The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[sam7777]

Miers like Roberts is a concervative with no paper trail and both are cronies. Since the dems rolled over on Roberts and will roll over on Miers, this strategy means Bush wins. It doesn't matter to the shrub if it's a messy win. The Dems rolled over on the federal judges saying they would fight on the sumpreme judges but they are not willing to fight for any principles. So long as half of them happily go along with the shrub, we aill all continue to lose. The Dems must prepare to be a real opposition party and fight the regpugs on every issue if they want to be seen as a viable alternative in 2006 and 2008.

[watty]

A proposed bill that would prohibit gays, lesbians and single people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child has been dropped by its legislative sponsor.

Thinking about it, I don''t think the proposal stands a real chance of becoming law in that draft form. But the scary part like Holley says is that someone in a responsible and powerful position actually came up with this and a group of other responsible and powerful people agreed. I don't think it was specifically targetted at GLBT folks or single people, it was more like anyone who doesn''t conform to their narrow-minded view of what a family unit shouldn't have the opportunity to have children. These are the people who think the world should only be populated by mainstream, church-going, middle-class white people. I'm sure this is not the end of it.

[Ben Varkentine]

A funeral was held in Kansas a couple of days ago for Staff Sgt. John Glen Doles.

Chelsea’s main street was lined with American Flags in honor of Doles, who was killed when he and five others were ambushed by enemy fire last week in Afghanistan. He was laid to rest with honors in a small cemetery southeast of Chelsea.

Doles’ team leader and 14 other fellow soldiers from Fort Polk in Louisiana who either trained or served with Doles attended the funeral.

Staff Sgt. Adam Oliver, Doles’ team leader, said, Doles “was the hardest worker I’ve ever seen in my life. He was one of those guys that everybody liked and probably the best soldier I’ve ever been in charge of. He was always willing to go the distance and beyond without ever being asked.”

Staff Sgt. Stephen Podymaitis, said “I’m just a better man for having known him.”

Podymaitis said he and his family lived next door to Doles and his family and their two sons practically grew up together.

“He brought happiness to everybody’s life,” Podymaitis said. Still in disbelief that his friend is gone Podymaitis said: “He’s a brother in arms and a brother in heart.”

Chelsea Mayor Kenny Weast said he received a fax last Tuesday saying six members of a Kansas church that believes God is punishing the U.S. for protecting homosexuals by killing soldiers overseas would be in Chelsea to protest at the funeral.

Weast contacted local law enforcement and a successful plan was devised.

Said Weast: “We planned for the worst and hoped for the best.”

Weast’s own feelings about the protest, however resonated those of the town.

“What a tragedy to have a group like this protest the day of the funeral, one of the hardest days this family will have. It makes me sick,” he said.

Chelsea residents...believed God spoke on their behalf as the engines of more than 100 Veterans of Foreign Wars motorcycles drowned out the voices of the Westboro Baptist Church members who were allowed to protest from 1-1:30 p.m. before the 2 p.m. funeral services.

The American Legion Riders from Southeast Kansas, which represented a number of Kansas towns and communities along with members of other organized motorcycle groups, attended the funeral to protest the protesters.

But the No. 1 reason was to show support for Staff Sgt. Doles and his family and to oppose Fred Phelps, who is the leader of the anti-homosexual group.

The bikers succeeded in keeping the protesters out of sight and sound of the Doles family but for anyone else close enough to see their brightly colored signs spoke loud and clear: “GOD IS YOU OR ENEMY; GOD HATES THE USA; GOD IS AN AMERICAN TERRORIST; TOO LATE TO PRAY; THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIERS; YOU’RE GOING TO HELL; GOD HAS SPOKEN IT’S NOT A BLESSING IT’S A CURSE and AMERICA IS DOOMED.”

The locals had a couple of signs of their own. Three older women held up a white sheet that said “SHOW AMAZING GRACE” and two young people held a cardboard sign saying “YE WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE.”

Kansas has a history of rejecting Phelps. From The Nation in March of this year:

"First, Topekans voted to reject Phelps' bid to overturn the city's ordinance banning discrimination of gays in municipal hiring...Topekans voted it down 14,285 to 12,795...[Then], in the city council primary, Phelps' 20-year-old granddaughter and fellow anti-gay activist, Jael Phelps, lost big to Topeka's first and only openly gay council member, Tiffany Muller. Muller, who initiated the ordinance last November, received 1,329 votes to Phelps' 202.

The only person asking, "What's the matter with Kansas?" right now is the Rev. Fred Phelps. His decades of anti-gay activism--which include picketing outside hate crime victim Matthew Sheppard's funeral with "God Hates Fags" signs--have apparently had little effect in his own backyard."

(Quotes originally appeared in the Claremore Progress and The Nation. I've stitched together, re-ordered and otherwise edited some of the paragraphs to what I consider better effect)

http://www.claremoreprogress.com/archive/article22505

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=2239

[Candleshoe]

It would appear that our Prime Minister, Tony Blair, believes that God told him to go to war. Now, don't get me wrong, people can believe anything they like, but why on earth would Mr Blair think that we, the people who could vote for him, will vote for him because he thinks God told him to go on a crusade? Britain is a secular, multi-faith kinda place, where God doesn't usually come into politics, and we like it that way. We like it when huge decisions are made based on logic, and realism, and cold hard facts.

And of course, those of us who do believe in God will get tarred with the same brush now, no matter what our opinions of the war are.



Going to my happy place now....la, la, la, la, la....

[justin]

Who's heard of this bill?

Up until today I hadn't, which is quite worrying given the scope of the bill and the fact it's heading towards it's third reading.

What this bill does, is it allows ministers to amend, repeal or replace any current law (with some limitations) without any kind of parliamentary review.

The only limitations are that the new laws cannot change the level of taxation, create new offences with a sentence of more than 2 years or authorise any forcible entry.

Anything else is fair game, including this bill itself (so those limitations could be removed)

If this is starting to sound like the enabling act passed in Germany in 1933 then that's because it is.

The government has said this is just to for the sake of efficiancy in order for them to be able to make the regulatory reforms they need. Anyway we can trust them to not do anything nasty.

I'd say the last thing a government wants to be is efficient. Sincy efficiency implies haste and that's a bad idea when creating laws that are going to affect people for decades. A case of pass law in haste, repent at leasure.

As to the matter of trust. Even if we trust the current government to not abuse the bill (which is a big if), how can we know that future governments? The fact that they have rejected the idea of a sunset clause suggests they don't care about this, and makes their claims that they won't do anything "contraversial" with the bill suspicious.

The text of the bill is here

This site Has more information about the bill and what you can do about it.

[sam7777]

Italians have voted out Berlusconi one of the axis of 3 evil B's: bush, blair, berlusconi. Good on them. Here's hoping that Prodi can survive on the slim margins that he won:
Center-Left Wins Italian Election by Slim Margin

At least they voted out their criminals. I wish we would do the same in the stats.

[COMMA]

No matter how one feels about the war, it is the warriors whom fight the war. Here is the way all warriors should be sent home.

http://multimedia.rockymountainnews.com ... trom&NUM=1

Charles COMMA Causey
US Army Retired

[maudmac]

Iraq: bring the troops home and let the Iraqis take care of Iraq or stay the course until it's won?

What do y'all think?

[dlline]

We, that is the United States, need to get out of Iraq as quickly as is humanly possible. Nothing good is happening, our kids are dying, and there is no end in sight. I'm old enough to remember Viet Nam, and this is turning into exactly the same thing.

We're spending something absurd like a million dollars a day to stay in Iraq and force our own nationalistic views down these poor people's throats, while in this country, people are struggling with the lack of health care and services basic to their needs. This madness needs to end, and it needs to end quickly.

Please do not misinterpret.... I am very supportive of our troops (I am also a veteran). And I believe the most supportive thing we can do is to bring them home to their families, alive and in one piece.

Thanks for listening,
Diane

[JujuDeRoussie]

I, as a french, regret the France's attitude in regard of the colonialisation... Especially after having heard "our" President.
He has made a speech about what was horrible about the colonisation, but he ended by saying "But the colonialisators had also given a lot. The roads, the train, the schools, the hospitals..." then he went on, saying "Africa was wound, but we have to not forget the one hurt in their feelings, hurt to be judged that bad when they truly thought they were helping"...
I let you imagine the surprise. Oh and this speech was pronounced in front of Africans, in Afric.
So I hope I didn't went too far. I am just totally disappointed by this. By this inability to ask for forgiveness and to say "yes we have made a huge mistake, please forgive us"... without searching excuses.

Thanks for reading.

[maudmac]

Wow. Sounds like he was saying "We messed up your countries for a century, but it's up to you to fix it. And you should thank us for the railroads we built!"

Would it be so hard to just apologize? Especially when you're speaking directly to your former colonies?

National leaders, all over the world, seem to have some rule against apologizing for the things they've done wrong. I guess they think it's a sign of weakness to say "we are sorry for what we did to you." I've never understood that. It takes a lot of strength to admit you were wrong and to express regret and apologize. I think the world would be a much better place if more national leaders could do that.

[JujuDeRoussie]

Actually he did. Almost. He said Africans had to fix things without taking support on France. It is not word for word, but almost.
I could go on with many subjects and what is shocking from a president of a country like France. (as a country in many international organizations)
But then I don't know if I wouldn't go too far.
Yes maudmac it may be hard to say only sorry.
I say it though: sorry

[maudmac]

This is interesting. For the US presidential election.

It asks you for your position on the issues and then to rank its importance to you. Then it matches it with all the candidates and tells you which candidates are most compatible with your positions.

Pick Your Candidate

Mine were Kucinich and Gravel, which I already knew, but it was nice to see all the other candidates ranked according to how compatible they are with me. Neither Kucinich nor Gravel has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the Democrat nomination. I don't care a whole lot, because I can live with Clinton or Obama, despite disagreeing profoundly with them on a few things. For me, personally, all I really care about is not having another Republican in the White House.

Anyway...so who are your candidates?

[JustSkipIt]

Kucinich, Gravel, Obama (surprised, I thought that would be Clinton), Edwards, Richardson, Clinton, Dodd, Biden, Paul. I'm negative numbers for all republicans (surprise there huh?)

[maudmac]

I am shocked - shocked - at the getting negative numbers for the Republicans!!! *faints

You know, I really like Obama on a personal level (not that I know him personally, though). Every time I see him on TV, he seems so genuine and normal and non-politician-like that I always think I'd really enjoy talking with him. He seems like someone I could hang out with. The rest of them...eh. Even my man Kucinich, bless his heart, he is sooooo boring. I met him once during the last election and he speaks very well and I agree with him on almost everything, but...honestly... Clinton seems much more politician-like than her husband. I responded to Bill Clinton the same way I respond now to Barack Obama - I want to hang out with them, they seem like regular normal humans.

Plus, too, I liked Obama's stance on meeting with the leaders of countries the US officially doesn't like. Seriously, who should you be meeting with more than the leaders of countries we have a tense relationship with? What is wrong with sitting down with people like Castro and Ahmadinejad? Have we nothing to say to them? I think we do. Or we should. We don't have to become BFFs, but there is no reason we cannot have dialogue with them, especially since everyone and their mother will have nuclear weapons soon enough.

About Obama, on the other hand, he pisses me the fuck off with his position that civil unions are good enough. No. They aren't. Period. Goddammit, what is wrong with people?!? Half-assed second-class-citizen bullshit!

[JustSkipIt]

I was just talking to my step-mom and she was ranting about George W. Bush and the republicans and saying how perfect Clinton is and I told her about this site and she was like, "but I already know that Clinton and I agree on everything!" Everything? Really? Uh, she doesn't support same-sex marriage and she voted to fund the war so everything? REally?

I'll have to see what her results say.

[Hemiola]

So, no one has any comments about "The Craig Affair"?

While the sexual part is just sad, I was personally much more disturbed by the fact that this man plunked his Senate credentials down on to the police officer's desk and insisted that they had no right to arrest him! (He is actually reported to have sneered "What do you think of that?" )

Apparently, Craig thinks that his Senate identification card is some kind of Patent of Nobility--the sort of document which, in pre-modern Europe, used to get one released automatically by any law-enforcement authorities.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, given that we have a chief executive who thinks that God appointed him to his office, thus granting him the "Divine Right of Kings"!!!

[werewolf123]

It has been awhile since i studied constitutional law, but if congress had been in session then the senator would have been immune from arrest on a misdemeanor charge. I believe this is a hold over from English law .

I am afraid that some people are more equal then others...

Article I, Sec 6 of the Constitution:

(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses were modified by the 27th Amendment.) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

[Hemiola]

Really? If this is true, it's disturbing. I had always been taught that the basic principle of U.S. law was that all persons were equal under the law, regardless of their status or the office they held (Indeed, this was the point of the whole Civil Rights Struggle of the 1960s!).

As far as I know, the only "special priviledge" the Senators have under the law is the "Franking Priviledge"--and I believe that there is a movement afoot to get rid of that!

[JustSkipIt]

Well, Senator Craig has resigned:

Sen. Craig resigns over sex sting

By JOHN MILLER, Associated Press Writers 1 hour, 30 minutes ago

BOISE, Idaho - In a subdued ending to a week of startling political theater, Sen. Larry Craig announced his resignation Saturday, bowing to pressure from fellow Republicans worried about damage from his arrest and guilty plea in a gay sex sting.
ADVERTISEMENT

"I apologize for what I have caused," Craig said, his wife Suzanne and two of their three children at his side with a historic Boise train station as backdrop. "I am deeply sorry."

Craig, 62, said he would resign effective Sept. 30, ending a career in Congress spanning a quarter-century.

Making no specific mention of the incident that triggered his disgrace in his remarks, he spoke for under six minutes and took no questions.

Among those attending was Republican Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter, who will appoint a successor for the remaining 15 months of Craig's term.

It was a relatively quick end to a drama that began Monday with the stunning disclosure that Craig had pleaded guilty to a reduced charge following his arrest June 11 in a Minneapolis airport men's room.

Craig at first tried to hold on to his position, contending in a public appearance on Tuesday that he had done nothing inappropriate and that his only mistake was pleading guilty Aug. 1 to the misdemeanor charge. But a growing chorus of leading GOP leaders called for him to step down to spare the party further embarrassment and possible harm in next year's elections.

Otter said Saturday he has not chosen a replacement, although several Republicans familiar with internal deliberations said he favored Republican Lt. Gov. Jim Risch.

Otter called speculation that he has made a choice "dead wrong" and declined to say when he would fill the seat.

Craig said he would remain in the Senate until Sept. 30 in hopes of providing a smooth transition for his staff and whoever is chosen as his successor.

President Bush called Craig from the White House after the senator's announcement and told him he knew it was a difficult decision to make, said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.

"Senator Craig made the right decision for himself, for his family, his constituents and the United States Senate," Stanzel said.

Craig was arrested June 11 in a police undercover vice operation. The arresting officer, Sgt. Dave Karsnia, said in his report that the restroom where he encountered Craig is a known location for homosexual activity.

Craig has faced rumors about his sexuality since the 1980s. He has called assertions that he has engaged in gay sex ridiculous.

"I am not gay. I never have been gay," Craig said defiantly after a news conference Tuesday. He said he had kept the incident from aides, friends and family and pleaded guilty "in hopes of making it go away."

Other lawmakers embroiled in sex scandals also have resigned from Congress, albeit usually at the end of scenarios that took longer to play out than the one that claimed Craig.

Former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., quit last fall over sexually explicit Internet communications with male pages who had worked on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Bob Packwood, R-Ore., resigned in 1995 amid allegations he had made unwanted sexual advances to 17 female employees and colleagues and altered his personal diaries to obstruct an ethics investigation.

On Saturday, Craig said he would pursue legal options to clear his name. He has retained Billy Martin, a Washington lawyer who represented Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick in his dogfighting case, to pursue his legal options. Washington lawyer Stan Brand will represent Craig before the Senate ethics committee, said spokesman Dan Whiting.

"The people of Idaho deserve a senator who can devote 100 percent of his time and effort to the critical issues of our state and of our nation," Craig said. "I have little control over what people choose to believe. But clearly my name is important to me, and my family is so very important also."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Craig "made a difficult decision, but the right one."

"It is my hope he will be remembered not for this, but for his three decades of dedicated public service," McConnell said. McConnell had been one of Craig's harshest critics, calling his actions "unforgivable."

Some Idaho residents who attended Craig's public resignation said it felt like a "political funeral."

Bayard Gregory, from Boise, said Craig should have been more forthright after his arrest.

"It's a horribly embarrassing experience to go through," Gregory said. "But if it were me, and I had done nothing wrong, I wouldn't have pleaded guilty."

Craig spokesman Sidney Smith said he did not know whether Craig would return to Washington on Tuesday, the start of the post-Labor Day congressional session.

"We haven't decided that yet, whether he's going to return or not," Smith said.

Craig represented Idaho in Congress for more than a quarter-century, including 17 years in the Senate. He was up for re-election next year.

Republicans, worried about the scandal's effect on next year's election, suffered a further setback Friday when veteran Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia announced he will retire rather than seek a sixth term. Democrats captured Virginia's other Senate seat from the GOP in the 2006 election.

Craig opposes gay marriage and has a strong record against gay rights. He was a leading voice in the Senate on gun issues and Western lands. Craig chaired the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and was a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, where he was adept at securing federal money for Idaho projects.

A fiscal and social conservative, Craig sometimes broke with his party, notably on immigration, where he pushed changes that many in his party said offered "amnesty" to illegal immigrants. Much of the impetus behind Craig's push to ease bureaucratic hurdles to immigrant farm workers stemmed from his background as a rancher and the state's large rural, farming community.

I have to say that with this scandal as well as the Foley one I find myself of two conflicting emotions. On one hand, I feel bad for anyone who may be gay or even just finds himself attracted to someone of the same sex but who is trapped within his own self-hatred. I mean if this was a 14 year old kid who couldn't escape his family or find others like him, I'd be very sympathetic. But the other hand holds the history of anti-gay rights legislation these men have supported. Craig got a zero on the HRC report card last year. He supports nothing that helps out the gay lesbian community. So wihle I feel bad for him because he's hurting and his family is (probably more so), I wish he had been able to be a compassionate legislator.

[cathy north]

Craig is still going before the senate ethics board because it was a 'gay' act. Vittner, of Louisana, is not even tho he used prostitutes all the time. It's okay unless he had had 'gay' prostitutes it seems?

[JujuDeRoussie]

Little joke between Sarkozy (French President... sorry for that) and Bush during a visit of Sarkozy to Bush in the USA (again, sorry for that):

S: "I, for one, do not control the journalists"
G: (clearly amused) "And I don't either!"
S and G can't help but laugh...
G: "Seriously, you do control them don't you?"
S:" I don't control them, I only show them the right way."

haha haha haha.

Just for you to know, since he is president, Sarkozy made several journalist be fired... He put someone at the head of the communication service of the biggest french channel (biggest as the most watched), he made disappear one or two good political programs...

Another quote from this trip...

Sarkozy to a congress or I don't know exactly because we didn't have the whole picture:
"There will have manifestation, complains, refusals... But don't worry, I promise you I will do all this changes. Not only because I promise this to you, not to make people happy, but because I know that it is the good thing for France. They can't see that, but I know it is."

(Of course he knows very well what is good for France... his France...)

I hope this post is still ok with the thread though. If not I am sorry.

[maudmac]

Oh, yes, this post is definitely fine for this thread. All politics are welcome here.

I don't know that much about Sarkozy, but I do remember reading about your elections and that Sarkozy was more conservative and more USA-friendly. (I wouldn't consider that a good thing necessarily, if by "USA-friendly" they mean that he likes George Bush. Just my opinion.)

Does the president in France have the power to personally fire journalists and cancel TV shows?

It's not a good sign if Sarkozy thinks he alone knows what's best for France. Of course, here in the US, Bush's approval ratings are quite low and most people no longer support him or the war in Iraq. But that doesn't stop him from thinking he knows what's best for us and doing whatever he damn well pleases.

France and the US should be friends. We have a long history together and each of our countries has helped the other in so many ways. I want us to have a good relationship, but I definitely don't want more people like George Bush out there in the world running countries.

[JujuDeRoussie]

Oh yes, Sarkozy is very USA-friendly, friendly as "I adore Georges W. Bush, he has done so many great things for the USA and he is the king of the world and hey! he's not so much taller than me". Of course one of this agrument is not from him

No he doesn't have the direct power to fire journalists or cancel programs, but he has a great influence.

There is this group called the MEDEF, which groups all the bosses of great enterprise. And of course it has great influence, well the "number 2" of this group is no less Sarkozy's brother.

And then, out of the blue Sarkozy just "suggest" that this or this shouldn't be said, that this person suddenly doesn't have public enough to continue (no matter the actual number, if he says there is not public enough, then the program is canceled, in the middle of the year, without any warning, nothing.).

Sarkozy does think he knows alone what is best for France. But he is still in that period when there are a lot of people believing him. Either the people who will enjoy what he is proposing for personal interests, or the people who has bad education and unfortunately don't understand very well how everything works.

Seeing how he takes Bush as an idol, as an example for his own career, I'm kinda afraid.

Well, I hope at least next year will see better things for the USA.

[JustSkipIt]

I have to say that I am extremely excited about the Primary season this year. First off, Texas matters! The debate last night was right here in town on campus. I drove through campus around 4:00 and it was wild. Usually by the time the primary occurs, it's all decided and no one cares how I vote. And in the General election, I can't imagine a Democrat taking Texas so again, my vote goes for nothing. But this year, it matters!

I'm quite excited by both Clinton and Obama and while I prefer Obama, I feel that both are captivating and viable candidates. I feel really excited to think that my children will never grow up believing that "a woman could never be president" or "a black man could never be president." For them, it will just be a possibility or a reality or perhaps something that doesn't even enter their minds.

When I got home today I saw that our neighbors had a yard sign for Obama in their yards. I've lived in this neighborhood for 11 years and maybe seen yard signs for any candidate I support 3 or 4 times ever. And our neighbor just came over and rang the bell. She's actually the precinct manager for Obama here and they are having an early voting party from 12:00 - 2:00 and then going to vote as a big group. She totally didn't know we were supporting Obama until she saw the big magnet on the front door but was coming to invite us anyway. How totally cool! We were totally planning to early vote tomorrow anyway so this could make it part of an event.

Oh, one other thing: I got let off work at 3:00 today because police were shutting down streets for the rallys and such. That's pretty cool too.

[maudmac]

Speaking of Texas, I saw this linked on boingboing:

Texas Early Voting Wave as Reaction to Systemic Disenfranchisement

Texas Republicans have worked overtime to make it harder for key Democratic voting groups to vote and be represented fairly. The redistricting games they’ve played are infamous. And for the Prairie View A&M University precincts, they put the early-polling place more than seven miles from the school.

So what did the students in this video do? They shut down the highway as they marched seven miles to cast their votes on the first day of early voting.

This is pretty spectacular. That is some old-school peaceful and powerful civil disobedience right there.

I have a few questions, though. I am not familiar with early voting. We've never had such a thing here in Alabama. How does that work? Is it like, say, voting day is Wednesday, but you can actually go vote there on Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday? How many days of early voting are there? Does it work like regular voting? Is your early-voting polling place the same as you regular polling place?

Also, slightly unrelated, but does anyone know if there are laws governing how far a polling place can be from your residence? Everywhere I've lived, my polling place was very convenient, but I'm imagining that in really rural areas, having to travel 7 miles wouldn't be unusual, would it? (Especially in very sparsely populated states like Wyoming.)

[Ben Varkentine]

Came across the darndest thing on Pam's House Blend:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9031

1996 documents surface proving Obama publicly supported marriage equality

It's unequivocal support:

[and here Pam's quoting from an article by Tracy Baim]

[A]s Obama has run for higher office, from senator to president, he has further shaped his views on marriage, and now he does not back same-sex marriage. In a January 2004 interview I conducted with Obama at the Windy City Times' office, Obama clearly stated that lack of support for full marriage equality was a matter of strategy rather than principle, but in even more recent comments, it appears he is backing off even further, saying it is more of a religious issue, and also a "state" issue, so he favors civil unions.

Obama's answer to the 1996 Outlines question was very clear: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

As long as full marriage equality isn't overwhelmingly approved by Americans, when it comes to running for federal office pols -- including Obama -- believe there's more to lose than gain if they take an honest position supporting full equality.

So what do you think? Is he just biding his time, or is he copping out?

[dlline]

I think he copped out in order to get elected. I'm glad he got elected, but I do feel like he had to sell us down the river in order to do so.

[drlloyd11]

This article ntw...talks to Judth Dushku..aka Faiths mom.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/19/can_mitt_talk_to_women/


A highlight

Dushku told the Globe, “I went to his office and I congratulated him on taking a pro-choice position. And his response was – Well, they told me in Salt Lake City I could take this position, and in fact I probably had to in order to win in a liberal state like Massachusetts.”

[JustSkipIt]

The President just said gay marriage should be legal.

Kick Ass!