Author: DFLer

Once upon a time in a land known as America circa 2004, a growing consensus was emerging.  The evangelical right had just flexed their political muscle, not only overwhelmingly voting to re-elect President Bush by a 70% margin (many would argue pushing him over the edge in Ohio) but also approving gay marriage bans in 11 different states, boosting their turnout in crucial battlegounds and making life hell for Team Blue.  The political calculus was that the gay marriage argument was an effective cudgel to use against Democrats, as it guaranteed high Christian Right turnout and inevitably lead to defeat for Democrats who were associated with anything other than a full government-sponsored ban.

Flash forward a few years, and a different trend is emerging.  Despite reprising the gay marriage argument again in 2006, Democrats managed to completely bypass the issue and still succeeded (the Virginia Senate election being a good example).  The proposed Federal Marriage Amemdment went down in flames.  More states began to adopt marriage equality, and public opinion shifted more towards gay rights than ever before.

But a different trend emerged as well.  Namely, the gay marriage argument had less hold in elections.  Say what you want about Obama’s policies on the issue since taking office, but he campaigned as the most pro-gay Presidential candidate in US history – while against full marriage equality, he supported about every other major position from repealing DOMA and DADT to full protection in the workplace and in hate crimes.  It barely came up as a blip in the overall election.  In Iowa, despite the GOP’s attempts to turn gay marriage into a major issue, the general response has been a collective shrug, as no Republican has been able to make significant ground on Gov. Culver on the issue, and it didn’t have an impact in last Tuesday’s HD90 special as Democrat Curt Hanson still prevailed.

In California, the AD51 special played out in a similar way.  The district, which is heavily African-American and voted in large numbers for Prop 8, elected Steve Bradford, a candidate that received a 100% rating from California Equality.  His opponent Gloria Gray targeted the church community to attack him over his pro-gay views, ran ads questioning his Christian values, and even push-polled on the gay marriage issue. Bradford got 52% of the vote while Gray couldn’t even crack 20%, with the consensus being that voters were turned off over her narrow focus on gay marriage.

My question is – are we seeing a larger trend emerging?  Is gay marriage no longer going to be the hot-ticket item for the Republican party?  Why has it fallen off?  And why are voters more willing to split their votes – that is, vote against marrriage but still support Democrats – than they were only a few years ago?

This is a diary intended to spark dialogue about the political ramifications of this issue, not over whether you think marriage equality ought to happen.  I’m curious about this because it wasn’t too long ago it was viewed as the linchpin to future Republican success, not only for high evangelical turnout but to also peel away socially conservative African-American and latino voters from the Democrats.  Several prognosticators including Michael Barone and Ruy Texeira predicted it would be a huge wedge issue in the Democratic Party, leading to further dischord and electoral losses.  None of this has occured.  So what’s your take on it?  Is it because of economic woes, and the issue will surface again once people aren’t worried about their paycheck?  Or are we moving into a new era in the gay rights debate?  

The news of this seems to have been quashed by the Sanford saga but I felt it was important enough to bring up in a diary. Rep. Danny Davis has opened an exploratory committe to run for Cook County Board President.  Davis ran for the position a few years back and lost to John Stroger’s son Todd, but now it looks like he could upset Stroger.  Stroger’s antics have been making more voters angry over the past year, and Mike Quigley was able to win the IL-05 by touting his experience “fighting” the Stroger machine.

First off, why would Davis do this?  He’s been in the House since 1996, and Cook County Board President appears to be a step down in some ways (granted, you do get to have a lot of influence over Chicago politics).  He’s been a fixture in Chicago politics for 3 decades, but it seems between this and his previous desire to take Obama’s vacated Senate seat, he just wants to get out of Congress.

I’ve also failed to see any news sources talk about potential successors lining up to replace Rep. Davis.  For a district as Democratic as his, why hasn’t there been the requisite feeding frenzy of ambitious aldermen, state legislators and county comissioners running to get a ticket to Washington?  Is there anyone interested?

Just curious about this – for what could be a battle royale in Chicago politics, there’s been little coverage of it.

Tonight Senator John Ensign (R-NV) will announce he has had an extramarital affair (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/ensign-to-acknowledge-extramar.html?hpid=topnews).  While many of the details have yet to be revealed, Ensign was a rising star in the GOP, having the unenviable task of leading the NRSC in the 2008 cycle.  He even recently spoke in Iowa, stoking chatter that he may be considering a 2012 Presidential run.  So this can’t be considered a minor blip on the radar for the Republicans, as it puts an embarassing scandal in front of them right as they’re trying to mount a united opposition to Obama’s agenda.

Moreover, in 2007, Ensign was one of the first Senators to call for Larry Craig’s resignation over his foot-tapping affair in a Minneapolis airport bathroom, calling such behavior “disgraceful.”  While it is unlikely that he will step down as a result of this (even though he, unlike Craig, was actually caught having an affair) it will likely kill any hopes he had of a 2012 bid for President.  It may also damage the GOP as well, as he was (to date) the only Western, or in truth non-Southern GOPer, to consider mounting a serious bid (some may argue Palin is also a Westerner but I’d put her in a whole other category).  Geographically, it only further limits the base the GOP can draw from when challenging Obama. The West was one of the few areas they likely could have mounted a serious challenge to the President’s electoral chances.

This could also impact his 2012 re-election chances.  Nevada is no Louisiana, and voters there aren’t so partisanly Republican as to automatically forgive Ensign for his actions (although, this is the state that’s home to Sin City so maybe folks there won’t care).  As a Democrat, I only laugh again at a GOP’er who couldn’t keep his pants on, but it seems this has been a trend for both sides (Edwards, anyone?)

Seriously, what the hell possess guys who have a chance at becoming the most powerful elected leader in the world to throw it away over something so trivial?  Any thoughts on any of this?  I’m especially interested to see what our Nevadans think.

Obama picked Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter today, making her the third woman and first Hispanic ever nominated for the High Court.  Folks rarely vote over judicial nominations (evangelical voters aside), but she could generate a lot of ripple effects.  Already, the conventional wisdom from several pundits is that this will put Republicans in a bind – they’d be opposing history if they try to block Sotomayor’s appointment.  Yet, as SCOTUS blog points out, there are too many right-wing activists that have devoted too much money to let her slide.  Already, her comment that the high court is “where policy is made” is raising the ire of the right.

It’s also proving to be a diving issue for primaries as well; in Florida, Rubio is more likely going to oppose her while Crist’s support for her may cost him further with the base.  There will likely be more GOPers (and moderate Dems) who will feel pressure from the base to either support or oppose.  There’s also the issue of the nomination’s timing.  This is a critical session for the Democrats – healthcare and energy reform are both on an the front burner, along with backlogged executive appointments, a 2010 appropriations bill, and transportation – and the spectacle of a Supreme Court nomination battle could put a huge damper on the Democratic party’s agenda, giving incumbents less to go home and brag about for 2010.

Thoughts?  Will Sotomayor impact the 2010 elections in any way, or will she just be a blip on the screen by then?  As an aside, what do you think this will portend for the MN Senate recount (my money is on Coleman appealing to SCOTUS for sure now to keep Franken from voting her in).

Mark Parkinson picked his chief of staff Troy Findley to be his Lt. Governor today. Findley promptly announced he won't be running in 2010, effectively preventing the Democrats from having a frontrunner for 2010. The Sebelius/Parkinson/Findley trifecta have essentially ensured that the state party will have no inroads come 2010. The previous thinking was that Parkinson's Lt. Governor pick would be the standard bearer for the future, but no more. Combined with the resignation of AG Paul Morrison, the most Kansas Democrats have are two vulnerable appointed statwide incumbents who will be fighting to win terms in their own right in 2010. This is not what Kansans had in mind with Sebelius' election in 2002 – she was supposed to usher in an era where Democrats could compete on the statewide level. Coupled with Boyda's loss last cycle, Kansas Dems are essentially starting back at square one. Thoughts? Anyone else disappointed with Sebelius' lack of impact on state politics? Who will represent the future of the Kansas Dems?

http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/1198377.html