Thank you so much! Let's give Elizabeth Dole those Ruby Red Slippers!

Thank you so much -- to this entire community -- for your interest in the U.S. Senate race, and your commitment to making BlueNC a place for dialogue on the issues and the importance of this election.

I am obviously so happy to have emerged from the strong field of candidates as the nominee, but I'd be remiss if I didn't thank Jim, Duskin, Howard and Marcus as well. Throughout this process I’ve become a better campaigner and, I believe, more prepared to take on Elizabeth Dole.

After my press conference on Tuesday evening, Mark Binker from the Greensboro News & Record asked me what I was planning to do to get the support of folks which may have supported my opponents, specifically Jim Neal. I'll tell you what I told him -- I'm going to talk to you and meet you and ask for your support. Regardless of anything else, the one thing I KNOW we can agree on is our commitment to defeating Elizabeth Dole and bringing a real North Carolinian to Washington. I sincerely hope I can count on your support.

There’s still so much to do, and the road to victory in November is a long one. But with your help, and your support, we can give Elizabeth Dole those pair of Ruby Red Slippers so she can click her heels three times, and go back to Kansas (with Bob)!

Best,
Kay

Comments

Thanks Kay for recognizing what this community is about

Thank you so much -- to this entire community -- for your interest in the U.S. Senate race, and your commitment to making BlueNC a place for dialogue on the issues and the importance of this election.

And thank you for having the courage to come back to a place where so much vitriol has been tossed at you. Most candidates would simply stay away and I have a tremendous amount of respect for someone who is willing to take all the heat and who handles it with such grace.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.

Chiming in behind Betsy ...

with much respect, Senator. I supported Jim, but now, I'm supoprting you. Thanks for being willing to do this. We're counting on you to give NC a real Senator ... real representation in DC.

"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." - Harry Truman

"They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum Then they charged the people a dollar 'n a half just to see 'em. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

Kay, I don't think this will be a problem,

I sincerely hope I can count on your support.

but I do think we need to explore some of the issues a little deeper, so we can all get to a place where we not only want Liddy gone, but we also want Kay there in her place. That can make all the difference in the world in generating the positive energy the netroots relies so heavily on.

And I echo what Betsy said: coming back here (and your previous live blog) took courage, and deserves respect and objectivity on our part.

Wait a minute!

Elizabeth Dole those pair of Ruby Red Slippers so she can click her heels three times, and go back to Kansas (with Bob)!

I thought she lived in Salisbury! Someone is trying to mess with me here...

really?

Im pretty sure she lives in the Watergate Hotel in DC

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"

Thanks, Kay

I echo Betsy's sentiments and am on board.

I hope you'll stay engaged and let us know how we can help you in your campaign. My number one race in 2008 is the US Senate and my number one goal is helping to build a filibuster proof majority. We may not get all the way there this year, but we will move in the right direction.

I also hope you'll be open to our ideas about some of the issues you'll face as a US Senator.

Thanks for listening . . . and give 'em hell.

James

I will vote for you.

But I want to know how you stand. These questions were posed during your liveblog here, and were emailed to your campaign several times subsequently. To date, I have not yet heard an answer. Please answer these questions now.

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.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

I'll second the motion

for clear and unequivocal answers to each of those questions.


Of course I'm crazy, I'm a blogger. What's your excuse?

Of course I'm crazy, I'm a blogger. What's your excuse?

a third voice chimes in

...as those were my questions. :)

As a NC citizen who walked into Senator Dole's office last week with a petition asking her to get her party and its race-baiting under control, I want to send Mrs. Dole into pleasant retirement. North Carolinians deserve better representation.

Sen. Hagan, I will take you at your word that you will in fact reach out to those who supported Jim Neal -- and openly discuss these issues of importance. I definitely look forward to meeting with you.

--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA

Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com

--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA

Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com

I will quote your candidate, Jim Neal

Thanks, but for heaven's sake get Senator Hagan elected before talking about holding her feet to the fire. That's what Kay is going to be doing to Senator Dole over the next six months.

Help Kay get elected.



***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.

we're here to get things done

If asking questions helps us to get the health care, education, and justice, then by all means let's focus on asking questions.

But the point isn't to demand answers, it's to achieve justice and opportunity for our children.

We can disagree about the best way to do that, but let's agree that the goal is peace, love, and understanding.

(sorry I had that song stuck in my head this morning)

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

What's the point?

What's the point of asking questions without demanding answers? Ignored questions are a political vacuum in which nothing survives, especially democracy.

asking questions is a means not an end

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.

I suspect that the time we spend bird dogging Democrats with hypotheticals could be better spent building political will.

But I should remove the plank from my own eye before I remove the speck, uh . . . you know what I mean.

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

Yeah, right

Because it can be really uncomfortable for our candidates to be asked questions, can't it?

We don't want to make them uncomfortable.

This blog isn't supposed to challenge folks in pursuit of progressive ideals. It's supposed to buttress the Democratic Party, right, Jermiee?

I would think that a blog that calls itself a "think tank" would encourage rather than discourage questions.

But I suppose people have different ideas about what its purpose is.

we've had this conversation offline, Jerimee

We don't actually even need to ask questions. We know what we want. We need to pursue the best route to get it. I suspect that the time we spend bird dogging Democrats with hypotheticals could be better spent building political will.

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.

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.

That could apply to many political issues, not just LGBT ones. I don't for instance, see anyone saying a constituent shouldn't ask questions about immigration, certainly a potentially incendiary topic.

--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA

Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com

--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA

Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com

while I meant what I said about the plank

While I meant what I said about the plank, my criticism is that we waste energy trying to force our candidates into an unpopular positions rather than making those positions more popular.

The best thing for the pro-choice movement would be if anti-choice people try to force their candidates to immediately outlaw all abortion every where, thereby turning the public against their cause and against their leaders. Yall get this at some level; we like it when crazy right-wingers wing elections because we know that right-wing extremists hurt the right more than they hurt the left.

Given my choice, I'd rather you spend your time building a base on your issue than I would you thinking you can educate public officials. While I wish it was enough to merely inform public officials that problems exist, it's silly to act like that's the case. Power concedes nothing without a demand threat.

I would seek to persuade activists to not make immigration into a central issue of this election, because if you do that, you will be screwing* over immigrants. Jack Hawke wants you to make immigration into an issue so that he can continue to use racism to fuel his political machine. Your desire to say what you feel is less important than actually achieving the reform.

It's a simple point: while shouting and bird-dogging are sometimes an effective strategy, they ain't always.

I know you got to do what you think is best going to get us from here to there. It's a good conversation to have.

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

*I edited my comment to eliminate the profanity.

I'm going to be completely honest

What you've said here makes me feel like you want me to be quiet and go "back in the closet", as it were. I have a few choice words on that, but you know, I like you too much to use them on you.

It's taken me almost 50 years to figure out who the heck I am, why I am, and how I am. It sure isn't to be quiet and sit in the closet while someone gets away with ignoring direct questions from would-be constituents. I wouldn't accept it from a Republican and I damn sure am not going to accept it from a Democrat.

I will support her - I am supporting her. She needs to understand that. You need to understand that. But I am an American Voter that she wishes to represent. She needs to answer.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

back in the closet?

What you've said here makes me feel like you want me to be quiet and go "back in the closet", as it were.

I don't know what you mean. That sounds horrible. I'm not asking anyone to engage in their own suppression; I'm asking you to talk about how to most quickly liberate us all.

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

That isn't how it came across.

It came across to me (at least) with a distinct "stop making waves" type of sentiment.

You, I, or anyone else have the right to criticize. We have the right to hold people accountable. We have the right to make our voices heard. We also have the right to expect that someone we elect represents the whole.

This steps into what this country is all about. Our representatives are, indeed, our employees. Our country, district, state, town, etc., is our company. As part-owner of that company, you have the responsibility to make sure your employees are not engaging in "conduct unbecoming". Refusing to address issues yet wanting support, falls under the category of "conduct unbecoming".

Step one on the road to resolving this issue will be taken when Kay Hagan addresses these questions. Then the process for progress can begin.

I'm describing what I felt when I read your posts that to me

read as don't ask the questions. It's not in my nature.

And it is horrible. I think the way to "most quickly liberate us all" is to get on with things, get the questions answered, and then know what we have to work with. I would like to be able to accentuate the positive with Hagan's campaign. I'm looking for it. I know her work for families and children in NC has been impeccable; I'd like to know if she is willing to include all families in that. As Pam and I have both pointed out, these are not hypothetical questions, these are real bills that if she's elected, she will have to vote on and it's not unreasonable to ask her how she will vote.

As for the closet thing - yeah, that's exactly how it feels. Come on into the tent, but don't speak out. Sit at the table, but don't break bread with us. Be quiet, or we won't be able to get anything done.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

questions

I didn't say "don't ask questions." I said that we don't need to ask for anything, because we already know what needs to happen.

I'm really sorry that I made you (and others) feel like I was telling you to shut up. I'm obviously not doing a good job.

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. While I personally would probably fess up and answer that "yes, I support the radical idea that gay folks ought to be treated with respect just like anybody else," I also believe there are probably good reasons to not emphasize that issue. We didn't do so hot last Senate race, you know?

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

Shouting and bird-dogging

Throughout the history of struggles in this country for rights, whether from literal bondage, whether for suffrage or for equal treatment, the success of the movement(s) has depended on having those who shout and bird-dog the legislators as well as those who want to bake them bread and woo them with sweet words.

If it weren't for the obnoxious forces willing to push government officials up against the wall, the same officials would never have consented to speak to the ones who play nice. Change requires challenge.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you said, but your earler post did sound very much as though you just wanted the questions to go away for a while.
I understand the strategy you explained. But if you want a blog unified on strategy, you go to the party's blog.

This blog is supposed to be about provoking thought, isn't it?

Would someone please let me know now if the unsung purpose of this blog is to serve as an extra arm of the Democratic Party? I mean, that would at least explain why so many here seem to think I shouldn't criticize Perdue.

I disagree

the success of the movement(s) has depended on having those who shout and bird-dog the legislators as well as those who want to bake them bread and woo them with sweet words.

I don't think that the shouters or the sweet bakers got us across the finish line.

Sufferage was won by the large numbers of working class women who had previously formed strong unions (i.e. were organized). The wealthy ladies with their signs and shouts fought for 60 years fruitlessly. (obviously this statement is offensive in it's extreme simplicity, but you understand what I'm trying to say)

AARP achieves (and protects) more progressive legislation than more loud-mouthed organizations.

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

But were it not for loud-mouthed organizations

And were it not for all of the women (and men) involved in the struggle for women's suffrage for the 60 years before it happened, it would not have been on the radar of those organized women.

And you cannot tell me that the loud voices of the Civil Rights Movement had no effect on passing laws in the 60's.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

um

Wait, you're saying that if people hadn't held up the signs nobody would have known they were being screwed? Sorry I know that is silly, but I think that the organization is more important than the people saying what they feel. As long as the ONE campaign is that thing that Bono does, it will be ineffective. When the ONE campaign becomes about you and your neighbor it will succeed (which is I believe what they are trying to do).

I'm uncomfortable talking about the Civil Rights Movement because I'm not as educated about it as many, and people have strong feelings about it. However, I think that there were a thousand organizers whose names are never mentioned, and that there decisions and actions are under-valued.

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

Wrong again

Well, my own statement was also simplifying the players, but if it weren't for the loud-mouthed women, then no, the legislators wouldn't have worked with the 'ladies.'

I was talking about the wealthy women when I mentioned the ones who baked bread and spoke gently to the legislators. They're the ones who were admitted into their offices. The reason they GOT IN was because of the pressure exerted by the obnoxious women who were outside shouting.

You still have not addressed...

Why asking about specific legislation -- something a person running for office would have to cast a vote on -- is "forcing our candidates into an unpopular position." 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.

You also seem to conflate advocacy with holding candidates accountable because of your discomfort with open discussion -- and yes, open discussions can be difficult. Defensive calls to somehow let unpopular issues fly under the radar is one that accepts conservative framing rather than proactively changing the frame. You cannot change the frame by remaining silent.

It also doesn't negate advocacy or educating people, both elected officials (the people casting the votes), as well as your neighbors, who elect those officials to represent them. In the case of these particular questions, you cannot wish away the fact that we are no longer dealing in hypothetical legislation. That would make it easier to deal with, but the reality is that the person elected will cast votes. They will be lobbied by social conservatives who are against civil equality, that is certain. You are calling for radio silence for supporters of equality lest the right-wing beast awaken -- last time I looked, the right-wing was already awake, loud and well-funded.

--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA

Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com

--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA

Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com

thumbs up

I'm not uncomfortable with open discussion; I'm uncomfortable with advocacy that ignores political realities.

You're accusing me of wanting to wish away something?

These are good points you've raised previously:

1) Haters are going to gaybait us regardless of if we actually argue strongly and persuasively for doing the right thing, so we might as well defend an promote our values.

2) If political leaders don't speak out on LGBT issues then they are contributing to the message that LGBT people are shameful. We are actively doing harm by trying to side-step the issue.

While I do think these are good points, I suspect that campaign managers do tend to know something about their profession. I mean, maybe they are just stabbing in the dark, or doing the same thing they've always done, but I'm going to lean toward the assumption that they are smart people acting in good faith.

I also suspect that you would rather lose with an outspoken candidate than win with one who is in the closet on gay rights. I'm not saying that it is actually an either/or proposition; it almost never is. But I think your risk threshold is a bit higher than mine, or maybe you just don't see it as your responsibility.

I would argue that it is your responsibility. Our people are suffering; we need the majorities.

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

again, you have not addressed the reality of a vote

I also suspect that you would rather lose with an outspoken candidate than win with one who is in the closet on gay rights.

No, I want cast a vote for a candidate that can answer a question on how they would vote on a specific piece of legislation. Why do they have to be in the closet? The vote will be on the public record. That's absurd.

You're also assuming, by extension, that a conservative won't ask the question of Hagan either. Trust me they will. No answer is an indication that the candidate/campaign either 1) hasn't thought about how to address the issue and will fumble it; or 2) thinks constituents are too ignorant/bigoted to engage on the issue.

Our people are suffering because there are too many political padlocked closets. People are dying because of silence and lack of education.

--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA

Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com

--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA

Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com

self-expression is not reform

We have to win the election first!

I don't think that transparency is the central problem; I think that lack of political will and organization is the problem. I think the problem is firmly in our own hands, not at the feet of candidates or elected officials. They are our tools to allow us to achieve institutional change.

Your desire for this to be a part of the public record before the vote is cast (or the election won) is part of your belief that people speaking out is in and of itself a path to change. I don't need my leaders to speak out; I need them in power.

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

blind spot

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.

--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA

Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com

--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA

Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com

I re-read this.

Given my choice, I'd rather you spend your time building a base on your issue than I would you thinking you can educate public officials. While I wish it was enough to merely inform public officials that problems exist, it's silly to act like that's the case. Power concedes nothing without a demand threat.

Jerimee, my friend, we have a base on this issue. Did you not know that?

Where have you been?

And I am going to ask you a question, which you can answer or not. Do you consider this an important issue? How do you stand on these questions yourself?

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

what issue are we talking about?

FISA? not important

I know that it is actually important, but real people are suffering. I'm much more concerned with more basic dignities (the right to food, health-care, shelter, and safety) than I am with punishing big corporations for putting themselves before America.

Immigration? deadly important

Immigrants are treated like they are less than human. In my mind "progressive" means committed to human rights. That being said, I believe that conversations about immigration will be counter productive, because I do believe that Jack Hawke and Fetzer can use them fuel racial tensions and thereby promote the GOP.

LGBT? important

My godson's mother can't move to Florida for fear of the government taking her son away. I consider myself directly affected by the issue (though I recognize not as affected as many).

Reproductive Rights? it's ours to lose

While of course I'm pissed that pro-life Christian activists seem shockingly unconcerned with the welfare of living babies, I think there has got to be some way to win them over. I think that the fundamental motivation of the pro-life base, which I understand to be a desire to protect the innocent, is a good impulse appropriated and corrupted by GOP leaders.

I also wonder if the pro-life movement wouldn't collapse under the weight of it's own hypocrisy if we just ignored it for a year or two (probably wishful thinking).

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

Everything is hypothetical

Until it affects you directly.
(insert oft repeated Niemoller statement here)

Look, Jerimee

I know what my goals are. That's why I so ungraciously posted Pam's unanswered questions here. But I don't know what your goals are. And frankly, your goals don't matter. Kay Hagan's goals matter. And I won't know what her goals are in this area until she answers the freakin' questions.

These are not hypotheticals, Jerimee. These are real bills and real issues that affect real people.

I am not a quiet person by any means, and while I will do my job as a party official, I will continue to try to get answers to these questions until I get one.

Perhaps you can use your position with NCDP to convince Kay Hagan that she needs to address these questions directly.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

Drupal ate my comment

I wrote a really long reply to this, but Drupal ate it. I'm sorry.

I know I'm not the only one who has thoughts about how best to achieve reform, and I hope we continue to discuss it. Securing progressive reform is the goal.

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

right

I'd like to hear more about your ideas about how to win stuff.

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

Jerimee, I think what you are talking about

is tactics. It may be a tactical error to push the candidate with the general set of values with which you agree to say something in specific that can then be taken and used to hurt your whole cause. It's true that we sometimes burn down the whole forest while we're trying to preserve one tree. And that politics is a multi-layered chess game that you have to think many steps ahead to win.

Progressive Democrats of North Carolina

Progressives are the true conservatives.

Brilliantly said



Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.

right

Now if I could figure out how to say that without pissing everyone off I'll be in the clear. Cut and paste is probably the safest bet.

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

wow, just wow

It may be a tactical error to push the candidate with the general set of values with which you agree to say something in specific that can then be taken and used to hurt your whole cause.

Sen. Hagan was asked in the TV debate whether she supports the repeal of DADT. She said yes. She volunteered that she supports passage of hate crimes legislation. Both are questions I did ask in the liveblog. Obviously she didn't think answering the questions was going to deep-six her candidacy.

Why, pray tell, is it somehow more nuclear to answer similar questions about say, ENDA? Was her decision to answer those two questions in the debate a "tactical error"? The inconsistency cannot be ignored.

Or is the problem with the questioner, as opposed to the question? I asked those questions, as did Matt Hill Comer of QNotes, and neither of us received answers.

You see, the whole matter comes down to knowing where the candidate is coming from -- I have no idea whether she wants to fly under the radar or not -- the answers have been incomplete or non-existent without any reason or response given.

Those actions, regardless of topic or position, reflect an unwillingness to communicate -- something we need desperately in an elected official. If topics of concern to me are pointedly ignored, while others' questions on say, the environment are answered without a problem, that is a signal, in the absence of better communication, that I'm a constituent that is supposed to sit at the back of the bus (or in this case, in the closet as a second-class citizen).

--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA

Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com

--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA

Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com

Amen.

Oh the rabble is such a hassle to deal with.

If only the rabble would be quiet, then we young, energetic, smart-smart-smart young white folks could get something done.

Right?

I asked earlier and was ignored. I'll ask again. Is this blog about ideas or is it about propping up the Democratic Party with no questions asked?

...

Sen. Hagan was asked in the TV debate whether she supports the repeal of DADT. She said yes. She volunteered that she supports passage of hate crimes legislation. Both are questions I did ask in the liveblog. Obviously she didn't think answering the questions was going to deep-six her candidacy.

So then I don't understand. If you feel like she has consistently come out in favor of the community, why is your theory about why she didn't answer your question on the live blog? You're suggesting that maybe it's personal?

Also, lots of people don't get their questions answered on these live blogs; mine certainly don't get answered. Are all of us to run around demanding that our issue be front and center? I mean, that's traditionally how the Left has conducted business, but I was kind of hoping we might do it a little differently this year.

Nonetheless, I was thinking about this and I realized that the GOP probably isn't going to want to dilute it's message of hate against immigrants with a message of hate against gays, that'll just confuse people. Xenophobia plays to wider audience than homophobia anyway.

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

sit down and shut up

Is this what you would prefer?

Also:
Also, lots of people don't get their questions answered on these live blogs; mine certainly don't get answered.

That's correct, and that's why I (and others who participated) asked Colleen Flanagan to follow up offline. None of us ever received the courtesy of a response. Not even the courtesy of a fig leaf to say "it's a complex issue," or "Sen. Hagan has not made up her mind." No response at all. And that isn't something that bodes well for future constituent services. All we're looking for is respectful communication.

I may not have liked the response faxed over from Senator Dole's office re: the offensive NC GOP ad, and I would certainly never vote for her, but at least I received a public response.

--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA

Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com

--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA

Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com

Pages