Bush facing resistance on anti-gay amendment — close to home

May 24, 2006

The right is hitting the White House for not doing enough on a constitutional amendment on gay marriage, but according to [tag]Insight[/tag] magazine, the president is facing the opposite pressure closer to home.

The issue of [tag]gay marriage[/tag] is causing divisions within the Republican Party, including the highest reaches of the [tag]White House[/tag].

The split has been so pronounced that President Bush faces strong opposition within his own administration to a [tag]constitutional amendment[/tag] that would outlaw gay marriage. The split has pitted Mr. Bush against his own wife, [tag]first lady[/tag] Laura [tag]Bush[/tag].

Mrs. Bush has warned that promoting the amendment could backfire against the GOP in congressional races in November. She has suggested that a constitutional amendment would hamper any constructive debate over gay marriage.

First, I’m looking forward to the front-page NYT piece which dissects the extent to which this conflict is weighing on the First Family’s marriage.

Second, if the article is accurate — and Insight’s reliability isn’t exactly rock-solid — it will no doubt make the GOP base even angrier to know it’s not only pushing a White House that isn’t attentive to its needs, but also taking on a First Lady who disagrees with them.

And third, for those keeping score at home, this is the eighth Insight article in just the past few months that casts the Bush gang in an unflattering light. In late March, there was an article about Bush effectively delegating his responsibilities. Two weeks before that, it was a piece on Cheney becoming a political liability who will be thrown overboard after the midterm elections. Two weeks before that, it was “the largest crackdown in decades against whistleblowers in government.” The week before, it was an item on Karl Rove threatening to “blacklist” any Republican who goes against the president on warrantless-wiretaps. In January, Insight quoted “administration sources” talking about internal turmoil at the Bush White House. In November, Insight ran an item explaining that Bush has become melancholy and paranoid.

It’s odd, considering that we’re talking about the far-right [tag]Washington Times[/tag]’ “sister publication.”

I wonder if this will require you to revist yesterday’s post about Rethugs preferring to have Laura Bush come campaign for them. . .

add the Cheneys’ opposition to the amendment, and big biz’s increasing willingness to support gay rights as a matter of workforce maximization and I suspect you have the makings of a real scism between the Wing Nut end of the spectrum and the Clueless Corporacratic Crooks branch of the party.

pass the popcorn!

  • She is absolutely right about it backfiring…. especially if the rumors of the Watergate hookers being guys turn out to be true before November.

    And Barbara Bush thinks the GOP should drop the anti-abortion plank… once again the wives are the Party of Ideas.

  • That’s odd. I think I read in a posting yesterday that John McCain mentioned an identical proposal being floated in 1990 for an amendment banning gay marriage.

    That would have put it at exactly the same point of Bush Sr.’s term as Bush Jr. is now, wouldn’t it?

    Funny how this thing keeps popping up whenever a Republican needs a mid-term issue and nothing else is available. No wonder they don’t want it passed. If it did, they’d have to figure out some other bogus issue to turn to.

    Was there an anti-flag burning amendment floating around back then, too? Just curious.

  • Assuming it’s true (and that’s always a very real stretch for anyone associated with the Bush Crime Family), it puts Laura in line with the history which is just beginning to unfold. All enlightened nations, someday, will see nothing wrong with gay unions (perhaps sanctifying such unions with “marriage” should be left to churches, both for the gays and straights). Contrary to Dean’s recent mis-speaking (I can’t believe he didn’t know what he was doing), the Democrats are already in alignment with future history.

    A Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of getting ratified (whatever the current bunch of nuts in DC does with it), but even if it were ratified it will, no doubt, in the near future require another Constitutional Amendment to undo it (as with the Prohibition Amendments).

    I agree with Zeitgeist … bring on the popcorn. Maybe that’s not enough for an all-out split in the GOP. I wonder what the Romans munched on when they attended the Colosseum?

  • Good gods, I can see the national Inquirere headlines now:

    Madam Laura wields the whip, while Curious George tries on some handcuffs and a blindfold.

    This is just TOO-O-O-O-O-O GOOD!!!

  • First, I’m looking forward to the front-page NYT piece which dissects the extent to which this conflict is weighing on the First Family’s marriage.

    LOL Good stinger.

    As I recall from one CB post, Laura’s resistance to George can last as little as 4.5 seconds in an interview. She’s a Bush alright.

    Plus there might be a bit of a power differential. He can actually order things done while she’s a desperate housewife and doesn’t even have THAT leverage over numb-nutted bike boy.

    Oh I get it angry young man. It took me awhile. 🙂

  • I posted this in another thread once, but maybe you didn’t see it… an Insight on the News article from March 18, 2003 which may be quite relevant to the Alphonso Jackson scandalette:

    Insiders tell INSIGHT that investigative-staff morale has plummeted at HUD in the face of growing allegations of wrongdoing involving senior officials in the internal-affairs office. According to an internal memorandum obtained by INSIGHT, in just 21 months at least 56 agents, nearly 25 percent of the total investigative workforce, voluntarily have left the IG’s employment, an attrition rate critics say is 10 times the average.

    In place of senior and seasoned investigators, critics complain, a group of retired Secret Service officials, many unskilled in the kind of white-collar fraud investigations required at HUD, have been appointed to what one IG watcher complained is a growing “good-old-boy” network reflecting senior management’s background in the presidential-protection service. While investigative talent has leached out of HUD, critics contend, management has compensated by lowering the bar on investigatory targets–going after what one agent called “low-hanging fruit”–and systematically giving Congress misleading information about the scope and success of those inquiries it conducts.

    The HUD inspector general is “currently investigating” Jackson’s comments, or maybe he already determined that Jackson did nothing wrong. Right.

  • Read another take on what appears to be Republican infighting but may simply be part of a Karl Rove strategy that seeks to maintain a 51% majority constituency by evaluating the “tolerance thresholds” of the various groups in order to gauge how much disappointment each group can withstand and still remain in the coalition…here:

    http://www.thoughttheater.com

  • Just keep pointing out that it is unfair to deny two Americans the legal benefits of a marriage license, and point out that churchs don’t have to celebrate the marriages they don’t agree with.

    We (reality Americans) will win in the end.

  • Just goes to show that a right wing publication when dealing with the bishes can occasionally be forthcoming whereas the corporate ‘liberal’ media when dealing with the bushes can only be coming.

  • Gay marriage a freedom of religion issue. If a denomination will sanctify it, the gov’t has not business telling them they can’t.

  • Maybe they could just count each gay person as 1/5 vote while they’re at it.

    • Comments are closed.