Steve Schmidt, manager of the John McCain 2008 presidential campaign, delivered an important speech to the Log Cabin Republicans in Washington last week. Here follows the full text of his remarks. -NM
Thank you for that introduction, and for your invitation to join you today. I haven’t done much public speaking since the election. I haven’t done any, in fact. But over five months have passed since the election, and in gratitude for your contributions to our party and out of concern for its future success, I appreciate this opportunity to share a few thoughts with you about the direction I hope our party takes as it seeks to recover the support and trust of the American people.
To state the obvious: the Republican Party needs to grow. A review of the exit polls and current demographic trends in the United States should make it clear to all but the most determined optimist that our coalition is shrinking, and losing ground with segments of the population that are growing. Whether it’s with suburban voters, working class voters, college educated voters, Hispanics or left handed Albanian psychics, the percentage voting Republican has declined. Perhaps, the most alarming of these various and generally worrying results of the last election is the huge margin by which we lost voters under 30.
Having said that, it is not a foregone conclusion these are long term trends or even trends at all. They might just be the results of two lost elections, although I doubt it. And even if they do represent movement toward a center left political realignment, unanticipated events could arrest or begin to reverse them even in the near term.
Political scientists and campaign consultants tend not to account for contingency when they are busy predicting the future. The McCain campaign, for instance, initially thought our most difficult problem would be the war in Iraq, an assumption we made based on exit polls from the 2006 mid term elections. Obviously, we guessed wrong, thanks in part, paradoxically, to Senator McCain’s statesmanship as an early advocate of the surge.
We had many environmental challenges that made our campaign an uphill struggle from start to finish. In addition to the President’s unpopularity and two wars the country had tired of, we had historic wrong track numbers, record high gas prices, an unprecedented resource disadvantage, and a disparity in press coverage. While we worried about these and many other challenges in 2007 and early 2008, we never believed the election was unwinnable, and had by early September managed to fight our way to a rough tie, and even a very small lead. None of us, however, expected a global financial crisis to be one of them. I’m pretty confident, President Obama’s campaign didn’t anticipate one either. It was the last obstacle imposed on a very challenged campaign. It proved to be insurmountable. And no one had really seen it coming.
Should the recession grow deeper or linger longer; should President Obama’s hugely expensive domestic policies begin to worry swing voters more than they are reassured by his skill at promoting them; should some national security disaster happen or any number of other contingencies occur, the advances made by Democrats in the last two elections might be short-lived.
But no one should take comfort from knowing our Party’s success could come at the expense of the country or must rely on blunders by the Administration and the Democratic Congress. Moreover, while I think projections of a political re-alignment are premature based on the results of two elections, I would rather be in the Democrats’ shoes than ours. Their coalition is expanding. Ours is shrinking. Their vote share is increasing among voter segments that are growing. Ours is not. The rapid growth of the Hispanic-American population, for instance, could soon cost Republicans the entire Southwest if we don’t recover our previous share of their vote. Had Senator McCain not been the Republican nominee in 2008, I’m convinced we would have lost Arizona. It’s very hard to see how we put together 270 electoral votes without the Southwest.
As a percentage of the total vote, younger voters didn’t really increase in the last election. But the Democrats’ margin with those voters certainly did. In short, we were crushed by the Obama campaign with voters under 30. President Obama was a uniquely attractive candidate to younger voters, in matters of style as much as substance. And maybe as those voters grow older and acquire greater responsibilities they will develop a better appreciation for Republican values of limited government, fiscal discipline, low taxes and a strong defense. That has happened in the past.
But even if they do, I doubt they will abandon social attributes that distinguish them from older voters; among them, a greater acceptance of people who find happiness in relationships with members of the same sex. And I believe Republicans should re-examine the extent to which we are being defined by positions on issues that I don’t believe are among our core values, and that put us at odds with what I expect will become over time, if not a consensus view, then the view of a substantial majority of voters.
Of course, a party cannot grow if it subtracts while it tries to add. Social conservatives remain an indispensable part of the Republican coalition. I don’t subscribe to the notion that social conservatives are a monolithic bloc of close minded people who would tread on the rights of Americans who disagree with them. Nor do I think conservatism will or should abandon its reluctance to change or abandon social conventions that are important to the strength and stability of our society.
The institution of marriage is the foundation of society and alterations to its definitions shouldn’t be lightly undertaken. It has always been defined as the legal union of a man and a woman, and it’s understandable that many Americans are apprehensive about making a definitional change to so profoundly an important institution. But it is a tradition, not a creed, or, at least, not a national creed. It is not how we define ourselves as Americans. And while we shouldn’t carelessly dismiss the importance of enduring traditions, we should understand that traditions do change over time in every society. And as long as those changes do not conflict with the tenets of our national creed then they can, and inevitably will, be modified by a society that has come to view them as inequitable.
Our national creed is a declaration of natural rights not a compact for the preservation of social customs, as important as many of those customs are. It was precisely and elegantly defined 233 years ago as adherence to certain self-evident truths. All are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Americans’ fidelity to that creed ended the tradition of slavery because it was understood that slavery denied to the slave the universal rights America was founded in blood to protect. Women were constitutionally disenfranchised. But in time that injustice was rectified because the nation realized such discrimination violated our national creed.
The argument of the pro-life community acquires its moral force because it holds that the life of the unborn is not distinct in its dignity from the life of the born, and, thus, possesses a God-given right to be protected. The same protection cannot be argued to extend to the institutional definition of marriage as exclusively the union of persons of the opposite sex.
It can be argued, although I disagree, that marriage should remain the legal union of a man and a woman because changing it to admit same sex unions would undermine the most basic institution of a well ordered society. It can be argued according to the creeds and convictions of religious belief, which I respect. But it cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un-American or threatens the rights of others. On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence – liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force.
I know mine is a minority view among Republicans, and I don’t honestly expect our party will reverse in the very near term its opposition to same sex marriage. Nor do I yet see support for it from a strong majority of the general public. And, I do believe that such a highly charged political question such as this should be settled by the freely expressed will of the people, and not by the courts. That doesn’t relieve advocates of the responsibility to make their case urgently. I understand how tired many Americans are of being admonished to be patient to right what they believe is an injustice. But I’m confident American public opinion will continue to move on the question toward majority support, and sooner or later the Republican Party will catch up to it. And I believe the nation’s acceptance of same sex unions as lawful marriage would provide a far more secure guarantee that the change made to this profoundly important social institution will be permanent than would judicial fiat.
If we cannot achieve a consensus today on recognizing the marriages of gay couples, surely, in simple justice, we can respect their human dignity by protecting their rights to assign unique privileges and responsibilities to another person. Whether you are for or against same sex marriages, every Republican ought to value the right of people to make such personal decisions for themselves. As former Vice President Cheney observed, freedom means freedom for everybody. And I think Republicans should always be on the side of freedom and equal rights.
I, and I believe most people, believe you are born with your sexuality. It is not a choice. It should offend us as Republicans and Americans when gays are denigrated as degenerates or un-American or undeserving of the government’s protection of their rights. And the Republican Party should give voice to genuine outrage when anyone belittles the humanity of another person. It is offensive in the extreme to the values of this nation, and we should be in the forefront of rejecting such truly un-American prejudice. Moreover, if you believe we are born with our sexual orientation, it is hard to deny the inequality under the law that exists when people of one sexual orientation are allowed to marry and people of another are not.
Even though a majority of Republicans remain opposed to it, we must respect dissent on the subject within the party and encourage debate over it, and should not reject out of hand and on specious grounds the question that the party might be in the wrong on the question. We should publicly affirm that gays are entitled to the same respect and protections we accord heterosexuals to be secure from discrimination in their employment and the places they choose to live; to enter into contractual relationships with another person that grant them the same benefits and privileges allowed married couples, such as tax advantages accorded married couples or the responsibilities to make end of life decisions for one another.
There’s nothing inherently objectionable about debating whether same sex marriage would undermine the institution and, by extension, society. Some people believe strongly that it would. I argue that it wouldn’t. But that debate should be conducted with respect for the dignity of all parties involved. Opponents to giving women the vote argued such a change would undermine marriage and other social institutions. I think the institution would be strengthened by the inclusion of more couples who are genuinely committed to each other. But even if you believe marriage would be changed for the worse by same sex unions, I’m not sure it’s a compelling argument for their exclusion. We don’t forbid divorce, a more proven and prevalent threat to the health of our society.
As I said, I respect the opinions of Americans who oppose marriage for gay couples on religious grounds. I may disagree, but if you sincerely believe God’s revealed truth objects to it then it is perfectly honorable to oppose it. But those are not the grounds on which a political party should take or argue a position. If you put public policy issues to a religious test you risk becoming a religious party, and in a free country, a political party cannot remain viable in the long term if it is seen as sectarian.
Last February, an opponent of same sex marriage, David Blankenhorn, and an advocate, Jonathan Rauch, suggested in a New York Times op-ed a compromise that could serve the interests and values of both. They wrote that Congress should grant federal civil union status to same sex marriages and civil unions licensed at the state level as long as those states recognized religious conscience exceptions for religious organizations that do not want to recognize same sex unions.
I think that idea makes a lot sense. While it might not satisfy either side completely, it respects and values the rights of both, and would go a long way to correct the existing inequality.
Some Republicans believe the period of self-examination within the party necessitated by the loss of our majority status is mostly a question of whether the party should become more moderate or conservative. I think that’s a false choice. We need to grow our coalition, but as I said, that’s hard to do if we lose some votes while gaining others.
There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same sex marriage. I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one’s liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage. In a marriage, two people are completely responsible to and for each other. If you are not willing to accept and faithfully discharge those responsibilities, you shouldn’t enter the state of matrimony, and it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference if you’re straight or gay. It is a responsibility like no other, which can and should make marriage an association between two human beings more fulfilling than any other.
Many studies have shown that married people are generally happier than unmarried people. Marriage gives greater purpose to life, and, to borrow from Pastor Warren, the more purpose driven your life is, the happier it is. Marriage does not or should not depend on transitory emotions. It is a partnership in all aspects of life that changes the way not just society, but the individual perceives him or herself, and gives greater incentive to an individual to live a good and virtuous life because the happiness, not just momentary pleasure, but the lasting happiness, of others depends on it. Marriage can be a profoundly gratifying state that strengthens the virtue of individuals and societies, and increases the measure and quality of the happiness we enjoy. It seems to me a terrible inequity that any person should be denied that responsibility, and the emotional enrichment it can provide. And I cannot in good conscience exclude anyone who is prepared for such a commitment from the prospect of such happiness.
In closing, I’ll return to our national creed, what Lincoln called the inestimable jewel of American history, and offer my respect for and urge my fellow Republicans to respect every human being’s rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness as much as they cherish their own.
Customs change. Societies change. People change. But that creed must never change. It is the foundation upon which the success of not just of our party, but our country rests. If you do not impede my pursuit of happiness, I must not impede yours, but stand with you, as fellow Americans, lovers of liberty, to defend your natural right to seek happiness in life and love according to dictates of your heart and your heart alone.
Thank you, again, for your welcome here and for your many, valuable contributions to our party and our country.
68 responses so far
1 conservative08 // Apr 19, 2009 at 11:43 pm
I agree with him. I’m a pro gay marriage Republican..We should embrace gay rights, and gay marriage…People need to understand it shouldn’t be a religious issue…
http://conservative09.blogspot.com
2 ExGOPer // Apr 20, 2009 at 4:02 am
Hard to believe that this guy was an acolyte of Rove.
Well done, Steve. I hope that there are a lot more high visibility Republicans like you willing to take this stand and come out for a sensible, fair and forward-thinking approach to marriage equality. Unfortunately, I suspect that this won’t happen, but it’s the only way that the GOP is going to start to emerge from this dark period of intolerance and cease to be a religious party that caters to its craziest elements.
3 mlindroo // Apr 20, 2009 at 4:09 am
Maggie Gallagher posts a rambling and somewhat incoherent response over at The Corner. I think she is wrong about the following:
> [...]
> The change Steve is recommending will either be
> goodand Im speaking here only politicallyfor either
> the Republicans or the Democrats it cant be good for
> both parties.
Au contraire, I think the Democrats have gained politically from downplaying their support of some gun control policies. Conservative gun owners and the NRA are probably happy, but the GOP itself cannot exploit the issue as effectively as in the past.
MARCU$
4 ottovbvs // Apr 20, 2009 at 5:36 am
This is another issue where as part of using polarization as a political strategy the GOP has dug it’s own grave. You can’t make something that is deeply appealing to a majority of your party an article of faith and then say……oh sorry it’s not that important. It’s just one of many similar issues: stem cell research, universal healthcare, immigration reform, global warming, income inequality, to name just a few that jump to mind. On every one of these issues the ground has shifted and continues to shift. If you’d told me 25 years ago I’d be treating gay marriage as anything other than a joke I’d have thought you were crazy. There’s no better example of the impact of ground shifting than the fact that less than 50 year ago the president of the US would have had to use segregated restrooms in Southern railroad stations. The GOP is simply wrong footed on a mass of issues, even David who has some inkling of the problem is committed to sticking with opposing immigration reform which as an issue is fatal to the long term prospects of the Republican party. In truth I’m not sure I see a way out of it. We’re literally hoist on our own petard. We can’t embrace these changes without wrecking the party for a generation but if they are not embraced it will mean relegation to a regional rump party. Given the potential fissure the GOP faces one can see why stasis and blind hope for the failure of the Obama admin are currently the strategies.
5 HHomer // Apr 20, 2009 at 6:29 am
Semantics is very powerful, so don’t use the term marriage. A ‘civil partnership’ with exactly the same rights as marriage would do away with the injustice whilst preserving ‘marriage’ as unique to opposite sex couples. I believe this approach has worked well in other countries.
Republican support for this approach would take this civil rights ground away from the Dems.
6 ExGOPer // Apr 20, 2009 at 7:06 am
I think that’s wrong, Homer. Do you think interracial couples should have been satisfied with civil unions so that those who opposed their right to marry had their prejudices observed and upheld?
Yes, support of civil unions would be a step in the right direction for the GOP, but it would also fall short of what’s fair. I’m all for religions preserving their right to consecrate whatever unions they approve of — and I’ve yet to hear a marriage equality proponent suggest otherwise — but the government should not be in the business of determining which consenting adults can call it marriage and which ones cannot.
7 sinz54 // Apr 20, 2009 at 7:08 am
ottovbvs: As I’ve told you before, times change.
And as I’ve also said, politics is as much about personality as about issues. You vote for a candidate whom you can personally trust to hold that office. Personal trust can outweigh disagreement on certain issues.
Had Giuliani or especially Romney been the GOP candidate, they would have paid lip-service to Christian social conservatism but de-emphasized it in their campaigns. (And if either had won the Presidency, they would have de-emphasized it even more in their administrations.)
I was pleasantly surprised by the warm reception Giuliani, who is openly pro-choice, got from his meeting with Christian evangelicals. They liked him despite his pro-choice stance, because of his record of crime-fighting and because he vowed to destroy Islamic terrorism and all enemies of Israel. And because he espoused the manly virtues, which appeals to traditional Christians who don’t believe in metrosexualism.
AFAIK, none of the social conservatives threatened to bolt the party if Giuliani had become the GOP nominee.
What the GOP desperately needs now is another such figure (or, perhaps, the same figure). A truly powerful personality who can win over the Religious Right on other issues, like fighting Islamism, so that they can look past some of his social moderation. And if that candidate wins the White House, he will set a precedent by de-emphasizing the Religious Right in favor of other issues.
8 HenryAdams // Apr 20, 2009 at 7:12 am
Actually, mlindroo, Maggie Gallagher frames up the question far better than Steve Schmidt (Matt Fong, Arnold S., and John McCain) does. That’s the raw political discussion that should be taking place quietly within the party. And there should be some serious consideration of what the Henry Clay anon writer here at New Majority has posited — a pro-family agenda that gays will be comfortable with but that doesn’t go to war with the base. I understand that there are those who cherish a war within the GOP because it aggrandizes power to the warriors. The goal isn’t gay votes — there just aren’t that many — but votes from gay-friendly constituencies, and gay marriage alone isn’t crucial.
9 sinz54 // Apr 20, 2009 at 7:40 am
ExGOPer asks: “Do you think interracial couples should have been satisfied with civil unions so that those who opposed their right to marry had their prejudices observed and upheld?”
Actually, in the 19th century just after the black slaves had been freed, I believe that many blacks in the Deep South would have accepted interracial civil unions as a major step forward. Compared to the rhetoric coming from white Southern politicians of that era, it would have been a truly radical progressive step–more progressive even than integrated drinking water fountains.
10 PiltdownMan // Apr 20, 2009 at 7:59 am
Opposition to homosexual marriage is one of the few issues where a clear majority of Americans agrees with the GOP. So this wunderkind Schmidt, predictably, suggests we immediately turn the ship around. Is it any winder that John McCain got thumped in the last election? The Gerald Ford/Nelson Rockefeller wing of the party should win an election FIRST, then they can make all the policy recommendations they like.
11 Chekote // Apr 20, 2009 at 8:11 am
“Had Giuliani or especially Romney been the GOP candidate, they would have paid lip-service to Christian social conservatism but de-emphasized it in their campaigns.”
Not so sure about Romney. Actually, I think Romney really hurt his brand but trying to win Iowa. So much money spent. So many flip-flops on issues. Oh well, it is all water under the bridge.
12 ottovbvs // Apr 20, 2009 at 8:12 am
sinz54
wrote 55 minutes agoottovbvs: As I’ve told you before, times change.
……I wonder if you read my posting the entire theme of which was how times have changed on this issue and several others and left the GOP marooned. The problem is the Republican party hasn’t changed. Why else would this be being discussed. And of course politics is partially about personality but the notion that Romney and Giuliani who were deeply distrusted by sections of the party could just jettison articles of faith for the base because they admired their “manly virtues” is laughable.
13 HHomer // Apr 20, 2009 at 8:20 am
ExGOPer, I do think that the vast majority of gay couples would be satisfied with a civil union as long as there was no difference in rights and recognition between it and marriage. At this point it would be only a semantic difference and who would have the energy to argue the toss?
The point being that the injustice would be dealt with whilst recognising the widespread cultural and religious opposition to the reclassification of the term ‘marriage’.
14 ottovbvs // Apr 20, 2009 at 8:21 am
sinz54
wrote 32 minutes ago
“Actually, in the 19th century just after the black slaves had been freed, I believe that many blacks in the Deep South would have accepted interracial civil unions as a major step forward.”
…….As if what Blacks thought in the Jim Crow south mattered a damn. Particularly on the issue of miscegenation which lies at the heart of the black/white divide.
15 ottovbvs // Apr 20, 2009 at 8:25 am
HHomer
wrote 1 minutes ago
….you couldn’t be more wrong. You see just as preventing gay marriage has become an article of faith amongst movement conservatives, achieving it has now become an article of faith amongst the gay community. You might have been right ten years ago but not now. It’s the age old law of physics: every action produces a counter reaction.
16 mlindroo // Apr 20, 2009 at 8:35 am
> Opposition to homosexual marriage is one of the few
> issues where a clear majority of Americans agrees with
> the GOP.
You make the same mistake as Maggie Gallagher, i.e. you fail to take into account that opposition to homosexual marriage seems to be softening — not hardening.
Is there any reason to believe that Americans will become more hostile to gay rights such as same sex marriage? Gallagher cites traditional religion as the one thing that will save the GOP. But to me it seems as if social conservatives have not managed to reverse many policies (Roe vs. Wade, school prayer, gay rights) since the culture war started four decades ago. Heck — even James Dobson recently seemed to admit as much.
MARCU$
17 Chrisc23 // Apr 20, 2009 at 8:48 am
The faster we have a federal government approve gay marriage the better it is for everyone. Our children are suffering because they continously see this issue in the news. Gays have the money behind them to keep this an issue. If you finally allow it we won’t have to let our children be exposed to this because the debate will be finished.
18 Chekote // Apr 20, 2009 at 9:13 am
Instead of worrying about gay marriage, why don’t we worry about our country going bankrupt?
19 Chekote // Apr 20, 2009 at 9:18 am
I think the GOP needs to layoff the social issues for a while. Focus should be fiscal, economic, foreign policy issues. See what kind of coalition we can build based on those issues.
20 ottovbvs // Apr 20, 2009 at 9:30 am
Chekote
wrote 6 minutes ago
The problem:
“After gay marriage, the most religiously committed Americans will be effectively marginalized as a public forcebecause they cannot act or support the idea that gay unions are marriages. Such people will, if we lose the marriage debate, be treated the way we treat bigots who oppose interracial marriage. Imagine: All it will take to make, say, a judicial nominee unconfirmable will be to establish that they are indeed Catholic,” – Maggie Gallagher, NRO.
It’s become an article of faith for movement conservatives. Articles of faith cannot by dumped like last week’s washing. I’m afraid this is one of myriad issues of which the GOP has become a prisoner. It was a useful tactic by Rove and co for awhile but it’s come back an bitten us in the butt.
21 sinz54 // Apr 20, 2009 at 10:28 am
You dodged my basic point. Again.
In the late 19th century, had some Southern moderates in a border state (say Virginia) proposed civil unions for interracial couples, it would have been regarded as brilliantly progressive by white people all across the nation. It might, just might, have gotten passed without arousing the ire of the KKK, since a) it was happening in Virginia, not the Deep South; and b) it continued to affirm that “marriage” was only for same-race couples.
22 sinz54 // Apr 20, 2009 at 10:46 am
ottovbvs: You could have made that exact same argument in 1965. Lyndon Johnson had won a landslide victory in 1964; and the GOP appeared to be captured by the “right-wing extremists” who had nominated Goldwater. How to redeem the GOP and broaden its appeal?
The answer wasn’t ideological. The answer was personal. By 1968, the GOP had two talented conservative choices for President battling it out: Nixon and Reagan. Nixon won the nomination, and then the election. The GOP base wanted so much to be rid of Lyndon Johnson that they went with Nixon, a proven conservative from the Eisenhower days.
Just suppose for a moment that General David Petraeus sought the GOP nomination for President in 2012. And let’s further suppose that he’s pro-choice and supports civil unions for gays. I’ll bet you that Petraeus would be the enthusiastic choice of ALL conservatives, for his heroic work in Iraq. Nobody among the GOP base would complain about his odd pro-choice views.
Because, he is PETRAEUS.
23 ottovbvs // Apr 20, 2009 at 10:51 am
“sinz54
wrote 18 minutes agoYou dodged my basic point. Again.
In the late 19th century, had some Southern moderates in a border state (say Virginia) proposed civil unions for interracial couples, it would have been regarded as brilliantly progressive by white people all across the nation. It might, just might, have gotten passed without arousing the ire of the KKK”
……Anyone who thinks a) that VA wasn’t deeply southern in 1875 and b) that there was the remotest chance of passing laws sympathetic to interracial marriage ANYWHERE in the US in the late 19th century exists in an alternate universe I’m afraid.
24 ottovbvs // Apr 20, 2009 at 11:06 am
sinz54
wrote 5 minutes ago
Reagan was a serious contender for the Republican nomination in 1968? Nixon won in ‘68 because of the Vietnam war and as conservatives are constantly complaining was a RINO. In any case all these social issues hadn’t assumed the proportions they now have. As for Petraeus I’m sure the hard right would support him but during the election campaign he’d be forced to answer all sorts of questions and make all sorts of committments on these issues which would undermine him. All you’re saying is the hard right would jettison all their principles and vote for him anyway because they are attracted to the idea of the man on a white horse. Maybe but that doesn’t necessarily means he’d be a walkiover. I seem to remember Rudy, America’s mayor, was going to be a shoo in. Somehow it didn’t work out.
25 Chekote // Apr 20, 2009 at 11:33 am
Maggie Gallagher and most of the National Review crew are a bunch of busybodies who obsess about social issues 24/7. What’s ironic is that Buckley was all about maximizing individual freedom. So was Goldwater. Ayn Rand. Milton Friedman. The people who were the intellectual force behind modern conservativsm. Ever since Rove brought in the evangelical crowd, it has become about using government to promote, impose a particular moral code. If the GOP is ever going to get back in the game, more and more people need to tell Gallagher to SHUT UP about social issues. We are all sick and tired of hearing about it. Our country is going broke. The entitlements are out of control. And frankly, I couldn’t care less if Ellen want to marry Portia as long as this issue is decided by the legislature and not judges.
26 liv&win // Apr 20, 2009 at 11:39 am
Sometimes you lead, sometimes you follow. The GOP needs to lead itself into a position which follows this trend, which is softening, not hardening. The under 30 crowd is highly supportive of civil rights. Once you’ve gotten over the hurdle, you never go back and this issue will be resolved in favor of basic rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In fact, this litmus test should be the basis of all our social positions. Our party was the party that idenfied the original civil rights issue and fought to abolish slavery for crying out loud.
27 mpolito // Apr 20, 2009 at 11:56 am
The argument being made by Mr. Schmidt is not flying with me. We all know why McCain lost- the economic collapse. That’s it. It had nothing to do with same-sex marriage, or abortion, or anything social issue. Mr. Schmidt attacks man-woman marriage, and yet it outpolled his candidate by 15 points CA and FL. If SSM is so popular with Americans, why was Obama afraid to openly support it (he actually does support it, but he never openly said so)? Also: we hear a lot about how the GOP needs to reach out to minorities. Minorities, both blacks and Hispanics, are fairly socially conservative, but they vote Democrat because of economics. So, while I oppose moving leftward on any issue, if we have to move leftward on something, economics seems far more reasonable than social issues.
Chekote- Ayn Rand was no conservative. Do you know what William F. Buckley’s position was on same-sex marriage? He was not on board: http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200408061307.asp
Mlindroo- Roe v. Wade, school prayer, etc. were not “policies”- they were judicial edicts, and those cannot be reversed easily. Socons have gotten lots of abortion restrictions passed in individual states, and partial-birth abortion is now banned (and the ban has been upheld by SCOTUS).
28 echarles1 // Apr 20, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Maggie Gallagher’s arguments should not be lightly dismissed. That said, a judge faced with the question of upholding gay marriage should it become legal in his jurisdiction, can do so without contradicting his faith. The judge would be asked to consider a point of law, and issue a ruling on law. Ideally, a judge is not giving *his* imprimatur but the law’s.
29 Chekote // Apr 20, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Who cares? The country is going bankrupt. The politicians are still not mustering the courage to deal with all the unfunded mandates and yet here we are discussing gay marriage. Let the frickin’ states vote on it and move on. What the gay population in this country? 5%? What? All this time and effort on something that really doesn’t affect most people.
30 Chekote // Apr 20, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Besides, isn’t a little ironic that Schmidt is talking about moderating on gay marriage. He is talking about the GOP becoming a religious party. This from the campaign team that thought Palin was a great VP choice. Who knows? The Schmidt team was so damn incompentent that they probably didn’t even realize that Palin was the darling of the religious right.
31 krove // Apr 20, 2009 at 12:53 pm
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Feb. 18-19, 2009. N=1,046 adults nationwide. MoE 3B
“Next, we’d like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people — or if you have never heard of them. The Republican Party.”
Favorable: 39%–54% Unfavorable
Here is CNN’s most recent favorable / unfavorable poll on Venezuela:
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. April 3-5, 2009. N=1,023 adults nationwide. MoE 3 (for all adults).
“Next, I’d like your overall opinion of some foreign countries. Is your overall opinion of each of the following very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable? . . .”
Country V Fav M Fav M Unfav V Unfav
France 15% 53% 19% 15%
Turkey 9% 52% 26% 8%
Mexico 9% 43% 26% 20%
Russia 6% 41% 35% 16%
China 9% 37% 33% 20%
Venezuela 8% 34% 31% 23%
Cuba 9% 29% 40% 21%
Overall, Venezuela comes out 42% favorable, 54% unfavorable in this poll, providing the country a slightly more positive rating than Republicans. China and Russia also easily outpace Republicans. Cuba, at 38% favorable, 61% unfavorable, isn’t too far behind Republicans.
So The Republican party is seen as less favorable than the country they are currently trashing alongside our President. Cool, looks like a winner.
32 Chekote // Apr 20, 2009 at 12:59 pm
krove. Mr. Rule of Law. I hope you find confort in those stats. But rest assured, nobody else cares about them. The GOP is unpopular. I could it told that in 2006.
33 krove // Apr 20, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I do find comfort in them, for the GOP to be less popular than the country they rate as the worst in the world gives me great satisfaction.
34 Chekote // Apr 20, 2009 at 1:16 pm
“I do find comfort in them, for the GOP to be less popular than the country they rate as the worst in the world gives me great satisfaction.”
Good. It is nice to see people who can enjoy themselves over such small things in life.
35 krove // Apr 20, 2009 at 1:19 pm
No small thing in my opinion. The GOP is in terminal decline, that should be a big thing. I believe it is. I want a 2 party system with both parties being grown up in the way they deal with the country. At the moment the GOP is behaving like children and being treated thus by the country.
36 sinz54 // Apr 20, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Chekote sez: “This from the campaign team that thought Palin was a great VP choice.”
Sarah Palin was never the first choice of the McCain campaign for running mate. In fact, she wasn’t even a top contender.
McCain had always wanted to broaden the appeal of his ticket by taking either Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge. He was surprised at the pushback he got from the GOP base, and from Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor of the National Review.
McCain had to do some real fast rethinking. He chose Sarah Palin in a real hurry, hoping that she could attract some of the moderate female voters who had supported Hillary Clinton in the Dem primaries.
McCain didn’t have any really good choices. The GOP base wouldn’t accept anybody but a doctrinaire social conservative, since they distrusted McCain already. Sarah Palin was the only doctrinaire social conservative with enough glamor to give McCain a hope of broadening his ticket’s appeal.
37 mlindroo // Apr 20, 2009 at 2:09 pm
> Just suppose for a moment that General David
> Petraeus sought the GOP nomination for
> President in 2012.
[...]
> I’ll bet you that Petraeus would be the
> enthusiastic choice of ALL conservatives, for his
> heroic work in Iraq.
We know Petraus is a decent general but how do you know he would make a good politician…? If he isn’t, he won’t win.
I seem to recall another highly rated former general was going to rescue the Dems’ fortunes some five years ago, and the result was an embarrassing disaster as soon as this particular general tried running for president.
MARCU$
38 mlindroo // Apr 20, 2009 at 2:39 pm
> I seem to remember Rudy, America’s mayor, was going
> to be a shoo in. Somehow it didn’t work out.
Possibly because Rudy’s attempts to pander to the GOP base were almost as clumsy as those of Mitt “double the Gitmo!” Romney…
Rudy’s latest attempt to rally “the troops” against the horror of gay marriage in New York is just comical! What is his personal argument for *THIS* particular move going to be given his own personal history with marriage and gays? Will he give a nod to Maggie Gallagher by saying that if supposedly promiscuous gays were allowed to marry, serial divorcees like him would now be TWICE as likely to end their existing marriages?:-)
MARCU$
39 Chekote // Apr 20, 2009 at 2:41 pm
“McCain had always wanted to broaden the appeal of his ticket by taking either Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge.”
Should have gone with his instincts.
“and from Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor of the National Review.”
Priority Number One. Stop listening to J-Lo and company.
“Sarah Palin was the only doctrinaire social conservative with enough glamor to give McCain a hope of broadening his ticket’s appeal.”
And that worked out really well. They couldn’t even hold on to NC and IN.
40 danbmil99 // Apr 20, 2009 at 4:03 pm
It’s so obvious: civil unions; move on. This is not the most important issue of the day, but the GOP needs to keep it from being a wedge issue. Wedge issues are increasingly wedging the GOP into a corner, rather than the reverse.
Gay marriage vs civil unions (http://www.newsweek.com/id/172399)
2004: 40% pro civil union, 33% pro marriage
2008: 55% pro civil union, 39% pro marriage
the trend is more telling than the absolute percentages.
As for choice vs life (silly terms both):
Abortion should be illegal in all cases (GOP position):
20% (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/wtprw_repro.html)
wow, 20% — that’s a winner. How about abortions by choice 1st term; by medical necessity/rape/incest up to viability, and NO if viable? That would wedge the nuts who think it’s fine for a woman to have a bad day and get an 8th month abortion into their own corner of absurdity.
41 Chekote // Apr 20, 2009 at 4:42 pm
“Wedge issues are increasingly wedging the GOP into a corner, rather than the reverse.”
AMEN!
42 danbmil99 // Apr 20, 2009 at 5:10 pm
It is so clear to me now what the GOP needs to do. They have to move their platform towards the center, in a strategy of “triangulation”. Don’t go all the way on social issues (civil unions, not gay marriage; limited abortions, not on-demand through term, etc). That leaves the socons with a worst-of-evils choice, and they have to go GOP (less abortions, don’t have to explain new marriage definition to the kids).
The brilliance of this is that it will force the Dems to move left to differentiate, thus potentially alienating the middle. The next dem prez candidate *must* be pro-gay-marriage — can’t triangulate like Obama did, because “that’s just the GOP position!!!” Similarly, splitting hairs on abortion rights is “right-wing appeasment!” So you force them to defend George Tiller, which alienates almost everyone.
Jeez, I should be one of those high-paid consultants… it’s all so obvious. You just have to leave your ideology and real opinions at the door, and think like The Prince (not the musician)
43 InTheMiddle12 // Apr 20, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Mr. Schmidt represents the progressive wing of the GOP. Not sure it’s a full wing yet but it will be. This is a completely Conservative positoin he’s taking. His separation reminder of Church and State is exactly the medicine the GOP needs. Whether the party takes the smart advice right away is unlikely, but perhaps in this age of instant communication, blogs, etc., perhaps it will catch on quicker than I think.
It will take a strong Conservative to switch their position to align with Mr. Schmidt’s to begin to isolate the passe wing of the party. Let’s see who it will be. A Conservative Senator would be good. Any guesses?
44 Chekote // Apr 20, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I was hoping that Steele would start pushing the GOP more to the center on social issues. We have been arguing about the life issue for almost 40 years. Nothing has changed except that one procedures has been outlawed. People are sick and tired of this issue. Time to let it rest and focus on other things. Gay marriage is another issue that people are getting tired of. Especially, when they are afraid of losing their job.
45 danbmil99 // Apr 20, 2009 at 6:21 pm
WHY OH WHY CAN’T THIS BLOG KEEP ME LOGGED IN FOR MORE THAN 30 SECONDS? sheesh.
What the GOP needs to do is form a big-tent alliance. Socons have to give up a bit of their fervor, and allow the party to tone down its rhetoric and the extreme nature of some of its social positions. In turn, the libertarian/individualist wing will hold their nose and let the christian conservatives have their say.
Alternatively, the party cleaves in two. That may be just what the Democrats are hoping for — it will ensure them decades of power (unless the center part of the GOP is really really smart and lucky)
46 Mike K // Apr 20, 2009 at 6:59 pm
There is only one serious issue in the entire gay marriage debate. That is whether, once they win the political battle, the militant gay marriage advocates are going to go after the churches and force them to officiate at such events or lose tax exempt status. I think it is a serious issue and the behavior of the gay marriage zealots, unlike such agnostics as I am, leads to real concern. The Miss America story is only the latest example.
Maybe there is a compromise that allows gay marriage and exempts churches from participating.
47 esurience // Apr 20, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Mike K,
The “compromise” that allows churches to choose who they do or do not marry is called the 1st amendment, which protects the free exercise of religion. To suggest otherwise is just fear-mongering.
The Miss America story has nothing to do with that issue. People have a right to say what they want, but the 1st amendment is not a right to have other people agree with you. It is not a right to not be _criticized_ or even _disapproved_ for the viewpoints you espouse. Criticism and disapproval is just a function of the other side exercising their own 1st amendment rights.
And if people are honestly concerned about religious freedom, perhaps they shouldn’t be setting the precedent of taking away previously constitutionally-recognized minority rights by a simple majority vote (a la Prop8).
48 ExGOPer // Apr 20, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Mike K,
Esurience is absolutely right. The First Amendment protects religious groups from having to consecrate marriages that they do not support. This fear is being overplayed. I have yet to hear a single public proponent of same sex marriage advocate forcing any religion to accept these unions as marriages. And that’s the way it ought to be.
49 Mike K // Apr 20, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Can you concede the slight possibility that some people might have an honest objection to the concept of gay marriage ? Nobody I know objects to civil unions with all the features of marriage except the term.
The First Amendment may or may not protect the churches. It doesn’t say anything about tax exemption and there is already legislation banning any religious objection by hospitals or health care providers to abortion. If a physician can have his or her license threatened if they object to performing abortions, can Andrew Sullivan be far behind with his declarations of Catholic devotion ?
Somehow, I doubt your sincerity.
50 Mike K // Apr 20, 2009 at 8:28 pm
“A single public proponent” ?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081030/news_1n30exempt.html
51 Mike K // Apr 20, 2009 at 8:30 pm
“A single public proponent “
http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/
“Yet how will we avoid another election season of deception, when the Mormon Church can use vast tax-free money into advancing their platform?
Strip the Mormon church of its status as a religious organization.”
52 Chekote // Apr 20, 2009 at 8:37 pm
“WHY OH WHY CAN’T THIS BLOG KEEP ME LOGGED IN FOR MORE THAN 30 SECONDS? sheesh.”
I blame global warming. Hemm …. climate change.
53 esurience // Apr 20, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Mike K,
With regard to the New Jersey pavilion, the church was given tax exemptions on that property because they promised it would be made available for public use. In addition, they were given tax money to repair the facility itself. Also, New Jersey does _not_ have same-sex marriage. The case was about anti-discrimination laws, not marriage. Should a private group really be given taxpayer money to own & operate a facility, and then be able to discriminate against some of those very same taxpayers who are providing those funds? The only “freedom” being infringed here is the freedom to be subsidized by taxpayers while simultaneously discriminating against a certain group of them.
54 ChristianMiller // Apr 21, 2009 at 6:27 am
The McCain campaign was completely devoid of strategy and coherence. (Much like McCain himself). Why should what these guys say be taken seriously?
To those who think Rush is an idiot: Rush is on record 1 year before the election that Iraq would be a non-issue. He said it several times on his show. This prediction was plain to me as well, since once the war went well as it was the media would shift focus.
Now they are trapped in today’s drive-by headlines of the importance of gay marriage of all things. It is an exclusively left issue and it will do Republicans no good to be for it because they will all still vote D come election time. You can’t see how their issues are designed to keep you on a string and that there is no reward for going along.
55 ottovbvs // Apr 21, 2009 at 6:34 am
Franco
“It is an exclusively left issue”
So why has the right been stirring it up with campaigns like Prop 8? It’s actually very much a right issue that has been used for year by Republican strategists as part of the god, guns and gays strategy to energize movement conservatives. Why eles would Schmidt’s comments be significant. Your constant re-writing of history would make Stalin blush.
56 ottovbvs // Apr 21, 2009 at 6:46 am
“To those who think Rush is an idiot: Rush is on record 1 year before the election that Iraq would be a non-issue. He said it several times on his show. This prediction was plain to me as well, since once the war went well as it was the media would shift focus.”
…..The war never went well it just got trumped by a bigger issue….the economy…..it was still a major factor in discrediting the GOP reputation for competence and honesty. By November of 2008 70% of the country had decided that invading Iraq had been a big mistake and comfortable majorities believed the Bush admin had lied about the reasons for the war.
57 Chekote // Apr 21, 2009 at 6:55 am
So far Frum and Company’s strategy for rebuilding a conservatism that can win consist of embracing global warming and gay marriage. Two issues that are at the bottom of voters concerns. Yes, I know. The want to increase the conservative share of the youth vote. The reality is that when the “youth” grows up and gets engaged in real life, their priorities will change.
58 mlindroo // Apr 21, 2009 at 7:39 am
> Can you concede the slight possibility that some people might have an
> honest objection to the concept of gay marriage ? Nobody I know objects
> to civil unions with all the features of marriage except the term.
Seems like we might solve the problem by splitting the difference as follows:
1) The symbolic ritual of marriage itself remains the “property” of religious denominations. If you want to marry a person of the same sex, you cannot expect the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Roman Catholic church to perform the wedding ceremony. Likewise, the World Church of the Creator is allowed to deny requests from white church members wishing to marry a black person of either sex. Same-sex or interracial couples can still marry provided they find a religious denomination that accepts the practice.
2) All legal/contractual features of marriage itself (inheritance, spousal benefits, adoption related issues etc.) are covered by the state and are the same for every registered couple regardless of which religious denomination performed the wedding ceremony. Atheist couples are also covered, they simply skip point(1) above or alternatively marry at the registration office. In all cases, the state can try to reduce the number of failed relationships (currently way too high in the US) by imposing preconditions such as premarital counseling, longer waiting periods etc..
Religious conservatives claim to be concerned about rising divorce rates so let’s do something concrete about it for a change.
This way, religious persons retain the right to believe, preach, gather in a church, and govern their church.
The second point ensures the government does not discriminate between religions or becomes entangled in deciding religious questions. I.e. the government is morally neutral in this matter.
MARCU$
59 sinz54 // Apr 21, 2009 at 8:23 am
Chekote: The reality is that when today’s youth grow up, there will be other youth to replace them.
The GOP’s election strategy has been based largely on hopes of exclusion: Young people didn’t traditionally vote in large numbers, so the GOP’s success with older voters would carry the day. Obama has certainly changed that dynamic with young people–they turned out in massive numbers, to vote for him. And that will almost certainly happen again in 2012. Whether it is a long-term trend that will last beyond Obama’s glamorous presidency, who knows.
60 sinz54 // Apr 21, 2009 at 8:31 am
Chekote: One more thing. Surveys have also shown that when liberal young people grow up, they may become more conservative on economics or foreign policy, but they don’t suddenly embrace social conservatism. Instead, they can mainstream their liberal social attitudes.
The baby-boom generation of the 1960s succeeded in mainstreaming premarital sex (just try to find a virgin over 17), cohabitation, miscegenation, smoking pot, etc.
Today’s young people are more tolerant of homosexuality than their parents or grandparents. They’re not suddenly going to become gay-bashers when they turn 20 or 25. And a political party like the GOP, that tends to indulge gay-bashing by its base is going to turn off these young people, long after they become adults.
61 Mike K // Apr 21, 2009 at 12:03 pm
“Should a private group really be given taxpayer money to own & operate a facility, and then be able to discriminate against some of those very same taxpayers who are providing those funds? The only “freedom” being infringed here is the freedom to be subsidized by taxpayers while simultaneously discriminating against a certain group of them.”
This is exactly the argument that prevents moderates on the issue, like me, from saying,”Oh, heck. If it’s that important to them, let them have it.” That’s why the Miss California thing was significant. The pro-gay marriage side is far less tolerant than the other side. The Yes on Prop 8 was a large majority on the same ballot that gave Obama a big majority of the popular vote. What does that tell you ?
I agree that there is little to be gained by Republicans on this issue and the less said the better. However, now that AIDS s more or less under control in the affluent gay community, this seems to be the activist issue of the day. Take a look at the number of gay marriages in Canada where it was never an issue (is anything ever an issue in Canada ?) and tell me how important this is.
I tend to agree that a separation of civil and religious marriage, as is done in France, is the probable compromise.
By the way, I’ve sent five kids through private school over the past 35 years. Do I get my property tax money back ?
62 Mike K // Apr 21, 2009 at 12:08 pm
“Chekote: One more thing. Surveys have also shown that when liberal young people grow up, they may become more conservative on economics or foreign policy, but they don’t suddenly embrace social conservatism. Instead, they can mainstream their liberal social attitudes.”
Having looked at my youngest daughter’s course material on US History this year, I wonder if these kids will know enough economics to learn the real facts. Have any of you seen this:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KD21Ad01.html
I’m not very optimistic about this generation. I suppose that has always been the complaint of the older adults but this time I wonder. I Keep thinking of the Chinese proverb: “First generation-coolie; second generation-merchant; third generation- rich man; fourth generation-coolie.”
63 mlindroo // Apr 21, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Mike K., thanks for the tip about France!
http://brittany.angloinfo.com/countries/france/marriage.asp
The process seems to be that you first register your relationship with the government … let’s not needlessly offend religious sensibilities so we will use the term “civil union” for this. This is followed by a religious ceremony which is optional, has no legal status and you & your church can call it whatever you want. Brilliant!
MARCU$
64 esurience // Apr 21, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Mike K,
Uhh, you seemed to have missed the point about the New Jersey thing being about anti-discrimination laws and not marriage law. New Jersey does not allow gays and lesbians to marry. So that issue should have nothing to do with your support or lack thereof for marriage equality. Religious folks wanting a special right to discriminate against gays and lesbians, even while taking our tax dollars, has nothing to do with the marriage debate. Again, it was about anti-discrimination laws. Anti-discrimination laws. I need to repeat myself since you ignored that last time
65 esurience // Apr 21, 2009 at 3:03 pm
There’s a misunderstanding among some of you about how France does marriage. France has both marriage and civil unions, but the difference is that in France _heterosexuals_ are also allowed to join civil unions (and gay people are barred from marriage). France is a great model to follow if you really want to diminish and discourage the institution of marriage.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021303365_pf.html
Heterosexuals in France are opting to get civil unions INSTEAD of marriage, because they come with all the benefits but none of the responsibilities! (No shared property, much easier divorce…) Yay!
How about just ending marriage discrimination, rather than destroying the institution in an attempt to keep gays out of it, as France is doing?
66 Realist // Apr 21, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Prohibiting gay couples from enjoying the benefits of marriage is not only outright bigotry, but borderline unconstitutional. On what grounds does the nation deprive two people committed to each other of the same tax benefits and other spousal rights like hospital visitation that traditional marriage allows?
67 Carney // Dec 16, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Calling normal marriage laws “unconstitutional” is breathtakingly ignorant. Any writing means what its writer meant, not what random or mendacious spin a reader can twist out of it. And no one who wrote any portion of the constitution meant to impose homosexual “marriage” on the federal government or any state. QED
68 Mccain Campaign Managers Endorsement Of Gay Marriage | FrumForum « RSS Search Engine // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:44 am
[...] Continue reading here: Mccain Campaign Managers Endorsement Of Gay Marriage | FrumForum [...]
You must log in to post a comment.