Question: When does a flip flop become an evolution? Answer: When the flip-flop leads to a liberal outcome.
I have in mind the omnipresent use by the media of President Obama’s “evolution” on gay marriage. In fact, this evolution was a rather jagged one.
As it’s been pointed out on this web site before, in 1996, Obama said he supported gay marriage. Then, in 2004, he said he opposed gay marriage. He reiterated that stand in 2008. Then, after Obama was elected president, he was neutral on the subject. And now that he’s (re)-embraced his position from more than 15 years ago, the press – using precisely the word Obama does to describe his shifting stance – says the president has “evolved.” As in “became more enlightened.”
To take the important point made by Jonathan on Mitt Romney and abortion in a slightly different direction, here’s a thought experiment. Assume that a decade-and-a-half ago Romney opposed same sex marriage. Then, running for office in Massachusetts, he embraced same-sex marriage. But now, running for president, he announced he once again opposes gay marriage. Do you think the press would describe his position as having “evolved”? Or would the word “benighted” more accurately reflect the tone and spirit of the media’s coverage of Romney?
Just wondering.
This all seems to puzzle you, Peter. But here's the answer: the fact that the press adores Obama is very, very old news. This is but one of thousands of examples. The more important and relatively new development is that the country is no longer capable of understanding or caring about either media bias, Obama's hypocrisy (or his lies) or the horrible policies and laws he is inflicting on the country. People have changed. The tipping point has been reached. Substance and argument don't matter. Pointing out media bias is just a game for pundits. None of this reaches the chink in Obama's armor–his vanity, his bad motives and his lies. Only by focusing on those weaknesses can he be brought down, but even you still think he's just a "cynic", so you are nowhere near able to really help out in the crucial task of ending Obama's regime.
The difference is that Obama has "evolved" to the correct position on a civil rights issue, whereas Romney has caved to the far right. n nOf course they're both transparently political. Everyone knows that there are times when politicians have to say things they don't believe in order to win elections. On this issue, Obama has the advantage of having "evolved" back to the position he held all along (but couldn't admit to for electoral reasons), while Romney comes off as a pure panderer (because no one knows what he really thinks). n nLife isn't fair, and politics certainly isn't. The bias of the liberal media is real, but as long as knee-jerk homophobia finds a home in the GOP, you're making it pretty easy for them, aren't you?
This entire episode is very heartening to me. Mr. Obama's actions smack of desperation, not merely a desire either to charm extra dough out of rich homosexuals or to create another distraction from the economy. n nThe slapdash manner of this announcement and its obviously dire implications for Obama in precisely the states he needs to hold onto in November tell me that his internal polling is far worse than we have been hearing. No matter how incompetent Plouffe and Axelrod really are when faced with a formidible candidate, they would have to be idiots to think that exciting a 20% base while at the same time energizing a 40% base is a good strategy. n nIt's May and the Obama campaign is already throwing passes far down the field. That is not the game plan of a team that is confident of its superiority. n nThese bozos are desperate to find a Game Changer. Why? Because they are losing. Badly. And they know it.