Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 2, 2006

BUSH AND THE FMA....I know the White House is anxious to impress the frustrated GOP base, but I'm not sure if the Bush gang has thought this one through.

President Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, the eve of a scheduled Senate vote on the cause that is dear to his conservative backers. [...]

"The president firmly believes that marriage is an enduring and sacred institution between men and women and has supported measures to protect the sanctity of marriage," White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said.

Putting aside the merit of the amendment (or lack thereof), there's little strategic upside to the president's new-found interest in the anti-gay amendment.

If you're Bush, and your agenda isn't exactly sweeping through the Hill, why intentionally tie yourself to a measure that's going to fail? The amendment isn't going to pass; it won't even be close. But instead of a predictable, pro-forma defeat for the far-right on the Senate floor, the president will connect himself to a sinking ship on purpose. The post-vote spin will now be, "Bush suffers another defeat on the Hill; lawmakers reject president's demands on amendment."

Maybe the religious right will give Bush credit for trying? It's unlikely. Dobson, Falwell, Robertson & Co. have asked the White House to take this amendment seriously for months. For the president to speak out, literally at the 11th hour, will probably be seen as too-little, too-late.

There's also the consistency question. In January 2005, Bush said, in no uncertain terms, that he would not aggressively lobby the Senate to pass the constitutional amendment during his second term. By flip-flopping now, the president only reminds everyone what a weak position he's in -- and how much he needs to suck up to angry religious right activists before midterms.

If Bush said nothing, the base would be angry, but it's angry anyway. The amendment would lose, but it's going to lose anyway. So why bother?

Steve Benen 4:31 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (121)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

fuck

Posted by: lksjflksj on June 2, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

In my opinion, it really is that Bush has been distracted by Plame, Iraq, etc. He doesn't do this to placate the Christian Right; he IS the Christian Right. However his presidency, if we can call it that, has been diverted by the real world.

Posted by: Chocolate Thunder on June 2, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

We all know this is a kowtow to the base. But is THIS is the most important thing that base is thinking about right now? Is al Qaeda going to win if some blue state were to pass a gay marriage law?

I mean, I think that Lou Dobbs is an asshole, but even the tiny, tiny, tiny possibility that he's right about the immigration issue is far more worthy of debate than the FMA.

Posted by: mmy on June 2, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

Political Capital = Spent or never had!!!!

Posted by: Then on June 2, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

There is no question that to some of the base, gay rights (along with abortion) really is the most important issue facing the U.S. today. We've even had one or two of those folks posting here who have, apparently in all seriousness, stated this. It appears to be one of those "better dead than morally degenerate" ways of thinking.

So yes, this is for his base. Will they give Bush credit? Yeah, a lot of them will. Will it make a difference in the 2006 elections or for the remainder of Bush's term? Unlikely.

Posted by: PaulB on June 2, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Looks like he's grasping at straws.

Of course, the gay marriage issue (and massive voter fraud) got him elected last time, so maybe he thinks it can work its magic again!

Posted by: Cal Gal on June 2, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Why bother? Because the GOP has nothing else to run on and it plays well politically with most Americans. Of those who care about the issue the most those who it will alienate would never support him or the GOP anyway.

Ultimately given how big a failure his Presidency is there is little downside, he might change the subject to an issue where most Americans have more sympathy for his position and can rail against an "obstructionist" Congress.

What other arguments does the GOP have for getting more Republicans elected to the legislature? I think most Americans are morally careless about the issue but that doesnt change the fact that it plays well politically and fits into the silly claim that Christianity is under siege in America.

Posted by: Catch22 on June 2, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Funny you should say that, Cal Gal, since the Republican Party has admitted that it's trying to get gay marriage proposals on as many state ballots as it can for precisely that reason.

Posted by: PaulB on June 2, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Its also worth remembering that while the true believers want the Constitutional Amendment passed, the politics of the issue make it better for Republicans if it doesnt. Its one more issue to rail against liberals and "run away" judges.

To illustrate a similar issue, some people argue that Democrats would be better off politically if Roe v. Wade were overulled. Strictly speaking they may be correct, but toying with the Constitution and trading away rights for political gain is what immoral people do.

Posted by: Catch22 on June 2, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

Our leader has pulled victory from the jaws of defeat throughout his career. Now he is thinking about his legacy. He will one day be commemorated by a statue on the mall portraying him standing triumphant with one foot on a prostrate queer.

Posted by: The Nike of Ouroboros on June 2, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

Two possibilities:

1. Bush backed off of his true conviction last time around out of political calculus but no longer sees any reason to hide his Christianist impulses now that he's dropped so far in the polls.

2. Bush is backing the FMA this time around in order to give congressional Republicans the opportunity to say no, thus distancing themselves from his free-fall this November.

Or as they said above, it could be that the wingnuts on the right really believe depriving gay citizens of equal protection under the law is the primary issue facing America today. It's not like they've a long history of proving themselves raitonal, after all.

Posted by: Sam Hutcheson on June 2, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

Isnt this move really intended to remind the base (and particularly those on the far right that voted in record numbers in 2004) that they must be vigilantthat there is more work to be donethat they mustnt stay at home in the 2006 midterm election?

If I were asked to predict the Bush and Rove strategy, the following would be my calculations and conclusions:

1) The President is generally unpopularespecially when Iraq is part of the equation. The risk is that Iraq, coupled with corruption, Katrina, big debt, uncontrolled spending, and other scandals might feed a mindset to throw out the Party in power. Therefore they have to change the subject or provide the risks and reasons that would make that a bad idea.

2) What can the President bring to bear on the 2006 elections? He cant travel the country stumping for Republicans because his presence will remind people about Iraq and the other negatives.

3) However, he can bring what he brought in 2004a big turnout by those on the religious right. Those voters either dont vote or they vote their values. The key is getting them to vote by giving them a reason. That is done in consort with religious leaders through the church structureno need to be out on the campaign trailthe voters will get their marching orders each Sunday.

4) He can do that by reminding those voters (by virtue of a defeat of the marriage amendment) that they must get out and vote Republican. Losing the vote on the amendment is a strategic victory. They wouldnt bring it to a vote if it made voters stay home in November. The grumbling by the leadership on the right is part of the strategythey also benefit when their flock is madthey can raise more moneyand they can motivate them to take action. The leadership may be mad at Bush on some levels but they are fully in sync when it comes to keeping their eye on the main objective. Simply stated, if Bush delivers the Supreme Court, all other sins are forgivable.

5) So the goal is to be sure to point out that they succeeded in appointing two conservative Supreme Court Justicesand make it clear that one more appointment will likely mean victory for the movement for the next 20 years. They have to make it clear that if they lose the Senate, they may lose the ability to win the Supreme Court. This is the trump card of the strategythey simply point out how close the movement is to achieving the final victorythey acknowledge to the voters that the administration has had some troubles (recall the admission of mistakes at the press conference with Tony Blairno doubt part of the overall strategy) but they have never lost sight of the big prizethey delivered two conservative votes and they just need one morethe voters have got to stick with them if they want the big prize.

6) Is there any doubt what drives these voters? Does anyone question the fervor with which they seek to assert their influence? Is it possible they would stay at home if they understand whats at stake? Not a chance.

read full article here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Posted by: Daniel DiRito on June 2, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

The anti-gay amendment and the politics around it do not play well with most Americans (most = 66% of more by any normal definition. It isn't even clear it has the support of a majority of Americans, and acting as though it is the most important thing going only appeals to a small majority.
Unless the Supreme Court orders states to recognize gay marriages done in other states, this issue is going nowhere on the national level. The 2008 Democratic position will be let the states decide, and that will lose them few votes.

Posted by: hopeless pedant on June 2, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

If they really believed in the "sanctity" of marriage, then they would ban divorce as well. Unfortunately, that might turn a large number of Republican party politicians into criminals.

Posted by: Mornington Crescent on June 2, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Politcial Capital:

His or on loan from ghosts of the GOP past?

Posted by: clone12 on June 2, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

No, Chocolate Thunder.

Bush is not the Christian Right. The Christian Right, quite simply, is the normal way of life in flyover, small town America. It was there when Bush arrived and it will still be there when he is gone.

The Christian Right has virtually nothing to show for its support of Bush (quite unlike corporate cheap labor globalists). Bush pushing the FMA in an election year when his political capital is spent fools no one.

Posted by: Charles Warren on June 2, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

Haditha and war crimes, as well as the startlingly independent voice of some Iraqi officials on these issues, threaten to make this topic A in the news for the next few weeks. If Americans really begin to confront the negative effects of the war on Iraqi civilians, there is really no turning back for Republican popularity ratings. Once noticed, you can't convince anyone the elephant was actually an Ottoman anymore.

So what to do? Knock it off the front page. How best to do so? Gay baiting. Not only does Fox love to trot out Fred Phelps, but the left can be counted on to drop the ball on war crimes and turn their attention to it no matter what the actual threat to civil liberties is.

Posted by: MarkC on June 2, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

Why bother? Because the GOP has nothing else to run on and it plays well politically with most Americans. Of those who care about the issue the most those who it will alienate would never support him or the GOP anyway.

I dunno, Catch22 (are you Catch22 on Plastic.com?). This is such an obvious and lame panderfest that I expect it'll help whittle his ratings down a few more points. Except for the last, dead-ender fraction of Americans who still listen to Bush (the really fucking dumb bloc), does anybody truly believe that the coutry's being run so well that this kind of horseshit should even appear on the radar? This won't even "shore up the base", as it's obviously meant to do.

Posted by: sglover on June 2, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

This gay-baiting is simply to divert attention from his failed presidency. What a sniveling worm...

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on June 2, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

"..marriage is an enduring and sacred institution between men and women.."

How many men and women are allwoed to participate in a group wedding ceremony? Perhaps a combined amendment could save us time.

It is proibited to burn the flag while engaging in group marriage ceremonies.

Posted by: Matt on June 2, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

The only thing that drives this administration is politics. I would not underestimate the "get out the vote" of the far right with the FMA failure. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Drum. This is a no lose situation for Bush- his ratings are so low, if the FMA passes, he bumps up and energizes his base, if it doesn't pass, then it energizes his base and he can complain about the dangers of a Democratic Congress.

Posted by: Out on Bond on June 2, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

The more attention he gives to it, the more likely something similar makes more state ballots (or things like gay adoption make state ballots), the more likely Republicans come out to vote, the more likely Republicans win.

Remember, without gay marriage bans on the ballot, Kerry is President.

Posted by: Bill K on June 2, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

Republican strategy for a long time now on a lot of issues (most noticeable on abortion, WOT and gay rights) has been "do just enough to keep people stirred up and voting for you and not one bit more".

Strangely enough, it keeps working, possibly among those that just can't admit to themselves that they've been suckered .... again.

Posted by: michael farris on June 2, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

TIt is proibited to burn the flag while engaging in group marriage ceremonies.

I yearn for the day that Bush can goose Frist into introducing an omnibus bill against Spanish-singing gay flag burners. I wanna see just how much self-respect Frist can shed.

Posted by: sglover on June 2, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

Out on Bond is right. When there's an election, Bush supports the base and the base supports Bush.

On an almost related note, I just listened to a debate on Fox. They decided that Bush has done a better job on the economy than Clinton.

Posted by: reino on June 2, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

When campaigning, Bush honestly didn't think he would have the votes in the house to pass an amendment to protect the family. Obviously, he's reassessed the situation and now things he does.

Posted by: American Hawk on June 2, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

2006 Election Appeal, Christian Right (Short Version): "Help! Save us God-fearing, straight White Protestants from being overrun and enslaved by gay Latino Catholics and their left-wing activist friends in the media and the judiciary who want to cancel American Idol and Dog the Bounty Hunter!"

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on June 2, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

One must admit, you have a good point. Very good point. Particularly given the history since the election.

I tend to think, however, that it's largely understandable why they would take the politically safe position, which is to try and shore up the base. They're at roll the dice stage. They gotta hope for the best, even if rolling the dice now basically means taking yet another hit a little ways on down the line.

For one thing, if you don't do it, you're damn certain to have pissed off a core constituency -- a constituency that has to absolutely show up at the polls in order for you to win. If you do do it, then at least there remains a serious possibility of tarring the opposition with some of the vitriol in your core constituency that's sure to emerge from the legislative defeat.

Basically what they're gonna try to do is tar and feather the Democratic Party with the defeat of FMA. This could get nasty.

This really shows their sorry state. They've now gotta take hits in order to try and dig out of this hole.

Think about that.

Posted by: Tony Shifflett on June 2, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

Right, sglover (and Kevin), This bit of dumbassedness will definitely lose Bush points overall. It is such a transparent pander that even the MSM will blast him for it. Lehrers hard questioning of Chertoff on the News Hour last night shows to me that the media middles are sick of having to appear balanced-balanced-balanced.

Remember when we believed that whatever else they were, the Republicans were smart politicians and good manipulators? Boy were we wrong, thank God.

Posted by: James of DC on June 2, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

why intentionally tie yourself to a measure that's going to fail?

because then the GOP can say to its supporters: look, this is why you have to vote for the GOP even more ! we need more GOP reps so we can get this passed! don't desert us now!

Posted by: cleek on June 2, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

(or, what Mr DeRito said)

Posted by: cleek on June 2, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

Why does Bush need his base right now!!!??? F-em. Right now his legacy is on the line. The guys administration is about to be marked as one of the must corrupt and incompetant in years, so I don't see how some red meat to the base is going to help his legacy. Try canning Rumsfield and getting us out of Iraq and he might have some hope of being more then a GOP Jimmy Carter in the Presidential history books.

BTW, I supported the war (all-be-it reluctantly and stupidly given the guys running it), but now that they have a democracy, its time to leave. If Sunnis want to fight Shites, fine. But we don't need to be there. Send the UN.

Posted by: the fake Fake Al on June 2, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Matt: "How many men and women are allowed to participate in a group wedding ceremony?"

I imagine as many as are available. However, please be advised that most of them are currently busy, hiding the mainstream media's favorite Fugitive Polygamist, Warren Jeffs, from capture by the FBI.

Not that they really have anything to worry about, since the FBI is still assisting Nancy Grace and Rita Cosby in Aruba on their search for Natalee Holloway ...

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on June 2, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

"If they really believed in the "sanctity" of marriage, then they would ban divorce as well. Unfortunately, that might turn a large number of Republican party politicians into criminals.
"

I think what you meant to say is
"Unfortunately that might make it even more obvious that a large number of Republican party politicians are criminals."

Posted by: Maynard Handley on June 2, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

I wish those who argued that most Americans dont support Amending the Constitution in this manner, but unfortunately it doesnt appear to be true:

Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples?"
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
5/8-11/06 Favor 50% Oppose 47% Unsure 3%

Its sad, but if the Republicans have their way, this issue will be important in the next National elections.

Sglover: (yes the same) Sure its a lame panderfest, but unfortunately Im not confident that most Americans see it that way at all. Its not like that much has changed since Bush was reelected and it should have been obvious that he didnt remotely deserve re-election, but most Americans didnt see that either.

In any case, it appears that Karl Rove believes its politically a good idea or Bush wouldnt be doing it. Whatever its effect politically its wrong.

Posted by: Catch22 on June 2, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Vigurie is saying 'too little, too late'. The usual suspects (any wingnut group with 'Family' in the name) are going batshit. I don't see the political upside, either. Barring a seizing of power, this is the zenith of GOP legislative dominance. They know it's over for now,

I think the phrase is 'running on fumes'.

Remember, without gay marriage bans on the ballot, Kerry is President.

Hasn't the deadline passed for most state ballot issues? Oh, and without massive election fraud across a number of states, Kerry is President.

Posted by: ahem on June 2, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

You know what, publicity is publicity. Even bad publicity is still publicity. Don't think they (i.e. FRC, Dobson, Falwell) are going to lash out at Bush, any talk of banning gay marriage is good in their terms, however late it may be.

Then again, who knows, with the predominantly do-nothing Republican Congress that we have nowadays, this bill might just squeaked by under the radar. After all, they usu. just rubber stamped every issue that are put under the table so far.


Posted by: eo on June 2, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

DO IT!

Please do it!

There are many FMA-opponents who vote Republican (for example; Andrew Sullivan).

These idiots need to realize that the Republican Party cannot be trusted to uphold Liberal social values.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 2, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

Ok, ok, I know. Bush is taking one for the team on gay marriage. He's handing gop candidates a hot button issue to rally the base for the novemeber elections. "We tried to ban the gays, but the democrats killed the amendments." I can hear it now. And the base is blind enough to eat it up.
But again, with the dude's legacy at stake, to hell with the party and get on with fixing the problems he created. Maybe he doesn't care how history thinks of him. Well, Bush, what about what St. Peter thinks of your doings at the Pearly Gates?

Posted by: the fake Fake Al on June 2, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

The GOP knows the ammendment will lose. hell, they don't want it to win, then there would be one less wedge issue for them to shove down everyone's throat every election cycle. Supporting FMA achieves 2 purposes; it galvanizes the religious right and it forces dems to take a stand on the issue. Blue states won't care, but in a tightly contested area, it might make the difference.

My guess is, that for all except extreme fundies, this issue isn't just low on the priority list, it can't even see the priority list. Another example of how weak this admin is right now, they have to go to extreme meaasures to appeal to their base, in effect pissing everyone else off.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on June 2, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

This does allow the right wing to posture as the oppressed righteous ones, fighting the eeevil liberal overlords who somehow miraculously infiltrate their monopoly on power...

Posted by: random on June 2, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

sglover: "I yearn for the day that Bush can goose Frist into introducing an omnibus bill against Spanish-singing gay flag burners."

I'll lay you better odds that Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck will demand that the rock group Los Lobos re-record their 1987 hit La Bamba in English.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on June 2, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

I mean, I think that Lou Dobbs is an asshole, but even the tiny, tiny, tiny possibility that he's right about the immigration issue is far more worthy of debate than the FMA.
Posted by: mmy

This is true, but the fact is that the immigration issue has tanked with the public. An overwhelming majority don't see it as a pressing issue. Hence the need to go to even more drastic measures.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on June 2, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

You're forgetting that we have a Supreme Court specifically designed to overturn Roe v. Wade. The gay marriage amendment is meaningless. Overturning Roe v. Wade will placate those people for 20 years, and they have Bush to thank for it.

Posted by: Primate on June 2, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

"Remember, without gay marriage bans on the ballot, Kerry is President."

Not only that, but thousands of people who once lived on the Gulf Coast would still be alive!

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on June 2, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Why?
Perhaps there is some critical, damaging news about to emerge next week that the Bush team wants to subdue by making this "terrible misunderestimation" of the nation's political pulse. Let's see how many news cycles it runs through, and what *else* flows through at the same time.
However, considering the economic and Iraq news that's run this week, I can't imagine what else is left that would be worse.

Posted by: editor on June 2, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Nevertheless, Rove thinks it will attract just enough voters to maybe keep Dems from retaking House/Senate. That's how they think: however silly in any other, rational way, the marginal calculus is what matters.

Posted by: Neil' on June 2, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

Karl Rove, JHC! dump that guy because he ain't gonna be any help saving Bush's ass in the presidential history books. I think this fact is dawning on Bush. He is going to go down as an idiot preznit unless he dumps his GOP idealogue advisors and gets some smart people. I think Paulson is a good choice at treasury, and Bush immigration plan has some merit. His idealogue lackies are gonna drive his legacy into the Garfield scrape heap unless he does something and real soon. Getting us out of Iraq would be a good start. And that is going to take real courage.

Posted by: the fake Fake Al on June 2, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

"There are many FMA-opponents who vote Republican (for example; Andrew Sullivan)."

I'm not sure whether Andrew Sullivan is a citizen. In any case, in the 2004 general election, he supported Kerry. He describes himself as a conservative, but not a Republican.

Posted by: James on June 2, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

It's been really fun responding to today's postings -- kinda like Barry Bonds shooting up testosterone and then playing T-Ball with the kids.

Speaking of which -- my eldest is graduating from high school tonight, and I have to pick up his present. Aloha, everyone, and please have a great and safe weekend.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on June 2, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK
If you're Bush, and your agenda isn't exactly sweeping through the Hill, why intentionally tie yourself to a measure that's going to fail?

The purpose? To raise the profile of the issue and distract from war crimes in Iraq, wiretapping controversies, etc., so that in the runup to the midterm elections, as much as possible, social issues are in the focus, rather than a failure in Iraq that even conservatives are decreasingly happy with or Big Brother policies that the right-libertarians might not be comfortable with.

The "culture war" is all they've got left.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 2, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples?"
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
5/8-11/06 Favor 50% Oppose 47% Unsure 3%

The margin of error in that poll is apparently 5 percentage points, so statistically it's a dead heat.

Posted by: flipper on June 2, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

The purpose? To raise the profile of the issue and distract from war crimes in Iraq, wiretapping controversies, etc.,

According to you, that belief is not justified.

Posted by: GOP on June 2, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

How can an institution with a 55% failure rate be sacred?

Posted by: Pechorin on June 2, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples?

Frankly, I'm not sure gay couples want to marry lesbian couples....

Posted by: Stefan on June 2, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK
According to you, that belief is not justified.

Er, no. But while we're on the subject, weren't you supposed to use the "Atheist" alias when posting this lie?

Posted by: cmdicely on June 2, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

"Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples?"

Once you let a man and a woman marry, what's to stop one man from marrying two women, or three women from marrying two men, or a man from marrying a female box turtle? This whole "marriage" thing is just a slippery slope to moral depravity, I tell you what....

Posted by: Stefan on June 2, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK
When campaigning, Bush honestly didn't think he would have the votes in the house to pass an amendment to protect the family.

uhh...correction:

When campaigning, Rove honestly didn't think he would have the votes in the house to pass an amendment to protect the family.

(empasis mine)

Posted by: Edo on June 2, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure whether Andrew Sullivan is a citizen. In any case, in the 2004 general election, he supported Kerry. He describes himself as a conservative, but not a Republican.
Posted by: James on June 2, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Whatever. Bad example.

Look - the point is that the GOP gets elected ONLY when they can trick gullible religious wingnuts and fiscal conservatives into buying into their hotbutton election-year issues, then they hand out the goodies to corporate america.

If the social conservatives and fiscal conservatives weren't such gullible fools, the Republican Party would never get elected, and we wouldn't have this current situation where American government is by the Corporations for the Corporations.

Sullivan is an example of a fiscal conservative, who foolishly trusted the Republicans to deliver on their promise of tax cuts, and not go too far curtailing rights.

Dobson is an example of a social conservative who foolishly trusted the Republicans to deliver on their promise of god, gays, and guns.

Neither of these groups of Republican voters got what they wanted. So now the corporatist party is trying to scam them into voting again.

First they tried to scare them with "Oh noes! the Dems are going to impeach Bush!" "the Dems are going to investigate!"

Now they're trying to scare them with "Oh noes! the Dems are going to let the illegals come into the country, collect welfare and social security and rape our white daughters!" and "the Dems are going to let gays get married!"

If the Republicans ever successfully banned abortion, or gay marriage, they'd cement the religious wingnut vote, but a lot of moderates and independents who are currently not participating in elections would start voting democrat instead.

I'd like to see it happen - because America needs a real wake-up call to the dangers of theocracy. It's a real threat to our American values, and needs to be dealt with seriously (like, Waco-seriously) - and not ignored or pandered to.

Corporatism isn't really as much of a threat - because, frankly, they've got no voting base. Just money. And if they lost the ability to scam the religious voters, then Corporatism would cease to hold sway. Or maybe they'd just start bribing Democrats instead.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 2, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

I wish both liberals and conservatives would keep the terminology accurate here (that would surely help to defeat this cynical, misguided attempt to defile the U.S. Constitution:

Marriage - a religious sacrament, not a social construction that can be changed by legislative fiat. Bush doesn't control the churches (yet). Churches can marry whoever or whatever they like.

Civil union - a social construction, like a trust or estate, that is not a real person, but has legal standing in an American court.

So, to be very precise about this: Bush is not trying to ban gay marriages. He is trying to ban civil unions.

Are we all clear about this now???

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on June 2, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

Why would he bother, given the negatives? Perhaps--just perhaps--he's an idiot. But what happened to the Karl Rove touch?

Posted by: LeisureGuy on June 2, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

For one reason: turn out the (R) vote! Obviously ths issue will fail, but that is because "Democrats/Hollywoood/door3" have this agenda to hijack America. Look how they put together a "power parade" (with video) in San Francisco. Do you want your kids to grow up that way in NC? Vote Repub....

Posted by: whenwego on June 2, 2006 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

The use of religous terminology like 'sanctity' and 'sacred' in reference to a constitutional amendment are chilling.

One religon's "sacred" is another religon's "profane".

Dangerous times, these (yoda speak).

Posted by: Buford on June 2, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Not that I like to pick on the private lives of family members, but now that Mary Cheney has written a book about her and her partner and has been on all of the talk shows, isn't it "fair game" (which she claims it wasn't during the last election) to point out the hypocrisy of her father and this administration? Just wonderin.

Posted by: patrick on June 2, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, all right now. Settle down. Someone called about a violation of a restraining order against "Don P."? Is there a Mr. Dicely here? Sir, what seems to be the trouble?

Posted by: Chief Wiggum on June 2, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK
wish both liberals and conservatives would keep the terminology accurate here (that would surely help to defeat this cynical, misguided attempt to defile the U.S. Constitution:

Marriage - a religious sacrament, not a social construction that can be changed by legislative fiat. Bush doesn't control the churches (yet). Churches can marry whoever or whatever they like.

Civil union - a social construction, like a trust or estate, that is not a real person, but has legal standing in an American court.

The problem with this is that there is nothing "accurate" about this terminology. "Marriage" existed long before there was a firm separation between the religious and the civil, was in many ways more centered around civil (property) matters than religious concerns, though both Church and State regulated it, and when Church and State broke up, both continued to regulate it, sometimes getting in fierce conflicts where they disagreed on how to regulate it.

Neither has priority on the word "marriage"; people need to just understand that the civil institution of marriage and the religious institution (which isn't a "sacrament" to most, perhaps any, Protestant sects) of marriage are two separate institutions with a common history, not the same thing.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 2, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

Er, no.

Er, yes. You just claimed:

"...the statement 'belief X is justified' is vacuous gibberish ....'Justification' is not attribute of 'belief'."

This means that, according to you, your belief about Bush's purpose in supporting the FMA is not a justified belief. In fact, it means that, according to you, none of your beliefs about anything are justified. Not a single one of them. Including the belief of yours I quote above--which is why that belief is self-contradictory nonsense, logically equivalent to "This statement is false."


Posted by: GOP on June 2, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

"Chief Wiggum" has been disbarred for life.

Posted by: The Supreme Court on June 2, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

this is getting press now to divert you sheeple from something else.

Posted by: marblex on June 2, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK
This means that, according to you, your belief about Bush's purpose in supporting the FMA is not a justified belief.

No, it means that any statement that the belief either is or is not justified is (outside, as you'll note if you read all of my comments in that thread, the context of agreed epistemological framework) meaningless.

There is a difference between saying "X does not have attribute A" and saying "X is not in the class of things that can be said to have or not have attribute A".

You are mistaking the latter type of claim for the former, just as you did under a different name in the thread the claim originated in.

In fact, it means that, according to you, none of your beliefs about anything are justified. Not a single one of them. Including the belief of yours I quote above--which is why that belief is self-contradictory nonsense, logically equivalent to "This statement is false."

That would only be true if "justified" meant the same thing as "true", which is not the definition you, in your guise as "Atheist", offered in the discussion in which the claim was made. You are demonstrated my point about claims regarding "justification" of belief usually resting on equivocation, though, so I should thank you for that.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 2, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

Benen doesn't waste any time does he?

Pound for pound...
Post for post...
Day in and day out...

Neither rain nor shine....

This guy delivers the political skinny...

I hope they are paying you well for the gig Carpetbagger...

Posted by: koreyel on June 2, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

1) Get the base out to vote;
2) Use the FMA to do what they did last time i.e. put FMA-like ballots on state in initiatives to get the vote out
3) Shift the conversation to something the president can shout from the rooftops, while Dems timidly respond with "uh, um, well, ok but..."

Posted by: cvcobb01 on June 2, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

I love it that Republicans firmly believe this every even-numbered year. You'd think flag burning, gay marriage, and abortion would be, uh, important on odd-numbered years. Apparently not.

Posted by: Saam Barrager on June 2, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

No, it means that any statement that the belief either is or is not justified is (outside, as you'll note if you read all of my comments in that thread, the context of agreed epistemological framework) meaningless.

If the claim that a belief is justified is "meaningless," then the belief is not justified. For the belief to be justified, the statement "this belief is justified" must be meaningful, and you deny that it is. You are therefore denying that any of your beliefs are justified (including your belief in that denial). If you don't believe any of your beliefs are justified, why do you hold them? If you don't believe your belief about Bush's purpose for supporting the FMA is justified, why do you hold that belief? It's completely irrational.

That would only be true if "justified" meant the same thing as "true",

No, it's true, period. In denying that any of your beliefs are justified, you are denying that denial, which is a contradiction in terms.

As I said, I'm going to have a field day with this latest piece of cmdicely gibberish. It never takes much rope for you to hang yourself with, does it?

Posted by: GOP on June 2, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

This is simply a desperate distraction. Iraq? NSA? Immigration? These guys can't pee down their own legs without mapquest.
The administration is running scared with the loudest pinhead screeching their way to the top. case in point: Bolton "Put up or shut up?" WTF?? What a diplomat!

Gay marriage? Really, who gives a rat's ass? It is absolutely a personal life choice. But here it is again even on a liberal blog. Haven't seen any poll numbers lately for the Anti-christ, but I imagine they are in the lower 20s if they are objectively done. The administration is a freak show right now.

Posted by: Sparko on June 2, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

As I said, I'm going to have a field day with this latest piece of cmdicely gibberish. It never takes much rope for you to hang yourself with, does it?

Don, you are just making yourself look like a ridiculous boob -- on top of looking like a psycho cyberstalker -- with your manic and desperate attempts at semantic judo.

Give it a rest and get some talk therapy.

Posted by: Pretty Much Everyone Who Reads this Blog on June 2, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

To the liar who claims to be me, stop making false statements in my name.

Posted by: The Real Pretty Much Every Person Who Reads This Blog on June 2, 2006 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

Right on.

SK

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on June 2, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK
If the claim that a belief is justified is "meaningless," then the belief is not justified.

No, you are wrong. Any claim, positive or negative, about justification of belief outside of defined epistemic framework is meaningless -- that was my claim. It is equally meaningless to say "belief X is not justified" as it is to say "belief X is justified".

You are therefore denying that any of your beliefs are justified (including your belief in that denial).

No, I'm denying that there is any meaning to the claim that a belief is or is not justified.

No, it's true, period. In denying that any of your beliefs are justified, you are denying that denial, which is a contradiction in terms.

The most critical flaw here is with the premise: I'm not making that denial, I am saying that either affirming or denying the proposition which you claim I am denying would have no meaning. I am neither affirming or denying it, since, again, doing so would have no meaning.

As I said, I'm going to have a field day with this latest piece of cmdicely gibberish.

Well, at least you're admitting you are name-shifting troll; "GOP" never said anything about that -- when you announced your plan to use this misrepresentation, you were posting as "Atheist":

I can't wait to remind you that you claim that no belief is any more justified than any other belief the next time you make a claim about George Bush, the War in Iraq, or anything else.


Posted by: Atheist on June 1, 2006 at 2:25 AM | PERMALINK

Pretending to be different people works better if you don't claim credit, under one alias, for something you did under another.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 2, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

Any claim, positive or negative, about justification of belief outside of defined epistemic framework is meaningless -- that was my claim.

No, that was not your claim. Your claim was the statement I quoted. You denied that any belief is justified, period, end of story. You didn't say beliefs are justified in certain "epistemic frameworks" (whatever that's supposed to mean) but not others. You denied that beliefs are justified at all. You claimed that the statement "Belief X is justified" is meaningless.

It is equally meaningless to say "belief X is not justified" as it is to say "belief X is justified".

That claim is irrelevant to the point. You claimed that the statement "Belief X is justified" is meaningless. If that statement is meaningless, then Belief X is not justified. In order for Belief X to be justified, the statement must be meaningful, and you deny that it is.

If you don't believe any of your beliefs are justified, why do you hold them? If you don't believe your belief about Bush's purpose for supporting the FMA is justified, why do you hold that belief? It's completely irrational.

Presumably, you also believe that the moon probably is not made of cheese and that the Earth probably is more than 6,000 years old. If you don't think these beliefs (or any of your other beliefs) are justified, why do you hold them? Because it makes you feel good? Because you were taught to by your parents? Because you just chose to believe them at random? Or what?

Posted by: GOP on June 2, 2006 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

Well, at least you're admitting you are name-shifting troll; "GOP" never said anything about that -- when you announced your plan to use this misrepresentation, you were posting as "Atheist"

According to you, you don't believe you are justified in believing any of these things. So why do you believe them?

"I believe X is true, but I don't believe I am justified in believing X is true." This position makes sense to you, does it?

Posted by: GOP on June 2, 2006 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINK

Tsk tsk Kevin. This isn't "literally" the 11th hour. "Literally" is not another word for "I really really metaphorically mean this" you know!

Posted by: Chris O. on June 2, 2006 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINK

Fags and flags.

Is that all there is?

Apologies to Peggy.

Posted by: angryspittle on June 2, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

cmidcely,

You are right.

Posted by: Shinobi on June 2, 2006 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK

GOP, you'll never get cmdicely to back down. He knows he can't defend his religious beliefs rationally. But they are important to him emotionally, and exposing them to honest analysis is too threatening. Hence these extended exercises in evasion and word games. If he were confident he could mount a respectable defense of religious faith he'd have done it a long time ago.

Posted by: JB on June 2, 2006 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

Bush is a sinking ship so it probably doesn't much matter for the administration. But it might matter quite a bit for those running in 06/08.

Even if the religious right's attempt to get the amendment passed is doomed to failure, it might be an effective tactic to seperate 06/08 wheat from chaff.

Is this an attempt by the religious right to call them out? (McCain?) But what could possibly be the the quid-pro-quo?

Posted by: has407 on June 2, 2006 at 10:23 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know why Kevin thinks this is such a mystery. The Republican establishment occasionally has to throw some red meat to Christian conservatives to keep them active. The risk is not that they will defect to the Democrats, but that they will stay home at the next election, or dial back their formidable GOP organizing activities. The Democrats have to do some of the same thing with the far left. Bush isn't doing this for himself, he's doing it for the party.

Posted by: James on June 2, 2006 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

Interestingly, Bush's Canadian soul-mate Harper is pursuing a similar course on same-sex marriage that also seems doomed to fail.

Posted by: Windhorse on June 2, 2006 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

The FMA will probably fail, but so will all efforts to legalize gay marriage at the national level for the forseeable future--probably for a generation or more. 19 states have now amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage, and 12 of these have enacted what the National Gay Task Force calls "Super DOMAs"--amendments that go further than banning just gay marriage and that also ban other forms of legal partnership recognition such as civil unions. More states seem likely to pass such amendments in the future. The prospect of getting a Supreme Court ruling or federal law invalidating these state constitutional bans is extremely poor. These state actions have been an utter disaster for the gay marriage movement in the U.S.

Posted by: Kramer on June 2, 2006 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

Daniel DiRito gets it right. Immigration, abortion and gay marriage are the wedge issues Bush, Rove and other assorted slime will use to motivate the religious right in the mid-term elections. Nothing else gets those mouth-breathing morons to vote.

Posted by: Pocket Rocket on June 2, 2006 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

The constitution is not place for something so trivial. It must be a symbolic gesture, one that will likely backfire.

Posted by: aaron on June 2, 2006 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

The post-vote spin will now be, "Bush suffers another defeat on the Hill; lawmakers reject president's demands on amendment."

Wah-lah! November becomes a referendum on the Congresscritters and not on Bush, and Bush gets to fire up some of the base to get some more support in his corner, which will make it harder for said Congresscritters to openly take shots at him.

Posted by: the good reverend on June 2, 2006 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

You bozos know nothing-cmdicely IS god. Religion is based upon a simple premise: faith. Without it-it's all just imagination. Faith cannot be inflicted upon others. They must realize it on their own (or not, as the case may be). To justify actions based upon faith resorts to slippery ground when logic and reality can be considered as an alternative. Choose which ever you wish, but remember: faith must be tempered with logic. Otherwise, man cannot progress.

Posted by: Where's osama on June 2, 2006 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

JB wrote: "GOP, you'll never get cmdicely to back down."

Particularly not when cmdicely is absolutely right. Funny how that works.

"He knows he can't defend his religious beliefs rationally."

LOL.... Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice that no religious beliefs can be "defend[ed] rationally?" That this is the case because of the very nature of "religious beliefs?"

"But they are important to him emotionally, and exposing them to honest analysis is too threatening."

ROFL.... Oh my.... This is just too good to be true. You and your troll friend, assuming you are different people, of course, are quite the pair. I can hardly wait to see what you come up with next.

"Hence these extended exercises in evasion and word games."

Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice that the "evasion and word games" are coming from the other side?

"If he were confident he could mount a respectable defense of religious faith he'd have done it a long time ago."

ROFL.... This is just priceless. A troll and an idiot on one side; cmdicely on the other. You need to bring a few more friends.

Posted by: PaulB on June 2, 2006 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

Its not for the base though, its for swing voters that are less likely to see this as a political manuever.

As irrational as the religious right is, they know when something is politically motivated, but the people in the middle (moderates, swing voters, reagan dems...) dont.

The religious right knows that they have to keep the senate too if they want to push through another conservative supreme court appointment (if there is one) and for nominees to lower courts.

So its the fact that it is political thats what the base will like about it, along with the fact that they agree with it too.

Posted by: Jonesy on June 2, 2006 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

Why? Simple. Losing the fight now for a gay marriage amendment allows Republicans in the fall to blame Democrats for undermining the American family.

IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE.

Posted by: Mike H. on June 2, 2006 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

I would suppose that the religious right is somewhat frustrated. Over 5 years of absolute power and no illegal abortions, no federal ban on gay marriage, nothing but a little bitty tax break that was quickly eaten up by fuel prices and inflation and a moronic war with little hope of more than Al Quaida Iraq. How depressing! Sold out again by the corporate powers. The only hope remaining is the Supreme Court or total federal government failure. How sad. So much hope-so much spent-so little to show for it.

Posted by: Where's osama on June 3, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

Right, and that will work for swing voters even moreso than it will for 'the base'. The base will like it too though just for the fact that they want to win, and like I said, keep stacking the courts.

Wait till you see scenes of two guys kissing all over the news. I already did see one today on CNN. Theres an emotional reaction to that for ALOT of people and it doesnt matter to them if politics is involved or not.

Posted by: Jonesy on June 3, 2006 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

"Particularly not when cmdicely is absolutely right."

So PaulB doesn't think any of his beliefs are justified either.

Posted by: Yo Mama on June 3, 2006 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

Bush is poison, politically, right now -- and forever more. There is no way any thinking citizen would give him the time of day ever again. Every position he takes automatically is understood as poorly thought out. Therefore, not really worthy of consideration.

Mind you, I soid thinking citizen.

Posted by: jcricket on June 3, 2006 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK

One thing I learned as a teenager was that the single best way to shut someone up about something is to say something so over-the-top and embarassing that he/she never wants to bring up that idea again. So, here's the meme:

Hookers in the Watergate are destroying marriage.

Posted by: blank on June 3, 2006 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

cmdicely is God incarnate.

PaulB is a moron.

Posted by: Ryan on June 3, 2006 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

said....said!!

damn! I even previewed. Sigh.

Posted by: jcricket on June 3, 2006 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINK

And now the right (religious or whatever) has begun to realize that, they not only didn't further their agenda, but, by voting in a moron and a bunch of bought and paid for corporate sell-outs they may have inadvertently started the failure of the experiment consisting of the United States of America which provided them the avenue to pursue their direction without persecution. They've begun to realize, perhaps, that if the government can watch and listen in on everything that that very freedom to group together in a common cause could be jeopardized by the group that they so forcefully backed. Their existence depends upon the society that individuals that they supported are attacking. Now it all depends on how fast they realize these concepts and how they vote due to it. Maybe they'll realize what freedom really is-maybe not.

Posted by: Where's osama on June 3, 2006 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

Trying to keep the religious and the corporate sector together for political strength and power is always difficult but not impossible-Hitler was able to do it. The corporation must consistently control and alter the religious group through propaganda. But they've done enough case studies now to be able to do it effectively and the right isn't even aware of it. The left almost isn't. As an example, how many believe that Western Europe is a total catastrophe?

Posted by: Where's osama on June 3, 2006 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

In what "epistemic framework" are any beliefs about what is true that are held as a matter of faith justified? What are the rules and principles of this epistemic framework by which one may distinguish justified beliefs from unjustified ones? There are an infinite number of possible truth claims that are not supported by evidence. An infinite subset of these possible truths contradict another infinite subset of them. How do you decide which possible truths in this infinite set to believe, if there is no evidence that any of them are actually true?

Posted by: Billy Bob on June 3, 2006 at 12:45 AM | PERMALINK

It's important to understand that positions like this *are* politically effective even if they ultimately fail to be adopted. The Left tends to assume that the goal of supporting an initiative is simply to get it passed, and that if it doesn't get passed then the effort was wasted. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

What Rove et. al. have realized is that success depends on keeping their base emotionally stirred up so they feel a constant sense of outrage, of being wronged, of being threatened by some evil "other" -- and therefore the base is willing to turn out in force to vote and work on campaigns. The fanning of outrage must be understood as a political tactic. In the last election, the outrage they fanned about gay marriage helped the Right with turnout wherever there was an initiative on the ballot.

In some respects it's actually *better* for them if they *don't* win. Arguably the Right has made little actual progress in banning abortion and so they can use this issue for years on end to get their base mobilized. If they actually succeeded in banning abortion, this issue would become useless as a way to galvanize their supporters, and they would have to move on to another potent issue -- but they would run the risk of alienating the moderates if they make a big deal about restricting contraception -- which some fringe wingnuts would actually like to do. So it helps them to have abortion as an unending battleground which they never really win (though they do make progress) and never abandon as a cause.

The right has learned a lesson from the great social movements of the past -- the early labor union,the civil rights movement, feminism, etc. The lesson is that when a social movement starts to get its basic demands met (e.g. the Voting Rights Act) those very successes lead to the weakening and ultimate demise of the movement because people no longer feel sufficient outrage to continue. So to run an undending conservative social movement, Right wing leaders know they must continually find/manufacture issues to keep the base inflamed. This is why they adopt a rhetorical style of incredulity and outrage (Coulter, Limbaugh for example.)

The marriage amendment won't work to change policy because it won't be enacted. But it is politically potent nonetheless.

David

Posted by: David on June 3, 2006 at 1:25 AM | PERMALINK

You are so right, David. Your same discussion also relates to abortion. To actually outlaw it would render it, as a mobilizing force, useless. The corporation can so easily manipulate the religious right's hatrid and considerations regarding abortion and gay rights that they even in turn fail to realize it. They're led to believe that someone cares about their concerns then instead all they get is a $100 tax cut that is quickly consumed by inflation/high energy costs. Bent over while considering gay rights and abortion, they are quickly butt-fucked by the corporate establishment that used them to bring Awol to power. It's a huge joke.

Posted by: Where's osama on June 3, 2006 at 1:45 AM | PERMALINK

How do you decide which possible truths in this infinite set to believe, if there is no evidence that any of them are actually true?

Well, first off, Billy Bob, 'fthrain't no evidence then you'd about be s-i-l-l-y fer bleevin' it now, wouldn't ya?!

'An second, if'n whut yer after is what the re-al truth is, then best you be b'levin nuthin! Cuz a sentence? That's jest words, Billy Bob! And words are jest simbolz whut stand fer stuff but re-ally ain't the stuff they stand for!!

Mmm, y'all oughta maybe take a class in fil-O-so-feee lak a good boy should!

Posted by: Bobby Sue on June 3, 2006 at 2:59 AM | PERMALINK

David on June 3, 2006 at 1:25 AM | PERMALINK

Don't be so sure. It is highly unlikely that a constitutional amendment reversing Roe v Wade, or even one forbidding abortion, would pass, but that is because too many Americans like things the way they are in regards abortion rights. They want to have access to abortion services, even though more than a few of them would not admit it publicly.

On the other hand, there are--percentage wise--very few people who want to have access to same-sex marriage--even few gay people. So, throwing the political Religious Right (pRR) a bone--via the federal anti-family amendment--to the detriment of gay people would serve to mollify the people that the pRR are pandering to. And that is what the Republican politicians want to do--throw them a bone.

Posted by: raj on June 3, 2006 at 3:05 AM | PERMALINK

kinda like a perpetual war on terror to keep the sheep afraid and willing to cede their (and my) civil liberties to an authoritarian protector.

Posted by: Nads on June 3, 2006 at 4:32 AM | PERMALINK

传感器,电流传感器,电压传感器,霍尔传感器

传感器
电流传感器
电压传感器
霍尔传感器

传感器
电流传感器
电压传感器
霍尔传感器

传感器,电流传感器,电压传感器,霍尔传感器

Posted by: dsfsd on June 3, 2006 at 5:17 AM | PERMALINK

This is completely about the 2006 midterms. Nationally, same-sex marriage related legislation may be irrelevant, but in several states it can still raise enough emotions to tip an election. Watch especially red states with blue governors or senators up for re-election.

Posted by: moderleft on June 3, 2006 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINK

I wish people like Rush Limbaugh and Newton Leroy Gingrich would start respecting the sanctity of marriage and be faithful to their wedding vows!

[NOTE: Both have been married three times.]

Posted by: Fred Flintrock on June 3, 2006 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

This is a no lose situation for Bush- his ratings are so low, if the FMA passes, he bumps up and energizes his base, if it doesn't pass, then it energizes his base and he can complain about the dangers of a Democratic Congress.

And it gives some Republican Congressmembers a chance to separate themselves from the boat-anchor president.

Virginia's a pretty important state in the 2006 elections. George Allen, one of the possible presidential candidates, is suddenly vulnerable, particularly if James Webb wins the Democratic nomination on June 13 (not at all a sure thing).

Getting out the fundamentalist vote will be the deciding factor for Allen. Our Republican-controlled state legislature has seen this coming and gotten a proposed state constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage on the ballot, despite that we already have one of the most sweeping anti-same-sex marriage/anti-civil union laws in the country in effect.

Bush "trying" but not succeeding to pass the Federal amendment is perfect for motivating the hard core Bush 29% can be motivated to vote. I don't know what else the WH can come up with, other than war on Iran.

Posted by: Nell on June 3, 2006 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

Then I suggest you launder the damned thing, Cheney.
That mark of the beast thingy is soiled anyway.

Posted by: Sparko on June 3, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK
You claimed that the statement "Belief X is justified" is meaningless. If that statement is meaningless, then Belief X is not justified.

No, idiot. I claimed that the statement "Belief X is justified" is meaningless because "justified" is meaningless applied to "belief".

Which implies that both "Belief X is justified" and "Belief X is not justified" are meaningless statements.

It does not mean I believe the latter and not the former. It means that either statement is a series of symbols that has no meaning.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 3, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

We've got a few more surprises up our sleeves, Nell ; )

Now, now. You wouldn't drop high explosives on a bunch of Iranian plant & people just for votes now, would you?

What a little dickens!

Posted by: Charlie's Auntie on June 3, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

The Demos ought to at least have some fun with this.

Speak, but don't say anything about marriage. Talk about AIDs. Talk about sex education. Talk about anything.

And then call a cloture vote, and then don't vote at all. Just let it sit there and chat among yourselves. If called by the chair to vote just say "we have more important things to do" :)

Posted by: aj on June 3, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Any amendment is a good start. And I know libbies salivate at the idea that conservatives may be divided, but conservatives are not divided on this issue, or other issues either. That is a fantasy prepetuated on far lefty blogs like this one.

It's why we're in power on every level of government, and will continue to be so.

Posted by: sportsfan79 on June 3, 2006 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans aren't divided on immigration? Must be that "liberal media bias" you keep whining about that makes everyone in America (but you) think that the House just gave the big "fuck you" to the Senate's version of immigration reform.

Posted by: Pat on June 4, 2006 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly