Are they suggesting the TPAW presidential race is Dead on Arrival?
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: MELISSA KENNEDY
Premature HRC Endorsement Undermines Fight for Equality
(Washington, DC) - Log Cabin Republicans firmly disagree with the Human Rights Campaign’s pre-emptive presidential endorsement before the GOP candidate has even been determined.
"By prostrating themselves before Barack Obama eighteen months before the 2012 election, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has effectively told the president that he doesn’t have to do anything more to earn gay and lesbian votes. Given his lackluster record in the fight for ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal, LGBT Americans were counting on HRC to hold the president’s feet to the fire on his other campaign promises, not to become a branch of his re-election campaign," said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director. "This endorsement also sends the wrong message to potential Republican nominees. There are several possible candidates who deserve to be fairly judged on their own merits, and the dialogue on equality issues for the 2012 campaign has barely begun. This decision makes it clear that Joe Solmonese’s greatest priority is an invitation to drinks at a Democratic White House, not securing votes for ENDA, DOMA repeal, or tax equity. Such a pre-emptive endorsement is a mistake and will undermine equality efforts."
Copyright 2010 Log Cabin Republicans
Blackbaud Sphere Grow v1.00
Log Cabin Republicans is the only Republican organization dedicated to representing the interests of gay and lesbian Americans and their allies. The 30-year old organization has state and local chapters nationwide, a full-time office in Washington, DC, a federal political action committee and state political action committees.
Posted by lloydletta at 8:49 PM
Posted by lloydletta at 8:36 PM
Monday, May 23, 2011
AAARF is tweeting:
I asked if @johnkriesel was going to leave #Mngop previous asked if others wld bail on him. Asking Qs not name calling @TwoPuttTommy
wgspoulos Bill Poulos
@AAARF I dropped lit for @johnkriesel and help raise PAC contributions for him. Not sure I would do that again. #hf140 #mnleg
11 hours ago
Posted by lloydletta at 9:30 PM
Sunday, May 22, 2011
My second recommendation: We know the precise constitutional amendment language the people will be voting on, so don't distort it.
Marriage has won in every state where the people have had an opportunity to vote on it. To date, citizens in 31 states have voted to enshrine one man-one woman marriage in their constitutions, including, most recently, the deep-blue states of California and Maine.
Yet very often, preelection polls in these states have predicted that marriage would lose. In California, an Oct. 30, 2008, poll showed the pro-gay marriage vote leading by 5 points. In Maine in 2009, the story was similar. Yet on Election Day, Californians voted 52 to 48 percent to preserve traditional marriage; in Maine the vote was 53 to 47 percent.
Why do polls consistently fail to predict voters' behavior? There are several reasons. First, many polls use misleading language. They ask people if they want to "ban" same-sex marriage instead of using the amendment language that voters will actually encounter in the polling booth. (In our state, that language is: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.")
"For years, the 'ban same-sex marriage' language in polls has produced about a 6 to 10 percentage point undercount on support for traditional marriage," says Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage. "If you want to get the least favorable result on marriage, this is the language you choose for your poll."
One reason for the undercount is that some people interpret the "ban" language as implying that same-sex marriage or homosexual relationships will somehow be criminalized or made illegal, according to Gallagher. The "ban" language also casts traditional marriage supporters in a negative light. It compels them to say they are against something, rather than allowing them to articulate what they are for.
Most important, people often hesitate to tell a pollster their true beliefs about marriage when traditional marriage supporters are routinely demonized as bigots and haters. (Katherine Kersten, Star Tribune, 5-21-2011)
This suggests to those who oppose this amendment ought to make sure to communicate, that this is a ban on same sex marriage (which is the effect of the amendment), rather than letting the proponents define the amendment and avoid the issue with "let the people vote" or saying this is about "traditional marriage". The other thing that will be important in this campaign is to get positive images of gay couples in advertising about this amendment.
In the rest of the column, Kersten whines about gay "bullies", all the while asking for civil discourse, stating that those supporting this amendment shouldn't be called "bigots". Kersten is great at name calling herself, but seems to have a problem taking it, when it is dished out back at her.
Posted by lloydletta at 6:03 PM
Read the whole thing here.
Posted by lloydletta at 4:41 PM