Sheila Kennedy has an blog entry entitled “Drawing the Wrong Conclusion” wherein she relates the self-congratulatory statements of Micah Clark and Curt Smith (both leaders of nominally “pro-family” and substantively anti-gay Indiana pressure groups) with respect to Tuesday’s primaries.
Smith and Clark are expanding on the narrative included in the Berggoetz/Cook article (and noted by me earlier) about the primary and how incumbent House representatives Kubacki and Heuer were unseated. For his part, Clark said this represented, “Yesterday’s primary election was as close to an across the board sweep as you will ever see in politics.”
That would seem to make him the Cotton McKnight of Indiana politics:
Cotton McKnight: Do you believe in unlikelihoods? Average Joe’s shocking the dodgeball world and upsetting Globo Gym in the championship match!
Pepper Brooks: Unbelievable!
Cotton McKnight: Ladies and gentlemen, I have been to the Great Wall of China, I have seen the Pyramids of Egypt, I’ve even witnessed a grown man satisfy a camel. But never in all my years as a sportscaster have I witnessed something as improbable, as impossible, as what we’ve witnessed here today!
In any event, Sheila says that Clark & Smith are wrong to draw the conclusion that these primary results represent a vindication of their views by Hoosier voters. Turnout was low and those who did turn out were more ideologically motivated. Beyond that, I’d add that this is hardly a wave – a whole lot of incumbents are heading into the November election and will likely return to the State House. Sheila says, however, that this is evidence that “the results do unequivocally tell us is that the Republican party is moving farther and farther to the right.”
I’m not sure I agree. Sheila might be right (usually the smart money is on that being the case), but I’d call the evidence equivocal. Is this the party of Smith, Clark, and Mourdock? Or is it the party of Torr, Truitt, and Kenley – conservative, but not unduly beholden to the social conservatives?
What is clear is that the power of pressure groups, in this case the Indiana Family Institute and the American Family Association of Indiana, depends on people – and lawmakers in particular – believing that they are in control. Perception is, in large part, reality. If they can convince lawmakers of the narrative that they can unseat disobedient lawmakers, their purpose is accomplished, regardless of whether they can truly unseat such lawmakers. And, so, at times like these, you have them turning their molehills into mountains. So long as that narrative remains unchallenged, they will be emperors with a splendid new outfit. And woe to the child who dares claim they are naked.
Perhaps it’s because your post is a comment on a comment, but this entry is not your strongest. I’m not even sure what your point is. Some liberal Republicans lost a primary election, and you extrapolate that to what?
Perhaps the simple answer here is more accurate: The Republican base doesn’t like liberals. Did any Republican lose a primary who voted against HJR3,6,etc.?
Sheila Kennedy is hard on the Left, and she openly notes on her blog that she has a gay son. See, Google.
Sheila is therefore going to do everything she can to normalize homosexuality.
Sheila is a distant outpost in wack-a-doodle land. In the post you had the misfortune of reading, she says “this proves that Indiana voters are “pro-life and pro-traditional marriage.” (Translation: anti-woman, anti-gay.)” When she says nonsense that pro-life is anti-woman and that pro marriage is anti-gay, she’s just an angry shrill liberal.
No country anywhere in the world will ever accept homosexuality as normal. It’s not. Liberals would do well to drop this pretend urban horror at inescapable anthropology.
@”Freedom”. BTW that is a stupid name for someone who advocates no marriage choice other than the traditional one which is in peril from; among other things, over-population, rape, incest and other forms of spousal and child abuse. Also factor in the woefully ignorant hetero couples who will have kids just because they can and then so delightfully turn their stupid socially maladaptive spawn upon society. Oh and be sure to factor in a rampant divorce rate; but I digress from your main point no countries accepting homosexuality as normal. You apparently repeatedly refuse to watch a news program or look at news on the net. The following countries as of this writing accept homosexuality as normal because they have marriage equality laws on the books. To wit:
Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Denmark, Argentina, Uruguay, New Zealand and France. Source: http://www.careto.com
Insofar as Sheila Kennedy being a distant outpost in wackadoodle land, the TRUTH is that her opinion reflects a fairly large number of people both in Indiana and elsewhere where gay rights and marriage equality are the subjects of conversation. The reason why Indiana does not currently (but one day very soon will) have a marriage equality law is due to a very active and well-connected group of people opposed to it. This group is noisy and they vote but they are a small and dying collective of shrill, bigoted dysfunctional ignoramuses.
“The following countries as of this writing accept homosexuality as normal because they have marriage equality laws on the books.”
That doesn’t follow. Legality and normal are very far apart.
Another Libertarian who hates governmentm but luvs him some anti-choice activism and loathes the gays.
You guys are hysterical
“Did any Republican lose a primary who voted against HJR3,6,etc.?”
Errata: Strike “against.” Insert “for.”
I am shocked, upon viewing the comments section, to find another inescapable anthropology.
Doug, please get back to writing stronger work on this blog you maintain for free (while also allowing anyone to comment) all while at the expense of doing other things in your life.
F’in A, Cotton. F’in A.
Heh. I write because I enjoy it. That opinions from random people on the Internet might vary on the quality of my work doesn’t bother me. I’m mildly happy that Freedom, or anyone really, apparently finds some of my work worthwhile. But that’s not my motivator for this thing. And, I’m well aware that the quality of what I do here is hugely variable. Sometimes I have a lot to say and really feel like working at it. Other times, I feel like I’m going through the motions.
On this one, I really kind of enjoyed writing it. But I did not go the extra mile — there was a relevant passage from a book I read years ago called “The Lucifer Principle.” It spoke of an old woman who was the moral scold of the community. Even though most of the town didn’t object to cards and drinking – and in fact would have liked to engage in those activities – most of the towns people either kept quiet or pretended to be against those things for fear of being called out by her and, they presumed because of the public stances of the rest of the community, the rest of the town. Social conservative pressure groups work like that old lady. Their power is maximized when those with a different view of moral probity keep quiet or pretend to be in line with what they suppose to be the prevailing opinion on moral probity (as loudly declared by the social conservative pressure groups).
One wonders why Micah Clark missed the actual calls and petitions to legislators during the debate of the Amendment, which led to so many conservatives running away from Micah at such great speed.
Meanwhile, in the real world (by that I mean a government where the President of the Senate is not actively proposing a Constitutional Convention in order to re-enact the Articles of Confederation), the Supreme Court will toss all these Amendments and laws out inside the next 2 years, as Anthony Kennedy is brought kicking and screaming to the logical conclusion of his belief.
In Indiana, Micah will still milk the bigots and Know Nothings for all they are worth and will bring in star power like one of the Duggar litter.