On 2012-05-10 05:46, Woland wrote:

After years of waffling, President Obama has just adopted another one of Vice President Cheney's long-standing political positions.

On 2012-05-10 15:44, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Another difference is that Cheney was the Veep, and had some onus to toe the administration line, while Obama is the "Decider in Chief," and moreover, the progressive visionary who was supposed to lead us to the Hope and the Change. By "lead," I'd infer that suggests BEFORE Gallup tells him it's ok.

On 2012-05-10 15:44, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Another difference is that Cheney was the Veep, and had some onus to toe the administration line, while Obama is the "Decider in Chief," and moreover, the progressive visionary who was supposed to lead us to the Hope and the Change. By "lead," I'd infer that suggests BEFORE Gallup tells him it's ok.

On 2012-05-10 15:44, LobowolfXXX wrote:
. . . I'd infer that suggests BEFORE Gallup tells him it's ok.

I still haven't figured out why they're Republicans.

That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery.

On 2012-05-10 15:48, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-10 15:44, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Another difference is that Cheney was the Veep, and had some onus to toe the administration line, while Obama is the "Decider in Chief," and moreover, the progressive visionary who was supposed to lead us to the Hope and the Change. By "lead," I'd infer that suggests BEFORE Gallup tells him it's ok.

Is your bias showing perhaps?

On 2012-05-10 15:55, balducci wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-10 15:44, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Another difference is that Cheney was the Veep, and had some onus to toe the administration line, while Obama is the "Decider in Chief," and moreover, the progressive visionary who was supposed to lead us to the Hope and the Change. By "lead," I'd infer that suggests BEFORE Gallup tells him it's ok.

Yet Cheney was perfectly willing to go against the administration line on other issues. If not in public, then in private. E.g., war policy, GM bailout, etc. If this was not known publicly at the time, it at least came out in his memoirs after the fact. As far as I know, Cheney has never even hinted that he argued with Bush privately to support gay marriage while they were in office.

On 2012-05-10 16:46, mastermindreader wrote:
Lobo-

In essence, then, I agree with you. But I gave a link earlier that gave over forty examples of pro-gay intiatives taken by this administration since 2008 and prior to yesterdays statement by the President. While he may be affirming a de facto status quo, it is nonetheless a status quo that did not exist when he took office and for which he deserves, IMO, substantial credit.

Betsy Lauber, one of John Lauber’s three sisters, spoke with ABC News Tuesday night regarding the accuracy of the story.

“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family,” she said.

Romney has since apologized for what he said were “pranks” in high school but has said he doesn’t remember the specific event.

Romney said “homosexuality was the furthest thing from his mind” when it came to the jokes he played on classmates.

“Even if it did happen, John probably wouldn’t have said anything,” Christine Lauber said.

She added she and her sisters will likely put out a statement later via a family attorney.

“If he were still alive today, he would be furious [about the story],” she said with tears in her eyes.

White, in an interview with ABC News, said that he is “still debating” whether he will help the campaign, remarking, “It’s been a long time since we’ve been pals.” While the Post reports White as having “long been bothered” by the haircutting incident,” he told ABC News he was not present for the prank, in which Romney is said to have forcefully cut a student’s long hair and was not aware of it until this year when he was contacted by the Washington Post.

On 2012-05-11 06:48, Woland wrote:

I am not saying that either this kerfuffle or similar details of the President's back story are necessarily relevant, but in terms of equal-time, has the Washington Post ever covered the President's admitted use of cocaine?

On 2012-05-11 07:06, Woland wrote:
Good morning, landmark, you're up early . . . I was trying to edit my last note when you intervened, to add that one of the Washington Post's alleged witnesses told ABC News a different story:

Quote:

White, in an interview with ABC News, said that he is “still debating” whether he will help the campaign, remarking, “It’s been a long time since we’ve been pals.” While the Post reports White as having “long been bothered” by the haircutting incident,” he told ABC News he was not present for the prank, in which Romney is said to have forcefully cut a student’s long hair and was not aware of it until this year when he was contacted by the Washington Post.