Article

2004-02-24

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-02-24 10:37:47 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Get it on Dubya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by dataman1 2004-2-24 10:53:08 AM|| 2004-2-24 10:53:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Viva Bush!

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro 2004-2-24 10:56:22 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-2-24 10:56:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 "And thatâs just one senator from Massachusetts," snicker!

You can't help but wonder if the democrats thought - that by refusing to allow the Republicans the luxury of knowing who their opponet would be, while collectively bashing Bush instead of each other - that these Baby Booming Ken Dolls, lacking male parts, thought they could stay out of the intense limelight that would cause their plastic to melt.

Doesn't look like GOP fell for it. Expect the Democrats now to try and cause fractures within the GOP itself. They've already announced a policy of getting into conservative chat rooms to pretend to be against Bush because he is not conservative ENOUGH!

He's not supportive ENOUGH of 2nd Amendment;
He's not supportive ENOUGH of pro-life;
He's not supportive ENOUGH of the military.

Do me a favor. Next time you hear someone telling you they WON'T vote for Bush because he's not conservative ENOUGH...tell your Democratic cyber-friends hello for me.

Posted by B 2004-2-24 10:58:26 AM|| 2004-2-24 10:58:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 This garbage isn't just in the national media. I read two or three letters to the editor a week that are directly from the Democratic talking points. I've made it a habit of going through the newspaper, finding these far-left lies, and contradicting them with facts. I've had three letters to the editor published in the last two months refuting this bs. It's tiny, it's below the major party radar, but if it isn't countered, it'll have at least some effect. My local newspaper is now requiring one of its "local contributers" to provide sources for his stories, something they didn't require before. The reason is he took the words DIRECTLY from speeches by Nancy Pelosi and Lane Evans, changing fewer than 50 words in a 1500-word article. The real kicker is that, if you read the article closely, you could put 90% of the blame for what he was accusing Bush of on Clinton.

Posted by Old Patriot 2004-2-24 11:08:42 AM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2004-2-24 11:08:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Right on B! I have seen/read the interviews with the 'disenfranchised conservatives' and they are RINOs. The are 'one issue' voters and probably make up about 1% of the electorate. The libs make it out to be 'widening divide' in the conservative ranks. Anyone seen that? I sure haven't. Has bush done everything I would like? No. However he is the BEST person for the job and has done an outstanding job so far. Satan would start ordering thermals before I vote Democrat.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-2-24 11:09:29 AM|| 2004-2-24 11:09:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Cybersarge:
Old H. Ross Perot lost Bush Sr. that election, not Clinton. If Perot handn't run Clinton would never have gotten into office. Much like a certain perennial Green Party candidate I can think of....

Run Ralph Run! You get it girl!

Posted by Secret Master 2004-2-24 11:11:17 AM|| [www.budgetwarrior.com] 2004-2-24 11:11:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 *Deep voice* It has begun!

Posted by Charles 2004-2-24 11:38:17 AM|| 2004-2-24 11:38:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 It's still early. The Dems have two fairly lackluster contenders left. I've said it before, I'll say it again : If Bush looks beatable in July or August, Hillary will get in the race.

Posted by Les Nessman 2004-2-24 11:49:10 AM|| 2004-2-24 11:49:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Unfortunately, last night's strong points will be obliterated in the wake of this:

Jumping into a volatile election-year debate on same-sex weddings, President Bush on Tuesday backed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage â a move he said was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," the president said in urging Congress to approve such an amendment. "Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."

Marriage cannot be severed from its "cultural, religious and natural" roots, Bush said in the White House's Roosevelt Room. It was a statement that was sure to please his conservative backers.

Bush, who has cast himself as a "compassionate conservative," left the door open for civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriages.

[...]

At least 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage; last week, the Utah House gave final legislative approval to a measure outlawing same-sex marriages and sent it to the governor, who has not taken a position on the bill.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush believes that legislation for such an amendment, submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., meets his principles in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women. But Bush did not specifically embrace any particular piece of legislation in his announcement. White House officials have said that support for Musgrave's proposed amendment has been unraveling in the Senate.

The amendment that Musgrave and other lawmakers are backing in the House says that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

Bush's comment that the states should be left free to define "legal arrangements other than marriage" indicates the president does not favor using a constitutional amendment to enact a federal ban on civil union or domestic partnership laws.

Posted by growler 2004-2-24 12:04:00 PM|| 2004-2-24 12:04:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 The only people excited about voting for John Kerry are John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and the serfs who work their land.

Edwards is in the race because he thinks that winning the election will entitled him to 33% of the federal budget. He' s gone as soon as someone tells him it's a flat salary."You're kidding me, right? A defense lawyer could make that much."

Posted by Matt 2004-2-24 12:22:52 PM|| 2004-2-24 12:22:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 "Itâs that same old Washington mind-set -- theyâll give the orders and youâll pay the bills," Bush said.
(I love that line!)

I love that line too, but it seems to me we'll be paying GeeDubya's bills for some time. C'mon GWB, warm up that veto pen already!!!!

Posted by Seafarious 2004-2-24 12:28:13 PM|| 2004-2-24 12:28:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Time is on UU's side (that's double U for "unvanquished & undefeatable). He has the money and the Dem's don't have a true presumptive candidate yet. What the President's people were hoping for was to get Kerry to sew this up on Tuesday so he gets less and less mega-media attention and really has to shell out the bucks to pay for getting his views out (ads). There is no contest in that competition. So, the late spring and summer will be interesting - do you spend (including the 527 money)to keep the pot and your visibility boiling or do you lay back and wait until after the conventions. UU can go either way (makes him BC/AC - before or after convention).

Posted by Jack is Back! 2004-2-24 12:35:14 PM|| 2004-2-24 12:35:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Bush should wait till Kerry KOs Edwards first.

Posted by someone 2004-2-24 12:57:19 PM|| 2004-2-24 12:57:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization"

I thought that "slavery" was the most fundamental institution of civilisation? Or was it perhaps "monarchy" that was the most fundamental institution of civilisation?

But it's perhaps the difference between the conservative and the progressive -- that progressives don't consider millenia of tradition to be much of an argument in favour of retaining an institution unchanged.

"indicates the president does not favor using a constitutional amendment to enact a federal ban on civil union or domestic partnership laws."

Because, obviously, moral clarity comes when we are using different words to indicate the exact same thing -- the societal recognition of a couple's mutual commitment to form a new family unit.

If that's moral clarity, then I don't know what moral obfuscation would have been.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-2-24 1:07:09 PM|| 2004-2-24 1:07:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 On the gay marriage amendment (about which I couldn't care less), GWB should borrow Ken Starr's line (this is paraphrased) -- "If judges would stop misinterpreting the Constitution to suit their own purposes, we wouldn't have to keep threatening to amend it."

Posted by Tibor 2004-2-24 1:24:24 PM|| 2004-2-24 1:24:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Bush's soft spot is jobs, NAFTA, outsourcing, Enron, etc. Edwards has a captive audience when he talks about rich vs not-so-rich. There is enough truth to it to make it resonate.

Posted by VivaMurdoch 2004-2-24 1:32:37 PM|| 2004-2-24 1:32:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Bush's soft spot is Enron? How do you figure that?
Enron commits crimes under Clinton's watch, is caught, arrested and will be sentenced under Bush's watch.
(Enron gave money to BOTH Dems and Reps, too.)

Posted by Les Nessman 2004-2-24 1:51:35 PM|| 2004-2-24 1:51:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Tibor - well said!

One more point - as someone who also could care less...meaning I just don't care one way or the other...(I don't think that Bush really cares that much either. I think he just did a numbers crunch on this one.)

Sorry gay people, I hate to say this, but there are probably more people interested in issues such as, should we allow the local dog park, than there are in issues like this. While gays ARE vocal and have an impact in politics....
ya know...

there are times when you should count your chickens before they hatch.

Posted by B 2004-2-24 2:12:50 PM|| 2004-2-24 2:12:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 This article is classics material!

Posted by Korora 2004-2-24 2:24:30 PM|| [http://basementburrow.blogspot.com] 2004-2-24 2:24:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Aris:
Uh, I'm in downtown San Francisco right now and I've got to tell you that the only gays wearing chains and harnesses here are... well, into it man. So comparing the lack of legal gay marriage to legal slavery is.... hell, insane by ANY stretch of the imagination. Climb down off your high horse.

Posted by Secret Master 2004-2-24 2:33:35 PM|| [www.budgetwarrior.com] 2004-2-24 2:33:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 So, Aris, does Greece have legally recognized gay marriages?

Honestly, I have no idea.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-2-24 3:06:49 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-2-24 3:06:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 RC, I don't believe I'd go there.
The Greeks have always been "funny" about things like their boys, going way back.
IOW, if you're going to the Olympics in Athens and you drop your keys, keep kicking them until you get to Rome.

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro 2004-2-24 3:12:21 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-2-24 3:12:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 This thread is one for the ages. Bush is just getting warmed up. Kerry is ripe material. I hope the GOP really takes the gloves off this time. The Dems have been spoiled by the constant soft-shoeing by Frist and Co. It's high time for good ol' fashion bitch-slap.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-2-24 3:23:19 PM|| 2004-2-24 3:23:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Now, Jennie, that's not my point! I'm honestly curious as to the status of gay marriages in Greece.

I mean, if they DON'T recognize them, then maybe Aris should keep his nose out of our business and take care of his OWN nation.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-2-24 3:41:37 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-2-24 3:41:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Growler is right: the FMA is getting all the attention.

I like GWB a lot but this issue has "loser" written all over it. First off, he didn't need to say a world about San Francisco; Arnie is happy to carry the water there (by enforcing state law which bans such marraiges). And most states have laws prohibiting same-sex marraige so GWB didn't need to say anything -- let the states and their 10th Amendment rights do the job.

Problem is, the religious conservatives were very unhappy, and GWB apparently thinks he needs to keep them happy with him. Dumb, dumb, dumb politically. This now guarantees that the FMA will be an issue in the fall, and that helps the Democrats. Check out Andy Sullivan for details.

In case anyone wants to know: I really don't care who marries whom. If two guys or two gals want to make a life-long commitment, sure, go ahead, beats the likely alternatives. Just don't do the horizontial tango in the street, I really don't care to watch.

I want GWB to beat Kerry like an old blanket. But he can't get the media focus he wants with these spoiler issues out in front. The FMA keeps the media locked onto an issue that can't help GWB and it takes the media away from pointing out all of Kerry's idiocies.

Posted by Steve White 2004-2-24 3:50:41 PM|| 2004-2-24 3:50:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 I guess it depends on which Kerry idiocy your talking about:
Last year, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee following this weekâs primary victories in Virginia and Tennessee, proudly announced his support for a range of gay rights issues â from support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to opposition of a federal marriage amendment.

This year, with the primary season just about over, itâs time to tweak the message for the broader masses and head back to the political center. In an interview this week on National Public Radio, Kerry expressed support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

His campaign staff quickly reassured a Blade reporter the next day that Kerry was talking about an amendment to the Massachusetts state Constitution and that he maintains his opposition to the federal amendment. Of course the national radio audience that heard Kerry didnât learn of that distinction, because the question was not specifically addressed to the Massachusetts state Constitution and neither was Kerryâs answer. It was the second time in recent weeks Kerry has fudged the gay marriage issue.
Asked by ABC News after the State of the Union address to respond to President Bushâs opposition to gay marriage and his call for a constitutional amendment, Kerry said his position was the same as the presidentâs, never clarifying for the national television audience that he was referring to Bushâs position on marriage, not a constitutional amendment.

Posted by Steve 2004-2-24 4:23:47 PM|| 2004-2-24 4:23:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 According to this:

http://www.q.co.za/2001/2003/02/13-eugaymarriage.html

"Moreover, Italy, Spain, Greece, Ireland Luxemburg and Austria do not recognize any form of gay civil union. As a result hospitals may refuse partners visiting rights because they are not recognized family members."

Aris: I don't think you've got any standing on this matter, which is a domestic American issue. (we have LEGAL civil unions in many places here, by the way.) You want gay marriage? You may want to get your own house in order first.

Posted by RMcLeod 2004-2-24 4:48:15 PM|| 2004-2-24 4:48:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Look - no matter what you think about gay marriage - this was a stupid move on the part of gays. They demanded Bush choose one side or the other, "me or your wife and family" calling a bluff they KNEW they would lose.

Gays were forewared by both Democrats and Republicans re: the unpopularity of their cause. Rather than pushing the GOP forward, gays forced the democrats to back down.

Like or no - it was a poltical move that will work in Bush's favor....no matter how it turns out. Gays were foolish to issue the ultimatum.

Posted by B 2004-2-24 4:51:18 PM|| 2004-2-24 4:51:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 have to agree, gays got too aggressive, they will win in the long run cuz the younger generations are mostly pro-gay rights, jumping for it now could delay things for 'em

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-2-24 5:02:47 PM|| 2004-2-24 5:02:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 I don't think Andrew Sullivan's issues are the issues of any large sector of voters who otherwise would vote for Bush. Nor doe I think an FMA will happen any time soon.

However, I do think the gay community will lose out on this one because they are sparking a quiet backlash among otherwise tolerant people who have had it with causes being shoved down our throats, especially by judges (or other officials) who are not accountable to voters for their actions.

Posted by rkb 2004-2-24 5:03:25 PM|| 2004-2-24 5:03:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Robert Crawford> Greece is probably the most socially conservative nation in Europe, so I'm betting that we'll see gay marriages in Greece around the same time we see them in Utah or Alabama.

And I assure you that I *am* taking care of my own nation in Greek political forums -- my participation in political discussions isn't limited to (or even primarily centered around) Rantburg.

But I somehow don't remember *ever* claiming that my country was any better than yours in this respect. Actually I don't remember ever claiming that my country was any better than yours in any matter. Except death penalty, perhaps.

We also don't have separation of church and state, btw. And I'm currently listening to a political discussion about what I can only call fascist-like restrictions on Greek media. I could go and on, but wouldn't it be a bit more useful to keep my Greece-centered political rants to political forums which Greek voters frequent that might actually help make a difference?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-2-24 6:02:13 PM|| 2004-2-24 6:02:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 And Secret Master, I think I was quite clear in comparing institutions that lasted for millenia to each other. The primary common element was "they lasted long" and the secondary common element was "it was time they changed".

In short, I didn't mean to compare "oppression" I meant to compare "outdatedness", so to speak.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-2-24 6:08:29 PM|| 2004-2-24 6:08:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Thanks for your unique insights Aris. It reminds us how lucky we are.

Posted by Shipman 2004-2-24 6:37:21 PM|| 2004-2-24 6:37:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Sounds like old Dubya is leading the fight to make sure that John F Kerry is not going to be President. Keep fighting for the people of America GWB!!!!

Posted by Blindman13 2004-2-24 7:32:27 PM|| 2004-2-24 7:32:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Aris, Both of our countries have thing to be proud of: Greece INVENTED Democracy and The U.S. spread it. I would give anything to go back to Irakilion and Gouves on Crete. Memories of sitting on the beach drinking wine and watching the nude babes frolic! Also I crave a Peta with pork and zatziki, MMM, MMM! We donât have that in the U.S.! Adio, feelos.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-2-24 7:46:59 PM|| 2004-2-24 7:46:59 PM|| Front Page Top

18:06 Anonymous
08:57 Raptor
03:29 SON OF TOLUI
00:12 Lucky
23:59 Lucky
23:32 Lucky
23:24 AF Lady
23:21 CrazyFool
23:18 Just Me
23:10 CrazyFool
23:07 B
22:57 PBMcL
22:47 B
22:44 Super Hose
22:40 AF Lady
22:29 Super Hose
22:14 dataman1
22:07 dataman1
22:00 True German Ally
21:57 Super Hose
21:55 Super Hose
21:44 Alaska Paul
21:43 Super Hose
21:39 Alaska Paul