-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/10/a-worthy-rant-from-booman-on-obama-criticism-from-the-left-blogosphere/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
"Criticism is fine. But the sense of entitlement involved here is staggering. Ooh, some big, bad White House adviser defended the administration against one more heated attack. My feelings are hurt. Guess what? You should get over it."
But I rather liked the line about some bloggers (not here) need to take off their , get dressed and get out more. I think many bloggers act like virtual George Bushes sometimes: "Type first and ask questions later".
Obama, nor you know what else bloggers do in addition to organizing and articulating their beliefs online. Guess what? It's the 21st Century and organizing and advocating issues online has become an effective way in championing causes and engaging in Democracy - Obama knows this better than anyone. He took Howard Deans approach, raised millions and ran with it all the way to the White House. However, now that he's IN the White House and some are using the internet as a tool to keep him accountable or criticize HIM, his administration wants to tell people to "get out more ". I think that's interesting and very revealing of his administration and shows his TRUE tolerance of criticism. I guess it's safe to say that Bush and Obama share some things.
I did say SOME bloggers because it seems to me that there is such a rush to get comments out sometimes that SOME bloggers get pulled into writing material on subjects in which they hold little or no expertise. (I think JJP is outstanding by the way and that is why I hang out here.)
I also think that when one conservative "journalist" pulls a comment out of an anonymous administration source, we should not jump to the conclusion that this represents the entire administration.
Finally, I'm not sure how much you think "Howard Dean's approach" was part of the Obama campaign, but Obama's campaign was so much more than a few logical extensions to the Dean campaign. I agree with Al Giordano on this:
"Barack Obama was one of the few, even in politics, that had carried the community organizer torch all these years. Those principles were infused into every aspect of the campaign. The community had simply become an entire country."
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/no-mo...
Within the Obama campaign I saw this first hand because I was on the phone at Obama HQ (Michigan Ave.) talking to people organizing in different locations in the country and many of them did not have internet access.
>>>>You call him a warmonger, but he gets the Nobel Peace Prize. He ends torture and allows his Attorney General to investigate it, and you call him a torturer. He tries to enact health care reform with a robust public option and you accuse him of seeking every opportunity to sell-out to the insurance industry. He bails out the cratering financial services industry and prevents a second Great Depression, and you accuse him of selling his soul to corporate CEO's.<<<
If this isn't you, then the rant wasn't aimed at you. This is for those "progressives" out there whose support for him was tepid at best, but now that he's president expect him to kiss their ass and do what they want, when they want it.
Yes, those people need to get out of their bubble and see reality.
I am sure this is directed at the pathetic Big Tent Democrat over at TalkLeft and the PUMA crowd. Yes, they still exist. I despise that fool for turning one of my favorite legal blogs into a cesspool of Anti-Obama bashing.
Drama queen isn't exactly used as slur. And I'm not even sure its etymology has anything to do with gayness. My mother was calling Patti Labelle a drama queen looooong before I heard a gay man call another gay man such a thing.
::
"We want our rights, and we want them right now. "
This reminds me of petulant children who don't understand that the world doesn't revolve around them.
We will get our rights when we get them, and not a second sooner. Obama's record on gay rights is commendable. It's only pathetic to those who insist he snap his finger and make everything all right. Right now.
As far as Obama's record, His DOJ has repeatedly defended DOMA in court (and no, he doesn't have to. Former President's haven't, and many legal scholars have voiced the same opinion). He refuses to place a moratorium on discharges under DADT after repeated pleas from dozens of congress members to end the 2 discharges a day since he took office while they repeal the law through legislation. More than a year after G W Bush signed a law overturning the HIV travel ban, it still hasn't been implemented. He openly states that due to religious intolerance he doesn't believe we should marry, and as a result has not lifted a finger to help challenges to gay marriage in states like Maine.
So he appointed a handful of gay people to his administration. They were not appointed because they are gay, they just weren't discriminated against for being gay by a democratic president. Have we set the bar so low? Is that what YOU consider commendable? If so, that is really pathetic.
And I never said gay civil rights activists were petulant children. I said your comments reminded me of petulant children.
Fortunately for us, there are many gay rights activists who aren't throwing stones at this president simply because he hasn't been a magician.
I'm beginning to understand all this drama queenery from many gay liberals, so many of whom are white. They want this president to prove he's not homophobic. After all, he's Black, and all Black people are homophobic, so goes the mantra, and the only way he can prove it is to give us our civil rights with the wave of a wand.
And if he did, some of these people would still claim Hillary Clinton would have done it faster.
There's no pleasing some activists (of any background). Without their victimhood, they're nothing.
::
This assertions is based on a slew of assumptions.
If my sister who isn't gay calls me a drama queen, she's not slurring me. She's laughing at some aspect of my behavior.
I've called all sorts of people drama queens. It's not a slur unless the person at whom it's directed is (hyper)sensitive enough to take it as such.
Talk about a slew of assumptions. And if LTM knows Aravosis, then I apologize. How about making a real argument instead of this stupid notion of some all white pink mafia with a gay agenda. I though that was a right wing canard. Are you suggesting we don't have any real grievances? If so, you must not be that interested in our civil rights to begin with.
As for the rest, you're putting words in my mouth again, drawing illogical conclusions from them, so there's nothing to rebut.
You do know once upon a time, "gay" meant happy right? Well guess what? Drama queen does not mean gay.
"...In fact the whole argument that gay civil rights activists are petulant and selfish is fed by decades old stereotypes of gay people in general as self-centered fops. ...."
No one is saying all gays are petulant, self-centered fops. The people claiming to be the "Malcolm X" of the LGBT movement (i.e.: John Aravosis, Pam Spalding) are.
".....His DOJ has repeatedly defended DOMA in court (and no, he doesn't have to. Former President's haven't, and many legal scholars have voiced the same opinion)....."
Because whether you like it or not, and whether it is right or wrong, it is the law of the land. And the DOJ's primary job is to uphold the law. Should that law change, that's another story.
"....He refuses to place a moratorium on discharges under DADT after repeated pleas from dozens of congress members to end the 2 discharges a day since he took office while they repeal the law through legislation....."
TRANSLATION: "Congress wants to shuck the responsibility they possess." How about these congressment draft the bill repealing DADT post haste?
"....He openly states that due to religious intolerance he doesn't believe we should marry..."
Link please. Particularly one where he specifically used the term "religious intolerance".
“I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman,” he said.
2008 campaign
Or you can look at his comments made during the 2008 presidential campaign when asked by Saddleback church Pastor Rick Warren to define marriage.
“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman,” the future President said. “For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. You know, God is in the mix.”
LInk:
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/...
He didn't use the term religious intolerance (meaning his intolerance of gays is based on his religious beliefs), I did, and that's exactly what his comments demonstrate.
And if you want to argue about what "tolerance" means, I'm just being polite and not using the word bigotry, because that's what it is.
due to my religious intolerance I believe that gays should not be able to marry..."
Because he hasn't said that. Now you are mad because:
1. He hasn't moved fast enough, which you should be lobbing your complaints at Congress. Apparently, you haven't been doing that because if you have then
2. Congressman Barney Frank would not have made the statement, that gays should lobby to Congress.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/12/barney...
3. You are being reactive and not proactive. I can tell by the way you are being defensive on this site.
4. As for President Obama asking Rick Warren to speak at the inauguration, he is the President of all people. Even the people that don't agree with what he does. You also fail to mention that he had Rev. Joe Lowry there, who is a outspoken spiritual leader in the black community for gay rights and gave the benediction, which is more important.
Also as for the brief, the DOJ was upholding the law of the land. It didn't compare your relationships to incest or any other madness. John Aravosis blew that way out of porportion. There are also many law scholars(gay and straight) that claimed he did blow it out of proportion.
If President Obama was a bigot and didn't care, then there would be no gains in equality. This would still be an extension of 1992-2008. Obama has honored Harvey Milk with the Congressional Medal of Honor, acknowledged gay realtionships and parenting in the speech to the HRC, and has stated repeatedly that he will repeal DADT. There's a hate crimes law about to be signed, and they are making major headway on ENDA. Seems like to me, you have your head in the sand.
You can't deny any of these things. If you are then you are completely disingenuous with your arguments.
Not to mention extending federal benefits to the domestic partners of gay federal employees.
But since that wasn't at the top of the agenda of whoever decided it wasn't, it hasn't been recognized as progress.
Hell, I even heard a drama queen who happened to be white and a die-hard Clintonista, say with a straight (no pun intended) face that Obama had nothing to do with this progress, it was all Hillary's idea and if she were president, DOMA and DADT would already be overturned.
Oh, Hillary. Champion of the hardworking Americans, white Americans....
But I digress.
Some people will never be satisfied. They live to complain and that's that.
They just give me a blank stare. I wonder why?
They'll probably respond with saying "Well she wasn't the president" and not realize they're shooting down one of their primary reasons why she'd make a better president.
He was a Christian then, too.
Therefore, he either changed his mind completely for reasons other than Christianity, or he gave an dishonest answer that would satisfy the Americans he wanted it to satisfy.
But he's on record saying both things.
We have to choose which one to believe.
"We want our rights, and we want them right now."
Yeah sure. Let me ask you this:
1. What do you guys plan to do beside have hissy fits when the President doesn't move as fast as you want?
2. Where was this "rallying cry" during the Bush Administration, who pretty much declared war on the LGBT community even going so far as to get a nationwide ban on gay marriage?
Answer those questions for me please.
Oh, you don't have any answers, do you?
YES!!!!!!!
It's interesting that you said "openly and repeatedly trashing the President". That's a bit of a giveaway right there. I mean..."openly"? No shit? Are we living in North Korea, all of a sudden?
I am a staunch supporter of civil and equal rights for all. I remember to this day part of the explanation my grandmother gave me when at seven-years-of-age I asked her about those "funny men", she said "Baby, if it's love, God won't mind." I've run with that ever since.
I am an Obama supporter and that is not going to change. However, I do not blindly subscribe to his rehtoric or his policy. I have been called an Obama Nazi, an Obama Bitch, an Obamade Drinker, my IQ and sanity have been called to question but you know what . . .I am going the ride this mutherfucka until he won't ride no more.
What is the alternative? McCain/Palin or any variation of that suicidal/psychotic theme? Oh wait, I know that great progressive hope waiting in the wings to swope down to save us all, if only he/she could win a GENERAL ELECTION.
The LGBT and Progressive communities need to fall down on the knees EVERY night and thank Adonai, Elah, El Elyon, El Roi, Yahweh, Elohim, El Shaddai, Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, ar-Rahman, al-Khāliq, whoever, that Bush or any Republican is not currently sitting in the Oval Office, hell I do!
There would not be a hint or a hope for any dialogue let alone actual legislation concerning Gay civil rights, healthcare reform, removing troops from Iraq, and a myriad of other issues if Obama were not in office.
By the way, where was all this righteous indignation in the gay community and liberal blogsphere when Log Cabin republicans were financially supporting and voting for right wingers with fundamental evangelical views who did REAL harm to the gay community and progressive causes? No threats, no marches on Washington, no snot slinging or screaming out against injustice then, I wonder why?
I agree that the right is trying to make Obama a one-term president and progressives are aiding and abetting due to their myopic inability to see past their desire to correct all past injustices in the time span it would take to build a lean-to instead of a pyramid.
It has been a term used in the gay culture..but not as a slur.. It probably made it into popular lexicon from the gay culture...it's part of the 'flaming gay' view.
Thanks for the pardon. I donated money directly to the campaign, attended fish fries, listened to boring speeches at no-host bar events, walked precincts, served as a caucus precinct chair, gave favorable interviews to the press and voted for the candidate to boot. I guess that grants me the right to say and write what I damn well please about the President when ever I want to do so. Ain't democracy great!
His piece is not about a right to criticize. Of course, everyone has a right to criticize. Booman's issue is with some folks on the left who bitch about EVERYTHING. Almost 200 million allocated to mentoring gang members posted this morning. Your response, it's crumbs, not enough to get it off to a good start.
You ignore that it came out of Holder's budget. He didn't have to give up one dime. You didn't even bother to check if there is more money in the 2009/2010 budget to strenghten the program.
You folks have a right to criticize. Booman simply asks, why should they listen to you?
yes, I consider myself an ally of The President.
why don't you research our archives. I was talking about Obama and volunteering and supporting him openly before most Black folks had ever heard of him.
Did so. You are a fair weather fan...you were caterwauling and chickenlittling too...as well. Your strength of conviction has wavered consistently.
The pattern of your posts is like like the last football player to jump on the pile..if everyone else is doin it..then you just GOT to JOIN it...but if it ain't the popular view/act of the moment....you nowhere around.
Its all good.
Folks who on the left side of the spectrum who find fault with everything the President does are at the margins of the debates. Why do you and folks like Booman keep focusing on this small minority of folks as if they represent the political left? What's up with your extreme interest in their views?
BTW, I am not an ally of the President. I am a citizen and an elector in a democratic country with a republican form of government who voted and worked for Barack Obama's election. I don't owe him anything. I paid my dues on that tip.
We all get to say what we want about whom we want at any time. But we are not OWED some kind of intert00b validation for it (and the lack of validation does NOT mean that you are being oppressed....just pointed and laughed at (pointing and laughing is also free and protected speech, last time I checked).
Well, I don't know of any folks who post here regardless of the extent of their criticisms of the President who refer to him as a "fucknut." I really don't think you have any point to make other than your desire to use profanity.
Cute.
Or maybe you are just stupid.
Ummm, that's the funny think about folks who are intolerant and pander for tolerance, under the auspices of free speech...they are INTOLERANT of tolerance....calling folks koolaid drinkers and all...they throw the first barb...cause it is free speech and all...but then when they get it thrown back...well they just can't be TOLERant of free speech then.
Yep that's right...THEY are INTOLERABLES!!!
Fuck it, the president has already fucked up plenty of times in his short time in office. But not hastily passing an idiot law that would be overturned immediately by the rabid right and their allies in the blue dog coalition was NOT one of his mistakes.
So no, you don't have to shut the fuck up. But we get to point and laugh at your dumb fucking ass.
Thanks for the giggles, fools.
James Baldwin is rolling over in his grave.
It seems to me that Obama's presidency is calling up a great deal of misplaced emotion/grievance from people who project their personal stories onto him...suddenly "why isn't he standing up for the public option?" becomes "why didn't you take out the garbage last night, you lazy negro?"..
After George Bush, Americans are wise to "bitch" about every little thing...and Obama is taking full advantage of the power grabs of the Bush administration, using them for cover after himself "bitching" about those same power grabs.
If Americans are not careful, they may find themselves after 8 years, with nothing but fond memories of Obama's bare chest.
Exactly!! It's all about worshiping the greater glory of Obama for some Obama supporters, opposed to supporting the issues the way TRUE progressives do. What some blind supporters of Obama don't realize is that true progressives care about the issues above all things - we're not in this to worship an idol, never were. Put simply: It ain't about Obama and never was (even he admitted this during the campaign!). It's about universal healthcare, getting out of Afghanistan, restructuring or abolishing NAFTA, repealing DADT, increasing jobs for the middle class and stopping the banks from running this country.
Some believed that Obama would champion some of these causes and he clearly has not thus far in his presidency. If he's not taking the proper steps to champion these things, I reserve the right to criticize him because then he no longer represents my interest.
Many of us thought Obama was something he clearly was not due to his populist campaign (some saw the light during the campaign!). Those who care about THE ISSUES and now know the truth about Obama are back to supporting the issues instead of having hope in someone who has proved to be hopeless thus far.
I believe Booman is on the payroll of the administration - I wouldn't put anything pass them.
You have every right to criticize him if you think he's not doing the job you want him to do, but please know what you're talking about before you do.
Thank you.
You are talking to a brick wall.
But I know where all of this will lead to.. you would come up with more crazy stuff to say. Usually when I am speaking about policy, I always have facts. Apparently you don't read any of the reponses I have put on this site.
I don't regurgitate right-wing talking points.
For instance, this quote of yours,
"discrimination against Gays in the military (an executive order please); a failed Public Option thus far (he spoke positively of the current bill that passed in the Senate Finance committee without a Public Option)"
Did you know in that there is the branch called, Congress that creates legislation? That is how DADT will be rid of. Executive orders are not a magical wand that will get rid DADT. Why don't read about how long it took after Truman issued an executive order to get the armed forces integrated. Also, it was a last measure, after he tried to get that branch called Congress to do their job,
http://blog.reidreport.com/2009/10/harry-truman...
Failed Public Option? Wouldn't that indicate there was a final bill? Last time I check there isn't one?
The Senate Finance Committee needed to craft a bill. They finance the majority of the social programs used in the United States. Without their bill, healthcare reform would be dead. President Obama is just happy to see some bill come out of that committee. That bill will be combined with the HELP committee bill and then voted on. It could have a public option, but that still wouldn't be a final bill.
Every major economist has verified the idea that jobs are a lagging indicator. So this theory isn't something that Obama crapped out on his own, it been a tenet of recovering economies after a recession. There is job loss and eventually there will be new jobs produced. But yet again. he's hasn't been office for that long. So we don't what the future holds.
And Booman is a progressive and you accuse him of being on Obama's payroll? Please provide link that proves your wild accusation. You won't be able to. Booman is a progressive, so someone that is in your camp is calling you out. That's what you do spend all day complaining and criticizing.
And maybe you do feel he is "a magic negro", all of the things you listed couldn't be turned around in 9 months, even if Kucinich was elected and in office.
Oh, didn't say something about thee be 40,000 troops being sent over?
You blithered on about that for several rants. I think 14,000 is different from 40,000.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/a...
Didn't you also blather on about continuing the war in Iraq?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/world/middlee...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/world/middlee...
Seems like the Iraqis are happy with the withdrawal timeline too, I will have to get you that article later.
Now PBomb, the first thing that needs to be done is send dthomas back to Civics Class in high school! MMMKAY? He/she needs to study Government!
I wonder why.....
No one asked him to be a "magic negro" (I don't understand why you are evoking his race), nor has anyone expected him to right all the wrongs of the past administration easily. However, Obama has done things so far which (in my opinion) are in line with the Bush administration's thinking so I can he right anything?
The 700 billion dollar bailout was started under Bush, and was continued under Obama. The Obama administration gave a 100 billion dollar handout (on the backs of the tax payer) to insolvent, morally corrupt banks under the false pretext of saving the economy. Well guess what? The economy has only been saved for Wall Street and the banks that received that handout thus far. There was an increase in job losses last month (over 260, 000) despite the public handout to the crooks - and thousands of Americans continue to lose their jobs all over America.
Continuing the corporate welfare of the Bush administration was a mistake. The 700 billion dollars could have been used more effectively by expanding the client base and business of solvent, ethically operating banks. Some of the 700 Billion could have also been used to restructure the loans of people who were being thrown out of their homes because of the predatory lending. Like the last administration, jobs are an after thought. Obama stated that jobs are a "lagging indicator" of economic recovery - tell that someone who has lost their job - home, or healthcare while Wall Street and the banks get richer and richer again thanks to the tax payer. Americans must wait for these so called jobs that are coming while Wall Street and the banks get rich again. No waiting for them.
Obama bought the propaganda that subsidizing morally and financially corrupt banks was good for the country and economy. It was good for those institutions and those institutions alone and ALL THE FACTS support this thus far. The continued job losses are the biggest proof that the good times on Wall Street has only been good for them. They keep saying the jobs are coming, but what if they never come? Will the banks and Wall Street give the money back if this happens?
Aside from Obama’s foolish allegiance to banks, there’s also the continuation of military tribunals, discrimination against Gays in the military (an executive order please); a failed Public Option thus far (he spoke positively of the current bill that passed in the Senate Finance committee without a Public Option); the escalation of the war in Afghanistan and the increase of government funds to private mercenaries like Blackwater. Given all this we have Bush p3 so far
“but please know what you're talking about before you do”
Please show me where I don’t know what I’m talking about.
Amen. My thoughts exactly.