Note to Republicans: The party's over
Note to Republicans: The party's over
Will hot-buttons issues be able to save Bush & Co.?
Copyright by The Chicago Tribune
Published June 7, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Stop the presses! Never mind Iraq, Iran, Social Security, health care, immigration, high gas prices, outsourced jobs or the No Child Left Behind Act. If the White House and congressional leaders are to be believed, the most urgent threat to the Republic is "activist judges" out to destroy marriage by allowing gay people to get hitched.
"Activist courts have left our nation no other choice," Bush said in a Monday event attended by prominent evangelical Christian activists. Criticizing judges who have overturned state laws that ban gay marriages, Bush called once again for the U.S. Constitution to be amended to define marriage as a "union between one man and one woman."
The passage of time has only made the president's alarm sound less justified. Gay marriage has been legal for the past two years in Massachusetts, yet my marriage, just to name one, has remained remarkably intact and unthreatened. If activist judges are coming to get us, they're certainly taking their time.
Yet Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is sticking by a pledge he made months ago to bring up the proposed amendment for debate even though it does not appear to have the two-thirds majority required in both houses of Congress to send it to the states, three-quarters of which would then have to ratify it.
According to Frist, "The institution of marriage is under attack today." If so, marriage-seeking homosexuals pose much less of a threat than out-of-wedlock births, which have risen sharply since the 1960s. The proposed constitutional ban on gay marriages would not turn that sad situation around.
In fact, if protecting marriage is all that Bush & Co. are worried about, they should be encouraging, not alienating, a group that is eager to join the institution. Instead, their marriage-protection talk sounds like thinly veiled code for pushing homosexuals back into the closet.
But with midterm elections approaching, Iraq woes mounting and approval ratings sinking for the Republican-controlled White House and Congress, a hot-button issue like gay marriage offers a tantalizing opportunity to whip up the base with what the late New York Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan used to call "boob bait for the Bubbas."
And there's more bait to come. After gay marriage, Republican proposals to repeal the estate tax and amend the Constitution to ban flag burning make up a triple crown of conservative red meat for the rubes: Wave the flag, bash the gays and, while you're at it, slip in yet another tax break for the rich that's disguised as a family-friendly bill.
Republicans call the estate tax a "death tax" because that label plays better in the polls. "Estate" sounds like something that applies only to rich people, while "death" is something we all face. But be not deceived. The so-called death tax touches only about one estate in 200. That's the superrich.
A flag-burning ban has wider appeal, even though its effect, if passed, is likely to be quite the opposite of its intent. Even before the 1988 presidential campaign, when flag protection burned as a national issue, flag desecration had faded as a popular form of protest. But rest assured, it will return with great passion if the government bans it. Forbidden fruit always seems more tempting, especially when it means bigger headlines for publicity seekers.
Like the gay marriage amendment, the flag desecration measure is expected to fall short of passage. But it will serve its political purposes if it puts Democrats on the defensive, distracts the public from truly serious problems and provides something for its proponents to brag about back home.
Yes, that aroma you smell hovering around these issues is an air of desperation. The party that took control of the White House and Congress pledging to cut taxes, cut spending, sweep out corruption and shrink government has accomplished only the tax cuts. Without cuts in spending, "tax relief" has led to record deficits and growing frustration for Bush's base of fiscal conservatives.
Team Bush has lost support because it has ducked tough fights on spending, ethics, border protection and other core issues for which it was sent to Washington.
Instead, Bush, Frist and others find themselves speaking out forcefully on gay marriage, among other problems that don't sound like much of a problem. Then they offer solutions that are not likely to do much but create more problems.
----------
Clarence Page is a member of the Tribune's editorial board. E-mail: cptime@aol.com
Will hot-buttons issues be able to save Bush & Co.?
Copyright by The Chicago Tribune
Published June 7, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Stop the presses! Never mind Iraq, Iran, Social Security, health care, immigration, high gas prices, outsourced jobs or the No Child Left Behind Act. If the White House and congressional leaders are to be believed, the most urgent threat to the Republic is "activist judges" out to destroy marriage by allowing gay people to get hitched.
"Activist courts have left our nation no other choice," Bush said in a Monday event attended by prominent evangelical Christian activists. Criticizing judges who have overturned state laws that ban gay marriages, Bush called once again for the U.S. Constitution to be amended to define marriage as a "union between one man and one woman."
The passage of time has only made the president's alarm sound less justified. Gay marriage has been legal for the past two years in Massachusetts, yet my marriage, just to name one, has remained remarkably intact and unthreatened. If activist judges are coming to get us, they're certainly taking their time.
Yet Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is sticking by a pledge he made months ago to bring up the proposed amendment for debate even though it does not appear to have the two-thirds majority required in both houses of Congress to send it to the states, three-quarters of which would then have to ratify it.
According to Frist, "The institution of marriage is under attack today." If so, marriage-seeking homosexuals pose much less of a threat than out-of-wedlock births, which have risen sharply since the 1960s. The proposed constitutional ban on gay marriages would not turn that sad situation around.
In fact, if protecting marriage is all that Bush & Co. are worried about, they should be encouraging, not alienating, a group that is eager to join the institution. Instead, their marriage-protection talk sounds like thinly veiled code for pushing homosexuals back into the closet.
But with midterm elections approaching, Iraq woes mounting and approval ratings sinking for the Republican-controlled White House and Congress, a hot-button issue like gay marriage offers a tantalizing opportunity to whip up the base with what the late New York Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan used to call "boob bait for the Bubbas."
And there's more bait to come. After gay marriage, Republican proposals to repeal the estate tax and amend the Constitution to ban flag burning make up a triple crown of conservative red meat for the rubes: Wave the flag, bash the gays and, while you're at it, slip in yet another tax break for the rich that's disguised as a family-friendly bill.
Republicans call the estate tax a "death tax" because that label plays better in the polls. "Estate" sounds like something that applies only to rich people, while "death" is something we all face. But be not deceived. The so-called death tax touches only about one estate in 200. That's the superrich.
A flag-burning ban has wider appeal, even though its effect, if passed, is likely to be quite the opposite of its intent. Even before the 1988 presidential campaign, when flag protection burned as a national issue, flag desecration had faded as a popular form of protest. But rest assured, it will return with great passion if the government bans it. Forbidden fruit always seems more tempting, especially when it means bigger headlines for publicity seekers.
Like the gay marriage amendment, the flag desecration measure is expected to fall short of passage. But it will serve its political purposes if it puts Democrats on the defensive, distracts the public from truly serious problems and provides something for its proponents to brag about back home.
Yes, that aroma you smell hovering around these issues is an air of desperation. The party that took control of the White House and Congress pledging to cut taxes, cut spending, sweep out corruption and shrink government has accomplished only the tax cuts. Without cuts in spending, "tax relief" has led to record deficits and growing frustration for Bush's base of fiscal conservatives.
Team Bush has lost support because it has ducked tough fights on spending, ethics, border protection and other core issues for which it was sent to Washington.
Instead, Bush, Frist and others find themselves speaking out forcefully on gay marriage, among other problems that don't sound like much of a problem. Then they offer solutions that are not likely to do much but create more problems.
----------
Clarence Page is a member of the Tribune's editorial board. E-mail: cptime@aol.com
posted by Carlos T Mock at 8:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home