supported it.

    his day has come and gone, and his team is small.

    It’s considerably more effective than the existing Democratic party machine, I’d suspect — given the strong support for the amendment amongst Democrats.

  12. posted by dalea on

    When IGF had a blog up and running, there were efforts by the members to start up local groups. I was trying to get one going in Denver when the powers that be pulled the plug on the blog. Which disheartened us so much we gave up.Steve could have had his national organization had the blog continued. But the decision was to cut off the dialog.

    It seems to be a feature of conservative sites that discussion is strictly controled, if allowed at all. Compare this with the free speech running wild at libertarian populist democrat Kos’ Daily Kos.

    NE, your figures show 2/3rds of the Democratic vote went against the amendment. Which looks like a fine start for building on our issues. With the Democrats, who actually elect people to office all over the place, there is a bedrock of support we can find in no other party. Thanks NE for showing us where our friends are. Great work promoting the Democratic party.

  13. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    your figures show 2/3rds of the Democratic vote went against the amendment.

    That’s at best — assuming that every independent voted for it (which is unlikely). Assuming that half of independents voted against it, you’re looking at a slim majority, around 55% of Democrats, voting against it.

    If you assume 1/4 of Republicans voted against it, you’re down to a tick under 50% of Democrats voting against it.

    Not exactly a mandate, eh?

  14. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    NEL: “I’m talking the actual Democratic voters. The vote returns show that something like 1/3 of all Democratic voters (minimum) supported it. [Ed Thompson’s Libertarian team is] considerably more effective than the existing Democratic party machine, I’d suspect — given the strong support for the amendment amongst Democrats.

    NEL, the latter is very hard to tell from any of the exit polls I’ve seen.

    The CBS exit polls, for example, show the following:

    No matter how you voted today, do you usually think of yourself as a:

    YES NO

    Democrat 35 65

    Republican 84 16

    Independent or something else

    50 50

    On most political matters, do you consider yourself:

    YES NO

    Liberal 26 74

    Moderate 54 46

    Conservative 87 13

    I’ll grant you that Ed Thompson put a strong emphasis on the amendment (he said, for example, in April, that defeating the amendment was the most important item on the Libertarian agenda in Wisconsin), but I’ve not seen any exit polls that show (a) what percentage of the voters in Wisconisin were Libertarian, or (b) of Libertarians, what the percentage vote was on the amendment.

    Ed got about 10% of the vote for Governor when he ran, and he was a very popular candidate by third-party standards. I don’t think that Libertarian candidates even put a blip on the radar this time around in Wisconsin.

  15. posted by dalea on

    What these figures show is that the ‘left’ has made large inroads into Dem party. Two thirds is not shabby by any standard, but does show the need for further work.

    The Rep figures are appalling. Five in six are not with us, in fact are against us. It seems that gays did better with Reps 30 years ago. Which says something about all the effort the Log Cabin guys have put in.

    Gay marriage is probably best described as a cutting edge issue; we might have done better on some other issues. Like employment or adoption. To recap; 4 in 6 Dems stand with us/ 1 in 6 Repubs stand with us. Looks like the left has been much better at persuading their party than the right has been.

  16. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    We’re already seeing, in the rhetoric of Democratic posters on IGF, the strategy I foresaw from Democrats.

    First, campaign on a gay rights platform.

    Then, water it down.

    Then, when voters hand Democrats the House in order to “vote the bums out” the easiest way possible, and Democrats claim the Senate as a result of Libertarian Senate campaigns peeling off lib votes from the GOP in close states, claim a mandate.

    Then, announce that gay rights really aren’t as important as a whole host of other various platform planks.

    Americans voted for an investigation into the conduct of the Iraq War and the Bush presidency — inquiries into corruption, and perhaps even articles of impeachment. Democrats have said those are off the table.

    Americans voted for a new direction in Iraq — so far, Democrats have little to offer on this front beyond rhetoric (not a surprise, since a majority of their senior leadership voted for the Iraq War in the first place).

    Americans didn’t vote for an expanded socialist medical system, higher taxes, new protectionist regulations to kill off the knowledge economy to preserve the dying labor unions, increased spending on public employees, or any of the other stuff the Democrats are certain to deliver.

    Libertarians will not only oppose these measures, but we’ll also hold the Democrats’ feet to the fire on gay rights, as they try to conflate their high tax, high spend agenda with gay liberation.

  17. posted by Todd on

    Stephen quoted selectively from the article. The other group Sensenbrenner bemoaned is college students, who Fair Wisconsin\\’s work drove in record numbers to the polls and who largely voted no-no-Democrat. (Even UW-Madison\\’s fraternity row voted 85% \\”no\\”.) The college students are credited with voting out at least one anti-gay extremist, Dave Zien, and with helping to outst another, Tom Reynolds (a man who attended a conference on Homofascism sponsored by Wisconsin\\’s version of Fred Phelps). They\\’re also credited with ousting Ron Brown, a senator with a gay son who nevertheless voted for the civil unions ban.

  18. posted by Todd on

    P.S. It’s the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel not the Milwaukee Sun Sentinel, and it’s the state’s largest newspaper.

  19. posted by Craig on

    It does tend to be the case that LGBT voters vote Democrat or (UK, NZ) Labour because those parties are seen as historic allies of LGBT rights.

    Outside the United States, if centre-right parties want to win elections, they need to ditch raving right social conservative elements that drive away other than wingnut fundie voters from the polls.

    Overall, I agree with IGF’s call for bipartisanship. You need to cultivate alliances on both sides of the fence.

    Craig Young

    Wellington, NZ

  20. posted by ETJB on

    What about the LP of California? They were not so high and mighty about the state marriage ballot measure?

    Again, gay conservatives are certainly free to start up an interest group that supports candidates that they prefer.

    Again, gay independents are certainly free to lobby for election law reforms to give them more meaningful candidate choices.

  21. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    What about the LP of California? They were not so high and mighty about the state marriage ballot measure?

    Ceaseless repetition of a falsehood does not make said falsehood any more true.

  22. posted by ETJB on

    NE Libertarian;

    You seem to have a problem with reality. Not a good sign for some one that is pushing support for an independent or third political party.

    The facts are clear and I will be more then happy to swear on a pack of Bibles.

    The CA LP opposed the ballot measure, but many of its candidates activily supported it.

    When I contacted the CA LP about this (to see if they would do what the VT LP did) they said that they were not going to take any action against the candidates.

Comments are closed.