pandering to the filthy 1% isn't a good idea when running as a Republican there Jeb
Posted on 01/06/2015 1:09:50 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Not so much respect that the state should recognize their commitment as a legal marriage, he stresses, but respect nonetheless.
“We live in a democracy, and regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law,” Mr. Bush said in a statement. “I hope that we can show respect for the good people on all sides of the gay and lesbian marriage issue – including couples making lifetime commitments to each other who are seeking greater legal protections and those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament and want to safeguard religious liberty.”…
Gay rights leaders said they found Mr. Bush’s statement on Monday encouraging. Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a group that has pushed for same-sex marriage, said that “most Republican politicians have been adamant in their opposition and provide no room for evolution.”
Mr. Bush “at least is expressing his respect for those who support marriage equality,” Mr. Sainz said. “That’s a big change for Republicans.”
Something of a change for Jeb too. BuzzFeed dinged him yesterday by digging up an op-ed from his first run for governor in ’94 in which he framed gay rights as a question of whether “sodomy [should] be elevated to the same constitutional status as race and religion.” This is the sort of line-walking he’ll have to do now, though, as a man whose base is in the middle but who’ll need social conservatives to show up for him if he’s the nominee. It’s the flip side of the position traditionally taken by some Democrats on abortion, that they’re personally pro-life but pro-choice as a matter of law (“safe, legal, and rare”). The party’s base has a litmus test on a hot-button issue that could cause the candidate headaches with the broader electorate. Solution: Pass the litmus test by siding with your own side on policy while paying carefully crafted lip service to the other side. I’m curious now to see if any of Bush’s more socially conservative competition takes the bait and knocks him for saying gay relationships deserve “respect,” if not legal sanction. That’d be a fun subplot at the debates: Does Mike Huckabee, who’s friendly enough to gay people to have earned a valentine from liberal Sally Kohn in the Daily Beast, want to make an issue of whether committed relationships between two men or two women deserve “respect”? Swing voters can tolerate a candidate who opposes legalizing gay marriage; I don’t know how they’ll feel about someone whom they regard as anti-”respect,” a real problem potentially someone like Huck whose retail power depends heavily on his perceived affability. And if Huck does attack him on this, so much the better for Jeb. It’ll give him a chance to please establishmentarians and independents by defending gays in a visible way, his anti-SSM position notwithstanding.
All of this is premised, though, on the idea that righties will give Bush a pass on his pronouncements on this subject so long as he continues to stick with them on the actual policy. Will they, though? Ted Cruz could get away with the same rhetoric because conservatives have no doubt where he stands ideologically. They do doubt where Jeb stands, such that I wonder if they won’t treat the “respect” verbiage as a sign that he might “evolve” as president a la Obama towards supporting legalized gay marriage himself. That problem isn’t limited to this issue either. Here’s a line from the mission statement from Jeb’s new Super PAC, “Right to Rise.” Quote: “We believe the income gap is real, but that only conservative principles can solve it by removing the barriers to upward mobility.” Pretty unexceptional; Marco Rubio and Mike Lee talk about using conservative policies to create new opportunities for the lower and middle classes regularly. Coming from Jeb, though, that line about the “income gap” sounds a bit … Warren-ish, no? “While the last eight years have been pretty good ones for top earners,” the statement goes on to say, “they’ve been a lost decade for the rest of America.” Quite Warren-ish indeed! And yet, you’ll hear variations on that from nearly every Republican candidate this year, especially ones like Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal who’ll be aiming at blue-collar voters and running on economic revival. Because Jeb bears the “RINO” burden, though, it feels more suspicious, an inkling that his presidency would be more left-wing than anyone suspects. Same goes for his statement on gay marriage. How does he solve that problem with conservative voters? Or does he even need to?
Well, talk about personal attacks. Sniper.
We have a general rule here on Free Republic, “Don’t feed the trolls.”
You are now on “ignore,” for I do not feed the trolls.
pandering to the filthy 1% isn't a good idea when running as a Republican there Jeb
LOL! :-)
Our dear TOL doesn’t mince words. :)
Oh, gee am I really a “troll”? Anyone who you disagree with is a “troll?” How stupid can you get? Leftist tactics to the max.
Try to pay attention wagglebee. I didn’t call you or you posse Leftist. I called you and your posse’s tactics Leftist because resorting to name calling and labeling is exactly what the Leftists do when they are out of reasonable, substantive answers. It’s sad to see people on the Right use the same silly scheme.
After all, the Right isn’t supposed to be about trying to shut down the debate but about “buying the truth and not selling it.” The Right should never be afraid of open debate if we are comfortable with the reasonableness of our position and are clear about why we believe what we believe because the Right is supposed to about what’s true. Truth and lies are supposed to be what separates the Right from the Left.
That’s why I have him on “ignore.” He’s the pot calling the kettle black.
He made plenty of insults himself. Hmmmm... must be a leftist?
Pay attention to YOU? I'm hopeful that you will soon be but a memory.
I didn’t call you or you posse Leftist. I called you and your posse’s tactics Leftist because resorting to name calling and labeling is exactly what the Leftists do when they are out of reasonable, substantive answers.
Hmmm, you used the term "posse" twice, quite telling.
As far as "tactics" go, I believe in calling things the way I see them. If I am shown to be wrong I will gladly apologize, though this certainly isn't the case here.
After all, the Right isn’t supposed to be about trying to shut down the debate but about “buying the truth and not selling it.” The Right should never be afraid of open debate if we are comfortable with the reasonableness of our position and are clear about why we believe what we believe because the Right is supposed to about what’s true. Truth and lies are supposed to be what separates the Right from the Left.
The truth? We aren't debating the "truth" here, we are talking about absolutes of good versus evil.
You speak of the Constitution, but NOWHERE in that document does it suggest that a term that has only had a single meaning for six thousand years can be redefined at whim to suit an agenda.
You speak of your loathing for the federal government, yet you embrace the notion that state governments are somehow more benevolent when they impose the agenda you claim to oppose. You fail to realize that the left is more than satisfied with the incrementalism that you support, they are happy to wait or change tactics as needed.
The left realized that they could never get socialized medicine or homosexual "marriage" if it came from the Democrats or at a national level, so they found a willing pawn in Romney.
The left now realizes that public sentiment on abortion may be turning against them, so they have employed the libertarians to push the pro-choice-by-state approach as a fail-safe.
You claim to be a conservative, perhaps you are, but you are full of naivete. You suggest that I've called you names, I called you an idiot because you stated that marriage "is none of the federal government's business," and I stand by that statement.
Marriage has meant one thing since the beginning of time, it was instituted in the Garden of Eden BEFORE the Fall and, because it was instituted by God, NO government has the authority to redefine it. Your assertion that it would be acceptable for one state to redefine it while others don't is outrageous.
The same with abortion, you cannot say that a child is a person in one state and not a person in another. You seem to believe that each state should be allowed to legalize abortion as they want. Abortion IS ALREADY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, you cannot take a person's life without due process and that's what abortion is.
Governments do not create rights, they protect them and many forget that. The purpose of conservatism is to insure the proper role of government at ALL LEVELS, but far too many are operating under the false belief that the federal government is bad but state governments are good. There is not some transcendent nobility that exists in state governments, tyranny is tyranny regardless of the source.
Your posts remind me of what Winston Churchill said to Neville Chamberlain in 1938:
"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."
What you propose is incrementalism and appeasement, to call it anything else would be a lie.
The only Person with any legitimate “choice” in matters of protecting innocent life and defining marriage is God. And He made those choices at the beginning of His creation. The only real question left for us is whether or not we will dutifully conform our laws and practices to His choice, so as to be blessed, or to be a curse to our posterity.
Marriage wasn’t created “in tradition and the law.” It was created by God, at the very beginning. In just the same way “up” and “down” were created by God. It is what it is. Tradition and law are forced to deal with these realities, and to be just and non-destructive they have to conform to them, but they didn’t create them. This is not a nitpick. It’s very important. The camel’s nose in the tent is the idea that men, or governments, have any kind of legitimate choice in matters of natural law.
When it comes to the right to life, and marriage, God has already decided. “You shall not murder.” “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” So neither individuals, nor states, nor our national government, have any legitimate right to decide otherwise. All they have is DUTY. The absolute imperative DUTY to agree with nature, and nature’s God, and through the laws, and the enforcement of those laws, to protect and preserve one man one woman marriage, and to provide EQUAL PROTECTION for the right to life of every single innocent human person. You may have the POWER to distort what God intended, but all you’re doing when you exercise that illegitimate power is codifying injustice, and destroying your own form of republican self-government, and obliterating the very basis for the American claim to liberty.
Marriage is of a unique, sublime, ineffable nature. It is a God-breathed mystery. It is among His greatest gifts to mankind, the nexus of His eternal plan and all true, lasting, earthly riches. It is the foundational building block of all decent civic, governmental institutions. It is the basis of all true economics. It breeds peace and prosperity. It is the great stabilizer of civilizations. It is the well-spring and nursery of posterity. It must be protected, or America will fail and fall.
Marriage is the familial, societal, governmental, and economic building block of our civilization, our country, and our communities. It is a God-ordained, God-given institution, the first and most important one. It is fundamental to the laws of nature and of nature’s God, and absolutely necessary to the fulfillment of the ultimate stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution, which is “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity.” It must be fiercely defended on every front from any and all who would pervert it or subvert it, or America cannot possibly survive. The attack on the natural family represents an existential threat.
Thanks, EV. As always, well said.
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.