Slog
News & ArtsMonday, May 17, 2010
Homo Required Reading: Americablog Rips Apart Obama's Gay Rights "Accomplishments"
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, May 17, 2010 at 8:49 PM
Required reading—and pretty hysterical reading too. And sad. And pathetic. And, of course, required.
2
I got halfway through it and remembered why I stopped reading Aravosis a long time ago. Most of it was just "words mean nothing" (when in fact they usually do). The one substantive point (State Dept. benefits were already there and Obama LIED about extending them) is just a self-serving version of the events. What really happened, as far I can see, is that a manager at some point interpreted the existing rules to allow a dyke to take medical leave to tend to her partner. So, what the extension of that benefit did was to take the kindness out of that, and put the entitlement to that benefit in writing, rather than in the interpretation of your manager. That's not a lie.
God that dude's an asshole. Seriously Dan, I generally like you a lot, but I don't understand why you bother with him.
God that dude's an asshole. Seriously Dan, I generally like you a lot, but I don't understand why you bother with him.
4
I've got to agree with #2. That was surprisingly bad. Almost a third of the responses were either "good" or, my favorite, "it's tricky."
Should the LGBT folks be any more impatient with Obama than the labor folks? Or the Greens for that matter?
Obama isn't FDR or LBJ. He's Ike. A little more patience among progressives is likely to go a long way.
Should the LGBT folks be any more impatient with Obama than the labor folks? Or the Greens for that matter?
Obama isn't FDR or LBJ. He's Ike. A little more patience among progressives is likely to go a long way.
5
Agree with #2 and #4. Aravosis is a transphobic loudmouth attack poodle who doesn't understand anything about getting legislation passed.
7
Yeeep, that was not worth reading, and now I am hesitant to believe you when you say required, Dan. Also, Obama is the shit at biding his time. He saves up political capital like my depression era grandparents save their toilet paper, and then makes his move at just the right time.
I know there's no excuse for the current state of affairs, but slipping big changes past the crazy fundies takes finesse and strategery.
I know there's no excuse for the current state of affairs, but slipping big changes past the crazy fundies takes finesse and strategery.
8
I gave up on John Aravosis and his cult of professional victim ditto queens ages ago. You can do much better, Dan...
9
have to agree with the previous comments. obama isn't perfect, but he's a great president. even acknowledging lgbt is politically risky and he's really got a lot on his plate right now. remember that our last democratic president was the one who gave us this doma nonsense, so this is certainly a step in the right direction. we need to concentrate on gaining marriage and other rights state by state and be glad we're not working with mccain/palin. we'll get there.
10
I can never decide who's more disgustingly smug and convinced they're right on every fucking topic - Aravosis/Sudbay or Sullivan.
11
I can never decide who's more disgustingly smug and convinced they're right on every fucking topic - Aravosis/Sudbay or Sullivan.
12
I kept reading "That's Good" over and over again... funny how he glosses over accomplishments to suit his argument. Sure the big ones like DADT, DOMA, and ENDA haven't progressed, but there has been SOME headway.
13
Dudes, civil rights movements take time. I know it sucks, I know it's hard, I know it isn't fair and is unjust but you have to move slowly. Obama is working to humanize and encourage understanding with broader American. They're small steps but they're in the right direction. You want them on your side not just grinning and bearing it.
14
Civil Rights take time. I've heard this argument over and over and over again.
1865: Blacks freed from slavery.
1964: Civil Rights Act passed to end segregation and discrimination.
So let's all just stop complaining and just wait another 99 years. *eye roll*
Remember the words of Ghandi "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Letting Obama get a free pass for his failings, and you'll see no change at all.
1865: Blacks freed from slavery.
1964: Civil Rights Act passed to end segregation and discrimination.
So let's all just stop complaining and just wait another 99 years. *eye roll*
Remember the words of Ghandi "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Letting Obama get a free pass for his failings, and you'll see no change at all.
15
tl;dr
Well, I did actually read most of it, and I agree with the big point of "words can actually be meaningful and important". A lot of it was just nitpicking.
Well, I did actually read most of it, and I agree with the big point of "words can actually be meaningful and important". A lot of it was just nitpicking.
16
You don't need Aravosis's bad commentary to see the issue though. Including a bunch of non-accomplishments, and accomplishments that can't even be attributed to him makes Obama look weaker on the subject, not stronger. A lot of these are pathetically grasping at straws, especially the sotomeyer appointment. Mccain as president (defeating mccain was the voting public's accomplishment, not obamas) would have chosen conservatives, but obama has a more liberal agenda and would have picked a liberal scotus anyway, therefore this is a gay accomplishment? Thats the opposite of making a move for the gays, thats the gays getting lucky that he has a liberal agenda on other subjects to push.
In my opinion when you have to reach that hard to make a case for a gay accomplishment, it makes you sound like you're doing nothing.
In my opinion when you have to reach that hard to make a case for a gay accomplishment, it makes you sound like you're doing nothing.
17
I'm happy with Obama and I'll not nit pick the value of every decision. Can he do more? Yes, and he will.
18
Is it true -- Dan's an Obama apologist, and probably and HRC supporter, too? Barack the Backslider has done NOTHING of substance or significance to advance full civil rights for GLBT people - period, and is started with Rick Warren.
In fact, his administration the DOJ has done real harm in defending DOMA and DADT. Don't even get me started on Health Care and Financial Reform.
Yep, it's hard to face betrayal, whether calculated and willful; or just plain incompetent bungling.
I'm so tired of hearing "his plate is too full" - like somehow it's acceptable to wait for full civil equality for another 20 years. He knew what he was facing and so he should get a bigger plate.
In fact, his administration the DOJ has done real harm in defending DOMA and DADT. Don't even get me started on Health Care and Financial Reform.
Yep, it's hard to face betrayal, whether calculated and willful; or just plain incompetent bungling.
I'm so tired of hearing "his plate is too full" - like somehow it's acceptable to wait for full civil equality for another 20 years. He knew what he was facing and so he should get a bigger plate.
19
Wow are you people high. So tell me when is the great Obama going to get around to all the important things. The Democrats are about to get their asses handed to them in the midterm. That political capital will do not good then. You people are truly delusional. Explain to me how anything happens after the mid-term election.
21
I've never understood the lackeys on the left (many of whom are on Slog) who just will bend over backwards saying the Obama (and before him Clinton) were such great Presidents. Seriously, what makes Obama great? Lackluster healthcare reform brought to you by the insurance industry, upcoming financial reform sponsored by Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch, Obama's dithering on pushing to repeal DADT?, Obama’s increase of the war in Afghanistan and we won't mention that we are still in Iraq?
Seriously, he has turned out to be nominally better than McCain and frankly Obama has kept up most of the Bush administration's policies.
Wake the fuck up already!!
But in regards to this article it was pretty lackluster.
Seriously, he has turned out to be nominally better than McCain and frankly Obama has kept up most of the Bush administration's policies.
Wake the fuck up already!!
But in regards to this article it was pretty lackluster.
22
@14
"1865: Blacks freed from slavery.
1964: Civil Rights Act passed to end segregation and discrimination."
And they all lived happily ever after! As if the struggles of black people in America started with the end of slavery and ended in 1964.
Name one other socio/ethnic minority who did not have to struggle for full societal inclusion.
Not that anyone really should have to, but hey, maybe if the gay community hadn't rolled over and played dead with Bill Clinton for all those years we would have more influence.
"1865: Blacks freed from slavery.
1964: Civil Rights Act passed to end segregation and discrimination."
And they all lived happily ever after! As if the struggles of black people in America started with the end of slavery and ended in 1964.
Name one other socio/ethnic minority who did not have to struggle for full societal inclusion.
Not that anyone really should have to, but hey, maybe if the gay community hadn't rolled over and played dead with Bill Clinton for all those years we would have more influence.
23
@22 you missed my point, allow me to clarify.
My point was, that if we just sit on our hands and say "civil rights takes time", then we WILL be waiting for the better part of a century for our turn. And you're right that other minority groups had to struggle for societal inclusion, I'm just saying we shouldn't just sit back and do nothing while we wait for Obama to wake up.
My point was, that if we just sit on our hands and say "civil rights takes time", then we WILL be waiting for the better part of a century for our turn. And you're right that other minority groups had to struggle for societal inclusion, I'm just saying we shouldn't just sit back and do nothing while we wait for Obama to wake up.
25
Obama is a one-term loser who threw GLBT under the bus before he even laid his hand on the bible. ECB was right. Shoulda been Hillary. The DNC isn't getting another dime from me till we get substantive action.
26
History tells us that equality is a long struggle and that it takes time for minorities to become included in society. To me, this means that we must make the most of the time we are given, that despite the setbacks we must always press forward and not rest with the idea that someone else will take the charge. I agree with Ghandi, that in order to see change we must be willing to be that change.
27
Politics is the art of the possible.
Maybe the Democrats aren't going at it with the nerve and gusto that their liberal supporters would like to see. But note -- it's not only gays. It's any liberal group. See how much it took to simply get health care through?
America is now a country deeply divided. Maybe it is slowly becoming more liberal -- let's hope so -- but we live in today, not in tomorrow. Trying to get big change done in this climate is not only dangerous, it's an open invitation to losing the next election and then seeing all the changes reverted by the next conservative administration.
I don't understand why this is so -- America seems to be growing more conservative, to judge by the popularity of things like the Teabag movement. Where is the liberal counterpart of that? Where are the big, 60's-style groups of liberal activists demanding things? Why are the conservatives now living their Woodstock, while liberals merely tsk-tsk them?
In such a climate, can you honestly say you're surprised? Even if Obama is a big liberal at heart, do you really think he could have done much more and not risked losing the next election -- and whatever progress he may have gotten? (And with all the LITTLE he has done, he still gets branded as a socialist who wants to turn the USA into the USSR... Just imagine if he more.)
As someone else said -- would McCain have done more, or less? Would any Republican president (especially in today's climate) have done more, or less?
That's always the point in politics. Which is the least bad option? Not -- the option which will give you what you want (since these usually don't have a hope in hell of getting many votes), but the option that gives you (slightly) more rather than (slightly) less?
More...
Maybe the Democrats aren't going at it with the nerve and gusto that their liberal supporters would like to see. But note -- it's not only gays. It's any liberal group. See how much it took to simply get health care through?
America is now a country deeply divided. Maybe it is slowly becoming more liberal -- let's hope so -- but we live in today, not in tomorrow. Trying to get big change done in this climate is not only dangerous, it's an open invitation to losing the next election and then seeing all the changes reverted by the next conservative administration.
I don't understand why this is so -- America seems to be growing more conservative, to judge by the popularity of things like the Teabag movement. Where is the liberal counterpart of that? Where are the big, 60's-style groups of liberal activists demanding things? Why are the conservatives now living their Woodstock, while liberals merely tsk-tsk them?
In such a climate, can you honestly say you're surprised? Even if Obama is a big liberal at heart, do you really think he could have done much more and not risked losing the next election -- and whatever progress he may have gotten? (And with all the LITTLE he has done, he still gets branded as a socialist who wants to turn the USA into the USSR... Just imagine if he more.)
As someone else said -- would McCain have done more, or less? Would any Republican president (especially in today's climate) have done more, or less?
That's always the point in politics. Which is the least bad option? Not -- the option which will give you what you want (since these usually don't have a hope in hell of getting many votes), but the option that gives you (slightly) more rather than (slightly) less?
28
27
America is moving Right because Liberal Socialist policies are proven failures.
From Seattle to California to Greece generous social spending/high tax welfare states are collapsing.
America is moving Right because Liberal Socialist policies are proven failures.
From Seattle to California to Greece generous social spending/high tax welfare states are collapsing.
29
@28, which is why Sweden, the most socialist nation in the world is doing fine?
And Greece isn't failing due to socialism. Nice try though.
And Greece isn't failing due to socialism. Nice try though.
30
Sweden fares badly in global economic report
Published: 7 Feb 10 09:42 CET
Updated: 7 Feb 10 10:23 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/24836/20100207/
"Swedish citizens have fared badly compared to other developed nations during the deepest depression since the 1930s.
"The prognosis comes from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It is regarded as one of the world’s largest and most comprehensive sources of economic data.
"Sweden together with Finland falls at the bottom of their table, excepting even more troubled Western economies–such as Iceland and Ireland. The report stated that living standards in Sweden have dropped 4% since 2007, Sveriges Radio reports.
"Countries such as the US, Australia, and Canada pulled ahead, said the OECD.
"Their report is based on purchasing power parities in relationship to Gross National Product (GNP). Price levels have also been taken into account.
"In a report three months earlier, the OECD stated that “the Swedish economy has experienced a deep contraction, triggered by the global economic crisis. A gradual recovery has started, but economic slack is very large, and unemployment will continue for some time.”
Published: 7 Feb 10 09:42 CET
Updated: 7 Feb 10 10:23 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/24836/20100207/
"Swedish citizens have fared badly compared to other developed nations during the deepest depression since the 1930s.
"The prognosis comes from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It is regarded as one of the world’s largest and most comprehensive sources of economic data.
"Sweden together with Finland falls at the bottom of their table, excepting even more troubled Western economies–such as Iceland and Ireland. The report stated that living standards in Sweden have dropped 4% since 2007, Sveriges Radio reports.
"Countries such as the US, Australia, and Canada pulled ahead, said the OECD.
"Their report is based on purchasing power parities in relationship to Gross National Product (GNP). Price levels have also been taken into account.
"In a report three months earlier, the OECD stated that “the Swedish economy has experienced a deep contraction, triggered by the global economic crisis. A gradual recovery has started, but economic slack is very large, and unemployment will continue for some time.”
32
"Hysterical", "sad", "pathetic" are all apt descriptors of Aravosis and his silly blog.
Gonna have to disagree with "required" though.
Gonna have to disagree with "required" though.
33
@29, Unfortunately, 30 is correct about Sweden's economic issues. I thought they were doing just fine too when I started living here, but their economic policies simply haven't been working.
That said, their policies are completely deregulated (a la Reaganomics) when it comes to business. It has little to do with "socialism" and more to do with businesses screwing people over and exporting jobs, just like in the USA. The taxes and infrastructure are not the problem in this case. The US can learn a lot from Sweden.
That said, their policies are completely deregulated (a la Reaganomics) when it comes to business. It has little to do with "socialism" and more to do with businesses screwing people over and exporting jobs, just like in the USA. The taxes and infrastructure are not the problem in this case. The US can learn a lot from Sweden.
35
@14 Exactly! When Ghandi said, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world", he totally meant that he was going to sit around and wait for Obama to come along and fix it for him (and perhaps a light lunch, Ghandi was a tad hungry by that point).
It's funny when people get all dismissive of words, in light of the actual definition of advocate (fierce or otherwise).
It's also interesting that #10 was minimized as perhaps Hillary's doing, while #7 makes it sound like the DOMA brief was written personally by Obama (instead of a Bush appointee).
I'm sure that a lot of the most conspicuous voices claiming they'll stop supporting Obama and Democrats in general because not enough has been accomplished in securing equal rights and protections, represent a very small amount of actual dollars or support given up to this point. Still, I think it is important to remind ourselves that you change the direction of a party best by pushing from the inside and that there is a clear difference in support between the two parties.
Ultimately, we must hold Obama to his promises, but I think that looks a lot more like LT Choi, than in letting the Democrats loose their legislative majorities. It's not time to stand back an bitch, it's time to get out and push.
It's funny when people get all dismissive of words, in light of the actual definition of advocate (fierce or otherwise).
It's also interesting that #10 was minimized as perhaps Hillary's doing, while #7 makes it sound like the DOMA brief was written personally by Obama (instead of a Bush appointee).
I'm sure that a lot of the most conspicuous voices claiming they'll stop supporting Obama and Democrats in general because not enough has been accomplished in securing equal rights and protections, represent a very small amount of actual dollars or support given up to this point. Still, I think it is important to remind ourselves that you change the direction of a party best by pushing from the inside and that there is a clear difference in support between the two parties.
Ultimately, we must hold Obama to his promises, but I think that looks a lot more like LT Choi, than in letting the Democrats loose their legislative majorities. It's not time to stand back an bitch, it's time to get out and push.
36
I thought that was a concise Cliff's Notes for those of us who don't have the inclination to research every one of the points that Tobias made.
Who gives a shit how bitchy Aravosis is? If what he says is true, then there are others out there who believe Tobias' list and are ready to stop fighting because they think Obama is doing all he can do.
Who gives a shit how bitchy Aravosis is? If what he says is true, then there are others out there who believe Tobias' list and are ready to stop fighting because they think Obama is doing all he can do.
37
There are two parties in this country. One is perceived by some (partly through the exaggerated screeds of the other) as actively hostile to gay people. The other depends on that (exaggerated) perception of the hostility of its opponents to lock in support from GLBT people because they see we have nowhere else to turn. For decades the Democrats have taken our time, money and votes for granted, promising the merest scraps in return.
The Democratic establishment has a vested interest in NOT pushing any of the major gay rights initiatives. They certainly don't want ALL of them to pass. Why? Because then gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender donors and voters would no longer be beholden to the Democratic Party.
Gratitude is a short-lived commodity in the political arena. If the Democrats actually delivered on their commitments, they might keep their lock on gay money and votes for a couple of election cycles, but then who knows? By providing minor and incremental improvements to our condition as second-class citizens, the party leadership thinks it can keep the gay cash and votes flowing exclusively to the Democrats.
From a purely pragmatic perspective its savvy and nearly cost-free. The gays are getting restless? Appoint an ambassador to Luxembourg or Samoa. Gee, maybe next time we might even get Andorra. Or Monaco. Monaco would be fabulous because, ya know, Grace Kelly was princess there and the homos love actresses and royalty -- it's a fuckin' twofer. So what if she's been dead for since Reagan's first term. The gays are nothing if not loyal and it'll shut'em up for another election cycle.
Thirty years of being taken for granted in an abusive relationship is enough. Until DADT, ENDA and full marriage equality are the law of the land, then Democrats should not get another dime or minute of our time.
More...
The Democratic establishment has a vested interest in NOT pushing any of the major gay rights initiatives. They certainly don't want ALL of them to pass. Why? Because then gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender donors and voters would no longer be beholden to the Democratic Party.
Gratitude is a short-lived commodity in the political arena. If the Democrats actually delivered on their commitments, they might keep their lock on gay money and votes for a couple of election cycles, but then who knows? By providing minor and incremental improvements to our condition as second-class citizens, the party leadership thinks it can keep the gay cash and votes flowing exclusively to the Democrats.
From a purely pragmatic perspective its savvy and nearly cost-free. The gays are getting restless? Appoint an ambassador to Luxembourg or Samoa. Gee, maybe next time we might even get Andorra. Or Monaco. Monaco would be fabulous because, ya know, Grace Kelly was princess there and the homos love actresses and royalty -- it's a fuckin' twofer. So what if she's been dead for since Reagan's first term. The gays are nothing if not loyal and it'll shut'em up for another election cycle.
Thirty years of being taken for granted in an abusive relationship is enough. Until DADT, ENDA and full marriage equality are the law of the land, then Democrats should not get another dime or minute of our time.
38
Again I have not heard one of you Obamabots explain to me how he is going to help the GLBT later when the Democrats are going to get their butts handed to them in the mid-terms. Bueller?? Bueller??
39
Obama's Jeckyll and Hyde act is getting old. Too old for him to have NOT been called out for only TALKING Democratic; but, ACTING Republican. He can no longer be believed.
Obama talks environment and acts to increase off-shore drilling. Obama Talks gay equality but acts to limit their rights. Obama talks ending wars but acts to increase the war budget. Obama talks ending extraordinary rendition but acts to increase it. Obama talks exiting Guantamino but acts to keep it. Obama talks public-option healthcare but acts to strip it out of the bill. Obama talks women rights but acts to support additional abortion limitations.
How many acts against his voters will it take for the public to realize that Dr. jeckyll is truly Mr. Hyde? Ask Barnum; I understand there is a sucker....
Obama talks environment and acts to increase off-shore drilling. Obama Talks gay equality but acts to limit their rights. Obama talks ending wars but acts to increase the war budget. Obama talks ending extraordinary rendition but acts to increase it. Obama talks exiting Guantamino but acts to keep it. Obama talks public-option healthcare but acts to strip it out of the bill. Obama talks women rights but acts to support additional abortion limitations.
How many acts against his voters will it take for the public to realize that Dr. jeckyll is truly Mr. Hyde? Ask Barnum; I understand there is a sucker....
40
The problem is what Aravosis says is so slanted that only a little bit of truth slips in. I think he lost his mind somewhere around June of last year, when he started claiming stuff like "Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights" - and then tried to suggest that the president is putting gay marriage on the same plank as incest and pedophilia.
41
Do some of the (uneducated) posters here think that Gays just popped into the landscape this Century? No, gays were imprisoned, tortured and "studied" by the Nazi's in the 1940's. All the way back to Roman times, Gays were second-class citizens (eunuchs or lion fodder). How about that old-fashioned Pope and his torture singalongs featuring extreme Christian persecution? Gays were enslaved with other minorities in Egyptian times and before. How long must a group, inherent in the human condition, be held as second or third-class?
Obama proved himself to be Religious Bigot when he said that he opposed gay-marriage because, "God is in the mix!" Fact is, marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. To deny equality because "God is in the mix" is to endorse Religious Bigotry above the Bill of Rights. He may as well scream "I got mine, screw you!" because the Bible also endorsed slavery.
Your reader's brand of "be patient, wait and see - it's only been 3,000 years" is both uneducated and very likely just another bunch of bigots wanting to feel superior. Sorry, step down from your self-appointed perches. Bigots are the only ones deserving of second-class status. Seattle's cup is brimming.
Obama proved himself to be Religious Bigot when he said that he opposed gay-marriage because, "God is in the mix!" Fact is, marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. To deny equality because "God is in the mix" is to endorse Religious Bigotry above the Bill of Rights. He may as well scream "I got mine, screw you!" because the Bible also endorsed slavery.
Your reader's brand of "be patient, wait and see - it's only been 3,000 years" is both uneducated and very likely just another bunch of bigots wanting to feel superior. Sorry, step down from your self-appointed perches. Bigots are the only ones deserving of second-class status. Seattle's cup is brimming.
42
@38 Are the Democrats are going to get their butts handed to them in the mid-terms? I know that's what FOX and the EIB Networks are saying, and I know that historically in midterms blah blah blah..., and it's obvious that there are a lot of disaffected dems (mostly because of inaction in ending The War, healthcare, and gay rights by a Democratic party with a huge, never gonna happen again majority)
BUT on the republican side I see a deeply divided party coming apart at the seams that is bearing it's hypocrisy, homophobia, racism, and general hatred of freedom. The Tea Party is all hot air and the Republicans have nothing to run on.
If the Democrats do lose The House or the Senate it's because they gave up a long time ago and they have only themselves to blame.
That said i totally agree, even with another 6 years where is the confidence that Barak "god is in the mix" Obama is ever going to do anything about gay rights coming from?
@39 Has there EVER been a different kind of Democrat? If so, who?
@40 That comes straight from the Obama Justice Department brief from last year- that's not a "suggestion" that's what The President said (by proxy) look it up.
BUT on the republican side I see a deeply divided party coming apart at the seams that is bearing it's hypocrisy, homophobia, racism, and general hatred of freedom. The Tea Party is all hot air and the Republicans have nothing to run on.
If the Democrats do lose The House or the Senate it's because they gave up a long time ago and they have only themselves to blame.
That said i totally agree, even with another 6 years where is the confidence that Barak "god is in the mix" Obama is ever going to do anything about gay rights coming from?
@39 Has there EVER been a different kind of Democrat? If so, who?
@40 That comes straight from the Obama Justice Department brief from last year- that's not a "suggestion" that's what The President said (by proxy) look it up.
43
Look, after nearly eight years of the hideous disaster of the Bush Administration, we were desperate to vote for someone who made a direct appeal to our community, which Obama did during the campaign, to his credit.
His presidency, however, has been a series of failures and missed opportunities w/r/t the GLBT community. The DOMA briefs and killing DADT repeal--it was Sec Def Gates, in the Pentagon, with the typewriter, btw--while making no significant gains for us show that the president and congressional Dems really don't give a shit about us one way or another. To continue to support them without demanding anything in return isn't just foolish, it's downright stupid, and it's what they're counting on.
I've voted Dem all my life, and I'm finished with them at the federal level if they don't start producing results pronto.
His presidency, however, has been a series of failures and missed opportunities w/r/t the GLBT community. The DOMA briefs and killing DADT repeal--it was Sec Def Gates, in the Pentagon, with the typewriter, btw--while making no significant gains for us show that the president and congressional Dems really don't give a shit about us one way or another. To continue to support them without demanding anything in return isn't just foolish, it's downright stupid, and it's what they're counting on.
I've voted Dem all my life, and I'm finished with them at the federal level if they don't start producing results pronto.
44
And the ad hominem attacks on John Aravosis without actually addressing Obama's failures and backstabbing are really dishonest and intellectually lazy.
You might try pointing to Obama's record of accomplishments, but it's pathetically thin, borderline pandering.
We really need a FAQ.
You might try pointing to Obama's record of accomplishments, but it's pathetically thin, borderline pandering.
We really need a FAQ.
45
Douglass,
The Obama Justice Department, argued by Scott Simpson in 3 different cases as recent as May 2010, put forth the argument that GLBT Americans deserve only "rational basis" protections - the same constitutional basis as pedophiles and child molesters. In non-lawyerly words, it means the Obama Justice Department wishes to group LGBT Americans with groups that deserve no constitutional protection. Now do you see how Obama is Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde?
The Obama Justice Department, argued by Scott Simpson in 3 different cases as recent as May 2010, put forth the argument that GLBT Americans deserve only "rational basis" protections - the same constitutional basis as pedophiles and child molesters. In non-lawyerly words, it means the Obama Justice Department wishes to group LGBT Americans with groups that deserve no constitutional protection. Now do you see how Obama is Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde?
46
Rose,
Alan Grayson today is a good Democrat. Look back to the pre-Reagan era when the Fairness Doctrine balanced ignorance in the media and you saw many, many progressives. Today, we only have the intertubes - the all conservative (almost) all the time, bought and paid-for media is for sale to the highest bidder. The vast majority of voters think TV News is actually news. In reality, it's mostly framing of conventional wisdom.
Say it with me...God Bless the Intertubes!
Alan Grayson today is a good Democrat. Look back to the pre-Reagan era when the Fairness Doctrine balanced ignorance in the media and you saw many, many progressives. Today, we only have the intertubes - the all conservative (almost) all the time, bought and paid-for media is for sale to the highest bidder. The vast majority of voters think TV News is actually news. In reality, it's mostly framing of conventional wisdom.
Say it with me...God Bless the Intertubes!
47
I agree Dan could have done better. Every time Aravosis repeats that "incest and pedophilia DOMA brief" meme, he loses credibility.
48
Ronbo,
You must have read that on americablog. Here's from the NYT this month:
"Scott Simpson, arguing for the government on Thursday, opened by acknowledging the administration’s opposition to the act, but saying he was still obliged to defend its constitutionality.
“This presidential administration disagrees with DOMA as a matter of policy,” Mr. Simpson said. “But that does not affect its constitutionality.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/us/07d…
How on earth do you go from 3 DOJ briefs to: "Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights" and all the other over the top things Aravosis has said lately? I think he's giving a whole new definition to the word "defeatocrat"...
You must have read that on americablog. Here's from the NYT this month:
"Scott Simpson, arguing for the government on Thursday, opened by acknowledging the administration’s opposition to the act, but saying he was still obliged to defend its constitutionality.
“This presidential administration disagrees with DOMA as a matter of policy,” Mr. Simpson said. “But that does not affect its constitutionality.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/us/07d…
How on earth do you go from 3 DOJ briefs to: "Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights" and all the other over the top things Aravosis has said lately? I think he's giving a whole new definition to the word "defeatocrat"...
49
It's all about the money that the government would have to begin shelling out to provide the benefits to people that they don't have to shell out now.
50
Douglass,
If you understand the classification of "rational basis", then you get it. The 3 DOJ briefs argue to set the constitutional protection for GLBT Americans at "rational basis". "Rational Basis" is the lowest level of protection under the law - same as for child molesters, etc.... That, Douglass, is NOT what any DOJ Lawyer is "obliged to defend".
If you are a bigot Douglass, be a proud bigot. Don't hide behind name calling like ... Defeatocrat.
If you understand the classification of "rational basis", then you get it. The 3 DOJ briefs argue to set the constitutional protection for GLBT Americans at "rational basis". "Rational Basis" is the lowest level of protection under the law - same as for child molesters, etc.... That, Douglass, is NOT what any DOJ Lawyer is "obliged to defend".
If you are a bigot Douglass, be a proud bigot. Don't hide behind name calling like ... Defeatocrat.
51
a bigot, huh? I think the kind of hyperbole put forth by americablog is doing more harm than good for LGBT causes. In less than a year's time, Aravosis flipped a full 180 on Obama and began declaring him an enemy - that may not be the classic definition of a "defeatocrat", but if you can't hold out for even 1 year in a new administration to see how things pan out...well, what else would you call it?
52
Douglass,
A rose by any other name would smell the same. I truly don't care if there is an (R) or (D) behind a candidates name...it's what they DO that matters. IMHO Nixon was the last great Progressive president. (EPA to Title X) Obama simply isn't engaging the Democratic platform. His actions support the Republican platform.
I've flipped on Obama. Over a third of his supporter have flipped. It's what he does that matters; NOT what he says. The mainstream media works hard at maintaining his image as a "Liberal". His actions seem more like Bush. Do Americans truly deserve their Miranda rights? That sounds like a Republican to me. How about you?
OK, you don't like AMERICAblog. What about Off-shore drilling... Miranda rights... the Public-Option. Etc....
Again, IF you are a bigot, be a proud bigot. Are you? I don't know! But, don't call yourself a "fierce supporter" while stabbing all GLBT Americans in the back saying "God is in the mix". A rose by any other name....
A rose by any other name would smell the same. I truly don't care if there is an (R) or (D) behind a candidates name...it's what they DO that matters. IMHO Nixon was the last great Progressive president. (EPA to Title X) Obama simply isn't engaging the Democratic platform. His actions support the Republican platform.
I've flipped on Obama. Over a third of his supporter have flipped. It's what he does that matters; NOT what he says. The mainstream media works hard at maintaining his image as a "Liberal". His actions seem more like Bush. Do Americans truly deserve their Miranda rights? That sounds like a Republican to me. How about you?
OK, you don't like AMERICAblog. What about Off-shore drilling... Miranda rights... the Public-Option. Etc....
Again, IF you are a bigot, be a proud bigot. Are you? I don't know! But, don't call yourself a "fierce supporter" while stabbing all GLBT Americans in the back saying "God is in the mix". A rose by any other name....
53
Ronbo, I'm not going to get into an asshole commenter of the day contest with you. If you can't see the forest for the trees, maybe you will by the end of this year. More progressive legislation will be passed during these two years than during any administration in decades, which makes me a proud Democrat.
54
Has the Obama issue done enough/everything/even MOST of what it should on Progressive issues (not just the gays)? No.
Has it already, in less than 2 years, done more Progressive legislation than any administration since LBJ? Yes.
Obama is not our therapist. He is not here to give us cathartic validation, but he is changing the whole shebang slowly if anyone would bother to see the forest through the trees. If you think a Republican will do better please vote for him or her. However, we just came off a 40 year era of Republican dominance of the terms of the debate when the only Dems electable were Southern Good Ole' Boys that were post-watergate "throw the bastards out" or won with 43% of the vote thanks to a 3rd Party candidate. You can't undo that in 18 months. Looking at this historically, I'm flabbergasted at what has been done in such a short period of time. It may not have had a cathatic, crying moment like the election night but that makes it no less valid.
Has it already, in less than 2 years, done more Progressive legislation than any administration since LBJ? Yes.
Obama is not our therapist. He is not here to give us cathartic validation, but he is changing the whole shebang slowly if anyone would bother to see the forest through the trees. If you think a Republican will do better please vote for him or her. However, we just came off a 40 year era of Republican dominance of the terms of the debate when the only Dems electable were Southern Good Ole' Boys that were post-watergate "throw the bastards out" or won with 43% of the vote thanks to a 3rd Party candidate. You can't undo that in 18 months. Looking at this historically, I'm flabbergasted at what has been done in such a short period of time. It may not have had a cathatic, crying moment like the election night but that makes it no less valid.
55
SpecialBrew,
My argument is that Obama isn't a Progressive at all! If you look at the legistation, it is far to the left of Richard M. Nixon. What concerns me is that we've been dumbed-down by the bought-and-paid-for media. For example: the succesful single-payer healthcare solution was taken off the table BEFORE negotiations began. Then President Obama offered up the "Public Option" without lobbying for it; it was dropped. Is mandating Americans to purchase health insurance from for-profit corporations (without price controls) considered Progressive?!?
Shoot me that list of progressive legislation. Show me what is to the left of Richard M. Nixon's creation of the EPA. Again, it's what they DO, NOT what they SAY.
Yes, we could lose electins by voting FOR the people who actually support our views in ACTION. A majority of the REPs and DEMs are merely two sides of the same token that is owned by the corporations. Corporate rule isn't democracy.
A clear majority of Americans support Progressive issues (from single-payer, to equality, to heavier environmental regulation, to climate change). Neither the REPs or DEMs will ultimatley support these issues. Supporting the DEMs is supporting the Status Quo - at least in the past 40 years.
Please post that list of everything that has been done in the past 18 months that is Progressively breathtaking. I'd like ammo to help energize the 30,000,000 Democrats who see Obama as "Same sh*t, different Prez"
Off-shore Drilling
Fewer Miranda Rights
Increased Military Budget
More illegal Drone killings
Increased War in Afghanistan
More Military Contractors in Iraq
More Bailouts for the Rich
No investigation of past illegal activities
Jobs bill that is actually a tax cut for the rich
Bipartisanship that ALWAYS favors conservatives
No Marriage Equality
"God is in the Mix" Religious Bigotry
Shifting the Supreme Court to the Right (replacing liberal judges with moderate judges)
That list is very, very long. I'd like the list of progressive issues. Sincerely, I would - no jackassery.
More...
My argument is that Obama isn't a Progressive at all! If you look at the legistation, it is far to the left of Richard M. Nixon. What concerns me is that we've been dumbed-down by the bought-and-paid-for media. For example: the succesful single-payer healthcare solution was taken off the table BEFORE negotiations began. Then President Obama offered up the "Public Option" without lobbying for it; it was dropped. Is mandating Americans to purchase health insurance from for-profit corporations (without price controls) considered Progressive?!?
Shoot me that list of progressive legislation. Show me what is to the left of Richard M. Nixon's creation of the EPA. Again, it's what they DO, NOT what they SAY.
Yes, we could lose electins by voting FOR the people who actually support our views in ACTION. A majority of the REPs and DEMs are merely two sides of the same token that is owned by the corporations. Corporate rule isn't democracy.
A clear majority of Americans support Progressive issues (from single-payer, to equality, to heavier environmental regulation, to climate change). Neither the REPs or DEMs will ultimatley support these issues. Supporting the DEMs is supporting the Status Quo - at least in the past 40 years.
Please post that list of everything that has been done in the past 18 months that is Progressively breathtaking. I'd like ammo to help energize the 30,000,000 Democrats who see Obama as "Same sh*t, different Prez"
Off-shore Drilling
Fewer Miranda Rights
Increased Military Budget
More illegal Drone killings
Increased War in Afghanistan
More Military Contractors in Iraq
More Bailouts for the Rich
No investigation of past illegal activities
Jobs bill that is actually a tax cut for the rich
Bipartisanship that ALWAYS favors conservatives
No Marriage Equality
"God is in the Mix" Religious Bigotry
Shifting the Supreme Court to the Right (replacing liberal judges with moderate judges)
That list is very, very long. I'd like the list of progressive issues. Sincerely, I would - no jackassery.
56
@5: "transphobic loudmouth attack poodle" is perhaps the most freakishly delightful phrase every strung together. i take my hat off to you, sir. and i don't even WEAR a fucking hat.
TOP DRAWER!
TOP DRAWER!
57
@ Ronbo - I'm not sure you understand what the rational basis test is. Yes, it's the lowest level of scrutiny available under due process challenges, but strict scrutiny pretty much only exists for race discrimination and alienage classifications. Whether that's misguided (and it is) is a separate issue, but saying that simply arguing for rational basis lumps gays and lesbians in with child molesters is just silly. Rational basis is also the standard used for disparate impact cases, people with disabilities, business regulations...the list goes on and on.
I think what you're getting at was the godawful DOMA brief, which argued that the government has a rational basis for discriminating against gays and lesbians in the SAME WAY as it does for outlawing pedophilia and incest. But the issue there isn't that the rational basis test was the standard applied - rather, arguing that discriminating against the LGBT population survives that test for the same reason that statutory rape laws survive the test is the awful part.
What you CAN (and should) argue is that strict scrutiny does not, and should not, apply when fundamental rights are at issue. With Loving v. Virginia on the books, it's pretty obvious that laws against gay marriage needs to be subject to some form of heightened scrutiny.
I'd argue that sexual orientation should get the same classification as gender discrimination - that is, intermediate scrutiny (because the Court has pretty much made clear that it's not going to create any new strict scrutiny categories). But to get that, we'd first need caselaw affirmatively establishing sexual minorities as a suspect class. That's a prerequisite. Again, it's ridiculous that sexual minorities aren't already a suspect class.
More...
I think what you're getting at was the godawful DOMA brief, which argued that the government has a rational basis for discriminating against gays and lesbians in the SAME WAY as it does for outlawing pedophilia and incest. But the issue there isn't that the rational basis test was the standard applied - rather, arguing that discriminating against the LGBT population survives that test for the same reason that statutory rape laws survive the test is the awful part.
What you CAN (and should) argue is that strict scrutiny does not, and should not, apply when fundamental rights are at issue. With Loving v. Virginia on the books, it's pretty obvious that laws against gay marriage needs to be subject to some form of heightened scrutiny.
I'd argue that sexual orientation should get the same classification as gender discrimination - that is, intermediate scrutiny (because the Court has pretty much made clear that it's not going to create any new strict scrutiny categories). But to get that, we'd first need caselaw affirmatively establishing sexual minorities as a suspect class. That's a prerequisite. Again, it's ridiculous that sexual minorities aren't already a suspect class.
58
I think a lot of the blame for the non-reversal of DOMA and DADT really falls on HRC & the National LGBTF. Also the DNC in DC has almost all Gay men working there - my best friend works there. The people in DC once they're in; they don't care about anything else but themselves. They system is corrupt and needs a radical change. As for Obama - he puts everything on Congress so he does not have to take any responsibility. Nothing will happen until we revolt - and that will never happen. So we're screwed.
.
.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (58) RSS