Repost: National Security and Gay Marriage

Originally Posted September 3rd

The Mighty VodkaPundit writes an article about something I've been noodling on for an age - the Kerry Senate campaign memo in which he basically wanted to cancel just about every weapons program during the Reagan administration. This comes up again, as it served as the meat of Zell Miller's stemwinder on Kerry's defense stance. Snopes did a check on this, and, sadly missed the whole boat on this. Factcheck.org did a much better job of exploring this, while Slate's Fred Kaplan wrote one of the more disingenuous spin pieces I've seen in ages (it actually has gotten me so torqued that I find myself unable to write anything short or coherent in response).

At any rate, getting back to the point at hand, many folks have based their decision to vote for Kerry on his stance on domestic politics, although they do feel that Bush is (or may be) at least nominally stronger on national security issues. Now in these discussions, invariably two things come up - Bush's support of a gay marriage amendment, and Kerry's record on defense spending. Now, I personally feel that Bush's support for a gay marriage amendment as a purely tactical move that allows him to maintain the status quo. If he didn't support it, then folks against gay marriage might seek a less total means of pursuing their goal - as is, they will keep going for gold, although they would be better served going for bronze. In discussions of national security, the Kerry memo referenced in the above paragraph, as well as the subsequent kerfuffle, usually come up. In response, the Kerryists will often argue that, among other things, the events around the world will keep Kerry's possible actions pointed more or less the same direction as Bush would follow, should he be re-elected.

Fair enough. But I notice one thing: on one hand, one politician is being held accountable for something in his platform, but on the other hand, it is being argued that their opponent is somehow either a fanatic by holding them strictly accountable for all elements of their platform or by labeling them disingenuous for not adhering to their platform.

You’ll also notice that neither side has a monopoly on this tactic.

I’m just sayin’…