True Believers: Inside the Dean Campaign

[strandinthewind]

Interstingly, I think that if Kerry gets in, he will effectuate change. It may not be as much as I want. But, no Pres. could ever do that. So, I am going with the only one of the two wih a chance to win that at least kind of thinks in my direction even if it means I will probably wind up paying over half of what I make to some a$$hole govt. agency at the local, state, and Fed. levels when all is combined

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Johnny, I certainly appreciate your position. Those are the same issues that trouble me. But I believe this nation is stronger than what another four years of Bushism can do. After all, we've made it through slavery, a civil war, the suffrage movement and the Civil Rights movement, and came out on the correct (not to say right) side of the issues. But there had to be real struggle and pain. Acquiescing to mediocrity does not a great nation make.

So, what I'm saying to you is, it ain't hopeless if Bush wins. That's what the Democrats want you to believe. They're using fear tactics, just like the Republicans do. If they could only focus on the real issues instead...

I've pretty much avoided all the propaganda from both "sides"... it's Bush's own statements and opinions on this matter, that have me most concerned.
When coupled with the increasingly conservative (and narrow-minded) leanings in this country, it becomes a pretty frightening thing.

So I hope you're correct, that another Bush win isn't the nail in the coffin for gay rights.
But it'll most certainly add another four years (and God knows how long after that), to the already long road.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
what about arrogant and snooty

I thought when I said Yankee you understood that I meant the full description of Yankee.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
There are fundamental issues that the Democrats have refused to address, and when Edwards or Kerry addressed them superficially, it was only to steal Dean's thunder.

Just imagine what would have happened if he made it to the GE and Bush did that to him.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I thought when I said Yankee you understood that I meant the full description of Yankee.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I've pretty much avoided all the propaganda from both "sides"... it's Bush's own statements and opinions on this matter, that have me most concerned.
When coupled with the increasingly conservative (and narrow-minded) leanings in this country, it becomes a pretty frightening thing.

So I hope you're correct, that another Bush win isn't the nail in the coffin for gay rights.
But it'll most certainly add another four years (and God knows how long after that), to the already long road.

I guess ultimately I can't quarrel with your position. Something that strikes at your core is hard to ignore.

I just think this issue is unfortunately being used to make political hay. On the one hand, you got Bush saying he wants an amendment he knows full well it ain't ever going to pass. There is also some evidence that he doesn't even care about this issue and he's just using it to get the so-called Christian right (christian, my cheek!) to vote for him. On the other hand, the Democrats are taking their typically rubber-spined approach. "Sure, I support civil unions, but marriage is for a man and a woman." What the f***k is that? Slimy politics, plain and simple. I tell you what, if Kerry had the fortitude to stand up and say he will support gay marriage with no strings attached, I might vote for him.

In light of that, if you are looking for a candidate who truly supports your right to marry whomever you want, your candidate is Ralph Nader.

The other guys are just playing politics. And there will never be an amendment. Both the Democrats and the Republicans know it.

[strandinthewind]

ITA agree Carne. W and/or Rove essentially played this marriage issue very smartly IMO. W saw that his outrageous spending was alienating his far, far right core, which primarily is what is termed the religious right. W and Rove also know that people in general cringe when they think of gay people in any fashion much less having sex. So, they marry (sorry ) the two issues. Then they point to gay people and say these hedonistic Biblically abhorrable sodomites are responsible for the woes your world. They, not me, are to blame for the failing of American values, etc. Then, they know they can count on just about every church in America saying God will strike us all dead a la Soddom and Gommorah (sp.?) if gay people come out from the closeted and proverbial back of the bus - it is up to you to prevent God's wrath, which I know is coming, etc. They also know the mainstream D's do not want to touch this with a ten foot pole because most of America to use their words "tolerate" gay people but just do not want to drink from the same water fountain as them. Blah Blah Blah

[CarneVaca]

Strand, I agree with most of your assessment. Except, I think that more than half of Americans are OK with homosexuality these days. Only a minority views it in religious terms anyway. To be sure, there is a lot of prejudice still. But if push came to shove, most of us would just have to admit that we have relatives, friends, co-workers, what have you, who are gay, and that their being gay really has no bearing on our relationship with them.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I guess ultimately I can't quarrel with your position. Something that strikes at your core is hard to ignore.

I just think this issue is unfortunately being used to make political hay. On the one hand, you got Bush saying he wants an amendment he knows full well it ain't ever going to pass. There is also some evidence that he doesn't even care about this issue and he's just using it to get the so-called Christian right (christian, my cheek!) to vote for him. On the other hand, the Democrats are taking their typically rubber-spined approach. "Sure, I support civil unions, but marriage is for a man and a woman." What the f***k is that? Slimy politics, plain and simple. I tell you what, if Kerry had the fortitude to stand up and say he will support gay marriage with no strings attached, I might vote for him.

In light of that, if you are looking for a candidate who truly supports your right to marry whomever you want, your candidate is Ralph Nader.

The other guys are just playing politics. And there will never be an amendment. Both the Democrats and the Republicans know it.

Yeah, you're right on. That amendment will never pass and Bush knows it. He's catering to his home base. And Kerry is tiptoeing along the fence.

But I do think that the Christian religion is deeply ingrained in American politics. It will be a long, long time before an openly atheist person is elected President. The closest we ever came to that, ironically, was when the country was in its infancy. The Supreme Court has already gotten around the issue of whether government offices being closed on Sunday endorsed a national religion.