Obama Can't Scapegoat His Intelligence Service About ISIS

He milked the "Blame it on Bush" strategy to mitigate his failures during his first term and, since the nearing end of his first term, has thrown his own cabinet and admin members under the bus for his failures. From the party-damaging ObamaCare initiative to his proclaimed ignorance about the build-up of ISIS forces, Obama has often come off as someone that seems very inefficient and, often times, incompetent in his role as POTUS. With an administration that has been riddled with scandals and broken promises, Obama's time in office has seen his image sway from being the face of the Democrat party to becoming it's greatest political liability.  

His latest remarks about ISIS and his intelligence service's "underestimation" of ISIS  puts on full display how this has happened:  He is not a genuine leader; he takes the back-seat "lead from behind" approach and accepts no responsibility for his decisions or actions (or inactions, as in the case with ISIS).

On 60 Minutes, the president faulted his spies for failing to predict the rise of ISIS. There’s one problem with that statement: The intelligence analysts did warn about the group.

Nearly eight months ago, some of President Obama’s senior intelligence officials were already warning that ISIS was on the move. In the beginning of 2014, ISIS fighters had defeated Iraqi forces in Fallujah, leading much of the U.S. intelligence community to assess they would try to take more of Iraq.

But in an interview that aired Sunday evening, the president told 60 Minutes that the rise of the group now proclaiming itself a caliphate in territory between Syria and Iraq caught the U.S. intelligence community off guard. Obama specifically blamed James Clapper, the current director of national intelligence: “Our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,” he said.

Reached by The Daily Beast after Obama’s interview aired, one former senior Pentagon official who worked closely on the threat posed by Sunni jihadists in Syria and Iraq was flabbergasted. “Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s bullshitting,” the former official said.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/28/why-obama-can-t-say-his-spies-underestimated-isis.html


In October 2013, ForeignPolicy.com published an op-ed wriiten by John McCain and Lindsey Graham titled, How Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq.  In that year-old article, McCain and Graham vividly predict the downfall of Syria, Iraq, and the rise of ISIS.  If they knew about it and saw it coming... why didn't the POTUS listen?

By nearly every indicator, the situation in Iraq has worsened dramatically since the beginning of the conflict in Syria and the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011. An analysis this month by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy captured the depths of the current crisis: "In 2010, the low point for the al-Qaeda effort in Iraq, car bombings declined to an average of 10 a month and multiple location attacks occurred only two or three times a year. In 2013, so far there has been an average of 68 car bombings a month and a multiple-location strike every 10 days." The United Nations estimates that nearly 7,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq this year alone. What's worse, the deteriorating conflict in Syria has enabled al Qaeda in Iraq to transform into the larger and more lethal Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), which now has a major base for operations spanning both Iraq and Syria. It may just be a matter of time until al Qaeda seeks to use its new safe haven in these countries to launch attacks against U.S. interests.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/10/30/the_anti_surge_obama_iraq_john_mccain_lindsey_graham

Congress no workee...can't get any work done.

The Constitution gives war-making powers to none other than Congress...the US House of Representatives. It's there for all to read. No secret about it.

The Republicans hold a majority in the House, as you may have heard.

Just when ISIL gets going, what does the House do? They decide to take a vacation.



Obama told Congress over a year ago that if they want to do something about Syria, they'd better get crackin'.

The Republican response:

1) He openly admitted he didn't have a strategy to confront or battle ISIS.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/28/world/meast/isis-iraq-syria/


2) Prior to that remark, he attempted to downplay ISIS as "the JV team" when he made the junior varsity reference during an interview with The New Yorker in January. He didn't perceive them as a threat and didn't take any actions to intervene.
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/09/obama-fumbles-jv-team-question/


3) Obama knows it all. That's his problem. Despite the advice of some of the highest commanders and advisers in his staff, he snubbed recommendation after recommendation that may have prevented "ISIS" from becoming the household word it is now.

In 2010, Gen. Austin advised President Obama against withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq, recommending that the president instead leave 24,000 U.S. troops (down from 45,000) to secure the military gains made in the surge and prevent a terrorist resurgence. Had Obama listened to Austin’s counsel, the rise of the Islamic State could have been stopped.

But Obama rejected Austin’s advice and enthusiastically withdrew all U.S. all forces from the country, boasting that he was finally bringing an end to “the long war in Iraq.”

Now the “long war in Iraq” is back. And because Obama has not learned from his past mistakes, it is likely to get even longer.


Last week, Obama announced a strategy to re-defeat the terrorists in Iraq. But instead of listening to his commanders this time around, Obama once again rejected the advice of . . . you guessed it . . . Gen. Lloyd Austin.

The Post reports that, when asked for his recommendation for the best way to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Austin told the president that “his best military advice was to send a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants.” Obama was having none of it. Austin’s recommendation, The Post reports, “was cast aside in favor of options that did not involve U.S. ground forces in a front-line role.”
...
Obama seems more concerned with distinguishing what he is doing in Iraq from what the George W. Bush administration did than he is with following a war strategy that will defeat the enemy. Until a few days ago, both Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry publicly denied that we were even at war with the Islamic State — as if calling this something other than war would make it any less of a war.

Yes, we are at war with the Islamic State. And if we are to “destroy” it (as Obama promised), then the president needs to start listening to his military commanders.

If he keeps ignoring their advice, he may be in for a long, hard slog — or something far worse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obama-overrules-his-generals-in-fight-against-islamic-state/2014/09/15/0cff59a0-3ce1-11e4-9587-5dafd96295f0_story.html


4) Congress is irrelevant in this matter. Obama has summoned our forces into two armed conflicts without Congressional approval. In an email to the Guardian's Spencer Ackerman, one of Obama's official spokesmen expanded on the administration's justification for going to war without Congressional approval:

Based on ISIL’s longstanding relationship with al-Qa’ida (AQ) and Usama bin Laden; its long history of conducting, and continued desire to conduct, attacks against U.S. persons and interests, the extensive history of U.S. combat operations against Isil dating back to the time the group first affiliated with AQ in 2004; and Isil’s position - supported by some individual members and factions of AQ-aligned groups - that it is the true inheritor of Usama bin Laden’s legacy, the President may rely on the 2001 AUMF as statutory authority for the use of force against Isil, notwithstanding the recent public split between AQ’s senior leadership and Isil.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/obama-isis-syria-air-strikes-legal-argument

Congress is ineffective, incompetent, and a hindrance to progress in many ways. But it's times like these when Obama needs to stand up, get behind the wheel he's long neglected, and be a leader. He sets the agenda, not Congress.

IndependentThoughts wrote:..............................................

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obama-overrules-his-generals-in-fight-against-islamic-state/2014/09/15/0cff59a0-3ce1-11e4-9587-5dafd96295f0_story.html

Congress is ineffective, incompetent, and a hindrance to progress in many ways.  But it's times like these when Obama needs to stand up, get behind the wheel he's long neglected, and be a leader.  He sets the agenda, not Congress.

STILL haven't changed your totally misleading screen name, you congenital idiot...

I still doubt that you have EVER had an independent thought of your making in your entire sad little life..

ALL that I have seen you produce here so far is c&p'ed rubbish from your fellow RW extremist Obama-hating nutters !

You sad cases ALL need to get yourselves a new songsheet to preach from..

The Daily Beast = Left Leaning
Washington Post = Left Leaning
Guardian = Left Leaning
CNN = Left Leaning
FactCheck.org = Neutral

Q: What do all these media outlets have in common?
A: They were the sources that I used in my posts, above.

Your argument is invalid.

1) No strategy?  It is Congress’ job to develop a strategy.  That makes it all the more frustrating that Republicans decided to go on vacation at this crucial time.

2) Didn't take ISIL seriously?  Perhaps they are not a threat.  Who cares?  I don't want my taxes to go to another $17-trillion in the deficit because of some inconsequential war on the other side of the world.

3) “Commanders and advisors?”  Do you mean those who live for war?  I’m tired of war…come back to me in 50-years.  Meanwhile…Obama gets it, bless his soul.

4) Congress is irrelevant because Republicans have run away.  If you don't like Congress, vote for a Democrat in your district on November 4th.  You have it within your power right there!

4a)    Obama has authority to go into Iraq because it is a part of the legislation left over from GWB days.

4b)    And, as for Syria, that is what the Khorasan is doing in the picture.  Under the Constitution, the president has the power to meet with force, any imminent threat to the US.  Obama simply included the Khorasan because of intelligence that they were plotting an attack on the US...and they are located conveniently in Syria.  In fact, all they are serving is as a predicate to move the conflict over into Syria, within Constitutional parameters.  It's a legal device to establish jurisdiction under the Constitution.  

Remember, Obama was a Harvard-educated Professor of Constitutional Law before he became President.

5)

”IT” wrote:Obama needs to stand up, get behind the wheel he's long neglected, and be a leader. He sets the agenda, not Congress.

Leadership?  What does that mean?  America wrote a Constitution precisely so there would be divided powers, with checks and balances between and among them.  They didn’t mean the Constitution was to be discarded the moment in was inconvenient.

The Constitution says Congress sets the agenda.  Besides, do you honestly think this Republican Congress would follow any agenda set down by Obama?  Silly man!

I’m afraid that this Republican Congress has been hoist by its own petard.  

No matter, this war is not worth it.

IndependentThoughts wrote:
The Daily Beast = Left Leaning
Washington Post = Left Leaning
Guardian = Left Leaning
CNN = Left Leaning
FactCheck.org = Neutral

Q: What do all these media outlets have in common?
A: They were the sources that I used in my posts, above.

Your argument is invalid.

YOUR stupidity and ignorance is the only "invalid" item here, you silly little person...

YOU claim that the publications are "left leaning", even though your post history on here only goes to demonstrate that you don't even understand the definitions of "left", centre, and "right" in political terms..
NEITHER the Guardian nor CNN are "leftist" sites any more ~ IF they ever really were, to begin with.

YOU should also look beyond the publications themselves, and look at which ways their correspondents and columnists lean individually.

YOUR "cherry picking" approach proves nothing beyond your own lack of clear thought processes..    

Have a nice day, LW.

He milked the "Blame it on Bush" strategy

Which was certainly unfair, as Bush was blameless ...

to mitigate his failures during his first term

You mean like this failure?

and, since the nearing end of his first term, has thrown his own cabinet and admin members under the bus

Like who?

for his failures.

What failures?

From the party-damaging ObamaCare initiative to his proclaimed ignorance about the build-up of ISIS forces, Obama has often come off as someone that seems very inefficient and, often times, incompetent in his role as POTUS. With an administration that has been riddled with scandals and broken promises, Obama's time in office has seen his image sway from being the face of the Democrat party to becoming it's greatest political liability.

You know how I know you're not really independent? Because only angry conservatives call it the "DemocRAT party." The real name is the "Democratic Party." Might I suggest in the future, you could also call it the Demoncrat Party or even the Demoncrap Party? https://www.wordnik.com/words/demoncrap

His latest remarks about ISIS and his intelligence service's "underestimation" of ISIS puts on full display how this has happened: He is not a genuine leader; he takes the back-seat "lead from behind" approach and accepts no responsibility for his decisions or actions (or inactions, as in the case with ISIS).

The problem with U.S. intelligence agencies goes back a long, long ways (remember the "bad intelligence" that got us into Iraq?). No amount of podium-pounding is going to fix the CIA. And if he resorted to the sort of back-alley political maneuvering that might actually change it, I'm guessing your snarl-term for that would be "Chicago-style politics," you might even call him a "thug" ...

Ben,
I apologize for my tardy response. Lots going on in my world, and I’ve been waiting until I had sufficient time to adequately respond to your post.

I certainly don’t give Bush a pass for his failures and mistakes, but at some point you have to step up to the plate. Start taking responsibility and accountability for your decisions and actions (or inactions). Nobody wants to hear someone pitifully complain how a job is too hard, or how they’re unable to overcome challenges; they just want the job done. The blame game only works but for so long. If you’re still reaching for that excuse towards the end of your first term and especially into your second term (as Obama unshamingly has), it gets long in the tooth and sentiments that the president is lacking in leadership and competence begin to surface.

As far as the unemployment rate is concerned, I’m sure that someone as politically savvy as yourself is aware of the differences between the U-3 rate (the one you’ve depicted in your graph) and the U-6 rate. For those that do not, Huffington Post has a great article on it and explains why the U-3 rate is often cited (its narrow criteria make for better political points) instead of the more accurate U-6 (which give a broader picture of joblessness in America).

Per the article:

[The graph] shows the gap between the widely cited unemployment rate (called the U-3 rate) and a broader measure of joblessness and underemployment called the U-6 rate, which in September was 11.8 percent. Fed Chair Janet Yellen has said that in the current economy, the U-6 may be a better indication of the health of the job market than the headline unemployment rate.
What you are looking at in the chart below is the broader, U-6 definition of joblessness minus the narrower, U-3 definition of unemployment. That rate happens to stand at 5.9 percent, same as the unemployment rate. This leaves you with an isolated view of how many workers are not looking for a job because they don't think they will find one, have looked for a job in the past year but not recently, and part-time workers who can't find full-time work.
…
During the recession, the number of workers on the fringes of the job market increased. This happened in the last recession, too. But this time around, the jump was massive. It’s declined from its peak, but has been flat at a still elevated level for the past few months.
As significantly, the number of American workers who are on the job-market sidelines is a full 2 percentage points above its pre-recession levels.
That’s a worrying state of affairs and may help explain why job growth continues to chug along, unemployment falls, and yet Americans are barely making any more money.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/03/real-jobs-numbers-sad-state_n_5926898.html

Bottom line, while the Obama administration continues to turn Americans’ economic frowns upside down with U-3 rate numbers, they’re not seeing it. Not in their wallets, not in the economy, not in their paycheck… nothing. In a new AP poll released yesterday, when likely voters were asked whether they trusted Republicans or Democrats more to handle the economy and get it back on track, the GOP scored 8 points above Democrats. In fact, out of the nine areas of concern within the poll, there were only two questions where Democrats received higher marks than Republicans: Healthcare (which is still considerably lower than previous polls) and gay marriage.

Which party do you trust more on…
- The economy (GOP +
- Immigration (GOP +5)
- Healthcare (Dem +4; far lower than their traditional lead)
- Managing the federal government (GOP +6)
- Protecting the country (GOP +22)
- Handling US image abroad (GOP +6)
- Same-sex marriage (Dem +15)
- Handling international crises (GOP +10)
- Handling health issues like Ebola (GOP +3)

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/10/22/ap-poll-gop-seizes-significant-lead-obama-disapproval-spikes-to-60-percent-n1908358

Additionally...

Barack Obama and his political party are heading into the midterm elections in trouble. The president’s 40 percent job approval rating in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll is the lowest of his career – and the Democratic Party’s popularity is its weakest in polling back 30 years, with more than half of Americans seeing the party unfavorably for the first time.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/10/abc-poll-trouble-democrats-election-day/

If Obama is doing so well, then why is he experiencing the lowest approval ratings of his presidency? And why has the Democratic Party fallen to its lowest point of popularity in 30 years? Why are Democrats running for election, this year, distancing themselves from Obama and his policies?
Answer: The majority consensus amongst Americans is that Obama’s policies have failed. Consequently, he’s regarded as a lame-duck president shouldering the legacy of his failed administration. That sentiment is further visible in this latest poll:

Twenty-six percent (26%) of Likely U.S. Voters think the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey for the week ending October 19.
...
Sixty-six percent (66%) of voters now believe the nation is headed down the wrong track. This is up one point from the previous survey.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track

You know how I know you're not really independent? Because only angry conservatives call it the "DemocRAT party." The real name is the "Democratic Party."

Really? So, if someone politically disagrees with you, they automatically must be Republicans or conservatives, huh? Lol. By the way, you’re the only person in this thread that placed emphasis on “RAT”. Nobody else did that. You did.

Back when Bush was president, I was called a Democrat and a liberal by Republicans and conservatives because of how critical I was of ole’ Georgie. Now that there is a Democrat in the Oval Office, the Democrats and liberals are calling me the opposite. Some people just can’t take objective criticism, I suppose…

I, personally, have an equal amount of distrust and dislike for both major political parties. There are a few smart ones on each side of the aisle but, overall, I feel that each side is as equally incompetent and ineffective as the other. You won’t find me mustering up the will to defend either. I’m an equal opportunity criticizer. When the next Republican president is sworn into office, I’ll be called a Democrat and Liberal again. And so on, and so on…

Yes, you’re correct with your assertion that the official name of the political party represented by a blue donkey is indeed, “Democratic Party”, but it seems as if you’re looking for something to be angry about; I've never heard of anyone ever taking offense to the word "Democrat", until now.

When I’ve asked people (or overhead them being asked) what their party affiliation is, I often hear “I’m a Republican”, or “I’m an Independent”, or “I’m a Libertarian”, or even “I’m a Democrat”. But I’ve never heard anyone say, “I’m a Democratic”. So, if members of the blue-donkey club refer to themselves as “Democrats”, does that make them angry conservatives, as well? Just curious…

I’m not here to berate Democrats or Republicans. I’m not here to take sides in a never-ending “our side verses your side” debate. Both political parties are broken. Both are inconsistent and undermining in their messages. And both would rather grease up the truth with political spin than tell it how it is.

If people want to claim a side and spend pointless hours debating the merits of “my team” while demonizing “their team”, so be it. To each their own. It just makes me that much more self-appreciative of my ability to think for myself.

Best regards.

So much strawmanning and manipulation of data, so I'll do my usual bullet-point thing:

* U-3 has been popularly used for decades to describe the unemployment rate -- it's not like Obama switched to it so his numbers would look better. If you want to go with the U-6 rate, that's fine -- the current U-6 is 11.8; when Bush left office it was 14.2, which is objectively a larger number than 11.8 ( http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp ).

* The only recent president I heard complain about how hard the job is was, again, Bush:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb_0o6tZvB4

* See Brasidas' thread on leadership. People define it a lot of different ways; they don't all agree with your definition ( http://www.newsfixboard.com/t6901-another-thread-got-me-thinking-of-asking-this )

* Imagine a right-wing site like TownHall leaving out this: "Among all adults, 38 percent say they'd like the Democrats to wind up in control of Congress, to 36 percent for the Republicans." Amazing that they'd overlook that, isn't it?

* Rasmussen is notoriously conservative:

Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223. That sounds high for Romney. But he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_michael_barone/going_out_on_a_limb_romney_beats_obama_handily

Regarding Obama's low approval points, I fail to see anybody who dislikes Obama apply basic logic to this. If Obama's approval numbers dip below the percentage he was elected by, there must be Obama voters who aren't happy with the job Obama's doing.

But how many of them do you think would go back and change their vote to Romney if they could?

My own personal dissatisfaction with Obama comes not because he's gone too far to the left, but because he hasn't gone far enough. When Obama polled down at 41 percent approval at the end of the last year, pollsters dug into the numbers and found:

According to the poll, which was released Friday, 40% say they disapprove of the President because they say his policies and actions have been too liberal, with 12% saying they disapprove because he hasn't been liberal enough.

( http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/20/president-ends-year-at-all-time-cnn-polling-low/ )

* I'm surprised a politically savvy person like yourself has never heard that the term "Democrat Party" is a pejorative. Here you go:

There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. “Democrat Party” is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but “Democrat Party” is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams “rat.” At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/08/07/the-ic-factor

(By the way, in your grammatical exercise, the answers are: members of the Democratic Party are called Democrats.)

Or just you could do a search for "democrat party pejorative," much has been written about this. It's another of many dehumanizing/degrading tactics Republicans use; I recently had this quote in my signature:

Reagan's then-Secretary of the Interior, James G. Watt said "I never use the words Republicans and Democrats. It's liberals and Americans."

So to people like Watt, I can't be an American -- because I'm a liberal.

Liberals, conservatives, independents... we're all Americans. We should never let our political disagreements become a divisive wedge. Instead, we should accept that we are different whilst forming new bonds through compromise.

IndependentThoughts wrote:Liberals, conservatives, independents... we're all Americans.  We should never let our political disagreements become a divisive wedge.  Instead, we should accept that we are different whilst forming new bonds through compromise.

Totally agreed, and I think a lot of the problem is twisting one another's views, so that "I believe in limited government" becomes "I believe in letting big business run the country" and "I believe in a strong social safety net" becomes "I want to take what you've earned."

By the way, I think you can have limited government and a strong social safety net. In fact, many countries have it already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

IndependentThoughts wrote:Liberals, conservatives, independents... we're all Americans.  We should never let our political disagreements become a divisive wedge.  Instead, we should accept that we are different whilst forming new bonds through compromise.

Tell that to Congress...a mob of racist Republicans if there ever was one.  The McConnell-Boehner doctrine holds that Congress shall work to the detriment of the United States as long as a Democrat is in office.  Ha-ha...the only way out, as I see it, is to outlaw the Republican Party.  I believe they have been committing treason over the past 5-years.

I can't sit in the same room with them.  They have an foul odor, you know.

Did you see the big Esquire piece on Congress? Fascinating stuff:

"I didn't get elected to Congress to not get things done—most people here want to get things done. I didn't get elected to Congress to make meaningless speeches on C-SPAN and tell lies about people. I didn't get elected to Congress to scare the hell out of the country and drive the sides further apart. I didn't get elected to Congress because I love politics—I hate politics, to be perfectly honest, and if I didn't before I got here, I do now… ."

The man is very angry, about the way his life is going, about Washington, about some things he has found himself saying that he wishes he could take back—he got carried away, total herd mentality, just so juvenile. People in public life should take stuff back more often, apologize more, and correct course more—now that would be making a real statement, maybe even be a breath of fresh air for the public. But he would just be screwing himself, he goes on, because those guys at Heritage Action or Club for Growth or Americans for Prosperity or some other goddamn group with an Orwellian name that thrives off of division and exists to create conflict might primary him, drop $3 million on his head, and he would be dead. And the way his district is drawn, you can't ever be conservative enough. He could get up at one of his town halls and say that the president is a transvestite Muslim from Mars and get a standing ovation. He wants to do the right thing and make a public stand for greater decency and civility in public life. But he can't. Oh, in his own quiet way he does. He has many friends who happen to be Democrats. "No matter what it seems, we don't hate each other," he says. "We are civil, we try to get to know each other, and most of us work hard to find areas of agreement, things that we can make progress on. People are stunned when I tell them that, because from the outside it just looks so bad."

At the same time, it's worse than he thought it would be before he was elected, the congressman says. He's a Reagan Republican. Nobody drew more lines in the sand than Reagan, nobody was more of a partisan warrior, but Reagan didn't believe insane things about the opposition, and there wasn't this unconscionable amount of money in the system back then. "Bribery wasn't legal yet," he says.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/congress-living-hell-1114

Esquire wrote:He wants to do the right thing and make a public stand for greater decency and civility in public life.

A Republican? I doubt it.

Original Quill wrote:

Esquire wrote:He wants to do the right thing and make a public stand for greater decency and civility in public life.

A Republican?  I doubt it.

Really hard to square that with the evidence, I agree

Although -- remember that to those guys, "decency in public life" might well mean no more gay-pride parades, etc.

After years of experience, I am convinced that Republicans have no nobility to their causes. Their cause is pure selfishness. They go into politics merely as an apprenticeship for corporate thievery.