Comments On: Barack Reagan by Dan Savage

Re: Barack Reagan

common sensei — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:19:16 -0700

#48 is exactly right.
Posted by common sensei

Re: Barack Reagan

idaho — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:04:23 -0700

Why would it going through Congress have more staying power than an executive order? The DEA was set up through an executive order via Nixon -- and that started a whole WAR.
Posted by idaho

Re: Barack Reagan

paul c — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:06:00 -0700

The President is SUPPOSED to be a LEADER. If he can't even lead his own party and set the agenda for the DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED congress now, then yes, he is a weak-assed p.o.s. (Good luck after 2010, when Republicans are going to come back stronger than they did in Bill Clinton's first midterm.)

I suspect Obama could lead, if he chose to, but let's not forget that this is the man who voted "Present" on numerous occasions. He's a two-dimensional narcissist who just likes to play the role of someone important without taking any of the resonsibilities that come with it.
Posted by paul c

Re: Barack Reagan

gnossos — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:20:14 -0700

breaking news...just what I was talking about

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DAVID R. OBEY 2010 LABOR-HHS-EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS BILL SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP
July 10, 2009

Significant Policy Provisions
As you know, this bill traditionally carries a number of "policy" riders. For the most part, this bill continues all significant funding restrictions in fiscal year 2010. For example, it continues all of the anti-abortion provisions in fiscal year 2010 without change. The bill also maintains the current prohibition on the use of funds in this bill for human embryo research. One key exception that I want to mention concerns needle exchange programs.
This bill deletes the prohibition on the use of funds for needle exchange programs. Scientific studies have documented that needle exchange programs, when implemented as part of a comprehensive prevention strategy, are an effective public health intervention for reducing AIDS/HIV infections and do not promote drug use. The judgment we make in this bill is that it is time to lift this ban and let State and local jurisdictions determine if they want to pursue this approach.
Posted by gnossos

Re: Barack Reagan

Gomez — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:05:03 -0700

Like the gay marriage issue, Obama could actively endorse that Congress lift the syringe ban except a) Congress won't because it's a tacit endorsement of narcotics use and, b) as his endorsement for gay marriage would fuel the GOP fire and set the table for a revival of the conservative christian base and a GOP Congressional takeover in 2010... which would ruin everything the Dems have spent the past 4-6 years working for... his endorsement of a syringe ban could be easily twisted among the GOP faithful as an endorsement to use drugs and Destroy Our Children's Future blah blah blah, and oh would the GOP have a political field day with that.

Just because Dan won't doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't think ahead.
Posted by Gomez

Re: Barack Reagan

notamused — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:24:27 -0700

Congress is busy working on the college football problem. Got that? That's our Congress. They are useless. And still not one person dares to challenge or speak of Obama's continuing the Bush policies on rendition.... Which is completely unconstitutional just as it was when Bush did it...but hey, it's only been 6 months right? Maybe he will change his own mind next year and decide to believe in due process.
Posted by notamused

Re: Barack Reagan

GOP — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:44:35 -0700

Go ahead.
Push and scream.
This issue will remind Americans why they need and want to keep the GOP around.
Posted by GOP

Re: Barack Reagan

gnossos — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:22:44 -0700

Yes, and on the issue of syringe exchange what he appears to be doing is letting it be known to Congress that they need to lift the ban. And, slowly but surely, over the last few months the number of co-sponsors of Serrano's bill has been growing.

mischiefmanager, there's very few people in this country (less than a few hundred I'm betting) who want to see the ban lifted as much as I do. The problem with Obama lifting it through executive order is that that action can be undone by the next president (as Obama did with the Mexico City [AKA gag] rule). Additionally, Congress can turn right around and legislatively impose a ban or simply not include any funding.

By getting Congress to lift their own ban he ensures: a) that it takes another act of Congress to reimpose the ban and b) makes it more likely that funds will actually be appropriated.

As I said before, symbolically I would have loved it if one of his very first acts had been to very publicly repudiate the ban (with Bill Clinton at his side to atone for what he has called his biggest regret of his administration). But, you know what? I care a lot more about concrete than symbolism.

Posted by gnossos

Re: Barack Reagan

Mario — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:26:38 -0700

The President can't force Congress to pass legislation he wants - but he *can* tell them, and more importantly, the nation, what he would like to see passed, and why. He can endorse particular pieces of legislation. And that's definitely worth something.

Letting Congress take the initiative and have the conversation by itself about gay issues or HIV or health care is precisely the way to have it die in committee where nobody is watching, and the arguments aren't heard by the people... but the lobbyists are heard by the Congress members.

I don't know whether he's playing this particular piece of legislation the right way for it to be ultimately successful, but wanting Obama to, you know, actually do something about a particular issue rather than sit around waiting for Congress to decide to do it on its own is hardly the same thing as wanting him to emulate Bush.
Posted by Mario

Re: Barack Reagan

mischiefmanager — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:55:28 -0700

Despite the separation of powers clause, the President does have quite a lot of discretionary power to decide policy within the executive branch, which means all of the Cabinet offices. So he could, and should, lift this ban immediately.

Some of you might not like addicts, but guess what? You're paying for their health care whether you like it or not. And it's a hell of a lot cheaper to pay for a syringe than it is to treat HIV or Hep C. If you can't see this from a humanitarian point of view, think of your pocketbook. NEx is cheap and effective. It should be legal and available everywhere.
Posted by mischiefmanager

Re: Barack Reagan

skye — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:07:08 -0700

@36 - THIS.
Posted by skye

Re: Barack Reagan

How about Santorum Sucker? no.... — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:50:02 -0700

37

Don't call Dan a whiny bitch.

It's not fair.

Because a genuine whiny bitch could stomp Dan's ass into the pavement.

You'll have to come up with something much more impotent and screechy to describe Dan.
Posted by How about Santorum Sucker? no....

Re: Barack Reagan

Gomez — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:33:16 -0700

Chill, Timrrr. Dan's just being a one-issue voter right now. My hope is that other gays, as frustrated as they may be, see the forest for the trees and don't get on this bandwagon. The groundswell's beginning, and a) no one's going to accelerate it with this histrionic craziness and b) Obama can't just flip a switch right now on gay marriage without doing a ton of political damage... and quite possibly failing to enact it completely.
Posted by Gomez

Re: Barack Reagan

Timrrr — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:15:02 -0700

HELLO...?!? Its just been six months -- the first six outta 48 in his first term.

Do the math, Dan. That's six over 48 (i.e.: 6/48) or in other words: 1/8th.

Has one eighth of Obama agenda been accomplished? Are 7/8th of the things on Obama's list still left to be done? Well, if you say "yes" than he's right on track!

(Unless you're just a whiny bitch because all your issues aren't 100% fixed in the first 12.5 % of the term? Really, if that's what you're saying, Dan... man, that is just sooooo fucking gay!)

Posted by Timrrr

Re: Barack Reagan

gnossos — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:26:45 -0700

Dan, I have been involved in the effort to lift the ban on using federal funds for syringe exchange since about the day after Jesse Helms stuck it in as a rider.

We were inches close in the spring of 1998 when Clinton caved (and left poor Donna Shahala out to dry) and we all felt deeply betrayed.

I loved that Obama said he would lift the ban and expected him to do so shortly after his inauguration.

So do I feel betrayed right now? Not really.

For the past year a group has been working quietly, behind the scenes, to get a bill introduced by Rep. Jos� E. Serrano (D-NY) that would lift the ban passed. The clear message from those inside the Obama administration is that this is the way they want it played. They feel that lifting the ban will have more legitimacy -- and staying power -- if it happens legislatively rather than administratively.

And they're correct.

As much as I want to win my battle now, I'll gladly take winning the whole damn shooting match later.
Posted by gnossos

Re: Barack Reagan

michael strangeways — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:24:47 -0700

Like all recent, national Democratic leaders Obama wants to be beloved and popular by as many people as possible but especially the people in the middle of the political map, the ones that insure he'll win again in 2012...which is why he's avoiding EVERY SINGLE GAY ISSUE on the agenda.
Posted by michael strangeways

Re: Barack Reagan

Will in Seattle — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:35:29 -0700

@31 for the god damned win.
Posted by Will in Seattle

Re: Barack Reagan

Reader1 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:39:04 -0700

" Reagan? You really get dumber every single fucking day, Dan."

I think this is a reference to that silly old trope that Reagan caused AIDS and now that Barack isn't funding needle exchange programs he must be causing AIDS too
Posted by Reader1

Re: Barack Reagan

notamused — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:38:26 -0700

I challenge you to read up on the details of the Obama justice system and tell me again that he's concerned with executive power: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2…
None of you would approve of this if Bush did it -"the Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges." The disappearance of due process isn't ok because Obama is a better, sane and more reasonable guy than Bush.

And he is all 3 of the above, but why aren't we allowed to be critical of someone we voted for? I don't want Obama to fail, I want him to succeed...in getting policies I believe are important. I realize McCain and Bush were worse: so freaking what??? So everything Obama does is ok because hey, at least it isn't Bush or McCain? No. Hero worship was what killed the GOP. They defended everything W did for 8 years. I will not agree with everything Obama does. That abdicates my responsibility as a citizen. My responsibility is to push Obama and Congress to act on the policies that are important to me.
Posted by notamused

Re: Barack Reagan

shivvvers — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:26:18 -0700

I wish everyone would just remember: what was our alternative, people? It was John Fucking McCain. So yes, Obama is being a total fuckhead, but I am confident that John McCain would be pissing us all off a LOT more right now.
Posted by shivvvers

Re: Barack Reagan

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:23:56 -0700

After eight years of the president autocratically overriding the directly elected representative democratic legislature... yeah, I can't think of anything better than lots more of that.
Posted by K

Re: Barack Reagan

notamused — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:20:47 -0700

Half of you people are ignorant. Needle exchange funding is not equal to extraordinary rendition or Obama's newest idea: post-acquittal detention. Obama has adopted Bush's power grab on treatment of detainees. That's what you should all read up on because it is very disturbing. The new idea from Obama is that when a terrorist is acquitted at trial the Prez can still detain him. Hooray due process! Hooray limited executive powers!

You all act as if the Prez has no power to do anything but talk. If the Democrats are going to be ineffectual, the Big O needs to get in their faces and move foward. What's he going to do, sit in his office and throw up his hands for 8 years? What a joke. You should read Robert Caro's four-vol biography of LBJ if you want to see effective, shrewd hardball. LBJ was a bastard but he got things done.
Posted by notamused

Re: Barack Reagan

Gomez — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:17:51 -0700

Well, since needle exchange programs show a tacit acceptance for illegal heroin and methadone usage, I can sort of understand that. The needle exchange program was a fucked up idea to begin with: Here, let's help gay men use addictive illegal, deadly, addictive, body and life destroying narcotics without worrying about getting HIV from needle swapping. What.

You're losing your mind, Dan. These posts are making less and less sense.
Posted by Gomez

Re: Barack Reagan

END DADT NOW — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:17:30 -0700

100% agreement with everyone above who appreciates Obama's desire to make these changes constitutionally, through the legislative process, rather than continuing the pseudo-monarchy of his predecessor.

Another advantage of making these changes via legislation, rather than declaration :If he did all these things via executive order, then it might score him some political points; but then he wouldn't have the agitators and activists pressuring Congress to make the changes permanent. Anything done via executive order can be canceled in a Wasilla minute come 2013 or 2017.

Keep the pressure on Obama, Dan -- but put triple the pressure on Congress.
Posted by END DADT NOW

Re: Barack Reagan

keshmeshi — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:08:38 -0700

The president is the dictator, and don't you forget it.

Aravosis is a lawyer, huh? No wonder he's spends his time writing a blog rather than practicing.
Posted by keshmeshi