The Morning Plum
A key question that arises from last night’s results: Of two trends on display yesterday, which will prove more important going forward — the drift of independents away from Dems, or the efforts by the GOP’s rising Palin wing to take over and define the party, which risks alienating those same independents?
With the spin war over last night’s results in full swing, it’s worth sifting through the dueling interpretations from the key players as a reflection of that larger political question — one that will help define our politics through 2010.
* DNC chair Tim Kaine spun away the big losses in Jersey and Virginia, saying wins historically go to the opposition party, and said in a statement that NY-23 “has exposed a war” within the GOP that’s a “disaster” and “will dog it well after today.”
The question is whether Dems will successfully define the GOP over time as hostage to extremism, keeping public confidence in the party low enough to limit Dem losses.
* But NRCC chair Pete Sessions’s statement says the gubernatorial wins prove independents are “dissatisfied” with Dems and will continue “moving away from them at a rapid pace.”
* Indeed, independents did abandon the Democrats in Virginia and Jersey. Question is whether independents merely rejected Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine, or whether these are the seeds of a national trend that the GOP can consolidate through 2010.
* Eric Cantor, looking forward, frames the results as the early rumble of an earthquake under the feet of marginal Dems, claming “a shot across the bow to the moderates and Blue Dog Democrats as they decide votes on health care” and other issues.
In this sense, the spin war over the meaning of last night is crucial: If moderate Dems internalize this interpretation, it could have a real impact on the legislative outcomes of the battles over health care and cap and trade — indeed, on Obama’s whole agenda.
* Nagourney says moderate Dems will indeed inernalize that message.
* Erick Erickson: Results in NY-23 were big win for conservatives.
* Sarah Palin frames Doug Hoffman’s defeat as the first battle in a larger war:
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.
The key words there being “future citizen-candidates like Doug.” This will continue, Palin vows. Question is whether Hoffman’s loss will discourage such future candidacies or whether his victory over the moderate GOPer will in itself be enough to embolden them.
Also: Even if future Hoffmans do pop up, how much will they really matter to the overall map in 2010? Unclear. Their main benefit to Dems concerns national messaging: They’ll make it easier to define the national GOP as divided and hostage to extreme elements.
Which brings us back to the question: Which will prevail in the weeks and months ahead, the drift of independents away from Dems, or their alienation by the GOP’s rising Palin wing?
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Mr. Sargent:
“The key words there being “future citizen-candidates like Doug.” This will continue, Palin vows. Question is whether Hoffman’s loss will discourage such future candidacies or whether his victory over the moderate GOPer will in itself be enough to embolden them.”
Nope, you’re missing the point that Hoffman and Saah Palin made.
It’s not so much if “future Hoffmans” will run so much asit is “future Scozzafavas” will not.
One thing to bear in mind is that there was no primary in NY-23 for this Special Election…and it showed in the result. This is as fine an example of a GOP “foot-bullet” as you;re ever likely to see.
DeDe’s 5% would have put Hoffman in…hilarious!
As for the rest of the night, the message is very clear:
Don’t be an incumbent in this economy.
The most important thing Demcrats should be looking at from last nights failures…who turned out to vote.
Republican numbers didn’t spike. These were the same voters that came out to the polls last year. The reason Republicans won was because Democratic voters didn’t show up. The Republicans aren’t “surging” in the least, their approval numbers are still on the floor and it doesn’t look like they’ve gained any new voters in the past year.
Corzine was massively unpopular, even amoung Dems…so no one felt any passion to get him re-elected. Deeds ran to the right (saying he’d consider opt-out…what a moron), so the Democratic base blew him off.
It’s really, really simple. Please the base for the mid-terms. The more Blue Dogs show up on ballots in 2010, the bigger the losses the Dems will see. The more Congress allows Republicans and Blue Dogs to control the process, less and less Democrats will show up on election day for them. Are national Dems so stupid that they really can’t understand that incredibly simple political truism?
“Are national Dems so stupid that they really can’t understand that incredibly simple political truism?”
I think it’s more that they’ve spent decades internalizing the idea that Dems only win when they campaign and govern from the center.
In 2001 Bush had 90% approval ratings.
In 2001, Mark Warner(D) won the gubernatorial race in VA.
Just saying.
Also.
Dems just picked up two seats. Republicans zero.
Dems picked up a seat they haven’t seen in 150 years.
What’s that mean?
Greg – You’re absolutely right in pointing to “citizen candidates” as the important phrase. More in a second.
But first off, I think we owe it to truth and reality to refuse to repeat that “Sarah Palin said…”. Let’s be honest here and put it as “Sarah Palin’s writers said…” Any time we don’t do that we contribute to a central and significant lie in the Palin roll-out project.
“Citizen candidate” is, I think, absolutely brilliant phrasing. Again, it is a way to paint politicians/Washington as corrupt elites uninterested in citizens’ welfare and concerns. They are clearly hoping to use the populist framework ongoing.
It also, rather obviously, describes Palin herself and others who aren’t presently holding any elected office (or who never have, eg Liz Cheney). Framing it in this manner not only gives inherent licence for such people to run for senior offices, it paints them as being more qualified as a consequence of their lack of qualifications.
Or you could just type “Sarah Palin” said…
Oh and, Christie is going into the Governorship stained corruption charges. Have fun with that one.
Heh. Watching Steele on MSNBC. I feel sorry for the GOP. That guy is such a transparent idiot.
And lastly, Mike Murphy, GOP strategist just said NY Republican party is ran by a bunch of big guys in track suits. I’m sure the Italian American community will appreciate that one.
That’s very cute, Kathleen.
There is going to a lot of noise and accusations from both sides for the next few days and I plan to just ignore them.
Unpredictability = Democracy. Live with it.
But I did want to toss in my congratulations to Caesar Bloomberg.
Just can’t help but snicker that the Red Staters are claiming a big win in NY-23. Personally, I wish them the same “success” all over the country next year.
Today “independents” = “tea baggers”
All other independents and even moderate Republicans have switched. Look at how much smaller the group who call themselves “independents” has become. Glibertarians all.
Bernie Latham:
“Framing it in this manner not only gives inherent licence for such people to run for senior offices, it paints them as being more qualified as a consequence of their lack of qualifications.”
Gives them “licence” eh? Who needs “licence”?
You’re betraying your Anglo upper-class twit pretensions.
No citizen needs “licence”, they just have to meet the Constitutional qualifications for the office.
This is the USA.
Here’s some election analysis from Nate Silver. I always appreciate his perspective.
“If New Jersey was a win for the incumbent rule, then NY-23 may have ben a win for the Median voter theorem, as Owens –a conservative Democrat — was actually much closer to the average ideology of the district than the capital-C Conservative Hoffman. It was also a reminder that all politics is local (sometimes). More than 95 percent of Hoffman’s contributions came from out-of-district, and the conservative activists who tried to brand him as a modern-day Jefferson Smith never bothered to check whether he resonated particularly well with the zeitgeist of the district. In any event, this is a Democratic takeover of a GOP-held seat and they expand by one their majority in the House.”
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/what-happened-and-why.html
I was also glad to see Garamendi win in CA and the civil union initiative win in Washington. I am very disappointed in Maine this morning. The approval of Prop. 1 tells me we have a long way to go. We are supposed to be putting something on the ballot out here in CA again in 2010 and maybe there’s some lesson in this vote.
I can’t help but fell gratified this morning that Sarah, Dick Armey, Fred Thompson and the others failed to keep a Republican district Red.
The big question is what happens to HCR now ? Already harry reed is syaing it may not happen this year.
I gotta hand one thing to the repubs. Their base is loyal and keeps turning out even in the face unsurmountable odds. Dems ??? meh… They don’t bury their differences after the primaries and carry them to the finals. A great tactic …. if you want keep losing power.
Here’s another perspective on this off year election. NY23 still seems to be getting the most attention, at least from the left.
George Stephanopoulos picks the winners and losers from the wild special election race in New York’s 23rd congressional district.
Winners:
Rahm Emanuel – for opening seat up with McHugh pick for Army Secretary.
Chuck Schumer and Steve Israel – for convincing Scozzafava to endorse Owens.
Joe Biden – for closing the deal with last minute rally.
Dede Scozzafava – what will she get from the White House and grateful Dems?
Losers:
Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty – if you go for the kill, you gotta win.
NRCC – lost once with Scozzafava, once with Hoffman.
Club for Growth – a million dollars is a terrible thing to waste.
Greg
I think it is important that we define “citizen candidate”.
1) he/she will live elsewhere than in the district
2) he/she will demonstrate to local newspaper editorial boards that he/she knows almost nothing about local issues
3) he/she will be funded up to 95% by monies coming from outside of the district
4) he/she will be supported by passionate volunteers from out of the district
5) he/she will be promoted by corporate lobbyists who also know nothing about district issues and who will personally accompany the “citizen candidate” to those local newspaper editorial board meetings
“Gives them “licence” eh? Who needs “licence”? ”
Spelling flames? Really? I guess when you are a republican your pettiness knows no bounds.
Bernie – I’m sure the tea-baggers have learnt from this mishap and will be fine-tuning their ’stratergy’ as we speak.
Yglesias makes a typically bright point…
“I think you can see from the unexpected closeness in the NYC mayor’s race that an economic catastrophe is not a good time to be an incumbent elected official.”
That points us in two directions. First, the Republicans, understanding this, will only increase their “government/congress/Pelosi are evil” attacks so as to encourage incumbent disfavor. Second, Obama better get on the jobs problem or there will be very serious consequences in a short while.
Hey it’s not a total loss – Breckenridge legalized pot overwhelmingly if symbolically and Maine licensed medical marijuana shops and even though the gay marriage initiative lost there.
On complicated dynamics…the Armey/Kristol/Palin/WSJ purist witch-hunters are going to be moving to toss Lindsey Grapham into the fired-up cauldron… http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/03/armey-disruption-memo/
How’s soul-mate Lieberman going to react?
“Just can’t help but snicker that the Red Staters are claiming a big win in NY-23. Personally, I wish them the same “success” all over the country next year.”
I agree.
Tena… Yes. I’ve just changed my vacation plans as a tip of the hat to Breckenridge bud.
I think America is going to legalize pot before it legalizes same *** marriage generally.
That’s a surprise to me.
Bernie – I can personally vouch for the quality of product in and around Telluride and Crested Butte. I’m betting Breckenridge is just as good.
I hope the Republicans get all overconfident and rosy-cheeked over this election.
It was a special election and the Democratic candidates were not the best we have to offer, to say the least.
“The more Congress allows Republicans and Blue Dogs to control the process, less and less Democrats will show up on election day for them. Are national Dems so stupid that they really can’t understand that incredibly simple political truism?”
Yes but that’s a two way street, and failing to show up and vote is a self-defeating way to get what you want.
And it’s one of the main ways we’ve kept ourselves out of power – sulking over not getting what we want and refusing to vote as a consequence. That just puts the GOP in charge and then we can’t even get close to what we want.
Dick Armey is a curse on American politics and will take the Conservative Repubs. and 20% of the population down the rabbit hole so far there will be no return. While it’s interesting to watch and bodes well for Dems. I think, it’s also a little frightening. In this regard I don’t find it the least bit entertaining.
I would have to say that having the word “incumbent” next to your name was much more significant than whatever letter was there (witness Bloomberg, no party affiliation yet a very close race). Every one of the incumbents had trouble turning supporters out to vote, and I think Andrew Sullivan was the first one to remind me last night that “It’s [still] the economy, stupid”. Corzine was seen as a Wall St shill, Bloomberg ran a campaign about helping out the everyday worker but folks tied him to the collapse of Wall St, Deeds ran so far right he looked like a Republican and turned off his base.
So there are real losses there, and Democrats would do well to remember that people don’t turn up just because you ask them to; they need some skin in the game. NY-23 could not have been ANY better for Democrats, I think Bilgeman got it exactly right: NY-23 was a much clearer message for those in the GOP party, it was a warning that “even if we won’t win the seat, we would rather have a Democrat take a seat than a moderate Republican”. And the lengths to which they are willing to go to prove that will scare away good candidates and they will drive races to the right so much so that any Democrat will look like a middle-of-the-road independent by comparison.
I choose to continue to ignore this nonsense about “independents supporting Republicans”, Deeds clearly fell flat as a weak candidate and Corzine was a pretty disliked incumbent. The middle remains open to Democrats if they can seize it, if only because the only thing hated more than an incumbent is Bush and a lot of that still bleeds into the GOP’s pool.
Yup, Tena. Repubs will win by default and the dems will beetch and moan in lefty blogs. Talk about losers.
“Deeds clearly fell flat as a weak candidate and Corzine was a pretty disliked incumbent.”
This is why they lost.
What happened with the Maine gay marriage initiative? Anyone know how close it was? I’m surprised it lost.
“Question is whether independents merely rejected Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine, or whether these are the seeds of a national trend that the GOP can consolidate through 2010.”
Every exit poll conducted suggested found that was not a national trend — that these races pivoted on local issues.
Why does the media continue to disregard empirical evidence and lean on subjective interpretations?
“Why does the media continue to disregard empirical evidence and lean on subjective interpretations?”
Because it gives the media something to talk about. There’s a lot more bloviating to be done with some free-floating notion that “the GOP are making comeback” than “the two candidates lost because the voters in their states didn’t like them.”
fair point, Bernie. Maybe we should say, “Palin’s ghostwriter said…”
Sorry Greg but the meme that’independents abandoned Obama is total bs. PPP which called most races right states clearly that the Obama voters stayed home last night and that these independents are actually republicans rejecting the label. Independets have increased their numbers since last fall because they no linger like the Rep label but Obamas numbers in both states are the same or above what he got last year do declaring anything like independents fleeing is just silly. I have to say.
@Greg:
“I think it’s more that they’ve spent decades internalizing the idea that Dems only win when they campaign and govern from the center.”
You say toe-may-to…I say ta-mah-to!
@Bernie
To me, “Citizen Candidate” sounds like a good thing, politically. It has the feel of being a “Washington Outsider” and gives one a very populist framing to start with. It makes you feel like they are a small business owner, or local teacher getting involved, as opposed to a lawyer or a ex-lobbiest who just moved into the district.
I for one think it would be better to define “Citizen Candidate” in a good way, along those lines above, and then attach the moniker to Progressive candidates who are likely more powered by grassroots (see: citizens). Given the populist mood of the country because of the economy, I think it would be a very good strategy.
A good piece in BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/programmes/world_news_america/8341563.stm
Another thought: Why is the media allowing Republicans to explain away NY-23 and CA-10, where Democrats won re-election in a competitive seat while running a MORE progressive candidate?
The questionable “analyses” and speculation that I’m seeing today really make me question the basic competence of the media. Democrats actually picked up yet another seat in the House last night, yet Republicans are supposed to have “gained ground” or “shifted the landscape” after winning two gubernatorial races — one with an incredibly unpopular incumbent and the other with a poorly focused candidate?
Additionally, since the media is obsessed with what this means for Obama, why is the fact that, in both states, Obama’s approval rating was virtually identical (within about 1%) to the percentage he won in 2008, and substantial majorities in both states declared that their votes weren’t about Obama, suggesting instead that local issues ruled the day. Nevertheless, the media is STILL trying to discern national implications from these local contests. [All while virtually disregarding the House races that actually do have national implications.]
It’s to the Republicans’ and the media’s detriment to read too much into the gubernatorial Republican wins last night, while simultaneously neglecting the Democratic Congressional wins.
The fringe and MSM is trying their damndest to spin this as a win.
I couldn’t be happier with the results last night.
The Dems picked up another vote on HCR with Owens AND a vote for the PO in CA-10 that was formerly an anti-PO Blue Dog!
They can HAVE the two Gov seats. Take em! Let THEM figure out the mess that Bush Economics left state houses across the country!
A key question that arises from last night’s results: Of two trends on display yesterday, which will prove more important going forward — the drift of independents away from Dems, or the efforts by the GOP’s rising Palin wing to take over and define the party, which risks alienating those same independents?
By all appearances at the moment I think the senator race in Florida will probably answer that question.
Well, I really have to hand it to you moonbats, you’re recovering nicely from your bruising date with reality.
Gay Marriage? 31 referenda-31 straight defeats. Ah-yup…that’s a winner.
Sarah Palin? Back to “that horrid woman” status in the hive-mind.
Yay for legalized marijuana! I can see why this particular blog’s commentariat would be overjoyed at grass decriminalization, (which I support, BTW).
So toke it up, moonbats…put Foghat on the Ipod, (REAL loud), and take this here sweat-lodge into political hyperspace!
In other news, replacing Lieberdem Ellen Tauscher with a liberal in CA and replacing a moderate Republican with a Lieberdem in NY shifted Congress left. Yawn.
A loss is a loss. We lost two governorships. We got trounced in Virginia.
Put down those Denial Pills. We lost in both those races.
Congratulations to the Republicans for two significant victories. That is all I will have to say on the subject today. From tomorrow on, I will be back in the fray, fighting hard for Progressive causes, as I have done for almost fifty years.
To the g@y and lesbian community, I am very sorry for what was perpetrated on you in Maine. Because of that, I am ashamed of America today. In some ways we have not changed at all, since we interned Japanese Americans just because they were Japanese Americans.
We are still doing much the same thing to g@ys and lesbians. We keep allowing States to keep them in a Gulag Archipelago.
If we had allowed states the same powers over civil rights legislation, African Americans would still be legal outcasts in most of the south.
Again. Congratulations to the Republicans on their two significant wins, and a suggestion that we alter the Statue Of Liberty, so that it hides it’s head in shame, because of how America treats one class of it’s citizens.
What happened with the Maine gay marriage initiative? Anyone know how close it was? I’m surprised it lost.
Maine probably comes closest of all New England states to being moderate. From the little I’ve read I suspect a significant number of voters bought the nonsense about marriage equality giving rise to teaching kindergardeners about gay ***.
Having said that, in 1998 the Maine legislature passed a law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, which was repealed in a referendum just like last night’s. In 2000 the Maine legislature passed the law a second time, and for a second time it was repealed by referendum.
In 2005 the legislature passed the law a third time, and that time it withstood “the people’s veto”, and is still the law of the land in Maine today.
As Sully likes to say, “Know hope.”
“gay s*e*x”
Gay Marriage? 31 referenda-31 straight defeats. Ah-yup…that’s a winner.
Loving v. Virginia became the law of the land in 1967.
It wasn’t until the 1990’s that a majority of Americans finally agreed with it.
Your bigotry is going to go out with the trash. The next generation will see to that.
“As Sully likes to say, “Know hope.””
I do – believe me, but it only affects me indirectly, so it’s easier for me to accept.
I think we’ve come incredibly far in mainstreaming **** and lesbians in a relatively short time – though most **** and lesbians would probably disagree with me. I’m looking at it from the outside, as a 3d party observer, so I’m not as emotionally invested in it. We’ve just about overturned what I satirically but truthfully referred to as 2500 years (at least) of Judeo-christian morality in two decades. That’s pretty remarkable and the outcome is inevitable – full civil rights. It’s just going to take maybe thinking a bit differently about how best to go about it. But that’s not my decision.
I know where it’s going to end up – full civil rights.
“Again. Congratulations to the Republicans on their two significant wins, ”
I disagree that they are that significant, Liam. The exit polls belie their significance. It was about local issues and our candidates were teh sux0r.
“Your bigotry is going to go out with the trash. The next generation will see to that.”
Exactly. They’re gloating because A) that’s all they know and B) they don’t have much time left to gloat.
Meanwhile, jobs losses are slowing, retailers are optimistic, the Dow jumped (+136 at the moment)… signs of progress on the economy are unmistakable.
Bilgeman: Bragging about bigotry. You are a class act; a fine representative of your cult. Er, ‘party.’ BTW, please run more teabaggers, wherever you can. They’re funny.
I have to admire someone who talks tough when his ‘party’ is less popular than sinus headaches.
oddjob:
“Your bigotry is going to go out with the trash. The next generation will see to that.”
The bigotry is the expressed will of the people in 31 states so far…19 more to go.
Maybe you should go have a good cry.
Because the next generation that you are placing your faith in will be the products of heterosexual unions, not homosexual ones.
Say “Howdy” to political extinction.
Because the next generation that you are placing your faith in will be the products of heterosexual unions, not homosexual ones.
Actually the number in the next generation that are the product of homosexual unions (in all but biology, and that only barely so in some cases) is far higher than in previous generations of Americans.
“Meanwhile, jobs losses are slowing, retailers are optimistic, the Dow jumped (+136 at the moment)… signs of progress on the economy are unmistakable.”
I frankly think Obama managed nothing short of a miracle just by keeping the whole thing from flying to pieces, nationally and globally.
I don’t care what Ariana, Paul Krugman, Robert Reich or any of the rest of the Prophets of Shrill say – the emergency actions Obama’s administration took to stop the whole thing from sliding over into utter ruin worked. Sure there is still fallout – there will be.
But we could have been looking at a smoking ruin and 100 years of economic ‘nuclear winter’ and we’re not.
But we could have been looking at a smoking ruin and 100 years of economic ‘nuclear winter’ and we’re not.
Each time I contemplate a McCain administration I can only shudder.
The generation who are in their twenties now are not homophobic and are far more socially connected inter-racially than the preceding generations.
And more environmentally aware. Our future looks bright in some ways, though it’s patchy on the education front.
No matter how desperately the GOP wants to frame it otherwise, yesterday’s results were not a referendum on President Obama or the Democratic Party. Obama is polling at the same numbers by which he was elected. The VA and NJ results were referendums on Deeds and Corzine.
However, if the teabaggers cannot win in NY’s 23rd – possibly the most reliably GOP district in the entire country, despite enormous amounts of money and their biggest stars all deployed for Hoffman, when and where will they ever have a better chance? If the teabaggers can’t win that election while focusing all of their talent and money on a single house seat special election, how will they manage next year with every house seat in play?
The teabaggers generate lots of shrill, dissonant noise, but they have proven themselves unable to translate that into votes. Palin, Thompson, Pawlenty, et al., are fools if they think they can harness the teabaggers, birthers, and deathers and ride them to electoral victory.
It will be interesting to see Thompson and Pawlenty groveling to ingratiate themselves once again to the RNC. Palin is just vain enough to think that she can win without the GOP.
The wingnuts bring unfocused rage and high volume but little that translates into electoral victory.
For the first and in all likelihood last time, I congratulate Liam for actually saying one thing that was clear headed and on target. Dems lost last night. Two big governorship trouncings, one in a blue state and one that was supposed to have been permanently flipped blue, ssm losing again in a liberal state, and the Dem in 23 winning but with a plurality less than the combined votes for the last-minute conservative and lame-duck Republican. That’s a huge loss.
All the same, both sides overplay these things. You are up, then you are down. Sometimes up and down at the same time. There aren’t permanent victories.
The madness is the continuing belief of the rest of the liberals here and elsewhere that only they represent the mainstream, with conservatives and Republicans a tiny minority in the process of being extinguished. The future hasn’t been written, and you are delusional about what has already happened.
“Your bigotry is going to go out with the trash. The next generation will see to that.”
The bigotry is in you.
Yeah, I agree with the historic American norm that torture is illegal.
I’m such a bigot.
Deeds: Lame-*** “conservadem” dodo, in way over his head; should never have been the D candidate in the first place. His opponent won by cunningly disavowing and hiding everything for which he (Deeds’ opponent) ever stood, and being permitted to get away with it. VA will suffer as a result.
Corzine: A deeply unpopular, arrogant slug with a sense of entitlement, replaced by an overweight, deeply unpopular, arrogant slug with an aversion to obeying the law. It will be disastrous for NJ, and they richly deserve Christie Chris. Bend over, Joisey — you ain’t seen *nuthin’* yet!
NY-23: Teabaggers (and their spinny-eyed, know-nothing, carpetbagging minion with poor dental hygiene) massively humiliated and royally discredited. A virulent pox on all their political houses.
“Actually the number in the next generation that are the product of homosexual unions (in all but biology, and that only barely so in some cases) is far higher than in previous generations of Americans.”
And you call yourselves the party of reality.
No one is a product of a “homosexual union.” Period. When you say “in all but biology,” you might as well say that frogs are products of horses “in all but biology,” or that blue is red “in all but color.”
Biological reality won’t change in response to your linguistic abuses or flights of fancy, nor will principles of civic morality.
VA will suffer as a result.
Especially once their new attorney general gets going.
““in all but biology,” you might as well say that frogs are products of horses “in all but biology,” or that blue is red “in all but color.””
So – I take it your view of adoption by heterosexuals is the same.
A woman in a same gender partnership is artifically inseminated at a sperm bank and then gives birth to a child raised successfully by the two women of the partnership.
But this is heterosexual union, for which it’s vitally necessary that the child be harmed by making her and the family she’s a part of nonexistent in the eyes of the law……..
But I’m the bigot………………..
“So – I take it your view of adoption by heterosexuals is the same.”
Umm, no. Adopted children are the “products” of heterosexual reproduction.
“Umm, no. Adopted children are the “products” of heterosexual reproduction.”
Yes – only on paper, however. Just the same with same *** couples.
The legal parental relationship is not based on anything different whether the parents are two men, two women, or a man and woman.
Same process – so what’s your justification for saying it’s different?
“The generation who are in their twenties now are not homophobic.”
Perhaps less homophobic but, sorry tena, you’re not even close!
“Perhaps less homophobic but, sorry tena, you’re not even close!”
Well obviously you have as much of a source as I have.
So we disagree – you must know a different bunch of 22 year olds than I know.
Because among the 20 somethings I know, being gay is no big deal and being lesbian or bi-sexual is somewhat of a norm.
QB:
“Umm, no. Adopted children are the “products” of heterosexual reproduction”
A detail they conveniently overlook on the pell-mell dash to their prejudices.
It really is remarkable how quickly the hive-mind seals itself off to the damage from the inconvenient truth, is it not?
Perhaps less homophobic but, sorry tena, you’re not even close!
Sufficiently less that it makes the difference between a minority and a majority in favor of marriage equality.
(I’m only citing this one poll, but the generational gap it refers to has been present and consistent for two decades, with each age cohort not changing all that much in its collective opinion. Thus, the opinions among the 30-somethings now were the opinions of the 20-somethings ten years ago, and so forth.)
“But this is heterosexual union, for which it’s vitally necessary that the child be harmed by making her and the family she’s a part of nonexistent in the eyes of the law…….. ”
Calling two lesbians and a child born through AI a family doesn’t make it a family. It just debases the language and culture. The harm to that child is not caused by not calling the arrangement a family.
It really is remarkable how quickly the hive-mind seals itself off to the damage from the inconvenient truth, is it not?
It’s even more remarkable that a lifetime of living with two parents of the same gender is insisted upon as being of no consequence by bigots like you.
“QB:
“Umm, no. Adopted children are the “products” of heterosexual reproduction”
A detail they conveniently overlook on the pell-mell dash to their prejudices.
It really is remarkable how quickly the hive-mind seals itself off to the damage from the inconvenient truth, is it not?”
No no no – you’re wrong, both of you, from every standpoint, but especially the only one that matters – legally.
I still haven’t heard why there is a difference when the adopting parents are heterosexual vs. when they are homosexual.
Adopted children are only the “products” of a union on paper. Adoptive hetero mothers are not any more the ones who delivered the infant than are adoptive hetero fathers or adoptive parents of any ***.
Y’all are the ones who do not get it.
“Calling two lesbians and a child born through AI a family doesn’t make it a family. It just debases the language and culture. The harm to that child is not caused by not calling the arrangement a family.”
Who died and made you Sigmund Freud?
Calling two lesbians and a child born through AI a family doesn’t make it a family. It just debases the language and culture.
Then I guess qb thinks they’re all just one collection of “its”.
But I’m the bigot……………
qb, what’s your recommendation for addressing the issues raised by the presence of homosexual citizens.
Euthenasia? Forced sterilzation? Life in prison?
“Yes – only on paper, however. Just the same with same *** couples.”
No, not “on paper” but in flesh and blood. Children are born as a result of sexual reproduction, heterosexual that is. They will never be born through homosexual unions.
“The legal parental relationship is not based on anything different whether the parents are two men, two women, or a man and woman.
Same process – so what’s your justification for saying it’s different?”
I don’t follow your logic or question. In one respect or perhaps several, the claim you make is obviously untrue. A biological parent of a child born to a married couple is the legal parent without the legal process of adoption. I have both, but I didn’t become their father the same way.
Beyond that, your argument, to the extent it is undertandable, is circular. You assume legal parenthood and ask they are different between gay and nongay adoptive parents. So the answer is, you have just assumed your own answer. I don’t consider two men or two women cohabiting to be the social or moral equivalent of a married couple. Nor do most people. To those of you in the liberal hothouse, that is bigotry — a position for which you have no reasonable explanation.
You just don’t believe in reason or truth any more. These are all just artificial and social constructs to you, so human nature is plastic and social norms and public morality are arbitrary. You condemn the wisdom passed down from previous generations because it does not fit your radical project of remaking society. Indeed, the overriding project of your side is to tear down the institutions of civil society, one means of which is subjecting them to sustained “raional” — really pseudo-rational — critiques (sophistry, to the Greeks). And you define religious faith out of legitimate discussion as being instead pure superstition and bigotry.
In other words, we can’t have a reasoned discussion of the basis for your position versus mine, because you have rejected reason. Sorry, but you have.
“qb, what’s your recommendation for addressing the issues raised by the presence of homosexual citizens.
Euthenasia? Forced sterilzation? Life in prison?”
So those are the options, are they? That or marriage.
You are childish.
“Sufficiently less that it makes the difference between a minority and a majority in favor of marriage equality.
“(I’m only citing this one poll, but the generational gap it refers to has been present and consistent for two decades.)”
I did not deny that there was a generational gap. My point was that homophobia still exists – tena laughingly claimed that it did not. One need only listen to Hip Hop, Gangsta Rap, reggaeton for evidence of ample misogyny and homophobia. As a resident of California, I am personally acquainted with homophobia coming from youthful supporters of Prop 8 (even though they couldn’t even vote!) I’d further point out that approval of gay marriage does not mean that one is not homophobic. One could approve of marriage and still not want a gay person to be their child’s cub scout leader.
It’s worthwhile to remind participants here that Obama does not support gay marriage.
“Calling two lesbians and a child born through AI a family doesn’t make it a family. It just debases the language and culture.
Then I guess qb thinks they’re all just one collection of “its”.”
More careful reasoning from a leftist hater on display. Can’t wait for you to explain you that follows. But I won’t wait, since you can’t. You don’t discuss or reason, you just condemn and vituperate.
“I don’t consider two men or two women cohabiting to be the…moral equivalent of a married couple.”
What do you mean by this? On what basis do you, personally, judge my morality?
“I don’t follow your logic or question. In one respect or perhaps several, the claim you make is obviously untrue. A biological parent of a child born to a married couple is the legal parent without the legal process of adoption. I have both, but I didn’t become their father the same way.”
WE are not talking about your family. We’re talking about adopting children and whether the couple adopting an infant is the same *** or two different ones, it’s the same damn thing. It’s a legal process.
Hetero or homosexual – makes no difference on paper. And that’s all you’re talking about there.
You moved the goalposts, qb.
Amazing how one race gets ridiculously blown up into an absurd “civil war” narrative, but when Dems like Waxman and Stark are calling Blue Dogs brain-dead idiots, Maxine Waters and others in the “progressive” (because championing New Dealesque policies is so forward thinking)caucus are calling for primaries for Blue Dogs, left-wing blogs are calling Blue Dogs and Joe Lieberman, a guy who is no longer a Dem because of a primary challenge, a traitor, the party is at odds over Afghanistan and health care has not passed because of party differences and Arlen Specter is on the brink of losing because of a primary challenge, all of that is ignored in order to play up one race in a small NY district that will no longer exist after the census. If there is a civil war going on, it is in the Dem Party, and the fact Obama has accomplished pretty much nothing of note is all the evidence you need of that. Oh yeah, I also forgot the part about Baucus loudly denouncing the cap-and-trade bill being pushed by Barbara “the world’s stupidest senator” Boxer.
The double-standard here is so huge, it almost ranks up with insulting Michelle Bachman as a loon while you praise Alan Grayon as courageous, because we all know it takes guts to compare the Republican Party to Nazis.
So those are the options, are they? That or marriage.
You are childish.
Nice non-answer!
“and the fact Obama has accomplished pretty much nothing of note is all the evidence you need of that.”
s
No, any problems we have are caused by the people who refuse to see how very damn different things are now than they were in, say, 2003.
Gawdeffingdammit!
Obama has done plenty and continues to do plenty and half the really important stuff he’s done – like telling HOlder to get the anti-trust division of the DOJ back in operation; directing immigration to release a large number of undocumented workers who got locked up but are not criminals and then you know, little things – like keeping the frakking world economy from completely coming apart – those “nothings” Obama has accomplished have made this a very different country than is was just two years ago.
Jeezuz – I’m totally out of patience with people who can’t see that.
“What do you mean by this? On what basis do you, personally, judge my morality?”
I’ll be happy to consider starting to answer questions like this when everyone else here starts explaining the basis for their moral judgments. I have the same moral outlook on the issue that our civilization has had for millenia. That seems enough explanation for this forum.
I respect you and obviously agree with you about a lot of issues, but we disagree on this one. I don’t think there is much point to trying to discuss the underlying reasons. You wouldn’t accept mine, and I wouldn’t accept yours. You think that that parents hate **** if they don’t want their children to have gay scout leaders, and I think that view is . . . I won’t even start.
Amazing how one race gets ridiculously blown up into an absurd “civil war” narrative, but when Dems like Waxman and Stark are calling Blue Dogs brain-dead idiots, Maxine Waters and others in the “progressive” (because championing New Dealesque policies is so forward thinking)caucus are calling for primaries for Blue Dogs, left-wing blogs are calling Blue Dogs and Joe Lieberman, a guy who is no longer a Dem because of a primary challenge, a traitor, the party is at odds over Afghanistan and health care has not passed because of party differences and Arlen Specter is on the brink of losing because of a primary challenge, all of that is ignored in order to play up one race in a small NY district that will no longer exist after the census.
Maybe that’s because for the Dems. it’s pretty much life as usual, while it’s very much not so for the Republicans.
“I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat.”
- Will Rogers (entertainer & humorist, 1879-1935)
“You moved the goalposts, qb.”
No, Tena, you are trying to move them. Go back and read the thread.
a”The double-standard here is so huge, it almost ranks up with insulting Michelle Bachman as a loon while you praise Alan Grayon as courageous, because we all know it takes guts to compare the Republican Party to Nazis.”
Except that Grayson is closer to the truth there than Palin ever has been or ever will be – that’s what y’all can’t except.
There’s nothing crazy or wild about what Grayson says. There’s nothing crazy or wild about saying Dick Cheney is the moral equivalent of a vampire – most people agree with that.
Most people do not agree that Barrack Obama is the moral equivalent of a vampire or Hitler – there’s no comparison. There’s no evidence the right can show that makes Obama anything like a Nazi. Cheney and Bush, on the other hand, were fascists. Fascism is characterized, first of all, by the joining of business and government to the point where the distinction is blurred.
Remember the CEO president?
The problem with the right is as it has been, that FACTS have a liberal bias.
I won’t even start.
What a shame for qb, living in a country that has the nerve to let faggots marry each other and raise children.
“Nice non-answer!”
My answer was on point — your “question” was childish and stupid.
Or perhaps you’d like to explain. Are the choices either marriage on one hand or euthenasia, prison, and sterilization on the other?
Which one has been our policy recently?
“No, Tena, you are trying to move them. Go back and read the thread.”
Dude, you are a waste of oxygen and the most dishonest commenter here, which is really saying a mouthful. I’m done = you have no answer to my original question and you’ve gone all over the place to avoid it.
So what else is new and who cares?
insulting Michelle Bachman
Insulting someone who proposes (de facto) resurrecting the House Unamerican Activities Committee is something every American ought to be doing. It was an embarrassment the first time it existed and it would be an even greater embarrassment now.
Congress shouldn’t be in the business of conducting patriotism inquisitions and a representative who doesn’t grasp that deserves to be insulted.
Or perhaps you’d like to explain. Are the choices either marriage on one hand or euthenasia, prison, and sterilization on the other?
I asked you what your stance was, and then threw out gratuitously insulting possible options.
You are certainly free to answer the question with your own suggestions, or not answer as you wish. To date all you do is criticize while simultaneously never suggesting what you yourself envision.
Since you live in a country that regards the pursuit of happiness as self-evident, yet you are opposed to that pursuit when it comes to its homosexual citizens, I was curious to know how you would want the USA to resolve that if it were up to you.
“insulting Michelle Bachman
Insulting someone who proposes (de facto) resurrecting the House Unamerican Activities Committee is something every American ought to be doing.”
Word straight up!
The problem with the right is that all things being equal, they’d have a point about insulting one side and not the other. But all things aren’t equal.
The GOP just spent 8 years in power which was a FAILURE of cosmic proportions. They seem to think that no one is supposed to remember that, or remember how nutty Michelle Bachmann (the census is just a way for the aliens to take control and implant their thought magnets in our brains) actually is.
She’s nutty. So is Betsy McCoughey, and the rest of the shining stars on the right. So when they get called on what they are the right gets all pissy? You don’t see yourselves the way everyone does I guess, but you see yourselves in such a wildly deluded way that this is what is killing the GOP.
I know you won’t change, so goody.
“you are a waste of oxygen and the most dishonest commenter here”
You are in the running for that but probably a close second to a couple of your comrades.
You are again confused. Bilgeman said that the next generation will be made up of people who are the products of heterosexual unions. oddjob said there will be more in the past who are products of homosexual unions.
That is nonsense, biologically speaking, which is exactly the point I made. Your responses and oddjob’s were evasions and efforts to change the subject.
Do I care whether you are “done”? Hardly. You call me dishonest, yet I routinely disprove your factual claims, at which point you do this very thing, try to change the issue and accuse me of changing it. You are a bore, because you never sustain a line of thought or logic.
more “than” in the past
(the right to the pursuit of happiness)
oddjob said there will be more in the past who are products of homosexual unions.
That is nonsense, biologically speaking
What I was indicating is that a human is more than the union of a sperm and an egg. A human child is also the product of its childhood and who raises the child and how. In every meaningful way except for the biological union, a child successfully raised by a same gender couple in a life-long bond is unavoidably not only the product of its biological origin, but also the product of the two adults who raised it.
“I asked you what your stance was, and then threw out gratuitously insulting possible options.
You are certainly free to answer the question with your own suggestions, or not answer as you wish. To date all you do is criticize while simultaneously never suggesting what you yourself envision”
No, you didn’t. You said this:
“qb, what’s your recommendation for addressing the issues raised by the presence of homosexual citizens.
Euthenasia? Forced sterilzation? Life in prison?”
To which my answer was the appropriat one — you are seriously suggeesting those are the choices?
What don’t you get about this? Those aren’t the choices. If so, which one has been the policy???
My “recommendation”: Neither marriage, nor euthenasia, nor prison, nor sterilization.
You are so illogical it is impossible even to have a discussion with you.
quarterback – one more time:
“““in all but biology,” you might as well say that frogs are products of horses “in all but biology,” or that blue is red “in all but color.””
So – I take it your view of adoption by heterosexuals is the same?”
Now, let’s discuss my question. What’s the difference between a heterosexual couple adopting a child and a same *** couple adopting a child?
Just answer that – that was the question.
“You think that parents hate [gay people] if they don’t want their children to have gay scout leaders, and I think that view is . . . I won’t even start.”
Not at all, QB. I think that those parents have an irrational fear of gay people and the “threat” they pose to their children. Homophobia, for me, does not equal hate.
Do you know any long-term gay couples that you consider friends?
What don’t you get about this?
I repeat: Since you live in a country that regards the right to the pursuit of happiness as self-evident, yet you are opposed to that pursuit when it comes to its homosexual citizens, I was curious to know how you would want the USA to resolve that if it were up to you.
“. Homophobia, for me, does not equal hate.”
And then you go on to admit that homophobia is fear. I am shocked that you do not get the relationship between fear and hate – I mean – Whaaaaaaa??
Here’s an answer for more than a few political issues.
It may come to pass that we discover a biological predilection for homosexuality on the human genome and develop tests able to identify this predilection in utero.
As a thought experiment, if the above becomes reality, would the Right still oppose abortion and the Left still defend it?
Think.
“What I was indicating is that a human is more than the union of a sperm and an egg. A human child is also the product of its childhood and who raises the child and how. In every meaningful way except for the biological union, a child successfully raised by a same gender couple in a life-long bond is unavoidably not only the product of its biological origin, but also the product of the two adults who raised it.”
Okay, I can understand that, although I think there is a large degree of circularity in your view, and that it doesn’t really say much in response to the point Bilge was making.
So, we disagree, a lot. That’s probably all that’s worth saying.
“and the Left still defend it?”
It’s not about babies. How many times does someone have to say this?
It’s about my right to privacy in my own body being exactly equivalent to the right that every American man has to privacy in his body.
It’s nobody’s business where, when, who or why.
Think.
Excellent question. That’s the sort of question I would expect to encounter in a college course discussing bioethics. I don’t think it has an immediately apparent answer.
“Now, let’s discuss my question. What’s the difference between a heterosexual couple adopting a child and a same *** couple adopting a child?
Just answer that – that was the question.”
Not the issue I was originally addressing, but, okay. The question is a bit vague. If it means, what’s the legal difference, the answer seems to be the one I previously gave — you are assuming your own answer. Legal parenthood is legal parenthood.
If you want to talk about it in metaphysical terms, or as social policy or morality or something else, then I think adoption by married hetero couples should be strongly favored and adoption by gay couples disfavored. The latter might be preferable to no parents at all, but I believe is vastly inferior to a traditional hetero couple.
Call it hatred, bigotry, whatever you want. It is not my position that is radical.
“I don’t think it has an immediately apparent answer.”
Yes is very well goddamn does have an answer.
It is not anyone’s business who, where when or WHY. Because it is a private matter between a woman and her doctor and her conscience and her body.
“. Homophobia, for me, does not equal hate.”
And then you go on to admit that homophobia is fear. I am shocked that you do not get the relationship between fear and hate – I mean – Whaaaaaaa??”
The relationship between fear and hate is that hate spawns fear. However, fear is not only spawned by hate – I believe it is also born of misunderstanding.
I believe that there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who hold an irrational fear of gay people but that this irrational fear is not born of hate but of misunderstanding. “Who fears God, does not know God.” That’s why I asked QB if he considered any long term coupled **** as friends. Once people begin to see that many of the people they actually respect and love are gay they might begin to lose their irrational fear.
“It is not my position that is radical.”
As long as you consider blind prejudice and a soupcon of hate not radical.
Yes is very well goddamn does have an answer.
It is not anyone’s business who, where when or WHY. Because it is a private matter between a woman and her doctor and her conscience and her body.
I stand corrected on that.
sbj – you have it totally backwards: Fear spawns hatred – not the other way around.
“Think.
Excellent question. That’s the sort of question I would expect to encounter in a college course discussing bioethics. I don’t think it has an immediately apparent answer.”
Shocked I am that I agree, sort of. Sort of, because I think the two sides realy wouldn’t switch. Pro-lifers certainly would not become pro-choice. Not a chance. Pro-choice liberals would criticize orientation-selective abortion (or whatever it might be called), but they wouldn’t give up abortion rights.
Nor do I think the hypothetical is ever likely to come to pass. But in thinking about this issue, I have always thought the quest for genetic validation, and the larger nature/nurture debate, is misplaced. If you believe that behaviors are genetically determined or disposed, then you really can’t avoid generalizing that belief, at which point it seems to me to become useless as a moral argument.
“It is not anyone’s business who, where when or WHY.”
In a fashion tena is correct. For the right, the “why” of it does not matter at all. Abortion is always wrong to them. For some on the left, however, this presents a bit of a problem in that many – (tena excluded apparently) – would consider it immoral to abort a child merely because it was gay.
“As long as you consider blind prejudice and a soupcon of hate not radical.”
That’s what I get for answering a question and having a discussion in good faith with a self-blind hater.
for tena – I think the point is debatable but I leave you with this:
“Fear is the summary emotion of the ego because it is where all of the ego’s emotions lead, not where all of them come from.
“On a practical level, what this means is that when we make a choice for hate, we are really making a choice for fear, because that is where our hate will lead us. Our hate seems to be a choice for strength, a choice that will raise us to the top of the heap, but in fact it is a choice for weakness, a choice that will leave us cowering in the shadows.”
many – (tena excluded apparently) – would consider it immoral to abort a child merely because it was gay
As I understand her, Tena’s point is that regardless of what others may or may not think it isn’t their decision to make on behalf of the one who is pregnant. She’s right.
“Do you know any long-term gay couples that you consider friends?”
No.
In my experience, “homophobia” is a pseudo-psychological term usually used by people to refer to an imagined amalgam of “fear” and “hatred” that is the “true” explanation for withholding approbation for homosexuality — really just a term of derision and propoganda intended to stigmatize traditional beliefs.
But, people use words in lots of ways.
“She’s right.”
And that is what I said.
I bring up an additional point – how would tena feel about one who chooses to abort solely because her baby was going to be gay? I think QB already gave a capable answer: “Pro-choice liberals would criticize orientation-selective abortion…but they wouldn’t give up abortion rights.”
The thought gives me the heebie-jeebies.
“, however, this presents a bit of a problem in that many – (tena excluded apparently) – would consider it immoral to abort a child merely because it was gay.”
You cannot use your mind in more than 2 dimensions apparently. Try to get this through your effing head:
It’s not about whether some woman does something you or I consider immoral – that’s her lookout with her god, her conscience and her doctor.
If you decided to get your ***** removed, I don’t think society would get to weigh in on it. That would be up to you, your doctor and your god.
Same thing for a woman. You are not supposed to know why someone gets s medical procedure – it’s none of your frakking business.
You are not the moral arbiter for females.
p*e*n*i*s removed.
@QB: Is there any chance at all that you might make an effort to socialize with an openly gay, long-term, monogamous gay couple?
I don’t really seek your approval, QB, I want to understand why you think I am immoral. And you answered, somewhat unclearly, that your view of morality was based on your religious beliefs.
I cannot argue with beliefs that are based on faith. I can only tell you that being gay for me is not a choice – why would anyone freely choose such a difficult life? – and that the only way I could ever be happy would be to act upon my God-given impulses. I believe God wants me to be happy, and s/he created me this way.
God you are beyond tiresome.
You are making something up and trying to hold me morally responsible for something you made up about a mythical woman.
You do not know nor do I the reason any woman chooses to end a pregnancy and you shouldn’t – it’s none of our business.
If it’s immoral, then she has to answer for it – not you.
It’s none of your goddamn business what any woman does with her own body. None.
“It’s not about whether some woman does something you or I consider immoral – that’s her lookout with her god, her conscience and her doctor.”
Whatever you mean by “it’s” – I can ask any question I damn well please, tena. I’m not concerned with legality and privacy rights. Just a simple question you aren’t willing to answer. I shudder to think that if we follow your view that in a few short generations we might live in a society without any gay people at all.
To be a bigot, hater, a liar, or even a Stalinist, all one needs do is disagree with quarterback. If you do not display sufficient fealty toward his pronouncements, then, “we can’t have a reasoned discussion of the basis for your position versus mine, because you have rejected reason.”
Neither does loudly amplified hyperbole substitute for reason. Simply dismiss all those whom do not agree with you as “childish and stupid” and imperiously disdain to address questions you don’t care to answer, all while hurling invective at those who don’t answer any and all questions to your satisfaction. That is the QB strategy for discussion and debate in a nutshell.
But, the quarterback has spoken: quod erat demonstrandum.
“. Just a simple question you aren’t willing to answer. I shudder to think that if we follow your view that in a few short generations we might live in a society without any gay people at all.”
Go ahead and shudder at the s*h*i*t you’re making up. That’s all it is – your fantasy.
So it seems we have at least one strong vote for the protection of homophobia vis-a-vis abortion rights.
I fail to see how it is at all sane to hypothetically tolerate the right of someone to have a would-be homosexual human fetus literally torn apart in the womb, while decrying the inhumanity of denying homosexual post-fetuses to be issued marriage licenses.
But then again I’m kinda here on a Quixotic quest to attmpt to comprehend moonbat thought-processes.
“Whatever you mean by “it’s””
By it’s I mean whatever a woman and her doctor decide to do with her health and her body.
That’s what that means.
“But then again I’m kinda here on a Quixotic quest to attmpt to comprehend moonbat thought-processes.”
No you’re not – that’s the biggest lie you’ve ever posted.
You don’t give a damn. You’re here trolling for arguments.
“Go ahead and shudder at the s*h*i*t you’re making up. That’s all it is – your fantasy.”
So there’ve been – what? – 31 state referendums in which we’ve lost gay rights – but you don’t think there’s any danger that unborn gay children will be aborted in large numbers – or that such a practice would change the very nature of society.
So you got out your handbook of purpose prose again, Gasbag.
Oh, and Latin too!
Read your own diatribe to yourself, inveterate liar. You are talking about yourself. After being so recently exposed as a peddler of rank (and stupidly conceived) lies, I am surprised you would show your face at all, but you are nothing if not deluded.
ugh purple prose
“So there’ve been – what? – 31 state referendums in which we’ve lost gay rights – but you don’t think there’s any danger that unborn gay children will be aborted in large numbers – or that such a practice would change the very nature of society.”
You’re way out there on this – you cannot connect those two things like that – particularly where one – the result you claim – mass abortions of gay fetuses – is something you totally made up. It is a fantasy you came up with on the basis of two state referendums on a completely different subject.
Do you know how many marijuana legalization referendums have failed in the past? Now they are winning. The one that Breckenridge passed was about the 3d ballot initiative that has come up in Colorado and it’s the first one to clearly win.
Months ago I told you guys that Independent voters had elected Obama because they were fed up with Bush and the Republicans failed to deliver on the conservative promises that put them in power. I told you that these Independents would eventually realize that Obama and his government was too far left and would eventually repudiate them. Like it or not it has begun to happen. Either he and the Dems become more centrist or they will be replaced. Independents are the key to political success in this country. Go too far left or right and you lose them.
“I told you that these Independents would eventually realize that Obama and his government was too far left and would eventually repudiate them. Like it or not it has begun to happen. Either he and the Dems become more centrist or they will be replaced. Independents are the key to political success in this country. Go too far left or right and you lose them.”
And who died and made you omnipotent? It was two goddamned special elections for gubernatorial seats.
We picked up two new Democratic seats in the House – that THAT is nationally relevant.
Your comment is and opinion.
“Either he and the Dems become more centrist or they will be replaced.”
Time to pull a Bill Clinton!
“It was two…special elections for gubernatorial seats.”
I thought it was two special elections for the congressional seats and two regularly scheduled elections for the gubernatorial seats? Can anyone clarify?
My Tena, what a thoughtful and unemotional response. The Democrat in NY 23 was more conservative that the Republican who dropped out. My comment was about Independent voters making the ultimate decision on who wins. Do you claim this is untrue?
sbj,
Look, I respect you as a human being. You don’t seem to engage in some of the reckless rhetoric, for example. But I don’t think you are really looking for my explanation for my views.
Your comments, for example, use loaded language like your asking me why I think you are immoral, rather than what I think about homosexuality.
I think the moral case against it can be made on more than one basis. But you wouldn’t consider any of them legitimate, because you believe you were created as you are and act consistently with the nature you were given. Well, I don’t, nor do I think that is a convincing moral defense in any event.
But, we aren’t going to make any progress persuading each other. I’m sure you’ve explored the issues with others who disagree, read differing opinions, etc. So have I. I doubt either of us has something new to say. No offense, but I’ve heard the defense you stated countless times. And I’m sure you have heard things much like I would say.
See! Now, I am an inveterate liar and a “pedaler of rank lies.”
Bravo, QB. You get points for recognizing the quote is Latin.
Thanks for essentially proving my observations of your style of commentary on this blog.
qb, more generally speaking your most recent comment here applies to pretty much everything you have to say on almost any issue.
That being the case, why bother to comment?
Tena:
“No you’re not – that’s the biggest lie you’ve ever posted.
You don’t give a damn. You’re here trolling for arguments.”
Mmmm, perhaps.
And how would you characaterize your contributions?
Trolling for validation of your notions?
Or just trying to be the popular girl you never were in school?
Look, it was simply a thought experiment, and I thought a very valid one. You seem to have taken it way more personally than was warranted.
Why is that?
Is there something you wish to share with us about your personal past?
Whose face do you see in your nightmares?
actuator,
You push the meme that Obama is “too far to the left.” Nonsense. Obama is barely left of center on nearly any issue. If he were “too far to the left” he would have moved to get us out of Iraq faster, he would be pushing a single payer system and not worrying a wit about GOP support, he would have already closed Gitmo, he would have suspended “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, he would stomped on the GOP in the house and the senate instead of fawning all over them, he would have done something, ANYTHING that could be construed as truly liberal. He simply hasn’t done so.
The right wing seems incapable of defining the political landscape in anything other than stark dualistic terms. Obama simply isn’t a liberal. Kucinich is liberal. Obama is not even close. If he was, the liberals wouldn’t be so upset with him.
@QB: I’d like to think that I am open to persuasion but surely you are correct in this case. And I don’t offer a defense – I have nothing to defend. On the topic of loaded language, when you wrote, “I don’t consider two men or two women cohabiting to be the social or moral equivalent of a married couple,” I considered that to have been calling my relationship immoral. However, I may have overdone it there.
“But I don’t think you are really looking for my explanation for my views.”
You seem reasonable – yes I am seeking your views. I am not interested in a religious basis for condemning the morality of my situation. I am interested in any other reasons you can use to say that my relationship with my boyfriend is “bad.” You do not have to engage.
Have you considered my plea for you to engage with a long-term, monogamous gay couple on a friendly basis? Do you agree that this could provide some additional perspective you currently lack?
Gasman, Obama may not seem liberal enough for “Move On” and others of the far left persuasion, but the reason has to do with keeping the Independent voter. I believe the office he holds has pushed him more to the center than his true ideological view of how government should operate. It is not that he doesn’t want to do the things you mention. He is constrained by his desire to get a second term and he’ll need the Independents again to do it. He is extremely politically savvy. The rhetoric alone proves it.
actuator,
Come on, that “he really is liberal even if he doesn’t act liberal” is pure b.s. straight from Limbaugh. Like Limbaugh, when caught in promoting a meme that is demonstrably not true, you invoke, “but he is really liberal in his heart.” Pure sophistry on your part.
He has shown no liberal tendencies at all. Your assertions that the only reason he has not done so is because of his fear of independent voters is pure ludimocrosity. He passed the national referendum on his desire to be president.
Now you profess to know what is truly in Obama’s heart? If your clairvoyance is so infallible, how come you couldn’t detect the demise of the GOP? His rhetoric since taking office is slightly left of center. Again, not a trace of this extreme liberalism you keep trying to invoke.