Coakley advisor blames Obama’s taxing and spending for loss

Story from the center-left Politico.

Excerpt:

The Coakley adviser’s memo: National Dems Failed to Aid Coakley Until Too Late

[…]— From the beginning, Brown labeled President Obama’s health care and cap and trade plans as tax increases. Polling throughout the race showed this to be the most effective attack on Coakley.

There were other policies that hurt Coakley, but this was the most effective.

More here from Gateway Pundit.

Awesome. Just awesome.

New Jennifer Roback Morse podcast on the California prop 8 trial

Right now there is a trial going on in California in which some plaintiffs are challenging the result of the recent referendum on marriage. California voted to recognize marriage as being between one man and one woman, and some people are complaining about that. Jennifer Roback Morse was interviewed about this trial on the Christian radio show “Issues, Etc.”, and she explained some of the issues they are debating in the trial and what it all means.

Here is the MP3 file.

And here’s my summary of what she and the host talked about:

  • Rosie O’Donnell’s twelve-year lesbian relationship is over
  • How children are affected by unstable relationships between partners
  • what do the statistics show about the stability of same-sex unions?
  • what is the purpose of marriage?
  • what characteristics define child-centered marriage?
  • what characteristics define adult-centered marriage?
  • who gets custody of the children when same-sex couples split?
  • how are parental rights understood today under the law?
  • how would same-sex marriage change parental rights?
  • what is the agenda of family law radicals for marriage?
  • what are the consequences of this California trial?
  • why does the judge want to broadcast the trial on TV?

I find her a real delight to listen to! I would be delighted if more people learned to talk about these issues the same way that she does. I find her blog is very helpful as well. In fact, she has an interesting post up about some “expert” testimony from a sociologist who testified in favor of same sex marriage. (H/T Lex Communis)

She cites this post from Protect Marriage:

UCLA social psychology professor Dr. Letitia Peppeau opined that, among other things, same-sex couples are “indistinguishable” from heterosexual couples in terms of their relationships, and that legalizing same sex marriage would not harm traditional marriage. However, she could offer no studies to prove her contention that there would be no impacts on traditional marriage.  On cross examination, she also admitted that the available studies do, in fact, show significant differences between gay couples and heterosexual couples. For example, one study reported that a significantly lower percentage of gay men think that monogamy is important in their relationships (only 36%) than do those in heterosexual relationships. Of those gay men who say that monogamy is important in their relationships, 74% still engage in sex with multiple partners. When pressed, she admitted that sexual exclusivity among gay men is the exception rather than the rule.

My previous post on why people favor traditional marriage explored the research on the differences between traditional marriage and same-sex unions. If we agree that the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for the children, then it’s clear from the research that these two arrangements are not the same.

Related posts

How the left-wing media lowers the level of civil discourse

Here’s MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Republican Scott Brown. (H/T Newsbusters)

Excerpt:

Lost in the angst about Obama and Coakley is the little-recognized real headline of this vote. You have heard Scott Brown speculating, talking out of his bare bottom, about whether or not the President of the United States was born out of wedlock. You have heard Scott Brown respond to the shout from a supporter that they should stick a curling iron into Ms. Coakley’s rectum with the answer, “We can do this.”

You may not have heard Scott Brown support a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, or describing two women having a child as being quote, “Just not normal.” You may not have heard Scott Brown associating himself with the Tea Party movement, perhaps the saddest collection of people who don’t want to admit why they really hate since the racists of the South in the sixties insisted they were really just concerned about states’ rights. You may not of heard Scott Brown voting against paid leaves of absence for Massachusetts Red Cross workers who had gone to New York to help after 9/11.

In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States.

News Busters has the video. This is what happens when you only listen to people who agree with you. It becomes impossible to focus on substantive policy debates and evidence, and you start to go after people personally. The way to stop it is to seek out the best people on the other side and to read their work, or better yet, see them in a debate. Leftists shouldn’t look at tea party protesters, they should look at Thomas Sowell.

In one way, this suits me well. Brown is going to get elected to the Senate today in Massachusetts, and I hope that the way that the left wing media portrays him will drive him further to the right, and make him more concerned about bypassing the media to talk to the people directly. The more they insult him, the less sympathy he will have for compromise, and the less he will be influenced by what the elite think of him.