Sadly if predictably, seven of the eight ballot referendums amending state constitutions to bar same-sex marriage (and, in some cases, civil unions and spousal-like agreements) easily passed, included in heavily Democratic-voting states. Anti-gay amendments sailed to victory in Virginia, Colorado, Idaho, Tennessee, South Carolina, South Dakota, and liberal-leaning Wisconsin (where voters overwhelmingly re-elected a Democratic senator). Only Arizona (where voters re-elected a Republican senator) looks poised to be a bright spot. It's a sign of the still-potent backlash against judicially mandated same-sex marriage and civil unions, with much braying by GOP social reactionaries and mostly silence from the leaders of the self-styled party of inclusion. Too bad.
Pa. Sen. Rick Santorum is gone gone gone from the Senate, which is good. His House counterpart, Colo. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, managed to hang on and spew forth for another two years. That's bad.
I doubt that new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi [and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid] will try to put through the full agenda their left-liberal supporters expect-everything from barring funds for the war in Iraq to transgender anti-discrimination legislation. But pro-growth tax cuts will expire as new fees are levied, the minimum wage will be dramatically hiked (hope you're not a small business owner!), trade barriers set up and counter-productive redistributionist schemes championed. Pro-market initiatives for entitlement reform are now off the table, and routine matters will henceforth get bundled up with regulatory expansion (and more power to the apparatchiks) to get passed. Too bad.
But the worst of the anti-gay stuff will also be tabled. That's good.
22 Comments for “Election Reflections, 2006.”
posted by Randy R. on
Yes, all these Americans voted to ruin America and destroy the economy. And the Democrats just can’t wait to do it! Why? Because that’s what liberals always do — they hate America and are angry when things are going as well as they are now. Expect within the week for the Dems to invite terrorists to bomb our cities.
Stupid Americans. Voting out all those terrific Republicans who ran the country so perfectly. Bah!
posted by de Villiers on
> But the worst of the anti-gay stuff will also be tabled. That’s good.
I am sorry, but I do not understand this sentence. In Europe this would mean that the worst stuff would be placed on the agenda to be implemented. Is this what this wants to say?
posted by Greg on
“I am sorry, but I do not understand this sentence. In Europe this would mean that the worst stuff would be placed on the agenda to be implemented. Is this what this wants to say?”
No, tabled means that a matter is put down ‘on the table’ to be decided at a later time. The implication being that anti gay legislation is not dead, but on hold until the Repubs are in control of the legislature again.
OTOH Arizona is looking promising to actually reject an anti gay marriage amendment.
posted by raj on
de Villiers | November 8, 2006, 1:47am |
Miller’s use of “tabled” in this context is probably incorrect. When a matter is brought up for consideration in a legislative body, it is referred to as being taken “off the table.” It is usually the leadership of the party that controls the legislative body that determines whether the matter is taken “off the table.” If, after some consideration, it is clear that the matter might then have enough votes to pass, instead of bringing the matter to an up-or-down vote (a down vote would, of course, kill the matter), the leadership may instead move to “table” the measure–put it back on the table. That would allow the measure to be brought up at a later date. Presumably, if the measure is subsequently brought up, the leadership may in the interim try to twist some arms to ensure an “up” vote, but oftentimes “tabling” the measure–putting it back on the table–effectively kills it for that legislative session.
Miller’s used of “tabled” in this context is probably incorrect largely because, presumably with a Democratic leadership, the anti-gay measures would not have been “taken off the table” to begin with. In other words, is is far less likely that the leadership would put it on the agenda (take it off the table), so there would be no need for it to be subsequently “tabled” (put back on the table). Of course, there is nothing to preclude Pelosi from taking any anti-gay measure “off the table” for consideration by the House. Nor is there anything that would ensure that, once taken “off the table,” that a measure would be subsequently tabled.
posted by Tim on
Thank God that the American people had the widsdom to throw those Bozos out of office.
posted by Nate on
Stephen is right; there will be lots of economic statism from the new Congress but little of substance for gays. It will be intereting to see how the gay Democratic activists react; probably like under Clinton they will say we have to put our needs on hold to serve the greater cause of Democratic Party ascendancy.
posted by Anon on
the minimum wage will be dramatically hiked (hope you’re not a small business owner!)
Well, thanks for the generalization. Even the cleaning lady I hire to clean our office space gets paid about 6 times the current minimum wage. I doubt the taxes will get better or worse in my line of work and none of the other changes you listed will probably affect me unless it drives the entire technology industry to India.
I just hope that the deficit mess the right has landed us in is solved now instead of the Dems ignoring it and passing it down to my kid. Other than for that concern, it’s pretty easy for me vote based on who’s for social freedoms.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I suppose if a winning margin on the bigot amendments of less than 2% is “sailing to victory,” and a decisive loss in one of the supposed Republican strongholds is something to sniff at, you’re right.
The reality of the situation is — small-l libertarians came home to the Libertarian party in the southwest and west (look at our vote totals in Congressional races in Arizona, Texas, Idaho, etc.) and everyone who wasn’t a fundamentalist religionist voted against the GOP too.
I agree that the new Congress won’t deliver much, if anything, for gays, but that’s just more opportunity for me and my guys. People certainly aren’t going to run back to Rove’s arms. 😉
posted by Alex on
People certainly aren’t going to run back to Rove’s arms
You have more faith in American’s than I do. As long as money and dirty tricks run the political show Rove will be the most influential person in America (though not necessarily the most visibly influential person…)
For my part, I’m glad to see a return to checks & balances in gov’t instead of a simple rubberstamp congress.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I am disappointed with the Wisconsin results, having spent eight months fighting against the amendment.
On the other hand, I am delighted with the Arizona results, and particularly so because Arizona was the home of Barry Goldwater, who represented a constitutional conservatism that I have long admired.
It is particularly fitting, I think, to quote him this morning:
“Gays and lesbians are a part of every American family. They should not be shortchanged in their efforts to better their lives and serve their communities. As President Clinton likes to say, “if you work hard and play by the rules, you?ll be rewarded” and not with a pink slip just for being gay.
It’s time America realized that there was no gay exemption in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. Discrimination against gays ? or anybody else ? is contrary to each of these founding principles.
Some will try to paint this as a liberal or religious issue. I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please, as long as they don’t hurt anyone else in the process. No one has ever shown me how being gay or lesbian harms anyone else. Even the 1992 Republican platform affirms the principle that “bigotry has no place in our society”.
I am proud that the Republican Party has always stood for individual rights and liberties. The positive role of limited government has always been the defense of these fundamental principles. Our party has led the way in the fight for freedom and a free market economy, a society where competition and the Constitution matter?and sexual orientation shouldn’t.
Now some in our ranks want to extinguish this torch. The radical right has nearly ruined our party. Its members do not care enough about the Constitution, and they are the ones making all the noise. The party faithful must not let it happen. Anybody who cares about real moral values understands that this isn?t about granting special rights ? it’s about protecting basic rights.”
Barry Goldwater is dead, and the radical right controls the Repulican Party.
But the principles he stood for live on in Arizona, even though the Republican Party has abandoned them.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The IGF conventional wisdom about liberals stabbing gays and lesbians in the back should be taken with a grain of salt, at best.
As a reality check — responding to Steve’s comment about “liberal Wisconsin” — the CBS exit polls showed that voters who identified themselves as “Democrat” voted against (35% for, 65% against) the amendment, while voters who identified themselves as “Republican” voted overwhelmingly for the amendment (84% for, 16% against). Independents were split, 50/50.
In addition to party identification, two factors — increasing age and the frequency with which a voter attended religious services — had very high correlation to the way a person voted.
Other factors — income and so on — seemed to make little difference.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
the Republican Party has always stood for individual rights and liberties
Except that it doesn’t. The Republican Party is a collectivist organization which “sacrifices” freedom for “security” just like the Democrats. The only disagreements between it and the Democrats is over what freedoms must be permanently revoked, and what areas of “security” must be promised (but never delivered upon).
two factors — increasing age and the frequency with which a voter attended religious services — had very high correlation to the way a person voted
Which is one reason why smart people should be working to replace the irrational mysticism common in the US cultural dialogue with something more meaningful and logical — rather than kowtowing to it as something which deserves unquestioning respect.
posted by kittynboi on
Tom is right about the lefts attitude towards gays and how they really act in the end.
There is something to the idea that the left doesn’t always serve gay interests, but I think its being blown out of proportion on here.
And I doubt there will be any meaningful amount of economic “statism”. It might not be the anti tax method of the Bush crowd, but its not going to be communism either. Do you really think anything too controversial like that won’t get vetoed?
posted by CPT_Doom on
Given the huge deficits and large debt the US is currently financing with future earnings and our spending billions a month in Iraq, not to mention the coming retirement of the baby boom generation (and aren’t they ones to always get their entitlements, no matter what), tax cuts would be disastrous at this time. I am all for a return to the smart fiscal government of the Clintonian era, when “pay as you go” was a mantra for Congress. It wasn’t easy, and yes some tax increases were necessary, but we actually balanced the budget AND had good economic growth (at least in part because of the freeing up of capital to expand productivity, instead of the government swallowing up that capital in debt financing). As for the minimum wage, there has been much work in the field of economics to address the question of employment increases/decreases under increased minimums, and the answer has been mixed, but overall not bad. It turns out the higher the minimum wage, the longer workers are likely to stay on the job, so employers save on hiring and training costs, which offsets the losses on higher wages. In the end, it seems a wash to most employers.
As for gay rights, there can’t be much movement as long as King George II inhabits 1600 Pennsylvania, but at least the FMA is off the table for now. For those of us in DC, there is the possibility of gay marriage, as the threat of Congress overturning local laws on the matter is lessened. We may also see some movement on DADT, at least hearings to expose the inanity of that law.
Finally, I’d love to hear Mr. Miller assign at least some of the responsibility for the success of gay-bashing state amendments to the GOP, which has callously and repulsively used the GLBT community as political scapegoats for the last two decades, at least. Yes, there would always have been a backlash against decisions like Hawaii’s or Massachusetts (although it seems pretty clear the NJ decision had no effect), but that backlash was increased and made more vehement by hypocritical GOP’ers who hired fags and dykes to work their campaigns at the same time they used gay-bashing campaign ads, amendments and attacks to create the great “lavender menace” to get out the bigot vote – it’s no different than Willie Horton in ’88. While Mr. Miller may be right to criticize gay groups for going for too much, too soon, at least equal responsibility must be put on the hatemongers who used those decisions to breed divisiveness and attack politics across the nation.
I would think we would all be happy if this election spelled the demise of the miserable bargain the GOP made with “social conservatives,” which has poisoned our politics for so long.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The exit poll breakdown between “liberal” (26% for, 74% against), “moderate” (54% for, 46% against) and “conservative” (87% for, 13% against) adds additional evidence that conventional IGF wisdom about liberals versus conservatives should not be taken as gospel without evaluation.
BTW, I checked the CBS polling data from other states that had the amendment on the ballot, and it is consistent with Wisconsin data. Republican, religious and old are the three positive correlations to a vote for the amendments.
posted by Mark on
What the heck is going on in AZ? Any insights? How did this anti-gay measure fail in a conservative state?
posted by Andy on
“Colo. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, managed to hang on and spew forth for another two years.”
Well, sure, but she’ll have to spew by herself. With a strong Democrat majority in the House, the FMA is as dead as a rock in Outer Fartistan. Not a chance in hell that it will ever make it out of committee next time, let along prevail on the floor. Santorum’s loss is frosting on the cake.
posted by kittynboi on
I don’t know for sure what caused it to fail in Arizona, HOWEVER, some people have been saying for a while that western conservativism is more different from southern conservativism than people realize, so maybe you should look up some info on that to get some insight.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
There is something to the idea that the left doesn’t always serve gay interests, but I think its being blown out of proportion on here.
I’ll just post one of the more indicative comments from the left on Mike Rogers’ blog, sans comment from myself:
And stop thinking that a Democrat has to be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. There is nothing wrong with disliking abortion and believig that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Stop demanding marriage.
Of course, if someone said “stop thinking that a Democrat has to be pro-socialist health care and pro-government-social-security. There is nothing wrong with disliking government and believing that pensions are best handed by the private sector. Stop demanding socialism,” he’d have been spammed off the list in short order by enraged Democrats.
Instead, this poster received a number of “hurrahs.” Which tells me that the “gay thing” is as shallow for Democrats as it is a hot button issue for Republicans.
I expect no improvement on gay issues of a meaningful nature from a Democratic government/administration — neither should anyone else. And Rogers’ embrace of outing for outing’s sake, and assigning a perceived negative connotation to alleged homosexuality for campaigning’s sake, really comes into focus when followed up with comments like the one quoted earlier in this post.
western conservativism is more different from southern conservativism
This is Goldwater’s state. And while Arizona is far from a gay mecca, it is a “radical individualist’s” place, and will continue to trend that way for the forseeable future.
posted by kittynboi on
While I don’t expect any improvement, I think, as others have said, the chances for an amendement banning gay marraige are more or less 0 right now.
Bush was clearly afraid to introdue something that controversial and divisive after the 2004 election, partly because he got off ot such a rough start in 2005 with the Schiavo case and the backlash against his social security gutting. He was already in no position to introduce it because the GOP was too busy playing defense on too many fronts, and now he’s in even less of a position to do it.
I never expected this election to mean a turnaround of all the bad stuff Bush and his crew have done, I just expected it to put the brakes on it and give us a chance to catch our breath before we start fixing things.
posted by Craig2 on
So, will IGF post an in-depth analysis of what went well in Arizona, leading to the failure of their anti-SSM referendum?
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by ETJB on
Arizona is a ‘Red State’ (Conservative) but it also has a strong right wing/ libertarian-Goldwater-Republicanism to it.
I would guess that this had a factor in the ballot measures defeat. It would be interesting to see if more young people voted in the election.