A political question

[danaeris]

Corrected
According to an sfgate article...
Kerry opposes a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage
but
In an interview last week on National Public Radio, Kerry was asked whether he would support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in his own state.

"Well, that depends entirely on the language of whether it permits civil union and partnership or not," he replied.


What I'm wondering is...

(1) Do any of the other campaigns, especially the Dean campaign, stand a chance of winning the primaries at this point?
(2) Kerry may or may not be against Gay marriage, but he would still be an improvement over Bush. Do any of the other Democratic candidates stand a chance against Bush who have a more positive attitude about gay marriage?

Have at...

Comments

[auros]

John Edwards is the last remaining alternative to Kerry, and assuming things remain that way, I plan to vote for him. I like many of his positions, though I disagree with him on free trade and, of course, the marriage issue. Though it's hard to be certain what any of the candidates really think about gay marriage, because the fact is, saying that you favor it is political suicide.

primary chances.

[admiralthrawn.livejournal.com]

The current delegate count is Kerry in the lead with 580, Dean in second with 191, Edwards in third with 167. (cnn delegate count, which I assume is accurate. Hard to believe Kucinich has less support than Sharpton, though).

So at least by the numbers, Dean and Edwards are about the same distance from the nomination...

Re: primary chances.

[auros]

Yeah, but I have trouble seeing how Dean would win the general election at this point. The media latched on first to the idea that he was a McGovernesque liberal (which was nonsense) and then to the idea that he was a "loose cannon" (much like they did with McCain). Pisses me off, but that's the facts on the ground.

Re: primary chances.

[admiralthrawn.livejournal.com]

The media doesn't seem to have gotten any impression of Edwards, other than "he isn't winning" -- most of the articles I see are mostly "Kerry is great because he is electable, and there are these other guys who haven't conceded defeat yet".

The only things I've picked up about Edwards from the media are that he's from the south, and he doesn't look like an elitist snob the way Kerry does, so he'd diversify the ticket nicely as a VP.

I wonder what it would take to get the mainstream media to actually spread the word about what everyone in the race actually stood for. Probably a major miracle :(

Re: primary chances.

[auros]

Edwards has gotten very friendly coverage from a lot of local press (e.g. endorsement in Madison's local paper), and in general has generated a lot of positive buzz among reporters -- but they seem not to bother reporting on why, because The Story is that Kerry's winning. Exit polls suggest that Edwards would, in fact, win a larger number of swing voters in a match against Bush. (I also like a couple of his key policy ideas, though I think overall Kerry may actually be a better policy match for me; OTOH, I think Edwards is much better in terms of standing up for his principles. He's not Dean, but he's not as waffly as Kerry often seems.)

The only thing that'll fix the media is for the public to develop some curiosity, and an attention span capable of dealing with more than just soundbites... (As far as political media, eliminating private financing of campaigns would help too.)

BTW, Re: delegate counts...

[auros]

Bear in mind that only 22% of the delegates have been selected thus far.

NO difference between Democrats & Republicans?

[angledge.livejournal.com]

Do you really, really believe that the last four years would've been no different if we had President Gore instead of President Bush? While I don't like either party very much either, I can't say that there is NO difference between them. The Democrats are somewhat closer to what I want in a political party, so I will support them.

Differently bad?

[auros]

There are a slew of issues on which the Dems are just plain better (abortion, environment, multilateral foreign policy, deficits). And on issues where they're worse (e.g. free trade), they're largely only worse in rhetoric, and in fact are internally divided, with many of them voting the more Libertarian course.

The current administration is probably the most corrupt in history. How could a Gore administration possibly have been as bad? I always thought Gore would be a pretty good president. You ever read his book, Earth in the Balance? Good stuff. He's a bright guy, and he does care about his policies; he just didn't have the courage of his convictions, ended up sounding waffly, and got torn to shreds in the media, mostly for remarks he didn't even make.

Re: Differently bad?

[auros]

I think many of the Dems who supported, and even publicly endorsed, the Patriot Act were doing so because they were convinced that failing to do so would lead to having worse people elected in their place. I think in many cases they were wrong about this, but my impression is that this was the case. (Edwards is, in fact, more conservative than I'd prefer, and may sincerely support some Patriot-ish measures. He's still a far cry better than Bush.)

In any case, the difference between the Ds and Rs is, in my view, not at all false. It's "a too-conservative party" versus "an alliance of fascists, theocrats, and crony capitalists who put Ferdinand Marcos to shame". Sure, one may be making a lesser-of-two-evils choice here, but it's not like it's tough to tell which is less.

Re: Differently bad?

[unseelie23.livejournal.com]

Ammend that to being convinced that *anyone* would be elected in their place and I'd agree with you. I doubt there was little concern as to WHO would replace them, just that they would be voted out.

The problem, for me at least, is that since Kerry and Edwards voted for the Patriot Act, I have little faith in their being willing to stand up for what they believe in... if they even believe in anything.

Re: Differently bad?

[auros]

If you're in a situation where you seriously believe that the choice is between "Do the right thing, then end up losing office and have the bad law passed anyways," and, "Compromise your principles," I favor having my representatives take the latter course.

I may vote them out if I feel they inappropriately judged a situation, and compromised needlessly. (In fact, this is precisely why I want Diane Feinstein out. She compromises with the right too often, and often in ways that suggest she's unduly influenced by campaign contributions. I'm hoping she'll run against Arnie in '06; she'd be a good governor of CA -- she'd be good at moderating our left-wing legislature -- but as a Senator, she's kind of a loss.)

Re: Differently bad?

[unseelie23.livejournal.com]

See, that's exactly how I feel about Kerry. The Patriot Act was too big of a deal for *anyone* to have given it a pass. It's a deal breaker for me.

Re: Differently bad?

[auros]

Look, we're all agreed that the Patriot Act sucks and the sunset clauses shouldn't be repealed, and all that sort of thing.

The question is, was it reasonable for people to fear, at the time it passed, that if they voted against it that would result in losing office. I think it probably was reasonable at the time, though they still could've, say, put up more of a fight to add amendments clarifying and restricting some of the powers granted. It wasn't one of the Dems' better days. But neither was it necessarily the kind of demonstration of being totally uninterested in civil liberties that many (including you, I guess) seem to think it was.

In any case, it seems fairly obvious which of the major parties is more likely to uphold the sunset clauses, repeal the more egregious parts, etc. Furthermore, sacrificing all other issues (abortion, environment, multilateral foreign policy, etc) on the altar of the Patriot Act isn't a solution. The worst elements of the Republican Party have profited from the alienation of progressive voters for the last three decades.

If you want out of the duopoly, join a campaign for election reform.

Re: Differently bad?

[unseelie23.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm all for changing the voting mechanics of our current system. Our current pluralistic system is about as bad as it can get when it comes to a voting mechanic. The other thing that HAS to change, is that some of the current gerrymandering needs to be challenged up to the Supreme, as there are too many seats (on both sides, but the repubs benefitted the most) that are now 'protected' because of how the districts were defined.

That having been said, I feel that Kerry (and Edwards) crossed a line that I can not reward them for crossing. I understand that compromise is often necessary, but I have to draw my line somewhere. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that "X" is too much for any given voter. For me, at least, signing the Patroit Act was going too far. He's not getting my vote in the primary, that will go to Dean.

As for the general election, I will likely vote third party unless something drastic happens in California and I'm convinced that CA is a swing state. Currently, I believe that ANY democratic candidate will carry California, so my vote has little danger of being a spoiler... and I get to vote my mind for a change, rather than the least of two evils.

Re: Differently bad?

[auros]

I'm actually a bit worried about CA, what with the gubernator and all. :-(

I'd like a Constitutional Amendment setting a limit specifying that all Congressional districts must satisfy "A > (P/3)^2" unless they're stuck in odd corners of a state where that's impossible, like the narrow part of MD.

It also wouldn't hurt to change the Senate so that Wyomans were no longer given seventy times as much say on treaties and cabinet confirmations as we get in CA. :-P

Re: Differently bad?

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

Sure, one may be making a lesser-of-two-evils choice here, but it's not like it's tough to tell which is less.

Amen to that!

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

Nah, noone but Kerry has a chance. I'm still voting for Dean in the primaries though. I'm sure he'll go on to do further work after he loses the primary and I want to show my support for him in that.

I've been so depressed lately because I don't think any of our candidates can beat Bush. *sigh*

other campaign's chances

[admiralthrawn.livejournal.com]

Dean has a decent chance if something dramatic happens to turn people away from kerry; apparently he's picked up a lot of the unelected delegates, and many of the states allow split delegations, so even for states where kerry won, dean may still have gotten 10-20% of the delegates for being in second or third place.

Additionally, there are the delegates pledged to Clark; now that he's conceded, they can shift to anyone.

That said, the main force animating the democratic party right now is "get bush out". Kerry gets lots of votes, so he looks "electable", so more people vote for him, and unless something really impressive happens to slow him down, he'll just run that one point to a landslide. But there are a lot of big states with a lot of delegates uncommitted (california. new york...), so Dean could catch up if something breaks the Kerry momentum.

It's possible the allegations of Kerry's affair with an intern will shock people, though that's more likely to rile up republicans to vote against him than to make democrats care. Some serious financial scandal might do it; if he could be portrayed not just as a rich guy, but as a rich guy who cheated to get there... Maybe if something shocking came out about his war record? None of this seems very likely, so I suspect Dean's best chance is for Kerry to suddenly have a heart attack and withdraw for medical reasons.

As for point two, he waffles depending on the audience; in anything that looks like it's being broadcast nationally, he's against gay marriage, because coming out clearly in favor will destroy his chances in the general election. But he puts in just enough weasel words that a really hopeful democrat might think he's not as bad as bush on the issue. I'm told that for smaller audiences he is more gay-positive.

I suspect that all democratic candidates have about the same chance if nominated (except for Sharpton, who is a joke), given that most of the noise thus far has been about booting bush, not about any real issues. Seriously -- do you know which ones advocate large tax increases and which don't? do you know which ones are in favor of free trade and which aren't? do you know which ones are in favor of real social security reform and which ones are going to just bury the problem? Nobody knows, and honestly nobody cares, because this election isn't about any issues beyond who has the biggest chance of repealing a lot of things Bush has done. And the dirty little secret is that none of them will manage to actually repeal anything Bush has done -- congress is too republican to push through a seriously democratic agenda. At best the new president will be able to stop any new atrocities from happening.

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

Kerry's position is that he opposes gay marriage but would support civil unions. Dean's actions while governor of Vermont and statements he has made since are pretty much identical. Not even Dennis Kucinich publically favors gay marriage. I'm unsure if any of them other than Kerry have gone on the record about constitutional amendments.

The only chance anyone not Kerry has to win the nomination is for Kerry to do something very dumb very publically. If you want a protest vote on this issue Kucinich is probably the best you can do in the primaries.

Try to remember the gay marriage is the bleeding edge right now. No mainstream politician is ever going to be voluntarily in our corner on bleeding edge issues. That doesn't mean the issue is unwinable. We can elect sympathetic politicians. We just have to recognize that we are going to have to push them once their in office and not expect to be able to sit back while they do our bidding. Which is to say don't run off and vote for some third party because Kerry doesn't support your maximum program.

PS. In the interest of noting bias I currently favor Dean in the primaries and worked on his campaign in NH.

[urbanbard.livejournal.com]

You know how dedicated I am to queer rights. I spent a year and half working for an openly gay state senator in New York, running most of his contact with the queer political community. Its a bread and butter issue to me.

That being said... this is not the time to make the election about gay rights, or to fight on that issue. Actions like what Mayor Newsom are doing are wonderful, and we need them to continue, NOW. What is happening in Mass is great, and needs to keep happening NOW. I'm not saying to give up the fight. I'm saying this presidential election... gay marriage may well be an issue we have to compromise on for a few years.

I 100% agree with those above who said our two party system is horrible, and it locks us into bad choices. I supported Nader in 1996.

But this year, is different. This year, we DO stand at a major crossroads in our nation's history. The Democractic party is still far too moderate for me, but anyone who thinks the Republicans are as close to the Dems in that moderate center is dead wrong. The Republicans under Bush have gone far far to the right. If we don't stop them now, they will make some major changes that will be almost impossible to undo.

The tax cuts, which are devestating the budget, and drastically accelerating the increase of the gap between rich and poor in this country, are currently temporary. Bush, if re-elected, will make them permanent. Kerry wants to repeal many of those tax cuts, particuarly those aimed at the rich.

The patriot act, including many of the provisions which have 'sunset clauses' on them, is one of the most dangerous assults on American civil ciberties since the interment of the Japenese Americans during WWII. Bush will make this law permanent, Kerry will re-evaluate large sections of it.

Most importantly- foreign policy.
For 50 years since WWII, the world has been moving to a system of treaties and International Law. Bodies like the UN, the World Court of Justice, etc. were helping to bring lawness among nations under control, and allowing for nations to work together on issues like the enviroment.
America was one of the strontest advocates for this, which made others go along.
Bush has reversed this, 100%. And the effects are already being felt around the world. The UN is a joke. The UN gained massive respect and authority for its actions in Bosnia and other peacekeeping roles- Bush's actions have taken the legs out from under the UN> If Bush is allowed to continue the America first, screw the rest of em, foreign policy, the results for international relations will be disastorous. Kerry understands this, and has talked many times about going to the UN, hat in hand, to try and rebuild our relatioships with the rest of the world.
This time, this election, there is so much at stake. Gay marriage is an important issue, and good people are fighting it. But this is not the time or the place.
Those people who know me, know what an idealist I am. I will rarely be this pragmatic. But if we start looking for the best, most liberal candidate now, we're doomed. I wish it was someone other then Kerry, I really do. But Kerry it is. And we need to beat Bush.