Open thread: Lugargeddon; Update: Mourdock wins; Update: Lugar hits Mourdock’s “unrelenting partisan mindset”; Update: NC bans gay marriage and civil unions; Update: Massive GOP turnout for Scott Walker; Update: Obama facing stiff challenge in WV from … federal inmate

posted at 5:21 pm on May 8, 2012 by Allahpundit

The polls in Indiana close promptly at 6 p.m. ET. If you believe the latest numbers, we’ll get a call sooner rather than later. How did it come to this? WaPo:

At the start of 2011, Lugar met with senior party strategists who walked him through the mistakes made by the likes of Murkowski and Bennett — and emphasized how he too was vulnerable unless he took a far more aggressive approach to the possibility of a primary fight. Lugar chose not to heed those warnings.

Instead, the senator seemed to believe — wrongly — that his situation was unique, that his connection to voters in the Hoosier State went deeper and was, therefore, tougher to break than those of his losing colleagues…

“Conventional wisdom is that he should have gone nuclear early, but that would have killed him out of the gate,” said one Republican strategist who has worked in the state and is sympathetic to the incumbent. “Indiana would simply not have accepted that from him.”

The other problem for Lugar, according to the source, was that there was never a clean hit available on Mourdock that matched the incumbent’s support for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), his votes on judges, nagging residency questions, and, yes, the friendliness between him and President Obama. (Lugar has been floated as a possible Defense Secretary in the Obama Administration.)

Contrast Lugar’s lackadaisical approach with Orrin Hatch’s aggressive backstage maneuvering to make sure this year’s Utah GOP convention was more favorably disposed to him than the last one was to Bob Bennett. The result: Lugar’s headed for retirement while Hatch came within a whisker of clinching the nomination outright and will probably win the runoff against Dan Liljenquist. Assuming it plays out that way, the conventional wisdom among Republican incumbents will be set in cement. From now on, if you see a tea-party challenge coming, you follow the McCain/Hatch approach and confront it proactively and expeditiously. There’ll be no more Bennetts or Lugars who get caught napping in the primary; from now on, everyone’s awake. I’m not sure how grassroots conservatives will counter that but I’d bet on a bigger role for outfits like FreedomWorks and the rise of tea-party Super PACs which can aggregate funds and launch damaging broadsides against incumbents before they’ve consolidated a lead against their primary opponents.

As for why a nice man like Dick Lugar needs to be retired, James Antle sums it up:

Peggy Noonan also stressed family ties when making the case for sending Lugar back to the Senate: “What Washington needs is sober and responsible adults.” Noonan didn’t disclose who the children were in this relationship.

But it is the sober and responsible adults who have accumulated a national debt larger than the country’s economy. There are two ways to demonstrate one’s sobriety and responsibility in Washington: to be as supportive of druken sailor-style fiscal irresponsibility as possible or to be as timid as possible in opposition to it.

Over in the Greenroom, Karl reminds Noonan that she seemed to have a handle on this logic not so long ago. Simply put, if you’re bracing for a brutal political war over sustainability in the age of entitlements, you’re probably not going to get much from a genial grandfatherly type whose tenure has seen more than $14 trillion added in federal debt. (Same goes for Hatch, do note.) More from Dan McLaughlin:

As I’ve noted before, besides the various ideological and cultural divides within the GOP, a core dividing line is over a sense of urgency to contain the runaway growth of federal spending and the reach of the federal government. It is difficult to picture Lugar and Hatch, as a pair of courtly octogenarians, having the necessary energy not only to seek what is apt to be a difficult partisan confrontation over these issues, but to put pressure on a president from their own party. And while Utah voters will surely be excited to go to the polls for Romney, conservative voters in other states like Indiana will need more encouragement – not yet another message that the establishment has shut them out. That’s good news in Ohio, where a fresh face (State Treasurer Josh Mandel) is on the ballot facing accused wife-beater Sherrod Brown; it may be more difficult to manage in some other races. And building a critical mass of such candidates (Mandel, Liljenquist, Mourdock, Ted Cruz in Texas, Jeff Flake in Arizona, Don Stenberg in Nebraska, Mark Neumann in Wisconsin, possibly a few others who haven’t proven themselves just yet) will make it easier to convince conservatives nationwide that even with Romney at the top, and even with some Senate races where we are resigned to moderates (Dean Heller, Scott Brown, Linda Lingle) or establishment-minded conservatives (George Allen), the party has not completely lost touch with the lessons of its victories in 2010.

Beyond all of this, on a gut level, the careerism evinced by an 80-year-old pleading for one more term in the Senate after serving 36 years is simply grotesque. (Again, same goes for Hatch.) I used to oppose term limits on grounds that the people should be fully free to choose their representatives but over time I’ve come to think the greater danger than slightly limiting their choices is letting a permanent political class calcify. If you want bold solutions to grave national problems, one surefire way to encourage them is to free politicians from reelection considerations. Give ‘em two terms in the Senate and, let’s say, six in the House and you might finally see some movement on entitlements. Might.

Here’s the Google Elections page for tracking results. Two other important races tonight. First, in Wisconsin, Democrats will choose a recall challenger for Scott Walker. Labor’s candidate is Kathleen Falk but Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is favored; the contest is bitter enough that a post-election party unity rally has been canceled, so sit back and enjoy as Trumka and his pals in Wisconsin fume. The other big contest is the North Carolina vote that would ban gay marriage — and civil unions. If the last poll is right, the vote won’t be close: It’s 55/39 in favor of the ban in a state O won in 2008, which helps explain why he’s keeping his head down on this subject this week. Gallup’s out with a new gay-marriage poll today too showing 50 percent support nationally versus 48 percent opposition, but the key is the demographics. Greg Sargent:

It’s been widely reported that Obama fears coming out for marriage equality because it could alienate culturally conservative Dems and independents in swing states. Perhaps, but sizable majorities of moderates and independents support it, making Obama’s stance all the more mystifying (though no one believes he actually opposes it).

That said, there is one other interesting data point: Gallup tells me that non-college voters oppose gay marriage by 56-43. This appears to include African Americans, but it also suggests blue collar whites — a demographic Obama has alienated and needs to win back — risk getting put off over the issue. (Incidentally, as Molly Ball points out, non-whites oppose gay marriage in almost exactly the same proportions as the rest of Americans do.)

That’s why President Gutsy Call makes his flack go out to the podium and give ridiculous non-answers like this. The polls in Carolina close at 7:30 ET. Stand by for updates, needless to say.

Update: Looks like the Google Elections link I gave you is following the by-now-meaningless presidential primary results. For Lugar/Mourdock returns, click here.

Update: That didn’t take long. Lugar’s Senate career is over.

NBC News has declared Richard Mourdock as the projected winner in the Indiana Senate primary. Mourdock defeated Republican foreign policy elder statesman Sen. Richard Lugar…

Looking toward the November election, National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said two weeks ago that “it will probably make it more of a contest if Sen. Lugar is not the nominee, but I’m confident we’ll hold the seat.”

Not such a good night for this guy either, huh?

Update: What now for Lugar, then? He’s eager to work for another six years despite his advanced age, but he hasn’t been a private-sector guy for a long, long time. He’s friends with Obama so presumably The One will appoint him to something. Any ambassadorships open? Forget Pakistan; I mean something less stressful.

Update: Go figure that a careerist would turn bitter when finally forced to answer to his constituents.

Of Mourdock, Lugar says: “His embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance.”

More:

Lugar: “Our political system is losing its ability to explore alternatives. … Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions.”

Jonah Goldberg joked earlier on Twitter that they’ll be wearing funeral attire tomorrow on “Morning Joe.” He’s only half-kidding: Prepare for a solid day’s worth of truly insufferable media navel-gazing about the “loss of moderation” and tea-party “radicalism,” yadda yadda yadda.

Update: Philip Klein sees the value in sending a message to Romney:

Any elected Republican that doesn’t pursue a small government agenda once in office risks suffering the same fate as Lugar. Had Lugar hung on, then a lot of people would have dismissed the Tea Party as a passing fad from 2010. But now it’s clear that the movement has been underestimated once again. Tea Partiers have a lot more staying power than skeptics expected.

With the Republican presidential nomination going to the ideologically malleable Mitt Romney, supporters of limited government have recognized that their best hope for advancing the conservative agenda rests on the ability to elect as many principled conservatives to Congress as possible. That is, lawmakers who will be willing to fight for smaller government even if it means standing up to a president of their own party. The more victories the Tea Party racks up, the greater the chance that Romney will be forced to govern as a limited government conservative if elected, even if his natural inclination is to migrate to the left.

Update: Very curious. Looks like the prepared statement that Lugar released earlier was much more critical of Mourdock than the remarks he ended up delivering. Compare and contrast. Maybe his speechwriters drafted something and he thought it was too bitter? Here’s the relevant passage from the prepared remarks:

He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it…

I don’t remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other. Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change. Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader.

I hope that as a nation we aspire to more than that.

Update: As expected, North Carolina’s initiative to ban all forms of same-sex unions wins in a romp. Probably won’t hear too much more about gay marriage from Joe Biden during this campaign.

Update: How’s this for a beautiful result? Count the vote totals — and remember that the Democratic primary was the one being hotly contested while its GOP counterpart was a walkover:

Walker’s banked considerably more votes than Barrett and Falk combined. Message sent.

Update: And at last, we arrive at the most surreal story of the night. I think we can go ahead and put West Virginia in the Romney column for November:

With 60-odd percent of the vote counted in West Virginia’s Democratic primary, a man named Keith Judd can make a unique claim. He has won a greater proportion of the vote — almost 40 percent — than any other primary candidate running against Barack Obama.

Who’s Keith Judd? He’s prisoner #11593-051, currently serving out a sentence for making threats at the University of New Mexico.

With 74 percent reporting in West Virginia, Obama leads Judd 60/40. Inmate #11593-051 may end up winning a delegate.

Update: Jon Gabriel tweets, “It’ll be ironic if Eric Holder ends up being Keith Judd’s cellmate.”

Update: You ready for this? Joe Manchin refuses to say whether he voted for Obama in the Democratic primary in West Virginia.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11 12

“I used to oppose term limits on grounds that the people should be fully free to choose their representatives but over time I’ve come to think the greater danger than slightly limiting their choices is letting a permanent political class calcify.”

Totally agreed – even if we have to start with a small step – say 3 terms for senators – something needs to be done. Surely in the entire state of Utah there is one individual more capable of affecting positive change than Orrin Hatch. That’s not even to say he has been horrible – only that there is always better. If nothing else apply business principles and just make sure that there are as few barriers to entry as possible. Keep it competitive – maybe give challengers a head start on the campaign season to offset the built in publicity that comes with incumbency.

stout77 on May 9, 2012 at 3:26 AM

I’d like to invite you to have homo or heterosexual relations with yourself. Your choice. Whichever you choose will not offend me.

That was such a lame offering that it didn’t even rise to the level of “That was so bad, it was good!”, like the “The Creeping Terror”, “ANTS”, or “Robot Monster” do. Let me tell you, that means it was really, really bad, so bad it would have better for civilization if the attempt had never been made…

I have ZERO problem with gays committing to a lifelong union with one another. ZERO. The only thing I, like many others, ask is to preserve the institution of “marriage” for heterosexual relationships. They are different and therefore should be classified in a different way. A marriage produces a family and perpetuates civilization. A civil union facilitates two people cohabitating. They may foster a family, but they can’t produce one. There is a distinction and a difference.

In the interest of being considerate of those who practice religions that hold marriage in high regard, its worthwhile to be delicate with their institution. Stop for a moment and consider the possibility that those who disagree with you actually are entitled to their religious liberty and rights as well.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 2:33 AM

It’s a rationalization to say that marriage’s only concern is with reproduction/perpetuating civilization, as many people unable or unwilling to reproduce have been allowed to marry without question. Since it’s also a rationalization to say that marriage necessarily has a religious connotation, people who use such inept excuses to justify their resistance to same-sex marriage have more homework to do.

Bizarro No. 1 on May 9, 2012 at 3:31 AM

I knew the next reply would be juvenile and petty when I wrote it.

No, you are free to do what you please within the bounds of your marriage. If you chose to drive a sports car no more than 35 mph, its still a sports car, even if it is capable of much more. If you chose not to have a family, its still a marriage. The fact that it is an arrangement with the distinct possibility of yielding offspring is what defines it, not the actual result.

You missed the bit about my aunt who is heterosexual and “married” to a man despite the fact she’s not capable of more when it comes to offspring. I don’t blame you for ignoring it. If I saw something that kicked the legs out from under my argument like that point does for the “It’s about the children!” BS then I would ignore it too.

The fact that it is a religious ceremony that the state co-opted for its own reasons is what gives religious folks the right to set the rules. It is a religious act, not a state invention.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 3:08 AM

You might be on to something here. Given how concerned you are with religious liberties and your belief that religious folks get to set the rules then that would have to extend to Unitarian Universalists who are accepting of gay marriage and have been performing ceremonies in the places where they are legal.

I admire you for taking this view. You seem opposed to the concept of gay marriage but you appear to value religious freedom enough that in the name of protecting liberty you’re willing to tolerate something you personally disagree with. It’s a mindset we all should have but that too few of us seem to.

alchemist19 on May 9, 2012 at 3:32 AM

Came on here right before bed – what a treat to end the night! That country club relic Lugar is gone in Indiana, teh ghey got a reaming in NC, and Walker’s looking good in Wisconsin.

Add that to seeing The Avengers earlier and picking up my guns later today and these are gonna be the best 24 hours of my life in a while. Yay!

Aquarian on May 9, 2012 at 3:38 AM

You missed the bit about my aunt who is heterosexual and “married” to a man despite the fact she’s not capable of more when it comes to offspring. I don’t blame you for ignoring it. If I saw something that kicked the legs out from under my argument like that point does for the “It’s about the children!” BS then I would ignore it too.

Didn’t ignore it, it’s a lame argument. Nobody is contending that the definition of marriage is that one must reproduce but you. I said, in a broad sense, it’s the inherent difference between the two relationships.

Unitarian Universalists who are accepting of gay marriage

alchemist19 on May 9, 2012 at 3:32 AM

As soon as there are enough Unitarian Universalists voting in elections to change the laws, gays are in like Flynn. Until then…

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 3:42 AM

I have an aunt who due to a childhood illness is unable to ever have children. If we’re restricting marriage to people who can produce a family and perpetuate civilization (I assume you’re referring to children) then should she also be limited to merely entering into a civil union? Or what about people like myself who are fertile but don’t want children? Marriage for thee and a civil union for me?

alchemist19 on May 9, 2012 at 2:54 AM

I used to buy this argument myself, but it really is quite a bit silly. The point of the legal component of marriage isn’t to give a special little prize to people who are popping out babies. The point is to have a legal framework that determines who is responsible for the care of any children that result from such a union.

The infertile couple might be misdiagnosed, or the condition might be temporary, or they might come up with some way around it. People like you may change your mind about children. This is not something the state can or should determine, though – from the point of view of any government that is not a full-blown North-Korea-style totalitarian regime, it is impossible to know either way whether you might or might not have kids in the future.

It is useful, however, to have a contract that says that in exchange for agreeing to be faithful to each other, the two spouses agree to care for any children they have, and the state agrees to enforce this obligation. This is, by the way, one of the main problems with no-fault divorce – the problem isn’t with people who want to separate amicably, it’s with the fact that there is no legal incentive to honor the fidelity portion of a marriage contract.

There is no danger that two gay people will have children out of wedlock.

You could make some kind of argument that a legally binding commitment to monogamy could be in the interest of society, from the point of view of disease prevention. I think that’s a bit of a stretch, though.

I don’t particularly think anything really bad is going to happen if gay marriage is legalized. Like I said earlier, I don’t care much either way. But this argument about infertile couples is just not a serious one.

RINO in Name Only on May 9, 2012 at 3:47 AM

As soon as there are enough Unitarian Universalists voting in elections to change the laws, gays are in like Flynn. Until then…

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 3:42 AM

How did I know you didn’t really go to bed? :-)

Religious liberty so long as you’re in the majority? I was trying to box you into admitting that was what you thought but I figured it would take a while and I didn’t think I’d really be able to get you to say it clearly but there it is right there. I’m stunned. Thanks for making it quick, I guess.

I’m tempted to delve into what you believe the point of the First Amendment is in a representative republic but I’m scared of what you might say.

alchemist19 on May 9, 2012 at 3:49 AM

Update: Jon Gabriel tweets, “It’ll be ironic if Eric Holder ends up being Keith Judd’s cellmate.”

More so if ends up as his girlfriend. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

DevilsPrinciple on May 9, 2012 at 4:16 AM

Came on here right before bed – what a treat to end the night! That country club relic Lugar is gone in Indiana, teh ghey got a reaming in NC, and Walker’s looking good in Wisconsin.

Add that to seeing The Avengers earlier and picking up my guns later today and these are gonna be the best 24 hours of my life in a while. Yay!

Aquarian on May 9, 2012 at 3:38 AM

Safe to say they took it in the rear.

The Notorious G.O.P on May 9, 2012 at 4:17 AM

The fact that it is a religious ceremony that the state co-opted for its own reasons is what gives religious folks the right to set the rules. It is a religious act, not a state invention.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 3:08 AM

You sound like an Islamofascist talking about Islam’s ‘divine right’ to previously relinquished territories. Do you feel you are God’s mouthpiece for marriage? Did George Orwell get some of his insights into the loony psychology behind dictatorial statism from listening to you?

The gist of your post: “Your vote, when we disagree, should not carry equal weight with mine, because I am the one who’s on God’s side; you are not. Do not ask me for incontrovertible proof that I understand God’s will better than you because, if you do, you will be responsible for the insults I’ll be helplessly compelled to launch at you. Democracy, you say? What’s that? Sounds like an anti-Christian concept to me!” Considering that you consider yourself to be a Conservative, your commentary is the stupidest I have seen on HA.

I once met a guy who explicitly told me he believed in master/slave morality, yet he said he was a Christian, too. You are as confused as he was. If this were the late 1770′s, don’t fool yourself – an oblivious control freak like you would be more comfortable under King George III’s tyranny than you would under something as unpredictable and uncontrollable as a democratic republic.

Bizarro No. 1 on May 9, 2012 at 4:53 AM

CONGRATS to the Indiana TEA PARTY!! Well done!!

ABO and replace Dingy Harry from his majority position in the US Senate!!

Khun Joe on May 9, 2012 at 4:58 AM

“I used to oppose term limits on grounds that the people should be fully free to choose their representatives but over time I’ve come to think the greater danger than slightly limiting their choices is letting a permanent political class calcify.”

Totally agreed – even if we have to start with a small step – say 3 terms for senators – something needs to be done.

You’re naive if you think the party bigwigs, who only get their power (and in turn hand out the money) from these “entrenched for life” politicians, will allow term limits to happen….

Don L on May 9, 2012 at 5:11 AM

It’s starting to sound like money or acceptance of the gay lifestyle is the main goal of these people. How are their lives any worse because they are not officially married? Do they love their partner any less by not being married?No, the agenda here is to push their agenda. Turn any social institution on its head no matter the result. (here comes the marriage/slavery comparison…)

Dongemaharu on May 9, 2012 at 5:12 AM

Wow those turnout figures in Wisconsin are amazing. THAT should have the Democrats crying in their granola. Add that to the Lugar BLOWOUT and it looks like the Tea Party is alive and well in America (even though you won’t find them blowing up bridges or pooping on police cars).

mitchellvii on May 9, 2012 at 5:31 AM

I happily voted for Mourdock, Walorski…and Santorum (yeah, he was still on the ballot). Show me you’ve got a pair, Mittens, and maybe I’ll show you some love toleration in November. Maybe.

Extrafishy on May 9, 2012 at 5:32 AM

The MSM will be spinnin this morning. Tea Party, what Tea Party? lol

dddave on May 9, 2012 at 5:51 AM

Walker’s banked considerably more votes than Barrett and Falk combined. Message sent.

Great. Except that when you add in ALL the Democrats combined, Walker’s down about 50k.

These weren’t 2010 election numbers, but unless there are some GOPers who did not vote concluding Walker was a shoo-in in the Republican primary (he was) or who crossed-over to vote for a Democrat, Walker’s not out of the woods yet.

englishqueen01 on May 9, 2012 at 6:04 AM

Who’s Keith Judd? He’s prisoner #11593-051, currently serving out a sentence for making threats at the University of New Mexico.

..this is what Holder’s justice department and Obama’s re-election campaign’s come to? I mean, I know The Pantload is trying to rock the college vote with that bogus student loan meme, but now you get sent to jail for cursing out an institution of higher learning?

“%$#@*!&%$*! Take take, UNM!”

The War Planner on May 9, 2012 at 6:13 AM

Great. Except that when you add in ALL the Democrats combined, Walker’s down about 50k.

These weren’t 2010 election numbers, but unless there are some GOPers who did not vote concluding Walker was a shoo-in in the Republican primary (he was) or who crossed-over to vote for a Democrat, Walker’s not out of the woods yet.

englishqueen01 on May 9, 2012 at 6:04 AM

..check your math again. I got 374,175 — and that’s if the 11K (R)s who did not vote for Walker decided to rebel and vote (D). The total of (D) only (of all their primary candidates) is 362,849.

Walker racked up 407,000 votes.

The War Planner on May 9, 2012 at 6:23 AM

Looks like Barry and Jimmah will be building a lot of houses together, huh?
Punchenko on May 9, 2012 at 12:45 AM

I doubt it. Barry has never done an honest days work in his life.

wildcat72 on May 9, 2012 at 6:23 AM

I happily voted for Mourdock, Walorski…and Santorum (yeah, he was still on the ballot). Show me you’ve got a pair, Mittens, and maybe I’ll show you some love toleration in November. Maybe.

Extrafishy on May 9, 2012 at 5:32 AM

..ya better vote for him, fishy, or he’ll come over and kick your asss. He’s stronger than you think, ya know.

The War Planner on May 9, 2012 at 6:25 AM

How did I know you didn’t really go to bed? :-)

Religious liberty so long as you’re in the majority? I was trying to box you into admitting that was what you thought but I figured it would take a while and I didn’t think I’d really be able to get you to say it clearly but there it is right there. I’m stunned. Thanks for making it quick, I guess.

I’m tempted to delve into what you believe the point of the First Amendment is in a representative republic but I’m scared of what you might say.

alchemist19 on May 9, 2012 at 3:49 AM

Hello.

I’ve noticed that you and I have been picking up on the same inconsistencies/inanities so many of the anti-same-sex marriage crowd keep repeating, from the same angle. I used to use a lot of those arguments, too, until about 10 years ago when one of my friends persisted in asking me to explain my anti-same-sex marriage stance in a way that made sense to her, and the more she got me to think about my answers, the more I realized how full of holes they were.

Marriage is not presently a religious institution in this country – people who incorrectly perceive that it is need to start realizing that they’ve been confusing the condition they wish the marriage-state relationship were in with the condition it is in, and they also need to start realizing that it would be better for all of us if they would put their focus on getting the state completely extricated from the marriage business instead of trying to impose their personal religious opinions about marriage onto others.

Bizarro No. 1 on May 9, 2012 at 6:31 AM

Wow. Dems and RINOs alike will furiously attempt to wish all of these results away. They will do their best to discredit them and rationalize the meaning away as they have tried to do with the November 2010 election, “Teddy Kennedy’s seat” and the previous slap downs they received.

The fat lady is clearing her throat.

dogsoldier on May 9, 2012 at 6:46 AM

..check your math again. I got 374,175 — and that’s if the 11K (R)s who did not vote for Walker decided to rebel and vote (D). The total of (D) only (of all their primary candidates) is 362,849.

Walker racked up 407,000 votes.

The War Planner on May 9, 2012 at 6:23 AM

I am pulling my numbers from here.

I show the following:

Tom Barrett 390,109
Kathleen Falk 228,940
Kathleen Vinehout 26,926
Doug La Follette 19,461
Gladys Huber 4,842

That’s a total of 670,278

Scott Walker 626,538

That’s a difference of 43,740. Less that the 50k I guesstimated, but still not a small amount.

Of course, if you notice, the Democrats’ total is about 130k away from the 800k signatures they (and the GAB) claimed were on the “valid” recall petitions.

englishqueen01 on May 9, 2012 at 6:46 AM

If you hung out around here lately, you would think that the whole country is in favor of gay marriage. Facts are stubborn things.

My take.

kingsjester on May 9, 2012 at 6:47 AM

kingsjester on May 9, 2012 at 6:47 AM

great take KJ!!

read it folks…boy are the lib talking heads clueless

cmsinaz on May 9, 2012 at 6:52 AM

cmsinaz on May 9, 2012 at 6:52 AM

Thank you, ma’am!

kingsjester on May 9, 2012 at 6:53 AM

..ya better vote for him, fishy, or he’ll come over and kick your asss. He’s stronger than you think, ya know.

The War Planner on May 9, 2012 at 6:25 AM

He would have to be stronger than I think, just to stand up.

Extrafishy on May 9, 2012 at 7:07 AM

Who’s Keith Judd? He’s prisoner #11593-051, currently serving out a sentence for making threats at the University of New Mexico.

The real irony is that Obama is apt to follow in the steps of most Illinois politicians and become a federal inmate himself before all is said and done. That is if we still have a justice system.

Happy Nomad on May 9, 2012 at 7:13 AM

If you hung out around here lately, you would think that the whole country is in favor of gay marriage. Facts are stubborn things.

kingsjester on May 9, 2012 at 6:47 AM

Not the real people, just the politicians who take money from gay activists and appointed for life jurists.

Not one of the 31 public referendums on legitimizing gay marriage in society has been by public will. Not even in California. The eight states and DC offer cover to sodomites through legislative action or court rulings. A much lower bar to reach if you happen to be a gay agitator looking to destroy society as we know it. Maryland where gay activists got a bill passed in the wee hours when they learned a key holdout had to go to the hospital (i.e. it passed the legislature by one vote) will ultimately be overturned if opponents get enough signatures to put it before public referendum in November (and they will).

Here’s hoping last night will send a message to those who lie and try to make this issue into some sort of civil rights imperitive. Nobody has been denied civil rights.

Happy Nomad on May 9, 2012 at 7:19 AM

It’s a rationalization to say that marriage’s only concern is with reproduction/perpetuating civilization, as many people unable or unwilling to reproduce have been allowed to marry without question.

Bizarro No. 1 on May 9, 2012 at 3:31 AM

To put it bluntly, marriage as an institution wasn’t made with them in mind.

Marriage is older than Christianity – or for that matter even Judaism, properly speaking. It came about because of society’s interest in making sure that children would be raised in a viable family structure, and that men would be reasonably certain of who their ofoffspring were.

Those interests haven’t changed.

The_Jacobite on May 9, 2012 at 7:24 AM

Its all good though NC, that LGBT tourism money is now gone.
 
libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 8:10 AM

rogerb on May 9, 2012 at 7:24 AM

What now for Lugar, then? He’s eager to work for another six years despite his advanced age, but he hasn’t been a private-sector guy for a long, long time. He’s friends with Obama so presumably The One will appoint him to something. Any ambassadorships open? Forget Pakistan; I mean something less stressful.

Despite what liberal cheerleaders for Obama like Peggy Noonan write, Richard Lugar is a textbook example about what is wrong with DC. The man is 80-years-old and has been a Senator for 36 of those years. He became a go-along-to-get-along RINO who was just as friendly with Obama as any President. He voted for TARP and a slew of other issues which leads to questions about his loyalty to the GOP agenda.

But most damning of all and the reason why I think there should be age and/or term limits. After 36 years representing the people of Indiana, the man was so much of a careerist he doesn’t even feel the need to have a residence in Indiana. That shows the kind of arrogance that deserves to be beaten back by the real sober adults not the ones supported by partisan morons like Peggy Noonan.

Happy Nomad on May 9, 2012 at 7:28 AM

Marriage is not presently a religious institution in this country – people who incorrectly perceive that it is need to start realizing that they’ve been confusing the condition they wish the marriage-state relationship were in with the condition it is in, and they also need to start realizing that it would be better for all of us if they would put their focus on getting the state completely extricated from the marriage business instead of trying to impose their personal religious opinions about marriage onto others.

Bizarro No. 1 on May 9, 2012 at 6:31 AM

Unfortunately, marriage penetrates vast areas of the law – and it has since the beginning of the common law. “Getting government out of the marriage business” is not as easy as it sounds.It affects property rights; contract rights; torts and criminal and civil procedure rights; and obviously there has to be a legal way to adjudicate custody of minors.

It’s the children that concern me most of all. They don’t have much say in this. But they are entitled to be raised in stable, natural households with a mother and father wherever possible. Allowing “gay marriage” means giving gays the right to adopt and have custody of children, and that’s simply unconscionable.

The_Jacobite on May 9, 2012 at 7:28 AM

rogerb on May 9, 2012 at 7:24 AM

I would argue any tourist board raises more tourism revenue by marketing themselves family friendly than LBGT friendly.

Happy Nomad on May 9, 2012 at 7:31 AM

The LGBT Tourism Trade cannot amount to much. They are only 5% of the U.S. population.

kingsjester on May 9, 2012 at 7:33 AM

Unfortunately, marriage penetrates vast areas of the law – and it has since the beginning of the common law. “Getting government out of the marriage business” is not as easy as it sounds.It affects property rights; contract rights; torts and criminal and civil procedure rights; and obviously there has to be a legal way to adjudicate custody of minors.

The_Jacobite on May 9, 2012 at 7:28 AM

Not a point the activists want discussed as they claim that every homosexual is in a loving long-term relationship and would never consider divorce. Some on this board even went so far as to make the claim that gays made better parents. It is all ridiculous propaganda.

Happy Nomad on May 9, 2012 at 7:34 AM

The LGBT Tourism Trade cannot amount to much. They are only 5% of the U.S. population.

kingsjester on May 9, 2012 at 7:33 AM

I’d be very surprised if homosexuals comprise 5% of the US. After all it is 0% in Iran.

CorporatePiggy on May 9, 2012 at 7:38 AM

..check your math again. I got 374,175 — and that’s if the 11K (R)s who did not vote for Walker decided to rebel and vote (D). The total of (D) only (of all their primary candidates) is 362,849.

Walker racked up 407,000 votes.

The War Planner on May 9, 2012 at 6:23 AM
I am pulling my numbers from here.

I show the following:

Tom Barrett 390,109
Kathleen Falk 228,940
Kathleen Vinehout 26,926
Doug La Follette 19,461
Gladys Huber 4,842

That’s a total of 670,278

Scott Walker 626,538

That’s a difference of 43,740. Less that the 50k I guesstimated, but still not a small amount.

Of course, if you notice, the Democrats’ total is about 130k away from the 800k signatures they (and the GAB) claimed were on the “valid” recall petitions.

englishqueen01 on May 9, 2012 at 6:46 AM

Great. You’re harshin’ my mellow. I had been looking at the numbers in the post, same as War Planner, and gotten very hopeful about the recall election. Now I’m stuck hoping that the turnout will be better for Walker when he’s seriously contested.

talkingpoints on May 9, 2012 at 7:39 AM

How did this thread turn into gay-fest? Will you people get over yourselves.

Jaibones on May 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on May 9, 2012 at 6:31 AM

I try my best. Like you I came around on the gay marriage thing a couple years ago after my own failure to make an argument. It’s clear that marriage and stable families are important to society but I couldn’t logically derive any harm that would be done by legalizing gay marriage as heterosexual marriages shouldn’t be affected by them at all, so I admitted I was wrong and adjusted my thinking. I’m a big fan of liberty and when it comes to an issue where no one is going to get hurt then I’m going to err on the side of freedom every time.

alchemist19 on May 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM

I would argue any tourist board raises more tourism revenue by marketing themselves family friendly than LBGT friendly.
 
Happy Nomad on May 9, 2012 at 7:31 AM

 
+1.
 

The LGBT Tourism Trade cannot amount to much. They are only 5% of the U.S. population.
 
kingsjester on May 9, 2012 at 7:33 AM

 
Clearly you forget the economy-crippling boycott the NAACP has waged against SC for the last 10+ years /. Surely there are more LBGTs, though (/ again). And surely many of those LBGTs have been planning spendy vacations to North Carolina for years, right?
 
It’s still sweet she thinks that way, though.

rogerb on May 9, 2012 at 7:44 AM

The LGBT Tourism Trade cannot amount to much. They are only 5% of the U.S. population.

kingsjester on May 9, 2012 at 7:33 AM

I think it’s only about 3%, but that’s nitpicking. Regardless, this is not an “anti-gay” result. It’s “anti-slippery slope” or “anti-unintended consequences”. While I don’t have a problem with civil unions, the people of NC did and they have spoken. So be it. Perhaps they wanted to chop off that camels nose poking under the tent.

swinia sutki on May 9, 2012 at 7:44 AM

It is useful, however, to have a contract that says that in exchange for agreeing to be faithful to each other, the two spouses agree to care for any children they have, and the state agrees to enforce this obligation. This is, by the way, one of the main problems with no-fault divorce – the problem isn’t with people who want to separate amicably, it’s with the fact that there is no legal incentive to honor the fidelity portion of a marriage contract.

RINO in Name Only on May 9, 2012 at 3:47 AM

Unfortunately, marriage penetrates vast areas of the law – and it has since the beginning of the common law. “Getting government out of the marriage business” is not as easy as it sounds.It affects property rights; contract rights; torts and criminal and civil procedure rights; and obviously there has to be a legal way to adjudicate custody of minors.

It’s the children that concern me most of all. They don’t have much say in this. But they are entitled to be raised in stable, natural households with a mother and father wherever possible. Allowing “gay marriage” means giving gays the right to adopt and have custody of children, and that’s simply unconscionable.

The_Jacobite on May 9, 2012 at 7:28 AM

This, to me, is why this really should be a state issue, unless the states all try for a Const. Ammdtmt.
The state DOES have an interest in the relations people have between each other. Not the Fed, but the state.
The state has every right to manage such things.
That’s what the 10th Ammdtmt. is for.
If you’ve got people able to shack up willy nilly, have kids, sperm donors run wild, single parents who choose to be so in the 1st place, etcetera, you will have chaos.
And No Fault Divorce was at the head off all that chaos.
Marriage is a legal binding contract & we need these kinds of things to keep society ordered.
Otherwise there would be men & women waking up one day & saying after 20 years, “I don’t love you anymore” & being able to get away with taking the other spouse who did nothing wrong for half or more of everything they had together.
Sound familiar?
THIS kind of crap is why the state has an interest in the marriage contract & who can enter into it.
Bcs it is the state that ends up mitigating the battle that comes from the breakup through the courts.
And it is the state that has to enforce a spouse paying child support etc.
Bcs if they don’t, then the other spouse can run to the state & demand it give them bennies.
This is why the state needs to be able to say who can & cannot get married.

Badger40 on May 9, 2012 at 7:46 AM

To put it bluntly, marriage as an institution wasn’t made with them in mind.

Marriage is older than Christianity – or for that matter even Judaism, properly speaking. It came about because of society’s interest in making sure that children would be raised in a viable family structure, and that men would be reasonably certain of who their ofoffspring were.

Those interests haven’t changed.

The_Jacobite on May 9, 2012 at 7:24 AM

Okay, so it’s a good thing no one is proposing we do anything to change marriage for heterosexuals in any way; we’re merely letting gay people participate as well. Or is it your contention that legalizing gay marriage would cause heterosexual marriages to significantly decline in number or be in some other way altered that made them no longer suitable for raising children?

alchemist19 on May 9, 2012 at 7:49 AM

I’d be very surprised if homosexuals comprise 5% of the US. After all it is 0% in Iran.

CorporatePiggy on May 9, 2012 at 7:38 AM

So, since I’m a Conservative, I want to behead homosexuals? My beloved gay niece would be very surprised.

Get over yourself.

kingsjester on May 9, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Who is the democrat dick lugar?

tomas on May 9, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Obviously this is a difficult concept for you to comprehend. You can continue to insist you have a point if you’d like, but there really isn’t any point in continuing the argument since your position will never be supported legally.

NotCoach on May 9, 2012 at 12:54 AM

That doesn’t make an unconstitutional act constitutional.

Article IV, Section 1. “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

DOMA: SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:
`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.’

If you had a shred of intellectual honesty, you’d see that DOMA does indeed attempt to amend the FFC clause of Article IV. If you had a shred of intellectual honesty, you’d agree that the Constitution can only be changed through the amendment process. Saying that a challenge wouldn’t be held up legally does not have anything to do with the fact that DOMA violates the Constitution.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 7:52 AM

This place gets mighty interesting during the dark hours.

Bishop on May 9, 2012 at 7:58 AM

Bishop on May 9, 2012 at 7:58 AM

No kiddin’.

kingsjester on May 9, 2012 at 7:59 AM

Update: Philip Klein sees the value in sending a message to Romney:

Any elected Republican that doesn’t pursue a small government agenda once in office risks suffering the same fate as Lugar. Had Lugar hung on, then a lot of people would have dismissed the Tea Party as a passing fad from 2010. But now it’s clear that the movement has been underestimated once again. Tea Partiers have a lot more staying power than skeptics expected.

With the Republican presidential nomination going to the ideologically malleable Mitt Romney, supporters of limited government have recognized that their best hope for advancing the conservative agenda rests on the ability to elect as many principled conservatives to Congress as possible. That is, lawmakers who will be willing to fight for smaller government even if it means standing up to a president of their own party.

The more victories the Tea Party racks up, the greater the chance that Romney will be forced to govern as a limited government conservative if elected, even if his natural inclination is to migrate to the left.

THIS!

IndeCon on May 9, 2012 at 8:02 AM

..check your math again. I got 374,175 — and that’s if the 11K (R)s who did not vote for Walker decided to rebel and vote (D). The total of (D) only (of all their primary candidates) is 362,849.

Walker racked up 407,000 votes.

The War Planner on May 9, 2012 at 6:23 AM

Unfortunately the final results (100% reporting) was:
Governor Recall Republican Primary
100% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING
> Scott Walker (I) 626,538 97%
Arthur Kohl-Riggs 19,920 3%
Governor Recall Democratic Primary
100% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING
> Tom Barrett 390,109 58%
Kathleen Falk 228,940 34%
Kathleen Vinehout 26,926 4%
Douglas La Follette 19,461 3%
Gladys Huber 4,842 1%
This is from

By adding in my head (and that could be way off, I admit) it looks like about 20,000 more people voted D than R. And that really really scares me. Wisconsin NEEDS Walker to win… and this country NEEDS the unions to lose!

PackerFan4Life on May 9, 2012 at 8:04 AM

Sorry…. the link didn’t show up. The Wisconsin primary final results that I posted were from:
http://wisconsin.onpolitix.com/pages/319/may-8th-recall-primary-election

PackerFan4Life on May 9, 2012 at 8:05 AM

With respect to Gov. Walker’s recall election, this wasn’t the actual recall so wouldn’t turnout for the governor be somewhat subdued? If no, then yes the numbers are not good.

JAGonzo on May 9, 2012 at 8:15 AM

What’s the logic in NC for this?

profitsbeard on May 9, 2012 at 12:06 AM

If I was a betting man … Prop 8 in CA

a judge decided since they offered civil unions to gay couples .. they had to
offer marriage ….

if there are no civil unions being offered … then no gay marriage …

conservative tarheel on May 9, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Bizarro and alchemist, good posts on marriage equality.

One thing that directly applies from civil rights battles of days gone by is the fact that what we consider to be bigotry doesn’t always appear in the sort of stereotypical mean, nasty way. While some of the iconic photos show angry people barking at children as they enter school, the reality is that many of the ignorant weren’t so aggressive. I recall an interview I saw on some documentary where an upbeat, pleasant woman spoke of God’s intent with the races. That image has stuck with me as we deal with today’s battles over human rights anf equality.

McDuck on May 9, 2012 at 8:22 AM

JAGonzo, this was the primary. The Democrats had a far more significant race than Walker. So, basically running unopposed in a primary with lower turnout, Walker and the Republicans basically matched the Democrats, as far as turnout. Walker also handily beat the totals for Barrett+Falk combined.

As I said above, Walker is not out of the woods. But the enthusiasm momentum has to lie with the Republicans, who made an IMPRESSIVE show yesterday.

englishqueen01 on May 9, 2012 at 8:23 AM

In Wisconsin the Republicans really had no inherent reason for a large turn out. Republicans knew Walker was going to win the Republican side of this primary. It has to be shocking to the democrats that supporters of Mr. Walker turned out is such large numbers for an election which meant nothing.

A reality is the numbers from Tuesday means nothing when it comes to the next round of votes in June, but …damn….

DVPTexFla on May 9, 2012 at 8:29 AM

What a great morning. Love waking up to good news.

Prepare for a solid day’s worth of truly insufferable media navel-gazing about the “loss of moderation” and tea-party “radicalism,” yadda yadda yadda.

What kind of bizarro world do we live in when the citizens who want the federal government to not spend trillions more dollars than it has are the ones considered “radical”?

AZCoyote on May 9, 2012 at 8:32 AM

McDuck on May 9, 2012 at 8:22 AM

It’s quite helpful for you to provide that insight of how you see yourselves.

hawkdriver on May 9, 2012 at 8:34 AM

Any elected Republican that doesn’t pursue a small government agenda once in office risks suffering the same fate as Lugar.

THIS!

IndeCon on May 9, 2012 at 8:02 AM

Then I look forward to the Tea Party rejecting Allan West.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Welp, that was a total disaster for the Democrats.

Get to work MSM – more +12D sample polls, stat!

forest on May 9, 2012 at 8:44 AM

Lugar is a dick.

Pork-Chop on May 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM

hawk, I am not sure I understand what you mean.

McDuck on May 9, 2012 at 8:48 AM

For those of you that are a little disapointed in the Walker turnout…. let me state this.

There is a TON of people who had no idea that Walker was on the ballot. It has been in the news as the “Democratic Primary”…so normal people who are busy and dont get the news from say…620 WTMJ, had no idea Walker was on the ballot.

So to say the least, this is a surprise really that this many votes were cast for him. Well okay surprised of the turnout. His popularity is growing folks, this is why there is such a rush to get him out because IT IS WORKING! Heck, the CBA is so toxic, even the democratic candidates wont even talk about it. If Walker was smart, I feel he should hammer them on it.

watertown on May 9, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Then I look forward to the Tea Party rejecting Allan West.
 
Dante on May 9, 2012 at 8:41 AM

 
An interesting name to pick out of dozens of potentials. Why is that?

rogerb on May 9, 2012 at 8:58 AM

How did this thread turn into gay-fest? Will you people get over yourselves.

Jaibones on May 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM

.
They’re not going to miss out on an opportunity to advance secularism, any more than I’m going to miss out on defying the secularist’s agenda.

listens2glenn on May 9, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Then I look forward to the Tea Party rejecting Allan West.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 8:41 AM

.
Do you see it on the horizon yet?

Not a chance.

listens2glenn on May 9, 2012 at 9:01 AM

watertown on May 9, 2012 at 8:52 AM

I’ll wager many stayed home that will come out next month. The dems are in for another well deserved thrashing.

dogsoldier on May 9, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Lugar is a dick.

Pork-Chop on May 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM

.
Thanks. I needed something to start the day smiling over. : )

listens2glenn on May 9, 2012 at 9:04 AM

 
An interesting name to pick out of dozens of potentials. Why is that?

rogerb on May 9, 2012 at 8:58 AM

He had Tea Party backing in his campaign, and once in Washington, he voted to increase the debt ceiling and voted to increase spending (among other votes he should be tarred and feathered for).

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Its all good though NC, that LGBT tourism money is now gone.

libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 8:10 AM

But just think of all the “tourism money” they’re going to make with the Democratic National Convention being held there.

To quote Erick Erickson:

…Whoever decided to put the Democratic National Convention in North Carolina should be given a lollipop by the GOP for the intense level of comedic schadenfreude we can all now watch. The Democrats will convene in a proudly right to work state whose state Democratic Party is imploding due to a gay sexual harassment scandal, the state itself just voted for marriage by a margin few statewide candidates in North Carolina get, and twenty percent of Democrats voted against Barack Obama in the North Carolina Democratic Primary.

LOL I’m lovin’ it.

Flora Duh on May 9, 2012 at 9:06 AM

.
Do you see it on the horizon yet?

Not a chance.

listens2glenn on May 9, 2012 at 9:01 AM

I agree. The Tea Party has proven themselves to be nothing but sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:06 AM

LOL I’m lovin’ it.

Flora Duh on May 9, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Me too. The trolls heads are exploding too which adds a little awesome sauce to the news. This is shaping up to be yet another bad week for the dems.

dogsoldier on May 9, 2012 at 9:09 AM

PackerFan4Life on May 9, 2012 at 8:04 AM

According to exit polling 17% of the Democratic primary voters were Republicans.

NotCoach on May 9, 2012 at 9:11 AM

listens2glenn on May 9, 2012 at 9:01 AM

I agree. The Tea Party has proven themselves to be nothing but sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:06 AM

.
I guess that means we won’t be seeing you at any Tea Party rallies in the future . . . . . . too bad for us.
Our loss. : (

listens2glenn on May 9, 2012 at 9:11 AM

I agree. The Tea Party has proven themselves to be nothing but sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:06 AM

ROFLMAO at you. Dude, LOL I can’t stand it. Tell it to Mister Lugar.

dogsoldier on May 9, 2012 at 9:11 AM

If you had a shred of intellectual honesty, you’d see that DOMA does indeed attempt to amend the FFC clause of Article IV.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 7:52 AM

I guess you figure if you say the same thing enough times it becomes true?

NotCoach on May 9, 2012 at 9:13 AM

According to exit polling 17% of the Democratic primary voters were Republicans.

NotCoach on May 9, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Whoa! Operation chaos. If this is correct and that news spreads the dems will uh er um react like Liz Warren?

dogsoldier on May 9, 2012 at 9:14 AM

listens2glenn on May 9, 2012 at 9:11 AM

I’m tearing up just at the thought.

dogsoldier on May 9, 2012 at 9:15 AM

An interesting name to pick out of dozens of potentials. Why is that?
 
rogerb on May 9, 2012 at 8:58 AM

 
He had Tea Party backing in his campaign, and once in Washington, he voted to increase the debt ceiling and voted to increase spending (among other votes he should be tarred and feathered for).
 
Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:04 AM

 
As did dozens of others. Again, what makes Allen West unique in your eyes?

rogerb on May 9, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Some funny philosophically flawed stuff on this thread. Funny ! Here is a question for you flawed ones. What is Marriage? Heres one for you anti TP types. Are we dead? Funny!

Bmore on May 9, 2012 at 9:16 AM

ROFLMAO at you. Dude, LOL I can’t stand it. Tell it to Mister Lugar.

dogsoldier on May 9, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Ok. The Tea Party has been involved in their own party’s local primaries. Fantastic. We’ve seen the debt ceiling raised and spending increased since the alleged Tea Party wave of 2010. If they were interested in fiscal restraint and reduced spending, they’d be supporting Ron Paul. But they aren’t interested in those things – not beyond lip service, that is.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Dante, there are many reasons not to support Dr. Paul, one is his old age. He is simply to old. He missed the chance he had. He will never be President. Time to move on.

Bmore on May 9, 2012 at 9:24 AM

I guess you figure if you say the same thing enough times it becomes true?

NotCoach on May 9, 2012 at 9:13 AM

I’m still waiting for you to come up with an argument, or for you to discover intellectual honesty. That’s not going to happen since you cling tightly to ignorance and irrationality.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Okay, so it’s a good thing no one is proposing we do anything to change marriage for heterosexuals in any way; we’re merely letting gay people participate as well. Or is it your contention that legalizing gay marriage would cause heterosexual marriages to significantly decline in number or be in some other way altered that made them no longer suitable for raising children?

alchemist19 on May 9, 2012 at 7:49 AM

The point is that it is a profound act of violence against children to allow homosexual couples to have custody of them.

The_Jacobite on May 9, 2012 at 9:24 AM

The Tea Parties have managed to do what often would have been unthinkable in past decades. The only way to get a career senator with a war chest, media lackeys, bundlers and lobbyists in tow …. out of DC was feet first from old age or excessive living, or both. (e.g. Ted Kennedy)

Senator Bennett (don’t) call your office.

Senator Lugar (don’t) call your office.

viking01 on May 9, 2012 at 9:25 AM

 
As did dozens of others. Again, what makes Allen West unique in your eyes?

rogerb on May 9, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Besides the reasons I listed? His high visibility and name recognition.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:25 AM

In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party.

This is the plan, Dick. Here’s hoping you get over your pity party and not take it out on the rest of the country by continuing to push the law of the sea from the UN. Getting along with the dems is a losing prop. Hatch should be next on the list. Wake up Utah.

Kissmygrits on May 9, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Whoa! Operation chaos. If this is correct and that news spreads the dems will uh er um react like Liz Warren?

dogsoldier on May 9, 2012 at 9:14 AM

If it is correct. It is hard to say because I was mistaken, that number didn’t come from an exit poll. It came from a Marquette Law poll done on the 2nd. I am sure there was significant crossover favoring Republicans though since Walker was a lock for the nomination and Dems actually had more of a real fight picking their nominee.

NotCoach on May 9, 2012 at 9:28 AM

One little tidbit more about amendment one in NC…
when Romney fans are questioned about Romneycare in MA
they talk about a states right to choose and the voters decided
and all that .. and they are correct … MA choose their healthcare law
and if you don’t like it .. don’t live there ….
the people of NC choose .. and now a bunch of folks
have their panties in a knot …
same – same …. states rights
don’t want to live that way … move …

conservative tarheel on May 9, 2012 at 9:29 AM

His high visibility and name recognition.
 
Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:25 AM

 
I concede. I thought you were someone else. Enjoy and have fun.

rogerb on May 9, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Bmore on May 9, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Good morning. I’ve asked this question a couple of times here in other threads and on Twitter, but haven’t received an answer yet.

If gay marriage is as “popular” as the Libs and media keep telling us it is, why has it only been passed by legislation or court order? Because when it is put before the citizens for a vote – it has failed every time.

Flora Duh on May 9, 2012 at 9:30 AM

I’m still waiting for you to come up with an argument, or for you to discover intellectual honesty. That’s not going to happen since you cling tightly to ignorance and irrationality.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Yep. That’s me. Insisting that the Full Faith and Credit clause says what it doesn’t. That the courts have always been wrong in interpreting it. And conveniently ignoring and not quoting the second part of that clause concerning the federal governments ability to have a say as to what is required to be recognized and what isn’t.

So me.

NotCoach on May 9, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Ok. The Tea Party has been involved in their own party’s local primaries. Fantastic. We’ve seen the debt ceiling raised and spending increased since the alleged Tea Party wave of 2010. If they were interested in fiscal restraint and reduced spending, they’d be supporting Ron Paul. But they aren’t interested in those things – not beyond lip service, that is.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Um Ron Paul is a few fries short of a happy meal IMHO. Yeah the TP folks have to work within a fouled up mess. Still their collective presence acts to repair the damage done by a long absence of sanity.

dogsoldier on May 9, 2012 at 9:33 AM

The point is that it is a profound act of violence against children to allow homosexual couples to have custody of them.

The_Jacobite on May 9, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Wow

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:34 AM

stout77 on May 9, 2012 at 3:26 AM

I have a simpler approach.

Pass a law stating that you cannot draw a paycheck from the Federal Government for more than 30 years aggregate.

Nathan_OH on May 9, 2012 at 9:35 AM

I’m a Hoosier and I for one am sad to see Dick Loser go. I mean, Lugar. And I meant NOT sad.

One thing I must say, though: I do so enjoy the way guys like Loser, I mean, Lugar, and Castle and Bennett lose. It makes you say to yourself, What a bunch of crybabies.

MaxMBJ on May 9, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Um Ron Paul is a few fries short of a happy meal IMHO. Yeah the TP folks have to work within a fouled up mess. Still their collective presence acts to repair the damage done by a long absence of sanity.

dogsoldier on May 9, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Thank you for underscoring my point.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 9:38 AM

I guess nobody watches Will & Grace in North Carolina

Dollayo on May 9, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11 12