GEORGE
W.
BUSH
has
rewarded
his
campaign
manager
Ken
Mehlman,
who
executed
the
divisive
strategy
this
president
rode
to
re-election,
by
naming
him
to
head
the
Republican
National
Committee.
The
sexual
orientation
of
Mehlman,
who
is
38
and
unmarried,
has
long
been
the
subject
of
speculation,
and
he
refused
to
answer
earlier
this
year
when
asked
directly
by
this
publication
whether
he
or
other
top
Bush
campaign
staffers
are
gay.
The
announcement
raises
mixed
emotions
for
me.
I
have
known
Ken
since
we
were
both
law
students
and
he
worked
for
me
at
the
Harvard
Journal
of
Law
&
Public
Policy,
a
libertarian/conservative
law
review.
As
young
Washington
attorneys
in
the
early
‘90s,
we
even
joined
with
others
to
create
an
organization
called
Square
One
that
advocated
limited
government.
There
are
plenty
of
reasons
for
Ken’s
success.
He
is
über-bright,
extremely
personable,
and
as
dedicated
as
he
is
ambitious.
Tapped
to
head
the
majority
political
party
before
he
even
turns
40,
Ken
has
obviously
mastered
the
art
of
politics,
learning
at
the
feet
of
the
master,
his
mentor
Karl
Rove.
But
the
real
disappointment
for
me
comes
at
the
path
Ken
has
taken
to
find
such
success.
I
have
not
spoken
to
Ken
in
a
decade,
and
I
have
no
personal
knowledge
about
his
sexual
orientation,
but
whether
or
not
he
is
gay,
he
has
ridden
to
success
on
the
coattails
of
a
candidate
who
betrayed
the
core
principles
that
we
both
stood
for
as
young
political
activists.
We
believed
in
a
government
that
should
stay
out
of
our
pocketbooks
and
out
of
our
bedrooms.
George
W.
Bush
has
certainly
steered
clear
of
our
wallets
—
enacting
tax
cut
after
tax
cut
—
but
he
has
failed
to
curb
pork
barrel
spending
and
even
created
giant
new
entitlements.
The
combination
has
converted
a
record
surplus
into
a
record
deficit
and
dug
the
government’s
grubby
hands
into
the
pocketbooks
of
generations
to
come.
Even
more
fundamentally,
the
Bush
campaign
under
the
strategic
direction
of
Rove
and
Mehlman
used
divisive
social
issues
—
including
gay
marriage
—
to
drive
deep
cultural
wedges,
just
to
turn
out
the
evangelical
vote.
These
GOP
“values
voters”
do
not
believe
in
a
limited
government,
at
least
when
it
comes
to
taking
sides
in
the
culture
wars.
They
expect
the
government
to
impose
their
particular
theological
views
on
the
country
—
and
in
so
doing
deprive
a
minority
group
the
basic
equality
guaranteed
by
the
Constitution
and
the
freedom
promised
by
the
Declaration
of
Independence.
KEN
WOULD
PROBABLY
respond
that
the
president
didn’t
pick
gay
marriage
as
an
issue;
that
“activist
judges”
imposed
their
own
cultural
values
on
Massachusetts
by
requiring
the
state
to
issue
marriage
licenses
to
gay
couples.
But
marriage
is
a
peculiar
institution,
in
which
the
government
has
chosen
to
create
a
bundle
of
protections
and
benefits
for
the
committed
adult
couples
who
form
the
core
of
the
American
family.
Having
created
the
institution,
a
limited
government
that
respects
the
First
Amendment
prohibition
on
establishing
a
state
religion
cannot
listen
to
one
particular
theological
dogma
in
deciding
which
couples
will
qualify
—
whether
or
not
that
dogma
belongs
to
a
vital
party
constituency
or
even
a
majority.
Ken
Mehlman
should
understand
that,
whether
or
not
he
is
gay.
If
he
is
gay,
like
a
number
of
other
prominent
Republican
National
Committee
staffers,
then
shame
on
my
old
friend
for
betraying
himself
and
his
people,
along
with
his
youthful
values
—
and
all
for
an
entirely
different
brand
of
conservatism,
one
that
envisions
an
invasive
government
strong-arm
at
the
expense
of
personal
liberty.
THE
DEMOCRATS
AREN’T
much
better.
They
ran
fast
and
furious
away
from
our
issues
in
the
2004
election
and
somehow
still
managed
to
blame
us
for
their
defeat.
It
still
confuses
me
how
a
party
can
refuse
to
defend
us
before
the
general
public
and
still
claim
their
loss
is
our
fault.
Witness
Ken
Mehlman
and
Karl
Rove’s
counterpart
on
the
Democrat
side:
the
wily
James
Carville.
In
a
“Meet
the
Press”
appearance
that
included
a
piggish
crack
at
the
expense
of
New
Jersey’s
gay
governor
(see
“On
the
Record,
page
37),
Carville
sounded
almost
envious
when
he
described
the
Republicans’
electoral
advantage.
“The
purpose
of
a
political
party
in
a
democracy
is
to
win
elections,”
Carville
said.
“We’re
not
doing
that
well
enough,
and
…
I
think
we
have
to
confront
the
problem.
“By
and
large,
our
message
has
been,
‘We
can
manage
problems,’
while
the
Republicans
…
produce
a
narrative.
We
produce
a
litany.
They
say,
‘I’m
going
to
protect
you
from
the
terrorists
in
Tehran
and
the
homos
in
Hollywood.’
We
say,
‘We’re
for
clean
air,
better
schools,
more
health
care.’”
It’s
to
be
expected
that
a
consultant
like
Carville
sees
“winning
elections”
as
the
point
behind
political
parties,
but
in
reality
it’s
that
ultra-pragmatism
that’s
at
the
heart
of
the
Democrats’
problem.
The
reason
Republicans
have
“a
narrative”
and
not
a
“litany,”
as
Carville
puts
it,
is
that
they
know
what
they
stand
for
and
they
consistently
fight
on
those
principles.
So
long
as
Democrats
sacrifice
their
principled
stands
—
and
principled
candidates
—
at
the
altar
of
“electability,”
they
will
always
fall
short
in
the
narrative
department.
A
Democratic
Party
that
throws
out
principle
in
favor
of
electability
will
always
look
like
what
it
is:
the
amalgamated
product
of
focus
groups
and
opinion
polls,
forever
shifting
with
the
winds.
That
was
exactly
the
rub
on
John
Kerry,
...
