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 7 8 9 10 11 12

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Why on earth does a Canadian care what laws are passed in North Carolina?

Dr Evil on May 8, 2012 at 11:13 PM

I don’t deny the benefits of marriage to society. If marriage is beneficial then what’s the harm in letting gay people do it?

Why just gay people? Other people love each other too. This should therefore be open to anyone and any number. Undefining marriage means there’s no meaning anymore.

Dongemaharu on May 8, 2012 at 11:13 PM

The relentless onslaught of polls indicating that America is cool with gay marriage seems to have not worked in North Carolina. and as North Carolina has not foolishly allowed civil unions, which judges then rule against and make gay amrriage legal, see Iowa and California, expect this to be a template for other states not interested in gay marriage. I told a liberal that the backlash would be severe. When you can’t get it passed in California where exactly do you expect to get it passed?

Oh well on to the next headline link to a story about American supporting gay marriage by and even bigger majority…

Theworldisnotenough on May 8, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Playing coy doesn’t fool Texans.

Be open in your Craig James support.

cozmo on May 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Craig who?
Go Cruz!

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Give her a break. She hasn’t been in Texas long enough.

jazzuscounty on May 8, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Re: NC ban will have the same result as Prop 8 and some judge making law. It does not matter if they can they paperwork to file and try to remove the ban in court is already filled out.

tjexcite on May 8, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Accept that North Carolina is not in the 9th Circuits jurisdiction.

Dr Evil on May 8, 2012 at 11:15 PM

For all the mad bro’s about the NC bill….

*clears throat*

IT’S NORTH CAROLINA YA BIG DUMMIES, HOW DID YOU THINK THIS VOTE WAS GONNA GO? I swear, y’all’d whinge if a gay marriage bill failed in Mississippi.

Sekhmet on May 8, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Why on earth does a Canadian care what laws are passed in North Carolina?

Dr Evil on May 8, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Because he fears that the “Christian shariah” in NC will surpass that of the muzzies in Canada, or some such.

Schadenfreude on May 8, 2012 at 11:15 PM

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.

How rich is that?

LOL

Bitter Clinger on May 8, 2012 at 11:15 PM

jazzuscounty on May 8, 2012 at 11:14 PM

We’ve been here over a year. I know that Craig James has a connection w/ Tech and that he’s not well liked in Lubbock…and that we’re supporting Cruz.
*wriggles nose @ cozmo*

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Was there a Senate primary in Wisconsin today?

Mark1971 on May 8, 2012 at 10:45 PM

No. All that was on the ballot was the Republican and Democrat candidates for Governor (some 23 year old Democrat decided to run against Walker to “keep Republican’s from making mischief in the Dem ballot- good work there, he got Republicans to turn out all right) and then the vote for the various Democrats running for Lieutenant Gov- yes the Gov and Lieutenant can be split which admittedly seems bizarre but no one is running against her on the “R” side.

Betenoire on May 8, 2012 at 11:17 PM

HUMPBOT TIME!

I second that motion!

HUMPBOT!
HUMPBOT!HUMPBOT!HUMPBOT!HUMPBOT!HUMPBOT!HUMPBOT!HUMPBOT!HUMPBOT!HUMPBOT!

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Have you got family in N.C.?

Cindy Munford on May 8, 2012 at 11:17 PM

AcExcept that North Carolina is not in the 9th Circuits jurisdiction.

Dr Evil on May 8, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Lugar’s primary loss has me all kerfuffled but in a good way :)

Dr Evil on May 8, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Open thread, so let me draw an odd parallel.

I oppose the right of gay couples to adopt children.
I also have qualms about vegetarian parents’ raising their children from birth to be vegetarians, as well.

Here’s where they tie in: all the science I have read says that vegetarians miss out on important nutrients that meat provides, nutrients that cannot always be supplied adequately by supplements.

In my primitive way of thinking, if God meant for people to be vegetarians, either the human body would be able to derive everything it needs from vegetable matter alone, or vitamins would grow on trees.

If God meant for children, who statistically are likely not biologically gay, to be adopted and raised from near-birth to see two gay parents as their role models, without resulting in extremely confusing feelings at puberty, then he would not have made the *parts* fit together like they do. Going through life wearing two left shoes is difficult and ruins one of your feet.

Shoes are made in pairs for a reason. DO you want to encourage a kid to wear two left shoes?

And what are vegetarian kids to think of their carnivore uncle who thinks squirrel makes a good gravy? Is he evil? Life is complicated enough without adding additional complexity to kids’ lives.

I know there’s a gap in my reasoning and I haven’t completed the circle, but it’s the best I can do. That’s why the whole subject of gayness is an endless source of conflict.

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 11:12 PM
——-

You need to get back to following whatever tiny % of the Bible’s rules you currently follow. You do realize God is watching you every moment of the day purposely ignoring 90% of his rules, right?

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Hey folks, when was the last time we saw Mr. Frisky?

Was it Scott Brown?

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 11:18 PM

HUMPBOT!

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Allahpundit is “down with the gheys”, so he’s not going to be in a humpbot mood.

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Update: Obama facing stiff challenge in WV from … federal inmate

This isn’t hard folks. Unless the federal inmate is a mass murderer, it’s an easy choice.

VorDaj on May 8, 2012 at 11:18 PM

My mom and I are going with Cruz.

Sekhmet on May 8, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Sekhmet on May 8, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Seriously, if they banned in California, could N.C. ever have been in doubt?

Cindy Munford on May 8, 2012 at 11:19 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Definitely second look at James time.

CorporatePiggy on May 8, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Have you got family in N.C.?

Cindy Munford on May 8, 2012 at 11:17 PM

lol, Frank and Bobby.

arnold ziffel on May 8, 2012 at 11:19 PM

You need to get back to following whatever tiny % of the Bible’s rules you currently follow. You do realize God is watching you every moment of the day purposely ignoring 90% of his rules, right?

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Of the Commandments, I do better than 10%. We’re all human. And I don’t usually violate them on purpose. When I do, my conscience pricks at me.

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Obama would do by executive pen and SC appointments what the voters across the country wouldn’t…not only on social issues.

Schadenfreude on May 8, 2012 at 11:20 PM

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

Eric Holder deserves the royal treatment. Like them thar Frenchie aristocrats got. Anything else would be racism.

VorDaj on May 8, 2012 at 11:21 PM

WAY TO GO EVERYBODY GOOD JOB

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Yup.

You and your fellow antireligious bigots were finally put in your place.

Now go over to a board of Muslims and start screaming at them. Or are you too much of a coward for that, little boy?

northdallasthirty on May 8, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Go Keith!!

The Count on May 8, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Well, that comment disappeared. I was responding to Rywall and told him I do the best with the Commandments, I can, better than the 10% he ascribed to me and my conscience p-r-1-ck-s at me when I fail.

I think I know what word disappeared the comment! lol

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 11:22 PM

The relentless onslaught of polls indicating that America is cool with gay marriage seems to have not worked in North Carolina. and as North Carolina has not foolishly allowed civil unions, which judges then rule against and make gay amrriage legal, see Iowa and California, expect this to be a template for other states not interested in gay marriage. I told a liberal that the backlash would be severe. When you can’t get it passed in California where exactly do you expect to get it passed?

Oh well on to the next headline link to a story about American supporting gay marriage by and even bigger majority…

Theworldisnotenough on May 8, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Doesn’t matter. All it takes is one state to make it legal. Then, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, the rest of the states have to recognize those marriages.

Dante on May 8, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Folks who want same sex marriage can emigrate to Canada or wherever else it’s legal.

They are more than welcome to vote with their feet.

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 11:11 PM

They wouldn’t have to go that far:
MA, CT, IA, VT, NH, NY, WA

cptacek on May 8, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Yes, the Tea P is it, the bomb! For the libs to say the TP is done is ludicrous. I am all for the TParty, my only reservation is that we avoid unelectable candidates like C O’Donnell et al.
Tea Party 100% all systems go!

anotherJoe on May 8, 2012 at 11:23 PM

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 11:12 PM
——-

My sister-in-law is a single adoptive mother-and I don’t think ‘singles’ should be approved as adoptive parents. My niece is a cutie…who has no business with a-to us an old fashioned word-spinster momma.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 11:23 PM

HANG IN THERE KEITH……!!!!!

The Count on May 8, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Because he fears that the “Christian shariah” in NC will surpass that of the muzzies in Canada, or some such.

Schadenfreude on May 8, 2012 at 11:15 PM

The culture on the left is highly permissive if they don’t get indulged they are bound to pitch a fit.

Dr Evil on May 8, 2012 at 11:24 PM

The left are already berating the ‘dead’ TEA party as “racist”. Tomorrow s/b fun.

Schadenfreude on May 8, 2012 at 11:26 PM

My sister-in-law is a single adoptive mother-and I don’t think ‘singles’ should be approved as adoptive parents. My niece is a cutie…who has no business with a-to us an old fashioned word-spinster momma.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 11:23 PM

That’s a tough one. Some singles have cultivated such a rich cohort of friends, that they and the child will do fine. Loner singles are a different story. Still, unique situations do occur. Sometimes it just happens that that single person and that child, due to life’s circumstances, belong together. It’s got to be case by case.

With gay couples, though, adopting’s a line I think too far.

I hope I haven’t hurt any gay readers’ feelings. My opinions are not out of spite. I just think it provides optimum health for a child to be with the most mainstream lifestyle possible.

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Was there a Senate primary in Wisconsin today?

Mark1971 on May 8, 2012 at 10:45 PM

er, State Senate? Yes, it just wasn’t in my part of the state but looking at an update one went through and so there will be an election for that as well coming up.

Betenoire on May 8, 2012 at 11:27 PM

In WI there were some state senate primaries tonight. Dem against Dem except that in a couple cases the Dem was a Republican running as a Dem to muck up the election. Did any of those GOP-dems win?

Dasher on May 8, 2012 at 11:29 PM

Doesn’t matter. All it takes is one state to make it legal. Then, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, the rest of the states have to recognize those marriages.

Dante on May 8, 2012 at 11:22 PM

You’re 100% correct, just like my concealed carry license is valid in NYC, DC, Chicago, LA and all of the other 57 states, right?

Oh – what’s that you say? You don’t like that whole “full faith and credit” thingy when it comes to conservative policies, eh?

CycloneCDB on May 8, 2012 at 11:30 PM

er, State Senate? Yes, it just wasn’t in my part of the state but looking at an update one went through and so there will be an election for that as well coming up.

Betenoire on May 8, 2012 at 11:27 PM

When is the primary for Kohl’s seat? That’s what I’m wondering about.

Mark1971 on May 8, 2012 at 11:32 PM

There already are states that recognize it, Dante. Are you saying all states have to recognize them now?

cptacek on May 8, 2012 at 11:33 PM

Funny how the usual suspects never show up to these threads.

Guess they conflict with the whole “Republicans are liberals, the tea party is dead, the country is ruined” thing.

Huh.

WeekendAtBernankes on May 8, 2012 at 11:34 PM

the most mainstream lifestyle possible.

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Bah! It’s easier to change the definition of “mainstream” to something more…uh…open.

Bishop on May 8, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Well, that comment disappeared. I was responding to Rywall and told him I do the best with the Commandments, I can, better than the 10% he ascribed to me and my conscience p-r-1-ck-s at me when I fail.

I think I know what word disappeared the comment! lol

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 11:22 PM
————
If you think the 10 commandments comprise 10% of God’s rules in the Bible, then you clearly have not ever read the Bible. Either you care enough to follow the Bible or you don’t.

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Why does other people’s happiness. A happiness not predicated upon the abuse of others, make conservatives so unhappy? Imagine seeing people’s happiness and vomiting.

libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 11:39 PM

They wouldn’t have to go that far:
MA, CT, IA, VT, NH, NY, WA

cptacek on May 8, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Pre-updating the list for November 6th. Voters in Washington will decide the issue themselves this fall.

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 11:40 PM

HANG IN THERE KEITH……!!!!!

The Count on May 8, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Post of the evening.

rubberneck on May 8, 2012 at 11:40 PM

You’re 100% correct, just like my concealed carry license is valid in NYC, DC, Chicago, LA and all of the other 57 states, right?

Oh – what’s that you say? You don’t like that whole “full faith and credit” thingy when it comes to conservative policies, eh?

CycloneCDB on May 8, 2012 at 11:30 PM

Your CWP *should* be valid in all 57 states and there was a push to make that the case not long ago but it died thanks to a Democrat filibuster. I think the reason there’s not been a big push for that is that it invites federal regulation into the process and people on our side, perhaps rightly, don’t want to risk that Pandora’s Box being opened.

alchemist19 on May 8, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Rywall – you’re an idiot. Honestly. Here’s why.

Do you really think an amendment that goes to such lengths will not be challenged? Of course it will.

The challenge will lead to it being scaled back for a few reasons you stated.

At the same time, the amendment is a firewall against Obama and the progs.

It’s the same tactic used against Obamacare; pass a hardline amendment against the issue, so if Barry moves to federalize, the entire issue freezes and fast-tracks to the Supreme Court.

The progs do not want that to occur on these grounds, because the outcome is obvious; 10th amendment.

This is why Rob Reiner started his initiative to proactively pass same-sex marriages in as many states as possible. He knew, as a 10th amendment issue, same-sex loses if its about repealing laws against.

So now Barry is in a pinch. If he doesn’t push forward, gay advocates will need massive reassurances about his second term, which is what we’ve been seeing all week. If he does, he loses swing states in groups. Either way, North Carolina on its own has brought it all to a halt.

budfox on May 8, 2012 at 11:40 PM

My sister-in-law is a single adoptive mother-and I don’t think ‘singles’ should be approved as adoptive parents. My niece is a cutie…who has no business with a-to us an old fashioned word-spinster momma.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 11:23 PM
————

Single parent households are unfit to raise children?

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:41 PM

Why does other people’s happiness. A happiness not predicated upon the abuse of others, make conservatives so unhappy? Imagine seeing people’s happiness and vomiting.

libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 11:39 PM

*sniff*

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 11:43 PM

You’re 100% correct, just like my concealed carry license is valid in NYC, DC, Chicago, LA and all of the other 57 states, right?

Oh – what’s that you say? You don’t like that whole “full faith and credit” thingy when it comes to conservative policies, eh?

CycloneCDB on May 8, 2012 at 11:30 PM

Someone is making an incorrect assumption (among other things). Poor little sheep.

Dante on May 8, 2012 at 11:43 PM

Why does other people’s happiness. A happiness not predicated upon the abuse of others, make conservatives so unhappy? Imagine seeing people’s happiness and vomiting.

libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Gays using the term marriage is not about happiness. It is about legal recognition and the ability to force others, both the state and private citizens/business, to recognize the union.

Your claim is laughable.

cptacek on May 8, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Bah! It’s easier to change the definition of “mainstream” to something more…uh…open.

Bishop on May 8, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Oh, believe me, if they legalize polygamy, I call dibs on Jennifer Love Hewitt, Dana Perino, Rachel MacAdams, and then hire Megyn Kelly for player/manager status to keep them in line and keep the beer-fridge stocked.

;-D

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Your CWP *should* be valid in all 57 states and there was a push to make that the case not long ago but it died thanks to a Democrat filibuster. I think the reason there’s not been a big push for that is that it invites federal regulation into the process and people on our side, perhaps rightly, don’t want to risk that Pandora’s Box being opened.

alchemist19 on May 8, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Arguing for CWP based on “Full Faith and Credit” makes no sense when the 2nd Amendment already guarantees the right to a CWP.

Bluray on May 8, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Doesn’t matter. All it takes is one state to make it legal. Then, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, the rest of the states have to recognize those marriages.

Dante on May 8, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Didn’t I already deconstruct this legal fallacy for you yesterday?

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 11:45 PM

Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change.

No, no they can’t. Why should they be “nuanced” in regards to a hoax?

For that statement alone, he demonstrates his eligibility for electoral retirement.

AZfederalist on May 8, 2012 at 11:45 PM

Why does other people’s happiness. A happiness not predicated upon the abuse of others, make conservatives so unhappy? Imagine seeing people’s happiness and vomiting.

libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 11:39 PM

When someone’s happiness is predicated upon co-opting a religious ceremony and doing something that is against the very religion it is derived from, it’s not about what makes who happy. It’s about respecting the religious ceremony that the state once endorsed in its original form.

Why do gays feel the need to demand that a religious ceremony be forced by the state to recognize a lifestyle which that religion would not condone?

It is about gays tolerating those who live a religious lifestyle, not the other way around. You’d see that if you got off your liberal high horse.

CycloneCDB on May 8, 2012 at 11:45 PM

If you think the 10 commandments comprise 10% of God’s rules in the Bible, then you clearly have not ever read the Bible. Either you care enough to follow the Bible or you don’t.

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Oh, come on man. Do you know I actually predicted in my head that you would come back with EXACTLY that?

It’s not nice to provoke people by making religious accusations as you did to me with no provocation whatsoever.

So kindly go screw yourself.

Notice I didn’t take the Lord’s name in vain.

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Someone is making an incorrect assumption (among other things). Poor little sheep.

Dante on May 8, 2012 at 11:43 PM

If that were the case, you would be saying, “No, I agree that the Full Faith and Credit Clause should apply, especially since the right to bear arms is guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution”.

In short, that is a slam dunk.

But it ruins your argument, because you’re trying to push the theory that marriage to whatever sexually attracts you is a constitutional right.

northdallasthirty on May 8, 2012 at 11:47 PM

My sister-in-law is a single adoptive mother-and I don’t think ‘singles’ should be approved as adoptive parents. My niece is a cutie…who has no business with a-to us an old fashioned word-spinster momma.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 11:23 PM

I think two parent households should get preference, but I don’t think we should bar adoptions to single parent households.

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Gays using the term marriage is not about happiness. It is about legal recognition and the ability to force others, both the state and private citizens/business, to recognize the union.

Your claim is laughable.

cptacek on May 8, 2012 at 11:44 PM

So basically gay people are such soulless monsters that they don’t have the same motivations and desires as everyone else? They are motivated by a desire to oppress you? Wow, I wonder if some of you think through the full implications of your statements. If gay people are that sociopathic, shouldn’t they all be locked up?

libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 11:48 PM

In North Carolina’s democrat primary:

Barack: 79%
No Preference: 21%

SouthernGent on May 8, 2012 at 11:49 PM

Why do gays feel the need to demand that a religious ceremony be forced by the state to recognize a lifestyle which that religion would not condone?

It is about gays tolerating those who live a religious lifestyle, not the other way around. You’d see that if you got off your liberal high horse.

CycloneCDB on May 8, 2012 at 11:45 PM

The hilarity in that comes from the fact that the party that screams the loudest about gay-sex marriage is also the one demanding that churches fund abortions or be punished.

Obamacare really exposed what the liberal agenda is, which is to completely ignore the First Amendment and use the power of the government to destroy religion in this country.

northdallasthirty on May 8, 2012 at 11:49 PM

Schadenfreude on May 8, 2012 at 11:03 PM

I suspect the ‘rats have a number ‘unclaimed’ registrations in a folder, ready to be passed out to a new troll. And I imagine that some of the ‘handles’ they choose were for an appropriate effect. (That’s the down-side of an all-day open registration.)

With this crew threatening the Republic, I regard nothing as happening by chance.

Not these days.

But never fear, as things start looking (obviously) darker for Teh One… they’ll start ‘losing it’ and get banned. Just look at some of the shrillness in this thread.

It’s rather amusing.

CPT. Charles on May 8, 2012 at 11:49 PM

aying coy doesn’t fool Texans.

Be open in your Craig James support.

cozmo on May 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Craig James, part-time ESPN analyst, full-time cry baby. He’s the man who helped destroy two winning Div. 1-A football teams (SMU and Texas Tech).

bw222 on May 8, 2012 at 11:50 PM

Doesn’t matter. All it takes is one state to make it legal. Then, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, the rest of the states have to recognize those marriages.

Dante on May 8, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Bullshit.

If it makes you sleep better, fine.

But you’re trying to use the interracial marriage argument, when the Clause was never used on a state to enforce that ruling.

So their is no precedent to cite that Article IV would work.

budfox on May 8, 2012 at 11:50 PM

Craig James, part-time ESPN analyst, full-time cry baby. He’s the man who helped destroy two winning Div. 1-A football teams (SMU and Texas Tech).

bw222 on May 8, 2012 at 11:50 PM

Then there’s the messy business of the five.

alchemist19 on May 8, 2012 at 11:51 PM

In North Carolina’s democrat primary:

Barack: 79%
No Preference: 21%

SouthernGent on May 8, 2012 at 11:49 PM

Wow…when 21% actually come out to vote for “no preference” in a swing state, you know you’re in trouble.

GOPRanknFile on May 8, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Alternate W. Va headline:

“Con-men take 1st and 2nd on Dem. primary ballot”…..

hillsoftx on May 8, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Why just gay people? Other people love each other too. This should therefore be open to anyone and any number. Undefining marriage means there’s no meaning anymore.

Dongemaharu

Pretty sure the high divorce rate already took care of that for ya.

Zaggs on May 8, 2012 at 11:52 PM

On the Gay Adoption issue, have you ever looked at Government statistics on Foster Children?

GLBT activists pretend that there is a crisis of kids who need loving families. If you go to the government stats on the issue, you’ll see that the number of kids in Foster care is barely half a million and has been going down in the past few decades. Most kids who enter Foster care are there because of their parents being unable to take care of them, and they are usually reunited with their parents or legal guardians within a year or less of being in care.

Bluray on May 8, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Why does other people’s happiness. A happiness not predicated upon the abuse of others, make conservatives so unhappy? Imagine seeing people’s happiness and vomiting.

libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Overdosing on the Mackinaw Peaches again, Jethro?

Del Dolemonte on May 8, 2012 at 11:53 PM

“They’re so inflexible, refusing to vote for me just because they don’t want to.”

Jim Treacher on May 8, 2012 at 11:53 PM

So basically gay people are such soulless monsters that they don’t have the same motivations and desires as everyone else? They are motivated by a desire to oppress you? Wow, I wonder if some of you think through the full implications of your statements. If gay people are that sociopathic, shouldn’t they all be locked up?

libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Hyperbole – thy name is libfreeordie.

Once again, get through your liberal skull, it is about respecting the religious practices of those who choose to live a religious lifestyle.

The states chose to recognize religious practices and endorse/sanction them…not the other way around. Marriage began as a religios practice, and it’s not the state’s place to change that.

We do not need to govern everyone down to the most sexcually depraved common denominator. Gays have to accept that marriage is a religious ceremony. You can’t force people to recognize their behavior as being acceptable if they don’t see it that way.

You could make a logical and intelligent debate out of whether or not the state should be involved in recognition of ANY form of marriage or civil union, but you can’t force people to accept homosexuality as moral behavior. It’s not your place.

CycloneCDB on May 8, 2012 at 11:54 PM

Oh, come on man. Do you know I actually predicted in my head that you would come back with EXACTLY that?

It’s not nice to provoke people by making religious accusations as you did to me with no provocation whatsoever.

So kindly go screw yourself.

Notice I didn’t take the Lord’s name in vain.

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 11:47 PM
——
keep liven’ the lie

good luck with your continued rationalization for not bothering to try

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Not endorsing gay marriage doesn’t make you a bigot.

Cindy Munford on May 8, 2012 at 9:50 PM

I don’t know how often I heard the argument here at HotAir that gays don’t need marriage, because they have civil unions.

And now everybody is celebrating that they don’t have civil unions any more, either.

Gelsomina on May 8, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Bullshit.

If it makes you sleep better, fine.

But you’re trying to use the interracial marriage argument, when the Clause was never used on a state to enforce that ruling.

So their is no precedent to cite that Article IV would work.

budfox on May 8, 2012 at 11:50 PM

Congratulations on using a curse word. That really shows your knowledge of the subject matter.

I didn’t say anything about interracial marriage or what courts have or have not ruled or precedents, because all of that is irrelevant. I simply referred to the Constitution. Read the clause yourself.

Dante on May 8, 2012 at 11:56 PM

Does West Virginia have an open primary? This might have been an excellent Operation Chaos opportunity.

Mark1971 on May 8, 2012 at 11:57 PM

keep liven’ the lie

good luck with your continued rationalization for not bothering to try

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Good luck with your admirable attempt to be a modern Pharisee.

And you suck as a psychic.

:)

cane_loader on May 8, 2012 at 11:57 PM

Craig James, part-time ESPN analyst, full-time cry baby. He’s the man who helped destroy two winning Div. 1-A football teams (SMU and Texas Tech).

bw222 on May 8, 2012 at 11:50 PM

They say 0bama has more support in Lubbock than Craig James does.

Eren on May 8, 2012 at 11:57 PM

Dave Rywall

…shoul be Dave Dryrot

KOOLAID2 on May 8, 2012 at 11:58 PM

And now everybody is celebrating that they don’t have civil unions any more, either.

Gelsomina on May 8, 2012 at 11:55 PM

NC didn’t have civil unions prior to this amendment. The amendment pretty much mirrors current NC law.

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Wow…when 21% actually come out to vote for “no preference” in a swing state, you know you’re in trouble.

GOPRanknFile on May 8, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Ok wow. Slow your roll. For people who claim to be resistant to media meme’s I’m kind of surprised you haven’t picked up on this one yet. North Carolina as a “swing” state is laughable. It is a lean/solid Republican state and had been for quite some time before the 2008 election. Lots of blue dog North Carolina dems voted for Obama, but they’ve been known to split tickets in the past and I suspect they will do so again. Conservatives joyful squeals over Obama’s failures in the state are pretty hilarious.

Then on the other hand, it was also *massively* boneheaded for the DNC to selection North Carolina as their convention center. It looked really dumb for the GOP to pick Minnesota in 2008 and it looks doubly so for a challenged incumbent. When you’re an incumbent you go for the slam dunk convention (obvies).

libfreeordie on May 9, 2012 at 12:00 AM

I don’t know how often I heard the argument here at HotAir that gays don’t need marriage, because they have civil unions.

And now everybody is celebrating that they don’t have civil unions any more, either.

Gelsomina on May 8, 2012 at 11:55 PM

This is what you call “push-back”. I agree that any two people on the planet should be permitted to form a civil union. However, the GLBT community is pushing too hard and too fast (pun intended) for “MARRIAGE” instead of trying to find an acceptable “civil union” middle ground. The voters of NC decided to move the stake as far in their favor as possible. You can’t blame them, even if you don’t agree.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Gelsomina on May 8, 2012 at 11:55 PM

I’m not celebrating or mourning. The people have spoken. Until a judge (by 5 p.m. tomorrow) strikes it down. I have to admit that I was surprised at wording of the amendment.

Cindy Munford on May 9, 2012 at 12:00 AM

I don’t know how often I heard the argument here at HotAir that gays don’t need marriage, because they have civil unions.

And now everybody is celebrating that they don’t have civil unions any more, either.

Gelsomina on May 8, 2012 at 11:55 PM

They don’t “need” Marriage because what they really want is for everyone to accept that their Sexual activities are moral, and that is never going to be the case with the entire country. Your not going to get 100% of the country to agree on anything.

They need to accept the fact that they will never be able to complete eliminate “bigotry” no matter how strongly they try to use the arm of the Federal Goverment to make it happen.

Bluray on May 9, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Firstly, it’s not only white people that vote against gay marriage. Check out the range of votes in CA and probably in a few days this election.

Second, very few conservatives that I’ve talked to or have read on line have issues with civil unions. Why not just let the traditionalists have their word and fight the good fight for the legal issues, which would be no different whether it be “marriage” or “civil unions”.

Instead it’s become a battle of the wills and like most bullies are demanding a change for change’s sake. It’s like everything else that liberals (of which the majority of gays are) get their fingers on – they have to bully their will against everyone else.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Are you honestly stating that you believe every proponent of gay marriage is a bully who’s lone concern is “demanding change for change’s sake”? If you don’t believe that, you should explain why you felt the need to create that straw man.

I think your position looks weak and bad when it’s turned around i.e. where’s the wisdom behind putting so much effort into defending a word, “marriage” which signifies the same thing as “civil union” does to ‘most Conservatives’? What, speaking substantively, is the difference between what you are advocating and political correctness?

Bizarro No. 1 on May 9, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Single parent households are unfit to raise children?

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:41 PM

Not unfit, but certainly not ideal. That is why I found the finest woman I could and convinced her to marry my sorry butt.

stvnscott on May 9, 2012 at 12:01 AM

Rywall, sometimes you give good argument, and sometimes you’re just a pain in the butt, like tonight.

But, I am genuinely curious… you’ve been around here forever, probably a founding member. How did you find Hot Air, what led you here?

And I’m not trying to lay a verbal trap. I’m just genuinely curious.

cane_loader on May 9, 2012 at 12:02 AM

Seven Percent Solution is a single dad and he seems to do a great job.

Cindy Munford on May 9, 2012 at 12:03 AM

libfreeordie, have you seen the documentary that was released a few months ago about the Lovings? I think it was on HBO. It contained some footage that I had not seen before. Very well done.

McDuck on May 9, 2012 at 12:04 AM

So basically gay people are such soulless monsters that they don’t have the same motivations and desires as everyone else? They are motivated by a desire to oppress you? Wow, I wonder if some of you think through the full implications of your statements. If gay people are that sociopathic, shouldn’t they all be locked up?

libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Not all gay people. Just the Barack Obama zombies being led around by bigots like yourself who are using gays as a proxy war because being as blatantly and obviously antireligious as you are would completely destroy your party at the polls.

Gays have been subjected to the same sick brainwashing that the Obama Party has done to other minorities. Being gay or lesbian doesn’t make you a sociopath, but being brainwashed and manipulated by sociopaths like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid can certainly make you act like one.

northdallasthirty on May 9, 2012 at 12:05 AM

No civil unions in NC?

Marriage I understand restricting since its fundamental meaning is a union of complementary genders, but why restrict other basic non-marriage-related rights between two people who live long term committed relationships to equal access to loved ones in hospitals, for insurance purposes, inheritance, etc. through the accommodation of “civil unions”?

What’s the logic in NC for this?

profitsbeard on May 9, 2012 at 12:06 AM

Hows Lugar doing?

Bmore on May 9, 2012 at 12:06 AM

If that were the case, you would be saying, “No, I agree that the Full Faith and Credit Clause should apply, especially since the right to bear arms is guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution”.

In short, that is a slam dunk.

But it ruins your argument, because you’re trying to push the theory that marriage to whatever sexually attracts you is a constitutional right.

northdallasthirty on May 8, 2012 at 11:47 PM

I’ve never said anything about marriage being a constitutionally-guaranteed right. Never.

And the clause does not apply to CWP licenses any more than it would apply to a fishing or hunting license – licenses to do things within a particular jurisdiction.

Additionally, the Second Amendment is irrelevant to this.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 12:07 AM

IT KEEPS GETTING MORE AWESOME BY THE MINUTE, NORTH CAROLINA

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:13 PM

How about staying the hell out of our business?

Love,

The citizens of the great state of North Carolina

PS: I guarantee you’re gonna be the first one to scream approval if Dearbornistan, MI or Libya want Sharia law… “they should be able to choose their own laws!!!!”

mankai on May 9, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Hows Lugar doing?

Bmore on May 9, 2012 at 12:06 AM

What’s Mr. Burns’ assistant’s name? Lugar’s yelling at that guy.

Maybe Akbar will give him a Coke and a smile.

cane_loader on May 9, 2012 at 12:08 AM

If you think the 10 commandments comprise 10% of God’s rules in the Bible, then you clearly have not ever read the Bible. Either you care enough to follow the Bible or you don’t.

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Christians aren’t under law, but under grace. Someone as supa-knowledgeable about the Bible as yourself should know that. We’re not like Muslims who believe you literally have to be 50%+1 good to go to Heaven (hence the appeal of terrorism/ fake martyrdom – guaranteed ticket).

There are also a lot of clearly ceremonial/dietary rules in the Old Testament meant for ancient Israel that no longer apply to followers of Christ (see Peter’s vision in Acts).

DavidW on May 9, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9 10 11 12