Why do I believe in gay marriage? On a personal note, as a mother, I want my son to find someone who he can spend the rest of his days with in a loving, long lasting relationship. After informing some of my Republican friends about my support of gay marriage, I got the gamut of reactions from “so what” to “gay marriage is simply not right.”   There were numerous reasons given by my Republican friends for being against gay marriage which I hope to counter in this article.

Some Republicans believe that civil unions should reinforce the rights of gay and lesbian couples. They told me “if a person got sick, they should be allowed to have visitors close to them.” Some went further, stating “there are those who should be allowed to make health care decisions for each other or be allowed to be put on each other’s insurance policy.” My response to them was that by accepting civil unions you are recognizing gay couples (except if you happen to live in Iran.) By being in support of civil unions there is the undeniable recognition of domestic partnerships. Therefore, civil unions promote “gay families.” Then why not call it marriage? 

These aren’t bad arguments and conservatives need to (and in most cases have) come to grips with them. Unfortunately, much of the rest of the argument doesn’t stand up to any intellectual or moral scrutiny.  Later: 

Other Republicans pointed out that the Bible prohibits homosexual activity and does not accept it as a lifestyle. I cannot accept that premise considering the fact that the Bible talks about other archaic practices such as stoning and polygamy. It seems to me that people choose to follow certain parts of the Bible while ignoring others. I want my son to continue to be a part of our religion and not to be turned away because of his beliefs or lifestyle. For me, the reality of religions is that everyone chooses to pick what they will follow from the Sacred Text.

Let’s leave aside, for the moment, that there are later parts of the Christian Bible (particularly the New Testament) which seem to take serious issue with the “archaic practices” Elise mentions.  Let’s even accept that, like Scalia’s faint-hearted originalist, some of us are faint-hearted Christians.  Even after all that, there’s still nothing remotely coherent about the bolded text.  How can someone be “part of a religion” if they don’t let it affect their beliefs or lifestyle?  Even the vaguest, watery spirtualism makes claims about proper lifestyle and right belief.  Imagine this reformulation: “I want my son to be a Vegan and not be turned away because he happens to like meat”.  Such a statement would strike even the most hardened cynic as incredible, but we barely notice the more consequential religious version. 

I don’t claim to know how central the doctrines on homosexuality are to Christianity (though I’m pretty sure it’s somewhere between Jerry Falwell Christianity and Elise Cooper Christianity). Still,  I think it’s troubling that we now take our diets more seriously than our religion.  Christianity has become, for the Elise Cooper’s of the world, a cultural artifact like Republicanism was for mid-20th century Northeasterners- divorced from the doctrinal background which made it a force to be reckoned with.  If the gay marriage crusade- wherever you come down on the issue individually- leads to a world where more people feel that religion shouldn’t interfere with your beliefs or lifestyle, then we’ll all lose out.

This comes on the heels of a scripted question at a presidential press conference from the liberal Huffington Post.

And let’s not forget the president’s scripted opponents — and his thoroughly scripted remarks and answers.

This is the showbiz age, and this is the showbiz presidency. Everything, from top to bottom, is scripted. There are no such things as actual “town halls,” “forums,” or legitimate interrogations of the president’s policies by opponents. There is no debate. There is no opposition.

There is no accountability. Congress is Democratic, with its sixtieth Democratic senator a lying pundit coming from showbiz. The press corps is Democratic, broadcasting “infomercials” from the White House. The president’s opponents are acknowledged only by the generosity of the president and his allies — and when they are acknowledged, they come in the form of 2-d cardboard cutouts, suitable only for knocking down.

In the hot new movie The Presidency, politics is a grand melodrama, not an exchange of ideas. The good guy, Change Agent Barack Obama, must defeat the villains: big corporations, “special interests,” “those who say change isn’t possible,” and above all, that wicked wretch Rush Limbaugh. They want to prevent change from coming to America. Will our hero be able to stop them before they deny the American people the change they need?

Frank Rich gives it “two thumbs way up!”

But this movie world exists only in the fantasy of the left. What will happen if the American people turn on this charade? What will happen if the Republicans retake Congress or bust the supermajority? What will happen if unemployment reaches double-digits? What will happen if there’s a true international crisis?

Could the script have a twist ending?

What will become of our hero? Stay tuned…

Quinnipiac National Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

• Approve 57% (59%)
• Disapprove 33% (31%)

Among Independents

• Approve 52% (57%)
• Disapprove 37% (30%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 52%
• Disapprove 42%

Among Independents

• Approve 47%
• Disapprove 46%

Who do you trust to do a better job handling the economy – President Obama or the Republicans in Congress?

• President Obama 54%
• Republicans in Congress 32%

Among Independents

• President Obama 49%
• Republicans in Congress 32%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling foreign policy?

• Approve 55%
• Disapprove 35%

Among Independents

• Approve 54%
• Disapprove 37%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care?

• Approve 46%
• Disapprove 42%

Among Independents

• Approve 37%
• Disapprove 48%

Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court?

• Approve 54% (55%)
• Disapprove 26% (25%)

Among Independents

• Approve 47% (53%)
• Disapprove 28% (26%)

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Barack Obama 58% / 30% [+28%]
• Democratic Party 42% / 42% [0%]
• Republican Party 25% / 52% [-27%]

Among Independents

• Barack Obama 55% / 33% [+22%]
• Democratic Party 30% / 49% [-19%]
• Republican Party 20% / 57% [-37%]

Would you say that Barack Obama is doing a better job as president than you expected, a worse job, or about what you expected?

• Better 18%
• Worse 14%
• About expected 64%

Among Independents

• Better 13%
• Worse 17%
• About expected 66%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job?

• Approve 38% (43%)
• Disapprove 50% (45%)

Among Independents

• Approve 27% (33%)
• Disapprove 61% (52%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their job?

• Approve 29% (30%)
• Disapprove 57% (56%)

Among Independents

• Approve 24% (26%)
• Disapprove 62% (59%)

If the 2010 election for U.S. House of Representatives were being held today, would you vote for – the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate in your district?

• Democrat 42% (42%)
• Republican 34% (32%)

Among Independents

• Republican 28% (26%)
• Democrat 28% (29%)

Survey of 3,063 registered voters was conducted June 23 – 29. The margin of error is +/- 1.8 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted May 26 – June 1 are in parentheses.

A few months ago, I had an email conversation with my old friend Steve Maloney - who was one of my first endorsements at palinforvp.blogspot.com and a longtime partner in the “Draft Palin for VP” movement. At time, I was making a lot of noise about the potential to take out David Vitter with Joseph Cao, and I had asked his opinion on all of my ”Draft Cao” rhetoric. During the course of the conversation, he mentioned that the person he would most like to see drafted for office was author and columnist Amity Shlaes, who penned the now iconic history of the Great Depression, The Forgotten Man. At the time, we both lamented the fact that Schlaes was from deep-blue New York and went on with our lives. However, after reading today’s news, I’m starting to think that this is not such a far-fetched idea. 

At the moment, the GOP is scrambling to find a challenger for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand – who suffers from low popularity and is almost certain to face a tough primary challenge from Manhattan congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (no relation to Steve). Still, Rep. Peter King has said that he is now leaning against running,and while efforts are being made to lure former Governor George Pataki into the race, a Pataki candidacy appears far from certain.  So, in the event that both King and Pataki take a pass – the Republicans are out of luck. Furthermore, the race is complicated by the Democratic advantage in New York and the huge amounts of cash that would be needed to competed in such a huge state.  Some people might consider that an excuse to throw up our hands and quit the race, but I personally don’t like the idea of chickening out.

So, we need a well known candidate who can raise major moolah very quickly and convince moderates to swing against Gillibrand or Maloney. In other words, we need a celebrity candidate who is also an intellectual force to be reckoned with – in short, we need a bestselling author. Enter Amity Shlaes.

As the author of a book that is wildly popular in libertarian/conservative circles, Shlaes’ candidacy would instantly create excitement (and fundraising potential) among her fans around the country. She also has a number of devotees among the power elite of the GOP, as noted by The New Republic:

The Forgotten Man has been publicly touted by such Republican luminaries as Newt Gingrich, Rudolph Giuliani, Mark Sanford, Jon Kyl, and Mike Pence. Senator John Barrasso was so eager to tout The Forgotten Man that last month he waved around a copy and announced, “in these economic times, a number of members of the Senate are reading a book called The Forgotten Man, about the history of the Great Depression, as we compare and look for solutions, as we look at a stimulus package.” Barrasso offered this unsolicited testimonial, apropos of nothing whatsoever, during the confirmation hearing for Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

So, with the backing of tons of fans, Republican officials, and New York heavyweight Rudy Giuliani, Shlaes would be in a very good position to raise the money and get the publicity she would need to challenge Kirsten Gillibrand. Plus, with Giuliani likely to be campaigning for governor against the unpopular David Paterson, it is likely that Shlaes could quickly be associated with Giuliani (and Gillibrand with Paterson).

Even if she fails to unseat Gillibrand, running Shlaes would still be worth the effort, as it gives us a chance to put a top-flight conservative intellectual on the air in America’s biggest media market. By 2010, Obama’s popularity will likely have waned further, and depending on the state of the economy, running an expert on the economics of the Great Depression would do a lot to dispel many of the Democrats’ claims that they are saving us from a new Depression. Merely inserting Amity into the public debate would be invaluable, as she has the intellectual haft to slice, dice, and julienne the claims of the opposition.

Am I saying this is definitely going to happen? No. I have no clue whether Shlaes would even be interested in pursuing elected office. However, if Pataki takes a pass, we will need a highly unorthodox strategy in order to compete in New York. At least on paper, Amity Shlaes provides many of the necessary ingredients for a successful campaign. She might not be interested, but if I were John Cornyn at the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), I would definitely be giving Amity a call.

So, comments section, what say you?

It took collapsing poll numbers for Specter to hit the “panic!” button and switch parties. That’s probably what it’ll take for Crist to realize his problems, and when he does, he’ll have a tough call to make: go down with his party, or pull a Specter and ditch it for better electoral prospects on a different line. That could mean a switch to the Democratic Party where he’d likely be no worse than the other senator from Florida, Bill Nelson — a marginally good Democrat, a step up from Landrieu, Nebraska’s Nelson, and the Wal Mart Twins (and no better). Or it could mean an independent run, where he might be able to pull a Lieberman (complete with a Joementum fundraising campaign visit) and work to attract independents, mainstream Republicans, and Democrats disaffected by their poor field and try to win a split three-way field.

In terms of the threat of Rubio, Kos writes:

But the primary is 14 months away, and grassroots conservatives are moving over to Rubio en masse. He will have enough money to compete (Club for Growth, among others, are behind him), he’s got big names like Mike Huckabee gathering behind him, and the right-wing noise machine loves him — and not just Florida wingnut radio, but national outlets like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial board. And with pictures like this in their arsenal, conservatives will have all the ammo they need to bring down Crist:

And while I don’t know just how far left The St. Petersburg Times is (they did endorse Obama), I do think that Wednesday’s editorial can erase most doubt that they won’t be endorsing Crist in the Senate race:

Gov. Charlie Crist’s sellout to developers is now complete. He signed into law Tuesday a bill that neuters the governing boards of the state’s five water management districts, which grant permits for large-scale water pumping and wetlands destruction. Now that authority will rest solely in the hands of the districts’ executive directors. Developers and big industry will be able to more easily drain Florida and pave over what’s left.

Piece by piece, this governor has systematically dismantled what little protections there are for Floridians fed up with traffic and overdevelopment.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge co-owns the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area.  You can contact Hodge on Facebook, through his Web site, and on Twitter.

Unfortunately, only Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia addressed this issue — and only briefly. “The war between disparate impact and equal protection will be waged sooner or later, and it behooves us to begin thinking about how — and on what terms — to make peace between them,” he concluded.

All racial classifications are highly suspect under the 14th Amendment. The Constitution protects individuals from discrimination — without respect to race. Distributing benefits and burdens on the basis of color was supposed to be the ugly mind-set the leaders of the civil rights movement struggled so heroically to change. We have not escaped such race-thinking yet, but this decision is an important step in the right direction.

Here we should listen to Frank Ricci, the lead plaintiff. He appeared at a hearing held by the Civil Service Board before the test results were released. “The people who passed should be promoted,” he said. “When your life’s on the line, second best may not be good enough.” Residents in a burning building want competent firefighters. They don’t care about the race of those whose job it is to save them.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge co-owns the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area.  You can contact Hodge on Facebook, through his Web site, and on Twitter.

WRS (R) Connecticut 2010 Senatorial Survey

• Rob Simmons 47%
• Chris Dodd 38%

• Chris Dodd 42%
• Peter Schiff 38%

Survey of 400 likely voters was conducted June 24-25. The margin of error is +/- 4.9 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Republican voters are only slightly more supportive (just outside the margin of error) of Simmons than Schiff, despite knowing Simmons much better and for a longer period of time. Schiff garners the exact same support among strong Republicans as Simmons does, indicating that Schiff could start the race with significant base support, equal to the support Simmons currently enjoys.

Schiff vs Dodd

• Self Identified Republican: 69% Schiff
• Self Identified Strong Republican: 90% Schiff

Simmons vs Dodd

• Self Identified Republican: 74% Simmons
• Self Identified Strong Republican: 90% Simmons

Marist New York 2010 Gubernatorial Survey

Republican Gubernatorial Primary

• Rudy Giuliani 77%
• Rick Lazio 16%

Democratic Gubernatorial Primary

• Andrew Cuomo 69%
• David Paterson 24%

Gubernatorial General Election

• Rudy Giuliani 54%
• David Paterson 37%

• Andrew Cuomo 51%
• Rudy Giuliani 43%

• David Paterson 41%
• Rick Lazio 40%

• Andrew Cuomo 68%
• Rick Lazio 22%

Would you rate the job Governor David Paterson is doing in office as excellent, good, fair, or poor?

• Excellent 3%
• Good 18%
• Fair 39%
• Poor 37%

Do you agree or disagree with the statement: Governor David Paterson is a good leader for New York State?

• Agree 31%
• Disagree 65%

Do you agree or disagree with the statement: Governor David Paterson is changing the way things work in Albany for the better?

• Agree 27%
• Disagree 68%

Do you approve or disapprove of how Governor David Paterson is handling the economic crisis?

• Approve 31%
• Disapprove 61%

Do you approve or disapprove of how Governor David Paterson is handling the crisis in the New York State Senate in Albany?

• Approve 43%
• Disapprove 49%

Would you rate the job New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is doing in office as excellent, good, fair, or poor?

• Excellent 21%
• Good 46%
• Fair 22%
• Poor 5%

Republican Senatorial Primary

• George Pataki 51%
• Peter King 36%

Survey of 1,003 registered voters was conducted June 23-25. The margin of error is ±3 percentage points; for the subsamples of 441 Democrats and 281 Republicans, ±5% and ±6%, respectively.

“Representing New Hampshire in the United States Senate is a great honor, but effective public service is much more than just a desire to hold office. It’s essential that the timing fit both personally and professionally,” Sununu said in a statement.

“Equally important, campaigns require great sacrifice from family. After running in seven primary and general elections over 12 years, my family still means more to me than anything else. I very much intend to keep it that way.”

Sununu had avoided discussing his political future since he lost to Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) last year. His father, John F. Sununu, is now the chairman of the state party.

Sununu’s decision not to make a political comeback now draws attention to Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, who is being wooed by Gregg to run for the seat and is seriously considering a candidacy. 

Businessman Fred Tausch is also a potential candidate, and he has spent money on statewide television and radio blasting President Obama’s fiscal policies — in the run-up for a prospective campaign.

The Democratic nominee is expected to be Congressman Paul Hodes, who currently faces no primary opposition.

 

Follow Max Twain on Twitter

Nonetheless I still think Republicans are going to have a hard time coming up with a strong presidential nominee in 2012, as I reflect on their difficulty in doing so in 2008. For as I look back on that Republican nominating contest, it seems to me that none of the Republican candidates had a good strategy for winning the nomination. And if a candidate does not win the nomination, it does not really matter how strong he (or she) would be in the general election.

Sensible enough huh?  He then lays out 5 implications for 2012, based on each of the major candidates’ 2008 runs. 

1.  (From McCain):  you can’t hope to win by waiting for every other candidate’s strategy to fail unless you have an in with Lady Luck.

2.  (From Rudy):  You cannot wait too long to compete. If you bypass New Hampshire, you must compete in Iowa, or vice versa, or very soon thereafter.

3.  (From teh Fred):  Either compete strongly and early enough in Iowa to make a good showing in the straw poll or stay out of Iowa altogether (as John McCain did, to not significant detriment, in 2000 and effectively did, to no significant detriment, in 2008).

4.  (From Huckabee):  Huckabee or a candidate with a similar profile can corner the votes of evangelical and born-again Christians and, starting with Iowa, can round up a significant number of delegates…But otherwise he is in the position of Jesse Jackson in the 1984 and 1988 Democratic contests, able to run a significant second or third thanks to strong support from one of the party’s core constituencies but unable to run first.

5.  (From Romney): Run as yourself. Emphasize your strengths and avoid contests that are not suited to them. This will not guarantee victory, but it will make a victory in the battle for the nomination worth more in the general election, since you will not have to visibly pirouette from appealing to a relatively narrow primary electorate to the much broader (and potentially expandable) electorate you will face in the fall.

This is all pretty good advice, but I worry about the underlying argument; that Republican possibilities are likely to be weak general election candidates because they ran poor primary campaigns.  In the first place, I’m not sure Barone is right about his individual criticisms (and read the whole article to see exactly what he has to say).  It’s obvious, of course, that Rudy shouldn’t have held everything til Flordia.  It’s more obvious in retrospect, but it wasn’t exactly hard to figure out even then.  Plenty of folks who wished Rudy no ill (myself included) pointed out the strategic flaw months before everything broke down.  Still.  His strategy was, in large part, dictated by his circumstances.  When you’re a gun-control supporting, pro-choice, city-dwelling, hawk, you’re bound to struggle in Christian Iowa or dovish, libertarian New Hampshire. 

Clearly Romney’s attempt to position himself as THE conservative floundered, and left him wearing two scarlett F’s on his neatly tailored suit.  Still.  When you’re a Massachusetts Mormon in a party dominated by Southern Christians, playing the moderate isn’t exactly a great long-term strategy. 

Undoubtedly Mike Huckabee was hurt by the narrowness of the pastor tag.  Still.  He was a pastor.  Even when he dropped the Onward Christian Soldier stuff, and adopted the Friendly Neighbor Looking Out for the Little Guy schtick, he was still seen as Pastor Mike. 

A lot of these criticisms are not examples of flawed campaigns, but rather of flawed candidates.  No matter how you rolled the Massachusetts Mormon dice, in 2008, in the Republican Party, you just weren’t likely to hit a 7 or 11.  While candidates aren’t slaves to their environment, they can’t simply re-write their careers and lives to fit a new situation. 

So in one sense Barone is right enough: we simply don’t have many potential candidates who are in a good position to naturally do the sort of things necessary to both win over the current Republican electorate, and put together a campaign strategy which gels with the moment.  Retreads like Huckabee and Romney and Palin may be slightly better fits in 2012, but it ought to be clear by now that they won’t be perfect fits.  Heading into 2012, we need to look for a candidate who’s already, more or less, where he needs to be to meet the moment.  Our success, or lack thereof, on that front will dictate both our campaign strategy and our “problems”.