what i dont understand is this: you get pissed the prez is not fast tracking your agenda. you stop sending money. now he has even less reason to give a shit. he fails to get reelected. a Republican gets in. we get at least four years of roll back the clock to Regan era policies. you specifically get to see your agenda disappear. even if a dem gets back in after the first four years, there will be so much shit to set right the gay agenda won't even be on the radar for another four years.

how exactly are you teaching the prez a lesson here?

Dan, you've been busy, so maybe you haven't read the news lately. Let me clue you in: The whole fucking country is upset with Obama. The only problem with that is that they're upset with him for very different reasons than you are.

We will keep on teaching the lesson to even some scary lady who does not believe that masturbation is normal. We have no choice in this matter. Not to scream at deaf ears but to constantly reinforce with facts. We are winning...slowly, but history teaches us that those who rush it are not dealt with too well.

@1 Wrong. The problem being that we haven't gotten a democrat for a president, we've gotten someone who's so scared to offend anyone that he's done nothing on anything, and allowed those around him to do the same.

Go a couple posts back: why did he appeal a court decision to stop discharging under DADT? He wants republican support. Will he get it, even with his conservative posturing? No. So he's doing NO ONE a favor.

Dan, I'm another gay guy who is upset, but as a young white kid with no money, what can I do? It's frustrating to read all of the slog (pun) about what's going on and not do anything but write blog posts myself.

@1 I think the point is:

Dem: Great words about supporting gay rights, but no action.

Repubs:Terrible words about the gays, but no action.

In the end, who gives a shit? If the Dems aren't going to do anything, we need to call them out. At least the republicans will call you a fag to your face.

Who is funding Get Equal?

They're not grassroots.

We gave to the Democrats, we voted for Democrats, and they're shitting on us.

Who the fuck cares about their fee-fee feelings? You mean President Obama still won't sign the executive order he hasn't signed, will still defend Doma in court, like his DOJ is now defending DOMA in court, still won't work for ENDA like he's not working for ENDA now?

You mean, that if we give and vote for Democrats they'll shit all over us, and if we protest, they'll shit all over us?

Hmmmmmmm, so what the fuck is the downside?

And I'm not just talking gay rights here, am I?

Nope, name an issue and the Democratic base who desperately needs and wants and check back the last two years -- Obama admin or Democratic congress shitting on it.

Or, in the case of the Social Security safety net, sets up a commission set to gut it, so soon to be shitting on it.

I'm voting Democratic because the Republicans are crazier, but I'm also not giving money or volunteering.

The Obama administration created the enthusiasm gap among Democrats, so thanks for losing us the House and/or Sentate.

Go shit on some Republicans, for a change.

Get Equal not grassroots?

Who the hell are you trying to kid?

The by land, by air, and by sea approach is pretty clever.

@8: Are you Loveschild's gay-friendly doppelganger?

I've been Judy Brown for 60 years now -- who the fuck are you?

And I'm old enough to remember when Democratic politicians acted like Democrats -- and when they started to play mouth music only.

Who still haven't learned the lesson of 1994, even 16 years later: screw the base, and they lose interest in voting for you.

@1 delicious Catch 22 isn't it? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. You make the argument here that the only actual difference is a backwards momentum versus a progressive stall and purgatory. To me this is not a valid point. Not only is this not an actively progressive administration in anything but useless words (so far in terms of Gay Rights) it is often actively fighting against the cause using it's "duties to do so" as an excuse. Hell, even Obama's lasting legacy- his SCOTUS appointments- have only pushed the overall court even further to the conservative side (replacing progressive liberal judges with "safe" moderate picks). At this rate I really do wonder what exactly Obama- someone who is on record AGAINST gay marriage- is doing that a republican administration wouldn't. Which isn't saying I want that or that I wouldn't fight tooth and nail against Republican control. After all I'm not a single-issue voter. It's just when it comes to Gay Rights the Obama Administration has done nothing but earn contempt from the gay community.

@1 delicious Catch 22 isn't it? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. You make the argument here that the only actual difference is a backwards momentum versus a progressive stall and purgatory. To me this is not a valid point. Not only is this not an actively progressive administration in anything but useless words (so far in terms of Gay Rights) it is often actively fighting against the cause using it's "duties to do so" as an excuse. Hell, even Obama's lasting legacy- his SCOTUS appointments- have only pushed the overall court even further to the conservative side (replacing progressive liberal judges with "safe" moderate picks). At this rate I really do wonder what exactly Obama- someone who is on record AGAINST gay marriage- is doing that a republican administration wouldn't. Which isn't saying I want that or that I wouldn't fight tooth and nail against Republican control. After all I'm not a single-issue voter. It's just when it comes to Gay Rights the Obama Administration has done nothing but earn contempt from the gay community.

Don't look now, but Obama is not on the ballot this year.

A little history lesson for gays and liberals who think a few weeks before an election is the time to burst into nihilistic hissy fits:

In 1994, voters were upset with Bill Clinton, so they "punished" him by giving Republicans control of Congress and electing Republican governors en masse. One of those Republican governors outsed Gov. Ann Richards of Texas, whose approval rating was well over 60 percent when she was caught up in the anti-Clinton wave and defeated by ... George W. Bush.

Clinton triangulated, won a second term by a landslide in 1996 and weathered impeachment with high approval ratings. Still, the Monica Lewinsky affair left a bad enough taste in voters' mouths that they decided to "punish" Clinton again by voting for ... Bush. Who, it's true, lost the popular vote and stole the electoral college vote, but the only reason the race was close enough for him to do so was that people wanted to "punish" Clinton, who stood grinning like a Cheshire as his wife gave her acceptance speech in her Senate race.

Of course, neither Bush nor Gore was for gay marriage or wanted to make repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell a priority, so what's the difference, right? The important thing is to "punish" presidents by depressing turnout during election years when they're not on the ballot.

Sorry for the double post- damn phone!

i haven't gotten what i wanted either (sanity in the drug war, sanity on climate change, sanity on the military budget, and a punch in the nose for sens. kyl, coburn, and inhofe), but then again, i never expected it. change is s l o w. r e a l l y r e a l l y s l o w.

ps. gay or straight, no one should join the military. period.

The military is great

Virtually never discuss politics, and you get to blow things up real good.

I'm voting Democratic, like I've done for near 40 years.

It ain't me who fucked up in 1994, 2000, or these midterms.

It's the Democratic politicians who act like Republicans once in office that depress the base.

Again, I never fell for the Green Party or a "moderate" Republican, or third party candidate.

Nope, I vote straight Democratic ticket -- however, I understand why the Democratic base gets demoralized.

I'm demoralized and I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat (from the old expression "Would vote for a Yellow Dog, if it ran on the Democratic ticket) from four generations (at least) of Democrats.

However, I watched a Democratic President and Congress ship jobs overseas with NAFTA, and even little ole me could predict that would demoralize all those other Democratic voters.

So thank Clinton that turncoat Democratic Congress for George Bush.

I also watched the Democrats sell out their base on the Vietnam War: and watched Richard Nixon get elected when he promised the impossible "Peace with honor."

I understand the Other Guys are Worse, but when Democratic politicians act like the Other Guys, they create Republican wins.

Not me.

And, since the internet is filled with nitpickers, I meant to write "when NAFTA sent jobs out of this country" instead of "overseas."

Get Equal are funded by a bunch of rich white guys.

There's no sign that decisions about what actions to engage in are made in a democratic and accountable manner that would earn them the "grassroots" label. Some of them are Bill Clinton's old pals. I kind of think they're libertarian gays trying to drive a wedge between LGBT activism and the rest of the progressive movement. They seem primarily concerned with suppressing LGBT voter turnout.

And HRC is funded by?

Which sits on it's fat ass doing nothing.

It's the height of stupidity -- or duplicity --to accuse those who are fighting for rights to be deliberately working against the accomplishment of those rights.

You sound more like that model to me: "Sit down, shut up, and laws a mercy, if you ain't uppity, master surely gonna do good by you."

Just as the Civil Rights marchers, the Suffragettes, and the Women's Liberation activists were told in their time, "You're working against your cause by being noisy/direct/protesting."

You, sir, have learned nothing from 100 years of activism -- if my Suffragette sisters hadn't persisted in "unseemly and unwomanly" protests for half a century, I wouldn't be able to vote for Democrats today.

Change doesn't come from complacency, and the powerful do not give anything to those who don't ask for it, who don't fight for it.

I don't like HRC either! I think they're pretty ineffectual.

But I've also been paying enough attention to notice that the biggest challenges in making lasting change on a whole host of progressive issues is republican filibuster abuse. That is why we didn't get DADT repeal. If Get Equal were an honest organization they'd be protesting republican filibuster abuse, not the president.

I think the administration certainly needs to be pressured, on a number of different fronts. But he can't do all the work of progressive movement building for us.

At that protest Get Equal was asking for Obama to sign an executive order that would stop the recissions of gays and lesbians from the military -- something he could do with the swipe of a pen, no filibuster stopping him.

Something the President could have done since his inaugeration, while the Pentagon studied, or right this damn minute.

No filibuster stopping him -- so what is? 70% of the country polls against DADT -- so again, what is stopping Obama?

Voting for Democrats, donating to Democrats, peaceful protests, HRC being nicey-nicey, and still Obama sits on his pen.

What is stopping him? Not the filibuster, not the Republicans.

No excuses that are valid.

And yes, even if that Executive Order could be reversed by a Republican president -- that's no reason to deprive the military of needed soldiers, at great cost to both the military and their lives and careers NOW.

We could then wait for legislation to catch up with reality, which it would be more likely to do, faster.

Much harder for a possible, someday Republican president to undo what has been done.

Obama could make the smart and the right move, one the majority of people in the United States want, the morally correct move -- is it a surprise that GetEqual is trying to move him to do so?

No, the only surpise is that there are quislings who support his cowardly stance not to do what is right, and what the country, and overwhelmingly Democrats want him to do.

That's a vote getter -- doing what the majority of the American people want, and believe is the right thing.

The other does nothing but drive supporters away from the poles.
Quislings who attack those with the courage to fight for what is not only right -- but what the majority of Americans want.

legislation doesn't usually catch up with executive orders. that's why the overseas abortion ban keeps going back and forth.

that's what Obama's trying to avoid. he's a long-game thinker. always has been.

FEED THE WAR MACHINE

Venomlash, ummm apparently NOT! Meeeoooowwwwww.

Now that that's settled, inquiring minds want to know "who the fuck are you"? LOL

You and Baconcat are too cute! Never change guys.

So what are you going to do, vote Republican? FML.

There's got to be some way to throw money at Democrats to keep them in office (because you know in the wake of Citizens United there's millions in corporate and overseas money being laundered through PACs for Republicans) and still take them to task.

Yeah, Obama is a real genius long-thinker, which is why inhe's pissed off enough of the Democratic base, and the Independents who voted Democratic that there's an such enthusiasm gap, that the Democrats are close to losing the House or Senate, or both.

Nice long-term thinking, bub.

But the obamabots always have anew excuse dressed up as wishful thinking...

Yeah, and long-thinker Obama doesn't care about the cost in the meantime to the lives and careers of the gay military discharges.

Or the cost to the military (in the millions) for the training of those discharged.

Or the cost of losing manpower during two wars, so that the military has had to lower standards and allow felons and high school dropouts to join, while dismissing qualified gays and lesbians.

Again, genius Obama could end all that with the swipe of a pen, something 70% of Americans want, something that's losing him base voters and donations because he's not doing what's right and moral and damn it, plain common sense.

If that's long-term thinking, I'm your aunt Fanny.

If you're going to throw your money at Democrats, throw your money at progressive candidates: Alan Grayson is one.

Here's another progressive Democrat, if you're in the mood to toss money:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/11…

Sorry gays, if it comes down to Obama v Palin, I am supporting Obama.

@judybrowni I appreciate your disappointment with Democrats on the national scene unable to do enough, but please, would you and Dan consider the damage your rage at the national scene is causing to the Washington State legislative Democrats who brought us three improved domestic partnership bills, the civil rights bill, improvments tothe hate crimes law and antibullying legislation. Basically, the legislative Democrats gave us everything that could possibly be delivered short of full marriage equality, and we probably wouldn't have been able to defend full marriage equality at the ballot box, just yet at least.

The trouble is, that despite your commitment to vote for Democrats, your despair at what they've, in the face of monumental Republican opposition, been unable to accomplish, has been radiating apathy into the ranks of your more uninformed friends, who will take it as permission either to not vote, or worse, to reflect your anger as a "protest vote" against the Democrats. Either way, Democrats at the state level who have delivered everything that could possibly be delivered in the last four years, lose too.

Cheers.

@41 Soooo, people shouldn't voice their disappointment with their president because the "uninformed" democrats might become apathetic and not vote, or lodge a "protest" vote by voting for republicans. Really? If I'm understanding you, then these uninformed voters, who don't read the paper or listen to the news to the extent that they are informed about what their party is doing, are somehow finding the time to read alternative weekly newspaper blogs, and the comments therein, and being influenced by that? Huh. See, I would think that a democratic president who sees that his base is completely fed up with his inaction and withholding money from party donations would, perhaps, decide that pandering to the republicans is hurting democrats and might, just might, consider pandering to the people who elected him. Republicans are the ones who have agitated for change in recent years (and by change, I mean exchanging progress for the dark ages) and they've been scarily successful. I'm glad to see democrats, and groups like GetEqual stepping up the pressure. This is what democrats used to be good at. I, for one, am glad that we haven't forgotten the power of protest.

@43: Voicing disappointment is fine; it's a sign of a healthy democracy.
What we DON'T want to do is vote for third party candidates UNLESS THEY HAVE A CHANCE OF WINNING. (Remember all the people who thought they were helping by voting Nader in 2000?) We shouldn't have to settle for the lesser of two evils, but it's better to do that than to choose the greater of two evils.