Taking Exception

I may be wrong, but I think this statement is wrong:

A state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the ballot in 2004 is widely credited with helping elect Republican Johnny Isakson to the U.S. Senate and sweeping Democrats out of Georgia’s statehouse.

Now, I certainly think that was one of the intentions of putting the gay marriage amendment on the ballot, but I don’t think that is what really pushed Johnny over the line. I think the Republican ground game, Johnny’s lack of an inspiring opponent, etc. had as much, if not much more to do with his victory than the gay marriage amendment.

Now, the whole article is actually about Sonny seeing legislative defeats while in Korea. Sure, he may have had some, but the Kia Plant headlines trump the legislative defeats I think.

5 comments

  1. GAWire says:

    First, you are right that that statement is completely wrong. Isakson was a good candidate with a strong campaign, but mostly, there was just no candidate that was better in the General Election.

    Furthermore, Sonny has not had any real “legislative defeats.” The author is pulling that out of nowhere. This was a year about avoiding any mishaps, and not only did the GOP do that, we also had some good successes.

    Sounds like an example of a misinformed author trying to make something out of nothing.

  2. Decaturguy says:

    I don’t think the marriage amendment had anything to do with Isakson’s victory. He would have won anyway.

    I do think it helped Republicans in some state house races, however. On the other hand, it exposed some vulnerabilities of some Republicans in suburban Atlanta swing districts, where the marriage amendment underperformed the Repubican House member and even President Bush in some cases. Particularly Reps. Joe Wilkinson (R-52) , Ed Lindsay (R-54) and Fran Millar (R-79). Based on the results of the marriage amendment in those districts, these guys would have a tougher time voting for anti-gay bills.

  3. Decaturguy says:

    It seems like the Democrats have finally figured out that it makes no sense to let Republicans put questions on the ballot that is likely to increase conservative turnout, even if it hurts the more rural Dems in the short term because the issue may have been popular with the folks back home. It will do nothing but increase turnout for supporters of your Republican opponent.

  4. Brian from Ellijay says:

    Also Jill Chambers had a hard time with it. Being the only Republican to vote against it, she had to, her district is something like 10% or 15% homosexual lifestyles. Not to mention that her district is already 50+% democrat.

Comments are closed.