Hey--stop the madness!
I'm very uncomfortable with what I'm reading about the Massachusetts gay marriage issue being the turning point of this election. If this isn't "gay bashing," then what is it? Neither candidate came out for gay marriage, and even Bush eventually (a few days before the election) spoke in favor of civil unions. It's unfair to blame the election results on one issue, especially this one, which isn't really a divider along Republican/Democrat lines.
It's just another brick in the wall.
If I were to point one finger, it would be at Kerry's single-mindedness at the Demo convention. His military service is admirable, but long past, and he was blatantly using it as an oblique attack on Bush's service. But others have tried to use Bush's military service against him, but it has never worked as a good wedge issue before. Too many of us remember those days and have very complicated views. For example, I'm awed by Kerry's volunteering for Vietnam, but I fully support his protesting the war, also. And I support Bush's pulling of strings to avoid Vietnam--and I know that lots of people in high power didn't complete all their Guard commitment. It just doesn't work as a wedge issue.
And Kerry's insistence on featuring the Swift Boat team set the stage for the smear campaign that followed.
Kerry should have run on his *entire* record--it is a strong record of important issues. He has a good Senate record, and he could have done more explaining of the way senators vote--how votes are often about riders and pork, rather than the central issue of the bill.
In fact, why not spend more time explaining issues as a way to combat the knee-jerk slogans?
Back to the gay issue, it would be fairer to point a finger at Kerry and Edwards for bringing Cheney's daughter into the debates, which was also an oblique attack that didn't work well. Not enough people understood that Kerry was attacking the Bush team's hypocracy--they saw him "attacking" Mary Cheney for being gay (after all, people who think it's wrong to be gay are likely to read it that way).
But it was a narrow loss. Three percentage points on the popular vote. The same as Truman/Dewey.
It's just another brick in the wall.
If I were to point one finger, it would be at Kerry's single-mindedness at the Demo convention. His military service is admirable, but long past, and he was blatantly using it as an oblique attack on Bush's service. But others have tried to use Bush's military service against him, but it has never worked as a good wedge issue before. Too many of us remember those days and have very complicated views. For example, I'm awed by Kerry's volunteering for Vietnam, but I fully support his protesting the war, also. And I support Bush's pulling of strings to avoid Vietnam--and I know that lots of people in high power didn't complete all their Guard commitment. It just doesn't work as a wedge issue.
And Kerry's insistence on featuring the Swift Boat team set the stage for the smear campaign that followed.
Kerry should have run on his *entire* record--it is a strong record of important issues. He has a good Senate record, and he could have done more explaining of the way senators vote--how votes are often about riders and pork, rather than the central issue of the bill.
In fact, why not spend more time explaining issues as a way to combat the knee-jerk slogans?
Back to the gay issue, it would be fairer to point a finger at Kerry and Edwards for bringing Cheney's daughter into the debates, which was also an oblique attack that didn't work well. Not enough people understood that Kerry was attacking the Bush team's hypocracy--they saw him "attacking" Mary Cheney for being gay (after all, people who think it's wrong to be gay are likely to read it that way).
But it was a narrow loss. Three percentage points on the popular vote. The same as Truman/Dewey.
posted by Lynn Holleman Rudloff | 11:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home