Dems Take Senate [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

xsedrinam

Nov 9, 2006, 12:53 AM

Well, a pretty clear message was sent by U.S. voters. Whether or not the President and his advisors actually get it is still a question. The looks on the faces of the "Thumpees" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110801900.html?nav=rss_print/asection), especially that of Rove on the left, don't seem to reveal much else but what was part of Bush's astonishing comment this afternoon.

""I thought when it was all said and done, the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security. But the people have spoken, and now it's time for us to move on." Those words don't reflect that they "got it".

Nonetheless, the picture is worth more than a thousand words.

e²Studios

Nov 9, 2006, 12:53 AM

It's been an interesting election and I'm glad for most of the outcome. I just wish I was as hopeful as you are. I'm hoping that a couple of stubborn, old men in the White House won't continue to make life miserable.

I would say that they are delusional more than hopeful. But then my views and political affiliation seems to be in the minority on these boards. More people that fell for the Dems dog and pony show..

Ed

Zwhaler

Nov 9, 2006, 01:14 AM

easy for yall to say. the governator is still gov here in california. plus our clean energy proposition and the cigarette tax both failed. cooperate america lives on. they always win.

I know. Damn. But think about it. We (democrats) can now launch investigations and get shrub under oath and demand that he explains things that we all know cost us billions of dollars.

Get this - we paid the military 600 million dollars for meals for a 4 month period, and to pump more money into those already-filthy-rich companys, we used two plates (costs twice as much) and claimed that we needed to put one on top of another one to protect the food from "flies" bush u got some 'splainin to do.

leekohler

Nov 9, 2006, 01:21 AM

I would say that they are delusional more than hopeful. But then my views and political affiliation seems to be in the minority on these boards. More people that fell for the Dems dog and pony show..

Ed

Ed, if if we're lucky (and you should hope we are), the Democrats will take the high road and work to include EVERYONE in the political process. I'm hoping that the politics of division are over as of today.

BTW- there was no Democratic dog and pony show. People voted for a change. The change they want is less partisan politics and more inclusion. If that scares you then so be it. The main point of this election was this- less BS extreme bickering over issues that don't matter and more paying attention to the real issues. Those being the economy and Iraq. That is the message the voters sent and they'd better get results or no one, Democrat or Republican, is safe.

leekohler

Nov 9, 2006, 01:24 AM

Get this - we paid the military 600 million dollars for meals for a 4 month period, and to pump more money into those already-filthy-rich companys, we used two plates (costs twice as much) and claimed that we needed to put one on top of another one to protect the food from "flies" bush u got some 'splainin to do.

The best course of action for the Democrats at this point would be to figure out how to fix the Iraq situation, get us out and work with Bush to do it. If the Dems take revenge now and pay no attention to fixing Iraq, they will be out in 2008.

yg17

Nov 9, 2006, 01:57 AM

First of all, I love the Multi Quote feature :D

This went better than I dared hope for. Bless Blue Velvet and her bones. :D

I know, this turned out so damn well. I was expecting the Dems to barely take control in the house and come close, but not take, the senate. We get the house by a huge majority, take the senate, and then to top that off, Rumsfeld is out. I feel like I'm in a dream and am going to wake up or something! The only disappointment for me was that the school district we live in won a ballot measure to increase taxes to raise money for the school. I was a student in this district from kindergarten thru high school graduation and have seen it, their money troubles are from pure mismanagement, nothing else, and they don't deserve an extra dime of taxpayer money. But stem cells passed in MO, minimum wage passed in MO.

This election could not have gone better. Sure, winning every available seat would be better, but realistically, this is so much better than I ever hoped for.

Now, too bad for me, my happiness won't last forever, I've got a test tomorrow I'm not going to do so great on. I hate my economics class, but my instructor is a Democrat and not afraid to say it and throw in some comments about republicans in a very conservative part of MO so it makes class worth going to :D

It's about time we had a change. Did anybody watch Bush's East Wing speech? The look on his face was priceless. Looked like he was going to cry.

And the Republican party got a "thumppin?" WTF?

I saw clips of his speech on Olbermann and other TV shows, but didn't see the entire thing. He still comes off as the same lying, deceptive dumbass he's always been, but I can now watch him talk and not get angry, because I know what whatever crap he'll try to pull, congress will now be there to out him in check.

Of course, content aside, he's still the same piece of trash he is when it comes to public speaking. "Thumpin?" What the hell. I think I also heard "rodeo" in there. There's a fine line between having charisma and speaking in non-political, plain English, and just being a dumbass. Bush has crossed that line. And what's up with him leaning and slanting? The very first thing I learned in my very first public speaking class was posture; stand up straight. It removes any aspect of seriousness and sincerity and it makes him look like he thinks the entire thing is a joke. Well, listen up dubya....you won't be laughing when your administration is under investigation, the constitution becomes something more worthwhile than toilet paper, and you can't pass laws at will.

Thank you to all my fellow voters who made this change happen, you rock. And if I was 21 and filthy rich, I'd buy you all a beer :D

Zwhaler

Nov 9, 2006, 02:01 AM

The best course of action for the Democrats at this point would be to figure out how to fix the Iraq situation, get us out and work with Bush to do it. If the Dems take revenge now and pay no attention to fixing Iraq, they will be out in 2008.

I know that. I am just saying that some of the MAJOR issues that Bush has brought about that need to be investigated. Don't ask me to name any, I can write a book on all the mess that horrble little man has caused.

solvs

Nov 9, 2006, 04:45 AM

More people that fell for the Dems dog and pony show..

Actually, I'd say that we are well aware this is a loss for Bush and the neocons than a win for the Dems. Farbeit from most of us to actually defend the Dems, or actually expect them to be good. But we're hoping they aren't as bad as the Reps have been, and actually hold them accountable for all that has happened in the last few years under their rule.

Am I to understand you actually like the Reps? No offense, but why? Is it because of the botched WOT? That the troops they supposedly support lack equipment and medical care? Or the fact that the deficit has skyrocketed while desperately needed programs go unfunded? Or that the party who once believed in personal responsibility accountability blames everyone else for their mistakes and corruption? Or that, judging by Katrina and the port deal, we aren't really as protected against future attacks and their fallout as we claim to be? Or that the party who used to believe in small gov wants to be in your bedroom? The list goes on, but I don't see why anyone who claims to be a conservative would actually like where the party was headed. Meanwhile, liberals are happy a bunch of moderates and conservatives in blue clothing have taken over by a slim majority to a Republican President they have no intention of going after the way the other side did over far less in the 90's, and somehow they're delusional.

Hm, maybe you actually have a point. You are all delusional. On both sides. Except Zim, he's just a cynic. ;)

Agathon

Nov 9, 2006, 06:37 AM

Ed, if if we're lucky (and you should hope we are), the Democrats will take the high road and work to include EVERYONE in the political process. I'm hoping that the politics of division are over as of today.

Really?

I think they should go for the throat and expose the administration's lies.

Should kill the Republicans for another 8 years or so.

Thomas Veil

Nov 9, 2006, 06:55 AM

Really?

I think they should go for the throat and expose the administration's lies.

Should kill the Republicans for another 8 years or so.Dangerous. They can only do it if the oversight hearings they hold turn up some really damning stuff, like Bush literally telling Rummy, "I know Saddam didn't have anything to do with it, but we've got to have that oil."

And the public at large would have to be calling for impeachment, as they did with Nixon and Watergate. It can't be just a Dem-revenge thing, much as that might be justified.

jelloshotsrule

Nov 9, 2006, 10:06 AM

I would say that they are delusional more than hopeful. But then my views and political affiliation seems to be in the minority on these boards. More people that fell for the Dems dog and pony show..

hopefully most people realize that the (D) win was not because they are worth a damn, but because the (R)s are so horribly pathetic (and some are just evil).

zimv20

Nov 9, 2006, 12:33 PM

Except Zim, he's just a cynic. ;)
what'd i do?!

:-)

beatsme

Nov 9, 2006, 01:07 PM

The best course of action for the Democrats at this point would be to figure out how to fix the Iraq situation, get us out and work with Bush to do it. If the Dems take revenge now and pay no attention to fixing Iraq, they will be out in 2008.

that's a tall order...

IMHO, there's no way it ends well, the only thing left is to end it quick. Declare victory and get out.

wondering if the turnover in Congress will actually help the White House re: Iraq. There's really no winning strategy there, and if the Democrats try to act too boldy they could easily take the blame for anything else that goes wrong, and you can believe that there are plenty of things to go wrong still.

it5five

Nov 9, 2006, 03:24 PM

Really?

I think they should go for the throat and expose the administration's lies.

Should kill the Republicans for another 8 years or so.

Apparently I'm the only one that agrees with you. Yeah, it'd be dangerous to do, but if they pulled it off it would seriously damage any hope of a Republican president in 2008. People wouldn't be able to call the Democrats spineless anymore, especially if they were to do something like this.

WildCowboy

Nov 9, 2006, 03:25 PM

Burns conceded this morning, and Allen is doing so right now...it's all over. :D

Thomas Veil

Nov 9, 2006, 03:37 PM

Par-ty! Par-ty! Par-ty!

Beers are on Karl Rove!

xsedrinam

Nov 9, 2006, 03:39 PM

Par-ty! Par-ty! Par-ty!

Beers are on Howard Dean!
I didn't know people could whoop it up that much in OhighO. :)

bousozoku

Nov 9, 2006, 03:57 PM

Really?

I think they should go for the throat and expose the administration's lies.

Should kill the Republicans for another 8 years or so.

Neither party needs to be comfortable. We need fewer career politicians and more of them working for the people. It doesn't matter which party affiliation, most of them are more interested in taking than working.

That said, exposing the administration's lies will be considered petty and a waste of time where they could actually be fixing things since the administration took office.

it5five

Nov 9, 2006, 04:24 PM

You can do both; fix the Republicans mess and expose their lies at the same time. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.

clevin

Nov 9, 2006, 04:39 PM

he looks so sad..... (from CNN)
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/POLITICS/11/09/va.senate/newt1.1540.allen.cnn.jpg

thedude110

Nov 9, 2006, 04:49 PM

Apparently I'm the only one that agrees with you. Yeah, it'd be dangerous to do, but if they pulled it off it would seriously damage any hope of a Republican president in 2008. People wouldn't be able to call the Democrats spineless anymore, especially if they were to do something like this.

Let's be even more simple.

A Democratic House and Senate does not bode well for the Democratic candidate in the 2008 presidential election.

Does anyone else share my concern that come January 2009 we could be back to Republican control of everything?

Don't misread me. This is wonderful in the short term. But if the left allows the right to chop its head off again (to intimate that the left is without leadership or a platform), Novermber 2008 could be awfully, awfully ugly.

Such that:

Good start, America. But don't stop voting now ...

wmmk

Nov 9, 2006, 05:54 PM

Let's be even more simple.

A Democratic House and Senate does not bode well for the Democratic candidate in the 2008 presidential election.

Does anyone else share my concern that come January 2009 we could be back to Republican control of everything?

I share your concern 100%. Hillary's canidacy is looking worse and worse every day. Bush will tack a bit towards the center, and the outrage at the Republican party will evaporate. We've already started seeing it with his acceptance of the resignation of Rumsfeld. These are good, yet/or bad times for the Democratic party.

Ugg

Nov 9, 2006, 06:03 PM

I share your concern 100%. Hillary's canidacy is looking worse and worse every day. Bush will tack a bit towards the center, and the outrage at the Republican party will evaporate. We've already started seeing it with his acceptance of the resignation of Rumsfeld. These are good, yet/or bad times for the Democratic party.

It's way too early to predict what will happen.

Iraq
Oil Prices
Medicare
Social Security
Health Insurance

All the above are issues that reflect poorly on the Republicans. If the Democrats are able to provide a unified voice and not get caught up in abortion rights and gay marriage issues, the have nothing to fear in 2008. It's a big if but....

Sun Baked

Nov 9, 2006, 06:15 PM

wmmk

Nov 9, 2006, 06:30 PM

Still doesn't make McCain or Guliani look any better to the Republican party.

true. i just can't see hillary doing very well in '08. someone a bit more flexible in policy would make a better cantidate. I mean, Hillary has her views, and there's no changing them. At the same time the Republicans jumped on Kerry for "flip-flopping," someone viewed as "far-left" as Hillary is (even though I'd consider her rather moderate) not going to have an easy time in the general election.

xsedrinam

Nov 9, 2006, 06:37 PM

Still doesn't make McCain or Guliani look any better to the Republican party.
McCain is considered the champion of the independent (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110802333.html), and it could well be that element which will figure heavily in '08. Hillary, though she won big in NY with 65+% has managed to alienate some of the more left claiming she was too slow and silent to oppose the Iraq scenario.

I don't know what could make McCain himself look any better, but if he could do something about those huge jowls, that'd be a good start. :)

zap2

Nov 9, 2006, 06:44 PM

Let's be even more simple.

A Democratic House and Senate does not bode well for the Democratic candidate in the 2008 presidential election.

Does anyone else share my concern that come January 2009 we could be back to Republican control of everything?

Don't misread me. This is wonderful in the short term. But if the left allows the right to chop its head off again (to intimate that the left is without leadership or a platform), Novermber 2008 could be awfully, awfully ugly.

Such that:

Good start, America. But don't stop voting now ...

Not if the Dems do it right...if the do what they said they plan to, then people I think will still come out and vote for them! But I'm worried about Iraq, little can happen with out Bush's ok, if he doesn't ok the best of the Dem's plans, the Dems might end up use a worse plan, which could make them look bad

thedude110

Nov 9, 2006, 08:49 PM

Not if the Dems do it right...if the do what they said they plan to

I'd imagine that America -- especially paranoid right wing America -- would look at a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate and a potentially Democratic president and, at best, split their vote.

The Dems chance at the presidency would be greater if they controlled one house.

Agathon

Nov 9, 2006, 09:19 PM

Dangerous. They can only do it if the oversight hearings they hold turn up some really damning stuff, like Bush literally telling Rummy, "I know Saddam didn't have anything to do with it, but we've got to have that oil."

And the public at large would have to be calling for impeachment, as they did with Nixon and Watergate. It can't be just a Dem-revenge thing, much as that might be justified.

They ought to do as much as they can.

May I remind you that the Republicans wasted 2 years of everyone's time and had Clinton impeached.

His crime? Essentially, ejaculating on an unattractive dress worn by an unattractive, but consenting, girl, and then not wanting to humliate himself by revealing his peccadilloes to the world.

The Democrats must go for the throat. Even if they don't get anything, they will at least expose the absolute incompetence of the Bush adminstration and keep it in the public mind.

Better to go on the offensive than to be thought spineless.

Agathon

Nov 9, 2006, 09:23 PM

true. i just can't see hillary doing very well in '08. someone a bit more flexible in policy would make a better cantidate. I mean, Hillary has her views, and there's no changing them. At the same time the Republicans jumped on Kerry for "flip-flopping," someone viewed as "far-left" as Hillary is (even though I'd consider her rather moderate) not going to have an easy time in the general election.

Hillary is unelectable. She has too much history. Most of it is false, but she has been smeared worse than Gore ever was, and look what happened to him.

Gore could actually run again, and would probably win. He's become a better candidate in the last four years. Hillary has not. She's spent too much time cozying up to the Republicans.

But if Obama chooses to run, he will probably win. No-one else seems to have his charisma. You've seen all those movies in which the US has a black president. Well, they all talk and act like Obama does, so he will be a natural fit.

vniow

Nov 9, 2006, 11:46 PM

Its official.

http://www.forbes.com/business/healthcare/feeds/ap/2006/11/09/ap3160540.html

Thomas Veil

Nov 9, 2006, 11:57 PM

I didn't know people could whoop it up that much in OhighO. :)Check back with me again after the Buckeyes whup someone's ass in the national championship game. :D

Thomas Veil

Nov 10, 2006, 12:07 AM

Its official.

http://www.forbes.com/business/healthcare/feeds/ap/2006/11/09/ap3160540.htmlUnreal. When those five or six states were still in play, who really expected the Democrats to run the table??

yg17

Nov 10, 2006, 01:30 AM

Unreal. When those five or six states were still in play, who really expected the Democrats to run the table??

I sure didn't. I knew we'd get the house no problem, but I thought we wouldn't get the senate as well. I knew we'd get PA and OH, and I thought we might get TN as well. We had a comfortable lead in MT most of the night so I figured that would go for us. But when we lost TN, I thought that was it, if we couldn't take TN, then MO and VA wouldn't be ours too. Throughout the night, TN was the closest race, with Talent and Allen having a pretty hefty lead so I didn't think we'd get them. So I never expected it. Being wrong never felt so good :D

it5five

Nov 10, 2006, 02:53 AM

McCain is considered the champion of the independent (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110802333.html), and it could well be that element which will figure heavily in '08. Hillary, though she won big in NY with 65+% has managed to alienate some of the more left claiming she was too slow and silent to oppose the Iraq scenario.

I don't know what could make McCain himself look any better, but if he could do something about those huge jowls, that'd be a good start. :)

I've said it before, but it's worth saying again. McCaine is almost (if not as much) as far-right as some neocons right now. The only difference between him and his buddies is that he served in a war. He'd been running very anti-gay and anti-immigration ads in favor of Kyl here pre-election; no different than any other Republican. There is absolutely nothing McCaine could say or do that would even make me consider voting for him for half a second.

Another thing I'm sick of is people assuming everyone registered as an independent is a moderate voter. I'm registered as an independent because Arizona lumped me into that catagory; on my registration forms I wrote down Socialist. Not all independents are moderate, and I'd wish people would recognize that sometimes.

solvs

Nov 10, 2006, 03:51 AM

what'd i do?!

You said something to the effect of "call me a cynic, but" and mentioned many of the Dems were actually fairly conservative. Didn't say you were wrong, I agree completely. May actually be a good thing if they go all fiscally conservative like Clinton. But more likely they'll go all neoconservative in the bad ways in an effort to appear bipartisan, and people will call them spineless anyway.

Cynical? Maybe. Accurate? Probably (more than likely). Am I hoping we're wrong again and just trying not to get our hopes up after last time? Yeppers.

Have I been listening to Rummie's speeches too much where he asks a bunch of questions of himself so no one else can? Absolutely.

zimv20

Nov 10, 2006, 04:02 AM

Cynical? Maybe.
definitely. i was just joking around, dontchaknow.

blackfox

Nov 10, 2006, 04:09 AM

Partially in response to the above posters who voiced concerns over how this might bode poorly for the Dems in '08 (Presidential), although the Dems have taken the Senate, they have a pretty slim majority and will most likely be unable to override any Presidential veto (for example).

What this situation says to me (potentially), is that I am not sure much will get accomplished, problems that are important to American voters will not get solved, and come Election time, this can be spun to the GOP's advantage, as people often have short memories.

Of course, this does not bode well for the President being able to accomplish much either (no, I was not trying to be ironic), which could bolster Dem prospects.

In any case, those worries aside, I am surprised and glad at the outcome - not because I am necessarily a huge fan of the Dems, but because the GOP deserved this fate - they really did make a mess of things - I know plenty of republicans who are as pissed at the GOP as many liberals out there...

solvs

Nov 10, 2006, 04:41 AM

definitely. i was just joking around, dontchaknow.

But you were right. Reds in blue clothing does not a blue make. As I said though, I'm hoping they're conservative in a good way. Like how "ultraliberal" Howard Dean balanced the budget when he was Gov. And managed to be pro-environment AND pro-business. Vs. some who might as well be Republicans with their views on the war, abortion, and gay rights.

I don't want to get my hopes up because there are so many ways they can screw it up and/or the GOP can take it back.

xsedrinam

Nov 10, 2006, 01:59 PM

But you were right. Reds in blue clothing does not a blue make. As I said though, I'm hoping they're conservative in a good way.....
Lieberman: "Call me a Democrat" (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/10/ct.senate.ap/index.html).

zimv20

Nov 10, 2006, 02:08 PM

Lieberman: "Call me a Democrat" (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/10/ct.senate.ap/index.html).
Lieberman is in line to become chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

In a post-election news conference, Lieberman said he was reassured by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid that he would retain his seniority when the new Senate convenes.
looks like the GOP offer wasn't good enough.

Ugg

Nov 10, 2006, 03:03 PM

Partially in response to the above posters who voiced concerns over how this might bode poorly for the Dems in '08 (Presidential), although the Dems have taken the Senate, they have a pretty slim majority and will most likely be unable to override any Presidential veto (for example).

Call me a dewy-eyed liberal, but I have a great deal of faith in Pelosi's and Reid's ability to get things done. Neither of them is naive and they realize all too well that their grasp on Congress is marginal.

IF, they stick to issues like the minimum wage, guest worker program, shoring up Social Security etc. and if, ok, that's a big one, Iraq can be settled reasonably, they shouldn't have any problems in 2008.

Mehlman is out, Rove's tactics failed and Republican cynicism is at an all time high. Even the evangelicals are losing their shrillness. We've had six years of an unrelenting attack on social issues. If Pelosi and Reid can steer the herd away from obsessing over cases like Schiavo then there's hope.

zimv20

Nov 10, 2006, 03:08 PM

IF, they stick to issues like the minimum wage, guest worker program, shoring up Social Security etc.
and i think therein lies the key -- passing legislation which is simple, helps the majority of americans, and would make bush look pretty bad by vetoing.

first bill: raise the minimum wage, cut taxes to small business. that's it -- no stupid, unrelated amendments. if bush vetoes it, what should voters assume about bush's priorities? if members of congress vote against it, what should their constituents assume?

i think this is a winning strategy.

Ugg

Nov 10, 2006, 03:51 PM

and i think therein lies the key -- passing legislation which is simple, helps the majority of americans, and would make bush look pretty bad by vetoing.

first bill: raise the minimum wage, cut taxes to small business. that's it -- no stupid, unrelated amendments. if bush vetoes it, what should voters assume about bush's priorities? if members of congress vote against it, what should their constituents assume?

i think this is a winning strategy.

Let's hope they follow it. Abortion rights, gay marriage, etc, are all important issues, but they affect a small segment of the society and are ultimately divisive. Nobody ever wins by pursuing them. They do need to be dealt with, but not until there's a Democratic Prez to go along with a Democrat controlled Congress.

I'm sick and tired of the hypocritcal republicans who've allowed such minor issues to take over. I pray the Dems can restrain themselves and pursue real law making instead of appeasing their extremist constituents and big business.

Dont Hurt Me

Nov 10, 2006, 05:07 PM

I must say Bush hasnt much to look back on, one of the most pathetic records ever for a president. At least with the Democrats running Congress maybe he will be able to point to a couple of things he did for the PEOPLE! and not the dirty corporations. Republicans still dont get it if you ask me. Your elected to represent the people,all of us. Instead we have had a party who has worshiped the dollar bill and foreign and domestic corporations and forgot us. Still amazes me so many still dont get it.

solvs

Nov 10, 2006, 08:06 PM

looks like the GOP offer wasn't good enough.

I'm sure it would have been had they won. ;)

FFTT

Nov 11, 2006, 03:32 AM

Sayhey

Nov 11, 2006, 04:12 AM

Congress needs to work on a new method of passing legislation.

Under the current system we have to take the bad with any good.

If they want a truly meaningful change, then going to a plan
of One Issue, One Vote, One Answer would give them a means to pass
laws without forcing undesirable legislation through the process.

No more earmarks, No more pork, just a yes or no vote.

Of interest is the proposed "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=250503&)." I particularly like this part,

The Frist & Hastert Reform: Prohibit “Dead of Night” Special Interest Provisions. Require that all conference committee meetings be open to the public and that members of the conference committee have a public opportunity to vote on all amendments. Make copies of conference reports available to Members, and post them publicly on the Internet, 24 hours before consideration (unless waived by a supermajority vote).

If they can push it through it will be a good start. The first hundred hours (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600056.html) should be interesting.

leekohler

Nov 11, 2006, 04:15 AM

and i think therein lies the key -- passing legislation which is simple, helps the majority of americans, and would make bush look pretty bad by vetoing.

first bill: raise the minimum wage, cut taxes to small business. that's it -- no stupid, unrelated amendments. if bush vetoes it, what should voters assume about bush's priorities? if members of congress vote against it, what should their constituents assume?

i think this is a winning strategy.

Agreed. BTW- if anyone remembers, gay marriage wasn't even an issue until certain sodomy laws got struck down. I distinctly remember thinking- oh s*** when that happened. Immediately after is when we started hearing about gay marriage and how bad it would be. It was an issue for the right from the beginning.