From their press release:
The Republican Union Pac launched a series of grassroots campaigns aimed at convincing conservative Democrat, Catholic voters to vote Republican in the November elections this fall. Republican Union Pac’s million dollar expenditure is tailored to appeal to disenfranchised Democrats in economically-challenged, heavily Catholic neighborhoods within mid-sized to large cities in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Dozens of billboards have been erected in these areas by Republican Union Pac with the message “Obama Supports Gay Marriage & Abortion. Do You? Vote Republican.”
James J. Brazil, one of Republican Union Pac's founders who is himself a Catholic Democrat said, "Catholic Democrats crossed over to support Ronald Reagan in 1980 against Jimmy Carter and Republican Union will be successful in making a similar case for Catholics to vote Republican this November.”
...Republican Union Pac Spokesman Bo Harmon said, "Republican Union intends to follow up this initial outreach with a targeted boots on the ground effort going person to person, neighborhood to neighborhood. This personal outreach to voters who have been abandoned by the out of touch policies of the current Democratic leadership will be what determines our success."
22 Comments
Obama is the best campaigning strategy the Republicans ever could have hoped for.
It's really incredible how far apart the parties' platforms are and how they are doubling down on their perspectives on marriage.
Really like the simple message of this billboard. It's a smart use of funds.
I could easily see this message expanding into radio and TV spots, in addition to similar simple messages such as:
"Obama stole 716 billion dollars from Medicare."
Etc.
“Gay marriage” and “abortion” are two separate topics. One might vote for the one and not for the other. Its an emotionally confusing billboard.
(Well intentioned, but only harmonious to the choir.)
The choir, in this case, is a large one, and many of them are nominal Catholics, and nominal Democrats.
This is an excellent reason why both issues were included, and should have been.
It seems Obama intends to run an hysterically savage pro-abortion campaign.
Good.
He'll lose.
Even the most darkened consciences among us cannot be fully quiescent in the face of a celebration of the greatest mass slaughter of innocent human beings in the history of the world.
They may try and sell it, but the vast majority of human beings are not that dead yet.
So is it an "act of god" if a hurricane bears down on the Republican National Convention after Romney and his party declare their opposition to same-sex marriage? They've already canceled the first day of the convention, so they don't seem to have much confidence that there will be any kind of divine intervention...
I would expect that the political hurricane awaiting Obama in pro-marriage North Carolina is probably going to end up instilling more of the fear of God into the hearts of the Democrats who have decided to run on abortion and gay marriage.
May God be pleased to deliver us.
Actually, on second thought, anything that shaves a day off the interminable speechifying is probably attributable to an act of mercy.
Accepted. One thing I'm not, is politically savvy.
Rick DeLano wrote,
> He'll lose.
>
> Even the most darkened consciences among us cannot be fully quiescent in the face of a celebration of the greatest mass slaughter of innocent human beings in the history of the world.<
When we're quite convinced of the correctness of our views -- and our reasoning is quite clear in our minds -- it may be natural to assume that most people should also see what seems so obvious to us, but we may just be forgetting something.
A lot of people don't see thing our way. Many are pro-choice or in favor of redefining marriage. The Internet makes it possible for both sides to follow writings and video of just their viewpoint.
Homosexuals special rights advocates are actually convinced that we're hate-mongering bigots. They learned a reasoning that's convincing to them.
It's hard to ignore that 90-some-odd percent of everything being published about SSM is biased in favor of redefining marriage.
The best way to lose an athletic contest is to underestimate one's opponent.
The marriage re-definition movement has more money than us. Homosexual journalists are leading a revolution.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/10/us/gay-journalists-leading-a-revolution.html?pagewanted=all
Polls suggest that there may be a trend in their favor.
Even by adjusting the polls percentages by around seven percent, to compensate for the fact that they always underestimate support for marriage, the votes in all four states are likely to be close.
Homosexual special rights lobbyists have been bribing politicians to pass laws for them that provide for forcing schools to indoctrinate children to see homosexuals in a positive light. Politicians are chasing that mighty 'pink dollar,' figuring they can use the money to get more votes than they lose for selling out constituents.
Who is in the schools teaching about the uniquely special unions of men and women?
A lot of people have been convinced that supporting same-sex "marriage" is the enlightened view, convinced by spin and soundbites that homosexual journalists repeat for them constantly.
How often have you heard the marriage protection act in Minnesota referred to as a "ban"? When's the last time you read about a poll, and the report also included something that's very significant -- that these homosexual journalists know all too well -- that these polls underestimate support for marriage by a lot?
We're *not winning*, even though we stand a strong chance of prevailing at SCOTUS.
The governments of Scotland and France have announced that they're simply going to redefine marriage using political brute force, just like they did in Albany.
How will we successfully restore the true meaning of marriage in the six states and DC, when legal precedent states that you can't take away a right from a people after 'you' have given it to them?
In California, this 'giving' was obviously the result of a struggle between the people and 'their' government -- and a divided state Supreme Court that refused to stay its ruling, even though Proposition 8 was already on the ballot.
The same could be said for all six states and DC -- but will SCOTUS even take that into account?
Also, what stops this juggernaut homosexuals have created with their perpetual stream of donations to homosexual special rights lobbyists? Like the Terminator, " it can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever."
We have NOM. Maybe donations to NOM will continue for a good long time.
That will have to happen, because -- even if we win at SCOTUS -- the homosexual lobby won't stop.
I'm surprised the moderator let that comment of mine through. I've had several other comments that were more on-topic (including some that directly addressed challenges or questions in other posts) blocked.
"The key point is that in America we disagree, we debate, we don't try and silence folks that we disagree with." --Brian Brown, who apparently didn't send that memo to his organization's blog moderator.
You are always welcome to advance any substantive arguments you care to make on my blog, John B.
I would be interested in your response to this entry:
http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-civil-unions-destroyed-marriage-in.html
Killing the unborn, and then denying their birthright to both a mother and father, is not a good platform for the Democratic party. Most likely a losing one this fall.
@M. Jones
There's a difference between being pro-choice and being "pro-abortion" as pro-life people like to say. Nobody loves killing fetuses, most people who have abortions are not proud of them, but it comes down to respecting the mother's sovereignty over her own body and the life form growing within it.
I could just as easily say something like:
Forcing women to give birth to the babies of their rapists and denying a woman control over her own body, forcing her to put herself at risk (or die) to give birth to the unborn child living within her, is not a good platform the the Republican party. Most likely a losing ont his fall.
But that's obviously focusing only on the negative consequences of anti-abortion laws, just like your post focuses on the negative consequences of the pro-choice position.
I think 99.9% of people are "pro-life", in the sense that they respect human life. If we really want to limit the number of abortions, we should be promoting birth control and real sex education, two things that are not part of the Republican platform.
Jon, you're arguing in favor of abortion. That makes you pro-abortion. These people like to say that they're not anti-gay, just pro-marriage. They are liars; equality supporters are objectively more pro-marriage than they are.
You sound just like them; I am objectively more pro-choice than you are. I believe, first of all, that every person should have choices. That's more pro-choice than you, and it requires the banning of abortion.
Besides which, you actually admit in that same sentence that you want to give some people sovereignty over *somebody else's* body. So I'd say your argument defeats itself quite handily.
Much like anti-gay people.
Really, the pro-life position makes *so* much more sense as a Democratic one. Pro-abortion contradicts everything liberals supposedly stand for, and pro-life contradicts the position of the party who cheers for death.
The sides of the abortion debate never make sense; perhaps that's why actual arguments are so rare (not fights, I mean logical statements in support of your position; the abortion debate is mostly just yelling)? They're not used to using the logic and tactics of the other "team".
Ah, finally.
Pat, you are half way there.
Your criticism of Jon J is spot on.
Your determination to speak plainly is welcomed.
The grave error in your argument consists in this proposition, right here:
"They are liars; equality supporters are objectively more pro-marriage than they are."
Here you adopt the very tactic for which you criticize Jon- that is, you claim to be arguing for marriage, when in fact you argue for the end of marriage, and its redefinition as a form of Federal Relationship Benefits.
So you are halfway there.
Your clarity on abortion- the great and defining moral evil by of our time, the greatest mass slaughter of innocent human beings in the history, the black evil for which future generations will rightly shake their heads in disbelief at us- is welcome.
@ Preserve Marriage #10:
Great post.
"A lot of people don't see thing our way. Many are pro-choice or in favor of redefining marriage. The Internet makes it possible for both sides to follow writings and video of just their viewpoint."
>> Exactly. Which is why support for abortion is shrinking, and may have reached a tipping point which will defeat the Democrats this fall.
The *vast* majority of human beings understand that abortion is sickening, evil, and wrong.
These same people are sympathetic to victims in the special cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother.
The solution is to point out in the internet debates that a vanishingly small percentage of abortions involve any real threat to the life of the mother- in fact no abortions do, since any procedure which is designed not to kill the child, but to save the mother, and which, unavoidably, results in the loss of the child, is not an abortion in the first place.
The pro-life movement has done an exemplary job of winning the war for the hearts and minds of what used to be a solid pro-abortion consensus in the US.
No we must go and do likewise.
@ PM #10 cont:
"Homosexuals special rights advocates are actually convinced that we're hate-mongering bigots. They learned a reasoning that's convincing to them."
>> But the reasoning is easily shown to be fallacious, and time and debate inevitably work against illogical and demonstrably false opinions.
At least we had better hope so, because democratic self-governance itself depends upon this proposition being correct.
I admit it might be false, but in that case democracy is doomed, Plato was right, and great will be the fall of this civilization.
But the issue is still in doubt, and so we must fight.
"It's hard to ignore that 90-some-odd percent of everything being published about SSM is biased in favor of redefining marriage."
>> I think this has already turned into a liability for the pseudo-marriage side. The hysterical propaganda has lost its effect, Chik-Fil-A day has shown the emperor has no clothes.
"The best way to lose an athletic contest is to underestimate one's opponent."
>> The second best way is to fear Goliath because he is so large and terrifying.
"The marriage re-definition movement has more money than us."
>> No they don't. They just care more passionately than we do. This is indeed a grievous shortcoming, but there are many more of us than them, we have much more money than they do, and it is just a matter of improving our polemic and fundraising outreach.
If we have a real Achilles' heel, it is that we have attempted to accommodate the rights of homosexuals, whilst preserving marriage, instead of resorting to outright vilification and hatemongering.
Our opposition has benefited from this tactic, but it carries the seeds of its own destruction.
As we saw at FRC the other week.
@PM #10 cont:
"Homosexual journalists are leading a revolution.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/10/us/gay-journalists-leading-a-revolution.html?pagewanted=all
Polls suggest that there may be a trend in their favor."
>> Elections suggest they continue to lose, and they cannot even win blue states. The organized infiltration of mass media is a done deal for the gender left, but it is a hollow victory- they have taken a fortress already falling into ruin, no one believes the lies of the establishment media any more- or at least that shrinking percentage of us that do are already committed pseudo-marriage voters, and we can ignore them.
It is the great middle that we seek, and they are more and more aware of the hysterical disconnect between Big Media and objective journalism.
This works in our favor.
"Even by adjusting the polls percentages by around seven percent, to compensate for the fact that they always underestimate support for marriage, the votes in all four states are likely to be close."
>> MN will be a cakewalk. The others will be tough fights which we will win, because the *vast majority* of human beings instinctively understand that marriage is a gender-uniting proposition. They simply need to be shown the awful consequences to their children should the gender left succeed in rewriting the marriage laws so as to gain access to the impressionable minds of children, for indoctrination in the homosexualist anti-values of the radical gender left.
As soon as the discussion turns to children, we win.
Every time.
"Homosexual special rights lobbyists have been bribing politicians to pass laws for them that provide for forcing schools to indoctrinate children to see homosexuals in a positive light. Politicians are chasing that mighty 'pink dollar,' figuring they can use the money to get more votes than they lose for selling out constituents."
>> All you say is true. The remedy is at the ballot box. If we retain the moral fitness of a free people, then these turncoats and bribetakers will be turned out of office.
If not, then we have lost the moral fitness to survive as a free people, and we will leave a terrible but useful example to posterity.
"Who is in the schools teaching about the uniquely special unions of men and women?"
>> Very few, but that again assumes that people are prepared to allow an academic researcher to determine for them whether a child is better off with its own Mom and Dad.
People just aren;t sophisticated enough to be hornswoggled in the way these poor victims of quackademia have been.
"A lot of people have been convinced that supporting same-sex "marriage" is the enlightened view, convinced by spin and soundbites that homosexual journalists repeat for them constantly."
>> They are about 35-40% of the population, and they are losing.
"How often have you heard the marriage protection act in Minnesota referred to as a "ban"? When's the last time you read about a poll, and the report also included something that's very significant -- that these homosexual journalists know all too well -- that these polls underestimate support for marriage by a lot?
We're *not winning*, even though we stand a strong chance of prevailing at SCOTUS."
>> We are certainly winning- in fact we have never lost at the polls- and we will prevail at SCOTUS.
Or else we will have disclosed for posterity the flaw in our Constitutional form of self-government, and it will be exactly the flaw Kurt Godel suggested to Albert Einstein: the possibility of a tyrant judiciary arising unchecked.
Last @ PM #10
"The governments of Scotland and France have announced that they're simply going to redefine marriage using political brute force, just like they did in Albany."
>> Pray for the people of Scotland and France, who have a duty to either stand up as free people, or admit that they are slaves.
Just as we do.
"How will we successfully restore the true meaning of marriage in the six states and DC, when legal precedent states that you can't take away a right from a people after 'you' have given it to them?"
>> Overturn any such alleged "precedent", and hold the line on any new incursions of pseudo-marriage. This switches the terms of the struggle- the pseudo-marriage movement on defense, fighting to hold a small and triaged little island, is a very attractive long term strategic position for us.
"In California, this 'giving' was obviously the result of a struggle between the people and 'their' government -- and a divided state Supreme Court that refused to stay its ruling, even though Proposition 8 was already on the ballot.
The same could be said for all six states and DC -- but will SCOTUS even take that into account?"
>> OH I believe you are going to be quite surprised at the vehemence with which SCOTUS slaps down the judicial conspiracy to subvert the people's right to determine the qualifications for marriage.
I think Ginzburg will vote to uphold Prop 8- she as much as said so in her Obamacare opinion.
Things are not nearly so bleak as the media echo chamber would like us to think.
"Also, what stops this juggernaut homosexuals have created with their perpetual stream of donations to homosexual special rights lobbyists? Like the Terminator, " it can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever."
>> It must be rolled politically, over and over again, until such time as its leadership is discredited and replaced with more reasonable folk, at which time a decent accommodation to the legitimate humanity of the homosexuals can be made.
"We have NOM. Maybe donations to NOM will continue for a good long time.
That will have to happen, because -- even if we win at SCOTUS -- the homosexual lobby won't stop."
>> Neither will we, and there are more of us, and we are able to demonstrate the objective illogic of the opposition's arguments.
Much more importantly than all of this, we have the children.
Even parents mushminded enough to swallow the lies of the pseudo-marriage worldview instinctively shrink from the idea of their innocent children being indoctrinated in it.
That's why we win every time.
Frank Schubert gets it.
@Pat #15:
I am very sorry to see that my response to your very interesting post has been Memoryholed.
@ PM #10:
Two other responses to yours are also Memoryholed.
Ah, Memoryholed no more.
My thanks to the moderator.