It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is Bush Doing? Now He's Anti-Republican Platform, Pro Gay Rights?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Bush Says His Party is Wrong to Oppose Gay Civil Unions
October 26, 2004

Elisabeth Bumiller
The New York Times



"President Bush said in an interview this past weekend that he disagreed with the Republican Party platform opposing civil unions of same-sex couples and that the matter should be left up to the states."

"Mr. Bush has previously said that states should be permitted to allow same-sex unions, even though White House officials have said he would not have endorsed such unions as governor of Texas. But Mr. Bush has never before made a point of so publicly disagreeing with his party's official position on the issue."

"In an interview on Sunday with Charles Gibson, an anchor of "Good Morning America" on ABC, Mr. Bush said, "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so." ABC, which broadcast part of the interview on Monday, is to broadcast the part about civil unions on Tuesday."


It must be the last week of the election. The Republican President now publicly agrees with the Democratic Platform. Publicly disagrees with the Republican Platform. And though he proudly struts his "record" of seeking a Constitutional Amendment to ban Gay Marriage to his "base" with flyers like liberals to ban bible, on Good Morning America he's just as compassionate and understanding and pro-Gay moderate as he can be!

Wait, I thought Cheney was the pro-Gay one and he was just forced to agree with Bush. So now they both openly support gay civil unions? Super. Too bad it's just last minute lies with a wink to the RNC base and no intent to do a damn thing. Remember when McCain tried to pin Bush down on his incoherent rhetoric against the RNC platform on abortion in 2000? Flip flopping liar. Period.

Add it to the list...

I believe Bush is anti-gay rights, and pro-gay rights, the leader of the Republican Party, that boldly stands against his party, a uniter building a bridge between evangelicals and swing states...


Did ya hear Pat Robertson? Bush just said sodomize you for the second time this week.




posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 01:37 PM
link   
He shouldn't be such a -- dare I say it? -- flip-flopper. He's not gonna get the 1 million+ gay people that voted for him in 2000 to all vote for him again. It's too late for that. He should just stick to his guns and be anti-gay rights, waffling on the issue at this point will only cause him to lose voters.

He must be getting pretty desperate.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 01:42 PM
link   

W_HAMILTON
He shouldn't be such a -- dare I say it? -- flip-flopper.


That made me LOL



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Bush said......



I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so



He is saving the goverment the hassle and stating that it should be up to the states. That should be good news....


and since when is gay marriage part of the only the "Democratic agenda"??? President Bush may not personally agree with it, but he is saying that he understands.

Empathy to a situation that effects millions of people that should be decided state to state. Personally, let them (gays) start marrying each other and find out how hard it is for hetero couples.


I cannot wait to see the first alimony Bob to Bill court order payment on The Smoking Gun....



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 01:48 PM
link   
As I strongly dislike Bush, I hate to be the devil's advocate, but the Republicans could argue that the President is actually consistent with the position he took during the debates, when he said that although he didn't know if homosexuality was a choice or not, he believed people in the US should be able to live with whoever they see fit

(exact transcript: "I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that. And I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live. And that's to be honored. But as we respect someone's rights, and as we profess tolerance, we shouldn't change -- or have to change -- our basic views on the sanctity of marriage.")

So it's tenuous, but it could be argued that there's no contradiction in Bush's position on civil unions.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Bends over his lemming followers and ....s them up the butt.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 02:12 PM
link   
He's flip-flopping.

Something that RANT might have left out (or either it was just included in another article on the same subject) is his new belief that yes, sexuality may be something predeterminded:

"When asked about his indecisive answer during the final presidential debate on the question of the origins of sexuality, Bush also has a new explanation. Bush told Gibson that he's open to the possibility that nature could be the defining component when it comes to a person's sexuality."

He's just scrambling for votes. That's all there is to it.

Needless to say, most of the people he is trying to bring back into play won't have it. We're not stupid like the blind, close-minded vote he was playing on when he proposed the constitutional amendment. Find some other way to come up with 1 million'ish votes that you will not be receiving this year, Bush.

It's much like DNC Spokesman Brian Richardson said: "One week before he loses his own reelection [he] can say whatever he wants in an attempt to grab voters but the American people are smarter than that."

Yes, yes we are.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I dont see how he is flip flopping? He said it is a state right. He has always said that. He has never said marriage but wouldnt be against civil unions.

When he made that statement about texas he was just expressing his personal view as a governer not as president

If it was up to him the states would decide

If he was once again the leader of texas he would be opposed to it.

Really clear to me.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I tell you what he does not approved gay marriage and he never will, let him win the elections, let him get his own appointees to the supreme court and It will be a constitutional ban on gays, and that is a fact.

He can say anything he wants now to get the votes and win but ones he is in offices for a second time he can do pretty much anything his hart wants because he is not going to be in the market for a third term.

And that is the scary part of all these, what else can he get away with it in the next 4 years.

He already has a reputation of acting without asking so I don't trust him at all.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 02:41 PM
link   
There is o flip flopping here.

He has stood by his stance of no gay marriage. He has also said that he supports the states right to allow a civil union between two homosexuals so that they ay enjoy the same legal status as married couples.

There is a big difference here. All he trying to do is preserve Marriage as it is defined: A uion between a male and a female.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Did Bush mention that he supports state-supported civil unions during his speech at the RNC? No.

Did Bush mention that he supports state-supported civil unions in the first debate? No.

Did Bush mention that he supports state-supported civil unions in the second debate? No.

Did Bush mention that he supports state-supported civil unions in the third debate? No.

Did Bush mention that he supports state-supported civil unions in any of his recent news conferences? What? I can't even remember the last time Bush gave an open press conference, he's off limits. So this gets a "hell no."

Did Bush happily admit to supporting a state's right to allow gay people to enter into civil unions, one week before he is up for re-election in a ploy to scrounge up as many votes as he can? Sure!

**********************************************************

As for your comments Otts, you believe that to mean that Bush supports civil unions? Just from those comments in the debate? I don't. I didn't take it to mean that, and apparently a lot of others didn't as well. Cheney quoted directly what was the essence of Bush's comment, at least in my opinion: "People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business. That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships."

Cheney echoed Bush's comments, which simply means that he doesn't think homosexuals should be outlawed. Well, no &@*(?

It's a political ploy to get some more votes which Bush desperately needs, and it's not going to work.


[edit on 26-10-2004 by W_HAMILTON]



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   
And to make it even clearer what I am saying...

Bush had ample opportunities to acknowledge on a national stage that he was not 'anti-gay,' and could have reaffirmed his belief that there gays should be allowed to enter into civil unions (if he really believes this) -- but he didn't. Time and time again, anytime this issue was brought up, he failed to show any sort of sympathy to the gay people he was playing the nation against. Instead, he used each opportunity to further the wedge between gay people and the rest of the 'conservative' nation to gain more votes.

Now, he readily admits to something he would not have admitted on a national stage, when everyone was listening to his every word. That's a sad, pathetic attempt to get some more votes. If you are too ashamed to admit that you do support governmentally-supported homosexual relationships when you are at the RNC, or during the national debates, don't jump at the chance to bring it up one week before the election to try and win some more votes over.

Bush is proving to be even more disgraceful than I originally thought. At least I thought he would stick to his guns. But he doesn't. It's obvious he's politically playing to both sides of the fence, much like he whines about Kerry doing every day.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   
W_Hamilton - no, I don't believe that Bush supports civil unions. What I'm saying is that what he said during the debate could prove a basis for his advisers to defend a "consistency" in his position on the issue.

Personally, my opinion is that he's making a grab for votes.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
What I'm saying is that what he said during the debate could prove a basis for his advisers to defend a "consistency" in his position on the issue.


Yeah, well I would agree with that. There's been people denying outright lies, so something which is a lil more vague like this issue certainly could be defended by his supporters. So yeah, I agree with you there.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   
It's really no different than any of Bush's fence sitting.

He's pro assault weapons ban, and against it. No wait, for it. But not too for it. Pandering to and against the gun lobby at all times.

He's for the sanctity of all all life, including frozen embryonic stem cells (meaing never-going-to-be-anything-but-an-ice-cube-or trash). But not all stem cells. It's just fine if the government funds some destruction of "life" but not new thaws of additonal lines. None of this frozen manspackle WILL EVER BE LIFE. Pandering religion in the face of science.

Same with abortion. He's against it. Sort of. *wink, wink* But let's not discuss it until a SCOTUS dies next term. *wink, wink* Pandering to fundies seeking Federal overturn of reproductive rights, but not scare the nice lady voters with any unnecessary plain talk.

This new metro-moderate pro-Gay Bush is no different. If he's consistent on anything it's being a mere shadow of a man refusing to fully defend any aspect of his party's platform in public, but championing them all in "principle."

With all these "moderate" Republicans we've got running around now representing the face of the party to America, I've got one question...

Who the hell wrote their platform?

Seriously? I don't know how this clown ever beat a man of principle like McCain in 2000. Oh yeah, that's right. Karl Rove's whisper campaigns of the unamerican vet McCain with his foreign baby. Hey, Tersesa's foreign? Kerry's a vet. This re-election campaign just wrote itself. :shk:



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Maybe Cheney's pulling harder on the puppet strings now? (after realizing that ticking off the gay voters was probably not a good move...)



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Did Bush mention that he supports state-supported civil unions during his speech at the RNC? No.

Did Bush mention that he supports state-supported civil unions in the first debate? No.

Did Bush mention that he supports state-supported civil unions in the second debate? No.

Did Bush mention that he supports state-supported civil unions in the third debate? No.

Did Bush mention that he supports state-supported civil unions in any of his recent news conferences? What? I can't even remember the last time Bush gave an open press conference, he's off limits. So this gets a "hell no."

Did Bush happily admit to supporting a state's right to allow gay people to enter into civil unions, one week before he is up for re-election in a ploy to scrounge up as many votes as he can? Sure!


Right. Not a word until now. He gets real moderate around elections. Promises all kinds of stuff, like I'm not going to spend the surplus and jeopardize social security. I'm the "conservative" in this race. Then just sends a big screw you to everyone the next four years until election time.


[edit on 26-10-2004 by RANT]



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   

like I'm not going to spend the surplus and jeopardize social security. I'm the "conservative" in this race.


ooh...I forgot that one,
though in his defense on that was nobody knew 911 was around the corner either. Still, handling terrorism didn't require the constant warfare we are in now....nor did it require liquidating the surplus and racking up a defecit to boot....



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT


"President Bush said in an interview this past weekend that he disagreed with the Republican Party platform opposing civil unions of same-sex couples and that the matter should be left up to the states."



I think there is a big difference between "civil unions/legal rights" and the "sanctity of marriage issue". Although many Republicans are Christian in orientation and may feel that God frowns on gay "marriage", I think that the Republican platform has always been one of individual rights and the government, certainly at the federal level, keeping its nose out of an individual's decisions. I think there are two aspects to marriage/civil unions - the church part and the legal part. You can still feel that the church part is not accepting of gays and they shouldn't be able to "marry" in your church, while supporting that committed gay couples ought to have certain legal/civil rights as citizens.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Empathy to a situation that effects millions of people that should be decided state to state. Personally, let them (gays) start marrying each other and find out how hard it is for hetero couples.


Actually, for many gays it's not so we can say "look we're like you and married and may be happy/miserable". Most of it is about property rights transfers after living together for years on end and hospital visitation and decisions over life and death in the hospital. Case in point: a woman I know has a brother who was with his partner and living with him for 23 years. The man got sick and was hospitalized. He was prevented certain rights at the hospital. When the man died, having no living immediate relatives, the state took control of the man's property. The partner had to write 2nd and 3rd cousins who hadn't been in this man's life for years to see if anyone was going to lay claim to the property. At the point that none of them came forward, the state (out of the goodness of its heart...because they didn't have to) transfered the property to the partner who had lived there for 23 years. It's not a radical thing to ask for really. It sounds pretty basic to me.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join