Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I hope they run one with a better PR team, and one who has better camera presence. Any presidents success or failiure depends on his ablity to present an understandable package of abstrac ideas and ideals. There was a study done a long time ago that showed that only 10% of Americans actually know why the hold the political beliefs that they do. The other 90% will give radically different answers to what is basically the saem question depending on how its asked. A prime and very recent example of this is the ‘moral’ voter of the 2004 election. When asked to choose from a list of options, voters picked morals as their first reason for picking a candidate. When left to their own devices, they chose Iraq. Two things that republicans and successful democrates do very well is understanding how to use language to frame a debate, and the knowledge that when campaigning, policy doesnt matter. For a democrate to win, he or she must first understand the way that middle America thinks about things. They can then take their platform (or really any platform) and re-create it in a way that will appeal to these minds. They must also realize that the campaign IS a game. The goal is to win. No matter what policy you want to push, or how dearly you hold your ethical beliefs, you have to win first before any of that matters.

All of this ‘the democratic party has gone to far left’ is absolute hog wash. Especially when you consider the sourse. The republican party would like nothing better than for the democratic party to move right, knowing that when if the voter would perfer the republican message, no one will deliver it better than the republican. Either party can go left or right and still win. Schwarzenegger is not the right of the republican party. Not by a long shot. And clearly not on the issues that republicans say make up the heart of middle America. People are talking about him running for president. The most important thing, no matter how jaded it may sound, is advertising. As with everything else, its all about moving product.

Perch� dovrebbero i liberali rispondere alle domande di disrespect trasparente da questo Brutus che allontaner� sempre in modo errato il loro punto di vista?

Adrienne

I think that the point of view Cassius expresses fits the situation very well. He is telling Brutus that Caesar is great not because of fate, but because of what he has done and Brutus (and Cassius) need not view Caesar as a god. It also applies particularly to some Democrats, who would view Republicans in the same light as Cassius viewed Caesar.

Both parties need to move closer to the middle, as that’s where most of the voters are.

With that being said, I see the biggest problem with the Democratic Party being financing. There are plenty of moderate Democrats in the party that could succeed at a national level, but they don’t have the money to run a big campaign. The wealthiest members of the party (the Kerrys, Kennedys, and such) don’t have the national appeal to win the presidency.

The most successful candidates tend to be Democrats from “red states” (i.e. Clinton) and Republicans from “blue states” (i.e. Reagan). Bush and Kerry went neck-and-neck to the end, but neither one would have been able to stand up against a good moderate from the other party.

The Republicans represent the top 10% of the Income Brackett. Not likely the Democrats can match Republican Spending. At least when Bush cuts Social Welfare Programs to fund the Military Industrial Complex, the Democrats will get their Base back. Bush has already cut Student Loan Benefits. What’s next?

Aldous.

We’ve been trying to move into Conservative territory since Reagan got into office. Truth is, there’s not much good in that.

America needs the counterweight. America needs people who believe the government can be useful for things other than reinforcing corporate America’s power and the dominance of the upper classes.

The Democrats need to stop flirting with an identity crisis everytime the Republicans win something. They need to realize that it is not only a pathethic thing to become Republicans lite, but a missed opportunity. I think there is a market for liberal sensibilities now. Americans have had a new dose of the consequences of laissez faire economics, and I think they’d like to go back to the days when a private company’s bottom line wasn’t put above the welfare of the public good.

Again, I must say, thanks, but no thanks.

The problem with the democrats is not financing.It’s their inability to tell the truth.

Republicans are incompetent. Being incompetent is Bush’s main problem now. The only good thing about it is that we get good Reality TV now.

Aldous.

Good reality TV? I always thought that was a contradiction.

I don’t think that Democrats should become Republicans, but they should become Democrats again. Both parties have been seized by their more extreme elements. That comes for the nomination process, when the more enthusiastic supporters (Those willing to come out in the cold of Iowa and New Hampshire) tend to be the most ideologically committed. The problem is that the Democrat’s extremists are a little farther away from the U.S. mainstream than the Republican’s.

It can be a vicious circle for a party that loses elections. Actually being in power makes politicians a little more practical because they are responsible for results. The party out of power has the luxury of advocating utopian solutions, since they know they will not have to apply any of them.

While being out of power and able to claim you could do better in everything confers an immense rhetorical advantage, it is dangerous if party members come to believe everything they are saying. I am afraid this is what is happening to Democrats. “If only we were more to the left, then the electorate that rejected us because we were too far to the left already will vote for us,” they think.

Democrats were not always this way and are not all this way now. Nobody can say what will happen when they are actually tested in a national race, but there are several good Dem governors (such as Bill Richardson and Ed Rendell) and some good senators (Evan Bayh). Democrats need not fall off the left edge of the world.

Haha! The fact that so many people are still referring to Kerry as too liberal tells me that justin is right. We need better PR. :)

If dem.’s would just dump the anti-gun crap they might have a chance.
Being anti-religion and pro-gay marriage isn’t helping much either.

I won’t pass judgement, but those things don’t sell well in the heartland.

Samantha,

Yeah, those Democrats are a bunch of slippery devils, like the way they made up stuff about WMD in Iraq, and the effect of tax cuts on the economy, and the likelihood of insurgency in post-occupation Iraq, and Bush’s fulfilling his guard duty, and his use of cocaine, and his lying about stock sales, and the relation between Saddam and Osama, and about Kerrey not really being in Vietnam…

Is it really helpful to say the other side “lies”? I’m sure that every politician has told an untruth, but there are degrees of lying. Bill Clinton lied about a sexual act with an intern; George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and imminent threats to legitimize an invasion of Iraq. Both are lies, but some people weigh one more heavily than the other, depending upon their political leanings and prior beliefs. I would hope this forum addresses actuall issues rather than making broad ad hominem arguments.

Just reading through this thread, one can see the powerful control of national messages that the Republican party has gained:

“The problem with the democrats is not financing.It’s their inability to tell the truth.”

If dem.’s would just dump the anti-gun crap they might have a chance.
Being anti-religion and pro-gay marriage isn’t helping much either.”

Keeping in mind that taking advice from the opposing party is a little like asking a theif for ideas on your home security systems, we can also see that these arguments are just either factually incorrect, or massive distortions, or traits that can easily be applied to any national party.

The idea that democrates have a fundamental problem with the truth has been kicked around since the end of the Clinton administration. The beauty of this is the complete denial of the history of this country, and past administrations. As ugly as it is, you cannot find a president who hasn’t lied, and lied on a national level. The easiest example is the Reagan administration, but its so pervasive its really not worth going into any further.

That democrates are anti-religon and anti-gun. We just had a democratic nominee that is a hunter and a Catholic. Our last democratic president was a Baptist. In fact, of our last 4 presidents, one could argue that HW Bush was least religious.

Looking at it from the other side. The RNC was able to sell all of Bush’s short comings as positives: Its not that Bush is not mentally up to the challenges of being president, its not that he can’t speak, its that he’s an average guy, like you and me. Someone you could have beer with. It’s not that Gore was smart, its that he’s the know it all, the annoying kid from school, who wants that kid as president?

The point is not actually the facts. The point is that republicans have effectivly framed the argument so that democrates must start by proving that they are not what the republicans claim (as is evident by the above…). The republican party has told the nation what both parties stand for and that is an incredably powerful postion to be in. As soon as the DNC realizes that most important thing in politics is image, the sooner they start winning. PR, message control, advertizing, packaging. Politics is business, and theres a reason we keep buying razors with 3 and 4 blades.

Justin,

I just gave my point of view, wasn’t bashing anyone for their’s.
As a former Democrat voter I should have the right to do that?

If the party platform is working great for you…by all means, stick with it.

By the way…Kerry is as much a hunter as Thearessa is a bag lady….sell that down the road.

Beagle, Im not sure how I attacked you, I certainly didn’t mean too. My was simply that getting a candidate elected is about selling a product. Just as Kerry is not really a hunter, nor is Bush really a cowboy. Bush has about as much in common with your typical west Texan as I do (I live in Portland).

Democrats dont need to change anything in their platform, the just need better marketing. In 1970’s the RNC began a study of how to use language effectivly, and they have, clearly. I think its time democrats realize that elections are games. Once you get elected, you have to do something, but getting elected is a game. As long as the refuse to play, the wont win.

Justin

You make excellent points about framing the issues. The ruling party has a big advantage in framing the issue because they often control the agenda. Frames often define the outcome of a discussion. But not all frames fit all situations or can be used by all people.

Kerry had a record that many people thought inadequate. Since we are talking about perceptions, we need not argue whether or not it was an accurate perception. But if you follow Kerry’s image before the election year, through the Democratic primaries and into the presidential elections, you find that Kerry’s percieved image was fairly consistent. When he tried to diverge from his image (for example, his excessive use of his veteran status) he was pulled back. So his image didn’t really change; it is just that more people got to know about it. The same was true for Bush.

Kerry had a reputation for being a liberal before the election. If anything, he managed to dampen it. Being a liberal doesn’t mean the same thing to everybody, but the cluster of liberalness is not something many people want in their president. One big problem for Kerry was that his own people were not enthusiastically behind him. Right up to the election, more Kerry supporters said they were voting against Bush than for Kerry.

But the biggest problem for Kerry was the feeling of entitlement in the people around him. I don’t mean this in the usual sense of getting something. Rather, many Dems thought they could just win because in their minds Bush had failed. Most Americans did not agree with this perception of their president, but Democrats did not recognize this fact. Instead they got associated with the Bush haters. Michael Moore, for example, was a great gift to Bush. So were many of the Hollywood celebrities. Hate doesn’t win elections. Bush showed this in 2004, just as Clinton had shown it in 1996.

Sorry justin, but as long as liberals are anti-gun, don’t respect religious views, dont listen to the people and favor govt intruding into every aspect of our lives, they will not win in the heartland.

I do agree with you though in that through a good PR campaign, the liberals would be able to LIE about their views on those issues and maybe steal some votes that way.

Beagle,
You mean Democrats don’t listen to you when you tell them why you don’t vote for them anymore? I’m shocked, SHOCKED!

PR is just part of the problem. Another is demographics. You hit the nail right on the head when you said:
If dem.’s would just dump the anti-gun crap they might have a chance. Being anti-religion and pro-gay marriage isn’t helping much either I won’t pass judgement, but those things don’t sell well in the heartland.
In order to win, you have to support the views of the voters, even if you don’t like them. If they don’t like what you stand for, you won’t be elected. I’m sorry, but that’s democracy in action.
Both parties, but the democrats especially, have forgotten that they are there to represent the voters, not to impose their personal feelings on the country.

Traveler,

You understand what my point was, that’s great, I wish some of my lib/dem friends could.

Jack M. wrote a great article/post, the elections are over untill 2006, I’ll do my best to debate issues/views untill then.

I understand that some on the left don’t want advice from anyone on the right, but damn’it man, understand that some of us once voted with you, and are honest enough to say why we left that party.

I’ll offer no more advice, just keep doing as you are if its working, if not just read and listen, you never have to admit you were wrong on any issue, just look at results.

Both parties, but the democrats especially, have forgotten that they are there to represent the voters, not to impose their personal feelings on the country.

I’m still not understanding all this. Over 55 million people voted for Kerry, right? It doesn’t sound like an ideological problem. As has been noted, it’s more of a logistical and marketing problem.

kctim -

Im not sure I really agree with you assment of the DNC’s values, though I fully understand why you view them that way. I really don’t find a single instance when the DNC has come out agaisnt religion. Do you have one? As for government intruding into peoples lives, I would say both parties are equally at fault. Though, again, the RNC is much, much better at framing arguments of government intervention. For example, I, as someone on the left might choose to frame the gay marrage debate as another instance of big government telling people what they can and cant do in their bedrooms. I don’t want to argue the correctness of that agrument, Im just pointing out that anything can framed in a number of ways.

Jack -

I agree with you to some extent, I think Kerry was unable to sell himself as either a statesman or as a military leader. Though I still feel that the problem was less with his actual record, and more with how that record was packages. The Bush team was, for example, able to have some success with the ‘this is no time for on the job training’ when its fairly common knowledge that all presidents get on the job training, as Bush had over the previous 4 years. Another example was ‘Kerry voting to cut spending on critical weapons’ when it very public knowledge that VP Chenney supported those cuts as well. Again, my point is not the validity of either side. My point is that presentation of package is THE ultimate selling tool. If you cant tell, I work in design and marketing. If you could sit in some of meetings and see the way we spin things, your head would like fall clean off. I have had to find ways to present things which are at best, equal to, if not below the compition. I have also been largly successful. As jaded as it may sound, running a contempory campaign I feel is absolutly no different than selling any other big ticket item.

Joseph,
I’m still not understanding all this. Over 55 million people voted for Kerry, right? It doesn’t sound like an ideological problem. As has been noted, it’s more of a logistical and marketing problem.

Most democrats, if you can believe the polls, did not vote for Kerry, but against Bush. Kerry just happened to be on the democratic ticket, so he got their votes. Also, Kerry was not the only democrat running for election. They’ve been losing big in congressional elections for a while now.

Part of marketing is giving the people what they want, not what you think they need. If this is just an image problem, how do you explain that not a single southern state (Florida excluded) was a swing state? That’s just pathetic. Clinton was always able to win a few southern states. One reason for this shift was the aforementioned gun control and religion issues. Many people feel that the Democrats are trying to impose their values on them and take their rights away.
And then there are issues like gay marriage and partial birth abortion. Some democrats are so far to the left on these issues that even their own voter base doesn’t even agree with them.
Obviously ideology, while not the whole problem, does have something to do with the reason the democrats are not winning elections.

“Many people feel that the Democrats are trying to impose their values on them and take their rights away.”

Many people feel the same way about Republicans. Its all about perception.

“Part of marketing is giving the people what they want, not what you think they need.”

I mean no offence by this, but that’s not true. Marketing is making people want what you have. If something is usable, the job is easy, but sometimes you have to convince people that your tooth brush with a rubber grip is all that stands between them and a mouth full of rot.

I think the image problem explains all of the south’s move the left to the right. There is not one policy in the DNC that affects some ones religion, how they raise their kids, or their safety. Not one. What we have is very effective marketing plan which tells people things like ‘if you let gay people marry, your marriage will fall apart and you kids will all become crack addicts’, ‘if we allow gay marriage, what’s next, will we allow people to marry animals?’, ‘if you don’t use my tooth brush with the bent head, your teeth will fall out’. Plus all sorts of false dichotomies: Either you support the war, or you support Saddam. Either you support Bush, or you support terrorism. Any of us here realize that there is full spectrum of acceptable solutions to a given problem, but the point of any good marketing plan is create a dichotomy of ‘choose mine, or choose wrong’.

If you look at the issue that would actually affect the daily lives of the typical southern rural voter, I would argue that neither party is heavily invested. Remember, poor rural voters don’t have a lobbyist. Both parties are supporting huge mega farms instead of small individual farmers. Both parties are outsourcing jobs. But the RNC has effectively leveraged religion to convince the rural voter that they are working for them. If anything, rural voters should be offended that the RNC seems to view them as blind religious sheep.

It’s likely McCain will be the Republican candidate in 2008, and truly, I doubt it will matter what Democrats do; McCain would probably win in a landslide regardless which party he represented.

Personally, I like the idea of Dean heading the DNC. He has been consistently right on the issues, whether it’s Afghanistan, Iraq, or the necessity for avoiding borrow and spend government. He’s cooked in terms of ever being a national candidate, but could be a very able, articulate voice from the DNC, and a competent fund-raiser to boot.

Jack, at the beginning of this post you mention the head-in-the-sand aspect of those who believe election fraud might have occurred. Last night there was a very interesting moment on CNN (or was it MSNBC)- it mentioned that there was “good news for Bush”; that 72% of voters believed his election was legitamate. I thought that was astounding. Without any major news media coverage, @ 1/4 of voters suspect fraud. Well, as I’ve said before, it will have to be proven, accusations aren’t enough.

The other day Schwarzenegger made an astute political observation, suggesting the Republican party move leftward. He’s right, you know. A centrist Republican party will blow the Dems out of the water, particularly if McCain heads the slate.

I’d like to see the Dems maintain their position, but simplify and clarify; stand upon easily understood issues, just two or three, preferably issues which cannot under any circumstances by co-opted by Republicans. Since either Ohio or Florida would have been enough to put the Dem in the White House, it might be wise to tailor the two or three core issues towards those states.

Which issues? I’d suggest Iraq, of course; it’s likely to end very, very badly for the Iraqis. We haven’t even gotten to the really interesting part yet. Domestically, I’d suggest universal health care as a bedrock issue. With proper marketing it should be a no-brainer.

One other bedrock issue that would be an easy win for Dems- Global Warming. I realize this is rather cynical, but it’s a ready-made marketing opportunity. It would allow Dems to point a holier-than-thou finger, and rage with rightousness at Republicans everytime there is a natural disaster, unusually severe hurricane season, drought, and so on. Most people are Green, and the majority believe Global Warming is an important issue. Global Warming involves more than random disasters, of course, but again, it would be easy to beat up the Republican right on this issue.

Justin,

There is not one policy in the DNC that affects some ones religion, how they raise their kids, or their safety. Not one.

If the democrats really think that, then that’s the problem in a nutshell. Policies of both parties do affect these things. It’s not just policy, but ideology as well. The Democrats support organizations who support removing Christian symbols from public places and keeping kids from praying in schools. They may not be actively legislating these things, but they still support them.
I’m not sure why you included safety, given the war on terror and the debate over the patriot act, so I won’t comment.

Remember, poor rural voters don’t have a lobbyist.

Yes they do: the hand that casts their vote. Southern democratic congressmen are learning this the hard way.

If anything, rural voters should be offended that the RNC seems to view them as blind religious sheep.

Perhaps they are offended. But the left not only views them as poor, stupid, uneducated, bible-thumping, redneck hicks, they come right out and say it! Which is more offensive?

Phx8,

One other bedrock issue that would be an easy win for Dems- Global Warming… It would allow Dems to point a holier-than-thou finger, and rage with rightousness at Republicans everytime there is a natural disaster, unusually severe hurricane season, drought, and so on.

Actually, this is already going on. There were even opinion pieces during the hurricane season blaming the severity and frequency of the storms on Bush’s environmental policies!
I agree that this can be a good issue for them. The thing is, there’s still a very large debate in scientific circles as to whether global warming is natural or man-made, and how much we are affecting it. Most of the data we’ve seen so far is based on guesswork and extrapolation. Both sides have been twisting these findings to fit their arguments. In order to make this a hot (pardon the pun) topic or nullify it, One side is going to have to come out with some more convincing findings.

You also mentioned the Ohio results. For an interesting debate on the subject, see this thread.

“The Democrats support organizations who support removing Christian symbols from public places and keeping kids from praying in schools.”

Again - this is a single framing of the argument. It assumes one needs the government to display christian symbols, or that ones child needs to pray in school in order to properly practice their religion. I could just as easiler re-frame it to say that in fact democrates are protecting peoples right to practice their religion: by not endorsing any religion, people are free to practice as they see fit without worry of government persicution.

“I’m not sure why you included safety, given the war on terror and the debate over the patriot act, so I won’t comment.”

I think I explained why I included saftey as an issue. The RNC has pretty successfuly positioned themselves as the party of saftey.

This isn’t really the thread for the religion argument, but I will clarify:

It assumes one needs the government to display Christian symbols, or that ones child needs to pray in school in order to properly practice their religion.

I did not say or imply that at all.
I don’t want, for instance, government to require prayer in school or anywhere else. But they must allow the free exercise of prayer. That’s in the first amendment. Allowing prayer in public is not endorsing a religion.
And allowing the display, by private citizens, of religious symbols does not endorse a religion either.
Unfortunately, there are some organizations who want to ban public prayer and the display of religious symbols entirely, or at least to a point that most of us would consider unconstitutional. The Democrats are perceived as supporting this kind of thing by some people

I think I explained why I included saftey as an issue. The RNC has pretty successfuly positioned themselves as the party of saftey.

Yes, but you were speaking specifically of policy. The democrats still have some say in national security, so their policies still affect people.

I’m not aware of any mainstream DNC effort to restrict private citizens from displaying any symbols they want to. Maybe I’m misinfomed. I also don’t know of any mainstream effort by the DNC to restrict any individual from praying when ever they feel like it. Do you have examples of either?

As for defence, of course some democrates have say on policy, I’m not talking about policy. I’m talking about the perception that that only a republican can provide national security.

Think what you want, vote as you want.

Is there anywhere in the Republican base that supports ..anti-gun, anti-hunting, pro-abortion, and pro- gay marriage??

Most Democrats I know don’t agree with those issues either.

“Marketing” don’t have poop to do with it, in my opinion, you have to have something to market.

Justin,

I’m not aware of any mainstream DNC effort to restrict private citizens from displaying any symbols they want to.

I did not say that either. I said they “are percieved as supporting this kind of thing.”

This perception is based on demoratic support for organizations such as the ACLU, who some people think go to far when it comes to religion.

Beagle,
Marketing has everything to do with it. In fact, an inferior product will beat a superior product through superior marketing. I don’t like the fact that is true, but I recognize it. Chances are most people posting use a PC. Mac’s are superior computers, yet here we are. For years Novell has made superior servers. Again, chances are most of us work on MS networks. Remember pet rocks? Nothing there except marketing.

Again, I don’t like it, but political positioning is almost nothing but marketing. PsyOps, Infowarfare, the battle over the airwaves for Iraqi hearts and minds is, in a sense, just marketing. In politics, it’s not enough to be right. The politics in question must be perceived to be right, even if the policy might actually be substantively bone-headed. In addition, a political candidate must- must- be telegenic. It has to look right as a picture, on tv.

As a core bedrock issue, budget deficits just don’t get the job done from a marketing perspective. It’s very difficult to arouse passion with this issue.

With this in mind, I’m guessing the Democrats will find a way to hammer Republicans in the next few years using visual, easily understandable issues. I certainly hope so- I’m tired of watching the Dems be the anvil.

Phx8,

You’re right about marketing, but only up to a point.

Democrats (or Republicans) are not going to get voters to change their values to reflect their ideas. They need to build their platform to reflect mainstream ideas and values. Why market a plan to the voters when you can simply agree with what they want?
Oh yeah, it’s because most of the voters are a bunch of ignorant redneck hicks and the democrat’s ideas are better for that reason; I forgot. ;-)

Marketing works, but only up to the point where you ask people to compromise what they believe in. After that, they see you as an extremist. This goes for both sides.

In addition, a political candidate must- must- be telegenic. It has to look right as a picture, on tv.

Not really. Since the advent of television, the only really good looking presidents (in my opinion) were Kennedy and Clinton. Neither one of them won because of their looks. I wouldn’t call Nixon, Carter or Regan telegenic. Or Bush, for that matter. Bush automatically loses points because of the way he talks.

Traveler,
True enough:

“Marketing works, but only up to the point where you ask people to compromise what they believe in. After that, they see you as an extremist. This goes for both sides.”

The key is to appeal to those bedrock, core issues.

Btw, I’ve never referred to voters as ‘ignorant hicks’. You might be confusing my posts with someone else. Ok, ok, I might have thought that, but I’ve never written it!

Another key is to force the other side into the appearance of extremism. I’ve always thought it ironic that our currency says ‘In God we trust.’ Dems could plant covert accusations that Republicans lack piety because the words on the currency aren’t large enough. Dems could arrange for a Judge Moore type to be provided with the literal translation of the Ten Commandments for prominent display, not the namby-pamby, politically correct version that Alabama judge set up. Resurrect Blue Laws in accordance with the Commandenments- the Commandments are pretty explicit about not working on the Sabbath, etc, etc. Make sure the Repubs are boxed into overturning Roe v Wade. That would probably turn the tide in and of itself. You get the idea…

I’ll stand by my point about the necessity of being telegenic- or at least more telegenic than the opponent. Reagan in particular was all about image and marketing.

As long as you ‘Lyin’ Liars’ and Bush Apologists are able to control and manipulate what the electorate reads and believes (Christmas Under Attack!!), your assessment has merit. However, if we on the Left are able to break thru your wall of fear, intolerance, ignorance and victim hood, we might have a chance.

That is the only explanation for the fact that Howard Dean is a serious candidate to head the DNC. He was too far left of even the Democratic Party.

Did you know, that Howard Dean was endorsed eight times by the NRA while Governor of Vermont?

Did you know he balanced his state’s budget six times in a row, during his tenure?

A significant number of Progressive Democrats (with similar stances as Dean) won office in November in Red States, and even Conservative Christian areas. Why? Because, unlike the national media, local news media eventually need (and can) cover important issues in a campaign, giving voters an accurate picture of their candidates.

Bush’s approval rating went from 55% percent in November to 49% percent in the latest polling. Why? Because, the incompetency of his administration and the continuing failure of the Iraq occupation, can no longer be obscured by the ‘smoke n’ mirrors’ of scapegoating or blaming the Democrats and John Kerry.

I’d end with an appropriate quote from The Bard, but I hated Shakespeare.

While I personally find Howard Dean very appealing, I agree the Republicans have captured marginally better the center of the electorate.

I think Bill Clinton would be the most effective DNC leader. He would have beaten Bush if he could have run.

As angry as Dems are, they need to address Redneck Joe sixpack, not Eco Ed wine cooler.

Adrienne, Que? Mi no comprende.

Obviously ideology, while not the whole problem, does have something to do with the reason the democrats are not winning elections.

This is a marketing aspect. Marketing is not about giving the public what they want, marketing is about making what you have to offer appealing to the public, making them feel like they need it. Why do we need a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? The right’s answer that it threatens hetero marriage is completely baseless. They present no proof and offer only rhetoric. Yet, it has been a highly successful marketing campaign. They have created a compelling atmosphere around the issue and attracted people to their cause. The left simply needs to figure out how to make their causes more compelling. You don’t do this by asking yourself how you can compromise your beliefs in order to appeal to those who have no sympathy for your cause whatsoever.

Greg wrote:

While I personally find Howard Dean very appealing, I agree the Republicans have captured marginally better the center of the electorate.

Could you please offer some evidence to back this statement up with? While you’re at it, I’ll offer some contrary evidence.

Need I bring up the stem-cell issue? Nearly 70% percent of Americans believe it should be government funded, but where is the centrist compromise in the GOP? Save me the ‘Bush was the first to fund it/existing stem-cell lines’ bull! Americans want this fully-funded more than No Child Left Behind.

Abortion? Did not hear pro-choice Guiliani or Gov Ahhnold mention it at the Republican Convention? Centrist/pro-choice Arlen Specter expressed his honest opinion on pro-Life judicial nominees, and paid dearly.

The Log Cabin Gay Republicans were barred from the South Carolina State Convention, Mary Cheney was absent from the closing night stage of the Convention because her life partner posed a photo-op problem, and a closeted gay man is now the new RNC Chair.

Greg, you apparently know your Democratic Party as well as you know your Republican Party.

Bert

We could well argue about why WE THINK the Republicans have not captured the center, but they clearly have, no matter what we think. Bush won by a clear majority of the votes in America. Republicans control the House and the Senate, as well as a majority of the governorships in the U.S. If the U.S. vote was a pie, the Republicans get more than half. That means they control more of the center than Democrats do. The proof is included in the statement. It is a tautology. That is all the evidence anyone needs. Anything else is just commentary or wishful thinking. (I will stop all the redundancy now)

Don’t assume that your candidate’s positions are going to make the difference. “In a competitive political climate,” as one article explains, “informed citizens may vote for a candidate based on issues. However, uninformed or undecided voters will often choose the candidate whose name and packaging are most memorable. To make sure your candidate has that ‘top-of-mind’ voter awareness, a powerful logo is the best place to start.”

——————————————-

From the book: “Winning Elections: Political Campaign Management, Strategy & Tactics”

“Democrats (or Republicans) are not going to get voters to change their values to reflect their ideas. They need to build their platform to reflect mainstream ideas and values.”

Sadly this is not the case.

In 1964 the article “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics” was published by Philip Converse, in it he states:

“that only around ten per cent of the public has what can be called, even generously, a political belief system.”

He makes sure to point that most people are not stupid or irrartional, they know things, just not political things.

“When pollsters ask people for their opinion about an issue, people generally feel obliged to have one. Their answer is duly recorded, and it becomes a datum in a report on “public opinion.” But, after analyzing the results of surveys conducted over time, in which people tended to give different and randomly inconsistent answers to the same questions, “very substantial portions of the public” hold opinions that are essentially meaningless—off-the-top-of-the-head responses to questions they have never thought about, derived from no underlying set of principles.”

You take or leave this data, but I can assure you the RNC knows this, and leverages it to win elections. The DNC would do well to do the same.

Joseph.

Why do we need a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? The right’s answer that it threatens hetero marriage is completely baseless. They present no proof and offer only rhetoric.

The left’s argument is also based on rhetoric. Probably even more so, since the right has tradition to draw on. I’m guessing most gay people don’t even care about it, judging by the number of marriages in the states where it’s legal. Doesn’t it seem odd that we hear more about this from straight people than we do from gay people?

My personal belief is that this is an issue for the states (the legislatures, not the courts).

President Bush has stated on a few occasions, including one of the debates, that he proposed the amendment so the gay marriage issue could be legislated properly and not forced on us by the courts (I’m paraphrasing).
An amendment may not be the proper way to go, but at least it would allow the people to decide, not a few activist judges.

They have created a compelling atmosphere around the issue and attracted people to their cause. The left simply needs to figure out how to make their causes more compelling.

No, the republicans have simply taken the side of the overwhelming majority. They are not trying to legislate anything or force their views on anyone. The left are the ones with a cause, and if that cause flies in the face of most people’s beliefs and/or traditions, then it will not be supported no matter how you “market” it.

The left’s argument is also based on rhetoric. Probably even more so, since the right has tradition to draw on.

Sorry, tradition is not a rational argument. Prove gay marriage adversely effects hetero marriage. I want facts. The left doesn’t need to prove anything, we are arguing for equal protection, a basic tenet of our democracy.

No, the republicans have simply taken the side of the overwhelming majority. They are not trying to legislate anything or force their views on anyone.

Excuse me? They are trying to force their view of marriage as exclusive to hetero couples on the rest of America where equal protection reigns.

And remember American democracy is not mon rules. The majority should not use their power to undermine the rights of those not in the majority.

The left are the ones with a cause, and if that cause flies in the face of most people�s beliefs and/or traditions, then it will not be supported no matter how you �market� it.

Who cares what it flies in the face of. Justice is justice. The left doesn’t need the right’s approval or assent to pursue it.

correction: American democracy is not mob rules.

Joseph,

Sorry, tradition is not a rational argument. Prove gay marriage adversely effects hetero marriage. I want facts. The left doesn’t need to prove anything, we are arguing for equal protection, a basic tenet of our democracy.

I’m not sure what “equal protection” has to do with it. I assume you mean equal treatment? If so, the left does need to prove something: that most homosexuals even want it. Like I said before, there are very few gay marriages where it’s legal, and most of the people talking about it are heterosexual.
Tradition is a rational argument because almost all people (including most moderate leftists) like things the way they are. Unless you think we should throw democracy to the wind to support your personal view?

“No, the republicans have simply taken the side of the overwhelming majority. They are not trying to legislate anything or force their views on anyone.”
Excuse me? They are trying to force their view of marriage as exclusive to hetero couples on the rest of America where equal protection reigns.

Marriage to you might just mean two people living together. But to the overwhelming majority (yes, I said overwhelming majority) of the country, marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Up until a few years ago, that’s what it meant to everyone. Most people don’t have a problem with gay people, or even gay people living together. But they do have a problem with calling it marriage because marriage is something special to them. It has a meaning and a definition. It has nothing to do with denying “equal protection.”

Justice is justice. The left doesn’t need the right’s approval or assent to pursue it.

What about the approval of the center and the moderate right?

Which brings us back to the point of this thread. Saying “I don’t like your viewpoint so I’m not going to represent you,” is not the way to win votes. It’s that sense of elitism that turns quite a few people away from the left. This is a representative government.

“What about the approval of the center and the moderate right?”

I meant to say “moderate left” on that one. Sorry for any confusion…

At what point does a government have to against the majority to protect the rights of the minority. A majority of Americans dont need wheel chair ramps, a majority of Americans didnt want civil rights. The goal of a good democracy isnt to protect the rights of majority.

The fact is, most Americans want to include people, rather than exclude them. If democrats appeal to this nature, I think this can be a winner for them. The RNC stance right now is amazingly nevagive: more war, less rights. You can spin it down how ever you want, as we just saw in Novemember, but ultimatly, I think its a stance that wears people out. Bill Clinton and Reagon knew that a positive, hopeful message is a winner. People like sunshine. A message of equal rights and inclution is a winner.

The RNC stance right now is amazingly nevagive: more war, less rights.

I don’t see the repubicans as being against anyone’s rights.
Not everyons sees marrige (if that’s what you’re refering to) as a right. However, people have differing oppinions. This is one of the reasons I would like the gay marrige issue to be setteled by indavidual states, rather than the federal government.

[…] the left does need to prove something: that most homosexuals even want it.

Eh? Since when do you have to prove a minority group wants a right in order to endow that right upon them? Besides, if only two gay people want to get married, that’s enough for me. And it should be enough for the law.

Equal protection is simple. The law recognizes the rights of two people to enter into a civil contract which binds them in a lasting union in which they share wealth, rights, and responsibilities. When you single out a specific subset of the populace that you don’t want the law to recognize in regards to these rights, that is unequal protection.

What about the approval of the center and the moderate right?

Again, justice does not need popular approval to be justice.

Which brings us back to the point of this thread. Saying �I don�t like your viewpoint so I�m not going to represent you,� is not the way to win votes. It�s that sense of elitism that turns quite a few people away from the left. This is a representative government.

The right has done nothing to court my vote. Why should I advocate the left court theirs? You don’t hear any body on the left saying the right needs to do more to appeal to the coastal cities. Why do you think it justifiable to advocate the left must appeal to the “heartland?” Because we lost one election cycle? Sorry, the left is not as flimsy as you’d like to make us out as. The balance of Dems and Repub representatives across the nation is still fairly even. The turnout of the last election shows that there is a significant base of liberal support. Spin the “voted against Bush not for Kerry” meme all you like, the same can be said for Repubs who voted against Kerry and not for Bush (ala his 6% drop in popularity since the election). It doesn’t address the matter at hand and you are trying to support your position by pointing out how many people you think agree with you. These are logical fallacies. Logical arguments should address facts.

since when do you have to prove a minority group wants a right in order to endow that right upon them?

Because they are the ones it affects. Who are you, personally, to say it is their right or not? If it is a right to them, they need to ask for it, not you.

If only two gay people want to get married, that’s enough for me. And it should be enough for the law.

Some people want the right to kill other people. Do you want to legalize that too? Again, you’re basing this on your ideology alone. Just because you, personally, say something is fair or right, that doesn’t make it so.

‘Some people want the right to kill other people.’

Typical red herring. Im hesitant to even use time to write a response.

Arguing that two people getting married is the moral or ethical equivolent of murder is not only factualy and legally inaccurate, its also just plain offencive.

The right has done nothing to court my vote. Why should I advocate the left court theirs?

Didn’t we hear this four years ago?
And you’re not here to “court votes” with your ideas. You are here to represent the people’s ideas in government, not yours. Am I being too idealistic for you? Fine, keep loosing elections.

The “our ideas are better so there,” elitist mentality from the far left is hurting them. They don’t represent all democrats and they certainly don’t represent the people in general.
Kerry was much more moderate than the far left would have had him. Ignore it if you like, but there are more moderates in the Democratic party than far leftists and it’s causing a rift. As long as the extremists (or people perceived to be extremists) are in control of the party, there are going to be more and more people voting republican in national elections.

Arguing that two people getting married is the moral or ethical equivolent of murder is not only factualy and legally inaccurate, its also just plain offencive.

I did not say that. Read what I wrote in context please.

I was making the point that just because you say something is right doesn’t make it so. I was not making a comparing the two. I’m sorry if it sounded like that.

For the record, I am against gay marriage in that I don’t believe it’s marriage in the traditional sense, and should at least be called something else. That being said, I have no problem with a state legalizing it as long as it’s done legislatively and not judicially.

“The “our ideas are better so there,” elitist mentality”

But again, I submit, who is whos claiming this is the democratic stance. I feel like my ideas ARE the American ideas. My stance is that people whould be treated equally, and fairly. That the majority is the only important group. That needs of the Corporation are not more important than the needs of the individual. That government is here to help people, not control them.

And of every person I know who voted for Kerry, not one felt any different. The problem is that the RNC has effectivly re-cast us elitist, whimpy snobs. The goal of the DNC should be to maintain our core values, and go on the offencive to make sure that we are presented in the way we WANT to be presented.

since when do you have to prove a minority group wants a right in order to endow that right upon them?

Because they are the ones it affects. Who are you, personally, to say it is their right or not? If it is a right to them, they need to ask for it, not you.

I have nothing to do with it. Those rights not enumerated in the constitution belong to the people.

Some people want the right to kill other people. Do you want to legalize that too? Again, you�re basing this on your ideology alone. Just because you, personally, say something is fair or right, that doesn�t make it so.

Yikes. Let’s hope justin is wrong and you don’t think murder has any equivalence to marriage at all. Murder deprives a person of their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And no one is arguing for the right to murder. Your analogy is extremely flawed.

Now, you might be trying to insinuate the fallacy that recogizing gay marriage will lead to recognizing other incorrigible acts like marrying dogs or children, but it’s still a logical fallacy.

Prove to me gay marriage deprives anyone of any rights and I will gladly reconsider my position.

And you�re not here to �court votes� with your ideas.

No. I’m here to debate issues.

The �our ideas are better so there,� elitist mentality from the far left is hurting them. They don�t represent all democrats and they certainly don�t represent the people in general.

I’m not saying my ideas are better than anyone else’s. I’m saying that liberal ideas are as equally valid as conservative ideas. The tenor of this post and most of the sanctimony coming out of the right since the election is that our ideas aren’t equally valid. They don’t ressonate with the heartland. They don’t represent mainstream America. That we must reevaluate our positions in order to become more appealing to middle America. Whatever. I’m saying that’s bullshit. As far as I’m concerned, it’s the right’s way of undermining liberals, and it needs to be countered with reason.

Joseph,

Yikes. Let’s hope justin is wrong and you don’t think murder has any equivalence to marriage at all.

I don’t think there is an equivalence between homosexuality and murder. I thought I made that clear.

I was making the point that anyone can say, “I think it’s a right so let’s legalize it” about any issue. But your saying it doesn’t necessarily make it a right.

Prove to me gay marriage deprives anyone of any rights and I will gladly reconsider my position.

I never said it deprives anyone of rights. But it does make a fundamental change to something that most Americans, right or left, hold sacred. Since you’re the one who wants to make that change, you need to prove that calling a gay union marriage is a right.
I’m not asking anyone to change of their values or beliefs on this issue. You want to make the change, so you have to prove your side, not the other way around. If you can convince enough people for it to be legalized, I won’t have a problem with gay marriage.
But you expect people to support your views in this issue no matter what their beliefs or values are, and you ask them to defend their position. Therein lies the problem. Like I said before, simply saying “I’m right and you’re wrong” isn’t going to convince anyone.

I don’t think there is an equivalence between homosexuality and murder.

Yeah, I noticed the clarification after I posted. I figured since I addressed the slippery slope fallacy, too, I didn’t need to clear that up.

Since you�re the one who wants to make that change, you need to prove that calling a gay union marriage is a right.

Those rights not enumerated in the constitution belong to the people. I don’t need to prove anything. It’s right there in the constitution. I’m not changing anything in the law. Equal protection is for all, not just us heteros.

The right wants to amend the constitution. They have to prove there is sufficient cause for this. Can you give me any sufficient cause besides tradition?

And tradition doesn’t work. Slavery was a tradition. Marriage as a tradition is fraught with pedophilia, female circumcision, trading women as property, et cetera, et cetera. Should we bring all that back for the sanctity of the institution?

Oooh. Even better. Marriage as statecraft, there’s a long tradition of that, too. We could have married one of Bush’s daughters to one of Saddam’s sons and made peace. ;)

Joseph already made this point, but I like to hear myself speak so:

“Since you’re the one who wants to make that change, you need to prove that calling a gay union marriage is a right.”

This is EXACTLY why this is in the courts. What you like to call ‘activist judges’ (an absolutely outstanding bit of copy writing and marketing I might add) are, in fact, interpreting the existing laws. In their view, these law either allow for gay marriage, by not expressly banning it, or are unconstitutional. You may disagree with their findings, but this in fact what a judges job is. Based on that, the burden is on those who want to restrict rights to prove that the restriction is necessary. This is no different that the ‘activist judges’ who rules separate but equal was unconstitutional. The tradition was for segregation, most people wanted segregation. Black people HAD drinking fountains, just not the same ones.

Joseph,

Those rights not enumerated in the constitution belong to the people.

Actually, it says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -Ammendment X

The right wants to amend the constitution. They have to prove there is sufficient cause for this. Can you give me any sufficient cause besides tradition?
Why are you asking me? I already told you I don’t support an ammendment. I think this is a state issue since, as you pointed out, marrige is not mentioned in the constitution.

Marriage as a tradition is fraught with pedophilia, female circumcision, trading women as property, et cetera, et cetera.

You’ll have to speak for yourself on that one. None of the married Americans I know practice these things.

Well, it sounds like you’re bored with this debate.

I wasn’t quoting the constitution, hence, no quotes.

Why am I asking you? Fine, it’s an issue for each state to decide if they want to incorporate bigotry against gays into their constitution. Can you substantiate any of these claims against gay marriage, without using tradition, to justify states creating unequal implementation of law?

And you must realize that when one state produces legislation that restricts equal protection in matters that can potentially span across states’ borders that the SCOTUS will eventually get involved.

You’ll have to speak for yourself on that one. None of the married Americans I know practice these things.

Please. I’m making a point about the tradition of marriage. Do you even know how long people have been getting married? Your futile attempt to associate me with those marriage traditions I listed is asinine. My point was completely valid. I would prefer you address the point or ignore it rather than try to insult me with such asshattery.

So do you deny the tradition argument now?

Can you substantiate any of these claims against gay marriage, without using tradition, to justify states creating unequal implementation of law?

I already told you I’m not trying to prove anything or change anyone’s viewpoint. I’m not trying to outlaw gay marriage or get it passed.

And I don’t want to change your opinion. I’m simply trying to explain (not very well, I guess) why most people don’t agree with you. Plus, I’m not quite sure why you think not calling a gay union a marriage is bigoted…

Asshattery?! I assume you’re a farker? ;-)

My point was completely valid. I would prefer you address the point or ignore it rather than try to insult me with such asshattery.

That was insulting? You’re easily annoyed.
Seriously, I did address the point. Married people just don’t do that kind of things you talked about here in America. They never have.

Greg:
“Adrienne, Que? Mi no comprende.”

I asked, (in my poor Italian) why should liberals respond to questions of transparent disrespect from those who’ll always dismiss their views as incorrect?
I said that because I just don’t believe in the pretense of people on the right acting like they are curious about the Left’s thoughts on this topic. I think it is actually just an excuse for them to say a lot of derogatory things.

But for the benefit of my liberal friends here, I’ll make a comment.
I agree with the idea that it is just a matter of marketing.
What we really need is a mantra almost as simplistic as “Got Milk?” or “Eat Fresh!” or “Just Do It!” in order to get through to the “heartland folk”.
Since the Republican’s do nothing but lie, cheat, steal, and mismanage, I think we should concentrate on getting these basic ideas across with a catchy, folksy, pithy slogan that also conveys the idea that the left wants a return to honesty and prosperity for the common people.

Adrienne -

I was going to suggest ‘Need some wood?’ as our new slogan. But damn those republicans, they took that too! They’re sneeky like that.

Adrienne,

I have some slogans for the Democrats:

“BUSH LIED!”
Wait, that one didn’t work.

“FIRE RUMSFELD!”
Didn’t work either.

“WRONG WAR, WRONG PLACE, WRONG TIME”
To flip-flopish

“WE WANT A RECOUNT”
Worked but didn’t help.

“I… HAVE… A PLAN”
LOL

Wow, this marketing thing is harder than I thought…

Justin,
“You forgot Poland” is taken as well. ;-)

Asshattery?! I assume you’re a farker?

I don’t think so. Is that another discussion site?

Married people just don�t do that kind of things you talked about here in America. They never have.

As far as I’ve heard, the right is harping on the thousands of years of history behind the tradition of marriage as their justification for their bigoted agenda against gay marriage. The USA hasn’t been around a few thousand years so they must be referring to the entire history of marriage, not just the last 200 some odd years on a portion of the American continent. Maybe you should send them a memo telling them they need to focus on the American Christian tradition of marriage and dispense with the rest of those few thousand years of tradition. Otherwise, it’s marketing distortions, as I said.

Plus, I’m not quite sure why you think not calling a gay union a marriage is bigoted.

Simple, because marriage is the only legal mechanism we have to create such a union between two persons. Any two capable persons should be allowed by law to enter into such a contract. To exclude any person from such a contract for any reason other than legal fitness is likely not based on fact but on some subjective opinion of the person or aspects of the person unrelated to their ability to enter into the contract. Since there is no logical reason to deny homosexuals from engaging in this legal activity, then the obvious reason must be because of their sexual orientation. Judging the fitness of a subset of the American populace based on their sexual orientation is bigotry.

Jack-
We must not base our political calculations on accepting defeat. That is a base and servile way of trying to return to political power. Events now unfold at a blistering pace, and the time for Democrats to act politically is now.

America has moved right because certain assumptions have shifted. Unfortunately for the Republicans and their political allies, that shift in assumptions is as much of an expression of moral relativism and license as is the sexual revolution and the youth culture of today. In fact, there are powerful links between them.

Why else do conservative interests defend the fast food culture, raining derision down on “liberal snobs” who try to get people to eat healthier? Why else have they taken the side of the cigarette makers time and again. Why else do they side again and again with those who steal from investors and cheat them? Why is their continual war-cry deregulation and shrunken government.

The modern Republican Party is no force for moral order, but instead a party of moral decay. How else are they willing to accept the deceptions and the incompetence of the current stages in the War on Terrorism? How else could they justify it, with so much on the line?

What we need is a movement from within both parties to progress towards a greater sense of moral and ethical duty. Our times make this imperative. We cannot afford weak-willed and weak-minded leadership any longer.

What’s crippled the Democrats over the years, in my opinion, is the unwillingness of the leadership to take a side against the Reagan Republicans and draw the line, in both rhetoric and action. The Democrats have tried to shift to satisfy the masses that have moved in conservatives favor, only to reinforce the very kind of philosophies and ideologies that are inimical to the message our party gains it’s best advantages from.

Now is the perfect time to turn the tide, for the evidence of the Republican’s failure is everywhere. This is the twilight of the Reagan Revolution.

Joseph Briggs, well said! I totally agree.

Stephen, as usual, you have given me a lot of food for thought with your last post. A few things I’d like to respond to:

“raining derision down on “liberal snobs”“

Yes, this is exactly why I feel our biggest problem is with marketing. They have used nothing but derision to defeat the liberal message - and it is time to use those very same tactics on them. This should be very easy to do since all they do is use meaningless catchphrases and taglines for everything.
A few examples:
Clear Skies Initiative = more pollution.
No Child Left Behind = no money for public education, Operation Iraqi Freedom= complete destruction of Iraqi society, torture of prisoners, foreign occupiers more concerned with protecting oil interests than people.
Mission Accomplished= little accomplished and the worst is yet to come.

Our messages and goals need not change - they’ve always been good, decent and honest messages and goals - we only need to counter their rain of derision with a new delivery that will expose their deceptions and unmask their shameful policies.
Honestly, I think we need help from Madison Avenue.

“The modern Republican Party is no force for moral order, but instead a party of moral decay. How else are they willing to accept the deceptions and the incompetence of the current stages in the War on Terrorism? How else could they justify it, with so much on the line?”

You are so right in this. For all the “values” talk, they show very little understanding of what the word morality really means.

“What’s crippled the Democrats over the years, in my opinion, is the unwillingness of the leadership to take a side against the Reagan Republicans and draw the line, in both rhetoric and action. The Democrats have tried to shift to satisfy the masses that have moved in conservatives favor, only to reinforce the very kind of philosophies and ideologies that are inimical to the message our party gains it’s best advantages from.”

I agree. And what you describe here is the very reason I now vote Green in everything save the Presidential Elections. As an honest liberal I didn’t want to endorse “Republican Lite” policies.

Thanks Adrienne for clarifying that.

I agree the Dems need better marketing skills. I believe the Reps are turning to the actors among them since Reagan. Every American loves a cowboy.

What I feel the Left needs is a John Wayne ala The Man who Killed Liberty Valance. Flawed but basically decent. This is what sells to middle America.

Bert, I don’t think the left has flawed values. I don’t think the right has flawed values. I think it’s a staging issue. As evidence, I give you the election in 2004.

Many of the issues, (i.e. Gay Marriage, War in Iraq, Ecology, Exporting Jobs, Privatization, Health Care, Etc.) can be validly sold from the left perspective, but with a no nonsense Marlboro Man selling it.

It may be a sad statement on the general publics ability to evaluate issues, but at least since Reagan, I believe its true.

Joseph,

> Plus, I’m not quite sure why you think not calling a gay union a marriage is bigoted.
Simple, because marriage is the only legal mechanism we have to create such a union between two persons. Any two capable persons should be allowed by law to enter into such a contract. To exclude any person from such a contract for any reason other than legal fitness is likely not based on fact but on some subjective opinion of the person or aspects of the person unrelated to their ability to enter into the contract. Since there is no logical reason to deny homosexuals from engaging in this legal activity, then the obvious reason must be because of their sexual orientation. Judging the fitness of a subset of the American populace based on their sexual orientation is bigotry.

I’d be very interested to know what your personal definition of marriage is. Because if it’s nothing more than a contractual agreement to you, as you seem to be inferring, why can’t they just sign a legally binding contract? Why does it have to be “marriage” in the current sense of the word? No one is stopping them from entering into “contractual agreements” of any kind. So where is the bigotry?
Again, I’m not trying to argue for or against; I’m just asking the question.

There is a website www.fark.com. That’s the only place I’ve seen “asshat” used. I just figured that’s where you got it from.

Marriage is a specific contractual agreement, not just any contractual agreement. It is literally a license. Restricting any class from this license solely on the basis of their sexual orientation is bigotry.

Just a little story of my childhood to explain my somewhat cynical view of politics and the perceptions of the public.

In sixth grade our teacher decided to hold a class president election. The parties quickly divided along girls and boys line. David was the guys candidate and Cheryl was the girls. Cheryl was much more interested in participating in leadership. David wanted to be popular. I became David’s campaign chairman.

After a few rounds of speeches and debates the teacher intervened after David stumbled through a speech I had written, and pronounced that the canditate must write their own speeches.

We quickly corrupted the game as I went into stealth mode and altered my writing sytle to match David’s speech style, ignoring the teacher’s rule.

We did polling and the fact that there were more girls in the class than boys meant we had to sway some girls. The class was becoming bored with the speeches and saw the politics as phoney and meaningless.

I came up with an idea to create a suggestion box so the class would have a voice in selecting field trips destinations. I gave them something concrete to effect their lives. We swung the vote and won the election.

After the election David lost interest did not want to sacrifice his recess time for meetings and such. Cheryl would have clearly been the better choice, but BS won the day. The teacher was more effective in teaching me the reality of elections than she probably knew. Growing beyond the age of twelve hasn’t shown me anything much different in the real world.

Joseph,

Marriage is a specific contractual agreement, not just any contractual agreement. It is literally a license. Restricting any class from this license solely on the basis of their sexual orientation is bigotry.

I’m still not understanding you. Anyone can enter into any contractual agreement without a license. As it stands now, nobody is ristricting them from doing anything or entering into any agreement. What (to you) separates marriage from other contractual agreements? What is the specific thing that separates two people signing a contract from a “liscenced” marriage?

You do realize that marriage is a specific license, right? What differentiates it from other contracts and licenses is that it is specifically a marriage license. You could read this. (The linked article mentions the ruling in Hawaii regarding same-sex marriage in 1996, which was fought with vigor (and lot of money) by the LDS Church (the Mormons) and brought up questions of their tax free status. The issue was of course prominent here in Utah at the time.)

It seems like you’re insinuating that we should just create some kind of a ghetto contract for gays who wish to enjoy the benefits of marriage. If such a ghetto contract would hold the equivalent status and benefits of marriage then why not just allow them a marriage license? For semantic reasons? Not only is this ridiculous and wasteful, it’s bigoted, as I have explained. There is no reason for it other than some pretentious, self-righteous sense of ownership of an institution that belongs to all people.

Joseph,

I have to get going to be with my family, but I promise I’ll read your link and respond to your post over the weekend.

Greg:
“Every American loves a cowboy.
What I feel the Left needs is a John Wayne ala The Man who Killed Liberty Valance. Flawed but basically decent. This is what sells to middle America.”

You’re probably right - but I’m so sick of the aw shucks, I’m nothin’ but a simple cowboy routine!
But then, what do I know? I’ve always adored men who were smart and slightly geeky, with wicked senses of humor.

What about a woman at long last?
Q. Who grew up dirt poor, but struck it rich by her own hard work and undeniable charisma - who is also smart, strong and wonderfully compassionate?
A. Oprah Winfrey!

I bet she’d even beat out John McCain, don’t you agree?

Adrienne

I thought you were talking about Condoleeza Rice. She would be hailed as having the perfect bio if she were only a Democrat.