Many of you often wonder I put the sarcasm quotes around ‘moderate’ when I discuss Kevin Drum. Here is a classic example. Yesterday, when discussing Bush’s position on gay marriage, he wrote:
I thought this was clear in my post, but maybe not. All I’m saying is that I suspect that Bush is not personally especially homophobic. Rather, he’s supporting FMA mainly because he thinks it will help him win votes.
Then today he puts up this cartoon:
Ok, Kevin. Since Democrats are so much smarter than Republicans, explain to me how this is more than just calling Bush stupid and homophobic?
The answer is that it is doing just that- but Kevin reads his comments and knows when to throw red meat to his readers.
Ricky
Surely he won’t vote for the homophobie anti-gay-marriage Kerry or Edwards?
neil
Good section, John Cole.. this really is generally stupid. It’s really a stretch to say that this cartoon attacks Bush personally. The proposed amendment is ugly, ill-thought, it singles out homosexuals, it doesn’t fit in with the Constitution, and Bush is tacking his name to it. This is the cartoon’s point, and it has nothing to do with Bush’s personal feelings on the issue, only with his political posturing.
But you do love those trackback hits, don’t you?
M. Scott Eiland
Note the cutesy illiterate scrawl–Bush haters are nothing if not consistent.
If the amendment passes, it’ll have a lot of Democratic fingerprints on it, by necessity. (and, ironically–it *won’t* have GWB’s signature on it, unless he does it just for the hell of it: amendments don’t require a Presidential signature). Kevin ought to remember that before he gets all puffed up and self-righteous. Of course, between Clark going down in flames and his Ahab routine regarding GWB’s National Guard records, Kevin is probably not firing on all cylinders these days.
laddy
Kevin doesn’t call himself a moderate, he’s a liberal. He’s well reasoned but not necessarily moderate. Your other point about Bush Hatred, and Bush being a homophobe.. etc., are sturctural problems with blogs. Maybe Kevin should have written why he likes the cartoons, but to him it doesn’t represent calling the president homophobic, since he denied that yesterday. But then again, I’m sure there are a million other things people would want him to footnote.
Laertes
That cartoon hit a nerve, didn’t it? That warm wet feeling beween your thighs is a natural response when you know you’re beaten and beaten bad.
Anyway, you can thank Drum’s trackback for the hit. I depart now and leave you to your obscurity.
Toren
Laertes;
Boy, you libs live in your own little world, don’t you?
Slartibartfast
“He’s well reasoned but not necessarily moderate.”
Well-reasoned, except when it comes to economics, and whether Bush was AWOL. Those are the only things I’ve really checked him on, though; his spectrum of unreasonableness (or, more accurately, unreasoning) may in fact be wider.
John Cole
Laertes is typical of thefools at Kevin’s site I am talking about- at one point if he read farther than 3 words into this site, hewould recognize I am not particularly fond of this amendment proposal. Shrug.
Kimmitt
I understand the desire to defend Bush against the constant “stupidity” assault (I think he’s not nearly intelligent enough to execute the office of the Presidency competently myself, but hey, opinions differ). But the man’s obviously rather homophobic.
Johnas
It’s a freaking cartoon, maroon.
Mason
Kimmitt, I’ve heard this over and over. Why, exactly, do you think Bush isn’t intelligent enough for the job?
Ricky
Of course, we’ll forget that Kerry supports an amendment banning gay marriage as long as it includes civil unions.
You guys let me know when Kerry is called a bigot or homophobic by the dishonest Calpundit or his atriette lapdogs, okay?
Kimmitt
Quote’s taken out of context and you know it.
Why do I think that Bush isn’t up to the job intellectually? Because it is my opinion that President Bush is a man of above-average intelligence and that it takes a man or woman of remarkable intelligence to do a good job of being President these days. In addition, the President appears to be profoundly intellectually uncurious, which serves to magnify this particular failing of his.
Andrew J. Lazarus
The currently-proposed amendment, notwithstanding Bush’s rhetoric, appears to prohibit civil unions. It even appears to prohibit states and cities from domestic partner benefits, something that’s become rather unremarkable.
If I were a Bush fan, I’d be a little worried why this is the reaction of a mainstream cartoonist headquartered in a Red state.
I don’t think IMG tags work in comments: another even better dig at Bush’s jobs record by the same pen is here.
Matthew Stinson
Bush never said he supports the FMA in its current form, which is good, because it’s crap. In his speech the other day he said he supported civil unions while wanting to ban gay marriage, which upset religious conservatives. If Bush were the raving homophobe Luckovitch, Kevin, and the left wing of the blogosphere take him for, why the need to sound EXACTLY like John Kerry on this issue?
andy
Well gee Emmitt, he’s been pretty busy lately. I’m sure he’ll intellectualize for you as soon as possible.
Steve
Oh…so Kerry is in favor of gay marriage…you can of course provide evidence.
*chirp*chirp*chirp*
Come on Kimmit, even though some have painted Kerry’s statement as applying the FMA, it still pretty much indicates Kerry is going to come out against gay marriage.
Do you have a paypal account, I want to send you $5 so you can buy a clue on this one.
russ
Total Bullshit!
GWB is defending a tradition that pervs want to pervert…
Marriage isn’t only about love but it is also about procreation and nuclear family units…
What to the pervs who want to marry add to this equation? NOTHING!
Kimmitt
Steve: Yes. Just do a search for my name. I look forward to your donation.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Hey, Russ. Where’s the No [More] Marriages for Britney Spears Amendment? Talk about perverting the institution.
My ex-neighbor is in this weeks’ Newsweek. Look for the lesbian marriage with the two kids standing next to the gay sperm donor. Looks like a family unit to me?!
Ripper
I don’t really care why Kimmitt thinks W isn’t up to the job of President, since the left’s list of qualifications for the top job change with every candidate who looks like they have a chance of winning. I am, however, intrigued by what divination he has concluded that Bush is “obviously rather homophobic.” I presume that Kimmitt has had many long, involved conversations with the President which allow him insight into W’s thoughts and fellings. Surely, he wouldn’t be so crass and crude as to suggest that cautious support for the FMA equates with being “obviously rather homophobic.” Since Kimmitt presents himself as being balanced and nuanced he certainly would not stoop to such a juvenile debating trick, would he?
But no matter, since the debate now seems to have shifted to “Bush is leading a culture war.” Never mind that the acts of the Massachusetts SJC and the grandstanding of Gavin Newsome were a gauntlet slapped in people’s faces. Newsome all but dared the government to stop him, and now he pretends to be offended when action is actually taken? Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal.
As far as I am concerned, the gay marriage activists brought all of this on themselves. Remember that when ‘gay marriage’ (however you wish to define that fungible phrase) has been on the ballot (Hawaii being a notable example) it has failed. Wherever civil unions have prevailed, it has never (so far as I am aware) been decided by a popular vote, but has been imposed as a ukase by a judiciary or executive. Even when Howard “YEAARGH” Dean signed civil union legislation into law in Vermont, he did it behind locked doors in the dead of night without any cameras present, not wanting the image of him signing the bill to be used against him in an election.
A prudent movement, seeing such opposition to it, would consider why they werenot able to persuade people of the correctness of their position and would take steps (public relations campaign, “teach-ins”, symposia) to reach out to their opponents and explain in a calm, reasoned manner why ‘gay marriage’ was no threat to the Republic. But, liked spoiled brats who want Mommy and Daddy (read The Government) to not only approve but celebrate their inconsiderate choices, a small group of well-heeled, media-savvy, too-much-time-on-their-hands advocates decied to ram this down people’s throats and now complain that any opposition to their judicial hijacking is “homophobic.”
I dislike the term “gay marriage.” I have no real problem with civil unions. I would be happy to have a discussion about the merits of each position. But I’ll be damned if I lie down and let a bunch of left-wing crybabies smear my church and my party as bigots and homophobes because I won’t throw over my convictions and instantly celebrate their au courant lifestyle. As I said, you brought this fight on yourselves.
And having said that, I now await the ad hominem cries of “racist,” “know-nothing,” “bigot” “fascist” and “homophobe” that will invariably be part of the calm, reasoned discussion of this issue.
David R. Block
Bush never “voted that male homosexual acts should be illegal in Texas” because he was never in the Texas legislature, and Texas does not have initiatives and referendums, so that’s just impossible.
Yes, the SCOTUS did strike down a Texas anti-sodomy law last year, but that had been on the books for a while, and the Democrats put it there. Texas has only had a few Republican governors since 1978, and in 2003, the first Republican legislature (both houses) since 1876 (the Senate went Republican in 1999). Yes, 1876, that’s not a typo.
Kathy K
I don’t believe that Bush is either stupid or homophobic. I do think he’s a typical politician who is pandering to his base.
I also happen to think that cartoon is spot-on.