# Revisited 3.5 years later. Bush: Uniter or Divider **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 7, 2004, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007 "2004-07-07T20:59:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/41 "2004-07-08T20:01:32Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I don’t see the implied irony. The point, and I think well taken, is that Bush and the Pubbies have created two Americas. Well, of course, I think what the Republicans would say that it is that the Democrats talk of “two Americas” is divisive. I agree with you, of course, that the real divisiveness is in adopting policies that exacerbate this dichotomy as Bush has, rather than in pointing out its existence as Edwards has. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/42 "2004-07-08T20:28:05Z")
This is such a no-brainer that even Judge Judy would get it right. I haven’t seen the nation this divided since the 1960s. Blaming Democrats for it would be like blaming your sister that the house is a mess because she didn’t clean it up after you trashed it. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/43 "2004-07-08T20:37:15Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Kerry and Edwards, with our support, will build one America. Well, that’s rather meaningless, isn’t it? Bush and Cheney, _with our support_, would build one America. ---
**Author:** ![aurelian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f4b2a3/32.png) [@aurelian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aurelian)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/44 "2004-07-08T20:58:42Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Zagadka: > Seriously, a “uniter” would NOT randomly propose a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage. He probably would let the status quo rule and leave it to the states. He polarized the issue in a huge, mind blowing way - as he has many issues. Once again, NOT the work of a “uniter” I’m in the middle of reading _The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George Bush_ by Peter Singer. During the electrion, Bush shied away from specifically tackling questions regarding gay marriage, medical marijuana and assisted suicide, preferring to focus instead on his faith (um, no pun intended) in the primacy of the states over the federal goverment: “On the _Larry King Show_, in response to a question about a hypothetical state vote on gay marriage, he replied, ‘The stastes can do what they want to do. Don’t try and trap me in this states’ issue.’…Asked what he thought about the medical use of marijuana by people who were ill and found that it helped them, Bush replied, ‘I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose.’” (63) Of course, we have now seen Bush’s actions contradict these sentiments: rather than let states decide, he wants to amend the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage; and Oregon found itself the target of John Ashcroft in 2001 in regards to physician-assisted suicide. Instead of allowing states to decide for themselves, Bush now felt that a “culture of life” should supercede those rights. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/45 "2004-07-08T21:36:27Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > The tax policies that have made the rich richer have increased the gap between the haves and have-nots. Got some data to back up that assertion? I did some googling to find data on household income and federal tax distrtibtution for the Clinton years and the Bush years to see if there was a significant difference, but couldn’t really find a good site. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/46 "2004-07-08T22:10:55Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > This is such a no-brainer that even Judge Judy would get it right. I haven’t seen the nation this divided since the 1960s. Blaming Democrats for it would be like blaming your sister that the house is a mess because she didn’t clean it up after you trashed it. Well said! This is the one issue I really hold against Bush. He had the obligations after the fiasco of the 2000 election to work toward building unity. He ignored it. He had the opportunity following Sept. 11 to build on the unity that spontaneously appeared. He squandered it. He and his administration seem to go out of their way to ignore at best, and demonze at worst, people who disagree with his approach to policy. He has shown absolutely no interest in trying to reach out in any way to people on the other side of issues. For Bush, every issue is black or white, and you’re either with him or against him. That’s no way to lead a democracy. Many folks were willing to give him a chance following the 2000 election, in the interest of national unity. Many more were so willing in the aftermath of Sept. 11. He fucked up royally on both counts: every piece of policy he proposes drives a further wedge through the electorate. Respecting disagreement is an anathema to his administration. He (and his administration) is a political bully. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/47 "2004-07-08T22:29:11Z")
The bottom line is his conduct post Sept. 11 The Democrats were willing to basically knuckle under, and to a large extent they didn’t have much choice: they had to play it safe and support the President by and large, ignoring the left. Bush could have used this support primarily to unite the country on the war on terror. Instead,Rove’s team almost immediately started drawing up plans to crush the Democrats politically, taking advantage of the situation. That’s the real black mark of the administration on the score of uniting, and nothing rubs it clean. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/48 "2004-07-08T22:44:45Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > That’s the real black mark of the administration on the score of uniting, and nothing rubs it clean. Maybe if we gave George some Oxy Clean and told him it was coke, he’d take a hit and it’d clean his mind? No? Well, its worth a shot. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/49 "2004-07-08T23:32:47Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > He probably would let the status quo rule and leave it to the states. Since that nicely summarizes the proposed amendment, it will have your support? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/50 "2004-07-08T23:37:44Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Since that nicely summarizes the proposed amendment, it will have your support? No it doesn’t. The amendment would specifically disallow any state from enacting SSM laws. The newest version would allow civil unions, but not SSM. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/51 "2004-07-08T23:41:08Z")
[link](http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-18-marriage-senate_x.htm) > [@](#): > > The Allard amendment states that “ **marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman**. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” my bolding. ---
**Author:** ![Largo62](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/45deac/32.png) [@Largo62](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Largo62)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/52 "2004-07-08T23:53:23Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > What year? If you born in the early 30s, you probably remember FDR quite well. > > Also, did you see _The Gold Diggers of 1936_ in the theater? Or _The Wizard of Oz_? Tell us some cool stories, Geezer! I will assume that your fascination is sincere, even though your repost sounds a little snarky. I’m not _that_ much of a geezer, **Aeschines**. I was born in 1942, so I actually have no personal memory of FDR. I do remember from Truman on, but in impressions, not in crisp detail. I know not everybody liked FDR. My grandfather hated him, and refused even to call him by name. He was “\*that man \* in the white house” to Grandpa. My reference to him as uniting the country was based on the general attitude of cooperation that existed during the war, as reflected in the popular media (like _Life_ magazine) of the time. That that unity has eroded subsequently is scarcely in doubt. I _have_ seen the \*Gold Diggers of 19-whatever \* (there was more than one of them), but on television years ago, not in a theater. Come to think of it, I saw The Wizard Of Oz in a theatrical re-release when I was a kid (and many times on TV and video since). I didn’t mean to come on like the old man of the mountain. I only meant to suggest that I have been around long enough to have felt changes. A sage I’m not. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/53 "2004-07-08T23:54:49Z")
> [@](#): > > …marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. We are talking about Federal recognition, of course. The ‘status quo’ , as it were. > [@](#): > > Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. So states can define allow and recognize gay marriage within their borders as they please; Other states just would not be constitutionally obligated to recognize them. The very definition of states rights, no? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/54 "2004-07-09T00:02:31Z")
Er, I think you’re misreading it there, **Brutus**. ---
**Author:** ![zoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/71c47a/32.png) [@zoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoo)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/55 "2004-07-09T01:05:28Z")
I think **Brutus** missed the point completely. The POTUS has no official role in amending the constitution. GW need not have said anything at all about this but he (they?) decided this was a good way to pander to his base. This was not a “reach across the isle” maneuver. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/56 "2004-07-09T01:07:25Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > We are talking about Federal recognition, of course. The ‘status quo’ , as it were. > > So states can define allow and recognize gay marriage within their borders as they please; Other states just would not be constitutionally obligated to recognize them. The very definition of states rights, no? So, the 13th mendment freed the slaves only at a federal level, and state could still enforce slavery? ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/57 "2004-07-09T03:31:20Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > So, the 13th mendment freed the slaves only at a federal level, and state could still enforce slavery? Since there is no " Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to…" blurb in the XIII, then no, states cannot still enforce slavery. Except, of course “as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/58 "2004-07-09T12:06:24Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Got some data to back up that assertion? > > I did some googling to find data on household income and federal tax distrtibtution for the Clinton years and the Bush years to see if there was a significant difference, but couldn’t really find a good site. Don’t have a lot of time, but [this](http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm) is some interesting reading. > [@](#): > > By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent—whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go just 1.4 million taxpayers. I maintain that Bush’s tax policy widens the gap between the wealthy and the rest of us. It is Bush that has created the two Americas that John Edwards speaks of so eloquently. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/59 "2004-07-09T13:11:34Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I maintain that Bush’s tax policy widens the gap between the wealthy and the rest of us. It is Bush that has created the two Americas that John Edwards speaks of so eloquently. One might just as easily argue the opposite. Our federal tax policy is slanted overwhelmingly towards higher income earners. That creates two Americas. By spreading the tax burden more evenly, we begin to bring those two Americas together. I’m not saying that would make a good campaign slogan ( 🙂 ), but it’s actually closer to the truth. But in reality, the “two Americas” claim is simply class warfare rheteroric. Bush might have tweaked the tax code slightly, but it’s silly to claim that we’re “one America” when the rich pay 35% marginal tax rate but that we’re “two Americas” when they pay 33%. (I made those numbers up, but I think they’re pretty close to what we’re actually talking about.) ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007/60 "2004-07-09T13:39:08Z")
I think most people would agree that progressive tax rates are a good thing but I don’t have any poll data to support it. To say Bush created the two Americas might be a bit harsh, it’s more like he widened the chasm. To reduce government’s income so drastically and produce record deficits is folly enough, but to give the lion’s share of these tax reductions to those that need them the least is just plain nuts. From the same cite as before, > [@](#): > > CTJ’s new study conclusively exposes the chicanery of the Bush administration and its supporters in arguing that the tax cuts were even-handed. “After all,” they claimed, “the rich pay most of the taxes, so it’s only fair that they get the lion’s share of the tax cuts.” But in fact, in 2010 before the Bush tax cuts, the top one percent was expected to pay just over a quarter of all federal taxes (don’t feel too bad for these people; they’ll take in 19 percent of all the income). So a tax cut that gives the richest Americans more than half of its benefits is obviously anything but even-handed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revisited-3-5-years-later-bush-uniter-or-divider/254007.md?page=4)