Friday, 15 October 2010

President Obama: Shot By Both Sides

"It takes a special genius in politics to be assailed by both sides of an argument and receive no credit at all for standing in the middle. That is the position into which Barack Obama appears needlessly to have manoeuvred himself on gay rights. Social conservatives complain that he has done too little to “defend marriage” (by which they mean preventing gays from marrying), and that his plan to allow gays to serve openly in the military will spook America’s warriors. Gay activists complain that he has so far been too timid on both fronts. And, as luck would have it, Virginia Phillips, a federal judge in California, made a ruling this week that has tossed the question of gay rights back into the public eye at the most uncomfortable possible moment for the White House: three weeks before November’s mid-term elections..."

The Economist comes out against Obama's timidity on gay rights, An Own Goal On Gay Rights.
The picture shows an anti-Obama poster that has appeared over a freeway in Colorado for the US mid-term elections.
The one on the far right is meant to symbolise how he is overfond of The Gays - alongside terrorists, gangsters and Mexican immigrants.
One lousy poster, that's got endless free publicity - including as per usual on here.


  1. Fagburn, I agree with you, in part. It is absurd that he is basically the enemy to both sides. He needs to own one side and stay with it.

    Having said that, I find it excruciating to watch 3-5 suicides be blown up into a national "crisis" and liberal celebrities trying to marshal the gay vote by making the issue about conservative politics rather than the practical matter of outing people and invading their privacy, regardless of orientation. I wrote this last night: . The Democrats have a long history of exploiting gays, engaging in homophobic rhetoric and then claiming that the Republicans are homophobes. It's the card I describe as this: "Vote for us, because the Republicans are fags who hate fags." It worked for them in 2006. The fact that they are even trying it in 2010 is pathetic.

    Read the link to get more of what I'm saying.

    Ciao, fabulosa.

  2. But you're guilty of the same thing you accuse the "gay Left" of, "Coco".
    You're just using the issue to make a very confused political point.
    It's as tasteless as what you accuse the "gay Left" of doing.
    It's very odd that you have jovial conversations on your blog with someone who quite seriously suggested that he'd like to see all gay people shipped off to an island somewhere and that he'd personally pay for them to do so, yet you pour scorn on gay people who as far as I can see are trying to do what they think is best for other gay people.
    Also of note is the pathetically apologetic "my man crushes" post(s) - which basically amounted to: "the right-wing nutter who wants all gay people to be shipped to an island on their own isn't going to like this, but I like guys! Well, not really - I mean, I don't actually do anything about it. I repeat: I DON'T HAVE SEX WITH OTHER DUDES. But here's a few guys I have 'crushes' on."

    Of course you don't like the perceived need for gay people to "come out". Why would you?