While Romney Plays It Safe, Obama Stirs the Pot

Not to sound mean spirited, but I do have to wonder if Mitt Romney, as a child of both wealth and political privilege,  has ever had to take real risks or worry about financial burdens and serious discrimination.  Yes, he's Mormon and has had to face anti-Mormon bigotry and he's had to deal with his wife's illness.  But those pesky problems of keeping a roof over one's head, paying the grocery bills and living pay check to pay check that most of us have to worry about are likely an unknown concept to Romney.   And in terms of political risk, Romney has likewise never exhibited any real daring and instead seems to have typically pivoted to what he thought was expected either by his church or his perceived constituency.  In short, Romney has rarely been challenged and always played it safe based on his cultural/religious perspective.  Barack Obama, as a mixed race individual form modest means has been forced to live a very different life path.  And now that vastly different journey seems to be showing as Obama steps out on the limb on gay rights and immigration while Romney takes the "safe" short term approach.  Then of course, there is also Romney's almost pathological lying about Obama "spending like a drunken sailor" which is an utter lie as the chart below confirms.  Here are highlights from a Washington Post article that looks at the divergent approaches of Obama with Obama showing daring and leadership while Romney remains a follower:

There’s not much President Barack Obama can do to boost the economy in the next five months, and that alone might cost him the November election. But on a range of social issues, Obama is bypassing Congress and aggressively using his executive powers to make it easier for gays to marry, women to obtain birth control, and, now, young illegal immigrants to avoid deportation.

It’s a political gamble that might fire up conservatives, many of whom remain cool to Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Democrats think it’s more likely to inspire enthusiasm among groups that were crucial to Obama’s 2008 victory — young voters, women and Hispanics.
 
Romney is the play-it-safe candidate, rarely straying from his jobs-and-economy talking points and sharply limiting encounters with national reporters. Romney took six hours Friday to offer a short and carefully worded comment that criticized Obama’s new immigration policy for not providing “a long-term solution.”

Romney didn’t say whether he would overturn it if elected. But by noting “it can be reversed by subsequent presidents,” he might have sown doubts in the minds of some young illegal immigrants studying the policy.

Obama looks like the bigger risk-taker. He doesn’t have many options.  He is constrained by a complex, interrelated and frail global economy, and by a Republican-run House. Together, they severely limit his ability to influence the struggling U.S. economy  . . .

Democrats enjoy a hefty edge among Hispanic voters, and some GOP strategists fear Romney is widening the gap.  In the primaries, Romney criticized one rival, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, for granting in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants. The former Massachusetts governor also distanced himself from opponent Newt Gingrich’s call for making it clear the United States will not deport illegal immigrants who have led stable, crime-free lives in the United States for many years.

Sidestepping Congress, where immigration proposals have languished for years, Obama acted to make illegal immigrants immune from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. before they turned 16 and are younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or earned a GED diploma or certificate, or served in the military.

With significant economic gains so hard to achieve, a possible route is to be seen as expanding or protecting the rights of gays and lesbians, young Hispanics and young women.

Republican consultant Mike McKenna said Obama’s advisers “have obviously made a decision that they are going to win this election by energizing the base. Between this decision and the gay marriage emphasis, they have doubled down on their core and moved away from where most registered voters are.”

But Democratic campaign veteran Doug Thornell sees more gains than risks in Obama’s immigration decision.  “The Republican base is pretty inspired to beat Obama already,” Thornell said. For persuadable voters, he said, “this is in keeping with a president who does big and bold things.” Romney, he said, is “pretty vanilla.”

Nothing offends me more that liars - especially liars who claim to be religious and wrap themselves in the mantle of religiosity while betraying the Gospel message.  Mitt Romney is such a liar in my opinion.

Was Obama Sending A Message to the Supreme Court?

With several gay marriage related cases moving up the federal court hierarchy towards the U. S. Supreme Court some have conjectured that Barack Obama's gay marriage announcement yesterday was a way to message - and perhaps influence the Supreme Court justices.  Some like Scalia and Thomas will be deaf to the message, however, some others may get it and understand the arch of history that is racing towards them.  When Loving v. Virginia was decided, support for racial equality was nowhere near where it is today and the Court's decision helped tip the balance towards acceptance of interracial marriages.  Marriages that in no way threatened same race marriages - just as gay marriages in no way threaten straight marriages other than in the minds of Christofascists.  A Brookings Institute column looks at the message that Obama may have tried to send to the Court yesterday.  Here are highlights:

Count me stunned that President Obama came out in favor of same-sex marriage, after years of straddling and waffling. I was among those who said he would (a) stay on the fence through the election, uncomfortable though that might be, because (b) there's more political downside than upside in bringing the issue forward and taking a stand that still alienates many swing voters.  Why, then, did he do it? And what does it mean?

As to why, various press accounts speculate that pressure from gay donors played an important role .  .  .  .  To me, those explanations sound unconvincing, or at least incomplete. Gay money knows that the choice between Obama's Democrats and Mitt Romney's Republicans is as stark on gay issues as the divide ever has been. With Republicans in control of the White House and Congress, much of the progress that gay rights made under Obama would be endangered.

Although bringing forward a divisive social issue in an "economy, stupid" year seems unlikely to help either candidate, I suspect that the Romney camp is pretty happy about Obama's announcement. I'd guess that endorsing gay marriage mostly reinforces Obama's appeal to people who were going to vote for him anyway .   .   .   . 
If counting electoral votes were all the president was doing, I'd advise him to stay away--against my own convictions as a gay-marriage proponent.

What happened? Harry Truman was fond of quoting Mark Twain: "When in doubt, do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest." Now and then, politicians have a "goddammit"  moment. .  .   .  .  there was never going to be a better time to make the switch than now--at least not while he is certain to be a non-lame-duck president.  So Obama decided it's worth a roll of the dice to make history. Which is what he has done.

As of his announcement, favoring gay marriage is now fully, indisputably, and permanently a mainstream political position. All hint of weirdness or stigma is gone. It is also now the stated position of one of the two major political parties  .   .   .   .   Precisely because the issue is unlikely to decide the election this year, November's result will not revoke the issue's promotion in status even if Obama loses. Though gay couples have not achieved full legal equality, gay marriage, as an issue, has achieved full political equality. That is a landmark in the ongoing marriage debate.

The courts, as Obama, the former law professor, must be well aware, will take notice. Two big gay-rights cases--one challenging California's revocation of gay marriage, the other challenging the Defense of Marriage Act--are on their way toward the Supreme Court. With his switch from ambivalence to advocacy, Obama is sending a signal to the courts that the country is ready for gay marriage, giving them more cover to uphold it. Courts may not go by poll results, but they do like to stay within the mainstream. And Obama has just moved it.

Obama's Disinterested Approach to Gay Rights

One can feel as if they are going to experience whiplash at times from Barack Obama's approach to LGBT rights and ending legalized anti-gay discrimination.  Sadly, it often seems that only when the LGBT community becomes truly pissed off and inclined to stop writing checks for Obama and/or other Democrats that Obama will have a brief epiphany and take a step to advance equality.  But more often, he seems most inclined to either throw gays under the bus - as with his refusal to sign an ENDA like executive order despite polling that shows the vast majority of Americans support employment protections  - or to close his eyes and pretend he's unaware of issues that have monumental impact on gays.   While I applaud his belated efforts for the repeal of DAD and his refusal to defend DOMA, there's so much more to be done, especially in states like Virginia where LGBT citizens barely rate as 4th class citizens.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at Obama's continued ability to frustrate LGBT Americans while assuming that we have no viable option but to vote for him in November.  Here are highlights:

Two weeks from now, North Carolina will hold a public referendum on what could become one of the toughest anti-gay measures in the country: a far-reaching proposal to amend the state constitution to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships. But President Obama is not expected to touch the subject when he appears in Chapel Hill on Tuesday — even though it is roiling the electorate there.

Instead, Obama will talk about college loans, his aides said, kicking off a two-day, three-state tour designed to energize the youth vote. His delicate sidestep of Amendment One, a ballot initiative to be decided May 8 that would recognize marriage between a man and a woman as the only legal domestic partnership in North Carolina, is seen by some as another sign that he is not fully committed to gay rights — an interpretation that could dampen the enthusiasm of the young voters he is trying to court.

“It’s a little bit of a missed opportunity,” said Josh Orol, 20, a sophomore at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a leader of a campus movement to defeat Amendment One. “I didn’t expect him to talk at length about it. I know he has come out publicly against it. But I sort of hoped he would at least name-drop a little bit. It’s disappointing.”

 The issue is particularly complicated in historically conservative North Carolina. .   .   .   North Carolina is widely seen as a bigger challenge this year for Obama than it was in 2008, when he won with a margin of roughly 14,000 votes. Not only does the state’s unemployment rate continue to hover near 10 percent, but its Democratic Party is in disarray and is expected to be of little help to president  .  .  

It will also be up to Obama to navigate the political crosscurrents of a complicated state in which he must court multiple constituencies that do not all agree on all the same issues.  The fate of Amendment One, for instance, is uncertain, with one public poll predicting that it will pass easily and another projecting a loss. Quietly opposing Amendment One, but keeping his distance from on-the-ground efforts to defeat it, could be an essential strategy for Obama to pull back together the diverse coalition that elected him last time.

Nonetheless, that approach is frustrating younger activists, many of whom have come to view marriage equality as the defining civil rights cause of their generation. They are impatient with Obama’s self-described “evolving” position on gay marriage — he supports civil unions but stops short of endorsing legal protections for marriage — and they are looking for signs that he is ready to embrace their cause more fully.

Campaign officials also drew a stark contrast between Obama’s positions on marriage issues and those of the presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, whose opposition to legal protections for gay couples drew an endorsement last week from the National Organization for Marriage.

Particularly frustrating to DeLuca and others is the prospect of Amendment One passing despite growing opposition. Corporate leaders, advocates for victims of domestic violence and even moderate Republicans, faith leaders and the NAACP have joined forces in an attempt to defeat it 

Whatever Obama does or does not say about Amendment One in the coming two weeks, he could benefit, at least somewhat, from the push to defeat it. Across the state, particularly on college campuses, diverse coalitions of students, gay rights activists, libertarians and others have been collecting e-mail addresses and registering voters in advance of the May 8 referendum.  

I often am left with the feeling that the issue of gay rights is just a matter of political gamesmanship with Obama.  He constantly forgets that there are real lives involved and real LGBT headed families that face discrimination.  It is soul killing to always find oneself hoping and waiting for the day when one will be a full, equal citizen.  I often feel I will not live to see that day arrive.  At least not if we rely on Obama to set the timetable.

White House and State Department Press Releases on U.N. Resolution on Gay Rights

In sharp juxtaposition to the statement of the Vatican noted in a post yesterday where the Vatican argues that nations be allowed to regulate same sex sexual relations - you know, just like they do with incest and pedophilia - the White House and United States Department of State each released a statement that makes the case of why gay rights are human rights. As noted, the Vatican statement also portrayed homophobes and those who denigrate and advocate criminalization of LGBT citizens as victims of intolerance. Here's the text of the State Department press release:

*
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________________________________________ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 22, 2011 Statement by the Press Secretary on Ending Violence Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
*
President Obama believes that advancing the human rights of minorities and the marginalized is a fundamental American value. The President was pleased to announce during his trip to Brazil that he and President Rousseff agreed to promote respect for the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals through the establishment of a special rapporteur on LGBT issues at the Organization of American States. This special rapporteur will be the first of its kind in the international system.
*
Over the past months our diplomats have been engaged in frank, and at times difficult, conversations about the human rights of LGBT persons with governments from around world. This morning, at the United Nations Human Rights Council, some 85 countries joined the United States in reaffirming our joint commitment to end acts of violence and human rights abuses on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The President is proud of the work we have done to build international consensus on this critical issue and is committed to continuing our determined efforts to advance the human rights of all people, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
*
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
__________________________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release March 22, 2011 2011/450 STATEMENT BY SECRETARY CLINTON
*
Human Rights Council Statement on Ending Violence Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
*
Today, 85 countries from every region of the world joined together in a historic moment to state clearly that human rights apply to everyone, no matter who they are or whom they love.
*
The United States, along with Colombia and Slovenia, took a leading role on this statement along with over 30 cosponsors. Countries around the world participated including many that had never supported such efforts. And we hope that even more countries will step up, sign on to the statement and signal their support for universal human rights.
*
This statement is an example of America’s commitment to human rights through dialogue, open discussion and frank conversation with countries we don’t always agree with on every issue. In Geneva, our conversations about the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals with countries where sexual orientation is not only stigmatized, but criminalized, are helping to advance a broader and deeper global dialogue about these issues.
*
As I said last June, gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights. We will continue to promote human rights around the world for all people who are marginalized and discriminated against because of sexual orientation or gender identity. And we will not rest until every man, woman and child is able to live up to his or her potential free from persecution or discrimination of any kind.
*
I applaud the State Department position and also note that IF the morally bankrupt Vatican truly supported human rights - and not just special protections for sexual predator priests and those who cover up their crimes - it would be on board with the State Department position. That it refuses to do so speaks volumes.

Creigh Deeds on Gay Rights and McDonnell's Continued Lies

Creigh Deeds is no Brian Moran - who I backed during the Democrat primary in June - on gay rights issues, but his campaign does seem to have finally begun out reach to the Virginia LGBT community in the Hampton Roads area. Better late than never and I hope his campaign takes advantage of members of the community who would like to support him and who certainly have no reason to support Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell (at left). While McDonnell is now running a TV ad that seeks to deflect issues arising from his CBN University thesis, Deeds MUST continue to hit at the fact that the thesis HAS BEEN McDonnell's blue print for his votes and policies while in elected office. To do this, Deeds and others need to continue to enumerate McDonnell's actions incident by incident and demonstrate how in reality Taliban Bob has never truly disavowed his prior views by concrete actions and not mere politically expedient words. In short, McDonnell is trying to play Virginia voters for simpletons and fools. Both Deeds and the MSM need to keep McDonnell's feet to the fire. As for Deeds, the Washington Post has a piece that looks at his position on gay rights issues:

*

The issue, of course, is whether Deeds once held a more conservative position on gay rights than he now advertises to the progressive Democrats he is trying to energize. Deeds has already acknowledged shifting positions on the state's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which he voted to put on the ballot but then campaigned against. Through the Democratic primary campaign, he would often refer to himself as "a work in progress" on the issue.

*

Deeds aides today insisted that Deeds has been consistent in opposing discrimination against gays, noting the 1994 vote, as well as votes for bills in 2006, 2007, 2008 to allow localities to extend health benefits to partners of gay employees. "Creigh has voted consistently throughout his career against discrimination," said senior adviser Mo Elleithee.

*

Elleithee says Deeds believe state employees should be allowed to put gay partners on their state health insurance plans, though he said Deeds is not certain it would currently be allowed given the language of the state's constitutional amendment on gay marriage.

*

My past invitations to Taliban Bob to attend a HRBOR meeting and show his views have changed still stands, but somehow I doubt that we need to worry that Taliban Bob might actually attend - I'm sure Pat Robertson and Victoria Cobb at The Family Foundation would never grant him permission to do so.

Jon Bowerbank for Virginia Lieutenant Governor

Last week I did a post on Jody Wagner, one of the candidates for the Democrat nomination for Lieutenant Governor. As part of the post I included Jody's responses to four gay rights related questions and now I have received responses to the same questions from Jon Bowerbank, another of the candidates vying for this nomination (I expect responses from Mike Signer shortly as well). Unlike Jody Wagner who I know personally and Mike Signer who I met at the Equality Virginia gala in Richmond on April 4, 2009, I have never met or spoken with Jon Bowerbank. He seems to have an amazing personal story and has built a very successful business and personal fortune from scratch. He hails from the far southwest of Virginia - something that might hurt his appeal to those in Tidewater and Northern Virginia, two areas where one must do well to win. Jon's campaign website cane be found here. Here are Jon's responses to the questions I posed:

*

1. NON-DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT. Despite broad support, the bill to add sexual orientation to the employment non-discrimination policies applicable to state employees, was tabled in committee.

*

I would support legislation that extended the state employee non-discrimination policy to include sexual orientation-- following in the tradition of Governors Warner and Kaine.

*
2. GROUP LIFE INSURANCE. A bill that would have allowed employers to extend group life insurance policies to any class of persons as agreed to by the employer and its insurer as is now the case with group health insurance (Virginia was the last state to allow this) was likewise killed in a House subcommittee.
*
I support this legislation.
*
3. HOUSING NON-DISCRIMINATION. Two bills sought to add "sexual orientation" to the would have added "sexual orientation" to the Virginia Fair Housing Law covering all rental and sales transactions. covering non-discrimination in all rental and sales transactions. Once again, the bills were killed in a House of Delegates subcommittee.

*

I support legislation that would add “sexual orientation” to the Virginia Fair Housing Law covering all rental and sales transactions. It’s important for all people to be treated equally under the law.

*

4. ANTI-BULLYING POLICY. A bill was introduced that would have required the model policy to specifically address bullying directed at a student because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. After numerous amendments, all references to sexual orientation or gender expression were removed.

*
It’s critically important that all Virginia children feel safe at school and in our communities. As Lt. Governor I would support policies that protect LGBT students and any other students from bullying. In fact, part of the $2.5 million dollars that I’ve personally committed to public schools in Virginia has gone to fund anti-bullying programs.