GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Was Karl Rove Behind State Marriage Referenda in 2004?

by

I apologize for not blogging much in the past week, but after a hectic two weeks of classes and travel, I’ve been busy getting caught up (including getting through about 300 accumulated e-mails) and beginning the background reading for my dissertation. Not only that, but for the past two days, have been devoting much of the time I would normally spend to writing blog posts to researching one.

In the wake of the departure of Karl Rove from the White House, I’ve been trying to find evidence to back up the “conventional wisdom” that the man whom the president called the architect of his 2004 re-election victory encouraged putting “marriage referenda on state ballots” in order to increase evangelical turnout and thus guarantee the president victory that year.

And while I have found many bloggers (and even reporters) repeating this claim, I have yet to find one scrap of evidence substantiating it. To be sure, I have found enough articles confirming that he was behind the president’s support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, but nothing linking him conclusively to the state referenda.

I did find confirmation of something I had read shortly after the 2004 election–that the marriage initiatives on state ballots that year didn’t really help the president:

As Hunter College political scientist Kenneth Sherrill noted in a study for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, “the election returns indicate that President Bush did less well in these battleground states with anti-same-sex marriage ballot initiatives than in battleground states that did not have referenda on same-sex marriage” 

So, if Rove were behind these initiatives, they didn’t really serve to advance the president’s reelection.

It was amazing (well, not really given the nature of the anti-Bush left today) how much bile and mean-spirited rhetoric I encountered in researching this piece — and how little evidence I uncovered to document allegations leveled against Rove (not limited to his alleged involvement in these referenda). It seems their animus against him is based more on their own feelings than actual facts.

I expect to do a followup on this piece, but would appreciate if any of you could help me in my research. Do you have evidence to support the oft-repeated claim that Karl Rove was behind the marriage initiatives in the various states in the 2004 campaign? Please e-mail me with links to articles which could confirm (or disprove) this. Thanks.

Welcome Powerline readers!!! While you’re here, feel free to check out what’s been called “probably the most reliably conservative gay blog on the Internet.“

UPDATE: And for those who haven’t yet seen it, make sure to check out Powerline’s post on Bill Moyers’ anti-Rove rant which also lacks “actual facts . . . that one can take hold of and declare to be false.” Moyers’ rant, in the words of Powerline’s John Hinderaker, like much of what I’ve read in researching this, was “just a pure, undifferentiated expression of hatred of a political opponent.”

Comments

  1. nah, I’m sure it was all a coincidence.

    Why would anyone think that the president’s political strategist would bother trying to shape the political landscape out in the states during a presidental election year?

  2. It sounds to me like you are looking for a Rove Manifesto. You won’t find that from someone who utilizes the whisper campaign.
    For example, his whisper campaign alleging Ann Richards was a lesbian
    or his spreading rumors that his political rival, John Weaver made a pass at man

    After 2000 he embarked on regular meetings with Dobson’s FRC and other such wacko freak show groups. These groups were empowered by him and embarked on turnout campaign and registering church voters.
    He made Gay Marragie so important to them that the president of the Family Research Council, said gay marriage was “the hood ornament on the family values wagon that carried the president to a second term”

    So if you are looking for a speech or a memo that says “spread the fear of gays” you won’t find it because he is smarter than that.
    No. You have to look at his body of work and the actions of his subordinates

  3. Damn! The paranoia around here is getting deep!

    Gil, I hate to break this to you, but neither Dobson nor the FRC prez are in the pay or in any way “subordinate” to Rove. I can make a better case on MovOn.org being “subordinate” to George “Nazi Profiteer” Soros, seeing that at least they actually get some funding from the guy, and I don’t really buy the marching orders crap on that tend, either.

    Let’s try this again, shall we? Can you point to any evidence that Rove, or someone under his instruction, was involved in organizing, crafting, or planning these silly Marriage Initiatives?

  4. evidence? we dont need no stinking evidence!

    or maybe, just maybe, people feel strongly about marriage and put the initiatives on the ballots in response to lawsuits brought in states throughout the country that they percieved as a threat to an institution they think is essential to society.

    the left is so used to feeling about everything, and thinking about nothing, that they are completely unable to understand perspectives other than their own. Instead, everyone who disagrees with them is “Hitler” or “fascist” or “evil” or part of some nefarious conspiracy.

    And it hurts, not helps, the cause of promoting gay marriage (or any other cause for that matter) , to ascribe evil intentions to those who view the issue differently than you.

    Ironic, I think, that the party that thinks itself the champion of “diversity, tolerance, understanding, etc etc” is so thoroughly inept at communicating with people who differ from them.

  5. gee Will, lets take some lessons from you in communicating with people who differ from us.

    Don’t you think that before you start with the Hitler-name-callers charge, you might want to wait for someone to actually make such a charge?

    And dont you think that claiming that everyone you disagree with is incapable of thought, or never engages in it, is a bit of a barrier to communication?

    For some strange reason you are trying to be protective of the people who despise you, and try to use popular sentiment against you. And you consider this attitude of yours to be the result of “thinking” as opposed to “feeling”. Personally, I have no idea of what you are thinking, but it sure doesnt make any sense.

  6. Don’t you think that before you start with the Hitler-name-callers charge, you might want to wait for someone to actually make such a charge?

    Actually, I said,

    everyone who disagrees with them is “Hitler” or “fascist” or “evil” or part of some nefarious conspiracy

    And I think your origninal post exemplifies that point quite neatly. (FYI, you may want to look up the definition of the contraction “or” as opposed to the contraction “and”–they mean different things)

    And I also didnt claim that everyone who disagrees with me is incapable of thought, I think everyone is capable of thought, I even think the left is capable of thought. I said they are so used to feeling about everything and thinking about nothing that they are unable to understand perspectives other than their own. I stand by it, and your post only bolsters my point:

    For some strange reason you are trying to be protective of the people who despise you, and try to use popular sentiment against you. And you consider this attitude of yours to be the result of “thinking” as opposed to “feeling”. Personally, I have no idea of what you are thinking, but it sure doesnt make any sense

    Who says they despise me? A very large portion of the Democratic party is opposed to gay marriage–even in the bluest of blue states–do you think they despise you? No, they disagree with you, but EXACTLY as I claimed, you had to demonize them. Thank you for proving my point so well.

    And as you admit, you dont have any idea what I am thinking, and it doesnt make any sense to you. And by claiming everyone who disagrees with the propostion of gay marriage hates us, its clear you dont understand their position either. Again, thank you for proving so succinctly what I said in my original post, that the left is all emotion, and no thought.

    But let me explain the position of the majority of people who oppose gay marriage for you: They think marriage is a vitally important institution to society. They believe that the purpose of government encouraging marriage is because it is good for society to encourage men and women to make permanent legal bonds, so that when children are born, they are born within that strengthened legal bond. And they believe that since only men and women can procreate, they should be the only ones entitled to enter in to this institution–or the institution changes focus, by definition. In other words they believe that the coupling that results in children should be given special status in our society.

    Now what part of that indicates hate?

    The benefit of knowing your opponents actual argument, rather than they hysterical demonizations you attribute to them, is that you can then begin to have a discussion.

    I, for one, agree with them that procreation is very important to society, and it is special, and unlike the irrational left who refuse to admit it, I recognize that only heterosexual couples are capable of procreating. And therefore I recognize the entire effort of trying to claim marriage as a civil right as patently ridiculous. And the courts have agreed with me, all across the country. Even right here in my very own VERY blue state.

    So then we can begin to have a discussion based on fact, rather than on irrational emotion. Yes, straight and gay couples are inherently different simply for biological reasons. But if the entire purpose of the institution of marriage is to encourage something that is good for society then doesnt it also follow that society should encourage gay relationships as well? For while we may not be able to procreate in our relationships, we can raise children and that is of great benefit to society, our caring for one another is also of great benefit to society, encouraging gay men in particular to enter into monogamous relationships rather than the promiscuity that has resulted from being shunned from civil society, and lastly encouraging gay society to meld with society–to come into the mainstream– rather than living off in its own sub-culture where promiscuity and drug use are rampant is also good for society.

    Those are all excellent reasons why society should encourage gay marriage, and they have the added benefit of not being blatantly, laughably false–as is the argument that gay relationships are the same as straight relationships. And when you look people in the face and tell them something theyve known as a biological fact since 4th grade is not true, how on Earth do you expect them to take you seriously?

  7. —–No. You have to look at his body of work and the actions of his subordinates—–

    In summation: because we said so. Dammit. “Everyone knows it”, after all.

  8. Fred Thompson’s position Teh Ghey marriage:

    Thompson believes that states should be able to adopt their own laws on marriage consistent with the views of their citizens.

    He does not believe that one state should be able to impose its marriage laws on other states, or that activist judges should construe the constitution to require that.

    If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states.

    Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

    Quite reasonable. And therefore certain to piss off extremists on both ends of the issue.

  9. I understand a Conservative’s desire to spread the rumor of Rove’s ability to affect the political, everywhere, concerning everything, at any time. It’s kinda fun.
    What I don’t understand is a Lefty’s desire, as shown by gil and Tano above, to accept as fact that Rove can affect the political, everywhere, concerning everything, at any time without having the slightest bit of evidence, only anecdotes. Is the need for a bogeyman that strong on the Left?
    Perhaps what it comes down to is simply the inability of the Lefties to understand that conservatives don’t really need a Rove to tell them which way to vote. When those on the Left become so accustomed to exchange critical thinking for taking marching orders from, say, a MoveOn.org spokesperson, it apparently becomes second nature to think that everyone on the Right must also have an equivalent Pied Piper, and Rove fits the bill.
    Whatever gives them solace, I guess.

  10. In the wake of the departure of Karl Rove from the White House, I’ve been trying to find evidence to back up the “conventional wisdom” that the man whom the president called the architect of his 2004 re-election victory encouraged putting “marriage referenda on state ballots” in order to increase evangelical turnout and thus guarantee the president victory that year.

    In response, we learn:

    It sounds to me like you are looking for a Rove Manifesto. You won’t find that from someone who utilizes the whisper campaign.

    So! That settles it: Conventional Wisdom reigns supreme and the premise is a flawed waste of time, because the devil-dog Rove leaves no tracks.

    I’m impressed! For a brief moment there, I thought there might be brush with logic about to be committed.

  11. Great piece, oddly full of reasoned political discourse. Who does that?

    Tano, your personal hatred of all things conservative would seem to be out of place in such an environment, but God bless, and I hope that repeated exposure to peaceful discussion will take the edge off.

    It helps me when the devil is whispering in my ear! As a straight, politically conservative, white male (arghh!) Christian, I hope I can come here and play in your sandbox sometimes.

  12. You have to look at his body of work and the actions of his subordinates

    Are you sure you want to suggest that? If one did so, one would quickly find that the liberals are full of absolute, steamy BS.

    For some strange reason you are trying to be protective of the people who despise you,

    Really? I’ve not seen where Will has been protective of liberals. Help me out here.

  13. Will, you posted what I was thinking. Clearly gay marriage is a hot button issue. So many people in many different States started reacting to the lawsuits coming their way.
    For some strange reason, lefties feel this couldn’t have happened without some nefarious directive from above, i.e. Karl Rove.

    Those of us with a little common sense realize that we live in a democracy. When things start happening that a large segment of the population doesn’t like. Some of them will do the democratic thing, and get an initiative on the ballot in their State. Since many of these people feel very threatened by these lawsuits, their initiative tend to be more restrictive than most people want – ie, no rights for civil unions, not just anti gay marriage.

    California is an interesting case. There was an anti Gay marriage initiative which passed in the mid 90s. At the same time, there is a domestic partner provision in the law, that affords gay couples many of the rights of a civil union. I personally know couples who have taken advantage of this.

    And no, Karl Rove is not behind every ‘evil’ initiative or law that happens across our great nation.
    I am hoping that some reasonable person actually does respond to Dan with evidence, I’m getting fed up with people who make their statements without any back up, it’s time we saw some evidence.

  14. Especially, Tano, since it’s the liberals who have given us the most anti-gay legislation and NOT the Republicans. But the liberals get on their knees for you and tell you how much they love you and everything else you want to hear so you just turn a blind eye to the knives in your back because they make your toes curl.

    Long story short, you’re suffering from Battered Liberal Syndrome. Gay liberals remind me of women who are beaten by their husbands, but refuse to leave them because “he loves me”. Saw it many many times in my years of EMS.

    “He loves me!”
    “But he just shoved you through a window”.
    “But, but, but” Yeah whatever.

  15. Liberals abuse gays? Do you really want to make that argument? Obviously, you’re not prone to giving this issue any serious thought. It’s the Republicans who associate themselves with the anti-gay right. If you’re not going to engage in thoughtful discourse, why bother? You”re wasting space.

  17. Really, Paul?

    Can you explain why HRC and its leaders Hilary Rosen and Joe Solmonese endorsed and supported FMA supporters Harold Ford, Jr. and Inez Tenenbaum?

    Can you explain why Howard Dean, head of the “friendly” Democrat Party, appeared on The 700 Club to tell Pat Robertson and his audience that they “share your values” — and then made it clear that the Democrat Party platform is truly antigay?

    Can you also explain why Howard Dean fired a gay employee for the fact that that employee’s partner suggested that the Dems cut back on the homophobia?

    Can you explain why HRC and the Democrat Party all supported John Kerry and called his actions and positions “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” — even as he supported state constitutional amendments and proudly proclaimed he had “the same position” as President Bush on gay issues?

    And, most importantly, can you and your fellow gay Democrats explain why you gave these people tens of millions of dollars before, after and during these actions mentioned?

    What would you call someone who demands you give them money to show them how much you care about them, then slaps you and spits on you after they get it?

    And before you start equivocating about how so and so is “better”, not good enough; you and your fellow Democrats have made it clear that NOTHING a Republican ever does that is in the least bit antigay can be excused and that the entire party is condemned by the actions of one.

  18. To describe George Soros as a “Nazi Profiteer” is slanderous and a bold face lie.

    Or so shriek the people who seemingly have no problem with the Pope being described that way, even though Soros has more connection, especially given that he began the process of currency trading that has led to his enormous wealth in the economic dislocations that took place as a result of the Nazis, and he did actually work for the Nazis as a messenger.

  19. GPW: I think this what you are looking for…

    Ask 365Gay.com (part of LOGO Online) to source this quote from a recent article on Rove’s resignation. The link is listed below.

  20. Oops, tried to do a block quote and I messed it up.

    Lets try this again…

    In the summer of 2004, Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican, told reporters that the White House was encouraging Republicans in the state to support an anti-marriage amendment to the Ohio state constitution.

    According to Blackwell, White House political aides, including Rove, argued that supporting such amendments would benefit turnout for the Republican ticket.

    http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/08/081307rove.htm

  22. Chase, that’s the closest anyone has come to finding a source to document this, but it’s secondhand. Not only that, we have Blackwell saying Rove encouraged Republicans to support the amendment (as it would drive turnout) rather than claiming the president’s oft-demonized political aide to be responsible for putting such amendments on state ballots.

    Thanks for providing the link and quoting appropriately. It is something, but still doesn’t show that Rove was behind the amendments. Thus, we still have yet to find anything to substantiate the “conventional wisdom” mentioned in the post.

  23. I find it interesting that the party of the Clintons finds everyone else so devious and dishonest. Constantly accusing Republicans of things that they actually did. The Clintons made famous the ‘war room”, spinning everything to benefit the Clintons whether truthful or not. They threw out so many daily accusations that no one could keep up with putting out the fires. The MSM marveled at their masterey of “politics”. I don’t recall it being called for what is was, dirty and win at all costs politics.
    How can stacks of “missing” documents suddenly appear in the White House? Who unfairly fired travel office folks then implyed they were rotten emoloyees. Come on. When others play as the Clintons do, the republic is in danger. Leftists hate Rove because he beat them in 00 and 04. The rubes from Texas beat the glorified leftists. It still sticks in the craw.

  24. Oh another thing. Republicans are horrible because they use gay marriage as a wedge issue? For 27 years the Democrats have used Social Security as a wedge issue scaring the hell out of seniors. As I recall While Republicans had control of Congress from ’94-06
    S. Security wasn’t cut, actually a prescription drug benefit was added. According to the MSM and Democrats the Republican Congress with Rove’s help, was going to accomplish horrific things. Kick old people out of their homes, starve children, put gays in concentration camps, go back to back alley abortions, and send blacks and hispanics back to cotton farming. Wonder what happened? I love it when I hear Olbermann talk about Pres Bush and the republicans always trying to scare people about terrorism.

  25. Look at this essay that Markos A.C. Moulitsas submitted to his campus newspaper, the “Northern Star,” at Northern Illinois University in 1993:

    Military Right

    Published on: Monday, January 25, 1993

    It’s truly disturbing how much ado has been made over Bill Clinton’s campaign promise to lift the ban on homosexuals from the U.S. military. It’s ironic how it has taken a president who has never served in the military to make a promise that affects the military in such a negative manner.

    Those who have served in the military, such as myself, understand the demands and pressures of military life are incompatible with allowing integration with homosexuals. I’m neither socially conservative or prejudiced, and neither is liberal columnist Mike Royko, Gen. Colin Powell, and influential liberal Democrats Sam Nunn and Les Aspin, all who’ve come out against lifting the ban.

    Under military circumstances, as much has to be done as possible to focus the unit’s mission and keep disciplinary problems to a minimum. Worrying about whether the known homosexual sleeping next to you is watching as you change your underwear may seem trivial as you read this, but to the soldier who’s short-tempered after three weeks in the field and four hours of daily sleep, it becomes a matter of great importance to his pride and sensibilities. And in any case, there aren’t many people who would change clothes in a group of co-workers if members of the opposite sex were in the same room watching. There is something inherently uncomfortable about it.

    Such fears would go a long way in disrupting efficiency and morale in a unit.

    MARKOS C.A. MOULITSAS

    Undecided

    Freshman

    Phillis Schaffly couldn’t have said it better!

  26. Well, if you’re looking for a direct quote from Rove that lays bare his strategy, you won’t find it. He has made it clear part of their strategy was to drive evangelicals to the polls. The gay marriage amendments did that. Coincidence?

    My guess is that many journalists have had such second hand sources for their stories. But obviously if you’re not going to give much weight to statements made by the former Secretary Of State for Ohio, then you’re just wasting everyone’s time with this blog entry.

    Look, the media statements are not untrue. Rove aimed to win an election by exploiting people’s prejudice. It’s not like it’s the first time Republicans have done that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

    And one day in the distant future, long after Mr. Rove and his gay baiting have left the political stage, some future Republican will again be giving a variation on this theme: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x.htm

    For an apology is in order. It just won’t come from Mr. Rove.

  27. Liberals abuse gays? Do you really want to make that argument? Obviously, you’re not prone to giving this issue any serious thought. It’s the Republicans who associate themselves with the anti-gay right. If you’re not going to engage in thoughtful discourse, why bother? You”re wasting space.

    The liberals have given us the most anti-gay legislation all the while blowing smoke up your arse.

    Defense of Marriage Act – Liberals
    Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell – Liberals
    Texas Sodomy Law – Liberals

    Liberals – 3 (at least), Republicans – 0

    Now who’s wasting space here? Nevermind. If you’re not going to engage in thoughtful discourse, don’t bother.

    Oh and Gene, the Clintoon “War Room” was mostly Paul Begala, Harold Ickes and James Carville all of whom are more divisive than Rove could possibly dream of being.

  29. Sure Chase. I’m sure Rove encouraged Dean to go nuts.

    He’s just a fall guy for the colossal failures of the libs and will probably remain so until he dies. After all, when the libs fail, they fall all over themselves to blame everybody and everything else and never take responsibility (look that one up in your Funk & Wagnall’s) for themselves.

  30. The liberals have given us the most anti-gay legislation all the while blowing smoke up your arse.

    The Democratic leadership was not “liberal” when the rank and file was dominated by a bunch of southern bigots (example: Virgil Goode). But now those southern Democrats are all Republicans. Look the Southern Strategy worked! HA!

    With the new Democratic Party in control of Congress, the south has less political power than at any time since the Civil War.

    This is not Zell Miller’s Democratic Party anymore.

  31. Silly Chase.

    First, two names: Heath Shuler and Lincoln Davis. Look them up — and the other members of the Blue Dog Democrats.

    Second, think about this fact; if they lose, Pelosi gets knocked out of power, but if their districts and their antigay stances are placated, she stays in power.

    Furthermore, she knows that, no matter what she and the other Democrats do, you and your fellow Democrat gays will keep shoveling money and support at them.

    So guess what she’s going to do? Placate them, and let you continue to debase yourself by rationalizing your support of homophobic actions.

  32. Chase in #26, reviewed the Wikipedia piece on the Southern Strategy and find it twists things pretty seriously.

    As to Rove’s strategy, if you’d read the post, you’d see that if the goal of the initiatives was to help the president, they didn’t have the desired effect.

  33. #32

    I would say GROSSLY. Another steaming pile by the libs.

    #30

    The Democratic leadership was not “liberal” when the rank and file was dominated by a bunch of southern bigots

    Even if what you said weren’t completely asinine, what does that have to do with the current crop of liberal homophobes who worship at the Daily Kook altar? What you’re doing is trying to deflect attention away from the racist and homophobic liberals of today by claiming some bastardized notion that all democrats became Republicans.

    Even if your cute link were infalliable, Whoopti-frickin’-doo! The democrats became Socialist, Communist, racist, sexist bigot homophobes. Not only that, most of them are the rich, elitist, effite snobs that clowns like you pretend to abhor.

    You are right though. They ain’t Zell Miller’s democrats anymore. That crowd would be physically sickened by the dispicable bastards that call themselves “democrats” today. They aren’t democrats by any stretch of the imagination. What we have today, at one point in time, used to be enemies of this country and that’s why I refuse, if possible, to call them democrats. Some of us can still recognize the enemy no matter how much sheep’s clothing (centrist, moderate) they wear.

    And guess what, sunshine, you’re one of them. Or at the very, very least, a useful idiot.

    BTW, you’d have an easier time connecting Rove to the marriage referenda than convincing me that liberals aren’t the enemies of gay America.

  36. The Democratic leadership was not “liberal” when the rank and file was dominated by a bunch of southern bigots (example: Virgil Goode). But now those southern Democrats are all Republicans. Look the Southern Strategy worked! HA!

    absolutely 100% flat wrong.

    the overwhelming majority of Dixiecrats returned to the Democrat party, and remained there. Grand Dragon Robert Byrd–also referred to by Democrats as the “Conscience of the Senate”. Al Gores father for another, both of whom fillibustered the civil rights act, several top officials in the Carter administration, and many, many more–all of them Democrats to the end. Was Carter not liberal? What about Robert Kennedy who illegally wiretapped MLK? Kennedys arent liberal enough for you? what about LBJ who referred to MLK as “that nigger preacher”? and on and on right up to the current leadership. Also, you may want to research Al Gore’s relationship with Fred Phelps before you embarass yourself any further.

  37. Interesting that only now the right says anecdotes from associates/subordinates do not “count” as evidence. OK
    His regular meetings with Dobson and other extremist groups were just social calls and not discussion on electoral strategy. That’s fine.
    Then after those SAME EXTREMEISTS talked about how important gay marriage was after election, still not good enough. Sure.

    Keep your head in that sand pal.

  39. Mhm….so Gil has an embolism over meetings with Dobson, but calls it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when his party head openly panders to and claims that Democrats share “common ground” with these folks.

    Now,if Gil and his fellow Democrat leftists were consistent, they would immediately denounce the Democrat Party as homophobic and evil, and they would insist that all Democrat politicians are antigay bigots.

    But watch as they spin for why Democrats doing exactly the same thing as they claim Republicans are doing is “pro-gay” and not wrong at all.

  43. Someone asked:

    Is the need for a bogeyman that strong on the Left?

    Well, let’s see. We’ve had such great claims as:

    “Bush wants to steal your money from your 401(K)!”

    “Bush wants to destroy Social Security!”

    “Bush only goes to war for oil!”

    “Bush wants to make the elderly starve to death!”

    “Bush wans to go into the schools and personally take little Billy’s lunch from him!”

    “Support for Bush = support for burning black churches!”

    “If you support Bush, you support dragging black men to their deaths!”

    “Bush creates and controls (pick one) hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, tsunamis, wildfires etc.!”

    “Bush blew up the levees just so he could kill all the blacks!”

    “Bush created hurricane Katrina just so he could kill all the blacks!”

    “Bush wants to destroy Medicare!”

    “Bush only gives tax cuts to the rich!”

    “Vote for Bush and he’ll reinstate the draft!”

    Oh and the biggest bogeyman of them all:

    “Man made” global warmism.

    So yes, there is a need for the fear card, race card, class card etc. If it weren’t for that, there wouldn’t be a thing anybody would vote for liberals on.

  44. I know the Francis Holland stuff is off-topic here, but – I can’t help saying – it’s fascinating.

    Red-on-red violence. It’s a net good when terrorists do it, and equally so when U.S. moonbats (verbally) do it 🙂

    If it’s true that Kos comes from a wealthy, aristocratic background… well… he wouldn’t be the first. It wouldn’t surprise me. (Limousine liberals, anyone? Champagne socialists?)

  47. Gil, allow me to educate you… It is entirely possible for a politician to meet with a constituent or even a public leader with whom they share a common goal, without that politician being responsible for said person having the goal or doing something about it.

    For example, there have been many pro gay marriage/domestic partnership laws on the ballots in recent elections, there have been many anti-smoking initiatives on the ballots…and many Democrat politicians believe in these causes and probably met with people in the states who were also supportive of them, but that doesnt mean it was the Democrat politicians who got the initiatives on the ballots.

    Do try to use your brain, God gave it to you for a reason.

  49. #27 Chase writes: “Look, the media statements are not untrue. Rove aimed to win an election by exploiting people’s prejudice. It’s not like it’s the first time Republicans have done that.”

    Do I understand that if there is an honest disagreement among citizens, gay or straight, as to what constitutes marriage that one side is “right” and the other side is “prejudiced”?

    For the sake of common sense let us debate the core issue: What is the compelling reason for the state to regulate marriage? Methinks, most libs don’t want to have that discussion.

  50. Will – I think you are being a tad naive.
    What do you think they talked about in those REGULAR conference calls? (not a meet and greet)
    Bible study? Maybe
    John Goodman’s magical ability to turn me on despite being a fat slob? Probably not
    Strategies to keep Bush in the white house? Undoubtedly yes.
    Implementation of those strategies? Certainly yes.

    In my football playing days, if we had a strategy that worked, we yuked about it afterwards.
    Just like Dobson and the rest of those dingbats bragging about how important gay marriage was to putting Bush back in the white house.
    It was a strategy discussed and formulated in those conference calls, that did not have to work everywhere; it just had to bring out the fear of Sodom and Gomorrah

  55. You might also nail down that, at Bill Clinton’s urging, John Kerry endorsed at least one, and perhap two, state anti-gay marriage amendments. It might be in Newsweek’s long Nov. 2004 election post mortem.

  56. Thank You GPW for providing a good forum for this topic. I cannot answer your challenge…despite trying. It’s scary sometimes seeing how out of 51 responses only number 21 was paying attention…and struggling to meet GPW’s challenge at the same time. Perhaps we should create “Response” and “Rhetoric” and “Smart but Distracted” categories for these debates? It would save me some editing-on-the-fly effort…lol…This example would have one entry in the former column…number 21. The latter two would be packed with the remaining 51.

    Hang in there GPW…at least one person was paying attention!!!

  59. YAY!! POWERLINE recognized you!! You. Are. Fabulous!! Go back to bashing gay people and see who else links to you!

    we’re not bashing gay people, we’re bashing idiocy. That so much idiocy comes from people who also happen to be gay is unfortunate, but surely you wouldnt have us discriminate based on sexual orientation, would you?

  60. Will – I think you are being a tad naive.

    Let’s see… you vote for a party that doesnt support gay marriage, signed DOMA into law, instigated dont ask dont tell, and passed anti sodomy laws and tells you they support you.

    The two presidential candidates have identical positions on gay marriage and you call one a homophobe and the other pro-gay, because he assures you he is….

    You associate yourself with a party that “tolerates” you as long as you agree with them, and visciously attacks you based on your sexuality if you dont

    and you think a position that is supported by an overwhelming number of Americans, including nearly a majority of Democrats, and think it takes an evil mastermind to get it on the ballot when people are trying to force gay marriage through the courts….

    And you call me naive? perhaps you ought to look the word up.

  63. Bill Clinton suggested that Kerry support several state marriage initiatives. Kerry did not do so, though he did support a constitutional amendment in Massachusettes. Kerry’s position on the issue made no sense.

    That said, the effort to marginalize gays for political gain in this instance came from Republicans – and Karl Rove was a big part of this. I’ve emailed you a source who verified to me that Rove would encourage people to push this issue during the 2004 campaign.

    There was clearly a split among the Bush people on this – Maria Cino and Andrew Card and Dick Cheney would have been counselling against this – and Cheney publicly stated he differed with the President on this issue.