Gay leaders blame TV ads, Obama for loss in Maine

[majamay]

Source: AP

Stunned and angry, national gay rights leaders Wednesday blamed scare-mongering ads — and President Barack Obama's lack of engagement — for a bitter election setback in Maine that could alter the dynamics for both sides in the gay-marriage debate.

Conservatives, in contrast, celebrated Maine voters' rejection of a law that would have allowed gay couples to wed, depicting it as a warning shot that should deter politicians in other states from pushing for same-sex marriage.

"Every time the citizens have voted on marriage, they have always sided with natural marriage," said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based Christian legal group. "Maine dramatically illustrates the will of the people, and politicians should wake up and listen."

Gay activists were frustrated that Obama, who insists he staunchly supports their overall civil rights agenda, didn't speak out forcefully in defense of Maine's marriage law before Tuesday's referendum. The law was repealed in a vote of 53 percent to 47 percent.

Read more: http://tinyurl.com/y95yu5y

[Thrill]

1. Obama blamed for something else

lol

[FreeState]

7. He was asked to help and he did not n/t

[Thrill]

31. So when he helps like in California. He didn't do enough. Its his fault

When he doesn't do or say anything. Its his fault too.

[CTLawGuy]

32. everything is his fault

I didn't get a job i wanted last month. I blame him for that.

[No Elephants]

66. Exact same kind of post the Bushies made a few years ago when their man got criticized.

Those posts were meaningless and inane and therefore highly unpersuasive. Worse, they were very boring.

[primavera]

103. If he didn't want the job, he shouldn't have applied for it

Being president means having the ability to exert a profound influence on just about everything. A president's decision to do so, or not to do so, is therefore a legitimate object of scrutiny. It's a shitty job, but that is the job.

[laconicsax]

44. Who did he help in California?

Oh...right, the Prop 8 team.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." -Barack Obama, November 2008

[Thrill]

52. Here you go

http://www.queerty.com/obama-prop-8-unnecessary-but-doe...

[laconicsax]

59. And that didn't help the Prop 8 team how?

Obama gave them a sound bite in support of their position.

[No Elephants]

65. When the POTUS says he does not believe in gay marriage, that does not help a bill about gay mar-

riage. Hope that clears up that tricky point for ya.

Helping would have been the POTUS going to California and campaigning for equal, basic human rights for all people and explaining to folks why that is the only correct thing. Most folks get the difference between that and writing a letter saying Gay marriage is bad, but this bill is unnecessary. Not very compelling, especially when several states already had gay marriage.

Most people get that. Sorry you could not see that he was only trying to play to the right without losing any votes on the left and probably failed on both counts.

[No Elephants]

64. How is saying "I don't believe in gay marriage" helping a law about gay marriage again?

WOW.

[butterfly77]

102. Why should he help...

when he told you during the campaign that he doesn't believe in gay marriage,now civil unions that's another thing.

[mrbarber]

10. ....he didn't offer any support to the GLBT community. so yeah..

of course he's being blamed.

But judging by your "lol" remark, it's obvious you could care less about equal rights for all citizens.

[Renew Deal]

22. It's going to rain tomorrow

It's all Obama's fault.

[northzax]

51. Hey, at least he was honest and upfront about it

He told us last year that he didn't support marriage equality. Why is anyone suprised? I supported Obama in the general, of course, and continue to do so, but let's not pretend that lgbt civil rights are anywhere near the top of his to do list. He'll go along with marriage and ending dadt, but he's not going to spend any time or capital on it.

[No Elephants]

67. I'd say civil rights for gays are not at the top of his list. So far, he has not come out against

civil rights for any other group, unless you count those detained for alleged terrorism. Detainess, however, are not exactly in the same sphere with people who just want to marry someone they love.

Oh, and he did not campaign on going along with repealing DOMA and DADT. He said he would abolish both. Besides, the anger is not about avoiding surprise, but about failing to do the correct thing.

So, please don't give us the "no surprise" and he never deceived anyone bits that are so overused to defend Obama no matter whether true or not in any given instance.

Besides, I could care less what his personal beliefs are. I am not trying to force him to marry a member of the GLBT community, ffs, so I am not trying to violate his personal beliefs. I care that he keeps his promises and, far more than that, I care that the last remaining Jim Crow laws in this country get abolished at both state and federal levels.

Obama did promised to do that at the federal level. As soon as he got elected though, he disingenuously passed the buck to Congress. Well, heck, if he is so impotent with a Democratic Congress, why the hell did he campaign on abolishing DADT and DOMA?

Besides, we have a poster who jumped on this thread to pre-empt criticism of Obama by claiming the poor guy simply gets blamed, no matter what he does and a few other Kool Aiders chimed in, and that bs needed responding to. If he gets credit for the good he does--and I do give it when due--then he gets blame for the ill he does as well. No one wants a hapless victim for a President anyway, so the Kool Aid crew may do him more harm than good with that bs.

[JonQ]

57. Kind of comes with being the president

also anyone who says obama has done all he can for gay rights has not being paying attention.

[TriMetFan]

105. Obama is our leader.

We the people put him in office. And as far as I can see he really is not doing enough. Thats way we took a hit on tuesday.

[Mari333]

2. lets be honest. Obama has made it quite clear he is against the CIVIL RIGHTS of gay people to marry

and he would be on the WRONG side of the issue.
Thats why I never counted on him for this issue. Even he is a bigot when it comes to this issue.

[Thrill]

30. He's a marxist, facist, socialist, communist, elitist, muslim, and now a bigot?

I'm pretty sure this guy has got it all covered by now.

[Mari333]

54. I do believe that many people have been taught bigotry about gay folks for centuries

and Obama is just one of the many people who still seems to have it in him concerning the issue of gay marriage. He needs to recognize that gay marriage should be protected as a civil right by federal law, and do a thorough analysis of his own bigotry , which, I think he doesnt even think he has...a lot of people who are dems have it, I have noticed.

[No Elephants]

70. Please see Reply 66. And trying to make the POTUS out to be just a hapless

victim is probably not helping him at all anyway.

[No Elephants]

68. And? Please see Reply 67.

Besides, saying I personally don't believe in gay marriage, but will end DADT and DOMA doesn't cut it.
I PERSONALLY don't believe in abortion, but I am pro-choice.

Our nation is losing the distinction between personal beliefs and law. Every personal belief people have does not need to be enacted into laws that harm others.

[high density]

3. Since when has Obama endorsed gay marriage?

Blame the fear-filled "think about the children!" TV ads and religious zealots.

[majamay]

4. That's a good point

Obama has said that states should make the decissions regarding gay marriage. And he let Maine make a decision, and the decision was made.

Although I'm a heterosexual, I'm for gay marriage. I wish Obama came out in favor of gay marriage, but the issue here is whether he is to blame, and I think it's clear he's not.

[tblue]

5. A little moral leadership would not have been out of line here. nt

[FreeState]

6. Obama has come out against these types of initiatives in the past (Prop 8 for example) n.t

[laconicsax]

45. Yeah, he really came out against Prop 8 by endorsing their position.

When asked about it, he said that he felt that it was "unnecessary" and continued with "I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage."

[FreeState]

47. Letter from Barack Obama went unused by 'No On Prop 8' campaign

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/03/letter-from-barack-oba...

It's hard to believe things could get worse for the bungled "No on Prop 8" campaign in hindsight, but it appears they have. Over the weekend, fury re-erupted across the gay blogosphere following a report on the recent "No on 8" Town Hall in the Bay Area Reporter. The fury is centered around a letter to the Alice B. Toklas club from Barack Obama expressing the candidate's disapproval of Proposition 8. It was a letter that was never used. Revelations emerged from the meeting about the decision not to use the letter:

Bay Area Reporter: " Smith also acknowledged that the campaign should have used then-presidential candidate Barack Obama's stated opposition to Prop 8. Instead, little use was made of Obama's opposition in a letter last June to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, and right before Election Day the Yes on 8 campaign sent out a mailer featuring Obama's image and quotes that he is opposed to same-sex marriage. 'That was a close call,' Smith said. 'Maybe we should have.' Smith said that people outside the Bay Area wouldn't know what the Alice Club was, but club Co-Chair Susan Christian spoke up and said that in fact, Obama's letter to the club been widely reported, including in the New York Times. 'I think we lost this campaign because of an approach that didn't recognize 'we are everywhere,'' Christian said."

(Smith photo: BAR Rick Gerharter)

The revelation prompted outrage from blogger/activist Michael Petrelis who wrote: "How nauseating to know that Smith, whose firm received hundreds of thousands of gay dollars for their expertise, is such a lazy thinker. Instead of touting who the letter was from, all Smith saw was who the Obama was addressed to. It shouldn't have mattered who received the letter, just that it was from our likely next president and would have done much to influence minority and independent voters to cast no ballots on Prop 8."

Dan Savage of Slog had harsher words for Smith: "YEAH, THAT MIGHT'VE BEEN A GOOD FUCKING IDEA, YOU STUPID ASSHOLE."

Meanwhile, Equality California sent out an email to its list over the weekend accompanied by this blog post, asking supporters for more money and a second chance. It remains to be seen whether that will be offered.

I've posted the full text of the Obama letter, AFTER THE JUMP...

***LETTER FROM OBAMA THAT WENT UNUSED BY 'NO ON 8' CAMPAIGN***

Dear Friends,

Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pridc Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

For too long. issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

[laconicsax]

60. He has a funny way of showing his support.

Going on TV and endorsing the motivation behind the Prop 8 campaign, inviting a notorious homophobe to speak at the Inauguration, then doing absolutely nothing to end DADT or DOMA in the year that follows really shows just how 'fierce' an advocate he is.

[QC]

63. The ferocity is enough to make one tremble, isn't it? n/t

[Bodhi BloodWave]

72. when did he go on tv and endorse prop 8

[No Elephants]

80. Delete. Dupe.

[No Elephants]

81. Lame. He said he was against gays marrying. What difference does it make what date he said it or

if he said it on tv or in some other medium?

[laconicsax]

111. MTV interview November 2nd or 3rd.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598409/20081102/story...

When asked about Prop 8, he said as part of a long answer, "I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage." He said that he would vote no on Prop 8, but endorsed the bigotry behind it.

[No Elephants]

89. What's your point?

Obama also said marriage is between a man and a woman. He certainly has never campaigned or advocated for gay marriage.

There were good reasons not to use that letter. For every sound bite that gay rights advocates could have wrung from it, the other side could have come back with a video of Obama saying he believes marriage should be between a man and woman. They would have hurt both Obama and their own cause.

[No Elephants]

76. Yes, he came out against gay marriage consistently (so far). What's your point?

[PSzymeczek]

8. Me, too.

Allowing two people who love each other to get married and have the same rights Hubster and I do is not going to affect Hubster and me at all. It's the right thing to do.

[No Elephants]

77. Nonsense. In every state that allows gay marriage, all the heteros are now divorced.

The only ones married are members of the GLBT community.



Seriously, though, heteros have a very high divorce rate now.


Oh, wait, they had a very high divorce rate before Massachusetts upheld the right of gays to marry and I think Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate of all 50 states.

Okay. Just give me a minute. I'll think of some way this hurts your marriage.

*crickets*

[JonQ]

58. He's not to blame because he never gave a damn in the first place?

That's an odd direction to take in defending him.

[No Elephants]

75. He LET Maine? LOL. And please see Reply 67 and 68. Besides, when

California has Prop 8 under consideration, he said, while he thought gay marriage was wrong, he also thought Prop 8 was unnecessary. So, how is that a consistent "hands off what states do" position?

PS. People most definitely are to blame for their own actions and inactions, as well as for being on the morally incorrect side of an issue of human rights, be it detainees or the GLBT community.

What he campaigned on is irrelevant. Folks change their minds. Truman did.

[No Elephants]

69. Not the point at all. Please see Replies 67 and 68. And I would blame the desire for votes

before I'd blame religion. Nothing, but nothing, in the Bible requires you to force your personal interpretation of the Bible on other people, including via Jim Crow laws. There is one exception and it has to do with making "those within your (meaning Jews) gates observe the Sabbath. Otherwise, the dictates of the Bible are about how YOU behave.

So, please tell me why no politician, Christian, Jewish or Muslim, is making stores close on Sunday, but they worry lots about what is on MY tv, what is in MY womb and who SOME folks want to marry? No, not beause of the Bible, but bc of votes.

Why did Obama campaign on abolition of DADT and DOMA, but then deceptively say he could not do anything about either of those unless Congress took the initiative? Not bc of the Bible, but bc of votes.

[mrbarber]

9. Conversatives celebrated their victory by burning books and lightings crosses on fire.

Oh, and Matthew Staver? Fuck you bigot. I hope you see everything you hold dear go down in flames, you nazi fuck.

[DURHAM D]

11. How in the world did my country end up as a place where -

citizens are allowed to vote their prejudice against a minority?

[Muttocracy]

13. seriously - that's what it comes down to - and I don't know how :( nt

[No Elephants]

71. To be fair, your country (and mine) did not end up there. It started there.

People first voted against civil rights when they voted on rebelling against England. And again, when they wrote the COTUS.

I have a feeling "separate but equal" laws got abolished only bc the Warren Court got hold of them before anyone else did and it was too dangerous, for a lot of reasons, for anyone else to make a move to reinstate them. Even the SCOTUS had upheld Jim Crow laws before the SCOTUS got "ultra-liberal" on rights of African Americans. (Which shows why moderation in defense of liberty sucks, even though the guy who said that was a McCarthy supporter.)

And I believer that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 got enacted because its major proponent got assassinated and LBJ was smart enough to use that when he jawboned--and people had united in civil disaobedience and even riots. In other words, it took the perfect storm.

But, the Cons got hold of the gay rights issue as part of the whole Moral Majority/Christian Coalition crap before anyone on the left took it up.

[madrchsod]

12. joe hill...."don`t waste anytime in mourning.Organize".

molly said it all in the last two paragraphs of this article from 2004

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1105-21.htm


one can only blame oneself for one`s failure

[DURHAM D]

15. Horse manure.

This is a civil rights issue. Not a political fight.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

73. I agree with the beginning of your post, but not with the end.

There's PLENTY of blame to go around. And this is from someone who has marched on this issue in front of the state house in Massachusetts and who posts Pogo's "We have met the enemy and he is us" every chance she gets.

[Kali]

14. WTF

is "natural marriage"???

jeebus, these assholes piss me off

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Peanut Butter and Jelly.

Also milk and oreos.

Beyond that, I have no fucking clue.

[Unvanguard]

19. "Marriage I like." n/t

[No Elephants]

85. Natural marriage is opposite marriage. Duh! *sarcasm*

[MellowDem]

17. The gay rights leaders need to realize...

that the blame game won't help them win next time. Don't get angry, get even. The truth is, some of this is just bad timing and some of it is the fact that we have to wait for a generation to die off some more. Sad but true.

[DURHAM D]

20. Bullshit -

I am from that generation you think needs to die and have been an activist for over 40 years - sometimes at a risk to my job and life.

Waiting for people to die is a feeble excuse from a pitiful little Me Machine.

[MellowDem]

21. I never said everyone from the older generation...

it's just that they vote pretty lopsided in general when it comes to gay marriage. It's the reason that gay marriage is getting more and more popular every year. It's just hard statistics. Many people who are older didn't grow up in a time when their peers were open about their sexual orientation. It's not a blame game or a personal attack, so don't take it as one.

I think we should do all we can to change minds, but part of that is just a matter of time as well.

And I don't get your Me Machine reference... guess I'm too old and not quite up with it!

[David Zephyr]

28. Obama can not be blamed. You are correct there. But your patronizing my community is insulting.

"The gay rights leaders need to realize..."

Keep that pontificating to yourself.

[MellowDem]

35. Who is "your" community?

Keep your inclusive self rightous craziness to yourself. I didn't know gay rights leaders were a community not to be commented on. It's not "your" anything. But "your" attitude seems to match how some anti-gay marriage people view marriage as "theirs".

[David Zephyr]

38. I'm gay.

Who is my community? I'm gay. Don't lecture me and my family. That's my community.

[MellowDem]

39. I'm straight.

Who is my community? Is it seperate from yours? Not in my world, but maybe in your head it is, which is sad and rather ironic. I'm not lecturing anyone, just stating my opinion, but you have seen it fit to lift your ugly head of divisiveness. The more you type, the more you sound like the freepers who vote against gay marriage.

[David Zephyr]

40. Of course, you are straight. Duh...

And yes, you were lecturing.

[MellowDem]

42. Of course you are divisive...

duh. You feel that by pretending gay leadership is one and the same with all gays everywhere which are one community no straight person can comment on, you have somehow gained some power. You are angry and want to act like those you oppose. Congratulations, you have succeeded. By the way, don't talk about Obama, he's straight you see, and part of my community. So stop pretending like you can lecture me on whether he is to blame or not, you silly silly gay person.

And please, stop talking to me. I'm straight, you see, and you aren't part of my community.

[Johnboi70]

43. I'm gay and I agree with you.

See my post below... The issue here is bad strategy on the part of gay rights groups. I'm not saying they're "wrong" just strategically-misguided.

[No Elephants]

83. Except Mellow Dem is saying the correct strategy is do nothing but wait for people to die off.

You agree with that?

[Johnboi70]

110. He didn't say or even imply "do nothing."

**Mind you, I say this as a gay man with a partner who is also a member of this site. I say this as a gay man who wants to get married and knows life is too short**

He said we need to spend our time convincing people. I take that to mean going after the hate groups.

I think that allowing our rights to be put up for a popular vote is worse than doing nothing. Putting our rights up for a vote is what the hate groups want... it allows them to frame the debate any way they want. It allows them to put hate speech on the air, thinly disguised as political speech. It allows them to call out the mob and give them pitchforks.

If it's a choice between giving hate groups that strong a hand and waiting, I'll choose to wait. I think a positive agenda is impossible... and potentially disastrous... under the current conditions. The hate groups need to be exposed for what they are first. We can't pretend the last 8 years didn't happen.

We need to be realistic. We need to confront and expose our foes. To do otherwise is foolish... that's the lesson of Maine.

[No Elephants]

79. Why can't he blamed? Did JFK and RFK wait for people to die off before advocating equal rights?

Obama says he doesn't believe in them. Why can't he be blamed for that again?

[No Elephants]

74. Bullshit. The Warren Court did not wait to decide Brown v. Bd. of Education.

And the religious right has plenty of young members.

[Neurotica]

18. Civil rights should not be put to popular vote

Tyranny of the majority...

[unkachuck]

23. there is....

....no Left base constituency of the Democratic Party Obama will 'forcefully defend'....we embarrass him and his corporate handlers; we're an inconvenient truth....

"...Conservatives, in contrast, celebrated..." "...repealed in a vote of 53 percent to 47..."

....I wonder how that percentage spread will feel next year when they need us?

[cosmicone]

24. Blaming Obama is just pointing fingers

The movement should have obtained a preemptive injunction against the referendum stating it was unconstitutional and tied it up in courts.

The movement had a precedence in Prop 8 to point to which is before another federal court.

It is politically risky for Obama to come out swinging for each and every liberal cause if he wants to get reelected. Perhaps people should wait until 2012 to get their wishes -- only 3 years away.

[theHandpuppet]

26. Amazing

"It is politically risky for Obama to come out swinging for each and every liberal cause if he wants to get reelected. Perhaps people should wait until 2012 to get their wishes -- only 3 years away."

Amazing that you actually have the nerve to say that. At first I thought you had forgotten your sarcasm tag.

[liquid diamond]

33. It's true.

Obama doesn't have to come out and support gay marriage. He knows he has the gay community in his pocket come 2012. See election 2008.

[No Elephants]

82. Not all folks who support gay marriage are gay, nor will all of us vote for Obama in 2012..

See election 2000.

[Iowa]

36. Are you serious?

"It is politically risky for Obama to come out swinging for each and every liberal cause if he wants to get reelected. Perhaps people should wait until 2012 to get their wishes -- only 3 years away."

That is wrong on so many levels... I'll address just three:

1) Obama isn't pursuing liberal causes because Obama is a status-quo protecting, conservative, corporatist. His campaign was one massive manipulative lie.

2) It's not that Obama doesn't come out swinging for "EVERY liberal cause"... it's that he doesn't come out swinging for ANY liberal cause. He's just another self-serving politician. Actually, he's far worse than most self-serving politicians because he used the genuine enthusiasm of young people to get elected, and then promptly sold them (and the rest of us) out. We could have had another FDR type generation. Instead, this lightweight managed to turn enthusiasm into cynicism.

3) And regarding the notion that Obama is being held back from charging into the fray due to it being "politically risky"... Obama doesn't do "political risk" - period. That would require both a spine and a conscience.

[No Elephants]

86. Why shouldn't Obama get blamed for his own actions and inactions?

And since when do Americans keep quiet about a President until they go to the voting booth four years later to vote for someone else?

You can criticize folks for not seeking an injumction, I guess, if you are sure they could have gotten one under Maine law, but why should that preclude blaming a POTUS for opposing gay marriage instead of advocating for it?

BTW, your comment about Obama coming out swinging for every liberal cause is almost hilarious.

As far as political risk, any self serving, ass-covering shlep can avoid political risk. (Not saying that description fits Obama, simply responding to you.) It takes moral fiber to be a Profile in Courage. Maybe JFK never really wrote that book, but he and his brothers came out for civil rights for African Americans before that was popular. So did LBJ for that matter.


Refusing to stand up for equal rights for all humans--and in fact standing against them--is NOT morally defensible, period, and certainly not on the grounds of avoiding political risk. Besides, I have no interest whatever in supporting folks who do not do the right thing because it might cost them their job or election. Not on an issue like human rights, or a strong public option, or any other really important issue. These are the the two biggest issues our party has seen since LBJ. If Obama is not going to take a political risk on either one, why should he be our Party's President?

[Bluenorthwest]

25. The Book they use to explain their bigotry, Obama, his wife,

Kaine, and the rest of them, that book supports slavery. Every single Biblical author who has a critical word to say about anything gay is also a personal proponent of and writer of commands about slavery. Moses. St Paul. Slaves, obey your masters. If you believe the anti gay stuff, then you believe that slaves should obey their masters. It is a deep pit of bigotry they uphold when they wave that flag.

[No Elephants]

87. Please see Reply 69.

Also, the Bible does mention slaves in a household without condemning slavery, but the Bible never "supported" it or advocated it for it, either.

Besides, I'd love to know exactly what slavery meant in both legal and practical terms in Abraham's day. I very much doubt it was the same in his time as it was in the sixteenth century in the West.

I can deal just fine with fair crticism of religion and/or the Bible, but please don't make up stuff or deal in half truths. Some used the Bible to justify slavery, that is so, but they were dealing in half truths as well.

[David Zephyr]

27. Oh good grief. The headline is misleading. It should say SOME "gay leaders".

It is preposterous to blame the bigotry and irrational fears expressed in a ballot measure on President Obama.

I'm gay. This is simply idiotic.

Let's blame Obama for the loss in New Jersey. Let's blame Obama for the one in Virginia.

I'm tough on Obama because I supported him in the primaries and in the general election with money, sweat and passion.

But this is a joke.

Success has many parents and failure is always an orphan.

We lost another stupid ballot measure.

This will be settled by the Supreme Court based on the 14th Amendment and through the lawsuit by David Boies and Ted Olsen. And that will end the lunacy of voting on anyone's civil rights once and for all.

Blaming Obama for this is pathetic.

[scentopine]

37. Sort of agree - Virginia and New Jersey and Maine losses

however, when considered together, point to problems with leadership. Dig deeper and you will find a vacuum where there was grass roots involvement.

Obama and Rahm Emanuel are calculating if they just do nothing to upset republicans "good will" will carry them through 2010 mid-terms.

Its a massive gamble and they are banking on the same level of republican support that helped them win in 2008 to keep them in power after 2012.

But - just one charismatic national republican leader is all it will take and all of Obama's best new republican friends will leave him at the altar.

He'll be without his republican base, trying to win back a pissed off democratic rank and file.

Its a reckless gamble and the motive behind all this bipartisan horseshit. Its why Rahm took a giant dump on the fifty states strategy and went straight after corporate cash.

Obama is the leader of democratic party, it is more than a ceremonial post. He needs to win elections and help on key ballot measures and act more like a fighter than an appeasement maker since active support can keep the rank and file motivated and involved. When his republican friends turn tail (and they will), he'll have no one.

I argue we should not be so quick to reason away these losses. If we want reform, we need to win. Every election is important and a test of strength. Having said this, I bet Rahm et al will double down on republican love making in exclusive pursuit of corporate cash to fuel the party. Liberals are not welcome in the new democratic party.

[CTLawGuy]

34. can you imagine the headline

Jon Corzine Blames Obama for Loss

Creigh Deeds Says Obama didn't do enough

[No Elephants]

95. Self Delete. Dupe.

[No Elephants]

97. Apples and oranges. Corzine and Deeds blaming Obama for their own losses is

nohing like gay people blaming Obama for saying he believes marriage should be between a man and woman and not ever campaigning for gay marriage.

Among many other differences, Obama showed up in both NJ and Virginia to campaigin several times. See also Reply 66. The "The President gets blamed for everything, snicker, gambit was old by 2003.

[Johnboi70]

41. The problem here is bad strategy by Gay Rights groups!! (4 points)

First, you should never allow anyone's human rights to be subjected to a popular vote.

Second, why allow the anti-gay groups to do their thing unchallenged? When was the last time any of you saw the NAACP and the KKK debate? But Focus on the Family debates HRC all the time on TV... giving undeserved legitimacy to FoF. We need to attack them as hate groups.... loudly and relentlessly. We need to expose them. We need to get their privileged, tax-exempt status taken away or, at least, force them to defend it.

Third, as long as these hate groups are allowed to operate unchallenged, we should shelve our positive agenda. 8 years of having Bush feed them has left the haters stronger than ever. This is not the environment for progress. We owe it to ourselves to create the climate for change.

Fourth, don't let Bush get off scott-free. He fueled this for 8 years... during a time of war. Lets continue protesting him. We should follow him everywhere and become part of his legacy. That will keep him and what he did to us in the news and remind people that the haters were in bed with him and helped him get reelected.

Key to this is that we shouldn't be trying to "make people like us." About 50% of people pretty much do. The other 50% will be a lot easier to convince if they aren't being fed hate-speech.

[QC]

53. No, the problem is the hateful fucking bigots who voted to strip people of basic civil rights.

Blaming the victims sucks.

[Johnboi70]

55. You didn't read my post. This is why I hate posting here... people attack without thinking. n/t

[No Elephants]

88. Well, many contradict without thinking. I don't think every disagreement or contradiction is an

attack.

I do wish people would read, though.

[Johnboi70]

109. Saying that I'm blaming the victims is clearly an attack, not a contradiction. It's not even...

accurate.

[Johnboi70]

56. Gay rights groups aren't the "victims." Gays are. They need to try something that works.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cstanleytech]

46. Maybe its time for a new tactic.

How about a push back to have the courts repeal things like tax breaks and other benefits the government grants heterosexual couples, after all fair is fair.

[boppers]

49. If they believe marriage is religious...

Then it shouldn't be entitled?

I like the idea.

[No Elephants]

91. While I sympathize with your motivation, your proposal is impractical and

counter-productive. Politicians will never take away all benefits for all married people, ESPECIALLY in response to push back from gay righs advocates. Demanding that will just piss off married heteros, whether or not they otherwise are pro-equal rights. The proposal that we abolish marriage entirely is even less likely to succeed and more likely to piss off folks.

How about running an openly, strongly pro-gay rights candidate for every seat in every election and having every person who supports equal rights vote for that candidate? They may or may not win, but votes will get siphoned off and that is going to get folks attention fast. And, if they win, so much the better. It's a no lose proposition.

I'm tired of voting for folks who are more interested in wooing the right than in being faithful to those who voted for them anyway.

Think we could make that happen?

[BluDemocratGirl]

48. President Obama has NOTHING to do with it

Blame the people who had voted AGAINST it. If Obama gets INVOLVED in Maine's affairs, the senators and representatives would tell him to stay out of it, just like the senators and reps from New York.

[No Elephants]

92. Sorry, but there is plenty of blame to go around. Equal rights are not only Maine's affair anyway,

just as they were not only South Carolina's affair in 1863 or in 1963,

[CakeGrrl]

50. So it's the President's fault that voters are misinformed on a local ballot?

I don't think so.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

98. Careful building such big straw men. You could hurt yourself before health care reform passes.

[geek tragedy]

78. Obama is never going to come through for GLBT citizens the way they hope.

The only plausible explanation is that he really doesn't care that much.

[No Elephants]

101. IMO, the explanation is simple. Neither the Republicans nor the

Democrats can win an election anymore without tacking hard to the center. Correction: that is what they think. I am not certain they are correct, though.

He's worried about his own re-election and, to be fair, possibly the re-election of other Democrat's. However, that is not enough of a reason for me.

[VMI Dem]

84. Obama is very clear on this subject. Why do people expect more?

He opposes gay marriage and wants the states to decide the issue. Simple as that.

[No Elephants]

94. See, for example, posts 67, 68 and 69. BTW, do you think he would take

that same position if folks tried a Constitutional amendment to overturn Loving v. Virginia?

Yeah, really simple.

[Freddie Stubbs]

90. TV ads? The pro-marriage equity side raised twice as much as the opposition

[No Elephants]

93. FAIL. The pro-marriage side is the side that for marriage, not the side that is against it

The side that raised the most money is trying to keep people who want to get married away from marriage. How in hell is that pro-marriage?

On edit: Freddie was correct. The pro-gay marriage advocates outraised the other side. I should have googled or asked him before I posted what I did.

[Freddie Stubbs]

96. Protect Maine Equality: $4 million, Stand for Marriage Maine: $2.5 million

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091104/ap_on_an/us_gay_mar...

[No Elephants]

99. Sincere apologies. My error was based on the rhetoric of the bad guys. I should have checked first.

On edit. I edited my post above too, to reflect that you are correct.

No doubt any poster on any message board would have done the same.



To be fair, though, they do not say simply ads, but "fear mongering ads." In other words, not the number but the nature.

Do you know that the famous (or infamous, depending upon your point of view) daisy ad in the Johnson v. Goldwater election ran paid once? Ditto the Swiftboat ad.

Ads that raise strong negative emotions like fear and contempt are not easily overcome by logic or appeals to ideals.

[slackmaster]

100. Yes, people are much too easily influenced by crap they see on teevee

That's why I don't watch the talking head "news" shows or pay any attention to commercials.

A lot of DUers seem to be immersed in the shit. How many times a day do we see GD threads railing about some asshole on the tube, in which the OP doesn't even say what channel he or she is glued to?

Children should be taught to think for themselves.

[Sultana]

104. Whining biatches

They only have themselves to blame.

[No Elephants]

106. Sure. Bigots had nothing to do with it. Neither did a President who says he thinks

marriage should be between a man and woman.

Get back to us when you and all people like you lose their right to marry, k?

[BREMPRO]

107. nothing to do with Obama, it was the same political marketing group that used the same fear tactics

used successfully in California- Ads that falsely warned that if this law were to stand our children would be indoctrinated by gay advocate teachers that they could "choose" to be gay. Ad to that church pastors that falsely claimed this was an assault on "traditional" marriage and values. they organized, advocated and encouraged their parishioners to vote for repeal of the law.

[robcon]

108. Obama is against same sex marriage - as is Biden

Staying out of the Maine vote was the right thing for him to do.