Once again, Barack Obama stabs his supporters in the back

Our good friend Pam Spaulding of Pandagon is displeased that our next president has invited Rick Warren, the pastor of the Saddleback Church, to deliver the invocation at Barack Obama’s inaugural. Miss Spaulding reproduced the Obama team’s “talking points,” and held tyhem up to derision, saying:

Personally, I think writing is a good idea to let the Obama team know how we feel, but ultimately I don’t think it’s going to reverse this, given the above ridiculous self-soothing talking points.

Pam then quoted a bunch of things she didn’t like from Free Republic commenters, to which I replied:

Reading the Free Republic quotes you copied, I wonder just how you disagree with these:

Since his election to the position of President Elect, Obama has shown increasingly that he may be (emphasis on “may be”) a pure old fashioned opportunist. He has betrayed the hard-core left most of all. Does that mean that conservatives can still hope? I dunno.


obama is actually pissing the left off more than the right


Obama shouldn’t have bothered trying to appease conservative evangelicals. It won’t work for the same reason compassionate conservatism (ie: liberal appeasement) didn’t work. Meanwhile, he’s pissed off a valuable constituency. I’m sure he has the same thought Jorge had, “where else are they gonna go?” but they might stay home next election. See where that got the Republican party?


By the way, they knew Obama’s stance on gay marriage didn’t they?

Mr Obama has pretty much done exactly what he told you he was going to do.  He didn’t support same-sex marriage, he likes Mr Warren, and he’s at least trying to broaden his appeal, just like he told you.

I didn’t believe a lot of what Mr Obama said he’d do during the campaign.  Sometimes I wonder if you didn’t believe him either, thinkingt that he really thought just like you (plural) did, and was just saying things designed to appeal to moderates who might otherwise vote for John McCain if he expressed leftist views.  Now that he’s at least starting out trying to do what he said he’d do, you can’t complain about that. ¹

Good Lord, I’m defending Barack Hussein Obama!  What has this world come to?

Senator Obama made his views clear during the campaign: he supported some form of civil unions, but opposed same-sex marriage.  He said that he didn’t like the federal Defense of Marriage Act, but that’s kind of meaningless: it’s a federal law, and it would require the Congress to change it.  Given that the advocates of same-sex marriage couldn’t win even in California — Proposition 8, the overturning of same-sex marriage passed 52% to 48% at the same time that Mr Obama carried the state 61% to 38% — just how many congressmen and senators, even Democrats, representing states like Idaho and Iowa and Virginia and Pam’s home state of North Carolina are they going to round up for a repeal of DoMA.

Other than that, the regulation of marriage is an issue for the states, not the federal government; Mr Obama simply has no real role in the debate.

¹ – One of my pet peeves is that Mr Obama still has his tax cut promise up on his website. I think that he’s lying through his scummy teeth on that one, and have said so many times before, but he hasn’t actually broken that promise yet.


  1. I hope he keeps breaking his campaign promises. Frankly I love seeing all the folks who fawned over him get pissed off.

    That and I certainly hope he breaks all those promises to push for more gun control.

  2. mike w.:
    I hope he keeps breaking his campaign promises. Frankly I love seeing all the folks who fawned over him get pissed off.

    They’re really going to go nuts when they find out Obama’s decided to go along with his “Generals on the ground” in the theater with the withdrawel process.

    One nice thing I might point out; that Obama seems to have taken many positions that represents this nation as a whole, and not the looney left that swooned over his radical promise’s that got him elected.

  3. Well, I’m rather pleasently surprised. So far, it has a lot of shades of being the third term of Bush which he said McCain would do. If it keeps going like this, I can tolerate it.

  4. Actually, he’s looking more to me to be a third term for Bill Clinton. We know that he’s going to appoint liberal judges, but at least in this very early, not-even-inaugurated period, he’s moving very cautiously, a la President Clinton after the 1994 elections.

    We were afraid that Mr Obama was really a far-out whacko leftist and was simply lying about it to get votes — and it seems that many of our friends on the left thought the same thing. Now I’m beginning to wonder if he wasn’t actually telling (most of) the truth about himself, which makes him much more tolerable to me, and a much bigger disappointment to our friends on the left.

  5. Other than that, the regulation of marriage is an issue for the states, not the federal government;

    No more so than slavery is a matter for states to decide.

    See here:

    ” Loving v. Virginia is the case that made marriage a constitutional right. “Earl Warren says in his opinion, ‘Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.’ The case was about interracial marriage, but the ruling went beyond the issue of racial bans by establishing marriage as part of the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Constitution,” said Michael Grossberg, professor in the IUB Department of History and adjunct professor in the IU School of Law Bloomington.”

    But, you know, keep pulling those arguments ad anum.

  6. “One nice thing I might point out; that Obama seems to have taken many positions that represents this nation as a whole, and not the looney left that swooned over his radical promise’s that got him elected.”

    While the looney left may see Obama’s election as a victory for their ideology and agenda, I don’t think the looney left or the radical promises got Obama elected at all. I think a huge swath of uninformed middle-of-the-roaders simply swung to his side when the economy went south. It’s happened many times before. These folks probably didn’t even KNOW what Obama was promising. They probably don’t know even now who Rick Warren is. What matters to Obama’s future is that the economy gets fixed during his administration.

  7. Yes, Phoe, marriage is still a matter left up to the states. Loving v Virginia held that a particular state law concerning miscegenation was unconstitutional under the United States Constitution, but marriage is regulated under state laws in the United States.

    The fifty states do have small variations in their marriage statutes, concerning age of consent, ages at which marriage requires parental consent, and degrees of allowable consanguinity: in some states, first cousins can marry, where in others, no closer than second cousins can marry.

    There’s no truth to the rumor that brothers and sisters can marry in West Virginia! :)

  8. Meh, government should stay out of marriage altogether. They should all be civil unions.

    From what I’ve seen, commenters at ‘Kos are roughly 60-40 against Warren, which means that those bellyaching over the selection are a minority of the liberal population as a whole (‘Kos commenters and diarists tend to be well to the left of mainstream liberals, though you do get the occasional moderate). Also, those against Warren seem to have forgotten that he’s sharing the stage with Joseph Lowery, a civil rights veteran who has been a very outspoken advocate of gay marriage…

  9. Former Sen. Obama portrayed himself as being a man who wanted to bring everyone to the table and find consensus. As far as I can tell, he’s acting as though he meant it.

    I don’t particularly like Rev. Warren, and think his actions have actively harmed me; but I also believe that the country is better off if everyone is at the table and we operate by consensus rather than by allowing one side or the other to seize control of the ship of state.

    So i’m not thrilled, but I can’t really complain, either.

  10. Aphrael: Harmed you directly or indirectly?

    You are the best person who visits our poor site to define the differences. Unless Jared — did I remember his name correctly? — and you were either married or planning to marry under the now-defunct state Supreme Court ruling, I don’t see any direct harm definable. Given that civil unions statutes still exist in the Golden State, I’m not sure how the harm rises to a quantifiable state, either.

    It has seemed to me that, in a state with civil unions, this was a battle less over rights than it was over respect.

Comments are closed.