Comments | muddbstrd: Dammit, Obama! Part Two

muddbstrd

Dammit, Obama! Part Two

Dec 18, 2008 16:24

In response to his selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration, Obama has said that he did so to incorporate a diversity of viewpoints into the ceremony. That's a fine reason to do so, and I can even try to believe it, given that he's putting former adversaries and Republicans into his cabinet. However, forgive me for ( Read more... )

Comments 9

(The comment has been removed)

redrocketwestie December 19 2008, 15:15:16 UTC

This disappoints you? You're upset that there's a voice of moderation and depolarization in power? You want him not to compromise?

I don't know what to say to that. Frankly, the fact that he's not changing his tune as soon as the election is over is comforting. The man knows he can't be the enemy of half the country to get things done and that's smart. It's politics, which I loathe, but it's the same politics that got him here, so I can't really fault him.

muddbstrd December 19 2008, 15:27:36 UTC

What's disappointing me is the fact that he's going around saying he's a staunch advocate of gay rights when he has done little or nothing to earn that title. It would be one thing if he had made significant efforts to advance gay rights in this country AND selected Rick Warren as his pastor. Then his talk about wanting diverse viewpoints would be more believable.

But like most Democrats in power, he has done next to nothing for gay rights but goes around saying that he's helping us. It's like we should be thankful simply because he doesn't hate us, and just smile like good little gays and maybe if we're nice and obedient followers of the party they'll reward us some day with a cookie.

Well fuck that. If by 2012 I'm not convinced that either candidate is a supporter of my interests, I'm abstaining. My vote needs to be earned.

redrocketwestie December 19 2008, 15:30:37 UTC

I agree with you there. Be as angry as you want at the hypocrisy. I just don't like the idea that moderation and "not choosing a side" is something to be upset about or punished.

Thread 7

nucleophile December 19 2008, 05:31:21 UTC

I'm assuming you'd vote republican only if they ran a more aggressive campaign in favor of gay rights?

muddbstrd December 19 2008, 06:18:38 UTC

Not necessarily. While my social politics are liberal, my fiscal politics are conservative. I am in favor of a small government and decreased government spending. However, over the last 20 years, it has been under the Democrats when the federal deficit actually shrinks, and we don't pour billions of dollars into wars and the military. So since I'm nearly always aligned with Democrats on social issues, but the Republicans couldn't even do the whole fiscal responsibility thing, I've pretty much been voting Democrat ( ... )

nucleophile December 19 2008, 16:45:23 UTC

Okay. For a second I got PUMA flashbacks.

...and I guess it's looking less like Palin will matter in 2012 (she just has to keep doing interviews!). And yes, Obama's support of gay issues was terribly weak during his campaign, but I'm willing to wait and see what he does when he actually has executive power.

lostlo December 24 2008, 00:16:00 UTC

Okay, so now what you were saying in my LJ makes a lot more sense. I missed the part where Obama labeled himself a fierce advocate for equality... I dunno what he's smoking, that's not true. Unless he means he's fiercely advocated in conversation or whatever, which is completely useless.

I wish we could go back to the old days. Did you know it used to be considered very unseemly for a politician to make speeches during a campaign? You had other people speak for you.

Hopefully Obama is just taking his Lincoln worship to another level, and doing that thing where he sits back and let everyone think he's a fucking moron until he gets sworn in. I doubt it, but hopefully.