Happy smug cudgeling

In partial defense of Clarence Thomas. In partial defense of Mitch McConnell. The editorial for Thomas followed roughly about the lines for McConnell on this:

I look over and see the headline, emanating out of, I believe, the Huffington Post, and which I can see reaching into cutesy comments.

Mitch Mcconnell. Voted against interracial marriage. The hypocrisy of a man married to a Taiwanese immigrant!

What is the point of this bullshit? I know, you know, everyone knows that he voted against codifying same sex marriage into law. And from there we have an add on language, basically just for the help of it, for a pointless and tribalist “dunking” on McConnell, a “neener neener” which largely serves as a liberal epistemological closure in that from they will know what the hell they are talking about with McConnell’s vote against interracial marriage. These things kind of go on where things are conflated and the original sourcing gets lost.

In defense, or maybe just a due nod toward a much maligned figure out in liberal -left land, Kyrsten Sinema. She is credited with shoring up bi-partisan, which is to say Republican, support. Call her a Republican if you must, but here she brings in this dozen for the vote against closure.

And the dozen Republicans. I am slightly annoyed that Ben Sasse of Nebraska is not on this list.

  1. Susan Collins of Maine
  2. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
  3. Rob Portman of Ohio
  4. Mitt Romney of Utah
  5. Thom Tillis of North Carolina
  6. Roy Blunt of Missouri
  7. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming
  8. Richard Burr of North Carolina
  9. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia
  10. Dan Sullivan of Alaska
  11. Joni Ernst of Iowa
  12. Todd Young of Indiana

Sure, we would probably drop a few of them with a bill that actually kept same sex marriage in all the states should Obergefell get overturned. Hell, maybe even most of them.

There we come into the curious spell. We just left a midterm election where the Democrats were saved off of Abortion rights, and where various statewide abortion initiatives carried the day. But the fact is that the laws — and then on to what the restrictions of restrictions were — varied, measured against the prevailing opinions on different constituencies — so the claim that the “pro-choice” side carried the day is diluted. A new initiative and laws will come back in for future election cycles, hoping to push the boundaries further. And, more importantly, hoping to drag Democratic voters into the polls… What of the isdue, really? We are in the oughts with gradations of “civil unions” getting fought over and swinging politicians’ elections.

Leave a Reply