Steph on CNN’s “Larry King Live” T 8-18-10 Part 2

Dear Momma, you know I luv ya more than my Kirkland luggage (finer Costcos everywhere), but I was yelling at the screen during Larry King last night trying to feed you lines. I though if I were loud enough maybe you could hear me through your ear piece.

I normally love watching you debate regressive rightwing luna-bats. Last night was not one of those times.

You and Kamala allowed your opponents to dictate the parameters of the discussion. You both made the mistake of actually responding to the incendiary "questions" posed by opponents (it wasn’t’ even Larry).

This allowed the discussion to move to an unrelated issue, an issue that bigots know they get traction: children. That was a costly derail.

Have your bullet points before you get there, then repeatedly hit them. Do not allow discussion to move towards opponents bullet points – immediately pivot and return to your points (politicians are very skilled in this pivot)

We must make it a point to repeatedly differentiate between civil marriage license and the marriage as recognized by particular brands of religion. A civil marriage license is issued by the State (like a driver’s license or a fishing license). Religious organizations have the right to perform their own version of marriage. Religious organizations have the right to recognize civil marriage/divorce, or not (Catholics and Mormons come to mind – they don’t recognize civil marriage/divorce).

I think if either you or Kamala could have successively highlighted the differences between civil marriage and religious marriage, you would have defused 99% of your opponent’s hollow arguments.

The other point that must be made during these debates is that the courts do not recognize Civil Unions, only civil marriage licenses issued by the State. Therefore, one member of a Civil Union can be compelled by the court to testify against the other member. Whereas when a civil marriage license is issued by the State, Party A cannot be compelled to testify against Party B. This is an important point that gets traction when introduced in a debate.

A good example is Rosey O’Donnel. Kelly was compelled to testify against Rosey in Rosey's lawsuit against the magazine company. Kelly was legally compelled to testify about her sensitive and intimate conversations with Rosey. That evidence was used against Rosey and wound-up costing Rosey millions in losses

I know you think you have to earn your keep and your next invitation to these news shows by being the panelist that brings the “seltzer in your pants” element. I think that’s great and can be fun and effective, if your message sandwiched in-between the“a little song, a little dance” and the “seltzer down your pants” part is compelling and effective.

Now go get ‘em.