Well, and a lot of people are totally okay with being swayed by gimmicks, as a bunch of mojito-sipping shitheads proved all over George Clooney's patio last night.
Well, another way of looking at it is that they see this as a step in the right direction and something to be encouraged regardless of the motivation behind it.
And it's a signal to other Democrats that there's more where that came from.
Realistically, I don't think we'll see gay marriage pass at a federal level in the next four and a half years. But drawing a straight line between expressing support for it and getting lots of money in campaign contributions does bring some pressure to bear.
I also legitimately believe that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was motivated by cynical politicking and not genuine idealism. It was still the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Brent, I feel like you're not going to be satisfied unless you can find a candidate that is going to stick to his guns, those guns being the guns that you agree with specifically with no variation from that point.
I'm a bit tired of the moderate-Democrat whingeing that you have to accept compromise and stop being such an idealist and can't you see Obama HAS to constantly cave on every single issue ever, he has no choice?
If he had a history of striking hard bargains, that would be one thing. But he doesn't.
His signature achievement is pushing the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan through a Senate with 59 Democrats and Joe Lieberman in it, with not one single Republican vote. And there's a pretty good chance it'll be overturned by this time next month.
He's taken a calculated, mealy-mouthed stand here (which, if he is indeed playing the states' rights card, makes his position IDENTICAL TO DICK CHENEY'S) -- and he only did that because his VP spoke frankly in what people are now describing as a "gaffe".
Oh, that wacky Biden, always saying crazy things like how minorities deserve civil rights. Open mouth, insert foot, amirite?
I'll praise him when he stops making excuses and signs a bill.
Yes, Obama is running on a gimmick, because 50% of the goddamn country doesn't support gay marriage, no matter how backwards and stupid that is.
You know what's funny about 50% of the public opposing a thing?
If Obama stood on a platform and started talking about how it was going to be his legislative goal to force gay marriage in every state, he would be a champion of civil rights, but he would also be throwing himself into the fringe.
This is my other fucking problem with the modern Democratic Party: they consider something that's polling at 50% to be "fringe".
If supporting gay marriage is the fringe, then opposing it is also the fringe. Because THEY ARE BOTH POLLING THE SAME.
Actually, the "against" side is polling
slightly lower at this point. And the numbers are only going to move in one direction.
The numbers get even higher on the "for" side if you take the word "marriage" out of it and frame them as "civil unions". Now, the "civil unions" distinction is bullshit and not an acceptable solution; however, I think it's okay as a temporary Band-Aid until we can pass true marriage equality. If Obama submitted a civil union bill, it would make me a little less cynical about his actual support here.
His moderate appeal is the only thing that's going to help him get elected in November.
Well, no, the shitloads of money he's getting from Hollywood liberals is gonna kinda help too I think.
But even aside from that, here's the thing about his moderate appeal:
Independent voters favor gay marriage 57 percent to 40 percent, the same as college graduates. Moderates favor it by 20 percentage points — 58 percent to 38 percent.
In other words, the swing voters are already there. He's not going to alienate them any more by ACTUALLY supporting gay marriage than he has by paying lip service to it.
None of us like the deals with the devil he's made and the doublecrossing of his base he's done, but do you really think we'd be better off with Romney?
And please, spare me the 'They're all the same' horseshit.
Clinton fucked us plenty, but not even many republicans will argue we were better off with Bush. (edit: in fact, they'd argue we were much worse, which is a pretty observable fact)
Think of the alternative: A tea party mandate to institute flat tax, ban abortion and gay marriage. Can't happen? Eight years ago, that's what republicans were saying about national health care. The version we got may be dumbed down, but so would an abortion ban that makes an exception for cases of rape and incest.
Yeah, THAT'S gonna pass the Senate.
I'll acknowledge that Romney's a worse pick than Obama. (With the caveat that if HE had pushed a healthcare bill with an individual mandate, it would have passed with a nonzero number of Republican votes, and would not have been appealed to the Supreme Court.) But if you really think a Romney election implies three CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS passing a Congress that can't even pass a budget, then YOU'RE the one being unrealistic.