National Gay and Lesbian Task Force prez Matt Foreman sez the Dem candidates are less supportive of gay equality than Bill Clinton was in 1992 (!):
It's déjà vu all over again - the GOP often slyly and sometimes audaciously whips us for political gain. The Democrats include us - sorta - but only in response to a direct question and typically in the language of careful legislative reform.
This must change...We deserve and we must demand from the Democratic 2008 presidential candidates the simple and straightforward statement that our humanity requires full respect and fair treatment by all and, further, an equally simple and straightforward condemnation of those who seek to use our lives for political gain. This needs to be said in front of all audiences - not just in front of us.
Fair enough, but why only demand respect from "the Democratic 2008 presidential candidates"? Why not make the same demands of Republicans? When gay activists write off Republicans, they cede the GOP to the soft bigotry of low expectations.
13 Comments for “Extra: NGLTF Nails Democrats!”
posted by Xeno on
Forget it, the GOP won’t risk alienating their religious conservative base. Of all the republican nominees that replied to the HRC’s invitation to the special discussion on LGBT issues, only the Romney campaign replied back to them, with a predictable rejection of the invitation.
Face it, the NGLTF low expectations of the federal GOP is fully justified after their last campaign platform. The only thing that’s outrageous is that they don’t give any respect to the green, libertarian, and some reform candidates.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why, exactly, Xeno, should Republicans bother with a forum hosted by people and an organization who spew nothing but hate about them and who have openly stated that their goal is to only help Democrats?
posted by Xeno on
NDT: Oh why oh my are there some gay politicos that have nothing but contempt for the innocuous, slandered and victimized GOP? 🙁
Xeno: You mean why should they bother themselves with any immoral faggots that stand in their way of their base voters? The answer is pretty clear.
At least you can’t blame the HRC for not sending invitations to the GOP contenders to this forum. Obviously it was a waste of paper on their part, but at least they gave the same opportunity as they did for the Dems..
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oddly enough, though, Xeno, HRC seems to have no problem with Democrat politicians trying to reach out to those same “base voters”.
In short, what HRC and its fellow gay Democrats and leftists have made clear is that they will endorse and call “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, politicians who support the FMA, who support state constitutional amendments, who brag about their position on gays being “the same” as President Bush’s, and who go pandering to Pat Robertson — as long as they’re Democrats.
Therefore, why should the Republicans waste time? It should be obvious that the criticisms of HRC and Democrat gays are based, not on what people do, but what their political affiliation is.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Gay Leftists!!!
posted by Bobby on
There is a word to describe what I’m feeling right now. “Shaddenfreude.” German for shameful joy. Seeing the straight democrats exposed for the closet homophobes they are brings joy to my heart.
posted by Amicus on
Why not make the same demands of Republicans?
======
Indeed. I’d go further and say that it is only in that context that it makes any sense to start ‘bashing’ the Dems. Basically, either you gotta dance with them what brung ya, or you dance your own tune. Trying to do both is confused, if not just stupid, right?
Also, consider whether we’ve been in the fantasy world too long that a gay-friendly messiah is going to come along at the National level. Perhaps it gives people hope, but seriously, it’s time to think in different terms.
To start, we can stop pretending that National, Presidential electoral-politics is the same as … just about every other kind of electoral politics.
To finish, we can be honest with ourselves about our own history. Clinton ended up with more than he bargained for, because everyone, back then, thought that ending the ban would be as simple as Truman’s signing of an E.O. to racially integrate the services. Well, no one had done their homework. And it doesn’t do the community any good to blame others for that failing, which wasn’t his alone, right?
—————
To change the subject, on Dale’s health-care II.
Just in case he’s interested in some other viewpoints, he might check out the 2004 Financing AIDS bit done by Kaiser.
There he will find that most gays are already being financed by the government for care.
“Almost one-third (31%) of people with HIV/AIDS who are in care are estimated to be covered by private health insurance …” p. 14 Remember that something like 50-60% are thought to be NOT in care. Continuing, despite trends in longer health lives for HIV infection, “If recent trends indicating reductions in employer-sponsored health insurance coverage continue, people with HIV/AIDS may increasingly need to rely on other safety net programs for care.” If you look at the Ryan White Care statistics, you’ll find that as few as 10% on private health insurance (on horribly incomplete statistics, admittedly), but more than 85% or so being treated in *private hospitals*, of one kind or another.
As for trusting the government in general, the answer is largely “no” on gay-health issues, if experience is much of a guide (although the scales of time may be tipping the balance back). However, one suggestion is to advocate systems, like Medicare+choice, which allows people to see physicians that they want.
At the extreme, gay people, under some unforeseen set of circumstances, might have to find tests and treatment outside the system, as was once advisable. So, what else is new, right?
Besides, if you want to throw your trust in with private insurance, there are always things like this sign-off, that are old, but still somehow seem to remain etched in memory …
Finally, the idea that there is a stark choice between fighting health care reform and fighting to change everything is bogus.
I don’t agree with Dale’s analysis of Drug companies or with the vision that they sprinkle life-saving fairy-dust on everything, and so are ‘untouchable’. As much as reform of “the system” makes sense, I’m quite uncomfortable with price setting by the government.
So, here’s the third-way and Dale’s homework assignment (we can give one, right, since he gives lectures that we don’t get to reply to?): how would you engineer changes in patent law and oversight of price setting in ways to provide pricing flexibility and horizon certainty for drug companies, but minimize their ability to abuse those?
posted by ETJB on
It is the GOP establishment that has written off LGBT Americans by pandering to the lowest and meanest types of bigoty.
Face the reality; Even on a bad day, Democrats are still going to be better then most Republicans on LGBT equality.
No other political parties are viable choices.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ETJB, what exactly do you call the examples I pointed out here, if not “pandering to the lowest and meanest types of bigoty (sic)”?
posted by Bruce (GayPatriot.org) on
I’m sorry… exactly how can you be LESS supportive of gay equality than Bill Clinton?
DOMA & DADT is all you need to know about what Clinton thought of gays.
Rudy Giuliani, for example, is actually MORE supportive of gay equality than Bill Clinton.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
When push comes to shove Democrats are much better than Republicans. Look at the last vote in Massachusetts to end the push for a constitutional amendment banning equal marriage. Far more democrats then republicans voted against advancing the amendment. When measures concerning gay rights come up you never see more republicans supporting gays then democrats.
posted by Brian Miller on
Asking Democrats and Republicans to show respect to Americans’ intelligence (including gay Americans) is a waste of time. Between their clamoring to “remember 9/11” and arguments over who would nuke Pakistan faster, we’d be lucky to get a single factually interesting insight from the entire Republicratic pack.
I’d prefer if gay old-party partisans would simply drop the pretense that either of the old parties has any interest in gay people at all, except as foils to advance their proprietary agendas, and pursued a more productive path of focused criticism and support of candidates who don’t compromise on basic American principles such as equal treatment under the law.
After all, they cannot get angry at the Republicrats over duplicity if they practice similar duplicity themselves!
posted by Barb on
***When gay activists write off Republicans, they cede the GOP to the soft bigotry of low expectations.***
Sorta like liberals do to every other minority, to somehow justify their self-imposed, self-righteous guilt.