« | »

AP: Dems’ Loss Will Be Due To Gay Wrath

From a spinning in advance Associated Press:

Gay voters angry at Democrats could sway election

By Tammy Webber, Associated Press Writer Sun Oct 24, 2010

CHICAGO – Kate Coatar is seriously considering voting for Green Party candidates instead of Democrats, whom she normally supports. James Wyatt won’t cast a ballot at all because he no longer trusts anyone to fight for causes important to him.

If Democratic candidates are counting on long-standing support from gay voters to help stave off big losses on Nov. 2, they could be in for a surprise.

Across the country, activists say gay voters are angry — at the lack of progress on issues from eliminating employment discrimination to uncertainty over serving in the military to the economy — and some are choosing to sit out this election or look for other candidates.

President Barack Obama’s hometown of Chicago, with its large, politically and socially active gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, offers a snapshot of what some are calling the "enthusiasm gap" between voters who came out strong for Obama and other Democrats in 2008 and re-energized Republican base voters, including tea party enthusiasts who say they are primed to storm the polls…

[I]n places like Cook County, Ill., where the gay population represents about 7 percent of voters, that could mean the difference between victory and defeat in some races, said Rick Garcia, director of public policy for Equality Illinois

7 percent is a "huge" community? Moreover, what is the real percentage of the population that is actually homosexual?

And what is the tiny percent of that tiny percentage who indentify themselves exclusively with their sexual persuasion? We suspect it is no where near 7 percent.

Are we really supposed to believe such a minuscule minority could effect any elections apart from perhaps a few enclaves such in the San Francisco area?

This year’s election is a stark contrast to 2008, when the gay community turned out in droves to elect Obama and help Democrats regain control of Congress.

"People were clamoring and very excited about the change that then-candidate Obama promised America," Garcia said. "Now I see lethargy at best and disgust at worst."

He said gains won under Obama, including in fighting housing discrimination, have not filtered out to many in the gay community because "the big issues have not appeared to change at all." …

"The message is huge: Don’t take us for granted."

A message left Friday with the Democratic National Committee seeking comment was not immediately returned…

Obviously this is our watchdog media preparing excuses for their masters losses next week. Lest we forget, back in 1994 the media tried to blame the Democrats’ historic loses on their failure to pass Hillary-care.

And now we know just how accurate that spin was.

This article was posted by Steve on Sunday, October 24th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

14 Responses to “AP: Dems’ Loss Will Be Due To Gay Wrath”

  1. Papa Louie says:

    Gay wrath? That sure sounds like an oxymoron to me, but http://www.oxymoronlist.com/ does not have it on their list. And they list about every oxymoron you could think of, including expressions like “family vacation”. But “gay wrath” is not on their list.

  2. hushpuppy says:

    If that’s what AP wants to believe, who are we to interfere with their delusions? Meanwhile back at the farm, O’Bummer is still calling voters stupid. He’s pointing fingers all over the place except at himself which he cannot do because he’s The One the world’s been waiting for.

    Hmm. So voters were ‘smart’ to elect His Royal Numbness, but somehow, magically all those ‘smart’ people seems to have vanished into the ether and replaced by stupid people.


    So i wonder when this Twilight Zone episode is going to end.

  3. Coco Q. Rico says:

    Hi. Regarding percentages, it’s tricky because there’s no way to define the age group you want to sample. Many people come out later (I came out at 40). Also, as you imply, lots of people are bisexual, closeted, or apt to change their minds. Most studies point to about 2-3% of the population being gay males, and a slightly smaller percentage lesbians.

    But the AP is actually correct about the significance of the gay vote. California and Florida are two states with a much higher percentage of gays and in both places they are likely to stay home or vote Republican in shockingly large numbers. I blogged about this:


    I’ve been following the issue very, very closely, and I would agree that the gays are a huge Achilles’ heel for the Dems. Not because of the percentage of population that’s gay, but rather because gays have given the party a lot of money and one of the Democrats’ recurring rhetorical tactics has been to use gay issues to differentiate themselves from Republicans, thereby solidifying their liberal base by implying that voting for Repubs would harm people’s gay friends.

    In the piece I linked above, I try to be brief in tracing some of the flim-flams the Dems have used, with gays being one of their most important ones. The defection of gays isn’t crucial in sheer numbers nationwide, but if the Dems’ exploitation of gays is exposed — which is clearly happening now — then the party loses enormous legitimacy with its own constituency. It’s a very big deal.

    On my blog we’ve been writing a lot about conservatism and gay issues, If you go through the blog you’ll see satire, serious commentary, religious debate. The gay Right is healthy and booming right now. I’m getting a lot of hits because I’m one of the very few bisexual right-wing sites; I have admitted to being attracted to men but I am in a committed marriage to a woman and think that’s a viable alternative to many people currently classified as gay. The debate my situation has provoked has been very rich.

  4. Coco Q. Rico says:

    One more thing — the part the AP is neglecting is the vitality of gay conservatism right now. It’s energized and found its voice, able to articulate how right-wing thought fits in with the higher life aims of GLBTs, despite the relatively minor glitches of marriage and DADT,

  5. Mithrandir says:

    Gays SHOULD sit out federal elections, because any “issues” they have, have everything to do with the 10 Amendment, the states. Wouldn’t it be hilarious, when Democrats pander to them about this or that promise, and the gay activists say, “Wait a minute, where in the Constitution does it give any federal authority for you to do any of your promises?”

    My family, friends and I sat out the 2006, and mostly the 2008 elections. As Republicans had every branch of government, most of the state houses, and STILL couldn’t get rid of affirmative action, or reduce their spending. Now it’s liberals turn to sit on their hands. Little do we realize, it really will do us no good either way. We are here to server government, and it’s the road to serfdom.

    • Adam Moreira says:

      The 14th Amendment may or may not (vis a vis gay rights), on the Equal Protection Clause, which has had much of the Bill of Rights incorporated against the states as a result. My guess is that it may be a similar argument used in Lawrence v. Texas (ironically, Texas has yet to remove the unenforceable law from its books).

      How marriage is a federal issue: Marriage is a religious ceremony performed in a church (or other house of worship)…government-performed matrimony should be redefined as unions, which would essentially blow up the case for those trying to stop gay unions.

      Affirmative action is different in that it grants one group preference over another.

      There are a lot of so-called “log cabin Reps” who could flip things.

    • Mithrandir says:

      But I have heard arguments that the equal protection clause is to protect PEOPLE, not behaviors. We used to have laws on the books against sodomy, and homosexuality was registered as part of the medical DSM as a disorder. Now, activists have eliminated both, but the uphill battle is granting a certain type of behavior as a protected right.

      How is the Army or society to have any standard of behavior when ‘being gay’ is determined by the individual and not a set of defined rules? Imagine the armed forces trying to control it? A flaming homosexual can just claim, “You can’t punish me, being gay (and my behavior) is protected!”

      The government should be NEUTRAL, and not recognize anyone or any race for ANYTHING. No tax cuts for married people, just have a flat tax, no deductions. BUT you can’t even begin to fathom getting a far reaching, aggressive gov’t out of the lives of people. It’s claws are in so deep, we will keep fighting each other over this or that right, this or that privilege forever!

  6. oldpuppydixie says:

    So patriots, freedom lovers and actual Americans will not be responsible for any carnage which might occur in November. It will be that vast and important bloc called FAGGOTS which will make the difference. Do AP shills have to lie awake at night dreaming this stuff up, or does it just come NATURALLY??!!

  7. proreason says:

    I think the same % of the population is genetically gay as there are gay horses, cows, chimpanzees or dogs. And leg humping by males doesn’t count.

    If the actual % is above that, then it is learned behavior.

    • Adam Moreira says:

      Whether or not being gay is genetic is irrelevant. It’s not like affirmative action, which puts unqualified people at the top, but rather it puts otherwise fully-qualified people on equal footing – the spirit of the 14th.

    • Mithrandir says:

      There CERTAINLY are people who can turn their gayness on or off as the choose, and for those people it IS a choice. For others, they certainly look and behave gay, and may have been born a “tweener” or someone that is a woman or man, but has physical or mental characteristics of the other.

      It also is a strange coincidence that a LOT of gays claim sexual abuse as children. Did this affect their sexual development and attitudes at a young age?

      The MAIN PROBLEM with homosexuality is that it is a gateway situation, much like marijuana is a gateway drug, in that, once the argument is made that certain behavior is a ‘right’, there is no stopping the avalanche of deviant behavior that will certainly follow, as it always does. And our prisons are stuffed with people who can’t control their behavior.

      Why can’t I marry my horse? We are in love! Who are you to legislate my private life? Necrophiliacs are BORN THAT WAY, we can’t help who we are. So, some people run on instinct, not moral choices, much like animals, and therefore, a nation built on Christian principles, will have to permit deviants without restraint.

      And on it goes….

  8. Reality Bytes says:

    Gay Wrath?! ROTFLMAO!

  9. untrainable says:

    Kate Coatar is seriously considering voting for Green Party candidates instead of Democrats
    I’m confused… isn’t that a distinction without a difference?

« Front Page | To Top
« | »