|
|
Saturday, June 19, 2004
|
|
NOT NEARLY AS DUMB AS HE LOOKS
I've noted before that I strongly feel that President Bush's political skills are mightily underestimated. Anyone who doubts me should sit down and have a long discussion on the subject with Ann Richards or Al Gore.
The president is pushing for a mid-July Senate vote on the insanely wrong-headed gay marriage Constitutional amendment. Most Republicans themselves believe that the amendment has little hope of passage, but I'm not convinced that that's even really the point.
The vote is currently scheduled to take place just two weeks before the Democratic National Convention in Boston. The timing is designed to bring the Democrats as a whole, and Senators Kerry and Edwards in particular, maximum discomfort. Most of the Democratic Party has taken a shamelessly incomprehensible position on gay marriage. This stand is as follows:
"We don't support gay marriage because marriage is between a man and a woman, both my current and former wives agree with me on this. But we're not Paleolithic knuckle-draggers, we do support civil unions! What's the difference between gay marriage and civil unions, you ask? Well, civil unions aren't called marriage! See the difference? Oh, and we supports the states right not to recognize the marriages or civil unions of another state even though they are required to do so for straight couples. Does that pose a 14th Amendment problem or violate the spirit of Loving v. Virginia? Ummmmm, maybe. But this is a very complicated issue and there's an election on that we'd really rather not lose. So those fags can fuck off and vote Republican if they don't like it."
And that, in a nutshell, is precisely what the Democratic position is. While the Republicans are immoral and wrong in their position, at least they're honest. That's gotta be worth something.
And make no mistake, the Democrats are trapped. They are holding their convention in Boston about 30 seconds after gay marriages have started and then they get to go into the Midwest and the South and tell people how strong they are on "family values." Even without the the Senate vote, they're fucked.
Team Bush wants to make this as uncomfortable for them as humanly possible. Kerry and all but three of his potential running mates (the exceptions being Vilsack, Gephardt and Clark) are Democratic Senators. Bush is going to force them to take a stand, one way or the other on the issue. Either way, they get hurt. They vote for the ban and the Sharpton/Dean wing of the party goes nuts at the convention. They vote against it and they get killed in states like Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
There is some danger in this for the president. That would be the law of diminishing returns. Bush pulled this stunt when he had the vote authorizing force against Iraq two weeks before the '02 Congressional elections. That is why the vote carried as big as it did. No Democrat (with the notable exception of Russ Fiengold) was prepared to face their voters having just voted against the president on what was seen as a national security issue so soon after 9/11. This is why Kerry voted the way he did. He was up for re-election to his Senate seat in 2002.
Did Bush play politics with National Security? Yup.
Is he now playing politics with the Constitution of the United States? Absolutely.
Will it hurt him? That remains to be seen. I doubt it, but I could be wrong.
Most Republicans will privately tell you that they don't have the votes in the Senate to pass the amendment. There are probably 10 Republicans set to vote against it. But with 5 open Democratic Senate seats in the south this year (in both Carolinas, Georgia, Louisiana and Florida), even if they lose, they win. The Republicans will get to run through the South and parts of the Midwest screaming that the Democrats are out to "destroy the traditional family."
It's evil, but I suspect it will be brutally effective.
|
|
|
| |
