counter statistics

Saturday, April 04, 2009

More Unpleasantness in the CD 6 GOP Deputy Chair Race

Andy Applikowski is running for this position and reports.

I’m not surprised, my opponent in this race is on the State Executive Committee and I am hearing that at the last meeting, it was ugly. So ugly they had it behind closed doors and no one will talk about what happened. We already know that the Party has threatened to sue some great conservatives. All because the party had “salted” a list to entrap someone in this party. Yeah, our own party “allegedly” gave someone a list that had intentional fictitious names and addresses in it so they could track who ended up using the list.

Our party intentionally gave someone a list they knew was bogus and all to set someone up for a fall.

Why in the heck is our party so damn good at trying to punish and demonize our own? Why are some people so dang skilled at destroying or setting up people in their own party? My goodness, no wonder the DFL is kicking our butts in elections, our party’s Executive Director is actually wasting time writing contracts about us not talking to each other.

That’s why I am running for State Executive Committee, because this is the crap our party is focused on. Instead of focussing on a message, or unifying the party, or correcting some fundamental flaws in our operations, we’re determined to …… well, what am I to assume? Sue our own people or seal their lips. Put on the blindfold everyone, you’re in the Republican party now baby.

Will I sign a new a correct contract if sent a new one? Right now, I’m inclined to say no. What are the people in power afraid of?

Well, I will answer that for them. Yes, yes they are afraid of me winning, because this type of crap is BullShit and I wouldn’t sit back and let this fly. We need to clean house in this party. If this is what our Executive Committee is up to, things may be far worse then I had expected.

This sounds rather bizarre but remember, this is the same party that sent out a CD asking people to sign-on in support of a constitutional amendment opposing gay marriage - then posting the information on an insecure website.

Tom Prichard: Holy Bully

Spotty at the Cucking Stool makes the case that Tom Prichard is a holy bully, and fisks his arguments opposing the anti-bullying bill in the state legislature. It's a post well worth reading.

One “link” you might want to follow is titled “Oppose "Anti-Bullying" Bill SF 971/HF 1198.” This one will take you to MFC’s polemic against amending the law. Spot will note just a couple of paragraphs in Pritchard’s Bull:

Unnecessary. Current state anti-bullying law requires all school boards to adopt policies addressing bullying in all its forms. Chapter 121A.0695

If the bill is merely redundant, what’s the fuss, Tom? Ah, but even the Holy Bully doesn’t think it’s redundant. Here’s the next paragraph:

Gives preferential treatment and status to homosexuals, bisexuals, cross dressers, transvestites and transsexuals – persons who have sex change operations – by singling out sexual orientation for protection. Rather than addressing all forms of bullying against all persons, homosexual activists will use it as "leverage" to promote acceptance and normalization of homosexuality, homosexual marriage and unhealthy sexual behaviors. One of its supporters, cited in a recent news story, said the legislation would give homosexual activists "leverage" with school districts.

****snipped image of language in bill*****

Contrary to the Holy Bully’s statement that the bill would “single out” the GLBT community, it’s only one listed for protection against bullying. In fact, you would think that the MFC would like the change.

Why is that, Spotty?

Because under the new language — that includes marital status — you can’t bully the sixteen year-old girl who went all wobbly on her Purity Pledge in the back of her boyfriend’s Ford. She had a shotgun wedding and is now back in high school. Without the new language, she could be taunted and reminded that she should be stoned on Daddy’s doorstep:

But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: - Deuteronomy 22:20

Wow, that’s a helluva thing to taunt anybody about.

Watch your tongue, grasshopper, but yes, it is.

In spite of the bilious Holy Bully’s strenuous — and no doubt remunerative — efforts, we still live in a civil society, and that society does not have to put up with it when the antediluvians want to get their jollies by making fun of other kids.

Go read the whole thing.

White House Backtracks - Adds Equal Language

- George Orwell, Animal Farm, Ch. 10

Pam Spaulding:

UPDATE (9:52 PM ET): That was fast. Kerry Eleveld of The Advocate just emailed that she just received a "corrected" statement from the White House that includes the word equal.

"The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal rights under the law."

Wow. So how many eyes in the White House were on this and they all "confused" or "missed" that significant phrase -- equal protection/equal rights? ROTFLOL!
Also, a note on what is really going on here. The president can hold whatever personal or religious beliefs he wants to, but he governs us under civil law (which he obviously knows), not biblical law or how he "feels". The only reason civil unions and DPs exist is because too many Americans conflate religious and civil marriage. Conceptually, they are exactly the same thing, in practice (and in our ingrained culture) everyone knows they are not. He knows that. This is about political will and political strategy. It's pretty clear that the president chooses to follow, not lead on this one.

Pam took the statement from the Advocate. A commenter on the Advocate notes:

Name: Paul
Date posted: 2009-04-04 6:21 PM
Hometown: kansas City

We need to begin to just ignore the WH on LGBT issues. The best we'd get from them that we won't loose any more rights. Focus on Congress. Spend our time and effort forcing them to pass the needed legislation to move us in the right direction. Pass a repeal of DADT and DOMA. Pass a gender inclusive ENDA. Once the legislation is on his desk, intense public pressure could force the president to sign the legislation. I had hoped for more from Obama. His inspiring letter this summer congratulating those of us who were married in California. Now I understand that there won't be any movement from him to advance the cause of civil rights for LGBT folks. Sadly, the best thing we can say about him now is that at least he's not John McCain. Isn't that sad?

I would be surprised if Obama would have vetoed the legislation. George Bush never stated clearly whether he would have signed or vetoed legislation to repeal DADT. This shows why it's a bankrupt political strategy to put all eggs in the Democratic basket.

Iowa Ruling


Full Opinion

Des Moines Register story:

The unanimous, 69-page decision maintains a church’s right to decide who can be married under its roof, but it runs counter to the expressed opinion of a majority of Iowans who believe marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.

The landmark ruling is guaranteed to send shock waves through politics in Iowa and beyond. With no appeal as an option, opponents say their only hope to overturn Friday’s decision is an almost-certain bid to amend the state constitution. But that path, which would eventually require a public vote, would not yield results until 2012 at the earliest.

Enactment of an amendment requires approval by consecutive General Assemblies of the Legislature — a General Assembly lasts two years — and a vote of the people.

In the meantime, Iowa remains one of three states in the nation, and the only state in the Midwest, where gays and lesbians can legally marry. The ruling takes effect April 24. Iowa has no residency requirement for marriage licenses, which virtually assures a rush of applications from out-of-state visitors. The ruling opens the marital door to an estimated 5,800 gay couples in Iowa.

A remarkable quote

“We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective,” Justice Mark S. Cady wrote for the seven-member court.

The Iowa Supreme Court decision, I believe, really threw down the gauntlet on this issue, providing an argument that wipes out/dismisses most of the traditional arguments against gay marriage.

The follow up will be interesting to observe.

Friday, April 03, 2009

Does Obama Believe Some People Are More Equal Than Others

Pam's House Blend has the White House Response to the Iowa Supreme Court Ruling allowing for gay marriage:

"The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive protection under the law."

Pam comments:

So, let's should be left to the states so that as gay couples travel across state lines, they are married, not married, civil unioned, domestic partnered...yeah that sounds like equal protection under the law. Oh wait -- the press release didn't use the word EQUAL, did it?

Can the President elaborate on this position with reasoning that excludes anything related to "God is in the mix"? The Iowa Supreme Court brilliantly torched using religion as an excuse to discriminate, so our Constitutional scholar president needs to come up with a better sham excuse. And as massaged as you know that short paragraph was, the omission of the word equal was purposeful.

I've never thought there was much difference between Barack Obama and John McCain on this issue.

There's some analysis of the court ruling here at Pam's House Blend. Dale Carpenter has his take here.