« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Hubris of Renee Ellmers

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  May 1st, 2012 at 03:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

In a matter of just a few years at the beginning of the millennium, we succeed in adopting marriage amendments in 30 states.  It looked like we were well on our way to preempting one of the greatest assaults on our values.  But over the past few years, between the liberal courts, the Obama administration, and blue states adopting gay marriage, we have lost a lot of ground.

Next Tuesday, North Carolina voters will get a chance to launch a counterattack by voting for a marriage amendment on the state’s primary ballot.  The language of the amendment also bans civil unions.  Civil unions are one of the biggest tools of the homosexual lobby in their aggressive and officious push to redefine marriage.  That’s why 19 other states have adopted a similar marriage amendment.  It goes without saying that all elected Republicans in North Carolina will enthusiastically campaign for the marriage amendment, right?

Well, everyone except for freshman Renee Ellmers.  Ellmers has been one of the most disappointing freshmen in the entire class.  Not only did she throw in with leadership to support the debt ceiling deal and all the budget capitulations last year, she allowed herself to be used as an on-camera prop to whip other freshmen in line.  Her district has been redrawn in a way that makes it dramatically more conservative, yet Ellmers has not moved rightward.  Quite the contrary, she is publicly announcing that she will vote against the marriage amendment – but only because of the civil union issue, of course.

Now she has the unbridled temerity to air the following TV ad to her conservative constituents:


“Woman of faith;” “shares our conservative values;” “she fights for traditional marriage”

Wow – it would be nice if establishment hacks would run on their record for once, instead of pandering during election time.  But to call herself a fighter for traditional marriage?  Really?

There are a lot of candidates who were handpicked by leadership to run, yet are now running as inviolable conservatives – against the records of their strongest supporters. [see the post below] This one is taking the hubris to a new level altogether.

Unfortunately, we couldn’t find a viable challenger to Ellmers in district 2, although I’d vote for Micky Mouse over her next Tuesday.  Luckily, we do have other conservatives to vote for; Scott Keadle in NC-8 and Mark Meadows, who has been a real leader on the marriage amendment, in NC-11.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Jack_Savage

    Since I am in David Price’s district, where he wins with a 99.8% margin every time, I donated both to her election effort and to the recount defense. I won’t be giving her anything this term and told her so.

    I have never seen anyone rely so heavily on the Tea Party be co-opted so quickly and easily. I hope she isn’t getting too comfortable in her position, because two years is plenty of time to find a challenger,

    • http://madisonproject.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      this is a systemic problem. They all sound like Jim DeMint during the elections, but vote a different way when they come to DC. Our challenge going forward is deciphering the frauds from the authentic ones by asking them the tough questions *before* they are in office.

      • acat

        pay attention to what matters to you during the test drive, and read what others have to say.

        Mew

    • earlgrey

      and then agian when they were getting funds together for a recount. I think I am still on her email list. I’ll be unsubscribing soon. I do not live in her district. I supported her to get Etheridge out. She started disappointing really soon.

    • DefendUSA

      Jack- Could we possibly kow each other? I attended an event at Rey’s Restaurant to support that recount. There is a fundraiser for her tomorrow…I think I am going to pass! This really sucks!

  • funwithknives

    and this is a fact.

    There will always be those who take advantage and unfortunately, N C could not ‘read’ her.

    A real pity we live in the ME age, is it not? All N C Citizens can do now is vote her out and make her exclaim: “Me, Gone…”

  • zachv

    Marriage is a conservative value. It’s a promise of commitment, fidelity, trust, honor and equal status between two partners (gay or straight) before God.

    I’m sorry that Rep. Ellmers can see that and celebrate it, while it continues to evade your grasp Mr. Horowitz.

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      Rep Ellmers supports replacing traditional marriage definition with gay marriage? Celebrates gay marriage?

      Then you are making the point of the Article: she lied. ?she fights for traditional marriage? is a dishonest ad.

      • zachv

        Apologies.

        Point not successfully executed was that she supports (or is more willing to support) civil unions … I dunno, just like how Limbaugh, O’Reilly or Condi all support civil unions too.

        • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

          OK, so she supports civil unions. So it’s more like politician shapeshifting then lying. Still, what’s in the package is not what’s advertized on the box.

          I support traditional marriage because family is an important and vital building block for a civil society, and marriage is the right legal structure to support it. As such, it has nothing at all to do with the status or convenience of gays and their relationships, but 100% to do with what will keep our civilization on an even keel in the next generation.

          As such, many of us might be amenable to civil unions as a compromise and solution that maintains both marriage and accommodates gay couples’ needs. But we’ve seen that civil unions have just become just a way-station in the salami-slice gay activist agenda, viewed as ‘not enough’ and that even suggesting that is “H8″ speech to in way oppose anything but full gay marriage, so its use was/is as a stalking horse for marriage ‘equality’, which in turn is an agent for the deprivation of religious liberty on this matter through the denial of the rights of those who wish to abstain from acknowledging this as a right.

          To wit: Now the largest charity in the country, that has placed thousands of adoptees in homes, is prevented from acting according to their conscience in the placement of adoptees in Massachusetts. In short, if the law can’t distinguish man/woman couples, neither can the catholic church, in the same kind of BigGovt-vs-Religion collision that Obamacare and HHS contraceptive mandate set up. you only need to see the trend in other countries to understand how far this will go, e.g., preachers brought up on hate speech charges in Canada for preaching the gospel as they see it. From tolerance to acceptance to equality to squashing of dissent towards the new moral order. And in this vice are the very children and the very families that should be the top priority.

          Ending the culture wars with accommodation to those in various lifestyles while maintaining marriage as an ideal would be a reasonable compromise. And it would be possible in a different environment, but not in an environment where Dan Savage types wage scorched earth attacks on all people, institutions and groups who are deviate one iota from their agenda. Many of us would be happier if there were not a reactionary vs radical food fight, as we have bigger fish to fry, but its not to be, at least for now.

  • renl57

    …the same legal protections and benefits for their committed lifetime relationships that straight Americans do.

    Right now, state and federal laws give straight married couples dozens and dozens of different benefits, tax breaks, family rights, and other things that a gay couple cannot get.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

    A gay couple can’t file a joint tax return. Nor is a gay couple legally guaranteed hospital visitation rights, the right to the deceased partner’s Social Security pension, etc.

    If you don’t like civil unions or domestic partnerships, then please suggest some other alternative by which gay couples can get out of this legal limbo that they have been in.

    No American citizen should have to ask the approval of his countrymen in order to claim his rights as a citizen. Every citizen is entitled to equal protection under the law, even if you personally hate the guy’s guts.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      None of that is remotely true.

      Marriage is a specific thing. it’s not a just one of many kinds of “committed lifetime relationships.” It’s a specific one.

      So take your moral relativism and stick it.

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        Taking your radicalist views and insisting that they are the correct default, is not it.

        Take a lesson from Moe Lane.

      • zachv


        People like that woman, like me, are deprived of our rights and our freedoms on account of your position Neil. If Amendment One passes, that woman won’t be able to visit her partner of 38 years. How in God’s good name is that moral?

        • powertothepeople

          you know it, I know it, and anyone who takes just a few minutes to look at the law knows it.

          This law in no way stops a gay person with a partner from visiting their partner in the hospital, it does not stop them from receiving health benefits for each other whether privately or via their job, it does not stop them from entering into any private contract that would cover death benefits, wills, etc.

          I know you have a gay agenda here on the site as I have seen you slip it into almost every comment you make. But at least be honest about your comments and do not try to use some loud mouth on youtube as your proof.

          This amendment does one thing and one thing alone. It makes marriage between a woman and a man part of the North Carolina Constitution in hopes of keeping marriage sacred and away from the meddling of activist groups and judges. It makes it a part of the NC constitution that no other form of partnership would be acceptable. NC and its residents have all the rights in the world to govern their own state and have all the rights in the world to make sure less than 3% of its population can not force their activism down the throats of its citizens. It will pass on May 8th and gay people will still be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital on the 9th so stop the nonsense.

          • zachv

            “It makes it a part of the NC constitution that no other form of partnership would be acceptable.”

            Read that quote of yours five times over. “No other form of partnership.” What does that mean? That NC will. not. recognize. any. other. form. of. partnership.

            What comes with a legal partnership? Hospital visitation rights. Second parent adoption rights. Social Security benefits. Joint tax returns. Estate planning. … and on and on and on.

            Amendment One does away with that by making both gay and straight civil unions unconstitutional. So even if that woman were to fly to New York, get married and come back to North Carolina, she’d still be barred from visiting her spouse in the hospital because she will not be legally related to her spouse.

            I know you have a gay agenda here on the site as I have seen you slip it into almost every comment you make.
            1. I don’t get a twenty “I DISAGREE!!!1!1″ that I then reply to when I say Roe v. Wade should be overturned, or that Obama’s destroying the economy. Am I supposed to have a conversation by myself?
            2. Duh, I’m gay. I like small government and men.

          • Jack_Savage

            “If approved, the proposed measure would amend Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution by adding a new section:

            Sec. 6. Marriage.
            Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.?

            And apparently, the sky has not fallen in the 18 states that have approved exactly such an amendment (or I feel sure you would be able to cite some examples. Or maybe just one.), so your arguments really amount to flailing hyperbole.

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            20 or so other states have done this ?No other form of partnership.? business in their marriage amendments.

            The status quo DOES NOT CHANGE. It’s same as it ever was, in that whole list of rights etc. is no different after than before.

            The idea that if you come to Texas and cant visit someone in the hospital that you need to because of your close personal relationship, just because of that phrase is in the Constitution … well, its just not reality. Reality is people other than spouses get to visit people in hospitals ALL THE TIME. Reality is that you dont need to redefine the institution of marriage as its been defined for 2000 years just so you can get a more convenient tax form or an easier estate plan.

            “As for Joint tax Returns” that’s a solely federal issue that this will NOT change and if you have a state issue I have a simple solution: Abolish your state income tax. In Texas, a non-issue.

            If you are going to peddle your position on this, at least don’t keep making phony claims.

          • powertothepeople

            banning any other marriage other than those between a man and a woman, used the word marriage since you seem so caught up with my word relationship, will do NOTHING to stop that lady or any other lady from visiting their loved one in the hospital. For you to say otherwise is pure BS.

            Civil unions between a man and a woman are not affected by this amendment at all, again, you are straight up trying to mislead others with your BS.

            And as far as the woman flying to NW, getting married, then the marriage not being accepted in NC…….boo freaking hoo. NC is not obligated to accept NW law and yet it still does not stop the lady from visiting her loved one in a hospital.

            You keep claiming that this law prohibits hospital visitation, parent adoption rights, SSI benefits, and so on, and yet you are completely wrong or straight out lying. It is even more telling when you state Estate planning between two gay people will be affected when this very issue was raised and show to be bogus. Private contracts and wills are not affected by this law at all. No more would a gay person be affected in their giving of their estate to who they want to than would two straight people who live together not in marriage.

            You either need to put a disclaimer on your post stating you have not read the amendment, do not understand the amendment, or just plan on lying about it by regurgitating leftist gay site rhetoric so that we can know to pass by the post recognizing it to be utter BS.

            PS. lets not play stupid shall we. There is a difference between bringing up your sexual choice when it is the topic at hand and doing what you have done around here by putting it in every chance you have just so you know we know you are gay. I could care less you or anyone else is gay, my problem lies with those who feel the need to tell me they are gay every chance they get.

          • zachv

            What powertothepeople falsely claims: “Civil unions between a man and a woman are not affected”

            Speaking for the North Carolina Pediatric Society, past president Peter Morris, M.D., said he worries if the amendment were to pass, “families of all types will find themselves with stresses, toxic stresses, that will affect their lives and that will affect their children’s lives. The North Carolina Pediatric Society opposes the ratification of Amendment One.”

            What Freedom’s Truth falsely claims: “The status quo DOES NOT CHANGE. It?s same as it ever was, in that whole list of rights etc. is no different after than before.”

            ?There is nothing in North Carolina?s proposed Amendment One, that will serve to protect either children or families?. children could be denied access to a parent?s health insurance, quality child care and early childhood education programs, custody agreements, domestic violence protections, and more.? – Dr. Erica Wise, M.D. President-Elect, North Carolina Psychological Association

            What powertothepeople falsely claims: “You keep claiming that this law prohibits hospital visitation, parent adoption rights, SSI benefits, and so on, and yet you are completely wrong or straight out lying.”

            ?This amendment not only affects our profession but the clients we serve. Domestic violence protections against unmarried women will be affected as the Amendment redefines marriage. Children in unmarried homes will be affected from not having insurance coverage to visitation rights. Seniors lose privileges such as visiting loved ones in the hospital or making critical medical decisions on behalf their loved ones. Protecting our citizens is important to ensuring a productive society and this Amendment does not protect North Carolina?s citizens.? ? Tanya Roberts, MSW, Board President, National Association of Social Workers, North Carolina Chapter

            At a press conference held Wednesday, April 25, at the North Carolina General Assembly, representatives from the North Carolina Pediatric Society joined with colleagues from the North Carolina Psychological Association, the North Carolina Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, North Carolina Chapter and the Carolinas Chapter of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists in opposing Amendment One, the proposed amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that would ban relationship recognitions and threaten protections for the state?s unmarried couples.

          • zachv

            You’d think doctors and health professional would know about hospital visitation rights. More so than the two of you calling me a liar without providing a shred of proof.

          • powertothepeople

            they do not represent the entire community, you know that, we know that, are now your credibility is less than it ever was.

            Just answer this question, although I do not expect much truth from you, are you simply ignorant about what the amendment actually says and will do or are you simply a liar willing to lie and associate with liars just to push your agenda? Simply question, simple answer, liar or ignorant…………….both maybe?

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            This is not a medical question, it’s a legal one!

            Does the Amedment change current law for those not married? Answer: NO!

            Via google found this:

            http://ncvalues.org/2012/04/campbell-law-professors-refute-false-claims-about-the-marriage-amendment/

            http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Campbell-White-Paper.pdf

            RALEIGH, N.C. ? Last Wednesday, law professors from Campbell University released a white paper refuting the claims made by Professor Maxine Eichner of UNC School of Law who has alleged that the Marriage Protection Amendment would negatively affect current law. Law professors Lynn Buzzard, William Woodruff, and E. Gregory Wallace found Eichner?s assertions regarding how the Amendment would alter legal protections for unmarried same-sex and opposite sex couples to be incorrect and said ?we do not think its terms justify these concerns.?

            In a press release, the Campbell University law professors (who are speaking as individuals, not for the university) said that if the Marriage Protection Amendment passes, ?same-sex couples would still be protected under domestic violence laws, would retain their current rights to child custody and visitation, and could continue to receive public health insurance benefits.?

            The professors? legal analysis stated, ?The Amendment does not forbid the legal recognition or validity of all domestic relationships, but only of domestic ?unions.? The flaw in Professor Eichner?s analysis is that she does not give the term ?union? its proper effect in limiting the Amendment?s reach.? In addition, the law professors found that, ?The plain language of the Amendment reaches only domestic unions?marriage and marriage imitations or substitutes?not all domestic relationships. There is no evidence that North Carolina?s proposed Amendment is intended to go further than the marriage amendments in every other state by barring the state, as Professor Eichner claims, from giving unmarried couples ?much less significant protections than those accorded married couples.??

          • zachv

            Lawyers are all Democrats and liberal. I don’t know why you’d drag the conversation here unless you were really hurting?

            http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/cooper_says_hell_vote_against_marriage_amendment
            http://www.protectncfamilies.org/news/nc-family-law-professors-speak-out-against-amendment-one
            http://www.ncaj.com/file_depot/0-10000000/0-10000/9208/folder/109511/amendmentonemessage.pdf

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            It’s kind of a pointless discussion if you dont, you know, get the point.

            I was trying to point out how shallow, hollow and wrong the list of horribles was, since I’ve seen the bogus argument used in other states and … it didnt happen.

            If you have an opposing opinion – fine.
            If you have a list of luminaries who share it – fine.
            What some of us are getting riled up is you stating things that we know are just not so – bogus political scaremongering rhetoric. I am sorry you won’t admit or acknowledge that maybe those claims are dubious.

          • zachv

            If I am to be outright honest, Amendment One will most likely pass. Shall we stave off the argument until then when we have people being (or not being) denied their benefits?

            Within a matter of weeks after this passes, we’re going to have definitive proof that this will limit legal protections and recognition because of the lawsuits filed.

          • gekster

            wherein does it say in the constitutin that you are garenteed rights because you are gay.
            What explicity says that.

          • zachv

            The Constitution does not guarantee you marital rights either, gekster. It speaks nothing of gay or straight marriage, but only to the broader freedoms and liberties that we as citizens of the US of A have the privilege of enjoying.

            Those liberties involve the fundamental idea that all men are created equal, and have equal standing before the law. This is an immortal declaration that is reflected in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and is a basic principle of classical liberalism that conservative thinkers draw upon.

            That is something that I (unlike Neil and others) believe is being violated.

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            Again, you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

            based on how it’s worked in other states, this Amendment locks in current law, doesnt change it.
            Lawsuits will be filed anyway. we’ll see how it plays out.

            G’Nite

          • powertothepeople

            I am glad you find the NC Pediatric Society, the NC psychological association, and the National Association of Social workers to be a true fact providers, but sorry if I do not.

            the fact you try to use leftist groups as proof of you obvious lack of understanding when it comes to this amendment clearly shows you to not be worthy of conversation.

            But at least I know why you state the things you do about this, you are yet another who does not know the first thing about the proposed amendment and simply relies on other to tell them what to think. They are full of propaganda BS meaning so are you. But by all means, if you have no issue with those joker using lies to further their cause, keep on using them as your so called proof.

            Now, moving on to more honest people as I will not waste time with a liar or with a person who uses liars to back up his own lies.

          • zachv

            You know you’ve got someone when they start saying doctors are all lefties, lol.

            I’ll be throwing in Fmr. NC Supreme Court Justice Richard Orr (conservative) and pro-Proposition 8 sponsor David Blankenhorn‘s statements as well.

            “For one thing, it means that North Carolina could not, now or ever, take any step or devise any policy to extend legal recognition and protection to same-sex couples. No domestic partnership laws. No civil unions. Nothing.

            That?s mighty cold. If you disdain gay and lesbian persons, and don?t care whether they and their families remain permanently outside of the protection of our laws, such a policy might be your cup of tea. But it?s not our view, and we doubt that it?s the view of most North Carolinians.” David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values

            ?Any provision that has to be put into the ?miscellaneous? section of the constitution immediately raises questions about whether it should be in the state constitution,? he said. ?It?s probably not a provision that ought to be in.? – Justice Bob Orr

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            Not all doctors are lefties. that’s not the claim. Certain Social Workers and other professional organizations have been captured by the left. The ALA is one. the APA is another.

            Whichever way you call it, the fact is that these are politicized organizations who have already been assertively pro-gay marriage. That’s not a typical apolitical professional organization.

            If you want to understand more, visit Horowitz’ site “Discover the Networks” The truth shall set you free.

            Besides, the real point is whether the claims are true or false. It’s a fallacy (argument from authority) to assert that these groups must be right. NOPE!

            As I said, it’s a legal question “Does it change legal status?” The amendment doesnt. As such, ANY claim that status or situations would be harmed is simply void and wrong.

          • powertothepeople

            Just state for the record that you are either a liar, just ignorant, or both.

            Not that hard. You have effectively destroyed any credibility you may have had and shown yourself to be a fool, at least clarify for all of us why you do it.

            By the way, although I disdain talking to liars, the absurdity of the copied statement you posted is so laughable, I must address it.

            ?For one thing, it means that North Carolina could not, now or ever, take any step or devise any policy to extend legal recognition and protection to same-sex couples. No domestic partnership laws. No civil unions. Nothing.

            Anyone with half a brain could have easily shown you why this statement is so wrong that it is absurd. Lets say for sake of argument that if the amendment passes this line of BS is right as to how the amendment will affect some people, here is a clue as to why the now and never BS is dead wrong………………

            Vote an amendment in………..ratify………………vote…………………new amendment. But then again you believe David when he states Amendment one is not supported by the majority of NC citizens…………..laughable.

          • Christine

            This is the part I simply don’t understand. Why does a law that extends protection have to do so to “same sex couples”?

            Why shouldn’t we more generically say that any single person ought to be able to legally name any other person as their “next of kin” guaranteeing survivorship, visitation, etc? Doesn’t this “problem” impact situations other than a gay couple? What about the person who is single and lives alone yet has cut off all ties with his/her family for some reason?

            “when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail”.

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            Gay activists have already gotten these organizations to sign up to support gay marriage, so of course they will make such statements.

            http://www.naswdc.org/resources/abstracts/abstracts/lesbian.asp

            “NASW encourages the adoption of laws that recognize inheritance, insurance, same-sex marriage, ….”

            APA (American Psychological Association) has been (in)famous for pushing various gay rights causes and supports Gay Marriage.

            And so it goes.

            As these statements are merely repetitions of the same claims, I would repeat the suggestion made prior: Look at the 20 states that have this set of laws already and see if these claims pan out. You find that they do not. The domestic violence claim from NASW is particularly egregious as law on this doesnt depend on marital status. Violence is wrong!

            People who oppose the Marriage Amendment do it because they support gay marriage. They will create a list of horribles around what is actually merely something that locks in the status quo.

            Those organizations dont WANT the status quo, they want gay marriage, hence their real motivation against it.

            These compromised and politicized organizations have only lowered their credibility via these claims.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          Stop lying.

          You have the exact same marriage rights I have.

          Tell the truth.

    • http://madisonproject.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      What if three people want to have partnerships? What is a father and son want to have a partnership? What is their recourse?

      • ww2nd95

        this is a touchy subject in which we need to be careful with politically. Polls indicate nationally that gay marriage isn’t as big a deal as it was even a decade ago and things are shifting toward the idea of gay marriage becoming more main stream. I’m not saying for people to give up their principles or change how they feel about it, I just think it’s something politicians need to be wary of when making laws like this one.

        I’m not saying I’m against this law one way or the other, I just want our politicians to be mindful to alienating segments of the population outside of conservative circles.

        • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

          If you dont have an opinion why express one?
          It’s a touchy subject because the MSM and cultural institutions have a bias on this and have ardently ‘mainstreamed’ what was once considered a bizarre concept, and have demonized those on the other side.

          “I just want our politicians to be mindful to alienating segments of the population outside of conservative circles”

          We alienate liberals every time we push for conservative agenda items – tax cuts annoy socialists, abortion laws are opposed by prochoicers, energy/drilling oppose by environmentalists, etc. This is no different.

          Being ‘mindful’ is one thing, being ‘wary’ of actually implementing the position and agenda that you stand for is counseling cowardice. The GOP platform is clear in its support of traditional marriage. Either we do what the platform says or we are lost as a party.

          “I?m not saying for people to give up their principles or change how they feel about it”

          It sure sounds that way. Majorities have supported maintaining traditional marriage across the country, in vote after vote after vote.

          • ww2nd95

            a touchy subject, which is exactly the reason why we need to be mindful. The MSM will take anything conservatives do, that isn’t “mainstream” and turn it against us, just like they have for years. I’m not trying to start an argument here, I’m just pointing out, during this election especially, we need to be careful with what laws and ideas we push forward. And I’m not talking about alienating liberals. It’s not like they would vote for us anyhow, I’m talking mostly about socially liberal independents and there are a good number of them out there, who we will need this election. I do think the base will be motivated to get Obama out, but I still think it’s going to be a close election.

            Look, I just want to beat Obama. It’s that simple. Call me being cautious with our path forward cowardice if you want, I’m just not interested in taking chances on things that we can deal with once we have the WH. If we allow Obama to win, he gets at least 1 if not two more SCOTUS nominations, which IMHO is massive in scope. As well as Obamacare becoming entrenched in the law books.

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            dont end up a victim or patsy to it.

            this is not about this topic alone. On *any* social issue or cultural or economic issue from gun rights to abortion to global warming to taxes for the rich, the MSM will push the liberal envelope.

            Throwing in the towel on issues because of media bias is how the liberals *win*.

  • clintonformccain

    who deserve some attackin’?

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      nt

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Your anti Gingrich Jihad sure wasn’t aimed at Obama. Hypocrite.

  • desertphreak

    I don’t understand why the GLBT community is so dead-set on equal “marriage” rights. Everything they do they rename and make their own. Let them have a union. Let them make up a name. But they should not use nor change the meaning of the word “marriage”.

  • Pingback: look