probably. i wonder if it starts with an S :)

~joshua

I wonder whether the other D. W.-S. has a middle name separate from the 'W.'.

don't get me started on DSW...

yes, NOW we can.. :D

My point in bringing this up is that Elizabeth Warren has been the "cat's meow" around here. Like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz..

My only point in bringing it up is that they are politicians..

No better than any other lying, scheming and hypocritical politician..

As long as we are agreed on that, no further comment is necessary... :D

Michale.....

agreed, that is equally silly as criticism of a candidate. brown even admitted that the passage had been plagiarized, and it's still meaningless. now that we've established they're both politicians, maybe we can move on to something that matters.

~joshua

The Left goes apeshit when someone on the Right plagarizes anything..

I seem to remember in the Scott Brown campaign, the Left went apoplectic when he was caught plagarizing..

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=Plagiarism+%22Scott+Brown%22&oq=Plagiarism+%22Scott+Brown%22&aq=f&aqi=g-K1g-bK2&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0i30j0i8i30l2.49774.53510.1.53773.15.14.1.0.0.2.1436.5230.0j6j1j1j1j3j0j1.13.0...0.0.W1gOYwh1LuM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ee39e6d564b1abcb&biw=1920&bih=930

So, I guess it's perfectly OK for LEFTie candidates to plagiarize, but not the right.

And, for the record, it wasn't that Warren cooked a dish that was someone else's..

It was that Warren claimed someone ELSE's work and sweat and ingenuity as her own...

That's piss poor, no matter HOW you slice it..

Wouldn't you agree??

Further, as far as claiming minority status... She did so to further her own agenda...

It's like Danny Partridge claiming he was jewish to get close to the hottie chick in his class...

But a thousand times worse...

It all comes back to integrity....

Apparently, Warren doesn't have any.. Brown is going to wipe the floor with her... :D

Michale.....

~joshua

so, what you're saying is that thirty years ago, not only did elizabeth warren claim to be a nationality for which her blood wasn't pure enough to pass muster, but she cooked a dish that was also cooked by someone else, using a similar recipe. oh, the horror! was she also a commie? i repeat, if this is the best dirt breitbart can come up with, warren will win in a landslide.

~joshua

Didn't Dems go hysterical over some Republicans who plagiarized stuff??

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/18/did-elizabeth-warren-plagiarize-pow-wow-chow-recipes

So, now we find out that not only did Warren lie about being Native American to further her career, she also plagiarized recipes in a "Pow Wow Chow" (I dunno, but I think that would be considered racist) cook book...

Oh yes... Warren is the epitome of integrity, eh?? :D

Michale.....

The fact that GZ is going to walk...

Or the fact that, late as April 2007, Obama's literary agent listed Obama as "Kenyan Born"...

WOW, what a heady time, eh?? :D

Michale....

Cops, Witnesses Back Up George Zimmerman's Version of Trayvon Martin Shooting
http://abcnews.go.com/US/cops-witnesses-back-george-zimmermans-version/story?id=16371852

All the evidence that has been released since discovery was served on Monday indicate that things happened just as GZ said they had.

Cory is going to be Nifong'ed and it couldn't happen to a more deserving individual...

Michale.....

Michale.....

What a crock.

There are TONS of facts.. Anyone who looks at these facts objectively can create a scenario of what occurred and be fairly accurate...

There are many glaring inaccuracies in that YAHOO report.

First off, there is absolutely NOTHING about this incident that indicates race was a factor. NOTHING... The audio recording of "fucking coons" (which supported the fiction of racism, along with NBC's blatant lies) has been discarded. The FBI's best can't figure out what GZ said. And, since there is absolutely NO evidence of racism on the part of GZ and TONS of evidence that GZ and his wife helped black people and children, the question of racism being a factor has been settled. With the exception of one outlier report, no racism has been attributed to GZ.

Another false lead in that Yahoo report was that the lead investigator (Chris Serino) wanted to charge GZ with manslaughter. This is simply not true. CS put "manslaughter" on the top of the police report because he had to put SOMETHING in that box. CS is quoted in several reports (that Sanford PD had posted online, but then pulled them) that he could find no evidence that contradicted GZ's version of events..

Don't even get me started on Crump

"If George Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his car, they say it was completely avoidable. That is the headline."
-Crump

Look at him.. He thinks of media strategies and headlines. He's not interested in justice for Travon. He's interested in dollar signs, profiting from Trayvons death. What a douche..

Regardless, the idea that, if GZ had stayed in his truck, it wouldn't have happened is ludicrous. If Martin hadn't gone to the 7-11, it wouldn't have happened. If Martin hadn't gotten expelled from school for drugs, it wouldn't have happened.

IF IF IF.. While that makes good for sound bites and blog fodder, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the legal issues of the case.

Was GZ breaking the law when he called the police from his truck and then got out to give the PD an address??? NO, he was not.

GZ getting out of his truck to ascertain TM's bona fides is no more relevant as a causation of the incident than TM going to 7-11..

It's simply desperation on the part of Team Skittles...

You should read some of the earlier statements by TM's father and the father's girlfriend.

The Father's GF initially said that TM was just sitting on her porch and was shot by Zimmerman. A total lie that is not supported by ANY evidence...

The father said that TM went to the 7-11 to get skittles and tea for his GF's son, Chad, during half time of an NBA game that was playing that night. Funny thing is, the incident kicked off at around 1900hrs and the NBA game in question didn't even START til 1930. Further, the GF's son Chad wasn't even HOME at the time..

You should read some of the early statements of Crump's crew.. They were all over the map..

I have no doubt in my mind that O'Mara will tear up Team Skittles in court.. But, it won't even get that far.

Barring any new evidence that GZ is secretly a KKK Grand Wizzard, he will walk at the immunity hearing. There is no doubt of that..

The down side of that is it won't happen til the first part of August.. Which means there will be race riots right before the presidential election..

Oh.... Joy....

Michale.....

According to the autopsy report, Martin had THC in his urine AND his blood.

THC in the urine indicates marijuana usage within the last 30 days or so. THC in the blood indicates marijuana usage within the last 12 hours or so.

While TM might not have been impaired, it clearly shows that he was a druggie... And it gives credence to GZ's observations.

Put another way.. If there weren't any drugs in TM's system, it would call GZ's observations into question, would it not? So the converse would also be true.

read the latest from yahoo news and you tell me how the details of the article are addressed.

http://news.yahoo.com/documents-shed-light-trayvon-martin-killing-235341368.html

OooooooooOOOOoooooo A homework assignment!! :D Goodie!!

Michale.....

http://news.yahoo.com/documents-shed-light-trayvon-martin-killing-235341368.html

It sure would be nice if those racist scumbags Crump, Sharpton and Jackson would get the come-uppance they deserve...

Michale......

She lied to further her own personal ambition..

Voters don't like that very much...

but it also doesn't necessarily mean you're right,

I predicted that the autopsy would show that drugs would be found in Martin's system..

The autopsy showed that drugs were found in Martin's system...

Now, in my neck of the woods, that makes me right.. :D

nor that he was correct in ignoring the police dispatcher and following on foot.

The.... oh never mind.. :D

It's all here: http://sjfm.us/temp/zimmerman1.rtf

i don't really think dogma is particularly funny. don't get me wrong, i love kevin smith's jay and silent bob series, and dogma is a very cool movie. i would agree with your 8 rating overall, but in my view it's only a 4 or 5 on the funny scale; what makes it a great film is that it's also quirky and thought-provoking.

Yea, as I said. I am easily amused.. I thought it was hilarious..

But, then again I thought Demolition Man was hilarious too, so.... :D

Michale.....

i don't really think dogma is particularly funny. don't get me wrong, i love kevin smith's jay and silent bob series, and dogma is a very cool movie. i would agree with your 8 rating overall, but in my view it's only a 4 or 5 on the funny scale; what makes it a great film is that it's also quirky and thought-provoking.

~joshua

tests for marijuana don't necessarily demonstrate intoxication or impairment. note that i'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but it also doesn't necessarily mean you're right, nor that zimmerman was correct in any of his assumptions, nor that he was correct in ignoring the police dispatcher and following on foot.

nor am i saying that there is any possibility of conviction; there's definitely reasonable doubt, to which the THC finding contributes. nonetheless, it's far from conclusive about anything.

and speaking of inconclusive....

why should anyone care what elizabeth warren's heritage is? she must really be squeaky clean if this is the best dirt they can dig up on her.

But everyone knows that I am easily amused.. :D

Michale....

THC in treyvon's blood is not exactly a revelation, nor even remotely relevant.

Not relevant??

Zimmerman reported to the police Operator that Martin appeared to be "on drugs'..

The fact that Zimmerman called it is certainly relevant as it gives credence to Zimmerman's other observations.. That Martin appeared to be casing the houses...

But, regardless of all that, I was simply tooting my OWN horn when I called it, several months ago, that Martin's autopsy will show he had drugs in his system... :D

and it's RUN's house, not RON's house.

I DID not know that. I have always wondered what the significance of "Ron's House" was...

Thanx for that.. It has been knawing at me all these years.. :D

How do you rate Dogma as a funny movie?? I put it up around an 8...

Michale.....

I dunno.. I mean, yea, there is a logical explanation for one, two three... Maybe they ALL have a "logical" possibility...

One must keep in mind Occam's Razor.. The explanation that utilizes the LEAST assumptions is most likely the right one...

It's been my experience that, where there's smoke, there is usually fire...

But it's not as if it really matters anymore.. It's not as if Obama is going to be removed from office a few months early...

I think the more value in this latest release is that, like Elizabeth Warren, Obama has played fast and loose with the truth in a manner that they thought would NEVER come back to bite them on the arse..

Yet.... It has...

Michale.....

Interestingly enough, Obama launched his presidential campaign in Feb of 2007..

probably because up until then it was such a triviality that nobody thought it was worth bothering with. don't get me wrong, to a large extent i agree with your above assessment of the president's character as a political animal (i.e. just like every other career politician). i just don't think the birther issue is particularly useful in demonstrating that.

THC in treyvon's blood is not exactly a revelation, nor even remotely relevant. and it's RUN's house, not RON's house. matt damon was singing along with RUN DMC.

"Well my name is DMC,
The all-time great
I bust the most rhymes in New York State
Reporters Claw, Producers die
They want to be down with the king!
The wanted man from the wanted clan
Wanted by every fan from across the land
Not a G.A.N.G from off the street
R. and U.N. D.M.C complete!"

http://youtu.be/xEkcmbuy0Os

By all means...

It's simply a pattern that has developed with Obama that none of his admirers want to concede..

Obama is the consummate political animal. He is the center of the universe and everything revolves around him..

If it's to his advantage to smooze with the teachers, they are the most important thing to him.. If the needs Charter Schools, then teachers become second class citizens..

I do understand and feel your pain.. But it's simply another step in a long pattern that is becoming obvious, even to those who were Obama fans.

If you can help Obama politically, you are his best friend and the most important person in his life.

If you can't... You don't exist..

Michale.....

Seems like Obama's literary agent was using the Obama-Born-In-Kenya bio til early 2007...

Interestingly enough, Obama launched his presidential campaign in Feb of 2007..

Archive.org shows that the Dystel website used the following biography for Obama as of April 3, 2007:

BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.

By April 21, 2007, the Obama bio had been changed to state that Obama was born in Hawaii:

BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Hawaii to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.

Things that make you go 'hmmmmmmmmm'....

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Michale.....

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/05/08/romneys-secret-weapon/#comment-21600

"Whose house?? ROOONNN'S House... I said WHOSE HOUSE??? RONNNNSSSS' HOUSE.. say what?? Whose house!? RONs House..."
-Matt Damon, DOGMA

:D Sorry.. When I call something so dead on balls accurate, gloating is just a knee-jerk reaction... :D

Michale.....

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

It seems that it's well backed up...

Personally, I think it's indicative of how Obama reinvents himself, due to the needs of the moment.

If it's to Obama's advantage to be born in Kenya, then viola'... Obama is born in Kenya.. If it's to his advantage to be born in Hawaii, then Poof.. He is born in Hawaii.. If it's to his advantage to applaud teachers, then Obama applauds teachers. If it's to his advantage to throw teachers under the bus and applaud charter schools then Ziiinnnngggg Under the bus they go.. If it's to Obama's advantage to be against gay marriage, then Taaa Daaa... Obama is against gay marriage. If it's to Obama's advantage to "evolve" and be for gay marriage, then guess what?? Obama evolves...

Michale....

assuming that this is a true document and not a fabrication, there are a few possibilities. one, perhaps the literary agent accidentally conflated O's own birth with his father's. two, perhaps the literary agent thought an author born in kenya would sell better, and didn't see any major harm in purposely switching the facts around to sell the book. three, Obama misspoke to the agent, a misplaced pronoun or two creating the conflation of his father's birth and his own. four, perhaps Obama himself thought the kenyan birth story would sell better, and intentionally misled the agent, not anticipating that it would create a controversy when running for president of the united states sixteen years later.

there are other, more obscure possibilities as well. judge the likelihood of each on its own merits. what is absolutely not even a remote possibility is that obama was actually born anywhere other than hawaii. yet, that's the one that every piece of ambiguous evidence seems to confirm for those who are already so inclined.

however, none of that much relates to the topic of the column, the president's new and (at least to my sensibilities) improved stance on gay marriage. if we're going to criticize him, i'd like to get back to the topic of how he decided to yet again add insult to injury vis-a-vis the nation's teachers.

Correction: That was taken from Obama's literary agent synopsis in anticipation of Obama's first book..

Michale.....

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.

This is taken from Obama's first book...

I make no claims. I just present this to ya'all for your edification and enlightenment.. :D

Michale.....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/08/1089731/-Instead-of-Teacher-Appreciation-Week-President-Obama-asks-us-to-celebrate-Charter-School-Week

sure, that was actually the link that went directly to your spam folder on the previous post. here's a news article about it:

http://www.mlive.com/education/index.ssf/2012/05/president_obama_calls_charter.html

Now, I don't care WHO you are, that ^^^ right there is funny as hell!!! :D

Michale.....

We were talking a bit ago about Obama's narcissism...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/16/white-house-under-fire-for-adding-obama-policy-plugs-to-past-presidents-bios/

Your thoughts??

Is it common for sitting Presidents to alter past President's bios to include themselves in them??

Michale.....

Now, you can probably argue (to be fair) that the civil union people would get added to the "no" people if gay marriage were on the ballot.

And I think that's the important part..

Very few Americans, even religious ones, have a problem with "civil unions"...

Where the problem develops is when the gay community wants to redefine something that has been religion's bailiwick for thousands of years..

As I said before, it's like some dictator coming to power here in the US and wants to re-define "democracy" to mean one ruler uber alles..

Our response to that would be, "We like OUR definition, the one we have followed for hundreds of years, just fine, thank you very much." and we would defend OUR definition most vigorously, would we not??

It's the same thing with the religious community. They see this as an immoral minority imposing THEIR will on the moral majority..

Now, even though I don't really AGREE with their stance, I *DO* understand it. And, given the circumstances, the religious groups DO have a point..

Again, as I said earlier, if BOTH sides would cool the rhetoric and actually talk TO each other, instead of talking AT each over and OVER each other, a LOT more would get accomplish..

But the religious Right is damn well making it an US VS THEM war and the Gay Community is going right along with that....

BOTH sides need to be slapped upside the heads like recalcitrant children and told, in no uncertain terms, to knock the shit off and work it out...

Michale.....

Oh, but I can spin that one, quite easily. As you point out, when it's on a ballot, it becomes binary: either/or. The poll was not. And only 38% were against both.

Now, you can probably argue (to be fair) that the civil union people would get added to the "no" people if gay marriage were on the ballot. But you cannot argue that the same would be true if civil unions were on the ballot, as logically all the pro-marriage folks would assumably vote pro-union as well.

Spin aside, though, Obama's numbers have quavered a bit since his announcement, but within the margin of error (on both Gallup and Rasumssen daily polling). As you stated a while back, Obama's numbers simply don't seem to be affected much by ANYthing....

So far, at least, seems to be a wash for Obama, poll-wise.

-CW

In the totality of the universe, the LAST people you want to piss off would be Navy SEALS...

Michale....

They'll LOVE it over at HuffPo... If ya throw a CW link in your post, we all might be able to partake in the festivities.. :D

Michale.....

ROFL! OMG, I'm totally stealing that and using it at the HuffPo, Michale.

It was only a matter of time..

Obama's about to get SEAL-boated

Michale.....

Yeah, because that's how you actually get to know what the reality is. Only 38% feel gays should be allowed to marry. Worse, only 24% feel they should be allowed civil unions. Does that sound like the majority of country supports gay marriage? Or even gay unions, for that matter?

You can SPIN it by adding the two figures together and stating that "a solid majority of Americans support legal recognition for same-sex couples." But where does that get you on election day when, say, a gay-marriage, or gay union, initiative is on the ballot — or both? The majority is still voting against it, not for. And all the "spin" does is give a deliberate false impression to the public.

Good point, but compare Billy Crystal to Three's Company (a character that wasn't even actually gay, just pretending to be).

When researching this, I found out that the first portrayal of a gay couple was on "Hot L Baltimore" but it's a pretty obscure show, so I went with the Soap reference.

dsws [12] -

Yeah...but...but... it rhymes so nicely! qw-IT-cher-BIT-chin! I heard (over on Huffpost I think) that it was "quityerbellyachin'" from Ann or Abby, which sounds more like something they'd say.

David [15] -

I heartily agree with your entire comment!

Also, nice zinger on Michale in [17]. Heh.

LewDan [19] -

Welcome back!

I have this browser problem occasionally, too, and I have never figured out what causes it (other than lots and lots of comments), programmatically. I suggested paginating the comments here, but people didn't seem to like the idea.

Good point about the 2/3 bit, but that is exactly why Republicans like Romney have started pushing for an actual Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage -- because then, SCOTUS couldn't touch it.

Michale [20] -

How many software programmers does it take to change a light bulb?
None. It's a hardware problem.

HAH! Now THAT was funny!

Buckeye54 [23] -

I've never been convinced at the multidimensional chess analogy, to tell you the truth.

You make an excellent point RE: Biden and Duncan. But it wasn't that long ago a Democrat fired a Surgeon General for speaking her own mind -- neither party's pure on this issue.

LewDan [25] -

Good points, all. Also, the fact that DOMA is so blatantly wrong when you read the 14th Amendment, that's the only thing I would add. Where did the 14th Amendment come from, after all?

joshua [29] -

Wow, I hadn't even heard about this. Got a link?

Chris1962 [40] -

Without even looking, I bet this is the one poll which didn't ask the question as yes/no -- but instead threw "gay marriage" "civil unions" and "no unions at all" together. The polls which ask up-or-down on gay marriage are the ones which show majority support.

Michale [45] -

Fastest irony in the wild, wild west, there. Heh. Got to hand it to you for your followup comment.

:-)

-CW

That is, if I actually had any faith in polls.. :D

Michale.....

In a poll by CBS News, almost 70% of Americans polled said that they thought Obama "evolved" for political/campaign reasons, rather than a sincere evolution of his thinking...

So, I guess I am in good company with my thoughts on Obama, eh? :D

Michale.....

Couldn't have said it better myself..

That should be the overriding concern for ANY leader..

But too many of our leaders, both Dem and GOP put the needs of their Party before the needs of the Country...

Michale.....

I think that's a valid concern. Heck ... it's one of my beefs w/ the health care reform. Rather than going with what I thought was the best solution, much of it was written by industry lobbyists.

Whether it's regulating or deregulating I believe it should be done for the good of our country, not because some special interest wants it.

What I just don't understand is how you can believe that the ones who CAUSED the problem are the best ones to FIX the problem.

Good question. And yes, I'd be happier if Obama had brought in a completely new financial team. A team who was completely unrelated to the deregulation of the past. Either by Clinton and Bush II or anyone who preceded them.

For me, I guess, I'm judging the solution rather than the people involved. And the solution I want to see is something akin to the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. Basically, stronger financial regulations for banks which are federally insured so that they don't gamble with money knowing that the government will pick up the tab if they fail.

So I'll support anyone who is for this or for moving farther in this direction. It's the direction the Obama team is moving in, though they haven't gone far enough for me.

-David

The Left likes to point to poll after poll after poll that says the majority of Americans are fine with gay marriage...

But, as you point out, these polls only show this when A>the game the poll or B>they gin up the questions to achieve the right answers...

However, it's the Voting Booth that is the ultimately accurate "poll"...

And, in THAT poll, same sex marriage always loses...

Each and every time....

Michale.....

"It's all fun and games until someone gets shot in the leg!!!"
-Ben Affleck, ARMAGEDDON

:D

Michale.....

It's all fine and dandy until they perceive it's happening AGAINST them...

Michale.....

"We can't put the methodology of that poll aside, because the methodology was significantly biased." Cutter insisted on MSNBC this morning.

When pressed by Todd, Cutter said that she didn't want to bore the viewers with talk of methodology, but repeated that she believed the poll was flawed.

Oh by all means.. "Bore" us... I, for one, would LOVE to see the tap-dance the Obama can do to spin this obviously accurate poll... :D

Michale.....

My biggest beef is that the people who are making the rules, doing the regulating are the ones most profiting from the DE-regulating..

You have to admit.. Our current crop of leadership are up to their asses in responsibility for this mess.. They took a bad situation and made it much MUCH worse..

What I just don't understand is how you can believe that the ones who CAUSED the problem are the best ones to FIX the problem..

Michale.....

What's interesting is that back in the day ... before regulations such as Glass-Steagull ... when the economy was pretty much unregulated ... think the later 1800s up through the Great Depression ... there was a market crash about every 5-6 years.

The regulations of the Depression era stabilized this for over 50 years. And now we seem to be back to the cycle of market crashes.

It was also a great age of prosperity for our country.

I don't know about you, but I think the repeal efforts went too far.

Does this mean I think everything should be regulated? Of course not. But where it makes sense - financial services, for example.

This idea that government and regulation are always bad is nothing short of religion.

-David

LOL ... :)

Heheheh. It's a bit of a broad generalization, but liberals believe government should stay out of people's personal lives.

Yea, I know.. It's the same contradiction that the Right does, except in reverse..

The Right believes that MORE government in our bedrooms and LESS government in our business is a GOOD thing.

The Left believes that MORE government in our business and LESS government in our bedrooms is a good thing..

Go figger.. :D

Conservatives, again a broad generalization, tend to believe government should stay out of the economy. But they have no problem with government regulating people's individual lives. At least the religious conservatives. Libertarians tend to believe both.

I really need to start reading ALL of the comments BEFORE I respond. :D

Michale.....

Heheheh. It's a bit of a broad generalization, but liberals believe government should stay out of people's personal lives. The role of government should be to do things that no one individual can, like police, or fire departments, or sewers, or regulating the economy.

Conservatives, again a broad generalization, tend to believe government should stay out of the economy. But they have no problem with government regulating people's individual lives. At least the religious conservatives. Libertarians tend to believe both.

Contrary to the popular straw man argument that liberals want "big government," we believe there are things government does well and things the private sector does well. We think we should look at these things and try to make that determination.

One thing the private banking sector doesn't do so well, for example, is regulate itself.

-David

A thought just occurred to me...

I can picture many in the gay community saying, "We probably won't get any action before the election, but that's OK. We just have to get Obama elected again and THEN he can help us!!"

Such a mindset is a double edged sword.

After the gay community helps Obama get elected, he has no reason TO help them. As a matter of fact, Obama will have lots of reasons NOT to help the gay community. To throw them under the bus..

It all comes down to one thing..

Is Obama's "evolution" truthful?? Or is it borne of political expediency...

Considering that Obama's stance on gay marriage has shifted back and forth a half dozen times in the past 16 years or so, I don't think that Obama has "evolved"...

I think Obama simply stuck his finger up and gauged the political winds and decided it was time to mollify a core constituency with shiny beads and shallow flattery...

So, if the gay community works their ass off to get Obama elected, they better prepare for a very painful trip to under the bus...

Michale.....

I still think you'll find that when the rubber hits the road in November Blacks won't really have a terribly difficult time in supporting President Obama's position over their local pastor's. The current framing from the right and the clergy on this issue won't sound nearly so reasonable, to Blacks in particular, once this moves from the "States rights" arena into the 'Constitutional issue" phase.

I dunno.. Religious upbringing is a pretty powerful precedent to shake... Black churches are famous (or "infamous" considering my own views of religion) for the sway that they hold over their community..

While it may not have TOO much of a deleterious effect on Obama's chances, I also don't believe that Obama is going to emerge un-scathed...

Plus, there is likely going to be many reminders of this in the lead up to the election. More on that below..

Don't be to impressed by the usual polls and positions.

Oh, you know me. I never am...

Self-interest reliably trumps religious beliefs.

And yet, comments on here abound about how perplexing it is that certain groups would vote Republican "against their own self-interests"

:D

This is EXACTLY why 90% of Blacks vote Democratic and its not hardly gonna inspire us to jump ship now! Believe me!

Time will tell.. I believe that the same sex marriage issue will have more of an influence on the black community than you think...

David,

I've also found, LewDan, that most religions preach tolerance.

Most religions *PREACH* tolerance just like Obama *PREACHED* Hope and Change...

But when it comes to putting deed to words, they oft fall flat..

I'd be willing to take the side that government should stay out of people's bedrooms all day.

So, you are saying that more government is not the answer!!???

Whooaaaaa!! Who woulda thunked it!! :D

I think the biggest problem for Obama is that this is not going to be an issue that will be put back on the back burner, out of sight and out of mind..

The gay community is not going to be mollified by shiny beads and shallow flattery for long..

Obama has (usually) never had a problem with coming up with the right words to say..

His problem has, 99% of the time, been one of follow-thru...

The gay community is going to expect some concrete action from Obama to show them that he just wasn't spoutin' off..

And concrete action on this issue is something that Obama is desperate to avoid..

It's the classic Rock and Hard Place for Obama.

If he signals that lip service is all the gay community is going to get, that will turn off that constituency in droves.

If Obama starts putting deed to words and integrating same sex marriage into our society with real and concrete actions, it will unite the Right behind Romney and also cause hundreds of thousands from the black community to just stay home...

It's going to be very interesting to see Obama juggle these two view points that are in direct contradiction amongst two vital interest groups..

Michale.....

i 1000% support the president's evolution on the gay marriage issue, and it's highly significant regardless of whether or not an executive policy evolves that fits his new point of view. honestly, who cares whether he meant it initially or was pushed into it, what matters is that it's happened.

that said, with all respect, i will not quitmybitchin' because that's not the only thing the president did last week. by presidential proclamation, president obama declared last week to be national charter school week, when it was already supposed to be national teacher appreciation week. he took one kind of school organization (pseudo-privatized) and singled it out for special favor during the week that's supposed to be dedicated to all teachers. while it may not have any direct policy impact, many of my colleagues view this proclamation as a virtual slap to the face of public school teachers. it's right up there with his 2010 commentary praising central falls high school in rhode island for firing its entire staff. Race to the Top has been consistent with that view, and reading this week's proclamation opened up that old wound. seriously, after three and a half years of this policy he still hasn't learned that there's something wrong with it. i'm sorry if this rains on your parade, but i read about this six days ago and my stomach is still knotting up every time i think about it.

~joshua

You and me both.

First, welcome to the site. Your first post was held for moderation, but you should be able to post and see your comments instantly from now on. One caveat: if you post two or more links per comment, it will automatically be held for moderation, to cut down on comment spam. You can avoid this by only posting a single link per comment.

I have to post today's column, and then I will return here and answer your (and everyone else's) comments, I promise!

-CW

I've also found, LewDan, that most religions preach tolerance. And while I know many people personally don't agree with homosexuality, when it comes to forcing their own religious beliefs on others, there are many, many people who consider themselves conservatives who would side on this issue with Obama.

Libertarians for example ...

I'd be willing to take the side that government should stay out of people's bedrooms all day.

-David

I still think you'll find that when the rubber hits the road in November Blacks won't really have a terribly difficult time in supporting President Obama's position over their local pastor's. The current framing from the right and the clergy on this issue won't sound nearly so reasonable, to Blacks in particular, once this moves from the "States rights" arena into the 'Constitutional issue" phase.

There'll be more than "a crisis of faith" as this moves down the road and more Blacks figure out that supporting marriage as "one man, one woman" but LGBTs can have "civil unions" means reversing the SCOTUS decision that outlawed segregation and reaffirms the "separate but equal" position under which segregation was justified by the states in the first place.

And that allowing the states to determine if gays can marry reverses the rational behind SCOTUS' rejecting state interracial-marriage bans as not the states' business!

Blacks may be conservative and religious but, trust me, unlike the the white conservative religious-right that supports the Republican party, we've NO desire to roll back 60's era civil rights legislation!

Don't be to impressed by the usual polls and positions. Self-interest reliably trumps religious beliefs. If the Obama team successfully gets the word out this could very well increase Black support, and turn-out, for him. It definitely is not a guaranteed negative. This is EXACTLY why 90% of Blacks vote Democratic and its not hardly gonna inspire us to jump ship now! Believe me!

I would be more enthused if I actually thought Obama stood up for what he believed in..

But, from all accounts, he wouldn't have done it at the time if Biden and his gay donors hadn't forced his hand..

http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/050912/butt-zits-and-religion.gif

EEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

:D

Michale.....

As a gay man, I will certainly say this about President Obama's evolution: I evolved myself as a gay man, slowly and gradually reaching the place that I am. None of it was quick, some of it was painful, but it was an evolutionary process. So I have to give President Obama the same consideration—that we evolve at our own pace, and that the only heart one knows with certainty is your own.

One aspect of this argument that is largely ignored: Both VP Biden and Arne Duncan made statements that were contrary to Administration policy. Unlike the Romney campaign, where just being gay is cause for your supporters to call for your ouster, nothing happened to Biden or Duncan.

Democrats, it seems, are comfortable enough to allow for dissent in the ranks. Except, of course, I am sure Biden and Duncan both knew that change was in the wind. Whether or not they were testing the wind's direction or not, we may not know that until some of these people's political memoirs are written.

http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/050912/butt-zits-and-religion.gif

Here here ... !!!

I think it's a good bet and I'm glad Obama stood up for what everyone knew he believed in. I'll take the stand up Obama any day!

I'm back! My browser is telling me there are 81 comments on 'Obama's Gay Marriage Rollout' but it refuses to show me more than 77! So I'll simply respond to what I CAN read.

I think it has something to do with how CW's WordPress counts a comment. There is some kind of outside linking mechanism that when a commentary is linked, the system views it as a comment, even though no new comment has been actually posted.

That's my understanding of it anyways.. I a hardware guru. Software is one step above magic to me..

How many software programmers does it take to change a light bulb?
None. It's a hardware problem.

:D

First, while I disagree with you (and the rest of the country!) I'm not saying you are wrong (since the rest of the country agrees with YOU its a little hard for me to say that.) What I am saying is that my copy of the Constitution says a two-thirds majority of the Congress and of the several States is required to amend the Constitution. Not a simple majority of the Supreme Court. I understand that the rest of the country, and particularly Republicans, don't care what the law really is.

Allow ME to say that I have no doubt that you will, eventually be proven right on this issue. Once this does make it to the SCOTUS, I am convinced that the SCOTUS will rule as you have said.. If only for the fact that it IS the right thing to do.

My only point has been that all laws passed by any government entity in this country are assumed to be constitutional until such time as they are ruled un-constitutional.

A sticking point I was forced to concede during the CrapCare/SCOTUS discussions... For the record, I did not do so willingly.. :D

And I believe that I already mentioned that the church is a founding partner in this national Republican conspiracy? I think I did anyway!? There's an echo under this tin-hat and sometimes I can't hear myself talk.

You most likely did..

But the nuance here is that the vast majority of the black community (Obama's core constituency) are "righteous church going people" and, as such, they are facing a crisis of faith...

They are having to decide what it more important to them. A black POTUS.. Or their religious beliefs..

I am not laying any bets on the outcome...

I also have to wonder if Obama factored this in when he decided on his "evolution"... Or if he just assumed that the black vote was locked and he didn't have to worry about their concerns...

Michale.....

I'm back! My browser is telling me there are 81 comments on 'Obama's Gay Marriage Rollout' but it refuses to show me more than 77! So I'll simply respond to what I CAN read.

First, while I disagree with you (and the rest of the country!) I'm not saying you are wrong (since the rest of the country agrees with YOU its a little hard for me to say that.) What I am saying is that my copy of the Constitution says a two-thirds majority of the Congress and of the several States is required to amend the Constitution. Not a simple majority of the Supreme Court. I understand that the rest of the country, and particularly Republicans, don't care what the law really is.

My copy of the Constitution also does not say the Supreme Court has the final word on all things constitutional. (See comment above about national indifference to the actual laws of the land.)

My view is that since SCOTUS has already ruled that the States do not get to decide whom marries whom that the bevy of laws currently being rolled-out by Republicans are unconstitutional even if their pet SCOTUS tries to change the constitution for them, but they are certainly unconstitutional until and unless their pet SCOTUS changes the law. I do, however, recognize that no one else shares my view. (See again above comment re national indifference to the law.)

While I personally would have thought that asserting all (Republican) laws are constitutional until SCOTUS rules otherwise on each and every one individually would be a bit much for Republicans, in their push to replace our democratic republic with a Republican oligarchy, to actually get away with. Clearly I would have been wrong. (Once more, see above comment about national indifference to the rule of law.)

I must admit, however, that its probably a lot more efficient since SCOTUS is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party.

And I believe that I already mentioned that the church is a founding partner in this national Republican conspiracy? I think I did anyway!? There's an echo under this tin-hat and sometimes I can't hear myself talk.

Really ... you can't have it both ways, Michale :)

You misunderstand me..

I am **ECSTATIC** that Obama has stepped on his wee-wee with his Core Constituency...

And my thoughts on Obama's actions are clear.. At first I gave him marks for leadership. Then I discovered what really prompted this "evolution" and it was back to same ol same ol political animal.

I wasn't trying to cast aspirations in #16... I was simply analyzing the possible fallout that will likely result from Obama's "evolution"...

You have to admit, if you look at things completely objectively, Obama has a problem. A BIG problem that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Republicans and EVERYTHING to do with Obama trying to please everyone and ends up pleasing NO ONE..

Obama tries to please the environmentalists and the labor unions get pissed. Obama tries to please the gay community and the black community gets pissed..

Honestly and truly, if these weren't problems of his own making, I might actually feel a tad sorry for Obama...

Michale.....

When Obama leads, you say he should follow the polls and try to get re-elected.

When Obama follows any polling advice, you accuse him of being political and not leading.

Really ... you can't have it both ways, Michale :)

-David

Conservatives will howl, but maybe he's finally realized the lesson that holy shiite, they're going to howl no matter what he doe

It's not just the Conservatives who are howling, however..

African-American Church Leaders Condemn Obama For Gay Marriage Support
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/05/13/same-sex-marriage-supporters-opponents-gear-up-for-november-ballot/

*THE* Core group for Obama is also howling.

While it's unlikely that they will vote for Romney, what IS likely is that the black community will stay home by the tens, if not hundreds of thousands...

From THAT constituency, a NO Vote for Obama is a de-facto vote FOR Romney.

Michale.....

I think what's interesting to me about President Obama is that like what he said or not, he's fighting and trying to drive issues from out in front.

This is the Obama I voted for.

Conservatives will howl, but maybe he's finally realized the lesson that holy shiite, they're going to howl no matter what he does!

So why not fight!

Go'bama!

-David

Your "99%" in action....

Michale.....

Is anyone else getting a familiar case of deja vu'???

Michale......

Yea, but his character sunk down to all the negative stereotypes of gay people at the time...

I would wager that the gay community cringed when they saw how they were represented by Crystal's character...

Later in the shows run, his character was more of a guy who just happened to be gay, rather than a gay guy..

If you get the distinction..

Michale....

Gods know, Obama could use all those moments he can get, eh? :D

Michale....

I have to admit, I did it from memory, and I can't shake the thought that it was either Dear Abby or Ann Landers. Maybe she spelled it "qwitcherbeefin"? I dunno. Someone chime in here, to correct me, I'm begging y'all...

But I did wing it on that spelling, you're right about that.

I also left out "nor long remember"... heh.

As for the rest of it, yes, I have close family members who have not trod that path to its fullest extent, and may never do so. I should probably have included "and that path may not lead everyone to the same place" somewhere in there, but I just couldn't do so in the spirit of letting Obama have one shining moment in the sun, so forgive me for the lapse, is all I have to say.

-CW

That's as it should be. It takes all kinds.

But by the same token, it takes all kinds. Single-issue voters (and organizers, and organizations) on each issue should be part of one party's coalition or the other's. They shouldn't dominate the party.

History will remember what he said this week, not what we say

You switched the order of the clauses, and left out "little note, nor".

help them to walk the path to where you are. Don't belittle them for being further behind than you

It's not the same path for everyone. Age has a lot to do with it, as does which subculture you were born into. My path was pretty effortless, and if someone had barely moved a millimeter along it by now, there would be good reason to blame them. But if someone is still trapped in the attitude that history is abandoning, odds are that they didn't start anywhere near the same spot: their path was very different and much harder.

That is, I agree with the quitchergriping conclusion (if not with the spelling of it), but disagree with the same-path metaphor you use to argue for it. This, btw, illustrates what a charade "reason" often is. Conclusions tend to be arrived at by a process that would feel more familiar to Burke than it would to Descartes if each could see the workings of the human mind in all its gory glory, and then the putative basis for each conclusion gets slid under it afterward.

See the two "Qwitchyerbitchin" sections above that have links. Both those links are, basically, taking a whack at my stated opinion of two days ago.

Paula -

I agree. Best commentary I've received yet pointed out that Lincoln freed the slaves for political reasons, and that he didn't do so on Day One. People remember the history, not the nitpicky details.

-CW

I did give him points..

"He knows all the right things to say, all the right words and where to put them, all the right buttons to push.."
-Michale, 1520hrs PDT 11 May 2012

And, if he follows thru, I'll give him points then as well. For example, if he actually signs the Anti-Discrimination Executive Order that the gay community has been after him to sign..

Until there is some actual action beyond lip service, it's nothing but shiny beads and shallow flattery... :D

(2) I seem to remember you howling when he actually DID act on this -- with DADT repeal. Do I really need to go back to all your dire predictions at the time, and show you how monstrously wrong you were on that?

Why even go back that far?? Just look back a few days ago to when I posted that Obama won't be pushed into doing the right thing and (I swear) not TEN FRAK'IN MINUTES later Obama up and did what I swore he couldn't do!! :D

Major Egg N Face there, I tell ya! :D

Have I been wrong? Sure have.. Will I be wrong again?? Probably..

But it is undeniable that I am right more often than I am wrong. :D

But, to be fair... When I *AM* wrong... It's a doozy!!! :D

I did have to take a giant whack at myself, earlier this week,

I musta missed that... :D Care to refresh my memory?? Ya know me. At my age, the memory is the second thing to go.. :D

Michale.....

Something very telling, to me, is the reaction by members of the gay community, which has been overwhelmingly positive. People are writing all over the web about how much this has meant to them. Even if it's a largely symbolic gesture (as opposed to the nitty gritties of overturning laws and all the rest) it is still very significant and meaningful.

Separately, whether this past week was a shining example of brilliant political maneuvering or simply something that could have gone either way, but went well, I have to say "well played".

I agree ... Obama SAYS a lot. He seems to publically apologize for his vice president and accept apologies from his vice president, a lot.

Frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of it.

To be polite, that's horse puckey. You are being hypocritical on two fronts:

(1) You are the one who keeps telling Obama to show a spine and some leadership. When he does so, you've got to at least give him points for that, even if you don't agree.

(2) I seem to remember you howling when he actually DID act on this -- with DADT repeal. Do I really need to go back to all your dire predictions at the time, and show you how monstrously wrong you were on that? You howl when he acts, you howl when he speaks -- doesn't seem much of a difference, from where I sit.

But, you're right, maybe I'm being too petty. I did have to take a giant whack at myself, earlier this week, so I should just shut up, as you suggest in your second comment. Let's see what others have to say about this rant.

-CW

I'll give ya ya'all's moment in the sun without pissing on yer parade... :D

Michale.....

But all Obama did was SAY something..

As Obama is wont to do, he SAYS a lot..

But his actions in support of what he says fall far far short..

In that, he is like a recalcitrant teenager..

He knows all the right things to say, all the right words and where to put them, all the right buttons to push..

But, when the rubber meets the road, when it's time to translate word into deed..

He falls far FAR short...

Time will tell who is right and who is wrong on this issue..

But, if recent history is any indication..

I'll be a rich rich man, quatloo wise... :D

Michale.....