Mike is right about some things though. If you look at history Thomas Jefferson hired a journalist “hitman” to follow Alexander Hamilton and attack the federalist cause. They started a paper that labeled him as a “monocrat” and accused him of corrupting George Washington so that he [Hamilton] could eventually become king. Much like the people throwing the socialist label at the president. This was really ironic considering the times.

In those early years campaigning was an odious thing. You weren’t supposed to “prostitute your views” as they said. Solicitation and ambition were looked down upon back then. Showing you wanted office deemed you unfit for office. If you promised favors it was said that would prevent you from judging the common good. You would be supporting local or parochial interests. Its funny how different things were 220 years ago. Now politics is more of a beauty contest.

I don’t see why Crist can combat both the far-right and the Dems. He should just point out what he’s going to do differently and sell the people on why the opposition is wrong. Trying to lie and hide what he is wouldn’t be right either. Focus on the right because that’s where most of your votes come from and if you have extra time, focus on the interests of moderate Democrats. Crist will be excellent on key issues that Republicans want, he needs to divert the far-rights attention away from issues that they differ on.

It seems like you don’t really like the notion of defending one’s positions or having to control the conversation if you’re in politics. This isn’t a college poly sci class. This is real-world stuff.

And I don’t think that they bused in their voters from the conservative South.

The challenge is that ‘marriage’ is an emotionally charged word. For all of recorded history ‘marriage’ has been between a man and woman.

Another challenge is that the push to legalize gay marriage is moving faster than the rate of growth among mindsets. It is probably reasonable to assume that anything new can take 1-2 generations (30-50 years) before it becomes ‘normal’. Immense strides have occurred and mostly only in the last 10 years.

Want to move this issue forward? Stop emphasizing it as a major issue. If it is a major issue to you then it is a major issue for your opponents, too.

Want to move this issue forward? Support more libertarians who focus on government not having a relevant role in the personal affairs of individuals. Marriage is not a constitutional issue, other than fair and equal application of the law. Furthermore, marriage is a state power.

The value of supporting more libertarians is that they will enthusiastically support individual rights in general.

If you want to attract libertarian support then you need to deemphasize the need to make gay marriage a legal right, and focus instead on government not having a role other than recognizing unions. Many Americans that oppose ‘marriage’ have no problem with civil unions.

If people stop sub-labeling themselves, isn’t it a lot harder to target them for primary and general election challenges? A sub-label is a generalization and it leads to stereotyping. The best way to avoid it is to refuse to be labeled as an individual.

In places where economic centrists and social liberals will get a republican win, let them run without having the conservative base far away in some southern region come on in and wreak havoc on them trying to purify the party, as happened in NY 23. People including Hoffman, Palin and others who weren’t even from there crashing the GOP just to satisfy their litmus tests.

It would be great if we could drop the hyphenated labels but understand this, as long as these foolish attempts at purges of centrists from the party by the conservatives keep happening, or the idea that we’re just going to be good soldiers and adhere to conservative ideology, we’ll keep fighting back and the party will continue to be in turmoil. The ball’s not in our court, it’s in the conservative court.

I can see no credible precedent for it.

I believe that “gay” is something people are born with, isn’t it?

If a small percentage of people are born this way, and always have and always will, then isn’t it like a handicap or something? Adults under 4′ or over 7′? By what authority does the state have to keep people who are different from marrying? They aren’t contagious or mentally challenged. Why would anyone want to deny them the same rights as everyone else? (I have several answers for that question)

I think we need to consider the fraud abuse potential. Are college room-mates going to say they’re married to get additional benefits? Do we need to rewrite every law, policy, or rule that provides incentives for marriage? Is that wise? I think marriage is important for children. Hmmmm.

OK, that’s all I’ve got. Oh yeah, what about the constitution? Aren’t they protected from this? why not?