Say Hello to the New Boss

July 19, 2009 5:58 PM

Obama's Faithful Flock. Sarah Posner reminds us that Obama promised to reverse the most egregious aspects of Bush's faith-based policies and asks why he's extending them.
posted by Mayor Curley (66 comments total)

He's a liar?
posted by Postroad at 6:07 PM on July 19, 2009 [6 favorites]

The answer is so simple: Obama is the second coming.

Right?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:08 PM on July 19, 2009

In part, Kelley's appointment is the usual political payback. Catholics and evangelicals including Kelley provided abortion cover for the president and for candidates like Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. A Democratic governor from a red state famous for the ferocity and electoral strength of its social conservatives, Sebelius won a second term in a landslide in 2006. Catholics in Alliance campaigned for her reelection. Though she faced heavy fire from the religious right when she was nominated, Sebelius is now the HHS secretary.

So, yeah, it turns out that Obama is actually just a skilled politician and not the liberal kwisatz haderach.
posted by Avenger at 6:09 PM on July 19, 2009 [6 favorites]

Lynn noted that in remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, Obama stressed the need for a faith-based initiative that would do its work “without blurring the line that our founders wisely drew between church and state.”

Backstory to The Family and the National Prayer Breakfast , at MetaFilter previously [1], [2], [3].
posted by acro at 6:17 PM on July 19, 2009 [2 favorites]

I thought Obama himself was a faith-based policy.
posted by twoleftfeet at 6:20 PM on July 19, 2009 [7 favorites]

How much of this is backpedaling and how much of it is buying off votes for the policies he wants? (Not to excuse it, but to think he can [or should] issue Bush/Cheney-style empirical directives is kind of ridiculous.)
posted by DU at 6:22 PM on July 19, 2009

Can anyone point to any of these appointments causing an Actual Problem that I should be upset about?
posted by empath at 6:28 PM on July 19, 2009 [4 favorites]

The Alexia Kelley hand-wringing particularly annoys me, because her public opinions are simply official Catholic Church doctrine. I don't think we should have religious tests for people in office, and forcing someone to publically disagree with the official doctrine of her chosen faith before allowing her to take public office strikes me as wrong.
posted by empath at 6:30 PM on July 19, 2009 [5 favorites]

empath, forcing someone to publicly disagree with the official doctrine of his/her chosen faith before allowing him/her to take public office strikes me as okie dokie.
posted by _aa_ at 6:46 PM on July 19, 2009 [4 favorites]

I certainly didn't get the impression during the campaign that Obama was a huge opponent of religion in government.
posted by delmoi at 6:47 PM on July 19, 2009 [5 favorites]

You can't get elected to the office of POTUS with claiming to be a good Christian. I like how this fact surprises people here.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 6:51 PM on July 19, 2009 [2 favorites]

without, not with, sorry.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 6:52 PM on July 19, 2009

I don't really care where Ms. Kelley's anti-abortion and anti-birth control advocacy come from. I just think it's not a great idea to put someone like that in charge of overseeing grants involving family planning and HIV.
posted by rdr at 6:53 PM on July 19, 2009 [19 favorites]

Politician lies, film live on CSPAN, all the freakin' time.
posted by paisley henosis at 6:56 PM on July 19, 2009

I don't think we should have officials who think Official Catholic Doctrine should be made into Official US Policy. Or Official Religious Doctrine of any kind. That strikes me as wrong.
posted by amethysts at 7:00 PM on July 19, 2009

Can anyone point to any of these appointments causing an Actual Problem that I should be upset about?

No, but why let that stop you? For instance, you could be a gay couple from Vermont or an elderly straight couple from Massachusetts, with both kids post-grad school and nary a care in the world save for bitching on the internet about how your center-left candidate of choice has yet to resolve said husband's erectile dysfunction: the point being, it's ALL HIS FAULT. SOMEHOW!!!!111one!!!!

I honestly don't know how ya'll deal with the constant anxiety re: whether your one money market fund will out-perform your other money market funds. Ah, to be upper-middle class and privileged whilst hating it. Must be nice. Carry on.
posted by joe lisboa at 7:01 PM on July 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

i think this was another issue where we, the public, needed a clear policy directive from the WH communications staff about how the Obama faith-based office was going to differ from the Bush office of Faith-Based Initiatives.

We in librul 'Merica always knew that the scheme was just a payoff for der Fuhrer's religulous (sic) base. Obama should really -- as with a couple other things he's done -- maintained some transparency about the things he's doing, rather than just continue the cynical pantomimes that Karl Rove created.

1.) The Office was controversial even during Bush's term as John DiIulio, the program's first director resigned because he did not want to carry water for the Bush-Rove social projects; 2.) Obama's people ought to have met with Rev. Lynn's people to discuss a continuation of the program and get them on board.

I know that Obama and his people are plenty busy these days, but they really shouldn't create opporunities for his enemies to weigh-in with their editorial contributions.
posted by vhsiv at 7:06 PM on July 19, 2009

I'm with empath - I read that whole freaking thing and all I came away with was that things have changed a bit, not as much as perpetually unsatisfied left wing activists would like, but that nothing bad has actually happened yet.

Frankly, I'm rapidly tiring of these weekly Veruca Salt "I want it now!" stories about this or that thing that Obama either hasn't done yet or hasn't done to some group's exact liking. Get back to me in three and half more years, then we'll tally the scorecard.

Or to put it another, familiar way: everyone chill the fuck out, he's got this.
posted by schoolgirl report at 7:06 PM on July 19, 2009 [13 favorites]

"...contraception, abortion and everything else the majority of Catholics have long rejected..."

Contraception, yeah, but 52% of Catholics polled identified as being opposed to abortion, according to the good people at Gallup.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:08 PM on July 19, 2009

I just think it's not a great idea to put someone like that in charge of overseeing grants involving family planning and HIV.

That's a kind of dishonest description of the position she's being appointed to.

Here are the goals for the office:

1. Strengthen the role of community organizations in the economic recovery and poverty reduction.
2. Reduce unintended pregnancies and support maternal and child health.
3. Promote responsible fatherhood and healthy families.
4. Foster interfaith dialogue and collaboration with leaders and scholars around the world, and at home.

Now, I suppose that #2 is a family planning mandate, but let's get real here. This is a token program, and I'd be shocked if it amounted to 1% of the family planning budget of the federal government. Let's assume that she does rule this project with an iron fist and only approves abstinence-only programs in the grants that she has authority over. How much impact would that really have?

Meanwhile, Obama rescinded the Mexico City policy days after taking office.
posted by empath at 7:14 PM on July 19, 2009 [5 favorites]

B-b-b-but: 35 years ago I had a "gay" roommate in "college" -- so now I can bitch about DADT on the "internet" and reclaim my "bona fides."
posted by joe lisboa at 7:19 PM on July 19, 2009

Ah, to be rich and white and "persecuted."
posted by joe lisboa at 7:27 PM on July 19, 2009

I don't think we should have religious tests for people in office

I don't think people in office should have so much power that their religious beliefs should make a difference.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:27 PM on July 19, 2009 [4 favorites]

joe lisboa-- you're absolutely right. Everybody who disagrees with you is a bad Leftist, a phony and has money pouring out of their ass. Thanks for setting the standard by which the rest of us are right to be judged.

I would have put some random quotes around some of these words because that's how you would do it, but that key is stuck right now.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:28 PM on July 19, 2009 [6 favorites]

How about we just stop the government from recognizing and endorsing religion in the first place and limit this kind of funding to secular groups.
posted by cmgonzalez at 7:35 PM on July 19, 2009 [2 favorites]

I don't think people in office should have so much power that their religious beliefs should make a difference.

Did you actually think that through at all? The woman isn't being appointed as a Abortion Czar or something. I assume she'll be enacting the policies of the administration, and if she doesn't, then she'll be fired. I don't see what her religion has to do with anything.
posted by empath at 7:47 PM on July 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

Say it with me now ... ruthlessly pragmatic.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:54 PM on July 19, 2009

Regarding joe lisboa: WHBT. WHL. Flag it and move on.

That said, here's my $0.02 on the FPP:

I think the real problem is that (religious) organizations are allowed to participate in government processes at all. Ban lobbying of all forms, from religious groups, think tanks, corporations, any group that can wield more power than the average joe because of its sheer size and ability to pay some schmuck in a suit to take Senators out to dinner.

If you make a campaign contribution, you and anyone who works for you should be barred from taking a position working for the candidate you supported. Yes, this will change campaign politics drastically. Maybe we could even bar private funding like people have been talking about for a long time.

There is just far too much of an uneven playing field for the true will of the people to be expressed through government, and it manifests itself when people who are obviously not suited for a position are given that position anyway out of cronyism or as a quid pro quo.
posted by spitefulcrow at 8:00 PM on July 19, 2009

Joe, please actually clock out, okay? Everybody, take a deep breath and move on with the conversation.
posted by cortex at 8:05 PM on July 19, 2009

Point taken, cortex. My bad. Best of luck to the rest of ya'll white boyz.
posted by joe lisboa at 8:10 PM on July 19, 2009

Point is that Bush, with a tiny "mandate", managed to push all these huge changes on America amazingly fast.

Obama campaigned on "change" but so far it's entirely been business as usual - and on the important things, the financial collapse, torture camps, the wars, health insurance, it looks like Obama has already fumbled the ball big time.

You can't blame us for wanting "our hero" to be able to be at least as effective as the Smirking Chimp was. Obama has just as good an emergency, "The collapsing economy" - he has both houses, something Bush never had - so why is he not only refusing to act, but in so many cases (spying, torture camps, the bailouts, Afghanistan, Iraq) continuing exactly what Bush started?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:13 PM on July 19, 2009 [2 favorites]

[oops, wasn't done]

So this is a minor thing - something Obama promised to undo and is instead doing more of. If this were the only problem we'd be laughing. But a lot of us here see it as yet another sign that we got screwed again...
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:14 PM on July 19, 2009

"Ban lobbying of all forms"

I completely agree those damn scientists have nothing to say about the environment, energy policy, or health and drug policy that I want to my elected officials to hear about.

If something is important than each individual scientist can just scream louder then the rest of us.
posted by oddman at 8:17 PM on July 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

and on the important things, the financial collapse, torture camps, the wars, health insurance, it looks like Obama has already fumbled the ball big time

Sez you. He's doing exactly what he said he would on the wars - following his timeline for pulling out of Iraq, focusing on Afghanistan. In what universe is this continuing what Bush started?

Health care reform is on track, despite Democrats in Congress.

Not sure where you see a 'fumble' on the economic recovery - can we give the policies a bit more time to, you know, take effect?

I'll give you the torture thing, that's been frustrating.

Point is that Bush, with a tiny "mandate", managed to push all these huge changes on America amazingly fast.

Right, and consequently they were poorly thought out, poorly implemented, and generally crappy. You want fast or you want good?
posted by schoolgirl report at 8:31 PM on July 19, 2009 [5 favorites]

I completely agree those damn scientists have nothing to say about the environment, energy policy, or health and drug policy that I want to my elected officials to hear about.

Yeah, I knew there were problems with my idea. We could probably allow scientific and nonpartisan policy non-profits to keep their lobbies. I was just trying to think of all the lobbying groups I can't stand that make bad things happen. But then there's a problem with where you draw the line, because religious groups will complain that they're non-profit and should be allowed to lobby. It's a tough call. But we can agree that corporate lobbies are generally a bad idea, right? ;)
posted by spitefulcrow at 8:44 PM on July 19, 2009

How about we just stop the government from recognizing and endorsing religion in the first place and limit this kind of funding to secular groups.

Well, that's how things were until bush took office, and that's what they are complaining about Obama not doing.
posted by delmoi at 8:51 PM on July 19, 2009

Right, and consequently they were poorly thought out, poorly implemented, and generally crappy. You want fast or you want good?

Why would "returning to the pre-crappy system" also be crappy? If someone decides to change a recipe without a lot of thought, and the new taste is terrible, it doesn't imply that going back to the old recipe could also be crappy.

Furthermore, it's not exactly like he's taking it slow on health care reform. They are asking for a bill by the end of august, and for it to be synced between the house and senate by October. We're talking about a major reform of the entire health care sector, something that people have been trying for 50 years in less then 10 months. How's that not fast?
posted by delmoi at 8:54 PM on July 19, 2009

"Ban lobbying of all forms"

I completely agree those damn scientists have nothing to say about the environment, energy policy, or health and drug policy that I want to my elected officials to hear about.

What the hell are you talking about? Scientists don't hire lobbyists. Lobbyists might hire scientists to give bogus views (like that global warming isn't real) but banning paid lobbying wouldn't prevent congresspersons from hearing their views.
posted by delmoi at 8:56 PM on July 19, 2009

How much of this is backpedaling and how much of it is buying off votes for the policies he wants?

My husband's not really a bad guy, it's just sometimes I make him angry and he can't control himself.

Of course he's done some good stuff too. Of course any sane person knew he wouldn't be perfect. But Obama has truly gone above and beyond as far as cowardice and maintenance of the status quo.

Take "don't ask don't tell." I could see not pushing a big "pro gay marriage" agenda during a general election. You just can't risk the future of the world on something like that, and there is genuine evidence "gay scares" can swing votes in certain parts of the US (or used to be able to.)

But now? All polls show the public wants it repealed. Congress wants it repealed. There is no real opposition at all. Are Repubs really going to stand up and say they WANT Arabic translators like Dan Choi drummed out, thus putting us at risk of another 9/11? This isn't LBJ and the Civil Rights Act. There's NO RISK in doing the right thing in this case, and in a lot of others. But Obama seems to absolutely revel in being conservative, not in the political sense, but in the "fear of changing anything at all" sense.
posted by drjimmy11 at 8:57 PM on July 19, 2009

er, the second paragraph of my above comment is a quote from oddman
posted by delmoi at 8:57 PM on July 19, 2009

You can't blame us for wanting "our hero" to be able to be at least as effective as the Smirking Chimp was. Obama has just as good an emergency, "The collapsing economy" - he has both houses, something Bush never had - so why is he not only refusing to act, but in so many cases (spying, torture camps, the bailouts, Afghanistan, Iraq) continuing exactly what Bush started?

Precisely how I feel about half the time. The other half of the time, I notice the things that he has changed radically.

For instance, his budget proposal differed drastically from those of previous administrations. Likewise, he's shifting military resources freed from service in Iraq back to Afghanistan--a wise and radical move, strategically, if unpopular with the All Violence Is Wrong crowd. He's ended federal indictment of medical marijuana users and suppliers acting in compliance with state law.

Furthermore, several of the examples you cite don't strike me as mishandled.

1) Torture Camps - I presume that your beef with Obama on this subject is related to his unwillingness to prosecute those involved with the camps. But how would prosecuting those individuals help the national interest? While you might feel better, it's not going to assuage our enemies. The only thing those trials would do is provide concrete evidence of precisely what went on in those camps.

Now, I'm not suggesting that I don't value knowing the truth and seeking justice. I'm just saying that we all know roughly what went on in those camps and that we don't necessarily need to have every individual torture entered into the public record. I'd far rather see the administration appointees politically, but quietly, ruined.

2) The bailouts - Whether or not the bailouts were the proper course of action, and regardless of how unfair they appear, federal assistance for failing entities was the suggested course of action on nearly all fronts. Every economist I know and nearly every economist I read was suggesting some variation on a federal bailout. There were variations in details--some suggested nationalizing the entities, some suggested wildly different amounts, some suggested different firms--but the broad strokes were all the same.

Only libertarian nutcases like myself, and a few other laissez-faire economists, would have preferred to see the firms let fail. [My trouble is that they'll be allowed to laissz-faire their way back up again, and then get bailed out in another 80 years. So they get the profits, we get the risk. It's gotta be laissezed to faire both directions, boys.]

3) Afghanistan - As much as I like any war of aggression, I like this war. Al Qaida really was in Afghanistan. The government of Afghanistan really were a bunch of horrible, horrible shit-heel dogs that I'fe held a personal grudge against since about 1998 when I saw a video of the Taliban destroying ancient Buddha statues. Afghanistan really was a threat to our national interest. Personally, I would have preferred to see its regime overthrown and Al Qaida brought to justice by covert and political means, but I can understand that an invasion is certainly more swift.

But, then Bush started the Iraq war, proceeded to receive the lion's share of the resources. Obama is rectifying that. Which is how it should be.
posted by Netzapper at 8:58 PM on July 19, 2009 [3 favorites]

So, yeah, it turns out that Obama is actually just a skilled politician and not the liberal kwisatz haderach.

Let's not embrace the myth that the kwisatz haderach is above compromise and exempt from betraying his principles. Muad'dib led a terrible religious war that killed billions. The young Paul hated this, but he couldn't stop it.
posted by grobstein at 9:00 PM on July 19, 2009 [10 favorites]

“You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”

Substitute "please" for "fool" in that sentence and I think you've got a good idea where Obama's seems to be coming from. From the day he picked Rick Warren to speak at the inauguration on, it seems like he's trying to throw everyone he can at least one bone, and instead of appreciating the bone they've gotten, every group is going "but that other guy, he got one too! That's not fair!"

I wish "faith based initiatives' would go away, but I'll settle for a Supreme Court nominee who would balance out the hard righters like Alito and Scalia that are on the court already. In the end, which is more important: a Supreme Court which might possibly defend Roe V. Wade or a health secretary which can be replaced if they don't follow the guidelines that are issued to them? I wish it was more, but I'll take what I've gotten so far and try to be happy with it, because I don't see the good in being displeased all the time.
posted by Kiablokirk at 9:05 PM on July 19, 2009 [2 favorites]

Take "don't ask don't tell."

The problem with repealing 'Don't ask, don't tell' is that it brings things back to before ''Don't ask, don't tell'. ie: UCMJ Article 125 goes back into full effect. The only real solution is to modify or rewrite the UCMJ and I don't see congress or Obama leading that charge.
posted by Confess, Fletch at 9:11 PM on July 19, 2009

"Obama campaigned on "change" but so far it's entirely been business as usual - and on the important things, the financial collapse, torture camps, the wars, health insurance, it looks like Obama has already fumbled the ball big time."

Except, of course, for how Obama made an unpopular decision on stimulus because pretty much all serious economic advisors have been saying that it was needed to keep the economy from tanking even further (i.e. It could spare the country years of hardship and a worse economic collapse.)

Or how Obama saved the U.S. auto/banking industry, while insisting that they be more competitive / responsible. Again... very unpopular.

Or how it's no longer US policy to torture or harshly interrogate prisoners, period.

Or how he is doing exactly what he promised in Iraq, despite criticism, while trying to find a solution that will allow him to leave Afghanistan with some degree of success as well... by actually taking ground and having the troops and dedication to hold it, start reconstruction, and negotiate/buy some sort of stable peace... which is really pretty much what we did in Iraq.

Or how Obama is on the verge of passing healthcare, which is a major holy grail, capable of changing the entire undercurrent of US politics. (In Britain, for example, the Conservatives literally cannot run on a platform of cutting, much less eradicating, public health care.)

In short, you're declaring failure on a whole bunch of hard decisions and simply hard things to do, long, long before it has all played out and we know what the final outcome will be. Lots of change is occurring, but you seem to be skeptical about it because he didn't snap his fingers, make a bunch of Executive Orders -- all of which could be overturned by the next president -- and basically alienate Congress. Instead, he's forced Congress to do their damn jobs, applying pressure when necessary.

Now, I look at this and I see someone who -- unlike former President Clinton -- knows how to make incremental change, without pissing off Congress, getting healthcare killed for another decade, and leading to a massive Republican takeover of Congress and six years of lame duck presidency. Someone who has studied past failures and successes, knows the issues, knows what the pitfalls are and how to try avoiding them, and whose most consistent criticism is that he is too thoughtful, too calculating, and too cautious.

You tell me... is it wrong of me to want a president who doesn't dictate, and who wants change to be incremental, intelligent, politically astute... and lasting?!

Clearly, you have clearly thought this through and must have some better ideas on how to bring about change without helping the Republicans regain Congress, undermining that change. Really... why don't you run?!
posted by markkraft at 9:43 PM on July 19, 2009 [11 favorites]

As much as I'm personally disappointed in Obama's administration on certain subjects (putting people on trial for torture is bad? really?), I keep thinking of the phrase: One step in front, you're a leader. Two steps, you're a martyr. He (and all his people) have to try and turn around years and years of malignant, ignorant, destructive policies. He has a democratic majority, but how many does he have solidly in his camp? 30? The democrats (for as long as I can remember) have been a fractious, unorganized mess of a party and even in the majority still cater to Republicans and conservatism. So Obama has to build support and get momentum going his way. If he does the Bush-Cheney Cabal routine, the democrats will bolt, the right will erupt and someone may try to take a shot at him. Better to take time to get all the pieces in place so you can make those changes stick. It was shown during the campaign that Obama plays a long game, and it's a bit early to be declaring him a failure or a turncoat.
posted by gofargogo at 9:51 PM on July 19, 2009

Obama has just as good an emergency, "The collapsing economy"

Are you kidding me? Bush's emergency was 9/11. Anyone who thinks that the reaction of the American people to the collapsing economy is the same as the reaction to 9/11 wasn't living in the US 8 years ago.

I haven't heard of large numbers of young people enlisting in the United States Regulatory Corps. I have yet to see a single NYSEC t-shirt.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 9:59 PM on July 19, 2009 [5 favorites]

a wise and radical move, strategically, if unpopular with the All Violence Is Wrong crowd.

Or, you know, the We Actually Learned Something From Vietnam and the Russian (and British) Experience With Afghanistan crowd.
posted by dirigibleman at 10:12 PM on July 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

Say it with me now ... ruthlessly pragmatic.

If it's pragmatic for Obama to ruthlessly give his base the finger, that base including liberals, progressives, gays, lesbians and other minorities persecuted by the Christian majority in this country, then he's doing a super bang-up job. A++.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:14 PM on July 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

Right, because symbolic gestures MATTER.

I don't know about you, but i'd prefer to get the policies I want enacting while he panders to my enemies with token political appointments, then the reverse.

Wake me up when he actually, like, does something wrong, instead of makes some kind of symbolic gesture.
posted by empath at 10:39 PM on July 19, 2009

What the hell are you talking about? Scientists don't hire lobbyists. Lobbyists might hire scientists to give bogus views (like that global warming isn't real) but banning paid lobbying wouldn't prevent congresspersons from hearing their views.

Say what now?
I imagine all the other branches of science have their own folks in D.C. and elsewhere as well.
posted by madajb at 11:14 PM on July 19, 2009

This is the big science lobbying group, I think.

Other terrible lobbyists that should be banned, I suppose -- Planned Parenthood, Labor Unions, Consumer's Union, The ACLU, NAACP, Anti-Defamation League, Souther Poverty Law Center, and so on.
posted by empath at 11:36 PM on July 19, 2009

Let's not embrace the myth that the kwisatz haderach is above compromise and exempt from betraying his principles. Muad'dib led a terrible religious war that killed billions. The young Paul hated this, but he couldn't stop it.

\begin[massive]{dork}
Actually, I don't think that's clear from the internal chronology. IIRC, Leto II says/implies that Muad'Dib could have started down the Golden Path, but feared what it would demand of him, and the alternative in the immediate time-frame was the Fremen jihads. Which isn't to say that the Golden Path didn't have its share of gigadeaths.
\end{dork}
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:16 AM on July 20, 2009 [3 favorites]

"If it's pragmatic for Obama to ruthlessly give his base the finger, that base including liberals, progressives, gays, lesbians and other minorities persecuted by the Christian majority in this country, then he's doing a super bang-up job. A++."

Ruthlessly give his base the finger?! Wow. That's hyperbole. You don't expect people to take you seriously when you say crap like that without a modicum of context, do you?

A few facts...

Even in Nov. 2008, it was clear to many of the major orgs in the LGBT community that Obama's timeline for addressing their issues WOULD NOT BE IMMEDIATE. From the beginning of his campaign in 2007, Obama was pretty clear that reversing policies would require Congress to pass legislation, and that a gradual transition would be required. He was just as clear about this in a handwritten letter to a soldier who was a victim of this policy. It should be pointed out that his policy as stated in 2007 would not only remove DADT legislatively, but allow previously removed soldiers to rejoin the military if they choose to do so.

The fact is, there has been close communication between the Obama administration and major organizations in the LGBT community even before he took office, and that they are generally very pleased with him, precisely because they know more about what Obama has planned and how he intends to execute on that plan than the rest of their community.

"I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that. . . Some day I'm confident that we'll look back at this transition and ask why it generated such angst. . ."
- President Obama

Sorry you're so angsty and overwrought about how long it's taking to get your change. Give it eighteen months... I suspect you'll feel a bit better about things.
posted by markkraft at 4:40 AM on July 20, 2009 [2 favorites]

If it's pragmatic for Obama to ruthlessly give his base the finger...

Looking forward to seeing you vote Romney / Palin in 2012.

I'm betting that compared to those two on that day in November, Obama and his pragmatism will look to you like a cold beer on a hot summer day.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:57 AM on July 20, 2009 [1 favorite]

. . . there has been close communication between the Obama administration and major organizations in the LGBT community even before he took office, and that they are generally very pleased with him . . .

Ow, the cognitive dissonance!
posted by Frobenius Twist at 8:04 AM on July 20, 2009

Also:

Looking forward to seeing you vote Romney / Palin in 2012.

. . . really? You know, it's possible for Obama to be better than pure, raving evil without being totally fantastic himself. This is a horribly false dichotomy.
posted by Frobenius Twist at 8:06 AM on July 20, 2009 [1 favorite]

On DADT -- if he does it, I'm pretty sure he'll start the process with a military commission examining the issue, or with congressional legislation.

If you want movement on it, call your congressperson. Don't waste your time with Obama.
posted by empath at 8:38 AM on July 20, 2009

(haven't read the whole thread, sorry if I repeat yourself)

A good few years back in Ontario, Dalton McGuinty promised not to raise taxes. "Not one cent." He won, and what happened? He raised taxes. The Ontario Taxpayer's Association, who are exactly the kind of people you think they are, had actually gotten him to sign this pledge of his. So, they took him to court for breach of contract. After all, it was in writing that he wouldn't raise taxes, and he did.

The court's ruling, was almost exactly: "It is hopelessly naive to expect a politician to adhere to all of his campaign promises." This kind of situation is so normal that even the courts are down with it.

Not good, but not surprising.
posted by Lemurrhea at 9:13 AM on July 20, 2009

The fact is, there has been close communication between the Obama administration and major organizations in the LGBT community even before he took office, and that they are generally very pleased with him, precisely because they know more about what Obama has planned and how he intends to execute on that plan than the rest of their community.

Obama would probably not have had to suddenly hold the reception that you give a YouTube link to at all, as fine as it was, without very publicly voiced unhappiness among some in the LGBT community over how some things have gone thus far. I'm not saying that he doesn't have the gay community's interests on his agenda, and I think better things are coming. But you are missing this part of the story.
posted by blucevalo at 9:22 AM on July 20, 2009

While ignoring the entire contents of this thread, I'd like to say that I am now ridiculously tired of political threads on the internet quoting 'Won't Get Fooled Again'.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:25 AM on July 20, 2009 [1 favorite]

Yawn. It is way past time for the Democratic party to grow some gonads and say 'hey, fuckstick conservatards, your batshitinsane policies belong back in the 1300s'.
posted by kldickson at 10:42 AM on July 20, 2009

In addition, my wrath at antisecularists is without boundary.
posted by kldickson at 10:43 AM on July 20, 2009 [1 favorite]

"Obama would probably not have had to suddenly hold the reception that you give a YouTube link to at all, as fine as it was, without very publicly voiced unhappiness among some in the LGBT community over how some things have gone thus far. I'm not saying that he doesn't have the gay community's interests on his agenda, and I think better things are coming. But you are missing this part of the story."

1> There was nothing sudden about the reception I linked to. It was pre-planned to coincide with the anniversary of Stonewall, and to cap off several things the White House had done during Gay Pride month. He and Michelle got previously tested for AIDS that month too... which to me is completely above and beyond the call of duty and way beyond prior expectations we have had from presidents.

2> I do not deny there is publicly voiced unhappiness amongst some in the gay community. But the thing is, if you look at what is actually going on, you see all the leaders of the various LGBT orgs meeting directly with the Obama administration during the transition, with real access to the White House, and to its general planning and thoughts on things. You see people like Joe Solmonese of Human Rights Campaign asking before Obama takes office for an inclusive hate crimes bill in his administration and Leonard Hirsch of Federal Globe asking for inclusion in the census, and, lo and behold, both of these are going to happen.

3> Even on issues like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", Obama has been working his plan, on his schedule. He ordered a review of DADT early on, so the military is already working on the logistics of how the transition would be made structurally.

How did he say he would deal with this in 2007?
"I will task the Defense Department and the senior command structure in every branch of the armed forces with developing an action plan for the implementation of a full repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Isn't this essentially the process he has started in place? Didn't he say even then it would require congressional action? Wasn't it being said during his transition that the whole process might take until 2010?

The simple fact is that the major LGBT orgs know that this will take time, that the various changes in the military have to be ironed out first, including policies to prevent discrimination, to make sure the military chain-of-command knows exactly what the new policy is, plans to make sure people are educated on the changes within the structure, etc. There are a whole bunch of things they know will take time, and that part of the whole process is the gradual changing of minds on these sorts of issues as the change becomes more and more inevitable... which is happening at a very rapid pace.

Essentially, the leaders of these organizations know that systematic progress is being made at what some might consider a historically fast pace, but they also have a bunch of supporters who want change now and absolutely don't want Human Rights Watch or GLAAD to tell them that they will have to wait a year or two for the process to play out... because they don't want their own supporters to turn their backs on them, because of their lack of insistence on immediate decrees and real change now, even if all the fine, systemic details of what that entails haven't even been addressed yet.

And so, GLAAD, HRC, Federal Globe, etc. are all in the loop, know the plans, and are pleased that Obama seems to be as good as his word so far... but they also have to address their own constituents quite differently, giving them positive ways to vent some of this underlying impatience, in a way that won't anger the Obama administration or undermine what they are trying to do.

So yeah. Write your legislators. Go door-to-door supporting marriage equality. Increase visibility. But don't talk about betrayal if the actual facts speak otherwise.

I never once heard Obama say that change doesn't take time and effort... did you?!
posted by markkraft at 2:14 PM on July 20, 2009

Say what now?

Dude, ACS is a chemical industry creature.
posted by Mental Wimp at 4:00 PM on July 20, 2009

Look, I didn't say anything about betrayal. Did I? All I said was that some LGBT leaders expressed unhappiness with some of Obama's statements, acts, and moves. That's fact.

If I was incorrect about the timing of the reception, I stand corrected.

I'm glad you're so confident that Obama is working "his plan" out in the fullness of time, "on his schedule." Hallelujah. The thing is, not everybody's as confident as you are. And "if I look at what is actually going on," I see exactly what I said: Obama appears to be moving in the right direction, yes, but there are some people who are uncomfortable with how he's moving.
posted by blucevalo at 5:46 PM on July 20, 2009