Axelrod: Obama’s Lack Of Support For Gay Marriage In 2008 Was Political ‘Bullsh*tting
- Thread starter Busybody
- Start date
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Obama 2008: As a Christian, I believe marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman http://hotair.com/?p=3270496
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
President Obama lied about gay marriage. This is why we’re cynical.
By Aaron Blake February 10 at 12:14 PM
David Axelrod's admission that President Obama lied about his support for gay marriage in 2008 is, on one level, wholly unsurprising. Some are even giving Obama credit for at least having the decency to "lie badly" when he said in 2008 (and beyond) that he still opposed it.
Here's Jonathan Chait:
There are a number of surrounding considerations that mitigate, but don’t fully excuse, what we can now plainly call a “lie.” One is that Obama had no direct decision-making authority on the issue — which is to say, lying about his stance on a mostly abstract policy issue is not the same as lying about whether he'd sign a health-care bill. Another is that Obama had the decency to lie badly.
Indeed, you'd be hard-pressed to find a reporter or pundit who wasn't pretty sure that Obama supported gay marriage prior to when he publicly acknowledged it in 2012 — which is why the reaction to Axelrod's revelation has been somewhat muted. We all just assumed he was lying, basically.
But at its core, this is a pretty striking bit of news: An American president's top adviser admitting that the president deliberately lied to the public about his true position on an issue of significant currency.
Sometimes people give the political press a hard time about over-analyzing the politics of a given decision or attributing whatever a politician does to the political winds of the day. This is The Fix's stock and trade. And, for what it's worth, we don't doubt that there are some members of Congress who simply don't care about the consequences of their votes and positions and do what they feel.
But the best politicians are acutely aware at all times of what they are doing and how it could possibly be perceived. They know every word they utter could alienate a key constituency or might be seen as taking a position that doesn't need to be taken quite yet.
If anybody still had any doubts that Obama is that kind of politician, they should be all but erased. As Hunter Schwarz notes today, his "evolution" on gay marriage just so happened to coincide with when it became more popular than unpopular with Americans.
But he's hardly the only one. Pretty much the entire Democratic caucus in the Senate just happened to evolve on this issue in a matter of months. Fourteen of them came out in support of gay marriage in a span of 22 days (!). This is not a coincidence. This is sticking fingers in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing. This is nobody wanting to stick their necks out before everyone else does — even on an issue that had been trending in a very clear direction for a decade.
Which is basically what Obama's decision to obscure his support for gay marriage represents. He probably could have just said he supported gay marriage in 2009 or 2010 (and maybe even 2008) and been just fine. But why take the chance when he didn't have to?
Of course, it's one thing for a group of Democratic senators to cling to political expediency; it's another for the "hope and change" president to be revealed as so calculating. Obama promised a new kind of politics and transparency, but his administration has struggled mightily to fulfill those promises.
Which makes it pretty easy to understand why we — and the American people — are so cynical about our politics and our politicians.
By Aaron Blake February 10 at 12:14 PM
David Axelrod's admission that President Obama lied about his support for gay marriage in 2008 is, on one level, wholly unsurprising. Some are even giving Obama credit for at least having the decency to "lie badly" when he said in 2008 (and beyond) that he still opposed it.
Here's Jonathan Chait:
There are a number of surrounding considerations that mitigate, but don’t fully excuse, what we can now plainly call a “lie.” One is that Obama had no direct decision-making authority on the issue — which is to say, lying about his stance on a mostly abstract policy issue is not the same as lying about whether he'd sign a health-care bill. Another is that Obama had the decency to lie badly.
Indeed, you'd be hard-pressed to find a reporter or pundit who wasn't pretty sure that Obama supported gay marriage prior to when he publicly acknowledged it in 2012 — which is why the reaction to Axelrod's revelation has been somewhat muted. We all just assumed he was lying, basically.
But at its core, this is a pretty striking bit of news: An American president's top adviser admitting that the president deliberately lied to the public about his true position on an issue of significant currency.
Sometimes people give the political press a hard time about over-analyzing the politics of a given decision or attributing whatever a politician does to the political winds of the day. This is The Fix's stock and trade. And, for what it's worth, we don't doubt that there are some members of Congress who simply don't care about the consequences of their votes and positions and do what they feel.
But the best politicians are acutely aware at all times of what they are doing and how it could possibly be perceived. They know every word they utter could alienate a key constituency or might be seen as taking a position that doesn't need to be taken quite yet.
If anybody still had any doubts that Obama is that kind of politician, they should be all but erased. As Hunter Schwarz notes today, his "evolution" on gay marriage just so happened to coincide with when it became more popular than unpopular with Americans.
But he's hardly the only one. Pretty much the entire Democratic caucus in the Senate just happened to evolve on this issue in a matter of months. Fourteen of them came out in support of gay marriage in a span of 22 days (!). This is not a coincidence. This is sticking fingers in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing. This is nobody wanting to stick their necks out before everyone else does — even on an issue that had been trending in a very clear direction for a decade.
Which is basically what Obama's decision to obscure his support for gay marriage represents. He probably could have just said he supported gay marriage in 2009 or 2010 (and maybe even 2008) and been just fine. But why take the chance when he didn't have to?
Of course, it's one thing for a group of Democratic senators to cling to political expediency; it's another for the "hope and change" president to be revealed as so calculating. Obama promised a new kind of politics and transparency, but his administration has struggled mightily to fulfill those promises.
Which makes it pretty easy to understand why we — and the American people — are so cynical about our politics and our politicians.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
M
miles
Guest
The man is a proven pathological liar. Liberals don't have the balls to admit it.
M
miles
Guest
...counting the time until someone mentions Bush.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
Liberal deceit is SOP. Only fools and naïfs are honest.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Obama Didn’t Just Lie about Opposing Gay Marriage; He Kept Citing His Faith While Doing It
President Obama’s change of position on the issue of same-sex marriage wasn’t quite the “evolution” he made it out to be, according to longtime aide David Axelrod. In his new book, Believer: My Forty Years in Politics, Axelrod, who has been with the president since his first run for the White House, confirms that Obama “misled Americans for his own political benefit when he claimed in the 2008 election to oppose same sex marriage for religious reasons.” Axelrod recalls that Obama expressed discomfort with his position, admitting privately that he was “not very good at bullshitting” just after an interview in which he’d reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage.
Obama’s use of faith to explain his opposition to same-sex marriage dates back to his bid for Illinois’s Senate seat in 2004. The New York Times notes that Obama began to cite religion as the reason for his position on the issue during his race against Republican Alan Keyes, suggesting that it was part of an effort to court black voters who generally opposed the redefinition of marriage. During a debate with Keyes, when pushed to explain his position on the matter, Obama emphasized his faith.
“What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman when they get married are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting,” he said. He went on to praise then-president George W. Bush for his “healthy” reversal in supporting civil unions, a position candidate Obama agreed with.
Elsewhere on the Senate campaign trail, Obama echoed that position, saying he opposed same-sex marriage but not civil unions. “The term ‘marriage’ itself has strong religious roots and a strong tradition that means something special to people in this country,” he told reporters.
As Axelrod notes, Obama maintained that position during his 2008 presidential run. During a 2007 primary debate focused on LGBT issues, and hosted by the Human Rights Campaign and Logo, the president encouraged gay-rights supporters to disentangle “marriage” from their efforts, and instead focus on civil unions, because the former has “religious connotations.”
After securing the nomination, in a 2008 interview with pastor Rick Warren, Obama said he would oppose a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage because he felt it was an issue for the states to decide, but that his own feelings on the matter hadn’t changed.
“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman,” he told Warren to applause from the audience. “For me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union — God is in the mix.”
Throughout most of his first term as president, Obama continued to state his opposition to same-sex marriage, although he mentioned that he was “evolving” on the issue beginning in 2010. In 2012, in the midst of a tough reelection fight and six months out from Election Day, the president’s supposed “evolution” was completed, and he finally voiced his support for same-sex marriage. According to Axelrod though, his mind had been made up long before then.
President Obama’s change of position on the issue of same-sex marriage wasn’t quite the “evolution” he made it out to be, according to longtime aide David Axelrod. In his new book, Believer: My Forty Years in Politics, Axelrod, who has been with the president since his first run for the White House, confirms that Obama “misled Americans for his own political benefit when he claimed in the 2008 election to oppose same sex marriage for religious reasons.” Axelrod recalls that Obama expressed discomfort with his position, admitting privately that he was “not very good at bullshitting” just after an interview in which he’d reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage.
Obama’s use of faith to explain his opposition to same-sex marriage dates back to his bid for Illinois’s Senate seat in 2004. The New York Times notes that Obama began to cite religion as the reason for his position on the issue during his race against Republican Alan Keyes, suggesting that it was part of an effort to court black voters who generally opposed the redefinition of marriage. During a debate with Keyes, when pushed to explain his position on the matter, Obama emphasized his faith.
“What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman when they get married are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting,” he said. He went on to praise then-president George W. Bush for his “healthy” reversal in supporting civil unions, a position candidate Obama agreed with.
Elsewhere on the Senate campaign trail, Obama echoed that position, saying he opposed same-sex marriage but not civil unions. “The term ‘marriage’ itself has strong religious roots and a strong tradition that means something special to people in this country,” he told reporters.
As Axelrod notes, Obama maintained that position during his 2008 presidential run. During a 2007 primary debate focused on LGBT issues, and hosted by the Human Rights Campaign and Logo, the president encouraged gay-rights supporters to disentangle “marriage” from their efforts, and instead focus on civil unions, because the former has “religious connotations.”
After securing the nomination, in a 2008 interview with pastor Rick Warren, Obama said he would oppose a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage because he felt it was an issue for the states to decide, but that his own feelings on the matter hadn’t changed.
“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman,” he told Warren to applause from the audience. “For me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union — God is in the mix.”
Throughout most of his first term as president, Obama continued to state his opposition to same-sex marriage, although he mentioned that he was “evolving” on the issue beginning in 2010. In 2012, in the midst of a tough reelection fight and six months out from Election Day, the president’s supposed “evolution” was completed, and he finally voiced his support for same-sex marriage. According to Axelrod though, his mind had been made up long before then.
badbabysitter
Vault Girl
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Posts
- 19,179
forutnately there were men like you that have always had the integrity to want to deny two consenting adults the ability to make their own decisions
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
what NIGGER idea could you have possibly have had to think THIS was a proper response to the topic at hand...other then NIGGERS are all dumb ass apes and camt think for themselves
good thing you cant feel shame, cause a PERSON would be ashamed to have this written, NIGGERS on the other hand, write/say/do NIGGER SHIT
badbabysitter
Vault Girl
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Posts
- 19,179
and yet, you wonder why everyone thinks the GOP is full of bitter old racists
badbabysitter
Vault Girl
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Posts
- 19,179
and not the people who say " nigger" , right?
badbabysitter
Vault Girl
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Posts
- 19,179
lots of people have issues with the use of the n-bomb in music.. lots of people think it's just a way of appropriating the word for themselves from those that use it describe those outside themselves
you on the other hand... can't appropriate the word.. because as an old white man, it is never used to describe you
you use it, because you're a racist
badbabysitter
Vault Girl
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Posts
- 19,179
because no one gives a shit about how someone's opinion has changed
your opinion on the other hand about same sex marriage hasnt changed
you're opposed to two consenting adults doing something other consenting adults do
badbabysitter
Vault Girl
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Posts
- 19,179
so... what is your point exactly?
that a guy lied about opposing something you also oppose.. and how in the end he publicly supported it.. while you still publicly oppose it?
badbabysitter
Vault Girl
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Posts
- 19,179
because you're an old bitter racist who cant stand that gay people are allowed to love each other
U
