Newsom hasn't been ad-libbing (Gay marriage stunt orchestrated by Dems)

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Feb. 29, 2004 | Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross

[FairOpinion]

While it may appear spontaneous, Mayor Gavin Newsom's leap onto the national stage has been a controlled performance from the get-go -- complete with story line, image control and attention to detail aimed far beyond the San Francisco audience.

From the minute Newsom lifted the curtain with his call for gay marriage licenses, to his cross-continental debate with President Bush, Team Newsom has done its best to manage the image coming out of City Hall.

[FairOpinion]

Some of us suspected that this whole thing was deliberately planned by the Dems in election year, to try to force the Republicans to stand up and present them as intolerant, and to put this on the front pages, instead of talking about national security and the War on Terror.

[FairOpinion]

You were right!

From your earlier post on another thread:

"IMO, this "homosexual marriage" campaign has been planned and coordinated by the Left and the Democrap Party to become a distraction from national security issues in the 2004 election. I hope this backfires on them with massive punitive results."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1087073/posts?page=140#140

[ServesURight]

This has backfired big-time on the Rats.

[stopem]

I wish you are right, explain how it has so far?

(BTW, Freep a cnn poll on this subject.)

[FairOpinion]

That's why we can't underestimate the Dems -- they are very creative, when it comes to dirty tricks.

[madprof98]

This has backfired big-time on the Rats.

Wishful thinking? Or do you have some evidence?

[AntiGuv]

What I see is the Republicans all riled up and divided on the issue while the Dems are just: jobs, jobs, jobs, let the states decide, jobs, jobs, jobs.

If anyone's been taken off message, it seems to be the Republicans.

[whereasandsoforth]

Any one with half a brain knows it was a democrat scam for the start. What happened? Did Newsom show up in the office that fateful morning and annouce to the staff, "If any gays happen in wanting a marrige lisence, go ahead an give it to "um"? And then, perchance, a gay couple did walk in?

[billorites]

We're voting for Kerry!
He's dreamy...

[FairOpinion]

"If anyone's been taken off message, it seems to be the Republicans."

===

We have to get back on message -- which should include keeping our eye on the ball: the real underlying problem is the activist judges. We can't get a Constitutional Amendment over every issue, but it won't be necessary, if we focus on appointing judges who interpret the law, not liberal activists. See my sig line.

I think Republicans should use this gay marriage thing to focus on the judges, instead of getting sidetracked with the Constitutional Marriage Amendment.

[Redcoat LI]

"Overseeing the spin was press secretary Peter Ragone, a New York transplant who has worked the media for a number of Democrats, including Andrew Cuomo, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and most recently Gray Davis."

What a Resume.

No wonder he got a job in Hells' waiting room.

[trek]

You got that right. I am reminded of the quote from the elite journalist I believe after Nixon crushed McGovern.

"But how could he (Nixon) have won? I don't know a single person who voted for the man!?"

The elites are WAY out of touch on this one.

[claudiustg]

---This has backfired big-time on the Rats.---

I agree. This election will be about turnout and this issue will energize the conservative base like the gun control issue did last election.

[trek]

ROFLMAO!

[AntiGuv]

I am in complete agreement. The Republicans should focus squarely on elite judicial activism and subverting the rule of law, which strikes a chord with the great majority of the electorate. That has not been the case thus far and in my opinion last week's FMA trial balloon was one of the more poorly organized political moves that I've ever seen.

The Republicans of the administration and the congress and in the states seem to be reading off of a dozen different pages on this one..

[claudiustg]

---The Republicans should focus squarely on elite judicial activism and subverting the rule of law, which strikes a chord with the great majority of the electorate. ---

I disagree. Intellectualizing this would be a big mistake. To move the electorate you need a simple gut issue. Why waste time and resources trying to shift the argument?

[Starve The Beast]

I really doubt this. The Dems aren't stupid (sleazy, maybe, but not stupid). A sizable majority of Americans across the board oppose gay marriage. This has put prominent dems, like Kerry, on the spot. On one hand, they need to pander to the gays in their base; on the other hand, they don't want to alienate large numbers of swing voters by looking extreme on the issue.

Even Barbara Boxer, the drooling idiot from California, has issued a statement opposing this, and just look at the tap-dancing Kerry has had to do. If it was a Dem plot, it sure was a mistake.

[Starve The Beast]

I think Republicans should use this gay marriage thing to focus on the judges, instead of getting sidetracked with the Constitutional Marriage Amendment.

Outstanding point.

[AntiGuv]

Even if my personal approach is wrong, the most important political requirement is that the Republican Party approach the matter with a reasonably unified voice. That has not been the case thus far, which is the main point I am trying to make.

Even though I disagree with many conservatives on the basic matter, I have every reason to think that it should be a political winner. It'll be amazing if the GOP manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on this issue.

[FairOpinion]

"If it was a Dem plot, it sure was a mistake."

===

Not necessarily -- I think the jury is still out.

It did accomplish, what may have been their objective: it took Iraq and WoT off the front pages.

Everyone has heard about the gay marriage "issue". How many people have heard of the discovery that Saddam diverted billions into his own bank accounts from the UN's "oil for food" program, while giving kickbacks to countries friendly to him, such as France?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1087479/posts

[claudiustg]

The liberal Dems have intellectualized the gay marriage thing until, in their circles, it seems a continuation of the civil rights movement. It makes perfect sense to them and their arguments are convincing until you turn on the TV and see the pictures. The trouble is the folks don't see the connection between Rosa Parks and Rosie O'Donnell. No way.

It's a similar thing with Israel. When the libs make their arguments about Palestinian suffering and the connection to repressed people everywhere, it makes perfect sense. When the pictures of destroyed busses and masked Pal gunmen come on all that's out the window.

[Salman]

This has backfired big-time on the Rats.

Only if the only goal is getting a president elected this year. Some may have given up on that.

But there are longer term goals. One of these is establishing 'gay' marriage as a legal istitution. My prediction is that this will happen regardless of who is president. Not forever, of course, but for a while.

Keep fighting!

[pawdoggie]

I can't say that the national Democratic Party wanted this fight at this time. They may be evil, but they're not so stupid as to believe that this is an issue that works for them. The only thing that's been distracted by this ruckus is the "mainstream" media: distracted from singing their hosannas to John Kerry, that is.

It is possible, however, that some far Left-Wing Democrats may have seen this intiative as a way to test the ideological commitment of the DNC and its candidates to the "sacred" cause of gay "rights".

[small voice in the wilderness]

Oh, sure they wanted it at this time. They want all non-questioning dem. voters to think we are on the brink of destruction and President Bush has vowed to destroy anyone who doesn't share his views. And he's coming for them next. The Democrat Party leaders are banking on the new dem. theme to be WE ARE DOOMED WITH BUSH. What they fail to factor into their scenario is the average ignorance of their constituents.

It's going to be fun to watch. Mass pandomonium, people running in all directions. WE ARE DOOme.......*runs into lamppost*

[NYCVirago]

I love this nonsense about how Newsom's civil disobedience is so courageous. When real civil rights activists like Martin Luther King engaged in civil disobedience, they were either beaten up, or sent to jail. This clown has suffered absolutely no repercussions whatsoever for breaking the law, unless you count being hailed as a liberal hero as a bad thing.

[Carry_Okie]

The election of Gavin Newsome was the product of a long and careful program on the part of his father, the Getty family fortune, and well established Democrats in San Francisco. His relatives and connections in San Francisco are extensive, including the Burtons. His forebears include AP Giannini, founder of Bank of America.

(Thanks to Amerigomag for the source link. Don't you think this source article deserves a separate post?)

[Amerigomag]

His forebears include AP Giannini, founder of Bank of America.

The Newsoms are related principally in a business sense. When Amedeo Giannini searched the state for capitalization from the wealthier members of the then small, close-nit, Italian community, a San Joaquin Valley farmer and friend named Amerigo M... suggested he look to the Irish in San Francisco for additional capital, strongly advising him not to accept too many conditions from this European rift-raft.

Despite his misgivings, A.P. took the advice, struck an arms length deal with an Irishman and the rest is history.

How do I know? Take a guess.

[Carry_Okie]

I take it you want a relatively educated guess, relatively speaking. ;-)

[Amerigomag]

I take it you want a relatively educated guess

A bit overdone wasn't it.

Just trying to avoid the impression that A.P and the clan were "new dealers".

Actually they were fiercely independent, largely apolitical unless it involved a profit and deeply suspicious of the Masonic Order.

They let the "new dealers" and the old European clicks run the city but kept tight control of the wharfs and the docks until this industry faded after WWII.

The libertine attitudes that prevail today in the city are more a function of loosing control of the cultural upbringing of each successive generation rather than a propensity toward hedonism or lack of a Calvinist ethic.

As late as the 1950's most of the "old crowd" were still living a rigid lifestyle that stressed a suspicion of outsiders, especially the nouveau riche that were then emerging as city leaders post WWII. The irony is that these new leaders were their grandchildren. The cultural transition was complete.

[devane617]

"This has backfired big-time on the Rats."

I have to respectfully disagree. I think it is the Republicans that have looked weak. All I have heard the Repub's do is talk tough, but absolutely NO action to back up the tough talk.

[Carry_Okie]

A bit overdone wasn't it.

I have become too accustomed to dumbing down posts in order to be understood these days, sorry.

Actually they were fiercely independent, largely apolitical unless it involved a profit and deeply suspicious of the Masonic Order.

As they should have been. Guess who ran the NEA since its inception?

The libertine attitudes that prevail today in the city are more a function of loosing control of the cultural upbringing of each successive generation rather than a propensity toward hedonism or lack of a Calvinist ethic.

Ditto.

As late as the 1950's most of the "old crowd" were still living a rigid lifestyle that stressed a suspicion of outsiders, especially the nouveau riche that were then emerging as city leaders post WWII. The irony is that these new leaders were their grandchildren. The cultural transition was complete.

Cultural Marxism, per the Gramscian plan, as brought to Berkeley by Mr. Marcuse, IIRC.

[upchuck]

No twosome
is too gruesome
for Newsom!

Not mine, wish it was. Heard this on Mike Savage's show from a caller.

[justrepublican]

Were all "Just one kiss away from a gay marriage"!

Let's all try that line for a moment.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Duh. It was obvious the instant the "gay" marriage stunt hit the fan, that Thug/Clown "Mayor" Noisome had it all pre-arranged. Probably practiced his fake smile in the mirror, too.

If anyone wants on or off this ping list, pingify me!

[onyx]

No twosome
is too gruesome
for Newsom!



Excellent!

[Salvation]

**Orchestrated by the dems**

Tell us something we already didn't know.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - SOCIOLOGY - MARRIAGE - SODOMITES and the DEMS

[longtermmemmory]

So this SF chronical article show newsom as smart? not homoexual? Why didn't they say that repeatedly and earlier? (could he be bi?) Was this to take pressure off of Mass.

I think the homo-activists did a huge miscalculation. I can say this, the NASCAR dads and their families want no part of this.

I also believe this SF article is CYA. They don't want to look like complete idiots. They cold not have seen Bush supporting FMA or public opposition to homosexual mariage 64% (per NBC oversample democrats)

They also have picked up the talking point of this is low in rank of importance, not on radar, nobody cares about this.

[onyx]

You were right!

From your earlier post on another thread:

"IMO, this "homosexual marriage" campaign has been planned and coordinated by the Left and the Democrap Party to become a distraction from national security issues in the 2004 election. I hope this backfires on them with massive punitive results."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1087073/posts?page=140#140


-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Damn that's good thinking. Congratulations and thank you, Mad Tom Rackham.

FO, I am glad to know the thang was orchestrated. Backfiring. Big time.

[onyx]

Heretofore "we" have been the stupid party.

[Jaysun]

Some of us suspected that this whole thing was deliberately planned by the Dems in election year, to try to force the Republicans to stand up and present them as intolerant, and to put this on the front pages, instead of talking about national security and the War on Terror.

I also had that creeping suspicion at first, but later changed my mind after watching the reaction by Democrap candidates. Both Kerry and Edwards seem to want to get away from the issue.

[longtermmemmory]

Perhaps they say this as a trap for conservatives to get them off message. And then based on DNC assumptions, it would not be a dealbreaker vote issue. Somehow somewhere they miscalculated.

It is a question of where were the mistakes and what were the mistakes made by Democrats.

[Political Junkie Too]

It did accomplish, what may have been their objective: it took Iraq and WoT off the front pages.

That's only useful if you can control the agenda. All it will take is another car-bomb in Iraq to put the WOT back on the front pages.

-PJ

[Cold Heat]

"All Politics is local"

This was a local event with national implications, but not a real threat.

The real threat is the Mass Supreme court, taking liberties with the constitution of the State.

This IMO is what really concerned bush. The Kalifornia event is what brought out public pressure.

Has it backfired?

Probably yes, but it has worked to the Mayors favor locally.

[longtermmemmory]

How brave of him (/s) he supports homsexuals in a city dominated by homosexual politics.

[Cold Heat]

Yes, and he stood up and grandstanded!

Even many of the gays thought it over the top. It brought too much attention at a bad time for it.

They will not be getting married in this country after it all shakes out.

Those that did, wasted the trip and the money.

I think that the mood of the country indicates a acceptance of some sort of legal civil union that would be the purview of the states, but no more. Especially after this mess.

That is what I meant by "backfire".

The line is being drawn in the sand in the publics mind.

[nutmeg]

read later bump

[Cold Heat]

BTW, personally, I would be voting against any such civil union.

I will give them nothing of value.

[Jaysun]

Has it backfired? Probably yes, but it has worked to the Mayors favor locally.

I think that local support for the Mayor was a given (considering where he's at). The same kind of local popularity (and outrage everywhere else) that would occur if a butcher announced that meat was priced 50% off in a cannibal community. I agree with you that the Mass Supreme Court is the real threat.