Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Gay Marriage did not elect Bush

Old 11-07-04, 08:41 AM
DVD Talk God
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Transcript: Karl Rove, Senior Bush Adviser

This is a partial transcript of "Special Report With Brit Hume," Nov. 5, 2004, that has been edited for clarity.

JIM ANGLE, GUEST HOST: The president says heís going to now reach out to Democrats. Does that mean meeting them halfway or telling them where he stands and expecting them to fall in line?

KARL ROVE, SENIOR BUSH ADVISER: Well, look, this president, on No Child Left Behind ó the first major initiative in his first term ó reached out to Democrats, he had fundamental principles that had to be embodied in the bill, but he worked with the Democrats and found common ground and compromised and adopted some of their ideas as part of the bill and thatís the way the legislative process works.

ANGLE: The Democratic Party now seems to be in the midst of an agonizing reappraisal, people asking, did we have the wrong message, did we have the wrong candidate, did we not have the right strategy, what did we do wrong? The Republican Party has had its own identity crises in the past. Is that where the Democratic Party is now?

ROVE: Well, look, every time you lose an election, particularly a presidential election, particularly one that you thought was in the bag, the parties go through this kind of process. Itís frankly healthy. It causes people to argue about what does the party stand for, how should the party operate, who should the partyís leaders be. And sometimes that strengthens a party, sometimes it weakens a party, but itís a necessary part of life and to be expected.

ANGLE: Where do you expect the Democratic Party to go now, will it be clear until they get a new round of presidential candidates?

ROVE: Presidential candidates will have a great deal to do with it, but man, I barely understand Republicans and the American electorate. Don't expect me to understand Democrats.


ANGLE: We won't ask you to go that far.

ROVE: There we go. There are limits.

ANGLE: Now, the president won overwhelmingly with those who regularly attend religious services, and see moral values as an important part of their lives. Are Democrats out of touch on the issues that are of concern to those kinds of voters?

ROVE: Well, I think more importantly, the president is in touch. People of faith who are concerned about the coarseness of our society, about a culture that seems unfriendly to the vulnerable, the weak, and the young, who are concerned about there being a place in the public arena for people of faith, saw in the president somebody who shared their values. And so they responded to him accordingly.

ANGLE: Now some argue that the referenda in various states on gay marriage helped energize those kinds of voters. Is that the case?

ROVE: Well, I think it did in some degree, but that alone is not enough to win. For example, gay marriage referenda passed easily in Oregon and Michigan, states that we lost, while passing easily in states like Ohio and Arkansas that we won. I think itís much more complicated than just that one issue.

But look, the values were more important in this race than they've ever been, 16 percent traditionally consider moral issues or values to be the No. 1 issue in a campaign, this year it was 22 percent. Thatís a pretty significant jump.

ANGLE: Will the president press the issue now and push for a constitutional amendment defining marriage?

ROVE: Well, look, the president has this old fashioned notion that when you run on something in a campaign, you attempt to do it in office. He ran in 1999 and 2000 on a certain series of issues, and once in office, pursued each and every one of those issues. I think the American people can have confidence that he treats the things that he said in the campaign as significant promises and pledges, which he will now attempt to fulfill.

ANGLE: So the answer is yes?

ROVE: Absolutely.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-07-04, 08:26 PM
VinVega's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,684
Originally posted by rbbrew
Your discussion of the "morals issues" was very insightful, and I was thinking a couple of these things myself.

What of the Kerry voter who thought the war was immoral, and voted for Kerry to take a moral stand? The morality issue could cut both ways...
I was against the war, but for the life of me I couldn't understand the no vote on the 87 billion. I think it's a perfect opportunity to bitch and moan on the floor of the Senate, but in the end, what's done is done and the troops need the funds to rebuild the country, so you suck it up and vote yes. If I were voting, I would have voted no for the war and yes for the 87 billion. I didn't vote for Kerry to take a moral stand, I voted for him because he was running against the CIC who took us into a war that I thought was wrong. Kerry was actually my 3rd choice for the Dem representitive for President. My first choice was Clark (for the military angle), my 2nd was Edwards (for the Southern angle) and my 3rd was Kerry (because everybody else had dropped out of the race). Iowa and their crystal ball on "electability."
VinVega is offline  
Old 11-07-04, 08:32 PM
DVD Talk God
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Kerry would argue that he supported the majority of the supplemental which went for the prosecution of the war in Iraq - went for the troops. But, he didn't support the 22 billion or so dollars that went for the rebuilding of Iraq.

The Repubs played it smart. You had to accept or vote against the whole package.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-07-04, 09:15 PM
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Originally posted by classicman2
Kerry would argue that he supported the majority of the supplemental which went for the prosecution of the war in Iraq - went for the troops. But, he didn't support the 22 billion or so dollars that went for the rebuilding of Iraq.

The Repubs played it smart. You had to accept or vote against the whole package.
But they didn't have to play it that smart, because Kerry trapped himself by claiming in an interview that even if there were problems with the $87 billion package, that in the end it would be "unconscionable" not to vote for it for the troops. The reporter even asked him again, "so that means you will vote for the $87 billion?" And he said "Yes". Then, just a week or so later, he voted against it, because of "Howard Dean", as a Kerry aide told the New Yorker.

The guy simply had no core beliefs or value system, and the Repubicans didn't have to "paint" him that way - that's just who he was, and no amount of talking around it could extricate his candicacy from the fact that he'd taken a thousand different positions on a thousand different subjects.
natesfortune is offline  
Old 11-07-04, 10:39 PM
DVD Talk God
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Why didn't the Republicans separate the supplemental - one part for the war, the other part for the rebuilding of Iraq?

They could have easily done it?

Why didn't they

Reason: The rebuilding part of the supplemental would have been defeated if they separated the package.
classicman2 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.