‘his legacy on gay rights is beginning to build into a historic one’

Andrew Sullivan: …. the same can be said of marriage equality in Maryland, where extreme rhetoric in the debate turned some previously anti-gay marriage legislators around. The NYT reports on the muted response of the GOP’s potential presidential candidates to the Obama administration’s decision not to defend Section 3 of DOMA in the courts. I don’t for a minute believe that the Christianist base will be satisfied if the House decides to let sleeping gays lie, but the feeling is different now, don’t you think?

The genius of the Holder decision is that it forces the GOP to decide very quickly whether to double-down on this issue.
It’s the last thing Boehner wants to be thinking or talking about. And Obama has wisely restricted his shift to the federal government’s recognition of what states have already done. In other words, Obama’s decision can be viewed as a federalist one…

Meanwhile, the gays are ecstatic – a little too ecstatic in my view. Not to say I am not extremely gratified by the DOJ’s decision. Just that I recognize its limits. As Obama used to say: no sudden moves. But his legacy on gay rights is beginning to build into a historic one. Yes, I have complained loudly in the past. My loyalty is to the issue, not the president. But he is coming through – more cunningly than most of us grasped.

Which is not the first time one can say that on many issues, where Obama’s caution and incrementalism have begun to create a legacy that is deeply unsatisfying in the present but looks rather substantive from the rear-view mirror.

Full article here

*****

I’d never lump Sullivan in with the increasingly hysterical Greenwald – you know, the obsessive promoter of the Julian Assange Cult of Personality (an Assangenaut, if you like). He almost praised the President, incidentally, for his DOMA decision in his latest interminable rant, but he largely opted – surprise! – to spew bile again. Truly, this guy makes your average ‘Obama = Hitler’ banner-wielding Teabagger seem reasoned, ‘fair and balanced’.

…..but, Sullivan has really got to make his mind up: is President Obama a sell-out not worthy of his support any more (as he wrote recently), or is he is a President who is “coming through – more cunningly than most of us grasped”? And one whose “legacy on gay rights is beginning to build into a historic one”?

encore!

(A nice report from ABC on last night’s Motown concert at the White House)

no pips?!

his ratings are collapsing!!!!

did i mention that i love pete souza?

(As requested, a longer version of the original video I posted)

The music is by Deborah Lurie, from the soundtrack for An Unfinished Life

the only adult in the room? whooooooo hoooooooo!!!

Monster congratulations Blackwaterdog, that is phenomenal news – thank you for everything you do, LOVE LOVE LOVE ya!

Hey, this calls for fireworks:

Leave your congratulations here

he’s a homophobe!

Jonathan Capehart (Washington Post): The White House is set to make news and history this afternoon when it announces the new social secretary. Jeremy Bernard, currently the chief of staff to the U.S. ambassador to France, will become the third person to hold the job in the Obama administration. But he will be the first man and the first openly gay person to be the first family’s and the executive mansion’s chief event planner and host.

….Full disclosure: Bernard and I are friends. He will bring a certain warmth and irreverence to the job that will make him a joy for his colleagues to work with. His knowledge of the Obamas and his intense attention to detail will ensure that their vision for the people’s house continues seamlessly. And he has a reverence for the presidency and the meaning of the White House that will make him an imaginative steward of their image.

The president and the first lady have made an excellent choice.

meet the governors

President Barack Obama speaks alongside Vice President Joe Biden during a meeting with Democratic state governors in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House, February 25

a predictable disaster!

Jonathan Cohn (The New Republic): The federal government’s rescue of Chrysler and General Motors was highly unpopular at the time … most experts on the right and quite a few on the left predicted it would end badly. As the argument went, the companies were in a hopeless situation …. if the government got involved, surely it’d mess things up.

But the news out of Detroit has been good for a while. And it just got even better. From the New York Times:

General Motors, which nearly collapsed from the weight of its debts two years ago before reorganizing in a government-sponsored bankruptcy, said Thursday that it earned $4.7 billion in 2010, the most in more than a decade ….. It was the first profitable year since 2004 for G.M., which became publicly traded in November, ending a streak of losses totaling about $90 billion …. In addition, G.M. said 45,000 union workers would receive profit-sharing checks averaging $4,300, the most in the company’s history ….

….the usual caveats apply: The two companies could still stumble …. Still, it looks increasingly like the rescue of the auto industry was an overall success, saving hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of jobs and bolstering the country’s manufacturing base for years (if not decades) to come. Maybe it’s time to start giving President Obama some credit for it – and recognizing that, when properly managed, the federal government can do a lot of good.

Full article here

Steve Benen (Washington Monthly): Nearly two years ago, NBC News established a tough benchmark: “As the GM bailout goes, so goes the Obama presidency.” I don’t imagine White House officials mind that standard at all.

What I find amazing about this … is that Republicans still consider this a failure – it was, for example, a common area of complaint at CPAC a few weeks ago. As far as the right is concerned, the Obama administration’s rescue of the American automotive industry wasn’t just wrong, it was one of the president’s most dreadful mistakes. Confront conservatives with reports like the latest from GM, and the response tends to be that the success of the policy doesn’t change anything.

The thesis about the right valuing ideology over practical results needs no better example ….Conservative activists got this wrong, and so did their Republican friends in Congress, many of whom literally predicted “disaster.”

These same folks are now insisting the economy will improve just as soon as the House GOP plan – take money out of the economy, lay off hundreds of thousands of American workers – is approved. Given their track record, perhaps now’s a good time to question their credibility.

Full article here

Remember?

Here are two more experts forecasting failure:

(The first guy in the video is Peter Morici whose latest media contribution is an article entitled ‘In Wisconsin, the governor is right, Obama is wrong’ – and Morici sure knows about getting it wrong. The second guy, Carl Horowitz, is from the National Legal and Policy Center which, like lots of conservative groups, is funded by billionaire right-winger Richard Mellon Scaife – see here)

Meanwhile, let’s look back:

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH): “Does anyone really believe that politicians and bureaucrats in Washington can successfully steer a multi-national corporation to economic viability?” [6/1/09]

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): “Now the government has forced taxpayers to buy these failing companies without any plausible plan for profitability. Does anyone think the same government that plans to double the national debt in five years will turn GM around in the same time?” [6/2/09]

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ): When government gets involved in a company, “the disaster that follows is predictable.” [7/22/09]

As soon as I find a video showing all these fools admitting they got it hopelessly wrong and apologizing to the President, I’ll post it – promise. 😉

fair and balanced?

Steve Benen (Washington Monthly): We talked a few weeks ago about the very different ways in which the media responds to court rulings on the Affordable Care Act. Those upholding the constitutionality of the health care law get very little attention, while conservative rulings against the law are literally treated as front-page news.

Now that there’s a new federal court ruling – Judge Gladys Kessler ruled in support of the law on Tuesday, becoming the fifth to rule on the merits – let’s take a moment to reevaluate this.

Three federal district courts have said the Affordable Care Act meets constitutional muster; two have reached the opposite conclusion. Here’s how four major media outlets have covered the rulings, in the order in which the decisions came down: See here for statistics

…the discrepancy is overwhelming. In every instance, conservative rulings get more coverage, longer articles, and better placement ….  the Washington Post couldn’t bother to run a single article – not one – about the Kessler ruling…

…it seems very likely the public has been left with the impression that the health care law is legally dubious and struggling badly in the courts because that’s what news organizations have told them to believe.

Read full article here