Archive for February 2004
From the Bush campaign:
You don’t have to look far to discover how John Kerry’s policies would hurt Ohio workers and put the brakes on our economic recovery.
Did you know Sen. Kerry’s bill to increase CAFE standards to 36 mpg by 2015 would kill 100,000 jobs in the automotive industry, according to a study by Penn State University? And did you know that Kerry has called for reductions in 18 weapons systems, the same systems that are winning the War on Terror today, including the M1 Abrams Tank, maintained in Lima, OH?
Look beyond the rhetoric to discover the truth about John Kerry. His record of cutting defense spending, his calls to raise taxes, and his plans for increased regulations would cost Ohio workers jobs and turn America back to the tired, failed policies of the past.
The text of the speech is here.
First off, no matter what people may have you believe, he did not endorse the FMA, he did not endorse H. J. RES. 56 or S. J. RES 26 which have been introduced in Congress. He called for AN amendment, but not any particular amendment. He never endorses any particular wording for the amendment. No mention is made of the troublesome “legal incidents thereof”. He doesn’t say civil unions should be banned at the same time. In fact, he actually says it should protect marriage while leaving the door open for other arrangements like civil unions.
The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.
Secondly, he addresses how this isn’t necessarily an action against states’ rights.
The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state’s definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.
Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage. Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.
I believe… that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s my belief. If the amendment provides for partnership and civil union… that would be a good amendment.
Keeping in mind the President’s “free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage” belief, would anybody care to point out how Kerry’s position differs from that of President Bush.
I expect not, but since President Bush is a conservative some have no problem distorting his stance and calling him a bigot.
It’s been pointed out that the clip I was working off of above for Senator Kerry’s quote was actually in reference to a hypothetical Massachusetts amendment. That would mean that Kerry is taking a more states
Blackfive has information on the Ohio Patriot plan, legislation introduced in Columbus that would protect reserve and national guard members on active duty outside the state. Word is that it may die in committee though, so Blackfive suggests contacting Representative Peter Ujvagi and expressing your support.
From Congressman Greg Meeks on Hannity and Colmes: “The Bush administration’s greatest nightmare was John Kerry becoming nominee.”
I think the administration has a few things that worry them more than the thought of running against John Kerry.
“The other party’s nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group with diverse opinions: for tax cuts and against them; for NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement] and against NAFTA; for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act; in favor of liberating Iraq and opposed to it. And that’s just one senator from Massachusetts.”
Mickey Kaus is wondering why nobody’s making an issue out of the non-release of Kerry’s records.
I give Kerry points for his Vietnam service. But since it (along with some plug-n-play Shrum rhetoric) is almost the entirety of his campaign for president, can it really be true that he hasn’t authorized release of his military records? Does he think this is a defensible position? … Hello, Edwards! Get somebody to demand the release, like tomorrow, before Kerry wises up and realizes he can’t say “no” (i.e. while there’s still a chance he’ll initially stonewall, thus dragging out the story in the days before the March 2 primaries.)
This week’s Carnival of the Bush Bloggers is up over at Blogs for Bush.