Comments on: Did Bush Derail Nuclear Option?

By: McGehee

McGehee — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:05:10 +0000

Funny -- illiterate haters seem to think they own the Democratic Party, and we've seen multiple times in the past that people can be drawn together by nothing more than hate even if they hate different people.

And come to think of it, I don't think the Gannon-obsessives are exactly pro-gay in their heart-of-hearts.

By: Attila Girl

Attila Girl — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 07:29:36 +0000

Ah. That was very respectful.

By: J Rocco

J Rocco — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 06:56:09 +0000

Maniakes,

I was talking about the 2004 election. Rove has said publicly that if not for the gay marriage amendments that were on the ballot in more than 20 states, Bush could not have won in 2004. The margin was not thin. Large numbers of homophobes really sealed the deal for us and Bush.

This points to a great divide between the rank and file Bush voters for whom abortion and gay marriage are the primary issues and the power elites of the Republican party for whom the only issue is fiscal conservatism. I happen to fall in the latter group. Unfortunately in such a large country like the US, we cannot get power without catering to the illiterate masses. Fortunately for us, illiterate, evangelical homophobes have nowhere else to go.

By: Maniakes

Maniakes — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 05:56:23 +0000

just after winning an election where homophobes gave him the winning edge.

Sure, many homophobes voted for Bush in 2000. So did many homosexuals. And many, many heterosexuals who are not homophobes.

The margin in 2000 was so thin that you just as easily say that left-handed redheads put Bush over the top, and you'd be just as right.

By: J Rocco

J Rocco — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 02:48:07 +0000

What Dick says makes eminent sense. We have to acknowledge the reality that Bush is driven by economic conservatism and not by social conservatism. However, it is social conservatives who have passion and get people to the polls. Unfortunately our social conservative brethren like you, just cannot come to terms with this reality.

Heck, Bush appointed Ken Mehlman, a quite public gay man to head up the Republican party - just after winning an election where homophobes gave him the winning edge. How much more proof do you need?

By: Maniakes

Maniakes — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 02:18:38 +0000

I suspect that the reasoning is that this is what Morris would have advised Clinton to do in an equivilent situation, and Clinton would have taken that advice.

But Bush isn't Clinton.

By: The Moderate Voice

The Moderate Voice — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 01:23:51 +0000

The Fillbuster "Nuclear Option": Is The White House Playing A Machianvellian Game?
Yet another flambouyant political analysis for former Clinton friend and now Clinton nemesis Dick Morris. In his latest column he suggests that GWB actually has ...

By: bryan

bryan — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 01:17:32 +0000

This is just the sort of thing you love as a columnist: a hypothesis that can't be disproven. And the suggestion that Bush wouldn't love to appoint a Clarence Thomas, especially, is laughable.