Nice for a change
The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, dealing a defeat to President Bush and Republicans who hope to use the measure to energize conservative voters on Election Day.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Rubes 0, Common Sense 1
June 7th, 2006
32 Comments
Deflect, deflect, deflect.
Thought you were a Kos Kid bangin’ the pots and pans truth to power.
And common sense beat Rob Reiner and Kos (that’s 0 for 20) in California.
Last I checked this site isn’t DailyKos. Adjust your set.
Oh, and Bilbray won in california& .
The district Bilbray won is a diehard GOP stronghold. Yet Bilbray won by 4.5%. Last time this seat was contested, the GOPer won by over 22%.
Additionally, the RNC pumped in $5M. To win by less than 5%, after a massive infusion of money, in a very conservative district doesn’t bode well for your team, “Dr”P.
you are going to look dumb(er) when my previous comment comes out of moderation Einstein….
Deflect, deflect, deflect…
Hmmm…. no.
Oh, and Bilbray won in california….
How is that whole “culture of corruption” thing working out for ya?
The deflecting is interesting, as they want us to forget that the “family values” Republicans again couldn’t deliver for the frothing racist, homophobe base.
The only things the cons can seem to deliver is tax cuts for Paris Hilton and other members of the lucky sperm club. Hope that will be enough in November.
Did Bush and the right wing REALLY lose?
Now he can stand up to the religious right and say “I really tried!” He can painlessly make an issue out of gay marriage at the polls (with no responsibilty for seeing it through). On the other hand, the more socially liberal republicans don’t have to worry about the amendment actually going through.
Something for everyone!
It is bloody brilliant.
And more good news! That idiot Boehner is going to bring the FMA up in the House next week despite its defeat in the Senate! Ain’t that the very height of pointless political theater? But what the hell, it’s just a chance to kick their asses yet again!
Oh no, oh mercy, don’t call me dumb again. Don’t refer to me as Einstein in a sarcastic manner. It hurts. It burns. Please allow me to speculate that I am composed entirely of rubber, and you composed entirely of glue.
Grow up sometime.
I sense in Mike’s post a certain degree of projection, assuming that Democratic leaning folks are as single minded in their support of Clinton on every issue as the right is in support of Bush.
As factcheck says, that law was also profoundly wrong and I was annoyed at Clinton for signing. As Michael Moore says, Clinton may have been the most successful Republican president in a generation!
(Boy it’s just such fun getting all the wingnuts all riled up!)
Oddly, this may be one of the few times in my life in which I agree with the Heritage Foundation. Because of the slightly f**ked up way our legal system works, no one can bring a case to overturn a law unless they can show that they were directly injured by that law. Until a same-sex couple is married and their union is not recognized by another state acting under DOMA, it’s hard to see how this can happen. But once it does, I look forward to DOMA being overturned.
A bit of a history lesson here …
Remember the Defense of Marriage Act?
And it was signed into law in 1996 by … um … oh yeah — BILL CLINTON.
Honesty 0, Denying your party’s own history 1
Pedro… funny, you were one of those “how’s that DeLay indictment coming along” folks – thought you’d have learned by now… but no matter, the fallout from Duke’s follies are growing… Lewis is on deck, and about to go down hard.
Mike… what’s your point? DOMA was indeed passed under Clinton, and the Supreme Court has deftly avoided ruling on it thus far. You tell me… what sense was there in bringing forth an amendment to the constitution that would codify discrimination, when existing law covered the ostensible issue?
rofl
Pedro,
“Did Bush and the right wing REALLY lose?
Now he can stand up to the religious right and say I really tried! He can painlessly make an issue out of gay marriage at the polls (with no responsibilty for seeing it through). On the other hand, the more socially liberal republicans don t have to worry about the amendment actually going through.”
Good analysis.
Another Rovian chess move?
Dugger
Yes, Bill Clinton was wrong to sign that law passed by the Republican Congress.
But it is 2006. 9/11 changed everything.
It is interesting that in the past 10 years, the Republican Congress is STILL unable to deliver a ban of gay marriage. In fact, gay marriage is now legal in some states. Doesn’t that underscore the impotence of the Republican attempts to pander to the base?
jade lets look at it another way.
The republicans won a seat that was forfeited by a shamed convicted felon in the same party.
And at the end of the day in this particular race, do you know what they called the guy with the most votes? Whether it was one vote, or 5000?
The Winner.
I would say it doesn’t bode too well for YOU comrade. The whole “culture of corruption” thing ain’t really catching on is it.
Oh, and as to CA-50 (though I still don’t understand how that relates to FMA), I have to generally agree with Byron York. (gasp! a CONSERVATIVE writer for NATIONAL REVIEW!! The World is ending!)
I love watching the left-wing idiots try to paint the anti-gay marriage movement as pure conservative/right-wing hate speech. Funny thing is that the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t want gay marriage. But I guess you’re happy to throw the democratic process out the window, so long as the popular opinion doesn’t fit your own ideology. At least you can’t be accused of being hypocritical, right?
As much as Pedro and I butt heads on just about every other issue, he is essentially correct about the gay marriage amendment. Bush never wanted it to pass, with many on both the left and right recognizing this as a hurried election year, poll boosting, stunt (ditto immigration, and it worked in California, didn’t it). In the end, Bush still has his loyal 30% or so, plus he will probably pick up a few points from those on the fence who will be lured back into the fold thanks to the relentless fear mongering sure to be a staple all through this year (gay marriage, Iran, terrorism, immigration, and so on). Meanwhile idiot dems will contine to triangulate their way into oblivion, refusing to forcefully take on any issue and leaning on the weak “Republicans suck, and that’s my prescription for a healthy America!” Sure Iraq is a major problem and many national polls show it as the leading issue for many americans, but I think that only really rises to the federal level, i.e. presidential elections. Local elections will still be heavily influenced by local politics, so it should come as no surprise that immigration delivered Orange County to the Republicans. Dems should in no way take any comfort in the election being close. It was “close” in 2000 and 2004, and that resulted in a net gain for progressives of approximately zilch. The point is to win, and all I’ve seen so far have been two prominent “oops, so close, better luck next time…SUCKERS!” (the other time would be the Ohio squeaker with paul Hackett)
Time to start actually campaigning and stop relying on being less odious than the competition to win more than 2nd place (it’s also past time to start cleaning up the election process, as Blackwell is already up to his old shit again…oh, and Florida is at it again, too).
As for Clinton, his biggest failure as a president was to drag the Democratic Party into the swirling black hole that is “centrism.” What a wholly destructive curse that mythical beast has been. Centrism is supposed to be the middle ground between two opposing sides, i.e. the compromise Dems and Repubs arrive at after beating each other senseless. By moving Dems to the “center” all the moderates have done is push the true center, the “compromise” reached by the parties on any given issue, to the right…and to the right…and to the right again until there is no compromise at all. Only Social Security seems to have proven too big for the Repubs to roll the Dems on (which seems more a testament to SS than the Dems). As for Clinton, he consistently undermined the liberal progressive movement on multiple issues (gay rights (specifically in the military), media consolidation (Clear Channel, etc.), welfare “reform” and so on) and set the stage for the Republican take over of Congress. While he never even came close to the level of mendacity seen in the Bush administration, his political gymnastics did plenty to set this country down the wrong road (he also did many things right, but that’s another post). So for anyone who would give Clinton a free pass, forget it, though it would be nice not to have his name dragged into every thread. Now we see the same from Shillary as she trys to pander to the Right with hairsplitting positions on Iraq, flag burning, video game violence, and so on. She’s Lieberman-light at this point and will lose big time if the party nominates her (as looks likely right now). Already articles are springing up showing more and more people left of center becoming pissed with her attempts to “out Bush” Bush.
This is a non issue, and this vote just proved how desperate and disingenuous their (Republicans)party has become. I watched the “debate” on the Daily Show and well it is rather funny how a comedian kinda wraps up the entire debate: Rubes and Twilight Zone cons have consistently lost these issues throughout HISTORY and now they are losing this battle also. Republicans are just taking this issue up the tailpipe!….(Yeah that was a cheap joke:)
“Something for everyone! It is bloody brilliant. ”
So Bush gets to say he tried and moderate republicans can pander without having to actually sell their souls. Of course all of this brilliant strategery depends on one thing: An assumption that Christian conservatives are dumb as dirt. Glad to see that pedro, man of the people that he is, acknowledges that the last 30 percent of Americans who support Bush are indeed the rubes that Oliver claims they are. With Dugger chiming in we can all agree: Evangelical Conservatives are idiots.
Rather odd that there has so far been little or no argument coming from the right on the “merits” of the amendment itself, only the “political benefits”. I suppose if you can motivate enough people to come out and vote for your candidate because he/she is in favor of inserting discrimination into the US Constitution, that’s considered a benefit.
spikee – so if a “majority” favor an issue, that makes it NOT hatred/racism? When a majority of Americans voters were against giving blacks basic civil rights, did the simple fact that they were a majority make that OK? If a majority of Germans voted to strip Jews of all civil rights, is that fine and dandy because it’s just democracy in action?
Why is it that wingnuts so often forget that a principal reason for the Constitution and its guarantees of civil rights is to protect against the “tyranny of the majority”? You seem to feel that a constitutency is not entitled to anything in our society so long as it doesn’t comprise more than 49.9% of the population.
Preach on, rheinhard.
whereas the constitution was pretty clear that skin color shouldn t matter& .
Can you point that out to me, please? I mean, theoretically, that’s true, but the ratification of the Constitution didn’t exactly end the practice of slavery, now did it?
I think it is pretty difficult to demonstrate that the constitution says anything at all about marriage, as one is governmental and the other is societal. Govenment should not, and cannot, legislate morality.
I agree with duros. And I am still waiting to hear the reasons why embedding discrimination into the Constitution is such a great idea from the conservative position. For one thing, marriage is up to the states, period as outlined in the 10th Amendment.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Furthermore, If the existing law is ever challenged in the SC, it will be stricken down upon that basis alone. The Marriage Protection Amendment is but another scheme to give a warm and fuzzy feeling for homophobes and people who want their own set of religious values embedded into law. I suppose that s why this issue is so important to those who want to attract those kinds of voters to the polls.
I agree with Duros too. But the goverment should legislate legal standing, and that is all I am interested in.
Why specifically is it necessary for the federal government to legislation “legal standing” about a state matter not addressed in the Constitution?
The states determine the laws and the courts will settle disputes between the states regarding this. The only reason for an amendment is to ensure a particular outcome based on one’s personal beliefs, regardless of which side is involved. If that were the case why not pass an amendment to the Constitution banning polygamy? Why not pass an amendment making gambling illegal or legal. Why not pass an amendment prohibiting murder?
The answer is still the same. It’s not the federal government’s role to decide these issues. Unless one can show that gay marriage infringes on someone else s rights, this amendment is making a particular, although the majority, opinion of a moral issue into law. It is also further influence by the federal government into private matters, which the right has been railing against for eons regarding other issues such as the environment, endangered species act, etc.
I hope my comments are only being moderated and not wiped out since there is no indication.