The 70% vote in favor of the proposal was 10 percentage points more then expected, likely driven by a turnout of 41%, a sharp increase over the 15-25% that's usual for a primary election. Those numbers had the mouth-breathers drooling and in their excitement they revealed the real purpose here:
"What this has done is brought the people of faith to the table like I have never seen before," said Phil Burress, chairman of the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage, the group leading Ohio's effort to amend its Constitution. "This is what the Democrats biggest fear was - that something would energize the people of faith. And it has."Leaving aside the usual slop that Democrats are opposed to "people of faith" - and leaving aside as well the notion that the bigoted bullshit of such as Phil Burress represents the views of all people of faith - the statement effectively admits that the purpose here is to use hot button, emotion-laden issues to manipulate a socially conservative base into voting against its own political and economic interests.
Nearly 1.5 million people voted, a fact that Vicky Hartzler, spokeswoman for the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri, attributed to grass-roots efforts, including notes in church bulletins, neighbors holding up signs along busy thoroughfares and preachers talking to their congregations. [Emphasis added.]Isn't there something about tax-exempt organizations like churches not being allowed to specifically advocate for or against particular legislation? Or am I remembering that wrong? And if I'm not, does anyone think it would really be investigated?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment