Open Thread, Internet Glory Edition

by: Douglas E. Lindner

Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 18:19:20 PM EDT

Shameless plug: follow NHYD on Twitter at @NHYoungDems and on Facebook at http://facebook.com/NewHampshi...

This is an open thread.

"Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line."

by: Douglas E. Lindner

Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 15:55:34 PM EDT

That time-tested adage might be wrong.

In 2000, Al Gore was not the candidate he could have been, not the candidate he might have been had he come back and "Let Bartlet Gore Be Gore" in '04 or '08, and his victory was too narrow to stick (I know, Florida, and I agree, but stay with me here). In 2004, John Kerry--though a good Senator--was not the candidate we needed.

Republicans fell in love with Bush; Democrats fell in line with Gore and Kerry.

In 2008, it was our turn. Despite a more divisive primary process, Democrats fell in love (as we would have with Hillary Clinton), and Republicans fell in line with John McCain.  It was the most decisive Democratic victory in a Presidential election since 1966.  As far as I can tell (and I looked into it), President Obama received more votes than any candidate for any office in any country, ever. (sidenote: America is the second most populous democracy, but India, a parliamentary democracy, does not directly elect its leader)

2012 will be tough, and liberals take issue with some things President Obama has done or not done, but the numbers are clear: Democrats, liberals, and Americans in general like Barack Obama personally.  They may not approve of everything he's done, and when the country is hurting, criticism (misplaced or otherwise) is to be expected.  But people still support this person being their leader.  And most of us know--some deeper down than others--that he's much, much better than the alternative.

Here's the thing: there is no alternative. Perry? Cain? Bachmann? Paul? Who is it?

Conventional Wisdom points to Mitt Romney. He's nobody's favorite. He's not the most conservative or the most moderate. He's not the most likable or the most inspiring. He's not the most genuine or the most opportunistic. But Republicans like him because they think he's the guy that can defeat a President they hate.

Personally, I think given the current field, it has to be Romney. Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann won't survive a devastating blow coming their way from New Hampshire independents, Herman Cain will have trouble with southern conservatives, Ron Paul is a niche candidate, and Jon Huntsman has Obama cooties (which is unfortunate, because he'd be a better President than the others at that table last night).

So that leaves the GOP with Romney-Christie 2012. That doesn't exactly scream "Morning in America".

Republicans better hope they fall in line this time.

Frank Guinta's Top Priority: Defeating the President

by: Dean Barker

Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 19:14:27 PM EDT

During these tough economic times, the last thing Congress needs to do is place more burden on individuals and small businesses. Providing small businesses tax incentives will allow them to increase their workforce, invest and create jobs.

The purpose of the American Jobs Act is simple:  ...it will cut payroll taxes in half for every working American and every small business.  

...Pass this jobs bill -- pass this jobs bill, and starting tomorrow, small businesses will get a tax cut if they hire new workers or if they raise workers' wages.  Pass this jobs bill, and all small business owners will also see their payroll taxes cut in half next year.  (Applause.)  If you have 50 employees -- if you have 50 employees making an average salary, that's an $80,000 tax cut.  And all businesses will be able to continue writing off the investments they make in 2012.  

Americans were looking to the President for leadership and to chart a new path to lower unemployment tonight.  Instead, they got more failed policy and empty eloquence.

"After spending his whole vacation insisting that he was so bipartisan now that he was friends with Barney Frank, it did not take our current Congressman, Frank Guinta, a New York minute to condemn President Obama's Jobs Program.  One of the top Republican leaders, Rep Eric Cantor, said,  'But there are some things that we can do if we transcend those differences and stick to what the mission here is,' but Frank simply refused to be bipartisan at all, flatly stating, 'they got more failed policy and empty eloquence.'  New Hampshire's First District needs someone who has experience working across the aisle, and I will continue to do just that when I return to Congress."

I think I know why.

(find me > 140 on birch paper; on Twitter < 140)

Time for the Next Choice

by: JimC

Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 15:55:57 PM EDT

If you had asked me, in 2008, for a list of items that would make me stop supporting Barack Obama, it would probably look like this, not necessarily in this order.

- Failure to close Guantanamo Bay and/or follow due process of law for the prisoners there.
- Continuation of some obvious abuse of power (for example, appending "signing
statements" declaring himself immune from some laws).
- Betrayal of a core Democratic principle.
- A series of corruption scandals.
- Failure to act on healthcare; not failure to pass, but failure to act or an obviously half-hearted attempt at getting it done.
- Failure to end or significantly wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Continued use of questionable contractors like Blackwater (or whatever they call it now) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hmm. Looks like I can't support Barack Obama. He hasn't hit the entire list -- this administration has been remarkably free of ethics scandals -- but he's well over a majority of it.

I don't think I'm a purist. None of my items are especially liberal. Some of them would save money and could arguably be called conservative. But I am a liberal, and my goal is to advance liberalism, because liberalism helps people.

Does supporting Barack Obama advance that goal? I say it does, in the short term, because the alternative is worse. But that's just my answer, and honestly I'm not trying to convince someone who doesn't feel that way. The problem with the world-ending arguments ("MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION, EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!") is that they imply a complete undoing of all things Republican when we take power. After all, if the stakes couldn't be higher, then it stands to reason that the change we bring couldn't be greater. Since that did not occur when we held the entire Congress and the White House, clearly the world will not end if we go Republican again.

Let me paraphrase what someone said to me in 2000, after I sent an e-mail missive (Remember those?) arguing that everyone, the entire political spectrum, should support Al Gore. (Nader couldn't win, went my logic, and Bush was toxic to Republicans who really wanted McCain - or something like that.) One reply from a Nader voter went something like this:

Not voting your convictions is simply wrong. How do you sleep?

He apologized later.

But how do I sleep? How far can the Democratic Party push me before my own role in it is meaningless? How much of a hypocrite can I be?

Does mounting a challenge to Obama send a message that he should move left? I would say no, because the parties are too polarized. He'll just get mad at the left and blame us if he loses. He won't feel beholden to us if he wins.

Part of the conservative brand is their famous willingness to lose; they will stay home, it is said, and vote for an unacceptable candidate. That's really powerful. It's also bullshit. Maybe a small segment of them -- religious conservatives, perhaps? -- are willing to lose, but most political people are not. I'm not willing to lose. But I'd also like my victories to mean something.

We need a third party! I don't know -- do we? One thing that has amazed me recently is how NPR speaks of the Tea Party -- not as Republicans, but as a distinct entity. A few weeks back, a Republican commenter on All Things Considered was more circumspect, mentioning "freshman of the Tea Party philosophy" or words to that effect. It's treated as though the Tea Party is Republicans on steroids. That's how Boehner, according to NPR, tried to use them: as a tax-resistant bulwark in his party that could kill any deal.

On one hand, this is probably true. On the other hand, as a Democrat I would prefer that we discuss the Tea Party as a party split. A divided Republican Party argues for a unified Democratic Party, strategically speaking. Or does it? Is this a historic opportunity to split and "survive," so to speak?

The Washington Post, to my consternation, has written so often about the prospect of a "Democratic Tea Party" that they seem to be rooting for it. They must be bored with us. A "Democratic Party on steroids" would probably be some sort of Workers' Party. A bloc of workers' rights voters would outnumber the proverbial top 1% of the wealthy, so this could be a powerful group.

There could be some sort of Social Safety Net coalition that watches over Social Security and Medicare, perhaps unemployment benefits, and works toward single-payer healthcare.

I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of Immigration Party that organizes recent immigrants and pushes for reform -- humanitarian reform, not the Tom Tancredo variety. (By the way, don't tell Tancredo, but in Maine, you have to push a button to choose English over French at the ATM. Mon dieu!) Now that would be a massive group of reliable voters. Here's the bad news: many immigrants are pretty conservative.

We could do this all day. At least Democratic splits would have a point of view, unlike the Tom Friedman Magic Unicorn Third Party that would decide all disputes between the two other parties. Friedman's authoritarian tendencies would be frightening if they weren't so ludicrous. I believe it was digby who observed that Friedman's pet positions almost perfectly reflect the consensus view in Washington on these issues. I can't decide whether Friedman is painfully unaware of his own elitism, or painfully aware of it but also aware that, as a journalistic, he needs to conceal it to sound credible. I think he'd sound more authentic if he just embraced it and outright advocated labor camps with no minimum wage so we could compete with China. Maybe he's looked at the state of journalism in China, guessed columnists make less there and get invited to fewer parties, and stayed his own hand.

There was one thing I wanted (and expected) above all else from Barack Obama. I wanted America to feel normal again (or, better put, to feel weird in a familiar way). I can live with the new normal, to some extent; our shoes will be checked at the airport for another 10 years at least. Fine. But when the US Attorney General announces trials for hijackers in New York City, that decision should stand, not be rescinded because the two-bit poser Senator from South Carolina thinks he should be in charge. The wheels of justice turn slowly; OK (not really OK, but here we are), let's at least put them in motion.

I won't forgive the hippie-punching. Did Bush ever condemn his allies on the right? The worst he ever said was to tone down the rhetoric, and that was directed at both sides. I have trouble accepting a strategy where it pays dividends to marginalize us, especially since every poll says our positions on the most contentious issues are the most popular.

I've written before that Republicans need to rein in their crazies. I am still waiting for a single Republican to denounce the depiction of Barack Obama as a cannibal, or as the Joker, two of the most racist images I've ever seen in politics. Their usual defense, that such things represent a small minority of Republicans, is irrelevant. Some things are indefensible. But not a peep. Is that the 11th Commandment, fear of a primary challenge, or both?

I hope to hell that many Republicans are privately disgusted with Rick Perry. According to NPR, Perry took pains to avoid politics at his "day of prayer," said God wouldn't join a political party, and even asked people to pray for the president. The jury will disregard the elephant in the room. In the end, Perry's event amounts to nothing more than, "I am the candidate of the evangelicals," but it's one of the most craven acts of demagoguery since Pat Robertson's heyday. (Silver lining: the crowd was 30,000. Since some megachurches draw 2,000 people every Sunday, 30,000 is not really all that impressive for the Governor of such a large state.)

Part of the problem, I suppose, is allowing myself to be labeled. The no labels people avoid that. (At least the No Labels people point to a problem; the independents wash their hands.) But I can't play that way -- once I decided one party was better, I had to pick a side.

And having picked a side, I have to support Barack Obama for reelection.

That's just me.  

A Horrible "Debt Deal" That Had To Be Passed - 461 Days To Go

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 07:28:57 AM EDT

Many good Democrats in Congress voted against it.  They deserve our thanks.  

But many good Democrats in Congress voted for it.  They deserve our appreciation, too.  It's regrettable, but it had to pass.  The alternative was too frightening.  

In my years of being on a city council for a dozen years, an assistant mayor, on a school board for 4 years, in the State Senate for 6 and the House for 24, I've voted "on" almost 60 annual city, county, and state budgets.  I never once wanted to vote "for" those budgets.  Not once.  None of them did what I thought was needed for our citizens.  Each in some way hurt people.  None helped all the people we should have.  Some hurt many.  And I did vote "against" perhaps a dozen of them.  Nevertheless, I voted "for" most of them.  

Because government must go on.  Lives -- and life and death -- are at stake, and to close down government is unthinkable.  Government is our way of helping people.  

That Republicans and their ilk were willing to push their greed to the wall and allow America to default is unforgivable.  Voters will do something about that in November, 2012.  The lower and middle classes will remember that they were zapped by the Republicans.  

In the meanwhile, we need to appreciate that President Barack Obama, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, and so many other Democrats did what they needed to do.  By their action and their leadership, the United States government will have an "open" sign tomorrow.  

Because of them, the United States goes on, and another election to replace the bastards who are beating up the people of our country will be held in 461 days.

Frank Guinta: Fealty to the Rich Over All

by: Dean Barker

Tue Jul 12, 2011 at 08:14:24 AM EDT

(Since that vote, he's earned an upside down favorability rating.)

Incredibly, Democratic President Barack Obama is willing to chip away at those programs for the sake of a "Grand Bargain" on the deficit, a concession that is both remarkably poor public policy and politically disastrous. What he wants in return from Republicans is to end the Bush-Obama tax giveaways to the wealthiest.

Equally incredibly, Frank Guinta lays out his own priorities:

"I have a core belief that I've maintained that raising taxes doesn't solve the problem,'' said Representative Frank Guinta, a New Hampshire Republican who was elected with support from Tea Party activists.

But to the larger point: our President has given Frank Guinta the chance to chip away at the safety net, but he won't bite if it disturbs the free ride the rich have had for the past ten years.

Remember this when the government defaults and you don't get your Social Security check in the mail.

(find me > 140 on birch paper; on Twitter < 140)

In the Rolling Hills of New Hampshire

by: Douglas E. Lindner

Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 12:28:13 PM EDT

You might argue there's nothing to win in an uncontested primary, but I think you'd be wrong.

If the President and Vice President come here, to the kind of small venues they attended when they were Senators, to fire up the (relatively) small gatherings of activists that got Obama where he is now, to remind our small portion of the grassroots what we can do and what we hope to achieve, they can draw a striking contrast with the party of "no we can't," whose frontrunners are lackluster and whose enthusiasm is born of anger, of distress, of fear, of hatred, and of pessimism for the future of America.

President Obama has largely given up the mantle of big-dreaming inspiration since he took office, and he should bring that back. Bring back the hope, if only because his opponents insist that hope is lost and intend to prove it.

It would go a long way in setting the narrative of this campaign, and in reminding the grassroots he knows where he came from and who got him where he is now.

Giunta Confesses Guilt to Obama

by: Dean Barker

Thu May 12, 2011 at 19:29:01 PM EDT

We have all been guilty, at one time or another, of playing politics with key issues facing our country.

How can they not see that someone in Manchester who has been paying into a health insurance system for three decades plus would be really, really upset to learn that Frank Guinta voted to make those contributions meaningless?  How did he not get that this looks and feels like theft?

(birched; on Twitter @deanbarker)

Saving Medicare - It's Up To Us

by: Dean Barker

Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 20:32:30 PM EDT

Frank Guinta and Charlie Bass went way beyond cuts - they voted to privatize it, thus abolishing the program and sending insurance sharks to grandma's house to take her voucher.

The GOP, hopelessly out of touch with the concerns of working families, have handed us a huge gift.  On behalf of working families, we have an obligation to take full advantage of it.

For example: tomorrow Charlie Bass is holding a town hall in Hillsborough.  This is a perfect opportunity to ask your Congressman what he was thinking when he voted to destroy a program eighty percent of Americans don't want cut?  Ask him why we don't even get access to a "voucher" until two years later than currently, at sixty-seven?  What is he thinking putting those of us under fifty-five at the whim of private insurance hell when we are older and least able to navigate it?

Because scammers don't go after seniors in New Hampshire or anything.

When I say it is up to us, I literally mean - up to us.  National Democrats are already fumbling this gift right out of the gate.

Democratic Senators Mark Warner and Dick Durbin are both hinting at cuts to Social Security.  Of course they won't do it to grandma today (just as Paul Ryan won't destroy Medicare for grandma today); it'll be those of us who have paid into the system for decades but not yet close to retirement who will watch our earnings get stolen.

Millionaires like Warner and Durbin are getting away with these trial balloons because the President has given them a lot of wiggle room on the topic.

How are 2012 general election voters, especially Generation-X and Millenials, supposed to understand that the Democratic party is out to protect their future Medicare on the one hand, when on the other their future Social Security is being threatened by the Democratic party?

(birched; on Twitter @deanbarker)

"Ask Him To Deal With It Sooner"

by: Dean Barker

Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 20:31:49 PM EDT

What's going on here? Despite the ferocious opposition he has faced since the day he took office, Mr. Obama is clearly still clinging to his vision of himself as a figure who can transcend America's partisan differences. And his political strategists seem to believe that he can win re-election by positioning himself as being conciliatory and reasonable, by always being willing to compromise.

But if you ask me, I'd say that the nation wants - and more important, the nation needs - a president who believes in something, and is willing to take a stand. And that's not what
we're seeing.

In Manchester Sunday, he talked about getting beyond "slash-and-burn" politics, getting beyond the us v. them, and bonding together in "hope". So, much as Elwood has suggested on this site, part of Obama's message is Camelot awaits: after a period of vicious partisan fighting, he is ready to lead us to that peace beyond.

This is an acceptable message in itself, and it's similar to what centrists like Bayh are preaching.

But is it the final destination of Obama's thought? Within 30 seconds of stating we have to come together as a nation, he begins to give examples of Americans bonding together in "hope" and overcoming obstacles. And a good number of them are very us v. them: The Revolutionary War, The Civil War, The Women's Suffrage movement, the Civil Rights movement.

There's a very clear rift here which Obama will have to resolve. What he has to decide, in short, is whether we are truly at a Camelot moment, where if we were simply to stop fighting one another we could build America up again, or whether we are at a moment akin to the historical examples he cites. If the latter, the problem is not that we have been fighting. The problem is the right side hasn't won yet.

I continue to watch Obama with much interest, and have faith he will deal with that rift sooner or later. If he is going to be a force in this election, however, I think it's in our interest as Democrats to ask him to deal with it sooner.

A new poll out today showing that the Granite State has quickly soured on Frank Guinta and Charlie Bass offers up new opportunity that we can win those seats back sooner than later.

Yet at the very top, our Democratic president is trial ballooning another stab at "entitlement" reform.  In the face of 8%+ joblessness, and the most obscene concentration of wealth in the hands of the fewest, our Democratic president just might ask those Generation X-ers and Millenials, some of whom have been contributing their earnings to Medicare and Social Security for over twenty-five years, to get less in return.

New Hampshire is fired up and ready to go.  But for this train to leave the station we need someone at the top who is fighting for us.

(birched; on Twitter @deanbarker)

NHDP should be ashamed

by: hannah

Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:39:27 AM EDT

Dear Friend,

Tomorrow is a historic day - the 5th Anniversary of Mitt Romney signing his Massachusetts health care reform plan into law.

Five years ago, Mitt Romney laid the foundation for President Obama's Affordable Care Act. Without Romney, it's hard to see how President Obama would have been able to provide quality, affordable health care for every American.

Take a second today or tomorrow to thank Mitt Romney for providing the critical momentum necessary to get President Obama's vision of health reform through Congress and signed into law.   Click here to tweet Mitt Romney and thank him.

Nationally, for more than 100 years, Americans and their elected leaders had debated how to reform a system that left too many people without care because of lack of access, soaring costs or unfair and discriminatory insurance regulations. It's hard to believe that it was only five years ago that then Governor Romney stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Senator Kennedy to sign Massachusetts' historic health care reform law.

It claims to be from the New Hampshire Democratic Party.

Cold

by: Dean Barker

Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 19:52:22 PM EST

In other news, President Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for America's wealthiest individuals for at least two years.  This adds 81.5 billion to the deficit.

Despite their known hostility to LIHEAP, expect New Hampshire Republicans at the federal level to run on this for the next election.

(birched first)

President Obama: Yes, We Can Have Marriage Equality

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 17:16:07 PM EST

Other than the political factor, which shouldn't be part of the equation anyway, I can't quite understand why President Barack Obama is "still wrestling" with the matter of whether our gay and lesbian Americans should have the right to marry.  Now they can serve OPENLY -- they've been serving for a couple of centuries of course -- in the military.  Openly, gays and lesbians will be able to fight and be injured or killed defending our nation.  But "liberty and justice for all" stops at that.  

Gays and lesbians can still be fired just for being gay in a large part of this country.  And we're second-class citizens in all but a few states when it comes to being able to make legal commitments to share our love and caring for one another.  

Most states still don't allow legal same gender relationships under any name, and New Hampshire remains just one of half a dozen where "marriage" is equal, at least under state law and state benefits.  But the Federal Government that Barack Obama heads still doesn't extend equality of benefits, contracts, or rights even to those same gendered couples legally married or unioned under their state laws.  Something is wrong with this picture.

At least, and it is least for a man who I do think really "gets it," President Obama said today that his feelings on the gay marriage issue "continue to evolve," but he still seems to believe that civil unions is quite enough.  Oh really?  Civil Unions certainly was a good step for us in New Hampshire in 2007 -- but I argued at that time in sponsoring that bill that it was a move in the right direction, but that it wasn't marriage.  It is second class citizenship.  Now that gays and lesbians are going to be able to be in our military proudly and openly, isn't it time for first class citizenship too?

Oh well.  I guess politics does play into matters like this.   And the President will have to be on the campaign trail mighty soon.  But as those Republicans travel to Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as when President Obama visits or sends some of his spokespeople here, we can certainly ask "Why not us?  Why can't we be truly part of the American Dream?"

President Obama:  Yes we can have marriage equality.  Please help us lead the way.  It can indeed be a motivating reason in propelling you to reelection in 2012, AND it happens to also be the right thing to do.

"Rolled Like Obama" - How the Other Side Sees It

by: Dean Barker

Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 08:34:15 AM EST

Nor should we be under any illusion on how the other side views our president now as a result:

Kelly Ayotte: The reported account of her tension with Gov. Sununu written up by a half-time blogger missed the bigger story about what really happened between Ayotte and Sununu. That would be "the phone call" between the two when, as one Republican described it, "Ayotte rolled like Obama" and Paul Young got dropped.

There is no doubt in my mind that electoral realities will cause the Bush (and now Obama) tax giveaways to the richest to extend past 2012.  I don't know what we can do at this point to stop that massive and ongoing theft from the commonweal.

But it's the least we can do to push the president in the other direction to make this bad deal a little less bad. There is still time to save Social Security.

I Am Suffering So You Must Suffer Too...

by: Dean Barker

Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 16:34:00 PM EST

The Failure of Social Movement Politics

by: Tim Ashwell

Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 16:02:58 PM EST

The key quote:

The social movement politics that some of his most fervent followers ascribed to him-the idea of electing a "post-partisan" president as the leader not of a nation or even of a political party but of a personalized social movement-has failed.

Wilentz's article is important. I suspect his argument will be something of a Rorschach test for Democrats. What are we to make of this analysis?

The Obama campaign presented itself as a social movement that was more sentimental than political, pushing gauzy "values," like "hope" and "change," while leaving policy concerns to the wonks. Yet the successful movements of the past had more than values; they had specific goals...The point of the Obama campaign-as-movement was conceived differently: exciting people with the thrill of empowerment, and collective self-empowerment, by electing to the White House a community organizer who believed in "hope" and "change." Why electing Obama was imperative required no explanation among the faithful; it was enough to get the spirit, share the spirit, and revel in the candidate's essence, which, by definition, no other candidate possessed. The leader was the program.

Wilentz writes that Marshall Ganz, the veteran labor organizer and architect of the Camp Obamas of the last campaign, said in the wake of last week's elections that

the president had lost his organizer's fire and neglected to deliver the wonderful speeches that would frame the political discourse for the movement. Instead, Obama lamely sought reform, in Ganz's words, "inside a system structured to resist change," ignoring and even scorning liberal and leftist advocacy groups...He became "transactional" instead of "transformational."

Did we go too far or not far enough? It's an important question as we regroup for 2012 and beyond.

Kuster to Run in 2012, at Obama's Urging?

by: Douglas E. Lindner

Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 21:04:49 PM EDT

WASHINGTON -- The morning after his "shellacking," President Barack Obama made an unusual but crucial congratulatory phone call, not to a winning Democratic House candidate but rather to a losing one, and one whom few people outside of her home state know.

Why? Because he was watching his back in a place where, on the off chance he faces a primary challenge in 2012, he will need to hold the line.

The president wanted to shower deserved praise on attorney Ann McLane Kuster for her brilliant, well-financed but (just barely) losing race in New Hampshire's 2nd District against former GOP Rep. Charlie Bass. He also urged her to try again, and pledged his support if she did so -- and she quickly agreed.

"He couldn't have been nicer or more supportive," Kuster told The Huffington Post after the election. "He said that I'd run a great race and that he'd be there for me to try it again if I want to, and I do."

I think Carol Shea-Porter deserves to get that call from the President too, but I'm glad to hear Kuster--and the President--are getting ready for the next round.

Weekend Open Thread: It Gets Better

by: Dean Barker

Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 07:53:54 AM EDT

I'll say this: when I was the same age as the audience President Obama is addressing here, and bullied not because I was gay but because my friends were, President Reagan refused to speak the word "AIDS."  The subsequent inattention to the epidemic played a key role in causing tremendous suffering.

Truly, it gets better.  This is a Weekend Open Thread.  

Compensation for "stop loss"

by: hannah

Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 14:00:11 PM EDT

Obama: Apply now for retroactive stop-loss pay
By Jeff Schogol
Published: September 15, 2010

Fewer than half of the people eligible for retroactive stop-loss compensation have been paid, prompting President Barack Obama to urge eligible veterans, troops and surviving family members to apply for their money before the program ends on Oct. 21.

QOTD: This is America

by: Dean Barker

Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 21:37:36 PM EDT

"...I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure."

- President Barack Obama

Remind them of this when they come a-knocking on our primary doors.