By RP Nation, on Fri Nov 9, 2012 at 9:15 AM ET Bradford Cummings — a former chairman of Louisville’s Republican Party, a leader in the Kentucky equine industry, and (I understand) the owner of a quite beautiful singing voice — published a very brave and poignant op-ed in today’s Louisville Courier-Journal that endorses marriage equality, as well as a general return to a more compassionate Grand Old Party. With his permission, we cross-post it here in whole:
It was about seven years ago that I witnessed an expression of love and devotion that has forever moved me. A dear friend had experienced complete kidney failure and needed an immediate organ donor. Without hesitation, his partner risked his own life to donate one of his two working kidneys. While I don’t see them much anymore, I know both have been given a clean bill of health. I still get choked up thinking about this story.
And yet, despite unequivocally expressing their love, these two cannot be celebrated equally with the many married couples in our society simply because they are of the same sex. The GOP must understand how important that inequality is to so many in our electorate.
Before this most recent Election Day, I believed that while gay marriage is an important issue, most people vote with their pocketbooks first. Logically, the Romney/Ryan ticket would have broad appeal, especially in this time of economic malaise. Mitt Romney, the turnaround artist, was a man uniquely created and placed here for this time in history.
And the exit polls show that most people agreed. Romney won on economic issues across the board and the American desire for smaller government was clearly communicated. But despite these advantages, the Republican nominee lost. Our country is shifting center/left on social issues. I miscalculated, and so did many others, by believing that when the ship is sinking social issues become less important.
But after some reflection, I see the error in that thinking. If the Southern Democrats of the 1860s or 1950s and 1960s, who were supportive of racist stances from segregation to slavery, were also the party of smaller government, I too would have had to vote against my economic ideals. Americans prefer limited government but not at the expense of limited social freedoms.
I also wonder exactly what we are fighting so hard to preserve. I’ve been pro-gay marriage for years but also respect that the original basis for marriage came from religious orthodoxy. Every day, I feel blessed to be married to my wife and our marriage grows stronger each year. But exactly how would that change if two men or two women held the same societal status?
The legalization of gay marriage wouldn’t force churches that disagree with homosexuality to perform marriage ceremonies or infringe on the rights of heterosexual couples. Marriage in our society has become a social contract first and should not be legally restrained through religious eyes. As a wise man once said to his followers, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” I’m a follower of that man, but with the tax advantages and other benefits given to married couples in the United States, not allowing gay couples to participate immediately makes them a second-class citizenry.
But it’s not just the anti-gay marriage stance likely hurting Republicans in the future. While most people say they are pro-life personally, it is a simple reality the majority of Americans also want the option preserved and women especially find this to be a top priority. Personally, I find abortion as a form of birth control to be a sad and immoral act, while supporting the common exceptions of rape, incest and life of the mother. I tried to embrace a pro-choice stance in my youth, but could never get around the idea it’s ending a life. Despite this, sometimes you have to realize you are in the minority and work from within the existing realities.
Is my time better spent fighting a losing battle trying to end abortion in the United States and therefore risk losing every foreseeable national election? Or would I be better served to encourage other choices for unwanted pregnancies and not let this single issue derail the rest of my political ideology? It’s a tough one to swallow, but Republicans need to begin to ask themselves these difficult questions.
Read the rest of…
Bradford Cummings: A GOP Leader Endorses Marriage Equality
By Jonathan Miller, on Thu Nov 8, 2012 at 4:43 PM ET
ICYMI: Romney’s campaign just conceded Florida.
ICYMI2: Here are the results of the First Quadrennial Recovering Politician Electoral College Contest.
By RP Nation, on Thu Nov 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM ET The Jewish vote for Romney was 32% – up 10% from 2008..but clearly the Obama coalition doesn’t depend on it like the Democrat Party of old. It’s the new youth-single women-black-latino votes that lost this thing. I think I was somewhat prophetic in what I said to you in my email before the election.
What this means is we need to clean house and start to put other faces in charge; the future coalition of the GOP will be a synergy between social Libertarians, Jack Kemp (supply side) Republicans, and something I call Republican NeoRealists (“Neo Realism”).
This will include people like Condoleeza Rice, Allen West, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Alberto Gonzalez, and Log Cabin (gay) Republicans.
NeoRealists will work for, push, support, and make law state-based solutions for replacing the social compact of the New Deal and War on Poverty, while being inclusive of the reality of our population – it is openly accepting of gay issues, and I think the Republican Party should just accept it, support it, and make it known that we’re not going to fight that issue since gays, too, are concerned about economic freedom and prosperity. I think we should just say we support gay marriage as a general rule as a state-by-state decision, and that any marriage recognized in one state will be automatically recognized in another.
To bring forward the understand of the grievances of the black population, we can there tap into the connection of the religious aspect – as churches are a core element in many around the country.
I think we’re hanging onto some ideals that are a little rediculous and there is nothing wrong with waking up to this fact.
The focus of the moral majority of the 1980s is over and we need to accept it and make appropriate changes. The Reagan coalition came together because one person had the vision to realize what unites people.
The youth today are clearly – clearly – unimpressed with the GOP. The only way to capture them is to tap into their desires. They just don’t care about anything, frankly. Look at all the smut on the internet. We can support their smut and just tax it – tax it overwhelmingly.
Read the rest of…
Jonathan Weiss: Reflections on the Election
By Jonathan Miller, on Thu Nov 8, 2012 at 9:12 AM ET New Electoral College Map 2012
Even more than the actual tallies of Tuesday’s elections, the world has been anxiously awaiting the results of the First Quadrennial Recovering Politician Electoral College Contest.
Well, it is your lucky hour….
Just under 100 official entrants and contributing RPs submitted their predictions of:
- The 2012 Electoral College tally. I.e., Obama 269, Romney 269
- The partisan composition of the Senate for the next session of Congress. I.e., 50 Democrats, 48 Republicans, 2 Independents.
- The partisan composition of the House for the next session of Congress. I.e. 230 Republicans, 205 Democrats.
As discussed here in the official rules:
Because recounts are very likely, particularly in Congressional races, to calculate the winners, I will use the vote tallies that are listed in the print edition of Thursday morning, November 8 New York Times. While these tallies will undoubtedly be incomplete for many races, and winners will not be declared in several campaigns, whoever is leading as of the Thursday morning tally will be the winner for the purposes of determine our champion.
November 8 has arrived. And according to the latest New York Times tallies, these would be the final results of the 2012 elections, should those who currently lead in the vote tallies prevail:
(Drum roll, please…)
Read the rest of…
First Quadrennial RP Electoral College Contest Results
By Paul Hodes, on Wed Nov 7, 2012 at 4:00 PM ET I am bone-weary and hugely relieved at the outcome of the 2012 election. Some keep asking how a Republican Party so devoid of ideas could mount such a strong Presidential challenge and maintain control of the House. Beyond the simple answer; “It’s the economy, stupid”, something deeper is at work. The deeper issues warrant serious thought and immediate action.
Paul Hodes
My son, Max, is a brilliant out-of the box thinker who has always marched to his own beat. He is 29 and thoroughly disillusioned with our political system. Despite my service as a Democratic United States Congressman, or perhaps because of it, he sees no difference between the two major parties. On Election Day, he cast a reluctant vote for Barack Obama.
My sister-in-law, Trisha is a conservative home-maker who lives in Virginia. She leans strongly Republican, grieves over what she perceives as her loss of any real voice in our political system. I have no doubt that she cast her vote for Mitt Romney.
I am a determined Democrat. I first ran for office in 2004 to try to change the direction of the country which I saw as controlled by ideologues, embroiled in an unnecessary war and headed for damaging deficits generated by fiscally irresponsible tax and economic policies. Having served as a member of the House I developed new respect for the institutions of our democracy. And, from my own experience, I think I have a good idea of why both Max and Trisha are disillusioned.
Our democracy is challenged by the pervasive influence of power brokers and corporate kingdoms which both overtly and covertly seem to hold policy-makers in their thrall. Whether through outsized campaign contributions and spending or playing the inside game in Washington; their influence is undeniable. A central challenge of any political institution, and especially for my beloved Democratic former colleagues, is to accept the challenge of change wholeheartedly. Real change takes commitment and persistence. It takes brutal honesty and probably some discomfort. I hope that leaders in both the House and the Senate are up to the task.
For example, in the Senate, filibuster rules must be changed. In the House, the antiquated seniority system is an impediment to progress. Looking outside the institutions, promoting change in our campaign finance system and, taking aim at influence peddling are fundamental to the future electoral success of the Democratic Party and the country.
The President’s narrow popular vote margin should give Democrats real pause. We re-elected a President but could not achieve a mandate for a unified Government. The President is personally popular. I’m not at all sure that Democrats generally can bask in the same glow. Democrats see the differences between the parties clearly. But, at least half of the America which votes either don’t get what we’re about or believe the brand the Republicans have foisted upon us: we’re the party of high taxes and hand-outs
The antidote is fundamental re-examination and refocusing. We must adopt, pursue communicate and message a progressive agenda for economic growth as the focus of our Party: Education, Innovation and Infrastructure. With a consistent focus and the right messaging we can create a more solid foundation for electoral success over the long haul. Without refocusing and “rebranding”, we will continue to struggle to convince Americans that we can be trusted to govern a dynamic and diverse country in a new century.
The Economic Innovation Action Fund works to focus and rebrand current Democratic issues into clear and potent message about a core economic agenda for growth and innovation consistent with progressive values.
Join us as www.economicinnovationinstitute.org.
By Bradford Queen, Managing Editor, on Wed Nov 7, 2012 at 1:00 PM ET
By Jason Atkinson, on Wed Nov 7, 2012 at 11:35 AM ET  It was like praying for a snow-day in the middle of summer. Sure there was a cloud, but….. I was surprised by a few states that were in play early on, but the Obama victory was systematic and executed without reaching for snow goggles.
The real issue is my party. Romney insured four more years of tea party litmus testing from Congress down and according to the lessons of the 1970’s- Republicans don’t win. (Buckley vs. Rockefeller, part two).
We need to be the party of solutions, lead in front of fear, stop scaring women and being perceived as against brown people. Yes, history always gives favor to the incumbent, but my party never got beyond one issue: vote for for me because. A lot of votes were against Obama, but never “FOR” what a Republicans would do. You can’t win in protest only.
By Jonathan Miller, on Wed Nov 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM ET New Electoral College Map 2012
Please use this as an open thread for your comments. Our new Managing Editor, Bradford Queen, and I will be giving updates in this space, and our Contributing RPs will be posting their thoughts as the day progresses. — The RP
=====
Fewer than 12 hours after President Obama delivered his re-election victory speech, attention is beginning to turn to the next big task in Washington: the fiscal cliff.
Jonathan Allen writes in POLITICO: “The election hardly amounted to a mandate for change. Instead, it will be the same players gathered around the negotiating table – or refusing to negotiate – as the government tries to deal with a pending fiscal calamity that includes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the end of Obama’s payroll tax cut, a steep reduction in defense and domestic spending known in Washington-speak as ‘sequestration’ and a debt that exceeds $16 trillion.”
Will House Republicans, Senate Democrats, and the President be able to work out a deal? In whose court is the proverbial ball? –BQ
=====
More winners and losers.
Obvious winners yesterday: Barack Obama. In Ohio & Michigan, the auto bailout. Twitter = major win, as more than 31 million tweets were tweeted (twits a’tweeting?) over the course of Election Day and Night.
Losers: Mitt Romney. Republican demographic strategy. Super PAC money. Debate moderators.
Debate it. Winners and losers. –BQ
=====
The biggest winner yesterday? New York Times poll analyst Nate Silver. Or perhaps more fairly, the triumph of math, science and rationality over superstition and biased political prognostication. Silver’s predictions — based on the wealth of polling that was performed every day across the country — were dead on. Polling is not a perfect science, but math teaches us that when there are enough polls to average, weigh, and analyze, an accurate picture emerges as to where the voters stand. This is the sample principle of crowd-sourcing which I believe is the future of news, research, and progress. And it is no irony that those who deny science when it comes to climate change were the same people who were denying the power of Silver’s math. — The RP
=====
Two of my pet issues — marriage equality and marijuana legalization — had a good night last night, with gay marriage referenda winning in Maine and Maryland and legal weed passing in Colorado and Washington State. I will not be absurd enough to imply that these issues will find popular majority support in deep red states like my old Kentucky home. But I do believe that both issues are soon reaching their national tipping point if they haven’t already. — The RP
UPDATED: Looks like marriage equality passed in Washington State as well, and a gay marriage ban was defeated in Minnesota.
=====
The winner of the RP’s First Quadrennial Electoral College Contest has to await Florida, and perhaps some Congressional races. According to the official rules, to calculate the winners, “I will use the vote tallies that are listed in the print edition of Thursday morning, November 8 New York Times. While these tallies will undoubtedly be incomplete for many races, and winners will not be declared in several campaigns, whoever is leading as of the Thursday morning tally will be the winner for the purposes of determine our champion.”
To check out the entries, click here.
To see how our contributors’ predictions fared, click here. — The RP
By Jonathan Miller, on Tue Nov 6, 2012 at 6:00 PM ET 
Beginning RIGHT NOW, our contributing RPs will be offering their instant thoughts on the election return via Twitter, broadcast live below.
You too can join the discussion by using your Twitter account and adding the hashtag #RecoveringPol to your tweets.
So please join us NOW:
By Jonathan Miller, on Tue Nov 6, 2012 at 12:15 PM ET Tuesday night, beginning at 6PM EST, when the polls close in Kentucky (We’re #1 at something other than hoops!), our contributing recovering politicians will be offering their instant thoughts on the election returns, speechifying and mainstream media coverage via Twitter. We will be broadcasting their live Twitter feed here on The Recovering Politician home page.
Even better, YOU are invited to join in the debate. You can participate in the discussion by using you own Twitter account and adding the hashtag #RecoveringPol to your tweets. We encourage you to participate through the evening, and please free free to engage, question, and challenge our contributing RPs.
So please join us Tuesday night at 6PM EST, until the wee hours Wednesday morning — and who knows, maybe even longer…
|
The Recovering Politician Bookstore
|
