President Obama Supported Executive Order Against Gay Discrimination in 2010. Now He's Against It!

[Better Believe It]

WH Press Secretary bellyflops when questioned about thumbs down on ENDA exec order
By: Pam Spaulding
April 12, 2012

There’s no chance that Congress will pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act any time soon, so yesterday’s negative news — delivered to Beltway LGBT establishment figures summoned to a special meeting at the White House to receive the smackdown — was offensive. Hope they at least got a box of Obama M&Ms for their trouble.

Underscore the offensiveness once you remember what the President actually told Kerry Eleveld back in the day (The Advocate, Dec. 22, 2010):

“Let me just say there are still a lot of things we can do administratively even if we don’t pass things legislatively. So my ability to make sure that the federal government is an employer that treats gays and lesbians fairly, that’s something I can do, and sets a model for folks across the board.”

Whoopsie. I guess it depends on the meaning of “a lot of things we can do.” One of them is not picking up the executive pen and signing his John Hancock to stop discrimination where he can — when it comes to LGBTs.

Read the full article at:

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2012/04/12/wh-press-secretary-bellyflops-when-questioned-about-thumbs-down-on-enda-exec-order/

[bluestate10]

1. My friend, you are either beyond clueless or are a plant on DU.

Your attacks on President Obama are incessant. Your "facts" are decidely twisted. you MUST realize that an EO is absolutely the worst and most counterproductive action that President Obama can take to improve gay rights? If President Obama signs an EO, republicans have an instant and powerful club to beat President Obama and Congressional democrats with all the way to November elections, defeating some or many of them in the process. If President Obama takes a kleenex from a subordinate to blow his nose, republicans accuse him of abuse of power and intimidation. What do you think republicans will say if President Obama bypasses Congress by signing an EO? Republican governors will immediately refuse to implement it in their states, republican AFs will sue setting up the rightwing Supreme Court for more activism, every republican talking head will be screaming about the imperial Presidency and failure to listen to the american people. Full rights for gay people simply is the right and moral end goal of any civilized society, but making the path to that end harder with ill advised political actions serves no purpose but to embolden and strengthen republicans. I feel that you fully know that the last point that I made would be the end result of an EO, yet you relentlessly weigh forward on DU seeking to damage and destroy our President and democrats in general. Can you bash a republican ONCE? Can you?

[SidDithers]

2. +1000...nt

Sid

[DURHAM D]

4. LOL

[treestar]

5. Amen and thank you!

It is just ridiculous for BBI to try and get gay voters to reject the Democrats. And the "reasons" he come up with are disingenuous. So Obama signed DADT repeal and gay voters are supposed to forget all about that (and the other things he's done) and use THIS to do what, vote for a third party? Just stupid.

[TransitJohn]

7. In other words fuck those gays, we've got an election to win. eom

n/t

[vaberella]

12. Actually it's recognizing we got nothing unless we own the House.

And if you can't recognize or accept that minorities rights automatically equates to politicking...then you're oblivious.

[FreeState]

44. EDNA has 75% public support n/t

[ruggerson]

40. Yep. Made doubly pathetic by the fact that this is a limited EO with overwhelming public support

n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Democrats should re-legalize enslavement of black people

That would take away the racist high ground from racists running for office. And as long as Democrats don't actually have slaves, no harm done.

Got it.

[vaberella]

13. What are you talking about? Your statement doesn't make an ounce of sense. n/t

[Better Believe It]

9. First, I'm not your friend. That's how some Democratic Senators address Republicans in the Senate.

I have no Republican friends.

Secondly, your personal attack has no place on Democratic Underground and is in clear violation of DU rules.

Third, your central reason for opposing an Executive Order prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people is "the worst and most counterproductive action that President Obama can take to improve gay rights" because Republicans will attack Obama is the lamest excuse yet presented in defense of surrender to Republicans right-wing bigots.

In December 2010 President Obama disagreed with your position. That's when he supported administrative action to prohibit discrimination by employers who held federal government contracts.

Fourth, your observation that "every republican talking head will be screaming about the imperial Presidency and failure to listen to the american people" lacks merit. Polls indicated that a huge majority of people support presidential action against job discrimination against LGBT people. It appears you are either unaware of those polls or choose to ignore them because they undermine one of your reasons for opposing presidential action to prohibit employment discrimination.

Fifth, ask "Can you bash a republican ONCE?". I have "bashed" Republican politicians many times, probably more than you. And probably unlike you I have criticized Democratic politicians who have function as "enablers" for Republican politicians, collaborated/compromised with them and have surrendered to the right-wing obstructionists rather than fight them.

Perhaps you can indicate if you are functioning in some capacity on an election campaign committee and if one of your tasks is to attack any DU'ers who express any criticism of any Democratic politician on any issue. I'm not a "plant" for any organization on Democratic Underground. How about yourself?

Never mind. You don't have to respond with a song and dance act.

I know where you stand and I understand your assignment on DU.

I won't alert on you for your disrespect for other DU'ers and Democratic Underground and its rules, but I am putting you on full ignore.

Bye.

[cali]

15. bwahahahahahah. you are a funny sort.

what must it be like to be you?

[emulatorloo]

18. Anytime your logic or your sources or your twisting of positions by omission are questioned

you claim it is a "personal attack."

It isn't - it is an attack on your rhetorical style.

I am sure you are a wonderful person, and a dedicated activist.

However that doesn't mean that your threads are above criticism and disagreement.

[eomer]

51. Not a personal attack? Here: "My friend, you are either beyond clueless or are a plant on DU."

That's the title of the post that was replied to. Sounds like a personal attack to me.

[Occulus]

17. In other words, "now is not the time" "wait for the next election" "it'll hurt us at the polls"

Fuck that shit.

No, seriously, fuck that shit and fuck everyone saying it.

I thought Skinner promised us this shit would stop. I thought Skinner told is how "hurt" he was over the treatment of GLBTs on DU.

None of that meant anything, apparently- kind of like Obama's "fierce advocate" claptrap. I guess DU really isn't gay friendly- kind of like Obama.

I'm done being nice about it.

[MNBrewer]

24. +1

[joshcryer]

49. Those are legitimate statements sometimes. Not this time.

[MNBrewer]

22. I really disagree that it's the "worst and most counterproductive action" he could take

I'd say his inaction is the worst thing he could do.

[Honeycombe8]

35. I was wondering why he wouldn't sign an EO. Puzzling. But I guess you make some good points.

Although he has signed a number of EOs, I couldn't figure this one out. But I guess it makes sense that the public would htink of it as shoving something down their throats, which is how the healthcare law is being represented.

Good call on noticing someone is repeatedly bashing Obama and not Republicans. That IS odd.

[FreeState]

45. 75% of the public supports EDNA

All the excuses in the OP are just that -excuses.

[ruggerson]

37. You obviously haven't seen any of the polling data on employment discrimination

Because if we're talking purely political calculus, the downside is very limited.

[saras]

38. Bashing republicans doesn't change their behavior. Obama TOLD us to keep him in line.

Whether this particular correction is politically effective is another matter entirely.

There, you may have a good point, depending on how strongly someone weights the amount of belief in Republicans left out there. The fact that so many are acting blatantly illegally, with no expectation of public support except through electronic voting, sort of argues against you, but your reference to so many specific side effects argues for you.

And in my book, factual statements - the order exists, Obama earlier said he would do such things, he isn't signing this one - are NEVER attacks. They may be irrelevant, or harmful to one's cause,but to confuse them with actual attacks (people have a RIGHT to make factual statements you don't like - they DON'T have a right to attack) does a disservice to both groups.

Sheer inappropriateness or incompetence is a legitimate reason to suppress a voice - it doesn't HAVE TO be an attack.

[MrScorpio]

46. Damn skippy! nt

[joshcryer]

48. That is preposterous.

While they might be able to use it to GOTV and drive up outrage on the right, they won't be able to use it to "beat President Obama and Congressional Democrats." It has popular support and it's basically uncontroversial to most sane people. It's not a "wedge issue."

The question is, do you really think Romney is that big of a threat that the potential (mind you potential) GOTV Obama's EO would garner could put him over? I don't see it. Romney is a dud and I think the EO could even have a demoralizing effect if not be canceled out by the popular movement of such a move.

It's a calculated political move but it's not a fucking necessity like you make it out to be.

[SidDithers]

3. It's not working, but keep trying...nt

Sid

[cali]

6. I applaud your tireless dedication and

zealotry, hon.

It's super impressive.

[vaberella]

10. You do realize this is before we lost the House to Republicans who control it now.

These Republicans are worst than the last ones...why? because it's over run by Teapartiers.

[Better Believe It]

34. You're mistaken. Obama took that position in favor of an Executive Order AFTER the 2010 election.

Obama made his statement in support of administrative action in December 2010, after the Republicans won the 2010 election which put them in control of the House in January 2011, not "before we lost the House to Republicans".

[FSogol]

11. Unrec. Another day, another 2 or 3 Obama hit pieces.

[vaberella]

14. Just be happy this post by the OP is not written by a well known racist like in the past. n/t

[SidDithers]

20. Jury results on this one...

Alerting for TOS violation. "If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side."

This poster has a pattern of posting articles that do nothing but that.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Apr 14, 2012, 10:02 AM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Isn't this the 3rd of 4th time this article has been posted as well. And yes this is a constant for this poster.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I think that we need to know the truth...even if it is inconvenient. It is apparent that Obama is the Democratic nominee. It isn't a free pass though. We need to still keep his feet to the fire to uphold a progressive agenda...and if pointing out facts to the contrary are uncomfortable, then do something about it. I don't agree with hiding the truth. Leave the post alone.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: I don't know this poster or the subject matter, but I do know the DUers who posted responses...seems to be agreement on this person being a disruptor/troll, so let's put him out of our misery.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

31. #3 nails it hard to the wall of truth!

"I think that we need to know the truth...even if it is inconvenient. It is apparent that Obama is the Democratic nominee. It isn't a free pass though. We need to still keep his feet to the fire to uphold a progressive agenda...and if pointing out facts to the contrary are uncomfortable, then do something about it. I don't agree with hiding the truth. Leave the post alone. "
If you don't like it, do something to change it. Make a call to the US and tell our President that those of you in Canada do not support discrimination or any excuses for it. Take a stand. For once.

[joshcryer]

50. Well, the poster is nudoubtedly a disrupter, posting right wing sources.

But in this instance I do have to agree with the jury.

[FarPoint]

43. This is an example of one of the ugly sides of DU.

My thoughts are ....we got too many damn trolls embedded. Jury systems has many of them. I frequently see opinions being evoked with the jury verses following DU mission.

[FarLeftFist]

16. It's campaign season, with all the absolutely insane GOP BS that's taking place why go after Obama?

Do you work for the RNC? Are you Reince Priebus or Glenn Greenwald? There's almost no distinction between the 2.

[Occulus]

19. Obama is doing it to himself

The question is why.

[emulatorloo]

21. You forget that Obama just came out against several anti-gay marriage ballot initiates

Obama campaign rejects anti-gay ballot measure
By Steve Benen - Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:00 AM EDT
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/10/11117547-obama-campaign-rejects-anti-gay-ballot-measures

Romney is going to advocate against gay rights. Obama is going to advocate for gay rights.

Obama has a track record advancing equality, although it may not take the route that BBI feels it should.

I remember reading thread after thread here that Obama's secret plan was to keep DADT in place.

There were all kinds of signs and symbols of it. However the real secret plan seemed to actually really REPEAL DADT.

[MNBrewer]

25. Good, but "YAWN".

He STILL things we shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals because "God's in the mix".

[emulatorloo]

27. YAWN right back at ya. Is the endgame marriage equality, or a religious conversion?

Dunno if you've noticed, but there was this whole argument recently about contraception and the "beliefs" of employers.

Seems that the "beliefs" lost out in favor of rights.

I have no fucking clue why Obama made the "God's in the mix" statement. Probably political expediency at the time. Pretty disgusting statement. Yet he does appear to be evolving, and in other areas he is not about imposing religion on politics.

The trend over the last few years has been more and more equality. That trend is positive, despite what BBI might want to say.

[MNBrewer]

28. What makes you think he's "evolving"

I'm just curious. he's taking great pains to conceal the extent of his evolution, as though it were some kind of State Secret. I'm fucking tired of being a political pawn for the Democrats. Fiercely Advocate or get out of the way.

[emulatorloo]

30. "Obama campaign rejects anti-gay ballot measures"

For one thing.

I agree with you - he does need to fiercely advocate.

This issue is gonna come up in the 2012 campaign, no doubt. Romney will go after the gays because he needs the wing nuts out. Obama will counter that shit.

[MNBrewer]

32. He's walking the line between being "pro-gay" and "not anti-gay"

In other words, he's being painstakingly neutral.

[emulatorloo]

33. We'll see how it plays out, I guess

Easy enough for us to contact the campaign and give 'em an earful of how it outta play out.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. No. He is not neutral. He says he is opposed to our equality. That is far from neutral.

He's open that he thinks God does not want us to get equal rights. That is utter hate speech, it is not neutral. It is openly opposed to equality.
I'm sorry, after this week on DU, I'm not playing 'split the hair to help the opponents sound nicer' game any longer. It is not alright to oppose the rights of any minority group, for any reason, at any time. Period.

[MNBrewer]

42. I don't disagree with you, Bluenorthwest

I should have said that he's taking pains to try to APPEAR neutral. He's trying to be both anti- and pro-equality and it's not working. Nobody believes it. Not the right, not GLBT community. Only the Democrats seem to go along with the ruse.

[Better Believe It]

23. Why do you insist on engaging in disruptive off-subject "drive by" personal attacks?

Are you unfamiliar with DU rules and is it really that difficult for you to demonstrate common respect for DU'ers you disagree with?

I don't work for the RNC or any Republican or right-wing outfit. Do you work for the DNC or some Democratic campaign committee?

Now back to the subject matter.

Do you think Obama should sign an Executive Order banning discrimination against GLBT people and if not why not?

I'm listening.

[MNBrewer]

26. It's campaign season, why is Obama going after "teh Gays"?

[Better Believe It]

29. Obama's not "going after" gays. He should support the GLBT fight for equal rights with ....

a simple stroke of his pen and let the racists and anti-gay bigots howl against him.

Fuck them!

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Are you Rick Warren?

Do you work for one of the anti gay groups or attend one of those churches that preach against us? What does it profit you when we go without rights? What good do you see in attacking others for telling the truths you do not like?
If you do not care for this, you should tell the President his opinion offends you, not try to get those who are correct to accept injustice for his sake.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Thanks for posting this. Pam Spaulding is correct, she is a strong Democrat and

she has put aside her own principles to accept things the President does many times. Like so many of us, I'm sure she is starting to feel the cheat in our guts. We stood up for him, he runs when his time comes to support.
As a man, I just do not respect his smarmy lack of will. Those who think any minority group should not get equal rights is a bigot. This was always true and it still is. Those who do not like standing with that sort of policy need to tell the President his dogma makes them sick, that he sounds ignorant, which he sure does. God is in the mix!
When will the straight community of Democrats stop accepting hate speech and discrimination against minorities in their name? That's the question.

[girl gone mad]

47. k & r

[madokie]

52. Theres right times and theres wrong times

this is not the right time to go there for him or for the LGBT community. The pukes would go crazy with glee if he did and I suspect whoever wrote this knows that

IMO

[Better Believe It]

53. This is the right and best possible time for Obama to sign an Executive Order because ....

Polls Show Huge Public Support for Federal Gay and Transgender Workplace Protections

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002563482

Read the article.

Let the Republicans go nuts over anything progressive that President Obama does.

They always do.

Republican objections should not prevent Obama from doing the right thing.

But it looks like Republicans will paralyze Obama again.

Surrender is not a winning policy against ones enemies.

[madokie]

54. Irregardless of the polls

What I'm saying is the pukes would have a field day.

Polls don't vote, people do and there is a lot of bigoted people who would get out and make sure they vote because of this issue only, who might not have voted otherwise.
The republicons wins elections on wedge issues and this is a wedge issue for many people. It will drive those who are against it to the polls where it doesn't have the same effect on those of us in support of it so much.

Right now the most important thing is to get Obama re-elected IMHO