Earlier this week, I mentioned Stuart Rothenberg's issues with Rasmussen Report's polling #'s. Now, I've got more ammo to debunk the #'s coming Rasmussen Reports, one from Public Policy Polling (PPP) and another from Anzalone-Liszt.
David Vitter of Louisiana. Although recent Rasmussen polls have shown Vitter with a healthy lead, Charlie Melancon is a top tier challenger who though not yet known statewide has performed strongly in a very tough district for Democrats. Voters have had a long time to forget Vitter's past personal transgressions but they'll be reminded of them this fall. Louisiana is also a state that might actually be easier for Dems in a midterm because it's one of the few places that supported Barack Obama at a lower rate than John Kerry.
And now Anzalone-Liszt (hat tip to John Maginnis - subscription only):
A poll done for Congressman Charlie Melancon shows him trailing Sen. David Vitter, 48-38 percent, which is better news for the Democrat than other recent survey results.
The Anzalone-Liszt poll sample of 800 voters was taken Feb. 18-24, with a margin of error of 3.5 percent. The poll contrasts widely with monthly Rasmussen Reports, which showed Vitter's lead expanding from 18 percent to 24 percent in the first two months of the year. The Anzalone poll shows the race has changed little since its May survey when Vitter led 47-37 percent.
Granted, this is a partisan poll, but I'd trust it more than Rasmussen Reports, mainly because Rasmussen is an automated poll, and Anzalone-Liszt has actual human beings conducting the poll. In addition, the Anzalone-Liszt poll showed Melancon's voter ID at 59% compared to Vitter's 92%. That's more in line with a Congressman's voter ID at the start of his first state-wide run.
Now the question is whether the Melancon campaign will fight the fight the Vitter folks are giving them - defending the Democrat's economic agenda, and run as an economic populist. We'll see.
Now the national political media has picked up on Secretary of State Jay Dardenne's floating of a potential primary challenge to the Sinning Senator:
"I've had a lot of people suggest that I do that. I'd have to raise some money. I may do that."
While I believe that such a challenge is the nightmare that keeps the Sinning Senator continually running to North Louisiana to project the image that he's hard at work up in Washington to take folks minds' off the fact that he wasn't on the straight and narrow back in the day, it's getting awfully late ... and if Dardenne is gonna run, he better start raising money quick. The longer he waits to get in, the less seriously I think his campaign will be taken.
Not only does he not rule it out, he pledges to keep listening to folks. Well, I've been hearing that he's been in northern Louisiana quite frequently over the past few months, and taking the time to meet with Republican elected officials. Rumors are flying that Mr. Dardenne is speaking with those elected officials about putting a campaign team together.
Moreover, the Sinning Senator's strategy appears to be to appeal to the hard-core right wing, or as noted pollster and political strategist Stanley Greenberg calls them in his book, The Two Americas: Our Current Political Deadlock and How to Break It, the F-You Boys and F-You Old Men, which is totally unnecessary unless the Sinning Senator anticipates a primary challenge, and is attempting to ward one off.
One such example of the Sinning Senator catering to the F-You Boys (& Old Men) is his ludicrous assertion that an obscure provision in the Cap & Trade Bill would give President Obama new powers of a dictator; an assertion that even right-wing bloggers @ Michele Malkin's Hot Air took issue with: (emphasis added)
That's not to say that this bill isn't dangerous, but it simply doesn't do what Vitter claims. Nowhere in either bill does the term "climate emergency" appear, which Vitter claims is the lever through which the President will claim dictatorial powers. We need to focus on the real problems of the bill, chief among them that it will kill jobs to solve a problem that doesn't exist, rather than generate false hysteria to answer false hysteria.
Now, Democratic operatives tell me that the Sinning Senator's polling has remained remarkably consistent all year despite a climate that has been absolutely vicious for Democrats in Louisiana. That same polling shows that Vitter's Republican support is weak, and it is weakest up in overwhelmingly Baptist North Louisiana.
What does this mean? It means that if Jay Dardenne were to throw his hat in the ring for the Republican nomination, it'd be a battle royale. And those same Democratic operatives are scared of running against Dardenne - he's a stable, well-regarded elected official with a slim record to run against.
Will Mr. Dardenne run? That's the nightmare that keeps the Sinning Senator running to North Louisiana every chance he gets.
The always-resplendent Rachel Maddow lampoons Sinning Senator David Vitter's fear-mongering and misleading Louisiana voters on health care reform:
After watching Rachel's report on Vitter's dishonest scare tactics, wouldn't you like to see him lose his job? You can help bounce the Sinning Senator from the U.S. Senate with a contribution to his Democratic opponent, Congressman Charlie Melancon, via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page.
Last cycle, I started an ActBlue page specifically for Democratic Senate candidates working to pick up seats held by Republicans. I named it the Expand the Map! ActBlue page because the goal was to expand the map of competitive Senate seats. The effort was a big success, achieving over 300 contributions and $40,000 for the Democratic Senate candidates included on the page.
The 2010 edition of the Expand the Map! ActBlue page was recently kicked off. Senate Guru just made the first addition to the page since the kick-off with the inaugural members; and, that addition is none other than Louisiana's own Charlie Melancon.
The Republican incumbent, Sinning Senator David Vitter, is nothing but an embarrassment to Louisiana. From his "very serious sin" (which he still hasn't explicitly identified) to his tantrums in airport security areas to his turning away constituents from his town hall forums in order to pack the events with bussed-in Tea Partiers, Vitter has shown himself to be a hypocrite, a liar, a coward, and someone that all Louisianans should be ashamed of. Even when the match-up was just hypothetical, polling showed that a Vitter-Melancon showdown would be a close race. But Congressman Melancon needs our support!
Please, please, please help the 2010 cycle's Expand the Map! effort by sending Charlie Melancon (and these other highly deserving Democrats) a few bucks. $100 makes a huge difference, $25 makes a huge difference, $10 makes a huge difference! Hop over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and make your voice heard.
This is not just a contribution to Charlie's campaign. This is a contribution toward slowing and eventually stopping Republican obstruction in the U.S. Senate and ensuring that David Vitter will no longer be an obstacle to progress or an embarrassment to Louisiana. Thank you SO much!
While I'm glad he's in ... I'm disappointed with part of the message he's sending -
More bipartisanship? Has he not realized that the Republicans up in Washington do NOT want to work in a bipartisan fashion?
I was heartened to hear that he'll work with anyone to do what's right for Louisiana ... that's the message, Charlie Boy, because you can't work in a bipartisan fashion if the other party is not willing to negotiate in good faith, which the Republicans have shown time and again when it comes to health care reform.
Remember last week how Republican Sinning Senator David Vitter talked tough regarding "angry mobs" appearing at elected officials' town hall events:
This and any other angry mob is welcome to my town hall meetings whenever you want to come.
Of course, it was then reported that the questions that the Sinning Senator so bravely took from the mob were pre-screened:
The Louisiana Republican spoke at what was billed as a town hall meeting at Louisiana College's Guinn Auditorium. It was a friendly audience but there was little chance for disagreement to be expressed.
The panel of speakers all joined Vitter in opposing the reform package being debated in Congress. Questions from audience members were screened and selected in advance of the event.
Well, sports fans, that's not all. Now it's being reported that, not only were the questions pre-screened but, the audience was handpicked! And when I say handpicked, I mean that Vitter's harem shipped in Teabaggers and turned away constituents! (emphasis added by me)
Unlike his Democratic colleagues who take all comers at their town halls, Vitter has sought to enforce a strict code of message control. According to a citizen journalist attending the August 8 Vitter town hall, "No one was allowed to spontaneously address the podium. There were no questions read that presented anything other than Vitter's view and those who spoke with him. ... Vitter was said to have no time to answer questions from the press." Indeed, Vitter only responded to questions that were written on cards by audience members and screened in advance by his staffers.
Many of those attending Vitter's town halls have been shepherded to the events by local chapters of TeaPartyPatriots.org, a supposedly grassroots network of national activists that happens to "partner" with the health-care and insurance industry-funded lobbying firm Freedom Works, which has directed angry mobs to Democratic events. At a town-hall meeting on August 10 in Jefferson Parish, many local constituents were reportedly turned away while Tea Party activists were allowed to enter. When the event concluded, Vitter rushed out of the back door and away from the press and his constituents, guarded by a phalanx of police officers.
Vitter has good reason to fear public scrutiny. Had he not pre-screened his audiences, some wily constituent might have asked the senator to address his affair with Wendy Cortez, a high-priced New Orleans escort, or asked how his name showed up on the client list of Jeanne Palfrey, the so-called DC Madam, who killed herself in May 2008 after being convicted of money laundering. The constituent could have framed the question in terms of the health-care debate by asking Vitter why he reportedly wore a condom when he visited Cortez but subsequently tried to introduce an amendment barring health-care providers that offer free STD testing and contraception from receiving federal funds.
David Vitter has not answered to his constituents or to the law for his criminal acts, his dishonesty, his hypocrisy, or his shudder-inducing cowardice. He's not even willing to answer to a skeptical constituent on his opposition to health care reform, much less his opposition to not sleeping with prostitutes. I imagine that he will continue "rushing out of the back door" of events in order to avoid constituents and the press throughout the 2010 cycle. Seriously, how does this coward look in the mirror?
Five years ago, then-Sinning Congressman David Vitter during a radio show, responded to the true allegations that he committed the crime of solicitation and the sin of adultery multiple times by stating:
"I think you know that that allegation is absolutely and completely untrue...I have said that on numerous occasions ... I'll say that in any forum," Vitter said during the broadcast on WSMB radio. "Unfortunately, that's just crass Louisiana politics, now that I am running for the Senate. I have made that clear that it is all completely untrue...And, it's obviously politically motivated."
Actually, Sinning Senator, what was politically motivated was your crass lying to the people of Louisiana. That was the first time you "did a Vitter" as loyal GOP operatives knew of the multiple visits to brothels in Louisiana, as well as the sordid saga of your relationship with Wendy Cortez, but felt that political power for them via your campaign was more important than doing the right thing by finding a less ethically challenged candidate to support.
I bring this up yet again, not only to remind folks that David Vitter is not only a Sinning Senator but also a liar as well, and he is continuing to lie to us about it. Yesterday, during an open house in Houma, he was asked how he would respond to questions regarding his involvement with Wendy Cortez, as well as the DC Madam, and possibly quite a few more prostitutes:
"By very sincerely saying it was a serious sin in my past, 10 years ago, and asking for forgiveness beginning with the folks who where hurt the most by it," Vitter said. "So I think I've done that in a real straightforward way."
AHEM. I'm sorry to say that the Sinning Senator may have completed his penance with Mrs. Vitter, but he hasn't even come close to doing his penance for the people of Louisiana.
"I think Livingston's stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess," he said. [Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 12/20/98]
Why the double standard, Sinning Senator Vitter? Are you a better person than former President Clinton, former Congressman Bob Livingston, or former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer? I think not. So why the double standard, sir?
After nearly months of hearing the rumor from folks throughout Louisiana that Governor PBJ might leave the Governor's mansion to run against the Sinning Senator David Vitter, Governor PBJ finally deigned it time to address the issue head-on: (emphasis mine)
"Well a couple of things, first, Vitter's going to have to make his case with the voters, just like every candidate does. There's been a lot of speculation. Let me answer your question very directly, I'm not running for the senate, I'm running for re-election as governor in 2011, but David's going have to make his case with the voters directly just like any other candidate's going to have to do that."
Wow. Not only is Governor PBJ distancing himself from running against the Sinning Senator, but he literally does not want the taint of the Sinning Senator's peccadilloes to even touch him in public.
Last year, Senator Mary Landrieu campaigned hard on the slogan:
But, ever since the election, she's been fighting for the health insurance companies and her allies in the business sector, rather than the people who actually VOTED to send her back to Washington.
Granted, she's done a fantastic job fighting for our interests when it comes to rebuilding our state from the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Gustav, in addition to the destruction wreaked by the Federal Flood in the New Orleans region.
So she's making sure that we can continue to live in the state we all love. But how about making sure we can continue to LIVE, Senator?
The health care plan you're currently supporting will mandate that all Americans buy into private health insurance plan, and have government looking over us every time we interact with it. Not to mention that such a mandate will be a boon to the health insurance industry - more premiums they can stick in their pockets while denying individuals the care they need. On top of that, if the Wall Street Journal's opinion page - the paper for Wall Street - has anything good to say about that plan, then you can bet your bottom dollar, Senator, that it is NOT in the best interests of Louisianans, let alone the American people.
EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND (pdf alert) of your constituents, Senator, are currently living without health insurance, either because they are uninsurable due to being a survivor of a serious illness, or because they simply can't afford the premiums.
And yet you think some government regulations will squeeze enough savings out of the health insurance companies to lower the cost enough to ensure that all Louisianans will be able to afford to purchase a health care plan? We are talking about an industry that engages in despicable practices like rescission:
If you worked for a company that offered insurance, if you carried your family's insurance, next year your insurer would slap a million dollar surcharge on the company policy for carrying a leukemia patient. The company would get the bill and someone in accounting would question "what is this extra million dollars we are being billed?"
The insurance company would explain to them that the million is for you, and it is yearly, but is, ahem, "fixable." They will say "as long as she is on your insurance (wink, wink) this charge will be there. So what you have to ask yourself (more wink, wink) is whether this employee is worth a million dollar a year salary on top of what you are already paying her."
Social worker said she had seen small business owners go almost broke trying to cover this charge, and had even heard of one who defiantly did go broke, throwing all of the employees out of work. But more usually, she said, they just fire you.
"Wait, wait!" say you, "Isn't it illegal to fire someone for their health history? Suppose I'm all well and working?"
She looks at you with more pity, says yes, so of course they will have to find "cause" to fire you, which any employer can always do.
"But I am a very, very good employee!" you protest.
"Yes," she says, "but they can always find some cause." The real problem she goes on to explain, is that you will find a new job, that company's insurer will slap them with the surcharge, they will take their turn at firing you, until you've been through six or seven jobs in a year, fired "for cause" from all of them, which of course looks very, very bad to a prospective employer.
"So in a year or so of this, you will not just be uninsurable, you will also be unemployable."
She asks who your husband works for, since they'd probably try to do this to him too. You say he is a cop working for a municipality, which pleases her. "They have all sorts of layers of officials, elected and otherwise, to work their way through to get to the decision, then once they do they have to get past his union, so it will take much longer to get him fired." She also, though, offered sympathy for the fact that what with the police union and the municipality fighting out whatever "cause" they got him on in such a public profession, it was sure to end up in the local papers and disrupt all our lives - including the children's - when they did get that far.
You remind her you seem headed for divorce, and she says, well, okay then, just carry the COBRA to the limit and keep on working for small not-for-profits that don't offer insurance.
You ask her what you are supposed to do for health care and she says sooner or later the insurance companies would force you onto Medicaid - either by means of making you unemployable and broke, or by means of you being uninsured and going through any and all assets you have paying medical bills until you are broke and sick enough that you can't work, and end up on Medicaid.
It's high time for you get back on that saddle. Perhaps then you won't be afraid to face your constituents. After all, you've canceled two appearances - one at The Healing Center's grand opening and two weeks ago when you didn't participate in a scheduled Q&A at a Small Business Committee field hearing in New Orleans. On top of that, it is comical that your staff seems intent on making sure that no bad press emerged from that event by tailing known provocateurs, one of whom just happens to be a former intern in your New Orleans office.
Charlie Melancon hasn't announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate, yet the Sinning Senator David Vitter is ALREADY peeing in his diapers on the news that Charlie's considering a campaign for the Senate. After all, Sinning Senator, why send out this email if you're confident of victory:
News flash to the Sinning Senator ... Charlie actually believes in the family values you ran on in every single campaign prior to this one. Unlike you, he hasn't had to admit being a patron of prostitutes. And he's a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat. Is the old, tired "he's a liberal" argument all you got? If so, we'll be swearing in a new Senator come January 2011.
I discussed HB 340 two weeks ago, speculating that HB 340 was designed to be on the November 2, 2010 ballot, which would help drive turnout of religious voters for the Sinning Senator David Vitter.
HB 340 would amend the Louisiana Constitution to add language to our freedom of religion clause, which, as currently constituted, copies word for word the federal freedom of religion clause, written by the framers of the U.S. Constitution.
A Kingfish reader, Randall T. Hayes, sent me an email pointing out: (emphasis added)
I just wanted to point out that HB 340, as originally proposed, did schedule the proposed amendment for the Nov. 2 ballot. However, a Senate amendment changed that date to August 28. The House declined to concur with that Senate amendment, so HB 340 is now in conference committee. It may, in fact, result in just the scenario you initially described.
Mr. Hayes is right ... and the bill is still pending in conference committee. They have until the close of session tomorrow to agree on the date. Either way, if it goes on the ballot, it will still help the Sinning Senator in his quest for re-election.
And I'm not sure the god-fearin', family values appreciatin' folks of Louisiana really want to have a Sinning Senator representin' 'em anymore.
Fox News' own right-wing nutbag Sean Hannity said the following last night:
If you're going to be a family-values candidate and a family-values politician, and you don't live up to that, I think you should resign.
Of course, Hannity said this in response to Nevada's Republican Senator John Ensign cheating on his wife with a staffer's wife, not David Vitter cheating on his wife, kids, and constituents with prostitutes, but the message is quite clear. Even conservatives (heck, especially conservatives) should be put off by one of their own not living up to their own standards. Conservatives should not stand with Sinning Senators, as much (if not moreso) for the hypocrisy as the sin itself. We'll have to wait and see how principled "family values" conservatives are on this issue when it comes to David Vitter.
Local political reporter Clancy DuBos appeared on WWL-TV to talk about Rep. Charlie Melancon chances against the Sinning Senator in next year's Senate race. WWL-TV needs to make their videos embeddable, but since they don't, here's the transcript of what Mr. DuBos had to say:
Clancy Dubos: Vitter of course, is the incumbent. He's not necessarily a favorite against a guy like Melancon, because Melancon is clearly the best that the Democrats have to offer against an incumbent like Vitter.
Lee Zurik: Dubos says that's because of Melancon's heritage - the Napoleonville native will intrigue what Dubos calls the key bloc of voters in this race.
Clancy Dubos: Louisiana basically has three big groups of voters, you have blacks, you have, uh, WASPS, white Anglo-Saxon protestants, or bubbas, and you have Cajuns. And the Cajuns, traditionally, are the swing vote.
Lee Zurik: And Dubos says the Cajuns in Acadiana and parishes like Terrebonne and Lafourche could decide this election.
Clancy Dubos: Vitter got elected the first time because he was able to get a significant portion of the Acadiana vote. Melancon, as a native son, and as a conservative, will probably have first call on a lot of Cajun votes, and that will make it tough for Vitter - not impossible.
The most recent public poll done by Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 3/2-4. Registered voters. MoE 4%. (No trend lines)
David Vitter (R) 48 Charlie Melancon (D) 41
Even better were the favorable/unfavorable numbers:
Candidate
Favorable
Unfavorable
Net (Fav - Unfav)
Sinning Senator Vitter (R)
49%
42%
7
Rep. Charlie Melancon (D)
43%
18%
25%
While I agree with Mr. DuBos that the Cajun voters will be a swing vote, I believe it is vital that any Democrat that runs against the Sinning Senator spend a disproportionate amount of time up in Central and Northern Louisiana pressing the flesh. For a candidate like Melancon, this will be extremely vital.
The question is ... will Melancon run? An announcement is expected in a few weeks.
The Times-Picayune is reporting that Congressman Melancon has decided to plan a run for the Senate against the Sinning Senator David Vitter.
I'll believe this when I see the following occur:
An announcement from Shaw Chairman (and former Democratic State Party Chairman) Jim Bernhard that he will NOT be a candidate for the Senate in 2010.
An announcement of a committee being set up by Congressman Melancon to start raising money for a Senate campaign.
While Congressman Melancon may be a good candidate for the Senate, I have some concerns about a Melancon candidacy. The weakness of the Sinning Senator David Vitter lies not in South Louisiana, but in Central and North Louisiana, where he spends the majority of his time in-state on campaign style events.
Thus, it makes more sense in my mind, at least, to have the Democratic candidate come from this region. Now, don't get the idea that I'm advocating for Foster Campbell to be the Democratic standard bearer against the Sinning Senator ... I'm not.
But unless a candidate from Central or Northern Louisiana emerges, (paging state Senator Eric LaFleur) the Democratic nominee, if it is Bernhard or Melancon, better be prepared to spend A LOT of time next year in Central and Northern Louisiana pressing the flesh. And I'm not confident that Congressman Melancon would be willing to do that.
Hopefully, if he is the nominee, he'll prove me wrong.
One of the biggest issues currently being negotiated in secret right now in Congress is health care reform. Arguably, every other issue pales in comparison with health care reform because health care costs are a major expenditure for most Americans.
While we know that Senator Landrieu has broken a pledge she made two months ago, and that Senator Vitter will tout the virtues of the the private insurance system as a wonder of freedom for people, it is vital that we get them on the record. Indeed, it is vital to get the entire United States Senate - the main obstacle to true health care reform - on the record.
To that end, Democracy for America, Health Care for America NOW, and the big national blogs and numerous state blogs like the Kingfish have launched a campaign to get our Senators on the record to put an end to the backroom deals on health care:
No more dodges. No more vague, open-ended responses. We need every member of the Senate - the main obstacle to reform - to answer four questions on the public option:
Do you support a public healthcare option as part of healthcare reform?
If so, do you support a public healthcare option that is available on day one?
Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to Congress?
Do you support a public healthcare option that can bargain for rates from providers and big drug companies?
As activists and as constituents, answering these questions are the minimum they owe us. We are entitled to specific, clear, written responses to all of these questions.
Email--don't call, but email--these four questions to your Senators now. Make it clear that you want a written response to all four questions. There needs to be as little room for interpretation as possible. The Senate is going to be the biggest hurdle on health care, as it has proven to the biggest hurdle on all legislation in 2009. That is where we must focus our pressure.
When you receive a response, post it on this webpage. We are going to collect all of the responses to find out where every member of Congress, but especially the Democratic members, stand on the public option. It is only with this information that we can prevent backroom deals that will sell us out to insurance companies.
Yesterday, Change Congress and Democracy for America joined forces in publicizing a pressure campaign against Senator Mary Landrieu for her flip-flopping on the issue of a public health insurance option as part of health care reform. If you want Senator Landrieu to vote for a public health insurance option as part of any health reform legislation, then click here to let her know.
Her staff put out this statement yesterday in response to that campaign:
Senator Landrieu is committed to reforming the health care system and ensuring that all Americans are covered. She is currently reviewing all of the reform proposals, but does not believe that health care reform starts with a public option. Sen. Landrieu supports a predominantly private system that features a federal backup plan that serves as a safety net. This approach is part of the bipartisan Healthy Americans Act, which she has co-sponsored.
As the debate proceeds, Sen. Landrieu is open to compromise in a comprehensive legislative package, and is focused on appropriate consumer protection and patient-centered care.
What is absolutely galling is the fact that Senator Landrieu sees siding with the public on a public health insurance option as a "compromise" on this issue.
On top of that, Lamar has a great post on the failings of the private health insurance system we currently have, which leaves people to fend for themselves, and bend the law in order to get health coverage. Making tweaks to such a system to keep the private health insurers afloat is NOT the way to go, Senator.
We have an yet another Republican from Jefferson Parish in our State Legislature who thinks he knows better than the framers of the U.S. Constitution. State Rep. Cameron Henry has written an amendment to the language of the ยง 8 of the Louisiana Constitution, which currently copies, word for word, a portion of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
"No person acting under color of law shall burden the free exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government proves that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing upon the specific expression, act, or refusal to act at issue, and that there is no other less burdensome alternative. The free excessive of religion shall include the right of every person to freely express his sincerely held religious belief and to engage in or refrain from activity based on a sincerely held religious belief."
Now, State Rep. Henry will tell you that he wrote this bill to allow religious people to refrain from dispensing contraceptives. But, let's consider some other scenarios here: (hat tip to stephenhandwerk)
Say it is 2am and you are in a horrific car accident in New Iberia traveling home. The hospital to which you are taken sends you to the only ER that is open and equipped to deal with trauma such as yours. The Doctor on duty is of Pakistani decent (not unheard of) and you are Jewish. The Doctor objects to treating you due to his "sincerely held moral objections" and the next closest hospital is over 20 minutes away: you will likely die en route. Should this bill pass, it is completely legal to do that. At least until it is challenged in court and the State Attorney General has to prove a case that it was AGAINST the "compelling governmental interest." Of course with our court system - that challenge is likely years down the road - which is little help to you at this point - you are dead.
Too extreme? Perhaps.
How about something less extreme? Say you married someone from a different race - an African American and you happen to be Caucasian. You go to your favorite new restaurant just down the street and before you are seated the Manager tells you that it is his "sincerely held religious belief" that the races should not mix and that you are not welcome in his restaurant. Again, no problem in this situation and I would also challenge that the State Government would have a difficult time proving a "Compelling Governmental Interest" in this matter. I mean, nobody's life is at stake.
Now, here's the other part, fellow Democrats ... take a look at the co-sponsors of this legislation ... a couple of Democrats in there, but overwhelmingly Republican Members of the State Legislature. I bring that up because this is an amendment to the State Constitution, which means that it must go to the voters for approval before it becomes law.
I believe that it would go to the voters at the next regularly scheduled statewide election, which in this case, would be November of 2010 August 28, 2010. (See update below). Guess who is running in that election?
What does this bill do? It will ensure that religious conservatives get out to vote for yet another manufactured issue for the GOP base.
Do we really want to make it easier for the Sinning Senator to win re-election?
UPDATE on 6/11 at 11:59 AM: State Rep. Cameron Henry graciously replied to an email asking when the issue would go before the voters. His answer: August 28, 2010.
This still helps the Sinning Senator, as it allows his campaign to ID the religious conservative voters on that issue, and use those ID's for the November election. It also gives the Sinning Senator an issue to campaign on to rile up the conservative Christian base he so desperately needs in order to win re-election.
You can head over to the SEIU's website, and have them send an email or fax to the Senator in your name. In your message, tell the Senator that he should stand with us, and not with big corporations concerned only about their bottom line.
