On this morning of bright and shiny political glory, it would be presumptuous of us to remind our assorted Bolshie fans of the reason we won both Sutton and Long last night.
So, we won't.
Much.
Suffice it to say, as primary-colored roundels strafe Red wounded for target practice, that this may have had something to do with it:
and perhaps this:
This is not Fire Island or the mud massage room at The Bell Tower. When you run campaigns that only try to impress denizens of both, you get it right up the ... well... ahem..... Of course, some people...
My advice? Continue to use the same teams you used this time around. It will make us happy enough to fly more victory rolls, and you able to whine about the evil GOP attack machine.
We get power, you get melodrama. Sounds like a fair trade to me.
13 comments:
John,
Mean-spirited nonsense like this make me ashamed to be a Republican. To suggest that Charles Corbit was somehow not qualified to be prothonotary--prothonotary for God’s sake!!--because he has a GLBT family member is disgusting at multiple levels and shame on anybody who thinks otherwise. Furthermore, who in their right mind politicizes a row office? For these offices a person's qualifications and background are more important than their political philosophy and the fact of the matter is that Mary Ann Sutton has been a disaster, sort of like Ellie Antoine and Nick Bybel were. Shame!!
Then leave. We will hardly notice you're gone.
I hope one of your kids grows up to be gay just so you know what it is like.
And by the way, you should be ashamed at delving into the personal life of Mr. Corbit and exposing for all of the world that Mr. Corbit has a transgendered relative named Brenna aka James Corbit. None of my blog pieces had the lack of taste to bring it up. Thank you so much for outing him/her/it. Shame on you, sir. You make truly moderate men like me in the GOP faint with the vapors.
Oh, I am so sorry that one of your kids is gay. How does it feel?
Corbit's brother was 'outed' in an email by somebody in the Sutton campaign and note that I didn't post any specifics like you did. As for my gay son, he's a successful attorney, unlike a certain Berks Republican I could mention who got fired from the public defenders office and who runs for row office after row office in the hopes that he can actually win and get a cushy government job. After forty years, I will take your advice and leave the GOP. The next time I go to the post office I’m going to pick up a registration form and switch to independent.
To answer your second question, my son being gay in and of itself isn't a problem for me; listening to fellow Republicans like you and so many others made nasty comments about gays doesn't feel so good.
Dear Earl,
Thanks so much for taking my advice per leaving the party. Granted, we will lose a bit of the whiny, bitter, illogical vote when you leave, not to mention a part of the chromosome problem voting block, but somehow I think we'll muddle through.
As for your son, no doubt he's a fine fellow and good lawyer. That his father doesn't follow his personal example is a tragedy for you both.
Cheers!
EARL - Isn't it funny that your Candidate Charles Corbit received LESS VOTES than DR. BYBEL, who you say was a "disaster?" Does that mean you are calling the Corbit Campaign a disaster as well, since it received less votes than the Bybel Campaign? The fact of the matter is that political philosophy DOES MATTER, Earl, and Berks County voters decided by a 12 point margin on Tuesday that they did not want a Progressive Far Left Looney like Corbit in office. Sutton - 56%, Corbit 44%. It was a landslide. Period.
Apparently you forgot how horrible Bybel was when he was the coroner. John, apparently, didn't think he did a good job because he ran against him in the primary and gave him a whipping...63-37 as I recall. I actually voted for John that time out. John also seemed to think that Ellie Antoin wasn't doing a very good job either because he ran against her in the primary. All I am saying is that there's no need for Republicans to be nasty homophobes to win election and voting against Corbit because he's 'effeminate' or because he went to a gay pride event is uncalled for.
I dispute several things.
First, I dispute the use of the term "homophobe." It is simply a made up word by those who wish to demonize those who recognize homosexuality for the pathology that it is. I do not fear homsexuals, which is what the word means. Most people who feel they are afflicted by a pathology do not feel the need to celebrate it in a central location. If they choose to live like that (and I have no need to get into a prolonged wrangle over nature v. nurture; it makes no difference), fine, but if they think that in order to be accepted for other fine accomplishments, I must accept them in that capacity, they are sadly mistaken. I am sure there are many alcoholics who accomplish many fine things, too, but their celebrating their alcoholism in a park would lead me to vote against them for nothing more than at least their lack of judgment. Any politician that feels the need to humor them in this deserves the same treatment. I remember in 2007, Fred Sheeler appeared at the Reading Pride (I still have the photos). I did not bring it up at the time, but I had a witness at the affair tell me that Fred derided me for not being present. That is true. I was off doing door to door in Laureldale, meeting people that were far more representative of Berks County. If Corbit (and Sheeler) feel it is a badge of honor to attend such things, then no harm can be done to point it out to a wider audience. If that audience happens to agree with my analysis of their attendance, so be it. Corbit made his own bed on this one.
Second, oddly, even though in this e-mail you attribute my motivation for running against Bybel and Antoine to the fact that both were terrible officeholders, you deride me in another comment for running as one "who runs for row office after row office in the hopes that he can actually win and get a cushy government job." Which is it, sir? If you remember, I had a "cushy" government job at the time I ran both times, if one can call being a public defender as "cushy." I had no need of another one. And, by the way, the last "cushy" government job I had before that was in the United States Navy from 1972-1976. All the rest have been in private industry. So don't try that one on me. You have consistently commented on other blogs as "anonymous" and made the same arguments against me, and they weren't any more cogent then.
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with "doing well by doing good", either, and if I can benefit myself by getting rid of what are widely acknowledged as terrible officeholders, why not? And as "OperaFan" points out, Corbit's numbers were worse than Bybel's on November 3rd, so what does that say about Corbit?
Third, to follow up on a point that OperaFan made, neither the voters of Berks County, nor the Democratic Party, want liberal left loonies like Corbit running the show. To the extent showing up at an event such as Reading Pride showcases his "left loonieness" on the subject, it demonstrates how little ready for primetime Corbit and his supporters are. I think, as I said above, that voting against this sort of thinking is perfectly acceptable. After all, politicians all talk, but if you want to find out about them, see what they do. If Corbit thinks that homosexuality is normal, and not a pathology, and the majority of Berks Countians disagree with him, how is publicizing this fact during a campaign off limits?
John, this is the last post I am going to make her because it is obvious that you aren’t going to change my opinion and I’m not going to change yours. However I do wish to make one last point. You wrote “To the extent showing up at an event such as Reading Pride showcases his "left looniness" on the subject, it demonstrates how little ready for primetime Corbit and his supporters are. I think, as I said above, that voting against this sort of thinking is perfectly acceptable. After all, politicians all talk, but if you want to find out about them, see what they do. If Corbit thinks that homosexuality is normal, and not a pathology, and the majority of Berks Countians disagree with him, how is publicizing this fact during a campaign off limits?”
Had Corbit attended a Move.Org, meeting, a Code Pink rally, a PETA march, etc. and you wished to publicize this, this would be fair since these are political organizations and the voters have a right to know who is endorsing and supporting candidates for office. However--and this is the big difference--homosexuality isn’t a political affiliation, is an ingrained personality trait. Would you vote against a candidate or encourage others to vote against a candidate because he attended an Italian-American event or a Latino festival? Of course you wouldn’t so why imply that Corbit’s attendance at a gay pride event make him somehow flawed?
I do apologize for my earlier snarly tone but I took your post personally because as I said before I have a gay son and I certainly don’t think this should disqualify me from holding office, as your posts seem to imply. I also think the GOP needs to stop gaining votes by appealing to the fears of angry, bitter, heterosexual, white Christians and become more of a big tent. Not only is it the right thing to do but based on the changing demographics of the United States it is the smart thing to do.
I agree that normally homosexuality isn’t a political affiliation—just as alcoholism is not. However, to the extent that gays (and I do not concede that being gay is a status anymore than being an alcoholic is [I believe that they both may constitute genetic predispositions, and that is the most I will concede to the issue of status]) gather together for the sake of solidarity other than seeking a cure or other similar consideration, one must ask solidarity to what end?
I believe it is to the end of political and social acceptance. In my opinion, Reading Pride exists for no other end. To the extent that Reading Pride exists for the exaltation, and political and social acceptance of, homosexual acts (i.e., one facet of their existence), it is a political group, and it and politicians that associate with it are fair game. Being Italian or Latino does not, to my knowledge, involve one with socially proscribed acts nor does it demand the recognition and acceptance of those acts as a price for social or political friendliness. Being an alcoholic might involve one with support of socially proscribed acts, which is why we don’t see acceptance-hungry politicians seeking out their support at a public gathering in Centre Park called for the express purpose of exalting that fault of their personalities.
I accept your apology, but it would be more sincere if you had not made the same charges on other blogs before I had even raised the issue of Reading Pride.
Finally, with respect to your gay son. I’m sure he does a great many fine things that we would all acknowledge have nothing to do with performing homosexual acts. And to the extent that they do not, fine and good. That your son sees no need to wear the fact that he engages in such things on his sleeve distinguishes him from those in Reading Pride. I am certain that I have met a great number of gay people who I have had no idea were gay and that is fine, too. Certainly, having a gay son is no disqualification to running for or holding office. Having a gay son who wears it on his sleeve would not necessarily be, either (to the extent that the electorate is willing to overlook that). But going to Reading Pride which is a group agitating for social and political acceptance of an express set of attitudes and actions issuing forth from an objectionable “in-grained personality trait” is something worth noting for the record and, to the extent that it is politically unacceptable, is fair game in a political campaign.
If we can limit the discussion to what I actually did, rather than resorting to the MSM’s version of what the GOP needs to do, I may be able to conclude this discussion in a reasonable period. The demographics of gays, I believe, will not change much since they are 1-2% of the population and as is the case with most genetic predispositions, seem to have a relatively stable number. To the extent that this nation becomes more Latino, I think you will find that things will get worse for gays, not better. The 1960’s sexual revolution never happened in Latin America, and homosexuals are, I think, more despised in Hispanic culture than in white culture.
The “big tent” of the GOP is conservative, because the electorate is center-right as the last election proved. There are more conservatives than members of the GOP and, I suspect, more conservative-leaning members among the self-described moderates than they would care to admit. The fact that members of the GOP might have an anti-gay agenda will dissuade very few economic conservatives from voting for its candidates. So I think hewing to a conservative economic message is far more important than its stand on gay issues and is the basis for its big tent. Socially moderate, but economically conservative, members of the electorate have nowhere else to go. And, for my money, since we social and economic conservatives are the majority of the GOP right now, we are glad to have them along for the ride, but we will not allow them to control the agenda.
Post a Comment