After re-watching the Official Nominatory Event again, I feel compelled to point out that motions to vote by acclamation almost never happen when it’s going to be close. Such motions are intended to speed up a lengthy process by converting from roll call vote to voice vote. If one side responds in a thunderous manner, then a good chairperson will recognize the consensus right away and make the decision official. If the “ayes” and “nays” are closely matched, though, then the roll call will continue.

When Hillary moved to accept Barack’s nomination by acclamation, the number of seconds was deafening, and the aye votes moreso. The coverage I saw (C-SPAN, of course) had no audible nay vote, so Nancy Pelosi was correct to call it for the ayes (barring MASSIVE MEDIA CONSPIRACY OMGWTFBBQ).

Also: in parliamentary procedure, the term is “move”. Say “Hillary moved”; don’t say “Hillary made a motion”. The term “move” is correct, easier for you to use, and a hell of a lot clearer for your audience. (Plus, it keeps me from grinding my teeth every time you talk.)

By now many of you have undoubtedly seen this ad:

Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) attacks Kay Barnes, accusing her of supporting “San Francisco-style values”

Now, I am not a political scientist, but I can think of several reasons why this ad bodes very, very, very poorly for Rep. Graves’s re-election campaign.

1. The ad talks about all of Kay Barnes’s fundraisers while showing people dancing, toasting with champagne, laughing, and generally enjoying life. The voiceover then goes on to talk about how those are not “our values”. I’ll admit, this is weak, but does that mean that Sam Graves is opposed to dancing and champagne and laughter?
2. The ad stays far, far, far away from Kay Barnes’s record as mayor of Kansas City. Why? If Barnes had no record, he could spend his time talking about her inexperience; if she was corrupt, he could go on about that; if she was ineffective, then he could talk about that. Instead, he has to resort to “she’s friends with Nancy Pelosi!”.
3. The ad stays even further away from Sam Graves’s record in Congress; it never even mentions that Rep. Graves is the incumbent in this race. Additionally, the ad appears to be geared at the rural sections of the district (in the northwestern corner of Missouri), especially with all that talk of “our values” and “big city mayor”. So, to my line of thinking, Sam Graves would rather rural Missourians think about hot gay sex than about his record on the war, the economy, Social Security, health care, education, or any of those other, lesser, issues.
4. And finally, my favorite… It’s May. Kay Barnes is still facing a primary in August; assuming she wins, the general election is in November (six months away). And Sam Graves is already going negative. Normally, we don’t see general-election attack ads until late September or early October, when candidates start getting really concerned about how well their opponents come across (or when their respective opponents have just attacked them). If Sam Graves is that concerned about Kay Barnes this early in the race, then it’s going to be a looooooong road to November for him.

I’m quite pleased to report that Kay Barnes’s campaign has responded well. (Love that tone, too. “Seriously? That’s the best you can do?”)

FWIW, Graves’s record is all here and here. Links will take you further back in his record.

You can also see where each candidate is getting campaign funding. I strongly suggest you look up Rep. Graves’s committee assignments after you see which industries are giving him the most money.

USA Today just published results of a poll showing widespread opposition to government regulation of same-sex marriages. 63% of respondents in this poll called same-sex marriage a “private decision”, and only 33% think the government should be able to pass laws against same-sex marriage. This majority holds in all age groups except 65+ (and even then, the 3% margin of error brings it to an even split); it holds in every region; it holds in every income level.

Unsurprisingly, a majority of Republicans, self-identified conservatives, and regular churchgoers still think the government has a right to pass laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. What’s surprising to me, though, is that this majority is not what it once was: 56% each among Republicans and those who attend weekly church services, and only 54% among conservatives.

What is even more surprising: 4% think the government should be able to pass laws prohibiting interracial marriages, and 2% think the government should be able to prevent interreligious marriages. Seriously? Interreligious marriages are one of the reasons (heterosexual) couples can get hitched at the courthouse: your church may say no, but as long as you meet the other criteria the government doesn’t care if you’re Catholic and your beloved is Protestant.

Congressman Paul Broun, a Republican from Georgia, has introduced legislation that would restrict sales of “men’s magazines” on military bases.

I guess things must be mighty boring up on Capitol Hill now that world peace has broken out, the economic and energy and climate crises have all been fixed, and every human has adequate health care and education.

Seriously, though, it’s pretty sad that a member of the Congress of the United States places such a high priority on keeping servicemembers from becoming aroused. Maybe his constituents should pay attention to what Rep. Broun isn’t working on in Congress when it comes time to re-elect him in November.

(hat tip to Joe.My.God)

The Advocate published a wee blog post about some NBC exit poll data that specifically asked GLBT voters how they voted in the Democratic primaries on Super Tuesday. That poll indicates that Clinton has notably stronger support among GLBT voters…

… but only among those in New York or California.

I can only imagine two scenarios where this methodology would be valid:

1. Only two states — New York and California — caucused or held primaries on Super Tuesday
2. GLBT voters only live in two states, New York and California; they simply do not exist elsewhere

However, neither of these scenarios are true; GLBT voters did vote on Super Tuesday in twenty-one other states. Therefore, I can’t help but conclude that the pollsters made one or more of the following hasty and demonstrably false generalizations:

1. GLBT voters in other states would have been deathly afraid to self-identify in an exit poll
2. All GLBT voters have the same mindset; there is absolutely no difference of opinion between, say, a Chelsea muscleboy and a fiercely independent lesbian in rural Oklahoma, so sampling exclusively in NY and CA is enough
3. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transfolk do not bother voting, except in NY and CA
4. GLBT voters elsewhere have not changed their minds one whit since Hunter College’s poll was released last fall
5. The “favorite daughter” effect had precisely zero effect on GLBT voters in New York state, therefore the “favorite son” effect clearly had precisely zero effect on GLBT voters in Illinois

Whatever the real cause, it’s pretty clear that the pollsters did not do a very good job of taking a representative sample of GLBT voter opinions. As a result, the results they do have should not be considered indicative of GLBT voter opinions elsewhere, and anybody who assumes that they are is either intellectually lazy or deliberately ignorant.