November 4th, 2009
|01:02 am - Elections both good and bad|
The bad new of the night was clearly the defeat of same-sex marriage in Maine, right-wing scum remain inexplicably persuasive on this issue. However, closer to home, Washington State's Measure 71, which gave same-sex partners the same rights as marriage (but sadly, not marriage) passed.
The two gubernatorial races were both disappointing, in the way that every Republican victory is. However, from reports that I've heard from Virginia, the Democratic candidate ran such an impressive horrible campaign, that winning against him took remarkably little effort. The situation in New Jersey was a bit more problematic, but the incumbent Democrat made himself fairly unpopular and was surrounded by allegations of corruption.
OTOH, the wonderful news is that in New York's 23rd congressional district special election, Democrat Bill Owens got a surprise victory. This seat has been held by a Republican hands since 1890, but after the moderate Republican appointee was hounded by accusation of being a socialist or a Marxist by the likes of Sarah Palin and Glen Beck, the far right endorsed a 3rd party candidate, far-right lunatic Doug Hoffman, and gave him vast amounts of money and air-time. Eventually, the Republican candidate withdrew from the race after polls consistently showed her coming in 3rd after the reactionary independent and the Democratic candidates, and she threw her support behind Owens. I'm almost sad that Hoffman didn't win, because I'd love to see the Republicans continue to believe that their ideological purge of moderates is a winning plan, since that would lead to overwhelming landslides to the Democrats in 2010 & 2012, but my guess is that the far right will take this as a sign that further ideological purity is required. I very much hope that I'm seeing the collapse of the current Republican Party.
Current Mood: busy
|Date:||November 4th, 2009 12:52 pm (UTC)|| |
I'm holding out for the abolition of marriage as a state institution.
You're not alone!
The biggest flaw of our current way of operating, is that we put bandaids on programs that don't work, that we know don't work. When I'm more awake I'll go into greater detail.
Also, since marriages are becoming more and more trivial, fewer people are seeking them. If a woman can marry a roller-coaster, then by whatever higher power I can think of, I can marry whatever I want to. At least, my marriage shouldn't have as many ups-and-downs as the wife of the roller coaster...
|Date:||November 4th, 2009 01:30 pm (UTC)|| |
On the one hand, I like the idea. You know, just make it a field on your tax form as to whom you designate the various rights we normally associate with marriage.
On the other hand, religious pundits aside, marriage is nothing but a state institution; no religion has any actual claim on it. It bothers me a bit to concede it to the religious folks.
Arguably a contract/private law institution, not state -- at heart, a commitment by two people (historically a man and woman) to be together, often involving their families and property and stuff. The state just standardizes the law involved -- sometimes; allegedly ancient in Egypt marriage was entirely private.
|Date:||November 4th, 2009 06:56 pm (UTC)|| |
Hm. I can see your point... but isn't a contract only relevant within its ability to be legally enforced? I mean, anyone can say they;re married to anyone else, but it's only true if it's acknowledged by the state.
This is, of course, mostly semantics.
The state just has to honor the contract like any other contract though, it doesn't necessarily need to recognize it as a *marriage* contract.
|Date:||November 4th, 2009 07:10 pm (UTC)|| |
Well, personally I'm okay with civil unions... so long as those are also the only option for heterosexual couples. People will still call it marriage.
I'd be for that idea if there were provisions for foreign partners being able to immigrate to the US.
|Date:||November 4th, 2009 01:35 pm (UTC)|| |
I am glad to see someone else acknowledge how bad Deeds' campaign was. I saw roughly twice as many Democrat advertisements as Republican. But whereas on those few McDonnell spots I caught he talked about economy, traffic, etc., Deeds' ads were either "Creigh Deeds is endorsed by $media_outlet" or "OMG McDonnell is teh Ebil!!!". Neither route actually offered an incentive to vote for Deeds.
|Date:||November 4th, 2009 08:41 pm (UTC)|| |
What my parents pointed out to me was that not only did most of Deeds' ads focus on how bad McDonnell is, they showed McDonnell's face far more often than Deeds'. I've never had a marketing class, but that's obviously terrible advertising. I don't understand how someone could make such an obvious mistake.
|Date:||November 4th, 2009 08:48 pm (UTC)|| |
I hadn't even thought about that, but you're entirely right. Many of the ads I encountered didn't even mention the name of the democratic candidate. I recall the names of most of the Republican contenders, but beyond the governor I have no idea who ran on the Dem side. Way to up name recognition for the opposition, guys!
What were they thinking?
I'm almost sad that Hoffman didn't win, because I'd love to see the Republicans continue to believe that their ideological purge of moderates is a winning plan, since that would lead to overwhelming landslides to the Democrats in 2010 & 2012, but my guess is that the far right will take this as a sign that further ideological purity is required. I very much hope that I'm seeing the collapse of the current Republican Party.
I've been thinking the same thing. The far-right of the Republican Party (which is pushing away any middle-right folks) doesn't really seem to process ideas like "That didn't work. Let's question our assumptions." They're going to keep pulling everything right.
What I'm worried about is that middle folks will switch over to the Democratic Party and push the Democratic Party even further to the right than they already are. These days I'm a lot more scared of Blue Dog Democrats than I am of the crashing-and-burning Republican Party.
|Date:||November 4th, 2009 08:53 pm (UTC)|| |
*nods* The best solution is for the moderate Republicans to take back their party and the lunatics to get tossed to the curb. However, it's difficult for that to happen as long as the lunatics are given the level of media they currently have. They likely won't be winning any elections except in far right portions of the nation or where the other candidate is a total idiot, but lasting change will be harder. OTOH, the common blue dog complaint that actually voting like a progressive loses an election because the far right is nipping at their heels is looking considerably less valid.
The moderate Republicans taking back the party? I guess it's a good chance of happening eventually, but right now, there's a pretty efficient right-wing engine to attack moderates. The Democrats used the Internet to get money; the Republicans are using it to get ideological far-right homogeny.
As far as the Blue Dogs? Yeah, I don't much buy that Blue Dog complaint that they're at risk. I think a more honest justification from Blue Dogs would be "It's hard to consider voting left on anything when corporate sponsors are vomiting huge piles of money all over me, especially when being a Blue Dog means I can demand a lot of favors from both parties."
Pardon my graphic imagery.
Deeds kind of had that whole "personality of a goat" thing going on. He just didn't have the charisma that McDonnell had. If he had more charisma and had run a better campaign then I think the Democrats probably would have won VA. I'm just glad I live in the fairly solidly Democratic Maryland. True, we get a Republican governor every now and again, but we always have the legislature to balance that out and they don't tend to last more than a term.
Thanks for the news about Washington! I'm glad to know that not all Americans are against civil rights for LGBT people.