Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Bush comes out in favor of gay civil unions, left to the states
As if anyone would believe this was anything other than a crude ploy to pick up a few undecideds. Ye Gods. Nice to see that the Dean position of a year ago has become the CW. Anyhow, FWIW:
Where, oh where to begin?
1. Obviously, if Kerry had perpetrated a flip-flop of this magnitude, the Times would have this story on A1, not buried on page A21. Not to mention what the Sabbath Day Gasbags would be doing. Not to mention the frothing and stamping by O'Lielly, etc. And there would probably be an inane story from Jodi Wilgoren about Kerry's penchant for [pick your bigoted cliche].
2. One can only wonder what The Base—and kudos to the New Yorker for noticing that The Base is what "Al Qaeda" translates to—thinks about this. For about thirty seconds. They know it's a ploy, something He "has to say" and so they won't call him on it.
3. The whole episode reeks of cowardice. Why doesn't Bush just break into a few bars of "Poor, Pitiful Me"? Those wicked Republicans! Forcing a platform on Him that He couldn't believe in! Well, if He didn't believe in the Republican platform, then why didn't He say so at the time? And isn't He, asthe elected President the chief executive, also the head of his party? Couldn't either He, or the notoriously ruthless Acting President Rove, simply have gotten the platform changed?
4. Notice the contradiction: Bush claims that he's OK with civil unions as "legal arrangements that enable people to have rights." OK, fine. But if marriage—or at least that aspect of marriage that it is appropriate for the state to regulate—is not a "legal arrangement," then what is it? The only possible answer is that it is a religious arrangement. So, typically, Inerrant Boy wants to have it both ways: He wants (for the sake of the undecideds) to seem tolerate; but He also wants (for the sake of The Base) to write His religious views into the Constitution.
5. And that really is the crux of the matter, isn't it? The Republicans, purely to set a wedge issue in place for the 2004 election, proposed a Constitutional Amendment to take the power of the states to define marriage away from them, and to prevent gays from ever marrying. Now Bush doesn't like the evident consequences of that decision, as millions of parents, children, and lovers are revolted by the hypocrisy of it (listening, Mary?). So, He wants to tiptoe away from the mess. What a wuss.
Anf finally, 6., if this pathetic little concession from Bush is what He felt He had to give the Log Cabin Republicans to prevent them from leaving the (ha) Big Tent so close to election day, then the Log Cabin Republicans are even wussier than I thought they were.
UPDATE Following Xan, I added some fabulousness to Inerrant Boy's quotes.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 - Bush said in an interview this past weekend that he disagreed with the Republican Party platform opposing civil unions of same-sex couples and that the matter should be left up to the states.
Mr. Bush has previously said that states should be permitted to allow same-sex unions, even though White House officials have said he would not have endorsed such unions as governor of Texas. But Mr. Bush has never before made a point of so publicly disagreeing with his party's official position on the issue.
In an interview on Sunday with Charles Gibson, an anchor of "Good Morning America" on ABC, Mr. Bush said, "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so." ABC, which broadcast part of the interview on Monday, is to broadcast the part about civil unions on Tuesday.
According to an ABC transcript, Mr. Gibson then noted to Mr. Bush that the Republican Party platform opposed civil unions.
"Well, I don't," Mr. Bush replied.
He added: "I view the definition of marriage different from [sic] legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."
(via Times)
Where, oh where to begin?
1. Obviously, if Kerry had perpetrated a flip-flop of this magnitude, the Times would have this story on A1, not buried on page A21. Not to mention what the Sabbath Day Gasbags would be doing. Not to mention the frothing and stamping by O'Lielly, etc. And there would probably be an inane story from Jodi Wilgoren about Kerry's penchant for [pick your bigoted cliche].
2. One can only wonder what The Base—and kudos to the New Yorker for noticing that The Base is what "Al Qaeda" translates to—thinks about this. For about thirty seconds. They know it's a ploy, something He "has to say" and so they won't call him on it.
3. The whole episode reeks of cowardice. Why doesn't Bush just break into a few bars of "Poor, Pitiful Me"? Those wicked Republicans! Forcing a platform on Him that He couldn't believe in! Well, if He didn't believe in the Republican platform, then why didn't He say so at the time? And isn't He, as
4. Notice the contradiction: Bush claims that he's OK with civil unions as "legal arrangements that enable people to have rights." OK, fine. But if marriage—or at least that aspect of marriage that it is appropriate for the state to regulate—is not a "legal arrangement," then what is it? The only possible answer is that it is a religious arrangement. So, typically, Inerrant Boy wants to have it both ways: He wants (for the sake of the undecideds) to seem tolerate; but He also wants (for the sake of The Base) to write His religious views into the Constitution.
5. And that really is the crux of the matter, isn't it? The Republicans, purely to set a wedge issue in place for the 2004 election, proposed a Constitutional Amendment to take the power of the states to define marriage away from them, and to prevent gays from ever marrying. Now Bush doesn't like the evident consequences of that decision, as millions of parents, children, and lovers are revolted by the hypocrisy of it (listening, Mary?). So, He wants to tiptoe away from the mess. What a wuss.
Anf finally, 6., if this pathetic little concession from Bush is what He felt He had to give the Log Cabin Republicans to prevent them from leaving the (ha) Big Tent so close to election day, then the Log Cabin Republicans are even wussier than I thought they were.
UPDATE Following Xan, I added some fabulousness to Inerrant Boy's quotes.
