Sunday, January 22, 2006

Yellow Maryland Democrats?

It is probably sometimes frustrating for them, but the others in Teach the Facts have accepted the fact that I am the least political guy in the world. I've been registered as a Democrat since the Nixon era, at least, but I don't go to the fund-raisers, I don't put signs in the yard, I turn down invitations to the coffees. At this moment, I'd take McCain over Hillary Clinton, and I'd take Gore over McCain, especially after that fine speech he gave last week. I see that America needs better quality leaders, but I don't care what party they come from, and can't say the Democrats have shown any spine, even with all the opportunities the corrupt party in power has given them.

Here's an example of why I feel that way -- from this morning's Washington Post, front page of the Metro section:
Hours after a Baltimore judge ruled that a Maryland law banning same-sex marriage violates the state constitution, reporters cornered the typically loquacious Sen. James Brochin near his desk on the Senate floor.

Brochin, a moderate Democrat who represents a swing district in conservative Baltimore County, said he would base his position on "what my district tells me do," then cut off further questions.

"Would you mind if that's all I say on this?" he said, heading briskly for the door.

The issue of same-sex marriage arrived Friday like an unwelcome houseguest for many Maryland Democrats, who say only a quick reversal from the state's highest court can keep the divisive issue from reshaping the 2006 campaign season.

"That would end the debate, and we could get back to a normal campaign season," said Timothy Maloney, a lawyer and former Democratic state delegate. "If not, there are all kinds of possibilities for mischief. . . . The Republicans will use this to beat the hell out of moderate Democrats." Many Md. Democrats Seek Quick End to Gay Marriage Debate

A normal campaign season?

That's what you want, a normal campaign season?

Excuse me, but I've been on this planet more than a half a century, and I don't think these are normal times. These are times for right-thinking people to define the issues clearly and make it clear where they stand.
"I think it's going to have tremendous implications in the election," Senate Minority Leader J. Lowell Stoltzfus (R-Somerset) said yesterday in a radio interview on WBAL in Baltimore. "Frankly, it puts the left in Maryland . . . in a very bad position, in a tough position."

The whole article is a string of quotes from Democratic leaders trying to avoid the issue. From Doug Duncan to his opponent Martin O'Malley, to Kweisi Mfume, they all sound like they've got mashed potatoes in their mouths ... well, it's a tough issue, I, uh, I think that gay people deserve some rights ... uh, I was raised to believe that marriage was, uh, one man and one woman ...

It doesn't seem like a tough issue to me, and I think most Americans would agree with me if the question were put the way I see it. It's not whether you think homosexuality is "right" or not, or whether you yourself want to marry somebody of your same sex, or even whether you'd be uncomfortable sitting on a train next to two guys making out.

The question is easy: should the government tell people who they can marry, in the absence of abuse and exploitation?

Everybody knows the answer to that -- lefties and righties alike want the government to stay out of their personal lives.

More and more, the government is invading our privacy, and this is one of those things. Nothing at all is lost if Adam and Steve tie the knot -- it's nobody's business, least of all the government's, if two people fall in love and want to spend their lives together.

I gotta say, if the Democrats are just looking for a "normal campaign season," it's going to be hard for me to put that pointer next to their names in the election booth. It's time to fight back, and fight hard, everybody's sick of mealy-mouthed "normal campaign" bull-oney.

There's something real bad going on in this country, the fog of ignorance is getting thicker and thicker, and somebody has to shine a light through it. Right now the United States is a one-party country, and if this story is an indication, that's the way it's going to stay.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not to worry, Jimbo. We're going to split the Republican Party into moderate and conservative wings so we can have a two party system again.

January 23, 2006 2:16 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, once again you entirely miss the point. I don't care what you call 'em, I want to see some good people who aren't afraid to say what they believe and fight for it. On one side, these days, we've got a well-organized and shameless campaign of greed and manipulation, and on the other we have politicians who are afraid that if they say what they mean "The Center" will turn on them. The American people deserve a better choice than that. If they get it by a split among Republicans, then fine, what do I care?

If one of the existing parties, ahem, came out in favor of personal liberty and accountability, even liberty and equality for unpopular folks, and stood in the spotlight and claimed that America belonged to the citizens, we wouldn't need a new party.

I think your point really is based on the observation that the greedy/religious branch of the GOP is not integrating well with the "conservative" branch (though I think you've reversed the terminology), and they will probably part ways -- well, their goals are opposite, really. That'd offer some choice, but not the right choices really, unless the libertarian types really spoke up for personal freedom and against hubris and imperialism, which could be a very powerful platform.


January 23, 2006 3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

uh oh

look who else had a hand in jack's cookie jar

January 23, 2006 4:17 PM  
Anonymous Personal Injury Attorney Philadelphia said...

Very interesting info!Perfect just what I was looking for!

June 20, 2013 12:52 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home