Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

Palomar · 2004-02-19 12:06:08

*I'm carrying this over from the "What if we lose (Vietnam II?)" thread.

I think I pay fairly close attention to current events, and have for years. I am still surprised at how intense the "Conservatives Vs Liberal" mentality in this nation has become.

It's almost an ideological Civil War.

Byron chimed in (at the previous thread) about Moderates, where are their voices, etc.?

To be honest, I don't know how or when this division became so apparent in the U.S. I don't recall it being such an issue even 5 years ago (unless I was in a coma back then).

What's going on? How did we get to this point? Why is it this way?

I've been so busy in my personal life, etc., etc., various types of studies, etc., etc. that perhaps I either don't recall or just haven't paid close enough attention...or perhaps I'm another victim of the so-called "boiled frog syndrome."

I'm stumped about this particular issue. Help!

--Cindy

Rxke · 2004-02-19 12:54:04

As an European, I'm equally stumped...

Why oh why do a lot of people (in most cases) go so black and white on issues?

Another thing i noticed: most of the discussions between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' looks like intelligent discussion, but it is just the nth rehash of former discussions, numbers etc. stated in lib or cons papers... it gets pretty tedious after a while, it's like a dialogue of parrots...

Before you get mad at me, i'm not specifically talking about this board, i visit others, like slashdot, and it's the same meaningless banter everywhere...

Thinking for yourself seems out of the question for some people, it seems, and you may come up with 2000 links to articles, that doesn't impress no-one, for the internet is *not* a fountain of truth, only a fountain of -in the best case objective- information.

Rantrantrant... I'm not good at this.

Palomar · 2004-02-19 12:57:19

Another thing i noticed: most of the discussions between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' looks like intelligent discussion, but it is just the rehash of former discussions, numbers etc. stated in lib or cons papers... it gets pretty tedious after a while, it's like a dialogue of parrots...

*LOL!! "A dialogue of parrots"!!

That was great, Rik. :laugh:

I feel the same way. I'm like, "You all sound alike!!" :angry:

The talking heads babble on and on.

I look forward to more input on this. I really am stumped as well.

--Cindy

P.S.: And Rik: You and I are both over 30! {{{gasp}}} And here we are, questioning things -- dissatisfied with the status quo! Someone else at this board might faint in disbelief.

Alt2War · 2004-02-19 13:33:31

We seem a lot more divided than we are when you use american press as your mirror.

I think for the most part the division in America is first, an exageration of the press, and second, Americans responding and acting out the roles the press put forth for them to fill.

Whether we prefer to admit it or not, we are all children of our culture.

We have a shared understanding of the world and the roles people play in that world. Whenever we meet or learn about a new person, we by our nature try to place that individual within the various catagories we have already set into our mind.

We also find that others do the same to us.

Conciously or subconciously, we look towards our culture to find the arcitypical character we most relate to, and we then emulate it.

When we have so few sources of Media, and that media has a huge role top play in our understanding of the world, and that media is market driven, and sensatitional and advasarial news brings in the cash....

What you end up with is a culture that percieves and acts as if it is much more conflicted than it really is, and acts accordingly.

Alt2War · 2004-02-19 13:35:18

Another thing i noticed: most of the discussions between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' looks like intelligent discussion, but it is just the rehash of former discussions, numbers etc. stated in lib or cons papers... it gets pretty tedious after a while, it's like a dialogue of parrots...
*LOL!! "A dialogue of parrots"!!
That was great, Rik. :laugh:
I feel the same way. I'm like, "You all sound alike!!" :angry:
The talking heads babble on and on.
I look forward to more input on this. I really am stumped as well.
--Cindy
P.S.: And Rik: You and I are both over 30! {{{gasp}}} And here we are, questioning things -- dissatisfied with the status quo! Someone else at this board might faint in disbelief.

hehehe What I said... was that people over 30 really like to react indignantly to things they disagree with...

You might just be proving me right

Palomar · 2004-02-19 13:44:50

Another thing i noticed: most of the discussions between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' looks like intelligent discussion, but it is just the rehash of former discussions, numbers etc. stated in lib or cons papers... it gets pretty tedious after a while, it's like a dialogue of parrots...
*LOL!! "A dialogue of parrots"!!
That was great, Rik. :laugh:
I feel the same way. I'm like, "You all sound alike!!" :angry:
The talking heads babble on and on.
I look forward to more input on this. I really am stumped as well.
--Cindy
P.S.: And Rik: You and I are both over 30! {{{gasp}}} And here we are, questioning things -- dissatisfied with the status quo! Someone else at this board might faint in disbelief.
hehehe What I said... was that people over 30 really like to react indignantly to things they disagree with...
You might just be proving me right

*Actually, I was --joking-- with Rik, Alt (couldn't resist). But I'm over 30...maybe you won't buy that? I always thought the "take" was if people over 30 -don't- react, we have "sold out"..."given in"..."given up"?? Darned if you do, darned if you don't?

I've seen plenty of indignation on the other side of 30 (as in *under* it as well)...but this is all an entirely different topic.

You are right (in the other thread; "Bill O'Reilly") about propoganda, inflammatory statements, etc. But in a forum such as this --- when facial features, voice inflections, etc., are absent -- it is difficult sometimes to tell what is given as a simple statement and what might be an attempt to inflame. You got me in the "Bill O'Reilly" thread -- yep, you got me.

To Rik, I was only joking.

Want to keep this on liberals, conservatives, and moderates...

--Cindy

Alt2War · 2004-02-19 13:56:29

The whole "Conservative" v "Liberal" concept has totally lost touch with it's meaning.

the GOP is advocating foreign intervention, Broad government entitlement plans, large growth of government.

the D party is pushing for cost cuts, balanced budgets, isolationism, and trade barriers.

the whole thing has turned on it's head.

This is all less about principle and more about sticking to your favorite team. It's more about Red Sox vs. Yankees than it is about differences in Ideology.

Palomar · 2004-02-19 14:10:48

We seem a lot more divided than we are when you use american press as your mirror.
I think for the most part the division in America is first, an exageration of the press, and second, Americans responding and acting out the roles the press put forth for them to fill.
Whether we prefer to admit it or not, we are all children of our culture.
We have a shared understanding of the world and the roles people play in that world. Whenever we meet or learn about a new person, we by our nature try to place that individual within the various catagories we have already set into our mind.
We also find that others do the same to us.
Conciously or subconciously, we look towards our culture to find the arcitypical character we most relate to, and we then emulate it.

When we have so few sources of Media, and that media has a huge role top play in our understanding of the world, and that media is market driven, and sensatitional and advasarial news brings in the cash....
What you end up with is a culture that percieves and acts as if it is much more conflicted than it really is, and acts accordingly.

*Those are excellent points, Alt2War.

The media is frighteningly powerful. I recall a statement I either read or heard (forget which) a short while ago, i.e. that the purpose of the media formerly (in the "good old days") was to inform John/Jane Q. Public of current events...in as unbiased and nonpartisan a fashion as possible (however humanly possible that itself might be). And yet (most of if not all of) today's media outlets are very much (if not totally) agenda-oriented to one political persuasion.

I always think about "1984" when I think of stuff like this. How do we know what is REALLY going on? (I mean, of course, -before- it "all comes out in the wash"...IF it does.) One source says this, another says "no, no"...well, unless I can physically walk into the Pentagon or the Oval Office and read classified documents myself... ::shrugs::

I'm not sure about the ball team analogy you use, however; but perhaps it is simply herd-following or something akin which is so disturbing to see during elections, i.e. that "split almost right down the middle." I remember lop-sided elections...whoa, what happened to those??

--Cindy

Alt2War · 2004-02-19 14:24:34

I don't mind biased media one bit. In fact I believe unbiased media to be impossible.

What I worry about is a lack of diversity available to the mass market.

prometheusunbound · 2004-02-19 14:45:36

The whole "Conservative" v "Liberal" concept has totally lost touch with it's meaning.
the GOP is advocating foreign intervention, Broad government entitlement plans, large growth of government.
the D party is pushing for cost cuts, balanced budgets, isolationism, and trade barriers.
the whole thing has turned on it's head.
This is all less about principle and more about sticking to your favorite team. It's more about Red Sox vs. Yankees than it is about differences in Ideology.

Hey, what we all forget sometimes is that the partys themselves are divided into factions. Sometimes a certain faction might rise into power, or lose power. Rare is it when a faction loses power completly, but in the south, the democractic party tends to be reactionary. In the north, the republican party tends to be progressive. If the national partys always pushed ideology to the forefront, there would be a whole lotta more partys to support the broad range of public opion.

Rxke · 2004-02-19 15:14:30

When we have so few sources of Media, and that media has a huge role top play in our understanding of the world, and that media is market driven, and sensatitional and advasarial news brings in the cash....
What you end up with is a culture that percieves and acts as if it is much more conflicted than it really is, and acts accordingly.

But...but but...

I can't see that as a good excuse-explanation. Ok, maybe for 'jan modaal' (average joe) but you see it *everywhere* on the 'net, and there is a lot of different media, if you just care to look! i simply can't understand people (hey, to be clear: i'm not talking about this forum or thinking about certain people...)

errr... Oh yea: people that go on to lenghthy political, environmental,... discussions, but they only cite 'their' sources... That's so BORING... (parrots)

I read online newspapers from Africa, Russia, America(s) Europe, Australia, Middle East, Far East... And a lot of the times they cover the same item in a wholly different perspective, now that's what makes you make up a mind of your own, IMHO... Not Fox, CNN, although these networks are *also* important, just to see how they cover a certain topic...

What bothers me a bit is that for the rest of the world, it looks like America wants to bring its vision of Freedom to the unwashed masses (trying to be funny) but the constantly infighting between two factions that see everything black and white is not very reassuring...
Exactly what kind of freedom? and will that change when (if) for instance a democrat becomes president? Will the definition change overnight, and all past accomplishments (or disasters, if you're a dem. (Grin)) be undone by the next president?

Reminds me a bit of the Egyptian Faraohs, new King, old one's name got hacked away from all monuments, forget him and his works...

(darn... lapsing in incoherent babble again... AaAAaAArgh...)

Alt2War · 2004-02-19 15:21:37

When we have so few sources of Media, and that media has a huge role top play in our understanding of the world, and that media is market driven, and sensatitional and advasarial news brings in the cash....
What you end up with is a culture that percieves and acts as if it is much more conflicted than it really is, and acts accordingly.
But...but but...
I can't see that as a good excuse-explanation. Ok, maybe for 'jan modaal' (average joe) but you see it *everywhere* on the 'net, and there is a lot of different media, if you just care to look! i simply can't understand people (hey, to be clear: i'm not talking about this forum or thinking about certain people...)
errr... Oh yea: people that go on to lenghthy political, environmental,... discussions, but they only cite 'their' sources... That's so BORING... (parrots)
I read online newspapers from Africa, Russia, America(s) Europe, Australia, Middle East, Far East... And a lot of the times they cover the same item in a wholly different perspective, now that's what makes you make up a mind of your own, IMHO... Not Fox, CNN, although these networks are *also* important, just to see how they cover a certain topic...
What bothers me a bit is that for the rest of the world, it looks like America wants to bring its vision of Freedom to the unwashed masses (trying to be funny) but the constantly infighting between two factions that see everything black and white is not very reassuring...
Exactly what kind of freedom? and will that change when (if) for instance a democrat becomes president? Will the definition change overnight, and all past accomplishments (or disasters, if you're a dem. (Grin)) be undone by the next president?
Reminds me a bit of the Egyptian Faraohs, new King, old one's name got hacked away from all monuments, forget him and his works...
(darn... lapsing in incoherent babble again... AaAAaAArgh...)

You as a declared informed citizen having many discussions with many other people who declare themselves as informed citizens can create a false sense that you and yours are if not a majority, than at lease a healthy fraction of the public.

In fact you and yours are marginal at best.

Cable News and Network News have the ability to Push stories in front of viewers.

Informing yourself is a labor intense, active process.

Being force fed is a passive process.

Palomar · 2004-02-19 15:24:52

Alt2War: "I don't mind biased media one bit."

*Erm....well *I* do. Especially if they are -deliberately- throwing their weight behind a particular agenda, to drive it. That's unethical. It's also -manipulation-. Who is doing the manipulation? Why? To what end? To serve whom? How will that impact -my- life? I worry about the manipulation of "the masses," yes indeed. Besides, the media is supposed to simply report what facts they've collected and let us interpret/decide. Maybe I'm naive...

A2W: "In fact I believe unbiased media to be impossible."

*Yes, I think bias is humanly impossible. But there are degrees of bias, surely. And unbridled bias -- deliberate, unchecked, intentional bias -- is unethical, imo. Bias might be humanly unavoidable to a degree, which is why ethics are important in all this.

A2W: "What I worry about is a lack of diversity available to the mass market."

*Yep. Especially with all these mega-mergers going on. Pretty soon there will be just 2 major media outlets (if there isn't already, what with these gargantuan companies and all their sneaky little "subsidiaries" and "parent companies", etc.).

--Cindy

Alt2War · 2004-02-19 15:43:55

Alt2War: "I don't mind biased media one bit."
*Erm....well *I* do. Especially if they are -deliberately- throwing their weight behind a particular agenda, to drive it. That's unethical. It's also -manipulation-. Who is doing the manipulation? Why? To what end? To serve whom? How will that impact -my- life? I worry about the manipulation of "the masses," yes indeed. Besides, the media is supposed to simply report what facts they've collected and let us interpret/decide. Maybe I'm naive...
A2W: "In fact I believe unbiased media to be impossible."
*Yes, I think bias is humanly impossible. But there are degrees of bias, surely. And unbridled bias -- deliberate, unchecked, intentional bias -- is unethical, imo. Bias might be humanly unavoidable to a degree, which is why ethics are important in all this.
A2W: "What I worry about is a lack of diversity available to the mass market."
*Yep. Especially with all these mega-mergers going on. Pretty soon there will be just 2 major media outlets (if there isn't already, what with these gargantuan companies and all their sneaky little "subsidiaries" and "parent companies", etc.).
--Cindy

I feel that it is irresponsable for media outlets that are so prevelant as to hold over 30% of all news outlet in a single city portraying the news in a radically tilted bias.

But I'm more than happy to hear some waco spouting crazy shit on a 4am radio show.

The problem is not that someone has an agenda and wishes to share it. Thats fine.

The problem is that individuals are allowed to control such a massive amount of the broadcast and print media outlets.

Rxke · 2004-02-19 16:31:22

Alt2war, i know about the marginal thing (and i don't claim to be that very well informed, though)
But today, it's so easy to give the impression one knows what he's talking about when most of the time it's just a case of crafy cut 'n pasting of sources, sigh...

About the 30% look at italy, with Berlusconi, that runs *so* deep... Saw a program about foreigners in Italy, and even the 'alternative' (say left-wing) people, that acted as they were independent thinkers, were really using sound bites from the media... Frightening. They were not aware of it.

We are all biased and 'moderatly brainwashed' by the media, sometimes it's hard to accept that.

Alt2War · 2004-02-19 16:36:58

Alt2war, i know about the marginal thing (and i don't claim to be that very well informed, though)
But today, it's so easy to give the impression one knows what he's talking about when most of the time it's just a case of crafy cut 'n pasting of sources, sigh...
About the 30% look at italy, with Berlusconi, that runs *so* deep... Saw a program about foreigners in Italy, and even the 'alternative' (say left-wing) people, that acted as they were independent thinkers, were really using sound bites from the media... Frightening. They were not aware of it.
We are all biased and 'moderatly brainwashed' by the media, sometimes it's hard to accept that.

I would say a lot more than moderately, myself.

I dont claim to know everything myself, but just from my idle persuit of knowledge I can easily say that I am more informed about my areas of interest than most of the talking heads on cable/network news.

I'm one of the people that cuss at the TV a lot.

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-19 16:42:38

Cindy's "ideological Civil War" reference has a great deal of merit, while being a bit oversimplified. Most major conflicts in American, if not world history, have involved three distinct factions. It generally distills down to one BIG issue that overshadows the others with one faction for IT, one against, and one that just kinda is, little more than witnesses to the events.

Guess which group moderates are.

Not that I'm attacking moderates, a good middle-of-the-road, don't-get-too-worked-up attitude has its place. But it rarely if ever initiates change.

As for the current Left/Right split in America today, its severity depends largely on who you talk to. If you associate with alot of moderates, it's blown out of proportion by the media. But then there's the other two groups. The hostility between them is at times palpable, it seethes. I know liberals who hate George Bush like Hitler hated Jews. Lots of them. Some of these same people would jump on my use of "George Bush" and "Hitler" in the same sentence as a defense of Bush's "Nazi imperialist policies."

Conversely, I know conservatives who get extremely defensive when I don't entirely agree with their take. Abortion, for example. The mere mention of "extenuating circumstances" draws dirisive charges of "murderer." Actually "baby-killing pinko" is more common.

Both sides are wrong some of the time.
One side is wrong most of the time

But they are the moving forces. Moderates react to them, they are like the superhero sidekicks of modern politics. Without the other two sides fighting, they are meaningless.

This applies to true moderates. Many who claim the title are actually strongly inclined toward one side or the other, but don't want the association for whatever reason. This fine, but when push comes to shove, they take a stand with one side or the other, usually one far more frequently, and they become part of that faction. Moderates come in two forms, those who just don't care or know enough to participate and those whose choices are swayed by campaign ads and those people outside of polling places handing out pencils and frisbees. Anyone else isn't really a moderate, in my oh so humble opinion of course. We all have our definitions of what words mean. Just look at the left's interpretations of the constitution...

Not that I think that anyone who doesn't "pick a team" is copping out, far from it. I rant against the Republicans almost as often as the Democrats. Particularly of late. Tricksy, false But I have my own ideals and I work with the options available to me to realise them. I'd drop GW without hesitation if a better option was apparent, but John Kerry ain't it.

In short, not being affiliated with either side doesn't necessarily make one a moderate. Unless you consider Libertarians, Anarchists, Communists and Fascists moderate

No slight intended toward any of the above named groups. Well, except the Communists.

Palomar · 2004-02-19 17:08:40

Both sides are wrong some of the time.
One side is wrong most of the time
But they are the moving forces. Moderates react to them, they are like the superhero sidekicks of modern politics. Without the other two sides fighting, they are meaningless.

*Aaaaaagggh...!!

"Moderates react to them, they are like the superhero sidekicks of modern politics..."

::shakes head::

That hurt!

--Cindy :laugh:

I do enjoy your bluntness, though...

::EDIT:: "Moderates come in two forms, those who just don't care or know enough to participate and those whose choices are swayed by campaign ads and those people outside of polling places handing out pencils and frisbees..."

*Pencils and frisbees...LOL! You are GOOD, Cobra Commander.

Alt2War · 2004-02-19 19:33:39

I believe the so called moderates are told their opinions just as much as the extremities.

Bill White · 2004-02-19 19:49:19

Not that I think that anyone who doesn't "pick a team" is copping out, far from it. I rant against the Republicans almost as often as the Democrats. Particularly of late. Tricksy, false But I have my own ideals and I work with the options available to me to realise them. I'd drop GW without hesitation if a better option was apparent, but John Kerry ain't it.

Cobra - you might like [http://www.theonion.com/news.php?i=1&n=1]this link.

Byron · 2004-02-20 05:45:40

*I'm carrying this over from the "What if we lose (Vietnam II?)" thread.
I think I pay fairly close attention to current events, and have for years. I am still surprised at how intense the "Conservatives Vs Liberal" mentality in this nation has become.
It's almost an ideological Civil War.
Byron chimed in (at the previous thread) about Moderates, where are their voices, etc.?
To be honest, I don't know how or when this division became so apparent in the U.S. I don't recall it being such an issue even 5 years ago (unless I was in a coma back then).
What's going on? How did we get to this point? Why is it this way?
I've been so busy in my personal life, etc., etc., various types of studies, etc., etc. that perhaps I either don't recall or just haven't paid close enough attention...or perhaps I'm another victim of the so-called "boiled frog syndrome."
I'm stumped about this particular issue. Help!
--Cindy

I've been busy with a house renovation project, hence my delay for jumping in...hehe...

I've been a close follower of the news and current events ever since high school, and it does seem like there has been a greater division between what I call "Blue America" (Democratic-leaning urbanites) and "Red America" (Conservatives living in rural America), which became much more evident after the 2000 election. When Clinton was still in office, he had a tendency to work with both parties, and he was a master of the "give and take" principle, which helped bridge many of the differences between conservatives and liberals, IMO. I mean, just look what Clinton was able to do: getting rid of the deficit, reducing welfare rolls and wasteful government spending (the level of government spending in proportion to the GDP actually went *down* during Clinton's presidency), not to mention the boom-time economy he helped generate with his "common sense" economic policies (which involved the raising of taxes early in his term, along with a bi-partisan round of budget cuts, both of which had widespread public support at the time...especially when people started seeing the payoff, etc.)

Now, it seems that the conservatives (esp. Bush) just want to put down the liberals just for being "liberal", and vice-versa, as opposed to trying to work *together* to solve America's problems. And we do have a lot of them...the ballooning deficit, the lack of national savings to carry the Baby Boomers into retirement, the mess in Iraq, the constant threat of terrorism, the "jobless" economy, the corporate scandels, tremendous budget problems of most states and local governments (many of which have raised taxes, therefore negating Bush's Federal tax cuts), and on and on.

I think the real point of a leader is be a leader, which Clinton did quite admirably (IHMO, of course...lol). Whether you're a conservative, moderate, liberal, or whatever label you'd like to paste upon yourself (me, I hate labels...for some reason, labels don't stick to me very well...never have...lol), the important thing is be true to your role as a leader, as opposed to being true to your own personal beliefs, etc. Like the gay marriage thing, for example. Why is Bush is going on and on about a Constitutional admendment (a process which is supposed to expand individual rights, not limit them) which would prohibit gay marriage forever, thoughout the entire country? He says "let the people decide." Well, why doesn't he just leave the issue alone and let the individual states decide the issue, or when the time comes, the Supreme Court? The government has three branches, and all of them have their role, including the courts. Judges are people too, and yet Bush doesn't count them as part of the political process? To me, that's not being a leader...that's just being selfish. Why be fiddling with the issue of gay marriage when this country desperately needs jobs and increased savings and better infrastructure, etc, etc?? Hmmmmm. Whatever happened to the word "priorities" here?

As for being a "moderate," I don't that should be viewed in the same way as you might view a liberal or conservative, as I see being a moderate someone who is willing to listen to *both* sides of the issues, and pick the best course based on common-sense principles, as well as compromise, practical issues, etc. (Which I thought Clinton was very good at...gosh, I miss that man...) The danger of throwing 100% of your support behind a particular party, idealogy, belief, etc, is that you will almost certainly get burned at some point or another. People have a tendency to stand for one thing and actually do another, which is a process I see over and over again. (Like the salesman who will lure you in with a "great deal" and then pull the old "bait-and-switch" tactic on you, which is what I feel Bush has done to the entire country.)

Being a moderate also means being open-minded in my opinion, and this is what I strive for in my daily life. If I think the media is biased (which it is) I try to compensate for it in my mind, so I can still have a clear picture of things. Also, I don't always believe the things I read or hear, either...Cindy's right...where's the "proof" of the things the talking heads are saying?

Gotta run, might chip in with more later....

B

Palomar · 2004-02-20 10:55:02

*Wow, Byron. I totally agree with your post.

Yes, Clinton was a good President in many respects (you pointed out the benefits we had during his tenure).

I think you're right-on about Bush being selfish, and his "bait-and-switch" tactics with the entire nation. He says he's "a uniter, not a divider"...sure, just like his old man said "no new taxes."

Cobra Commander really "got me" yesterday with his comment regarding Moderates being the "side kicks to superheros" (aaauugh) and his assertion that we wouldn't exist without the other 2. I'm not quite sure about that last point...as things tend to go in 3's (dynamically speaking).

I agree with your definition of what a Moderate is. Sounds a lot like me. I just can't "go along" with majority consensus...regardless of which way it goes. The "right" is right on some issues, so is the "left".

Moderate...moderation...balance. That's the way I see it.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-02-20 11:58:54

So kids, what's the moderate position on space exploration?

Alt2War · 2004-02-20 13:39:34

Gay Marriage ban is stright from Karl Rove, Bush's political sith lord.

The nation is currently divided 45 pro 55 against gay maariage.

Karl Rove is pushing bush to not just support but actively persue a constitutional amendment.

In this election, the Republicans have realized that the nation is rather evenly divided. Who will win will be determined by who can get their base out. GOTV efforts will win or lose this election.

Rove is a master at this kind of play. Rove will force Kerry to either take an unpopular stand, or act against his base.

Kerry to date has implied that he may (or may not) support a Federal constitution ban on gay marrage.

Obviously he is hoping to avoid the issue entirely. But Bush and Rove will force the issue, and he will either make the chose to take a stand on an unpopular issue or alienate his base supporters.

dickbill · 2004-02-20 14:30:41

Gay Marriage ban is stright from Karl Rove, Bush's political sith lord.
The nation is currently divided 45 pro 55 against gay maariage.
Karl Rove is pushing bush to not just support but actively persue a constitutional amendment.
In this election, the Republicans have realized that the nation is rather evenly divided. Who will win will be determined by who can get their base out. GOTV efforts will win or lose this election.
Rove is a master at this kind of play. Rove will force Kerry to either take an unpopular stand, or act against his base.
Kerry to date has implied that he may (or may not) support a Federal constitution ban on gay marrage.
Obviously he is hoping to avoid the issue entirely. But Bush and Rove will force the issue, and he will either make the chose to take a stand on an unpopular issue or alienate his base supporters.

Recently Paul Bremer has denied the fundation of an Iraqi government based on the islam religion, meanwhile, the US governement denies gay marriage based on the fact that the law must reflect the definition of marriage in the christian religion.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-02-19 12:06:08

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#2 2004-02-19 12:54:04

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#3 2004-02-19 12:57:19

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#4 2004-02-19 13:33:31

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#5 2004-02-19 13:35:18

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#6 2004-02-19 13:44:50

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#7 2004-02-19 13:56:29

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#8 2004-02-19 14:10:48

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#9 2004-02-19 14:24:34

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#10 2004-02-19 14:45:36

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#11 2004-02-19 15:14:30

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#12 2004-02-19 15:21:37

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#13 2004-02-19 15:24:52

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#14 2004-02-19 15:43:55

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#15 2004-02-19 16:31:22

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#16 2004-02-19 16:36:58

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#17 2004-02-19 16:42:38

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#18 2004-02-19 17:08:40

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#19 2004-02-19 19:33:39

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#20 2004-02-19 19:49:19

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#21 2004-02-20 05:45:40

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#22 2004-02-20 10:55:02

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#23 2004-02-20 11:58:54

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#24 2004-02-20 13:39:34

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#25 2004-02-20 14:30:41

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

Board footer