Autographed Letter Signed

A Mostly Center-Right Place For Those With Irritable Obama Syndrome and Diversity Fatigue

Will the Pink Vote Give Obama the Pink Slip In 2012? January 25, 2010

As conservatives hope against hope that gay marriage is never passed in their respective states of residence, Barack Obama, who won the “pink vote”  during the 2008 presidential election has done no better than a vegetable stricken with bystander effect when it comes to supporting gay rights.

Understandably, many gay voters deplore President Obama’s slow rate of progress in establishing gay rights and equality, particularly in the arenas of marriage and the military.

As early as February 2010, U.S.  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen will testify at a congressional hearing on the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”  policy concerning gays serving openly in the military.

Don’t Ask Don ‘t Tell, challenges conservatives to come to terms with their idea of a strong military.  Who should and should not serve? Should gays and lesbians in the military  be allowed to speak out about their personal lives?  Can they marry on base like straight soldiers?

Currently, many gays have been discharged from service who were excellent soldiers and offered valuable skills such as weapons or language capabilities which should under “normal” circumstance render them indispensable.

Despite President Obama pledging to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,  the pink vote has noticed his annoying tendency to waffle as he has done with so many  other campaign promises  he made to liberals.

From this article in the Wall Street Journal:

Ask Obama About Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Gay voters are growing impatient for equality.

JANUARY 24, 2010

By RICHARD SOCARIDES

Current law does not require the services to discharge members based on sexual orientation per se. Rather, it looks to certain conduct to create a presumption for discharge. Thus, the Department of Defense has the authority to devise regulations that determine when such prohibited conduct has occurred. Defense could also interpret the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell statute more literally (as intended) and refuse to discharge a service member unless he willfully discloses that he is gay, which almost never happens. Finally, Defense could invoke current regulations to retain gay service members in the interest of national security. All are good options.

What is especially troubling, however, is Mr. Obama’s oversensitivity to a dwindling minority of bigots on this issue. Hundreds of military careers have been destroyed on his watch for no valid reason. The country has been deprived of the talents of these service members and has wasted millions of dollars on their training.

Many wonder when their president will show the same kind of concern for the constitutional rights of gay American service members as he has for enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay. Many wonder what the administration’s willingness to treat gay Americans as second-class citizens says to Uganda and other countries that are considering laws that would subject gays to imprisonment and even death.

Gay Americans have been among the president’s most ardent supporters. Their enthusiasm, and that of their families and friends, could be crucial in this year’s elections. The president’s action—or inaction—on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will be noticed.

An increasingly frustrated bloc of gay voters—angry over marriage setbacks in California, Maine, New Jersey and New York and emboldened by Ted Olson’s and David Boies’s high-profile effort to declare unconstitutional laws that prohibit gay marriage—are growing impatient for equality. As Mr. Olson said in federal district court in San Francisco recently, discriminatory laws serve only to “label gay and lesbian persons as different, inferior, unequal and disfavored.”

Afrocity wonders, who exactly is this “minority of bigots” the WSJ opinion piece is referring to?

Minority…Hmmm. That is an interesting choice of words.

From San Francisco Gay Pride Week

We all know that there is a perception gap between Obama supporters and supporters of gay rights.  African Americans have been rather consistent in their lack of open armed embrace for the gay community.  An African America vote for Obama does not not necessarily translate into a pink vote. While the gay culture within the black community as been somewhat acknowledged with the advent of “Black Gay Pride Week” and an increase in openly gay black celebrities such as Wanda Sykes, the black gay movement still seems wholly autonomous.    There is cultural tension between African Americans, gays, and religion.   I believe this is the reason for Obama’s waffling on gay rights.  The black church ain’t having that and Obama knows it. To appease one group means offending another.  As progressive as Barack Obama professes to be, he still owes much of his election to African Americans who do not support gay rights.  This dilemma will continue to haunt the pink vote which has become the battered stepchild of the Obama administration.  Like the anti-war moonbats  such as Code Pink, Obama has slept with you, now it is time for gays and lesbians to put on their clothes and take the walk of shame bus back home.  I promise that Obama is very much so ever “into you”.  He will call you in oh, say 2011.

While I am not an actively involved in supporting gay rights, I am not opposed to gay marriage.  I just find it interesting that Republican moderates and conservatives divide over whether we should support gay rights out of fear of the Obama presidency pushing pro-gay legislation through, when in reality there is not much pushing from the left.  Where is the big fight for gays from Barack Obama?



I did not hear anything about fighting for gays during Obama’s speech in Ohio last week.

Still, don’t look for the pink vote to be back on the market anytime soon…And don’t look for Obama to mention one iota about gays or lesbians during his State of the Union address on hump day.

Autographed Letter Signed,

AFROCITY

About these ads
 

12 Responses to “Will the Pink Vote Give Obama the Pink Slip In 2012?”

  1. Holly Says:

    I sincerely do not get why the gay community needs gay marriage when it has never been about marriage. It is about the gay leadership, ACLU, and so forth silencing religion.

    Ex) http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/59965

    To put identity liberty over religious liberty is the goal. Nowhere in the argument is religious liberty, freedom of speech or freedom of the press protected from the encroachment of the state if gay marriage passes. I am a Christian before I am a lesbian and they are going to have to fight like hell to take my freedom from me.

    If people want gay marriage, they have that right to their opinion. I happen to support traditional marriage. The gay community was naive to put a false hope in a singular politician. They are doing no favors to themselves when they attack and disrespect the very people they need to win over to support their cause. If the gay leadership and the community itself took the time to understand why most people stand opposed to gay marriage, they would find that it has nothing to do with homophobia or anti-gay sentiment, but a religious interpretation of marriage that has a precendent in United States history and in world history.

    Like I say to all of my straight friends who support gay marriage, I would have more respect for them if they fought for homosexuals in countries like Iran, Iraq, Uganda, Saudi Arabia and so forth, who, under Sharia Law, are executed for engaging in homosexual acts. I have freedom and I have my voice…I don’t need anyone to speak for me.

    If the gay community wants to gain allies, they need to throw out their hateful leadership and begin engaging the United States citenzry in dialogue, rather than discriminating against them for using the same Constitutional freedoms allowed to all of us; freedoms that were denied to the black community for the greater portion of American history. The gay leadership may want to understand history before playing a victim that they have never been.

  2. yttik Says:

    The way Obama’s going, we’re all going to achieve equality here, being equally thrown under the bus, that is. He’s losing the pink vote, but he’s also losing the black vote, the white vote, the woman vote. He’s actually rather amazing, he’s managed to piss off the far left, the far right, and still save some energy for pissing off the middle.

    I’ve watched the progression of the Hillbuzz bloggers since the primaries. They were once Dems but have moved to the right over the past year and supported Brown in the election.

    LOL, I have to laugh, I hope the Republican party is ready for all the disenfranchised Democrats who will be moving in.

    • afrocity Says:

      You have a point about everything being equally under the bus.
      I consider my leaving the Democrats to be one of the best things that has ever happened to me.

    • WMCB Says:

      Well, if the Left keeps up their constant refrain of telling the People to sit down and shut up because they are all stupid ignorant rubes being “manipulated” and too dumb to know it, there will be a sizable swing of Independents and disaffected Dems voting R in 2010 and 2012. Even people who disagree with a lot of the GOP’s actions in recent years are about to that fed-up point with the Dems.

      Funny how the party that just loves the “little guy” is always dripping with contempt for real live “little guys”.

      • afrocity Says:

        WMCB, you know for me it was one of those cases where they never really did anything for me anyway. Bill Clinton was the only person I liked in the whole damn party.

        Obama made leaving easy.

      • WMCB Says:

        This is a very long article, but a very good one. Speaking as a lifelong Liberal, this is the only explanation of conservatism I have ever read that actually makes some sense to me.

        Late in the article, the author warns that if the Repubs do not make the mental shift he describes, “the Clinton Democrats” (as opposed to the hidebound Statist progressives) will claim that ground.

        Word to the Republicans: If you run hard from the Neo-con crap of Bush, and embrace this “organic, open-source, non-linear” vision of America, you have a shot.

        http://article.nationalreview.com/422714/the-new-republican/alex-castellanos

      • afrocity Says:

        WMCB, Bush was actually not that conservative at all. He is not a neocon. Liberals have a different meaning of that term than we conservatives. Liberals seem to look at issues from a social standpoint and identities (gay, black, poor, woman, disabled). So when a liberal call someone a neo-con it means pro-life, religious, possibly war monger. Bush 43, was NOT a conservative fiscally, he was far from it and he really failed many conservatives in that manner. He did not govern the way conservatives wanted him to and was mostly re-eleclected because we were in the middle of a war. It is not a good idea to change presidents after something as awful as 9/11..unless that president and his administration knows JACK about foreign policy or the military…like Obama.

        When I became a conservative, I made a choice to accept them for all that they are they do the same for me. So far things have been just fine with my being pro-choice. In fact I am accepted more as a conservative for my differences than I ever was as a liberal.

        I did not embrace everything the DEMS did when I was a DEM, so I do not expect Republicans to change anything for me. I know gay conservatives, pro-choice conservatives etc. the party has a lot more diversity than the mainstream media would like to let on.

        The common bond is that we are all Americans who would like limited government and liberty for all. Freedom from excessive taxation and an embrace for traditional American values.

  3. Shari Says:

    I think the mistake people made was voting for Obama as anti-Bush and voting for Obama for what they assumed he would do in office. To me an election is like a job interview. An employer only was your word, references, education, and experience to make his hiring decision. The voters should have paid attention to Obama’s background. He was too much of a ? for me and the stuff I did no I did not like. I’m not a “birther” but I do not think he is a patriotic American. Obama said whatever needed to each party to get elected. I dont think he will fight for gays and the gay community has every right to abandon him.

    • afrocity Says:

      Amen, Shari but they will not abandon him in 2012 because like African Americans, they are conjoined twins with the Democrats who thrive live on identity politics. That is what the DEMS use to keep people beholden to the party. i”I will do this for YOUR group” “I care more about this set of people than Republicans do and I will tax this group of people in order to create programs for that group of people”

      This is why foreign policy and defense, concern for energy resources and independence go to shit under the Democrats. Granted, there are Republicans who concentrate too much on defense, such as Bush.

  4. Shari Says:

    Oh my at all those errors. I don’t know how do edit. I see you still understood my point. And NO Bush was NOT a conservative or limited government president.

  5. Peter Says:

    Actually Bush is fairly conservative. He did, however, realize that he had a razor thin margin of vicory in the ’00 election and so governed accordingly. why Bush is so conservative he thinks the will of the people means something.

    And after 9/11 attention was on the war, nothing else.

    As far as gays in the military, well, I don’t know. I mean exactly that, I don’t know. When I served, back during the Southeast Asian War Games, I doubt it would have worked. Now? I don’t know and I am not that 18 year old high school grad or that 20 year old kid who figured out that college isn’t his cup o’ tea. If gays were openly in the services, would they enlist? I do not know and the surveys are done among the big city kids who say, sure, it doesn’t matter. Of course, those aren’t the kids that join. The kids that do join don’t get asked, they aren’t in the big cities where it is convenient.

    I wish they’d allow the 1st Experimental Gay Friendly Infantry, Armored and Cavalry Regiments and let them go for a few years to see. I was in when there was still quite a bit of racial tension in the services and there were quite a few young men that got to come home in the cargo section of the Freedom Birds because of it., twenty years after the services were integrated. I’m not real excited about another bunch of young men (and now women) getting awarded The Order of the Aluminum Box over wholesale experiments.

  6. [...] Asks AfroCity, a moderate-conservative Republican blogger in Chicago, Ill.:, about the gay vote in A…: “Understandably, many gay voters deplore President Obama’s slow rate of progress in establishing gay rights and equality, particularly in the arenas of marriage and the military. As early as February 2010, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen will testify at a congressional hearing on the ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ policy concerning gays serving openly in the military. Don’t Ask Don ‘t Tell, challenges conservatives to come to terms with their idea of a strong military. Who should and should not serve? Should gays and lesbians in the military be allowed to speak out about their personal lives? Can they marry on base like straight soldiers? Currently, many gays have been discharged from service who were excellent soldiers and offered valuable skills such as weapons or language capabilities which should under ‘normal’ circumstance render them indispensable. Despite President Obama pledging to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the pink vote has noticed his annoying tendency to waffle as he has done with so many other campaign promises he made to liberals.” [...]


Comments are closed.

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers