Posts Tagged ‘primary election’

I had already given my appraisal of Ga-4, but this Gay Marriage ruling is a gamechanger. I’ve already declared Liz Carter the stronger candidate on the republican side. Her position on Gay Marriage wasn’t going to hurt much, economics was the issue and her gay marriage position wouldn’t matter in the house.

Now almost certainly another push will come for a constitutional amendment and Carter’s vote goes from unimportant to critical. With Cory Ruth a Black minister on the ticket some conservatives already had pragmatically decided he was the best choice to oppose Hank Johnson in a majority black district. Now this ruling gives social conservatives a reason to defect. Ruth would also put black ministers on the spot. They might support Johnson over Carter but they would have a very hard time endorsing Johnson over a black minister who opposes gay marriage.

If the election was this Tuesday rather than next Tuesday it might have been too late to hurt Carter, but Ruth will have a full week to play this up. It is his best chance to pull this off. This is where the mettle of both candidates will be tested. Can Carter hold on? (perhaps) Will she flip flop (not a chance), does the youthful Ruth have the killer instinct to use the advantage that he has just been given? (no idea) And can Victor Armendariz use this to take enough votes who might defect from Carter who might not like Ruth to force his way into a runoff? (very unlikely)

If you asked me yesterday to bet money it would have been Liz all the way. Today, I just don’t know, if it was Massachusetts Liz would still win. In Ga? This is where all the hard work and goodwill she established before this ruling is put to the test. This is WHY you put in that work and fight so hard. You can’t match on every issue so the strength of personality makes a ton of difference.

On the democratic side it’s the same. Johnson was going to win it in a walk but he has supported Gay Marriage right along so unless he flip flops Vernon Jones has the same opening that Cory Ruth does, and it’s my impression that Jones has more of a killer instinct than Ruth. Will it be enough? I just don’t know.

In a general election Carter v Johnson the dynamics would not change, but Ruth vs Johnson would really be tough for the democrats. What black minister wants to risk their congregation and living to endorse a candidate in favor of gay marriage when the alternative is a fellow black minister?

If Jones pulls it off then he plays this card against Liz to counter the character issue. From everything I’ve heard about Vernon I don’t know if it would be enough

It sure isn’t going to be boring.

Update: I talked to Liz Carter this morning. She confirmed that her position on marriage remains unchanged. In her opinion this is a 10th amendment issue and the Federal government has no business dictating to individual states on this or any other issue not constitutionally prescribed (obamacare anyone?). The 10th amendment grounds on which this ruling is based is consistent with her position. There is no better year to be running on this idea.

It would be very easy to change or clarify a position to head off a potential problem. We have seen pol after pol to this and conservatives are sick and tired of it. It is really refreshing to see someone unwilling to play that game. That’s a sign of integrity, rare in a pol, but not surprising to anyone who has spent any time at all with Liz Carter.

While I’ve been back in Massachusetts she has continued to work hard picking up some solid endorsements. She has also continued to make inroads in the black community taking the campaign directly to them. It’s really hard to demonize a person that you have made a personal impression on. This is where retail politics pays off big and will likely still pay off. Tip O’Neill always said “All Politics is local”. Liz Carter has learned this lesson well.

Update 2: Of course it is easier to take advantage of a new issue with the base if you aren’t advocating moving Haitian refugees to the US en masse to congress.

check out the first paragraph from The Brad Blog’s report on the ruling concerning Allan Greene’s election in SC:

The South Carolina Democratic Party Executive Board rejected Judge Vic Rawl’s protest to the results of last week’s U.S. Senate primary, despite no evidence presented that the results were accurate, and despite Alvin Greene having not even shown up to the protest hearing.

Let that rolls through your head. A statewide election takes place, the democratic party doesn’t like the results and appeals based on the fact that…they didn’t like the results, and what is their argument? No evidence presented that the results were accurate.

Poor Brad, maybe he doesn’t understand the concept that you don’t simply overturn an election that your man has lost by 20 points because you don’t like your chances in the fall. It is YOUR burden to prove that the election was fixed, not the other way around. The people have the right to be wrong, or foolish or horror of horrors have an opinion contrary to the democratic leadership!

The argument that there was “no reasonable explanation” for the results is an argument that our friends on the left would make for the election of any republican. You want to overturn a 20 point election how about some actual you know evidence? From the CNN story:

The forensics expert hired by Rawl said it was possible the voting machines were tampered with and theorized that a hacker could have uploaded a “malicious code” into the machines to alter the results. But Rawl’s team had no evidence that any machines were meddled with.

Hay who needs physical evidence that the machines malfunctioned? We are liberals we know what the result should be.

Now I’m a big fan of paper ballots and I don’t like touch screen voting myself, but if you are going to overturn an election you need more than theory and to the credit of of the democratic party officials that wasn’t enough for them. CNN again:

Ludwig, Rawl’s campaign manager, rejected the theory that Greene picked up votes because he has an African-American sounding name in a state where the majority of Democratic primary voters are black.

After all it’s not like the democrats use race as a club during elections do they? Nah we’ve never seen that done before. As we might say live by the race card, die by the race card.

…it is because of stories like this:

A fifth of nurses interviewed by researchers admitted that they had been involved in the euthanasia of a patient based on the “assumption” they would want to die. Nearly half of the nurses – 120 of 248 – admitted they had taken part in “terminations without request or consent”.

Euthanasia has been legal in Belgium since 2002. It accounts for two per cent of all deaths annually. The law states that patient consent must be given and that doctors must carry out the procedure. But the study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal shows that the rules are routinely flouted and shows how doctors often delegate the administering of fatal drugs to nurses.

You know that old Hippocratic oath had something to it. If you work under the assumption that the job is to preserve life and always err on the side of life you don’t get this type of thing, but once the attitude changes and the idea of cost take precedence the equation changes.

This is the result of a post Christian Europe and it is on its way here. It will not take one year or even 5, but by the time many of those who supported this health care plan become old enough to need this care, they may find that they ended up voting for their own end. In fact you have candidates openly stating this type of stuff today.

about the Union defeat reminds us of. Basically how dollars that are supposed to be used helping members are spent elsewhere as this post from the morning bell highlights:

In his ongoing battle with teachers unions, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) recently told a town hall in Robbinsville: “My argument is not with teachers in New Jersey. My argument is with a union who collects $730 a year from every teacher and school employee in the union in mandatory dues. And if you don’t want to join the union here’s your option: you can be out. You pay 85% of $730 … to be out. It’s like the Hotel California. You can check in anytime you like but you can never leave. That raises for the teachers union, get ready, $130 million a year. What do they spend that money on? … $6 million in negative advertising against me since March 16th. Think about that. That’s a little over two months they have spent $6 million on New York TV and Radio, Philadelphia TV and radio to attack me. That’s dues money that is coming from their teachers, mandatory no choice, and from all of you because those salaries come from your property taxes and your state income taxes.”

Between that $6 million and the $10 mil blown in Arkansas I ask those in unions? With your pension funds doing poorly do you think those dollars could have been spent better? Why don’t you ask your leadership?