The Official Bendis Board 2012 Presidential Campaign Thread 2.0

[HOOKS]

Change is in the air.

President Obama has recently shifted his stance on gay marriage. With the economy slowly recovering, the President's insistence to redefine his stance on social issues shows a change of pace for how he wants to define his campaign. Less moderate, leaning further left, it is clear he wants to build a psychological divide between he and any opposition that is looking to dismiss the incumbent.



Mitt Romney, the man from Massachusetts who has won the lion's share of delegates for the Republican party. Looking to institute his own brand of change, Romney has begun leaning further to the right on social issues, redefining himself in an effort to create distance between those who would say he is too similar to the President. While some may argue that Romney is flip-flopping, one might say the Republican presidential candidate's stance has merely evolved in recent years.

Even with the shift to social issues, and less of an emphasis on the economy, economic growth remains low. Student loans are set to rise, the real estate market is still the weakest it's been in decades, and there is tension in the markets with JP Morgan Chase losing $2 billion in trading. Money is tight across the board.

The questions remain: which man is the best to lead the wave of change in this country? Who will Romney choose as his running mate? What issues will define the country over the next several months? And who will voters decide to occupy the White House for the next four years?

This is the Official Bendis Board 2012 Presidential Campaign Thread.

Sites for reference:
http://www.politico.com
http://www.drudgereport.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com
http://www.talkinpointsmemo.com
http://www.newsmax.com
http://www.realclearpolitics.com
http://www.reason.com
http://www.cnsnews.com/home
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com
http://www.gallup.com

[Ray G.]

Wonder how long this one will last. Gonna be a crazy few months.

[Brad N.]

Mmmmmm, love that new thread smell.

[artimoff]

WHAT!!! No Gary Johnson?

[HOOKS]

WHAT!!! No Gary Johnson?

Gary Johnson has been mentioned exactly four times in the last six months, one of those being the post you just made and another being the one I just typed.

[Ray G.]

Gary Johnson has been mentioned exactly four times in the last six months, one of those being the post you just made and another being the one I just typed.

Besides, I'd say he's sort of in the same category of relevance as far-right candidate Virgil Goode and far-left candidate Rocky Anderson.

And no one wants to have to invite those guys to the party.

[Matt Jay]

Seventh!

[I've Got the Monkeys]

Christening the thread with some news:

Rand Paul Says He Didn't Think Obama's Views 'Could Get Any Gayer'

Sen. Rand Paul mocked President Obama's recent support of gay marriage on Friday, saying he didn't think Obama's views "could get any gayer."

"The president recently weighed in on marriage and you know he said his views were evolving on marriage," the Kentucky Republican said at Iowa's Faith and Freedom Coalition meeting. "Call me cynical, but I wasn't sure his views on marriage could get any gayer."

The comments, which generated laughs, were made two days after Obama announced that he supported same-sex marriage, which he had previously opposed, while adding he thought the issue should be left up to the states to decide.

Paul was encouraging support for his father Ron Paul's long-shot presidential campaign when the conversation turned to the news of the week.

"He said the biblical golden rule caused him to be for gay marriage," Paul said. "I'm like what version of the Bible is he reading?"

Paul went on to say that he's not preaching hateful dogma against people, but added that he didn't believe people should give up on their traditions.

"Six thousand years of tradition" combined with "anthropological" evidence shows "there's stability in the family unit," he said.

"The family is really important and we shouldn't just give up on it," he said.

Paul spoke against abortion as well as same-sex marriage.

"I think we're in a spiritual crisis as a country," Paul said, "and I think you're going to need leaders beyond your political leaders."

Paul had been advertised as the coalition's "special guest" for its 12th annual meeting of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a socially conservative group led by former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed.

Harming the Troops

Republican lawmakers love to say they are protective of religious freedom and supportive of the military. Last week, Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee passed two measures that undermine both in an effort to deny equal rights to gay men and lesbians.

It was particularly disturbing to see this implacable campaign of intolerance at work during a week in which President Obama announced his support for the expansion of the right to marry to all Americans.

Just hours after Mr. Obama tried to lead the nation forward, the House Armed Services Committee was turning the clock back. On a 37-to-24 party-line vote, the committee approved an amendment to the annual military budget bill that would bar the use of a “military installation or other property owned or rented by, or otherwise under the jurisdiction or control of the Department of Defense” for a same-sex marriage or “marriage-like ceremony.”

This measure is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion — a right that conservatives champion when it suits their political agenda. If, for example, a Navy chaplain wanted to perform a same-sex wedding, he would be prohibited from doing so in his chapel — even if it is in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages.

Supporters of this measure call it a “conscience protection” and claim to be shielding chaplains from being compelled to perform weddings between two men or two women. There is no merit to the argument; military policy already says that cannot happen.

Military policy says private ceremonies on military bases cannot be restricted on the basis of sexual orientation, but it permits the use of military property for same-sex weddings only in states where they are legally recognized. That should have erased any concern about states that ban same-sex marriage, but that was not the real motivation for this measure.

It was intended to undermine the law that lifted “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and to interfere with the laws in states that allow same-sex marriage. So much for the supposed ideology of small government that does not meddle with the rights of states.

The other amendment, which passed by a 36-to-25 vote, says the military must accommodate “the conscience and sincerely held moral principles and religious beliefs of the members of the Armed Forces concerning the appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality.”

It also says that no officer may “direct, order or require a chaplain to perform any duty” that contradicts his “conscience, moral principles or religious beliefs.” Note that this does not say any “religious duty,” but merely any duty at all.

The measure is an outrageous interference in the military chain of command. Among other things, it would create a loophole for military chaplains to evade their duty to minister to all soldiers seeking spiritual guidance while in service to their country. It would also invite harassment of gay soldiers by comrades who might feel empowered by Congress to verbalize their antipathy to them under the cover of supposed moral principles, knowing there would be no consequences.

It could even be used as cover by those refusing to serve with gay soldiers, or even service members in interracial relationships, which, after all, could be considered by some intolerant people as an “inappropriate expression of human sexuality.” It certainly has been in the past.

The sponsor of this measure was Representative Todd Akin, a Missouri Republican who is competing in a three-way primary to run against the state’s incumbent Democratic senator, Claire McCaskill, in the fall.

Mr. Obama said his support for same-sex marriage was motivated in part by his recognition of the injustice of not recognizing the right of gay soldiers, airmen, Marines or sailors fighting for their country to marry the people they love. It is sad that Mr. Akin and his colleagues share no similar feeling.

The Senate needs to strip the two offensive amendments from the final bill.

[Kevin T Brown]

Since the other thread is going to be dead soon, I'll respond here:

Well I'm not qualified to comment on black, latino or woman studies but as a lifelong white man I am qualified to comment on "Whiteness Studies" and I say to anyone that is trying to make a career with that bullshit needs to get a grip and look for gainful employment. Or at least try to find a job were somebody might benefit from there labor

Maybe as a proofreader?


Seriously, there are tons of jobs out there that people don't consider "real jobs", but tend to be important in the field of their speciality. Just because you sit back and roll your eyes on it doesn't make it any less real or viable. Various sociological studies will always viewed upon by many as "bull shit".

[Brad N.]

I didn't think Rand Paul could get any dumber.