May 17, 2008

Boycott Michael Reagan

Hatched by Dafydd

He is a fool -- a compete and utter asshat. This gibbering baboon, in a fit of pique, is now taking to the airwaves to urge his hundreds of thousands of listeners not to vote for the California Marriage Protection Act on the November ballot. Instead, he urges all conservatives to sit home in a snit, letting the entire election be decided by Democrats... because then they'll see the error of their ways and convert.

What the hell am I talking about? Well, let me give you his own words from his own website:

Talk Radio Host and Conservative Strategist Michael E. Reagan announced today that he will not vote for any ballot measures in the State of California in the 2008 November, election and he urges others to follow suit. During a press availability today at his office, Michael stated, "I am taking my ballot and mailing it directly to the Supreme Court of California at 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102-4797 to allow the judges to decide for us. Mr. Reagan continued, "We have seen this time and time again, Democracy usurped, the voters wishes do not matter, whether its Proposition 187 or the Gay Marriage Ban, its no longer We the People, it is now, They the Judges who make the decisions in the golden state. As the son of a former Governor of this state and United States President, I am disgusted."

Great. Perfect. He's disgusted -- so we have to live with same-sex marriage imposed on us by judicial fiat. By refusing to vote for the state constitutional amendment that would overturn the ruling by the judicial activists on the Supreme Court of the State of California -- and urging all his listeners to refuse to vote -- Michael R. allows the Democrats to make utter fools of all of us. (I guess "won't get fooled again" is not high on Michael Reagan's list of mottos.)

By folding his arms and squatting on the floor, sullenly refusing to vote, he gives the liberal Democrats their fondest desire anent marriage... its destruction as a special institution. Hands it to them giftwrapped. That will teach them a lesson!

We have a chance here, a real chance, to write traditional marriage into the constitution, where it would take another referendum of the people to enact same-sex marriage; not only the legislature but also the state courts would be powerless to impose it on us.

Except... we have this pea-brained radio talk-show host so sunk in despair and simple cowardice that he gives up and goes home after a single judicial setback -- and urges his loyal listeners to do the same.

Ronald Reagan was never like this; he was a fighter. Had President Reagan been as infantile as his son, the Soviet-dominated Warsaw Pact would still hold sway over hundreds of millions of people across East Europe. Thank God Reagan did not slink away to sulk; and thank God he is not alive today to see his son running from a fight because he took a single punch... Ronald Reagan would be ashamed of Michael.

If our troops were more like Michael, Iraq would be more like Iran. Or Sudan. Or Rwanda.

If Ward Connerly were more like Michael, California would still have institutionalized racial discrimination. Maybe Michael has forgotten that proposition 209 was also nullified by a left-liberal federal judge (Thelton Henderson) -- but Connerly was stubborn (where Michael Reagan is faint-hearted), and he fought and fought and fought... and the 9th Circus overturned Judge Henderson's ruling, restoring the ban on affirmative action that voters here had passed in 1996.

I have my own boycott in mind: I want all those listeners to the Michael Reagan show who do not consider themselves cowards to tune out, turn off, and drop out of the pity party:

  • If you're a fighter, not a loser...
  • If you react to adversity by digging in your heels, not dropping to your knees...
  • If you think conservatives, traditionalists, and anti-liberals have a duty to fight against creeping socialism, rather than disengage in a funk and surrender by proxy...
  • If you think traditional marriage is worth rescuing, not abandoning...
  • If you don't think that giving liberals everything they want will make them come to their senses out of a sense of guilt, but will instead excite and encourage them to overreach further than ever before...

Then please join me in a boycott of Michael Reagan, until he comes to his senses -- and stops doing the Democratic legislature's dirty work for them. Until he wakes up, throws off his narcissistic sulk, and finds a spine:

Step one is to appeal this decision -- for which there is no valid basis in the state constitution -- to the U.S. Supreme Court; step two is to pass the damned California Marriage Protection Act constitutional amendment this November 8th; and step three is to emulate Ward Connerly (not Michael "I'll never vote again" Reagan) and defend the CMPA from the inevitable court attacks that will follow its passage.

Democrats, liberals, socialists, and other liberal fascists are relentless and energized in their schemes to overthrow more than two centuries of Americanism. If we are not equally relentless and even more enegized, the Left will win.

Without massive action by the Right, Barbara Boxer and Barbra Streisand will win; Squeaker of the Assembly Karen Bass and Squeaker Emeritus Fabian Núñez will win, as will State Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero and President pro Tem Don Perata; Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Jerry Brown, Pete Stark, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, and Dianne Feinstein will all win; the rest of us will lose. And all this, to a large extent, will be because of petulant crybabies like Michael "I'm too sensitive to fight" Reagan.

Boycott Michael Reagan until one of two things happens: Either the worm turns and begins using his show to urge people to vote for the CMPA, as he should have been doing all along... or until he changes his last name, so as to bring no further disrepute onto the memory of our greatest -- and most determined and courageous -- president since Abraham Lincoln.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 17, 2008, at the time of 2:42 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing:


The following hissed in response by: levi from queens

Unfortunately, Daffyd, there are no grounds for appealing this decision to the United States Supreme Court. If the California Supreme Court had reached its decision saying it was based upon the United States Constitution, an appeal would lie. Since the California Supreme Court said its decision was based upon the California Constitution and since the California Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the California Constitution, appealing is pointless.

Otherwise, I entirely agree with your post.

Another good step would be to immediately initiate recall petitions for the four deluded justices, a la Rose Byrd.

The above hissed in response by: levi from queens [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 17, 2008 3:50 PM

The following hissed in response by: MerryMaven

I can't remember what I was listening to, but yet another liberal was assuming that we all take our marching orders from one talk-show host or another, usually Rush Limbaugh, and that we are incapable of independent thought. I think you are making the same mistake. We listen to talk radio and except for a few wretches, we take what we like and leave the rest. I think between now and November is a very long time and people in California will be smart enough to do what's right. And if they don't, I doubt if it will be because some silly talk-show host called for a boycott of the vote. (More likely it will be because of John McCain who, every time he starts sounding like a conservative, makes sure to do something to royally piss off the base.)

The above hissed in response by: MerryMaven [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 17, 2008 6:13 PM

The following hissed in response by: Baggi

MerryMaven has it right.

Two points here:

1) We listen to folks like Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager because we agree with them or at least like the way they present their arguments. We do not follow them in lockstep like liberals think that we do.

2) I didn't hear Reagan say any of this cuz I don't listen to him but from the little snippet you posted it seems plausible that he was being sarcastic.

The above hissed in response by: Baggi [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 17, 2008 8:38 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dishman

Michael Reagan sounds like a real weenie, running from the fight because someone said something he didn't like.

Gutless coward.

The above hissed in response by: Dishman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 17, 2008 10:36 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh


The little snippet I posted was on the front page of his website, and it clearly was not sarcastic; that was the entirety of it.

The rest of youse:

I didn't say people would take their marching orders from Michael Reagan; I said that Michael Reagan is a clod, and all those who listen to him and believe in the rule of law and/or traditional marriage should boycott his show until he realizes what a toad he is being.

Look, rule number one is, You don't win by losing; you only lose by losing.

In war and in politics, you never win by withdrawing. You win by outlasting the other guy... by staying in there and fighting. That's why I don't see anything strange about Hillary Clinton not giving up; she knows that if she doesn't get the nomination this year or in 2012, she never will: She'll be too old, too passe, and too ten minutes ago.

As MerryMaven says, a lot can happen in five and a half months; maybe that damned horse will learn to fly after all. There is an excellent chance that the amendment will pass: It passed very strongly in 2000, and that was a very Democratic year, especially in California (in the later general election -- Prop 22 was on the March ballot)... for example, a school bond measure passed 53-47, but the school-voucher program failed 71-29.

But Prop 22 passed in the primary election not only by 61.4 to 38.6, but in fact it passed in every California county except San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, and Yolo; eight million votes were cast, compared to 11 million in the general election (so not that big a difference).

So there is really no reason to believe that it won't pass again... it's literally the identical wording -- but this time as a constitutional amendment, rather than a legislative citizen initiative.

But the more jerks like M. Reagan get on the airwaves and tell everybody to go home, hide under the bed, sob themselves to sleep, and never vote again -- the more voters on the margin will seize the opportunity to drop out of the election.

It's as if he drank some sort of Poltroon Potion; now he's running through the lines, screaming to everybody who will listen that the war is lost and they're all going to die... unless they desert and run away with him.


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 17, 2008 11:56 PM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

We win when we win.
And we lose when we don't fight hard enough to win.
Judges across this nation seem to have this delusion that they are in charge.
If we lose that fight, Regan and other pit party promoters will not have to worry long about their audiences.
A Judge will, soon enough, see that they have no venue to speak to an audience

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 18, 2008 5:37 AM

The following hissed in response by: BarbaraS

This is the same mindset that the Sunnis in Iraq had in the first election in Iraq. Look how that turned out for them

The above hissed in response by: BarbaraS [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 18, 2008 6:01 AM

The following hissed in response by: Eilish

Dafydd, I'm with you on this one. I rarely listen to Reagan anyway as he seems like a blowhard on all but a few issues, but I'm 100% tuning out now. This kind of attitude is useless. I think the fact that the petition alone collected more than a million signatures gives a good idea of the support that it probably will have, but we cannot take anything for granted. The opponents of traditional marriage will pour millions into this fight to make sure they can redefine and water down this institution and we cannot just give up!

I was wondering, incidentally, how you feel about the practice of separating civil and religious marriage, as a number of European countries do. Could this be a viable alternative or do you think it would lead to the same societal consequences that same-sex marriage would? Just curious.

The above hissed in response by: Eilish [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 18, 2008 9:54 AM

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

This stance by Reagan is surprising since he usually goes about exposing the nonsense of the liberal left.

Some one has to ask him what his actual motive would be that could jeopordise a "sure thing" in over-turning what four judges thinks is the pulse of this State.

Maybe Michael's been hangin' around with his brother too much?

The above hissed in response by: Rovin [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 18, 2008 10:25 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh


I was wondering, incidentally, how you feel about the practice of separating civil and religious marriage, as a number of European countries do.

Japan does the same thing: A religious ceremony is neither necessary nor sufficient to be considered legally married; you must also get a civil ceremony.

I think it's telling that the only countries I know of who do this also have a very low and shrinking marriage rate. I believe that if we separate secular marriage from religious marriage, pressure to change secular marriage in destructive PC directions will become irresistable. Same-sex marriage, polyandry, and marriage-for-religious convenience will be inevitable.

Worse, by splitting the two types of marriage, both are diminished; marriage becomes less special, so -- like Western Europe (and especially Scandanavia) -- when marriage is less special, fewer people get married.

We have civil marriages as a convenience for those who are vehemently opposed to religion; they can also be used for those in a screaming hurry to get married and who don't really care how, so long as it's legal. But we shouldn't force all Americans to follow a religious marriage ceremony with a "real" (i.e., government) ceremony.


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2008 1:12 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved