Archive for November 4, 2009

via Glenn she contends that the reason why Gay Marriage lost is because “people didn’t give it a chance“:

But two years later, the poll numbers had flipped, and the backlash never came. That’s because reversing the court’s ruling was a long process, not a quick and hasty ballot initiative like the one that Maine passed in Tuesday’s election.

Balderdash Emily! The reason why in Massachusetts people let it go is because we still have our fatalism, people are afraid to speak up publicly, cowed into silence so they just let things go. When people are willing to talk suddenly we are racist/bigot/homophobe/etcs. Who wants to deal with that stuff? Like the snow that comes every year and like baseball before 2004 we Massachusetts people shrug and deal with it because we assume we can’t do anything about it.

Tell you what, if you are so sure that the numbers are actually reversed why don’t you push for a referendum here? Let your one party state house let it go through instead of informing members that they will pay a heavy political price and let us vote. I’ll tell you why, because you know that like card check if people are allowed to vote the way they actually think without the stigma the media wants to put on them you would lose.

You can not do this because you so badly want not the rights of marriage (which could be done with civil unions or by legal contracts which I can support) you demand that I not only accept, but that I approve. You demand that I and millions of others abandon our Christian religious beliefs so that you can feel secure in your own skin. You do this for narcissism and you do this because you feel threatened by our disapproval as I once said last year:

The Gay marriage movement has all the trimmings of both a pop fad and a political movement by a loud group of elite people with money and clout; no different than the eugenics movements in the last century. I suspect beyond the core set of true believers the support is actually very thin. It is what the “enlightened” and “right” type of people support to show how good and tolerant they are. It allows people to feel good about themselves without actually doing anything. It keep them safe from that most dreaded charge of bigotry. In short it is an exercise in narcissism.

And like your counterparts in cinema and TV you challenge Christians because you have the courage of our convictions. Are you enforcing these “norms” in Islamic schools? Would you even dare?

And don’t give me this bigot nonsense, do you call believing Jews or Hindu’s bigots? I’ve never heard it in the media. Do you call Muslims bigots, HA! The legions in the media that look down upon us were the same gave us the lie 15 years ago that nobody was talking about marriage and that the defense of Marriage act was overkill and that a constitution amendment was totally unnecessary. To quote myself once again:

I’m 45 years old and I’ve always been a news junkie. I must have been the only kid in town to watch the impeachment hearings of Nixon in awe. I don’t recall any of our liberal stalwarts during the 70’s or the 80’s and VERY few in the 90’s (and then only in the late 90’s) argue for gay marriage.

Apparently by Mr. Cohen standards all of the people who lived in those days were cowards and bigots. Jimmy Carter must have been a coward and a bigot, Reagan, Clinton, Johnson. FDR and yes even JFK and RFK must have been the worst kind of bigots. JFK junior must have been one, Sam Rayburn, Barbara Jordan, Earl Warren and Martin Luther King bigots all.

Give me the intellectual honesty of my friend Dave. We were debating Gay Marriage and he has the honesty to say that yes polygamy, polyandry, group marriage and incest and every other combination of consenting adults should be legal and recognized by the state and laws altered accordingly. 10 out of 10 for consistency, 0 out of 10 for practicality but in a republic you make the rules you want and then make them work.

And before you give me the Ick, nobody is talking about that argument I’ll quote myself one more time:

And PLEASE don’t give me the “ick” factor argument about these other things being accepted. Ick is just an argument about culture. It is the same argument that one would have heard concerning gay marriage less that 20 years ago.

It’s the same Ick factor that our betters in Hollywood use to defend Polanski. If people only got used to it, and decided they didn’t want to fight it we would be OK.

Tell that to someone else, don’t tell it to me. I’ll take the arrows and the insults. If you are secure in your belief and are convinced it can win, give us a vote!

And tell me if we lose, do we get to vote again as you do? And if not why not? Why does the debate only end if you win?

Update: Slublog finds something odd:

What I find most interesting, based on comments at news stories and on social network sites is that yesterday, when the polls showed a narrow ‘No on 1′ win, I lived in an independent-minded, moderate state. Now it seems we’ve been transformed into a group of backwards, bigoted haters. Funny how that works.

No Slublog it’s not funny or shocker. Millions of dollars and media’s desire to stigmatize those who don’t believe in their 3rd sacrament of secular humanism (after abortion and global warming) can’t reach into the privacy of the voting booth and they can’t stand it.

Update 2: And I thought I was speaking metaphorically on the religion thing.

Forgot the links how lame was that?

A: “Steele’s elbow” and media meme not withstanding, she is so damaged that the republican candidate for Senate in Illinois is asking for an endorsement:

Kirk’s memo is tangible evidence of the power of Palin’s endorsement in a Republican primary. Kirk, a moderate by voting record in the House, is clearly very concerned about the negative impact a Palin endorsement of one of his primary opponents could have on his chances at being the party’s nominee for the seat being vacated by appointed Sen. Roland Burris (D).

Captain Ed confirms that Kirk really needs it:.

Kirk obviously wants her endorsement to establish credibility with the Tea Party movement, where the energy of the national party exists. That makes hash of the argument that Palin somehow diminished herself by endorsing a conservative in a Congressional race that resulted in forcing a liberal Republican to withdraw at the end.

Will Palin endorse Kirk? I’m guessing that he’ll have to do a lot more groveling on the cap-and-trade issue first.

I guess the media template isn’t strong enough to override objective reality when it comes right down to it.

Gay Marriage lost big yesterday…

Posted: November 4, 2009 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags: ,

in Maine of all places:

Guilty confession: My favorite part of last night’s election coverage was watching Rachel Maddow’s demeanor go from exuberant, to smug, to infuriated over the results of the marriage referendum in Maine. (note: me too DTG) And then she seemed to lose interest.

It now appears highly likely that, when all the votes are counted, Maine will join every other state in the union (which has had a popular vote on the issue) in rejecting gay marriage.

This result comes despite Maine being a liberal state, despite a 2-1 funding disadvantage, despite aggressive legal action against traditional-marriage defenders, despite unusually high voter turn out, and despite Rachel Maddow and the elite press running interference.

Proponents of same-sex marriage, unlike in California’s Prop 8, can’t blame Maine on Mormons, on African Americans who turned out for Barack Obama, or on confusing ballot wording. Their issue loses when the people decide. And it loses every time.

If you want to know why they won’t allow us to vote in Massachusetts on this, this is why.

People may not be willing to shout it aloud because they don’t like being derided by the tolerant left, but they know what marriage is and in the privacy of the voting booth those unwilling to take the slings and arrows are certainly willing to vote.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Gay Marriage is an exercise in narcissism.

Update: Yeah I used the spell checker before I ran off to an interview, a great speller I’m not.

I expected a lot more crowing on MSNBC but I guess the gay Marriage defeat is such a shock they can’t manage to bring themselves up to joy.

I’ve already given my two cents on the subject so lets see what a few others have said:

Robert Stacy McCain

If the Republican bosses think they’re going to pick another candidate in NY23 for 2010, they’d better think again. The grassroots conservatives — the Tea Party people, the pro-lifers, the Club for Growth, Fred and Jeri Thompson, Sarah Palin — who backed Doug Hoffman aren’t going to forget his courageous example.

His co-blogger Smitty:

Recall that, had nothing been done, an even more leftist candidate than Owens may have taken the one-year seat. Owens wins, but understands that, if he’s running in 2010, he can’t ignore the Hoffman voters, any more than Bill Clinton to ignore fiscal conservatives who voted Perot.

Dump Dede:

We won in NY23. This blog served it’s purpose. Dede Scozzafava was dumped. She was dumped by the demographic to which she fronted, and when no one brought her Victorian freakshow, she removed the mask and revealed herself, lest any doubters remained. We won when we forced the GOP to concede support. We won when we showed them that good political sense and sharp strategy is an instinct, not exclusive to the beltway elite. We won because we wrenched the reigns from their hands.

We the tea party have been leading since February. In order to survive, the GOP must finally cash the promise its collective mouth has been writing about “we the people” and all that jazz: it must relent and let the people lead. Asking politely is a formality: NY23 has shown that we have the power to take it when we want.

Red State:

So we have demonstrated to the GOP that it must not take conservatives for granted. The GOP spent $900,000.00 on a Republican who dropped out and endorsed the Democrat. Were we to combine Scozzafava and Hoffman’s votes, Hoffman would have won.

Secondly, and just as importantly, there has all of a sudden been a huge movement among some activists to go the third party route. We see in NY-23 that this is not possible as third parties are not viable.

Third parties lack funding and ability for a host of reasons. Conservatives are going to have to work from within the GOP. The GOP had better pay attention.

For all intents and purposes, NY-23 is a trial run for Florida. And in Florida, the conservative candidate is operating inside the GOP. If John Cornyn and the NRSC do not want to see Florida go the way of NY-23, they better stand down.

Gotta look at the other Side Andrew Sullivan:

Well, I had begun to assume a big Hoffman victory. Not so fast. Owens has a small but real lead, with over 60 percent of the votes in. More interesting, Palin just doesn’t poll very well in a district that is almost tailor-made for her:

TCOT says that endorsement of Scozzafava what huge:

Doug Hoffman, whose success forced her to withdraw on Saturday showed that her Sunday endorsement of Owens was the decisive factor in his victory.

Owens carried her three home counties that she represents in the New York State Assembly by a decisive 53% to 42% margin. This was an 11% margin increase from the 36% to 36% tie the Siena Poll released on Monday revealed. Scozzafava’s vote dropped from 9% in the Monday poll to 6% in the actual results. Meanwhile, the 19% undecided in the three county region broke hard for Owens. 13% of the undecided went to Owens during a 48 period, while only 6% went to Hoffman.

and he seems the only person who doesn’t support Hoffman:

Owens will face his next electoral challenge in November 2010. He is certain to face a strong Republican challenger. This time around, however, the candidate will not be chosen by the eleven county chairmen meeting in a pizza restaurant. A primary will be held on September 14, 2010.

Though he captured the country’s attention with his humble nature, Hoffman ran such a poor campaign it is unlikely he would emerge as the Republican nominee in a primary, should he choose to run.

Hell hath no fury like an (Italian) woman scorned. He covered this race very well and deserves Props for it.

I’ve been looking for a lefty blog to quote that doesn’t use vulgar sexual references for the tea party crowd. No blog that uses that term in their comment on that race is going to be quoted here. Took me some time but I found on at MyDD:

In the nation’s most watched race, the New York Twenty-Third Congressional, Democrat Bill Owens defeated Conservative Doug Hoffman who was endorsed by Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the Club for Growth, Fred Thompson, Dick Armey, Tim Pawlenty and much of the GOP leadership albeit belatedly. But in their rush to purify the Republican party, they also succeeded in driving moderates away. In the end, they not only drove Dede Scozzafava, the local GOP candidate, from the race but into the arms of Bill Owens, whom she endorsed. And no doubt, to capture a House seat that had been held by the GOP since the Civil War era is historic.

The battle for the NY-23 had been billed as one for the GOP’s soul. Tea Party conservatives see themselves as the base of the GOP when really they are just a fringe, and a lunatic fringe at that. But what matters in this case is their own perception of the situation. They are, I think, only more embolden to take on the GOP establishment who is frankly spineless, cowering in fear and out of ideas anyway. I suspect that the battle of the GOP’s soul will continue. Still whoever wins that contest wins a shell of a prize. As an aside, the Crist versus Rubio contest down in Florida for the US Senate seat now looks it will provide much fodder for the press and entertainment for us.

So should this mean republicans and Sarah Palin are a losing combination? Lets go straight to the source:

The race for New York’s 23rd District is not over, just postponed until 2010. The issues of this election have always centered on the economy – on the need for fiscal restraint, smaller government, and policies that encourage jobs. In 2010, these issues will be even more crucial to the electorate. I commend Doug Hoffman and all the other under-dog candidates who have the courage to put themselves out there and run against the odds.

To the tireless grassroots patriots who worked so hard in that race and to future citizen-candidates like Doug, please remember Reagan’s words of encouragement after his defeat in 1976:

“The cause goes on. Don’t get cynical because look at yourselves and what you were willing to do, and recognize that there are millions and millions of Americans out there that want what you want, that want it to be that way, that want it to be a shining city on a hill.”

The cause goes on.

Hmmm what happened to that guy who lost in 1976 and was written off?

My take? We lost, spinning it as not a loss just makes us look silly. All politics are local. Doug Hoffman flubbed local issue questions and that cost him, the million that the NRCC spent against him and then followed up with ads supporting him that didn’t even use his name was really lame. Scozzafava’s withdrawal so close to the end of the election made a huge difference because it didn’t give time for the passions and anger of her supporters to cool enough to go for Hoffman the guy who brought her down. If he wants the seat he needs to spend the next 6 months brushing up on those issues. It will all come down to Owens. Voting with Pelosi isn’t going to get him re-elected, but serving the people of his district is. That’s what it will call come down to.

I’ve said that I’d prefer Owens to Dede the angry avenged and I still think we dodged a huge bullet but it’s still a slice of bread instead of a feast. I’ll take the slice but I’m not so blinded that I’m going to pretend that I’m not disappointed.

Biggest Loser? Tim Pawlenty. When the media decided to ignore the Palin endorsement when they thought Hoffman was going to win so they pushed Pawlenty forward, he gains none of the the benefit of leading and taking a shot and all of the rocks from the loss.

Biggest Winner? the Watertown Daily Times:

They never expected one of their stories to be the lede on Memeorandem. They will get the hits again on the rematch, but I’d still like to see where that last 12% goes.

Exit Question: Will the NRCC and Gingrich go all Frum over this or no? If they make that same mistake then it will make 2010 very interesting.