Michael Maiello's picture

Okay, What's Obama's position on same sex marriage rights?

He's in favor.
32% (7 votes)
He opposes.
9% (2 votes)
He thinks it's up to the states.
9% (2 votes)
He hasn't made up his mind.
50% (11 votes)
Total votes: 22


I wonder if we're all in agreement with Josh Marshall, who wrote:

"Needless to say, we all know at this point that President Obama supports gay marriage but thinks the political tides aren’t quite safe enough to come out and say so."

As a follow up question, I guess I'd ask if you think Obama is being strictly honest when he says his position on the issue has been "evolving."  I can't imagine that he was ever against same sex marriage in his adult life.  Holding that view just doesn't fit my image of him as an intellectual.

He's being a politician. Maybe the question really should be: Do you think it is acceptable that Obama tries to sidestep this issue in order to help ensure victory in some of the swing states?  Or another way: Should Obama take a stand even if one knew it will cost him swing states like North Carolina, and thus lead to a Romney Administration?

I don't know.  Would he really lose a swing state over this?  If it's as Marshall says, kind of an open secret that he supports it anyway, then what votes would he lose?

Leftist pollsters probably tell his team that he will lose a couple of points?

I don't know.

The fall back position is that civil contract position I suppose.

I do not see how leaving the issue to 50 states solves anything since Congress took away the application of the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution.

I don't think you can leave a civil rights issue to the states, either.  Too many of them will get it wrong.

Sure it's evolving. 

Sometime soon it's gonna grow a pair.

Greenwald says Obama deserves credit for it, and that it's intellectually dishonest and wrong not to give him credit.  Apparently it did grow a pair, the crickets in Glenn's ordinarily compliant choir notwithstanding.

*insert subject change/smug response below*

I think you might be projecting. Don't get me wrong, I'd also like to think that, but I know enough intellectuals who are anti gay marriage that I don't take it as an axiom. I think it's just as likely that he really is evolving, or that he's still against it, but doesn't want to upset his base.

P.S. I put down the last answer (he hasn't made up his mind), but if I had the choice of "I don't know", I'd probably go with that one.

Maybe you're right. I can't imagine Obama making a case against it. It would certainly shock me and cause me to question my support. The reason I posted this is that I suspected all Dagbloggers basically assumed, as Josh does, that Obama is pro marriage rights.  Seems that people here are more skeptical than I am.

Another question: should a president's policy stance always align with his or her personal beliefs about what the policy should be?

It's a good question.  I can see, say, personally believing that we should spend more money on NASA but holding off because it's not what the public wants or there are other priorities. But if it's a human rights issue, don't they kind of have to align? 

Bob Cesca:

The obvious answer is that President Obama has voiced his support for equal marriage rights. As recently as the Human Rights Campaign National Dinner in 2011, he explicitly said he supports equal rights for all Americans regardless of their sexual orientation. More than that, every area of policy espoused by the administration, from ending DADT, standing down on DOMA, advocating for benefits for same-sex partners for federal employees including the military, reflects that position.

As David Axelrod said today, comments made by Vice President Joe Biden over the weekend are entirely consistent with the president’s position. There is no daylight between them. And despite the facts, the persistent narrative is that the president is “dancing around” the issue and avoiding the subject.

I think he needs to say it.  "I support equal rights for everybody," gets there, but it's not there.  If people think he's "dancing" on this issue, it's kind of his fault.

The question in this country pivots around the issue of marriage as opposed to civil rights of same sex couples. 

Look at the blow up that happened around attempting to force churches to provide full health care for women.  What got Obama into trouble was when he was perceived as dictating to religious institutions and congregations to act against their values. This is the danger when one starts talking about same sex marriage as opposed to the same rights for same sex couples.

In part to answer your question to me above, he could be hurt in swing states if he is seen as pushing the religious marriage facet of the issue, as opposed to supporting the same rights for same sex couples.  In religious states NC or Ohio, and even in FL with its elderly population, this fine line between marriage and rights of couples is very fine.

Of course this has nothing to do with churches but, to the extent that religious organizations employ people, I expect they'll have to offer benefits to same sex couples just like they do to everyone else.

But so far as "married" vs. "civil union," goes it's all semantics, right?  You are what you call yourself.  This is just about the government recognizing it as such.

It would be just semantics if marriage was the same thing as a civil union under the law. It's my impression that it often isn't, but of course IANAL.

I think this is one of those things where people might say they're for equal rights, but when you push them on a particular issue you find out that your concept of equal rights and theirs doesn't align.

For example, are you in favor of equal rights for men and women? I'm assuming you'd say yes. Do you think that men should have the right to go into women's locker rooms? (Or vice versa?) Most people (including me) would say "no", even though they said "yes" to the first question. It's not always easy to be precise on what we mean by "equal rights".

Try another angle - almost every place same sex marriage has been put before voters, it's lost.

I'm not a big fan of Obama, but I don't see the necessity for him to hook himself to that star.

From my faulty memory, I think a big reason Kerry lost was some unfortunate referendums on same sex marriage coinciding with swing states. One of those hot-button issues on the American scene likely to drive strong poll attendance from the right.

Oh des, actions speak louder than words, as my mom used to tell me and as i tell my kids, but I also yell it at my husband, just in case he forgets while he is doing the dishes after dinner.

1. Don't ask don't tell, gone Check = reflects the position

2. Has DoJ stop defending DOMA =reflects the position

3. advocating for benefits for same-sex partners for federal employees including the military =reflects that position.

4. Obama campaigns official statements in opposition of NC's amendment 1 and MN's same sex marriage ban legislation =reflects the position

Words, words, words, actions, actions, actions, what is worth more? To bloggers it is words, to GLBT Americans it is action.

1. Don't ask don't tell, gone Check = reflects the position

Which base becomes more fired up?

I cant believe Biden making these remarks at this time, other than, the Obama administration fears, it has lost much of the army of support, of varying constituent groups , he had earlier.

Subtlety reminding the GLBT constituent group, Romney wont support you, so you better get out there and support Obama. 

Why the reminder? Why reach for this star, as Peracles mentioned? 

Obama lost support from a major constituent group,  HOMEOWNERS; now he flounders searching in vain to replace what he lost.  

The people are sending a message, as Jolly implied , F the bankers.

Obama has shown, he backed the bank bailout more than helping the distressed homeowners. 

If Americans were Greeks, we'd be taking to the streets.

This president is toast.  

The world has taken notice and corporate lackeys are going to be removed and overthrown.  

Obama made his bed; now sleep in it. 

Obama should have been primaried; but he made sure he would be the chosen one, he would be the only hope, the left had to choose.

Great from his perspective, but it sucks to be us.

As a homeowner, it's sucked under Obamas leadership.

This blog I just read is about the Presidents evolution on gay marriage. Soo, I answered the question.  

The question was not, "How will the Presidents' treatment of Resistance hurt him in the fall."  You have already provided that answer.  No need to review, I have a pretty good memory.

In case you haven't noticed, the world is made up of people just like me. Hurt by policies intended to prop up the banker class. 

Obama just didn't get it. He chose the wrong side. 

Your list of Obama achievements, doesn't address the Worlds primary concern.  We are heading into the abyss. 

The housing crisis brought down the world economy, and Obama and the other leaders FAILED.

The financial crisis hurt EVERYONE  (that includes members of GLBT)

The  GLBT, wants everyone to back to back Obama because he serves their interests?  

The question is:  should those of us who have lost so much, reward Obama, because the GLBT community loves Obama? 

Yeah, this is why I think I know Obama's position on the issue.  I also think, that since his supporters and enemies all assume he's for it anyway that he might as well just say so.

But there is a difference between everyone assuming something and a SuperPAC having a video of Obama stating this position which they can dice, slice and distort for 30 second spot.

I agree with that, I think he could too. I actually believe he is building up to this. At the Democratic Party governing level, it is a policy that is going to be introduced at the convention, to be officially included in the Democratic Party Platform. All platform changes are made at the convention. So, what I think is going to happen is he will officially introduce and take credit for the platform change.  Since you are a former actor/playwright, you know how important timing is, it is everything. 

I think Biden's and Duncan's explicit support are indications that this what will happen.

Now that this is out there, the strategists will get a sense of whether it would be a smart thing to do come platform time.  Between now and November, the number one objective (rightly or wrongly) is to get Obama re-elected.  He can't do anything over the next four years if Romney is in the White House.  So they may end up kicking the can down the road to the post-November months.  But in the big scheme of things, one might say that waiting a few more months before the next big step on this issue is not that big of a sacrifice.

Well des, now we know for sure that this will be in the party platform, since he made the announcement today.

He made the announcement because of my in-your-face use of a blog poll.  Well done, everybody.

When wrestlers rasslers blog, action ensues!

Wait! I know this one!

Politicians do and say things because of politics.  Obviously Obama came out with this announcement based on a political calculation.  And I submit that in the end the fact that he's a politician and did something for political reasons is immaterial, because whatever his motivation he has now made a giant step in responding to one of the last acceptable and overt and ugly prejudices in our society.  So good for all of us; this is a good thing.

I recommend--again--that if folks are looking for sincerity in a person, stay away from politicians.  I was also prepared to suggest that folks might check out what a priest or pastor or rabbi or imam has to say, but then I know around these parts those folks are only into literal translations of old books that condone the gouging of eyes out of sockets and stuff.  So, dunno, maybe a yoga instructor?   They're still groovy, no?


Not yoga instructors! I once had a yoga instructor who tried to twist me into a the form of a pretzel. She lied to my face, telling me I could do that move no problem! Hah! Not so!

No yoga instructors?  What's left?

Stoning, I'm told. ;) And if not stoning, then at least saving. We wouldn't want the all-merciful God to have to have to condemn those poor sinners to eternal torture because they boinked the wrong person in the wrong orifice.

I wonder what percentage of priests, pastors, rabbis, and imams support gay marriage. Versus yoga instructors.

Kudos to Obama in any case. It's about time.

Agreed.  It is about time.  And, by the way, Genghis my conservative congregation welcomes gay and lesbian members, and our rabbi will marry gay couples.  And that's how things are evolving in our faith (excuse my unapologetic tribalism wink) and others, and it's all good.


Mazel tov to evolution.

Nice touch.

ABC interrupts regularly scheduled programming for that?!  

Definitely says more about big media's obsessive position on the issue than Obama's which was .... meh --- at best.   

Possibly brilliant double political calculation.  He assures Big Hollywood support (and contributions) and diminishes his chances for an unwanted second term.  He is already the first black president and has probably learned all the secrets he wants to know.   Republicans will continue to make anything he might want to accomplish virtually impossible.  I certainly would not blame him if he did not want a second term.




You might be right. He may be ready to bail. Recon he could make a few bucks on a speaking tour? Way easier duty.
The news people in this clip all go on the assumption that Biden jumped the gun. He put Obama on the spot, they say. Bullshit. In fact, if Obama had decided to make this announcement, for whatever reasons, like he said and like I am confident is true,  Biden was just a warm-up act for the headliner. Biden's statement really got the crowd going. He lengthened the run of the show and he drew the crowd. A bunch of obvious, poorly plotted theater.  What is the kind of theater where people are expected to throw tomatoes  or whatever at the actors? The Republicans surely will before this performance is over, but the idiot Democrats seem to be taking it seriously.

Does anyone expect Obama's announcement to change what happens anywhere to any gay person or gay couple? Who is expected to change their mind and vote or act differently. Are any of the thirty states that have outlawed gay marriage going to have a do-over because Obama thinks they made the wrong decision? If there is such a possibilty wouldn't it have been worth making his coming out party a little sooner. Like before yesterday's election that went against the Gays. He cast a vote too late to be counted and he voted "present". O makes a move in multi dimensional tic-t ac-to.

It may affect black voters, who voted 2-1 against gay marriage yesterday even though being split 50% in opinion polls.

Perhaps Obama is evolving to Ron Paul's level? Perhaps in a few years:


In his newest book, Liberty Defined, Paul’s chapter on “Marriage” states, “In a free society…all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized.” He adds, “There should essentially be no limits to the voluntary definition of marriage.”

“Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it would qualify as a civil contract if desired…Why not tolerate everyone’s definition as long as neither side uses force to impose its views on the other? Problem solved!”

I haven't been thrilled with Obama's lukewarm backing into gay issues, and felt he was as cold and slow as he could be with DADT, etc. I don't know if Biden actually forced him into this. The only way I see this helping him for re-election is if it fires up the LBTG base to actively campaign for him. Knowing that they're traditionally one of the core constituencies that works hard for elections, it's probably a clever (if cynical) move.

On the other hand, watching Obama speak, even though I had happily united forever lesbian friends 30 years ago, it clicked in my head the importance of feeling normal, without the Roger Maris asterisk. And considering the journey almost every gay person makes in feeling abnormal to either reconciling or not, that's an excrutiatingly important issue.

While religion acts like it created marriage, I doubt it - I haven't looked into it, but I imagine from early evolution, humans worldwide paired off for various reasons as a survival and emotional tool - though obviously some cultures and classes developed other habits. If religions want their blessed marriages, fine. But marriage is the litmus test for ultimate togetherness, not civil unions. If churches want to create a category of church-based weddings, fine with me - there will be plenty of churches and courthouses and Vegas chapels to service anyone who wants.

So, good day, despite the political backdrop. It might be used as an election tool for Romney, but I doubt too effectively - I think instead it will push acceptance another 5-10%, making it a relative non-issue for a public that's almost there anyway.

Look around, get the sense of the moment.

Extremism, in your face attitudes, abound.

This is how I see it. 

The American public has become more agreeable to the idea of the term cohabitation, civil unions. 

You write 

But marriage is the litmus test for ultimate togetherness, not civil unions.

Instead the extremists of the GLBT movement wanted to take the term marriage, for their own, as though that term, was the ultimate prize. Without the term there will be no peace? 

Not satisfied with garnering support for civil unions, go for the religous jugular?

From a religious viewpoint, most people worldwide know, religions abhor the idea of same sex unions. 

Nature tells us, despite your analysis 

 but I imagine from early evolution, humans worldwide paired off for various reasons as a survival and emotional tool

how does lust, propagate the species (as in survival; with Steve on Steve intercourse instead off Steve with Eve ) 

It's the idea of lust, that turns religion against the GBLT movement. 

There are some who could imagine 

Maybe Steve likes chickens, so leave Steve to his own pleasures, his is a victimless crime and Steve has found an emotional tool, that satisfies himself; society be damned.  

Steve thinking; "Who are members of society, to tell Steve what's normal? 

Churches don't have to accept, what they abhor; but they do have to obey Caesar, who grants the term civil unions.

The moment the GLBT extremists, stuck the stick in the eye of church members, the war was on, and it continues.   

Reign in the extremists.   Get Caesar to recognize Civil Unions, leave the churches out of your desires.

Obama was shrewd to bring forth the idea "Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you."

GLBT extremists:  Quit trying to force the Worlds religions to give up the term marriage.

As you would want them, to leave you alone, do unto them.  

The prize is not the TERM marriage, 

That prize already belongs to another and they will defend it.  

Imagine where your movement would be, without Caesars protection.

SO....Let Caesar help you, but Caesar wants to avoid conflict with religion, he does not wish to antagonize the religious order.

Caesar doesn't want or need the pettiness, of the ultimate litmus test you spoke of,  Caesar can split the baby 

Marriage for Religions sake, Civil unions for the others.

Caesar needs religious order, Constantine proved the value of that relationship.  

30 + States have manned the barricades, because the extremists are in their faces.

Who are these religious folk to judge the lust of others?  That's the extremism that should cease.

Marriage is what society accepts as the norm of togetherness, for religious and non-religious. Even where religion is less strong, marriage continues to be chosen.

Several religions accepted polygamy as an option - Chinese & Turkish concubines, Muslim & Mormon multiple wives. One man/one woman has not always been universal to religion. 

It was Catholicism that asserted sex only for procreation, even in marriage. The Catholic church split multiple times, and each time that stricture was discarded.

Religion used to place taboos on "unclean women" after childbirth or around menstruation - I don't suppose we need to keep those rules codified in 2012, do we?

Again, I think societies & individuals created marriage, togetherness - not religion - and not just for sex, but for living, sharing, working together, surviving, growing old. The bond between dogs and people has been shown to exist for tens of thousands of years - not every survival arrangement is based on sex - far from it. As much as lust can be important, it's only part of any relationship. 

Caesar's gone, the Holy Roman Empire's gone. Time for us to move on.


First, I think Resistance makes a good point when he says that ownership of the term, ‘marriage’ has been more divisive than the fight for equal rights for gay people. I have used my personal example in the past as an example of how I feel.

I was brought up as a Catholic. Marriage is a holy sacrament in that religion. It can only be performed by a priest and it is a covenant with God. The church also recognizes that the state recognizes this union as a legal partnership and codifies certain rights and obligations that the two parties involved assume even though there is no long form formal written contract that the two persons are required to sign. The State does not care what obligations the various churches put on the couple, the obligations to each other and society under civil law remain the same.

My marriage was performed by a Mormon Bishop. The Catholic Church said my wife and I were only married in the eyes of the State, that we 'only’ had a civil union, but that in the eyes of 'God’ we were living together in a state of sin regardless of whether the State called us ‘married’ or not. I did not, do not, accept that the church’s position made any difference to the nature of my union with my wife but I also did not, do not, feel that I have any 'right’ to try to force the Catholic Church to recognize that union as ‘marriage’. I can imagine that if homosexual people had limited their fight to one for total legality and equality of their civil unions and not fought for the term ‘marriage’ that their rights as couples in a union would have advanced further and faster and would not be as divisive political issue at this time. If they need the respect of a church they can find one that respects them.

I have a sister who has been in a committed relationship with her wife [Their term for each other though they are not legally married] for about twenty years. They are completely open in their relationship, both successful in their careers, and have a very large group of close, supportive, friends most of whom are not gay as far as I know. While my sister is very outspoken in her demand for the right to be ‘married’ in the eyes of the State, the fact that her State will not do that does not have any negative affect on her life that I can see. Supporting her desire to force the State to call her and her partners relationship ‘marriage’, as opposed to giving them the right to the life they have chosen to to be lived with all the legal rights and obligations of heterosexual couples, is way, way, down on my list of what I believe should be the priorities of our President at this point in time. When he addresses the issue in a way that appears to me to be pure political theater, while ignoring or going in the wrong direction on so many important issues, he just drops a bit further in my judgment of him as a leader I could support.

The confluence of the legal, political, and religious questions that surround the issue of gay marriage have created the necessity, IMO, to give the term ‘marriage’ to the churches, some of which will recognize gay unions as marriage, and have the States legally define what they will continue to call ‘marriage’ as civil unions. Creating the legal boundaries of civil unions is, after all, the only thing the State has a right to do. They cannot, rather should not, pretend to mediate and arbitrate the wishes of God as do the churches.


Luludude on an alien computer

Imagine There is no  Marriage

It is fitting that, in a political culture in which words alone suffice to fire up liberal enthusiasms, discussions of same sex unions nowadays turn in part on a word — “marriage.” ....
This is odd because, from a legal point of view, the two are or could easily be made to come to the same thing.   To the extent that both terms denote the same rights and privileges, why should anyone care which is used?

One reason is that same sex couples believe that the nomenclature associated with heterosexual marriage is itself a good that everyone, gay and straight, should be able to benefit from.  Similarly, homophobes want to deny gay couples those benefits.   I confess that I fail to understand the vehemence with which both sides pursue their respective cases; after all, “a word is a word is a word.”

But in a world where identity issues and related concerns about social recognition loom large, words take on a political charge that outsiders must respect, even when they don’t quite grasp why.  
In line with the genealogy of the idea and the institution it denotes, clerics nowadays, as in the past, serve as de facto agents of secular authorities; they are empowered to confer the secular rights and privileges that marriage entails.  One would think that progressives of all stripes and sexual orientations would find this abhorrent.

Read the rest at:






Well, that sums up one kind of extremist - because one candidate is not perfect, they will help ensure the other candidate who is against same sex marriage will get into the White House and set the public discourse on the issue back twenty steps or so - not to mention back ib a host of other issues.  That is not doing the right thing in my book.  Don't like the militarism, corporatism, and civil liberties abuses - fine, address those issues with Obama in the White House.  Not voting for him will not advance progress on those issues in the least.  Work on getting a "truly progressive" candidate who has a legitimate chance to run for 2016, etc etc.

But AT, you don't understand, Obama didn't do everything he promised, or anything he promised, and he's hurt peoples' feelings--they're disillusioned.  And we must make things so so bad that soon, we the masses will unleash our chains and elect Russ Feingold no matter what the guy wants (oops, not him, guy has Israeltitis).  But you know, someone like him who ain't running, no?

"'Progressives' for Romney"!!!!  Why don't some of us just come out and say that's what we're all about?

Oh, and AT, be careful not to press this issue too hard.  Peoples' feelings get hurt and they feel like those who challenge the outrageousness of secretly or openly hoping to elect a Romney are intolerant sheep.

Meantime, us boring folks who are going about our lives raising kids, fighting bosses, accepting that which we cannot change, working our friggin' fingers to the bone to change that which we can, and voting and for and helping to re-elect a disappointing president are  a bunch of f@@@@@g sheep who deserve all the ridicule that groovy avatars can muster up.

In short, we ain't groovy.  We're too much like them dang American folk who aren't as smart as the "'Progressives' for Romney" really, really smart avatars.

Bruce S. Levine

New York, New York

P.S. I'm concededly selfish to some extent because I've come to know and appreciate the value of public funding for children with special needs.  I don't trust Romney and  his ilk with my baby's special (and expensive) needs, or with the needs of the children of the beautiful community my wife and I have unexpectedly but luckily become a part of.  You should see the demographic diversity of my baby's kindergarten program--thanks to bought-off Democrats who struggle to keep the spicket on because it's politically expedient (thank heavens).  Most of the parents of these kids couldn't come near the 50 plus thousand dollars a year it takes to educate kids like my daughter the way they need to be educated.

Professionally, I will take an Obama-controlled NLRB any day over a Romney-Board that will gut massive progress, real change in the labor laws, over the last four years.

But, if you're an avatar, who gives a fuck?  We're so much smarter than sheep.  Education?  Smeducation.

Speaking for myself and the rest of the evil shadow avatar army, I quite liked that last bit about the special needs education funding, Bruce. Maybe worth a post, although I understand if that would be too personal

Still, I think we all need to realize that a lot of people - me, obvs, included - have a dark evil-avatar side in these pretty damn dark times, where big-picture-wise there's a knee-jerk inclination to say "how much fucking worse can the GOP make things, anyway?!", and so it's useful to highlight the specific, vital, differences there are. Anyway, that's the stuff I'm interested in reading, not the GOP-mocking, not the Bagger-mocking. That said, go ahead, unleash your inner Hulk on the comment threads, that's entertaining too!



You are sorely missed here Obey, and I submit not just by me.  Sometimes shit happens the wrong way and we all wind up losing.  


Right now, I am seeing the world from the land that tossed off Lugar in favor of Mourdock because Lugar had the audacity to play ball with the evil ones on the other side of the aisle.  There are dark forces gathering strength in certain places in this country like Indiana.  People can poo poo the notion of the "at least they're not as bad as them."  But this same sex marriage issue just highlights the fact there is a significant difference (in spite of the similarities) between politicians like Obama and Romney.  A difference that will have a significant impact in the lives of same sex couples, special needs children, and so on and so on.

As I recall, Obama decided for the rest of us, to move forward and forgive the bastards for the previous 8 years. Obama took from our hands, the pitchforks.

At the midterm Obama found out the enemy, wasn't interested in compromise.

Get a grip folks, republicans and democrats are polar extremes. 

While we democrats sing kumbyJah, the Republicans are  STILL amassing their armies.  Wont be long now and some democrats will like the money the right wing throws around.  

Bauchus you want some? How about you Ben?   

We had victory in our hands and our leader let it slip away. 


I wonder if Obama' change in GLBT issues, is his excuse for losing.

He lost doing the right thing? Oh how admirable. 

Except he didn't do the right thing, when it really mattered. 

Obama disarmed us, not the republicans.

You really do need to get a grip.  Remember - those armies the Republicans are amassing - they're composed of the People, many of which are those Workers you want to put at the top of the priority list.   Moreover, the whole things boils down to Obama "forgiving" the previous 8 years?  Really?  In a country where the Republican can still be amassing their army, that forgiveness thing is what your political analysis brings you to? 

That's rich. You were the leader of the defend Obama brigade when it was early days and he gave a pass to every goddamn crook in the continental USA. But now? Best if we just step over that little dump he took in the middle of the sidewalk. 

Your judgment sucked then, and it sucks now. 



Who doesnt empathize,

But reality is, money doesn't grow on trees and millions of tax payers have to work their fingers to the bone to support a multitude of programs.

so instead of taxing us poor slaves, how about removing NAFTA type trade agreements that the Democrats signed on to, to make the WHOLE WORLD better off.

Billions to folks in Egypt, India, Israel, Pakistan  or  any other impoverished Nation, as clintons one world governemtn comes closer to fruition.

People need to get a clue, money doesn't grow on trees.

Protect American workers first.

Todays Democrats are not delivering the promises of the New Deal the working class wanted.

Democrats sold out the working class.

NAFTA and such like agreements, failed to bring in enough revenue, to support the programs you and I want. We were warned.

You should see the demographic diversity of my baby's kindergarten program--thanks to bought-off Democrats who struggle to keep the spicket on

Housing values plummeted and so did Tax revenues.

The spigot was cut off by, bought off democrats, who think it's okay to print more money and have inflation and to save the bankers.

But housing adjusted for inflation, was not acceptable? 

The democrats cut off the spigot you seek.

Failure to respond appropriately to the housing crisis has brought a lot of grief to those less fortunate.

No disillusionment here, we homeowners were screwed and so were those folks who needed a revenue stream brought about by home and property taxation.   

With a home I had collateral and a deed of trust, now all we have is a Federal Reserve note that guarantees;..... we'll all be slaves. 


And your solution is? Beyond waking up.

Next step, smell coffee.

Does it have to organic, fair trade coffee?

Hey yeah, and remember your "fuck the poor" discussion from earlier? You know, back when you were having the rich over to your table, but were freaking out about the violent tendencies of the protestors and the poor? 

Yeah. Mockery from you counts a whole helluva lot.

Gee, Indiana.


Bslev, to say that strongly opposing some of Obama's policies and actions is proof that those liberals or progressives or whatever they call themselves, or whatever you call them, is proof that they 'want" to get a jerk like Romney elected is just as bad, just as narrow mindedly misguided and wrong, as those conservatives who say that Obama 'wants' to destroy America.  

 I would have preferred the NLRB that existed ten years before I dealt with it over the one that it had become and I have no doubt that it is even less acceptable to me now than it was when I was trying to save jobs and protect the working contract as a legitimate document that my company should be obligated to follow as if they really had signed it in good faith. Maybe you believe that unions are not losing power while at the same time their leadership contains a lot of corrupt self-serving officials but I disagree and I also think it should be pointed out rather than saying we should all take what we get so long as there is some group offering even less.

 You defend things you believe are fundamentally 'right' and protest what you believe to be fundamentally 'wrong', regardless of who disagrees and who is offended, when it affects your particular areas of interest and dedication. I often disagree wit you positions or priorities but  I do not conclude that you 'want' to make things worse.


Your embedded graphic does not say one should continue to oppose policies and actions from the Obama administration- it says one should not vote for Obama. 


More precisely, it suggests how one individual who recognizes that Obama did one small thing that was right, after doing many big things that were wrong, has decided that he cannot allow the one small thing over-ride his conclusion about the bigger importance of the bigger things. He, the cartoon character, expresses that his ethics requires him to not vote for Obama. The other character asks him plaintively to ignore his ethics.

Aside from reducing Obama's presidency down to one small good thing and many big wrong things, the over-simplification of the issue about whether to vote for Obama as an issue of ignoring or not ignoring one's own ethics is, for me, quite maddening.

 Did you notice that it is a political cartoon? The cartoonist did reduce the big political subject of the last week or so to one small thing [IMO]. That is what political cartoonists do, condense and simplify the subject in an attempted humorous way, even if it is black humor. He compared the small thing to many things that are much bigger in many people's opinion. He showed one defendable reaction to the weight of the different things, big and small, right and wrong combined, that one of his characters had. The first character implicitly acknowledged the validity of the choice but asked the second one if he couldn't just ignore the many bad things.
 Are you mad at the cartoonist for not doing a long, in-depth piece covering every nuance to life's decisions, at me for correcting your wrong characterization of the cartoon, or at the idea that any person might follow their own ethical beliefs rather than accept your conclusion of how they should act for the greater good, [as you see it, of course] right or wrong be damned, or are you maybe just mad like the hatter so that you continue to argue by changing the subject?.

Trope doesn't even know that this cartoon is one of an enormously long series on this topic.


First of all, people I know call me Bruce--bslev is my  avatar.  You can call me Bruce, but not Brucie.

Second, there is a difference between what the NLRB does and what working people, unions, and service providers like me are able to do with the indisputable improvements made by the Obama Board.  [On that note, I promise to do a blog setting forth the extraordinary improvements made by the Obama Board in the face of an unprecedened  groundswell of vicious opposition.]  The Board can lead a union to water, but can't say presto and increase the percentage of unionized working people in this country.   But to blame Obama for anything to do with what this Labor Board has done is both unfair and false. It ain't just Boeing; the Obama Board absolutely rocks.

Third, when did I ever intimate that I believe that unions are not losing power?  Lulu I've been representing unions for almost 25 years; respectfully it's too costly and painful to wear rose-colored glasses about the fact that less than 10 percent of the private sector workforce in this country is represented by unions.

Fourth, please, do you really think I haven't acknowledged the existence of corrupt labor officials?  Lulu, you have no idea what I have seen.

Fifth, if you think that the only right thing to do is to draw a line in the sand on what you believe is fundamentally right, and that somehow excuses indifference to an Obama defeat, then we disagree.

Sixth, and I do believe from everything I know about what you from what you have written that you would be at least indifferent to a Romney victory.  And I reject that approach from  the bottom of my kishkes.  So no robo calls from you and the other Progressives for Romney asking me for money.  Cuz I ain't coughin anything up for youze guys.



Bruce, I reacted to your charge about critics of Obama because I consider myself to be in the group that you mischaracterized.  That being a person in the group who enthusiastically worked for and contributed money to, the Obama campaign but think he has gone wrong in a lot of ways. Not just been overpowered, not just been defeated, but gone away from positions he said he would take. Some very important and fundamental positions. One which separated him from the worst of his opposition. But, to put it in a first-person way of speaking, to draw back from the charge that I want to see Romney elected to the charge that I am indifferent as to who gets elected is less defamatory but is equally wrong. Believe it, or not.
 Do you recall Obama stating something to the affect that the American people would have to push him to do the right thing. And also, believe it or not, I am not and never have been indifferent as to who is elected as our President. You have read enough of my opinions, you say, to form your own opinion about how I feel as to that choice, but you have apparently not read the numerous times that I have said that if it were up to me I would not hesitate to choose Obama over Romney or any other Republican.
  Moving right along: I look forward to your blog about the NLRB and I assume including information about the current state of unions. I think an objective reading of what I said separates where I have what I believe to be an informed opinion from what I was assuming to be the case now. If Obama has put in place a better NLRB I am happy to find it out. I asked the rhetorical question about the unions losing power as a way to emphasize the direction I see things are going. I didn't mean to charge you with a position you do not hold. That would be wrong and I would not intentionally do it.
 Same goes for number four, though I don't recall you ever stating your knowledge of union corruption and how it is part of the problem.
 As to number five, refer back to my statement above about pushing Obama to hold to his stated principles and goals.
 And, though I addressed number six at the beginning, calling me a "progressive for Romney" and suggesting that I am actively for his election, is a charge that, if you were to make again, would mark you as an uninformed idiot who had no regard for fair discourse. I do not think, and do not want to think, that is what you are.


You can call me an idiot, just don't call me an Israel Firster! surprise

I don't anticipate that you will be actively campaigning for Romney's election, but do believe that you don't recognize how much worse it will be with Romney in office.


There is evidence that supports your conclusion. I certainly did not anticipate how bad Obama would be in a few areas. On the balancing side though, I do recognize it.  
 I do not anticipate ever calling you an idiot, I don't expect to see evidence that would make me believe that you are one, but that is about as far as I am willing to commit on the subject of various labels I might use in the future .angel

That's cool!

Just now on memeorandum.  Timing is so important.

Latest Comments