The next Presidential election is going to be FUGLY wrt GLBT issues

[MNBrewer]

The Republicans are going to put their attack on GLBT rights front and center. Based on what I've seen of even the most peripheral contenders (See Donald Trump), anti-gay bigotry will be a centerpiece of the rhetoric that will be spewed 360 degrees in all directions.

The question as I see it, is how will the Democratic Party step up to the challenge? I'm cautiously optimistic, but more cautious than optimistic.

Will we finally turn the corner and get full-throated support rather than a tepid mixture of thinly veiled disapproval and mealy-mouthed platitudes about toleration?

[mitchtv]

1. I am pessimistic, I'd love to be wrong

but the Dems have a long tradition of cowardice and back stabbing to deal with. Have they learned their lesson? Sadly , I don;t think so.

[MNBrewer]

2. Back stabber #1 in my book is Paul Wellstone.

MY Senator, who should have known better!!!! I can not forgive what he did to us, ever. I'll never forget when he voted for the "Defense of Marriage Act", and his wishy-washy explanations. I had never had a completely sleepless night before that. I was so disappointed, and so angry that he had betrayed each and every one of his GLBT constituents that I was unable to sleep that entire night.

[ThomCat]

5. We always hear about Paul Wellstone as a progressive

icon. But it goes to show that our rights always seem to end up getting traded away first for what so many other people consider "real issues." :(

[MNBrewer]

7. His DOMA vote doesn't take away from other things

such as his concern for battered women, but it's too bad he decided to use the cudgel on his GLBT constituents.

Oh well, he's dead now. He can't even have a "post-being-in-office conversion" like Bill Clinton did.

His vote for DOMA is a permanent stain on his memory.

[TheWraith]

11. FDR approved internment of Japanese-Americans.

I would say that putting children into concentration camps is worse than voting for DOMA. But it doesn't mean that his legacy isn't a good one, or that he wasn't a good man. Dennis Kucinich voted for the Patriot Act. John Kerry voted for the Iraq War. Nobody in the world is perfect, and there sure as hell isn't anyone who you're going to perfectly agree with in the political world 100% of the time--besides yourself. The fact that our people sometimes do things which we wouldn't do ourselves, or even things which are objectively stupid or wrong, doesn't mean that they're sullied, it means they're human.

[MNBrewer]

19. Naturally, I disagree

"Doesn't mean that they're sullied" - Yes it does.
FDR was never my president, I never voted for him.
Dennis Kucinich has never been my US Rep.
John Kerry has never been my US Senator.

[TheWraith]

21. *Shrug* That's your decision.

But personally, I don't expect perfection out of anybody. Somebody is going to make a mistake, even if it's for what they perceive at the time as good reasons, like FDR, or something that they should have known better. I've certainly done it, and I'm sure anyone else who cares to think back can do so as well.

[MNBrewer]

22. are you asserting that the Japanese Internment is NOT a stain on FDR's legacy?

[BillStein]

23. I can't speak for anyone else,

but to me the internment was a great stain on FDR's legacy. But if you weigh the good v. evil, he still comes up as a great president.

Now I realize that if I were a Japanese-American, I might feel differently.

[MNBrewer]

24. Let me repeat that:

are you asserting that the Japanese Internment is NOT a stain on FDR's legacy?

[Creideiki]

26. Instead of "perfection" how about "pretty good"?

How about "okay"? How about "doesn't suck all the time"?

How about "doesn't wake up trying to figure out how to pander to the Ghosts of Christmas Phobic?"

How about "every single time that something comes up where we could help or screw the gays, we don't reflexively screw the gays because some people have religious objections?"

[Meldread]

3. I don't think Republican's will make as much headway as they did in the past.

Naturally, Republican's will campaign on an anti-LGBT platform to appease those in their own party who are single issue voters. For the majority of American's, and even those within their party who are inclined toward anti-gay bigotry, economic issues are still too central. The anti-LGBT stuff works best when the economy is doing decently well, and when there are no other pressing social issues taking place.

I'm willing to bet the Republican that wins their primary is going to be the one who focuses the most on reaching out to families who've been struggling and economic issues. They'd make the cursory rounds to show that they're sufficiently bigoted, but if they focus on what matters most to people - economic stuff - they're going to edge out ahead of the others.

My money is either on Huckabee or Romney. However, that all depends on if the Tea Party folks are able to pick up steam again. If they do, and can mobilize, then the door opens to someone else - someone further to the right of either Huckabee or Romney.

[TheWraith]

10. Huckabee is the only dangerous Republican.

He's capable of presenting a public face of decency, likeability, and charisma, while still being plenty enough of a hard-core right-wing zealot to bring in the support of the religious right. Romney won't get it--he has the qualities they look for, but the Reps will never turn to him, for the simple reason that he's a Mormon.

Count on the Tea Partiers, though. They want somebody worse than Huckabee, someone who will froth about Obama's birth certificate and all their other crazy shit. And they WILL mobilize, particularly if Sister Sarah gets off her ass.

[Meldread]

12. Oh, definitely.

Huckabee is definitely one of the most charismatic Republican's who could run on their ticket - that's his danger. He'll have the religious right in his pocket, no doubt in that, but the religious right isn't enough to carry him to victory.

I basically see three main factions in the Republican Party:

Religious Right - they're going to want Huckabee.
Big Business - they're going to want Romney. They're also the ones with the money.
Tea Party - they're the hardcore Republican base, and they're going to want the person who is frothing at the mouth the most - the more extreme the better. Sarah Palin would be their ideal choice, but I don't think she's going to run.

[TheWraith]

13. I'm undecided on Palin.

On one hand, it feels like she HAS to run. She's spent so much time slurping up the spotlight, and playing leader of the Republican Party, that to let it go and let someone else run the place would go against her nature. At the same time, though, she'd have to give up the gravy train she's enjoyed so far.

As for big business, I think that they would be comfortable with almost any Republican, as long as it's one who's not going to REALLY try and cut the budget.

I definitely think whoever capitalizes on the Tea Party is going to get the brass ring. They're too loud, too insane, and too motivated not to prove decisive, particularly if moderate Republicans don't feel turned on by any of the candidates.

[Meldread]

14. It's not that she'd give up the gravy train...

...it's the fact that she would lose. Assuming Palin got into the race - she'd be in it to become President, not simply become the runner-up. She knows she can't win. Running undermines her ability to remain a force within the Republican Party, and that hurts her ability to continue what she's doing right now.

I think Palin is angling for a Kingmaker role. She'll likely flirt with the idea of running for as long as she can, but at the last moment she'll come up with some excuse why she can't get into the race. She'll then proceed to handicap those in the Republican Primary who don't meet her standards, and attempt to become the "voice" of the Republican Party. In this way there is only upside for her - including the hogging of the Republican Party spotlight.

I also think you're viewing big business in the wrong light. There are basically three main factions within the Republican Party. The social conservatives (Religious Right), the corporatist's (Big Oil, Koch Brothers, Log Cabin Republican's, etc.), and the nut jobs (Tea Party - the core Republican base). There is some overlap... for example, the Tea Party folks generally agree with the public agenda of the other two. However, the social conservatives and corporatist's are not on the same page. As long as the corporatist's get what they want they're willing to go along with (or at least be apologetic toward) the social conservatives; even though they don't really share their social views. However, the social conservatives like Huckabee aren't TOTALLY on board with them on taxes and regulation - the big issue for the corporatist's. Many of them believe in some bastardized form of "social justice" and at least tacitly support environmental protections. Their idea of "social justice" though is to give government money to religious organizations, allowing them to administer the funds.

In fact, Huckabee is on bad terms with the corporatist wing because he raised taxes as Governor of Arkansas, and to make matters worse he really isn't all that into fund raising (AKA kissing the ass of the corporate lobby). They're worried that if he gets the nomination he'll support tax increases.

A dark horse that hasn't been mentioned is Haley Barbour. He's someone who is very close with the corporate wing of the Republican Party, and can also be found acceptable among the social conservatives as well. However, like Huckabee his biggest problem is with the Tea Party. This, of course, is where Sister Sarah comes in with her Kingmaker Role.

[TheWraith]

20. I'm not so sure she knows that she would lose.

She doesn't strike me as very self-aware, and very much the type to believe her own mythos, that she's some kind of great American leader. Particularly when you consider the fact that I think she definitely could take the Republican nomination on the strength of the Tea Party types and her drooling loyalists.

As far as big business, I think they would be happy with anybody like Palin, etcetera, because they know they can make those types a puppet, the way that Bush was to Cheney and the Republican Congress. Bush said the right things to please the social conservatives, he'd killed enough people, but at the end of the day, the people who benefited the most from him were the ultra wealthy, even though he did give hand-outs to churches and groups for his warped idea of social justice. But those things are small potatoes to the people who have the big purse strings, and I don't think they object to a little spending to keep their foot soldiers in line. Meanwhile they buy influence with Congress for more tax cuts, less regulation, etcetera.

[Very_Boring_Name]

28. Huckabee is also a true believer

That's the scariest part. I think Romney, Guiliani, and even Palin (to an extent) could probably care less about gays. They'll attack them publicly for political points with their base, but they won't take it too far out of fear of alienating independents. A President Huckabee would go the full 10 yards, including trying to outlaw homosexuality all together. He actually thinks he would be doing gods work.

[loudsue]

4. As long as the democratic party is being run by republicans, we are NOT going to take a stance

that resembles anything like what a majority of democrats feel. I was speaking with a NC democratic candidate last week, and he even came out and said that there are just oo many republicans in the democratic party, state wide and nation wide, that are keeping us from getting anything done. It was a deliberate take-over, and it continues. The DLC/NDN has GOT TO GO.

[ThomCat]

6. At the first sign of electoral trouble, we will get the blame.

Just watch.

All the knives will come out. Again.

[MNBrewer]

8. That was one reason I started this thread

I can hear the whetstones already.

[TheWraith]

9. That's actually not a bad thing.

They're going to be incredibly desperate next election, since it's going to be just this side of impossible to beat Obama. Desperation breeds extremism in Republicans, and the more that they manage to look like frothing, psychotic bigots, the more people will be turned off by their attitude and rhetoric.

[Marrah_G]

15. I keep hoping the Democratic party will really step alll the way

But I have doubts.

My faith in our representatives and our party has been badly shaken. Perhaps its just because I am getting older.

[joeybee12]

16. Like most issues, Dems will say nothing...

it might look they don't want to be bipartisan.

[Unvanguard]

17. I don't think that's very likely.

The Republicans realize it isn't a winning issue for them anymore. It's not a losing issue yet--being opposed to gay rights is not something voters will force them to abandon anytime soon--but it's not the sort of thing that will energize their base or sway independents. Nobody talks about the Federal Marriage Amendment anymore, the response to Judge Walker's ruling was muted, and the criticism of Obama over his decision to stop defending DOMA was mostly procedural ("The President shouldn't be overstepping his role") rather than substantive. As relationship recognition victories are being won across the country, the national Republican Party is essentially silent--not at all reminiscent of the right-wing reaction to the initial victory in Massachusetts, which was used to justify the FMA.

To be sure, the Republican presidential candidates will continue to say all the right things to the audiences that want to hear them, but the major themes of their campaign will probably be a rehash of 2010: the Democrats want to spend us into bankruptcy and to have the government take over everything, etc. The critical gay-rights fights in 2012 will be at the state level: if same-sex marriage passes the Maryland House of Delegates, it will be on the ballot there, and elections in Iowa, New Hampshire, and New York will probably be influenced by it.

The main thing that could change this would be a Supreme Court ruling bringing about same-sex marriage nationwide. If that happened, the pressure from social conservatives for the Republican Party to take a strong stand in favor of a constitutional amendment would be intense, because it would be their last chance to prevent marriage equality. But the timing does not make that eventuality likely: the Prop. 8 challenge is unlikely to reach the Court before its 2012 term, which would suggest a decision sometime in 2013 at the earliest.

[One_Life_To_Give]

18. Select Markets only

Repubs will craft their message to
i) Give the fundamentalists reason to believe they will overturn DADT, reinstate DOMA etc.
ii) Avoid letting it appear to be a major plank outside of Conservative areas of the country.

Dems will craft their message to
i) Try and reassure GLBT's that they will look out for us.
ii) Avoid any indications of Pandering to us that might piss off Conservadems.

AKA - More of the same.

[Danger Mouse]

25. Ending DADT and declining to defend DOMA will put President Obama in the spotlight...

...and the Republicans WILL make an issue of it. They're going to try and force President Obama to make a clear stand. I'm hoping the president does the right thing and doesn't back down, and the Democratic Party follows suit.
But 'hope' hasn't brought us all that much 'change,' so I won't hold my breath.
No matter what, though, DU will be 100% behind our brothers and sisters.

[Very_Boring_Name]

27. The problem is, he's afraid of his own shadow

We've all seen the polls on DADT... people overwhelmingly are against it. It was great that he finally got rid of it, but I felt like he was very wary about doing it. I hope that during the campaign he really comes straight out and actively highlights getting rid of it, but I have a feeling in my gut that he will try and avoid the issue all together. I really think he should stop being so defensive about his victories, and start advertising them.