The Benenator 2000:
What’s more, it’s a heartening piece that fits into a larger mosaic. After two-and-a-half years, President Obama has successfully repealed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law; expanded federal benefits for the same-sex partners of executive-branch employees; signed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law; cleared the way for hospital-visitation rights for same-sex couples; lifted the travel/immigration ban on those with HIV/AIDS; ordered the Federal Housing Authority to no longer consider the sexual orientation of applicants on loans; expanded the Census to include the number of people who report being in a same-sex relationship; and hired more openly gay officials than any administration in history.
There have also been more symbolic gestures, including the White House hosting an event to honor the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, announcing the first-ever transgender presidential appointee, nominating the first openly-gay man to serve on the federal judiciary, honoring same-sex couples in his Mother’s Day and Father’s Day proclamations, recording a video for the “It Gets Better” Project, and hosting Gay and Lesbian Pride Month events at the White House.
And today, the president has offered his well-timed endorsement of the Respect For Marriage Act.
On top of that, there was this:
The U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly on Monday to confirm J. Paul Oetken as a district court judge, making him the first openly gay man appointed to the federal bench.
Oetken, 45, will fill a vacancy on the high-profile Southern District of New York. He’s worked in-house at Cablevision Systems Corp. since 2004, most recently as senior vice president and associate general counsel. President Barack Obama nominated him in January.
And yet still, we have activists who say stupid shit like Obama being the most anti-gay President or that they won’t lift a finger to get him re-elected and other nonsense too numerous to even document (All together now, let’s whine: “We’re tired of hearing about Lily Ledbetter!”). It all boils down to “look at me, look at me” as far as I am concerned.
“But John, you just don’t know the role of an activist! It’s to push for more!” Maybe I don’t know the role of the new breed of narcissistic activist that seems to dominate our discourse, but it seems to me the role of activism would be to reward those who advance your issue, punish those who hurt it, and try to push for more change. Not to throw hissy fits and not only throw out the baby with the bathwater, but to half-hang it, kick it, call it names, and then when the baby is dead and gone, claim that it was your actions that saved the day and advanced the cause.
One person has been slowly giving people the change they need, slowly, methodically moving forward, without a lot of show and with little to no thanks. Pro-tip- that person isn’t one of the loudmouths out screaming at a certain President about some fat preacher speaking at his inauguration, and it sure as hell isn’t a member of the GOP, who will be rewearded if we listen to our “activists.”
I know whose side I am on. I wish the clowns did, too.
I guess they figure he’s practicing some sort of 11-dimensional chess type of bigotry. Insidious.
Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)
Today is the 18th anniversary of Clinton establishing DADT.
If getting arrested in front of the white house is so effective why did it take 2 decades to repeal it?
If getting arrested in front of the white house is so effective why is CODE PINK! such a band of miserable failures?
I’m sure it’s a plot to hide his obvious homophobic agenda by giving LGBT’s what they’ve been asking for. Or something like that.
Dead-baby jokes anyone?
IRS denies tax-exempt status to 3 organizations which trained political candidates. Memos are heavily redacted so you can’t tell who the organizations are or which political party they were affiliated with.
Not getting this typo:
EDIT: OK, I get “rewearded.”
Ah, a classical conditioning test: Cole says something positive about Obama, how soon will Trurl respond?
Less than 20 posts, I bet. The conditioning is pretty strong.
You’re never going to get a TV appearance on Maddow or Shultz if you continue to behave like this. I recommend that you start screaming about everything that Obama does in a doomsday-like manner, or threaten to douse yourself in gasoline and light a match, that way you can get on Cenk Uygur’s MSNBC clusterfuck of a program.
I was debating someone on my Twitter feed on this very subject. She’s convinced he’s center-right on everything despite the fact he’s moved the country more to the left in several areas. She brought up Rev. Warren as part of her “proof” Obama’s to the right on LGBT issues. That’s about when I lost it and threw in the towel on the discussion before I took a 20-year friendship and shoved it down the garbage disposal.
Apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order what has Obama ever done for us?
As a gay guy, I agree with this post. Obama has a lot of stuff on his plate and while I’m not willing to settle for second-best, Obama is not second-best in any real-life political scenario you can come up with.
Han's Big Snark Solo
The activists on our side are pretty freaking terrible.
I remember watching the Teabagger protests and thinking it was SOOOO unfair that the media didn’t cover the anti-war protests one one-millionth as much. Then I went back and looked at the protests footage…
Maybe, just maybe, we weren’t so poorly served by the conservative media bias. I mean, I was anti war too, but WTF is up with the giant puppets?
ha ha… Yes, Cole. It is abundantly clear which side you are on.
The same side you have always been on: The Leader’s.
@ Lysana: If she brings up Donnie McClurkin, you’re dealing with someone who wears all grievances like tattoos.
The Moar You Know
I do. It’s the kind of person that nails themselves to a cross, screams at you to help them with the final nail as they can’t hammer it in themselves, and then, once done, cries loudly over the cruelty of nailing people to the cross.
Then they blame you. After all, you hammered in the final nail.
If only Obama’s commitment to the rule of law was as strong as it seems to be for LGBT rights we’d really have something.
See #13. Well played.
Links on these, please:
“we have activists who say stupid shit like Obama being the most anti-gay President or that they won’t lift a finger to get him re-elected”
Ding – Ding – Ding
13 posts. That is all that it took. Well done, trurl, you are one well trained rat.
The Moar You Know
hildebrand: 13. Good call.
“And yet, it moves”.
No drama Obama.
Han's Big Snark Solo
@The Moar You Know: Dude/Dudette, that was a great metaphor.
@FlipYrWhig: She’s also a soshulist who backs Irish rebels who disliked the accords that got signed a few years ago. And definitely one who thinks Obama has to be a hardcore progressive and claimed to campaign as one. So I give up on her politically. She’s too True Believer.
Back in 1969, this son of the Old Left watched (figuratively) in horror as members of the Weathermen (one of which I knew personally very well) smashed windows in downtown Chicago, and thereby handed the right an image with which to beat the rational left over the head ever since. It was to go along with “Hanoi Jane” and supposed spitting on returning vets (when and where?) and the whole DFH BS and has been poisoning our politics ever since. Not without help from Roger Ailes and his boss of course, but why aid the Princes of Darkness by throwing tantrums?
History will not be kind to the Naders and the Hamshers, if anyone is left to write it, or read it.
Just Some Fuckhead
I haven’t been paying attention. Is this about Aravosis and a few anonymous commenters?
Ooops. Comment that will likely appear below this one used the correct spelling of a bad word. D’oh!
It’s just moving the Overton Window. People see giant puppets and think, “Um, those puppets are kind of big and the symbolism is hard to understand,” but that softens them up, and pretty soon they’re ready to embrace slightly smaller puppets whose agenda is more clear. And that explains the popularity of Elmo.
To the first, here.
(To be fair, he also includes ENDA and I think one other piece – I’ll continue checking as I’m 90% sure I saw Choi tweet something more similar to what Cole was saying.)
To the second, here.
You and Benen are both channeling this post I put up 2-1/2 weeks ago.
The comments are particularly instructive, as one of the more-progressive-than-thou brigade shows up to try to change the subject, then gets all huffy about it when I don’t play along.
After two-and-a-half years, President Obama has successfully repealed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law;
And how was this done? By adopting a course of action to bring the top mil brass on board, to checkmate the wingers stopping it
This wasn’t done a few months before the law was repealed, it was begun day one by Obama and his aides working to set the table for a successful repeal. Some idiot on a previous thread, notwithstanding whinging about how ‘Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming” to the activist position. Bullshit
And now he is working the ropes again with DOMA, mostly behind the scene, but methodically making the allies and case to eventually repeal DOMA. If it was up to Obama alone to repeal these laws, then a personalized scorched earth agitating focused on him would be in order. It is not. It is congress that has to be convinced, and they are not, yet, when many of them have recently passed state constitutional amendments overwhelmingly to ban same sex marriage in their states.
The courts could intervene, and should, to do the right thing and invoke equal protection and the other constitutional rights to settle the question. Some folks are working along those lines, and some of them are even wingnuts.
But public opinion is what motivates elected officials, as it should in a representative democracy, and there is work to do to change that public opinion on same sex marriage in this country.
Australia has an openly gay High Court judge (where High Court is like the U.S. Supreme Court). This nomination is a welcome development, but the U.S. still has a bit of catching up to do.
Al Giordano nailed it in ’09
The End of Activism and the Renaissance of Organizing
Obviously, I’m all in with human rights, civil rights, GLBT rights etc. but sometimes these whiny fags just get on my last goddamn nerve.
Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)
Gays Glitter Bomb Obama
This was really unnecessary and will only set the gay movement back.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
Point of contention: There’s a lot of people who have been slowly working towards giving people the change they need, doing the legwork and actual organizing. Credit to the President where its due, but there’s a lot of honest activists and politicians out there doing the legwork. Of course, since they’re not chasing cameras or blog hits, you’ll rarely hear of them.
@RAM: so encarcerated terrorists should be allowed to marry as well?
And that, in turn, I’m very sure, was set up by keeping Gates in place. There are good reasons not to like the way Republicans get tapped for SecDef even by Democrats, or for the continuity between Democratic and Republican war policy. But, on this at least, it was a shrewd move. YMMV.
I’m arguing with Dan Choi on Twitter right now. I tried to make the point that he was prioritizing inconsequential comments by the President over concrete actions with real practical impact. He came back at me with Prop 8! and the MN ban!
Both of which the President opposed/opposes.
Btw, any time I mention Twitter, feel free to consider it a desperate plea to follow me (@tvhilton).
As the old saying goes, the watched pot never boils.
Obama has been very effective about certain things but he doesn’t seem to do them dramatically or all at one time. He never gives the impression of really being on our side.
Whether its political posturing or the reality of his beliefs Obama seems to value to views of the right as much as he does the left and seems to want to play them against each other to his own benefit.
Can anyone really say that when they were voting for Obama they thought they were voting for a centrist along the lines of Olympia Snowe or Joe Lieberman?
Even though he always seem to be positioning himself just slightly to the right of Clinton I never figured him to be as conservative as he is.
On dailykos, when it was explained that Obama obviously supported the Financial Protection Bureau since he supported the bill, he appointed E. Warren to set it up, he’s nominated her deputy to run it, and E. Warren is loudly given the Prez credit and warning that the GOP wants to kill it, and the response was “How many dimensions of chess are you up to?”
Oh, and bonus ‘bot points for “little to no thanks”. Poor Obama! Whipped and scorned by those for whom he sacrifices! Just like his Lord and savior Jesus Christ.
jayackroyd- You google it. Aravosis led a broad campaign to withold gay money, they freaked the fuck out because Obama did not say the word “gay” when he signed the Hate Crimes legislation, the WH was accused of not posting the transcript to a speech Obama made to the HRC, there were panels at NN called “What to do when Obama is not that into you” just a few weeks back where Choi accosted a supporter, Choi’s entire twitter feed has been a train wreck since day one, moist recently calling for cuomo to primary Obama, and on and on.
I’m not making shit up. The gay rights activists have turned into a sad comedy.
Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)
Gays Protest Obama
It all boils down to “I refuse to support Obama under any circumstances, and this is my excuse” as far as I am concerned.
Maybe you need to adjust your Impression-o-meter. Yours appears to be calibrated for needless drama.
gay rights activist is not just a glamorous job in some social circles, it’s a highly lucrative one.
and that money train is winding down. the dam burst, the culmination of the campaign is within sight. that’s the way it goes. after progress on equality has been won, the struggle changes to a more low key, out of the way affair. no less important, but not nearly as prestigious and glamorous as being on the frontlines when the turning point occurs. and then all these activists will have to scale down their ambitions and political designs and either adapt to the more humble world order or find a new crusade.
it’s a paradox of success. in winning, the activists face their own obsolescence. and some seem to be really struggling with that.
Good God! It’s not enough to get results, they have to be DRAMATIC!.
So you missed the whole No Drama Obama thing during the campaign?
The Sheriff's A Ni-
You’re confusing ‘gay rights activists’ with ‘sad Al Sharpton wannabes’
Thank you for pin pointing the problem. And the answer is, he is president of the USofA, not just liberals or progs. That is why it takes some effort and energy to find the evidence, as obscure as it is for meeting “the president of all” standard, and a little faith at judging final results, rather than freeking at the twists and turns of strategy, that sometimes doesn’t seem as pure as it should be to some.
Now you’re just overreacting.
There wasn’t anything DRAMATIC about my post. Though your response was rather DRAMATIC.
I appreciate that Obama has accomplished many things, but that doesn’t mean that I agree with all of them or the way he’s done everything.
Aye, that’s the rub. Because you’re always going to have some contention over 1) what constitutes an “advance”, 2) what constitutes being “hurt” and 3) how best to push for more change. It’s inherent in coalition politics. You’re going to have at least some “I’m never satisfied” folks and some “I’m Very Serious so stop agitating” folks.
Okay, who had the under by a touchdown?
But last time I checked he was on the Democratic Party ticket in 2008 and shall be again in 2012.
And believe me, if Michele Bachmann somehow manages to become President, or even Mitt Romney for that matter, they won’t be concerning themselves with the pleasantries of being the President of all of the USofA.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
You don’t pay much attention to actual politics, do you?
18% Underemployment – where? Not in the U.S.
Huh, torture? News to me.
Who’s Jamie Dimon and what TV show does he star in?
Benenator 2000 ROCKS!!
More Cat blogging, pleeze.
@ tom hilton
desperation noted. believe me.
(universal law of the internets #372: nobody gives a shit about your stupid fucking twitter feed or facebook page. not even your mom. she’s just lonely. you should call more.)
maybe, and here’s a crazy thought, you should just not care about what’s posted in the dailykos comments sections? have you considered that? because it’s not like you’re addicted to your own brand of outrage as they are, right?
The Sheriff's A Ni-
A house divided something something.
Um, you specifically faulted Obama for not seeming to do things… dramatically.
To be fair, one especially effective gay activist has been solidly in Obama’s corner. And that’s why I read Dan Savage and not Aravosis or Dan Choi’s completely insane Twitter feed. In fact, Choi might even be a bigger dick than Aravosis. Which I would not have thought possible.
Have today’s internets been awarded yet? If not, I’mma nominating.
LGBT+Obama+”under the bus”
About 5,660,000 results (0.10 seconds)
Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)
So Clinton imposes DADT and DOMA, while Obama repeals one and is challenging the other, yet to a kook like you, Clinton and obama are the same. And you wonder why people like you get mocked and scorned.
I can. What’s more, I thought it was pretty obvious. There are policy differences, of course, but Obama has much more in common with them than with, say, Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich.
I could see a mile away that Obama was moderate/left of center. That’s why I’m gobsmacked when right-wingers call him a radical lefty, and left-wingers are shocked and disappointed that he didn’t change everything overnight.
Davis X. Machina
I looked around, and, well, I’m here to tell you on ROMA, a.) Obama is too late, b.) he doesn’t really mean it, and c.) it’s a swap — he supports ROMA, and the gay community supports SS cuts.
It’s like the 12-bar blues, with a few small changes you can play for hours, and it’ll always sound great, and the audience will always listen.
: I remember being such an idiot, I used the watch the marches on CSPAN and be all excited, wishing I could be there. I hadn’t yet figured out that no one was paying attention or gave a shit. Thirty tea party bums with some anti-Obama signs, get together and have their pictures taken on their lawn chairs and it’s news.
History is rife with examples of progress made slow, indeed, this IS history.
Seems to this semi-casual observer that Obama gets this.
Oh, for L. Graham, M. McConnell, and/or Marcus Bachmann to come out…
If you weren’t so busy honing your boilerplate to a dull edge you might have noticed that Cole posts constantly against the wars.
This illustrates one of the weirder emoprog tics. Aravosis is fond of deriding us ‘bots with lines like “I voted for a president not a boyfriend“. And yet his (and others’) complaints about the President, once you boil them down to essentials, amount to “he never sends me flowers!”
And your stolid insistence that Obama shouldn’t “concern himself with the pleasantries” of recognizing that progs are a distinct voting minority and strategizing accordingly wouldn’t, if he adopted this view, have anything to do with Bachmann “somehow managing to become president,” would it?
There’s so much you don’t get.
So he has to win style points, too?
Hm. That’s kinda asking a lot, doncha think?
Trying to reason with Dan Choi about the President is like trying to teach a pig to sing (You know the rest)…
Choi’s Obama Derangement Syndrome is too far advanced – almost as far gone as Jane Hamsher’s.
One can argue that slow and steady makes it harder to change back.
One can also argue against that.
However, it seems to me that there’s enough there on both sides that there isn’t a cut and dried obvious answer on how a President SHOULD do things when it comes to more progressive initiatives.
@aisce: Except the battle ISN’T over for GLBT rights. The T gets ignored and excluded so damn often it’s ludicrous. NY’s SSM law was passed while a trans rights bill languished for the third year in a row. Of course, that kind of activist only recognizes cisgender gays and lesbians as valid. Throw in how the B only partially benefits from the activism due to the fact that protection for same-sex couples will have a positive impact on bisexuals but does nothing about how we are looked down on and suffer more from harassment and domestic violence than GLs, and there’s a LOT of work to do yet. I haven’t even touched on how lower-class GLBs don’t benefit as much from SSM as they do from focusing on health care, which would also benefit Ts at most income levels. It’s the upper-middle-class cisgays who think SSM is the end game.
@jprfrog at #24
I think along these lines pretty much every day. It was tough to watch the New Left kick the legs out from under the Old Left, then see the New Left get chopped off at the knees by the radical left. Sad to see Mao’s little red book exalted while the IWW’s Little Red Songbook was forgotten.
I read diaries on dKos every day that make me wish I could teleport copies of Todd Gitlin’s The Sixties into commenter’s hands. It’s bad enough to watch friends go insane to a level of extreme counterproductivity because of the draft, 200,000+ dead and wounded in Vietnam, and a stolen Dem convention. But to see Dem voter turnout depressed by an echo-chamber of influential bloggers (who then go on cable)? And so much of it based on cherry-picked unsourced rumors from WaPo, HuffPo, WSJ, or Politico.
The bottom line is, I can’t take seriously anyone who continues to insist that what the president (or anyone else) says is a better indication of their principles than what they actually DO is.
That’s what this whole thing is about – “OMG, why won’t Obama say what I want him to say?” – while what he has actually done is regarded as unimportant.
Compare and contrast with Bill Clinton, who was all too happy to tell people what they wanted to hear, and then presided over DADT, DOMA, and going beyond LGBT issues, NAFTA and other policies disastrous to the Democratic base and ordinary Americans. One talked a good story and passed bad laws. The other doesn’t talk as much but is building a solid record of passing good laws, or at least laws that move the things we care about in the right direction.
I know which I prefer.
Reality check, for those in a progtopian dreamworld:
1) Explicitly catering to progs may motivate them to vote etc., but it also motivates the far right.
2) There are twice as many far-right types as progs.
That’s it right there. Simply put, explicitly catering to progs is almost certain to be a net negative. You can shout “bully pulpit!” and “Overton Window!” until you run out of oxygen, but it won’t change that reality.
(So how did Bush get away with catering to the far right? Simple: a) they’re a much larger bloc to begin with, and b) he did it with dog whistles. And part of our problem here is that emoprogs won’t settle for dog whistles.)
They ain’t gonna make it with anyone, anyhow.
If he opposes then, what’s his issue?
It’s similar to the Elizabeth Warren thing. It’s not about his policies, it’s about him proving to them that they’re important and heard, and even if he does do great things for LGBT rights and appoints progressive people, if it’s not THEIR choice, THEIR wording, they don’t get to say THEY were listened to, THEY were heard. THEY do not want to be ignored.
I’ve always called them Alex Forrest Progressives.
What we really need is an activist army packing bags of glitter and more foam/cream pies. Clap Louder!
nobody would want to cop to being a professional tranny activist. that would be totally gauche.
Yeah, the basic assumption there is that there are equivalent forces to move WIndows, and that may not be the case. If progressives form a smaller bloc, then their efforts are going to be less effective.
Of course, if they spent some time enlarging their numbers….
@Tom Hilton #37, #38
Just signed on to follow you (@tvhilton)–very interesting exchange you’re having over there!
You misunderstand our host. He’s not in favor of Obama’s drone bombing campaigns in an ever-increasing number of countries. He’s certainly not in favor of the shredded brown children they produce. Quite the contrary. He considers each and every miniature coffin a tragic byproduct of the wars Obama is compelled to wage across the globe – that peace-loving hand forced to clutch its bloody sword by Republicans and other villains.
But Cole, unlike racist firebagger pony-wishers like us, has perspective. He’s mature enough to understand that drone bases in Yemen and secret CIA prisons in Somalia and assassination orders for American citizens are things that we have to accept, however uncomfortably, in exchange for having a Democratic president.
The Democrats are “the lesser evil”, you see.
@hildebrand: Hahaha, 20 was too high obviously. Well done, though.
Right. And using hate speech is EVER so refined and professional of you. And it’s EVER so gauche to back the most downtrodden and abused members of our society.
(Yes, before anyone says “but I thought ‘tranny’ was acceptable,” please do some research. More trans women receive that as a word of hate and assault than anything else. Aisce, you are clearly a fucktard of the first caliber.)
UNLESS, to edit, I am missing your sarcasm by a country mile.
@Tom Hilton: Okay, your plea for attention has been obeyed. But honestly arguing with Dan Choi is pretty pointless. He’s turned into kind of a joke. I think his ego has grown huge.
@Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century):
Just a theory – Its possible that some may see Clinton as left of Obama because Clinton can turn on that lip quiver watery eyes emo shit while playing the sax. Obama only gets emotional when people he cares about dies, is the ideal family man and doesn’t shy away from his religion. It has to be about this because there is no way one can look at their policies and say Obama is to the right of Clinton.
BTW, since there are some GL activists who do think nationwide SSM is the end game, this link is edifying. We still have about half the country allowing on-the-job discrimination for being in the GLBTQ* set.
And I think this is where it gets very difficult. You might think that a more adversarial or “activist” approach would help to achieve the goal of creating more lefties, ultimately making a feedback loop that made more and more. It feels like it worked that way for conservatives. It’s the premise for all the arguments about how Obama needs to “lead” and “fight” and “let the people know where he stands”: it’s the way to spread the word and win over impressionable people. But I don’t have a sense that it actually works. And I don’t know what does.
The narcissism runs too deep.
…they wouldn’t be progs. [/rimshot]
Seriously, though: I tell everyone who’ll listen (and a lot who won’t) that the single most important thing for progs to do right now is to try to appeal to people who aren’t predisposed to agree with them.
@ Lysana: I thought aisce was making a tongue-in-cheek version of your same point — that there is a kind of bourgie/hipster cred or even cachet in calling yourself a gay activist, but standing up for transsexuals and transgendered people isn’t radical chic. Everyone wants to have a Gay Best Friend, but, ew, who wants a “tranny” one?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
also: Nostalgia, Bubba has drifted to the Left since his wife gave up electoral politics (and thus his chance to tell himself her election is his vindication), Obama still isn’t quite as lucky in his enemies as Clinton, from Tom Delay to Kenneth Starr to the various loonies who were briefly famous on cable TV. Boehner, Cantor, even McConnell, none of them radiate angry/crazy like Delay, or turn people off quite like Newtie did.
@ Tom Hilton : It’s striking, though, that conservatives _didn’t_ follow that path (IMHO at least) as they were completing their takeover of the Republican party. They’ve become more and more intolerant and purist even as their influence has grown. I have a hard time figuring out how they pulled it off, but it doesn’t feel true that they went out of their way to “appeal to people who aren’t predisposed to agree with them.”
And as for arguing with Choi, I don’t expect to convince him of anything, but I might well give some of his followers something to think about. Probably pointless; maybe not.
@ Jim, @ boss bitch: I think people who see Clinton as left of Obama weren’t of voting age or following the news when Clinton was president. If you grew up on Bush, you might not remember how angry the ’90s left constantly was at Clinton on both foreign and domestic policy.
@FlipYrWhig: Again, it’s all about numbers. Start with ~35-40% self-identified conservatives (as opposed to ~20% or so self-identified liberals), and you don’t have to add all that many to get 50% + 1 (that was Rove’s strategy).
Self-identified liberals aren’t even a majority in their party, so there’s no way in hell they get a majority of the electorate without hugely broadening their base.
@ Tom Hilton: But first they managed to raise the number of self-identified conservatives that high in the first place. I’m pushing 40 and I feel like Conservative Pride is of relatively recent vintage. I guess the usual theory is that they built their way back up from the Goldwater fiasco by doing things like working through churches, using direct mail and talk radio, and building a ladder to higher offices starting with local elections (like school boards).
In addition to Tom’s observation about raw numbers, Conservatives long ago figured out that conservatives will vote out of anger and spite, independents will sometimes vote out of anger and spite, and liberals will get depressed about all the anger and spite in our politics and go volunteer for Doctors Without Borders or something else that feels more productive.
So if you keep politics as hate-filled and ugly as possible you simultaneously work to increase the number of conservatives active in politics and depress the liberal ones. Which pushes the window rightward.
That’s how they pulled it off. And liberals need a different formula to do something similar because a climate of anger and spite doesn’t work for us. Which is part of the reason I’ve always been frustrated with Jane Hamsher – she’s been trying to use conservative tactics to push a liberal agenda and that mix just will not work.
The drama from “narcissistic activists” reminds me way too much of dealing with our kids as they were growing up.
Rage, lies, personal attacks and glitter bombs are not condusive to changing minds. But they make the “activists” feel good.
They have an authoritarian mindset and don’t mind being lied to if it’s for the greater good as they see it.
The OFA has a fine template for how to do it. But it’s hard work and doesn’t get you on the teevee.
Rage, lies, personal attacks and glitter bombs are not condusive to changing minds. But they make the “activists” feel good.
They have an authoritarian mindset and don’t mind being lied to if it’s for the greater good as they see it.
The OFA has a fine template for how to do it. But it’s hard work and doesn’t get you on the teevee.
You don’t see how it works
1.) Obama needs to fight
2.) Just words, actions speak louder
3.) Not enough
4.) Not dramatic enough
At some point they’ll realize that by keeping the goalposts moving, Obama just gave up trying to chase them, which is what they want, to prove Obama doesn’t want to chase them, so they’ll keep going until he stops.
Jennifer @ 79 nailed it.
In my book, this is a no-lose situation.
In my experience (and I’ll cheerfully admit it’s limited), the more radical and the more moderate elements didn’t actually get along, but they took care not to attack each other directly. The moderate elements were, by definition, more numerous (if the radical elements were the majority, THEY would become the moderates) and could always point to the more radical elements and say, “Deal with us or with them.” And giving a range of options to move forward is always helpful in persuading undecideds (if not opponents).
I think it’s not helpful for either element to attack each other (not that I’ve always followed it); it just seems to be smarter to lay out alternatives as opposed to either/or options.
@NonyNony: This is a really important point, although I tend to focus on a different facet of it. Which is this: liberals have the job of convincing people government can work, and people who are turned off of politics tend to be more or less equally disgusted with/skeptical of government. (What is government, after all, but politics?)
But the bottom line is the same: acrimony inherently works in favor of conservatives. (Which is something the President understands, even if he hasn’t been able to do what he set out to do about it.)
I was with you for the original post, but that’s horseshit.
The big reaction to this at Talking Points Memo is Dan Savage talking about how it’s positive development and that the Democrats are starting to “walk the walk”. He was pretty harshly critical of Obama before, and now he’s declaring victory. I don’t know if I’d say he’s justified, but it looks like he was totally honest about his role as activist, and he’s completely eschewing the betrayal’n’conspiracy bullshit.
So Aravosis is a complete wanker. He and Dan Choi (who I don’t follow at all) aren’t the only gay rights activists in the world.
Cole’s being a bit overbroad. I think if people are being critical, but are not going the “betrayal” bit, it’s OK. It’s probably a little out there if they’re saying Obama “turned” because of their pressure—you just don’t know everything that’s going on—but pressing your case is what you’re supposed to be doing anyway….
When John singled them out, he didn’t imply they were. He was, specifically, singling them out.
The fact that a bill was actually introduced probably had more to do with his “turning”
@Tom Hilton: I don’t know if it will make any difference. He’s like many of the firebaggers that have decided if Obama doesn’t jump up and down trying to get every progressive wish list item out there then he’s useless.
Yeah and his initial post mocking Choi and Aravosis is right on. Indeed, the whole mindset he’s talking about is both really real and really stupid. His reply about “gay rights activists” is the one that ticked me off. Some are sad jokes, most aren’t.
Ozoner @ #83
Why didn’t Obama stand by Warren and name her as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? The Republicans have said falt-out that they won’t for **ANYONE** as head of the bureau, so why not the woman who fought for it and who can speak for it like no-one else?
(Unless she decided to run for office before the naming yesterday… That is a possibility…)
So your grand theory on this is: “They did their activist thing in a way I didn’t approve of! And even though stuff is happening that they, like, were activists for – I still don’t approve of how they did it!”
Um, okay. Woo hoo. I guess.
P.S. “And damn every African-America activist in the 1950s and 1960s who were not nice and patient and just let it all slowly, gradually come to them! Damn them to hell!”
you answered your own question
Plus, as has repeatedly been pointed out, she basically said she didn’t want to be appointed and go through the confirmation process only to be rejected.
And with the Senate never recessing, recess appointment was not an option.
when were they not nice and patient?
And while I haae a great amount of respect for you, John, what’s especially deplorable about your position is that you seem to have decided that the schedule for advance on this issue should be made by YOU. fuck those activists, their views on this – on how fast or slow things are moving – are, apparently, not as important as yours.
I mean – that is broken. Really, really broken.
Are you thinking there are no veterans of the civil rights or Third World strike movement here?
“Are you thinking there are no veterans of the civil rights or Third World strike movement here?”
You’re implying what, exactly?
Look – I think Cole’s treatment of activists like Aravosis, and many others, is way, way overblown. I think it does not come from the higher mind of Cole that made his reputation as a writer and thinker. I also think it is somewhat offensive to many of those activists. It’s just my opinion, and I don’t’ think I’m being unfair.
What uh, wow, I don’t remember civil rights leaders blasting Eisenhower for signing toothless bills or LBJ for passing them in the Senate, or blasting JFK for not moving fast enough or LBJ, as President, for allowing Senate Republicans to weaken the Civil Rights Act.
I remember them putting hundreds of thousands of people on the National Mall, and Kennedy realizing he can’t ignore that.
Let’s see here. The president deserves little to no credit for DADT repeal, Hate Crimes Prevention Act and all the other accomplishments enumerated by Steve Benen.
The vast majority of liberal democrats (atm 85%) who approve of the president and most in the gay rights movement who advocate and work their ass of in different ways to advance Gay Rights policy or just quietly support it, and are perfectly happy or even thankful for Obamas accomplishments and approach – those are irrelevant or deserve no credit.
But the two blowhards that are best at stirring up controversy by going on TV and attacking the president, being booked because they satisfy the angry liberal base or liberals fighting amongst themselves narratives – those deserve most or all the credit because they’ve moved the Overton Window. That they moved the Overton Window need no more proof than reading Obama’s list of accomplishments because God knows that guy wouldn’t have delivered any of that if it was up to him.
Am I doin it rite?
We’ll just put aside the more militant AA movements – I guess – and turn this around: You think there weren’t people – on the Left – dissing MLK and the marchers?
And did you just imply that putting hundreds of thousands on the Mall was “nice and patient”? What fucking weirdness.
Yes, and I think they hurt the movement more than they helped.
In a way, yes, they were. They were willing to fight the legislative battle, not throw bombs and point fingers. MLK is in no way analogous to Dan Choi or John Aravosis, no way.
How dare you call me and people like me out for being know-nothing, counterproductive idiots, don’t you understand we speak for everyone within the Gay Rights movement? If you disagree with my way of going about things it must mean that you want me to wait longer for my rights.
Am I doin it right?
Wow. You read a lot into my “They did their ativist thing i a way…” quote.
To respond, I’ll just go back to my other comment to Cole:
And: Calling an activist a “blowhard” – wow. So original.
the schedule will be made by those in power, and in same cases, the people.
Remember that liberals in Maine tried to push for marriage equality and they overreached. The public rejected it. Sometimes that just makes things worse.
and what did Choi and Aravosis do? They blamed Obama for not single handily flipping tens of thousands of votes in Maine, while the rest of the gay rights community regroups and restructured for the next battle.
Absolutely no fucking way.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Just to start with…. Nobody fucking knows who they are. Dan Choi chaining himself to the WH fence had no effect because only about 48 people in the liberal blogosphere know it happened.
That would make sense if I claimed to. I’m simply speaking to John’s obsession with going after people who “AREN’T DOING IT RIGHT!” I find it low class weirdness.
Well excuse us for feeling some people are counterproductive. You can go back to calling the pot black now, kettle.
“Activists” == “Aravosis & Choi” is self evident from context, e.g. John’s post being a follow up to the earlier one that was about them. Are you suggesting John was talking about anyone else?
Reading what you wrote again, pondering it:
That’s low. That’s fucking low man, because you knew that wasn’t true when you wrote it. Lacking good arguments on merit, you made up some bloody rags out of thin air to wave around.
Originality is overrated. I aim for accuracy and not having my head stuck up my ass. You’ll understand when you get out of college.
It’s not some generic “activist” me and Cole (and you) are talking about; they are specific individuals, behaving in very particular and idiotic ways.
LT @ 136
You implied that between John on the one hand and Choi and Aravosis on the other, only C&A’s opinions about how to go about things is valid and allowed. What authority did you base that view on, if not on claiming them being representative of the larger Gay Rights movement?
Next time, John should go after people while using words of foreign origin (French would be vastly preferable, but Latin will do). And sip freshly brewed loose leaf tea while doing it. And remember, you’re not actually supposed to stick the pinky finger out!
You see, this is where this lives for you. It’s sixth-grade level. It’s personal shitflinging. Now you’ll get people coming in to high-five you and fling some more. Woo hoo.
I don’t know Aravosis or Choi. I really doubt history will be anywhere near MMLK – but hey, I wish them well. They’re a few more people who made the choice to publicly work on an issue that was important to them, something that can make you look like an idiot in a heartbeat. Often because some big voice – like Cole’s – points at people who made that choice and calls them idiots. Even though he agrees with their goals. That’s the thing I don’t get. It’s because they’re actually harming the issue? Fuck you. What pompous crap. You nor Cole nor anyone else has a perfect measuring stick on that. And anybody could have said that about any activist on any issue anywhere, including MLK. LOTS off people thought he was too loud, too demanding, too impatient. It’s Cole’s right to make his call, no doubt. But don’t ask me to think it’s deep or interesting or a great use of time to mock activists who are trying to get to the same place as yourself. I think it sucks. I think it’s dumb.
I had thought it was obvious that when I said Obama was positioning himself slightly to the right of Clinton, it was obvious that I was talking about the one with lady parts. Sorry to have thrown you for the a loop.
What I find interesting about this blog is that so many of the commentors here get up in arms about how the FDL types feel the need to bash Obama on every issue, but you guys are the mirror opposites. Obama can do no wrong.
Shawn in ShowMe
The argument within the civil rights movement was fundamentally different than what’s going on in the gay rights movement. Moderate and radical gay rights activists both want to be assimilated into the larger society. They’re just arguing over the rate of that assimilation.
The radical faction in the civil rights movement didn’t want to be assimilated — they wanted self-determination. They wanted control over the politics and economics of their own communities. The worst mistake the mainstream civil rights movement ever made was going all in on assimilation without a plan for collective self-determination, like the Jews or the Irish. The ghettos and jails are more crowded with disenfrachised black folk now than they were 50 years ago.
“That’s low. That’s fucking low man, because you knew that wasn’t true when you wrote it. ”
No, it’s exactly what I think. I think Cole is without question putting his timetable on this over gay rights activists, including Aravosis and Choi. He has said, over and over, “See? See what Obama’s doing now?” That is especially offensive, IMO. Like Cole knows exactly what’s going to happen – and that what has happened should be good enough for those activists. I find that so plainly offennsive – yah. I don’t know what else to say.
And I’ve said again and again, and I want it to be clear, that I write this being a big admirer of Cole. If I wasn’t, why would I care what he did or thought?
Choi seems to have first rate antennae for publicity and a second rate intellect. Too bad.
“You implied that between John on the one hand and Choi and Aravosis on the other, only C&A’s opinions about how to go about things is valid and allowed.”
Bullshit. Just because I point out that Cole’s mocking of activists for criticizing Obama on how fast he’s moving is him making his own timetable more important than theirs, does not mean that I’m making the activists timetable the only valid one. It simply points it out, which I think is very fair.
And this is not just about Aravosis and Choi. This is exactly what happened with Cole’s DDay post. The obsession to go after the hated “activists” made the larger issue diminish, wrongly. IN MY OPINION. And it pervades the Lefty blogoshpere. This need to go after the “activists,” the “firebaggers.” It is the work of lower minds.
That’s offensive, frankly.
Pretty much all progressives who support gay rights want gays to have absolute equality, now. You wont find many people who support any civil liberty but think you having to wait 5 or 10 years is in some way appropriate or morally right.
But then there’s the question: how fast can we practically get there in the real world and how do we go about it. That’s something completely fucking different. “Pretty good progress” is measured relative to the latter and understood in a historical context. E.g. more progress on gay rights in the last three years than in the preceding twenty.
But you know all that full well. You’re willfully trying to pretend that disagreeing on tactics and what’s to be considered a fair outcome given circumstances on the one hand and disagreeing on principle on the other are the same thing, and worse electing to get personal about your willful strawman.
Maybe you’re a big admirer of Choi or Aravosis?
Oh my FSM, we’ve been deemed “lower minds” by famed activism historian LT! I don’t know how I’m going to live with myself. Somebody hug me! General Stuck? ABL? Anyone?!
Obviously LT has you pegged pretty well.
It’s possible for activists to aim their passion at the wrong target. It’s possible for fanatics to make enemies out of friends. Pointing these things out is valuable, and that’s largely what John is doing.
Calling your supposed allies vicious names and then being hypersensitive, by contrast, is less valuable.
Cole and everyone but you are talking about individuals or alternatively a class of individuals who behave in a certain way.
You OTOH want to pretend we’re talking about generic “activists”.
I’ll take a wild guess and say that you probably agree with C&A on how to go about stuff. But rather than argue on the merits you’re being lazy and pretending this is about some insult against generic “gay activists”.
It’s not. It’s about stupid individuals choosing to behave in counterproductive and idiotic ways.
IOW, you wont get traction for your views by simply defining “activist” == “someone who agrees with me”, and asserting that people who don’t agree with you have it in for “activists”.
What does that even mean? Would I get kicked out of the club if I were? Jesus, grow up.
I read AmericaBlog once a day, sometimes go twice to see what scoops they’ve got. I’m not gay, I’m not an activist.I nevertheless feel close to the issue for reasons you can figure out yourself. I’m sure a lot of not-gay ppl here feel the same. Aravosis runs a good blog, I don’t think he’s the best writer on it. Enough said. I know very little about Choi except what we’ve all seen on blogs. I think I saw him on Maddow. I think both Aravosis and Choi are smart, are doing something that requires courage, and both without any doubt have their hearts in the right place. I wish them both well. That’s how I feel about them.
Danny, you’re just being a dick. Your wild guesses are mostly wrong, and I’ve already explained how this is, IMO, about more than just Aravosis and Choi, and how it’s exactly about “activists.” I could also say “progressives.” Or “firebaggers.”
“I’ll take a wild guess and say that you probably agree with C&A on how to go about stuff.”
You need to step off. Your guesses are making you overreach. I dont’ always agree or disagree. Sometimes I just look and dont’ know what to think. But admire people who try, and I especially admire ppl who risk looking like fools for good causes.
If that’s the level of discourse you can muster at this point I think we’ll have to conclude there’s good reason for you to stick with the strawmen and faux outrage.
You do realize that your whole schtick is a no true scotsman definition of “activist” and “progressive” as someone who agrees with you, or – taking into account you putting distance between yourself and C&A – someone who agrees with C&A (but apparently prima facie not with Cole).
If you concede the possibility that some – or even the majority – of “activists” agree with Cole rather than Choi, your whole argument becomes absurd.
You’re gonna pout until my heart breaks, or what?
Oh I see, in your fifth-grade mind, I’m hiding the fact that I really love Aravosis and Choi to go after Cole. I get it now. Excuse me for not expecting such puerile nonsense.
And you wrote that after I wrote this:
Brilliant there, Danny. Brilliant.
And the internet: The place where you can use “strawman” for anything. ANYTHING. Except strawmen.
“You do realize that your whole schtick is a no true scotsman definition of “activist” and “progressive” as someone who agrees with you, or – taking into account you putting distance between yourself and C&A – someone who agrees with C&A (but apparently prima facie not with Cole).”
“taking into account you putting distance between yourself and C&A”
Your slip is showing. It was never about those guys for me. YOU wanted that, but it never worked out for you. Go back to my very first comment (120). My complaint is with Cole, the unworthiness of this obsession, and the weakness of the logic behind it.
The point being that you making a big fuzz of Cole smacking C&A around is not proof of your deep admiration for Cole, as asserted. Got it yet?
Or you wanna persist a little longer in diverting attention from your non-existing (yet offensive) argument by bloviating about how you can’t read for comprehension?
“The point being that you making a big fuzz of Cole smacking C&A around is not proof of your deep admiration for Cole, as asserted.”
Jesus. Sometimes you have to just trust, Danny. (And are you like The Bodyguard? Except for Cole?)
It was never about Choi & Aravosis, it was about the unworthiness of Coles obsession with them? Oh, and how “deplorable” it was of Cole to disagree with them, perhaps? (@123) Maybe about how:
But wait, wasnt that the quite despicable nonsense that I wanted you to own up to all along? That and how you like to pretend that you get to define who’s an “activist” and who’s not, and then pretend John insulted all of them?
Yep, pretty much.
Well, it was an offhand remark. It wasnt a big deal before you made it a big deal, presumably because you like distractions or something. But now that you made it a big deal you can hardly blame me for your poor reading skills, can you? You wasted our time, not me.
No, I just think you’re full of shit and that makes me pissed, that’s all.
“Oh, and how “deplorable” it was of Cole to disagree with them, perhaps?”
Real slow, Danny: That is also about Cole (and, again, a huge sector of eh Lfty blogosphere), and not about A&C. And it wasn’t about disagreeing with them, it was what his position effectively did: Tell them that HIS idea off the schedule was more important than theirs. I find that presumptious, and offensive.
“No, I just think you’re full of shit and that makes me pissed, that’s all.”
Well why can’t you just disagree? I’m not being dishonest. I’m not doing anything different than I did when I came in. (The thing about timing that I called deplorable occurred to me after my first post, and I added it.) I’ve said this here before: I think Cole has a pattern of going after little things like this – often in the great cause of going after “firebaggers” (how deep!), while missing a bigger picture. That’s just an observation, and my opinion. You don’t have to hate me for it. I gave the DDay thing as an example. It’s the same formula. Here the bigger picture is that there is still a long way to go for gay rights. I am knock going to kick people for being angry about that, and for choosing to do things about that that I myslef wouldn’t do.
Starting to feel genuinely sorry for you at this point.
It’s not about him disagreeing. It’s about him telling them that his idea of a schedule was more important than theirs.
Already we’re setting a new standard for subtlety; or rather sophistry and speciousness.
Not to mention that “his idea of a schedule was more important than theirs” is your very own, quite disgusting strawman; sentiments no-one but you has actually expressed.
But hey, as it happens I already wrote at length about that as well (In @148). Only, then you started bitching about some other irrelevant stuff.
Anyway, here it is again:
Danny, just because you can’t grasp something doesn’t mean it’s a strawman.
Hey Danny, P.S.:
Nope, nothing about schedule in that.
Because you went with “I’m gonna pretend that someone said something they didn’t say and then make a big personal outrage out of it”. That’s low.
Also, it seems rather silly to throw big words around like you did if you’re not ready to eat up what you dish out.
There’s a learning experience to be had here. Moderation breeds moderation. But hey look at you and look at Choi and look at Aravosis.
Funny how that works out.
Yup. Common ground. You’d never know it existed listening to you guys most of the time.
Facts are facts. The president’s record on Gay Rights is already – after three years – among the strongest in the history of the nation. People running around saying he’s worse than Bush – who actually ran on reelection on a platform of constitutional amendment against gay marriage, and many observers saying he won on it – is not going to be taken seriously. And if they persist in their idiocracy they’ll have to live with people getting pissed. Whether they call themselves “activist” or not.
It means what it says: “slow, steady progress” that someone (or rather: many people) has delivered. I would judge it “fast progress”, relative to the history of the preceding 300 years. But that’s me.
There’s no “schedule” of how slow or fast the pace of change that anyone wants to impose, other than the one you made up.
There are practical considerations about how to achieve the fastest pace of change practically possible, and history is and should be a reference for benchmarking performance.
But that’s not the same thing as the little fairy tale you made up and attributed to someone else.
It is exactly telling people “You should be happy where we are right now – look where we are compared to X years ago!” It is EXACTLY calling your idea of progress, and the timing of that progress, the only proper view. (I get that this is really hard for you to absorb. So, whatever.)
I dont’ even know how you begin to go there as seemingly reasonable people. I find it vile. If someone wants more, wants better, aren’t satisfied with how far it’s come so far – and are angry about it, and do things that I might not agree with – I would not begin to mock them for it. You obviously would. Woo hoo. Enjoy.
@ LT : I think the idea that John Cole spends too much time bashing “activists” who aren’t using the tactics he would prefer is rather rich… considering that pretty much the entire “activist” complaint about Obama and Obama defenders is that, because they disagree about tactics, they must not support the goals. Come at it from that angle, where there is a constant barrage of sniping about not fighting enough, not trying enough, not doing it right, not doing it dramatically enough, not really believing in the cause, and mindless adoration of Dear Leader. I think then the notion might become more clear: eventually someone just might take a retaliatory potshot at the effectiveness of the fasterharderlouder approach and the justice of its litany of grievances.
How about breaking storefront windows in some city to protest global corporate hegemony? Or throwing red paint on people wearing fur coats? Or making giant papier-mache puppets? Not even then? Come on, that’s comical.
No. There’s a distinction between saying “We’ve made progress, and looking at history we made a whole lot of progress in a short time” and saying “you should be happy where you are right now”.
Those are not at all the same thing. You know that…. right?
If we’re lying in a heap of burning coal and we help each other drag us into the desert, then it’s possible for both of us to both be happy about the change, while still agreeing that we aint done yet. Correct?
It’s the proper view for us who subscribe to it, and it isn’t for those who don’t. The latter include Choi, Aravosis and (maybe) you.
You guys (well maybe / maybe not you personally) are not timid about declaring anything but getting out of the desert this instant unacceptable and raging at whomever you feel like raging at.
So that may piss off people who don’t agree with you and you may get to hear about it. Crawling up on the cross at that point and claiming prosecution feels… pathetic.
No ones having a problem with any of that. In fact pretty much everyone (talking progressives here) supports it.
Well if they get angry at the wrong people who don’t deserve it and if they want to do stupid things, then maybe I get pissed and maybe I will say so.
prosecution -> persecution
I thought the people who elected Obama understood his Presidency was to be the anti-Bush, liberal “hearts & minds” strategy to set America on the right track. The whole “red america, blue america” line.
Weird. You’re suggesting that the relationship between activists and a president and government is equal to that of a blogger toward activists. Again: weird.
And it’s hard to measure the effectiveness or not of the “fasterharderlouder” approach, as you call it. Probably part of the problem is people assuming they can.
Not “hearts & minds”. “Shock and Awe”.
Bomb the enemy into submission in a couple of weeks, then kick back at the palace.
I know I get to bitch at people and stuff, but I could never imagine that someone would bitch at me. Daddy killed Santa.
Also, you really still think “activists” == “people I agree with”, right? Obv Aravosis is not a “blogger” – he’s an “activist”.
I think that person would be pleased to hear you say that, because I think it is very much his intended mode of operation.
I’m reminded of an excellent profile of then-candidate Obama that appeared in the May 7, 2007 issue of the New Yorker (available free online and still worth reading), and this sentence in particular:
“In his view of history, in his respect for tradition, in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very slowly, Obama is deeply conservative.”
Reading this profile is what made me decide that this was the guy I was going to vote for, because I share this skepticism. There are exceptions, but I think that most change for the better is incremental. I think it is very difficult to take an existing complex system and make big changes without breaking it.
So I’m with you on this. I’m fine with “slowly, methodically moving forward, without a lot of show.”
No, it’s telling people, “Three years ago we had a president who wanted a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Now we have one who wants to repeal DOMA. And you’re trying to claim that the guy who wants to repeal DOMA is worse for gay rights than the guy who wanted to amend the Constitution to ban it?”
If people want to complain that we’re not moving fast enough, that’s their privilege. It’s the people who insist that things are objectively worse for gay people than under Bush that are being mocked here.
So I guess my question to you is, do you agree with Aravosis and Choi that Bush should be the guy to emulate when it comes to gay rights?
I see John’s Obot hat has come back from the cleaners, allowing him to firmly pull the wool over his eyes.
Hey Danny, those are just about the most lucid replies I have read around here.
Thanks and bravo.
You can go die in a needless senseless war for your country, but you can’t get married.
Really? That’s a win? For who?
“You can go die in a needless senseless war for your country…”
Not too long ago, an openly gay person couldn’t do that. Now they can, although I doubt that many would characterize what they want to do as you have.
“…but you can’t get married.”
Not in all states, not yet, but what would you have a president do about that? Make state laws?
“Really? That’s a win? For who?”
It’s a win for gay people who wish to serve in the US military.
Yep John, you’re on the side that claps mindlessly like a trained seal over a few social issue crumbs while the wealth of the country is thieved away right under your nose.
Gee why does that sound familaiar? Social issue distractions to get votes while corruption and corporations grab ever more power. You’re no better than the teabaggers.
Where as steely-eyed Finn13 is bravely saving the world from taint and corruption, holding aloft the mighty Shield of Smug Self-Righteousness and deftly swinging the deadly Blade of Pointed Blog Comments.
Finn13 – better than you, and making a difference.
@92 really nails it.
you have to remember, as stated here above, there are real activists on the ground making incremental change. these people tend, i think, to have obama’s back.
you also have the narcissistic puppet-toting, chain-themselves-to-the-WH-fence guys. many of these guys (and i’ve marched with them) are just plain kooky. and they look at obama and they don’t see someone like them, someone who explodes with emotion over their issues. and it freaks them out – they don’t see themselves in him and assume that he’s a secret gooper.
clinton won over more of these guys as he was pretty good at faking empathy. when he said ‘i feel your pain’, these guys saw him as more of an ally.
Oh boy. The full range of tactics is on display here, is it not? Let me enumerate:
1) The “let’s talk about all the various ways the president isn’t as progressive as I’d like, instead of the issue of LGBT rights, where so far he’s done EVERYTHING he said he would do when he ran for president” deflection.
2) The “stop telling gay people they should have to WAIT for their rights” dodge – for this one, I suggest viewing the video of the president’s remarks from the gathering he hosted for LGBT Pride month a few weeks ago. Because until you view that, you have no idea what a jackass you’re making out of yourself by claiming that the president has said/indicated to the gay community that they just have to wait some more.
3) The “obviously I’m more progressive than you are because I don’t let practicality or reality get in the way of my PRINCIPLES” dodge.
4) The willful fiction that a person’s principles can be better gauged by what they say rather than what they do.
5 The pretense that most of those engaging in the tactics above are “gay activists.” Most of them are not.
6 The blind eye turned to how the “more progressive than thou” types’ preferred strategy would most likely play out, because it’s better to be able to point out how much purer your principles are than everyone else’s than it is for all members of the LGBT to get their full complement of rights as quickly as possible.
7 The assumption that anyone who points out the glaring flaws in the reasoning of any of the above does so because they’re either a) an “Obot”; b) not a “true” progressive; c) desirous of putting their own agenda ahead of full rights for the LGBT community.
Did I miss any? If so, please feel free to add to the list; then we can add it to the lexicon. Unfortunately, we know it will come in handy for future use.
Most people are a focus group of one. It’s all about what they want and need. It’s just a fact of life. And until something changes in human nature, there will always be just a small sliver of people who say “this is what I need/want… this is what you need/want… what if we both give up a little so neither of us has to lose it all?”
Shorter John Cole
You gay people will shut up and accept the progress the strait man has given you. Not only that you will accept the pace at witch the strait man has given you this progress.
furthermore you will be happy about the progress and pace you have received. Now sit down shut up and praise the great strait man who has been so generous to you.
Yeah your not condescending at all.
I wonder what you would have said to black people if you would have been of age in the 50ies
more than the progress crazy activist gays have given them in the past few years.
if the fact that obama isn’t gay is a reason to be pissed about progress on gay rights then you’re definitely not part of the solution.
@ 192 – and we see an example of #2 from my comment above @ 190.
Given that there was nothing in JC’s post demanding that anyone “sit down shut up” this constitutes what appears to be a quite willful reading FAIL on your part.
ITA. It’s unfortunate that narcissistic activists dominate our discourse because the solid activism that is done by so many go unnoticed. Which begs the question, if the spotlight is so frequently on attention-seekers than doers, how is the left supposed to move the ball down the field as efficiently and quickly as possible?
It really is a shame that the activists who reward good, punish bad, and push for more aren’t highlighted…. especially about the rewarding good part. It’s easy to convince someone to do the punishing and pushing parts but to reward someone for doing the right thing? Too many narcissist activists think that’s a sellout. And that’s when electeds start tuning them out…