You people hate Obama

[azbadpuppy]

Gay GOP group: Obama took the 'Cheney position'

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/gay-gop-group-obama-took-the-cheney-position-122968.html

These people are complete idiots. Dick Cheney, who has a gay daughter, took the cowardly way out by waiting until he was well out of office before making any such statements. In fact, he was in full support of or at the very least stood idly by as the Bush administration implemented or tried to implement their anti-gay policies. GoProud is a joke and has a severe case of self-loathing. It's no wonder they have become the media darlings of conservative news outlets. 

But what do you expect from a group who invites Ann Coulter to speak at a fundraiser, who then publicly ridicules them, and then is appointed a year later as the group's honorary chairperson whom they titled a "gay icon". Pretty much sums it up.

[Conan71]

These people are complete idiots. Dick Cheney, who has a gay daughter, took the cowardly way out by waiting until he was well out of office before making any such statements. In fact, he was in full support of or at the very least stood idly by as the Bush administration implemented or tried to implement their anti-gay policies. GoProud is a joke and has a severe case of self-loathing. It's no wonder they have become the media darlings of conservative news outlets.  

But what do you expect from a group who invites Ann Coulter to speak at a fundraiser, who then publicly ridicules them, and then is appointed a year later as the group's honorary chairperson whom they titled a "gay icon". Pretty much sums it up.

Cheney could be easily accused of political expedience on the issue.  

There’s room to accuse President Obama of it as well.  He waited to publicly define himself on the issue until six months before the next election.  Economically, he has little success to point to and that could be his complete un-doing in the Nov. election.  I think the timing is such that now he doesn’t have to worry about complacency within a group which typically does support Democratic candidates.  

Let’s face it, most political candidates are going to become chameleons as the issues change amongst their perceived constituencies.  Obama is certainly not alone.

Deeply moral conservatives need to take note that “gay marriage” is not forcing the issue on the church and never can, it’s also not an attack on traditional marriage or the family.  It’s purely a legal issue in the context we are talking about.  I really don’t see why if two men or two women are committed in a long-term relationship that they should not have the same survivorship, insurance, and real property rights that MC and I were able to share the moment we got married.

At least I can say I flip-flopped on gay marriage long before POTUS Obama did.  

[guido911]

Ok, got it.  So any change in conviction whatsoever is a failure of character.

EDIT:  My point is, there's a difference between what Romney has done on a host of issues and what Obama has done on this issue.  Romney says one thing and hopes you don't zing him with the historical record.  There's no attempt to explain the disparity, there's no attempt to create a logical reason, there's just what the current Romney says and everything he's said in the past.  IMO, that's the source of his flip-flopper rep.   

At least here, Obama tried to create some consistency, explain how his thoughts have changed, put it in context of his beliefs.  It actually also lines up with actions his administration has taken to date, including eliminating Don't Ask Don't Tell and pointing out through the DOJ certain parts of DOMA that are inconsistent/unconstitutional. 

Obama's got his faults but this ain't one of em. 

Did you not see the timeline I gave you. in 1996 is favored gay marriage. He didn't just start favoring this week. Here's the text of the article so everyone can see:

1996: In his first run for office, state Senate candidate Barack Obama responds to a North Side gay magazine’s issues survey with a letter that includes his support for gay marriage. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight effort to prohibit such marriages,” Obama wrote in the signed letter.

December 2003: While running for the U.S. Senate in Illinois, then state Sen. Obama said in a questionnaire he was against the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which created a federal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

September 2004: During his U.S. Senate campaign, Obama said as a Christian he believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman, although he supports civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. “I’m a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman,” Obama said during a taping of WBBM-AM’s “At Issue.”

2007: While running for president, Obama joined the other Democratic candidates in calling for a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, a major issue in the gay community. He stated his support for a repeal in a questionnaire prepared for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights group. An Obama spokesman said the candidate felt the act “was a poorly conceived law and, in 2004, after hearing from gay friends who relayed to Obama how hurtful it was for the bill to be law, he supported its repeal.”

December 2008: President-elect Obama draws criticism from liberals and gay activists for choosing evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Warren opposes gay marriage and helped pass California’s Proposition 8, which eliminated gay marriage. Obama defended the choice, saying ”It’s no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. What I’ve also said is it is important for America to come together, even though we have disagreements on certain social issues.” But one leading gay activist in Illinois said “the president-elect just doesn’t get it.”

May 9, 2012: President Obama comes out in support of gay marriage, saying he was influenced in part by his young daughters, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, and first lady Michelle Obama. “In the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people,” the president said in an interview with ABC News. “That’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and hopefully the better I’ll be as president.”

So stop defending his hypocrisy and deal with it. Good grief, it happens on both sides. Where were these mental gymnastics on behalf of Romney and his flips?

[guido911]

There’s room to accuse President Obama of it as well.  He waited to publicly define himself on the issue until six months before the next election.  Economically, he has little success to point to and that could be his complete un-doing in the Nov. election.  I think the timing is such that now he doesn’t have to worry about complacency within a group which typically does support Democratic candidates. 

And it didn't help that just this week North Carolina, where the Dem Nat'l convention is being held this year, passed a gay marriage ban, ol' crazy uncle Joe ran his mouth favoring gay marriage, and the press got after Carney. This whole "conversion" & "evolution" stuff is just contrived BS. Seriously, Obama suddenly saw the light?  Suckers.

[azbadpuppy]

Cheney could be easily accused of political expedience on the issue. If only that were the least of his crimes.  

There’s room to accuse President Obama of it as well.  He waited to publicly define himself on the issue until six months before the next election. This is politics, after all. Better late than never though.
Economically, he has little success to point to and that could be his complete un-doing in the Nov. election.  I think the timing is such that now he doesn’t have to worry about complacency within a group which typically does support Democratic candidates. There's plenty of complacency to worry about- these are Democrats we're talking about.
Let’s face it, most political candidates are going to become chameleons as the issues change amongst their perceived constituencies.  Obama is certainly not alone. Again, politics as usual.

Deeply moral conservatives need to take note that “gay marriage” is not forcing the issue on the church and never can, it’s also not an attack on traditional marriage or the family.  It’s purely a legal issue in the context in the sense we are talking about.  I really don’t see why if two men or two women are committed in a long-term relationship that they should not have the same survivorship, insurance, and real property rights that MC and I were able to share the moment we got married. Exactly. Problem is, these "deeply moral conservatives" have rabid preachers at the pulpit telling them otherwise.
At least I can say I flip-flopped on gay marriage long before POTUS Obama did.   About 53% of the country did. He's a bit late to the party, but like I said before, better late than never!

[/color]

[azbadpuppy]

Speaking of gay, did anyone see that Tim Tebow interview on Good Morning America?

[AquaMan]

Guido, please, send that to as many friends as you have. All three of them will see that as a progression, a maturing, an evolving political stand that co-incided with the populace. Unlike Romney's changes which are seemingly capricious and unexplained other than who was supporting his campaign at that particular time. Abortion, auto-bailout are just two that come to mind. He is the etch-a-sketch candidate.

Yes, politicians change viewpoints but he defines the flip and the flop like Fosbury.

[Hoss]

Guido, please, send that to as many friends as you have. All three of them will see that as a progression, a maturing, an evolving political stand that co-incided with the populace. Unlike Romney's changes which are seemingly capricious and unexplained other than who was supporting his campaign at that particular time. Abortion, auto-bailout are just two that come to mind. He is the etch-a-sketch candidate.

Yes, politicians change viewpoints but he defines the flip and the flop like Fosbury.

Winner.

[guido911]

Guido, please, send that to as many friends as you have. All three of them will see that as a progression, a maturing, an evolving political stand that co-incided with the populace. Unlike Romney's changes which are seemingly capricious and unexplained other than who was supporting his campaign at that particular time. Abortion, auto-bailout are just two that come to mind. He is the etch-a-sketch candidate.

Yes, politicians change viewpoints but he defines the flip and the flop like Fosbury.

Do you really want to get into Obama's flips since he became president? Here's a list (after of course telling us in 2004 he would not run for president in the next election):

1)  Closing Gitmo

2) 5 days of public comment on full bills before a vote

3) Recognize the Armenian genocide (the date passed with no action, as always)

4) Reduce or eliminate earmarks

5)  Cut deficit spending by half

6) Not raising taxes on families making less than $250K

7) No signing statements

8.) Military tribunals for detainees

9) indefinite detention of detainees

10)  rendition

11) no lobbyists in his administration...  

I guess Obama is just evolving on these issues.

[guido911]

A story (with video) that aptly summarizes my thought on this flip flop. This is the kicker:

Now we discover — from Obama himself — that he’d made up his mind to change his position some time ago.  Rather than honestly express that flip-flop in a timely manner or at least acknowledge the change when asked directly, though, Obama and the White House essentially lied about it for a while — at least on Monday and Tuesday, and presumably for a while prior to Biden’s statement on Sunday.  Apparently, Obama was satisfied until Sunday to have the White House keep right on misleading people through to the convention, too.  Instead of taking a principled stand, Obama wanted time his pander for the most politically opportune time, even if that meant continuing to fib about his position.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/10/obama-yeah-weve-been-fibbing-about-my-position-on-same-sex-marriage-for-a-while-now-or-something/

[Townsend]

It's a shame that Obama's more enlightened views just make him look like a flip-flopper to social conservatives.

[AquaMan]

Guido, notwithstanding the lack of credibility you have with me (and vice versa I'm sure  ) you chose as issues mostly those he had no unilateral power to enable and that depended on changing circumstances and information. Its one thing to have a position before an election, like closing Gitmo, and then having your atty general and the military give you more powerful arguments not to close it based on current information, then change your view. Its quite another to continue your obstinance in the face of overwhelming facts because you're afraid a poster on a forum in a redneck state might think you flip/flopped.

Kennedy thought the Russians had superiority in nuclear missiles and ran on that as part of his campaign. Eisenhower knew different but couldn't let it be known. When Kennedy took office he was informed and changed his support. Damn flip flopping Democrat!

Anyway, as I pointed out, its the manner in which Romney seems to wave in the breeze that gave him his well earned reputation. The Republicans want to take that weakness and ignore it by forcing the spotlight on their enemy and accuse him of the same thing. Who is the sucker in this scenario?

[Teatownclown]

That's so true AM.

Bristol Palin weighs in:

Hail to the Chiefs – Malia and Sasha Obama
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2012/05/hail-to-the-chiefs-malia-and-sasha-obama/
Is anyone really surprised by the fact that President Obama came out of the closet for gay marriage? What was most surprising is when he explained how his position (supposedly) “evolved,” by talking to his wife and daughters:
“It’s interesting, some of this is also generational,” the president continued. “You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same-sex equality or, you know, sexual orientation, that they believe in equality. They are much more comfortable with it. You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and, frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.”
Let’s pause for just one second.  When Christian women run for high office, people inevitably bring up the question of submission.  Once, Michele Bachmann, for example, was asked during a debate, “As president, would you be submissive to your husband?”
People automatically assume that a Christian female President isn’t capable of making decisions without her spouse’s stamp of approval.  (I should add female Republican candidates –liberal women don’t get the same kind of questions.)
So are all those reporters who feared excessive family intervention in the White House all up in arms over the President’s announcement yesterday?  Um.  Not quite.
Liberals  everywhere are applauding him for his bravery and his wisdom.
So let me get this straight – it’s a problem if my mom listened too much to my dad, but it’s a heroic act if the President made a massive change in a policy position that could affect the entire nation after consulting with his teenage daughters?
While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads.  In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage.  Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home.  Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview.
In this situation, it was the other way around.  I guess we can be glad that Malia and Sasha aren’t younger, or perhaps today’s press conference might have been about appointing Dora the Explorer as Attorney General because of her success in stopping Swiper the Fox.
Sometimes dads should lead their family in the right ways of thinking.  In this case, it would’ve been nice if the President would’ve been an actual leader and helped shape their thoughts instead of merely reflecting what many teenagers think after one too many episodes of Glee.

I love this horseshit. Can someone explain that incomprehensible gibberish she spewed in that blog? I tried to read it
and can't make heads or tails of what the intercourse she's talking about. Listening to advice from Bristol on morals is like
getting relationship advice from Limbaugh!

[Townsend]

That's so true AM.

Bristol Palin weighs in:I love this horseshit. Can someone explain that incomprehensible gibberish she spewed in that blog? I tried to read it
and can't make heads or tails of what the intercourse she's talking about. Listening to advice from Bristol on morals is like
getting relationship advice from Limbaugh!

Why did you give it a moment of your time?

[Teatownclown]

Good question....

Aquaman and Nathan have it pin pointed.

Look, the GOP/Teabaggers are warriors in the culture war. It's their way or the shitter.

08:00 AM ET, 05/10/2012
As Obama backs gay marriage, House GOP tries to limit gay-friendly policies
By Ed O'Keefe
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/obama-backs-gay-marriage-house-gop-tries-rolling-back-gay-friendly-policies/2012/05/10/gIQAOKpLFU_blog.html

On the same day President Obama became the first president to fully embrace same-sex marriage, House Republicans once again approved measures that limit Obama administration policy decisions and federal policies favorable to gays and lesbians.

House Republicans voted Wednesday night to bar the Justice Department from using any federal funds to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act. They added the prohibitions to an appropriations measure. The Obama administration last year said it would no longer defend the federal law that bans the recognition of same-sex marriage because it considers the legislation unconstitutional.

Also Wednesday night, the House Armed Services Committee voted to bar gay and lesbian service members from getting married or holding “marriage-like” ceremonies at military facilities.

Both measures, or similar bills, have been introduced or successfully added to appropriations and authorization measures in recent years, but the proposals are often dropped as part of negotiations over a final version of the bill with Senate Democrats

Regardless, the symbolism of the GOP attempting to roll back gay rights on the same day that the president endorsed same-sex marriage wasn’t lost on some.

“On an historic day and in the dark of night, House Republicans have voted to tie the hands of the Obama Administration with respect to their efforts to end discrimination against America’s families,” Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said in response to the Justice Department measure.

The amendment, introduced by Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), passed late Wednesday, 245 to 171. Huelskamp said he introduced the amendment because “President Obama and the entire Executive Branch are supposed to enforce the laws, not write or erase them. It is not President Obama’s prerogative to decide which laws matter and which do not, nor his right to challenge constitutional amendments duly passed by the various States.”

Over at the armed services panel, Reps. Steve Palazzo (R-Miss.) and Todd Akin (R-Mo.) successfully amended the defense measure Wednesday night to include restrictions on gay marriage.

Akin said that since last fall’s repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy barring gays and lesbians from serving openly in uniform, “we have heard stories of military chaplains facing censorship for their opposition to the liberal agenda. Chaplains and service members should not face recrimination or persecution in the military for standing strong on their religious beliefs in opposition to homosexuality.”

But Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the panel’s ranking Democrat, said he opposed the measure, because despite the repeal of DADT, “members of this committee are looking to turn back the clock and find new ways to discriminate against gay and lesbian service members.”

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which pushed for the repeal of DADT, noted late Wednesday that the Pentagon “has already made it clear - and appropriately so - that decisions about the use of facilities should be made on a sexual orientation neutral basis.”

It would be nice if the Republicans would look forward instead of living in the past.