South Carolina Republican Senate candidate, Jim DeMint, has now reached another anti-gay low. His was the campaign that accidentally sent out an email using the word “dike,” and now he’s declaring that gays should not be allowed to teach in public schools:
DeMint, a Greenville congressman, said the government should not endorse homosexuality and “folks teaching in school need to represent our values.” Tenenbaum, the state education superintendent, called DeMint’s position “un-American.” DeMint said after the debate that he would not require teachers to admit to being gay, but if they were “openly gay, I do not think that they should be teaching at public schools.”
It’s interesting to remember that, two generations ago, Ronald Reagan specifically opposed a California initiative to bar gays from teaching. But today’s Republican party is not Reagan’s party any more. It’s Santorum’s.
IT’S RAINING ADS: We’ve had a fantastically quick response to our new advertizing options. If you’re interested, sign up at low, introductory rates! Contact henry@blogads.com. Reader demographics available here.
HOW UNDECIDEDS VOTE: A great primer from a great new blogger, MysteryPollster, with encouraging news for Kerry. Every presidential challenger against an incumbent tends to do better in the final result than in the final polls – because undecideds break decisively for change. Bottom line: keep your eye on Bush’s approval number. If it’s appreciably below 50 percent, he’s in trouble. My own view is that the first debate was deeply damaging to Bush because it mainly confirmed people’s view that this is a president who doesn’t merit re-election. That’s much more significant than anyone’s views of the challenger.
EMAIL OF THE DAY: “This morning after church services, I sat with several of the older ladies who are faithful members of my congregation. The conversation turned to the Bush-Kerry debate. And I was amazed at the hostility expressed towards Bush! Of the six women at the table — four over 70, all over 65 — only one had previously been so outspoken. Today, all of them expressed serious doubts about Bush and five indicated their support of Kerry. To a person, they voiced concern about the war in Iraq and how we are in trouble there.
One of them, born in Canada, but now naturalized, has never voted — “it didn’t seem to matter” — but is so motivated that she is registering this week for the first time precisely so she can vote for Kerry, against Bush.
What’s the difference from the previous week? Frankly, it’s their boldness in speaking against Bush. My congregation leans Republican, and many Democrats have been reluctant to speak up, intimidated by the general feeling that criticizing the President is unpatriotic and unsupportive of our troops. But no more. The debate changed their mood. They watched Kerry raise reasonable doubts about Bush’s conduct of the war. They watched Bush unable to speak articulately about his conduct of the war. His stumbling emboldened them.
This matters. The prevailing mood of “criticizing the President is unpatriotic” has been crumbling for some months in all parts of the culture, including polite church ladies having coffee after worship on a Sunday morning. When the crumbling reaches this level, a mainline Protestant congregation in a small midwest manufacturing town, something has indeed changed in the debate.” More feedback on the Letters Page.
The Dish 