Log Cabin Republicans Trash Obama's decision to support gay marriage

[TriPolar]

Psst! Whack

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Not sure what you think the President can do but he cannot tell the US Attorney to ignore the law.

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Holder has to enforce the laws of the US but his marching orders will certainly come from the President.

[elucidator]

I take it you are pointing out some glaring contradiction?

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by elucidator

I take it you are pointing out some glaring contradiction?

I think it's what mister nyx was on about.

[elucidator]

Well, there was that one time when Archibald Cox told Nixon where to stick it.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Perhaps misty and Whacky would like to continue their conversation in one of our private champagne rooms.

[Buck Godot]

Originally Posted by FuriousGeorge

...and the people here at the Dope would be bitching about flip flopping and political motivations. Partisan politics in the 21st century, I'm stunned. You must be new to the US. Welcome.

Actually if Romney came out in favor of gay marriage I would first fall out of my seat and stunned surprise, and then comment how amazing it was that he actually took a stand I agreed in for once, giving him full credit. I would still think he is a weasel who should not be anywhere near the presidency, but I would admire his courage in that instance.

[fumster]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

So for both of these he made a gutsy decision at the right time? That was your point, right?

The easy way to go after OBL was to launch a cruise missile. No US soldiers would have been at risk, but we would never be sure he was really dead. Instead, Obama sent in the Seals who shot OBL in the head and took pictures of his body.

The easy way on DADT was to let the courts decide it, but instead Obama pursued a legislative solution and slowly got the military brass itself on-board. Now DADT is truly dead; it's been shot between the eyes and it's not coming back.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

Actually if Romney came out in favor of gay marriage I would first fall out of my seat and stunned surprise, and then comment how amazing it was that he actually took a stand I agreed in for once, giving him full credit. I would still think he is a weasel who should not be anywhere near the presidency, but I would admire his courage in that instance.

If I were you I'd admire it quickly, because a "clarification" completely negating his original remarks would surely follow with lightning speed.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

See the cite in post #6 and tell me how that works.

The law that removed DADT required the military to provide an analysis of the way that they would implement the removal and a timeline for them to follow. Had the administration openly supported igoring the statutory timetable established, there was the real possibility of lawsuits that would have delayed the implementation, further. Beyond that, DADT was not repealed with any overwhelming number of votes, so a legislative reversal was not out of the question if those congresscritters who were taking heat for their votes were suddenly faced with claims that the administration was subverting the law as written.

Obama simply told the Justice department to ensure that all the "t"s were crossed and "i"s dotted to prevent any backlash or upset. He did nothing to prevent the law from being enacted. His orders did nothing to delay the implementation date that had been set forth by law. The various commentators getting in a huff that he "delayed" the implementation are factually wrong and politically stupid.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

They're gay? I thought it was just a group of Republicans who liked getting naked and smearing each other with maple syrup.

We all do that. Doesn't mean we're gay.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Bricker

We all do that. Doesn't mean we're gay.

You've actually been to the Bohemian Grove? I'm impressed.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

You've actually been to the Bohemian Grove? I'm impressed.

He's acted Bohemian in a grove. Apparently, they all do that.

[Hamlet]

Originally Posted by John Mace

He's acted Bohemian in a grove. Apparently, they all do that.

I've grooved to Bohemian Rhapsody. What does that make me?

[Jack Batty]

Mike Myers?

[Enginerd]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

I've grooved to Bohemian Rhapsody. What does that make me?

About my age.

[Blaster Master]

Originally Posted by DianaG

Meh, they hate themselves more than anyone. Nothing but pity for those poor self-loathing souls.

I don't really understand why whenever Log Cabin Republicans come up, there always seems to be sentiment that they hate themselves or something because they're Republican. I don't really have a dog in this fight since I'm neither gay nor Republican (or Democrat for that matter) and I do support marriage equality, but it seems to me that it's possible that someone could be gay and they just aren't single issue voters on gay rights. I have met at least a few long term gay couples who just didn't really care all that much about the issue.

That said, negative comments toward Obama on this are misguided. I do tend to believe that his intial comments against gay marriage were probably for political reasons, since he supported it before he was running for national office, and that he probably felt his hand was forced a bit here where he probably would have preferred to wait until after the election to bring it up. But still, even if he wasn't a fan of the timing, Obama did repeal DADT and did publically express his support even if it was after the North Carolina vote. I also seriously doubt that Obama expressing his support would have made any real impact on that vote either and that the timing is more incidental. It seems to me like it's just the Log Cabin Republicans doing damage control for their own group for fear that some of their own members may be swayed to vote for Obama in November because of this announcement and Romney's vocal opposition.

[Darth Panda]

I know a bunch of gay Republicans. It confuses the hell out of me.

[markdash]

Why did they feel the need to bring up Cheney? Apparently they're trying to make Obama seem antiquated on this issue, but Cheney is one of the few republicans who's actually in favor of gay marriage, and his position is almost certainly tied to the fact that his daughter is gay. The other 99% of Republicans who aren't in favor of gay marriage seem more relevant for comparison, especially since Cheney isn't currently serving in elected office.

I guess these bunch of self-loathers would rather take cheap shots at the president than spend more time advocating for change within their own goddamn party. FFS.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

So for both of these he made a gutsy decision at the right time? That was your point, right?

This desire to build up Obama as a hand of guts and decision makes me chuckle.

As far as OBL, he deserves a pat on the back sure. But, really, the credit goes to the men and women who figured out where he was, devised a plan, and executed it. As President, they needed his approval. He signed off on it. Does anyone really think that there is another member of congress or who wouldn't have given the same approval? Please. He did the right thing. I'm glad he did and he should be proud of it. But, come on!

As far as this latest profile in courage, he was FORCED to act by Biden's big mouth. He and Axelrod must have been fuming mad. The fact is that he always was in favor of SSM, he just knew that the smart political thing to do was to lie about it.

My point is that even if you think he made the right call on OBL and SSM, trying to paint either as some amazingly courageous thing is laughable.

[Eve]

Originally Posted by Blaster Master

I don't really understand why whenever Log Cabin Republicans come up, there always seems to be sentiment that they hate themselves or something because they're Republican. I don't really have a dog in this fight since I'm neither gay nor Republican (or Democrat for that matter) and I do support marriage equality, but it seems to me that it's possible that someone could be gay and they just aren't single issue voters on gay rights. I have met at least a few long term gay couples who just didn't really care all that much about the issue.

And there were actually Jews who supported the Nazi party, because it wasn't just about Jews, it also got Germany back on its feet economically and employment-wise, and made it a strong, respected nation again.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Eve

And there were actually Jews who supported the Nazi party, because it wasn't just about Jews, it also got Germany back on its feet economically and employment-wise, and made it a strong, respected nation again.

Und zee autobahn. Don't forget zee autobahn!

[YogSosoth]

Fuck the Log Cabin Republicans. Enjoy your second-class citizenship while it lasts because somebody, unlike you people, is doing something to change that. You'd think being constantly barred or ignored by your own party would wake you up but apparently some people would rather live in chains than stand up for themselves.

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by magellan01

As far as OBL, he deserves a pat on the back sure. But, really, the credit goes to the men and women who figured out where he was, devised a plan, and executed it. As President, they needed his approval. He signed off on it. Does anyone really think that there is another member of congress or who wouldn't have given the same approval? Please. He did the right thing. I'm glad he did and he should be proud of it. But, come on!

Considering that several of his advisors in the same room at the same time disagreed, and Donald Rumsfeld had a similar opportunity several years before but chose not too, and Jimmy Carter had to make a similar decision that ended in terrible failure (and huge political cost), I think it's very likely that many serving senators and representatives would not have made the same decision. Easy decision? When they're not even sure that OBL was there? And a failure, with loss of American life, would almost certainly result in political defeat? I think that was a pretty tough, gutsy call.

As far as this latest profile in courage, he was FORCED to act by Biden's big mouth. He and Axelrod must have been fuming mad.

Says you. It's equally likely that Arne Duncan's statement of support for SSM as well as Biden's were "trial runs", to see what the reaction would be.

[Kimballkid]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Und zee autobahn. Don't forget zee autobahn!

Nobody expects the autobahn!!

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by magellan01

As far as OBL, he deserves a pat on the back sure. But, really, the credit goes to the men and women who figured out where he was, devised a plan, and executed it. As President, they needed his approval. He signed off on it. Does anyone really think that there is another member of congress or who wouldn't have given the same approval? Please. He did the right thing. I'm glad he did and he should be proud of it. But, come on!

The power of hindsight is an incredible thing, isn't it?

[elucidator]

Been another day. Still no long form death certificate for OBL.

[fumster]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Does anyone really think that there is another member of congress or who wouldn't have given the same approval?

Well, unless he was lying, Romney said he would not. In response to Obama saying:

If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Romney said:

“I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours… I don’t think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort”

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

That said I would agree that Obama's announcement, while welcome, is politically timed (which makes it calculating) and Obama has been underwhelming in his advocacy for gay rights (witness his heel dragging on DADT).

Late to the party is better than never but neither do I think Obama deserves hearty "atta boys" either. A polite thanks and then move on.

As it was put to me earlier in the day today:

Obama takes a principled stand in favor of gay marriage? Yay for Obama.

Obama comes out in favor of gay marriage because his pollsters say it's a political winner? Yay for America.

I'm not happy it was so long in coming but either way I'll take it as a win.

[elucidator]

I think the Republicans deserve some back-of-the-hand credit here. Years back, when they decided that gay marriage was their ticket to ride, the pressed to have gay marriage stuff on every state ballot they could get it on. As part and parcel, they flooded the inntertubes with pictures of gay people getting married, the horror, the horror...

I think it backfired. Because those people looked so normal. Because, well, they are, more or less, aren't they? People looked at the picture and instead of seeing sodomite zombies, they saw ordinary people.

"Hey, one of the frumpy middle aged ladies in this picture doesn't look all that different from Aunt Esther. And that guy there, he looks kinda like Fred from Accounting. Hey, wait, that is Fred from Accounting!"

Once Americans saw gay people as being like them, it was over. I'm pleased, of course, but not being gay, a full-fledged "happy dance" may not be appropriate. And besides, I dance like a white guy.....

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Obama simply told the Justice department to ensure that all the "t"s were crossed and "i"s dotted to prevent any backlash or upset. He did nothing to prevent the law from being enacted. His orders did nothing to delay the implementation date that had been set forth by law. The various commentators getting in a huff that he "delayed" the implementation are factually wrong and politically stupid.

Seems to me the issue was the law was repealed and the government was still going after people for violating DADT while the timeline progressed. Then a court tells the government it has to stop doing that and the Obama administration fought that order.

It would be akin to the US saying slavery is no longer legal and will be abolished but we will wait till the slave states can come up with a plan for doing it. In the meantime any slave who runs away will be punished same as always. Does that make sense to you?

Seems perfectly reasonable for the administration to say it fought the case and lost and so will accept the decision of the court. Why was it necessary for them to continue to fight to impose a policy which had been repealed and was just waiting for its official end-date?

[Miller]

I generally don't have much of a beef with the Log Cabin Republicans. Gay rights are obviously important to me, but they aren't the most important thing. If we lived in a world where, somehow, the Republicans and Dems had all the same policy positions they do in real life, but their positions on gay rights were reversed, I'd probably still vote Democrat. So, I don't mind too much when a queer decides to back the Republican party at the expense of the gay rights movement. At least, nit any more than when a straight person votes Republican.

However, having made the decision to place gay rights at the bottom of the list if their concerns, the Log Cabin has forfited the right to criticize other people on this issue. My view on Obama's declaration isn't that far off from magellan's, and I've got a lot of problems with Obama's history with gay rights, but he's stil done a thousand times more for gay rights than these miserable fucks in the Log Cabin. Criticizing him for this statement, while endorsing Mitt fucking Romney? These assholes need to die in a fire.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by fumster

The easy way to go after OBL was to launch a cruise missile. No US soldiers would have been at risk, but we would never be sure he was really dead. Instead, Obama sent in the Seals who shot OBL in the head and took pictures of his body.

The easy way on DADT was to let the courts decide it, but instead Obama pursued a legislative solution and slowly got the military brass itself on-board. Now DADT is truly dead; it's been shot between the eyes and it's not coming back.

I agree, and thing that Der Trihs is just stretching a point because he does not like Obama (or any politician at all for that matter)

[elucidator]

I think they simply have the cart in front of the horse. The position that sexual orientation has nothing at all to do with conservative/liberal politics is correct and sensible. But they want to pretend that is a present fact, and not something than needs to be realized and achieved.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by fumster

Well, unless he was lying, Romney said he would not. In response to Obama saying:

Romney said:

Thanks fumster; I came in to post this exact exchange.

magellan01, Are you even aware of what Republican leaders SAY IN PUBLIC? The presumptive candidate for the Republicans said he would NOT have made the decision to go after Osama in Pakistan.

And you'll note that I was not Idolizing Obama, nor fawning over him. I said he made a couple of gutsy decisions. That was just too much for you to bear, eh?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by fumster

Well, unless he was lying, Romney said he would not. In response to Obama saying:Romney said:

:roll eyes: Go read his whole statement, and others. This is simply bullshit that you really, really want to be true.

Only one problem: it ain't.

[elucidator]

Well, that certainly settles that!

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by magellan01

:roll eyes: Go read his whole statement, and others. This is simply bullshit that you really, really want to be true.

Only one problem: it ain't.

Please find some statements of Romney's that back up your premise. I'm not going to do your work for you.

[Eve]

Originally Posted by elucidator

And besides, I dance like a white guy.....

Fred Astaire, or Gene Kelly?

[gamerunknown]

There are Christian Marxists too. That said, I doubt they'd criticise Hélder Câmara while urging their party to adopt Leninist views and reject populism.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Eve

Fred Astaire, or Gene Kelly?

More akin to Stephen Hawking. But that's how I roll....

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by DianaG

Meh, they hate themselves more than anyone. Nothing but pity for those poor self-loathing souls.

Indifference. I leave them to the hell of their lown making.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

Actually if Romney came out in favor of gay marriage I would first fall out of my seat and stunned surprise, and then comment how amazing it was that he actually took a stand I agreed in for once, giving him full credit. I would still think he is a weasel who should not be anywhere near the presidency, but I would admire his courage in that instance.

If Romney did come out for it he'd A: say he had always been for it, B: claim that Obama and Biden had only been for it because of him and C: he was actually behind the Stonewall Riots.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

Actually if Romney came out in favor of gay marriage I would first fall out of my seat and stunned surprise, and then comment how amazing it was that he actually took a stand I agreed in for once, giving him full credit. I would still think he is a weasel who should not be anywhere near the presidency, but I would admire his courage in that instance.

I don't believe he ever took a stand in his life, or at least any where he said plainly what he stood for and then stuck with it instead of fipflopping or lying.

Besides, according to the papers (Washington Post etc) he used to enjoy bullying "suspected gays" when in his posh preppy school - and didn't even have big enough balls to do it on his own, he had his "clique" help him.

Plus he's a Mormon. I'm still furious at the utah Mormons for interfering in California issues (Prop 8). So to hell with Romney.

So in short, I agree with your appraisal of him. "Weasel" is too mild a word.

[Sam Lowry]

Originally Posted by Miller

I generally don't have much of a beef with the Log Cabin Republicans. Gay rights are obviously important to me, but they aren't the most important thing. If we lived in a world where, somehow, the Republicans and Dems had all the same policy positions they do in real life, but their positions on gay rights were reversed, I'd probably still vote Democrat. So, I don't mind too much when a queer decides to back the Republican party at the expense of the gay rights movement. At least, nit any more than when a straight person votes Republican.

However, having made the decision to place gay rights at the bottom of the list if their concerns, the Log Cabin has forfited the right to criticize other people on this issue. My view on Obama's declaration isn't that far off from magellan's, and I've got a lot of problems with Obama's history with gay rights, but he's stil done a thousand times more for gay rights than these miserable fucks in the Log Cabin. Criticizing him for this statement, while endorsing Mitt fucking Romney? These assholes need to die in a fire.

Right. Words are important and it's great that Obama said he supports gay marriage. But even more important are actions, and Obama has done a fair amount for gay rights. I posted this article in the thread in Elections, but it seems good to post here as well. It's a good summary of what Obama has done in regards to gay rights.

[Li'l Pluck]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

I can't believe this controversy. Politics is not like ordering from the takeout window at McDonalds. Obama had faced a ridiculously obstructionist congress, coming from the opposition and his own party, and he has worked step by step to effect changes in the face of staunch opposition. He has come up short a few times, but you just have to ask yourself one question:

"Will this get better when Mitt Romney is President?"

This election is a dead heat, and there aren't any signs that people will come out to support Obama the way they did in 2008, and plenty of signs that people will come out to oppose him like they didn't in 2008. So if you want something to complain about, keep complaining, and President Romney will give you something to complain about (emphasis mine).

This. Absolutely this.

Originally Posted by tomndebb

The various commentators getting in a huff that he "delayed" the implementation are factually wrong and politically stupid.

And this, too.

Honestly, Obama has pissed me off a few times, too (which I knew he would do when I voted for him), but I do wish that my fellow queens would grow the fuck up, stop being so pissy, try to grasp the political realities that the man has been dealing with, and just shut the fuck up and work to get him re-elected. He's done more for gay rights than any other president, and they still can't give him credit? Damn.

[elucidator]

Seems to me that the pace of this change has caught a lot of people off guard. Its very interesting when that happens. Remember when we were first encouraged to adopt "Ms." as the female equivalent to "Mr."? Compared to changes in racial attitudes, to take a grim example, the speed of our shift in attitudes towards teh gay is astonishing.

Maybe as progressives, we are so inured to the glacial and vexing pace of positive change, we get perplexed when good things happen more quickly that we expect. We are suited up for a three-hundred inning game, that's what we are ready for, the long hard slog. One minute, you're straining to pull the stubborn mule forward, the next minute you're hanging onto the rope for dear life, scraping along the road. Which is really a drag.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Miller

Criticizing him for this statement, while endorsing Mitt fucking Romney? These assholes need to die in a fire.

Have the Log Cabin Republicans endorsed Mitt Romney yet? I don't think they have. They've made statements in the primary that he was one of the more gay-friendly candidates, but I don't think there's been an actual endorsement, and in fact, they just criticized him today for coming out against gay marriage and civil unions:

“Governor Mitt Romney’s statement in opposition to not just marriage but civil unions jeopardizes his ability to win moderates, women and younger voters, especially as a large majority of Americans favor some form of relationship recognition for their LGBT friends and neighbors. Ultimately, the response of the Republican candidates this election cycle will determine not just endorsements by Log Cabin Republicans, but the votes of millions of Americans who are simply tired of the culture wars.”

[Enlightening Meditation]

If I remember correctly.....

I thought that Obama campaigned on DADT repeal, ordered the top military brass to conduct a study about repeal consequences (national security, soldiers' input, outline a transition plan, etc) after assuming office, asked the DoJ/courts/whoever to let the legislative process take care of repeal after the military study was finished (the military brass did not want sudden intervention by federal courts), the Republicans and a few Dems filibustered the next defense spending bill that included a DADT repeal amendment (before the military study report had been released, but after the House version of the defense bill passed), then The Senate finally voted to repeal DADT in a smaller bill separate from the main defense spending bill (House did too) during the lame duck session 2010 soon after the military released a report with results of its study of repeal. And that study took a long time...over a year I think. After all that, Obama was finally able to sign the repeal bill. What else could he have done to speed up the process?

I don't think that the Log Cabin Pubs 'trash'ed Obama's sudden explicit support for gay marriage. Rather, they were ridiculing him for previously straddling the middle...support for civil unions, but not gay/lesbian marriage....to try and please as many voters as possible. They think he should have supported G/L marriage a long time ago. Naturally, I agree that their reaction to a Romney flop in favor of G/L marriage would spawn a favorable reaction from LCRs.

I support equal contractual rights among couples of all varieties involving whether you call them marriages, gayrriages, or lerriages. As a straight libertarian leaning independent, I am always happy when the right wing gets outraged.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by magellan01

This desire to build up Obama as a hand of guts and decision makes me chuckle.

As far as OBL, he deserves a pat on the back sure. But, really, the credit goes to the men and women who figured out where he was, devised a plan, and executed it. As President, they needed his approval. He signed off on it. Does anyone really think that there is another member of congress or who wouldn't have given the same approval? Please. He did the right thing. I'm glad he did and he should be proud of it. But, come on!

As far as this latest profile in courage, he was FORCED to act by Biden's big mouth. He and Axelrod must have been fuming mad. The fact is that he always was in favor of SSM, he just knew that the smart political thing to do was to lie about it.

My point is that even if you think he made the right call on OBL and SSM, trying to paint either as some amazingly courageous thing is laughable.

The funny thing is how if you read any of the accounts of the tough decision, the one that the GOP failed to make, you have to force yourself to believe the precise opposite of reality in order to convince yourself that the argument you're making here is true. Because there is so much evidence that it was, in fact, a tough decision that required real guts to make (as well as, of course, the previous leadership that made it possible at all.)

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Please find some statements of Romney's that back up your premise. I'm not going to do your work for you.

So, it's my job to make sure that you understand what is going on before you form an opinion? Interesting. Oh, what the hell:

In August 2007, Obama was under fire from then-candidates Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Joe Biden for stating plainly that he would act unilaterally to get bin Laden if he was found to be in Pakistan and the government there could not be trusted to help. Romney joined the fray himself, telling reporters, “I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours. … I don’t think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort.” He added that troops “shouldn’t be sent all over the world” and that Obama’s remarks were “ill-timed” and “ill-considered.”

But Romney didn’t leave it at that: Under questioning in a Republican primary debate shortly afterward, he essentially endorsed Obama’s position while attacking him for saying it out loud:

ROMNEY: It’s wrong for a person running for the president of the United States to get on TV and say, “We’re going to go into your country unilaterally.” Of course, America always maintains our option to do whatever we think is in the best interests of America. But we don’t go out and say, “Ladies and gentlemen of Germany, if ever there was a problem in your country, we didn’t think you were doing the right thing, we reserve the right to come in and get them out.” We don’t say those things. We keep our options quiet. We do not go out and say to a nation which is working with us, where we have collaborated and they are our friend and we’re trying to support Musharraf and strengthen him and his nation, that instead that we intend to go in there and potentially bring out a unilateral attack.

Romney is right to object to suggestions he took killing bin Laden completely off the table. But since he had to explain himself at the time, the Obama camp has at least a little room of their own to needle him on it. Let the parsing begin.

So, now we have a fuller context to judge. But let's add tho that, shall we, by looking at what others said in response to that same comment from Obama:

From Hilary:

“I am concerned about talking about it. I think everyone agrees that our goal should be to capture or kill bin Laden and his lieutenants, but how we do it should not be telegraphed and discussed for obvious reasons."

-- Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton talking to ABC News about Obama’ threat of unilateral strikes inside Pakistan.

From Biden:

“In order to look tough, [Barack Obama has] undermined his ability to be tough were he president, because if you’re going to go in to Pakistan – which is already our policy, by the way, if there’s actionable intelligence – you need actual intelligence from moderates in Pakistan working with you. Now, if you’re already going to say ‘I’m going to disregard whatever the country thinks and going to invade,’ the likelihood of you getting the cooperation you’re going to need evaporates. It’s a well-intended notion that he has, but it’s a very naïve way of figuring out how you’re going to conduct foreign policy.”

And, as a reminder, the quote from Romney:

"I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don't think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort.”

-- Then Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, when asked by reporters on the campaign trail on Aug. 2, 2007 about Obama’s comments.

Horrible, just horrible... :roll eyes:

Now, tell me, do you think that Biden and Hilary would also have chosen to NOT get bin Laden of represented with the same opportunity Obama was given?