Culture Gap Could Keep Democrats From Gaining Seats in 2006

[Virginian87]

As I said, public disapproval of Bush's handling of the war doesn't mean that those voters are going to necessarily flock to the Democrats in 2006 or 2008. Iraq is not the only issue

Dave

Yeah, social issues are there too to bite people like you, jfern, in the ass.  That's the problem.  And I am getting really sick of saying that.  But it is true and you won't admit it.  I'm not suggesting we move to a pro-life stance, but the Democratic Party should adopt some restrictions to its abortion position, as most Americans are not in favor of unconditional abortions.  That's not saying they are pro-life, but they feel that some restrictions are necessary.  The majority of Americans don't want Roe v. Wade overturned, but they do support some minor restrictions.  Likewise for gay marriage.  Did you even SEE the referenda in several states where people voted against gay marriage?  Many of those people aren't hard-core conservative, but moderates socially.  And they make up a good-sized chunk of this oft-mentioned 61%.  So if you want to win nationally and not just in California and the Northeast, think about it.

And in the future, I suggest jfern and phknrocket take a trip to some small towns in Colorado, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Virginia, Georgia, or anywhere in the Southeast and Great Plains.  You might learn something.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As I said, public disapproval of Bush's handling of the war doesn't mean that those voters are going to necessarily flock to the Democrats in 2006 or 2008. Iraq is not the only issue

Dave

Yeah, social issues are there too to bite people like you, jfern, in the ass.  That's the problem.  And I am getting really sick of saying that.  But it is true and you won't admit it.  I'm not suggesting we move to a pro-life stance, but the Democratic Party should adopt some restrictions to its abortion position, as most Americans are not in favor of unconditional abortions.  That's not saying they are pro-life, but they feel that some restrictions are necessary.  The majority of Americans don't want Roe v. Wade overturned, but they do support some minor restrictions.  Likewise for gay marriage.  Did you even SEE the referenda in several states where people voted against gay marriage?  Many of those people aren't hard-core conservative, but moderates socially.  And they make up a good-sized chunk of this oft-mentioned 61%.  So if you want to win nationally and not just in California and the Northeast, think about it.

And in the future, I suggest jfern and phknrocket take a trip to some small towns in Colorado, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Virginia, Georgia, or anywhere in the Southeast and Great Plains.  You might learn something.
[/quote

Are you saying that all of this huge cultural gap you're talking about comes down to minor abortion restrictions? Partial birth abortion is illegal, even in cases where the mother's life is in danger. What more do you need?

Or, if you're saying it's gay marriage, remember that both Kerry and Bush were against gay marriage, but pro-civil union. The only difference was that Kerry opposed Bush's Massachusetts marriage license revoking Constitutional Amendemnt. I think Kerry was on the moderate side of the issue by not wanting to take away people's valid marriage licenses.

[MODU]

I think Kerry was on the moderate side of the issue by not wanting to take away people's valid marriage licenses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, that's not the moderate view.  The moderate view is unions, not marriage.  The liberal view is marriage and the conservative view is no unions or marriage.

[Virginian87]

As I said, public disapproval of Bush's handling of the war doesn't mean that those voters are going to necessarily flock to the Democrats in 2006 or 2008. Iraq is not the only issue

Dave

Yeah, social issues are there too to bite people like you, jfern, in the ass.  That's the problem.  And I am getting really sick of saying that.  But it is true and you won't admit it.  I'm not suggesting we move to a pro-life stance, but the Democratic Party should adopt some restrictions to its abortion position, as most Americans are not in favor of unconditional abortions.  That's not saying they are pro-life, but they feel that some restrictions are necessary.  The majority of Americans don't want Roe v. Wade overturned, but they do support some minor restrictions.  Likewise for gay marriage.  Did you even SEE the referenda in several states where people voted against gay marriage?  Many of those people aren't hard-core conservative, but moderates socially.  And they make up a good-sized chunk of this oft-mentioned 61%.  So if you want to win nationally and not just in California and the Northeast, think about it.

And in the future, I suggest jfern and phknrocket take a trip to some small towns in Colorado, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Virginia, Georgia, or anywhere in the Southeast and Great Plains.  You might learn something.

Are you saying that all of this huge cultural gap you're talking about comes down to minor abortion restrictions? Partial birth abortion is illegal, even in cases where the mother's life is in danger. What more do you need?

Or, if you're saying it's gay marriage, remember that both Kerry and Bush were against gay marriage, but pro-civil union. The only difference was that Kerry opposed Bush's Massachusetts marriage license revoking Constitutional Amendemnt. I think Kerry was on the moderate side of the issue by not wanting to take away people's valid marriage licenses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not just those two issues.  I just gave them as examples.  There are other issues as well.  National Security is a BIG one.  Many people perceive as spineless weaklings, thanks to conservative pundits wrapping themselves in the flag and saying that "Democrats hate America."  I think the problem with National Security may stem from the Carter Administration, when the armed forces weren't able to rescue the Iranian hostages and became a laughingstock.  Then people credit Reagan and his massive spending on defense for reinvigorating the military.

[Virginian87]

I think Kerry was on the moderate side of the issue by not wanting to take away people's valid marriage licenses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, that's not the moderate view.  The moderate view is unions, not marriage.  The liberal view is marriage and the conservative view is no unions or marriage.

Exactly.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think Kerry was on the moderate side of the issue by not wanting to take away people's valid marriage licenses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, that's not the moderate view.  The moderate view is unions, not marriage.  The liberal view is marriage and the conservative view is no unions or marriage.

Kerry said he was opposed to gay marriage, however he said it should be up to the states, and so opposed that Constitutional amendment to revoke marriage licenses. A plurality oppose the amendment. Yet again you're asking the Democrat to choose the right-wing losing position. What a bunch of bullsh**t. Us Democrats will take the winning liberal positions over the losing conservative positions. You don't like that? Then go screw yourself.

[dazzleman]

I think Kerry was on the moderate side of the issue by not wanting to take away people's valid marriage licenses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, that's not the moderate view.  The moderate view is unions, not marriage.  The liberal view is marriage and the conservative view is no unions or marriage.

Kerry said he was opposed to gay marriage, however he said it should be up to the states, and so opposed that Constitutional amendment to revoke marriage licenses. A plurality oppose the amendment. Yet again you're asking the Democrat to choose the right-wing losing position. What a bunch of bullsh**t. Us Democrats will take the winning liberal positions over the losing conservative positions. You don't like that? Then go screw yourself.

Why can't you discuss an issue without getting nasty?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think Kerry was on the moderate side of the issue by not wanting to take away people's valid marriage licenses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, that's not the moderate view.  The moderate view is unions, not marriage.  The liberal view is marriage and the conservative view is no unions or marriage.

Kerry said he was opposed to gay marriage, however he said it should be up to the states, and so opposed that Constitutional amendment to revoke marriage licenses. A plurality oppose the amendment. Yet again you're asking the Democrat to choose the right-wing losing position. What a bunch of bullsh**t. Us Democrats will take the winning liberal positions over the losing conservative positions. You don't like that? Then go screw yourself.

Why can't you discuss an issue without getting nasty?

I got sick of being told that the Democrats should take losing conservative positions over winning liberal positions.

[angus]

For Democrats, a Troubling Culture Gap

By Dan Balz
Wednesday, August 10, 2005; Page A08

Dissatisfaction over the war in Iraq, the economy and rising health care costs might spell trouble for Republicans, but a study by Democratic strategists warns that their party's failure to connect with voters on cultural issues could prevent Democratic candidates from reaping gains in upcoming national elections.

Democrats have expressed bewilderment over Republican gains among lower-income, less-educated voters, saying they are voting against their economic self-interest by supporting Republican candidates. But the new Democracy Corps study concludes that cultural issues trump economic issues by a wide margin for many of these voters -- giving the GOP a significant electoral advantage.

 The study is based on focus groups of rural voters in Wisconsin and Arkansas and disaffected supporters of President Bush in Colorado and Kentucky. The good news for Democrats: All the groups expressed dissatisfaction with the direction of the country and with the leadership of the president and the GOP-controlled Congress.

Then came the bad news: "As powerful as the concern over these issues is, the introduction of cultural themes -- specifically gay marriage, abortion, the importance of the traditional family unit and the role of religion in public life -- quickly renders them almost irrelevant in terms of electoral politics at the national level," the study said.

Many of these voters still favor Democrats on economic issues. But they see the Democrats as weak on national security, and on cultural and moral issues, they view Democrats as both inconsistent and hostile to traditional values. "Most referred to Democrats as 'liberal' on issues of morality, but some even go so far as to label them 'immoral,' 'morally bankrupt,' or even 'anti-religious,' " according to the Democracy Corps analysis.

Democrats Karl Agne and Stan Greenberg, who conducted the focus group, said Democrats need a reform-oriented, anti-Washington agenda to overcome the culture gap. At this point, Democrats are in no position to capitalize if there is a clear backlash against Republicans. "No matter how disaffected they are over Republican failures in Iraq and here at home," they said, "a large chunk of white, non-college voters, particularly in rural areas, will remain unreachable for Democrats at the national level."

source

And here's the study itself, in PDF format:

THE CULTURAL DIVIDE &
THE CHALLENGE OF WINNING BACK RURAL & RED STATE VOTERS

I never know what to make of this crap.  Is Balz such a moron?  Or does he ameliorate his writing just to keep pace (or lack thereof) with his ever less independently-thinking readership.  I don't know which is worse.

Simply put, most of us want homosexuals to have the same rights as everyone else.  And most of us straight guys would recoil in horror at the thought of some impoverished 17-year-old bimbo we knocked up not being able to safely and legally terminate the unwanted pregnancy.  Etc.  Etc.  But, as much as it astonishes me, the democrats have managed to mangle and bungle these issues consistently for the past 30 years.  I hate to submit to the profoundly inconsiderate view that these "wedge" issues really are thought more important than the real issues:  jobs, sovereignty, and general economic concerns.  But damn.  The republicans have managed to play all the cards right.  If Nixon had asked me in 1968 whether to go ahead with his so-called Southern Strategy, I'd have said, "man, you're nuts for even considering it.  No way."  Shows how little I know.

I still contend that in the long run these "cultural" issues favor the Democrats, not because they're intelligent or shrewd enough to know how to play them right.  Obviously they are not.  And informed voters vote with their pocketbooks anyway, not over these trivialities.  But just as obviously, in the short run they do favor the GOP.  I still think it's sleazy to pit white religious nuts against black religious nuts, etc.  But such tactics seem so socially acceptable nowadays that even fairly respectable writers like Dan Balz won't call either party on them.

In short, I agree with his conclusions, but I profoundly disagree with the arguments he uses to get there.  Yes, the Dems will continue to lose in the short run, mostly due to their narrow-mindedness and their attitude that anyone who disagrees with them must either be insane or evil.  But in the long run, unless the GOP faces up to the fact that it's selling out its true base, the small government types, it's bound to become a disaffected, ineffective third party.  A distant third. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Agnus gets it right. It's not the Democrat's positions that are the problem, it's their communication that is the problem. They need to learn how to frame the issues. The Republicans are very good at it. Kerry couldn't do it to save his life.

[dazzleman]

I got sick of being told that the Democrats should take losing conservative positions over winning liberal positions.

Gay marriage may be a winning issue in the San Francisco Bay area, but it's not a winning issue too many other places.  Even liberal Oregon passed a constitution amendment banning gay marriage in 2004 with a pretty large margin (though not as lopsided as some other states).

Both parties need to evolve constantly in order to remain viable.  There's nothing wrong with making suggestions.  The main battle in politics is always between staying true to a strong base, which is invariably unable to deliver a general election victory on its own, and reaching out to those who are not part of the base.  In reaching out beyond the base, there is always the tension between what's necessary to bring in more voters, and not making the base feel betrayed.

Both parties have actual or potential base problems, and outside circumstances generally dictate which party can walk the tighrope and win, and which party can't.  Times of peace and prosperity seem to favor the Democrats, as their base becomes more quiescent and doesn't repel as many swing voters.  During those times, moderates become more disturbed by certain elements of the Democratic base.  But during more troubled times, the Democratic base becomes very loud and strident, and scares off moderates.  At the same time, the Republican base becomes less threatening to moderates, since the dominant issues go beyond the base's favorite issues, and the base's favorite issues therefore decline in importance.

[dazzleman]

Agnus gets it right. It's not the Democrat's positions that are the problem, it's their communication that is the problem. They need to learn how to frame the issues. The Republicans are very good at it. Kerry couldn't do it to save his life.

I think angus is right only to a point.  External circumstances, the overall environment in which the election is held, do a lot to determine whether positions favored by the base, which are unpopular with those beyond the base, become a fatal detriment to the party.

In certain circumstances, no matter of framing the issues favorably will help.  Other times it does.  I don't think the problem is only about framing the issues.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I got sick of being told that the Democrats should take losing conservative positions over winning liberal positions.

Gay marriage may be a winning issue in the San Francisco Bay area, but it's not a winning issue too many other places.  Even liberal Oregon passed a constitution amendment banning gay marriage in 2004 with a pretty large margin (though not as lopsided as some other states).

Both parties need to evolve constantly in order to remain viable.  There's nothing wrong with making suggestions.  The main battle in politics is always between staying true to a strong base, which is invariably unable to deliver a general election victory on its own, and reaching out to those who are not part of the base.  In reaching out beyond the base, there is always the tension between what's necessary to bring in more voters, and not making the base feel betrayed.

Both parties have actual or potential base problems, and outside circumstances generally dictate which party can walk the tighrope and win, and which party can't.  Times of peace and prosperity seem to favor the Democrats, as their base becomes more quiescent and doesn't repel as many swing voters.  During those times, moderates become more disturbed by certain elements of the Democratic base.  But during more troubled times, the Democratic base becomes very loud and strident, and scares off moderates.  At the same time, the Republican base becomes less threatening to moderates, since the dominant issues go beyond the base's favorite issues, and the base's favorite issues therefore decline in importance.

Let's get this clear.

Kerry and Bush AGREED that gay marriage is bad
Kerry and Bush AGREED that civil unions should be allowed
On the one thing that they differed on, the Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Kerry sided with 47% of America, and Bush with 45%.

Ignoring people's misconceptions of Kerry's position (which is weird, because it's actually Bush that changed his position here, he suddenly became pro-gay union), it'd be pretty tough to argue that Bush somehow has the more popular position here.

[angus]

I think you're jumping ahead dazzleman.  doing something, in fact, republicans do well.  you didn't actually come out and say, for example, in your penultimate post in this thread that the DNC favors gay marriage, but it's there, in between the lines.  In fact, neither the DNC nor the RNC nor do most americans favor marriage rights for gays (although personally I feel strongly that they should be allowed to marry), but anyone reading your post would assume that the dems favor gay marriage but the GOP does not.  Even though you can honestly claim never to have said that explicitly!!!  Now do you get my point?

[A18]

Actually, somewhere between 54% and 57% of American adults now favor the constitutional amendment, according to Gallup polling data.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Actually, somewhere between 54% and 57% of American adults now favor the constitutional amendment, according to Gallup polling data.

No  one has polled for a while, but this Boston Globe poll was more recent. Before you attack the Boston Globe, remember that Gallup doesn't have that great a record.

[dazzleman]

I think you're jumping ahead dazzleman.  doing something, in fact, republicans do well.  you didn't actually come out and say, for example, in your penultimate post in this thread that the DNC favors gay marriage, but it's there, in between the lines.  In fact, neither the DNC nor the RNC nor do most americans favor marriage rights for gays (although personally I feel strongly that they should be allowed to marry), but anyone reading your post would assume that the dems favor gay marriage but the GOP does not.  Even though you can honestly claim never to have said that explicitly!!!  Now do you get my point?

I think you're reading a little too much into the post.  Jfern and Modu were discussing gay marriage, and that's why I brought it up.  I realize that the Democratic party doesn't officially support it.  I was just using it as an example of a liberal position that is not a winning one, at least not at this time.

Kerry's position on gay marriage is strange, because he favors a constitutional amendment against it in Massachusetts, but not at the federal level.

For me, the issue is not gay marriage but judicial activism.  If you know that sooner or later a liberal judge is going to force gay marriage down the public's throat, and you oppose a constitutional amendment to prevent it, then you are de facto in support of gay marriage, but leaving it up to others to bring it about.  This is not the way government is supposed to function.

I don't think a constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage should be needed.  If the courts were serving their proper role, we wouldn't even be talking about it.  I think the issue should be decided in the legislatures of the states, without interference from the courts.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think you're jumping ahead dazzleman.  doing something, in fact, republicans do well.  you didn't actually come out and say, for example, in your penultimate post in this thread that the DNC favors gay marriage, but it's there, in between the lines.  In fact, neither the DNC nor the RNC nor do most americans favor marriage rights for gays (although personally I feel strongly that they should be allowed to marry), but anyone reading your post would assume that the dems favor gay marriage but the GOP does not.  Even though you can honestly claim never to have said that explicitly!!!  Now do you get my point?

I think you're reading a little too much into the post.  Jfern and Modu were discussing gay marriage, and that's why I brought it up.  I realize that the Democratic party doesn't officially support it.  I was just using it as an example of a liberal position that is not a winning one, at least not at this time.

Kerry's position on gay marriage is strange, because he favors a constitutional amendment against it in Massachusetts, but not at the federal level.

For me, the issue is not gay marriage but judicial activism.  If you know that sooner or later a liberal judge is going to force gay marriage down the public's throat, and you oppose a constitutional amendment to prevent it, then you are de facto in support of gay marriage, but leaving it up to others to bring it about.  This is not the way government is supposed to function.

I don't think a constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage should be needed.  If the courts were serving their proper role, we wouldn't even be talking about it.  I think the issue should be decided in the legislatures of the states, without interference from the courts.

It sounds like you agree completely with Kerry on gay marriage.

[A18]

Actually, somewhere between 54% and 57% of American adults now favor the constitutional amendment, according to Gallup polling data.

No one has polled for a while, but this Boston Globe poll was more recent. Before you attack the Boston Globe, remember that Gallup doesn't have that great a record.

It's from May.

[dazzleman]

I think you're jumping ahead dazzleman.  doing something, in fact, republicans do well.  you didn't actually come out and say, for example, in your penultimate post in this thread that the DNC favors gay marriage, but it's there, in between the lines.  In fact, neither the DNC nor the RNC nor do most americans favor marriage rights for gays (although personally I feel strongly that they should be allowed to marry), but anyone reading your post would assume that the dems favor gay marriage but the GOP does not.  Even though you can honestly claim never to have said that explicitly!!!  Now do you get my point?

I think you're reading a little too much into the post.  Jfern and Modu were discussing gay marriage, and that's why I brought it up.  I realize that the Democratic party doesn't officially support it.  I was just using it as an example of a liberal position that is not a winning one, at least not at this time.

Kerry's position on gay marriage is strange, because he favors a constitutional amendment against it in Massachusetts, but not at the federal level.

For me, the issue is not gay marriage but judicial activism.  If you know that sooner or later a liberal judge is going to force gay marriage down the public's throat, and you oppose a constitutional amendment to prevent it, then you are de facto in support of gay marriage, but leaving it up to others to bring it about.  This is not the way government is supposed to function.

I don't think a constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage should be needed.  If the courts were serving their proper role, we wouldn't even be talking about it.  I think the issue should be decided in the legislatures of the states, without interference from the courts.

It sounds like you agree completely with Kerry on gay marriage.

Not exactly.  I would agree with him in the absence of judicial activism.  I said the constitutional amendment shouldn't be needed, not that it is not needed.  Truthfully, I am ambivalent about the constitutional amendment, but as a larger issue, I think we have to do something to rein in the power of black-robed dictators who are legislating from the bench.

[A18]

I think you're jumping ahead dazzleman. doing something, in fact, republicans do well. you didn't actually come out and say, for example, in your penultimate post in this thread that the DNC favors gay marriage, but it's there, in between the lines. In fact, neither the DNC nor the RNC nor do most americans favor marriage rights for gays (although personally I feel strongly that they should be allowed to marry), but anyone reading your post would assume that the dems favor gay marriage but the GOP does not. Even though you can honestly claim never to have said that explicitly!!! Now do you get my point?

I think you're reading a little too much into the post. Jfern and Modu were discussing gay marriage, and that's why I brought it up. I realize that the Democratic party doesn't officially support it. I was just using it as an example of a liberal position that is not a winning one, at least not at this time.

Kerry's position on gay marriage is strange, because he favors a constitutional amendment against it in Massachusetts, but not at the federal level.

For me, the issue is not gay marriage but judicial activism. If you know that sooner or later a liberal judge is going to force gay marriage down the public's throat, and you oppose a constitutional amendment to prevent it, then you are de facto in support of gay marriage, but leaving it up to others to bring it about. This is not the way government is supposed to function.

I don't think a constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage should be needed. If the courts were serving their proper role, we wouldn't even be talking about it. I think the issue should be decided in the legislatures of the states, without interference from the courts.

It sounds like you agree completely with Kerry on gay marriage.

That's how it should be decided, but he's saying because the courts will likely intervene, an amendment is needed.

I think there should be an amendment that leaves the issue up to the states in clear language. Same thing for polygamy and incestuous marriages.

[dazzleman]

That's how it should be decided, but he's saying because the courts will likely intervene, an amendment is needed.

I think there should be an amendment that leaves the issue up to the states in clear language. Same thing for polygamy and incestuous marriages.

Exactly.  Rather than amend the constitution at the federal level to prevent gay marriage, block the federal courts from intervening and leave it up to the states.

[angus]

I think you're jumping ahead dazzleman.  doing something, in fact, republicans do well.  you didn't actually come out and say, for example, in your penultimate post in this thread that the DNC favors gay marriage, but it's there, in between the lines.  In fact, neither the DNC nor the RNC nor do most americans favor marriage rights for gays (although personally I feel strongly that they should be allowed to marry), but anyone reading your post would assume that the dems favor gay marriage but the GOP does not.  Even though you can honestly claim never to have said that explicitly!!!  Now do you get my point?

I think you're reading a little too much into the post.  Jfern and Modu were discussing gay marriage, and that's why I brought it up.  I realize that the Democratic party doesn't officially support it.  I was just using it as an example of a liberal position that is not a winning one, at least not at this time.

Kerry's position on gay marriage is strange, because he favors a constitutional amendment against it in Massachusetts, but not at the federal level.

For me, the issue is not gay marriage but judicial activism.  If you know that sooner or later a liberal judge is going to force gay marriage down the public's throat, and you oppose a constitutional amendment to prevent it, then you are de facto in support of gay marriage, but leaving it up to others to bring it about.  This is not the way government is supposed to function.

I don't think a constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage should be needed.  If the courts were serving their proper role, we wouldn't even be talking about it.  I think the issue should be decided in the legislatures of the states, without interference from the courts.

okay, maybe I was.  A couple of points.  I do agree with the current GOP position completely on the judiciary.  I'd much rather have a constructionist with whom I disagree than an activist with whom I agree.  This is a big reason for supporting Bush.  But this also exemplifies the case in point.  For example, there can be such a thing as Pro-Business judicial activism.  Activist judges don't always have to be of the Wealth Redistribution sort.  But it was the Right that seized upon that term first.  And wisely so.  And it stuck, and is usually associated with the Left. 

As for the polls, you have to imagine that someone's always going to trot out poll numbers as though they are gospel.  As though they are Kelvin temperatures.  Vorlon can talk about this, and often does, but such poll numbers are only as good as the weakest link in the chain of events leading up to them, and the links are weak indeed.  Leading up to the 2004 general election I often posted that there's only one poll that matters, and that one occurs on November 2.  And, regardless of Gallup or anything else, I was pretty confident Bush would be reelected, which is why I invested as I did.  If I'd though otherwise I'd have put my money elsewhere.  I'm certain if you ask the question, "Are homosexual American citizens subject to the same duties and priveleges, under the federal constitutional system of law, that heterosexual citizens are?" you'd get overwhelmingly "YES"  But if you ask, "Should two rug-munching dykes have the right to marry and adopt an otherwise straight innocent child and screw her mind up so far beyond redemption that she'll grow up to be a man-hating bulldyke with no hope of attracting a decent man?" you'd get an overwhelming "NO" response.  So don't give me that "Well, I got it from Gallup so it must be gospel" bullsh**t, okay?  let's all agree not to insult one another's intelligence that way.

Still, my only point here is that Balz probably understands the whole situation better than he lets on.  It's just a goddamned shame that he has to ameliorate his writing that way for it to be understood.  And we let it.  For example, how many people can tell you what last quarter's economic growth/decline was?  How many people can tell you the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq today?  Not too many?  Well, ask how many people can tell you the name of an 18-year-old rich white girl from alabama who's gone missing in Aruba.  Or how many can tell you about the nasty things Le President de France said about the Brits recently?  And, now, really, which is more important.  And yes, the GOP knows how to play this sensationalism better than the dems and take our minds off of real and pressing issues when necessary to win elections.  And, given how intolerant the Dems have become, it's difficult for centrists like myself to sympathize with their frustration and their plight.  That's really my only point here.

[MODU]

I think Kerry was on the moderate side of the issue by not wanting to take away people's valid marriage licenses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, that's not the moderate view.  The moderate view is unions, not marriage.  The liberal view is marriage and the conservative view is no unions or marriage.

Kerry said he was opposed to gay marriage, however he said it should be up to the states, and so opposed that Constitutional amendment to revoke marriage licenses. A plurality oppose the amendment. Yet again you're asking the Democrat to choose the right-wing losing position. What a bunch of bullsh**t. Us Democrats will take the winning liberal positions over the losing conservative positions. You don't like that? Then go screw yourself.

And a majority oppose gay marriage in general.  I can play that game too, little man.  And it's funny how you think I'm asking you to chose the conservative position, when you are telling me I can screw myself if I don't chose yours.  Kinda self-rightous of you, don't ya think?  Funny how your winning liberal position is losing in Democratic states.  Maybe you should stop and think that just because you favor something doesn't mean it's the "winning" position.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think Kerry was on the moderate side of the issue by not wanting to take away people's valid marriage licenses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, that's not the moderate view.  The moderate view is unions, not marriage.  The liberal view is marriage and the conservative view is no unions or marriage.

Kerry said he was opposed to gay marriage, however he said it should be up to the states, and so opposed that Constitutional amendment to revoke marriage licenses. A plurality oppose the amendment. Yet again you're asking the Democrat to choose the right-wing losing position. What a bunch of bullsh**t. Us Democrats will take the winning liberal positions over the losing conservative positions. You don't like that? Then go screw yourself.

And a majority oppose gay marriage in general.  I can play that game too, little man.  And it's funny how you think I'm asking you to chose the conservative position, when you are telling me I can screw myself if I don't chose yours.  Kinda self-rightous of you, don't ya think?  Funny how your winning liberal position is losing in Democratic states.  Maybe you should stop and think that just because you favor something doesn't mean it's the "winning" position.

Kerry said he opposed gay marriage. There were a lot of people like him who are against gay marriage AND against the federal Constitutional amendment to ban it.

You're telling me that his being against the amendment, which a plurality are against, means that he's some sort of liberal extremist? What a crock of sh**t.