David Mixner: President Obama, At This Stage, Shame On You

[Bluebear]

First and foremost, the LGBT struggle is one of the great civil rights movement of our times. Given that, quite honestly, there is simply no logical personal or political reason for President Obama to be against marriage equality. At this stage there can only be two conclusions: that he is a political coward or that he does indeed hold prejudice against LGBT citizens. Nothing else fits at this stage. No one can make any more excuses and no one can justify his position any longer. Looking at the facts, the statistics, the political reality and at the President's current position one can only say "Shame on you, Mr. President. Shame on you."

This weekend two factors forced me to focus on his lack of leadership on this issue. One was a brilliant article in the New Republic by Richard Just entitled simply "Disgrace" and the other was a chart published in The New York Times showing the massive change in support across the country for marriage equality. Combine that with a recent CNN poll that showed 52% of Americans believe now that marriage equality is a Constitutional Right and you see how ridiculous his position has become before the public.

The President should look to his fellow Democrats for courage. Overwhelmingly, Democrats now support marriage equality.


http://www.davidmixner.com/2010/08/president-obama-at-this-stage-shame-on-you.html#more

[GodlessBiker]

1. Bravo, David!

[FiveGoodMen]

2. K&R

[mitchtv]

3. K&R

keeping above the unrecs

[LaurenG]

4. Off to the greatest. nt

[Bluebear]

24. merci. nt

[motely36]

5. K&R

AMEN!

[WI_DEM]

6. I agree! and while we're at it shame on President Clinton for giving us DADA & DOMA

[dsc]

19. and shame on you for evidently not having read a history book

DADT wasn't Clinton's fault. He lost after taking on both the military and Congress. He actually, God forbid, tried to lead on an issue about gays. To blame him for DADT is the worst kind of cynicism and dishonesty.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

7. I think he is WORSE than a bigot on this issue.

I think he is actually personally for marriage equality, but is taking a public stand against it for political expediency -- it is ALL about politics and (perceived) electibility.

Which is a sick, cynical position to take.

[Tansy_Gold]

13. You said "Which is a sick, cynical position to take." In other words,

he is not leading but is being led, and that implies that someone -- or something -- other than the President is in charge.

To sick and cynical I would add craven.




TG, NTY

[racaulk]

8. K&R!

[Prism]

9. He should be ashamed, and we need to be the ones to shame him

In 2010, Democrats should not be clinging to apologias for inaction against equality.

The President should be ashamed. The people who defend and rationalize and excuse his behavior should be ashamed right there with him.

[libnnc]

10. K&R

Enough of this bullshit. I've fucking HAD IT.

And DNC, DCCC, and yes DU, DON'T ASK ME FOR ANOTHER MOTHERFUCKING DIME.

[walldude]

11. K&R

[leftstreet]

12. K&R The Political Class pushed their favorite wedge issue too far

Serves 'em right.

Gosh, Americans are more interested in human rights than the overpriced political advisors thought. LOL

[foxfeet]

14. K&R

[VMI Dem]

15. This is exactly why the political expediency argument is bullshit.

There is no legitimate reason, other than pure bigotry, for him to oppose gay marriage.

[blindpig]

16. k&r n/t

[QC]

17. David Mixner never really loved him!

:cry:

[Mimosa]

31. LOL @ "David Mixner never really loved him!"

LOL. Mixner is a well known liberal, isn't he?

[QC]

34. That's one of the standard replies to all criticism of the administration, you know,

to wail that the critic in question never really, truly loved the president with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his mind anyway.

[w4rma]

39. He must be one of the "professional left" who need to be drug tested for disagreeing with Obama.(nt)

[Bluebear]

41. +

[jgraz]

18. Another lost opportunity

Others have succinctly stated the most galling aspects of Obama's anti-gay position, but I'll add one more: the missed opportunity to be out in front on this historic civil rights issue.

Does Obama really care how he's viewed by history? Is it enough for him to be the FIrst Black President(tm)? Or will he ultimately be remembered as the president with the most wasted potential?

[Parker CA]

20. Can't argue any of that. K to the R!!

[Hansel]

23. +1

Neither can I.

[bobbolink]

21. recommended

:kick:

[Starry Messenger]

22. Also there is no rational basis

PER Judge Walker on Prop 8. It will be embarrassing if the right are the ones to see reason on this before the leaders of the Democratic Party. WTF!

[ruggerson]

25. But I've been reading it's ONLY gay people on DU that are upset

some of our sraight compadres keep telling us how quiet, acquiescent and agreeable all their gay "friends" are.

[Bluebear]

26. Indeed.

Some of their best friends are "gay"!

[QC]

28. And don't forget the multitudes of gay uncles who come pouring out of the woodwork

on days like today, gay uncles who are grateful, who do not whine and stamp their feet.

[Bluebear]

29. "Gay for a Day" nt

[QC]

30. Why can't you be more like them? n/t

[Bluebear]

33. We will NOT ruin this for everybody else. nt

[QC]

38. You and your little pet issues! n/t

[Mimosa]

32. Oh, yes. The self-proclaimed 'activists' . eom

[QC]

27. And it's only a tiny minority even of gays on DU, the poniless, bitter, concerned ones.

Not the majority, who are grateful and non-foot-stompy.

[LostinVA]

35. the fringe malcontents

[LooseWilly]

36. Hmm... is there an "acquiescent and agreeable" unit-system to quantify positions with?

I mean, it would be awful to think that I'd mis-labeled my qualified estimation of the "acquiescence and agreeability" of my "gay friends"... that would be like making a judgement for myself about whether or not separate-but-'equal' is good enough.

I'm hoping for something simple, so I don't have to strain myself... maybe a 1-10 rating system- or maybe a 1-4 if you have one.

Ohh, and maybe some of those other posters might've left behind a pamphlet or something, indicating the numerical "acquiescence and agreeability" rating-average that one has to have amongst "gay friends" in order to justify condescending political expediency arguments? I mean, there has to be a rigorous system of justification behind the behavior, right— otherwise there would be repercussions...

:+

[amborin]

37. knr

[bigwillq]

40. K and R

:thumbsup:

[TheKentuckian]

42. and that's the way it is