GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/05/24/does-charles-djous-election-mean-progress-on-dadt-repeal/trackback/

  1. Knowing Democrats as we do, there is one and only one reason they are not moving on DADT (and because we are talking the same party that just came to power by undermining the nation at war) unfortunately, we know it doesn’t have anything to do with national security. Which means, like everything else, they are concerned about how the politics play out for them.

    One likely possibility is that supporting DADT loses them support among not only evangelicals, but black and hispanic Americans — two socially conservative, economically liberal groups that Democrats MUST carry with overwhelming majorities to even stand a chance of winning.

    If Democrats lose another 5 to 10 percent of the black and hispanic vote, their party is toast.

    Which is also one of the major reasons I keep pointing out that ignoring socially conservative issues is a LOSING strategy for Republicans. And as whites make up less and less of the electorate, one that will only become more and more necessary.

    For just as Democrats cannot win unless they carry overwhelming majorities of blacks and hispanics, Republicans CANNOT win unless they start winning more votes from those groups.

    What does an economically conservative party do to attract economically liberal voters? You either have to become economic moderates, or offer them something they agree with you on…socially conservative positions.

    And those are the demographic facts, Jack.

    Comment by American Elephant — May 24, 2010 @ 4:28 am - May 24, 2010

  2. The problem with that assessment is that Republicans have pushed a socially conservative agenda for quite a long time and it has yet to make a dent into the substantial advantage that Democrats have with minorities. The fact is that just because someone or some group is socially conservative it doesn’t mean they agree with using law to codify their beliefs. Some of the Prop 8 exit polls show that not all minorities were overwhelming against gay marriage. Asians voted against it, Hispanics were about evenly split and it was only African Americans that seemed to be overwhelming for the ban. I have yet to see a polling on DADT repeal that actually shows African Americans or Hispanics having a significant objection to the repeal of the policy.

    The other demographic issue you don’t point to is that gay issues are growing in support with younger voters and 30 something voters. Older voters are disappearing as well, at least those who old more conservative views.

    Maybe Republicans should just stick to expanding freedom of people of all types, and make a message that appeals to all across the board.

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — May 24, 2010 @ 9:41 am - May 24, 2010

  3. Unfortunately, I doubt support for repeal of DADT will be found this election cycle from anyone up for election. As long as our political system is tied to social causes, it’ll be extremely difficult. Social policy is best left to individual americans, without interference from Washington. It’s a bad habit to kick.

    Comment by man — May 24, 2010 @ 1:17 pm - May 24, 2010

  4. I support Rep.-to-be Djou in his efforts to repeal DADT. However, I was heartbroken to read in Wikipedia that he opposes civil unions and supports a federal DOMA. Oh well, take the good with the bad I suppose.

    Comment by Jim Michaud — May 24, 2010 @ 1:41 pm - May 24, 2010

  5. If this report from The Advocate is correct, it looks like a deal has been struck on DADT repeal:

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/05/24/Deal_on_DADT

    Many are not happy in the comments there and at Pam’s House Blend from what I can see. This isn’t the best of deals but it’s one I can live with as this matter is returned to the Executive branch where it belongs. If they can strengthen it by amendment in Congress, great. If not, take it as is and run with it. Those freaking out now are misguided and may turn this into a repeat of the ENDA 2007 fiasco. This is an imperfect roadmap to open service, but a it IS a way forward. It’s also one that holds promise because once the ban is lifted by executive order there’s no going back.

    Comment by John — May 24, 2010 @ 3:48 pm - May 24, 2010

  6. And the freakout at Pam’s House Blend demonstrates the point; this has nothing to do with the military or readiness, but is instead about advancing the gay leftist agenda. That is corroborated by the fact that the one party that demonstrates consistent hatred of the military, even to the point of deeming them “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” and encouraging people to attack them, is the one whining about repeal.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 24, 2010 @ 5:17 pm - May 24, 2010

  7. Eh, I don’t care what their motivations are. Other than eventual full repeal, they won’t have much else to celebrate with the demise of DADT. I’m of two minds on their complaining about this alleged deal: on the one hand if it helps to bring us closer to full repeal sooner, great; on the other hand I’ll take the deal knowing that full repeal will be easier and sooner once the legal barrier is removed.

    Comment by John — May 24, 2010 @ 6:58 pm - May 24, 2010

  8. The problem with that assessment is that Republicans have pushed a socially conservative agenda for quite a long time and it has yet to make a dent into the substantial advantage that Democrats have with minorities.

    Sorry DarkEyed, but…wrong.

    You are operating under the very common yet still very mistaken impression that it takes HUGE SHIFTS in the electorate to be meaningful. It aint true. And yes, Republicans who have won, have done so in part because they HAVE made a “substantial dent” in the advantage Democrats hold with blacks and hispanics.

    The GOP doesn’t have to win a majority of these groups to doom Democrats to permanent minority status, all they have to do is consistently take away SOME of the advantage Democrats hold, and Democrats simply wont be able to win. Its WHY Democrats are always calling Republicans racist, racist, racist — because if they lose just 5-10 percent of the minority vote, their party is TOAST.

    Elections in America are won by fairly small margins. Bush won his first election by winning by a few hundred votes in Florida. Even his second election, where he won by 3 million votes, was only a 3 percent margin. Clinton never won a majority, he was only able to win with pluralities because of third party candidates (by the way, I GUARANTEE the left will get someone like Bloomberg to wage a major 3rd party candidacy in 2012), and even Obamas big 2008 win was only a 7% victory.

    That means elections are won by picking off small percentages of this group and that group, not by swaying huge portions of any one group.

    And Republicans who have won have done exactly that.

    Successful Republican candidates like President Bush and Ronald Reagan won around 37-40% of the Hispanic vote. LOSERS like John McCain and Bob Dole who ran away from winning social issues, got 21-23% of those groups.

    Bush got roughly 20% more of the Hispanic vote than McCain. McCain avoided social issues like the plague.

    As I have posted here before, but dont have time to find the link again, polls show, that even in this crappy economy, something like 14% of the electorate think SOCIAL issues are even more important than the economy.

    Anyone who thinks that Republicans can afford to ignore those “values voters” who have delivered victory to them time and again, simply doesnt understand how elections are won in America.

    Democrats certainly arent that dumb. Thats precisely why they are harping on the Arizona issue DESPITE the fact that an overwhelming number of Americans agree with it. The IMPORTANT thing for Democrats is that it rallies the hispanic vote they absolutely cannot win without.

    If Republicans run another socially moderate douchebag like John McCain, who was the first candidate since Roe v Wade to IGNORE the abortion issue — one that hispanics agree with Republicans on, or ignores other winning social issues that substantial portions of these demographic groups care very much about — then Republicans will lose in 2012, and Obama will win a second term.

    You cannot win in America by ignoring issues that 14% of the electorate think are the most important issues facing the country. Its been proven over and over and over again.

    Comment by American Elephant — May 24, 2010 @ 7:32 pm - May 24, 2010

  9. I’m daring to say it’s none of the deep, thoughtful reasons you guys have given for any Congressperson’s support of the DADT repeal. Given the DOD’s study is HOW to implement the repeal, not IF, the Congress has passed this ‘contingent’ law for the sole reason of tagging along on what will be staged and proffered as: 1. Obama keeping a promise, 2. the ‘progressive’ nature of the ‘new and improved’ responsive Congress and administration (who listens to its minority, disenfranchised groups and acts) and 3. they are, at the same time, responsive to the military’s “decision” to repeal this unfair act and are, therefore, ‘pro-military’ and ‘listening to the generals.’
    Conversely, for the short, weak and quickly-distracted criers of “not in MY army” from the hard right…there will be almost no political capital extracted from any Congressperson running for re-election. They will be able to excuse it again, as…’what the Army said it wanted’…blah, blah, blah, and “I fully support the leadership of the Army” will ricochet off the “Vote Here” placards of both D’s and R’s.
    There will be much glad-handing and a few back pats, but it will be a complete non-issue in November.

    Comment by rodney — May 24, 2010 @ 8:33 pm - May 24, 2010

  10. A couple things:

    McCain, considering all of the headwinds he was dealing with, did better than most candidates would. You can’t compare McCain’s election environment with that of Bush 42 and Reagan. Either of them had to run after a two term Republican president who was incredibly unpopular and saddled with Republican party id in the toilet. An economic collapse happens under Bush’s final days and pretty much sealed the deal for John McCain. I’m not sure how him going on about the evils of gay marriage and abortion would have turned it around for him. I am looking at exit polls from 2008 and social issues aren’t even on the radar. You could make the argument that well if McCain had made them an issue it would have become one, but would that have helped him? Debatable, Social conservatism doesn’t always win elections for Republicans and it seems to have definitely worn out since its heyday of 2004.

    I have extreme doubts that Immigration issues are less important to the Hispanic community than abortion or gay marriage. And given the current climate, the economy continues to dominant the debate. Republicans want to go harp on abortion and marriage right now, they will be making a huge mistake. Yea it might turn out some people but you leave Democrats the chance to grab the narrative that Republicans are out of touch.

    How much more Conservative do you want? McCain is pro life, against DADT repeal, against gay marriage. I guess because he might believe in letting people live their own lives and make their own decisions, he is a too liberal. I can understand the argument about him being for more liberal on economic policy but not on social policy.

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — May 24, 2010 @ 10:51 pm - May 24, 2010

  11. I am looking at exit polls from 2008 and social issues aren’t even on the radar.

    Social issues are ALWAYS on the radar , even when the world economy is teetering on the brink like now, 14% STILL think social issues are more important than economic issues, and its higher when the economy is better — as it is most likely to be in 2012. The more seats Republicans win this fall, the better Obama’s chances are in 2012, because a divided congress will do much to end the uncertainty that has kept the economy from recovering.

    But exit polls DON’T measure what issues are important to people, because they dont reflect the people who stayed home.

    And lots of voters stayed home.

    For example, this NBC exit poll shows that only 34% of those polled said they were conservative, while other polls consistently show that 40% of Americans consider themselves conservative. Where were the other 6%?

    That and other questions show that a lot of people who would have otherwise voted Republican, simply didnt even show up.

    But, this NBC exit poll I am looking at right now, doesn’t even ask about social issues, just as the media never asked about them during the campaign, and John McCain never brought them up. Is that what you mean that they “arent even on the radar?”

    Not the same thing. As I showed. Exit polls only measure the people who show up.

    You can’t compare McCain’s election environment with that of Bush 42 and Reagan.

    The Bushes were presidents #41 and 43, so I’ll assume you mean W. And yes, actually, W’s election was under very tough circumstances, he got elected after 8 years of a president who was extremely popular at the end of his presidency (65% approval) and during a period of relative peace and enormous prosperity for which he and Al Gore were more than happy to wrongfully take credit, while Americans were still angry with Republicans for dragging the country through impeachment. (yes, it was the right thing to do, but Democrats won that PR battle).

    beating a popular incumbent party in those circumstances is no easy feat.

    McCain was the “experienced statesman” in times of trouble for crying out loud, and Obama was the inexperienced, unqualified, corrupt, radical NOOB, with a very short, but demonstrably wrong record in the US and Illinois Senates. McCain could have also pointed out that it was under the Obama-party’s control of congress, not Republican control, that the economy went to hell. Among the many things he could have done but didnt.

    Not only could many other Republicans have done much better than McCain, they could have won. There’s really no excuse for losing to Obama. There are dog catchers more qualified for crying out loud. McCain just ran an INCOMPETENT campaign.

    Social conservatism doesn’t always win elections for Republicans and it seems to have definitely worn out since its heyday of 2004.

    Worn out? It wasnt a campaign issue in 2006 OR 2008. I’d love to hear about when Republicans have ever lost when they ran a campaign on fiscal, foreign policy, AND social conservatism. I cant think of any time.

    Anyhow…this is going on much too long, and you dont seem to have even registered what are some pretty concrete, and very decisive points — like 14% of the electorate saying social issues are more important even now, so I seem to be wasting my time.

    In a country where elections are won by 0-7 percent, thats a big chunk of the electorate you want to ignore.

    As they say, people who wont learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    Comment by American Elephant — May 25, 2010 @ 2:15 am - May 25, 2010

  12. [...] it through went against “the will of the people.” While Djou favors allowing gays to openly serve in the military, he believes that marriage should be between a man and a [...]

    Pingback by Awesome: Republican Conservative Charles Djou Wins Congressional Seat in Special Election in Hawaii (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone — May 25, 2010 @ 9:58 am - May 25, 2010

  13. Looking at the polls of the Tea Party, it looks a lot more socially moderate than conservative. A majority favor some kind of recognition of gay relationships, mostly civil unions. A majority favors at least limited abortion choice. They seem to be more moderate than the kind of voter you seem to be considered about.

    If you are going to Say W’s election was as hard as McCain’s election environment, then we just have to disagree. W did have some headwinds to overcome but to say their elections are comparable I just don’t agree with. I was only 13 at the time of that election, and most things I have read about it seem to focus on Al Gore’s flawed strategy of running away from Clinton. You have more fist hand knowledge than me so its probably I am focusing on the wrong thing.

    Well they won the past couple of elections since 08 by focusing more on fiscal issues than social issues, at least NJ and Massachusetts Election. So I think its very possible to win an election without making social conservatism the center piece of your campaign.

    I’m not ignoring your points, I definitely agree that those issues are very important to voters. I would just argue it might be better to focus on the 78-80% of voters who care about the economy. I think we just disagree on how much a candidate should play up those social issues I suppose.

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — May 25, 2010 @ 12:33 pm - May 25, 2010

  14. So I think its very possible to win an election without making social conservatism the center piece of your campaign.

    I’m not ignoring your points, I definitely agree that those issues are very important to voters.

    I never said that Republicans should make social conservatism the FOCUS of the campaign. I am just warning pointing out to people like Dan, David Brooks, David Frum that Republicans IGNORE social issues at their peril. Dan and those others have repeatedly argued that Republicans should avoid social issues. They dont seem to get that 14% (which doesnt include me by the way) think social issues are more important than economic issues. It is a proven recipe for electoral loss.

    Comment by American Elephant — May 25, 2010 @ 4:02 pm - May 25, 2010

  15. Oh okay, I think I was mostly miss reading what you were saying. I think I was interrupting it as make your campaign all on social issues, which I disagreed with. You are right, Republicans have taken the money and man hours from social conservatives and they deserve to get repaid. Republicans made their bed with Religious Right and they have to lie in it.

    Sorry for misinterpreting some of what you were saying, my mistake.

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — May 25, 2010 @ 4:11 pm - May 25, 2010

  16. not a problem

    Comment by American Elephant — May 25, 2010 @ 5:22 pm - May 25, 2010

  17. [...] Does Charles Djou’s Election Mean Progress on DADT Repeal? [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Now, Optimistic about DADT repeal — May 25, 2010 @ 8:07 pm - May 25, 2010

  18. “That is corroborated by the fact that the one party that demonstrates consistent hatred of the military, even to the point of deeming them “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” and encouraging people to attack them, is the one whining about repeal.”

    Gosh, and they support their “hatred” of the military by voting to increase the Pentagon budget, the VA budget and military salaries every year! Oh, I suppose you can dig up a few Democrats here and there who hate the military, but come on. You expect to be taken seriously with such sweeping and absurd statements? And Obama was born in Kenya too, right?

    Frankly, conservatives need to repudiate crackpot views like those of ND30. I like sensible criticism of liberals, not utter nonsense.

    We’ll see how many so-called conservatives actually vote to repeal DADT.

    Comment by Douglas — May 26, 2010 @ 7:29 am - May 26, 2010

  19. So, Douglas, do you believe liberals need to repudiate crackpot views expressed on left-wing blogs?

    Well, we’ll see how much of an effort the various gay organizations have made to lobby/educate conservative legislators on DADT.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 26, 2010 @ 9:28 am - May 26, 2010

  20. Gosh, and they support their “hatred” of the military by voting to increase the Pentagon budget, the VA budget and military salaries every year!

    How does cutting the budget constitute an increase?

    Frankly, conservatives need to repudiate crackpot views like those of ND30.

    Oh, so now the liberal wants repudiation of crackpot views.

    Start with your Obama Party’s statement that the United States should abolish its military.

    Move on to your Obama Party’s resolution that US troops are “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”.

    And then finish up with your Barack Obama’s endorsements of blatant antimilitary bigots and terrorist supporters.

    But then again, why would you repudiate views that you and your Obama Party clearly endorse, support, and practice?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 26, 2010 @ 2:18 pm - May 26, 2010

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

1.166 Powered by Wordpress