what are barack obama's flaws?

^yeah, I can appreciate that point of view.

i mean, this court case may have just been the wrong one, then its the wrong one. but as a rule the "take it easy, it'll happen" kinda thing is ... not true. the reason that things like civil rights 'happen' is bcuz ppl dont take it easy, they agitate for change (i.e. why i voted obama --> 'hes never going to be president' well yeah if everyone has that attitude ... u have to actually get out there & make that shit happen & that means agitating for change when you know it needs to happen)

There's a wealth of evidence that more happened for blacks in the way of employment, income relative to whites, and desegregation from 1940-1960 than 1960-1980. The idea that "it all went down in the 1960s" is championed by authorities because it gives white people, the government, and the white boomers currently in political power, a greater role to play in the civil rights narrative. And doesn't that seem plausible as a theory, assuming the figures support the idea?

Agitation, marching etc comes when groups have counted heads and realized "Hey, wait, why are we being patient and debating? We have the numbers and muscle to overpower the opposition. Let's go." Homosexuals don't quite have that kind of support at this time. You need foot soldiers and a morally defeated opposition.

And Kennedy didn't push the Civil Rights legislative bill because it would've alienated the South before re-election. It actually took Johnson, the Republicans, and the non-Southern Democrats to get it done.

this is a center-right (maybe shifting center) nation. That's the reality.

can we please retire this bs meme right now? most americans support national health care, pulling out of iraq, etc. etc.

can we please retire this bs meme right now? most americans support national health care, pulling out of iraq, etc. etc.

I think discussions of what Americans "want" or think are always confusing because Americans will want anything depending on how they were asked the question.

"Are you for staying in Iraq?" v.s. "Should we pullout right now?"

The same American might say "No." to both and get used for two differing political agendas.

well, yeah, but that's not exactly exclusive to "americans." it has more to do with the nature of polling.

can we please retire this bs meme right now? most americans support national health care, pulling out of iraq, etc. etc.

Well this has been the consensus in political science and theory for the last few decades and guides the actions of politicians and political parties. It's going to take more than citing two particular issues (one of which I don't think you are right about) to refute it.

There's a wealth of evidence that more happened for blacks in the way of employment, income relative to whites, and desegregation from 1940-1960 than 1960-1980. The idea that "it all went down in the 1960s" is championed by authorities because it gives white people, the government, and the white boomers currently in political power, a greater role to play in the civil rights narrative. And doesn't that seem plausible as a theory, assuming the figures support the idea?

Agitation, marching etc comes when groups have counted heads and realized "Hey, wait, why are we being patient and debating? We have the numbers and muscle to overpower the opposition. Let's go." Homosexuals don't quite have that kind of support at this time. You need foot soldiers and a morally defeated opposition.

And Kennedy didn't push the Civil Rights legislative bill because it would've alienated the South before re-election. It actually took Johnson, the Republicans, and the non-Southern Democrats to get it done.

― Cunga, Saturday, June 13, 2009 9:36 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

none of this really contradicts what i said.

look the really weird thing here is that Obama doesn't really have anything to gain by taking these kinds of anti-gay rights positions. Maybe he's aware of some political calculus I'm not, but demographically there's broad support for gay civil rights - where things get hung up is on rhetoric and how the issue is framed. Which is Obama's strong suit. So again, I am confused as to why he is doing this (being a raging homophobe seems unlikely, and again, not politically expedient)

Like, he should be fully aware that the majority of the country supports gays having the rights associated with marriage - visitation, inheritance, custody etc. - but that where they draw the line is on being forced to make some kind of explicit APPROVAL of homosexuality itself (which is stupid I know I know let's not go into it) So all he should have to do if he's worried about this damaging him politically is to frame the issue correctly, present it as a not-a-big-deal thing that won't destroy society or hetero marriages or whatever, and list all the net benefits and pro-arguments. Its not really that difficult. This country is not in the same place it was in 1993 - attitudes have shifted massively, and the demographic shift in the younger generation favors pretty broad acceptance of gay rights.

"Pragmatism" is always defined as far to the right -- pro-status quo, if you like -- as lobbyists and Wall Street can dictate. There comes a time when you HAVE TO REDEFINE what Rahmbo calls "the possible."

Maintaining the status quo in a number of key areas is about to pass the point of no return.

― Dr Morbius, Saturday, June 13, 2009 9:15 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

the first reasonable and otm post morbs has ever posted in a poli thread in my 2 years on ilx

none of this really contradicts what i said.

I thought you were implying that unless people are engaging in 1964-style sit-ins its an indication that nothing is happening with gay issues.

I would also be prepared to argue that in '64, the situation in Vietnam and the parallel 'civil rights' of feminism were the other sticking points for the left, and today we've got at least 10 different things to sort out that meet a similar standard, because of 8 years of neglect or full-on law flouting. I've noticed that most lawyers I've seen commenting on the subject of the DOMA defense are finding it difficult to get across to non-lawyers the necessity of citing icky case law, no matter how repellant the comparisons might strike them personally. Case law isn't about personal feelings. LGBT people, unlike black people, have never been impeded at the ballot box or enslaved by people who own everything, including them, so I find the civil rights comparisons too hastily drawn. This is a community that is VERY well-educated and entitled whatever the income level; far beyond me to say there's a blind spot within it but a verrry long time ago I had a conversation with an activist friend at college who said the issue would never be sorted until people stopped going on about lifestyles and started going on about lives. I am not sure some of the fiercest advocates for repeal of DOMA and DADT have figured this out.

I thought you were implying that unless people are engaging in 1964-style sit-ins its an indication that nothing is happening with gay issues.

― Cunga, Sunday, June 14, 2009 12:04 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

not at all. 'agitating for change' can mean any number of things

re:shakey mo:
i think its pretty clear based on the article i linked yesterday why obama wouldnt want to expend political capital this way?? the DOJ almost never comes out against a law its supposed to be defending, 99% of the time. its totally legit to ask why hes not pushing for legislation (& even more legit to ask why congress isnt pushing for it, considering the political factors) but acting like hes supposed to make a single stand is like begging for a giant issue the right can twist into a fuckup that actually hurts his credibility.

So all he should have to do if he's worried about this damaging him politically is to frame the issue correctly

isnt 'framing it correctly' = 'it should go thru the legislative process'???

can we also retire the bs that political gaming is some sort of complicated chess-like manoeuvre that we're not smart enough to get? pragmatism and compromise are simple things to understand. but the thing is, coming out with genuinely fierce advocacy for gay rights and the action to go with it is not gonna be politically expedient in the foreseeable future. right now the economy and pushing health coverage are priorities, fine, whatever, but you realise that there will always be something which takes precedence? give it a year or two and it'll be "hush now, we have an election to win".

it's just disappointing that obama's not prepared to take a genuine leadership stance on this issue, especially considering how eloquent and articulate he's been in so many other divisive areas. i mean, all of these individual things can be justified on their own, but as tipsy said upthread the context is important - the cumulative message of rick warren + not explicitly supporting gay marriage + the pietrangelo DADT case + this defence of DOMA = obama is not gonna be a "fierce advocate" for gay rights any time soon, and we should expect very little from this administration on this issue. which completely sucks.

and in the event that i'm wrong, if by the time obama's presidency ends there has been significant legislative progress made...it still sucks, using a minority group's civil rights as political capital in this way.

suzy, Shakey, and lex -- you guys are OTM.

I never said it was chess; it's probably draughts at best.

Something else has just occurred to me: I would prefer Obama to agitate for the ratification of ERA, because legally it would make it so. much. easier. to argue for all the rights LGBTs want if we are all completely equal regardless of gender, under the Constitution.

ERA would be wonderously good, but even for feminists it appears to be a dead issue right now. Obama would look silly reviving it on his own without any political groundwork laid for it.

right now the economy and pushing health coverage are priorities, fine, whatever, but you realise that there will always be something which takes precedence? give it a year or two and it'll be "hush now, we have an election to win".

This is clearly an exceptional period in government. Obama has easily done more in his first few months than any president since FDR. Make a list of the shit Obama has to deal with and the challenges this country faces right now. It's absolutely incredible. Obama is gearing up to take on the largest policy issue of this age - health care. There are millions of people in this rich country without adequate health care, and thousands of people right now are suffering and dying unnecessarily as a result. Most every measure of wellness and health in this country has plateaued, and relative to other developed countries, is declining. Obama is addressing this clusterfuck after no one has wanted to touch it for 16 years, and he needs to nail it. No distractions, no bringing up wedge issues that could hurt him. Discipline.

Obama may very well not care much about gay rights. That's a shame, and if true, I hope he changes his views. That doesn't change the reality that this is a truly exceptional period in our country and political landscape and a very important opportunity for sweeping change. Obama has a major mandate and a terrible economy to justify overhauling whole elements of society and government. Like I've said before, if he fears having his larger agenda derailed by this issue, and that's his calculation, I can support that.

Any period of history in which you're living is "exceptional," you White House apparatchik.

Okay.

he has a powerful majority in congress - and if history dictates he won't have that same majority after mid terms - so i really don't see how actively pushing for gay rights - let alone striking down the kind of tone taken in this brief - would derail his health care efforts

lex is right - it's always going to be something. next it's gonna be when we withdrawal from iraq, or we have to deal w n. korea or iran or whatever. if he wants to do it - and he should - he should just do it, and he doesn't have much an excuse, because it's one thing to push the issue aside and it's another to let this type of language permeate his administration

i want him to abolish student loan debt

and luckily for him the iran election allows for this to slip under the radar even on mainstream liberal blogs

We'll know him by his deeds. There's no use in trying to suss out how this is being "gamed".

im baffled for the same reasons shakey is

also because im a libtard

did anyone here read the article i linked to??

it makes sense to be baffled by his lack of leadership on this issue -- i am also

but it makes no sense to treat this particular case as the specific 'problem,' because taking a stand on this case is just straight-up a bad way to go about pushing for gay rights.

im not making some captain-save-a-ho argument here, just asking that folks take a look at the context of this particular case

if you guys think dude is teflon on gay rights i think you're totally wrong -- framing this shit the right way matters, and trying to change things by executive fiat isnt going to do as well politically as pushing for legislation. period. its that simple

Phrasing DOJ arguments in language as anachronistic and hostile as possible, using arguments as risible and specious as possible, isn't going to do well politically. Period. It's that simple.

deej, this is serious strawman bullshit. No one's arguing for executive fiats.

alfred you're totally missing the point here

im going to ask again, did u or did u not read the article i linked to upthread

basically, what not-defending DOMA in court would have amounted to was executive fiat, yes. of course in terms of the righteous nature of the cause its 'wrong' but in terms of the most effective end result, i think there's a really good argument for pushing for legislative change instead.

& there is no way to defend DOMA in court without being anachronistic and hostile! thats what DOMA is! what else are you expecting here?

deej as i said it's the cumulative effect of a bunch of individually defensible stuff that people are justifiably angry about - if this, even with its offensive and hostile wording, hadn't come after a) failure to explicitly support "gay marriage" b) rick warren invitation c) perceived turnabout on DADT - then maybe it'd have been forgiven as a necessary "part of the game". and all those things are individually defensible too. but it's adding up to an indefensible whole, and it's not being balanced by any positive pro-gay rights action, or even rhetoric, apart from that "fierce advocate" weak sauce which is just a flat-out lie.

Law Dork:

Even if one argues, as I often have, that a government lawyer — from the Department of Justice to state attorneys general — must defend even those laws with which one disagrees*, such a lawyer needn’t overstate his or her case. The government lawyer defending a statute with which she disagrees needn’t add gratuitous demeaning statements into the legal brief she files.

Unlike the Obama Administration’s brief filed in the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell case turned away by the Supreme Court this week, last night’s filing in Smelt v. United States goes too far (pdf). It’s offensive, it’s dismissive, it’s demeaning and — most importantly — it’s unnecessary. Even if one accepts that DOJ should have filed a brief opposing this case (and the facts do suggest some legitimate questions about standing), the gratuitous language used throughout the filing goes much further than was necessary to make its case.

deej, how tasty do the bottom of Obama's boots taste?

yah i agree the optics are totally bad (as is the content, in a vacuum) but as i said i totally agree that so far obama has a long way to go to prove to the lgbt community that he means what he says ... i still think its important to have the right context for this shit though, like this is bad in a 'treading water' way, not in a 'drowning' way

xxp

hey alfred
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/who-wrote-the-doma-brief.html

how does trying to enable a sarah palin presidency by not voting for obama in FL taste?

"I suspect obama will drag his feet on gay issues so im going to enable a VP candidate that believes in witches!"

& for the 90th time i dont see how u can say im kissing obamas ass here since im entirely agreeing that his (lack of a) stance on gay rights is totally unacceptable

An election in which the GOP had no chance and the Democratic candidate had already waffled on FISA and gay marriage tastes a lot better, esp. with a side of fries.

Fair enough.

(xpost)

while the more...over-dramatic anti-obama hissy fits i've read really irk me, i think what's worse is reading people dismissing them as flouncing gays - what you're seeing is people suddenly realising that all that stuff about hope and change still, once again, doesn't apply to them. and the creeping suspicion that obama simply doesn't see this issue as one of morality and civil rights.

you know, i think that "fierce advocate" line makes me more angry than any of the other stuff. it's like...no. NO. don't fucking LIE, man.

im entirely agreeing that his (lack of a) stance on gay rights is totally unacceptable

― autogucci cru (deej), Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:31 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

except that you're saying that their filing in this case is okay because obama should be pushing for gay rights through the legislature, but he isn't doing that either - who cares what his "stance" is? i personally have a stance of wanting to go to the moon. what's the difference at this point?

except that you're saying that their filing in this case is okay because obama should be pushing for gay rights through the legislature, but he isn't doing that either - who cares what his "stance" is? i personally have a stance of wanting to go to the moon. what's the difference at this point?

― let free dom ring (J0rdan S.), Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:39 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

where did i say that?? im saying that their filing in this case is ok because if they'd done it any other way it would be counterproductive, and that they SHOULD be pushing for gay rights legislation. as i say in the sentence you just quoted back to me

and what point when they don't push for gay rights through legislation does everyone defending them on this step up and say "this is horseshit"? in 2016?

i personally am against going to the moon

^another palin enabler

and what point when they don't push for gay rights through legislation does everyone defending them on this step up and say "this is horseshit"? in 2016?

― let free dom ring (J0rdan S.), Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:46 PM (29 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

im saying its horseshit that they are not pushing for legislation. how about we focus on that instead of what some former bush appointee said in his asinine but ultimately pointless DOJ defense of DOMA?