I'm glad he won't push for an amendment banning `same-sex` marriage. But I'm sure a lot of the social conservatives that voted for him are fuming over this.

[quote]For the first time, Bush said he will not press senators to pass a constitutional amendment banning `same-sex` marriage, the top priority for many social conservative groups. [/quote]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/`wp-dyn`/artic...-2005Jan15.html

Ya know, they shoulda saw this one coming.

They must have realized that Bush didn't cover his bases in this article...Dan Bartlett was on Meet the Press this morning and you should have heard him trying to rationalize Bush's statement in a way that wouldn't get the Religious Right all riled up.....talked about how ofcourse, it was still a priority...it was just that the naughty Senate couldn't be depended on to give a majority vote...alot of bristling over the statement from Russert that Bush wouldn't want to "spend his politicial capital" on this issue.....

Ha! You get in bed with liar, prepare to get screwed. Did the religious right really believe he would take any political risks on their account?

You would think they would learn....in close to 30 years of trusting the Republicans to do more than give lip service to their issues, what have they really done to accomplish any of their promises to them? Nothing.....in fact, Bush goes out of his way to tell his more "mainstream" audiences that he realizes he can't do what he told the social conservatives....that he isn't really seeking to overturn Roe v Wade, or, in this case, push for the Marriage Ammendment.....

Why don't these people catch on???

Will they never learn that Bush is the biggest liar we've ever had in the White House? A bigger one than Nixon even thought of being....

Well, you know, the religious right has this "thing" about sex, anyway. Maybe this is how they get their kicks--getting screwed by the guy they elected.

[quote=CookieInPA]<snip>

Well, you know, the religious right has this "thing" about sex, anyway. Maybe this is how they get their kicks--getting screwed by the guy they elected.[/quote]

Probably the only thrill their repression will allow them.

Oops, Smirky has backtracked on this. The RNC must have read the poll numbers on the wall. Gotta love that firm resolve. :wink:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/17/politics...print&position=


White House Again Backs Amendment on Marriage
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
January 17, 2005

ASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - The White House sought on Sunday to reassure conservatives that President Bush would work hard on behalf of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban `same-sex` marriage, backtracking from remarks Mr. Bush made in an interview suggesting that he would not press the Senate to vote on the amendment this year.

In an interview with The Washington Post published on Sunday, Mr. Bush said many senators did not see the need for the amendment as long as the law known as the Defense of Marriage Act was in place. Because many senators are waiting to see if that legislation can withstand a constitutional challenge, "nothing will happen" for now with the proposed amendment, Mr. Bush said.

In the same interview, Mr. Bush said that his victory in last year's presidential race was an "accountability moment" in which voters accepted his view of the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

His remarks on Iraq drew barbed replies from some Democrats. Appearing on "Face the Nation" on CBS, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts called the president's statement about accountability "ridiculous," and drew a parallel between Mr. Bush and President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Johnson, Mr. Kennedy said, "had to basically abdicate the presidency because of Vietnam" in 1968, even though he won the 1964 election.

"And this clearly is George Bush's Vietnam, Iraq is," Mr. Kennedy added.

Speaking two weeks before Iraqis go the polls for a first round of voting to develop a constitution and begin putting together a permanent government, Mr. Bush told The Post that he remained optimistic about establishing democracy in Iraq despite the violent insurgency. And he gave no indication that he had had second thoughts about the planning or execution of the war and its aftermath.

"Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election," Mr. Bush said. "And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and they chose me, for which I'm grateful."

Mr. Bush went on to say that, "in times of war, things don't go exactly as planned," and that "on a complicated matter such as removing a dictator from power and trying to help achieve democracy, sometimes the unexpected will happen, both good and bad."

Mr. Bush's stated support for an amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman was a rallying cry for many social conservatives in the presidential campaign.

Along with ballot initiatives in several states barring `same-sex` marriage, it helped increase turnout among voters who backed him.

In interviews on Sunday on television news programs, Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush's counselor, said Mr. Bush was referring in The Post interview only to the reality of legislative vote counting and was not suggesting that his support for the amendment had diminished.

"What the president was speaking to was some of the legislative realities in the United States Senate," Mr. Bartlett said. "As you know, it requires 67 votes in the United States Senate for a constitutional amendment to move forward. That's a very high bar. What we learned through the debate last year is that many members of the Senate believe that the Defense of Marriage Act first must be overturned or challenged before we take the next step of a constitutional amendment."

The president's statement in the interview with The Post, Mr. Bartlett said, "does not change President Bush's view about amendment, the need for an amendment. And he'll continue to push for an amendment."

Some of Mr. Bush's conservative allies on Capitol Hill said that they would keep pushing the issue and that they believed the president would be with them.

"I can tell you, I'm not going to break faith with social conservatives, and I know the president won't either," said Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, speaking on "Fox News Sunday."

"This president has gone out and led on this issue," Mr. Santorum added. "He understands the importance of traditional marriage, that children need mothers and fathers, and we have to have a culture that nurtures and supports that. And I'm confident the president will go out there, and I don't think one interview is a turning point in his presidency."

Yep...saw Bartlett yesteday...they're trying to have it both ways...and the way they do it is blame the bad old Senate for not giving them the votes...more of the same, "its not our fault"....well, in my opinion, its not a valid promise if you know you can't keep it!

They cannot blame the Senate for not having the votes. That is why we have seperate coequal branches of government so Bush can't be King. He just does not have the votes plain and simple. I may agree with the principle of the Amendment, however, no state state DOMA has been tested and knocked down yet by a `same-sex` couple moving from a state that recognizes such unions (MA) to one that does not.

I would much rather be dealing with issues that should be dealt with at the Federal level, such as Social Security and Defense. Marriage is a state issue and should be dealt with on that level.

There is the Federal DOMA and 38 states have state DOMAs. These laws have not been tested and knocked down in court. It is not certain how the full faith and credit clause of the constitution would apply in a situation like this. The statute is clear. We should weait to see if any court knocks these laws down.

Ok Judy, tell me how you figure George won't get to be king after 4 years? He appoints the justices, the voting is rigged so the repugs get the majority and you say, that's why we have checks and balances...

It used to be that we HAD checks and balances. Sorry, but I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel - - yet. These guys are on a roll and if you think for uno momento that they are going to give up the power they have 'fought' so hard to get, then I got some swamp land for ya.

You bet I hope I am wrong and that cooler heads (Lindsey) can pound some sense into the rest of the bunch up there, but if they get pressured by the likes of Delay and Alberto no name gonzales and the rest of the henchmen and whores, then they fold like a house of cards as Tank says and we lose.

Right now, tho, like it or not, King is getting coronated on the 20th.

Our system does not allow this. The minority party has rights. I do not agree with it, but they have the right to filibuster. THose who disagree also have the right to place a hold on or blocl objectionable nominees in committee. There are a number of procudural safegards. The GOP will be all talk about changing rules and little action because they di have to think about the future when they do not have power or when it is more equalized again.

We still do. That is why the argument over filibuster rul changes. I know they will not give it up easily. However even in the majority they are going to need to work with broad coalitions of republicans, moderates and Democrats to get things done. All Conservative are not banding together on everything. There is a battle brewing inside the GOP. I beleive it will bust out during this session on issues like SS Reform, tort reform, and immigration reform. These issues even split the GOP caucus.

Lindsey will try to talk sense to Mr. Bush. He steps on his toes and stands up to him often enough trying to do just that. However, someone who does not wish to accept sensible discourse will not and will continue to be stubborn. Mr. Bush is stubborn as a mule. I am hoping that noone on either side that has objections to things backs down. We all need to fight when we believe something is not right.

It feels like we have a king getting coronated.

Bush isn't going waste what he sees has his very own private cache of political capital on anyone else....don't expect anyone to "talk any sense" to him....he's doing exactly what he and his minions pilloried Kerry for doing..."trying to have it both ways"....well, let him keep on trying. He thinks his dad, Cheney and that bunch made a bad deal with Saddam at the end of the first Gulf War? He hasn't seen anything yet....he's riled up his own "Saddam" in the far right fringe right here at home....they are going to be all over him for as long as he is in office, insisting that they get to pull the strings.

[quote=Teresa22]Bush isn't going waste what he sees has his very own private cache of political capital on anyone else....don't expect anyone to "talk any sense" to him....he's doing exactly what he and his minions pilloried Kerry for doing..."trying to have it both ways"....well, let him keep on trying. He thinks his dad, Cheney and that bunch made a bad deal with Saddam at the end of the first Gulf War? He hasn't seen anything yet....he's riled up his own "Saddam" in the far right fringe right here at home....they are going to be all over him for as long as he is in office, insisting that they get to pull the strings.[/quote]

Teresa, I know. People can try but they won't succeed. I hope the GOP learned a leesson about stirring up a particualr group. They created a monster. Now they have to control the monster. The religious right will get to Bush if not on their own through the GOP caucus in the House.

Reading the article, you can't help but get sickened by the arrogance of the guy. If he is that stupid to think he rally got elected, then again, I got swamp land for the dummy.

I guess what is bothering me about this is the 'spin' that is already starting - like he has a new set of priorites (read, there aren't enough gays and lesbians to 'worry' about when there are trillions of $$ just callin his name out in SS coffers), Has anyone else noticed how the immediate 'ss crisis' has evolved into fiancial prudence for our children?

If I was Seymour Hersh, I'd hire some former secret service guys as body guards as Bush has to be FUMIN' about Hersh's expose.

This is gonna be a rough four years if he survives it (I mean scandals, nothing else lest someone read into it.)

We need 'mouthy' leaders like Dean to shake us out of the lethargy (ok, WE don't have it here) that has now settled upon the majority of the country who just see the next 4 years as status quo at best. We don't need Roemer (who just by having his little hissy fit showed a side I didn't need to see) or anyone else.

You are absolutely right, RL...we need those who aren't intimidated. The one mistake made during the campaign, in my opinion, was that no one would say "yes" when asked if Bush lied about this or that....well, we have no time left for the niceties....we need those who will stand up and tell the plain truth plainly. I think the new "war room" of Reid's is a step in the right direction, and it seems to be an improvement....at least the democrats are all getting on the same page and not just hemming and hawing their opposition....

[quote]The one mistake made during the campaign, in my opinion, was that no one would say "yes" when asked if Bush lied about this or that....[/quote]

Teresa, you are so right there! I could've (and did!) screamed all campaign long when nobody on the Dem side would just stand up and straight out say, "Bush lied to us" when asked about the war resolution, the `so-called` failure of intelligence (Bush knew all along how weak the evidence and how flawed the intelligence).Nobody apparently didn't have the ba*** to tell the truth, figuring they would "lose." Well, we lost anyway, and now the country is about to see just how much we all are going to lose.

If just once Kerry or JRE had simply said, "I voted for the war resolution because I believed the president. But he lied to us," it would have been oh, so refreshing and so very honest. Because it was the truth. But, as the famous line in the movie goes, the morons in this country "can't handle the truth." What is it gonna take for them to wake up? Like this social security business. Bush claimed during the debates that he was only talking a "very small" portion of people's SS taxes going into private accounts. But, if you read what's coming out about his plans now, I believe they're talking more like 30 percent or more. IMHO, that's not a "small" portion. In fact, didn't Bush say something to the effect that it might be something like 10 percent or so? Yeah, just like last time around he said the U.S. should not be the world's policeman or in the business of nation building. Do half the people in this country LIKE being lied to?

:x

When I heard this on the news I RLMFAO! His base now knows Bush lied to them. Bush isin't done lying. I don't think he's going to do much on abortion either. It will be real hard to legislate laws tell living woman that an unborn person has more rights than they do. Bush had no shame during the election he said whatever the moral right wanted to hear just to get their vote. Bush has a bad case of foot in mouth disease. I guess there was no way to put Rove in the room with him during the interveiw. I'm glad he did this, more to come.