HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Frank Bruni: Dear Preside...

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 10:12 PM

Frank Bruni: Dear President Clinton, it's time to apologize for DOMA


WHAT a year you’ve had, the kind that really burnishes a legend. At the Democratic National Convention, on the campaign trail, in speeches aplenty and during interviews galore, you spoke eloquently about what this country should value, and you spoke unequivocally about where it should head. Such a bounty of convictions, such a harvest of words, except for one that’s long overdue: Sorry.

Where’s your apology for signing the Defense of Marriage Act?

... In 1996, with an overblown worry about your re-election and a desire not to seem too liberal, you put your name to that execrable decree. And you’ve never wholly owned up to that, never made adequate amends. It’s past time, and it’s almost time for Hillary, who is about to step down as secretary of state, to catch up with other cabinet members and President Obama and make her presumed support for same-sex marriage explicit, which she has never done.

... At the convention in Charlotte three months ago, in remarks that sprawled over 48 minutes, you seemed to find room for just about everything but same-sex marriage. President Obama mentioned the issue in his speech. So did Michelle Obama in hers. But nothing from you, and no particular advocacy or fund-raising for the marriage-equality referendums that were on the ballot on Nov. 6 and were considered such a crucial moment for the cause.

7 replies, 1442 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply Frank Bruni: Dear President Clinton, it's time to apologize for DOMA (Original post)
Newsjock Dec 2012 OP
deurbano Dec 2012 #1
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #2
pnwmom Dec 2012 #6
Ken Burch Dec 2012 #3
Capt.Rocky300 Dec 2012 #4
pnwmom Dec 2012 #5
dsc Dec 2012 #7

Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 10:24 PM

1. I don't know what he did this election, but in CA, I got his anti-Prop 8 call in 2008

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 10:27 PM

2. I read that he has said that it should be repealed

But I don't know if he has ever said he regrets signing it, or if he has actually come out in favor of gay marriage. I read an article today about how Hillary has not weighed in since 2008 but will probably come out for it once she leaves the State Department.

Not that DOMA ever should have been passed, but it was a different time back then. Even Paul Wellstone voted for it.

I would love to see President Obama try to get it repealed before he leaves office. I know we probably don't have the votes now, but if we can pick up more seats in 2014 maybe we can get enough Republicans to vote for it, now that they seem to realize it's a losing issue for them in most of the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to democrattotheend (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:02 AM

6. You're right -- it WAS a different time back then.

The other side almost certainly had enough state legislatures to get a Constitutional amendment passed, and there was an ongoing drive toward that. By passing and signing DOMA, Democrats headed that off, knowing it would be much easier to undo a simple law some day than a Constitutional amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 10:30 PM

3. He should apologize for that, AND for signing Rush Limbaugh's welfare reform bill

He through two big parts of his coalition under the bus, and didn't gain any votes from anybody for doing it.

This is why I say that, in 1996, Bill Clinton was NOT running for re-election as a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 10:36 PM

4. And NAFTA......and.......

signing the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 11:59 PM

5. DOMA passed by 85–14 in the Senate and 342–67 in the House, so it was veto proof.

What would Clinton have accomplished politically by signing a bill he knew would be overturned by Congress?

But let's pretend that wouldn't have happened. The other ongoing drive of the Rethugs was to get a Constitutional Amendment passed. Which would have been fairly easy in 1996.

DOMA or a Constitutional Amendment? Which would have been worse?


Clinton owes no apology. He picked the alternative that is much easier to undo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:05 AM

7. lectures from Bruni about politicians wow just wow

Let's remember that Mr. Bruni is more responsible than any gay man whose name isn't Melman for the fact Bush is in the White House. See, he was the NYT reporter who covered Bush. http://www.dailyhowler.com/h031802_1.shtml

Here is one example of his work.

Frank Bruni’s account is instructive. In his campaign memoir, Ambling into History, the Timesman describes George W. Bush’s performance at that first, key debate with Al Gore:

BRUNI (page 187): The skills that led to great debating were not ones that Bush naturally possessed, and his three subsequent debate performances made this clear. By any objective analysis, Bush was at best mediocre in the first debate, in Boston…In all of [the debates], he was vague. A stutter sometimes crept into his voice. An eerie blankness occasionally spread across his features. He made a few ridiculous statements…I remember watching the first debate from one of the seats inside the auditorium and thinking that Bush was in the process of losing the presidency.

Our instruction begins when we compare that account with the article Bruni wrote the next day in the Times. Bruni was Bush reporter for the New York Times from August 1999 through the end of Election 2000. And we now know it—as he sat in the hall and watched that debate, he thought that Bush was "losing the presidency." Surely Bush had done some serious fumbling. But here’s how Bruni’s report began in the next day’s Times:

BRUNI (pgh 1): It was not enough for Vice President Al Gore to venture a crisp pronunciation of Milosevic, as in Slobodan, the Yugoslav president who refuses to be pried from power.

(2) Mr. Gore had to go a step further, volunteering the name of Mr. Milosevic’s challenger, Vojislav Kostunica. Then he had to go a step beyond that, noting that Serbia plus Montenegro equals Yugoslavia.

(3) And as Mr. Gore loped effortlessly through the Balkans, barely able to suppress his self-satisfied grin, it became ever clearer that the point of all the thickets of consonants and proper nouns was not a geopolitical lesson.

(4) It was more like oratorical intimidation, an unwavering effort to upstage and unnerve an opponent whose mind and mouth have never behaved in a similarly encyclopedic fashion.

Bruni thought Bush was performing so poorly that he "was in the process of losing the presidency." But when he described the event the next day, he opened with a four-paragraph passage about was a big *sshole Gore was. For the record, those familiar with spin from Election 2000 will know the script which Bruni was typing. It was "Gore is like the kid in the front row who keeps raising his hand"—one of the many pieces of memorized cant with which your press corps made a joke of this race.

Strange, isn’t it? Bruni thought Bush was blowing the deal—but he opened with shopworn denigration of Gore! (Dropping all pretense of objective reporting, by the way, he noted that Gore was "barely able to suppress his self-satisfied grin" as he played the big show-off.) Weirdly, it was Gore whom Bruni chose to highlight—and he used some dog-eared spin as he did. But then, so it routinely went as the liberal Times spun this election.

end of quote

Oh and trust me there is more and more and more if I wanted to.

Funny I have yet to see Bruni say one word about Bush's anti gay policies, he surely didn't cover them in real time.

Now, the fact is I am unenamored with DOMA but let's be blunt. We could well have a Constitutional amendment instead. They needed 2/3 of Congress plus 3/4 of states. In the Senate we had 52 GOP 48 Dems. But of the 48 Dems, 2 came from AK, 2 from LA, one from AL, one from SC, 4 from the Dakotas, one from Montana, 2 from WV, 1 from VA, 1 from KY if they got all of those and held their own that is the 67 they need.

As for the states, 18 legislatures were under GOP control. Alaska , AR, CO, FL, ID, KS, MT, NH, NJ, ND, OH, OR, PA, UT, WA, WY, IA, and SD we can assume all of them would have ratified. One was NE which would have ratified (NE officially has a non partisan legislature). 20 states were under Democratic control. AL , Arkansas, CA, CT, GA, HI, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MN, MS, MO, NM, OK, RI, TN, VT, and WV. Of those we can assume that AL, Arkansas,GA, KY, LA, MS, MO, OK, TN, and WV would ratify. Assume we hold all the rest of the Dem states we are now 10 nos and 28 yes with 14 nos needed.

11 states were split or tied. DE, IL, IN, MI, NV, NY, NC, SC, TX, VA, WI. Give us DE, IL, NY give them IN, NC, SC, TX, and VA. We must win 1 of the following MI, NV, WI.

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/469_composition_of_state_legislatures_by_political.html (site for legislature divisions)

really wanna bet the amendment was a sure fail?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread