I guess it takes more than a clear explanation that I didn’t ever endorse Scott Brown for Senate for some people to get it through their thick skulls that I did not ever endorse his candidacy.
Jane from Massachusetts writes me not more than two hours after I set the record straight on this issue. What follows is the email exhange between us:
Mr. Jackson, I am vey upset that you endorsed Mr. Brown for senate in my state. As a conservative I could not in good conscious vote for Mr. Brown because is not a conservaitve in the slightest bit and do not understand how you could support this man. He dosesnt even support the Federal Marriage Amendment! How can you be a conservaitve and not support such a common sense thing to protect the asanctity of marriage? I ask you seriously!
So I respond:
Jane,
I think I made it clear in my post, “Uh … I Never Endorsed Scott Brown,” that I never actually endorsed Mr. Brown’s candidacy. I implied and said that he was the better candidate but that is in no way an endorsement of the man. I said the same thing about McCain versus Obama, that McCain was the better candidate, but never endorsed McCain simply on that fact. Of course I voted for Alan Keyes in 2008.
I honestly do not know where you are getting this from considering that the previously mentioned post setting the record straight was published in three different places including my personal website, on my Examiner.com site and on American Conservative Daily.
Also I have to take issue with your criticism of Mr. Brown’s “conservatism” based on your assertions about his stance on the FMA. I don’t know what Mr. Brown’s stance on the issue is and can only take your word for it. But exactly how does him not supporting the federal government getting involved in defining what is a religious institution and what is or is not qualified as being acceptable for that religious institution (i.e. marriage) a non-conservative ideal? Conservatives, at least real conservatives, do not like the idea of the federal government getting involved with the inner workings of such a religious institution. I am also against the FMA because it is an overreach of federal power under the charter we have (better known as the U.S. Constitution).
Honestly I think you need to rethink your arguments.
Oh, and you know that Jane just had to respond:
You are against the Federal Marriage Amendment? And you call yourself a conservative? I think you are scum if that is your stance you liberal jackass. How dare you tell me that I shoudl rethink my arguments when you ae not even for the protection of the most sacred instritution this nation has!
Good day!
Jane,
Once again I must say to you that as a conservative, and a conservative that truly believes that the federal government should have no role in dictating what is or is not the definition of what is at its heart a religious institution, the Federal Marriage Amendment violates the core principle of keeping the state out of the churches. I have always been mystified by conservatives that claim that the government defining a religious institution’s terms is acceptable.
It is a slippery slope onto which we should not set government’s feet for it is only a short step from the government defining what is and is not marriage to the government defining the other sundry items that consists of a religion’s beliefs.
Jane is not done:
Why the hell do you want fags and lesbos to get mariaed!It is just sick! I don’t get you and you are fobvuously not the type of commentatir I should be reading. I though you were conservaitve but appareantly I have not read you wnough et know htat you are just a neo-con asshole tryeing to destroy this gerat nation!
Good Day ASSHOLE!
Jane,
How does my not wanting the federal government to get involved in defining marriage make me into someone that wants homosexuals to get married? You have apparently been going to the Keith Olbermann school of debate because this is so stupid that it sounds like it would have come from his mouth during one of his idiotic tirades.
There are a lot of things that I do not agree with but still do not think that the government should have any role in defining, regulating or otherwise monitoring. I don’t think idiotic people like the aforementioned Mr. Olbermann should be on the air but I don’t want the federal government to pass legislation making it so. I don’t think that doing pot or other drugs is good for you but I don’t think the federal government should be involved in making criminals out of those doing those drugs when they are not infringing upon the liberties of others. I do not think that you, for example, should be forced by government mandate to be placed in an insane asylum even though it may certainly help to determine what your malfunction is. I don’t think that automobile manufacturers should make vehicles that get less than 30 MPG but I absolutely don’t think the government has any role in regulating such.
I believe in the Constitution and limited government. And I certainly do not think that the federal government getting peripherally involved with religious institutions under the guise of regulating a new subset of said institution, ie. the concept of a civil marriage when marriage is religious and not a civil institution to begin with, is a good move.
You can disagree, but really, I don’t think you stand much of a chance if you want to try to prove you have a bigger conservative yoo-hoo than I do.
RSS Feed
Loading ...