Democrat vs. Republican: Idealist and Cynic Collide
18 May 2006 4:07 pm by Taylor Marsh
 |
You knew it was bound to happen. After the censure motion Senator Feingold
put forth, Senator Specter was deeply incensed. It was Arlen vs. Russ on the Senate floor, never mind that the latter had left the former talking to himself. During
the NSA hearings the two locked horns again. But today, it all boiled over,
as the Democratic idealist collided head on with the rubber stamp Republican
cynic, a man who has caved to George W. Bush and the conservatives at every
turn.
It's a values voter smackdown. But then again, it all depends on your definition
of “values,” now doesn't it?
A Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage
Thursday, after a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and
the Republican chairman bid him “good riddance.”“I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of
the Constitution than am I,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter,
R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record) declared
his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his
intention to leave the meeting.“If you want to leave, good riddance,” Specter finished.
“I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman,” replied Feingold,
D-Wis., who is considering a run for president in 2008. “See ya.”Amid increasing partisan tension over President Bush's judicial nominees
and domestic wiretapping, the panel voted along party lines to send the constitutional
amendment — which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages
— to the full Senate, where it stands little chance of passing.Democrats complained that bringing up the amendment is a purely political
move designed to appeal to the GOP's conservative base in this year of midterm
elections. Under the domed ceiling of the ornate and historic President's
Room off the Senate floor, senators voted 10-8 to send the measure forward.
Democrats respect a woman's privacy, as well as a gay man or woman's Constitutional
right to have equal rights and opportunities that match what anyone else in
this country is afforded.
Democrats value all families. Republicans value only families who pass their
litmus test, or particular religious strictures.
Democrats value all races and creeds. Republicans want to felonize or send
home those people who don't pass their brand of American muster.
Democrats value life and the living, throughout ups and downs. Republicans value the unborn and the rich dead, but in between you're on your own, unless you own a corporation, stock or a trust fund.
Democrats respect the traditions of other nations. Republicans want to invade
other nations and implant our way of life in place of their heritage.
Democrats value and respect the Constitution as our Founding Fathers wrote
it and want it upheld. Republicans want to change our foundation because they are afraid and too weak to stand up to the changes brought about by modern life and unprepared to lead in modern ways.
True conservatives understand this, while the new Bush Republican Party does
not. Who will win? It won't be either brand of Republican, because the very
notion of conservatism has collapsed under the weakness of George W.
Bush.
Only one Republican senator — let us now praise New Hampshire's John Sununu
— voted for the measure to take the money for Alaska's “bridge to nowhere”
and spend it for Hurricane Katrina relief, and also voted against the Federal
Marriage Amendment (which would clutter the Constitution with the definition
of marriage as between a man and a woman). The former vote affirmed the value
of common sense; the latter, by opposing federal usurpation of the traditional
state responsibility for marriage law, affirmed the value of cultural federalism.
Is Sununu a values voter?McCain, who also opposes the marriage amendment (but supports an Arizona
initiative to define marriage there as between a man and a woman), says he
would have voted for the bridge-for-Katrina money swap, had he not been away
from the Senate that day. Perhaps he was out wooing values voters. Is he one?Attempts to assign values-seriousness can get complicated: Freedom and happiness
are valuable. Arguably, governmental actions that did much to increase freedom
and happiness in the past half-century were state laws liberalizing divorce.
These made important contributions to the emancipation of men and especially
women from mistaken marriages. Perhaps the most important of these laws —
it was among the most liberal and was in the most populous state — was signed
by a divorced governor, Ronald Reagan. What do socially conservative values
voters make of that ?Who
Isn't A 'Values Voter'? – George Will
