Huh. I've never read this before:

Gay marriage votes and Andrew Sullivan: His landmark 1989 essay making a conservative case for gay marriage. - Slate Magazine

In 1989, most Americans had never even heard of gay marriage, and certainly couldn’t conceive that it would one day be legalized by popular vote. That year, Andrew Sullivan wrote a landmark essay for the New Republic, “Here Comes the Groom: A (Conservative) Case for Gay Marriage.” Sullivan’s essay is one of the most important magazine articles of recent decades. His argument, which he went on to elaborate in his books Virtually Normal and Same-Sex Marriage and in later essays, is that marriage for gays would “foster social cohesion, emotional security, and economic prudence.” Sullivan’s conservative case would eventually become the intellectual and moral foundation of the campaigns to legalize gay marriage. Sullivan gave Slate permission to reprint his New Republic essay in full.

The idea that gay marriage is consistant with conservative values was kind of an "out there" idea in 1989, right?

The idea that gay marriage is consistant with conservative values was kind of an "out there" idea in 1989, right?

It pretty much still is. The only high-profile conservatives I know of who favor it (and are willing to admit to that in public) are Andrew Sullivan and Ted Olson.

debra saunders - wrote a progay marriage column from the conservative side ( generally married couples invest in their property /schools/community more that couples that live together - so it is good for property values )

It pretty much still is. The only high-profile conservatives I know of who favor it (and are willing to admit to that in public) are Andrew Sullivan and Ted Olson.

In the US, anyway. But it's a common idea in the UK.

debra saunders - wrote a progay marriage column from the conservative side

I believe that. Although I bet that to the GOP, she's a RINO, given that she lives in the depraved Bay Area and writes for the Chron.

Came across this blog post this morning: [link] It's a GOP volunteer who was supposed to be on the GOTV team, talking about what a debacle election day was. And it shows that the reluctance to engage with reality extended to their own efforts, as well. Frankly, we're damned lucky Team Romney was as incompetent as they were: a solid GOTV effort might have made a difference in some key states.

I'm hungry. I need a pancake delivery service.

Oh dang, Dana. That sound like a marvelous idea. I'd like some pumpkin pancakes, please. I have my own maple syrup...

I'm hungry. I need a pancake delivery service.

I'm hungry too. While I don't have access to a pancake delivery service, there are pancakes a block away. I can sense them. Waiting for me.

Came across this blog post this morning: [link] It's a GOP volunteer who was supposed to be on the GOTV team, talking about what a debacle election day was.

That was really interesting.

Wonkette sez:

Anyway, this seems like it was quite the fuckup! The fact that the Romney campaign spent more than $100 million on services from political consulting firms close to his senior staff — services that we imagine were not vetted through a rigorous contracting process — couldn’t have anything to do with this and other failures, could it? Thank goodness the Republicans nominated a savvy businessman with so much private sector management experience to run this thing. Just imagine how badly it would’ve gone under the direction of some hippie community organizer!

More on this from Breitbart:

Exclusive - Inside Orca: How the Romney Campaign Suppressed Its Own Vote

As Republicans try to explain their Election Day losses in terms of policy, tactics, and strategy, one factor is emerging as the essential difference between the Obama and Romney campaigns on November 6: the absolute failure of Romney’s get-out-the-vote effort, which underperformed even John McCain’s lackluster 2008 turnout. One culprit appears to be “Orca,” the Romney’s massive technology effort, which failed completely.

eta:

Before the election, there was much fear-mongering on the Democratic side about the Republicans’ supposed plans to suppress turnout among Obama voters. After the election, GOP strategist Karl Rove accused the Obama campaign of “suppressing the vote” by running a negative campaign against Romney that kept voters at home.

The truth is much worse. There was, in fact, massive suppression of the Republican vote--by the Romney campaign, through the diversion of nearly 40,000 volunteers to a failing computer program.

There was no Plan B; there was only confusion, and silence.