Posted on 01/19/2004 5:32:19 AM PST by Theodore R.
Goodbye, Barry Goldwater
Posted: January 19, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
"Bush Plans $1.5 Billion Drive for Promotion of Marriage" ran the headline in the New York Times.
The story told of how Bush aides were "planning an extensive election-year initiative to promote marriage" and debating whether to float the idea in the State of the Union.
"For months," the Times reported, "administration officials have worked with conservative groups on the proposal, which would provide at least $1.5 billion for training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain 'healthy marriages.'"
Then came this kicker: "'This is a way for the president to address the concerns of conservatives and to solidify his conservative base,' a presidential adviser said." Added Ronald Haskins, former White House aide to Bush, "A lot of conservatives are very pleased with the healthy marriage initiative."
Well, Haskins, this conservative is not. And before President Bush shovels out $1.5 billion in boodle on TV ads and marriage mentors to help couples develop "interpersonal skills," a few questions:
Where in the Constitution is the U.S. government empowered to take money from citizens to teach other citizens how to have "healthy marriages"? Why is the White House dreaming up new social programs when we're running a $500 billion deficit?
What, exactly, is the difference between the compassionate conservatism of George W. Bush and the Great Society liberalism of Lyndon Johnson, against which Mr. Conservative, Barry Goldwater, broke his lance in 1964? What do the Beltway conservatives stand for anymore, other than getting their snouts in the trough, too?
The genesis of this scheme?
Stunned by a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision ordering the state to legalize homosexual marriage, the White House has been under pressure to support a constitutional amendment that declares marriage to be solely between a man and a woman.
But the White House has been waffling, fearing such an amendment would ignite a firestorm of protest from Log Cabin Republicans, homosexuals, Hollywood, the professoriat and Big Media, where gay marriages are the civil-rights cause du jour.
Taking a stand against homosexual marriage would mean a blazing battle for Bush in this election year. It would win this battle, but this White House doesn't want to fight.
Country-club Republicans want to be known for their support of "diversity," "tolerance" and the Big Tent. They don't want angry gays ripping them for being "bigots" and "haters." They can't take that kind of heat.
What the White House wants is the political benefit of standing up for traditional marriage, without the political onus of saying that homosexual marriages are immoral, unnatural and unacceptable in the United States.
A constitutional amendment restricting marriage to a man and a woman is the kind of blazing social issue from which moderate Republicans recoil like Dracula from a crucifix. Indeed, the Bully Pulpit was rolled out of this White House about the same time as that granite monument of the Ten Commandments was rolled out of the Alabama state courthouse.
The Bush folks like to say what they believe is right. They do not like saying what and who they believe is morally wrong. And that is at the heart of America's social crisis today.
Hence, this scheme to buy the silence of the Right with $1.5 billion.
And if Haskins is right, some conservatives are rubbing their hands with glee in anticipation of the pay-off.
This $1.5 billion is nothing but faith-based pork, cooked up in the kitchen of Karl Rove to bribe the Religious Right not to scream too loud if the White House decides to go into the tank on gay marriage in 2004.
But some conservatives are not accepting the booby prize Rove is offering. Said Sandy Rios of Concerned Women for America, "This is like throwing a snowball at a forest fire ... This administration is dancing dangerously around the issue of homosexual marriage."
Adds Gary Bauer, a candidate for the Republican nomination in 2000, "If the White House puts (gay marriage) on the back burner or doesn't put capital into it, that would deeply demoralize a large block of voters that they are expecting to turn out in November."
Two weeks ago, President Bush looked like a man holding four aces sitting across a table from Howard Dean who was looking at a low pair.
Then Bush launched a pre-emptive strike on his political base by calling for amnesty for illegal aliens. Now, he is moving crab-wise on the issue of homosexual marriage. This is how elections get lost. Suddenly, Bush looks like a bear on ice.
This administration is going to leave us with a huge debt to pay off. I thought the Democrats were the big spenders.
Can we draft Ron Paul to run for president? When it comes to spending money, Bush doesn't seem to see any proposal he can say "no" to.
That said, Bush is 1000 times "more conservative" than Barry Goldwater on a KEY issue, life.
Goldwater was a planned-parenthood/"pro-choice"/gay rights guy. Bush has, through four executive orders and his signature on the PBA bill, done more for the cause of pro-life than Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan put together. It isn't even close.
Interesting how the supposedly pro-life Buchanan manages to overlook that critical aspect of Bush's agenda.
I hardly think so. The War on Terror, in my book, is equal to about FIVE other issues, including spending; pro-life is quite high on my list; the tax cuts are far more important to me than "balanced budgets." Despite all the "common sense" nostrums about deficits, there is NO, and I repeat, NO scholarly research done by any economist, left or right, that shows that deficits have either a derogatory effect on interest rates (long or short term); on economic growth; or on employment.
I'd love to see government cut, and cut dramatically. But my vote sure won't hinge on that---and if you think there is ONE viable candidate (I emphasize "viable") who is going to cut government any time soon, then you are on a different planet. Do you seriously think that any one of the eight dwarves would cut government? Remember, the key word here is "viable." It's a vending machine, and there are limited choices, and not voting IS a vote for Howard Dean/John Kerry/Al Sharpton.
Actually, Goldwater was for getting the government OUT of this area instead of taking sides on such issues as whether the gay lifestyle is 'moral' or not. In our experience with the real world, we find out for ourselves which moral systems work and don't work. We don't need Lyndon B. Bush spending $1.5 billion to teach us morality.
That is what it is all about. Join the corporate/government/media complex, get jobs revolving in and out of the government, think tanks and the media and rake in cash from from the speech making circuit, book deals and insider scoops on IPO's. Get a big house in Chevy Chase, put your kids through private schools, be on the "A" list for D.C. parties and have money left over for the slot machines and video poker. If government actudally did get back to constitutional size then beltway conservatives would have nothing to fight and the donations from the heartland would dry up. Then what? Getting a real job in the private sector at competative wages?
BS! Staying "neutral" is taking a side.
It is, of course, not the money per se. What Bush has done is increase the size of government more than anybody since LBJ. That is why some of his apologists termed the concept 'big government conservative'.
I will not vote for him again.
100% correct. This White House has no fight in it. Name the issue...
Judicial Nominees
ANWR
CFR
Gay Marriage
Racial Quotas
Geezer Giveaways
...and on and on
Well, Haskins, this conservative is not.
Here's another one that is even more disgusted with this "proposal." Unconstitutional, unlikely to work in ANY meaningful form and a waste of tax dollars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.