Marriage Equality and Marijuana: the Obama Youth Consensus

Almost every conservative I knew in college favored both same-sex marriage and the legalization of marijuana without hesitation. Secular Jewish conservatives were especially adamant about supporting same-sex marriage, though plenty of others fully agreed. There were the odd religious conservative holdouts, but virtually all supported the aforementioned two issues, even for reasons of pure pragmatism. Those few who opposed same-sex marriage were much more defined by their involvement in Christian organizations than their identification with conservative politics, not withstanding whether they self-described as “conservative.” Among the minority who opposed same-sex marriage, I recall none that were especially incensed about its inevitability.

Same-sex marriage is happening, and this has been known and speculated about for a long while. But on Election Night 2012, a dam broke. Same-sex marriage was ratified by popular referendum in four states — Maryland, Maine, Washington, and Minnesota, driven by the 30-and-under crowd — for whom LGBT rights has always been a marquee issue.

Again, conservatives are included in said crowd; many are gay themselves or at least know more than enough gay people to sympathize with the cause of LGBT equality. (The fact that a British conservative, Andrew Sullivan, helped popularize the notion of same-sex marriage in the late 1980s speaks to the conservative nature of this policy change.)

The young conservatives I knew also readily acknowledged the idiocy of keeping marijuana possession a criminal offense — or at least something that police officers ought to arrest teenagers for, saddling disaffected youths with lifelong records. The idea that society should drag citizens into the criminal justice system for possessing a mostly-harmless plant item is just foolish, many young conservatives thought, even if these conservatives would advise others not to smoke marijuana. (Though, of course, many themselves indulged.) Wasting law enforcement resources on minor offenses is also unsound policy, these conservatives reckoned.

The decisive victories for marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington represent a watershed moment for disrupting the prohibitionist consensus, and this has spurred plenty of young conservatives to cheer.

Speak with a wide range of “30-and-unders” in “Swing States” and you will hear that drug policy and LGBT rights are of higher priority than among other age groups — by a long-shot. Again, this equally includes young conservatives and especially libertarians, the latter of whom typically hate nothing more than drug prohibition. Data indicates that the Democratic Party stands to benefit most from the stark shift in public opinion among young people, because Democrats are generally seen as the party friendlier to drug policy reform and protecting LGBT rights. Republicans are increasingly seen as an unseemly pack of white male Christian zealots who have lost touch with reality.

When Mitt Romney paid a visit to Colorado in May and was asked about the marijuana legalization initiative, he scoffed with incredulity: “Aren’t there issues of significance you’d like to talk about?”

A good lesson for the GOP would be to recognize Mitt’s error and understand that marijuana legalization and same-sex marriage are “of significance” to growing numbers of young people. Romney apparently lacked the political judgment to internalize this, but if he had simply checked the polling data, he would have learned that marijuana legalization is favored by more than half the country, and the Colorado initiative was forecast to pass all along. To Romney, however, that he should have ever been expected to even answer a question about marijuana legalization was preposterous.

Obama once again swamped the GOP nominee with young people across all categories in part because Obama is FAR more culturally-familiar to young people than Romney. Romney came off as a relic of some stale bygone era. Romney would cite “Keystone Kops” and deploy Pat Boone as a spokesman, whereas Obama appeared in Ohio with Jay-Z and Bruce Springsteen, while Lady Gaga — the most-followed person on Twitter — wrote messages of support.

More and more, the GOP looks like a discredited embarrassment of a party to these young people, who are sick of their LGBT friends being demonized by Christian demagogues claiming to speak on behalf of the entire faith. As a consequence, in 2012 many young people looked past Obama’s failures and decided to grant him a second term. As I wrote for The American Conservative on October 1,

If Barack Obama wins reelection, as current polling trends predict he will — perhaps resoundingly — we can expect to hear in the weeks that follow endless analytical wisdom from the usual chorus of pundits. Doubtless, they’ll herald the president’s amazing political savvy and tactical brilliance; “No Drama Obama,” his moniker from the 2008 campaign, has done it again! He was always ahead of the curve, they’ll declare — a master of “three-dimensional chess”! Destined to leave the hapless Romney blindsided! Biden was key! Etc.

The point holds: Obama did not win reelection because he is a singularly-brilliant politician or because he ran a particularly skillful campaign. Indeed — Obama squandered a great deal of political capital, and his first term was unsuccessful due to poor tactical judgment in concert with other factors.

For years, GOP partisans gloated about the prospect of defeating Obama easily. Turns out they were correct that he was a very vulnerable incumbent. But the GOP refused to do any “soul-searching” during the 2012 primary, opting instead to fall in line behind a man who distinguished himself not one iota from George W. Bush in any substantive sense. Younger voters still remember well the administration of George W. Bush, which was one of the most disastrous in U.S. history. While these young people may not approve of everything Obama has done, they have enough good sense to acknowledge that while the “I inherited this mess” trope might be a bit overplayed, it contains a great deal of truth.

Obama was the first sitting U.S. president to publicly declare support for same-sex marriage. Obama’s Department of Justice has ceased defending the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act. Obama successfully coordinated the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

Romney signed a pledge proclaiming that he would support a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and thereby nullifying existing same-sex marriages in States which recognize them. And we wonder why Mitt’s party was rejected so decisively by “millennials”?

In truth, Mitt never said anything substantive about marijuana legalization or same-sex marriage, because during the primary he committed to hardline positions in opposition to both those issues and set them aside. (Although it’s true that with about two weeks to go before Election Day, Mitt’s campaign operation flip-flopped re: same-sex marriage, wavering on the aforementioned pledge, which had been signed during the GOP primary to appease social conservative pressure groups.)

Furthermore, rank-and-file Republicans need to understand that they were deceived about Mitt Romney’s dedication to the issues closest to their hearts. Mitt Romney ran for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts against Ted Kennedy in 1994 and presented himself as a stridently pro-choice Republican, who would be even more effective than Ted Kennedy at advancing LGBT rights in Washington, D.C. because he’d be one of the very few pro-LGBT Republicans serving there. Romney later told Evangelical Christian GOP primary voters (in 2008 and 2012) that he experienced a revelation sometime in the early-to-mid 2000s — which just happened to coincide with his decision to first seek the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 2008 — and changed his mind about abortion. (In hindsight, is it any wonder that John McCain and Mike Huckabee so detested Mitt back then?)

Mitt Romney’s most formidable opponent was not Barack Obama, but clips of himself on YouTube making statements that flatly contradicted what he purported to believe at various points during his six-year campaign. (Does chronic lying and mendacity qualify as a sin per Mormon doctrine?)

Obama was allowed to win because the opposition party allowed itself to degenerate into a vehicle for hysterical, childish anti-Obama rage. There was no coherent case brought against the president, and there was no desire within the GOP to nominate a wise candidate with sound instincts — it was all about removing Obama from power, at any cost. This underlying passion ultimately crippled the GOP, which imposed countless delusions upon itself; even when polling data made it perfectly clear Obama would prevail, they insisted otherwise. That Romney himself was “shell-shocked” upon learning he lost says much. Those who read the New York Times were not at all surprised by the blowout.

The GOP has become so inextricably linked with the Conservative Media “infotainment” apparatus such that its political and legislative agenda are driven by retrograde actors like Ralph Reed, Franklin Graham, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Dinesh D’Souza, Tucker Carlson, Sheldon Adelson, (the late) Andrew Breitbart, Benjamin Netanyahu, Rupert Murdoch, and so forth. The hateful, factually-wrong messages espoused by these actors might be good for generating profit, but it is not a message that resonates with most Americans.

About michaeltracey

Journalist based in Brooklyn, New York. Follow me on Twitter at @mtracey.

  • beatlefreak9

    I don’t know about the other three, but as a Minnesotan I feel I should speak up: Minnesota did NOT vote to legalize gay marriage, it voted to prevent it from becoming constitutionally illegal by an amendment.

    • http://twitter.com/mtracey Michael Tracey

      I know. I said same-sex marriage had been “ratified” in those four states. Minnesotans “ratified” same-sex marriage, in my view, by rejecting an amendment to ban it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/james.shaffer.7796 James Shaffer

         As much as I’d like to think this is the case, I do not think it is so.  I am a Minnesotan and believe that there are many people in the state that voted against the amendment more because they did not want the ban in our constitution than that they supported SSM.  If there was an amendment legalizing SSM in Minnesota that ran directly against the ban, I don’t think either would have passed.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Arthur-Bryne/100002441143047 Arthur Bryne

          This is probably accurate, from what I can make out from GSS data. However, I’ll note the attitudes in the Midwest (US Census Region 4) are shifting at a phenomenal rate. While a legalization amendment would have been unlikely to pass in the 2012 election, and would be unlikely to pass in 2014, it’s probably a viable target in MN for 2016.

          • http://www.facebook.com/james.shaffer.7796 James Shaffer

             That is my hope as well.  The mood seems to be shifting here, we just weren’t there yet this election cycle.

      • WhiteBirch

        Maine’s law wasn’t a ratification of a law passed by the legislature… a marriage equality law was passed here in 2009 and struck down by a “people’s veto”. This vote was for a new initiative which originated with the voters, not with the legislature.

        In my opinion that makes it awesomer. ;) 

    • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

      In Maryland, state government passed a law to allow gay marriages, but anti-gay marriage managed to make it a ballot issue.  However, the voters upheld the law. 

    • Sven2547

      In a free society, things ought to be legal by default, and declared illegal if harmful.  If a ban is struck down, is that not tantamount to declaring it legal?

      • ErickaMJohnson

        It wasn’t the only ban on same-sex marriage. Minnesota already had a law on the books defining marriage as one man, one woman. This last vote was an attempt to make that more permanent with a constitutional amendment.

        • Sven2547

          Ahhh somehow I had missed that detail :)

      • C Peterson

        If a ban is struck down, is that not tantamount to declaring it legal?

        No. Same-sex marriage is still illegal in Minnesota, it simply isn’t prohibited by the state constitution… meaning that making it legal is possible by a simple legislative or initiative process.

  • 3lemenope

    Calling the product of your analysis “The Obama youth consensus” makes lots of sense in terms of gay marriage, and almost none when it comes to cannabis legalization, an issue on which Obama was as bad as Romney and categorically worse than his predecessor in office. He pulled the exactly same “are you kidding?” scoffing trick that Romney did when presented with the question, as he has been numerous times both as president and during the campaign. Which I assume is why the bulk of the article was about gay marriage and GLBT issues; there is really nothing nice to say about Obama and cannabis policy.

    It remains to be seen what law enforcement approach Obama orders the Justice Department to take going forward in dealing with the Colorado and Washington initiatives as they go into the implementation phase, and maybe he will shock everyone and become much more sensible on the issue. But there is nothing whatsoever in the record to date that could possibly give anyone hope that this might be the case.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke, Blonde

      and truthfully, a lot of us queers aren’t so totally thrilled with Mr. “Evolving opinion” either, despite his stepping up for our right to join him in the endless drone bombing adventure and after three years of silence and waffling, finally working up the nerve to admit we be able to get married too. his stony silence and inaction during the first two years of the administration when there was a democratic majority proved lethal to the much more greatly needed ENDA legislation, which would have granted community-wide protections, instead of just selections of it that want to marry or join the military. and don’t get me started on Holder’s Justice and their continued attack on legal dispensaries and providers of medical MJ. if you’d slept thru the last two elections and no one told you otherwise, it’d be easy to believe McCain was the president, judging from Obama’s activities relating to MJ. 

      i’m glad young conservatives are waking up the the fact that their party is the party of neo-fascist loons, racists and theocrats. facing up to reality is always a good first step. the author is this piece is correct in identifying how self-delusion just cost the party big time. 

      but young people of all political stripes need to understand, esp now that there is nothing that will stop him from following thru on his promises about it: your SS and medicare are at risk. and it’s the democrat who is going to do that, not the republican. for all practical purposes, there is no longer any party that represents the progressive interests such as the ones described above. if you want legalization of those things, and more, you’ve got to understand that politicians like obama will never bring them to you. 

      • Baby_Raptor

        Yup. I remember the night he made that announcement…And I remember watching my Facebook feed explode. 

        But WTF was there to be excited about? Okay, he personally feels that we should be able to marry. He straight up said that he wasn’t going to force the issue, so…Fuck all done, really. He’s still leaving our rights to faff about while the christianists do everything they can to deprive us of them.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    It’s amazing how fast things change.   I knew a lot of conservative Christians in college, and not a single one supported LGBT rights.    I’m old, but I ain’t that old.  Although, I will admit, that my freshman class was only the second class to automatically receive email addresses. 

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/GodVlogger?feature=mhee GodVlogger (on YouTube)

    Here’s how I have heard that Leviticus explains the combination of marriage-equality and legalized marijuana votes: If a man lays with another man, both of them should be stoned.  :-)

    (Sorry to echo a reference to that hate-filled book, but that’s the only way the joke works!)

  • C Peterson

    This really goes to what we mean by “conservative”. Look at the Republican platform from 1956, and it reads like today’s Democratic platform. But around that time, probably in response to Communism, religion started hijacking the Republican party, and in so doing, the very definition of “conservative” as we use it politically started shifting.

    I think we’re seeing that start to change. While it is probably more common for young people to be moderately progressive, there are certainly many young people whose political views quite closely follow those of the Republican “conservatives” of 50 years ago- conservatives who supported Social Security, federal support for education, access to affordable health care, progressive taxes (all on their platform), and would almost certainly have supported legalized MJ and same-sex marriage had those things risen to today’s levels on the social radar.

    People come by their political liberalism or political conservatism through a complex process, both rational and otherwise- but not, for the most part, by their religion. As the role of religion as a social force declines in our society, we should see a shift back towards more traditional definitions of “conservative” and “liberal”, when there was much less need to qualify these with “fiscal” or “social”.

    • 3lemenope

      I can only hope.

  • http://www.facebook.com/pwguitarded Perry Winters

    Funny, I don’t remember Obama having anything to do with legalization in the mentioned states nor the legalization of marriage equality. Obama has already addressed that he will not be pursuing marriage equality on a federal level and Obama has conducted more drug raids in 4 years than Bush did in 8. People are delusional if they think any progress in these subjects is on account of the Obama Administration.

    • C Peterson

      This grossly oversimplifies American politics. A President does not make law; people commonly overstate the actual powers of a President.

      I’m pretty sure that Obama has not conducted any drug raids. Our country’s drug policy comes out of a massive, complex, and expensive bureaucracy. Changing the direction of something like the DEA is no small task. It would require the expenditure of a great deal of political capital… at a time when Obama has little to spare. If our country had a different set of problems, the situation might be very different. The shift in societal views on drugs and drug laws, nevertheless, comes in large part from the same people who support Obama (as well as numerous more liberal Senators and Representatives).

      When it comes to federal support for marriage equality, you are wrong about Obama. He has, in fact, done about as much as any President could to advance that by specifically instructing the Justice Department to not defend DOMA. Outside of that, there’s not a lot he could do (other than personally endorsing same-sex marriage, which he has). Legally, marriage is defined by the states, and any limitations that states place on marriage can only be resolved by the courts, or in some cases by Congress. This isn’t something the Executive can do much about.

      • 3lemenope

        This grossly oversimplifies American politics. A President does not make law; people commonly overstate the actual powers of a President.

        So very true.

        I’m pretty sure that Obama has not conducted any drug raids. Our country’s drug policy comes out of a massive, complex, and expensive bureaucracy. Changing the direction of something like the DEA is no small task. It would require the expenditure of a great deal of political capital… at a time when Obama has little to spare. If our country had a different set of problems, the situation might be very different. The shift in societal views on drugs and drug laws, nevertheless, comes in large part from the same people who support Obama (as well as numerous more liberal Senators and Representatives).

        This, on the other hand, is ridiculous excuse-making. 

        There was and is no groundswell for, for example, a public demanding that medical marijuana clinics be raided. Medical marijuana polls stratospherically nation-wide. Obama could have done exactly what he himself had promised to do during the ’08 campaign, which was end federal raids of MMJ dispensaries and leave enforcement of state MMJ rules up to the states. It would have required exactly zero political capital, and even would have come gift-wrapped with a state’s rights excuse that Obama could then have hung around any hypocritical drug warriors from the right (the sort of ideological judo that Obama has proved time and again he is really good at, so it’s not like he doesn’t know how). He would have picked up ground with his base–since as you note his supporters clearly disagree with him on this issue–and made his opponents look like fools, forcing them to play defense for a while.

        Heck, even if he did nothing except follow Bush’s policies to the letter, it wouldn’t have been as bad as what eventually transpired, which was a doubling down on a straight-up drug warrior crackdown approach.

        While Obama isn’t the king that most Americans seem to think a president is, he is the unitary leader of the executive department, and has plenary authority to instruct, for example, the Justice Department to change its priorities of enforcement. That he did not (especially when he promised he would) is entirely on him. You are also radically over-selling bureaucratic inertia, especially as it comes to drug policy enforcement; the DEA is not a particularly large department, and has been re-tooled in the past rather swiftly to change enforcement priorities towards or away from traffick interdiction, for example, as opposed to domestic raids.

        • C Peterson

          Is it excuse making? Perhaps. Is it ridiculous? I don’t think so.

          Agencies like the DEA are politically powerful. While it is part of the DOJ, and therefore of the Executive, it is very dependent upon Congress for its funding, and has close political ties with Congress. The last thing the DEA wants is looser drug laws, and while the President could technically throttle back the DEA, it would come at a very real political cost. Obama has to choose his fights- and until now, this hasn’t been one of them. Furthermore, investing in a fight against current drug laws changes his political environment with respect to various quid pro quo understandings. So his actions can be seen as simple pragmatism.

          That said, Obama is fundamentally fairly conservative, and may well believe in laws against MJ. I don’t know.

          • 3lemenope

            Agencies like the DEA are politically powerful. While it is part of the DOJ, and therefore of the Executive, it is very dependent upon Congress for its funding, and has close political ties with Congress. The last thing the DEA wants is looser drug laws, and while the President could technically throttle back the DEA, it would come at a very real political cost.

            This is a fascinating paragraph. Every single line describes a general point which, by-and-large, is true, and yet the argument it describes holistically is absolute nonsense, because it makes key underlying assumptions that are totally without basis in fact. Each point is (somewhat) true, and yet they don’t hang together as a functional argument because one true sentence does not follow from another, and none of them actually address the debated point.

            The primary faulty underlying assumption of your argument seems to be that in order for Obama to do what he promised to do in ’08, he would have to “throttle back the DEA”. This is flatly wrong. The DEA would not have to change in size, scope, mission, power, or funding. As I obliquely pointed out earlier, the DEA is, like all agencies, a bureau of limited resources, and so decisions are made on how to allocate those resources. If you have agents and equipment and legal resources devoted to shutting down clinics, they aren’t somewhere else doing something else. Obama could easily reallocate those resources to be functionally *tougher* on drug laws and enforcement and still achieve the policy goal of not fucking with MMJ or even rec. MJ legalization in states. 

            It’s really simple. Let me sketch a back-of-the-envelope scenario. Obama announces a new overhaul of the agency to crack down on imports of narcotics, and so he reallocates the resources of the department to crop abatement in Afghanistan, Bolivia, and Columbia, distribution disruption in Indonesia and India, and delivery interdiction on the Canadian and Mexican borders. He announces an FBI/DEA/IRS joint task force for forensic accounting to snatch narcodollars and assist allied governments in seizing drug assets (the public *loves* task forces) and a Coast Guard/DEA joint task force on improving shallow water interdictions (because the only group that likes shiny task forces more than the public is Congress). To put the necessary boots on the ground (especially for the first two and the fourth components), agents would have to be reassigned away from pot shop raids; the third component would take legal resources away from those same raids. 

            These are not changes that are unprecedented. Before MMJ existed, those resources were, in fact, exactly where I’m describing putting them back.

            With a simple reorientation of priorities, Obama gets to sell himself as a Law & Order tough-on-crime leader serious about the War on Drugs (with Taskforces!; give ‘em cool names, too), and still fulfill his promise to stop MMJ raids and, if he felt like it, respect state sovereignty on recreational MJ issues.

            I am honestly curious…

            1. Why you think the DEA would oppose such a realignment, keeping in mind it would almost certainly be accompanied by a dollar-increase in their budget

            2. If they did how, exactly, they’d use their “power” to oppose it, since they’d have to make the public argument not only that they don’t care about opiates and cocaine as much as MMJ, but also why they don’t want a budget increase or play well with others

             Furthermore, investing in a fight against current drug laws changes his political environment with respect to various quid pro quo understandings. So his actions can be seen as simple pragmatism.

            This is where we go back to pure nonsense. If he wanted to maintain the status quo, he would not have accelerated enforcement against state MMJ.  In no universe is doubling down the same thing as doing business as usual.

            That said, Obama is fundamentally fairly conservative, and may well believe in laws against MJ. I don’t know.

            This is the only real x-factor, though if it were the case, then he shouldn’t have said what he said in ’08. Politically, it is very easy to disguise a liberalizing move by making it a lateral consequence of a conservative move in another area. Obama is an expert at this, he’s done it before, such as his expansion of Medicaid as a lateral consequence of accepting the logic of mandates in the the ACA.  If he wanted, he could do it. The only reasonable conclusion is that he doesn’t want to do it. So he should get no benefit of the doubt, no excuses made, for that choice. For some reason people are desperate to present him as either hemmed in by forces outside his control or not really as bad as he actually is on this issue, and it’s utterly perplexing.

            • C Peterson

              It isn’t apparent to me that Obama provided the direction to the DOJ to increase drug enforcement. I think your position overlooks the fact that the DEA operates semi-autonomously, providing its own direction. It has increased or decreased its jurisdiction in many cases with no clear direction from the Executive.

              I think it would be more accurate to say that Obama allowed it to be more aggressive in going after MJ in cases where states had loosened their restrictions, as opposed to Obama actively encouraging it. And I think it’s politically naive to suggest that deliberately curtailing the DEA might not have had significant negative political impact on Obama and his other plans.

  • Brian Worley

    A phrase I learned today: “Not a hill on which to die”. Conservatives in general seem to have picked their hills and are staying on them to death. 

  • Savoy47

    I think the main reason that Romney was shell-shocked was because ‘god’ told him that he was the chosen one.  He was god’s choice to be the leader of the free world.  That is the BS that he believed and bought into.  The poles had to be wrong because of his underlying belief that his imaginary friend had his back and the election was in the bag.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

    A lot of people are very butt hurt in Maine that SSM passed. I cannot wait for it to become law next year and I have a feeling MDI and other parts of the Maine coast are going to do very well next spring, summer and fall.

    • WhiteBirch

      *waves* 

      From Sara of Belfast

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=116400943 Leo Buzalsky

    “Almost every conservative I knew in college favored both same-sex marriage and the legalization of marijuana without hesitation.”

    Well, perhaps that was true where you went to school (which was where, exactly?), but was not the case in South Dakota where I went to school.  There were perhaps some conservatives who favored these things, but they were in the minority.  This, FYI, was about 5-10 years ago.

    • HannibalBarca

      You mind if I ask where you went to school in South Dakota? I went to DSU.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Arthur-Bryne/100002441143047 Arthur Bryne

      You might bear in mind that nationally, attitudes on same-sex marriage have been changing radically relative to the usual sluggish pace of history, with about one-third support from 2004 becoming about one-half support in 2010, and the trend continuing since. A span of 6+ years is a relatively long time ago for this question.

      While things are changing rapidly, the US isn’t homogenous, and some areas are shifting more slowly; EG, South Dakota tends more conservative, and is probably behind the curve on both issues, but the attitude shift is occurring rapidly in a historical sense even in the Midwest — though less so. That said, a crowd of college conservative acquaintances all being in favor suggests probably starting from a relatively liberal school in NY, New England, or on the West Coast, and likely an unrepresentative sample of conservatives there,  selective recalled to boot. 

  • C Peterson

    Referring to the headline, and not the content… there is no “Obama Youth Consensus”; indeed, there is no consensus at all among youth, about either MJ legalization or marriage equality. Both issues enjoy politically significant majorities among those under 30- but a 65% majority is far from a consensus. And Obama himself, while receiving 60% of their vote, can hardly be considered all that popular, considering that only 40% of them approve of his performance.

    • http://twitter.com/mtracey Michael Tracey

       “Referring to the headline, and not the content…” always the mark of a good comment!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Arthur-Bryne/100002441143047 Arthur Bryne

    Your personal sample of college conservatives all favoring same-sex marriage and legal weed are a bit anomalous in both respects; even among the young, conservatives and republicans tend to lean more opposed than supporting. That said, acceptance seems to be growing, although more slowly than the population over all, but contrariwise faster than in older generational cohorts.

  • freemage

    I’ve said for awhile now that Obama’s biggest allies have been his opponents, from his Senate campaign onward.  Romney was the last of a long string of allegedly smart rivals who somehow dropped the ball when facing Barry.   One downside of this is that he’s rarely had to work to retain the party base at all.

  • Paul Paulus

    Romney apparently lacked the political judgment to internalize this

    is an awfully polite way to say that romney is a fucking moron.

  • Kristi

    Yes, MN only struck down a constitutional amendment to prohibit marriage equality. Basically, they didn’t vote FOR marriage equality, they voted not be against it.

  • kalimsaki

    “And He is living and dies not”

     

    That is to say,
    the Possessor of a beauty, perfection, and munificence that are
    infinitely  superior  to  the  beauty,  perfection,  and  munificence  to  be  seen  in  the creatures of the universe,
    and that arouse love; and an Eternal Object of Worship, an Everlasting Beloved,
    a single manifestation of whose beauty is sufficent to replace all other
    beloveds, has an enduring life through pre-eternity and post-eternity – a life
    free from any trace of cessation or ephemerality and exempt from any fault,
    defect, or imperfection.  Thus, this phrase proclaims to jinn and man, to
    all conscious beings, and the people of love and ardour:

    Here is good
    news for you! There exists an Everlasting Beloved who will cure and bind the
    wounds caused you by countless  separations from the ones you love. Since He
    exists and is undying, whatever happens do not fret over the others.
    Furthermore, the beauty and generosity, virtue and perfection to be seen in
    them, the cause of your love, are, passing through many veils, the shadows of
    the palest of shadows of the manifestation of the Ever-Enduring Beloved’s
    ever-enduring beauty. Do not grieve at their disappearance, for they are
    mirrors of a sort. The mirrors being changed renews and embellishes the
    manifestation of the Beauty’s radiance. Since He exists, everything exists.

    From Risalei Nur collection by
    Said Nursi.

     

    http://www.nur.gen.tr/en.html#leftmenu=Risale&maincontent=Risale&islem=read&KitapId=499&BolumId=8783&KitapAd=Letters+(+revised+)&Page=266

  • kaydenpat

    “his first term was unsuccessful due to poor tactical judgment in concert with other factors.”

    That’s your opinion.  Not shared by everyone at all.

    “(Does chronic lying and mendacity qualify as a sin per Mormon doctrine?)”

    Good question.

    “Obama was allowed to win because the opposition party allowed itself to degenerate into a vehicle for hysterical, childish anti-Obama rage.”

    And it seems that this will continue for the next four years.

    Why did you include Benjamin Netanyahu in your list of “retrograde actors”?  Both parties are beholden to Israel as one of the US’ only allies in the Middle East. 


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X