Thanks for the link to that article Steve. It's a good one. I like the quote they included from Bob Lutz on the Volt:

“What on earth is wrong with the conservative media movement that it feels it’s OK to spread false information, OK to damage the reputation of perhaps the finest piece of mechanical technology our country has produced since the space shuttle, OK to hurt an iconic American company that is roaring back to global pre-eminence, OK to hurt American employment in Hamtramck, Mich., as long as it damages the Obama administration’s reputation?”

I bet he's a conservative who sees that the sky is blue . . .

geojanes wrote:Thanks for the link to that article Steve. It's a good one.

I thought it was illuminating and balanced.

My main issues with the Volt have been and remain: the grid is not ready for a massive influx of plug-in vehicles; the technology is not yet compelling (the market for the Volt is evidence of this); the massive subsidy given to purchasers.

As for the President's bravery on the gay marriage issue:

I had already made a decision that we were going probably take this position before the election and before the convention. He probably got out a little bit over his skis, but out of generosity of spirit.

-President Obama

So, he knew he would change his position, but was waiting for a politically expedient moment that Biden preempted.

That's a new definition of "courage."

Doing it before the election is brave, whatever. You know it, but you can't give even an iota of credit.

danivon wrote:Doing it before the election is brave, whatever. You know it, but you can't give even an iota of credit.

Gawker disagrees. http://gawker.com/5909002

He also raised $1M in 90 minutes after the announcement. Money had been withheld by some gays.

He is also about to hold several fundraisers with gay groups. The timing of revealing his previously undisclosed decision is interesting. He picked a convenient time to come out of the closet, so to speak.

steve

He also raised $1M in 90 minutes after the announcement. Money had been withheld by some gays.
He is also about to hold several fundraisers with gay groups. The timing of revealing his previously undisclosed decision is interesting. He picked a convenient time to come out of the closet, so to speak.

So? He should pick an inconvenient time? He should turn down donations from gays and lesbians? This is a valid criticism exactly how?

There's no question that this issue will energize gas and lesbians ... and energize a lot of young people who are majorly in support of gay marriage.
He's a politician running for office and whatever he does it will have ramifications.
It may be that he loses some votes over the issue. Though I doubt that there are many people vehemently oppossed to gay marriage that weren't committed to Romney. With the exception of conservative blacks, who are likely to overlook that singular issue in favour of suppport that has also been in the 90 percentile range for Democrats and close to 98% for Obama.
The point behind his taking a stand, is that he didn't have to... but he did. If there is a calculation over how it effects his political popularity there was with him not showing support too... .
Just as Romney is clinging to his stance despite the national trends showing him to be a minority on the issue. (Especially on acceptance of civll unions). Is he leading? Is he so determined that he's willing to be perceived as the last man standng in the school doorway or is he doing so becasue he's calculated tha he needs to do so to keep his base energized. (A base that is not terribly enthusiastic about him...)

The election seems to be about to be fought over who can rev the base up the most and get them out in huge percentages... Who can lead them to the polls.... (There's that word again)

rickyp wrote:steve

He also raised $1M in 90 minutes after the announcement. Money had been withheld by some gays.
He is also about to hold several fundraisers with gay groups. The timing of revealing his previously undisclosed decision is interesting. He picked a convenient time to come out of the closet, so to speak.

So? He should pick an inconvenient time? He should turn down donations from gays and lesbians? This is a valid criticism exactly how?

Um, because it shows this was not "brave" or even "leadership." Biden came out first. Obama had been sitting on this information (according to his own statements to Roberts) for some time. Furthermore, he's not even (as of right now) going to allow it into the Democratic platform.

So, he's really, ah, leading from behind on the issue.

The point behind his taking a stand, is that he didn't have to... but he did. If there is a calculation over how it effects his political popularity there was with him not showing support too... .

Thank you for defining "leadership" in a way that it actually means "followship."

Just as Romney is clinging to his stance despite the national trends showing him to be a minority on the issue. (Especially on acceptance of civll unions). Is he leading?

He has convictions and is standing by them. That used to be a trait of a leader.

However, there is another issue here: this and the Romney "gangster" meme have come out in the last few days. Why?

As an attempt to shift the topic from the anemic recovery. If the President doesn't get the conversation shifted away from jobs and the economy, he won't win. He knows that.

The election seems to be about to be fought over who can rev the base up the most and get them out in huge percentages... Who can lead them to the polls.... (There's that word again)

Meanwhile, the President lost 41% of the vote to a felon in West Virginia. The anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment passed in the "swing state" of North Carolina with 61% of the vote.

I think this issue is going to be viewed as "leadership" by the 35% of the electorate who are drunk on Kool-Aid. For the rest of us, it's going to be another example of President Obama prevaricating about his beliefs only to have the truth revealed by someone else.

Here is an interesting post from Volokh Conspiracy that discusses what the author describes an incoherence of the President's stance of gay marriage. The argument boils down to this. Obama says while he supports gay marriage it is an issue best left to the states. States could have different positions at different times. So far so good. You get both sides of the political spectrum with this and it plays as if a decisive decision maker.

However, his earlier argument against defending DOMA was that it was unconstitutional as a violation of the 5th Amendment right to equal protection. This is where the problem comes in. While the 5th Amendment is only applicable to Federal laws, the 14th Amendment gives the same guarantees of equal protection under state laws. So, if Obama thinks same sex marriage has constitutional protections as an equal protection issue (which is my personal stance btw) then how can he hold a position that States can ban same sex marriages? It would seem the 2 views would be mutually exclusive

Does this make him seem like just another pandering politician and therefore undercut the decisive leader image? I admit that I am biased as I don't think Obama has ever shown any leadership.

Since President Obama has sworn to uphold and protect the US Constitution, shouldn't he have brought up a violation of the the Constitution, if that is what he perceived?

If DOMA was wrong in his eyes, he should have brought it to trial. That is if he really cared more about people's rights more than being a head of state. (I used world leader first, but made the change to head of state for obvious reasons.)

I agree with the Archduke on this one. He "leads" from the rear.

I agree with the Archduke on this one. He "leads" from the rear

.

Of course he does. He's a politican. No democratically elected politician adopts a hugely unpopular position, in order to get elected.
They adopt the position when it will serve their interests.
When it conveniently intersects with their own convictions thats great. When it doesn't ....
Well, where's Romneys deeply held convictions on health care insurance? Was it when he was governor or when he was seeking the current republican nomination?

You guys have old fashioned notion of leadership and poilitics. Politiicans are people who others with similar ideas about governance coalesce around . The ideas are developed by hundreds of thousands and adopted by the opinion leaders and political leaders as they gain sufficient momentum and support.... Leaders are symbols as much as anything.
The old fashioned idea about leadership where some great man comes up with wholly formed policies and laws, enscribes them on parchment and then informs and sells the ideas ...thats a myth today. The world is too complex.
However by taking this position publicly, Obama has clearly signalled that the momentum for the idea of marriage equality and the end of discrimination against gays and lesbians is an idea who's time has come... That signal is important. The symbolism that presents is important. "Our leader agrees with us, so now the idea matters".
Notice how softly the republicans are responding? They realize that they are standing in the school door.,.... The gap betwen the fundamental Christians and the libertarian conservatives could not be larger nor more uncomfortable.
I think its interesting that this is now a wedge issue for liberals.... And an issue that is more likely to be a winner for Obama and a problem for Mitt, in that it clearly limits his potential for growth in younger demographics...

rickyp wrote:They realize that they are standing in the school door.,....

Ricky, I don't really care what your opinion on leadership is.

HOWEVER, this line I quoted is out of line. It is a reference to George Wallace, racist. I can promise you if you try that analogy out in many neighborhoods in North Carolina, you'll get your butt whipped.

I'm talking about black neighborhoods. See, they voted 2:1 against gay marriage. Why?

Because they don't see it as equivalent to racism. Why?

Because it's not.

There is no systematic discrimination and segregation of gays. There are no "gay bathrooms" or "gay drinking fountains." Gays are not forced to the back of the bus. Gays are not put in separate schools.

I am not black, but I think many blacks would be and are offended by the comparison. Let me know the next time a Democrat turns a water cannon on a crowd of gays peacefully protesting.

If you had any shame, you would be embarrassed.

There is no systematic discrimination

Yes there is. They can't get married to the adult they want to, and there are something 275 seperate rights and privileges that come with legal marriage.
At one time inter racial marriage was banned as well. That too was systemic discrimination.

It doesn't matter if many blacks are offended by the comparison. Its still a fact that there is official discrimination. That discrimination exists in state constitutions....At one time so did racial discriminations... When you constitutionalize discrimination it couldn't be more systemic.

rickyp wrote:

There is no systematic discrimination

Yes there is. They can't get married to the adult they want to, and there are something 275 seperate rights and privileges that come with legal marriage.

Wow. That's almost exactly how blacks were treated! Separate counters at restaurants? Signs that say "no gays allowed?"

At one time inter racial marriage was banned as well. That too was systemic discrimination.

It doesn't matter if many blacks are offended by the comparison. Its still a fact that there is official discrimination. That discrimination exists in state constitutions....At one time so did racial discriminations... When you constitutionalize discrimination it couldn't be more systemic.

You need to grow up.

The beating and intimidation of blacks was not limited to one or two incidents. Let me put it another way: you are trying to compare a stampede at Wal-Mart with D-Day.

The scales are not comparable.

Even if one grants that not allowing gays a special exemption so they can marry adults of the same sex (remember, they can still marry people of the opposite sex), it is not the same from excluding them from every aspect of society--schools, stores, transportation, neighborhoods.

Get a grip.

And, if nothing else, stop using the "doorway analogy." No Democratic governor of Alabama is trying to stop gays from going to school.

steve

The scales are not comparable

Why do they have to compare? Either gays and lesbians ARE being discriminated against, or they aren't. If they can't marry that is treatment different under law . The law discriminates between the rights of homosexuals and hetereosexuals to choose a marriage partner.
The very definition of systemic discrimination.


BTW, regarding the school door anology.
In Alabama, a right-to-work state, you can be fired for a lot of reasons. And being gay isn't included under federal civil rights protections, like workplace laws that prevent discrimination based on religion, or sex. This leaves state employees in Alabama, including teachers, in the closet. Really. Teachers in Alabama schools are afraid to come out, or even risk being thought of as gay, because they could be fired for it.

rickyp wrote:steve

The scales are not comparable

Why do they have to compare? Either gays and lesbians ARE being discriminated against, or they aren't. If they can't marry that is treatment different under law . The law discriminates between the rights of homosexuals and hetereosexuals to choose a marriage partner.
The very definition of systemic discrimination.


BTW, regarding the school door anology.
In Alabama, a right-to-work state, you can be fired for a lot of reasons. And being gay isn't included under federal civil rights protections, like workplace laws that prevent discrimination based on religion, or sex. This leaves state employees in Alabama, including teachers, in the closet. Really. Teachers in Alabama schools are afraid to come out, or even risk being thought of as gay, because they could be fired for it.

You're welcome to your idiocy.