For all of the social conservatives out there who voted for Bush because you thought he would stop those State Supreme Courts from legalizing gay marriage by pushing a Constitutional Ammendment will he's giving you his first flip flop of the 2nd term. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6831621/
So you bash Bush because he realizes that even if he pressed this useless amendment it wouldn't pass...yeah. Shouldn't we be saying how smart this was of him and how it won't waste time or money?
I thought it was obvious he brought up the amendment to rally his base. Now that he's elected, he can do without the controversy, and there's no reason to bring up a bill that would never pass. It's the same reason abortion never gets outlawed-- it's just a hotbutton issue to garner votes.
The president said there is no reason to press for the amendment because so many senators are convinced that the Defense of Marriage Act -- which says states that outlaw same-sex unions do not have to recognize such marriages conducted outside their borders -- is sufficient. ... but GWB is pressing for his SS change which aint getting out of the Senate either. GWB moral anchor appears to be in the pockets of his largest donors, who are hot for his economic agenda and cold for his "moral" agenda.
No I'm just pointing out that the Bush's major criticism of Kerry was that he was a flip flopper who changed his positions for political expediency while Bush was the paragon of consistency and always did what he said he would do.
I think it is just ironic after the Bush campaign tried to label Kerry a flip flopper, even though many of the incidents they cited took place over many years, and in different situations, that were also smart moves. Yet in Kerry it was labeled a bad characteristic to have in a leader, at least by the Bush administration.
But 4prez, the amendment was never going to go in the Constitution. Don't be silly. The amendment was never meant to pass. It was cooked up for the election, to signal to certain Evangelicals that Bush hated gays more than Kerry did. Its work is done. No point pressing it further. Message sent and received, loud and clear. In a tight race, the bigger *** hater wins. It's like the 60's all over again, but without the rock and roll. God bless America.
Second term hasn't started yet officially. Let this be the last flip-flop of the first term. The whole marriage thing was a brilliant (and sleazy?) political move to get the Evangelical vote out. It obviously put Kerry in a difficult position. Kerry was a flip-flopper. They all are. Kerry just didn't have any charisma. I hope the first flip-flop of the second term is the guest-worker program.
Guest Worker Plan in Doubt Bush vows to overhaul immigration laws, but others say most of his political capital will go to efforts to revise Social Security and tax system. By Mary Curtius, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON — Even as President Bush stresses his commitment to reworking the nation's immigration laws, some key supporters on the issue say it is so politically divisive that they doubt he can achieve his goal, given the administration's ambitious agenda. In interviews last week, Bush insisted he would pursue legislation that would legalize some of the estimated 8 million undocumented immigrants in the United States by granting them temporary worker status. Under his plan, illegal immigrants could apply for legal status and, if they qualified, could stay in the country for as long as six years. Some conservative Republicans have denounced the plan as a form of amnesty, and say it would encourage illegal immigration. But Bush has said he would deal with the problem of illegal immigrants in a humane way. And he has linked the plan to national security. "It's a big, important issue because there are millions of people here" illegally, Bush told the Wall Street Journal. "I happen to believe that a reform of the legal system, a guest worker program, for better lack of a word … will help border security." Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), an outspoken advocate of immigration reform, has said that Bush convinced him during a recent meeting that the president was serious about pursuing legislation this session. McCain is working with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the Senate's key Democratic player on the issue, to try to develop bipartisan legislation. But several immigrant advocacy groups, labor unions and lawmakers who would be involved in such an initiative say the White House has not reached out to them to produce a bill that could overcome opposition among some Republicans and win the necessary support to pass. Some take that as a sign that the administration is going to spotlight other priorities — including overhauling Social Security and the tax system — this year. Bush occasionally promoted his immigration plan during his reelection campaign, but it was not an issue he stressed. "The president has done this before," said Michele Waslin, director of immigration policy research for the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Latino civil rights organization. "Last year he made a speech about immigration reform, then we didn't see anything…. I don't know why it would be different now." Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) was similarly skeptical. "My guess is that it is an administration whose plate is awfully full at this moment, and I don't believe that immigration is in the top three or four items," said Craig, who sponsored a bill last year that would have granted illegal agricultural workers temporary resident status and the prospect of earning citizenship for themselves and their families. He added: "Congress itself is looking at the reality of what can we effectively get done in the first 18 months that is politically doable." Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said that although he believed Bush was committed to immigration reform, there was "no question that with the kind of agenda that we're looking at — loaded with big issues that are going to require maximum presidential leadership and expenditure of political capital — it may well be likely that immigration reform gets lost because we can't do it all." Hagel, who planned to reintroduce his own version of immigration reform legislation this year, said the matter was a particularly complex one for the president. "This is a very bloody issue within the Republican Party," with a vocal minority in the House urging a crackdown on illegal immigration, restriction of legal immigration and opposition to any form of guest worker program, he said. There also is a reluctance on Capitol Hill to tackle an issue seen as politically volatile in a session where the president is already asking Republicans to grasp the so-called political third rail of Social Security by allowing younger workers to divert some of their Social Security payroll taxes into private accounts. "I think [Bush] thinks that he can find a way to work some magic to get it through," said Paul S. Egan, director of government relations for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a nonprofit group that favors restricting immigration. "But I think he's going to find it next to impossible in the House." Egan and some GOP lawmakers say that while Bush is focused on the long-term goal of wooing Latinos to the Republican Party, members of the House are focused on the next election. "The president is taking on a lot, and he's going to be asking Republicans to make sacrifices on a lot of different things. And this is one where there is just not a lot of unity in the party," said one senior GOP aide who asked not to be named. "You're selling it to congressmen who've got to get reelected in two years. They understand the loftiness and worthiness of the goal of a permanent Republican majority, but this is a business that is about survival." In remarks to business leaders last week, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. suggested that the administration's push to revamp the immigration system would not take a backseat to its restructuring plan for Social Security. "Social Security's elephant might be sitting at a distant table," Card said in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a reference to concerns that Social Security could go bankrupt by 2042. "But this elephant [of mass illegal migration to the U.S.] is sitting at the table right in front of us, and we should start to address it right now." In an interview published in the Washington Times last week, Bush repeated his determination to take on the immigration issue. "I believe the president has got to set big agenda items and solve big problems," Bush said. "Obviously, we're going to have to work on [immigration reform], just like Social Security. This will require the expenditure of capital." The House leadership late last year promised Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that it would attach controversial law enforcement provisions he supported that target immigrants to the first "must pass" bill of the new session — such as additional funding of the Iraq war. Sensenbrenner had fought to include the measures — which include banning states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, tightening asylum criteria and completing a fence between the California-Mexico border — to a White House-backed bill restructuring the nation's intelligence apparatus. In the face of Senate objections, House Republican leaders agreed to strip the measures from the bill after winning a pledge from the White House that it would help push for them in the new Congress. The measures may be attached by House leaders to an emergency aid bill for Iraq that few lawmakers would be willing to vote against. But the Senate could again block such a move. That might set the stage for the White House to push a comprehensive bill that would include a guest worker program and law enforcement provisions. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the newly installed chairman of the immigration subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he was convinced Bush would take on the challenge of immigration reform this year. "I take the president at his word," Cornyn said. "Congress can deal with more than one issue at a time, and we should." Still, Cornyn said, the White House and congressional supporters of immigration reform need to educate lawmakers — and much of the nation — on the challenges posed by continued illegal immigration. "We need to start to develop some consensus on what is doable and what is not," Cornyn said. "If we only focus on border security, homeland security, we are not doing our job."
Bush Upsets Some Supporters President Is Urged to Press Ban on Same-Sex Marriage By Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, January 19, 2005; Page A11 President Bush came under fire from some social conservatives yesterday for saying he will not aggressively lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage during his second term. Prominent leaders such as Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and many rank-and-file Bush supporters inundated the White House with phone calls to protest Bush's comments in an interview published Sunday in The Washington Post. "Clearly there is concern" among conservatives, Perkins said. "I believe there is no more important issue for the president's second term than the preservation of marriage." Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family said, "I am sure [White House] phone lines are lighting up all over." In the Post interview, Bush, for the first time, said senators have made it clear to him the amendment has no chance of passing unless courts strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which protects states from recognizing same-sex marriages conducted elsewhere. Challenges to the act are pending in state courts from California to Florida. "It was not articulated that way in the campaign," Perkins complained. Social conservatives who helped stoke record turnout for Bush in the 2004 election expressed concern that he is dropping the issue he passionately touted during the campaign now that he has been reelected. "The president is willing to spend his political capital on Social Security reform, but the nation is greatly conflicted on that issue," said Minnery, vice president of public policy for Focus on the Family. "The nation is united on marriage. The president's leadership is desperately needed." Minnery and Perkins called the White House to complain about Bush's position. Some conservatives, however, said they trust Bush will still push for the amendment, despite his remarks. Janet M. LaRue of Concerned Women for America, a Washington-based group that seeks to reverse the nation's "moral decline," said Bush was pointing to the realities of a divided Senate. "I think he was speaking practically about the fact that there are senators who are waiting to see whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act is struck down by a court," a position LaRue called "foolish." Still, she said, "The responsibility for an amendment lies with Congress, not the White House." Bush, whose reelection strategy was predicated on record-high turnout among social conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, will need the support of his base to help pressure Congress to approve his domestic agenda over the next four years, Republicans say. While Bush remains wildly popular among most conservatives, some are wondering whether the president will play down social issues in the second term as he seeks to cement a legacy focused more on cutting taxes and creating private Social Security retirement accounts. Last week, some Republicans complained that Bush's choice to head the Republican National Committee, Kenneth B. Mehlman, has picked an abortion rights supporter to be co-chairman. The president is sensitive to the concerns of social conservatives and has tried to reassure them over the past two days that he remains as committed as ever to outlawing same-sex marriage, according to White House officials. Privately, some Bush advisers say the president is uncomfortable picking divisive political fights over abortion and same-sex marriage that cannot be won. "The president will continue to advocate the need for a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters yesterday. "It is something he believes very strongly in. In fact, he has already spent a lot of political capital on getting that initiative moving." "Remember, in the Senate, you have to have 67 votes to move a constitutional amendment forward," McClellan added. "And there are a number of members of the Senate that have said that they're not open to it until the Defense of Marriage Act faces a serious legal challenge. So that's just talking about the legislative reality." Social conservatives agree it is an uphill fight in the Senate. But they worry Bush is undermining the chances before the second-term debate even begins. "It seems wrong to signal at the start of the new Congress that nothing is likely to happen," Minnery said. "We would like him to stoke this first, so when there is this precipitating event, we can hit the ground running."
From the above article we can deduce that GWB will likely be bashing gays again in time for the midterm elections, barring a pre-emptive strike war with Iran that is.
"In a tight race, the bigger *** hater wins" is a pretty good take. Man, my wife and I live in San Francisco, two blocks from the Castro Theater, and can I just say something? Fags are totally awesome. Folks who hate fags really oughta try living near some, they are absolutely the best. Like, I feel guilty reaping the benefits of super-friendly neighbors, safe communities, random acts of kindness, cleanliness, really good tea, etc. etc. etc. The fact that homosexuals - who, as a community, in my very-generalizing experience rival only the veteran community here in utter soulful kindess and altruism - get the brunt of some much venom and hatred is a remarkable irony. Dude, seriously, this country could use a serious infusion of more gay communities, it would be a far better place.
Just curious. When did Bush bash gays? I've heard him call them "sinners" but he also said that "we are all sinners". He was against gay marraige but was okay with civil unions (which, btw, is the same posistion that Kerry and Edwards took). The only thing Bush did that Kerry didn't was endorse a Constitutional amendment banning gay marraige which was an obvious policital ploy to get concervative votes. Kerry, in another obvious policital play, was going for concervative votes as well by being against gay marragie but, at the same time, didn't want to alienate gays so he stopped short of supporting a Constitutional amendment (which was a wise move as I don't think it would have gained him any votes) Their positions were the same, IMO. Why get upset when Bush plays politics but not when Kerry does? Kerry, IMO, is the worst offender with regard to going against what he believes in (or at least his party does). He should have just come right out and supported gay marraige instead of trying to do a political tap dance (Kerry: I'm sort of for it but not). With regard to "the country needs more gay communities" that, IMO, is stereotyping. A person should be judged on his/her actions and those actions (good or bad) should NOT (I repeat NOT) be projected upon other people based on some arbitrary classification scheme (i.e. race, religion, sexual preference, political party affiliation, kind of music you like, haircut you have, etc...). (BTW, my personal opinion is that this is America and people should pretty much be able to do what they want. You want to be in a gay marraige - have at it).
