Skip to main content

...and I'm not talking about the federal government per se.  

One of the most underreported stories of the year (and I'm as guilty as anyone for not beating this particular drum more loudly over the past few months) was the conservative Christian movement to get revenge on the Iowa courts for recognizing the basic humanity of its LGB citizens.  Not content with losing their case in court, they decided to bring the battle to the courts themselves by aiming their guns at the justices.

Sadly, they succeeded.  

Tonight, all three of the Iowa Supreme Court justices up for reelection were ousted.  And now that the homophobes have won, they've promised to bring it to your doorstep.  That's not a threat: it's a promise, and their victory tonight guarantees that they'll be shoring up their position in other states.

This should be sobering news to those of us who've argued that the 'normalization' of same-sex marriage will mute anti-gay efforts... after all, once they see how little same-sex marriage affects society, they'll back down, right?  

Wrong, wrong, wrong: they're going to bring it hard as ever, and we need to be prepared.

For the past few months, the Courage Campaign and HRC have been trying to direct attention to Iowa as a key state in the long-term battle over marriage, and especially the still-important role of the National Organization for Marriage - they of the "Gathering Storm" video - in the aggressive propaganda blitz that our allies found themselves fighting against:

NOM’s president Brian Brown has admitted here that his group’s effort in Iowa’s judicial election was actually about intimidating judges around the country into ruling against equality for millions of loving American families. In Iowa, NOM spent an unprecedented $600,000 on TV ads and a 45-county bus tour.

Got that?  They NOM nationwide tour wasn't just an effort to bait the gays into harassing them, it was a mission to lay roots from coast to coast, challenging judges who read the constitution to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

This isn't about Iowa: it's about intimidating the judicial system in every single state, something that even got the attention of the notoriously quiet Sandra Day O'Connor.

What Can We Do?

In the short run, and especially in the dust-settling that follows the election, very little.  We'll probably see the community rallying around the hail-mary pass of DADT repeal in the next few weeks, and given that this has nationwide implications (and is our last chance to pass any pro-LGBT legislation for the next two years), that's probably for the better: to that end, Servicemembers United has posted a video on Youtube outlining the roadmap to repeal.  Reid is planning to put repeal up to a vote in the lame duck session, which is our last, best shot to get this done legislatively. Focus on that for now.

In the long run, there are multiple things we need to be doing if we're serious about preventing another Iowa:

  1. Start following/donate if you can to the NOM-watch, linked above.  They're not the only homophobic movement out there, but they have a nationwide network and now (with the Iowa victory) a record of success that makes them that much more formidable.  Know when they're coming to your state, who they're talking to, and when you can come out to counter-protest.  Let them know they're not welcome in your state.
  1. Get in touch with your statewide LGBT orgs.  It's great that the Courage Campaign and HRC have been doing such stellar work tracing NOM's tour of oppression, but each battle will be local in tone and strategy.  Most states have both state-wide and local (city, county) orgs that have a better sense of the ground, like OneIOWA, who fought hard against a nationwide blitz.
  1. Vote.  Yeah, I know this is late advice, but it'll be just as applicable in every local, district, and state election from now through 2012.  Whatever the frustrations with Democrats at the national level, voter turnout affects everyone from dogcatcher to, sadly, state justices - and these local positions often have a greater impact on the type of policies that affect us directly.  2012 will draw out larger numbers due to the presidential elections, but if you have interim decisions to make, don't skip the polls, ever.  Little decisions can have major ramifications.

I'm saddened by what's happened in Iowa tonight, and I know the last thing people want to hear tonight is more bad news.  But I want us all to recognize the coming war, and to be prepared, and to know where to go when NOM comes knocking at your door.

Major Update: as a couple of commenters have pointed out (here and here), this isn't just theoretical... NOM has set repealing the New Hampshire marriage law as its next big goal.  This is coming, and it's going to be a difficult fight:

Lynch wins in NH; but we've flipped the state legislature in a monumental win. Get ready for a vote to protect marriage!

*shudder*

Update: I'd be remiss if I didn't point out some of the diarists who did a better job than me in trying to bring this race to our attention, like Funkygal, Inland, and Christan Dem in NC, among others.

Originally posted to De hominis dignitate on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:18 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  No tips, just promises: (311+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mike S, Renee, GainesT1958, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, Angie in WA State, zzyzx, Alma, tmo, Yosef 52, Mogolori, catdevotee, itsbenj, taylormattd, decisivemoment, grollen, Timaeus, tin woodswoman, TrueBlueMajority, mem from somerville, kainah, Debby, exotrip, Heather in SFBay, mlharges, hyperstation, GayHillbilly, jdld, celdd, Dumbo, bara, rasbobbo, dc 20005, EvieCZ, missLotus, medaka, DaleA, shanikka, vmibran, Aquarius40, chimpy, Ignacio Magaloni, Larry Bailey, Jesterfox, splashy, navajo, Cedwyn, antirove, SensibleShoes, wader, hhex65, shwing, TexDem, jlynne, kj in missouri, cosette, Hawksana, JimWilson, dwahzon, Catte Nappe, betson08, hazzcon, The Zipper, Greg in TN, kalmoth, DMiller, zerelda, Kitsap River, tomjones, valadon, Nova Land, Josiah Bartlett, eyeball, skippythebox, julifolo, Brecht, vcmvo2, G2geek, maybeeso in michigan, Bluesee, radarlady, TexasTom, jrooth, CTPatriot, PBen, willibro, Simplify, craigkg, TN yellow dog, Dobber, Laurence Lewis, reflectionsv37, cfk, Pam from Calif, Dem Beans, where4art, GreyHawk, lotlizard, kaliope, Pluto, Snud, webranding, kathny, xaxnar, begone, SSMir, third Party please, Clytemnestra, ferallike, BlueInARedState, dharmafarmer, hey mister, mr crabby, seefleur, buckstop, fiddler crabby, luckydog, blueoasis, SherriG, NBBooks, erratic, nonnie9999, Glorfindel, justalittlebitcrazy, bleeding heart, MarciaJ720, Unitary Moonbat, doinaheckuvanutjob, llbear, Turbonerd, dirkster42, stlkaper, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, emsprater, means are the ends, RantNRaven, blueness, Hedwig, blueintheface, slksfca, markthshark, mapman, Eryk, AntKat, DBunn, Thinking Fella, One Pissed Off Liberal, Noor B, pgm 01, marykk, fabucat, dotsright, california keefer, possum, ColoTim, gloriana, linkage, edsbrooklyn, terabytes, greenchiledem, sfbob, joyful, Seneca Doane, getlost, jayden, Uberbah, Killer of Sacred Cows, SeaTurtle, millwood, uciguy30, LWelsch, i like bbq, oxon, Terra Mystica, gizmo59, kafkananda, Michael91, skymutt, JayC, mayrose, mconvente, Devsd, davidseth, scooter in brooklyn, limpidglass, Judge Moonbox, elwior, lineatus, mikeconwell, pamelabrown, hwmnbn, MrJayTee, Jake Williams, TokenLiberal, kyril, glendaw271, luckylizard, GWboosebag, a night owl, Nica24, dmhlt 66, DavidW, GrannyOPhilly, jlms qkw, squarewheel, ZhenRen, lostboyjim, mos1133, legendmn, LaFeminista, maggiejean, 1BQ, Louisiana 1976, weaponsofmassdeception, DontTaseMeBro, Neon Vincent, ALifeLessFrightening, greengemini, BigAlinWashSt, radmul, Chino Blanco, Carol in San Antonio, be the change you seek, velvet blasphemy, Daily Activist, unspeakable, John Shade, ZilV, sanglug, allep10, Deoliver47, kevinpdx, DreamyAJ, RadioGirl, Houston Gardener, jfromga, deviant24x, porchdog1961, Railfan, coppercelt, NMDad, hippiechick13, gramofsam1, princss6, CS in AZ, Lost and Found, ATFILLINOIS, elginblt, Puddytat, Funkygal, elengul, science nerd, dwayne, TheHalfrican, Mister Met, BrowniesAreGood, renbear, Maximilien Robespierre, Colorado is the Shiznit, kerflooey, Hill Jill, Lost Left Coaster, Hopeful Skeptic, vahana, AuroraDawn, scarysota63, BlackQueen40, soothsayer99, asterkitty, BlueHead, Ebby, trumpeter, Cinnamon Rollover, Escamillo, Wolf10, dle2GA, Sabazinus, stefaniebee, tardis10, worldlotus, corvaire, jediwashuu, gayjustice, Imhotepsings, VTCC73, Strange New World, Deathtongue, Dbug, blue aardvark, Curiosity, Amaryliss, SoCalSal, weisja4, Ezekial 23 20, T100R, MichaelNY, No one gets out alive, Dakit, anthony21, ridemybike, Gay CA Democrat, Williston Barrett, We Won, Eric Nelson, Miep, citizendane, Ruemara, Julian Domain, supercereal, Flauten

    will you get involved?

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:16:16 PM PDT

    •  Tipped and promised. (30+ / 0-)

      Wonder how the NOM crowd will play with suburban women?

      The Republican establishment wins the votes of fools by invoking terror; the Democratic establishment wins them by invoking the Republicans.

      by MrJayTee on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:24:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is what we get for staying home (33+ / 0-)

      elections have consequences ALL elections not just the one every four years.

      The congressional race in my home district showed PRE election that the democratic challenger polled at +4 to Lee Terry... he got stomped flat.. he conceded when he got only 36% of the vote.

      Our base stayed home today and tossed the nation to the nuts and whack jobs.

      This is on OUR heads... we were tired, we were this or that... GET OFF YOUR ASSES AND VOTE EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME!!!!

      No excuses, no bitching, no kvetching... VOTE!

      If the base had turned out tonight we would have carried the day, but they didn't and the homophobic racists and other chuckleheads took the hill.

      Oh well.. maybe in a couple of years we can get our poop in a group again.

      •  This is the consequence (26+ / 0-)

        of pissing off your base. I've said for months you cannot berate people into voting for you. It doesn't work. Today proved it.

        The base stayed home. It's clear the base stayed home. Why? Because they didn't get what they wanted when they turned out in huge numbers to elect Democrats two years ago.

        When are the leaders of the Democratic party going to start taking responsibility for their missteps and stop blaming the voters?

        When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix -6.0 -5.33

        by Cali Techie on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 01:23:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  hurt feelings is no excuse for self destruction (26+ / 0-)

          i get that they probably didn't realize how self destructive not voting would be, but now they are going to find out

           

          We live in hard time. Not end times. - Jon Stewart

          by bluefaction on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 02:36:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Shitty Representation (7+ / 0-)

            Shitty representation is no reason to reelect.

            •  ShittIER is. (7+ / 0-)

              You may have missed occam razor's diary on being given a choice for meals for two years: PBJ sandwich or shit sandwich?

              Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

              by Inland on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:24:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  We suck less than they do (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                neroden, emsprater

                is not an inspiring message. I've said it before and I'll say it again. When are you people going to learn?

                This election was the Democrats' to lose and they lost it by taking half measures and not getting the job done out of fear of pissing off the middle. Well instead they pissed off their base who stayed home for this one.

                Of course they're going to take home the wrong lesson yet again then wonder why they're going to spend another 12-20 years out in the wilderness. I know why. It's because they can't figure out how to read the damn map.

                When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix -6.0 -5.33

                by Cali Techie on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 10:55:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  fuck inspiration get the job done like an adult (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  awcomeon, Rockpopple

                  you whiny child!

                  You have to GOVERN.. and to govern you must do so from the center!

                  Or didn't you notice how pleased the nation was with the extreme view of governance that was the Bush II admin?  

                  We got a shitload of stuff done these two years.. really we did.. not as much as I would have liked.. but that is a factor of a shiftless unreliable base eroding and with it the political capital needed to accomplish more.

                  When people start showing up at YOUR political events carrying guns lets see how hell bent for leather you are about pushing things quickly.  Until then you look at the forward progress made and realize you made forward progress.. and you VOTE.

                  We got healthcare done.. something that had been languishing for 60 motherfucking years!  And that was not enough for you on it' own to vote?

                  •  That's helpful (3+ / 0-)

                    You don't get it. You're hopeless.

                    You don't get elected and stay in power by berating the people you want to vote for you. "Vote for us or else" is also not a particularly good campaign message either.

                    The shitload of stuff that got done over the past two years was a bunch of watered down crap that didn't go far enough to make real changes in real people's lives. Sure the healthcare bill passed, but it doesn't come even close to resembling the base expected the administration to fight for. Instead what we got was a big wet kiss and guaranteed profits to the health insurance industry, which doesn't add any value whatsoever to our health care system.

                    The stimulus package was too little too late, which is why we still have high unemployment. Sure it more or less stopped the bleeding but the patient is still in critical condition and has been for too long with little improvement.

                    LGBT people got screwed big time. We have a president who gives us lip service and lots of symbolic support but behind the scenes does everything he can to undermine any progress we've made.

                    We voted for CHANGE and we didn't get it. All we got were half hearted attempts because Obama didn't want to piss off the Republicans. Well guess what? That didn't work as evidenced by yesterday's results. If you want the base to come out and vote for you, you need to do something for them, not insult them and then blame them for not showing up.

                    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix -6.0 -5.33

                    by Cali Techie on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:52:02 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  you got change not enough of it but you got it (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Rockpopple

                      now it is gone.

                      Got that?

                      you failed to protect and expand upon the work that had been done and now it was all for naught.

                      Yes.. vote for the dems OR ELSE.  Welcome to adulthood where the point values double and lives are on the line with every election, every vote.

                      The nuts wanted this badder then you did.. they were willing to do what was needed to achieve their overall goal:  Show up.

                      You weren't.. the "base" wasn't... and if the truth of the matter is seen by you as berating?

                      Then it is you and American liberalism that is hopeless.

                      You show up.. you win.. you stay home we all lose.

                      Thats it.

                      •  The failure is yours. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        neroden

                        YOURS. You are the one defending mediocrity, you are the one content with half-assed measures. YOU YOU YOU.

                        YOU LOST THIS ELECTION DUMMY.

                        We all voted here, but YOU demanded middle of the road while the rest of us were demanding what we voted for. CHANGE.

                        Fucking sweet Jesus Christ some people are dense.

                        •  No fool I wanted single payer (0+ / 0-)

                          what you don't quite get is that the scope of acceptable change in any given society has limits.. personally I think that they could have gone a bit farther but the available data I have may not be complete.

                          all the social programs we have started out rather mediocre social security was weaker then shit when it first got going.. look at it now.

                          First you have to get the thing BORN then you raise it up.

                          And the right was already packing heat at presidential rallies.. capice?

                          How far do you really want to push that envelope when the reaction to the mild shit was GUNS?

                          •  I wanted xxx! (0+ / 0-)

                            Social Security didn't start as a corporate giveaway. Medicare didn't start as a corporate giveaway. Unemployment Insurance didn't start as a corporate giveaway. None of these programs began with a bunch of assholes writing legislation to make their bank accounts fatter.

                            HIR is a corporate giveaway. HIR was written by the very scum that would rather see you dead than to see you get the treatment that you paid for. HIR was written by the murderers and thieves in the insurance industry to see to it that while providing the people with nothing more than a bill every month, they would fool enough idiots into thinking that they were getting something great in exchange.

                            But I'm done talking to you. You can't see anything from where you sit. Your ass was just handed to you and you are grasping at straws trying to explain what happened. Everyone knows it but you.

                            Good luck.

                          •  well you won't have to worry about it after this (0+ / 0-)

                            election.

                            Because you guys that feel that way did not show up.. the GOP is going to defund it and none of the good that even the crippled HIR did will be done.

                            Thanks!  You jackasses just fucked my brother.. without HIR he will never get insurance.

                  •  Bullshit. (0+ / 0-)

                    To govern, you do not have to do so from the mythical, nonexistent "center" as determined by FOX NEWS.

                    You have to do so from a position of competence and science-based policy.  Like, a big enough stimulus, as Krugman and Romer said was needed.  Obama failed to do that.

                    -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

                    by neroden on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:12:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  This is why the parties are going to realign. (0+ / 0-)

                  The feckless behavior of much of the Democratic national "leadership", including Obama but NOT including Pelosi, is reminiscent of the Whig Party in the pre-Civil-War period.

                  -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

                  by neroden on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:11:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  It would be interesting to poll... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chimpy, skippythebox, Inland, Glorfindel

            ...Kossacks to see how many did go to the polls, compared to the overall percentages of voters.  IMHO, the percentages still would be higher for Kossacks vs. the general population.  The next question would be how many went to the polls in 2010 vs. 2008.  

            Where there might be a more appreciable difference would be in how many worked long hard hours to GOTV in 2010 vs. 2008.  While from the many GOTV diaries, many here did work hard to GOTV, again, it may well be the numbers weren't quite as high as in 2008.  

            Then again, would it have made the difference overall?  Hard to prove one way or the other.  This pre-election article discussed voter dissatisfaction both on the right and left, and concluded that:

            But dissatisfaction, too, may be too vague -- and too tame -- a characterization. The more accurate term might be "depressed." According to the latest Yahoo! News/ABC News poll, just 33 percent of Americans said they were "optimistic" about how well the government works -- the lowest number in 36 years when stacked up against comparable surveys. Meanwhile, nearly a quarter of those polled -- 23 percent -- say that America "used to be a great country but isn't anymore," the highest number in nearly three decades.

            It's pretty near impossible to whip up enthusiasm in potential voters who feel "depressed".  

            •  I'm in a blue district (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kurious, ColoTim

              and we had overwhelming turnout and we voted our Dems back in. I try not to talk politics with people (I'm an inspector) but the few times I did (they initiated while I was helping them with some problem/question), they told me how important they thought this election was. I can only assume by the results nationwide that we were somehow unique. Piss.

              There's a reason Democrats won massively the last two cycles, and it wasn't because people were desperate for "bipartisanship". --kos

              by Debby on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:06:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, horsehockey. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis, wabird

            My grandkids are old enough to vote. And did. So did I. But it makes no difference what we do. It's just a Kabuki of distractions and smoke and mirror sleight of mind. I think I'll swear off politics from here on out.

            Now, more than ever, we need the Jedi.

            by Joieau on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:50:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  when the voters start acting like adults (25+ / 0-)

          when the voters start realizing that it is THEIR ass on the line and the ass of over other citizen.

          Did I get everything I wanted?

          No.

          Did I still get my ass out there and volunteer?  

          Yes.

          Did I get off my ass and VOTE?

          Fuck yes!

          The reason that the base gets berated is that they act like spoiled fucking children and whine and bitch and don't fucking stand their spot in the line and VOTE generally fucking us and the country six ways from Sunday.

          Want to get what you want?  STICK BY YOUR ALLIES!!!  Realize that you aren't going to get it all in a lump all at once and be reliable.

          That's how the assclowns that are going to burn this nation to the ground took power tonight.. they showed the hell up and our base stayed home all butt hurt well guess what?

          I am tired of holding your hand and begging.

          Now it is time to talk to the base like adults:

          Show up or get ignored... you guys and gals all butt hurt and whiny just fucked over the country by being butt hurt and whiny.. you failed and now you don't get ANYTHING of what you want but tons of what you don't.

          Every vote matters.. every election... you shut your mouth you do your job and you VOTE.

          Or you don't have a country anymore.  Got it?

          What you got by showing up in huge numbers two years ago was a MASSIVE amount of legislation.. that can now all be undone or crippled because you didn't safe guard that investment by showing up and having your teams back.

          •  rigteous rant nt (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kj in missouri

            the most important factor whether students succeed is not their skincolor or their ZIP code or their parents' income - it is the quality of their teacher

            by princss6 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:39:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  When are Democrats Going to Learn (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            neroden, emsprater

            The voters are the ones who decide who gets to be in power?

            Blaming the voters is a poor excuse.

            When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix -6.0 -5.33

            by Cali Techie on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 10:57:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  well then you decided to put the nuts in power (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              awcomeon

              how's that feel?

              If you supported Obama and the agenda in '08 where the flaming fuck were you in '10?

              And blaming a politician whose power is based solely and totally on the number of people backing him/her vis a vis VOTERS.. is asinine if you bail out on them part way into their term.  You remove the power with which they can bring about that which you seek.

              And yes.. I can blame people for wanton stupidity, hubris, and ignorance.

              •  You're making an assumption (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                neroden, emsprater

                I didn't vote. I did.

                But many did not as evidenced by exit polling. These people are not hard core political junkies like we are. While many of us here on Kos consider ourselves part of the base, most of the base doesn't check in to political websites. Most of the base doesn't have ready access to computers and the internet.

                If you truly think you can taunt, jeer, and snarl at your base and fail to deliver on your promises both stated and implied, then expect them to turn out for you in large numbers, you are either on drugs or living in a fantasy world.

                I said months ago Democrats had better throw their base a bone or they're going to lose one or both houses of Congress in the midterms and then it will be impossible to get anything done. I was right.

                Am I happy I was right? No. I wish I was wrong. However your last post skippythebox, is part of the problem. Stop treating the base as the enemy and they'll start working for you, but as long as the Democrats continue to snarl at and belittle their base, the people who make up that group will stay home? Why bother to vote if you're not going to get what you want anyway? Seems hardly worth the effort when you're too busy working on surviving.

                The midterms proved "We suck less than they do" is not an effective campaign slogan. Only the willfully blind are unable to see that.

                When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix -6.0 -5.33

                by Cali Techie on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:32:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  on that we agree they needed to make a big show (0+ / 0-)

                  of something go to the matt on something...

                  But I can also understand why they did not.

                  Do you have any idea how close this country is to a real outbreak of political violence?  You think that the people that funded the tea party might not have funded something a bit more ahem.. direct?

                  The last time the nation was in this kind of position the Koch' of their day tried a coup.. an honest to god COUP.

                  So... there is that to factor in.  

                •  personally I think Obama should have yanked (0+ / 0-)

                  the jaw bone out of Boehner and beaten the rest of the rethugs with it... be the Daddy and spank.

                  Oddly.. the tea partiers I know would have backed that.. they wouldn't have liked it but they would have fallen into line.. they wanted to see a strong hand and then they would have fallen in line.

                  •  *Exactly*. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    skippythebox

                    By being "Republican lite", Obama alienated multiple different groups of people, from hardcore leftists to tea partiers.

                    A "Give 'em Hell" Harry Truman style President would have attracted groups who apparently oppose him, from hardcore leftists to tea partiers...

                    -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

                    by neroden on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:15:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  We are all adults (11+ / 0-)

          Voting is not something you because some one kisses your ass sufficiently. Voting is your duty. Its your duty to vote for whoever you think is closest to your values. Anybody who didn't vote because they were disappointed is stupid. Plain and simple. There were billion of dollars spent on your vote. Why? because corporations know that your vote has immense value but you don't. If the base stayed home because they were "pissed off" They need to get a fuckin clue.

          " Pain is the cracking of the shell that encloses your understanding. Its bitter potion your inner physcians uses to heal its sick self.

          by itsnotmyfault on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:36:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  People didn't stay home (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            neroden

            because they were pissed off. They didn't bother because they don't feel anyone running for office really cares about them. It's more apathy than anything else.

            The Republicans know something the Democrats don't seem to understand. Both parties have a "base" of people who are their core constituents. Contrary to what most people around here seem to think, the base of either party is not composed of hard core political junkies. They are composed of every day people who spend most of their time on auto pilot, most of the time oblivious to the goings on in their government. The Republicans know how to get their base motivated and they do so with great skill. The Democrats on the other hand seem to take their base for granted and are too willing to bargain away what their base wants in the name of political expedience.

            The election two years ago should have shown Democrats the way. Unfortunately they didn't keep doing what made them successful and they lost. The next two years are going to suck mightily for us as the Republican held House of Representatives is going to do everything it can to make Obama's life miserable and make damn sure nothing even remotely progressive happens.

            When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix -6.0 -5.33

            by Cali Techie on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:07:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  It may prove that both contributed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          emsprater, Cali Techie

          to yesterday's debacle.  That, and lousy, shitty, no-good, incompetent messaging.

          "Fighting Fascism is Always Cool." -- Amsterdam Weekly, vol. 3, no. 18 (-8.50, -7.23)

          by Noor B on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:16:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Enjoy Republicans in power. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          awcomeon

          I'm sure a lot of progress will get done under them.

          The funny thing is, they LOVE that people who were angry at the WH for their slow movement on their core issues stayed at home. They didn't even have to make up an add urging them to do it: they chose to. And now the Republicans are in charge.

          Awesome move, Spartacus. Ya sure showed them.

          "Th abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power." - William Shakespeare

          by Rockpopple on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 02:17:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So far there hasn't been much difference (0+ / 0-)

            The Republicans even in the minority have been very effective in exploiting Obama's fetish for bipartisanship and the Democrats' general lack of spine to keep progress from happening.

            People didn't stay home in a conscious effort to punish the Democrats, they just weren't motivated to go to the polls. I've been saying for months "We suck (marginally) less than they do" is not a particularly inspiring or motivating campaign message. By the same token "Vote for us or the black guy gets it," (h/t to Blazing Saddles) doesn't work well either.

            The Democrats were handed the Presidency and the largest Congressional majorities in over a generation and they squandered that opportunity. "We know we fucked up, but pleasepleaseplease give us another chance," also doesn't exactly motivate people to go vote for you.

            On the other hand the GOP and their tea-bagging cousins were able to effectively channel their racism and hatred to motivate their constituencies to vote and the results speak for themselves. While they weren't completely able to take over ala 1994, they did manage to gain control of the House which effectively ensures no meaningful legislation will pass for the next two years because Speaker Boehner will be too busy investigating Obama just like they did Clinton and Obama will be too busy trying to appease them.

            The Democrats could have won this one very easily had they used their opportunity wisely instead of spending it trying to forge compromises with members of an opposition party who are dead set on seeing Democrats lose power even if it means driving the entire country off of the side of a cliff.

            When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix -6.0 -5.33

            by Cali Techie on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 04:07:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  BTW, The Republicans officially (0+ / 0-)

            are NOT in charge. They only have a majority in one house of Congress. The Democrats still have the WH and the Senate. However because of Democratic fecklessness over the past 2 years it certainly seems as though they've been in charge the entire time.

            When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix -6.0 -5.33

            by Cali Techie on Mon Nov 08, 2010 at 06:44:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I'm pissed off too. But, I had enough sense to (0+ / 0-)

          know that handing the midterms to the rich-man's party wouldn't result in any progress on the issues that are important to me and mine.

          Cutting off our own noses to spite our faces--yeah, that's the ticket.

      •  I didn't stay home, you didn't. nt (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skippythebox, emsprater
      •  I only get to vote once (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        neroden

        And I did. I did what I could. I doubt you'll find much of anyone saying anything different.

      •  No doubt (0+ / 0-)

        Next year, everyone will spend the year talking about 2012 and/or how silly the R's are and how weak the D's are.  

        Then, when September rolls around, they will be out to lunch on county and municipal elections.  The R's will trounce D's all around the county like they always do, taking a death grip on suburban county governments (you know, the ones who actually run elections?) and NOT A WORD will be discussed here on Kos or on other blogs about it -- except a few obscure state gov watcher blogs.  

        Then in 2012 the gawker pundits at DKOS and elsewhere will act as though the elections of 2011 never happened and will overlook the way those affect national, statewide and congressional elections.  

        Oh, and everyone will overlook reapportionment and redistricting for the most part.  

        Then, in 2012 we will hear all about how much all these kossaks worked hard for a presidential election --

        Its gonna be fun

        Youth lives by personality, age lives by calculation. -- Aristotle

        by not2plato on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:04:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Secretary of State Project, state legislature (0+ / 0-)

          Those were two of my major focuses, the first for election supervision (look it up), the second for redistricting.  Actually the SoS Project is doing quite well which bodes well.

          I also spent volunteer time some time back making sure we got paper ballots here in NY.

          What about YOU?

          -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

          by neroden on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:17:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Count me in. (5+ / 0-)

      Tipped and rec'd.

      We aren't what we should be; We aren't what we will be; But at least we aren't what we once were ~ My grandmother on social progress in America.

      by AuroraDawn on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:14:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Is it a good idea to try to pass ANYTHING (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, jlms qkw

      controversial in a lame duck session after a loss of this magnitude?

      The US is a democracy, and the people have spoken, God damn them...

      •  The people have spoken... for January. (17+ / 0-)

        They elected the current Congress to serve through December, and they will continue to do so.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:26:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Perhaps... but Nov 2012 is just two years away. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          auapplemac

          Maybe if we hadn't passed healthcare after the Scott Brown bloody nose we wouldn't be looking at tonight's massive losses.

          Are we smart enough to learn from our mistakes?

          Let's remember - if get a pasting like this in 2012 the Republicans will have a very solid majority in the Senate and perhaps a filibuster proof majority.

          •  lol, if you say so. (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Aquarius40, vcmvo2, pengiep, jayden, flhiii88

            But no, that's not the case.  The class of 2010 is going to be judged on its own (likely gridlocked) performance, and Obama will likely coast to victory either way.

            Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

            by pico on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:39:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The president is the face of government (4+ / 0-)

              and the right has pretty good control of multiple traditional and new media outlets.

              Who do you think will get the blame for gridlock?

              •  He has also been curiously unwilling (6+ / 0-)

                to call out individual republicans and draw a clear line between himself and their bullshit.

                That won't help with the old MSM bias...

                I think I'm gonna just go hide under my bed the next 2 years /not snark

                •  That's his personality (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kj in missouri, neroden, princss6

                  he is fundamentally not someone who is into "calling out"...he does it now and then I think just to throw some "red meat" to the "base," but it never seems like he really has his heart in it. His thing is being conciliatory, bridging divides...which is just not possible with today's Republicans.

                  "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

                  by Alice in Florida on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:08:10 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Guess we have the wrong President. (0+ / 0-)

                    Before I arouse the Hillary fanatics, let me say that she has pretty much the same personality as far as I can tell.

                    I don't know how to get a GOOD candidate through the Democratic Primaries. As long as they're dominated by Iowa and New Hampshire there's probably no chance.

                    -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

                    by neroden on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:18:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  We SHOULD do something about media. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kj in missouri

                and the right has pretty good control of multiple traditional and new media outlets.

                For the 40 years I've been watching the Republicans whine about the "liberal media," I have never seen a Democrat in a leadership position say that if the GOP really thought the media was against them, they'd have to be masochistically begging to be humiliated to give this enemy so much ammunition. What benefit does the Democratic Party get from allowing the Republicans to lie about such an important link between the real world and the electorate?

                We should be able to command enough airtime to challenge the Republicans, if they really want to balance the budget, why aren't they willing to cancel Bush's tax cuts for millionaires? Why don't they ask if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are really worth the deficit spending? What do they hope to accomplish by keeping marijuana illegal?

                The Tea Partisans will have to choose between their dogma and serving their constituents. The more we refuse to let them lie about the media, the harder that dilemma will be.

                Greg McKendry, Linda Kraeger, Dr. George Tiller, Steven Johns. Victims of Wingnut violence

                by Judge Moonbox on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:44:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What do you suggest we do about the media? (0+ / 0-)
                  •  Here's what I'd do. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    neroden

                    Perhaps it would be a bad move to go after the media directly--especially after this election.

                    However, we can expose the Republicans' two faces on this:
                    We can say that if the Republicans actually BELIEVED the media was against them, they would anticipate that certain actions would give this enemy too much ammunition.

                    In the 40 years I've been watching, I haven't seen any Repubs warn others that a proposed action or candidate would be too much trouble.

                    Therefore, they either know the media bias business is a lie, or they're masochistically begging to be humiliated.

                    Greg McKendry, Linda Kraeger, Dr. George Tiller, Steven Johns. Victims of Wingnut violence

                    by Judge Moonbox on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:51:47 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I bet you can't get most readers her (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      neroden

                      to sit still for a detailed explanation of this theory, never mind an independent voter who's a reasonable target for politicians in the next election.

                      •  Why Not? (0+ / 0-)

                        Me:

                        However, we can expose the Republicans' two faces on this:
                        We can say that if the Republicans actually BELIEVED the media was against them, they would anticipate that certain actions would give this enemy too much ammunition.

                        Millennium Hand and Shrimp:

                        I bet you can't get most readers her
                        to sit still for a detailed explanation of this theory, never mind an independent voter who's a reasonable target for politicians in the next election.

                        Is this concise enough for you? "Either the Republicans know this media bias talk is a lie, or they're masochistically begging to be humiliated."

                        Greg McKendry, Linda Kraeger, Dr. George Tiller, Steven Johns. Victims of Wingnut violence

                        by Judge Moonbox on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:07:05 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  I tell everyone to abandon TV and US newspapers (0+ / 0-)

                    Go to UK newspapers and the Internet (as many sites as possible) if they want the truth.

                    It's retail-level, but it's the best I can do.  Maybe I'm creating Paulites, but that's way better than Beck/Limbaugh fascist types.

                    -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

                    by neroden on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:20:04 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  BTW, just to harsh your mellow, in 2012 (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Odysseus, auapplemac, mconvente

              there will be 23 Democrat and 10 Republican seats up for election.

              Just keeping the status quo would require a wave election in the Democrats' favor (just as 2006 went very strongly for Democrats.)

              In an even election Democrats can expect to lose perhaps 5 seats (incumbency has its value.)

              In a repeat of 2010 Democrats would lose about 10 to 15 seats, giving the Republicans easy control of the senate and perhaps the ability to beat a filibuster.

              •  Good luck with that. (5+ / 0-)

                I don't expect 2012 to be a complete reversal of this year, but you may be surprised what happens when we get increased voter turnout due to presidential candidates + two years of a Republican record in the House that will likely be considerably less than stellar.

                Seriously, good luck.  You'll need it if you want to see anything like you're predicting.

                Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                by pico on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:58:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Predicting 2012 now based on your (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Odysseus, auapplemac, neroden, Broadview

                  guesses about what the Republicans in charge of the House will do over the next two years and how voters will react to that is an exercise in futility.

                  In addition, I tend to agree with the position that since most people don't pay very much attention to politics (unless crazed jihadis fly planes into buildings or there's a presidential impeachment and a zaftig brunette who plays with cigars and keeps semen stained dresses as mementos of her sexual adventures) what really matters is the economy.

                  If the economy isn't significantly better in 2 years Obama and the Democrats will almost certainly be blamed.  The president is the face of the government and most voters won't even know that Republicans control the House.

                  If the economy is better, it's an open question whether Obama and the Democrats can take credit, whether House Republicans can say that they forced Obama and the Democrats to do the right thing and they take the credit, or whether incumbents on both sides of the aisle will benefit.

                •  Let me harsh further... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  drewfromct, Broadview
                  1. The Republicans did very well in state legislatures and governorships.  Redistricting is coming up and they are going to have a lot of control.  Last time was after the 2000 elections when Bush had almost no coat tails so they're going to increase their advantage.
                  1. California passed Proposition 20 which puts House redistricting in the hands of a supposedly non-partisan board.  Assuming that it really is non-partisan California won't be gerrymandered in favor of Democrats any more but Texas (the biggest red state) will remain gerrymandered in favor of Republicans.

                  This means that the next 10 years are going to be heavily weighted against Democrats in the House and in state legislatures.  That also means that there will be fewer opportunities to develop local politicians for state or national level offices - fewer good experienced Democrats running for Senate, Governor, or even President.

                  In short, for the Republicans, this election is going to be a gift that keeps on giving for the next 10 years and perhaps even longer.

                  •  More Republican governors=more Republicans (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kj in missouri, neroden

                    responsible for state and local deficits, tax increases, loss of services....given the economic situation, which likely won't be much better in two years (which means there will be a LOT of middle class folks slipping into the underclass), it is quite possible for there to be another big wave going the other way....one thing is certain, and that is that nothing is certain (except the continual flow of more and more anonymous corporate money into campaigns--you can take that to the bank).

                    "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

                    by Alice in Florida on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:17:51 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Makes sense. That must explain (0+ / 0-)

                      why the Democrats intentionally lost all those governorships.

                      What?  What's that you say?  It wasn't intentional?

                      Let's face it - it's never good to lose an election.

                      Let's also remember - fewer Democratic governors means fewer good candidates to run for Pres / VP in 2012 (if Obama doesn't run or Biden drops out) and in 2016 and 2020.  Good people who might have won won't have the chance to develop themselves and their followings.  (Remember - from Lyndon Johnson to Bush jr., every single president was either a Governor or a VP first.)  

                  •  That board is gonna be WEIRD. (0+ / 0-)

                    Have you looked into the method of its selection?  We have never seen anything like the California Redistricting Commission before....

                    -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

                    by neroden on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:21:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  To the average voter... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  blueoasis

                  There will be no "Republican record."

                  We're looking down the barrel of 2 years of gridlock, and Republicans can make themselves look very good by running superficially popular legislation with unpalatable poison pills attached into their certain death in "the Democrat-controlled Senate."

                  I don't believe that many non-political junkies are going to see a Democratic President, Democratic Senate, Republican House and think "man, these Republicans don't know how to lead."  

                  Those who support banning cocaine are no better than those who support banning cheeseburgers

                  by EthrDemon on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:18:09 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  interrupting (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  pico

                  just to say, thanks Pico, and personally, i'm looking forward to these next two years.  there's plenty of work to do and 14,000 messages to craft.  the spotlight is going to be sharp, let's take it.

                  great diary.  have a good one, Pico!

                  "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

                  by kj in missouri on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 10:20:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  The adjective is "Democratic." (4+ / 0-)
                "Democrat" is the noun. If you want to interact here civilly, please learn that, and act accordingly.
            •  Coast to victory (4+ / 0-)

              Are you delirious? We just lost the most seats ever. And You think he is going to coast to victory.

              " Pain is the cracking of the shell that encloses your understanding. Its bitter potion your inner physcians uses to heal its sick self.

              by itsnotmyfault on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:39:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  A lot can happen in two years (0+ / 0-)

                A mishandled impeachment?  But it's hard to believe that the Republicans would be so stupid after seeing how Clinton survived that.

                An economic recovery that Obama gets credit for?

                Further economic deterioration that the voters blame Republicans for?

                It's not impossible at all that Obama will coast to victory.

                But just assuming it off the cuff now is inane, I agree.

                •  Darryl Issa is champing at the bit to go (0+ / 0-)

                  after Obama on some trumped up impeachment charges. This will occupy a lot of mind space and I think will be allowed to continue because it placates the racists in the Repukelikan party, especially the TeaBaggers.

            •  The president will only "coast to victory" (0+ / 0-)

              if there is a stunning turnaround in the economy or the Republicans truly outdo themselves in screwing up between now and 2012 (and are unable to find a credible nominee--which Sarah Palin obviously would not be).  

              "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

              by Alice in Florida on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:04:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  ?????? (0+ / 0-)

            Maybe if we hadn't passed healthcare after the Scott Brown bloody nose we wouldn't be looking at tonight's massive losses.

            Given the Republicans's ability to outspend us, do you really think that they wouldn't have pejoratized anything else we would have done????

            If I had to do the last two years over, I would have had Obama go for Health Care Reform, BUT I would have made the Republicans give the bill the same Straight Up or Down vote they demanded for the partisan hacks and ideological extremists that Bush nominated to the Federal bench 4 years earlier.

            Greg McKendry, Linda Kraeger, Dr. George Tiller, Steven Johns. Victims of Wingnut violence

            by Judge Moonbox on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:36:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You can demand anything you want (0+ / 0-)

              but how would you have enforced it?

              •  How Obama could have gotten an Up or Down vote. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                neroden

                Me:

                BUT I would have made the Republicans give the bill the same Straight Up or Down vote

                Millennum Hand and Shrimp:

                You can demand anything you want but how would you have enforced it?

                I think that the Republicans would have responded to the threat that if they didn't give Health Care Reform and the Stimulus Bill a straight up or down vote, he'd say that they know their "liberal media" slogan is a lie--that if they really believed it, they would anticipate that this media would not let them get away with a filibuster.

                Greg McKendry, Linda Kraeger, Dr. George Tiller, Steven Johns. Victims of Wingnut violence

                by Judge Moonbox on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:39:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Why not? Last I checked, they are still in (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        drewfromct, neroden, blueoasis

        office.  Furthermore, if we are going to shy away now, then we deserve even more massive losses in 2012.  Our Democrats need to get on the ball, starting today and stop being wusses.

        Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

        by Miggles on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:13:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This depends on the interesting proposition that (0+ / 0-)

          voters who are angry at the party in power for not effectively implementing a left wing policy would respond by voting for right wingers.

          I find this highly unlikely.

          If you want to see how a movement that is unhappy with its preferred party for not being effective and ideologically pure enough behaves you should look at the Tea Party.

          They were pissed at Republicans for being too moderate so they attacked from the right, not the left.  Yes, they voted out Republicans... but they did it by beating moderates in primaries with more extreme candidates, some of whom lost in the general election.

          If Democrats had lost this election because a progressive insurgency knocked out a bunch of Blue Dog incumbents and replaced them with socialists who couldn't win the general election you would have a point.  But that's obviously not what happened.

          •  No, no, you have the analysis wrong. (0+ / 0-)

            There is a certain large subset of voters (20% or more) who vote for perceived strength of character; they'll vote for Josef Stalin or Oscar Arias equally well, but they won't vote for a wuss.

            Certain Democrats have been writing those voters off.

            -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

            by neroden on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:24:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, like that will happen with the collection (0+ / 0-)

          of invertbrates we've got left in Congress.

      •  Yes, "The People" have the memory (0+ / 0-)

        capacity of a fruit fly....unfortunately a lot of legislation is typically accomplished in lame duck sessions precisely because there is no reason to worry that "the people" will notice....and if they notice, they won't remember it in two years.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:59:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  There's a war goin on outside no man is same from (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pico, mconvente, AuroraDawn

      "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

      by TheHalfrican on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:34:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It always amazes me how little attention... (10+ / 0-)

      Democrats pay to judges and justices. After all, they're not only the final arbitrators of justice in this country but also of democracy itself. They play an absolutely critical role in any democracy, and the ambivalence Democrats seem to show toward the nomination and election thereof... truly astounds me.

      Republicans learned that lesson a long time ago. Democrats... not so much.

      Good luck in Iowa.

      The history of the CIA's involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception -- Carl Bernstein

      by markthshark on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 02:59:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I already am involved (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kj in missouri, pico

      but I will keep on this fight.

      I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

      by Guinho on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:10:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A war, yes, but not one they'll win (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kj in missouri, neroden, pico

      For a time, they will seem to flourish, but in the end we will win.  This is certain.

      Now we are fighting about the timing of it.  We will win that one too.

      I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

      by Guinho on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:12:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nicely written, Pico (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kj in missouri, pico

      Thanks for pointing out these issues in the election. Someone needed to say this, and you nailed it! I promise to keep working on this :)

      Please support equality in California: http://www.couragecampaign.org

      by Curiosity on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:59:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That tip is a promise (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kj in missouri, pico

      to get/stay involved.

      There's a reason Democrats won massively the last two cycles, and it wasn't because people were desperate for "bipartisanship". --kos

      by Debby on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:01:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  GAAAH! Don't turn me into a "promise-keeper" (0+ / 0-)

      those guys are just scarey.

      Reforms come from below. No man with four aces howls for a new deal.

      by Turbonerd on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:52:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  At the risk of sounding self serving (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, pico

      I invite people to read the group blog I co-founded, Talk to Action, where we have discussed the NOM from early on, usually in the wider context of the Religious Right.

  •  that's very depressing news (11+ / 0-)

    That was something that I had wanted to check up on but in the rush of races, I lost track of it. So thanks very much for posting this, even though it is really, really depressing news. But yes, I vow to keep fighting for equal rights for my LGBTQ friends.

    "The fools are as plentiful as ever." Albert Parsons, Haymarket martyr

    by kainah on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:28:06 PM PDT

  •  Yes we do and we have to make sure we win it (7+ / 0-)

    "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

    by LaFeminista on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:41:24 PM PDT

    •  Indeed. (11+ / 0-)

      I like where the arc of history is bending, but I don't like how much it wobbles in the meantime.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:43:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is no "arc of history." (9+ / 0-)

        As a little rhetorical flourish, "arc of history" is a nice idea, but it's nothing more than a result of the human tendency to perceive patterns in random events.

        We are not on an unstoppable trajectory. There is no guarantee of equality for LGBT folks (or any other minority for that matter) because these are tough fights that must be waged. Talk of an "arc of history" lulls people into thinking that the opposite is the case, that people won't have to work so hard to achieve justice.

        I think that's part of the reason why so many people truly, sincerely believe that DADT will be repealed by 2012. Because that's where the arc of history is bending, after all.

        Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice. -- Clark's Law

        by unspeakable on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:58:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's hardly random. (4+ / 0-)

          You're right that it's a rhetorical flourish, but there's no doubt about the change in perception over time, and the momentum that engenders, over the last few decades.  Whether that continues is another question, so you are correct: I don't believe in historical teleologies, so when I use it I mean it only rhetorically.  Things could change completely tomorrow, for sure.  So I do agree with you.

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:01:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  thanks for this diary (7+ / 0-)

    I was telling everyone I could find for the last week to vote in the judicial races. The challengers here in MN were ridiculous - wholly unqualified, fundamentalists, etc.

    What happened in Iowa - and I'm not sure what happened in MN yet - is frankly the most disturbing part of this entire election to me.

  •  I don't think too many people pay attention (14+ / 0-)

    to judicial elections. Except for these hate groups who obviously won't be satisfied until the judges are intimidated into ruling their way.

    In general it seems like the right is way, way ahead of the left on judicial matters. They've been packing the courts for decades, I don't think the left even understands that there's a problem there.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:45:30 PM PDT

  •  Whoever thought up the God-forsaken idea (18+ / 0-)

    of voting for judges had to have been a brain-dead idiot (and populist, no doubt) of the lowest order. How on earth did that schmuck think we'd maintain an impartial judiciary when the judges are looking over their shoulder to make sure their decisions are OK with voters?

    A top priority should be getting this entire process reformed. Judges should not be up for election ever. I refused to vote to approve any judge's term today purely on the principle that it shouldn't be on my ballot.

    Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice. -- Clark's Law

    by unspeakable on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:46:04 PM PDT

    •  This is one of the issues that came up in (11+ / 0-)

      O'Connor's discussion, for exactly these reasons: the more the judiciary is at risk of influence of moneyed interests, the less impartial it can be.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:48:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think that's construcitve. I diaried (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pico

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      the IA retention vote yesterday, but the suggestion of reforming the system to remove voter input, I think, is misguided.  First, there's no reason to lose a vote like that.  Second, IA judge selection is actually MORE removed from politics than most states, arguably more than federal appointments.

      Bottom line, howeever, is the fact that judicial decisions are never the final, final word.  There's always a vote, even if just for an amendment to constitution, like with Prop 8.  Electoral malpractice will scuttle anything.

      Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

      by Inland on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:24:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Appointment and election both have problems. (0+ / 0-)

        The NYS system has been surprisingly good; judges must be elected to lower positions, and must be appointed from them to higher positions... and there's also an election of their peers (fellow judges) too.  I tend to think that judges who can manage to be both elected and appointed rarely fall into the usual traps which elected judges fall into (crass populism, being bought by crass populists) and those appointed judges fall into (being sellouts owned by powerful men).  It is possible, but the kind of bad behavior you tend to need to perform to get appointed tends to prevent you from getting elected.  And vice versa.

        -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

        by neroden on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:41:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  You missed the big picture (5+ / 0-)

    This is about intimidating judges period when they render decisions they don't agree with.  Judge should be appointed instead of elected.

    Here is a good article.

    http://open.salon.com/...

    •  Well, no, that's kinda what I said, (5+ / 0-)

      but I do appreciate the link.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:48:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That moves the intimidation to the governor. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, pico

      People who are mobilized around one issue can always intimidate, if not the judges, than the appointees.  

      It always goes back to people organized for the ballot box, one way or another.

      Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

      by Inland on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:27:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Judges should be appointed & elected. (0+ / 0-)

      Appointment has disastrous problems (look at the federal judiciary).

      I'm rather fond of the NYS system, where lower court judges are elected, but higher court judges are appointed -- but must be appointed from amongst the lower court judges.  Then they serve 14-year terms (no recalls, obviously).

      Recalls for judges are insane, as the only reason they'd ever be used is when people disagreed with a ruling, which is a bad reason.

      Had the NY process been used the Iowa Supreme Court judges would have been just fine; to pull a scam like this the NOM types would have had to knock them out in elections -- possibly 13 years later! -- and get a NOM candidate elected -- and then convince the governor to appoint said NOM candidate (and the state legislature to approve the appointment).

      -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

      by neroden on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:44:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  great diary, pico. (5+ / 0-)

    Thaks for bringing this to our attention.

    That pic you posted up top is the stuff of nightmares.

    I don't understand where the violent homophobia comes from... I just don't get it at all (thankfully!).  

    What's so scary about gay people???  Seriously??

    "The more the Democrats pursue the center... the further to the right the "center" moves." -fellow kossack vacantlook

    by Hopeful Skeptic on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:52:10 PM PDT

  •  Pico, been involved for 35 years (12+ / 0-)

    I'm now in suburban Portland, Oregon. It's a lot different than northwestern Illinois - or even Chicago. Guess what? It got better.

    I'm with you 'till the end of my time on this planet - that's +/- 10 years. I hope by that time the phrase "gay rights" sounds quaint, old fashioned, and sort of weird.

    Bring them home now. It's time.

    by llbear on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:53:45 PM PDT

    •  I am with you all as well (6+ / 0-)

      because I have too many friends who are being held down from living their lives fully because of their missing civil rights.

      But to you, my favorite llbear, I would be most grateful if you would stay in the game by 10++ years and more. We need you guys with some maturity to keep the balance and remind us of what it was like during the Harvey Milk era and before. Please give us at least 20-30 more years of your counsel and encouragement. I'm begging. You're my favorite bear!

      The beatings will continue until morale improves. -8.50, -6.92

      by ferallike on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:07:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Another scary thought (5+ / 0-)

    The New Hampshire Lege went Republican overwhelmingly...as in veto proof Republican majorities in both houses. I would not be surprised to see an attempt to repeal marriage equality there.

    "So it was OK to waterboard a guy over 80 times but God forbid the guy who could understand what that prick was saying has a boyfriend."--Jon Stewart

    by craigkg on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:59:08 PM PDT

    •  About that... (4+ / 0-)

      I have been making this point, and seen others picking it up.

      By the time they would be able to rescind marriage equality, gays will have had full marriage rights for over a year. Way longer than gays had them in California. Further, in this instance, it would not be an unpopular court decision being over-ridden by popular vote, it would be the state legislature granting a minority a fundamental right, and then revoking it for no reason whatsoever. What rational interest could they offer for doing that? How could they possibly prove the state had been harmed by gay marriage at all in that large time frame?

      Now that Brown is governor of CA, it is pretty likely that Prop 8 will be dead by New Year's. PM.com and Imperial County obviously lack Article III standing, and the state will not be joining the appeal. So, with Prop 8 dead, and gay marriage back on in CA, we lose a very, very good trial record and marriage rights vehicle to the Supreme Court. But a potential setback in NH would provide us an even better vehicle for a federal lawsuit. I think NOM would be wise to think long about their chances of defending gay marriage repeal in Federal Court-- because AFER, Ted Olsen, and David Boies would be all over it.

  •  I wonder if gay liberals will still be writing (9+ / 0-)

    articles on Huffinton Post about not voting in 2012 as a protest against Obama like they were last week... two months from now when the reality of what not voting for Democrats means in terms of their own well being?

    My guess is not.

    •  Would prefer not to go into that here, now. (7+ / 0-)

      I understand the relationship between non-voting and resultant policy implications, but that's a powderkeg of an issue, and I'd prefer we stuck to discussing NOM and the already-nationwide effort to punish judges for 'activism'.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:06:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK, we should discuss it elsewhere (0+ / 0-)

        but if gays think they can take down the first black president as a protest and not outrage the black community and in turn tank their civil rights agenda, I think they're sorely mistaken. Imagine if blacks took down the first gay president as a protest. Anyway, yeah somewhere else, some other time.

        •  Absolutely not having the 'gays v blacks' (8+ / 0-)

          argument here.  That is a mess of a topic - not the least because of the role that LGBT people of color play in this - but especially since it tends to be reductive and insulting to everyone involved.

          I've been trying to write on it for some time, but a single diary turned into a series, and the deeper I got into it the more difficult it became to parse.  I don't want to see it reduced to a flame-ridden comment section.

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:49:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  sounds wise (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kj in missouri, pico

            it's an impossible brick wall, but the inescapable bottom line is that we rise or fall together and at some point one group or the other is going to have to basically suck it up and realize that. i'd like to think that can be the black community should there be a boycott in 2012, but i know better. and that leaves only one other option: hold your nose and vote time. we can all declare war on each other, war seems to make humans feel good somehow, empowered, but we'd be fools to think we can spit in the black community's eye and expect them not to take it out on gays.

            my only concern is getting people their civil rights as soon as possible in this f'd up country of ours.

            just talking about it in terms of the stark reality, devoid of the emotions on either side... since i'm in neither camp.

            •  Boycott is stupid. Primary is sane. (0+ / 0-)

              Maybe hopeless, but sane.  Boycotting the election is stupid.  Running a primary candidate is sane, and I don't think of that as "spitting" on anyone.

              -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

              by neroden on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:46:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not sure Obama will run for reelection (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Guinho, drewfromct, blueoasis

      in 2012, or that he'll survive a primary challenge.  It's hard to predict such things so far out, especially when the economy is as weak and brittle as it is.  

      •  it will improve. (0+ / 0-)

        I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

        by Guinho on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:13:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, it really won't. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dumbo

          Sorry, I follow this for my day job.  Unless there is a major change in policy from the administration, or (less likely) the Congress, or (more likely) certain foreign powers, or (least likely) radical policy change from the states, or (most least likely) some bizarre external economic event, the economy will get worse for the next two years.

          -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

          by neroden on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:47:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yes, that's right. (0+ / 0-)

            I am afraid the first thought hearing the polls and then the results was "great, the boneheaded Americans vote for a double dip recession!"  Well, thems as voted Repug get what they deserve.   The rest of us also get what they deserve, sadly.

            I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

            by Guinho on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:40:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Well, when I diaried the IA retention vote (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden

      yesterday, I was assured that I was worried about nothing.  

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      And it received this contribution:

      Isn't it your position that gays are whining about Obama and should just grow up? Yeah thought so.

      So I wouldn't expect much to change on that front.

      Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

      by Inland on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:30:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Something I haven't wanted to bring up (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, neroden, pico, FiredUpInCA

    is the degree to which tonight's losses could be a response to efforts to repeal DADT and legalize gay marriage.  

    ---
    Mr. Rogers taught us to be better than this.

    by VelvetElvis on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:10:37 AM PDT

    •  That's a really good question, and (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, drewfromct, neroden

      something we haven't much looked at.  The tea party was at great pains to portray itself as a movement not interested in social issues (ha!), but I'd be curious if anyone has done more in-depth analysis of the way gay-baiting may have brought out voters in ways we weren't prepared for.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:14:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The "tea party," to the extent.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        neroden

        ....that it was cohesive, had internal debates over social issues and how libertarian the movement would be.  "This American Life" profiled one congressional race , MI-01, where the issue came up fairly often in the context of a three way race that seemed to divide them.  The Republican won anyway.

        "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

        by Alec82 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:30:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Our wedge for 2012 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        antirove, neroden

        Using social issues to peel off moderate libertarians seems like it might be a good tack for us next cycle.

        Of course, that would require some kind of ideological honesty out of people I don't trust to have any.

        (And I was hoping that Prop 19 in Cali was going to demonstrate this last night, but as usual "small government" continues to mean "just small enough for us to tell you what to do"...)

        Those who support banning cocaine are no better than those who support banning cheeseburgers

        by EthrDemon on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:26:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not at all (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      limpidglass

      The traditional measures apply.  Was that issue even on the radar of voters? No, apart from Iowa (apparently; I would be hesitant to read too much into those retention elections without knowing more about where the funding came from and what the on the ground campaign emphasized, as well as the numbers voting on the ballot issue compared to other statewide contests; it certainly wasn't an issue in Michigan and the Democrats still managed to lose the state supreme court to Republican insurgents).  

      It is a very simple inquiry. Take a look at California, where the man who vowed not to fight for Proposition 8, approved by voters under two years ago, beat a woman who promised to appeal the decision.  That leaves the still undecided AG race (as far as I know undecided).  

      What other evidence is there? There was (blissfully) no statewide campaign against gays this year, a refreshing break after six years of a vote against gays every election cycle (including most off year elections).

      But if people want to find a way to blame this on Democratic (largely illusory) support for gay rights, they'll find a way, instead of pointing out how many of Rahm's handpicked candidates were wiped away.  Or the fact that Illinois has a brand new Republican senator to take Obama's place.  

      "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

      by Alec82 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:28:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This election went well for Gays (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        neroden, sfbob

        compared to 2008. Our rights were not voted away, pro-gay marriage governors are winning. On just our issues alone, we probably had the best election since the Brigg's Initiative.

      •  Actually, it was pretty widespread this year, (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vcmvo2, drewfromct, lotlizard, neroden

        gay-baiting by Republican candidates, I mean.  It didn't get much play here - as you say, it wasn't tied to any major legislation - but even Colbert brought up a few examplesjust last week.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:34:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In fact, though, many of those examples.. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neroden

          ...were widely seen to hurt the Republican candidates (Buck comes to mind), and were brought about to show that the Tea Party was more intolerant than they were letting on.  But does that show that gays hurt Democrats? No, to the contrary.  

          "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

          by Alec82 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:37:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not arguing that "gays hurt Democrats", (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vcmvo2, neroden

            nor was VE above.  We're trying to assess to what extent these issues were on the radar of conservative voters, which they clearly were, and whether that contributed to some of their disjointed pool of motivations.  I don't know, and that's the scope of the discussion here.

            Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

            by pico on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:42:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well but that is.. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              neroden

              ...in fact, a "gays hurt Democrats" argument, because the implicit suggestion is that the issue resulted in an increase in conservative turnout that hurt Democratic candidates and causes.  I'm sure that abortion contributed to their turnout, but no one is suggesting we had a national referendum on Roe v Wade or that "abortion hurt the Democrats."  You are far too forgiving of the party, that would blame you (and the rest of us) in an instant to justify its coming course of inaction (or worse) on LGBT issues.  That game has been played before.  

              What I find fascinating is that we will probably not be treated to diaries blaming poor African American turnout on this year's losses, or women for supporting more Republicans.  And yet here we are again, debating whether gays injured the party.  I think it is revealing that the question is even asked, given the context.    

              "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

              by Alec82 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:49:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Uh, no. Increased voter motivation (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                vcmvo2, neroden

                for one party has nothing to do with whether an issue impacted turnout or performance by another party.  As for whether "we'd" be having this discussion about other issues... who is "we"?  Me?  VE?  VE is pretty far to the left (even for this site) and is asking a perfectly legitimate question given that this is a diary specifically about LGBT issues.   What exactly is "revealing" about that? You need to stop reading every discussion as a potential front in some kind of ideological war.

                It looks like you're trying to make this an argument, and I'm not getting drawn into an argument with you over this.  I made a mistake in encouraging VE's comment because this diary's about NOM, I'm trying to keep it about NOM and what we can do to counter what's likely to be a full-throttle effort to overturn our progress on marriage equality.  If you want to write a preemptive diary on why the LGBT voters aren't to blame for what happened this week, you can lock horns with Flauten above.

                Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                by pico on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:54:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  He specifically referred to "tonight's losses" (0+ / 0-)

                  Anyway, I don't care to have a discussion about it.  As you said, perhaps you should have dropped it if you felt it was off topic.  So I will not answer your question about why I found it revealing, although I think the answer should be obvious.

                  Night.

                  "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

                  by Alec82 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:59:26 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's not particularly obvious. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    vcmvo2, neroden

                    No one here, least of all VE (who did, in fact, ask the same question about other issues) is trying to write a preemptive 'blame the gays' narrative.  That one will be written is undoubted (see Flauten, above), but that's not the conversation we were having here.

                    Anyway.  'night.

                    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                    by pico on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 01:07:02 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  the iowa election would be about GOTV (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        neroden, operculum

        on the part of the fundamentalist candidates. The "reasonable" people probably weren't even paying attention to the race.

        •  There weren't even candidates (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neroden

          It was just a "vote no" retention election.  They'll be replaced, possibly by a Democratic governor.  

          "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

          by Alec82 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:51:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  In MN there were candidates (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            neroden

            and they were scary

          •  No. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kj in missouri, neroden, pico, operculum

            Iowa does not appoint judges by the governor, exactly. He gets the final decision from a list that is provided to him by a non-partisan board.

            Up until this year, the non-partisanship was sacrosanct for the Iowa judicial system. But money entered the picture in order for the gay hatred people to get their way.

            The judges decided that as non-partisan judges that they would not spend money to fight for their retention. It was totally left up to groups like One Iowa to fight this for them. I understand their position, but I think it cost them.

            And really, it's not just the retention vote that causes my concern as an Iowan, but also the fact that the Republicans took control of the Iowa statehouse and the governor. The Republicans can now introduce legislation to have a ballot question on whether the Iowa constitution can be modified to outlaw gay marriage. This is a F'ing big deal, and every Iowan who didn't vote but doesn't want to see the gay marriage overturned bears responsibility for what happened. Elections have consequences, and Iowa gays are going to have to pay for those consequences in a big way.

            dermatomyositis - when dermatitis or myositis just isn't enough by itself.

            by glendaw271 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:13:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They took control of the Iowa House (4+ / 0-)

              The Iowa state senate still plays a role in approving proposed constitutional amendments, no? So if the Iowa Democratic Party is worth anything, it will prevent the issue from moving forward.  

              Of course, I would not rely on that. And I am aware of the role of the nonpartisan judicial commission.  My point was that they could begin their vetting process as early as November 29, and the outgoing Democratic governor could be given nominations to approve before he leaves office in mid-January.  Additionally, and this should really be emphasized, nothing guarantees any change in the ideological orientation of the new incoming justices, compared to their predecessors.  The process is relatively insulated from partisan politics.  

              It remains to be seen whether gays in Iowa will face any reprecussions at all for Tuesday's vote.  I am guessing, on marriage, that they probably will not.  

              "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

              by Alec82 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:35:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Plus the lesson for other states' judges (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              neroden, operculum

              which do NOT have the IA system is clear enough.  At least IA has a merit system that somewhat insulates from politics.  Any judge in Illinois with ambitions has to be elected.   Plus, states do from time to time get GOP governors.

              Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

              by Inland on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:03:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Sure, it may have been political malpractice. (0+ / 0-)

        It may be just another case of national advocacy groups sitting back and watching well funded minorities overwhelm majority public sentiment.

        I'm not sure why you would be comforted by the fact that single issue voting works so well against gay marriage, given that you seem to be a single issue person yourself on that same single issue.  

        Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

        by Inland on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:55:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nonsense, I voted for President Obama... (0+ / 0-)

          ...and numerous other more or less anti-gay politicians (Obama being less anti-gay than Clinton, an achievement in some circles).  Were I a single issue voter, on that issue of all things, I would not have cast my vote for them.  

          I'm well aware that gays are despised by a large segment of society, including parts of the Democratic base.  Of course the issue works well politically; there was a period where anti-black legislation worked wonders.  Antisemitism was a powerful political force in Europe.  Etcetera.  

          I also don't understand the point of your omment.  How am I "comforted by the fact that singlue issue voting works so well against gay marriage," and what does that even mean?

          "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

          by Alec82 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:09:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're dodging the point. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vcmvo2

            You think that there's something to evaluate as to "whether" there was high funding and low voter attention, and implicitly, to not be concerned if it's the case.

            I don't.  I find the fact that the that this entirely foreseable scenario continues to play out to be alarming.  Maybe you don't because you're assuming a false causality, namely, that being despised eventually leads to everything being fine.  But when the minority is able to control the majority, that's simply not the case.

            Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

            by Inland on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:23:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well I do think.. (0+ / 0-)

              ...that the high funding/low attention speaks to how the issue will be evaluated in the future.  And I am not assuming that everything will work out in the end, although the attitudes of young people right now seem to indicate it will improve in the very long run.  

              Most anti-gay popular votes pass in this country.  That's an unfortunate statistical reality; if there's ever a social leveling from gays, it will come through judiciary.  One of the reasons I am opposed to the administration's actions on DADT; what could have been a significant court victory has been turned into near certain defeat, while there will be no legislative repeal of DADT.  This despite overwhelming popular support for repeal if polling is any indication.  

              "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

              by Alec82 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:55:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It will come through the judiciary? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                neroden, a night owl

                Solely?  Strange, considering the result in Iowa, the near miss and possible future failure in CA.  

                First, both these events were easily avoidable, and far from inevitable, so there's no reason to assume the judiciary must be the savior.

                Second, the judiciary never gets the last word, as there are always efforts at the ballot box to change judicial results.  

                Third, the judiciary is populated by people who are either appointed by politicians or by voters, so it's not possible to divorce "the judiciary" from electoral politics.  Even if the IA decision stands, every other judge and pol in every other  state noticed what happened.

                Fourth, the jews and blacks you referred to earlier only obtained civil rights through the political process, beginning with the post civil war amendments to the constituition and continuing throught 1964.  

                I don't understand this simply writing off the ballot box, against all reality.  Pesonally, I think your adherence to the theme of a bipartisan alliance against gay rights is preventing you from admitting that electoral politics matters.

                Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

                by Inland on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:12:17 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  A nice campaign (6+ / 0-)
    to Tax the Churches should be a nice offense tactic if its war. Start by a campaign (or is that a Crusade?) against churches that have pedophile charges against them as the first volley. Who could defend that?. Why should taxpayers give breaks to institutions with pedophile charges against them, or lawsuits pending. Legitimate question. Take away their tax free money. Go for the jugular. Make them defend their tax free status.
  •  religion is gay (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    codairem
    Hidden by:
    vcmvo2

    sorry I am drunk it is the only way to cope with speaker boner.

    I had to say it. religion is gay as in 3rd grade gay!

  •  Wow, an actual discussion of an important issue (6+ / 0-)

    At least there's one good side to the end of an election season, that we can get back to issues and away from horse race politics. Well done.

    And yeah, we're witnessing the latest confluence of regressive right-wing authoritarian politics and the greediest and most sociopathic elements in the power and money elite who exploit it brilliantly to their ends. The southern strategy, redux.

    "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

    by kovie on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:16:31 AM PDT

  •  NOM already targeting New Hampshire (7+ / 0-)

    They're claiming that they have veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate to repeal the Marriage Equality Act.

    http://twitter.com/...

    •  I fucking dare them (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, pico, sfbob

      I would LOVE to take this to Federal court. A state legislature granting a fundamental right to a class of people, and then revoking it over a year later? How could NH possibly justify doing that? This wasn't sum trial run here, gays were granted a FUNDAMENTAL right by their government. It can't just be withdrawn because a new legislature has taken over. They would need to demonstrate precisely what harms the state suffered in the more-than-year time thousands of gay couples wedded.

      This sort of action would lead to a far, far better vehicle for a Federal case than Prop 8.

      •  Easily (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, sfbob

        They pass legislation invalidating any new marriages.  The legislation survives a rational basis challenge.  

        And yes, it can be done.  It would help if Obama would push through judicial appointments.  Good luck on that now.

        "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

        by Alec82 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:33:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't understand (0+ / 0-)

          "invalidating new marriages".

          •  The only way they could.. (0+ / 0-)

            ..jeapordize legislation banning same-sex marriages is by invalidating marriages that were already entered into.  That would raise serious constitutional concerns.  But just preventing gay people from getting married? Well, take a look at California.  That's what California did.  There is no heightened scrutiny that applies when you do that.

            "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

            by Alec82 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:42:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But Prop 8 was ruled Unconstitutional (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lotlizard, neroden, sfbob

              at the trial level. And the fact that there were 18k existing marriages that were not voided ended up creating even worse equal protection problems, than if the CA Supreme Court had declared the marriages void.

              Also, SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue before. In cases where laws declared a class would no longer have a right to marry that previously had that right (like child support scofflaws), the SCOTUS has stricken those down.

              Lastly, the time frame is important. Gay marriage was legal only for a few months in CA. In NH, by the time they address the issue, gay marriage will have been legal for more than a year. The longer a state has legal gay marriage, IMO, the harder it becomes to uphold a sudden revocation on rational scrutiny.

              •  I do think you have a good point here (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                neroden

                Also, SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue before. In cases where laws declared a class would no longer have a right to marry that previously had that right (like child support scofflaws), the SCOTUS has stricken those down.

                Would be interesting for others with more legal acumen to comment.

      •  exotrip - sure they can (0+ / 0-)

        They probably can't stop the recognition of the gay couples who are already married. However, they certainly could stop any new marriages after the repeal legislation takes effect.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:44:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We will just have to disagree (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, sfbob

          here is my case for why you and Alec are wrong.

          The NH legislature did not create a new institution for gays. It took what has already been recognized as a fundamental right, marriage, and granted it to the homosexual minority-- recognizing those relationships as falling under the umbrella of relationships worthy of state recognition and state protections. From that point on, there has been no distinction between homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships under NH law-- they are both equally marriage, and both classes of people (hetero and homo) have been recognized as equal in regards to marriage, child rearing, adoption, inheritance, etc. That finding, that homosexuals as a minority and their relationships are to have the same standing as straights', is still valid.

          What has changed in the meantime, since NH recognized homosexuals' relationships as being covered by the same fundamental, constitutional right of Marriage that heterosexuals already enjoy, other than a new legislature is taking power? Absolutely nothing. Unless NH could show that a new law, revoking the homosexual minority's already existing right to marriage advances compelling state interests, I can't see it surviving a challenge.

          I think what we may be missing each other on is to what exactly a Federal court would be reviewing. They would solely be reviewing the potential revocation law, and its upsetting of an already well-established status quo. It would not be trying to find a currently non-existant right to marry for Gays, cause it will have already existed. Now it would be on the state to show why this fundamental right, which currently exists for gays in NH, can be revoked.

          •  exotrip - I hope you are right (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            exotrip

            And you certainly know more than I do about NH law. I was putting the California template over the NH situation and it was not a correct way to view this. I do hope you are correct, not me.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 01:18:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't know law at all (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              neroden, VClib, sfbob

              In fact I am a little embarrassed, perhaps I should preface my comments with "IANAL" :)

              But I think it matters enormously that it was NH's LEGISLATURE, not a court, that determined that homosexual relationships are to be considered covered by the fundamental right to marry. That gives homosexuals a stronger base from which to argue-- that at least within the borders of NH, that homosexual relationships are non-different from heterosexual ones in regards to the right found in Loving. The legislature, through the normal political process, declared that homosexual relationships ARE MARRIAGE. It made that finding through legislative fact-finding, debates, etc. It went through a lengthy process to make this determination, that homosexual relationships are non-different from hetero ones and therefore homosexuals, as a minority, have the same right of marriage as heterosexuals.

              Essentially, the genie is out of the bottle. Once NH's legislature made this finding, and changed its marriage laws accordingly, homosexuals from that point forward had the same fundamental right to marry as heterosexuals-- the same right protected in Loving and other marriage cases.

    •  definitely true in NH senate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2

      dems gots killed in NH senate so the marriage vote would go from 13-11 to 4-19 (one race is still too close to even guess).

      not sure about the House.

      i don't follow NH politics but i'd imagine the newly elected repubs will be more likely to put it to referendum rather that do an outright repeal.

      Re-elect Obama's Agenda 2010

      by jethropalerobber on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:51:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's crazy that it would switch that hard... (0+ / 0-)

        when there were no changes in the Massachusetts State Senate (unless Worcester and Norfolk switches).  In the Mass. House, Republicans increased their total from 19 to 33.  Not great for Dems, but hardly the tidal wave you saw in NH.

        •  iirc, there was equally dramatic shift in 2006-08 (0+ / 0-)

          dems wents from a tiny minority in the state senate to an outright majority in a very short time.

          easy come, easy go.

          Re-elect Obama's Agenda 2010

          by jethropalerobber on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:26:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  late reply, i just read that one reason... (0+ / 0-)

          ...for the crazy shift (and the huge dem gains in preceding cycles) is the unusual court ordered resdistricting where they have "large multi-seat districts".

          i don't know the details but i assume that means most reps and senators are elected "at large" within a certain region. the bigger those regions, the more volatile (i.e. all reps in a given region are fairly likely to change hands if even one does).

      •  They'll do nothing. (0+ / 0-)

        I will bet that the Republicans in the NH legislature will simply leave well enough alone on same-sex marriage.  It doesn't pay for them and I doubt there are enough of them who are genuinely hardcore bigots to push it if it doesn't pay.

        -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

        by neroden on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:52:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  On the other hand... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek, pico, adamsmo

    with a progressive Governor in Rhode Island, there is a chance that marriage equality legislation will move forward there.

  •  NOM got 48.2% of the voters who came to polls (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, pico, Alec82

    (based on the total vote in the governors race)

    the only reason these attacks on the judiciary succeeded is because a lot of people who came to the polls didn't bother to vote on the judges at all.

    not to mention this electorate was heavily skewed towards republicans.

    Re-elect Obama's Agenda 2010

    by jethropalerobber on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:32:20 AM PDT

  •  God I hate being a Danny Downer, but... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jethropalerobber, vcmvo2, lotlizard, pico, Eryk

    My gut tells me that marriage equality gets overturned in NH by March (overriding Lynch's veto), and in Iowa by June or July. Any court challenge by gay couples who've had their rights taken away will be rebuffed because the reactionary rightwing has already packed the courts.

    In Cali, it doesn't matter that Imperial Co doesn't have standing to argue Prop (h)8, since another similar measure just like it will probably pass in 2012.

    Shit, I wouldn't be shocked if the SCOTUS took up a gay marriage case just to re-ban it across the whole country. And while they're at it, they can overturn Lawrence v Texas.

    Yeah I'm depressed.

    "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear..." --Obama, 1/20/09

    by SouthernFried on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:34:10 AM PDT

    •  Depression is understandable: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2

      try to channel it into something productive.  There's stuff we can do: this individual battle went poorly, but the war continues, and it's worth fighting for.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:39:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  have you seen IA house & senate outcomes? (0+ / 0-)

      in some of these well balanced states like IA and NH the state legislatures seem to fluctuate a lot.

      Re-elect Obama's Agenda 2010

      by jethropalerobber on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:54:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  IA house and senate, as well as the governor (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jethropalerobber

        is now republican (well, at least as far as my reading of the unofficial results are concerned.)

        While they can't overcome the supreme court decision directly with legislation, they can pass a resolution to have a vote to amend the constitution to allow a change so that a gay marriage ban can no longer be considered unconstitutional. I'm not sure if they can call a special election for that, or if it will have to wait until next November, but that will be the next step that they will take.

        dermatomyositis - when dermatitis or myositis just isn't enough by itself.

        by glendaw271 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:18:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  See my comment above for a correction to this. (4+ / 0-)

          The Iowa Senate is still Democratic!!

          I think the earlier comment was from not enough sleep and worry about people close to me who will suffer if these haters get their way.

          dermatomyositis - when dermatitis or myositis just isn't enough by itself.

          by glendaw271 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:41:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  do you know if they have to vote on it twice (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neroden

          before it goes to voters? (as was the case in MA)

          Re-elect Obama's Agenda 2010

          by jethropalerobber on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:23:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is my understanding. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kj in missouri, neroden

            From the Des Moines Register article in 2008

            Q. What is the process for an amendment to the Iowa Constitution?

            A. Amendments need to be approved by simple majorities in both the House and Senate in two consecutive general assemblies, then must be approved by a simple majority of voters in the next general election. Each general assembly lasts for two years. This year is the second year of the current general assembly. That means if an amendment is approved this year and in the 2009 or 2010 legislative session, it can be on the general election ballot in November 2010. If lawmakers wait until 2009 to start the amendment process, the earliest that a proposed amendment could reach voters is November 2012.

            It requires approval in two consecutive sessions before it can even go to the voters.  So we'd be looking at 2013 at the earliest.

            tonight I am down to the wire/I've been striking these matches in vain/got a whole lot of smoke but no fire/cuz you've got a heart full of rain

            by Texas Blue Dot on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:29:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  June or July? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kscatlvr2001, Texas Blue Dot

      No.  It has to pass in... either two consecutive years, or two consecutive sessions, I can't really recall.  The Democrats also control the Iowa state Senate still, though I believe it's possible that they could lose that and have to share power.

      I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.

      by adamsmo on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 01:21:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  2013 is the earliest it can go before voters. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kj in missouri

        Would have to pass in the 2011 and 2012 sessions...they must be consecutive.

        It really is not likely, especially with the Senate still in Democratic hands.

        tonight I am down to the wire/I've been striking these matches in vain/got a whole lot of smoke but no fire/cuz you've got a heart full of rain

        by Texas Blue Dot on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:30:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Doesn't look like we'll get any help from the WH: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marie

    It's on course for arguing FOR the constitutionality of the prejudiced and discriminatory DOMA and DADT, all the way up to the SCOTUS. When the WH says it will "finish" DOMA and DADT, I definitely get an ominous vibe. 0bama's BFF--Donnie McClurkin and Rick Warren--must be dancing in the streets right about now.

  •  I never really appreciated (6+ / 0-)

    just how elusive progress can be until this issue went center stage.  I'm still shaking my head, I just don't get it.  Other than my backward corner of the world, I really thought that as a nation, as a people, we had moved past this.  I thought that gay marriage, gay rights in general, had been "normalized."  

    To the barricades!

    "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something." President Obama in Prague on April 5

    by jlynne on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:50:34 AM PDT

  •  This one really scares and saddens me-- (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri, pico, glendaw271

    I'm not sure which more.

    But this will only double our resolve and our efforts to keep Standing on the Side of Love.

    Civil marriage is a civil right.

    by UU VIEW on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:54:38 AM PDT

  •  So disappointed with this. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pico

    I thought the state legislature race was the most important, which remains true.  I'm glad we kept the majority (though they may be able to get past that), and it doesn't seem likely that they'll be able to change the nominating process for IA judicial nominees with it, either - I think it's extremely likely that these justices will be replaced by pro-SSM ones as well because of it.  They really didn't deserve to get voted out for doing their job, though.

    Are the GOP gains enough to make up for their failure to suspend the rules earlier this year for a vote?  Damn, I would be disappointed.

    Ugh.  Awful, awful day.

    I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.

    by adamsmo on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 01:18:42 AM PDT

  •  NOM has "already lost" (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri, neroden, pico, sfbob, jayden

    The Iowa constitution makes it relatively difficult to pass a state constitutional amendment. First, the amendment has to be passed by the legislature in two consecutive sessions. A session lasts for two years. The shortest timeline is two years (end of one session, beginning of the next). Then the amendment has to be approved by the voters in the next election.

    After the Iowa State Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, some people wanted to pass an amendment to ban gay marriage.

    The Majority Leader of the Iowa Senate, Mike Gronstal, gave this speech (and he blocked the anti-gay amendment):

    He's quoting his daughter: "You guys don't understand. You've already lost. My generation doesn't care." In other words, it's mostly old people who don't like gays. Young people don't think it's a big deal.

    The video is worth watching.

    WWJD? Jesus would drive faster is what he would do.

    by Dbug on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:16:02 AM PDT

    •  You're correct, but they've won the Iowa state (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, Dbug

      house, and unfortunately we're now going to see the start of the charge towards that amendment.

      dermatomyositis - when dermatitis or myositis just isn't enough by itself.

      by glendaw271 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:22:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the Senate will block it, hopefully... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        neroden, sfbob

        and even then it has to pass two consecutive legislatures.  It isn't going anywhere until at least 2013.

        tonight I am down to the wire/I've been striking these matches in vain/got a whole lot of smoke but no fire/cuz you've got a heart full of rain

        by Texas Blue Dot on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:31:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Even so, the effect on other states will (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pico, VClib, jayden

      be a powerful incentive to never have such a ruling in the first place.  All the difficulties in reversing the IA decision are irrelevant to those courts, or pols who appoint judges, who have to face voters, see both Prop 8 and this retention ballot, and realize that they aren't going to get any help at the polls from pro gay marriage advocacy

      Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

      by Inland on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:44:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True, true, but state legislatures (0+ / 0-)

        are where the action is at now.  The judges had to give it a first kick, but right now, it's really a question of which state legislatures are going to catch up and legalize same-sex marriage next.  Despite the bad results from the NY State Senate, I still bet on NY.  We're almost surrounded, and we recognize out-of-state marriages, and we're losing wedding money.

        -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

        by neroden on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:54:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Damn right it's a war (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pico

    There is no other word to describe it. And we have some very, very powerful enemies. But goddammit, I WILL fight. I WILL fight these bastards.

  •  We only heard about the Tea Party this, the Tea (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pico

    Party that, while the Christian Right silently nailed us to the Cross, like they always do when their isn't a Christian Soldier in the White House.

    "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" -Marx

    by Jose Bidenio on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:10:39 AM PDT

  •  Of all the defeats (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden, pico, jayden

    this one is the worst.  I really though that people would not be engaged enough to even think about the SC judges.  Heck, some people don't even bother to turn the ballot over.  It doesn't seem possible that I could go from such elation two years ago to ... this.

    -7.62, -7.28 "Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly." -Langston Hughes

    by luckylizard on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:23:39 AM PDT

  •  I diaried the IA retention vote yesterday (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, pico, jayden

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    I'm not happy it took a shocking loss before something like that gets attention.  It's prop 8 all over again.

    Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

    by Inland on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:31:52 AM PDT

  •  So-I (0+ / 0-)

    stomping on people's heads is now accepted political commentary?

    "We're embarrassing ourselves by being here." Omar Khadr

    by lyvwyr101 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:46:29 AM PDT

  •  Road map? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stevej, drewfromct, neroden

    How about finally, seriously going after the tax exemptions of all the religious groups and churches behind this hate? Since they have for all purposes become political groups, let's start making them follow the rules for political groups.

    Oh, and if the Human Rights Campaign is in charge of this, we're doomed. Talk about an ineffectual organization. Everything they touch fails.

    No whining. Just go out there and win.
    - Nancy Pelosi

    by bramish on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:00:21 AM PDT

    •  Go after them with what? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RadioGirl

      You think the electorate that just reorganized the House, and put that dent in the Senate, is going to get behind that approach?

      The changes that are needed to implement gay rights are going to require the long, hard, slog that slowly erodes the opposition sufficiently to get some traction. And then more long, hard slog as the die-hards hang on. See history of women's right to vote, and civil rights in the 40's, 50's, 60's and beyond for what the "road map" looks like.

    •  bramish - that is hard to do (0+ / 0-)

      It would have to be done legislatively which is impossible now with the gopers taking the House. Churches have wide latitude in supporting public policy issues and there is a safe harbor, for IRS purposes, at about 20% of their budget. We should recall that there would have never been an effective civil rights movement in the 1960s except for the black churches who provided the leadership, organization and and funding to make it successful.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:38:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sadly, I expect we know who the most likely... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chipoliwog, vcmvo2, sfbob, jayden, RadioGirl

    ...casualties of that war will be.  Prepare to see big increases in assaults and murders.

  •  We've been fighting the religious right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GWboosebag, RadioGirl

    Down here in Texas over the school book stuff.
    There will be a "cultural" war in America.
    The gay issue is just part of it.
    Beckk's dog-whistle brigade feels like they've been put in charge...

  •  I diaried about this Sunday (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slksfca
  •  There was a campaign in Colorado (0+ / 0-)

    to unseat "unjust justices". I didn't pay much attention and it didn't seem to get any traction beyond some yard signs.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:12:00 AM PDT

  •  Absolutely (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, pico, RadioGirl

    This should be sobering news to those of us who've argued that the 'normalization' of same-sex marriage will mute anti-gay efforts... after all, once they see how little same-sex marriage affects society, they'll back down, right?

    Remember what followed the integration of public schools?  Won't be a whole lot different.

  •  Another example of why an elected judiciary (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, sfbob, jayden, Dakit

    is insane.

    These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

    by Red Sox on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:34:43 AM PDT

    •  I wondering (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, Red Sox

      How many states allow their Supreme Court to be subject to popular elections? It does seem like an insane way of "justice". Considering this, it makes those Supreme Court justices in Iowa who stood up for this all the more commendable. I have to wonder how much damage their insane replacements will do to that state.

  •  Fuck them. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marie, Dakit

    Discrimination on things people don't control is always wrong.

    Always.

    We can win this, but only if we step up and be vocal about it.  

    Thank the Republicans for gathering these racists, bigots and theocrats, validating their character issues, in return for their support of a corporate agenda.

    IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

    by potatohead on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:41:55 AM PDT

  •  Maybe we should have a little understanding. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden

    I mean, homophobes are gay too.

    Every damned time. Works better than gaydar!

    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

    by Fishgrease on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:40:10 AM PDT

  •  Ch. of Commerce, other 501 groups financing... (3+ / 0-)

    select judicial races for a variety of purposes.

    Read this to get an idea of what is going on with further politicization of the courts. RawStory is doing some excellent investigative pieces.

    In 2005, the Chamber and Tort Reform groups -- even before Citizens United --contributed to the then most costly judicial race in US history to support IL Circuit Judge Lloyd Karmeier to the IL State Supreme Court. Why? Short term reason -- for a decision favoring State Farm Insurance. Here's a terrific short piece about it.

    I'll bet that the Chamber of Commerce has a PR firm that scans the blogs for diaries like this one (which I'm very pleased to see), and that they are laughing at how long it is taking us to catch on.

  •  out-of-state big Xtian wingnut money (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marie, kj in missouri, neroden, sfbob

    That's what defeated those Iowa judges. Groups like this pose a threat to all of us.  Why do Dems never seem to fight back?  (Yeah, I voted.  I'd rather have the Party of Ineffective than the party of Sheer Evil.)

  •  The waves of grief... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri, neroden

    are coming slow over me like a still creek.  The impact of yesterday is huge but I'm doubling down because the arc of the moral universe may be long but it bends towards justice.  We have got to find a better way to get to our voters that are disenchanted, disengaged and disinterested.  That isn't showing up for a rally right before an election.  It is engagement on multiple fronts going to where they are continuously.  If I see one more townhall middle america backyard meeting with the President and none in the inner city or with the LGBT community or with the homeless folks or with Vets, I don't know what I will do.  Stop treating the middle as if they are some hallowed sane and sensible group.  They are not!  They go where the win blows.  Focus on those who we don't have to convince that we are right on the issues and drag them to the polls.  But of course, that may take something the Democratic Party doesn't seem to have, the ability to build coalitions among its own damn base instead of going after the frikkin baseless who only want to be on the winning side!  

    the most important factor whether students succeed is not their skincolor or their ZIP code or their parents' income - it is the quality of their teacher

    by princss6 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:26:02 AM PDT

  •  We are all in this together (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri

    Straight people (and I am one): this is your fight too.   Make yourself into straight allies who never shut up about these points.    

  •  Also sate and local Democratic party groups (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marie, kj in missouri, neroden

    The local San Diego Progressive Democrat group has been actively aggregating data on judges, school board candidates, etc. including positions on Prop8 and kept voters informed.

    This data needs even wider distribution.

    Also, for the many who have 2'nd homes...this may be OT but it burns me up to see Bono win again in such a gay city. I bet there are a few thousand residents of LA County who could reconsider registering vote in PS...

    U.S. House - District 45 - General Palm Springs
    California - 405 of 624 Precincts Reporting - 65%
    Name Party Votes Vote %
    Bono Mack , Mary (i) GOP 58,120 52%
    Pougnet , Steve Dem 46,040 41%
    Lussenheide , Bill AIP 7,287 7%  

    "People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy," Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins.

    by kck on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:53:28 AM PDT

  •  read and article (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri, neroden, blueoasis

    sorry don't have the link

    the US Chamber of Commerce has and will continue to shift money into retention elections ... to get judges who will give them laws they need to exploit us all with out consequence... opps they don't have consequence now so where does that leave us next election and next ?

    One of our top opponents since this thing began was Speaker Nancy Pelosi who we fired tonight. ~ Levi Russell, Tea Party Express

    by anyname on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 10:21:58 AM PDT

  •  I've never understood why voters have anything (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri, raincrow, blueoasis

    to do with justice getting or keeping their jobs.

    I believe the judicial system should be out of the hands of the voters.

    •  iirc, the U.S. didn't start electing judges til (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, sfbob

      the 1930s (can't find the link), and now ~35 states elect judges. Arizona, with strong backing from people like Sandra Day O'Connor, returned to appointed judges and developed a merit system. Looks like some folks in PA are trying to do the same there: http://judgesonmerit.org/...

      Again, I don't have the link, but last year I heard a Diane Rehm segment in which a panel discussed our (1) for-profit prisons and jails, (2) stupid drug criminalization/non-treatment policies and laws, and (3) elected judges. They quoted an international study of the world's justice systems which cited these 2 factors as the reason the U.S. has such an insanely high incarceration rate.

    •  It was due to corruption in judicial appointments (0+ / 0-)

      Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito ring a bell?

      Well, trouble is, appointment is not a great system for judicial selection either.

      As far as I can tell, judicial selection ought to require multiple hoops to prevent different types of corruption.  Iowa's system is actually less bad than many states' lower courts.

      -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

      by neroden on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:58:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let's not forget California...all these anti- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sfbob

    gay movements will be derailed if, in December as is expected, Prop 8 will be thrown out by the 9th District.  That means Gay Marriage will be legal in the most populous state in the union..and there is NOTHING NOM can do about it.  And as goes California, eventually so goes the rest of the nation (with New York being next)

    •  Thank goodness Harris seems to be winning (0+ / 0-)

      Cooley had said he would defend Prop 8 in court, which would only have been possible if it were to be remanded (unless he meant he'd file amicus briefs); as it stands now, all of our state office-holders are Dems and all are on board with marriage equality. And as of now, the Prop 8 case is in the hands of the federal courts.

  •  LGBT rights will ultimately require a Supreme (0+ / 0-)

    Court victory, and that's all there is to it. This is not a matter to be put to popular vote.

kos, Meteor Blades, Sharoney, Louise, Renee, Tookish, RakDaddy, Federalist, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, Davinci, Angie in WA State, Doug in SF, zzyzx, buffalo soldier, Mimikatz, Dissento, vicki, Alma, LeislerNYC, Mogolori, nolalily, itsbenj, Odysseus, taylormattd, grollen, decembersue, teacherken, Marie, DelRPCV, lrhoke, MarkC, TrueBlueMajority, mem from somerville, madmsf, kainah, janinsanfran, wytcld, Bob Love, sacrelicious, bosdcla14, ortcutt, dengre, Shockwave, Fishgrease, Heather in SFBay, Wintermute, mlharges, bramish, genethefiend, hyperstation, Aspe4, GayHillbilly, celdd, eeff, xynz, Duncan Idaho, recentdemocrat, object16, Thelesis, Dumbo, bara, dc 20005, opinionated, Mr Teem, missLotus, medaka, sponson, cyberKosFan, BlackSheep1, wonkydonkey, annrose, whenwego, DaleA, Glic, vmibran, chimpy, Frederick Clarkson, Ignacio Magaloni, Larry Bailey, bwren, jalbert, Boxers, oceanview, Jesterfox, splashy, navajo, Cedwyn, lirtydies, CocoaLove, SensibleShoes, wader, Redfire, tomephil, menodoc, danthrax, sockpuppet, TexDem, Dallasdoc, jlynne, exiledfromTN, Guinho, jaywillie, kj in missouri, cosette, potatohead, JimWilson, astronautagogo, dwahzon, Steven Payne, nika7k, betson08, hazzcon, The Zipper, Greg in TN, rlharry, kalmoth, frostieb, DMiller, outragedinSF, econlibVA, zerelda, ybruti, KellyB, Kitsap River, tomjones, xyz, lyvwyr101, valadon, Nova Land, Josiah Bartlett, Sybil Liberty, eyeball, thereisnospoon, Armand451, environmentalist, My Philosophy, skippythebox, julifolo, Brecht, vcmvo2, G2geek, Recovering Southern Baptist, maybeeso in michigan, bloomer 101, Bluesee, marina, radarlady, NoMoreLies, TexasTom, jrooth, deepfish, CTPatriot, subtropolis, democracy inaction, Erik the Red, PBen, sap, willibro, grimjc, ccasas, DoGooderLawyer, craigkg, Valtin, TN yellow dog, terrypinder, YucatanMan, EJP in Maine, Dobber, Laurence Lewis, reflectionsv37, eru, cfk, SaraBeth, teknofyl, Pam from Calif, Sun Tzu, Dem Beans, where4art, GreyHawk, Burned, quaoar, lotlizard, kaliope, Isara, neroden, serrano, kkjohnson, Snud, terjeanderson, kathny, xaxnar, begone, vilegrrl, reddbierd, SSMir, SoulCatcher, martini, third Party please, kovie, mattinla, Nance, hlee1169, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Keone Michaels, Clytemnestra, ferallike, BlueInARedState, tobendaro, dharmafarmer, hungrycoyote, hey mister, mr crabby, Yellow Canary, seefleur, koNko, buhdydharma, Texas Blue Dot, fiddler crabby, fou, luckydog, kck, blueoasis, SherriG, NBBooks, wild hair, erratic, A Siegel, Lashe, gpoutney, cRedd, bubbanomics, nonnie9999, Bush Bites, justalittlebitcrazy, NearlyNormal, bleeding heart, MarciaJ720, Unitary Moonbat, middleagedhousewife, Pilgrim X, llbear, Turbonerd, SingerInTheChoir, dirkster42, stlkaper, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, fiddlingnero, means are the ends, RantNRaven, blueness, AmySmith, Bernie68, bstotts, 20shadesofviolet, Hedwig, blueintheface, slksfca, markthshark, mapman, Eryk, Nulwee, Aaa T Tudeattack, AntKat, BentLiberal, DBunn, sephius1, One Pissed Off Liberal, Noor B, pgm 01, YoyogiBear, bluicebank, fabucat, dmh44, tgypsy, california keefer, possum, ninkasi23, Castine, UU VIEW, gloriana, edsbrooklyn, FishOutofWater, The Werewolf Prophet, operculum, terabytes, greenchiledem, DWG, sfbob, joyful, londubh, bnasley, Kyle the Mainer, mouser68, Orange County Liberal, Seneca Doane, getlost, bluehen96, jayden, Uberbah, SeaTurtle, millwood, jhop7, uciguy30, LWelsch, Puffin, i like bbq, sable, oxon, Terra Mystica, gizmo59, Dem in the heart of Texas, skymutt, mayrose, revm3up, mconvente, VelvetElvis, adamsmo, Devsd, Justus, SaintDharma32, TomY, RickMassimo, scooter in brooklyn, Cordwainer, limpidglass, skohayes, CDH in Brooklyn, ajr111240, lineatus, mikeconwell, kjboy27, rssrai, tofumagoo, pamelabrown, hwmnbn, MrJayTee, Wek, bluesheep, TokenLiberal, rubine, codairem, kyril, glendaw271, luckylizard, a night owl, adobedragon, Nica24, Ellinorianne, cactusflinthead, DavidW, dzog, papicek, lissablack, jlms qkw, squarewheel, ZhenRen, lostboyjim, mos1133, legendmn, LaFeminista, brein, 1BQ, Louisiana 1976, Bule Betawi, weaponsofmassdeception, DontTaseMeBro, wtxdem, Neon Vincent, Rick Aucoin, greengemini, Scott Wooledge, The Dead Man, Magick Maven, radmul, An Affirming Flame, Chino Blanco, Carol in San Antonio, CanyonWren, be the change you seek, Partisan Progressive, velvet blasphemy, jodygirl, CamillesDad1, EquationDoc, shalca, DefendOurConstitution, Daily Activist, unspeakable, langstonhughesfan, John Shade, virginwoolf, ZilV, uno beagle, COwoman, sanglug, allep10, Denise Oliver Velez, kevinpdx, Shelley99, XNeeOhCon, Kiku, RadioGirl, Houston Gardener, northernlights, nancat357, Livvy5, deviant24x, jpmassar, Leftcandid, porchdog1961, Railfan, TruthandTrust, rosecar, coppercelt, littlezen, loper2008, rb137, marabout40, NMDad, pyegar, hippiechick13, roadbear, brunoboy, gramofsam1, Observerinvancouver, princss6, whisperinghope, CS in AZ, Lost and Found, ATFILLINOIS, ctlrick, pixxer, elginblt, Puddytat, ThisIsMyTime, DailyDrew, sharonsz, Jaimas, damned if you do, Funkygal, abrauer, elengul, BlueFranco, science nerd, dwayne, soaglow, cherylm, slice, Wisdumb, not2plato, Mister Met, Pakalolo, BrowniesAreGood, Colorado is the Shiznit, The Bohemian Rebel, bmat, Lost Left Coaster, bgbrad, nicethugbert, Hopeful Skeptic, wildlife advocate, vahana, AuroraDawn, anyname, La Gitane, We Want Change, BlackQueen40, QuestionAuthority, soothsayer99, BlueHead, mikejay611, skip945, page394, CoExistNow, stella may, Ebby, takatobimasu, BellaNJ, Cinnamon Rollover, Escamillo, Wolf10, Muskegon Critic, dle2GA, Sabazinus, KVoimakas, tardis10, LSmith, worldlotus, corvaire, gayjustice, PhilJD, Imhotepsings, VTCC73, Druggy Bear, Strange New World, Deathtongue, Dbug, blue aardvark, Curiosity, Amaryliss, weisja4, Ezekial 23 20, T100R, jaebone, ChiTownDenny, 3rdGenFeminist, MichaelNY, No one gets out alive, Dakit, Dom9000, bluebottles, Tentwenty, ridemybike, ettajamesfan, Gay CA Democrat, damfino, Williston Barrett, We Won, delmardougster, Eric Nelson, orangecurtainlib, AreDeutz, farlefty, congenitalefty, citizendane, Elphaba Please, Tyler R, teabaggerssuckbalz, Julian Domain, BobSoperJr, MartyM

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site