I continue to be baffled by the Palin choice. Seriously, I cannot figure it out at all. She’s a disaster. I’m sure it solidified a certain part of the Republican base, but would those people have voted Democrat anyway? I doubt it. So WHY WHY WHY? I’ve said this before, but I was on the fence about whom to vote for until the Palin choice. Just reckless.
Oh, the article is about how Palin wants a federal amendment banning gay marriage. McCain wants to leave the issue up to states.
It’s not so much if the religious right would vote Democrat (they wouldn’t), but that they would vote at all. And go door-to-door to scounge up voters and all that. They really wanted Huckabee and weren’t too happy about McCain’s moderate views on many issues. And, as the article notes, in a campaign where there more Joe Six Pack and the less Beltway Politician you can be the better, she fit the bill to a tee.
The only thing they got wrong was the negative effect of Palins disastrous lack of grasp of basic foreign policy issues, whether percieved or true. It scared away the people that McCain was supposed to draw to the Republican ticket. Much as if Obama had chosen, say, Michael Moore to shore up the left-wing activists but scared away moderate Democrats and independents in the process.
“I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that’s where we would go. I don’t support gay marriage,” Palin said. She said she believed traditional marriage is the foundation for strong families.
So by not allowing gay marriages we will strengthen the family… how? By convincing gay people to get married? By forcing gay people to live together without marriage? I really don’t get it.
Personally, I think the government should get out of the business of marriages altogether. Let churches perform them but have no laws giving benefits for marriage or regulating who can be married by whom.