Reply #83: I see you're from Massachusetts

[Creideiki]

I grew up in Illinois. Mostly, I'm an Illinois social liberal, fiscal moderate. Dick Durbin is really the same way. Paul Simon was a little more fiscally liberal than me, but I could appreciate his liberalness. Even Peter Fitzgerald, who, lets be honest here, gave Obama his seat by quitting out of disgust at the social conservatives that were ruling the Republican Senate and refused any moderate voice, was socially moderate and fiscally conservative.

Coming from Illinois, it's usually easy to consider the merits of both Republicans and Democrats, as the state until the second half of Ryan's term had managed to avoid the religious rightwing takeover of the party. George Ryan (the last Republican governor) and Corinne Wood (his Lieutenant Governor) were both socially moderate and fiscally moderate and both tried to let the Republicans know that if they allowed the religious/social conservatives to take over the party, they would lose the whole damn state, and that in fact happened. The only Republican who can win a statewide contest is Judy Barr-Topinka, the Treasurer, who is socially liberal, fiscally conservative. She's also a stronger proponent of gay rights (such as a Treasurer can be) than the Governor or Lt. Governor. Only the Attorney General, Amy Madigan--somewhat politically tainted by her father, who has been very powerful in the state government--is as strong. When Rod steps down and Amy and Judy step up, it's going to be a really interesting governor's race (although Judy's getting a bit long in the tooth and may choose to retire). Barr-Topinka has been trying to convince the Republicans in Illinois that pursuing social conservativism will prevent them from gaining ground in the state, both by exhortation and by proof that she's the only one that can survive a statewide election.

Understanding that, and that both Hillary and Barack are from Illinois--Hillary by birth and Barack by living there and going into politics there--it's almost insane that both of them are pandering to the religious types. Of the two, Hillary is slightly (and only slightly) more palatable. Illinois Senators from both parties have traditionally been "live and let live" style social moderates to liberals. The difference between the parties is more the fiscal side--Democrats tending toward the argument that there is a certain necessary set of things that the government can provide with some other things being nice add-ons provided 1) you can prove they're working and 2) they're fiscally feasible.

It's absolutely nuts that two Democratic Senators should both be pandering to the religious right. The only real difference I can see is that while Hillary is saying she's glad that New York will be giving marriage rights to the gay community, Barack refused to attempt to remove the ban while he was active in the state government and could put that forward--especially if, as he said, the legislation that was given to him to "sponsor" was given to him because only he could unify the dissenters. Basically, he's been an ass to the gay community. His advisors are disgusting--Meeks, Boren, and Nunn. And I'm getting tired of the argument that I should constantly be supporting other groups that won't support me. The key with Barack will be his VP nominee.

Meanwhile, Hillary at least, in 1992 was seen as the one that was insisting to Bill that he integrate the armed forces. When the social conservatives (like Barack and his advisors) rebelled, then we were saddled with DADT. It's the only difference on the civil rights side.

I also have serious issues with Barack on his healthcare proposal and his education proposals--"Merit pay" makes me vomit in my mouth.

So which one would be more likely to veto legislation from the Right? Hillary is showing through her, "I prefer civil unions, but I'm glad New York is going full marriage," that she wouldn't. Barack isn't giving those same signals. I could see Barack vetoing from the right anything that was slightly socially progressive. He irritates the crap out of me.

Even with that, I can't say I'm thrilled with Hillary. I liked her better when she spoke her mind. I think now she's trying to appear "tough" and "moderate"--moving to the center already, even before she has the nomination.

So it's absolutely nuts that two Democratic Senators from Illinois can't earn my wholehearted support. At least two other candidates were capable of that.