Gay Inc.'s 'low hanging fruit' that hasn't been picked

Not to demean criticism where criticism is deserved

Because Lord knows Obama obviously needs more pressure to clean up his executive branch not only on lgbt issues, but nearly every issue including his bullshit legal defenses for DOMA and the State Secrets Act.

But isn't the executive branch still not done being even filled thanks to right-wing fuckneckery in congress? Specifically to try and block changes like what you point to here with their indefinite holds.

I remember something about one of the holds being specific to several of the items on the list, so some of the lack of checkmarks might be because the critical employee to do that or head that can't even start work yet.

That being said, grill 'im. There's a limit to the power he can wield in the legislature, there is a limit to how much executive power he wants to grant himself to try and wean everyone off the top-down Bush years, but this isn't asking him to go outside executive branch power under constitutional basis. And pressure is always good to remind politicians of the no-brainers they have obviously forgotten about.

---

by: Cerberus @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 10:48:23 AM CST

Really? Obama's so busy weaning himself off of the non-Constitutional powers

that Bush took for the Executive Branch that Obama has eschewed warrantless wiretaps and indefinite detention without trial.

Oh, wait.  He hasn't.

But try another talking point.

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 11:04:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I am sorry

But I am not your enemy. I don't even disagree with roasting Obama over these and many other changes he needs to be making. Lord knows I have been.

I was merely observing certain realities that would make his job more difficult regardless of his interest level in dealing with the issues at all.

So yes, keep his eye on the ball, keep roasting him alive on this and every other issue where he has failed us. Hell, anyone who limits themselves to points where he has failed us instead of lobbying for even more rights is probably not doing enough.

Further, I note with some bitterness that it seems a good portion of the community seems intent on getting out their bitterness over Clinton's betrayals, Bush and Reagan's open hatred, and the conservadems deliberate fuckery on a singular person rather than being actually interested in what has occurred for the good and ill and what hasn't.

By all means, it's a good reminder to Obama to not fuck us, but I worry that some have turned it into a system by which they are unwilling to see the positive steps we've gained at all and I worry that may burn out many current activists in the long run (look at everyone who started arguing against any state level action because we lost one state referenda the year we won 4 new states and passed gay rights referenda in another state WA and in Kalamazoo, MI).

But beyond that being said, I support whatever and however anyone wants to go about this. Anything, everywhere, all the time. Let's crest this wave.

---

by: Cerberus @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 11:39:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

better but not great

Obama is definitely better than what we've had in decades. Both Bushes and Reagan openly hostile to us, Clinton signing DADT and DOMA. But that doesn't mean we're going to roll over and take it. He can do a lot better. There's no reason for his administration to enforce DADT when they are not enforcing marijuana laws. There's no reason for them to defend DOMA in court if the president believes at everyone deserves equal rights. It really shouldn't be any hardship for him to say a single sentence about it not being right to take away rights from people in California or Maine. He's a constitutional scholar and he's just playing stupid when he says that separate but equal marriages and civil unions are all right. He knows very well that if stopping the Lovings from marrying was unconstitutional whether or not someone believes it's right or wrong, stopping same-sex couples from marrying is exactly the same.

All of that said, the Republican minority in the Senate is making his job much harder than it has to be. Mitch McConnell is holding up Obama's judicial nominations just because he can. It's a complete abuse of power. The GOP has been open about their strategy to keep legislation from passing before the 2010 elections. I believe Obama has the country's best interests in mind when he acts, even if I don't agree with his actions. The Republicans in the Senate do not have the country's interests in mind. They have getting back into power in mind. The Democrats did not hold up Bush's nominees like this when the shoe was on the other foot, or try to keep all legislation from being passed. In fact, the Republicans wanted to take away the filibuster and the Democrats promised to only use it in extreme circumstances. Here we have the Republicans using it or some other procedural shenanigans if someone didn't like the desk they were assigned.  

---

by: one jewish dyke @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 14:02:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

BULLSHIT!!!

Dison is selling 16-yr. old mashed potatoes like today's filet mignon.

The people who got Clinton to break the glass ceiling of out gay appointments deserve the praise...NOT today's peeps simply bragging about MORE appointments.

What would have been REAL progress would have been appointments with a say in this To Do list...e.g., an LGBT person assigned to shepherd LGBT bills in Congress, an LGBT vet to snap the Pentagon in line...not some goddamn token LGBT Cabinet member with no experience or interest in fighting for LGBT rights like so many of the current appointments. Even the few exceptions seem to have checked their balls at the WH door. And OPM's Berry is simply The Apologist in Chief.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 18:39:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Kevin Jennings?

I think putting Kevin Jennings, founder of GLSEN and long-time advocate for the safety of LGBT students, in charge of Safe and Drug-Free Schools was an example of putting someone with experience in charge of an area where they could make a difference.  Of course, if there's only one example, that's pretty sad.

---

by: samritchie @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 16:34:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The only thing I feel like giving to OFA & the DNC...

Is perhaps a bag of Cheetos for their lame@ss excuses. Otherwise, they need to stop making excuses and start delivering real results if they want my money and time. In the mean time, I will ONLY be giving to those candidates and organizations that are actually working to protect our LGBT families.

Act on Principles and make equality happen.  

---

by: atdnext @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 11:30:53 AM CST

LGBTs are stuck in a similar position as African-Americans in politics

Democrats often disappoint both groups, but they can do it because they know most people are not going to vote Republican.

I agree with putting pressure on Democrats, but I wonder what would happen if we made a serious effort at voting third party or finding gay candidates for as many races as possible.    

Be better, not bitter!

---

by: Anthony in Nashville @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 11:34:12 AM CST

It's unlikely...

that we can get large groups of LGBTs to not vote Democratic...although I think there are many already who are second-guessing.  What's more important is that we get the large LGBT groups and large political donors like Bruce Bastian to stop giving to the Democratic party.  That's what really will shake them up, and it's bad press for them too.

---

by: Bruno @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 13:20:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

that's the kind of information I am looking for...who are the big LGBT donors?

There must be some list of the financial heavyweights of the LGBT community as it pertains to politics.

Be better, not bitter!

---

by: Anthony in Nashville @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 14:10:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I wonder aside from fundraising

which is very, very, important, if we can't make a voting difference. Particularly in blue regions where we don't risk electing a Sarah Palin, what if we started a write-in campaign, "Harvey Milk." We could petition for the final vote count on that. Contrast it will a nail-biter squeaky win for Democrat and say, "how you like those Apples?"

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 14:22:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Or make it regions where

we do risk electing a Sarah Palin.

It's a high risk, high reward gamble, to be sure. But the only way that the national Dems will listen is if we can threaten them electorally in such a fashion. It's what women were able to do to convince Woodrow Wilson to publically get behind the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote (can't remember the number). It's what the black community is able to do. We have to be able to do the same.

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 08:43:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

LIke abused spouses we take it

because no one else will have us.

Unfortunately unlike abused spouses, we can't just decide to disengage from the game entirely.

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 14:19:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

um, I got a Publisher Clearing House Sweepstakes in the mail...

It says I could be a winner!

...maybe if I buy a bunch of magazines?

---

by: Gina9223 @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 15:56:32 PM CST

why isn't HRC the lead organization on any of these goals?

That really surprised me.  All of the other best-known LGBT groups are represented.

Would it interfere with their tax status to get involved with these items?  

Be better, not bitter!

---

by: Anthony in Nashville @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 16:49:21 PM CST

Geebus! One check mark?

Last night, after seriously thinking about it, I quit the HRC's monthly partner donation pledge and I was brutally honest on their "exit survey" of why I quit.

I'm also with John Avarosis on his call to boycott DNC fundraising attempts until we see definite positive movement from this Administration.

For now, I'll be supporting the Courage Campaign and a few other worthy LGBTQI organizations.

---

by: SpireaX @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 18:53:06 PM CST

Welcome to the Enlightened Club

We also stopped giving to HRC (almost 2 years ago now). And, like you, are now directing funds to PROVEN LGBT candidates and new/better causes. Oh, and I pledge to no longer give directly to the DNC, DCCC or DSCC - I'll be damned if they are going to give my money to homophobic blue dog democrats. What's the point of having 60 seats in the Senate when 15% of them are Republicans in donkey suits?

Close the GayTM. Only give to candidates who have actually done something other than make promises - most are just pandering for our cash.

---

by: JohnVisser @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 20:26:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Aw, how sweet

President Obama is now on track to appoint more openly LGBT staff than any president in history, and at very senior roles (Berry at OPM, Hochberg at Ex-Im Bank, Sutley at Council on Environmental Quality, etc.).  After 10 months in office he's appointed nearly 100 openly LGBT people.

"Come work for me! I'll spit in your eye, tell you that you're not really human or a citizen, and actively work to deny you the Constitutional rights that are yours, but at least you'll get paid for it!"

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 20:48:42 PM CST

It's too late to pick the low hanging fruit

it has died on the vine.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.-- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: Mykelb @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 14:27:37 PM CST