I'm very impressed and pleased at how far the Obama administration has vocalized (and followed through) on gay rights issues over the last year or so. Given the President's proclaimed "fierce advocacy," followed by a perceived period of inaction, and a very (very) bitchy gay blogosphere ragging on them, I wasn't sure we'd end up here. But, I'm glad we did.
[Excerpt] Obama’s Brief Against Proposition 8 Goes Far
Thursday night, just hours before a filing deadline, President Obama’s Justice Department submitted an amicus curiae brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8—California’s gay-marriage ban. Even more importantly, it did so by asserting a bold claim to full equality for gay and lesbian Americans, which is a significant development in the nation’s rapidly moving consideration of the issue.
Whenever a story or scandal seems to only be getting play on right-wing talk radio, blogs and FOX "News", my antennae go up. Especially when said outlets are whining that "nobody" in the "mainstream media" is covering the story. When this happens, it is usually something like the "new Black Panthers" non-story. Or one of Breitbart's or his lackeys' "sting" operations. But the Solyndra "scandal" actually turned up on a reliable (if comedic) source, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
So was there something to this scandal after all? Well, maybe not.
[Excerpt]
Chris Hayes Explains Why Solyndra Bankruptcy Is Not A Scandal
On Sunday’s sophomore edition of Up with Chris Hayes , freshly-minted host Chris Hayes took on the burgeoning Solyndra “scandal,” and made the case that it was, at worst, a case of bad optics. House Republicans have been trying to make a dollar out of this fifteen cents, and the conservative media have been peddling it like funnel cake, but despite Jon Stewart‘s credulous purchase of the “scandal,” it doesn’t really amount to much upon closer inspection. . .
Ever get stuck between political reality, and political idealism? That's where I am with the Obama Administration and the whole topic of gay rights, same-sex marriage, and all that has to do with the LGBTQXYZ community. While I think the administration is a bit too timid and behind-the-curve on the American public's acceptance of the subject, I also recognize political realities and perceptions. Other left-wing and pro-gay bloggers (and what have you) web sites are not so forgiving. In fact, they are openly hostile to the President and his spokespeople.
I'm a bit--maybe a LOT--more forgiving. I'm frankly sick and tired of even my very favorite liberal/progressive/Democratic advocates trashing and thrashing Obama on every goddamn little thing that doesn't line up 100% with their ideals. For f**k's sake, the other side is so odious, so sometimes evil, so 180-degree opposite from everything I want/need/desire/require, they are out of the running from the get-go. I don't consider myself an Obama-bot. I am also not a defender of everything Democrats do, or a proponent of every prominent liberal.
Right now, the President and his spokespeople are tippy-toeing over his past comments on same-sex marriage. The topic is a political landmine field (though it by all rights shouldn't be). Most of us know that Obama probably doesn't give a rip if gay people get married. He's probably either indifferent or supportive. But our political climate doesn't allow that acknowledgement, either from a liberal, or a conservative. Obama is in effect forced to lie, or waffle. Divisive topics force both sides to lie to appease their base. This sucks, and is very frustrating for the reality-based community.
You see evidence of these sort of things on countless political and/or news programs. You'll get the "official" quote from a politician, and then endless discussion of what "he really meant." It sucks. I've said that already, but it bears repeating. There is so much artifice in this process--on both sides, it again bears repeating--that it just freaking sucks. So, newbie politicians give their honest opinions to survey questions, and then that same politician--years later--has to give a more measured, nuanced, poll-tested and squishy answer later. He has spokespeople sprinkle some half-assed back peddling answers to his contradictions. And then people who should be allies shit all over him for it.
I started this blog due in large part to my admiration for John Aravosis' AmericaBlog, Arianna Huffington's Huffington Post and Markos Moulitsas' Daily Kos. But it's really pissing me off that much of what is coming from these progressive sites is an automatic nuclear attack on Obama, for any transgression. It is self-defeating. It is possible to be critical while also being constructive. What I'm reading seems to be destructive, right out of the gate. I quite simply don't get it.
[Excerpt]
NETROOTS: White House Rep Denies Obama "Filled Out" 1996 Marriage Pledge
In an interview conducted in front of an audience at the Netroots Nation blogger conference early Friday in Minneapolis, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer claimed a 1996 questionnaire favoring gay marriage, which bears Barack Obama's signature, was "actually filled out by someone else. . ."
Will I post anything today that doesn't have something to do with Sarah Palin? I hope so. But not yet. This parody from Saturday Night Live, an apology from "Rahm Emanuel" for using the word "retarded" was one of the funniest bits from last night's show. I'm puzzled why it was saved for so late in the program.
Yesterday, I posted an excerpt of a story that alleged that the Obama Administration is holding on the the Bush Era "extreme rendition" policies. But are they? The source, The Raw Story, has more on the story.
[Excerpt]
Liberals push back against LA Times story
Many liberal online journalists and bloggers are pushing back against the LA Times story, saying that the paper "got rolled" and/or "punked."At his blog at The Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan writes about the "rendition canard. . ."
Barack Obama and his adminstration have only been in office for a few days. But tha hasn't stopped FOX "News" from slamming them for. . .well. . .everything. Fortunately, we have Jon Stewart to point out their tactics.
How many times have you heard a conservative--be it a bloviator like Rush Limbaugh, or your uncle Earl--rant about "the rule of law?" It was a mantra when Bill Clinton lied about a certain little indiscretion. 'Member that? Heh.
Well, after eight years of the Bush Administration flouting the rule of law--in fact, acting as though the law simply didn't apply to them--that rallying cry ought to be over. Case in point, the lost/deleted/never retained White House emails. Apparently, no effort was made to follow any of the laws as it pertains to retaining electronic communications by the White House. It is going to be enormously frustrating to hear them nattering about every perceived Obama Administration transgression, isn't it?
[Excerpt]
National Archives unsure how many White House emails will be saved
The plans to retain and store records from George W. Bush's eight years in office is lacking in specifics and raises the serious possibility that millions of missing White House e-mails will be lost permanently, a independent government watchdog warned Monday. . .
