Skip to main content

View Diary: Have Dems sold out too early on immigration? Not if they want something to actually pass (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Because legislation still has to satisfy (0+ / 0-)

    the sensibilities of the 20th least conservative House Republican.  And they believe they have safe districts, and are looking for a basis to vote against it on any basis other than simply not liking immigrants.  

    Not passing a bill doesn't do anything for Latinos or for gays.  Your argument would make more sense if there weren't real progress on gay rights in the last few years, but that's not the case.  The amendment is right on the merits, but politically, it's a poison pill, and it's not the Democrats who want to scuttle the legislation by pitting the interests of gays against Latinos.  There's an immigration bill that's out of committee.  That's a 100% good thing, even if the bill is only 80% of what I'd pass by ukase.

    And if you didn't vote in 2010, I'm not interested in listening to you claim the high ground, especially when the Obama administration repeatedly proved not voting on the basis of gay rights to have been remarkably foolish, from your own premise.  Nothing you said is entirely wrong, but nothing you said makes the political trade-off go away.  That's Kos's point.  And if you didn't vote, I don't know why you bother calling yourself a Democrat.  You may be a fan of the Democrats and the San Antonio Spurs, but if you don't take the court, you're not really a member of the team.

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:55:01 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Full circle (0+ / 0-)

      Dems constantly sell the LGBT community down the river.  Before 2011, our sucess has been competely in the COURTS, not in Democratically held institutions.  

      It was a painful decision not to vote, and not one I took lightly.  It was the first election I have missed since I hit my majority in 1988.  

      I bother calling myself a Democrat because I believe in Democratic goals.  If the Democrats I can pull the switch for DON'T belive in those goals, then I'm not going to vote for them.

      The "Democrat" running in my district in 2010 had an anti-gay plank in his platform.  I did not knock on a door, I did not give one dollar, I did not vote for him.  The Obama administration had just caved on LGBT rights before the election.   Exactly what was I supposed to vote for?

      I'm not a member of the team?  That's just fine.  The Democratic Senate made it crystal clear they don't want us on the team as anything other than a bench-warming cash machine.  FUCK THEM.   I'm not your fucking ATM.  If you want to ride that, "You MUST suppor the part no matter what" line, you are welcome to it.  I would note that such adherence to party over reality is what got the Republican party so lost in the weeds they don't even understand what true "Conservatism" is.

      Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

      by lostboyjim on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:43:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  so, by Democratically-appointed judges then. (0+ / 0-)

        The Democrats made it clear they want to pass an immigration bill, no more no less, and I think all but one or two are on record supporting marriage equality, the President's endorsement of which led to a huge spike in support for it; fought DOMA in the courts and successfully repealed DADT.  Around the time DADT was repealed, in fact, the administration prioritized it over the DREAM Act and made a budget compromise a lot of people hated to clear the decks to move on that legislation.   Focusing exclusively on negatives is the reality distortion field (confirmation bias - if you believe there's "selling down the river," that's what you'll find), and all of the gay and lesbian campaign staffers I worked with last cycle would tell you that we're all responsible for our own choices.  Nobody's saying in an ideal world we'd still have these discussions, but raging at Democrats doesn't actually make equality one bit closer; quite the opposite.  

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:07:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for the more even-handed reply (0+ / 0-)

          I agree with much of what you say.  But almost all of this is post 2010, where a watershed moment happened and being pro-LGBT isn't seen as "risky" by Democrats (unless you're a Senator).  

          Yes, President Obama's verbal support of LGBT rights was a huge moment, and I have been vocal in acknowledging that.  But again, this was after 2010.  

          My point was that there was a strong feeling the party had really ignored gay rights leading up to 2010, and a lot of the LGBT community stayed home.  Was that the reason for the 2010 landslide?  Of course not.  Did it motivate the party to try to woo us back?  Maybe.  

          It's only been 4 years, but I guess you don't remember how upset, how disenchanted LGBTs were moving into 2010.  Democrats had held House, Senate, and White House for 2 years, and had absolutely nothing to show the LGBT community.   DOMA was still in effect.  So was DADT.   ENDA was only a dream.  Yeah, I stayed home.

          And then you come along and accuse me of not really being a Democrat because I refuse to vote for an anti-gay Democrat representative.  

          The good news is that more Democrats are on board with equality for, you know, everyone.*  Unless it is slightly inconvenient politically.   Will I vote in 2014?  Almost certainly.  But I will never again vote for anyone, not a (D), not a (I), NOBODY who denies that I deserve equality.  Does that really mean I'm not a Democrat?

          _____________
          *Trans community need not apply.

          Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

          by lostboyjim on Thu May 23, 2013 at 10:26:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site