|
As for not being beholden to the religious right, he's already jumped right back on the same-sex marriage ban amendment train. As for a centrist Bush? I've read numerous articles in the media since the election musing that with the election past and being prohibited from seeking another term, Bush can do as he wishes, but as most of you know, it's not like that in politics. Just because he doesn't need votes any more, he's still beholden to those who put him there. And if he didn't repay them, they could make it more difficult for him to get his agendas passed. The social and religious conservatives are an extremely powerful force right now--as evidenced by the outcome of the election itself--and they will have sway over their representatives who can make it hard or easy for Bush in his second term.
Personally, given the erosion of civil liberties under Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, et. al., I am very concerned about the coming four years. Already I read an article about not just the conservatives' anti-abortion crusade but now their anti-contraception mission. If they want to promote abstinence, I don't think anyone's going to call that a poor approach. But it's the abstinence-only slant that I have a problem with.
This country is founded on certain freedoms, not on certain restrictions. People may choose to live as conservatively as they like, but don't legislate your narrow morality on the rest of the country. A 4 million vote margin out of 114 million votes does not grant the Right a mandate for that kind of oppression.
__________________
be the change you want
|