How ‘Gay Marriage’ Won In Four States

gay pride flag 3 SC How Gay marriage won in four states

On November 6, four states voted in favor of “gay marriage.” Up until now, “gay marriage” had been defeated in 32 statewide elections. But this time in all four states the homosexual lobby won, though in all four the margins were slim:

The homosexual victories were won as follows:

Maine: 47%-52%

Maryland: 53% – 48%

Washington: 52% – 48%

Minnesota:   51% – 48% (1% were blanks – counted as “no” & added to 51%)

Maryland and Washington were both voting to overturn “gay marriage” laws recently passed by their state legislatures. Maine‘s legislature had passed a gay marriage law in 2009 which was overturned by statewide vote in November that year. The homosexual lobby re-introduced that referendum this year to reinstate the earlier law. Minnesota was voting on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, to protect against future actions by their legislature or courts.

These results were unfortunately not unexpected. After observing these four races since last summer and talking to many pro-family activists on the ground, we sensed this would happen. This is not meant to demean the energy and efforts of the various pro-family forces. Our people worked hard. But this time too many factors weighed against them.

How the pro-family side was organized

Nationally, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) tirelessly raised several million dollars — the major share of all the money on our side — which was distributed to all four races. They also worked out strategy, produced commercials, and much more. NOM did an impressive job. Without their efforts and leadership things would have turned out infinitely worse.

As in past gay marriage votes, NOM coordinated its efforts in each of the four states through an established statewide pro-family group. Each state group set up a special “marriage” PAC with its own website and volunteer activist organization distributing signs, doing outreach to churches, etc.

Other organizations helped, also. Family Research Council (FRC) provided valuable aid. In Minnesota, the Catholic Church raised enormous sums and did a lot of work.

MassResistance also sent out thousands of copies of our booklet, “What Same-sex ‘marriage’ has done to Massachusetts.” Many people copied and distributed them locally. And much of our “gay marriage” research was used by local groups and activists.

Our side worked much the same as we had in previous gay marriage races. But this time the combination of homosexual lobby’s enormous funding, sophisticated propaganda campaign, intimidation tactics, and support by the mainstream media–along with a flawed pro-family strategy–could not be overcome.

The top ten reasons the homosexual lobby was able to win:

(1) Huge money

The homosexual movement raised enormous amounts of money. Corporations and individual millionaires (and billionaires) poured endless resources into their coffers. NOM did its best to keep up, but it was impossible. Overall, it’s estimated that our side was outspent by at least 5-1.

NOM said that they put $5.5 million into the four states, and were outspent by at least $20 million. However, the homosexual group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) claimed they raised $32 million for the gay marriage races, giving them a very big advantage.

(2) Sophisticated campaign tactics

The homosexual groups put their money to use through extremely sophisticated campaign tactics and an array of well-crafted psychological techniques, weaving emotion with flawed reasoning, to persuade people who had opposed gay marriage, to support it. In addition, throughout the four states, they able to bring thousands of pro-homosexual volunteers into critical areas for their “ground game.”

The day after the election, a very revealing article, “How gay marriage finally won at the polls” was posted on various websites describing what they did in Maine:

The gay rights movement succeeded by using one of the most sophisticated issue campaign operations ever deployed — and by making it stick with old-fashioned commitment, hard work and face-to-face conversations.

Within weeks of the Maine loss [in 2009], Freedom To Marry helped assemble a coalition of state-based gay groups, polling experts and academic researchers to centralize and share information so that each campaign didn’t have to start from scratch for each new battle.

Third Way, a centrist think tank working in the coalition with Freedom To Marry, began to unpack exactly how straight people reacted to such tactics [advertisements showing kids being given books on homosexual relationships in school]. The group found that when straight people were asked what marriage meant to them, they spoke of love, commitment and responsibility. But when asked why they thought gay people wanted to marry, they cited rights and benefits. Tapping into anti-gay stereotypes, they suggested gay people wanted marriage for selfish reasons while they themselves wanted to express love and commitment.

Thalia Zapatos of Freedom To Marry, who oversees the coalition’s messaging research, describes another revelation from the data. [NOM's ad person Frank] Schubert’s misleading “princess” ads [describing homosexual books for kids] implied that schools could usurp the role of parents in teaching pro-gay values, but that was wrong. As Zapatos and her team pored over the research, they watched conversations in which voters spoke among themselves and kept circling back to the same insight: Parents are the parents, and they teach their kids values at home.

The first step to combating that fear were ads that showed (among other story lines) a mom who was also a teacher speaking at home with her husband. “What we do in a school is no substitute for what happens at home,” she says. Her husband chimes in: “No law is going to change the core values we teach our kids here at home.” The takeaway: No one would force parents into uncomfortable conversations when their own child returned home from school.

But advertising is a one-way conversation. Zapatos began to find that once voters became engaged (either by pro- or anti-forces), new concerns arose. The next step was to turn the messaging into a conversation.

In the end, the Maine campaign spoke to 250,000 people, nearly one-fifth of the state’s population — and that was likely the fifth that mattered most. This sort of effort is ongoing in more states beyond this week’s election, such as Oregon, which may be next up for an initiative.

Research shows that knowing a gay person makes you 65 percent more likely to support same-sex marriage – and having a conversation with that gay person about marriage raises the figure to 80 percent. Third Way recently released a report showing that 75 percent of positive movement in support for same-sex marriage comes from people of every age group changing their minds. It’s about having the right message and imparting it with patience and labor.

And that’s not all. Since older people tend to be more conservative, the homosexual lobby specifically targeted them with their emotional outreach. One of their most successful ads, “The Gardner Family” of Maine was written up in the New York Times. It is a masterpiece of emotional propaganda. The ad conjures references to discrimination, cruelty to other people, having a relative who’s gay, and more.

Their campaign tactics also targeted Christians by emotionally portraying “true” Christianity as being “compassionate” and not “cruel” regarding people loving each other and letting them marry.

Finally, unlike in previous years, the homosexual lobby’s TV commercials contained almost no actual gay characters. Their research found that it was more effective to use straight characters who would talk about their friends and relatives who were homosexual.

As described above, these tactics worked so well that the homosexual lobby has already indicated that they will re-use them the country in future races.

(3) Flawed pro-family strategy

In sharp contrast to the homosexual lobby’s slick, sophisticated propaganda machine, the pro-family overall approach was largely the same moderate, inoffensive, often logically incoherent approach that they’ve coasted on until now. A number of activists made it a point to complain to us about that.

For example, most of the pro-family message was some variation of: Every child needs a father and a mother; the word “marriage” is special; marriage is about procreation; marriage is a timeless institution; gays already have all the rights marriage brings; etc. These arguments are not emotional, fairly general, and not very compelling. In contrast, the homosexual lobby made the arguments in their ads emotional and personal.

At its root, “gay marriage” is really about the forced acceptance of homosexuality as a normal part of society. But both NOM and the state pro-family groups went to great lengths not to criticize homosexual behavior. They were very fearful of being perceived as “anti-gay” or “homophobic” especially in the liberal press. So they insisted on moderating everyone’s messages. In Minnesota, for instance, activists were specifically told, “Don’t make this a gay issue.”

Those who deviated from this and took a more direct approach were shunned and even publicly criticized by the pro-family establishment. This included some of the vocal black churches in Maryland who wanted to quote the Bible, and activists in Maine and Minnesota who felt compelled to discuss the negative aspects homosexual behavior.

Except for some material posted on websites of the local pro-family groups, there were no attempts at all that we know of to persuade the public through advertising that homosexual behavior was perverse, dysfunctional, and unhealthy. Our side basically conceded that argument completely, and even went to lengths to state that “we’re not anti-gay.” The homosexual lobby took full advantage of that by aggressively portraying homosexuality as just another facet of normal human behavior.

This tactic is not sustainable, as it soon became clear. It certainly does not effectively counter the emotional strategies put forth by the homosexual lobby. At some point you have to engage in the real battle at hand.

(4) Hard-hitting pro-family commercials came too late

In the final few weeks when they finally hit the airwaves with a “red meat” anti-gay marriage commercial, it was too little, too late.

This mirrored a disturbing pattern we noticed in past gay marriage races. Our side would use the “soft” message until it became clear that the race was in trouble of losing. Then at the last minute bring in the hard-hitting David and Tonia Parker / Robb and Robin Wirthlin TV ads. They were first used in the California Prop 8 reverendum in 2008, and have been used in several since then.

These ads are emotional and direct. The Massachusetts parents describe how their elementary school children were read children’s books describing homosexual relationships. The schools refused to let parents opt out their kids or even be notified. When the Parkers and Wirthlins took it to court, a federal judge ruled against them — because “gay marriage” in Massachusetts obliges schools to portray homosexual relationships as equivalent to real marriage. The ads are very effective.

But in all four states, the Parker / Wirthlin ads were held back until about two weeks before the election, then finally unleashed. But that was too late, according to activists we talked to. These — and similar ads — should have been on the air for months.

It’s clear that the gay lobby hates and fears these ads, and anticipated them. In Maryland, the homosexual groups ran TV ads all summer saying that homosexual issues would NOT be taught in the schools. Nevertheless, as soon as the Parker ads showed up they seemed to panic, and their only defense was to claim that the Parkers were lying, which their allies in the media ran with.

These ads really exploited the homosexual lobby’s weakness. As one Maryland activist told us, “Our side should have been running the David Parker ads early and often.”

(5) Obama and the targeting of the black community

This past summer Barack Obama announced his support for gay marriage. In Maryland, where blacks have been a large anti-gay marriage constituency, this had a terrible effect on many black churches. Almost immediately many either stopped dealing with the issue and some even switched to supporting it.

The homosexual lobby used that crisis to its full advantage by directing huge efforts and money into a full-court press to target blacks to support homosexual marriage. Not long after the White House announcement, they created very slick pro-gay marriage flyer featuring Michelle Obama which was widely distributed in the black community. It was even brought to the polls by some voters.

But their biggest target was the black churches, which they started working on even before the Obama announcement. Back in January, Maryland’s pro-gay Governor helped persuade two of the most prominent black ministers in the state — who had already started to go soft on the issue — to take an active role in persuading their community to abandon their support for traditional marriage.

The two pastors, Rev. Donte Hickman Sr., pastor of Southern Baptist Church in East Baltimore and Rev. Delman Coates, who leads a megachurch in Prince George’s County, were ultimately a major part of the homosexual lobby’s propaganda campaign.

As the Baltimore Sun later described, things progressed considerably since their January meeting with the Governor:

Ten months later, the two had become the highest-profile pitchmen for Question 6, appearing in nearly identical commercials that played on television for three-quarters of the campaign. In Baltimore — during some stretches — the average person saw the commercials 10 times a week.

Voters’ approval of Maryland’s same-sex marriage law last week can be traced in part to the decision by Hickman, 41, and Coates, 39, to lend their names, faces and reputations to a campaign on an issue that remains highly controversial in their community.

. . . The group [Marylanders for Marriage Equality] spent about $800,000 a week on television time, and Hickman and Coates remained on the air for most of the campaign.

(6) Intimidation tactics

Probably the most vile aspect of these races was how homosexual activists and their allies turned their intimidation machine into high gear. It started out with everyone on the pro-family side of the issue being loudly labeled a “bigot” and “hater” at every opportunity. Many people became afraid to discuss the issue or even put up signs, we were told, because of this.

Before long it escalated into vandalism. A church in Maine was vandalized with swastikas painted on it to send a strong message to the congregation.

It was very widespread regarding pro-marriage signs. As one activist in Minnesota told us, “Everybody had signs vandalized, stolen, ripped apart.” He added that he even had to go back to his church every few days with a new sign. In Maine it became so blatant that a video of pro-marriage signs being stolen and destroyed was posted on YouTube. Activists in Minnesota also posted a video of a sign being stolen.

(7) Confusing ballot language

There was a lot of confusion even when you got into the voting booth. In Maryland and Washington, people were voting whether to overturn their legislatures’ passage of a gay marriage law. But in both cases it was worded so that a “no” vote would overturn it and a “yes” vote would keep it. Moreover, wording on the ballot in Maryland referred to issuing “marriage licenses” to any two people and talked about religious protections, rather than the actual text of the law, which clouded the issue. Some people told us that the wording looked pro-family, and almost didn’t realize it wasn’t.

(8) Ballot fraud

During early voting in Maryland, in many cases the touch-screen machines which created paper ballots did not register the “no” votes on the marriage ballot question; instead it come out blank. One woman told us that she noticed hers came out blank, and she had to go back and re-vote on it. She said that this happened to many others she knew of, and that one person had to go back three times to get his “no” vote properly registered. This is outrageous.

At least one relatively conservative area in Maryland surprisingly voted “yes” for gay marriage. There is suspicion that some kind of voter fraud was behind that. “It was really startling that we lost there,” one local activist told us.

We have been informed that pro-family attorneys are getting involved in the continuing counting of absentee ballots in some of the key areas where the vote was close.

(9) The Democrat machine vs GOP non-help

The Democratic Party machine and its various allies were actively helping the homosexual lobby. In Maryland, teachers’ union people were handing out their pro-gay ballot sheets at the polls. But as far as we could tell, the GOP played a very minor role, if any. In Maryland, the GOP did robo-calls supporting candidates and one ballot question, but didn’t mention this one. In Maine the GOP also avoided this issue. Some GOP politicians came out for marriage in Minnesota, but were very moderate in their approach. On the national level, the Romney people had stated that marriage was not an issue in their campaign and they offered no support.

(10) The media

The news media continued its overwhelmingly biased coverage of the gay marriage issue and the homosexual issue in general. This was particularly noticable in the simultaneous attacks on the David and Tonia Parker ads by media in all four states.

But also, television’s general embrace and normalization of homosexuality in its prime-time programming has had its intended effect of softening up many people on this issue. And conversely, the media routinely portray the pro-family side as bigoted, hateful, and dysfunctional.

Conclusion

All four of these races were lost for basically the same reasons: Our side was enormously outspent and out-organized, along with a phalanx of other forces enumerated above.

Furthermore, the groups running the campaign opposing gay marriage had an arsenal of weapons about homosexuality, homosexual behavior, and the destructive nature of homosexual relationships that they didn’t use because it would not be “politically correct” and would likely anger the liberal media — and because it wouldn’t be seen as “nice.” And when they finally were willing to use the very effective issue of schools forcing homosexuality on kids, it was too late.

Voters are now so dumbed down and are constantly fed a twisted view of church and religion by the media and academia. They don’t examine issues but follow emotional and often illogical propaganda. So the verdict often comes out: “Everybody should be happy. Leave it up to God. My nephew’s gay, so it should be legal.”

It’s not surprising that, as mentioned above, they are already talking about using these campaigns as a template for “turning over” other states one by one. And of course, they are also focused on overturning DOMA (the federal Defense of Marriage Act, allowing states to stand by their own laws banning same-sex marriage).

Nevertheless, we are still confident of the future.

Looking at everything they had to do, it’s still very clear that the ONLY way the homosexual lobby can win a gay marriage referendum – even in these four very blue states, and by those relatively small margins — is through the extraordinary measures and expenditures listed above, along with our acquiescence on moderating our opposing message.

If our side can get its ideological act together, toss out our milquetoast rhetoric, get some political courage, and be aggressive rather than reactive, we would be pretty unstoppable. But right now, that’s a big “if.”

Go here to learn more.

Related posts:

  1. NYT Dubs Man-woman Union: ‘Opposite-sex Marriage’ Many Americans may be accustomed to hearing the term “same-sex…
  2. Gay Marriage Is Wrong For America We were married 29 years ago in Seattle, Washington. This…

Nat’l GOP Gives $1m To Gay Activist Candidate For Congress

Richard Tisei SC Natl GOP gives $1m to gay activist candidate for Congress

The Republican establishment in Washington is pouring enormous amounts of money — over a million dollars — into Massachusetts to elect an aggressive, anti-family homosexual activist to Congress.

In Massachusetts, Richard Tisei is known as an openly “gay” liberal Republican politician who ran for Lt. Governor in 2010. Prior to that as a State Senator, among other things he worked to successfully block the people’s right to vote on the Marriage Amendment.

Tisei is the only Republican Congressional candidate in Massachusetts to receive such support from the national Republican Congressional campaign!

Flood of expensive TV ads

Anyone watching TV in Massachusetts has undoubtedly seen a flood of television ads which support just one particular Republican challenger, Richard Tisei, mostly through attacks on the Democratic incumbent, Rep. John Tierney (6th District). The ads are impossible to miss, and easily dwarf all the TV spending in all the other Congressional districts in the state.

The Republican National Congressional Committee (RNCC) has picked Tisei to be one of their so-called “Young Guns,” an elite group of 30 US House challengers being touted as “the new generation of right-wing House Republicans who are looking to put their conservative stamp on Washington.” (We’re not making this up.)

The RNCC and its super PAC Young Guns Action Fund have already spent nearly a million dollars for hundreds of 30-second ads on behalf of Tisei, and many more are planned.

How radical is Richard Tisei?

Tisei is both fiscally and socially liberal. His political views and record in the Massachusetts Legislature include:

  • High taxes. Has refused to sign Grover Norquist’s pledge that he would not raise taxes if elected to Congress. In Mass. Legislature, Tisei voted against several bills to reduce taxes, earning him the wrath of Citizens for Limited Taxation. Tisei was the only State Senate Republican who voted against the tax rollback in May 2000.
  • Abortion. Strongly supports abortion. Rated 100% by NARAL and 100% by Planned Parenthood.
  • Abortion buffer zone. Co-sponsored the bill that expanded the buffer zone around abortion clinics.
  • Hostile to religious faith. Co-sponsored the “emergency contraception bill” in 2005 (vetoed by Gov. Mitt Romney because it would force Catholic hospital workers to act against their faith).
  • Gay activist. “Came out” as a homosexual in 2010 and has proudly and publicly embraced the homosexual lifestyle. Prior to that he pushed its agenda supporting a range of bills and legislative actions, working with activists and the homosexual lobby. Has since appeared in numerous homosexual newspapers and magazines. Marched in 2010 Gay Pride parade (see news video).
  • Gay marriage. Passionately supports same-sex “marriage”. He brags that he fought to make it “legal” in Massachusetts. Believes it’s a civil right that must be granted across America. (See excerpt from radio interview, below.) Tisei may “marry” his male partner after Election Day, reports the Washington Post.
  • Stopped Marriage Amendment vote in Massachusetts in 2007. As part of the leadership in the legislature, fought successfully NOT to let the people of Massachusetts vote on the Marriage Amendment. Bragged in homosexual magazine that “The margin of victory [to deny the vote] was provided by Republicans,” and he took the lead in pressuring and persuading them.
  • Helped to spread “gay marriage” across the U.S. with his vote to repeal “1913 Law” (in 2008). That law had barred out-of-state same-sex couples from “marrying” in Massachusetts if those “marriages” were not recognized as legal in their home states.
  • Gay propagandist. Appeared in slick pro-homosexual “marriage” propaganda video produced by the homosexual lobby group MassEquality to persuade legislators to block the Marriage Amendment. Includes a number of questionable (i.e., phony) statistics.
  • Actively works to move the Republican party leftward on “gay rights.” Told homosexual newspaper “”What I would say to people is that we will never have true equality unless we have strong voices and allies speaking out for fairness from both sides of the aisle.” As the Washington Post reported: “Tisei takes an evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach to gay rights and the congressional agenda. ‘If I’m in the [Republican] caucus, people are going to see me, they’re going to get to know me. Just the fact that I’m there, is going to make a lot of people question, or think about the issue differently. Rather than poking somebody in the eye, the best way to deal with it is to let them evolve. I’ve seen all kinds of people, Democrats and Republicans, change their opinions of it over time.’”
  • “Transgender Rights” bill. Was lone Republican co-sponsor of radical Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes Law when first filed. The bill (passed in 2011) forces businesses, schools, and government to accept cross-dressing and transsexuality or face punishment. Was a strong proponent and helped develop the strategy (i.e., “this is an anti-discrimination bill”) to get it passed.
  • Supports homosexual agenda in schools. Told homosexual newspaper that if elected to Lt. Governor he would “work very closely with” the dreaded state-funded Commission on GLBT Youth — which spends public money implementing homosexual programs in the public schools and supports gay-bisexual-transgender clubs for kids both on and off campus.
  • Turncoat Republican. Tisei told National Public Radio: “When Gov. Romney was here, I voted with him half the time, and I voted against him half the time. … I have no problem working with Nancy Pelosi. Just because she’s in the opposition, I’m not gonna poke her in the eye.

Tisei believes that “gay marriage” is inevitable in America, and he plans to fight hard to make that happen as sooner rather than later. He compares it to interracial marriage, and that court decisions and laws are necessary — not allowing people to vote on it. In May, Tisei and national homosexual activist Jarrett Barrios were interviewed on Boston’s National Public Radio affiliate.

Here’s what Tisei told NPR about gay marriage taking over America:

I look at this as more in a historical perspective. This is the same situation that popped up with interracial marriage in 1948 in California; a very controversial court decision there and California became the first state to legalize interracial marriage. It took a while for the rest of the country to catch up. State by state you saw a change, until finally the Supreme Court some 20-something years later with a decision that banning interracial marriage in the United States was unconstitutional.

I kind of look at this situation we’re on as pretty much on the same track…I think you need both the legislature. . . AND you need the courts. This isn’t going to happen overnight, but look at the progress that’s been made already since Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize gay marriage.

Link to the entire NPR broadcast HERE.

You can be sure that Tisei will vote to repeal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) if he’s elected to Congress.

And the Republican establishment considers him a “conservative”? Most Republicans would see a Richard Tisei as the exact opposite of anyone they would support, much less someone the Republican establishment would spend enormous funds to elect to Congress. He does not appear to agree much with the Republican Party Platform, to say the least.

What is the Republican “Young Guns” program?

The “Young Guns” program was by started by Congressman Paul Ryan (the current GOP VP Candidate) along with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia and Republican House Whip Kevin McCarthy of California. It was basically sold as a strategy to raise money to support a select group of aggressive, conservative challengers in winnable Congressional races, and nurture them to victory. In 2009 it became part of the National Republican Congressional Committee and helped in the 2010 GOP takeover of the House.

The term “Young Guns” originally came from an October 2007 article in The Weekly Standard. In 2010 Ryan, Cantor, and McCarthy wrote a book about the idea.

Their media image of the “Young Guns” has been well crafted. As pointed out above, the group is regularly described as “a new generation of right-wing House Republicans who are looking to put their conservative stamp on Washington.”

But behind the scenes, it’s another picture entirely. As the Washington Post reports:

Republican leaders are actively helping Tisei’s campaign, and they promise that his sexual orientation and his liberal views on gay marriage and abortion rights would not make him an outcast in their conservative caucus.

“We all came here from somewhere. It is the opportunity that drew us here, and he will have every bit of opportunity, as an openly gay Republican, as any other Republican,” House Majority Leader Eric I. Cantor (R-Va.) said. “I told him, we’re fully behind him. I’m supportive of his candidacy and look forward to serving with him.”

Super PAC is formed

In 2011, the Young Guns Action Fund super PAC (YG Action Fund) was formed to raise the big money for the 2012 election and take some of the burden off the RNCC. This past April, billionaire Sheldon Adelson (who had earlier given millions to the Gingrich campaign) gave $5 million to the YG Action Fund and they were off and running, and raising more money from other wealthy Republican donors. This year there are 30 “young gun” candidates selected for their hardcore support, including Tisei, who has already received over a million dollars from the YG Action Fund, and thus appears to be getting a particularly large share of the money.

Why are Congressional leaders supporting Tisei? Strange answers.

Of all the Congressional races across the country (and across Massachusetts) why pick this one? And why Tisei of all candidates, who is loathed by the conservative base and is running against an entrenched incumbent? Why not pick a race like the 4th District that’s an open seat (with Barney Frank retiring)? How did these decisions get made?

It’s very difficult to get any answers on this. Nobody at the RNCC would talk to us, despite numerous attempts by telephone and email.

The most prominent “Young Guns” staffer quoted in the media is Brad Dayspring, a former deputy chief of staff to Eric Cantor. Dayspring recently told Commonwealth Magazine, “Richard Tisei is a next generation, live-and-let-live Republican and someone that the people of Massachusetts can be proud of.”

We finally reached by Dayspring by phone this week. This was our conversation with him:

We started out listing the multitude of problems with Tisei and asked Dayspring why they were supporting him. “He is the most conservative candidate running in the 6th District,” he told us.

But Tisei the only Republican in that race, we said. Dayspring simply repeated: “He is the most conservative candidate running in the 6th District.”

But what about the other districts, we asked? What about the 4th District, with Sean Bielat. It’s an open seat and Bielat got 45% last time against Barney Frank. What about the 5th District, with Jon Golnik polling very well against Nikki Tsongas? Why not support them? Dayspring simply repeated, “Tisei is the most conservative candidate running in the 6th District.”

Then he added, “There are no other competitive districts in Massachusetts.” With the Obama voters coming out in force, he said, “to support anyone else in Massachusetts would be a fool’s errand.” When we started to rebut that, he interrupted, “Have you seen any Republican prognosticators that say any other races in Massachusetts are competitive?” We admitted we hadn’t consulted prognosticators.

“We are not in the business of throwing away money,” Dayspring stated. And that was that. His attitude had become quite condescending. And it’s a bit maddening to try to argue with that kind of logic, so we thanked him for his time and ended the call.

Pushing hard for Tisei

Besides the flood of lavish, expensive television ads, Tisei gets other red-carpet treatment from the “Young Guns” group. He gets lots of PR publicity, including TV interviews on major networks and media outlets. And in Tisei’s case, it works like a charm. It’s the only time you’ll ever see ABC, CNN, and the Huffington Post gush over a Republican.

And of course, there have been various swank DC fundraising events. This past Tuesday, Oct. 9, House Speaker John Boehner personally spent the morning raising money for Tisei. The average GOP Congressional candidate can only dream of that.

The push for Tisei, of course, includes the cooperation of the Massachusetts State Republican Party, which cleared the way for him to get the early money without the distraction and delay of a primary. In 2010, Bill Hudak, a charismatic local attorney, ran in that district and got 43% of the vote against Tierney. Hudak planned to run again this time and thus would have been in a primary against Tisei. But the state party establishment pressured Hudak to drop out before the primary so Tisei could have a clear run. In our opinion, that was pretty low.

(Finally, this is sadly not the first time this has happened. In 2010, Tisei was running for Lt. Governor as running mate to Charlie Baker, who described himself as “to the left of Obama on social issues.” Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, who claims to be a conservative, used his Republican Governor’s Association group to pour over $2 million for attack ads against Baker and Tisei’s opponents. It didn’t work; Baker and Tisei still lost.)

A gush of major “gay Republican” money for Tisei

If that’s not enough, the Republican “gay money machine” is gearing up for Tisei. As the Washington Post reported on Sept. 29:

The Tisei campaign has also become a rallying point for a cluster of wealthy Republican donors who support gay rights and would like to see the party move away from some of its recent harsh rhetoric on the issue.

Tisei has the financial backing of some of the most prominent gay conservatives, including Peter Thiel, the billionaire co-founder of PayPal, and Ken Mehlman, the former Republican National Committee chairman. Mehlman, now a private-equity executive, hosted a New York fundraiser for Tisei. A new super PAC supporting Republicans who approve of gay marriage — with financial backing from billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer — may enter the Tisei race in a few weeks.

Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen, this is your 2012 National Republican party. Diversity is much more important than conservative principles. Maybe they think that if unprincipled Republicans get elected, the liberals and the media (and their mushy RINO donors) will like them all better. The bottom line is that it’s down to the same old thing: money and power. They can pretend to be conservative for the hoi polloi, but they’re much too “refined” to actually hold to those principles. The YG Action Fund spokesman made that pretty clear to us. And this will only be exacerbated among the Republicans under a Romney administration, we fear.

Unfortunately, in the long run everybody on the right suffers from this kind of strategy. It’s very shortsighted. Without principles and real fortitude, nothing else in politics works for very long. That’s pretty much what happened back in 2006, isn’t it?

As a Congressman, Tisei will do exactly what he did in the Massachusetts Legislature: be an aggressive fifth columnist for the radical homosexual and abortion movement, terrible on taxes, and work tirelessly to move the party to the left. None of that seems to matter to the establishment Republicans.

We remember hearing how hard it was to get conservative principles into the National Republican Party Platform at the convention in Tampa this year. It was only through sheer perseverance by conservatives that it worked out. The RINOs there had tried to stack the deck, we were told, to create a much more watered down document. Tisei shows us exactly where the RINOs hope to take the party.

But we’ll say one thing for Richard Tisei. He doesn’t hide what he believes or what his goals are. From that perspective, he’s probably the only honest one in the whole bunch. Maybe the only one there with “principles.”

What you can do

Although the “Citizens United” Supreme Court decision has given much more influence to wealthy donors, the Party elite still cannot ignore the average person.

We think it would be useful to contact the Republican National Congressional Committee either by phone or email and let them know why you will never give them a penny. We believe it’s very important for them to hear that from a lot of angry people.

Beyond that, give generously to individual CANDIDATES. But don’t give any money the Republican Party or PACs connected with them. This is a widespread problem, trust us. In any case, you’ll never be able to compete with the millionaires who seem to control things within the Party establishment.

Photo credit: MassResistance Staff

Related posts:

  1. Cowardly Congress Won’t Investigate Manchurian Candidate Obama No hearings into Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to hold the…
  2. Obama’s Solar Power At Yosemite Natl Park Will Pay For Itself — In 2088 by Kevin “Coach” Collins Yosemite National Park has installed the…