Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama and LGBT Rights: The Administration's Scorecard (34 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Agreed, pretty much entirely (3+ / 0-)

    Agreed that what the administration CAN do by executive order it SHOULD do by executive order, and I don't mind being dog-whistled to in that way.

    Agreed also that it's the refusal to back away from any of the Bush agenda concerning Treasury and Defense issues (holding over Robert Gates was interesting too) that constitutes my real problem with the administration.

    It's just that for pretty much every complaint people had with the administration for the past two years about the defense and treasury issues because complaints were going unheeded, my response was "Now you know how gay people feel about the administration."  That was what I wanted to verify in my own thinking.

    Thanks for commenting, and yes, eight years is way too long.

    All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Sun Feb 19, 2012 at 12:24:51 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I'd probably give him a B+ (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FogCityJohn, jgilhousen

      on his LGBT record. Understanding an A+ would be perfection that we'll probably never see. But, that's my grading curve. I am not grading him against Warren G. Harding, Richard Nixon or Andrew Jackson's record as many do.

      As FogCityJohn points out, he gets demerits on domestic and international HIV policy. The sad truth is we're tracking backwards from W on those fronts.

      And demerits for being late to the game. And for overall, being excessively cautious.

      This isn't a tendency he displays only on LGBT issues, but across the board. It took 3 years and Occupy Wall Street to prompt him appoint someone to investigate the bank's mortgage malfeasance? He should have done that in the first year, before they had three years to shred the documents.

      •  You're kinder than I am, but not much (3+ / 0-)

        I'd give him a B, because of his (non-) handling of ENDA, which could have been passed before the 2010 elections if anyone in the inner circles of the administration thought it was important.

        But I am in total agreement with you on the across-the- board timidity.  It's why the recess appointment of Richard Cordray was so startling, and it's something he can't do in his next term.

        All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

        by Dave in Northridge on Sun Feb 19, 2012 at 02:55:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Figured ENDA in too. (3+ / 0-)

          But had we gotten DADT repeal AND ENDA I would have almost certainly put him in A range. That was too much to hope for, probably. Though it was certainly possible, one in 2009, one in 2010. Instead we spent 14 or more months negotiating a watered down health care bill the Republicans could vote in lockstep against and spend two plus years screaming and bitching about as the worst thing ever!

          And we could lose the House in 2010 over the backlash.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site