21 comments on “Gay Rights: Clear Difference Between Obama and Romney

  1. Mark Victorystooge on said:

    You know, if Obama were not almost as committed to buttering up the rich and hammering the poor as Romney is, this election would not be close – he would be well in front. Most Americans are not rich, and are not particularly stupid, despite media that try to make them so. So why are the Democrats not streets ahead? Obama isn´t even running as a candidate of hope any more, he is running as a candidate of “if you think I am bad, look at the other guy.” He knows he is not inspiring, so why should I be inspired? Irrelevant as I am not an American, but if I were, I would either stay at home or vote for someone who is not a Demopublican.

  2. Mark Victorystooge: Obama isn´t even running as a candidate of hope any more, he is running as a candidate of “if you think I am bad, look at the other guy.” He knows he is not inspiring, so why should I be inspired?

    Obama doesn’t control Congress, and there is a conservative majority on the supreme court. And he has presdided over a recession.

    If he wins again, AND Democrats make gains in Congress, then some of the social reform programme may be revived

  3. Mark Victorystooge on said:

    In addition, on the subject of gay rights, I am reminded of a gay character, a high school teacher, in the 1998 film The Opposite Of Sex. He responds to another character who tries to blackmail him by grabbing the other´s collar and pointing out to the would-be shakedown artist that blackmail doesn`t bother him because as a gay man he has already faced the threat of AIDS, “every Republican, and every other Democrat”. Somehow you don´t feel that marginal difference between Republicans and Democrats will have him trooping to the ballot box.

  4. Mark Victorystooge on said:

    Jellytot: @2I would either stay at homePaul Weyrich: arch-Conservative and Co-founder of the Heritage Foundation and ‘Moral Majority’ on why he wants only the ‘right’ people to vote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPsl_TuFdes

    Frankly, I think repeated blog posts here telling me it will be a disaster if Romney wins are smokescreens covering up the fact that if Obama gets back, we will have just as much neoliberalism and war as if Romney becomes President. The difference is only in detail, not substance. People have to be given a reason to vote, and if Obama and co. can only use fear as a mobiliser, then that already tells me a great deal.

  5. Jellytot on said:

    @2He knows he is not inspiring, so why should I be inspired?

    What does inspiration have to do with anything? Many WC and lower middle class Americans will be taking the hard-headed decision to vote against a Republican businessman who opposed the bail-out of Detroit and who wants to gut Medicare and MedicAid. It’s a completely legitimate and understandable thing to do.

    Many of the Ultra-Left on here will be privately delighted to see Romney win tomorrow, I’m sure. They’ll have grins like Cheshire Cats to equal anything on Fox News.

  6. Jellytot on said:

    @6People have to be given a reason to vote

    The Republican State Governments are going all out to restrict WC and Minorities ability to vote through “Voter ID” laws and the curtailing of early voting hours. You are advising people not to vote in #2 and by doing so you are aligning yourself with their scheme. Voter Supression has a long and inglorious history in America.

  7. Quite. Obama might not be offering “soviet power plus electricity” but any American who wants to be openly gay, wants to join a union, wants to keep abortion rights should be voting Obama.

  8. jock mctrousers on said:

    @#7 ” Many WC and lower middle class Americans will be taking the hard-headed decision to vote against a Republican businessman who opposed the bail-out of Detroit…”

    Here’s a skeptical view of that from today’s Counterpunch:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/05/politics-in-the-land-of-the-serfs-and-wage-slaves/

    ” The narrative for the Democrats here is about how Obama saved some UAW jobs with the auto bailout and stopped this part of the country from falling into an even grimmer reality. This fable leaves out the fact that the auto bailout was paid for by us, the taxpayers, and that those to gain the most from it were the executives at Fiat and the likes of the Elliott financial group, including Barack’s counterpart Mitt, who profited at least 15,000,000 dollars from the bailout through the gutting of Delphi automotive and the shipping of thousands of UAW jobs to China . This narrative also leaves out the fact that autoworkers were stuck with the worst contract that was ever negotiated for them by a bankrupt UAW leadership that actually suspended their constitution to shove a horrible contract down their workers’ throats, a contract that has led to more dangerous working conditions and severe cuts in wages. It is far better to conceal these truths in a fictional tale of an economy on the rebound where the serfs and the slaves will have many more years to toil assembling autos fed by our fabulous oil economy.

    Here in the greater Toledo area of northwest Ohio and southeast Michigan the serfs and the slaves are conditioned to consider themselves lucky enough to cling to fewer and fewer good paying jobs in the auto sector. The good serfs and slaves are made to feel oh so lucky to be able to refine Tar Sands oil and will be able to refine even more if that XL pipeline comes through. We have a Sun Oil refinery and a BP/Husky refinery and coal plants and even 2 nuclear power plants within a 25 mile radius. There is now the promise to build a state of the art natural gas fired plant in just 4 years. I guess you could call Toledo, Ohio the all of the above energy voters’ wet dream and Democrats and Republicans alike love to celebrate all the economic promise this bodes for our future.”

  9. Mark Victorystooge on said:

    In post 5, I allude to a US film that came out in 1998, ie. Clinton’s second term. Here is the relevant quote:

    “Jason Bock: Ow, that’s pierced! Ow!
    Bill Truitt: Listen to me, you little grunge faggot. I survived my family, my schoolyard, every Republican, every other Democrat, Anita Bryant, the Pope, the fucking Christian Coalition, not to mention a real son of a bitch of a virus, in case you haven’t noticed. In all that time since Paul Lynde and Truman Capote were the only fairies in America, I’ve been busting my ass so that you’d be able to do what you wanted with yours! So I don’t just want your obedience right now – which I do want and plenty of it – but I want your fucking gratitude, right fucking now, or you’re going to be looking down a long road at your nipple in the dirt! Do you hear what I’m saying?
    Jason Bock: Yes!”

    He is a fictional character, but clearly Bill Truitt only sees the most marginal of differences between Democrat and Republican on the issue of gay rights. His character, openly homosexual, has been suspended from teaching high school after he has been accused of sexually inappropriate behaviour with school pupils, one of whom (Jason Bock) is attempting to blackmail him.

  10. Mark Victorystooge on said:

    Jellytot: @6People have to be given a reason to voteThe Republican State Governments are going all out to restrict WC and Minorities ability to vote through “Voter ID” laws and the curtailing of early voting hours. You are advising people not to vote in #2 and by doing so you are aligning yourself with their scheme. Voter Supression has a long and inglorious history in America.

    “Voter suppression” is helped also by the actual poverty of choice typically on offer in American elections, as indeed compared to elections in most European countries where the choices are at least a little more impressive. The poverty of choice is intrinsic to the US political system. There are many examples of Americans being required to choose “the lesser of two scumbags”, if they vote at all, and this suppression of real choice also works to keep people away from polling stations, don’t you think?

    One of the most glaring examples was an election where the Ku Klux Klanman David Duke’s only meaningful opponent was a man with a criminal record for corruption. To stop Duke winning, the opposing camp used car stickers with slogans like “vote for the crook – it’s important” and “vote for the lizard, not the wizard”. That people should be pushed into voting for “a crook and lizard” to block a fascist from winning is rather telling about the lesser evil syndrome you endorse.

  11. Mark Victorystooge on said:

    Jellytot: @2He knows he is not inspiring, so why should I be inspired?What does inspiration have to do with anything? Many WC and lower middle class Americans will be taking the hard-headed decision to vote against a Republican businessman who opposed the bail-out of Detroit and who wants to gut Medicare and MedicAid. It’s a completely legitimate and understandable thing to do.Many of the Ultra-Left on here will be privately delighted to see Romney win tomorrow, I’m sure. They’ll have grins like Cheshire Cats to equal anything on Fox News.

    I won’t have a “Cheshire Cat grin” either way. I will be in a world full of neo-liberalism and war whoever the US President is.

  12. Jellytot on said:

    @13“Voter suppression” is helped also by the actual poverty of choice typically on offer in American elections

    So you have no view on actual Voter Supression schemes targetting, in particular, minorities which have been promoted by Republican State governments in recent years? If so, then I find that extraordinary.

    as indeed compared to elections in most European countries where the choices are at least a little more impressive.

    I would love to see an American Social Democratic Party, Red in tooth and claw, competing in US elections but you have to orientate to where the electorate, and the political culture, is at and not where you wish it to be.

  13. Mark Victorystooge on said:

    Jellytot: @13“Voter suppression” is helped also by the actual poverty of choice typically on offer in American electionsSo you have no view on actual Voter Supression schemes targetting, in particular, minorities which have been promoted by Republican State governments in recent years? If so, then I find that extraordinary.as indeed compared to elections in most European countries where the choices are at least a little more impressive.I would love to see an American Social Democratic Party, Red in tooth and claw, competing in US elections but you have to orientate to where the electorate, and the political culture, is at and not where you wish it to be.

    You are good at setting up straw men, like assuming that “ultra-lefts” would have wanted Romney to win. In reality, there is little difference on essentials, and that is at least as much a deterrent as any “voter suppression”. I recall a Newsweek or Time magazine piece about Jesse Jackson in 1984 jumping through hoops to get a particular black man the magazine interviewed registered in a southern American state, as part of Jackson’s drive to get unregistered blacks registered. Then the man noticed that the actual candidates on offer were quite unappealing. He expressed some doubt to the magazine as to whether being able to vote was worth it, given this situation. Anyway, you may recall that Reagan went on to beat Walter Mondale in that year’s national election. It is worth remembering that historically, southern Democrats could be even more racist than Republicans, (the latter were after all Abraham Lincoln’s party, while before and after the Civil War, southern white supremacists often found the Democrats congenial). You are not dealing with my point that even if people get registered, they may well find themselves confronted with two crocks of manure to choose from in an essentially two-party system.

    I find your enthusiasm for Obama a lot more “extraordinary”, given his record in his first four years.

  14. Mark Victorystooge on said:

    “Many of the Ultra-Left on here will be privately delighted to see Romney win tomorrow, I’m sure. They’ll have grins like Cheshire Cats to equal anything on Fox News.”

    In the last few days it became clear that Obama was a little ahead in the popular vote and quite a bit ahead in the more important electoral college, and so it proved. So all the urine trickling down trouser legs re a Romney presidency was quite unnecessary. So we’ll get neo-liberalism and war. We just won’t get a side order of creationism taught in schools, apparently. Zowee. I’m impressed.

  15. Jellytot on said:

    @16You are good at setting up straw men, like assuming that “ultra-lefts” would have wanted Romney to win.

    I wouldn’t be so sure. A strain of Ultra Leftism in Britain in the past 30 years has been the RCP/Living Marxism/Spiked axis and Brendan O’Neill (of that “tradition”) in the past few days in the Daily Telegraph has been openly arguing against Obama, and in an incredible piece today (which I won’t link to) suggests that the Democrats are more “elitist” than the Republicans.

    @19And your clean underwear is back from the laundry.

    That’s silly and infantile but not unexpected from you.

    I have been keenly following the great Nate Silver’s 538 Blog and was always confident of a Dem win. Romney’s chances in the Electoral College never rose above 40% (a week after Denver) and have been around 20% in recent weeks. I was always confident.

  16. albacore on said:

    I wouldn’t be so sure. A strain of Ultra Leftism in Britain in the past 30 years has been the RCP/Living Marxism/Spiked axis and Brendan O’Neill (of that “tradition”) in the past few days in the Daily Telegraph has been openly arguing against Obama, and in an incredible piece today (which I won’t link to) suggests that the Democrats are more “elitist” than the Republicans.

    Jellytot, thats entirely disingenuous of you. Your comments weren’t aimed at the rcp and spiked but at those who refuse to follow the lesser evil logic. As ever I think it’s the swp that are most in your sights.