Gay Patriot Header Image

GayPatriot State of the Union LIVEBLOGGING TONIGHT!

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 6:51 pm - January 31, 2006.
Filed under: National Politics

Come right back here to this very spot where I will be liveblogging President Bush’s State of the Union speech to Congress. Don’t expect your typical analysis though. I fully intend to type whatever pops into my head, and err on the side of snarky, un-politically correct comments.

Join the fun right here at 9PM Eastern time. I’ll begin a few minutes early with a post-mortem on tonight’s American Idol episode.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

19 Comments

  1. Wait… your typical analysis isn’t snarky and politically incorrect? 🙂

    Sorry, I couldn’t resist, and you know someone had to lob that one 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 7:06 pm - January 31, 2006

  2. I wish they could have had Paula Abdul give the Democratic response. She certainly would’ve been more persuasive than that horrible response a few years ago from Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi. As soon as that was over I said to myself, “well, Bush just got reelected”.

    Comment by Carl — January 31, 2006 @ 8:28 pm - January 31, 2006

  3. I’m not sure where else to put this, but apparently conservatives at Redstate and The Corner are happy that John Shadegg puts a high priority on “the sancity of marriage”. He lists the “marriage amendment” as second on the list of priorities, whereas Blunt and Boehner did not mention the amendment at all.

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_01_29_corner-archive.asp#088716

    http://www.redstate.com/redhot#6513

    I know that GP endorsed Shadegg for Majority Leader, but I wonder if we are supposed to believe that the marriage amendment should be one of the top priorities in Congress now? When so much is going on?

    Comment by Carl — January 31, 2006 @ 8:44 pm - January 31, 2006

  4. They are having Tim “Eyebrow” Kaine, the newest tax-and-spend liberal governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia…. also known as the ex-GayPatriot homeland.

    Comment by GayPatriot — January 31, 2006 @ 8:44 pm - January 31, 2006

  5. If Shadegg can reform Congress (both parties need it), rein in spending, and work with President Bush to better protect our borders and to fight the War on Terror…

    …then I frankly couldn’t care less if he also devotes some time to a pet marriage amendment that can’t and won’t ever be ratified unless it is first watered down to inoffensiveness.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 8:50 pm - January 31, 2006

  6. I’m with Calarato on this. If a Dem were in Shadegg’s shoes, he would do the same thing if need be. Hell, Clinton DID. This is all about politics and it shows how pathetic our gay rights groups have been at the grassroots level when we are used this way by BOTH national political parties.

    Comment by GayPatriot — January 31, 2006 @ 8:54 pm - January 31, 2006

  7. …then I frankly couldn’t care less if he also devotes some time to a pet marriage amendment that can’t and won’t ever be ratified unless it is first watered down to inoffensiveness. –

    But Calarato he isn’t devoting some time – the amendment is #2 on his list of priorities. Ahead of border control or the War on Terror. If he devotes more time to passing this amendment than focusing on the issues you listed, will that concern you?

    -Hell, Clinton DID.-

    Given how unethical Clinton was, I hope we aren’t rationalizing Republican strategies just because of his own anti-gay pandering. But even he didn’t go for a constitutional amendment.

    -This is all about politics and it shows how pathetic our gay rights groups have been at the grassroots level when we are used this way by BOTH national political parties.-

    If both parties were using this amendment, the amendment would have already passed Congress, the way DOMA passed 10 years ago. Gay rights groups probably are pathetic but isn’t it even more pathetic to make this amendment one of the top priorities based solely on politics? How is Shadegg going to reform anything if he is using the same old tactics of hiding behind gay marriage? I remember when Tom DeLay said that he would have a vote on this amendment again and again until the amendment passed. I thought we were supposed to be moving away from the DeLay era.

    If we’re so upset with how gays let Democrats treat them, shouldn’t we be a little more upset at the idea of this amendment taking precedence over something like terrorism?

    Comment by Carl — January 31, 2006 @ 9:07 pm - January 31, 2006

  8. Calrato +1.

    Comment by DaveP. — January 31, 2006 @ 9:29 pm - January 31, 2006

  9. DaveP, do you think it’s right to put the marriage amendment as a priority above border control or terrorism issues or ethics issues? Wasn’t the whole purpose for Shadegg’s candidacy ethical matters? I thought ethics would be #1 on the list, not behind marriage.

    Comment by Carl — January 31, 2006 @ 9:45 pm - January 31, 2006

  10. Carl, because I see a sanctity of marriage act and the associated requirement for gays to fight it through legislative means and the changing of minds among the majority of voters- and not through the abuse of the court system- as just about the only thing that will keep certain parts of the politically-active gay community from poisoning the social waters for the REST of the gay community.

    Alternatively, you could try to push through ANOTHER stage-managed court case, with ANOTHER partisan judge, and then demand AGAIN that the Constituion be abused to force all other states to comply with that one decision. That worked real well last time, didn’t it… about twenty state bans on gay marriage ago?

    Comment by DaveP. — January 31, 2006 @ 10:23 pm - January 31, 2006

  11. -#

    #

    Carl, because I see a sanctity of marriage act and the associated requirement for gays to fight it through legislative means and the changing of minds among the majority of voters- and not through the abuse of the court system- as just about the only thing that will keep certain parts of the politically-active gay community from poisoning the social waters for the REST of the gay community. –

    Pushing an amendment to the legislatures is not going to change the minds of a majority of voters. All this will do is take away all of the time and money of those fighting for gay rights, and embolden the GOP to pass even more restrictive laws against gays. The people behind this amendment use gays as a political football. They will not stop at marriage.

    I don’t think it’s fair to take away so many contractual benefits for gays just because we want to prove something to gay groups. IF this amendment is ratified, then over and over we will see court cases where a homosexual is told that the will he shared with his partner is no longer valid because of the federal amendment.

    Comment by Carl — January 31, 2006 @ 11:10 pm - January 31, 2006

  12. Well jeez, Carl, maybe you should start convincing the majority of voters to favor your side of the issue then.

    If you wish to base your hopes on court cases, fine… but remember- hell, tattoo it on your eyelids- that what one court verdict giveth, another can take away. The only hope for you is to change hearts and minds, and that start with a decision to dump the persecution copmplex and alienate no more large groups of voters.

    Of course, you can try another court case and binding your sexual identy to the politics of the American Left… as I noted, that’s done so well for you so far, hasn’t it?

    Comment by DaveP. — February 1, 2006 @ 4:59 pm - February 1, 2006

  13. -If you wish to base your hopes on court cases, fine… but remember- hell,-

    There’s a big difference between wanting the courts to decide an issue and wanting a sweeping federal amendment that may, for hundreds of years, ban ALL legal contracts for gay couples.

    Of course, you can try another court case and binding your sexual identy to the politics of the American Left… as I noted, that’s done so well for you so far, hasn’t it? –

    Probably about as well as the gays who voted for Bush in 2000 because they thought he would be moderate.

    Comment by Carl — February 1, 2006 @ 7:12 pm - February 1, 2006

  14. Gays who voted for Kerry would have gotten a President who says (publicly) that he opposes you too. That dog won’t hunt, and just makes you look foolish.

    As I have said: Before the Massachusetts court decision it was taken as an assumed that same-sex marriage would become de-facto legal across America in just a few years. HOW many states ban gay marriage now? It’ll be on the ballot in how many more in 2006 and 2008?

    How many, Carl? Compared to how many states in which the issue has been “decided” in your favor? Can you count?

    And the funny part is this: The issue is such an INCREDIBLE loser for the Democrats (especally among their core constituencies) that, odds are, they’re gonna drop it like a hot potato in the 2008 national campaign!

    What will you do then, Carl?

    Hell, dude. I’m straight. Keep doing it your way, it’s no skin off my ass to watch you lose time and time again, with each loss making any future victory that much harder. Wanna win for a change? Grow up, pull your head out of your ass, and learn how to convince voters instead of how to offend them.

    Comment by DaveP. — February 2, 2006 @ 7:17 am - February 2, 2006

  15. Just checking in. I am creating a website based on data disk recovery.How much room do you need on your hard drive to host a blog? Does it cost extra?. Thank you so much, TEODORO disaster link recovery suggest

    Comment by business continuity and disaster recovery planning — February 8, 2006 @ 1:08 am - February 8, 2006

  16. Good information on this blog and I tend to agree with the majority of the comments. I also like the layout and template you chose. That of course is just me thinking outloud

    Comment by sony vaio notebook computers — March 28, 2006 @ 10:58 pm - March 28, 2006

  17. Nice Site! I have a bearded dragon called Gucchi and a border terrier called Ruby.They both hate each other and run a mile when they see each other! I enjoyed your blog- Thanks. R

    Comment by Pets — March 31, 2006 @ 7:34 am - March 31, 2006

  18. Nice Site! I love all the comments on this page. Do you have a rss feed I can subscribe to? Thanks 🙂

    Comment by top notebook computers — April 5, 2006 @ 1:40 pm - April 5, 2006

  19. Nice site I found … Plan on coming back later to spend a little time there.

    Comment by Breast Enlargement — October 20, 2006 @ 12:02 am - October 20, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.