And On This Week's Ludicrous Newsweek Cover...

I had no idea James Buchanan was black:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Sandi||

    I took a shit on a Newsweek once.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Sandi! You were never needed more than in this thread!

  • sticks||

    what a cunt

  • Lane Meyer||

    "THE FIRST GAY PRESIDENT"

    I agree, however I would also add he is a total fag and a cock sucker.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So comparing Obama's remarks to the friggin' Emancipation Proclamation is OK, but putting a rainbow halo on the guy is a bridge too far. What principle are you applying here?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Compare? He's freed the gays and that's all you can say?

  • Bill||

    I smell another Peace Prize in the works.

  • Sharon Stone||

    No, that is just the burnt smell of dead pakistani civilians after the latest drone run-thru.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Piece prize?

  • The Other Kevin||

    Guess this means there's still hope for Warty to become the first woman president.

  • gaijin||

    If you added a unicorn horn to the newsweak pic of the prez, imagine the fun gaylo ring toss game you'd have...app store riches ahead!

  • T||

    Andrew Sullivan, as expected, fellates the President in print for making a completely insubstantive statement and endorsing the same position as Dick Cheney.

    Admittedly, the Rainbow Halo is a little bit bizarre, but it does speak to Newsweek's desire to beatify the Barackulous.

  • Mongo||

    To be a legit gay prez, Newsweak shoulda had that camo kid suckin' on BO's tit.

  • ||

    So what is he the patron saint of?

  • ||

    Roy G. Biv.

  • ||

    And Lucky Charms(tm) and Froot Loops(tm). Don't forget, he has a missing apostrophe in "Obama".

  • wareagle||

    charlatans, opportunists, and panderers.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So what is he the patron saint of?

    Parasites.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If they'd stayed up all night trying to think of a better way to make Obama look ridiculous, they couldn't have come up with anything.

  • Rich||

    Oh, that sounds like a *challenge*.

    How about this?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think the fact that Newsweek is serious makes their photo even more ridiculous--more ridiculous than an image that's trying to make him look ridiculous.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Seeing shit like this Newsweek cover makes me wonder if the people of North Korea actually do worship their Kims, and that it's not all some act.

    Cause, American newsies Obama worship ain't that far from the NorKos Kim worship.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There was an old ska song that had a lyric that went...

    "Are we really happy or maybe just pretending
    I can't tell the difference"

    I don't think the people of North Korea know if they're really worshiping the Kims or not.

    I don't think a lot of progressives know whether they're worshiping Obama either.

    If they can't bring themselves to criticize him for anything (or if their criticism is really a masked compliment), then I suppose it's worship. The ability to only do right is a supernatural ability, right? Anybody who thinks Obama is like that, believes in the supernatural.

  • ||

    Please, give us a harder challenge

    http://badpaintingsofbarackobama.com/

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Really. The first time I saw it I figured it was a spoof.

  • db||

    Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Aaahh-hahahahahahahahaha! Ah-hoohoohoohooheehee!

  • Rich||

    Obama ... had to discover his black identity and then reconcile it with his white family .... The America he grew up in had no space for a boy like him: black yet enveloped by loving whiteness, estranged from a father he longed for ..., hurtling between being a Barry and a Barack, needing an American racial identity as he grew older but chafing also against it and over-embracing it at times.

    Careful, Andrew. Some judge might order him to be medicated so he's competent to be President.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "eneloped...hurtling...chafing..." what is Sullivan trying to suggest here?

  • db||

    This, like the whole "evolution" itself is as preplanned as it gets. There is no way that Obama's shift hasn't been planned for years. And the fluff articles have already been written. The only possible good out of this is if Barack has a backup plan to "evolve" his position on the Drug War a bit later in the campaign.

  • R C Dean||

    Of course. Hell, even his announcement was about how he had supported gay marriage for years, was trying to time his announcement for maximum political benefit, but Biden joggled his elbow.

    It was deeply cynical, and not even trying to hide its cynicism. Yet the Obamabots just blew past that and are treating this as a "brave" announcement of "deeply held" beliefs. Even after he told them it wasn't.

  • ||

    Of course. Hell, even his announcement was about how he had supported gay marriage for years, was trying to time his announcement for maximum political benefit, but Biden joggled his elbow.

    I referenced this in another thread, but Van Jones was the catalyst to start this social issue snowball in motion.

  • wareagle||

    I doubt Biden "joggled" anything. The VP was a stalking horse for The One's evolution. Given Biden's reputation for going off the ranch, his pro-gay statement could have been painted as just one more example if there had been massive backlash. Since there was not, TheOne was then free to do something without really doing anything.

  • R C Dean||

    Sure, but the announcement was that Biden was a little off the reservation.

    My point is unaffected either way. The President just told us that his gay marriage announcement was nothing more than a cynical play for political advantage, and his lapdogs just . . . ignore that, and carry on with the Narrative.

  • ||

    Given Biden's reputation for going off the ranch, his pro-gay statement could have been painted as just one more example if there had been massive backlash.

    Yes, but I believe Biden's earnest sincerity here. The more cynical side in me also thinks that Uncle Joe could be using this to line up 2016 run.

  • Atanarjuat||

    The America he grew up in had no space for a boy like him

    I refuse to RTFA, but America has plenty of people who have black and white parents. And who gives a fuck what your racial identity is? People sometimes ask if I'm Irish or something cuz of my ginger beard, and not knowing, I usually say "I'm just American", or "I'm just me".

  • Lord Humungus||

    gee, my adopted cousin was half-white/half-black and it didn't seem to stop him from having friends, girlfriends, and a good life (that was unfortunately cut short because of a traffic accident).

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Mutts Unite!

  • ||

    I usually say "I'm just American", or "I'm just me"

    Well it's better than confessing to being a soulless ginger

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The Obamabots use the Tragic Mulatto trope?

    Disgusting.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Wake me when Gay Prez performs a mass same-sex wedding ceremony in the Rose Garden.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    In other news, the economy is still a basket case, we're in debt up to our eyeballs, a fiscal train wreck of massive tax hikes beckons in 2013, Europe's economy and common currency are imploding, and Obama has promised the Russians that he will have "more flexibility" on missile defense if he wins the election. But back to our regularly scheduled programming, Teh Gays!

  • John||

    And not a single thing changed over gay marriage. But the Obamasiah supports it now. And that is enough apparently.

  • ||

    Because intentions are the only things that matter! Screw actual results!

  • wareagle||

    and that, as always, remains the essence of liberalism. More astounding is how some otherwise intelligent people buy into the bullshit. You would think a long history of good intentions that blew up would convince them that intentions are not enough.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's enough because it's all about how they feel about themselves.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    It's enough because it's all about how they feel about themselves.

    This. I saw Sullivan on The Chris Mathews Show on Sunday and I found myself wondering what Sullivan wants to be when he grows up. His mewling need for "validation" from our "father figure" president tells me that he's trapped somewhere in the toils of puberty.

  • Mike M.||

    From Wall Street to the inside of the Crapital Beltway, where things have never been better than they are now, they may have the luxury of obsession over gay issues, but no matter how hard they try they will NEVER be able to successfully distract the rest of America from just how miserable the state of the country is.

  • JW||

    He's just taking his cues from Mayor Gov. Muscles in Maryland. We've got a billion $ deficit, some of the highest taxes in the country and only going higher, corrupt, one-party rule, but we're getting the Ghey Marriage and Windmills in the Chesapeake! FUCK YEAH!

  • Wilt Chamberlain||

    Does this lead credence to the theory that Michelle is transgender? NTTAWWT.

  • sarcasmic||

    Chewbacca shaved.

  • John||

    Obama had huge majorities in Congress for two years. At anytime from 09 to 11, he could have passed gay marriage reform that meant something, as in changing immigration law and federal benefits. He didn't do jack until repealing DADT after the 2010 election.

    Now here we are summer of 2012 and he makes a statement in support of gay marriage knowing that his support means jack shit since the Republican Congress will never pass anything. And he only did this after gay donors threatened to cut his campaign off.

    But he is courageous, historic!! It almost makes me think that gay rights advocates really don't care much about actually advancing the cause and are more concerned with supporting Democrats.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Almost?

  • ||

    The key to getting reelected is keeping issues your base cares about juuuuuust over the horizon. "Vote for us next time," you say, "and you'll have your voices heard". And, hey, if it doesn't happen then you can just blame it on the obstructionist opposition!

  • John||

    I think the gay rights movement is a good example of how liberals destroy everything by co--opting anything they are a part of into a vehicle for leftist politics.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Are you referring to team red or team blue here, I can't tell.

  • ||

    Are you referring to team red or team blue here[?]

    Yes, I am.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep.

    Team Red's been playing that game on the SoCons with abortion for decades and the dumbfucks still fall for it.

  • John||

    But the Supreme Court prevents anyone from doing anything about Abortion. Team Red at least cuts off public funds when it can.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep.

    Team Red's been playing that game on the SoCons with abortion for decades and the dumbfucks still fall for it.

  • db||

    This is why I think this has been planned as a reelection strategy for years. Get elected with the promise of reform and support for gay rights. Spend three years doing nothing on it, then make a heroic last minute effort on it. As I said above, they only good that can come of this is if he makes a similar "evolution" on the War on Drugs. The states were already reforming on gay rights, the climate is right, just the right time to make a big statement.

  • John||

    It is also setting up the narrative for when he gets killed this fall. He won't have lost because he was incompetent loser who make everything worse. He will have lost because of his courageous stand on gay marriage.

  • Rhywun||

    I take it you're not planning on voting for Obama, you homophobe.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    You're that confident in a Romney victory? I still think Obama wins reelection by a comfortable margin.

    (But in the unlikely event Obama does lose, I expect it will be chalked up to AmeriKKKa still being so racist, with gay issues mentioned as an afterthought.)

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Don't forget the riots, Mint. If Obama loses, there WILL be riots. Idiots do shit like that.

  • John||

    I would give you 2-1 that he loses. And no way does he win, even in the unlikely event he does by anything but the slimist of margins. The only polls that have him within 7 points of Romney right now are the ones that are radically weighted for Democrats. He is down over 10 points among independents right now. What is going to change between now and November?

    He is toast. I am totally perplexed by the people who are so confident he is going to win. We are in the worst economy since the 1930s. Presidents don't win re-election under those circumstances.

  • ||

    Presidents don't win re-election under those circumstances.

    FDR managed okay.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    There were a lot of factors in FDR's favor, though:

    1. No two-term limit at the time
    2. WWII
    3. Lots of socialist-leaning dumbshits believed his nonsense

  • ||

    To which I counter, referencing Obama

    1. Two-term limit doesn't matter to someone coming out of a frist term
    2. We have plenty of military action going on, kinetic or otherwise
    3. Lots of socialist-leaning dumbshits believe his nonsense

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Good counterpoint, Alack.

  • John||

    Not as many as there were in 1936. And Obama is no FDR as a war leader.

    And lastly, people forget that FDR pretty much abandoned the New Deal in the late 1930s. The Democrats got clobbered in the 1938 off years. FDR didn't run on the New Deal in 1940.

  • wareagle||

    the one thing missing from the list is the growing number of people who love free stuff. Never underestimate the voting power of the uninformed as that is largely how TheOne was elected the first time.

  • Sharon Stone||

    Wareagle is right (e.g the occupy wallstreet crowd)

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The thing though is that the economy improved a great deal between 1933 and 1936. Solid GDP growth, unemployment drop substantially etc.

    So saying "well FDR won in 36 which proves that Obama can too" is idiotic.

  • PapayaSF||

    I think John is right. Obama is toast for many reasons. The economy sucks. The bloom is off Hope & Change. Bush-hatred is largely gone. Occutards will have more demonstrations and become more disliked. Many felt they proved their non-racism by voting for him the first time and will feel free to vote against him this time. I think there's a Bradley Effect with the polls. Undecideds will break against him.

    As for the cover, it's never gotten much press, but there is a guy claiming he had sex with Obama in a Chicago bathhouse, and some other indications that he's bisexual. NTTAWWT.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Intrade has Obama as a 58.7% favorite now. Granted, this is down from the 60%+ he used to have, but a lot of people are putting their money where their mouths are in thinking the O wins this one.

    I misread John's 10:10 AM, "setting up the narrative for when he gets killed this fall," as referring to what happens when he gets shot. Not that I think that will happen, (Nor should it. For one thing, if you thought the hagiography surrounding JFK was bad...) but I've often thought the guy makes a better martyr than a candidate.

    Regardless, I don't think Obama loses this election. Just too many people in the tank for him. I am cynically wondering how his administration plans on pandering to the Hispanic community, as I think he can assure himself a win if he grabs a sizable majority of them.

  • John||

    It never fails to amaze me how the otherwise reasonable and generally scientifically literate readers of Reason can believe in the Intrade hocus pocus.

    Intrade is nothing but a representation of common wisdom. It is nothing else. It can't predict the future. And it is the worst lagging indicator there is. Go back and look at Intrade's predictions of the Republicans taking the House in Spring of 2010. It was well below 50%.

    Intrade can't predict shit. All it can do is reflect the preferences of the few geeks who play it. There is nothing magical or predictive about it.

    And note it is a lagging indicator and Obama's re-election chances have been slowly falling on it for a while. And they will continue to fall until late October when it is obvious to everyone he is going to lose. Then Intrade will have it at 39% and the Intrade geeks will tell us how wonderfully predictive it is.

  • PapayaSF||

    Carter was due to beat Reagan right up until he didn't.

  • John||

    http://www.examiner.com/articl.....e-repealed

    Here you go Grey Ghost, May of 2010 Intrade had the Democrats at a 53% chance of retaining the House.

    You are too smart to believe in that nonsense.

  • Gray Ghost||

    What your two posts show is that Intrade wasn't worth a shit for predicting the 2010 Congressional races. I haven't done a regression of their markets versus actual results, so for right now, I'll agree with you and say they aren't worth a shit for predicting this race too. Wouldn't surprise me if their participant population was way more inclusive than the population of likely Presidential voters.

    That said, here's realclearpolitics' compiled latest poll results: http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....-1171.html

    And their projected electoral vote map: http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....e_map.html

    I'm just not seeing the Romney victory that you guys are. I see any Romney victory, if there is one, coming right down to the wire, and depending on how FL, OH, NC, and VA go. And this assumes we don't go to war in the Middle East---again---before Election Day.

  • John||

    The Obama loss is as plane as day Grey Ghost. Incumbents who can't crack 50% almost never win. As the election gets closer, the undecided nearly always break by a large margin towards the challenger. Obama is at 47% in your link.

    Two things to consider. One, how many of those polls are of "likely voters". Every poll I have seen puts Republican intensity way above Democratic intensity this year. So that means Romney is likely doing significantly better among likely voters than the general population. And second, the 47% is an average of a lot of polls, some of which are unreasonably weighted towards polling Democrats.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Wait, wait...

    If Bill Clinton was "the first black president", and Obama is "the first gay president", then the next man who gets elected should, in theory, be "the first female president".

  • db||

    George Washington was the first female president.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    We obviously need a dyslexic left-handed half-Eskimo/half-Norwegian bisexual post-op male-to-female Elvis impersonator with a speech impediment, to be our next president.

    The number of quotas filled, alone, would make any human-resources director green with envy...

  • sarcasmic||

    I think the Dead Milkmen did a song about that.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB9DSWxtsgU

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'd forgotten about that song, but obviously it was lurking around in my subconscious...

  • ||

    But will this composite candidate have high cheekbones? And is the candidate's name Julia by chance...?

  • sarcasmic||

    Sour Jane.

  • Proprietist||

    According to the trend, the next Democrat elected president will actually be a gay male, and Newsweek will hail him as the "First Woman President." The next President will actually be a white woman, and she will be the "First Asian President."

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Using that progression, eventually we will elect "the first energy-being president".

  • Jerry||

    Obama will only introduce federal gay marriage law if you vote for him in 2012. It's called extortion I believe.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Could this backfire?

  • Brandon||

    Tiger Beat > Newsweek. At least from an objective, serious-news-reporting perspective.

  • ||

    How dare you snub Bop!

  • Gray Ghost||

    Fuck this website.

    The anonobot (May it achieve sentience! May it be merciful!) doesn't trip the filter. The douchebags burying Ed Hardy links within the second paragraph don't trip it. But me linking two (and only two) electoral vote projection results does.

    It's not worth the effort to try and decipher what's pissing it off.

  • ||

    Dude! Lincoln was a total flamer - Mary was obviously his beard.

  • Bobarian||

    Lincoln was a vampire hunter.

    John Wayne was a fag.

    He was too, you boys. I installed two way mirrors in his pad in Brentwood. And he come to the door in a dress.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement