Like many gay activists, Paula Brooks is none too happy with President Obama, scoring him for not keeping his promises to the gay community. Over at her blog Lezgetreal, “A Gay Girl’s View on the World,” she says that if she lived in the Bay State, “I would be telling every LGBT I know… come Tuesday… they should send Mr. Obama a loud and clear message about his dicking around with our civil rights and STAY HOME IN MASS on Election Day.”
Now, while I don’t believe our Scott Brown-supporting readers who live in the Bay State should heed her advice, I do recommend you read the whole thing.
(H/t Gateway Pundit.)
I haven’t read this article, but anecdotally this fits with some of the remarks I read on the Facebook page of a college friend of mine who lives in Massachusetts. This college friend of mine regularly votes for Barney Frank and talked about watching the memorial services and commemorations of the late Sen. Kennedy in terms that made it evident she is (or was) a supporter. But today she was debating whether or not to even go vote, since she said if she did vote, she would possibly write someone in since she doesn’t like any of the candidates. I thought that this was significant. I don’t expect her to like Brown, but it is evident that Coakley’s support is pretty much collapsing as a result of her dismal and negative campaign. Her other friends also talked about how they disliked seeing all of the political ads on TV. No one was making the case for why she needed to vote for the Democrat.
Having read most of the comments; my, my… aren’t the G/L Dhimmicrats pissed. And since this is a special election, the voter turnout will be traditionally-low, so if the Tea Baggers and Republicans show up they’ll swing the balance towards Brown.
Now the next hurdle will be the Massachusetts Secy of State taking a looooonng vacation delaying Brown’s certification and swearing-in until AFTER the White House and congressional Democrats ram-through health care reform while they still have 60 Democratic Senators. As I understand, there’s no legal time-frame for certification of a special election and the Democrats in Boston could tie it up for months like the Franken vs. Coleman election was in Minnesota.
I don’t understand the obsession with “LGBT issues”.
Yes – they are important. But so is national security, national sovereignty, immigration and our national identity, basic civil rights (see Bill of Rights), runaway growth of government, the entitlement implosion, and the economy. And, in Coakley’s case, the rights of people like Gerald Amerault – an innocent man she worked to keep in prison for her own political objectives.
If we don’t deal with these basic issues then LGBT issues become academic.
This is an approprite response to inaction by Democrats on Gay issues. It isn’t appropriate to vote for someone more anti-Gay than the Democrats.
I just found this website, and I am investigating the GOP Agenda and whether I can supprt the Republicans in the next election. The issue that troubles me is the tratment of GLBT issues. I fear that if gays don’t demand certain rights that basic human rights could be taken away in the name of moral values. I also fear that if the entire country turned conservative that we could become very militaristic and force people to be registed like sex crime offenders are. These are my fears based on the Republicans that I know.
Tim, why is it that I sense that the Republicans you know are those you read about on left-wing blogs. Your comment sounds most canned.