Moral Majority
Here come the doomsday predictions:
Election results signal moralists finally have their majority, Chicago Tribune ... Stronger Republicans Look to Push Conservative Agenda, Los Angeles Times ... Social Conservatives Energized by Gay Marriage Votes, Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
And Maureen Dowd, well off the rails, writes, "W. ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq — drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or 'values voters,' as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage."
The usual suspects, but it bears watching. Especially among those of us -- "Sept. 11 Democrats," "liberal hawks," whatever you want to call us -- who voted for Bush while disagreeing with him on many social issues.
I think you could argue that Ohio couldn't have gone red without us. And that gives us the obligation to switch sides if the President should treat his mandate like a ticket on the Pat Robertson railroad.
The Democrats are locking down into an in-house knife-fight over their destiny, so the Mystery Men will have to defend the city for now. Get used to the likes of Arlen Specter, one of the least-liked and least-likeable Senators, as the bulwark of centrist common sense. He'll head the crucial judiciary committee.
We in the Pennsylvania media know him well; you can see a lapel button above many a political reporter's desk that reads, "I got yelled at by Arlen Specter." I have no idea who makes them, but clearly there's a market. He's old and arrogant and starting to look alarmingly like Strom Thurmond. But this will be his moment, and we need him.
Bush has a chance to really be a uniter, not a divider, on the gay marriage issue. Most Americans, even in Oregon, apparently are opposed to gay marriage. That baffles me; I don't think it has anything to do with legal niceties of spouse's rights. I think it's a visceral reaction to the word "marriage" in that context. Because the same Americans seem to accept "civil unions."
Makes sense? No. But that's the president's choice: if he pushes through with a negative campaign for an amendment against "gay marriage" he'll shame the Constitution and himself. If he uses his second term to advance the idea of civil unions, even if it amounts to simply allowing states to decide, he'll bring the nation closer together.
I can't fathom the kind of callousness that would stand at the podium and make his victory speech with Mary Cheney and her partner among the handful of people with him, and turn around and pursue a vindictive exclusion policy.
As for the Democrats, I agree with those among them who railed aainst their abandonment of the South. Howard Dean was right about those guys in pick-up trucks. Other people are saying similar things now, though omitting the Stars and Bars references.
Thomas Friedman quotes Harvard University political theorist Michael J. Sandel: "The Democrats have ceded to Republicans a monopoly on the moral and spiritual sources of American politics. They will not recover as a party until they again have candidates who can speak to those moral and spiritual yearnings — but turn them to progressive purposes in domestic policy and foreign affairs."
Todd Purdum, in his analysis today for the NYT, has a telling quote from Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, a former Clinton aide:
Amen.
Election results signal moralists finally have their majority, Chicago Tribune ... Stronger Republicans Look to Push Conservative Agenda, Los Angeles Times ... Social Conservatives Energized by Gay Marriage Votes, Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
And Maureen Dowd, well off the rails, writes, "W. ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq — drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or 'values voters,' as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage."
The usual suspects, but it bears watching. Especially among those of us -- "Sept. 11 Democrats," "liberal hawks," whatever you want to call us -- who voted for Bush while disagreeing with him on many social issues.
I think you could argue that Ohio couldn't have gone red without us. And that gives us the obligation to switch sides if the President should treat his mandate like a ticket on the Pat Robertson railroad.
The Democrats are locking down into an in-house knife-fight over their destiny, so the Mystery Men will have to defend the city for now. Get used to the likes of Arlen Specter, one of the least-liked and least-likeable Senators, as the bulwark of centrist common sense. He'll head the crucial judiciary committee.
We in the Pennsylvania media know him well; you can see a lapel button above many a political reporter's desk that reads, "I got yelled at by Arlen Specter." I have no idea who makes them, but clearly there's a market. He's old and arrogant and starting to look alarmingly like Strom Thurmond. But this will be his moment, and we need him.
Bush has a chance to really be a uniter, not a divider, on the gay marriage issue. Most Americans, even in Oregon, apparently are opposed to gay marriage. That baffles me; I don't think it has anything to do with legal niceties of spouse's rights. I think it's a visceral reaction to the word "marriage" in that context. Because the same Americans seem to accept "civil unions."
Makes sense? No. But that's the president's choice: if he pushes through with a negative campaign for an amendment against "gay marriage" he'll shame the Constitution and himself. If he uses his second term to advance the idea of civil unions, even if it amounts to simply allowing states to decide, he'll bring the nation closer together.
I can't fathom the kind of callousness that would stand at the podium and make his victory speech with Mary Cheney and her partner among the handful of people with him, and turn around and pursue a vindictive exclusion policy.
As for the Democrats, I agree with those among them who railed aainst their abandonment of the South. Howard Dean was right about those guys in pick-up trucks. Other people are saying similar things now, though omitting the Stars and Bars references.
Thomas Friedman quotes Harvard University political theorist Michael J. Sandel: "The Democrats have ceded to Republicans a monopoly on the moral and spiritual sources of American politics. They will not recover as a party until they again have candidates who can speak to those moral and spiritual yearnings — but turn them to progressive purposes in domestic policy and foreign affairs."
Todd Purdum, in his analysis today for the NYT, has a telling quote from Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, a former Clinton aide:
"Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter got elected because they were comfortable with their faith. What happened was that a part of the electorate came open to what Clinton and Carter had to say on everything else — health care, the environment, whatever — because they were very comfortable the Clinton and Carter did not disdain the way these people lived their lives, but respected them. We need a nominee and a party that is comfortable with faith and values. And if we have one, then all the hard work we've done on Social Security or America's place in the world, or college education can be heard. But people aren't going to hear what we say until they know that we don't approach them as Margaret Mead would an anthropological experiment."
Amen.
Labels: media, Politics, Republicans
