Forums | MacLife

There are some things he could do while expending very little political capital. The majority of the public no longer supports DADT. Obama could halt the discharging of service men and women under DADT with a stroke of a pen - he refuses to. Hopefully he'll sign ENDA - that has public support too. We are a small portion of the population that is true. It is also true that there are other issues going on. But I suppose if Obama would handle ENDA or civil unions in the way he's handled health care, we're better off waiting for the next President. At this rate he'd start out with "civil unions" are bargain us down to a status with no real legal rights. It's also not as if any of these crises were sprung upon him at the last minute. He knew about these things during the campaign. If that's the case, why promise to be a fierce advocate (his words) for the LBGT community if he had no intention of following through? Oh right, I remember - campaign contributions.

I'm disappointed with Obama and not just over LBGT issues. But many progressives of all sexual orientations are disappointed with him too. I hope health care reform in its current form fails because it's worse than the status quo. LBJ didn't fret over "bipartisanship" - he knew he was going to have strong opposition and was ready for a fight. Obama runs from a fight. The Democrats are fractured and can't come together on anything. The corporate interests have wised up and started funneling money to them. They've become corrupted - including Obama. The whole party is a huge disappointment. The only reason many of us vote Democrat is because they're better than letting the GOP run roughshod over the Constitution - the only reason. There are no reasons to vote for Obama and the Democrats because they won't stand for anything.

It appears infectious as the rest of the world is so happy to see Bush II gone, the Nobel Committee decided to give him a Nobel Prize for... um... well...

Andrew Sullivan:

In some ways, Obama's fealty to the big gay lobby rather than to the real gay community is testimony to why Democratic party politics remain repulsive to me. HRC has achieved nothing substantive for gay equality on a federal level in the twenty years I've been observing them. But they sure know how to milk donors at swanky black tie affairs. They are the Rotary Club for affluent gays, and their prime job is to explain to the gay community why it is never in the Democratic party's interest to do anything for gay people that might actually resemble equality. Oh, yes, we'll get a lovely Obama speech. Like that costs him anything or proves anything.
There is nothing Obama can say at this self-satisfied, well-heeled Rotary Club dinner that he hasn't said before. And the idea that simply showing up is something we should all be ecstatic over and grateful for is another sign of the low self-esteem and lack of self-respect among the leaders of that organization who did all they could to defeat Obama in the primaries last spring. I won't be there and haven't been there for more than a decade. It is not a forum to advance gay rights; it is a fundraising session designed to make people feel better for backing an organization incapable of passing laws supported by overwhelming majorities of the American people. Oh, and fawning over B-list Hollywood celebrities.
If Obama wants to support gay equality, he knows what to do. If Pelosi and Reid want to support gay equality, they know what to do. If HRC believes in gay equality, they also know what to do.
So spare us the schmoozing and the sweet-talking and do it. Until then, Mr president, why don't you have a nice steaming cup of shut-the-smurf-up?

I wonder... who hurt gay rights more - Clinton or W?

robco wrote:

I'm disappointed with Obama and not just over LBGT issues.

I have noticed.

But many progressives of all sexual orientations are disappointed with him too.

Hopes got so high during the campaign, I've a hunch some expected the world would be all better forever and the proverbial Millenium would arrive almost as a consequence of the end of the Reagan, Bush 1/2, and Clinton/Gingrich compromise years. Even res and kev bought into the hope, and the comedown to what any one man can achieve in DC, especially in a few months while dealing with a Pandora's Box of hurt, has been more painful & disillusioning to some than others. I can wish for more, but have perhaps adjusted to coming back to Earth better than some. Nearly a year on, I'm still trying to get a broken tooth dealt with, after 18 months the FDA is still sitting on ruling on the first treatment for my condition; yet... the recession still seems to be abating with no global meltdown and the Middle East et al are being dealt with without either Gog/Magog or all-night pizza-fed policy wonk sessions in play, so I figure adults are there for a change. Could be worse.

[It appears infectious as the rest of the world is so happy to see Bush II gone, the Nobel Committee decided to give him a Nobel Prize for... um... well...

Rather speaks to my point, especially as perception.

There are some things he could do while expending very little political capital.

I am not as well versed on some of this as might be, but would support any measures on these lines. He is spread very thin and only has the same 24 hour days as the rest of us, but perhaps he could use a reminder nudge here. No one, certainly not I, claim he's anywhere near perfect or doing absolutely all that might be. He's fallibly human, just more capable than most and as well intentioned as anyone reaching high office could be expected to be. I'll settle for that.

KHannon wrote:

I just think to myself sometimes, what would this country be like right now if George W. Bush had been elected by  a 7 point margin and had the congressional majority President Obama has now?  To me the thought a) frightens me and b) serves to highlight the total lack of anything from this administration so far.

Jesus, I didn't even think of that.

Although it's hard not to feel like he didn't need a big Republican majority, since the Dems could be guaranteed to cooperate.

I saw this and thought it was related enough to this thread to post…

It's almost as though a politician isn't willing to put his career at risk for 3% of the population. Oh yeah, democracy is the ultimate freedom!

freecat wrote:

It's almost as though a politician isn't willing to put his career at risk for 3% of the population. Oh yeah, democracy is the ultimate freedom!

Jews make up the same % of the population that gays do and look at the deal they get.

Don't forget the weapons, secret nuke program and massive financial aid to fight our enemies!  I think they should carve out some land in Utah for the gays and just see what happens.

What about France?

:: keeps an eye out for the AntiQueen ::

So I just read that the DC Capitol Police estimated today's National Equality March to be 150,000 (organizers claim 200K so slice that how you want).  Still, this event was not particularly well organized and it was thrown together somewhat quickly compared to similar marches in the 90's, yet they still managed to attract more than twice that of the 9/12 Tea Party.  Of course, this march wasn't incessantly promoted for weeks by a major cable news channel either, nor was it covered today to the extent that the 9/12 event was by all of the other "liberal media" outlets.

Anyway, this says a lot -- both about how news covers gay events and exactly how "powerful" the teabaggers are.

To the extent that it is politically expedient for his own interests, Obama may care about gays as long as it is not too inconvenient to him.

Like all other politicians, he is a politician.

Last edited by Steves Web Hosting (2009-10-12 1:45 pm)