No to Heterosupremacist Candidates!

At So Far, So Left: Five Democratic candidates for president who will never, never, never get my vote unless they realize that what they are endorsing is not equality and change their heterosupremacist ways. How it irks me when pols — and the sheep that put them into office — put politics over principle.

Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, John Edwards, John Kerry, and Joe Lieberman, SHAME ON YOU. Candidates who don’t believe in the equality of all their potential constitutents are not fit to serve in public office. Period.

If you have not already done so, participate in AF&O’s Poll of the Week. The question: As of now, whom do you support for president in 2004? The poll choices are in the sidebar in the tall silver box.

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized

12 thoughts on “No to Heterosupremacist Candidates!

  1. Five Democratic candidates for president who will never, never, never get my vote

    Natalie, I sincerely hope you don’t mean that literally.

    Many traditional Democratic constituencies, including those to which I belong, tend to make the perfect the enemy of the good. I’m trying hard to avoid doing that next year. Not one of the nine is my perfect candidate, but given a choice of voting for one of them, however imperfect, and staying home in protest over my favorite issues, however crucial those are to me, meanwhile allowing a fascist near-dictator to take office a second time and finish the job he has started, I believe I’ll cast my vote. And I urge others to do likewise.

  2. Yes, I meant that literally.

    Number One: I am not a Democrat.

    Number Two: Who said I was staying home? I will be voting for the person I deem the best candidate — not by your party’s standards, but by mine. If it turns out to be a write-in, so be it. But I will not support someone who does not support the equality of me and every other person, period. How self-loathing would it be for me to follow your lead because you say so? Look at it from my view, Steve: The difference between Bush and Dean on the most basic issue of all — equality — is the difference between nothing and Jim Crow. Hell, no. Fuck, no. Sorry if that messes with Democratic schemes, but then, I do not support the Democratic Party anyway.

    Number Three: As unpopular as this idea is, it also happens to be true: Equality is the one issue that can NOT be compromised. Any candidate who does not support equality does not qualify to serve. And any person who insists I should support a candidate who does not support my legal equality cares nothing about me and about queer people.

    Number Four: Principle is more important than politics. Doing what is right supersedes doing what is popular or politic every time. Using immoral means to “win” (or to make your party) win is worse than losing. And for me, doing as you say would be spiritual suicide.

  3. I can’t vote at your poll… 😦 There is no George W. Bush there for me to vote for… But I guess if this were a subject of “Equality”, there would be a GWB there to allow folks to choose equally no matter the personal leanings of the pollster… Hee Hee 🙂

    “Principle is more important than politics. Doing what is right supersedes doing what is popular or politic every time.”

    Agreed! Instead of voting for Bob Dole, as my party requested during the Clinton election, I abstained from voting for a presidential candidate. None there were worthy of the importance of my vote, and there was no “write-in” candidate that earned it either. I voted on my state, county, and local offerings only, and left the presidential slot unpunched.

    We need to remember, each individual vote is what turns the tide of an election, don’t throw yours away by doing what someone tells you, when you know what they are telling you is wrong. A true citizen realizes the power he or she posesses at the polls, and if steadfast in walking what they talk, will use that vote to keep their conscience in check.

  4. As I explained before, BH, I had only 10 slots available to me. As we get closer to the election (and more dems inevitably give up and fold their campaigns), I plan to include Republicans. Fact is, precious few GOPsters hang around these progressive-pacifist parts.

    But as to equality, naturally, I am talking about legal equality. I don’t joke about equality: The subject is far too important and the suffering I endure from the lack of it is too real for me to take it lightly.

  5. Number One: I am not a Democrat.

    Natalie, I never assumed you were. But all five candidates you named and condemned are Democrats, so one could easily assume that the topic was “unsuitable Democratic presidential candidates.”

    Look at it from my view, Steve: The difference between Bush and Dean on the most basic issue of all — equality — is the difference between nothing and Jim Crow. Hell, no. Fuck, no. Sorry if that messes with Democratic schemes, but then, I do not support the Democratic Party anyway.

    I don’t know about Democratic schemes; I’m in the leftmost edge of the rank-and-file, not the party leadership, which I freely grant is frequently disgusting. And I am uncompromising on equality: I want it now, for you and for anyone else to whom it is denied… there is no such thing as partial equality, or conditional equality, or gradually established equality; fuck those notions. I just happen to disagree with you about whether those five Democratic candidates’ positions on equality are better than, or no better than, George W. Bush’s. I’m not trying to talk you into voting for a Democratic candidate because he or she is a Democrat: I’m trying to persuade everyone that there is no single more important task before us than ousting George W. Bush. If he takes office again (and I use the phrase “takes office” premeditatedly), we are finished as a nation. Our history… the entire struggle… the good, the bad and the truly ugly… is all for naught. This is far beyond a partisan matter. If partisanship derails the anti-Bush movement, we all will enjoy the equality of Guantanamo residents. That is why, though my heart is with Kucinich, my vote is with Dean or Gephardt or whoever gets the Democratic nomination.

  6. Hmm. I have been about as equal as Gitmo residents my entire life.

    You say, “I’m trying to persuade everyone that there is no single more important task before us than ousting George W. Bush. If he takes office again (and I use the phrase “takes office” premeditatedly), we are finished as a nation.”

    I say nothing is more important than principle. My principles won’t allow me to support anyone not for my equality.

    And if there is no compromising equality, Steve, how are Shrub and the non-equality-supporting Dems different?

    As far as being finished as a nation, it already was finished in my eyes eons ago. That’s why I refuse to call myself American and spit on the notion of citizenship.

  7. how are Shrub and the non-equality-supporting Dems different?

    You say the five Dems you name are “non-equality-supporting.” That is a perception that I do not share. Absolutely you should vote your conscience, and I will vote mine.

    At age 55, I have been through many struggles in behalf of what I believe America should be, some successful, many not. I am emphatically unhappy with what America has become at this very moment, but I have seen a two-steps-forward, one-step-back process for enough decades to believe it is possible… with sufficient political will and individual effort… to bring America around. You may argue that America was flawed from the outset, and I would agree with you. But for better or worse I am American, and I guess I also like a good fight, if I perceive that fight as being for human dignity. Where is that fight needed more than in America?

    When I was in college, 35 years ago, exactly one of my gay friends was out. Now, all my LGBT friends are out, many are raising families, and we are on the threshold of compelling recognition of gay marriages not just in Massachusetts but in all states. Should it have happened 35 years ago, or 235 years ago? of course it should have. But AFAIK, time moves only in one direction, and we don’t get any replays. That being the case, I urge everyone to do whatever s/he can to expedite matters toward a genuine empowering of every living human being. My principles and my conscience demand that I vote toward that end, strategically if necessary. Again, I urge you to vote your own conscience, as I know you will.

    Hmm. I have been about as equal as Gitmo residents my entire life.

    Damn. That’s bad indeed. I have experienced nothing comparable to that; I can only imagine what you must have been through in your life to make that comparison. However much we may disagree as to the perceived best course, I agree that the oppression you experience, along with Gitmo itself, must come to an end immediately.

  8. “along with Gitmo itself, must come to an end immediately.”

    They are enemy combatants, and could be facing summary execution if we were like the third and fourth worlds they so vehemently support. Every day they draw breath should be a day of gratitude that the US has not handed down the firing squad on them.

    America first, national security will always come before the so-called “rights” of the enemy that seeks to destroy us.

  9. America first, national security will always come before the so-called “rights” of the enemy that seeks to destroy us.

    Ah, yes. As my father used to say, straight to the face of Marines who made similar statements, “Have you ever really read that Constitution you swore to uphold and defend?” I’d add the Declaration of Independence to that shortcoming. BH, you might at least read a couple of excerpts to refresh your memory.

    (Pace, Natalie; I know that Declaration and Constitution, as originally formulated, did not do right by you. That is because America’s founders let their worst impulses influence their implementation of some deeply valid principles. It is those principles I address here, because BH needs the reminder.)

    In the second paragraph of the Declaration: who, precisely, does it say are self-evidently created equal? Does it say, “all [wo]men, except for those such as a future president or attorney general shall see fit to designate as unworthy of basic human and civil rights and liberties”? Does it say, “all [wo]men, except for noncitizens”? Does it say, “everyone except enemy combatants, whatever that may mean two centuries hence”? No, of course it doesn’t. All [wo]men are created equal. No exceptions.

    Let’s look at the Bill of Rights. Try Amendments IV, V and VI. (Go read them if you’ve forgotten them. I haven’t forgotten them.) Do any of those specify American citizens as the only beneficiaries of those rights? No. It says “the people” (Amendment IV), “person” (Amendment V) and “the accused” (Amendment VI). The framers were very deliberate in their designation of those parts of the Constitution that apply to “persons” or “people” and those that applied to “citizens.” This last is where Natalie has a very legitimate gripe… but again, I’m addressing the parts that apply to a “person” or “the people.”

    Beyond those two documents, we have all the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signator. Those are today’s “laws of war.” They are legally binding on all nations that signed them, however much Mr. Bush and Mr. Ashcroft regret the fact, and attempt to ignore the fact.

    Let me wrap this up; it’s Natalie’s bandwidth I’m using: the prisoners at Guantanamo are illegally and unconstitutionally detained. If it is alleged they are criminals, they must be charged with specific crimes, and due process must be afforded them; anything else is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. If they are prisoners of war, they must be identified publicly, afforded decent conditions and legal representation, and released when the specific conflict in which they participated is over, in accordance with the laws of war. If they committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, they must be charged and tried publicly before a properly formed tribunal under the various Geneva Conventions. There is no other status to which they can be legally assigned: the notion of an “enemy combatant” was fabricated from whole cloth by Bush and Ashcroft. Any president or attorney general who disposes of these prisoners in any other way is, to put it bluntly, an outlaw.

    Whoever claims the legitimate mantle of America’s greatness is obliged under America’s principles. What is being done in Gitmo is abhorrent to anyone who believes in those principles.

    BTW, BH, don’t bother snitching on me; it’s a waste of time. I’m sure Ashcroft and his henchmen already know I keep a copy of the Constitution by my bed. They probably know a lot of other things about me as well. What a damnable waste of time and money: they could just ask me what manner of American I am, and I would tell them to their faces.

  10. The declaration of independence? Ahh yes, the letter to the king of England telling him to sod off. Yes, quite the letter, no basis of law is drawn from it, but indeed a wonderfully written letter.

    As do the document that that does matter… “The Constitution”, the one thing that the enemy, the enemy combatant, and treasonus collaborators who insist on aiding and abedding the enemy by twisting the law of the land in the hopes that the enemy will be freed to kill his or her fellow american citizens again is… “The Preamble”, ya see in the very beginning of the document is where the framers address the issue of application, let me refresh YOUR memory a sec… “We the people of the United States, (The folks living, working, and fellowshipping in the colonies) in order to form a more perfect union (Have decided since we live, work and fellowship here, why not become our own localized entity that can best meet our needs.) establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, (Yes freedom is essential, as we had stated in our declaration, but order is also needed, a balance of sorts aye?) **Stand by, here’s the part the enemy and his collaborators ignore heavily** provide for the common defense, (Yup, you guessed it, we get to build our own army and defend ourselves against the enemy!) promote the general welfare, (America first, no if’s, and’s, or but’s) secure the blessings of liberty, (Its ours, we have earned it, we are going to KEEP it! Try to take it, and we will not allow it. **refer to ‘provide for the common defense’ on methods of how to secure it.) do ordain and establish this constitution (Here it is, written in stone, it is not going anywhere, get over yourselves) for the United States of America (The folks living, working, and fellowshipping, the union, the citizens.)

    And then the constitution goes on to tell the union, the citizens, the folks living there together in a more perfect union of banded together citizens calling themselves the United States of America, about the law of the land.

    The John Walker’s, the Julius and Ethel Rosenburg’s, the “Hanoi” Jane Fonda’s, the Johnny Depp’s, the “Taliban” Patty Murray’s, the Ed Asner’s, the Jimmy Carter’s, the Alger Hiss’es, and all of those US citizens who get a thrill out of burning US flags, spitting on bibles, aiding and abetting the enemy at the cost of the blood of their fellow citizen need to remember… Their best friends and heroes like “Uncle Joe” Stalin, The Ayatollah Khomeni, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Jong II, Fidel Castro. Don’t love them one bit! They and those like them are just “tools” for these butchering mainiacs to use here in america to cause sabotage.

    Actually, I agree with you! They should not be in Gitmo, they should have died in the battlefield, or faced summary execution. Why pay to feed and clothe those who would slice our thoats in a flash if allowed!

Comments are closed.