...but is this nation really ready for an African American POTUS? I still can't get over the fact that this country voted for W twice, but that makes it all the more incredible that the successor to a man who has taken it upon himself to drag our country back into the Dark Ages should be a man of color who wants to talk about unification and ending the war in Iraq.And that was the theme behind Barack Obama's bid for the presidency, which he announced today in Springfield, Illinois. Good for him! And good for our country, too. What I like about Obama is his seemingly genuine interest in making things right in this country. It's hard to argue with someone who says our country is woefully divided and that the war in Iraq isn't working.
Still, I don't see POTUS material here. We're still making a big deal about there being less than ten black Oscar winners and now the American public is going to put an African American Muslim in the Oval Office? The same public that has cheered George W. Bush into Iraq and who has sworn allegiance to curbing civil rights is now going to vote for a black man who is unashamed to say that everybody in this country deserves the freedom to be happy and access to medical care?
Forget about the American public for a second. Let's ask these questions of the Democratic Party who sold 2004 away by throwing John Kerry into the ring! Theresa Kerry was more of a liability than Howard Dean come to think of it. So now the same party that has been hemming and hawing in the sidelines for the past seven years, and finally managed to finagle ownership of the legislative branch of our country's government this year, is going to bet its hot streak on a black liberal?
Would be nice. But I'm not holding my breath.
14 comments:
Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim. Google it.
Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim.
That means he's toast, as far as the liberals are concerned.
It's hard to argue with someone who says our country is woefully divided and that the war in Iraq isn't working.
The hell it is. It's the libs who have been making damn sure the country stays divided. They keep whining about it, but you can't find any examples of them trying to unify the country.
This is from Barack's campain manager, Robert Gibbs in the Chicago Tribune:
"Barack Obama is opposed to gay marriage but believes in civil unions as a policy, and secondly, our position on a Constitutional amendment is exactly the same position as Vice President Dick Cheney's in that it's unnecessary,"
FYI.
Wow and wow. Still, Barack's middle name is Hussein and his dad is Muslim. And I didn't know his stance on gay marriage. Shame on him like John Edwards, none of these candidates are for gay rights.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That's the state of our union in 1789. The Constitution included items which we find totally unacceptable today.
There are 27 amendments. Change comes incrementally. In a democracy many minds have to be persuaded.
“I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so,” Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC. Bush acknowledged that his position put him at odds with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions.
“I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights,” said Bush, who has pressed for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. “States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others.”
-George W. Bush.
Natrually, no gay liberal seems to remember that or the fact that he took a lot of heat for saying it. Of course what we're supposed to believe is that Bush hates all gays.
Meanwhile, when liberal candidates oppose gay marriage and say the same thing Bush did, we're supposed to quiver all over and throw all our money and support behind that candidate.
This is nothing more than partisan hackery on the part of gay liberals.
There are 27 amendments. Change comes incrementally. In a democracy many minds have to be persuaded.
I see. So when a Republican such as Dick Cheney vocally supports a definition of marriage that includes same sex couples, he is a Republican asshole and his bitch daughter, by virtue of her name is a cunt-faced whore who should be stoned.
But, when a Democrat clearly opposes the inclusion of same sex couples in marriage, he simply needs to be persuaded.
Makes sense.
Mr. Bailey, I would appreciate a citation to locate the source of your comment, "...Dick Cheney vocally supports a definition of marriage that includes same sex couples..."
Thank you.
Gene- The direct quote and other comments can be found at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5817720/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/25/MNGHQ8DV6Q1.DTL
and you won't want to miss Mary Cheney on Fox news opposing both the anti-gay marriage amendment and the Clinton Defense of Marriage act.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/14/060514200520.1ux3pl29.html
Ugh- i don't know how to embed the links.
Sorry.
The initial comment that I quote was reported by the Associated Press on August 25 2004. It was reprinted on MSNBC the next day. It was picked up by many outlets. A simple search for "cheney , gay marriage" will pull up everyone.
As for Mary, she opposed the amendment and the Republicans' support for it on Fox News, Sunday May 14th. Again, a simple search will pull it up.
Hope that helps. If not, maybe GCL would post the direct links?
Thank you, Mr. Bailey, for the citation. The Google reference works very well.
Here's a part of Mr Cheney's statement which is pertinent to your "a definition of marriage that includes same sex couples"---"With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People . . . ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."
An earlier comment to this post by TGC quotes Mr. Bush, “I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so;" and “I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights."
Um...Personally, I think civil unions, as are performed in France, say, (at a time before a religious) ceremony, is a perfectly rational way to go.
Others, for whatever reason, choose to insist the word "marriage" is absolutely necessary for social legitimization of their commitment.
While Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush clearly favor civil unions, their support for the word "marriage" is less clear, if not absent, as is indicated by Mr. Bush's statement.
Thanks again for the Google nudge. I will continue to look for a specific citation which states either of the two gentlemen supports the use of the word "marriage" when applied to gay or lesbian couples. When I find it, I will let you know immediately. Please do the same.
Thank you.
Gene- I NEVER suggested that George Bush favored gay marriage. He SAYS he doesn't. So I assume that is true.
Mr. Cheney's response is a direct answer to the question regarding gay marriage. No, he did not say "I support gay marriage", but he did no less by stating "Freedom means freedom for everyone... people should be able to enter whatever relationships they want" in response to the question.
And again, Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards... all of them have said "marriage" when they express their support of BANNING same sex couples from it.
And why is Dick Cheney evil when he supports gay marriage, but when Obama or Kerry say "civil unions", it's all "well, civil unions would be ok"??
Mr. Bailey, you'll have to ask whoever uses the word "evil" in a posting about Mr. Cheney, or even the word "hate" in a posting about Mr. Bush. I try not to use such language. I cannot defend it.
If I may pick at a teensy nit, your assertion: " No, he did not say "I support gay marriage", but he did no less by stating "Freedom means freedom for everyone... people should be able to enter whatever relationships they want" in response to the question," calls for a leap to suggest that Mr. Cheney supports the use of the word "marriage" with regards to your relationship with your "husband," as you posted in your comment on the Dixie Chicks entry. You may be correct, he might, indeed, support such usage, but there is precious little on the record to support your contention.
It comes very close to being analogous to whether or not the administration "lied" about WMDs, for instance. No, to be sure, there are probably no instances where there is a certifiable lie on the part of anyone speaking to the public in support of the invasion of Iraq before March, 2003, but there has certainly been some identified instances of "tap dancing" around the veracity of the administration's claims prior to 3/2003.
I will grant the latitude to assert Mr. Cheney "meant" something he did not say specifically, if, in turn I am granted the possibility that the obfuscations and spins leading up to the invasion constitute at least "virtual" fibs if not outright lies.
God bless America.
For a start, MSNBC, FOX News, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Family Research Center all understood what he said.
Second, I am not interested in weather or not he supports my marriage (notice lack of sarcastic quotes). I am only interested in pointing out that while Obama et al have come out against gay marriage, he has not. He clearly and eloquently answered a question on gay marriage and made his position clear- to everyone but you it seems.
And, I was pointing out your hypocrisy- in a previous comment on another subject you accused Mr. Cheney of complicity with the President's stand on gay marriage even though he made a strong statement to the contrary. However, when Obama's position was made perfectly clear you gave him a pass.
Finally- you can assume whatever you like. I do not have any information that would persuade me that the President lied of fibbed about WMD's. I do know for a fact that Hillary, Bill, John, et al saw the same intelligence and made the same assertions.
Post a Comment