Obama Hearts Gay People

Obama is touring with a singer who hates gay people.  Obama’s religious affairs director, Joshua DuBois, has responded to the criticism.

He is a master of spin (USAToday onpolitics):

Stops on Obama’s gospel tour are Charleston on Oct. 26,  Greenwood on Oct. 27, and Columbia on Oct. 28. Joshua DuBois, the campaign’s religious affairs director, said in announcing it: “This is another example of how Barack Obama is defying conventional wisdom about how politics is done and giving new meaning to meeting people at the grassroots level. This concert tour is going to bring new people into the political process and engage people of faith in an unprecedented way.”

Unprecedented?  Hell yes it is.  The GOP has never appealed to “religious” votes using hateful bigot musicians.  Not ever.  So there.

Advertisements

8 Responses

  1. We are getting bogged down in the quagmire of political issues that should not be a factor in the election of a president of the U.S. The stance of any politician is known by his voting record more intimately than by his words. Consistency is the key here. Not this inane approach that you can be for something after you are against it proportionate to popular opinion. Voters really need to use this as the mechanism for choice of a candidate.

    “My candidate has 30 years of consistency to show, what’s yours got?”

  2. Actually, no candidates are fully consistent. They might hold the same positions over time, but those positions often conflict. Ron Paul’s an example of this. Libertarian on one hand, anti-choice and anti-homosexuality on the other.

    Part of Obama’s appeal (or really anyone who isn’t Hillary), is standing for one thing consistently. Words and votes both matter, a lot. Especially for the President, who exercises power through words. So for him to contradict his message of tolerance this badly, apparently to pander to “religious” voters, hurts him badly right where he needs to build support.

  3. Again I do not understand how you draw your conclusions. He is pro life not anti choice (soliloquy intended). Based on the field of medicine he was in and on the fact that if he were to do harm to a fetus while practicing medicine he would be criminally responsible I think that position is sound and consistent regardless of whether or not you agree with him.

    He voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman, voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage, he believes Washington shouldn’t dictate to us our personal behavior. That is not the stance of an anti homosexuality politician and again is consistent with the constitution on the federal governments authority and has been consistent throughout his career on this. He also has a 67% approval rating by the ACLU (which I’m not sure if that’s a good or a bad thing apart from this discussion).

    My bigger point on consistency is that he doesn’t appear to go which ever way the political wind blows.

  4. Blatant pandering and unforgivable pandering.

    I have de-blogrolled Obama and returned my Obama 2008 T-shirt to his camp with a terse note.

    He’s clearly not ready fro primetime.

  5. Michael D,
    Choice is an issue of privacy, of the government not intruding. “My body my choice” is a very apt slogan. Whatever his personal reasons, he’s not being a good libertarian on this issue.

    How can you then go on to say Ron Paul believes “Washington shouldn’t dictate to us our personal behavior” after just explaining how he’d do so through his opposition to reproductive choice? And how is his keeping Washington from telling us what to do any good at all if he’d let State Governments play big brother? None of this speaks to a libertarian ideology.

    He does appear to have a fool’s consistency, which can be good. He lacks internal consistency though.

    Christopher,
    Obama is sinking himself when we really need a strong alternative to Hillary. What a douche.

  6. Twist away but my point was that he is not opposing choice he is supporting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 🙂

  7. How is the federal government leaving a state issue up to the state opposing it in the slightest ? You skew the subject well but not honestly.
    If he was a democrat I’d be voting democrat. I believe he has the integrity that the other wanna bees (hornets) LACK.
    State governments are run by representatives no? Representatives of whom? The system is checks and balances or not? To all the candidates that see the constitution as an obstacle and not an oath, BLOW ME!!! Same old same old is too old.

  8. Michael D,
    You’re twisting. He is absolutely opposing choice. Framing it in such obviously pandering tripe is condescending.

    Take the issue of reproductive choice. If I take action I know will lead to the abolition of reproductive choice in a number of states, am I not opposing it?

    State governments are just governments, in the end. They can represent people, or they can abuse people. Just like the federal government. Just like local government.

    Ron Paul wears integrity like a cheap halloween costume. Just because he has the mask, doesn’t mean he really is Ronald Reagan with an eyepatch.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: