An oral compulsion can be a very endearing characteristic.
No need for hypotheticals, Biden himself said he recommended against the raid.
You know, when the clown pisses his pants a second time, it is still not funny; just more and more pathetic.
But keep on trying. You’ll get there.
Or a Class A felony.
If it endures it can be very persuasive, too.
Is this the part where you handwave away any argument I might present up to and including going back in time, creating alternative timelines in which other people become president, videotaping the whole thing and then bringing the results back to you as “not objective”? Because frankly, as stupid as you think I am, I’m not stupid enough to engage in a contest where you get to decide who won.
So instead of “objective”, let’s have a look at what you did say. You said:
But we have directly-comparable examples to consider. Carter orders a covert military action, it goes wrong and it is still portrayed as a sign of weakness for Carter even though he was not responsible for what went wrong, and it was a major factor in his subsequent electoral defeat. Clinton attempted to kill bin Laden and failed, and was accused of trying to draw attention away from his personal troubles, even though bin Laden was a known threat even then. Obama is hardly in an unassailable position as far as the upcoming election goes. So to say that there was “no downside” to a failure of such a mission is to ignore reality.
So in support of my argument, I’ve got history. You’ve got you saying “Nuh-uh”.
You said:
Yeah, it was a no-brainer that anyone would have approved.
So in support of my argument, I’ve got the views of the people in the room. You’ve got you saying “Nuh-uh”. Is that sufficiently objective for you?
Really? You’re playing the “sheeple” card? Seriously, dude, how long have you been on the internet? Have you EVER seen an instance where saying “You all just disagree with me because you’re mindless sheeple drinking the kool-aid” was an effective rebuttal of anything? I am disappointed. I knew you were a partisan jerk but I thought you were better than that.
You DID?
Why?
For real!
Luckily, I’m reading/hearing about members of the gay community and the gay press who, rather than throw a hissy fit because Obama didn’t do this whenever it would’ve been convenient for the community (which might’ve actually made his row even harder than it has been to hoe), actually get what’s at stake here and are urging the community to re-elect him.
Hang on a sec, there. There’s a helluva difference between not being enthused over Obamas recent “evolution,” and not supporting him for president. I don’t know any queers irl, myself included, who are particular fans of Obama, or are all that excited by his announcement. By the same token, I don’t know any queers who aren’t planning on voting for Obama in November. It’s great that we’ve reached a point where a canny political operator on the national stage can decide that taking this position will help his election chances, instead of ruining them. Thats fantastic, but let’s not pretend that Obamas actually going to do anything to move gay marriage rights forward. He thinks the best thing to do is leave it to the states, and we just saw how well that worked out in NC a few days ago.
So, for once, we don’t have an enemy in the White House. That’s good news. I’m still waiting for the day when we have an actual ally in there. Obama is not that guy, he’s just an acceptable place holder until that person shows up.
I’ve heard a LOT of lectures from brainless College Democrat types over the past two weeks to the effect that gay rights is a niche issue, gays aren’t really oppressed, this is a distraction from the economy, etc. “Lil Pluck”'s post is a perfect example of this mindset–little homophoic jab about gays throwing a “hissy fit” followed by "at some point maybe we will choose to grant you human rights, in our infinite largesse, but for now we need to focus on what’s “really important,” which is electing Democrats at all costs.
What more do you want from Obama? He’s clearly done more for gay rights than any previous president by working hard and leading the fight to get rid of DADT, and by deciding that the federal government will no longer defend the unconstitutional parts of DOMA in court.
Then he came out in favor of marriage equality, a nice symbolic step and a good bit of leadership (but something that will hurt the fight for equality if it loses him the election. Though I’m not too worried that it will.) It was pretty clear already that he was in favor of marriage equality, so it didn’t make much difference in my own evaluation of him as a person.
A lot of it is certainly that he’s at the right place in the right time. Our actual first gay president certainly could never have done any of these things, and Bill Clinton couldn’t have either, so I’m not attributing it strictly to Obama’s moral perfection. But not reelecting him will certainly mean an end to this progress and a step backwards on the DOMA front.
A GOP president will be beholden to their party, and their party is very clear on this issue. Their voters are ever so slowly slouching into the modern age, according to polling data, but their elected officials are becoming more and more doctrinaire.
I guess I just can’t see what Obama is failing to do that he could on marriage equality or any other gay rights issue. He’s a president, and he’s gotten things done despite a hostile and recalcitrant congress. I’m not sure what else he ought to have done. He doesn’t have a magic wand he can wave to make marriage equality the law of the land. And a Republican president would certainly reverse course and defend DOMA vigorously, and veto any other gay rights legislation. And for that matter, the economy does matter, because queer people are likely to be in more economically precarious circumstances. A less effective safety net will particularly hurt vulnerable queer teens, who are already vastly more likely than non-queer teens to find themselves homeless.
It really is a complete mystery to me why anyone would have a problem with Obama or his performance in office on any kind of queer issue.
FWIW, Rachel Maddow disagrees with you (relevant bit starting about 14.10). Don’t watch the earlier commentary if you don’t want to start grinding your teeth, although she does take Clinton to task for talking a good game about gay rights but leaving DOMA and DADT as his legacy. Obama has not been an active crusader for gay rights but he’s done more than any other president thus far.
My standard for an acceptable attitude towardss human rights is a little higher than “better than Mitt Romney.” Obama saying he “personally” thinks equality should exist but that he leaves it to a vote on the state level is meaningless and gives away the most important point. In what way does his position differ from any Republican calling to “let the people decide”?
Explain your theory as to what Obama can do to make marriage equality a reality across the nation. In your answer, make reference to both the Constitution (to prove its legality) and the makeup and likely votes of Congress (you can use the Dem majority congress of 2009-2010 if you prefer, but it won’t make a difference. You can even look at that short period in which he had a theoretical 60-40 senate, although you’ll have to explain why you think Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman would have voted for cloture, or your plan is implausible.) Or find someone else who has advanced such a plausible theory and link it.
Since I can’t think of anything he could possibly do, though, I’m not going to blame him for not doing it. Personally, I’d like to see him enter the House of Representatives flying astride a pegasus and then smite John Boehner with a flaming sword before striding to the podium to sign a decree written by Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank making marriage equality the law of the land, but I’m fairly certain it would fall afoul of the Constitution, and thus almost certainly would be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Nothing makes us more impatient for more progress than some progress. Any leader of any sort of progressive alliance had best learn that right away: you’re too slow, you’re too fast, and there is no such thing as just right.
The Fourteenth Amendment is the Constitutional authority.
The rest of your post is the usual mewling about needing to consider “political realities” and voters that makes this something less than the Messiah-President taking a courageous stand and more like an empty suit making a meaningless gesture that his devotees lap up.
Nothing in the text of the amendment straightforwardly supports your notion, and case law disagrees with you, so this argument fails.
“Mewling”? The entirety of my post was pointing out that there’s nothing he can do to magically make marriage equality happen nationwide. Since your pathetic attempt at a counterargument boiled down to “he can magically fourteenth-amendment it away!” – apparently, in your imagination, something feasible without congressional support or the consent of the judicial branch – it’s obvious you didn’t come up with anything either.
So, again, what did he fail to do that he could have?
In increasing order of “political infeasibility”:
The Solicitor General could file an amicus brief to the DOMA cases arguing that marriage is a Constitutional right, instead of just sitting it out, and do the same with the Prop 8 case.
The President could state not just that he “personally supports” gay marriage, which has as much legal and practical consequence as announcing that he “personally likes” strawberry ice cream, but instead that he believes, in his capacity as the executor of the laws, that the Constitution mandates full equality before the law for sexual minorities.
The President could state not just that he “personally supports” gay marriage, but that it falls into the liberal human rights and civil rights traditions, and people who have otherwise supported him but are mostly homophobic, such as union members and black churchgoers, should examine their souls and, if they support Obama, change their voting patterns.
The President could announce, in his role as the executor of the laws, that he will be sending federal agents or the military to ensure that gay couples who come to the county courthouse receive their marriage licenses.
The fact that Obama doesn’t do any of these things because they would be “politically unfeasible” is evidence that he is not doing anything bold or courageous, but is continuing to do things that piss off people who already hate him and don’t make any difference to people who basically like him in order to make his core of blind devotees excited about how awesome and brave and Jesusy he is.
Accomplishing, of course, nada. Can they even file an amicus brief when there’s not a case before a federal court about it? And if it weren’t the Supreme Court, it wouldn’t be binding anywhere, as far as I’m aware. Even if this amicus brief magically swayed the court’s opinion to change their decision.
Accomplishing, of course, nada.
Accomplishing, of course, nada. But if he made a statement this strong, some groups that support him might actually feel they couldn’t morally support him anymore, possibly making things quite directly worse for us due to swinging what is probably going to be a tight election. Making a weakish statement, the way he did, allows for wiggle-room for those of his supporters – and there are millions of them – who don’t share his opinion on the subject. A stronger statement might well make people feel more inclined to stop listening entirely than a softer one. Which is the sort of reality you have to take into account if you’re engaged in the political system.
Leading to his impeachment, since there is nothing that allows him to do such a thing. And sending the military in would be a direct violation of Posse Comitatus. If he violated an important law like that, I’d have to grudgingly support impeachment. It’s terrifying to imagine a misuse of the military to accomplish a legislative goal, even when it’s a goal I wholeheartedly favor and wish for.
Yeah, this whole Jesus thing. You’ve obviously listened to and internalized a lot of GOP propaganda about how Dems think he is the “Chosen One” or whatever. The sad part is that you’re the one asking him to do something literally impossible. You may as well stamp your feet and complain that he is failing to turn water into wine and multiply loaves and fishes.
That was supposed to be “everywhere”.