May 9, 2012

Pressure on Obama to "evolve" some more on same-sex marriage.

Tune in and witness the evolution before your very eyes in just a few minutes.
The sudden booking suggests an interest on the part of the White House to get Mr. Obama in front of cameras, albeit in a carefully controlled interview setting, as soon as possible.
The presumably friendly interviewer – evolution extractor — is Robin Roberts of "Good Morning America."

UPDATE: Obama evolves, endorses same-sex marriage.

145 comments:

Curious George said...

If Obama had a son he would look like Robin Roberts.

Jay said...

So the Black President will take to the air to endorse gay marriage with a black interviewer in tow to make all those "bigoted" black voters who voted against SSM marriage yesterday feel more comfortable.

Isn't the post-racial Presidency grand?

pm317 said...

Trying to put this issue to rest. Good luck! (meaning he won't). Maybe he should fire Biden. That will make for a better distraction.

Seven Machos said...

Poor Obama. This poor guy can't win any more. He's The Cooler.

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
pm317 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quayle said...

They've finished the focus groups and the polling and have determined that the number of black church-goers Obama will lose over this issue is acceptably small.

Bob Ellison said...

Darn. It's not airing "in just a few minutes". They're just recording it and will tease it all afternoon and show it tomorrow.

It's tough out here for us amateurs, trying to catch journalism in the wild.

pm317 said...

Why do the LGBT people accept his charade?

TWM said...

If people are going to vote either for or against Barry for social reasons I would argue they are clinically insane at this point and therefore beyond reason so this should have little impact on the election.

Romney needs to ignore it and remember it's the economy, stupid.

RLB_IV said...

The federal government should stay out of marriage all together. The federal tax code should be changed to have only one tax bracket, single. The deductions for children or mates should be eliminated.

Seven Machos said...

The deductions for children or mates should be eliminated.

I disagree strongly. Having children is obviously vital. More people is good. It pays for old people and it correlates strongly -- perfectly, really -- with economic growth over all of human history.

If giving people a rebate for having children increases the number of children, that's awesome.

Quayle said...

Recall our discussion on the bible and homosexuality, and I referenced Paul in arguing that we can know who is aligned with the Holy Spirit by looking at the fruit of their works.

(Galatians 5:22-23 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, [m]eekness, temperance: against such there is no law.")

How's this for love, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, temperance?

Andy R. said...

This will probably draw more attention to the hateful anti-gay bigotry of the Mormon Church.

Christopher in MA said...

Well, pmt317, you asked why do the LGBT people accept his charade? and Hat gave you the answer:

Because shut up, you h8r!

Seven Machos said...

No. Anti-religious bigotry by hateful anti-religious bigots is in the searing spotlight.

ricpic said...

Obama: On the one hand I got The Beard for show; on the other hand I got Reggie for love: that's my positions and I'm stickin' to 'em.

cubanbob said...

Andy R. said...
This will probably draw more attention to the hateful anti-gay bigotry of the Mormon Church.

5/9/12 12:45 PM

20 million people are out of, the country is about to go over the fiscal cliff. No one care about this right now.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...
This will probably draw more attention to the hateful anti-gay bigotry of the Mormon Church.



Awww, you're all butt hurt because all those blacks voted against "love" in NC?

Why don't you call those blacks bigots, cracker?

Bob Ellison said...

Since the interview hasn't yet aired, it seems appropriate to speculate on what will happen there. Observe that:

1) Obama's people have done everything wrong lately (loose-cannons Biden, Rosen, and Axelrod, big-time flailure in the SCOTUS, etc.).

2) Obama is desperately behind in the race for re-election.

Obama will today record an interview that will lay bare his position on gay marriage, and people on both sides of the issue rightly see this as a question of character. What will he do?

I predict, given the above, that he will flail. Probably say something like "this is a painful issue that cuts across cultural and religious questions for many Americans, and we need to allow the American people to speak and choose their positions on it."

rhhardin said...

Is Obama evolving on running again, is the question.

X said...

RLB IV, that would be the smart play, to treat everyone equally.

bagoh20 said...

Obama can stay un-evolved and not lose a single vote from the left because of it. I also don't think many would vote against him just because he does "evolve" on the issue. It's just not as important as his people think it is to this election.

Quayle said...

This will probably draw more attention to the hateful anti-gay bigotry of the Mormon Church.

Is this what you are straining to call hate, hat-boy?

A quote from which:

"As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down."

"Further, while the Church is strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, it has openly supported other rights for gays and lesbians such as protections in housing or employment."

"The Church’s doctrine is based on love. We believe that our purpose in life is to learn, grow and develop, and that God’s unreserved love enables each of us to reach our potential. None of us is limited by our feelings or inclinations. Ultimately, we are free to act for ourselves."

If that is what you call bigotry, how would you define difference of opinion?

traditionalguy said...

I can tell you what Obama will say:

Obama loves the oppressed gay men and women and he really means it. He is not lying this time. He just wants them to take the deal he offered the Russians that he will surrender AFTER the election. Ok? It's not easy to fool all of the People all of the time.

MayBee said...

John Edwards also said his thoughts on gay marriage were evolving.
So Obama is just following in Edwards' footsteps.

Cheney openly disagreed with Bush's stance on gay marriage. Why must this be so difficult?

Salamandyr said...

I think this might move some of the young Ron Paul protest voters back into his column.

garage mahal said...

You know what would be ballsy? Obama announcing he's gay!

Portia said...

The Robin Roberts I knew was white and a pitcher with the Phillies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Roberts_%28baseball%29

traditionalguy said...

It is funny to say it, but Obama has intentionally created an economic jobless recovery which means the Gays need marriage more than ever so two can live together as cheaply as one, like they people had to do during FDR's 1930s.

Christopher in MA said...

You know what would be ballsy? Obama announcing he's gay!

That ship sailed a long time ago, garage. He just hasn't gone full Gavin Newsome yet.

Michael Haz said...

If Obama evolves any further on the issue of gay marriage, he'll catch up with Dick Cheney.

BarrySanders20 said...

You know what would be ballsy? Obama announcing he's gay!

Obama could start with announcing he doesn't believe in a supreme creator being/God, that he would legalize drugs, and end overseas military engagements. Then he could say that his position on gay marriage is just that it's too queer for him to accept. I would believe he was telling the truth if this is what he said.

ElPresidenteCastro said...

Why should he evolve? 61% of crucial swing state North Carolina just turned out to support his position on gay marriage.

Mary said...

"More people is good. It pays for old people and it correlates strongly -- perfectly, really -- with economic growth over all of human history.

If giving people a rebate for having children increases the number of children, that's awesome."
-----------
You're assuming those new mouths will be net postitives: = educated, workers, healthy and productive contributors...

If they need to be fed breakfast, lunch and dinner on the taxpayer dime, plus their medical costs, then don't get a decent enough education to work and pay taxes ... I'd just as soon predict their lives as potential pre-diabetics will cost more than they contribute to the future economy. Call me a realist.

Of course, not YOUR kid. Your kid is going to grow up and cure cancer, I'm sure...

Patrick said...

Really, I am going to wonder which dolts will actually believe whatever it is the President has to say.

CJinPA said...

His supporters and the media (but I repeat myself) knew this was where he was going, and generally gave him a pass. Except for the most vocal, single-issue gay rights lobby types who have a lot of influence and money on the Dem side.

Obama was going to do this after the election. He was just forced to speed it up. (If he actually announces a change. He could very well continue try the wink-wink approach. The media's cool with that.)

Maybe the jokes are getting to him. The Daily Show and the Onion, who are more comfortable with humor aimed at familiar, conservative targets, have been making digs. He's not used to that.

chickenlittle said...

This thread is evolving

PatCA said...

A breathless nation awaits!

n.n said...

Homosexual evolution is an oxymoron.

Well, as with "progress", evolution is, apparently, also ambiguous. Not by natural but by artificial standards.

It's interesting to observe competing interests butting heads. I wonder how dreamers of instant gratification without consequence and the elite who enjoy exploiting them would process their complaints if the Christian majority was replaced with a Muslim majority or another group which does not tolerate this particular deviant behavior.

CJinPA said...

This will probably draw more attention to the hateful anti-gay bigotry of the Mormon Church.

Sheesh, tell me about it!

I prefer the loving anti-white bigotry of Obama's Black Theology church.

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quayle said...

I'm wondering if the right is being suckered on this and a lot of other things.

Here's my theory:

1. Obama knows that he needs to talk about anything but the economy and Obamacare.

2. Regular 'old school' campaigning would have him bring up a bunch of other topics.

3. But these guys are advanced weasels. Just bringing up other topics still enables your opponent to pound you for not wanting to talk about the only issue.

4. So the advanced weasel stages fights within its own coalition - the advanced form of changing the topic.

5. Your opponent, seeing the schism (the feigned one, that is), is emboldened to join in the conversation on the agreeable side.

6. The opponent is thereby drawn in, time wasted, and the key topics neglected. The press sucks all the oxygen out of the room covering this fake controversy and there is not time for the pressing issue.

Anybody agree? disagree?

chickenlittle said...

2. Regular 'old school' campaining would have him bring up a bunch of other topics.

"Campaining" is an awesome slip. I might steal that.

edutcher said...

Guessing, but this will blow up in Axelrod's face bigger than L'Affaire Fluck.

He's gonna lose a ton of people on this one.

Andy R. said...

This will probably draw more attention to the hateful anti-gay bigotry of the Mormon Church.

No, but it will probably draw attention to the Gospel According to St Rush, "Everything Barack Obama says has an expiration date".

Also, as noted on Breitbart, this "evolution" would be called a flip flop if the Romster did it.

PS Wondering here, but does Hillary going with her specs, but sans makeup, mean she's getting ready to dump Willie and move in with Huma?

(is Huma still with The Weiner?)

PPS On the prospect that the march toward same sex marriage may be later than anticipated, there's reaction to the NC vote.

(no doubt Hatman calls it justified)

Seven Machos said...

Quayle -- You are completely, totally wrong. This goofy speech is an attempt to fix Obama's bungling of an issue raised because of a recent ballot initiative in North Carolina. Ballot initiatives are not instantaneous, as you most assuredly know. A lot of money and effort goes into setting up a statewide vote, and it takes considerable time.

There's no conspiracy. Obama is responding to events. And fucking up in grand, hilarious fashion.

Quayle said...

"Campaining" is an awesome slip. I might steal that.

Ah, I revised my post and took out the slip.

Glad you liked it. I got a lot more where that unintentionally came from.

edutcher said...

Think Quayle's right to a point, but the misdirections are going badly and this will hurt where he can't afford to lose support.

It turns out Mitch Daniels was wrong, although the Demos are doing this more to themselves than the Romster, who is pretty much staying on message.

Nathan Alexander said...

Why do the LGBT people accept his charade?

Because a cornerstone of liberal worldview is disdain for conservatives, middle class, "flyover country" citizens. Liberals have an agenda that satisfies/excites urban elites. They have learned from experience that their agenda doesn't win votes, so they have accepted that for a Democrat to win office, they must conceal their true views and agenda.

That's why liberals never get punished in elections for flip-flopping...they trust that any liberal is a True Believer in Liberal Ideology, and anything different is just fooling the people too stupid to vote the "correct" way, i.e., for liberals.

It's for their own good, don'tcha know?

The flip side of it is criticizing conservative opponents for views they give a pass to with their political allies (like blacks' and religious Hispanics' views of gay marriage).

Power is the goal, so they can control the flow of money and divert it to their cronies and themselves.

CJinPA said...

Quayle,

You raise a good point, but I don't think Romney will fall for it.

However, if Obama does indeed embrace gay marriage, the media will be able to hound Romney as the last candidate standing defending marriage. So there will be constant efforts to make this An Issue.

Romney knows "It's the economy, stupid." But he's too polite to put it that way.

Tank said...

How does Chris Matthews' leg feel about this?

RLB_IV said...

“If giving people a rebate for having children increases the number of children, that's awesome”

Leave it up to the states to give kickbacks for having children.

yashu said...

I think Quayle might be on to something.

The MSM wants to help O win re-election. But so far everything the O campaign has given them to work with-- has turned to crap.

A "historic" "unprecedented" "gutsy" "decision"-- now you're talking! All that cable-news-juicy controversy, all the pundits punditing their hearts out. This could easily suck up all the MSM oxygen for a good long while.

Bad economic news and Romney's message on the economy and (let's not forget) Romney's introduction of himself to the general electorate... marginalized.

Nathan Alexander said...

Leave it up to the states to give kickbacks for having children.

So all money is the government's, and they just decide how much of it to kick back to us?

Make the govt (at all levels) justify what they take, if they can

RLB_IV said...

“that would be the smart play, to treat everyone equally”

An impossible task but noble none the less. Federal power needs to be curtailed. The tax code would be a good start.

Jay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bryan C said...

"You're assuming those new mouths will be net postitives: = educated, workers, healthy and productive contributors..."

I'd assume that at least some of them are. Which is a hell of a lot better than none. Nobody's born a parasite.

Curious George said...

This is nothing more than Obama solidifying his base.

1) Free birth control for the young women

2) Fight AZ immigration for the Hispanic

3) Fight voter ID in TX for the blacks and Hispanics

4) Lower student loan rates for the college students

5) "Evolving" for the gays

What else is he going to do, run on his record?

EDH said...

"The presumably friendly interviewer – evolution extractor..."

Warning: NSFW

chickenlittle said...

Curious George said...
This is nothing more than Obama solidifying his base.

Is there any polling data on how blacks voted yesterday in N.C.?

Jay said...

LOL, Obama now supports SSM. Related: SSM still outlawed in vast majority of states.

Obama is king midas in reverse.

William said...

Evolution is highly overrated. Look at giraffes, anteaters,and mosquitoes. Obams has now fully evolvced into support of gay marriage. His fully evolved position is as aerodynmaically sound as the tail feathers on a peacock.

Jay said...

The decision is to proceed with gay marriage. The timing, operational decision making and control are in David Axelrod's hands. The approval is provided on the polling and donor data presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration

Alex said...

Obama will not lose a single leftist vote, because of his skin color. That's all it was ever about.

Chip Ahoy said...

I am going to be very disappointed if I do o't see a full on evolution, and when I do see it I will jump up and cheer and dance over the balcony and yell, "Horray horray callooh callay oh frabjous day!" And if I do not see a full on evolution then I will slam myself down on the floor, cross my arms, and fiercely frown.

How are the red tail hawks? *looks* Ah, bless.

Chef Mojo said...

@Andy R:

This will probably draw more attention to the hateful anti-gay bigotry of the Mormon Church.

Correction: This will probably draw more attention to the hateful anti-gay bigotry of the African-American community and churches.

Fixed it for you.

Carnifex said...

@Mary

You do know that there is a threshold needed for a cicilization to exist, right?

Every can't be poet's, or Afro-American studies professors. You need people to grew your food, haul your garbage away, build your house. If your civilization doesn't produce enough of them itself, it imports them. Then that civilization ceases to exist anymore. It is an immutable fact of history.

But surely you know this. Surely you don't believe that population bomb non-sense? If you do, you must believe in AGW, and that DDT is bad.

Franklin said...

I wish Romney had outflanked him and come out for same sex marriage about an hour before Obama did. Those 5 million voters that voted for Obama in 2008 that Romney needs to convince to vote for him in 2012 are 90% in favor of it. It would have been good politics.

AllieOop said...

Romney can't get beyond this one.

What is ironic is that Conservatives began legislation regarding social issues in the states and in the House instead of concentrating on the economy. Not much comment from conservatives or they've were on board.

But now that Liberals are winning on women's issues and now gay rights, well now we hear "what about the economy" from the right.

Too late, conservatives opened that Pandora's box, with the multitude of anti women, abortion rights bills. Why was it SO important to defund Planned Parenthood? Why all the anti abortion sentiment?

It was a kiss to the Religious Right, who has had far more influence in the Conservative movement than ever thought. You fiscal conservatives have been stabbed in the back.

Now it's come back tobite them in the butt.

Michael said...

Obama was forced to man up and say he was for it. Excellent. Now he is going to get the gay vote he was going to get anyway and perhaps a lot of independent votes from rich people who are unconcerned about the economy and who vote social issues. Now we can spend the next few months arguing about this as a matter of great national concern, as a real top of the list problem. It certainly has worked out well for the Anglicans and Episcopalians so why not for America.

Romney should come out in favor as well but note that gay marriage won't be marriage marriage.

Ipso Fatso said...

If Obama had a son he would look like inmate number: 11593-051

dreams said...

I say that let that un-American anti-American socialist/communist son of a communist bitch "evolve" because it will just help get his liberal ass out of the White House.

Curious George said...

"edutcher said...
No, but it will probably draw attention to the Gospel According to St Rush, "Everything Barack Obama says has an expiration date"."

For the record, that is not Rush's invention, but Jim Geraghty of National Review Online. It's a running meme on his The Campaign Spot blog.

Quayle said...


Now it's come back tobite them in the butt.


You write as if it is only about votes.

But it is about morality and the glue that holds society together.

Leftists will never, ever be able to afford the society that will come of bad homes, even were Obamacare to be abolished.

Conservatives know that $1's worth of social mores regarding the family will result in tens of thousands of dollars saved in remedial social programs trying to care for and fix (or lock up) the products of failed homes.

chickenlittle said...

AllieOOp wrote:
Too late, conservatives opened that Pandora's box, with the multitude of anti women, abortion rights bills. Why was it SO important to defund Planned Parenthood? Why all the anti abortion sentiment?

And so poof--just like that, Julia is justified, Walker looses next month, and Obama wins in November.

FTR, is that your prediction?

Amartel said...

It's really just a matter of asking which identity group donates more $ to O?

Status:
Poor oppressed people: under the bus;
Rich oppressed people: still ridin' that bus. At least until the really rich oppressed people start insisting on Sharia law.

CJinPA said...

But now that Liberals are winning on women's issues and now gay rights, well now we hear "what about the economy" from the right.

That "what about the economy" is actually coming from over there >>> that unemployed mom and jobless gay gentleman.

Winning!

Quayle said...

Not to mention that this is a major flip-flop.

Obama the flip-flopper.

Blue@9 said...

Well, good for him, but I'm far more inclined to laugh at him rather than cheer him on. Is this really the same guy who campaigned in 2008? How can anyone watch something like this unfold and not howl in laughter at how nakedly political and clumsy is Obama's "evolution"?

Forward?

Evolve!

Alex said...

Allie's right on this one. Conservatives are on the wrong side of history. History is always marching forward for more rather then less civil rights.

The Crack Emcee said...

Obama's desperate, endorses same-sex marriage.

FIFY

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... UPDATE: Obama evolves, endorses same-sex marriage..."

So he finally realized he looked like a dumbass.

Amartel said...

I couldn't watch this tongue-bath but the real thing to listen for is the weasel words that Obama will rely upon when he defaults on this promise.

Quayle said...

History is always marching forward for more rather then less civil rights.

Yes, the lust for freedom destroys order.

Right up to the point where the center no longer holds and society comes apart.

Then the lust for order destroys freedom.

The Crack Emcee said...

Alex,

Allie's right on this one. Conservatives are on the wrong side of history.

Jesus, Alex, you're having a really bad day.

Maybe you should lay down or something,...

Nathan Alexander said...

Romney can't get beyond this one.

What is ironic is that Conservatives began legislation regarding social issues in the states and in the House instead of concentrating on the economy. Not much comment from conservatives or they've were on board.

But now that Liberals are winning on women's issues and now gay rights, well now we hear "what about the economy" from the right.

Too late, conservatives opened that Pandora's box, with the multitude of anti women, abortion rights bills. Why was it SO important to defund Planned Parenthood? Why all the anti abortion sentiment?

It was a kiss to the Religious Right, who has had far more influence in the Conservative movement than ever thought. You fiscal conservatives have been stabbed in the back.

Now it's come back tobite them in the butt.


What?

You really believe this?

What "social issues" legislation by conservatives in the House caused Sebelius to mandate the Catholic Church must provide contraception?

Besides, Romney seems to be doing quite well addressing in 1-2 sentences the b.s. social issue smoke screens the Obama team is putting up, and then turning the topic to the economy.

Let's test whose spin is correct:
If the liberals are winning on women's and gay rights, would you expect that an incumbent President who has plenty of cash in his warchest due to not fighting through a primary battle would be ahead of his opponent, tied, behind, or losing even when faced with two conservative candidates splitting the conservative vote?

Amartel said...

Wonder how this politically convenient evolution talk sounds to the recipients of all those Obama robo-calls opposing gay marriage (pro-Prop 8) out here in Cali.

dreams said...

"The Robin Roberts I knew was white and a pitcher with the Phillies."

One of my favorite pitchers when I was growing up in the fifties. I wanted him to reach 300 wins like Warren Spahn but it didn't happen.

Dave said...

Wrong Alex the unborn had more rights before 1973

Matthew Sablan said...

Hey, awesome. Obama's on the same page as Dick Cheney on more than just how to deal with terrorists now!

CJinPA said...

Conservatives are on the wrong side of history.

Let's not kid ourselves. This is about marriage more that is about orientation. Conservatives are losing the battle to save marriage. Period. This is just another nail in the coffin. Not that gay couples themselves are a threat, but that dwindling opposition to gay marriage highlights the fact the more people just don't care enough to oppose it.

People don't oppose gay marriage for the same reason they didn't oppose the rise in fatherless children: they just don't think any of it matters. Being able to say "I was on the right side of history!" is just a fringe benefit of thier apathy.

Revenant said...

Good for Obama -- even if he made the endorsement for transparently political reasons, it was still the right thing to do.

AllieOop said...

Exactly Revenent, we all know that this "evolution"was timed just perfectly, he's a politician. I don't trust him any more than Romney, but it WAS the right thing to do.

Romney and the Mormon Church, to which he belongs are going to be big losers on this issue.

edutcher said...

AllieOop said...

Romney can't get beyond this one.

What is ironic is that Conservatives began legislation regarding social issues in the states and in the House instead of concentrating on the economy. Not much comment from conservatives or they've were on board.

But now that Liberals are winning on women's issues and now gay rights, well now we hear "what about the economy" from the right.

Too late, conservatives opened that Pandora's box, with the multitude of anti women, abortion rights bills. Why was it SO important to defund Planned Parenthood? Why all the anti abortion sentiment?


Somebody get Oop away from the Mary Jane.

The margin by which Romney may - and I do mean, may - be losing on women, is pretty much the same one he's winning with men, so you've got the same wash there Reagan had and we all know how badly he did.

As for "gay rights", the Demos are so desperate now, they have to risk the black and Hispanic votes to pander to 1.3% of the population.

More to the point, abortion is no longer as popular since ultrasound became widespread. As a "nurse", Oop ought to know that.

More Lefty FUD because the economy is going South and all their other misdirections have blown up in their faces.

It's amateur night in DC.

John Scott said...

I'm sure worrying about a growing chorus to boycott the N.C. convention had nothing to do with O's "evolution." Perhaps it's not to late to move it to California.

Tom Spaulding said...

Allie, are you gonna tell us the Awesome Harry Reid is a big loser on gay marriage, too?

He should know ALL about it, since he's a Mormon and all...

Michael said...

Well, lefties, here is the next step for you. You must now ask our leader what his opinion matters, what does he propose to do about the burning issue of gay marriage. Does he propose to make it a plank in his reelection platform? Does he intend to propose a Constitutional Amendment to make gay marriage a true right that the yahoos and rednecks can't override. Or is this just his opinion? What work does he propose to undertake to make his opinion mean anything at all?

AllieOop said...

Tom, YES, if he doesn't go along with the Democratic Party line, he sure will be.

Matthew Sablan said...

I wonder why people make a point of mentioning Romney's a Mormon, but no one seems to continually restate Obama's denomination.

AllieOop said...

It's the Mormon church's stance on homosexuality that is the issue, not that Romney is a Mormon. Who cares what religion he is if he has the ability to disconnect himself from is church's position on issues he will have to deal with as POTUS.

Kennedy was able to do that, it appears that Romney can't.

Matthew Sablan said...

Yet, even before today, no one seemed to care whether or not Obama could separate himself from his religion's influence. He has even cited his religion as a major influence in his policy decisions!

chickenlittle said...

Kennedy was able to do that, it appears that Romney can't.

I'll go one further: Kennedy was able to distance himself from quite few commandments held by many other faiths. His brother Ted evolved that stance even further. But those were personal choices-- without out leadership consequences (we hoped).

What is your evidence that Romney is controlled by Salt Lake City?

edutcher said...

AllieOop said...

It's the Mormon church's stance on homosexuality that is the issue, not that Romney is a Mormon. Who cares what religion he is if he has the ability to disconnect himself from is church's position on issues he will have to deal with as POTUS.

Kennedy was able to do that, it appears that Romney can't.


That's because the Kennedys were Sunday Catholics.

Romney lives his faith.

AllieOop said...

Chickenlittle, I didn't say he was Being controlled by Salt Lake City.

Edutcher is right Romney lives his faith. Crack might just be just a tiny bit right about Mormonism, a very tiny bit.

And because Romney is such a good Mormon, he doesn't have what it takes to be POTUS. He has to be able to separate himself from his church, when it comes to being the leader of a nation.

Matthew Sablan said...

Ah, I get it. People have the freedom of worship, except for, you know, -those kinds-. I'm picking up what you are putting down. I am nodding to your wink. Some kinds of worship just... aren't tolerated in government. Some freedoms just shouldn't be allowed to be expressed by people, if they want to be able to have -other- freedoms. Wink, wink.

Chip Ahoy said...

Playing grievance groups like a Stradivarius, or maybe more like a bathtub band.

Speaking of expensive fiddles. You noticed yesterday when Huguette Clark came up that she was given a Stradivarius so famous it is named La Pucelle, the virgin, when you know the word for virgin is vierge so what kind of virgin is pucelle?

Joan of Arc called herself la Pucelle d'Orléans to emphasize she is envoy from God and not just a regular witch. The English being enemies would naturally change that perversely to its opposite, la Putain d'Orléans. The voiced bilabial plosive "pu" invites it when emphasized like that in the raucous London theater. So now the idea cloud around the word pucelle abuts the idea cloud around the word putain, although in France the word pucelle does contain the idea of whore, it still does a little bit sound to some people like something besmirched, through Shakespeare, and I suppose Voltaire too. That is my theory.

And that is how I feel about an amazing instrument falling into the hands of someone so ungifted as Huguette Clark for forty-five years.

Jay said...

AllieOop said...



But now that Liberals are winning on women's issues and now gay rights, well now we hear "what about the economy" from the right.


You are "winning" on gay rights, how, exactly?

In case you missed it, 30 states have voted against gay marriage.

In case you missed, Romney is polling ahead of Obama on the women's vote.

You are beyond dense.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

And because Romney is such a good Mormon, he doesn't have what it takes to be POTUS. He has to be able to separate himself from his church, when it comes to being the leader of a nation

That is such bigoted bullshit.

I know many Mormons who are very devoted to their church and their faith who have businesses that cater to all types of customers. Never do they bring their religion or ideology into the business place or allow it to interfere with the function of their businesses.

If they did, they wouldn't be in business for long.

AllieOop said...

DBQ, there is nothing at all bigoted about my comment. I don't care what religion he is, he has to have the capacity to disengage himself from his religion as President of a SECULAR nation.

This is not a difficult concept.

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllieOop said...

And DBQ, it's wonderful that the Mormons we all know can do this, Romney appears not to be able to do this, partially because he is a good Mormon, partially because he must answer to the Religious Right, who don't trust him or Mormonism to begin with.

He dare not veer from the RR. He needs them.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I don't care what religion he is, he has to have the capacity to disengage himself from his religion as President of a SECULAR nation

And you know that he doesn't have that capacity because......he is a Mormon? You have some evidence that Romney has made decisions based on his religion?

How about a Muslim. Can that person disengage himself from his religion. A Baptist? Catholic? Atheist?

Perhaps we should insist that all politicians have no religious beliefs of any kind. Wait....I think I remember something about not discrimination on the basis of religion.......I'm sure that there wasn't an "except for Mormons" clause there.

AllieOop said...

DBQ, Kennedy was able to.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

DBQ, Kennedy was able to.

Evidently so, when you consider all the women he was fucking while married.

This is a good thing?

Revenant said...

This is not a difficult concept.

And yet Alley can't seem to understand it.

Blue@9 said...

I don't care what religion he is, he has to have the capacity to disengage himself from his religion as President of a SECULAR nation.

Are you saying he didn't when he was governor of Massachusetts?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

AllieOop,

I don't care what religion he is, he has to have the capacity to disengage himself from his religion as President of a SECULAR nation.

This is not a difficult concept.


Is it not? "Religion" means, roughly, "your understanding of the grounding of reality." If you find it trivial to "disengage" from that, the people around you must live rather interesting lives.

wv: anomyRe suppyrea

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllieOop said...

I guess we will see how many voters understand this concept in November, I suspect it's more than you think.

The Republican Party has made a fatal error by letting themselves be dictated to by the Relgious Right.

Tea Partiers should've stuck to their "guns" and not let themselves be influenced by the RR. All the Fiscal Conservatives I know, and I know MANY, I live in Waukesha County the heart of Conservatism in Wisconsin, are furious that the Republican Party has made such poor choices by kowtowing to the agenda of the RR.

My conservative friends and family are mostly social liberals, so they are what I base my observations on.

Matthew Sablan said...

"And DBQ, it's wonderful that the Mormons we all know can do this, Romney appears not to be able to do this,"

-- Right. Romney, the raving, moralistic right-wing conservative dead ender, governor of deep... red... uh... gee. I think this isn't going to work.

Matthew Sablan said...

Also, it would be great if Obama could look beyond his religion to stop using it as a bludgeon to increase spending by the state on pseudo-charitable endeavors with high overheads and inefficient delivery systems.

It's a shame he is so tied to his religion he can't see how it is causing him to manage the country poorly.

Or does the argument not work the other way?

AllieOop said...

No Matthew, Romney is probably only slightly less liberal than Obama, but he MUST pander to Social Conservatives. He is scared shitless of them. Moderate conservatism is dead, or dying.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Moderate conservatism is dead, or dying."

-- How those Blue Dogs doing? Also, on the right? Our emerging political activist group endangering our establishment is the Tea Party. You might know them for their fairly strict fiscal policy stance without giving a damn about social issues. As a bonus, they don't poo on cop cars.

AllieOop said...

The Tea Party got sucked into the RR issues too, it's too bad, because they were on the right track for a while.

Maybe if they come out strongly against these ultra social conservative types they may still be able to save their credibility.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Moderate conservatism is dead, or dying

And about time too! All moderate conservatism is, is Dems masquerading as RINOS.

If you are going to be a Conservative, by God....be one. Otherwise you are just faking it and trying to have it both ways.

This fakery and wishy-washy version of Moderate Conservatism, where bi partisanship means that WE always give in is exactly why we are in this sinking ship. Slip sliding down the slope to Socialism.

There hasn't been a significant difference between the Dems and the RHINOs in quite some time.

Good. Make the RHINOs die off and hurry up about it.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Maybe if they come out strongly against these ultra social conservative types they may still be able to save their credibility."

-- You mean like Libertarians have (who also tend to fall in with the R-crowd)? How much do you actually know about the intellectual, theory and internal debate that goes on within the other side's tents?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The Tea Party got sucked into the RR issues too, it's too bad, because they were on the right track for a while.

Maybe if they come out strongly against these ultra social conservative types they may still be able to save their credibility.


Just how many Tea Party meetings have you been to lately? Or do you get ALL of your information from MSNBC and the supermarket tabloids.

At no meeting or gathering that I have ever been at, does the topic of abortion, gay marriage or other social idiocies come up. People are concerned about taxes, big government, lack of attention to the Constitution and generally local political issues.

The Tea Parties that I have attended are focused on getting in candidates at the local and State level and if possible (not in California however) Federal positions.

You might need to get out more and not believe everything that you read from the MSM.

AllieOop said...

DBQ, as a I said, I live in Waukesha County, many of the Conservatives here belong to the Tea Party, about half of them got "religion" after getting involved with one of the Tea Party groups that were also fundamentalist evangelicals.

Do you deny that the Tea Party had disagreements as to this very issue and ended up forming a couple different Tea Party factions?

I glean my information from my neighbors, friends and relatives that are conservatives that live right here in Waukesha County. We have a very active social circle here in my area and we are able to get along very well by respecting each others opinions and by keeping an open mind. As I said most are social liberals, fiscal conservatives.

I don't watch TV news shows.

chickenlittle said...

As I said most are social liberals, fiscal conservatives.

Allie, what you're saying is that social liberalism trumps fiscal conservatism for you. We get that.

Obama is not a fiscal conservative. I presume that an overwhelming majority of people in Waukesha County are not going to vote for the fiscal liberal under any circumstance. It just defies credulity.

chickenlittle said...

Nor are they going to stay home and let the fiscally liberal guy win.

AllieOop said...

True Chickenlittle, I simply stated they were pissed off, I never said they would stay home or vote for Obama. All of that to come back to my original comment, lol.

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllieOop said...

And Chickenlittle, the reason they are pissed off is because they feel that by becoming such a small tent, Republicans will turn off more independents, and they will end up voting Democratic in Novemeber.

Think of Ann Althouse and her vote for Obama (I don't know the exact reason she voted for Obama). Think of thousands of Ann Althouses. It could happen again.

AllieOop said...

November. Not going to delete again for a spelling error.

chickenlittle said...

Think of thousands of Ann Althouses.

OK, now I'm scared.

ken in sc said...

Every mouth is born with two hands. This is one of the wisest things Mao ever said.

Christopher in MA said...

Why was it SO important to defund Planned Parenthood? Why all the anti abortion sentiment?

Because it's murder. Not that you give a damn, obviously.

AllieOop said...

Christopher, so why not wait till after the 2012 elections? Was the economy not more pressing an issue at his time, or do social issues trump all other issues for the new conservatives?

chickenlittle said...

Was the economy not more pressing an issue at his time, or do social issues trump all other issues for the new conservatives?

I think Romney handled the questions today pretty deftly. He gave the same response on the one hand--that it's up to the states--and that he regarded marriage as between a man and a woman. Consistent. Any evidence that Romney's going to foist some personal opinion on anyone?

Any evidence that Obama's going to do anything about his changed opinion?

Back to the economy.

Carnifex said...

I think all you high thinking types are missing a salient point, one that I'm sure Zero, as a con law prof takes into account. It is NOT up to the states. Because of that little clause that makes a marriage in 1 state valid in all the others. So it is that the liberal progressives will argue to the supreme court, and eventually, they will win. like a stream carving the Grand Canyon. So the 30 states that have passed doma laws are told tough shit, the queers in Massachusetts have a better lobby, so your votes don't count.

Zero did nothing for equal marriage rights , but you people sure do like clapping him on the back for it...buncha dummies.

And PP funding takes money from MY pocket to kill children. Me, who with my wife, talked my stepson from making his wife abort another mans child, because it's murdering a baby.

Abortion is evil, in every shape and form, and that a nurse would condone it makes me question her humanity.

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllieOop said...

Carnifex, I don't condone abortion! I think life begins at conception, it IS a baby. But I think that it's between the woman and whomever she will have to answer to in the next life. Not us.

I've had four children of my own, I would not encourage any womant to abort her child. We've been through this abortion argument ad nauseum already. I am a nurse and I have had an abused child BURNT by his mother die in my arms.

Planned Parenthood provides far more than abortions!

wyo sis said...

Lots of people who take a principled stance against same sex marriage are not Mormons. Lots of Mormons with gay family members are struggling with the Mormons stance on same sex marriage. Romney is no more necessarily influenced by his church to be against same sex marriage than any other person who is against it. He has the same reasons millions of people who are not Mormons have. Kennedy's ability to distance himself from the teachings of his church is no better or worse than Romney's ability, but there is no need for Romney to violate his moral principles just to prove he's independent of his church. At least to thinking people there's no need. Harry Reed is a self-described faithful temple attending Mormon and he seems to be fine with same sex marriage at least I've never heard him depart from the liberal Democrat line on this matter.
So, Romney is free to oppose or endorse same sex marriage just like any other person of any other religion. Romney's Mormonism is a non-issue on these social discussions. And, even worse these social issues are keeping people from focusing on the three most important things the president should be working on 1. the economy, 2. energy dependence and 3. defense/foreign relations.

B said...

I don't condone abortion! I think life begins at conception, it IS a baby. But I think that it's between the woman and whomever she will have to answer to in the next life. Not us.

By this logic, if you hire someone to reach into your car, crush your child's skull, and pull the body out of the window, we can assume that you'd expect society to consider your culpability for murder a matter between you and God? Because, well, though it IS a human life, you're the mother and have the say.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

AllieOop said...

B, predictable and as much a jerk as ever.