Skip to main content

View Diary: Bush says Civil Unions are 'ok' (187 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  He's trying to win back Log Cabin Republicans (none)
    This will not hurt Bush with his evangelical base, because they are so far up his ass that Bush would have to bomb Jerusalem to lose their support. Nor will this sway many moderate voters, since I doubt too many people make their vote based on civil unions. If they do, they are probably going for the real deal Kerry anyway.

    The people who could possibly be affected by this are the Andrew Sullivan, Log Cabin types who desperately want to support Bush but are having trouble with his Constitutional amendment position. This allows them to say to themselves "See, Bush really is a moderate. And he only pays lip service to the Hate Amendment in order to con his evangelical supporters. So now I can vote for him without feeling bad."

    That's my theory.

    •  Exactly. But I presume the ... (none)
      ...Log Cabiners know this is BS. As Jesse at Pandagon notes:

      Like the whole facade of compassionate conservatism, it sounds great to hear this stuff coming out of a Republican's mouth. It's just that the thought and all action relating to it die as soon as Bush's lips stop moving.

      Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy.

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Oct 26, 2004 at 10:21:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree (none)

      An awful lot of fundies didn't turn out in 2000 because of the DUI thing. Then Bush goes and recklessly builds up a nice, fat defecit.

      The only thing he had going for him with that crew was pushing the "values" theme, and part of it was the constitutional ammendment. Now, with the fundies already ill-at-ease with the Cheney family departure from the platform, Bush comes out saying "no, no, I think civil unions are fine. I disagree with my party's platform."

      Remember the slippery slope all these closed-minded types see behind every progressive issue. Well, if Bush disagrees with the party on that, what else does he disagree with? If he wants to allow unions, next thing we know, he'll allow marriage, and four way marriages involving animals! They'll be no stopping him!

      The KITV potential on this is tremendous, we just need the press to make a stink about it.

    •  There are none so deaf... (none)
      ...as those who only hear what they want to hear. As the PIPA survey points out in devastatingly depressing detail, Bush's supporters appear to have a marvelous ability to tune out the majority of the lies, inconsistencies, and contradictions in his statements and then make lameass excuses for the ones that actually slip through the filter.

      It may very well have been a last-ditch attempt to reach moderate Repubs, but from the evangelical perspective it's a nonstarter.

      What strikes me as ironic about the whole thing is that, for all his insistence that "God" is on his side and that his radical right-wing positions are "in the mainstream," he appears to be working awfully hard to appeal to the real normal people. One would think if his positions were as widespread as he pretends they are he wouldn't need to trot out the more moderate elements of his party every chance he gets.

      I mean, I don't see him campaigning with Tom DeLay anywhere.  

    •  Log Cabiners (none)
      get a lot of press, but they have a tiny membership when compared to groups like the HRC and the NGLTF. There are very few gays and lesbians who are republican. If Bush thinks the Log Cabin vote will help him -- he's out of his mind.
      •  One Million Homos (none)
        Believe it or not, Dumbya got one Million gay/lesbian votes in 2000 (based on the exit polls).  Yes this was only 25% of the gay vote, which is predominantly Democrat.  

        But I know Plenty of well heeled gay/lesbian folk who not only got a big tax cut from Dumbya, but are just fine with our taking it to the "terrorists".  Substantially all of these people (including myself) turned off from him after his support of that Ridiculous Amendment.

        Pull a few of them back in the tent and it might tip the balance in states where there is less than a percent between Kerry and Dumbya.  

        Columbus Ohio has a Huge gay population.

        Miami has a Huge gay population.

        It's crass, smarmy, and totally cynical but some people might fall for it.

        Let's put America on a no CARB diet come November -- No Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld or Bush!!!

        by jimsaco on Tue Oct 26, 2004 at 01:42:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No self respecting GLBT person (none)
          would vote for Bush/Cheney after the proposal to enshrine our oppression into the Constitution.  That killed any support they might hope to get.  If Uncle Tom's Log Cabin Republicans are behind Bush's statement, then they are utterly dishonoured, and might as well just crawl back into the closet with Fred Phelps and the other genocidal maniacs.

          Sorry, I'm just kinda pissed about this.  If Bush truly is gay-friendly, then where is his cajones in standing up to the gay bashers of the religious right?

          "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

          by fishhead on Tue Oct 26, 2004 at 04:32:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  He has no cajones. (none)
            Laura hides them in her pill box next to the Zanex.  Actually, there is a frightening number of (un-self-respecting) gay people who STILL support Bush even after the Oppression-Enshrining Amendment.  I've had online piss-outs with several of them.  They basically say (after litanies about how wise the Iraq war was) that both Bush & Kerry oppose gay marriage, and at least Bush is honest about it.  (??!)  Yeah, whatever.  Now he's just as floppy as Flipper himself.

            The litmus test isn't KKKarl Rove's gingerly crafted press conference blurb.  It's the amendment language itself, which still clearly states "Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status OR THE LEGAL INCIDENTS THEREOF be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."  (emphasis mine)  This is pure Bush Opportunism, just like his faith based initiative - say one thing to the cameras to sooth any concerns (oh yes, ALL religions will be included!) then do something else entirely (90% of actual funding under that program went to conservative Christian groups).

            The fact that he hasn't caved to right-wingers' demands to proclaim us fire-breathing demons, and prefaces his "protect marriage" remarks with vague Sunday school talk about respecting all individuals ... only says that he's walking a political tightrope, not that he actually gives a damn about us.  Remember he refused to say gayness was not a choice.  As the 1st commenter here said, his months-long dirty work stirring up hate is already accomplished - now he's trying to have it both ways.  Screw him.

            BUSH -- So Wrong, and Yet So Reich !

            by perryNYC on Wed Oct 27, 2004 at 11:51:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site