Wedding Bell Blues

Today’s ruling by the California Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of gay marriage throws yet another twist into the 2008 Presidential campaign. A similar ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2004 helped to mobilize social conservatives-especially in the swing state of Ohio—to come out in election-winning droves to vote for George W. Bush. Bush and the GOP enticed conservative voters by dangling the prospects pushing through a marriage protection constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the second Bush term.

Alas, like many campaign promises, this one went unfulfilled. Disappointing, to be sure, for social conservatives but lack of action on Bush’s part meant the anti—gay marriage drum could be kept to beat on in the 2008 campaign (much as much touted anti-abortion, term limit and balanced budget constitutional amendments have been dangled by the GOP in front of conservative voters for decades.)

I wrote in April of 2004 that the Massachusetts gay marriage decision had probably handed the fall election to the GOP on a silver wedding platter. Turned out I was correct. This time, however, the impact of the California decision of the fall election will be more complicated. That’s because, of course, GOP standard bearer St. John The Moderate broke with his party in 2004 to vote against the Marriage Protection amendment. The California decision will agitate and invigorate social conservatives but, with McCain leading the GOP ticket, they have nowhere to electorally go. Sure, there may be a big proposition fight in California over a proposed anti-gay marriage state constitutional amendment that may or may not make the November ballot. But this brouhaha will hurt McCain more than it helps him as it will soak up state and national political money that otherwise might have found its way into his campaign pockets. It won’t provide him with anything approaching the pro-Bush push the gay marriage issue provided the GOP in 2004.

Hillary Clinton supporters are increasingly saying they’d vote for John McCain over Barack Obama (up to almost 30% of the pro-Hillary voters in West Virginia, for instance.) If that happens Obama’s electability drops significantly.

Meanwhile conservatives are expressing increasing doubts about John McCain–especially after his remarks on global warming. (just listen to the talking heads of conservative talk radio lambast the fellow. You’d think McCain was Jimmy Carter’s long lost brother.) If McCain doesn’t come out against the California gay marriage decision (which he can’t do without looking like he’s doing what he’d be doing if he did it—pandering too the grossest extreme) social conservatives are liable to stay home come in election-losing droves. Worse for McCain, social conservative might vault the GOP to vote in protest for third party candidates yet unnamed, like former Republican representative and bane to Bill Clinton’s existence Bob Barr who’s trying to secure the Libertarian party nomination. Losing conservative voters makes McCain’s electability drops significantly.

Which leads to the interesting conclusion that, come November, neither Obama, McCain or anyone else can win! Constitutional Monarchy, anyone?


13 Responses to “Wedding Bell Blues”

  1. mlaiuppa Says:

    Well, McCain can’t come out against Gay Marriage without adding that to his long list of flip-flops.

    Even though McCain is the heir apparent, he was only getting 75% of the vote in the last few primaries. Ron Paul is still holding steady at 7%. I hear the Ron Paul people are planning an upset at the RNC. It may not get Ron nominated but should be great TV. Nader won’t hurt anyone but Bob Barr is certainly a possibility. Now, if Ron Paul and Bob Barr should unite on a Libertarian ticket, I’d say McCain has a lot of trouble.

    As for the West Virginia Hillary supporters…..who needs them? That state is going to McCain anyway. It won’t be as many as 30%, but even if it were, that’s not enough to counter the rest of the nation. Obama is going to pick up speed once he’s the official nominee. And while not all of Hillary’s supporters will be pleased, not all of those that are swearing NOW that they’ll vote for McCain will do so in November. They’ll eventually vote Obama rather than see McCain win.

    Obama will be the nominee. (and told you so.)

    He’ll be running against McCain. (Excellent call…I didn’t really believe he could do it. You were spot on.)

    And I’ll predict right now that Obama will win in November. There has already been a change. (Witness those three special elections in the south that went Dem.) The more Bush calls Obama a Nazi, the more people will be disgusted.

    Edwards finally endorsed Obama. (Is he looking to be Attorney General, perhaps?)

    And what will be done with Hillary? At this point….is she looking at replacing Reid or a place on the Supreme Court? Obama may get to select three Supreme Court justices.

  2. Everything San Diego » Blog Archive » Wedding Bell Blues Says:

    […] Alas, like many campaign promises, this one went unfulfilled. Disappointing, to be sure, for …The entire story can be found here. […]

  3. Larry Says:

    Mlaiuppa-I share your wish, but not your analysis of the election. In this forum, I responded to Mr. Luna’s post titled Doppelganger in December archives-dated Dec 21. I think Democrats are in incredible denial about some realities in this election. Mr. Luna wrote of a likely 9 pt. Democratic Victory in December, and I believe that would have been likely if not for the 2 partic. candidates they elevated to the top of the heap. I don’t think people have been seeing this election lucidly from last year-when The democrats picked their leading candidates(or the Media did-Whatever) Racism will play a Huge Role in this election, and to deny it is to not look the country in the eye. With Hillary’s reprehensible behavior-divide and Conquer Rovian strategy leading the way-we got a taste of the future when 75 % or so of Dem voters voted against the frontrunner in Multiple states. I predicted this in this forum in December when it was wildly underplayed by Mr. Luna and others at the time of Obama Mania. Just because nobody wants to call this reality what it is, does not mean it has not happened and will not Happen.
    The Democrats have done what they have done many, many times before. Sabotaged their own chances for election, and i said so here last year. But, I do hope I am wrong and Mr. Luna, and Mlaiuppa are right.

  4. mlaiuppa Says:

    So, what you’re saying is the U.S. has too many racists and if you want to win, you should only run a (old, rich) white male.

    I don’t think I want to live in that kind of country. I prefer to hope that we can finally elect a candidate based on their merits, not their gender or skin color.

  5. Larry Says:

    Please understand I do not want to Live in that country too, but we both live in it, and I recognize that.
    I am sort of saying if u want to win, you should run a White Male, not because I like it, because that is what every president in History has been, and there is a reason why that is-and u cannot gamble on beginning to overturn the disgraceful legacy of W. You cannot lose this election.
    U must win, not “maybe he/she can win” which one “can win” etc. You must win. I don’t think i can take another 8 years of this stuff.

  6. Carl Luna Says:

    Larry points out the simple black elephant in the room. Race does still matter in America in 2008. The Democrats are confronted with a sharp contrast in shades of black and pink – which will be more of a handicap come Fall: racism or misogyny?
    But, then, McCain faces ageism. And the legacy of an extremely unpopular incumbent. And social conservatives and evangelicals who aren’t even lukewarm about about him. And a protracted war and contracted economy, all courtesy of his party. I stick by my prediction that the Donkey brays come November though the margin may ultimately be closer to 5 points.

  7. Larry Says:

    Mr. Luna-I completely agree with every word of your last paragraph, and that is basically my point. As you say, is Misogyny or Racism the bigger handicap? Exactly.
    They are both handicaps, right or wrong, and that’s the problem, and why is a party would you want to put yourselves in a handicapped position in a race you absolutely have to win. I think Rove and his minions are laughing behind the scenes about how that has played out for them, they can’t believe their good luck, because on paper there is no way this figured to not be a “get rid of the bums” year if ever there was one.
    If I were advising the Democrats-I would tell them to talk about Our Democracy, and tell people how many rights they have lost over the last 7 years, and who, and why that is and promise to restore respect for democracy and The Law-but I guess that’s just me

  8. mlaiuppa Says:

    Who got the vote first? Black men or white women?

    There’s your answer.

  9. Carl Luna Says:


    My overall point is not that the Democrats shouldn’t go with a woman or an African-American. Either Clinton or Obama would be good candidates and potentially good presidents (though the bar has been set pretty low by the current administration.) My point is that whoever the Democrats go with, they must recognize the problems either candidacy will present and deal accordingly. Obama can win in November but not by ignoring the impact race will have on the election. Ditto Hillary and gender.

  10. Larry Says:

    Right. It’s possible Obama CAN win. It’s possible Hillary CAN Win. I hope either does win. If I were advising someone on a gambling proposition I would say-Bet Against it.
    That’s my point. Gore would win. Edwards would win. Evan Bayh would win. Mark Warner would win. Those my friends are the sad facts. Sorry

  11. Larry Says:

    On the subject. Here’s a funny piece a former friend of mine(and former San Diegan) wrote for television.
    While it is a spoof of commercials and how things work these days, sadly it’s just a slight exaggeration

  12. Randy Allgaier Says:

    You actually might find my piece on the California anti gay marriage initiative and its relationship to California’s choice for President –

  13. Daniel J. Smiechowski Says:

    Regarding: San Diego City Attorney Michael Aguirre to sue Countrywide Financial over lending practices and Washington Mutual among others on the block. I am proud to call Mike Aguirre my friend. As a recently elected Democratic Central Committee Member, I have come to know Mike as a true blue champion of the so-called little people. Iron Mike has more guts than the Russian Brown Bear. In a nation where everyone professes to be King Tut and individual responsibility remains the holy grail of petty capitalists and their Republican brethren, we ought to hold the financial institutions responsible for their own twisted rhetoric and moral hypocrisy. Daniel J. Smiechowski

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: