Posts Tagged ‘elections’

Even funnier than the headline are the reasons that the organizers give for dropping them:

Andrew Chavez, a professional petition circulator involved in one of the efforts, said its backers pulled the plug after concluding they might not be able to time their petition filings in such a way as to put the law on hold pending a 2012 public vote.

Jon Garrido, the chief organizer of the other drive, attributed its end to a belief that the law would have been subject to legal protections under Arizona’s Constitution if approved by Arizona voters.

The actual reason. People in Arizona support the law by 70% and throughout the country by 60%. Plus you have stuff like this going on. They would not only lose, they would lose spectacularly!

When you have the Suns trying to remove fans who disagree with their political views these guys are getting nervous.

The last thing they need is to show just how little support they actually have.

…I don’t know Elena Kagan personally, never met her, never really followed her. I don’t know if she is a lesbian or not and frankly don’t care. It seems to be an “open secret” but I’ve never really gone for “open secret” stuff. If she wants to declare her sexual preference that’s fine, if not that’s fine too. It’s not true one way or another until she says so and either way it’s not my business.

That being said what is really interesting watching Morning Joe this morning is the number of times the words “4th woman” (over and over) vs the number of times “1st lesbian” (never) is being said.

If this is something “everyone knows” the fact that the media won’t and hasn’t said it is very telling. The media has constantly bombarded us with the proposition that Homosexuality in all its forms should be embraced and even celebrated by society. Yet, if this is true, the historic nature of this nomination the “breakthrough” is not being touched. Not even being alluded to.

Why is this the case? In my opinion three reasons:

1. They are convinced that this will hurt them (the administration) in the elections this year. They are already in rough shape and don’t want to make things worse.

2. If it is discussed they want it to come from a conservative outlet so they can cry “bigotry”.

3. Demographics. If you look at Prop 8 the Black community is not on board with the whole Gay Marriage thing. This year there are an unprecedented amount of black conservatives running on the republican side. Cynthia is on the money here. If the black or Latino community move even slightly toward the R column the game will be over for Democrats for generations.

This I think speaks to the hypocrisy of the media more than anything else.

Of course maybe they think she is another Gregg Kravitz.

Presuming she is the nominee I will likely oppose her based on her judicial philosophy (yes I’m going to use the same standard the left uses for us) , however from what I can see there is no question that she is a qualified candidate and philosophy aside certainly can do the job. If she however wants to use foreign or international law as a precedent for ruling then we have a real problem here, but that problem if it exists wont be with who she is sleeping with.

Update: Interesting. I believe the true expression of media bias is not what the media says but what it doesn’t. Take a look at this Media Matters list of “Myths” about Elena Kagan and note what is not said.

Update 2: Legal Insurrection points out another irony.

Update 3: Camp of the saints calls my reasoning fine but doesn’t answer the real question. I know that in the photo at the bottom of his page I’m the guy on the left, which one of the remaining two are him and which is Robert Stacy?

Update 4 Andrew Sullivan and Hot Air address the question Stacy, Cynthia and I have been talking about this morning. Keep track of the relative times. Sullivan is going to be a very important reference at this blog in about 20 days.

Update: Little Miss Attila has the last and the funniest word on the subject:

I’d love to jump into the fray and demand that Elena Kagan disclose any feelings she might have about women as potential life partners, but I’m searching desperately for my gay agenda. I think I may have left it in the closet . . .

That’s a pretty good line.

Here is what appeared on this blog March 24th:

Remember it is a lot cheaper to pay the fine than to actually cover the employee, so who is going to have to pay that cost? Back to Dennis:

Next year you’re going to have to purchase the insurance yourself or pay a large fine and face the possibility of prosecution and imprisonment.

So the end result thousands of dollars spent by people on health insurance that will not be spent on other things, like vacations, or restaurants, or that x-box 360 or COLLEGE or the MORTGAGE.

Well look at what it at Hotair today:

It’s not just the calculus of mandates and penalties that has employers considering the option of dumping health care and paying more in salaries instead. The mandate to keep “children” on plans until the age of 26 has employers seeing a steep cost curve. For Caterpillar alone, the 26-year-old mandate will cost over $20 million a year. Under those conditions, the penalties look pretty good. Add on the “Cadillac tax” on some health plans and the expected jump in medical costs from providers dealing with their own set of mandates, and health insurance looks like a very bad risk.</blockquote

They link to this story that says:

Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the bill’s critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.

And if that doesn’t do it check this article:

Section 9006 of the health care bill — just a few lines buried in the 2,409-page document — mandates that beginning in 2012 all companies will have to issue 1099 tax forms not just to contract workers but to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year.

The stealth change radically alters the nature of 1099s and means businesses will have to issue millions of new tax documents each year.

This is a business killer, a large corporation has the staff already doing this kind of thing but smaller business will be paying the price helping to drive them away. I thought the democrats were against large corporations? Amazing how CNN never figured this out before the vote huh?

Remember America, we (collectively) elected these clowns. You wanted Barack Obama and the democrats you’ve got them. Enjoy!

This should be fun.