Skip to main content

Jon Stewart, in what was perhaps the gayest Daily Show ever, took on the topic of the President's refusal to sign an Executive Order of LGBT non-discrimination for companies collecting taxpayer dollars.

Most particularly Stewart took aim at the cognitive dissonance of the White House launching an entire campaign to run against a do-nothing Congress based on the theme, "We Can't Wait" and delivery of executive orders, and then choosing to punt this issue over to a homophobic, Republican-controlled Congress.

[1:15] Video of President Obama: "Where they won't act, I will. I've told my administration to look every single day for actions we can take without Congress."

Stewart: "Oh! I found one! How about you sign the executive order that would protect gay people at the workplace?"

Cut to Carney: [Not gonna happen.]

Stewart: "Oh, all right, I get it, go f*** yourselves."

Looks like this issue continues to draw unflattering attention to the White House. More news of continued movement behind the scenes after the fold.

It's interesting how many straight allies have not given cover to the president on this clearly political calculation. The editorial pages across the country were not kind in response. Washington Post said, "there is no principled reason for refusing to extend such workplace protections to millions of Americans." The New York Times said:

"His hesitation to ban gay bias by government contractors, like his continued failure to actually endorse the freedom to marry, feels like a cynical hedge. It’s hard to see the political sense in it, and it is certainly unhelpful to the cause of full gay equality under the law."
In many cases it has been straight allies, like Stewart, who have voiced some of the less forgiving objections to this decision.

Look no further than Tico Almeida's appearance on Eliot Spitzer's Current TV program last Friday. Almeida is Executive Director of Freedom To Work, and LGBT workplace discrimination advocacy group and one of the driving forces behind this call to action.

It's striking how, like Stewart, Spitzer is playing bad cop to Almeida's good cop throughout the interview. Spitzer is at times, lobbying not too terribly flattering rhetorical messages in the direction of the White House while Almeida remains gracious and diplomatic.

First, it's interesting the White House is continuing to meet with advocates on this issue. To what end if it is a done deal? Almeida repeatedly asserts his optimism the White House will reconsider, and "sooner, not later."

He describes a follow-up meeting as "really positive meeting" with White House staff. Spitzer asks Almeida to handicap the likelihood of a 180 turnaround on this decision:

"This meeting went a lot better than the first one, and I maintain a sliver of optimism that this will get done soon. And I think the biggest take away from this meeting is White House staff is: these White House staffers and the President of the United States share with me and the whole gay rights movement and the transgender rights movement the American value that you should be judged at work based on your talent and hard work, and your skills and performance not on who you love, or what your gender identity may be. It's clear to me that these staffers are good folks that share that American value. And we're going to get there, the question is when."
Of course, the White House has painted itself into something of a political corner, if it would like to consider a turnaround before the election.

But of course, it's not a political corner they haven't been in before. The admin insisted repeatedly they were compelled to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, until they no longer did so. People forget. Allies forgive, opponents remain exactly as they were before: outraged about something.

Yes, politicians are very sensitive to appearing as though they are indecisive or flip-floppers, but there is a flip side narrative as well.

Almeida, and advocacy groups have repeatedly referred to this decision as a "mistake." Mistakes do get made by human beings. And Obama has repeatedly encouraged supporters to challenge him, if they feel he's erred.

A change of heart or mind can always be framed as being responsive, contemplative, thoughtful. A leader can always say, "Well, I did felt this way, but an excellent case was made to me, and I came to agree with my friends and see things their way."

No one of course can know how high up this decision was really made, it isn't at all clear that the President's top advisors are of one mind on this issue. It's certainly entirely possible the President listened to the wrong counsel on this issue and may reconsider and choose to listen to other voices within his circle.

Originally posted to Milk Men And Women on Tue May 01, 2012 at 09:25 AM PDT.

Also republished by Angry Gays and LGBT Kos Community.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This is the same argument (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, Deep Texan

    he used when he didn't end DADT via executive order. The reasoning has merit since we have seen executive orders over turning executive orders by opposing Presidents.

    I was Rambo in the disco/ I was shootin' to the beat/ When they burned me in effigy My vacation was complete. Neil Young

    by Mike S on Tue May 01, 2012 at 09:38:54 AM PDT

    •  Not really. (18+ / 0-)

      On DADT he took several executive steps by revising the Department of Defense procedures for investigations and discharges prior to the bill passing Congress.

      The DOD did it twice in fact.

      "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."—Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Scott Wooledge on Tue May 01, 2012 at 09:42:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bush didn't overturn Clinton's (13+ / 0-)

      on LGB employment in government. And Truman didn't overturn Roosevelt's on racial discrimination, he expanded it. And then Eisenhower expanded Truman's further, then Kennedy added to that and we got a Civil Rights law to cover most of what the EO's did. Finally LBJ strengthened the protections offered by the 1964 Civil Rights Act even further for government contractors. The Eo's build momentum toward legislation, so the act of not signing the WO is actually hurting the momentum towards passing a comprehensive ENDA. But that sums up Obama nicely, a real momentum killer.

      "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

      by craigkg on Tue May 01, 2012 at 09:51:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And actually (13+ / 0-)
      we have seen executive orders over turning executive orders by opposing Presidents.
      A non-discrimination EO has never in the history of the US ever been overturned.

      This would include Clinton's 1998 order of LGBT non-discrimination for Federal employees, which weathered the Bush years just fine and remain intact to this day.

      Just so you're clear on the facts.

      "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."—Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Scott Wooledge on Tue May 01, 2012 at 09:54:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  DADT can be reinstated by EO. (10+ / 0-)

      I've only made this point about a million times now, but I guess I have to do it again.

      DADT is not an example that supports your argument.  The DADT Repeal Act removed the statutory prohibition on open service by LGB soldiers, but because the Pentagon insisted on excising the nondiscrimination language included in Patrick Murphy's proposed legislation, the Repeal Act left the issue of LGB service entirely up to the Pentagon's discretion.  So the next time a Republican occupies the White House, a Republican Secretary of Defense could reinstate either DADT or a complete ban on gays in the military simply by issuing a DoD directive to that effect.  

      DADT can be reinstated by an EO or a DoD directive.  It doesn't require congressional action.  So this idea that Obama shouldn't sign an EO on discrimination in federal contracting because the EO could later be revoked doesn't hold water.  It certainly didn't stop the administration from weakening the DADT Repeal Act.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Tue May 01, 2012 at 10:41:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yup... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        craigkg

        And the same thing has been said about the Civil Right Act of 1964...  just sayin'.

        The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

        by lcj98 on Tue May 01, 2012 at 10:54:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But it isn't true (4+ / 0-)

          That the Civil Rights act can be overturned by EO.

          It is true a gay ban on military service can be reinstituted.

          That was the policy prior to 1993.

          "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."—Martin Luther King Jr.

          by Scott Wooledge on Tue May 01, 2012 at 01:17:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ... (0+ / 0-)

            I was addressing the overall argument/rhetoric that "they" will repeal or over turn that law.  That was the fear many blacks had when the was passed, definitely considering how hard  it was filibustered.  Also, it's a law that's still gets voted on.  So technically, it can be repealed...  I believe there are still groups advocating it repeal.

             I don't believe the DoD or any future president will reinstate the ban.  The concern is valid because the law just passed but I don't see such a thing happening.

            The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

            by lcj98 on Tue May 01, 2012 at 01:59:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think I said something stupid... (0+ / 0-)

              And I'm going to ask something stupid:  Was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 get voted on again in 2008 or earlier?  I remember hearing about that but I can't find it...

              The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

              by lcj98 on Tue May 01, 2012 at 02:14:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Well, Obama disagrees (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FogCityJohn, craigkg, EdSF, liberaldemdave

              "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."—Martin Luther King Jr.

              by Scott Wooledge on Tue May 01, 2012 at 02:37:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Wasn't addressing the "will" but the "way." (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              craigkg, EdSF

              Whether the next Republican administration will choose to reinstate the policy or not, I was simply pointing out that, legally speaking, it would be very easy for them to do so.  The DADT Repeal Act removed the statutory requirement that openly LGB servicemembers be expelled from the military.  It did not, however, create any statutory right for LGBs to serve openly, or indeed to serve at all.  Instead, the nondiscrimination protections were deleted from the proposed legislation and do not appear in the Repeal Act.

              In addition, the Pentagon made a deliberate decision not to adopt any administrative nondiscrimination regulations to protect LGB servicemembers.  (The rationale the brass offered was that such protections might offend bigoted straight troops, who are already chafing under such things as protections for racial minorities and women.)  So LGB servicemembers may now serve openly, but if they are discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, they have no legal recourse.  Sexual orientation discrimination is not prohibited anywhere in the UCMJ or in DoD's regulations.

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Tue May 01, 2012 at 03:23:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  And it was the Obama Administration... (3+ / 0-)

        ...that demanded the non-discrimination clause be dropped from the repeal act compromise. For someone that supposedly favors non-discrimination, Obama has a strange way of showing it...

        1. Adding protections for transgendered persons in the weakest way possible, as a matter of policy and not by adding it to the existing executive order covering sexual orientation
        2. Firing hundreds of people on account of their sexual orientation when the law permitted him to not fire a single one. The hundreds of discharges (about 760?) due to DADt from 20 January 2009 until the DADT repeal became effective are all on Obama since, by law, he could have issued a stop loss order preventing the damage to national security
        3. Demanding the non-discrimination clause be dropped from the from the Defense Authorization bill, the language of which was used in the DADT Repeal Act.
        4. Declining to push for ENDA and SNDA in the 111th Congress (2009-2011), expressing only theoretical support for the goals of the bill, but declining to support the bills themselves that would have banned sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment and in schools accepting Federal money.
        5. Declining to sign an executive order that would ban sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment by Federal contractors in direct violation of a campaign promise.

        But remember, vote Barack Obama, the non-Civil Rights President!!!
        </snark>

        "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

        by craigkg on Tue May 01, 2012 at 11:16:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  DADT was deemed unconstitutional (4+ / 0-)

        and the Obama Administration appealed.  All they have to do is drop the appeal and let that ruling stand and DADT will be much harder to reinstate.

        You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

        by Johnny Q on Tue May 01, 2012 at 12:02:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  not only did they appeal, but after the repeal... (4+ / 0-)

          ...was finalized, they got the decision by the judge vacate as moot. One of the most important legal opinions in the history of the LGBT Equality Movement after one of the best argued cases one could make got wiped off the books as having never existed because they refused to stop kicking people out.

          "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

          by craigkg on Tue May 01, 2012 at 12:07:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  thanks, scott (10+ / 0-)

    I'm really hoping the administration will reconsider. If the decision was based on politics, it was a terrible miscalculation. Not only is it good policy, its good politics

  •  I.GIVE.UP. n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scott Wooledge, craigkg, EdSF

    Veritas Omnia Vincit

    by The Nephew on Tue May 01, 2012 at 10:07:59 AM PDT

  •  Still questioning "kicking and screaming?" (3+ / 0-)

    This is yet another case where we have to believe that within 10 days of the election the administration will sign the EO.  I think I can envision a Thanksgiving day march on the White House at this point.

    -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Tue May 01, 2012 at 10:09:35 AM PDT

    •  That really doesn't help gay people (9+ / 0-)

      If he wins, it will happen, but Craig knows all the procedures, but there is a period of 3 to 5 months of waiting. Even an EO doesn't take effect immediately.

      It has to be published in the federal registry. An incoming POTUS could pull the plug easily enough if it's not finished.

      It might get him the votes, but it won't LGBT people the protection.

      "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."—Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Scott Wooledge on Tue May 01, 2012 at 10:13:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        craigkg, Scott Wooledge

        but a guy can dream, no?  I suppose it's the online grading I'm neglecting to comment on this.

        -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

        by Dave in Northridge on Tue May 01, 2012 at 10:19:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think they'll do it that quickly (6+ / 0-)

        After all, they are concerned about issuing the EO as "looking political" right now and doing it so soon after the election would look, their Beltway warped minds, as quid pro quo. So after an appropriate waiting period, we'll be coming up on Pride month and they certainly can't be seen kowtowing to the gays with something so meaningful during Pride month or shortly there after, so after an appropriate waiting period there after, the 2014 midterms will be firing up and we certainly can't expect the President to kill Democrats' chances in the most important midterm elections of our lifetime, so they'll delay it till after the midterms, but that then poses the same problem as a post 2012 election issuance of the EO, .....

        We're lining up for signature sometime in December 2016 or early January 2017, perhaps as late as 11:59:59 am on January 20.

        Time to break out the calendar again...

        The Official Daily Obama Administration Calendar of when it is acceptable to bring up LGBT rights

        1. He just got into office for f*ck's sake. Just STFU for now!
        2. It's still early and he has a lot more important things to deal with. Just wait your turn and we'll get around to it later.
        3. We've got midterm elections to win. You can't expect us to address gay rights and run for office at the same time so just STFU! We'll get get to gay rights after the election.
        4. We're exhausted. We just had an election. The new Congress hasn't even started yet. Just lay off on the "gay rights" stuff til later.
        5. We have to get Obama re-elected! Presidential elections take up the full two years of the cycle and you can't expect Obama to kowtow to left wing GLBT activist extremists and expect win moderate votes, so just STFU!
        6. We just won re-election. Can you please just let us bask in the glow of that until after the inauguration?
        7. This Obama's last chance to really govern. We have real issues to deal with without making it seem we're beholden to some fringe special interest extremists like the GLBT community.
        8. Why are y'all just bring up gay rights now in the 7th year of President Obama's term? You guys didn't work for it and don't deserve to have your issues addressed on your terms. Besides, we haven't yet had a blue ribbon commission that will examine the issue for a year and issue a report, which will be followed by a peer reviewed study of the ramifications, which will be followed by a another commission which will examine the differences between the first commission report and the study. After that commission's report is studied, we'll make a recommendation to the President who will then have to have his advisors study the issue for a while. At that point, the President may add the recommendation to his State of the Union address. So give us another three years even though we only have one left.
        9. The commission is still doing its work behind closed doors, so don't talk about gay rights at all. We have another Presidential election to win and we can't be seen as being for gay rights in a Presidential election. Just STFU!
        10. Hey GLBT activists, we're on our way out. Half the President's advisors have already left for jobs in the private sector, Congress has adjourned until the new Congress begins. We are complete and utterly powerless lame ducks. What can the Obama Administration do for you? We're here to help.

        Gawd I hate that that has been so prescient.

        "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

        by craigkg on Tue May 01, 2012 at 11:27:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Love the calendar, craig (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          liberaldemdave, craigkg

          and it fits so neatly with the heterosexist blather we often hear from the apologists and "pragmatists" (not to mention the blue dog, DLC and "centrist" types) around these parts, too.

          There is a critical difference between feeling discriminated against because you're disagreed with and being discriminated against because of who you are.

          by EdSF on Tue May 01, 2012 at 07:55:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  'go F yourselves" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scott Wooledge, craigkg, Eddie L, EdSF

    That's not the message the White House wanted gays to hear, I imagine. But when John Stewart translates Jay Carney's blah-blah-blah into "Go fuck yourselves," it rings true in this context. The White House no doubt convinced itself that nobody would read it that way. I'm sure there's a lot of rallying around a decision once it's made, like on Family Feud where some family member makes a dubious guess on the fill-in-the-blank word and the rest of the family starts clapping and saying Yeah! Yeah! Good answer! just before the big red X buzzes.

  •  I always talk about how disconcerting it must be (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scott Wooledge, EdSF, liberaldemdave

    to be a Republican constantly dealing with conflicting ideas and finally accepting cognitive dissonance as just a part of life. That is exactly how I feel as a gay man and a huge supporter of President Obama...

  •  First of all, an executive order that applies to (0+ / 0-)

    reluctant contractors would be the dickens to enforce and require a whole new law enforcement regime. Even when it becomes law, it will be like the equal pay for women requirement -- people will have a cause of action in a civil suit.

    Secondly, the malfunctioning Congress needs to be a central component in this election.  After all, we're evaluating and replacing a third of the Senate and ALL OF THE HOUSE. It's getting to be pretty obvious that the Republican kerfuffle over their primary decisions in the presidential race and then the race itself is designed to distract from the down-ticket races.  The primary season for those slots is so long that it's going to be hard to keep people focused. NH, which has two critical seats that need to return to the Democratic fold doesn't hold its primary until September.  Georgia's deciding in July.

    Third, this should be another reminder that one of the primary objects of privatization is to allow public officials to shirk their obligations under the Constitution.  Equal treatment is a mandate on government, not private individuals or corporations.  Including it in a contract for services is sort of like including non-germane amendments in legislation.  Yes, Congress does it, but it's usually intended to insure that it doesn't work. Might as well put your eyeglasses on the roof of the car to keep from sitting on them. Or your purse.  Some people do that.

    People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

    by hannah on Tue May 01, 2012 at 10:52:07 AM PDT

    •  Well. (5+ / 0-)

      You're way off here:

      require a whole new law enforcement regime
      Not at all. This would fall under the existing Dept of Labor, Office of Contract Compliance and well, as for "dickens to enforce," well, no more so than gender, race, religion. Same procedures.

      Your second point seems confused.

      malfunctioning Congress needs to be a central component in this election
      Obama is making a point of it by doing executive order with is "we can't wait" rhetoric and stepping up the EOs. Carney's press conference seemed to conducted in some bizarre alternate universe where John Boehner's Congress was going to pass ENDA. He was so bully about it saying they'd "push aggressively" when no thinking human can imagine it will happen, anymore than they'll pass a law declaring Obama President for life.

      The third point, well, that a system is imperfect is not a convincing argument that is should not be used for what good it CAN accomplish.

      "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."—Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Scott Wooledge on Tue May 01, 2012 at 11:02:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Scott do you know what the speculation (0+ / 0-)

        that it will be signed sometime is June is based upon?  I keep seeing that popping up, and would like to think so, but have no idea why that is being said.

        •  I haven't seen that speculation (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bythesea, craigkg, aliasalias

          it's kind of common sense that June is gay pride month and the Democratic National Committee usually has an LGBT high-dollar fundraiser and Obama usually marks it some way (in 2009 he spoke at an HRC fundraiser in June).

          So... the speculation may be that it's a very tasty piece of candy to dole out to the community at exactly the same time they'll passing the hat. That can make people round their donations up rather than down.

          "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."—Martin Luther King Jr.

          by Scott Wooledge on Tue May 01, 2012 at 11:18:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I guess we'll see... (0+ / 0-)

            I hope that proves to be the case, but it seems a flimsy thing to hang hope on.

          •  And they shouldn't be praised for it (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aliasalias, liberaldemdave

            If they do in June what they should have done a long time ago, much less NOW, the response they should get from the community should be "and what do we get now for y'all being monumental assholes on this issue for three and a half years?"

            "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

            by craigkg on Tue May 01, 2012 at 11:33:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think being stingy (0+ / 0-)

              with our gratitude is a winning strategy.

              "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."—Martin Luther King Jr.

              by Scott Wooledge on Tue May 01, 2012 at 11:47:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  We also shouldn't reward bad behavior (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                aliasalias, liberaldemdave

                They are taking the attitude "We can be as indifferent as we want to be on LGBT issues because, after all, who else you gonna vote for? Republicans? Ha!"

                All carrot and no stick makes for an incredibly fat donkey that never moves on our issues. Rewarding them for taking the slow route, needlessly delaying progress, will only further delay progress. They are the student that is only aiming to get a 69.5 grade average to round up to a passing grade. We know they are capable of doing far better and we cannot get them to do more without expecting them to do more. We can't be satisfied with what we are getting and at the pace we are getting it.

                "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

                by craigkg on Tue May 01, 2012 at 11:59:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Do we have evidence that contractor (0+ / 0-)

        compliance is better now than under Bush?

        After all, the whole point of contracting is to get out from under the strictures of the Constitution.  A contractor is a middleman.  If he's got to have a profit, the cost of the project will be more or the quality of what's delivered will be less.  The only beneficiaries are the Congress critters who get to steer their cronies in the direction of the gravy AND brag to the voters that it's going to cost less, which it never does.

        American industry and commerce need to be weaned off the public teat.

        People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

        by hannah on Tue May 01, 2012 at 11:20:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Specific to the Obama admin? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          craigkg, EdSF

          I don't have hard data, but have heard good things about appointments he's made, and people I know who work with EEOC and the OFCCP speak well of their interactions with them.

          And Obama admin has had some excellent "wins" like the case of Astrozenica, that are worth crowing about and delivered real-life benefits to human beings.

          There is certainly a very general trend that D admins take enforcement more seriously than R admins who tend to let the office languish in neglect and underfunding, not surprisingly.

          "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."—Martin Luther King Jr.

          by Scott Wooledge on Tue May 01, 2012 at 11:26:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And of course, we can't overlook (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          craigkg, cville townie, EdSF

          the part the EEOC staff played in the HUGE move forward on Trans discrimination last week.

          Also on the part they played on in hostile work environment case of gay discrimination at a Federal contractor earlier this year.

          So, yeah. I think we CAN say that the Obama admin is much better on this issue than Bush, or probably Romney.

          I seriously doubt either of these cases would have gained the traction to WIN, under an R admin. They would have been buried and forgotten. Under Obama, these plaintiffs found allies willing to work with them.

          "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."—Martin Luther King Jr.

          by Scott Wooledge on Tue May 01, 2012 at 11:46:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The EEOC is independent (0+ / 0-)

            The President appoints the commissioners, but it isn't an arm of their administration. President Obama's commendable act with respect to the EEOC is the recess appointments he made to it as Senate Republicans tried to block the commission from having a quorum of commissioners to do business.

            "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

            by craigkg on Tue May 01, 2012 at 12:03:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the more general point (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              craigkg

              addressing Hannah's question of if there's a difference in this area than under Bush.

              And Obama's appointments in the area of Labor and Employment have been met with more grassroots enthusiasm than his appointments on this economic team, from what I've seen. And the appointees make their own hires as well.

              "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."—Martin Luther King Jr.

              by Scott Wooledge on Tue May 01, 2012 at 12:14:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree. He probably couldn't have done better... (0+ / 0-)

                ...than the appointment of Feldblum, who wrote most of the language of the Americans with Disabilities Act that got passed in 1990. I'm just making sure it is understood the EEOC is independent and not under the direction of the administration, but the President can profoundly shape the commission (as he can with many other independent entities like the courts) by who he chooses to appoint.

                "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

                by craigkg on Tue May 01, 2012 at 12:29:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  The enforcement regime already exists (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aliasalias, EdSF, Scott Wooledge

      and has since 1965. It is called the Office of Federal Contract Compliance and it is part of the Department of Labor. But if you feel this layer of protections and regulation is too much, by all means, you should lobby the President to rescind LBJ's EO giving protections based on race, color, creed, sex, gender, national origin, etc that go beyond the protections offered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I'll note that when Reagan's administration looked at doing just that, revoking the EO, Congress reacted by threatening to make the EO's provisions law and had veto proof majorities that could have done so.

      "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

      by craigkg on Tue May 01, 2012 at 11:31:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sad but true... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scott Wooledge, craigkg
    People forget. Allies forgive, opponents remain exactly as they were before: outraged about something.

    The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

    by lcj98 on Tue May 01, 2012 at 11:12:50 AM PDT

  •  Obama's In Election Mode (0+ / 0-)

    ...and isn't going to do anything to give the right wing fodder.

    Actually, he's working hard to do as little as possible legislatively.

    Still, I expect his second term to take a left turn or two.

    •  you mean after (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      craigkg, EdSF
      Still, I expect his second term to take a left turn or two.
      He is untethered from the need to have the left donate, campaign, work and vote for him? I've never understood that conventional wisdom.

      "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."—Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Scott Wooledge on Tue May 01, 2012 at 11:30:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank God for Stewart & Colbert. NT (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scott Wooledge

    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

    by HeyMikey on Tue May 01, 2012 at 12:45:59 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site