Battered Spouse Syndrome

Michelle Malkin links to Mary Kay Ham feeding back on a John McCain campaign conference call. MK uses the concept of a lover's quarrel to discuss McCain's relationship with bloggers. For the record, my battered spouse line isn't directed at MK personally.

Call me the tough love type. McCain is courting the blogosphere because he wants something. I don't care that he wasn't doing it before, what I care about are positions that he has taken over the last six years - and more. Frankly I can't even remember everything for which I see him as unacceptable for POTUS.

The Gang of 14, early open criticism of the war ... why bother. I had the good fortune to be listening to the Mark Levin Show on the way home as he played a Reagan Speech from 1964. I would advise anyone who fancies himself a conservative, or even a libertarian to listen to it. You will realize we are fighting many of the same battles now as conservatism was then.

Let me say it again, in context, it is that important. It's an amazing speech I never heard, being about 7 at the time. And I am not waiting for some reincarnation of Reagan - sadly, that isn't a standard I can afford to wait around and indulge.

In 1982, he was elected to Congress representing what was then the first congressional district of Arizona. In 1986, he was elected to the United States Senate

But while I honor him for his incredibly difficult military service, John McCain has been on the political scene for about 25 years. In that time, he has been as much a part of the problem as he ever was a solution.

With all due respect, pull up a cushion Senator - you're sleeping on the couch. Consider it a way station en route to the door. Politics may make for strange bedfellows. But President Bush has been far from a hallmark of conservatism. And I'll be damned if I'll take a risk on getting screwed by someone who hasn't been faithful all too many times before.

Comments

[Dan Patterson]

The times we live in demand strong and principled leadership. McCain, as laudable as much of his life hs been, has too many similarities to another political figure with similarly laudable milestones. Bob Dole.

"And I'll be damned if I'll take a risk on getting screwed by someone who hasn't been faithful all too many times before", is why someone with principled stands guided by Constituitional precedent will be a welcome relief. But, like Godot, that person will not satisfy us by appearing anytime soon. We must make compromises and select the best representative of the principles we can.

Note that we should not select the most electable representative; that's what standing on your own two feet is about.

Dan Patterson
Arrogant Infidel

[Kite]

Most of McCain's problems begin with the notion that "It's just his time" and the rest of the country is supposed to just give him his due. Sorry, but a great president that does not make. He has repeatedly been on the opposing end of most of his parties workings and regardless of what he may think...he isn't getting alot of friends out of it.

Gang of 14, Campaign finance reform, constant blah blah about the war and whatnot. With as much press coverage as he was getting at one time you would think the media had mistaken him for the US President already. Plus....he believes his knowledge on military affairs trumps anyone elses because he was a vietnam POW and (if I remember correctly) was tortured...alot. Granted that was a horrible experience and i'm sure he wouldn't wish that on anyone else, but now your entering the realm of maing decisions based on personal feelings and fears which can be dangerous.

Why is it dangerous? because it may come a time when the decision needs to be a black or white decision and your stuck in the grey area. Which is exactly where the country found itself at the end of Vietnam. We could have won but the personal feelings of politicians and the people got in the way of victory. Why? because victory isn't easy and it requires sacrifice.

But I digress, despite his previous years in the GOP he has, over the last six years, been more of a hinderance and pandering to media opinion, rather than trying to help fortify his party. I don't think it's his due and if he ever wants to be a president...he needs to start acting stronger and quit cowtowing to the special interests of others.

[Bill Adkins]

"But while I honor him for his incredibly difficult military service, John McCain has been on the political scene for about 25 years. In that time, he has been as much a part of the problem as he ever was a solution."

At least McCain has achieved the balance of "as much a part of the problem as he ever was a solution." George W. Bush is ALL problem and NONE of the solution. And he is why the GOP will suffer it's time in the desert.

[Kite]

Actually, the GOP will suffer it's time in the desert because they have repeatedly backed down from the bullies in the leftist party. Instead of standing up against the entitlement/liberal/socialist crowd that the democratic party has become they have tried to play nice.

If the republicans want to win again they need to take the gloves off and just start standing up to the control hungry democrats.

[templar knight]

Great post, Dan, and a good analysis of McCain's problems. I have a very good friend who was a prisoner with McCain in the Hanoi Hilton, and he is stridently anti-McCain, and says he would never vote for the man under any circumstance. That says a lot about John McCain, if one of his fellow prisoners is unwilling to support him.

[physics geek]

Good battered wife reference with regards to conservatives and McCain. Here's my two cents(or less) worth:

I'm a libertarian leaning conservative. There isn't any chance that I'd vote for McCain for president in any year, regardless of who is opponent is. I certainly won't vote for Hillary/Obama/Mr. Hair Force, but I simply will not give my vote to someone whose primary accomplishment during the last couple of years was to trample the 1st Amendment. And be proud of that fact too, I might.

My brother-in-law is pretty far to the right of me politically and socially. He's one of those knucle-dragging God-squadders that useless turds like Marcotte love to bash. He's also been a consistent GOP supporter his whole life. I asked him about a possible McCain candidacy. His response? "I haven't skipped an election my whole life and I won't start now, but if McCain is the GOP nominee I will cast my first vote for a 3rd party candidate."

I know that plural of anecdote is not data, but I've spoken with a great many people who are usually Republican supporters who feel the same way. If McCain wins the GOP nomination, the result will make Republicans wax nostalgic about how good the 2006 elections turned out.

[Hard Right]

As an Arizonan I have nothing but contempt for McCain. He's a RINO. Let's not forget his stance on firearms, yet another strike against him.

[legaleagle]

Very interesting; lots of bellyaching about the fatal deficiencies of McCain, and not a SINGLE indication of a preferred alternative. Now why would that be; waiting for the emergence of a front-runner? Hardly seems like the elevation of principle over expediency.

[Kite]

McCain doesn't fit the mold of what his party base wants. Simple as that. Rudy is a good candidate but he falls short on socially conservative issues...a strike against him.

As my personal pick? Newt. If he decides to run (and he has said he might) then he's going to probably get my pick. He's the only republican conservative that fits the mold of what the party base wants.

[Jonathan Moore]

I appreciate you bring up Ronald Reagan's "Time of Choosing" speech. The battles we are facing today is almost identical to the ones we faced before. Here is a line from Reagan's speech which I believe still stands true today:

If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender.

[Hard Right]

The questions was whether McCain was sutable to be the GOP Presidential candidate-NOT alternatives. We gave our answer.

But since one whiner wants an alternative, I too support Newt.

[Robert]

Hey Kite,
Go F*** yourself!!

As for Rhiel:
You're obviously not a Conservative or you wouldn't have backed Bush for the past 7 years.
So, what the hell are you?

[Kite]

Yay! Someone decided to show me some love :P

Still, doesn't mean my previous statement about the GOP having to grow a set and lower the hammer on the Liberal-socialist Left was untrue. The GOP can correct it's mistakes (and it has made a few in the past 6-7 years) by not being a bunch of sissy politicians who were used to being pushed around by the Democrats.

Somebody's gotta stand up to the liberal left if they want to save this country. It's just too bad it's going to take a few years of economic and social dischord to show them that. Speaking, of course, of the now Democratic majorities in the senate and congress....you don't have the White House so stop acting like you do.

[Purple Avenger]

"You're obviously not a Conservative or you wouldn't have backed Bush for the past 7 years."

Neither Bush v1.0 or v2.0 were conservative by any traditional metrics (i.e. Goldwater/Reagan).

[Robert]

You got it Purple Avenger.
So Dan, you're not a conservative. What are you?

[aLiberal]

please nominate Newt Gingrich. I am begging you. that will be a gift to deomcrats everywhere. you people can't seriously think he stands a chance of becoming president, can you? this is obvioulsy the Republican basement talking- you guys are deranged.

[Kite]

Ahhh aLiberal...you speak with the cloudy notion of clarivoyance that only a liberal would claim to have. Already calling the outcome before the guy has even decided to run or not? Well, at least your looking at the long term for once...with all of the failed social programs your party has created I was beginning to think ALL of your were were just focused on the short term of things.

Seriously though. Where do you base your assumption that he would lose? You claimed he would be a gift to democrats everywhere because, im assuming, he would fail? Please, enlighten me where you come to the conclusion that he is a failure before he begins? Can you? Do you have one single coherent reason why he COULDN'T win? If you do please voice your reason. I'll be waiting. :D

[aLiberal]

ah yes, just the response i was expecting and hoping for. go ahead, believe all you want. there is NO WAY newt gingrich will be elected president. go ahead and nominate him- what do I know? I'm just a stupid liberal.

the guy is just utterly distasteful to most americans, had to step donw from congress, and has a little multiple wifey problem. forget it. or actually, please nominate him for his "conservative purity." if you think that is the winning strategy, you're party is doomed for a long time.

but again, don't listen to me. i'm just some idiot.

awaiting your ad hominem attacks,
A. Liberal

p.s. why don't you explain how newt COULD possibly win?

[Robert]

"p.s. why don't you explain how newt COULD possibly win?"

51 Million Americans supposedly voted for W in 2004.
This while the war (in Iraq) he started was failing.
The war which he said was central to his war on terror. He was failing in a war against terror, and 51 million Americans supposedly still voted for him.

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

[Kite]

Yes yes, we know that Newt has had some hangups but you name a person on your side who hasn't? As for HOW he could win? Well, that's simple. Despite some of his personal issues he still holds more socially and fiscally conservative views than the current strong of GOP runners. McCain, Hagel, Giuliani. Well...the last one isn't so bad but like I said...not a socially conservative.

He (Newt) has claimed before that he has supported Tax cuts, cutting government spending, tax reform, cutting social programs, removing the earmarks that the politicians have become so dependant on. Those are just a few things that would probably peak the publics interest.

Don't know yet, but given his past record he isn't a person to count out. Now, did I say he WOULD win? No, I said if he ran I would support him. I've explained WHY I would support him and for you to say "The guy is utterly distasteful to most americans" is a big of a stretch. Have you, yourself, asked a majority of the 300,000,000 americans what they think of Newt? On that note has ANY poll come close to asking more than a few percent of the population what they REALLY think about a certain viewpoint? Nope. So I guess were still stuck with about 30,000 americans telling the other 299,970,000 how they really feel on a ceratin issue.

Now, I've explained myself and how I said I would support him, but obviously im not a psychic...I can't call the election here and now. I can't say he would win and you can't say he won't. However, to tie this in with the original point...he IS more acceptable as a candidate to support a conservative bsae than what is currently trying to run.

[Robert]

Let Newt try to cut corporate welfare (cutting government spending), then we'll see how much of a chance he has.
The MSM won't let him near their microphones, and the RNC will resucitate (sp?) every skeleton in his closet (and then some).

[Kite]

Cutting Welfare would be the smartest thing ANYONE could do for this country. Then they need to initiate the Fair Tax program and BOOM! you got Tax reform. Then the candidate needs to privatize Social security so that we may retain our independance from the government crutch. Oh, one last thing that any respectable conservative candidate should focus on....PRIVATE HEALTHCARE. Find a way to cut taxation on those who wish to own their personal healthcare policy so that the government cant step in a claim ownership to it.

[aLiberal]

fair enough. i guess I would add that the most acceptable candidate to the conservative base is likely not to be the winner this time. before you bite my head off, slow down and think about what i'm saying. i'm not a conservative, but that is irrelevant to what i'm saying here. i just think the american public is looking for a new flavor at the moment. it happens.

[Hard Right]

The American people would jump at the chance of a Reagan Conservative or someone close.

BTW, Kite is correct. We need someone to stop kissing the butts of the left and who is willing to actively fight the lies they spew. W decided he would fight back maybe 6 months before the election-too little too late.

[aLiberal]

Kite-
many of the things you wrote in repsonse to Robert could be summed up as why the conservative base candidate won't win- the majority of americans do not want what you're suggesting. SS privatization? it is definitely a minority in favor of this. i am not even addressing the merits of such an idea, but simply stating the electroate doesn't want it. i might also say the same about private healthcare. even if your ideas are meritorious, they have not been shown to be desired by most americans.

[aLiberal]

kissing the butts of the left?

the Rs ruled for 6 years absolutely and that got them thrown out of office. find a new strawman. actually, find the real cause, as opposed to more strawmen, and maybe you will get some seats back. you can go ahead and blame the left all you want, but it is not going to won you any elections (at least not for a few years).

[Kite]

Again! you have claimed that the majority of americans disagree with the ideas that I, and many other conservatives, share. However, there is no real weight behind that statement. What supports this ideal that the american majority is strongly opposed to conservative ideals? CNN? ABC? MSNBC? All of the polls that they throw out there amounts to what? A less than 1% of americans that took the time to answer an internet poll or telephone poll? That's hardly "The American Majority".

The truth is that we really dont KNOW what the majority of the americans think because not even a majority of the americans vote. In the Kerry Vs. Bush race it was 55 million to 50 million in the popular vote. That adds to about 105 million give or take a few digits. Thats a little over a third of the major population and your stating that your group (which has a STRONG STRONG hold on the mainstream news outlets) knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are in the best interests of the people? You would be hard pressed to prove it.

Same goes on my end. I can't prove that a majority of the 300,000,000 americans side with the conservatives HOWEVER, the past events of people trying to push conservative values and fiscal conservative governmental ideas have practically trumped their progressive liberal opponents.

I seriously doubt though that the majority of people wish to trade their own personal liberty for a false sense of socialized governmental security. Voting for the liberal goals will only destroy our freedoms and our liberty. Come on...prove me wrong....if you can :P

[nova]

The only way Hillary is going to be elected President is if the Republicans nominate Newt. Newt cant get elected dog catcher anywhere. Not even in Georgia.

[Kite]

Once again someone spouts off some nonsense without a single bit of evidence that supports their claim that Newt is a "failure". Please, give me some concrete evidence on why he would be a BAD candidate.

Oh, and the personal issues between him and his wife wont work either. Clinton was recieving oral sex in the oval office (oh, by someone other than his wife) while on the phone with Berger who had confirmation that they could have captured Bin Laden. Clinton was busy at the time...obviously.

Oh, you can look that last bit of information up. It's not a confabulation it's been investigated.

Anyways, back to what I said. Give me a really GOOD reason other than private affairs. Clinton got head and is STILL praised so your theory that a candidates affairs with his spouse and mistress will effect his run is flawed.

[Robert]

Kite,

You make a good point, but you miss the biggest one.
It doesn't matter what the majority of the people want. The political class in this country is owned by business concerns. The politicians (on both sides) need $$$ to get elected. The $$$ comes from the upper and business classes, so the spoils will go to those classes, not the majority.

Go ahead. Bring back Reagan, except have him run on cutting corporate welfare (i.e. cutting gov't spending).
The storyline will be that Reagan is a doddering old fool who doesn't know what he's talking about.
He wouldn't make it to the general election, and if he did he'd lose in a landslide.

[templar knight]

aLiberal, I am one conservative who is not fond of Newt. I really never liked him at all, but you have to give the guy credit for taking back the House of Representatives for the Republican Party.

As for the 2008 elections, I don't think there is a favorite, yet, and I'll tell you why. I think the Democrats are going to use up a lot of the good will they had after the last elections. They will use it up on the upcoming fight over global warming, which is going to get ugly as soon as Americans find out they will need to pony up.

There are also a couple of other wild cards in the election, one being a major terrorist attack, and the other is Iran. I don't see smooth sailing for anyone.

[aLiberal]

I do base my opinion on polling data, as do politicians of all stripes in this country. given that democrats and republicans rely on polling data, I assume that they must have some use in determining what americans think. additionally, as polls are the only evidence I know of for ascertaining what americans think, it is the best available evidence for making such a determination. your alternative seems to be to base your opinions of what americans think on what you think. this i would call a version of solipsism. again, i am not debating the merits of your arguments, only observing that the american people would appear to be opposed to them, the merits of your arguments regarding freedom from government not-withstanding.

look, the polls indicate all kinds of absurd things, many of which seem idiotic to me. but that doesn't mean i think they are not true, though if some evidence of their stastical weakness were brought to light, i would probably feel a lot better. i just assume the country is full of idiots, which seems pretty obvious every time i turn on the tv.

if you want to make an argument questioning the statistical methodology used by the polling organizations, which I might add include Fox News, I am all ears. to attack the polls by virtue of them being associated with your so-called liberal media is not an adequate method of calling into question their results. that they do not concur with your own beliefs does not make them wrong. if you have some evidence of the methodological weakness of these polls, please share. otherwise, you would seem to makng your assertions based on no evidence, and disputing, with out any counterproof other than your gut (stephen colbert would be proud), the actual evidence.

[aLiberal]

templar knight-

i do agree with you about democrsts potentially using up the good will and the unknown factors. i just think the conservatives are in a bigger hole right now. but i never underestimnate the democrats to dig one for themselves.

also, newt does get credit, back in the 90s, but his history after winning in 94 also has to be taken into consideration.

[nova]

Kite: To answer your question. Whoever wins in 2008 will have to run in the middle(not left or right)and Newt cant do that. Rudy maybe can pull that off though. But sooner or later they will start trashing him like they did Geraldine Ferraro.

[templar knight]

No, I don't want to argue about the methodology of the polls, aLiberal, but only wish to point out that polls only measure something right now, and do not predict the future. They can also change almost overnight if you have something major pushing them, such as we saw right after 9/11.

And I couldn't agree with nova more, neither side can afford to get sucked into ideaological positions on either the Left or Right. The Middle will rule for a while, given that we have nothing major happen before the elections.

[yd]

my two cents on why newt can't win: to win a national election, particularly the presidency and to a lesser extent a senate seat, you must have the independent vote. independents won't vote for newt.

i'm from nyc area and i don't like the idea of guliani for pres for a lot of reasons, but i think he is the most viable national candidate you have. what 2008 is going to come down to for republicans in my view is whether or not the party can reclaim its soul from the religious right. i am firmly of the belief that the terri shiavo situation scared the ish out of most americans and helped them to see the real agenda that the religious right has (do as i say, not as you choose). until, republicans can distance themselves as a group from those people (and i use the phrase intentionally) independents won't support them. no independent votes, no national win.

as a side note, i am a democrat but the only reason i retain my party affilation is to vote in primaries. if i could vote in primaries without party affilation i would be independent. i say this because i think both sides overstate the importance of party affiliations. as chris rock said, i'm conservative about somethings and liberal about others. and i really think most americans are like that. centrist politics works best. and say what you want about them personally, the clintons have that down pat. republicans have to stop catering to the extremes and move to the middle to get the country back. not that i want that, but i'm just saying.

[nova]

Hillary is trying to lean toward the middle but will she be able to convince anyone that she is in the middle? But it may not matter. I suspect those who would vote for Hillary really would be voting for Bill again. I am sorry to say they could win again just based on that fact.
What really bothers me is then we would have another Clinton replacing a Bush who replaced a Clinton who replaced a Bush. Is that not an oligarchy? If that doesnt tell you something is wrong with our system of electing Presidents nothing will.

[templar knight]

yd,

You're from the NYC area, so why are you against Rudy, as he was given good marks for his handling of 9/11. And maybe I'm wrong, and my memory is faulty, but didn't he get the credit for cleaning up the crime problem in NYC?

I'm very interested in your opposition to him, as I know little about him, other than what I have read in a few newspapers years ago. What are your reasons for opposing Rudy?

[yd]

rudy was GREAT during 9/11 however there are the years before that. rudy is like bush in that when he makes up his mind he can't be moved. that is not a quality that a president should have. and yes rudy cleaned up ny but at the cost of a police force that became brutal in the end and he refused to correct them. i am all for law and order and rudy is responsible for cleaning up places like times square and making it the circus it's become (and i mean that positively). but that came at the expense of cops feeling they had the right to do some very nasty things to regular people they didn't like. during his adminstration there were more lawsuits against the city (that people won) for police brutality than any other in modern times. abner louima, amadou diallo both happened on his watch. and while he is not responsible for the actions of those officers directly, his refusal to even make a statement against what the cops did is a problem. bloomberg got it right when he condemned the sean bell shooting and called for an investigation into how something like that could happen. i know that cops in ny have a HARD job and i wouldn't wnat to do it, but there are boundaries. guliani never set any up.

my feeling is that rudy, like bush/cheney, would use his power as president to undermine our personal freedoms in the name of law and order (and prevention of terrorism). there is also the matter of his corruption which i'm surprised is getting more play. maybe it's because he hasn't truly declared yet. rudy gave his friends great perks while he was in office and several of his top people have been found guilty of taking bribes and the like.

the only reason i don't dwell too much on him is because he's totally unacceptable to the religious folks of the prepublican party and they will do anything they can to make sure he's not the candidate. if he was elected though, it wouldn't be the worst thing because at least he's a smart man and i think having intelligence is important. (not being sarcastic, but sometimes i wonder if people really listen to the things that come out of public officials mouths sometimes).

[aLiberal]

yd, i would be very careful now, if i were you. how dare you suggest that bush/cheney are trampling our freedoms in the name of protecting us?! the knives will come out now. i might add, however, that these overbearing qualities are probably very appealing to certain segments of the republican basement. the holy rollers will do what they're told- ted haggard is "completely heterosexual."

[templar knight]

Hmm...now that you reminded me, I do remember a couple of incidents you recall, yd. And I wonder what your opinion of Bloomberg is, and whether NYC is beginning to fray again. I haven't been to NYC since the towers came down, and I just don't think I can go again. I have a couple of items I bought at the WTC the last time I was there, including several 1 oz. silver bars with the WTC on the front. They are my favorite.

My oldest son is going to the US Open Tennis matches in NYC, I believe in August, and I was just wondering about the crime situation.

[aLiberal]

templar knight-
i wouldn't worry about your son. NYC (especially Manhattan)is probably about as safe now as it's ever been. it almost makes it boring! (almost).

[Sherlock]

Back to McCain. What makes him dangerous:
1) He has been a media darling because he criticized fellow Republicans, and he's now addicted to fawning. Not a good trait to have in a CIC.

2) He suffers from the "Senatorial Delusion": that horse-trading subjunctive phrases with your debating opponent in your private club matters a rat's ass to anyone anywhere, particularly to our enemies.

I am glad there was no resolution, because Senators like McCain think you can negotiate a "fair" resolution with the Dems. The bloody Dems don't NEED to negotiate anything in good faith - they know that ANY criticism they can get in will be blown all out of proportion by their media buddies, and any positives you manage to get in will be buried deep down where nobody will see or hear them - ever.

When you have the referee paid off, playing fair is just an unneccesary risk.

[Purple Avenger]

"explain how newt COULD possibly win?"

Dems run Al Gore?

[scarshapedstar]

"Dems run Al Gore?"

Hey, it worked in 2000.

[LOL]

this will certainly be an interesting election. after 6 years of bush/cheney takign the reins of the party, the republicans have no clear leaders. 4 straight elections where the repubs relied on evangelicals is going to come back and bite them. McCain and Guiliani are probably the GOP's best candidates in terms of winning the general election. They will get many independent votes i think.

It will be interesting to watch them get slaughtered during the GOP primaries and to see the evangelicals screech about how awful they are. This is dumb though, theres an election in 2007 for local issues that matters too

[templar knight]

LOL, I'll tell you something else. An election for President in 2008 between Republicans McCain or Guiliani vs. Democrats Clinton or Obama doesn't provide me with much hope for where the country is going. But that's just me. Maybe you see something here that I don't.

[yd]

templar,

crime situation is not bad and if your son is coming for the us open he'll be fine. ny understands how important tourism is to the economy of the city and we make sure our guests during events like this are well-protected. as long as he stays in manhattan or the touristy parts of brooklyn, he'll be fine.

as for bloomberg as mayor, he's hit and miss. because he is a businessman, he got the city's finances in order and make hard decisions that had to be made. also he gets alot of credit for what he's done for the school system and with child services (nitzmary aside). but because he's so rich, sometimes he comes off as isolated and not understanding the plight of the common man. the important thing is seems to learn from his missteps and rarely makes the same mistake twice. again, intelligence.

LOL, i really think the pandering to the evangelicals has cost the republicans not just 2008, but possibly 2012 too. i know that's a big leap considering we've not even gotten to 2008, but the complete abortion ban attempt in colorado, the rabidness over gay marriage (which if you noticed ended up backfiring in major way because it made people more tolerant, not less), the "war on christmas", creationism and i could go on, but you get the point, all of this i think has completely alienated the independent voter.

the most important statistic to me out of the 2006 elections was that not one democrat lost. this to me says that independents voted for protection from right, rather than acutally supporting the values of the left. (being very broad about it) when republicans won in 1994 it was with independent support, now they've become what they constantly accuse democrats of being, a party controlled by special interests. only in their case it's primarily one special interest group that drives them.

[Kite]

It backfired? really?

Just about every state (aside from largely liberal states) that have put the same-sex marriage ban on the ballot has voted the ban through. The people spoke and made their decisions...I think it was pretty clear.

Marriage is a religious institution. Nothing less. Doesn't matter if you disagree...your still wrong. Oh, and we all really know it's not about equal rights it's about attacking the christian church. Don't believe me? Well.....PLEASE PLEASE tell me when you have seen:

1)Gays marching on a jewish synagouge demanding to be married there.
2)Gays marching on a Muslim mosque demanding to be married there.
3)Gays marching on ANY OTHER religious institution other than a christian church demanding to be married there.

Sorry to carry this post so far from it's topic but it had to be done. As for the "War on Christmas" we didn't start it...the liberals did. People keep yelling that it was originally the Winter Solstice..that may be true, but which is better? A family oriented holiday geared towards the goodwill towards others with gift giving and festive decorations OR the original pagan orgy holiday that was "stolen" by the Christians. Honestly....I prefer the "Birth of Jesus" holiday over the "Let's worship the earth and fornicate." ritual that the Winter Solstice originally was.

Creationism? Is that such a bad thing? Oh, thats right.....some people don't like believing in a higher power that is more powerful than them because they might have to be held accountable for their actions. Thats the only real reason people try to disprove God...to make themselves feel better. I guess I can see why though...you had Jesus (who claimed he was the Son of God) who basically preached about being nice to each other, keeping God first in life, living a life of sexual purity, not killing, not stealing, honoring your family...you know...all the things people SHOULD do. I mean...who would want to live a DECENT CLEAN life when you can just do whatever you want and claim your a mindless animal that evolved from a retarded primate.

You liberal groups just make me so frustrated sometimes. You claim to be for the greater good for people and profess that you have all the answers but all you really shout are excuses to hide your own failings as human beings.

[yd]

kite,

your overreactive hostility is why you will never have the support of the MAJORITY of americans, which is what the discussion we adults were having. your childish tirade about each one of those issues proves my point about how the religious branch of the conservative movement has alienated the rest of us. so, let's start over shall we:

i was in law school when the mass. decision came down. most people (myself included) thought that the court had gone too far and polling indicated that a majority of americans were against gay unions, period. however, what has happened is the MAJORITY of americans have conceded that gays deserve some type of recognized union under the law, hence the rise in the number of states supporting civil unions. will gays ever have the right to marry in this country? unlikely. will they have some type of legally-sanctioned civil union. probably. all you guys did was force americans to decide if they actually believed that all men were created equal with an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. you can rant and rave all you want about religion and god, but it misses the point that americans as a group are inherently fair-minded people who do not wish to impose their views on anyone.

there is no war on christmas. end of discussion.

i went to an all-girl catholic high school and in my biology class we discussed creationism ALONG with evolution. if you want to discuss both doctrines in a RELIGIOUS school, i'm fine with it. but in the PUBLIC school that MY tax dollars supports, don't impose your religious beliefs on me.

at the end of the day, the religious right fails to understand that we have SEPARATION of church and state. this means that your god belongs to you and your beliefs about your god belong to you. stop trying to remake the rest of us in your image.

i am a life-long baptist, granddaughter of a baptist minister on one side of the family and granddaughter of a devout jehovah's witness on the other side. and the one thing both my grandparents taught about religion is that one's relationship with god is PERSONAL. i am sick of you people trying to claim the high road by calling the rest of us immoral because we don't fall lockstep in with you.

but your post is an excellent example of how out-of-control the religious right has become in its self-righteousness. it's your way or hell. just remember, god could have forced adam and eve to serve him, but he didn't he gave them free will and they chose to disobey. why should you be better than god and dictate to the rest us to believe or else?