« Mean | Main | A Response Concerning The Universalizing Of Single Issue Voting. »

May 02, 2012

Comments

The Polish Wolf

That's exactly my response to DGS's post. I think he has every right to expect that from a politician looking for his vote, and frankly I respect his primary choice. I was trying to nail down why I found his statement so much less grating than when some other bloggers made superficially similar comments. It could because he just seems like a genuinely nice guy, or more likely because he didn't tell us what to think, he has a more personal stake in the issue than many puritan liberals seem to have, and finally because he stayed focused on voting in the primary, which is how Democracy is supposed to work, rather than calling for intentionally sabotaging our candidate in the primary, or claiming there's no difference.

And anyway, I'm glad its gotten you writing more! I missed reading this blog.

D Gregory Smith

I'm not a single issue voter either. My statements were a carefully calculated way to further the conversation about civil rights and LGBT persons. I am carefully assessing the candidates statements and postions and will vote for the candidate that most represents my views- as anyone should. Sadly, at this point, that is not Bullock. I would happily talk to him or his campaign...

I would just remind you that I said my PRIMARY vote was going to Margolis. I will vote for the Democratic nominee in the fall- the alternative is not appealing to me at all.
Respectfully,
DGS

Wulfgar

D. Gregory Smith, would you please, for the love of Dog, tell me what I am supposed to refer to you as? I will meet you someday, and I would rather not have to call you "D. Gregory Smith". Hi. My name is Rob. I'm pleased to meet you.

DG Smith, I don't refer to single issue voters as a pejorative, at all. If you read this post, I suggest that you would be morally correct in being a single issue voter. I do not 'accuse' you of being said. I don't have a problem with single issue voters, given that they are such. Even if you're not, I have no issue with you.

Here's the meat. I've been as busy as hell, and was recently extremely ill. I sincerely want to get together with you and find myself even more behind than usual. I'm not altogether well, but will forge a time to meet. Given my impulse to start blogging again, this prolly ought to happen. Would you agree?

D Gregory Smith

Would love it- and please, call me Greg. :)

Pete Talbot

I'll bet Montanan's attitudes have changed significantly since the CI-96 vote eight years ago.

1) It was a fear-based campaign. The anti-equality people painted this picture of drag queens walking up the aisle of their local Pentecostal Church. People don't buy into that image anymore since it hasn't happened in the states that have passed marriage equality laws. Voters are much more savvy on this issue.

2) Old, uptight voters die and are replaced by younger voters. These younger voters aren't threatened by same-sex marriages, have LGBT friends and won't vote like the old farts.

3) More-and-more mainstream and moderate voters don't have a problem with same-sex marraige -- or, at least, have concerns way more important to them than gender marriage issues -- like losing their house or getting a job ...

Bullock still has my support but this was a serious misstep on his part.

Wulfgar

I'll make the very occasional $1 bet on football, but never on the will of the public. Before I respond any further, I'll say thank you for your reason, and I believe your long term outlook is valid. The real question today is what that term is.

1) Generally, voters are more savvy than in the anti-equality sweep of 2004. The question in my mind is whether Montana voters are in lock step with them. After testifying multiple times before the 2011 state legislature in support of his efforts for a Bozeman equality ordinance, the once and future Mayor of Bozeman told me that he thinks the freak-show is here to stay for some time. Yes, that's a pretty gross paraphrase, but not far off the mark. I tend to defer to his wisdom.

2) With the exception of a blip in 2008, the demographic of those who actually vote has not changed significantly in the 8 years since CI96. If 2010 is any indicator (and I'm not entirely convinced that it is) then the youth vote is less of an electoral factor than it has been for some time, now.

3) Ever since the days of Tom Judge, it seems that Montana voters are more swayed by charisma than by issues. Currently, Montana has actually avoided the worst of the economic trouble (though the Republicants wouldn't agree, of course. Ruin and woe are their stock in trade.) If Schweitzer had called for a repeal of CI96, it might have legs even though he's not running. Bullock hasn't the pizzazz to pull it off. Not even remotely.

His misstep, and I agree it was, may have been the only thing he's capable of in an environment that demands more than super-hero response, from right and left, to an issue he hasn't the chops to champion. Sadly, it may not matter much to most of his support anyway. It certainly won't to his detractors.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Read This!

Friends like Family

Blog powered by Typepad