Blogs Oct 20, 2010 at 7:20 pm



Who's your friend now?

Yeah...daz rite.

Repubs in da house.

Da gay haus.

I'm so pissed at Obama right now. I didn't vote - couldn't because I'm not a citizen yet and SOMEONE keeps raising the price to just fucking apply - but I would've voted for him if I could, mostly because a) Sarah Palin scares the crap out of me and b) Obama said he was all about gay rights.

Where did that Obama go?
Have fun at the protest! Wish I could be there.

Actually, I've lately been considering hauling my Class As out of the closet (pun intended), squeezing my fat-almost-40-year-old ass into them and protesting in front of the local Democratic Party headquarters.
Can't wait to see how HRC tries to spin this as a WIN!!!! for the LGBT community.
What's the endgame here...I mean, I just do not understand the strategy...unless it's to "protect" Dem candidates until the election is over...
@5 I think that's exactly it. Because selling out your base for a few swing votes is great strategy /snark
or it's to figure out how to keep all the ptsd rednecks w/guns from shooting everybody when they find out the have to room w/teh gays...
@Corydon: I definitely think LGBTQA's should push the Democratic Party to recognize LGBTQ's constitutional rights, rather than pandering to the bigoted "faith" constituency that supports them now, and that they hope will support them later.

@Savage Lover:)

What I want to know is this: one of Obama's former campaign aids, a gay man, has said that Obama supports marriage equality, and LGBTQ rights more generally.

Obama deliberately gave a carefully worded answer during his campaign that was an attempt to *not* alienate LGBTQs, or anti-LGBTQ rights' folks. Obama said something to the effect of: "I grew up in a church that supports marriage between a man and a woman. Perhaps, time will prove me wrong on that one."

That's not an open declaration *against* marriage equality.

The ex-campaign aid said that Obama's not so supportive approach to LGBTQ rights is strategic. I think his nomination of Sotomayer and Kagen to the Supreme Court, who tip the balance of support in favor of LGBGQ rights/marriage equality on the Supreme Court indicates that Obama is not anti-LGBTQ, even though, regrettably, he presents himself to be.

And Dan Savage, your presentation at Rutgers University was AWESOME by the way. You are a POWERFUL orator.

I hope you have left behind the flu bug:)

the policy will not, can not effectively change w/out congressional approval. i know many pin the hopes of executive or judicial will.... but that is not where the endgame is at.... Patty Murray and some others in the Senate and the House need to reverse this, and it will happen. Just not soon enough imho.
It sucks, to be sure; but I think I'm correct in saying that DADT is effectively dead. It's not a matter of if, but when. Obama's shit the bed some with this fiasco, but all it will end up doing is delaying the inevitable a few months, at most. And at this point, the pentagon is probably too scared to do any more mass discharges for fear of backlash.

It sucks - for me especially, since I'm probably going to have to go to half a dozen meetings on it where a lazy LT repeats some memo about tolerance - but it'll get done.
I can buy wanting a legislative reversal, since an executive reversal can just be reversed by the next executive. But I can't buy the vigorous legal defense. There's *no* reason for the Obama's DOJ to pursue every legal means to obstruct the legal challenges to DADT.

By way of counter example, California's State DA declined to defend Prop 8, even though they were the legal defendents and so the defense was mounted by all the wonky anti-gay folks who couldn't find themselves in a paper bag, much less a coherent legal strategy (I'm not even entirely clear how they wound up with standing in the case, but it was worth reading the judge's subsequent blistering point by point take down.)

This. This is just.. UGH. And I can be an Obama apologist with the best of them. *headdesk*
If it just wasn't for that buttsecks, you'd have it made in the shade.
@Savage Lover:

I didn't say what I wanted to know :p

I want to know what Obama *really* thinks about marriage equality, and LGBTQ rights more broadly.

If he is playing the heterosexist-genderist to stave off the flood of right wing criticism and bashing that would (further) harm his chances for re-election -- is that an effective strategy?

Should Obama take the moral high ground and pander to us, LGBTQA's, instead of bigots? Is that the best strategy.

I never believed Obama opposed marriage equality. I hope he will do something good for LGBTQ's during his 2nd term.

I don't support him uncritically; he's made mistakes.

I'd still pick him over McCain and Hillary Clinton (if I could vote:), who is even more centrist than Obama.

I believe that Republicans obstructionist tactics, voting against his proposals/policies in blocs, is a response to Obama turning red states blue in the last presidential election. Post-LBJ/1965 Republicans' tradition of power was subverted, and remains threatened.

Does Obama do too much to appease Republicans? Or is his administration making hard, albeit regrettable choices, that are the best way to go right now?
I don't understand why he didn't just let it go...and as others said on the previous DADT thread, let a couple of years of openly serving gays and lesbians prove that, just as in the armies of other countries, morale/etc. will not be affected. Well, I guess I do understand, and that's the sad part-he's pandering to the minivan majority before the elections. Pussy.

When will your penance in the heartland be over, Dan?
@12 Jesus, I am 6 months behind on my filing, and I just found some baby socks at the bottom of the "mateless socks" box...where do these people get the energy to care so much about what their neighbours are doing? Clearly, they aren't drinking enough, or having enough sex of their own.
Fuck. Obama.
All I've got to say with this is that those of you with kids or planning on having kids remember all this. That way, when they print the revisionist history textbooks for schools that retroactively give Obama credit for this, you'll be able to set the record straight.
@15 -- It's because they've thoroughly convinced themselves that getting involved in our lives is for our own good. They're not oppressing us, they're saving our souls, man. It'd be worse to do nothing!

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
--C. S. Lewis

Perfect quote, MythicFox. God, this is so depressing. I just looked up gay and lesbian service in the military country by country on Wiki, and for all intents and purposes, the US is hanging out with Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

Re: the do-gooders: Missionaries and their ilk are the worst of the worst--their assumption of absolute knowledge is appalling. On a happier note: Rainbow flags flying in Calgary today, we just elected our first Muslim, minority mayor (, and purple shirts abounded.
Indiana? Dude, who'd you piss off?
Oh and John McCain or Sarah Palin would have done so much more. Sorry to say but like here in CA it is a choice between Dumb and Dumber. DADT will end under his watch - just quoting the man...He is the man! Leap of Faith.
Every time he does something shitty I have to remind myself that at least he's not McCain/Palin.

Right? I am definitely wondering if we'd have been better off with Hillary, though. If we're going to have a cynical politician in office, surely we'd rather have one who's ruthless and effective.

Ugh. I work at the UW. Better believe I'm gonna be at that protest.
Don't get me wrong: I will always vote against Republican/conservative candidates. But it's nice to vote *for* Democratic and liberal candidates. I did that two years ago but won't be doing that this time 'round.
@17 - so true. Every time I hear about Lincoln I get frustrated with people calling him a hero for freeing the slaves. I won't be having kids but I like to think that if I did they would be driving their teachers crazy pointing out the less popular but more accurate sides of history.
I think Obama wants to make sure that NOTHING can revive DADT.
No, he doesn't have to use the DOJ to defend the existing law's constitutionality, but he's doing that for a damn good reason. Obama has won support for a repeal from top military brass, and part of the price of that support is that the military wants to be able to implement changes in such a way as to minimize disruptions, particularly given that we're in two wars right now. The Pentagon is studying how to deal with the changes required, and the White House is not only trying to be deferentail to the separation of powers in the three-branch government we have here, but to the logistical needs of the military.

Yes, Obama could, as commander-in-chief, order a change in policy. But there is valid concern that a sudden change in policy would cause problems, and if Obama's hastiness allows an opportunity for others to pin those problems on him, they most certainly won't pass that up.

But yes, he should really stop playing for the checkmate and just start seeing how many pawns he can capture early in the game. That worked great for Bush.
To be fair, maybe he doesn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You say it all the time, Dan, "We're winning." Too slowly, sure, but the endgame is already written. So you have to wait until Obama's lame duck session, or even later. Is that worth throwing every other progressive issue away? Because there would be no bigger gift to the Republicans than for Obama to end DADT by executive order. Tired of being demonized? Or do you relish in it?

Think about it: is that really what you want? Well, in this case, the baby you'd be throwing out is all other gay-equality issues for quite some time. Not that you can't complain, because it sucks, but your option would hurt your own cause
It's all just politics. It sucks. It's sad. If you stuck me in a room, and told me the only 2 choices in the future were extreme religious zealots who would stop at nothing to make constitutional amendments completely banning any gay activity whatsoever, and Obama's foot dragging on gay military service, I'd take Obama in a heartbeat. In a perfect idealistic paradise I'd love for my president to stand up for equality forever, but I feel like Obama's just picking his battles here. What would you suppose FOX do to democrats if not but 2 weeks before an election "ram gay cock down the throats of the American people". This issue is better than that, and while they're going to bitch and moan anyway, this gives the president cover at least until the election is over, where he can make a decision and feel confident that 2 years from now no one will give a fuck. Maybe I am just grasping at straws and Obama really is being a dick, but I see progress, and not a real campaign to keep DADT forever, and that's more than enough for me. You shouldn't join the military anyway.
Oh Dan

There you Go Again

Get it through you head Dan if the GOP is in charge they not just don't repeal DADT, they start taking away what rights you have.
Sorry, Free Lunch, but those are the zombie lies the administration has been pushing, but they are just that -- lies.…

The administration and Congress has already said they won't be taking this up in the lame duck session.

Face it: gay civil rights are never convenient for this administration -- no matter the timing.

Not in 2009 or 2010, or the lame duck session, or 2011 -- they and you despise a Democratic base that worked hard to put them in power.

The only ones hurting gay rights now are Democrats: the Republicans have been fighting for them, and the Obama administration against.

Disgusting, and that's yet another segment of the Democrat base, flipped off by the Obama administration -- who are losing the House, and maybe even the Senate by screwing over the base, over and over.

Name the base, and the Obama administration has been high handed and nasty.

this is ridiculous.....

yes, fight DADT & continue to work towards the social acceptance of glbt citizens and their rights.

but, why the fuck are we protesting patty murray when she needs all the support she can get right now. dino rossi is waaaay worse.

gay people are important.....but we arent the beginning and end of the world.

big picture folks - hard to see, but a necessary view.
I just don't know what to think. I want to have faith in the President, but this is really screwy. I'm starting to think that he's either a giant chicken or a closet bigot.
You know he's spending the night in the Westin. Go say hi before his motorcade leaves for UW in the morning.

source: "During the president’s visit, only one Metro bus route will see changes. Route 70 will bypass its regular stop at Sixth Avenue and Virginia Street in Seattle."…
Politics is all about timing. Wait. I know it's not the answer you want, but be patient and put your outrage on the back burner. The only outcome is winning. You really think an executive order helps you? Then you have zero concept of cause-and-effect.
I dunno who would run against him in 2012, but I'm almost sure that, even as much as he's pissing me off with all this crap, he'll STILL be the lesser of two evils. God knows the dems are still a better choice for us than the republicans in 2010, even if they are complete failures. I'd rather have complete failures at advancing rights than complete successes at rescinding them.
@34: Read some Howard Zinn, please. The only rights we have are the rights we fought for.

@35: When will the fact that the lesser of two evils IS STILL FUCKING EVIL start sinking in with people? It isn't hyperbole when we're talking active bigotry.

I'll be at the protest w/ bells on, Dan.
Politics is only about timing when you let it be about timing, when you convince yourself to play their game. The game they've rigged against you. It doesn't have to be this way.
Obama is a liar. That's all, purely and simply a liar. I won't vote for him again, that's for sure. I hate the man now.
I have not read the above comments, however, what I can speak to is that I am a DADT discharge. This President has done nothing to help us. I fully agree with Dan, where is our "fierce advocate"? At this point I find it very hard to find a reason to vote for President Obama again. Not to say that GLBT issues are the only issues facing this nation, but please do not claim that you have our best at heart when you clearly do not.
Jeez, the Obama apologists are out again. "He really, really wants to end DADT, but you have to be patient while his 11-dimensional chess strategy plays out. Just give him time."

As with many of his other anti-progressive actions, it's not a matter of NOT doing something or not getting to it, but actually moving in the wrong direction. Obama actively and affirmatively reinstated DADT after it had been struck down. He did the opposite of eliminating DADT.

For all of you who say McCain would have been worse, how? Be specific. What exactly would he have done differently? Nothing. He would have *said* different things, but the actions would have been exactly the same. When Obama does it, it's even worse, because at least with McCain, the Obama apologists would not be making excuses.
Obama abandoned the public option and women's access to abortion for no good reason. Then he contradicts himself over and over on DADT. He's against gay marriage. He has kept Guantanamo. Then Gibbs blasts the "professional left", the presidents base. What does he expect? It's like he wants a radical, racist Republican Congress! I'm fucking angry myself. But I WILL VOTE!!! Because the president may not give a shit but I do!

I can't believe no one's said this yet, but the worst part about this is that openly gay people have enlisted in the military in the past week. They haven't hid it because they didn't think they had to (not a smart move, but they were hopeful I suppose), and so now they'll be discharged for being gay. I think this sucks for them more than anyone.
And remember, when the Democrats get their collective asses handed to them in a couple of weeks they will not take a single bit of responsibility for it.

I can't resist...the very model of a modern U.S. President:…
Something tells me that we're missing something here. Obama may be a politician, but given the type of person he is, I can't imagine why he'd continue to fight this unless there was a good reason.

The little I know about the law and how executive orders work in general is that they can be later taken to court and thrown out just the same as DADT was as well. I'm *thinking* (more like hoping) he's doing this as a requirement of due diligence and wants to make the repeal of DADT so ironclad that it can't be contested afterwards.

Or on the other hand he could just be a spineless jackass and I will regret not voting for Hillary in the '08 primaries.

so who exactly do you think DID free the slaves, asshole?

the Democraps?

Who, after hundreds of thousands of lives lost and the Civil War virtually won, ran on a platform in 1864 of letting the South succeed and keep it's slaves?

please don't disrespect Father Abraham again.

we expect, and find, mountains of bullshit on Slog but that crosses the line.
You girls don't appreciate Obama's brilliant strategy.

He is going to stall until after the midterm elections then get the new Republican Congress to repeal DADT.


It's Brilliant.
All you girls should definitely drag your skanky leaky asses down there and protest Obama.


Speak TRUTH to Power, Baby!!

Take it to the Streets!!!

Be sure to be flamboyant and faggy.

pull out your best gay pride stunts....

It's Really Important.

Cause then blObama can either continue to tell you to STUFF IT UP YOUR ASS (and demoralize the HomoLiberal fringe...) or toss you a few crumbs and be seen by Real America as a craven weak sap who is manipulated by the Perverts and Deviants.

It works either way.....
Vote Dino, a true defender of LGBT rights!
@27 -

I think we all agree we're going in the right direction and too slowly but showing our anger, sharing our hurt, demanding our equality is the REASON we are going in the right direction. We have to keep pushing. And that includes on Obama. He is a coward. Flat out. And we need to remind him. Kudos to GetEQUAL for keeping the pressure on...
I know I'm going to get dog-piled for this opinion but WTF (and for the record I don't consider myself a troll). Please take a second to read the article below and stop bashing the only president who's not going to turn gays into meat-loaf.


Jesus H. This shit is ridiculous. Your pushing people away with your whining and finger pointing.


If the common people don't support you, Obama FORCING an ILLEGAL law into affect JUST LIKE BUSH won't fucking help you either.

I give up. You've lost another active advocate. I will from here on out only passively support the gay rights movement. I will join you all in the land of "who gives a fuck."
@50: ...we keep up all this pressure on the President, which is pretty standard and something we need to do. But we blatantly ignore the blue dogs, the liars like Collins and Snowe (oh, we support DADT repeal oh wait no we don't) -- if we had the senators from AR, if we had Collins and Snowe, the bill would have passed.

He isn't magic, he's a president. Presidents are assholes.
I'm gay and an ardent Obama apologist. I admit I'm disappointed at this point, too. However, either you think Obama is lying and doesn't really want to kill DADT (I don't accept this) or you think that he does have a process by which he wants to accomplish this goal (which is what I sincerely believe). Everyone is right to keep the pressure on him, but I do believe Obama is determined and deliberate. Please read this:…

We will probably have a Repugnican House majority soon that would love to impeach Obama for not upholding the constitution. Disregarding DADT would be a great reason to impeach him. And some future president could disregard health care reform.
#54, I'm with you. That Dellinger piece you linked to is very sensible.
#26, you are awesome. Very well said.
If DADT is ended without proper care, we could be putting more gay men at risk for being killed by fellow soldiers who haven't been made ready. For certain, the right time for starting the process is LONG PAST , but the training still needs to be done. Don't throw gay men into the ring without preparing the troops. Think it through...
54: That's the new zombie lie being floated by this administration: "we can't stop discriminating, because Republicans might one day do it, too!"

Zombie lie #2: "And if we did stop discriminating against gays in the military, those dirty fags would steal your healthcare, somehow!"

Burnish your idol all you like, don't expect the rest of to swallow the fairytale.

Gay rights were never convenient for this administration, and it's one of the reasons they're losing the House, and possibly the Senate.

The left were the swing votes the Obama Administration got that Kerry didn't: now that we're disposable, Obama has screwed the Democrats out of control of Congress.

Funny how the base doesn't care to be shat upon.

Me, I'm voting Democrat, always have for 40 years, because the Republicans have always been crazy -- but I can't control the the righteously angry who are sitting on their hands, instead of GOTV, donating, and voting.

Good job, Obstacle-in-Chief!
@59 You're in a dream world if you think the left didn't vote for Kerry over Bush! Sure, there are always the lefties who backed Nader, but Nader got more votes in 2008 (738,475) than he got in 2004 (465,650). The voters that Obama got that Kerry didn't get were the new voters--young people and minorities--as well as the so-called "independent" voters. The left is, unfortunately, not a big portion of the electorate in the USA.

Good lefties like Alan Grayson and Russ Feingold are fighting for their political lives now and not because DADT and DOMA were not repealed. Those fellows are big queer allies! I do hope they are victorious, but it's not looking good.
If Obama doesn't have a choice about defending DADT why does he have a choice about prosecuting the people responsible for waterboading?
@58: Ending DADT isn't going to forcibly-out every gay service-member, it's going to allow them to come out if they feel it's a safe environment in which to do so, just like everywhere else. That's a specious argument; gay people have been navigating these treacherous waters all their lives, and most are pretty good at judging whether it's safe to disclose sexuality or not.

@59: Naw, the "swing voters" are largely a myth, though I'm guessing that those few who do exist got turned off when Obama didn't follow through on ending our wars or cutting the budget deficit (which he could do easily by raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations to pre-1980's levels, along with slashing military spending by ending our wars). The bigger issue is one of motivating people who don't always necessarily vote (our voter turnout is abysmal) to do so; most of them don't because they're working 2+ jobs and taking care of kids. This falls to the Dems-at-large, for not getting people excited (capitulating on public health insurance probably didn't help; please stop calling it "health care" legislation - it has nothing to do with health care, it's about health insurance). Also, don't believe polls: the methodologies can skew them so far as to be irrelevant. According to my poll (of people in my office), 95% of people are going to vote Dem in the upcoming election. I can't imagine the intelligent middle-right Reps are excited about voting at all: their choices are obstructionist incumbent Reps, ineffective Dems, or batshit-crazy and woefully-inexperienced Tea-Party-backed Rep challengers. The Dems have adopted the wrong strategy, though they still have a little less than 2 weeks to turn it around (not that they will): they need to mobilize the base and get as many people as possible out voting instead of going after the mythological "swing voters".
@62 I didn't use the term "swing voter." Please re-read my post.

And Obama did not promise to end both wars. In fact, he promised to escalate the conflict in Afghanistan. The "combat mission" of the Iraq war is over, whatever that means. Obama spoke of the deficit during the election, but didn't make it the center of his campaign; it was mostly an attack point against the "fiscally conservative" Repugnicans.
@46: Was Lincoln a conservative? Or was he a liberal progressive?
@30: "gay civil rights are never convenient for this administration -- no matter the timing." That must be why he signed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill. That's how much he hates gay people -- he signed a bill making it mandatory for you to hate them.

Oh wait, the opposite of that. Obama signed into law the biggest advancement of gay rights at the federal level ever. So maybe it would be more accurate to say Obama's record on gay civil rights are never convenient for certain liberals -- no matter the facts.
@ 61,

Great point!

If Obama doesn't have a choice about defending DADT why does he have a choice about prosecuting the people responsible for waterboading?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.