Democrats Win the Convention Contest

Perhaps I am biased, but having followed both the GOP and the Democrat conventions, I believe the Democrats hit a home run - especially when their convention is compared to the hate fest and extremism that defined the GOP convention and the GOP nominee, Donald Trump.  Even New York Times columnist David Brooks - who for far too long acted as a GOP apologist even as hate-filled Christofascists and white supremacists hijacked the party - concedes this reality.  The issue will be whether sane, decent and rational Americans can see the existential threat that Trump and his party now represent to the nation and democracy and stir themselves to vote in November. A vote for Hillary is a vote to preserve what is best about America.  A vote for Trump is an invitation to take the nation down the road towards fascism.  The choice is really that simple.  Here are highlights from Brooks' column:

Donald Trump has found an ingenious way to save the Democratic Party. Basically, he’s abandoned the great patriotic themes that used to fire up the G.O.P. and he’s allowed the Democrats to seize that ground. If you visited the two conventions this year you would have come away thinking that the Democrats are the more patriotic of the two parties — and the more culturally conservative.

Trump has abandoned the Judeo-Christian aspirations that have always represented America’s highest moral ideals: toward love, charity, humility, goodness, faith, temperance and gentleness.

He left the ground open for Joe Biden to remind us that decent people don’t enjoy firing other human beings.

Trump has abandoned the basic modesty code that has always ennobled the American middle class: Don’t brag, don’t let your life be defined by gilded luxuries.

He left the ground open for the Democrats to seize middle-class values with one quick passage in a Tim Kaine video — about a guy who goes to the same church where he was married, who taught carpentry as a Christian missionary in Honduras, who has lived in the same house for the last 24 years.

Trump has also abandoned the American ideal of popular self-rule.

He left the ground open for Barack Obama to remind us that our founders wanted active engaged citizens, not a government run by a solipsistic and self-appointed savior who wants everything his way.

For decades the Republican Party has embraced America’s open, future-oriented nationalism. But when you nominate a Silvio Berlusconi you give up a piece of that. When you nominate a blood-and-soil nationalist you’re no longer speaking in the voice of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and every Republican nominee from Reagan to McCain to Romney.

Democrats have often been ambivalent about that ardent nationalistic voice, but this week they were happy to accept Trump’s unintentional gift. There were an unusually high number of great speeches at the Democratic convention this year: the Obamas, Biden, Booker, Clinton, the Mothers of the Movement and so on.

These speakers found their eloquence in staving off this demagogue. They effectively separated Trump from America. They separated him from conservatism. They made full use of the deep nationalist chords that touch American hearts.

[T]the extremist fringe that threatens to take over the Democratic Party seems less menacing than the lunatic fringe that has already taken over the Republican one.

This week I left the arena here each night burning with indignation at Mike Pence. I almost don’t blame Trump. He is a morally untethered, spiritually vacuous man who appears haunted by multiple personality disorders. It is the “sane” and “reasonable” Republicans who deserve the shame — the ones who stood silently by, or worse, while Donald Trump gave away their party’s sacred inheritance.

The Democrats had by far the better of the conventions.

It could be that in this moment of fear, cynicism, anxiety and extreme pessimism, many voters may have decided that civility is a surrender to a rigged system, that optimism is the opiate of the idiots and that humility and gentleness are simply surrendering to the butchers of ISIS. If that’s the case then the throes of a completely new birth are upon us and Trump is a man from the future.

If that’s true it’s not just politics that has changed, but the country.

Has Trump Reached His Peak?

The husband and I attended a Clinton-Kaine event tonight - something I suspect that we will be doing much more of between now and November (along with making campaign contributions).   I hope others will step up their efforts and contributions to make sure that Donald Trump is NEVER elected to the presidency.  A piece in Vanity Fair questions whether or not Donald Trump has perhaps reached his peak of support.  Much depends on how the balance of the Democratic Convention plays out and how effective the Clinton-Kaine is in getting its message out.  Here are article highlights:

If the Republican National Convention was characterized by order on the streets and disorder on the floor, perhaps the Democratic National Convention will be characterized by order on the floor and disorder in the streets. It’s a tidy notion, at least, and there is discontent. Americans on the left have been angered by a trove of hacked e-mails showing that the Democratic National Committee was biased toward Hillary Clinton, a revelation as shocking to the world as that of Liberace’s secret attraction to men. They have also been disappointed to see Clinton pick as her running mate Virginia senator Tim Kaine . . .

Meanwhile, Donald Trump has had a surprisingly good few days. In the wake of last week’s Republican convention, Trump’s numbers have experienced a bounce, something Trump needed in order to stay in the game, even if, with further speculation about Ted Cruz’s dad, he seems determined to drive them back down.

So, according to at least one poll, Trump leads. The question next becomes how much it means. Is this a blip, a brief moment of low-point Clinton and peak Trump, or is it something more enduring?

While I still think that Hillary Clinton ultimately wins this election, Trump does have a respectable chance for reasons I’ve given and still affirm.

Whether this is Trump’s high point or not depends a lot on how well this week goes for Clinton. Picking Kaine was a good start, despite the complaints. Kaine and Clinton respect one another; they’re in sync politically; and Kaine doesn’t overshadow Clinton or look like a gimmick. Keeping the week on the right track will depend most on three other things, all of them obvious, but still worth considering:

1. How persuasively Bernie Sanders appeals to his supporters to settle for Hillary.Bernie Sanders has already endorsed Clinton, and it went all right. But he’ll have to grit his teeth and do it again Monday and do it even more enthusiastically.  . . . . He’ll have to suggest that he’s very much at peace with Hillary. It will hurt. But only a thoroughly convincing performance has any chance of draining the energy and quelling the rage of die-hard anti-Hillary Bernie supporters.

2. How peacefully dissenters go about their demonstrations.This is related to point one. Everyone who is fanatical about Sanders will listen to what he has to say, and if he does his job well they will simmer down for the rest of this week. Nevertheless, the left is energized at the moment, and many of its activists have causes that they intend to promote, regardless of Bernie’s status.

If people—even just a few hundred—are determined to get violent or unruly, then they can create a lot of trouble and there isn’t much that the police can do to prevent it. Such behavior would help Trump and hurt Clinton, but there’s not much Hillary can do to influence whether it happens. Democrats will just have to keep their fingers crossed.

3. How effectively Clinton addresses voter discontent.
Obama ran a great campaign in 2008, one that emphasized both the failings and staleness of Republicans and the youthfulness and vigor of Obama’s Democrats. What Obama doesn’t recognize, however, is that some of the same messages can now be directed at him. When Trump stresses that things are bad and Obama replies that they’re not, Obama looks out of touch, even if the facts he cites are correct. Clinton, therefore, must find a way to align herself with Obama yet also address the concerns raised by Trump. 

On the first two points, so far things are going well as exemplified by Bernie Sanders' call for Hillary Clinton's nomination by acclamation - some thing I was lucky enough to witness.  The big issue, therefore, will be how well Hillary does in convincing would be Trump supporters that she, not Trump, will better address their disaffection.  Granted,  nothing will change the minds of the Hillary hating Christofascists and white supremacists.  Others, however, can potentially be convinced to see Trup for what he is: a lying con-artist who cares nothing about anyone other than himself. 

Has Hillary Finally Found Her Voice?

Living in Virginia, a "battleground state," we are already seeing plenty of presidential campaign ads, although most to date - other than a foul and dishonest ad being run by the NRA - are for Democrat Hillary Clinton.  So far, the ads have been first class and effective, focusing in large part on Donald Trump's unfitness for office, especially the presidency.  With the Democrat convention not far off and providing an opportunity to counter whatever batshitery - and potential circus - that takes place in Cleveland, Hillary needs to come up with a knock them dead speech.  Hopefully, she rises to the challenge.  A piece in Politico looks at the process for a candidate who (like myself) doesn't truly like public speaking notwithstanding her command of the facts.  Here are highlights:

Hillary Clinton was about to get clobbered in the New Hampshire primary, and her campaign still didn’t have a message explaining why she was the right person for the job.

The entire episode illustrated Clinton’s paradox: on the one hand, she’s a deeply involved candidate who trusts her own instincts. But on the other, she still struggles, after all these years, when it comes to messaging — and remains almost hostile to the idea of a narrative that Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and even Donald Trump seem to craft so naturally.

But after Schwerin and Sullivan pushed back, telling her they believed “Breaking Down Barriers” was her best chance at turning things around, and Chelsea piped up and took their side, a skeptical Clinton agreed that if Schwerin wrote it up into a speech, she would give it a shot in her concession speech that night.

Today, campaign officials credit that framework with stabilizing the campaign during the darkest days of the primary — and even Clinton eventually agreed to make it her rubric as the primary headed toward the South.

In truth, the concept was fine but not great. “Breaking Down Barriers didn’t set the country on fire, but it gave us a construct and argument,” said a top Clinton official. “It was a way of focusing ourselves.”

But it’s also deeper than just a speechwriting problem — it's about how the most experienced person to ever run for the White House continues to struggle with one of the most basic parts of the job: committing to a message that helps establish a general sense of affection from the electorate.

Clinton is fortunate in that the problem is diminished in this year’s general election — campaigning as the anti-Trump has quickly consolidated Democratic support over the past six weeks. And she has connected, at moments, with the history-making aspect of her run, speaking emotionally about the influence of her mother, Dorothy Rodham.

But the struggle continues as she tries to find her voice — one day preaching a mantra of “love and kindness,” the next positioning herself as a street fighter. And it falls on Schwerin, Sullivan and their speechwriting team, whose daily assignment is to craft speeches for a reluctant candidate who would feel more comfortable giving a policy seminar.

Now Clinton confronts one of the biggest speeches of her campaign to date: the convention address, where she will accept the party nomination. Democrats close to the campaign said she can probably slide by with a paint-by-numbers anti-Trump screed. But they’re hoping she is able to do something more — to articulate a message that makes her something more than "likeable enough."

But even the more methodical and wonky Clinton seems to understand the need for something bigger than herself, and beyond dry policy details, on convention night.

Ahead of her speech on the night she clinched the Democratic nomination, for instance, Clinton told Schwerin to capture some of what she saw on rope lines across the country: fathers bringing their daughters to witness history. "Bigger," was her main feedback, draft after draft. She wanted the speech to to stand apart from any standard primary night victory speech. It was Schwerin who suggested using her mother, Dorothy Rodham, as the emotional core of the address, which Clinton latched onto.

The general election slogan, “Stronger Together,” will be the binding theme of her convention address, aides said. The challenge for Schwerin in the coming weeks will be how to put meat on those bones.

“Hillary’s challenge is to make ‘stronger together’ more than a bumper sticker or a tagline for an ad,” Favreau said. “She has to own it. She has to make it hers. And that means vividly and passionately painting a picture of what ‘stronger together’ looks like for America. ‘Change We Can Believe In’ by itself was nothing to write home about. It only worked because Obama was always ready with specific examples, policies, and stories that helped illustrate what change really meant.”

USA Today to Sanders: Sorry, Losers Don't Get to Write the Rules.

I have laid off Bernie Sanders lately, but the man is truly annoying me - especially in my irritable post-hand surgery condition.  Despite having NO WAY to secure the nomination, especially in the wake of the FBI and Justice Department decisions that no indictments are to be made in the Clinton e-mail "scandal,"  Sanders just doesn't grasp the concept of losers not getting to set the rules.  I am increasingly coming to believe that Sanders' ego - and level of delusion? - is far worse than that of Donald Trump.  The editorial board at USA Today have apparently reached at state such as my own.  In an editorial, they slay Sanders and make the case that his Kool-Aid drinking followers cannot seem to grasp.  Here are highlights:

Bernie Sanders and the Golden State Warriors have something in common. They both finished second this year. The Warriors lost in the NBA finals to theCleveland Cavaliers, four games to three. And Sanders lost to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries by a tally of 15.8 million votes to 12 million, or 2,220 pledged delegates to 1,831.

But the runners-up are different in one respect. So far as we know, the Warriors have not demanded the firing of NBA CommissionerAdam Silver, or rules changes that would benefit its peerless perimeter shooter,Stephen Curry. (Instead, they worked within the free-agent system and signed superstar Kevin Durant on Monday.)

Sanders, on the other hand, has made a string of demands in the run-up to the Democratic convention later this month in Philadelphia. . . . . he's calling for open primaries and an end to superdelegates.

Sanders should not be dismissed out of hand, but nor should the Democratic Party bend over backward to accommodate him. He has little standing to make his case, having spent a lifetime in politics as an independent. He is asking for what previous second-place finishers did not. And, having lost the nomination, he will have decreasing sway over his supporters, many of whom are growing increasingly edgy about the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency.

What’s more, his list of demands on the platform could push the party too far to the left for its own good. A national $15 minimum wage could be devastating to rural areas. And his call for opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership would put the party at odds with President Obama.

Moreover, Sanders' demands on the mechanics of elections are selective, incomplete and self-serving. Take his call for open primaries, which allow people to ask for any party's ballot, no matter how they are registered. These play to Sanders' strengths because his anti-establishment views appealed to many independents. But they might not be in the best interest of the party. While Sanders did well with independent voters, so did Trump, suggesting that it might not always be progressives like the senator from Vermont who take advantage of open primaries.

Noticeably absent from Sanders’ list is a call for Democrats to replace their caucuses in 13 states, three territories and the District of Columbia with primary elections. Caucuses are by far the most undemocratic element of the nomination process. They disenfranchise people who work at night, have small children or otherwise can’t take a couple hours out of their schedules. . . . And he won big in caucus states he would have won narrowly in a primary.

Ultimately, Democrats should act in ways they think will help their candidates in the future, not let the second-place guy call the shots.

Did Conventions Put Obama in Front-Runner’s Position?

Click image to enlarge

Numbers cruncher and statistical analyst Nate Silver suggest that the back to back GOP and Democratic conventions may have pushed Barack Obama into the front runner position.  There is certainly no question that the two conventions highlighted the alternate universe that is today's GOP versus the Democratic Party.  Whether or not the apparent Obama lead will hold is anyone's guess, but the data suggests that the GOP attempt to portray Mitt Romney as anything other than a cold, money loving, arrogant man who knows - and worse yet cares - nothing about the lives of most Americans.  He and Ann Romney are truly today's would be Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.  Here are highlights from Nate Silver's piece in the New York Times:

On Friday, we began to see reasonably clear signs that President Obama would receive some kind of bounce in the polls from the Democratic convention.

Mr. Obama had another strong day in the polls on Saturday, making further gains in each of four national tracking polls. The question now is not whether Mr. Obama will get a bounce in the polls, but how substantial it will be.

Some of the data, in fact, suggests that the conventions may have changed the composition of the race, making Mr. Obama a reasonably clear favorite as we enter the stretch run of the campaign.

On Saturday, Mr. Obama extended his advantage to three points from two points in the Gallup national tracking poll, and to four points from two in an online survey conducted by Ipsos. He pulled ahead of Mitt Romney by two points in the Rasmussen Reports tracking poll, reversing a one-point deficit in the edition of the poll published on Friday.

A fourth tracking poll, conducted online by the RAND Corporation’s American Life Panel, had Mr. Obama three percentage points ahead of Mr. Romney in the survey it published early Saturday morning; the candidates had been virtually tied in the poll on Friday. (The RAND survey has an interesting methodology — we’ll explore it more in a separate post.)

The gains that Mr. Obama has made in these tracking polls over the past 48 hours already appear to match or exceed the ones that Mr. Romney made after his convention. The odds, however, are that Mr. Obama has some further room to grow.

Obviously, I hope the bounce for Obama grows since, in my view, it is critical that the GOP in its current state must be defeated in November for the good of the country.  It is far past time that angry white evangelicals be impacting the future of the country.  

Obama's Convention Bump

Click image to enlarge

While Mitt Romney seems to have received little or no bump from the GOP convention, so far Obama has seen a positive bump upward in his approval rating.  As Andrew Sullivan notes as follows:

Gallup's tracking poll of Obama's job approval has shifted more dramatically than in a long time - and we won't see the full impact of the DNC - especially Obama's speech - for a while. But Gallup is striking, especially, because, as I've noted before, this election it has tended to be more Republican-leaning than other polls:

A nine point lead yesterday is a ten point lead today. It looks as if the Democrats told a more convincing story than the Republicans. Even Rasmussen, a fully-fledged GOP-leaning outfit, shows Obama's ratings going from 46 - 54 disapprove to 49 - 50 disapprove in the last three days - a big swing toward Obama of seven points.

What does this mean for the race? It's still too early, but it's beginning to look as if the RNC may have brought down the prospects of the Republican nominee. Here's Gallup's tracking poll of the race in August through to today:

Click image to enlarge

 Obviously, given the two parties different views on the very essence of my life and my loves, I hope Obama and the Democrats continue to move upward.

Gay Democrats' New Visibility

While little has changed in the GOP political world for gay Americans - we are still viewed and treated as a threat to morality and even Western civilization - it has been nothing short of a revolution for gays involved in Democratic political circles.  This bold new world was highly visible at the just ended Democratic convention in Charlotte.  Even in Virginia (hardly a state in the forefront of anything progressive) one can see the change and the boyfriend and I have often been sought out to be on host committees as an openly gay couple.   I'm sure that in local GOP circles that include anti-gay bigots like Scott Rigell, George Allen and Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli we'd be directed to hide our unfortunate "lifestyle choice" assuming we were self-loathing enough to support a political party that seeks to stigmatize us and keep us legally inferior.  A piece in the New York Times looks at the new world of Democratic political activism.  Here are excerpts:

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — After years of struggling for attention and recognition from the nation’s political parties, gays and lesbians have catapulted to the forefront of the Democratic convention here, prominent on the stage, in speeches, in the platform and at parties that go on after the proceedings have finished.

The turnaround has surprised even gay leaders, who just four years ago were frustrated in their attempt to get same-sex marriage mentioned in prime time. Many spent the first two years of the Obama presidency criticizing President Obama for failing to move to fulfill a campaign promise to eliminate the ban on gays serving openly in the military. 

Eric Marcus, an author who has written extensively about gay history, said: “I used to think I was bold in being as out as I am, but now I feel like our straight supporters have zoomed past me in their enthusiasm and their out-ness about being pro-gay. They’re actually wearing their pro-gay agenda as a badge of honor. What a transformed world from my youth.” 

One of the Democrats’ first acts was adopting a party platform that for the first time endorsed same-sex marriage. Gay rights — whether they be same-sex marriage, the lifting of the ban on gays in the military, or anti-discrimination measures — have been mentioned in nearly every speech, including one by Michelle Obama.

The higher profile of gays extended beyond the arena. It was not uncommon to see same-sex couples walking hand in hand down Tryon Street, in the heart of Uptown. Parties sponsored by gay and lesbian groups have become as sought after as the ones sponsored by Google and by the Illinois delegation. 

The contrast with the Republican convention last week in Florida was striking. In Tampa, there were no openly gay people speaking from the stage, and minimal discussion of gay issues, though there were small contingents of gay delegates and celebrations in more obscure venues. That said, gay delegates there noted that unlike past conventions, there was no chorus of attacks on gay rights from the stage. 

There's much more in the article, but the highlights above make the point: with the younger up and coming generations supporting LGBT rights and same sex marriage by large majorities, the Democrats seem to have eagerly grasps the future whereas the GOP remains mired in trying to recreate a past that in many ways never really existed.  By focusing almost solely on the demands of angry white conservatives (many of whom will have literally have died off in a little more than a decade, the GOP to me seems to have a death wish.

Democrats: Gay Is Good for America

As a gay America, one thing that was striking about the Democrat Party convention was the end of the reluctance of the party to openly admit that LGBT Americans exist.  Even more, the repeated references to LGBT rights even suggests that addressing our existence and rights is good politics.  Unlike the GOP which is controlled by hate and fear driven Christofascists, the Democrats seem to understand that society is changing and that the younger generations are fully on board for LGBT equality.  A piece in Slate looks at this phenomenon.  Here are excerpts:

More than a dozen speakers mentioned LGBT equality on the first two nights of the Democratic convention, including Michelle Obama, who positioned marriage equality as a new ingredient of American greatness: “If proud Americans can be who they are and boldly stand at the altar with who they love, then surely, surely we can give everyone in this country a fair chance at that great American Dream.” Openly gay speakers are getting primetime billing. A record-setting 8 percent of delegates are LGBT. The party’s unprecedented embrace of gay equality comes a week after Joe Biden thanked gay rights advocates in Provincetown for “freeing the soul of the American people.” The gay rights movement, said the vice president, was advancing the “civil rights of every straight American.” For gay people’s “courage,” he said, “We owe you.”

There you have it: For the first time ever, Democrats at their most public, high-profile moment are treating gay rights as a political winner. They’re moving along with public opinion: In the latest Harris Interactive poll, 52 percent of likely voters favored same-sex marriage, including 70 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents.

Instead, equality is increasingly—and correctly—cast as a means of improving not only the lot of minorities, but the country for us all. New York magazine recently reported the trend of a growing number of straight couples quoting gay marriage court decisions in their own wedding ceremonies. Expanding access appears to be rejuvenating rather than destroying the institution. As Slate reported earlier this year, statistics bear this out. The marriage rate in Massachusetts, the first state to allow gay couples to wed, actually went up in the years same-sex marriage became legal, even adjusting for the initial 16 percent increase caused by pent-up demand by gay couples waiting to wed. What’s more, in each of the five states that legalized same-sex marriage starting in 2004, divorce rates dropped even while the average rate across the country rose. These figures give the lie to breathless warnings that same-sex marriage will harm marriage.

Equal rights fosters openness, which has positive fallout of its own. There are no doubt fewer sham marriages than there were in the 1950s. Gay-straight friendships are more authentic without a lifelong secret blocking discussion about love and intimacy. Straight men are likely more forgiving of their own nonconformist impulses—perhaps including passing same-sex desires. Parents have fewer estranged relations with sons and daughters whose deepest secrets and fears they once could never know, and whose struggles with depression and loneliness they sought in vain to understand.

The principle that minority equality helps the majority was one of Martin Luther King Jr.’s most important insights during the black civil rights movement. “The stirring lesson of this age,” King declared, “is that mass nonviolent direct action is not a peculiar device for Negro agitation,” but a “method for defending freedom and democracy, and for enlarging these values for the benefit of the whole society.”

There's much more to the piece and it is worth a full read.

Reflections on Obama's Acceptance Speech

Some were underwhelmed by Barack Obama's acceptance speech last night I suspect largely because he did not lay out his proposed agenda for the next four years.  The problem, of course, is that unless the Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives, it will be difficult to implement any plans Obama may have.  Thus, on the one hand, laying out an agenda, the GOP obstructionists would only have a road map in advance for their future efforts to screw over Obama and the nation.   But, more details of what he hopes to accomplish might have helped win over the undecided voter element in the electorate.  

One Obama did accomplish is to lay out the stark night and day difference between to GOP vision of the future - e.g., an attempt to return to the 1950's with gays, minorities and woman clearly subordinate and a reprise of the policies that got the country into the economic mess from which it is still struggling to recover -  and a vastly more future looking Democrat approach that includes and embrace of science and knowledge rather than religion and ignorance.  For me, it's a no brainer as to which vision I support.

Another aspect of the contrasts between the two parties' conventions is the lily white aspects of the GOP convention versus the Democrats who included everyone.  It offends and sickens me that the Republican Party despite it's disingenuous effort to show case a handful of blacks and Hispanics is in fact in the final analysis a white Christianist party.  Others are not welcomed despite the false images that were floated in Tampa.  I have a nephew about to marry a young woman of Asian descent and I have a niece engaged to a wonderful Hispanic man.  That these two amazing young Americans are viewed as foreigners or "not Americans' in the eyes of the GOP is beyond disturbing to me.  Add in what the GOP platform would do to LGBT Americans and women and I see today's GOP as nothing less than a menace.

Yes, Obama's speech could have been more, but he and the rest of the Democrat speakers made a clear case of the two visions voters have to choose from.  I hope they embrace the Democrat vision.  If they don't and Romney/Ryan triumph, I question whether this country will be a place I want to live in.  It will certainly be a crueler and less compassionate country and most of us will be the losers.

Marriage Equality Goes Prime Time

For LGBT Americans the contrast between the GOP convention and platform and those of the Democrats cannot be more stark.  The Republican view of the future has LGBT citizens remaining stigmatized, our relationships threatened by a GOP federal marriage amendment and we remain subject to firing from our jobs at will for who we are, and we remain denied the 1000 benefits awarded to heterosexual couples via the word "marriage."  In the Democrat view of the future, we have full equality and employment non-discrimination protections.  Indeed, the GOP offers a nightmarish alternate universe for LGBT Americans compared to the Democrats.  Yet amazingly, I continue to see on Facebook and elsewhere LGBT individuals who say they "like" Mittt Romney and/or Paul Ryan.  How can you like someone who wants to forever keep you inferior and subject to discrimination.  I simply don't understand the mindset.  Or are these folks just stunningly uninformed?  A column in the New York Times looks at how the Democrats have taken the support for equality prime time if you will.  Here are excerpts:

In light of my Sunday column on how thoroughly prime-time speakers at the Republican National Convention ignored the issue of same-sex marriage, I thought I should note the repeated mentions of it on the first night of the Democratic National Convention here in Charlotte.

I thought I should also note something else that occurred to me this morning, as I revisited speakers’ comments on the matter. Although the Democratic Party’s platform for the first time this year has a plank advocating marriage equality, three prominent speakers who nodded to that – Michelle Obama; Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio; and Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts – did so in glancing fashions.

And with a consistency that can’t have been accidental, all three sidestepped the words “gay” or “lesbian” or the initials LGBT, unless my electronic search of the transcripts of their remarks is in error.
It was an intriguing suggestion that while Democrats are increasingly lining up in support of marriage equality, which has been championed over the last two years by the Democratic governors of the states of New York, Washington and Maryland, they still believe it must be framed in careful ways, with careful language. They’re perhaps still concerned that they not come across as too fixated on this issue or too beholden to identity politics or, well, too liberal.

The trend the author noted continued last night  suggesting that even our supporters at times see us as still semi-radioactive.  But the Democrat approach is still far preferable to that of the Republicans who allowed portions of their party platform to be written by the likes of hate group leader Tony Perkins (who also has an affection for white supremacists).  The column author summed it it up thus:

I was trying to make an observation that I stand by: the issue of same-sex marriage remains sensitive enough, and some voters’ comfort with the rising visibility and acceptance of LGBT Americans remains shaky enough, that even supportive politicians often enter this area with some degree of caution, making precise decisions about diction. And I think that’s part of what you saw and heard on the convention stage in Charlotte last night.

My primary response to the brief references to same-sex marriage was gratitude. My secondary response was excitement. A fascination with the details and flavor of those references was maybe my tertiary response. And my post about it was meant to be an analysis, not a complaint.

I too feel gratitude and hope that LGBT youth around the country take note that the Democrats (i) take note of their existence in a positive way and (ii) support their happiness and the worth of their lives.  Would that the Christofascist controlled GOP would do likewise.

Bill Clinton's Speech Taking Down Romney

Bill Clinton just did a masterful job of calling Mitt Romney (and Paul Ryan) a liar.  No mincing of words, simply calling him out for telling deliberate lies.  It gets directly to the issues of the hypocrisy and betrayal of the Gospel message by the Republicans that drives me crazy.  Andrew Sullivan has some good bullet points in his live blogging.  Here is a sampling:

[B]y being a former president and exposing the shameless lies perpetrated by Romney, especially on welfare reform, he was able to say things no one else could. I don't buy the argument that Obama is more liberal than Clinton and never have. But for those who do, tonight was a brilliant reminder of the things that unite them. 

11.18 pm. Republicanism today is failed arithmetic. Clinton is really bringing this home - intellectually. It is not a series of platitudes; it is a series of arguments rebutting last week's entire convention arguments. It has far more policy substance than Romney's or Ryan's speeches. And it has the added benefit of being true.

11.15 pm. Clinton is now equating Obama's plan with Bowles-Simpson. And when you spell out the Romney plan as it exists, it does not add up. And it's perverse. Cutting revenues as a way to cut debt when revenues are at 50 year lows is not a policy. It's madness.

11.11 pm. Now the important passage on Romney's massive welfare lie. The requirement was for more work, not less. Bill Clinton is the perfect man to rebut this lie. I wonder if it will have some serious blowback for Romney. A former president has called him out on a clear lie.

11.10 pm. Now he's telling seniors that slashing Medicaid means slashing home-care for the elderly.

10.51 pm. Clinton's summary of Republican malfeasance these past four years is simply liberating. Liberating because it is true: their moral and intellectual and political degeneracy is our biggest challenge. And he is directly comparing his re-election to Obama's. And he's being as honest as he can: no one could have repaired the full damage of the 2008 crash in four years - but the green shoots are there.

10.49 pm. Genius: "We left him a total mess and he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough so we should get back into power".

 
I haven't always liked Bill Clinton, but he did a wonderful job of exposing the abject lives that are the norm in today's GOP and the Romney-Ryan campaign.

Michelle Obama's Devatating Speech

Last night, Michelle Obama's speech did a masterful job of highlighting the difference between the GOP and Democrat Party views of social justice and moving the country and all Americans forward.  What was masterful was the way that she repeatedly slammed to GOP and Mitt Romney without ever uttering Romney's name.  By the end of her speech, it was obvious how out of touch Mitt Romney - and Ann Romney - and Paul Ryan are coming from wealthy families and that the GOP wants to take the country back to a time when a handful of the very wealthy lived like kings and most everyone else struggled to merely survive.  A Washington Post column lays out how her speech was so effective.  Here are highlights:

The most devastating attack on Mitt Romney at Tuesday’s Democratic Convention came from Michelle Obama, who did not mention Romney’s name and said not a single cross thing about him.

She devastated him by implication. If Romney was the son of privilege, she and her husband were anything but. What she said directly is that Barack Obama understands people who are struggling. What she didn’t have to say is Mitt Romney doesn’t.

As a general matter, her speech was a big hit: good enough that even Fox News was kind to her. But the specific stories — about her father working through the pain of multiple sclerosis, about the debts she and her husband accumulated from college — served a powerful campaign purpose. A speech that was thoroughly apolitical on the surface carried multiple political messages, linking a very traditional message about parenting with a call for social justice.

Among the many messages here: Her dad was awesome; he was also a traditional father; and, more broadly, people who receive government aid can be, usually are, very responsible citizens.

Oh yes, and she also said that for husband, “success isn’t about how much money you make, it’s about the difference you make in people’s lives.” Did any other presidential candidate come to mind as perhaps having a contrasting approach? Michelle Obama was much too polite to say. She didn’t have to.

Another Washington Post carried a similar theme.  Here are a few excerpts: 

It’s not that Michelle Obama said anything about Mitt Romney. She didn’t even mention his name. Not once. But in one section of her lively and well-delivered primetime speech to the Democratic National Convention Tuesday night, line after line was weighted with biting implications about Romney’s character – and his suitability to serve as president.

She argued that presidents makes hard calls by referring to their values, and Barack Obama has the ones you want. They also happen to be values that Romney isn’t widely reputed to hold,

Michelle Obama wasn’t just saying that her husband is like you. She was implying that Romney is not like you. 

Though this was just one section of a much larger address, the politics of this rhetorical ballet make some sense – polls show that one of the president’s greatest assets is that Americans like him personally, and that one of Romney’s greatest weaknesses is that Americans don’t like him so much.

Please don't think I am saying that Mitt and Ann Romney and Paul Ryan are bad people.  I just firmly believe that they are not the right people to be leading this nation.  Social mobility is dropping in America while increasing elsewhere, yet this individuals and their policies would make matters worse.  Millions of Americans are struggling and going without, yet their policies would take from the working poor and the middle class.  This isn't the America that I believe in.     Moreover, it's not consistent with the Gospel message, yet the GOP falsely wraps itself in religiosity.