The Schizophrenia of the Cox Campaign

This confuses me. Apparently Cox is opposed to a gay marriage ban, then is for it, then is against it, then is something else but I can’t really figure it out.

She told Kevin Clark with Georgia Equality that she was not happy with her initial campaign statement and that as governor she’d make him proud. She stands by that statement, but refuses now to say exactly what he is and is not in favor of.

Campaign spokesman Peter Jackson said Friday that Cox doesn’t repudiate the statement Clark said she told him she was “unhappy

15 comments

  1. Demonbeck says:

    CC’s biggest opponent in the coming primary may not be Mark Taylor, her biggest opponent will likely be herself.

    How does someone with her credentials and experience screw up this badly in such a big campaign?

    Not that I am complaining, I’d love to have Mark Taylor face Sonny.

  2. GTdem says:

    “Best I can figure it out, Cox is opposed to gay marriage, but thinks it is already against the law so she does not see any need for the amendment, so she is opposed to the amendment, not because she opposes its purpose, but because she thinks it is redundant.

  3. buzzbrockway says:

    I think voters respect someone who is consistent even if they think he/she is wrong. When a candidate is thought of as a flip-flopper that’s about as bad as it can get for that candidate. Cox is quickly gaining that reputation.

  4. Romegaguy says:

    I am trying to remember, but didnt Cathy and her husband keep their membership in Druid Hills country club after the club refused to allow gay couples to be treated the same as straight couples?

  5. shep1975 says:

    I know why Bill is for gay marriage…with a 2-1 male/female ratio at Tech, allowing gay marriage will give the hope of marriage to all of those Tech men who cannot get even the few women that don’t run off and marry UGA men.

  6. JP says:

    Buzz–Do you realize how often Bush has “flip-flopped”? If not, the only reason is the media emphasizes those of the Democrats.

    That said–why do people think “gay marriage” is such an issue? Isn’t our dropping of one of the main clauses of the Geneva convention a little more important?

  7. truerblue says:

    Food for thought:

    Dr. Charles Bullock
    Gay Voters Should Consider History Before Venting Anger At Dems
    (6/5/06) In Atlanta as in a number of other urban areas around the country, the gay vote has become a factor. As marketing firms know quite well gays tend to be well educated and affluent. Those characteristics are also correlates of political activism.

    The votes from the gay community have elected one lesbian to chair of the Atlanta City Council and another to the Georgia House. The 2006 election may result in a gay winning a House seat. These voters can also be decisive in contests involving straight candidates inside I-285.

    In the wake of Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance Russell’s decision striking down the constitutional amendment passed in 2004 that banned gay marriage, Governor Sonny Perdue has threatened to call a special session of the legislature if the state Supreme Court does not reverse the lower court decision. With the possibility that banning gay marriage will again be on the ballot in 2006, some in the gay community are looking for ways to focus their frustrations.

    Some in the gay community have been outraged at Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Cathy Cox who endorsed Perdue’s call for a special session. They feel betrayed since two years ago Cox was one of the Democrats who questioned the need for a constitutional amendment designed to achieve a result already provided for by statute, that is, restricting marriage to the union of a man and a woman. Newspapers report that some gays who had supported Cox now plan to ask for Republican primary ballots in an attempt to torpedo Ralph Reed’s candidacy for lieutenant governor. Others say they will vote in the Democratic primary but skip over the gubernatorial choices.

    Is the desire to “teach Cox a lesson

  8. stephanie says:

    Want some more food for though?

    Before this day, O’Brien was 15 points ahead of Romney.

    O’Brien flip-flops in favor of gay marriage legislation

    Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Shannon O’Brien made a spur-of-the-moment flip-flop in favor of gay marriage yesterday, while her opponent, Republican Mitt Romney, fended off accusations of being “hostile” to homosexuals.

    O’Brien has previously been consistent in her opposition to gay marriage, instead supporting so-called “civil unions” that confer similar benefits like health care and hospital visitation rights.

    But at an event yesterday where she received endorsements from prominent gay groups and officials, O’Brien for the first time said she would sign legislation allowing gays to marry, if elected governor.

    “I would support a marriage piece of legislation,” O’Brien said. “I am committed to making sure that we have equal rights for gay and lesbian couples and I will work to make those equal rights a reality.”

    O’Brien cautioned she would push civil unions before gay marriage, which she said would be “much more difficult” to achieve, given legislative opposition and “social and religious connotations.”

    O’Brien’s sudden reversal sent the Romney camp into overdrive, with Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom accusing O’Brien of behaving like a “weathervane in a hurricane.”

    “Whether she’s changing her position on abortion, gun laws or gay marriage, it’s clear that Shannon O’Brien has no convictions and will say whatever is politically convenient,” Fehrnstrom said.

    O’Brien spent the rest of the day scurrying to “clarify” her remarks – issuing several more statements, some of which were contradictory, and dishing dirt on Romney’s record on gays.

    At a Brookline campaign stop later in the day with former vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman, O’Brien said, “I don’t support gay marriage. I support civil unions.”

    When pressed on whether she would, if elected, sign a gay marriage bill, O’Brien said, “I would sign something that supports civil rights.” Under further questioning, however, O’Brien returned to her original statement: “If legislation came on my desk with the marriage word, I wouldn’t stop it from moving forward.”

    That comes from an October 16 story in the Boston Globe. O’Brien lost by 6 points in November.

    I think more than her stance on gay marriage, it was O’Brien’s chaning positions that killed her candidacy.

    Looks like Cox might be getting herself into the same boat.

  9. Decaturguy says:

    I’ve read Bullock’s article, but I don’t think the point is whether gay rights supporters should stick with an imperfect Democratic Party vs. the current Republican Party. Certainly in 99% of the cases they should.

    The point is that Cathy Cox slapped the gay community in the face. The position she took on the marriage amendment was unnecessary, politically stupid, was a reversal of her prior position, and her position is now no better than her opponent in the Democratic Primary, Mark Taylor. In fact, according to a quote from Rick Dent in the Savannah newspaper this weekend, Taylor’s position is better than Cox’s – that he supports the Amendment but opposes a call for a Special Session until the Supreme Court has time to decide the case.

    I don’t think there is much quesion, however, that gay voters, and gay rights supporters, will vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is over Sonny Perdue. So what is Bullock’s point?

  10. elaine says:

    Could it be that Cathy Cox is consistent but articulating her positions poorly? If I’m reading everything properly, here’s what I think her logic may be. 1. She is against gay marriage. 2. She is against the gay marriage constitutional amendment because gay marriage is already against the law in Georgia. 3. She is in support of a special session to put the amendment back on the ballot because though she personally doesn’t like it; she recognizes that the people of Georgia have spoken and that it’s not up to a judge to take that voice away from the people. And as the Secretary of State she should defend the voters’ voice.

  11. elaine says:

    Maybe she’s in support of the special session because 1. The voters have had their say and for a judge to over turn it isn’t what she’s in favor of. So, a special session would be showing that she supports the voice of the people even though she may not agree with that voice. As secretary of state, she is the watch dog for the elections process. Whether she agrees with the results of that vote isn’t her call. It’s just like an attorney general. It doesn’t matter what his or her personal opinion is on a subject, they are supposed to take the state’s position on that topic. Likewise, Cathy Cox as Sec. of State is to uphold the integrity of the Elections Process and its results. The other factor could be (and this is all speculation) is that the special session may force the 2 topics: gay marriage and civil unions to be seperate issues on the ballot which could come out overwhelmingly against gay marriage as it did before, but may pass for civil unions. That would be a win for the gay community. Whether that happens or not… I don’t know.

  12. Decaturguy says:

    “As secretary of state, she is the watch dog for the elections process.”

    Elaine, if for no other reason, that is EXACTLY WHY she should stand by and let the courts sort this thing out. This isn’t even a matter of whether she agrees with ths substance of the Amendment or now. The “elections process” requires the legislature to actually follow certain procedures when passing a Constitional Amendment. The legislature did not do it correctly. Therefore, as a watchdog for the elections process she should support Judge Russell’s opinion. And so should Attorney General Thurbert Baker for that matter.

Comments are closed.