Sens. Joe Lieberman and Carl Levin, and Rep. Patrick Murphy, the Iraq veteran. These are the folks who will deserve your applause when Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is eventually repealed. But President Barack Obama? You can skip over him in the handshake line.
Realizing that activists — led by Servicemembers United and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, as well as, arguably, the grassroots efforts from GetEQUAL — had managed to push the DADT repeal front and center before lawmakers before the November mid-term elections, the White House this week invited everyone over to discuss how to move forward. Except the Obama administration already decided how things would proceed: with a compromise.
That compromise, which will be attached to the National Defense Authorization Act, includes three stunning concessions.
• The Pentagon will get to complete its 10-month repeal study. Though reasonable persons all branded this study as unnecessary and idiotic, the White House and Defense Department haven’t wavered in support for this foot-dragging measure. By allowing the study to finish before DADT is actually repealed, Obama and Defense Sec. Robert Gates save face — and lawmakers get to appear as having not crossed them. It also means the November elections will come and go, as the White House hoped, without DADT’s repeal actually taking place.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
• There will be no non-discrimination policy added to military code. While DADT will be repealed by Congress, it will not require the Pentagon to institute a policy that bans discrimination against gays and lesbians. Do you realize what this means? That even though soldiers will no longer be forced, under law, to stay in the closet, they can still be fired, or refused hiring, for being gay. This is atrocious.
• It’s Sec. Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen who have to sign off on DADT’s end. While Congress and the president will repeal the law, they will insert no actual timeline. Rather, the law will only stop being enforced once military leadership declare it is time. The entire point of repealing DADT via Congress — and not executive order, or Pentagon mandate — was to legislatively erase a stain on America’s lawbooks and military record. Instead, this compromise will give the right to end discrimination to appointed military leaders, not your elected officials. Repeat: The option over whether to continue discrimination against gay and lesbian heroes by forcing them to remain in the closet to keep their jobs — to instate Americans’ civil rights — is in the hands of the armed forces. While Gates may sign off on the repeal right after the study finishes is a moot point; he should not have the power to decide the timing.
In effect, even if Congress can muster the votes — still a big if, when you take into account Sen. Scott Brown (now a firm no) and his ilk — to repeal, and the president signs the bill into law, the timeline to grant gay soldiers their rights remains a post-Christmas reality. If that. Nancy Pelosi said DADT would be a memory by Christmas. Wrong; it’ll still very much be at the forefront of our minds.
It is correct to say the White House’s involvement as a step forward. But it is just that: a step. And a small gesture, much like Obama has provided to gay Americans since taking office. But Barack Obama is getting in the way of, not helping along, DADT’s repeal. It is his decisions, and agreements with the Pentagon, that is delaying and quite possibly imperiling DADT’s chances of repeal. His involvement now will let him say, in some State of the Union speech, or his re-election bid, that he helped end discrimination in the military.
He will be lying.
We will get this done, friends. DADT will end. It is a matter of when, not if. But President Barack Obama will deserve no credit for it.
whatever
Fuck you, queerty. You are just preaching to the Obama-hating hactivist choir now.
AndrewW
We don’t have the votes in the Senate – even with this silly compromise.
Senator Brown said NO this evening.
Senator Webb said NO this evening.
Senator Nelson said NO this evening.
They couldn’t wake up Senator Byrd, but he has always been a NO.
We don’t have 60 votes. This HRC compromise was a non-repeal “repeal,” but we still can’t get the votes.
Kevin
@whatever: Agreed. If this were 1948, Queerty would be booing Truman for not acting quickly enough. The military is a huge organization with a massive amount of inertia. When changes have to happen, they take time and forethought. You say that “reasonable people all agree” that the study is unnecessary, but I think we both know that by “reasonable people” you mean “me and all my friends.” You’ve blown the importance of yourselves and your clique way out of proportion.
The entire point of this study was to win over the pragmatists, the people who just want to be SURE that the negative repercussions won’t outweigh the benefits, and when it’s our national security at stake I think we owe them that. And now that the Democrats in Congress feel the need to act immediately, President Obama suggests a way forward that might, just MIGHT swing enough people to our side to get it passed, and you jump on him like he’s suddenly turned into some big homophobe. If (big if) this passes, it will be because of this bit of compromise. We’d all better hope it does because if it fails very few politicians will have the courage to touch it for a very long time. So get off his back. He RAN as a compromiser, as someone who would reach across the aisle, and he gets this shit when he makes a rather reasonable suggestion to one of your priorities.
AndrewW
Obama is a Pragmatist and therefore we shouldn’t expect him to take any risks. He will always do what he thinks he can get away with. This compromise was intended to look like progress, but even Republicans saw it as phony.
For Obama it isn’t about leadership as much as it is about survival, his – not ours.
AndrewW
@Kevin: This isn’t “compromise” – it is surrender. Total surrender. It is meaningless.
nyc08
“That even though soldiers will no longer be forced, under law, to stay in the closet, they can still be fired, or refused hiring, for being gay.”
WTF?!
Kevin
@AndrewW: This is exactly what I mean. We want the world. We are promised Pennsylvania. We get New Jersey. It’s fair to say we’ve been shortchanged a bit, but to say we’ve been betrayed is hyperbole. Meaningless, in your parlance.
The effect of this compromise is that we have to wait 10 months plus however long it takes Obama, Gates, and Mullen to certify that it won’t have a negative impact on our fighting forces. These 3 men have all indicated they support repeal, so it’s really just 10 or so months. DADT was implemented what, 17 years ago? Every day it lasts is one day too many, but if we can have it gone in 10 months versus having to wait until after the midterms if not after the next presidential election, well excuse me if that doesn’t feel meaningless to me.
Gridlock
@whatever: So which part of the article was untrue?
Right, none of it.
It’s not hating: it’s reality. Sorry if that conflicts with your perception of your BFF.
Kevin
@nyc08: Queerty is straight up wrong on that point. It’s true, there won’t be a federal law on the issue, but there are very specific military regulations which decide how soldiers can be separated. I’m absolutely certain that, once the study is complete, it will recommend changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice to ensure that gays and lesbians can serve openly without detriment.
Gridlock
@Kevin: 1) The study is already rigged, anti-gay hate groups are being consulted and the interviews of soldiers are proceeding at the most conservative, backwards bases possible. It’s being stacked with looney tunes.
2) The “study” has already been done about 15 times over the last 20 years or so, and they all say the same thing: it has no effect. There is no reason for this study except to DELAY DELAY DELAY and rig the outcome to be negative due to “unforseen difficulties” and other stupidities.
3) The study is meant to push this past midterms, when the Dems will have even LESS voting power due to losing the house or senate or enough votes to toss their already useless supermajority into the dumpster. Nothing will pass then.
So yes. This whole thing is one big kabuki dance of meaninglessness.
josh
And a lot of gays voted for Scott Brown! And he might kill DADT and ENDA.
The Republicans aren’t voting against repealing DADT because they view it as a phony…they are voting against it because most of them are against all gay rights laws and because they are voting against everything Obama is for.
Doesn’t Obama get any credit for the hate crimes bill or that directive banning hospitals from discriminating against gay couples in respect to visitation rights??
Obama may not be our fiercest advocate but he is still the most gay affirming president we have ever had.
Gridlock
@josh: Obama had nothing to do with the hate crimes bill beyond signing it. He expended NO political capital whatsoever.
The hospitals thing: also, no political capital was expended. It was the very LEAST that could be done with absolutely no blowback.
Gay affirming? His DOJ is defending DOMA and DADT in court, arguing that our relationships are akin to incestuous pedophiles and that we aren’t worthy of equality… and it’s not even obligated to do so, but it is anyway.
Everything Obama does concerning LGBT rights is 2 faced. If he does something that appears good, watch for the kick to the crotch soon after. It always happens.
AndrewW
@josh: Senator Scott Brown announced today, along with Senator Jim Webb (a Democrat), that they are NOT supporting this compromise. It’s over.
San Francisco Treat
WHO WRITES THIS SHIT? This is a recklessly INACCURATE policy analysis. The notion that anyone is going to be fired after the repeal for being gay is RIDICULOUS. How can you simultaneously argue that Obama is going to take credit for the repeal AND that he is still going to permit people being fired for being gay? The notion that appointees are going to “decide” whether to repeal is RIDICULOUS. The CONGRESS would be REPEALING DADT effective on the completion of the study and once CJCS Mullen and SecDef Gates say “the study said here’s how we will implement repeal and it’s going to be totally fine” and the POTUS says “ok cool.”
Whoever wrote this is full of SHIT.
The PRIMARY reason this is moving forward AT ALL is because the WHITE HOUSE gave the GREEN LIGHT.
Stop shitting on our allies. And PLEASE check your FACTS.
Kevin
@Kevin: 1) How exactly are you defining a conservative, backwards base? It’s not like bases draw their recruits from the countryside; Alabamans get sent to California and vice versa all the time. There might be some slight differences between bases depending on the exact mix of job specialties present but they’re all pretty much the same.
2) Academic studies of the effect policies like this have had on other countries and informal surveys are hardly the same, and even if they were, this study is specifically about recommending the process of repeal least harmful to military readiness, which, if we’re being honest, is something we SHOULD want to know, shouldn’t we?
3) Maybe so. I’m not going to fault politicians for playing politics. It’s what they do.
John (CA)
The House of Lords is vetoing everything again because they can’t get a quorum… or muster 60 votes… or break an individual’s secret “hold”… or get the magical unicorn to fly?
No, say it isn’t so.
They have only said no to around 300 pieces of legislation that Pelosi and company passed in this Congress. And they still have a few months of obfuscation, obstructionism, and laziness left. They will almost certainly set a record they themselves set in the last Congress.
The system is totally broken.
It is really time to start talking about reforming the Senate – an institution that has become aristocratic and undemocratic – as a body.
tjr101
Queerty as usual is full of bullshit. The only reason DADT is on any agenda for that matter is because of Obama stating he intends to repeal it. It took 5 years for the military to be desegregated after Truman’s executive order.
Instead of calling out the senators who will vote NO Queerty is attacking the president who intends to sign it with this piece of shit. The truth is Obama could completely drop repeal of DADT from any agenda during his term and it won’t hurt him or the Democrats one bit because this issue is not what concerns the rest of America. You guys are living in a bubble.
AndrewW
Tonight in San Francisco GetATTENTION embarrasses again:
“As happened during his fundraisers for Boxer last month, Obama was interrupted by a protester demanding he “move faster” to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that bars gays from serving openly in the military. Obama said next time, the protester should buy a ticket for an event with a politician who doesn’t support the repeal.”
How long do we have to endure these childish stunts?
http://cbs5.com/politics/obama.boxer.fundraising.2.1713765.html
Brutus
So according to Queerty, if we repeal DADT without also enacting a non-discrimination policy, military gays will in fact be WORSE off, because they could then be fired simply for the *status* of *being* gay rather than requiring evidence of homosexual *acts*?
So does this mean they finally agree with what I, and various people of vastly more influence, have been saying for a long time — that DADT, as undesirable as it is, was in fact an improvement *at the time it was passed*?
But seriously, a big Fuck You to the Q-staff for this one, especially for the glib omission of HRC and inclusion of GetEqual in their credit-doling. Suppose that in the next 6 years DADT is repealed and DOMA and ENDA are passed. You’ll still be piling more hate on Obama for dragging his feet than you do on the fucking assholes who oppose the Hawai’i bill and who used same-sex marriage bans to leverage the country into four more years of cowboy imperialism in 2004.
Donal
The tone of this article is unbecoming to Queerty’s usually astute awareness of political realities. I have no doubt that Obama would have liked to sweep away DADT on his first day if he could but that would only have created a negative backlash. This reminds me of “Team of Rivals”, the fantastic Lincoln biography, where the press and public failed to understand the president’s motives, efforts or influence at the time, on the advancement of issues he cared about but which needed political nuance to be completed successfully. You say Obama deserves not one iota of credit for lifting DADT when it comes, but would it have happened if McCain had gotten into the WH, even if there was still a Democratic congress? Not bloody likely. Obama’s explicit declarations that DADT is bad policy allowed and encouraged others to make it’s ending a reality, even if it seems to be coming slowly. How much more distant would this goal be if someone other than Obama were president?
Cindy
Whatever Queerty! You can hate this guy all you want but compared to other leaders including Clinton, Obama is an angel. He may not run as fast as we want, but a rationally thinking gay American knows in their heart that this guy is the best shot we have at any advancement on our civil rights. Look around you. Most politicians hate us and they don’t apologize for it. This includes most republicans and a good number of Democrats.
Queerty, this is getting tired.
Jason_Activist
Tonight we let Obama have it again. We will not let this liar continue to mislead us and disrespect us. GetEQUAL is leading this effort. We will continue demanding until they give up.
Demanding = Rights
Donal
@tjr101: I agree completely, this article makes the writers seem myopic and like they’ve entirely lost perspective. Obama has been very vocal about his desire to repeal DADT when he is under no obligation to be, as it wouldn’t cost him a single vote if he never did anything about this issue, not even a gay vote because who else are you going to vote for – Mitt Romney? This will happen and Obama deserves credit for enabling it’s passage at all.
MickW
LOL….I love the fact that Scott Brown is voting against this plan, the same Scott Brown that received all the positive praise from the queers on here because Scott Brown winning was seen as a dig to President Obama….you reap what you sow.
Cindy
@MickW: I Know, right? There is a reason why we are never taken seriously.
B
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/murphy_we_have_votes_to_repeal.html claims that they think they have the necessary votes in the House and Senate for a repeal, and a lot of people deserve some credit, including our president, whose opinion on it no doubt influences people who report to him (e.g., Gates and Mullen).
One of the things an effective leader has to do is to make sure that others who worked on it get plenty of credit, and Obama is doing that. Dumping on him when we are actually making progress (slower than many would like but progress nevertheless) is just plain silly, not to mention childish.
Michael
IMHO, DADT isn’t getting repealed, ever. The fact the military is polling service and family members for the first time in our history is a huge red flag they have no intention of allowing gays to serve openly. I’m sure we can all thank ‘The Family’.
BOBBY
BULLSHIT! He will get credit for it as far a I am concerned.
jeffree
We are a nation fighting wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.
The possibility of military action against Iran, North Korea or even Pakistan is not farfetched.
Our troops are stretched onion skin thin ; recruitment has had 2 consistently drop standards to meet quotas (“not quite a 9th grade education, no GED, a couple DUIs ?? No problem !”) and YET we are still kicking out otherwise quallified servicemen & women with training & good service records ?!? because they happen to be gay or lesbian ??
This makes no sense !
Military competence, readiness & effectiveness are being compromised because of the idiotic DADT policy.
How many more trained intell personnel, weapons experts, linguists, gunners, tacticians or other service members need to be kicked out before the US realizes that our NEED for their skills out weighs any risks of their staying in service ??
The twisted logic here strains the limits of good sense.
D'oh, The Magnificent
The prez deserves some credit, but not as much as the obambots would like to pretend. But, then, they are just birthers by another party name.
The truth is he buckled under pressure, AND with only 78 percent of Americans supporting repeal AND the PR nightmare of firing good soldiers one wonders why?
Anyway, not surprised the obamabots from OFA are here. That’s to be expected, but the article does over state its case.
Obama should not be praised as some kind of civil rights hero in the line of LBJ or Truman. That is as yet to be determined. His real battle comes in DADT repeal the sequel in Dec 2010 when the report is done.
D'oh, The Magnificent
So- my point just to be clear: Now is the time to keep up the pressure on the president regarding Dec 2010. And on the issue of the jt chief of staff and sec of defense- they willd o whatever the president says they should do. That’s why he’s the place we need to keep up the pressure.
Bill Perdue
SNAFU!… again and again and again
It’s obvious by now that Obama is in way over his head. He and his team pretty much failed on every major question they attempted to solve.
They gave trillions to the looter rich who continue to operate as if the economy isn’t collapsing. The financial reform bill is a sham. Obama is a tool of Goldman Sachs, who ‘donated’ $994,795.00 to his campaign. Their health ‘reform’ was a giveaway to insurance companies and Big Pharma. People are going to continue to die needlessly. They absolutely reject single-payer or socialized medicine.
He promised to escalate in Pakistan and adopted the same policy of ‘defended hamlets’ and winning the ‘hearts and minds’ that failed in Iraq, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Not only is Obama a military and diplomatic idiot but lots of GIs are going to be killed and maimed because of it. “The US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, who was boasting of military progress only three months ago, confessed last week that “nobody is winning”. FUBAR!
He ran as a ‘friend of labor’ and busted the UAW.
He ran as our ‘fierce defender’ and so far all he’s defended are Bill Clintons ugly bigoted DADT and DOMA using language that southern baptists like Rick Warren, Der Papenfuehrer and the LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles would be proud of. DADT is not repealed and military discrimination and violence against women and GLBT folks won’t end. It’s just won’t be codified in law.
He ran as an environmentalist whose administration called for more, not less, offshore drilling. His administration violated federal law and allowed unchecked expansion of drilling in the Gulf which caused the BP disaster. The northern reaches of the Gulf are a sewer and the graveyard of entire species because of Obama’s ineptitude and lax regulatory efforts. TARFU!
If elections weren’t rigged, if this wasn’t the biggest Banana Republic of them all, he’d be impeached. But ten to one he’ll be reelected while Obots and Democrats applaud thinking they’ve been saved from rightwingers like Palin, Romney, Jindal, or Huckabee. The only thing wrong with that kind of thinking is that Obama is exactly that kind of rightwinger. And not very bright in the bargain. BOHICA! (And not in the good way.)
The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons – they’re greedier, they fool more people and they’re able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.
Don’t enlist. Don’t fight. Don’t translate.
whatever
@D’oh, The Magnificent: haha. you’re a PUMA. that definitely explains a lot.
B
No. 26 · Michael wrote, “IMHO, DADT isn’t getting repealed, ever. The fact the military is polling service and family members for the first time in our history is a huge red flag they have no intention of allowing gays to serve openly.”
When our local city governments want to get something done, they hold public hearings and get lots of citizen input, which makes everyone feel better even when they end up doing precisely what they intended to do in the first place. Why is this any different?
wondermann
@whatever: I thought the PUMA were dead. I guess foolishness never dies
San Francisco Treat
@ Bill Purdue – I actually agree with everything you listed up to “TARFU!” You lost me from that point on. However, the other sides of all those coins look like this:
1) The unemployment picture has gone from -700,000/mo to relative stability and GDP has dramatically recovered.
2) Once health insurance reform is implemented, people will no longer be subject to preexisting condition discrimination, MILLIONS more will be covered by Medicaid, EVERY child in the country will have health insurance and virtually every American citizen will have access to health insurance instead of the 5/6 (and dropping) that had it before.
3) We’re leaving Iraq.
4) I don’t really have any labor horns to toot for the administration – I suspect there are many, but I’m not informed enough on that subject to comment.
5) We got the Hate Crimes Bill (that I know you don’t care about, but most of us do) and we’re getting a DADT repeal.
6) We’re doubling our clean energy pool to consist of 8% of our consumption up from 4%. (I actually have a laundry list of environmentalist issues with this administration, but I’m just highlighting benefits here).
All in all – could he be doing MUCH better? Maybe, but Washington today isn’t what it was even 30 years ago – things are tougher now. And the GOP is doing a helluva job blocking everything humanly possible they can (which honestly is suprising given the pain the country is in).
Most importantly, we could be sitting here 1 1/2 years into a McCain/Palin administration and if you truly don’t believe that would be dramatically WORSE then I don’t think you were or are paying as much attention to them as you clearly are to Obama now.
Bill Perdue
@San Francisco Treat: Unemployment is steady at about 17%. (BLS U5 table of unemployment) The new jobs are crap jobs with low wages and few or no benefits. Homelessness is up and rising.
Econosmists say the Long Recession will either last a decade or so or morph into a Depression. There is no recovery except for the looter class.
There is no health insurance reform – the Obama bill is a giveaway to insurance companies. Typical of Obama’s racism, it excludes immigrant and imported workers.
We are not leaving Iraq. There are about 100,000 troops there to protect the oil. They’re staying.
Obama is anti-worker, anti-consumer and anti-union.
The hate crimes bill is a small step in the right direction. It needs teeth and has none. If you think it’s a big step forward you’re deluding yourself, which is what Democrats, liberals and Obots have to do to remain Democrats, liberals and Obots.
Obama is an environmental nightmare and a tool of Big Oil.
Obama is no worse than McCain. And vice versa.
Both parties are bankrupt. SNAFU!
[img]http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/obama-fails-gays-2.jpg[/img]
Republican
If DADT is actually repealed in a timely manner, then OK, Obama will deserve some credit, but let’s see here.
As Queerty mentions, the study will still take place. That’s extremely insulting. People who want to conduct yet another study to make sure that the “negative repercussions won’t outweigh the benefits,” are not “pragmatists”. They’re homophobes. The idea that a gay man would even word it that way is a little disturbing.
To make matters worse, Gates and Mullen will be required to sign off on repeal and the repeal plan. Excuse me, but Obama is the Commander in Chief and if anyone has to sign off on what Congress has decided in this area it should be him and him only. I don’t like the idea of giving the Pentagon what essentially amounts to a veto.
Also, I can’t wait for whatever repeal plan is revealed to take years when it shouldn’t take more than six months. Comparing it to the integration of the armed forces does not work. Gays are already fully integrated into the armed forces and many straight soldiers already know who they are. The only thing that will change (assuming the Pentagon doesn’t have a change of heart, which in my opinion is a big assumption) is that they will be able to be open about their orientation, boyfriends, etc., without having to worry that some jackass with a grudge is going to report them to the higher-ups and get them discharged. Any plan that takes years is just a delay tactic.
Leila
@Bill Perdue: Between you,the tea baggers and let’s see…….., the crazy anti-gay church? I say they have you BEAT badly when it comes to the Obama Hate posters. Have you seen some of the tea bag anti=Obama posters? man…………..You have nothing on them. But by all means, join your republican/tea party buddies.I say you have a lot in common!
Mike
I guess our little buddy Scott Brown had us fooled, huh? I don’t trust anyone anymore.
Bill Perdue
@Leila: I’m a socialist. You’re a simpering Obot sow.
Republican
I have to admit that Scott Brown’s decision puzzles me.
If he were a Senator from Alabama, it would still be a homophobic and cowardly decision to make, but at least one could say, “Well, you know how politicians are, always trying to save their careers.” But he is a Senator from Massachusetts. If national support of DADT repeal is 70+% then support for its repeal in Mass must be 99.999999% (OK, exaggerating, but not by much.)
And it’s not like a Republican is absolutely forced to oppose the repeal. Senator Susan Collins (R) of Maine says she’ll back this “compromise”.
The only thing that makes sense is that its his way of protecting his chances of winning the Presidency in the future. But if that’s what he’s thinking, he’s way off, because the older generations are dying off and after seeing that the sky hasn’t fallen in other countries, people (including republicans) are rapidly changing their minds about gays in the military, so in 10 years or whenever he runs (doubtful he’ll run in the immediate future, he needs to build some support in the Senate first), such a vote won’t just be looked back upon as misguided, but bigoted. Since a majority of people are still opposed to marriage equality, it will probably take longer for “separate but equal” to be seen as absolutely horrific by a majority of the pop, so politicians who currently oppose it will probably be given a bit more slack by the general public (not us gays) for the next 10 to 20 years, so he’s probably “safe” on that issue in pure political terms. Still a jackass for opposing true equality though.
Lanjier
I though Obama was going to be our Linclon. But he is no Lincoln. He is an administrator. He does not have much political capital to spend because he does not use the power of his office. He keeps saying how there are differences of opinion on DADT and how important that is.
Important? Really? Yanking vets from their units and throwing millions of dollars in the trash is pure lunacy. And if Obama can’t stand up for a vet, he is really worthless. He better just stop and think. The people he should dump on the street are Rahm and Messina who should be saying to him. “The gays are seeing red, and we need them because they are a huge part of the voting public and influence many people. And this policy is un-American and disgraces veterans. We can’t permit that.”
But no, all we have are three closeted witches who think they are brewing a savory soup by yanking soldiers from protecting the back of their units. But dead soldiers does not make a good soup. They have shit soup.
Bill - Las Vegas
@Leila: Bill Perdue is a leftist, a socialist, and you’re little more than a whining rightwing Obot.
DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12)
I really hope there aren’t enough votes to get this through and that it dies in committee. With the lack of a non-discrimination clause, lack of a clear timeline, lack of any substantive GLB input into the study itself, tossing this all back into the Pentagon so that we’re back in 1992 in terms of how this is handled, the whole thing has been a debacle this week.
We’ve had minimal leadership, but lots of pretty speeches. It’s clear that the powers that be aren’t pushing for this, despite the efforts of a select few Congressmen and -women who want us to be equal.
Brutus
@Bill Perdue:
Good lord, check your facts. For example, the BP spill is unrelated to expanded offshore drilling under Obama because it was not a newly-approved site.
Bill - Las Vegas
@Brutus: Read the NY Times articles. The BP rigs are not being inspected.
Bill - Las Vegas
@Leila: I’m a socialist, a leftist. You’re a whining Obot. Get used to it. Your hero is in for lots and lots of opposition.
Brutus
@Lanjier: We’re NOT a huge part of the voting public, and while increasing numbers of people are sensitive to our needs, it’s the rare, rare straight person to whom a DADT repeal is more important than financial reform.
Brutus
@Bill – Las Vegas: That may be, but that has nothing to do with expansion.
Bill - Las Vegas
@Brutus: Read the NY TImes – Obama is for more, not less offshore and ANWR drilling.
And L elia, don’t be more stupid than necessary. I’m a socialist. You’re a simple minded obot. Get used to huge amounts of opposition to Obama from GLBT folks, unions, the antiwar movement, etc.
Bill - Las Vegas
@Brutus: Read the NY TImes – Obama is for more, not less offshore and ANWR drilling.
Kevin
@Bill Perdue: Your last two posts explain so much. You’re pretty much a full-on communist in Democratic clothes. Which is okay, be a communist if you so desire. Maybe in 50 or 60 years your political opinions will be somewhere within the mainstream. I doubt it, but it could happen. Until then, don’t expect the political establishment (or common discourse) to take you seriously. No use getting angry when politicians do something you disagree with, because, for the forseeable future, no politician who agrees with any of the points you made stands any sort of chance of election, even in the most liberal of districts.
Bill - Las Vegas
@Kevin: Don’t be insulting- I’m not a Demcorat Party partisan and never have been.
If elections led to change – real change -they’d be outlawed.
Kevin
@Bill – Las Vegas: So? If there’s a car accident are people suddenly supposed to be anti-car? We all know there’s a risk to drilling anywhere. There are geo-political risks to relying entirely on a foreign supply. The whole art of being reasonable is weighing risks against reward.
pithyscreenname
@Lanjier: If you lived in Lincoln’s time you would have been saying the same thing you are saying about Obama about Lincoln. Our image of Lincoln today is not at all the image of Lincoln during his time.
The same shit being bandied about about Obama was being thrown at Lincoln – couldn’t make a decision – wanted too much input – let things drag on for too long.
It is interesting what the passing of time will do to the legacy of a president.
I’m just tired of seeing so much hate thrown at Obama when he’s done more for our community than any other liberal constituency since in office.
Hate Crimes Bill Done. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal almost there.
Has it happened in my preferred time frame, well – all in the first two years of office isn’t damn bad especially considering all the other crap on his plate.
Bill - Las Vegas
@Kevin: So, Kevin, you’re admitting that Obama’s a car wreck.
I would’ve said train wreck but I guess we can start with that.
Offshore drilling is very dangerous. We need to take those trillions back from the corporations that bought Obama and invest the money in green jobs and green transportaion. Anty other policy is lunacy.
Kevin
@Bill – Las Vegas: It’s sad, and a little funny, that you so easily discount the entire democratic tradition. Why don’t you try living in a REAL tyranny for a while, get that “oppressed feeling” you so clearly are searching for, then come back and see how you feel?
Donna
Compromise is how democracy works, dummies.
Jorge
Why do we need 60 votes? It should be 51. Republican Collins from Maine supports the compromise and it’s likely that the other Maine Republican Snowe will too. I can’t imagine the Democratic senators who oppose it will join in on a filibuster.
Bill - Las Vegas
@Donna: Compromise is how sellouts work.
Democracy is the rule of the majority. The US is not a democracy – it’s ruled by the looter class, a tiny but very rich minority who can buy candidates at will. And do.
Lanjier
Obama is not our Lincoln. He nothing like him. He refuses to spend one drop of political capital to make sure DADT gets repealed. If Lincoln were president today, he would have said, “Those are soldiers under my command who are willing to put their lives on the line for our country. I refuse to permit their training to go to waste. I refuse to yank them from the battlefield. I refuse to take them away from the protection of their fellow soldiers and take them away from protecting our nation. I am the President, and I will not let that happen.”
See, Linclon stood for something. Not like this administrative assistant fool.
Ronbo
Maybe we should “compromise” away the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights. “All men are created equal – unless Religious Bigotry is favored by the top-level”
Laws are passed when 51 Senators vote in favor. Who forgot that? Sixty is is only required under certain circumstances. Those conservative aholes are simply too lazy to filabuster. Are the Democrats just pretending or will they make them actually show up and filabuster?
It’s time we hold the Dems feet to the fire. Filabusters ALWAYS result in fantastic soundbites that make the Filabusters look foolish and idiotic. Let the filabuster begin!
Pitou
This “compromise” is a big FAIL.
“Repeal” is not going to happen during his first term…this compromise leaves too much wiggle room for someone to not do their job. “FULL Repeal” will never happen with this terminology.
FULL DADT repeal is as good as dead in my eyes, and many others.
That’s the last I’m going to comment about DADT.
I don’t want to fight for this corrupt Nation anyway. Keep your guns and oil-warfare to yourselves. I’m good. I live a peaceful existance at no cost to me, all as a requirment of this United States of America. Blame them. Blame your elected officials. Don’t get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for each and every last soldier who dies for this country, hell I have a younger sister in Iraq and yet another who so desperately wants to go…but I have every right to enjoy my peaceful existance without feeling guilty about not being able to defend my freedoms. This Nation has shown time and time and time again that they do not care about me, or my family, or my inalienable rights. Therefore, I really can’t care less.
This to me is a clear signal that priotities need to change NOW!
Where is all the Hubub about ENDA? I haven’t heard shit about it in weeks. Where in the world has ENDA gone?
Quite frankly, that is far more important to LGBT Americans then DADT because it will effect far greater numbers then DADT.
I honestly think the main focus should have been on ENDA this whole time, ever since hearing of this “study”. The “study’ just put a bad taste in my mouth from the second I heard it.
I must say, November is coming quite quickly (hell, it’s already the end of May), and I cannot consciencely(sp?) vote for any of these HACKS. I so desperately want to stay home in November, but I can’t. These assholes almost technically have us by the balls. It’s to the point that it’s either we vote for them, or we get the Right-Wing Crazies or T-Baggers. It’s not fair. It’s not my voice.
I suggest every one of you to do some homework and look into who is running in your State and what their voting record is. You can’t vote down party lines this year, you must vote for who has YOUR best interests at heart.
Scott Browns NO vote is no surprise. That Asshole should have never been voted into office, but Martha fucked it up and went on Vaca at a crutial point in the campagne…tard.
CALL YOUR REPS. PASS EMPLOYMENT NON_DISCRIMINATION ACT NOW!
Bill - Las Vegas
In post forty two I’m accused of being as bad as a rightwinger and of hating Obama.
BS. I’m a socialist and a leftist. The author of post forty two is a mindless obot. She (or he) had better get used to Obama being yelled at, heckled, picked and the object of derision and anger at mass marches.
Obama can’t handle it and it shows more and more. I feel sorry for him in the same way that I felt sorry for Bush – that is to say, not at all.
Bill - Las Vegas
In the post between 41 and 43 I’m accused of being as bad as a rightwinger and of hating Obama.
BS. I’m a socialist and a leftist. The author of teh above post is a mindless obot. She (or he) had better get used to Obama being yelled at, heckled, picked and the object of derision and anger at mass marches.
Obama can’t handle it and it shows more and more. I feel sorry for him in the same way that I felt sorry for Bush – that is to say, not at all.
Cam
No. 9 · Kevin
Queerty is straight up wrong on that point. It’s true, there won’t be a federal law on the issue, but there are very specific military regulations which decide how soldiers can be separated. I’m absolutely certain that, once the study is complete, it will recommend changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice to ensure that gays and lesbians can serve openly without detriment.
_______________________
Nice little dose of Stockholm Syndrome you have there. These studeis were already done 20 years ago. The Pentagon hid the studies, but people in Congress and the press brought them out publicly. Here is a link to the story in the Times in 1989 about how the Pentagon burried the report. So please don’t try to tell me that they just need to study the issue, and they will do whats right, this issue has already been studied and they burried it because they didn’t like what it said. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/22/us/report-urging-end-of-homosexual-ban-rejected-by-military.html
As for Obama, he saw the issue was coming up and he jumped in to put the brakes on, simple as that.
whatever
@wondermann: Nope. Much of the gay community supported Hillary. A lot of the Obama hatred from the gay comm is residual PUMA-ism.
Hillary would have been the gay savior, they think.
He’s some trivia. BO got the lowest percentage of gay votes for any Dem candidate in modern recorded history–about 1/3 of the gay vote went to John McCain. Despite what people here say, the gay community didn’t really support him overwhelmingly compared to other Dem presidential candidates.
whatever
@Lanjier: admin assistant?
That’s some grade A PUMA shit right there.
Where are we getting that Lincoln was some radical? That’s a re-write of history. He said slavery would remain legal is the union could be preserved. His Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in areas of rebellion. His Reconstruction plan was very moderate.
He was a cautious a leader and so is Obama. The comparison is not far off.
Cam
No. 61 · whatever
He’s some trivia. BO got the lowest percentage of gay votes for any Dem candidate in modern recorded history–about 1/3 of the gay vote went to John McCain. Despite what people here say, the gay community didn’t really support him overwhelmingly compared to other Dem presidential candidates.
____________________
Here is some trivia….Obama told the gay community that he would be a fierce advocate, and that it was time to repeal DADT. Then he said that there would be no repeal this year, and only when it seemed there was a chance Congress could get the votes did he step in. Of course, he stepped in however, and inserted a bunch of delays. removed the anti-discrimination language, and if that wasn’t enough, he added in some steps that could allow the Secretary of defense to keep DADT in place forever.
So I’m curious, as somebody who was a huge Obama supporter, are you saying that Hilary would have been worse?
The Artist
I think he does deserve credit. Don’t forget that he will have to eventually sign the repeal. Do you think the pass administration would. Something to think about. And stop the hate of our most brilliant President. PEACELUVNBWILD!
Hold our Leaders Accountable
Queerty, you’ve finally exposed yourself…you’re Obama-haters pure and simple.
If Obama somehow made gay marriage legal tomorrow, you’d find something negative to write about it.
You’ve completely lost any credibility…yesterday, when the AP and NPR and the Times were reporting on the dramatic developments and votes being counted on DADT, Queerty barely worte anything about it, rather focusing on their usual postings about shirtless white men.
Thank you for finally exposing who you really are.
whatever
@Cam: And the gay community rewarded him with the lowest votes percentage for a Dem candidate.
Hillary would have been exactly the same. Their domestic agendas are identical. The only difference is foreign policy–we would be in Iran now if Hillary were president.
Cam
No. 65 · Hold our Leaders Accountable
Queerty, you’ve finally exposed yourself…you’re Obama-haters pure and simple.
If Obama somehow made gay marriage legal tomorrow, you’d find something negative to write about it.
______________________
You’re like the parent who is shown their kid committing a crime on video and yet still says “Thats not my child!”.
The language the White House inserted into the bill removes anti-discrimination rules for the military, AND says that if the multitude of conditions are not met that the SEcretary of defense has the authority to keep DADT in place. They said no to passing a bill this year, when it looked like Congress might get one passed they stepped in and completely reworked the language to make this bill do nothing to remove DADT. Please explain to me what is positive about that? And don’t try to make me out to be some Obama hater, I donated to him, went to fundraisers and cheered him on as he was coming through DC to the innauguration. So you can’t try to write this comment off as some annoyed Hillary supporter.
Chitown Kev
@whatever:
Wrong.
That would be Michael Dukakis and 1996 Bill Clinton. I’m tired of people spreading that little meme (as if pollsters have always taken the gay vote into account.
It’s nothing more to me than an Obama talking point.
And if Obama signs off on it, yes, he does get some credit. I don’t know what Queerty is smoking.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@whatever: a) I think its interesting how much some of you are so nuts that its goes without saying that we are not fighting primaries.
b) I didn’t support Hillary Clinton. I am to the left of the Democratic Party, which on this issue places me on the main stream.
c) You are just some crazy tea bagger of the Democratic party. I expect you and your cohorts to try to hide this comment too. Its just representative of how nuts you are.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@Chitown Kev: To keep pressure on the president regarding after the bill passes so that he protects gays in the military as other minorities are protected.
My guess is that’s why my other comment was hidden here.
The OFA gays who frequent sites like this don’t want pressuring the president to become the dominant meme: That the pressure is now all on Obama to further reform. He no l onger has Congress as an excuse.
I am glad we got this far considering it looked like they were going to suceed in killing the bill, but just the same- this is not the end, its the start as Dan Choi mentioned in his video on the subject at Joe My God.
whatever
@D’oh, The Magnificent: If you’re so left, why this advocacy and endorsement of militarism, which, in essence, is what the repeal of DADT is about? It’s the right if fight and die in failed imperialistic misadventures, which has been the history of US wars abroad.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@The Artist: Whether he should receives credit will depend on whether he certifies and also implements. Thats what this compromise does. It places the ball firmly in his court to make the policy in the military that will protect gays from discrimination.
Chitown Kev
@D’oh, The Magnificent:
Oh, we’re pretty much agreed.
I think that if it gets to his desk and Obama signs it, of course he deserves some credit.
Queerty is full of Grade T bullshit on that.
But the Obamabots on this thread are full of the same grade of bullshit.
They throw gay (and mostly male) support of Hillary up in our face as a form of race baiting.
The O’bots NEVER take into account the gender factor, that gay men might be predisposed to a woman whose man had done her wrong (we sure like to hear those songs pumped up in the club).
She’s a survivor and all of that.
If Hillary Clinton were black and Obama white, gay men would have voted similarily, IMHO.
Chitown Kev
—In heavily gay Provincetown, Mass., 87 percent of voters supported Obama, compared to only 11 percent for McCain, and 2 percent for others or no votes. Massachusetts overall voted 62 percent for Obama, and 36 percent for McCain.
—While 61 percent of Californians supported Obama over 37 percent for McCain, 85 percent of heavily gay San Francisco supported Obama—versus 13 percent for McCain and two percent for others.
—Fifty-five percent of voters in Pennsylvania supported Obama over 45 percent for McCain, but in Philadelphia’s heavily gay 2nd and 5th wards, 83 percent of voters supported Obama.
—In heavily gay Dupont Circle ( Precinct 15 ) in Washington, D.C., Obama won 89 percent of the vote.
—In the heavily gay precinct 1233 in Dallas, 63 percent of voters supported Obama, while 57 percent of the entire city did so. Fifty-five percent of the state supported McCain.
—Chicago’s heavily gay 44th Ward went 86 percent for Obama over 13 percent for McCain.
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/ARTICLE.php?AID=19735
It was Southern gays where you find the vote splits that you people are referring to.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@whatever: I can be against the wars and against discrimination too.
Apparently in your mind, that’s a contradiction.
But, then, this is the same mind that thinks anyone with balanced view of the president on this compromise (note that I say that we can neither praise or put him down right now because the proof is in what he does in Dec 2010 when the report comes out), but in your twisted mind that’s an attack.
Like most of the nutballs of the OFA, you are just so far gone you probably don’t even understand that I wasn’t attacking him. I was saying pressure him because the bill now places the pressure on him to act rather than the Congress, since they will have no moved the ball to his court.
Finally, people like you are odd. You whine about PUMAs, and other irrelevant personality based shit, when in fact, Obama’s own campaign manager made it clear in his book that there wasn’t any substantive differences between Clinton and Obama (they realized that early on), so the strategy was to attract the young and I would say the easily manipulable through branding. Speeches that made him sound different although he was offering Clinton II whether we wanted it or not. We, in other words, squandered a chance because in retro all three of the Democratic choices would have been bad.
The truth is we have gotten this far due to activism and people like Murphy in Congress who refused to give up. Right now, they deserve the accolades. If the president follows through with certification and protects gays in the military regarding descrimination he will deserve it. Ending the wrong of discrimination has nothing to do with whether I think Iraq was justified. I am on the bubble at this point about Afghanistan.
And here, the other problem- I am not to left of the president on just these issues, but economic policies. In your mind, I will now be called a dirty hippie, but the truth is that I am center left, and he’s center right in policy. The difference is that I don’t trust the market, but he does. hence behavior with trusting BP to clean up the oil spill.
He’s not willing to move behind the consensus in DC even when he has 78 percent public support. He sends gates out to make speeches, etc.
My hope is that public pressure, which I hope he bows to, will address the discrimination issue.
In your mind, that you conflate the acceptance of one wrong as somehow justifying another- well let’s just say you aren’t working with a full deck so I don’t expect any of this nuanced view of the president to get through to you.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@Chitown Kev: Well, I wasn’t a clinton supporter so I am not a part o that conversation.
The Obots are pretty bad, but then queerty sort of gave them an opening here.
Not that they require one to go nuts.
My point is merely to reflect the nuance. I disagree signing is enough to show that the president deserves credit. Implementation for me will be the telling point. I agree with Dan Choi that now is the time to keep up pressure as this is a delaying of the real issue of implementation. That will be the rubber hitting the road.
Republican
@Chitown Kev:
Why does it matter whether it was southern or northern gays?
D'oh, The Magnificent
@Chitown Kev: a) Yeah, I knew once this person was posting that according to the polling data he didn’t know what the fuck he was talking about. A heavy amount of gays supported him in both the primaries and in the general. Indeed, in the general he got 70 percent or more of gay support. That’s higher than almost any other groups except African americans.
b) But that’s kind of irrelevant. Its just one of those Obot things they do. When confronted with criticism of the president, they attack with all these ritualized responses even when they cease to make sense or never made sense in the first place.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@Republican: Are you seriously asking why geography and demographics matter in politics?
whatever
@Chitown Kev: Link?
Chitown Kev
@Republican:
Because of that 27% figure that voted for McCain nationally.
If heavily gay wards in the north and west voted in the 80-85% range for Obama and only…say, 55-60% of gays in Miami, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, New Orleans, etc. voted for Obama then that means (assuming those NATIONAL exit poll figures were close to right) that those Southern urban gay communities are HUGE.
And…could some of that be Southern racism?
What we really need is some solid LGBT polling.
Republican
@D’oh, The Magnificent:
D’oh, first off, there was absolutely no need for your rude tone.
Yes, I was asking why it matters with regard to this particular topic. No, I did not and do not doubt the usefulness of demographics and geography in politics in general, so I have no idea where you got that from, so again, your rudeness was entirely inappropriate. My question was related to Chitown’s apparent need to mention those particular facts here.
Chitown Kev
@whatever:
Read Urvashi’s Vaid’s “Virtual Equality” for the Dukakis numbers. Bush 41 got close to 40% of the GLBT vote (A lot of that was due to Dukakis signing some anti-gay legislation as governor of Massachusetts).
I’d have to hunt down the link for the Bill Clinton figure; IIRC, that was at 66% (and remember this was right after Bill Clinton signed and campaigned on DOMA).
D'oh, The Magnificent
@whatever: This is hillarious. You come on here making broad claims about gays and what they did in the election, and when someone points out you are full of shit, you ask for links. Maybe the time for research was before you came here blowing smoke up people ass to protect a politician.
And here’s one link (there are literally thousands but I am not going beyond this for you because you really should know this shit if youa re going to make over the top statements that you can’t prove):
http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_7962.php
“Early data from specific precincts is limited and unofficial, but in seven heavily gay voting sites in three Massachusetts cities, 58 percent supported Obama and 42 percent supported Clinton. In Chicago’s heavily gay Ward 44 in Obama’s home state of Illinois, 67 percent supported Obama, 31 percent supported Clinton.
Elections officials did not return a reporter’s calls for data from Manhattan’s or West Hollywood’s heavily gay voting sites. Officials in San Francisco said precinct-level data even very preliminary data will not be available for several days. Results from those areas could very well change the picture overall concerning the LGBT voting trends.
But voters in Boston’s five heavily gay precincts voted for Obama by a margin of 56 percent to Clinton’s 44 percent. That support was slightly stronger than found in Boston voters overall who preferred Obama by a slightly weaker percentage 53 percent to Clinton’s 45 percent.”
Finally, I wish Americans as a general rule would grow the fuck up. I know in a consumer soceity you have been told that if you believe it’s true, then that’s all that counts. But that’s not really true. There’s a such thing as a fact of the matter and that may contradict your opinion. How long have you have these incorrect beliefs about the gay electorate in 2008? how long as that baggage allowed you to go around making bullshit claims to anyone who disagrees with you? Its just sad. A google search of 2 minutes is all it would have taken to correct your assumptions.
Republican
@Chitown Kev:
Thank you for your response. I wasn’t sure why you were bringing up those figures, because you didn’t post them as a reply to anyone else. I missed the earlier comments about the Obama/McCain split in the gay community and thus didn’t understand why you felt the need to point out that it must have been southern gays. It all makes sense now.
And I agree that we need some solid LGBT polling.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@Republican: If you are going to ask sstupid questions, I am going to be rude. I tire of ignorant people comment online . You have the fucking internet for more than commenting on Queerty. I didn’t read the rest of your justification or rationalization for asking that question.
Chitown Kev
@whatever:
1996
Voter News Service
GLB (5% overall): Clinton (66%). Dole (23%). Perot (7%).
2000
ABC News:
GLB: Gore (70%). Bush (23%). Nader (3%). Buchanan (1%).
Voter News Service
GLB (4% overall): Gore (70%). Bush (25%). Nader (4%). Buchanan (0%).
2004
Voter News Service
GLB (4% overall): Kerry (77%). Bush (23%).
Los Angeles Times
GLB (4% overall): Kerry (81%). Bush (17%).
2008
Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International
GLB (4% overall): Obama (70%). McCain (27%).
http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2008/11/log-cabins-fuzz.html
D'oh, The Magnificent
@Chitown Kev: Most of the polling of self identifying gays shows that Obama captured something above 70 percent of the gay vote. Better in terms of demographics than just about any other demographic except African Americans. You are right that its hard, however, to poll for this considering that it is based on self identification. But, a) the number is so high as to suggest that its probably a good guess to assume that al ot of gays supported the president and b) that its the only data we have (versus just making shit up which Whatever is doing).
Bret
I love how the self-loathing POS Obamabots troll rated all of the critical OBOMBA comments. Ignorant fuckers suffer from the political version of the Stockholm Syndrome!
Republican
@D’oh, The Magnificent:
I am most certainly not ignorant. I explained why I asked my “stupid” question. However, I will say this in defense of those who are ignorant. Ignorant people can at least change. Assholes like you will never change. I will not be replying to anymore of your trollish posts, but I will continue to reply and contribute to discussions on Queerty like I have for years. Good day.
Bret
@AndrewW: There is NOTHING ‘pragmatic’ about fucking over your constituency repeatedly for the sole purpose of playing nice with your enemies. That causes you to LOSE elections!
John (CA)
@whatever:
While it is true that McCain would have won in a landslide if it were an all white and male election, Obama pledged to serve as president for everybody.
That includes the white men.
Under the circumstances, a degree of apathy and indifference is perhaps understandable. But we cannot get into the business of making gay white males’ civil rights dependent on their cooperation vis a vis the racial equality issue. Holding them hostage won’t solve the underlying problem. And any progress derived from such horse trading will be short-lived anyhow. Once they get their same-sex marriage, they’ll go back to their racist ways.
Bret
@Hold our Leaders Accountable: Oh shutup! You fucking self-loathing obamabots are SICKENING!
How many times will this BIGOT have to KICK YOU IN THE GODDMAN TEETH for it to sink in that he is just as homophobic as BUSH???
MORON
Chitown Kev
@D’oh, The Magnificent:
Well, I think that Jews were higher at 76%. @D’oh, The Magnificent:
Part of it is the polling.
I’ve read that they used to poll gay voters only in gay meccas like New York and California.
These exit polls appear to take into account gays in other locales.
So for all that we know, the gay vote may have been split along these lines all along and pollsters never captured it (although I am sure you could go back and look at old election returns of heavily gay wards and get some sort of idea.)
Black Pegasus
After months of coming to this site, I now realize that
Queerty is nothing but a Conservative Shit Rag!
I was anxious to see how Queerty would cover this story,
and now my eyes are open. You continually distort, hate and
divide people within the Gay community with your shit rag stories.
You obviously have a large following of visitors to your
site, which means you have the power to unite and promote the TRUTH. Instead, you’ve chosen something quite ugly and shameful.
I hope you get that Republican Majority your clamoring for
Queerty! Lets see how that’ll work out for us fags.
Chitown Kev
@D’oh, The Magnificent:
Thanks for the Dallas Voice link…
So this whole “gays supported Hillary” meme that I hear is somewhat of a propaganda tool of the O’bots.
As if gays only live in New York and California.
Chitown Kev
Here’s another link from some work I did a long time ago.
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=83918
“As in past years the LGB vote was more strongly Democratic than voters overall. American voters overall gave 53 percent of their vote to Obama and 46 percent to McCain. Looking at 80,586 votes cast in 56 heavily gay precincts over 11 cities in five states and the District of Columbia 79.4 percent of voters in those precincts voted for Obama, 19.1 percent for McCain, and 1.5 percent for other candidates.”
Republican
@Chitown Kev:
Interesting link. Thanks for posting.
josh
Obama and Hillary had virtually the same views on everything.
These PUMA’s that loved Hillary but hate Obama so much that they now support conservatives or Republicans are racists.
Tammy Bruce use to be a liberal democrat and now she is a conservative Republican. She is also a racist.
richardporter
QUEERTY AND THE REST OF YOU – LEAVE THIS GODDAMN PRESIDENT ALONE. I’M GAY AND I’M SICK OF YOUR HARPING AND CRY BABYING.
Bill - Las Vegas
@richardporter: Awwwww. That’s so cute. A hissy fit.
Well, maybe more like a cowering before authority fit.
Doh
@Republican: You are online. The amount of time it takes you to ask the question is amount of time you could google “gay voters” “Polls” and “2008 elections” But rather than doing that, you do the lazy thing by asking folks here to prove something you should know as a minimum of engaging in a conversation on the subject. One of the reasons why our leaders are the way they are is essentially this lack of due diligence.
Doh
@Chitown Kev: You are right regarding the Jewish voter. It was also in the 70s. So, I should rephrase except for the jewish and black vote. The latino vote, however, was definitely smaller than the gay vote as far as percentages goes and no one is running around calling them whiners for complaining aobut the state of immigration laws (which suck the big one) in this country.
Doh
@josh: Exactly.
Doh
@josh: Although I would say I agree with the PUMAs part rather than those gays who supported Clinton over Obama. I can’t say that’s true. I can say that Obama and clinton held identical views and hold similar strategic approaches to how to act as president.
Doh
@Chitown Kev: Yes, the meme is bullshit, but they don’t argue based on facts and reasons. Its to make people defensive. Remember, these are the same people comparing gay rights activists fighting for DADT repeal to Tea baggers. They will say anything to derail debate over what the president is doing. its just about raising the noise level.
Lanjier
@RICHARD PORTER
Stop you Leave Britney Alone meltdown, bitch. He is my president — I’m not his bitch. He has to perform and stop dumping vets on the street. Treating vets right is a failure of his presidency up to when the discharges stop.
QuerToday
We should have all been pushing for ENDA 110% for the past 3 years but we’ve been spending money and energy on marriage and military.
Brutus
@Bill – Las Vegas: Again. That’s fine. But it has nothing to do with the current BP mess. Keep up.
Brutus
@Bill – Las Vegas: “So, Kevin, you’re admitting that Obama’s a car wreck.”
No. That’s not what he said at all. He was making an analogy to the oil spill. And by the way, we will still need oil to make all the plastic parts for our magical Green Energy Machines. We will need it to lubricate the metal parts of those machines and of the machines that make the metal parts, and perhaps the plastic parts as well. We are beginning to wean ourselves off of it, but it is going to be a very, very long process.
Brutus
@Bill – Las Vegas: “Democracy is the rule of the majority. The US is not a democracy . . . .”
And thank God for that, because the majority are idiots.
Brutus
@Ronbo: “Maybe we should “compromise” away the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights.”
Those things are themselves compromises, and their enforcement likewise requires many more compromises—is a lawsuit brought or is a dispute settled through extralegal means? Is the case settled or taken through judgment? How far does the opinion reach? And so on. There is simply no way to run a society of individuals except through compromise.
Brutus
@D’oh, The Magnificent: That’s pretty interesting, especially because my memory of the primary is also that the gays I knew were overwhelmingly in favor of Hillary. Maybe those favoring Obama just didn’t talk about it as much.
Brutus
@Bret: “How many times will this BIGOT have to KICK YOU IN THE GODDMAN TEETH for it to sink in that he is just as homophobic as BUSH???
MORON”
You have GOT to be fucking kidding me. Be pissed at him for not making the LGBT community his #1 priority, but how can you honestly make this statement?
Brutus
@Doh: “these are the same people comparing gay rights activists fighting for DADT repeal to Tea baggers.”
Not all gay rights activists. Just the ones acting like teabaggers. There are people who advocate for less government, lower taxes, permissive gun regulations, and so forth who don’t act like teabaggers either.
OMG
If the military doesn’t want Gays to join then Gays should stop joining and then we will see a change. The same change that had to happen when they weren’t allowing felons to serve. So here’s the truth of the matter if you want to be in the military and you’re gay keep your damn mouth shut or suffer the ramifications based upon the rules that they have. The military isn’t the only way to serve your country. So moving forward I think it shouldn’t matter what your sexuality but who is going to know ur sexuality if u don’t speak on it. You can’t be fired over speculation.
DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12)
@Brutus:
Compromise usually entails both parties receiving some benefit and some burden. I don’t see any benefit to glb servicemembers and don’t see much of a burden on the administration.
GLBs won’t be protected by non-discrimination clauses, there’s no moratorium, no amendment to the UCMJ, and no real deadline for folks to sign on, so we’ll be stuck with the Pentagon making all the decisions (just like in 1993!).
On the other hand, the administration gets to wash its hands of a tough subject before midterms, both parties can spin this so it won’t hurt them, and they get all get to walk away knowing that most of Gay, Inc. is ramming this down our throats like it’s some sort of victory.
Why is it that the GLB community always seems to be on the losing side of these supposed “compromises”?
Kent
Obushma is a lying sack of shit. He led us all to believe his hot air about radical reform of the status quo. Guess what….This is Bush the III’s term in every way. And don’t give me no crap about healthcare and financial reform. Those were just giveaways to make it look like Obushma was doing something. Obushma is a mouth looking for a speech. That all. Sorry to disappoint all of you Obushma worshippers. Green party is where I am voting. Forget the Dems.
Kent
@Gridlock: You said it Gridlock – this is all Bullshit with a capital B!@ Screw you Obushma – you SUCK!
Brutus
@DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12): I don’t get it. Do you want DADT repealed or not?
Kent
@Leila: Leila – Bill Perdue is a TRUTH teller – He speaks about PRINCIPLE over PARTY or PERSONALITY! Most Obushma defenders here are so emotionally involved in Obushma – they can’t see the forest for the trees. They can’t believe that their lover, Obushma, jilted them.
Brutus
@Kent: How am I jilted when I’m getting a hate-crimes bill and possibly DADT and even ENDA?
Edfu
How the White House had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a deal on repealing DADT:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/behind-the-scenes-how-the-deal-to-repeal-dadt-got-done.php
DR
@Brutus:
Why yes, I want to see GLB soldiers able to serve openly and freely. Let’s look at the proposed amendment, and determine if that’s going to accomplish that goal…
-no protection for GBL soldiers. No non-discrimination clause = no protection.
-no moratorium on discharges.
-has to be approved by the JCOS and Sec’y of Defense at their leisure
-no deadlines
-power reverts back to the Pentagon to make its policies on the subject.
-since it’s not being repealed by force of law, it can be undone at any time (the Palm Center confirms this).
Hmmm… I don’t see anything which actually repeals the ability of the Pentagon to discharge GBL soldiers, I see nothing which would protect them. I’d love for GLB soldiers to be able to serve openly, but this amendment isn’t furthering that cause at all.
Repeal of DADT =/= allowing GLB soldiers to serve openly without fear of discharge. This is why Gay, Inc. is focusing all the talking points on “repeal of DADT” without actually talking about the implications of this amendment.
B
In No. 2 · AndrewW wrote, “We don’t have 60 votes.” … possibly true but you only need a majority vote to get it passed. You need 60 votes to stop a filibuster. So, the question is whether the Republicans would filibuster. Given all the gay sex scandals the Republicans have had over the years, we can assume that their opposition to gay rights is marketing to the right-wing Christians they got into bed with. If the Republicans think a senator who votes in favor of repealing DADT will be at a disadvantage, they may decide not to block a vote on it.
Brutus
@DR: Right, I get it. So would it be correct to say that you would rather keep DADT in place as it is than have the proposed amendment as you’ve described it pass?
BoyButter
That 10-month study is rearing its head again? Really?
Why don’t they study any Euro country’s force for a hard 10 days and then draw up some conclusions? I mean, if anyone knows how to treat their homosexual soldiers with respect it’d be them since they’ve been doing it for at least a decade (give or take some years depending on the country).
AndrewW
@B: We don’t have “60 votes in the US Senate” and the Joint Chiefs of Staff just asked the Congress to filibuster. They will.
Watch the whole non-compromise, non-repeal charade fall apart tomorrow.
SSCHIEFRSHA
@Bret:”… he is just as homophobic as BUSH???”
Indeed he is darling…….it’s just…..your trumpet didn’t sound as loud during the Bush administration. The reason for that often escapes moi….
Ronbo
“God is in the mix.” is another way of basing your bigotry in Religious contest. Think Obama, think Religious Bigotry. Say it aloud to everyone you know. Religious Bigotry is NOT acceptable.
B
o. 128 · AndrewW wrote, “@B: We don’t have “60 votes in the US Senate” and the Joint Chiefs of Staff just asked the Congress to filibuster. They will.”
Do you have a citation for that claim? I found http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/26/service-chiefs-send-letters-to-congress-dont-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell-yet/ which says that various top military officials sent letters to Congress asking that a repeal wait until the review process ends. There was no explicit request for a filibuster (although the author claimed the letters would provide cover for a senator who decides to filibuster, although most senators are very reluctant to filibuster a defense appropriations bill).
Doh
@DR: The one thing we can agree on is that this is clearly not the last step in repeal. There must be a whole set up regulations protecting gays regarding equality from harrassment and other concerns. It would have been better in statutory language to prevent future meddling by GOP presidents, but its more than nothing even if its not the best.
reason
@San Francisco Treat: Glad to see you have seen the light. would like to add more on this thread but I am not at my computer.
AndrewW
@B: “The heads of the Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy oppose the current amendment to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Senator John McCain’s office just released letters from the chiefs of the armed services, as well as a statement from the senator urging Congress to let the military complete its study before taking legislative action.”
http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/chiefs-navy-army-air-force-and-marines-oppose-dadt-repeal
B
No. 134 · AndrewW wrote, “@B: ‘The heads of the Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy oppose the current amendment to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.’ Senator John McCain’s office just released letters from the chiefs of the armed services, as well as a statement from the senator urging Congress to let the military complete its study before taking legislative action.’ http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/chiefs-navy-army-air-force-and-marines-oppose-dadt-repeal ”
That’s pretty much what the article I cited said (although without mentioning comments by McCain), and nothing in the article you just cited claimed that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were asking the Senate to filibuster, as you claimed in No. 128.
So, as I asked before, do you have a citation to back up your claim that the Joint Chiefs of Staff asked for a filibuster?
Based on what I read, I’ll assume that there was no such request for a filibuster by the Joint Chiefs of Staff until there is credible information to the contrary.
AndrewW
@B: It’s between the lines B. Plus, Senator Byrd just said he’ll support the Compromise Amendment if the Congress gets a “60 day period to review” after the finding are certified by WH and Pentagon. Presumably, that would be another chance to “kill” it.
The Compromise may make it our of Committee, but the game is filibuster. I count only 54 votes in support of the Compromise Amendment – not enough to beat the filibuster (60 votes).
This game is exactly how it was designed in February. The “compromise” is a charade to give Obama and Democrats cover. They know it won’t pass. We are watching a “show.”
Bill Perdue
@Brutus:”and thank God for that, because the majority are idiots.”
1. gawd is a superstitious tale for emotional cripples.
2. Idiots are Democrat or Republican partisans, JCS militarists, the owners of BP and Haliburton, DNC employees, child rapists and priests, Obots, and of course, non-entities like you. Thankfully, that sort are a definite minority.
reason
@Brutus: Can’t resist even though I am writing from a phone. Your wrong on the plastic and luburcants they can be made from renewable materials. There are lines of biolubricants, renewable plastics, etc. already being sold. Though the truth is the vast majority of all chemicals ie. medicines, dyes, food additives, electronics, roads, you name it comes directly from crude oil or are made from and in precursors from it. A revolution is needed in the chemical world to start making things with other mateerials, but that even scares me let alone the industry.
Yep, some people like to act like the worlds smartest and most just individuals sat around a circular table patting each other on the back and sipping lattes while writing the constitution. The scary thing is the people that are thinking this way went to school before the new Texas textbooks that re-writie history have even come of the press.
B
No. 136 · AndrewW wrote, “@B: It’s between the lines B.”
In other words, you made it up. The letters simply raised a concern that they wanted to convey to Congress. It did not say, “block this legislation at all costs.”
As further proof of how brain dead QUEERTY’s policy is regarding hiding posts, No. 131 got one negative ‘rating’ from someone who didn’t like a quote of what a news article stated, coupled with a request for a pointer to another article if there was one showing that your “filibuster” claim was factually accurate.
QUEERTY’s policy is leading in some cases to the suppression of purely factual material, and that is really bad – you won’t have a useful discussion on how to enhance LGBT rights when facts germane to the discussion – not mindless homophobic rants – are being hidden.
NickadooLA
Ugh, it’s discussions like this that make the “like/don’t like” buttons absolutely worthless. Some people actually enjoy reading comments we may disagree with but that might potentially make us think.
It’s nice to know that spam and/or ignorant and hateful comments can be hidden with a few clicks of a button. Sadly, I and anyone else won’t know the difference till we chose to reveal the comments.
The “don’t like” button is on the left. Go ahead and hide me.
Dennis
I don’t give Obama a perfect score on this issue, far from it, but GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK QUEERTY…um yeah, President McCain would have repealed it by now? Riiight….Hypothetical President H. Clinton would have moved sooo much faster on this given the clusterfuck of other problems the country has faced since Jan. 2009? Bullshit, that’s a fucking delusion! Deal with reality, you Obama hating hacks.
Congress can’t get shit done, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, so the DADT delay is not 100% his fault…and there are still PLENTY of gay hating evangelical fucks who would love to derail this repeal, make no mistake, and that’s not Obama’s fault either.
Obama could cure AIDS, and you would say “Where was Obama in 1981 when we needed him on this? Nowhere!”
Yeah, it’s taking too fucking long, but IT IS in progress. Give him No credit? How ’bout just a little credit, bitches, just a little credit.
Dennis
And while I’m at it…here’s a little ‘edumacation’ for you ED…
Ever wonder why Queerty is an editorial PUNCHLINE amongst LGBT websites/blogs? (Not that I think you’re into self-reflectiion that much)
It’s because of crap like this that you post…your reputation is a direct reflection of the editorial inconsistency and delusional viewpoints often promoted on the site.
But you really know how to work a “Davey Wavey” post though…you’re truly experts on Davey Wavey.
Brutus
@reason: Maybe I’m not understanding you because of the limits of writing from a phone.
“Your wrong on the plastic and luburcants they can be made from renewable materials. There are lines of biolubricants, renewable plastics, etc. already being sold.”
I didn’t intend to claim that we could never derive alternatives for these things as well. For instance, I often come across cups made from corn plastic. I simply meant to point out that even if we switched 100% of our energy production to wind/solar/tidal/hydroelectric/geothermal tomorrow, and all rode bicycles or walked or took electric transit everywhere, it wouldn’t immediately eliminate our need for oil.
“Though the truth is the vast majority of all chemicals ie. medicines, dyes, food additives, electronics, roads, you name it comes directly from crude oil or are made from and in precursors from it. A revolution is needed in the chemical world to start making things with other mateerials, but that even scares me let alone the industry.”
An incredible amount of stuff is made from corn, too. But as you say, a revolution would be necessary, which I think supports my above point—and you say that scares you, let alone the industry, which once again suggests that it will be, as I said, a very slow process.
Brutus
@Bill Perdue: “1. gawd is a superstitious tale for emotional cripples.”
“Thank God” is a common figure of speech. Your crusade is neither germane nor required here.
“2. Idiots are Democrat or Republican partisans, JCS militarists, the owners of BP and Haliburton, DNC employees, child rapists and priests, Obots, and of course, non-entities like you. Thankfully, that sort are a definite minority.”
For one, idiots are also people who make blanket statements like “all DNC employees are idiots.” For another, even assuming your list to be exhaustive, I suspect it’s factually incorrect to say that Democrat or Republican partisans are a definite minority. I’d also love to know what in the world you intend via “non-entity.”
Bill Perdue
@Brutus: “I’d also love to know what in the world you intend via “non-entity.”
I meant it to convey the fact that you’re an unimportant rightwinger pissing in the wind.
I hope that clears it up for you.
Brutus
@Bill Perdue: Actually, I still have questions. First, what makes you think I’m a rightwinger? Second, do you have any pretensions to be anything more than an unimportant radical pissing in the wind?
Brutus
For the record, http://www.politicalcompass.org gives me a score of -3.75 on Economic Left/Right and a -4.72 on Social Libertarian/Authoritarian, placing me in the “Left Libertarian” ideological quadrant, and, in the rough total, just slightly left of Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, and Dennis Kucinich.
B
No. 146 · Brutus wrote, “@Bill Perdue: Actually, I still have questions. First, what makes you think I’m a rightwinger?”
The actual answer is that you disagreed with him.
OMG
You have a President in office who is telling you he doesn’t necessarily agree with gay marriage, but he does support equal rights for everyone and you guys bash him. Obama is moving towards doing things that none of the presidents before him even attempted to do. You all should be so lucky. Bush made it clear he was not for you. Hell, even Sarah Palin made it clear she was not for you. You all would have been fucked if she was elected, and not fucked in a good way. And trust me she would not have cared AT ALL. You have a man in office right now who does care and he is telling you he is for you. I get so tired of people expecting Obama to snap his fingers and change the world. I mean get a fucking clue really. If you want to be mad then be mad at Bush for screwing everybody over for 8 fucking years.
Bill Perdue
Describing superstition is always germane. I can’t quite believe you had to take a test. Or that you’d choose such a lame polisci test. The real test is simple. If you support bigots like Obama or DADT, you’re rightwing. And people who dismiss the ability of workers and consumers to transform society and run it democratically or who say go “and thank God for that, because the majority are idiots” are extreme rightwingers. And maybe, just maybe, they have an obscenely swollen view of themselves.
But the question here is not about your bloated ego, it’s about how to end DADT and insure that GLBT folks in the services won’t be subject to harassment, discrimination and violence. That cannot be accomplished in the context of a society ruled by an oligarchic looter class.
—————-
‘B’ is a right wing talking head for the politics of the DNC, the HRC, and groups like EQCA who front for the electoral needs of the Democrat Party and subsume our fight for equality to the Democrats fight to get elected and get bribed by the looter class. ‘B’ relentlessly lies and misinforms to promote his anti-GLBT, pro-Democrat politics. Then he accuses his myriad detractors of lying and being out to get him. The second part is true. He’s heartily despised by honest activists.
Don’t Enlist. Don’t Fight. Don’t translate.
Markie-Mark
@Brutus: You are the one who needs to check the facts. BP’s deep water drill was approved in April of 2009 with variances so they could avoid safety regulations. Last time I checked Obama was in charge in April of 2009.
Markie-Mark
Just so everyone is aware, the Democratic Party pays people to monitor this web site and others and they post comments to sow dissent and deflect criticism of their leader. The majority of gays agree with Queerty’s policy of holding Obama accountable. The question is: if you are so much in love with Obama and if you hate Queerty’s editorial policy, why are you here posting? Just ignore these trolls. There’s no self respect in supporting Obama’s homophobic agenda.
Markie-Mark
And here’s a question for all you kool aide drinking trolls: why is Gates Sec. of Defense?
Brutus
@Markie-Mark: “The majority of gays agree with Queerty’s policy of holding Obama accountable.” Can I see some polling on that, please?
And yes, the variance was granted under Obama. But it was a preexisting rig and therefore has nothing to do with the expansion of offshore drilling, which was my only point.
Brutus
@Bill Perdue: I was attempting to provide you with a form of objective measurement to give you some perspective. I’ll be happy to take any other survey you might suggest, but substituting your own narrow definition of “rightwinger” because you don’t like the results of a widely-used assessment is laughable and, regrettably, saps the negative force of the word. As I’ve said countless times, I don’t even support DADT. Calling Obama a bigot is lunacy. If Obama is a bigot, what in the world do you call Martin Ssempa? Ann Coulter? Fred Phelps?
Workers and consumers will never transform society because they are too focused on the day-to-day and will never overcome the massive collective action problems save in the case of an actual revolution. Putting faith in the majority is despicable populism of the sort that validates Prop 8. It’s as bigoted a view as any other, because a democracy governed by the rule of the majority will not naturally defend the rights of the minority. Thankfully, we have people like the tireless folks at the ACLU, NAACP, and other similar organizations to keep a check on the tyranny of the majority.
DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12)
@Brutus:
I do not want this amendment to pass. It’s poorly thought-out and leaves too much discretion in the hands of the Pentagon, the Joint Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and has nothing which would codify protections for GLB servicemembers. This is NOT a repeal, and I’m not buying Gay, Inc’s spin on it. I don’t see how this is going to help anyone serve openly and proudly. We all know what the Pentagon was doing in 1992. Discharging queers.
I’d also add that there is nothing which indicates the temporary changes proposed by Gates are to be included/continued. Will we revert back to not being able to talk to medical providers, clergy, therapists, mental health professionals or get security clearance? Will the stricter rules of evidence continue to apply? Will the Pentagon be as cautious in proceeding with their-party outings as Gates proposed? What happens to these protections, do they go out the window?
This amendment needs more teeth before I can support it. I’d rather this take another year and be done properly than rush this through by November and be done wrong. I don’t trust the current administration to fix any mistakes which would negatively impact our community as the result of this rush job.
@Doh:
I understand where you’re coming from, Doh, but I don’t agree. This train of thought is why we ended up where we are now. Every compromise on GLB rights has resulted in us getting the short end of the stick, whether it be in military service, employment non-discrimination, or and marriage. And since I don’t trust the current administration, I certainly don’t trust them to fix this in the future.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12): I don’t trust the present administration either. That’s why I question whether we can get more from this right now versus right the election, where pressure may actually make more of an impact. They are still stuck in 1993 fighting battles that we have moved on from since then. Hell, they are still claiming markets can do no wrong- look at their lack of a real response to the Gulf environmental crisis. they are a right of center administration with a president will to brand and say anything. Saying all that, this is bill is what we are going to get, and the question for me- is what the way forward. the bill is woefully inadequate, but its what we got, so let’s fight to make it better. I don’t care if they take credit for the things they need to do down the pike so long as they do the things that I think will make this better- namely implementation and regs to protect gays who serve openly in the military. That’s not about trust. That’s about me trying to however much I don’t trust them (or any politician) to keep the eye on the ball.
Lance Rockland
Obama is no friend to the gays. Fierce advocate my ass! He’s the reason I switched parties.
synnerman
Pfft, gays aren’t friends to themselves.
DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12)
@D’oh, The Magnificent:
Just because “this is the bill we’re going to get” doesn’t mean I have to support it. As I said, and you seem to agree, it’s inadequate and a clear political ploy.
I realize there is very little I can do. Yes, I can send emails and write letters, but the strongest statement I can make is at the ballot box this year and every year, which is what I plan to do. If the guys I get to vote for can’t or won’t work to ensure a non-discrimination clause gets added (and don’t even get me started on the other issues you raised, what a disaster this year has been!), then I don’t vote for them. I’ll just have to watch closely.
I’m very saddened, however, that Gay, Inc is lauding this as a victory without digging deeper into what’s NOT being said in this amendment. It speaks volumes about the leadership we have in our community.
Chitown Kev
@DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12):
“I’m very saddened, however, that Gay, Inc is lauding this as a victory without digging deeper into what’s NOT being said in this amendment. It speaks volumes about the leadership we have in our community.”
I’m with you 100% there, DR, as well as I am with much of Dohs comments about this Administration.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12): The other thing you can do is to keep up the pressure along with the gay groups regarding regulation. I am not saying settled. I am saying keep fighting.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12): Agree about the leadership issue. I don’t understand why they are not making it very clear what this bill is and isn’t. It would take very little to make that clear. Something like:
“This is a start, but there remains a lot of work ahead of us.” Its a simple a statement as that. BUt they don’t even do that. Not really. They, like most liberal groups, seem unable to know how to frame even in the most basic sense of the word or market or whatever you want to call it. They are propectually weakened by their own inability to define what they want in simple terms. I mean- my sentence above is a perfect and quick sound bite. It doesn’t tell you everything but it says what you want the audience to take away without confusing the audience with one message now that’s going to be contradicted by another in a few months when the fight resumes.
DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12)
@D’oh, The Magnificent:
I am more than happy to keep fighting, but I want to fight with a group which isn’t toeing the Gay, Inc. party line regarding this amendment. I was really taken aback when the SLDN applauded this as a move forward. It was almost as if an apologist took over when I wasn’t looking! I’m reading Aubrey Sarvis’s latest op-ed, and it’s sadly mistaken; he talks about things happening once this amendment goes through which have not been discussed yet!
Who do I stand up with? I’d like to know.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12): Well , there’s Get Equal.
I think the problem with these groups is that they trust the administration. I simply don’t. You apparently don’t either. The reason this is an issue is that the future policy shifts relies on them to do the right thing. I think you will agree that’s a fool’s gold.
Unfortunately, on the left, or amongst activists, that’s been an issue with this administration for quite some time. They are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when such benefit from what are mostly Clintonistas has not been earned. Indeed, I would say whether it is this issue or the Gulf crisis or whatever- they have mostly shown they are triangulators, and stab you in the back. In my mind, that makes them the typical politician you got to watch out for rather than trust. BUt a lot people want to trust them.
Thankfully, there are some that don’t. They want to verify policies rather than get lost in personality. I am sorry I can’t provide a better answer than this. I am just looking at the options on the table to ask what can be done now rahter than dwelling on what-ifs.
Earlier someone mentioned Clinton- sometimes in situations like this I wish we had clinton not because I think she would be better. No I think she would be the same. But everyone would be cynical towards her triangulation in ways that they aren’t with the president. Instead, they keep giving him the benefit of the doubt simply because they aren’t exhausted with his gamesmanship yet. Me- I don’t see any difference between him and clinton except for branding. And, I am not going to trust a politician because the one thing I am certain of is that anytime they open their mouth it is either to lie or to get something from you.
DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12)
@D’oh, The Magnificent:
I like the idea of Get Equal, but living in a smaller community in SoCenPA means I don’t get the same opportunities to engage in activism the folks in DC, NYC, etc get. We shall see. At one point I was actually speaking with a higher up in Servicemembers United about effective activism for those of us outside major metropolitan communities. We shall see. I’ll still write letters and emails, so that’s something.
I agree pretty much with the rest of your post. Except for the part about Hillary. I think she’d be getting defended just as much. Teh Gheys love her, and her election would have been just as historical as Obama’s. That causes people to give the benefit of the doubt, because no one really wants a historic presidency marred by bad politics.
Unfortunately, we have to acknowledge that right now, we don’t have a fierce advocate in the White House.
D'oh, The Magnificent
@DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12): You may be correct about their lack of critical judgement about her. I have seen some pretty inane statements about how she was better on gay rights when actually she her views were again identical to his. I mean- they filled out form where they said the exact same things, and yet there were those who swore she was great. I am like- are you people capable of reading what she actually said outside of what you want to project on to her? I guess the point is that some peo will always want to put some politician on a pedestal, and thats why we will see what we get from the WH.
Chitown Kev
@D’oh, The Magnificent: @DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12):
Great political discussion, guys and I agree with most of your points (and yeah, I really don’t get the Hillary fascination and all…well, I get it in a Maria Callas sense, I suppose, and she certainly fits the bill).
DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12)
@Chitown Kev: @D’oh, The Magnificent:
I think a lot of it is a case of “the grass is always greener” syndrome. Had Hillary been elected, we’d all be bitching about her and wishing Obama won.
Ultimately this discussion comes down to accountability. We have to hold our elected officials accountable, and more importantly, we have to hold ourselves as a community accountable and not get complacent.
Bill Perdue
@DR (the real one, not the guy who made post #12): @D’oh, The Magnificent: @Chitown Kev:
The problem is not just Obama’s corruption or the contempt for the LGBT communities he’s repeatedly demonstrated. Corruption, militarism, homohating, gynophobia, union busting, draconian cuts in social services and handouts for the rich are systemic and institutionalized in both parties. There are no candidates in either party who don’t fit that mold.
Just to put this in perspective, the SFGate reports that after Obama was heckled and his GetEqual critic arrested “… Obama was whisked to an exclusive VIP dinner at the Broadway mansion of wealthy oil heir Gordon Getty and his wife, Ann.
Inside the lavish home of the philanthropist son of oil tycoon J. Paul Getty, some 80 donors wrote checks for $35,200 per couple to meet the president and have their photo taken with him. Boxer’s campaign raised $600,000 from the two events, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee took in $1.1 million, organizers said.” . (Thanks to ezpz at America Blog)
Obama is a hustler in the revolting tradition of Slick Willie and ‘W’. His attention is focused on getting reelected by doing favors for the looter class and whatever it takes to get ‘campaign contributions’. In the ranks of those sufficiently crooked to actually be considered for a presidential run corruption is an absolute requirement and it sends them, Democrat and Republican alike, reeling to the right to please their owners.
Bill Perdue
@Markie-Mark: welcome back to the zoo.
Brutus, like ‘B’ doesn’t want to know about facts. They have one goal and that’s to defend Obama.
What a thankless and useless task.
Bill Perdue
@Brutus: “Calling Obama a bigot is lunacy. If Obama is a bigot, what in the world do you call Martin Ssempa? Ann Coulter? Fred Phelps?” Don’t be stupid, Brutus. Obama’s a bigto because he opposes same sex marriage and wrecked our chances of retaining it in California with ‘gawd’s in the mis’. The others are bigots too. Martin Ssempa was trained as a bigot by Rick Warren, Obama’s not so strange bedmate.
“Workers and consumers will never transform society because they are too focused on the day-to-day and will never overcome the massive collective action problems save in the case of an actual revolution.” Exactly.
“As I’ve said countless times, I don’t even support DADT.”
That’s mighty Obamaesque of you. And just as meaningless as his ‘opposition’. 75% or more of the public you despise so much oppose Bill Clinton’s codification of military discrimination. The point is that we need laws specifically calling for the courts martial of all general officers whose comnmands are the scenes of harassment discrimination or violence agaisnt GLBT folks or women.
Don’t Enlist. Don’t Fight. Don’t translate.
B
In o. 157 · Bill Perdue once again lied and spouted his usual conspiracy theories by saying “‘B’ is a right wing talking head for the politics of the DNC, the HRC, and groups like EQCA who front for the electoral needs of the Democrat Party”, and then (after lying incessantly) accused me of lying, something I don’t do (unlike Bill Perdue).
This guy is a one-man circular firing squad – you’d almost think he was planted here by Focus on the Family to get us fighting among ourselves.
Bill Perdue
@B: Right B, we’re all out to get you.
It’s because ‘B’ is a right wing talking head for the politics of the DNC, the HRC, and groups like EQCA who front for the electoral needs of the Democrat Party and subsume our fight for equality to the Democrats fight to get elected and get bribed by the looter class. ‘B’ relentlessly lies and misinforms to promote his anti-GLBT, pro-Democrat politics.
Then he accuses his myriad detractors of lying and being out to get him. The second part is true.
He’s heartily despised by honest activists.