Dear George,

I read with interest Lloyd Snooks comments on Creigh Deeds' vote to restrict gay marriage, even after Deeds promised to support the Commonwealth's loans to non-traditional families and after blasting the Republicans for their drafting of the one-man-one-woman-marriage bill. Deeds, like so many Democrats, lacks the backbone to make a hard decision on this issue and stick with it. As Snook points out, it would be political suicide for Deeds to vote in favor of gay marriage, even though Deeds chastised the Republicans for their anti-gay marriage bill.

Republicans have been supporting often unpopular positions for years (against abortion, for the wars in the Iraq, lowering taxes). But Republicans rarely faltered in their stances, even if it meant losing an important election (e.g. Mike Farris for Lt. Gov., Ollie North for U.S.Senate, Mark Earley for Gov.). When Republicans did falter (George H.W.Bush when he raised taxes after his no-tax pledge), they paid the price and lost.

Waffling and dancing around important issues will only cause political grief among Deeds' Democratic constituents. I am utterly surprised that a local Democratic leader like Lloyd Snook would stoop to "political reality" instead of political optimism and full support for gay rights and gay family issues. According to Snook's political philosophy, it would be better to abandon the party's core beliefs than to stand behind one's belief even if it cost some votes.

Democrats can win on liberal and progressive issues, if only they speak with one huge voice and stand up for what they believe in. That they are now backing away from gay marriage and gay family rights; that they are all of the sudden "religious" and are back-peddling on separation of church and state issues, electing a Mormon pro-life Senator (Harry Reid) to U.S. Senate Minority Leader, that they have been now (in the post-Bush massacre) wrapping themselves in the flag and patriotism after denouncing the war with such vitriol, that they now deny that Social Security is in any trouble after being the standard bearers for reform for decades (!) smacks of pandering and contrariness.

That's no way to win elections. You may not like Republicans, their politics and their message, but you should really pay attention to their tenacity of beliefs throughout the years. By the way: do NOT run to the center, or to the right. Just because Bill Clinton did and won isn't evidence that this works. In point of fact, Clinton only got 43% and 48% of the vote in his two elections. In a three-eway race, those pluralities spelled victory, but 57% and 52% of the voters still rejected him and his ideas. FDR and Kennedy/Johnson stuck to their progressive idealogies and won. Those elections should be the Democrats' models.

As a former Republican District Chairman and long-time Republican analyst, though I may disagree with the tenets of the Democratic Party, I can still tell you how to win. Abandoning your core issues (civil rights even for gays, peace, environment, etc) because you kight lose some votes is not the way. Sorry Lloyd Snook, you're a good man and a hard-working activist, but one-by-one the Democratic party is abandoning its core values, and you keep losing elections. Sorry Creigh Deeds, you're a good man and a hard-working senator, but you're waffling, and that fence-straddling sends a message of weakness to the electorate, and makes your Democratic constituents feel abandoned.

Randolph Byrd (electronic mail, February 12, 2005)