When I saw the first ad against Proposition 8, I had thought the initiative’s opponents had developed a better strategy than had opponents of past such initiatives. Instead of demonizing supporters of traditional marriage, they focused on the benefits of recognizing same-sex marriage: the state shouldn’t treat gay couples differently than it does same-sex unions.

Since that ad, however, I–and a number of blog readers–have heard opponents of 8 resort to attacks on the initiative’s proponents. (Perhaps a good idea if you’re attacking a candidate running for office.)  One opponent, a good and decent man who recently married his partner (and understands the obligations of the institution), echoed the New York Times in calling the Proposition “mean-spirited.” Countless others call it “anti-gay.”

With many voters wanting to treat all citizens fairly regardless of their sexual orientation yet remain wary of gay marriage because they believe the institution defines a union between two people of different genders, we need not demonize those whose arguments resonate with those “swing voters.” To be sure, there are mean-spirited supporters of Proposition 8, who do seek to marginalize gay people and repeal even the state’s landmark domestic partnership program (enacted and expanded by the elected legislature).

Most, however, favor the traditional view of marriage, not because they hate gay people, but because they see it as a unique institution with a certain gender-based definition. One blogger who supports the initiative took pains to reference the initiative’s talking points: “Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or BENEFITS from gay or lesbian domestic partners.”

(more…)

Even before her election as Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin had succeeded in taking on her state party’s corrupt machine. Thanks to her efforts, the then-state party chairman was forced to resign his seat on the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission. With the help of a Democrat, she exposed a corrupt state Attorney General, also of her own party, also forcing him out.

Barack Obama comes from Chicago, a city with a history of corrupt machine politics. So, I’m asking Obama supporters to provide examples where he has done what Palin has done and forced the resignation of corrupt officials of his own party.

After all, he’s the candidate whose mantra is change.

Sometimes when I discuss politics with other gay people, I learn that they share my fiscally conservative views.  They too favor smaller government, less regulation, fewer federal (and state) intrusions into our lives and more freedom.  But, they end up supporting the Democratic Party, often contributing to its coffers because, they claim, it’s better for gay people.  (I happen to disagree with that assessment.)

I sometimes press these Democrats, asking how can they, while claiming to favor free enterprise, support a party which consistently pushes for an ever-increasing role for the state.  Sometimes, they hem and they haw.  Other times, they point to Bill Clinton’s accomplishments.  Most times, they say it all boils down the the gay issue.

Those supposedly fiscally conservative Democrats should look at Nancy Pelosi’s latest proposal.  With the government about to bail out financial institutions for about one trillion dollars and with deficits continuing to skyrocket, the Democratic House Speaker favors a “$150 billion economic stimulus plan . . .  to help counteract a faltering economy.”  When Democrats see a problem, they look to increased government spending as the solution.

Deficits wouldn’t be as high as they are now if recent Republican Congresses hadn’t abandoned their conservative principles and spent taxpayers’ money, in John McCain’s words, “like a drunken sailor.”  Nancy Pelosi would not be Speaker today had Republicans held true to those principles.

It’s amazing that Democrats just can’t learn lessons that the average citizen learns when he overspends.  When I balanced my checkbook and paid off the expenses for my trip to St. Paul, I discovered I was behind in my finances for the year, so I’ll have to cut back for a while.  No new books or DVDs, no new clothes, fewer dinners out (and then at less expensive restaurants), all lunches at home, fewer dirty martinis.

If Nancy Pelosi were in my situation, instead of cutting expenses, she’d be increasing them.

Well, some of my fellows say the gay issue is paramount.  I respond, fiscal responsibility as well as economic and personal freedom are more important.  And national security.  And judicial restraint.

My home state, Ohio, has not only become ground zero for the presidential campaign, it’s also become ground zero for vote fraud.

A federal judge ruled that Ohio’s Democratic Secretary of State, “Jennifer Brunner is breaking federal law by not giving county elections boards the chance to determine whether new voter registrations are fraudulent.” And this is the state where the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a left-wing organization for which Obama once worked, hounded a Cleveland pizza worker to register to vote multiple times. The group presses “voters already registered to vote to keep doing so.” Indeed, on Ohio voter “filled out registration cards 72 times over 18 months.”

When Bob Frantz of Cleveland’s radio station WTAM 1100 invited Brunner’s Spokesman Jeff Ortega and Communications Director, Brian Clark on separate occasions to discuss safeguards to prevent voter fraud, each Democrat hung up (Ortega here, Clark here).  The Democrats could only respond to Frantz’s query about excluding Republican observers from monitoring early votes by claiming there was no statute mandating such observers.  When he pressed them on the fairness of their actions, they stuck to their talking points, then hung up.

At least the Ohio press is taking notice (see, for example, this Columbus Dispatch editorial) but will the national media cover pro-Obama vote fraud in the Buckeye State . . . and around the nation?

You can bet that if a Republican official in a swing state were acting like Brunner and her staff, the national media would take notice.

If John McCain loses this election, it will because, in large measure, he failed to promote a consistent conservative economic message.

You see in national elections, we Republicans are at a disadvantage to the Democrats.  They can get by with running against.  We have to run for something.

In 1974, Democrats increased their majorities in both Houses of Congress when voters overwhelmingly rejected Republican incumbents and candidates to punish then-recently disgraced former President Nixon’s party for Watergate.  In 1976, Jimmy Carter won by running for “a government as good as the people” which was really his slogan to capitalize on residual distrust of the GOP.

Four years later, to oust that incompetent executive, Ronald Reagan presented a plan for economic recovery.  It worked, both on the campaign trail and for the economy.

Fourteen years later, Republicans finally recaptured Congress by running on “The Contract with America,” “a detailed agenda for national renewal.“  Twelve years later, however when an majority of House Republican had lost sight of the principles undergirding that contract, Democrats ran against their corruption, regaining the majority with vague promises of making the 110th the “most ethical Congress in history.”

Two years later, Barack Obama is running for president promising change from “the last eight years,” his favorite expression in the second presidential debate this year which, as I noted before, he used more often than Sarah Palin used the word, “maverick.”  While change may seem a positive message, in many ways, it’s just a negative campaign tactic, signaling that he’s running against those last eight years.

He still hasn’t really spelled out what he means by change.

It just may work.  For the better part of the past thirty-odd years, Democrats have won by running against something while Republicans win when we run for something.

And the media accuse us of cynicism and negative campaigning.

Burning McCain campaign sign lands men in hot water

Vandals strike York County GOP headquarters

Depictions of Sarah Palin et al.

UPDATE: Obama Rallies Turn Ugly (H/t Glenn)

UP-UPDATE:  In Albemarle County, Virginia, angry liberals have stolen “75-80% of all the large McCain-Palin signs.”  And those signs the Obama supporters fail to steal, they burn.  Read about it here. I wonder if Paul Krugman will take note of the vandalism and arson committed by these liberals.

Saturday night, I had a conversation with a pretty well-informed friend which helped me see just how biased our media are.

This Democrat knew about Sarah Palin’s inquiry twelve years ago into removing books from the Wasilla Public Library (though he did not express it that way), but didn’t know about her success in pushing through a “gas pipeline project to bring new supply and price relief to the lower 48.” Indeed, he didn’t know much about her various (successful) battles against entrenched interests in her own party. Nor do most people who seem dumbfounded by my defenses of the Alaska Governor’s qualifications.

And some of these people read the Los Angeles Times on a regular basis.  For others it’s its Big Apple counterpart.

Here is a woman who even before her election as Governor caused her state party’s chairman to resign from the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission and also exposed the state Attorney General, also from her own party, forcing him to resign as well. As Governor, she held the line on spending and fought attempts by big oil companies “to block development of the state’s resources.”

Save for those of us who read the conservative media, it seems more people know about teenage daughter’s pregnancy, her husband’s drunk driving conviction (22 years ago), her inquiry into banning books and her alleged membership in the Alaska Independence Party (AIP) (she wasn’t her husband was) than know of her reform record.

Yet, much as we know about such insignificant details of her life and even fabrications about that life (based on shoddy reporting), we know even less about Barack Obama and Joe Biden. While some assume (falsely) Palin joined the AIP, most remain ignorant of Obama’s involvement in the socialist “New Party” in the 1990s.

We read much in the media on how Palin’s supposed hypocrisy for highlighting her opposition to earmarks since she once sought them, yet little on the failure of her rival for the Vice Presidency to disclose the earmarks he requested during his 35 years in the Senate, including the $342 million he requested this year alone.

While the MSM scour the dumpsters of Alaska for any incriminating evidence on Sarah Palin (even if it’s a fabrication), they’re steering clear of easily obtainable records in Chicago and Wilmington (Delaware) while failing to prod either man on the Democratic ticket to be more forthcoming about his past, including his record in office.