It takes more than brown skin to be a democrat (well, at least it used to).
It takes a belief in labor rights, on training, so workers can adapt to changing economic conditions (at least it used to) Not giving $700 billion in corporate welfare to the very corporations that created the problems like Obama did.
It takes a belief in civil rights for everyone, including gays/lesbians (at least it used to) Not blocking every attempt at changing DOMA and DADT like Obama does.
It takes a belief in civil liberities (at least it used to) Not increasing the faith based initiative which gives our tax revenue to churches or supporting FISA or appointing an anti abortion and anti birth control activist (Alexia Kelley) to the department of HHS like Obama did.
It takes a belief in human rights (at least it used to) Not spreading the "war on terror" even further into Afghanistan and Pakistan or defending the continued kidnapping/torture/indefinite imprisonment without trial of any person on the planet in camps such as Quantanamo and Bagram, like Obama does.
It takes a belief in universal health care (at least it used to) Not blocking the public option like Obama does.
It takes a belief in education for everyone (at least it used to) Not promoting the same failed policy of charter schools that "No Child Left Behind" gave us and Obama's "Race to the Top" program does.
It takes more than pretty words and empty promises to be a democrat (well, at least it used to).
PresPlatitudes
· 4 months ago
the saddest thing about the HRC is that they're enabling him, reinforcing the belief that talking about equality is itself incremental change. obama thinks so highly of his own speeches that he thinks he's giving you the world by simply talking about your issue.
and the nobel is only going to further encourage this shameful belief; after all, 124k troops in iraq, escalation in afghanistan, civilians bombed, preventative detention, etc. his actions clearly belie his words, but it seems all that matters is that he vaguely referenced "peace" or "equality" in a speech somewhere.
so what exactly is he being lauded for? certainly not his actions. his intent? his "awareness" of an issue? having the daring to talk about it? it's a special kind of shamelessness that allows him to carry on the way he does.
let's be honest: obama thinks so highly of his speeches that for him, TALKING IS DOING. this underscores every vain and cowardly inclination his character harbors.
dula
· 4 months ago
You nailed it perfectly. Wow.
gail
· 4 months ago
You know it is hard to swallow that a man that has essentially had a target placed on his back because he has the audacity to be a President that believe in the equal rights of others and will fight for those rights is essentially vilified and called names by the very people that have had to suffer the same indignities. Those of you that are impatient to get DADT repealed, lobby your congress people as fiercely as the health care lobbyist are lobbying against health care reform. Stop whining and expecting this man to do it all on his own without your help. Passing legislation takes time and Joe since you worked for Ted Kennedy on this in 1993 , you know that. Military gay activist have asked the President to not order a stop loss , Hilary Rosen said that tonight, and you know it as well. We do not need band aids , we need real change. Just as Michael Moore was wrong in piling on with the right over the President's Nobel Prize win,and said so on Huffpost,You are so wrong now. Just get off his back and let him do his job which entails far more than just the LGBT agenda.
vkobaya
· 4 months ago
far more than just the LGBT agenda.
Well now, isn't that exactly the point. Yeah, he's achieved a few small potatoes, but look at where he's failed. It isn't just civil rights for gays, he has no intention of passing a strong public option which is a very bad compromise for one payer, universal health care. The health insurance industry are crooks and he is perfectly happy to allow them to continue to victimize the American people, and even enrich them further by making it a crime not to buy health insurance.
What about ending the criminal, inhuman, bigoted, racist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Don't kid yourself, he has no intention of ending those wars.
Then there is reforming the laws regulating the finance industry. Yeah, yeah! That's why he appointed Geithner, Summers and Bernanke. I'll believe it when I see it.
There's a long list of Obama's broken promises, not just his continuing to bullshit us over civil rights for gays. Speaking of civil rights, he has sold the Black Americans down the road, not one, but many times.
Obama was elected by a massive landslide to do a job and he is failing on many, many fronts. Granted he is better than Bush. That is hardly a worthwhile comparison since Bush was unbelievably God awful. Bush's dog, Barney, was better than Bush. The cockroach crawling across the Oval Office desk was better than Bush. Two galaxies out, there is nothing yet as bad as Bush. So, yeah, of course, Obama is better than Bush. That's hardly anything to boast about.
sonofloud
· 4 months ago
"lobby your congress people"
do they prefer cash or check?
truthseeker
· 4 months ago
I made a mistake in "liking" this. I don't. Have we no memory. Have we not seen this before? Remember how "wonderful" Bill Clinton was because he spoke to HRC...the most "pro-gay" President in history. What did this "pro-gay" President give us? DOMA and DADT. Just as vkobaya says, it's not just GLBT issues where Obama has so badly tanked: it's Gitmo, it's Baghram Airbase (just another Gitmo they don't talk about and have no intention of closing), it's Military Commissions, it's no intention reforming banking (Geithner, Summers, Bernanke reappointment, Rubin as an adviser), the weak stimulus, the completely fucked up healthcare debate. The point people don't seem to get is that it's one thing to say: "Here are the priorities, everything in turn. It's quite another to do things to actually set back causes. How has he set back causes? Scrapping opposition to military commissions (and supporting indefinite detention for some people); not addressing Baghram Air Base, more war in Iraq, more war in Afghanistan, stifling other people's efforts to repeal DADT in the House (check out Alcee Hastings), continuing TARP, the list goes on. Let's turn the "he's only been there 8 months" on its head. In only eight months, he's escalated Afghanistan, broken his promise on Iraq, broken his promise on Gitmo, continued the Clinton/Bush deregulation and buyouts of Wall Street, appointed Wall Street insiders as his "economic team"; stifled other's efforts to repeal DADT, defended DOMA, and screwed up healthcare, and is continuing extraordinary renditions. So...it seems he's done a buttload in 8 months...just most of it either half-assed or just bad. The most important part of building a house is the foundation, which you lay in the very beginning. No matter how gorgeous the structure is, with a bad foundation, the house will collapse. We're there folks...bad and already crumbling foundation.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 4 months ago
Congress didn't promise to get DADT repealed. Obama did.
donnyrs
· 4 months ago
Yep, McCain surely would've repealed DADT by now. Or at least gotten the ball rolling. Am I right? Am I right? No? Oh.
eclare
· 4 months ago
What McCain would or wouldn't have done is irrelevant. We hold Obama to a higher standard because we expect more from him and because he made promises that he would be a "fierce advocate" for gay rights. Being not as bad as the alternative is not good enough. And shame on anyone who is satisfied with it.
ArizonaWill
· 4 months ago
McCain did not promise during the campaign to help gay people by ending DADT. So why would anyone expect him to do so. Obama did make those promises. Is this logic too deep for you?
John Aravosis
· 4 months ago
What McCain would have done is used George Bush's legal brief and argued in court that our marriages are the same as incest and pedophilia.
I'm fascinated by this notion that Democrats only have to be slightly better than Republicans in order to have our respect. So Obama doesn't need to do anything for Latinos either, because you know, those Republicans would have been worse? How about for women? How about in Iraq and Afghanistan? How about on civil liberties? Let's face it, JOhn McCain would have been far worse than Barack Obama doing nothing at all, so perhaps Obama should do nothing on every issue and aspire to me marginally better than the worst president in history.
Sigh. Perhaps we have different expectations of what Democrats should be like. I expect them to keep their promises, you apparently don't.
the crustybastard
· 4 months ago
Precisely. I find it very puzzling that Democrat voters seem to think that Democrats shouldn't be held accountable. It's childish, really.
It's like a teenager who tells his parents he's going to the movies, but gets brought home by the cops for drinking in the park. On the way there, he decides his parents are going to be cool with him because they know about other kids getting in much more serious trouble.
No, dumbass. You're my son and I have the right to expect a certain level of responsibility and candor from you. The fact that other kids act like jagovs doesn't give you a license to be a jagov.
Now go to your room until my urge to pummel you passes. Gah.
PresPlatitudes
· 4 months ago
LOL! you apologists sound less like the change you've been waiting for, and more like the cheerleader w always aspired to be.
for your utter lack of shame, i pity you
Chris From Maine
· 4 months ago
sounds like it was another "pat on the head" speech.. basically saying, "i'm working on it, now shut up and just trust me".
Someone should ask him if Martin Luther King Jr would have stood for LBJ doing then what Obama is doing now.
ndtovent
· 4 months ago
He didn't, and that's probably what got him killed
leliorisen
· 4 months ago
It should be noted the damage that Barney Frank has done to the gay community with his obnoxious comments the other day.
The AP story covering the march, that has been up all day, is titled about how gay rights advocates are divided on Obama. After their coverage of the march, this is how the AP ends the story:
"Rep. Barney Frank, an openly gay member of Congress, said the marchers should be lobbying their lawmakers. He said the demonstrations are simply "an emotional release" that do little to pressure Congress.
"The only thing they're going to be putting pressure on is the grass," the Massachusetts Democrat said Friday."
I am one glbt activist who would like to kindly offer the following 2 words of advice to Barney Frank...drop dead.
As I posted elsewhere, can anyone imagine the reaction among African-Americans if the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had given that same advice in the 60s?
Barney Frank...and the HRC...care about one thing only. Their stature and power in Washington. We are a distant afterthought to their ambitions.
nancy50
· 4 months ago
Every time a new president takes office, they come in with an agenda, and usually in rapid order knock 4 or 5 off their to do list in the first year. Issues that they campaigned on, promises they need to keep. This administration came in and floundered in it's dealings with Congress. Typically the POTUS says "I want to see that bill on my desk by June", typically the POTUS is not working with majority's in both houses. That's how it usually works - it's called momentum.
What makes any of the Obama apologists think that it will be easier to get this done later? After 2010, we may not have a majority in the Senate and not as much in the House either. I don't want to keep hearing a campaign speech - you won - you have the job, now do it. And if you are already campaigning for 2012 - you'll need more than that speech to get my vote.
ron,w
· 4 months ago
His " majority " is not a " majority " at all. Recognize reality and know who the Blue Dog " Democrats" are and who they represent. CALM DOWN and recognize the best friend the Gay community has. Obama WILL keep his promises and will do right as he has pledged.
nancy50
· 4 months ago
What makes you or Obama think this is going to be any easier to do later? Just how WILL he keep his promises and do what he has pledged?
What kind of majority will he have after 2010?
jack
· 4 months ago
he did place his election on the line with his support of us. Along with that, and knowing that, the American people voted for him. John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are awesome allies. I would love to see them interview the HRC or even some of Obama's gay appointees.
There are 3 more years of his first term left. Let's not abandon him yet. And above all don't count on the Log Cabin delusional either.
Maybe we should start putting pressure on the Democratic Party besides just Obama. This is, after all, a game of chess.
caphillprof
· 4 months ago
The game is charades and you are losing badlly
charlesbishop1974
· 4 months ago
Obama's speech was very disappointing. Can you imagine any other minority community accepting these kinds of crumbs and waiting decade after decade? Obama started out fully supporting gay marriage 13 years ago. Now he says he opposes recognizing our relationships because "God is not in the mix." How in the goddamn hell is that progress? Let the protests begin.
Busboy
· 4 months ago
Just do like the Janissaries and put all the homosexuals in the same units and let them kick ass. What the hell is the problem??
Gridlock
· 4 months ago
Yeah, or how about we put all the straight people on an island. What the hell is the problem?
Busboy
· 4 months ago
heterophobia?
JohnVisser
· 4 months ago
In just a few short months Obama has gone from "fierce" to pussy.
rekster
· 4 months ago
What makes you ever think he was "fierce". I don't remember anything during the campaign that could quite be described as fierce. Oh, wait. There was that statement during the Convention acceptance speech: "Enough"! Ha Ha. The indignation was absolutely stunning.
This entire group in the White House and Legislature could never be called "fierce". If you want to call any of them that then we need to see some action. No more of "cowering" when Beck, et. al. pile on their "czars" and the Repubs put "holds" on the nominees.
Grow a pair and do something.
I am with Aravosis here. He sounds just like the campaign.
The campaign is over, it ended in November last year. It is time to govern.
UAFA_NOW
· 4 months ago
Barney Frank/HRC- 1, Gay rights movement-0
Now how can we the (gay) people take back HRC and get rid of Joe?
DavidinPS
· 4 months ago
Get Joe Solomonese's scalp. Not because we want to punish him ( though that would be a pleasant side effect) but because it would send a strong message to the PTB that his ass kissing, cover giving enabling is no longer acceptable to the gay community. We have to stop this guy from speaking for us. How do we get rid of him? Make it clear not another dime will be given to HRC as long as he is there. They need to see their revenue plummet and pin him as the cause.
caphillprof
· 4 months ago
But what about the trust-fund boys who bought a tuxedo and can't get a date on a Saturday night?
FrequentPoster
· 4 months ago
Take your meds, Aravosis. The man can't just snap his fingers and repeal DADT or DOMA. If anyone ought to know that, you should. You worked on Capitol Hill, for the mightily corrupt Ted Stevens no less. You know how things work.
Let's take DADT. That's a federal law. To repeal it will take an act of Congress. There will be hearings, and the military brass will be testifying. If they're not on board with the change, DADT will stay no matter what Obama wants. Period.
If Obama suspends enforcement over the the objections of the military, then Congress will slap him down. The only way they'll repeal it is to get the military on board, and to do so with detailed implementing regulations. That's why this is taking time.
Again: You have worked on Capitol Hill. You know the nitty-gritty of the legislative process. So why don't you stop your histroinic bullshitting for once, and talk in actual terms in the real world? Yeah, I know it won't as exciting as striking the poses you love to strike, but it would have the relative advantage of being true.
You're assuming he's even doing anything to move the ball. He's not. His own people have admitted he's not. The military said they haven't heard jack shit from anybody.
Your entire theory is bunk.
FrequentPoster
· 4 months ago
"The military said they haven't heard jack shit from anybody." Post a link to some reporting on that. I can be convinced.
Gridlock
· 4 months ago
Go search the archives on Americablog, it was some time ago.
FrequentPoster
· 4 months ago
I have heard nothing about the military not being talked to about it, and in his speech to HRC Obama said he's been talking with members of Congress about the issue. If you wish to contradict that, then it's up to you to present the evidence. Do your own research.
Gridlock
· 4 months ago
I did, long ago. Do yours.
FrequentPoster
· 4 months ago
I don't believe you. So show your work. Otherwise, I and anyone else looking in here will assume you're bluffing.
Gridlock
· 4 months ago
Again, do it yourself. You're on the site.
FrequentPoster
· 4 months ago
I take that as your final refusal to substantiate your false claims.
Gridlock
· 4 months ago
False claims? My dear, what have you tendered to bolster your case?
I don't see anything substantiating your claims. Links please? Anything?
FrequentPoster
· 4 months ago
Which factual claims of mine do you doubt?
akaison
· 4 months ago
Proof that President Obama's White House is actively doing something to address DADT repeal would be a godo start. You are asking others to prove a lack of activity when in fact you should prove that there is activity. Frankly, you have the burden of proof here given your claims that others are wrong.
ndtovent
· 4 months ago
Uhhh....no.... the prooof is in the puddin, darlin.' He's been in office for 10 months, and so far, nothing but speeches and rhetoric. Let's see some action.
akaison
· 4 months ago
Nothing in what you write explains the lack of leg work for accomplishing what he hopes to happen on gay rights. For example, your arguments do not explain Reid is sending him letters rather than the reverse or why the military leadership is under the impression that Obama has done none of that leg work. Now, either they are all lying or Obama is doing nothing but giving speeches. Judging by his behavior in other context, I am going with he's good a giving the speeches to tell you what you want to hear, but behind the scenes he does very little. This same sort of statement about Obama, by the way, was said by Senator Harkin on the public option. That Obama could have the public option if he worked to get it in the Senate. Instead, Obama says one think about what he hopes for in public, but does nothing with his political capital to achieve it. The game is becoming quite clear to anyone not in denial, which unfortunately you are. You do not prove any of your conclusions. You simply repeat them as if they are fact like a fundamentalist repeating religious doctrine like they are stating facts.
ndtovent
· 4 months ago
actually, that's not quite true with DOMA. It may be with DADT, but not with DOMA. DOMA was an act with one provsion, DOMA...it did not have other amendments and appropriations funding attached to it. Obama could repeal it with the stroke of a pen. Don't kid yourself.
Jeff
· 4 months ago
Been a big fan of this blog for a while, but I'm so tired of you harping on Obama cause in the first 10 months he hasn't repealed DOMA and ended don't ask don't tell.
ThHere is a HUGE amount on the Presidents plate right now, and at this point you have no reason to not believe he will do what he says.
How about you cut him some slack until health care is passed, something that we as a nation desparately need. I'm sorry you can't be legally wed yet, but don't you think health care for all is a tad more important for Christs sake.
the crustybastard
· 4 months ago
Pay close attention, Jeff:
1. Nobody is complaining that Obama hasn't repealed DOMA and DADT yet.
They are complaining that he is now DEFENDING those policies in court. Look closely! See how there's a subtle difference there?
2. Obama promised us he could manage a full plate.
Since you believe everything he says, I suppose you're going to have to believe that too.
3. Health care reform is important, no doubt. I'm sure that when you consider all the difficulties that confront straight people with regard to health care, you might take a moment and realize that gay people have it far, far worse.
Medical insurance problems are just the tip of the iceberg for gay Americans. For instance, with very few exceptions, nonbiological gay parents are legal strangers to their own children. They have no right to visitation, their children aren't considered family members for insurance purposes, they have no right to support or inheritance, etc.
This is not about some pissy fags fretting about missing out on the white wedding they dreamed about as little girls. Your fellow citizen's lives, families, and careers are being DESTROYED because as gay people have no legal protections despite the 14th Amendment that says they do.
Remedying this human misery is not less important than your desire to pay a reasonable price for medical service, jackass.
Holy hell, if laws were being passed that said Jews couldn't marry, adopt or serve in the military and Christians were Jew-bashing 24/7, somebody somewhere might noticing some parallels to 1933 Germany.
What have we become as a country that instead of banding together against a massive injustice, even liberals like you, Jeff, are telling people who are brutalized by the system every goddam day that your benefits are more important than their rights.
Gridlock
· 4 months ago
ROFL another "he has too much on his plate!" argument.
SERIOUSLY?
NotTimothyGeithner
· 4 months ago
He's doing a lousy job at best on health care. Of course thats making the assumption, he wants substantive change and not some Cap And Trade repeat on health care.
rekster
· 4 months ago
I don't buy the "full plate" excuse. That is why there are all of those people in the Cabinet and all of those czars. Obama doesn't have to do everything himself.
They don't have the "stones" to get anything done, or at the very least, I haven't seen any action yet.
FollowTheMoneyinUSA
· 4 months ago
Please. It's never been about time...everyone knows that's just cover for the real truth. He basically doesn't want to do it. He thinks just like you with that "tad more important" line: people's lives being destroyed in the military, people been treated like second class citizens and discriminated against...isn't impacting my life...so, hey, let's do it last. I'm sure that's what white presidents said years ago about race discrimination too. "hey, it's not really affecting me or my friends...so, let's just say we'll do something...then push it to the end". No biggie. Plus, with some money placed in HRC pockets we can even get gay cover for not doing anything. Typical.
I don't know why people just don't' start protesting outside the white house, the HRC and Oprah's (yes, you heard me, that would actually get some news coverage) 24/7...to see if he will move it up a few spots...maybe before taking or placing all those banker phone calls HuffPost broke on Friday?
ndtovent
· 4 months ago
Now, that might just work. Let's have a 'march on oprah...' either at the house, or the studio where she does her show. It would get us a lot more attention in the media than this mock-march on washington going on this weekend.
ndtovent
· 4 months ago
I do, yes, but it doesn't look like he's done much on that issue, either. Same 'ol BS. He publicly endorsed baucus' bill, which is a BS, watered down piece of shit with bill no teeth. Sooo.....what were you saying again?
IamSmartypants
· 4 months ago
Great post, John. You have an ironically appropriate typo in the second paragraph, "we must forget ahead on gay civil rights." That's the true sentiment of this administration. Forget moving ahead on our rights.
I am finished with HRC. After attending the Seattle dinner two weeks ago tonight (payback for a major favor from a friend) I vowed to never again give a penny to the organization. Not only do they pander to DC insiders and provide them cover in return for...nothing, they demean and dismiss efforts by activists or anyone outside the beltway who can't make large donations.
The final straw was what a friend referred to as the "Gordon Gecko Speech". A lesbian gave a powerpoint presentation during the dinner that said: A=Money B=Power C=Rights "By the transitive powers of math, A=B=C. So if money = power and power = rights, then money = power. Give to HRC." It's a despicable sentiment that can only be held by arrogant jackasses who have never done more than write a check to fight for equality.
As you said in your post about Joe Solomonese's blast email, this is the attitude of an organization that has no concern about the real-life implications of being fired from a job, being kept from a loved one's side, or being kicked out of the military. Give a penny to HRC? Never again!
caphillprof
· 4 months ago
Actually, the HRC is more interested in keeping their lucrative paychecks and the best way to do that is to have incremental reform, so incremental that it looks for all the world as if we were going backwards. Meanwhile, Salmonese lives like a prince.
John Aravosis
· 4 months ago
That's funny
IamSmartypants
· 4 months ago
The entire Seattle dinner was like a slow drive by a bad car accident. After the doors to the banquet hall opened, they put out the salad, then made us sit through 90 minutes of speeches before serving the main course. Lil' Joe talked about all the important people he knows in DC and how supportive they are of gay rights, then brought out the lesbian Gecko to do the money pitch.
The entire evening was 5 1/2 hours of pretentious smug white boys (and a few girls) playing checkbook activist. When they finally brought out the headliner, Kathy Najimy, even she was in a WTF mood, making rude comments about the abusively long evening. That almost made the rest of the BS tolerable. Almost...
ndtovent
· 4 months ago
I totally agree with your comment, except to say that when HRC was first founded, and for the first few years after, it really did do some good work for the GLBT community and human rights in general. It was after those first few years that HRC started the ascent to hell in blue flames. Unfortunately, the greed factor has befallen many a good organization over the years, i.e. AARP, some of the labor unions, etc.
bkmn
· 4 months ago
zero dollars to HRC...zero dollars to dem candidates.
Let them know that our votes are not negotiable.
Dear President Obama,
you promised fierce, you delivered nothing.
Advocate for us or enjoy being a one term president...
Canadian guest
· 4 months ago
My husband and I are sitting up here in Canada watching Obama and thinking about how he should have won the Preacher of the year award rather than the Nobel. We have several gay friends and therefore we wanted to hear what Obama would say tonight after promising you so much to get your support in ensuring his nomination. We both said to each other that in all reality, he said nothing. If he is so desirous of giving you the same benefits of married couples, then why is he against "marriage"? If he is promising to end DADT in the military, why has he said it all depends on Congress and he can't do anything about it now? He talks of Congress working, or when it comes to his desk he will gladly sign it and cheers go up with thunderous applause, but he doesn't seem to be pushing his own party members in Congress to do anything. Cheap words for inaction and unfortunately, I bet continued inaction. I guess he figures that rousing rights talk of how you should be treated will suffice and he'll put off doing anything about it til you get unhappy again and cause some bad press or stop making your contributions to the party and he can appoint another gay Ambassador to somewhere else. I am sorry that you probably will be disappointed as you have every right to be. I just hope that at some point, you may realize that great words and speeches do not make someone do something that may be injurious to his own chances of maintaining his own popularity.
FrequentPoster
· 4 months ago
DADT is a federal law. The very most Obama can do is stop enforcing it. But the closer you look at that option, the less appeal it has in light of the history of DADT.
DADT was passed in 1993 after Clinton tried to allow openly gay people to serve. The Joint Chiefs, the Religious Right, and the heads of the Armed Services committees of Congress united against Clinton on the issue, and for a while it looked like gays would lose what small gains had been made in the 1970s and 1980s.
DADT was actually a compromise, but it was passed with veto-proof majorities. It has the force of federal law, and to be repealed Congress must pass another law. If Obama declares he won't enforce it, and if the military objects, then Congress can make life very, very rough for Obama.
John Aravosis had a career as a legislative aide on Capitol Hill. He knows the history of DADT, and he knows how Congress works in the real world. By not pointing out what he knows to be true, he is engaging in classic demagoguery to please his crowd.
In fact, the senator who Aravosis worked for, Ted Stevens, was chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee when the Republicans controlled the Senate. So Aravosis has even MORE reason to know the truth on this one. Come on, John, stop the bullshitting and be real.
John Aravosis
· 4 months ago
No I didn't not work the chairman of the armed services committee. In any case, what's your point exactly? That the president is powerless to influence congressional legislation? Okay, then why is Obama trying to influence the health care reform bill on the Hill right now? Shouldn't he just ignore it? Because, you know, he has no power there. Your argument doesn't reflect the way politics actually works in DC. And in any case, if he's powerless to influence legislation, then why did he promise to do so during the campaign?
Considering I was volunteering for Senator Kennedy's office and actually working on the DADT hearings in 1993 for the gay side of things, you're right, I know exactly how the issue works.
FrequentPoster
· 4 months ago
Pretty disingenuous reply, Mr. Aravosis. You worked for a senator who, when the Republicans gained control, became the chairman of the Armed Services committee. Prior to that, he was the ranking minority member.
No, my point is NOT that "the president is powerless to influence congressional legislation." (BTW, is there any other kind?) That's a gross misrepresentation of what I wrote. My point is that Obama cannot repeal DADT, and that if anyone is in a position to educate people about the practicalities of doing so, you are, given your experience on Capitol Hill.
If you know "exactly how the issue works," then cut the bullshit and talk truth here, starting with the fact that it's not in Obama's power to repeal the law. Only Congress can do that, and the political practicalities are such that Obama has to move carefully if he really hopes to get it done.
I realize that a truthful analysis of the issue wouldn't please elements of the peanut gallery, but no one ever got ahead by believing and/or spreading bullshit.
CTPatriot
· 4 months ago
It sure seems to work great for you!
FrequentPoster
· 4 months ago
Yes, the truth does tend to work pretty well. You might try it sometime. Aravosis too.
akaison
· 4 months ago
Truth? But you aren't talking truth. You are basically responding to specific references to facts by using one of several talking points that one can find on any one of several blogs. I mean literally the exact same talking points worded exactly the same. Including, the "truth" one that often has no basis in reality.
Gridlock
· 4 months ago
Again, Obama isn't doing anything to get the ball moving. His own people have said he isn't. Congress has said they haven't heard a peep about it. The military hasn't heard anything either.
HE IS DOING NOTHING. Nothing at all. He's just going to sit back and wait till congress manages to rouse itself instead of using his bully pulpit to move the issue.
In effect: say pretty things, pass off responsibility
FrequentPoster
· 4 months ago
You say that Congress and the military haven't heard anything. Show me the actual reporting that backs up your assertion. Give us a link. I can be convinced.
John Aravosis
· 4 months ago
Oh that's easy. Harry Reid wrote Obama two weeks ago and urged the President to do something to engage on DADT, we wrote about it last week. Harry Reid runs the Senate. If he hasn't heard that Obama is doing anything on DADT, then who has? And Obama's own National Security Adviser said last week that they can't get to DADT while we're in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, they themselves have admitted that they're not doing anything at this point.
akaison
· 4 months ago
You had a post up recently did you not about denialists? The problem with debating people who are denying all evidence to the contrary of their position is that you are not debating a rational or logical thinker. This poster keeps saying there is no evidence, and when presented with evidence, they say that evidence is not evidence. How can anyone address issues surrounding President Obama when he has such supporters who are little more than fundamentalist about their support of his administration? I do not mean Christian. I mean of Obama, the man. He is right. That's the end of discussion for them.
Gridlock
· 4 months ago
A basic google search has Harry Reid imploring Obama to show leadership on the issue, as for the military it was an article on here some time ago, you'll have to search the archives.
Even besides that, just 2 days ago one of Obama's spokesbitches was saying he doesnt know when or if it will be repealed
FrequentPoster
· 4 months ago
I have heard nothing about the military not being talked to about it, and in his speech to HRC Obama said he's been talking with members of Congress about the issue. If you wish to contradict that, then it's up to you to present the evidence. Do your own research.
And, by the way, it means nothing that Obama's spokesperson didn't know if or when it would be repealed.
Gridlock
· 4 months ago
Oh come on, you think advisors just get on the airwaves and say things the administration doesn't approve of beforehand?
FrequentPoster
· 4 months ago
As I told you before, it's irrelevant. You made specific statements about the military not being briefed on the repeal of DADT, and Congress not being consulted. You have refused to back up your claims. Until you do back them up, your claims are bogus.
Gridlock
· 4 months ago
Uh, what have you posted to back up YOUR claims? DIck all.
FrequentPoster
· 4 months ago
Which factual claims of mine do you doubt?
rmichels
· 4 months ago
Thank you "frequent poster". There's no reason why the LGBT community ought not push as hard as possible for repeal of DADT as fast as possible. But just because it hasn't been repealed yet doesn't mean 1. that Obama isn't going to get it done or 2. that his administration is doing nothing. Just because you 'feel' like nothing is being done, doesn't mean your feelings are reality. Put up or shut up, Gridlock, or whatever, just keep 'emoting.' A lot of folks on this blog are very good at that.
Gridlock
· 4 months ago
Prove me wrong.
PresPlatitudes
· 4 months ago
oops wrong reply
PresPlatitudes
· 4 months ago
LOL, your kung fu is weak
ndtovent
· 4 months ago
Yes, I do... What's his name's 'you lie' outburst comes to mind.. And I hear the BS and lies from gop congresscritters and senators every day of the week.
ndtovent
· 4 months ago
Well ultimately, congress *does* control the funding for the military.
FrequentPoster
· 4 months ago
Yes, it does. Are you seriously implying that Congress would cut off funding to the military over this? I really hope, for your sake, that you aren't that delusional.
No, before the election he didn't go back on his specific promises like he has now.
Jcooz
· 4 months ago
You knew his stance on gay marriage. He hasn't gone back on any promises concerning gays. Because it's only been 9 months into his Presidency. If he had said I'm not going to repeal DODT or DOMA, then he'd be breaking the promise. You are jumping the boat....as usual.
dula
· 4 months ago
It must be done in his first term OR 2012 will be the year of the Third Party. It doesn't look good for him because in a few months what little he was working on will come to a standstill in order to get on his knees for the Midterm elections...then in a year he will fall over on his back for his futile reelection campaign.
timncguy
· 4 months ago
He specifically PROMISED to begin the process of repealing DADT on his FIRST DAY IN OFFICE,
So, now you tell me what he did on his first day in office to begin the process of repealing DADT?
To date what he has done is to FORCE a congressman to withdraw an ammendment that would have defunded the enforcement of DADT and has also refused to respond to Harry Reid's letter for direction on senate action for repeal of DADT.
truthseeker
· 4 months ago
WRONG. Man...really...do some research FIRST. He's actively worked against repeal of DADT. Check out the Alcee Hastings amendment to the DOD Authorization Bill to defund all enforcement and investigation activities for DADT that the white house told him to back off from.
gail
· 4 months ago
What promises has he broken? Name one please?
ndtovent
· 4 months ago
He's totally caved to the gop's and the blue dog(shits) on almost every campaign promise he made. Wjhy don't you go back and listen to a few of his campaign speeches. Did you change your moniker from 'rip van winke' recently?
akaison
· 4 months ago
One of the tricks with the online cheerleaders and denialists is to require absolute proof of each point ever made about President Obama to the point of absurdity. Even when confronted with things that they could readily find on Google, they will argue it proves nothing. Thus, it is not about evidence. It is not about proof. It is about denying the claim, tying those who are critical up in knots, and otherwise hijacking debates and turning them into he said, you said conversations. It's a very GOP like tactic, and, thus I find it amusing when they try to frame everything as right versus left when in fact they employ right wing sophistry quite well.
truthseeker
· 4 months ago
Interesting observation. It's just like the birthers.
akaison
· 4 months ago
Yes, they are the Democratic equivalent of the Birthers. The problem is that this is what happens in declining empires. It is not a right versus left issue.
John Aravosis
· 4 months ago
Promised to push for the repeal of the "abhorrent" DOMA policy, instead he's defending the bigoted law in court and even arguing that we're akin to incest and pedophilia in that defense. I call that a broken promise.
akaison
· 4 months ago
DADT. He promised repeal, and not only that restated the position through his Press Secretary. Here's a link to a man who was recently thrown out of the military who understood the promise as we describe it here:
You, of course, can continue the flat earth argument of denying anything untoward here, but it is becoming less and less a realistic strategy for obfuscation on your part.
There are others- including how he would approach DOMA, etc that I could go through, but it would take more effort.
debbietee
· 4 months ago
John--Amen.
Õ¿Õ
· 4 months ago
HRC embarassed me and them cheering for nothing.
Busboy
· 4 months ago
Hey, Incog... glad you're still around...
MichaelS
· 4 months ago
"The Obama administration doesn't respect our community" ...Duh... He's just not that into us. When are all the establishment gay groups finally going to wake up and acknowledge that?
vkobaya
· 4 months ago
Just the fact that he keeps talking about it yet does zero says that Obama doesn't himself fully support our civil rights as he has his own personal issues with gays. Makes me wonder if he snatches his daughters away protectively when one of his gay appointees nears them or if he has to repress a snarl. He probably is smart enough to realize gays aren't pedophiles but wants to protect them just the same from being "influenced" by gays as if their nearness might abra cadabra them into becoming gay. Sigh!
Reminds me of me. I've been saying for 5 years that I'm definitely going to vacuum, but have I? No, but now I've gotten to the point where I say maybe perhaps someday I'll get around to it (most likely not).
philboyd studge
· 4 months ago
Meet the new boss, same..... (aw, you know the rest)
ndtovent
· 4 months ago
I was at the 'end aids rally at the ellipse when his motorcade left the wh to go the hrc dinner. what a waste of time, money, and personnel hours for the escort.. fot THAT? UUUUUGGGGGHHHH!
I'm also tired of the all rhetoric, no teeth status quo.. OH...but he won the nobel piece prize.... what was that for, again???
Mark
· 4 months ago
Yay!!! We're all in tuxedos and the president pissed in our direction!!!
Both Solomonese's speech and Obama's speech did nothing but NARRATE the Gay Rights struggle and throw in some platitudes. They said absolutely nothing. How stupid and desperate are you not to see that?!
Barney Frank is exactly right: "emotional release".
truthseeker
· 4 months ago
I'd say Joe Solmonese is nothing but a tool, but usually a person is a tool for something or someone. He's neither. He's just an empty suit who give cover to politicians who fellate his ego. Any politician (or corporation) can purchase HRC's good will with a good speech or a big donation. Then that politician can tell the "straight" world how much they just love the gays because HRC put a gold star next to their name. Maybe it's time for a march...on HRC's headquarters.
RitornaVincitor
· 4 months ago
This speech was worse than the broken promises. It confirms that we are taken for patsies. Unintelligent patsies to boot. I'd rather that he offer empty apologies and excuses than insult our intelligence by trying to string us along further with the same BS.
PresPlatitudes
· 4 months ago
to any informed and reasonable observer, obama all but signaled his cowardice in the speech.
after all, what kind of leader details everything that needs to be done, and then essentially says "you first"?
RitornaVincitor
· 4 months ago
No leader at all.
William
· 4 months ago
John
I know, I know I'll be dismissed as being insincere, but I sincerely hope that Obama overturns DADT before the next election. I hope that he can overturn DOMA as well, but that may be more difficult.
In an ideal world, he just would snap his fingers. But even you'd have to admit it is politically difficult. And at this point his political capital has to be spent on health care and the economy, especially when we are closer than we've ever been to reforming health care since Truman first tried.
Before you respond remember that when ENDA was discussed a while back including transgenders, you demanded that they show you the votes. I think ENDA can pass right now and I hope it does. I think that reversing DODT will happen, but will wait until after health care and financial reform. DOMA repeal may be more difficult.
Why? Because of votes. Again, ENDA can pass, DODT is a better than 50 percent chance, DOMA repeal will be most difficult.
I'm just being realistic...just as you were with transgenders and ENDA.
William
caphillprof
· 4 months ago
But he has spent NO political capital on either health care or financial reform. Indeed the man has no health care bill other than a sell out to Big Pharma and since when does a sell out involve an expenditure of so-called political capital? And, where in the hell is there any financial reform? Wall Streets gets what it wants (again no political capital spent there) and small town banks get shafted.
Benhem612
· 4 months ago
If something being politically difficult is the reason for not doing it then I don't understand why we are working on healthcare. It certainly seems "poltically" difficult.
Being president is about making politically difficult decisions and leading. Also, political capital is fictional. It is a cover term for not doing something that might rock the boat....how do you gain political capital? By rocking the boat and being successful.
Haumea
· 4 months ago
Obama has no political capital left -- he spent it passing the stimulus which was supposed to keep unemployment below 8%. Elvis has left the building.
This is why you're getting the same old shuck-and-jive.
timncguy
· 4 months ago
and he got a stimulus package passed that was too small and had too many tax cuts in order to BU the vote of Susan Collins. This happened because he started his negotiations with Collins from a position of weakness. His opening offer was where he wanted to end up, with 30% of the bill as tax cuts. He had to up that to 40% to BUY her off. Had he started with an opening offer of 20%, he could have BOUGHT her vote for the 30% he actually wanted.
Haumea
· 4 months ago
Right. Joe Average Out of Work doesn't give a shit how sausage in Washington is made, though, this is my point. It's always about jobs, jobs, jobs first, second and third.
ron,w
· 4 months ago
How totally unreasonable it is to expect that 8 years of disaster under Bush and Co. can be corrected by anyone in less than a year. PATIENCE IS A MUST as is FAITH. Always remember the " majority" which is blocked by BLUE DOGS will take strong effort to overcome. Stop the threats against your friends and understand the realities which need to be dealt with.
Haumea
· 4 months ago
It's not about threats. It's about political reality.
You can't make unfulfilled promises, then give a bunch of excuses without losing political capital. This is the fundamental issue here. I repeat, he has no political capital to spend on "the beef", because of basic economic realities failing to meet expectations.
silverlakejim
· 4 months ago
Well I've taken action. The DNC called this past week looking for money. I told them they are not getting a penny until some progress is made on gay rights.
Indigo
· 4 months ago
The GayTM remains closed while Pinocchio's nose grows longer and longer.
tofubo
· 4 months ago
as with any politician, i don't care what they say, i care what they do
he can say anything he wants on the dadt, dma, edna, until he does something about it (and a whole host of other issues, see mca, fisa, gitmo, iraq, the debt, etc...), he can count on my voting for someone else
PresPlatitudes
· 4 months ago
with an executive order, obama could stop discharges right now based on DADT. this is BEYOND dispute. that's about as "incremental" as it gets.
you can tell a lot about a leader's character by the excuses they allow their apologists to float on their behalf. no magic wand, stealth chess, political capital, it's someone's job VERSUS taking 5 minutes to sign an EO, and LEADING.
apologists: spin all you want, but what kind of leader talks about what to do and then essentially says "you first"?
RJG33
· 4 months ago
On LGBT issues, no different than McCain, or W.
Just prettier speechifying is all.
Vote Libertarian.
sonofloud
· 4 months ago
i would but they like their guns too much.....i'll stick with the greens
truthseeker
· 4 months ago
This from CNN:
The group [HRC] said Obama "made it crystal clear that he is our strongest ally in this fight, that he understands and, in fact, encourages our activism and our voice even when we're impatient with the pace of change."
Is it any wonder any credible person thinks HRC is nothing but a group of cow-towing sycophants whose sole purpose seems to be fellating the DC glitteratti?
naschkatzehussein
· 4 months ago
I am not gay, and I'd just like to say that HRC sounds like most of the other advocacy groups. The issue is the livelihood of the group as well as of its opponent organizations. If the issue is resolved, there would be no need for these groups, and some people would be out of jobs. I no longer contribute to pro-choice groups because I think that is the case with them. Political footballs are what the politicians and some advocacy groups want: they are money makers.
ron,w
· 4 months ago
A little patience and faith are in order here. You need to know who is your friend and whom you can trust. Who in recent memory has done more for the Gay community? Pres. Obama WILL do what he has promised. Always remember the president is not a dictator who can ordain by fiat. He must go through Congress and so you must keep the faith and he will deliver. KEEP THE FAITH! This man has been in office LESS than a year with an overflowing plate of trash left on his doorstep. LOGIC must prevail.
Webapparition
· 4 months ago
Yeah, most of that "trash" he continue's to dutifully follow and is setting in stone so that we will never be rid of it!
Keep the Faith??? In a politician??? In Washington DC??? This is why nothing ever changes for the people. You keep following these profits of lies, deception, and manipulation!!
Steve_in_CNJ
· 4 months ago
save that paragraph for next october. you can just edit 'less than a year' to read 'less than 2 years'. i predict you'll be editing it every year until 2012.
You keep answering your own questions about obama. He always gives speeches with pretty words. Just what you want to hear. He will string as many along and for as long as he can. He constantly contradicts himself with his words because he doesn't really believe in what he says. It's for public consumption or for whatever group he needs to appease for as long as he can.
Obama is so transparent, like a fly on the end of the nose.
hillcrestdenizen
· 4 months ago
Let's face it we're get nothing during his first term and most likely a few crumbs if he has a second. We're not that important. He's just keeping us warm on the back burner knowing we will finance his second term run. He's not running on my dime.
Houndentenor
· 4 months ago
HRC is a joke and always has been. We need a national organization that is committed to getting things done, and not just holding glitzy fundraisers, providing jobs for the partners of board members and patting themselves on the back.
thegayspecies
· 4 months ago
May I respectfully suggest two organizations:
The American Civil Liberties Union
The American Humanist Association
BOTH are "non-profit, non-affiliated" civil and human rights organizations that actually support "gay equality."
goy
· 4 months ago
"...we must forget ahead on gay civil rights."
Excellent and apropos 'freudian' typo there John.
Your 9/3 analysis on this was, sadly, accurate.
At some point people are going to stop making excuses for this guy and all of those in government who have exploited Americans by dividing them instead of uniting them.
crystal
· 4 months ago
There are more important things in the world than gays getting respect. They are accepted pretty well now- days, why isn't that enough. They know the type of sex they crave is not natural, and they feel guilty about it. Getting everyone to honor their lifestyle is important to them so they can feel less guilt. Face it, homosexualty is not natural according to the laws of nature--nothing can change that! The reason for the 2 genders is for procreation in the 1st place-not just for sex as gay sex ALWAYS is, unlike natural sex that was created for reproduction. Sex between male and female comes from that basic purpose as well as the sex techniques they practice; which still makes them normal.
leliorisen
· 4 months ago
Crystal...nobody on this board gives a damn about your ignorance and hatred of gay people.
Please go back to your trailer park and share your deep knowledge of social issues with your other civilization-challenged, beer pong buddies.
And give my best to your brother. Ooops, I mean your husband.
crystal
· 4 months ago
I think if gay people would look normal; they would be accepted more. Example: why do some gay men act girly, and sometimes wear make-up, ear-rings etc. They look like men in masquerade or something and this gives them less credibility. Are they men who feel like women? the women that dress like men; are they making the statement that they are women but feel like men? Why does Ellen Degeneress want to wear men's shoes? Do those manly shoes make her appear manly? Does she want to appear manly because she likes women? Isn't that getting back to the male - female hetosexual situation? She looks manly and her partner looks feminine? This seems to be a contradiction since thely both say they like women instead of men, so why don't they both look womanly instead of one being manly? these are the things that society looks at and thinks that they might be mentally disturbed or something. If a woman loves a woman, why must one appear to be manly on purpose as Ellen does as an example? It is a confusing contradiction! the same goes for men, many times one is the girly one, and then you have the faux hetrosexual situation again; which is a contradiction to what they say they are--men who love men---not women! Does anyone understand my point here?
SoLeftImRight
· 4 months ago
Did you make a point? You really just demonstrated that you have zero understanding of human sexuality. Why are you even here?
leliorisen
· 4 months ago
To answer your question...maybe the rock crystal crawled out from shifted a little.
Eggy
· 4 months ago
I think Ellen Degeneres wants to wear men's shoes because they're more comfortable than women's shoes. And she thinks that's more important than what you think of her shoes.
Just a guess.
Eggy
· 4 months ago
It is possible (not yet probably) that the GOP nominee in 2012 will be Mike Huckabee. Obama knows you're not going to vote for Mike Huckabee. Why would he waste political capital for you?
All Comments
It takes a belief in labor rights, on training, so workers can adapt to changing economic conditions (at least it used to) Not giving $700 billion in corporate welfare to the very corporations that created the problems like Obama did.
It takes a belief in civil rights for everyone, including gays/lesbians (at least it used to) Not blocking every attempt at changing DOMA and DADT like Obama does.
It takes a belief in civil liberities (at least it used to) Not increasing the faith based initiative which gives our tax revenue to churches or supporting FISA or appointing an anti abortion and anti birth control activist (Alexia Kelley) to the department of HHS like Obama did.
It takes a belief in human rights (at least it used to) Not spreading the "war on terror" even further into Afghanistan and Pakistan or defending the continued kidnapping/torture/indefinite imprisonment without trial of any person on the planet in camps such as Quantanamo and Bagram, like Obama does.
It takes a belief in universal health care (at least it used to) Not blocking the public option like Obama does.
It takes a belief in education for everyone (at least it used to) Not promoting the same failed policy of charter schools that "No Child Left Behind" gave us and Obama's "Race to the Top" program does.
It takes more than pretty words and empty promises to be a democrat (well, at least it used to).
and the nobel is only going to further encourage this shameful belief; after all, 124k troops in iraq, escalation in afghanistan, civilians bombed, preventative detention, etc. his actions clearly belie his words, but it seems all that matters is that he vaguely referenced "peace" or "equality" in a speech somewhere.
so what exactly is he being lauded for? certainly not his actions. his intent? his "awareness" of an issue? having the daring to talk about it? it's a special kind of shamelessness that allows him to carry on the way he does.
let's be honest: obama thinks so highly of his speeches that for him, TALKING IS DOING. this underscores every vain and cowardly inclination his character harbors.
Well now, isn't that exactly the point. Yeah, he's achieved a few small potatoes, but look at where he's failed. It isn't just civil rights for gays, he has no intention of passing a strong public option which is a very bad compromise for one payer, universal health care. The health insurance industry are crooks and he is perfectly happy to allow them to continue to victimize the American people, and even enrich them further by making it a crime not to buy health insurance.
What about ending the criminal, inhuman, bigoted, racist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Don't kid yourself, he has no intention of ending those wars.
Then there is reforming the laws regulating the finance industry. Yeah, yeah! That's why he appointed Geithner, Summers and Bernanke. I'll believe it when I see it.
There's a long list of Obama's broken promises, not just his continuing to bullshit us over civil rights for gays. Speaking of civil rights, he has sold the Black Americans down the road, not one, but many times.
Obama was elected by a massive landslide to do a job and he is failing on many, many fronts. Granted he is better than Bush. That is hardly a worthwhile comparison since Bush was unbelievably God awful. Bush's dog, Barney, was better than Bush. The cockroach crawling across the Oval Office desk was better than Bush. Two galaxies out, there is nothing yet as bad as Bush. So, yeah, of course, Obama is better than Bush. That's hardly anything to boast about.
do they prefer cash or check?
I'm fascinated by this notion that Democrats only have to be slightly better than Republicans in order to have our respect. So Obama doesn't need to do anything for Latinos either, because you know, those Republicans would have been worse? How about for women? How about in Iraq and Afghanistan? How about on civil liberties? Let's face it, JOhn McCain would have been far worse than Barack Obama doing nothing at all, so perhaps Obama should do nothing on every issue and aspire to me marginally better than the worst president in history.
Sigh. Perhaps we have different expectations of what Democrats should be like. I expect them to keep their promises, you apparently don't.
It's like a teenager who tells his parents he's going to the movies, but gets brought home by the cops for drinking in the park. On the way there, he decides his parents are going to be cool with him because they know about other kids getting in much more serious trouble.
No, dumbass. You're my son and I have the right to expect a certain level of responsibility and candor from you. The fact that other kids act like jagovs doesn't give you a license to be a jagov.
Now go to your room until my urge to pummel you passes. Gah.
for your utter lack of shame, i pity you
Someone should ask him if Martin Luther King Jr would have stood for LBJ doing then what Obama is doing now.
The AP story covering the march, that has been up all day, is titled about how gay rights advocates are divided on Obama. After their coverage of the march, this is how the AP ends the story:
"Rep. Barney Frank, an openly gay member of Congress, said the marchers should be lobbying their lawmakers. He said the demonstrations are simply "an emotional release" that do little to pressure Congress.
"The only thing they're going to be putting pressure on is the grass," the Massachusetts Democrat said Friday."
I am one glbt activist who would like to kindly offer the following 2 words of advice to Barney Frank...drop dead.
As I posted elsewhere, can anyone imagine the reaction among African-Americans if the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had given that same advice in the 60s?
Barney Frank...and the HRC...care about one thing only. Their stature and power in Washington. We are a distant afterthought to their ambitions.
What makes any of the Obama apologists think that it will be easier to get this done later? After 2010, we may not have a majority in the Senate and not as much in the House either. I don't want to keep hearing a campaign speech - you won - you have the job, now do it. And if you are already campaigning for 2012 - you'll need more than that speech to get my vote.
What kind of majority will he have after 2010?
Along with that, and knowing that, the American people voted for him. John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are awesome allies. I would love to see them interview the HRC or even some of Obama's gay appointees.
There are 3 more years of his first term left.
Let's not abandon him yet.
And above all don't count on the Log Cabin delusional either.
Maybe we should start putting pressure on the Democratic Party besides just Obama. This is, after all, a game of chess.
This entire group in the White House and Legislature could never be called "fierce". If you want to call any of them that then we need to see some action. No more of "cowering" when Beck, et. al. pile on their "czars" and the Repubs put "holds" on the nominees.
Grow a pair and do something.
I am with Aravosis here. He sounds just like the campaign.
The campaign is over, it ended in November last year. It is time to govern.
Now how can we the (gay) people take back HRC and get rid of Joe?
Let's take DADT. That's a federal law. To repeal it will take an act of Congress. There will be hearings, and the military brass will be testifying. If they're not on board with the change, DADT will stay no matter what Obama wants. Period.
If Obama suspends enforcement over the the objections of the military, then Congress will slap him down. The only way they'll repeal it is to get the military on board, and to do so with detailed implementing regulations. That's why this is taking time.
Again: You have worked on Capitol Hill. You know the nitty-gritty of the legislative process. So why don't you stop your histroinic bullshitting for once, and talk in actual terms in the real world? Yeah, I know it won't as exciting as striking the poses you love to strike, but it would have the relative advantage of being true.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/07/new-disturbi...
Your entire theory is bunk.
I don't see anything substantiating your claims. Links please? Anything?
He's been in office for 10 months, and so far, nothing but speeches and rhetoric. Let's see some action.
ThHere is a HUGE amount on the Presidents plate right now, and at this point you have no reason to not believe he will do what he says.
How about you cut him some slack until health care is passed, something that we as a nation desparately need. I'm sorry you can't be legally wed yet, but don't you think health care for all is a tad more important for Christs sake.
1. Nobody is complaining that Obama hasn't repealed DOMA and DADT yet.
They are complaining that he is now DEFENDING those policies in court. Look closely! See how there's a subtle difference there?
2. Obama promised us he could manage a full plate.
Since you believe everything he says, I suppose you're going to have to believe that too.
3. Health care reform is important, no doubt. I'm sure that when you consider all the difficulties that confront straight people with regard to health care, you might take a moment and realize that gay people have it far, far worse.
Medical insurance problems are just the tip of the iceberg for gay Americans. For instance, with very few exceptions, nonbiological gay parents are legal strangers to their own children. They have no right to visitation, their children aren't considered family members for insurance purposes, they have no right to support or inheritance, etc.
This is not about some pissy fags fretting about missing out on the white wedding they dreamed about as little girls. Your fellow citizen's lives, families, and careers are being DESTROYED because as gay people have no legal protections despite the 14th Amendment that says they do.
Remedying this human misery is not less important than your desire to pay a reasonable price for medical service, jackass.
Holy hell, if laws were being passed that said Jews couldn't marry, adopt or serve in the military and Christians were Jew-bashing 24/7, somebody somewhere might noticing some parallels to 1933 Germany.
What have we become as a country that instead of banding together against a massive injustice, even liberals like you, Jeff, are telling people who are brutalized by the system every goddam day that your benefits are more important than their rights.
SERIOUSLY?
They don't have the "stones" to get anything done, or at the very least, I haven't seen any action yet.
I don't know why people just don't' start protesting outside the white house, the HRC and Oprah's (yes, you heard me, that would actually get some news coverage) 24/7...to see if he will move it up a few spots...maybe before taking or placing all those banker phone calls HuffPost broke on Friday?
I am finished with HRC. After attending the Seattle dinner two weeks ago tonight (payback for a major favor from a friend) I vowed to never again give a penny to the organization. Not only do they pander to DC insiders and provide them cover in return for...nothing, they demean and dismiss efforts by activists or anyone outside the beltway who can't make large donations.
The final straw was what a friend referred to as the "Gordon Gecko Speech". A lesbian gave a powerpoint presentation during the dinner that said:
A=Money
B=Power
C=Rights
"By the transitive powers of math, A=B=C. So if money = power and power = rights, then money = power. Give to HRC." It's a despicable sentiment that can only be held by arrogant jackasses who have never done more than write a check to fight for equality.
As you said in your post about Joe Solomonese's blast email, this is the attitude of an organization that has no concern about the real-life implications of being fired from a job, being kept from a loved one's side, or being kicked out of the military. Give a penny to HRC? Never again!
The entire evening was 5 1/2 hours of pretentious smug white boys (and a few girls) playing checkbook activist. When they finally brought out the headliner, Kathy Najimy, even she was in a WTF mood, making rude comments about the abusively long evening. That almost made the rest of the BS tolerable. Almost...
Let them know that our votes are not negotiable.
Dear President Obama,
you promised fierce, you delivered nothing.
Advocate for us or enjoy being a one term president...
I am sorry that you probably will be disappointed as you have every right to be. I just hope that at some point, you may realize that great words and speeches do not make someone do something that may be injurious to his own chances of maintaining his own popularity.
DADT was passed in 1993 after Clinton tried to allow openly gay people to serve. The Joint Chiefs, the Religious Right, and the heads of the Armed Services committees of Congress united against Clinton on the issue, and for a while it looked like gays would lose what small gains had been made in the 1970s and 1980s.
DADT was actually a compromise, but it was passed with veto-proof majorities. It has the force of federal law, and to be repealed Congress must pass another law. If Obama declares he won't enforce it, and if the military objects, then Congress can make life very, very rough for Obama.
John Aravosis had a career as a legislative aide on Capitol Hill. He knows the history of DADT, and he knows how Congress works in the real world. By not pointing out what he knows to be true, he is engaging in classic demagoguery to please his crowd.
In fact, the senator who Aravosis worked for, Ted Stevens, was chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee when the Republicans controlled the Senate. So Aravosis has even MORE reason to know the truth on this one. Come on, John, stop the bullshitting and be real.
Considering I was volunteering for Senator Kennedy's office and actually working on the DADT hearings in 1993 for the gay side of things, you're right, I know exactly how the issue works.
No, my point is NOT that "the president is powerless to influence congressional legislation." (BTW, is there any other kind?) That's a gross misrepresentation of what I wrote. My point is that Obama cannot repeal DADT, and that if anyone is in a position to educate people about the practicalities of doing so, you are, given your experience on Capitol Hill.
If you know "exactly how the issue works," then cut the bullshit and talk truth here, starting with the fact that it's not in Obama's power to repeal the law. Only Congress can do that, and the political practicalities are such that Obama has to move carefully if he really hopes to get it done.
I realize that a truthful analysis of the issue wouldn't please elements of the peanut gallery, but no one ever got ahead by believing and/or spreading bullshit.
HE IS DOING NOTHING. Nothing at all. He's just going to sit back and wait till congress manages to rouse itself instead of using his bully pulpit to move the issue.
In effect: say pretty things, pass off responsibility
Even besides that, just 2 days ago one of Obama's spokesbitches was saying he doesnt know when or if it will be repealed
And, by the way, it means nothing that Obama's spokesperson didn't know if or when it would be repealed.
http://gay.americablog.com/2009/10/white-house-...
http://gay.americablog.com/2009/10/national-sec...
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/story/1...
So, now you tell me what he did on his first day in office to begin the process of repealing DADT?
To date what he has done is to FORCE a congressman to withdraw an ammendment that would have defunded the enforcement of DADT and has also refused to respond to Harry Reid's letter for direction on senate action for repeal of DADT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6lT0Pt71UY
You, of course, can continue the flat earth argument of denying anything untoward here, but it is becoming less and less a realistic strategy for obfuscation on your part.
There are others- including how he would approach DOMA, etc that I could go through, but it would take more effort.
...Duh... He's just not that into us. When are all the establishment gay groups finally going to wake up and acknowledge that?
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/sex/breakup-reco...
btw...Wanda Sykes rocked!
I'm also tired of the all rhetoric, no teeth status quo.. OH...but he won the nobel piece prize.... what was that for, again???
Both Solomonese's speech and Obama's speech did nothing but NARRATE the Gay Rights struggle and throw in some platitudes. They said absolutely nothing. How stupid and desperate are you not to see that?!
Barney Frank is exactly right: "emotional release".
after all, what kind of leader details everything that needs to be done, and then essentially says "you first"?
I know, I know I'll be dismissed as being insincere, but I sincerely hope that Obama overturns DADT before the next election. I hope that he can overturn DOMA as well, but that may be more difficult.
In an ideal world, he just would snap his fingers. But even you'd have to admit it is politically difficult. And at this point his political capital has to be spent on health care and the economy, especially when we are closer than we've ever been to reforming health care since Truman first tried.
Before you respond remember that when ENDA was discussed a while back including transgenders, you demanded that they show you the votes. I think ENDA can pass right now and I hope it does. I think that reversing DODT will happen, but will wait until after health care and financial reform. DOMA repeal may be more difficult.
Why? Because of votes. Again, ENDA can pass, DODT is a better than 50 percent chance, DOMA repeal will be most difficult.
I'm just being realistic...just as you were with transgenders and ENDA.
William
Being president is about making politically difficult decisions and leading. Also, political capital is fictional. It is a cover term for not doing something that might rock the boat....how do you gain political capital? By rocking the boat and being successful.
This is why you're getting the same old shuck-and-jive.
You can't make unfulfilled promises, then give a bunch of excuses without losing political capital. This is the fundamental issue here. I repeat, he has no political capital to spend on "the beef", because of basic economic realities failing to meet expectations.
he can say anything he wants on the dadt, dma, edna, until he does something about it (and a whole host of other issues, see mca, fisa, gitmo, iraq, the debt, etc...), he can count on my voting for someone else
you can tell a lot about a leader's character by the excuses they allow their apologists to float on their behalf. no magic wand, stealth chess, political capital, it's someone's job VERSUS taking 5 minutes to sign an EO, and LEADING.
apologists: spin all you want, but what kind of leader talks about what to do and then essentially says "you first"?
Just prettier speechifying is all.
Vote Libertarian.
The group [HRC] said Obama "made it crystal clear that he is our strongest ally in this fight, that he understands and, in fact, encourages our activism and our voice even when we're impatient with the pace of change."
Is it any wonder any credible person thinks HRC is nothing but a group of cow-towing sycophants whose sole purpose seems to be fellating the DC glitteratti?
Keep the Faith??? In a politician??? In Washington DC??? This is why nothing ever changes for the people. You keep following these profits of lies, deception, and manipulation!!
http://vk.com/reg33417535
and you can get free Apple iPod 8Gb
cool!
Obama is so transparent, like a fly on the end of the nose.
The American Civil Liberties Union
The American Humanist Association
BOTH are "non-profit, non-affiliated" civil and human rights organizations that actually support "gay equality."
Excellent and apropos 'freudian' typo there John.
Your 9/3 analysis on this was, sadly, accurate.
At some point people are going to stop making excuses for this guy and all of those in government who have exploited Americans by dividing them instead of uniting them.
Please go back to your trailer park and share your deep knowledge of social issues with your other civilization-challenged, beer pong buddies.
And give my best to your brother. Ooops, I mean your husband.
Are they men who feel like women? the women that dress like men; are they making the statement that they are women but feel like men? Why does Ellen Degeneress want to wear men's shoes? Do those manly shoes make her appear manly? Does she want to appear manly because she likes women? Isn't that getting back to the male - female hetosexual situation? She looks manly and her partner looks feminine? This seems to be a contradiction since thely both say they like women instead of men, so why don't they both look womanly instead of one being manly?
these are the things that society looks at and thinks that they might be mentally disturbed or something. If a woman loves a woman, why must one appear to be manly on purpose as Ellen does as an example? It is a confusing contradiction! the same goes for men, many times one is the girly one, and then you have the faux hetrosexual situation again; which is a contradiction to what they say they are--men who love men---not women! Does anyone understand my point here?
Just a guess.