Note to the media, re: Notre Dame’s BCS hopes… they’re not worth $14 million anymore.
I cant put my arms down!
Baby Logan says Stop! Dont shoot!!
Gay couples have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples under the New Jersey state constitution, the state Supreme Court rules. Visit CNN for the latest.
UPDATE BY BRENDAN: According to the AP:
New Jersey’s highest court ruled Wednesday that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but that lawmakers must determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other form of civil union. …
[T]he high court stopped short of fully approving gay marriage and gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include gay couples or create new civil unions.
As a proponent of gay marriage, I’m happy with the result. As one who hopes the Democrats take back at least one house of Congress, I am fearful of the backlash.
But perhaps the possibility of “civil unions,” as opposed to “gay marriage,” will blunt the backlash somewhat. Most voters seem broadly supportive of gay civil unions, so long as they aren’t called “marriages.” Presumably, Democratic candidates in close races from sea to shining sea will now respond to Republican attacks by reiterating that they support “civil unions,” not “gay marriage.” Of course, anything short of full equality is wrong, IMHO, but pragmatically, that’s what they’ll need to do. And maybe it’ll work.
Also: maybe the Republicans will overplay their hand. If Bull Moose is right that moderates who are sick and tired of divisive partisanship are the key to this election, then transparent GOP harping on this “wedge issue” could actually hurt the Republicans. We can hope, anyway.
Still, one of the biggest hopes for Democratic success in 13 days (and let’s all pause to consider the potential cosmic significance of this news coming thirteen days before the election) has been the likelihood that a higher-than-usual percentage of the Republican base won’t turn out on Election Day, choosing the Derbyshire Strategy of punishing the wayward GOP by staying home. The resurgence of gay marriage as a live issue would seem to guarantee that some percentage of social conservatives who were otherwise planning to stay home, won’t. The key question is: what percentage? The majority in the House and Senate may hinge on the answer to question.
Anyway, I think we just officially entered the endgame of Election 2006.
Notre Dame coach Charlie Weis has expressed some confusion over the Irish’s placement in recent polls. And since i have a little time to kill, and figure that most Irish fans on this site allready hate me anyway i figured i’d try and help him out by explaining it to him.
The Bull Moose celebrates the rise of the “radical center” in 2006:
The political story of the week is that independent voters are heavily swinging to the Democrats this year. … Yesterday, E.J. Dionne noted the likely influence of these rad centrists on a Democratic Congress,
“The Democrats’ dependence on moderate voters and moderate candidates belies Republican claims that a Democratic victory would bring radically liberal politics to Washington. In fact, the first imperative of Democratic congressional leaders, if their party is successful, will be finding policies, ideas and rhetoric to allow the party’s progressives and moderates to get along and govern effectively together.” …
If Democrats gain control over the House and/or the Senate, they should not be deluded that they can’t go into the minority in . The independent voters who will give them the majority will be watching carefully to see if the Democrats govern from the center or engage in the old polarizing politics that the voters rejected.
The independent center is not tied to either party. The indies are firing the Republicans. Can the Democrats win the allegiance of the radical center with a governing agenda that claims the middle of American politics?
If Democrats and Republicans merely bicker like Sunnis and Shiites over the next two years, independents could look outside the two party system for an answer. There is a severe lack of confidence in our entire leadership class, and donkeys and elephants will be making a major error if they ignore that fact.
I hope the Moose is right.
Looks like Rick Santorum is trying the old LBJ/Goldwater “flower girl” trick.
Apparently, Bob Casey wants Iran and North Korea to nuke us, China to dominate us, and terrorists to kill us all. Vote for Santorum!
P.S. About that ad… I have to say, the “amnesty for illegals” part is actually quite offensive. I say that as someone who opposes full-fledged amnesty, and who believes national security is a legitimate, indeed a crucial, argument for tightening our border security. But the debate over how to secure our porous borders is one thing, and the debate over whether to give amnesty (or something similar) to the illegal immigrants who are already here is another thing entirely. The first issue has important national-security implications; the second issue doesn’t, so far as I can tell. The argument against amnesty is that it rewards illegal behavior, and perhaps encourages further illegal immigration by implying the prospect of future amnesties — not that it will let terrorists into this country.
The people who would be applying for amnesty are already here, and if anything, amnesty would bring them “out of the shadows,” thus perhaps increasing our security by giving us a better idea of who’s a threat and who’s among the vast majority of illegal immigrants who just came here for a better life. And while I understand the argument that the mere prospect of amnesty (or of future amnesties) might bring more illegal immigrants in, I don’t see how it would bring more terrorists in. Terrorists don’t want amnesty; they want to kill us. Thus, it seems to me, the only immigration-related issue that’s relevant to the war on terror is the physical security of the border itself, not amnesty vs. non-amnesty.
It’s perfectly fine for Santorum to argue that Casey is wrong to support amnesty (assuming that Casey does, in fact, support amnesty, and I have no idea whether that’s true), but it’s not fine for him to claim that because Casey supports amnesty, he therefore supports a policy that would allow more terrorists into the country. If I’m wrong on this, someone please tell me how, but logically, I just don’t think Santorum’s argument is supportable.
In a long-overdue move, I’ve created a blog category specifically for posts about Joe Lieberman and the U.S. Senate race in Connecticut.
Actually, it’s not limited to the Senate race; it contains 177 posts (on 12 pages) going all the way back to August 2003, and including my endorsement of Joe for president, my first-ever reference to “Joe-mentum,” and lots more from the 2004 presidential race… plus everything from these eventful past few months.
The Lieberman category is a subcategory of “Connecticut & Newington,” rather than of “Elections & Politics (U.S.)” or “Election 2006” (you can see the full category structure here), so all posts about the current Senate race will actually appear in at least two different categories: the “Election 2006” category and the “Joe Lieberman” category.
Now maybe I can actually get Blog of Joe to blogroll me. :)
In what could be the best news for Republican electoral hopes brought about by an adversary since Osama bin Laden’s videotape in October 2004, the New Jersey Supreme Court is set to rule on gay marriage today. If they legalize it, Mickey Kaus speculates that it could help the Republicans nationwide in the midterm elections — which are a perhaps very unlucky 13 days away:
Influence Peddler speculates that a pro-gay-marriage ruling in New Jersey…might “energize Republicans to come to the polls to register their displeasure by voting against [Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Robert] Menendez.” But why do we think a New Jersey pro-gay-marriage ruling will only have an impact in New Jersey? It might signal to voters nationwide that a judge-made gay marriage trend threatens to sweep large chunks of the nation–it won’t just be bottled up in Massachusetts anymore. If you oppose gay marriage that might bother you, and motivate you to vote, even if you live in Missouri. Or, say, Tennessee. Or even Virginia.
What’s a gay-marriage-supporting, judicial-activism-opposing, Democratic-Congress-endorsing, backlash-fearing independent to do? Root for a “yes” ruling? Root for a “no” ruling? Root for the entire court to fall asleep for, say, two weeks or so, and then tell us their ruling?
Am I the only one who, upon reading the United Press International account of a new Kinsey Institute study supposedly showing that “54 percent of men and 19 percent of women admit they think about sex every day — or several times a day,” had the following reactions:
1) The percentages seem absurdly low;
2) The reported frequency of thoughts about sex also seems absurdly low;
3) The reported statistics most certainly do not match UPI’s headline, “Report finds sex always on men’s minds,” nor the conclusion in the article’s lede that “most men are always thinking of sex.”
Note to UPI: once a day ≠ “always”! And although 54 percent technically qualifies as “most,” it’s an awfully slim majority. What was Kinsey’s margin of error, I wonder?
If we take the study at face value and assume that its results are true (which I don’t, but just for the sake of argument here), my lead sentence would be: “A shocking new study from the Kinsey Institute claims that barely half of men, and less than one-fifth of women, think about sex daily.” Or perhaps: “A shocking new study from the Kinsey Institute claims that 46 percent of men and 81 percent of women do not think about sex at least once a day.” I mean, really. Was this survey conducted in a convent or something?
A group of free speech-hating, LaRouche-supporting thugs tried to drown out Senator Joe Lieberman in Monday’s final U.S. Senate debate in New London, CT, apparently desiring that the voters of Connecticut not have the opportunity to hear the candidates speak. They had been rowdy and rude at times throughout the debate, but it was during Lieberman’s closing statement that it got really bad, as they started… singing. Moderator George Stephanopoulos seemed powerless to stop the hecklers, as did Lamont (who may have feared that these idiots were some of his less savory supporters), Lieberman himself, and the rest of the audience. It was left to the excitable Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, to put the morons in their place. Video here. (Hat tip: Derek Muller.)
My dad watched the debate live, and here’s how he characterized it in comments:
JoeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s [debate] win was greatly Enhanced by the antidemocratic antics of neo-stalinists in the audience who tried, repeatedly and at length, to drown him out while moderator George Stephanopoulos dithered & Ned Lamont sat stunned with his trademark deer-in-the-headlights Look. :> Finally it took a menacing Advance & a mighty Roar by the large & stentorian Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger, God bless him :) ~ “LEAVE THIS HALL! SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR SENATOR LIEBERMAN!” ~ to shut the littlebaby fascists up. Apparently they were then, belatedly, escorted from the theatre, presumably shuddering in Shock & Awe. :)
Based on the video, the exact quote was “Show some respect to Senator Lieberman! Leave this audience now!” But, close enough. :) Schlesinger stood up as he said it, and immediately as he finished, Lieberman walked over and shook his hand. The audience cheered. Lamont, still seated, belatedly nodded — several seconds after Schlesinger had finished and the audience had begun cheering (”deer in the headlights,” indeed) — and clapped politely.
Conservative blogger Allahpundit, at the above video link, says of Hollerin’ Alan: “A good man. Not a man we can afford to vote for, but a good man.”
P.S. It’s not in the video, but according to the New Haven Register, when order was restored Lieberman said: “Thank you, Alan. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m real glad you came out from under that bus you said you were under [a reference to something Schlesinger said in the first debate -ed.]. You have made a real contribution to this campaign in the last few debates, and I thank you for the constructive ideas you have offered.”
Anyway… more on the hecklers here:
The new trailer for Eragon is pretty freakin’ awesome. (Hat tip: Andrew Hiller.)
I had to laugh, though, at the derivativeness of this shot, showing the evil
wizard shade, Durza, standing high above a huge army of Uruks Urgals, holding out his right hand as he urges his legions to go out there and find the hobbit boy who has the all-important Ring dragon:
“There will be no dawn… for men.”
Just because the whole thing is a blatant ripoff of the entire fantasy genre, most especially Lord of the Rings, and just because it inevitably won’t be nearly as good as LOTR, doesn’t mean I won’t go see it, and love it. :)