Skip to main content

First Joe Biden, then Arne Duncan--perhaps President Obama is sending the troops out to neutralize . . . Gary Johnson?

I had this fleeting thought yesterday when the news broke that Vice President Joe Biden had suddenly come out in favor of same-sex marriage.  Why now?

We know that the Obama administration is expert at playing the game of stringing the LGBQT community along every election year while actually doing as little as possible to piss off other constituencies.  Yeah, we got gays into the military, finally, but on same-sex marriage, I like the way The Whited Sepulchre puts it:
Whether it's on Facebook, at a bar, or at a social event, I really, really, really enjoy needling my gay'n'lesbian friends about Barack Obama's opposition to gay marriage.  He's the highest-ranking gay marriage opponent in the United States.  They support him just the same.  I'll never understand why. 
Of course, the White House immediately backtracked on any possibility that Joe was testing a new party line, as it were.

Then Arne Duncan abruptly "came out" for same-sex marriage:
Asked during an appearance on MSNBC whether he believes same-sex couples should be allowed to marry in the United States, Duncan gave a straight answer: “Yes I do.”
Duncan said he had never been asked for his opinion publicly. He did not elaborate on his position and was not asked to do so during an education-themed interview.
Now I can buy the idea that Joe says what he thinks, and sometimes that's a big f--king deal, and sometimes it's just a real clean-cut black guy.  Some people think he makes Obama cringe; I think he makes Obama bust a gut laughing.

But Arne Duncan?  Arne is a bellweather for what's going on, and everything Arne says should be taken as connected to what Obama thinks--even if Arne approves of same-sex marriage when we know that President Obama's position is . . . evolving . . . and may reach vertebrate status sometime in the next million years.

So what's going on?


They certainly don't need same-sex marriage to distinguish themselves from Mitt Romney, who just let go the only openly gay guy in the country willing to front for him, do they?

On the other hand, they might really need to neutralize the marriage equality stance taken by Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson.  That's right, I went there, I said it.

 In a tight race, in a key state, the fact that Johnson has never wavered in his philosophy of marriage equality could be a 1% or a 2% problem for President Obama.  Considering his tortured history of dancing around the subject of same-sex marriage, the President ("I don’t think marriage is a civil right"--2004) cannot afford to cede ground to the Libertarian candidate who blasted Rick Santorum on this issue back when he was a Republican and who predicted back in January that this sudden appearance of pro-gay rights surrogates would occur:



January 9, 2012, Santa Fe, NM — Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson today assailed Sen. Rick Santorum for the ex-senator’s opposition to gay marriage equality and for Santorum’s past comments equating Gay marriage with polygamy, child molestation and bestiality. Johnson also offered criticism of President Barack Obama, who he said was “playing politics” with gay rights.
“Rick Santorum’s position is unconstitutional. The Constitution requires that all citizens be treated equally and makes no reference to gender in assuring those equal rights,” said Johnson. “By any fair measure, equal access to marriage for all Americans is a right — guaranteed by the Constitution. Senator Santorum’s claim that legally recognizing gay marriage would be no different than legalizing polygamy, child molestation or bestiality is repugnant and insulting to millions of gay Americans,” said the former New Mexico Governor.
Johnson had equally harsh criticism for President Barack Obama. “The New York Times reports that while President Obama gives lip service to gay equality, the President will not support gay marriage before the election because of the opposition of African Americans, as reflected in his polling, and the need to assure maximum support from African American voters in November,” said Johnson. “Instead the President sends out surrogates to imply that he will support gay marriage in a second term.
“President Obama did the same kind of dance around the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’. He promised to repeal it in his campaign, then dragged his feet on repealing it as President, even sending the Justice Department’s lawyers into court to defend it. Then when ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was finally repealed by Congress, he claimed victory and a promise fulfilled.
You know what?

They know Gary Johnson's out there, and they're paying attention. 

Comments

Dana Garrett said…
Your title presupposes that Gary Johnson would most likely take votes from Obama and not Romney. What's your evidence for that assumption?
kavips said…
If he survives the scrutiny, remember Perot pulled out in disgust, then got back in), and remains a viable human being through out the process, he will pull most of the Republicans who hate the Radical Right, and some of the Democrats who associate with the Blue Dongs.




(accidental typo left in on purpose)... Pandora is rubbing off on everyone it appears... sigh.(
Dana,

The several polls PPP has done show him puling equal numbers in Montana and more Dems in New Mexico (I have done posts on both). The one national poll in which he was included showed him drawing 4 points higher among "extremely" (not sure if that was the word used) liberal than among extremely conservative.

Johnson himself constantly makes the point: how many Mitt voters do you see going for a guy who is pro-abortion, pro-marijuana legalization, pro-gay marriage, and anti-intervention who wants us out of Afghanistan now.

Admittedly this is not as much evidence as I'd like, but it does seem like a good start.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...