It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thread

by **jeff2sf** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 02:04:06

Gay marriage is one of the few things I'd actually donate money to support.

And I still don't see a reason to bust Christie's balls about this. Why not spend the energy on the 44 or so other states, many of which have much harsher stands against gays than Christie.

by **swishnicholson** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 02:50:17

jerseyhoya wrote:
swishnicholson wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:He doesn't think it's a right.

Then he should veto it.Putting it to a referendum is just being a weasel. I respect you anyway, but even more so every time you call a weasel a weasel.

As Housh says, calling on the majority to establish the rights of a minority is more than a little problematic. You need people of conscience to do so. If Christie doesn't want to accept the will of the people's chosen representatives who see this as the right thing to do because this is not an element of his own conscience, so be it. But putting it a referendum is just passing the buck, and needs to be recognized a such.

FWIW I used to wholeheartedly support civil unions until I realized I was supporting something that the people it was supposed to benefit didn't want (and who weren't being provided with the benefits intended anyway.) If you support the benefits that are supposed to be provided by civil unions, I don't know how you don't eventually make the jump to marriage rights. Christie's tarnishing his reputation for fearlessness among all parties with this one.

He is absolutely ducking this. But I don't know if there's a better way for him to handle it.

He probably genuinely opposes gay marriage. He is a good Catholic after all. And he has to veto it based on his announced position on the issue and to keep the door open to being VP this time around or running for President in 2016. He could just veto it, but offering a referendum makes it look like he's willing to compromise/being rational, while painting the Democrats as the ones who aren't willing to be reasonable on the issue.

Sweeney and a bunch of other legislative Dems were instrumental in killing gay marriage from passing at the end of the Corzine administration two years ago. The Dems brought it back up because they realize that a lot of the people who support Christie for trying to get the state's fiscal house in order and kicking the shit out of the public sector unions also are also social moderate/liberals, and can be won back for the 2013 election by pushing on those issues. Sweeney (the highest ranking Dem in state government for those just joining the conversation) is now calling not backing gay marriage his biggest mistake. Again, this took place in December 2009, not 1999. I mean, whatever, it was politically questionable then so he killed it, now it's useful as a political weapon so he's for it. Christie is responding to this cynical political play in cynical fashion. Quelle horreur.

Whatever the merits of putting this civil right up to popular vote, I think it would stand a really good shot at passing, and I'm pretty sure it'd be the first time gay marriage won a referendum.

Well a duck isn't quite a weasel but I'll settle. And Sweeney is a toad and other gutless Dems like James Beach deserve as much excoriation as they can get for their actions in 2009. But I don't really see "Christie is responding to this cynical political play in cynical fashion" as a defense, unless you're, y'know, completely cynical. I also question the depth Christie's opposition to gay marriage and think he's just considering political expediency at this is time-which is generally the case when he's acting rather than blustering over things he has no control over. I think he might find this high wire is a little thinner than he thinks. But he has generally displayed a good sense of balance in the past, so maybe not.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 04:09:05

I didn't mean to say him suggesting the issue should be put up for referendum in response to the Dems acting cynically in bringing this back forward should exonerate him from his actions, but it's worth taking the past into account. And a lot of NJ politics are best viewed through a completely cynical lens.

As for questioning his depth of opposition to gay marriage, it's probably not that strong because if it was a bedrock type principal he'd dig in with the veto and not look to the referendum. But I don't think he's just pretending or anything in order to preserve his shot at the GOP nomination in 4-8 years. From all publicly available information, him being somewhat opposed to gay marriage but not so opposed to it that he wasn't willing to let it come into being if the people passed a referendum in favor of it seems like it's pretty close to his real life preferences.

I dunno. I think a lot of us interact almost exclusively with people (in real life and on the web) on a day to day basis who think gay marriage should be legal so it's hard to imagine someone who is well educated and smart being legitimately opposed to it. The fact that our president is fake anti gay marriage probably lends a lot to the idea that people who say they are against gay marriage are just pretending. But votes banning it are 28 for 28. In real life people are opposed to it. The sample of people that many of us are friends with or work with isn't particularly representative of America.

by **jeff2sf** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 08:55:51

If you're saying that a poll that shows, for example, 52-48 in favor of gay marriage does not indicate a ballot would pass, I can agree with that. But you don't think the polls are showing an increasing acceptance of gay marriage?

Are you instead saying that the increase is only due to... people thinking that's what the pollsters want to hear? That seems weird and not reflective of what's going on in society.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 09:09:31

Romney pointed out that POTUS has called for lowering corporate taxes, cracking down on China, etc - things Romney conflated with "knowing how to create jobs" - but then dismissed him saying "but he doesn't DO any of those things, but when I'm president I will"

So basically Romney's signature plank is his assertion that congress will do if he's Prez what they could do now but don't because the brown man is in charge.

Can the earth's crust hold up under the weight of the enormous number of Republican and independent voters who will line up behind that call to action?

by **thephan** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 09:53:27

jerseyhoya wrote:My senior thesis was about competitive primaries in gov and senate primaries and their effect on general election results. Wish I kept my excel data on it. Now that I actually understand regression I would like to have another go at it.

I was wondering about your post since I read it. What was your conclusion? Is all this arguing just noise and people fall back to party lines? What does it do, in your view, to the independents? Does it effect turnout at the polls at all?

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:21:01

The idea of putting up minority rights to a vote is indeed problematic. But so is the idea of relying on courts to protect those rights. While Brown v. Board of Ed. established the Supreme Court and other courts as willing protectors of minority rights, prior to the 1950s courts did very little and in fact often worked in the opposite direction. Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson are the obvious examples.

I think progressives have become over-reliant on courts, and this has held progressive politics back, emphasizing legal strategies rather than making claims based on justice. Again, looking at civil rights--the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act are pieces of legislation that are the most important element of civil rights protections, and reflect a national commitment to those rights.

By contrast, many see Roe v. Wade as subverting the progress states were making in establishing access to abortion. So now we're one vote away from reversing it and returning back to the way things were in the 1970s. Thus, a Supreme Court decision may work quickly, but is much less endurable than you might think. Rights are only secure if there is ultimately some consensus about it.

To be sure, little of this has much to do with NJ, as I understand it. However, would be hugely significant if NJ, through a referendum, voted in favor of gay marriage. Much more significant than a court decision, and even more important than a legislative decision. This could be a huge opportunity that should be seized by supporters of equity.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:51:26

to be clear TV, you're suggesting supporters go balls out, Wisconsin-governor-recall style, call Christie's bluff, and blow the vote out of the water?

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:53:48

drsmooth wrote:to be clear TV, you're suggesting supporters go balls out, Wisconsin-governor-recall style, call Christie's bluff, and blow the vote out of the water?

They should do it differently than the Wisconsin people since they're gonna lose

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:54:53

thephan wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:My senior thesis was about competitive primaries in gov and senate primaries and their effect on general election results. Wish I kept my excel data on it. Now that I actually understand regression I would like to have another go at it.

I was wondering about your post since I read it. What was your conclusion? Is all this arguing just noise and people fall back to party lines? What does it do, in your view, to the independents? Does it effect turnout at the polls at all?

The candidates who were in competitive primaries ended up being hindered, but I'm not sure I did a very good job controlling for candidate quality or other potentially important factors.

by **td11** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:06:48

jerseyhoya wrote:
drsmooth wrote:to be clear TV, you're suggesting supporters go balls out, Wisconsin-governor-recall style, call Christie's bluff, and blow the vote out of the water?

They should do it differently than the Wisconsin people since they're gonna lose

WaPo:

According to a new Marquette Law School poll the governor leads Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a likely candidate, 50 percent to 44 percent. He leads former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, the only declared Democratic candidate, 49 percent to 42 percent margin, former Rep. David Obey 49 percent to 43 percent and state Sen. Tim Cullen 50 percent to 40 percent.
...
Looking at these numbers it’s clear that while Walker has the advantage, this race will still be very competitive.

A November Wisconsin Public Radio survey found that 58 percent of voters supported a recall of the governor — although that is a very different thing than a head-to-head matchup between Walker and a specific Democratic candidate.

...

A quirk in the state election law means donors can contribute unlimited sums to a recall target until petition signatures are verified, and Walker has raised $4.5 million in just five weeks. A million of that total came from just four people. Sixty-one percent of Walker’s contributions came from out of state.

But Walker has also been spending money — more money than he raised. In the same five weeks, the governor spent $4.9 million, a large chunk of it on TV and radio ads and direct mail solicitations. The unlimited funds must be spent before the recall is official (unless used for legal challenges).
...

Regardless of the reasoning, Walker’s spending speaks to the fact that a) he knows the challenge a recall will pose to him and b) he will be no easy victory for Democrats.

idk idk, don't think you can say anything definitively right now

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:08:12

jeff2sf wrote:If you're saying that a poll that shows, for example, 52-48 in favor of gay marriage does not indicate a ballot would pass, I can agree with that. But you don't think the polls are showing an increasing acceptance of gay marriage?

Are you instead saying that the increase is only due to... people thinking that's what the pollsters want to hear? That seems weird and not reflective of what's going on in society.

Polls are showing an increasing acceptance of gay marriage, just think the numbers the polls find have to be taken with a grain of salt due to how these things turn out once people get into polling booths. Generational replacement and people changing their mind about the issue are the biggest reasons why the numbers are shifting, but the polls are inflated a bit by people giving favorable responses.

I said I think it would stand a pretty decent chance of passing in New Jersey, which isn't something that would have been true 5-10 years ago.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:18:50

td11 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
drsmooth wrote:to be clear TV, you're suggesting supporters go balls out, Wisconsin-governor-recall style, call Christie's bluff, and blow the vote out of the water?

They should do it differently than the Wisconsin people since they're gonna lose

idk idk, don't think you can say anything definitively right now

It's definitely too early to tell, but Walker is starting in a good position and has a good story to tell with the state and local school districts' budget positions improving.

I think a gay marriage referendum would start in a much better position here.

by **thephan** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:21:04

jerseyhoya wrote:
thephan wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:My senior thesis was about competitive primaries in gov and senate primaries and their effect on general election results. Wish I kept my excel data on it. Now that I actually understand regression I would like to have another go at it.

I was wondering about your post since I read it. What was your conclusion? Is all this arguing just noise and people fall back to party lines? What does it do, in your view, to the independents? Does it effect turnout at the polls at all?

The candidates who were in competitive primaries ended up being hindered, but I'm not sure I did a very good job controlling for candidate quality or other potentially important factors.

I accepted that your data and process might have been immature as it was a senior project, and to be frank, with age comes wisdom to some extent. That said, even a survey yields a plausible answer. I think the onslaught of debates are just killing the potential of any prospective candidate. The lack of insight and thinking demanded by the attack process seems to hinder the decision making in general. Although I do not like any of the GOP candidates, it would be beneficial if they could offer some explanations rather then just defend themselves, which they seem to do poorly, as I cannot tell if any of these characters would be a competent president nor can I decipher what there mythical plans are other then a highly guarded secret that cannot be exposed for fear of an attack.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:31:15

In Florida, Senator John McCain says "I think we ought to send Newt Gingrich to the Moon, and Mitt Romney to the White House"

Old people say the darndest things

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:23:01

jerseyhoya wrote:
In Florida, Senator John McCain says "I think we ought to send Newt Gingrich to the Moon, and Mitt Romney to the White House"

Old people say the darndest things

Ha! McCain made a funny!

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:58:00

jerseyhoya wrote:He doesn't think it's a right.

Bigots didn't used to think that denying service to a black person b/c of their skin color was a violation of civil rights either. Submitting the question of whether something is a right to public opinion is disingenuous at best and fundamentally un-American in any event.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 13:02:41

What I'm saying is the winning the battle of gay marriage in the legislatures and the voting booth is a much, much bigger victory than winning in the courts. In a more general sense, progressives (in my opinion) would have much more success long term if they focused on public discourse and debate rather than legal strategies.

Also, the Supreme Court taking a progressive opinion at odds with the majority is a relatively recent phenomenon. Historically, the SC has been regressive, not progressive. Really, it's been pretty regressive over the last 10-15 years anyway.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 13:57:50

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:He doesn't think it's a right.

Bigots didn't used to think that denying service to a black person b/c of their skin color was a violation of civil rights either. Submitting the question of whether something is a right to public opinion is disingenuous at best and fundamentally un-American in any event.

He doesn't think it's a civil right, the State Supreme Court doesn't think it's a civil right, the federal government doesn't think it's a civil right. He can either keep it from happening by himself or put it up to a vote to see whether the state's voters want it to happen. Is vetoing the bill un-American? I'm not really sure why the latter would be worse than the former.

I personally think the comparisons to the fight against Jim Crow (or slavery) are mostly ridiculous and weaken the case for gay marriage. It's not denying service (or the right to vote, etc.) to someone based on the color of their skin. There are significant, relevant biological differences between men and women. Men and women get married and procreate and raise children and keep the human race going. Defining marriage as being between one man and one woman wasn't some arbitrary distinction founded in bigotry.

I don't know if I think it's a civil right. I think it would be good public policy, increasing acceptance and tolerance and letting people live their lives they way they want to without doing harm to the institution of marriage, but right is kind of a big word. I don't know if this climbs to that level. Good things don't all have to be rights.

by **pacino** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 13:59:56

They are denied the ability to marry the person they want. Seems open and shut to me.

Archived

It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thread

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr