Every second term president and every politician who is not running for reelection has greater flexibility. Greater flexibility is not necessarily better. After all, if you are running for reelection you must be cognicent of your electorate's desires. If you are not running for reelection, you don't have to be. Why do you think presidents wait until very near the end of their presidency to announce pardons?
Because they live in the real world where they can get fired if they get ahead of the electorate.
Obviously "Rational", dmarks, and Will live in some imaginary world where the electorate rewards integrity, principle, and leading instead of representing.
So much for WD's rather uninformed claim that the rulers in the US are "we the people". If they were, there'd be no difference between their actions on this issue and what the electorate wants. And WD is even describing that the rulers ("We the People" - tm) have a different view from the actual people.
RH asked: "...And your world us better? One in which principles, integrity, and leading are mere empty words rather than concepts of value."
And in which representatives are doing what they are supposed to be doing when they are tricking the people they represent or otherwise not doing what they want?
President Obama: I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married... (statement excerpted from a 5/9/2012 ABC interview).
"Rational" Nation: And your world us better? One in which principles, integrity, and leading are mere empty words rather than concepts of value.
I didn't say principles or integrity are mere empty words. What I meant was that, in the real world, one's words have consequences and the consequences must be considered. President Obama winning a second term is more important than saying something now that could benefit his opponent. Because Romney winning would set back gay rights.
dmarks: So much for WD's rather uninformed claim that the rulers in the US are "we the people" If they were, there'd be no difference between their actions on this issue and what the electorate wants.
Actually my "claim" is quite informed. Polls show support for gay marriage is approaching, but not quite yet 50 percent.
I applaud the President for coming out in favor of gay marriage, although I'm sure the Republicans will use this against him. Somewhere a Republican group is most likely putting together an anti-Obama ad using footage from his ABC interview.
On the other hand, it may help him. Obviously that must be what Obama and his advisers concluded, otherwise I'm sure he would have waited until after the election to come out in favor of gay marriage.
dmarks: ...representatives are... tricking the people they represent...
How is being "tricked" different than being "duped"? I believe these words are synonyms. In fact, I'm certain they are.
dmarks just slipped up and revealed how arrogant he is by saying he thinks informed individuals voting for the politicians who represent their interests are being "tricked".
Obama did it! He just came out in favor of gay marriage! Kudos to the President on this one.......And, wd, since when are leadership and representation mutually exclusive? LBJ was a dirty, rotten, stinking liar when it came to Vietnam but he showed tremendous leadership when it came to marshalling the country toward civil rights. An excellent President can definitely walk and chew gum at the same time.
Will: Obama did it! He just came out in favor of gay marriage!
I already pointed this out in a comment prior to yours. Also, is dmarks going to retract his claim that President Obama is a homophobe? Obviously he was wrong... and (I suspect) dmarks knew his accusation was not true, but decided to lie because Obama has "D" following his name.
Will: And, wd, since when are leadership and representation mutually exclusive?
They aren't. I didn't claim they were. A politician has to determine when each is advantageous... or when "leading" is more important (and the issue is something worth taking "heat" over).
In the case you cite it was. Also, if Obama had not come out in favor of gay marriage in his second term I would have severely criticized him for it.
And, btw, using this against Obama has begun. The Young Turks just showed a screen capture from the Fox Nooz website that says, "Obama Flip Flops: Declares War on Marriage" (although they say Fox and since removed this headline).
Mitt Romney issues statement reaffirming his opposition to gay marriage: "I have the same view on marriage that I had when I was governor. I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman".
Romney also against Civil Unions: "Well, when these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name..."
Does this mean dmarks believes Romney is a homophobe?
13 comments:
Every second term president and every politician who is not running for reelection has greater flexibility. Greater flexibility is not necessarily better. After all, if you are running for reelection you must be cognicent of your electorate's desires. If you are not running for reelection, you don't have to be. Why do you think presidents wait until very near the end of their presidency to announce pardons?
Because they are lacking in integrity?
Because they put politics over principle?
Jerry - good point. Les and dmarks - good rejoinders.
Because they live in the real world where they can get fired if they get ahead of the electorate.
Obviously "Rational", dmarks, and Will live in some imaginary world where the electorate rewards integrity, principle, and leading instead of representing.
So much for WD's rather uninformed claim that the rulers in the US are "we the people". If they were, there'd be no difference between their actions on this issue and what the electorate wants. And WD is even describing that the rulers ("We the People" - tm) have a different view from the actual people.
And your world us better? One in which principles, integrity, and leading are mere empty words rather than concepts of value.
wd, You have successfully just described the problem. As well as 21st century progressives.
RH asked: "...And your world us better? One in which principles, integrity, and leading are mere empty words rather than concepts of value."
And in which representatives are doing what they are supposed to be doing when they are tricking the people they represent or otherwise not doing what they want?
President Obama: I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married... (statement excerpted from a 5/9/2012 ABC interview).
"Rational" Nation: And your world us better? One in which principles, integrity, and leading are mere empty words rather than concepts of value.
I didn't say principles or integrity are mere empty words. What I meant was that, in the real world, one's words have consequences and the consequences must be considered. President Obama winning a second term is more important than saying something now that could benefit his opponent. Because Romney winning would set back gay rights.
dmarks: So much for WD's rather uninformed claim that the rulers in the US are "we the people" If they were, there'd be no difference between their actions on this issue and what the electorate wants.
Actually my "claim" is quite informed. Polls show support for gay marriage is approaching, but not quite yet 50 percent.
I applaud the President for coming out in favor of gay marriage, although I'm sure the Republicans will use this against him. Somewhere a Republican group is most likely putting together an anti-Obama ad using footage from his ABC interview.
On the other hand, it may help him. Obviously that must be what Obama and his advisers concluded, otherwise I'm sure he would have waited until after the election to come out in favor of gay marriage.
dmarks: ...representatives are... tricking the people they represent...
How is being "tricked" different than being "duped"? I believe these words are synonyms. In fact, I'm certain they are.
dmarks just slipped up and revealed how arrogant he is by saying he thinks informed individuals voting for the politicians who represent their interests are being "tricked".
Obama did it! He just came out in favor of gay marriage! Kudos to the President on this one.......And, wd, since when are leadership and representation mutually exclusive? LBJ was a dirty, rotten, stinking liar when it came to Vietnam but he showed tremendous leadership when it came to marshalling the country toward civil rights. An excellent President can definitely walk and chew gum at the same time.
Will: Obama did it! He just came out in favor of gay marriage!
I already pointed this out in a comment prior to yours. Also, is dmarks going to retract his claim that President Obama is a homophobe? Obviously he was wrong... and (I suspect) dmarks knew his accusation was not true, but decided to lie because Obama has "D" following his name.
Will: And, wd, since when are leadership and representation mutually exclusive?
They aren't. I didn't claim they were. A politician has to determine when each is advantageous... or when "leading" is more important (and the issue is something worth taking "heat" over).
In the case you cite it was. Also, if Obama had not come out in favor of gay marriage in his second term I would have severely criticized him for it.
And, btw, using this against Obama has begun. The Young Turks just showed a screen capture from the Fox Nooz website that says, "Obama Flip Flops: Declares War on Marriage" (although they say Fox and since removed this headline).
Mitt Romney issues statement reaffirming his opposition to gay marriage: "I have the same view on marriage that I had when I was governor. I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman".
Romney also against Civil Unions: "Well, when these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name..."
Does this mean dmarks believes Romney is a homophobe?
Post a Comment