I mean, honestly: How could any conservative with a scintilla of common sense not be?
With Bush’s approval ratings at lethal lows, with the GOP chokehold on government apparently threatened, with civilians and soldiers dying at a stunning rate in Iraq, gas prices through the roof, citizens being spied on, the courts and politicians finally taking a long hard look at Bush’s historic power grabs…NOW Bush et al suddeny haul out a marriage amendment? NOW?
I mean, yes, the ploy worked wonders in energizing the conservative base and getting votes out in 2004 in a dazzling, multi-state display of voting bigotry. But no one’s mentioned it in two years. Suddenly, NOW, they announce that “marriage is under attack” and start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y’know, worked out so well) that would restrict freedoms rather than expand them. It could not possibly be a more obvious gambit to try and appeal to the many voters who have had buyers’ remorse ever since they voted for Bush and the GOP in 2004 and slowly came to the realization they’d been hosed. It’s genuinely insulting to conservative voters’ intelligence, that their leaders think they’re THAT easily manipulated. That they’re going to overlook the very real assault that our soldiers are under, needlessly, in Iraq, because of the fake assault that the institution of marriage is allegedly under.
Is it that Bush et al believe that conservatives must be monumentally stupid because the fact that conservatives voted for them proves it?
I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: If politicians are really worried about marriage being undermined, the key is not to prevent people from getting married. It’s to make it difficult-to-impossible to get divorced. But they’ll never do that because Bush and his cronies aren’t REALLY concerned about marriage being under attack. They’re worried their numbers are under attack. But they’re clinging to the notion that conservatives are Just That Stupid that they’ll fall for this crap a second time.
The question is, will they?
PAD
• 
Except that the majority of Americans also oppose a constitional amendment on the subject, too. So who are they really serving here?
*****
true, but the majority of Americans also oppose judges creating the right, but then the only way to stop that is a constitutional amendment, but then the people oppose that, so what do you do?
or are they suposed to serve their state? Maybe the majority in georgia support the amendment? Should the senators vote to pass it then, and the Ny Senators vote against it, no matter what they think?
Don’t know.
A LOT going on around here – for the record, I can’t really argue that we’re entirely justified in hijacking the name of two continents filled with nations as our own – maybe we should go with US of A-ians? 😉 Ick. United States of America-cans would be better from an accuracy standpoint, but that’s a heckuva long handle… (And yes, Ross O’Brien – threads around here very often deviate that far from the original subject, and often far farther 🙂 )
But actually, what I meant to post about were a couple of quotes from Sean Scullion. First:
“Her arguements are circular until she gets her opposition to sink themselves into the arguement, then she just feeds off the (supposed) hostility. My god, I think I just discovered the true identity of X-Ray.”
Heh hehhehhehhehhehhehheh! Y’know, maybe… Though actually, X-Ray may have been too nice…
Number two:
“Whenever [Sean Hannity’]’s in a discussion, if someone disagrees with him, he never lets them get in enough words to make a point, thus they look like stammering yokels, and he looks like the victor in the debate.”
You may have given me the idea which could save political discussion on television! Have you ever seen ESPN’s sports discussion show Around The Horn? (5 PM eastern time daily – so probably the same time on the west coast and an hour earlier in the Central and Western time zones? Actually, I’ve never had cable in the middle time zones, so Imnot sure if it works the same way as broadcast TV. At any rate, the show often re-broadcasts like an hour later on ESPNNews, hour and a half on ESPN 2.) Four sports journalists discuss the issues of the day – but the host of the show (Tony Reali) has a mute button to keep people from speaking over each other and give everybody equal time. It now occurs to me that we need a Mute button on political talk shows, to increase actual discourse. (Though those like Hannity would in liklihood refuse to go on such a show where they would lose control of the situation…)