Tonight’s topics: It was a day late, calculated, annoyingly nuanced, a bit weasely, but Obama still did the right thing on gay marriage today. Also, how to manipulate polls and a wee bit more on this. Listen by clicking here at 6pm. Call in at 877-653-8381
Recent Comments
Anonymous on Call Em Like I See Em conner43 on Call Em Like I See Em Propertius on Today’s Poll -Who Is The… Matt Cavanaugh on Call Em Like I See Em Matt Cavanaugh on Call Em Like I See Em Thank You!
Buy This Movie!
On the radio!
Obama did not do the right thing.
He did the politically expedient thing. For himself and only himself.
The right thing would be to announce he and his administration fully support and will work with Congress to advance legislation granting full Federal recognition of same sex marriage equal rights and that he’ll use the power of his Presidency to advocate for states granting same sex marriage rights.
That would be doing the right thing, the gist of which, btw, he first indicated in 1996 before he started evolving backwards.
What Obama did today was use gays as the next piece of his strategy to keep the conversation away from the economy and jobs and gas prices. He has absolutely no intention of doing anything to forward same sex marriage.
“What Obama did today was use gays as the next piece of his strategy to keep the conversation away from the economy and jobs and gas prices”
USE ME, oh hell yeah!!! Take a stand that half the nation doesn’t support and FUCKING USE ME! PLEASE!!! Damned Log Cabinites!!!
USE ME BABY, USE ME PLEASE
Yeah, I’m gonna spread the news, that if it feels this good being used, you just keep on using me, TILL YOU USE ME UP!!
Ahhh, Mouse is back. I suspected this story would bring you out to play. Welcome back, Bandita!
So predictable.
I agree with Johns take. Zal, how on earth is this politically expedient? I think it will hurt him politically, not help. Also I don’t at all understand how overanalyzing everything is going to add to your happiness. Most gays are happy about this event. The prez and vice prez of the USA have come out and endorsed gays and lesbians right to marry. There are still a lot of obstacles, but still think its a step in the right direction.
To believe this you have to believe he and Axelrod are idiots and have the worst political instincts, and strategy, in the world. He could’ve done this any time in 2009 or 2010 or 2011 but he does it in the middle of a campaign right after the GOP candidate was determined for sure, six months before election day. I could write a long paragraph about why this will help him, and will be happy to, but the timing and Obama/Axelrod’s political savvy alone supports my point.
I analyze events. It’s part of my nature. I remember doing it as early as when I was a little boy watching Lassie on TV. Would I be happier in a fool’s paradise? Maybe. But that’s not what I’m made of. Some things about ourselves, it’s best to accept and make the best of. And in truth my skill at analyzing people and events has benefitted me in more ways than not. But thanks for your concern.
I know. Most gays supported Obama and ridiculed those few of us who did not.
I’m not most gays. I’m me. And I’m right about Obama.
No they haven’t. Listen to what they said. Neither endorsed our right to marry.
“…But thanks for your concern.”
You’re welcome!
“I analyze events. It’s part of my nature. I remember doing it as early as when I was a little boy watching Lassie on TV.”
So, what was Lassie’s problem. Too much collar. fat ankles, dog breath? Really, Lassie?
There were different Lassies actually. We knew both trainers and I got to play with “gentle” Lassie when I was little. We were allowed to visit “fighting” Lassie also (different trainer) but not play with him. Just thought I’d explain that for the fun of it!
“I’m not most gays.”
Ain’t that the truth!!!!
“There were different Lassies actually. We knew both trainers and I got to play with “gentle” Lassie when I was little. We were allowed to visit “fighting” Lassie also (different trainer) but not play with him. Just thought I’d explain that for the fun of it!”
The mean Lassie vibe is probably the vibe PrimaDonis was picking up on. He’s such a sensitive man.
socal, nothing has changed in gays’ ability to marry. It still depends on every state’s laws. And, even if a state permits gay marriage, the married couple can’t get federal benefits and privileges, eg, immigration rights, monetary federal benefits, and the like.
I give Obama credit for being honest about his personal feelings — but that’s all he did…express his “personal” views. It’s not nothing, but it’s nothing substantive worth dancing in the streets about.
Oh, I know, there’s a long, long way to go. Sad we have to be so slow to evolve.
“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”
Not saying we are fools but I don’t like being played for one.
Obviously, she was bitch.
propertius, they were really males, all of them, and had their own names.
WHOA! Another show…two in two days? Bring it on.
Good show John. I’m going to listen to last nites later on.
Yes, great show, JWS.
Tamer’s deconstruction of the poll numbers is great to hear. Makes me feel optimistic about the potential for a Romney win. I’ve always suspected that pollsters weighted polls based on the inputs selected, but hadn’t quite understood how.
I can’t get my hands on Rasmussen’s raw data, but Gallup seems to be very careful about weighting party registration demographics. Fox polls are very precise, too. Ipsos has a reputation for giving the client whatever result they want. PPP is unabashedly pro-Dem, and skews samples something nasty. They always do one ‘honest’ poll before election day to claim objectivity. WaPo sample controls have been very sloppy. MSNBC is, well … MSNBC puts Josef Goebbels to shame.
Too bad for us, the only economy he’s interested in kickstarting is from our pockets into his own coffers.
“Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.” H. L. Mencken
As JWS noted in today’s show, at the end of the day, it’s all about the money.
Money in politics, never!!!!
It’s also about manipulating support and votes.
As you can already see here, and it’s all over Facebook and blog after blog after blog, as in 2008 gays are now pushing other gays to support Obama or be ridiculed and attacked. And a great many will fall in line.
I’ve said all along Obama will have a second term. And each step he takes along the way I point out: this is how he does it. Americans remain so eager to be fooled, he doesn’t even have to be subtle.
No, no…you misunderstood me, Mouse. Of course, there’s money in politics. I think all politicians do things for money. That Obama does/did in this instance surprises me not at all. And, I don’t judge him for it. I’m sure I’ve said this before, but let me reiterate: I have lower expectations of politicians than of other human beings.
barry’s living la vida loca! Breeders’ donations drying up, so let’s pander to the queers:
Ricky Martin to host obama fundraiser:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/04/25/ricky-martin-to-host-obama-fundraiser.html
Gay donors thrilled:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gay-donors-thrilled-by-obama-gay-marriage-stance-20120509,0,3170428.story
obama fundraisers focus on gay community:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/04/20/obama-fundraisers-focus-on-gay-community/
obama “crashes” gay fundraiser:http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-crashes-lgbt-fundraiser/473286
Weasel.
Tamerlane writes “barry’s living la vida loca! Breeders’ donations drying up, so let’s pander to the queers”
Queers? You need to reign it in Horse whisperer.
Everything barry brags about, from having his hand forced by Congress to sign the DADT repeal, the killing on ObL, to now being flushed out of the DL bushes by Biden, is reminiscent of nothing more than a three year-old boasting about having made an Aa-Aa.
ROFL on the “Aa-Aa.” You are the master of the turn of phrase.
You must admit though, Tamer, that the guy is crafty.
The Hive Queen in ALIENS was crafty, too.
Well then, where’s Sigourney/Ripley when we need her?!!
Mouse, I’d be interesting in your take about Obama’s announcement on gay marriage. Care to share?
Will wonders never cease?! NPR actually slams obama!
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/09/152330653/the-nation-obamas-phony-position-on-gay-marriage
Whoa! That’s unpredented. Must read link soon.
Actually Tamerlane, I think the link from NPR is to a Nation Article, not an NPR opinionator. But damn, I don’t want to rain on your parade.
It’s always a big deal when any POTUS makes a stand on a civil rights issue. Period. You may not be dancing in the streets, but a lot of us are.
This will be settled exactly like Jim Crow was settled, in the courts, not through legislation. After the courts settle this issue, then legislation to enforce the decision will happen.
I didn’t think I’d live long enough to hear any POTUS endorse gay marriage, particularly not in an environment where half the country is opposed and coming out the day after NC, with clear evidence of how that vote went down, knowing that he needs the swing states. It surprised the hell out of me. Just when I think I’ve seen it all, I haven’t.
Fair enough, Mouse. There is cause for happiness, no question about that. The analogy with how ‘Jim Crow’ laws were defeated is a good one.
Two things though:
1. Obama didn’t have to underscore the ‘state-rights’ point; he did it because it was politically beneficial for him. His statements on that point hurt the cause of marriage equality, however: they are going to be reiterated in the appellate arguments in the Prop-8 case and in the two, or so, other cases vending their way to the US Supreme Court. As you may recall, the Prop-8 supporters in CA repeatedly ran ads with vid clips of Obama saying he didn’t support gay marriage. As JWS noted in today’s show, it’s very possible that Prop-8 wouldn’t have passed if Obama had weighed in against Prop-8 (certainly, AfAms would’ve thought twice before voting for it).
2. I think he waited till after the vote in NC was in because he didn’t want his support of gay marriage to be ‘blamed’ if Amdmt. 1 went down. In other words, he was hedging his bets. He can still vy for the vote in NC, saying, “I don’t judge what you did, as such with Amdmt. 1 — I said it’s a matter of states’ rights.
NES. Again we will agree to disagree. There is absolutely no overarching national political advantage to this move. There is no way for this POTUS to legislate gay marriage in the current congressional environment or any congressional environment of my life. There are still blue dogs who do not and will not support gay marriage. Consequently, there is no way to pass legislation or a constitutional amendment. This administration isn’t defending DOMA, so there is a possiblity that a court may overturn it, along with Prop 8. And we’ll see how the state challenges will begin to shape up.
This is a long battle, I’ve been engaged in this battle for over 40 years and this is a milestone. No, the earth will not reverse it’s rotation and the planets will not realign, but a statement was made by a sitting POTUS that I’ve never heard, never expected to hear in my lifetime and I’m celebrating this moment, because I’ve seen far too few of them.
There is only one advantage built into this move: it helps Obama’s re-election campaign.
Because Obama has done nothing but endorse the status quo, if anything it slows our forward trajectory.
“As you may recall, the Prop-8 supporters in CA repeatedly ran ads with vid clips of Obama saying he didn’t support gay marriage. As JWS noted in today’s show, it’s very possible that Prop-8 wouldn’t have passed if Obama had weighed in against Prop-8 (certainly, AfAms would’ve thought twice before voting for it). ”
I don’t agree with that conclusion that “it’s very possible prop-i wouldn’t have passed”. It would have been nice if Obama had supported gay marriage during that vote, but I doubt that AA’s would have changed their mind overnight and voted down prop 8 because Obama supported it. I wanted him to speak out against Prop 8, I wanted all Dems to speak out against prop 8.
Remember, during the last Dem primary only 2 candidate supported gay marriage. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. Not Obama, not Biden, not Hillary. Hillary is still not on record supporting gay marriage, but Bill is. I’m hoping Hillary, whose support of the LGBTQ community has been unwavering for nearly 20 years, will come out in support of gay marriage soon.
Zal, didn’t you criticize the L/G community for celebrating after gay marriage passed in NY?
Do you even care? You log cabinites work off of cue cards, post-it-notes, or what?
I criticized them for pretending it meant something it did not.
And that’s true of today’s response as well.
No, it meant “nothing” to you, Zal, or an of the other log cabinites, but to most gay people, which you’ve already said you are not, it was something to cheer about. I bet you’re the life of every party. or not!
It is indeed, and I think Obama deserves props for taking the stand. Yes, it’s largely symbolic, and I’m sure its political impact was very carefully weighed beforehand, but I still think he deserves credit for doing it.
As for NC and the rest of the Bible Belt: he’s not going to win there, no matter what. From the standpoint of electoral votes, it doesn’t matter whether he loses NC by 1 vote or 1,000,000 votes. Lost is lost. If, by taking a stand, he can energize the progressive base and get them to turn out in significant numbers, he might keep enough purple states to eke out a victory. Most of the people who are going to be turned off by his stand were already energized to vote for him anyway, since they think he’s a secular Kenyan Marxist Muslim elitist. I doubt if this is going to ramp up the opposition turnout very much at all.
Crumbs. Why are people so excited about crumbs?
Crumbs? Really lady, you don’t know what you’re talking about. How gay are you?
“Papers? You brought me papers?”
Well I’m a gay rights activist and have been for 40+ years as well, and I agree with Zal and Ellie’s mom. Crumbs and election strategy. But then zero does nothing without it benefitting himself. Blech.
What a sad position. I can’t stand zero and I can’t stand Willard. However, Jill Stein is in my town next week. Hopefully she’ll get some support here.
ellies mom, the peons who are being played get crumbs. He will feast on their money.
His gratuitous statement means nothing and advances no one, except him.
okay, best headline of the day:
http://gawker.com/5909002
Well, at least it fit your current narrative. Many takers? Some maybe, but not many who are gay.
That gawker piece is a good one, John. (I posted it on the previous thread.)
I truly believe that when all the gay marriage cases vending their way through the system are ripe for consideration by the Supreme Court, Obama’s unnecessary deference to ‘states rights’ will set the cause back. He should have said he supports gay marriage and then shut up about it. He went the extra step solely to innoculate himself against any political fall-out. If only all the gay people dancing in the streets tonight could see that fact. I’m not being bloodless about it, but I am viewing it through the lens of a legal case — he has done damage to the cause.
I’ll say this too to those wow-ed by his statement: Obama said nothing today that Dick Cheney didn’t say a year or more ago. So, for all the hype, Obama — after two years of “evolving” — has finally arrived at Cheney’s position on gay marriage. Hoo hah!
I just read on Huffington that Obama also likes rum raisin ice cream, personally, but he believes that the decision to carry this flavor in stores is ultimately in the hands of grocers. He also likes argyle socks, smooth jazz and the color orange.
I agree with Tamer, it’s a creepy political move designed to get people talking about Obama and what a great man he is again.
Whats ironic for me is that while I was combing the interwebs on Monday looking for a Joe Biden quote for my post in the other thread, I saw ALOT of articles on how Biden came out and made his feelings known re: gay marriage and Axelrod & co. started backpedaling it immediately on Twitter and thought to myself “Oh man, here comes the big Obama speech or the gracious Obama comment about gay marriage” and here we are three days later.
First, yes completely agree with John, its very significant that a sitting US President made their personal feelings known about gay marriage. But he immediately qualified it by saying it was “his personal view” and punted the issue back to the states… In other words, in classic Obama style, he gets to bask in the glory of his munificent progressiveness, without having to deal with any political blowback from actually taking a principled or legislative stand about the issue itself.
I believe this is called “compression”.
So yes, it’s great that Obama personally believes in gay marriage, but in my opinion he’s using you. He isn’t going to DO anything about it and will move on to the next voter bloc that he’s got to blow some smoke up their asses and con.
I’m not gay, but I do understand how GOOD it must feel to have a president say “I support this” but at the same time it’s kind of a backhanded bit of support. It’s just enough to get him what he wants (attention and positive glow around the halo) and it’s just BARELY enough to get people to think “wow Obama really gets it” in the voter groups he’s trying to score points in.
But I think he punted, like he always punts. He did just the bare minimum to get what he needed and people everywhere are going nuts about what an amazing statement it was for him to make.
He didn’t really come out in support for gay marriage, he just voted “present” on it.
Tamerlane’s assertion that this announcement immediately precedes 6 gay fund raisers is no big surprise either.
“I just read on Huffington that Obama also likes rum raisin ice cream, personally, but he believes that the decision to carry this flavor in stores is ultimately in the hands of grocers. He also likes argyle socks, smooth jazz and the color orange.”
ROFL, Dan.
Great comment — equal measure of wit and wisdom, all nicely balanced with common sense.
Obama says: “I think same sex couples should be able to get married,”
Dan says: “He didn’t really come out in support for gay marriage…”
Well alrighty then. btw, I think this conversation is being duplicated all over the web becuz this comment struck me on the gawker piece John linked that you are all chortling about:
” This article is the most RIDICULOUS piece of ANTI-PROGRESS that I’ve ever read in my life. How is DISAGREEING WITH GAY MARRIAGE BANS…AGREEING WITH THEM?”
Another way to put it would be: How is saying same sex couples should be able to get married NOT coming out in support for gay marriage???
I don’t like him either and wish he would not run again, but if he does something I agree with, I can’t twist my thinking around to saying he didn’t.
socal — Obama said he “personally” supports gay marriage, but it’s an issue for the states to decide (ie, the states can do whatever they want). So, eg, he’s not against what happpened in NC yesterday. I guarantee he wouldn’t have the same laissez faire attitude an rhetoric if a state decided it wanted to ban interracial marriage. (Loving v. Virginia enshrined the right to interracial marriage in the US Constit.; it was not left to the states.)
It’s not that difficult to understand, really — never mind what the yack on the intertubz is. Here’s the thing: Dick Cheney said, over a year ago (!), no less than what Obama said today. After both men spoke, gays had exactly the same marriage rights (ie, varying by state) than they did before either man spoke. At the end of the day, neither Cheney’s nor Obama’s personal views advanced the ball.
By contrast, what Ted Olsen, Esq. (notorious Republican) and David Boies, Esq. (notorious Democrat) did in federal court in SF very much advanced the ball — their case is headed to the US Supreme Court. And, let me assure you of one thing: when Ted Olsen (a virtual god on the Right) opens his gob in that hallowed Court and argues that the right to gay marriage should be a federal constitutional right (ie, one to be imposed on all 50 states), then, by golly, we may get some real change.
Does that help?
NES, I didn’t say I didn’t understand you guys, I was saying (in effect) that I don’t agree with you all the way. Yes, you’re right that he did it in true obama spineless fashion with the “personal” & “states rights” caveats, still as John wrote in the short post to this thread, he did at least do the “right thing”. He came out and said he was for it. (Romney is against it. Why aren’t we talking about that?) How many other heads of state of major countries have done that? Cheney is not a head of state. And yes, I love what Olsen & Boies did, and I know who they are and have since the 90s.
Actually, I’ve been thinking for weeks that bark had the election sown up, but now I think he may have given the repubs a shot in the arm. A lot of us liberal types don’t want to vote for bark. A lot of conserv types don’t want to vote for Romney…but they might now.
“A lot of us liberal types don’t want to vote for bark. A lot of conserv types don’t want to vote for Romney…but they might now.”
I know, socal…Obama’s a genius. Quite a few former Obama-critics here are going to vote for him now — that took some skill on his part. I admire him for playing people as well as he does.
“I don’t like him either and wish he would not run again, but if he does something I agree with, I can’t twist my thinking around to saying he didn’t.”
And that’s exactly what’s happening, again in this thread. It really doesn’t matter what Obama says, or how he says it, because there’s a level of Obama dislike/hatred or whatever you want to call it, that won’t allow some people to ever see anything positive in what Obama says or what Obama does.
If Obama had said nothing, he would have bee called a coward who won’t support gay marriage because he doesn’t have the guts to take the political hit, and when he does he’s a brilliant manipulator that only supported gay marriage, (and that’s exactly what he did), for money and as a strategy. He’s either setting up circumstances to make himself look like he’s a brillant strategist whose devious and manipulative more clever by half than all around him, or he’s a gutless coward. Those are always the only 2 options here.
Whatever it is drving people to this ongoing pretzel logic is baffling.
socalannie wrote:
Another way to put it would be: How is saying same sex couples should be able to get married NOT coming out in support for gay marriage???
I think what I’m trying to say is that on one hand, yes I think it’s great that a head of state has spoken the sentiment that he supports gay marriage. But, by quantifying it and saying he believes that personally and that it should be handled on the state level, it strikes me as hollow and more political lip service then actual personal belief. He hasnt even finished articulating the one thought before he is trying to cover his ass… and thats not a gutsy move
Let me put it another way…
If you could choose between Obama simply saying “I support gay marriage” OR Obama saying “I support gay marriage, personally” OR “I support gay marriage personally, but ultimately it’s an issue to be handled by the states” which would you prefer? It sounds like Im being snarky but the nuance is important, because the nuance is what allows Obama to reap the PR benefit from his statement while neatly sidestepping the inconvenient personable responsibility of having to follow through on it politically.
It’s also ironic that Obama is willing to let an one of the most important civil rights issues of our day to be handled on the state level, but has no problem with Federal mandates on things like health care.
So yes, I’m glad Obama came out and said he supported gay marriage, I think that’s great. But for a guy that campaigned on being a transformative president, a healer, a catalyst for social change, etc. it’s not enough, and it’s a mealy mouthed endorsement.
And people are falling all over him and frankly, it’s embarassing. Obama only really ever has to do “just enough” and people are willing to give him a pass.
Like I said, his statement, in my opinion is the political equivalent of him voting “present”.
Slideshow of other politicians statements regarding barks statement. The one by Huckabee is why I think this was a risky move for bark, it will galvanize the religious right, the same people who put dubya in power for 8 long years.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-same-sex-marriage_n_1502957.html?ref=politics#s=958948
Axelrod/Obama want the Right galvanized. That’s the reason they made contraception an issue, and now this. They’re playing the same game they played during the Primaries in 2008, the same game Atwater and Rove played only more sophisticated. Divide and conquer. You can only divide people and build and solidify your side if you create situations that galvanize the emotions of both sides. Republicans will play right into this the same way they did the pretend contraception issue. And it’s only been a few weeks but who ever talks about Trayvon Martin any more?
What’s fascinating to watch is people like you and Mouse who never would have been fooled by this in 2008 but without a woman to galvanize you against Obama, you get taken in by his seduction. His cons this time are more transparent not only because they’re less subtle but also because we now have proof positive from the past three years of how, as President, what he says has no bearing on what he does. Yet here you and Mouse are, saying this is meaningful for gays. When a psychopathic seducer says something you want to hear it’s only meaningful in what it gets for him and what it takes from you.
fgs. A/O want the Right galvanized??? Really? They want all the Christian right, that put Bush in office twice, then stayed home becuz McCain was too liberal for them & planned to stay home becuz Romney is a Mormon, all fired up to go vote for Romney now so they can “save” marriage from the Gays. If A/O want to lose so badly, why not just step down for health reasons instead? This move isn’t going to get people like me (independent center-lefters) to vote for Obama, and I think he’s lost a lot of the people who voted for him in ’08 becuz they’re bored or disillusioned with him, and now he’ll lose potential voters that are against gay marriage. I like that he said it; albeit, half ass-edly as John & Dan & others have pointed out. But I doubt it will help him.
btw Zal, I am not “taken in by his seduction”. Ewww. And ewww again. Nor am I voting for him. I think it would be an important statement if made by any POTUS, not just obama. But thanks for thinking I’m fascinating to watch {bats eyelashes}!!!
I’ve explained it to you. I posted a clip of a West Wing episode that explains it. It isn’t even complicated; in fact it’s very simple.
This will help Obama raise millions of dollars (already has, and in less than 24 hours I’ve received solicitation emails from Obama and Wasserman Schultz in addition to invitations to three gay-hosted fund raisers in NYC), it will help fortify his support, it will help identify and define an enemy. Without an enemy there’s nothing to fight, and without fighting all that’s left is the truth and, given this economy and war and the other Obama failures, anything that distracts from the truth helps him.
It’s hard to imagine anybody having lower regard for Obama than I, but even I don’t think he’s so incompetent he’d do something as completely unnecessary as this six months before election day unless it’d help him.
Well, I’m sure it helped him get a lot of money for his campaign; although I’m sure he would get more than enough anyway, he did last time. I don’t think the clip from the fictional tv show has any bearing on this issue, but thanks anyway.
Like all good fiction writers, Aaron Sorkin was very competent at explaining the truth through his fiction.
But willfully ignorant people will remain ignorant.
John, hope you got that ‘rainbow’ graphic I emailed you earlier tonight. You’ll get a kick out of it, I’m sure.
Here it is: http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/399134_3384830174394_295637250_n.jpg
Did y’all get Obama’s email? It’s a pip isn’t it?
Watching this unfold from 2008 to 2012 is a more potent lesson than any explanations I ever heard or watched about how Nazi Germany or Peron’s Argentina came about. We get to see first hand exactly the kind of people who not only allow it to happen but participate in making it happen.
Ayup. Where I grew up the Prez was already Prez for life – never could understand how the grown-ups let that happen. Educational to see it unfold in real time.
Nazi Germany? WTF you talkin about Willis. Be afraid of the Secret Muslim-black nazi-CIA covert-spy-socialist-commie. ooooooooohhhhhhhhhh!
I’m talking about a population susceptible to large scale manipulation conning them into choices that run contrary not only to what’s healthy for their society but to their own self interest.
Habeas corpus gone, President able to assassinate citizens as long as he declares them terrorists, thousands of people routinely subjected to groping and x-rays any time they want to exercise their right to fly (and yes, US citizens have a legal right to fly).
Glad you think that’s funny, Mouse.
No politics here! http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76139.html
“She’s friendly turf,” one executive at a rival network said. “I assume if Oprah was still Oprah, she would have landed this interview.“
And I assume if Oprah hadn’t blown it by getting herself a network that you have to pay to watch, Oprah would have had the interview. Robin was free and easy.
This was another bloodless, soulless check on the list. It is just something he has to do before he heads out to play golf or before he can watch some ESPN. He was told to do it before his upcoming fundraisers because the money is not rolling in nearly as easily as in 2008 and he needs something new to add to the teleprompter. He could care less about gay marriage.
Tamerlane is right about the polls. They are being manipulated to the point of absurdity. Several polling companies will potentially go out of business if they continue with this because of their dishonesty and bias if they do not start self correcting and very soon. Supporting Obama is increasingly seen as a bad economic or business decision.
Oh and the WV vote should be instructive to Democrats but it won’t be. The voters of WV know that irregardless of how they vote they will be called ignorant hillbillies who don’t know what is in their own self-interest. This is ghosts of primary season 2008 when they were told their votes don’t count.
Bingo Lulu. Agree with Tamerlane and Zal.
The O team figured out that Blacks will vote for him no matter what. So he really had nothing to lose, that bloc has probably been the reason he has tiptoed around this issue . Oth, when did he become a Federalist ?
The 10th Amendment does not negate the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Zaldonis wrote:
EXACTLY.
When JFK finally decided to weigh in on civil rights, he did so in a primetime address from the oval office, saying in part “We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures, and as clear as the American Constitution. The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat out fellow
Americans as we would want to be treated.”
Quite a far cry from sitting down for a “chat” with a fluffy news magazine host and talking about your personal feelings.
Obama and Co are playing people’s emotions- again.
“Obama and Co are playing people’s emotions- again.”
It’s working, brilliantly!!!
the RCC is going batshit crazy, AGAIN. And the religious Right is peeing in it’s Wheaties, AGAIN.
Family Research Council
“For once, the President is bringing his words in sync with his actions. From opposing state marriage amendments to refusing to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to giving taxpayer funded marriage benefits to same-sex couples, the President has undermined the spirit and the letter of the law. As demonstrated by yesterday’s overwhelming vote for Amendment 1, redefining marriage remains outside the mainstream of American politics, especially in the critical battleground states and among minority voters. In North Carolina, the amendment received more than 60 percent of the vote in majority-black counties. If anything, today’s announcement almost ensures that marriage will again be a major issue in the presidential election.”
Catholic League
“The president of the United States likes the idea of Tom and Dick marrying. He did not say whether he supports Tom, Dick and Harry marrying, or whether he is “evolving” in that direction. Perhaps he has to consult with his mentor on this issue, Mr. Joseph Biden of Delaware. Yesterday, North Carolina voters affirmed marriage as being between a man and a woman. In the 32 times voters have been asked to decide this issue, they have voted 32 times to support traditional marriage. Gay rights advocates have never won. President Obama will be hurt by this decision in the swing states. More than that, he has now made this cultural matter a major issue in the presidential campaign. The time has finally come to pass a constitutional amendment affirming marriage as an institution reserved to the only two people who can naturally produce a family, namely a man and a woman.”
Gays are coming to get marriage. We’re going to dash it upon the rocks that lie just below matrimonial bliss. We’re going to marry, then divorce, remarry, then divorce again, we’re going to commit adultery, marry for money, marry for sex, marry for security, marry for citizenship and do all those things to marriage that the good heterosexual will not do.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Thanks Kim, that’s a great clip.
This is what it looks, and sounds, like when a President is genuine in taking a position on an issue as serious as civil rights.
“Gays are coming to get marriage. We’re going to dash it upon the rocks that lie just below matrimonial bliss. We’re going to marry, then divorce, remarry, then divorce again, we’re going to commit adultery, marry for money, marry for sex, marry for security, marry for citizenship and do all those things to marriage that the good heterosexual will not do.
Be afraid, be very afraid.”
Ok, that is seriously funny!
When JFK weighed in on civil rights, he spoke as the President. JFK was a leader and I don’t know what he “personally” believed. I know what he said as POTUS.
With Obama, it’s practically a given that he doesn’t speak as POTUS until the votes are in and he has to sign the bill.
Exactly, Kim. And thanks for jogging my memory about JFK.
Thank you, Zal, for posting the video clip. Brought tears to my eyes. This is what a real president looks like
NES, also agree with you Zero is just tossing the issue back to the states. He has done nothing but ensure that he gets money from gays.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, in a letter published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: “Unfortunately, President Obama’s words today are not surprising since they follow upon various actions already taken by his Administration that erode or ignore the unique meaning of marriage. I pray for the President every day, and will continue to pray that he and his Administration act justly to uphold and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. May we all work to promote and protect marriage and by so doing serve the true good of all persons.” -
Dear Cardinal Dolan. Shove up your Celibacy!
I disagree with Cardinal Dolan too, and I sympathize with the anger and frustration.. But was that last sentence really necessary ? I doubt the Cardinal visits blogs, so what was the point ?
“But was that last sentence really necessary ? ”
Did I trample upon your delicate sensibilities. sophie? That’s odd since you have no problem using perjorative language when it expresses your frustrations, but if I step on the Cardinals cape, you find that offensive? Yes, it was TOTALLY necessary. It is necessary for me and for all gay people and all people who love and support gay people to tell the homophobes, which DOLAN most certainly is, to SHOVE IT!
Dear Cardinal Dolan, if you’re reading here. Shove your homophobia.
I’m joining in that shove thang too. Cardinal Dolan was being rude without cussing.
Are we still such children that we will vote on a single issue ? Given the condition of the country, I sure hope not.
Obama is nothing more than an opportunist and a proven liar, why anyone would give weight to what he says is beyond me.
Personally, I am firmly on the side of marriage equality, but I don’t see how anything O said yesterday moves the ball forward, but it will undoubtedly move the decimal point in his war chest.
“Are we still such children that we will vote on a single issue ?”
Some of you are!!!
You bet — if the issue is a candidate being a con man.
“You bet — if the issue is a candidate being a con man.”
Well, you would be the expert on con men.
Read Elmer Gantry as a teen, then the Ripley books later on, and I think I viewed the portraits as fictionalized, exaggerated, versions of actual personality types. Then in 2006 something happened that made me put on my glasses and take a closer look through more mature eyes. I’ve been studying it, specifically, the past five years. Yeah I’m kind of an expert by now.
obama always struck me as a Mr. Ripley.
Stop, you’re killing me! I’ve read all the Ripleys too. Ripley was a brilliant, hardworking, sophisticated deviant. O’s a clever hack.
Mouse, Cardinal Dolan is a Catholic priest, doing what a priest is supposed to do, share the teachings of his church. In NYC I attend a church which he visits from time to time.
We have many gay members who he has always treated with the utmost respect, he is a kind, lovely man. Teachers teach, dancers dance, what did you expect him to say ? Btw, I never use language here, or anywhere, that I would be ashamed for my grandchildren to hear. I don’t care what others’ say, ever. But I did think your words about a man I know, and respect, were unnecessary.. He’s just doing his job and living his vocation. I may disagree with him on this, but that doesn’t give me permission to disrespect him. He has done a great deal of good in his life, and will continue to do so.
“Cardinal Dolan is a Catholic priest, doing what a priest is supposed to do, share the teachings of his church”
LOL!!! You seriously expect me to show deference to Dolan because he’s a priest? No, he’s a man, who is wrong and a purveyor of church sponsored bigotry. FYI, there are priests and nuns who DON’T agree with Dolan or the RCC official position on gay rights or gay marriage. I respect their courage and the peril they find themselves in for defending L/G’s,, but Dolan can shove it.
“We need to pick a fight. Because in politics if you’re not on offense you’re on defense.”
“You’d better stand up for something, otherwise, you’re gonna fall for anything.”
- John Melloncamp
TIp of the hat to Tamerlane for his subtle “Funny French Shoes” Mellencamp reference last night
… might look pretty on a woman’s foot …
I miss that show.!
Maybe NES can answer this; Is a ban on gay marriage not an attempt to legislate a religious belief ?
This has bothered me for years, the Constitution is clear on separation of Church and State, so how did this work in the first place.? My personal biggest issue re; gays is the inability to adopt children in some states. As stated here before, I am personally not a big fan of abortion, for me and mine, so I am morally bound to be a strong supporter of adoption by gays, or any other group as long as they are subject to the same requirements as heteros. Having said that, the requirements must be Exactly the same for both groups, no bonus points for being ‘conventional.’
My now, nearly adult grandson, has two godfathers, his baptism was perfromed in a Catholic church in Key West. They have been the best, most involved godparents one could wish for, plus they supported and nurtured my youngest daughter for years, and she loves them dearly.
This issue is very pesonal to me.
In my opinion, gay marriage bans are unconstitutional because they’re based on religious belief and making religious belief a law, even by saying it’s just at a state level, it’s a violation of first amendment.
Churches can say they dont want to perform SSM marriages for exactly the same reason.
But legally any two people should be able to go into any courthouse and get married.
Marriage should legally be defined as union of any two persons.
It’s a pretty cut and dry argument under the law, and a constitional law professor should know that.
“Marriage” should be defined, period. I mean: what is it, in relation to the government? What ‘compelling interest’ does the government have in regulating this thing?
Your limit of marriage between only two persons is based on what? On what basis do you prohibit polygamy?
“Is a ban on gay marriage not an attempt to legislate a religious belief ?”
Gay marriage opponents will say, ‘no, but marriage has “traditionally” been between a man & a woman,’ which is true, for what it’s worth. But again, marriage is a WHAT between a man & a woman? Until marriage is defined, how can anyone explain why a certain class is not eligible?
Traditionally, society/the govt. needed to regulate marriage to handle paternity, inheritance, support for women & offspring, etc. Those needs are now covered in other ways, or obsolete, making marriage obsolete viz. the government. It is now just a quaint custom, & should have no more legal bearing than a bar mitzvah legally makes you an adult.
Good point Tamerlane, and I was thinking through the polygamy aspect as I wrote my response because it doesnt adequately solve for that.
I think possibly the workaround would be marriage is union between consenting individuals.Two or more.
I think the compelling interest would be that government should not be able to have the right to endorse or deny any individuals the right to be married, provided they meet a legal criteria (the sole criteria being unanimous consent),that solves the religious aspect as well as the legal aspect.
The “moral” aspect is really nobody’s business but those involved in the marriage.
Indeed, without a firm legal basis for discriminating, then denying marriage rights (with their associated benefits) is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
Civil unions for all would resolve the legal matter and would moot much of the religious/moral ‘sanctity of marriage’ objections.
Given the entrenched opposition to gay marriage in so many states, civil unions for all is the tack I’d advise as the quickest & surest to achieve the real goal, equality. (Unless the goal is to bang one’s head against a wall because that wall is ‘wrong’.) Parity can be achieved either adding a privilege to the side lacking, or taking it away from the side enjoying.
Dan, you raise good points in this and your previous comment (8:39am), but think of what a hornets nest legalized polygamy would create. Would employers have to give benefits to multiple spouses? Who gets to visit in the ICU room @ hospital? Think of the complications involved in divorces, especially with kids. Lots of problems that way.
tamer, didn’t elton john say that civil unions were the way to go? That gays/lesbians in America should be fighting for civil unions instead of marriage?
Here is what Elton John said, don’t know if I agree with him but here it is:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm
Polygamy is a hornet’s nest. I’m only approaching the subject as a question of logic: what in the definition of marriage precludes it from including multiple spouses?
You’re right Tamer, the only justification I can see for the gov’ts interference in marriage is where it concerns legal issues like property, or the welfare of possible offspring.. Since the welfare of children from any relationship seems to be pretty low on the gov’t's ‘to do’ list, it’s got to be about property, and inheritance and the taxes they generate. I wonder if one still has to get a blood test in most states, prior to marriage ?
Connecticut, Indiana, Mississippi, and Montana. Nowhere else.