Bush’s new-found interest in the marriage amendment

June 2, 2006

How desperate is the [tag]Bush[/tag] [tag]White House[/tag]? The president is actually giving in to James [tag]Dobson[/tag]’s demands, and will publicly promote a [tag]constitutional amendment[/tag] to [tag]ban[/tag] [tag]gay marriage[/tag].

[tag]President[/tag] Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, the eve of a scheduled [tag]Senate[/tag] 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.

I’m not at all sure the [tag]White House[/tag] has thought this through. Obviously, on the merits, the amendment is constitutional garbage, but even from a strategic perspective, there’s no real upside for Bush here.

Perhaps most importantly, by tying himself to the amendment on Monday, Bush will intentionally be setting himself up for yet another failure. The amendment isn’t going to pass; it won’t even be close. But instead of it simply being a predictable defeat for the far-right next week, the president is poised to tie 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 [tag]religious right[/tag] will give Bush credit for trying? It’s unlikely. Dobson, [tag]Falwell[/tag], [tag]Robertson[/tag], & Co. wanted the White House to take this amendment seriously for months. For the president to speak out, literally at the 11th hour, will probably be interpreted as too-little, too-late.

Also, there’s a 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.

The Senate is expected to vote on the amendment (S.J. Res.1) on Tuesday, June 6. It needs two-thirds of the Senate to pass. It won’t get it — and Bush’s public appeal will be meaningless.

I’m not at all sure the White House has thought this through.

Has the Bush White ever thought anything through?

  • This is what happens when Karl is otherwise engaged. Or maybe Bush realizes that most normal people stopped listening to him long ago so he might as well just speak to the fundies.

  • Watching this @#$%$#@#$#@@!!!! flop around like a trout on a hook on the line out of water is getting to the point it would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic and ultimately dangerous.

    I am constantly getting e-mail from friends overseas asking me to explain what is going on here in America, because it makes absolutely no sense to them. But that’s the point: it makes no sense period!

    Why can’t he just go ride his bicycle over a cliff in oneof his drunken stupors and actually give the country some service?

  • Tom – No!
    Things are bad enough now, but can you not shiver when you hear

    president Cheny

    ?

  • smiley is right – it’s more about congressional and statehouse races than it is about Bush himself. All the Republicans have to run on is teh gay now that teh war has done gone up the spout. Sadly, it will work to some extent, perhaps even enough to allow them to squeak by for two more years of giving tax cuts to the wealthy or at least not given any of them back for that much longer.

  • “President Cheney” would be just fine with me. His negatives are far too high to let him accomplish anything, he’d be less out of reach of various sunshine and oversight laws (i.e., the spotlight would shine on the cockroaches), and the stress should do him in in a matter of months. At absolute worst, a long slow grind all the way through the chain of succession would completely paralyze the government, and at this point that’s increasingly attractive.

  • It needs two-thirds of the Senate to pass. It won’t get it — and Bush’s public appeal will be meaningless.

    But what is the political calculus for the toss-up/competitive Senate races? My guess is there is no impact on the following:

    Santorum v Casey (PA)
    Nelson v Ricketts (NE)
    Nelson v Harison (FL)

    but may impact the Tennessee, Ohio, Montana and Minnesota races. That’s what this is all about. God, Guns and Gays, right?

    Not sure about ARZ, but then again even with the recent postive movement for Pederson, Kyl is still too heavily favored for this to be considered competitive.

  • N. Wells,

    “President Cheney” would be just fine with me.

    the very real prospect of a bombing campaign on Iran starting in September 2006 doesn’t bother you at all? It bothers me.

  • Has the Bush White ever thought anything through?

    Sure, just not with the same priorities that, say, an honest American might have.

    It’s good to see this crooked asministration finally acting like the Dems: kissing up to voters you already have locked down while alienating those you might have convinced. Now if the Dems can only start thinking about winning once in a while, things might balance out.

  • Edo, in response to your query about the Senate races . . . the thing is, in a lot of those conservative states, the DEMS are just as much against gay marriage as the Repubs. Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee was one of the few Dems in the House to actually vote in favor of the FMA the last time it was on the table. True, Sherrod Brown has a liberal position on the issue . . . and it will cost him in the race against DeWine . . . but, I never thought he had a chance of winning, anyway. If the Dems wanted someone who could’ve won in Ohio, they should’ve shoehorned Brown out of the race and kept Hackett.

    In Montana, I don’t know where Morrison or Tester stand on the issue of gay rights, but Burns is so tainted by the Abramoff scandal, it would take the revelation of one of the Dems actually BEING gay to get him re-elected! (Of course, you never know what kind of allegations the Republican’ts are going to throw around . . . ) Frankly, though, with Montana trending bluer by the day, and with the support of Gov. Schweitzer and the state Democratic machine, Burns is in serious trouble.

    And in Minnesota, well, the weight of the Twin Cities might temper the radical fundamentalism of the outyling areas, neutralizing the gay issue.

    Add to that the fact that many of the Dems in these races are challengers, not incumbents– therefore, they don’t have to actually vote on the FMA. It’s rather similar to the advantage that governors have when running for president. So, while the FMA might have some effect on the races, it won’t be the minefield that it was in ’04.

  • Someday — maybe never, though, given the way these people “think” — the Religious Right types who count on Republicans to back their social agenda will wake up and realize that they are being played. I think 2006 is still a bit too soon for this to happen, but 2008 may not be. The day those folks all stay home on election day because they see no point in taking the trouble to go vote for someone who will forget all about them within a day or so is the day the Republican Party implodes.

  • It’s intentionally designed to fail.

    The Rs lose more by succeeding on this issue than they do failing, and with the President giving his vocal support that will be rejected, the Dobsons, Robertsons and Scarboroughs of the world now have some red meat they can throw to their followers that will no doubt increase Nov. turnout.

    What we on the outside see as a cynical, tepid support of gay marriage ban and overturning Roe with no chance in hell of succeeding, those committed to the same issue view Bush as a man of god being rejected by the godless heathens running the country. Therefore, the quickest way to remedy the problem is to vote the godless heathens out of office and replace them with Bush supporters. The Rs truly have to have this fail so they can have a weapon to beat Dems and moderate Rs with, thus firing up the base and ensuring a higher turnout on election day.

    That’s especially important for the Rs this year given the utter failures of their agenda.

    Put it to you this way: nothing would present a bigger problem for Rs than the overturning of Roe and a gay marriage amendment being passed. Those two issues alone provide more than enough incentive for 25% of their base, and frankly it’s these two issues…and nothing else…. that the hard-core religious base cares about.

    If those issues aren’t around, those folks have zero incentive to vote from the day forward..

  • Isn’t 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 vigilant…that there is more work to be done…that they mustn’t 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 unpopular…especially 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 can’t 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 2004…a big turnout by those on the religious right. Those voters either don’t 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 structure…no need to be out on the campaign trail…the 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 wouldn’t 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 strategy…they also benefit when their flock is mad…they can raise more money…and 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 Justices…and 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 strategy…they simply point out how close the movement is to achieving the “final” victory…they acknowledge to the voters that the administration has had some troubles (recall the admission of mistakes at the press conference with Tony Blair…no doubt part of the overall strategy) but they have never lost sight of the big prize…they delivered two conservative votes and they just need one more…the 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 what’s at stake? Not a chance.

    Read full article here:

    http://www.thoughttheater.com

  • All the Dems have to do is shout “States Rights” over and over again, because this shows how the GOP love to trample all over states rights when ever it’s politically convenient for them.

  • It’s obvious that the Rs are making sure their “base” shows up to vote in November.

    I’d like to see a bunch of amendments introduced to this just to show how ridiculous and time-wasting it is:
    1) no divorces allowed, ever
    2) the govt will now decide whom you marry
    3) no sex without the intention of procreation (outlaws contraceptives, oral sex, etc.)
    4) extra-marital affairs are outlawed

    Hey, prez and Rs, ever hear that gas prices are sky high? Have you heard that millions of folks in this country don’t have health insurance? That kids are getting a substandard education? That lots of people are homeless and/or out of work? Thousands of people are dying in wars, of hunger, and by the way, the planet is warming? Get a FRICKIN’ CLUE. You are wasting everyone’s time with this pandering. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…

  • Americans need to reconcile with the fact that this is all very similar to how it all started with the Germans in terms of preparing the ground for the final solution. The politics of hatred is always a vote winner – which sadly tells more about the voters than the unscrupulous politicians that use it.

    When important religious leaders use words like, “disordered”, “evil”, “weak (inferior) relationships” to describe a group of human beings, and these leaders are endorsed by politicians, then it is easy to scapegoat this unpopular despised (by many) group. Gays are so small in number they are easy collateral damage targets and it is easy to taint anybody who sticks up for them (sympathisers) – with the same brush. This is evidenced by the Democrat leadership, who if true to their ideology should know better and what the issues are behind the civil marriage equality debate. Instead they to see gays as legitimate collateral damage for the price of a power grab.

    It worked for the Republicans last elections; the question is have Americans wised up any since then ? Sadly I don’t think so.

    .

  • can anybody please tell me what the conservative, religious, wing nuts, republican reason is for:

    Allowing homosexuals to marry will destroy marriage and the family.

    Can anybody come up with their rationale for this?

    How will it destroy my family and my marriage?

    I thought divorce and/or getting pregnant out of wedlock did this.

    The need for a constitutional ammendment needs to be explained by these people.
    It can’t be defended. marriages and families are strengthened when they are valued and supported by society, not by excluding anybody.

    • Comments are closed.