General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe vast majority of gays here believe Obama merits relection on gay issues
but can you please, in return, not insult our intelligence with ludricrious defenses of his not issuing an executive order to require government contractors to not discriminate against gays.
It is nothing short of silly to think that ENDA has any chance of passing this House. First, the leadership of the House has made clear that only bills which have a majority of the majority as co sponsors will be brought to the floor. Thus ENDA would need majority support among GOP House members to even get a vote. It is not even close. In 2007, the last time a vote was taken, it got 35 out of 200 votes or 17.5% of the vote. Of the 35 yes votes at least 14 are no longer in Congress. There are now 242 GOP votes in this Congress. Even if we only needed the 50% + 1 we would need a bare minimum of 22 GOP votes which we likely don't have. Oh, and then we need 7 GOP votes in the Senate and that is if the worthless Nelson of NE votes with us. In short, there is no chance here. Obama decided, as is his want, not to issue an executive order. We, as is our want, are not happy. The lack of an EO is lots of things but what it isn't is part of some grand plan to pass ENDA in this Congress. Not when the American Taliban run the show.
msongs
(67,406 posts)Initech
(100,076 posts)And our state governments - it's appalling. And what's even more is that its built on more failed Reagan ideaologies of building a "godly" nation. They may have got away with the values voters bullshit in 2000 and 2004 but that ain't gonna work anymore. These dipshits need to go away.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)I'll allow that you're speaking for the majority of gay persons, and that Obama will get a majority of votes from the gay community. I don't think those votes will be based on the administration's actions on gay issues, but rather despite them. And, as long as I'm picking nits, it's "wont," not "want" to describe someone's tendency or predilection.
I'd dearly like to see more leadership out of our leaders, rather than their compulsive, near obsessive, testing of the waters.