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. 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.

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?

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.

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???

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.

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.

I whole-heartedly agree. I just wish we could get more Americans to see the same thing…

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.

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…

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.

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.

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.