Not sure that this matters all that much. Seems to me that Romney has a pretty clear stance on it, and if this is the deciding factor for someone’s vote, that’s enough to make the decision.
The flip-flop is a namby-pamby one-eighty, a two-bit fence-mending based on… – I met this nice same-sex couple so lets chuck millennia old traditions and understandings. An example of the introspection of the highly-educated-shallow-thinking-Harvard Law-Cum-Laude.
That might help shore up his base but I doubt it will work in Peoria.
Harry the Extremist: He’s given up on Peoria. It’s Get Out the Base time.
As Deep Throat said during the Watergate investigation, follow the money. This article came out A DAY AGO.
Some leading gay and progressive donors are so angry over President Obama’s refusal to sign an executive order barring same sex discrimination by federal contractors that they are refusing to give any more money to the pro-Obama super PAC, a top gay fundraiser’s office tells me. In some cases, I’m told, big donations are being withheld.
Jonathan Lewis, the gay philanthropist and leading Democratic fundraiser, is one of many gay advocates who has been working behind the scenes to pressure Obama to change his mind. When Obama decided against the executive order last month, arguing that he would pursue a legislative solution instead, advocates were furious – such a solution will never pass Congress, the executive order has been a priority for advocates for years, and the move smacked of a political cave to conservatives who will not support Obama no matter what he does.
Obama did this for campaign bucks. Pure and simple.
Saw some analysis this morning noting that while white liberals favor gay marriage pretty strongly, blacks — especially members of traditional black churches — are really turned off by it. So Obama’s fence-straddling has a lot more to do with trying to gin up the enthusiastic support of black preachers than it has to do with turning off swing-state moderates.
The issue was hurting Obama to some extent, but my gut tells me this flip-flop is going to hurt him more than bringing his position into line with the rest of the Dem party will help him. It somewhat insulates Romney against charges of being a flip-flopper to have the preezy make such a clear change of position, this close to the election, obviously FOR PURPOSES OF the election, and i such a highly publicized way.
Conrad: I had that same thought about the flip-flop charge and Romney.
And I think that Gringo’s post about major donations may be the key to the change of heart. And that Obama knows that most black voters who oppose gay marriage will not desert him over this.
Neo: “He’s given up on Peoria. It’s Get Out the Base time.”
Oh, I agree, but the base isnt going to be enough to get him reelected. he’s got to know that.
Harry the Extremist: I don’t think he knows that. Turnout and enthusiasm count for a lot in elections. I think Obama is banking on his ability to fire up his base combined with Romney’s lack of ability to fire up his base.
Of course, Obama might be forgetting his own ability to fire up the Republican base.
It is funny though that he will alow the states to decide on the issue of gay marriage while intervening federally on imigration or right to work issues. hmmmm….
Neo: “I think Obama is banking on his ability to fire up his base combined with Romney’s lack of ability to fire up his base.”
I think you’re right. I also agree this may well be a grave miscalculation.
Neo: “I think Obama is banking on his ability to fire up his base combined with Romney’s lack of ability to fire up his base.”
I think your half right..
Romney cant fire up anything…
but he doesn’t have to, which is the key
if he HAD to, he would lose
but all that means nothing…
because they never ever intended to win honestly
and its a heads i win tails you lose situation anyway
meanwhile, Romney is a progressive
which means he is the same as Obama…
just as Hitler and Stalin were both socialists, but were very different people with different ideas as to how to make socialism real and what functional form it would take.
but as with them, people lose the plot
so focused on differences to separate them
they completely ignore that they were MOSTLY the same and that at the end of the day, the differences were of design and fashion – but the END was the SAME.
but once again, i am in a position of trying to prove what your looking at isn’t what your looking at.
akin to someone looking at an optical illusion that they believe is real, and they refuse to move to another location to see if it is or not.
in fact, they will assert the reality of it, and then just not read the proof or other information that breaks it down – every standard obstical will be presented but all will have the same burden and requirment.
They all burden the other to present information that can be ignored or declared in someway (that then sends the other off again to gather), and all have the requirement that the person setting the obstical never moves.
in this way, they maintain their perspective, their security, and so on… this is the strength of the con, and what protects the con artist against cognitive dissonance in her victims.
the trick here is that they are to be held in position. that is, the leaders keep them from moving, and provide them alternative answers that allow them to not have to move. Most don’t notice this being fed the reason why their finding something out should be ignored (including the missive to ignore it).
what you will find is that each one requires the acceptance of a logical inconsistency, or a logical point being replaced by an asserted excuse why the logical right answer is not the right answer.
so you can have a source for modern socialism – K. Marx… but NOT realize that for other parts of it there are also sources.
By not crediting them openly among the masses, the masses think there is no source – but just as baseball fanatics know details about the game that even interested people don’t, the people implementing know like fanatics – and that those that oppose them wont move from their comfort zone.
Romney is on video saying: “I think the old standby definitions of who votes for which party have been blown away in this campaign. I think people recognize that I’m not a partisan Republican–that I’m someone who is moderate, and that my views are progressive.”.
then later, his people claim that being a progressive is a smear campaign of democrats.
oh oh, i feel an excuse coming on to tell us why the logical conclusion has to be the irrational something else.. i have not the room to copy over the babble talk of that long excuse…
Always better to flip than to stick with the morally repugnant position. Bravo Obama!
Also, this seems to be an issue where people’s opinions have genuinely been changing lately.
what if i clue everyone in on a bit of history that i bet they dont know about… at the state level that has history leading up to whats going on now…
the Populist War… ever hear of it?
it again goes back to the Hayes Tilden era in which republican blacks were murdered and the race scared into their current voting patterns…
anyone familiar with “The peoples party”, the populists in America? The populists took over the legislature and barricaded themselves in the representative hall and locked the radical republicans out.
the republicans marched and broke the door open with a sledge hammer… tensions were high.. the Peoples party populist Lorenzo D. Lewelling then called out the militia against the republicans.
He sent for Battery “A” of Wichita and instructed the men to bring their Gatling gun…
it only lasted three days.. the militia wouldn’t fire, they were mostly radical republicans… and the populist uprising of a sort was halted.
the Supreme Court found in favor of the Republicans.
to quote the kansas historical society
On Monday,the Populists went to Representative Hall to assume their position as minority party in the Douglas house. By this time only a few days remained in the session. Although little constructive work was accomplished, the Republican majority did accept Populist legislation providing for a secret ballot and revisions in the state’s mortgage laws. They would not, however, embrace Populist proposals for railroad regulation. Populists left without a fight and no blood was shed.
The People’s Party, also known as the “Populists”, was a short-lived political party in the United States established in 1891 during the Populist movement (United States, 19th Century). it represented a radical crusading form of agrarianism and hostility to banks, railroads, and elites generally. It sometimes formed coalitions with labor unions, and in 1896 the Democrats endorsed their presidential nominee, William Jennings Bryan.
wait… hows this related to the progressives… and what ARE their goals outside the public forum? that is, like feminists, what do they talk about away from their dupes… or outside the purview of the people they inflame, what do race hucksters talk about in terms of those followers (and using them)?
you see… if your not sitting in on those meetings and not learning that stuff, then your the target in their minds (either use or oppose).
now.. quoting the same wiki page.. By 1898, the Democrats used a violently racist campaign to defeat the North Carolina Populists and GOP and in 1900 the Democrats ushered in disfranchisement
but this left a vacuum in Kansas politics… a number of G.O.P. politicians were concerned about the conservatism of the party. As a result, they sought to promote reform. These progressive Republicans were supporters of Theodore Roosevelt, who became the most visible symbol of the national movement.
[if you know this and more history, what they do is like turning on huge neon signs as is why… if not. then you just don’t even know there are these huge holes and gaps with huge signs brightly beaming. you just pass by the nothing not knowing]
On the national level, Kansas progressivism recognized. In the U. S. Senate, Joseph Bristow became a leading voice for change. He joined such notables as Robert M. LaFollette and William Borah as spokesmen for national progressive reform. In 1912 Senator Bristow introduced the resolution that led to the adoption of the 17th Amendment which provided for the direct popular election of senators.
Robert M. La Follette, Sr. was an American politician from Wisconsin who founded the magazine now called The Progressive and who gave the label “progressive” much of the meaning it carries today.
quoting discover the networks:
He attracted national attention for what he called the “Wisconsin Idea,” using University of Wisconsin professors to draft legislation and run the state’s fast-expanding regulatory agencies. Intellectuals and journalists nationwide lionized this politician who was giving power to academics. He advocated more regulation and higher taxes on the railroads, direct primaries, restrictions on big business (which he demonized as “selfish interests”), and “progressive” taxation (an idea for destroying capitalism that had appeared in 1848 in Karl Marx’s and Friedrich Engels’ Communist Manifesto).
Academics in power? isn’t obama an academic? didn’t he give a “shout out” to Wisconsin?
[edited for length by n-n]
by the way. Moses Harmon started at Liberal League… (at that time league meant socialist/communist the way peoples did in another era)
he too, like Alinsky had a fondness for Lucifer…
his paper was named after him, and he was known world wide by socialists/communists (with famous founder of fabianism commenting)…
The paper, “free to all who desire communication on all subjects,” had a yearly subscription rate of 50 cents.
so only wealthy people could afford and read it…
hint hint
it became The Kansas Liberal… he theme of the publication was “Total Separation of the State from Supernatural Theology. Perfect Equality before the Law for all Men and Women. No Privileged Classes or Orders — No Monopolies.”
sound familiar?
he is the FATHER of modern feminism’s… Moses Harman devised his own system of dating for the “Era of Man,” beginning January 1, 1601.
part of the progressive hatred of counting from Jesus.
he picked 1601 as the age of the era of man starting with the death of Bruno.. (and you can ask 1000 teenage girls who read seventeen and all are feminists (their quizzes told them) and none of them would know they are following the ideas of a satanist wacko from Kansas!!!!! who thought sexualizing everyone and not having to pay for the babies the men made and all that was a great thing… and then came up with ideas for women to become just that! but all wrapped in high minded positive good stuff)
he then renamed it Lucifer the Light Bearer … and then, like Alinsky, explained why Lucifer was so great. [now you know where the tin hatters get their Lucifer plot ideas from].. these guys LOVE symbolism and such… they like to dangle the key and stuff in front of the victims knowing that they wont get it.
Among the many objectives of Lucifer’s editors was the abolition of paternalism as generated by the church and the state. (the patriarchy)
if you read this sources, you will find every tick tock thing that people are discussing today as long term goals… cigarettes, sexualization of women, academics ruling things (under a false assumption of competency), and on and on and on.
now..
i DARE you to dove tail Romney choices with their list of things… and see if he doesn’t match most of them. hard not to actually… Harman did not resent being called an anarchist.
but when you read.. you will realize that they picked the worst stuff, and ignored his other stuff… ie. they took what they wanted of him that confirmd their darker sides and ignored the more contemporary wisdom he still was connected to.
Vote if you must, but vote to abolish rather than to enact laws. But while exercising your natural, your civil right to vote, remember that you have no right to force your methods on others. . . . In fewer words, use your governmental crutch until you are able to walk without it.
so even the history most dont know is warped by those that do… ie. where he aligned with ideas of marx or the free love, i dont have to pay for babies, or marry them movement (get the state to do that, and while they are at it… liberate them from christian theology, self respect, and all that… makes it easier to use them and fornicate… no? (would a person admiring satan as a icon if not religion be a person who wouldnt want womens sex on tap for himself and other men? duh)
Aroused by the evils of the accumulation of capital by the few, Harman called for reform in the nation’s wage system. He proposed to substitute a plan of “voluntary cooperation” in which the capital necessary to carry on the business would be owned by the workers themselves. [52] This plan was expanded as part of the “Labor Exchange” which he outlined in 1893.
minimum wage? federal setting salaries? equality of outcome? social justice? liberalism? progressivism? any of this sound familiar to anyone here?
Religion, particularly Christianity, came under heavy verbal attack by Harman. He contended that religion was based on ignorance of nature’s methods and fear of the unseen powers that were supposedly warring over human destiny.
The most needed reform, according to Harman, was in the area of sex. While he recognized the need for other reform, his newspaper eventually dealt most exclusively with sex-related problems. Kansas city historical society
Harman opposed the institution of marriage
According to Harman, the best method of sex union for human beings would be resolved only after polygamy, monogamy, polyandry, and absolute freedom were given a fair trial. [70] He suggested that unhappy marriages be quickly terminated by divorce because, as R. G. Ingersoll said, “the death of love is the commencement of vice.” [71] He believed that the abolition of marriage would result in the birth of fewer children since children would be welcomed and cared for by mutual affection. He looked forward to the emergence of a new “rational” family where each member would “drop to his place like stones in an arch when artificial props are removed.” [72] This new family would be under the domination of the mother. [73]
kansas city historical society
and the mother would get her stuff from the state.. like day care… and medical.. and a room of her own…
oh.. and dont forget free birth control
as was a recent controversy..
i will stop here.
for if your now not curious as to where this all comes from, you will never be.
but in the big scheme of things… its kind of funny that all these women are going barren thinking they are the future with no kids, and being the living experiment of “absolute freedom”.
A recommendation for a program of sex education was proposed in an effort to solve many of the problems relating to sex.
ergo the fisting pamphlets, gay rights, and all that.
including eugenics… a la sanger and his newletter by a new name… which explains the wanting “after birth abortions”
if you dont know where you have been, how do you know which direction your traveling?
if you give me an odd thing they are pushing, i will show you it comes from this bottle neck and political theater.
a historical era that school erases and doesnt teach and progressive education for the masses avoids.
I don’t see how this hurts Obama.
The majority of the populace favor Civil Unions in one form or another.
It might have hurt Obama if more people besides political junkies took time to note how much he flip-flops, and anyone except die-hard progressives noted how politically expedient he is (in other words he’ll SAY alot to placate his “base” but do little in the end), but this country is not blessed with lots of voters with large attention spans.
I think this is a case of his gay supporters, who provide a lot of money for his campaign, insisting that he do something to bring black voters on board. I think it was triggered by the defeat in North Carolina. Obama was always supportive of gay marriage; the “evolution” had more to do with what he thought was politically marketable than with any refinement of thought.
Somebody said that, after a lot of prodding, Obama has finally come around to Dick Cheney’s position on the subject
For what it is worth, I think this is a mere sound bite moment. I don’t see this as in the same league as rendition, predator drone strikes, DHS groping, or electronic surveillance; all of which were far bigger issues with the left. IMO this is a blip in the 24/7 news cycle.
How does Obama look to Erdogan and Putin and his other Islamic and want to be tyrant pals by being pro-gay?
Dat ott dare, mayee.
Gang. Boy.
Actually, several years ago a friend (who no longer speaks to me because he cannot deal with a difference of opinion) assured me that the President was just lying so he could rope us rubes in. He used the word “lie”.
The President did not flip flop. He just stopped lying.
And everyone knows it.
OBAMA AND AXELROD THINK THEY CAN USE TRAYVON TO HOLD ON TO THE BLACK VOTE.
They will spin this as being in favor of equal rights for EVERYONE. But I think Gringo’s explanation is probably a lot closer to the truth. They can explain his change of heart as his evolution toward more fairness for EVERYBODY, not flippin’ and floppin’.
The political planners may also see this as an issue they can use to divert attention away from the economy and Obama’s record.
Prediction: He will suddenly approve the Keystone XL pipeline in September if the polls don’t look too good. Being held in their arsenal for a hail Mary. They probably have an array of other diversions planned as well.
“They probably have an array of other diversions planned as well.”
Most certainly. Keystone and new permits in the Gulf are locked in for September-October, and we will see month by month manipulation of unemployment numbers. Plus, we should expect something dramatic in foreign affairs as they try to divert our attention away from nearly 4 years of policies that have hindered recovery from the blow out of 2008.
Michael: I used the word “flip-flop” somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I also don’t think the president changed his mind. I think he was in favor of gay marriage before, too, but was saying he wasn’t for political reasons.
Which would make him not unlike most politicians.
When Barry was learning how to be Barack, he might have theorized that gay marriage deserved recognition. More likely, though, given that was thirty years ago, gay anything barely came up.
When Barack was learning how to be a black man in Chicago, gay stuff came up. But a proper black man is a little disgusted by queers. As a leftist, they’re on the same team. Just keep your distance in regular life.
It wasn’t until the 90s that gay became trendy (gay was the new black!). Throw in some early imprints from his racist bigoted grandmother and some transferred anger at the people stealing the love/attention of his absentee mother, I say Obama probably doesn’t like queers.
He would be one of those who say all the right things in social situations where there’s tremendous pressure to conform. Barry has always been worried about fitting in. But in private he feels and votes from a more primal instinct.
I should be standing behind Lucy’s 10¢ psychiatry sign…
If my speculation had merit, The American President would swap plots point with American Beauty.
The Liberal/Progressives hate religiousity, hate people who go to church, yet ‘tolerated’ Obama’s (and Clinton’s) professed piety. Why? Because it was a wink and a nod, exactly as Michael says, above. Because they knew he was lying, and that he had to do it to get where they wanted him to go – so it was ok with them. End justifies the means.
Same with same-sex-marriage. Wink and a nod. OF COURSE he says he is against it, and the media dutifully reported his words as gospel. And they rejoiced, for they knew, he was so clever. He was lying, wearing the proper disguise. And lying would get him where they wanted him to be.
Now he has given them another club to beat us over the head with, so he wins their favor.
But if he had ever been honest about who he was, he would never have been elected. they know it – and in countless races across this nation they pretend to be something they are not, the Progressives, so that they can accrue power. The end-game.
Now we find that there are papers, interviews, questionnaires dating back YEARS with Obama’s stated position being that he supported gay-marriage unequivocably. They knew this, the media did. yet they said nothing as they stood by and watched him lie. “Evolve.”
They searched Sarah Palin’s garbage cans for dirt, and stood by silently and watched this man lie. And lie. And lie. And lie. And lie and lie and lie.
Disgusting.
It’s not about how you feel about gay-marriage that matters here. It is the LIE, the absolute cynical lie, the pretense, the posturing, the hornswoggling, bamboozling spectacular dishonesty and the absolute and utter hypocrisy of the man and the media.
Unforgivable.
Obama Once Supported Same-Sex Marriage ‘Unequivocally’ – Huffington Post
“According to the Windy City Times, during the 1996 race for the Illinois State Senate, President-Elect Barack Obama gave statements that expressed an “unequivocal support for gay marriage.””
Windy City Times also includes his answers to the candidate questionnaire of IMPACT, at one time a gay political action committee in Illinois. In that survey he also stated his support of same-sex marriage.
During the final weeks of the presidential campaign last fall, several media outlets contacted Windy City Times because of an old internet story from the 1996 Illinois state Senate race. In that campaign, Outlines newspaper reported that 13th District candidate Barack Obama supported gay marriage. Reporters wanted to know what exactly Obama had said.
First Posted: 02/13/09
FIRST POSTED. FEBRUARY O-9
And we’re supposed to be jumping up and down pretending he’s – what?
Uh, if Obama wants gay money can’t he just put an ad in CraigsList?
Rose nails it.
In addition, this is just another of the carefully calculated weekly distractions, to distract everyone away from his disastorous record, and our ongoing Great Recession, and our 15 Trilllion debt as we rush headlong into becoming a broke 3rd world country — it is just the latest something for the leftist media, and the dupes on the right to buzz about for a week. Until the next distraction.
Some distractions work better than others. It’s a mixed bag, but the important thing is to keep ’em coming, and keep ’em spaced out in intervals.
Sandra whats her face and the free birth control. Who could be against “woman’s health?” Those mean Christianist right wingers, that’s who!
Trayvon. The son I never had. Oh, and the GOP hates black people, so don’t forget that, you 96% who came out for me in 2008.
Dog on Car – bad Mitt, bad Mitt, don’t trust bad Mitt!
Julia; War on Women again
Afghan Victory Speech in Kabul
This week — It’s all about lovin the Gays.
Next week??? I await it with bated breath!
I dread the upcoming Summer Olympics. It will be used by NBC, in direct cooperation with Team Obama, as a shameless propaganda re-election campaign device like we’ve never seen. See Michelle hand roses to the gymnastics latest America Sweetheart medalist!! See Brian Williams interview Barack during the basketball finals! Now lookie at our Dear Leader with the FLAG so patriotically wrapped around his shoulders!! G-D BLESSSSSS America and our WONDERFUL Patriotic President!! “Today, politics is not important as we come together to celebrate our American-ness!”
Shoot me now.
That’s your summer for you.
Then, if necessary to seal the deal, we may have the ultimate distraction away from his disaster of a clusterF–k….Hillary! replacing Biden? An October surprise of a new War, with Barry playing the “firm and courageous Commander in Chief”?? You know – the Man Who Got Osama!
It’s gonna be a Loooong six months.
“”this is just another of the carefully calculated weekly distractions, to distract everyone away from his disastorous record””
southernjames
Romney is going to have to get bold and take risk in exposing democrats and the medias game of distraction. The majority of people already know in their gut that something isn’t quite right about the way the dem/media cabal seeks to manipulate and distract. Romney has to put it in words that explains their gut feelings to be dead on accurate.
Another group Obama may be aiming at is the youth cool vote. This group lacks the life experience to understand the commitments and responsibilities of family life. They see gays in terms of individuals who are being treated unfairly. In fact, Obama also lacks life experience with real families. His own parents treated him poorly, and he had no long-term relationships with kids in school to provide another view of how families work. The result is the extremely narcissistic character we have in the Oval Office. If he is doing a better job with his own daughters, it isn’t because he learned about families at his father’s knee or because he grew up celebrating Christmas with a bunch of siblings and cousins.
Michelle also seems to think that a school lunch program is a good substitute for the intense relationship that develops when a child is nourished by its own mother.
I remember when Spain changed the ID requirents for listing mother and father to parent 1 and parent 2. I can’t wait for our own radical nutballs to claim that Mother’s Day and Father’s Day are discriminatory.
I don’t have a problem with civil partnerships, but I am extremely wary of having activists suing everyone about how our system is unfair. They are still trying to milk the women’s rights issue to denigrate anyone who chooses not to aim for the glass ceiling. Look what they tried with Ann Romney. And Obama’s “evolution shows that he hasn’t a clue about what is important in life. He is still aiming to fundamentally reshape our crappy society.
I mentioned previously the book Escape From Camp 14. I highly reccommend it because it shows how a person can be damaged when all the traditional forms of family life are destroyed.
“It is funny though that he will alow the states to decide on the issue of gay marriage while intervening federally on imigration or right to work issues. hmmmm….”
That’s his stated position, now…want to bet that if reelected he won’t ‘evolve’ into deciding that gay marriage is a federal issue after all?
“want to bet that if reelected he won’t ‘evolve’ into deciding that gay marriage is a federal issue after all?”
That will occur within three weeks of his inauguration for a second term. Why that long? Because first, he and Michelle and the girls will take an “in your face, Suck on THIS, America” two week, INTENTIONALLY lavish and over the top, vacation to some Carribean resort, on our dime.
They will not give a damn about their image, or popularity. She will stop the fake smiling or being friendly in public — and will cease the photo -ops at the food kitchen type stuff.
As for him — the power of the executive branch (ATF, TSA, EPA, FCC, etc.) will be used like it’s never been used before, to conduct end runs around congress and impose draconian leftist rules, regulations, and totalitarian mandates.
“I don’t have a problem with civil partnerships, but I am extremely wary of having activists suing everyone about how our system is unfair. ”
Expat, that’s exactly how I feel. The activists fighting for same-sex marriage have shown us that they don’t just want same-sex couples to live peacefully amongst hetero couples (they already do), they’re on a mission to ensure that EVERYONE accepts (if not embraces) their lifestyle.
For example, look at how Perez Hilton (and then the entertainment industry) treated Carrie Prejean, or how the CA Prop 8 donors were outed and harassed. Activists succeeded in getting some fired from their jobs. Activists stormed a Mormon church and assaulted parishioners. These people are not looking for acceptance, they want to destroy those who don’t agree with them.
I see Obama’s support of same-sex marriage not so much as a tolerance of same-sex relationships, but as a declaration that he sides with those who want to fight any person, and any institution, that doesn’t embrace the gay lifestyle. I hope that Catholics (all all Catholic institutions) and non-religious organizations like the Boy Scouts of America got the message: Obama does not tolerate your religious or lifestyle choices.
neo-neocon
I apologize if my comment on flip-flopping was hurtful. It was not my intent. And I agree with your comment about most politicians. We see daily examples of our leaders contorting themselves in order to not answer a question out of fear of offending the immediate audience or because they do not want to commit themselves lest they loose votes. In my opinion they are lying by omission. And to a given extent I can live with that although I am starting to grow weary of the act.
In the case of the President and the re-definition of marriage, it is my opinion that he was lying by commission. Granted there may be other explanations but I find them exceedingly hard to believe.
I think this announcement was planned from before Biden made his comments. Yes he is known to shoot his mouth off, but Biden made his “completely comfortable” remarks on Meet the Press which suggests he was laying the groundwork. Then Arne Duncan pipes up his support on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, which basically takes talking points from the WH. Then surprise surprise, Obama announces that his “evolution” is complete, surprising no one.
It’s all about shoring up the base and trying to win back those young voters, independents, etc. whose 2008 enthusiasm has cooled quite a bit. Plus, more importantly, the WaPo just ran a story about how a significant number of bundlers for his superPAC are in same sex relationships and these big bucks donors were really putting the squeeze on him…suggesting that if he didn’t “come out” the money might not flow as expected.
As with so many things, just follow the money. Obama is the king of expediency.
This could possible cut both ways, of course. Obama has the black vote sewed up no matter what he says or does, but I don’t see how this kind of announcement helps him with opinion leaders such as black preachers, who stand fairly firmly against gay marriage.
Michael: no need whatsoever to apologize. I happen to agree with you that he stopped lying about this.
This is, IMO, all planned ahead of time.
The distraction strategy, to take the conversation away from the economy and the 15 Trillion our grandkids will owe, is also of course intended to at the same time achieve other objectives.
One of which is of course to slime Romney. After all, Dear Leader can’t exactly run on his own record although I am sure the media will be touting his “accomplishments,” as the election gets closer. He inhertited everything from Bush except the post-9/11 intelligence network that has been searching for Osama since 2001. That he invented on his own, and in an act of historic courage, he personally hunted down and assasinated Osama. Thereby single handedly winning the war on terror. I’m getting leg tingles, just thinking about his Decisive Valor.
One of the other objectives is to target and attempt to try to lock up the votes on his target demographics that went for him last time – to try to prevent them from flipping, or not bothering to vote.
The Sandra Free Birth Control — the independant (but ironically “dependant”) single women, who are ticked about the economy….but for whom “reproductive rights” are enshrined and sacred….
The Trayvon: Come out and vote en masse for me again. Or you’ll be hunted down in the streets by Cracker GOP lynch mobs.
The I’m down wit da Gays b.s. Squishy independents and socially liberal libertarians for whom “social cons” are scary nazis. And the cool youth voters. Mitt’s a scary nerdy Morman. Don’t trust the reins of my well deserved power, with Mitt.
Even though they totally slimed Zimmerman, who is a hispanic — that will all go down the memory hole when we get, one of these weeks, a distraction designed for some well timed “hispandering.”
Most..divisive…President…EVER
expat: The inexperience of youth is one of the shortcomings I see now that I am engaged with the Paulbots. They’re not all college kids, but on average are barely old enough to have married and have a first child. The majority of them have yet to see how complicated real-life relationships can become over time.
I am happy that the RP faction is making headway stripping marriage from the formal GOP platform. Their version of the party will have a much bigger tent. But there is some blindness whenever they heard about liberty and equality. Marriage amendments and such are not about what couples choose, but about gov’t forcing everyone to be a party to their choices. It extends the umbrella of coercion over a vocal (and hip) minority.
I don’t fit in anywhere…
If the case for gay marriage is so obvious and compelling, why did it take Mr. Obama so long to realize it? Was he a bigot until yesterday? Or lacking education? Or intelligence?
If the case is NOT obvious and compelling, then what is its rationale? It cannot be an appeal to a self-evident right. And how do its supporters justify name calling and coercing its opponents?
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Not sure that this matters all that much. Seems to me that Romney has a pretty clear stance on it, and if this is the deciding factor for someone’s vote, that’s enough to make the decision.
The flip-flop is a namby-pamby one-eighty, a two-bit fence-mending based on… – I met this nice same-sex couple so lets chuck millennia old traditions and understandings. An example of the introspection of the highly-educated-shallow-thinking-Harvard Law-Cum-Laude.
That might help shore up his base but I doubt it will work in Peoria.
Harry the Extremist: He’s given up on Peoria. It’s Get Out the Base time.
As Deep Throat said during the Watergate investigation, follow the money. This article came out A DAY AGO.
Obama did this for campaign bucks. Pure and simple.
Saw some analysis this morning noting that while white liberals favor gay marriage pretty strongly, blacks — especially members of traditional black churches — are really turned off by it. So Obama’s fence-straddling has a lot more to do with trying to gin up the enthusiastic support of black preachers than it has to do with turning off swing-state moderates.
The issue was hurting Obama to some extent, but my gut tells me this flip-flop is going to hurt him more than bringing his position into line with the rest of the Dem party will help him. It somewhat insulates Romney against charges of being a flip-flopper to have the preezy make such a clear change of position, this close to the election, obviously FOR PURPOSES OF the election, and i such a highly publicized way.
Conrad: I had that same thought about the flip-flop charge and Romney.
And I think that Gringo’s post about major donations may be the key to the change of heart. And that Obama knows that most black voters who oppose gay marriage will not desert him over this.
Neo: “He’s given up on Peoria. It’s Get Out the Base time.”
Oh, I agree, but the base isnt going to be enough to get him reelected. he’s got to know that.
Harry the Extremist: I don’t think he knows that. Turnout and enthusiasm count for a lot in elections. I think Obama is banking on his ability to fire up his base combined with Romney’s lack of ability to fire up his base.
Of course, Obama might be forgetting his own ability to fire up the Republican base.
It is funny though that he will alow the states to decide on the issue of gay marriage while intervening federally on imigration or right to work issues. hmmmm….
Neo: “I think Obama is banking on his ability to fire up his base combined with Romney’s lack of ability to fire up his base.”
I think you’re right. I also agree this may well be a grave miscalculation.
Neo: “I think Obama is banking on his ability to fire up his base combined with Romney’s lack of ability to fire up his base.”
I think your half right..
Romney cant fire up anything…
but he doesn’t have to, which is the key
if he HAD to, he would lose
but all that means nothing…
because they never ever intended to win honestly
and its a heads i win tails you lose situation anyway
meanwhile, Romney is a progressive
which means he is the same as Obama…
just as Hitler and Stalin were both socialists, but were very different people with different ideas as to how to make socialism real and what functional form it would take.
but as with them, people lose the plot
so focused on differences to separate them
they completely ignore that they were MOSTLY the same and that at the end of the day, the differences were of design and fashion – but the END was the SAME.
but once again, i am in a position of trying to prove what your looking at isn’t what your looking at.
akin to someone looking at an optical illusion that they believe is real, and they refuse to move to another location to see if it is or not.
in fact, they will assert the reality of it, and then just not read the proof or other information that breaks it down – every standard obstical will be presented but all will have the same burden and requirment.
They all burden the other to present information that can be ignored or declared in someway (that then sends the other off again to gather), and all have the requirement that the person setting the obstical never moves.
in this way, they maintain their perspective, their security, and so on… this is the strength of the con, and what protects the con artist against cognitive dissonance in her victims.
the trick here is that they are to be held in position. that is, the leaders keep them from moving, and provide them alternative answers that allow them to not have to move. Most don’t notice this being fed the reason why their finding something out should be ignored (including the missive to ignore it).
what you will find is that each one requires the acceptance of a logical inconsistency, or a logical point being replaced by an asserted excuse why the logical right answer is not the right answer.
so you can have a source for modern socialism – K. Marx… but NOT realize that for other parts of it there are also sources.
By not crediting them openly among the masses, the masses think there is no source – but just as baseball fanatics know details about the game that even interested people don’t, the people implementing know like fanatics – and that those that oppose them wont move from their comfort zone.
Romney is on video saying: “I think the old standby definitions of who votes for which party have been blown away in this campaign. I think people recognize that I’m not a partisan Republican–that I’m someone who is moderate, and that my views are progressive.”.
then later, his people claim that being a progressive is a smear campaign of democrats.
oh oh, i feel an excuse coming on to tell us why the logical conclusion has to be the irrational something else.. i have not the room to copy over the babble talk of that long excuse…
Always better to flip than to stick with the morally repugnant position. Bravo Obama!
Also, this seems to be an issue where people’s opinions have genuinely been changing lately.
what if i clue everyone in on a bit of history that i bet they dont know about… at the state level that has history leading up to whats going on now…
the Populist War… ever hear of it?
it again goes back to the Hayes Tilden era in which republican blacks were murdered and the race scared into their current voting patterns…
anyone familiar with “The peoples party”, the populists in America? The populists took over the legislature and barricaded themselves in the representative hall and locked the radical republicans out.
the republicans marched and broke the door open with a sledge hammer… tensions were high.. the Peoples party populist Lorenzo D. Lewelling then called out the militia against the republicans.
He sent for Battery “A” of Wichita and instructed the men to bring their Gatling gun…
it only lasted three days.. the militia wouldn’t fire, they were mostly radical republicans… and the populist uprising of a sort was halted.
the Supreme Court found in favor of the Republicans.
to quote the kansas historical society
The People’s Party, also known as the “Populists”, was a short-lived political party in the United States established in 1891 during the Populist movement (United States, 19th Century). it represented a radical crusading form of agrarianism and hostility to banks, railroads, and elites generally. It sometimes formed coalitions with labor unions, and in 1896 the Democrats endorsed their presidential nominee, William Jennings Bryan.
Democrats, unions, populism, socialism progressive movement…
wait… hows this related to the progressives… and what ARE their goals outside the public forum? that is, like feminists, what do they talk about away from their dupes… or outside the purview of the people they inflame, what do race hucksters talk about in terms of those followers (and using them)?
you see… if your not sitting in on those meetings and not learning that stuff, then your the target in their minds (either use or oppose).
now.. quoting the same wiki page..
By 1898, the Democrats used a violently racist campaign to defeat the North Carolina Populists and GOP and in 1900 the Democrats ushered in disfranchisement
but this left a vacuum in Kansas politics…
a number of G.O.P. politicians were concerned about the conservatism of the party. As a result, they sought to promote reform. These progressive Republicans were supporters of Theodore Roosevelt, who became the most visible symbol of the national movement.
[if you know this and more history, what they do is like turning on huge neon signs as is why… if not. then you just don’t even know there are these huge holes and gaps with huge signs brightly beaming. you just pass by the nothing not knowing]
Robert M. La Follette, Sr. was an American politician from Wisconsin who founded the magazine now called The Progressive and who gave the label “progressive” much of the meaning it carries today.
quoting discover the networks:
Academics in power? isn’t obama an academic? didn’t he give a “shout out” to Wisconsin?
[edited for length by n-n]
by the way. Moses Harmon started at Liberal League… (at that time league meant socialist/communist the way peoples did in another era)
he too, like Alinsky had a fondness for Lucifer…
his paper was named after him, and he was known world wide by socialists/communists (with famous founder of fabianism commenting)…
The paper, “free to all who desire communication on all subjects,” had a yearly subscription rate of 50 cents.
so only wealthy people could afford and read it…
hint hint
it became The Kansas Liberal…
he theme of the publication was “Total Separation of the State from Supernatural Theology. Perfect Equality before the Law for all Men and Women. No Privileged Classes or Orders — No Monopolies.”
sound familiar?
he is the FATHER of modern feminism’s…
Moses Harman devised his own system of dating for the “Era of Man,” beginning January 1, 1601.
part of the progressive hatred of counting from Jesus.
he picked 1601 as the age of the era of man starting with the death of Bruno.. (and you can ask 1000 teenage girls who read seventeen and all are feminists (their quizzes told them) and none of them would know they are following the ideas of a satanist wacko from Kansas!!!!! who thought sexualizing everyone and not having to pay for the babies the men made and all that was a great thing… and then came up with ideas for women to become just that! but all wrapped in high minded positive good stuff)
he then renamed it Lucifer the Light Bearer … and then, like Alinsky, explained why Lucifer was so great. [now you know where the tin hatters get their Lucifer plot ideas from].. these guys LOVE symbolism and such… they like to dangle the key and stuff in front of the victims knowing that they wont get it.
Among the many objectives of Lucifer’s editors was the abolition of paternalism as generated by the church and the state. (the patriarchy)
if you read this sources, you will find every tick tock thing that people are discussing today as long term goals… cigarettes, sexualization of women, academics ruling things (under a false assumption of competency), and on and on and on.
now..
i DARE you to dove tail Romney choices with their list of things… and see if he doesn’t match most of them. hard not to actually… Harman did not resent being called an anarchist.
but when you read.. you will realize that they picked the worst stuff, and ignored his other stuff… ie. they took what they wanted of him that confirmd their darker sides and ignored the more contemporary wisdom he still was connected to.
Vote if you must, but vote to abolish rather than to enact laws. But while exercising your natural, your civil right to vote, remember that you have no right to force your methods on others. . . . In fewer words, use your governmental crutch until you are able to walk without it.
so even the history most dont know is warped by those that do… ie. where he aligned with ideas of marx or the free love, i dont have to pay for babies, or marry them movement (get the state to do that, and while they are at it… liberate them from christian theology, self respect, and all that… makes it easier to use them and fornicate… no? (would a person admiring satan as a icon if not religion be a person who wouldnt want womens sex on tap for himself and other men? duh)
Aroused by the evils of the accumulation of capital by the few, Harman called for reform in the nation’s wage system. He proposed to substitute a plan of “voluntary cooperation” in which the capital necessary to carry on the business would be owned by the workers themselves. [52] This plan was expanded as part of the “Labor Exchange” which he outlined in 1893.
minimum wage? federal setting salaries? equality of outcome? social justice? liberalism? progressivism? any of this sound familiar to anyone here?
Religion, particularly Christianity, came under heavy verbal attack by Harman. He contended that religion was based on ignorance of nature’s methods and fear of the unseen powers that were supposedly warring over human destiny.
The most needed reform, according to Harman, was in the area of sex. While he recognized the need for other reform, his newspaper eventually dealt most exclusively with sex-related problems. Kansas city historical society
Harman opposed the institution of marriage
kansas city historical society
and the mother would get her stuff from the state.. like day care… and medical.. and a room of her own…
oh.. and dont forget free birth control
as was a recent controversy..
i will stop here.
for if your now not curious as to where this all comes from, you will never be.
but in the big scheme of things… its kind of funny that all these women are going barren thinking they are the future with no kids, and being the living experiment of “absolute freedom”.
A recommendation for a program of sex education was proposed in an effort to solve many of the problems relating to sex.
ergo the fisting pamphlets, gay rights, and all that.
including eugenics… a la sanger and his newletter by a new name… which explains the wanting “after birth abortions”
if you dont know where you have been, how do you know which direction your traveling?
if you give me an odd thing they are pushing, i will show you it comes from this bottle neck and political theater.
a historical era that school erases and doesnt teach and progressive education for the masses avoids.
I don’t see how this hurts Obama.
The majority of the populace favor Civil Unions in one form or another.
It might have hurt Obama if more people besides political junkies took time to note how much he flip-flops, and anyone except die-hard progressives noted how politically expedient he is (in other words he’ll SAY alot to placate his “base” but do little in the end), but this country is not blessed with lots of voters with large attention spans.
Sensible policy.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299401/conservatives-and-gays-where-do-we-stand-dennis-prager#
I think this is a case of his gay supporters, who provide a lot of money for his campaign, insisting that he do something to bring black voters on board. I think it was triggered by the defeat in North Carolina. Obama was always supportive of gay marriage; the “evolution” had more to do with what he thought was politically marketable than with any refinement of thought.
Somebody said that, after a lot of prodding, Obama has finally come around to Dick Cheney’s position on the subject
For what it is worth, I think this is a mere sound bite moment. I don’t see this as in the same league as rendition, predator drone strikes, DHS groping, or electronic surveillance; all of which were far bigger issues with the left. IMO this is a blip in the 24/7 news cycle.
How does Obama look to Erdogan and Putin and his other Islamic and want to be tyrant pals by being pro-gay?
Dat ott dare, mayee.
Gang. Boy.
Actually, several years ago a friend (who no longer speaks to me because he cannot deal with a difference of opinion) assured me that the President was just lying so he could rope us rubes in. He used the word “lie”.
The President did not flip flop. He just stopped lying.
And everyone knows it.
OBAMA AND AXELROD THINK THEY CAN USE TRAYVON TO HOLD ON TO THE BLACK VOTE.
They will spin this as being in favor of equal rights for EVERYONE. But I think Gringo’s explanation is probably a lot closer to the truth. They can explain his change of heart as his evolution toward more fairness for EVERYBODY, not flippin’ and floppin’.
The political planners may also see this as an issue they can use to divert attention away from the economy and Obama’s record.
Prediction: He will suddenly approve the Keystone XL pipeline in September if the polls don’t look too good. Being held in their arsenal for a hail Mary. They probably have an array of other diversions planned as well.
“They probably have an array of other diversions planned as well.”
Most certainly. Keystone and new permits in the Gulf are locked in for September-October, and we will see month by month manipulation of unemployment numbers. Plus, we should expect something dramatic in foreign affairs as they try to divert our attention away from nearly 4 years of policies that have hindered recovery from the blow out of 2008.
Michael: I used the word “flip-flop” somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I also don’t think the president changed his mind. I think he was in favor of gay marriage before, too, but was saying he wasn’t for political reasons.
Which would make him not unlike most politicians.
When Barry was learning how to be Barack, he might have theorized that gay marriage deserved recognition. More likely, though, given that was thirty years ago, gay anything barely came up.
When Barack was learning how to be a black man in Chicago, gay stuff came up. But a proper black man is a little disgusted by queers. As a leftist, they’re on the same team. Just keep your distance in regular life.
It wasn’t until the 90s that gay became trendy (gay was the new black!). Throw in some early imprints from his racist bigoted grandmother and some transferred anger at the people stealing the love/attention of his absentee mother, I say Obama probably doesn’t like queers.
He would be one of those who say all the right things in social situations where there’s tremendous pressure to conform. Barry has always been worried about fitting in. But in private he feels and votes from a more primal instinct.
I should be standing behind Lucy’s 10¢ psychiatry sign…
If my speculation had merit, The American President would swap plots point with American Beauty.
The Liberal/Progressives hate religiousity, hate people who go to church, yet ‘tolerated’ Obama’s (and Clinton’s) professed piety. Why? Because it was a wink and a nod, exactly as Michael says, above. Because they knew he was lying, and that he had to do it to get where they wanted him to go – so it was ok with them. End justifies the means.
Same with same-sex-marriage. Wink and a nod. OF COURSE he says he is against it, and the media dutifully reported his words as gospel. And they rejoiced, for they knew, he was so clever. He was lying, wearing the proper disguise. And lying would get him where they wanted him to be.
Now he has given them another club to beat us over the head with, so he wins their favor.
But if he had ever been honest about who he was, he would never have been elected. they know it – and in countless races across this nation they pretend to be something they are not, the Progressives, so that they can accrue power. The end-game.
Now we find that there are papers, interviews, questionnaires dating back YEARS with Obama’s stated position being that he supported gay-marriage unequivocably. They knew this, the media did. yet they said nothing as they stood by and watched him lie. “Evolve.”
They searched Sarah Palin’s garbage cans for dirt, and stood by silently and watched this man lie. And lie. And lie. And lie. And lie and lie and lie.
Disgusting.
It’s not about how you feel about gay-marriage that matters here. It is the LIE, the absolute cynical lie, the pretense, the posturing, the hornswoggling, bamboozling spectacular dishonesty and the absolute and utter hypocrisy of the man and the media.
Unforgivable.
Obama Once Supported Same-Sex Marriage ‘Unequivocally’ – Huffington Post
“According to the Windy City Times, during the 1996 race for the Illinois State Senate, President-Elect Barack Obama gave statements that expressed an “unequivocal support for gay marriage.””
Windy City Times also includes his answers to the candidate questionnaire of IMPACT, at one time a gay political action committee in Illinois. In that survey he also stated his support of same-sex marriage.
During the final weeks of the presidential campaign last fall, several media outlets contacted Windy City Times because of an old internet story from the 1996 Illinois state Senate race. In that campaign, Outlines newspaper reported that 13th District candidate Barack Obama supported gay marriage. Reporters wanted to know what exactly Obama had said.
First Posted: 02/13/09
FIRST POSTED. FEBRUARY O-9
And we’re supposed to be jumping up and down pretending he’s – what?
Uh, if Obama wants gay money can’t he just put an ad in CraigsList?
Rose nails it.
In addition, this is just another of the carefully calculated weekly distractions, to distract everyone away from his disastorous record, and our ongoing Great Recession, and our 15 Trilllion debt as we rush headlong into becoming a broke 3rd world country — it is just the latest something for the leftist media, and the dupes on the right to buzz about for a week. Until the next distraction.
Some distractions work better than others. It’s a mixed bag, but the important thing is to keep ’em coming, and keep ’em spaced out in intervals.
Sandra whats her face and the free birth control. Who could be against “woman’s health?” Those mean Christianist right wingers, that’s who!
Trayvon. The son I never had. Oh, and the GOP hates black people, so don’t forget that, you 96% who came out for me in 2008.
Dog on Car – bad Mitt, bad Mitt, don’t trust bad Mitt!
Julia; War on Women again
Afghan Victory Speech in Kabul
This week — It’s all about lovin the Gays.
Next week??? I await it with bated breath!
I dread the upcoming Summer Olympics. It will be used by NBC, in direct cooperation with Team Obama, as a shameless propaganda re-election campaign device like we’ve never seen. See Michelle hand roses to the gymnastics latest America Sweetheart medalist!! See Brian Williams interview Barack during the basketball finals! Now lookie at our Dear Leader with the FLAG so patriotically wrapped around his shoulders!! G-D BLESSSSSS America and our WONDERFUL Patriotic President!! “Today, politics is not important as we come together to celebrate our American-ness!”
Shoot me now.
That’s your summer for you.
Then, if necessary to seal the deal, we may have the ultimate distraction away from his disaster of a clusterF–k….Hillary! replacing Biden? An October surprise of a new War, with Barry playing the “firm and courageous Commander in Chief”?? You know – the Man Who Got Osama!
It’s gonna be a Loooong six months.
“”this is just another of the carefully calculated weekly distractions, to distract everyone away from his disastorous record””
southernjames
Romney is going to have to get bold and take risk in exposing democrats and the medias game of distraction. The majority of people already know in their gut that something isn’t quite right about the way the dem/media cabal seeks to manipulate and distract. Romney has to put it in words that explains their gut feelings to be dead on accurate.
If anybody cares, here’s my take:
Obama Concedes Election Today
http://www.wesurroundthempa.org/2012/4736/
Another group Obama may be aiming at is the youth cool vote. This group lacks the life experience to understand the commitments and responsibilities of family life. They see gays in terms of individuals who are being treated unfairly. In fact, Obama also lacks life experience with real families. His own parents treated him poorly, and he had no long-term relationships with kids in school to provide another view of how families work. The result is the extremely narcissistic character we have in the Oval Office. If he is doing a better job with his own daughters, it isn’t because he learned about families at his father’s knee or because he grew up celebrating Christmas with a bunch of siblings and cousins.
Michelle also seems to think that a school lunch program is a good substitute for the intense relationship that develops when a child is nourished by its own mother.
I remember when Spain changed the ID requirents for listing mother and father to parent 1 and parent 2. I can’t wait for our own radical nutballs to claim that Mother’s Day and Father’s Day are discriminatory.
I don’t have a problem with civil partnerships, but I am extremely wary of having activists suing everyone about how our system is unfair. They are still trying to milk the women’s rights issue to denigrate anyone who chooses not to aim for the glass ceiling. Look what they tried with Ann Romney. And Obama’s “evolution shows that he hasn’t a clue about what is important in life. He is still aiming to fundamentally reshape our crappy society.
I mentioned previously the book Escape From Camp 14. I highly reccommend it because it shows how a person can be damaged when all the traditional forms of family life are destroyed.
“It is funny though that he will alow the states to decide on the issue of gay marriage while intervening federally on imigration or right to work issues. hmmmm….”
That’s his stated position, now…want to bet that if reelected he won’t ‘evolve’ into deciding that gay marriage is a federal issue after all?
“want to bet that if reelected he won’t ‘evolve’ into deciding that gay marriage is a federal issue after all?”
That will occur within three weeks of his inauguration for a second term. Why that long? Because first, he and Michelle and the girls will take an “in your face, Suck on THIS, America” two week, INTENTIONALLY lavish and over the top, vacation to some Carribean resort, on our dime.
They will not give a damn about their image, or popularity. She will stop the fake smiling or being friendly in public — and will cease the photo -ops at the food kitchen type stuff.
As for him — the power of the executive branch (ATF, TSA, EPA, FCC, etc.) will be used like it’s never been used before, to conduct end runs around congress and impose draconian leftist rules, regulations, and totalitarian mandates.
“I don’t have a problem with civil partnerships, but I am extremely wary of having activists suing everyone about how our system is unfair. ”
Expat, that’s exactly how I feel. The activists fighting for same-sex marriage have shown us that they don’t just want same-sex couples to live peacefully amongst hetero couples (they already do), they’re on a mission to ensure that EVERYONE accepts (if not embraces) their lifestyle.
For example, look at how Perez Hilton (and then the entertainment industry) treated Carrie Prejean, or how the CA Prop 8 donors were outed and harassed. Activists succeeded in getting some fired from their jobs. Activists stormed a Mormon church and assaulted parishioners. These people are not looking for acceptance, they want to destroy those who don’t agree with them.
I see Obama’s support of same-sex marriage not so much as a tolerance of same-sex relationships, but as a declaration that he sides with those who want to fight any person, and any institution, that doesn’t embrace the gay lifestyle. I hope that Catholics (all all Catholic institutions) and non-religious organizations like the Boy Scouts of America got the message: Obama does not tolerate your religious or lifestyle choices.
neo-neocon
I apologize if my comment on flip-flopping was hurtful. It was not my intent. And I agree with your comment about most politicians. We see daily examples of our leaders contorting themselves in order to not answer a question out of fear of offending the immediate audience or because they do not want to commit themselves lest they loose votes. In my opinion they are lying by omission. And to a given extent I can live with that although I am starting to grow weary of the act.
In the case of the President and the re-definition of marriage, it is my opinion that he was lying by commission. Granted there may be other explanations but I find them exceedingly hard to believe.
I think this announcement was planned from before Biden made his comments. Yes he is known to shoot his mouth off, but Biden made his “completely comfortable” remarks on Meet the Press which suggests he was laying the groundwork. Then Arne Duncan pipes up his support on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, which basically takes talking points from the WH. Then surprise surprise, Obama announces that his “evolution” is complete, surprising no one.
It’s all about shoring up the base and trying to win back those young voters, independents, etc. whose 2008 enthusiasm has cooled quite a bit. Plus, more importantly, the WaPo just ran a story about how a significant number of bundlers for his superPAC are in same sex relationships and these big bucks donors were really putting the squeeze on him…suggesting that if he didn’t “come out” the money might not flow as expected.
As with so many things, just follow the money. Obama is the king of expediency.
This could possible cut both ways, of course. Obama has the black vote sewed up no matter what he says or does, but I don’t see how this kind of announcement helps him with opinion leaders such as black preachers, who stand fairly firmly against gay marriage.
Michael: no need whatsoever to apologize. I happen to agree with you that he stopped lying about this.
This is, IMO, all planned ahead of time.
The distraction strategy, to take the conversation away from the economy and the 15 Trillion our grandkids will owe, is also of course intended to at the same time achieve other objectives.
One of which is of course to slime Romney. After all, Dear Leader can’t exactly run on his own record although I am sure the media will be touting his “accomplishments,” as the election gets closer. He inhertited everything from Bush except the post-9/11 intelligence network that has been searching for Osama since 2001. That he invented on his own, and in an act of historic courage, he personally hunted down and assasinated Osama. Thereby single handedly winning the war on terror. I’m getting leg tingles, just thinking about his Decisive Valor.
One of the other objectives is to target and attempt to try to lock up the votes on his target demographics that went for him last time – to try to prevent them from flipping, or not bothering to vote.
The Sandra Free Birth Control — the independant (but ironically “dependant”) single women, who are ticked about the economy….but for whom “reproductive rights” are enshrined and sacred….
The Trayvon: Come out and vote en masse for me again. Or you’ll be hunted down in the streets by Cracker GOP lynch mobs.
The I’m down wit da Gays b.s. Squishy independents and socially liberal libertarians for whom “social cons” are scary nazis. And the cool youth voters. Mitt’s a scary nerdy Morman. Don’t trust the reins of my well deserved power, with Mitt.
Even though they totally slimed Zimmerman, who is a hispanic — that will all go down the memory hole when we get, one of these weeks, a distraction designed for some well timed “hispandering.”
Most..divisive…President…EVER
expat: The inexperience of youth is one of the shortcomings I see now that I am engaged with the Paulbots. They’re not all college kids, but on average are barely old enough to have married and have a first child. The majority of them have yet to see how complicated real-life relationships can become over time.
I am happy that the RP faction is making headway stripping marriage from the formal GOP platform. Their version of the party will have a much bigger tent. But there is some blindness whenever they heard about liberty and equality. Marriage amendments and such are not about what couples choose, but about gov’t forcing everyone to be a party to their choices. It extends the umbrella of coercion over a vocal (and hip) minority.
I don’t fit in anywhere…
If the case for gay marriage is so obvious and compelling, why did it take Mr. Obama so long to realize it? Was he a bigot until yesterday? Or lacking education? Or intelligence?
If the case is NOT obvious and compelling, then what is its rationale? It cannot be an appeal to a self-evident right. And how do its supporters justify name calling and coercing its opponents?