‘I need to get a more precise definition’

June 5, 2006

One of the first lessons they teach at right-wing talking-points school is to never equate [tag]gay rights[/tag] and [tag]civil rights[/tag]. It drives the base crazy and makes it harder to justify intolerance. Apparently, [tag]White House[/tag] [tag]press secretary[/tag] [tag]Tony Snow[/tag] missed the lesson entirely.

Consider, for example, this exchange from today’s press briefing (via John Byrne):

Snow: Whether [the [tag]Federal Marriage Amendment[/tag]] passes or not, as you know, Terry, there have been a number of cases where civil rights matters have risen on a number of occasions, and they’ve been brought up for repeated consideration by the United States Senate and other legislative bodies…

Q: You mentioned civil rights. Are you comparing this to various civil rights measures which have come to the Congress over the years?

Snow:: Not — well, these — it —

Q Is this a civil right?

Snow:: Marriage? It actually — what we’re really talking about here is an attempt to try to maintain the traditional meaning of an institution that has maintained one meeting for — meaning for a period of centuries. And furthermore —

Q And you would equate that with civil rights?

Snow:: No, I’m just saying that I think — well, I don’t know. How do you define civil rights?

Q It’s not up to me. Up to you.

Snow:: Okay. Well, no, it’s your question. So I — if I —

Q (Chuckles.)

Snow:: I need to get a more precise definition.

First, the right was irritated enough that Laura Bush and Dick Cheney oppose the amendment, and the president hasn’t shown any interest in it. Now, with the White House press secretary making comments like this, Karl Rove is going to have to work overtime to keep James Dobson happy.

Second, Tony Snow has been on the job for about three weeks now after years at the White House annex. How long will he try to use the “I’m new here” defense?

How long will he try to use the “I’m new here” defense?

Depends on the meaning of defense…can you get him a more precise definition??

  • Of course the Theocratic Reactionaries hate such language. The whole point of a civil right is that you recognize and protect it. The Theocratic Reactionaries aren’t even happy with non-Christians having civil rights in this country, much less homosexuals.

    We like to suppose that America is a country of basic fairness, and that is enshrined in the Equal Protection of the Laws. But since the establishment of the District of Columbia its citizens have lacked representation in our legislature though they pay federal taxes, one of the basic complaints leading to the American Revolution. In some ways, I fear we talk a better game than we play.

  • I guess Bush doesn’t talk to Tony either. Boy, did he get snookered when he took this job or what?

  • Swatting softballs over the fence while at Fox news is a whole lot easier than defending the indefensible in front of real reporters. Where’s Brit Hume to bail his ass out when he needs it?

  • Arguably, at least Tony Snow is less effective in this job as he was as a right-wing commentator. A little less noise in the machine.

  • One question I would like to ask Tony is how does a gay couple endanger my two daughters and my own marriage?
    My next question is why is the president spending time on an issure he doesn’t even care about, when the greater issues facing this nation, such as Iraq, are literally getting worse every day?

    I know this answer is political pandering, I just like having these conversations in my head.

  • Tony’s obviously not a champion word parser. Asking for a more precise definition was an obvious tell that he wants to dance around the question but needed a someone to throw him a lifeline. Maybe we should provide him also with a definition of what the word “is” is for future reference.

  • Tony’s a talking dynamo—when the conversation is one-way. However, Tony under pressure is almost comical—and it leads me to ponder the reasons why he was given this job. Obviously, he’s the official “punt dog” of the administration, and he’s there to take a fair amount of the heat. Also, if he’s under the “protective wing” of the administration, then he can’t go spouting the occasional “Bush-equals-bad-president” line. He’s “in the bubble” now—and the protective shield of the bubble works two ways….

  • The whole point of a “civil” right is a legal right – as opposed to a “religious” right. As long as marriage is defined by laws and creates a recognized legal status it is a “civil” right, regardless of its religious or societal implications. If they don’t want access to marriage to be a “civil” right, then they need to disengage marriage from the law and from the “special rights” that those who are married obtain by virtue of being married. They can’t have it both ways.

    Tradtionally, voting was reserved for property holders and men. Traditionally freedom was reserved for members of the white race. Tradition where tradition means inequality before the law is crapola.

  • Remember when people were saying Snow would be a more effective spokesman than McClellan? Hey, maybe it turns out it wasn’t just a question of style and skills, after all. Maybe substance matters. Maybe even the most silver-tongued orator will have trouble “defending the indefensible”, in Petorado’s nice phrase.

  • Interesting how he brings up civil rights, then asks for a definition. Does the guy have any idea what he is talking about? I love his other method of keeping you baffled…starting one sentence, then another, before finishing the first, and sometimes, repeating the procedure. The man rarely completes a thought, and I think that is clearly because he hasnt thought any of it out in the first place. I didnt think it possible, but he is clearly even less qualified for this job than Scotty was, although he is clearly more on board with the homophobe/racist way of thinking.

    This was one of the saddest performances Ive seen in a while.

  • There’s a very specific reason why the wingnuts hate admitting that gay rights are civil rights.

    The whole reason for all this gay-bashing (and the anti-abortion shit too) is to peel away African-American and Latin-American Catholic church-goers from the Democratic party. It’s a fear-mongering strategy and it works brilliantly: cause the Democratic base of the mighty black churches to get really skitterish about voting for Democrats, “because the Democrats want to have fags fucking in the street and ass-raping your children!”.

    Sorry folks, we just have to admit it: poor black folks can be at least as severely homophobic as poor white folks. It’s something they have in common (besides being oppressed by the ultra-rich, of course). Working-class Latino “macho” culture is also pretty hostile to gays too. This is a “wedge” issue: designed to drive a wedge between working class people of all races and colours and their fellow Democrats who are gay.

    Pointing out that this is a civil rights issue gives the gay community the dignity they deserve: they are fighting for their civil rights now, and are facing the same challenges that Dr. King and his contemporaries did in the 1960’s.

    Whomever on dKos pointed out the Loving decision is right on. Maybe some of the older black folks remember the days when you could not only get lynched for looking at a white woman, but actually get locked up and thrown in jail for marrying a white woman.

    IIRC, North Carolina didn’t rescind the laws prohibiting black and white people to marry until the mid-1970’s.

    That is the right for which gay and lesbian people are fighting today.

  • Ah, can’t edit after posting. Should be:
    African-American and Latin-American churchgoers

    Grammar brain-fart.

  • It’s nice to see them sweat when they don’t have a talking point to rebut a fair and legitimate argument. Hey, while we’re talking about traditional marriage – wouldn’t the “traditional” form of marriage be the one most widely accepted across all cultures? If that’s so then by far the most traditional form of marrige would be polygamy – why isn’t the right advocating that?

  • The only important traditions, Rian (and you should know this) are the ones that are just under 400 years old. Our traditions. The rest, ah, they are all created by heathens. To hell with them. What could they have learned in thousands of years of civilization?

    • Comments are closed.