Posts tagged dazed and confused

The GOP’s War on Marriage

Thank you, Mark Sanford, for protecting the institution of marriage for us, the American people, against those evil homogays who want to destroy it. You, like many other Republicans, have been working hard over the past decade to prevent the full enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment — especially those parts about “liberty” and “equal protection under the law”.

I think my favorite part about the Republican Party platform is that it has nothing to do with, say, the evils of cheating on one’s wife or divorce. No, apparently the only — or at least the biggest — threat to marriage is same-sex marriage. But here’s the funny thing. The divorce rate in the United States is estimated to be 40-50%. Estimates vary, but the most conservative put the infidelity rate at about 20%. So, basically: not only is who I marry none of the Republican Party’s business, not only does it have no effect on anyone else’s marriage, but even if neither of those things were true, divorce and adultery would still be the biggest threats to the institution of marriage.

But I guess none of that matters to the Crazy Crusaders for Marriage. Let’s take a look at the hypocritical douchebags who go on at length about the “protection” of marriage against “them evil homosexuals”. In only the past five years, we’ve had Mark Foley — the crusader against internet predators who was actually a predator himself; Ted Haggard — fundy-wingnut-in-chief who apparently was down with hiring male prostitutes and doing crystal meth; Robert Allen — member of the Florida Statehouse and state chairman of the McCain campaign; Larry Craig — the Republican senator from Idaho with the “wide stance”; Bill Clinton — the “Democrat” who signed the “Defense” of “Marriage” Act while doing naughty things with a cigar with his intern; Glenn Murphy — the national chairman of the Young Republicans who got another Young Republican drunk to take advantage of him; John Ensign — senator of Nevada and fellow adulterer; the list really does go on and on.

You’d think that the massive hypocrisy of the Republican Party might reflect somehow on the legitimacy of their rantings about “protecting marriage”. You know, considering that they themselves are responsible for more damage to the institution of marriage than anything else. Well, I suppose that’s a bit of an exaggeration. It’s a totally legitimate argument to say that the 24-hour Britney Spears marriage and the other shenanigans which go on in Las Vegas are far more harmful to the moral fabric of this country than anything that gay marriage could wreak.

In conclusion: if the Republican Party leadership wants to prevent the “decay” of the institution of marriage, they should do a number of things: (1) pass tougher divorce laws; (2) stop cheating on their wives; (3) come out of the closet already.

Leave a comment »

More of the Homosexualist Agenda Revealed!

Apparently the homosexualist agenda is more devious than I previously expected!

Conservatives Warn Quick Sex Change Only Barrier Between Gays, Marriage

Leave a comment »

In New Jersey, Not Much in the Way of Choice

This article ran on the Commentariat, the opinion blog of the Columbia Spectator.

I decided to come home this weekend to spend some time with my family, see some friends from home, and vote. When I arrived last night, I saw my sample ballot waiting for me. I eagerly opened it up, but only to be disappointed.

This election day, I intended, with the exception of President and Congress (my congressman is pretty awesome), to vote a straight Green Party ticket. But I ran into a problem. The only Green candidate running was Cynthia McKinney, for President. For Sheriff and Board of Chosen Freeholders, the only candidates were Democrats and Republicans. In fact, for one of the Freeholder races (there are three), the Republicans didn’t even run a candidate.

I found this all profoundly disturbing, but I was not to be deterred. This morning, I began to research the various candidates, starting with those for US Senate.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (4) »

Joe the Plumber and His Precious Autistic Children

Last night’s debate was, quite frankly, the most interesting of the presidential debates thusfar.

This was not because Obama was particularly passionate, not was it because he excelled in any particular area. Rather, the reason was that, quite frankly, John McCain came pretty close to a meltdown.

Throughout the debate, Obama remained calm and relaxed — to use the words of someone else (I can’t remember who at the moment), “cool and professional”. Though Obama has consistently kept his cool during the debates, McCain seemed to get angrier not only from debate to debate, but, last night, moment to moment. At times, his panting and sighing was audible. Even his attempts at smiling seemed mean-spirited (a friend said he “looked like a shark” when he smiled).

Most of the material of the debate was old hat — in fact, some of the exact same lines were used in the last debate — but there was some new material. McCain brought in Ayers and the ACORN scandal, something he avoided last time (perhaps in a failed attempt not to seem like a dick?), but it wasn’t a major theme of the debate, and Obama dealt with both issues deftly and calmly. Overall, there wasn’t really any new, interesting material to be uncovered. So that brings us to style and rhetoric.

Here is where it gets interesting. John McCain was trying to capitalize on Sarah Palin’s folksiness, apparently, but failed miserably. Where he tried to be folsky, he was condescending. An undecided voter interviewed by CNN afterwards said that she found McCain’s storytime — a power so well-used by Reagan (too bad he used it for evil) — while touching the first time around, to be “gimmicky” by the third or fourth time. When McCain brought out “Joe the Plumber” my friends, with whom I was watching the debate, all started yelling at the TV.

One friend mentioned something that I hadn’t thought of, however: McCain was being male-normative. “What the fuck, John?! I’m not Joe!” she shouted. This, of course, was true. The Mac, who — according to CNN live-ratings — was pretty much despised by undecided women throughout the debate, most likely did not benefit from this. This is an age in which Americans need to feel “connected” to their president, and McCain failed horribly at this.

Working-class people, as well, I’m sure, didn’t appreciate John McCain’s discussion of Joe the Quarter-Million-Dollar-Plumber, either.

And speaking of condescension, let’s talk about the “precious autistic children”. Actually…that wasn’t really condescending, that was just creepy. Am I right, or am I right?

In fact, to prove my point, here’s a quote from an article about a CBS poll:

Debate watchers who thought Obama won the debate thought he was a better communicator and has a better grasp of the problems the country has to face. Some used words like “eloquent” and “confident” to describe him. In contrast, some said McCain was defensive and spent too much time attacking Obama – using words like “rude,” “mean,” and “caustic” to describe McCain’s performance in the debate.

By contrast, it seems that most people who thought that McCain won did not have problems with Obama’s character but were either “impressed by [McCain's] experience” or “concerned that Obama’s solutions all required spending money”. This indicates — to me at least — a less fundamental problem for Obama.

Sorry if this post is a little less than coherent at the moment, I just got back from (yet another) midterm, and I’m a little dazed.

Anyway, overall I’d call the debate a tie, if not a marginal win for Obama. But really, all Obama had to do in this debate was tie it, given the lead he’s already established. On the other hand, I’m beginning to be a little concerned with his dipping poll numbers: two days ago, RealClearPolitics had him with an 8.2% lead, yesterday it was 7-something, and today it’s down to 6.9%. If the Democrats want a Senate that can actually do something, they need to reach 60, and the only feasible way for them to do that is to get new senators coming in on Obama’s coattails. It’s now or never, really, because — if he wins — I doubt he’ll have the same power come re-election.

EDIT: Just some quick polls regarding the debate: CBS has a poll of uncommitted voters which has Obama winning the debate with 53% to McCain’s 22%. (25% said it was a draw.) According to this poll, both candidates gained favor among voters, but Obama simply gained by larger margins (overall, that is). Another website has already gathered the polling data for me. A CNN poll has Obama winning with 58%, John McCain winning at 31%. It also has McCain’s favorability rating dropping from 51% to 49%. However, Politic/Insider Advantage gives a much narrower lead to Obama with a 49%-46% split, so there’s clearly some wiggle-room here. We’ll see what happens, I suppose.

Comments (1) »