Obama: Hey, don’t blame me for those canceled White House tours

posted at 10:41 am on March 13, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via Byron York, skip to 2:33 for the key bit. And remember, not only did the GOP offer to give him extra flexibility on what to cut as part of the sequester — which he refused, naturally — but federal agencies already enjoy some inherent flexibility in moving money around and could ask Congress for more if need be. Essentially, what he’s asking you to believe is that the most powerful man in the world is powerless to pressure the agency that serves as his own personal guard to keep the White House open to schoolkids and tourists. There are, I guess, no less pressing priorities in the executive branch’s budget that could be cut instead. Including the White House calligraphers.

The whole interview’s worth watching, but since we’re highlighting the BS-ier parts, here’s my favorite. It doesn’t appear in the clip but ABC thankfully preserved it in writing:

…Do you still believe that [states should set their own rules on gay marriage], or do you now believe that gay marriage is a right guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution?

Well, I’ve gotta tell you that– in terms of practical politics, what I’ve seen is a healthy debate taking place state by state, and not every state has the exact same attitudes and cultural mores. And I– you know, my thinking was that this is traditionally a state issue and– that it will work itself out.

On the other hand– what I also believe is that the core principle that people don’t get discriminated against– that’s one of our core values. And it’s in our constitution. It’s in– the– you know, 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. And– from a legal perspective, the– the– the bottom line is, is that gays have historically been discriminated against and I do think that courts have to apply what’s called heightened scrutiny, where they take a careful look. If there’s any reason for– gays and lesbians to be treated differently, boy, the government better–

So banning gay marriage–

–have a really good–

–is discrimination?

Well, what I– what I believe is that– if– if the states don’t have a good justification for it, then it probably doesn’t stand up to constitutional muster

Can you imagine one?

So– well, I can’t, personally. I cannot. That’s part of the conc– reason I said, ultimately, I think that– you know, same-sex couples should be able to marry. That’s my personal position. And, frankly, that’s the position that’s reflected– in the briefs that we filed– in the Supreme Court.

I realize it’s silly to keep up the charade that he ever really opposed gay marriage, but it’s his charade. He maintains to this day that when he got elected in 2008 he was a bona fide opponent of SSM and that he’s since “evolved.” In that case, what did he used to think (or pretend to think) qualified as a “good justification” for states banning gay marriage? I made this point recently but I’ll make it again: When a Harvard Law grad and former University of Chicago professor says his position on gay marriage has changed, he’s not just talking about morals. There has to have been some legal/constitutional “evolution” in his thinking, unless O wants us to believe that he was all for legalizing SSM even in 2008 when he was busy running around telling swing voters that, as a Christian, he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. What view of the Equal Protection Clause did he used to have that made him think state prohibitions on SSM were okay? I don’t expect an honest answer — the honest answer is that he never thought it was constitutional to ban gay marriage and lied in order to get elected — but I’d like someone to pose the question just to watch him squirm under the weight of the charade.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air


Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.


Trackback URL