With the recent ruling against gay marriage in NY, via <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTg0MWM3NzE1M2ZlMjFkM2Y2N2FlM2Y2Y2I4YjIwNDQ=">Kurtz @ The Corner,</a> a NY Assemblywoman in NY has an idea: <a href="http://www.federalreview.com/2006/07/new-york-legislator-eliminate-marriage.htm">Eliminate Marriage:</a>

According to the Ithaca Journal, Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton (D-125th District) is proposing that that state laws related to marriage be revised to eliminate the term entirely..........

Lifton’s logic:

“Let's get government out of the wedding business and have everyone, equally, have a civil arrangement,” she said. The proposal Lifton supports would replace the word “marriage” with “civil commitment” in state laws, creating a legal contract she said would be accessible to everyone, while leaving the religious aspect of the union to religious institutions.

Gay marriage is not a hot button issue for me personally, but that said if I lived in NY I would have a serious issue with a law that abolished my marriage for the sake of political correctness………………….

It will be interesting to see how Howard Dean and the DNC react to this proposal.  After the ruling Dean released this <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/06/115-07062006.html">statement:</a>

"As Democrats, we believe that every American has a right to equal protection under the law and to live in dignity. And we must respect the right of every family to live in dignity with equal rights, responsibilities and protections under the law. Today's decision by the New York Court of Appeals, which relies on outdated and bigoted notions about families, is deeply disappointing, but it does not end the effort to achieve this goal.

"As that essential process moves forward, it is up to the State legislature to act to protect the equal rights of every New Yorker and for the debate on how to ensure those rights to proceed without the rancor and divisiveness that too often surrounds this issue."

Supporting a ban on marriage obviously would be political suicide and is nuttier than anything I’ve heard related to this debate thus far……………………….

The Washington Times has an article up focused on John McCain and state he is <a href=”http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060706-121635-7340r.htm”>Sitting Pretty for 2008:</a>

Some top Republicans at odds with Sen. John McCain on core conservative issues say privately that the party's 2008 presidential nomination is "his to lose."….

Per the article, McCain is assembling some powerful backers that might surprise some on the more conservative side of the party:

"He is the only person I know who is running and capable of getting elected who is tough enough to do what needs to be done," says former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, who has quietly been helping to write Mr. McCain's speeches. "He will veto spending bills and earmarks and stand up to the Social Security and Medicare challenges that will fall in the next president's lap with the baby boomer retirement." For some luminaries on the right, Mr. Gramm and Mr. McCain make an odd couple at best…………….

Standing up to spending will be important in 2008 for sure..........Aside from Gramm, it would appear that McCain has the Bush team in his camp as well:

Among those who have signed on with Mr. McCain are Mark McKinnon, Mr. Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaign media strategist, and Terry Nelson, Mr. Bush's 2004 national political director…………….

Even some who oppose McCain are admitting that he is in a pretty good spot:

A senior Republican senator from a Western state who opposes Mr. McCain says privately, "Look at who he's got in his camp and look at him in the polls -- I'm telling you there's no one out there strong enough to beat him. It's his to lose."……………..

McCain’s race to lose, will not sit well with many on the far right side of the party. McCain is viewed as a RINO by many of the most conservative party members and they will work hard to prevent his nomination. I don’t think that the Republican 2008 race will be as interesting as the Dems primary zoo that is coming, but Republican primary won’t lack it’s own high entertainment value……………………

 

  Townhall is a great idea and I'm happy to be here and be part of it........................   The post title is "Come Into the Big Tent". Why that post title and what does it mean? Well we have seen the DNC pull back the coverage of their party tent over the past six years to the extent that it could be now described as an "extremist leftist pup tent" that has no room for those who are moderate.  The republican party has always had a robust and diverse conversation about issues.  We don't always agree on every issue, actually hardly ever agree on every issue and that is a good healthy discussion!  In the Big Tent there is room for healthy discussion and instead of shrinking our tent as Howard Dean and the DNC engineering team are doing, the RNC is expanding the coverage of our tent as we should be doing.   Tom Matzzie of MoveOn said that they bought the DNC back in 2000 and now they own it and they  href="http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/18/Worldandnation/Unshaven__unbowed_and.shtmldo indeed:

"Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back."..............................

The next sentence in the article by the MSM journalist after the Matzzie quote was thus: A lot of Democrats are terrified at the prospect...................... Moderate dems had a reason to be terrified when the statement was made back in 2000 and much more so now.  The tent has shrunk to the point that if your not on the same page as Howard Dean, Sorros, Sheehan and the other extremist, there is no room in the tent for you.  To validate this point take a look at Joe Lieberman.  Five years ago Joe Lieberaman was the VP candidate on the Gore ticket.  Today he is being attacked for supporting the GWOT and wanting to keep Americans safe.  See the lefty <a href="http://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/2006/04/joe-lieberman-refuses-to-rule-out.html">Connecticut Blog:</a>
 
At this point, you have to ask the question: why should any Democrat in Connecticut support a candidate that threatens to leave the party if there is a primary challenge and/or he loses the Democratic primary? It apparent that Joe's strong feelings about himself are more important than the viewpoint of the Democrats in Connecticut who will vote in the primary. The main theme of Lamont's campaign is that Lieberman is out of touch with the viewpoint of the voters in Connecticut and it seems like they might be correct.

Why is Lieberman out of touch with the Connecticut democrats?  He supports the GWOT, and that really is the only valid reason he has been labeled such.  Read the links and prior posts to get a real feel for the tent that MoveOn bought.  The anti-any-war nuts have taken over the democratic party and are driving the party off the ledge.  I think there will be lots of moderate democrats and dem-libertarians who are not interested in that ride.  I think moderate democrats have much more in common with the people in the Big Tent than the people in the "shrinking anti-war one issue tent", given the re-sizing of the tent models offered by the DNC currently............. Welcome, come on into the Big Tent and lets kick things around regardless........................................