Patterico's Pontifications

5/11/2012

L.A. Times Swoons Over Obama “Evolution” Without Mentioning Prior “Devolution”

Filed under: 2012 Election,Dog Trainer,Obama — Patterico @ 7:43 am

There is a puff piece in today’s L.A. Times titled: President Obama’s influence on gay marriage will be tested. His change, we are told, is historic and valuable:

David Mixner, a longtime Democratic and gay rights activist, noted wryly that Obama’s endorsement was “no more symbolic than President Johnson endorsing the Voting Rights bills…. It’s going to give momentum. It’s going to give real legitimacy. It’s going to impact those who are sitting on the fence. Anytime the president takes a major stance on any civil rights issues, whether it’s Harry Truman or John Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson, it lends the power of the presidency to that issue.”

. . . .

Obama’s most valuable contribution may have been the way he described his evolution on the issue. In the ABC interview, he related dinner-table discussions about his daughters’ friends whose parents are same-sex couples.

“That’s the same kind of conversation that’s taking place at kitchen tables around America,” said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, a pro-gay-marriage group. He said Obama’s explanation about “how he had opened his heart and changed his mind” was the most important part of the president’s statement.

Obama also placed his personal opinion in the context of his values as a “practicing Christian,” in line with efforts by gay marriage proponents to sway conservative voters. Obama said that, contrary to those who believe same-sex marriage is at odds with Christian teachings, it “is not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf — but it’s also the golden rule, you know? Treat others the way you’d want to be treated.”

If we’re going to talk about Obama’s “evolution” on this issue, let’s talk about Obama’s evolution on this issue.

In 1996, when Obama was running for the state senate in Illinois, he signed a questionnaire in which he supported the right of gays to marry:

Then, when he was running for federal office, his position changed. He has allowed a spokeshole to claim that the above questionnaire was filled out by someone else — a claim later retracted by another spokeshole when nobody bought it.

And he cited religion as the reason for opposing same sex marriage.

Now, having flip-flopped, he has flop-flipped back. And he is trying to make it sound principled.

And the L.A. Times is letting him. Because somehow, none of this makes it into today’s misty-eyed description of Obama’s “evolution.” The “devolution” preceding the “evolution” never comes up.

Odd, that.

73 Responses to “L.A. Times Swoons Over Obama “Evolution” Without Mentioning Prior “Devolution””

  1. He’s three years behind Dick Cheney. You remember the LA Times trumpeted that.

    AZ Bob (1c9631)

  2. Racist hohophobe

    JD (66b3fb)

  3. The new York Times reports Biden apologized for starting this whole controversy and forcing Obama’s hand.. Front page main lead story on the left.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  4. This is a ginormous political kabuki theatre. The MFM is just eating this up.

    JD (66b3fb)

  5. Unfortunately, no one expects politicians to be principled today … but this lets liberals continue to believe that Obama is the smartest politician ever. Even the fact that he took awhile to see the light on gay marriage becomes evidence that Obama can’t be swayed by emotion and is committed to “intellectual wandering”. Some conclude he’s just too darn intellectual because “intellectual can too often equal ineffectual.”

    However, it appears his intellectual wandering was influenced by his staffers and his teen/pre-teen daughters’ friends:

    Obama spoke to that point in his interview Wednesday with Robin Roberts of ABC News as he explained how his thinking on gay marriage had changed from four years ago, when he said that he supported civil unions but that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

    The president said he has staffers “who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together.”

    His daughters have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, Obama said. “It wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently.”

    Obviously this isn’t intellectual reasoning, it’s emotional. It’s hard to look someone in the eye and explain why you oppose a policy or benefit that matters to them or their family, but that doesn’t make it a good idea.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  6. Yet another one of Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama’s “composite” explanations.

    Elephant Stone (0ae97d)

  7. DRJ – Nancy Lugosi says her religion compels her support SSM. Obviously something in Obama’s religion changed between 1996, 2004 and 2012 to get him to flip flop positions like this, but I have no idea what that may be.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  8. He was for it before he was against it before he was for it

    JD (66b3fb)

  9. And he cited religion as the reason for opposing same sex marriage.

    And is now claiming religion led him to support gay marriage.

    Must have has a revelation while riding the trans-continental train.

    MaaddMaaxx (25e27f)

  10. Are we not men?!?

    We are Devo!

    Ralph Gizzip (5ab3ea)

  11. What is the point of all this? Romney’s team handed out pro gay marriage flyers during his Mass election, then he switched when he looked at running for president. Why does it matter that positions change?

    The argument is that Obama is the first president to support SSM as president. If you like that, Obama scores some points with you… If you don’t like SSM, you look at Romney, who so far has been pretty strong in his statements against SSM since Obama’s announcement.

    Alex (3fb7d8)

  12. “Romney’s team handed out pro gay marriage flyers during his Mass election, then he switched when he looked at running for president.”

    Alex – Link please.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  13. Alex is going to define what we are allowed to discuss again, how cute.

    JD (66b3fb)

  14. You can discuss whatever you want, but I just don’t see the point.

    Alex (3fb7d8)

  15. They are such an easy mark, it’s like that Python
    sketch ‘how to do it’ they don’t ask any follow up questions, but say if someone actually took action,
    say against an anti domestic partnership referendum, despite their personal beliefs, because
    that act doesn’t resemble the template, that story
    doesn’t permeate.

    narciso (1c125b)

  16. “During the 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney said he did not support same-sex civil unions or marriages. Aides say the actions of the squeaky-clean Mormon – who, with his combed-back salt-and-pepper hair, is the picture of propriety – stem from his core beliefs.”

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0524/p03s01-uspo.html

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  17. His daughters have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, Obama said. “It wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently.”

    The problem is that the issue of what to call same-sex unions is distinct from the issue of how to treat people in same-sex unions.

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  18. Alex is rummaging around in his mother’s basement looking for those links. Give him time, it’s really dark down there and he’s not allowed to play with matches.

    Old Coot (2ea1e9)

  19. Alex – Thank you for your concern.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  20. Wow–a “spokeshole” for an A-hole? Who knew?

    Comanche Voter (dc4fc0)

  21. http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp120510president_obama_supp

    Again, what’s the point? Do you support SSM? Or not?

    Alex (3fb7d8)

  22. Daley Rocks writes:
    Obviously something in Obama’s religion changed between 1996, 2004 and 2012 to get him to flip flop positions like this, but I have no idea what that may be.

    I’ll tell you what it is. The Bamster’s religion and current pressing need is “money”. He “evolved” to this position just before a flight to Hollywood to milk the moguls. And apparently did quite well at Chez Clooney raising “historic” amounts of campaign cash.

    Heck, as far as the Los Angeles Times is concerned, when Obama puts on his shoes in the morning, he’s “making history”.

    Comanche Voter (dc4fc0)

  23. ==However, it appears his intellectual wandering was influenced by his staffers and his teen/pre-teen daughters’ friends==

    Hey it’s s Democrat president thing. (Unfortunately) I’m old enough to remember Jimmeh Carter telling the world he discussed his foreign policy decisions with little Amy. (Most American voters at the time did not find that to be a comfort, as I recall)

    elissa (00f0b3)

  24. “Again, what’s the point?”

    Alex – That’s what we keep asking you. Why are you here?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  25. i’ts the Chewbacca defense, he was from Kashyssk so consequently he couldn ‘t have been on Endor, and thus Shep wasn’t entitled to the royalties from the single,

    narciso (1c125b)

  26. Just to be fair, also from the CS Monitor:

    But many observers say Romney’s aggressive stance represents a significant shift from two years ago. Before assuming office, he offered strong support for domestic-partner benefits, which some gay-rights advocates equated with de facto acceptance of civil unions. More important: Romney said he saw no need to pass a state law banning gay marriage.

    In other words, his position then was exactly the same as his position now.

    “When these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender and I don’t favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name,” Romney said in an interview with KDVR-TV in Denver.

    “My view is that domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights and the like are appropriate but the others are not,” the presumptive GOP presidential nominee said.

    Alex is engaging in the usual lib tactic of mischaracterizing someone’s position. Then arguing against the strawman of their own creation.

    Obama does this a lot, too. He always tries to portray his position as the only reasonable one in the room, “Some people say we should do nothing, but I say we can do better.” Or words to that effect.

    Of course, no one is saying “we should do nothing.” But if you start from a twisted leftist perspective and don’t mind arguing in bad faith, you can deliberately misconstrue and misrepresent your opponents position.

    Which is what Alex is doing here. Or at least, furthering the efforts of Romney’s political opponents back then who deliberately misconstrued Romney’s position as “equating” with support of gay marriage, though he never in fact did, in order to claim he flip-flopped.

    Steve (90e0d3)

  27. La Times still a hack rag, slavishly worshiping Obama. In other breaking news; water found to be consistently wet.

    C. S. P. Schofield (df34af)

  28. “In other words, his position then was exactly the same as his position now.”

    Steve – FLIP FLOPPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  29. They’re right though it’s very historic if Team R isn’t careful the democrats are gonna get all the credit for gay marriagings

    happyfeet (a12946)

  30. “Or at least, furthering the efforts of Romney’s political opponents back then who deliberately misconstrued Romney’s position as “equating” with support of gay marriage, though he never in fact did, in order to claim he flip-flopped.”

    Steve – This tactic has also been used by Romney’s Republican opponents to great effect and has left much of the public with the impression of a candidate with no core, when a closer examination of the record shows the charges of flip flopping are largely BS. Who bothers to look into detail these days when it’s much easier to swallow prepackaged talking point?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  31. “if Team R isn’t careful the democrats are gonna get all the credit for gay marriagings”

    Mr. Feets – You are right. Team D is all over butt sechs like white on rice.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  32. Mr. Feets – Now that President Obama has flip flopped evolved, he should make butt sechs the only issue in the campaign.

    Winning!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  33. Well yes, other than pointing out yet again that the la times is part of team Obama, the other relevant point is do you support SSM or not?

    Alex (3fb7d8)

  34. There are some Obama promises you can take to the bank, promising electricity prices ,will necessarily skyrocket’ fulfilling the Iowa Peace Pledge, some are more fungible, this may be one of them.

    narciso (1c125b)

  35. Partisan politics aside, I think it’s still important to most of the voting public to feel candidates are being honest with them about their core beliefs. And telling how they arrived there often gives voters a sense of the sincerity and longevity of said core principles, as well as a broader picture of the inherent character and intellect of the individual candidate. I think voters are entitled to know where candidates stand on a whole host of issues and themes from the critical to the trivial. Then voters must decide whether those beliefs will/can affect future policy either positively or negatively to a significant degree– or if they are more just interesting facts to know.

    I do not plan to place my vote in 2012 for the President of the United States, the future of this country, and the survival of the free world on whether or not said candidate supports same sex marriage. There will be many other more important and pressing (at least to me) considerations informing my vote. President Obama’s mendacity, and smarmy equivocation on the subject of gay marraige over 15 years (depending on what audience’s votes he’s courting at the momnent) do carry a lot of meaning to me, though.

    elissa (00f0b3)

  36. Mr. Romney needs to skillfully deflect questions about gayness issues and such and focus on our pitiful half-dead economy Mr. Daley, and so far he seems to be a lot on the ball. What’s kinda interesting is how having gay marriage inserted so prominently and early (and clumsily) in the campaign frees him up to pick a VP for reasons other than to assuage the anxieties of anti-gay bigots. He already has them swooning.

    happyfeet (c16705)

  37. “the other relevant point”

    Alex – Relevant to who?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  38. Too bad there aren’t any real issues doing ahead of this election, the weiner could seize a mandate:

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/bibis-win-the-largest-coalition-in-israeli-history/

    gary gulrud (1de2db)

  39. “What’s kinda interesting is how having gay marriage inserted so prominently and early (and clumsily) in the campaign frees him up to pick a VP for reasons other than to assuage the anxieties of anti-gay bigots. He already has them swooning.”

    Mr. Feets – I agree. I am surprised that President Distracto is using up so much of his ammunition this early.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  40. What the Times accused McCain of having an affair with a lobbyist, this came almost whole cloth from
    Huntsman’s minder, who has taught the Grasshopper well. and that was back in the spring of 2008,

    narciso (1c125b)

  41. 39. Mr. Feets – I agree. I am surprised that President Distracto is using up so much of his ammunition this early.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 5/11/2012 @ 9:53 am

    I don’t think they’ve used up a fraction of their ammo. In the coming months we’ll undoubtedly see the Obama campaign providing photoshopped images of Mitt Romney helping to forcibly enslave and systematically rape underage Hispanic girls on that Mormon polygamy estancia he grew up on in Mexico.

    Which the sycophantic press will no doubt run with. After all, like the Bush TANG memo the essential “truthiness” of the content trumps any concern that it’s a fabrication.

    Plus, combining the issue of slavery with the exploitation of underage Mexican and Central American girls will help keep the Black, Hispanic, and child advocacy vote from straying off the reservation.

    Steve (90e0d3)

  42. They have to be holding something back cause so far… Seamus and prep school follies and Ann’s t-shirt and what have you are not cudgels president bumble could weild in a debate without looking smaller than he already does

    happyfeet (928ad9)

  43. I think the deleted passages in this Lost Angeles Times article which contain a summary of all of Obama’s flip-flops on this issue are being held in storage along with the videotape of the Rashid Khalidi party videotape that the Times refuses to publish due to its embarrassing content involving Obama.

    Elephant Stone (0ae97d)

  44. The love of/dependence on money (and the worldly power it provides and represents) has long been a rival of love of/dependence on a transcendent God who is more interested in things like truth and morality. There is nothing new under the sun, just variations on the theme.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  45. Daleyrocks – are you telling us Alex told a fib?

    JD (d4dd44)

  46. “Daleyrocks – are you telling us Alex told a fib?”

    JD – I have not seen Alex support its position on hate crimes or what it wrote in #11. Absent such support, my conclusion is that Alex is fibbing.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  47. “Mitt Romney helping to forcibly enslave and systematically rape underage Hispanic girls on that Mormon polygamy estancia he grew up on in Mexico.”

    Steve – I like your thinking, but it was Mitt’s father who grew up in Mexico I believe. Mitt grew up in Michigan. Perhaps Mitt did his raping and pillaging during visits to see his grandparents.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  48. 41. … I don’t think they’ve used up a fraction of their ammo. …
    Comment by Steve — 5/11/2012 @ 10:02 am

    I agree. They are not limited by a need to rely on facts, so they can make up stuff. The only question is whether they will get so ridiculous at it that even the usual followers have to get skeptical.

    It is a strategy that often works: We know that FDR saved the US by digging us out of the Great Depression; that JFK was the greatest; that the Vietnam war was evil, the responsibility of Repubs, and lost by the US as Walter Cronkite told us after the NV and Viet Cong won the Tet Offensive; that Pres. Clinton was a great president who had to put up with people prying into his personal affairs; that Al Gore won Fla and the 2000 election; that Charles Pickering was a racist judge; that Miguel Estrada was…well, whatever he was he didn’t deserve to be on the 1st District Court of Appeals; Bush lied; Scooter Libby outed Valerie Plame; Valerie Plame was outable; that Obama had more executive experience than Palin; that…. well, you get the picture.

    Elsewhere someone said this was going to be the most vicious presidential campaign ever. Probably so, until 2016.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  49. The reason I oppose redefining marriage is because I have not been presented with a good-enough reason to do so.

    Could it be that the prevailing legal definition is at odds with the social understanding? While that could be the case in certain times and places, it was not the case in North Carolina. The people of North Carolina understand marriage to be an opposite-sex union. In over thirty states the people voted to define marriage, and that vote is a clear indicator of the social understanding of marriage.

    Is it immoral to define marriage as between one man and one woman? If something is morally wrong, it is morally wrong always. And yet, our secular moral traditions lends no support to the idea that it is immoral to define marriage as between one man and one woman. No writing or publication dating from the Reformation, Enlightenment, American Revolution, or American Civil War even hints so.

    Does the definition of marriage oppress homosexuals? Is it the only possible reason for such a definition? The very first dictionary I read, the 1981 World Book Dictionary, defines marriage as “the act or fact of living together as husband and wife; relations between husband and wife; married life; wedlock. Perhaps this line of argument would have some force if the word marriage was invented in 1981 by heterosexuals to oppress homosexuals. But this definition clearly predates 1981. John Locke, one of the Enlightenment philosophers, wrote that marriage was “made by a voluntary compact between man and woman.” Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government § 78 (1690) One hundred seventy-eight years alter, a leading law dictionary was published affirming this definition. John Bouvier, A Law
    Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States
    105 (1868) Indeed, the concept of sexual orientation itself did not exist until the late 19th century. See J. Katz, The Invention of Heterosexuality 10 (1995); J.
    D’Emilio & E. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America 121 (2d ed. 1997) (“The modern terms homosexuality and
    heterosexuality do not apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions“), cited in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 at
    568-569 (2003) Clearly, the purpose of marriage was not to oppress homosexuals, any more than its purpose was to oppress airline pilots. Furthermore, the nomenclature used to describe same-sex unions is distinct from the issue of how to treat people in same-sex unions. After all, women were not oppressed merely by being called women instead of men, but by denying them property rights, the right to vote, etc.

    Is there any difference between same-sex and opposite-sex unions? The answer is yes. There are basic biological differences between men and women. It is because of these differences that we have different words for men and women. In addition, several dating blogs highlighted the different dynamics in human pair bonding between men and women. Therefore, the dynamics of same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions are different. This is sufficient reason to use different names for same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions.

    To be sure, there are some similarities. Canals and highways have similarities too, in that they are both used for transportation across land, and yet they are different. Using different names to describe different things- whether marriages and same-sex unions, canals and highways- is not oppression.

    Can gay couples raise children? To the same extent that pairs of brothers and trios of sisters can raise children. Society has recognized alternate arrangements of raising children. Monasteries in medieval Europe would often raise orphans. No doubt what the monks and nuns did were admirable. Most people at the time were certain the monks and nuns in those monasteries would give all for each other, and for the orphans they raised. And yet, they were not considered the same as married couples. While society admired what they did, they still distinguished them from married couples.

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  50. What is the point of all this? Romney’s team handed out pro gay marriage flyers during his Mass election, then he switched when he looked at running for president. Why does it matter that positions change?
    Comment by Alex — 5/11/2012 @ 8:47 am

    – Yeah! I mean, who cares about consistency and integrity anyway? The only question that really matters is “Are you on the right side of history?” because whenever a fundamental change takes place it’s always for the better; right? The mere fact that something changed means that we have progressed, and we all know that to progress is a good thing.

    You keep on buggering that goat, Alex. Perhaps the views of even the President of the United States will one day evolve to the point where he openly accepts and supports your inter-species union.

    [Given the enthusiastic support for unions already voiced by this president, I'd say the odds are in your favor.]

    Icy (12e2a9)

  51. Not to feed the troll, but just to clarify what Alex is yakking about [edited for clarity]:
    A Boston Pride flier from Romney’s 2002 gubernatorial campaign on pink paper proclaims, “Mitt and [running mate] Kerry Wish You A Great Pride Weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference.”

    a former volunteer on Romney’s 2002 campaign is claiming credit for authoring the flier: Aaron Maloy. Maloy is the openly gay, anti-gay-marriage Republican who narrowly won the 2006 GOP primary for the open 4th Barnstable District House seat (he lost the general election to openly gay Democrat Sarah Peake).

    And then there is the part that Alex (and HuffPo and Andrew “Power Glutes” Sullivan and other left wingers that have pounced on this ‘story’) conveniently forgot to mention:

    Given Maloy’s outspoken opposition to marriage equality during his campaign, the defense of Romney that followed his revelation wasn’t surprising: “Let’s make one thing clear,” Maloy wrote. “Equality does not necessarily mean gay marriage. Mitt Romney believes everyone should be equal. That can be achieved without altering the definition of marriage.”

    Also worth noting: the Romney campaign is denying responsibility for the fliers, and Maloy (to the best that I can determine) has never identified the Romney staffer that allegedly told him to produce and distribute the fliers.

    Also also worth noting: government-recognized marriage is still a privilege, not a right [YMMV if you live in Kalifornia].

    Icy (12e2a9)

  52. Do as I say, and not as I do!
    Plus, being a Leftist means never having to say “I’m Sorry”.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  53. So Icy, I take it you are against SSM?

    Alex (c76e4d)

  54. Please check:
    For SSM?
    Against SSM?
    Don’t give a rat’s ass about SSM one way or the other?

    C’mon, everybody help poor confused Alex out here. Can’t you hear him begging? How can he keep score and continue to offer relevant comments if you don’t tell him what team you’re on?

    elissa (00f0b3)

  55. Well, let’s put it another way, is the SsM issue important to you?

    Alex (223691)

  56. Elissa – it is invested in its memes.

    JD (e7d387)

  57. Alex, Reading IS Fundamental. This thread is about how the L.A. Dog Trainer is portraying President Obama’s change-of-heart on this issue. It is NOT about the issue itself, NOR is it about the personal views of any of us about the issue. It is about how a liberal rag is engaging in selective reporting for the purpose of painting Obama in the best possible, least flip-floppy light.

    Icy (12e2a9)

  58. 47. Steve – I like your thinking, but it was Mitt’s father who grew up in Mexico I believe. Mitt grew up in Michigan. Perhaps Mitt did his raping and pillaging during visits to see his grandparents.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 5/11/2012 @ 10:27 am

    You’re sort of missing the point. It doesn’t matter if Mitt Romney didn’t systematically rape underage Hispanic girls in order to break their wills and enslave them into a pitiful existence of barefooted, pregnant, kitchen-dwelling Mormon wifely obedience. It doesn’t even matter if Mitt Romney never went near his grandparent’s estancia of rape, torture, and polygamy. Nor does it matter if his grandparent’s weren’t actually polygamists.

    It’s a valid story because the media knows deep in its liberal heart that Mitt Romney would have raped and enslaved underage Hispanic girls if given the slightest opportunity. After all, not only is he an evil, mean, gay-bashing capitalist Republican who got rich by ripping off the poor, he’s one of those weird cultists you find in Utah. And we all know what those people are like. He’s one of those guys Al Sharpton described as a Klansman who traded in his sheets for a business suit and tie combined with character from “Deliverance.”

    That story tells you all you need to know about Mitt Romney. So who cares if it’s true in the bourgeois sense of the word “truth.” It’s a photoshopped image in service of the larger truth, so it’s true. As true as anything you’d read about in Pravda or your New Soviet Encyclopedia back in the good old days when socialists didn’t have to hide behind words like “progressive” or “liberal,” and the reactionary capitalists were in the gulag where they belonged.

    Steve (90e0d3)

  59. “It doesn’t matter if Mitt Romney didn’t systematically rape underage Hispanic girls in order to break their wills and enslave them into a pitiful existence of barefooted, pregnant, kitchen-dwelling Mormon wifely obedience.”

    Steve – You are 100% right. My bad. Mitt probably kept the under aged deaf mute Hispanic girls he was raping tied to the roof of his car in between defilings.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  60. “Why does it matter that positions change?”
    Comment by Alex

    I’ll use a sports analogy… football vs. baseball… it is much easier to move from the tight end to wide receiver position than to transition from pitcher to catcher.

    And vice-versa.

    Colonel Haiku (b3da95)

  61. monkeymen all in
    bidness suits… biden carney
    all dance teh gay poot

    Colonel Haiku (b3da95)

  62. teh real thing… http://youtu.be/_0Udc9p-QyQ

    Colonel Haiku (b3da95)

  63. 59. Mitt probably kept the under aged deaf mute Hispanic girls he was raping tied to the roof of his car in between defilings.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 5/11/2012 @ 2:51 pm

    I’m sure he had them in a special container and not just strapped willy-nilly to the outside of the car. Because if you do that, you won’t make it three blocks from the liquor store:

    Police: Drunk Indiana Man Strapped 4 Children To Hood Of Car

    Bye the bye; note the Mitt Romney tie-in in the first sentence.

    Steve (90e0d3)

  64. Steve – Because everybody knows Romney is a secret juicer too.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  65. Amazing link, Steve, and that first sentence is incredible.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  66. Comment by Steve — 5/11/2012 @ 4:15 pm

    That’s Drudge. If you don’t think he can have sex with any seventeen-year old boy he sees, you’re his sworn enemy.

    nk (875f57)

  67. juicing is nothing to be ashamed of it’s very healthy and tasty especially if you won’t eat just a whole lot of vegetables otherwise

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  68. alcohol was involved, what was the first clue, wth
    is wrong with people,

    narciso (1c125b)

  69. 66. Comment by Steve — 5/11/2012 @ 4:15 pm

    That’s Drudge. If you don’t think he can have sex with any seventeen-year old boy he sees, you’re his sworn enemy.

    Comment by nk — 5/11/2012 @ 7:26 pm

    ????

    AOL original reporting is Drudge?!

    More like the Huffington Post, since the two merged.

    Steve (90e0d3)

  70. 22. Daley Rocks writes:
    Obviously something in Obama’s religion changed between 1996, 2004 and 2012 to get him to flip flop positions like this, but I have no idea what that may be.

    I’ll tell you what it is. The Bamster’s religion and current pressing need is “money”. He “evolved” to this position just before a flight to Hollywood to milk the moguls. And apparently did quite well at Chez Clooney raising “historic” amounts of campaign cash.

    Heck, as far as the Los Angeles Times is concerned, when Obama puts on his shoes in the morning, he’s “making history”.

    Comment by Comanche Voter — 5/11/2012 @ 9:08 am

    And now for this important update concerning that “historic” Clooney fundraiser…

    Steve (90e0d3)

  71. The people swooning over this were going to vote for him anyway. The undecided voters – y’know, those ones keeping an eye on the economy or more likely gas prices – will hardly be moved over an issue with little national importance.

    SpideyTerry (0f5beb)

  72. I have been checking out many of your articles and i can claim pretty nice stuff. I will definitely bookmark your blog.

    Rickey Depedro (e82805)

  73. I cling on to listening to the news broadcast speak about getting boundless online grant applications so I have been looking around for the most excellent site to get one. Could you advise me please, where could i find some?

    Grant Krovious (8bd0a5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3660 secs.