Why This Democrat Is Sitting Out All Federal Races This Year

(Some really fine commentary from some of our respected polsters on this diary.  How wrongheaded Arvadonians actions are, he has prompted deep thought from our community. – promoted by Voyageur)

I am a democrat.  I’ve been an active democrat ever since I reached eligiblity to vote in 1983.  This year, however, I will not be voting in the congressional or senatoral races.  

The following is a copy of the letter that I sent to Ed Perlmutter’s campaign last Thursday…I also sent the same letter (with some obvious changes as appropriate) to Michael Bennet.

Representative Perlmutter,

I am outraged.  Democrats have 59 votes in the Senate, a sizable majority in the House and we have the White House.  President Obama campaigned as a “fierce defender” of rights for gays and lesbians.  The only progress that has been made in equal rights for gays and lesbians over the last two years has come from the courts.  And then today we have Obama’s justice department fighting not one, but two rulings advancing the cause of equality.

I’ve spent my entire adult life as a proud, fighting democrat.  As a college student, I was President of College Democrats at Illinois State University; I had a paid staff position on Senator Paul Simon’s 1988 Presidential Campaign; I ran to be a delegate for Tom Harkin for the 1992 Democratic National Convention; I served as a downstate coordinator on the 1992 Illinois Senate Campaign for Senator Carol Mosely-Braun; I’ve given more time, money and effort to elect democrats than I care to remember.  In short, I’d put my democratic party bona-fides up against virtually anyones’.

But I’m angry.  Men and women who are willing to give their lives in service to country are being kicked out of the military for no reason other than who they are.  And this Administration is suing to continue the practice.

Which brings me to the point of this letter:  I cannot, in good consience, support you with my vote in this election.  It may not seem fair to you given that you have been a supporter of gay rights, but there are men and women in the military who have served ably and honorably who are being kicked out based on no other reason than who they are.  You will not be getting my vote based on who you are…a Democrat.  I hope you win, (I am certainly under no illusions that Ryan Frazier is a friend of gay rights) but I’m sitting this one out and you will have to do it without my vote.  I’m at a loss as to any other way to relay my frustration and anger (the letters and phone calls have fallen on deaf ears) to this administration short of being silent on election day.  This is not a decision I’ve made lightly.  I’ve never sat out an election since I became eligible to vote in 1983.

Should you survive this election year, I hope that you will let the President know the position he has left your party in with his continued ignoring of the gay and lesbian community.  



137 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Car 31 says:

    if Frazier and Buck win because of your frustration at Democrats, you’ll be that much further away from getting what you want.

    Wrong move, IMHO.

    • droll says:

      What’s the message?  As long as your opponent is at least slightly worse, you can stay in office to do nothing.

      Look, everyone has their line and the DADT law suit is pretty stupid even if it’s not your line.  How else do you punish politicians for crossing your line?

      • Seriously – pick any line in the sand and “punish” any representative that crosses it.  You can put the line anywhere you want.

        But when it comes to voting, the only thing you should be thinking is: am I helping myself, others like me, and the country as a whole by making this election choice?

        For Arvadonian, are you helping yourself, gays, and America by not voting?  If by not voting you give the election to Republicans, have you helped your cause(s)?  Do you fully expect to be able to put better candidates in to office in 2 or 6 years after the candidate who represented you the least is elected in to office?  Or have you merely set your cause back 2-6 years and possibly worse by giving your opponents more power?

        If you’re in doubt, I would refer you to the ads running in Nevada right now, telling Latino voters to stay home on election day in “protest” over the lack of progress on issues of interest to Latinos.  It’s put out by a conservative group looking to depress the Democratic vote, turning Congress away from the very issues Latinos want addressed.

        Do you want the possibility of having your issues addressed?  Or is it better to let it rot for a few more years, buried under the bodies of the political corpses you helped create by not voting?

        • droll says:

          We vote to continue democracy.  If someone feels neither candidate does so in a way that’s meaningful for them, that’s their deal and they don’t owe anyone that vote.

          In this case the issue is in fact being addressed, just as the other side would do it.  So when your absolute, number one issue, is handled the same by both sides, what do you do?  This is a civil rights issue after all, not a dispute over a single line item in a budget amendment.

          I personally think that the wrong people are being punished here (except for maybe Bennet, who I don’t see as great on gay rights), but it’s not my vote to withhold for any reason.  My nearly withheld vote has been scared out of me.  That doesn’t make me happy.

          • After all, a majority of our citizens choose not to vote year in and year out.

            If you can really convince yourself that you aren’t getting anything better out of Democrats than out of Republicans, that neither party does anything at all for you, go ahead.  And remember to re-evaluate your (non) vote in a year or two.

            In the meantime, for Arvadonian, here’s something to contemplate (10-20-2010):

          • Arvadonian says:

            let me make myself clear:  I am only sitting out the federal races.  I will be voting for Governor, AG, SOS, Treasurer, State Rep (I wouldn’t miss the chance to vote for Sara Gagliardi), State Senate and all of the ballot measures.

            Further, if I were to decide to punish the whole lot of the candidates, I would still turn in a blank ballot to at least register that there was a person who was perfectly willing to vote but was so disgusted by the candidates chose to not vote at all.  

            I’m not apathetic….far from it.  I’m pissed off.  And that is far different from apathetic.

            • TimothyTribbett says:

              Don’t waste your time or ours’ for that matter.

              • Arvadonian says:

                Computers don’t have feelings.

                Number crunchers that work on campaigns and plot strategies?  That, my friend, is another story.  Do you think, for instance, that John Kerry’s campaign wasn’t quite interested in why so many voters in Florida “undervoted” in the Presidential race in 2000….or opted to vote for Ralph Nader?

                Why would we even know what the term “undervote” means were it not for the 2000 election?

                • TimothyTribbett says:

                  Not voting is surrendering.  

                  • TimothyTribbett says:

                    While I have not posted about it here I post a lot about DADT and the “It get’s better project” on Colorado for Obama. I cried when I saw Joel Burns speech. I made my 10 and 13 year old boys watch it. I want them to be proud of themselves where ever their future leads them and to be considerate of their fellow citizens regardless of their race, color, sexual orientation, etc.

                    So I do not argue with your position or your frustration. Ask some of the other folks on here like “Caroman” who see my posts on Obama for Colorado. I have been very vocal on this issue.  

                    However I do argue with sitting on the sidelines. That has never accomplished gaining ground.  

                • CJ says:

                  the undervote numbers.  So, this can have a real effect, in the aggregate.

                  • TimothyTribbett says:

                    … it does not indicate what they were pised off or did not give a shit so the message is lost or at least left to the whim of the analysts to determine. It is a crap shoot. Not to mention a cop out.

                    • CJ says:

                      I was raised to cast a vote in every race, and on every ballot issue.  But, I was raised in an era where corporate cash didn’t flow like the Columbia River into every federal race.  It is hard to argue against the perception that corporate interests currently maintain absolute control over both parties.  An undervote can be an expression that both candidates are unacceptable.  I could see somebody doing that in reference to Buck and Bennet, for example, if both candidates were opposed to the voter’s signature issue(s).

                      That being said, I will yet again–and really without any enthusiasm whatsoever, but rather with that old familiar resignation–cast my vote for the lesser of two evils in the US Senate race, because I cannot stomach the idea of a Senator Ken Buck.

            • dwyer says:

              Please vote for Bennet.  He is a Democrat and if the Democrats do not hold the Senate, then it is possible that in the next decade we could see a rollback of constitution civil rights that will take us back to before Brown v. Board of Education, not back to prior to the 14th Amendment.

              This is the scenario which I can envision and which is terrifying”

              The repubs take the senate and Gingsberg resigns or dies opening up a seat on the court and in the interim leaving a clear conservative majority to rule. The repubs refused to confirm any of the Obama appointees to fill the vacancy. So this is what a conservative majority on the supreme court can do.

              1) Congress pass a law saying that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on anyone born in the United States unless both parents are citizens.  ACLU and a hundred other organizations file suit.  It goes quickly to the Supreme Court.  The court rules that the legislation is constiutional.  Millions of people lose their citizenship.  The vote of Hispanics is depressed.

              2) DITTO for the following:

                  Roe v. Wade is overturned and given back to the states.

                  Federal laws governing public accommodations, voting rights, anti-discrimination laws of people (including children) on the basis of disability, race, age, gender are all overturned and given to the states to decide.

                  Sodomy and other aspects of “homosexuality” are declared by Congress to be illegal.  The Court concurs.

              I don’t like Bennet and I am pissed at the dems, not for their actions, but for failing to have a “decent respect for the opinions of mankind” and thus not answering lies, defending their positions and generally abandoning the field of battle to the foreign backed anti-americans parading around under my country’s flag.

              • The realistThe realist says:

                Can’t even blame the crazies on the other side.  The Dems have not framed their message well, have not responded swiftly and harshly to the lies, and have created a vacuum now filled by propaganda and vastly unqualified candidates for high office.  Dwyer, I think people just don’t believe it can get as bad as you describe – but it can.

                • dwyer says:

                  Now, 15 months later, they are controlling the republican party and this election.

                  This is what I am going to do. I am a registered democrat and do attend some party functions.  I am working to toss out all the current party officials.  And as soon as this election is over, that will be my prime focus.  I will not vote for a registered democrat in Denver’s upcoming municipal elections, unless the alternates are impossible.

    • Arvadonian says:

      I’m not so sure.  Perhaps it will send a message to our Commander in Chief, that “fierce defender” of gay rights (who is inexplicibly simultaneously “fiercely defending” DADT before the 9th Circuit) that he cannot, and should not, take the LGBT vote for granted.  

      Believe me, if I am willing to sit out a Bennet/Buck election (in which Ken Buck likened me to an alcoholic), I will have less than no problem sitting out a Presidential campaign in which one candidate promises me the world and doesn’t deliver shit vs. a candidate who is at least honest in saying that he or she isn’t going to do squat for the cause of equality.  At least I know where I stand with the person who pointedly does not care for me….I can respect that.

      As MLK said, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”  

      • Car 31 says:

        Watching the inaction of politics, especially DC politics, from our level is frustrating, to say the least. Powerlessness, anxiety, fear, are a few feelings that come to mind when I think of how the game is played in DC.

        With that said, NEVER hold politicians accountable for what they say to get elected. That sounds crass and lame, but getting people to vote for you and governing are two very different things.

        Republicans don’t have your interest in their platform – at all. Democrats do.

        DADT and the DOMA, as others have said, are the law of the land, unfortuately. The DOJ has to do what they’re doing for that reason alone. If for any other reason, they need to protect the sanctity of law in this country. Once the DOJ starts playing favorites on which law to challenge and which to conveniently ignore, we are all in big trouble.

        The silence isn’t as deafening as you think. DADT has gotten more media in the last month than in the last five years.  

        You’re punishing people who can only do so much. You want it all, when the only possibility right now is some. You give up your power by letting your frustration win.

        Again, you’re making a mistake, IMHO.

        • CJ says:

          as a tool to mollify the progressive/labor base.  Every elected Democrat (including Bennet and Obama) feels free to completely ignore the platform at will.

          This raises the problematic question:  do we Democrats stand for anything?  I think the answer is in two parts:  (a) yes, the base stands for something, as articulated in the platform; but, (b) the federally elected Democratic Party officials do not stand, really, for anything other than preserving incumbency and ensuring corporate employment following their government “service.”  (See, e.g., Chris Dodd)

      • ColoDem Di says:

        Not voting doesn’t send a message.  It’s silence.

        Remember how angry we were for the 8 years that W was in office?  That’s how the Republicans feel this year.  Republican voters will NOT be leaving any boxes blank.

        • Arvadonian says:

          explaining my reasoning for not voting in these races to both campaigns affected was my voice.  Leaving the ballot blank is following through in expressing my dissatisfaction.

          Two years—no action at all on ENDA.  Two years—the only action on DADT and DOMA have been in the courts and this administration is suing to protect these discriminatory laws.  

          • sxp151 says:

            and that was with friendly Presidents in office.

            African Americans didn’t just sit around waiting for Presidents to fix everything during all that time either. And they still supported Democrats at election time.

            They didn’t think it was better to have racists in office because “at least one knew where they stood.”

  2. EmeraldKnight76 says:

    As a veteran I definitely have strong feelings about the unconstitutionality of DADT. I absolutely get where you’re coming from.

    I’m sorry you feel you have to withhold your vote in order to send a message. I want to tell you it won’t make a difference, but I think it will. It’ll make a difference to you.

    Personally, I’m going to do everything I can do get the Dems elected as the alternative is so much worse. I would much rather have Dems who don’t refer to being gay as a choice. I would much rather have Dems who don’t equate being gay to a disease.

    I chose to remember how far gay rights have come in the last few years Dems have had the Congress. I chose not to expect more from a President than is reasonable. I chose not to expect more from my President than what he promised. I will make my decision in 2012 about whether he kept those promises.

    Gay rights have come a very very long way in the last few years. We absolutely have a long way to go still. I don’t think Republicans will be the ones to usher in that future change.

    Good luck and thank you for your honesty and for sharing.

  3. VoyageurVoyageur says:

    My next door neighbors are a gay couple.  They hosted a fund-raiser for Bennet, after he voted to repeal DADT.

      I won’t waste keystrokes trying to change your mind.  But if you can cite a Senator who has dealt more honestly and openly with the gay community than Bennet, I’ll buy you lunch.  He has several gays on his top staff.

      But thanks to Ken Buck, we know you “choose” to be gay.  That of course is Buckshit, but you can choose to be rational and vote for Michael Bennet.

      AT that fund-raiser, by the way, Bennet recounted a debate he’d had with Buck over don’t ask, don’t tell.  Buck actually said he was worried about preserving the “homo-geneity” of the military.  He actually said “homo” geneity.  The correct pronounciation of the word is, of course, “hah-mah-guh-nay-e-tee”

      “You can’t make this stuff up,” Bennet told the crowd, which didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

      I have always respected your posts on things ranging from labor relations to gay rights.   You’ve made your point with your letter.   But now do one more thing: use your secret ballot to vote for Michael Bennet and stand against the man who defamed gays as “like alcoholism.”

    Pax Vobiscum

  4. MADCO says:

    Imagine a SCPTUS seat opens up.  One senator puts a hold on the “advise and consent’.  No appointment. Or a poltical brouhaha and debate where maybe there woudl be none. Or be less.

    Worse, a federal judgeship opens up.

    No headlines, no press, no attention. Same senate obstruction. Same result.

    I don’t claim to understand why the DoJ is pursuing it at all. I don’t claim to understand whether “one vote” is enough to matter in protest.  It seems like it must because one voice in support is all I’m asking for when I’m canvassing. Just one vote.

    I respect your frustration. I won’t claim to understand it.  

    I’m not sure this is an effective time or method to translate that frustration into the political discussion.

    • EmeraldKnight76 says:

      It’s what they are supposed to do. They defend the laws of our nation. What if Bush’s DOJ could have found a friendly Judge and had them overturn a federal law then just didn’t appeal it? President Obama doesn’t believe it’s right to let one judge overturn our nation’s laws. Just because I happen to be effected by that law is immaterial. I agree with him. I don’t want one single judge overturning our national law with no appeals. This will be especially profound when there is a Republican President again.

      What the DOJ will most likely do is appeal it technically while arguing that the law is in fact unconstitutional. This satisfies precedent but allows the Appeals Court to weigh that opinion when making their decision.

      I also don’t believe the President can nor should wave a magic wand (aka Executive Order) and make DADT go away. This is a national law for crying out loud. It needs to be overturned through the court system or through Congress. Everything our Democratic President does sets a precedent for the next Republican President. Progressives lost their shit every time Bush rules by fiat, why would we encourage Obama to make the same mistakes?

      • Arvadonian says:

        There is no consensus in the legal community that the President is obligated to defend laws that they believe to be unconstitutional.  Further, even if they choose to appeal, there is certainly no obligation to request an injunction pending the appeal.

        Here is a link to an article laying out the arguments on both sides.


        Bottom line:  Obama is trying to have his cake and eat it too on this issue.  He is hoping to get the gay votes based on promises of things to come while having no plan to deliver on those promises.  

        The only “fierce defense” the gay community has seen from this President is his Justice Department’s defense of DADT and DOMA.

        • EmeraldKnight76 says:

          Why wouldn’t they wait to appeal until after the election?? That seems to be the huge hole in your argument that Obama just wanted the gay vote. He could have made overtures of not appealing leading up to the election, then once he gathered up all those great gay votes appealed on Novemeber 3rd.

          The truth is you’re throwing a tantrum and have nothing to back it up. You’re going to punish Bennet and Perlmutter on the perceived failings of the President.

          The injunction request was to prevent any confusion about whether it was safe to come out yet or not and had nothing to do with obligation. Also, name one case that is being appealed where an injunction wasn’t requested? It’s SOP.

          My advice is to save your ire and anger for Senators and Congressman who actually voted against repealing DADT. Don’t punish those who are on our side. It’s counterproductive.

          By taking this position I’m trying to figure out the difference between you and a Tea Partier. Both are taking extreme positions. Both claim to be blaming both Parties for their ills. Both are using their (non)votes to “send a message” to Washington. Both are essentially voting for Republicans.

          Good luck

          • CJ says:

            is because they perceive that (a) the GLBT vote can be taken for granted (“just imagine how much worse it would be if the Republicans controlled Congress!”); and (b) by standing up against gay rights, they will appeal to straight unaffiliated voters.

            Nothing, absolutely nothing, is done by this Admin without scrutinizing the political benefits and costs of the action.

        • EmeraldKnight76 says:

          I know my point of view isn’t the popular one. I know it’s really easy to blame our President for not doing everything in 2 years.

          I prefer to arm him with a majority for an entire 4 years and then see where we’re at. We constantly rail at the Obama detractor regarding every other aspect for expecting him to have done everything in 2 years but then we turn around and do the same thing.

          We constantly brag at finally having a President with a brain in the White House then put absolutely zero faith in his abilities or motives.

          I will judge him in 2012 but make sure he has the best chances I can give him to do the best job he can. Not hamstring him by throwing a tantrum and not voting for Dems and thus allowing the Republicans a chance to block him even more.

          • MADCO says:

            I agree with almost everything you included.

            Your omission is where I disagree – the DOJ could have waited 2 or 3 weeks to file.  Politics has something to do with the timing.

            And by filing right away, I think they are doing a service to all the affected military members.  It’s like – don’t celebrate and start telling now – – be a little more patient.

            • EmeraldKnight76 says:

              It seems to me that waiting until November 3rd, well within the time frame for appeal, would have allowed them to look like they weren’t going to appeal and win the “gay vote”. It also would have left open the option of seeing what Congress would do in the lame duck before having to decide about the appeal.

              I agree with you about it letting people know not to come out yet. However, the DoD has stopped all DADT investigations and is allowing recruiters to accept openly gay applicants. We’ll see how long that lasts and what the long term repercussions will be for DADT.

              • dwyer says:

                I think this is why Obama is allowing the military to complete its study on how to implement the removal of DADT.  Truman integrated the military during peace time.  I think that makes a huge difference.

                I suspect that the info that the President has on the state of the military is that given the stresses on the force, moving slow with this fundamental change is critical….even though survey after survey shows that military personnel don’t oppose the elimination of DADT.

  5. studmuffin says:

    This feels on par with the people who tell me that they get too many phone calls and will vote for the other candidate. Studies have shown that they’re lying when they say that, by the way.

    Just buck up and vote the way you feel you should. Don’t let someone who isn’t on your ballot this year decide how to vote for every other federal candidate.

    Weigh your options, because I can guarantee you that if the R’s end up sweeping the country in 2010, it’ll build greater momentum for more tea party lunatics in 2012.

    Emotional voting is a bad idea.

  6. Pam Bennett says:

    As most of you know I am not the girl next door. I am also a veteran and I am proud to have been one of the first two transgender people appointed to a city veterans affairs commission (the first was in SanFran).

    This has been the most difficult year voting for me and for only one office, that of senator. The rest of the ballot was a breeze. Voting on this office meant I was voting for a person who most likely would represent me for the rest of my life.

    I wanted to vote for a strong Progressive Democrat. A person who would be a leader against the strangling of America by the Wall Street gang. A leader for bringing equality to our country. Someone who would fight for working men and women by voting for labor laws and not corporate dominance.

    I did vote to keep the D in majority in the Senate. But, I have no illusions that all or anything I want will occur. What I do have hope is that with the Dems in the majority there will be a refusal to let the destruction of our country occur the way the Republicans want. I do hope that Sen. Bennet will no longer sit on the fence but get in there and work for us. Lead with votes, not wait until everything is done then vote.

    Although I do not have hopes for what I want, I do hope Sen. Bennet will see how important it is to be Progressive and fight for us, not the bankers. He will take this election, his very first election, to heart and fight hard for us. A little more fight for us might have had a better effect on the Dem base.

    OBTW, I would be damned rather than vote for any R on the ballot. Only an extremist could consider voting for Buck or Tancredo or Maes. Very extreme! Although we know what the Bush did to our country, he is no where as extreme as that list. And, he was far right nutty extreme.

  7. Middle of the Road says:

    to your decision here, Arvadonion, over a candidate that was pretty awful on the issue of abortion and women’s rights. I sat out the race, didn’t vote for either guy, and the other candidate won. And he turned out to be horrible, not just on pro choice issues but on just about everything including environment, education and budget (the guy loved defense and thought everything else was expendable.)

    That vote came back to bite me in the ass and I feel like I owe the world an apology for it.

    That you are refusing to vote for two men that are great on your gravest concerns seems to me the wrong way to go here. Send your letter to the DNC, to Obama, to OFA. Refuse to give a dime or ounce of time to any of them.

    But cutting off your nose to spite your face wounds us all in this election.

  8. dlof says:

    I mean, didn’t Ed vote to repeal DADT?  Why punish him?  That’s F-ed up?

    You have a guy who did what you wanted, but because other people didn’t do so as well, you’re going to punish the guy who did what you want.

    You, Arvadonian, are an angry, small-minded, moron.

    • Middle of the Road says:

      You can make your point without calling someone names or demeaning them. Arvadonian is a good Democrat who is seriously frustrated and pissed off. Maybe a more reasonable approach would be more useful here.  

      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        Who is cutting off his nose to spite his face.

        It’s an understandable emotion from a polster I’ve long respected.  It’s also counter-productive to everything he so deeply believes.

        But with any luck, we can pair him with an angry, high-minded right to lifer who will desert Buck on the abortion issue.

      • dlof says:

        Probably it was a bit juvenile of me, but in talking the idea over over a beer last night, I have come to two conclusions.

        First, Avradonian does not owe his vote to any candidate, not Perlmutter or Bennet.  He does, however, owe it to the people of this state and his CD to make an informed choice.  His refusal to make a choice, while a choice itself, basically is a statement that he does not care, and will take whatever he gets.  As such, it is my contention that he stop complaining about anything either house of Congress does for the next 2 years – by not voting, his opinion no longer matters.

        Second, he speaks eloquently about the need for reform, and his frustration at the Obama administration for failing to deliver it in the first 20 months of a 4 year term.  I think that’s a bit preemptive, but more importantly, but not supporting friendly candidates, he is actually making it harder for the Obama administration to make good on the promise.

        Do I owe an apology?  Maybe.  Is this plan asinine?  Absolutely.

        • Middle of the Road says:

          and I always appreciate your input, particularly regarding Weld County, dlof. Reading a diary like this becomes so frustrating and I can’t say I blame you for your reaction.  

    • Arvadonian says:

      were bounced from the military over the last two years because they are gay?  We are talking about people who voluntarily put their lives on the line in defense of this country.

      Why should Perlmutter’s job be any more secure than theirs.  Why should they be punished and he not be?  Give me one reason why their lives and careers are less important than his….

      As to your calling me an “angry, small-minded, moron”, I’ve been called far worse by far better than you. Furthermore, as I said in my letter, I’ve would put my work for Democratic candidates over the years up against any other person out there…including you.  I don’t need your lectures.

      It is sort of funny to see the reaction when one asserts that their vote is not an entitlement for any person or party.  Frankly, its liberating.


      • But I do think you’re looking at it the wrong way if you feel you can use a negative vote as punishment rather than using a positive vote to get the best possible candidate elected.

        If you lose out on filibuster reform, which would actually unclog some of the backed up bills that you might care about, you’ve lost a lot.  If you lose out on court nominations because Republicans control the Senate, you’ve lost more than just a fight on gay rights legislation.  If you lose out on job creation and outsourcing, it will likely stoke fears in our society and set your cause back years.

        Our Federal candidates may not share your urgency for your issues, but one of the two in each race will get you closer to what you want, and the other will take you further away.  It may be a direct action, or it may be an indirect consequence of their other decisions, but you can count on one hand the number of times where electing one candidate over another makes zero difference on an issue.

        • Arvadonian says:

          they do share my urgency….did you notice how quickly the DOJ decided to ask for an injunction on the overturning of DADT?  Their timing in filing the request (less than one week after the judge handed down her ruling) indicates to me they thought it was quite the urgent matter.

          • (on behalf of the military if nothing else).

            DADT might be declared unconstitutional – I hope it is – but a California district court is not the place to stop (or start).  If come January a Republican House or Senate majority exists, they would have standing to sue against the ruling; at the least, they would be sure to argue that the Federal District is the proper venue for such a lawsuit, and that a district judge in California doesn’t sit on the proper court to decide the matter for the entire country.  And IMHO they’d be right, they’d win, and those GLBT soldiers who thought they were past all of their troubles would be in deep doodoo.

            Also, as others have pointed out, DADT and DOMA are the law of the land, and the President is sworn to uphold and execute that law.  It is the job of Congress to fix this, or of the Courts to rule against it.

      • dlof says:

        You are going on and on about how the Senate needs reform (filibuster), DADT, etc. but rather than looking intelligently at the thing you have an issue with, and the things you can affect, you are simply lashing out at whoever is available to you, with no regard for that person’s actions or beliefs.

        You can control the Senate only by voting for or against Mark Udall or Buck/Bennet.

        Voting for or against Perlmutter, as a protest against the rules/behavior of the Senate is simply counterproductive.  He agrees with your position, but he cannot (not will not) solve your problem.  Holding him accountable is just stupid.

        Hell, it’s beyond stupid, because the action is irrational, so it diminishes your image as a rational, intelligent actor.  Simply put, it makes you look like an angry child having a tantrum.

        Way to go, man.  I hope you get Ryan Frasier.  You have indicated that you’re alright with that; an empty line on the ballot is an equal endorsement of all candidates.

        • Arvadonian says:

          about filibuster reform (had the issue of DADT not been pushed to the back burner and been brought up before Kennedy died the votes would have been there to override the filibuster).  Further, if Obama wouldn’t appeal the rulings overturning DADT and DOMA the filibuster would be a moot point.

          Finally, as I’ve pointed out Perlmutter is simply caught in the crossfire of this battle.  I hold no animocity toward him personally (far from it, I’ve donated to his previous campaigns).  Am I unfairly targetting him?  Perhaps.  But thousands of gay and lesbian service members who have been discharged from the military unfairly and this administration is suing to continue the practice.  My loyalty is to those service members….not to any politician…and I’m registering my discontent by not voting for an Obama ally in the House and Senate.  

          I am dissatisfied with the status quo and I will not cast a vote to continue it.

          • EmeraldKnight76 says:

            The more I think about it though, the more I think you are making a huge mistake.

            Like many other gay activists, you want what you want when you want it. And that’s NOW. You have or fail to show a clear understanding of how civil rights battles work. They don’t happen over night or over a couple years. You are willing to discount and even punish the Dems for everything they’ve done for our community because they’ve not gotten to what you want YET. We were promised an end to DADT by the end of Obama’s presidency. This is a mid-term. You knew that right?

            Has Bennet ever voted against a gay rights bill? Has Perlmutter?

            Yet you’re willing to live under Republican rule just to punish Obama? For what? Obama has kept every promise he made. What makes you think he won’t continue that trend?

            Don’t feed me some bullshit about what a great Dem you’ve been. By ushering in the Frasier/Buck years you’ll negate any good you’ve done IMO. Buck has made his stance on our issues very very clear. I don’t see Buck voting to get rid of DADT do you? I don’t see Buck voting for marriage equality do you?

            • Arvadonian says:

              I’m guessing, however, that you’ve not been engaged in this battle quite as long as I have.  

              When you’ve been at it for 27 years then I’ll give your point of view a bit more credence.  

              Once again, I repeat:  No candidate, no party, is entitled to my vote.  I will grant it and/or withold it as I see fit.  I would further point out that while I am not voting for Bennet or Perlmutter I am also not voting for Buck or Frazier, so I am not joining in their campaigns either and I am not “ushering in” their election.  

              The Democrats have made clear on the federal level they feel that they can win elections and govern without help from the gay community.  Let them try.  

              • EmeraldKnight76 says:

                But I would be careful about making assumptions.

                You expect me to what? Bow down to your 27 years of blah blah blah? You were prepared to dismiss any point of view that didn’t kiss your ass to begin with so I’m hardly surprised you you aren’t giving mine any credence.

                Did it once cross your mind that others might know a bit about gay rights, other than you? That maybe some of us might even know quite a bit about the gay struggle for those rights in this country, other than you?

                Your arrogance is astounding. I’m certainly glad you’re here to teach me what it is to be gay and struggling for equality in this country.

                Maybe I should vote for Republicans like you are. That should smooth the way towards marriage equality.

                • Arvadonian says:

                  for any Republican appearing on my ballot this year.  

                  I’m not expecting you to bow down to me for my 27 years fighting for Democrats to be elected and gayrights.  On the other hand, it is more than a bit presumptuous on your part to expect me to bow down to your (or anyone else’s) demand that I continue being  patient.  When you’ve been at it for 27 years, you’ll likely be tired of hearing it too.

                  • EmeraldKnight76 says:

                    for both Dems and definitely gay rights. Most of those years were while being forced to be in the closet while serving my country.

                    I know very well how important repealing DADT is. I don’t want our President to reverse it by Executive Order or Stop Loss. What happens if this nation votes a Republican into office in 2 years? DADT is still a law because we haven’t let Congress remove it so the the new Republican President can just re-enact it.

                    Personally, as someone who has been there, I would rather see it removed from our law books permanently by either Congress or the Courts.

                    In the meantime, the DoD has sent an order to put a hold on all investigations that fall under DADT and recruitment offices are accepting openly gay applicants, including Lt. Dan Choi. A man I happen to find personally really fucking annoying but I admire his tenacity.

                    I don’t expect you to change your mind about voting for Republicans. I do expect someone as intelligent as you obviously are to realize that by NOT voting for Dems, in an already low turn out election, you are essentially for FOR the Republicans. Maybe it’s not your intention, but it’s what it means. You know what they say the road to hell is paved with don’t you?

                    • Arvadonian says:

                      is that it is an “either/or” proposition.  Either we have a stop loss or we have repeal.  I would argue that we can, and should, have both.

                      The DOD has only put a hold on all investigations and discharges and is only accepting openly gay applicants because the presiding Judge who found DADT unconstitutional turned down the Obama Administrations request for an injuncion on her ruling.  In short, we can thank the judge…not Obama for that.

                      How many more discharges of gay and lesbian service members are acceptable to you?

                    • EmeraldKnight76 says:

                      Obviously, I don’t want any more of our men and women in uniform discharged because of who they are. It’s not just an abstract for me, I personally knew good men who were discharged under this policy. I take the repeal very seriously. I also take the rule of law I bled for in foreign lands very very seriously. Which is why I want this draconian law repealed correctly, completely, and with no stain of controversy attached to it.

                      Unlike you, I don’t believe the Republicans have been or will be doing a whole lot to help prevent those discharges. Unlike you, I’m grateful to this President for everything he HAS done for our community instead of just concentrating on what he hasn’t. I remember the last time a President said he was a friend to the gay community. He gave us DADT.

                      For the last two years I’ve heard nothing but how lackluster progressives have found every piece of groundbreaking legislation this President and this Congress has passed is. There has been nothing but a steady stream of criticism from delusional people who saw what they wanted to see when Obama was a candidate. He never claimed to be a progressive and always campaigned from the center to center-left.

                      Now you’re pissed he isn’t doing things fast enough, or well enough, or progressive enough.

                      Maybe Senator Buck will be able to get DADT repealed a little faster for you? Maybe Rep. Frasier will put in a good word with the President on your behalf to work on ENDA?

                      I’m done giving you the attention you were craving with this post. I find it hard to believe someone who supposedly has been fighting for gay rights for 27+ would sit in silence but that’s your decision. Sit there and be quiet for the next two years. You clearly don’t care how the country is run so the rest of us will discuss it without you.

                      Maybe you’ve been fighting so long you can no longer tell friend from enemy.

                    • TimothyTribbett says:
          • MADCO says:

            Since no candidates are in your zone on this issue – the incumbents not having done enough, the challengers are against you – can you vote on another issue this time around?

            Say ….energy independence?  AGW? something? anything?

          • Or, rather, Senate rules reform.  Just because you can overcome a filibuster does not mean passing bills is as easy as snapping your fingers.

            There are, IIRC, over 100 unfilled judgeships and department appointments and 400 bills passed by the House but not brought to the floor of the Senate.  They are sitting in that state because absent unanimous consent it takes most of a week to move each one of these action items through even a highly partisan Senate.

            Sen. Udall has put forward a good proposal for Senate rules reform which would remove much of this idiocy yet still provide a strong platform from which a dedicated opposition can block truly odious bills.  It deserves the consideration of the Senate in January – but there’s zero chance that will happen unless there’s a Democratic majority.

          • butterfly says:

            of the Obama Administration appealing in order to give the whole thing some certainty to not put service members in an untenable position UNTIL they can be more sure of the outcome?

            Isn’t it just over a month before the Sec. of Defense will have the report on how they will handle the change?  I think maybe the Administration may be trying to respect the Dept of Defense and the Pentagon by not jumping the gun on their report.  I may be wrong about when that report is due but I am thinking Dec 1st.

            I emphasize the word ‘respect’.  I think that the Administration would do themselves a disfavor by doing something now that would cause a ruckus, when in a very short time it can be done, hopefully with enough Dems, without seeming disrespectful to the brass in the military.

            Those of you who are in the military or have been in the military can tell me if I am imagining things??

  9. BlueSkies says:

    A 27-year-long streak of advocacy through voting is too good to throw away.

    I, too, think you’re punishing the wrong people.  Obama may have political and practical reasons for wanting congress to dismantle DADT, and there’s plenty of information on that available.  But, giving Ed Perlmutter’s job to Ryan Frazier is a really backhanded way to make a point.  Frazier will assume voters approve of his efforts, and disapprove of Perlmutter’s votes to end DADT.  Perlmutter’s an ally.

    Bennet has been nothing but straightforward about his support for ENDA, hate crimes legislation (don’t say nothing has been done at the federal level since 2008 in support of LGBT rights), ending DADT, and his personal support for marriage equality issues.

    You don’t owe them your vote, but these two men are deserving of your additional consideration.  I don’t think you need to wonder whether Senator Buck would vote for anything on your list over the next six, 12 of 18 years.

    Be angry, but don’t just sit there.  Keep that streak going.

  10. ColoDem Di says:

    Pols posted ballot numbers to date from the SOS website and the Republicans are off to a big start.

    I know several Romanoff supporters who intend to either leave the senate box blank or write in Andrew Romanoff.  They’re mad and want to send a message.

    Let’s face it, we’re all disappointed about something.  We all had such high hopes as to what could be accomplished with a Dem in the White House and a Dem controlled congress.   We all want our voices to be heard. Sending the likes of Ken Buck and Ryan Frazier to Washington will douse whatever embers we have left.

    • MADCO says:

      Wrong message to everyone but themselves.

      If Buck wins, no one, and I mean no reporters, no media personalities, no one in the R or D party, no one, will even know that I left my ballot blank (I didn’t- I voted.)

      Blank or write in- will show up as an undervote.

      And the “message” that everyone will get is more like Obama went too far, too fast, CO doesn’t want D’s, CO leans R, etc and so on.

      Except for the person who undervoted.  They’ll know and they can tell all their friends.  Well you know what?  They can vote against Buck and still tell all their friends they sent a message by leaving it blank or writing in some unregistered name.  And only they will know. And what they’ll know is that in an important  political race, when politics is mostly about perception, they voted.  

    • bud says:

      In my opinion, if they don’t vote the Democratic ticket, they give up their right to rule the Democratic Party.

        • dwyer says:

          Are silent while the agenda and the principles which people have fought for …for many more than 27 years are in danger of being destroyed. Toss those bums out of the party.  Work to elect Democratic party officials who are not cowards. That is how you make your opinion known…..

          Tell OFA they don’t own the state….if you can find them….the snow machines have started.  The problem begins first within the democratic party.  

          But not voting?  Arda,  it will only be heard if the dems lose.

          You are ultimately betting against yourself.

  11. susanalt1 says:

    Dear Avadonian,

    I am as frustrated as you are about the inability and slow pace to get military acceptance of gays and lesbians serving openly in this country.  But the tide is now turning for gays not only towards tolerance, but acceptance and even validation.  Without your vote, this tide will be stymied once more as the Republicans take over House and Senate.  Can’t you see that this fight has yet to be won?  And without your vote for Democrats to vote on any legislation pertaining to gays’ rights, you will have contributed to furthering the postponement of what many believe will be a welcome change.  You have to vote if you support the cause!  You have to.  Gay rights will continue to be denied if you do not vote to support Dems, no matter how frustrated you are.  Don’t sit at home because that is what the religious right wing  wants you to do.  You are allowing them to win if you do not cast your vote.  And if this cause means so much to you, then you owe it to yourself, and every gay man and woman who wants to serve this country openly and free to be who they really are, to vote.  Reconsider.  

    • Arvadonian says:

      better Democrat than Obama is.

      He has it within his power to stop the wholesale discharge of gays and lesbians from the military (he could issue a stop loss).  He has chosen not to do this.  I can’t imagine a “good Democrat” supporting discrimination of this type.  He is not only supporting it, he is suing to continue the practice.

      At some point, individuals have to be willing to step up and say, “this is wrong and I will no longer tolerate being treated in such a manner”.  I’ve reached that point.

      • MADCO says:

        You want what is right and just.

        You want it so bad and so are so frustrated and angry that it hasn’t happened yet, you are letting your anger get the best of you.

        Respectfully, be careful.

      • EmeraldKnight76 says:

        and isn’t preventing recruitment by openly gay individuals as of this week.

        With the only caveat being that it could change. Lt. Dan Choi made a big deal about going and re-enlisting today.

        Just sayin’.

      • susanalt1 says:

        I think the Obama administration is interpreting their open intervention in this matter, whether using a stop-loss measure or some other tactic to void the overt discrimination against gays and lesbians that exists in the military, as a “temporary” fix that could be easily overturned by the next Republican administration and therefore an unacceptable policy strategy.  If Obama loses to a Republican in 2012, any executive order could be put aside and the policy reverted.  If Congress gets involved, then it is harder for the Republicans to rescind what amounts to a change in the LAW.  I may be wrong on this.  Can others offer any other reasons for Obama to delay taking action???

      • PERA hopeful says:

        If you are fed up and not willing to take it any more, then organize!  March!  Recruit gay candidates for office!  Find a GLBT candidate to challenge Obama in the primaries in 2012!

        The action you are planning does NOTHING, as in NOT ONE DAMN THING, to further your cause.  It doesn’t send a message to Obama, to the Senate, to the House, or to the courts.  You want your rights, and most everybody on this blog agrees that you should have them now.  But you need Congress and the President to cast the votes and sign the bills (or nominate and confirm the judges) giving you those rights.  

        Goddamnit, Arvadonian.  I’m a woman, and 90 years ago we didn’t even have the right to vote.  You have the greatest gift a citizen can have: the ability to stand with your fellow citizens and choose the people who make the laws that govern you.  If you squander this gift, you are letting the teabaggers choose the people who make the laws that govern you…and me, and everybody else.

  12. AristotleAristotle says:

    because the Dems have long been willing to take LGBT money but not been very brave about fighting for LGBT equality – a fight the haters on the right are very willing to take.

    But it seems to me that CD-7 and our Senate seats are the wrong places to take that out. It’s Obama’s call, and he’s not running for either seat. (Although some might make the case that he has a big interest in our Senate seat, given the way he came out for Bennet.)

    Obviously, A, it’s your call, and I for one won’t tell you to keep waiting your turn for your cause to be addressed – essentially that’s what Dems have told LGBT folks for years and years. But do consider that there is more at stake, and that the source of our ultimate disappointment, President Obama, isn’t running again for two more years. You’ll have a great chance to send a loud and clear message then.

  13. butterfly says:

    If everyone was like you, noone would ever vote because none of our elected officials can possibly make everyone happy on every single issue.

    59 in the Senate can be a long way from passage, depending on how many Dems defect.  And don’t tell me that the President should just do a Signing Statement.  That might seem like a good idea for awhile but the next President can just reverse it.  Then what would happen to all the people who thought that it was safe to openly join the service only to discover that the next President threw them out on their ear?

    This is specific to the Obama Administration but many of these achievements were done in conjunction with the congress:


    The list is not complete and appears not to be up to date but is still pretty good.

    I am sure that this does not go as far as you would like but they are definitely in the right direction (from the list in the link above):

    Presidential Memorandum extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. ref , ref , ref , ref

    Presidential Memorandum protecting gay and lesbian partners’ visitation/healthcare decision-making rights (4/15/2010). ref

    Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act to include gender, sexual orientation and disability. ref

    Count your blessings and give the them a little more time!

  14. Ralphie says:

    You deserve whatever other people give you.

    I’d say that you deserve what you get, but you are leaving your fate up to others.

    Good luck with that.

  15. Dabee47 says:

    At the end of the day, it’s your vote.  Not Perlmutter’s, Frazier’s, Bennet’s or Buck’s…just yours.  What you chose to do with it is up to you.

    More importantly, IMO, it’s your conscience.  If you’re OK with not voting, it really doesn’t matter what people here say.

  16. caroman says:

    Must have moved from Florida after voting for Nader in 2000.

    This just pisses me off.  Not because I care about your one vote — I don’t.  It’s because your defeatist, negative attitude is like a cancer that has a disproportionate affect on those who are trying to get good people elected.  Particularly when compared with the opposition.  You and your ilk are a tiny minority, but running into someone like you overshadows 10, 20 or 30 very positive voters when canvassing.  It’s irrational, but it’s hard not to focus on the one stupid idiot like you.  I know how one person can negatively affect really vibrant organizations.  I’ve found the best way to deal with jerks like you is to do an ol’ fashioned shunning.  It’s extremely effective and allows the good people to get on with their work.  

    So, bye-bye.  Sleep tight.  If there’s no enabling response to you, you’ll know it’s me.

    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

      Pretty soon you’re surrounded by nothing but an echo of your own thoughts.

      Arvadonian is not being a jerk, he’s merely making a decision different from the one you have made. He’s doing so in a thoughtful and respectful manner.

      And he is absolutely not being defeatist. He is exerting pressure on his representatives using the most powerful instrument he has – his vote.

      • TimothyTribbett says:

        It is not a matter of disagreeing! Of course we can do that with civility. It is a matter of not voting. It is a matter of not trying to make a difference. Not voting has never moved the ball forward. I am reallly amazed the play you get for your nonsense.  

        • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

          First off I voted – Sunday, mailed Monday.

          Second not voting does have an impact. You can be damn sure that everyone will be reading the polls after the election to gauge the number of people who didn’t vote because we Dems have accomplished too little.

          I think pressure to change the system comes from many directions. As to what’s the most effective approach – I don’t think any of us know for sure.

          But I do know this, business as usual isn’t getting it done. So I’m open to anyone trying something different.

          • sxp151 says:

            when Democrats failed to pass a health care bill.

            The conclusion everyone drew from the 1994 elections was that Democrats should be much more progressive to make the base happy, right?


            Wait a minute

            • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

              The Washington Post editorial board had a meeting with Hillary and all the other top people who put it together. And when they asked some very simple specific questions about what doctor they could use, was a specific treatment covered, etc. – they couldn’t figure out the answer.

              • sxp151 says:

                I’m not talking about why it failed or whether it should have succeeded.

                I’m talking about the fact that Clinton also had a big Democratic majority and suffered some serious legislative defeats, that being only one of them. (NAFTA was another big demotivational factor.)

                The conclusion of pretty much everyone after the 1994 election was that the country was conservative, Republicans were popular, Clinton should do what they wanted, etc. etc. It set back progressive politics and the country as a whole for 10 years, and the only Democrat who came out of it with anything was Clinton himself, who won reelection on the backs of virtually all other Democrats. The right got all their fantasy legislation, and we still haven’t fixed the problems set in motion by that year.

                One other thing that didn’t happen after 1994 was progress on gay rights. Except DOMA, which was somehow better than nothing because at least then gay people knew they were being treated badly by Republicans who hated them.  

  17. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    I think you are facing a core issue a lot of us are facing, we elected a president who promised us transformative change. We elected a Congress with majorities larger than anyone thought possible. And the result has been extremely disappointing – on a wide number of issues.

    You are stepping up to address that fundamental problem, that we Democrats haven’t gotten it done. I think what you (and others making the same choice) do is an important part of forcing change on the party. The undervote from an unenthusiastic base will be measured and taken into account. It will exert pressure in the direction you want.

    I voted, but I respect your decision and your reasoning. And I think the undervote will have an impact, possibly more than that of unhappy voters, because at the end of the day the candidates don’t care how enthusiastic the voters are, just the totals.

    Thank you.

    • EmeraldKnight76 says:

      But when David welcomes you to the Defeatest Party with open arms, you may have made a misstep. No one knows how to undermine Democratic enthusiasm like David.

      Think about that.

      • TimothyTribbett says:

        I went through this with David during the Senate primary. His story about how he supported Bennet until he changed his mind and then supported AR. But was very unconvincing as to why he changed his mind.

        And now as a Democrat (big D and little d) he is supporting people who choose not to vote as a legitiamte means to move their agenda forward?

        I call bullshit!

        • sxp151 says:

          to get a lot of attention for himself and for an issue right before an election. It’s not like we’ve never seen anything like it before. In this case it’s an issue that Arvadonian has deeply cared about for more than the past week or so, so I have a little more respect for it, but not much.

          • TimothyTribbett says:

            If you see some of my above posts, as a Father of teenage boys who are trying to figure out who they are I am very compassionate to and vocal on this issue. But again not voting is surrendering.

          • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

            SXP – you seem to think everyone posts for personal fame & fortune. I think most post to discuss issues that are important to them. (Plus I don’t think anyone’s gaining fame or fortune from posting here.)

            T/T – not voting is not surrendering. Arvadonian is sending a very clear message and doing so with the one thing elected politicians value more than anything else – his vote.

            • TimothyTribbett says:

              As a Denver PCP who studies the details quite closely we do not know why people do not vote. We know of course that some people do not vote, but not why. Of course a lack of enthusiasm, disagreement with a particular candidate or issue, etc can be the cause. But as to why each person Democrat, Republican or Unaffiliated did not vote, no one has any data on the particular issue because they did not vote.  So a non vote is a wasted voice. It is surrendering.

  18. TimothyTribbett says:

    While I agree promoting this has elicited some entertaining banter. I would have to agree with Caroman that it is at the end of the day counter productive to our Democracy, right, left or in between. We are all here because we are engaged not because we are sitting elections out.

  19. RockyMtnHigh says:

    I can understand – and respect – a decision to not vote for or contribute to Obama’s next election given his steadily worsening record on LGBT issues, especially DOJ’s recent actions to appeal rulings that would have ended unconstitutional anti-gay laws.  Candidates should be judged on their record.  But when Perlmutter and Bennet have solid track records supporting LGBT rights, why take aim at them?  You’ve got the wrong target here.  We need to repace Ds (and Rs) who are bigots with those who will support equality, and your undervote does nothing to achieve that goal.  I hope you reconsider.

  20. Jambalaya says:

    …where more than one issue mattered to you.  What would you do in that crazy, theoretical world?  No, don’t imagine it…….it might blow your mind!

    • stadt says:

      I bet half would vote Republican.

    • ardy39 says:

      I live in that world you just described! Do you live here too?

      I think this world rocks (well sometimes it sucks, but without a doubt this is the best world I’ve ever lived on).

    • stadt says:

      I think being relegated to second-class status in the nation kind of makes it a top-of-the-list issue for many gays.  It’s not really fair to degrade us for being single-issue voters when the issue is our very identity, our safety, our human rights, our equality.

    • Arvadonian says:

      Try getting fired from you job bacause you’re gay sometime.  Try reading in the newspaper some time about a teen aged boy who has been driven to suicide in this society because he is gay…and then the President and Congress you worked your ass off in the hopes that they would change the message from government that simply being gay should not relegate you to second class citizenship, that you are, in fact, good enough to serve your country, that your relationships are worthy of recognition, that it should not be legal to fire you simply because you are gay, and instead they not only don’t address the issue, they sue to keep the discrimination in place.

      Yes.  Seeing these things will move the issue right up your totem pole.  

      • Jambalaya says:

        Only weeks later!  Sorry.  I’m sure you’ve been on the edge of your seat awaitin’ my reply.  What strikes me as most objectionable about your post is your wild assumption that the path I’ve walked is so different from yours.  

  21. stadt says:

    this has frustrated me as well.  Immensely.  Here’s how I look at it: Obama is making some bad moves.  That is not Bennet or your representatives fault (mine is Betsy).

    However, they have not made adequate progress on LGBT issues.  They need to do better.

    So I caucused.  I supported Romanoff (just like I supported Hillary in ’08 on this same basis – damn, I wish she’d won).  But they lost, and we got the candidates we did.  I truly think primaries are where we make our voice heard; next time, let’s do better.  I also moan and groan a lot – like my mother always said (tongue-in-cheek?), “Those who bitch the loudest get what they want.”

    So just like with Barack in ’08, it’s time to get out and pick the guy who’s best for us, because Republicans represent a real danger and a serious harm to our nation.  Real life people depend on the social programs that Democrats support.  And like everyone else is saying, the LGBT community will at least get token measures and rhetoric from the Dems – and words do matter.  

    Writing that letter was great.  I suggest that when you’re in the privacy of the voting booth or your home, vote Dem anyway.  No one has to know.

  22. unnamed says:

    …I understand your bitterness.  As a straight man, I’m angry.  I’m angry that we’ve seen injustices against people based on their race, religion, gender, and now sexual orientation.  When Bush brought up a Gay Marriage ban in 2004, I was mad, because it seems like we have the same prejudices with different groups and try to make laws based solely on these prejudices.  It’s terrible.  I know that you’re frustrated with Obama on these issues.  And if I were in your shoes, I would want to take my fight straight to the source.  You are entitled to do with your ballot what you wish, but I wouldn’t want to take my anger out on people who aren’t responsible for this.  I wouldn’t want to lose Bennet, and I think losing a congressman like Perlmutter would be a travesty, because I doubt very much that Ryan Frazier will be better on GLBT issues, nor would Frazier be as available to the constituents of CD-7 as Perlmutter is.  I just don’t know if I’d want to take my anger out on someone, because as you say, they are caught in the crossfire.  I hope you reconsider, especially this year.  It could make a difference in the long run.

  23. richardmyers says:

    Arvadonian, i’m not a Dem, i’m an independent who frequently holds his nose and votes for Dems. I’m disgusted with the Democrats as well, and have been for thirty years, but i have just one reason for not doing what you’re doing:

    If someone that i supported (even as the lesser evil), but didn’t bother to vote for, happened to lose by one vote, i’d have to jump off a bridge or something. (Heh, probably something… not fond of falling.)

  24. RockyPaul says:

    Yeah….I’m really sorry that the Democratic party isn’t doing exactly what you want.  You know what though?  You’re doing EXACTLY what the Republican party wants.

    I was talking with a Republican friend once and he said that he didn’t always agree with everything the candidate he was voting for was saying.  You know what though?  He liked them better than the Democrats.

    The reason Republicans have taken this country to the cleaners time and time again is because the Liberals in America nitpick their candidates.  One tiny little thing and all of the sudden we go overboard.  Ignoring the fact that unity (even with disagreement) is far more important than whatever personal issue we consider to be the forefront of politics.

    So awesome.  Great.  Wonderful.  You’re joining the crowd of people throwing a tantrum during a voting season when voter turnout is low, Democrats are in trouble and the Republicans are pretty much united together to say no to ANYTHING the Dems ask for.

    If the Republicans take the House and/or Senate this time around….I’m not blaming candidates.  I’m blaming YOU!

  25. parsingreality says:

    Everyone above has said about all that can be said, but I’ll add, simply, “Don’t do it.”

    OK, I’ll add, Buck supporters et.al. sure do loves them Arvadonians.

  26. bud says:

    rather than the incumbents who are in favor of your issue.  It really makes no sense.  The Bush years really were as bad as we all remember.

    • Arvadonian says:

      I want the Democrats to want me to want them to win.  As it is, they don’t really seem to care what I want or they would give me good reason to want them to win.

      What I want is ENDA passed, DADT repealed, DOMA repealed and legal recognition of my relationship that puts my family on the same legal footing as every straight family.  

      What I’ve gotten from Democrats is a whole lot of “be patient”, and over the last few weeks an Administration that is suing to roll back advances we’ve been making in the courts.  That is wholly unacceptable and I will not support it with my vote.

      • KinCO says:

        This whole thread is absurd.


        Frustration with stalemate is not nearly enough of a reason to let Buck win.  Your argument is unfathomable to me.  I literally am having trouble believing your credibility its so absurd.

        • Arvadonian says:

          agreement among legal scholars with Obama’s defense of his position.  Here is another viewpoint.


          I would argue that “frustration with stalemate” is not nearly enough of a reason to continue discharging able bodied members of the military based on the fact that they are gay or lesbian.  Why should Michael Bennet be provided with more job security than an army private who happens to be gay?

          • KinCO says:

            What? First, it’s not like MB has much job security.  Secondly, the more job security he had the more job security the army private would have.  Thirdly, that army private will have a much better opportunity to have job security with MB representing him than someone who thinks the private has a disease.

            OMG can you believe that you are ENABLING Buck to win because the Republicans have refused to let anything pass through the senate.  Wow. Misplaced anger! Before you write back to continue this inane argument please sit back and think about what you’ve done.  

            MB is going to need every vote possible and to deny him your vote is to give the seat to someone on the complete other side of this issue.  That is all.  

            • Arvadonian says:

              more job security than does that private.  He at least knows he has a job until January.

              Can I believe I’m enabling Buck to win?  No.  It simply isn’t true.  I am not voting for Buck…again, your argument only holds water if one accepts that my vote is a Bennet entitlement.

              Misplaced anger?  My anger is at President Obama.  Michael Bennet has requested, received and accepted support from President Obama during this entire campaign.  It is President Obama whose DOJ is “fiercely defending” DADT (which is only one of the three major issues I’m pissed off about in the area of gay rights, I might add).  How about Bennet distance himself from the President on this issue?  

              I realize that it is very upsetting to those of you who would prefer that the gay guy continue handing out his vote as an entitlement to start giving it only contingent upon receiving something in return.  You may see my argument as “inane”, but my vote is mine and I will give it to those I feel deserve it.  And right now, Democrats in Washington do not deserve my vote.  That, sir, is all.

      • bud says:

        to make sure you don’t get what you want.  There must be a psychological term for this.

        • Arvadonian says:

          Abet? No. Aid?  No.  I’m not voting for Ken Buck.

          Your argument only makes sense if you accept that my vote is a Bennet entitlement, which it is not.  

          • Ralphie says:

            is half a vote for Buck.  Call it whatever you want to justify it to yourself, but pouting isn’t going to help you make policy strides.

          • bud says:

            you are aiding and abetting the Republicans by your no vote.  Zero does not equal +1.

            • Arvadonian says:

              -1 either.  It equals zero.

              Your arguement is, simply, silly.

              If everyone voting decided to turn in a blank ballot…there would be a tie.  No one would win.  The Republican would not win.  The Democrat would not win.  Even if more registered Democrats who turned out to the polls that day to turn in blank ballots than Republicans (even though the all the Repubicans also turned in blank ballots) that would not mean that the Republican would win.

              • PERA hopeful says:

                Nobody else is turning in a blank ballot.  Only you.  And if the Republicans turn in 100 completed ballots, and the Democrats turn in 99 completed ballots and your blank ballot, guess who wins?

                Nobody is saying that any party or candidate is “entitled” to your vote.  I am saying that if you don’t vote for candidates who are your friends, you are giving one free vote to your enemies.  

                I’m tired of this argument.  Do what you want to do.  If one or both houses of Congress swing to Republican control, DADT and DOMA remain the law of the land, and Obama is not able to pass any laws to give you full civil rights, then fine.  You earned it for yourself, and all the other GLBT folks who did work and vote for candidates who support gay rights.

                There.  Happy?

  27. Gilpin Guy says:

    By conceding this senate seat to Buck you also set back a number of other issues like Climate Change and help for the unemployed.

    The pendulum doesn’t swing the other way in an instance but in increments.

    The odds are that an entrenched incumbent will win reelection so you are looking at a decision that will effect the next decade.

    Keep up you’re good work on promoting equality but don’t let your frustrations with the moment obscure the bigger vision of a better world.

  28. dwyer says:

    We are asking, demanding, pleading, trying to peruade you to cast it. That is how important one vote is.

  29. You got convictions, brother! I’m impressed

    I still struggle with this question – whether to sit… or vote based on other principles

    I admire how you handle this  

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.