The NY Senate Vote Makes Me Think...

[MineralMan]

In any legislature, state or federal, there are bound to be some Republicans who go along with the crowd and vote along party lines, even when they really disagree with the party's position. In NY, four of them voted for marriage equality, despite what must have been heavy pressure not to do so from their own party.

I don't like the Republican Party at all, but we need to encourage moderate Republicans to vote for what's correct, not just the way the Right wants them to vote. Using the courage of those four NY state Senators as an example, perhaps we can convince some republicans in Congress and in our state legislatures to do the correct thing, instead of just going along with the right wing of the Republican Party.

If you are afflicted with a Republican representative in your state legislature or the US Congress, maybe the example of the NY state Senators is something you can use when communicating with your representative, especially if your representative seems to be more moderate than the teabaggers and religious zealots of the far right. Perhaps we can encourage these people to think for themselves and vote the correct way for a change on issues like these.

Ideally, we'd replace them all, but that's not realistic. So, take a close look at any Republican who represents your district and see if there isn't a crack in his or her allegiance to the right wing of the Republican Party. If there is, then encourage him or her to step up and make the correct choices on issues.

[justiceischeap]

1. I really do believe that equality is an issue that will become a political soccer ball

What I mean by that, eventually Republicans (moderates any way), will see the advantage of supporting equality since the tide is turning in favor of supporting equality. Within 10 years, denying equality will be antiquated thinking by the populous. The party that gets ahead of that, will be the party that wins. I think some Republicans are beginning to see that.

I mean, what would happen if the Republican party decided to support equality? I think the 3.5% (and I think that number is low BTW) population of LGBT*.*er's in the USA would have to think really hard about who to support if that were the case.

[MineralMan]

4. I doubt seriously that the bulk of Republicans would

go against their own caucus, but a few might, and that might be all that's needed, as in NY, to swing the results. I would never vote for a Republican, but I'm not averse to trying to convince those who have any sense to do the correct thing, instead of the Right thing.

[stevenleser]

6. Bingo and this is something I have been saying for some time...

It's no secret, there are a lot of anti-tax LGBTers because they tend to make more money than the rest of us and they tend to have larger investment accounts. The reason that something like the Log Cabins and GOProud works is that LGBTers are just as human as the rest of us. It enables them to get just enough past their consciences to vote Republican for their wallets.

We lose a lot of LGBT support if/when the Repugs finally drop this stupid support of bigotry. Of course, I have also contended that Repugs will lose more than they gain since the fundies are about 25% of their base. That is what is keeping the 'pugs from embracing equality.

[joshcryer]

2. Well, in this case Bloomburg vowed to not fund any candidate who didn't vote for it.

And he's a big Republican backer. So there was that bit of pressure. However, I do agree with the overall sentiment of your post, and I do think it can work, I'm just a wee bit more cynical and I think it's going to take a lot of hard work without compromising too much. Show the human side as opposed to the two-faced political side, and then good things will happen.

[MineralMan]

3. I'm cynical about Republicans, too.

However, there are cases where legislation hangs on just a handful of votes. In those cases, this kind of encouragement might make a difference. I did not know about Bloomburg's pressure.

I would draw the line at offering to support any Republican who voted the way I wanted. It would be more a "grow a pair and stand up to the morons" sort of approach. Some Republicans who tend to be sensible on human rights and other issues cave when pressured by the Right. I say we should encourage them to vote their conscience, instead of marching in lockstep.

[joshcryer]

19. I've had good conversations with everyone from die hard Trotskyites to Free Market Libertarians.

Approaching discussions from a human aspect always works. Always. I've convinced die hard authoritarian Trotskyites that taxes are unnecessary and insane Libertarian Capitalists that property is theft. It's all in how you approach it. In truth I am no where near as aggressive in real life as I am online, I'm a very meek and open person (open to input not open with my own output). The internet has that way about it, making you more forthcoming and whatnot. Anyway, mutual respect goes a long long way.

I think though that unfortunately too many of our politicians are caught in the real politik of our times, they're liars, and they're cheats, and they justify it through the media-inspired divide that we all know isn't there. As they say, never talk politics over dinner and you'll get along just fine, and it's completely true. Most of my family don't know that the avatar I have represents my actual ideological beliefs. And we get along just fine, we pay our bills just fine, we treat one another pretty OK. It requires getting politicians to see each other at a human level, ultimately.

Given the passions expressed by the Republicans who did vote for it (and who could even be sent out of office for it), I think that's what happened here. It was a philosophical debate on a human level.

[stevenleser]

8. Bloomberg's support of LGBT rights is one of the reasons I supported him this last election. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Also think about Ruben Diaz, Democrat of the Brox who voted no

Diaz has been an active and vicious opponent of this bill and of equal rights in general. He voted against the bill, held rallies against it, and he is a so called Democrat. One of the 'moderates' not one of the liberals. Voted No on Equal Rights. Ruben Diaz. The Bronx.

[aquart]

7. You wanna mess with Bronx politics, you go right ahead.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. The Bronx does not scare me.

Any Democrat who says the shit that man said should not be in office. He should not be in the Party. He should be hounded and shamed by every single person and organization within the Party. Sorry. I'll 'mess with' any Democrat who is a bigot. And he is one. He needs to be replaced. The people of the Bronx are better than that.

[MineralMan]

11. I don't know anything about the makeup of his district.

It's going to take the people who live in it to make that change. I'm nowhere near New York, and have zero influence in NY politics. I work hard in my own district to get good people nominated for state legislative positions. It has to be a local effort. Of that I'm certain.

[aquart]

12. Born there. Left. Have fun.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. The OP is all about persuding Republicans, but you think

no one should speak out against Diaz, just because he has idiots who vote for him? They are free to elect him, the rest of us are free to mock them for being the Back Hills of NYC. To sit in silence is to communicate agreement with them, that is not going to happen. Let them keep voting for right wing haters, the rest of us can let them know that what we think of that. What are they going to do? Whine? Cry?

[aquart]

16. Nope. Do it. Have fun.

[MineralMan]

9. He needs to be primaried. Truly.

I remember reading about him this week, and thinking that he's certainly no Democrat. He's a perfect candidate for a primary, I think.

I'm grateful for the four Republicans who stood tall and voted for this. I wouldn't vote for any of them, but I'm grateful that they voted correctly on this bill.

I'm just thinking we might be able to use them as an example on other issues in other places, in an attempt to encourage other Republicans to stand up and do the correct and proper thing. It might be a pipe dream, but there were those four NY Senators.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Well, actually he is a Democrat. And a no vote, and a slander

monger. He'd never, ever get my vote. Diaz would never get my vote, support, nor even a kind word. I'm not a Republican, so when I think about politicians to support or not to support, I think of Democrats. In this case, our own Party needs to reject such bigots as Diaz.

[MineralMan]

14. I agree 100%. We really need to shed all Democrats who

do this kind of crap. That's what I mean by primarying him. The people in his district need to find a replacement, get him nominated, and vote for him. Throw the bum out. He's no Democrat. He's a poser.

[bluestate10]

18. Sadly, I agree. Diaz should convert to republican. Seems he would be

more comfortable in that party. Primary his ass.

[customerserviceguy]

21. They wouldn't have him, either

Except on this, he's pretty much progressive on his other votes. He's just got that religious blind spot that too many people have, we forget that it's not just redneck fundies who act this way.

[rbnyc]

17. Mark Grisanti...

...impressed me last night. I wouldn't vote for him, but I thought he was speaking from the heart and he did the right thing even though he knew he'd get shit for it.

[customerserviceguy]

20. While I agree with absolutely everything you've said

There is still one basic fact. The GOP has a tea party wing that is going for ideological purity, that we just don't seem to have. I'm not advocating that we have such a mechanism (OK, I'll make an exception for Sen. Diaz) because it's just not in line with the pluralistic way we think. However, until the tea partiers become neutralized by their own party, they will be in the back of the mind of every GOP legislator who wants to think for himself.