This is even better than 11-dimensional chess
Daily Kos has outdone itself. No, I’m not a habituée of the place, but diaries from the Great Cheeto now appear in my Google News summary. Which is proving to be quite a bit more entertaining than I would have expected.
At any rate, the rank-and-file cheetos are unnerved by the DOMA betrayal, and there are rumblings of anger and resentment. It’s usual at moments like this (there have been a few already) for a True Believer to quell the restless with a soothing explanation of how Obama, like God, has a wonderful plan that none of us can fully understand. Kind of like that Footprints in the Sand thing, except instead of God carrying you in his arms, you get to ride the unicorn. Anyway, the designated True Believer for the DOMA crisis is Lars Thorwald, who has stepped forward with a magisterial post that is truly elegant in its simplicity: Obama on DOMA: He IS Keeping A Promise.
Lars’s argument is that Obama is keeping his promise — his promise to be President. That’s right: he promised that if we elected him, he would be the President. And the President upholds the laws! That’s the whole job of the Executive Branch, doncha see? It’s right there in the Constitution!!! SEEEE???????
Absofuckinglutely airtight there, Lars.
I admit, at some point this whole Obamabot thing stops being funny, and thoughts turn to the possibility of an aid package of some kind, or perhaps psychological counseling. They do need help.
(By the way, Lars’s assertion that the Justice Department is obliged to go to court to defend existing federal statutes is false. There are many examples of prior administrations choosing to oppose laws they didn’t like.)
24 Responses to “This is even better than 11-dimensional chess”
-
JB says:
Hey, look, Obama has to be President. The promises Obama made were as Obama The Candidate, but he is no longer Obama The Candidate. He is now Obama the President. Those are two completely different roles.
What’s so difficult to understand, you silly (women/gays/budget hawks/tax cutters/civil libertarians)?
June 13th, 2009 at 8:12 am EST -
cellocat says:
Yeah, the problem with this unicorn is that inevitably it turns and stabs its rider to death with its horn. The gory unicorn is not featured in the fairy tales of childhood, but it’s been trampling through our political scene now tossing bodies under the bus as it goes.
-
octogalore says:
As some of the comments over there stated, no ethical principle is forcing the administration to support a federal statute it disagrees with by way of an ex parte brief. Many administrations didn’t do this.
Nor was the content of the brief in this case automatic. The content revealed a clear pro-DOMA position.
-
yttik says:
I tried to point out that Obama was against gay marriage, that Biden had actually voted for the defense of marriage act. People just called me a racist and a bitter deadender.
I’m sorry it’s getting so crowded under the bus, but just the same, Kos, Aravosis, and Sullivan are not sitting next to me. They all reek of misogyny.
-
JB says:
As someone so succintly put it, politicians divide their constituency into two groups: those they lie to and those they bribe.
In Obama’s case, those they bribe include the United Auto Workers.
Those they lie to include the gay community.
Well, he didn’t technically LIE to the gay community — he did say that a marriage is between a man and a woman on Rick Warren’s Saddleback special.
What he did was something more impressive: he made the gay community believe he was lying to EVERYBODY ELSE! That’s how he rolls.
So really, it is difficult to understand the sudden outrage here. You weren’t lied to. You were just played.
-
Mel says:
Not One Nickel lays out the new voice of the LGBT Community in the face of constant betrayals by the Democrats, who want our money, our votes, our time, our energy and our support but force us to live as second-class citizens in our own country and refuse to support us on even those issues where we have public opinion behind us. We will not stand for these cowardly betrayals any longer. As we approach the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, a new radicalism is emerging. I, for one, think it’s about damned time.
No Gay Rights, No Gay Dollars!
No Gay Rights, No Gay Votes!If you support the LGBT cause, whatever your orientation, please return any Democratic contribution requests with the words above or some equivalent written on them. If you have a web site or blog, please post this request or some version of it. Please help us send the message that human rights should never be sacrificed for political expediency.
If you wish, you may also like to participate in Operation DOMA Flip Flop. It’ll only take a few minutes and won’t hurt at all (unless you get a paper cut, in which case, it’ll hurt like a bitch).
-
Swannie says:
no the unicorn only stabs you if you are not a virgin … oops …
-
Sheryl Robinson says:
I loves me some circular logic.
-
Sis says:
Please help us send the message that human rights should never be sacrificed for political expediency.
##
Funny that didn’t occur to you when it was women he was shafting.
-
sister of ye says:
Kind of like that Footprints in the Sand thing, except instead of God carrying you in his arms, you get to ride the unicorn.
That captures perfectly the nature of the Obama cult (besides being damn funny).
I’ve gotten past the point where I want to beat my head on a desk. Now I want to beat their heads on desks, or any other available surface. A smack with my cane would do as well.
Apparently Lars is unaware of legal reality or history. All states, counties and cities have on their books numerous sometimes bizarre laws technically still valid. Some stupid laws are formally rescinded. Most often people just stop enforcing them and they fade into oblivion. It’s called discretion.
Bet dollars to donuts that Lars is one who criticizes Clinton for her husband signing those laws in the 1990s.
-
sister of ye says:
OT answer to Murphy from last thread:
Last winter I was still of the “admire Clinton’s intelligence, not sure if she’s liberal enough” mind. RL hassles had kept me from examining the candidates’ records closely. But the Obot hate at Atrios’ place got out of control, so I quietly packed my bags for other venues. At that point I better examined Clinton’s record and became a supporter.
Thanks for your comment. Who knew I had fans? That made my day.
-
bluelyon says:
Wow, those are some mental gymnastics Lars is working there. Sooo…Obama has to enforce DOMA and even pimp for it, because he has to obey and enforce the laws because he is president. But he doesn’t have to follow the FOIA law and release the torture photos because he’s the president and he can do whatever he wants. Do I have this right?
-
Mel says:
Actually, Sis, I was on record opposing Obama for both sexism and homophobia both before and after the election. I did not vote for him and never would. You do know what happens when you assume, right?
-
Sis says:
I was referring to a group of people. So were you.
-
Elise says:
Don’t worry - this wasn’t really Obama! Some Bush leftover at DOJ actually wrote the opinion - rumor is he’s a MORMON - and I’m sure Obama knew nothing about it and would never have countenanced such a thing. Now that it’s done, of course, he can’t do anything about it (well, he’ll probably fire the guy who wrote it) but, really, guys - it wasn’t him.
Obama raises plausible deniability to a fine art. And I have to say he’s fascinating. He said marriage should be between a man and a woman; people who supported him chose to believe he was lying. Why? I just don’t get it. I’m perfectly happy to assume that politicians are lying to me when they tell me what I *want* to hear but I usually take them at their word when they tell me something I *don’t* want to hear. What were people who voted for him thinking?
-
Mel says:
Sis,
Which group of people? I’ll assume you mean LGBT people. LGBT’s were not uniform in our response to Obama and his homophobia and misogyny. Your response implied that we did not care about his misogyny or his abandonment of women’s causes AS A GROUP. That is not the case.
Should I stop supporting the feminist movement because some feminists have supported homophobia or not come to our defense? Should I imply that all feminists have done so? I think not.
I think both women and LGBT people need to wake up and realize that the Dems aren’t going to do a thing for us until we FORCE them to do it.
-
Sis says:
What Lucky said.
-
angienc says:
“Separate but equal” was the law of the land once too. Good thing Harry S. Truman (who ended segregation in the military) and LBJ (who pushed through civil rights legislation) weren’t too concerned with “upholding the law.”
How Obots can get up in the morning, look in the mirror & not trow up on their feet amazes me.
-
gxm17 says:
The only thing that Lars’ argument proves is that, like Obama, the obots have no moral center. The only thing they believe in is Obama. Ergo, they believe in nothing.
-
MojaveWolf says:
Sis,
According to every poll I saw, the majority of the LGBT community supported Hillary in the primary. Sullivan and Aravosis were awful misogynists, but just because people like them got the most attention doesn’t mean anyone anointed them spokespeople for anyone but themselves and their readers. I can think of TGW right off the top of my head as an LGBT blog that was totally pro-Hillary.
But whatever. Admittedly speaking only for myself, even if Mel had been an Obama supporter previously, as long as she hadn’t been one of the more obnoxious or crazy ones, I’ll take allies in the fight to replace him, Reid etc where ever I can get them.
-
datechguy says:
I oppose Gay marriage but it pretty pathetic to see a president so willing to play his supporters and his supporters doing their best Baghdad Bob impersonation to convince themselves they aren’t being played.
Neither is healthy for the republic.
(I accidentally cross posted this on the Palin post above, I’ve gotta keep better track of multiple tabs.)
-
octogalore says:
The straining to reconcile the hope/change with the reality is pretty unbelievable.
An anecdote that’s more about a certain kind of Obama supporter than Obama himself. We just came back from brunch, family type restaurant, lots of kids. The owner of the restaurant proudly showed us some new artist exhibition posters he hung, advertising the showing of Lisa Jack’s photos of Obama while at Occidental college. In some he is charmingly smoking a cigarette.
I don’t fault Obama for posing for pics while in college or having a cigarette. But I suggested to the owner that having pics up in a heavily kid-populated place of the President of the US smoking might not be the best idea, example-wise.
He gave me that “you just don’t get it” look I’ve gotten increasingly used to. “But it’s Obama,” he explained.
OK.
-
propertius says:
I just don’t get it. Why is it *so* hard to take a stand for simple equity? Why is it so difficult to say that the government shouldn’t be in the business of denying rights to its citizens or discriminating against them?
-
GorBud says:
So nice to find an intelligent site where there seem to be a lack of over stimulated bullying adult/child types who seemed to have taken over most comments venues.
