April 17, 2008
Well, now you know why Obama insists on “reaching out” to rabidly homophobic conservative churches, while refusing to grant a real, no-fluff interview with local gay media.
In Obama’s eyes, it all depends on who’s legitimate, and who’s not.
I keep saying there’s a larger pattern to everything Barack Obama says and does, and — while most people out there really don’t give a rip about our piddly little civil rights struggle — we can begin to see where Obama’s bullheadedness and tunnel vision come from, by looking at the big picture, in this case, Obama’s perspective on one of the most volatile, sensitive areas any U.S. president will ever face… and one in which the wrong decision could kill us all.
(Relax, he’s not president, and he hasn’t decided to nuke Iran or invade Pakistan. Yet.)
Let’s review:
• Barack Obama agrees that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is a terrorist organization.
• But Barack Obama is willing to meet — “without precondition” — with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran (as well as with the leaders of “Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea”).
• Barack Obama criticizes former President Jimmy Carter — the guy who brokered the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty — for meeting with Hamas, because “Hamas is a terrorist organization.”
In detail:
April 24, 2007
Obama co-sponsors S.970, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, Section 16(d) of which designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (a branch of the Islamic Republic of Iran military, of which current Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a member, during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war) as a terrorist organization:
(d) List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on the efforts of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury to place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).
July 23, 2007
At the YouTube debate, in answer to the question, “[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?” Obama replies:
I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.
November 11, 2007
Obama reiterates to Tim Russert on “Meet the Press”:
I have said, unlike Senator Clinton, that I would meet directly with the leadership in Iran. I believe that we have not exhausted the diplomatic efforts that could be required to resolve some of these problems — them developing nuclear weapons, them supporting terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. … That has not been tried. Not only has it not been tried, but reports indicate that it has been explicitly rejected by the Bush administration. That is a policy that I intend to change as president of the United States.
March 3, 2008:
Obama supports George W. Bush’s stubborn refusal to so much as talk to Hamas:
Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday backed the Bush administration’s policy of shunning contact with the Islamic militants of Hamas in its Middle East peace diplomacy.
The Illinois senator has said he would break with President George W. Bush’s stance of declining to talk to some other international adversaries but that stance does not apply to Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and is committed to the destruction of Israel.
April 16, 2008:
Obama jumps on Jimmy Carter for talking to Hamas:
Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama on Wednesday disagreed with former President Jimmy Carter’s overtures toward Hamas, saying he would not talk to the Islamist group until it recognized Israel and renounced terrorism.
The Illinois senator, campaigning in Pennsylvania which holds the next presidential voting contest on Tuesday, told a group of Jewish leaders he has an “unshakable commitment” to help protect Israel from its “bitter enemies.”
“That’s why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas,” Obama said. “We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by past agreements.”
“Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization,” he said.
Ohhhh! I see now! Obama will meet with the leaders of all sorts of states (even rogue states, like North Korea), because they’re states, and Hamas is not a state.
In Obama’s eyes, one is legitimate, and the other is not.
Never mind that Iran’s “Ahmadinejad has clearly stated his intent to annihilate the State of Israel and also provides generous funding, advanced training, equipment, weapons and other support to Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations that attack Israeli citizens daily.”
Don’t even whisper that, or you might send Barry into an unstoppable fit of the ums and uhs and y’knows that always tumble out of his mouth when he’s caught off-guard, and off-script.
Nope, never mind that Iran is a sworn enemy of the State of Israel — one of its “bitter enemies” Obama has an “unshakable commitment” to help protect it from — and yet he wants to have a coffee klatch with that punk Ahmadinejad? But… Never mind that. Right, Barry? Barry…?
And never mind that Obama insisted, while talking to a group of Jewish voters in Pennsylvania:
“We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements.”
Barry might go absolutely catatonic if he has to explain why it’s a bad thing to “negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction,” while it’s a good thing to negotiate with a terrorist state intent on Israel’s destruction.
It’s not a black-and-white issue, not a one’s-a-state-and-the-other’s-not proposition. Unfortunately — and very unfortunately for the rest of us, should he actually get into the White House (shudder) — Barry doesn’t do “shades of gray” very well at all.
As Matt Schofield at the KC Star put it:
But isn’t Obama all about getting to the table with these people [Hamas], no matter how distasteful? We can be as offended as we like by the tactics of Hamas. But they’ve got a very real, and very political backing in the Palestinian territories. True, they are not a state actor. But it is hard to imagine a lasting peace agreement that ignores them. they simply have too much support in the region.
It’s not a one-off situaiton [sic], either: A study out this week notes that Nasrallah, the head of Lebanese Hezbollah, is the most respected Arab leader on Earth at this moment. Hezbollah and Hamas are not that far apart, and are frequently linked, at least by Israel. Can the continuing Israel/Hezbollah animosity be solved without the invovlement of Hezbollah? No.
I’m not saying they’re not both terrorist groups. From our perspective, and Israel’s perspective, certainly they are. Now, does this mean that Obama as a US president should sit down with them? No. Not sure that should be done.
But should he necessarily be critical of a former president who does? …
As Obama has noted, diplomacy can insist on an American leader sitting down with folks seen as strong enemies of the US. That is no reason not to meet with them. In fact, it’s an argument for why we should meet with them. …
[I]n a sense, Carter’s meeting serves this country, and the region. It’s a way to get to the table with people we can’t really otherwise talk with.
But if that’s not the case, if meeting with such folks is simply wrong, bad, and betrayal of trust, then isn’t Obama’s whole view of diplomacy a bit naive?
Easy answer: No — it’s a lot naïve.
I tell you, folks, if Barry — in all his naïveté, in all his black-and-white thinking — ends up being the one with his finger on the button, we’d all better start thinking about building bomb shelters in our backyards.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Testing comment system — Don't use the Comments link below unless you want your comment to disappear later. Use the Comments link above, instead.
Filed under:
Asia,
Barack Obama,
George W. Bush,
Iran,
Israel-Palestine
November 3, 2007
CNN is finally recognizing Barack Obama’s appalling missed-vote record, leading the coverage with the fact that Obama has missed more votes than any of the other congresscritters running for president, and pointing out that while he’s all over Hillary for her IWR vote, he missed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment vote because — you guessed it — he was out campaigning, in New Hampshire.
His handlers are saying he didn’t know about the Kyl-Lieberman vote in time to get back to D.C. — which is funny, since all the presidential candidates in Congress are notified of upcoming votes in advance, and somehow everybody else managed to get there in time, including Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
What’s also funny is that we found, via Travelocity, no less than 29 regularly-scheduled commercial flights Obama could have taken from New Hampshire to Washington, D.C., or one of its nearby airports — including three nonstops, none lasting more than an hour and 44 minutes.
But that point is completely moot, since:
A few candidates, including Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, both Democrats, have decided not to take corporate flights at all, opting instead to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more each year to charter their own jets.
In other words, Obama has a private aircraft — that, judging by the arrival times of many recent commercial flights (thank you, FlightAware!) on the same route, could have made the trip in as little as an hour and a half — at his disposal, yet his campaign is saying he still couldn’t drag himself back to Washington “in time.”
Failing that excuse, Obama’s flunkies are now saying that it’s a matter of deciding which Senate votes are “crucial”…
Lou Dobbs (of whom we are no fans) remarked yesterday, voice dripping with sarcasm: “Well, it’s so nice to believe these people can decide what is crucial, and what is not,” and then opined that maybe we should cut back the time Congress is in session by 20%, so it will be more convenient to the candidates.
(On the other hand, maybe we’re overlooking something here: It’s entirely possible Obama missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote deliberately; after all, he’s on record as being open to bombing Iran. Could it be that he couldn’t afford to be accused of flip-flopping if he voted against Kyl-Lieberman now — and then made the decision as president to attack Iran later? That’s a very disturbing thought — which is exactly what makes it worth considering.)
But here’s something we didn’t know: Obama has missed nearly 80% of all Senate votes since September!
And, overall:
Barack Obama missed 137 of 1040 votes (13%) since Jan 6, 2005 (Very Poor relative to peers).
Much more here
CNN finally put up an article late Friday evening:
Obama making less than a quarter of Senate votes
Sen. Barack Obama has missed the most votes of any Democratic presidential hopeful in the Senate over the last two months, including a vote on an Iran resolution he has blasted Sen. Hillary Clinton for supporting.
The Illinois Democrat has missed nearly 80 percent of all votes since September.
. . .
Obama’s campaign argues that looking at the last two months is arbitrary.
Obama missed a vote on a resolution that declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, an elite part of the Iranian military, a terrorist organization. He has criticized Clinton for voting for it, saying it would give President Bush a “blank check” to invade Iran. …
. . .
Obama was campaigning in New Hampshire when the vote was taken. His campaign blamed his absence on the short notice given when the vote was scheduled. But two senior Democratic Senate aides said senators were advised the night before that the vote would occur the next day.
A spokesman for Obama, however, was adamant Obama did not have enough time to return to Washington for the vote.
Obama has also missed votes on a Democratic priority, the expansion of the federally funded State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)…
. . .
With the mounting fight with the White House over key bills, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is putting all the contenders on notice. …
“Obama’s campaign points out that Biden missed the most votes if the whole year is considered, followed by Dodd, then Obama.” = “They do it tooooo!”
What’s more, a shocking number of Obama supporters we’ve encountered on the Web are scrambling to justify this ugly blot on Obama’s “flawless” voting record — which appears to be their pattern: When they find a comparable situation to rag on any other the other candidates about, they treat it with equal gravity; i.e., Hillary’s two anti-gay SC chairs = just as bad as the Donnie McClurkin fiasco; Joe Biden missing 68% of Senate votes = just as bad as Obama missing 80%; and so on and on, ad nauseam.
And we’re not buying the argument that Obama’s statement of opposition to Kyl-Lieberman — nor his statement of support for SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) — as just as good as a vote. Talking the talk without walking the walk does not have any effect on whether legislation is made or broken.
But Kyl-Lieberman was hardly the only “critical” vote Obama missed. To illustrate the breadth of votes Obama didn’t consider “critical” enough to show up for, this very abbreviated look at his no-shows is illuminating:
Nov 1, 2007 5:15 PM No Vote H.R. 3963: Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (On Passage of the Bill)
Bill Passed 64-30, 6 not voting
Senate Roll #402
. . .
Oct 31, 2007 3:48 PM No Vote Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider H.R. 3963: Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007
Cloture Motion Agreed to 62-33, 5 not voting
Senate Roll #400
. . .
Oct 3, 2007 2:00 PM No Vote Feingold Amdt. No. 3164, H.R. 3222: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008 (On the Amendment)
Amendment Rejected 28-68, 4 not voting
Senate Roll #361
. . .
Oct 1, 2007 5:59 PM No Vote H.R. 1585: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (On Passage of the Bill)
Bill Passed 92-3, 5 not voting
. . .
Sep 26, 2007 12:44 PM No Vote Kyl Amdt. No. 3017 as Modified, H.R. 1585: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (On the Amendment)
Amendment Agreed to 76-22, 2 not voting
. . .
Sep 24, 2007 5:51 PM No Vote H.R. 1495: Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (On the Conference Report)
Conference Report Agreed to 81-12, 7 not voting
. . .
Sep 10, 2007 3:30 PM No Vote Murray Amdt. No. 2792, H.R. 3074: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 (On the Amendment)
Amendment Agreed to 60-33, 7 not voting
Sep 10, 2007 11:29 AM No Vote Confirming Janis Lynn Sammartino, of California, to be U.S. District Judge
Nomination Confirmed 90-0, 10 not voting
Sep 10, 2007 11:06 AM No Vote Confirming William Lindsay Osteen, of North Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge
Nomination Confirmed 86-0, 14 not voting
Sep 7, 2007 10:15 AM No Vote H.R. 2669: Higher Education Access Act of 2007 (On the Conference Report)
Conference Report Agreed to 79-12, 9 not voting
Sep 6, 2007 9:46 PM No Vote H.R. 2764: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008 (On Passage of the Bill)
Bill Passed 81-12, 7 not voting
. . .
Sep 6, 2007 12:16 PM No Vote H.R. 2642: Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 (On Passage of the Bill)
Bill Passed 92-1, 7 not voting
. . .
Sep 4, 2007 6:08 PM No Vote Confirming Jim Nussle, of Iowa, to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget
Nomination Confirmed 69-24, 7 not voting
. . .
Jul 30, 2007 5:32 PM No Vote Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 976: Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007
Cloture Motion Agreed to 80-0, 20 not voting
. . .
Jul 26, 2007 10:49 PM No Vote H.R. 2638: Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008 (On Passage of the Bill)
Bill Passed 89-4, 7 not voting
. . .
Jul 26, 2007 11:39 AM No Vote H.R. 1: Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (On the Conference Report)
Conference Report Agreed to 85-8, 7 not voting
. . .
Jul 24, 2007 4:44 PM No Vote H.J.Res. 44: Joint resolution approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and for other purposes. (On the Joint Resolution)
Joint Resolution Passed 93-1, 6 not voting
Jul 24, 2007 12:46 PM No Vote S. 1642: Higher Education Amendments of 2007 (On Passage of the Bill)
Bill Passed 95-0, 5 not voting
Jul 24, 2007 12:22 PM No Vote Kennedy Amdt. No. 2381, as Modified, S. 1642: Higher Education Amendments of 2007 (On the Amendment)
Amendment Agreed to 93-0, 7 not voting
. . .
Jul 20, 2007 12:36 AM No Vote H.R. 2669: Higher Education Access Act of 2007 (On Passage of the Bill)
Bill Passed 78-18, 4 not voting
. . .
Jul 13, 2007 9:29 AM No Vote Dorgan Amdt. No. 2135, as Amended, H.R. 1585: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (On the Amendment)
Amendment Agreed to 87-1, 12 not voting
. . .
Jul 9, 2007 6:12 PM No Vote Confirming Janet T. Neff, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge
Nomination Confirmed 83-4, 13 not voting
Jul 9, 2007 5:43 PM No Vote Confirming Liam O’Grady, of Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge
Nomination Confirmed 88-0, 12 not voting
. . .
Jun 12, 2007 5:46 PM No Vote Bayh Amdt. No. 1508, H.R. 6: Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 (On the Amendment)
Amendment Agreed to 63-30, 6 not voting
Jun 11, 2007 6:16 PM No Vote Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider H.R. 6: Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007
Cloture Motion Agreed to 91-0, 8 not voting
. . .
Jun 5, 2007 7:46 PM No Vote Feingold Amdt. No. 1176, S. 1348: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (On the Amendment)
Amendment Agreed to 67-26, 6 not voting
. . .
May 22, 2007 5:47 PM No Vote Dorgan Amdt. No. 1153, S. 1348: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (On the Amendment)
Amendment Rejected 31-64, 5 not voting
May 21, 2007 5:43 PM No Vote Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S. 1348: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007
Cloture Motion Agreed to 69-23, 8 not voting
. . .
May 7, 2007 5:09 PM No Vote Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Committee Substitute as Modified and Amended to S. 1082: Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act
Cloture Motion Agreed to 82-8, 10 not voting
May 7, 2007 4:05 PM No Vote Cochran Amdt. No. 1010, S. 1082: Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act (On the Amendment)
Amendment Agreed to 49-40, 11 not voting
. . .
Much, much more here
Are these, or are these not, “critical” votes? Does Obama not consider these issues “critical” enough? Not even a bill which could lead us into war with Iran? And for all his chatter about the importance of healthcare for the some nine million children without health insurance in this country, failing to show up for a “critical” vote on the SCHIP bill reveals all that chatter as just so much empty rhetoric.
Andrew Walker spells it out:
This week was another key week in the battle to re-authorize and expand the vital S-CHIP program. After the Bush veto of the first S-CHIP re-authorization bill, it was extremely important for Congressional Democrats to let the President know that they aren’t backing down when it comes to providing access to health care for America’s children.
As you may know, on October 25th the U.S. House voted 265 - 142 to send another S-CHIP bill to the President’s desk. Yesterday, the U.S. Senate followed suit and voted 64 - 30 to send House Resolution 3963 to the White House for another anticipated Bush veto.
Over in the House, America’s children were 25 votes away from gaining increased access to health care. In the House, every Democrat save one voted for the revised S-CHIP bill. Over in the Senate, America’s children fell 3 votes short of overriding the Bush veto against their health and well-being.
Three votes, ladies and gentlemen; and one of those three votes could’ve been supplied by Senator Barack Obama of Illinois if…
…he had even bothered to show up and vote.
The only “critical” vote Obama made in the past month was a nay on the Southwick confirmation — but perhaps he just happened to be in town that day.
In any case, Obama’s inexcusable pattern of missed votes is only more proof of how Barack Obama is more focused on recruiting supporters for his presidential campaign — at any cost — than he is about doing the right thing, which, in this case, is his job.
If you missed that many days of work because you were out looking for another job — and your boss knew it — you’d be canned in a New York minute.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Testing comment system — Don't use the Comments link below unless you want your comment to disappear later. Use the Comments link above, instead.
Filed under:
Barack Obama,
Donnie McClurkin,
Election 2008,
Health & Wellness,
Hillary Clinton,
Insurance,
Iran,
John Edwards,
U.S. Congress
September 22, 2007
Wayne Besen on Crazies For Christ:
The Washington Post had a fascinating series last weekend discussing the rise of a movement representing “nonbelievers.” The trend is worldwide, but is also taking root in America, one of the most religious western nations. As radical fundamentalism has spiraled out of control, many people are standing up and loudly declaring that there is simply too much God permeating our society.
According to the Post, the Atheist Alliance International’s membership has almost doubled in the past year to 5,200. Its membership is mushrooming to the point where its national convention in Crystal City later this month has a 500-person waiting list.
. . .
The surge in political atheism is clearly a reaction to the utter obnoxiousness of today’s fundamentalists. No matter what the religion, these fanatics have made it clear that they have a God-given right to rule the earth and subjugate anyone who does not sing from the same hymn sheet.
The Middle East, of course, is the manifestation of such sectarian madness. The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thinks God wants his country to have a nuclear bomb. This may lead to George W. Bush, who has his own messiah complex, to bomb Tehran. In Saudi Arabia, the government lops off peoples’ heads if they are deemed to have pissed off Allah (homosexuals make the list). In Iraq, it seems everyone is tuned into the God channel and speaks on his behalf. In Israel, meanwhile, ultra-orthodox Jews believe that God has given the “chosen people” all of the land from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. But, Palestinian fanatics swear that Allah intends for Muslims to eradicate Israel. With so much God, peace doesn’t stand a prayer.
. . .
This week, our homegrown fundamentalists took center stage with two creepy events in Florida, an important swing state. On Tuesday, they hosted the “Values Voter Presidential Debate,” where lunatics were allowed 24-hour leave from the asylum to ask presidential also-rans their plans to bring our nation back to the Stone Age. …
. . .
The second event is the Family Impact Summit, a three-day hate-a-palooza in a Tampa suburb where a throng of right wing ideologues will mix with “ex-gay” leaders to plot how to take control of America. To counter the event, Equality Florida will hold a press conference and a rally outside the church where the Summit is being held. …
While the fundamentalists fulminate in Tampa, the Post article mentioned one statistic that should worry them. While six percent of people over sixty have no faith in God, one in four adults ages 18-22 have no such faith. I believe this number will only grow as long as “Crazies for Christ” whose main value is vindictiveness represent”God’s people.”
With lots of reader comments at the link.
Discuss this story
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Testing comment system — Don't use the Comments link below unless you want your comment to disappear later. Use the Comments link above, instead.
Filed under:
"Ex-Gays",
Atheism/Agnosticism,
Florida,
George W. Bush,
Iran,
Iraq,
Israel-Palestine,
Middle East,
Radical Religious Right,
Religion & Spirituality,
Saudi Arabia
August 9, 2007
From Sapphocrat:
Upon learning that Barack Obama’s campaign had added a new “pride” section to its Web site, I snarled:
Obama can bite me.
He’s got a whole section of his campaign site designed to pander to us:
http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome
You are NOT my ally, Obama, and until the day you recognize your privilege by denying me my rights, I won’t vote for you — even in the national election.
There, I said it: If by some horrible twist of fate Obama gets the nod, I will not be voting for the Democratic nominee for president, for the first time ever. He has nothing to offer that would offset his stubborn stance on marriage equality, or his revolting pandering to the fundies. A strong background in foreign policy might have convinced me to turn a blind eye one more time, but he sure hasn’t got that.
Even Hillary brings more to the table (she’s been there already, and yes, Bill is a strong plus for her in my eyes; no matter how much crap he pulled on LGBTs, his reign constituted the best eight years of my life as an American) — and as much as I dislike HRC, I will be able to hold my nose and vote for her.
But not Obama. Never Obama.
To paraphrase Tevye: “If I bend that far, I will break.”
swimboy asked me to elaborate the reasons I think Barack Obama would be a bad choice for President, and this was my answer:
In my mind, because there’s nothing to offset his stance on marriage equality. Meaning: If I thought this was the one person who could (and would) get us out of Iraq and begin to restore our nearly ruined reputation with the rest of the world, I’d consider taking yet another hit for the team in lieu of his full support for LGBTs.
But — and this is completely aside from the marriage issue — the idea of Obama as foreign-policy setter scares the hell out of me. This is the man who is open to the idea of bombing Iran, and, just a week or two ago, pissed off Pakistan when he said he’d consider attacking that country in order to go after global terrorists.
I can’t even begin to imagine the repercussions of attacking Iran — and attacking Pakistan is even more unimaginable; Pakistan is (and has long been) a nuclear power. I’m not worried about Pakistan launching a nuke at us — they wouldn’t have to; their best bet would be lobbing a nuke into New Delhi, and wiping out our strongest ally (and satisfying their own bloodlust against India in the same strike). If you think we’re in a mess in the Middle East now, just wait ’til the war games start up in South Asia.
And, speaking of Asia, if he’s so reckless with his threats while he’s still just a candidate, what in the world does he intend to do about North Korea? (Nothing, I hope, because if he puffs out his chest at NK, what can we expect from China?)
Bottom line for me is that he has less of a grasp on the concept of diplomacy (and just plain not pissing off countries that can destroy you) than I do. That scares me, a lot.
So, there’s that. He’s got nothing to offer (except a lot of potential chaos) to convince me that life will be better with him at the helm, or that I should give him an inch on LGBT issues in exchange for a safer, more secure America.
And it goes well beyond just marriage equality; his stance on that indicates to me a lack of basic understanding about the issue of church-state separation. He says that marriage “has religious and social connotations” (sure, only as long as it’s been a social fabrication; it was originally a business deal).
He’s all too willing to “leave it to the states” — even though he’s said that his own parents’ (interracial) marriage was illegal (in states other than Hawaii, where they married). How can he then justify “separate but equal” for us? What kind of double standard is that for someone who claims to support equal rights — for anyone?
IMO, Obama’s problem is that he never grew up under the full weight of discrimination in the U.S. himself; part of his childhood was spent in Kenya, and part in Hawaii — and Hawaii is not Wahoo, Kentucky. I’m not saying he’s “not black enough” (I’ll leave that to black commentators, who say it plenty; see the quotes below from Rev. Irene Monroe and Jasmyne Cannick, for just two), but I will say I don’t believe he has the frame of reference his generational contemporaries do. He is of a generation (mine, in fact) for whom the Civil Rights era is but a dim memory; yet even I have a greater advantage in understanding what it means to suffer not merely discrimination, but state-sanctioned discrimination, that he does not.
Should his race be an issue? No — unless he’s going to tout himself as a champion of the underdog. Because he doesn’t have the lifelong experience of a Jesse Jackson or an Al Sharpton, his race means nothing to me (if he had, then I would consider his race a plus, in that we shared some common thread; i.e., the lifelong effects of bigotry). AFAIC, he knows as much about my experience as Edwards or HRC… which is to say: nada.
OK, so what does his voting record have to say? It’s beautiful, really, on LGBT issues — it shows that he is not in favor of any bill that would strip us of any current protections, nor burden us with any further restrictions. But to me, that is the least any candidate can do, as opposed to fully supporting our equality, and actually doing something about it. His hypocrisy is even more glaring every time he pays lip service to us, while stubbornly refusing to give us the same — not special, but merely the same — rights he enjoys.
Whether it’s his religion getting in the way (which he says it is; he’s been quite clear that his religious beliefs are at odds with marriage equality), or whether it’s really that he doesn’t want to alienate Christian voters and other conservative Democrats, it doesn’t matter: He’s making religion a stumbling block for what it a simple, secular issue.
Finally, he took the same tack Hillary did when asked about Peter Pace’s comment that homosexuality was immoral: He hedged, he dodged… Even HRC tried to run damage control after John Edwards had the cojones to answer the question directly; I haven’t heard Obama even try to backtrack (although I may have missed it).
To round out my thoughts on Obama, here’s what a few other people have to say, and say better than I can:
What’s disappointing however, was Obama’s initial reaction to Pace’s remarks. According to the Tribune, a Newsday reporter asked Obama as he was leaving a speaking engagement if he thought homosexuality was immoral. Obama’s first answer was: “I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That’s probably a good tradition to follow.” Asked a second time, he said: “I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country.” When asked a third time, the senator ignored the question, signed an autograph, posed for a photo and then jumped into a Lincoln Town Car. Obama later clarified his position, telling Larry King on CNN, “I don’t think that homosexuals are immoral any more than I think heterosexuals are immoral.”
A calculated response from Hillary is no surprise; we’ve come to expect her to tap dance around all kinds of issues. And although he has been taking heat from his supporters for it, Obama has been remarkably consistent with his position on gay marriage. During his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, he said “I’m a Christian. … And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” While we may not agree with that analysis, he is certainly entitled to his beliefs. What’s disappointing is watching a man whose personal story, background and persona have the power to unite a nation that is clearly worn down by the politics of division and false choices try to find an answer that will satisfy everyone. We aren’t convinced that Obama actually believes that homosexuality is immoral. But what his reaction did demonstrate is that his commitment to equality goes only as far as political expediency will allow.
– The Chicagoist
As an African-American woman who is also a lesbian, I have a lot to weigh in making my final decision for who I am going to support. I obviously want someone who is going to do more than pay lip service to African-Americans but I also want the same concerning gays.
I like Obama, I really do. I went to hear him speak when he came to L.A. for his book signing. In fact, I have his autographed book on my bookshelf in my living room and every now and then, I glance at it and think, he may be the next President.
But with all of Obama’s audacity, he hasn’t been able to stand up and say yes, I agree that separate isn’t equal and gays and lesbians deserve to be treated equally under the law with the same rights and privileges as America’s heterosexual citizens. Now that would truly be audacity!
But that hasn’t happened and I fear that what is happening is that in this mad dash rush to get the support of the Black community, via the Black church, Obama is trying to ignore the fact that I don’t have all of my rights and that I am not treated equal. And if he can stand up and speak out against the war he should be able to stand up and face the Black church and say that while he may not agree with the idea of lesbians and gays getting married, that they do contribute to society like everyone else, including paying taxes and therefore deserve to be treated equally.
By the same token, showing up at Black churches and “talking Black” to the Blacks and showing up at gay organizations talking in circles about what you’re going to do if elected, which if you read between the lines isn’t really anything, doesn’t impress me either. Nor does trying to use your husband’s strange popularity with Blacks to boost your standings in the African-American community.
There’s a lot riding on this next election. It’s not just about the war, Social Security, universal healthcare, and the economy. It’s also about putting an end to lawful discrimination and having the guts to take a real position, the right position, on unpopular issues. It’s about reparations and America apologizing for slavery as much as it’s about my rights as a lesbian to marry the woman of my choice…legally.
So in other words, if you want my vote, you’re gonna have to work for it. Being Black isn’t going to be enough, nor is being a woman. And paying lip service on Sunday’s isn’t going to get it either.
I want the next President of the United States to be able to stand up on the right side of all of the issues, not the just the popular ones.
– Jasmyne Cannick
“He’s my favorite because he beats his kids with his hand instead of a stick,” is not what Bishop Gene Robinson said of Presidential would-be Barack Obama. On marriage equality, he might as well have.
– Blue Mass Group
As a supposedly bipartisan politician who understands and reconciles opposing views, and a non-doctrinal Christian whose personal identity and life journey shaped his lens to include those on the margins, why then, I ask, is this presidential hopeful not united with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer voters on the issue of marriage equality?
“I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided,” Obama wrote in his recent memoir, The Audacity of Hope.
But Obama’s audacity is not only his unwillingness to support the issue, but also his misunderstanding and misuse of the term “gay marriage.” The terminology “gay marriage” not only stigmatizes and stymies our efforts for marriage equality, but it also suggests that LGBT people’s marriages are or would be wholly different from those of heterosexuals, thus altering its landscape, if not annihilating the institution of marriage entirely.
But Obama’s remarks in a recent interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press spoke somewhat encouragingly about granting LGBTQ couples not marriage equality but certainly civil union rights.
However, having lived outside of America during its turbulent decades of the Jim Crow era and legal segregation, Obama may not know on a visceral and lived experienced level what those decades had been like for African-Americans.
But he ought to know, as a civil rights attorney, that granting LGBTQ Americans only the right to civil unions violates our full constitutional right as well as reinstitutionalizes the 1896 U.S. Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson. As a result of that decision, the ’separate but equal’ doctrine became the rule of law until it was struck down in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.
. . .
Although not a cradle Christian, Christianity became Obama’s newfound religious identity late in his life. And his affinity to conservative Christian beliefs not only informs his decision on the issue of marriage equality, but it also solidifies his decision about us in a community of believers like himself.
. . .
Obama’s The Audacity of Hope is not a must-read for LGBT voters because he fails to fully comprehend or sincerely commit to the issue of social justice for all Americans. He does not tackle head-on how the religious rhetoric of this political era has played an audacious role in discrimination against LGBT people, leaving us with little to no hope, his rhetoric included.
“In years hence, I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history. I don’t believe such doubts make me a bad Christian,” Obama writes.
As LGBT voters, our job is neither to judge nor vote for Obama on whether he is a good Christian. It is, however, for us to judge and vote on whether he is a good statesman.
If he should run for president, he wouldn’t get my vote.
– Reverend Irene Monroe
Discuss this story
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Testing comment system — Don't use the Comments link below unless you want your comment to disappear later. Use the Comments link above, instead.
Filed under:
Asia,
Barack Obama,
Christianity,
Election 2008,
Hillary Clinton,
Iran,
John Edwards,
Marriage Equality,
Race/Ethnic Issues,
Radical Religious Right
