Now What? Re: Mark Grisanti

Depends on one thing (4.00 / 1)

Grisanti was a Democrat before he was a Republican. We should make every overture through the NYSS and Erie County folk to have him switch back. Guarantee him the party line, he will get the IP and WFP as well. Majority won. If he refuses to come over than we must run against him. To let him off the hook in THAT district is like letting Cao off the hook in New Orleons or Djou off the hook in Hawaii.  

---

by: politics64 @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 00:05:38 AM UTC

I doubt it (0.00 / 0)

My understanding is that Grisanti has major personal loyalty to Maziarz and feels personally indebted to him for the support and the opportunity to be a State Senator.  I find it extremely hard to believe that he would back away from that, although I would appreciate any corrections on that point by our Western New York friends.

---

by: BingChester @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 00:42:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What? (4.00 / 2)

I hope this was made at least somewhat in jest!  Grisanti, of course, represents one of the best D pick up opportunities.  His district is 3:1 Democratic to Republican registration, which is why he has to make occasional moderate votes to have any chance of winning again.  Not only should this seat be Democratic, it should have a progressive Democrat representing it.  

---

by: BKSocDem @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 00:44:35 AM UTC

Not in jest, in hypothetical (4.00 / 1)

Many of the advocates said they would support Republican voters on marriage equality.  I don't think the question is that crazy.  I'd like to take back the majority so my reaction is to support Democrats, unless of course the Democrat running is Antoine Thompson (a pox on his house).

---

by: BingChester @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 03:13:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, I think if Democratics do decided to target (0.00 / 0)

Grisanti's seat for a pick up they should be aware they may risk parting ways with the LGBT constituency in that race. At least, I wouldn't just presume that Empire State Pride Agenda, Human Rights Campaign, Stonewall Dems, and Marriage Equality New York grassroots support network will be there for just any old Democrat that's running. The old math may be giving way to new math.  

I don't know if that's an important consideration in Grisanti's district. Maybe that doesn't matter to the Dems there.  

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 03:57:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's stupid (0.00 / 0)

That makes absolutely no sense.  Why would the LGBT stand with Republic candidates in key races?  Democrats still provided 29 of the 33 votes to pass marriage equality.  The Democratic controlled Assembly has passed the bill 5 times.  It's only Democrats who are pushing this issue across the country.

Of course, I'm just limiting things to one issue here.  There are many other issues that are important to the LGBT community, and those issues are always better addressed by Democratic party officials.  Shooting the party that has done so much for LGBT rights in the foot is simply bewildering to me.  

Now, I understand promises were probably made to these guys.  Personally, I don't really care about that, and I say break your word, dump these guys, and ensure you get the party in power which has always been more sympathetic to civil rights.  Giving way to these guys because of one good vote makes no sense.

---

by: BKSocDem @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 15:30:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not so simple. (4.00 / 1)

It would also be stupid for any constituency to abandon a friend in the legislature.

And stupid for the LGBT community to concede the talking point to Mike Long and Conservative Party and National Organization for Marriage that "Gay Supportive Republican = Electoral Death."

Our community needs Republican votes as much as we need to feed our relationship to the Democratic Brand.

The politics of LGBT constituency just got complicated in NY State.

You can dismiss me as stupid.

But I think the Democratic party would do well to listen carefully and tread carefully. Grisanti is seen as a hero by many in the gay community. Whether Democrats like that reality or not.  

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 17:57:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree which is why I proposed (0.00 / 0)

that the Dems lay the groundwork for wooing Grisanti back in the fold. He only switched after loosing a primary to Thompson a couple of years back and he is pretty mainstream Democratic on most issues. I believe the deal that Bingchester spoke of with Masiarz was only for this one term and that he may well want to be the Democratic nominee in this 3-1 district.

---

by: politics64 @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 20:08:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Citation on that? (0.00 / 0)

I don't recall reading anything saying the deal with Maziarz was one term only.

---

by: BingChester @ Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:50:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That would be a good solution. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:59:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's certainly NOT the case... (4.00 / 1)

...that the gay community will abandon the Democratic party. However, part of the gay community's inability to have political pull in the past has been the fact that Democrats have taken the gay community for granted and sometimes had little incentives to deliver. Indeed, there's growing anger in the gay community towards the big national gay rights organizations that often seem more concerned in electing Democrats to office rather than advocating for what they're there for -- namely, advocating for gay rights. I think there is also growing consensus in the gay community that the past thinking of Democrat = good, Republican = bad is a bit too simplistic. From an advocacy perspective, it's good to not be beholden to only one party IF there is a real choice -- though that might not be good news for Democrats.  

---

by: MMorris @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 18:55:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Remember Clint Dominick's vote on abortion in '70? (0.00 / 0)

I would suspect all of the line crossers will be replaced with more conservative (or perhaps "Conservative") Rebublicans.

---

by: John Minehan @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 18:56:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am really stunned you'd recommend (0.00 / 0)

choosing party over our maintaining our word. That is just so cynical.

And really not a way for our community to develop any long term political clout. We aren't done, you know.

We will still have interests going forward. And treating people who have been good to you like shit is not good politics.

The Democrat Cuomo delivered marriage equality. And he has my gratitude. But he also delivered a budget that is forcing dangerous, draconian, out-sized cuts on HIV-related spending and youth homeless services. And we're going to need friends to turn that around. And it is not as easy apparently as choosing "D" in voting booth.

I understand many heterosexual Democrats believe the LGBT community is a wholly owned subsidary of the Democratic party.

But the reality is our votes do have to be earned the same as others. Apparently, the days of Democrats being a better choice by virtue of not not being Republican may be dwindling.

Based on the embarrassing display Diaz put on the last few months and particularly on Friday night the Democrats really should consider doing some house cleaning before selling us on the BRAND and not the individual candidate.  

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 04:04:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

/ (0.00 / 0)

I know the work of the LGBT rights movement isn't done.  That's exactly why you need to continue to work with the party that has been better on ALL LGBT issues (and, again, was (much) better on the marriage issue in New York, and is (much) better on the marriage issue nationally).  

I don't care if it's cynical to betray your word when you're working to expand rights and fight for better policy.  It's politics.  All I care about is policy intended to improve standards of living, grant additional rights and freedoms, and add to the public benefit.  Wasn't it cynical for several of these Senators to change their stance on marriage equality once the political situation became safer?  Isn't is cynical to support legislative and judicial implementation of marriage equality when, as NOM is fond of pointing out, marriage equality has lost every time an actual referendum has been held?  

I think the failure here is to understand that one of the core interest groups of the Republican party is religious social conservative groups.  They have a substantial amount of influence, and they are highly vocal and active.  In many ways, the marriage equality debate here actually highlights this.  Although New York is an very secular state, with hardly any evangelicals, a state with a large Democratic advantage, and one where marriage equality had a strong majority support by the time the vote was held, Senators were sufficiently scared of a backlash from these religious elements to vote against equality, or considered doing voting against it.  That's despite the fact that there is a lot of Republican money in support of LGBT rights in New York from corporate and wealthy libertarian-leaning donors.  (Cuomo got many of these donors to promise to financially support the Republicans who supported marriage equality.  I'm sure he has pull with them as he's enacting their economic agenda.)  That won't be the case in just about every other state in the country.  And it won't even be the case on other issues in this state that aren't as highly followed and monitored, and don't inspire as much passion.

At the end of the day, marriage equality was passed because of the initiative of a Democratic governor, who was building on the support of two previous Democratic governors who supported marriage equality, and passed with 29 Democratic Senators.  He built on momentum from a vote held last term by a Democratic Senate majority, initiated by a Democratic Senator who had a personal stake in the issue, after equality has already passed 3 times (at the time) in the Democratic Assembly.  It followed Democratic-led drives towards legalization in other blue-leaning states.  And it all follows on decades of an incremental push towards an expansion of LGBT rights, legislation geared towards limiting and ending discrimination, and battling intolerance that has been concentrated within the Democratic party.  All  of this while the other side bubbles with intolerance and homophobia, and works towards obstruction.  As such,  discussing fighting against the Democrats' attempt to take back the Senate because 4 Republican Senators supported marriage equality, while ignoring the fact that 29 Democratic Senators voted for it, a Democratic Assembly pased it 5 times, and it only passed because of the initiative of a Democratic Governor, seems to me to be rather foolish and short-sighted.  

I'd like to point out that I'm not calling you stupid or foolish, but the strategy you seem to be advocating here.  I don't want to get personal or mean.  I just couldn't disagree more with what you seem to be saying.  It seems not only counter-productive, but downright destructive.

---

by: BKSocDem @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 19:58:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What I find destructive is your endorsing the breaking of promises. (0.00 / 0)

Democrats are very cavalier about betraying promises to the LGBT community, take a look what the national party has promised and broken on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act over many, many years.

In fact, the Democratic Party of New York made repeated promises to deliver marriage equality for many years, and when the LGBT community helped them finally win the Senate majority in 2008, the Democratic party betrayed the gay community with 8 no votes. I only bring up history because you are selling me what a great party the Dems are to our community. Their actual record gets a lot of extra-bonus points for just not being the ilk of Carl Paladino.

I can't recommend my community behave so cavalierly on the promises it may have made. Broken promises are bad politics, no matter who's making them. And if Empire State Pride Agenda breaks party lines to endorse anyone of these four, I will certainly be inclined to back them up on that decision. I guess we'll see what candidates present themselves.

Democrats often talk out of both sides of their mouths about party. We, in the gay community  are encouraged, as you are doing, to forsake friends in the GOP, to feed a Democratic majority. Fair enough, a worthy goal.

But we are also supposed to be understanding that "friends" like Senator Ruben Diaz can't possibly be brought in line with the majority. And when Diaz single-handed killed GENDA in 2009, well, gosh, nothing could be done, but elect more Democrats. Sorry. Not good enough. Diaz seriously damages the brand you are now trying to sell to me.

I agree with you one of the GOP's core interest groups is social conservatives. I rather think this move was, in part, an attempt by GOP donors to "take back the party." Ergo, I see value in the entire political landscape if they are rewarded, no punished for good behavior. If they'd like to open the ranks to include Rockefeller Republicans I don't know why that should be so awful, when the alternative seems to be teabaggers.

What you also may not understand is gays also now have a "enemy of my enemy is my friend" relationship with Grisanti, et al. Our community's most vicious and powerful enemies will be coming after them, Long, NOM. If Long & NOM win, they will continue to be seen as a force and have the power to effect future races and legislative goals.

If they lose, as Long did in 2010 with Duprey, they will become more an more marginalized, until the GOP realizes they can do fine without catering to them. As the Conservative Party in England eventually came to realize about their homophobic, anti-gay party influence. The Conservative Party of England has done a full 180 on LGBT issues, going as far as having party leader issue an apology for it's past.

I understand Democrats find it very disturbing to think about the possibility that the LGBT vote will not be theirs to take for granted forever. But gays can be won just the same way as straight people: by having better candidates with better positions on a portfolio of issues. Trust in that.

And I am certainly not ignoring the fact that 29 Democrats and the Governor hold the Lion's share of credit for this, and am happy to work my ass off to get them re-elected for the most part. I know damn well who powered this bill through Albany. And I appreciate it very much.

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:34:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Every group (0.00 / 0)

has promises broken to them by politicians.  Labor wanted EFCA passed, Hispanic groups wanted immigration reform, environmentalists wanted cap and trade, and progressives wanted the public option.  Even social conservatives frequently feel betrayed by elected Republicans who failed to implement their fun, party-time agenda.  I wanted to see the Medicare buy-in for those 55-64.  Oh well.  Should I jump ship?  Start supporting the Republicans because Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman have ruined the Democratic "Brand" for me?  Does that make sense?

If you want to support the, uh, SSM 4 against NOM and Conservative Party supported challengers in a Republican primary, that's fine.  However, with the Senate split 32-30 and every possible seat necessary for Democrats, supporting Republican in swing seats in shooting yourself in the foot.  

If you want to destroy the Conservative Party's influence in New York politics, reduce the Republican party to minority status.  Without Republican control of any major political body, the CP has no vehicle with which to influence policy.  And of course the same goes for NOM or any religious extremist organization.

---

by: BKSocDem @ Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 20:18:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please don't lecture me about shooting (0.00 / 0)

myself in the foot when the Democratic majority stabbed the LGBT community in the front on SSM and GENDA in 2008.

Sure everyone breaks promises, but actions do have consequences.  

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 23:54:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please refer to Cuomo as the Democratic governor (0.00 / 0)

That is the name of the party, Democrat Governor is using Republicans speak for our party which they use only to piss us off!

---

by: politics64 @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 20:11:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

typo (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 02:34:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Think It Always Makes Sense to Recruit As Many Strong Democrats as Possible (4.00 / 1)

For all we know, any of these four Republicans could get Scozzafava'd, and we'd want to have a strong candidate in case that happens. If it doesn't, then I think there are worse fates then voter having to choose between two reasonably decent candidates.

Once the primaries happen and we know who's running for each seat, then I think it makes sense to determine what the best seats to focus our efforts on are, which will likely involve a tripartite analysis of the winnability of the seat, how good the Democrat is, and how bad the Republican is.

I don't see any reason why McDonald, Alesi, Grisanti, and Saland shouldn't be exempted from that analysis. They're going to fare MUCH better than the other Republicans on that last part, but who knows how the other two parts will look come September 2012?

---

by: Mr_Beale @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 02:56:29 AM UTC

If so, why would anyone EVER cross the aisle on (0.00 / 0)

anything controversial?

---

by: John Minehan @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 18:58:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Several Reasons (0.00 / 0)

First of all, not everyone is as liberal as we here are at TAP. Many voters are fairly centrist, and will only need to see the Republican cast a couple of progressive votes before they vote for them.

Secondly, as I said, the four Republicans who voted for marriage equality now fare very well on one element of my proposed test. All other things being equal, it definitely makes sense to focus much more on the others, so there is now a reduced chance that we will go all in after them.

---

by: Mr_Beale @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:58:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As a gay New Yorker I would hate (4.00 / 1)

to see Mike Long and National Organization for Marriage be able to make good on their threats to take these four out in 2012. If they are not re-elected it will have a chilling effect on garnering GOP support for future LGBT goals in many areas nationwide, state and federal. As such I will certainly be encouraging LGBT constituency to remember who has stood by them. Civil rights should not be a partisan matter IMO.

I understand the larger Democratic party may have other priorities. I hope when allocating resources in 2012 they do remember these four handed a DEMOCRATIC Governor perhaps one of the biggest and unlikely DEMOCRATIC victories we'll see in 2011. And it is possible they'll do so again. They are not apparently too deranged to be reached.

And maybe there are other races that can be prioritized. There are of course 28 other Republicans worth going after.

Like Greg Ball who just barely won his seat in 2010. And went on to prove he is not Senator material.  

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 03:46:40 AM UTC

Lanza, Golden, Ball and all of Long Island (4.00 / 2)

That's where we should focus.  Let's face it -- I am sure the powers that be in the upper echelons of the NYS Democratic Party are committed to making life easier for the courageous 4 on this issue.  I am OK with that.

Frankly -- the other issue is re-districting.  If there is even a modicum of change towards independence -- them Dems pick up several seats.

Finally -- the Dems need to clean their own house.  Senator Diaz must have a serious challenger who gets support from other Democratic electeds.  The official Bronx Party can punt on this much like they did on Espada -- but individuals committed to reform and equality need to get behind a credible candidate, much like they did with getting behind Rivera.  

---

by: Jackbx @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:04:07 AM UTC

I Agree With You (0.00 / 0)

We need to concentrate our efforts on removing Senators like Diaz,Lanza, Golden, etc.  As for Grisanti, he's been a Dem, now a Con and maybe his future lies in being an Independent.  Lets face it, Long is going to go after him (along with Alesi and McDonald) and Saland maybe in the process of retiring and doesn't give a crap what Long does. Besides, Saland has more seniority and if he runs in 2012 his district will probably vote him in again.    

---

by: ROSALIE907 @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 18:43:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thoughts (0.00 / 0)

Diaz and Golden- Yes, and I think that a stronger candidate will arise in 2012 than in 2010.

Lanza- The trick here will be finding a good candidate, but understand that the South Shore of Staten Island is NOT a favorable place for a marriage equality candidate.  Politically Lanza's makes a lot of sense because he would have certainly been successfully primaried by a Catholic conservative, especially considering how fractured and territorial the SI Republicans are (and therefore willing to eat one of their own).

---

by: BingChester @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 21:04:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lanza, Golden & Diaz (0.00 / 0)

Unless there is a drastic change in his district, Lanza will probably be in Albany until he either decides to run for another office or retires at a ripe old age. Also, remember his BFF is Vito Fossella who refused to have his gay sister attend any family events because she's in a commited relationship.  

If redistricting changes Golden's district we have a chance but he's still popular in the area and this maybe difficult although we shouldn't stop trying.  

Diaz can be knocked out but its going to take someone who's well known in the district and with good backing from the Party.    

---

by: ROSALIE907 @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:09:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This isn't a factor anymore: (0.00 / 0)

but understand that the South Shore of Staten Island is NOT a favorable place for a marriage equality candidate

Support or opposition to marriage equality won't be a factor in Lanza's next race.

I can't even think of a reason to bother asking a candidate their position.

And since it passed, Lanza's no vote probably won't figure much from either side.  

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 04:14:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My point was (0.00 / 0)

that if Lanza had voted yes, it would have been an issue.  For the crazy Republicans that live on the South Shore.

---

by: BingChester @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 13:33:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good luck trying to beat Ball, his handling of this (0.00 / 0)

issue was first class political tactics.  

He will be the golden child for social conservatives and moderates will respect the fact that, knowing the Bill would pass, he amended it to reduce the effects on people with moral or philosophical objections.  He will get a lot of money into his next camapign on this.

You hate this guy and he beats you EVERYTIME.  You really should figure out why that happens, otherwise he looks like the Roadrunner and you look like the Coyote.    

---

by: John Minehan @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 19:04:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think Kaplowitz could have beaten Ball (0.00 / 0)

had he focused on progressive issues and embraced the progressive community.  His decision not to accept the WFP line was a bad one.  We need a candidate who is not afraid of the progressive base.  A progressive opponent could easily raise a lot of money and could rely on the troops WFP and the gay rights movement could put on the ground.  Also groups like the New Roosevelt Initiative are already focused on Ball.   Independent expenditure for a Ball opponent will help to tip the balance.

Not sure was was so "first class" about Ball?

---

by: Jackbx @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 20:01:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's the kind of thinking you need to do. (0.00 / 0)

Sen. Ball saw this was going to pass and got out there to amend it to make it less objectionable to his District.  That is what people should do in a republic.  Sometimes, I think we are too polarized to this anymore.  

---

by: John Minehan @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 23:44:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Only problem with that theory is, Ball lost. (0.00 / 0)

He wanted an extremely broad "objector" clause, which would have included the ability of individuals and businesses to legally discriminate. He lost. I'm not sure why that should be considered laudable.  

---

by: Adama D. Brown @ Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 04:31:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because he's a very skilled politician (0.00 / 0)

He also beats the Republicans every time.  Ala primary campaign in 2006 and 2010.  He's the Roadrunner to a lot of folks.

---

by: BingChester @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 21:09:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK, but what... (0.00 / 0)

...was so skillful or where are the "first class political tactics" about how he played this issue?  Clearly there are Republicans (a lot of polo loving ones too) who think he is wrong on this issue.  The numbers for equality are only going to go up by the time the next election rolls around.  I think Ball is only made more vulnerable by this.    

---

by: Jackbx @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 21:27:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think a lot more people are put off by this than are willing to say. (0.00 / 0)

Think about this, NYS is the second state (Vermont was the first) to do this by legislation and not court decision.  Maine legalized this by legislation . . . that was quickly overturned by a referendum, which also happened in California (!!) after the state high court made a decison that legalized it.

This, like our abortion law, is going to be an annuity for the Conservative Party.        

---

by: John Minehan @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 23:53:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This could hurt the Conservative Party (0.00 / 0)

By setting themselves up to be a one-issue party, and hurting those they would normally help, they will almost certainly lose Line "C" in 2014, and possibly marginalize themselves out of an automatic ballot line.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 00:12:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let'sdefine the issue: is this going to be as (0.00 / 0)

disliked and contenscious as abortion?  If so, this is a an annuity for them.  The Conservatives made their bones on the 1970 abortion law, beating my fellow VMI alum, Sen. Dominick (R. Newburgh).  That has been their big funding source since 1970.    

---

by: John Minehan @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 00:48:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If the Conservative Party wants to take it on (0.00 / 0)

as a cause, they may be able to fundraise, but they will further marginalize their brand, because they won't have buy-in from the GOP or anyone, really.

Because the abortion analogy is not apt. Attitudes on abortion have been pretty stable since the 1970s. And because they will always have Planned Parenthood to battle the GOP can keep choice relevant. It is a pool of people the conservatives can depend on indefinitely. And they feed them red meat regularly.

Marriage equality has no legs. By the time the 20-somethings of today are 40-somethings the pool of people who are actually fired up by the issue will be very tiny. Polling shows kids just don't care, and they are not going to be persauded to care as they age. Even more so after to becomes the new normal. This has already played out in MA, NH and IA, where outside of small Fundamentalist circles the desire to turn back the clock is just not a motivating factor for voters. The sky stubbornly refused to fall and everyone moved on with it.  

And the promise of repeal can't possibly resonate. No one who lives in a reality based universe could see the stars aligning in NY to make it so.  

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 04:46:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you are completely mis-reading the tide of history (0.00 / 0)

Acceptance of marriage equality and acceptance in general of gay civil rights is growing each day.  The younger the voters, the higher the acceptance.  The floodgate is opened.  I think complete equality in a majority of states with federal recognition will come within 10-15 years.  Just look at the polls -- acceptance of equality for gays is moving rapidly upward in all sectors of our society, even among young Republicans, young Catholics, young Evangelicals, etc.

Abortion is really a bad analogy.  Abortion has a more logical and compelling moral component.  So-called "traditional marriage" simply fails on both logic and its compelling nature.  Wanting to protect nascent life in the womb is something even the strongest pro-choice proponent can recognize as a good impulse, and no one denies the difficult life/death implications of every choice a pregnant woman makes.  None of that is present in the traditional marriage movement.  The arguments come down to people hurling anathemas like -- "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Sorry -- not very compelling if you don't share a certain theological world view.

---

by: Jackbx @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 01:39:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ball never had any intention to vote for it (4.00 / 1)

But pretended to so he could preen his egomaniacial mug for CNN and MSNBC. All the while speaking ignorant nonsense.

Then he polled a question of Civil Rights on Twitter. Then he dismissed the results.

His handling was indeed, adept at whoring his name and exploiting the situation for Greg Ball, Greg Ball, Greg Ball.

The last phrase I would use to describe his antics are "First Class."

Maybe in an Idiotcracy.  

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 04:23:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

An apt phrase (4.00 / 1)

How about "First crass"?

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:42:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL, "First Crass!" Exactly. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 17:02:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Although I will grant Ball may have unwittingly done (0.00 / 0)

Marriage equality advocates a favor. He sucked all the oxygen out of the room so no one was paying much attention to Saland and Grisanti.  

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 17:05:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The first step to winning anything is to underststand (0.00 / 0)

your opponent's strengths.

---

by: John Minehan @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 23:55:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are joking, No? (4.00 / 1)

Ball barely won in a Republican wave election and 2012 is a Presidential Year. That is only addressing what I view as half of your joke, the other half is your characterization of Balls handling of this.  His district is pro marriage equality. The protections of the church issue is so easily debunked by the fact that they already were fully protected under existing state law. Ball grandstanded and to assert that his constituents could not see through it insults their intelligence greatly!

---

by: politics64 @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 20:22:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here is the interesting political question: (0.00 / 0)

will Roy McDonald become the new Clint Dominick?

Seems like this is the gift that will keep on giving for the coffers of the Conservative Party and Republicans like Greg Ball who handles the issue with finese.  Like abortion, this won't go away and will continue to inflame the base.  

---

by: John Minehan @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 18:38:28 PM UTC

Not if Bruno really was behind it (0.00 / 0)

Bruno controls that district even now.  If Bruno really did give the thumbs up like they say he did, then Roy McDonald will be protected.

---

by: BingChester @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 21:02:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

. . . and Clint Dominick was a power unto himself . . . and he still lost (0.00 / 0)

the next election after hisw abortion vote in 1970.  Interesting question . . . .

---

by: John Minehan @ Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 23:58:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

saland, you are too right (4.00 / 3)

That guy is straight out corrupt. My senator. Glad he did the right thing. Now retire.

---

by: glencadia @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 00:23:29 AM UTC

all four of those Republican Senators (0.00 / 0)

should be challenged vigorously along with all other Republican Senators.

Just because these four voted correctly one time, doesn't mean that they don't still stand in the way of progress. They do.

Hopefully, the state Conservative Party will helped "Scozzafava" one or more of these folks, hopefully enabling a true progressive Democrat to win (although being a "progressive" and being a "Democrat" do not always go hand-in-hand, unfortunately).

---

by: paco @ Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 23:08:16 PM UTC

If The Shoe Was On The Other Foot (4.00 / 1)

Republicons would STILL go after any Democrat that voted along with them on a specific bill. NOBODY gets a pass with them and we shouldn't give a pass to any Republicon that that votes along with us on any bill.  If they don't like the Party they're currently in they can join us but we don't give passes for one vote.  

---

by: ROSALIE907 @ Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 03:48:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]