Coulter on Brooks and McCain
Today's excerpts from Ann Coulter-- bombs away!
For the first time in 32 years, Democrats got more than 50 percent of the country to vote for their candidate in a national election, and now they want to lecture the Republican Party on how to win elections. Liberal Republicans have joined them, both groups hoping no one will notice that we just lost this election by running the candidate they chose for us....
A nice thesis statement! From there, she goes off on David Brooks (directly) and McCain (indirectly)...For years, New York Times columnist David Brooks has been writing mash notes to John McCain....Brooks gushed, "I can tell you there is nobody in politics remotely like him," and even threw down the gauntlet, saying: "You will never persuade me that he is not among the finest of men."
That took guts at the Times, where McCain is constantly praised by the op-ed columnists and was endorsed by the paper in the Republican primary....
They adored McCain at the Times! Does anyone here not see a cluster of bright red flags?
In January this year, Brooks boasted of McCain's ability to attract "independents."
And then Election Day arrived, and all the liberals who had spent years praising McCain all voted for Obama. Independents voted for Palin or voted against Obama. No one outside of McCain's immediate family was specifically voting for McCain.
But now Brooks presumes to lecture Republicans about what to do next time. How about: "Don't take David Brooks' advice"?
According to Brooks, the reason McCain lost was -- naturally -- that he ran as a conservative. If only presidential candidates would spurn polls, modern political history, evidence from campaign rallies, facts on the ground and listen to the wishful thinking of Times columnists!
If McCain lost because he ran as a conservative, then how come I knew McCain was going to lose before Brooks did? About the same time Brooks was touting McCain's uncanny ability to attract independents, I was writing, accurately: "John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth."...
In another sign of how popular liberalism is, liberals have to keep changing their name, like grifters moving from town to town. Liberal Republicans used to be known as "moderates," then "mavericks" or "centrists." I guess now they're "reformists." Why, liberals are so popular they have to disguise themselves for fear of being mobbed by an adoring public!...
If liberals are going to use their first majority vote in a national election since Helen Thomas was spilling champagne on Liza at Studio 54 to lecture Republicans on how to win elections, I have a tip for them based on the exact same election: Constitutional amendments banning gay marriage passed in every state they were on the ballot -- Florida, Arizona, even in liberal California.I'll accept the results of the presidential election, if you anti-Proposition 8 die-hards in California accept the results of that vote. Earth to protestors: Most Americans oppose gay marriage. On this, even blacks and Mormons are agreed! Why don't you people go find something useful to do?
Let's see, who was avidly pro-gay-marriage? Oh I remember: The guy who's once again lecturing Republicans on how to win elections: David Brooks.
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 7:00 AM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
Coulter should reflect on the fact that young people (18 to 29 years old) in California voted against Proposition 8 by a margin of 61% to 39%.
Proposition 8 was created and promoted by religious groups; it was an apparently successful attempt to establish a religious doctrine (marriage as only between a man and a woman) in the state constitution. There is little reason in medicine and science to deny the full legal protections of marriage to same-sex couples; their relationships are as deep, permanent and caring as heterosexual relationships.
That's an interesting point about the demographics. I hope pro-choicers will pay attention to the same cohort in analyzing the popularity of their views!
Prop 8 tries to avoid the redefining of "marriage". A redefinition is unnecessary to achieve what you seek; the same can be accomplished through "same-sex unions". Moreover, a redefinition is nonsensical. To borrow from Chesterton, it would be akin to describing a short-necked giraffe that eats other animals.
Actually, California already has civil unions. The deficiency of civil unions is that they only provide legal benefits at the level of the state; they provide no federal benefits or protections.
May I suggest that same-sex marriage is "nonsensical" only if you're bound by traditional prejudice. Today, we view marriage as a union of love between two people who care for each other. The underlying principle is not gender, any more than it is a matter of the man having legal ownership of the woman (an long-obsolete understanding of marriage). Rather it is what is expressed St. Paul's hymn to love in 1 Corinthians 13: Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Then, it would seem that Prop 8 is unrelated to the larger problem. The problem you describe should be addressed at the federal level.
It's a slippery slope to consider definitions as a matter of prejudice-- and to claim that as a reason to change definitions.
Beyond that, no one views marriage as merely "a union of love between two people who care for each other". For example, I'm not married to my Dad or my friends. Perhaps a clearer, coinciding, broader definition is available, but changing a "traditional" definition is unnecessary.
Likewise, I Cor 13 is not helpful here, since it applies directly to church unity within diversity (in the middle of I Cor 12 and 14)-- and the agape love required for that to succeed. More broadly, it applies indirectly to all human interaction-- and has no special/particular application to marriage.
I've always thought that the solution, or what will eventually happen, is civil unions at the federal level that provide the key protections of marriage, but without using the word marriage. The problem with the word marriage is that religious people understand it as a Christian sacrament. When people encounter the notion of same-sex marriage, they mistakenly think of it as a demand for them to change their religious beliefs or practices. (Of course, same-sex marriage wouldn't oblige any church to marry gay couples, any more than the Catholic Church is obliged to marry any couple that have been divorced.) So I would expect the government only to be involved with civil unions, and marriage would be a personal, private or religious affair. The underlying rights and responsibilities would be the same, giving gay people as well as straight people the protections they deserve in their permanent relationships, but without threatening people whose religious beliefs don't approve of same-sex marriages.
That sounds correct.
I would quibble with "religious people understand it as a Christian sacrament". The disagreement goes beyond particularly religious people or seeing it as a Christian sacrament. That said, the most vocal concerned parties would fit your category.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home