The missing Judd
Felon beats Obama in several West Virginia counties
A Texas felon is currently giving President Obama a run for his money in the West Virginia Democratic primary, beating Obama in several counties and winning enough of the vote to be eligible for at least one delegate at the convention, according to the Associated Press.Perennial candidate Keith Russell Judd, currently serving 210 months in a federal prison, is currently pulling down 40 percent of the vote to Obama’s 60 percent, with more than 90 percent of the vote reported.
Judd has caused problems in other elections as well. In 2008, Idaho Democrats were peeved Judd qualified for the ballot, with one Democratic official calling him a “yahoo prisoner in Texas.”
It’s not the first time that Democratic primary voters have sent a message of disapproval to Obama — the president lost 15 Oklahoma counties to anti-abortion activist Randall Terry in the March primary.
Obama is hardly popular in West Virginia — he lost the state to both Hillary Clinton and John McCain, in the primary and general election respectively. The state’s Democratic governor and senator have both so far declined to endorse Obama for reelection.
Right on cue, the Obots blame racism. Just like four years ago when Hillary won over 70% of the vote in WV. Because there can’t possibly be any other explanation. All hail the glory of Obama!
Meanwhile, in North Carolina, 20% of the Democrats there chose “no preference” over Obama. Unfortunately, 60% of that state’s voters also chose to adopt a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Turn-out was high, and apparently many supporters of the amendment were Obama voters:
As National Journal’s Beth Reinhard wrote on Monday, the issue of gay marriage is politically complicated for Obama because while young voters largely support it, African-Americans do not.
Indeed, many rural, heavily African-American counties that strongly supported Obama in the 2008 contest overwhelmingly backed the gay marriage ban. In Hertford County, which is over 60 percent African-American, Obama won 70 percent of the vote in 2008 but it voted heavily for Amendment 1 (3,817 yes votes; 1,627 no votes).
In Bertie County, the most African-American county in the state (over 62 percent), Obama garnered over 65 percent of the vote. The county isn’t reporting final results for the amendment, but 2,703 are currently voting yes while just 951 voted no.
The handful of counties that opposed the amendment were urban centers, most featuring large college campuses.
Conservative black voters provided the margin of victory for Prop. H8 in California in 2008 too.
Filed under: 2012 Elections, Barack Obama Tagged: | 2012 Elections, Barack Obama
And Mr. Judd gives his victory speech via Twitter:
https://twitter.com/#!/KeithJudd4Prez
Dammit! I still can’t get the links to Twitter right:
LOLOLOLOL.
Two candidates with a record – who has the less harmful one?
LOL….you’ve got to tweet that
reasons to vote for Judd
True, but we’re not supposed to mention that. The “official” story is the Prop. 8 vote was the fault of the Mormons – in Utah. Just like the “official” story for Amend. 1 will be the NC rednecks.
I wonder if Obama — who’s official position — while allegedly “evolving” on the issue — is against same-sex marriage, which was made clear after Biden’s “gaffe” — is considering moving the Dem. convention from NC? Nah — he probably still thinks he can win NC in the fall, after his overwhelming less than 1%/14,000 vote “victory” there over McCain in 2008.
I bet those same AA counties that voted overwhelmingly for Amend. 1 will be voting for Obama. Guess the left won’t have any problem with those bigots then.
Non-whites oppose gay marriage in almost exactly the same proportions as the rest of Americans do:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/poll-of-the-day-americas-gay-marriage-evolution/256878/
Randall Terry has a Democratic delegate as well.
Ooh – heads up queers! Your most fiercest advocate EVAH just tweeted from the back nine that he’s “disappointed”.
That’ll show those nasty bigots.
North Carolina’s “evolving” too
Can’t teh won just say the people have spoken? This is what democracy looks like.
In NC, I’m surprised they didn’t ban homosexuality altogether. Though Meaghan McCain was tweeting last night, they’ve banned “love”. Geesh.
I wonder if Dems realize that Obama is officially to the right of Dick Cheney now.
I wonder if they care?
But I thought Cheney was the heartless embodiment of all that is eviiil?
Mary Cheney and her partner have never whined about “marriage”, simply drew up some legal papers and have been living happily ever after. I think they’ve even had a child ?
Denise ~ stop that. Its a basic right.
and WHY do you think its appropriate to keep citing them as an example as if this is somehow a solution and we should just STFU????
I believe in civil unions for everybody – gay, straight, whatever. Get the church out of the legal aspects of being married for everyone. None of this “you can’t get married because you’re gay, or you can’t get married because you’re divorced unless, of course, you pay us lots of money and declare that your kids are illegitimate” stuff. I understand from a lawyer friend, however, is that what’s wrong with that idea is that the word “marriage” shows up in a ton of laws that would have to be rewritten and may not survive if they have to be voted on again.
I wouldn’t call the fight for gay marriage “whining”. But I do have a serious question for my gay peeps: Why is there resistance to pushing for civil union laws, since those would be much easier to get passed? I understand that having the same “marriage” terminology is the best, and the ultimate goal. I’m not saying to stop pushing for it. Not at all.
But I do wonder why we don’t START with civil unions that could give the same rights and legal protections and tax advantages, and that would be a whole lot easier to get passed. It would at the very least alleviate some of the legal injustices for gay couples NOW, while the push continues for the rest.
“I understand from a lawyer friend, however, is that what’s wrong with that idea is that the word “marriage” shows up in a ton of laws that would have to be rewritten and may not survive if they have to be voted on again.”
so what? I’m sure after slavery was abolished lwas had to be rewritten…and after women got the right to vote, etc etc
When a basic right is not extended to part of the population this is not a good excuse.
I agree with elliesmom – I support gay marriage. But I don’t think the majority of Americans do as of yet, and I don’t think the lgbt voters will make real headway until they disassociate from the Dems.
The Dems are using them for money and will always betray them at the polls. I really think it would be more effective to become a politically independent voting bloc, and say to each side: we don’t care about your other issues, we care about our rights.
@ elliesmom & Votermom
I think the majority of gay people would accept civil unions if they held the same legal weight and could be recognized in every state. I also agree that religion should be playing no part in a civil/legal matter which is what marriage to the govt should be…but thats not the country we live in. we need marriage because it is the gold standard…not something lesser because of religious bigotry.
The entire legal code could be reformed with just a single bill.
I’m not suggesting that having to rewrite the laws is a good excuse for not allowing same sex couples to marry. I’m suggesting that we have allowed a religious sacrament to become so entwined in our laws that we would find it prohibitively difficult to take it out. When we abolished slavery, we didn’t have to rewrite all of the tax laws for example. As long as “marriage” has religious connotations, many of us, even us straight folks, find ourselves trapped. I understand that a same-sex couple might feel “less than” if only offered a civil union. My brother’s second wife feels “less than” because the Catholic church would not allow her to marry a divorced man so they were married at city hall. I feel like I was married deceptively because I was married in a church whose doctrines I totally reject. (But it made the folks happy.) If everyone joined themselves together legally separate from the church, it wouldn’t solve my SIL’s issue, but it would put everyone on the same level as far as the legality of sharing a life with someone else goes. And it would make “going to City Hall” an accepted rite of passage for everyone.
give me ONE god damned reason that I as an american and a taxpayer shouldn’t have every single right that you do???
There are none.
Are some of the people opposed to gay marriage homophobes? Absolutely. But a good many of them are just concerned (whether paranoia or legit concern) that gay marriage would eventually result in activist groups suing churches and pastors for refusing to marry gays. They have no issue with gay relationships per se, they just have worries over religious freedom. And to some degree it is a legitimate fear. You have private religious wedding photographers now being sued because they choose not to cover gay weddings. You have the catholic adoption agencies sued over their adoption policies.
Please note: I am NOT agreeing with the religious tenets of these idiots. But I do believe that freedom of religion in this country means you are free to be wrong.
I sometimes wonder what would happen if you got a gay marriage law on the ballot, that spelled out in the law that NO religious body or individual could be required to participate in the marriage of any couple that falls outside of their religious tenets. Would that be enough of an “offer of good faith” on the part of gay activists to alleviate those concerns among those opposers who sincerely wish gay people no disrespect, but are worried about the later implications of a gay marriage law? I’m not talking about the outright homophobes, I’m talking about the others.
I don’t care about religion…. and the marriage issue keeps being shrouded by it.
Why is someone else’s religion more important than mine? And why is this sanctioned by the government.
I was married in MY church. This is somehow less?
See, I think such good faith offers are not going to happen while the lgbt groups are under the Dem umbrella. The Dems need the issue polarized, they need the fight, they need the drama of protests and “no compromise”, they definitely do not want any possible solutions.
Look at the other wedge issues: abortion, even the budget, for heck’s sake. It’s all posturing to the Dems & the GOP.
Whereas afaict, the libertarians would be completely on board with your solution.
I would object to a law that tried to force all churches to perform marriages. That would be a religious freedom issue. But there are other ways to solemnize a wedding.
LGBTs should get the same exact rights.
I agree. I don’t think that religious bodies should be allowed to prevent marriage for the whole country. I’m in favor of gay marriage.
But my point is that I also don’t think that religious bodies should be forced to do things that violate their tenets – however wrong I think those tenets may be. They should absolutely be allowed to refrain from gay marriages in their own institutions if they choose.
And the fact is that there are a LOT of people out there that might actually support gay marriage if they could be given guarantees and reassurances that that will not happen. And no, just poo-pooing those concerns and saying “it won’t happen” is not enough. They don’t believe you. Because there is a track record of activist groups trying to do just that – target churches and religious groups and people to force them all to comply.
My question is, is there some reason why gay marriage groups and their supporters (like myself) can’t offer those guarantees in the legislation they propose? It might go a long way toward solving this.
Imagine if the lgbt groups made a compromise with the religious conservatives – support our right to legal (not religious) marriage and we will support your effort to defeat Roe v Wade.
After all, lgbt groups have no vested interest in abortion rights, correct?
And they could tell the religious right – let us worry about our own souls and we’ll help you save the unborn – to the the religious that has to be a greater good, right?
I don’t know if that would work but it would certainly shock both the GOP & the Dems out of their complacency.
votermom, that’s untenable since many gay people are pro-choice (though some are pro-life), and the two issues are not really connected at all.
I think a better approach might be what I outlined above: be willing to give the reassurances re: religious freedom. Even if you think their fears are unwarranted, what do you lose by codifying the religious freedom caveats into the law? Any church that wants to do so can still perform gay marriages, and you get the official govt recognition of them, with the attendant benefits.
Again, there are some that oppose gay marriage, period, end of discussion. You can’t reach those people. But you CAN reach those who oppose due to those “overreach” fears – and they comprise a substantial number of those voting against gay marriage. Solve that, and you might tip the numbers in favor.
I think the “free birth control” issue is going to hurt the same sex marriage issue for just the reasons you suggest. If the government can make religious institutions pay for things that go against their religious beliefs, it’s not a stretch for people to fear that a church would be banned from performing any marriages if they refused to perform same-sex marriages. The Catholic adoption agencies have closed where the law has said that they must place children with same-sex couples if they want to operate. Which is why we need to get the churches out of the legal aspects of marriage. The sacrament of marriage in a church should have the same legal standing as,say, a baptism.
“My question is, is there some reason why gay marriage groups and their supporters (like myself) can’t offer those guarantees in the legislation they propose? It might go a long way toward solving this.”
No one I know would be opposed to this…. I hate to break it to you, I don’t think this would hold any sway with a person who is against gay marriage.
If lgbt groups were focused only on their rights, it would not matter if they were personally pro-choice, or pro-vegan, or pro-whatever.
If they have picked marriage as The Fight, they have to make it trump all other identity politics.
We have the same exact problem with women’s groups – they can’t focus on women’s rights because they are too side-tracked with all the other popular issues. Drives me nuts.
Correct, elliesmom. I don’t think that the majority of gay people would have any interest whatsoever in forcing unwilling churches to perform marriages. But you cannot deny that there exists a small core of activists who, the moment a gay marriage law was passed, would set their lawyers on doing just that. Sorry, but these people DO exist, and have already shown a propensity to target churches.
If you could remove that fear, neutralize that threat, you would find a LOT more support for gay marriage. Making ALL unions civil unions, and whatever churches do or don’t do have NOTHING to do with whether the marriage is a marriage or not, is another way of solving that.
indigogirl, you might be surprised. There are those who will oppose gay marriage period, not matter what, that’s true. You’re not reaching those people.
But there is a substantial subset of those opposed who oppose for precisely the fears over religious freedom that I outlined. I see them talking about this all the time. They’d have no problem with gays marrying, if they could feel certain that it wouldn’t result in lawsuits and targeting churches. Making a bargain with those folks might be enough to tip the balance.
Push a bill that first and foremost makes civil unions legal. And make sure it has language that clarifies and makes it cover anything “marriage” covers. Including somehow defining the state based “marriage license” concept as a civil union. And make the only legal thing that covers marriages technically a civil union, so “marriages” are religious only and have to be backed up by a “marriage license” which is a cilvil union. That way there are equal rights, but it doesn’t step on a religion that has other views.
After that there is still an open issue. If a religion doesn’t want to perform mixed race marriages, is that allowed? If it is, never mind, we’re fine. If it isn’t allowed, is that by law, or just societal pressure? If the latter, never mind, we’ll get there. If by law, then we should have a similar law for gay marriage at some point.
what DT sed
Feminists have spent many years fighting to free themselves from marriage, because for women it’s meant a lack of property rights, a lack of personal freedom, and for many around the world, simply oppression and slavery. What happened to suddenly transform marriage into a “right” and “freedom?”
Well, right now, marriage in the US conveys many more benefits that civil unions don’t.
http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/f/civilmarriage.htm
Its a “right” and “freedom”” because it is a legal standing given by the government.
And I’m sick of it being treated like a religious issue ~ last time I checked two atheists could go on down to city hall and get hitched all they want.
“Its a “right” and “freedom”” because it is a legal standing given by the government”
Exactly. (you said it better than me)
According to link cj provided, the differences between civil unions and marriages are all related to civil unions only being recognized in the state in which they occur. It would appear that federal recognition of a civil union having the same federal rights as a marriage would make that issue go away. Once again, I’m not for same-sex marriage being “less than”. I’m for civil union being the norm for all.
ITA Elliesmom
I always love a good Carville rant.
He’s such a closet puma.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/08/opinion/carville-democrats-could-lose/index.html
Gawd, Tweety is stupid. So Ford is doing really well. Tweety waxed effusive on how that’s all because the awesome Obama gave them a bailout!
Um, Ford didn’t take a bailout.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/05/08/chris-matthews-falsely-claims-obama-saved-ford#ixzz1uNMfLA7B
LMAO! This works on soooo many levels.
Pop quiz – what ethnicity would you describe the men in this photo? Let’s say if you were describing them to the police?
AFTER you answer that q in your head, read this article.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9253250/Rochdale-grooming-trial-Police-accused-of-failing-to-investigate-paedophile-gang-for-fear-of-appearing-racist.html
Daily mail, despite it’s sensationalist tabloid style, manages to deliver more facts on both sides without stupid PC crap.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141279/Rochdale-child-sex-trial-As-9-men-face-jail-grooming-girls-did-listen-victim.html
Depressingly light sentences for these scum
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/09/rochdale-gang-jailed-sexually-exploiting?
Yeah, that is effed up. Why are they calling these Arab men “Asian” while bitching about the “political correctness” of police and social workers? The story is whack, the reporting is whack, and I am glad I don’t live in the UK with me teenage daughter.
Apparently they are Pakistani Muslims (and one Afghan Muslim). But no mention of how that might be relevant.
Pakistan is not Arab. It is considered part of Central Asia.
Yeah, by the skin of their teeth Asian:
I guess from now on I should say South-East Asian whenever I mean Asian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan
Yup, Brits are technically correct to call them Asian. It just jars me to see a country that is literally more western than India called Asian. To me, I’m Asian, they are Central Asian.
It annoys me to be lumped up with Afghans, Pakistanis, and Indians, and if we are going to talk race, they are more Caucasian than anything else. Us Southeast Asians are the flat-nosed, slanty-eyed ones so why do we have to get lumped up culturally with their weirdness. We have more than enough of our own weirdness. /rant
At least this Indian newspaper has no problem calling them Pakistani.
http://www.firstpost.com/fwire/pakistani-gang-in-britain-jailed-for-raping-50-girls-304167.html
Okay, point taken MYiq, but why couldn’t they just say Pakistani? Asians is as misleading as “white Hispanic” was. Technically correct, and politically loaded.
Them Brits don’t know how to speak English correctly.
I am glad that there are also men in the British Pakistani community confronting this:
The chief prosecutor:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9253016/Rochdale-grooming-trial-Asian-grooming-gangs-the-uncomfortable-issue.html
and this guy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9252003/Rochdale-grooming-trial-Mohammed-Shafiq-the-campaigner-who-stood-up-to-the-abusers.html
A gay conservative prospective on the NC Ammendment:
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/05/09/north-carolinians-overwhelmingly-approve-amendment-one/
answer my fucking question
Yes, answer the question.
I’d like to hear Denise’s response as well. I’m not sure if she was putting forward her own opinion, or just opining on the politics of it. Sometimes those are two separate things.
no, she and I have had this discussion in the past
Well that sucks.
its the repeated use of the idea that we are somehow “whining” that truly hurts and angers me.
Denise ~ I am no less a person than you nor less a patriot or citizen.
Crap. I lost my place. Put me down for “opining the politics”. I just don’t think the word “marriage” will ever work as long as you have religious freaks and homophobes believing the WORD means they condone a lifestyle outside the traditional terms in their closed minded little worlds.
Yes Indi, I believe in equal rights for all, and I don’t recall having this kind of conversation with you before? If “whining” hurt your feelings, I’m truly sorry for a poor choice of word. Mary Cheney was beaten up by the left and the right for her right to be happy. The left is much harder on gay conservatives than President Obama. Go figure.
Full disclosure: My Aunt and her life partner were together over 60 years, I never heard “marriage” discussed. Though I always wished my parents were as happy as they were.
Yes, actually ..we have had this discussion before..over the exact same example of Mary Cheney..
AND ~ several of us posted then about being treated like second class citizens as well…
So ~ please stop.
If you continue citing this example as an alternative for LGBTs then you are NOT for equal rights for all.
I would love to see this video go viral
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/09/video-what-a-history-lesson-can-do-for-an-occupier/
I would legalize polygamy for consenting adults too. It’s nobody else’s business.
I strongly disagree. Highly patriarchal and too easy for women to get brainwashed into agreeing to.
Huh. I’d have no problem with it. I think that women are smart enough to make their own choices.
In the cultures and religions where polygamy was accepted, it simply didn’t turn out that way.
And I see too many American women embracing other aspects of said culture to have as much faith as you. (See “right to wear the hijab”)
I don’t think that’s an adequate comparison. There is a big difference between making it legal in the modern-day here, and cultures where it has been a centuries-long historic part of an overall oppressive system.
Well, if there’s a polygamy rights group, I’d like to see them make the case for it, just as the lgbt groups are.
Until that happens, and they convince me, I don’t support (theoretical) legislators just saying they’ll make it legal because what could go wrong.
So one at a time wasn’t enough for you?
I was thinking about finding a compatible guy to share the load.
“No, it’s YOUR turn to talk to her. I get to watch the game tonight.”
LOL. Now there’s an idea.
That would be fine until you heard this from the other guy: “you know myiq, she’s right, you don’t listen to her and think of her needs”.
Have your escape plans at the ready.
When I was younger, I met a woman I would have been willing to be a “sister wife” with. She and I kidded about it all of the time. Problem was we both had husbands, and we weren’t sure how one of them might feel about being asked to leave. But she and I balanced working outside the home by coordinating our hours with each other, did most of our housekeeping chores together, and were totally non-competitive with each other. She agreed that if we were ever serious about it, my husband was the one who got to stay. I’m sure he would have been shocked if I had shared that with him. lol
In my home country it is pretty common to have extended family households where the women (cousins, SILs, etc) team up like this. No polygamy needed.
surprise , surprise WV dems yell racist over vote for inmate
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/05/09/west-virginia-dems-accuse-their-own-of-racism-to-explain-prison-inmates-strong-showing-against-obama-in-democratic-primary/
But it was WV Dems that voted for the inmate. Are they saying they as a group are racist? Idiots. So amazing. It’s an obvious message to Obama. They don’t like Obama. They don’t really want the inmate to be president. Duh. And they don’t like Obama for lots of reasons. Let’s see, oh yeah, he wants to pretty much ban coal. He didn’t let stimulus go to WV to punish them for the election. And what else, oh yeah, he completely sucks and hasn’t done much of anything useful while president.
Don’t forget Obamacare. That’s unpopular EVERYWHERE.
Yeah, the fact that Obama has been trying his best to kill coal, which provides a fuckload of jobs in WV, couldn’t have ANYTHING to do with it.
Nope, must be racism.
And lots of jobs in western PA. Probably not missed by many there either.
Looks like Palin has picked another Tea Party Senate challenger, this time in Nebraska:
http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2012/05/09/governor-sarah-palin-and-todd-palin-endorsement-for-us-senate/
And by the way, WTF kind of hairstyle is that on the inmate? Is it alive? Sign of the zombiepocalypse?
That critter is a Long-tailed Mullet. Very rare these days.
That must be why he got some many votes. His potential VP prison-mate says “believe me, he’s got a big mullet”
very very..
Mittens is playing this smart. He is pointing out that Bill Clinton was a pretty good president, and if Obama were more like Bill, he wouldn’t be having these problems.
This is effective in two ways: 1) it appeals to centrist dems and independents. 2) it will drive Obama absolutely fecking crazy, since Obama HATES the fact that Bill’s presidency was so successful, and his isn’t.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/09/mitt-romney-you-know-if-barack-obama-only-governed-a-little-more-like-bill-clinton-wed-be-in-much-better-shape/#comments
Hitting him square in the place where his balls should be.
Yay, something I can agree with Mitt on
I miss Bill. Hell, I miss Jimmy.
That’s a very interesting discussion upthread about same sex marriage. I voted against Amend 1, and I understand why the LGBT community is upset — it sucks to find out that the majority of voters in a particular state don’t think you should be allowed to marry. However, even if Amend 1 had failed, the fact is, same sex marriage was already banned in NC via the marriage statute which defines marriage as between “a man and a woman” (and that’s the way the law has read for years in NC). So, it isn’t as if Amend. 1 failing would have made same-sex marriage legal in NC. All it does is make it harder to overturn — but given the vote (61% for Amend 1), there is a long way for advocates of same-sex marriage in NC to go.
Let’s put things in further perspective: As of now, 30 states out of 50 have adopted a ban on same-sex marriage, but the fact is, just as in NC, before the bans same-sex marriage wasn’t allowed in any of the 50 states as recently as 10 years ago. Currently, only 7 states allow same-sex marriage (NH, NY, IA, MA, CN, VT, WA) and 11 allow civil unions (OR, CA, NV, RI, IL, WI, MD, NJ, DE, ME) which is not the same thing as allowing same-sex marriage, I know, but I’m counting them as being more progressive re: the LGBT community than those that neither allow same-sex marriage nor civil unions.
The majority of states (whether you include those 11 with civil unions only or not) do not allow same-sex marriage. This issue did not turn on what happened in NC.
Given all this, what did people reasonably expect to happen in NC? I mean, I know what I *think* they expected — with 7 states allowing same-sex marriage, the LGBT community expects all states to do the same at this moment. Is that reasonable, though? As of now, 11 allegedly liberal states (as noted) only allow civil unions, not same-sex marriage. And it isn’t like the laws in those 7 states that allow same-sex marriage & those 11 that allow civil unions have been on the books for years. These are all recent laws & getting the other 30 states to change their minds seems to me takes a more persuasive tactic than “allow same sex marriage or you’re a bigot.” And yes, it *is* up to the LGBT community to change minds on this issue. That means not dismissing people’s concerns, religious or otherwise, with it, however wrong those concerns may be.
Great post!
I disagree about it being up to the LGBT community to change minds. To me, just like with women’s rights issues, it is about human rights at its core. So it’s up to everyone to fight for this. I’m not assuming equal rights for women is just up to women, so I’m not assuming equal rights for LGBT is up to them.
I think they have to be smart about it if they want results. It’s not just up to them, but they have to lead on the issue and enlist support – win hearts and minds, in fact, just as women led the fight for suffrage.
(Ditch the Dems is step number 1.)
Yes, but I think any group has to find a way to win over hearts and minds if they actually want progress. The current approach to everything at the moment seems to be, “you have things I don’t, so you’re a bigot.” Not just gay marriage, but things like wealth distribution and minority status. Everybody seems to be focusing on what they don’t have and how unfair it is, as if equality can just be legislated.
Well, maybe I should have written the LGBT community and their supporters, to make it clear that I meant those who are pro-SSM have the responsibility to change hearts & minds. I’m sure when you write “everyone” needs to fight for it you didn’t include those who are against it, which by definition would be included in “everyone.” But the LBGT community and those who support it can’t just expect magic epiphanies. Certainly MLK didn’t just pray to end segregation nor did he just expect people to change their minds on their own because “everyone” should know it was the right thing to do. He went out there & showed those who opposed him how & why they were wrong with logical arguments, not vulgar name-calling and dismissals.
Yep, meant everyone supporting. I agree that part of making changes, even when they should be no brainers, is that you have to persuade and convince and sell them. Sigh.
Well stated angie. Also, the referendum drives me crazy with the gotcha’ wording and I think a lot of voters get confused with
a) Yes, I’m against gay marriage, which means No
b) No, I’m for gay marriage, which means Yes
I think (the t.v. show) The Office did a riff on this problem. ((Hillarity insued when the gang realized they supported a prop that didn’t give them…..not sure of the details) Also, my local paper’s weekly rundown on How Your Rep voted includes an explanation of “his/her yes vote was against the item….”
I’m not calling the voters stupid/uninformed, but since Obama, I’m just not sure anymore……seems to work in his favor though, and the dimwits on the right of him too.
Don’t you just hate questions like that? I can never decide if my double negative means yes or not.
PS — I just read that Dem turnout in NC was 300K+ more than GOP turnout and Amendment 1 passed by a landslide 61%.
I wonder if Obama is going to just ignore that fact too (I’m assuming the fact that the predominately AA counties voted overwhelmingly in support of Amend. 1 will be ignored). More than a few similarities to CA with Prop 8 (and, btw, once again, CA doesn’t allow SSM either).
Dems keep their heads in the sand about both AA voters and Latino voters. They both tend to be socially conservative. Which tells me that in order to stay in power, Dems will happily throw social issues under the bus.
Exactly. Which is the point I was kind of getting at re: only 7 states allow SSM & 11 allegedly liberal ones don’t allow SSM but only civil unions.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/barack-obama-president-of-replicants/?singlepage=true
backtrack’s replica world
FYI: New post upstairs.
Him and her both hate the Clinton’s.
What is it with Florida and voting????????
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/foreign-citizens-registered-vote/2012/05/08/id/438446
Just saw a pickup truck at my local coffee shop with a Hillary bumper sticker (and not an Obama sticker). Always warms my heart when I see that.
I was going through some old stuff the other day and found a like-new Clinton-Gore bumper sticker from 1996
Sweet. I’d slap that on the old jelopy.
I’m firmly opposed to domestic violence.
Althouse:
How many of them were named Julia?
Because they don’t care which Dem wins, they’ll vote for any Dem over Walker. Walker had more turn-out than both top Dem candidates combined.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/150760775.html#!page=23&pageSize=10&sort=newestfirst
Thank you, not sure if I can tell the difference between the MSM and The Onion anymore ….groan.
Do you think this sounds real?
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/05/08/gun-ammo-found-inside-childs-stuffed-animals-at-ri-airport/
My son’s an Air Marshal, the terrorists are testing every stupid thing the TSA is being blamed for. Exploding boob implants, tampons and, yes, Depends adult diapers. The War on Terror may be over, but the war on underwear, feminine and baby products is not over. He’s going to be running flights to the London Olympics, and you better not even pack a lipstick. Crazy, huh? Unfortunately, when the outrage over patting down grannies and infants continues, so do the sick minds of the haters of our freedoms. After 11 years, post 9-11, he’s burning out. Such a negative world.
He might know then – what I find incredible is that the TSA would find disassembled gun & ammo in stuffed toy, and then say “but it was just the guy’s
evil wifedomestic dispute that did it so we sent him on his way”? Huh?Wut? Should have left the son out of this……great, I hate gays and my son on this thread now? I’m really hating the REPLY on THC, can’t control it, the Obama Team wins
(((
Oh Denise, no no no! I wasn’t dissing your son! That is a tough job and unlike the TSA, one that keeps us genuinely safe!
I meant, since he is an Air Marshall, maybe he would know if this sounds like something the TSA would do if they found a smuggled gun? Send the guy on his way? That’s what makes the story sound fake, imo.
And I am really sorry you felt ganged up on – you are always welcome here afaiac, just sometimes discussion gets heated.
If you feel one way on an issue that is absolutely your right and it is up to others to persuade you otherwise & vice versa. That’s what freedom of speech is about last I looked.
(((denise)))
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/05/09/senior-obama-adviser-he-will-certainly-endorse-gay-marriage-after-the-election/
I am not sure if his latest theme song is;
tomorrow or for the spanish speaking manana????
I don’t know about that. Even if he comes out now in support of SSM isn’t it just another case of him being backed into a corner and forced to take a position, what with donations down & needing to get more money from the GLBT community (and its supporters) while ginning up enthusiasm from the base (that poor showing in OH has got to still be hurting) all while avoiding his actual record? He could also be looking for a way to move the Dem. convention out of NC now that NC (a former “must win state”) clearly needs to be cut as a loss.
But, more likely than not, the gutsy “present” voter will give a completely convoluted, evasive answer on his “evolving” views on SSM that will hopefully do all that ^^^^ without him having to actually come out in support of SSM (and really, given the delusion of his supporters, it will, just like the Greatest.Speech.On.Race.EVAH did)
Here’s what he said in the interview:
He didn’t say what he plans to do about it though.
He also said he is not for Federalization of SSM.
IOW – It’s up to the states.
Yup. He’s trying to have it both ways.
Wait, I thought “states rights” was a racist dog whistle?
Yep, he made that clear. He’s personally for it, but it’s up to states. In other words, suckers, I can’t doing nothing about it.
FIFY.
True story
FYI: New open thread on this topic upstairs.
Great post! and great comments.
he must be getting worried. ABC broke into scheduling for this announcement
obama supports gay marriage
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/05/obama-likely-to-discuss-gay-marriage-today/1?csp=34news#.T6q_mO3FWMI
So I’m the only one being bashed over the head by indigog ? Not fair.
Ok, I’m over it…..blogged the other day:
http://bloghopenchangery.com/2012/05/07/when-americans-come-together/
I try not to take sides in reader arguments but you and indigo both have the right to your own opinions & free speech etc.
How do I say this – so most people *on this blog which is mostly pro-lgbt* supported indigo on her arguments, but if in doing so they alienated you as a potential supporter, I don’t think it is a positive result, right?
This is probably a thought I need to develop on the newest thread.
Denise, for the record, I’m not bashing you, nor do I think you are a homophobe. I disagree with you on whether marriage counts as a civil right, and whether it’s important. Doesn’t make either of us a bad person.
I almost said something but figured you could speak for yourself. I stayed out of it because was a fruitless argument between potential allies. My 2 cents.
I tried to speak for myself and I failed. Sorry I let you all down……rights for all, rights for all…..:)
David Burge @iowahawkblog
Why is Obama avoiding debates with Keith Judd?