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.
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, that’s rather meaningless, isn’t it? Bush and Cheney, with our support, would build one America.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
my bolding.
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.
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?
Er, I think you’re misreading it there, Brutus.
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.
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.”
Don’t have a lot of time, but this is some interesting reading.
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.)
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,