Buy WILLisms

XML Feed

Featured Entries

The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM

Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM

Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM

Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM

Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM

Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM

Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM

The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM

From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM

Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM

Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM

Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM

Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM



Blogroll Me!



July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004

Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008

Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008

The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006

Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008

Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007

Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006

A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006


Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori

WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):

The WILLisms.com Gift Shop: Support This Site


This Week's Carnival of Revolutions: carnivalbutton.gif

Carnival Home Base: homebase.gif


« Social Security Reform Thursday: Week Fifty-Six -- Shocking New Social Security Development. | WILLisms.com | Data Collection Demagoguery »

Quotational Therapy: Part 98 -- Howard Dean, On Gay Marriage.

One Man, One Woman, Eh?

This one's for the single-issue voters. I know you're out there. And you know who you are. I know you are as right-wing as right-wing comes, but you claim to be "liberal" because of this one issue. You even now vote for socialist Democrats just to stick it to the anti-gay GOP.

Again, this one is for you.


Howard Dean, pandering to values voters:

"The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says."

Oh, really, Howard? Because that's not what you've said in the recent past. Nor is it what the 2004 DNC platform said:

"We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a 'Federal Marriage Amendment.' Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart."

So the plan was/is to discretely slip support for gay marriage into the platform (that nobody reads), hope gays would take the bait, then have candidates go out and say what the overwhelming majority of Americans want to hear (marriage = 1 man + 1 woman)?


The GOP certainly has its flaws, but the Democratic Party is a hopelessly contradictory coalition of divergent interest groups (that usually don't even like each other). It constantly astounds me how the Democratic Party's mutually exclusive groups can put aside such stark differences and come together at election time.

And for what?

To be sold down the river when the going gets rough (and make no mistake, the polls are rough right now for both parties).

[Hat tip: A Stitch in Haste]

Previous Quotational Therapy Session:

Reagan Is Awesome

The right quote can be therapeutic, so tune in to WILLisms.com for quotational therapy on Monday and Friday.

Posted by Will Franklin · 12 May 2006 11:14 AM


I say let the liberals pander to the gays. This is not to say that conservatives or even Republicans would deprive anyone of their bill of rights. No where in the bill of rights does it say that two men or two women can marry and then collect social security money for the dead wife, which is what this eventually gets down to. Anyone can specify anyone else with power of attorney. I visited a hospital recently and their policy was that the person in the hospital could specify anyone as their person of interest.

Posted by: Chief RZ at May 12, 2006 11:44 AM


Are you offering to pay the legal fees of every gays couple who, unlike legally married couples, need to go through the hoops of a durable power of attorney?

If not, then you are a rank hypocrite when you say it's only about money.

Posted by: KipEsquire at May 12, 2006 12:38 PM

I'm gay and I never understood the blind loyalty most gays have toward the Democrat Party. Dean's statement is just one of many examples of the Dems talking out of both sides of their mouth on this issue.

I agree with Chief. I am not prohibited from marrying. I can marry any woman I want. Just because I don't want to marry a woman (my choice) doesn't mean I have been denied any rights.

Would I be upset if we passed a constitutional amendment allowing SSM? Hell no. Make it a right. It worked for women's suffrage even when women didn't get to vote for it.

Kip, I found an Durable Power of Attorney form for my state after about 2 seconds on Google. That hoop wasn't so big.

Posted by: John in IL at May 12, 2006 07:51 PM

Okay, try falling in love with a foreigner and bringing him into this country permanently. Then let's talk about hoops.

Posted by: KipEsquire at May 14, 2006 01:36 PM