Noone dredges up sewage quite like the Bushies

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-03-02 03:43am

You need to register to read that. Can you give us the gist of the article?

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-02 04:46am

This is the way that Bushes run for president when they fall behind: They plunge us into culture wars.

It was only when Poppy Bush fell behind Michael Dukakis in the summer of '88 that he made an issue of Willie Horton and the Pledge of Allegiance. It was only when George W. fell behind John McCain in the winter of 2000 that he went to Bob Jones University to align himself with the old white South.

And now the president has fallen behind John Kerry. Abruptly, it is the season of doctored photos showing Kerry alongside Jane Fonda, of Internet and Murdoch-media rumor campaigns about affairs that never were. Like father, like son; like Atwater, like Rove; no one spreads sewage quite like the Bushes.

But the proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage, which our current Bush endorsed on Tuesday, is more than just wedge politics as usual. It would actually create within the Constitution a permanent secondary caste in American life. Not untouchables, certainly; we're beyond that. Just unmarriageables.

That's a tricky distinction, though, and it's one that Bush and all but the most benighted opponents of gay marriage have to make all the time. Bush must affirm -- because most Americans now believe -- that gays and lesbians are created equal to heterosexuals; they have all the rights of Americans save those commonly associated with marriage and, in some states, parenting. And there's the rub: Once a group is viewed as fully human, it grows harder to accord it some rights and deny it others. In the early 20th century, the laws banning miscegenation were justified as protecting whites against "inferior" blacks. By mid-century, in much of the nation, blacks were no longer inferior, and the case for miscegenation had dwindled to a defense of marriage as such. But if whites and blacks were no longer really different, what was it that marriage needed to be defended against?

Now the issue is joined again. Bush took care to affirm that his amendment wasn't really about gay and lesbian rights, just about marriage. "If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever," he said, "our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America."

But the meaning of marriage changes all the time as our views of human equality change. Women used to take a vow to obey their husbands because marriage sanctified the inequality of the sexes. The rising acceptance of gender equality -- and with it, the advent of birth control -- has vastly reshaped marriage over the past century.

Champions of the constitutional amendment want to freeze an institution that has been evolving in an egalitarian direction for the past century. They cannot attack gays and lesbians as such, however, so they seek to define marriage exclusively as heterosexual child-rearing. "If marriage had nothing to do with procreation," Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council argued on Tuesday, "there would be no reason for government to license and regulate it at all. . . . Yes, infertile and childless opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry, too -- but that is only because excluding them would require either an invasion of privacy or the drawing of arbitrary and inexact lines."

But if we grant legal protections to marriages because we wish to protect child-rearing, why is it legal for, say, an 80-year-old widow to marry an 80-year-old widower, while a lesbian couple in their thirties with adopted children can't tie the knot? That's not arbitrary? And if the issue really is that we don't want children to be raised outside of heterosexual families, then Bush should be promoting a constitutional amendment not against gay marriage but against gay adoption.

Bush needs more evangelical voters, however, if he's going to pull this one out, and the evangelicals have been roused by the outbreak of nuptials by the Bay. And yet, the president's embrace of this amendment could do the Republicans the same kind of long-term harm that California Gov. Pete Wilson's support in 1994 for the anti-immigrant Proposition 187 brought down upon his state party in the years thereafter. As Wilson estranged Latino voters, so Bush runs the risk of estranging young voters, who, the polls demonstrate, heavily oppose the amendment and who divide evenly on gay marriage itself. For that matter, the only age group that clearly supports the amendment is voters over 65.

In which of his novels I cannot remember, Faulkner tells the story of a turn-of-the-century town whose elders legislate a ban to keep those noisy horseless carriages outside the city limits. When the younger generation supplants them at city hall, they don't even bother to repeal the ordinance; they frame it, as a kind of historical curio. Such will be the fate of a ban on gay marriage if the Republicans are rash enough to enact it, if they cannot stand up to the zealous cynicism that is ever the hallmark of a Bush in trouble.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-02 12:19pm

Oh Jesus, are there still people out there bitching about Will Horton? It was perfectly valid for Bush to use that cold, hard fact against Dukakis, and I'm glad he fucking did. And the John Kerry/Fonda photo wasn't doctored, although there really isn't anything incriminating in it anyway.

Otherwise, I basically agree with what's being said.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-03-02 12:31pm

Joe wrote:Oh Jesus, are there still people out there bitching about Will Horton? It was perfectly valid for Bush to use that cold, hard fact against Dukakis, and I'm glad he fucking did. And the John Kerry/Fonda photo wasn't doctored, although there really isn't anything incriminating in it anyway.

Otherwise, I basically agree with what's being said.

Um, you know there's a doctored photo out there showing Kerry and Fonda speaking side by side, right?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-03-02 12:33pm

Snopes.com

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-03-02 12:34pm

I fail to see how plunging into the Culture Wars is dredging up sewage or how your thread title is intended to be anything but flame bait.

The Democratic plan was supposedly to avoid this kind of stuff so it's only natural that Bush would push to make it an issue. And the gay marriage issue began mostly out of the primary push and the Massechusetts court ruling and of course the subsequent national reaction.

I totally disagree with Bush on gay marriage, and the seperation of church and state in general, but I fail to see why this shouldn't be an issue. Even more so given Bush's fundamentalist credentials.

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2004-03-02 01:17pm

There are few in politics that can match the pure natiness and bile that can come out of a Bush (I or II) campaign. Rove has done and taught well. Those pushpolls alone are a work of malicious beauty, pummeling an enemy without leaving any marks. And why give a whole truth, when a halk-truth is so much more damaging?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-03-02 01:26pm

Oddysseus wrote:There are few in politics that can match the pure natiness and bile that can come out of a Bush (I or II) campaign. Rove has done and taught well. Those pushpolls alone are a work of malicious beauty, pummeling an enemy without leaving any marks. And why give a whole truth, when a halk-truth is so much more damaging?

Exactly what the hell are you talking about? Because nothing is more pointless than a rant that has nothing at all to do with anything.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-02 02:08pm

Iceberg wrote:
Joe wrote:Oh Jesus, are there still people out there bitching about Will Horton? It was perfectly valid for Bush to use that cold, hard fact against Dukakis, and I'm glad he fucking did. And the John Kerry/Fonda photo wasn't doctored, although there really isn't anything incriminating in it anyway.

Otherwise, I basically agree with what's being said.
Um, you know there's a doctored photo out there showing Kerry and Fonda speaking side by side, right?

Ah, I'd only seen that one from the antiwar rally where Kerry was visible in the background.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-02 09:59pm

Stormbringer wrote:I fail to see how plunging into the Culture Wars is dredging up sewage or how your thread title is intended to be anything but flame bait.

It's a sentence from the fucking article. Or did you not read the article AGAIN? And you'd have to be a real rabid supporter of one of the dumbest fuckwits ever to hold office in the US to call a thread title merely insulting them "flamebait."

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-02 10:39pm

I do love reminding people of the Bush 2000 "He's a uniter, not a divider" campaign slogan. This guy has been the most divisive human being in recent memory.

What the Bushites are doing with gay marriage is what political strategists call the "wedge issue" strategy. The idea is to find an issue which is so divisive that it will drive an unremovable wedge into society, causing one of the two remaining polarized groups (hopefully the larger one) to give you a unified "block vote". Any disunity in the opposition's support base would surely cripple him once you have successfully employed the wedge strategy.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-03-02 10:42pm

Darth Wong wrote:I do love reminding people of the Bush 2000 "He's a uniter, not a divider" campaign slogan. This guy has been the most divisive human being in recent memory.

What the Bushites are doing with gay marriage is what political strategists call the "wedge issue" strategy. The idea is to find an issue which is so divisive that it will drive an unremovable wedge into society, causing one of the two remaining polarized groups (hopefully the larger one) to give you a unified "block vote". Any disunity in the opposition's support base would surely cripple him once you have successfully employed the wedge strategy.

The question is: did he deply it too soon? If the issue is resolved before the election he'll have lost his wedge.

On an unrelated note, my gut instict tells me the issue won't be resolved before the election.

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2004-03-03 12:25am

Joe wrote:
Iceberg wrote:
Joe wrote:Oh Jesus, are there still people out there bitching about Will Horton? It was perfectly valid for Bush to use that cold, hard fact against Dukakis, and I'm glad he fucking did. And the John Kerry/Fonda photo wasn't doctored, although there really isn't anything incriminating in it anyway.

Otherwise, I basically agree with what's being said.
Um, you know there's a doctored photo out there showing Kerry and Fonda speaking side by side, right?
Ah, I'd only seen that one from the antiwar rally where Kerry was visible in the background.

There are 2 pictures in question. In one, Kerry is in the same crowd, sitting on a lawn. This is a real picture. The other has him and Fonda on a stage rallyying people. This is a fake, to make him look like he was working arm in arm with Jane.

After he finished serving his duty time, he came home and decided that this war shouldn't continue, and he began going to some rallies and speaking against it. It's hard to see the point of using this to attack him.

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2004-03-03 12:28am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I do love reminding people of the Bush 2000 "He's a uniter, not a divider" campaign slogan. This guy has been the most divisive human being in recent memory.

What the Bushites are doing with gay marriage is what political strategists call the "wedge issue" strategy. The idea is to find an issue which is so divisive that it will drive an unremovable wedge into society, causing one of the two remaining polarized groups (hopefully the larger one) to give you a unified "block vote". Any disunity in the opposition's support base would surely cripple him once you have successfully employed the wedge strategy.
The question is: did he deply it too soon? If the issue is resolved before the election he'll have lost his wedge.

On an unrelated note, my gut instict tells me the issue won't be resolved before the election.

I wouldn't think it would go away that soon either. But with the number of conservatives and liberals opposing it, they legislative issue may be put away for this year, after the various cities allowing marriage are barred.

We'll have to see the how fast various authorities step in.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-03-03 12:37am

I wouldnt be at all shocked if the gay marriage issue skyrockets through the court system. It will go through the states, with each state court ruling on it... eventually, it will be appealed to the SCOTUS and I have a fair idea how they would vote on the issue...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-03 12:39am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:The question is: did he deply it too soon? If the issue is resolved before the election he'll have lost his wedge.

I think he felt he had no choice. His support base was eroding. The shine had long since come off his "war of liberation" in Iraq. New revelations about the total lack of evidence for WMDs was damning, and more of it seemed to come out each week. Mounting evidence was gathering that people in his administration had knowingly lied about the case for war in the first place. Fiscal conservatives were starting to grumble in public about his enormous deficit, reckless discretionary spending, and dangerous protectionist trade policy. The government's treatment of soldiers and veterans was starting to draw negative press. Even many Christians were publicly grumbling that he was a Christian "in name only", despite his obvious attempts to pander to them with faith-based initiatives and the anointing of His Holiness John Asscroft (the great danger of promising to reward an extremist political faction is that they will view anything less than complete capitulation to their demands as a betrayal).

So in a sense, he had no choice. He needed to push a wedge into American politics which would drive his support base away from the opposition and back into his arms. And indeed, it has been a fairly successful ploy; the gay-marriage issue has dominated political mind-share ever since he mentioned his preference for a constitutional amendment, and any hint of even the slightest discord between Bush and his Christian Right support base has completely evapourated.

On an unrelated note, my gut instict tells me the issue won't be resolved before the election.

I'd have to agree.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-03-04 12:57am

Vympel wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:I fail to see how plunging into the Culture Wars is dredging up sewage or how your thread title is intended to be anything but flame bait.
It's a sentence from the fucking article. Or did you not read the article AGAIN? And you'd have to be a real rabid supporter of one of the dumbest fuckwits ever to hold office in the US to call a thread title merely insulting them "flamebait."

Pardon me, but I fail to see the thread title any where in the article and I don't see how it's intended as anything but flamebait.

And again, why the hell shouldn't Bush chime in on a major issue? Love or hate his stance, there's no dredging up sewage in rasing a legitimate issue.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-03-04 01:38am

"And now the president has fallen behind John Kerry. Abruptly, it is the season of doctored photos showing Kerry alongside Jane Fonda, of Internet and Murdoch-media rumor campaigns about affairs that never were. Like father, like son; like Atwater, like Rove; no one spreads sewage quite like the Bushes."

Second paragraph.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-04 02:41am

Stormbringer wrote:Pardon me, but I fail to see the thread title any where in the article and I don't see how it's intended as anything but flamebait.

*points above*

And again, why the hell shouldn't Bush chime in on a major issue? Love or hate his stance, there's no dredging up sewage in rasing a legitimate issue.

How is it a legitimate issue? It's bullshit; and Bush, and every other slimy pandering politician has no right to use government to legislate their own personal form of sexual morality and discriminate against an entire class of persons, which is precisely what they're trying to do with this entire issue.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-04 02:44am

Stormbringer wrote:And again, why the hell shouldn't Bush chime in on a major issue? Love or hate his stance, there's no dredging up sewage in rasing a legitimate issue.

Legitimate issue? A proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages at the federal level? There are no depths to which you will sink in your gleeful zeal to suck George Bush's cock, are there?

This is either hateful religious intolerance and homophobia, or a political "wedge issue" strategy gambit (or both). I don't see anything remotely resembling a legitimate issue here, except in the sense that stopping this asshole's proposal has forcibly become a major issue.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-03-04 10:48pm

Darth Wong wrote:Legitimate issue? A proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages at the federal level? There are no depths to which you will sink in your gleeful zeal to suck George Bush's cock, are there?

And where the hell did I say I supported it? Oh wait, no where. In fact I'm opposed to it you asshat. But I see know reason that the issue shouldn't be brought up. If John Kerry and the rest of the DNC had their way they would have ducked the issue entirely and let Bush have his way in ram rodding through this crap.

There sure as hell wouldn't be any progress if no one said a damn thing about it.

Darth Wong wrote:This is either hateful religious intolerance and homophobia, or a political "wedge issue" strategy gambit (or both). I don't see anything remotely resembling a legitimate issue here, except in the sense that stopping this asshole's proposal has forcibly become a major issue.

The way I see it, ensuring that gays and lesbians get their equal rights is big issue. Sure Bush is touting the fundy agenda, one reason to make gay rights a major issue, if it's not no progress gets made or worse yet crap like that stands.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-03-05 01:00am

Joe wrote:Oh Jesus, are there still people out there bitching about Will Horton? It was perfectly valid for Bush to use that cold, hard fact against Dukakis, and I'm glad he fucking did.

What, the prison furlough program that was started by Dukakis's Republican predecessor, Francis Sargent?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-05 01:12am

Iceberg wrote:
Joe wrote:Oh Jesus, are there still people out there bitching about Will Horton? It was perfectly valid for Bush to use that cold, hard fact against Dukakis, and I'm glad he fucking did.
What, the prison furlough program that was started by Dukakis's Republican predecessor, Francis Sargent?

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I don't give a shit who started it, Dukakis refused to employ basic logical reasoning (what the fuck were the people who thought this was a good idea thinking, anyway?) when he vetoed a bill that would have banned furloughs in 1976, and that led to convicted murderers being let out of prison, one of whom killed people. Nice red herring, I'll remember this next time someone brings up something Clinton did in response to a criticism of Bush.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-03-05 01:20am

Fucking hurts when the shoe's on the other foot, doesn't it, asshat?