NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/25/politics/25marriage.html
This was what Karl Rove was fearing: a move by the Christian right to undermine the president for their own gain.
Personally, I feel he shouldn't bow to tese special interest groups. This administration is quite independent, and quite a few Americans love him for this. But I might be wrong.

bump

Hang on, all the super-Christian people are dissatisfied with Bush?

now, what is it about bush that convinces people to support him? Er, could someone explain to me what good bush has done? Strangley, i can't seem to think of anything.

Hang on, all the super-Christian people are dissatisfied with Bush?
Not really. They just threaten him with trying to undermine his second term agenda should he not give them what they want. It doesn't particularly seem like Bush ever had much interest in that gay marraige ban, but I think they might be able to compromise. Maybe a rivival in faithbased initiatives could work? Or how about a pledge from Bush to campaign for some politicians endorsed by the Christian right?

I was wondering whether the Bush Admin would follow up with the amendment. I guess this proves it was all an attempt to harness more votes (it worked!).

So much for Bush being more 'moral' as they put it. He's just another lying politician saying what he could to get more votes.

Has a lesson been learned?

I was wondering whether the Bush Admin would follow up with the amendment. I guess this proves it was all an attempt to harness more votes (it worked!).

So much for Bush being more 'moral' as they put it. He's just another lying politician saying what he could to get more votes.

Has a lesson been learned?
This is just rich: the same people who oppose a gay marraige ban (like myself) hate the Bush admin. for being inconsistent with it (unlike myself).

This is just rich: the same people who oppose a gay marraige ban (like myself) hate the Bush admin. for being inconsistent with it (unlike myself).
Er, actually I suspect they resent that Bush was voted in to a large extent because his opponent was supposed to be a flip flopper who would say anything to get elected...

The most ironic thing about this election was the way in which the most obvious Bush faults were not ignored or 'brushed over' but rather were attributed to his opponent.

Er, actually I suspect they resent that Bush was voted in to a large extent because his opponent was supposed to be a flip flopper who would say anything to get elected...

The most ironic thing about this election was the way in which the most obvious Bush faults were not ignored or 'brushed over' but rather were attributed to his opponent.
You know, though, what's funny was that Bush never said anything about a sustained effort to pass a gay marraige ban. All he said was that he wanted debate on it. Well, there was. Perhaps he thinks that there was enough debate on it.

Mind posting the article? NYT requires a login.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/25/news/gay.html
This should work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/25/politics/25marriage.html
This was what Karl Rove was fearing: a move by the Christian right to undermine the president for their own gain.
Personally, I feel he shouldn't bow to tese special interest groups. This administration is quite independent, and quite a few Americans love him for this. But I might be wrong.

Come again? This administration couldn't be more bought and sold if they tatooed a bar code on Bush's forehead and sold ad space on Cheney's derriere. But there's the rub I think; Bush talks evangelical, but his Lord is Milton Friedman, not Jesus (of course, this is ignoring that evangelical's aren't exactly in Jesus' corner either with their stances on welfare, but that is a different discussion).

You know, though, what's funny was that Bush never said anything about a sustained effort to pass a gay marraige ban. All he said was that he wanted debate on it. Well, there was. Perhaps he thinks that there was enough debate on it.
Someone had better tell Mr Duffy (white house spokesman) that Bush only wants debate, since Mr Duffy is on record as stating that Mr Bush is committed to a marraige ammendment.

Mr Bush cannot be not committed to a marraige ammendment and be committed to a marraige ammendment...

Either way it seems pretty darn unlikely that whatever conditions in the senate prevent a marraige ammendment now, existed when Mr Bush was implying that if he were re-elected President he would ammend the marraige laws. Either he knew all along that he could not and was dishonest in implying that he could, or he in fact could now, and yet wont.

Come again? This administration couldn't be more bought and sold if they tatooed a bar code on Bush's forehead and sold ad space on Cheney's derriere. But there's the rub I think; Bush talks evangelical, but his Lord is Milton Friedman, not Jesus (of course, this is ignoring that evangelical's aren't exactly in Jesus' corner either with their stances on welfare, but that is a different discussion).
If they were that easy of a commodity, I'm sure the left and the right would rush to buy them. In any case, I wouldn't criticize Bush's faith. We all know it is there, he's just not to the kooky far right that Pat Robertson and pals are. I actually think that they may be easy to undermine, because anything more than not endorsing reform would be seen as an attack, and even their followers would see that as inconsistent with their other teachings on mammon. Of course, some on the extreme Christian right might borderline fascist, and I notice that a fascist and a communist aren't that different: they both support welfare, especially for their own ideaological clan.

(of course, this is ignoring that evangelical's aren't exactly in Jesus' corner either with their stances on welfare, but that is a different discussion).
Jesus advocated stealing from people against their will? Interesting.

Someone had better tell Mr Duffy (white house spokesman) that Bush only wants debate, since Mr Duffy is on record as stating that Mr Bush is committed to a marraige ammendment.

Mr Bush cannot be not committed to a marraige ammendment and be committed to a marraige ammendment...

Either way it seems pretty darn unlikely that whatever conditions in the senate prevent a marraige ammendment now, existed when Mr Bush was implying that if he were re-elected President he would ammend the marraige laws. Either he knew all along that he could not and was dishonest in implying that he could, or he in fact could now, and yet wont.
Well maybe he found it too difficult when he tried. A ban is just not worth the trouble Bush was getting, and if it passed, it might polarize America so much that it might divide us culturally. If that is what he thought, I think this is a good death for this amendment. He needs to save his political capital for other things.

Jesus advocated stealing from people against their will? Interesting.
If we're gonna talk about this, why don't we start a new thread.

Jesus advocated stealing from people against their will? Interesting.

Sure he did. Recognize this?

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's."

If you're referring to taxes, Jesus said, yep, gotta pay them.

Well maybe he found it too difficult when he tried. A ban is just not worth the trouble Bush was getting, and if it passed, it might polarize America so much that it might divide us culturally. If that is what he thought, I think this is a good death for this amendment. He needs to save his political capital for other things.
He had already tried prior to implying that he could do it, and has not tried since implying that he could, using the circumstances that he was aware when he implied that he could, as the excuse for why he cant.

Jesus advocated stealing from people against their will? Interesting.
Taxes are stealing..... what about the billions of dollars going to support stuff like oh.... a war..... do you consider that stealing. I don't support the war, but I pay my taxes, and do it gladly, even though I sure wish it was used on something else. But I don't think they are stealing my money, just because I don't support the use. Maybe it is time to be cheerful about taxes. Liberals are frequently frowned on for being "unpatriotic". Yet most of us are willing to give our money up and say we love America (just not the man in charge right now), while most conservatives seem to be content with simply the latter.