Disappointed. Really.

Starting out, I was not a Bush fan. McCain was my man; when his candidacy died, I begrudgingly accepted GWB. (No way wasy my vote going to Algore!)

Neither was I dazzled in the beginning months of Bush's tenure.

But, like so much of the country, he grew in stature after the horror of 9/11. Despite his garbled inarticulateness, somehow, what I perceived as the man's straightforwardness and decent values began to shine through.

I became a supporter. So, despite putting steel tariffs in place, and spending far far FAR more on government than I thought he ought, and despite eliminating a few taxes (the estate tax, for instance) that I thought should stay in place - I argued for the man.

Yesterday, however, words of support were not forthcoming. Not from these lips. Not from my fingertips to the keyboard.

How can the President think that our Constitution deserves to be altered over a political football?

Why does he think that my gay friends and relatives are not worthy of the same benefits and responsibilities every other American can enjoy?

I cannot help but think that Bush expressed support for a constitutional amendment harming gays to pump up his campaign. How sad. How beneath him.

Y'know what? Like a number of other pundits, I predict that this will actually harm him - not help him.

And if so? He deserves what he gets.

I'm not sure if at this point he can undo the damage. I suppose I'm some dreamer to think that he will even attempt to do so. Nevertheless, somehow, I am hoping that he realizes the wounds this amendment would cause, and he changes course.

Comments

[Chris]

Very thoughtful post and I tend to agree. This really points to the sad reality that for this President, staying in Power is more important than what he stands for.

i thought we got a small government, free trading president. Instead we got a big spending president passing out new entitlement programs and protecting industries in a way that only Democrats usually can.

I thought we got a President that believed that the Federal Goverment should't play a major role. What we got was President all too willing to extend government in all kinds of intrusive ways.

what is really tragic about what happened yesterday, is that this is such NOT the kind of thing that Republicans should be doing--using the Government to reach out and intervene in people's lives. What his support yesterday of the ammendment shows is that he is a many without a core philosophy. What does he really believe in?

He will argue in this campaign that he is better than a tax and spend liberal like Kerry and that only he believes getting government off people's backs but I think we have seen that his actions DON't match his rhetoric.

[Peg C.]

Peggy,

I am against a constitutional amendment, but I disagree with you. I think this is a principled and courageous stand whether one agrees or disagrees on the issue. If W were being political, he would do a Kerry. (In and of itself there is nothing contradictory in Kerry's stance; I shock myself that I've actually stumbled into agreement with him, but I can EXPLAIN my position and Kerry cannot/will not/won't.) Maybe this will harm W and maybe it won't. Those who say he deserves what he gets are saying WE deserve what we get. I am a single issue voter this year and saying we deserve what we get means to me we get a mealy-mouthed appeasing Europhile as president and all the terrorism and national self-hatred that will accompany him/her ("her" with an added GOD FORBID). In all honesty, I would have expected nothing less of W on this issue. He is not dividing this country on this; those who have forced this issue are dividing us. Marriage has always been between 1 man and 1 woman (I'm not addressing bigamy, Mormons, etc. here), going back thousands of years. In spite of very recent societal changes with respect to feminism, women in the workforce, children in daycare, open season on men, etc., marriage was devised for specific purposes, among them protection of women and children, civilizing of men (men cannot civilize men), establishment of paternity, butressing of civil society and institutions, etc. I have gay friends and relatives, too; I do not believe MARRIAGE should be available to them. They want to be equal and normal in all respects in society. They can never be, solely because they are 4% or 10% or whatever small percent of the population. Their goal in attaining marriage, besides being treated as pure equals with heteros, is truly undermining the institution of marriage along with all other non-gay traditions. The more they force their agenda in front of my face, the more aware I am of the implications. I have nothing against civil unions, and some gays are OK with that. Not one can tell me why NOW, this fight. W is politicizing this? How is what gays are doing NOW, THIS YEAR, not politicizing this? At the same time, however this washes out, one can make a strong argument for only forcing controversial issues during an election year, when the populace in general is actually paying attention and giving some input. Doing this Barney Frank's way, next year, would allow much more to slip in under the radar and be a fait accompli before the voters notice. But then, Frank so obviously despises the voters...as do all Lefties and not a few Righties...

If this is garbled irrationality, I'm sorry...I feel very strongly and I also believe this isn't a rational issue and CAN'T be. It's a gut and an emotional issue. For some (not for me), this is a religious issue. How do you explain former liberals, now conservatives, who are non-religious, who are against SSM and against this amendment, BUT? I am against it but. And W has my vote this year no matter what he or anyone else does. Because this issue matters to me but I also know that no issue matters more than the WOT. I won't vote Dem and I won't sit home.