Democratic political operatives overwhelmingly say the time has come for gay marriage, while a majority of Republican operatives now believe they should just avoid this issue, according to a National Journal Political Insiders Poll. “Both positions represent significant gains for gay marriage compared to two years ago,” according to the analysis.
Thus does progress get made, but it’s never simply linear. It’s extremely likely, for instance, that the 2012 GOP presidential nominee will favor a constitutional amendment against gay marriage (unlike McCain, who opposed the amendment, which Bush had championed). That anti-gay position will thrill the base in Iowa and the South, but cost the party support among independents and young voters. Maybe in 2016 the party will redo the calculus and a more enlightened conservative will take the day.
More. Texas Gov. Rick Perry—far less odious than Mitt Romney on gay marriage
“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me,” he said to applause from several hundred GOP donors in Aspen, Colo. “That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”
Furthermore. According to the Washington Blade, “a Perry spokesperson said the governor supports a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.” Which, if still true, would make his position just as odious as Romney’s.
Still more. On reflection, I concur with commenter “Another Steve,” who said: “Perry’s recent statement about New York marriage showed a shift, and one that might be capitalized on and used to move him (and the GOP) further. ” That’s right, too.
47 Comments for “Gay Marriage: The Partisan Divide”
posted by Jimmy on
What is going to change about the GOP base four, eight, or twelve years from now?
posted by Houndentenor on
There is a shift going on base more on age than anything else. Younger people are more likely to be in favor of gay rights. That will affect the GOP as well as the Democrats.
I predict that in 2016 all the serious challengers for the Democratic nomination will be in favor of gay marriage.
posted by Scott on
Jimmy, what will change is that many of the older, more set-in-stone bigots will die off in the meantime. Just like with civil rights for women and African-Americans.
posted by JohnAGJ on
I doubt it, particularly if the GOP nominee actually wins the election next year.
posted by Jorge on
There is one other difference. 2008 was a year when the chances were poor for the Republican party. 2012 is a year when the chances are bad for the Democratic party. We elected a far left guy in ’08. Why not a far right guy in ’12?
posted by Wilberforce on
Wishful thinking on your part.
First, Obama is not far left, despite your tea party fantasies. Second, we elected a centrist democrat in response to extreme republican mismanagement and incompetance.
Obama may have made serious mistakes, wasting a year on healthcare that could have been done in three minutes with reconciliation, and the keynesian hogfest stimulus instead of fiscally responsible Clintonomics. But Bush was a thousand times worse, and Amercians will probably understand that.
On the other hand, they are totally under the control of the medi, and will vote as they’re told. So maybe you’ll get your wish, and we’ll have another sadist in the White House.
posted by Hunter on
If the GOP nominee wins the election, it’s not going to be on the basis of support or lack of it for gay civil rights. Most people don’t think about that unless they get a call from a pollster. The economy’s still a mess and no one in Washington — left or right — is doing anything about it. Any nominee is going to have to address that issue.
Jorge: the idea that anyone can call Barack Obama “a far left guy” is pretty funny.
posted by Tom on
If the GOP nominee wins the election, it’s not going to be on the basis of support or lack of it for gay civil rights. Most people don’t think about that unless they get a call from a pollster.
True enough. But we can count on any of the viable Republican candidates, if elected, to effectively stop any and all legislative progress toward “equal means equal” at the federal level until 2016.
Not that federal legislative progress is possible now, for that matter, given the current Republican domination of the House.
While I’m glad to see that President Obama came out in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act, DOMA repeal is doomed this session, and the administration has to know it.
Not only has the House already voted to affirm DOMA this year in the National Defense Authorization Act, the “Certainty Provision” in the RMA has riled up the social conservatives and brought them out in full force. Just about the only thing that the RMA will accomplish this year is to give jackasses like Iowa’s inimitable Congressman Steve King a forum for ranting about how we “devalue” marriage by getting married.
DOMA is doomed, in my view, but it is doomed because it won’t withstand constitutional scrutiny.
posted by Jorge on
1) Advocates and signs not just health care reform, but a huge government mandated health care law
2) And the bill is passed in a completely partisan fashion, this in a year when even Republicans acknowledge the need for health care reform.
3) Appoints persons with an extremely leftist bent to “czar” positions that bypass the Senate. An admitted communist like Van Jones becomes an environmental czar without notice.
4) Tries to close Guantanamo Bay
5) His administration tries to give a civilian trial to the mastermind of 9/11 instead of trying him in a military tribunal.
6) His administration has refused to use the word “terrorist” when talking about terrorism, even in obvious cases like the failed Times Square Bomber and the Fort Hood shooting. They’ve actually taken to calling terrorism “man caused disasters.”
7) A large collection of racial missteps, most notably Attorney General Eric Holder saying we are a nation of cowards on race, the Justice Department dropping a slam dunk voter intimidation case against the Black Panthers.
That’s how long it takes for you to start getting into mainstream liberal territory, although many people would go even further. President Obama not only believes in a strong government, he believes in government command and control over the economy extending into everyday life. He not only believes in a failed law-enforcement approach to the war on terror, he puts this belief into action in a way that attempts to dramatically alter the framework through which we deal with the very worst terrorists we have captured. He’s not only distant to conservative fears of jihadism and accomodating to Muslim sensitivities, his sensitivity changes the gravity with which the United States talks about the war on terror. He not only believes in a proactive approach to racial issues that favors blacks and minorities, his administration bludgeons whites and fails to give whites fair and equal treatment.
President Obama is far-left in ideology, partisanship, and practice. No amount of liberal whining that “he’s not doing enough” or that he’s a “sellout” on the issues where he has represented the priorities that most Americans support can even begin to mask that.
posted by Hunter on
Oh, where to start:
The health-care reform should have included a public option. Instead, we get a mandate — if you’ll remember, just like the one Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts. And it passed on a partisan vote because Republicans’ stated goal has been to block anything and everything coming from this president, no matter its value.
Guantanamo — Most people who really do believe in American values consider Guantanamo a blot on the nation. Most of us still hold to the idea that people shouldn’t be incarcerated when they haven’t been charged with a crime, and that there should be limits on confinement. As for trying accused terrorists in civil courts, not only does your position impugn our criminal justice system, but it flies in the face of reality: civil courts have convicted many more accused terrorists, and handed out stiffer penalties, than any military tribunal.
“Czars” — I’ve followed this administration pretty closely, and all I remember about the “czars” is that it’s a big right-wing talking point without much substance behind it. Cue the outrage factory.
As for the rest of the terrorist complex, a law-enforcement approach has been pretty successful in Europe, while our “war” has cost thousands of lives and and a trillion dollars for no discernible result.
As for the rest of your complaints, I’d really like to see some documentation — specific examples, please, of things that really happened, not something that Glenn Beck made up.
Obama is, indeed, to the left of Attila the Hun, but that doesn’t make him a communist. He’s not even a liberal Democrat. He’s a politician.
posted by Houndentenor on
The Obama health care plan is basically the old Republican response to liberal health care proposals. If Obama were really a socialist he’d have pushed for “Medicare for all”. He never did.
If someone is so far to the right that Obama appears to be a Marxist that says far more about them than it does about the President.
posted by Jimmy on
“He not only believes in a failed law-enforcement approach to the war on terror, he puts this belief into action in a way that attempts to dramatically alter the framework through which we deal with the very worst terrorists we have captured.”
I wonder how bin Laden feels about that…oh wait.
“He’s not only distant to conservative fears of jihadism and accommodating to Muslim sensitivities, his sensitivity changes the gravity with which the United States talks about the war on terror.”
One should distance themselves from conservative fears because they seem to be motivated by fear only, and it is all they have to offer in terms of message.
posted by Jorge on
That is not a rebuttal of anything I have said. No amount of liberal whining, and certainly not the whining about OBL’s death on its own, can even begin to mask the fact that Barack Obama is a far-left president.
In all seriousness, Jimmy, I’d be interested to hear your judgment of how the Obama administration has been fighting the war on terror and our wars abroad.
For all the President has done to continue our policies in the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and our covert operations against al-Qaida, there remains a long list of grievances against him for having an extremely light hand in the war on terror and our wars abroad. There’s a lot of reason to think that’s based on his ideology.
posted by Jimmy on
I think for people like you, anything to the left of center is seen as “far left”. If he was far-left president, he would have stood his ground on HCR and a public option would exist today. He would be forceful in his support for LGBT equality, which he is not. He would have ended the wars abroad, not engaged us in another. A far left president would not have the array of Wall Street flunkies as chief economic advisors as this president has.
Everything I’ve seen from him so far is evidence that his is another 3rd way Democrat. He has surrounded himself the former DLC people, certainly not a bunch of leftists. That is on my list of grievances. He is not liberal enough for me. That irks me. Oh well. We can’t always get what we want.
posted by Jorge on
I think for people like you, anything to the left of center is seen as “far left”.
You’re wrong. There’s a lot I’m leaving out, and you mentioned most of it.
Cap and trade, the drawdowns of Iraq and Afghanistan, his preferred tax policies, the Obama stimulus, possibly his takeover of GE, and yes, his support of the gay community, are all things I consider left of center, in context. You are absolutely right that these are not far-left policies. That’s why I left it out.
What I’ve mentioned are things that defy any reasonable explanation, and there are so many of them all at once that this evidence shows Barack Obama is a far-left president. I’ll say to you one more time: no amount of liberal whining that he’s just not good enough or pure enough can even begin to mask the fact that Barack Obama is a far-left president. Don’t try to distract from the evidence: if you want to argue he isn’t a far-left president, you need to explain how the policies I have mentioned are not far-left. (Or not extensive enough to be decisive, but that rebuttal ain’t happening.)
Everything I’ve seen from him so far is evidence that his is another 3rd way Democrat.
Well I’m still waiting to hear how a civilian trial for KSM, trying to close Gitmo, Van Jones et al, and so on are evidence of that. And yes that includes the individual mandate and how Obama got it.
You didn’t answer my question, either.
posted by Jimmy on
The things you call evidence really go to support my characterization of him. He hasn’t conducted the “war on terror” like a far-left ideologue. Weren’t drawdowns inevitable? Cap and Trade was supported by those interested in market solutions to environmental problems.
I don’t see it, Jorge.
posted by Houndentenor on
Cap and Trade was the GOP proposal in opposition to a plan for a simple carbon tax proposal from the Democrats. Now that the mainstream Democrats have taken up the Republicans proposal, the Republicans call them Marxist for doing so.
It’s hard to consider the current GOP as a serious political party.
posted by Jorge on
The things I mentioned that defy any reasonable explanation: in other words, #s 1 through 7 in my first reply to Hunter. Those are far-left, and there are so many examples that the conclusion that Obama is a far-left president is obvious. I would like your explanation if you do not agree.
The things that are merely left-of-center: cap and trade, drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so on in my most recent post. These are not far-left, and they do nothing to mask the fact that Barack Obama is in fact a far left president. I made the context obvious by stating “You are absolutely right that these are not far-left policies. That’s why I left it out.”
I think the confusion on your part was intentional.
posted by Jimmy on
So, you are all butt sore over semantics.
Meanwhile, bin Laden felt this administration was being pretty successful.
“Bin Laden expressed concern that al Qaeda has been unable to effectively replace senior terrorists that have been killed, and that al Qaeda has failed in its effort to portray America as a nation at war with Islam — thereby draining more widespread support,”
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-23/world/pakistan.al.qaeda.future_1_al-zawahiri-al-qaeda-qaeda-leader-osama?_s=PM:WORLD
posted by Jorge on
Anyway, I think by now it’s pretty obvious I’m not joking.
posted by Houndentenor on
Obama tried to shut down Gitmo? Really? Since he has the power to shut it down and hasn’t, just how hard does that indicated that he “tried”? Not at all, obviously.
And then you go and fall into the PC trap. He didn’t call something by the term you’d like him to? What a load of crap. How is the fight against terrorism going right now? Would McCain have done better? One can’t imagine how since McCain said he’d never invade Pakistan without their permission to get Bin Laden.
Nice try, but your objections are mostly based on fantasy. If anything, Obama is governing more to the right than he promised in the campaign. That’s something the left should be angry about, not the right.
posted by Jorge on
Obama tried to shut down Gitmo? Really? Since he has the power to shut it down and hasn’t
That is false. Congress refused to fund the closing of Guantanamo Bay, even after President Obama signed an executive order to begin the process of closing it (Washington Post, May 20, 2009).
And then you go and fall into the PC trap. He didn’t call something by the term you’d like him to? What a load of crap.
I embrace the political correctness because it makes one hell of a difference whether we call something an act of terrorism or a man-caused disaster, whether we treat terrorism as an act of war or as a crime, and I strongly believe that taking a desire not to offend Muslim or liberal sensibilities (which is what I think is Obama’s motivation) to such a level that you use language that suggests a change in policy is the height of political cowardice. You seem to think differently: if you think the Obama administration’s actions should be politically correct, I would like your explanation. Explain to me what sense it makes to reword the war on terror to the point that it suggests a policy change to terrorism as law enforcement. What sense it makes to close Guantanamo Bay and try KSM stateside in a civilian court. If you cannot provide a reasonable explanation, maybe you shouldn’t bother trying to convince people the president is not a far-left radical. And while you’re at it know your history because for you to sit here and suggest President Obama could have tried to close down Guantanamo Bay but chose not to try makes you sound extremely ignorant.
[It’s all cool to me, but you guys are going to give me my space to call things as I see them, and if you want to do this the hard way, you are going to give up your ground.]
posted by BobN on
I don’t know about that, but something is obvious.
posted by Jimmy on
Who poses more of a threat to this country, Van Jones or someone like Larry Summers? I don’t give a fig a bout Van Jones. Get your priorities straight.
posted by Jorge on
You’re changing the subject.
I cite the appointment of Van Jones and other extreme people to “czar” positions as evidence that Barack Obama is a far-left president.
posted by BobN on
There’s a lot of reason to think that’s based on
hisideology.GOP opposition to a draft?
posted by Jorge on
And a fine morning to you, too, BobN.
Get serious.
posted by Doug on
Let’s look at the last GOP president. Lied us into war and then forgot about OBL, Obama got him. Managed to generate only a couple millions jobs in 8 years compared to over 20 million jobs under Clinton. Started 2 wars there were financed by debt and an unfunded prescription drug benefit that created huge deficits. Bush presided over the beginning of the worst recession since the Great Depression. The entire GOP supported all of the Bush debt they now claim to hate and won’t raise the debt limit to pay for what they themselves voted for.
Yep those GOPers sure look they can govern to me.
posted by Tom on
Texas Gov. Rick Perry—far less odious than Mitt Romney on gay marriage.
Before we get too excited, let’s get answers to the specifics:
(1) Does Governor Perry support/oppose repeal of Section 2 of DOMA?
(2) Does Governor Perry support/oppose repeal of Section 3 of DOMA?
(3) Does Governor Perry support/oppose the FMA/MPA?
(4) Does Governor Perry support/oppose reinstatement of DADT, in whole or in part?
Governor Perry has close political ties with folks on the farthest right fringe of the conservative Christian movement (e.g. the AFA) and I want to hear him answer to specifics before I before I believe that statement is worth a bucket of warm s[p]it.
posted by Hunter on
If by some twist of a malevolent fate Petty actually gets into the White House, how fast do you think his position on marriage as a states’ right matter is going to change? Ten, fifteen seconds?
And I think you know the answers to your questions.
posted by Houndentenor on
I think Perry’s statement is more pragmatic than philosophical. Gay marriage isn’t the winning issue in 2011 that it was in 2004. The votes are just not there for a Constitutional Amendment so he’s using the Tenther statement to appeal to the more libertarian elements in the party. He’s already popular with social conservatives as it is. It’s a smart move from a governor not usually thought of as terribly intelligent.
posted by Jorge on
I’ll tell you this much: if I wind up voting for him and he gets into the White House, he’d better crack down on those medical marijuana states, 10th Amendment or no 10th Amendment.
Pragmatism.
posted by Doug on
What is your problem with medical marijuana? No one is forcing you to use it and if it helps people, particularly those with HIV, why do you care.
posted by Tom on
Perry’s already done his flip-flop. According to TPM: “Texas Governor Rick Perry (R), one of the country’s most prominent defenders of the 10th Amendment, is making an exception when it comes to gay marriage. After initially telling reporters that it’s “fine with me” if states like New York legalize same-sex unions through their own legislature, Perry is pulling a 180 and calling for a Federal Marriage Amendment.
So much for this latest shining new hope.
posted by grendel on
It’s OK. I’m sure Stephen Miller can explain to us how Perry really wants to be our ally, if only the HRC would let him. Or something like that.
posted by Tom on
Well, as one of my Texas relatives observes: “When Governor Perry’s lips are moving, he’s lying. When they aren’t, he’s thinking one up.”
The outcome wasn’t in doubt. The only question was when.
posted by Jimmy on
That just reminded me of the wonderful Molly Ivins.
posted by BobN on
You can’t flip-flop if you never really flop-flipped in the first place.
Only a child, or someone with an ulterior motive, could turn Perry’s vague statement into a policy statement, let alone one reversing career-long opposition to any gay rights.
posted by another steve on
You guys would never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to move the GOP. Perry’s recent statement about New York marriage showed a shift, and one that might be capitalized on and used to move him (and the GOP) further. But moving the GOP is the last thing you want to happen — so much better to hope they stay anti-gay and praise yourselves for being Democrats.
posted by Jimmy on
” so much better to hope they stay anti-gay and praise yourselves for being Democrats.”
Well yeah, there’s that.
I can take that kind of hope to Vegas.
Why is someone else supposed to do your job?
When your adversary is destroying himself, it’s best to shut up and get out of the way.
And, why is it when someone, in some corner of GOPland somewhere, does something halfway decent, everything else utterly odious about them should be forgotten, and we’re all expected to break out in a round of “He’s a jolly good fellow”?
posted by Tom on
Perry’s recent statement about New York marriage showed a shift, and one that might be capitalized on and used to move him (and the GOP) further.
I’m lost here, Steve. What’s the shift?
Perry may be “fine” with New York granting marriage equality on 10th Amendment grounds, but he opposes marriage equality and supports the FMA/PMA, which, if enacted, will eliminate marriage equality in New York and every other state. His position is identical to Bachmann’s on all three points, as far as I can tell.
posted by BobN on
You guys would never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to move the GOP. Perry’s recent statement about New York marriage showed a shift
1) It’s not my job to move the GOP. That’s your job. You’re three decades late and it’s moving further away from you.
2) Anyone foolish enough to believe Perry “shifted” is, well, foolish. He uttered a vague, mushy sentence that people ran away with as “proof” of something. It’s just like with Cheney. The only difference is that Perry saw fit to correct the foolishness.
one that might be capitalized on and used to move him (and the GOP) further
This is your problem (not you personally). You seize on twistable statements and twist them, hoping to — I don’t know — herd people in the right direction. There’s no attempt at substantive change. It’s smoke and mirrors and, frankly, what many seem to be up to is not moving the GOP but, rather, fooling other people into believing the GOP has moved.
But moving the GOP is the last thing you want to happen — so much better to hope they stay anti-gay and praise yourselves for being Democrats.
Yeah, Steve, it’s my hope and dream to have to deal with anti-gay shit until the day I die, just so I can hate the GOP. Seriously, it would be nice to have at least one decade free of this crap. At the rate things are “shifting”, I’ll never see it happen.
posted by Tom on
You guys would never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to move the GOP.
I’m with Bob on this, Steve, assuming “you guys” means gays and lesbians working within the Democratic Party.
We’ve been working for thirty years moving our party while Republican gays and lesbians didn’t work to move their party. Instead, Republican gays and lesbians (with the exception of LCR) have actively supported anti-gay Republican politicians, helping them get elected to office and solidifying the hold of social conservatives on the party’s primary process, for whatever reason, good or ill.
We each reaped what we sowed.
The Democratic Party, however haltingly and inadequately, has moved in the direction of “equal means equal”, moving with public opinion as we changed public opinion. The Republican Party, on the other hand, has moved in the other direction, to the point where Republican politicians are a flip of American public opinion — for example, somewhere in the range of 85% of Americans favored DADT repeal, while more than 85% of the Republicans in Congress voted against DADT repeal.
It is a bit much to now have you, the other Stephen and conservative gays and lesbians in general tell us that it is also our job to undo what you have done to yourselves within your own party, letting you have your cake and eat it, too. As Bob said, and said well, “It’s not my job to move the GOP. That’s your job. You’re three decades late and it’s moving further away from you.”
Are you ever going to get to work on your side of the “partisan divide”? If you had been doing your work, as we have ours, there wouldn’t be a partisan divide.
posted by Jorge on
Well, I’m glad I didn’t stick my neck out for him.
We’ve been working for thirty years moving our party while Republican gays and lesbians didn’t work to move their party.
…
The Democratic Party, however haltingly and inadequately, has moved in the direction of “equal means equal”, moving with public opinion as we changed public opinion. The Republican Party, on the other hand, has moved in the other direction, to the point where Republican politicians are a flip of American public opinion — for example, somewhere in the range of 85% of Americans favored DADT repeal, while more than 85% of the Republicans in Congress voted against DADT repeal.
Obligatory dissent: under President George W. Bush, beginning before his election, we did see a shift toward the left toward the Republicans view of gay rights. President Bush refused to condemn homosexuality, appointed gays to his administration, his attorney general vigorously prosecuted an anti-gay hate crime, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
It is this site that identified a study this country has shifted to such a point that only gay marriage, among several gay rights positions, is not supported by a majority of the people.
What you are upset about is the fact that no matter where this country is politically, the Republicans will always remain to the right of the gay rights movement’s and the Democratic party’s goals.
See also: “Taking Notice” Jan. 31., 2011 on this site, which you dissented from in a long-ass post (three times as long as usual). I can’t find the exact blog post I’m looking for, however.
posted by BobN on
Tom:
If you had been doing your work, as we have ours, there wouldn’t be a partisan divide.
I would like to point out that most of the gay Republicans and gay conservatives I have known have done a lot of work over the decades for gay rights. They did that work within the liberal gay-rights groups and within the Democratic Party. They switched parties. After Anita Bryant and Reagan’s deal with evangelical devil, they abandoned their party.
Now, one might try to argue that they should have stayed and fought. I don’t know…. I think it was a lost cause, the numbers were just overwhelming. As to the more recent “gay Republicans”, there are very, very few who have been out for very long. For those, I have to admit a grudging admiration. Most, however, are johnny come latelies to the fight and, well, perhaps just should have stayed in the closet.
Jorge:
Obligatory dissent: under President George W. Bush, beginning before his election, we did see a shift toward the left toward the Republicans view of gay rights. President Bush refused to condemn homosexuality, appointed gays to his administration, his attorney general vigorously prosecuted an anti-gay hate crime, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Blah, blah, blah, indeed. Under Bush and his administration’s cozy relationship with the religious rights, we saw an unprecedented hardening against our rights. Goodness knows, they did a marvelous job of highlighting a handful of meaningless issues to great effect, trying to fool people into believing they weren’t the most anti-gay administration in recent history.
Bush did nothing of substance for gay people, other than extending Clinton’s workplace rules for the executive branch, and even that he had to mull over with Jesus for two weeks before taking the brave move of doing nothing. Everything else was window-dressing or done for ulterior motives. Ashcroft’s prosecution of the one hate crime he pursued had more to do with extending gun issues in the national parks than with gay rights. Read his message to the family in that case. He didn’t even have the decency to mention the existence of the dead woman’s partner.
What you are upset about is
You think we’d give much of a fuck if the GOP supported fully equal federal recognition of civil unions while the Dems preferred outright marriage?
posted by Tom on
What you are upset about is the fact that no matter where this country is politically, the Republicans will always remain to the right of the gay rights movement’s and the Democratic party’s goals.
What I’m upset about is pretty well summarized in the comment you are referring to, Jorge (“See also: “Taking Notice” Jan. 31., 2011 on this site, which you dissented from in a long-ass post (three times as long as usual). I can’t find the exact blog post I’m looking for, however.“).
Reading it again, I stand by the comment. It seems to me that the “green shoots” Stephen was referring to in the post have turned out to be “wishful thinking” in the harsh sunlight of the Republican presidential race.
The comment is long, but here’s the last few paragraphs to think about:
What I’m upset about, Jorge, is that or to the extent that things have changed since 2000, the movement has been in the wrong direction. I think that it is a fair observation that the hard-core anti-gay social conservatives are more powerful in the Republican Party’s primary process now than they were in 2000.
The fact that Governor Perry has spent the last week recanting is evidence of that power. The likelihood (it is not yet 100% certain, I gather, but it looks like it) that GOProud is now, apparently, ousted from CPAC, is evidence of that power. The fact that Michelle Bachmann, of all people, is seen as a viable choice for the nomination is evidence of that power.
When George Bush ran in 2000, it was an open question about whether the Republican Party would take this turn, or move in the direction the American people were moving. We now know the answer.
posted by BobN on
For the umpteenth time, Perry is not “recanting”. He never said anything to recant. He said one thing, and people with agendas seized on that one sentence to try and shoehorn his position into theirs.
He is now setting them straight. It is only because of the dysfunctional nature of our political discourse that he appears to be backpedalling.