‘He never talks about this stuff’

June 5, 2006

When [tag]Bush[/tag] touts the “importance” of a constitutional [tag]amendment[/tag] to ban [tag]gay marriage[/tag] today from the White House, keep in mind the rhetoric is shallow.

Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the amendment, he never seemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends told NEWSWEEK that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president’s moral radar.

“I think it was purely political. I don’t think he gives a s–t about it. He never talks about this stuff,” said the friend, who requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush.

You mean Bush is insincere and will play up the amendment as some kind of empty political sop to his far-right base? You don’t say.

The same [tag]Newsweek[/tag] story, however, included another tidbit that’s a little more significant.

Last month James [tag]Dobson[/tag], the influential founder of Focus on the Family, met privately with key Republicans, including Frist, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader John Boehner, to warn them about the political consequences of failing to promote issues like marriage. “If you forget us, we’ll forget you,” he said, according to a GOP House leadership aide who was briefed on the gatherings, but declined to be identified discussing private meetings.

Keep in mind, Dobson and a few of his high-profile cohorts had a similar meeting eight years ago. In 1998, he sat down with Newt Gingrich and the GOP leadership and, according to everyone who was there, Dobson [tag]threat[/tag]ened to leave the Republican Party unless the GOP embraced a religious-right style agenda with significantly more enthusiasm. “If I go,” Dobson said, “I will do everything I can to take as many people with me as possible.”

He was brought back into the fold, but the cease-fire was temporary and Dobson’s making similar noises now. Pretty soon, if he expects his threats to be taken seriously, Dobson may actually have to follow through.

It’s hard to believe that Bush and the crew of Republican leaders (jackasses) in Congress actually do the math and think that looking like inept failures to the rest of the country for proposing legislation that will go down in flames is worth the votes they already have sown up. I mean who the hell else are these clowns going to vote for?

Pathetic. I’d call Dobson’s bluff if I were them. Of course, if I were me I’d tell dobson to fuck off before I ever sat down with him…

  • If he would actually go and take as many people with him as possible, could I suggest a place for him to go? Also, if we forget him, he will forget us. Ok. Done. He has been forgotten.

  • It would actually make me feel much, much better about the Republican Party–to the extent that in some theoretical set of perfect circumstances I could almost see a possibility of voting for them–if they and Ayatollah Dobson parted ways.

    Then they’d just have to show some sense of fiscal responsibility, give an indication that they care whether or not the planet endures a few more millennia, and demonstrate some kind of commitment and plan to ensure that every American has a real shot at education and economic success. Hey, gotta start somewhere.

  • If Boy George II really cared about this amendment, he would be actively trying to drum up the twelve Democratic votes he needs to get it passed.

    I have heard NOTHING from him to suggest that he really is.

    It is all show, and has no meaning.

    The real “threat” to marriage in America is longevity. People live longer, have more choices, are rather more selfish than in the past, and insist on the right to divorce when the marriage is coming apart. People don’t feel a need to stick to a marriage full of abuse and unhappiness.

    And good for them!

    And frankly, the more ‘valuable’ marriage is, the more unfair it is to deny it to a couple who wants the recognition and benefits of it. Equal protection of the Law!

    As for D-um-bson, does he think that talking about marriage is going to protect it? Is he insisting on drumming up the base to get more Republican’t politicians? What’s the point? They never deliver anything.

  • Seems to me that the only difference between Frist, Bush, et al, and Fred Phelps is that Phelps has actually attends the funerals of service members.

    Other than that, I fail to see much of a difference.

  • The real reason for the Amendment proposal is to get people fired up for the 2006 elections in November. You have to start talking about gay marriage now so that you have a good 4-5 months of built up hostility in the evangelicals and other haters to make them turn out at the polls.

    Didn’t CB and other posters here already predict this a few months back?

  • Dobson’s threats to take his voters and leave the Republican Party is simply Republican strategy. Just where would he take his votes that has a chance in hell of getting him more of what he wants? He knows who butters his bread.

    Dobson is a Republican insider and I’m convinced he makes statements like this to stir up his followers…keep in mind HIS goal is to separate his followers from their money…and put it in his own coffers. Every time he tells his followers they are being let down by the Republicans, he tells them they have to work harder, contribute more, or the gays are going to win. Then he gets the President to say he supports an amendment…then they all get behind the Party to beat the gay loving Democrats.

    While many Democrats want to believe the far right is mad and ready to stay at home, I think, each time I hear such talk of dissention, they are simply rolling out the next campaign strategy to get out their voters.

    read more observations here:

    http://www.thoughttheater.com

  • I’d say that Dobson needs to go.

    The Republican party will do just fine without him.

  • Dobson getting pissy is just “play-acting” to turn out as mush of the base as possible this November. And will the base be fooled again? Probably so.

  • Sad that he has so boxed himself (i.e. the GOP) into a corner. He has no other supporters so he panders to the ones he has left, or the ones he may have left. And anyway, he can safely support this because it isn’t likely to pass.

  • If I thought any R in authority would actually read and follow this, I’d never post it, but Dobson has given them a golden opportunity to become the long-term majority the Rovians keep saying they want.

    R’s are currently in power, which is always the easier place to be to hold power. They need a bold publicity grabbing stroke, one that appeals to the independents they are losing in droves. By making threats and so over-reaching, Dobson et al are just begging to be Sister Souljah’d. If the R’s used this as their Souljah moment, they would jump a dozen points in the polls almost overnight. So what if the base is angry? Some percentage of them would still vote R, but the moderate independents to be tapped is a much, much larger pool.

    This will show whether anyone running Rethug strategy has a lick of sense.

  • I’m with those who think Dobson is just pandering; he’s playing his role. Immigration was supposed to be the 2006 election cycle wedge issue, but that got a little too out of control, so they flipped through the list of fall-back issues and found equal marriage at the top.

    Bush, Dobson, et al could give two shits about marriage, but the base and their opponents bit last time, so why not again? Hopefully, distractionary wedge issues will fail this year.

  • I agree with much of these previous posts especially doubtful’s post about immigration spinning out of contol and so off to the old gay bashing stand-by. The problem with this logic though is it may be too early to be effective. I’m not sure how many state referenda and amendments banning gay marriage are on the ballot this year, but in ’04 there were quite a few. If there aren’t that many then I think this issue will fizzle out. Tip O’Neill’s “all politics is local” comes to mind here.

  • Then they’d just have to show some sense of fiscal responsibility, give an indication that they care whether or not the planet endures a few more millennia, and demonstrate some kind of commitment and plan to ensure that every American has a real shot at education and economic success.

    Sounds like the Democrats to me.

  • Unfortunately, the MSM’s coverage continues to be slanted in ways that look small, but are large in impact. CNN.com presently has a front page summary about Bush’s renewed vigor on this issue which says:

    Many Republicans say traditional marriage strengthens society. Many Democrats say the amendment is a divisive concession to religious conservatives.”

    The implication of course is that Dems do not believe traditional marriage strengthens society, which then impugns traditionally married families. Of course, the Dems almost surely to a person do believe traditional marriage strengthens society — and by extension, non-traditional marriage would as well. The point is that having couples (a) committed to one another and their families and (b) having legal rights because of that which will encourage neighborhood stability, clarify legal status, encourage investment in property etc will strengthen society, period.

    This is like the “pro-life” label, used as if pro-choice people oppose life, or “values voters” as if the rest of us lack values.

  • I just wish Dobson would follow through on this threat for once. Please, quit the GOP and form your own political party. It will be better for everyone. Well except yourselves and the GOP, I suppose.

  • I still say get the government out of the marriage business altogether. You wanna get married, go to a priest, rabbi, shaman, whatever. Let the government issue certificates of civil union, period. Let the churches decide who gets married, let the government issue civil unions to all who seek one (and are of legal age, etc). Of course, a church marriage will include a certificate of civil union – that would replace the current wedding license.
    The “sanctity of traditional marriage” is preserved, the legal rights of gay and lesbian couples are protected, and many of those who actually really believe that “God meant for marriage to be between a man and a woman” would be satisfied (my parents are two such people and they thought this was a great idea) and the gay-hating radical right would be de-fanged.

    Am I missing anything ?

    • Comments are closed.