As previously pointed out to you there is no inconsistency. Marriage is a state issue, illegal drugs are a federal issue per the little thing called the Constitution that you Republicans claim to love and revere.
Not really. It was red meat for his base, meant to stir up their enthusiasm and help him with fundraising. And it worked: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/obamas-gay-marriage-support-fundraising-boom.html
Ask the Capitalists You So Adore We could always ask that great capitalist William Randolph Hearst, who turned his yellow journalism against marijuana. Or the DuPont corporation. Or the anti-immigrant American Coalition. Or the Seventy-Fifth Congress of the United States of America. States' Rights in any sense applicable to marijuana fell, according to the wishes of what we would today describe as conservative political elements, in 1937. Indeed, according to John Helmer's 1975 book Drugs and Minority Oppression, the very name "marihuana" was given to hemp during this period in order to influence perceptions of the plant; "marihuana" sounded more Mexican. So, basically, states' rights in marijuana policy went out the window because it suited capitalists and racists. What bugs me about your kind of appeal—"What happened to states' rights?"—is that it seems to ignore the realities of American politics. Kind of like marriage equality, actually. That is, when issues of right and wrong—in both, contexts of accuracy to the one and morality to the other—are in play, one of the prices of democracy is that right does not always prevail. Most liberals believe that Democrats in general recognize the inevitability of marriage equality as a legal concept, independent of their personal moral outlooks. By this theory, Barack Obama's "evolution" on the subject of marriage equality is not so much about his personal view of it, but, rather, his political calculation. In 2008, there was a chance that gay marriage—you know, one of those things Republicans keep whining about while also trying to convince us that any response to their nonsense is a distraction because people are more concerned with economic matters—could have derailed Obama's campaign for the White House. Democratic supporters accepted this; liberals have watched the president play the cosmic chess game that is the American political dynamic, and their biggest frustration is that he has played so passive a game. All the vice president did with his Meet the Press remarks is bring the issue back to such focus that the president felt he had to respond; in other words, Biden forced Obama's hand. Well enough; many Democratic supporters are tired of mucking around in order to accommodate political reality—every once in a while, factual correctness and moral propriety (that is, what is right and proper) must have priority over the appeasement of bigotry and ignorance that our political culture demands. But, comparatively, marijuana policy is even more of a minefield for a president. With politicians, courts, law enforcement, and civic organizations all tending toward prohibition—perhaps you might recall the Apprendi hate crime ruling by the Supreme Court, and the ephemeral debate about why the same sort of sentencing policies struck down in hate crime issues should not be struck from drug laws—I'm uncertain what you think a president in and of himself can do. After all, with marriage equality, the Obama administration has already lost a round in federal court concerning the Defense of Marriage Act. This is why the administration won't defend DoMA in court. (In case the logic escapes anyone, it is enough to say that the heart of the presidential oath of office is to uphold the Constitution; DoMA lost in federal court on a Tenth Amendment issue, and it seems strange to ask the president, in terms of enforcing the laws, to argue that the supreme law of the land—which he is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend—is unenforceable. That is, in order to enforce what remains of DoMA, the president would have to denounce Article I of the Constitution, as well as Amendments V and XIV.) Give President Obama that kind of platform to oppose marijuana prohibition, and he probably will. But, you know, it's still the capitalists pushing that prohibition. What happened to states' rights? Ask conservative capitalists, and stop trying to put it on Obama. It's the same issue as when George W. Bush was president; it's the same issue as when Ronald Reagan pushed the Drug War in the 1980s with the result of increasing illicit drug trade and use. No wonder right-wing fanatics want to blame Obama. They'd rather people simply ignore history. And the Constitution. And the reality of politics in the United States. ____________________ Notes: Helmer, John. Drugs and Minority Oppression. New York: Seabury Press, 1975.
An interesting tidbit: Add one more to the list: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...1188544.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
In those primaries you referenced, were Republicans voting as Democrats as they do today? No. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html The facts are things are not looking so good for Romney. According to former Republican Congressman Joe Scarbarough, none of the Republican leaders he speaks with and associates with believe that Romney has a snowball's chance in Hell of ever becoming POTUS.
Amazing that as recently as 1991, Bill Clinton had to lie about "not inhaling" to get elected....... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As recently as 2000, nobody gave much of a shit that W was a former alcoholic, cokehead, drunk driver, etc.
The rich are even getting scared of the mega-rich. Better late than too late... There must be an expiration date for how long they can call them the Bush tax cuts, and have to own them theyselves.
What a week. Unemployment is up, Walker trounces the union in Wisconsin leaving behind an infrastructure Romney will find quite helpful this November, and now the Obama Girl is refusing to endorse Obama..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, but some of those 45,000,000 Americans still on food stamps will no doubt find employment making the new offerings from the Obama store website...only $12.00 and made in the U.S.A. https://store.barackobama.com/i-meow-for-michelle-cat-collar.html Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Clinton didn't lie about inhaling. Christopher Hitchens knew him from Oxford and said that he was allergic to smoke and so opted for "the brownie method."
Some guests of Obama at the Whitehouse for a gay pride event decided to photograph themselves flipping off a portrait of President Reagan and then posted the photos on facebook: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Good to see such a high level of respect for the office and decorum at the Obama White House. Also, if you have a wedding, birthday, or anniversary coming up, don't waste money on gifts! Ask for donations to Obama instead via the new Obama Event registry: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/the-obama-event-registry/
A large number of elderly voters have died since then. Most of us who grew up laughing at Reefer Madness have a much more mature attitude about marijuana use.
If I were about to get married, I'd sign up with the Obama Event Registry in a heartbeat. Helping to ensure his reelection would be a great wedding present. I like how you pin the lack of respect for Reagan and his terrible policies on "The Obama White House". It was Obama's fault for inviting these people? Not having SS agents watching their every move? Not banning cell phones?
Is it surprising? Obama girl has been making a lot of money on the right wing circuit these days. But does that mean President is Obama is any less of a President? I think not.
Would it be too much to ask for some evidence supporting the veracity of these allegations especially given your track record?
Conservative are conservatives are conservatives I'm not so worried about the veracity of Madanthonywayne's propaganda, but, rather, its spirit. Apparently, free speech ends at the White House door, in his opinion. Secondly, we need to recognize that Ronald Reagan intentionally left gays to the ravages of HIV. Yeah, frankly, the old man deserves a couple of fingers for that one. Third, we need to recognize that Madanthonywayne has nothing of substance these days, owing in large part to his commitment to Party instead of principle. Like that idiotic Obama-the-socialist thread in which he raised the "hot mic" scandal. It's what, two weeks later, and not a single conservative will offer a substantive response to the outstanding questions? And why should there be a substantive answer? That's not their point. Honest consideration of issues and arguments works against their preferred outcome. You would think that, in all of this muckraking conservatives are trying, something would stick for reasons beyond exhaustive repetition. But exhaustive repetition is all they have, and I think this is because they know they are being dishonest. That is, had they an honest argument to make, would they really need two weeks to formulate a response to the most glaringly obvious questions their rhetoric raises? They don't intend to answer, because all they want to do is insinuate. Hell, you would think, after the Jeremiah Wright issue in 2008, that conservatives would manage at least some manner of demonstrative consistency. Even flaccid condemnations of John McCain's spiritual advisor—a genocidal Christian—or Sarah Palin's preacher, who said God would punish America for its sins, or even the latest garbage from Glenn Beck, who claims to have seen (ha!) "the finger of God", would help dispel the myth that what the Wright issue was really about was skin color. But it was. It still is. It's why we hear about "black liberation theology" and all manner of conspiratorial rubbish from the right. And, in the end, it's okay. Republicans like Madanthonywayne might fear honesty, but other folks can still play to the gallery. And while shades of Godwin always have a slight effect on the temperature of a discussion, we might consider the recent issue with Holocaust denial. We let a denier try to play out his argument, and he had nothing. And that's the common seed. If we let these conservatives play their hand, we will repeatedly find that they have nothing. It's a bluff. So, yes, we can certainly give some serious attention to this kind of dishonesty, and hope that readers choosing to follow the discussion will see what is writ large in the figurative forty-foot flaming letters: Don't pay attention to reality. Ignore principle. Just nod and believe what conservatives tell you. It's all they have. Ronald Reagan didn't trust God. So he demanded God's provenance for himself. By leaving sinners to die according to a vicious disease, Reagan achieved some worldly satisfaction. The situation was a genocidal wet dream: All I have to do is nothing, and people I don't like will die! So Madanthonywayne is distressed at the level of respect for the office of the Presidency? What's new? He apparently thinks domestic electoral politics have no practical effect on international diplomacy. And, it seems, he thinks that when you enter the White House, a central symbol of our republic, one should check their right to free speech at the door. Yeah. What's new? He's a conservative. We ought to be accustomed to this routine by now.
