Good piece by Sullivan:
Some now want this president to be Andrew Cuomo, a heroically gifted advocate of marriage equality who used all his skills to make it the law in his state. But the truth is that a governor is integral to this issue in a way a president can never be. Civil marriage has always been a state matter in the US. That tradition goes all the way back; it was how the country managed to have a patchwok of varying laws on miscegenation for a century before Loving vs Virginia. The attack on this legal regime was made by Republicans who violated every conservative principle in the book when they passed DOMA, and seized federal control over the subject by refusing for the first time ever not to recognize possible legal civil marriages in a state like Hawaii or Massachusetts. Defending this tradition is not, as some would have it, a kind of de facto nod to racial segregation; it is a defense of the norm in US history. And by defending that norm, the Obama administration has a much stronger and more coherent case in knocking down DOMA than if it had echoed Clinton in declaring that the feds would dictate a national marriage strategy.
More to the point, until very recently, if we had had to resolve this issue at a federal level, marriage equality would have failed. The genius of federalism is that it allowed us to prove that marriage equality would not lead to catastrophe, that it has in fact coincided with a strengthening of straight marriage, that in many states now, the sky has not fallen. That is why a man like David Frum has changed his mind – for the right conservative reason. Because there is evidence that this is not a big deal and yet unleashes a new universe of equality and dignity and integration for a once-despised minority. Obama’s defense of federalism in this instance is not a regressive throw-back; it is a pragmatic strategy.
I’ve been saying this for a while, so it is no real shock I agree with him.
I know it would make people feel really good for a brief moment if he got out and USED THE BULLY PULPIT and pounded his fists and REALLY FOUGHT THOSE REPUBLICANS, but it wouldn’t accomplish anything. This, too, is spot on:
One more thing. A civil rights movement does not get its legitimacy from any president. I repeat: he does not legitimize us; we legitimize him. As gays and lesbians, we should stop looking for saviors at the top and start looking for them within. We won this fight alongside our countless straight family members, friends, associates and fellow citizens. As long as Obama has done due diligence in the office he holds – and he has – he is not necessary to have as a Grand Marshall for our parade.
Exactly. But it is much more fun and profitable to scream “OBAMA HATES THE GAYS AND BETRAYED US AND OH BTW HIT THE TIP JAR SO I CAN CONTINUE MY IMPORTANT WORKS LOLZORS,” so expect it to continue.
Amanda in the South Bay
Eep, I just got whiplash reading Cole praising Sully.
Villago Delenda Est
Not to worry. Time will move on, and Andrew Sullivan will still be blinking “12:00”.
Freddie deBoer
I would really appreciate it if you would list the times when people are allowed to argue their conscience, and when they have to be good soldiers for the cause and keep their heads down.
And I will repeat: these are exactly the arguments that were made against aggressive pursuit of abolition of slavery and the civil rights agenda. Exactly.
Amanda in the South Bay
More states rights bullshit.
Sully has long been a concern troll, worried about the courts “usurping” the role of legislatures. The “genius” of federalism is that the vast majority of gay Americans live in states where there are either constitutional amendments barring same sex marriage, or its simply not legal. The only (and it is a big downside) downside to going to the federal court system is Anthony Kennedy.
Seriously, what are Sully’s views concerning the Civil Rights Act?
slag
I didn’t realize these were “conservative” reasons. So what are “liberal” reasons to support marriage equality?
burnspbesq
In light of the reports emerging today regarding apparent falsification of safety records by Massey Energy, I would not mind a bit if Obama used a variation on the bully pulpit, i.e., the telephone call to the Attorney General.
“Eric?”
“Yes, Mr. President?”
“It would be good for the country if your department were to fuck these guys up good and proper.”
mk387
BRAVO! Please keep calling-out the faux TV personality “progressive activists” like Jane Hamsher. She only plays one on TV and collects $$ for her business interests.
Bottom-line is this: progressive activits did their jobs in 2006 & 2008 and went on vacation.
They’ve been sitting back with feet up, yelling at Obama for not doing their dirty work for them.
Meanwhile, the Tea Party has filled the void of angry activists while progressives are too busy whining and sniping.
Han's Solo
This is the annoying thing about Sullivan. He, occasionally, stakes out well thought out, rational positions on one issue then turns around the next day and praises the Ryan Plan. He then has to spend several weeks slowly walking back his support for the silliness because he can’t just come out and say, “Yeah, sorry for saying the Ryan Plan was serious, maybe I should have learned what was in it before I started typing.”
Maybe it is because he posts so much that he doesn’t always think about what he is writing, he just writes it. On the gay marriage issue he has invested the time and energy needed to actually understand the issue, so he can write persuasively about it.
jeffreyw
@Villago Delenda Est: That reminds me…I’m gonna go pull the plug on my bedroom clock before it drives me crazy.
Davis X. Machina
I generally have no use for the man, but this: ‘I repeat: he does not legitimize us; we legitimize him’ is spot on.
When the people lead, the leaders follow. The idea is supposed to be popular self-government, not a semi-comatose populace rousing itself for periodic spasms of ratifying or rejecting decisions made in advance by the great-and-good.
Amanda in the South Bay
@DXM:
But for the large chunk of gay Americans living in solidly Red America, that’ll probably take about 50 years demographically.Not very fertile conditions for liberals and gays to take the lead on anything.
Violet
We are the ones we have been waiting for.
Villago Delenda Est
Or, as was the case between 1981-1993 and 2001-2009, the stupid and/or utterly evil.
Tom
Kudos to Cuomo,but he needs a simple majority,rather than 60%to pass anything contentious. Different systems,different politics.
burnspbesq
@Amanda:
Your argument seems to reduce to “If I can’t have everything I want, right the fuck now, then I don’t want anything.” Which seems silly and self-defeating.
ETA: Also too, in our legal system nobody needs permission from the government in order to move from one state to another.
Davis X. Machina
@ Amanda in the South Bay
Federal action would be far more likely, given the complexion of the courts, to result in a nationwide spate of additional strictures, in place of state-by-state legalization.
Loving came late.
Imagine a world in which Brown v. Board loses, and think about the next two or three decades in that context.
What would have happened?
John Cole
False dichotomy, meet Freddie deBoer.
No one is saying you can’t argue your conscience on this issue. I do every day! I think gay marriage should be the law of the land.
What we are saying is that pointlessly lashing out at people who really aren’t the ones responsible for things makes no sense. And that screaming at Obama because he won’t do things the WAY you want him to do them is unproductive. And silly.
If your conscience requires you to have hissy fits about Obama and write posts claiming he is a bigot and worse on gay rights than Bush, knock yourself out. But you’re an idiot, and I will take the time to point that out.
cleek
and, the NY GOP is not the federal GOP. and the NY legislature is not Congress. and NY is not the US.
Just Some Fuckhead
Is this really something that requires pushback? This is the second front page post defending Obama from an attack I haven’t seen made anywhere.
Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted)
Shorter Andrew Sullivan: “I’ve got mine, so fuck you.”
Really, John, Sullivan is borderline unstable, has no perspective, and cares mostly only for himself and his clan, as you have often pointed out on this blog.
So why the fuck would you claim his writing to bolster your own flawed thinking? Not a good strategy.
No matter how often you claim otherwise, any thinking person knows that the president of the united states can change a LOT of minds from ,yes, his bully pulpit.
All that said, this is clearly another emo trolling post, at which you are becoming very skilled. However, I’d posit that you are using the tactic too frequently, and it is becoming transparent.
As for people who fight for marriage equality asking for money, when are the ads on BJ coming down?
JGabriel
Sully:
Given that racial segregation was the norm in US history until 1965, I’m not seeing the contradiction Sully asserts here. It was the Supreme Court, a federal court, that broke that norm in the realm of marriage laws with Loving v. Virginia.
In Congress, yes. In the Supreme Court? I’m not so sure about that — Kennedy seems a likely vote in favor of it, if ever gets there, as do the 4 “liberal” members.
BTW, just to clear, I’m not arguing that Obama should have been, or should be, more involved in advocating for gay marriage. I agree with Cole that Obama’s engagement with the issue would just exacerbate resistance from Republicans right now.
What I am taking issue with is the argument that gay marriage is, or should be, strictly a state issue.
Sooner or later, SCOTUS or Congress is going to have to deal with overturning or repealing DOMA and the state bans on gay marriage nationwide. Maybe it happens when there are 10 states that have legalized it, or 20, but a patchwork of states where it’s legal and states where it’s outlawed is not going to work.
.
.
Villago Delenda Est
This, this, this.
Totally different circumstances and environment in almost every aspect. Nuance is important.
MikeJ
And he got the emo troll to respond.
Woodrow L. Goode, IV
I can’t speak for everyone, but I didn’t decide that I’d prefer Cuomo to Obama because Cuomo would be better on Gay Rights than St. Barack the Bipartisan.
I think he’d be a better president because Cuomo clearly understands how to push a bill through. Compare and contrast:
1. The New York Times account of how Cuomo directed the fight.
2. The Washington Post account of how Obama bungled the closing of Gitmo.
And, please, no Ygelesias-Booman-Benen rationalizations about how the U.S. Congress is so much more broken than the New York legislature. That is, to some degree, true, but:
1. Obama never put anyone in charge (and the writers suggest that the people who had authority to move it opposed it).
2. There was never any coordination between executive and legislative– which the House and Senate supporters complained about.
3. While Cuomo correctly guessed the amount of opposition and took steps to overcome or ameliorate it, the White House was stunned that people who’d already admitted they’d do anything to make his presidency fail did exactly what they promised.
Andrew Cuomo has an advantage, in that he’s a legacy who watched his dad at work and (I lived in New York while Mario was active) identified and corrected many of Mario’s biggest weaknesses. But Obama’s lack of experience and savvy is an explanation, not an excuse.
This event illustrates the leadership problem that the intelligent and experienced members of the “professional left” get upset about.
Amanda in the South Bay
@burnspbesq:
Hardly, but I don’t claim to have any philosophical objections to SCOTUS deciding on this issue either. Slow and steady may be the Burkean way, but lets face it, the difference of two SCOTUS justices is the only reason why people are jittery about it. So yeah, the only objection I have to taking this to SCOTUS is that we don’t have a surefire majority on the court. Not because…well, not because of any bullshit reason Sully would give.
Davis X. Machina
In the usual places, it’s already a commonplace.
John Cole
Tim- that made less sense than usual.
JSF- Pushback? Are you unaware how blogging works? I read something, I agree with it or disagree with it, link it, and then add my two cents. People then come in and argue with each other for a while, predictable camps are formed with the Pro-Obama at all cost on one side, the anti-Obama forces on the other, it goes on for about 200 comments and in the end we count the Hitler references. There’s no coordinated “pushback,” it’s just a damned blog post.
Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted)
When the people lead, the leaders follow. The idea is supposed to be popular self-government, not a semi-comatose populace rousing itself for periodic spasms of ratifying or rejecting decisions made in advance by the great-and-good.
Ah…first Pretzel Person of the thread.
Great leaders follow! The best followers lead!
What nonsense.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
The NYT, Richard Cohen in the Washington Post, Rachel Maddow, just to name three that I saw. I rarely read firebagger blogs anymore, I’m sure there were some great insights there. And I missed the Daily Show, I’m sure St Stewart had some world-weary simpering to do to reflect his disappointment.
Villago Delenda Est
Eventually the full faith and credit clause will be brought up as an issue when a marriage of two gays, perfectly legal and accepted in NY is not acknowledged by one of the dumbfuckistan Faux Nooze loving states.
Then the fur will fly.
Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted)
@JC:
Well, I’ve only had one glass of Diet Pepsi. Let me get up to speed…
Jim, Foolish Literalist
[email protected]
Wow, just that title is incredibly stupid.
dpcap
Can’t agree with you more John. But, then again, I guess that’s why I read your blog and not some of the tripe at FDL.
@27: LAFF OUT LOUD.
jaywillie
But…but…they’re blogging…angry blogging…and…and advancing political strategies like saying “Use the Bully Pulpit HARDER” and “Make Congress do it,” because all that crap they said about Bush instituting a unitary executive was just a mood swing.
I mean, they can’t invest time and effort lobbying the branch of our government that writes and passes laws…that would take time away from all the blogging–the very angry, circular, “If you’re not enraged 24/7, you’re not doing it right” blogging. It’s much more effective to get angry at the President for not doing EVERYTHING faster and harder.
Sure, sure…they could get organized like real activists in Wisconsin & Ohio (or any of the other states where their brilliant strategy of telling people not to vote helped contribute to the election of some of the biggest assholes ever put in a governor’s mansion) but…but the sick, the elderly, the poor, teachers, nurses, police officers, firefighters–they have to suffer more because then…PROFIT!!! I mean, think of the children being cut from health insurance programs or being sent to public schools with even less funding. Clearly, “we” win when we help ensure that there is even less funding for those programs, because the road to progress is lined with even shittier public schools, higher tuition rates for college, and ending collective bargaining for public unions, and paved with sick kids whose parents get kicked off Medicaid for making less than $500/week.
The Golden Age of progressive politics will rain down upon us like the bounty of supply-side tax cuts! Don’t you get that the way forward is to adopt a political posture that enables the destruction of the very progress previously achieved–by actual activists who organized and mobilized–while simultaneously hyperventilating about everything Pres. Obama hasn’t done?
Just Some Fuckhead
lolz
chopper
i’m sure cuomo’s chris christie-esque economic policies are what really put him at the top of your list. breaking unions and firing teachers? can’t lose!
flounder
I’d like to point to the post below this one, where Obama floats the idea of another tax cut, and Republicans immediately attack it as the worst idea in the world, even though it is the first tax cut in 30 years (except the ones they pretend weren’t in Obama’s stimulus package) they have opposed.
Now let’s flip that to gay marriage. Does anyone really think that adding a little Obama Derangement Syndrome to the gay rights issue really helps?
Can you tell me what happens when Obama starts publicly calling out Republican state senators from New York?
MAJeff
.
I’m at a loss to see why people think Kennedy is on board. In Lawrence, he was quite clear that the decision had nothing to do with marriage. This doesn’t seem like an issue he’s willing to get way out in front on.
Someone above noted that the Loving decision came rather late in the game. It occurred about 20 years after the California Supreme Court became the first to strike down an anti-miscegination law. At the time of Loving, there were only 16 states that still had such laws. On marriage equality, we’re closer to the Perez decision than the Loving one in the time line. We’re more likely to get a Hardwick v Bowers decision out of Alito or Scalia than we are a Loving-like decision out of Kennedy.
Davis X. Machina
@ jaywillie
Shut up. You’re not the base. I am the base, dammit.
cleek
also: gayrightsisnotthemotherfuckingpublicoption.
jaywillie
@Tim: That just not true. If you ever bothered to study political science, you would discover that the so-called bully pulpit is most effective when it is in conjunction with a popular movement(ie, TR enacting industrial standards came from the “grassroots” up in response to public outrage; the people, in essence, took an issue to him; he didn’t campaign on it and they didn’t waste their time before he got on-board sending missives to the local paper society page about what a do-nothing, no-good, sellout prick he was).
terraformer
I know I’m going to get attacked for this, and I don’t believe it would have worked for this particular issue, but the bully pulpit does have its uses, and it is not being used (in my estimation) for other issues, and I think it should be.
Gore wrote well on this in that RS article:
Now, that was surely about climate change. But it could just as easily apply to taxes, to spending, to promoting the liberal alternative in general. No, this alone would not lead to 60 Senators automatically singing a different tune. No one is suggesting that. The realities of our system are apparent to anyone who pays attention. But what it might just do is begin the long, arduous process of persuasion which, like gay marriage, has led people like Frum to change their tune as Sully wrote.
aisce
@ just some fuckhead, 19
well, then you’re just a dumbass who’s being willfully ignorant and blind to cause trouble.
i do hope that these kind of posts don’t persist for another 16 months though (is it really that long still until the election? sigh). when obama finally “evolves” in 2013 and publicly declares his support for something he’s privately believed in for decades now, will it be cynical and cowardly and emblematic of the ways elections corrupt politicians into saying things they don’t believe?
yes.
will it also mean that he’s the first president to support full equality for all of this nation’s citizens regardless of sexuality or gender?
yes. yes, it will. he’ll be a genuine fucking civil rights icon forever and ever. suck it haters. the world ain’t fair. the long arc of history is ripe for freeloaders and opportunists and johnny come latelies. but that isn’t the point. it bends towards justice regardless.
Davis X. Machina
@ jaywillie: The bully pulpit is the only reason why Reagan was able to get his US invasion of Nicaragua, and Bush his Social Security privitzation. On the plus side, to be fair, it did deliver President Clinton’s health care reforms, though.
You just want to want things bad enough, and make enough fiery speeches. The rest is just technique, and parliamentary stuff.
Bulworth
To ruin marriage for heterosexuals, to blame-America-first, to destroy American culture, to make William Bennett’s head explode, to divide the fine folks at NRO, etc.
I think Sully believes that conservatism does things based on evidence and liberalism does things based on feelings. Although Sully seems to have his own private based understanding of what conservatism should be, in contrast to what conservatism actually is and does in reality.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
If Andrew Cuomo is the new Howard Dean, shouldn’t we all make a point of referring to him as Governor Cuomo? And if Cuomo is reading all this bloggy love, I hope he understands it will never survive and actual run for the White House, much less a presidential administration.
OzoneR
He’s only the SECOND president to outright support abortion rights.
THE SECOND
jaywillie
@Davis X. Machina
No, I’m the base! Because I got a blog and said so, so that’s like incontrovertible. Pffffft!
OzoneR
A conservative Democratic governor who becomes the hero of the left over one issue?
Genine
I think it’s the relentless screaming about Obama that has confused me the most. It’s like he and only he can give these rights as if he were an Emperor and he is the only thing standing standing between them and full equality.
And for the record I am NOT saying gays shouldn’t be upset. NO ONE has said that on this blog to my knowledge. But why not go after Congress? The body that actually makes laws. A lot of right-wing groups use that strategy with great success (unfortunately). True, we on the left don’t have the “lock-step” mentality that Republicans do but why not use some strategy?
Now that I think on it, a lot of right wingers call for attacks on Congress people that don’t vote as they wish. Weather it’s sending tea bags to or rock salt to various members of congress, they make their feelings known to the legislative body and Congress takes their demands seriously (or sells their souls to say they take them seriously). But when Congress does something we don’t like or doesn’t work on a law we don’t want, we yell at the President for not making them do what we want.
Please note that when I say “fight Congress” I mean fight Congress. I mean lobby, primary, protest or whatever the legislative body. I do NOT mean STFU or don’t be upset.
It’s interesting that we mock conservatives for being “top-down” authoritarians but we whine because we’re not getting “top-down” change.
Honestly, I don’t think Obama speaking up on gay rights issues will help the cause much. Through my outreach work, I find keeping it to “the people” level has done more to change people’s minds. Bring government and Obama into it and people seem to react as if they’re being dictated to and react negatively. Of course this is all anecdotal, but keeping things on a grass-roots level and working from “the bottom-up” is a good thing to do, imo.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Heh. I was thinking the Unstoppable Non-President of Shouldland, but yours works too. To be fair, Cuomo has actually accomplished something on his single issue.
as to bully pulpits and getting tough, anybody remember this?
That was with majorities in both houses
Tim in SF
Sullivan is a strangely broken clock. He’s right twice a day, but only when it comes to gay marriage, and only because it’s self-serving for him to do so.
Its all well and good that marriage is left to the states. But you know what is not left to the states? The GOD DAMN FEDERAL MARRIAGE BENEFITS. This year I paid an extra $561 because I couldn’t file joint federal taxes with my spouse.
So fuck Obama and Sully and JC and everyone else who says it should be left to the states, and fuck them five hundred and sixty one times.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
put me in the obama camp.
it sucks but winning a hill at a time is the only way this gets meaningfully done. at some point a critical mass will be reached. it isn’t what people believe on the isolated issue that matters, its how many will vote for or against, or stay home, based on that issue alone.does anyone have numbers of how many votes the bully pulpit would gain, and how many it would lose, relative to the state’s overall vulnerability or winnability in 2012.
JGabriel
MAJeff:
You may be right, which is why I’m not pushing for a SCOTUS decision now. I think Kennedy is a likely, but not certain, vote in favor of it.
But yes, it may take a lot more states recognizing and licensing gay marriage than the 6 (+ DC) that we have now, before SCOTUS will decide in its favor.
.
ira-NY
What I give Cuomo credit for is getting the Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina delegations in the NY legislature to go along with this.
JGabriel
Sully:
Yeah, this week. Until Cuomo does something that’s too pro-Wall St.
I mean, Cuomo is the governor of New York. Eventually, he’s gonna have to throw a bone to Wall St. on some issue.
.
Woodrow L. Goode, IV
I don’t know if anyone cares, but the “Reply” hyperlink seems to be broken– at least when I view the site in Chrome or Firefox (on a PC running Windows XP). That’s why some people are using the @ reply. Been like this for a week or two.
Second, I’m not aware that it was one issue that pushed Howard Dean up in the polls. What I found attractive is that he was correct about at least three issues (Health Care, Gay Rights and the War in Iraq), and that he made forceful declarative statements, rather than vague platitudes couched in clouds of jargon and fractured, run-on sentences.
One thing that Democrats willfully do not understand (while wingnuts get at a visceral level) is that voters respond to someone who is speaking clearly and with conviction– even if what they are saying is total gibberish. (see Bachman, Michele)
I’m guessing (he absolutely hasn’t made his position clear) that Obama believes in gay marriage, as long as it doesn’t cost him any political capital. I don’t expect every elected official to agree with me on everything, so that’s OK.
That position, when coupled with the demand that activists do nothing the White House doesn’t explicitly authorize, is what I find unacceptable.
MikeJ
JGabriel @54:
I agree. And that doesn’t mean I hate gay people, it doesn’t mean I don’t think they deserve equal rights, it doesn’t even mean I want them to sit down and shut up. If someone were denying me rights and my so called allies told me to be patient and in 20-50 years we’ll all have a good laugh about how silly it was, I’d be pissed.
Being pissed wouldn’t change the fact the slow work through the states is probably, for the time being, the best way forward.
Admiral_Komack
@terraformer:
Al Gore couldn’t use the bully pulpit as Vice-President…to become President.
MikeJ
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/nyregion/28budget.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Cris (without an H)
All proceeds from those ads go to feeding Tunch, duh.
JGabriel
BJ’s Wholesale Agrees to $2.8 Billion Buyout
We’re gonna be rich!
I didn’t even know Balloon Juice had a wholesale club!
.
amk
hitler …
JGabriel
Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
Really? It seems to work fine for me.* Maybe it’s something on your end?
(*No, it doesn’t. I’m just fucking with all y’alls heads.)
.
DougMN
I want a post on Frum’s article:
http://www.frumforum.com/obama-is-his-own-worst-enemy
cleek
60:MikeJ
traitor to the cause!
Cris (without an H)
Yeah, that’s a known issue. John said “I’m sure the author of the plugin will fix it soon,” but the author of the plugin’s official position is “oh sorry, you’ll need to manually roll back the changes yourself.”
Linda Featheringill
My goodness. John Cole wrote a post and I agree with it all the way through. Where is my calendar? June the what? 29?
:-)
Cris (without an H)
Ha ha, you can’t fool me. There are only 28 days in June!
(I just edited the Wikipedia article on June to support my assertion, btw.)
John Puma
The NY bill hardly “unleashes a new universe of equality and dignity and integration for a once-despised minority,” but simply lifts the unconstitutional blockade of self-evident equality under the law.
This blockade still affirmatively exists in the VAST majority of the states.
eemom
@ 57
The Reply button has been Galt for several weeks now.
I suspect it hasn’t been fixed yet because no one has e-mailed Cole about it. He’s kind of a stickler for responding to complaints only when they are submitted through the proper channels.
les
Timmy the Troll
Well, you may have set a new standard for stupid. First, on the issue at hand, the people/”followers” are in fact leading; support among voters for SSM has been and continues to grow. Second, the obvious implication of your spew here is that leaders dictate to voters/”followers” whatever they want, that’s why they’re leaders; of course, what you mean is leaders are to dictate to the followers the outcome that you want. Talk about fucking nonsense.
Midnight Marauder
Woodrow L. Goode, IV
So, what is your point again? Because you realize that last sentence indicates that you have no point, right? It takes the point you thought you were making and negates it wholly.
You are aware of this, correct?
les
Well, fucking edit has vanished with reply; kindly imagine that all but the last paragraph of 72 are in the blockquote.
Valdivia
ha ha I love it–the super-majority nature of the US Congress doesn’t matter at all! Obama should be able to pass everything! And when he actually does (ACA, Lily Ledbetter, Repeal of DADT) it doesn’t count at all that he got these things done, because, shut up that’s why.
head.hits.desk.
Also, too. What John said.
slag
Interesting….I always thought of those as conservative reasons to reject marriage equality since they are all pretty much inevitable byproducts of the status quo.
Woodrow L. Goode, IV
@71
No, it’s a bug (see @67).
According to the forum post, the author wants people to paste in one line of code in one module.
One can credibly argue that the author is at fault for not posting a fix. One can also argue that it’s easier for site admins to paste it it– arguably safer than downloading a new fix and installing it (WordPress has been known to blow during that step).
If it were my site, I’d just do it, Maybe the White House has asked John not to act unilaterally until they can negotiate a bipartisan solution.
Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted)
Please define “trolling” as it exists in your simple obot mind.
Thank you.
englishmajor
Which voters? Not Democrats. All those press-beloved Independents may sway elections, but the Democrats can’t win without Democrats. Last I checked, it was the Republicans (and their lunatic spawn) who have a special love of total gibberish. Democrats suffer from an understanding of nuance.
It’s the childish “Progressive” wing of our party that demands dogma from on high, even when it delivers 8 years of George W. Bush. If y’all fuck up 2012, you become officially a cult of narcissistic bastards who care more for your own righteousness than for actual justice.
Midnight Marauder
Every time you show up and post.
/O-BOT…AWWWWWWAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY!
Ash Can
@ terraformer #42: I agree that Gore wrote well on the subject and has a point, but I think there are important differences in the situations of addressing climate change and addressing gay rights, specifically marriage rights. The extent of involvement of state-level governments in marriage licensing in general as opposed to the extent of federal-level involvement (on a practical basis, nil) indicates that it’s far more effective to work for change on the state level rather than on the federal level — the resulting laws are clearer and more specific (and thus less subject to erosure), and it happens much faster, even if the nationwide patchwork effect that results is still frustrating. Climate change, on the other hand, is an issue whose direct arena is maximally massive (viz., the entire planet), so action on a national scale is the next-best thing to action on a comprehensive international scale, and certainly the best approach a single sovereign nation can take. Against this backdrop, I agree with Gore that the president should lead on this issue. Obama has chosen not to, at least thus far, because he evidently regards other issues as more pressing (which, while not being optimal, is at least understandable given distasteful political reality). In the case of climate change, the “bully pulpit” would be far more effective than in the case of any issue whose primary (if not only) political impact takes place on the state-government level.
slag
Holy shit. Is this really the only step between us and the Reply button? And yet still no Reply button? I don’t believe you.
beergoggles
Quoting Sully doesn’t really say much for your ability to make logical arguments. To quote Colbert, Sully writes “straight from the gut, okay?” He “give(s) people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument”.
If you believe that equality for LGBTs is a civil rights issue of equal protection, then the federal government including the office of the president has a part to play in pushing for it. It really is as simple as that. I will not blame the firebag-gays who do not see the president supporting this and thus conclude that he doesn’t believe LGBTs are deserving of their civil rights no matter how often he says he believes they are entitled to equality.
trollhattan
@52.Tim in SF
Is that the case now? I ask because for many years (Clinton/Bush) we had a marriage “penalty” that cost our family a few thou per year. Our accountant even counseled clients to get hitched out of the country so they could continue to file singly. I’ve lost track, as the rules change so frequently.
(How’s that for topic drift, also, too?)
Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted)
Just wow. You are an idiot. Plus, of course, you know good and well I didn’t type any of the bullshit you claim to pretend to believe that I did.
Please READ and respond to statements actually made, not what you wish had been said.
Believe it or not, dumbshit, it is at the same time possible for a social change to be groundswelling from below at the same time a vigorous leader who believes in just causes enables it with his voice from above. These two things are not impossible at the same time, except in the world where you pretend it to be the case so that you can make excuses for Prez Pragmatic’s spineless waverings.
Amanda in the South Bay
Please, this has nothing to do with Obama, firebaggers, etc. Those are all red herrings. It has everything to do with Sully (and the modern conservative movement’s) distaste of the federal court system as a method for achieving civil rights. And yes, there is a very good argument for not pursuing that path, since Kennedy is such an unreliable swing vote.
Its the same sorta bullshit that conservatives throw out when they criticize the Warren court’s civil rights decisions. And yeah, I fully expect Sully, if he’s consistent, to throw away his marriage license, since he got married in a state where SSM was legalized through the courts (“oh noes, the BACKLASH!!!”).
ETA: Ask yourself: what would Sully’s reaction have been if SSM had been legalized via New York’s highest court rather than the legislature? Most likely, lots of Burkean concern trolling.
Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted)
Well, naturally. As has been noted many, many times here, for Obots, “troll” is just another word for a commenter you disagree with.
Now, back to the regularly scheduled BJ “Obama is just being careful and serious and pragmatic and sensible and not saying stuff because every time he does the republicans are mean to him” programming…
Woodrow L. Goode, IV
@73
I’m aware that you ignored everything I wrote after it, yes. I’m aware that I probably have a vastly better grasp of these issues than than you do, having worked as an intern in the NY State Assembly and as a lobbyist in Ohio.
The legislature’s rules are an issue. However, if the executive doesn’t even assign someone who supports the bill as its point man, and it doesn’t develop of follow a strategy, the bill has no chance of getting through, even in a weak legislature (like Georgia or Louisiana).
That’s one of the things that has people who really know the legislative process angry. It’s possible that the Obama Administrations failure (almost everything that has passed is due to the skill of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) is due to inexperience. A lot of first-time mayors, county executives, governors and presidents do make these sorts of mistakes early in their terms/
However, they typically get better. Obama hasn’t.
Another possibility is that bills are being sent off unprotected and unsupported because the White House prefers that they die. Given the amount of experienced legislative aides in the administration, it’s difficult to believe that they keep making the same basic mistakes by accident.
slag
Yeah. Because nobody ever disagrees on this blog. Ever.
freelancer
I sense a disturbance in the force. As if somehow a douchebag in a leather jacket and an intrepid criminal justice journalist from Nashville are shrieking out in butthurtedness, assuming this post is about them even though they weren’t discussed.
Turgidson
@Hans Solo near the top:
Wait, did he say he was sorry for his Ryan reacharound? I don’t read him much – enough of his posts end up cited here (though thankfully for the purpose of mocking as needed now).
I saw a little bit of moderate skepticism, or saying he’d do the details differently, but no “oops, yeah, Ryan’s an unhinghed charlatan and not serious at all.” It was more along the lines of: “well at least he tried to do something about the looming debt crisis, and I still think he’s better than those demagoguing evil liberals who have the nerve to say Ryan’s a fool and his plan is worse than a used roll of toilet paper” kind of bullshit that landed him in the Mock category to begin with.
and sure, this post is fine. He’s always been relatively sane about gay rights. Geeeeee I wonder why that might be. If there was a Ryan plan directed at gays (not just those freeloading old people he doesn’t have to deal with), he’d make better posts about that I think.
Linda Featheringill
les #75
Edit
Right click on edit
Choose open in a new window
Do the editing
Save
Wait for the successfully saved note
Close that window [the editing one]
Return to original comment
Refresh the page
Your editing should now be installed.
[No, it isn’t obvious at all.]
les
Timmy the Schlong, at 86, suggest I’m an idiot for pointing out his idiocy. At least, I can read his posts, which he apparently cannot. In response to this:
young (assumed) Timmy responded:
Perhaps Timmy didn’t mean to say it was nonsense, or didn’t understand the implication that leaders impose action whether followers want it or not; but therein lies the idiocy. You’re welcome.
les
Linda @ 93–your explanation is perfectly clear. Alas, some time around (or perhaps before, my aged memory is suspect) the disappearance of the reply button, my edit button disappeared. I have nothing to right click. I am, however, saving your fine instructions against the day of its return.
FYWP.
Trurl
That’s easy. You are required to STFU whenever pointing out the failures in Obama’s record would diminish the chances of his re-election – an outcome which is more important than equal rights for gays, habeas corpus for military prisoners, the lives of Pakistani civilians, or the rule of law as embodied in the War Powers Act.
Jennifer
@ 21 JGabriel –
I think what’s more likely is that these states that haven’t legalized it will be forced to recognize as valid those marriages performed in the states that HAVE legalized it. A couple will move to one of these states, the state (or one of its functionaries) will refuse to recognize the marriage, it will go to the SC, and the ruling will be that they have to recognize the marriage. Probably won’t touch on whether or not their state has to legalize same-sex marriage performed within its own borders…but the result will be de facto legalized same-sex marriage throughout the nation. Couples may continue to have to travel to states where performing the marriages are legal for a few years, and then, at some point, the bufords will wake up and say, “hey, we’re having to recognize these marriages that our citizens are going out-of-state to have performed…we might as well be getting the economic benefits of letting those marriages happen right here in-state.”
That’s when it will finally be legal everywhere. In the interim, there will be inconvenience associated with having to travel to another state to get married, but it will be possible. Just like quickie divorces in Reno were an inconvenient option, but one that many used to their advantage.
Here’s what I want to ask the folks hyperventilating about Obama’s lack of “leadership” on this issue: who do you want appointing the next SC justice, the one that will decide who has the majority on the court that will end up hearing this issue? Obama, or Michelle Bachmann? Because states like MO, IN, OH, NC, VA are on the line, and if Obama loses some or all of them as a result of saying the happy words you want to hear him say, you can look forward to having a conservative court for at least the next 20 years, and everything I postulated above will be moot.
Woodrow L. Goode, IV
@80
People who speak as poorly as John Kerry and Al Gore find it extremely difficult to get elected, no matter what their credentials are or what race they run in.
Are you really deluded enough to blame progressives for words like “I voted for it before I voted against it” or that world salad Kerry prepared when asked about his position on abortion?
Bill Clinton’s best feature was that, even when he was telling a boldfaced lie– which he knew could be disproved– he sounded 100% sure of himself. And when he swore that this, his 14th flip-flop on the issue was his by-god final stand, it carried weight.
The police captain in 48 Hours has it wrong: Saying it with conviction is absolutely what matters. It’s the first thing voters look for and it’s usually the tiebreaker if the can’t find anybody whose ideas they really like.
Having tried to sell Howard Metzenbaum to downstate voters on two occasions– and discovering, to my great joy, that they liked him for hollering and pounding the table, even if they loathed the policies he was proposing– I’m pretty sure of my ground. Metz would get totals in wingnut strongholds that more moderate candidates didn’t because they at least believed he stood for something.
The Teabaggers might have pushed this doctrine a little too far, and it might bite them in 2012. But it’ll take opponents whose first language isn’t jargon and qualifiers to do it.
LongHairedWeirdo
Regarding the use of the bully pulpit, I think the more people realize this, the better. Right now, anything Barack Obama says will get mocked and attacked by the right wing.
He has very cleverly realized that they can berate him for a lack of “leadership” but it won’t hurt him or his cause as much as, say, claiming that police who arrest a man *at his own house*, acted “stupidly”.
Republicans want Obama to come out in favor of marriage equality because it’s a chance to revive the issue with their base, who is otherwise losing, step by miserable step.
Carbon Dated
@slag
If I remember Sully’s original post, he was claiming that Frum had a “conservative reason” to change his mind (not to support marriage equality). The conservative reason (sic), is that Frum realized over time that his original argument — that teh gays would ROON the institution of marriage and eat America’s values — didn’t happen, and was thus disproved over time.
Now if the conservatives would only apply that reasonable standard to other tropes, like ‘tax cuts create jobs’ or ‘freedom bombs will spread democracy’ …
cleek
former House member, former Lt Gov, and five-term Senator John Kerry has a hard time getting elected ?
four time House member, two term Senator, former VP Al Gore, too ?
Yutsano
Because electing a Republican will of course accomplish all those objectives. Unless you’re one of those primary nutters.
slag
I understand. I’m just saying that putting the word “conservative” in there doesn’t make it so. Empiricism is not a conservative value. As the conservatives themselves keep reminding us (demonstrated by your point about tax cuts, etc.).
Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted)
Yeah. Hence the never-ending shouts of “TROLL!”
Because nothing says ‘I am losing this argument’ or ‘this other commenter is not groovy like me’ than shouting “TROLL!”
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
So true. But remember – this does not include President Obama. If you complain to him and somehow induce him to lead on an issue, for example by making use of the dreaded bully pulpit, then all hope for your progressive cause will be lost, as Mr. Cole so astutely notes.
This is undoubtedly why the phrase “President Obama has been the foremost leader on” has never been uttered, and returns zero hits on the google as of 2011/06/29 A.D.
Let this information guide all balloonbaggers in your strategy for progressive change in America.
.
.
Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted)
Ergo, Obama should just shut up?
Isn’t that exactly the game the right wants to and has been playing for years? How is O’s strategy of shutting the fuck up not capitulation?
And Obama was right: the Cambridge cops were stupid.
terraformer
@Ashcan #82:
I think I wrote that this doesn’t necessarily apply to the issue of the post, but probably does to other things. So we’re on the same page.
slag
How about “REPULSIVE ASSHOLE!”? Does that do it for you?
And the fact that you get called a troll a lot doesn’t mean everybody does. You should be a Republican, given your complete and utter lack of self-awareness.
eemom
tee hee.
Also too, for a guy who claims to be a psychiatrist, he sure has a lot of time for schlong-waving during normal office hours. One might almost think he is as full of shit about that as he is about everything else.
Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted)
Hmmm…nothing says “I am losing this argument” of “this other commenter is not groovy like me” or “I am just an angry, foul-brained douche” or “more than anything I wish to be one of John Cole’s minions” than “REPULSIVE ASSHOLE!”
If you emerged from the maggot-brained fog in which you obviously read this blog long enough to pay attention, you would know that LOTS of commenters here get called “trolls.” Most of them slither away. Not me.
So fuck yourself with Satan’s syphillitic, pus-engorged cock , you pissant sycophant. That is, if you can get your mouth off of it long enough to take a seat.
Does that do it for you?
fasteddie9318
It’s like I’ve always said, Sullivan is
a complete and utter fucking moron who couldn’t buy a clue even if he had access David Koch’s petty cash drawera thoughtful and brilliant social commentator whose insight is invaluable in these chaotic timescomprehensively stupid when he disagrees with me but incredibly insightful when he agrees with me.slag
Highly implausible. Maybe he meant to say that he needs a psychiatrist.
moonbat
Haven’t read every comment, but surprised to note halfway through that no one has pointed out that the reason Sully sounds all reasonable on this issue is that it is one that DIRECTLY effects him. On those issues he tends to be quite liberal. Get back to me when he shows such liberal reasoning on something that affects people he never met or ever will meet. Then we can run up the white Sully “WIN” flag.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@ JGabriel
“It was the Supreme Court, a federal court, that broke that norm in the realm of marriage laws with Loving v. Virginia.”
Not true. Most states no longer had miscegenation laws when that decision went through. Virginia was no longer in the norm.
Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted)
Hey eesmarm, you stupid twat (and here I reference as inspiration your multiple “twat” insults directed my way), if you paid any attention or had any sense of humor you would know that duh, I am not a psychiatrist, though I have played one in my mind.
As I have stated on multiple occasions (almost as multiple as your vile name-calling fits directed my way) I am an artist and writer. As I work from a home office/studio, unlike most Cubicle-Americans, I am free to lob bile in your direction at my whim and discretion. No one sets my schedule but me.
As you are clearly fixated on my schlong, please note that you are among the last who would be granted noble access to its pleasures.
Now, back to your crate, slag.
fraught
Tim loses his battle with his Borderline Personality Disorder. Goes Berserk. Thread ends.
Woodrow L. Goode, IV
@99
I think the “bully pulpit” is overrated unless combined with persuasion and arm-twisting. Elected officials understand that it’s often necessary to fulminate about stuff for the rubes, even if you don’t really believe it.
There’s fairly complex scale of legislative action, and speechmaking is always lowest (ahead only of “not doing anything”). Calls, meetings (plus, who calls or who meets and where) all factor in.
If the executive calls mutual financial backers (that is, people who gave both you and the executive money) and has them call you, that’s near the top of the scale, because that’s cutting off your air. One of the many impressive things that Cuomo did was line up some R-money before he got rolling.
Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted)
Oh please. That battle was lost ages ago…now I just enjoy the ride with someone else driving.
Quiddity
Re Sullivan’s:
That is false. The 1960’s civil rights expansion was very much the work of people “at the top”. Others were a big factor, too, but LBJ was indispensable.
Also, re: “we should stop looking for saviors at the top“. Is that the Obot slogan for 2011?
Woodrow L. Goode, IV
@101
1. Except in a couple of states (where it’s a separate office), nobody has ever been elected Lt. Governor. Nobody has ever been elected vice president. Doesn’t matter one tenth of one percent.
2. If you go back and reread the comment I was responding to, he was talking about the presidency, so I used presidential candidates. Gore failed a couple of times to get the nomination and Kerry had raised trial balloons as early as the 1970’s and always been shot down.
Since no presidential candidates since Eisenhower has won a nomination without winning some other office first, obviously everyone has been able to win something at some point.
Felinious Wench
@102 –
That’s all I can figure. Given the criteria outlined above, who of the current candidates, Repub or Dem, which is going to be the best suited?
Obama can piss me off, but like 99% of people here, I’m not stupid enough to think that ANY alternative will be better. Though if anyone can give me a realistic alternative, sure, let me hear it.
Realistic. As in electable.
Danny
Whatever the outrage of the day from The Magic Nutroots facts are still:
1) Clinton signed both DOMA and DADT.
2) Dubya ran for reelection on amending the constitution to outlaw gay marriage.
3) Obama signed legislation to let gay americans serve openly and proudly and declared DOMA unconstitutional.
That makes Obama the proven most gay friendly president in 16 years. If there’s a Nutroot around to argue that GHWB or Reagan was more gay friendly – let’s hear it.
So it’s as usual a load of whiny, petulant bullshit. Argue your conscience by all means – as will I, since I want the same as you. The time for marriage equality is now, and every politician should support it.
But attacking our progressive president – who’s got a more rock solid pedigree than arguably any of his predecessors – is the same old lazy ass bullshit strategy of blaming daddy; bitching at him to make everything magically happen that we cant be bothered to work hard for ourselves.
Brachiator
@trollhattan (85):
What?
As far as I recall, if you live in the US and are married, no matter where the marriage took place, you are legally married and can file a joint return or married filing separate returns, but you cannot file as Single.
Trurl
But the front pagers here don’t have enough intellectual honesty to say “Obama is a shit sandwich but Romney is a double-decker shit sandwich”. Being the partisan hacks they are, they insist on pretending that the sandwich is made of Nutella instead.
Pat
Sully’s a clown on this. The Pres may not “legitimize” (whatever TF that means) a civil rights movement, but he can damn sure keep it from moving anywhere. Ya think the VRA would have made it into law under President Goldwater? Silly Loyalists.
Danny
@Trurl
85-90% of self-identified democratic liberals approve of the president. You and the other nutroots are the anomaly buddy, not the front pagers @ BJ.
The presidents record on gay rights being arguably the strongest in history and provably the best in 20 years says that sticking up for him is not being a partisan hack, but simply being fair.
Lawnguylander
I did not know until now that it was intellectual honesty that caused liberals on the internet to endlessly repeat phrases that are reductive to the point of meaninglessness. The blogosphere is about ready to collapse under its own weight due to all that intellectual honesty but at least now the problem has a name.
Shade Tail
Pat:
So because the President can veto a bill, Sully is wrong that the President is not the defacto standard bearer for any civil rights movement that happens during his administration. You actually put that load of shit into writing, but you claim that Sully is the clown here?
Ron
DOMA was terribad, no doubt about it. But some of us remember that as bad as DADT is, it was a step UP from the previous policy. Clinton was going to allow gay people to serve and Congress threw a hissy fit warning him that if he tried, they would never allow it. DADT was the compromise.
Ron
In general, I’m pretty tired of progressives screaming how terrible Obama is because he hasn’t done everything they want. He can’t simply make DOMA or DADT go away with a magic wand. He got the repeal of DADT to go through congress and has told his justice dept. to stop defending DOMA in the courts. Obama is hardly perfect and has done some things that piss me off too, but the fact remains that he is the best we’ve had in a long time. For those who think the solution is to primary him from the left, I have a hearty “Go fuck yourselves” and you can enjoy 4 years of President Romney.
Danny
Granted. But Clinton is not in office anymore and his legacy among liberals is – strangely given the amount of flack the much more progressive Obama’s been catching – not in doubt.
My objective is not being unfair to Clinton, it’s just pointing out what should be freaking obvious to anyone but the willfully obtuse: Obama’s record on gay rights is rock solid. He deserves our trust and admiration for delivering.
That doesnt mean that we should not demand marriage equality, in conformity with the constitution. We should. But making Obama the focal point of that battle and once more doing the liberal betrayal bullshit is both deeply unfair and counterproductive.
ETA: By your second post, we pretty much agree.
someguy
Andy gets his facts wrong, as usual.
The obscenity passed 85–14 in the Senate and 342–67 in the House. The Republicans controlled the Senate 53-47, and Republicans controlled the House 234-198. There was also a President named Bill Clinton who was very clear about his opposition to gay marriage. Unless my math is wayyyy off, this hateful act couldn’t have passed without significant Democratic support.
I know it makes a lot of sense to hate on Republicans here and try to pin it on them for political purposes, and they are in fact the font of most bigotry in this country, but a lot of national Democrats did goose step up to the party line on this, including Clinton.
Quiddity
@Timothy Trollenschlongen
I could not agree more. He’s got his gay marriage, his U.S. citizenship (which meant light treatment for marijuana infractions), television exposure, and lots of money.
Now he’s lecturing all of us about the virtues of austerity and how Chris Christie, while a bully, is okay because he doesn’t carefully parse statements.
Sullivan is innumerate and a fool (he thought Limbaugh’s “praise” post Bin Laden operation was genuine).
Suffern ACE
@Ron 129 – DOMA was a compromise as well. Not a very favorable one. In 1990s I’m fairly certain that the amendment would have passed. Now I’m not so certain that it would, or even make it out of Congress to be voted on by the states. That was not the case 15 years ago. It is fair to remember that.
Glenn
John, I love your blog, but sometimes you’re such a smug, know-it-all, nasty asshole. I’m gay, and I don’t expect Obama to spend any significant time working on same-sex marriage. What I’d like is to have the most progressive President in history not be on record as opposing marriage equality. That’s all. I think the harm to him electorally would be minimal, but even if I’m wrong, I think it’s still the right thing to do. Because sometimes, even politicians should just do the right thing.
But all you can do, John, is claim that all of us who express a position like this are whiny juveniles screaming about Obama’s “betrayal.” Is everything a fucking caricature to you? Is there no room in your world for someone to politely, but firmly, disagree with you? Does everything have to be a fucking scorched-earth battle?
Danny
Glenn, let me ask you something. Three years ago, when Obama ran for president, he did so being against gay marriage (but for civil unions; same position as Hillary Clinton). That was on the record.
Recently he shifted position. Before this latest brouhaha, and seemingly not prompted by the nutroots, he declared his views were “evolving”. That’s pretty much advertising an imminent shift towards full support. What it means is that he will support it, but he doesnt want to run on it.
Given all that, is there any reason to have this fight right here, right now, with the president as a focal point? He has already delivered and advertised fully where he stands. He is showing progress all the time. Where is the freaking problem? No president has ever supported marriage equality; 0/44 in the history of the nation. This one will.
RalfW
Late to the party, and I won’t be staying, but I just want to add my own personal HUZZZAH to Sully and to J Cole. They’re both smack-dab right on this.
Now, let the Obama derangement syndrome resume it’s regularly scheduled snore-fest.
RalfW
Danny @ 136: Yeppers.
Patience, dears, patience!
(I know, asking for more than many have capacity for…but a 40 or 50 year struggle isn’t going to end in one glorious bully-pulpit moment. Not. Gonna.)
Danny
@Glenn
Also:
Paging Jane Hamsher! Not that I disagree…
Danny
@RalfW
According to Nutroot Dialectics that kind of thing happens all the time. Like the time when MLK said he had a dream and then Obama was elected. Point proven.
boss bitch
so explain Feingold and Grayson losing their seats.
AxelFoley
@ Tim in SF
LOL, fuck you, too, pal.
MintyGel
TBOGG gets it.
eemom
@ timmeh teh schlong
bwaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaaaa
Thanks, timlet. That was the best laugh I’ve had all day.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll go die of a broken heart.
eemom
@ 143
yes, he “gets” it all right. Just like Mistress Jane ordered him to get it, lest his balls join the others in the trophy case over her mantelpiece.
Sad really. Such a talented writer.
Shade Tail
Glenn, speaking as someone with a very close and personal connection to LGBT equality (which is all I’m willing to say here), people like you make me want to get violent. You don’t care what the electoral harm might be, as long as it is the “right” thing to do?
Let me fucking tell you what the right thing to do really is: *WORKING FOR LGBT EQUALITY*. Not mouthing empty platitudes about it, *WORKING* for it. And Obama has been working his little ass off for us, which makes him by far the most LGBT-friendly president we have ever had.
And I promise you, you vastly underestimate what the electoral consequences could be. Because it isn’t just about the Office of the President, though that is a big part of it. It’s also about everything else. State and lower federal offices. State ballots and bills. Any or all of that can easily sink if we forget the political environment we have to work in. Perfect example: the NY-State vote for marriage equality a couple days ago likely would have failed if Obama had taken a position over it as so many whiners said he should have, because the few GOPers who crossed the aisle would never have done that if they had seen it as “supporting Obama”.
*THIS IS OUR GODDAMN EQUALITY BALANCING ON THE KNIFE’S EDGE.* Do you not understand that? This isn’t about whimpering that Obama isn’t making us feel good, this is about a knock-down, drag-out fight against people trying to keep us as second-class citizens. Those stakes ought to be high enough for you and all the rest of us to prioritize winning over Obama mouthing platitudes at us.
I don’t care what Obama *says*, I care what he *does*. And so should anyone who cares about LGBT-equality. I hope that includes you.
Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted)
I notice you don’t provide any summary of all the things, or even a few of the things, Obama’s little ass has been working itself off to achieve for us. Could you provide one please?
I’d appreciate it.
Hmmm…this is exactly the reason thinking progressives have realized Obama is all talk and no action. He was all talk before he got elected, little follow up ACTION afterwards.
Danny
@Timmy
Steve Benen had a good rundown of Obama’s gay rights record the other day:
* President Obama pushed for the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” in his first State of the Union address, and followed through to sign the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 into law.
* President Obama signed a memorandum expanding federal benefits for the same-sex partners of Foreign Service and executive branch government employees.
* The President signed into law the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act which included the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
* The President issued a Presidential Memorandum directing the HHS Secretary to ensure that those hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funds will give gay and lesbian patients and their families the compassion, dignity and respect they deserve in difficult times, as well as widows and widowers with no children, members of religious orders, and others whom otherwise may not have been able to receive visits from good friends and loved ones who are not immediate relatives, or select them to make decisions on their behalf in case of incapacitation.
To that we should add that
* He dropped his administrations defence of DOMA and declared it unconstitutional.
* He just went from support for civil unions and opposition to gay marriage towards advertising his imminent convertion. Thats a first for presidents as well.
That’s a record that arguably ranks #1 out of 44 contenders.
…Or do you have another champion you’d like to propose out of those 44? Time to put up or shut up Timmy.
Danny
…not to mention his contributions to e.g. It Gets Better, and stuff like that.
Just Some Fuckhead
After watching Obama’s cringeworthy presser today, I’ve come around to the viewpoint of the “there is no bully pulpit” Obots. If we require this stuttering, equivocal, errrrm, ummmm, leader to move anything we’re fucked. This is a guy that could turn ordering breakfast off a menu into a 45 minute breakfastless nightmare.
HyperIon
So…when is the Reply thingy coming back?
Do we need another fund raiser first?
Corner Stone
Oh, pity the poor kidnapped slave that is TBogg. Poor bastard. Used to get the, “I’ll only go there for..” but now he can’t even swag that much.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Corner Stone:
Aren’t they killing his beloved dogs to keep him in line?
boss bitch
@Danny: they know these things. They know what Obama has done for the gay community. His critics are not ignorant of his record they just choose to ignore it and move the goal posts.
Danny
@boss bitch
Sure. And I can appreciate how it is “convenient” to lean on your friends in this way, because:
1) One’s friends – in contrast to one’s enemies – give a fuck.
2) When the friend is Barack Obama, bitching on him is a shortcut to media coverage.
It’s lazy. It’s unfair. It’s the movement cannibalizing on itself, ultimately leading to counterproductive results. If Obama loses in 2012 gay rights will lose out too. Don’t believe a constitutional amendment is off the table.
The smart strategy is building up working institutions that can get media penetration for our narratives by attacking the enemy. But that takes time and a lot of hard work, and nutroots like Timmy are to lazy, stupid and undisciplined to do their part.
Here then is the reception Obama got from the mainstream gay community – as opposed to professional discontents like Choi – when he hosted them today.
NicoleBelle
To those wanting those ponies right away from Obama, I would just point out that the Equal Rights Amendment has been introduced in every Congress since 1923, never ratified.
But that’s just half the population seeking equality. I mean, there’s no priority there, right?
And ask African Americans how fair and just things have been for them since the Civil Rights Bill was passed.
I’m actually amazed that in my lifetime we could go from considering homosexuality as a mental disorder to DADT to now ratifying marriage equality in states. The arc of history is long, but it does truly bend towards justice.
I just wish that people would stop thinking that just because they want it RIGHT NOW, that’s all there is to it. There has been a liberalization of thought towards equality for LGBT…I’d say more than for women, considering the latest SCOTUS/Walmart decision. I have no doubt that by the time my children and their generation are the adults in charge, we will have full marriage equality.
But I’ll also bet we’ll still be ignoring the ERA.