As things stand, the spokesman does not have the supplies necessary to clean up the mess Biden made in his appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Biden gave his full support to same-sex marriage — a position conspicuously at odds with the public stance of his boss, President Obama, who is widely assumed to share Biden’s views but who says that his own thinking is “evolving.”
The vice president said he is “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex marriage, committing the classic Washington gaffe of accidentally speaking the truth. This bit of straight talk made Obama’s position — neither for nor against such unions but in an evolutionary state, not unlike the Galapagos finch — all the more untenable. On Monday, Carney was left with cleanup duty. But the more Carney swabbed the mess, the more it spread.
CNN’s Jessica Yellin asked whether Obama was trying to “have it both ways before an election” and whether he should “stop dancing around the issue.”
ABC’s Jake Tapper said that “it seems cynical to hide this until after the election” and that “I don’t want to hear the same talking points 15 times in a row.”
NBC’s Chuck Todd said with a grin, “So help me out here. He opposes bans on gay marriage, but he doesn’t yet support gay marriage?”
Carney tried to parry the questions, gamely at first and then testily as reporters began to laugh at his answers. He grew uncharacteristically flustered. When an unrelated question came about whether Obama would support the re-election of scandal-plagued Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., Carney answered: “I mean — well, yes, sure. I just don’t -- I haven’t — I haven’t been asked it before so I ... the president — I’ll have to — I’ll have to get back to you.”
Biden hadn’t planned to make news about same-sex marriage or to endorse a position on the issue. The gaffe-prone vice president had been relatively on message for months. But on Sunday, he referred to the likely Republican presidential nominee as “President Romney” and to his own boss as “President Clinton.” And he inadvertently set off a frenzy on same-sex marriage, not because his position was surprising but because it made Obama’s look all the more absurd.
By Monday morning, even Education Secretary Arne Duncan was being asked for his position on such unions (he supports them). HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan had already taken that stance. Next up: Energy Secretary Steven Chu?
Whatever Obama’s public position, there was little doubt in the briefing room Monday that the president supports gay marriage and that he would go public with this position after Election Day, when he no longer needs to fear losing independent voters. Carney had the unenviable position of trying to convince the press corps otherwise.
“I have no update on the president’s personal views,” he told the first questioner, Anne Gearan of The Associated Press. “He, as you know, said that his views on this were evolving.”
Tapper asked whether Obama was “still evolving” or whether he’s “just waiting for the proper time to drop it, likely after November.”
“It is as it was,” Carney said.
CBS’ Norah O’Donnell tried another approach. “Why does the president oppose same-sex marriage?”
“I really don’t have an update for you,” Carney answered.
“The vice president appears to have evolved on the issue, but the president is still evolving?” O’Donnell inquired.
“I will leave it to individuals to describe their own personal views.”
Reporters fired dozens of barbed questions and taunts. “Contorted position! ... Why did you guys send out statements to clarify? ... What do you think the word ‘evolving’ means? ... Is he unevolved? ... I want you to dissect the evolution.” A fly buzzed around the lectern. Carney let out a sigh.
NPR’s Mara Liasson asked whether Obama was “too clever by half,” essentially telling voters: “I’m getting ready to change my mind.”
“His views,” Carney maintained, “are crystal clear.”
Chris Geidner from Metro Weekly, a gay publication, pointed out the obvious: “If he’s crystal clear, why is everybody in this room asking you questions?”
“I think everybody in this room is reacting in the way that folks often do to one story that takes off and then they run ... and chase it.”
And the press secretary runs after them, mop in hand.
Dana Milbank’s email address is danamilbank@washpost.com. Washington Post Writers Group.
Comments (13)
Add commentHa Ha Ha Ha,
O'Bumbler's puppet masters told him campaign funds are down and he needs votes. So today he rectified that. (:<) and came out of the closet in favor of gay marriage!!!! WOW! Whoda ever thunk he would do that?
Well if you are miserable Scary...
maybe you are with the wrong person!
All I can say is Thank You
North Carolina for joining the other 30 states.
pointless
The President's stance on this issue is quite possibly the most meaningless position he could take. That is, unless he decides to weigh in on the Brainerd parade issue.
When the Defense of Marriage Act was tossed in court it was because the federal government does not have the authority to define marriage. Is was ruled that each state is left to its own choosing on the matter.
This may net the Obama 2012 campaign more money, but make no mistake, it is only intended to do that. President Obama is smart enough to know that even if congress were to pass a law mandating all marriages be recognized and he were to sign it the courts would toss it out just like they tossed out the law defining marriage as something else.
people are focusing on the
people are focusing on the wrong thing ... why should the government, in any form, have a say in marriage. This is just another example of Government overreach. I have been happily married (to a woman) for 10 years and the government should not have any say in that ... ever.
'DiscipleofSin' has a point...
The usual suspects ARE focusing on the the wrong thing ...
Nothing in the Constitution gives Congress the power to control the terms of marriage. You'd think that a genuine Tea Partier would know that each state establishes the terms of marriage, divorce, and related domestic matters.
However, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides that “no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
State laws can make distinctions among groups, but only if the classification serves a “legitimate state interest.” Whether the fact that some people "don't like the idea of marriage of gays or lesbians getting married" constitutes a "legitimate state interest” remains to be seen.
The Gill vs. OPM case now pending in a federal appeals court is a direct challenge to the "Defense Of Marriage" act, and is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.
DiscipleofSin does have a good point
"why should the government, in any form, have a say in marriage."
It shouldn't, but when words and concepts mean nothing, as in the Constitution, government not only has a say, but it will take a say, in marriage and anything else it wants to.
Our less than courageous president, who decided it is now politically expedient, favors gay marriage. Gays, who number less than 4% of the population, are nothing but pawns on a political battlefield where power is the name of the game.
But then, I'm still evolving on this issue.
Call me old fashioned
But I believe gay marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Apparently this is important...
...because Obama is trying to distract from his abysmal economic record. Furthermore, contrary to what JohnB implied, DOMA does not provide a federal definition of marriage except with respect to federal benefits, so it has nothing to do with preventing individual states from passing gay marriage laws. It does prevent those states from imposing their laws on other states.
eyolf has
a complex about being slapped down and accuses way too many people of being the slappers and over uses the "we" word. It gets old when he constantly is re-living his guilty conscience and grouping everyone into it.
@muehlbau
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'
``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means
only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,
and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is
a husband or a wife.''.
____________________________
That is the exact text of section 3 of DOMA. That is the section challenged in a number of federal cases. That is the section the Obama administration quit defending. That section does indeed define marriage at a federal level.
You can favor the law or oppose same gender marriage, but you can't make up what actual laws do say. And that's not an opinion.