Reply With Quote
What a freakin joke this guy is and people who blindly support his fake ass.
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"
bull , 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 cons utional rights are applied?
As much as Republicans are whining about this, I can only characterize it as a good political move on Obama's part.
and Repugs know they're losing on this point, so they are trying hard to switch the headlines back to the ty dubya economy to continue to stick Barry with its exclusive responsibility.
So when Dubya was trying to get a Cons utional amendment to keep marriage how it was supposed to be, and all the libs said it was a distraction. Now it is ligitimate?
SA210 laughs at the blandest things.
Bland is right...a non-story making the rounds because the media decides it should.
Not bland, historic. First president ever to endorse same-sex marriage.
But it changes nothing if there is no federal legislation to enforce it as a civil right and override red-state discrimination.
Historic in a limited sense, given Cheney's identical position on this matter.
Obama went out of his way to stress that his "endorsement" was entirely personal and not political. This strikes me as dishonest and manipulative in the extreme, as he's clearly trying to get credit for a position without taking any real political risks.
The media framing/distortion has been astonishing, for one could honestly and accurately claim that Obama, in his political capacity as POTOS has not in fact endorsed endorsed gay marriage but rather states rights.
You should buy a clue.
My state is a liberal haven, and same sex marriage was rejected bu the voters.
yep, states rights to discriminate, just like "states rights" was a code word for George Wallace and southern racists claiming the right to treat blacks like .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
