GOP Vote Declines Less Than NYT

[Calabrio]

For the first time in 32 years, Democrats got more than 50 percent of the country to vote for their candidate in a national election, and now they want to lecture the Republican Party on how to win elections. Liberal Republicans have joined them, both groups hoping no one will notice that we just lost this election by running the candidate they chose for us.

For years, New York Times columnist David Brooks has been writing mash notes to John McCain. In November 2007, he quoted an allegedly "smart-alecky" political consultant who exclaimed, in private, "You know, there's really only one great man running for president this year, and that's McCain."

"My friend's remark," Brooks somberly intoned, "had the added weight of truth."

Brooks gushed, "I can tell you there is nobody in politics remotely like him," and even threw down the gauntlet, saying: "You will never persuade me that he is not among the finest of men."

That took guts at the Times, where McCain is constantly praised by the op-ed columnists and was endorsed by the paper in the Republican primary. Even Frank Rich has hailed McCain as the "most experienced and principled" of the Republicans and said no one in either party "has more experience in matters of war than the Arizona senator" -- the biggest rave issued by Rich since "Rent" opened on Broadway.

They adored McCain at the Times! Does anyone here not see a cluster of bright red flags?

In January this year, Brooks boasted of McCain's ability to attract "independents."

And then Election Day arrived, and all the liberals who had spent years praising McCain all voted for Obama. Independents voted for Palin or voted against Obama. No one outside of McCain's immediate family was specifically voting for McCain.

But now Brooks presumes to lecture Republicans about what to do next time. How about: "Don't take David Brooks' advice"?

According to Brooks, the reason McCain lost was -- naturally -- that he ran as a conservative. If only presidential candidates would spurn polls, modern political history, evidence from campaign rallies, facts on the ground and listen to the wishful thinking of Times columnists!

If McCain lost because he ran as a conservative, then how come I knew McCain was going to lose before Brooks did? About the same time Brooks was touting McCain's uncanny ability to attract independents, I was writing, accurately: "John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth."

Using the latest euphemism for "liberal," Brooks complains that "reformist" Republicans like John McCain are forced to run for president as smelly old conservatives: "National candidates who begin with reformist records -- Giuliani, Romney or McCain -- immediately tack right to be acceptable to the power base." (Some "tack" so far to the right they almost adopt the positions in the GOP platform!)

In another sign of how popular liberalism is, liberals have to keep changing their name, like grifters moving from town to town. Liberal Republicans used to be known as "moderates," then "mavericks" or "centrists." I guess now they're "reformists." Why, liberals are so popular they have to disguise themselves for fear of being mobbed by an adoring public!

I gather by "reformist," Brooks means liberal only on the social issues like gay marriage and abortion because -- apart from abortion and gay marriage -- Rudy Giuliani was a right-wing lunatic. He engaged in aggressive policing, cut taxes and government bureaucracies, abolished New York's affirmative action office and was repeatedly denounced as a storm trooper by The New York Times.

The same thing goes for Romney, who also cut taxes and government regulations, but promised Massachusetts voters he would not tinker with their beloved abortion rights.

Ironically, McCain was a liberal on virtually every issue except abortion and gay marriage, but he bashed social conservatives to his friends in the press, so they excused his pro-life voting record as a cynical ploy to get votes in Arizona.

So "reformist" evidently means a Republican who is liberal on social issues. My term for that is "Joe Lieberman." Whatever the merit of being liberal on social issues, both Joe Lieberman and the Republican Party's history suggest that the winning formula is the exact opposite combination.

If liberals are going to use their first majority vote in a national election since Helen Thomas was spilling champagne on Liza at Studio 54 to lecture Republicans on how to win elections, I have a tip for them based on the exact same election: Constitutional amendments banning gay marriage passed in every state they were on the ballot -- Florida, Arizona, even in liberal California.

I'll accept the results of the presidential election, if you anti-Proposition 8 die-hards in California accept the results of that vote. Earth to protestors: Most Americans oppose gay marriage. On this, even blacks and Mormons are agreed! Why don't you people go find something useful to do?

Let's see, who was avidly pro-gay-marriage? Oh I remember: The guy who's once again lecturing Republicans on how to win elections: David Brooks.

-Ann Coulter

 

[foxpaws]

Ah, dear Ann,

I'll give her the gay marriage vote, this time, although the numbers are decreasing... I believe in California in 2000 when this was last on the ballot gay marriage lost by 25%, this time it lost by 4% - It will be on the ballot again, and if trends say anything it could pass next time. Plus, its basic voter base is dying. The anti-gay marriage vote is most concentrated in the 60+ voter demographic. Younger voters voted overwhelming for gay marriage in the California election this time - last numbers I saw were in the 60+% range. Doubtful if their viewpoints will change, and, as that gen factor moves up in age - more of them will vote.

That age bracket also skews to 'pro choice'. The ballot measures for pro-life this time were all defeated, and, in most cases, decisively so. In Colorado we had this on the ballot for the 2nd time - in the 90s it was defeated about 55 to 45, this time 75 to 25... Even in 'as conservative as it gets' Montana they couldn't muster up enough signatures to get it on the ballot this time...

The times they are a'changin Ann...

 

[Calabrio]

You say that, but unless the Democratic party can quickly change the voting laws in this country to include illegals and felons in all 50 states, they're not winning any of the intellectual or philosophical battles. If this weren't the case, then they wouldn't have to run so many conservative candidates when running for office. If you think that the Democrat leadership is the new face of America, you're in for a very bitter lesson come 2010...

If you think that the '08 victory means that there's been a huge ideological shift in this country, you're simply wrong.
The population is pissed at everyone, the Democrats were just lucky because there wasn't a single face to associate it with.

 

[Calabrio]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122653996148523063.html

History Favors Republicans in 2010
The 2008 election numbers are not as stark as the results.
By KARL ROVE


Political races are about candidates and issues. But election results, in the end, are about numbers. So now that the dust is settling on the 2008 presidential race, what do the numbers tell us?

First, the predicted huge turnout surge didn't happen. The final tally is likely to show that fewer than 128.5 million people voted. That's up marginally from 122 million in 2004. But 17 million more people voted in 2004 than in 2000 (three times the change from 2004 to 2008).

Second, a substantial victory was won by modest improvement in the Democratic share of the vote. Barack Obama received 2.1 points more in the popular vote than President Bush received in 2004, 3.1 points more than Vice President Al Gore in 2000, and 4.6 points more than John Kerry in 2004. In raw numbers, the latest tally shows that Mr. Obama received 66.1 million votes, about 7.1 million more than Mr. Kerry.
About Karl Rove

Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.

Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.

Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Email the author at Karl@Rove.com or visit him on the web at Rove.com.

Four out of five of these additional votes came from minorities. Mr. Obama got nearly 3.3 million more votes from African-Americans than did Mr. Kerry; 2.9 million of them were from younger blacks aged 18-29. A quarter of Mr. Obama's improvement among blacks -- 811,000 votes -- came from African-Americans who voted Republican in 2004. Mr. Obama also received 2.5 million more Hispanic votes than Mr. Kerry. Over a third of these votes -- 719,000 -- cast ballots for Republicans in 2004.

One of the most important shifts was Hispanic support for Democrats. John McCain got the votes of 32% of Hispanic voters. That's down from the 44% Mr. Bush won four years ago. If this trend continues, the GOP will find it difficult to regain the majority.

Mr. Obama won 4.6 million more votes in the West and 1.4 million more in the Midwest than Mr. Kerry. Mr. McCain, on the other hand, got more than 2.6 million fewer votes in the Midwest than Mr. Bush. In Ohio, for example, Mr. Obama received 32,000 fewer votes than Mr. Kerry in 2004 -- but Mr. McCain got 360,000 fewer votes than Mr. Bush. That turned a 119,000 vote GOP victory in 2004 into a 206,000 vote Democratic win this year.

Then there were those who didn't show up. There were 4.1 million fewer Republicans voting this year than in 2004. Some missing Republicans had turned independent or Democratic for this election. But most simply stayed home. Ironically for a campaign that featured probably the last Vietnam veteran to run for president, 2.7 million fewer veterans voted. There were also 4.1 million fewer voters who attend religious services more than once a week. Americans aren't suddenly going to church less; something was missing from the campaign to draw out the more religiously observant.

In a sign Mr. Obama's victory may have been more personal than partisan or philosophical, Democrats picked up just 10 state senate seats (out of 1,971) and 94 state house seats (out of 5,411). By comparison, when Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980, Republicans picked up 112 state senate seats (out of 1,981) and 190 state house seats (out of 5,501).

In the states this year, five chambers shifted from Republican to Democrats, while four shifted from either tied or Democratic control to Republican control. In the South, Mr. Obama had "reverse coattails." Republicans gained legislative seats across the region. In Tennessee both the house and senate now have GOP majorities for the first time since the Civil War.
In today's Opinion Journal

This matters because the 2010 Census could allocate as many as four additional congressional districts to Texas, two each to Arizona and Florida, and one district to each of a number of (mostly) red-leaning states, while subtracting seats from (mostly) blue-leaning states like Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania and, for the first time, California. Redistricting and reapportionment could help tilt the playing field back to the GOP in Congress and the race for the White House by moving seven House seats (and electoral votes) from mostly blue to mostly red states.

History will favor Republicans in 2010. Since World War II, the out-party has gained an average of 23 seats in the U.S. House and two in the U.S. Senate in a new president's first midterm election. Other than FDR and George W. Bush, no president has gained seats in his first midterm election in both chambers.

Since 1966, the incumbent party has lost an average of 63 state senate and 262 state house seats, and six governorships, in a president's first midterm election. That 2010 is likely to see Republicans begin rebounding just before redistricting is one silver lining in an otherwise dismal year for the GOP.

In politics, good years follow bad years. Republicans and Democrats have experienced both during the past 15 years. A GOP comeback, while certainly possible, won't be self-executing and automatic. It will require Republicans to be skillful at both defense (opposing Mr. Obama on some issues) and offense (creating a compelling agenda that resonates with voters). And it will require leaders to emerge who give the right public face to the GOP. None of this will be easy. All of this will be necessary.

Mr. Rove is a former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

 

[shagdrum]

Ah, dear Ann,

I'll give her the gay marriage vote, this time, although the numbers are decreasing... I believe in California in 2000 when this was last on the ballot gay marriage lost by 25%, this time it lost by 4% - It will be on the ballot again, and if trends say anything it could pass next time. Plus, its basic voter base is dying. The anti-gay marriage vote is most concentrated in the 60+ voter demographic. Younger voters voted overwhelming for gay marriage in the California election this time - last numbers I saw were in the 60+% range. Doubtful if their viewpoints will change, and, as that gen factor moves up in age - more of them will vote.

That age bracket also skews to 'pro choice'. The ballot measures for pro-life this time were all defeated, and, in most cases, decisively so. In Colorado we had this on the ballot for the 2nd time - in the 90s it was defeated about 55 to 45, this time 75 to 25... Even in 'as conservative as it gets' Montana they couldn't muster up enough signatures to get it on the ballot this time...

The times they are a'changin Ann...

Peoples views change with age. As people get older, they become more conservative. You are forgetting that fact. Many were disillusioned with the Democratic party after LBJ and started actually thinking for themselves (instead of letting pop culture and the media do it for them). The same thing happened (to a lesser degree) with Clinton. I have no doubt you will see the same thing after Obama and the Democrats are allowed to govern for a while. 2010 and 2012 will suprise you, I think.

Remember what Winston Churchill said:

If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no head​

 

[foxpaws]

Shag, I think though that the basic principals are now there. Sort of like how it was acceptable for the republicans to have a 'mom' as the vice presidential candidate. The generation that is saying 'hooray' for Palin grew up after the women's rights movement, and it became somewhat ingrained in their background. 25 years ago the core of the Republican party would have been all over her for not staying at home with those kids, that she would be undermining the core of family values by 'working' outside the home.

I think that the acceptance of gays in our society, along with the ability to freely get abortions will become more and more accepted. Marriage - no, that might not be a hurdle that will be overcome soon, but if at least one state would go for a civil union clause, I think you would start to see a shift in many states.

The focus is changing in America to a more global viewpoint. The idea that gays can't have government acknowledged unions, or that abortions should be arbitrated by society and not an individual decision are going to seem like small things, and probably allowed within the bigger picture of how American is placing itself within a global community.

 

[Calabrio]

...gay marriage isn't about acceptance of homosexuals.

 

[foxpaws]

As you may notice I did say that gay marriage is a hurdle that probably won't be overcome anytime soon Calabrio. But, government recognized gay unions probably will be in our very near future.

And heck, 30 years ago you would have laughed me off this board (well, if it would have existed that long ago) if I would have made that statement at all.

As I said, the times are changing.

 

[04SCTLS]

Did Blacks Tank Gay Marriage in California?

November 07, 2008 6:50 PM
ABC News' Alex Green Reports: Barack Obama won the presidential election on Tuesday but did the Democrats' win contribute to the passage of a measure banning gay marriage in California?

It's a question being hotly debated in the blogosphere and the theory goes something like this: a popular, African-American presidential contender increases black turnout. Blacks, by in large, oppose gay marriage. Therefore, proposition eight banning gay marriage in a Democratic-leaning state such as California passes 52-48 percent.

Turns out it's not quite that simple.

"Whites voted very narrowly against the ban, 51-49 percent. Asian-Americans voted the same. Hispanics voted for it, by 53-47 percent. Blacks voted for it, overwhelmingly, 70-30. Blacks can be said to have put it over the top. Hypothetically, had no blacks voted, we compute a vote of 50-50," according to an analysis by ABC News Polling Director Gary Langer.

Yes, black Californians who voted for Obama also supported the gay marriage ban by a wide margin but so did Hispanics. And white and Asian-American opposition to the ban wasn't large enough to overcome the spread, so to speak.

That said, African-American opposition to gay marriage and gay civil unions is not new. In an ABC News/Washington Post poll in late 2007, blacks opposed gay civil unions by 58-36 percent. (Whites were in favor, 55-41.) In earlier polling we've done on gay marriage, blacks have been even more broadly opposed, 66-31 percent.

Some may find irony in the idea that as Sen. Obama took a major step forward for civil rights breakthrough his candidacy helped fuel at least in part the restriction of another group's civil rights.

Obama didn't take a hard line against the proposition, routinely stating that he did not support Proposition 8 but personally doesn't believe in gay marriage.

"I think that he [Mr. Obama] was very resolute in his statements along with Senator Biden. If anything might have added to the confusion it was how that statement was misconstrued," said Andrea Shorter, Director of And Marriage For All, a gay rights advocacy group.

"The support against Proposition 8 among African Americans wasn't eroding until a mailer from Yes On 8 [the campaign driving Proposition 8] had a picture of Barack Obama with a statement that he supported Yes On 8 [though he doesn't]," Shorter added.

Nevertheless, to change perception of gay Americans in California's black communities, And Marriage For All will be holding next steps meetings with black clergymen and other community allies.

"The type of change that Proposition 8 is attempting to do goes against the foundational legal principles in our Constitution . . . equal protection against minority groups in the Constitution," said Jennifer Pizer Senior Council for Lambda Legal, a gay rights legal advocacy group.

The challenge is unique: Obama's candidacy drove historic black turnout. Proposition 8's passage can't entirely be attributed to any one single race but gay rights groups across the country are going to have to rally support among a much more politically engaged black community.

 

[Calabrio]

As you may notice I did say that gay marriage is a hurdle that probably won't be overcome anytime soon Calabrio. But, government recognized gay unions probably will be in our very near future.

Government DOES recognize gay unions in several states, in the form of civil unions and domestic partnerships, one of them is California. If this were simply about "rights," then the debate would be over. Most people think that a civil union between two adults is fine, they just don't want to REDEFINE the institution of marriage.

The homosexual activists are making this a political issue because they have a radical social agenda.

 

[hrmwrm]

"The homosexual activists are making this a political issue because they have a radical social agenda."

links? and i'm not looking for some republican- fear mongering- mccarthyistic- point-of- view opinion, but some hard evidence of this p.o.v. without it it's just a homophobic statement. the only thing gays are looking for is to live an equal life with the same rights and freedoms as any other members of society.

same kind of BS fears were put forward of the suffragette movement.

 

[shagdrum]

"The homosexual activists are making this a political issue because they have a radical social agenda."

links? and i'm not looking for some republican- fear mongering- mccarthyistic- point-of- view opinion, but some hard evidence of this p.o.v. without it it's just a homophobic statement. the only thing gays are looking for is to live an equal life with the same rights and freedoms as any other members of society.

same kind of BS fears were put forward of the suffragette movement.

Stop shifting the burden of proof!

All you have to do is read the newspapers and see what is going on by the militant opposition to prop 8 to vindicate that view that it is a radical social agenda being pushed.

 

[Titan]

"
-------without it it's just a homophobic statement. the only thing gays are looking for is to live an equal life with the same rights and freedoms as any other members of society.

same kind of BS fears were put forward of the suffragette movement.

Why is it anytime you say anytihing contary to the pink mafia's agenda your automatically homophobic, or filled with hate against gays. I think the retoric they employ goes a lot to refute their claims. The statement they only seek to live with the same rights and freedoms as everyone else is a lie because even when these exist they seek to redefine our language and beliefs.

 

[Calabrio]

he only thing gays are looking for is to live an equal life with the same rights and freedoms as any other members of society.

Then the debate is over. Because they already have civil unions and domestic partnerships is many states. They are provided the same "rights and freedoms" as everyone else.

same kind of BS fears were put forward of the suffragette movement.

Stop equating the redefinition of marriage to every other legitimate social movement in our countries history. The homosexual agenda is NOT the same as the civil rights struggle. It is NOT the same as the Suffragist.

 

[hrmwrm]

from shag "All you have to do is read the newspapers and see what is going on by the militant opposition to prop 8 to vindicate that view that it is a radical social agenda being pushed."

haven't read it around here. sorry. i don't know what you're referring to. but then i live somewhere that isn't governed by who can create the most fear of change.

 

[Calabrio]

Or maybe you don't read much at all.
And if you do, noting the culture of the media, perhaps you're not getting a very honest representation of the story. The gay activists are having protests in NEW YORK for a proposition that passed in California.

And, again, domestic partnerships and civil unions are legal in California. So there's no "right" that these people are missing out on. The issue of it being marriage is entirely a matter of political activism and driving a social agenda.

 

[hrmwrm]

but does a domestic partnership or civil union grant you the same benefits of taxation and law that marriage recieves? i'm not aware of american law. that was the reason for seeking it in canada. and being granted it here.

and a protest in new york hardly implies a radical political agenda. just shows they are standing in support of those in california.

and being in canada, i'm sure i'm getting a more honest outlook of anything than is printed or said in american media. you and your other right ilk have made that clear.

 

[foxpaws]

No it doesn't - Gays and lesbians continue to file separately. In fact the only state whose civil union's rights match their 'married' civil rights is Vermont, Calabrio.

I still think the government should be out of the marriage business entirely, just have everything declared a civil union and let the churches worry about the whole 'sanctity of marriage' question.

It is just a word that has a huge amount of baggage attached to it.

 

[Calabrio]

and a protest in new york hardly implies a radical political agenda. just shows they are standing in support of those in california.

It's pretty radical on both coasts-
Cross-Bearing Woman Says She Was Attacked by Gay Marriage Supporters

Prop. 8 Supporter Violently Attacked for Distributing Lawn Signs

Vandals spray-painted Calvary Chapel Chino Hills

Man forced out of position in Theater for supporting Prop 8

Homosexual activists attack and deface church during service

and being in canada, i'm sure i'm getting a more honest outlook of anything than is printed or said in american media. you and your other right ilk have made that clear.

Sorry, you're wrong. The Canadian press is even more liberal and biased than the American one. The CBC considers Michael Moore to be a real documentary maker.

 

[Calabrio]

No it doesn't - Gays and lesbians continue to file separately.

So you're going to say this ENTIRE thing is simply an issue of how a person files their income taxes?

People are attacking mormons and vandalizing churches because they are concerned with their tax status?

I still think the government should be out of the marriage business entirely, just have everything declared a civil union and let the churches worry about the whole 'sanctity of marriage' question.

It is just a word that has a huge amount of baggage attached to it.

The word has no "baggage," it has a definition.
The left wants to change the definition.

I have the right to marry a woman, should she see fit. A homosexual man has the same right.
I can not "marry" another man. A homosexual man can not "marry" another man either.
There is no "right" that I have that a homosexual man does not.
It's very simple.

 

[foxpaws]

So you're going to say this ENTIRE thing is simply an issue of how a person files their income taxes?
People are attacking mormons and vandalizing churches because they are concerned with their tax status?

Whoa, Calabrio, you certainly get excited a lot… wow…

I was answering hrmwrm’s question above my post, he just asked but does a domestic partnership or civil union grant you the same benefits of taxation and law that marriage receives?

My answer – No it doesn't - Gays and lesbians continue to file separately…

Settle down…. I didn’t address anything about the protests – just answered a question from someone from Canada – who doesn’t know the income tax law in this country.

There is no "right" that I have that a homosexual man does not.
It's very simple.

You have the liberty to marry the person that you love, Calabrio. The person that makes you happy. The person who brings meaning to your life. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…

See, baggage – lots of it…

 

[fossten]

You have the liberty to marry the person that you love, Calabrio. The person that makes you happy. The person who brings meaning to your life. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…

See, baggage – lots of it…

Distort the meaning of marriage, and you open whole buckets full of worms, including the polygamist bucket. Unintended consequences and all that.

 

[foxpaws]

Yep, worms and buckets and baggage - best just to keep government out of the entire thing...

 

[fossten]

Yep, worms and buckets and baggage - best just to keep government out of the entire thing...

But that's exactly what YOUR side isn't doing. The left is trying to get the government to sanction gay marriage. That IS government interference.

 

[foxpaws]

But that's exactly what YOUR side isn't doing. The left is trying to get the government to sanction gay marriage. That IS government interference.

My side? I don't condone government sponsored marriages at all - remember Foss - I follow Ron Paul down the keep religion and state really separate road... Civil unions only from the government - Marriages performed by the church of your choice...