Another take on Obama's gay marriage endorsement.

[Taichiliberal]

One of my brothers had an interesting take on President Obama's "evolving" to endorse gay marriage: making this announcement goes to prevent a third party candidate from forming, as the issue essentially sets up a "for or against" wedge with no middle ground. So you already have Romney's "against" and Obama's "for".....and that puts Ron Paul between a rock and a hard place as a potential "king maker" in the GOP (releasing his delgates to Romney at the upcoming GOP Caucus), as the "against" crowd would depend upon State gov't to alter their Constitutions to prevent gay marriage, and the "for" crowd would depend upon the Federal gov't to override individual State rulings.

But I note that the kicker is the President's statement means little, being that any pro-gay marriage bills would stall in either the House or the Senate, and the Dems are NOT united on this issue. Since there is no bill to date on Capitol Hill that would ban gay marriage in America, Obama has nothing to veto.

At most, Obama may solidify enough votes to off set the 30 states that have passed anti-gay marriage laws on this issue.....and I seriously doubt that he's going to lose significant voting numbers because of this. Time will tell....and indeed we are witnessing interesting times!

 

[NOVA]

Thats all spin and speculation TC.........

Homosexual groups and homosexual supporters, especially Calif. Hollywood types, had threatened to not contribute the big bucks to Obama if

he did not change his stance and say so publicly, loud and clear....and its obviious, Obama ain't gonna let

the easy bucks slip through his fingers over what amounts to nothing more than caving in again....its his m.o. and did you ever hear of the Defense of Marriage Act ? .....

A little law signed by Slick Willy Clinton....

 

[Taichiliberal]

Thats all spin and speculation TC.........

Homosexual groups and homosexual supporters, especially Calif. Hollywood types, had threatened to not contribute the big bucks to Obama if

he did not change his stance and say so publicly, loud and clear....and its obviious, Obama ain't gonna let

the easy bucks slip through his fingers over what amounts to nothing more than caving in again....its his m.o. and did you ever hear of the Defense of Marriage Act ? .....

A little law signed by Slick Willy Clinton....

First off, it's YOU who is spinning and speculating...because all you referred to is California gay activist groups and "Hollywood types" (whatever the hell that is).

Well, I would like YOU to provide some FACTS to back up your claims, because to my recollection the "threat" of the "gay vote" as it were, was NOT a major factor in the campaign coffers.....let alone the voting both, per se.

And I am really amazed that you claim that his message wasn't "loud and clear"....hell, EVERYONE ELSE GOT THE MESSAGE, FROM EVERY NEWS ORGANIZATION, BLOGGER, PUNDIT IN THE USA AND THE WORLD ON BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL FENCE HEARD HIM LOUD AND CLEAR. If YOU can't comprehend what the man said, then that's YOUR problem.

As for Slick Willy and the Defense of Marriage Act......how does that change what Obama stated or my analysis?

 

[christiefan915]

One of my brothers had an interesting take on President Obama's "evolving" to endorse gay marriage: making this announcement goes to prevent a third party candidate from forming, as the issue essentially sets up a "for or against" wedge with no middle ground. So you already have Romney's "against" and Obama's "for".....and that puts Ron Paul between a rock and a hard place as a potential "king maker" in the GOP (releasing his delgates to Romney at the upcoming GOP Caucus), as the "against" crowd would depend upon State gov't to alter their Constitutions to prevent gay marriage, and the "for" crowd would depend upon the Federal gov't to override individual State rulings.

But I note that the kicker is the President's statement means little, being that any pro-gay marriage bills would stall in either the House or the Senate, and the Dems are NOT united on this issue. Since there is no bill to date on Capitol Hill that would ban gay marriage in America, Obama has nothing to veto.

At most, Obama may solidify enough votes to off set the 30 states that have passed anti-gay marriage laws on this issue.....and I seriously doubt that he's going to lose significant voting numbers because of this. Time will tell....and indeed we are witnessing interesting times!

I agree with you and am not sure this is going to be major come November. It's kinda like DADT, there was a lot of yelling and screaming for years that repealing would throw the military into chaos, and now what... you never hear a word about it anymore. I'm completely fine with gay marriage and worried more about other issues, i.e. the ACA.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Hollywood types is conservative code for gay Jews. Ny banker types means rich Jews. That's bravs for ya.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

One of my brothers had an interesting take on President Obama's "evolving" to endorse gay marriage: making this announcement goes to prevent a third party candidate from forming, as the issue essentially sets up a "for or against" wedge with no middle ground. So you already have Romney's "against" and Obama's "for".....and that puts Ron Paul between a rock and a hard place as a potential "king maker" in the GOP (releasing his delgates to Romney at the upcoming GOP Caucus), as the "against" crowd would depend upon State gov't to alter their Constitutions to prevent gay marriage, and the "for" crowd would depend upon the Federal gov't to override individual State rulings.

But I note that the kicker is the President's statement means little, being that any pro-gay marriage bills would stall in either the House or the Senate, and the Dems are NOT united on this issue. Since there is no bill to date on Capitol Hill that would ban gay marriage in America, Obama has nothing to veto.

At most, Obama may solidify enough votes to off set the 30 states that have passed anti-gay marriage laws on this issue.....and I seriously doubt that he's going to lose significant voting numbers because of this. Time will tell....and indeed we are witnessing interesting times!

How would this prevent a third party run? It is but one issue. The third party candidate could either agree or disagree and run on economic and other social issues.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
One of my brothers had an interesting take on President Obama's "evolving" to endorse gay marriage: making this announcement goes to prevent a third party candidate from forming, as the issue essentially sets up a "for or against" wedge with no middle ground. So you already have Romney's "against" and Obama's "for".....and that puts Ron Paul between a rock and a hard place as a potential "king maker" in the GOP (releasing his delgates to Romney at the upcoming GOP Caucus), as the "against" crowd would depend upon State gov't to alter their Constitutions to prevent gay marriage, and the "for" crowd would depend upon the Federal gov't to override individual State rulings.

But I note that the kicker is the President's statement means little, being that any pro-gay marriage bills would stall in either the House or the Senate, and the Dems are NOT united on this issue. Since there is no bill to date on Capitol Hill that would ban gay marriage in America, Obama has nothing to veto.

At most, Obama may solidify enough votes to off set the 30 states that have passed anti-gay marriage laws on this issue.....and I seriously doubt that he's going to lose significant voting numbers because of this. Time will tell....and indeed we are witnessing interesting times!

How would this prevent a third party run? It is but one issue. The third party candidate could either agree or disagree and run on economic and other social issues.

And exactly what would be the point of a third party if it doesn't offer any alternative to the positions of the current two? Remember, the whole point of "libertarians" is theorectically a third party.....and yet there you have Ron Paul running in the Republican primary.

This issue comes as a real divider for folks like Paul, as I previously stated. So his watered down neocon economics to Romney's teabagger influenced silliness suddenly takes a back seat when it comes to sucking up to the evangelical voter base, by which the GOP needs.

 

[cawacko]

And exactly what would be the point of a third party if it doesn't offer any alternative to the positions of the current two? Remember, the whole point of "libertarians" is theorectically a third party.....and yet there you have Ron Paul running in the Republican primary.

This issue comes as a real divider for folks like Paul, as I previously stated. So his watered down neocon economics to Romney's teabagger influenced silliness suddenly takes a back seat when it comes to sucking up to the evangelical voter base, by which the GOP needs.

Taichi, my apologies if I am misreading your post but when you say Paul watered down his economics to neocon economics what do you mean? Neocons are pretty clear they are for big government. And unless Ron Paul has done a 180 his economic plans are about the opposite of big government.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And exactly what would be the point of a third party if it doesn't offer any alternative to the positions of the current two? Remember, the whole point of "libertarians" is theorectically a third party.....and yet there you have Ron Paul running in the Republican primary.

This issue comes as a real divider for folks like Paul, as I previously stated. So his watered down neocon economics to Romney's teabagger influenced silliness suddenly takes a back seat when it comes to sucking up to the evangelical voter base, by which the GOP needs.

Taichi, my apologies if I am misreading your post but when you say Paul watered down his economics to neocon economics what do you mean? Neocons are pretty clear they are for big government. And unless Ron Paul has done a 180 his economic plans are about the opposite of big government.

The neocons are for "big gov't" so long as it protects the investor class and corporations to do whatever they please while gutting the ability of the working class and middle class to have an effective voice in their gov't.

Libertarians are all about little to no gov't outside of your local city, state situation while inadvertently relying on a corporate system to replace the federal gov't in many aspects.

BOTH want to rely on a corporate state (aka the "free market") to run and determine everything....which is how Paul can wiggle onto the GOP primary.

The teabaggers are essentially rabid stooges that fall in between the forementioned that were/are used by the current GOP.

But with this little announcement by Obama, you throw a mouse among the elephants...and that stampede to garner the evangelical vote pretty much makes any overture by Paul unnecessary and irrelevent....crimping his "king maker" ploy for the upcoming GOP convention, IMHO.