Dan over at Gay Patriot asks the obvious questions and provides some even more obvious answers:
This swoon, to borrow an expression from Jennifer Rubin, “will take up the political oxygen for a while.” What exactly will this accomplish save to give gay Democrats, already eager to support Obama, a reason to really ’round the Democrat? Will Obama do what he didn’t do when his party had majorities in both houses of Congress, work the phones and otherwise buttonhole legislators to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – as LBJ did in 1964 on behalf of the Civil Rights Act? {...}
Wonder if this sudden change of heart had something to do with money. A few weeks ago, Ed Morrissey noted that “Obama remains significantly off of his own 2008 pace of fundraising, and way under the Democratic donation performance of that cycle.” And as Dan Eggen reports in the Washington Post:
Many of Obama’s key financial supporters are gay–including finance director Rufus Gifford and Democratic National Committee treasurer Andrew Tobias–and the campaign has regularly held fundraisers focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender donors.
A review of Obama’s top bundlers, who have brought in $500,000 or more for the campaign, shows that about one in six publicly identify themselves as gay.
Obama’s self-referential statement included no specifics about what he means to do. It, Philip Klein writes, “has no tangible policy impact — [Obama] still thinks the issue should be left to the states” — pretty much the same position Dick Cheney articulated in the Vice Presidential Debate twelve years ago. And I didn’t hear my gay friends singing hosannas then.
Some gay Democrats just need a token gesture to get all googly-eyed about a Democrat. And the White House’s waffling words on gay marriage caused much consternation among his gay supporters. Simply put, the president moved to quiet a political firestorm in order to raise some much needed campaign cash.
Even more contemptuously,President Obama's statement was carefully crafted to straddle the line and vote present, emphasizing that this is his personal belief and that he believes that states voting to not allow same sex marriages have the right to prohibit them. This such a transparent attempt to massage a special interest group with empty rhetoric, it astonishes me that any gay voters would actually fall for it - unless they're on the bus already.
UPDATE: Yep...it was definitely for the money.
No comments:
Post a Comment