Divide and conquer

[CAnnoneer]

After screwing up everything with immigration, our Fearless Leader thinks it is the ripe time to push people's buttons and rile up the base before payback time.

Divide and conquer. Let's see if it is going to fly (again).

Bush promoting ban on gay marriage By Matt Spetalnick
Fri Jun 2, 4:53 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush will promote a constitutional ban on gay marriage on the eve of a Senate vote next week, weighing in on an issue that could rally his wavering conservative base in an election year.

ADVERTISEMENT

Though the proposed constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage stands little chance of passing, it is one of several hot-button causes Republicans are championing to appeal to right-wing voters ahead of November's congressional ballot.

Bush planned to use his weekly radio address on Saturday and a White House speech on Monday to push for the amendment that would allow states to recognize only marriages between men and women, administration officials said on Friday.

Bush has never made a secret of his views on the issue but has rarely talked about it in public until now.

"He believes the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman," White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters. "The president's made it clear what he wants. He would like to see the Senate pass the bill."

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the amendment along party lines after a heated session on May 18. Because the measure seeks to change the Constitution, it must pass both houses of Congress by a two-thirds majority and then be approved by at least 38 states.

The full Senate will take up the measure on Monday with a vote expected later in the week, but the bill's sponsor, Colorado Republican Wayne Allard, has acknowledged he has far fewer than the 67 votes needed to win passage.

DOWN IN THE POLLS

Bush is raising his profile on the issue at a time when his public approval rating stands at around 30 percent, the low point of his presidency.

Bush used to be able to count on overwhelming support from fellow Republicans and conservatives.

But the Iraq war and a series of political blunders have chipped away at that backing, leaving many Republicans worried about losing control of Congress to the Democrats in November.

Critics say the Republicans are trying to exploit anti-gay prejudice to galvanize their conservative base.

Defending Bush's decision to speak out, Snow denied the president was acting out of "political expedience" and insisted he was taking up the issue because it was "politically ripe."

A similar effort failed in the Senate in 2004. Gay marriage has been a hot topic since a Massachusetts court ruled in 2003 that the state legislature could not ban it, paving the way for America's first same-sex marriages in May the following year.

At least 13 states have passed amendments banning gay marriage while two -- Vermont and Connecticut -- have legalized civil unions.

Just over half of all Americans oppose same-sex marriage, according to a March poll by the Pew Research center, down from 63 percent in February 2004.

 

[xd9fan]

He is doing this because he knows the party NEEDS the conservative Chirstian crowd. The Minnesota GOP might try the same pathetic plan.

 

[longeyes]

Does he make an exception for gay Mexicans who just come here to work?

 

[SomeKid]

the party NEEDS the conservative Chirstian crowd.

As a person often thrown into that group, let me say, I for one won't be supporting him, or either one of my Senators.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

+1

longeyes

funnier than excrement

You know, I look at this and I think to myself, "Man, you come right out of a comic book." (for anyone who has watched Enter the Dragon)

Even if you hate Clinton, (and I was no fan), you have to admit, he was alot smoother about covering for his various mistakes, and allegedly treasonous actions.

 

[WeedWhacker]

A problem with that "Marriage Amendment" is that it apparently endorses homosexual (and possibly other odd combinations?) marriages in everything but name. I won't be supporting the amendment for that reason.

I'm all for letting people do whatever they want to behind closed doors, but I don't like:

1. others trying to force me to accept certain behaviour as "acceptable" or "normal" or "a perfectly acceptable alternative lifestyle", etc.
2. screwing around with my way of life, and twisting words to mean things they do not

 

[Autolycus]

Please define a "normal" lifestyle. And what makes your type of marriage better than others? You forget that there are other types of marriage in the world. Who are you to judge what type of marriage is best?

 

[WeedWhacker]

Call it traditional. The whole of the human race has revolved largely, if not quite completely, around the family unit derived of one human male and ... well, at least one human female. Usually just one, though we'll acknowledge polygamy throughout many cultures.

Like it or not, facts and history prove that "traditional" families, and dare I say marriages described as above, are the norm, and have been for the past umpteen thousand years. Homosexuality and other abnormal sexual arrangements have been relegated to the small minority or, in the case of multiple partners, the ruling/rich classes.

More to the point, in MY country, the US of A, there is *no* question that "traditional" families consist of one man, one woman, and their offspring, if any. To say otherwise would prove the speaker to be a fool.

Some folks just don't take kindly to other folks trying to shove an agenda down their throat, and telling us we have to like it, besides.

 

[Zen21Tao]

Critics say the Republicans are trying to exploit anti-gay prejudice to galvanize their conservative base.

I love the way libs throw out the hate card so easily. So if I disagree with the gays being allowed to marry I'm "anti-gay"? I am against redefining the institution of "marriage" because some group feels excluded by its historical and traditional definition. Many people view the institution of marriage as sacred and redefining it undermines the instituation they are a part of. Just for the record, I do support civil unions that would give gays every right and privaledge that comes with marriage I just feel that marriage itself shouldn't have to be changed to achieve the same ends.

 

[longeyes]

Call it traditional. The whole of the human race has revolved largely, if not quite completely, around the family unit derived of one human male and ... well, at least one human female. Usually just one, though we'll acknowledge polygamy throughout many cultures.

It's also revolved around borders, fiscal solvency, and protection of one's core culture--none of which seem to be high on W.'s priority list.

Honoring the family, in its various healthy incarnations, may well be a noble ideal but the Bill of Rights doesn't protect families, it protects INDIVIDUALS.

 

[gc70]

Government should not be in the business of religion and marriage is within the business of religion. Government already has the power to recognize civil unions for governmental purpose.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Government already has the power to recognize civil unions for governmental purposes.

Yes, but many of us do not want to finance someone else's "alternative" lifestyle with our tax dollars!

Honoring the family, in its various healthy incarnations, may well be a noble ideal but the Bill of Rights doesn't protect families, it protects INDIVIDUALS.

I fail to see your point as it applies to what I wrote. Care to clarify? Shot in the dark: where in the Bill of Rights, or anywhere in the Constitution, is the government granted the power to define what a marriage is? To finance various lifestyles with tax dollars (*including* "traditional" marriages)?

 

[longeyes]

I fail to see your point as it applies to what I wrote. Care to clarify?

The Government should stay out of marriage. They should also stay out of social engineering and subsidizing "family values." That was my point. This country is built around individual rights. The Government should be an honest referee under The Law; we can take care of the rest ourselves.

 

[Siderite]

I'm all for letting people do whatever they want to behind closed doors, but I don't like:

1. others trying to force me to accept certain behaviour as "acceptable" or "normal" or "a perfectly acceptable alternative lifestyle", etc.

Having to deal with bunches of Democrats on a college campus regularly, this is the same argument they use to say that no one but police/military should have or carry guns.

I love the way libs throw out the hate card so easily. So if I disagree with the gays being allowed to marry I'm "anti-gay"?

People on both sides throw out the "anti- card," just look at how we characterize politicians that want gun control as "anti-gun."

Government should not be in the business of religion and marriage is within the business of religion. Government already has the power to recognize civil unions for governmental purpose.

Right on! Part of what makes our country so nice is that it was designed around what government shall not interfere with. I don't recall whose sig. line it is (I've seen it around here somewhere), but

What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?

summarizes it well.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I'm all for letting people do whatever they want to behind closed doors, but I don't like:

1. others trying to force me to accept certain behaviour as "acceptable" or "normal" or "a perfectly acceptable alternative lifestyle", etc.

Having to deal with bunches of Democrats on a college campus regularly, this is the same argument they use to say that no one but police/military should have or carry guns.

The first major difference here is that we're talking about one thing which is specifically listed as a right (arms, firearms), and one other arbitrary thing which is not. The second difference is that I'm not in favor of making homosexual behaviour a crime. Huge differences. Huge.


Next, "anti-gay" is a label applied to those who do not approve of the homosexual lifestyle, and do not want government to endorse nor encourage it. "Anti-gun" is a label applied to those who want to infringe on the ten "sacred" rights listed in the blasted Bill of Rights. Huge difference. Huge.

 

[xd9fan]

Critics say the Republicans are trying to exploit anti-gay prejudice to galvanize their conservative base.

The critics are right. The current party knows it lost the fiscal conservatives. and now the social conservative issues are all they got.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

From the Forum Rules:

We have learned from bitter experience that discussions of abortion, religion and sexual orientation often degenerate into less-than-polite arguments or claims that "my God is better than your God". For this reason, we do not discuss such subjects on THR, and any threads dealing primarily with these subjects will be closed or deleted immediately. Threads which deal with other subjects, but which mention abortion, religion or sexual orientation as a side issue, may be allowed to continue, but will be closely scrutinized, and closed or deleted if they "cross the line".

 

[Sindawe]

Yep, Bush is just trying to gather support among his "base" that he is perceived as alienating with his notable lack of other conservative values. I don't think it will work. Real conservative republicans are too angry for this to work, and his actual base (the very upper strata of society) don't care one way or the other so long as the money flows into their bank accounts.

On the thread drift topic, I don't care anymore. Its their life, not mine so its none of my business.

 

[SomeKid]

his actual base (the very upper strata of society)

Actually, they, like the very dregs of society, are Democrat.

 

[Zen21Tao]

People on both sides throw out the "anti- card," just look at how we characterize politicians that want gun control as "anti-gun."

But libs in favor or gun control are anti-gun and aren't shy about making it known. They don't see the need for guns and if had their way would see every gun confiscated and destroyed. Recall Dianne Feinstein's famous "Mr and Mrs America turn them all in statement."

It does seem to me though that libs are the main ones mischaracterizing the conservatives beliefs to gain support for their ideas. If a person opposes welfare, minumum wage laws, and/or affirmative action they are called racists that don't want to care for low privaledged citizens. If a person disagrees with the Roe v. Wade decision based on their belief that abortion should be a state issue not a federal issues they are painted as being anti-womens rights. Libs are famous for their uses of ad hominum attacks instead of logical debate.

 

[c_yeager]

The republican party's base is shrinking by the day. They are pandering to the people who would be voting for them no matter what, and alienating the people who *might* vote for them if they werent doing this. Get ready for a nice Democrat sweep in the next couple years. Im talking House, Senate, and Commander in Chief, and it wont be by all that slim of a margin either.

 

[Zrex]

Bush has this wonderful ability to piss off 70% of the people while trying to please the remaining 30%. The only problem is, that 30% already hate him so much, whatever he did to try to make them happy won't matter anyway.

 

[longeyes]

Dem "victory?"

If current trends continue and the Dems take control (by default more than anything), the real issue in '09 and beyond will be how the Democrats plan to govern. The brutal reality is that about half the country is militantly opposed to their policies, regardless of any antipathy they may feel for Bush the Fumbler. It's not as if the Dems have "the answer." They are bound to simply make things worse. Far worse. I think the ungovernability of America, and its subsequent fragmentation, will be the big story for the future.

 

[CAnnoneer]

When the two major parties shrink their footprint of representation in the political spectrum, the logical and peaceful conclusion would be the rise of alternative parties. The reality is that fewer people are buying both the RINO and the leftist old rhetoric.

A major technological advantage that the "third parties" are still failing to utilize properly and fully is the internet itself. It decreases the entry threshold for a national party like nothing before.

 

[wingman]

Does he make an exception for gay Mexicans who just come here to work?

My first laugh of the day, thank you Longeyes.

The Bush administration must believe without a doubt the American public is stupid. The disdain for the taxpayer/working class appears in my opinion to grow worse with our leaders each day.