I wonder if I should request a bumper sticker and affix it to my ass since I rarely drive. Probably a bad idea… However, if you want one the Obama – Biden re-election campaign would love to send you a bumper sticker. You can request one by linking here.
Earlier, I wrote about the impact President Obama’s support for legalizing same sex marriage had in Maryland – a state that recently past legislation that would legalize same sex marriages starting in 2013 in my post, Maryland public opinion shifts in favor of same sex marriage. The 12-point shift was attributed to African American voters change in opinion following the President’s endorsement.
Now a Washington Post-ABC survey finds that opinions of same sex marriage in the African American community may be shifting even faster than the Maryland survey would lead people to believe. This survey finds that nationally there has been an 18-point shift with 59% of blacks now saying they are in favor of same sex marriage.
These latest polls show Obama’s announcement may have been shrewd politics as it has united two important bases for the Democratic Party.
According to an article published by The Huffington Post, a recent poll by Marylanders for Equality shows a significant shift in public opinion supporting same sex marriage.
This is significant because Maryland recently passed a gay marriage law that goes into effect January 1, 2013 which opponents are trying to have overturned in a referendum vote later this year.
The poll shows a 12-point shift in favor of same sex marriage with 57% now saying they would vote to uphold the Maryland law. According to the report “The shift can be explained ‘almost entirely’ by a change in black voters’ attitudes.”
The reason for that shift in attitude in my opinion may be summed up in one word, “Obama”.
Last week President Obama made news when he added another first to his Presidency, becoming the first sitting U.S. President to support same sex marriage. Cold calculated political move or something he genuinely believes (probably both but I don’t care).
In the days following his announcement, Obama has raised more than $21 million. Despite the fact that the economy remains the top issue for nearly all Americans, I can’t help but feel that Obama’s support has significantly increased the excitement for his base. In recent days Obama has also indicated that he doesn’t believe the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional. These latest comments come only months after Obama repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
Be sure to register to vote and help to support President Obama. Should Romney win, The Defense of Marriage Act will not be repealed and it is likely Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will be brought back.
Your Vote Matters
Have a new “favorite” in this series of Texts from Hillary.
President Obama “came out” in support of same sex marriage yesterday. Why he chose now and how he got to this point is irrelevant to me. What does matter is a sitting President is on record supporting marriage equality, and that is a game changer for three crucial reasons.
First, although his support does not change Federal Law, having the public support of the highest elected official in the country matters (and it matters a lot). When Massachusetts legalized Same Sex Marriage on May 17, 2004 it was only because incremental changes and advancements which had started years before came to fruition. Obama’s support is more than an incremental advancement.
Obama’s standing within the African American, Black and Arabic communities here and abroad is without equal. These communities have long been some of the most vocal opposing same sex marriage. Obama’s endorsement and framing the issue as one of equality and fairness will have significant impact on these communities. No doubt there will be some heated sermons in traditionally black churches this Sunday through out the United States.
Lastly, Obama has set a standard which all future Presidential nominees will now be found wanting if they don’t support marriage equality. While this will fire up those opposed to same sex marriage; I believe this is still a gain for the President and for states currently debating legalizing same sex marriage. Americans love to support winners and the prejudicial arguments to oppose same sex marriage is sounding more and more like a losing argument. Obama’s support is a game changer.
And just like that, I’m psyched for the 2012 Presidential election.
Sarah Palin was a guest this past Thursday on Fox’s Sean Hannity. According to reports, America’s most infamous Hockey Mom said of President Obama, and I quote from the article in today’s DailyBeast, “Our sitting president was not vetted,” referring to the 2008 election.
Um… my initial thought was too vulgar to write (my Mom and sisters are regular readers of my blog) but after my mental synapses stopped overheating from possible responses (considering the source) I thought, “How could you of all people level that accusation?”
What is she talking about? Was she not following the bruising Democratic Primary that went a heck of a lot longer than the current Republican Presidential Primary has gone? Did she follow the series of debates, which aided in the vetting process? Oh yeah, I forgot, she was busy watching Russia from her house in Alaska and must have missed all that. Oy vey this woman annoys me.
The U.S. military’s shameful and homophobic policy banning homosexuals from serving openly was officially repealed at midnight today. No doubt in the years that follow, history will remember Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as a strange policy. Initially signed into law by President Clinton, it took another Democrat, President Obama, to end this discriminatory policy some 18 years later.
Where does this rank in importance to me? Its hard to say. I never had any desire to serve in the military but the fact that this policy was on the books was shameful. Even more frustrating is knowing that so many leading Republicans tried to stop DADT from being repealed. Add it to one more thing that makes me despise the Republican party. Intellectually, I know the Republican party is made up of many moderates who are advocates for greater equality, but my heart has hardened over the years and I no longer consider this party a viable option for me. Chalk up DADT as just one more nail in the Republican Party coffin, because I’ll be quite pleased to bury this shameful party which has spent the last half a century promoting divisive and prejudice-laden language.
Gay activists of all varieties have camped themselves in Washington, D.C. this weekend. For sure, some will attend both the National March for Equality and the HRC Annual National Dinner, but for many this is a divided camp with a common purpose – advancement of GLBT issues and rights. And tensions between these two camps – the first predominantly local and grass roots organizations which run the gamut from the radical Left to Log Cabin Republicans; the second mostly wealthy gay and lesbian supporters of the Democratic National Party – is getting more rancorous.A direct result of this increasing friction can be seen on the web as this debate within the GLBT community spills over into mainstream (albeit liberal) media. Just this week (to name a few) there is the featured article in The Daily Beast, “Can Obama Make Peace with Gays”; the lead story on The Huffington Post, “Gay Rights Speech: What Should Obama Say Tonight”; and Andrew Sullivan’s scathing review in The Atlantic, “The Battered Wife Syndrome of the HRC”. All are causing a lot of chatter on the internet and really only represent the tip of the iceberg of what is currently online.
Like the various groups referenced in the articles above, I have conflicting feelings and vacillate between pleasure to have Obama in office, because I truly believe he wishes me no ill will (I honestly did not feel that way about the former President) and disapointment that more has not been done either through supporting legislation or executive order. However, I do remind myself that although Obama is fairly liberal, he is socially moderate/conservative with regards to GLBT issues. He has never said anything that made me hold out hope that he would dash D.O.M.A. or lead the charge with any significant legislation.
That being said, I can also understand why many have been frustrated by what is perceived as reticence or lack of initiative. The GLBT voting block has grown in significance in the Democratic Party. Numbers in several politically important states are up and more importantly money donated has increased notably. If this voting bloc feels that they are not being heard by a Democratic candidate, that man/woman will see a drop in donations, volunteers and votes. Whatever the rift, I hope this mends because the option of having another Christian Conservative in office honestly sends shivers down my spine. Representative Barney Frank a Democrat from MA has long been reviled by many conservatives. Like most members of Congress, Frank can be quite pompous and downright arrogant. However, unlike most members of Congress, Frank also has brass balls, is not afraid to speak his mind and is exceptionally intelligent. His left leaning bias aside, the so called “Blue Dog” Democrats and other moderates would do well to take notes on how Rep. Frank handled himself at a recent town hall.
Near the end of the Town Hall a woman stepped to the podium and asked, “Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy?” Frank handled this exchange in much the same way many of those who are disrupting other town halls should – directly and by calling them out for what they are – hateful rhetoric not based in truth, fact or reality.
Approximately one week ago news stations and blogs were obsessed by reports that the Director of the C.I.A. – Leon Panetta – had recently visited Congress and disclosed that for the past 8 years there had been a secret counterterrorism program that had intentionally been concealed from the Senate and House intelligence committees.
The NY Times July 11th article, “Cheney is linked to concealment of C.I.A. Project” implicates V.P. Cheney. The Times asserts, “The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.”
It turns out that the program was designed to target leaders of Qaeda, which I think most Americans (especially in the days that followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001) would favor. The Times issued a follow up story in their July 13th article, “C.I.A. had plans to assassinate Qaeda leaders”. The article indicates that “Mr. Panetta scuttled the program, which would have relied on paramilitary teams, shortly after the C.I.A.’s counterterrorism center recently informed him of its existence. The next day, June 24, he told Congressional Intelligence Committees that the plan had been hidden from lawmakers, initially at the instruction of former Vice President Dick Cheney,” again implicating former V.P. Cheney.
I know many people do not have a problem with the idea of taking out leaders of terrorist organizations, but that is really not the issue that makes me so uncomfortable. Rather it is the lack of disregard for the “checks and balances” that makes our Democracy work (and worthwhile) that time and again seem to have been completely disregarded in the Bush administration. This concept that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney knew what was best and could only be effective if they were allowed to operate without supervision and without having to answer for their actions leaves me sick to my stomach. What would be the reaction (I wonder aloud) if President Obama and V.P. Biden operated in such a manner? What if they acted with the best of intentions but refused to disclose information, respect other branches of government and twisted laws to find interpretations that suited their means?
In the weeks leading up to this controversy, V.P. Dick Cheney was on the proverbial war path asserting that President Obama was compromising the safety of the U.S. He made several visits to the Sunday morning talk shows (i.e. Meet the Press, Face the Nation, etc…) and his daughter, Liz, was almost a permanent fixture on MSNBC and CNN expressing her disdain for the new administrations’ actions.
However in the days that have followed since Panetta shut down the Bush era counter terrorism program, there has not been a single peep from anyone named Cheney. Why the sudden silence now? Silence is not an impartial judge, and I’m left to wonder if the former V.P. believes the public’s assumptions are preferable to his answering these accusations. Mr. Cheney are you even more evil and despicable than my assumptions would lead me to believe?
Earlier this week, four significant memos written by the Bush administration between 2002 and 2005 on the interrogation of terror detainees were released. Among the interrogation documents released, was a list of 13 techniques authorized by the Justice Department for use by the C.I.A. on high-level suspects. The NY Times details some of the methods in their article on Friday, “Interrogation memos detail harsh tactics by the CIA”. However, the reason I am writing this entry is not to dwell on techniques approved by the Bush administration and applied to unsavory characters, but to revisit a blog entry I wrote in November 2007, “What are Values?”.
I know that many Americans have no problem with the thought of the U.S. torturing individuals or using any necessary means to secure the greater good for the public. Although I think I can make a strong argument that torturing people is not an effective way to get reliable information, I wanted to respond to the news of these memos for a different reason. When I think of men torturing people, I conjure up images of communist Russia and China or rogue nations like Chad, Syria and Iran – these are places where liberty is unknown. For reasons rooted in our Judeo-Christian culture and our founding political ideals (the very things that make us such a unique and special country) I can not imagine an America that would engage in serious dialog about ‘acceptable torture techniques’.
There should be nothing acceptable about torture. Are we a nation that hold our ideals true or do we only speak of these values (i.e. sanctity of life, rights of all individuals, etc…) when we are correcting our children or in our respective houses of worship? I expect our country to walk the talk and lead by example – not footnote exceptions for torturing individuals when our very ideals become inconvenient. I can not reconcile the image of a United States that condones torture with the image of my country when we are at our best. Martin Luther King appealed to the better side of Man in his “I have a dream” speech. I have chosen this excerpt which I think better expresses my fears and hopes for a better America.
“In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.”
Martin Luther King – I Have a Dream, 1963
BosGuy 