Maybe it wasn’t the gay money?

May 10, 2012

Michael Medved has a different take on the president’s latest flip-flop:

Some observers see the new position as a desperate attempt to bring new energy and oomph to the campaign’s lagging fundraising, and sure enough the president sent out a melodramatic money-begging message (“If you agree, you can stand up with me here”) the same day he made the big announcement. But in a race where each side will raise and spend in excess of a billion dollars, it’s hard to imagine that a few extra million from gay activists (or even hundreds of millions) would alter the outcome decisively.


The real reason for the president’s sudden decision to reverse course on gay marriage almost certainly involves a very different sort of calculation: a desperate desire to distract attention from economic issues in order to avoid the imminent collapse of his campaign. After Friday’s sour jobs report, the evidence of anti-incumbent fever from Indiana to France, rumblings of potential catastrophe in the eurozone, and deeply alarming poll numbers on the economy, the administration will do anything to change the subject.

An April Washington Post-ABC News poll showed those who “strongly disapproved” of Obama’s handling of the economy outnumbered those who “strongly approved” by nearly 2-to-1 (42-23 percent). Moreover, the percentage who strongly disapproved of his economic stewardship stood even higher than it did in late October, 2010 – on the eve of the historic Republican sweep that captured 63 formerly Democratic House seats. James (“It’s the Economy, Stupid!”) Carville sounded the alarm on CNN about the need for his fellow Democrats to “WTFU”—or “Wake The F**k Up”—before they blow the election and hand Republicans a victory they don’t deserve.

Where liberals once attacked George W. Bush for talking about gay marriage in order to take the focus away from his failures on the economy and foreign policy, it’s now Barack Obama who wants to talk about gay marriage (and, where possible, foreign policy) to draw attention from his epic failures on the economy.

33 Responses to Maybe it wasn’t the gay money?

  1. anonymous un-RINO on May 10, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    Speaking of gay, isn’t it time RINO Medved came out of the closet?

  2. Bizman on May 10, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    Shorter Medved:

    “How dare Obama try to steal a page from the Republican Playbook. Whaaaa!”

  3. Bizman on May 10, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    “It’s now Barack Obama who wants to talk about gay marriage ”

    It never ceases to amaze me how easily Wingnut morons like Medved slip complete mis-characterizations into their polemics…and then you all swallow the rest of hook along with the line and sinker.

    LOL….Republicans have been making gay marriage an issue for a long time. But now, WHOOPS, looks like this one’s gonna backfire.

  4. Ah, the Bush years... on May 10, 2012 at 1:15 pm

    Whenever Bush was losing control of the message, Homeland Security would magically raise the terrorist threat to Code Orange, and remind the good folk in the Homeland that he was a Wartime President. Only Republicans can be Wartime Presidents, the beauty of it.

  5. satted on May 10, 2012 at 1:18 pm

    lol, I completly agree… This grandstanding has nothing to do with raising funds… it’s an attempt to distract from the real issues.

    And I don’t believe Romney did a good job of responding.

    One other thought I had… Obama also tried to capture a few conservative votes… “It’s a states issue”. Damn right it is and we don’t him to tell us so… Many of these issues start as “state” governed and the FED has to step in… it’s a ploy. Good politics… and Romney lost another step and chance.

  6. Sri on May 10, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    That theory would only be good for one news cycle. 2 weeks from now, all non-gays would have forgotten Obama’s evolution because deep down everyone knows he’s always been for it.

    But the economy will still *SUCK* in two weeks time. So he has gained nothing more than a few days from this statement. But his statement on this issue stays with him forever, and will enrage evangelicals who will now get out in droves to vote him out if they didn’t so far. Obama has to believe he’s gaining something big in return, and given his precarious finances this time, a few tens of millions make a big difference. Don’t discount the gay community’s money as a factor.

  7. In the anonymous un-RINO style on May 10, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    See, the Mormon thug cut the gay kid’s hair. That’s how it works, you see. If you are gay, and you have long blond hair, then some Mormon thug is going to pin you down and cut it. That’s how it works.

  8. Bizman on May 10, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    Romney apologizes for being dumb.

    “Mitt Romney has apologized for incidents described in a Washington Post story about his prep school years in Michigan. Some of the events include forcibly cutting a boy’s bleached-blond hair and hassling a closeted gay student in English class.
    “Back in high school, I did some dumb things,” Romney said in an interview on the “Kilmeade and Friends” talk show on Fox News radio Thursday. “And if anybody was hurt by that or offended by that, I apologize.” He added: “There is no question I became a very different person since then.”

    Yeah, he’s WORSE.

  9. In the anonymous un-RINO style on May 10, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    See, the Mormon thug acted out in rebellion of his father, but came around to try to impress his father. Just like Bush. See, that’s how it works, and we conservatives love it. If the Mormon thug’s father invaded Iraq, then the Crapweasel Progressive Willard would invade Iraq too. See, that’s how it works, and we conservatives love it.

  10. In the anonymous un-RINO style on May 10, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    See, the Mormon thug evaded the draft, and none of his 5 sons have signed up, despite two wars. See, that’s how it works, and we conservatives love it.

  11. Steven Broiles on May 10, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    I look at it this way: Let us not get tripped up in the (sordid) details here. Obama does have political smarts, but they are primarily, first and foremost, of the academic variety. This is not the first time he has been a step or two behind the curve. His lack of dexterity in political matters shows, in these little fights, and in his governance (or the lack thereof), also.
    Whether he gets re-elected or not, this is a man who stumbles, and he will continue to stumble, until he trips up big-time. Good for him, Bad for America.

  12. anonymous un-RINO on May 10, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    I like this sockpuppet’s style. Some panache, with a touch of anarchy. All you other sockpuppets take note. 😉

  13. anonymous un-RINO on May 10, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    …but pinning down the gay kid and cutting his “long blond hair” seems to be activating you somehow. Is there anything you want to tell us? 😉

  14. stas peterson on May 10, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    Why has no one actually seen the body language of the (ahem), gentleman as he took his non-position on gay marriage?

    It was as if he were vouching for a the conduct of a mass murderer with very bad case of halitosis. But then he has done that for long time as Bill Ayers had killed, or ordered killed, more people than Charles Manson…

  15. MikeN on May 10, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    “at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I…”
    Obama in press conference.

  16. invalid10 on May 10, 2012 at 3:56 pm

    Romney bullied a gay classmate in high school

    LOOMFIELD HILLS, Mich. — Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

  17. Bizman is an idiot on May 10, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    …to draw attention from his epic failures on the economy

    Nothing will draw attention away from Obama’s epic FAILURES on the economy

    Not even idiot Bizman’s boating stories, or paulbot Invalid’s queer boy stories

    Face the facts – Obama is a FAILURE and he’s a dead man walking and Ron Paul has, once again, failed to make his case so he will simply fade away.

    It’s the economy, STUPID, and Obama will lose to whoever runs against him.

    If you don’t like it, tough. Those are the facts so just deal with it already.

  18. Gerry Owen on May 10, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    Why should I give a flip about how Romney was as a schoolkid?

  19. unclefred on May 10, 2012 at 4:42 pm

    Spin divert spin divert

    The problem is that the spin keeps slowing and the diversion’s legs keep getting ever shorter.

    Had a brief chat with an older gay man today. He was shocked to learn that shortly after Obama’s statement one of his supporting super PACs picked up a million dollars in donations. I simply provided him the links to the stories, he’ll make up his own mind. His reaction was “disgusting”.

    Bizman – you might want to reconsider calling Romney’s youth into question given Obama’s drug use at that age. You libs may not care, but that is something that won’t sit well with a lot of folks in the middle. What they did as teenagers is pretty unimportant today, you may just want to move along.

  20. Greg on May 10, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    Maybe un-rino was the bullied kid? Isn’t un-rino from Michigan?

  21. bobo on May 10, 2012 at 6:37 pm

    Greg I believe you may have hit the nail on the head. Take a bow.

    Also, lol someone with long hair may have been teased in high school and in 1965 no less… er stop the presses!

  22. Evan3457 on May 10, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    None of this matters.
    If the economy doesn’t improve substantially by early September unemployment reports at the absolute latest, Obama loses.

    Does Romney winning means that Republicans win? Yes.
    Conservatives? Not so much.

  23. Gerry Owen on May 10, 2012 at 8:07 pm

    “Does Romney winning means that Republicans win? Yes.
    Conservatives? Not so much.”

    I kind of agree with that, at least to a point. He will be good in some areas, lacking in others. The better conservatives we had running this time were atrocious candidates- not for reasons of ideology, just electability.
    Key is, we need to protect the house and take the Senate. He can only sign what is passed.
    The trend has been to elect more conservative Senators and Representatives, Scott Brown is a notable exception.

  24. anonymous un-RINO on May 11, 2012 at 4:14 am

    The better conservatives we had running this time were atrocious candidates- not for reasons of ideology, just electability.


    Yeah, you RINOs are still blathering your “electability” nonsense about your boy Willard, I see. How’s that all working out for you, by the way?

    How’s that lying progressive crapweasel doing these days? How’s he stack up against Barry the commie? What’s the numbers look like for his “electability”? Tied or losing, you say? Darn, that “electability” thing’s lookin’ rough, huh?

    You RINOs are about to nominate the least electable candidate imaginable. ANYBODY would be doing better than this clown. It won’t be surprising if you keep blathering about his “electability” though. That’s what stupid RINOs do.

  25. Gerry Owen on May 11, 2012 at 5:02 am

    Primaries are essentially over- and my state hasn’t even voted yet!

    If the other candidates were oh-so-electable, why are they all out?

    My dream candidate would have had the smarts of Gingrich , the values of Santorum, the Principles and steadfastness of Bachmann, the economic views of Cain, the limited government ideals of Paul, and the polish of Romney.

    Unfortunately, all of them with- the exceptions of Paul and apparently Romney- had issues that precluded them form winning the nomination to even run for the presidency. This has been one of the most unrewarding and dissappointing primary seasons I can remember.

    We are stuck with Romney. I could spend a good thread outlining my concerns and complaints about Romney (and have in the past), but there is no real point. You can keep bitching and whining, or attempt to make the best of it.

    Electing more conservatives to the House and Senate is the best way to keep him in check.

  26. we conservatives on May 11, 2012 at 5:14 am

    ‘You can keep bitching and whining’

    Oh, you can be sure he will. The pathetic sad sack is desperate for attention and he’ll keep pounding his drum for a few more months.

    He won’t be heard from after Obama loses.

  27. anonymous un-RINO on May 11, 2012 at 5:37 am

    Dude, your dream candidate is any drone with a little “R” after his name, like all RINOs. You’d vote for Fidel Castro, if he had that little “R”.

    You’re the one still shrieking about Willard’s “electability”. I’m merely pointing out to you that your “electability” nonsense is only your RINO fantasy, and you can check the numbers vs. your soulmate Obambi, if you require confirmation of that fact. Tied or losing. Against Barry Mugabe. Tied or losing. In this frickin environment.

    How’s that “electability” thing working out again?

    And now, you RINOs are squealing with joy, as this lying progressive crapweasel, already further to the Left than any presidential candidate in recorded history this side of Gore, Kerry and Obambi, is now preparing to sell out we conservatives in totality. That is to say, you RINOs are giving this moron cover to finish the job.

    You RINOs really are the stupidest people around. I mean ROCK stupid.

    There is nothing to make the best of. Thanks to you RINOs, we have Obambi and a clone of Obambi running for president. Congratulations. At least you didn’t nominate Castro, so I suppose we should be grateful.

    Just a suggestion for you though. Maybe you can dump your boy Willard and convince Lugar to run. He’s waaaaaaaay more conservative.

  28. Gerry Owen on May 11, 2012 at 6:15 am

    You have real projection issues-
    I never once mentioned Romney’s “electability”. Merely pointing out the rest of the field had issues that hobbled them out of the gate. Successful candidates must have substance, Obama 2008 notwithstanding.

    I haven’t been on the Romney bandwagon, although I do think he would and (hopefully) will be a damn sight better than Obama- your continous attempts to paint him as some sort of Obama clone are pretty silly. I would much prefer a stronger conservative, but no decent candidates ran.

    I haven’t had any part in Romney getting the nomination, as my state hasn’t voted yet and I haven’t sent him any money.

    …and in case you do not remember, I was early on for Mourdock, and contributed to him.

    Which leads me back to my original point before you launched into the same old, tired, whiny tantrum you have been throwing up for the past 6 months-

    The best way to try to keep Romney on the straight and narrow is to elect more conservatives to the House and Senate.

  29. anonymous un-RINO on May 11, 2012 at 6:45 am

    “I never once mentioned Romney’s “electability”. Merely pointing out the rest of the field had issues that hobbled them out of the gate. Successful candidates must have substance…”


    Jesus, you can’t even keep your lies straight, Mustapha. You implied Willard is more “electable” than those other candidates just a few posts up, which I immediately attacked as a fantasy, and now you’re lying about it?

    You’d be right, successful candidates must have substance, but unfortunately, lying progressive crapweasels don’t have substance. That would be your boy Willard.

    What’s annoying is that you RINOs are now taking this crapweasel and squealing with joy, and enabling him to do exactly what he already wants to do, which is to get as close to Obambi as he possibly can, even closer than he already is, and that’s pretty close. Now, here in May, that’s what you dopes are doing. The real campaign won’t even start ’til late Summer, and you idiots are already opening the door for this crapweasel to do what he’s always done: flipflop towards his progressive core. You RINOs are the stupidest people on this earth, bar none.

    No need to blather about a conservative Congress, Mustapha. We conservatives are well aware of what’s important in this country, even if you aren’t.

  30. we conservatives on May 11, 2012 at 7:11 am

    Go sleep it off, rummy.

    Did you start drinking at sun-up this morning?

  31. anonymous un-RINO on May 11, 2012 at 7:24 am

    Yeah, about the same time you woke up being a butthurt RINO sockpuppet. 😉

  32. stas peterson on May 11, 2012 at 8:16 pm

    I find it amusing that they think we are that dumb. They would have us belieive this all happened, the change in policy, when the Obozo was on Air Force One, on the way to California.

    A carefully orchestrated appeal to wealthy gays just when visiting Hollyweird, and the same day the WaPo conveniently has a 11 page article on Romney’s supposed high school hijinks against a conveniently dead possible gay kid.

    I hope Obozo raises a billion dollars and spends it, on his campaign. Everyday he campaigns, he loses votes. So campaign and spend some more.

  33. MikeN on May 12, 2012 at 7:21 am

    If Romney had polish, he’d have wrapped up the nomination a bit sooner.