...Mike Dennehy, the New Hampshire lobbyist for the National Organization for Marriage, delivered an anti-same-sex-marriage treatise to Republican State Chairman Wayne MacDonald last week.
Dennehy is a senior GOP strategist who helped build John McCain’s New Hampshire presidential primary victories in 2000 and 2008.
“The 2012 elections provide plenty of opportunities but many pitfalls, as well,’’ Dennehy said in a memo obtained by The Sunday Telegraph.
“In the 20 years I’ve been running campaigns at every level, I can tell you that this year, more than any other, will hinge on the party who best motivates their base and gets them to the polls on Election Day.
“We have one issue this year that will motivate social and cultural conservatives to go to the polls for Republican candidates – traditional marriage.’’
Kellyanne Conway, of The Polling Co., did a survey late last fall that found 71 percent of Republicans oppose same-sex marriage laws.
8 Comments
So legislators, including Democrats, should listen to the anti-gay GOP base instead of the majority of NH's citizens who support marriage equality? Nice try.
Don't trust the polls, Bobby. No matter how much you want to believe them. There would be no way the Republicans would hold such a HUGE majority in both houses in NH if that were the case. And there certainly wouldn't be a vote to repeal marriage corruption scheduled at all if the majority of their constituents were half in love with SS"M" as you are.
Bobby,on this issue,only the "anti-gay" (of whatever party) know what they're talking about or should be listened to.
So if poster #1 is so sure that the people of NH support his position then why is he opposed to a vote? It would make perfect sense to have the voters vote in SSM and then he would have a mandate from the voters.
As usual more of their lies. Claim that they have the support of the people but we cannot allow a vote on this.
@John Noe
Because somehow....we don't let "rights" come to a vote. But that makes absolutely no sense since the people we elect would be voting on these issues regardless. So isn't that putting them up to a vote? Or is that just making sure society doesn't have a say in social policy? It's confusing how the left wants it both ways. They say we're a democracy but only when it pertains to their agenda and when they know the odds are against them they'll do whatever it takes to stop a vote. Example? Look at Iowa or better yet, look at what's going on in D.C. 27 jobs bills have been shelved because Harry Reid simply refuses to do his job. The people said they want less spending and they want Obamacare repealed but those seem to fall on deaf ears in the DNC.
Also, I don't like the idea of Government manufactured rights. Something that Government can grant as a right can easily be taken away.
John: Even if the majority of NH citizens and lawmakers supported the right of African Americans to vote, it would be wrong to bring repeal of that right up for a vote.
Bobby,even if everyone supported SSM,its abolition would still be essential.
Wait... is he saying that y'all can't be motivated by issues that actually have an impact on your own lives, but can ONLY be motivated by your desire to harm others?
Shouldn't you, like, be incredibly offended? That's a pretty NASTY insult, there.