Must...vote...sexuality...

[muckefuck]

Andrew Sullivan blogs:

Attacking the amendment is now an applause line in John Kerry's election speech - and he will get every gay vote and every vote from their families and friends.

Um, no he won't, Sully, for the simple reason that not all gays and lesbians (let alone their "families and friends") are one-issue voters. You, of all people, should know this, Mr Gay Conservative! Quite a few people--Dem, GOP, and GDI--have figured out that the "national debate" on gay marriage is a smokescreen to distract voters from the really critical issues of campaign, like, er, um, wasn't there a little war recently that you wholeheartedly supported?

Or maybe I'm wrong. Tell me, friends, are we queers as ovine as the Religious Right we loathe? We will all run out to vote for someone simply because he makes the right noises about gay rights?

Comments

fiscal / war

[vokzal.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'll find the original post. I don't know if that was the reason, but it was the only one I could come up with.

Kerry: No clue. I'd prefer to have gridlock, myself.

As to the war-thingy. I deliberately avoided mentioning it above... a) We shouldn't have started it. b) We did, now its our job to do some sort of effective reconstruction.

And, I think I'm knee-jerk anti-war[*]. I suppose I'm probably even a pacifist. Just don't ever try to mug me on the street though.
Given that, I would find that an odd reason to vote for him.
[*] Seriously. I was thinking about this while I tried to take a shower (it, the shower, didn't work). I think I have too many relatives who have been in war zones to wish it on anyone. Add to that the pastor thing, the German thing, a vivid imagination and I'm a hard sell when it comes to war.

Re: fiscal / war

[lhn.livejournal.com]

And, I think I'm knee-jerk anti-war[*]. I suppose I'm probably even a pacifist. Just don't ever try to mug me on the street though.
Given that, I would find that an odd reason to vote for him.

My inclination is to think that the war should be the deciding issue for the election, given the circumstances. Both candidates want expanded government, and neither wants to pay for it all. (Kerry wants to roll back some tax cuts, though not all, and implement increased spending. That's not math that makes for a surplus-- though gridlock might, as before.) Kerry hasn't staked out any major civil rights issues in opposition to Bush (opposing an amendment that looks ever less likely to pass without coming out in favor of actual gay marriage isn't exactly a bold stand). Neither is particularly strong on free trade, but neither seems likely to run on Gephardt-style mercantilism either (though if either does, it looks likely to be Kerry). Foreign policy seems to be the key division on which the election ought to swing.

On the other hand, if most Democrats thought the election was a referendum on the war, they'd presumably have nominated Dean (who has a reasonably consistent view on the war) rather than Kerry (for whom a consistent narrative on the war-- other than maximizing his poll numbers among the relevant voters-- seems almost impossible to tease out of his actions). It seems to me that what with this last Presidential term containing an attack that killed more Americans than Pearl Harbor and our conquest and occupation of a country halfway around the world, the Democrats should be running someone with some sort of strong, clear views on the matter of how to handle it-- be they Dean's or Lieberman's. Instead, it seems as if they're running on the idea that this stuff is all a petty distraction from domestic issues, except insofar as they can score points wrt alleged administration screwups.

Maybe they're right to do so-- it's not as if my acquaintanceship is particularly representative. But I find that idea so unimaginable that I really can't comprehend it. I mean, sure, they can count on the anti-war vote anyway, simply by not being Bush. But how can some policy regarding the war and terrorism not be front and center for any candidate in 2004?

[*] Seriously. I was thinking about this while I tried to take a shower (it, the shower, didn't work). I think I have too many relatives who have been in war zones to wish it on anyone. Add to that the pastor thing, the German thing, a vivid imagination and I'm a hard sell when it comes to war.

Anyone who's casual about going to war is either nuts or plain evil. On the other hand, there are worse things than war in terms of straightforward human cost, and murderous totalitarianism is high on the list. Whether or not it was in our interest to go to war in Iraq, millions of Iraqis are safer (terrorist attacks notwithstanding-- they could and did kill more Shiites more quickly when they were the government), better fed, and freer to speak their minds without being imprisoned, tortured, or killed as a direct result of our having done so. And regardless of the merits of this particular war, there are too many wars where our choosing not to fight would have led to a worse outcome (with WWII the most obvious case) for me to ever imagine being a pacifist.

Re: fiscal / war

[vokzal.livejournal.com]

My inclination is to think that the war should be the deciding issue for the election,

That would be sensible. It would put foriegn policy front and center. But I don't think Americans care much for that stuff.

if most Democrats thought the election was a referendum on the war, they'd presumably have nominated Dean

Or someone else or something. I don't know. Dean was given a Bad TV Moment and people are stupid?

Anyone who's casual about going to war is either nuts or plain evil. Or just doesn't know any better.