And the Team Obama rope-a-dope of the Romney campaign into the Wingnut Event Horizon took just 100 hours or so from Joe Biden’s statement on Sunday.
Ed Gillespie, senior adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, told Chuck Todd on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown that the campaign would make President Obama’s support for marriage equality an issue this November and that Romney will actively push for a constitutional amendment to take away the right of states to voluntarily extend marriage equality to same-sex couples.
Gillespie told Todd that same-sex marriage “will be another bright-line difference in this campaign.” He added that the GOP intends to campaign on the issue.
In other words, Mr. Etch-A-Sketch here just got drawn all over by a giant Sharpie and the manic scrawl reads I AM A BIGOTED NUTJOB JUST LIKE THE REST OF THEM. Good luck with that pivot to “small government centrist” there, Mittastrophe.
Or in other other words, this just happened.
Muahaha.
rlrr
Romney will actively push for a
constitutional amendment to take away the right of states to
voluntarily extend marriage equality to same-sex couples
The GOP, the party of states’ rights…
Robin G.
I have to say, I’ve been delighted with the approach the Obama campaign has been taking in the last several months. They seem to have decided that if they go down, they’ll go down swinging. This is what I wanted to see from Kerry in 2004.
daveNYC
At least the Mitt campaign finally has a position on something.
rlrr
Let’s hear what the Log Cabin Republicans have to say…
amk
Doubling down on dumbfuckery. Where are they going with this ? What is the upside they see in this ? ryan’s curse passed the housed with only 16 repubs voting against it. Are their internal polls telling them the opposite of what we feel ?
jheartney
There was no way Romney would ever have pulled off anything other than Full Wingnut, even in the general. The question is whether the Chuck Todd’s will tell themselves “he doesn’t actually mean it.” If they’re determined to imagine there’s a centrist inside the screaming nutbag costume, they’ll find a narrative to justify themselves. “Mitt was just pushed into the homophobe stuff because sly old Obama came out for Teh Gey” works as well as any.
SatanicPanic
Yep, this is my take- make them come out with the Santorum-approved position and own it. Good luck creepy Mitt!
Turgidson
I’d like to believe that campaigning on being more of a bigot than the other guy is a political loser.
But I sorta doubt it.
Served
See, he bashed gays as a teenager, and now he’s bashing gays as a senior citizen. Some things never changed.
kc
Excellent.
kc
Btw, isn’t Ed Gillespie gay?
Turgidson
@Turgidson:
That’s not to say I disagree with Obama making his announcement. I’m thrilled. But I’m not expecting it to be a big vote-getter at the margins. And he may have just taken NC and AZ, at minimum, out of play. But he did what was right. And that rocks.
rlrr
Have you noticed all Constitutional amendments supported by the GOP restrict rights in some way?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@SatanicPanic:
like @SatanicPanic: said, Mitt is terrified of attacks from the right, and Santorum can’t wait to make them
rlrr
Mitt Romney and the ayatollahs in Iran, agree on something.
kooks
I was always pretty certain that once the Republican primary was over, that the Obama campaign was not going to let Mitt erase his positions and move back to the center. But actually watching it unfold, and how Obama has cornered Romney on issue after issue, forcing him to own ridiculous positions, has been a thing of beauty.
jibeaux
@Turgidson: I don’t know anything about AZ, but NC had good A-A turnout for Obama in ’08. Amendment One, hyped as it was, still was on a primary day and turnout was lower. This is also one of the issues on which the A-A population is more likely to part ways with Obama, to the extent the polling on that is accurate. But I don’t think that will mean any statistically significant number of them will switch to Romney over it.
Egg Berry
I was thinking ‘Mittsanthrope’ might be a good name.
JGabriel
Think Progress:
Mitt Romney, Yesterday (?), in Colorado interview:
Ah, Mitt, you hardly know you.
.
jl
Who is the Romney campaign Ed Gillespie? Isn’t Ed Gillespie the old GOP fart who shows up on TV? How many Ed Gillespies are there?
This has got to be a prank from the Onion. Or is the Romney campaign that stupid, or desperate from bad poll internals, and stalled voter suppression schemes, or fear of GOTV?
Next, all Obama has to do is say in some interview someplace, he, personally, would consider a Rubio compromise (aka weak BS) DREAM Act.
It’s like the Romney campaign bought an ACME self cornering machine and are really proud of how they got that magic gizmo at such a great discount. More pathetic than the Roadrunner Coyote, and I never thought I would see something like that.
I am a little more optimistic after reading this post, assuming it is not a prank.
Drive-by Nomad
Extra added bonus of this latest 11 Dimensional Chess move: ramp-up in discussion of Romney family history of polygamy.
Anya
@rlrr: YOu mean this statement
Maude
@rlrr:
#13 Only the rights of individuals are restricted, bankers, not so much.
Rob in Buffalo
The modern conservative: If anyone to the left of St. Reagan is for something, I’m against it.
Villago Delenda Est
You can only move to the center if your right flank is secure.
OvenMitt’s right flank will NEVER be secure.
The fundigelicals don’t trust him, and will never trust him.
He cannot tack to the center. Huge swaths of the crew will simply not allow it. They’d rather run aground than ever tack anywhere near port. Starboard or death!
jl
@Drive-by Nomad: If Romney Inc. keeps this up, my old country cussin’ granny could play eleven dimensional chess against them and be President.
trollhattan
Willard’s Etch-a-Sketch turned out to be ghey. We’re going to get full-on Willard 2.0, wingnut edition from the primaries. Huzzah.
Eric k
I wonder how many Rep strategist see the slow motion train wreck and yet still can’t seem to stop it.
My guess is a lot of swing voters are ambivalent about Gay Marriage and would just as soon not think about it, but they really don’t like ultra bigoted things like an amendment banning states from deciding.
Similar to the over reach they do on abortion.
evinfuilt
I love it, now all the aholes who say they’re my friends and think my 14 year marriage is awesome… but that Mitt is good for the country.
I can promptly tell them to “Go Fuck Yourself!”, a vote for Mitt is a vote to end my 14 years of marriage.
Mitt, you made it so much easier to show how bigoted and horrible you are.
Odie Hugh Manatee
As long as Obama kept quiet on marriage equality the R’s could play the usual games. But now that Obama has “come out” on the issue, they have to deal with the outraged knuckledraggers in their base to appease them, or else. Obama just hung the crazies around Mitt’s neck and guys like Gillespie are telling him that his new necklace sure looks purty on him.
I think that necklace is attached to an anchor. Maybe an anvil.
Rick Massimo
The countdown begins to the Romney campaign, and the GOP in general, blaming the liberal media for bringing up all this gay-marriage business as a distraction from the real issues.
They’ve employed the “They made us sound like racists, bigots and plutocrats by holding microphones to our mouths and telling people what we said” technique for about 10 years now, so there’s no reason to think they won’t use it now.
Egg Berry
@jl:
That should probably be a declarative statement instead of an interogative.
Villago Delenda Est
@jl:
Mitt Ens Coyote. SUPER genius!
Steve
@jl: Ed Gillespie is a former RNC Chair. I think Ed Rollins is the old guy who appears on CNN. Neither of them are gay, as far as I know, although I haven’t personally propositioned either.
Merp
Zandar your rah rah Obama 11th dimensional chess cheerleading is really becoming embarrassing.
After Massachusetts allowed gay marriage in the aughts, Romney supported a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He campaigned in 2008 for a federal amendment banning gay marriage. He campaigned in the summer through winter of 2011 for a federal amendment banning gay marriage. It’s one of the few consistent things about him.
Ed Gillespie is re-iterating that fact. They were campaigning on it, they are campaigning on it, they will continue to campaign on it. The campaign has coordinated, is coordinating, will coordinate with states to push state-level anti-gay-marriage maneuvers. Obama’s announcement ain’t changing nothing about what they’re doing.
Christ, there are thousands of different facets to this story and issue. And you pick one insignificant detail from a spokesperson to construct a huge rope-a-dope victory for Obama which requires ignoring the last ten years of Romney’s political life.
Stop, son, just stop.
jl
@Steve: Thanks. Sorry. I can never keep all the political hacks straight.
Raven
Can’t wait to hear what thew Mittster has to says to the Liberty fucking University FLAMES!
Bullsmith
Romney’s gonna run nudge and wink campaign, it looks like. Rather than swinging hard to the middle, he’ll openly pander to full wingnut, usually via surrogates, while his campaign simultaneously implies, especially in swing states, that he doesn’t really mean any of it. He lies so much because he’s actually decent. All men to all people, Mr. Romney is.
Steve
@Eric k: The people who are ambivalent on gay marriage, or don’t really care about it, probably won’t base their votes on that issue no matter what happens. But the larger problem is that Mitt wants to establish himself as Mr. Businessman Who Will Fix The Economy, and establishing himself as a culture warrior is a big distraction from that. There are plenty of people who just want their tax cuts without feeling like they’re voting for Jerry Falwell.
jl
@Merp: thanks for the info. Still, regardless of whether eleven dimensional chess, or just chess, or checkers, or nothing at all, I like the contrast between the two candidates.
amk
@kooks: It’s a beau, isn’t it ?
Karmakin
I’ll admit that I was probably wrong on this. If this
“Romney will actively push for a constitutional amendment to take away the right of states to voluntarily extend marriage equality to same-sex couples.”
is the framing that’s going to come out of this…wow, what a viciously horrible frame that is for the homophobes..it’s a lot harsher than what I expected, which was a “reasonable people disagree on this” general tone.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@jheartney: You’ll be much happier if you call them dumb fucks rather than writing their justification for them.
Villago Delenda Est
Every time OvenMitt tries to talk about “the Economy, stupid”, he’s got the anchor of the fundigelical social agenda dragging him back in again, into the tar baby of their reactionary demands.
He is fucked. Completely fucked now.
If there were a mercy rule in Presidential politics, we’d be close to seeing in invoked six months before the election.
Raven
rlrr
@Anya:
What about after today’s announcement?
amk
@Merp: So mittbot has been a life-long bigot? And wants to continue to be on the wrong side (as even one of the pox news minions called it) ?
yeah, that’s the 12th dimensional chess to kick Obama’s ass. Got it.
NancyDarling
Wind sock Willard is haunted by the dogs of vacations past.
Brachiator
@Robin G.:
I’ve never seen the point of going down swinging. Never.
I heard some Latino voter on public radio this morning say that he voted of Obama in 2008, but could never vote for him now because of his announced support for gay marriage.
This tells me that people are going to have to be prepared to fight harder to win. And this goes double for every ideological purity drone.
The Republicans are clearly taking a stand, telling you that this is no game, and that they intend to take away rights from gays and women immediately, and from other groups just as soon as they can.
ETA:
This is unpossible. All the wise pundits assured me that Romney would pivot toward the center after he locked up the nomination.
HAHAHAHAHHAA
Merp
@kc:
I think you’re thinking of Ken Mehlman, Gillespie’s RNC Chairman predecessor and head of W’s 2004 campaign.
There was rampant behind-the-scenes speculation he was gay in the 2004 campaign, which you may recall had dozens of states coordinating efforts among themselves and with the campaign to ban gay marriage. W’s campaign also supported a federal amendment banning gay marriage. (Dave Chappelle mocked this memorably as part of his Black Bush sketch, where, playing George Bush, he reacts to reporters’ questions about Iraq by saying “I got all that shit under control, don’t worry about that. There’s something even more alarming going on: gay people is getting married, folks!” He goes on from there. It is hilarious.)
I don’t think Mehlman ever got asked about his sexual orientation or what he personally felt about the campaigns gay-bashing in public, though.
Of course he came out after W left office (I think; a few years after 2004, at least). I don’t recall if he expressed regret for what he did, or if he said what his rationale was for helming the USS Queerbasher.
SatanicPanic
@Villago Delenda Est: Mitt ought to seriously considering cutting a deal with Obama at this point. Nothing good is going to happen to Mitt’s reputation in the next 6 months.
hhex65
Genius. A less likable, positronic George W. Bush = VICTORY!
Jeff Spender
There’s a guy on Facebook who I just blocked because I was tired of putting up with his “gays want the ‘special right’ to get married” bullshit.
He was cheering NC’s passage of the amendment as a triumph of state rights.
I wonder how he would take this news. (Hint: he’d find a way to rationalize it).
But Obama has been a master of framing this entire time. This has to be the best run Democratic campaign I’ve seen in my lifetime. Karl Rove must be screaming about how he’s being outfoxed, the spittle running down his jowls creating a morbid scene.
I am very impressed.
rlrr
@SatanicPanic:
Obama could appoint Romney as ambassador to Utah…
Villago Delenda Est
@Merp:
Tax cuts. It’s always the latinum with the gay Ferengi.
rlrr
Maybe Obama should come out against slavery, forcing Romney’s hand… ;)
Mike in NC
Willard apparently has 40-50 discredited hacks like Gillespie on his payroll, which can only be a good thing in the long run.
Zandar
@Merp:
You’re completely correct about Mitt’s record.
Yet yesterday, Mitt dodged that exact point. He was allowed to dodge that point, was the larger issue. He can no longer dodge that point now.
Which is, well, the point.
Villago Delenda Est
@Brachiator:
There’s your problem, right there!
Jeff Spender
@Brachiator:
I’ve heard this from people who I know are reliably homophobic, but when it comes down to it, the other issues they support override their homophobia in the end.
If I knew someone who said something like this, I’d shame them into voting for Obama. No doubt.
Fuckin’ morons.
kc
@rlrr:
HA! I am stealing that!
Mnemosyne
I’m waiting for people to start telling us how “lucky” Obama was that Mittster just happened to shoot himself in the foot shortly after Obama had his interview publicly supporting gay marriage. What a fortunate co-inkydink that Obama was careful to say that he doesn’t want to interfere with the decisions the states make right before Mitt announces that he wants to make sure that even states that are okay with gay marriage aren’t allowed to have it.
In closing, I will never understand why people get upset that politicians who are up for re-election time and word their announcements for maximum benefit in an election year. It’s called “politics,” people.
rlrr
“Wise pundits” is an oxymoron these days.
SatanicPanic
@Brachiator:
Is this anything like asking your taxi driver?
kc
@Merp:
Thanks, I probably was thinking of Mehlman.
Though Gillespie does make my gaydar start pinging. NTTAWWT, just don’t understand how a gay person could work for Romney.
Merp
@jl:
Completely agree. I just don’t like “analysis” claiming that Romney supporting anti-gay-marriage amendments is the result of some brilliant Obama strategy.
@amk:
Mitt is a lifelong bigot. He’s publicly and prominently supported state and federal efforts to enshrine sexual orientation bigotry in constitutions for a decade.
A GOP spokesperson saying Romney will continue to do so is not the result of an Obama rope-a-dope, 11th dimensional chess, whatever-other-stupid-metaphor strategy. Obama’s announcement will not change what Romney was going to do.
Zandar’s “analysis” is awful, and is either made from a position of absolute pig-ignorance or not caring about facts as long as there’s an opportunity to praise Obama as a master strategist.
Jeff Spender
@Mnemosyne:
This.
I’m getting sick of my liberal douche friends who are up in arms about Obama politicking this issue. I know a lot of them don’t really understand the finer points of politics (and I’m beginning to suspect they don’t understand that politics requires strategical thinking because, really, it’s like a small war being waged).
Obama has shown his support for equality through many of his actions. Now he comes out to say what he thinks, directly. Napoleon would be proud: Obama is attacking a weak point and he’s showing no mercy.
Here’s the question I always ask my “holier-than-thou” friends: do you want to win, or do you want to be second-class citizens?
Because this is what it boils down to.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
Merp:
The irony here is no one on the Right is going to believe Mittens is against teh gay marriage because of all the lying.
Steve
@Raven: It is funny watching the Republican elites, very few of whom care deeply about religion, just shrug off the possibility of any religious issues with Romney. I think Ann Coulter said something like “oh come on, we’re all Christians here.” But the kids at Liberty don’t take their marching orders from the RNC.
I hate religious bigotry and it doesn’t exactly thrill me that Romney will lose some votes because of it. But at the same time, we all know they made a deliberate choice to build their party this way. If they want to use religious fundamentalism as their base, they can reap the whirlwind.
amk
@Merp:
case closed.
jl
@Zandar:
Zandar and Merp can argue. But on the bottom line, I agree with Zandar.
The Mitt campaign felt it necessary to highlight a Mitt policy position that looks more extreme than Obama, and will surely make campaigning as a moderate harder.
Unless Romney campaign feels it is really on some kind of shaky ground with teabaggers or socially conservative swing voters, why go out of its way to high light this rather intrusive on states rights, and very socially conservative policy, just because Obama expressed his personal view?
I don’t get it. IMO, it is still Roadrunner Coyote behavior, even the policy has been long standing.
Anya
@rlrr: They’ll take their usual stand: See No Evil, Hear No Evil!
Martin
@Brachiator:
Yep, that’s the risk of this.
Latinos support gay marriage only slightly below national averages – let’s say it’s 50/50. They’re no less progressive than whites. But Obama is carrying Latinos 80/20. That means that 30% of Latinos are supporting Obama, but oppose (or at least don’t support) gay marriage. In Cali, that no big shit – Obama can afford to lose all of those voters and still win the state. But that’s not the case in most states with measurable Latino populations.
It doesn’t mean that 30% will abandon him, but some will. I have no clue how many, however, and I’m not sure anyone outside of the campaign knows either. It might not matter that much in the end. And it might energize youth voters enough to make up for it. But its a risk.
I’m really glad he did it though, even if it costs him. It’s a great platform for Dems now and it’s going to put the kind of energy into the campaign that we saw in 2008 and hadn’t quite materialized this year. I really hope the Dems run with it.
JPL
uhoh…Mitt’s week could become worse.. from TPM livewire
One former classmate and old friend of Romney’s – who refused to be identified by name – said there are “a lot of guys” who went to Cranbrook who have “really negative memories” of Romney’s behavior in the dorms, behavior this classmate describes as “evil” and “like Lord of the Flies.”
link
amk
Yet another mittbot’s 12 dimensional chess playing skillz
jl
@Merp:
Sorry, missed your comment. Thanks for info, still.
It is difficult for me to be familiar with entire history of all of the candidates’ positions, especially with a guy like Romney, who like an elementary particle, takes all possible paths between two points, and we can only observe the resulting superposition.
When we accuse Romney of being a goofball and flip flopper, we need to come correct on his history(ies).
Ash Can
I saw this blurb on campaigning on a constitutional amendment to discriminate against gays this morning, and my first thought was that the Romney campaign had just parachuted the prez right into the middle of the briar patch. How Obama and his team will manage to keep straight faces in public over the next few months is beyond me.
Cassidy
@Steve: Republican, middle aged, virulently bigoted to homosexuals. Odds are he’s gay.
jibeaux
@Enhanced Voting Techniques:
In 1994…..
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@jl:
__
Every time Obama takes the car out for a drive, Mitt insists on climbing up on top and stapping himself down for the ride.
Jeff Spender
@Martin:
Like I said yesterday, every political calculation carries risk and reward. It’s a double-edge sword. Obama will shed some votes with this strategy, but I’m thinking that the gamble will pay off. He’ll probably gain more than he’ll lose, and we’ve already seen that he’s been able to raise money from this.
Romney will have to react to this, because that’s all Romney can do. He’s behind the curve. It think that this was a brilliant move all on its own, but it fits into the larger picture of Obama constantly changing the playing field, and forcing Romney’s campaign to react.
Romney can’t get a solid foothold, which gives Obama a huge advantage because he’s been setting the narrative.
Ben Cisco
In other silly news, one of the Palin spawn has taken it upon herself to criticize Big O for discussing things with his kids and shit.
Don’t sweat it though – the Wonketeers are all over it.
JPL
Mitt’s bullying really bothered me because his behavior hasn’t changed. He’s insulting to the other and lying comes easy to him.
If my reaction is due to my gender, let me tell you the President will gain more points with women.
Calouste
Obama is playing Romney here. Obama has staked out a position a little to the left of where the US, he supports same-sex marriage, but wants to leave it to the states (not that he has any choice in that matter, the federal government can’t enforce that unless the Supremes do something).
Of course that is like waving a red flag to the fundie bull that is standing behind Romney ready to charge. Romney has to convince the fundies that he will follow their orders on gays, and because they don’t trust him, he will have to tack quite far right, much farther right of the average position in the US than Obama is to the left. Romney’s going to be dragged towards the “no recognition at all” point, and that standpoint is only held by about 30% of the voters. There is a significant number of voters who don’t want same-sex marriage but is ok with civil unions, and Romney is going to look like an extremist to them.
kay
@JPL:
White also says “it’s been a long time since we’ve been pals”
The man Mitt Romney says is his friend during stump speeches is not, in fact, his friend at all.
Just bizzare.
srv
Where will Quantum Mittens take us next?
Spaghetti Lee
I think the “11-dimensional chess thing” comes in on the state’s rights issue. Obama said something about gay marriage being left up to the states (which is the way the laws about it are currently set up, btw), which has got all the firebaggers real incensed. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if he knew this was coming and set it up so he could say “I support state’s rights and Mitt Romney doesn’t. Why does Mitt Romney want all states to abide by the federal definition of marriage?” This also has the effect of weakening another “We’re not bigots, we just etc. etc. state’s rights etc.” argument from the GOP, and making the foot soldiers even angrier at Mitt for his Big Government mindset. All I can say is that if Obama didn’t predict Romney’s reaction, it’s working out mighty well for him.
What always confuses me is that people who are cynical about politics as a rule and say you can’t trust politicians in general is that they seem to never get the hint about particular issues like this. It’s like they think that Obama talking about state’s rights in this context must actually be what he believes and not a ploy to make his opponent look stupid. And if you’re opposed to the idea of political ploys in general and think that politicians should just say exactly what they think all the time, could you find a place for me in your alternate dimension?
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Ash Can: “How Obama and his team will manage to keep straight faces in public over the next few months is beyond me.”
Obama and his team will have to put on their “gayme face”.
Raven
@Steve: Or at least inherit it.
r€nato
@kc:
Richard Grenell thought he could, and then American Family Ass’n’s Bryan Fischer threw a public hissy fit about a queer-osexual holding a prominent portfolio (foreign affairs advisor, or something like that) in the Rmoney campaign.
Rmoney’s people then tried to stuff Grenell in the closet. “We like you, we just don’t want anyone to think we know you.” Grenell resigned.
And then after yesterday’s news… Grenell came up with this weak-ass shit:
I was going to comment on all the different ways this is such a load of transparent horseshit, but I’m too busy trying to pry my eyeballs back into their normal position.
jl
@JPL: I took from you comment that you are female, but I might have misinterpreted.
I’m a guy and by many standards a boor, but the Romney ‘looks like 7//11 cookies or something’ insult to a local campaign staff really chapped my hide. Seriously. It pissed me off unexpectedly, given the fact that I oppose him politically.
Dub never rubbed me the wrong way nearly as much on a personal level, since as much as I hate to say it, Bush II had some good sides to him, which he did use to advantage at critical times during his administration, which to some extent limited the immense damage. I can’t see anything like that in Romney.
In proper, very very tightly controlled environment, Romney can be an ambitious single minded self centered robot for good. But the presidency is not one of those positions.
Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac
@Merp:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-stump/103261/mitts-very-awkward-history-gay-marriage
yeah, real rock solid this guy. Never changing his mind.
gaz
At the risk of sounding like an arrogant ass, I saw this coming long before Mitt even won the nomination.
Mitt will win the nomination and lose the general.
I’ve been saying that for god only knows how long at this point.
Kay, when I said I only bet on sure things, this is what I meant. $100 to any takers if Romney wins the general.
=)
cheers
Odie Hugh Manatee
@gaz:
Pass.
Brachiator
@Jeff Spender: RE: I heard some Latino voter on public radio this morning say that he voted of Obama in 2008, but could never vote for him now because of his announced support for gay marriage.
You may also be hearing it from people who are rigidly obedient to their religion. Which is not the same thing.
Also, here’s a question. What if this person said, “I’m homophobic, but I’m still voting for Obama?” Do you care whether Obama may lose votes over this, or would you be overjoyed if Obama lost, but could say that all the right people voted for him for all the right reasons?
@SatanicPanic:
I think you would have to ask the producers at public radio stations about this.
More seriously, until some polling is done, this sentiment check is what you have to go on. And it is probably more significant than asking blog posters.
Ed Drone
@jl:
The “Roadrunner” coyote is Wile E. Coyote. I get confused when you put his nemesis (the Roadrunner) into his name.
Ed
dmsilev
@Ben Cisco: Oh my. She really is her mother’s daughter, isn’t she?
Hill Dweller
@Ben Cisco: Some of the comments are gold.
LanceThruster
@Villago Delenda Est: Too funny!
gaz
@Odie Hugh Manatee: Yeah I figured. Too bad I won’t give wingnuts the time of day. If I did, I could have my own SuperPAC come 2009
jl
@Ed Drone: thanks. Not sure how familiar people are with that specific Coyote’s full name, and I did not want to insult all coyotes.
stratplayer
This is the second time this year that Obama has laid a huge political booby trap for the Republicans, and the second time they’ve stepped right into it. First contraception, now marriage equality. I can’t wait to see where he strikes next.
Raven
@stratplayer: When Kahrzi (sp) rejects immunity for coalition forces and we unass that motherfucker.
Davis X. Machina
We need federal legislation because you can’t rely on the NE state governments to
return those fugitive slaveshassle those gay people.JPL
@jl: The reason I mentioned my sex was a few sites that I read seem to think his age forgives him. Shit..he was 18 years old at a time when 18 years old boys were being sent overseas to Nam. He wasn’t twelve.
jl
@Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac:
” Remember: gay rights was, arguably, Romney’s original flip-flop. Running for Senate in 1994, he promised to be more effective in supporting “full equality” for gays than Ted Kennedy ”
Well, see. There you go. Thanks for that info too.
Can one of the BJ math/science mavens suggest a good book on quantum mechanics for laypeople?
We will need to understand how to use those metaphors.
As in, like a photon, the elementary Mitt impulse is to take all possible paths, and without special experimental apparatus, we can only observe the sum of all the paths, from which it appears that there is only one path that follows the line of least
actionresistance.Calouste
@Martin:
Those Latinos will come back to Obama because Obama is going to pull the same trick on Romney with immigration reform: Obama will stake out a position slightly to the left, and Romney will be forced way to the right, as in abolishing the Citizenship Clause right.
Ben Cisco
@dmsilev: Yes. Yes she is.
pseudonymous in nc
In other news, I see that Bachmann Crazy Overdrive has de-Swissified herself, almost certainly after it was pointed out to her that it was not necessarily compatible with her security clearance on the ironically named House Intelligence Committee.
Calouste
@stratplayer:
See just above, my bet is on immigration. Obama supporting the Equal Rights Amendment now that it is getting some more traction is also a possibility.
Ben Cisco
@Hill Dweller: The funny, they brings it.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Davis X. Machina: Exactly. Contrary to what most Southerners want to think, it was the South complaining that states like New York were abusing state’s rights and not following federal law.
People here in Texas aren’t too thrilled when I point that out.
rlrr
@jl:
here
Suffern ACE
So when is it old people’s turn for their week in the national campaign issues spotlight. We had a few weeks of women, college kids and young people had their week with student loans and whether or not college is worthwhile. This week, we’re onto LGBT people. It seems that these last about a week or two. I’m wondering if we could turn to the elderly for a few weeks.
EconWatcher
@Calouste:
You may be right. But another angle would be that (1) this election will hinge on turn-out, (2) Romney doesn’t excite the base and faced a big problem with turn-out, but (3) now maybe the base will turn out to thwart teh ghey, even if they don’t like the nominee.
Merp
@Zandar:
Your point in the post wasn’t “the media will now hound Romney for his views on anti-same-sex-marriage amendments.” It was “Romney’s campaign is changing strategy”. Because you bolded this statement from Gillespie: “Romney will actively push for a constitutional amendment to take away the right of states to voluntarily extend marriage equality to same-sex couples.” Why did you bold that? He’s been pushing it for a decade, he’s been pushing it in this campaign, he’s been pushing it recently, he would have pushed it in the future absent Obama’s announcement. Gillespie’s statement could have been read in 2004, 2007, 2011, or two weeks ago. In fact it was, because Romney’s campaign has stated his position on an amendment tens of times over the past few weeks. There’s nothing new here.
This new claim of yours that Obama to use a stupid metaphor of my own “worked the refs” so that Romney will be consistently asked about his amendment endorsement and won’t be allowed to dodge it: no. That’s dumb a couple levels.
First the idea that Romney ducking a specific issue in a single interview indicates either that Romney’s amendment stance won’t be reported or that his campaign is running away from his stance is ludicrous. Romney has endorsed and wants to propose a federal amendment banning same sex marriage. He’s said so 100,000 times. He’s said so in the immediate short term. Search google news for news items from the end of April to a few days ago before Obama’s announcement. Fox News reported his stance on April 30th. Barney Frank a week or two ago blasted Romney for supporting the amendment. Romney said a week or two ago out of his own mouth before Obama’s announcement that he supported the amendment.
There’s just no way to spin avoiding the topic in a single interview for reasons that we don’t know (maybe they wanted to let Obama twist in the wind and mess up; maybe there was a donor who would have seen mentioning the amendment in that interview as a slap in the face; maybe a dozen things that have nothing to do with changing the political strategy he’s followed for a decade) anyway you can’t possibly spin that avoiding the topic in a single interview indicates the press letting Romney avoid the topic in general, not reporting Romney’s stance in general, or a dramatic shift in Romney’s campaign strategy.
Second, the idea that this will affect press interaction with Romney for more than the immediate present is like something out of The American President. Reporters are not suddenly going to remember their civic duty to accurately characterize things and call Romney’s amendment support “bigoted” or a “violation of civil rights”. The absolute most that could happen is that he is pressed to re-state, for the 100,001st time, that he supports a federal amendment banning same sex marriage.
Even if the press suddenly realizes that Romney has this position and asks him about it exclusively for the next two days, which no, but even if it happens the press will move on to the next bauble. The only reason to press him to say something he’s said 100,000 times before is because gay marriage is an immediate news story. The 24 hour news cycle will grind on, and in a month Romney will have the exact same interaction with reporters regarding same sex marriage as he did a week ago.
Third, even if you think that this two days of having Romney say what he’s said 100,000 before is utterly necessary to the proper functioning of the Republic, it would have happened anyway. Gay marriage is going to come up in the news cycle dozens of times between now and the election. States will schedule votes for their own amendments; lawsuits regarding gay marriage will make headlines; gay people denied benefits and facing tragic consequences will be in the news; etc. Romney will face just as intense questioning then as he is now regarding his amendment position.
Obama briefly making it an issue by stating/clarifying his own stance doesn’t affect these dynamics in the slightest. Absent his statement Romney and his spokespeople would have re-iterated Romney’s support for an amendment thousands of times.
Your position is just untenable and contradicts both recent history and the basic dynamics of media covering a presidential campaign. But hey, you made Obama look good.
Brachiator
@Martin:
let’s look at Proposition 8 exit poll data (only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California). Among Latinos, 53% voted for it, vs 43% who voted against it. Among all groups, those who attended church weekly were more likely to have voted for Prop 8.
Romney is going to try very hard to peel Latinos away. It is an open question as to whether those who have strong religious objections to gay marriage will find other aspects of the GOP message appealing.
Among blacks, 70 percent voted for Prop 8. Here I could see the GOP actively trying to get this group to just stay home and hate Obama.
By the way, I think that California Latinos may be useful in comparing Latinos in Arizona and Texas, but not some much the East Coast.
And none of these obstacles are insurmountable. But they are a new complicator in the electoral mix.
Anoniminous
Informal Logic Lesson:
Unrepresentative Sample:
IOW, one Hispanic on NPR speaketh only for himselfeth, and not nobody elseth.
If you want to know how this plays in the Hispanic community you need to poll the Hispanic community.
Ash Can
@stratplayer:
I’m betting on immigration reform. Especially if Romney talks someone Hispanic into being his running mate. Romney would spend the rest of the year trying to find all the pieces of his ass.
ETA: I see Calouste beat me to it!
JPL
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): I have a friend who is black but listens to bozo boortz and argued state’s rights..I sent her GA’s succession papers. Then I asked one question, where does it say state’s rights.
jl
@Calouste: As I said above, all Obama has to do is mention, off the cuff, or in some kind of ‘special interview’, that, say, Rubio’s weak tea ideas on immigration reform might be OK as a starting point for negotiations.
And then, Romney, or one of his hacks, will be on TV in high profile within a day tossing out red xenophobic meat for the teabaggers.
kay
@JPL:
The strangest part of the whole thing is Romney’s campaign brought up “pranks” to humanize him.
They rolled it out deliberately. His wife started talking about what a practical joker he was.
They have to be regretting that right about now.
...now I try to be amused
@stratplayer:
I expect before summer is over Romney will feel compelled to promise he’ll nuke Iran.
Dr. Loveless
Partisanship aside, putting out a statement like this on the same day a major story appears about Mitt brutalizing a gay classmate at his prep school is horrible optics. Methinks Karl Rove isn’t the genius everyone thinks he is.
Citizen Alan
@Rob in Buffalo:
Fixed that for ya. The Real Reagan, the one who actually lived and breathed and at least tried to govern, would be an unelectable Marxist in today’s Republican Party. Only Fantasy Reagan, who destroyed Communism and the Democratic Party both with just the power of sunny optimism, is allowed within the GOP pantheon today.
SatanicPanic
@Brachiator:
One person’s opinion on a radio show is exactly as significant as any one blog poster’s opinion. At any rate, I’m not convinced that Latino homophobia trumps Latino desire for a sane immigration policy or Latino repulsion at Mitt Romney’s weirdness. We’ll see.
beltane
@pseudonymous in nc: The Swiss dodged a bullet there.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Suffern ACE: That’s being saved for when Romney swings back to talk about the economy. Obama gets to hand Ryan’s budget around Romney’s neck.
JPL
@kay: The family doesn’t understand the difference between a prank and viciousness. They have no clue where the line is drawn. Gosh, it was his son who told the dog story because he thought it was funny.
I truly think they think of the Presidency as a coronation and we are the others.
rikyrah
is this from The Onion?
has to be.
Villago Delenda Est
@jl:
The right flank is not secure, and can never be made secure.
That smell? It’s Rmoney’s crusts burning.
SatanicPanic
@gaz: I’ve got a buddy who told me the other day that he’s got a big chunk of cash against Obama. I gave him my best ouch face. He asked if I wanted to bet for Obama and I took him up on it but only for a $20 because I didn’t feel right about an obvious sucker bet.
rlrr
@JPL:
I truly think they think of the Presidency as a coronation and we are the others.
Checkout: White Horse Prophecy
jl
@rlrr: thanks. I don’t see anything about the Mitt Romney superposition principle in the link. I may have made a discovery, about nature, through Science. Wow!
Ash Can
@Merp: I for one don’t understand why you’re arguing. The main point is that, following Obama’s statement, the Romney campaign reflexively felt the need to say something, and specifically something that was the polar opposite of what Obama said. What they consequently said did nothing but focus the spotlight on them as homophobic bigots. We all knew that already, but Romney fell right into the trap of making himself look bad when everyone was watching. Taking paragraphs and paragraphs to say that this is nothing new just makes you look pedantic.
amk
@SatanicPanic: Bingo. Anecdotal evidence is not sentiment check, let alone general trend.
JPL
haha.. another flipflop romney on fox news
from josh at tpm
Villago Delenda Est
@dmsilev:
Apparently Todd and Sarah have raised all their kids to be just like them. Mortally offended at any slight, vindictive to the point of obsession. Willow got into a facebook fight with one of her classmates and exhibited all the same traits.
That entire family is diseased.
Villago Delenda Est
@dmsilev:
Apparently Todd and Sarah have raised all their kids to be just like them. Mortally offended at any slight, vindictive to the point of obsession. Willow got into a facebook fight with one of her classmates and exhibited all the same traits.
That entire family is diseased.
JPL
haha.. another flipflop romney on fox news
from josh at tpm
...now I try to be amused
@JPL:
Romney and his circle don’t understand the difference between a prank and viciousness because that sort of viciousness is the norm in his preppie society. It’s how his society enforces its social norms. Lord of the Flies is about that society, and Romney appears to be Ralph.
The Dangerman
@Brachiator:
Having to work harder to win is not the best strategy I’ve ever heard. Sad to say, this issue is a political loser at the margins where this election will be won or lost. Obama went from an easy win to a nailbiter.
The Republicans aren’t stupid (OK, they aren’t THAT stupid); they’ll fight on this turf because it will help them.
WaterGirl
@EconWatcher: Someone posted here yesterday that a poll from last week showed that most people who are against gay rights already believed that Obama supported gay marriage. If that was really the case, then Obama has lost nothing in the eyes of those folks.
JPL
haha.. another flipflop romney on fox news
from josh at tpm
khead
@Ben Cisco:
I laughed pretty hard at TBogg’s “Backseat Bristol Palin” line.
Merp
@amk:
It was going to be whether Obama said anything or not
@jl:
I am completely sympathetic. You ever make “ooblek”, cornstarch mixed with water and dyed green, when you were a kid? It creates a long chain of molecules that are suspended in water, so it flows like water but when you press on it it becomes firm like a solid. That’s what following Romney’s like: solid one moment, then immediately starts to melt away.
@Spaghetti Lee:
I like Obama’s appropriating the “state’s rights” line away from Republicans as well. I think rhetorically the most common phrase out of their mouths is “it should be left to the states”. When Obama starts saying that as well, at the very least it muddles up the differences between them among low information voters. Always a good idea.
@Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac:
So Romney saying “I may be able to support gay marriage in the future” in his first campaign in 1994 completely negates bleating about anti-ssm amendments for the past decade. And this all somehow proves that Obama is forcing him to take the position he’s been bleating about for the past decade, which he’s stated often throughout this election cycle and within the past couple weeks. Gotchya.
I’ll quit cluttering the thread with huge comments unless Zandar responds again.
Villago Delenda Est
@dmsilev:
Apparently Todd and Sarah have raised all their kids to be just like them. Mortally offended at any slight, vindictive to the point of obsession. Willow got into a facebook fight with one of her classmates and exhibited all the same traits.
That entire family is diseased.
...now I try to be amused
@JPL:
Romney and his circle don’t understand the difference between a prank and viciousness because that sort of viciousness is the norm in his preppie society. It’s how his society enforces its social norms. Lord of the Flies is about that society, and Romney appears to be Ralph.
khead
@Ben Cisco:
I laughed pretty hard at TBogg’s “Backseat Bristol Palin” line.
JPL
haha.. another flipflop romney on fox news
from josh at tpm
Villago Delenda Est
@dmsilev:
Apparently Todd and Sarah have raised all their kids to be just like them. Mortally offended at any slight, vindictive to the point of obsession. Willow got into a facebook fight with one of her classmates and exhibited all the same traits.
That entire family is diseased.
gaz
@SatanicPanic:
Suckers deserve to be grifted. I’d considered raising my bet to Romney-esque proportions ($10k anyone?) But I wouldn’t be able to pay out if by some miracle I’m wrong. So for moral reasons, I chopped off a couple of zeros
...now I try to be amused
@JPL:
Romney and his circle don’t understand the difference between a prank and viciousness because that sort of viciousness is the norm in his preppie society. It’s how his society enforces its social norms. Lord of the Flies is about that society, and Romney is Ralph.
Villago Delenda Est
@dmsilev:
Apparently Todd and Sarah have raised all their kids to be just like them. Mortally offended at any slight, vindictive to the point of obsession. Willow got into a facebook fight with one of her classmates and exhibited all the same traits.
That entire family is diseased.
gwangung
I’m sure that’s the Republican strategy. But I think that comes from a thoroughly outsider’s viewpoint of the black community; my sense is that it might give a FEW some a pause, but that few is not going to add up to a statistically significant percentage point.
Not sure if this extends to the Latino community, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it did; immigration and generally being treated as a human being is far more central to the Latino community that is same sex marriage.
Villago Delenda Est
@dmsilev:
Apparently Todd and Sarah have raised all their kids to be just like them. Mortally offended at any slight, vindictive to the point of obsession. Willow got into a facebook fight with one of her classmates and exhibited all the same traits.
That entire family is diseased.
khead
Hmmmm…. not sure why my post popped up twice.
...now I try to be amused
@khead:
You’re not the only one who had a double post.
JPL
@khead: well mine is posting up all over the place.
it’s groundhog day ..
Merp
(okay just one more)
@Ash Can:
But the point about him supporting an anti-ssm so often for so long is that anyone who’s been following politics at all since 2008, and especially this campaign cycle, already knows Romney supports such an amendment. He said it at every one of those stupid debates, it’s constantly in the news, etc. The people to whom it’s news either don’t pay attention and so wouldn’t hear it this time either, or would have heard it when they start paying attention to the campaign in October. There’s just very little this changes. To use this as a springboard to cackle about the brilliance of Obama’s strategy is asinine. You make an ok point, but I think it’s pretty clear it doesn’t hold up.
Ok, I’m done.
JPL
@Merp: He doesn’t now he just wants a national standard and the gays can adopt and live happily ever after. Ed has some back tracking to do.
Calouste
@jl:
Yep, completely agree. Romney can’t be seen by the base as compromising with Obama because they don’t trust him and they don’t want to compromise. So the only thing Obama has to do is set out a somewhat reasonable position and Romney will run as far away from it as he can. The moment Obama takes a stand for the education of children of undocumented immigrants, Romney will be running off in the direction of repealing birthright citizenship.
Villago Delenda Est
Ah WP is doing one of its bizarre thingys.
Apologies for the extras. My browser locked up on the page, saying “waiting for http://www.balloon-juice.com“, I copied my post to the notepad, closed the tab, opened a new one, tried to resubmit, thinking it got lost in the tubes, and was told it was a duplicate post.
Fine.
Now I see there are
threefour copies of it! It’s not duplicate, it’striplicatequadruplicate! WP! FY!JPL
@Villago Delenda Est: I have more duplicates than you.. It’s okay now..
amk
@khead: cole’s vista moment never ends.
Soonergrunt
I’m certain that this has already been observed in this thread, but is it not some of the worst message timing to have this come out the day of the story about Mitt assaulting a gay student in his high school and then flubbing the acknowledgement and apology?
JPL
Since Romney flip-flopped from yesterday to today on his constitutional amendment can we just call him the who knows candidate?
Who really knows?
Villago Delenda Est
@Soonergrunt:
The worthless shit that constitutes the Village will ignore this. Mainly because the horse race is in serious fucking danger right now.
JCT
Mittens is still having a very bad day.
1. He just said that gays adopting children is OK. (the wingnuts will love this)
2. As per TPM:
Sure, Mittens, Obama as a flip-flopper. That should work. Keep talking about that.
He is about to make McCain’s campaign look like a work of art.
Mark S.
Wow, that’s exactly what Mitt needs: a bunch of former classmates talking about what asshole he was.
liz
So….gay couples can adopt, raise children who need loving homes…but they can’t get married and have any legal protections for those children as a family. Yeah Romneybot, MAKES TOTAL SENSE TO ME!
pseudonymous in nc
And I just found out that members of Congress don’t need a formal security clearance, even if they’re on the Intel committee: they just have to swear an oath not to spill any seekritz. My guess is that the CIA peeps had a quiet word with the head GOPer on the committee who had a quiet word with Bachmann.
As for RMoney, doesn’t everyone know by now that “I propose a constitutional amendment” is a completely meaningless political gesture?
beltane
@JCT: Per The Guardian Romney is about to go on Neil Cavuto’s show for purposes of “damage control”.
Steve
@JCT: The position that gays can adopt, but shouldn’t be allowed to marry, is a real head-scratcher.
SatanicPanic
@gaz:
haha I thought you’d say that. I probably should have bet more
Ash Can
@Merp: Zandar giving Obama credit for inducing Romney to make himself look stupid? Is that what’s bothering you?
Look at what Gillespie actually said. He didn’t say “Let me remind you all that this is/was/always has been Romney’s policy.” His words are forward-looking; his precise word is that Romney “will” campaign on this issue. While this certainly doesn’t contradict what Romney’s policy has been or is now, the sound bite plus the timing equal the overall takeaway that focusing on this amendment as a campaign issue comes as a response to what the president said, and makes Romney look (even more) venal as a result. This isn’t a matter of policy so much as a matter of optics, and the optics make Romney look all the worse, regardless of what his policies were prior to this statement.
Arguing about it, and taking Zandar to task over it, make no sense. But if your objective is simply to say that Obama ain’t shit and to jump on instances where you think he’s getting credit for something erroneously, then at least I can understand what your problem is.
schrodinger's cat
OT: Question for people who code in C++. How is the latest Visual Studio, I haven’t used C++ in more than 10 years, I am familiar with the Visual Studio from the late 90’s, early 00’s. Is it intuitive? What platform do you use?
Mnemosyne
@Brachiator:
I sincerely, sincerely doubt that the Obama campaign took this step without some kind of metrics behind it. Axelrod doesn’t seem like the kind of guy to step blindly into a potential electoral hornet’s nest without having some data behind the move.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that Axelrod’s numbers are 100% positive and saying this was an unmitigated win with all voters, but I think they probably had a pretty good idea of the pros and cons before they made the move.
EconWatcher
@Steve:
I assume he’ll have to walk back the approval of adoption by gay folks. The 27%ers won’t put up with that, will they?
Brachiator
@SatanicPanic:
Probably counts more. But that’s another discussion.
Again, it’s more than Latino homophobia, but I am not making a conclusion about votes. The stage is set for the GOP to try to peel previously loyal Latino voters away from Obama. And the Obama Administration is not going to passively sit back and let voters flee. It’s not clear that Obama’s announcement is bad tactically in any way, especially since it has forced Romney to look to appease the extreme right wing.
It expands the political battleground. Not the same thing as saying that the battle has been decided.
Ash Can
PS: WP sucks the farts out of dead pigeons.
Brian H
@Ash Can:
This.
Some Loser
@Brachiator: 70% of churchgoing black people voted for Prop 8! Black people voted similarly to everyone else. Kill this zombie lie already!
Steve
@EconWatcher: I sure wouldn’t think so. I mean, considering the #1 argument against gay marriage to this day is still “the gays want to molest and/or rape your kids,” I think a lot of people view gay adoption as more controversial than gay marriage.
KS in MA
@JPL: Fabulous.
Brachiator
@Mnemosyne:
Actually, I think this was politically risky. Which makes it all the more admirable. And yeah, Axelrod and company probably looked at all kinds of numbers; but the feelings behind this are too volatile for any campaign strategist to be able to predict how voters will react to this. And you certainly cannot easily predict the intensity of the GOP counter reaction.
Which is what makes politics so much fun.
Also, the Romneybot response is interesting, and may lead to an intense debate at all levels. I find the idea of a constitutional amendment to take people’s rights away to be particularly repugnant. But this is where Republicans are now. Again, people have to decide not only who they want for president, but also what kind of country they want to live in.
bemused
@JPL:
“Let me make it very clear…” Sounds like a good line for a drinking game if you want to get extremely loaded.
Mnemosyne
@Merp:
What are the poll numbers on where independents stand regarding gay marriage? We can wait here while you go look them up.
Tying this millstone around Romney’s neck now when he’s trying to move to the center and appeal to those independent voters is a deliberate and clever move on Obama’s part, especially since Romney has waffled on it more than once in the past. Now Romney is stuck.
JPL
@Steve: Yup.. Someone mentioned the other day that her Alabama niece who has twins was distraught because one of the children’s friends had two mommies. Well my goodness being a good evangelical can’t let that happen. The friend mentioned the niece was gonna sit down the 4 year old is say that was acceptable and the little boy couldn’t visit anymore.
My comment was why the hell would you teach bigotry and hatred to a four year old.
evangelicals won’t like this.
lamh35
BWHAHAHA, Wait! BWAHAHAHA wait. Let me stop laughing before I can’t breath. OMG! This fat F*&& who been married 4 FREAKIN’ TIMES….says Obama is “waging a war on traditional marriage”….WTF! HAHAHAHAHAH
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/rush-limbaugh-obama-gay-marriage_n_1505798.html
Mnemosyne
@Brachiator:
I didn’t say it was risk-free. I said that I think the Obama campaign knew the risks ahead of time and decided to go for it. Presumably they have some strategies to try and minimize the damage, but I’m sure they’re assuming they will lose X number of voters over this regardless.
SatanicPanic
@Brachiator: It does. I prefer Obama on the offensive, especially since Romney is so bad at handling these sorts of things.
Steve
@JPL: Like the song says, you’ve got to be carefully taught. These people never notice that their kids are completely non-freaked out and doing just fine.
Villago Delenda Est
@bemused:
Yeah, that “Let me make it very clear” is obviously a chug line.
Mnemosyne
@JPL:
Okay, PLEASE tell me this sentence means that the niece was going to sit down with her own child to say the child’s friend couldn’t visit anymore, because now I’m picturing her sitting SOMEONE ELSE’S child down to spew her bigotry at them. And, sadly, the vision is all too plausible.
JPL
All I can say is the debates are going to be interesting.
Let me very clear..I always supported Detroit..I never said that..
My goodness, Newt must be saying, I lost to this man…
JPL
@rlrr: Wow…just wow..
r€nato
@JCT:
shall we start a pool on how long it takes for that one to get walked back? I think no later than Monday.
@liz: glad I’m not the only one that occurred to…
Brachiator
@Some Loser:
The exit poll results I looked at did not cleanly break it down that way (CNN exit poll).
A later analysis claims that this was too high, and that support was closer to 59%, but I am not certain that the methodology is very good.
However, I noted that across all groups, people who were very religious, as measured by questions about church attendance, were more likely to vote for Prop 8. And yes, black people cannot be blamed for the passage of the Prop. That kind of shit is stupid.
Villago Delenda Est
@JPL:
You’ll recall that Noot made some categorical statement about something on a Sunday talk show, and by Monday afternoon denied he’d ever said it, because the fundigelicals went bananas Monday morning.
JPL
@Mnemosyne: Sorry..yes her own child. It does give new meaning to Christianity though.
Forum Transmitted Disease
@EconWatcher: There’s at least one fundie state that has a law against it. Romney, again, with yet another unforced error.
Steve
@Villago Delenda Est: That was the time he called the Ryan plan right-wing social engineering. His famous quote was “Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood.”
JPL
@Mnemosyne: My friend wanted to give her some guidance and I said that she should keep the children out of it. If she had such a strong anti-christian feeling she should tell the moms. My friend was horrified by such a suggestion cuz she’d have to admit her bigotry. hahahaha (not a close friend)
Villago Delenda Est
@Steve:
Thanks, it being a Noot uttering, I’d forgotten the policy details, but not the blatant mendacity of the situation.
gwangung
@Brachiator: Yes, the relgiousity component is probably more important. But even there, I think that pales to the feeling that Obama and his struggles are far more central to their own struggles than his feelings about same sex marriage. The very salient anti-black vibes coming from Republicans will make it very hard, I think, for Republicans to discourage black voting.
FlipYrWhig
@JPL: Next he’ll say he intends to take a lot of credit for Obama’s position that marriage has been defined by states.
JCT
@r€nato: At this point they should take Mittens home and lock him in a back room before he fucks up again. My g_d, how inept.
Forum Transmitted Disease
He’s doing his best to make George W. look like a stand up guy.
If I were bleeding in the middle of a road somewhere, and W came jogging by, he’d probably call for help. He conceivably might be so callous as to “walk on by”, as Nooners loves to say. He possibly could be too drunk to notice. But I’d feel pretty confident in asserting he wouldn’t take active steps to harm me.
Romney would cut my long hair and then steal my fucking wallet. And possibly my organs.
khead
@Ash Can:
Do dead pigeons really fart?
jl
@JPL:
” All I can say is the debates are going to be interesting.
Let me very clear..I always supported Detroit..I never said that..
My goodness, Newt must be saying, I lost to this man… ”
I predicted awhile back the debates could devolve into a Mittsaster if he is not careful.
For example, Mitt explaining that he was one of the first to support a managed bankruptcy, which as I recall is true. Mitt is arrogant enough to think he can finesse that by bullying through that and try to make it a gotcha.
Until some one will point out that Mitt specifically opposed any government assistance or bridge loans (as both Bush II and Obama did), and therefore the managed bankruptcy would have turned into a liquidation of most of the US auto industry, and crisis for Ford (Edit: though unsure if Ford would survive, unless it could hang through support by its foreign operations) and the foreign manufacturers that remained.
If the moderators do not mention that, Obama is more than quick enough on his feet to say it, more concisely and more memorably than I just did.
Edit: though the Bain Romney would eat up that scenario.
Forum Transmitted Disease
Merp = Knockabout’s new handle.
MikeJ
@khead: Gases accumulate inside the body after death, and they cold be analogous to farts. Since peristalsis will cease, suction would be an efficient way to remove those gases. Orally applying the suction is just gross though.
Chyron HR
@Forum Transmitted Disease:
Nah. Merp is at least making some argument besides “You’re dumb and stupid and if you don’t give me back my Red Swingline stapler I… I…. I’m going to burn down the office.”
jl
@jl:
to clarify, by
(as both Bush II and Obama did)
I meant both Bush II and Obama supported fed assistance and bridge loans, otherwise there would be no GM, and not many of its suppliers, today.
JPL
@FlipYrWhig: Who Knows!!
beltane
@Forum Transmitted Disease: And then he would baptize you as a Mormon so he could torment you in the next life.
David Koch
At least Romney stands for something, unlike NØbama.
Chris
@Villago Delenda Est:
The hell of it is, I’m not even sure that’s true, given his voters’ disciplined, authoritarian and Obama loathing outlook. But he thinks it is, and that’s all that matters.
Chris
@Villago Delenda Est:
The hell of it is, I’m not even sure that’s true, given his voters’ disciplined, authoritarian and Obama loathing outlook. But he thinks it is, and that’s all that matters.
Mike E
@Merp:
FTFY
Seanly
Presidential politics & eleventy dimension chess aside (tough I know), but is there any analysis on what wildly conflicting state laws & constitutional amendments will mean for the future of gay marraige? What happens when a gay couple from NY moves to SC? Don’t states have to honor things like marraiges from other states? I forget what article it is in the Constitution.
And then there is the issue of trying to amend state constitutions to reverse these stances.
MikeJ
@Seanly: This has been answered right here about 47 times since yesterday. When it goes to the supreme court there will be a case much like Loving v Virginia. We hope this will not happen until Scalia is dead and replaced with a human.
Jeff
@jibeaux: Yeah, it’ll cost him in the general election–He’ll wind up with 98.5% of the AA vote instead of 99%
lacp
Willard’s campaign statements are looking less and less like Etch-a-Sketch and more and more like Magic 8 Ball.
Mnemosyne
@JPL:
So, basically, your friend’s niece wants her kid to go to the kid’s friend and say, “My mommy says I can’t play with you anymore because your mommies are going to burn in hell.”
Yeah, that won’t make the niece look bad at all.
/eyeroll
Seriously, if you’re going to ban your child from playing with someone else’s child, at least have the balls to tell that person yourself rather than sending your four-year-old to do the dirty work.
Mnemosyne
@Seanly:
The reason the Republicans now say they want to pass a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is that they know the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will probably end up requiring states that don’t allow same-sex marriage to recognize them when/if people move to that states from places like Massachusetts. There’s really no other constitutional way for the whole thing to be resolved — unless you change the Constitution.
Somebody posted yesterday that, when the DADT repeal was going on, they had a briefing where a Pentagon representative basically said that DADT repeal would automatically require the armed services to recognize same-sex marriages even if the specific military base was in a state that didn’t recognize it. So the train is coming down the tracks, and there’s very little conservatives can do to stop it short of amending the US Constitution.
Mike in NC
Rmoney bully story is on the national network news. Not a good night for Rmoney.
MikeJ
@Mnemosyne:
BTW, a related stat I learned from William Gibson’s twitter feed: when Obama was born his parent’s marriage was illegal in 22 states.
Patricia Kayden
I wonder how many gays will vote for Romneybot 2.0 now that he has made his position clear on what he’ll do about marriage if he is elected. Apparently, quite a few voted for Repubs in 2010.
FlipYrWhig
@Seanly: As I understand it, a same-sex couple is going to have to get married in a state that allows it, move to a state that doesn’t, do something to claim the rights of married couples in that new state, have it withheld from them, then take the new state to court. Then, in court, they’ll have to argue that their right to equal protection is more important than the state’s right to maintain its own laws on marriage. The same-sex couple will cite Loving v. Virginia, and the state will cite precedents like refusing to recognize marriages performed in other states where at least one party is underage, or where the parties are too closely related. Then we see what happens. Caveat: IANAL.
gaz
@schrodinger’s cat:
Hai!
Visual Studio 11 is still in beta last I checked, and you can get a free copy.
It supports the majority of the new C++11 spec, which as Bjarne S. said, basically makes it a new language. You now have things like Lambda expressions and type inference.
One notable limitation of Visual Studio 11’s C++ compiler is it’s lack of support for full variadic template arguments (where you can fill a template with an arbitrary # of arguments, useful for Tuples, for example). That said, MS’s preprocessor has something of a workaround for this, so it’s a relatively minor thing.
All in all, I love Visual Studio 2008, hated 2010, and love 11, FWIW. They improved the IDE for C++ significantly as well in this new version. In fact, Microsoft has declared an “Unmanaged Renaissance”, and are now throwing much weight behind C++ coding instead of putting all of their efforts behind .NET… Overall, Visual Studio 11 is an EPIC WIN, IMO
gaz
@schrodinger’s cat: forgot to add. Don’t let the fact that 11 is beta discourage you from writing production code. Microsoft GUARANTEES it’s viability and robustness in a production scenario. They put it in writing. It’s beta, but it’s rock-solid.
burritoboy
You guys don’t get it. Obama isn’t just controlling the near-term narrative, though he’s doing that too.
The only way Romney wins is if he can present himself as the guy who can fix the economy. That’s it – that’s the only route Romney has – he has no charisma, no foreign policy chops or successes, no heroic biography, no personality, no nothing except that he’s a business whiz.
Romney is getting presented to the American people right now at this very moment. Most non-political junkies don’t pay attention until both sides have firmed up their nominees. That happened for the Republicans a mere two weeks ago or so.
What Obama is doing is controlling how Romney gets to present himself to the American public as a whole for the first time. If Romney can successfully put himself across as the Mr. Fix-It for the economy, no matter how awful he is otherwise, Romney’s got a reasonable shot. Romney’s campaign needs to be putting across that message 24/7 and beating it into people’s heads.
Except that Obama went and tied up Romney’s campaign with a bunch of social issues that completely derails the Romney campaign’s message. If Obama were playing against someone else, say a Republican who’s more solid with the evangelicals or just was more personally charismatic, this move wouldn’t do much, or would hurt Obama.
But, for Romney’s campaign, Romney doesn’t have enough good qualities outside of his business genius (such as it is) that they can afford to let Romney spend a lot of time talking about family values, or Judeo-Christian heritage, or some such. Romney is the antithesis of somebody who the voters are going to want to hear stuff like that from – you’ve got to have both a certain history with those issues and a certain type of either “kindly old uncle” (Reagan, Bush I, Dole) or “preacherman” (Huckabee) personality to pull it off – neither of which is remotely like Romney.
Mnemosyne
@burritoboy:
Don’t forget Bush II’s appeal on those issues since he had the strongest possible appeal you can have for that crowd: reformed sinner who was personally saved by Jesus.
FlipYrWhig
@burritoboy: If I were advising Romney, and thankfully I am not, I would try to pull together the culture wars stuff and the businessman stuff by running as “Traditional Dad.” That way he could say, “Yes, I’ll admit it, I’m stiff and square and dull, but I provide for you and dish out the discipline you need. Now go out back and cut me a switch.”
Cato
the white, working class blue collar swing voters in the midwest that will decide this election arent to keen on homomarriage. and just wait until the ads start…
Sarah, Proud and Tall
@Cato:
Yay! Where have you been taco boy? We missed you….
jl
@Sarah, Proud and Tall: Writing some kind of ad, for white working class AND blue collar swingers, looks like.
Sarah, Proud and Tall
@Cato:
Go on, tell us the one about Romney winning Pennsylvania again….
gaz
@Sarah, Proud and Tall: lol
gaz
Taco does this blog a service.
After all, every village needs an idiot, amirite?
Somebody has to do it. We should honor his sacrifice.
gaz
@burritoboy: I don’t know what made you think “we” don’t get it. Or who “we” is for that matter.
You’re not exactly alone in that, and it’s arrogant of you to think you are. Just sayin’
Betsy
@FlipYrWhig: Yeah, but I am, and that was pretty damn good.
pattonbt
The more the discussion is off the economy, the better it is for Obama. I think the gay marriage issue is a wash for the most part. It might fire up the young and the base a bit and it might peel off a few homophobes to the other side. But, people are tired of the culture wars, at least right now with the economy only slowly improving. The more you get the R’s hate out in the open and the main story of the day, the better. Hating on social issues at this particular time is a loser. And Mitt screws up badly when he tries to bring the hate, he just can’t demagogue like the typical R’s (not that he can demagogue at all). He has the hate, he just doesnt know how to bring it to the base.
I still believe Obama has a better economic message and history, but Mitt only has “businessman” cred to run on, so to get a horse race, it has to be economy all the time for Mitt to even have a shred of a chance. But the media will fight itself over it’s desire for the horse race (thus focusing on the economy) and “winning the day” narrative crap, which most of time will be a loser for Mitt.
But really, any left leaning or independent person who changes their vote to Romney over this issue is a flat out piece of human garbage and wasn’t voting O anyway. If homophobia is what rules your vote, you were already leaning to Romney’s side.
Darkrose
@Brachiator:
That 70% figure has been pretty thoroughly debunked. It was an extrapolation from exit polling, which is about as reliable for predictions as reading the entrails of sacrificial animals.
The other thing that people seem to miss is that while the majority of black folks may not think same-sex marriage is cool, the number of black folks who have that as their number-one issue when determining who to vote for is probably in the double digits at most. The presidential election isn’t a single-issue deal, and even if it were, that’s really not the single issue that a majority of even the most devout, churchgoing black–or any other color–people are staying up nights worrying about.