Obama Gay Marriage Stance Presents Early Character Test For 2012 Election

There are only two choices. If anyone thinks Mitt and the Mormon church will be less discriminatory than they have in the recent past then make your vote count.

===============================================

Just as so many Democratic voters showed up in 2008 (10 million) to put who they believed was a progressive black man in the White House to undo what Bush, Cheney and Republicans had done in the previous years and then in 2010 when Democratic voters turned incumbent Democrats out of office, threw Blue Dogs out in huge numbers (liberals only lost 3 seats), the 2012 election seems to moving again in that direction.  With Blue Dogs being tossed out.  

As an old, OLD liberal Democrat (a 'New Deal' Democrat) who has never voted for a Republican, never will, I can honestly say that I can't imagine ever voting for a Democrat again.  I'll certainly never vote for any incumbent Democrat again, Blue Dog or other.

I never advise people to sit out elections, because if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. It's what p!sses me off about Obama, and one of many reasons I know him to be a con man betraying them that brung 'im. Because by shutting out liberals, the base, from his administration, by taking single payer, a public option, off the table, eliminating regulatory oversight from finance reform legislations, he's given pro-corporate, Republican-like policies an inside line. The People's advocates can't even get in the door of this government.

And just as Obama is accusing Romney of flip-flopping on issues, so has Obama flip-flopped and reneged on campaign promises.  The irony is that, if past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, Romney's record as governor isn't all that dissimilar from Obama's in the White House.  There were even moments of liberalism to Romney's record (gun control, state co-pays for abortion, etc.) - Certainly more progressive than Obama.

And let's not forget that it's Obama who has put Social Security and Medicare on the table for cuts.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Gay Marriage Stance Presents Early Character Test For 2012 Election

You blame Nader voters when, had Nader not even run, had he not be in the race, Bush still would've won.  Because Republicans had gamed that election more ways than we're ever going to know about.  You might as well blame Pat Buchanan with the same vigor and vitriole.

AlGore won.  Gore got more votes in Florida.  Any way it was counted (and the biggest point that people seem to forget is that there were 179,000 perfectly readable ballots that never got counted), Gore got more votes than Bush.
 
Whatever the means necessary to get BushCheney into the WhiteHouse would've happened.  Had Nader been in the race, had he not in the race, whatever.  Had Nader not run, the outcome would've been the same.  The powers that be were not going to let Gore win, no matter what, and gamed it innumerable ways.

If the means for getting BushCheney into the WhiteHouse required a close election and Nader not been running, some other means would've been used.

For pity's sake, the CIA was working on GOP absentee ballots in the weeks leading up to election day in Florida.  That was the most amazing revelation from the televised court hearings in the post-election days in Florida --  'CharlesKane' testified to altering absentee ballots in the MartinCounty's Registrar's office in the two week period prior to election day (it's against the law and should render the ballots null and void).  When Kane was sworn in, he had to identify himself and give his occupation and employer. Retired CIA.  The judge asked him why he was altering the absentee ballots, and he answered "I go where I'm told."  Verbatim quote.  The judge didn't follow up.  There was next to no news coverage of this, and none by the networks.

Have you forgotten JebBush's vote purging scheme?

Have people really forgotten all the different ways that that election was gamed by the GOP?  And that's just in Florida.  And just the ways that we learned about because of legal proceedings in the post-election days.

There was a coup d'etat in America in 2000.  A bIoodless coup, but a coup nonetheless.  

And Democrats suppressed investigations, and then screwed over the Congressional Black Caucus's attempts to expose that stolen election.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Gay Marriage Stance Presents Early Character Test For 2012 Election

Nader again?  

That's the proof of just how susceptible to spin you are, and probably because instead of actually reading the data, you form your opinions from the opinions you hear from others on cable news programs.

Aside from the fact that in a nation of more than 300 million, unless you make it a law that voters can only vote for a Democrat or a Republican, unless you outlaw all other political parties, you can't possibly control how people vote.  Unless, of course, you're able to control the voting machines.

Nader didn't do anything to Gore that HarryBrowne, PatBuchanan, HowardPhillips, et al (other party candidates) didn't also do, yet you don't hear them being blamed.  Gore and Bush weren't owed other party's voters, and studies have shown that Nader pulled more votes from Bush than from Gore.

You presume that Nader voters would've voted for Gore (or voted at all) when studies and exit polling have indicated that's not the case.  

But here's the thing:

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Gay Marriage Stance Presents Early Character Test For 2012 Election

The argument that lost the Democrats the election in 2010 was the argument that people who were not 110% satisfied with Obama should have tantrums and stay home. They got the government they deserved - unfortunately, those of us who met our responsibility to vote also got the government that the non-voters deserved.

=========================================

Here's the problem with that:  That was exactly what Obama and the Democratic establishment elites wanted.  

Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressives/liberals from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the WhiteHouse, the DNC, and the Democratic congressional committees behind BlueDogs, Republicans and Independents over progressives/liberals and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

BlueDog BlancheLincoln over progressive Democrat Lt. Governor BillHalter. 

Republican-turned-Independent ArlenSpecter over progressive Democrat JoeSestak. 

Republican-turned-Independent LincolnChaffee over Democrat FrankCaprio (which, in turn, was an effective endorsement of the Republican JohnLoughlin over Democrat DavidCicilline for the congressional seat Democrat PatrickKennedy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in RhodeIsland). 

Republican-turned-Independent CharlieCrist over liberal Democrat KendrickMeek. 

Obama supports voting third parties, even when it risks Democratic turnout.

Republicans, with the smallest minority, have managed to thwart Democrats, who've had the greatest majority in decades.  You would think that with Republicans controlling the House, Democrats would've turned the tables and thwarted Republicans' continuing legislation like Bush's tax cuts for the rich?  Are Democrats just stupld?

Obama never pressured BenNelson (or BlancheLincoln, or any BlueDog). The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs (BlancheLincoln's, too) of members in their caucus that filibustered a PublicOption for healthcare. They didn't.

The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. They didn't. 

Reid could've actually forced Republicans and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster. He didn't (and doesn't).

The ProgressiveCaucus could have kept their pledge about not voting for a bill that didn't include a robust PublicOption. They didn't. 

Obama DID unleash the attack dogs to go after HowardDean when Dean said it was a lousy bill. Dean was then forced to get back into line. Obama went after Kucinich, the last remaining holdout on the ProgressiveCaucus, for threatening to vote no on the healthcare bill, and we all know how that ended. 

There is nothing that Lieberman (or Nelson or Lincoln) is doing that Obama hasn't ordered. Obama and the DLC-Democrats want Lieberman there, doing what he's doing, which is to take the heat off of Democrats.  

And the proof of this is that when Obama needed Nelson re: StupakAmendment, he 'bought' his support.  That's what Obama could've done for Nelson's or Lincoln's vote at any time, on any legislation.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Gay Marriage Stance Presents Early Character Test For 2012 Election

Solutions for what?  How to get Democratic politicians to behave like Democrats?  How to get Democratic policies and legislation passed?  How to get rid of conservatives from government?

I've laid out solutions, beginning with "Stop voting for DLC-controlled Democrats".   All roads (to campaign finance reform, clean and green energy, ending corporate personhood, strong banking/environmental/etc. regulations, JOBS, education, no more resource wars, gay rights, civil rights restoration, affordable quality medical treatment for everyone, and so on) begin with that.  Everything that has been done these past 30 years has been done with Democrats' compliance -- Couldn't have happened without Democrats signing on.

Do you really not understand the problem and how to fix it?

Neither party is interested in ending corporate control over our government.  It feathers their nests now and will take care of them once they've left office.  Unless and until the money is out of politics, we're all just wasting our time, flapping our gums.  Obama isn't interested in reforming that.  He's not interested in reforming anything.  He's only interested in making it look like he's reformed government.  He's not alone -- All professional politicians has 'reform' as their campaign's centerpiece.  A lot of promises to reform, and when it's time to get reelected and whatever happened in the previous 2 or 4 years is spun to try to convince voters (and more importantly, about 10% of the voters, Independents who see themselves as centrists) that the reform that they wanted they got with their side of the D&R equation.  

Both parties generally take their bases for granted, but there is something to the adage, "Republicans fear their base and Democrats loathe their base".  

So we're back to the question that has kept this farce going for so many election cycles now, moving the parties and the government farther to right while the people, when informed of the issues,  tend to agree with and want liberal solutions):

Why should Obama-Demo­crats do anything for you if they know you're going to vote for them no matter what?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Gay Marriage Stance Presents Early Character Test For 2012 Election

And you have a choice, too.  Recognize that Obama has betrayed you, and all "them that brung 'im".  And the reason you're inclined to vote for him is not because he's satisfied your expectations, but because you hope that, contrary to his words and action, will do what he's never done in the past.

Your blind faith is dooming us all to continued Republican policies and legislation.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Gay Marriage Stance Presents Early Character Test For 2012 Election

I have faith that he'll champion marriage equality in his next term.

=========================================

Putting aside for the time being your remarkable ability to presume to know what Obama intends (should he be reelected), or what I may or may not know (so if it doesn't meet with your approval, then I must be "disingenuous" and "know" that I am "disingenuous"), that's an interesting choice of words, "he'll champion marriage equality".  Not that Obama would work to repeal DOMA, etc., but that he'll say he supports marriage equality, which, for all intents and purposes, could just as easily be his current position of supporting gays in civil unions (and which also isn't equal to marriage -- Slippery with words, Obama is). 

But the point is that after the election it's too late.  

Before the election is when the deals are cut, the alliances forged.

That's why I keep telling Obama's 'most ardent supporters' that by assuring him that they're with him no matter what, they let him dismiss their issues and them.  I've really never seen a greater bunch of cowards, Obama's 'most ardent supporters', so terrified they are of getting issues on the table for knock-down, dragged out debates.  Ignorant cowards, too, or they're disingenuous about being supporters of issues like gays marrying and medical marijuana, etc., because the arguments for Democratic policies are sound and convincing.  But Obama's 'most ardent supporters' have no faith in the people's being able to see the soundness of Democratic policy.  

Like I've said for years, DLCers are the wrong people to be the stewards of the Democratic covenant.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...