Posted by
"Happy" Jake Greene on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 7:46:44 AM
I live in Virginia, so I’m most familiar with the recent campaigns for Governor, Lt. Gov., and Attorney General in the Commonwealth. If you have lived in a vacuum for the last few hours, it’s possible you do not know that Bob McDonnell (R) defeated Creigh Deeds (D) in the bid for Richmond. What you may not know is that McDonnell won by nearly 250,000 votes or roughly 18% (59-41%). Furthermore, McDonnell’s running mates incumbent Lt. Governor Bill Bolling and Attorney General Elect Ken Cuccinelli (both R) also won by similar (if slightly closer) margins. This election gives us the unusual, though not unprecedented circumstance of having the entire Virginia Executive branch all one party.
I’m not going to be one of those who harp on this being an indictment of President Barack Obama’s policies in particular, though there is some truth to that thought. Instead, I’m going to go with the theme that this is an indictment of the Democratic Party in general, and the results in New Jersey, Maine, and, yes, even New York tend to bear that out.
Right now, in most jurisdictions the Democrats cannot win on the issues. Barack Obama did not win the Presidency because of the issues. He won because the incumbent President was unpopular, because his opponent was weak, because the media played up his charisma and celebrity as much as was physically possible, and because he is black. I’ve said it before – and I’m not the only one – a white man with the same credentials as Senator Obama would never have made it past the Iowa caucuses, and even in the unlikely, but not altogether impossible event that he made it to the general election, he would have lost like Walter Mondale.
Perhaps the worst thing that could have happened to Virginia Democrats was the election of Jim Webb over incumbent Senator George Allen, Jr. 3 years ago. Webb, at a time when the Republican Party was on a down cycle, campaigned primarily on allegations of racism and sexism against Allen. Webb won the election and, so, two of the three Democrats tried the same tactic in this year’s election.
Deeds pulled out McDonnell’s Master’s thesis that apparently said that McDonnell believed women in the workplace was a bad idea. The one issue Deeds used was abortion, showing that McDonnell is a strong anti-abortion believer. So Deeds was calling McDonnell a misogynist.
Cuccinelli’s opponent, Steve Shannon, called Cuccinelli a “bigot” in his ads, and quoted some newspapers stating that Cuccinelli would discriminate against people who didn’t share Cuccinelli’s view of morality. So Shannon was probably calling Cuccinelli a homophobe. Of course, no evidence was ever proffered to support this slur, but it was out there.
I maintain that if Jim Webb had lost the 2006 election, the Democrats might have taken one of Virginia’s executive offices this year because they’d see that the “He’s a bigot” charge doesn’t work in a vacuum. As it was, using similar tactics not only cost them, but handed them landslide losses across the board.
Outside Virginia, New Jersey’s incumbent Democrat governor lost his bid for re-election. This is surprising (a) because incumbents are difficult to beat, and (b) New Jersey, with it’s large urban population, isn’t quite as red a state as Virginia. In Maine, the same-sex “marriage” law failed its referendum (more on that in a moment). And in New York’s 23rd Congressional District, the Democrat won by only a few thousand votes, and only after the Republican withdrew from the race because the people backed a true conservative over a RINO who supported abortion, gay privileges, and Obamacare. President Obama should be aware of his party’s vulnerability over the next 12 months. The 2010 elections could prove quite a shock if they don’t pay attention.
And that brings me to my next point. We heard last week about the football player who was suspended by his team for using “gay slurs” in some “Twitter” posts (never mind that the stories that repeated the slurs had to explain what they meant because no one else ever uses them). Of course people are accused in the media of using racial slurs all the time, as well. So I have a proposal. I realize this isn’t going to get any traction because no one actually reads this stuff, but I’ll throw it out there in case Ann Coulter or Mike Adams are bored one day. So here it goes:
From now on, instead of saying some Democrat or some media personality called someone “racist”, “bigot”, “homophobe”, or any similar term, I suggest that the conservative media start saying things like “Creigh Deeds used a conservative slur when referring to Bob McDonnell.” “Conservative slur” can be a catch-all to refer to any word, phrase, innuendo, or whatever, that associates conservatism with bigotry. Calling a conservative a bigot should have the same effect as calling a gay something that sort of rhymes with bigot (and really means “bundle of sticks”), or a black person a n-----, or what have you. I have a couple of reasons for this proposal: (1) The left complains about “slurs” coming from just about anyone who doesn’t agree with them, (2) conservatism has nothing to do with bigotry and bigots can be (and are) of any political color (red, blue, green, etc), and (3) it will be a way to show the closed-mindedness and intellectual intolerance on the Left.
Goodness and Decency win again in the battle against the redefinition of marriage. The news, yesterday was that polls generally showed that the people of Maine favored letting a man “marry” a man. This morning, gays everywhere were surprised (again), dismayed (again), and whining (again) that their goal of wrecking the institution of marriage by redefining it out of existence failed yet again. Gay marriage has failed every time it has come up for a vote from the people. Most importantly it fails in votes by the people in places like the People’s Republic of California, and the home state of Olympia Snowe, neither of which are conservative strongholds. In California it didn’t just fail, it didn’t just fail twice, and it didn’t just fail in a constitutional amendment, it was affirmatively voted against. It wasn’t laws allowing same-sex “marriage” that failed referenda (as was the case in Maine), it was laws disallowing same-sex “marriage” that passed.
The people don’t want same-sex “marriage.” Every time they’ve spoken, they’ve repeated that statement. It is only in states where the people have not been allowed to speak where it exists, and in most of those it was imposed by unelected courts, not even legislators.
Supporters of same-sex “marriage” say it is “inevitable.” It is not. Not as long as people continue to understand the consequences of moral relativism and fight these plans to remake society in the image of depraved minds.