[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
The Left's War On Christians Title: Scott Walker’s Wife: One More Reason For SoCons To Worry? (Scott Walkers Wife Supports Same Sex Sandwiches) There are a couple ways to look at this. On one hand, we could be witnessing the case of one family member showing daylight with her husband. It wouldn’t be the first time this issue has proven divisive within a family (see Liz vs. Mary Cheney). On the other hand, why publicize the disagreement? Nothing happens in politics by accident. Walker has a professional comms shop. Could this be an intentional signal to more socially moderate opinion leaders that Walker isn’t really some neanderthal (regardless of what he has to say to win conservative votes in Iowa)? Regardless, for social conservatives who already feel like they’re on the ropes, this revelation is even more serious than you might think. For obvious reasons, social conservative leaders have little interest in alienating Walker, but even before this most recent interview came out, one leading socon told me his rule of thumb for evaluating candidates: The trick is to always look at the wife when gauging whether or not a male politician will hold true to his stated social values. This is a lesson they learned the hard way. From Betty Ford to Laura Bush, we’ve never had a pro-life first lady in the post-Roe v. Wade world. And — the theory goes — it’s not much of a coincidence that, despite all the rhetoric around election time, social conservatives have relatively little legislative progress to show for the many Republican electoral victories that accrued in the last four decades.
Now, as the issue of the moment seems to be gay marriage, we see a similar dynamic where houses are divided against themselves — where, on this issue, at least, Republican politicians and their wives are unequally yoked. It’s hard to be outnumbered in your own family. They may not flip on the issue, but pols seem less likely to champion an issue when the people closest to them vehemently oppose it. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world — and not just because it influences future generations. There are examples that seem to buttress this. Take, for example, Sen. Barry Goldwater’s leftward lurch toward the end of his career. In a 1994 Washington Post article, Lloyd Grove writes about Goldwater’s second wife, Susan: They met soon after the death of Goldwater’s first wife, Peggy, when she came to take his blood pressure. Some, like John McCain, attribute much of Goldwater’s outspoken contrariness, which occasionally makes him sound like a raving liberal, to Susan Goldwater’s influence. You won’t hear this mentioned in polite company, but it is similarly thought that Ted Olson wouldn’t have come to support gay marriage, had his conservative wife Barbara Olson not been murdered on 9-11. Olson subsequently married a “lifelong Democrat.” Consider this from a 2013 LA Times piece: It is a matter of considerable discussion in Washington how much Olson has changed since his marriage to Lady Booth — who is named after an aunt — and whether it has anything to do with his apostasy on gay marriage. “I think everybody thinks she’s changed Ted,” said Rosalie Blair, the eye surgeon in Washington who introduced them. “She’s certainly made him a little bit — people will say — a kinder, gentler Ted.” If nothing else, this simply raises more questions. Scott Walker’s campaign already feels schizophrenic. He’s sending mixed signals on a variety of issues (see his reported “I’m not going nativist” comments to Steven Moore). If you’re a social conservative who cares deeply about the gay marriage issue, it is perhaps wise to consider the maxim which says, If mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: misterwhite (#0) (Edited) If mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy One more crossed off the list. In case others would stumble. Forget the chumps go with Trump.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0) (Edited) There are examples that seem to buttress this. Take, for example, Sen. Barry Goldwater’s leftward lurch toward the end of his career. In 1994 Goldwater's political career was finished. He had taken unconscionable abuse during his presidential campaign, had lost prestige in the senate, and was in failing health. He had lost everything. He was nearing the ignominous end of a long ride. His leftward lurch was simply a way of expressing disgust and saying phuckit.
#3. To: rlk (#2) He had taken unconscionable abuse during his presidential campaign AND the alleged Republican Party did nothing to back him because he was seen as a threat to control over the party by the rich,mostly trust fund,alleged Republicans of the northeast. They used to be called "Country Club Republicans" back in the 50's and early 60's,but now they are just called "Republicans". These are the same asshats that saddled Reagan with that evil old bastard Poppy Bush as a condition to giving him their political and financial support during his first presidential run. I see these vermin as more evil than their Dim brothers. At least with the Dims America has a clearly defined enemy to our culture and legal system. The alleged Republicans come in under the cover of "I am a conservative,vote for me!" when the truth is they are nothing but leftist Dims with ties to the northeast and old "ruling class" money. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|