Rand Paul vs. Rand Paul - Past Statements Come Back to Haunt

I never cease to be amazed at how politicians - especially Republicans - seem to have amnesia about their past statements and positions, especially when they have been caught on video tape. (I always love it when Rachel Maddow plays contrasting tapes that raise the question of when are these politicians lying - back then or now).  Rand Paul is getting pummeled in his effort to position himself for a presidential run by of all things, his own past statements.  I appreciate Paul's efforts to somewhat shake up the GOP agenda, but at some point consistency and honesty would be nice. And he's not even trying to admit that he has "evolved" or had an epiphany.  Politico looks at Paul's stumbling over himself.  Here are excerpts:

Rand Paul’s future is being chased by Rand Paul’s past.

Followers of the Kentucky senator have noticed shifts in the way the libertarian-leaning Republican and likely 2016 contender has positioned himself on a variety of hot-button topics — from aid to Israel to immigration to the Civil Rights Act.

Indeed, Paul today sounds different than the Paul who ran for Senate in 2010. While Paul is not the first politician to “evolve” on issues, the contrast in tone shows the differences between mounting an anti-establishment senatorial bid in a fiercely red state and being taken seriously as his party decides its next nominee for president.

His convictions haven’t changed,” Paul spokesperson Dan Bayens told POLITICO. “He realized you don’t get everything you want, especially with Democrats in control of the Senate.”

Bayens, who declined to comment on most of the specific issues, added, “What I’d say is people misinterpret what he says. He’d like to get 100 percent of something. Maybe he offers legislation to get 90 percent. He’s not changing his position, necessarily.”

Immigration

The upstart senatorial campaign of Rand Paul had plans that called for an underground electric fence to stem the tide of undocumented immigrants over the border and deplored the idea of amnesty “in any form,” according to a May 2010 release on his now-shuttered 2010 campaign website. In June 2010, he told conservative blog Right Wing News that he supported a constitutional amendment to ban citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants.

Three years later, Paul offered a different solution, although he still advocated linking reform to securing the border.

“For those who are here who are undocumented, should we give them a legal status? Should we document them so they can pay taxes and live legally and come out of the shadows? To that I say yes,” he said on PBS’ “NewsHour” in June 2013. Once immigrants were documented, he said they could be put in the same “line” as those waiting to come in from other countries.

In April, Paul advocated for working visas for undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. at the Institute of Politics in the University of Chicago, according to conservative site Breitbart News.

Civil Rights Act

Paul’s 2010 comments about the Civil Rights Act have repeatedly come back to haunt him.

“I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners — I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant — but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership,” Paul said in an interview with the editorial board of The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Kentucky.  In May 2010, on “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Paul said he would have tried to modify the Civil Rights Act had he been in the Senate at the time.

Fast forward to his speech at Howard University in 2013. There, Paul said that there was “one interview that had a long, extended conversation about the ramifications beyond race, and I have been concerned about the ramifications of certain portions of the Civil Rights Act beyond race.”

The Washington Post gave him three Pinocchios and dubbed the Howard remarks “rewriting history.”

Donations from lawmakers who voted for TARP

Notoriously anti-bailout since the beginning of his Senate bid, Paul released a statement via his campaign website in September 2009 that said he would not accept donations from anyone who voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, according to local Kentucky CBS-affiliate WKYT. The pledge was since removed, the Associated Press reported in 2010.

But once Paul won his primary over GOP favorite and Kentucky state treasurer Trey Grayson, he attended a fundraiser hosted by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The AP also reported that nine of the 12 GOP senators on the invite voted for the bailout.

There's more, but you get the drift.  Paul's opponents will have great fun with his past video clips. :)

Obama Ties LBJ's Civil Rights Legacy to LGBT Americans

In a speech at the Civil Rights Summit at Johnson's presidential library in Austin this week marking the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act, Barack Obama tied the civil rights legislation spearheaded by Lyndon B. Johnson with today's struggle for full LGBT equality.  While the Christofascists - and their trained circus dog minions within the ranks of black pastors - disingenuously whine that the civil rights movement of the 1960's is not synonymous with push for legal equality and non-discrimination protections for LGBT citizens, it is telling that the ancestors of today's hate merchants similarly used the Bible to justify racism and anti-black discrimination.  MetroWeekly looks at Obama's comments (which sadly would be more meaningful and believable if Obama would sign an executive order ENDA).  Here are highlights:

President Barack Obama embraced Lyndon B. Johnson's civil rights legacy Thursday in a speech that credited the former president with helping to open the doors to equality for countless Americans, including those who are LGBT. 

"Because of the Civil Rights movement, because of the laws President Johnson signed, new doors of opportunity and education swung open for everybody -- not all at once, but they swung open," Obama said. "Not just blacks and whites, but also women and Latinos; and Asians and Native Americans; and gay Americans and Americans with a disability. They swung open for you, and they swung open for me. And that’s why I'm standing here today -- because of those efforts, because of that legacy."

Obama's speech at the Civil Rights Summit at Johnson's presidential library in Austin marking the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act was not the first time the nation's first African-American president has tied the Civil Rights movement to the LGBT-rights movement.

"We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall," Obama said during his second inaugural address, repeating a phrase he used during a Barnard College commencement speech in May 2012.

When Obama marked the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington last August, he said that those who came to Washington in 1963 pushed the nation forward. "Because they marched, America became more free and more fair -- not just for African Americans, but for women and Latinos, Asians and Native Americans; for Catholics, Jews, and Muslims; for gays, for Americans with a disability," Obama said. "America changed for you and for me."

Where Obama has come up short — in refusing to sign an executive order protecting LGBT federal contractors from workplace discrimination — he has faced heightened criticism, in large part because of how out of character it is from his broader civil rights record. That proposed executive order, which Obama once supported as a candidate for president in 2008, is based on Executive Order 11246, which has been expanded by a number of presidents to prohibit federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

In light of the setting for Obama's speech today, it is worth noting that executive order was first signed by President Johnson.
 
Obama's LGBT-rights legacy is certainly not lost on the president. And arguably nor is the work left to be done.

I am not ungrateful for the pro-gay things that Obama has done, but it would indeed be nice if he followed through on something he pledged to do 8six years ago.

ON ENDA Obama Throws Gays Under the Bus Yet Again

As noted before,while marriage equality is important, also critically important in 29 states is the utter lack of employment protections.   Despite calls from LGBT advocates and Democrat members of Congress, Barack Obama continues sit with his thumb up his ass on his hands when it comes to protecting LGBT employees - notwithstanding his promise six years ago(that's right, six years ago) that he'd sign an ENDA executive order if elected to the White House.  Now, to add insult to injury, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the administration believes the executive order would be “redundant” if ENDA passed into law.   Never mind that ENDA doesn't have a snow ball's chance in Hell of passing the GOP controlled House of Representatives.  With important elections in November, it is once again time to send Obama a message that, if he wants gays to rally for the Democrats, we want something in return.  It's a message that I will tell Mark Warner and others tonight to their face if I see them at tonight's Commonwealth Dinner event.   Think Progress looks at Carney's insulting and ridiculous statement:

In 2008, then-candidate Obama pledged that if elected president, he would use an executive order to protect the LGBT employees of all federal contractors from discrimination. After several years of pressure from LGBT advocacy groups, the Obama administration still refuses to act on this executive order, explaining that it would prefer that Congress pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

Advocates have called for both, but this Thursday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told the Washington Blade that the administration believes the executive order would be “redundant” if ENDA passed into law. When the Blade pointed out that the executive order would protect people that ENDA would not, Carney stayed committed to the administration’s ENDA-only position, calling such other possibilities of discrimination “hypothetical.”

In reality, the two would work in conjunction. On its own, the executive order would extend protections to an estimated 11 to 16 million employees of federal contractors who are not already protected by their companies. Though ENDA would extend to all public and private employers instead of just contractors, the executive order would still protect many workers that ENDA wouldn’t. There are at least two significant reasons why ENDA — watered down after decades of haggling — and a nondiscrimination executive order would not be “redundant.”

First, ENDA does not cover small businesses. In its current form, passed by the Senate in November, the bill defines “employer” as a business that has “15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” This means that there are many small businesses that would be totally exempt from the protections ENDA extends to LGBT employees. Any such business that provided at least $10,000 of service to the federal government, however, would be bound by the expectations of an executive order, regardless of how many employees work there daily.

Secondly, ENDA has a glaring religious exemption that would allow many organizations and some businesses to continue discriminating against LGBT employees. . . . Thus, ENDA would still allow religious corporations and schools, for example, to either refuse employment because of someone’s LGBT identity, or condition employment on conformity to anti-LGBT doctrine. Any such organization that was also a federal contractor, however, would be bound by an executive order to not discriminate.

All of the major LGBT organizations that the Blade reached out to disagreed with Carney’s description of the executive order, including the Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, and Freedom To Work. In particular, Freedom to Work pointed out that an executive order would allow the Labor Department to proactively investigate companies for discrimination, whereas ENDA would only provide relief after a victim of discrimination files a complaint.

[N]ot only would an LGBT nondiscrimination order protect millions of employees until Congress passes ENDA — which House Speaker John Boehner says won’t be happening this year — it would continue to protect many employees that would not be covered by ENDA.

In the meantime, it remains legal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in 29 states and on the basis of gender identity in 32 states (once Maryland’s new law takes effect).

Still No Progress on ENDA Executive Order

While same sex couples are seemingly making steady progress on the gay marriage front, the same cannot be said for workplace non-discrimination protections.  It remains perfectly legal in 29 states to fire LGBT employees at will and the employees have no legal recourse.  NONE. ZERO.  And at the federal level, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act remains dead in Congress thanks to the GOP controlled House of Representatives. Meanwhile, at the White House, despite calls from 200 members of Congress, Barack Obama continues to resist signing an ENDA executive order that would apply to government contractors. The Washington Blade looks at the situation.  Here are excerpts:

Despite a letter this week signed by nearly 200 congressional Democrats calling on President Obama to take administrative action on behalf of LGBT workers, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney had no updates Wednesday on a potential executive order barring anti-LGBT discrimination among federal contractors.

Under questioning from the Washington Blade, Carney reiterated the position he’s stated numerous times that Obama is focused on passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act through Congress as a means to protect LGBT workers.

“The fact is that legislation, which has moved in the Senate, if it were to be passed by the full Congress and signed into law would have the greatest benefit when it comes to ensuring the rights of LGBT individuals,” Carney said.

Blade: But what makes you think that legislation should be the only course of action if lawmakers in Congress are saying that the president should issue an executive order as they pursue legislation?

Carney: Again, Chris, I just don’t have any new information to provide to you about our views on this, which we have discussed many times. There is no question, I think, in anyone’s mind that the passage of legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, would provide those protections broadly in a way the EO would not.

And as I’ve said before, opposition to that legislation is contrary to the tide of history and those lawmakers who oppose this will find, in the not too distant future, that they made a grave mistake and that they will regret it.

Blade: One last very important question on this. The letter takes note that “time is of the essence” because after an executive order is signed, full implementation will require a process that last many months, if not longer. Do you deny there’s a limited time for the president to exercise this option before time’s up at the end of his administration?

Carney: Chris, I’m not even sure there’s a question there, but I’ll point you to my previous answer.

Meanwhile, people continue to be fired  daily and have their lives turned upside down It is time for Obama to stop the double talk and sign an executive order.  This is a very important issue to me since I was forced out of a law firm for being gay and destroyed financially.  The vast majority of Americans support such employment protections yet Obama refuses to act.

Obama Adviser Claims An ENDA Executive Order Is Again "Under Consideration"

With John "I'm a Douche Bag" Boehner stating that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a/k/a ENDA, will go nowhere in the GOP controlled House of Representatives, pressure is again mounting on Barack Obama to issue and Executive Order banning discrimination based on sexual orientation which would be binding on the federal government and perhaps more importantly all government contractors.  In the Hampton Roads area, such an order would have significant impact given the area's high number of defense contractors.  Now, White House counselor John Podesta says such an order is under active consideration.  Here are highlights from the Washington Blade:

In a departure from previous public comments from the Obama administration, White House counselor John Podesta said on Friday an executive order barring LGBT discrimination among federal contractors is “under consideration.”

During an interview with Bloomberg News’ Al Hunt, Podesta made the remarks when asked if President Obama would issue a heavily sought-after executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

“Well, what he said in the State of the Union was he was going to require federal contractors to pay a minimum wage of $10.10,” Podesta said. “The order that you’re talking about is under consideration at the White House. We’re looking at that.”

Asked by Hunt what Obama is likely to do, Podesta said, “Well, you know, I’m not going to prejudge that.”

Podesta’s assertion the executive order is “under consideration” is consistent with an email from Democratic National Committee Treasurer Andy Tobias leaked to the Washington Blade in June in which he said a “process” is holding up the directive. It’s also consistent with a one-time statement from White House spokesperson Shin Inouye that the administration “continue[s] to study the issue.”

Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, welcomed the comments from Podesta, but said the time for consideration of the executive order is over.

“It’s great to hear Mr. Podesta say that the LGBT executive order is still under consideration at the White House, and I know that many LGBT organizations plan to keep pushing until this long overdue campaign promise becomes a reality,” Almeida said. “But I don’t think there’s anything left to study or consider: both Republican and Democratic presidents before President Obama have signed orders banning discrimination at federal contractors and they’ve always been upheld in the courts. This order fits perfectly with the White House plans for a ‘year of action,’ and the time to sign is now.”

I agree: Obama needs to stop contemplating his navel and procrastinating and act.  Sign the executive order now!!

Obama Under Pressure on Gay Rights

As noted before on this blog, I feel that 2013 is a reprise of 2009 when Obama and the national Democrats gave the Democrat base little reason to be motivated and enthusiastic.  The result here in Virginia was a clean GOP sweep of Virginia's statewide offices.  This year, things in Virginia are even more frightening with the GOP slate comprised of some of the most extreme - and out right insane - slate in Virginia history.  One of the issues where Obama and the national Democrats dropped the ball in 2009 was on gay rights issues.  Fast forward to 2013 and it's the same landscape all over again.  And, if the U.S. Supreme Court, fails to strike down DOMA or rules narrowly on same sex marriage, Obama will be facing an open revolt combined with a motivation by gays to stay home on election day.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at why Obama's lip service for gay equality just isn't cutting it with many.  Pretty words are nice, but actions far more significant and motivating for elements of the Democrat base.  Here are highlights:

With the Supreme Court only days away from major rulings on same-sex marriage, President Obama faces the prospect of having to make his own difficult decisions about the definition of wedlock.

Gay rights advocates are already pressing Obama to immediately broaden the federal government’s recognition of legally married same-sex couples if the court strikes down a ban on providing federal benefits to them.

The question for Obama turns on whether the federal government should extend full benefits to gay couples living in states that don’t recognize their marriages. 

Obama would face rare, concrete decisions on the politically combustible question of same-sex marriage — an area he has largely left to the purview of courts and state legislatures.

 

Advocates have pressed the issue of benefits with White House aides in recent months, according to people familiar with the discussions. The advocates have pushed for a uniform standard that would make the most benefits available to legally married couples across the board. Officials have not signaled what Obama would do. 

Obama’s potential dilemma stems from the fact that eligibility for some federal benefits — including Social Security payments to spouses and marital tax deductions — is determined based on the marriage laws of the states where the couples live and not where they were wed.

If the Supreme Court overturns the Defense of Marriage Act, full benefits would be available to same-sex couples who marry and live in the dozen states that legally recognize their relationships. But legally married gay couples that live in states that don’t recognize their marriages would be ineligible for a range of federal benefits.

Advocates say Obama could eliminate the discrepancy with an executive order or new regulations setting a couple’s “place of celebration” as the deciding factor in whether the U.S. government recognizes a marriage for the purposes of providing benefits.

“Equal protection means that every family should have access to the same protections they need regardless of state borders,” said Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign . . . . 

As president, Obama has largely sidestepped the marriage issue. He endorsed same-sex marriage rights in the midst of his reelection campaign, spurring a flood of campaign cash from gay donors, and his administration joined in the effort to overturn the benefits provision of the Defense of Marriage Act. But Obama has said the question of legalized marriage should be left to the states.

“There will be tremendous pressure on the White House and on the president personally to move very quickly to implement the judgement and to implement it broadly,” said Richard Socarides, a longtime gay rights activist who was an adviser in the Bill Clinton White House. 

“Thirty days is what he’s got,” Socarides added. “These are real people suffering real injury. If anybody tries to argue that they need six months or a year, there are going to be riots in the streets.”

The issues raised are real.  The boyfriend and I have considered getting married in New York or Washington, D.C.  Our marriage should not evaporate the moment we travel to the south side of the Potomac River.  Obama - and the national Democrats - need to act quickly.

Will President Obama Deliver on Gay Rights?

Less than 24 hours after his inaugural speech which gave the impression that he supported nationwide marriage rights for same sex couples, Barack Obama was backtracking and reiterating that marriage is a matter which needs to be left to the states.  Of, course, in states like Virginia dominated at the state legislative level by knuckle dragging Christofascists, that means LGBT couples will have zero marriage rights for the foreseeable future.  But then again, Obama had secured the money and LGBT votes needed to carry Virginia on November 6th, so why should he worry about our fate after that?  A column in The Daily Beast looks at the issue of whether or not Obama will actually try to deliver on gay rights, or if the inaugural speech was simply pretty words that in the grander scheme meant nothing.  Here are excerpts:

When Martin Luther King Jr. spoke to the March on Washington in 1963, he used an interesting metaphor. He called “the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence ... a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.” King said he and the hundreds of thousands gathered on the Mall were there “to cash a check.”

In his second inaugural address, on the day we honor Dr. King, President Obama issued a promissory note of his own. “Our journey is not complete,” he declared without equivocation or reservation, “until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”

But almost before his words had finished resonating across the National Mall, his press secretary was walking them back. The president, he told reporters, personally supports gay marriage. But the legality of gay marriage itself? “That’s something that should be addressed by the states.” Of course, states determined the legality of interracial marriage for decades, and so the marriage of the president’s parents was illegal in 19 states. We rightly look back at that time with horror, just as our children will look back on today, when 30 states have enshrined discrimination against gays into their constitutions.

But gay-rights activists are looking for quick movement on many fronts, for there is much our president must do to honor his new promissory note:

Join the lawsuit against Proposition 8. The voters of California amended their constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. A remarkable and brave young gay activist, Chad Griffin, who now leads the Human Rights Campaign, has spearheaded an effort to overturn the action as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws.” Longtime gay-rights activist and former Clinton White House official Richard Socarides is optimistic that the Obama administration will join the lawsuit. “My own view,” he says, “is that the Justice Department and the White House press office are just catching up with the rhetoric of the speech and that the government will in the end enter the Proposition 8 case on the side of gay-rights advocates. They certainly should.”

Use his power to order federal contractors not to discriminate against their gay employees. In 1941 FDR signed an executive order prohibiting any defense contractor from discriminating based on race, creed, color, or national origin. It took 23 years for Congress to enshrine this principle in the Civil Rights Act. President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, but instead of waiting for Congress to act he should use his constitutional power to end taxpayer-subsidized discrimination against gays.

Make sure gay military spouses have the same rights and privileges as straight military spouses. This president and our remarkable first lady have done admirable work shining a light on the service and sacrifice of our nation’s true top 1 percent—the 1 percent of Americans who serve in the military—and their families. Being a military spouse is tough enough; gay spouses should not be denied benefits earned by their loved one’s service.

This president has evolved significantly on gay rights, but he has a distance to go still. If he does not move quickly and decisively, the White House mailroom may soon be filled with stones, to remind him of the promise of Stonewall.

I for one will not be holding my breath.  Every time Obama manages to make me feel like he truly cares about gay Americans,  he then quickly does something to show me that he's actually a cynical politician.  It would be nice to be proven wrong on this assessment this time around.

Is Obama Already Waffling on Support for Marriage Equality

Not much more than 24 hours after his soaring inaugural address Barack Obama seems to already be waffling on his support for marriage equality and seems to be running back towards his previous claim that marriage should be left to the states - a policy, which if followed years ago would see anti-miscegenation laws still enforced in parts of the South.  Sadly, it is the type of conduct that we saw over and over again during Obama's first term.  I for one had hoped that he had moved on and grown a spine.  Apparently not.  Here are highlights from the Washington Blade:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney maintained on Tuesday that President Obama’s LGBT remarks in his inaugural speech weren’t an attempt to nationalize the issue of marriage.

“The President believes that it’s an issue that should be addressed by the states,” Carney said in response to a question from Politico’s Reid Epstein.

Mainstream media outlets asked Carney several questions to clarify Obama’s views on marriage because of the LGBT references he made in his inaugural address, which included an assertion that “our gay brothers and sisters” should be treated equally under the law “for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”

NBC News’ Kristen Welker was first to ask whether the remarks — which suggested a national call to support marriage equality — represent a shift in Obama’s way of thinking from his previous position that marriage should be left to the states and not handled at the federal level.

“The President’s position on this has been clear in terms of his personal views,” Carney replied. “He believes that individuals who love each other should not be barred from marriage. He talks about this not about religious sacraments, but civil marriage. And that continues to inform his beliefs. We have taken position on various efforts to restrict the rights of Americans, which he generally thinks is a bad idea.”

Carney indicated that Obama believes Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional based on the belief that the federal government shouldn’t be involved in marriage.

Carney more clearly articulated that Obama believe marriage is a state issue, not a federal issue, in a response a follow-up question from Politico before reiterating other tenets of Obama’s belief on marriage.

The White House clarification is consistent with the views Obama expressed on marriage just before Election Day in an MTV interview when he said, “There’s some other states that are still having that debate, I think for us to try to legislate federally into this area is probably the wrong way to go.”

Apparently, Obama got the LGBT money and votes that he needed and now he's back to playing us for fools.  One can only hope that he doesn't treat other minority constituencies the same way.  It is precisely this attitude and behavior that demoralized Democrats in Virginia in 2009 and led to GOP statewide victories.  The White House seems to have learned nothing from that debacle. 

Top Obama Donors Witholding Money Over Executive Order Punt

I noted this morning my cynicism over the Joe Biden/Barack Obama song and dance over gay marriage and my feeling that it was a planned ruse to try to get the GayATM running at top speed once more.  Pam Spaulding reached a similar conclusion here.  And now a column in the Washington Post gives ammunition to my categorization of Obama as a slick, principle challenged politician who plays with peoples' lives with no consideration beyond securing votes and money.  It seems a number of heavy donors are none too happy with Obama's punting of the entry of an executive order that would bar federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity.  And these would be donors are demonstrating their wrath in a way that Obama (like the morally bankrupt Catholic hierarchy) understands: they've stopped handing over money.  Some of us can figure out when we're being played.   Here are some column excerpts:

Some leading gay and progressive donors are so angry over President Obama’s refusal to sign an executive order barring same sex discrimination by federal contractors that they are refusing to give any more money to the pro-Obama super PAC, a top gay fundraiser’s office tells me. In some cases, I’m told, big donations are being withheld.

Jonathan Lewis, the gay philanthropist and leading Democratic fundraiser, is one of many gay advocates who has been working behind the scenes to pressure Obama to change his mind. When Obama decided against the executive order last month, arguing that he would pursue a legislative solution instead, advocates were furious — such a solution will never pass Congress, the executive order has been a priority for advocates for years, and the move smacked of a political cave to conservatives who will not support Obama no matter what he does.

Now these and other donors are beginning to withhold money from Priorities USA, the main pro-Obama super PAC, out of dismay over the president’s decision.

Paul Yandura, a political adviser to Lewis, emails me a statement:

A number of gay and progressive donors, unsolicited, have indicated to us that they aren’t considering requests to donate to the Obama SuperPac because of the president’s refusal to the sign the order. And those are high-dollar asks, some in the seven digits. We have heard from at least half a dozen major gay and progressive donors that they stand united with us. There is still time for the President to do the right thing and sign this executive order, our great hope is that he does so immediately.

He declined to name names.

This comes as the White House is on defense on gay rights today, after it furiously clarified Joe Biden’s vague but supportive comments about gay marriage. The walkback is mystifying to donors and advocates who are already miffed about the executive order, and could stiffen their resolve to keep their wallets closed.

Obama: Why I Don't Believe Him Anymore

I suspect that I am one of many who voted for Obama in 2008 and now find myself not even listening to his speeches anymore. Why? Because, I've come to the point where I believe little if anything that the man has to say. We've heard the pretty words so many times only to see them followed up by no action at all or any almost immediate capitulation to GOP demagogues. Do I want the haters and political whores of the GOP to prevail? Not at all. It's just that it's too painful to listen to Obama and know that his words mean nothing. At least nothing of significance. And because of this reality, I believe that Obama's going to have a Hell of a time motivating many 2008 supporters to go to the polls and pull the lever for him in 2012. Perhaps a Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann as the GOP candidate would push folks to hold their nose and vote for Obama. If the GOP candidate is not someone truly scary, then all bets are off. An article in the Rolling Stone looks at this frustration in the context of job creation. Here are some highlights:

I was in an airport in Florida yesterday and was forced into a terrible, Sophie's Choice-type choice. . . . . it was either sit underneath a full-volume broadcast of our fearless president bellowing out his latest hollow promises, or the hellish alternative: retreat to gates full of screaming five year-old children, all of them jacked up on sugar and bawling their eyes out because it was the end of Labor Day weekend and their cruel parents were dragging them home from Disneyworld.

I ended up choosing the screaming children.

Obama hasn't been a total disaster on labor. Most notably, he stepped up in the Wisconsin mess and at least took sides in that debate, calling the push to end collective bargaining rights an "assault" on unions.

But I remember following Obama on the campaign trail and hearing all sorts of promises before union-heavy crowds. He said he would raise the minimum wage every year; he said he would fight free-trade agreements. He also talked about repealing the Bush tax cuts and ending tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas.

It's not just that he hasn't done those things. The more important thing is that the people he's surrounded himself with are not labor people, but stooges from Wall Street. Barack Obama has as his chief of staff a former top-ranking executive from one of the most grossly corrupt mega-companies on earth, JP Morgan Chase.

Listening to Obama talk about jobs and shared prosperity yesterday reminded me that we are back in campaign mode and Barack Obama has started doing again what he does best – play the part of a progressive. He's good at it. It sounds like he has a natural affinity for union workers and ordinary people when he makes these speeches. But his policies are crafted by representatives of corporate/financial America, who happen to entirely make up his inner circle.

I just don't believe this guy anymore, and it's become almost painful to listen to him.

The USA: A Leaderless Nation

A column in the Washington Post looks at Obama's speech yesterday and the man's apparent total disconnect from what's happening to the economy and continued refusal to be a leader. I've said it before, that in 2008 we all were sold a very bogus bill of goods. In the context of the 2011 elections here in Virginia, I very much fear the disgust with a lack of leadership by Democrats in Washington and the White House in particular will lead to a reprise of 2009's electoral disaster. Here are highlights from Dana Milbank's column:

A familiar air of indecision preceded President Obama’s pep talk to the nation. . . . It’s not exactly fair to blame Obama for the rout: Almost certainly, the markets ignored him. And that’s the problem: The most powerful man in the world seems strangely powerless, and irresolute, as larger forces bring down the country and his presidency.

The economy crawls, the credit rating falls, the markets plunge, and a helicopter packed with U.S. special forces goes down in Afghanistan. Two thirds of Americans say the country is on the wrong track (and that was before the market swooned), Obama’s approval rating is 43 percent, and activists on his own side are calling him weak.

Yet Obama plods along, raising gobs of cash for his reelection bid — he was scheduled to speak at two DNC fundraisers Monday night — and varying little the words he reads from the teleprompter. He seemed detached even from those words Monday

In the White House briefing room after Obama’s statement, the press corps grilled Jay Carney about the lack of fire in the belly. “The president said our problems are imminently solvable, and he talked about a renewed sense of urgency,” CBS’s Norah O’Donnell pointed out. “Why not call Congress back to work?” Carney chuckled at this suggestion. “I mean, the Dow dropped below 11,000 — where’s the sense of urgency?” O’Donnell persisted.

NBC’s Chuck Todd was not swayed. “Why not bring Congress back now?” he repeated, pointing out that “the American public seems to be in a little bit of a panic” while Washington says, “We’re going to stand back and wait until school starts.”

“Why?” inquired Politico’s Glenn Thrush. “He’s the leader of the free world. Why isn’t he leading this process?” That is the enduring mystery of Obama’s presidency. He delivered his statement on the economy beneath a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, but that was as close as he came to forceful leadership. He looked grim and swallowed hard and frequently as he mixed fatalism (“markets will rise and fall”) with vague, patriotic exhortations (“this is the United States of America”).

“There will always be economic factors that we can’t control,” Obama said. Maybe. But it would be nice if the president gave it a try.

Obama DOJ Flips Gay Americans the Finger and Files To Reinstate DADT

Why is it that every time I start to have a slight feeling that maybe I've been unduly harsh on the faux "fierce advocate" in the White House, Obama and his minions again do something to throw LGBT citizens once again under the bus and prove my misgivings on the man to be well founded? I ask myself at times whether the man bi-polar or what when it comes to abusing those who might like to be his supporters? Personally, I am tired of supporting Obama simply because he's not as big of an enemy as the GOP alternative. It's definitely hard to have enthusiasm.
*
The latest example of Obama's on again off again betrayals of LGBT Americans is the reported decision by the Department of Justice - you know, that office that operates under Obama's appointee, the Attorney General - is moving to file a request that the 9th Circuit reconsider its ruling that reinstated the world wide ban on enforcement of DADT. Obviously, the ban could easily have been allowed to remained in place until the supposed legislative repeal of DADT is finally completed. Not that I even trust Obama at this point not to betray LGBT Americans on that process somehow. Given the current make up of the U. S. Supreme Court with gay haters like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito on the Court, if DOJ's games ultimately take the case before that court, there is no guarantee that the 9th Circuit ruling would be upheld. WTF is Obama doing? Does he think these games will make the GOP base hate him less? Here are highlights from the Log Cabin Republicans on this unfortunate development:
*
The Obama Department of Justice is filing an emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pleading with the court to reconsider its order vacating the stay. The Ninth Circuit last week removed a stay against the worldwide injunction awarded in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, effectively halting ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’
*
“This latest maneuver by the President continues a pattern of doublespeak that all Americans should find troubling. All this does is further confuse the situation for our men and women in uniform,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director, combat veteran and captain in the United States Army Reserve. “Let me be clear – the president is asking the court for the power to continue threatening servicemembers with investigation and discharge, and the right to turn away qualified Americans from military service for no reason other than their sexual orientation. Even if the administration never uses that power, it is still wrong, and the Ninth Circuit was clear that there is no justification for continuing the violation of servicemembers’ constitutional rights.
*
"The motion that the government filed today has no other purpose than to request - on an emergency basis - that the military be permitted to investigate and discharge servicemembers, and block new enlistments, based solely on those individuals' sexuality,” said Dan Woods, partner of White & Case and lead attorney in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States. “The government's request is inexplicable on any other basis."
*
As I have noted before, I would welcome a primary challenge to the "Follower in Chief" whose main attribute is double talk and the total lack of a spine. I fear that he's setting the up Democrats at the national level for a reprise of what happened in Virginia in 2009.

Obama Throws Gay Relationships Under the Bus Yet Again

Yesterday, Barack Obama - the Follower in Chief - addressed gay marriage at a White House press conference and then disingenuously held a Pride reception at the White House. Obama's message to LGBT citizens like me and the boyfriend in states hostile to any form of LGBT equality is basically - "o f*ck yourself, I'm fine with discrimination on a state by state basis." I find it pretty sad when the issue of whether or not one has the full rights of a United States citizen depends on what state one lives in. In Washington, D.C., or soon on July 25, 2011, in New York, LGBT citizens have far more equality than in backwater states such as Virginia. And according to Obama, we're supposed to believe it's just fine that we are 4th class citizens. Has the man heard of the U.S. Constitution and concepts such as equal protection and freedom of religion? Obama can fluff up his list of "accomplishments" for the LGBT community all he wants, but since I live in a state where LGBT citizens can be fired at will, can be openly discriminated in housing and are afforded ZERO legal recognition of their committed relationships, I am NOT impressed. Obama needs to grow a spine and get his head out of his ass. Here are highlights from The Advocate on this latest betrayal:
*
President Barack Obama did not directly address a question during Wednesday’s news conference on whether marriage is a civil right, referring instead to his track record on LGBT issues and his support for states to decide the issue.
*
The president enumerated LGBT accomplishments under his administration, including hate-crimes legislation, signing repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (which remains in effect pending certification), and his decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court challenges against the 1996 law. “And so we’ve said we cannot defend the federal government poking its nose" into what states decide, he said. DOMA, he reiterated, is unconstitutional, his Justice Department has concluded.
*
However, the president noted, “What I’ve seen happen over the last several years, and what happened in New York last week, was a good thing. What you saw was the people of New York having a debate, talking through these issues; it was contentious, it was emotional, but ultimately they made a decision to recognize civil marriages. And I think that’s exactly how things should work. And so I think it’s important for us to work through these issues, because each community is going to be different and each state is going to be different to work through them.”
*
So there you have it. If I want to be more than a 4th class citizen, I'm supposed to move to another, friendlier state. For those who cannot move, they are simply screwed. And I'm supposed to happily support this man? I don't think so!

Obama Ducks and Hides on Yet Again Gay Marriage

For a man who taught constitutional law, Barack Obama seems to be utterly ignorant of some important provisions of the U. S. Constitution. You know, things like the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of (and from) religion and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteeth Amendment. Inconvenient provisions that trump state laws and make Obama's blather about leaving marriage up to the states little more than disingenuous bullshit. Or at least, that's the only explanation I can find for the White House's lame statement in the wake of passage of marriage equality in New York State. The fact that some 1,000+ state and federal legal rights hinge on the work "marriage" seems to be beyond the grasp of the "Follower in Chief." If Obama is a "fierce advocate," I'd hate to see a luke warm ally. Indeed, the only time Obama gets fierce on LGBT issues is when it comes to asking for our money. Would he have wanted the states to "determine the best approach" for equal treatment of African-American citizens. I suspect not and the fact that he is fine with a totally different standard for LGBT Americans speaks volumes - and none of it good. Here's coverage from the Washington Blade and Obama's mealy mouth statement:
*
A White House spokesperson late Friday reiterated President Obama’s belief that the marriage issue should be left to the states in response to the passage of same-sex marriage legislation in New York.
*
Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said the president believes gay couples should receive “the same rights and legal protections” as opposite-sex couples, but wants states to determine the best approach to offer these protections.
*
“The president has long believed that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples,” Inouye said. “That’s why he has called for repeal of the so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ and determined that his administration would no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA in the courts. The states should determine for themselves how best to uphold the rights of their own citizens. The process in New York worked just as it should.”
*
Under Obama's approach, LGBT Virginians (indeed, most LGBT citizens in the Deep South) will be f*cked for many, many years and in order to have even remotely full rights of U.S. citizenship will have to move to New York or some other progressive state. Yet even then, until DOMA is repealed, we still don't receive equal rights. Again, would Obama settle for this result if African-American were substituted for LGBT? I think not. He's simpering spinelessness needs to end.

Obama - The Least Bad Option for the LGBT Community

Proving once again that he's spineless and ever ready to throw LGBT Americans under the bus - after a shake down of our money first - Barack Obama said last night at an A-list LGBT fundraiser in New York City that marriage equality is an issue best left to the states. Where would Mr. Obama and many black Americans be today if that had been the attitude taken towards racial equality during the 1960's? The statement is a cop out and an outright insult. I truly do not believe anything that Obama says at this point. The Washington Blade has these highlights on Obama's latest betrayal:
*
President Obama reiterated on Thursday that the marriage issue should be left to the states during an LGBT fundraiser in New York City that took place amid increasing pressure for him to endorse marriage rights for gay couples.
*
Obama drew on his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits same-sex marriage, in his remarks on the New York marriage bill and leaving the issue to the states. The president has called for legislative repeal of DOMA and, in February, announced the law was unconstitutional and his administration would no longer defend it in court. “Part of the reason that DOMA doesn’t make sense is that traditionally marriage has been decided by the states,” Obama said.
*
About 600 donors, mostly male, sat at round tables in a large ballroom for the $1,250-a-plate dinner at the Sheraton Hotel and Towers in New York. Gay actor Neil Patrick Harris and Capt. Jonathan Hopkins, a West Point graduate who was discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” introduced Obama at the start of the event.
*
The whole affair translates to "I don't give a crap about you or your lives, but please give me your money." A column in the Guardian looks at Obama's record on LGBT issues and describes him as "the least bad option." Here are highlights from that column:
*
This intensive media campaign [by the White House] has been put into motion precisely because not everyone's on board. Talks with major LGBT donors, bloggers, and activists reveal marked discontent with the gap between the candidate who promised to be a "fierce advocate" for LGBT Americans and the president who has delivered no legislative victory besides repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" – and that under great duress. (I'm not counting the Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an Obama victory because Congress did all the hard work, while Obama merely signed it into law.)
*
Otherwise, Obama's contributions have amounted to little more than a generous sprinkling of what blogger Pam Spaulding calls "baby steps for equality" or "Cinderella Crumbs". These are "a shiny, beautiful, breathtaking accomplishment that turns into a pumpkin at midnight – in this case, whenever a future homophobic president decides to rescind the baby step."
*
[A]s Robin McGehee, the director and co-founder of GetEQUAL, puts it, "We were promised the Acura with all the accoutrements, but wound up with a stripped-down Honda instead."
*
Of course, you'd never know there were hordes of politically active LGBT people who are ticked off with Obama from reading the mainstream press. Major strategic placements by Obama's people in that realm include the gay-donors-fuel-Obama's-2012-campaign story they fed to Politico, now being featured in a magazine widely distributed at Los Angeles Pride. . . . a powerful core of primarily LGBT grassroots activists and bloggers aren't drinking the Kool-Aid.
*
Other signs of discontent include last week's brawl at Netroots Nation, a national gathering of progressive activists and bloggers. . . . . And then there are the physical manifestations of discontent. The ones that protesters outside of tonight's LGBT Gala will carry include "Evolve Already" and "Do you believe in evolution? We do."
*
Candidate Obama promised LGBT people the world in 2008, and our community provided a disproportionate amount of the money, volunteer hours and enthusiasm so crucial to his win. Now, when he and the DNC are back to woo us for 2012, is the time to ask for more than vague assurances of hope and change.