Ignoring other ballot initiative votes, Brokaw uses CA's Prop. 8 vote to claim, "[W]e probably remain a center-right country"
SUMMARY: Commenting on the passage of a ballot initiative amending the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, Tom Brokaw said, "[W]e probably remain a center-right country." Brokaw did not note that several other ballot initiatives around the country suggest a rejection of a conservative social agenda.
Commenting on the vote in California to pass Proposition 8, a ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, NBC's Tom Brokaw said, "[W]e probably remain a center-right country." Brokaw did not note that several other ballot initiatives around the country suggest a rejection of a conservative social agenda.
On the November 5 edition of CBS' The Late Show, host David Letterman asked, "Now, some interesting things happened. In California, they reversed the gay marriage circumstance, and that's -- that's going to be just a legal bedlam, I would guess?" Brokaw responded, "It is, and that's a tough issue to get past around the country. I think eight states now have banned gay marriages." Echoing an October 18 article by Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, Brokaw continued, "Look, we probably remain a center-right country -- conservative in our social values. But what they said with this election is that we're willing to take a chance on somebody else who promised that he could bring us together and find the middle ground. People hold these values, cultural values and social values, dear to them."
But in asserting that "we probably remain a center-right country" in response to Letterman's comments about the Proposition 8 vote, Brokaw ignored initiative votes in other states that counter the notion that America is a "center-right country," including:
- California's vote against Proposition 4, which called for a "waiting period and parental notification before termination of minor's pregnancy."
- Colorado's vote against Amendment 48, which would have amended the state constitution to define "the terms 'person' or 'persons' [to] include any human being from the moment of fertilization."
- Michigan's vote in favor of Proposition 1 ("The Michigan Medical Marijuana Act"), which legalized "the use and cultivation of marijuana for specified medical conditions."
- South Dakota's vote against Initiative 11, defined as "[a]n Initiative to prohibit abortions except in cases where the mother's life or health is at a substantial and irreversible risk, and in cases of reported rape and incest."
- Washington state's vote in favor of Initiative 1000 ("The Washington Death with Dignity Act"), which allows terminally ill patients the option of physician-assisted suicide.
Colorado's Amendment 46, which called to end affirmative action in the state, reportedly had "no" votes leading as of 1:17 a.m. MT November 7, but the result was not yet finalized. The Rocky Mountain News reported on November 6 that "voters turned down" Amendment 46, while the Denver Post reported on November 7 that the amendment "appeared to be going down Thursday ... with 50.6 percent against to 49.4 percent in favor [with 96 percent of precincts reporting]. Although there were still 55,000 ballots to be counted in Boulder County, the amendment had been failing there 60 percent to 40 percent."
From the November 5 edition of CBS' The Late Show with David Letterman:
LETTERMAN: Now, some interesting things happened. In California, they reversed the --
BROKAW: Gay marriage, right.
LETTERMAN: -- gay marriage circumstance, and that's -- that's going to be just a legal bedlam, I would guess?
BROKAW: It is, and that's a tough issue to get passed around the country. I think eight states now have banned gay marriages. Look, we probably remain a center-right country -- conservative in our social values. But what they said with this election is that we're willing to take a chance on somebody else who promised that he could bring us together and find the middle ground. People hold these values, cultural values and social values, dear to them. They're terrified about the economy.
Obama won 53% to 46%. McCain got 2 million fewer votes than Kerry got in 2004. Anyone who thinks the US is center-right is probably just projecting a bit.
Amen.
Probably so. And in case nobody's mentioned this, let's not forget McCain was the "Maverick" and Palin was the "reformer". If people were really "center-right", they would have a very obvious way of justifying their vote for the GOP, because McCain/Palin aren't really like Bush, they'll bring change, etc.
Also, as Tommy points out repeatedly in this thread, the economy was the foremost concern on voters minds. Now despite the fact that he is framing his argument in very vague terms in an attempt to imbue the issue with confusion, create a "fuzzy set" as it were; it remains that McCain set up the economic debate as a choice between a tax and spend, big gubmint liberal and a tax cutting, limited government Reaganite.
McCain's loss on the economic debate is the loss of conservative economic ideology.
Very well said. That's why Brokaw had to point to the result of a single vote in a single state on a single question in order to pretend that the US is center-right. This is so clearly conservative misinformation. It's also just plain stupid. Brokaw would be better of using a magic 8-ball.
What's stupid is your intolerance of another opinion, not that it really matters to most, but you'd think when you retired Governor you'd be more open-minded and intelligent.
Guess a simple name change isn't enough.
More name calling. Real nice. Weird, too.
"you aren't worthy of adult discourse"
Then stop doing it. Back up you closed-mindedness and stop it already.
You aren't worthy of it, hence the childish approach I now take with you.
Name changer.
You are a troll. Your only point is to not have one.
In any event, Welcome Back Governor. I trust you perhaps were banned, which is why the sudden geographic switch to Colorado? Well, you behave yourself this time, k?
Have a nice weekend....
You go with that. Next you'll be trying to get me banned for being gay or something. You can't out me for being gay, Tommy. I already admit it. Stop with the witchhunts, you freak. It's 2008 for crying out loud. Grow up.
Oh how I have missed your delcious inanity. You stay put now, Governor Victor Colorado.
For the record, I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU ARE ON ABOUT.
This is misinformation? WITH? Brokaw gave his opinion on the election and it's results, there are plenty of arguable labels to toss around. To say Brokaw's statement deserves placement here is ridiculous.
"It is misinformative to suggest that California alone is a gage where the US is politically"
Absolutely, one could easily make the argument that if a state as liberal and progressive as California votes to ban gay marriage, then the country really is center-right.
I think way the US voted on Tuesday is a better gage on where the country is.
I never said it couldn't be argued either way, it's a matter of perspective and opinion, both sides can point to this or that to support their assertion. It isn't misinformation, it's opinion.
It is misinformation to make a case of where we are as a nation by only looking at a single statewide ballot question.
Make a case? He said "probably". As I said, it's opinion. You don't have to agree with it, but it's misinformation only in the intolerant minds of those who can't accept someone may have a different opinion than theirs. Guess that's you.
And it's my opinion that he's wrong. No probably about it. There's a ton of national figures that back up my view that the Nation is left of center. My first post makes the case better that Brokaw made his. He "probably" is overpaid, since he "definitely" misinforms here.
Actually your first post didn't make the case against what Brokaw said at all. Look at every single exit poll and tell me where the voter's minds were, the economy.
OK. Do you think those same people who voted for Obama wanted more or less regulation of the banking industry?
They voted the way they did because they are worried, and they didn't want to risk McCain and more of the same. It trumped everything else.
They voted for Obama because they trust him and endorse the policies that he outlined in the campaign, which apply a liberal approach to economic crisis. If they really didn't believe in Barack's approach to the economy then voting for him would be a strange way to expres that rejection.
65 million Americans voted for Obama because they were worried? Obama's 8 million more votes than McCain's makes Brokaw's point? Do you smoke crack?
Look at the exit polls and what their biggest concern was? I stand by my statement, you are clueless, perhaps you need to smoke something to come out of your illogical haze.
McCain's historic trouncing on Tuesday proves we are center-right because people cited the economy in exit polls as the most important issue? Really? Seriously? No wonder you think I should take drugs in order to agree with you. My god, man, get a hold of yourself.
Then refrain from responding to any of my posts, yours are so filled with nonsense and uberpartisan entrenchment you aren't worthy of adult discourse.
He's right. Your thesis doesn't make sense. You have yet to explain how the public's concern for the economy means that the country is center-right.
I never said it was or wasn't, I said it was an arguable point. Read my previous posts before you distort what I have said.
Your original point was WITH. Got it. However, later you were arguing that Brokaw may be right because of the eletorates concern for the economy. What you have failed to do is connect conern with the economy with center-right orientation.
I did not argue that Brokaw was right or wrong. I said the economy was the overriding issue so there were decent points to made on both sides since social issues, more aligned with right and left ideology regarding the context of this interview of Brokaw, were not as paramount in this election. So there is no definitive label, which was what I said originally.
The economy was the overriding issue and the electorate endorsed Obama's liberal approach to handling the crisis. Obama received more votes (percentage or otherwise) than any candidate since George Walker Bush. Votes for him weren't of the "anybody but McCain variety". They were a real endorsement. To suggest that he should see this as anything but an endorsement of his philosophy and policies is silly.
Label the country anyway you want too, the point is we all need to pray for, and hope that Obama can inspire and lead us all to better days ahead, politically, socially, economically and culturally. His election is historic and should make every American proud, regardless of differences. Whether we are liberal or conservative, as Obama said, we are all Americans first. I would hope everyone remembers that, and we are able to move beyond partisan labels.
Brokaw obviously still believes in labels.
What I think you are trying to say is that the swing voters are not liberal idealogues. I agree. However, they are not conservative idealogues either. They are pragmatists. This election they put their stamp of approval on the liberal economic agenda. If we fail, that loyalty will prove to be fluid. However, this only highlights the silliness of insisting that the country is still center-right despite the resounding victory of Obama and the down-ticket Democrats.
I'll weigh in: the voters of Arkansas voted to relax marijuana laws, making marijuana the lowest priority for prosecution. Can we now say that the country is center-left because of the way people in Arkansas voted?
I say, no way.
Historic????? A little bit of histrionics here, perhaps???
The economy. We go it. So do you think that they believe that Obama will somehow not pursue his economic solutions based on more government oversight of business? You are actually disproving your own point by illuminating that the swing voters are not tied to conservative ideology as represented by supply-side economics. Instead, they believe as liberals do that there must be a balance of free capitalism and government regulation.
Swing voters were more closely tied to their pocketbooks than any ideology this time around, that is the point. Their 401k's have gone to crap, their job may be hanging on by a thread, and they were worried. I doubt they walked into the voting booth with supply side economics swirling around in their head. In fact, Barney Frank was reelected and he was one of the main Fannie and Freddie are just fine crowd.
You make my point. If the swing voters are not supply-siders then they aren't conservatives. Instead, they know that a balance is required. It's just it took this crisis to remind them that supply-side economics doesn't work for the average American.
It's telling that Obama won every economic group, even the 200K+ folks that he said would have to pay more under his plans.
Now Barney Frank getting reelected shows that the US is center-right? Holy crap?! Really? Really??? Really??????????????????????????????
You honestly can't follow the posts as they are being written and responded too, can you? You'd do well to do that before you embarass yourself even further.
You're the one who's interpreting a resounding rejection of the GOP and its failed policies as an indication that we as a people are center-right. You, Sir, are the embarrassment.
Look Governor, or Victor, or whatever, we both know who is embarassing themselves around here. You haven't made your case that this is not an arguable point and that Brokaw's opinion is as valid, ok, much more valid, than yours is. You should have stopped at post 1 when you couldn't. Word of advice.
Huh?
You haven't made your point. Brokaw thinks that the country is center-right. Others have expressed this same opinion. They are all wrong and the facts bear that out when you probe people's opinion on policy. One of the most important things Barack did in this election is show people that liberlism isn't some sort of radical philosophy but is indeed what most people already believe even if they have stopped calling that themselves.
They are all wrong in their opinion that the country is center right? You have a misconception of what an opinion is.
What constitutes "center right", "left", "right" are opinions in themselves. What I consider "center right" likely differs from your's and Brokaws. These terms are undefinable, or at best have fluid definitions. To assert that Brokaw's opinion that the country is center-right, as he opines "center right" to be, is utterly baseless. You have no idea what his opinion of "center right" is, and there is no set, correct definition of the phrase.
I counter his opinion with my opinion.
You are splitting hairs finer then even Tommy is willing to attempt. There are liberal policies and philosophies and there are conservative policies and philosophies. We can go through them if you want.
It's true that yesterday's radical liberal idea is tomorrow's sound mainstream policy. That's what lends your statement of the fluidity of such labels credence. However, I argue that the direction of the fluidity is almost always one direction, toward liberalism. Californians pushed back on one of th most controversial aspects of the "liberal agenda" but the overall arrow is toward liberalism and away from conservatism.
I counter his opinion with my opinion.
Fine. And I'm sure Brokaw can counter your opinion with his opinion. Maybe he doesn't believe that the issues mentioned above by mmfa weigh as heavily into the determination of whether this country's "center right" or left as you do. That's the whole point. It's tit for tat, and Brokaw's opinion on something like this cannot be wrong. Also, where do libertarians fit into the scale? I gotta libertarian buddy who generally deplores both democrats and republicans alike, but likely would support the ballot initiatives referenced by mmfa
Of course this is opinion. However, opinion can be bolstered by facts. Brokaw uses one ballot initiative to try to make his case. I, and the majority here, think that is and inadequately supported supposition. That's what boards are about; discussing why you think someone is right or wrong, hopefully using logic and facts.
Okay . . . I admit. I'm being way to literal here . . .
tommy, please go take a look at how Media Matters defines 'misinformation'. This topic clearly falls under their definition, which includes unreliable commentary that advances the conservative agenda.
Thank you, but I am more than familiar with the mission statement. This isn't unrealiable commentary at all. It's an opinion that MMFA doesn't share, period. If they would add that to their mission statement.......
I have slogged through over a hundred posts and, once again, tommy has generated far too many arguments and responses. Wise up, people.
Gay rights and gay marriage are on the outer cusp of liberal politics right now. Just because all the people aren't yet comfortable with equal rights for homosexuals doesn't mean that the country rejects the other more mainstream tenets of liberalism. This would be equivelent of saying that because most Americas are against the flat tax, that they are obviously against conservative principles.
What does the outer cusp mean? Would you say the same thing if it were blacks who were being denied basic constitutional rights?
Yes. There was a time where abolitionists were on the cusp of liberalism. It takes awhile to convince people to put aside their prejudices and do the right thing. If you don't like the word "cusp", then how about "vanguard" or "edge".
You could think of it as a curve. On the left, there are almost universally accepted concepts such as Social Security and progressive taxation. On the right are more controversial aspects of liberalism such as single-payer healthcare and gay marriage. The concepts on the left that are now de facto policy were at one time on the right and politically unviable. Thankfully, ideas have steadily moved leftward on the curb. Yesterdays radical liberalism is today embraced by all but the most conservative. That's why liberalism wins in the long-term, even as it suffers temporary setbacks such as Prop 8.
Yes, the first thing that struck me about this was that we've heard a lot of talk about how radical gay marriage is, how dangerous it is to society, blah blah blah. So if it's rejected because it's so far out there, as proposition 8 proponents would have us believe, then it doesn't make the population of California (much less America) center-right. It's sort of like they're saying "nobody should accept gay marriage, even Democrats", and then when the proposition passes they say "oh, see, you're just like us!"
That presupposes that all things were equal, that everybody understood that voting "no" meant supporting gay marriage, and ignores the millions of out-of-state dollars spent on a massive propaganda effort, full of disinformation, spent to vote down gay marriage.
I am fully aware of the Mormons pouring cash into the vote Yes campaign. They misinformed and tried to scare people, it was reprehensible. But I also blame the vote No campaign as well. They barely mentioned the word gay in their advertisements, like they wanted to try and hide what the proposition was all about. Had they shown normal gay couples and stressed civil rights and the constitution it may be ended up differently.
It is misinformative to suggest that California alone is a gage where the US is politically. And it's conservative misinformation to falsely assert that the US is to the right when it's not.
The only "gauge" the passage of prop 8 showed is that there are still alot of voters who are still scared of gay people. It has nothing at all to do with the left-center-right debate (which is preposterous anyway).
In my state of Oregon, voters once again rejected all five measures brought by Oregon's own radical, right-wing, professional initiative writer and government destructionist, Bill Sizemore.
We have one of those guys here in Seattle named Tim Eyman. Every cycle he has a new initiative to gut public transportation in favor of more highways. Initially, his initiatives passed; notably one that limited car licensing fees to a flat amount instead of based on value. However, people have caught on to his self-aggrandizing schemes and have rejected most of his recent proposals, including one this cycle to allow all cars into HOV lanes and limit transportation spending on transit.
I share Thom Hartmann's wariness of citizen initiatives. We have a reprsentative democracy for a reason. Asking citizens whether should be taxed will produce a predictable answer, yet someone has to pay for government services. Thankfully, sometimes these initiatives are good, such as the Death with Dignity law Washington just resoundingly passed. It was modeled after Oregon's existing law.
What's irritating is that Sizemore was convicted of racketeering for initiative signature fraud, and he's still making a living writing ballot measures and getting paid by out-of-state interests for doing it.
Sort of sad that, if what I'm hearing is true, according to polls, black people voted overwhelmingly for prop. 8 here.
But I heard something sadder on Dennis Prager just a few minutes ago. According to him, a Mormon family took out their savings ($50,000) and gave it to the Prop. 8 campaign. Prager thought that was just great.
Heard the same thing Colonel, and I don't get it at all. Black people, victims of discrimination, voting for discrimination. I think much of it comes from their church, but that is just a guess? In any even it makes no sense.
My guess is that there are still some people who think homosexuality is a choice and not in-born. Traditional minorities are born black, brown or whatever. If they see gayness as a choice then they may have a hard time empathizing with their plight.
Personally, I think restrictions on gay marriage are a violation of the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution by restricting marital choice based on gender. Eve can marry Adam but Steve cannot. Why not? Because he is male. If gay marriage were allowed on this basis it would cutoff the slippery slope argument that many on the right advance. For instance, restrictions on polygamy could be maintained because both male and females would be restricted to a single partner.
I wonder if that line of argument has ever been tried in these cases. I think it's a winning argument.
(1) Churches/Religious organizations should stay out of politics or be taxed.
(2) Prop. 8 will be ruled as unconsitutional (and thank goodness for that!). I believe that those who are arguing against it will use the 'equal protection clause' to have it banned. We are also supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. We'll see if the court system bears this out. I'm sure it will. I believe California voted on it once before (I've only lived in CA for three years) and it was ruled last spring to be unconstitutional. I'm sure we'll have the same outcome as before, thankfully.
(1) If you can trace the $$ back to a specific Church/Religious organization, you may have a point. However, if it is the membership expressing their singular feelings as a citizen of the US, your point fails.
Couple of things, there were 3 states that said No to gay marriage, another state ban affirmative action. I just love that fact that the people of California spoke through the great voting system, but the homosexual community does not like the out come and now they protest and riot. IF they had gone the other way and the those individuals that voted to bad homosexual marriage rioted in the street then they would be call many names under the sun. The people of California have said twice to this, and the gay movement now will do all in their power to overturn the votes. What happen to each vote counts??????
You really don't see a difference between somebody protesting for their civil rights, and somebody protesting against another groups rights?
Mark,
I have no doubt that if given the opportunity some states may vote to make black people 3/5ths of a person as well. This is about extending the same rights to gay people that straight people have, to marry the person they love and all the benefits and responsibilities that accompany such a committment. This issue will most likely be decided in the courts.
Just as inter-racial marriages were not voter approved, neither is this, for now. But ultimately when all is said and done, and the myth that gay marriage will have any effect on straight marriage, the people will do the right thing - and that is not denying someone the same rights as anyone else.
Tommy,
The fact is that nobody is denying anyone their rights by opposing the redefinition of the word marriage.
Marriage has always been a heterosexual institution. It describes the legal and sacramental union between a man and a woman. Gay people entering into partnerhips, because of their same sex is a different social construct.
I'm no expert, but I do believe gay domestic partnerships can avail themselves to the same legal rights as heterosexual who marry. If that is the case, then people entering into gay unions are not denied any rights.
AA,
In my view, the term marriage should be removed from any legal definition in the first place, and replaced with civil unions for everyone. Marriage should be a religious term and let the church perform them as they see fit. However, until that happens, then two gay people who want to enter in the same committed relationship as two straight people should have the same rights, and call it the same thing. To deny them that right is discriminatory, and there is no basis for it. It threatens nothing, and is good for society. It encourages only good things, for the two getting married, for their families, for their communities, and for everyone.
Tommy,
We all recognize that commitment does not stem from being either heterosexual or homosexual. Each union and each commitment is different. That commitment cannot be legislated.
Having to redefine a heterosexual union so those who want to participate in a homosexual union can call their union the same thing as the heterosexual union is an effort to deny the obvious. The homosexual union, is by definition, different than the heterosexual union. Marriage is a heterosexual construct and has been that way for centuries. "Gay Marriage" is a new social construct and it adequately and appropriately describes, without bias, the gay union.
Had the term "marriage" been reserved for gay unions for thousands of years, I would argue that heterosexual unions would call their unions, "straight marriage". However heterosexual marriage has been defined since who knows when as "marriage". It has been a religious and a legal definition of formal heterosexual unions.
There is no denying of anyone's legal rights by reserving the term "marriage" for heterosexual unions, just as there is no denying anyone their legal rights by reserving the term "gay marriage" for homosexual unions. Just because gay activists want to redefine the word marriage to include gays, does not make the majority rejecting that redefinition discriminatory. It is simply common sense.
To redefine the heterosexual institution of marriage to include gay unions, undermines the meaning of the term. Gays are entitled to equal rights, they are not entitled to change heterosexual institutions and definitions to advance their agenda.
One problem will be that the next step to declare those religious institutions that consider marriage to be between one man and one woman as illegal if they do not accomodate gay's. Gay activists will claim discrimination because of this redefinition. Gay marraige is not marriage. It is its own social construct.
So, if Boeing started building wheeled vehicles with airplane engines, would calling them "cars" mean that a Chevrolet is no longer a car?
Your logic is convoluted and bogus. Extending the definition of marriage to homosexual couples does not affect the status of any heterosexual marriage. If it "undermines" the word in your mind, that's your problem.
I disagree. The redefintion of marriage will lead to all sorts of agenda advancing homosexual gambits. I explained the one about religious institutions will next be mandated by the courts or by lawsuits to include gay marriage when it may be contrary to their religious tradition. A whole new class of discrimination lawsuits simply by this redefinition.
OYGB and I are in the 90% agreement range.
I don't think any church should have to marry anyone they don't want to, for whatever reason. We haven't extended anti-discrimination laws to churches in regards to other minorities. Why do you think it would be in this case?
The 14th Amendment is about equal protection under the law. This covers governement, not religious institutions. Churches can be as discriminatory as they like.
We as gay folks are not looking for marriage from a Church. We want government recognition of our relationships so that we can benefit/suffer just as heterosexual couples do.
Most of us could give two sh!ts if a church marries us. Do you think gay folks would go to a church where gay marriage is so looked down upon that they wouldn't perform the marriage ceremony?
I know that when I was 'church shopping', if it seemed as though the church was anti-gay, I didn't go back, let alone ask if they would marry me and my partner.
Has the government ever dictated religious practice or belief to a church before? I find it hard to believe that the attempt would even be made, given the absurdity of the notion and the odds of it standing up to the judicial process.
More slippery slope fallacy. Churches aren't the only place you can get married now, why would that change?
As usual, you cannot give us one logical reason why Gays should not be allowed to get married. Don't feel bad, though; I've never seen anyone give a logical reason for this state-sanctioned discrimination.
The definition of marriage is a legal definition. Laws are amended all the time. What's your problem?
The church can keep its control of wedding ceremonies and gay people can marry. It really is that simple. Until, that is, the cultural conservative wants to use gay marriage as a wedge to divide people into this category and that category. And your slippery slope argument of moral depravity is as silly as if I were to say that abortion bans will lead to executions of women and their doctor.
all sorts of agenda advancing homosexual gambits
You're being extra trollish today. But I'll bite - what "gambits" are you referring to?
We all recognize that commitment does not stem from being either heterosexual or homosexual. Each union and each commitment is different. That commitment cannot be legislated. - AA
You're right. Commitments cannot be legislated. They also cannot be written into the state constitution, as those who support Prop 8 are trying to do. They are trying to change the constitution to say that a commitment can only be between one man and one woman.
You just blasted your own argument.
Black people were "traditionally defined" as slaves. However, the country decided to change that definition. History is not on your side. Society progresses consistently toward tolerance and freedom for all. You do know you are going to lose this battle eventually? Why delay it?
I think most black people will argue that the discrimination they faced because of their skin color is far different than gay activists wanting to redefine the word marriage.
That's because some people either are ignorant of, or refuse to believe that homosexuality is not a choice. Education is an ongoing process. Those who choose this stand against prop 8 are on the losing side of history.
I agree it's not a choice, but even if it were, what's would be wrong with choosing a same-sex relationship? It's not like the fabric of the nation will be torn or anything.
Marriage has been legal here in California since June. It's been legal in Massachusettes for a few years now (I think). California and Mass are both still alive and kicking...
I don't really care if some believe it is a choice. No one should be allowed to vote away the rights of a fellow citizen. These people should mine their own business.
Please forward this e-mail to Brokaw
11/7/08
So Tom,
You told Letterman we were a center-right country. Really? How did the great Tom Brokaw make that determination?
Can we count on the next time you're talking about health care or taxes that you'll inform everyone we're a center-left country? You shouldn't have a problem with that, should you? So can we can count on you? Would it upset your corporate masters?
Right loonz - it's called protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It's in the constitution. I don't care if Prop 8 passed 99% to 1%, it's still unconstitutional and will hopefully be determined to be so by a judge very soon.
That would be amusing, considering that one of the most obvious acts of discrimination was the ban on interracial marriage. It was against the traditions and values back at that time.
AA, this Black woman would argue that discrimination IS discrimination!!!!!
Do you remember when Blacks and Whites couldn't marry? Some White folks just couldn't imagine Blacks and Whites having sex. Do you know that is wasn't until the year 2000 that Alabama finally repealed it's law preventing Black and Whites from marrying? Did that law may any sense to you?
The only difference between gay folks and anyone else is who they choose to have sex with, just like the only difference between Blacks and Whites is the color of their skin.
We should STOP discrimination NOW!
Suppose a liberal state, say New York, passes an initiative that says that conservatives couldn't own a business and it passed narrowly. Do you think that conservatives would just bow to the "will of the people"?
There was a time when Mormons themselves were driven out and persecuted for their wacko beliefs. Often, it was the local government that violated their right to religious liberty. It's ironic and sad that they would be the ones leading this persecution of gay people.
That's an interesting point. My former boss is Mormon. He's a great guy. He's open-minded, but conservative. He applies his values to himself and his family. He realizes that not everyone is like him and his family. He actually supports gay marriage, because he believes, as I do, that marriage (both hetero- and homo-sexual) strengthens society. It doesn't destroy it.
He did say that his church is against gay marriage. I can tolerate that. However, he did say that he differs from his church a bit in some areas (abortion NOT included) because he feels some of their beliefs are discriminatory - and as a member of a religion that has seen more than it's fair share of discrimination, he doesn't want others to be victims of it. He's a helluva guy.
I've known a few Mormons, too, and they were great people. They do have a weird belief system, though. If you read the history of Joseph Smith and how he came up with all that stuff, it's hard to imagine modern, thinking people accepting such nonsense.
But, to each his own.... and that should be the point, right?
Agreed... people say history repeats itself, but, in my view, people repeat themselves... Much more personal and damaging to the selves...
Mark, in principle, the U.S. Constitution protects individual rights against the tyranny of the majority. It doesn't always work, but that was the general intent.
As Tommy points out, a state or community cannot just arbitrarily vote away the rights of a certain group. Now, the question is whether the Supreme Court would rule that way, given the solid 4-vote Troglodyte bloc on the court.
I think the challenge for the Gay community is to educate enough people that this is a Civil Rights issue.
The key here is the acknowledgement of homosexuality not as a choice but as a natural variation of human sexuality that is present from birth. If we can get the majority to accep this, we win the day. Until that time, some people will still consider gays as a special interest group that deserve no more consideration than other groups of people who have chosen their behavior.
You're right, of course. It's interesting that the same people persecuting gays don't hesitate to claim Constitutional protection for their Religion.... which is a CHOSEN behavior.
Freedom of Religion is one of the reasons our country was founded and is protected in the Bill of Rights.
Your claim that religious are persecuting gays in this day and age is way way out there.
Denying rights is a form of persecution.
What else would you call it? The State Court of California extended this right for gays, then a group of Rich Mormon Troglodytes took it upon themselves to strip away that right. That sounds like persecution to me, and it's not the first time the Democratic process has been misused as an instrument of oppression.
This is why Troglodytes and Bigots like to hide behind "States Rights".... because it's easier to codify bigotry on the local and state level.
Are you saying that money has an undue influence on voters? Hadn't thought of it that way. The 2+ $$ advantage that BHO had over JSM could have actually influenced the election, by that logic.
Uh...not quite. Obama's money advantage came from small donors, or rather, people who voted for him. It kind of goes hand in hand that the more supporters you have donating, the more money you will take in.
Perhaps, I'm using the logic that you apply to RashL, etal. Not saying it's correct, but from what I understand from posts here, sounds like an argument RW radio would make.
Tom Hartman has an interesting theory on this. He believes that this is all about positioning Romney for a 2012 run for the Presidency. Evangelical Christians have a deep abiding suspicion of the Mormons, and all that Mormon cash poured into Prop. 8 could go a long way toward easing the tension between the Evangelical Troglodytes and the Mormon Loonies.
He also thinks the Romney people working on McCain's campaign are the ones leaking all the trash talk about Simple Sarah, because she is more likely to get the Troglodyte vote than Romney.
It all makes sense. I mean, what can you expect from a religion whose founding entity was named Moron-i? Do you think maybe Joseph Smith had a sense of humor? He was, after all, a known con man before he fabricated Mormonism.
I wonder if Romney knows that Africa is a continent?
Unless Obama falls flatly on his face, there is no way Romney could beat him. Romney comes across as a complete phony. I would welcome a Romney-Obama battle in 2012. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Before the primaries I identified McCain as the Republicans only chance this time around. He still lost as I also predicted, but gave Obama more of a run for his money than any of the other losers Republicans put up this time around.
If Obama has any success at all, I don't see anybody on the Republican bench that could beat him. Of course, four years can be an eternity in politics.
I'm just glad we have the Liberal Blogosphere and a growing presence in Talk Radio to combat the coming Tsunami of Bullsh*t. Maybe they won't be able to cripple Obama the way they did Clinton.
Obama is not going to fall into the Clinton trap. His diciplined approach to this campaign has convinced me of this. I predict that the power of right-wing media has crested and now is on the wane. The Democrats should be thinking ahead and identifying who can lead them in the post-Obama era. After all, we cannot expect someone of Obama's extraordinary gifts and focus to materialize every four years. Obama has proven a completely viable strategy for electing Democrats going forward. I hope sincerely that the Democrats follow his lead going forward.
One thing that bothers me about the media's treatment of Romney is their matter-of-fact statements of his economic intelligence. I don't mean from the real righty sources, but from relatively fair, centrist newspeople.
The Mittster talks in the same supply-side chants that are the meat & potatoes of Rush Limbaugh. He's stuck in the same trickle-down trance that has been a proven failure, yet he has some sort of status as a whiz on the economy.
I guess it's just one of those things that has been repeated enough times, like "mavrik", that it's accepted in spite of the facts.
It would have been interesting to see Romney try to justify himself in the face of the economic meltdown brought about by deregulation. I think that meme regarding his economic acumen would have quickly been discredited.
It would have been interesting to see Romney try to justify himself in the face of the economic meltdown brought about by deregulation. I think that meme regarding his economic acumen would have quickly been discredited.
I guess you weren't paying attention, OYGB. This was all caused by Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac being forced by the Gov''t to give loans to "others". Too much regulation, in other words. At least that's what the nice man on the radio told me. ;0)
I guess, in a world where looks are paramount, Mittens has the appearance of competence. He reminds me a lot of Lyle Wagoner from the Carol Bernette show.
However, having seen his performance in the debates, I'm convinced that he isn't a whole lot smarter than Simple Sarah. A primary race between those two would be a dumb-off panderfest of the highest magnitude.
You know, I have never seen them in the same room.
Watch out, Col! Lyle is looking more and more like Steve Nash (an unabashed Canadian- you know, a not- U.S.Aer) of the Suns every day...
It makes you wonder.... could a Walter Cronkite even get a job in TV News today?
When I was a kid, there was a local Newscaster in Chattanooga named Mort Loyd. He had a wonderful, deep voice, but he looked like Kojak. No way could he get that job in today's market.
a reporter who covered mccain and broke part of the infighting says that hartmann is wrong....but i dont think so...it makes total sense
mittons is nothing but a smart pol...and before being forced into being a social conservative, was almost strictly a fiscal conservative
he and others know that the social conservatives must be marginalized if the repugs are to have a chance in 2010 and 2012
the country has seen what happens when the social conservatives have too much impact on the workings of government...and they dont like it
and it was strange to see mormon money coming in on 8....they didnt do anything to back 22 during the last election...and spent nothing to support the parental notification law
hartmann is onto something
Why is it so wrong to say such a thing? It is the liberals who wanted to have this issue be a litmus test, and now that it's turning the wrong color, you want to point out the OTHER issues that show a color more to your liking.
Will you liberals ever just be happy? You are outnumbered, and this is a democracy. You lose. Instead of spending millions chasing gay marriage, why don't you organize a charity or do something more constructive with your money.
Finally, who ever gave gays the impression that they were going to be allowed to "GET MARRIED" in the first place? Gays 50 years ago would have never thought of such a thing. I'm so sick of the entitlement card that liberals love to play, and their liberal media cohorts like the LA Times love to support and propagate.
Between San Francisco, and Los Angeles, there is A LOT of farmers, construction workers, and religious and social conservatives. I'd say work on growing your population, but you can't have kids so uh, I guess you're going to just have to deal with it. You're a minority, and majority rules.
As far as constitutionality goes, WE JUST AMENDED IT, so I don't think we're going to have a problem with it's constitutionality.
You win the prize for the longest sentence posted this week. Great use of commas, by the way.
Hey! Speaking of crying...
I missed all of the Media Matters articles about the reporters shedding tears after Obama's acceptance. Can anyone point me to those?