Speech to the Faithful

by on

President Obama speaks to the Human Rights Campaign: Doesn’t endorse marriage equality but calls for repeal of Defense of Marriage Act and passage of Employee Non-Discrimination Act (both of which never moved out of committee during the two years of his administration when the party he leads controlled both houses of Congress), rips GOP (they’re much worse and boo gay soldiers), tells LGBT community that his agenda of higher taxes and more government spending is their agenda, too. Receives tremendous ovation. Sets back broad-based support for gay equality in center-right America by tying our advancement to his unpopular big government policies.

More. A roundup of reaction to the booing charges, via Instapundit.

36 Comments for “Speech to the Faithful”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Sets back broad-based support for gay equality in center-right America by tying our advancement to his unpopular big government policies.

    Oh, nonsense.

    Gays and lesbians have been making the case among “center-right America” and we have been winning the fight, hands down, if polling trends mean anything.

    Progressive support for “equal means equal”, including the President’s support, has not slowed or stopped us from making the case, and from winning over “center-right America”.

    Progressive support, which we won through hard work, has been the mainstay of our advances to date, and will continue to be in the future. Social conservative opposition, on the other hand, has been the mainstay of each and every one of the barriers that have been put in our path (the anti-marriage amendments, the anti-adoption laws and so on). Democratic politicians have voted, on the whole, for equality, and Republican politicians have voted, on the whole, against equality, on every vote on every issue, for the last decade.

    The real question, the elephant in the room, is “When are conservative gays and lesbians going to say ‘Enough is enough …’ and stop supporting politicians who cater to the hard-core social conservatives?”

    It is the hard-core social conservatives who keep the Republican Party in captivity, and sooner or later, as you have often pointed out, the Republican Party’s incessant and relentless opposition to “equal means equal” is going to start costing them votes.

    You can break the bonds if you choose. You can get active in Republican Party politics at the local, county, state and national levels, fighting for “equal means equal”. You can be change agents within your political party.

    That’s what progressive gays and lesbians have been doing, and conservative gays and lesbians have not been doing, for thirty years. The results are obvious, and it is time for conservative gays and lesbians to get to work instead of chewing their fingernails about whether President Obama’s support is going to offend “center-right America”.

  2. posted by Jorge on

    rips GOP (they’re much worse and boo gay soldiers

    It is a delicious irony that the person who condemned the booing (eventually) is the far-right guy. I don’t know if the others did so eventually, except that at least most of them didn’t.

    It is highly disingenous for Obama not to respond to the assertion that the candidate(s) didn’t hear the booing (I’m just going by the news coverage so perhaps I am wrong).

    And it is rather shady that Obama did not assert his moral outrage as commander in chief until it was politically expedient for him to do so. He ignored it until now. How desperately hypocritical can you get?

    This guy’s like all those Palestinians who say one thing in English to make the world think they’re all nicey-nicey and another thing in Arabic saying hate-hate-hate-kill-kill-kill.

    • posted by BobN on

      What even more shady is that Jorge didn’t even bother googling whether Obama said anything about the booing when it happened…

      • posted by Jorge on

        If you’re going to try to impeach me, don’t forget to set the bait and spring the trap. Snapping at thin air is worse than useless.

        When and how did President Obama express his moral outrage as the commander in chief prior to this event?

        • posted by BobN on

          Here’s a hint. In the article to which Miller linked, there’s a link to a story about it.

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            In addition to the 9/25 speech you pointed Jorge toward, there was also a Q/A at the White House press briefing following the incident:

            “I think the president was particularly struck by a question asked by a U.S. soldier stationed in Iraq about ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ when he was booed by audience members and not a single candidate for president, people who think they have what it takes to be commander-in-chief, said anything about that when he is there defending our country,” [White House spokesman Jay] Carney said.

  3. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    No surprise; Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach sings right along with his owner Obama and makes a fool out of himself and gays and lesbians in the process.

    Great example? Obama shrieks and whines about booing gay soldiers — when he and his Obama Party, including his bundler Jodie Evans, pass government resolutions specifically calling for booing and harassing troops, branding them as “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”.

    Where were you and Barack Obama then, Tom Scharbach? One would think if you cared so much about denouncing those who attack and insult American soldiers, you would have put out manifestos denouncing them, especially since they’re your fellow “progressives”, and praising the Republicans who denounced them.

    But you DON’T care. You’re just a puppet, a pathetic shill who, like your Barack Obama, truly doesn’t care about our troops. You are truly sick, given that you support your fellow “progressives” calling members of your own family baby-killers and murderers, harassing them, insulting them, and insisting they are not welcome in their own country.

    And why? Because you’re gay. Gays like you demonstrate that gays blindly support leftist beliefs, even booing, insulting, and slandering our troops, while hypocritically attacking Republicans. You use your homosexuality as an excuse for blatant and obvious hatred and bigotry toward Republicans, conservatives, and religious people.

    Why do you hate your child so much that you support those groups that call him a murderer and a baby killer, Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach? Why do you insist that all gays must support these “progressives” who pass laws enabling the harassment and public insulting of our troops, Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach? Will you lose your position as an Obama Party staffer if you criticize them, Tom Schatbach? Will “progressives” not support you if you criticize their attacking troops and demands to execute rich people, like your fellow Obama supporter Roseanne Barr is making?

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      You are becoming a self-parody.

      • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

        No, Tom Scharbach; the correct answer would have been to denounce your fellow “progressives” for calling for and passing government resolutions specifically calling for booing and harassing of troops, branding them as “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”, and to acknowledge that your Barack Obama’s behavior in making them his campaign bundlers was patently hypocritical, given his current rhetoric.

        That would have shown that you can think past your Obama Party staffer status and actually have some principles. It would have also demonstrated that gays and lesbians like yourself are able to call out your Obama Party when it does something wrong.

        You failed. Not surprising; you’ve never demonstrated either principles or backbone before, so it wasn’t expected. But it’s still rather entertaining to watch you whine about “standing up to others” when you are so helplessly enslaved to the Obama Party that you allow them to denounce your own family members as baby-killers.

      • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

        Oh, and Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach, let’s talk about how you and your “progressive” friends attack military leaders like General Petraeus.

        As we saw in that article, where not one single Obama Party Presidential candidate — including Barack Obama condemned it.

        But that’s OK as long as they support “gay rights”, right Tom Scharbach? Obama Party staffers like yourself don’t care what “progressives” say about the military as long as they support “gay rights”, correct?

  4. posted by Michael D on

    North Dallas, you’ve got to realize that when you begin a sentence with “Obama shrieks and whines…” it’s hard to take what follows seriously. In fact, it’s hard even to muster the effort to read further. Writing this way makes you look like a crackpot, frankly, and it actually deters people from learning anything of value you have to say.

  5. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    And yet, Michael, you and your fellow “progressives” consider calling for someone to be assaulted and raped as intelligent political discourse.

    So it’s clear, Michael, that it’s not the method to which you object, it’s the message.

    Come to think of it, I haven’t seen Obama, the Obama Party, or HRC condemn that, even though they all support and endorse the person who said it — so that means they support assaulting and raping women.

  6. posted by Michael D on

    Dallas, I will sign my house over to you if you can prove your bizarre accusation that I have ever indicated that calling for someone to assaulted and raped is intelligent political discourse.

    Hell, you can’t even prove that I am a “progressive.”

    • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

      That’s easy, Michael.

      Using the Barack Obama rule, if you don’t condemn something right when it happens, you support and endorse it as acceptable political discourse.

      And since you haven’t provided any evidence that you condemned Sandra Bernhard, noted Obama supporter, Obama endorsee, and HRC endorsee, right when she called for Sarah Palin to be raped and assaulted, you support and endorse it as acceptable political discourse.

      Those are your Obama Party’s and your Barack Obama’s rules. If you want to criticize them and state that your Barack Obama was wrong, feel free.

  7. posted by Tim on

    What Republicans and apologists for so-called conservative policies always conveniently pass over when they rail against “raising taxes” is precisely whose taxes should be raised. Obama is not calling for across-the-board tax increases. In fact, he has engineered tax relief for most working Americans, and called for more. At the same time, he has called for closing corporate tax loopholes and giveaways and for returning the tax obligation of the very wealthiest Americans to pre-Bush levels. Corporations and the very rich are not paying their fair share, plain and simple.

    Frankly, though, I will probably stop subscribing to IGF. There is nothing “I” about it — just Stephen Miller’s tiresome tirades against the Democratic Party and the HRC. I am no Obama apologist, and no fan of the HRC of late — but I am not learning anything from reading this blog. It offers very little in the way of reasoned discourse. To Miller, if an idea comes from the Democratic Party, or from any source that calls itself “progressive,” it’s not worth considering. You might as well work for Fox.

    So long.

    • posted by Michael D on

      Houndentenor, it’s bad form to mock a genuinely disturbed person with the term “insanity.” His statements do no harm to our side — they probably help, in fact — and we ought to treat him with compassion or perhaps (in Daniel Moynihan’s words) “benign neglect.”

  8. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    And isn’t it interesting, suddenly it’s perfectly acceptable and supported by Barack Obama, the Obama Party, and the LGBT community to spit on and attack a female member of the military.

    Again, this is not surprising; Barack Obama is an opportunistic hypocrite, and the LGBT community’s history of hostility toward the military is well-known. It is no surprise that Barack Obama and the Obama Party support and endorse those who spit on and attack a female member of the military, and that gays and lesbians do the same. One would certainly expect that they wouldn’t have anything to say — and demonstrate in the process what liars and hypocrites they truly are.

  9. posted by Mark F. on

    “It is no surprise that Barack Obama and the Obama Party support and endorse those who spit on and attack a female member of the military…”

    Jesus , you truly are deranged. And I say this as a Ron Paul supporter who really dislikes Obama.

    • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

      Would you like to see examples of Barack Obama endorsing the Occupy protesters, Mark?

      Do you need the link to see Obama Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi praising them?

      Will it help for you to see the emails showing how the Obama Party and their media outlet MSNBC are promoting, pushing, and coordinating these groups?

      Do you need the speeches from Obama Party representatives embracing the Occupy protesters?

      All of these people have endorsed and supported spitting on and attacking US military members. And if you go up in the thread, you’ll see more examples of the sheer contort and hatred that Obama and the Obama Party have for the military.

      So you pretty much picked a total-loser issue on which to endorse Obama. But I am curious to know why.

      • posted by Bob R on

        Dallas, I would love to see examples of Obama endorsing the specific protesters who spat on and attacked a female member of the military.

        • posted by Tom Scharbach on

          … or for that matter and example of a spokesman for Occupy Boston endorsing the actions.

          The link Dallas provided was an InstaPundit link to a FoxNews report, which included this statement: “Devon Pendleton, a spokesman for Occupy Boston, doesn’t believe that those male protestors are actually part of the movement. However, Pendleton wants to be clear, that if protestors are responsible for doing something so disrespectful, he’d like to apologize on behalf of Occupy Boston.”

          It is all nonsense and venting, as usual.

          • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

            Nope, sorry Tom Scharbach. Same rules as you demand of Republicans. Obama and the Obama Party have to condemn it immediately or they support and endorse it and are not fit to run the armed forces. You, Obama, and the Obama Party don’t accept apologies and say that such actions represent the true motivations and totality of the group.

            But then again, we should expect you to defend assaulting women. After all, you are the campaign manager and “fixer” for an Obama Party candidate who brags about how he likes to “smack around” women who disagree with him, with the full endorsement of the Wisconsin Obama Party and LGBT caucus.

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            … more half-truth and twisting, Dan.

            http://tinyurl.com/3zqd7gs

  10. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    More signs of hypocrisy, Tom Scharbach. You and your fellow LGBT puppets demand resignations of Republicans for such statements and call them abusers. But you support and endorse Obama Party members who do the same thing.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Let’s put cattle with the hat, Cowboy. Find me an instance where I’ve demanded a resignation from any Republican politician for making a statement about anything, or called Republican politician an abuser for make a statement about anything.

      • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

        Easy. Trent Lott.

        Come on, Tom Scharbach. Your Al Gore, John Kerry, Jesse Jackson, and the other leaders of your Obama Party demanded his resignation regardless of apology.

        Why do you endorse, support, and work for candidates who want to “smack around” women who disagree with them, Tom Scharbach?

        • posted by Tom Scharbach on

          I don’t see my name on that list, Dan. As usual, your signature sloppiness is at work.

          You’ve been asked to back up three assertions you made in this thread, and you’ve come up empty:

          (1) Find an example of Obama endorsing the specific protesters who spat on and attacked a female member of the military.

          (2) Find an example of a spokesman for Occupy Boston endorsing the actions.

          (3) Find an example where I’ve demanded a resignation from any Republican politician for making a statement about anything, or called Republican politician an abuser for make a statement about anything.

          Making statements you can’t back up is your signature, Dan, and that’s a fact.

      • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

        And of course, let’s not forget how you and your fellow Obama Party members demanded the resignation of Justice David Prosser as an abuser based on the lies of Obama Party partisan Ann Bradley.

        Amazing, Tom Scharbach. You demand Prosser resign based on a lie told about him by your fellow Obama Party partisans, but you support and endorse and get paid by a candidate who openly advocates smacking women around.

        We understand. LGBT people like yourself are nothing more than Obama Party shills who will support anything Obama Party members do.

        • posted by Tom Scaharbach on

          You demand Prosser resign based on a lie told about him by your fellow Obama Party partisans, but you support and endorse and get paid by a candidate who openly advocates smacking women around.

          Find a statement where I demanded that Justice Prosser resign, Dan. You are a flat out liar.

  11. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    Easy.

    1. According to Obama, failure to condemn immediately means you endorse and support it. Therefore, since Obama didn’t condemn it, still hasn’t condemned it, and has repeatedly endorsed the Occupy protestors and actions, insisting the he shares their values.

    No one expects a hypocrite like you to hold your Barack Obama accountable, Tom Scharbach. But you’re just making that fact more obvious.

    2. Your Obama Party doesn’t accept apologies and insists that they don’t mean anything. Furthermore, your Obama Party insists that the actions of one person, I.e. the booing, represent and are supported by all members of the group.

    Again, Tom Scharbach, no one expects a hypocrite like you to hold your Obama/Occupy party responsible. But you’re just making that fact more obvious.

    3. Again, see above. You generalize the actions of one person to the whole; hence, you are personally responsible for and support the actions of your party leaders and affiliates. Including their demands for Prosser to resign based on lies told about him by Obama Party partisans.

    Again, Tom Scharbach, these are all principles you support and assert. You’re just being held to the same rules you use on Republicans.

    Which also means you support and endorse snacking women who disagree with you around.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      So, in other words, you have nothing whatsoever to back up your statements, other than some sort of theory of “universal accountability”.

      I think that we should focus a bit more on individual accountability, specifically, your personal accountability for the statements you make.

      You made a number of statements in this thread, were called on them, and the fact remains,that you made the statements without factual basis. You do that so often that it is a yawn.

      But some of the statements you make are reckless, personal statements on this list that arguably cross a line that you should not cross.

      Take this statement, for example, made on September 17:

      You need to grow up and acknowledge that your homosexuality has nothing to do with the fact that you’re a promiscuous, irresponsible, socialist bigot who wishes all Republicans were dead.

      You have no basis in fact for making the allegation that I am “promiscuous”. No basis exists. The statement is false, in fact.

      I am not a public figure, and specific, personal allegations that could damage my reputation must have a basis in fact — the so-called “truth defense” — or might lead to liability if damages result.

      Although your statement has been published to the web and easily found through a Google search, I doubt that your statement will result in measurable damages in this instance. The statement was made as part of a rant that was so absurd that a reasonable person would be unlikely to take it seriously, so (at least for the present) you are not at risk from me.

      But with someone else, in different circumstances, a statement like that could land you in a lawsuit.

      As I cautioned you once before, Dan, be careful about what you post. Be as wild as you want ranting away in general terms, but learn the rudiments about libel and slander law, and keep them in mind when you make a specific statement about a specific person.

      • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

        So, in other words, you have nothing whatsoever to back up your statements, other than some sort of theory of “universal accountability”.

        Which amazingly enough worked perfectly well as backup when you and your Barack Obama were using it earlier in the thread.

        But of course, Tom Scharbach, we can’t expect you to follow your own rules or enforce the laws equally. Here’s an excellent example.

        I am not a public figure, and specific, personal allegations that could damage my reputation must have a basis in fact — the so-called “truth defense” — or might lead to liability if damages result.

        Such as Michael D and Houndentenor’s posts immediately following that refer to specific individuals posting as “genuinely disturbed” or suffering from “insanity” — none of which elicited the same lecture from you.

        While it’s amusing to watch people threaten lawsuits while simultaneously admitting that filing one would be frivolous, it’s not good legal practice to attempt to coerce people through threats of frivolous lawsuits — especially when it’s obvious that doing so is based on personal animosity and in regard to behaviors that elicit no such response when practiced by political confederates.

        • posted by Tom Scharbach on

          Tom: I am not a public figure, and specific, personal allegations that could damage my reputation must have a basis in fact — the so-called “truth defense” — or might lead to liability if damages result.

          Dan: Such as Michael D and Houndentenor’s posts immediately following that refer to specific individuals posting as “genuinely disturbed” or suffering from “insanity” — none of which elicited the same lecture from you.

          Remarks about your mental state or motivations — which, incidentally, I have never indulged in, as you know — are inappropriate. As you have pointed out in response to similar comments, the people posting those comments don’t know you, do not have a sufficient professional background to make such an assessment, and if they did have a sufficient professional background to make such an assessment, would be violating the ethical boundaries of the profession.

          I do not take responsibility for objecting to every inappropriate comment made on IGF. I don’t even take it upon myself to correct the false statements you make about me in your formulaic posts most of the time. Where would I find the time? I take responsibility for what I post — here and elsewhere — and what I do.

          While it’s amusing to watch people threaten lawsuits while simultaneously admitting that filing one would be frivolous, it’s not good legal practice to attempt to coerce people through threats of frivolous lawsuits — especially when it’s obvious that doing so is based on personal animosity and in regard to behaviors that elicit no such response when practiced by political confederates.

          In this instance, given the context of your comment (a small part of an absurd rant) and the particulars of my situation (living in a small town where people know better than to take an accusation of promiscuity seriously), no damages are likely to result, so a necessary element of a successful lawsuit would not be present. The other elements (personal identification, damaging statement, no basis for the statement, reckless disregard) are present.

          So, as I noted, I don’t have a cause of action. That may not always be true with respect to other people in other circumstances.

          Let me give you an example: If you accused a person on this list, identified by name, of supporting pedophilia, and that person was a school teacher, damages would be likely to result, and you would be liable to that person.

          False, damaging statements of fact made about a specific, identified person in a public forum (this list, for example) are like bullets fired into the air, Dan. You are responsible for the bullet or statement until it comes to rest, and you are responsible for any reasonably foreseeable damages caused by the statement or the bullet.

          You need to take care with what you post, as we all do.

Comments are closed.