I turned the following thread post into a diary entry (with apologies) because I wanted to get this suggestion out there to as many people as possible, given the conflict many people feel about this issue and the controversy it has engendered. Please skip this if you already read it in the threads. It is simply my own suggestion; it is directed primarily to those people who are uncomfortable financially supporting a cadidate who appears to possibly support or at least doesn't clearly oppose a FMA (such as myself). I still don't think she has a fixed position on this issue, however, and I will post a copy of my own letter to her here tomorrow if circumstances allow. People can of course take or leave the suggestion, but I want to thank those people who are able to give it consideration:
I grew up in North Dakota about 5 miles from the SD state line. I lived there for 17 years and currently reside in CA. The first candidate I ever made a direct financial contribution to was Wesley Clark at the end of 2003; I've been seriously thinking about making Ms. Herseth the second after the end of this month, with the $.01 attached. It was sad to see her lose to the lying, scheming, demagouging, racist political vermin (and probably worse) Bill Janklow in 2002 and nice to see her get a second chance, despite the tragic circumstances involved. A win would give the two Dakotas a solid Democratic Congressional delegation.
As I'm sure most people here agree, the FMA is an abomination against the Constitution, against the principles upon which it is based, and against humanity. If I could think of a stronger word in English, I'd use it. That being said, many people who might be inclined to reflexively support it certainly do not see it at all as a hate amendment and would take strong exception to the implication that their inclination might be due to hate. In places like the Dakotas, there are very large numbers of people who might be so inclined not out of fundamentalism or commitment to any hard-core reactionary ideology, but simply out of traditionalism, or true cultural "conservativism" in the old-fashioned sense of the term as opposed to the kind the real haters peddle. These states are simply not places that are anywhere near the cutting edge of cultural progress, and most people there are skeptical toward ideologues of all stripes and toward people who seem to be pushing any kind of radical change. Thus otherwise decent people might initially be swayed by GWB's claim that he is simply trying to defend tradition and the foundations of civilization against all of these radical activist judges and renegade local officials (with smooth smiles and fancy suits and slicked-backed hair) and in-your-face gay rights militants who are trying to overthrow it all against the will of the majority.
That being said, on the other hand, there are ways that you can argue effectively against this kind of right-wing abomination in these kinds of places, so I have no idea what Ms. Herseth is trying to do right now. I'm still not clear what exactly her position is. Has she unequivocally stated that she would vote for some kind of FMA or for the Musgrave Amendment in particular? I don't see this kind of solid declaration in the statements that kos posted; on the contrary, there seems to be a whole lot of wiggling going on. Maybe she simply hasn't settled on a public position yet; she's a rookie, she knows that the eye of Sauron is on her, and the election is coming up fast. This can't be a comfortable position to be in. Maybe she's still feeling out various kinds of statements and word choices to see what kinds of reactions she gets. Maybe she needs to be encouraged to move in the right direction.
So maybe people here could help do so by sending her some emails explaining why she should do the right thing. And maybe everyone who was considering donating to her should make an explicit commitment to actually do so provided she back away from the amendment. This is what I plan to do today. She'll probably never go nearly as far as some people would like, and whatever backpeddling statements she might be persuaded to make may seem incredibly weak-kneed to many people in NYC or the SF Bay Area (e.g. Daschle's statement), but please try to understand where she is and what kind of position she's in.
But the important thing is that if people do this, please don't send her anything that could even be interpreted as a moralistic screed or denunciation or a threat to withhold support (as opposed to a conditional promise of support). I want to believe that her heart is in the right place; if this is so, what she needs to hear are the principled, value-based reasons for not supporting this awful thing, articulated in as generous and well-reasoned a manner as possible, and perhaps also suggestions as to what kinds of arguments can be used to mainstream and traditionalist audiences. Appeal to her heart and her brain, her sense of decency as well as her sense of pragmatism. If you don't know enough about SD culture or politics to give sound advice on the latter point, speak from whatever roughly analogous experience you might have. Be kind and respectful. And the offer of conditional financial support couldn't hurt.