Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Don't know how this plays in the key states.

But. like I said (and like the polls you cite suggest), this stance was not designed to go for the middle. It plays to a fringe on the right and asumes that R's like BB, Club and Hank will vote GOP anyway.

S_A_M

This issue is not a partisan one because there is really no differnce between the candidates. Kerry (at least this week) and Edwards are both against gay marriage but do not support the amendment because, get this, they think it is better left to the states. Also, the president plays no roll in constitutional amendments.

So, while I am dissappointed that the president has gotten involved, this issue, while important to me, does not break the top 3 on my list. The roll of the FCC, however, is starting to make its move. Friggin janet ruined it for everyone.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Kerry (at least this week) and Edwards are both against gay marriage but do not support the amendment because, get this, they think it is better left to the states.

Fuck, what is this, bizarro politics world? I'm voting republican this year: Kerry. Balanced budgets and states rights.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Fuck, what is this, bizarro politics world? I'm voting republican this year: Kerry. Balanced budgets and states rights.

Just reinforces that we need a real third party.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Just reinforces that we need a real third party.

Let's start with getting two real parties, instead of the things we've got now, which appear to be nothing more than ad hoc collections of positions that are either politically expedient or the opposite of what the other guy is doing.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How does this issue play in the 10 or so states that matter?

Also, despite our liberal-elites/patch-bumpkins argument, the polls suggest that nearly half the country is okay with gay "marriage" and doesn't think a const. amendment is appropriate. I was surpised teh figures were that high.

I wonder if the wording of the poll question had anything to do with the figures...

This is actually a very interesting move, and it could be a calculated effort to grab blue collar democrats, particularly men. I doubt that gay marriage is real popular concept with that demographic group, but am too lazy to google it.

That being said, jobs to Mexico and China will blow the hell out of gay rights as a voting issue in this state that matters, so it could also be Bush grabbing at straws.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Wonkette sez: Sharpton's diplomatic authority derives from his being able to imagine he might be elected president. And he wants all parties to the conflict to know that he's fully prepared to send in the Federal Reserve.

Is this a page straight out of the Jesse Jackson playbook? If so, did someone forget to tell Sharpton that it doesn't work?

Link to article about Al's Haiti plans

[Dave]

Apparently, health care sucks all over the world:

Canada's universal health-care system will not survive the decade without more federal funds and meaningful reform, the country's premiers and territorial leaders warned yesterday.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Truly, she is a genius.

Well, while briefly on the topic of Sharpton, I have to amend my criticism. He's not in it for the free meals, but rather the swanky hotel rooms:

Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton, who has billed his campaign for hotel stays of more than $1,000 a night, has campaign debts totaling $485,696, including unpaid staff salaries dating to last May, finance reports show.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This issue is not a partisan one because there is really no differnce between the candidates. Kerry (at least this week) and Edwards are both against gay marriage but do not support the amendment because, get this, they think it is better left to the states. Also, the president plays no roll in constitutional amendments.

When, in preparing for the debates, the press finally realizes that the actual wording of the House bill would not only prevent states from permitting gay marriage, but also creating civil unions that bear all or perhaps even any of the hallmarks of marriage, Kerry and Edwards will do the right thing and say they oppose the amendment, period, because they only want to preserve the word "marriage" for oppo-sex couples but have nothing against states creating unions. Will Bush?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
When, in preparing for the debates, the press finally realizes that the actual wording of the House bill would not only prevent states from permitting gay marriage, but also creating civil unions that bear all or perhaps even any of the hallmarks of marriage, Kerry and Edwards will do the right thing and say they oppose the amendment, period, because they only want to preserve the word "marriage" for oppo-sex couples but have nothing against states creating unions.

Sure. That's the easy question. Now, where do they stand on insemination by turkey baster?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Just reinforces that we need a real third party.

I think we need more than that. We need at least 4 parties:

1) social conservative/fiscal conservative
(i.e., right wing of the Rep party)

2) social liberal/fiscal conservative
(i.e., libertarian wing of the Rep party)

3) social liberal/fiscal liberal
(i.e., left wing of the Dem party)

4) social conservative/fiscal liberal
(i.e., religious Dems, like Lieberman and American Catholics).

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It plays to a fringe on the right and asumes that R's like BB, Club and Hank will vote GOP anyway.

It is a great strategy because it excites the social conservatives and gets them out to vote. As you note, the fiscal conservatives are never going to vote for the Dems. And those in the middle will vote based on the economy.

So if the economy keeps improving and GWB pushes for an amendment on gay marriage, he will win barring any unforeseen terrorist attack on US soil

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think we need more than that. We need at least 4 parties:

1) social conservative/fiscal conservative
(i.e., right wing of the Rep party)

2) social liberal/fiscal conservative
(i.e., libertarian wing of the Rep party)

3) social liberal/fiscal liberal
(i.e., left wing of the Dem party)

4) social conservative/fiscal liberal
(i.e., religious Dems, like Lieberman and American Catholics).

Sure, but in a winner-take-all, single-member-district system, four inevitably merge to two. And we're back to where we are or an equally basterdized amalgam of social liberals vs. conservatives, with spending priorities all over the map.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure, but in a winner-take-all, single-member-district system, four inevitably merge to two.

Say what?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
It is a great strategy because it excites the social conservatives and gets them out to vote. As you note, the fiscal conservatives are never going to vote for the Dems. And those in the middle will vote based on the economy.

So if the economy keeps improving and GWB pushes for an amendment on gay marriage, he will win barring any unforeseen terrorist attack on US soil

I still disagree, and think that Bush just lost the election on this issue (assuming he continues to push for this amendment.)

I think the support for such an amendment is far thinner than perceived. I think that, as a casual question, "do you favor gay marriages" probably gets a lot of "no"'s, but, as a much-discussed, constantly-debated long run-up to an amendment ratification election, the question of "shall we amend the Constitution to prevent these people from every marrying" isn't going to go far. Most of those casual "no, I don't favor gay marriage"'s come from people who don't think about it much, and don't know (overtly) any gay people, and so it's always been a throw-away issue. A lot of those "no" 's are going to turn into "no amendment" 's once middle America starts to really consider what's being done. Once they start to see normal gay couples on TV speaking of why they want to be married, and realize that a SanFran shock parade isn't "normal" gay America, the auto-backlash reaction is going to dissipate.

We all can make thoughtless and ignorant group-choices when that's the easiest route, but I think that people, as a whole, are more decent than not, and so I think we've probably just recently seen the beginnings of real progress for gay rights in this country. I think that Bush, with his new panderings, has firmly placed himself in line with the Nationalist Party SA in 1948. "People", in general, and after real reflection, are not going to want to be on this particular side of this issue - just as no one wants to be remembered as the one who kicked Rosa out of her seat. Bush is joining the side that wants to kick some people totally out of the bus, and there are an awful lot of people out here who believe that conservative economic and social policy work best, but aren't willing to join the new South Africa to get there.

Bush had best let this one die of its own weight, quickly. If he truly wants to make this the point of comparison in the election, well, he's foolish.