Politics
They Should Find Better Sponsors than These Schmucks
I love the Democracy in America podcast and blog put out by the Economist. Early in the primary season, I found it was the best source for covering the differences in all the candidates. Unlike US publications, the writers of the blog are clearly partisan and make no bones about letting their preferences come through.
Today, the blog reports on the Senate’s attempt at again getting a US Constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage (yawn!). This Amendment is naturally touted as being the only way that the Federal government can truly protect marriage from the invasion of gay people that want to ruin marriage for nice heterosexual couples like me. Of course, it affects me little whether Dan and Dave can get married or not but that’s not really the point of this post. What the Economist points out is who two of the most staunch defenders of the amendment are: Larry (”I just have a wide stance”) Craig and David (”mmm…hookers”) Vitter.
Yes, because those two are shining examples of why Dan and Dave shouldn’t marry. I realize that anyone can sponsor legislation and the more sponsors the better, but come on people. Do you really want these two schmucks connected with your attempt at saving marriage?
Possibly Related Posts (Auto Generated):
Discussion
No comments for “They Should Find Better Sponsors than These Schmucks”
Post a comment