James, the lede still reads like an editorial, calling the legal challenge "an attempt to win equal treatment under New York State's marraige law." That's just begging for the retort: they can get married -- to persons of the opposite sex.
The Spectacle Blog
Not even the New York Times, it seems, can get away with spinning the gay-marriage ruling of their state's highest court. The breaking-news headline announced a holding that gay marriage "Should Be Considered" by the state. But this one-line editorial has been erased. In its place -- only minutes later -- one reads the fact of the matter, which is that the court "Rejects Challenge to Gay Marriage Ban."
Interesting that Senator Swift Boat has decided not to endorse Sen. Joe Lieberman in his primary race in Connecticut. Another cut and run routine, and a class act all the way around.
Some folks have misinterpreted our call for RNC support of Lieberman. The nut job leftists attacking Lieberman are doing so almost exclusively due to Lieberman's strong and consistent support of the Bush administration's war on terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom. And colleagues like Clinton and Kerry are enabling these buffoons. All of this, of course, is good for conservatives and Republicans.
But it would tragic for Lieberman to lose his primary on the efforts of our men and women fighting for freedom and to keep us safe. If the Republicans could tolerate the likes of Chafee and Snowe, they can tolerate six weeks of support for Lieberman.
Speaking of the President's milestone day, the Washington Post yesterday was clearly disappointed that Mr. Bush wasn't making a bigger deal of turning 60 or observing his big day ahead of time:
...Bush appeared annoyed when a reporter asked if he planned to treat himself for his birthday, which is Thursday.
"Generally, I celebrate my birthday on the birthday itself," he scolded.
This "[i]n contrast to President Bill Clinton, whose 50th birthday in office was celebrated with an extravagant, star-filled, televised gala ..." A nice reminder. Would Bush numbers be higher if he were an obsessive megalomaniac?
Not to be too Marilyn Monroe about it, but Happy Birthday Mr. President.
In 1999, when Gallup asked Americans whether they would vote for a Mormon, 17 percent said no.
A new Los Angeles Times/Blooomberg poll found that 37 percent would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate. The red herring of this report is that 21 percent said they would not vote for an evangelical Protestant candidate. My guess is that the anti-evangelical group is most outside the Republican Party, but the anti-Mormon group is well represented within the Republican Party. If anything, the Republican evangelicals would be Mitt Romney's most reluctant voters if he were to run for president.
As we reported a week ago, Sen. Joe Lieberman has now publicly stated his intention to pull in signatures for a petition that would place him on the November ballot as an "independent" should he lose the Democrat primary vote.
Right now, this is simply doing the smart, conservative thing, given the weird political environment we are living through. Lieberman is still expected to win his primary, but that hasn't stopped people like Hillary Rodham Clinton from betraying just how nutty the Democrat Party is. She announced her support for Lieberman, but linked it to his winning the primary. If not, then he was out of luck.