Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@28 February 2004 - 16:38
I don't see Bush's declaration of his position as "openness" so much as a very cynical political ploy.
It's convenient for Bush to now focus on this issue as it provides a very emotional, high-profile distraction from all his other political failures.
Bush has to be aware that a constitutional amendment like this has ZERO chance of actually passing.
For a man who professes to be a "great uniter", Bush is certainly fond of picking devisive issues to champion.
Pandering to the religious right makes a great deal of sense right now for Bush.
It keeps the campaign money flowing and turns attention away from the issues that he should be addressing and that he could actually positively influence.
When Nader stated his position ( as I mentioned before), he did it within 1 hour of declaring his candidacy, no waffling or prevaricating...testing the political waters before jumping off a fence. He just casually said yes, of course he was for it.
He has also stated that it is not/should not be a central issue in this campaign, as we currently face far more pressing issues.
I don't credit Bush with the same transparency of belief.
He has tried to play both sides as long as possible and now has decided that more political hay can be reaped by plunking down on the side of the religious/politically conservative right than by taking the middle road.
Ultimately, it's the individual states that will decide this issue.
And Bush knows it.
Have you considered "spin" as a career. Rather than praise the man for doing exactly what you ask of him, to clearly state his view on a given subject, you come up with various reasons why it was a bad thing for him to have done. Seems like a lose / lose to me, damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.