Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Bush Makes Pathetic Noises

The eve before the day of the mark of the beast, the only U.S. President we have at the moment branded Massachusetts and its Supreme Judicial Court as, well, being redefiner people. Lackaday.

This was his second speech in three days pimping an unpassable anti-same-sex-marriage amendment. As with the previous one, this received vaguely enthusiastic harrumphing from the most conservative legislators and mild huzzahs from Republicans wonder whether he really stepped into this time.

We'll need to watch before and at the fall mid-term elections to see how many delusional and emotional voters react. George the Lesser knows that he doesn't have a mouse's chance in a snake pit of getting this amendment into the Constitution. So, the question comes whether this false issue will rally the weak-minded or simply drive more moderates to pick Democratic -- more sensible -- candidates.

The laughable insult activist judges has pretty much lost its punch in most of the country. Too many voters have a vague sense of the separation of powers and judicial duty, and even more see that the Bush administration frequently calls on the courts to reinforce its positions.

The Globe cites yesterday's speech. "In returning to the divisive issue of gay marriage, the president is seeking to energize social conservatives in advance of the midterm congressional elections. He maintained that without a constitutional amendment, states across the country might have to recognize marriage 'as redefined by judges in, say, Massachusetts.'"

Over at the Herald, they note that Willard Cap'n Brylcreem Romney was even more manipulative and cynical than Bush. Rather than call Senators to try to influence the debate, he publicly circulated a letter trying to distance himself from the same-sex marriages here than he
enabled through his inertia and lack of leadership.

He wrote, "As governor of the state most directly affected by this amendment, I hope my perspectives will encourage you to vote yes..." Then he had the gall to add, "We all oppose bigotry and disparagement, and we all wish to avoid hurtful disregard of the feelings of others,” he wrote. “But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It’s a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage."

So, the Bushies think this will work for them as it did two years ago. Maybe, but the pro-marriage head of the Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese, thinks this will not be enough to draw attention from real problems. "This year, it's a political tactic that's going to backfire," Solmonese said. ``You have a nation that is demanding answers from its leadership. . . . The American people look at what's going on here and are disgusted."

Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio added, "I don't get the equation" of emphasizing SSM. "You run the risk of looking like you're out of touch."

The effort seem to be to portray SSM as what very anti-gay Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas) as, "This is a critical policy issue."

More realistically a Republican congressional senior aide says is a bid "to stop the bleeding. This is one of those surefire ways to say, 'See why you ned us?'"

We're not so sure voters are willing to accept fully the administrations failures and culpabilities. However, they certainly know that things in general are worse and that the party that controls Congress and well as the Presidency has no one to blame.

In addition, many right as well as left wingers hesitate to consider 1) writing discrimination of any type into the Constitution, and 2) taking states' rights to regulate marriage from them and giving direction to Big Daddy. We predict this are the real areas of risk for the flying monkeys in the Senate and White House.

By the bye, the Globe's lead editorial nails the issues/non-issue well. It includes:
As for the claim that gay marriage is hurting straight marriage: Where's the evidence? Straight marriages have flaws, from fights to extramarital (and largely heterosexual) affairs. But these problems predate gay marriage by centuries.

Government should be concerned about children. But the big threat they face is poverty, not gay marriage. Any serious defense of children has to include better physical and mental health care, stronger schools, increasing family incomes, and less exposure to crime and violence. Banning gay marriage would not accomplish any of these things...

America needs effective government action to solve serious and life-threatening problems. Gay marriage isn't one of them.

Tags: , , , ,

No comments: