Tweet
I’m under the weather today (airplane travel + filthy air + coughing, sneezing + fibro), so I won’t be good for much besides tea, soup and bed today. Right now I’m on a soup break and checking mail, Twitter and Facebook and then back to unconsciousness. Since I haven’t the clarity to write posts of any useful length, I’ll point to some stories that I’d love to see you all discuss in the comments.
* Salon: The Democratic fear-based strategy. Glenn Greenwald goes in depth into a subject we discussed here a while back – the Dem establishment pathetically invoking Sarah Palin as the Fear Factor to get out the Dem vote. A snippet:
That the Right has become an even more twisted, malicious and primitive version of what they were during the Bush years is unquestionably true. And it’s perfectly legitimate to point out the flaws and excesses of one’s political adversaries. But the expectations which large numbers of Obama voters had — based on the promises made — are not going to be forgotten with these distracting, divisive strategies. The great irony of the Obama presidency is that a central promise of his candidacy was to reduce the corrosive cynicism pervading the citizenry regarding our political system, but dashing the hopes of huge numbers of first-time and young voters — as the “enthusiasm gap” compellingly reveals is occurring — will likely do more than any other single event to increase cynicism levels to all new heights. It’s easy to imagine large numbers of people who decided for the first time that politics can matter — people who were enthused supporters who expected the fundamental change they were promised by electing Barack Obama — giving up “hope” for a long time, if not forever, in the face of a Party which now has little to say to them other than: But Look Over There at Sarah Palin!!
* Americablog : We’re quickly heading towards zero major gay accomplishments by the Obama administration this term. This post by John Aravosis was up before the news broke that Reid will call for a DADT vote, but in essence, it’s still true since DADT has not been repealed and there’s no date certain when the discharges will stop. Hate crimes was a done deal with the majority we had in Congress. All Obama had to do was sign off on it. So…
We were told that the President simply couldn’t get to his promises to our community in his first two years in office because we are a nation at war, and he had to work on health care reform, the economy, and many other issues that were meant to believe were far more important than our basic civil and human rights.And now, after all the pandering by all the pro-Obama apologists who said that we were wrong to ask the President to address our community’s needs during his first two years in office, that we were wrong to warn of the imminent loss of a Democratically-controlled House, and how that loss would stymie gay rights progress for years to come, and that we were wrong to suggest that this President would never, ever get to addressing a real repeal of DADT and DOMA, and the passage of ENDA – after all that, it turns out we were right.
Barack Obama is on the precipice of accomplishing a grand total of none of his major promises to gay and lesbian Americans in return for our supporting his candidacy with our votes and our money. I’m not smelling change.
I’ll just say that for me it’s not as black and white. There were major gains for the transgender community in these two years, the most prominent being the passport rule changes regarding gender ID made by the state department. And in fact we’ve seen a host of Cinderella Crumb rights tossed our way, executive measures taken by this administration (remember the FMLA interpretation changes?) that any future president can roll back with the stroke of a pen. Those are not insignificant to those affected, but it is not establishment of full civil equality. Thus John’s initial declaration is still true -none of the major promises this president has made have been fulfillled. Barack Obama’s promises, not our demands.
More headlines below the fold, including a doozy of a Dem leadership embarrassment.* HuffPo: Only One Party Stands for LGBT Rights. This is an essay by Ray Buckley, the first openly gay politician to hold the position of the President of the Association of State Democratic Chairs. I will not doubt the sincerity with which he continues the GOP fear factor meme for the midterms by touting all the progress by the Obama administration. Here we go…
We Democrats are the Party of equality and we have been the party that has been delivering results in advancing the cause of equality for LGBT Americans and more broadly Democrats in Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, the Lily Ledbetter Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd Jr. Hates Crimes Prevention Act. But we don’t just look back at our accomplishments. Our Party is — with virtually no Republican help – currently working to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. We are expanding rights for LGBT Americans through administrative actions. For example, the Department of Health & Human Services has extended medical decision making rights to LGBT Couples and the Department of Labor has extended the Family Medical Leave Act to cover LGBT families.As we stand on the precipice of so much positive change, this is not the time to become apathetic or turn back the clock. Do not allow Republicans to cause us to stay home in November, because “one party is just as good as the other” on LGBT issues. We have to stand with the Party that has continually stood for equality, and encourage the community to do just that this November.
Note that bolded statement above. Buckley’s expectation is that perhaps there’s big change looming on the horizon if we just lay down under the bus one more time. Unfortunately, Buckley’s predictions and expectations have changed wildly since the Presidential Inauguration, where he said in this video (praise Jeebus for the YouTube) that he “would be VERY surprised if by the end of they year we did not pass” hate crimes, inclusive ENDA, and repeal DOMA and DADT. (it’s around 3:12, hat tip to Towleroad).
I guess believing in life at the precipice, as it were, is how the die-hard Obama supporters sleep like babies while actually under the bus.
* Right Wing Watch: 2012 Candidates Weekly Update. Excellent – RWW will be doing GOP 2012 Clown Car updates so I don’t have to. 
The reason this piece ties in with the above is the fact that the list of clown on that list so far doesn’t scare me. The GOP agenda is full of fail, and this list of prospective presidential candidates is pitiful: Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin. George Pataki, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum. If Obama’s political team can’t figure out how to beat these people, the man shouldn’t deserve a second term.
And my last article to point to, indicating even more cynicism is deserved regarding the Dem tactics for the midterms…
* National Journal.com: Despite Electoral Landscape, GOP Proposals Not Popular. The polls do not support the meme that Americans are so frustrated that they will turn to accept failed GOP policies. The problem is the Dems sucked at leading and implementing a successful agenda in the wake of Bush and GOP leadership destroying the economy over the last decade. It’s the economy, stupid.
Americans offer tepid support for much of the Republican Party’s domestic agenda, including repealing the new healthcare law and extending tax cuts for the wealthy, according to the latest Society for Human Resource Management/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, conducted with the Pew Research Center.The results suggest Republicans could struggle to pass legislation advancing many of the smaller-government themes that have dominated their campaigns in the midterm elections, even if the party wins control of one or both houses of Congress in November.
In particular, the party appears to risk a backlash from senior citizens, a critical voting bloc that harbors deep skepticism about tinkering with entitlement programs.
…[T]he poll offered little to suggest that the surge in voter support for Republican candidates, whom analysts project to win major gains this fall, carries over to support for policies championed this fall by Republican leaders in Washington and on the campaign trail.
…One issue united Americans of all demographics: Three-quarters of them said they could not name the leader of the Republican Party, or that the party does not have a leader.
Anyway, have at it — I’m heading back to bed now that I’ve finished my bowl of soup…
22 Comments
Has hate crimes legislation done ANYTHING?We’re constantly seeing stories about gay bashers NOT being tried for hate crimes, more and more kids committing suicide because they keep getting bullied, conservative states trying find loopholes so they can ignore federal hate crimes legislation… is the hate crimes bill really all that effective? I’m starting to think it’s not a major victory at all, let alone a major victory for Obama.
hyprocriticalI dont get how they can use BUSH™, CHENEY™ & PALIN™ as boogeymen when this White House has been scolding us to “look forward” for the past two years.
feel better Pam
Come on, nowIf some goon bashes your head in with a two-by-four, your name will go into a database. How can that not make you feel safer?
Th Democrats have beenusing this same tired line–”Vote for us–we’re not Republicans”–for decades now, and people are finally onto it. What it translates to, realistically, is “We’ve done nothing at all for you, but the Republicans will do even less nothing.” And our community isn’t alone; the whole country’s catching on. Unless the Democrats start acting like the party they claim to be, they’ll go the way of the Whigs. And they’ll deserve to. Unfortunately, that leaves the country hurt and bleeding. If a new, substantial reform movement doesn’t emerge SOON, the United States will go the way of the Ottoman Empire. And there will be no one to blame but the American people themselves.
Is there anything left to stop it?What’s left to keep us from going the way of the Ottoman Empire? The rise of social conservatism and religious zealotry will kill us. Our debt will kill us. Our dependence on oil, and particularly foreign oil, in a time of diminishing oil production will kill us. Our media reporting pointless, sensational stories like Lindsay Lohan and ignoring real issues will kill us. Corporate control of elections and the new plutocracy will kill us. Our political leadership seeking office for their own egos and self aggrandizement without concern for the duties of the office will kill us. Our ignorance will kill us. Our lazy, video game playing slacker generations coming up behind us will kill us. And then there’s China and India. Massive populations yearning to crawl out of poverty and willing to do or make anything we do for pennies on the dollar. We will borrow against every asset we have as a nation to maintain this cultural myth that we are the greatest and richest nation in the world until we default and the rest of the world comes to collect. And I haven’t even touched global warming. We’ll be bankrupt long before temperatures rise even another couple of degrees.
I am challenged to be optimistic about the coming decades for this country. Show me something, anything, that either party in Washington is doing to genuinely, sincere, and effectively deal with the challenges confronting this nation. All those in power are concerned with is getting re-elected at any cost, and either party will say whatever they have to to their target audience to stay in that cushy, high profile, high status, high paying job, and remain the center of everyone’s attention, keep going to fancy parties and hob nobbing with famous people. They are all extreme narcissists, and they would rather rule a broken, bankrupt nation than to live as common men and women in a great one.
The problem is the system as it exists, and we can’t get our heads out of the system long enough to realize that the system has to change. The greatest problem, as I see it, is that Congress has been fixed at the same size while the nation has grown enormously. The number of people represented by each member of Congress, along with the associated power and wealth that population represents, has become to large and too corrupting for effective governance to occur. Like the proverbial fog in the pot of water, the situation has got worse and worse, and we didn’t even notice it happening. I could go into details, but if it were up to me, I would increase the size of the House to be consistent with the proportions defined in the Constitution, which would be something over 8000 members. That would not require an Amendment. It would require those in power to relinquish most of their power, which could be harder than an amendment. I would also like to see an increase in the size of the Senate to perhaps 1000 or more members, which would require a constitutional amendment. Let’s start with the House and see how it goes.
I agree about the House apportionment…However, IIRC from my US Government classes oh so long ago, the Senate was limited to two Senators from each State because the Founders could not agree whether representation should be by geography or by population. The Bi-cameral nature for Congress(two buildings–Senate and house) was a check-and-balance system as well. What I think would be easier to implement without an amendment would be to allow Senators and Representatives from US territories and the District of Columbia. That way anyone who is under any sort of US jurisdiction has a say in the Federal laws. I also think that we need something limiting the power of corporate $$ in our system and countering the Citizen’s United decision.
The Senate is constititionally fixedat two Senators per state. That seemed reasonable when the states were 13 sparcely populated agrarian societies. Changing that would require a constitutional amendment.
As for the House, I was refering to Article 1, Clause 3 of the US Constitution, which reads,
With about 300 million Americans, and 435 members of the House, current representation in Congress is 1 representative per 689,655 citizens. Per the letter of the Constitution, we can’t have any more than 10000 representatives. Is 435 less than 10,000? Yes it is. They have met the letter of the Constitution. Is 435 even in the same ballpark with 10,000? Hell no! They’re ignoring the spirit of the Constitution. Why? Because if they did follow the spirit of the Constitution, they would only have a little over 30,000 constituents, and only control a bit more than 1/10,000th the wealth of our government each. That’s not nearly as much fun, or as much power, as controling 1/435th the wealth of our government. That’s why that 435 rule is so profoundly corrupting of our government, and obstructing of our national security and prosperity.
Frankly, even though it’s consistent with the letter of the Constitution, I feel that the 435 rule is so out of line with the spirit of the Constitution that it deserves a Supreme Court challenge. I think it’s worth a shot.
Er, rather, make that Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3
Didn’t know that. Thanks.Do know that per electoral college, there are over 600,00 California voters per electoral vote compared to Wyoming which has 67,000 per electoral vote. A tad disproportionate.
New Dem Tactic:“Vote for us because whoever is in power at the end of the year will get to use the new Census data to redraw districts for a decade, come January!”
I’ve seen it floated on a few sites so far & I’m guessing they want it to go viral.
Problem is that it’s true, of course. I’m just not convinced we’d be any better off at all.
Love it.That’s actually a really good point. I hadn’t even been thinking in those terms. I’m going to use that.
Re: AmericaBlogPersonally, I think the Matthew Shepard Act was a major accomplishment. Everything else the Obama administration has done on GLBTIQQA issues – not so much. I’m not satisfied with what the administration has done for us, but I do believe in giving credit where credit is due.
I’m tired of the two party system where both sides use fear as a motivator to get people to vote for them. I’m tired of voting for the lesser of two “evils”. This election, I’m voting mostly for Green and Progressive Party candidates (I’m in Portland, Oregon).
I wish I’d hear more from GLBTIQQA community leaders about supporting so-called “third” parties. The current meme I am hearing is that Democrats are no better than Republicans. Not true and I worry that it will one 1) depress voter turnout amongst GLBTIQQA voters or 2) make it okay for GLBTIQQA voters to vote for Republicans since they’re the same as Democrats. If you’re going to slam the Democrats, and they deserve to be slammed, offer up a viable alternative. I know that not everyone has the luxury of having the Green Party to vote for. Maybe that’s why we should work more with them at the national level to help build a party that IS supportive of us and help them to field more candidates.
Clarification please.“I’m just not convinced we’d be any better off at all.”
You’re not convinced that we’d be better off with Democratic leadership vs. Republican leadership? I’m deeply disappointed with the Democrats but I KNOW that I am better off when Democrats are in control as opposed to when Republicans are. I’d rather be disappointed than constantly outraged. That’s not to say I’ll vote for any person who has a D behind their name on the ballot. Just that I can’t agree with the perspective that there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans.
If you get gay-bashedyour name goes into a database. That strikes you as a major accomplishment?
The Shepard act was important symbolically–no argument there–and as a first step toward meaningful pro-LGBT legislation. But it didn’t really change anything very much (if you haven’t noticed, gay kids are still killing themselves rather than face harassment by classmates and school administrators), not in the way ENDA or marriage equality will when they’re passed a few centuries from now.
Party affiliation doesn’t mean quite so much any moreTake a look at the often odd-seeming split in voting records. 1/2 to 2/3 of the Democrats vote with the Republicans on issues you’d think run counter to the so-called ideals of the DNC (& yet the Party remains oddly silent). Now throw away party affiliation for a moment and look for other correlations. The one that seems to stand out rather consistently is not political affiliation but rather, religious. The question is, are they voting (and pushing or holding back processes) due to:
- Honest personal conviction and a deep sense of religious values (and those may also be what got them elected)?.
- Pandering to what they perceive as the way the wind is blowing back home (ie, no conviction other than to get re-elected)? If so, is their assessment accurate?
- Infiltration of the political system by a small number of religious (or other) zealots?
- An attempt to use religion to manipulate the masses and the political system, taking advantage of our culture’s reluctance to question religious values and religious folks’ higher likelihood follow authority?
The cause is what should determine our response. Has the country really gone that religious on a scale large enough to provoke the shift in politics? Polling would seem to indicate ‘no’. The alternative is that the system is being gamed. Question is, is it honest cosmological belief that’s behind it or is that merely a socially impenetrable opiate-of-the-masses based smoke screen used to hide a takeover of the political and social systems? Or something else altogether?
Still confused.Maybe I'm just not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I still don't understand the point you're trying to make.
Is your argument that, since 1/2 to 2/3 (numbers which seem high to me) of Democrats vote with the Republicans we shouldn't be worried if Republicans gain control of the House and/or Senate? I don't disagree with the idea the Democrats are basically Republican-lite these days. Feel helpless to change that, but if my ONLY two choices are Republican and Republican-lite, I'll take the lite, please. There is no indication that Republicans have or will moderate their extreme views once they are in office and Democrats have rarely shown themselves to be an effective opposition party, imo. I want more viable national “third” parties, dang it. 
Is it any different if you are a victim of any other felony?Wouldn't all felonies go into a database somewhere? Didn't hate crimes for other groups also go into a database? Has that been a problem?Is your concern about privacy or are you arguing that they don't use it? I've heard of anecdotal evidence of cases where it could have been used, but wasn't, but I haven't read any major reports that indicate a systemic problem with it not being used. Not saying that there isn't a systemic problem. I just am not sure either way. I don't think anyone claimed that suicides would stop when the Matthew Shepard act was passed. We, without a doubt, have a hell of a long way to go. I used to think that I'd never see marriage equality in my lifetime. Not anymore. I think it'll come from the courts before it comes from the White House or Congress, but I do think it will come before I die.
There is a separate database for hate crimes.My other point was not about the suicides but about the criminal harassment that so frequently causes them. If anything, that crud has increased, in both volume and ferocity, despite the Shepard Act.
BacklashSadly, we're likely to see more backlash the closer we get to full equality. The last violent throes of an atiquated paradigm.
My apologies for less than being thought of clarity
The point I was trying to make is that perhaps we are looking at the whole arrangement in the wrong way. We look at it through Republican verses Democrat tinted glasses because that’s what we’ve been trained to do. In light of recent events that particular distinction is less than helpful to some subsets of the electorate.
In reality, there are a number of correlations that may be more telling as to where politicians’ allegiances lie than party affiliation. In this particular case I was pointing out that many of the decisions that concern LGBT folk are voted on based on religious affiliation. Could be merely a correlation, could be an engineered mechanism to ensure re-election.
That almost makes me feel optimistic!That was NOT sarcasm, I wholeheartedly agree. There is a shift taking place not at the ballot box or in Congress but rather in the courts, one tiny piece at a time. And apart from appointed judges there is little those who hate us can do about it.
Interesting thought:
Perhaps that is where we should be spending our donation dollars: in supporting the court cases that affect us. The politicians and lobby groups have done nothing for us, it’s all been settled by legal argument. Consider it a new form of activism.