Rocket Scientist
Member
Wow this is really sad. Unlike with Portman where his turnaround seemed genuine, this latest batch is just pure opportunism. How sad.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
PhoenixDark
Banned
You know it's opportunism how exactly?
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Are you sure? There's still the ones up for election next year (Kay Hagan and Mary Landrieu), plus Heidi Heitkamp who oppose it. I think there's actually 11 Senate Democrats who oppose it, maybe 10 if you don't count Tim Johnson.
We obviously can't say for certain, but there's a spike in announcements of support for marriage equality right as the SCOTUS starts their hearings. People who are either electorally safe for years (McCaskill) or will not face any electoral consequences at all (Rockefeller, Johnson). The timing is noteworthy.
I don't care, though. Building support for marriage equality is nothing but a good thing and I'm not going to quibble about how it happened. There's a snowball effect going on right now, which is just hugely satisfying to watch. I think it's likely that these folks supported marriage equality and just want to be out in front of it, rather than be seen as on the wrong side of history and they came out (so to speak) at a time that they deemed politically optimal.
It's not any more or less politically expedient than Obama's "evolution", which just happened to tip into support at the same time as the public. I thought it was a great thing, if conveniently timed politically. Same thing here.
How is Portman's genuine and not opportunism? I don't see how the family connection Portman cites for his change in stance can discount the timing of that convenient change and the upcoming Supreme Court ruling. Same as these last minute Democrats, he's trying to get on one side of the line before the final scoreboard is put up.
Aaron Strife
Banned
A vote against DOMA is good enough for me at this point. This isn't something that's going to be legislated federally.
Opportunism or not, you've nailed it for me.. I'm satisfied and happy to be alive at this time to witness it. If you had told me in high school that we'd be here in 2013, I would've been a bit shocked.
As an added bonus: glancing at FreeRepublic daily over the past few weeks has been an absolute joy. They can read the writing on the wall, and the tantrums that they'll hopefully throw in June are going to be just as good as their Election Night material.
LegendofJoe
Member
This change of heart that so many politicians are having just goes to show how full of shit all of them are. It's a good thing, but the blatant opportunism is nevertheless shameful in my eyes.
You're right -- for some reason, Heitkamp, Hagan, and Landrieu weren't on the list that I was looking at.
Bob Casey
Joe Donnelly
Tim Kaine
Joe Manchin
Jon Tester
Mark Begich
Mark Pryor
Kay Hagan
Mary Landrieu
Heidi Heitkamp
Let me do another count right now.
EDIT: Time breaks it down very well:
http://swampland.time.com/2013/03/25/senator-mark-warner-endorses-gay-marriage-whos-next/#ixzz2OawP1A2X
Of course, "blunt opposition" means nothing when you're retiring, does it?
Aaron Strife
Banned
I tend to be more forgiving of Democrats because of all the shit they endured for being at all progressive towards gay rights. There's not a huge step from "not for it, but it's a states' issue" to "I support it"
With Republicans it's like "GOD HATES FAGS" to "Yeah, i support gay marriage, please stop running ads against me"
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines. One side was "FUCK NO! NOTHING! AND LETS HAVE A FEDERAL AMENDMENT AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE!" and the other side was "OK . . . how about we go from a ban on gays to don't-ask, don't tell. And how about we legalize civil unions. And now how about we drop that don't-ask, don't tell . . . we dont' need it any more. And let's drop this 'separate but equal civil unions' thing for gay marriage.'
Evolution works. I think Clinton deserves credit for the DADT triangulation. It got things moving along the path. Make that slippery slope work to your advantage.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Yeah, the opposition is certainly weakening even among those remaining eleven Senators. And frankly, I imagine many of them personally support marriage equality.
Anecdote:
As someone who interns on the Hill, I was pleasantly surprised by the lack of angry calls about same-sex marriage today. Most of the anger was directed towards guns and related budget amendments. The upset people are always the ones who call, and there weren't too many who opposed marriage equality. Got a lot of positive phone calls, too.
el retorno
Member
I'm pretty sure evangelicals are pretty strong in Florida. Lots of religious votes. Though he's safe for 6 years.
Frank the Great
Banned
DOMA is so shitty and unconstitutional that I wouldn't be surprised if a clear majority of Justices overturn it. Maybe even unanimous, at least with respect to the full faith and credit issue between states.
I think the opportunism charge, while plausible in some cases, misses the point.
People are piling on with pro-marriage equality statements in large part in order to highlight that this is becoming the new mainstream, so that the Court can make its decision as if its catching up rather than forcing something radical on the country in striking down Prop8/DOMA/whatever happens.
I see these public statements supporting basic civil rights as an avalanche of positive momentum, and much of the cynicism I've seen feels unwarranted.
People are piling on with pro-marriage equality statements in large part in order to highlight that this is becoming the new mainstream, so that the Court can make its decision as if its catching up rather than forcing something radical on the country in striking down Prop8/DOMA/whatever happens.
I see these public statements supporting basic civil rights as an avalanche of positive momentum, and much of the cynicism I've seen feels unwarranted.
Nah. Scalia would claim that "*except for the faggots" is in tiny, barely-discernable scribbling in the Equal Protection Clause before making that kind of ruling.
Hopefully, he'll opt to read his dissents from the bench again. I can imagine the angry spittle flying as his blood pressure rises higher and higher..
I'm not bothered by political opportunism. I don't think politicians have much of an obligation to be authentic, and I don't really have a problem with them lying in order to seem authentic. I regard anything like this as similar to an atheist politician pretending to be religious or a gay politician pretending to be straight. If these traits don't actually matter and won't influence the politician's voting, then lie away. Personal beliefs that conflict with stated positions are fine, as long as the politician isn't trying to sabotage his or her own public position. Politicians are or at least ought to be elected for what they will do rather than what they believe.
Here, a bunch of politicians are coming out in favor of gay marriage now that that's likely to be a political advantage. They're being representative - this is pretty much what we want politicians doing. It might be nice to have a philosopher-king, but given the government we have I think a norm of "do things that the voters will be happy with" is pretty good. Things can quickly go very wrong when politicians start enacting policy that the people don't really want and which they didn't really campaign on - look at Republicans in state government.
Here, a bunch of politicians are coming out in favor of gay marriage now that that's likely to be a political advantage. They're being representative - this is pretty much what we want politicians doing. It might be nice to have a philosopher-king, but given the government we have I think a norm of "do things that the voters will be happy with" is pretty good. Things can quickly go very wrong when politicians start enacting policy that the people don't really want and which they didn't really campaign on - look at Republicans in state government.
Fundamentally, I think there's a big difference between coming out in support of gay marriage right before an election and coming out in support of it right after an election in which gay marriage won. That difference is why I still think Obama's conversion deserves more credit than Portman and the rest of the gang, although they all seem pretty self-serving.
Pretty much. Just go look at his dissent in Lawrence. He thinks there's a right to discriminate on the basis of moral opprobrium, and that the Court finding in favor of gay rights reveals that it is beholden to the "homosexual agenda".
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, right now this is not being done to sway an election . . . there is no upcoming election. It is being done to weigh in on a supreme court case. And if that was part of the reason why Rob Portman came out with his statement at this time then I probably owe him a bit of an apology.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Right, there's that too. No way will this even be an issue in six years. (Never thought I'd say that.)
I give Obama about a thousand times more credit than I give Portman. It's just that, when their actions as a group are snowballing the issue in a positive direction, I think that public officials piling on right now should be encouraged rather than dismissed as mere opportunists.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yeah, think back to the day Obama announced his support for gay marriage, how conservatives were hooting and hollering that he lost the election because of it. There's a sense of political expediency to Obama's actions, to be sure, but had Romney won, the consequences for the gay rights movement would have been severe, even if it he had lost for other reasons. Obama came out for marriage at the right time, pragmatically speaking.
You never know Scalia mi--lol never mind I can't say it even jokingly.
Erick Erickson is just right about everything.
We should all listen more to what he has to say.
I always assume that politicians only do things in order to get elected.
It's not 100% true (and motives are a complicated messy thing anyway), but it's a very useful assumption in practice as it makes you focus on the important things.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Now he just needs to make a blog post dissuading Democrats from passing single payer.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
It's the right assumption to make. Politicians, like most people, want to keep their job. They are clearly going to do things that help them get elected and keep their job.
This is like the poligaf equivalent of "Square just shot themselves in the foot".
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, but it is a balance. They need both votes AND money. And sometimes those things are in conflict with each other. The thing that gets votes may cause them to lose donations. Or something that gets donations may cause them to lose votes. So they need to figure which makes more sense for them.
Which is kinda sad because it then seems a politician is nothing but a face on an operations research calculation.
GenocidalMarshmallow
Member
So DOMA and Prop 8 will be ruled unconstitutional, right?
...Right?
How many conservative Judges were there again? Scalia for sure, don't remember which ones were liberal and conservative. Plus I heard that some of the Liberal Judges are retiring soon, which means there will probably be a conservative majority of Justices in SCOTUS.
But seriously, these people shouldn't let their personal feelings or ideology get in the way of doing what's right. They should do their job and rule it as unconstitutional, don't let your prejudices get in the way of doing what's right SCOTUS!
And seriously, it's 9 un-elected officials with life terms and the power to rule things unconstitutional. That's a whole lot of power for 9 people. I hope they do what's right.
...Right?
How many conservative Judges were there again? Scalia for sure, don't remember which ones were liberal and conservative. Plus I heard that some of the Liberal Judges are retiring soon, which means there will probably be a conservative majority of Justices in SCOTUS.
But seriously, these people shouldn't let their personal feelings or ideology get in the way of doing what's right. They should do their job and rule it as unconstitutional, don't let your prejudices get in the way of doing what's right SCOTUS!
And seriously, it's 9 un-elected officials with life terms and the power to rule things unconstitutional. That's a whole lot of power for 9 people. I hope they do what's right.
I feel like this keeps coming up.
Fundamentally, this huge switch right before SCOTUS and after the election means one of two things, I think: either they were lying before the election when they opposed gay marriage, or they're lying now when they claim to support it. In either case, I don't want to encourage them for the simple (if hopelessly naive) fact that I don't like it when politicians lie to me! Frankly, the worst thing about Obama's flip on SSM is the way in which he didn't even try to pretend he wasn't lying beforehand for political reasons.
Now, yes, again, if I thought this made gay marriage more likely to become legal I would at least not complain as much about it, but I think it should be clear at this point that politicians are doing this because they view it as a fait accompli and want to be on the right side before it's too late. If it's a fait accompli, then why should I be high-fiving the people pretending to agree with me on this one issue who generally hate everything I want to accomplish?
Obama's been pretty good with his picks. Also we have a conservative majority now. As far as the cases go: Scalia is going to be against, along with Thomas and Alito. Roberts could go either way on this one if you ask me, same with Kennedy (odds are Kennedy will be for though). The four liberal justices will all be for. It's just a matter of how broad they are willing to rule on this, if they go broad enough they could very well legalize gay marriage across the nation. Odds are the ruling will be more narrow than that.
Hannity and The Five show were quite unhappy with Jim Carrey's funnyordie video about guns.
I liked it, the video of course.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0433b30576/cold-dead-hand-with-jim-carrey?playlist=featured_videos
I liked it, the video of course.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0433b30576/cold-dead-hand-with-jim-carrey?playlist=featured_videos
StopMakingSense
Member
So, 1 - 10, how much of a dick is Scalia going to be tomorrow?
He's going to turn it up to 11.
rocketknight
Member
When given the chance, when does he ever opt not to be a dick?
RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES! (of months ago)
speculawyer
Member
Honestly, I have no fucking clue how they'll decide. But I've been talking myself into thinking they'll vote in favor of gay marriage. It is the right thing to do and it will actually help conservatives at this point by getting rid of a losing issue for them. If the court does not get rid of it then it will linger on and haunt conservatives for another decade.
speculawyer
Member
These people want to set up a system of sexual entitlement!
"A straight man can only marry a woman, why should a gay man be entitled to more freedom?"
- Status