Check out some similar questions!

ebaines · May 14, 2012, 08:17 AM

It's more than a "bully pulpit" thing, as the Presidenat and Congress do indeed have an impact on federal laws as they apply to gays, especially if married. For example consider income taxes - if Congress wanted they could extend joint filing opportunities to gays who have been legally married in those states that allow it - right now a legally married gay couple can not file as "married" on their taxes, due in part to the "Defense of Marriage" act passed under Clinton (now if you want to talk about a flip-flopper on this issue Bill Clinton is at the top of the list). And the federal government could mandate things like insurance coverage for domestic partners. So it does matter what the President and members of Congress think on the issue.

speechlesstx · May 14, 2012, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah... It changes NOTHING from a legal standpoint.. But, it DOES matter that a sitting president came out in support of it. You know, the bully pulpit, and all that.

He didn't use any bully pulpit. He saves the bullying for those on his hit list. You know, how he treats other people matters most to him.

excon · May 14, 2012, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

his hit list

Hello again, Steve:

Yawn... Politics is a contact sport.

excon

NeedKarma · May 14, 2012, 10:20 AM

What the hell has happened to the venerable Wall Street Journal? It's become a fluff rag.

speechlesstx · May 14, 2012, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

What the hell has happened to the venerable Wall Street Journal? It's become a fluff rag.

I wouldn't call a story highlighting how the President of the United States is acting like Nixon when he should be representing ALL Americans instead of attacking private citizens, fluff.

THIS is a fluff rag:

tomder55 · May 14, 2012, 10:34 AM

Andrew Sullivan ,the prime example of objective journalism

NeedKarma · May 14, 2012, 10:45 AM

That cover is pandering as well, but WSJ writing has taken a horrible downhill turn, it's not at all the paper of Wall Street. It's become a throw away rag - Murdoch killed its reputation.

speechlesstx · May 14, 2012, 10:48 AM

You must have them confused with the NY Times.

NeedKarma · May 14, 2012, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You must have them confused with the NY Times.

Oh sorry, is the NY Times owned by Murdoch's NewsCorp as well?

speechlesstx · May 14, 2012, 11:21 AM

You seem to be under the impression that it's a "fluff rag" for the simple fact that Murdoch owns it.

NeedKarma · May 14, 2012, 11:33 AM

No, for the reason(s) I had mentioned above. Not sure why you thought I had confused it with another newspaper since it's your original link. Anyway, carry on.

tomder55 · May 14, 2012, 11:47 AM

The news division of the WSJ is not that much different in content than the rest of the dinosaurs. The news division reporting of The Journal is as liberal as NPR or the Slimes.

I only read the Opinion Journal online. .

speechlesstx · May 14, 2012, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

No, for the reason(s) I had mentioned above. Not sure why you thought I had confused it with another newspaper since it's your original link. Anyway, carry on.

When someone says "Murdoch killed its reputation" one can only come to the conclusion I did. The NYT comment was sarcasm, you never seem to get sarcasm.

NeedKarma · May 14, 2012, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

When someone says "Murdoch killed its reputation" one can only come to the conclusion I did.

Well that wasn't just my opinion, thye haven't won a Pulitzer since he took over and they been marred in controversy:
The Wall Street Journal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Wall Street Journal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wall Street Journal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

speechlesstx · May 14, 2012, 01:27 PM

Oh, so lack of winning a Pulitzer means they're all fluff? By the way, Joseph Rago of the WSJ won last year's award for editorial writing and they've had 8 finalists since then, including 2 more this year. So now they're recognizing fluff in the media?

tomder55 · May 14, 2012, 01:40 PM

Joe Rago ,Dan Henninger,James Taranto , Mary Anastasia O'Grady ,Bret Stephens ,Mary Kissel ,Kimberly Strassel are all fine writers and reporters . Better than most you see at the other dinosaurs.

speechlesstx · May 14, 2012, 01:43 PM

Speaking of Kimberly Strassel, she also did a fine piece on Obama's hit list which I mentioned last week.

NeedKarma · May 14, 2012, 02:00 PM

Have you noticed that all the articles are against Obama?

speechlesstx · May 14, 2012, 02:37 PM

First of all, 2 does not equal all. Secondly, did you acknowledge the Pultzer recognition I linked? Thirdly, someone has to do some serious journalism as the vast majority of the media are Obama lapdogs.

P.S. Jennifer missed the failure of the mainstream media to take Obama's cronyism and scandals such as Fast and Furious seriously.

NeedKarma · May 14, 2012, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

First of all, 2 does not equal all.

I agree. I was referring to the preponderance it its articles day-to-day.
If you want to impress link me up to an award recognition article that is critical of conservatives/GOP. That should be a good challenge. :-)

I like how Jennifer writes an article with a fine use of "Duh". And her only links are to the WSJ.

Oh and about cronyism, show one administration that doesn't do that. It's an inherent fault in the political system, no one is immune.