You've probably heard that Steve Schmidt, the Republican political consultant who managed John McCain's campaign, told Log Cabin Republicans Friday he's for gay marriage, and that the party as a whole needs to stop making opposition to SSM a litmus test. But that bald statement of the point doesn't convey the rare beauty of Schmidt's statement of Republican, and republican, ideals. Take a few minutes to read the whole speech.
Marc Ambinder doesn't think Schmidt will get anywhere. But here's another sign of a change in the climate: National Journal's poll of "insiders" (political professionals) finds that 59 percent of Dems say the party should support gay marriage. Meanwhile,
Exactly half of the 104 Republican Insiders who were surveyed said that their party should oppose gay marriage. Another 37 percent said they thought the party should avoid the issue, and 8 percent said the GOP should actually support gay marriage. The remainder also gave scattered volunteered responses like leave it up to the states, accept it, or that the party shouldn't care it. That's a pretty close divide between the Republican Insiders who say their party should oppose gay marriage compared to those who say avoid or support it.
In other words, support for SSM is no longer a political third rail for Dems...and Republicans are growing uncomfortable with their opposition.
7 Comments for “Cracks in the Republican Wall”
posted by Bobby on
I can’t believe nobody’s commenting here. Is this site dead or what?
It’s obvious that opposing same-sex marriage is becoming politically incorrect, the latest outrage is here.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/803707/miss-usa-contests-gay-marriage-controversy
posted by Gus on
Political and Beltway insiders are not the Republican Party at the county level. The people running the show there would be 90% or more against SSM.
They don’t event talk to Log Cabin.
posted by Bobby on
“The people running the show there would be 90% or more against SSM.”
—I wouldn’t say it’s that bad. The issue is change, conservatives don’t like change, whatever change happens must be the result of analysis and calculated thought. When change happens too fast you end up with disaster, like giving GM a bailout and finding yourself having to bail them out again, or approving a spending bill full or pork without reading it, or telling our enemies that we’re not going to tolerate torture.
The left wants rapid change, they want to ban tobacco, they want to ban vending machines from high schools, they want to criminalize hate speech, they want to raise gasoline taxes.
With marriage is the same, if we move too fast, we’re going to create a lot of resistance. People need time to get used to the following ideas.
1. Gay marriage will not destroy America.
2. Churches will not be forced to perform or recognize same-sex marriages.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Bobby said “I can’t believe nobody’s commenting here. Is this site dead or what?”.
Many rational people are avoiding this site because its been a magnet for anti-gay republican/christianist bigots. The republican/christianist bigots are avoiding it because they can see the tide has turned and they’re going to lose the war on gay equality.
As for me, I’m pretty satisfied with the way things have been going, smug even. Plus I have a life unlike some I could name.
posted by Bobby on
“Many rational people are avoiding this site because its been a magnet for anti-gay republican/christianist bigots. ”
—Too bad, I don’t want to debate at The Huffington Post, too much hate, too many comments, too complicated, and too biased.
I don’t see why you would be satisfied, this site used to be great, there was lots of lively debate. Now it’s dying.
posted by artie on
don’t see why you would be satisfied, this site used to be great, there was lots of lively debate. Now it’s dying.
It was more interesting and fun when it was just Stephen Miller blogging, with his own anti-gay leftie perspective. David Link is a liberal, and a big bore. The site has lost its mojo.
posted by esurience on
Perhaps people aren’t commenting as much because the other side knows they’ve lost the argument? 🙂