Its to make sure that many people who might not show up to vote will now do it.
Its to make sure that many people who might not show up to vote will now do it.
If he waited until 1-2 months before the election it would look even more political and the base might not get excited. Now people will poor in money and volunteers will sign up to help with his reelection. Its q smart move and I see Obama getting a lot out of this personal opinion.
In fact, Obama has not “evolved”—he has changed his position whenever his political fortunes required him to do so. Running for the Illinois state senate from a trendy area of Chicago in 1996, he was for gay marriage. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,” he wrote in answer to a questionnaire back then. In 2004, he was running for the U.S. Senate and needed to appeal to voters statewide. So he evolved, and favored civil unions but opposed homosexual “marriage.” In 2008, running for president, he said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” Now in 2012, facing a tough reelection campaign where he needs energized supporters of gay “marriage” and has disappointed them with his refusal to give them his support, he is for it. To paraphrase John Kerry, he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...lf_644310.html
I realize that it is the Weekly Standard. But it looks like Obama is doing the Cha Cha on the issue of gay marriage.
"facing a tough reelection campaign"
... in Krazy Always-Wrong Kristol's WeeklyStandard's dreams:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...-electoral-map
so why do blacks and latinoes are not in favor? lol cause they make up 95% of the cell inmates, they wont agree to such legislation cause they know if will come back and haunt them if they end up in prison...
No."admit that marriage is basically a contract between two people in order to get benefits and personal gain"
just a business/financial deal?
The government got into the business of marriage to eliminate or control interracial marriage. I say the government should just get out of it. For taxes, each wage earner pays his/her own. For property and decision rights, draw up legal papers.
I miss the 1/2 hr News hour...
Cash Pours In For Obama After Same-Sex “Evolution,” No Boost For Romney
While Barack Obama’s dramatic embrace of same-sex marriage Wednesday opened the floodgates of fundraising and enthusiasm for his re-election campaign, it appears to present new challenges for Mitt Romney.
Despite suggestions that the president’s new position would bring out impassioned foes of gay marriage, it is supporters who so far have been most energized by the president’s move.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...or-romney.html
Sure, he gets more campaign dough that he doesn't need and disenfranchises some of his silent supporters.
Probably an overall lose.
Gecko "EVOLVES" very fast
Mitt Romney’s Support Of Same-Sex Adoption Lasts One Day
Among Mitt Romney’s timid responses this week after President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality was an admission that he was “fine” with same-sex couples adopting children, saying, “that’s something that people have a right to do.” But by Friday afternoon, he was already backing away from that position, suggesting that he merely “acknowledges” that many states offer same-sex adoption:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/0...supporting-it/
iow, Gecko's courageous "moral principle" is to follow what the states have overwhelmingly permitted.
oops, that's NOT what the "Christian" Taleban warrior fringe wants to hear.
From reports about money pouring in, it would appear you were right.
Do you also think that that will bring people to the booth who wouldn't have voted, to vote for romney?
Gone, But Not Forgotten:
Attack Troop 1-61 Cav
SPC Romig
Bayonette Troop 1-61 Cav
CPT Wallace
SFC Jarvis
SSG Oakes
SPC Ramsey
PFC Gassen
PFC Staggs
PV2 McLain
Comanche Troop 1-61 Cav
SPC Lutes
SPC Vargas
From a policy standpoint, nothing changes. He officially says that let the states decide. That was his position the whole time
yeah, right, so civil/state law trumps, conveniently, his fake morals. got it, expediency rules. Not very "Christian" supremacist of him.
Well, the 'states rights' caveat says it all to me. All he is really saying is that he has no personal problem with it, but that states should be able to decide on their own.
It is really pretty mealy-mouthed approval, imho, but achieves a feel-good moment for the GL alliance and actually costs him nothing. Good politics, poor courage evidence. Pretty classic Obama, I think.
What a freakin joke this guy is and people who blindly support his fake ass.
I agree except i think it will hurt him more than help. anyone who wants gay marriage changes were going to vote for him anyways. This will definitely turn alot of people against him. Although I think most people who were on the fence have other concerns besides this. But there are people who feel like this is their stand point. Like me and pro-life.
"turn alot of people against him"
bullshit, they weren't going to vote for him anyway.
Top GOP Pollster to GOP: Reverse On Gay Issues
onclusion is clear: if the GOP keeps up its current rhetoric and positions on gays and lesbians, it is in danger of marginalizing itself to irrelevance or worse.
Read the bluntness of this. This is the GOP establishment talking to itself. And the Republican pollster who arguably knows more about the politics of the gay issue than anyone else (how else to explain the Ohio campaign of 2004?) is advising them in no uncertain terms that they need to evolve and fast, if they're not going to damage their brand for an entire generation:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....tsheet_morning
Top GOP Pollster to GOP: Reverse On Gay Issues
Conclusion is clear: if the GOP keeps up its current rhetoric and positions on gays and lesbians, it is in danger of marginalizing itself to irrelevance or worse.
Read the bluntness of this. This is the GOP establishment talking to itself. And the Republican pollster who arguably knows more about the politics of the gay issue than anyone else (how else to explain the Ohio campaign of 2004?) is advising them in no uncertain terms that they need to evolve and fast, if they're not going to damage their brand for an entire generation:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....tsheet_morning
Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-13-2012 at 12:49 PM.
Not relevant...political pandering.
Repugs pander to the "Christian" Taleban, authoritarian, Bible-thumping moralists. Is that relevant?
smoking the reefer
Last edited by spursncowboys; 05-13-2012 at 01:14 PM.
I'm saying his stance isn't relevant because it doesn't change anything. It only serves to draw contrast with the Republicans, which already existed...hence the irrelevance and pandering.
If not Const. rights, which rights/laws applied to non-US-citizen criminals?
that was in the wrong thread b-d
But for who? terrorists caught on the battlefield?
Are you saying that the ommission of a statute means we should assume constitutional rights are applied?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
