You may think you have a useful issue, and it is of some use, but here's the problem. Making same-sex marriage an important issue will give rise to the thought: If Obama loses, it will be because of the stand he took on same-sex marriage. That will cause some people – people in the middle who might go either way — to think:
I don't want to be a part of sending the message that if you support same-sex marriage, you will lose. I'm going to vote for him, not because he did anything that significant in finally getting around to evolving into the position, but because, now that he has, I don't want him punished for it. I'm afraid of how that will affect other politicians in other elections for who-knows-how-many years into the future. I wouldn't have been a single-issue voter on this, but now that it's been centralized as an issue, I don't want it to be remembered as the reason why Obama lost.
Think back to 2008. Why did people vote for Obama? You might suggest: People got too enthusiastic about the idea of the first black President and that kept them from looking deeply enough into whether Obama had sufficient experience or whether he was too far to the left. But another way of thinking about that is: At some point, people didn't want it to seem that what had happened was that Americans rejected him because he is black. They didn't want to be part of creating the message that if you are black, you will lose. I'm not saying that was rational. I'm talking about the emotional pull people feel, an urge that goes unexamined.
The issues in this election should have to do with economics, foreign policy, and the things that fall squarely within a President's responsibility. Obama has a record here, and he should have to defend it, not distract us with a "social" issue. His actual political policy on same-sex marriage isn't even different from Romney's: Leave it to the states. Leave it to the states is a fine — truly excellent — way to package the issue and set it to the side. I would encourage Republicans to do exactly that:
Marriage has long been a matter that belongs to states. Both Obama and Romney know that and know that it is not what the U.S. Presidency is about. They do not differ on the actual policy. It's good that Obama has expressed respect for federalism here. If only he would see the value of federalism more generally instead of continually enlarging the role of the federal government. Let's look at his record of growing federal government at the expense of state and local government and at the expense of private entrepreneurship....
ADDED: The "truly excellent" package won't necessarily stay closed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
168 comments:
After a couple of get-togethers this weekend with quite a few politically engaged types, I didn't hear from one, single person who thought this was a valid arrow to put in the quiver. Economy, economy, economy and jobs, jobs, jobs.
Well the good news for Republicans is they don't have to use it against Obama for it to be pervasive and effective.
The Newsweek cover, and all the other media toadying, is already getting the issue out there in people's faces every day. And besides, there isn't a single person in the US who cares about the issue and who doesn't already know what happened. Nobody needs an ad or a speech to remind them. I would love to be a fly on the wall in black barbershops and hair salons around the country right now.
Yes. It's the economy, stupid...
"His actual political policy on same-sex marriage isn't even different from Romney's: Leave it to the states.”
This is incorrect. Romney supports a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
That will cause some people – people in the middle who might go either way — to think:
Utter delusion & fantasy.
I don't know anyone who "thinks" this way and further I don't know anybody who sees themself as a single issue voter in this manner.
Look, you don't like the idea that SSM is unpopular. We get it. Pretending that these "middle" voters will be scared away because of it belittles your intellect & insights.
Romney should have just one response to all those MSM social issues traps,
pivot every interview with
"That's nice, but what about jobs"
Wow - the economy is still stuck in a ditch yet a voter would vote for Obama so he is not punished for his support of SSM? Did Meade have to untangle you after you got yourself into that twist of logic?
One of the advantages in nominating a guy like Romney is that he knows how to appeal to suburban moderates.
This is a pretty simple script:
"I personally believe that the institution of marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman. This position has already been endorsed by 30 states, and it was Mr. Clinton's position and Mr. Obama's position until about a week ago.
Where I agree with Mr. Obama is that these issues should be decided at the state level. I fully support the process by which the states of North Carolina and New York expressed their opinions on this matter.
I also endorse the efforts of most states to remove any unnecessary legal hurdles that gay couples experience in areas like probate and hospital visitation."
Making SSM central to the national campaign would be a distraction.
The politics of SSM, like the issue itself, probably runs better for Republicans at the state level on a state-by-state basis.
That said, I doubt there are many voters who are predisposed against Obama who would vote for him simply because of the message it would send about the electability of a national politician "coming out in support" of SSM. The issue would have to be quite central to the national campaign even to make that connection.
Ann,
you ought to find a black church in Madison (*GIGGLE*) and deliver your message:
The pulpits of the nation's black churches took measure Sunday of President Obama's decision to support gay marriage, and the result was conflicted.
Some churches were silent on the issue. At others, pastors spoke against the president's decision Wednesday — but kindly of the man himself. A few blasted the president and his decision. A minority spoke in favor of the decision and expressed understanding of the president's change of heart.
Bishop Timothy Clark, head of the First Church of God, a large African-American church with a television ministry in Columbus, Ohio, was perhaps most typical. He felt compelled to address the president's comments at a Wednesday evening service and again Sunday morning. He was responding to an outpouring of calls, e-mails and text messages from members of his congregation after the president's remarks.
Or maybe these black church goers aren't in the middle?
I'm going to vote for him, not because he did anything that significant in finally getting around to not lying any more about his position
FIFY.
I've got to wonder what it is, if not wishful thinking, that makes you believe Obama's professed support for federalism is any more sincere now than his professed opposition to SSM was then. How is it that the guy who had so much to say about Citizens United can't be bothered to raise any sort of public objection to Perry?
That will cause some people – people in the middle who might go either way — to think:
The polling I saw asked a question like,
"will Obama's decision to support SSM make you:
more likely vote for him, 10%
les likely 23%
no change 60%
that thirteen percent gap is a lot of votes even if it resolves down to a lot fewer actual vote shifts.
What Romney needs to do is not wade in in any fashion which might move that 60% the wrong way. Just let the Gay Left Lobby do all the MSM end zone dancing.
There will be enough traditional Dems who continue to vaguely support Obama at the union hall who change their vote in the booth...
yet a voter would vote for Obama so he is not punished for his support of SSM?
You underestimate the degree of pride in this country.
Not pride in the good sense, but pride in the destructive sense, which is characterized by enmity.
There are lots of people that want only their way on their issue, and they don't care one whit if the country burns to the ground if they can't or don't get it
Althouse, think back to 2008. Why did an intelligent woman like you vote for Obama?
I agree Republicans shouldn't make this an issue, but this is weak: But another way of thinking about that is: At some point, people didn't want it to seem that what had happened was that Americans rejected him because he is black.
If Republicans or anyone else ever follows this device, then this country is doomed. This isn't elevated thinking. It is caving to peer pressure despite all other reasoning, because caving will appear cool and make you popular.
Your suggestion should be an easy call, if winning is what this is all about.
Its not like people who are against same sex marriage were inclined to vote for an unevolved Obama to begin with.
It should test Romney's ears for tin.. and if the past is any guide he should pass.
The nomination is his.. what could he possibly gain?
There will be enough traditional Dems who continue to vaguely support Obama at the union hall who change their vote in the booth...
It will be interesting to hear what Claire McCaskill, who's fighting for her career as a senator in nominally red Missouri, will say about this issue. If I were advising her, I would suggest she stay away from the issue, but the state-local media outlets won't let her do that.
I don't have to remind you that SSM has been a loser issue for the social left in every state to which it has been put to popular vote, including California.
Karl Rove was accused of getting the same sex marriage issue on a lot of state ballots in 2004 specifically to energize conservative voters to come to the polls and also vote for Bush
So are you arguing that the tide has shifted enough now that Axelrod is trying a reverse Rove?
A vote for Obama is still being on the left side of history.
It's ragazines like Newsweek and bigoted pundits like Sullivan who won't let this go. Romney and Republicans aren't foisting this issue--they are.
I'm disappointed in you now, Althouse & I rescind my offer to hit the tip jar.
Thinking back to 2008, those styrofoam columns should have been enough to decide any rational voter.
Paraphrasing Oscar Levant, underneath all that political Washington phoniness, there is real phoniness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fF0-URNIOA
There are lots of people that want only their way on their issue, and they don't care one whit if the country burns to the ground if they can't or don't get it
You are talking about a smaller minority than the minority that is causing the institution of marriage to evolve.
I would even argue some resistance to any change, in a democracy, is a healthy thing.. I would even argue this is happening too fast.
Mel, hope this helps.
(Hope I did the link right this time).
These damn Democrats keep injecting social issues into this campaign!
On this weekend’s broadcast of ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” outgoing Democratic Rep. Barney Frank locked horns with Tennessee Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who wanted to focus on economic issues instead of gay marriage.
Frank, an openly gay member of Congress, claimed that Blackburn was relying too heavily on talking points.
“I do know — George, I have to say and I — you know, this is a good political science lesson for people about what a political party’s talking points are,” Frank said. “My colleague, Ms. Blackburn, has been instructed to talk about the economics first.
Show of hands (or was there an Althouse poll on this already?): who here believes O. truly had a change of heart vs. determining that now was the right time to announce a long-held position, and that his prior announcements that he believed marriage should be reserved for opposite-sex couples was a matter of political expediency? Obama did not "evolve," he did not "flip-flop," he lied about his position because the truth would imperil him politically.
That said, do you really believe he's telling the truth when he says the definition of marriage should be left to the states? Of course not. He would cheer a Supreme Court decision compelling non-gay-marriage states to recognize gay marriages, but it's not politically expedient for him to champion the cause of federal gay marriage recognition, so he doesn't.
Knowing that he hides his position on one issue, aren't you a bit spooked wondering what else he's lying about, to be revealed in 2nd-term Executive Orders?
"Althouse, think back to 2008. Why did an intelligent woman like you vote for Obama?"
Because the other choice was McCain and McCain lost me.
the republican party, mitt romney and the tea party should resist going on offense on gay marriage.
but that doesn't mean the Churches (catholic, protestant, LDS, Mosques, Synagogues) should stay quiet. If these religious institutions care about gay marriage, then then the catholic bishops, pastors and imams should be leading the fight against obama for promoting gay marriage.
"Althouse, think back to 2008. Why did an intelligent woman like you vote for Obama?"
Hypothetically, just how hard would you be working right now for the reelection of President McCain?
Knowing that he hides his position on one issue, aren't you a bit spooked wondering what else he's lying about, to be revealed in 2nd-term Executive Orders?
The way things are going to shake out (Don't Get Cocky!!!), I'm more concerned about what this bunch will try to pull during a lame duck period.
When your enemy is lighting his hair on fire, stand aside. No need for Repubs to do anything.
It doesn't really matter if the Republicans make an issue out of Obama's SSM position or not.
If Obama looses in November, the media will endlessly push the meme that he lost because the United States is full of anti gay bigots. Count on it. If he wins it will be the polar opposite: His election will show that we are ready for national recognition of SSM.
I agree with other posters here that the national media will play up the president's views and it will on net cost him votes. The Republicans would be smart to just let the left self-destruct on its own.
I'm not holding my breath for an Obama lost me tread.
Makes me think maybe I should do one.. Do an Obama lost Althouse composite, concoction, compaction..
It would have to be a Cafe.. it would be nice if some of you would help.. you lazy harp seals ;)
I think Romney would be in the clear, except he signed the pledge with the National Organization for Marriage that calls for an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
Because the other choice was McCain and McCain lost me.
Reminds me of the tale of a fiddling contest where, having listened to the first of two contestants, the judge awarded the prize to the other one.
because McCain lost me."
Yes, you gambled.
You gave up the known flawed prize for what's behind door number 2.
And you lost - we all lost.
"I agree with other posters here that the national media will play up the president's views and it will on net cost him votes. The Republicans would be smart to just let the left self-destruct on its own.”
Romney spoke of this just this last weekend. But this will be the last presidential election where this strategy yields a return. Very very soon this will be a wedge issue for Democrats. Then Republicans will have to choose between hostility towards gays...and winning elections.
'The Drill SGT' said,
"The polling I saw asked a question like,
"will Obama's decision to support SSM make you:
more likely vote for him, 10%
les likely 23%
no change 60%
that thirteen percent gap is a lot of votes even if it resolves down to a lot fewer actual vote shifts."
BUT, let's suppose that only 1 in ten of those 23% opposed to SSM feel strongly enough about it to base their voting choice on it.
AND, And that perhaps a quarter of the 10% who favor SSM feel strongly enough to base their voting choice on it.
IF that's the case then supporting SSM may be a net vote-getter. Which is to say, there's more to it than that 13% gap- intensity of support is also important.
Or perhaps the real issue is whether Obama and the compliant media can spin opposition to SSM into the equivalent of "hating" or "*phobic"-- that is, to marginalize opponents of SSM as latter-day Bull Connors?
This marginalization IMHO is the tar pit trap that Republicans should want to keep well clear of.
Hypothetically, just how hard would you be working right now for the reelection of President McCain?
Do you mean the President McCain whose economic advisers wouldn't have wandered aimlessly through policy space, leading us to the worst recovery ever?
Or perhaps you mean the President McCain whose health-insurance reforms would have focused on enhanced portability instead of an idiotic attempt to regulate 1/6 of the economy.
Either way, the answer is, hard enough. Especially since I'd be feeling a lot more prosperous right now.
It should be easy to do an 'Obama lost Alhouse' cafe.
In 2008 there were already
818 posts tagged Obama.. in 2008.
Meade, who would he be running against?
But you ask an excellent question.
If Obama looses in November, the media will endlessly push the meme that he lost because the United States is full of anti gay bigots. Count on it.
We got over it in 2005 and will do so again if necessary.
Pass the popcorn:
When President Obama announced that his position on same-sex marriage had evolved, it outraged some African-American pastors like Pastor and Del. Emmett Burns.
“He has said to his base, African-Americans, ‘I am going against your beliefs and your thoughts’,” Burns said.
He’s so opposed to same-sex marriage, he told church members he will no longer support the president and now predicts Obama will lose the election because of it.
He and many other leaders are pouring their energies into gathering the signatures needed to put Maryland’s same-sex marriage law on the November ballot.
I love watching gay white liberals call black Democrats bigots.
Shorter Althouse: voters are going to every bit as stupid this time around.
I'm a social conservative and I think this absolutely should be avoided as an issue to talk about.
One, because for those who care about this issue, it's already an issue, for those who don't care (or don't prioritize) it's a turnoff.
Second, because it's abusing the issue for political gain, bringing out the worst in politics, and isn't even near the biggest issue facing this nation.
Romney and the Republicans aren't making it a issue. Romney is talking about the economy.
Except there is a ton of family law on the federal books. I contend that leaving it to the states is a cop out to avoid unwanted controversy. Tax law and federal benefits are going to be hugely impacted by an inclusion of another category of marriage eligible couples.
There's a third rail that was in circulation briefly when DOMA was debated; the full faith and credit clause. Marriage enjoys the right. Therefore a state optng to ban same sex marriage (why did we stop saying homosexual marriage?) would find themselves at odds and most likely losing a full faith and credit challenge.
There are three federal issues at stake. Two of which I mentioned already. The third one exascerbates the difficulties presented in the first two. Somebody draw me a line tied to the rationale used by the gay community for homosexual marriage to limit any other categorical combination. No one will go there. Its not a distraction. Its the elephant.
Gay, homosexual or same sex marriage, whichever makes you comfy, are an invasion of socialist, redistributive disasters that are all too federal in consequence.
Third, Romney should, at no point, let Obama choose where the battles are fought. That will be, in fact, a very decisive indication of Romney's leadership potential. If Romney gets caught up in responding to the Obama campaigns desire to change the topic at each point, he will lose this election.
If, instead, he keep the Obama campaign itself off balance, thus Obama off balance, he'll win.
"Romney and the Republicans aren't making it a issue. Romney is talking about the economy.”
Romney was at Liberty talking about this. He’s being forced to do so by social conservatives in the same way that he was forced to bench his gay national security spokesman.
Paddy O said...
"Third, Romney should, at no point, let Obama choose where the battles are fought. That will be, in fact, a very decisive indication of Romney's leadership potential. If Romney gets caught up in responding to the Obama campaigns desire to change the topic at each point, he will lose this election.
If, instead, he keep[s] the Obama campaign itself off balance, thus Obama off balance, he'll win."
This sounds exactly right to me.
Good post, Professor. You have been reading my mind again.
Nobody under 30 wants to be associated with Gay hatreds anymore. Obama's campaign has boldly drawn a contrast against Romney, the Mormon Elder's, presumed anti gay stance with Obama's "evolved" acceptance of gay civil unions being called marriages.
The states rights caveat is a true one, but no one cares about that if they percieve a chance to "send a message" when they vote in November.
The GOP needs to quit defending Wrong Positions. They seem to have understood the need to do that when they finally noticed that Afghanistan was unwinnable because of its terrain and that 10 more years of uselessly sending Americans in to be targets for slaughte was not good politics now.
If the GOP could say, "oops, we just had an ephany we were wrong on Afghanistan as was Obama," then why not just ease into civil unioned Gays being called married and move along.
How convenient to tell Republicans to run away and hide. How convenient to accuse Republicans of "using" same-sex marriage, rather than calling a "truce," when it is the Dems who keep bringing it up and who refuse to call a truce but instead have started a war.
Where is the "Why Democrats should resist using the same-sex marriage issue against Romney" advice/outrage?
But you are right in this sense -- same-sex marriage (or any other social issue) should not be used as a partisan pawn for crass political purposes in order to gain votes. Rather, marriage -- authentic marriage -- should be defended against attack on the merits because it is the right thing to do, because one of the gravest dangers that this nation and society and world face is the relativization of truth and the inevitable tyranny and despotism that follows.
"Where is the "Why Democrats should resist using the same-sex marriage issue against Romney" advice/outrage?”
Outrageous that anyone would use any of Romney’s policy stands against him in a political campaign. What is the country coming to?
"His actual political policy on same-sex marriage isn't even different from Romney's: Leave it to the states.”
I don’t think that’s true. If Obama favored leaving it up to the States he would either support the Defense of Marriage Act or substantively similar legislation. Instead he’s gone as far as to order the Department of Justice to stop defending the law from legal challenges. Based on his actual behavior, it seems more likely that Obama like so many other supporters of SSM actually favors having State courts impose it on States and using the federal courts to force other States to recognize them.
Chip S. said...
Hypothetically, just how hard would you be working right now for the reelection of President McCain?
Oh goody, today's game, like yesterday's Mitt one.
The President McCain, that actually had a strong record of bipartian actual, you know, lawmaking, with conservatives the likes of Kennedy and Finegold?
The President McCain who knew that our soldiers were fighting on behalf of the country, not for him?
The President Mccain who knew that the Brit's and the Israeli's and the Dali Lama are our natural friends and acts accordingly?
The President McCain who know that sending soldiers out on tough missions that may result in their deaths, is not about focus groups?
The President McCain that actually supports public financing and removing big money from politics (and used AVS :)
The ... I'll let somebody else take a turn
These damn Democrats keep injecting social issues into this campaign!
Romney needs to concentrate on this sort of thing: Report says 230,000 unemployed losing benefits over weekend. "All told, 409,300 long-term unemployed Americans in 27 states will have lost upward of 20 weeks of federal unemployment benefits by this past Saturday, even as the many state jobless rates remain high, according to a new analysis by the National Employment Law Project (NELP)."
What comes to mind to me is that these people will move from unemployed to not interested in working, in the labor statistics.
Point is though that the place that Romney needs to be hammering is the economy. The Dems make up a lot of bogus statistics on how it really isn't worse than the day Obama took office. But, the important thing there is that this recession has been far deeper and far longer than any that most of us have lived through. We really have to go back to the 1930s to find things as bad. And, a lot of what Obama and the Dems have done, has made it worse.
So, we find that heavy Dem backer JPMorgan Chase lost a couple billion in trading (President Obama's Wall Street problem), and John Corzine is still walking free, as the DoJ spends its resources investigating whether George Zimmerman committed a hate crime when killing Treyvon Martin in self defense. This article was from Politico, and so it mentions that: "Senior administration officials make a nuanced and largely credible case that they pushed for the toughest law they could get through Congress. They say the JPMorgan trades might not have happened if banks were not lobbying like crazy to water down financial reform", but not surprisingly fail to connect the dots to note that the reason that JPMorgan was able to exempt itself from much of the Dodd-Franks regulations was that it, along with Goldman Sachs, etc., was so much in bed with the Dems and Obama.
"It's still the economy, and we're not stupid".
That said, howsomever, I think this thing may push some people who were asking themselves, "Can I afford another 4 years of this guy, the way I'm getting hammered?", if they were on the fence about staying home or voting Demo.
That's what Kerosene Maxine and the Black Caucus were worried about a couple of months ago, and now I'm betting they're even more worried.
Kchiker said...
Romney and the Republicans aren't making it a issue. Romney is talking about the economy.
Romney was at Liberty talking about this. He’s being forced to do so by social conservatives in the same way that he was forced to bench his gay national security spokesman.
Grenell was sidelined for other reasons - even the Establishment Media agreed they wanted him to stay.
And note the speech was made on a Sunday, out of the news cycle. This was more about making kissy face with the evangelicals than making same sex marriage a Republican issue.
The Demos have made it theirs, they can have it.
PS Time's going to do a Gay President cover, too, apparently, with the pillars of the White house all rainbow.
Nothing like keeping a disaster going.
@Kevin: "Well the good news for Republicans is they don't have to use it against Obama for it to be pervasive and effective."
Exactly. Leave the issue alone and concentrate on the economy. If it loses the president some voters, that's their business.
Can anyone define President Obama's position on SSM?
Honestly, he personally believes in SSM, but what is he doing to make it happen? He cancelled his trip to North Carolina where he had the chance to speak out against an amendment to the NC Constitution that now defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
I hope no one will be offended by my use of the tar baby image here, but it is the first thing that comes to mind (and I am old enough to still love all those Uncle Remus stories without a trace of guilt.) Anyway, Obama has constructed a tar baby here, which he is hoping to sucker Republicans into punching. I agree with Ann. The Republicans would be doubly foolish to get suckered into it in any way. First, the issue is not terribly popular and virtually no one wants it on the table now. So Republicans do not need to even express an opinion as people have their opinions and will focus them on Obama. Secondly, those who AGREE with Obama are going to be as critical of his action here as those who oppose him. So let him thrash his way free of his own tar baby while the public gets increasingly annoyed at the waste of time of it and at the fawning press cheering him on. SSM will be decided at the state level no matter what, as Obama himself accepts. I am fine with SSM, but I am also fine with letting the society make up its own mind. Halo or not, Obama's mind is not going to matter to them either way. But it will matter to those who think it should be otherwise occupied.
Romney should, at no point, let Obama choose where the battles are fought
You don't accomplish that by running away and refusing to engage. The Dems are not going to let him run away, they will pursue even harder seeing that he is afraid of the issue. Trying to ignore the matter will only encourage them all the more.
The way to put a stop to it is to engage the battle and hit the enemy hard. To stop a bully, you need to smash his nose in, not cower away.
My worry, and I think a lot more, as evidenced by this thread, worry that the Dems are throwing up social wedge issues as fast as they can to take the focus away from the economy. And, that too worried me. BUT, they are doing so almost six months before the election. What this may be indicating is that the Obama campaign people had a bunch of issues that they could bring out before the election, and they are using them now, instead of later.
With this "social issue of the week" thing going on, how long do you think until they run out of such wedge issues?
Some have suggested that the Obama campaign is mostly being run by a bunch of 20 somthings who got lucky last time around, those who were working then, and got someone into the White House who never really had to compete until now. His state level elections were greased, he got into the Senate by illegally getting the sealed divorce records of his two opponents published, and had the perfect storm in his favor in 2008.
I think that they figure that if they just raise enough money, that they can buy this election too. Remember, last time around, he decided not to take federal funding for the general election, but instead to turn off credit card validation in order to allow illegal contributions to roll in.
Maybe they can rewrite history. Their ads so far sure seem to be trying to do so. And, I expect to see this sort of thing 24/7 through the month of October. But, I would not be surprised if it did not work as well this time around.
"SSM will be decided at the state level no matter what, as Obama himself accepts”
Romney favors a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. As do most Republicans currently in office. Do you think that they would refuse an opportunity to move on this if they took the Senate and the Presidency?
Bruce said...Maybe they can rewrite history. Their ads so far sure seem to be trying to do so. And, I expect to see this sort of thing 24/7 through the month of October. But, I would not be surprised if it did not work as well this time around.
It only worked last time because of 2 social constructs that aren't there now.
- white racial guilt and the desire to vote for a black man, etc, etc
- the ability of people like Althouse to project their politcal desires and warm fuzzy vibes onto the blank canvas that was Obama. Now he has a real record of non-performance and bad decisions that can't be ignored
he got into the Senate by illegally getting the sealed divorce records of his two opponents published, and had the perfect storm in his favor in 2008.
Barack Obama didn't get into the Senate illegally. The sealed divorce records were unsealed by a lawsuit filed by David Axelrod's former employer, the Chicago Tribune.
The 2004 Dem IL Senate primary is the most amazing amount of timing and luck I have ever seen for a Senate candidate from nowhere.
Do you think that they would refuse an opportunity to move on this if they took the Senate and the Presidency?
Would they have the votes? It's unlikely.
Bruce Hayden said...
My worry, and I think a lot more, as evidenced by this thread, worry that the Dems are throwing up social wedge issues as fast as they can to take the focus away from the economy. And, that too worried me. BUT, they are doing so almost six months before the election. What this may be indicating is that the Obama campaign people had a bunch of issues that they could bring out before the election, and they are using them now, instead of later.
With this "social issue of the week" thing going on, how long do you think until they run out of such wedge issues?
The idea of running out of distractions was raised by Victor Davis Hanson. His was predicated on the idea that people will get as tired of it as they did of the "It's Dubya's fault" business, but the idea they're that desperate this early says their internal numbers are lousy.
I think that they figure that if they just raise enough money, that they can buy this election too. Remember, last time around, he decided not to take federal funding for the general election, but instead to turn off credit card validation in order to allow illegal contributions to roll in.
They were supposed to have a $1 Bil war chest this year and they're falling way short because Wall Street has abandoned them. I think it's one of the reasons they decided to turn this to advantage and hit up the Hollyweird crowd.
Why would Romney, or any Republican candidate, ever take political advice from someone who voted for Obama?
Brennan said...
The 2004 Dem IL Senate primary is the most amazing amount of timing and luck I have ever seen for a Senate candidate from nowhere.
Branch Rickey said...
Luck is the residue of design.
Smart man, that Branch Rickey.
Brennan said...
as I understand it, there was a fair amount of leaking of the sealed records, which was part of the rationale for Axelrod in unsealing them
"Politics ain't beanbag" is after all a Chicago lession
Just to keep the election interesting: Darrell Issa Keeps Pursuing Contempt: "Faced with an initially lukewarm reception from top GOP leaders, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is looking to build support for a draft contempt of Congress resolution for Attorney General Eric Holder regarding Issa’s investigation of the “Fast and Furious” gun-smuggling operation."
Part of the opposition to the House voting to find AG Holder in contempt is apparently the worry that this would take the focus off the economy. And, that it might alienate Black voters - which is why this post-racial presidency is so bogus. You have a corrupt Black AG, and he is supposedly, due to the color of his skin, above criticism and the law.
BTW - for those of you who haven't been following F&F, an American border agent was killed by illegally purchased guns whose sale was deliberately facilitated by the Holder DoJ. The Justice Department started the cover up that day, and Congress started investigating almost a year ago. They have hit a brick wall in terms of the DoJ responding to their subpoenas, and Holder has essentially declared that they won't get anything else of substance because this is an election year.
Maybe we should be concentrating on the economy, but I don't think that ignoring the rank stench of corruption in this Administration (esp. combined with the Dem controlled 111th Congress - see Dodd-Franks above).
Freudian.
I meant Lesson, not Lesion, rather than Lession
Ann's afraid that Obama is going to lose in a landslide, and some people might view that in part as a referendum on gay marriage.
The Limited Government Case against Gay Marriage:
"...The state/community will be a party to any marriage and therefore has every right to say which marriages it will recognize. The gay couples seeking recognition must make their case for community involvement in their relationship when the sine qua non condition of biological procreation does not exist and there are sufficient laws to deal with any children in a gay relationship. Until the argument for an expansion of government is made, the basic principle of limited government, the minimal amount of laws our society needs to function, should prevail."
Making same-sex marriage an important issue will give rise to the thought: If Obama loses, it will be because of the stand he took on same-sex marriage.
Wrong - but I do agree we should leave it as an unimportant issue.
"You don't accomplish that by running away and refusing to engage. The Dems are not going to let him run away, they will pursue even harder seeing that he is afraid of the issue. Trying to ignore the matter will only encourage them all the more."
If this were to be the Romney strategy through election day, then yes, I agree.
But another way of handling this is to let Obama and the Dems hector him on SSM, bait him on SSM, for months on end, through the summer, while he says nothing about SSM and the electorate learns that all Obama and the Democrats care about is SSM.
Then Romney affirms his focus on presidential issues; affirms his focus on jobs, the economy, federal spending, affirms his support for federalism, and then asks why Obama cares so much about SSM with so many Americans still unemployed, with the federal debt increasing $1 trillion annually, and with Obama utterly disregarding federalism except for SSM.
It's not just a state issue. There's DOMA. And the constitutionality issue could go up to the Supreme Court.
The notion that this election will turn on SSM seems facile in the extreme.
Kevin said...
Ann's afraid that Obama is going to lose in a landslide, and some people might view that in part as a referendum on gay marriage.
as I understand it, SSM has failed in 30 straight actual, you know state votes. So it's not unclear about how that nation feels.
It is also clear that SSM is gaining public support. Its advocates would be wise to let support build gently rather tah force it down peopl's throats, ossifying resistance.
The Religious Right will not allow Romney to remain silent on this issue as someone already so aptly said.
My theory is that some action will occur before the election to take this out of the states hands, then the fight will be ratcheted up even more. If you are worried that this issue is getting too much attention now, just wait.
Obama knows that if he continues to allow this to remain in the hands of the states, he will lose support of Gay Americans. These people are not stupid, have been given hope and will be incredibly angered if Obama's support was only lip service.
What is going to lose this election for Republicans is what has been happening since 2010, when they took over the House and more so many state legislatures, they followed the direction that the Religious Right demanded of them, and they introduced hundreds of anti women anti abortion bills at the state level.
And independents and liberals NOTICED. It became increasingly clear that the focus was NOT on the economy by conservatives and instead was focused on social issues.
For conservatives now calling for focus to be brought back to the economy is "rich". They overplayed their hand on social issues early on and now everyone knows what they would do if they won the Presidency, the Senate and the House.
You can thank the Religious Right for the mess that Romney is in now. Does anyone think Romney will have the courage to remain silent on this issue if the RR demands he takes a stand? He needs their support, they are already suspicious of him because he is a Mormon.
Does anyone think for a minute that Democrats would have ignored this opportunity?
Yes bartender, I'll have whatever AllieOpp has been drinking.
traditionalguy: Nobody under 30 wants to be associated with Gay hatreds anymore
And most everyone over 30 understands that just because we don't agree with your values doesn't mean we hate you.
I'm sure you'll evolve any year now...
John Althouse Cohen, exactly right, it may just go to the SCOTUS, just what I've been thinking will happen.
Obama knows that if he continues to allow this to remain in the hands of the states, he will lose support of Gay Americans. These people are not stupid, have been given hope and will be incredibly angered if Obama's support was only lip service.
Obama's support was only "lip service" as he has no plans to include his views in the DNC platform.
"Yes bartender, I'll have whatever AllieOpp has been drinking."
You sure? It's some kind of sugared-up blue-ish kool-aid drek. But okay, if you insist. Just give me your keys first - I'll call you a cab.
You can thank the Religious Right for the mess that Romney is in now
Yes!
Winning the GOP nomination and being ahead in the polls = being in mess!
You're so politically astutue there allie!
Romney favors a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. As do most Republicans currently in office. Do you think that they would refuse an opportunity to move on this if they took the Senate and the Presidency?
Sure they MIGHT move on it -- they might move on it for the purely political gimmick that it would be, just as all of the amendments they have put forward were voted on as pure gimmicks to fool people into thinking that they were actually doing anything.
Obama's support was only "lip service" as he has no plans to include his views in the DNC platform.
5/14/12 10:08 AM
We shall see. It would be a huge mistake for Obama if he didn't.
@Oopsie--Everything Obama has done as president has been a huge mistake.
Why hope for that to change now?
The same sex marriage issue is not going to help Romney among white voters who have largely made up their minds about Obama.
However, what if Herman Cain were Mitt Romney's VP pick? What if Herman Cain spent a lot of time speaking at black churches who's pastors had already spoken out against Obama's stand on same sex marriage? What if Herman Cain didn't speak about same sex marriage at all but instead talked about how high unemployment is hurting the black community so badly. Cain could then throw in a humorous reference to him being the only black candidate in the race who had a black mother.
If Democrats don't get 90% of the black vote every time they are toast. If Herman Cain could swing 30% of the black vote to the Republican candidate, it would be a blow out in both the popular vote and the Electoral College.
"However, what if Herman Cain were Mitt Romney's VP pick?”
PRETTY PLEASE? :)
We shall see. It would be a huge mistake for Obama if he didn't.
It would only point out his utter fecklessness.
Standing on a stage, promising to fight for gay marriage, in the very state he did not do one thing to help fight off an anti-gay marriage law that passed the day before he decided to be pro-gay marriage.
Embarrassing.
The Drill SGT,
Its advocates would be wise to let support build gently rather tah force it down peopl's throats,...
You just had to go there, didn't you?
I'm out,...
AllieOop,
Obama is the one in a mess.
The black churches are very angry about his announcement and 5 Dem senators up for re-election will not support his decision publicly.
Further, Obama has gay activits wanting him to be even more aggressive on the issue.
Romney has 90% + support from the GOP base on this issue.
Chip, Obama lost me a while back, but I think he sees an opportunity here to redeem himself, with a large voting block, women and gays. Next up the Latino vote, wait for some action there too. As someone upthread said, there are more issues he will act on before the election, there's plenty of time.
I think Romney would be in the clear, except he signed the pledge with the National Organization for Marriage that calls for an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
At least Romney is trying to use the Constitutional process to make the will of the people law, as opposed to subvert the law using the Courts.
I'd like to contribute to this blog post with an insightful comment, but I'm still trying to figure out which one of these goblets contains the iocane powder.
AllieOop: Obama lost me a while back
Sure. That must be why you still shill for Obama with these sophomoronic arguments.
he sees an opportunity here to redeem himself, with a large voting block, women and gays. Next up the Latino vote,
Wow. Do Dems think women, gays and latinos are really that dumb?
As someone upthread said, there are more issues he will act on before the election, there's plenty of time.
There's been plenty of time before the election to act on the Economy. Too bad he's more interested in retaining power than serving the people who elected him.
I'd like to contribute to this blog post with an insightful comment, but I'm still trying to figure out which one of these goblets contains the iocane powder.
...land war in Asia. And never argue with a Libtard when your sanity is on the line.
Smart man, that Branch Rickey.
Indeed. Just ask Carol Herman.
AllieOop said...
The Religious Right will not allow Romney to remain silent on this issue as someone already so aptly said.
Oop's usual moby FUD.
The Romster is very clear it's a state issue and he's OK with that. He's stated personal views, but those are his policy views.
The Religious Right, if it's that big a factor at all in the Republican Party right now, is not calling the tune.
The Tea Partiers are, and they are all about the economy and everybody knows it.
"The Romster is very clear it's a state issue and he's OK with that. He's stated personal views, but those are his policy views.”
Incorrect. Try again.
Ann is a liberal. My own position on gay marriage is to err on the side of freedom, I think Ann's positions are often socially derived. Liberals are herd animals and feel it is very important to be seen as part of the "cool" herd. That's why liberals first response to any argument can very often be "reject first! Ask rhetorical questions later!" What is asking a rhetorical question but soliciting the agreement of the like minded? Read Haidt's piece in edge.org about "Why People Vote Republican" for more on this.
You can also google "gaze cues" and "liberal" and "conservative" for more as to how conservatives think for themselves whereas liberals often take their cues from others. This is one of the reasons that liberals just don't value human freedom as highly as conservatives.
he sees an opportunity here to redeem himself, with a large voting block, women and gays. Next up the Latino vote,
True. You can't fool all of the people all of the time.
or
it would be cool if he wanted the votes of all Americans, regardless of creed, color, race, religion or sexual orientation.
I'd like to contribute to this blog post with an insightful comment, but I'm still trying to figure out which one of these goblets contains the iocane powder.
You should have spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.
Beware of people telling you not to use issues against Obama.
Either these people have not read Saul Alinsky or they are not your friend and wish to deceive you.
Use every issue against Obama. Win. They bring a knife, you bring a gun. Worry not about what the spin will be after the election. Defeat Obama first. Worry later.
Hint: they're going to spin it any way. These people have read Saul Alinsky.
Win first. Win now. Blow right past the morons who try to shackle you.
Allie--I find it utterly pathetic that an incumbent president has to resort to symbolic politics in order to avoid running on his record.
But the gays will save him! All 3.5%-of-the-population of them. Cuz they're much more interested in getting married than finding work.
Romney should say that it's more important for Gays to have jobs than legal status.
Yes bartender, I'll have whatever AllieOpp has been drinking.
Or a bag of whatever it is she is smoking. I promise it's for medical use.
Research dontyaknow? It might help with PTSD.
*cough*
@EMD--I'd rather ask Herman Carol about Rickey Branch.
I'd get a more amusing answer.
edutcher: The Religious Right, if it's that big a factor at all in the Republican Party right now, is not calling the tune.
I think we spotted the ReligiousRight UltraConservative RadicalExtremist Monster the other day while we were hunting deer.
Watch out Allie! The Monster will find you and stop taxpayer funding of your KY stock and vibrator collection!
Chip, he will most likely win because of the support of gays, liberal and independent women, probably Latinos, certainly blacks, despite his stance on SS marriage and of course from liberal ideological voters.
Romney's base just doesn't include these people in large numbers.
"The Religious Right will not allow Romney"
Who is this "Religious Right" you speak of?
Not in terms of 1980s or 1990s politics. Now.
I'm curious, because I think the old religious right is as fractured as it has ever been, and rightly so.
So, I'm curious who is the supposed power broker on the religious right that gets to dictate the election topics.
Anyone who takes seriously that the election should be dictated by the remnants of the old religious right should see how Santorum is doing in this election.
Romney should say that it's more important for Gays to have jobs than legal status.
I see where you're coming from, but if I actually heard a presidential candidate say something like that I would get pissed for the gay community. Who is some politician to say what's more important for individual citizens en masse?
The Religious Right will not allow Romney to remain silent on this issue as someone already so aptly said.
Romney is a Mormon.. the ties between Romney and the 'Religious Right' (as you say) are not strong enough to influence Romney that way.
That was mean, Paddy. AllieOop needs her ReligiousRight Scapegoat to justify her support of Obama. You're going to make her even more unstable.
Obama must really suck if the libs are having to pretend its a choice between Obama or the Taliban.
Lem, what was Romney doing this past weekend? Romney will not go against the RR, he needs their support, he knows they are already distrustful of him due to his religion.
The RR may get wise and shut up about this issue as Ann said Romney should, because they recognize that it may lose them the election.
"Romney is a Mormon.. the ties between Romney and the 'Religious Right' (as you say) are not strong enough to influence Romney that way.”
Yeah Romney would never feel the need to visit a university that teaches that he belongs to a cult. Absolutely no pandering there. No influence whatsoever.
Marriage has long been a matter that belongs to states.
But that ceased to be true with social security and tax returns. Is Obama going to propose changes to both? How about simply pushing for same sex couples from those states authorizing marriage for them to file as married.
OR propose changes to the tax code nullifying the marital advantage and requiring everyone to file as single. (This is actually my preference.)
Kchiker: Yeah Romney would never feel the need to visit a university that teaches that he belongs to a cult. Absolutely no pandering there. No influence whatsoever.
Oh cool! I didn't know we had a Romney campaign staffer on this blog. Please tell us all, Kchiker, why the campaign chose to visit that University.
"Please tell us all, Kchiker, why the campaign chose to visit that University.”
He must have decided it was good electoral politics to convince the religious right that he will bring home the bacon.
Probably a better strategy (in this election anyway) than taking credit for the auto bailout. That was so last week.
It's simply wrong to turn the bitter clingers against The First Gay President!
Althouse wouldn't approve!
Romney needs to learn how to be a dignified loser, like McCain was...
Kchiker said...
The Romster is very clear it's a state issue and he's OK with that. He's stated personal views, but those are his policy views.
Incorrect. Try again.
Interview on Cavuto last week. His exact words.
You try again.
Romney needs only one question, one that has been asked before, in almost the exact same situation:
"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"
That's it.
Let Obama run the Oprah channel's Very Special Issue of the Week.
No one among the crucial swing voters will give a shit about any of that. It's nothing but smoke and mirrors, styrofoam pillars, and bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Every day, one can see the economy descending.
Nothing else matters.
Because the other choice was McCain
Me: Hey, Ann, what would you like for lunch: A ham sandwich, or a puddle of maggot-riddled monkey diarrhea?
AA: I don't want a ham sandwich, so....
"Interview on Cavuto last week. His exact words.
You try again.”
Wouldn’t surprise me in the least. The problem is, he also signed the National Organization for Marriage oath to "Support an amendment to the United State Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
He sure aims to please.
Marriage has long been a matter that belongs to states
Marriage has long been a matter that belongs to THE PEOPLE, not government, which exists solely to secure and protect the liberties of the people, not to create them.
Marriage has long been a matter that belongs to THE PEOPLE, not government, which exists solely to secure and protect the liberties of the people, not to create them.
I don't think the Anti-Prop 8 folks in California got the memo.
The President plays no role whatsoever in the process of getting a constitutional amendment.
The whole process is via Congress and state legislatures.
"The President plays no role whatsoever in the process of getting a constitutional amendment.
The whole process is via Congress and state legislatures.”
True. As the leader of the party, it would seem to be a rather important policy position. At current, it appears Romney is on both sides.
he sees an opportunity here to redeem himself, with a large voting block, women and gays. Next up the Latino vote,
Good point there. A big demographic that he won last time around, and has lost ground with. Probably didn't help himself a lot there when he took the side of Black Trayvon Martin against Hispanic (and part black) George Zimmerman. And, neither the economy nor his stand on SSM are likely to help with this demographic.
So, what can Obama do? Fire OJ Holder for trying to persecute George Zimmerman? For helping to kill so many Mexicans with the Fast and Furious guns?
Only thing that I see is some sort of legal amnesty push. Immigration is probably a bit of why Holder is going after Sheriff Joe Arpaio right now with so much of his DoJ might. (Probably also doesn't like what Arapio's crew have dug up about Obama's past life either - or haven't been able to dig up because the records have been scrubbed or removed).
Point is that I think that it is inevitable that the Obama Administration do a lot more in the area of immigration. It isn't about getting him any more voters because the Dems expect to register all those illegals being legalized, because that just won't happen in time. But, rather, it is an issue that is unique to Hispanics, and he needs them far worse than he needs either Blacks (who are going to vote for him anyway) or Gays (because there aren't all that many of them, and a lot of them, surprisingly, will vote based on other issues, like the economy). Of course, if he goes after immigration, he will lose Arizona. But, the Dems were lying to themselves if they thought they actually had a chance there this year in the first place.
The problem is that we are almost to summer, and the SSM thing is getting played out. So, I predict something in this area this month.
who is making gay marriage an "issue," besides Obama and the MSM?
Ann Althouse, of course.
Bruce Hayden said...
Only thing that I see is some sort of legal amnesty push
Dream Act Lite by Executive Order.
Reprioritize deportation resources to focus on criminal deportations at the expense of all other deportations (done that already)
Kchiker: Yeah Romney would never feel the need to visit a university that teaches that he belongs to a cult. Absolutely no pandering there. No influence whatsoever.
Oh cool! I didn't know we had a Romney campaign staffer on this blog. Please tell us all, Kchiker, why the campaign chose to visit that University.
He must have decided it was good electoral politics to convince the religious right that he will bring home the bacon.
Oh, so you're just speculating. You don't really know.
Maybe he visited the University to remind them that "...we have many of the same values and a similar worldview when it comes to marriage, when it comes to life, when it comes to Israel.”
(Maybe he visited the University to remind them that "...we have many of the same values and a similar worldview when it comes to marriage, when it comes to life, when it comes to Israel.”)
Probably right. One needs reminded of Romney’s new viewpoints because their constant evolution can make recollection of his current view difficult.
The same way he now favors a states-rights approach a few months after signing the NOM oath.
Kchiker said...
"However, what if Herman Cain were Mitt Romney's VP pick?”
PRETTY PLEASE? :)
Yes. We would see the Democrats, the media and all the cool kids in Hollywood conduct a smear campaign on Herman Cain that would be reminiscent of what they did to Sarah Palin. Due to human nature and the way some people react to political partisanship, there would be plenty of Democrats who would say unfortunate things that are way over the line with respect to Cain's race.
Would it be enough to lose Obama 30% of the Black vote?
Oh, I think that we know who the next target of the Obama campaign is, with this from Drudge: OBAMA: ROMNEY A 'VAMPIRE'.
Well, actually, he isn't going against vultures, per se, but rather, against "vulture capitalists". Big ad by this weekend in a number of swing/battleground states. We will see how well this plays out.
Their contention seems to be that Romney heartlessly axed employees to fatten his own bottom line, and that of Bain Capital (and, never mind that the guy speaking lost his job 2 years after Romney left).
It is actually a pretty shrewd attack, given what they have going for them, which isn't a whole lot. It is emotional, and if you don't think it through, which Utopians and socialists invariably do not (as witnessed by the new French President's notice to American car companies that layoffs will not be tolerated) are dreamers. If they ever thought through their positions, they would abandon them as unworkable and disastrous. But, there are a lot of emotional, uninformed, and uninterested voters out there who may just be susceptible to this message.
Never mind that part of the reason that this country has been successful economically and in terms of job creation is what is called "creative destruction", which we have traditionally been better at then, say, the Europeans. Buggy (and buggy whip) workers were retrained to make cars. Farmers were retrained when their numbers dropped from most of our population to the single digits over the last two centuries. But, in both France and Japan, small, grossly inefficient, farmers are still being supported.
So, a lot of our steel now comes from elsewhere in the world. It is something called "competitive advantage". If every concentrates on what they do well at, and let other countries do what they do best at, all of them thrive. 30-40 years ago, our steel workers were considered the highest paid semi-skilled workers in the country (and, likely, the world). And, that didn't take into account union required work practices aimed at maintaining employment, and not profitability.
The capital that used to go into steel mills in this country, needed to be moved to industries where we have a competitive advantage, if this country is to thrive economically. Romney just helped this along a bit.
Still, Obama's emotional appeal here has attraction among certain voters.
The GOP has, nationally, been treating it as a non-issue. Which is what they should do. It's not remotely important when compard to the other issues on the table.
It tends to be an electoral loser in most states as is. It's not going to help Obama much, except that the people who pay him to do what they want will be happy now that he has joined Cheney and a large swath of conservative thought on the issue.
Blogger Kchiker said...
"Yeah Romney would never feel the need to visit a university that teaches that he belongs to a cult. Absolutely no pandering there. No influence whatsoever."
Well, if Romney visits Notre Dame, Boston College or Georgetown, that would not be too far off from the official position.
One of the bits of fallout from the earlier "War Against Women" campaigns earlier this year is that even liberal Catholics now think that Obama hates the Catholic Church. Their response when asked about this is usually to stick their fingers in their ears and shout "La la la. I can't hear you. Shut up. You are mean to bring that subject up."
We'll see how this plays out in November.
The president wants to talk about anything OTHER than the economy. Any diversion into any other issue will be simply helping Obama win. If someone asks Romney about same-sex marriage, he needs to answer that same sex couples are having trouble finding jobs.
Sorry, Fen.
I got worried since as a credentialed member of the religious right I've had trouble figuring out who is in charge these days. I assumed I missed an important email or something.
Politically charged misdirection fluff. +1 for Urkel, -1 for fail. Still a net zero loser.
Sorry, Fen.
I got worried since as a credentialed member of the religious right I've had trouble figuring out who is in charge these days. I assumed I missed an important email or something.
Well, we're all meeting next Friday at the Scapegoat to dine off the belly of a sacrificial virgin. Maybe they'll tell us then.
Marriage existed long before the modern state did. Why do people think the state has the authority to regulate it?
Romney would never feel the need to visit a university that teaches that he belongs to a cult.
My goodness, Romney voluntarily associates with people whose religious beliefs differ from his own?
What a nut!
Why Republicans should resist using the same-sex marriage issue against Obama: because they don't have to. SSM isn't popular with the populace. SSM bills get shot down faster than Bambi's mother whenever they appear on a state ballot.
If the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot regarding one issue, let them, and use your
time and energy to focus on other issues.
I know this is anecdotal, but my mother who has always voted straight Democrat her entire life ("because they are for the little guy") told me this weekend she was becoming a Republican. My brother and I have been trying for the past three years to convince her that Obama is bad for the country because of his economic and foreign policy, but she wasn't buying it. The gay marriage thing did it for her. She isn't against gay people, and she would be OK with gay civil unions, but she doesn't think the state should redefine marriage. That was a step too far.
The Drill Sgt:
"- the ability of people like Althouse to project their politcal desires and warm fuzzy vibes onto the blank canvas that was Obama"
This time Ann appears to be projecting her own thinking onto the "faceless" middle.
Ann:
Rick Santorum, not Romney, sees gay marriage as a weapon, and Republicans have already chosen Romney, who clearly intends to run on the economy.. Contra your musings, however, the President clearly knows that other than getting gays to open their wallets, this particular wedge cuts against him. The list of states which have officially banned gay marriage is almost a match for the list of battleground states he needs to capture.
That's why he virtually ran away from NC (which he won by a mere 14,000 votes in 2008) on the eve of the Amendment 1 referendum, after Biden planted him squarely on the hot seat. Imagine the spin if he had endorsed gay marriage, only to be overwhelmingly rejected by black voters. He didn't offer up his modified, limited hangout till the next day: he was just expressing a personal, sympathetic, opinion; he was following the lead of a younger generation; real change is a state responsibility. Indeed, his strange new respect for federalism could almost be a simultaneous endorsement of the NC vote.
Obama & Romney may have ended up in the same policy position, but Romney has been making the federalist argument on whole litany of issues, while Obama has never made it before. Romney can hammer away at the economy and let Obama turn himself into a pretzel.
The Prez won't be thanking surrogates for keeping gay marriage on the front page any more than he thanked Joe Biden for putting it there.
Traditionalguy had it right this morning at 9ish. Operative concept:"let them call it marriage.". Because it still wont be marriage marriage.
The gay marriage thing did it for her. She isn't against gay people, and she would be OK with gay civil unions, but she doesn't think the state should redefine marriage. That was a step too far.
I suspect that a lot of people consciously or subconsciously see SSM for what it is: legislating the dictionary, something that Americans have never seen before except in the pages of 1984.
Words are symbols for ideas; therefore when people lecture others about the use of language they are really addressing the ideas behind the words. When people run to the government to change the common language, that can only be described as totalitarianism.
The government cannot name something it does not own; it does not own the ideas of the American population.
Allie Oop (9:59 a): "The Religious Right...."
This is one of the most ignorant, ideologically-driven posts ever on this site. And that is going some distance.
Oh, Allie, has Romney not taken a position ("Marriage is between one man and one woman")?
Do you really think Obama as President has the right to erase the Tenth Amendment ("...if he continues to allow this to remain in the hands of the states...")?
The Religious Right caused the 2010 takeover of the House?
Resisting providing free contraception to women when it violates religious freedom is a "war on women?"
It boggles the mind that she thinks that tripe will sell among informed people. Raise your game, lady, if you can.
Althouse is correct. The Repubs need not make an issue of this. It's a done deal.
Wake me up when the headlines are thus:
"Same Sex Marriage Jump Starts American Economy"
Shorter blog post: "Republicans shouldn't let people think that just because they're insane when it comes to one issue, that they're insane on all issues!"
Republicans. We're not psychotic when it comes to the issues you care about, just when it comes to the issues we'd rather not talk about.
Paddy O (10:45) said... (quoting Allie):"The Religious Right will not allow Romney"
Who is this "Religious Right" you speak of?
They're the same red herrings as the "fundies" the atheists go on about. They represent a small group of extremists who prattle on street corners about "the Bible" and "Christianity" while behaving like Saul's New Testament Pharisees.
They do not generally represent the religious or political values of very many Christians.
I've been a Christian conservative most of my life and I rarely meet a member of Allie's Religious Right.
Can someone explain why HOMBRE even bothers posting comments when all of his "ideas" can be boiled down to a single pictograph?
He is the atheist of conservative culpability. Doesn't believe such a thing could exist. If a conservative is for it, it's intrinsically right.
O Ritmo Segundo (5:56) weighs in to challenge Allie for the title.
Hombre's infinite if psychotic faith in the Republicans' supposed ability to re-brand themselves as a reasonable party is comforting.
Ritmo: Can someone explain why HOMBRE even bothers posting comments when all of his "ideas" can be boiled down to a single pictograph?
He is the atheist of conservative culpability. Doesn't believe such a thing could exist. If a conservative is for it, it's intrinsically right. (6:05)
Hombre's infinite if psychotic faith in the Republicans' supposed ability to re-brand themselves as a reasonable party is comforting. (6:20)
In a late, dramatic finish, Ritmo takes the title from Allie with three devastating fallacies in two short posts: an ad hominem, followed by a quick non sequitur finishing with a sluggish straw man.
All this while avoiding mention of a single issue raised by the original post or any of the comments. Allie pales in fatuity by comparison.
All this while avoiding mention of a single issue raised by the original post or any of the comments.
I'm more than happy to let you languish in the illusion that there was anything there worth addressing.
Althouse debates are cool enough, I suppose.
But personally?
I'm nearly always reminded how much better they'd be as physical comedy skits where like someone would always fall off the edge of the ledge they're on.
Ha ha
Then of course the guy on the other edge loses his balance too cause the counter weight is gone!
Just like on the playground when someone jumped off the seesaw on the high side and the guy left behind just kinda thumped down with his eyes bulging.
"Ya got me!"
Ha ha
Those were the days!
No feelings hurt.
Just shared laughter at recess.
Post a Comment