I can't say we didn't see this coming, because we did. But Arlen Specter is starting to make good use of that 'D' beside his name and behave like an actual Democrat, indicating that he's open to a compromise on the Employee Free Choice Act and a public option on the Democratic health care plan.
Specter's record in the Senate since changing parties on April 28th has been somewhat more mixed, however. The Senate has held 22 roll call votes since Specter's party switch; Specter has taken the position of the majority of the Democratic caucus on 17 of these (77%). However, some of these votes were procedural with both the Democratic and Republican caucuses in broad agreement. Of the 15 votes on which the Democratic and Republican caucuses have split, Specter has sided with the Democrats on 10 occasions and the Republicans on 5; that makes him 67% Democrat and 33% Republican. A table of these votes and some further analysis follows below the fold.
For comparison's sake, Specter's colleague in the Senate, Bob Casey Jr., has sided with the Democrats on 14 of the 15 contentious votes (93%) over this period. Blue Dog Democrat Evan Bayh has voted Democratic on 8 of 14 bills, or 57% (Bayh skipped one vote), and Ben Nelson, probably the Senate's most conservative Democrat, has voted with them on 7 of 15 occasions (47%). Olympia Snowe, the most liberal Republican, has voted Democratic 5 out of 15 times (33%).
Democratic Loyalty Scores since 4/28, Selected SenatorsCasey, D-PA 93%Based on this admittedly small sample, then, Specter does appear to be voting more liberally than the most famously conservative Democrats, as well as any and all Republicans. But, he still has a ways to go before voting as a "normal" Democrat from his state might.
Specter, D-PA 67%
Bayh, D-IN 57%
Nelson, D-NE 47%
Snowe, R-ME 33%
5.14.2009
Arlen Specter Now 67% Democrat
@ 6:09 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments
And 100% snake.
A Request. Can you guys make the Specter-meter a permanent feature on the page like the Senate rankings? Cuz that's just about the best thing I've ever seen.
Re: Your most recent Tweet:
Ooooh, tantalizing! My guess is the recent polls showing Carnahan cuh-rushing it in MO and the polls showing about a neck-and-neck race in NH means those two races should flip-flop.
I still think Hodes is the likely victor in NH, but Carnahan looks REALLY strong in MO right now...
I think it's also worth noting that some of those votes were on things that Specter had already stated his opposition to back when he was still a Republican (i.e. the budget), and couldn't very well switch his votes on them that quickly.
Your photo correctly illustrates the least Democratic part of him -- his mouth.
How were his votes on this basis before he switched?
Poor Arlen looks like an embarrassed Smurf.
burban: Whut Mitch McConnell dranks
Another vote for a permanent Sepcter meter. Or at least revisit this every so often.
Well, that's the good thing about egoists... you know what they want and how to exploit them. But I don't want to be too hard on Specter, he is just the one most exposed career politician at the moment. There are hundreds of politicians just like him, with no personal convictions but the desire to stay in the game. To have them on their side is a good sign for the Democrats, and it shows that the political tide is turning or has turned.
Btw, right now on politico.com: Joe Torsella is going to drop out of the Senate race.... ah well, the Democrats will have the Senator they want if they exert enough pressure.
I'd like to second STepher's comment about how he looked before his switch. Be interesting to see how much he has changed in comparison to Snowe.
I "third" the Specter meter. It's priceless.
I would also like to see a Specter Meter. Perhaps under the Senate races (not like it's that terribly unrelated, no?)
In vote 192 he actually voted with the majority of the Democratic caucus. So either he's 11 for 15 (73.3%) or 10 for 14 (71.4%).
It's official, Rand Paul is running for the senate.
Nate - So where's the Spectrometer from before Arlen's transmogrification?
@ Liat - Get the "H" out -- of my name.
Indeed. Specter's situation presents us with a fascinating natural experiment. the hypothesis is, "A moderate Republican breaking ranks for the democratic Party will modify his/her positions toward the Democratic Party line as articulated by Tim Kaine and Barack Obama" Since Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, Charlie Crist and others are being aggressively recruited, we may at some point reach n=30, and therefore a normal distribution curve, so long as we consider all levels of government and both executive and legislative branches.
What,s a more interesting question is will Specter continue to lean left after the 2010 election; after all, the heat is on him now to be Democratic enough to survive the primary. He's old enough that he probably won't live long enough to do this again in 2016. Even if he is still alive at that point, he's probably going to want to retire by then. Therefore, he will not have to burnish Democratic credentials any more after he wins re-election, and has less reason to lean leftward.
Ergo, short term gain for the Democrats, long term pain in the ass.
On another note Barack Obama has betrayed the GLBT community yet again. I realize that I have steadfastly supported the man, despite my 538 grumblings, even in the face of Rick Warren and his revised agenda on whitehouse.gov website. Partly, this was because I had already bought into him so far it felt difficult to back down, no matter how losing of an investment he has been turning out to be. I am broke, and I gave him what to me is a very significant amount of money-and to Democratic Senate candidates that supported his agenda, and to lobbying groups that were pushing his ideas in Congress. I had started to feel like I had to spend more on these things, because if he failed due to my not giving that last bit of oomph to his platform, then the loss would be greater than if I were to stop.
Now, I feel like I've been sold a bill of goods. The embarrassment I feel here is pretty acute. I've been asking myself all day, "How could I have been so stupid?" and "I guess it just goes to show-the Democrats will never support us. He's just like Clinton-promise us the moon and then slap us in the face".
I know this sounds a little overdramatized here, but I actually do have that kicked-in-the-stomach sensation. I really feel betrayed here. I wasted all that time campaigning for him, canvassing for his, registering voters-I know he didn't win Louisiana, but I had hoped my efforts added to his legitimacy by racking up a few votes on his side at the national level.
What an idiot I was. I wonder if I can ever trust the Democratic Party again. Worse, there's no home for me among the Republicans, so where can I go?
A pox on both your houses. Were the elections held today, I'd vote for neither of you bastards, Dems or Reps. I'm done being your bitch.
Hey Nate, couldn't you find a more up-to-date photo of The Spectre? That one was taken at least thirty years ago.
statler- i know how you feel. i was hoping for so much more. but the practical side in me said this is american politics there was no way a liberal like me would get much in return for my contributions and work for the campaign. we gave anyway.
my only consolation is that mccain would have been so much worse.
i know that is helping my disilusionment though.
He may be 67% democrat, but based on the picture, he's 100% braveheart.
I think my band's first album is going to be called Of A Perfecting Nature
SnW
your frustration with Obama is tragic & true.
not only has he continued to talk out of both sides of his mouth on LGBT issues [some 'fierce advocate'] - but on military & civil rights issues the Obama administration is nearly as poor as Bush [and that is no complement].
religious intolerence & discrimination ? which right-side is Obama coddling ???
they are not going to push for torture inquiries & plan to protect the torturers...
they are not rolling back the eavesdropping & slow on detainees & more tribunals & who knows maybe even continue covert renditions...
more troops to Afghanistan, where is the Iraq pullout we were promised...
civil liberties ? no help there, and forget about DOMA & DADT [the Choi 'excuse' is personally insulting] - this POTUS is no Truman or Lincoln...
then to top it off, who do they promote to head general for Afghanistan ? the lousy, lying, SOB who tried to cover up the entire Pat Tillman 'fragging' - Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal should have been demoted & booted from the military for his dastardly lies to the country, army & especially the family.
even the inquiry supported some sanctioning - but Stan passed the buck down the sh*tstick. NOW he gets PROMOTED while Choi gets kicked out for honorable service - but he is 'gay'... take the gay over the warmongering liar anyday - but look again at which side Obama has decided to stand with...
sorry Barack, but this will all come back to bite you in the butt bigtime - this General will muck up Afghanistan even worse, more senseless deaths, more lies, same old - same old as the last 8 years of Bush 'thruthiness'
I aint buying it no more - McCain might have been worse, but Obama PROMISED to be better than this. Yes, he PROMISED... seriously disappointed & dismayed - this is not progressive - it is even more than center right [way right of center]
soon the emperor will be shown & known as not wearing his 'clothes' and then what will we have left ? an empty suit of hollow promises...
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-obama.php
check out the unfav
the rasmussen polls are such an obvious outlier it is beyond moe- do they ask a much different questions- or phrase it negatively- or do they just suck that bad?
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php
Job approval too
Without the rasmussen polls the numbers would be even better than they are
Statler N Waldorf wrote:
Now, I feel like I've been sold a bill of goods. The embarrassment I feel here is pretty acute. I've been asking myself all day, "How could I have been so stupid?" and "I guess it just goes to show-the Democrats will never support us. He's just like Clinton-promise us the moon and then slap us in the face".
I know this sounds a little overdramatized here, but I actually do have that kicked-in-the-stomach sensation. I really feel betrayed here.
-----------------------------------
It doesn't seem overdramatic at all. I'm not gay, but I think Obama is so far proving to be no ally at all to gay rights, which upsets me. The Rev. Warren thing I could overlook as a piece of political stagecraft, a necessary evil to "play the game" and give the right a meaningless bone before doing something substantive for the homosexual community.
His inaction as DADT continues to take its toll on the openly gay, while insisting on the campaign trail that rejecting gay soldiers was a non-starter, shows him to be a bit of a fraud on a very key issue. It's very disillusioning to me.
VermontDem said...
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-obama.php
check out the unfav
the rasmussen polls are such an obvious outlier it is beyond moe?
You are sooooo correct. At the bottom, click 'Tools', then 'Filter', and take out everyone except Rasmussen, then compare the results.
With all polls included, there is a definite wide spread in the approve/disapprove ratings, ups and downs in both ratings, and now a small, but perceptible, increasing spread between the opinions. With Rasmussen, however, the lines are much closer, and now closing towards each other.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Just as I thought...He's more liberal than Bayh and Nelson and i would assume more liberal than Landrieu.
But i would have liked to see LIEberman on that democratic loyalty chart to compare.
Nice chart, Nate...though I must also confess that I love the way the ads in the left-hand column line up with the Senate votes, at least in my browser. To wit, from the "Puppy Bomb" ad:
"You know all about sex?" (Dems: Nay, 18-35; Specter: Yea; GOP: Yea, 40-0)
"You know all about murder?" (ditto)
"You know all about male-bonding?" (Dems: Yea, 33-20; Specter: Nay; GOP: Nay, 39-0) [I smell some denial on this one]
And from "Meet Your Meat":
"Want fries with that?" (either Dems/Arlen love fries and GOP hates them or vice versa...hard to tell...this one's all butterfly-balloty)
Minstrel, DCM
Yeah, I guess the thing that really hurts is that i busted my ass to support him when his odds were long and the competition looked like it wasd going to maul him. I remember seeing an article by Michael Moore- Michael Moore-in Rolling Stone telling us all to be cautious, not to celebrate too early, that we could not afford to let another Gore or Kerry campaign happen.
And yet, despite our having gone to the barricades, our spending months nervously watching every poll and asking each other, "do you think we can win this time?", despite the attitude we all had that we had to really dig deep for this one and stay in the game, when Barack Obama was confronted with a gay soldier with an exemplarly record in a role essential to winning the war, when faced with whether Obama would stand up for not only our ideals but for this innocent, hard working young man, he did nothing.
And if Obama will not deign to lift a finger to help this very important figure-how many of you can translate Arabic into English, I wonder?-how much less will Obama do for the rest of us who do not posses such linguistic skill?
Barack Obama has betrayed us all. I trust him now about as much as I trust Bobby Jindal which si to say, I trust him to fuck everything up.
Ee gods, Specter is certainly not going to be nominated for Statesman of the Year, but a number of the commenters seem to be vying for Holier-Than-Thou Purist of the Year.
Most don't seem to recognize that the job of Politician is different from the job of Advocate. When you don't actually have to get elected and/or govern, it's easy to stake out "pure" positions and fling contempt at those grubby souls who hammer out the compromises necessary to try to represent a majority of the people.
Several have decried Obama's "betrayal" for not moving aggressively on GLBT issues in the first three months of his administration. Given the state of public opinion, it's not clear exactly what he could do without the support of Congress that would be EFFECTIVE in the long run.
DADT is a good example. It's a really dumb policy, but it's the LAW, and a significant number of current military brass (older folks) most likely still support it.
It's not clear to me that Obama actually has the power legally to unilaterally override DADT by Executive Order. And if he tried, it might just create a backlash (as happened in 1992, which created the dopey DADT law) that won't accomplish anything at all. Oh, yes, a glorious losing battle might win points with GLBT "activists" (perhaps some of whom were the masterminds behind the inept campaign against California's Prop 8). But the practical impact would be worse than doing nothing at all.
The only permanent solution is for CONGRESS to change the law. So what are all of you Holier-Than-Thou purists doing to make that happen?
Daniel Choi has done his part by having the courage to publicly violate DADT and to clearly explain why the policy is so destructive of good order and discipline in an articulate and moving letter. If cases like his are brought to the attention of the public, a great many people are likely to agree that DADT needs to be repealed. An April 2009 Quinnipiac poll indicates that public opinion is coming around. That is, about 56% of Americans support repeal of DADT (including 50% of those with family in the military).
What are you doing to force Congress to bring HR 1283 to the floor for a vote and actually pass it? If the answer is "nothing", then your criticism of Obama sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.
Mandy,
There,s a fundamental difference in our motivations here. For you, civil rights is an academic debate. Right, wrong, who cares, as long as our guy wins. Politics is what matters, not the policy.
For me, it hits a little closer to home. I am gay. My civil rights is not an academic exercise for me, it's directly relevant to my life.
Now, if you want to confront me directly and call me holier-than-thou for insisting that I am an American citizen and deserve to be equal to every other American citizen, go ahead. You do so at the risk of coming across as callous, cynical, unconcerned with the real pain and suffering caused by the polciies you treat like playthings.
To you, DADT is a toy. It,s a little trinket that's not really worth fighting over. To me, it is my life.
I realize you will not fight for my .life, and neither will Obama. Come 2010, you may not need my support, given that the GOP cannot seem to get its head out of its ass long enough to find a decent candidate to run against Obama. Doubtless, you'll crush the GOP in the legislative races. You don't need my help, or the help of the rest of the GLBT community. Which is why you are so willing to laugh us off, and treat our civil rights as a side show.
So why do you care if I bolt from the party? You clearly don't give a fuck about me or my civil rights. People like me are the least of your concern. You gleefully kick my teeth in to show how irrelevant I am.
It is one thing to kick me in the face. It is another to expect me to kiss your boot while you're doing it. Don't expect the GLBT community to go to bat for you any longer.
SnW,
I understand you're upset. I feel that the President should be working hard to change DADT too.
However, I remind you that getting DADT in the first place is one of the things that sunk the Dems early in Clinton's term. Yes, Yes, I know its not 1993, but he has in no way walked back on his promise to do something about it. And importantly, I don't recall him pledging to do anything about it quickly (if I'm wrong, please give me the link so I can have my facts right). Please be patient, he hasn't given you the finger just yet. Feel free to cause a scene if he doesn't move on it within the next year, but patience is imperative.
Statler,
If civil rights is NOT to be just an "academic debate" then the only way to get the policies you want is POLITICS.
It's not "callous, cynical, unconcerned with the real pain and suffering caused by the bad policies" to deal the PRACTICAL REALITIES of how to actually get those policies changed.
I don't think that "DADT is a toy". It hurts not only gay people, but all Americans, because it makes the military less effective.
I was not suggesting that it's a "trinket that's not really worth fighting over". I merely was pointing out that the most effective METHOD to fight for it is to muster public support to get CONGRESS to change the policy, which is where the power resides on this particular issue.
Since you don't know anything about me personally, I'm mystified as to how you could conclude that I "don't give a f**k about [you] or [your] civil rights." The point I was trying to make is that just "giving a f**k" isn't worth much if you don't back it up with ACTION.
Actually, on the DADT issue, after reading Daniel Choi's moving letter on the ObsidianWings blog, I made a point to write my Congressman and Senators to urge passage of HR 1283.
As far as I know, your main action is to accuse a total stranger who doesn't agree with you 100% of "gleefully kicking your teeth". If you were a troll trying to stir up anti-gay sentiment, this would be a pretty effective way to do it.
No matter what party you belong to, if you're serious about repealing DADT, then you ought to post some SPECIFIC, POSITIVE suggestions as to what the readers of this blog (or any other where you participate) might do to help make that happen. (Perhaps you could list the key members of Congress whose votes are critical to getting it onto the floor for a vote and/or passing it once it gets there. If you did so, I might be able to send letters to them also.)
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
re:Obama and gay rights...
I have been thinking that maybe Obama is just waiting for public opinion to swing towards gay rights over the next ten years (as Nate has made clear that it is inevitably doing), and wants to spend his political capital elsewhere.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just thinking about what is.
MandyW wrote:
DADT is a good example. It's a really dumb policy, but it's the LAW, and a significant number of current military brass (older folks) most likely still support it.
It's not clear to me that Obama actually has the power legally to unilaterally override DADT by Executive Order.
------------------------
As Commander in Chief, I think Obama has quite a bit of power over military policy, actually. From the Wikipedia article on DADT, there was this:
The Obama administration has suggested that it is Congress, not the president, which has the authority to lift the ban. However, a committee of military law experts at the University of California at Santa Barbara[29] has recently determined that it is within the authority of the exective branch to discontinue the policy[30].This is the opinion referenced: LINKIf this committee of military law experts is correct, then Obama's position (that it's in Congress' hands, not his own) seems uncomfortably like walking back his campaign position ("I will repeal DADT" -> "It's really up to Congress"). Perhaps he really intends to do something about it later in his term, but right now it's worrisome.
As for calling those you disagree with "holier-than-thou," that's as unproductive as implications that you are a bigot or that you blindly support Democrats no matter what. It doesn't aid discourse to be dismissive like that.
Your dripping scorn for gay rights activists (a pursuit you put in scare quotes and mocked their attempts to prevent a bigoted state Constitutional amendment) is rather disgusting. I'm not an activist, but mocking people who are fighting for their civil liberties is a fairly stupid thing to do, whether or not you agree with their political expediency.
The ironic thing is that I tend to be very much in the school of thought that you maneuver and maneuver, avoiding battle, until you have clear victory in your sights. Art Of War and all that. But I can understand people having an emotional reaction to their civil rights constantly being put on the back-burner. Evidently, you can't, which is a shame.
Minstrel,
DADT is federal law, and as such, an Executive Order can NOT, under any circumstances, over rule federal law.
The changes that might possible are some of the regulations that implement DADT. I don't have Title 10 of the U.S. Code in front of me, and also don't know the general wording of the specific regulations, so I can't discuss which sections could be changed to take some of the teeth out of DADT.
In any event, politics can sometimes be like a glacier - if you look at it from day to day, it might seem unmoved. However, if you look at it over a longer span of time, there many times are dramatic changes.
Society also has to change, and that change can take decades. As recent as the 1980s, GLBT rights were used as a political football - AIDS, for example, was a major reason that Haitians refugees are treated so much different than refugees from other countries - society perceived that AIDS was caused and spread in large part by Haitian refugees, and that resulted in laws discriminating against Haitians to be passed. And remember that Ronnie Ray-Gun didn't even publicly say the word 'AIDS' until well into his second term.
Patience, many times, bears fruit. That is not to say that pressure for change can stop - otherwise the political movement you desire might stop.
On the other hand, too much pressure (or what society perceives as too much pressure) can cause a backlash, and cause a retreat in political progress. Or political opponents can use that pressure in an underhanded manner to cause a retreat in political progress - witness the GOOPer use of GLBT rights to scare the populace for many election cycles.
One of the reasons that the US didn't enter World War II was the citizens of the US, and especially the GOOPers, had an isolationist position, and if FDR had tried to involve the US in the war too early, there might have been a severe political backlash. It was only when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor that the political climate changed, and allowed FDR to introduce a Resolution of War in Congress. If you check the resolution, though, it only speaks of war with Japan, not Germany. It was only when Hitler declared war on the US that the US declared war on Germany.
It was also the isolationist attitude at the time, and crass political opportunism, that allowed the (still extant) rumor that FDR knew the attack on Pearl Harbor was going to occur and let it happen to get the US involved in the war.
Back to DADT - since it is federal law, even if it could be changed by an Executive Order issued by President Obama, the next President (no matter which party) could just issue a new Executive Order to revert the regulations back to what they are now, or make them even more severe. Thus DADT, as a federal law, needs to not only be repealed, but replaced with entirely new law to make sure it is much more difficult to reinstate it in the future. At this time, society might be at the point it can be repealed, but with gradual movement over the next couple of years, it will be much more receptive to repeal. If an attempt to repeal is made now, but repeal is rejected, either in Congress or society, it will almost certainly cause a delay in the eventual repeal of DADT (which does need to be repealed, and eventually will be repealed).
As to your and SNW's perception that 'civil rights constantly being put on the back-burner', BS.
There has been a lot of progress in the area of civil rights for all people in the last 20 years, and especially for GLBT rights. Twenty years ago, it was unthinkable for any state to even consider civil unions, let alone SSM. Now, several states have civil unions, and nine states have, or appear to be on the verge, of SSM. There have been setbacks (Hawaii and California, especially), and many states have passed Constitutional amendments that prohibit SSM in their states. But twenty years ago, not a single state allowed even civil union registries, let alone civil unions, and SSM was only a pipe dream.
Patience and hard work is what is bringing progress.
And remember, in 1969, police raids were totally accepted on bars that catered to the GLBT community. Ever hear of the Stonewall Inn in New York City? It was a police raid on the Stonewall Inn, that raid fully supported by the leaders of the NYC police, the political establishment, and society, that led to the Stonewall Riots, and sparked the GLBT rights movement. Stonewall happened less than 40 years ago, and now the New York State Assembly is in possible position to extend marriage to the GLBT community. As a comparison, it took more than 70 years of activism for women to gain the right to vote in all states, and that is only if you count the July, 1848, Seneca Falls Woman's Rights Convention as the starting point for the Women's Suffrage Movement.
As Mandy stated, a 'Holier-Than-Thou Purist of the Year' attitude can, and does, many times cause backlash if society and the political climate are not yet ready for the change. In many situations, it can take a lot of hard work to get society to change it's opinion. And many times, it is a confluence of events from totally unexpected directions that can cause that change. But the ground must first be prepared before change can occur in most situations.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Mike in Maryland:
You may say it's "BS" that gay rights are consistently put on the back burner, but your anecdotal evidence doesn't show that that's untrue. I never said that no progress has been made at all. had I contended that, you'd be quite right and have proven me wrong. Even issues on the back burner can progress. Being "on the back burner" means that it has never been the focal point of a President, and I think you'd be quite hard-pressed to show that that's bullshit.
Maybe you don't think it should be a focal point. On that we can disagree. I don't think it should be pursued to the exclusion of all else, but it strikes me as very low priority to Democratic administrations and Congresses. That bothers me a great deal, even though it has no practical effect on my life as I'm not gay myself.
There's nothing "Holier Than Thou Purist" about A. wanting Obama to live up to campaign positions or B. wanting a different prioritization from our elected leaders.
Minstrel,
A certain poster here thinks that if HIS issues are not front and center, then NO progress can or will be made.
A certain poster here thinks that a campaign promise on HIS issues means that the issue WILL be front and center of that candidate's term in office, no matter if anything else was proposed.
A certain poster here thinks that a campaign promise on HIS issues means that those issues are REQUIRED to be front and center, no matter if other issues develop between the campaign promise and now.
A certain poster here thinks that a campaign promise on HIS issues means that a politician, even if favoring the issue, doesn't act IMMEDIATELY on those issues, without taking into account the societal and political landscape, is a traitor to HIS issues.
I am gay, and the issues of that certain poster I speak of above are important to me also.
HOWEVER, after (then candidate) Obama made certain campaign promises, a lot of things changed in the world, such as the economy. When people are losing jobs and their life savings, they are not going to want to discuss an issue that doesn't affect them, or affects them only tangentially. Thus society is not ready to fully discuss the issues a certain poster here thinks should be front and center, and no other issues should be discussed unless and until that certain poster's issues have been settled.
Since society isn't ready to discuss those issues, the political landscape is not ripe for the discussion of those issues. That certain poster here, though, still wants HIS issues front and center, or else. If those issues are front and center, but society and the political landscape is not ready for those issues to be front and center, but might be in a year or two, putting those issues front and center right now could, and most likely would, set back those issues by five or more years.
One more thing - that certain poster is just out of adolescence, and has no concept of what the status of GLBTs were even as few as 10 years in the past.
That poster never experienced being the victim of a crime, and when the crime was reported to the police, having it laughed off as "AWWW, the FAG got beat up." That was a common experience for many as few as ten years ago, and it still exists in many areas of the country today.
That poster has never been in a bar when the police raided the bar for the sole reason that it WAS a bar that catered to the GLBT community. The impetus for Gay Pride was to fight back, in a peaceful manner, that attitude of police and society. The reason Gay Pride is celebrated in most communities in the month of June is because of the raids on the Stonewall Inn, resulting in the Stonewall riots, less than 40 years ago.
But that poster acts, posts and thinks that no progress has been made, and if HIS issues are not front and center, there can be NO progress on HIS issues. And if President Obama doesn't make that certain poster's issue the front and center issues RIGHT NOW, he'll pick up his bat and ball and go home?
I've seen progress made on MANY issues without those issues being front and center in any politician's platform and/or actions. For progress to be made, however, society must be ready for that progress to be made, and one of the best methods to get society to make progress is to NOT act like a spoiled three year old BRAT when things don't go EXACTLY like you want them to go. Act that way, and society will totally ignore the BRAT, and even turn against the issues the BRAT wants front and center to the exclusion of everything else. And that certain poster here, to many, is acting exactly like a spoiled three year old BRAT.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Fair enough, Mike. I don't feel that way, that if things aren't changed this instant, then fuck Obama and the Democrats. My priority has always been social equality, so I tend to be a bit discouraged when it feels like it moves slowly. But as I said in another post, I have always seen the wisdom of maneuvering until you can win the battle.
But it still elicits a temporary emotional response from me when I see direct discrimination. I'm a Californian...when Prop 8 passed, it ruined a night that had been very happy due to Obama's win. But after a few days, I took comfort in the fact that Prop 8 was only a temporary delay in the inevitable (and likely soon) win for marriage equality in California.
Statler, I share your frustration (you don't have to be gay to support civil rights, just as - in an earlier era - you didn't have to be black to be martyred for them.)
I do want to suggest that our system is, by design, so resistant to change that even presidents can't get too far in front of the populace and affect the progress you and I hope to see.
I don't believe even Abraham Lincoln could have ended slavery in 1840, for example. He didn't even try during his first term of office. That wasn't cowardice, but a realization of the limitations of the situation.
Obama absolutely needs to risk some of his political capital to actually stand by more of the positions he staked out as a candidate. His failure to do so does lead many of us to believe he ultimately doesn't stand for anything.
Yet, no one could walk in and move the United States very far where it's simply not ready to go. The moving needle on gay marriage nationwide is much more important than anything Obama does or does not do. Protests against DADT might help. It is important to recognize that DADT itself represented progress within most of our memories - my memory as an adult. (and I think of myself as young :>)
Minstrel,
To make sure things are clear, I am not inferring or accusing that you are 'a certain poster here'. When I made those references, I am referring to a poster other than you, a poster who resides in the 'enlightened' state of Louisiana.
I am not entirely happy at the state of GLBT rights in the US today. However, when I look back at what the state of those rights were 10, 20, 30 and 40 years ago, a lot of progress has been made.
A lot more progress still needs to be made, but that doesn't mean that it can and/or will be accomplished overnight. It also doesn't mean that we castigate and drive off our allies in our fight for our rights because they don't jump as high as we want them to at the instant we snap our fingers (as that other poster who lives in the 'enlightened' state of Louisiana seems to think MUST happen if the GLBT community is to gain any more of our rights).
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
gucci replica handbags
men gucci shoes
Gucci men sneakers
Gucci men moccasins
gucci women sneakers
gucci women boots
Gucci men boots
Gucci
Gucci shop
Gucci bags
Gucci shoes
Replica GUCCI SHOES
wholesale gucci shoes
cheap Gucci handbags
Gucci ON sale
Gucci Belts
Gucci small accessories
Gucci hats & scarves
Gucci wallets
Gucci Handbags
Women Gucci shoes
Men Gucci shoes
discount gucci shoes
cheap Gucci shoes
hamam böceği
hamam böceği
hamam böceği
hamam böceği
hamam böceği
hamam böceği
kalorifer böceği
kalorifer böceği
kalorifer böceği
kalorifer böceği
kalorifer böceği
kene ilaçlama
kene ilaçlama
kene ilaçlama
kene ilaçlama
kene ilaçlama
ilaçlama
ilaçlama
ilaçlama
ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
haşere ilaçlama
haşere ilaçlama
haşere ilaçlama
Post a Comment