Sunday, July 11, 2010

A rainbow-colored paste.

The gay community finds room in the big tent under the wheels of the Obama bus.

Is there a constituency that the current administration hasn't chucked under the tires yet?

Say what you will about the Shrub on fiscal issues; on social issues he danced with the ones who brung him.


Anonymous said...

How about the pro-choice lobby?

(Not wanting to start a war, just pointing it out)

Shootin' Buddy

JD said...

and yet even under the bus they will back Obama and the Dems in the next election . . . If I were one of them I would back a third party. . .. the two main ones are screwing them.

TJP said...

Arizonans are having a grand old time with one of Bush's Brungers right now.

Standard Mischief said...

is RKBA a social issue?

Bush kinda sorta asks me to that big whitehouse shindig, but then he made me park my truck with the gun racks out back, behind the barn. He never asked me to dance either. But I got one small bit of gristle in a doggy bag just when the party was almost over.

Anonymous said...

What a totally bogus beating around the bush this all is.

There is really no DOMA; it's DO$$. Only periperally mentioned in the story, the gist is this:

"...they are denied federal benefits like Social Security survivors’ payments, the right to file taxes jointly and guaranteed leave from work to care for a sick spouse."

Follow. The. Money.

Regardless of who loves whom or what, and putting aside extraneous issues and diversionary arguments from both sides, everyone wants and deserves the same treatment *by their government* as everyone else.

And in the case of personal relationships, gov has no business involved at all; pay your taxes and mind your own business and, regardless of what rings your bell in the bedroom, everyone has the same rights and responsibilities.

Of course such simplicity would remove from the arsenal of political payola the ability to act as omnipotent protector of either the "rights of individuals" or of the "sanctity of the institution.". Well, geez, how we gonna buy them votes now?

And of course that explains BO's indifference to campaign lies; like someone else said, he's got the gays in the bag, bought if not paid for, regardless. Or so he thinks.

So as an unabashed supporter of partisan alternatives, let me unofficially welcome gays to our nondenominational's the one with the little l or the big T in the title. As long as what they're looking for is equality and not some kind of punitive or reparational discrimination of their own, we're with them.


Anonymous said...

its all about the money! MONEY!!! NOT sex! It is about the parties use of contrabutions and the votes the parties garner.

og said...

where is Rusty when you need him?

Wait...who needs 'im.
WV Humpho.

staghounds said...

How many Heller and MacDonald Justices were Bush nominations?

What would those decisions have looked like if we had had Presidents Gore and Kerry from 2001-2009?

AFAIK, I am the only RKBA person to take public notice of this. (In) Gratitude works both ways.

jimbob86 said...

Stag, I'll second that!!!

If Alphonse Gore had been picking the replacements for Rehnquist and O'Connor, well.... I think the likelyhood of ...well, I'd rather not speak of that in public.

kishnevi said...

posting the same comment I left as SaysUncle

Just to make the connections clear.

The decision based itself on the 10th Amendment, and said that Congress had no business interfering in something that was traditionally a state matter.

That logic would also apply to some other things, such as No Child Left Behind--about which Obama may not really care--and Obamacare--about which of course Obama desperately cares.

If the ruling stands, then you have a reinforced argument against Obamacare. If the ruling gets overturned, then it becomes that much easier to defend Obamacare when it gets challenged in the courts. Which is why, undoubtedly, Obama is appealing this decision.

LabRat said...

If you were paying attention to the relevant lobby, pro-choice went under the wheels during Obamacare and the subsequent sausage-making promises, or at least they think so.

As for the gays, I've actually come to suspect that Obama personally is no fonder of them than the average black Democrat. He's thrown them too many completely unnecessary middle fingers for me to think otherwise. Bush was friendlier.

perlhaqr said...


"The wheels on the bus go *thump! thump! thump!*..."

Ian Argent said...

It's long odds that Bush knew personally (and probably fairly well) at least one lesbian... I wouldn't be surprised to find out that other than necessary political functions the Obamas have never socialized with "one of them".

But the primary driver here is $$$ - expanding .gov benefits will make Social Security broker faster

kishnevi said...

It's long odds that Bush knew personally (and probably fairly well) at least one lesbian

No odds at, unless he somehow managed to avoid meeting VP Cheney's family.

Ian Argent said...

That's what I was trying to get at; that the Bushes and the Roves probably had extensive social interaction...

Geodkyt said...

Given that Mary Cheney was pretty prominent in the Bush-Cheney campaign, as well as being active in higher level Republican political activities, I'd say that it's a dead certainty that george and Laura Bush know Mary Cheney well, both personally and professionally.

I mean she WAS director of vice presidential operations for Bush-Cheney 2004.