While everybody else on Fox was talking about how badly Obama has been doing in the polls, Shepherd Smith was touting a poll that claimed Obama was rising and doing well, and announced it at the top of his program. He’s definitely a liberal. And it’s also pretty clear he’s gay. Few closets are big enough to hold that much faggotry. If Fox sent him to cover the next Folsom Street Fair they might never see him again.

It’s long been obvious Shep was no conservative, but the non-straight aspect is a surprise, though only a small one.

This is a reason to watch Fox News:

I don’t watch a dope like Smith, who will call the majority of people who watch Fox raaaaacists and gaaaaaycists. He is a typical progressive, if you don’t agree with him then you’re an _________ (insert name here) and on the wrong side of history.

 There’s an old saying-“If you don’t like yourself, not many other people will like you either.”

Shep being gay doesn’t bother or affect me a bit.  Shep being a biased and narcissistic moron bothers me enough I never watch him.  Sometimes I don’t hit the remote before his 7 pm show comes on, I heard him repeatedly claiming Zimmerman was guilty of something.  The guy’s an idiot, I’m sure Ailes knows it but his ratings are decent and if fired he would surely trash the network.

Reminds me of the Fort Hood murders, when Shep was basically calling all of his viewers raaaaacists, for email and tweeting him asking him to call it what it was: sudden jihad syndrome. Shep wanted to brush it off as just a mass murder.

It’s not about being on the right side of history, it’s about being on the right side of the electoral math — and Obama is.

It’s true that in some swing states, there’s still an anti-family/anti-marriage/anti-freedom majority.

But all but a statistically insignificant sliver of that majority was already unavailable to Obama regardless of what he said or did on the issue. If had come down off the fence firmly on the anti-family/anti-marriage/anti-freedom side of the issue, right on top of Mitt Romney’s head, it wouldn’t have gained him any votes, because the GOP already has those votes cornered.

Obama energized/motivated a few voters who already supported him but support him more now that he’s openly pro-family / pro-marriage / pro-freedom.

He immunized himself against losing a few voters whose support for him was lukewarm and who might have considered defecting to the pro-family / pro-marriage / pro-freedom Libertarian candidate had he not climbed down off the fence.

And he might even pick up a few voters who would otherwise go Republican, but really, really, really had a problem with that party’s anti-family / anti-marriage / anti-freedom candidate/position.

 It’s funny how supposedly the majority of Americans support gay marriage, according to pollsters like Gallup; yet in the one poll that matters — the voting booth — Americans overwhelmingly vote to ban gay marriage.  Even in very liberal states, like California.

The alleged vast support of the majority for gay marriage is just that… alleged.

Thomas, how many times has homosexual marriage been weighed by a public referendum and the pro-homosexual side won? I’ll give you a hint: It is a number less than 1 and you can’t divide another number by it.

‘Stupid’ being the operative word.

PAB!

Rick, et al,

Swing/battleground state math is about which votes are available to whom, and who gets most of those votes out.

Among anti-family voters — people who support marriage apartheid and consider it a major issue — Obama’s support wouldn’t fill a thimble anyway. It’s true that he won’t get their votes by coming down on the pro-family side, but he wasn’t getting their votes by being on the fence, either, and if he had come down on the anti-family side they’d never have believed him.

So, Obama didn’t lose a single vote by doing the right thing. 

He did, however, give pro-family voters — people who oppose marriage apartheid and consider it a major issue — a reason to go vote in November instead of staying home and watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy reruns, and to vote for him rather than for a third party pro-family candidate like Gary Johnson.

The whole thing probably won’t move the arrow more than a percentage point, but in “battleground” states a percentage point can make the difference.

 And without the icky communist proclivities.

TPT,

My opinion — and it is just an opinion — is that the effect you speak of will be statistically insignificant even within the context of the sub-1% vote margins we’re talking about.

The reason for that is that social conservatives ALWAYS talk themselves into not sitting it out, and they NEVER abandon the GOP in significant numbers.

Even in 2008, when socons had themselves convinced pre-nomination that John McCain was the second coming of Gus Hall, and when Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party candidate, and when a well-known conservative ran as the Libertarian Party’s nominee, the CP candidate came it at just under 200k votes nationwide and the LP candidate ran a typical LP vote total.

Could that change? Sure. Do I see any evidence that it already has, or that it’s about to? No.

By November, social conservatives will have themselves convinced that Mitt Romney is secretly the love child of Edmund Burke and Phyllis Schlafly. They always do.

 I don’t think anything, and don’t claim to know.

But yeah, when the first time you notice a comment on a blog post from somebody is when its dealing with homosexual issues and they come down solidly on the pro-homo side, its easy to make that assumption.

But hey, if you’re not a pole smoker, good for you. It can’t feel too good to know that when the neighborhood kids get into arguments, one or the other is likely to get called your name.

I have Romney at five “almost certainly states” and another four or five “possibles.” Over-under on his electoral votes: 90.

 I don’t have any voices in my head telling me who to like or not like, I decide that on my own.

And yeah, I know now for a fact you’re a fucking five alarm faggot.

I’ve publicly predicted that he’ll almost certainly win Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Texas and Wyoming, and that he has a decent shot at Florida, Georgia and South Carolina if he picks a veep who’s got southron mojo. Above and beyond that, I included a 10 electoral vote fudge factor in my over-under.

I may be wrong, but I’m not “dreaming,” as that implies sentiment for or against one of the candidates — I don’t give a damn who wins where, except to the extent that I may place bets.

Also that was an early projection. I’m not blind to the possibility that the race might tighten up some between now and November. But I don’t think Romney has a chance in hell of polling as well as McCain did.

 OK, when exactly did opposing gay marriage become “anti-family”?

 It’s a talking point to suggest that homosexuals who want the right to get married only want to have stable marriages and families. If you oppose this, then you are supposedly “anti-family”.