Comments: Hope

Isn't there something to be said for doing what one believes is right? That's not arrogance (btw, Bush has owned up to his mistakes- but remember that just because you think something was a mistake doesn't make it so)- it’s called integrity, and it’s a quality that was sorely lacking in his opponent.

And I still don't understand how you could be so disgusted by a candidate like Bush for being (supposedly) anti-gay and pro-war, yet support a man like Kerry, who stands for many of the same positions (or at least claims to, when politically expedient).

Posted by Richard at November 5, 2004 05:53 PM

And just because you believe that something isn't a mistake doesn't mean it isn't.

Just when has Bush owned up to those mistakes? Certainly not when he was asked in a debate, directly, to list a few mistakes.

Bush bleeds arrogance. His treatment of those who don't agree with him and his attitude that the US can and will do whatever it wants in the world without thought for the other nations shows it. I'm not just talking about Iraq (btw, I've never stated that it was a mistake to go into Iraq. I'm confused by our lack of planning now that we're there, but I think we should stay there and fix it now that we've ousted Saddam), I'm speaking of the environment, and our general attitude toward our place in the world, among other things. The decisions we make effect other countries, and a good leader takes into consideration how his actions effect others. Nowhere have I stated that we must have the leave of other countries whenever we make a decison, but Bush has made it abundantly clear that he could give a rat's ass about the positions of much of the rest of the world.

I also belive that John Kerry has a better plan for the US than that which we are currently following. I can't say that I feel Bush has the best integrity, what with his business ethics being sorely lacking. As I stated, I want the President to be someone I can admire, and to lead by example. This is not a man I would want my future children to look up to.

Lastly, when it comes to gay marriage, this is an issue near and dear to me. Bush has stated time and again that he would like there to be a Constiutional Ammendment banning gay marriage. Kerry has stated that he would make Civil Unions legal. Which would you say is more pro-gay? While Civil Unions aren't marriage, they are step in the right direction. Bush's actions are a that of a man clearly uncomfortable with homosexuality, and unable or unwilling to see a gay person's love for his or her partner as the same as his love for his wife.

Posted by ensie at November 5, 2004 06:23 PM

Well, considering that Bush came out in favor of civil unions, I'd say they're both the same level of "pro-gay".

Posted by Richard at November 5, 2004 06:33 PM

Also it should be mentioned that in the debate you speak of, Bush did talk about mistakes he has made. He spoke specifically of tactical mistakes in the war- he just didn't come up with the answer most liberals wanted to hear, so he got crushed for it.

Posted by Richard at November 5, 2004 06:46 PM

Oh right! How could I forget? Bush is so pro-gay, I must have missed his bullshit statement about how he's for civil unions and all that work he's been doing the last four years to make that happen. It probably just was drowned out in the, again, CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE. The one that he was strongly in support of that also happened to ban any sort of legal recognition of gay relationships, including civil unions.

Marilyn Musgrave's ammendment:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Besides, do you really think the religious right would let him off his leash long enough to make that happen?

Posted by ensie at November 5, 2004 07:41 PM

Neither of us are what you'd call experts in the world of constitutional law, but the consensus in Washington was that this amendment would not have banned civil unions. While the wording makes it seem that was the case, it does not expressly ban civil unions, and no court in this country would interpret as such.

For the record, here are Bush's statements regarding civil unions.

And yes, Bush has done nothing to advance gay rights during his four years as President. But what has John Kerry done over his 20 years as a Senator (he supports hate-crime legislation, as does Bush, but that’s about it)? Both of these men campaigned on an anti-gay platform- Kerry just did it quietly in black churches all over America, whereas Bush came right out and said it.

Posted by Richard at November 5, 2004 09:06 PM

Sorry, this is the link to Bush's statements about civil unions.

Posted by Richard at November 5, 2004 09:07 PM

And the "mistakes" Bush owned up to:

"And in a war, there's a lot of -- there's a lot of tactical decisions that historians will look back and say: He shouldn't have done that. He shouldn't have made that decision. And I'll take responsibility for them. I'm human."

I wouldn't say that's admitting to any specific mistakes. He's saying that should anything he's done be judged a mistake, he'll own up to it, and that history will tell the tale. A true statement, that history will have better perspective on his decisions, but still not owning up to any specific errors or mistakes.

Posted by ensie at November 5, 2004 09:08 PM

How can you say it doesn't ban civil unions?? The actual words in the proposed ammendment state just that! And how do you know that no court would interpret it that way? Kerry didn't campaign as anti-gay. He stated that he is not in favor of gay marriage, but definately supports civil unions. Please read this to see Kerry's statements and stances on gay issues. And on President Bush's record--while Gov. of Texas he sought to take away gay couples' ability to adopt and didn't feel that homosexuals were covered under hate crime legislation. I'd say there are some serious differences there.

Posted by ensie at November 5, 2004 09:59 PM

I'm totally with you, ensie.

Bush staying put in the White House scares the shit out of me. The pro-gay thing is near to me too (because one of my best friends is a lesbian), and the thought that the MAJORITY of people are against her being happy and treated fairly just blows my mind.

Posted by Dawn (webmiztris) at November 6, 2004 05:57 AM

Ensie, your post was so well put! I agree wholeheartedly!

Posted by Violet at November 8, 2004 06:18 AM

Post a comment