January 28, 2005

• As far as your question is concerned, the answer is: No.
• They got punked by Bush. Ha! Ha! Ha! Did they really think Cheney was going to back this with a gay daughter. Plus, Bush is more tolerant than they like.

  But despite what you may have heard or read, George was not just frat-house party boy. One of my most vivid memories is this: A few of us were in the common room one night. It was 1965, I believe - my junior year, his sophomore. We were making our usual sarcastic commentaries on those who walked by us. A little nasty perhaps, but always with a touch of humor. On this occasion, however, someone we all believed to be gay walked by, although the word we used in those days was "queer." Someone, I'm sorry to say, snidely used that word as he walked by. George heard it and, most uncharacteristically, snapped: "Shut up." Then he said, in words I can remember almost verbatim: "Why don't you try walking in his shoes for a while and see how it feels before you make a comment like that?"

• As far as your question is concerned, the answer is: yes. "Quid pro quo" has been with us long before Latin was a dead language. Most political groups -- liberal, moderate or conservative -- have this expectation, and have used it as a tool of persuasion and pressure. Nothing new here.
• Assholes. Oops! Was that my out-loud voice? Seriously though, nothing pleases me more than to see the wolves are already falling out amongst themselves. I have a distinct frisson of excitement that this administration's relationship vis à vis the religious right may get very messy when they realize that ole buddy-boy is a politician first and foremost. Make no mistake, he's in it for the power. Everything else is just to serve this purpose. They seem to have forgotten the old rule to never trust a politician. It could be an entertaining ride.
• douggles - nice to have an optimist among us.
• nothing pleases me more than to see the wolves are already falling out amongst themselves... Yeah, it only took, what, 20 years? ;-) Still, anytime a winger has a reason to be unhappy with politics, it makes my day a little brighter. Although you know damn well in the end they will work this out and we will end up with the amendment and without Social Security.
• Sullivan> I've read that story about Bush before. Do you actually believe it? It was 1965. It's hard to imagine anyone like Bush being that reasonable about gay issues back then.
• Is that pronounced duggles or doogles?
• Although you know damn well in the end they will work this out and we will end up with the amendment and without Social Security. The amendment will never get through the Senate. Which is just fine with the administration. Republicans in Congress are getting nervous about Social Security. They know a lot of them will lose seats if this thing passes. Oh yeah, remember how Bush promised Medicare would be cheaper with the bill he strong-armed through Congress.

  Brian Riedl, a budget analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the figures showed strong growth in tax revenues, but even sharper growth in the government's spending on health care. Starting in 2006, when the new Medicare prescription drug benefit goes into effect, the cost of Medicare and Medicaid will for the first time exceed the cost of Social Security, Mr. Riedl said.

  Note: the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank. Even they are saying the Medicare bill stinks. Maybe they should have said something about that before it passed.
• Is that pronounced duggles or doogles? Yes.
• I've read that story about Bush before. Do you actually believe it? It was 1965. It's hard to imagine anyone like Bush being that reasonable about gay issues back then. Cheney sets policy. He has already stated that he's against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Plus, the administration is having enough problems in the polls with Iraq and domestic policy --- they have no real support from the American people. They won, but the election killed them. Their numbers dropped. That wasn't the case with Reagan and Clinton. What GOP member in Congress wants to fall on the sword for these guys? These clowns may end up giving Congress to the Dems when the smoke clears.
• No, much better would be if they were so succesful at dicking over the economy, the debt, social security, civil liberties, and tens of thousands of lives... that we finally pulled our heads out of our asses, took a serious look at the problems that were affecting america, and started to fix them. of course giving all the power to liberals and liberal groups across the board
• What did they expect? He screwed them with his election promises the last time, too. Not that I'm upset at this falling out, but really, how stupid can you get?
• What dt118 said. I've had to get along with people who think socialist Soviet Union and communist China had the right ideas, who consider Che Guevara a hero, who flat-out blame capitalism for everything wrong under the sun and honest-to-god believe physical violence to be a just mean in class warfare. All because I'm a social liberal. Hawks must live with fiscal and social conservatives. Conflicts arise. News at 11.
• The religious right MUST stop trying to combine issues if they want to get anything passed through as law. Look at history. Pro-choice groups erred badly for a decade by connecting abortion rights with deeply unpopular social welfare proposals. Social conservatives are doing the same thing with Social Security and gay marriage. Then again, I think the gay marriage thing is a state issue, not a federal one...
• Anytime a religion-inspired fever breaks out, it is never successful unless it also has pragmatic motivations. The only crusades that were successful, for example, were for land first, then for God.
• Thanks for your votes, suckers!
• Ghost Dad, that's an interesting, but incorrect, interpretation.

• The coalition of conservatives pushing their agenda include "Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family...

  this is the guy who issues press statements condemnming spongebob for promoting homosexuality. i'd spend lots of time listening to him if i were president, oh yes. f8x wrote:

  Then again, I think the gay marriage thing is a state issue, not a federal one...

  but don't states have to reciprocally recognize one another's marriages?
• So... what's the Democratic alternative?
• The political capital that Cheney was bragging about after the election was all spent to get them another 4 years. All the wingers and nascar fans and frat boys got themselves whipped up into a frenzy for the election, and now they're done, back to being uninterested in politics like the average americans they are in every non-election year. All new policies aside, Bush's numbers will naturally drop as 9/11 (the one event that gave him good approval numbers) slips further into the past and as iraq lasts longer and is looking worse every day. Getting another term in office doesn't make the people happy- it's what you do in your term(s) that does that, and like every politician ever, Bush promised things while campaigning that he just can't deliver on. There is no mandate, never was. The wingers are just making noise, because that's what wingers do. *YAWN*
• Getting another term in office doesn't make the people happy- it's what you do in your term(s) that does that, and like every politician ever, Bush promised things while campaigning that he just can't deliver on. Luckily for Bush, he doesn't need to make the people happy or deliver on promises. He can't run for a third term, so he can *try* to mold America and the world in whichever way he desires. There will be no consequences to his political career, ending in 4 years anyway.
• This was a shot out of the Blue. Bush tricks them into voting him in for a second term, and then fucks them over for the next four years. His strategists deserve our respect for their vile plan.