NomDebPlume's 2½ Cents

Because I have an opinion about everything…

Nice Guys Finish Last

2-runners1

It has been reported that John McCain considered certain aspects of Obama’s life and behavior to be “off-limits” during the campaign, even though they would make Obama look bad – and, conversely, make McCain look good.  Everyone has heard that McCain had passed a “No Jeremiah Wright” edict, considering this absurd long-term association of Obama and his family with this hate-preaching ‘pastor’ something he didn’t want to help illuminate for the American people.  I’m guessing it was because it had to do with church, but… Come on!

In addition, some of the other firm boundaries set by Mr. McCain were:

  • No Michelle Obama attacks
  • No attacking Obama for his lack of service in the Military
  • No using children to depict Obama being soft on crime
  • And absolutely no ad of a black man busting a move with a lesbian!

 ellen-and-bama-bust-a-move-smaller2

    The idea is that this last one would be too provocative, but it’s more likely that it would have led to liberals belly-aching and whining about how McCain and conservatives are intolerant racists and bigots (see “The View” for an example of said belly-aching and whining).  So, perhaps it was a shrewd mood in such a malicious and hyper-critical environment.

Obviously, I agree with leaving Mrs. Obama alone, just as the Obama campaign should have left Mrs. McCain alone. But we are talking about two totally different standards here; which man was it who put out an ad that accused the other of being so old and out of touch that he can’t even use the internet? But in reality, it is a war injury that keeps Senator McCain from using his arms comfortably enough to utilize the internet regularly. Yes, two different standards, indeed… or perhaps it’s a lack of standards at times.

By the way, what do you suppose Ellen thinks of the vocal and violent opponents of Prop 8 who are defacing churches, harassing church-goers, hurting dissenting grandmothers, stomping on crosses, intimidating those who voted against them by threatening their jobs (or eliminating them) and wreaking havoc as they take to the streets in an effort to get California’s Supreme Court to reverse this entirely fair VOTE of the people (that they agreed to abide by beforehand)? 
phyllis-burgess1

Woman in yellow is grandmother being harrassed - after having her cross trampled.

We know she donated money in an effort to defeat the proposition, has she – or any of the other highly visible/celebrity opponents – denounced this horrendous behavior or the religious persecution taking place in our very own country? 
All I’ve seen is the likes of Drew Barrymore fighting back a flood of tears as she yelled her support into a bullhorn for a battle that is not hers. 

barrymore-prop-81

Actors just love being the center of attention…

But I digress…  Or perhaps not.  Why must “nice guys finish last”?  And will they again in this whole Prop 8 debacle?  Will the tantrums of a raucous, disorderly and disobedient ultra-minority force activist judges to undo the will of the people as demonstrated by an election?
 
Is this how we want to herald the history of Mr. Obama’s arrival?
 
obama-senate-swearing2
Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

2 thoughts on “Nice Guys Finish Last

  1. So here’s my question about Prop 8.

    I understand that the majority of Californians voted for the measure, and I heartily disagree with all of the broohaha being carried on over the results. I mean, there’s protest, which is one thing, and then there’s just shameful crap, which is quite another.

    It is my understanding that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment reads that “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This, as Wikipedia points out, provides a mean through which the federal judiciary can force states to obey the doctrine that “all men are created equal.”

    By voting to redefine marriage as being solely between a man and a woman, does it not seem to you that, with respect to the case of marriage law, the people of California effectively just knocked a whole group of citizens–namely, gays–out of the guarantees of Equal Protection? For this reason, I have never understood the constitutionality of some state-sanctioned definition of marriage. I’m all for the democratic process here, to be sure; but the whole purpose of the EPC is to prevent this kind of discriminatory utilitarianism, if you will. Otherwise, there is no legal reason why the people of Calfornia could not hypothetically also vote to declare that marriage is only between a white man and a white woman, or, for that matter, that murder is only when a black person kills a white person. The examples sound extreme and are definitely highly unlikely, but this clearly sets a legal precedent for them.

    That is why I respect the decision of California voters (as disappointed as I am by it), but I do so seriously doubting the constitutionality of the matter ever coming into referendum in the first place. And that is why I hope that Prop 8 will be overturned by “liberal activist” judges, because it amounts to a revision of the state’s constitution rather than an amendment, not least because it fairly wads up and tosses into the wastebasket the terms and provisions of Equal Protection under U.S. law. That’s my take on it, anyway.

    It’s really good to see that you’re still writing, Debbie. I’ve been away for a while. Happy Holidays,

    Curt

  2. Hey, Stranger…

    Your views on the Equal Protection Clause are not foreign to me, just radically opposed to what I believe. According to your argument, we could soon have men or women and chickens calling themselves married, or any such combination deemed appropriate by a declining, secular society. And your example of marriage only between a white man and white woman is drawn from our ignorant past and not based on the progressive future that liberals normally cite.

    As far as the question you posed regarding the recent Prop 8 vote and whether it has eliminated equal protection for a whole group of citizens (‘gays’) by denying them inclusion in the classification of marriage, my answer would be a resounding “No”. Those who are gay deserve rights, to be sure, and deserve to be treated with respect (though I reserve my comments about the bullies who stomp on crosses and man-handle old ladies), but they DO NOT have the right to cross over into another, separate – entirely different – category. Call it ‘gay union’ or something similar, but it is not marriage. Marriage already has a definition; it is between ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. Period. Equal protection does not apply, as there is no equality present.

    What if a child decided they wanted to be categorized as an adult and wanted equal protection as such, with all the rights availed to the adult population? The child, whether 7-years-old or 12-years-old wants the right to: drive, to hold a job, to marry, to drink, to carry a firearm, to have and raise children, etc.

    Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

    I’ve been away for a long time, too, Curt. Glad to be back and am thrilled to hear from you! Hope you’re busy writing again… I’ll have to stop by and visit soon,

    Merry Christmas!

    Debi

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: