The good news is President Obama announced today he has reversed one of his views and now supports gay marriage.
The bad news is I just lost my favorite talking point.
People fall into three major camps on this one: People who believe this is an honest change in position, people who think he's been a closeted supporter the whole time and is just now coming out and those who think this is a cheap political stunt and his opinion hasn't changed.
I'm not sure which one is correct, but I'm leaning towards "cheap political stunt." This is an election year, and while the president has a lead in polls over Mitt Romney, his failure to live up to his 2008 campaign promises has left a lot of supporters unhappy and this change in position could get them excited again.
That is, until they read the fine print. President Obama has uncharacteristically taken a "states rights" position and wants state to decide for themselves instead of using federal involvement. This is incredibly suspicious and points towards the "election year conversion" being motivated by politics. In effect, he's saying he won't actually do anything for gay marriage, but he'll give it a thumbs up from the tarmac.
In the past few years his position on gay marriage has been weird. After saying he believes marriage is between a man and a woman because of his religious upbringing, he tried to make the case for civil unions in hopes that would satisfy pro-gay voters. He's been walking around with a straight face ever since claiming his position is constantly evolving. I don't think he's capable of making a statement on this issue that doesn't try to appeal to both sides.
It's possible that he really did change his mind and saw this as a good time to share it. Even if he is timing this for political reasons, that doesn't prove he's being insincere about supporting gays. Regardless, I'm glad to see he's now publicly supporting a position I've held for years.
As for people who think the president has always supported gay marriage in secret and is just now coming clean, why would you ever support him?
They are saying President Obama felt deep in his heart that two adults in love shouldn't be kept apart over words written in ancient texts, but was willing to turn his back on those people for political gain. They think he was willing to play a bigot to win votes, even while inside his heart he knew it was wrong. That is to say, they think Barack Obama is our generation's George Wallace.
I've been critical of the president before, but that is a bigger insult to his character than I have ever made.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The president ruined my favorite talking point
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I put this on Facebook, but I'll put it here as well:
ReplyDeleteAs I said on my blog, your analogy to George Wallace is either woefully ignorant or blatantly stupid. Regardless of whatever it is he may have believed, his actions mattered. He was pushing for specific legislation (or the continuation of current laws) in order to undermine basic liberties. The President has voiced a stance which is almost exclusively important at the state level. And I guess the judiciary. Moreover, you're being an utter fool if you think that any candidate is willing to voice every single one of his views honestly while he still has votes to court. But maybe you think I believe the character of most of the founding fathers to be complete shit because they would Christian it up despite many of them being simple deists.
I think you're being entirely silly on this on a number of fronts. First, the President said he favored gay marriage as a state senator. You were apparently too lazy to do your homework on that point. Second, this is going to hurt him more than it's going to help him. Swing states, such as North Carolina, strongly disagree with him on this issue - an issue which is galvanizing for bigots more than anyone else. Third, you chastise me for saying he held a detrimental position (which isn't true since it doesn't directly matter), but you apparently believe you haven't insulted him by saying he's doing this for political gain. Not only are you a hypocrite, but you also don't seem to be aware that it was Biden who mistakenly brought this into the recent spotlight in the first place.
I'll summarize this before you get it wrong:
The President held that gay marriage was a right as far back as 1996. He only changed his position when running for much higher office. That tells me that he was doing a Romney and seeking to appeal to the center. None of this directly matter, though, because it is the states and courts which are making the laws on this, not the federal government. Contrary to what you've claimed, his public position of bigotry did not actually translate itself into bigotry. That makes him no different in practice than the Christian who thinks homosexuality is wrong but still votes in favor of gay marriage anyway.
(I'm going to go beyond that summary now, but I will be willing to summarize this for you later should you need me to do so.)
The President's position has actually be a good thing for gays. We can look back at DADT to see why. President Clinton probably would have given gays full rights to join the military if it was up to him, but he couldn't push the issue. He had to make a compromise in order to see any progress. (We can see how pushing too hard too soon has negative consequences by looking to all the states that have outlawed gay marriage.) Less than two decades later we saw the benefit of that: gays now do have full rights to join the military. Had Clinton been more aggressive, and yes, more honest, then the lot in life gays have today would be worse.
I don't think you understand politics.
Thanks for making this comment for me!!! SPOT ON!!
DeleteYou left out the 4th group of people who don't care what the president thinks. I'm also not interested in his opinion on the Maine State Budget.
ReplyDeleteYou are putting a lot of stock in the 1996 comment, which was addressed and dismissed in the original link
ReplyDelete"The announcement completes a turnabout for the president, who has opposed gay marriage throughout his career in national politics. In 1996, as a state Senate candidate, he indicated support for gay marriage in a questionnaire, but Obama aides later disavowed it and said it did not reflect the candidate's position."
You are making sweeping conclusions from flimsy evidence. As for Don't Ask, Don't Tell - I wrote a post here when it was defeated saying it was a good compromise for its time.
The president really didn't have anything to lose. I suspect that as a christian, he was brought up believing it is wrong and was legitimately opposed to it at one point.
For fuck's sake. Do you read? Do you reading a fucking thing, Michael? I make the point that the President supported gay marriage nearly two decades ago, only switching his stance when he ran for higher office. Your counter? "Nuh-uh! Look! He supported marriage in 1996 but not when he ran for higher office!" Good job. Why are you a journalist? You're fucking terrible at reading. Just terrible.
ReplyDeleteAs for Don't Ask, Don't Tell - I wrote a post here when it was defeated saying it was a good compromise for its time.
So what? Yes, great, we agree that DADT was a good compromise. Do you understand how that doesn't address the argument I made? The President made a rhetorical compromise when running for higher office, just as Clinton made a policy compromise in the 90's. Both of these things have been good for the progression of civil liberties. That is - because I know you still don't get it - President Obama has played politics with words in a way which has and will continue to improve the lives of gays.
As always, let me know what you need summarized.
Besides DADT, he also created FEDERAL legislation to protect gays/lesbians/trans, etc. people from hate crimes AND held the first gay pride event at the white house.
DeleteYou are blurring the line between a legitimate commenter and a troll at this time. I'm asking you directly to stop being needlessly vulgar, as it takes away from any reasonable discussions.
ReplyDeleteYou have trouble distinguishing between someone disagreeing with you and not knowing about the issue, which explains the hubris of your remarks.
You have made a false assumption in what I said about the 1996 case. He had aides long before he ran for president. The 1996 statement is something an aide filled out for a survey and he signed. This was not taken from a speech and may have been a mistake.
In 1998 (not 2008) an aide filled out a survey with the same newspaper saying he was undecided on gay marriage. You are choosing to interpret this as a plot to help gays, when it could easily be a calculation to win votes.
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/images/publications/wct/2009-01-21/current.pdf
President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1994. What did gays benefit from that? You don't have the ability to peer into their minds, but against all reason you're assuming everything they do is part of a plan to help gays.
Since there are no federally peroformed marriages, the presiden't views on same sex marriage are irrelevant. Where they could make a difference is in federal benefits- like SSA widow's and auxiliaries' benefits. Is President Obama now pusing for SSA auxiliary and survivor benefits in the case of same sex marriage? Right now that's prohibited under federal law. If he is in favor of same sex marriage why isn't he pushing for federal legislation for same sex beenfits? Since he's NOT pushing for legislatioin which would kill him politically, I think he's indulging in no-cost pandering.
ReplyDeleteYou are blurring the line between a legitimate commenter and a troll at this time. I'm asking you directly to stop being needlessly vulgar, as it takes away from any reasonable discussions.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm asking you to read what other people write. Also, fuck.
You have trouble distinguishing between someone disagreeing with you and not knowing about the issue, which explains the hubris of your remarks.
Your analysis has been immature and ignorant, something I would expect from a junior high kid who doesn't follow the news. As for not being familiar with the issue, let's go to the tape:
You have made a false assumption in what I said about the 1996 case. He had aides long before he ran for president. The 1996 statement is something an aide filled out for a survey and he signed. This was not taken from a speech and may have been a mistake.
In 1998 (not 2008) an aide filled out a survey with the same newspaper saying he was undecided on gay marriage. You are choosing to interpret this as a plot to help gays, when it could easily be a calculation to win votes.
First, there was no assumption made in regards to what you said. You seem to have not only lost track of the discussion once again but now you're just making it up as you go along. I'll summarize for you once again: I said the President disavowed a position he held nearly two decades ago for the sake of getting votes. You countered by saying the President disavowed a position he held nearly two decades ago. Now you somehow think some assumption has been made.
Second, I've held all along that his climb to power has been a calculation to win votes. You really are an awful reader. Awful.
Third, do your damn homework. The President's 1996 quote was disavowed by a White House communications director only to be un-disavowed later, replaced by the claim of an evolving perspective.
President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1994. What did gays benefit from that? You don't have the ability to peer into their minds, but against all reason you're assuming everything they do is part of a plan to help gays.
I am changing my reference to you in my paper because of what an awful 'journalist' you are. Do your homework: Clinton signed DOMA in 1996. Had I known you were this irresponsible with the facts, I never would have asked you to write anything for my publication. You're terrible at your job.
DOMA didn't help gays, but, again, if you did your homework, you would know that there were veto-proof votes in both the House and Senate. Had Clinton not signed the bill, he would have been rebuked within a month of the election to no useful end for anyone. He would have looked bad, lost votes, and gays would be in the same lot.
I said the President disavowed a position he held nearly two decades ago for the sake of getting votes. You countered by saying the President disavowed a position he held nearly two decades ago. Now you somehow think some assumption has been made.
ReplyDeleteYou can't disavow a position you never held. A Congressional aide mistakenly marked the questionnaire and Obama signed it. It was stated that it didn't reflect his views -- for the reason that he didn't hold it. Derp.
Your analysis has been immature and ignorant, something I would expect from a junior high kid who doesn't follow the news.
Says the person who can't properly read his opponent's rebuttals. Yawn, failed troll. Try again?