Get back in that closet!

(It's just for the convention! I swear!)

Published on July 29, 2004 By Shulamite In Politics

A talking head was being interviewed on the PBS coverage of the convention. I wish I had gotten the guy’s name, though if I listen to talk radio tomorrow, I’m sure it will be covered.

He was asked about what issues democrats are covering. He said they were staying away from certain issues, naming three in particular. Two of the three he named were “gay marriage” and “gays.” He finished the sentence by saying they were going to try to cover economics and things that interested the American public.

If anyone else heard the quote, please give me a more accurate telling of the incident. I was astounded to hear the democrats (or at least one) flat out admit the abandonment of homosexual issues and other controversial but distinctly democrat issues.

Has anyone else gotten that feeling from the convention?

Comments

stevendedalus

on Jul 30, 2004

It is only natural for Democrats, who always seem to be on the defensive, to closet a wedge issue that disrupts overall themes.

CS Guy

on Jul 30, 2004

I think they have to moderate the platform. They need to get the centralists on their side, and advertising leftist ideals will not do that.

vincible

on Jul 30, 2004

They were clearly presenting the moderate/conservative side of the Democratic party. But Kerry did touch on gay marriage, with his vow not to use the Constitution for political purposes. Everyone (everyone who cares about the proposed amendment, anyway) knew what he was really talking about. There were some other veiled references like that as well.

Shulamite

on Jul 30, 2004

Great replies... however, why is it that the party feels it needs to be conservative to win, only to go ultra-lib when once in control? Do they really believe the people want that? If the people wanted that, wouldn't they vote for it straight up? Is this borderline lying? I think it's a little beyond spin, myself. It's the wolf dressing as grandmother. My, grandmother, what big teeth you have...

vincible

on Jul 31, 2004

I don't think they'd do anything radical with regard to gay marriage. Plenty of Democrats oppose it, especially black Democrats. I think the party really is genuinely divided on it. And a fair amount of the support for gay marriage comes from libertarian Republicans.

Anyway, I can't imagine what ultralib action a hypothetical President Kerry could possibly take with regard to gay marriage, with Republicans sure to control at least one branch of Congress, and with historically marriage being a state issue anyway. I think I forsee inaction on the federal level for at least the next four years, no matter who controls the Presidency.

I *could* see Kerry reversing "don't ask, don't tell" and letting gays into the military, what with our manpower needs. I can't imagine Bush doing that. I guess some people might consider that ultraliberal.

Jamesonite

on Jul 31, 2004

The clear cut answer to elections degrading into the battle to hold the center is the outdated and clearly moronic Electoral College. For example the Southern states generally have more conservative religions, for example the southern baptists. These beliefs generally regard homosexuality as a sin, disease, and or an abomination. Since the south wields close to 180 votes. Add to that mix the central states like Kansas and so forth you almost allready have a key block of states that vote together. The electoral college is also undemocratic for example in California one electoral vote represents 645,171 ppeople. Though in Wyoming One electoral vote represents 167,080 people. Since a small portion of the US population control our elections candidates have to please the area often called the "bible belt". Thus moderate liberal like Gore and Kerry have play towards the center and strong conservatives like Bush play towards the center to try to take states like Maine and New Hampshire to secure the election.

Shulamite

on Aug 02, 2004

Great reasoning, Jamesonite, and I agree with your analysis. It is sound. But why must that make it moronic? Are you saying that really, a majority of people in the country would vote liberal despite what polling data says? Could it be that many people vote party line because of heritage, both republicans and dems? I know my grandparents vehemently despise all that they dems stand for -- they just don't know it. Hear them talk politics, you'd think they vote straight ticket rep. But no, straight ticket dem. Because they've always been dem. The system has left them behind. Senior citizens are notoriously adamant about voting. However, do they vote without fully knowing what they're voting for? I think often they do. I think most Americans do -- we're grossly uneducated about politics in this country and even more apathetic. The electoral college is less of a problem than ignorance and apathy. Propaganda only compounds the issue.

CS Guy

on Aug 02, 2004

However, do they vote without fully knowing what they're voting for? I think often they do. I think most Americans do -- we're grossly uneducated about politics in this country and even more apathetic. The electoral college is less of a problem than ignorance and apathy. Propaganda only compounds the issue.

As I see it, that is the biggest problem with American politcs, and leads to the aspect that frustrates me the most. It seems that most people do not want to hear about a politicians true plans, but rather just the sound bites covering the topics polls show will get the votes.

While I appreciate hearing what planks Kerry wants in his platform, I am more interested in how he plans to accomplish everything he claims he will. Bush has been even more reticent about revealing his plans for the future. Because most Americans do not have the attention span to listen and consider the hows in addition to the whats I have to settle for vague, cotton-candy statements of policy.

Abe Cubbage

on Aug 02, 2004

Or..."The biggest problem with American politics is the American people."

Shulamite

on Aug 05, 2004

I think it was Patrick Henry ... and I KNOW someone will correct me because I feel wrong ... that said something to the effect of the government now belongs to the people -- if they can keep it. This article has indeed become tangential, but it does still hold with the original idea of propaganda. A person or entitiy uses issues to gather votes while putting other issues in the proverbial closet. The closeted issues are top-secret, hush-hush. Those are the riders. Those are the ones that get pushed through. The bartered things. The things that truly the American public may not want and the lawmakers KNOW IT. if the public wanted it, they'd publicize it as a front-pager, right? As a front-and-center plank. Speeches would begin and end with it. But when they don't mention it in three nights, it must me something the people don't want. Something that will cost them. So its about agenda. its' personal. not public.

Here is my question. What do we do about politicians, on BOTH SIDES OF THE DIVIDE who push through legislation like this????? Politicians like JUDGES who resort to abusing their power to achieve their world views regardless of what the public wants? if the politicians won't even discuss it with us and wait UNTIL THIEIR IN OFFICE to bring it up, a fat lot of good it does us. We can't make good choices then. It's catch 22, isn't it??? We're ignorant and apathetic because it works better for them that way. They won't speak up at the right time.

CS... Why is it you think journalists don't ask the hard questions? Why do politicians get softballs? I realize it's all part of the game, but why is it so pervasive?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!