DISQUS

Maybe that sounds great but good luck getting that needle exchange program, good luck getting DOMA overturned and good luck with DADT. Support those that support you on the issues but as I said I think IMHO it would be better to have a voice in the room than none at all.

After the last eight years and even those during Clinton years Obama has had a much more public affection with the LGBT community and talked about many of the issues affecting this community in a meaningful way than any before him. I don't disagree that so far not much has changed but we are having a conversation about it with the people in Charge up in DC rather than just blowing off steam in the blogosphere.

Don't be so dramatic, it really makes you seem less than serious. No one called you master and no one demanded that you take your place. You are fighting for a good cause, I cause I would imagine most who post on this site support.

I completely support your position of having perspective and I also understand the people's frustration with some of what Obama promised during his campaign and has yet to accomplish. I am optimistic and believe the recent news about Rep Murphy taking this on as well as some vets and Vet orgs is a good step regarding DADT. I am also encouraged by the recent filing by the state of Mass against DOMA. These are good moves, especially regarding DADT by this congressional Rep because this is where legislation is written. I applaud all the people keeping Obama feet to the fire when it comes to his campaign promises I just hope that these people keep in mind that their voices are not thrown is with the same group who accuses Obama of everything from creating socialism, acting like Hitler and not being an American. The later group I discuss is made up of American just like you and me and they are just as jazzed up for a fight against Obama but they are no friend to your causes on this site nor the cause which Obama espoused during his campaign. Rather they are the voices who have ignored that the conservative movement has failed them by falling on its face for decade built around two basic tenants: small government and fiscal conservatism. The Federal Government has expanded under Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. The federal government shrank under Carter and Clinton. These people are dedicated to sticking there heads in the sand and are dedicated to GOP regardless of results. They are not our enemies but their ignorance of reality is a danger to the health and welfare of every American.

If you think Obama is Homophobic then what do you think of the GOP? Where is your vote going to be counted? It seems like you either have the the choice to vote for the GOP, the Dem's or an independent. So far there has not been one independent who has been able to get more the 20% of the national vote, so basically it means having your voice either with Dem's or GOP or having no voice at all. Of course the best way to ensure your voice is heard is by writing to your elected congressman and in this regard independents have a much more successful avenue.

OK it is official you are a troll.

Every time someone comes on here to argue the actual legal brief you go back to your same invalid argument.

Of course with a screen name of Ben Dover, on this blog of all blogs might tell most commentators all they need to know.

Uh, No I said that DOMA should be repealed, you must have missed that above. I also believe that DODT should be repealed. My perspective relates to the fact that congress should be doing this not the President. My other perspective is that calling Obama out for not caring about equality issues is borderline nuts. I do not disagree as I said above that Obama would not at this point be considered a "fierce advocate" for LGBT issues.

The LGBT community is not made up of a single mindset, as evidence by the difference within the community about religious issues, economic issues and social issues. There are many different opinions. I agree that same-sex marriage should be treated equally as regular marriage. As long as they are treated the same in the eyes of the law, i could give a crap about what they call it, civil unions, same-sex marriage or whatever. Gay couples deserve the exact same treatment under the law as does a hetero couple.

Is that simple enough for you?

I am afraid that anyone who says they voted for Barry, does not seem to me to be someone who really supported Barack Obama. Do a quick google search and you will find endless right-wing blogs which call him Barry instead of Barack. Similar to the case of the GOP wanting to rename the Democratic party the Democrat party. It is an insult.

Great response, way to avoid any of the issues I pointed out. Apparently like many Americans, you seem reduced to only seeing one issue as an important barometer on change. I am sorry to hear this, because as I said above it is very important for you to hold the President feet to the fire as well as your Congressmen and women.

This lawsuit was a bad lawsuit. It's legal reasoning meant the plaintiffs had no standing because the law which is at issue here is very broad and allows the judge to issue a decision based on that legal basis.

As far as your statement about equality issues, I guess what you really mean are those issue revolving around the LGBT community. Surely torture and equal protection of habeaus Corpus is an equality issue? Surely hiring many presidential appointees from diverse cultural backgrounds is a equality issue? Surely talking about the rights of Israel and a Palestinian state (Palestine) is about equality? Oh but as you say the President does not care about equality issues.

With a name like Ben Dover, I can see that you are to be taken seriously.

Gosh you are on such a roll here, now you are telling us that Obama is treating us like animals. Next you might tell us that he is treating us like dust bunnies. That he looks forward to wiping us away.

Why don't you just say it, you don't like or agree with Obama then back it up with solid facts?

You know it is always much easier to burn things down than to build them up.

Can you back this up with some evidence, "Sarah Palin has done more for the LGBT community than Obama ever has"?

Just google it and see what you find, here is what I found,
"Sarah Palin is opposed to gay marriage. Alaska was one of the first states to pass a "Defense of Marriage" law, banning marriage between same-sex partners in 1988 and Palin supported it. Her campaign website for Governor in 2007 stated: I am pro-life and I believe that marriage should only be between and man and a woman."

So you are looking pretty ridiculous with your statement so far, let's see what else we have here on a search for 2 minutes....

"Sarah Palin not only supported the 1998 Alaska constitutional amendment banning marriage equality but, in her less than two years as Governor, even expressed the extreme position of supporting stripping away domestic partner benefits for state workers. When you can’t even support giving our community the rights to health insurance and pension benefits, it’s a frightening window into where she stands on equality."

Ok now you are looking like a real loon with your statement, maybe their is more to be uncovered,
I am not going to prove how ignorant and wrong your statement is, so if any additional readers would like to do some research here is a nice starting point,

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism...

The GOP never has and probably never will support any sort of progress on LGBT issues. They are a roadblock towards progress as I see it and will continue to be because the heart of the GOP is older, mostly hetero and white whihc basically means their made up of a group which fundamentally does not want to see LBGT issues treated equally with hetero-issues.

Calling him Barry does not make me think you have a positive view of our president. His name is Barack. I realize that he called himself Barry for people who had trouble with his name when he was growing up, but the only people I know who use the name of "barry" instead of Barack tend to be those on the center-right to right blogs.

No doubt you are right to think that since Obama came to office he has made moves that do not lend themselves to the opinion of Obama as a "fierce advocate" for the LGBT community.

I have to say that in and of itself this seams troubling but I would have to agree with a few comments here.

1 The executive branch does not create laws and although it has line item veto power (something frequently used by the Bush Admin) I believe Obama for the most part is reluctant to using this for a number of reasons but chiefly among them is that he would be seen as the same sort of power hungry executive trying to force his ideology on American and Congress as GW Bush.

2 I think Obama has always made it clear that in order for change to happen we all have to work our asses off to make our Congressmen and women listen to us. Whether that be with writing them weekly, visiting their office, forming a group to appeal to them it really differs on how to go about but at the end of the day, unless Congress backs new legislation anything coming from the executive branch will smell like a power grab or ideological policy.

3 Keep holding Obama's feet to the fire, please. This is our civic duty but please don't forget that real change is the sort enacted by the people for the people and of the people. And the people's body is congress. So hold their feet to the fire as well. More importantly we need to hold business accountable for their lobbying decisions, especially those that run against popular public sentiment. It is clear that most Americans are supportive of a nationalized healthcare, yet it is seems their is a well entrenched enemy against this option. Why? Business! This is why it is essential to look at the entire picture. As for DOMA, it should be repealed, I mean just look at the public polling on this issue, especially those in the 18-45 demographic and it is clear that the current is running against the anti-gay marriage crowd. However it would seem that a whole bunch of conservative white men (for the most part, yes their are some minorities in conservative circles as well as women but the group as a whole is white men) are holding up changing this legislation based on a small minority of people (sometimes their most influential political backers) or for their own moral reasons. Of course they forget that they themselves are a part of the demographic who has cultural attitudes who are going the way of the Dodo, so of course they are in for a fight.

But if you want to go ahead and blame Obama, feel free, I just think your looking at rather norrowly. I would say the same thing to a group of people who blame GW BUsh for everything not realizing that he had ample amounts of help along the way to ruining this nation.

And I am sure all these people are just as concerned with poverty, greed and sloth!
Open your eyes guys and gals we are swimming in it! Not to say that we don't have hope but this sort of non-sense makes their arguments and intentions seem all the more baffling. Where were these people when America marches to war to kill people, whether they be soldiers or innocent bystanders? Jesus is against murder and death but he is also against poverty, greed and sloth. Look what war does to our returning soldiers (highest suicide rates ever in the armed forces), look what it does to our image abroad (higher levels of anti-american rhetoric) and look what it did to our economy. Sometimes I really think what these people are fighting is rational discourse and progress!

Hey Mark since you seem so glued into this particular exchange can you please inform us as to what the usual amount of time an FOIA request takes and after it is processed how long it is until the video is actually released to the petitioning party?

I remember a bunch of FOIA request being ignored or refuted over the last eight years and some that are even still ongoing, so excuse me if my response seems a little dumbfounded as to all the attention being payed to such a minor incident. I am sure you would agree that even narcissism is something that many times runs hand in hand with the leaders of the free world. And I am sure you would also agree that gaffe's are part of the territory for those that speak in public so often.

Sorry that should have read, . . . "But that is because they do not stand on principles but would rather stand on their own home built soapboxes!"

I think we need to add conservatice conspiracy theory to the english vernacular or at least a common phrase in American culture. I mean we always here about liberal conspiracy theories, so this one clearly fist the bill for the term. You can add questions of Obama's citizenship to that pile as well as Obama as a socialist. I mean sheesh it's as if these guys don't realize that our public school systems are instances of a social institution, our military is an example of an American social institution and the many lovely people who make up our local police and fire departments are examples of american social institutions. Are they saying we should get rid of all of these? No! But that is because they do not stand on principles but woudl rater stand on their own home built soapboxes!

I read Jeff's piece in CQ, I took the comments from the former CIA officer as nothing more than the same arguement you hear throughout the business and trade world. It goes like this, "the people that build our homes, buildings and other edifices from the ground up, regulalry complain about engineers, architects and other bulding planners simply not understanding the nuts and bolts of putting things together. Managers, architects, and engineers readily complain about the workers performance, skill and ability to accomplish those plans." I had a friend who worked on an oil platform but got injured two years into his job. The company decided to keep him on and put him to work using cad to design off-shore rigs. Having worked in the manufacturing/building side of things, gave him an advantage no working on the other side of the table to plan effectively for the workers and their ability.

I would imagine that this CIA guy simply does not see Panetta as being able to understand the day to day/ nuts and bolts of how and what they do in intelligence gathering. But from everything I have rad about this pick it would seem that Admiral Blair and Sec of Def Gates will be in charge of answering those questions. Panetta is being placed there because he seems to be loyal, understanding of the legal requirments of his job and that of the CIA and because he has a history of working with many power players being a former cheif of staff. I see him as a loyal person to Obama and someone capable of feeling comfortable around the Intelligence community. It is understandable that this former CIA officer thinks Panetta is a bad pick, but most workers have problems with their managers, so I really fail to see why Panetta based on the CIA's history is a bad pick. Some of the best CIA directors have come in from outside of intelligence, notably George Bush I and some of the worst in terms of blowback and bad foreign ploicy decisions have come from the intelligence community, notable Johnson and Nixon's CIA director Helms.

I would say that just from the responses you see here on this article, it is easy to conclude that Americans are divided and confused about the facts on this issue. I think cycnicalone makes some good points about tax policy in states which are recruiting the foreign auto makers but he/she also conveniently does not address the issues raised in this article. The article points out that GM has 4 times the amount of retirees versus workers. I hope all of you that are advocating against the UAW realize that you are working against fathers, mothers and grandparents who help build this country by working in one of Americas major business sectors. I hope you understand that if your past employment was talked about with the same cavalier attitude in the future as you talk about these worker from Americas past, that you might take a new look.

This case isn't as simple as letting and industry die because its managers have failed, because if it does die I am afraid that you and the rest of America will feel very real consequences both short-term and long-term. GM, Chevy and Ford, but especially GM make two many domestic cars. All three seem to be behind the curve when it comes to economic cars or luxury vehicles in our current culture as both are filled by the choices many Americans make by buying foreign autos. But it would be ignorant to not notice the actual sales numbers which in general look pretty good for all three companies. The way we buy cars will be different in the future by eliminating many dealerships across America, this will lower cost but those workers have to be employed in another field or the economy will suffer. I am not for a bailout, I am for government investment in public transport, a big three restructuring and new jobs created around the transformation of these two industries moving in different directions.

Great start for the incoming administration. It is much easier to get elected a second time should you choose to govern in such a way that neither the far-left or far-right are given much voice in our government. As I have always thought Obama is a smart capable man who for the most part believes in the middle/moderate America. Of course it would be ignorant to think that an Obama administration would only placate one side over the other but you can be assured that his policies will most likely look pragmatic today and a decade later will then become true progressive policies. He can look moderate and centrist now because our economy and our nation's image abroad has been so tranished by Bush and co. Surely he will be attacked on the right by radio talk show host such as Limbaugh or Savage, as they are already doing, but their voices become all the more ridiculous with every passing day where the average American (the centrist american) simply wants policies that are explained and defined that work towards providing a more stabel future for themsleves and future generations.

Great film for me because even though Michael Moore has one foot deeply entrenched in America and as an American but he presents raw footage of Americans who experienced the tour as it made its way through communities in America. One things seems beyond dispute Americans throughout this nation love to hear his passion for the America he believes in.

Ok that was the schmoozy response: great film, glad to see Americans care about the disaster that has been the GOP government, yada-yada.....Now let's get out and rock the vote again and make sure to finish the job we started, Let's take back America!

Maybe you are right about the fact that McCain seems to be like Zell Miller, here are some highlights form Mr Miller's past,

In 1964 and 1966, he unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination for a seat in the United States House of Representatives. He endorsed segregation in both races, a move he later publicly regretted. He later served in several positions in state government and in the Georgia Democratic Party.

While governor, he established a special office to promote the use of Facilitated Communications in the schools of Georgia. The rise of sexual abuse cases arising from his controversial efforts eventually brought an end to the program.

In 2004, he cosponsored a proposed Constitutional amendment[2] that, if ratified, would have prohibited government, at any level, from recognizing any homosexual domestic partnerships. On March 11 of that year, he introduced legislation[3] that would have created a board of "shapers of opinions" (as he called it in his introductory speech) to advise broadcasters on content the government deemed acceptable or unacceptable, and to make automatic re-appropriations of some of the revenue generated from media-"indecency" fines to pay for federal services directed through religious establishments.

And if McCain is just like Zell Miller then I can guarantee you that many in the progressive, liberal and democratic base would enjoy having these sort of distinctions between democrats and Republicans.

The Republicans are proud of what their lack of following the true prinicipals that used to guide their part, small government and fiscal constraint. Between Reagan, Bush I and Bush II the goverment has not gotten any smaller and spending has only increased during all three of their tenures. In fact the only person who was president over the last thirty years who came close to abiding by the traditional principles of the Republicans was Bill Clinton by balancing the budget and slashing the defense department, of course then he had to ruin it and creat an opening for the family values Americans by having an affair while in office. But that is neither here nor their because ultimately the Republicans issues are being largely ignored by the current Republican party for entertainement issues such as immigration, welfare reform and patriotism. Oh and I forgot their agenda on Homosexuals but once again they have had a hard time using it in the last couple of election because so many of their party members and other influential people keep getting caught doing homosexual things in their private lives. It would be nice if Republicans respected the right to privacy maybe that way we wouldn't know they were such hipocrits!

Seriously, if this women was concerned about the candidates and their stance on the issues then she should be hard pressed to find anything worth a note in John McCain's plans for this country. Come on, on the issues Hillary and Obama are much closer than Hillary and McCain, yet some still find themselves reluctant to support Obama? Give me a break if this person had one ounce of intelligence then the choice should be easy, of course all of this is much more complicated in the case of the Rothschild, with their wealth because they realize electing Obama means higher taxes. And then when you put it in that frame of reference her arguement is simply one of chossing the better candidate based simply on money rather than substance. Many of us do not come from such priveledge backgrounds, many of us do not want to aquire great wealth, many of us simply want the goverment and our communities to make better decisions when dealing with the issues we face such as poverty, global climate change, foreign diplomacy and our economy. On all of these subject matters Obama's plans are much more equitable to the majority of Americans, so when you say that some of Hill's biggest donors are having a hard time finding out who they should support then the issues are not one of simply choosing a candidate who best reflected Hillary's stance on the issues but some other facet which is not explored in this article.