Which, if we’re to take him seriously, makes Snitch’s support of George W. Bush and Company a total mystery.
Would someone point out to the befuddled gentleman that Al Gore, not Bill Clinton, ran against George W. Bush in the 2000 election? Moreover those “sick of his dishonesty in the Monica Lewinsky affair” were scuzzy Beltway whores like Sally Quinn, not actual everyday Americans like Pravda‘s readers.
Howard Kurtz: As you say, it’s been in print a lot, but there aren’t that many opportunities to mention it to the president. He doesn’t do many interviews and doesn’t hold many news conferences.
A nice dodge. But then only a nanosecond later. . .
Howard Kurtz: The interview, as I reported last week, was suggested by Bush, and Communications Director Dan Bartlett called NBC, which was happy to oblige. I think if you look at the transcript you’ll see many instances in which Russert followed up, but by choosing to devote the first 33 minutes to Iraq and terrorism, he didn’t leave himself much time for sustained follow-up on domestic issues. By the way, Bush will probably have to do more interviews over the course of the year, and then there are the debates.
So which is it, Howie? “Doesn’t do many interviews” or “Bush will probably have to do more interviews over the course of the year, and then there are the debates” ? How many opportunities will Dubbya get to lie to us? And how will you spin it when he does?
And Speaking of Dubbya Lies —
The subject of contracts and gay marriage came up while the lawmaker, Rep. Jim DeMint, was traveling with the president and the rest of the South Carolina Republican delegation on Air Force One last week. He described the conversation, first reported in the new issue of Time magazine, as politicians shooting the breeze rather than an in-depth policy discussion.
Responding to questions on Sunday about the Time article, Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, said: “States, through their contract law, have the ability to address some of the issues that advocates of gay marriage are raising, such as hospital visitation rights and insurance benefits and the ability to pass on one’s estates to another. What the president has said is that he strongly believes in the sanctity of marriage, so that’s what he is saying.”
Buchan noted that civil contracts were available to heterosexual couples as well.
Recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, a Canadian court and the top court in Massachusetts have pushed the administration into a delicate balancing act.
Conservative groups are lobbying the White House to endorse a constitutional amendment defining marriage as something that can take place only between a man and a woman. At the same time, the White House wants to appear empathetic with gays who tell of hospitals forbidding them to visit partners on their deathbeds.
Isn’t that nice they’re so concerned about us once we’ve Bought the Farm ?
But not so fast. As anyone who survived the first onsluaght of the AIDS epidemic knows, such contracts aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. A blood relative with a reasonably intelligent lawyer can break it like a breadstick, leaving the “longtime companion” out in the cold with nothing.
Only the contract that is Marriage really counts.
But we can’t have gays and lesbians encroaching on such “sanctity” can we?
No that’s for the likes of Neal Bush — a man who didn’t let “sanctity” get in the way of his contracting genital herpes from third world sex workers, as revealed in his (doubtless sanctified), divorce.
But we don’t want to shoot that breeze, do we?