The White House and President Obama's re-election campaign had a rather difficult time yesterday explaining exactly what their position is on marriage equality. As the dust settled, a clear answer remained elusive.
But while one could hardly blame Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus for enjoying the Obama's team's difficulties on the issue, he pressed his luck a little too much while talking to MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell yesterday afternoon.
For those who can't watch clips online, the key part of his answer was when Priebus claimed, "Quite frankly, Andrea, the president's position as it sits today is the same position as Mitt Romney, because isn't the president saying that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman?"
At a distance, this might seem credible -- neither Obama nor Romney have endorsed same-sex marriage. But all the relevant details make an enormous difference.
Romney signed the National Organization for Marriage's right-wing pledge, committing Romney to supporting an anti-gay amendment to the U.S. Constitution, nominating federal judges who'll rule against marriage equality, and defending the Defense of Marriage Act. The Republican has even opposed civil unions.
Obama, on the other hand, supports civil unions and opposes DOMA. He's also repealed the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, expanded federal benefits for the same-sex partners of executive-branch employees, signed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law, cleared the way for hospital-visitation rights for same-sex couples, lifted the travel/immigration ban on those with HIV/AIDS, ordered the Federal Housing Authority to no longer consider the sexual orientation of applicants on loans, expanded the Census to include the number of people who report being in a same-sex relationship, and directed U.S. agencies abroad to ensure our humanitarian and diplomatic efforts "promote and protect" the rights of gays and lesbians.
As of yesterday, it appears this record isn't enough for some "leading gay and progressive donors," who are, at least for now, refusing to support the president's re-election campaign because they feel Obama hasn't gone far enough. But for Priebus, on the other side of the aisle, to draw some parallel between Obama and Romney is deeply foolish.
Romney is running well to the right of John McCain and George W. Bush on gay rights; Obama has done more to advance gay rights than every other American president combined, accomplishing more in one term than many even thought possible.
There's simply no comparison.
Leave a Comment:
The President promised repeatedly no "politics as usual" but here we are at a cross roads where the lgbt community is being asked to wait until after the election for him to come out in support because he could potentially lose some swing states that he may not even need. Sounds like politics as usual... and tyhe President should be ashamed of himself for putting the rights of Americans on the back burner so he can attain further electoral college votes.
If Obama doesn't attain enough electoral votes, the rights of Americans won't go on the back burner, they'll go up in flames. I'd argue further about the necessity of incremental progress in a country that turned itself over to a pack of authoritarian buffoons out of hatred and fear, but you're probably just a troll, anyway.
I completely refuse to believe this myth that Obama would lose the election if he came out in favor of gay marriage. There's absoluitely no prove to back such a statement and only conjecture and opinion. Even if such were true then why should the lgbt community take the hit when those who would actually vote against him for it should.... we have to pay because others are too bigoted?? That makes absolutely no sense!! Whether Dems like it or not the lgbt community is part of the base and they should stop pushing us back into the closet!
Gee Ryan, you are either not watching politics and how the media is trying to obfuscate the messages to moderates and independents to confuse them of the facts; or you're being disingenuous in an "insulting my intelligence way". Either way, even if you aren't LGBT but support equal rights for everyone - then "marriage" whether it be a "man & a woman" or between LGBT shouldn't be a problem in voting for you. Frankly, what bothers me in this the 21st century - is the fact that with every real issue from homelessness to foreclosures, from jobs still not being created to attacks on Unions and women - the fact that LGBT people and their lives and love are being made an "issue" to divert attention away from those things I've listed above that's what's bothering me! I say let the LGBT community get married, and I wish them all the best, NOW can we get back to POLICY?
First of all, show me where Pres. Obama said, "Wait till after election," before he (PBO) come out in full support for LGBT.... That's the narratives from the media...Because the Pres. haven't spoken out about situation, the media is taking full advantage.... Until he come out and make them (msm and lil Mitt campaign) look foolish... Then they going be mad for making them (msm/repubs.) look stupid... Because their no surprise (OBL, Libya, China situation, birther, etc,) things that shouldn't be political they tried to make it...
Secondly, it was media especially DG of MTP who made it political, because lil Mitt screw-up by firing his Gay advisor late week... Why? Because they (R-money campaign) couldn't split the blacks, latinos, women, youths, asians... So, they found the weakest link the LGBT community...
What people should be "red hot" mad about, 1. What going on in congress, now that they back.. Did anybody know what bills the House Repubs. getting ready to pass? 2. How "BIG MONEY" kidnapping our political system with the help of all big media political stars, (you know who they are)... 3. Why are top star media letting lil mitt get away with lying, dodging, and hiding on his stances? 4. And last but not least, why the media is so eager to show similarity between the two?
Are the people, are going to fall for the $2 Billion snow job, like they did in 2000, 2004, & 2010??? Or did the people actually learn from the past???
Claiming the lgbt community is the weakest link is offensive.. we've financially supported Obama more then any other constituency and I think it's completely fair to ask him to answer a simple yes or no question. You're being completely unreasonable and trying to divert attention away from the true issue... that he won't answer this one question.
America has come a long way in just a few years, to where a solid majority of the public agrees that marriage equality should be recognized. Why is the president still clinging to some ridiculous notion that he can get Republicans to vote for him if he only discriminates against gay Americans? Still, to somehow unfavorably compare the president's record on gay rights to that of Mitt Romney or the Republican Party is absurd. Mitt Romney has now fully capitulated to the most vile and extreme on the right http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Maybe the President actually believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but a civil union is between two parties of either sex. It is a reasonable argument that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business anyway. That is a province of religion, but extending civil rights via civil union is precisely where the government should be. As somebody told me yesterday in this very comment section, just because the President doesn't support my position doesn't mean he is pandering to the right.
America has come a long way on this topic in just a few years. A long way.
Obama knows he won't get Republican votes. The ugly reality is that he has to work to make sure Romney doesn't get Republican votes, either. He doesn't want to give the right wing any base-rousing issues.
You're probably laboring under the delusion that we live in the United States of America, when since 2001 we've lived in Ignorantmother@!$%#erland. Sad but true.
Priebus actually has kind of a point. Apart from dinging Obama for supposedly having the same position as Romney (as if it's OK for Romney but not for Obama) and the differences that do exist between Obama and Romney, refusing to take a clear stand does muddle the distinctions between Democrats and Republicans, Obama and Romney. There needs to be a clear distinction. There needs to be a clear reason for people to vote for one party or the other. Democrats are not doing themselves any favors when they positions themselves as a milder version of Republicans.
So none of the policy mentioned there makes a difference? Supporting DOMA vs not supporting it doesn't matter? The idea that because neither one has come out and said "I support marriage equality" that there's no difference or that it makes the democrats 'milder versions' of Republicans is just ludicrous. I would love to see Obama come out for equality, but the fact is that he is miles apart from the GOP position.
Priebus should have qualified his statement by referring to "One of Candidate Romney's constantly shifting positions..."
BO is afraid of giving the right the same ammo that the left will use against Romney. To telegraph that his position is evolving is cynical. So it will evolve after the election? I would have much more respect for him as a man if he stated with full clarity that he supports same sex marriage and let the chips fall where they may.
Chris, you could say the same of the President. In the past President Obama has made the statement that he SUPPORTS same sex marriage.
I, like Meddling Monk, agree, there is a point on the marriage. Granted, the differences as Mr. Benen points out are great on related issues but not on their current stance on marriage - both believe marriage is solely between a man and a woman.
I have to make a choice, even though I wish more Democrats were more able to state the equal rights supportive stance without becoming squeamish with political calculations. I am greatly annoyed by that. I am also greatly annoyed by some folks that feel their opinions and beliefs are correct and others are wrong. I think Obama is one that would support same sex marriage, but knows others vehemently oppose it based on being told by religious leaders they must. I think it is both political and respectful. I feel the position of marriage equality is the correct position which will eventually be accepted. We have some religious folks (and non religious folks) accepting all people and in their hearts know how unfair it is to people to exclude them, saying change into someone you are not and then you may marry. Be satisfied with second class status, or change. Wow, pretty awful life for you, because we have been told only churches grant marriages (not so).
Realistically, I do not think President Obama will say "I will take steps to federally legalize same sex marriage and reverse DOMA". One thing is there are the religious Democrats on each side of that issue, along with some non religious ones that society has told it's just icky through many disapproving messages.
There has been amazing progress on this, which is why we have so much backlash. I have to worry about NC anti gay marriage voting. I know a couple who moved from there to Portland and there are so many fundamentalists in NC.
I have a choice (no brainer for me)… Romney, who belongs to LDS and all charitable contributions go to LDS, who was major funding and "mission" was to deny my marriage and others' marriages. Another strike is his pro business and anti worker activities, among his other weasel-like faults.
Ron Paul, who would seem to prefer property rights over civil rights and does not favor womens' choice. He is a Republican, lest we forget.
Barack Obama, who would probably support same sex marriage if it came down to yea or nay in laws, but cannot do it during his campaigning. Yes, President Obama has much more in the favorable column for me. He gave the nod to military action and got bin Laden. He left Iraq, he wants to promote clean, renewable energy, he wants to get economy rolling again (not cut more jobs, like Romney and Republicans). He got regulations on Health Care done, which is better, but not it's not single payer. The assist to keep from foreclosure https://expertloanmodification.org/?c=go This helps many, not just the person with the loan. Neighboring homes benefit with less vacant homes, as well. The SCOTUS nominees, both women. The job loss became job gains. It's pretty clear Wall Street is plugging along, despite the moaning and groaning about taxes.
I have to be honest, I think Obama has accomplished much, given the circumstances and resistance. I think at least one of the candidates I can feel good about voting, although not perfect. I won't be holding my nose, I'll put it that way.
Realistically, Ron Paul is an icon for keeping some Republicans on the Republican rolls, but they are fairly certain his supporters will come to the R camp, but if he's on the ballot, they won't. Let's see come November. It is future building on issues with Ron Paul.
There is absolutely no way I will vote for Romney, nor Paul. The Greens or others I admire and respect, but I no longer vote for them in major offices. The stakes are too high for me to do that.
sorry, I meant to use a different, non commercial link.
http://www.homeloanlearningcenter.com/yourfinances/hamp.htm
Also DADT from Obama
Statement One:
Statement Two (two sentences later):
Your contradiction speaks volumes.
Only to you, I said
I feel the position of marriage equality is the correct position which will eventually be accepted.
I didn't say your beliefs are incorrect, but I can see the Constitution and Bill of Rights would indicate the correct position is equality, and that beliefs are not subject to laws, but actions are.
But, Sandy, someone will have to interpret the Constitution and Bill of Rights as it relates to marriage. If that interpretation is eventually determined by the Supreme Court will you accept it no matter the decision or are you convinced that only your position is the "right" position?
I'm basing my opinion is my opinion and the correct position will be much like SCOTUS weighing in on interracial marriage being prohibited in Virgina v Loving, saying laws banning such marriages are unconstitutional.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=virginia+v+loving&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Substitute race for gender, that is the court interpretation of laws, not my beliefs or your beliefs.
It is you that asserts I am basing my conviction on my beliefs being correct and others' being incorrect.
Beliefs we fairly consistent regarding racial integration, but beliefs are changing. The Constitution and Bill of Rights presents equality is guaranteed. We have found beliefs to chip at that, but the beliefs don't stand up to the documents and many people still do not believe in interracial marriage.
I suppose we have a different SCOTUS, but if it is so, then I will still have my opinion, that laws to exclude some people are unconstitutional.
late edit (beliefs were fairly consistent) been typo-ing a lot lately
Sandy, case well made and articulated.
Thanks for the discussion.
Only if you fail to read what I wrote. I wrote of
and then
Putting it in a different and hopefully more-clear way, the differences between Democrats and Republicans on LGBT issues--which should be shar--are blurred whenever Obama pussyfoots around the question of marriage equality. Putting it even more differently, Obama has built up a brand on LGBT rights but damages that brand by not coming forth clearly one way or the other on this one specific issue.
Also, Democrats have a decades-long thing going of positioning themselves only just barely to the left of Republicans. Whether it's foreign policy, taxation, abortion, or any other issue you can name, Democrats have allowed Republicans to frame the issues, and then position themselves within that frame. Republicans may have now gotten too extreme for that to hold for much longer, but failing to recognize what has been going on right in plain view since the '70s is what is ludicrous.
And if you are in NC, please go vote no on Amendment One today. It is scary that this comes up in 2012.
And if you are in WI. Please go vote for the Democratic candidate of you choice and then remember to vote for the Democratic nominee against Scott Walker.
Yes. Don't lose sight of the fact that the real battleground for issues of gay rights is at the *state level*.
Unless Prop 8 or a DOMA case makes to the Supreme Court and a miracle occurs and Kennedy doesn't vote with the wingnut justices.
Like Ryan so charitably points out, it matters not what the President does, only what he says to pin him with it. Mitt "says" a lot of things but doesn't act. The President isn't really saying much, but instead put his actions where his mouth is. I don't blame him for not taking a cemented stance. The Precious Right will hang him with whatever words he does say.
For us, isn't it better that the President act, rather than be damned by somebody no matter what he says?
It makes zero sense for LGBT donors not to support Obama. Zero. What chance will these efforts have if Romney is elected? Not only will rights not advance, they will almost certainly be stripped away. Obama's record on these points is pretty clear, and actions always speak louder than words.
Gee, the President sure is mean for denying the media a confirming soundbite. However will the LGBT community know where he stands on the issues. They'd have to do something craxy like look at his entire administrative term!
Yes, truly civil rights were advanced the day the President gave a talking point answer at a Press Conference. It sure surpassed the days he stopped defending Doma, or when he signed the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
We can't simultaneously be saying that the Republican War on Women is all about their policies and not their public relations, and then fault the President for standing up for LGBT rights with his policies and only saying "my views are evolving," in dealing with reporters.
The Vice President of the United States just came out strong for LGBT rights people, just take the win.
Just let the President catch a break on something, Imagine how latinos feel with the Dream act floundering, hearing the LGBT community complain about how disappointed they were. "Oh he hasn't come through for you, huh?"
I'm not saying that the LGBT community shouldn't passionately fight for their cause. I would never ask for civil rights advocates to stop charging forward. But seriously, let's not be petty.
Look at the President, now look at his record, now look at the Republican party.
Are you seriously telling me that there isn't a clear distinction on who stands for LGBT rights?
Me being able to marry who I want in not something petty and you should be ashamed of yourself for even implicating such.
I wasn't implying that and you should be ashamed of trying to accuse me of it.
I put out a simple case for why the President deserves the support of the LGBT community in spite of not giving them a nice succinct answer. I even made sure to include a disclaimer explicitly explaining that this was not about the Rights themselves but of the over-exaggeration of the importance of the President making a stronger statement before the election.
One is an issue of policy and freedom, the other is an issue of politics and marketing. If anyone needs explanation of the difference between the two, they should look to the current House of Representatives, they are "the difference between politicking and governing" personified.
Trying to find wiggle room in a thread for yourself to feign grievance when your grievance was specifically addressed in the comment that you are attacking is the very definition of petty.
In short, I'm offended that you're offended. Please refrain from wasting my time.
I find it astonishing that so many people have such an interest in what OTHER people do. And a great deal of them use obscure biblical passages to validate their bigotry.
Good solid hypocrite citizens who take loud vocal stances on someone elses life are deflecting the impact of a strong-handed religion in their own lives.
The LGBT community is a relatively small group of people, easy to target with so few numbers, easy to make into a hot button issue by those who already enjoy the legalities of marriage and have no worries about those liberties being taken from them personally.
Worse, gay marriage is a visible issue in a way that other hot button, abortion, is not. Abortion is mainly a secret hidden sin, a private act which can be done without anyone else knowing, allowing one to still go to church, and still pontificate on abortion evils with a straight face.
That's why we hear tons more about gay marriage than about divorce, which is also in the Bible to a greater degree than homosexuality. The hypocrites steer very wide of the divorce issue, since it would actually affect their personal lives and we can't have that now, can we. That's skin-deep religion for you.
Whiole obviously a big deal for some, same sex marraige is not a high priority issue for most folks, especially since civil unions available provide musch the same result. It's always the economy, ya'll and maintaining a clear focus.
Robert, it does not provide the same equality. Civil unions do not allow for a "spouse" to make medical decisions for their loved one. It does not allow inheritance from a "spouse" in the forms of insurance or IRA's. It does not allow a "spouse" to be allowed in a hospital room of a dying partner in a hospital that has "family members only" policy. Maybe you should understand it before deciding it is not a "High priority" for most people!!
I do indeed understand it as a high priority for the few and not the many. And for the concerns you listed, there are civil remedies like cross adoption, healthcare proxies, and the like, even if burdensome and involving added costs. My point is that the campaign will be focused on the economy; winning on that is a higher priority. Besides, whom would you trust more next December to provide the relief you seek?
Department and drug store lunch counters were not a high priority, but civil rights activists in the '50s & '60s targeted them anyway. Equality is an abstraction, but a sit-in staged at a lunch counter made inequality concrete. And it got up close and breathed in the face of unconscious white privilege.
While there are definite benefits to the married state, a quest for marriage equality is a potent symbol to make the fight about. It's the best encroachment on unthinking hetero privilege there is.
Seems like Obama is afraid of losing the homophobic Black vote. Well, he must decide who he needs most and who contributes most to his campaign. Blacks vote for him because he's black. Gays vote because they (we) expect advances in our rights. If the black vote can't support him because of support for gay marriage - who will they support? Shame on Obama...he must choose between race and rights! For a black man this shouldn't be a difficult choice.
Keep up the pressure, sure, but the choice isn't Obama's, it's yours. Do you vote for a party that jeered a gay member of our armed services on national television, or do you vote for a party that ended DODT and opted to ignore discriminatory laws passed by the Republicans? There have been more advances for gay rights under Obama than under any sitting president.
So you will vote for Romney who you obviously believe does not pander to one side then another? That is the political system.
Do not digest what a politician says, understand his beliefs in what he does. He has passed 75 favorable LGBT acts since his presidency started. That is 75 in 3 years.
Then see what Romney has done in any measure. If he will fire an openly gay man in his group, a man who held a very important position, one that they probably took a long time to fill, just on the word of some religious radio guy, what do you think he will do for the LGBT community when they speak out next time?
Priebus is proposing banning bi-planes from airshows since they are obviously anti-family.
And all those distinctions between Rmoney and Obama Steve mentioned on the issue will go unnoticed.
Meanwhile, gay-lesbian-etc. groups knows who's on their side and should clearly be insightful enough to understand that if Obama is re-elected they'll get what they want but are willing, just like the Nader fools in 2000 FL, to give the election to Romney and take the ENTIRE country back to the Gilded Age. Here's the truth LGBT: the Dems are calculating whether opening coming out for what you want costs them net votes. Here's what you SHOULD want: that the Dems calculate correctly and take that stance. If the Dems win, you win.
Sometimes I just can't figure out which bunch of selfish @!$%#s to dislike more.
Agree disgusted. Frankly, I think Dems are gonna piss this election away and then wonder what happened as rights get stripped daily. I'm confused as to what the argument against Obama is here. He's systematically taking down barriers LGBT folks faced just living their lives, but it's still not enough. It's unbelievable to me that any group targeted by the Rethugs could talk about withholding support from the President with a straight face (no pun intended). I get that marriage equality is a big deal for many, but it's just one of a host of issues that the Prez is facing. He needs to be reelected, or the rest of it won't matter a bit. Withholding support? Ridiculous and stupid, stupid, stupid...
As a gay man, I have to agree with the two of you (Obama4thewin and Disgusted). Withholding support and criticizing to the extent that we are doing at this point before the election is cuckoo for cocoa puffs! He has made good on as much as he possible could...
". . . if Obama is re-elected they'll get what they want . . ."
Even if they do not get what they want, they won't be hunted down and burned at the stake, which is pretty much what would happen with a Republican president.
Walking off in a snit, whether by LGBT, progressives or minorities, is a stupid action. If a re-elected President Obama did nothing but go on vacation for four years, he would still be a better choice than Romney. The only thing a Republican president can do is damage.
I just love being talked to like a confused child whenever this issue comes up. Please, straight, cis people, do it some more.
NO ONE is talking to you like a 'child'...what they are telling you is the political realities. The President has been pushing for same sex marriage but PERSONALLY he won't say HE believes in it. You are incredible. I'm sorry your feelings are hurt. You will get what you want...eventually. What you will NOT get is that the President agrees with every single thing you want him to say and do. You are not the ONLY person or group or whoever you're representing in this discrimination fight. AND we are all fighting every single day.
Do you really think the lgbt people who read and comment here every day need condescending lectures about "political realities?" Oh my god, Obama won't say the magic words! GUESS I'LL BE VOTING FOR ROMNEY THEN.
Really? Really? How @!$%#ing stupid do you think we are?
Shove off.
I'll tell you who's stupid: it's everyone who claims that all those pushing Obama to 'come out' one way or the other are threatening his reelection, or that criticizing him on this subject is the same as refusing to vote for him.
It's not one or the other. We can be critical and still vote for him. We can be activist and drive enthusiasm up. It's all a sign of powerful engagement, dummies, not disengagement. Frankly, as far as I can tell, the only people who are saying the reverse are simply those who are personally queasy on the subject of LGBT rights, or at least the promotion of same.
And thank you, Mech, for being the first to point out what's so freaking insane about this 'debate'.
Right on, Monk.
Playing devil's advocate: Since when is it unthinkable for the Vice President to have a different opinion from the President's? As I recall, Bush and Cheney differed on this issue (not for/against, but Bush called for a constitutional amendment and Cheney said the states should decide). I would think it's kind of refreshing to have a variety of views in the Administration. Of course the Obama folks blew that with their breathless insistence that there was "nothing to see here."
Not only that but someone actually saying what they feel and that is reported as a gaffe! That Joe Biden said what he thought and it's a cover up. Please. We dont TRUST the government because they are percieved as dishonest, then you get a guy who is honest and its a big issue.
I would tell people to raise up and support Biden and make anyone who tries to make him look bad, embarass them. Regardless if you agree with him or not support him for saying what he really feels. We need more of that and if we voted for who we thought was honest, this stuff would change.
For people that are still evolving in their views... this is my take on it, while it is Maryland-centric, it applies across the country:
http://pooniethegreat.blogspot.com/2012/03/fight-for-equality-continues.html
It's obvious he's waiting until after the election to come out in support of gay marriage, and I think he will.
If gays want to vote for Republicans instead of Obama and the Democrats, they're free to.
Otherwise I think some patience would be prudent.
If gays vote Republican this year, they will have no sympathy from me when they are chased down with dogs and imprisoned for 'sodomy'.
Sorry. I am angry and frightened, and so my words are not as polite as they should be. Still, I stand by the sentiment. None of us is getting what they want, in terms of Progress or Restoration. Even so, it is time to close ranks. Otherwise things will become even uglier.
I agree. There is NO comparison. But the Romney camp will try desperately to make one (they are even claiming credit for the auto bailout now, which is obviously absurd). And many people will believe it. All the more reason for Obama to complete the "evolution" of his position on the subject.
I get so tired of this. Obama is NOT worried about the Republican vote. He is worried about the INDEPENDENT vote. I don't get it. The President has said that he believes in same sex marriages LEGALLY. He has proved over and over again that he supports the LGBT community. And yes, he DOES believe you should be able to make medical decisions about your loved ones. This is a 'my way or the highway' moment for the ' "leading gay and progressive donors". Trust me, as a woman, I have put up with this garbage for years. But instead of voting against my interests by staying home or voting for the other party, I have voted, fought, and gone on. There are some people who believe that 'marriage' is between a man and a woman. Fine. Rather than shove beliefs down their throats, you make an argument that LEGALLY you want all the same rights as other US citizens and let their beliefs go to the religious realm. And oh yes, Priebus is a snarky little btard that NOBODY should ever listen to. He's slimey.
Uh huh, I am not usually so feisty, but the name Reince Prebus just sounds like elitist silver spoon name.
I implore LGBT folks (I am one of you) to keep plugging away, with demands for equality, but the president is the only option we have, given the DADT and SCOTUS. Giving your vote to this President is a win, for the man truly wants your/our rights to be equal.
The right believes they can rally the troops even more if they can get the President to say what they want him to say. It's debatable if they can with that, but the kitchen sink is in their ammo bunkers.
You're my hero. Fight on!
Chairman Reince Priebus violated RNC Rule 11 when he declared Romney the "presumptive nominee" and shattered it entirely when he said, "It's beyond an endorsement. It is a complete merger wherein the RNC is putting all of its resources and energy behind Mitt Romney to be the next president of the United States."
If the RNC does not abide by ITS OWN RULES regarding nominee selection, in what way is this election not a complete farce? We've all seen the anti-Paul bias first hand, but now to disobey their own rules? By the CHAIRMAN? If Paul "has no chance", what do they fear? If Romney IS "presumptive" why hasn't HE spoken up about this disgraceful breach of rules, which at best will hand him a nomination that is completely dishonest and subject him to ridicule by the Democrats?
Register YOUR protest using the Change.org petition at http://tinyurl.com/RNCRule11
If anyone thinks that this 'slip' by Biden, who actually made a very full discussion of his ideas on the issue, wasn't purposeful, they are naive. With Arne Duncan seconding him the next day, does anyone seriously believe that this was not orchestrated by Obama, just to get the GOP all hot and bothered? And to show his administration has clearly been on the side of gays?
Obama is afraid of opposition from conservative black churchgoers. They might choose to stay home, rather than vote, if he endorsed marriage for same-sex couples.
Agreed that is BO's fear. It's why Prop 8 passed in overwhelmingly liberal CA. BO turned out the black church going vote who also voted for Prop 8. I don't believe that the black vote will vote against their boy because of a full throated support of same sex marriage. He would get mad props from this demo even though they don't agree with him on this one issue. Be a man and say what everyone know what his " evolved" position is.
Nothing has changed in D.C. on either side - do not give a definite answer/position on a topic until you gauge the demographics and polls, not on your true personal beliefs. Anyone that doesn't see that is kidding themselves. It will be amazing how many things will be crystal clear in 2013 if Obama gets re-elected. Funny in a predictable way...
Andrea Mitchell did not "grill" Lance Priebus so well as asserted. She had the opportunity to simply state that it was false to say Romney had the same position on gay marriage when Obama would allow civil unions and other civil benefits and Romney would not. Instead she let Priebus respond with a non-answer of a self-serving statement. A common failure of the "liberal" press. Guests like Priebus, responding to the most salient matters of fact, avoid recognition of same and instead make statements that serve their purpose and not the truth.
Chairman Reince Priebus violated RNC Rule 11 when he declared Romney the "presumptive nominee" and shattered it entirely when he said, "It's beyond an endorsement. It is a complete merger wherein the RNC is putting all of its resources and energy behind Mitt Romney to be the next president of the United States."
If the RNC does not abide by ITS OWN RULES regarding nominee selection, in what way is this election not a complete farce? We've all seen the anti-Paul bias first hand, but now to disobey their own rules? By the CHAIRMAN? If Paul "has no chance", what do they fear? If Romney IS "presumptive" why hasn't HE spoken up about this disgraceful breach of rules, which at best will hand him a nomination that is completely dishonest and subject him to ridicule by the Democrats?
Register YOUR protest using the Change.org petition at http://tinyurl.com/RNCRule11
Priebus stated in an interview from 10 months ago, "If you look at our rules, rule #11 prohibits us from using our resources to pick a candidate in a primary. We could conceivably do it, but it’s difficult under the rules. As chairman of the party, I don’t want to get involved in primaries".
In other words, he KNEW it was wrong and did it ANYWAY. Why might that be? Isn't Romney the steamroller who will crush all competition? REALLY think about it - why was this necessary? Why would the Chairman of the GOP PERSONALLY take the risk of ending his own career to stop someone he claims has no chance?
Members of the LGBT community need to listen to Van Jones. His statement about not voting for Obama (or just not voting) because there hasn't been enough progress on their favorite issues is important in 2012. To paraphrase: It takes years to make political progress on social issues. They can be reversed in just a couple.
Look what has happened in states that gave total control to Republicans in 2010. The GOP is not friendly to the LGBT community, unions, the environment, etc. As a segment of our society, all these special interest groups MUST VOTE FOR OBAMA or look at all the gains that have me achieved over many years being reversed.
Every 4 years people say the current election is the most important in history. I will say it again this year as the GOP has shown they are too extreme to govern. Traditionally, the President and Congress have governed from the center. As the center keeps moving right, the GOP wants the shift to move faster.
The only way to slow the conservative movement is for moderates, liberals and progressives to vote in every election cycle.