The always sharp Ed Morrissey has it about right on Obama and DOMA. This is a political move designed to distract attention from debates on public-sector unions and the budget that are not going the president’s way. It’s also a departure from Obama’s fundamental strategy of downplaying social issues and foreign policy so as to build a broad-based coalition around issues of economic populism. That was the approach of Obama’s organizing mentors, and I argue in Radical-in-Chief that Obama has adopted it for himself.
For Obama to risk that broader strategy now is a sign of weakness. I suggested the other day in “Obama’s Wisconsin Bind” that having unpopular public-sector unions as the face of his coalition might force him into aggressive but risky efforts to shore up a broader-based movement of the Left. The problem for Obama is that assembling such a movement forces him to drop his centrist persona. Yet that is what events are now demanding of him.
Did anyone on any part of the political spectrum ever actually believe that Obama opposed gay marriage? That was never anything but disguise. This new move suggests that the centrist mask is slipping, the country is polarizing, and Obama is being forced to fly his true flag. I don’t doubt that the president will continue to resist full disclosure of his leftist political allegiances. Yet that is the direction in which he is now being pulled.
Correct, it is a deliberate red herring. Next we can expect the Democratic Governor of Hawaii to start talking about birth certificates again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think Mr. Kurtz hit it square on the mark.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know that this indicates some big sea change. Just in terms of optics, I think "gay marriage" is a better news story for Obama than "massive public-union protests close Wisconsin schools." Oscar from The Office plays better with swing voters than teachers who won't teach.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewalks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... but wait, he says he's a goose ...
one more log on the "Obama's a liar" fire ... is it getting hot in here or is it just me ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell this Obama is going to be a lot easier to run against in 2012 than Faux Centrist Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can morally oppose interracial marriage but that doesn't mean you can constitutionally support the position. Someone please show me a constitutionally supported argument forbidding same sex marriage between consenting adults.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI sincerely hope that people do realize he's not a centrist. Obviously anyone tuned into NRO does but will it filter out to those who don't follow politics? With a move like this I hope so or else we are in a heap of trouble post-2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama needs to distract the public from the economy, from foreign policy, and from his remarkably tone-deaf response to the discontent within individual states (e.g. Arizona, Wisconsin, etc.).
To do so, he has (once again) aligned himself AGAINST the majority of the population's desires.
Most Americans support retaining the traditional definition of marriage.
It's not surprising that Obama is wrong once again on policy and grossly miscalculating in terms of politics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseConservatives on this site often make the point that Obama's birth certificate and gay marriage are "red herrings" meant to distract us from the real issue. This seems a little hypocritical, since the entire GOP establish rallied behind a gay marriage amendment in the lead up to the 2004 elections, but whatever. If these issues are such red herrings, then the surest way for Republicans to keep the public from getting distracted by them is to drop them. The GOP leadership could state that these disputes about Obama's birth certificate are garbage, that they have examined the info released by the state of Hawaii, and that those documents prove definitively that Obama was born a citizen and is eligible to be president. And it could state that DOMA was a mistake, the result of an antiquated hostility to gay marriage, and support its repeal.
Republicans don't want to do that. They are afraid of suggesting that some segment of their base is made up of loons clinging to wild conspiracy theories and ancient prejudice about gay people. That may be good politics, but it means conservatives have no right to complain when the dog-whistle issues they use to distract voters wind up distracting voters at an inconvenient time for the GOP.
This isn't just a problem among actual politicians, but on the National Review as well. Jonah Goldberg largely refrains from talking about gay issues, on which he apparently has moderate feelings, except when it comes time to pour cold water on a DADT victory for gay rights advocates. External Link
, . The rest of the time, gay issues are largely left to Kathryn Jean Lopez and Maggie Gallagher, who can be counted on to appeal to the Christian right. When the GOP wants to look mature or they've already lost, gay marriage is a distraction. But when polls are nearly open, it suddenly becomes a looming threat to our very way of life.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStanley, you've written that Obama wanted to remain Mr Good Guy, while his minions became Mr Bad Guy.
Look's more and more like Mr Laurel and Mr Hardy, Mr Abbott and Mr Costello, Kagnay and Lacey, Wilber and Mr Ed . . . .
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePennsylvania Yankee,
I just want to pick one nit: Are you actually under the impression that Hawaii (or Obama, for that matter) has released Obama's birth certificate?
Understand one thing, I believe he was born in Hawaii, but his birth certificate has never been made public. My question is whether or not his stepfather adopted him when they moved to Indonesia. That actually matters. And his birth certificate should state whether or not that happened.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePennsylvania Yankee, what can you possibly be talking about? Stanley Kurtz himself has written extensively on SSM. The red herring comments mean that *Obama* is trying to distract attention from other issues where he is foundering, not that the SSM issue isn't important to the right. And I can assure you that we are not going to suddenly renounce our own views as antiquated. Have you got anything better than that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"You can morally oppose interracial marriage but that doesn't mean you can constitutionally support the position. Someone please show me a constitutionally supported argument forbidding same sex marriage between consenting adults."
True enough. Just like there is no 'constitutionally supported argument' that would prevent me from calling myself "gay" and reaping any associated benefits (eg, hate crime/speech protections, disrimination, etc) even though I am, in fact, married to my wife.
It is simply the assumed definition of a term.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe big BO opposing "gay marriage:" The Lie of the Century!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusejprev - try again. What constitutionally forces society to re-define marriage from what it has always been, into something it has never been?
Constitutionality isn't your best argument - I would look for others.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJEM - I think you need to try again. "What constitutionally forces society to re-define marriage from what it has always been, into something it has never been?" The answer is the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment. Additionally I would point to Lawrence v. texas and Scalia's dissent where he says:
"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest' for purposes of proscribing that conduct...what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising 'the liberty protected by the Constitution'? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."
Scalia agrees, through his dissent, that there is no justification for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexuals.
I will say this: I feel bad for those opposing gay marriage in a way. There is a tidal wave coming of change and a generational shift that they are going to be on the losing end of and a lot of them don't even ralize it yet.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes this mean that the next Republican president and his attorney general can decide not to uphold Obamacare (passed by congress and signed by the president) just because "they personally feel it is unconsitutional" (without a court finding it so?)
Seems to me the best response is on purely procedural grounds (this establishes a horrifying precendent -- if the president gets to unilaterally rule on constitutionality of laws then he is truly above the law! That is the road to Chavez and dictatorship.)
As far as "gay marriage" goes, this is an easy bone for Obama to throw to the base (doesn't cost him much) but most importantly, I agree it is meant to distract from budget issues (that's "why now and not 2 years ago.")
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Someone please show me a constitutionally supported argument forbidding same sex marriage between consenting adults."
Where's the constitutionally supported argument for calling farm product A 'organic' and B not organic?
A marriage is a state certification. This isn't about what people do 'in the privacy of their bedroom'. It is about public approval. Surely the state has the right, in accord with democratic processes, to decide which 'marriages' it will certify and which it won't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho unleashed the genie? The current president is simply following in the footsteps of the prior president who opted, seemingly at random, to ignore or undermine legislation not to his liking. Shoe's on the other foot now....Those who live by the sword.... As you sew, so shall you....
If you actually want to the executive branch to execute the will of the legislature, then I guess Chaney's theory of the imperial presidency needs to be rolled back. You've got the House now - you borke it, you fix it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStanley, kudos again for being the one guy who understood Obama all along. When Rick Warren brought him out and helped run interference for Obama on his BS stand on same-sex marriage in 2008, I nearly threw up. Purpose-driven phoney-baloney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse