From the Washington Blade:
LGBT advocates praised the initiatives President Obama set forth in his jobs speech Thursday night — even though his address made no direct reference to the lack of federal job protections for LGBT people. . . .
Obama campaigned on passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — legislation that would bar such job bias against LGBT people in the public and private workforce — but the bill has languished for years and didn’t even see a committee vote in the last Congress when Democrats were in control of both the House and Senate. . . .
Despite the lack of any explicit mention, LGBT advocates praised the plan Obama unveiled on Thursday and said the policies would benefit all Americans — including LGBT people.
The mission is progressive big government. The goal is to enlist “LGBT people” as foot soldiers to (and funders of) the cause. Focusing on gay equality would be a distraction.
43 Comments for “Mission Creep”
posted by Houndentenor on
Look, I’m as pissed as anyone that Obama, Reid and Pelosi didn’t get ENDA passed while they had the chance. They only passed the DADT repeal under duress, but at least they got it done. DADT would still be on the books and the administration fighting an appeal of the lawsuit if we had elected John McCain president.
As for big government, no Republican in my lifetime has reduced the size of government. The claim that conservatives are for smaller government is just not supported by the facts. The right wants different spending, not less. At least be honest about that.
I like the president’s proposal from last night and support it. That has nothing to do with me being gay. I suppose gay rights activists are free to support whatever they want. Focusing on gay rights on that national level would be pointless so long as Republicans control the Senate anyway.
posted by Doug on
Thanks for laying bare some right wing talking points.
posted by esurience on
Hey Stephen!
I happen to fully agree with you here. Now, will you criticize GOProud for saying things like lower taxes and less regulation help gay people?
Or it only mission creep when it’s “liberal”?
posted by Wilberforce on
Actually, mainstream queer culture set last year’s agenda: gay marraige. And you conveniently overlook that in your usual attack on the democratic party.
Darling, let go of your obsession with tax cuts, and try to work with our gay liberal allies. Or just continue with your non-stop attacks on our allies.
You’re quickly becoming another branch of the self destructive crowd who’ve sabotaged our movement since the 80s. Back in the day, they told us to ignore the spread of hiv. Now at JMG, they spit hatred at our allies in the liberal church. While you guys tear into our freinds in the democratic party.
After thirty years, internalized homophobia is still the standard of gay culture. It’s very sad.
posted by Jorge on
I missed it. I thought it was at 8PM.
Tomorrow is a very important and dangerous day and I wish the president well.
Otherwise, it’s all too little, too late. I don’t have any confidence in Obama on most issues, certainly not domestic issues.
posted by another steve on
Nasty Wilburforce (who, by the way, disgraces the name he uses on this site) spits more vitriol:
Darling, let go of your obsession with tax cuts
Actually, it’s the lefty LGBT activists who are obsessed with raising taxes for the redistributive/regulatory state, not the blogger. Nasty Wilburforce needs to look in the mirror.
The blogger’s point is that gay activists need to hold the Democrats feet to the fire. But the party partisans who love to come here every day and insult the blogger can only shout “heresy!, heresy!” as they run to re-read today’s talking points from Daily Koz.
posted by Wilberforce on
The site bills itself as forging a gay mainstream, which in the real world means input from gay liberalism. Instead of respecting our liberal allies and trying to work with them, the blogger regularly spits venom at the democratic party, blaming liberalism for the kitchen sink. The very name of the blog is a falsehood, and it’s starting to look like conservatives can’t open their mouths without lying. So please don’t be surprised from a bit of blowback.
If you or the blogger don’t wish to be insulted, change the site name, or go to some far right echo chamber like GOProud.
But to get back to the topic, I partly agree with Miller on this. The new stimulus is more wasteful Keynesianism and probably won’t do what they say it will. But as usual, Miller uses it as an attack on the democrats by leaving out that both parties are guilty of expanding inefficient government. Indeed, the one person to make government more efficient and use targetted investment to spur the economy, Bill Clinton, was slandered nonstop by the GOP. So please can we get past the lie that the GOP is for smaller government? If we could, we might be able to look at the entire structure, taxes and spending, and decide where to cut and where to invest.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s very interesting to get attacked for being on the far right when all my liberal friends think I’m too conservative and my wingnut relatives think I’m a communist. I am the middle! A little left of center, but I am as appalled as conservatives at some of the things leftist activists say. But we can’t have a conversation because if I think that we should have the top earners go back to the Clinton era tax rates I get a bunch of Ayn Rand bullshit thrown my way.
Forging a gay mainstream? Yes, that’s possible, but not with the posters on this blog it seems who are obviously more interested in slamming liberals than in getting anything accomplished for gay people. At least it’s not as wingnutty as gaypatriot.
posted by Wilberforce on
GayPatriot? I think I glanced at it once for .0001 seconds. That was more than enough.
But you’re so right about the far left. I’m not supposed to think this way, but I have actually hated many of them since they voted for Nader.
There are other issues on which they’re hopeless. They won’t do jack to stop the spread of hiv, but sit around all day at jmg spitting hatred at our allies in the liberal church. And their group think totally gets on the nerves. But whatever.
The thing that really bothers, though, are the moronic talking points on both sides. An example is Miller’s talk above about ‘progressive big government.’ No mention of Iraq wars or Wall Street bailouts or Pentagon boondogles or a thousand and one business subsidies. Please.
posted by Jorge on
It’s hard not to slam liberals when even their representatives on this site seem to think they should be able to shame me into their orthodoxy at their beck and call.
Everyone knows that the “gay mainstream” is, was, and always will be dominated by the progressives. But pushing the average more rightward toward the center would be a good thing.
And so on and so forth.
posted by Houndentenor on
Every group wanting something from elected officials has to hold their feet to the fire. There’s no heresy in that. Yours is a strawman argument. We got the DADT repeal passed precisely because gay activists pushed the issue. HRC filed a successful lawsuit on DADT so they deserve credit for that. It seems it was a joint effort. We didn’t get ENDA passed. That sucks. Who knows how long it will be before we have Democrats controlling both houses and the White House again because we all know that Boehner wouldn’t even let ENDA come up for a vote.
posted by ericW on
It was the Log Cabin Republicans that filed the successful anti-DADT lawsuit that won a federal district court victory in October 2010, pushing the administration to move on DADT repeal. It was most certaily not the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which sees itself as an outreach arm of the Democratic party (sorry if that offends, but it’s the truth of the matter).
posted by Houndentenor on
It certainly wasn’t HRC. They are too busy throwing fabulous fundraisers and patting each other on the back to do anything so mundane as work on behalf of gay people. But there many liberals who pestered their representatives to get something done. You’ve never read anything from me singing the praises of HRC. Actually I don’t know of anyone who would disagree with me about HRC so I’m puzzled why it’s the focus of so much venom from the gay right. They’re irrelevant.
posted by Jarvis on
Forging a gay mainstream? Yes, that’s possible, but not with the posters on this blog it seems who are obviously more interested in slamming liberals than in getting anything accomplished for gay people.
The “mainstream” will always be a subjective destination. To those on the left, it’s “mainstream” to be a big government liberal but not a communist. For those on the right, it’s “mainstream” to be a limited government conservative but not laissez-faire reactionary.
This blog is clearly its author’s view of mainstream. That it might not be yours doesn’t really amount to much. You are free to start your own.
What is so controversial about asserting that liberal gay activists should not give the Democratic party a free ride? I’d say the same about conservative gay activists and the Republican party. The amount of rancor and invective provoked by what seems a fairly straightforward observation seems to say more about the commenters and their need for emotional outbursts than it does about the blog.
posted by Wilberforce on
The point is that Miller wants us to call the democratic party on wasteful spending while he covers that fact that the republicans are worse. Blatant falsehoods like that will often bring forth invective.
posted by Houndentenor on
What planet do you live on? Do you actually listen to any liberals? Read any liberal blogs? Any liberal columnists? All of them are critical of the Democratic Party. Plenty of them are constantly pissed at Obama. Mostly for not being liberal enough. But the gays are plenty pissed that he didn’t get ENDA passed while he had the chance. I’m sure there are plenty of apologists but everyone I talk to is rather to extremely unhappy. You have some idea of the left that is based on nothing but right wing talking points.
posted by another steve on
As for Nasty Wilburforce, if he beleives Republicans outspend Democrats, he truly is delusional.
posted by Wilberforce on
Thanks for the name calling. And the term was not spending, it was wasteful spending. Compare the spending of the parties to see which is more useful. Or don’t, and just reinterpret my words again to suit yourself.
posted by jarvis on
What planet do you live on? Do you actually listen to any liberals? Read any liberal blogs? Any liberal columnists? All of them are critical of the Democratic Party.
Well, I live in the planet where the liberal media regularly editorialize in favor of the Obama administraiton’s proposals and the positions taken by congressional Democrats against the GOP. (I have no doubt that the fever swamps of the leftwing blogosphere are upset that Obama, Reid and Pelosi are not more radical.)
posted by JohnAGJ on
I can’t believe I’m about to defend Obama, at least a wee bit, but here it goes: he never really had the chance to get ENDA passed. Sure, on paper the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and theoretically at least that should have meant that there were enough votes to pass it into law. We know why ENDA didn’t pass but it’s considered divisive and impolitic to say exactly why: gender identity or transgenderism. There isn’t enough support among most politicians, including Democrats, to pass an “inclusive” ENDA on the national level. Because compromises were considered to be verboten it failed. Oh a “non-inclusive” ENDA would have had some difficulty and yes, would have faced fierce opposition from many in the GOP at least, but including transgenderism made it DOA. Now we will pay the price for such political absolutism because it will take years before ENDA, “inclusive” or not, will ever have a serious shot of being passed and enacted into law again.
posted by dalea on
As someone who frequents liberal blogs, I must say I have never encountered any advocacy of ‘bigger’ government. There is advocacy of specific programs, and serious interest in abolishing or reforming many programs. One typical example is reform of farm subsidies so that funding goes to only to small, family type farms. I encounter a much more stringent critique of corporate subsidies at liberal sites than at conservative ones. Plus actual knowledge of the concept of ‘economic rents’ and ‘rentier’ which is then used in economic analysis. The ‘rentier’ is a concept from Classical Liberalism which explains a lot about our current economic mess, and should be used by conservatives and libertarians. But they don’t use it. Probably because a very large portion of those whose earning they defend really don’t earn their money. They just collect economic rents.
And a great deal of bitching and moaning about Obama being Bush’s third term. At FireDogLake, Jane Hamsher has called for going against Obama in the primaries. This is a frequent topic at DKos also. And at AmericaBlog. The Confluence and Cannonfire are left blogs that have been antiObama since 2007.
posted by jarvis on
As someone who frequents liberal blogs, I must say I have never encountered any advocacy of ‘bigger’ government.
I find this a very puzzling assertion. Many liberal blogs advocate more activist government, more government regulation of business, more environmental and consumer regulation and enforcement (by government bureaucracies), greater enforcement of labor rules (e.g., Fair Labor Standards Act), more government spending (health care, schools, infrastructure, subsidies for green initiatives, larger government aid programs, etc.) Well, that’s advocating bigger government.
posted by dalea on
Nothing you list involves advocating for ‘bigger government’. Instead each advocacy must be considered on its merits. If the net result is that the government is bigger that does not mean that bigger was the goal. As I recall, the libertarian alternative to regulation is the common law, which in practice means endless lawsuits to settle issues that could be addressed by an agency that issues standards to which everyone must adhere. How does anyone conclude that a system that requires hundreds of lawsuits all the time is ‘small’ government but that a system of a few hundred regulators is ‘bigger’ government?
Nor is it clear to me how blogs that call for reducing farm subsidies to major corporations, ending two wars, bringing troops home, closing bases around the world, reducing health care overhead etc. are advocating ‘bigger’ government? It seems that alleged libertarians simply adopt conservative boilerplate arguments without examining the content and empirical evidence on the issues.
posted by jarvis on
Nothing you list involves advocating for ‘bigger government’.
Wow, how to respond! Everything on my list involves bigger government. More goverrment spending, more government employees. More government intrusion into people’s lives and into how businesses are allowed to operate.
You need to have the courage of your liberal convictions. If you think more spending and regulation are good things, that’s fine. But to say they don’t cause bigger government just makes you look silly and no one will take you seriously.
posted by Houndentenor on
Again, I can’t think of a Republican who has reduced the overall size of government. They reduce in one area and expand in another. Nor do they reduce spending or the number of employees. The biggest cuts to spending and number of federal workers was under Bill Clinton. You spout a lot of generalizations that are not based in fact. Recently even Ann Coulter, GOProud poster girl, admitted on Bill Maher’s show that Republicans don’t want to cut spending any more than Democrats do.
We can disagree with how much to spend and on which programs we should spend how much, but it’s ridiculous to claim that Democrats spend more than Republicans. That’s just not based in reality. In fact, it was the Republicans who claimed for over 30 years that “deficits don’t matter”. I’m glad they are finally waking up that they do, but blaming that all on the Democrats is absurd. It takes two to tango, as they say, and it took both parties to get us into this mess and unless we get an agreement that everyone is going to have to give up some of what they want, we are not going to get out.
posted by Jorge on
As someone who frequents liberal blogs, I must say I have never encountered any advocacy of ‘bigger’ government.
I’ve heard people describe the Bush administration as big government conservatism, but rarely has that been stated in the first person.
They may not admit to it, but look to the core philosophy and priorities. Any heavy problem-solving demands big government.
As I recall, the libertarian alternative to regulation is the common law, which in practice means endless lawsuits to settle issues that could be addressed by an agency that issues standards to which everyone must adhere. How does anyone conclude that a system that requires hundreds of lawsuits all the time is ‘small’ government but that a system of a few hundred regulators is ‘bigger’ government?
Oh, that’s an easy one. It takes more time to go through an agency in order to get a green light to file a lawsuit or take some other action than it is to just file the lawsuit. You assume that people would actually listen to the agency, or even be aware of its rules. Not very realisitc when there are multiple agencies writing on the same topic, and when there are hundreds of different rules. I mean I’m supposedly protected at my job by a contract and state law and federal law but when my rights get violated I have to figure out exactly under which rules they’ve been violated and who to file my complaint with. Really the only way I get my rights protected is by bluffing and striking everywhere at once.
posted by dalea on
A list of horrors:
More goverrment spending, more government employees. More government intrusion into people’s lives and into how businesses are allowed to operate.
IME, one area where we need more, not less, governmental involvement is in accounting rules, which are a major part of the dreaded regulations. It used to be that all labor costs were part of labor payroll in presenting financial reports. But under deregulation, it is now possible to put contract labor into an expense category. Which results in a lower reported labor cost, which makes labor look more productive than it actually is.
Another example: it used to be that a capital item was something that provided useful services for more than 2 years. It had to be capitalized and depreciated according to the IRS schedules, which are a large part of regulation. Now, thanks to deregulation, all sorts of things can be expensed. Which means that business show smaller amounts of capital, which makes return on investment appear larger than it is.
I favor rigid and inflexible regulation of accounting, which probably makes me appear to be a leftist. The alternative is a system where creative accounting allows endless misrepresentation. Where large parts of labor and capital costs are presented as something else. Regulations exist for a reason in most cases. So,rather than rail against regulations in general, I prefer to go case by case. When you do that, a lot of regulations make sense. And a lot don’t.
posted by Houndentenor on
Isn’t that odd that wanting clean accounting gets you labeled a leftist? Shouldn’t the investors know what is going on in a country they own part of?
I think most of us would agree to regulatory reform. So many regulations are outdated and ineffective. But I don’t want to live in a country where the meat isn’t inspected and there are no safety regulations. No, I don’t trust individuals and corporations to just do the right thing on their own accord, especially when it’s cheaper to cut corners (and it almost always is). I worked for enough crooked companies to know better.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Isn’t that odd that wanting clean accounting gets you labeled a leftist? Shouldn’t the investors know what is going on in a country they own part of?
But, as we’ve seen, Houndentenor, you and your Barack Obama Party don’t want “clean accounting”; you want to fork over subsidies to your campaign donors who are doing anything but.
And meanwhile, there’s plenty of other examples. Charles Rangel. Maxine Waters. Leaders of the Obama Party, fully endorsed by you and your fellow “clean accounting” liberals.
posted by dalea on
In California we have a regulatory agency called the Labor Board. In any employment situation, one just submits a form detailing the problem to the Labor Board. They then look into the matter and issue a ruling. The one time I used the service, the problem was resolved in two weeks. Not bad compared to filing a lawsuit. There are regulatory agencies that work very efficiently.
posted by Jorge on
I actually considered doing this, and out of nowhere suddenly all my problems appeared solved. It is quite possible the two are unrelated.
But I’m intimidated by the part that says you can call witnesses.
posted by Wilberforce on
Thanks to you both, dalea and Hountentenor. Your points are interesting.
But I’m thinking this is not the place to discuss fiscal and regulatory policy. The folk here just repeat conservative boilerplate and use endless rhetorical tricks to confuse the issuses. That’s standard conservative procedure.
In such an environment, it’s impossible to objectively review government rules and agencies, as Gore did when streamlining government, because the crowd here are really only interested in shifting their taxes onto others. Indeed, they’re still arguing for deregulation, not 3 years after it destroyed the economy. Talk about ignoring the evidence.
Trying to have a more serious discussion, of the intricacies of the mixed economy for example, would be a total nightmare.
Bottom line: rational inquiry is impossible in an ideological maze.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I love watching the Obama puppets like Wilberforce squeal and scream as their idiocy is blasted across even their puppet press.
posted by Matt on
Nobody here criticized Miller’s post on the merits. It’s a simple, short post, and I think quite correct, and would be difficult to criticize. Apparently he shouldn’t have made the post because it’s an attack on the Democratic Party, or creates a climate of hostility to liberals, or something.
It’s ridiculous that even a site called Independent Gay Forum is constantly inundated by Democratic Party apologists.
posted by Wilberforce on
Please Mary. Have you ever read this blog? It’s always the same line. Blame the democrats for everything. Here the villain is ‘progressive big government.’ No mention of republican deregulation that got us into this mess, or massive republican subsisies for the pentagon and big corparations, and massive wall street bailouts.
The other constant line is that gay groups support the democrats for non lgbt issues. That’s called loyalty, which may be a foreign concept here. But maybe if the republicans ever supported us, we might support them back.
So yes, I am criticizing Miller’s post on the merits. It is more diversion and distraction from real issues, more of the blame game, instead of accepting conservative responsibility for our problems.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I love it when the puppet Wilberforce tries repeating Obama Party talking points and makes it obvious what an Obama shill he is.
But then again, what should we expect? Gays like Wilberforce endorse and support accounting fraud and cooking books when it gets big payoffs for their sex partners at places like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You would think that gays like Wilberforce who claim to be moderate would be demanding that politicians in the Obama Party who insisted that accounting fraud at Fannie Mae was perfectly OK be removed from office, rather than sitting here blathering about how “loyalty” requires gays and lesbians to blindly support fraud.
posted by BobN on
Not as ridiculous as the site being hosted by GOP hacks.
posted by another steve on
Nobody here criticized Miller’s post on the merits. It’s a simple, short post, and I think quite correct, and would be difficult to criticize. Apparently he shouldn’t have made the post because it’s an attack on the Democratic Party, or creates a climate of hostility to liberals, or something.
Matt, welcome to IGF. The posts are always interesting, if too infrequent, but the comments are dominated by a handful of LGBT lefties who come here every day to vent their wrath at any hint of deviation from the LGBT correct party line. Unfortunately, that means serious discussion among center-right, conservative and libertarians who enjoy this site becomes almost impossible, and most have given up trying, alas.
Other sites (i.e., GayPartiot.net) review and only post comments among those who aren’t out to just insult and disrupt; IGF provides open access, and that gift is greeted with contempt and abuse, as the remarks above clearly illustrate.
posted by dalea on
Hmm, still I wonder why new regulations are always part of bigger government and hence undesirable. It seems to me that there are instances where new regs would enhance liberty and preserve property rights.
One such is the proposal to move decisions on corporate campaign contributions from the executives to the shareholders. After Target donated to some anti-gay candidates, there were shareholder protests. But the actual owners did not have the regulatory support to over ride their agents decision. Obviously, wanting owners to control how business money is disbursed is total Bolshevism.
Then there is the proposal to require complete and total disclosure of executive compensation. And to let the shareholders vote on this. Comparable to storming the Winter Palace.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Perhaps you should ask Barney Frank and the Obama Party, dalea, since they support massive accounting fraud and cooking the books so that their sexual partners can get huge executive pay packages and bonuses.
Oh, that’s right; you endorse and support Barney Frank and the Obama Party, so you support massive accounting fraud and cooking the books so that your sexual partners can get huge executive pay packages and bonuses.
posted by dalea on
Miller’s post is fairly typical and hits a good point. HRC seems to be dominated by attitude queens whose primary agenda is corporate. Somehow they are wedded to the Democratic party. Yet the Dems are imperfect on GL issues. Many are not on board with our issues, yet get our support anyway. This needs to change, support primary challenges. Which HRC will never do. Agree with Miller on that. We need to be much more selective in the politicians we support. We give too easy a ride to the Dems. I agree, which makes me a ‘lefty’ I guess.
The problem with this is there are virtually no serious Republican candidates who are decent on our issues. Outside of upscale neighborhoods in major urban areas, there are very, very few. I would like to see more GL support going to Libertarian and Green Party candidates when the local Dem is not strongly supportive.
I generally agree with the critique in the article. Where it looses me is in leaping to the conclusion that the goal is ‘progressive big government’. This term is such a right wing gas bag rhetorical push that I find it undercuts the whole argument being made. It is close to a ‘conscious card carrying member of the communist party’ line from the right in the 50’s and 60’s. The use of right wing hysteria seriously undercuts what the site purports to desire.
another steve, do my comments on regulation sound like they come from an ultra-leftist?
posted by TommyJefferson on
President Obama has helped get some important gay rights bills passed — setting aside the federal courts — and its been pretty impressive, in light of power of socially conservative Democrats and [with few exceptions] the GOP.
I know a number of poor, working class and lower middle class LGBT people who would be helped by the President’s job bill. They are not mere ‘foot warriors’ or mindless drones for ‘big’ government or any one party.
posted by jared on
I know a number of poor, working class and lower middle class LGBT people who would be helped by the President’s job bill. They are not mere ‘foot warriors’ or mindless drones for ‘big’ government or any one party.
If you believe that another bout of “stimulus” spending actually creates private sector jobs; I don’t. The government money tends to go overwhelmingly to state governments to maintain their bloated bureaucracies, and to well-connected “green” firms that don’t have a solid market base and thus struggle, or collapse, in any event. None has proved to be a jobs dynamo. So yes, we need jobs. But no, Obama isn’t going to create them. Only the private sector creates sustained jobs growth, and that means creating a climate of tax and regulatory certainty — the opposite of what Obama and the congresssional Democrats have delivered. They’ve made things worse for your unemployed friends.