Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Bamboo Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World Previous entry: Deranged: American Family Radio’s Bryan Fischer: ‘No More Mosques, Period.’

Extra, extra: the White House is frustrated by ‘gay bloggers’

From Americablog, word that a closed-door meeting with the President, Brian Bond, the Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement and state equality organization leaders generated some interesting comments:

Bond asserted, “There is still a lot of work to do” before DOMA will be repealed. “Look at the trouble we’re having with ENDA.” he added. But Bond conceded that there are inconsistencies in President Obama’s positions. In response, Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director of Equality Maryland, stated, “Respectfully, we need President Obama to push for full inclusion of the LGBT community on ENDA, on marriage- we need the full get, not the lesser get. The highest office in the land sets the tone for the whole country.” Bond agreed, but expressed frustration at the often intense criticism levied, particularly by bloggers, against an administration that is “99 percent supportive of your issues.” [emphasis added]

I’m kind of nonplussed; does that include your blogmistress, or do lesbian bloggers not rate in the same category of frustration for Brian Bond? I’m the only “gay blogger”  he’s had a sit-down interview with, so I’d love it if he gave a shout-out by name. I was quite generous to him in my interview.

I think perhaps they only mean John Aravosis, no? But Brian used the plural, so the White House must have a LIST. I’ll have to ask John (and maybe even Joe Sudbay) what it feels like to be on a White House hit list.

Anyway, I know the WH, at least Shin Inouye (director of specialty media), reads the Blend and pings me from time to time, but who are these other peeps in power who are hand-wringing over the people on THE LIST of angry, frustration-inducing, Cheetos-stained P.J.-wearing bloggers...

John said this in response to Bond’s comments:

It’s great that you’re “supportive.” But it’s the same argument gay Republicans used to describe George Bush. He was secretively supportive of us, they’d say, even if he didn’t help us a whole lot legislatively. I’m not saying you’re George Bush, but the empathy thing is wearing thin. We don’t want your support in words, we want you to keep your promises. And you’re not.

I don’t think you have to be a rocket scientist to see the point of view many of us hold - that promises were made, quite publicly to the community to both garner votes and generate cashflow, and now the bill has come due and we are seeing all sorts of shenanigans by those in charge. The delays and slow-go on DADT repeal that ends in a poor compromise and a freepable, embrarrassing “study”; inaction on ENDA, tossing the hot potato between the WH and Congress as to whose responsibility it is to take the lead; Gibbs having amnesia and feeble follow up skills at the podium. Come on. If you’re 99% supportive, that is a helluva 1% left over.

I can’t quite figure out what the people in the White House really think about new media/citizen journalists/bloggers. The equality orgs got to meet with the President, but Barack Obama has not given an interview to any LGBT media since he took office. That has to be purposeful. He certainly didn’t do a drop in when a few reporters and citizen journalists were invited to meet with Melody Barnes, who is an ally, but still gave little information and would not discuss political matters at all, nor did the WH offer anyone on the political side to attend that meeting. And, you might recall, Brian Bond was in that room, was referenced by name, yet he said not one word during the 58-minute meeting. I did get a bear hug from him, though. Perhaps I’m still not on the SH*T LIST…we have to read between the lines.


We’re not the enemy, the “gay bloggers” have just been treated in a bizarre fashion (and sadly, at times the traditional LGBT media’s apparently placed in the doghouse with us by association), it’s not like we sit around thinking how to screw over the WH. On the other hand, we’re not an extension of the WH PR machine. We just represent many voices, and many outside the Beltway, of course, that haven’t been heard or dealt with before. Does that make it challenging to navigate these relationships? Yes, and that’s on both sides.

The bottom line is that I want my civil rights, and I see time and effort frittered away as it is treated like a political football—we’re Charlie Brown and Jim Messina et. al. are Lucy. It sure doesn’t feel like 99% supportive if it’s all theoretical, as we saw in that hilarious DNC video of Tim Kaine yesterday, chock full of win like:

“I promise you, we’re going to do everything in our power to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.”

I think that’s absurd. Who wrote that? What a position of weakness that sounds like. One commenter, Lev Raphael, was quite spot on:

steps to promote
beginning to address

These are weaselly constructions. What’s happened isn’t insignificant, but why should, for instance, Federal workers have it better off than the rest of us?  Why such baby steps?  And the steps aren’t what we were promised.

His prologue also did not acknowledge the anger.  It’s not frustration.  I’m frustrated if I have to reboot my computer.  I’m frustrated if my dogs won’t stop barking.  I’m frustrated if I have a bad workout at the gym. I’m frustrated if I screwed up my DVR and didn’t record the show I intended to.

I’m not frustrated about the lack of hard progress, I’m angry, disappointed, and disgusted.  I think Obama is turning into Clinton.  Promise, surface dazzle (at times), but no follow-through, and weak at the core.

The very choice of the word “frustrated” by Kaine (or his writers), the way it’s balanced with “some of you/some of you” as if we’re split down the middle, all show they don’t get it.

Maybe they will when they don’t get our votes?

There’s plenty of

frustration

to go around.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 02:28 PM • (53) Comments

Fuck them and the tidal wave they rode in on, that I helped create.

My brother and his “boyfriend” of 34 years can’t be married at least in part because the Obama administration allowed it’s DOJ to fight for DOMA by characterizing their relationship as the equivalent of pedophilia and bestiality.

Marriage ain’t just a word: the lack of the legal comforts of same is threatening my brother’s health.

After being laid off from a job he held for 17 years, my 55 year old brother is now one of the longterm unemployed. When his Cobra health insurance runs out my brother can’t be put on the insurance of his partner of fricking 34 fucking years, simply because bigots want exclusive use to the word marriage, and the Obama administration is abeting that.

If the Obama administration thinks their problem is gay bloggers, and not those of us affected by their bigot-fear policies, they’re seriously out of touch.

Which they are, of course.

I’m angry, Obama administration, furious about your crumbs-alone, bad-mouthing gay issue policies. And your blame-the-victim attitude.

I didn’t need gay bloggers to tell me I’m angry all I had to do was read a newspaper.

You fuckers.

Comment #1: judybrowni  on  08/17  at  02:45 PM

Yeah, but he’s better than President McPalin, so CLAP LOUDER!!!  I don’t get how Democratic politicians think they can get not only our votes which, in a two party system, we’re basically extorted into providing, but also immunity from criticism when they fail to represent the interests of the people who vote for them.  The arrogance around our votes is maddening enough, but at least somewhat grounded in reality, since they can wave the threat of Christofascist warmongers fucking up the country even worse.  The arrogance to expect the full-throated support of lefties when they fail to provide anything resembling a liberal agenda and send Gibbs and Emanuel out to do period hippie-punching in the traditional media, that’s bordering on delusional.

Comment #2: libdevil  on  08/17  at  02:52 PM

These are weaselly constructions. What’s happened isn’t insignificant, but why should, for instance, Federal workers have it better off than the rest of us?  Why such baby steps?  And the steps aren’t what we were promised.

Well, federal workers are low-hanging fruit for starters.  People complained that Obama didn’t snap his fingers and make DADT vanish.  This, at least, he was able to finger-snap away.

Maybe they will when they don’t get our votes?

Sadly, I haven’t seen this work too well either.  Just look back to the late 90s and early 00s and you’ll see what a Congress without anything resembling a gay defense looks like.  Wall to wall gay bashing as a campaign strategy.

It’s not a matter of not giving votes.  The votes need to be there.  But they need to be put to good use.  You need ballot measures for gays to vote FOR.  You need gay candidates for gays to ACTIVELY support.  Sitting on your hands is easy, but generally meaningless.  Telling a constituency to disband and sit down takes little effort.  Politicians need to see energy, because they want something they can tap into.  Telling your friends to just sit this one out makes your constituency look just as weak and surface dazzly as Clinton.

When the religious right turns out, they turn out every time.  Sometimes they turn out for a politician, other times for a platform, still other times as a pure protest vote.  But they are always there.  When Pat Buchanan wins a million votes in a Presidential election, he isn’t taking office but he is sending a signal.  He’s saying, “People support me enough to vote for a guy who won’t even win.  I can give you those votes.”  And now he’s a fucking fixture on MSNBC.

You need life.  You need action.  You need to keep the movement going even when the politicians refuse to pick up the pace.  If the President refuses to push the legislation, you need to go back to the playbook that you were using in 2004 and 2006, tap the funds and the votes that would have gone to Dem candidates, and apply them where you think they can do the most good.

Comment #3: Zifnab25  on  08/17  at  02:56 PM

Welcome to the Professional Left.

This is the same issue as last weeks stink about how lefties are useful for getting Obama and his pals into office but we all need to STF up so they can feel better about being triangulating, hand wringing fence sitters. They support us, really, but not enough to actually support any of our causes. Because they’re afraid of offending the right wing lunatics more than they are of offending us. We’re civil and will take it, at least long enough for them to exploit us for one, maybe two more election cycles.

Comment #4: Keith  on  08/17  at  03:39 PM

Our esteemed hostess mentioned “THE LIST of angry, frustration-inducing, Cheetos-stained P.J.-wearing bloggers…,” but in the picture she gave us, I wasn’t able to actually see the Cheeto’s stains.  smile

Comment #5: Dana  on  08/17  at  03:50 PM

well now, they must tread carefully and slowly, so as not to offend the republicans. that these republicans will vote “no” on any and all legislation proposed by the dems is quite irrelevant. obama doesn’t want to appear “partisan”, it’s all part of the “plan”. or something like that.

two questions for our blogmistress:

1. what kind of cheetos does the fashionable blogger stain his/her fingers with these days?
2. is it ok to just sit around in your underwear while blogging, or are pj’s an absolute requirement?

should i start my own blog, i don’t want to be laughed at by all the bloggers.

Comment #6: cpinva  on  08/17  at  03:50 PM

1. what kind of cheetos does the fashionable blogger stain his/her fingers with these days?

Crunchy; puffed Cheetos are for weenies. And none of those newfangled flavors, or extra cheesy…

2. is it ok to just sit around in your underwear while blogging, or are pj’s an absolute requirement?

Underwear is fine, as long as it’s clean, and definitely not stained.

Comment #7: Pam Spaulding  on  08/17  at  03:56 PM

Welcome to the Professional Left.

Um, that would NOT be me. When I can quit my day job and blog full time, then they can put me on that list! smile

Comment #8: Pam Spaulding  on  08/17  at  03:57 PM

Bond agreed, but expressed frustration at the often intense criticism levied, particularly by bloggers, against an administration that is “99 percent supportive of your issues.”

What an asshole. “Oh, woe is me. People have been criticizing us. How will we ever get anything accomplished if people keep criticizing us for not getting anything accomplished?”

Comment #9: Mark  on  08/17  at  04:05 PM

Actually, they’re not looking to get anything accomplished, which is what’s been made clear.

Comment #10: Punditus Maximus  on  08/17  at  04:17 PM

Doesn’t “gay” stand in the more general sense for homosexuals of both (or more than both) genders?  Or has it mutated down into only standing for those of the (nominally) convex variety?

Comment #11: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/17  at  04:40 PM

If they think they’re frustrated, they should try being the people who supported them into office and have received jack shit since then, i.e. women, LGBTQI…

Comment #12: GeekGirlsRule  on  08/17  at  04:50 PM

Damn. I still like Obama, but I feel for frustrated/angry gay people, especially over the foot-dragging on DADT. This isn’t like getting in a snit for no good reason and voting for Nader.

I still hope to see Obama and the Democrats elected, but I really don’t have anything to say to disaffected gay people other than, “Do what you gotta do.”

Comment #13: Bitter Scribe  on  08/17  at  04:58 PM

It may be Obama’s job to identify the politics of the possible.

And it’s the job of social justice advocates to drag the Democrats kicking and screaming towards doing the right thing.

Comment #14: CBrachyrhynchos  on  08/17  at  05:16 PM

78% of Americans are in favor of repealing DADT.  Mob rule is not a real good idea, but when something is both overwhelmingly popular and the right thing to do, it should be just about automatic.  With huge majorities in both houses of Congress and a “fierce advocate” in the White House, it still can’t get done.  Capitol Hill might just be the most homophobic place in the country.

Comment #15: libdevil  on  08/17  at  05:32 PM

don’t get how Democratic politicians think they can get not only our votes which, in a two party system, we’re basically extorted into providing

@libdevil

It’s only a two party system as long as enough people THINK its a two party system.*  If enough people reject this illusion and vote as though we are an n-party system, we will in fact be an n-party system. 

Oh, and I’m done being extorted.  I gave time, money, and my vote last time.  Right now, this Administration has lost the former two, and is working real hard to lose the latter.

It may be Obama’s job to identify the politics of the possible.

@ CBrachyrhynchos

Nope.  It his job to create the possible by leading.  It’s also his job to live up to the party platform and his own campaign promises.  “The politics of the possible” is a sad cop out Obama has been using to walk back everything he ran on.

* Granted, the minute we become an n-party system (where n>2), control of Congress (both houses) will likely rely on coalitions that may turn out to be as useless as the Dems.  Then again, I really suspect at this point that if the Greens had a sizable contingent in the Congress, we’d see a Democratic/Republican coalition the way things have been going.

Comment #16: Richard Goblin  on  08/17  at  05:32 PM

Maybe they will when they don’t get our votes?

I hate this argument. What exactly will withdrawing votes accomplish? At the absolute best, all it would mean is that Kucinich could wait until March 2012 to drop out of the race. Whoop-dee-doo. Score one for us.

I mean, fuck, at least they’re paying lip-service to passing ENDA and repealing DOMA. That’s a damn sight better than we’re getting from anyone else who has a snowball’s chance in hell of making it to the White House.

Once again, I take some solace in the fact that in the long run, liberalism always wins. Always.

Comment #17: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  08/17  at  05:40 PM

The one criticism which seems to get through to the Obama Administration is to compare them to Bush—I think that’s because they’ve decided to be Only A Little Better, and they get furious when people notice.

So, that’s the approach—highlight exactly how far Obama is from Bush.

Comment #18: Punditus Maximus  on  08/17  at  05:43 PM

I really suspect at this point that if the Greens had a sizable contingent in the Congress

I’m feeling lazy.  Have the Greens improved their platform any in the last couple years?  I looked at it during 2008 election season, and it was as batshit crazy as the Maine Republican (teabagger) platform, just in different ways.  It directly contradicted itself in several places, even.  When I long for an actual leftist party, the Greens aren’t usually what I have in mind.  They’re a disorganized collection ranging from serious environmentalists to anti-science wooheads to liberaltarians.

Comment #19: libdevil  on  08/17  at  05:54 PM

This does and does not surprise me. I mean, it’s been obvious since about Donnie McClurkin that Obama’s level of support for GLBT issues had been wildly and colorfully overstated. Still, though, I’m surprised at how little we’ve actually gotten out of the White House up to this point. At the very least there could have been a stirring speech centering on GLBT issues or something. Maybe an official position favoring gay marriage.

What I think the White House maybe fails to understand is that these claims and excuses, telling the GLBT community no, we’re totally on your side, for reals is humiliating. You’re not. Obviously you’re not. You are lying directly to my face about it.

I beg you to stop.

‘Cause, see, I’m going to have to vote for Obama in 2012, because whoever the Republican candidate is will be worse, and I don’t want to have to vote for a guy who says he supports my family but clearly does not. It’s going to be humiliating enough as it is. So go. I give you leave to go. Fix the economy or Pakistan or something. I release you from the obligation to pretend like you give a crap about me. Just stop twisting the knife. Please.

Comment #20: mr_subjunctive  on  08/17  at  06:02 PM

@ Dan

I hate this argument. What exactly will withdrawing votes accomplish?

Funny you should ask, given:

I mean, fuck, at least they’re paying lip-service to passing ENDA and repealing DOMA.

If the Dems pay at the poll for their perfidity/spinelessness, they might have to do more than pay lip service to these to keep their seats.  It would put the fear of the base into them.

Comment #21: Richard Goblin  on  08/17  at  06:04 PM

Nope.  It his job to create the possible by leading.  It’s also his job to live up to the party platform and his own campaign promises.  “The politics of the possible” is a sad cop out Obama has been using to walk back everything he ran on.

I guess I’ve never expected much in the way of leadership from a man who ran his early primary campaign with virulently anti-gay religious leaders, and who punted on the Prop. 8 decision with a release that was about as close to “no comment” as you can get.

Comment #22: CBrachyrhynchos  on  08/17  at  06:06 PM

Have the Greens improved their platform any in the last couple years?

The laziness is on my part as I was using them more as a placeholder for a real left party.  I have no idea if they have improved their platform over the years because I have been playing the more and better Dems game for the longest time.  That game just hasn’t worked.  And after watching them fail to meet their platform while controlling the Presidency, the house, and a filibuster-proof Senate majority, my faith in them is at an end.

Comment #23: Richard Goblin  on  08/17  at  06:10 PM

I guess I’ve never expected much in the way of leadership from a man who ran his early primary campaign with virulently anti-gay religious leaders, and who punted on the Prop. 8 decision with a release that was about as close to “no comment” as you can get.

Fool me once, shame on me.  Fool me twice, won’t get fooled again.  </s>

Comment #24: Richard Goblin  on  08/17  at  06:16 PM

Remember all the times this WH insulted the rightwing by saying they “needed to be drug tested”?

me neither.

Comment #25: grover nerdkissed  on  08/17  at  06:48 PM

@Richard Goblin

Yeah, but it’s sort of hard to be precise with withholding votes.  You try to pull back a little to punish the Dems for fucking around, and the next thing you know it’s 4 years of Bobby Jindal or Mike Huckabee or something.

This is one of those rare times I get to feel a little cocky, since my country has more than 2 parties.  Only two that actually run the gov’t, mind, but still.  It’s nice to have a modicum of choice.

Comment #26: Sivi  on  08/17  at  07:05 PM

Richard Goblin:

If the Dems pay at the poll for their perfidity/spinelessness, they might have to do more than pay lip service to these to keep their seats. It would put the fear of the base into them.

Because that’s worked so very well in the past, right?

Please. If the Dems pay at the polls, we’re the ones who get fucked. Not them. They all get sent home with fat government pensions and martyr complexes, and the ones who follow them will be even more craven and right-leaning, not less. Withholding votes accomplishes exactly the opposite of what you think it accomplishes. Ralph Nader would agree.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face is a truly terrible political strategy.

Comment #27: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  08/17  at  07:08 PM

@Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster:

Standing still so someone else can spit in your face isn’t great political strategy either.

Comment #28: mr_subjunctive  on  08/17  at  07:31 PM

Sorry. That sounded snippier than I meant. I’m incredibly frustrated with this whole situation and should probably go play with the dog for a while or something.

Comment #29: mr_subjunctive  on  08/17  at  07:36 PM

@27: Well, that kinda depends. Should we vote for Obama in 2012 (provided he doesn’t do anything outstandingly stupid)? Probably.

Should we cast a vote for down-ticket Blue Dogs and DINOs who advertise their intentions to join conservative coalitions when it comes to LGBT rights and/or abortion? Should we refrain from criticizing openly bigoted Blue Dogs and DINOs in an election year in favor of a more favorable season?

Those are the questions at which I feel supporters of LGBT rights need to make a tactical decision regarding how strongly they’re going to identify with Democrats. Because Democratic activists did actually insist that LGBT both vote for people who hate us and refrain from criticizing them in 2008.

Comment #30: CBrachyrhynchos  on  08/17  at  07:50 PM

I’ve voted Dem for 40 years, and will continue to do so—with more support to progressive Dems.

The least the Obama administration can do is shut up about how we should shut up when we don’t get the barest sliver of decency from them.

But I also suspect that Obama and Rahm are perfectly comfortable with Republican governments they have to bow and scrape to, and whose power makes it look like they’re powerless to do shit all for anyone but the corporations.

So we’re screwed if we vote for them, and screwed more if we don’t.

Fuck that shit about shutting up about their fuckupitness.

Comment #31: judybrowni  on  08/17  at  08:01 PM

Jesus Christ. There’s a truly disheartening amount of utter cluelessness and worse, assholishness coming out of the WH these days.

But I also suspect that Obama and Rahm are perfectly comfortable with Republican governments they have to bow and scrape to, and whose power makes it look like they’re powerless to do shit all for anyone but the corporations.

Indeed. I think Obama truly wouldn’t mind if the Republicans win the House. Then he can rack up a big 2012 sympathy vote as a result of the harassment that will certainly follow, and will have a perfect excuse for not trying to do anything non-corpocrat / imperialist. Getting re-elected- to what end he knows or cares not, other than personal gratification- seems to be all he thinks about.

Comment #32: Steve LaBonne  on  08/17  at  08:58 PM

mr_subjunctive:

Standing still so someone else can spit in your face isn’t great political strategy either.

That’s what towels and Purel are for.

Better spit than acid. Or Zyklon-B. Much harder to wipe off.

Words? I can handle words. Sticks and stones, and all that. Who gives a fuck what they say, anyway? We’ll win eventually, and they know it. That’s why they scream so loud.

CBrachyrhynchos:

Should we cast a vote for down-ticket Blue Dogs and DINOs who advertise their intentions to join conservative coalitions when it comes to LGBT rights and/or abortion? Should we refrain from criticizing openly bigoted Blue Dogs and DINOs in an election year in favor of a more favorable season?

Harry Reid has been in Congress since 1983. In the Senate since 1987. That’s more than enough time for the people of Nevada to turn on him if they so chose. It defies reason to claim that he’s still there solely on the virtues of incumbency. He won the Democratic primary last month with slightly more than 75% of the vote. The second place finisher in that primary was “none of the above” (not even kidding about that, totally wish I was), followed by three legitimate human beings, all of whom appear to be more conservative than Reid, not less. That’s a pretty strong argument that the Democrats of Nevada think Reid is an accurate representation of their worldview. Nobody gets 75% of the vote by accident.

And if he loses his reelection bid, it will not be to a progressive. It was never going to be to a progressive. It will be to a Republican who loves her some DOMA and believes that we should withdraw from the UN because it’s too liberal.

That’s what withholding your vote gets you.

Comment #33: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  08/17  at  09:17 PM

cpinva asked:

is it ok to just sit around in your underwear while blogging, or are pj’s an absolute requirement?

should i start my own blog, i don’t want to be laughed at by all the bloggers.

Oh, you needn’t worry: blogging is magical, as is the entire internet!  Just getting online makes you taller, thinner yet more muscular, toned and in shape—it’s really a great exercise program!—much better looking and much, much! better in bed.

Comment #34: Dana  on  08/17  at  09:25 PM

@33: Of course not. But the Democrats demand more than just a vote in the ballot box now and then. They demand time, energy, cash, and when it comes to DINOs and Blue Dogs, silence. That’s time, energy, cash, and voices that could be building gay-positive curricula in local schools, an open community in cities and towns that didn’t have one, or legal networks for helping people with discrimination.

In my home state, the Democrats didn’t even run a Senate candidate in ‘06, and didn’t put up a fight for EC votes until the late primary put Indiana in play in ‘08.  If the fight is uncontested or going to an anti-gay Blue Dog, why are we obligated to sit down, shut up, and write a fucking check for someone who’s going to harm us?

Comment #35: CBrachyrhynchos  on  08/17  at  10:12 PM

CBrach:

If the fight is uncontested or going to an anti-gay Blue Dog, why are we obligated to sit down, shut up, and write a fucking check for someone who’s going to harm us?

You aren’t. You can do or not do whatever you like. But it’s delusional to believe that refusing to vote for an anti-gay candidate, regardless of their party affiliation, is going to accomplish anything even remotely worthwhile when all the alternatives are even worse.

Voting out the DINOs won’t result in rampant progressivism, because there are no viable progressive candidates to replace them. They simply don’t exist. In most cases, viability aside, there aren’t even any progressive candidates at all.

Sometimes the least of two or more evils is your only choice.

Comment #36: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  08/17  at  11:30 PM

Comment #20: mr_subjunctive on 08/17 at 05:02 PM

Thank you for saving me the trouble of typing that all out. grin  I punched my voting card for Barry while literally holding my nose and lo and behold! he’s lived down to my already low expectations.  At this point, I hate his voice, I hate hearing him talk, I keep thinking “Snake oil salesman, fraud, charlatan”.

Comment #37: Henry Holland  on  08/17  at  11:38 PM

We’ll win eventually, and they know it.

How many people have to suffer before that happens?

How many people have to die?

How much destruction does the planet have to sustain?

How much hatred do we have to endure?

Will any of us even be alive when we win?

Eventually isn’t good enough.

Comment #38: libdevil  on  08/18  at  12:57 AM

libdevil:

How many people have to suffer before that happens?

How many people have to die?

You think you can eliminate suffering and death? Good luck with that.

How much destruction does the planet have to sustain?

All we can do is cause our own extinction. The planet will recover, as it always has. It’s survived things a lot worse than us. So have we, for that matter.

How much hatred do we have to endure?

Hatred dies hard, if at all. We still fight seemingly endless wars over hatreds whose roots go back thousands of years or more. History is filled with tales of hatred in amounts and manifestations we can’t even wrap our minds around, yet somehow, the clock keeps ticking and we keep marching onward and upward. In spite of all that hatred, we’re still alive and kicking.

Will any of us even be alive when we win?

Maybe, maybe not, but what does that matter? Death isn’t the end of life, it’s only the end of your life. It’s beyond narcissistic to insist that all of history occur during your lifetime.

Eventually isn’t good enough.

Progressivism isn’t a game for instant-gratification junkies. History moves slowly, at its own pace. It was nearly a century between the adoption of the 14th Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It was 67 years between the Seneca Falls Convention and the ratification of the 19th Amendment. By comparison, it’s only been seven years since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. I have underwear older than that.

Comment #39: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  08/18  at  03:26 AM

Voting out the DINOs won’t result in rampant progressivism, because there are no viable progressive candidates to replace them. They simply don’t exist. In most cases, viability aside, there aren’t even any progressive candidates at all.

Political alternatives don’t drop from the sky by magic - someone has to do the hard work of creating them. That involves voting for them, even when you know they’re not going to win. If you accept that you have to vote mainstream Dem or the GOP gets in, then there will never be a progressive alternative.

As you say, it’s not a game for instant gratification.

Comment #40: Dunc  on  08/18  at  07:26 AM

do you guys not have preferences? If we vote greens, they will give their preferences to labor so left leaning voters in australia will vote greens to “punish” labor with out having to worry about labour not eventually getting votes

Comment #41: Leah Jaclyn  on  08/18  at  08:09 AM

@ Sivi:

Yeah, but it’s sort of hard to be precise with withholding votes.

@Dan

Sometimes the least of two or more evils is your only choice.

I won’t be withholding my vote.  I’ve voted in every national election since 1998, and voted in most of them since 1992 (the first year I could vote). 

In the 90s, I always voted for the best person for the job regardless of party affiliation.  I voted for Tsongas in the 1992 primary and Perot in the general - the issue there being NAFTA which Clinton supported.  I knew Clinton was bad news, and NAFTA, PRWORA (welfare “reform”), DADT, DOMA, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 bear me out.  I sat 1996 out for precisely these reasons.

After 2000, I decided to “grow up” and join in the illusion that we have a two party system.  In 2000, I voted for Nader.  (Tell me with a straight face that he was NOT the best man for the job.  Would he have gotten us into the Iraqi debacle?  Done warrantless wiretapping?)  Of course, I was also voting in Louisiana so Bush was getting those electoral votes regardless.  But other than that, I drank the Kool-Aid and started voting for the Democratic candidates.

But you know, after watching the Democrats fail to use their Presidency, house majority, and filibuster-proof Senate majority to push a public option, ENDA, ending DADT, etc.  I see that it is not so “grown up” to vote Democratic without respect to their actions.  For chrissakes, the MAJORITY of Americans SUPPORTED both a public option and having LGBs serve openly in the military.  These policies are overwhelmingly popular.  The Democratic politicians said that they supported these things, the popular will was there, and what did they do?  Ignore the popular will and walk back their promises.  This makes them either liars or incompetents - neither of which should be rewarded or encouraged with political office.

And hey, don’t forget that during the health care debate not a peep against Lieberman, but Obama pulled out all the stops to coerce Dennis Kucinich.  That tells you where the Administration really stands.

So I’ll be voting.  But as things stand now, I’ll vote for president, but I will vote for the best person for the job.  And if that is not a Democrat, then so be it.  Obama told us to hold his feet to the fire.  I’m going to do just that - by where I put my time and money, AND at the ballot box thank you very much.

As for the “lesser evil” trope, I’ll have none of it anymore.  The lesser evil is still evil.  And if enough people can muster the courage to reject this, then we will move the political discourse.  But as long as voters allow themselves to be intimidated into voting for the lesser evil, all we will get is evil.

Besides, if Obama is the lesser evil, I’d point out that this ‘evil’ includes the claimed power to assassinate American citizens (and for that matter everyone else), two pointless wars with unacceptable civilian casualties, kangaroo military commissions, an expanding police/surveilance state, the catfood commission, and the near-absolute fail on health care reform.  A vote for Obama at this point is a vote of confidence in these policies.  Sorry, I can’t vote for that level of evil.

Comment #42: Richard Goblin  on  08/18  at  11:33 AM

@33:
Reid was the least conservative person running in on the Dem ticket in NV and he won.  People voted the MOST left available in their primary.  That is what it says about the people of NV. 
You would think that would encourage someone Left of him to run rather than 3 people to the right of him who could not touch him.

Comment #43: helen w. h.  on  08/18  at  12:03 PM

do you guys not have preferences? If we vote greens, they will give their preferences to labor so left leaning voters in australia will vote greens to “punish” labor with out having to worry about labour not eventually getting votes

Nope.  Our elections are winner take all, mark only one choice.  Revising that system is actually one of the dreams of many progressives, but given any alternative system would empower voters and third parties at the expense of Democratic and Republican power brokers, you can see the dilemma in getting such a thing passed.

Comment #44: libdevil  on  08/18  at  03:44 PM

@leah jaclyn #41, Australia’s preferential voting system is almost unique.  That combined with the compulsory attendance at polling booths make our election campaign strategies unlike campaign strategies almost anywhere else.

It has its good points and bad points, like every other voting system.

Comment #45: tigtog  on  08/18  at  03:47 PM

I’ve been thinking about this, and I’m sorry- Obama needs to go and I will vote for any available left-wing alternative in 2012 even if it means helping Palin win. The reason is that his stupidity and malfeasance are actively working to discredit everything that progressives want to accomplish (and that the country desperately needs). The stimulus is a good example- its inadequate size, due to Obama negotiating against himself to get the Republican votes that anybody could have told him weren’t there, now allows all sorts of jackasses to claim that we tried fiscal stimulus and it doesn’t work. I fully expect the same dynamic to play out with the pretend “reforms” of health care and Wall Street. These are toxic “gifts” that will keep on giving longer than the oil spill.

It is therefore FAR from obvious that a wolf in sheep’s clothing like Obama really does do less harm than an actual Republican. At the very least a case needs to be made taking the above into consideration and I have yet to see anybody try. All we get is “ooh, Palin, scary”. Sorry, I’m not a three year old who can be manipulated via fear of the bogeyman.

Comment #46: Steve LaBonne  on  08/18  at  03:57 PM

If the Dems pay at the polls, we’re the ones who get fucked. Not them. They all get sent home with fat government pensions and martyr complexes, and the ones who follow them will be even more craven and right-leaning, not less. Withholding votes accomplishes exactly the opposite of what you think it accomplishes.

So we do what, exactly? Vote for the party that condescends to us but will betray us for a chance to play football with Lucy? Or vote for the party that calls us traitors and wants to strip us of rights? Gee what a great political system we have! Sign me up.

Comment #47: Keith  on  08/18  at  08:23 PM

Is it possible, just possible, that the reason the Democrats are not as far to the left as most of the Pandagonistae think they should be, and have certainly expressed disappointment and frustration about the fact that they aren’t all that “progressive,” is that the majority of the people in the country aren’t “progressive,” as you would define progressive?

Comment #48: Dana  on  08/19  at  08:41 AM

Is it possible, just possible, that the reason the Democrats are not as far to the left as most of the Pandagonistae think they should be, and have certainly expressed disappointment and frustration about the fact that they aren’t all that “progressive,” is that the majority of the people in the country aren’t “progressive,” as you would define progressive?

Well, Mr. Troll, the consistent answer from polls is a definite no. Time after time, polls that ask about particular issues (especially economic ones), rather than about labels which have been drained of meaning by years of demagogy, show that the center of gravity of public opinion is quite a distance to the left of the Village. But feel free to go on living in your High Broderite fantasy world (or under your bridge as the case may be).

Comment #49: Steve LaBonne  on  08/19  at  09:25 AM

Well, Mr LaBonne, whatever you believe the polls tell you, if the “enter of gravity of public opinion is quite a distance to the left of the Village,” why hasn’t that been reflected in the real polls, on election day?  There really were a couple of much further left candidates for president in 2008, but somehow Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel got very few votes.  How many votes did Howard Dean win in 2004?

And despite a falling economy and an unpopular president, John McCain got 45% of the vote.  If you look at the political estimates today, the Democrats are going to lose a substantial number of Congressional seats in November, precisely because so many of the public don’t like the direction in which the Obama Administration is taking us, leftward, but not nearly as far leftward as you think we should go.

Comment #50: Dana  on  08/19  at  12:43 PM

Because our political system is now “one dollar, one vote”. This has been another edition of simple answers to stupid questions.

Comment #51: Steve LaBonne  on  08/19  at  01:06 PM

Dana, I don’t recall the elections that allowed voters to pick and choose parts of different political platforms and assemble a candidate that more accurately represented the voters.  I am much further left than Obama (the candidate I voted for) on many issues, and my grandfather is much further left than McCain (the candidate I assume he voted for).  He is a life-long Republican, but he has never agreed 100% with any candidate on anything ever.  If you have, that’s great, I guess, but that is probably not the case for most Americans.  Claiming that McCain’s 45% of the vote is universally appalled at any and every move “leftward” that the administration has undertaken is stupid even for you.

And, of course, there is also the very real possibility that “the Democrats are going to lose a substantial number of Congressional seats in November” precisely because the country hasn’t moved leftward enough.

Comment #52: Atheist, A Feminist  on  08/19  at  02:08 PM

helen w. h.:

You would think that would encourage someone Left of him to run rather than 3 people to the right of him who could not touch him.

Then where are they? If the people of Nevada were really as desperate for a progressive candidate to come along and unseat Reid as some seem to think they are, don’t you think it would have happened already?

A 30-year congressional career isn’t just some bizarre quirk of statistics that happens while people wait for something better to come along. At some point, you just have to accept that it is what it is, and what it is is what the people of Nevada have been voting for this whole time.

Keith:

So we do what, exactly? Vote for the party that condescends to us but will betray us for a chance to play football with Lucy? Or vote for the party that calls us traitors and wants to strip us of rights? Gee what a great political system we have! Sign me up.

Tough shit?

I don’t know what else to tell you. Our political system wasn’t imposed upon us by aliens who force us against our will to maintain it exactly as is.

And polls? Who gives a fuck about polls? Polls tell you more about the person who wrote the questions than they do about what the general public believes, and at any rate, it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what people tell some college kid with a clipboard they believe if they pull the lever for something else in the voting booth.

Comment #53: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  08/19  at  09:55 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.