It’s been an interesting and enlightening last few days over at BlueNC since the state primary on the 6th. As you know, Dem U.S. Senate candidate Jim Neal was defeated by Kay Hagan, and the latter will face off against Liddy Dole in the fall. Incidentally, post-primary polls have Hagan at 48%, Dole at 47%. Do-Nothing Dole has a war chest that dwarfs Hagan’s, so Liddy will be able to carpet-bomb the airwaves with ads.
Anyway, the post-mortems over at BlueNC have included “thank you” posts by nearly every candidate who has participated in liveblog sessions over there during this cycle, and the one for Kay Hagan took a bizarre, contentious turn when the subject of those now-infamous questions I asked of the state senator during her liveblog came up.
More below the fold, including important Qs of the day for you all that I hope generates a lot of discussion and feedback I can take back to the folks at BlueNC.
For a refresher, here are the questions I asked of Kay Hagan during the April liveblog:
First, thank you Senator Hagan for participating in this liveblog.The questions were reposted by another BlueNCer, Linda, in the Hagan “thank you” post; she also desired answers to these questions. I personally wouldn’t have posted them in that particular entry; I would have made a separate post about the questions themselves because 1) it’s about moving toward the general election; and 2) I know that otherwise bringing it up it would immediately result in threadjacking. And yes, it did.Senator Dole has not supported any legislation before her that would extend civil rights to LGBT citizens. What are your positions on matters under consideration in the U.S. Senate that will profoundly affect gay and lesbian taxpaying citizens here in NC. Below is legislation already introduced or about to be introduced that you would cast a vote on during your term if elected.
1. Federal hate crimes legislation. Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1592 / S. 1105).
2. Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). One version has already passed the House. It would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation. Gender identity is included in the other version of the bill.
3. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, which would allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. This has been introduced in the House and will likely be introduced in the Senate.
4. The Uniting American Families Act (H.R. 2221, S. 1328), that would enable an American citizen to petition for immigration sponsorship for a same-sex partner, and the INS would treat the relationships between opposite and same-sex couples in the same manner under the immigration code.
***
LGBT voters and allies in the NC (as well as thousands of my readers around the country) would also like to know your positions on these civil rights issues…
* Regarding civil marriage. In her consistent position in favor of restricting rights of LGBT citizens, Senator Dole voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment in 1996.
During a Feb. 25 forum at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, you conveyed to attendees that the definition of marriage should be left up to state law.
- How is that reconciled with 1967’s Loving v. Virginia, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated state bans on interracial marriages? Should that have been left a state matter?
- Would you be in favor of overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act in full?* What legal rights should tax-paying gay and lesbian couples NOT have access to if you believe that extending civil marriage is inappropriate at this time. Do you believe that there should not be parity with opposite-sex married couples regarding:
- inheritance rights
- hospital visitation rights
- equal pension and health care benefits
- and the over 1,100 other legal protections government affords couples via civil, not religious, marriage?Thank you for your consideration.
The rest of the “thank you” thread, as a result of the reposting of the questions, erupted into a back and forth over the merits, wisdom or strategy of even asking the questions at all. I’m not sh*tting you. This is so fantastically retro, so 2004 — remember when the Dem presidential candidates ran screaming away from any questions about TEH GAY, and progressives in many post-election forums tried to blame Kerry’s loss on the gay community because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
It’s a complete 180 this cycle, as most of the Dem presidential candidates participated in a televised LGBT forum sponsored by HRC/LOGO. All of them were asked and answered questions about their positions on various pieces of legislation, some had better answers than others from my perspective. However, the bottom line is that none of them ran from open discussion. The issues were not perceived as something to be hidden away to protect the sensibilities of those uncomfortable with or in opposition of equality for LGBTs.
You know how they say it takes several years for styles and trends to make it outside the large metro enclaves? The discussion in this BlueNC thread was an instant replay of the irrational fears and caving to the Republican framing of LGBT issues in 2004. Some key mind-blowers:
“Questions are a means to a goal, not the goal itself. We don’t actually even need to ask questions. We know what we want. We need to pursue the best route to get it.”Basically, I shouldn’t have asked the questions of Kay Hagan. Since we “know” what the issues are, we shouldn’t rock the boat by asking them in public — recloset the issues.
My response:
We do need to ask questions — what you are implying is that a prospective constituent shouldn’t ask a candidate about their position on specific legislation (not hypotheticals) because some other voter base may have a problem with the subject matter.Another mind-blowing response:The potential elected official is going to vote on that legislation and I’d like to know their position. I’m going to pay their salary. They work for me. The least they can do is respond — I may not like the answer, but I will know where they stand. If they do not support my position, I can then begin the process of educating that official in a manner that may change their position in the future.
I don’t see how demanding an answer helps us. What do we gain? The actual info isn’t valuable; the Senate seat is. Demanding an answer is a tactic to win the legislation, and I don’t believe it is a good one.As in, it’s not important to know how a prospective candidate would vote on specific legislation. Figure that one out. I said:
The fact is they are going to have to vote one way or the other — both those for or against that legislation have a right to know where that person stands. And some slice of the population won’t like the yea or nay. Either you believe, for instance, that gays and lesbians can be fired from their jobs because of their orientation or not (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act - ENDA, which is on the table). I don’t see how you parse that one to please all parties. It’s thumbs up or thumbs down.As you continue down the thread, I make note that Sen. Hagan had answered two of the questions I had asked in the only TV debate that was held. She supports the repeal of DADT, and she volunteered that she supports passage of hate crimes legislation. Obviously she didn’t think answering the questions in that venue was going to deep-six her candidacy.…Plenty of issues are clearly addressed by candidates prior to an election, some without any reference to legislation. My questions were about specific legislation. You’re again failing to answer why the answers themselves would be so inflammatory about LGBT issues that they are worth avoiding. It’s not “speaking out” it’s stating a position. Again, you’re conflating activism with a position. I’m not asking her to march in a Pride parade, I’m asking how she’d vote on a bill.
That renders moot the whole justification for avoiding the questions, then, doesn’t it?
In my last comment on the thread, I summarized the insanity as I saw it:
It appears that my questions have stirred up a hornet’s nest for some because of (feel free to amend, challenge or add):Another thread was launched and some folks continued fixating on my questions. It’s like I stepped in that DeLorean and turned the clock back, I tell you — a lot of progressives treating LGBT equality like a crazy aunt in the attic they are ashamed of — until they want her to open her purse and dole out the dough.* A belief that somehow, civil equality issues are too complicated or controversial to discuss in an open manner with candidates lest it harm their candidacy if they may be supportive of them (The Closet Syndrome).
* A fantastic assumption that somehow asking questions of a potential elected official who will represent me about specific legislation is a Subversive Radical Homosexual Agenda ActTM. You’d think my posing these questions in the logical, factual and respectful manner I did in the liveblog was the equivalent lobbing a political Molotov cocktail into the room.
* A belief by some that we must coddle and court the Democratic homophobic vote by closeting the issue rather than discuss it out in the open. IMHO, all this does is give the impression that there is something unseemly about civil equality issues that requires advancement to occur in back channel communication.
* A strategy conveyed here that NCDP (NC Dem Party) endorses the kid gloves/policy closet approach only, and that any other approach is counter productive.
The NC Dems who are squeamish need to remember that any right-wing attempt to talk about The Homosexual Agenda or family values in NC need only to look at prime examples of Republican hypocrisy here — Patrick McHenry and Coy Privette.
Seriously, we’re simply not going to recloset the issues; candidates need to take a page from the current crop of presidential candidates who did just fine by addressing the issues and moving on.
My questions for you — and elaborate on your sense of what is going on here. I’m stepping back to hear what you have to say.
I want to make it clear that discussing this larger picture has little to do in the end with Kay Hagan — I want Elizabeth Dole out of office — and more to do with changing the fossilized, homo-paranoid thinking among progressives and party officials in Red/Purple states that openly discussing civil equality is politically “dangerous” and we need to wait silently and patiently and hope progress will happen if we fold our hands and wait quietly for rights to be granted.* Is it off mark to ask polite questions in a town hall forum — of someone running to represent you — about how they would vote on specific LGBT legislation?
* Is it OK for the candidate to not only not respond to the questions, but for the campaign to simply not acknowledge any follow up requests from several prospective constituents on the topic? Is it appropriate or acceptable that a candidate when asked the same questions from LGBT media?
* How does that reflect on the candidate’s future responsiveness as an elected official? What impression do you have?
* Is the act of asking the questions in public somehow more damaging to the progress of LGBT rights than working behind the scenes (e.g. in the closet), to effect change?
We’ve seen what happens when you don’t ask for your rights — it’s always:
1) Shh. I have your back, just wait until I’m elected.
2) I know, I know, you gave and helped us win — but I have to get re-elected. Not yet.
3) No, I can’t help you right now, we need more of a majority and these Blue Dog Dems you helped get in are, unfortunately as homophobic as those folks across the aisle.
Sound familiar?
(If you want to see the feedback on my blog to this post, it’s here.)
11 Responses to “NC Dems party like its 2004”
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=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
As for your questions:
Is it off mark to ask polite questions in a town hall forum — of someone running to represent you — about how they would vote on specific LGBT legislation?
Not at all. I can’t understand why some who cares about LGBT legislation wouldn’t. Or any legislation, for that matter. People do have a right to know how a potential candidate will vote. And if the candidate doesn’t happen to mention it on their own, people have every right to ask.
* Is it OK for the candidate to not only not respond to the questions, but for the campaign to simply not acknowledge any follow up requests from several prospective constituents on the topic? Is it appropriate or acceptable that a candidate when asked the same questions from LGBT media?
Not if they think they’re entitled to those constituents’ vote.
* How does that reflect on the candidate’s future responsiveness as an elected official? What impression do you have?
Makes me question their ability to stand up to right-wing bullies. Something the Democratic Party desperately needs to get better at.
* Is the act of asking the questions in public somehow more damaging to the progress of LGBT rights than working behind the scenes (e.g. in the closet), to effect change?
No. Especially not with that insane “Secret Homosexual Agenda” stupidity flying around. Having to move around behind the scenes to get LGBT legislation passed just reinforces these dumbass paranoid fantasies.
And for my two sense:
I think the real issue is that you phrased your questions in a way that exposes the bigotry behind the issues in a way homophobes don’t like. But they can’t say that without looking bad. So they throw up a stupid smokescreen of “OMG you can’t ask questions of candidates! What are you thinking?!” bullshit to justify their opposition to what you’re saying. (And then there probably are some spineless morons who do think ignoring the issue is somehow productive.)
- How is that reconciled with 1967’s Loving v. Virginia, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated state bans on interracial marriages? Should that have been left a state matter?
Homophobes (and other “OMG States Rights!” people) don’t like to admit that this decision and their “Leave it to the States” position are incompatible. So they ignore this fact and get pissy if you point it out.
* What legal rights should tax-paying gay and lesbian couples NOT have access to if you believe that extending civil marriage is inappropriate at this time.
Obviously homophobes don’t like to see the issue correctly framed as normal law-abiding, taxpaying citizens being, just, randomly denied rights for the hell of it. Because the idea that we can just decide to deny a group of people of some rights with no real justification in completely un-American. And that comes through clearly in your question as it’s phrased here. I don’t think alot of homophobes like that.
Well damn, my entire comment vanished.
In response to my blockquote “The actual info isn’t valuable; the Senate seat is” I said:
Ask CT about Lieberman. He claims to be a Democrat but his answers to those questions and his claim to that seat belie his true intent. He is DINO, and those Nutmeggers who were paying attention came out in droves to elect Ned Lamont. Had the DSCC and the Dem Party Powers backed their elected primary winner, we’d have a real progressive in that seat–one who willingly answered constituents questions. Instead, we have the “seat” but the man in it is absolutely worthless as far as progressive causes and is no different than if we sat a Republican. In fact, he won BECAUSE he got crossover Republican votes.
I forget what else I said, but to echo Ruby above, if someone wants your vote, s/he has absolutely no right to ignore the questions of someone s/he purports to want to represent.
I can see responding with a “I need to consider this question more deeply. Let me give this question the time it needs and respond at a future time. I would like to answer as many questions as possible here and I don’t feel I can give your question the time it deserves.”
Of course, a polite delay is only acceptable if s/he actually follows up with a reply.
Hagan was wrong, and I hope she’s not another Lieberman. And I really hope the Dems seat many more Senators and promptly strip Lieberman of all his power–>he’s not a dem, he shouldn’t be treated like one.
Yay, Pam, for asking the tough questions! This is what is frustrating to me about electoral politics — first the DSCC picks my candidate without asking me, and now the NCDP seems to be picking which issues are “appropriate” for our candidate to address. I’m not sure who this representative is representing, but it doesn’t seem to be me.
But I’m with you: I will do a lot to be rid of the useless Dole, including give money to Kay Hagan. Probably repeatedly.
“Because the idea that we can just decide to deny a group of people of some rights with no real justification in completely un-American.”
I agree with your points, but this statement is too idealistic to let pass.
The fact is (some) Americans don’t think anybody should have “rights” unless they have “earned them” (often by being born white, male, and rich). There have always been groups that are out of favor and whose rights have limited with few comments from the majority.
The America that represents “peace” and “freedom”, and believes in “the law” and “democracy” is largely a myth. The reality stands in stark contrast…
I should have been more clear. By “un-American” I meant that it’s against the ideals that (liberals, at least, think) the US stands for; “That all men are created equal” (with liberals amending that to “people”) and endowed with “certain unalienable Rights” including the right to pursue Happiness.
I’m well aware of what a great deal of society is like, but to progressive (the majority of readers here and the voting bloc Pam is referring to here) denying LGBT citizens equal rights is un-American.
“…denying LGBT citizens equal rights is un-American.”
I whole-heartedly agree. I just wish we could get more Americans to see the same thing…
Pam,
It was disappointing to see Kay Hagan’s “thank you” thread hijacked with this discussion even though it is an important and valuable discussion to have and it is one we should have more frequently. Personally, I don’t think some of what was said is being interpreted quite the way it was intended but since I can’t climb into their brains and hearts I can’t swear to that.
You have always been a calm presence and you bring that to every discussion on BlueNC. There is nothing inappropriate at all in your questions and there is nothing inappropriate with you asking them repeatedly.
You have noted that another member of the community posted your questions on the thread - something you would not have done. She also reiterated that the questions had been posted and emailed and she demanded an answer, “now”. I am not questioning her sincere desire to want answers to the questions, but the copy/paste posting did start the threadjack and in my eyes it diminished the impact of what you are doing. It created a “piling on” effect and that, more than the actual questions is what bothered me and I think a few others. When that happened, it made it look like the intent was not to get answers, but to point out that we weren’t getting answers.
Another point to consider is that you (and those using your original questions) have not amended that copy/paste list to acknowledge that Hagan has answered two of the questions and she’s answered them in a way that I imagine most in the LGBT community would find acceptable.
It’s just something to think about going forward.
Also, we’re talking about North Carolina where a fairly small portion of Democrats are truly progressive. The presidential candidates engaged the LGBT community nationally because they aren’t just relying on North Carolina voters to get elected. It’s a step in the right direction from our leaders and it is an indication that this nation is moving in the right direction. I don’t like the fact that many North Carolina citizens are opposed to gay marriage and other legislation that ensures equality for all citizens and we need to continue challenging this openly.
I’m not an expert on how to do that. Do we try to force candidates to take a stand on issues that could lose them the support of a large portion of North Carolina voters - including many Democrats, or do we work harder to move North Carolinians forward making it easier for those representing us at different levels of government to openly support equality for all? Do we do a little bit of both….a lot of both? Maybe we should simply charge ahead and not worry about getting rid of Dole. Maybe what it takes is losing an election to wake up other North Carolina Democrats and moderate Republicans to the fact that this country is ready to move forward and we need to do the same thing. I don’t know the answer. I wish I did.
I can honestly say, though, that in the two + years that I’ve been reading you on various sites, I have never thought that anything I’ve read by you was inappropriate or out of line. If everyone supported their cause with as much grace as you bring to the issues that impact the LGBT community, we would see more progress.
So that’s the long narrative - here are the answers to your questions -
Yes, to asking questions. They don’t always have to be polite questions.
Yes, to a candidate not responding or acknowledging the questions - as long as they are prepared to lose your vote and your vocal support.
I think if a candidate weighs their answers in terms of electability once, then they will continue to do so on difficult issues. I’m fine as long as I’m not lied to. So far that hasn’t been an issue with Hagan. Her current constituents give her very high ratings.
No, asking the questions in public is not damaging to the LGBT community or issues. I imagine it takes working openly and behind the scenes to ultimately move equality forward.
Pam,
It was disappointing to see Kay Hagan’s “thank you” thread hijacked with this discussion even though it is an important and valuable discussion to have and it is one we should have more frequently. Personally, I don’t think some of what was said is being interpreted quite the way it was intended but since I can’t climb into their brains and hearts I can’t swear to that.
You have always been a calm presence and you bring that to every discussion on BlueNC. There is nothing inappropriate at all in your questions and there is nothing inappropriate with you asking them repeatedly.
You have noted that another member of the community posted your questions on the thread - something you would not have done. She also reiterated that the questions had been posted and emailed and she demanded an answer, “now”. I am not questioning her sincere desire to want answers to the questions, but the copy/paste posting did start the threadjack and in my eyes it diminished the impact of what you are doing. It created a “piling on” effect and that, more than the actual questions is what bothered me and I think a few others. When that happened, it made it look like the intent was not to get answers, but to point out that we weren’t getting answers.
Another point to consider is that you (and those using your original questions) have not amended that copy/paste list to acknowledge that Hagan has answered two of the questions and she’s answered them in a way that I imagine most in the LGBT community would find acceptable.
It’s just something to think about going forward.
Also, we’re talking about North Carolina where a fairly small portion of Democrats are truly progressive. The presidential candidates engaged the LGBT community nationally because they aren’t just relying on North Carolina voters to get elected. It’s a step in the right direction from our leaders and it is an indication that this nation is moving in the right direction. I don’t like the fact that many North Carolina citizens are opposed to gay marriage and other legislation that ensures equality for all citizens and we need to continue challenging this openly.
I’m not an expert on how to do that. Do we try to force candidates to take a stand on issues that could lose them the support of a large portion of North Carolina voters - including many Democrats, or do we work harder to move North Carolinians forward making it easier for those representing us at different levels of government to openly support equality for all? Do we do a little bit of both….a lot of both? Maybe we should simply charge ahead and not worry about getting rid of Dole. Maybe what it takes is losing an election to wake up other North Carolina Democrats and moderate Republicans to the fact that this country is ready to move forward and we need to do the same thing. I don’t know the answer. I wish I did.
I can honestly say, though, that in the two + years that I’ve been reading you on various sites, I have never thought that anything I’ve read by you was inappropriate or out of line. If everyone supported their cause with as much grace as you bring to the issues that impact the LGBT community, we would see more progress.
So that’s the long narrative - here are the answers to your questions -
Yes, to asking questions. They don’t always have to be polite questions.
Yes, to a candidate not responding or acknowledging the questions - as long as they are prepared to lose your vote and your vocal support.
I think if a candidate weighs their answers in terms of electability once, then they will continue to do so on difficult issues. I’m fine as long as I’m not lied to. So far that hasn’t been an issue with Hagan. Her current constituents give her very high ratings.
No, asking the questions in public is not damaging to the LGBT community or issues. I imagine it takes working openly and behind the scenes to ultimately move equality forward.
Candidates will keep getting away with avoiding public discussion of wedge issues so long as the number of primary contenders remains small. The only way to force a candidate to address LGBT issues (and secularists’ issues and reproductive justice issues, etc.) is to actually withhold your vote and your money from that candidate in favor of one who will answer your questions, and to encourage as large a group of contenders as possible, so that they all have to compete with one another for votes and cash. Party nominees, establishment favorites and primary winners are much less likely to challenge executive privilege if a similar version of it dominates legislative campaigning, even if it originates not from the perceived (abused) powers of an elected office but from good ol’ politicking. The other way to protect your access to candidates’ positions is to support third-party candidates. I gave up holding my breath for Democrats at the federal level long ago.
As to one of your other points, of course it’s appropriate to ask candidates to answer your questions on *any* issue, or to respond to other comments they made previously. I understand that with certain controversies which to us seem pretty straightforward, there’s a degree of incrementalism that realists need to expect when it comes to how candidates vote if elected. What I do not accept within the frame of incrementalism is a candidate’s willingness (or lack thereof) to just *discuss* issues with his or her constituents or the electorate at large. I notice this, like you pointed out, Pam, is a kind of self-muzzling Democrats are all too willing to engage in: Don’t ask a candidate to take a stand on an issue! Someone might not like that the candidate is even addressing it, let alone the candidate’s position, and then where will we be, looking like hypocrites when the candidate eventually will have to temper whatever lukewarm position s/he took in the first place to appeal to a larger crowd.
Fundamentally it’s also just an issue of messenger credibility: You can’t stand behind a podium talking about the value of diversity, equality, civil liberties and human rights and then mince words about gays, women, atheists, etc… unless you’re a Republican.
Democrats are easily skewered for that kind of hypocrisy, and rightly so - just by everyone involved, left or right. The milquetoast self-muzzlers know this so they’re trying to avoid the problem of message/messenger credibility at its ground zero: defining the campaign agenda.
These issues all play into a larger theme, which is that the wink-wink between liberals and Democratic candidates has got to stop. This is how we get people like Bob Casey - voting for bad Democrats because the Republican alternative is worse - and why we can increase our majority in the Senate by several seats and STILL have a hard time pulling 50 votes for good progressive causes. All you need is a handful of traitors on a vote, and boy do those Blue Dog Dems come through on social issues every time.
I also notice that you never hear Republicans urge self-muzzling like you read every day at Dkos or among “centrist” corporate media. Can you imagine a day on redstate when the commenters warn each other to stop asking GOP candidates to discuss abortion, gay marriage and xtian hegemony because it might turn off liberals???
I was clear that Sen. Hagan responded in the TV debate. In fact I used it to fact to bolster the point that she didn’t see answering the questions as problematic for her electablility, something others seemed to find dangerous or bad strategy.It also doesn’t explain why the Hagan campaign was non-responsive when we politely followed up with questions about the very same things (DADT, hate crimes) in emails. That’s the other problematic situation - a perceived unwillingness to directly engage LGBT press or prospective constituents with even a cursory acknowledgment. That would have boosted my regard for her campaign regardless of whether I was happy with the answers.
On the former, the questions were not about taking a stand — it’s about a vote on specific legislation, not, for instance, a candidatre believes in equality or not. You can answer with a specific yes or no on each piece of legislation.It’s no different logistically speaking, than someone asking whether they would vote on a specific farm bill — all that differs is the bill itself and the subject at hand. I hardly think people would care that a question from a dairy farmer of a milk price support bill would be expected to be kept in back channels, even if it proved to be unpopular with a large slice of North Carolinians.
The tenor of the thread on BlueNC suggested that people found the questioning itself to be incendiary, and I believe that at its root is the undealt with issue of LGBT issues being out of the closet — the natural outcome of individuals coming out of the closet and becoming part of the vocal political process. It’s obviously jarring and seen as intimidating to those unsure themselves as to how to navigate these waters if they see asking polite, well-framed questions as a radical subversive act to watch out for lest it hurt a pol.