Stanley Kurtz writes, “Did anyone on any part of the political spectrum ever actually believe that Obama opposed gay marriage?” My guess is that the answer is yes, millions of people heard him and assumed he was telling the truth. That is, after all, why he said what he did.
Interesting.
I'd assumed nobody believed him, just like nobody believed that "that's not the Jeremiah Wright I knew," and all the rest. He had to go through the motions to appear moderate. But I don't think anyone actually believed him. And he didn't expect them to. He didn't really expect anyone to have to believe him -- that's so common, to speak the truth and be believed. Obama's above all that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI certainly think you're right about people who don't follow politics closely. Stanley would have been right if he restricted his comment to political junkies, left, right and center.
Moderate/independent voters, America's Brain Trust, are easily fooled.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusejust one more log on the "Obama's a liar" bonfire ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDOMA: proof that all the things the Right says about believing in state's rights is nonsense, since they abandon the ideal as soon as it doesn't fit their agenda.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStanley Kurtz is referring to anyone reading NRO, or perhaps something on TNR. Stanley's right, like Bill Maher was right when he recently said that he doesn't buy for a minute Obama's claims of Christian faith.
But Ramesh is right too. There are millions of trusting people in this country who were inclined to take a presidential candidate at his word. And that's why he's the President of the United States.
Sidenote: for all you libertarians out there who want to "get the government out of the marriage business," well this is what it looks like. That is, it takes the form of a president single handedly ignoring referendums, legislatures, and the courts and just claiming total power. Good times!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not so sure I agree that "millions of people heard him and assumed he was telling the truth" or that Obama supposed his actual words would be believed. What he accomplished was to take away from his opponents the argument that he affirmatively supported homosexual "marriage." In this way, fewer people would hear about his stance on the issue at all, or if they did hear about it they might suppose it wasn't terribly important to him. That is different from believing he is a supporter or an opponent. In other words, he situated himself so that most people would not give much thought to his position, and he also signaled to the moderates who might be listening that he wouldn't make the issue a priority.
I find it nearly impossible to believe that people who did give the matter a moment's thought could possibly suppose he has ever been anything but a firm supporter of same-sex "marriage." Even more ludicrous is the suggestion lately that his thoughts have slowly "evolved." What a brazen liar he is, even knowing he won't be believed. And he has known all along that his base has known all along that he was lying. Sorry to be so blunt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRiot, why not read DOMA? Its purpose (one of the two) is to protect states' rights.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@RiotLibrarian: You lie just about as good as Obama. DOMA is about protecting states' rights. DOMA allows states to keep their definition of marriage - the state definition - even if they choose to recognize same sex marriage. What it prevents is a single state forcing their definition onto the whole country. Of course, you know all of this perfectly well. I am calling you out as scum sucking liar.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRiotTroll:
Presently Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa grant gays the right to marry - mostly thanks to imperious judiciaries, but here that's beside the point. DOMA does not stop and has not stopped them from recognizing gay marriage. So how does it impose on any state's rights?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe that Obama does not give a flying fig about gay marriage, one way or the other.
But he'll be more than happy to bring it up as a way to get glowing liberal press coverage, hoping that you won't notice as he flushes trillion after trillion down the loo.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBy addressing one question out of a three-paragraph post, Ramesh inadvertently takes Kurtz out of context. Kurtz is right: The Obamist is going back to what really had to be inherently his tried and true position on gay marriage. Kurtz probably could have worded the question more expansively, but it's a blog post -- how often does the full scope get covered in blog posts? Not very, I'd contend -- but such is the nature of blog posts. Ramesh has picked a nit (albeit successfully).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs Obama's ordering the DOJ to no longer defend a law passed by Congress and signed into law by Clinton an impeachable act?
Didn't he take an oath to uphold the laws of the United States and the constitution?
Didn't he just break that oath?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI never once believed Obama supported DOMA. This will clean "Out the closet" so to speak and make a pathway for Gov. Daniels social truce.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Neville Spot on. Does this mean, by the way, that Republican Presidents can refuse to enforce, say, Roe v Wade if states enact laws prohibiting abortion?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is not the first time a president has refused to defend a law that is viewed to be unconstitutional:
George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta – “The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems.”), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States – “Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda…. Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court’s Miranda cases.”), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha – “Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.”) all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn’t like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethe point of DOMA then is to protect a state's right to withhold human rights from a segment of its population? is that constitutional?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNew York Law School's legal reporting blog analyzes Obama's decision and why it is perfectly constitutional: External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse