Previous post
Next post
there’s going to be an interesting republican senate primary in florida, certainly one to watch between the very popular governor charlie crist who is a moderate populist and marco rubio, a 37-year-old conservative cuban-american lawyer from miami and a former speaker of the florida house. they’re competing for the retiring republican senator mel martinez’s seat and you can bet it’s gonna get hot and go national!
here is my brief but compelling (heh) contrast of the two candidates:
charlie crist annoys conservatives. he publically supported The One’s porkulus stimulus. he enjoys prattling on and on about the need for ‘bipartisanship’ and ‘diversity’ (as though Florida weren’t diverse?) and rarely speaks or is supportive of conservative principles. he’s not had one positive thing to say about social conservatives or their causes. he’s pro-abortion and cool with same-sex civil unions. he supported john mccain’s obnoxious immigration border security bill in 2007. he has held a number of public offices since 1992 and tends to use his current one as a stepping stone to the next. frankly, he kindof reminds me of a tanned arlen specter or a thin arnold with no accent.
marco rubio spent 8 years in the florida house of representatives — the last two as speaker — where he compiled a significant conservative voting record. he’s smart, energetic, ambitious, and to all appearances very sincere in his conservatism. he’s an enthusiastic speaker, usually on conservative themes such as limited government, the superiority of the private sector over the public (the entrepreneur over the bureaucrat), the centrality of the family (he’s married with four children), judges who interpret rather than make law, and a vigorous foreign policy. with solid conservative credentials, he would bring fresh eyes to the senate.
i am not necessarily advocating that conservatives take over the world. :cough: but i dont apologize for believing that core conservative principles make the most effective government style, ensuring the happiness and liberty of its people.
i appreciate the concept of a big ten — in fact, i am a conservative who loves rudy guiliani. i suppose it is because he doesn’t always try to find reasons to offend or belittle the conservative plank. rather, he respects it and those who embrace it.
if the crist/rubio election were held today, marco rubio would lose but its 15 months from now. and since elections are all about choices, this particular race between popular moderate crist and conservative rubio gives republicans a clear choice and will most likely define what ‘republican’ now means in florida.
we’ll also see if those tens of thousands of ‘new democrats’ The One’s campaign managed to register really plan to make florida a blue state or were just infatuated with magical ‘obamaglow’.
lisab says: well there is really no logical reason to not support gay marriage IF as a society you allow homosexulaity.
if you allow homosexuality, then it is in the best interest of society to promote monogamy through gay marriage
Charlie Crist has bigger problems than Rubio. There is a new documentary coming out (in fact, it may already be out) called “Outrage” which outs closeted gay Republicans. Guess who may be one of those named?
http://dadecariaga.blogspot.com/2009/05/piling-on-gop-new-outing-documentary.html
This is all an indication of the even bigger problem that the GOP has. They are losing their cred with their base. But, if they assuage the bedrock conservatives by taking a hard line on social issues, they alienate everyone else.
It is already known and acknowledged that the GOP is in a very deep hole with hispanics, blacks, and women. But they’re hamstrung in their ability to reach out to those demographics because Rush Limbaugh and the conservative base view any move toward moderation as a compromise on their ideals.
You’ve said as much here, Kate.
Well, that is what you call being “hoisted upon one’s own petard.”
lisab says: well there is really no logical reason to not support gay marriage IF as a society you allow homosexulaity.
WTF? What do you mean “allow homosexuality?” You can’t allow or disallow homosexuality. It is fact. What kind of reality do you live in?
lisab says: i meant as a societal norm.
logically if homosexuality is legal, and it is, then the best option is to promote monogamy through marriage.
there really is not any logical reason to ban gay marriage except “God doesn’t like it” or “we have defined marriage this way for 10000 years”
well … we are not a theocracy, so what God likes or dislikes is moot unless she votes, and we really should not be defining laws based on superstictions and customs created before the invention of the wheel
(my state was first to allow gay marriage, massachusetts rules!!!)
no way crist can lose this, really. he has the support of rank and file republicans as well as moderate democrats, seniors, and jews. but, if rubio can tap into the groundswell, he might surprise us all and pull it off. i hope so.
lisab:
Okay, fair enough. I agree with you. Sorry if I came across as harsh.
I will point out, though, that the current definition of marriage, as defined by conservatives, is nowhere near 10000 years old. Marriage, throughout much of history, has been defined as an exchange of chattel (with the woman being the chief portion thereof). But it has also been used to cement political alliances, solidify the legitimacy of the Church, and achieve other goals.
The notion of a man and woman choosing each other out of love is a relatively novel idea.
My prediciton:
If Charlie Crist does not win the GOP nomination, the Republicans will lose this seat to the Democrats.
Paul says: I think Crist could win too. But I also think he could easily become a democrat with all of the insanity happening in the GOP these days.
lisab says: “I will point out, though, that the current definition of marriage, as defined by conservatives, is nowhere near 10000 years old.”
well ok, we should not be creating laws based on superstitions and customs created before the invention of the steam engine.
lisab says: as far as i can see you can make an argument without resorting to theology for many things abortion, the death penalty, higher taxes, lower taxes, the bailout etc.
but really i do not see any logical argument against gay marriage other than an appeal to some form of tradition or religious philosophy.
it is certainly better for society if we have monogamy. more stable families result in less poverty, better education, less criminal activity, fewer std’s etc.
gay marriage is good for society
lisab, I agree.
As Kate has herself pointed out on this blog, one can nearly always find some quote from the Bible, or from some other holy book, to justify just about anything one wants to justify.
Not only is gay marriage good for society for those reasons that you mention, but it is also a recognition that all are (supposedly) equal in the eyes of the law.
lisab says: yup.
the funny thing is some people think it will be the end of society or something. i grew up in provincetown, massachusetts (the east coast version of san francisco).
like everyone else they just want to live their lives without being harassed.
PenniePan says: Having lived for a while in Florida, I saw that the people there like a moderate representation whether R or D’s. It’s clear that Crist is a very electable person imo because he is well liked by a lot of different interest groups and not a right wing hatemonger. I know nothing about this Rubio person.
I think a Rubio win gives us Democrats an unelectable right-wing loon as our Republican opponent in the Senate race, and having Crist out of the way clears our path to winning the Florida governor’s race. Right-wing stupidity is the gift that keeps on giving! HA.
On the issue of Gay Marriage, of course! It is only the far right wingers and restrictive christian fundamentalists (like the one who runs this blog) in this country that are against this. They are the rapidly shrinking minority though so it is only a matter of time.
Ken says: “In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
Ouch! He even mentioned being a Christian. I’m sure the leftosphere will explode with anger any minute now, right?
lisab says: well of course christian fundamentalists (or other religious people) have the right to be against gay marriage based on their religious beliefs,
but a civil marriage is NOT a religious one. a civil marriage confers certain LEGAL rights.
Ken says: “They are the rapidly shrinking minority though so it is only a matter of time.”
So Obama is in that shrinking minority Pennie?
Pat says: Pennie
Crist beat a far right candidate in the primary for gov. I was in Florida right before election day, and the right-winger running against Crist ran ads accusing him of being a liberal. The tag line was “Sorry, Charlie, only Reagan Republicans are right for Florida.” Crist won by a huge margin anyway. The Florida GOP isn’t the Texas GOP.
PenniePan says: Ken
Barack may be personally against gay marriage for whatever reasons (many blacks are) but if the country wanted it, which it is moving in that direction, Barack would agree, I am certain.
lisab says: ken,
actually it may surprise you but african americans are among the least accepting of gay marriage as a group.
Jared says: What is it about his record that indicates to you that Charlie Crist is a moderate?? Somehow asking for stimulus money for his state has turned him into a progressive saint? Bwahahahaha. This guy is so GOP and we don’t want him. We want a democrat that can beat his a$$.
Micky says: “It is only the far right wingers and restrictive christian fundamentalists (like the one who runs this blog) in this country that are against this.”
Hmm.. you might want to take a look at the demographics in Califorinia that voted yes on prop 8 before you stick to that statement.
I grew up in Tampa and keep up with FL politics to some degree. I still have numerous business contacts in Florida and they tell me Crist is running for Senate because he wants to get the seat before several of his stupid social and business projects fall apart. Of course, if a Dem had been in office it would have been even more dysfunctional social and business projects that would have fallen apart and been worse, but that’s a different story.
I tell people Florida is a nice place to be from. The State’s allowed a bunch of environazis and other assorted lib freaks to pass regulations that make it impossible for normal people to conduct business without a lot of hassle. And property taxes have shot through the roof, as has insurance. Several big companies have pulled up roots or quit selling their products in the State because it’s getting so ridiculous. It’s like the Southern version of California.
Never heard of Marco Rubio but he sounds like he has his head screwed on straight. Being Latino definately helps him the South Florida and much of Central Florida. Being conservative helps him in the panhandle. He could very well win it, if not this time maybe the next.
Mom says: I live in Florida. Charlie Crist accepted the Obama stimulus because the state needed the money not because he supported any policies. In the senate Charlie will be part a solid member of the GOP. He will not be a Specter or a Collins or a Snow.
Ken says: “Barack may be personally against gay marriage for whatever reasons (many blacks are) but if the country wanted it, which it is moving in that direction, Barack would agree, I am certain.”
So does that mean he doesn’t mean what he says, or he doesn’t say what he means?
“actually it may surprise you but african americans are among the least accepting of gay marriage as a group.”
Oh, I’ve been saying that from the word go. Proposition 8 passed in California, the center of the liberal universe, and was supported by the majority of blacks.
I guess all that Christian bashing includes all the African Americans who voted for proposition 8 and Obama. Funny how that works. The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze.
Jerry says: “Crist accepted the stimulus because the state needed the money”??? Now he wants to bail to the Senate. In two years we will be stuck with the expanded programs and no federal money. He knows it will be bad news for the Gov so he runs – just like a Lib.
lisab says: “I guess all that Christian bashing includes all the African Americans who voted for proposition 8 and Obama.”
well i personally do not bash Christians, i am a Christian.
so are most African Americans.
however, gay marriage is still best for the country, even despite proposition 8
Should homo marriage become law, it won’t be long until age of consent laws and the NAMBLA types will be wanting their “rights.” And, given the movement, why shoudn’t they get them? What is liberal today is conservative tomorrow in the world of progressives, so the envelope will continue to be pushed until things that might even turn the stomachs of modern-day libs will become the new “liberal cause.” You doubt it’s true? How many libs from 100-200 years ago would be on the side of homo marriage if they were snatched from time and brought forward to today? I would say not very many, if any, at all.
lisab says: homosexual relationships are already legal in our society
therefore it is best to promote monogamy, especially among gay men who have the highest std and hiv rates … lesbians btw have the lowest rates, lower even than heterosexuals.
it is not legal in our society for adults to have relationships with young children, so they can claim no rights, even if they want them.
thus it is exactly as i said in post #1. if we allow homosexuality in our society, then we should promote monogamy through marriage.
wow. how did this post become a conversation about gay marriage??? 😉
though i generally have a ‘live and let live’ libertarian bent to my conservatism, i do not support gay marriage (big surprise!!!). i believe that marriage is more then a legal arrangement – i see it through a spiritual lens – and think it should be between a man and a woman only. i don’t see how it’s ‘best for the country’.
lisab says: “i believe that marriage is more then a legal arrangement – i see it through a spiritual lens …”
hold on … let me check …
full name party a
full name party b
birthdates
occupations
birthplaces
signatures
nope … no mention of spirits in a contract of marriage in any state. you must be referring to a church ceremony … that is completely different from a legal contract
lisab says: fyi for background, i was brought up catholic.
in catholicism civil marriage contracts are a completely separate thing from a religious contract. when you get married as a catholic you have two different procedures, a religious contract before god, and a civil contract for the state.
they are not in any way considered the same. in fact, the civil contract is considered completely unnecessary except that the vatican has an agreement with the usa that priests will perform both contracts at the same time in the usa.
>>lisab said: “it is not legal in our society for adults to have relationships with young children, so they can claim no rights, even if they want them.”
I agree. What I’m pointing to is homo marriage opens the door for other things to become more acceptable. It won’t happen the next day, it’ll take decades to become acceptable and then legal, but this is how it starts.
The history of various cultures throughout the ages shows that homosexuality and pedophilia were commonplace. The early Greek city-states (450BC) are a prime example. So to say it can’t happen would be ridiculous.
In 1910, homo relationships and abortions took place, but they were done in the shadows and behind closed doors. The people in that time couldn’t image those things would ever become legal.
In 2010, homo relationships/”marraige” and abortions are either openly commonplace or becoming that way. Pedophilia exists, but it’s done in the shadows.
In 2110, it won’t be any different. Things that are done in the showdows of 2010 will be commonplace in 2110. Liberalism doesn’t just get to a point where it says “Well, we’ve accomplished as far as we want to push as far as “sexual freedom,” so let’s stop the boat and get off here, no reason to go any further.” It keeps pushing the envelope. These liberals today will be looked at as the older generation that just doesn’t get that adults having sex with kids is no big deal, just like the libs today look at the older generation and see them as not “getting it.”
If I could be transported to the year 2110, and the USA still existed, it would not surprise me at all to find pedophilia is legal and abortion has been extended to include terminating the life of your child up to age 3. That’s what liberalism is.
{Raging dipshit-dingbat Pennie said}- “It is only the far right wingers and restrictive christian fundamentalists (like the one who runs this blog) in this country that are against this. They are the rapidly shrinking minority though so it is only a matter of time.”
Uh, no.
Intolerance of sexual deviance isn’t a religious or conservative notion. Homosexuality is a perversion, no less than beastiality, pedophilia, or necrophilia. Just because you have accepted it as “normal”, doesn’t mean that everyone (or anyone) else should. And those of us in the center (most Americans) have long since grown tired of having to choose between being labeled as right-wing religious fanatics or gay-tolerant.
Maybe you want to lie down at night with someone of your own gender, whatever that is (maybe it’s the Dude Carriage, or Postman Pat…maybe your gender is “neutral” and you think everyone else’s should be also). Perhaps you pay surreptitious visits to your neighbor’s goat. We could hardly give a flying rat’s ass about all that. Maybe everyone, everywhere has some measure of perversion, but stop pretending that it’s okay to also pervert the law as a manner of validating your sickness. And that’s exactly what the whole “gay-marriage” issue is about: In our society, homosexuality is something to be ashamed of, so the fruitcakes pretend that intolerance is something to be MORE ashamed of.
The benefits afforded by law are for those who can be defined as a “unit”: a couple, a family. And the faggots think they ought to be able to horn in on those benefits. Most of America are repulsed (at least a little) by someone pretending that his herd of sheep constitutes a “family”, because there’s something inherently unnatural about THAT kind of “animal husbandry”. Similarly, most Americans have tired of being told that your perversions are considered acceptable to the point that they should be acknowledged as such in the law. Good rule of thumb: If you can’t naturally BREED with this person (or animal, or plastic humanoid, or melon), then there needn’t be lawfully recognized vehicles for calling it “marriage.”
The non-right-wing American center is pretty fed up with being lumped into one of your two categories or the other. Either we accept your perversions as natural, or we’re religious fanatics? Bullshit.
As the great Jesse Helms said, “Just tell them to quit doing that.” Or, if you wanna HAVE a country that’s all fudge-packer-friendly how about you go pervert an already-somewhat-perverted country, like Cuba or Iran or FRANCE(!), and stop screwing up ours?
lisab says: nope,
homosexuality is legal in our society.
so long as it is legal, the state is best off promoting monogamy.
if your religious beliefs do not support homosexuality, keep in mind we are not a theocracy.
lisa i couldn’t disagree with you more. religious beliefs and value systems should not be discounted or set aside simply because we are not a ‘theocracy’. we are however a republic which takes into great account the value systems of its people.
lisab says: YOU should not put aside YOUR values when YOU vote
the voting for now is over however, and our system has taken into “account the value systems of its people.”
our people allow homosexuality. now you may be against it, but it is in fact legal in our society.
given that it is legal it makes logical sense that our government promote monogamy. the way we do that is through marriage
LISA says: AS A DEMOCRAT ,I WOULD HATE TO RUN AGAINST A YOUNG GOOD LOOKING CONSERVATIVE HISPANIC LIKE MARCO RUBIO! THIS IS A STAR IN THE MAKING FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. THIS GUY COULD TURN THE REP.PARTY AROUND! AND BRING SO MANY HISPANIC’S TO THE REP.PARTY AS WELL!BUT LEAVE IT UP TO THE REPUBLICAN’S TO SCREW IT UP!! AND THEY WILL VOTE FOR CRIST AND WATCH CHARLIE CRIST LEAVE THE REP.PARTY AND GO TO THE DEM’S LIKE SPECTER DID! LOL!! LOL!! LOL!!
BARRY says: GOV.CRIST IS GAY AND THAT’S OK!?
julio says: I am a conservative republican who would not , vote for a pandering ,spineless jellyfish like Charly Christ. If you think the bailouts where a good thing ,AIG,fanny mae,freddy mac,countrywide,chrysler,gm and of course the banks and credit card companies.
If you think bailing out people who bought houses they couldn’t afford is a good than vote for Charly ,but if you believe in fiscal responsibility and not passing the buck to our children then you vote Marco Rubio . I believe in taking responsibility for what you do and not destroying the future of our children…………. god bless america…….
victor says: how can any floridian vote for charlie crist after raising taxes and fees more than any other governor in the history of our state during a time when so many are hurting. crist can’t make a decision until he finds out if it will hurt his chances of getting elected, and what has he done to bring jobs to florida, nothing, now he is running around the state asking us to send him to washington, I DON”T THINK SO.
He would become a democrat tomorrow if it would mean a win.
I would rather vote for a democrat , than to send charlie crist to washington.
John says: @Jeff
You ARE a FAR-right fanatic, and you’d be deluded to think your in any majority (or even small minority) in this.
And don’t tell me, after that crazy rant on everything from “fudge packing” “faggots” to necrophilia, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. that your not.
You need help.
No Comments