Bonior Building Behind-The-Scenes Momentum For Openly Gay Union Activist as Labor Secretary
Former Rep. David Bonior, who has deep roots in the labor movement, has mounted an aggressive behind-the-scenes campaign, with letters and personal lobbying, to press the Obama transition team and top labor leaders to get behind his pick for labor secretary: Union activist Mary Beth Maxwell, who would make history as the first openly gay cabinet member.
Bonior, who has been trying in vain to get his own name taken off the shortlist for the post, is also confirming for the first time that if asked by Obama, he would take the job, though he would prefer Maxwell.
"I would do anything President-Elect Obama asks me to do, but I think it's time to pass the torch to a new generation of leadership with a fresh vision for working families," Bonior said in a statement that was sent to us by his spokesperson.
"That's why I'm behind Mary Beth," continued Bonior, who has made his preference known but has shied away from making public statements about the labor sec post.
Bonior has also sent a letter (which we've obtained) to leaders at top labor organizations such as the AFL-CIO and SEIU, as well as leading progressive organizations, making a strong case for Maxwell. And Bonior has also privately made the case for Ms. Maxwell directly to Obama's top transition team officials, a source familiar with the discussions said.
Some labor leaders are reported to be worried that an older, more experienced hand with more stature would make a better pick for the post than Maxwell, who heads the pro-labor group American Rights at Work. But Bonior argued in his letter that Maxwell would be more in sync with Obama's change message.
"I believe that it is time to pass the torch to a new generation of leadership that puts a fresh new face on the labor movement and our vision for working families," Bonior wrote, adding that an old-guard figure would amount to "looking in the rear-view mirror and represent past Washington battles."
Separately, The Politico reports that a key coalition of gay and lesbian groups has thrown its support to Maxwell.
Late Update: A bio of Maxwell here.
Mary Beth Maxwell as Labor Sec. Why the hell not. Great idea!!
December 4, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why the hell not? Ummmm, because they're pushing for it. Seems to me that the best way to not get a job in the Obama adminisration is to lobby or have your friends lobby for it. Obama seems to resent being pressured.
December 4, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Maxwell is being promoted for this position due to her professional credentials and expertise great.
No one should be considered on the basis of their sexual activity for anything ever.
December 4, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"No one should be considered on the basis of their sexual activity for anything ever."
I agree. Given that Napolitano and Crist were both eliminated from consideration for either president or vice-president just this cycle, I think it would certainly be nice though if your dictum were more widely followed.
December 4, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had heard the jokes about Crist getting looked over for that reason, but I had never heard that Napolitano was disqualified from VP consideration because of it. Do you have any sort of substantiation to back that up? I'm not arguing with you about it....I'm just intrigued because it's the first I've heard about it.
December 4, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
As she publicly denies being a lesbian, Napolitano doesn't count when discussing potential cabinet members who are openly gay.
December 4, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a big difference between someone from a distrusted-by-some minority being appointed to a cabinet post and their being placed on a national ticket as Pres or VP. Frances Perkins was on FDR's cabinet, decades before Geraldine Ferraro was on the Dem. ticket. How many blacks have been Cabinet members before Obama became a Presidential candidate? That's just facts. The majority of voters are 'behind' leaders in these things ... as should be the case, when you think of it. That's why the leaders get to be called leaders.
December 4, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Sexual activity"? Being gay is not about "activity." Being gay is about orientation. You choose your activity; you don't choose your orientation.
December 5, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
the problem with your comment is that you appear to be ignoring the large and growing body of evidence that homosexuality is not a "choice", and so there is a need for society's leaders to educate the populace that homosexuals should not be shunned or forced to hide who they are. appointing this qualified individual to a highly visible cabinet position, and daring the dinosaurs of the Senate to try and oppose it, seems like a good move.
December 5, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
How am I ignorning that when that's EXACTLY what I just said??? Geez! Can't you people even read?
This is the third time in this thread I've been accused of saying the exact opposite of what I said.
I objected to the clowns who equate gay with "sexual activity" and said it's not "activity" that makes one gay, it's Orientation which is NOT a choice!
December 5, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
That "growing body of evidence" consists of:
1. Constant POLITICAL assertion -- against the "it's a choice" crowd -- that it isn't a "choice".
2. Occasional invocation -- by those who know of it -- of the ONE "scientific" "study" which "proves" that homosexuality is "genetic" -- which "discovery" was made by a "gay" "scientist," and which has not been replicated.
December 7, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops - wrong spot in the thread. i am agreeing with freerider that homosexuality is not a behavioral "choice", and strongly disagreeing with whiterosetroll.
December 5, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, thanks! I was about to explode because I've been linked with that whiterosebud doofus with whom I vehemently disagree.
I've been called a homophobic troll simply because I say I don't think it takes much courage to nominate an openly gay person to a cabinet post because (I believe) most people have no objection to gays being employed even at the highest level--even if those same people oppose gay marriage and gay adoption.
December 5, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brumbly, if you think there is a growing body of evidence that supposrts your completely nonsensical assertion that sexual activity is not a choice please provide the citation.
Before you do let's be clear. There is no genetic evidence that ANY behaviors have a gene. So wheteher it is choosing who your sexual partner is or laughing or drinking or eating or screwing. It is all a choice.
December 5, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
And discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation -- against "gays," etc. -- is illegal -- EXCEPT when "gays" do it.
December 7, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Sexual activity"? Being gay is not about "activity."
_____
I see. Being "gay" isn't about having sex. Nope. Never happen. It's all about the "actuvity" of celibacy.
_____
Being gay is about orientation.
_____
Being "gay" is also about discriminating on the baiss of sexual orientation -- even while it is ILLEGAL for NON-"gays" to discriminate on that basis.
_____
You choose your activity; you don't choose your orientation.
_____
Let's look at the whole "fact":
one doesn't "choose" to be "gay"; but as a "gay," one does "choose" to have "gay" sex.
And to make a public issue about that private activity -- as if it were usual for everyone to make a public issue/spectacle of their private behaviors/activities.
I think I'll start a movement "outing" all the closet heterosexuals I know . . .
December 7, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right: it would be great if the "gay" "community" wouldn't protest against discrimination based upon sexuial orientation -- while at the exact same time discriminating precisely on those grounds, its first, and seemingly only, public concern being who is "gay" and who isn't.
But perhaps that's the twisted notion of "Qualifications" to which we've descended in the fight "against" discrimination: who is, and who isn't, "gay".
December 7, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
But surely you would admit that, all other qualifications being equal, it might be desirable to elevate an openly gay person to a prominent position in the interests of promoting tolerance as a liberal ideal.
December 4, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. I don't think we should elevate prostitutes or whores either in the interest of liberal progressiveness. Sexual activity is not a criteria for 'special' consideration. It is simply unacceptable as a basis to promote someone for hiring or firing.
December 4, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 4, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry but that is false. If you believe it please provide some evidence or data to support your assertion.
December 5, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
So your comparing prostitution to being gay? Of course, if you start from the silly premise that gay = sexual activity, you're bound to reach silly conclusions.
Being gay as a political issue turns on the composition of the family, not sexual activity per se. The argument for gay marriage or federally recognized civil unions doesn't turn on sexual activity, but the right of consenting adults in committed, long term, monogamous relationships to enjoy the civil benefits that other such couples.
The logic of your argument is simplistic, and it's "logic" - a very generous term in this case - leads to bigoted, intolerant conclusions.
December 4, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I am not comparing prostitution to being 'gay'. The simplistic 'silly' logic you should be able to follow is that prostitution is a 'special' sex activity. Do you need it broken down to the basics to understand that?
Being gay as a political issue turns on the single solitary fact that same gender sex is nothing other than being special based on who you have sex with and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of family/marriage since no two same sex partners can reproduce and create a family.
Federally recognized civil unions are not being advocated for as the thread topic here. If they were your posture would have even less merit. As being a consenting adult has absolutely nothing to do with civil unions whatsoever.
The civil benefits that are provided by the institution of marriage are given as a incentive for individuals because the state recognize that entering into the state of marriage meant that the individual was relinquishing their constitutional right of 'pursuit of happiness/libery' ergo an inducive was provided in the interest of the STATE to promote marriage.
Same gender advocacy for marriage is based on the individuals have pursuing their own sexual pleasures without regard to the state's or societies interest. Same gender partners seek benefits for themselves and their sole interest which are benefiting society or the state.
The logic of your argument is narcissitic and blinds you to the very reasonable assertion that sexual conduct is not and should not be a reason to grant civil rights nor a reason to advocate for an individual to get a position.
Tolerance in this society has been and should remain about the individual right to civil liberties not the sexual conduct or any behavior by an individual granting them special rights or privileges on the basis of that activity.
Rights based on conduct is the wrong conclusion for any individual to draw. You have no right to a job based on being sober, loud, silly or engaging in same gender sex.
Civil liberties are about inherent rights as an individual human being not inherent rights based on specific conduct.
IOW, you do not have to behave a certain way for those rights to be granted.
America is headed down the wrong path when groups of people can claim they warrant rights based on their belonging to a 'group' that engages in the same conduct.
Race nor gender is a conduct. Sex is.
Nothing bigotted or intolerant about understanding that clear distinction when it comes to civil rights.
December 5, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reproductive faculties are by no means the basis of marriage, otherwise postmenopausal women would be barred, as would barren women and impotent men, among many other cases.
What you're revealing isn't knowledge, but the depth of your bigotry in that you see gay people as defective as less than whole citizens. I do believe that your worldview - thankfully - is passing.
I'm curious if freerider agrees with your point of view. Somehow, I seriously doubt it.
December 5, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I asserted that the concept of family/marriage is not fundamental to same gender partners as they cannot reproduce. I did not say that you have to reproduce in order to be married. The distinction is that marriage represents a model that CAN reproduce.
Your other hate jargon is completely unimpressive. I am not asserting that any individuals are defective. Their is nothing defective about same gender partners not being able to reproduce. Point of fact, it is completely normal for same gender sex partners to be unable to reproduce.
It is also completely normal for society to have an inherent interest in reproducing itself and providing the best model of such to raise human beings to fulfill their maximum potential.
Same gender sex partners do not provide that model.
December 5, 2008 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The interests of society being served by reproduction seems quaint relic of 16th century political thought in the face of a planet occupied by 5+ billion people.
December 5, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
And civil rights are won by political battles, not essential characteristics, which are themselves socially constructed.
December 5, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I need you to provide an example of a political battle based on human conduct that history supports granting civil rights.
You are advocating for something on the basis of conduct. There are no consitutional rights granted on the basis of conduct. In fact, the law can and does discriminate against specific conduct.
The law does not discriminate against an individuals constitutional right.
So, how about you come up with some examples of legal rights based on individual conduct.
December 5, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
The rights that heterosexual couples enjoy, like the exemption from testifying in a court of law against a spouse, represents one such example, bigot.
December 5, 2008 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ion, your narcissim is clouding your ability to respond. Heterosexuals do not have any rights in this society. Individuals have rights in this society. Individuals must relinquish those rights to enter into the state of marriage. The state provides incentive for this as the marriage represents the model for a family unit to raise children to their maximum human potential, whether they reproduce or not.
The constitution does not grant any individual the right to marry. The state licenses individual to marry who meet the societal need for order and raising of human beings to their full potential without the state carrying the financial burden or social costs of children raised without mothers or fathers in the home. That is in the states best interest. Not the individuals interest, moron.
December 5, 2008 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your position is so self-evidently tortured and illogical in its hackneyed pretensions to libertarianism that I'll have to be content in that it stands by itself as its own best refutation.
December 5, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ion, just admit you have no argument or factual basis of refutation such that your rebuttal represents you being lost in the labyrinth of your own mind.
December 5, 2008 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
After reading the exchange above, I have to agree with Ion. FYI, I am a heterosexual male with no ax to grind on this issue. Whiterosebuddy, your blatant bias is obvious, no matter how you try to mask it. Two items of evidence:
- Your equation of gays with prostitutes
- The following statement you made
"It is also completely normal for society to have an inherent interest in reproducing itself and providing the best model of such to raise human beings to fulfill their maximum potential. Same gender sex partners do not provide that model."
December 5, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Putty, do you have any facts to support your opinion. Or are you laboring under the mistaken view that because more than one person believes something that makes it valid and factual vs. a factless opinion shared by many?
You seem to want to assert that my view is bias yet you have no evidence to support your own views, other than an opinion. It sounds like you disagree with my statements and that equates to bias to you. My having a different viewpoint makes me no more biased than your holding an opposing view. In short, you are biased yourself.
For someone reason you think that I equated gays to prostitutes like Ion. I did no such thing. I said that being gay is nothing but a sexual activity which warrants no more distinction than prostitution or any other sexual activity. Maybe if I said celibacy it would make you feel better or promiscuity, you might get it. The point is that it is all about sexual activity.
Do you have any evidence that rebuts this assertion:
"It is also completely normal for society to have an inherent interest in reproducing itself and providing the best model of such to raise human beings to fulfill their maximum potential. Same gender sex partners do not provide that model.
Or do you simply disagree ergo, I am biased and you aren't?.
What rubbish!
December 5, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck off, you bigoted cretin. I see you've swallowed whole the specious reasoning that most psychosexually infantile bigots of your ilk typically spew. This bullshit about "activity" and "conduct" suggests you lack the insight to realize that sexual orientation is a fundamental trait. But why type? I'm sure you're untrainable.
December 5, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you think it is a 'fundamental trait' Cite the fundamental facts that prove such. Otherwise back up and suck up the rhetoric you spew like a rabid canine. Your post is completely stupid.
December 5, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rabid canine? Fundamental facts? How little do you know about human psychology? Fuck off.
December 9, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Bonior mounts aggressive behind-the-scenes effort to get openly gay union activist
I don't know about the rest of you, but I chuckled when I read that
December 4, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg has been on quite the roll today.
LOL
December 4, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This would be so damn cool.
December 4, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maxwell has been an aggressive advocate of the Employee Free Choice Act, and that is certainly a good thing. I cannot say that I know much else about her, but David Bonior's labor credentials are trustworthy, so I guess that if David Bonior recommends her, she is probably a good candidate for the job.
December 4, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be awesome.
December 4, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her biography suggests she really is a worker-rights stalwart.
My. That's just like Elaine Chao, isn't it?
December 4, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, the AFL-CIO isn't a union. It's a federation of unions. SEIU is a union. Individual unions like SEIU make up federations, like the AFL-CIO. SEIU is part of a different federation, Change to Win.
I think you know all this. It's just reads sloppy.
December 4, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be nice to see Bonior in somewhere. Don't know this other person.
December 4, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully Obama proves willing to take the political heat that will come with elevating an openly LBGT person to a cabinet level position.
After all, a shallow understanding of Clinton's first term mistakes could lead Obama to conclude that standing up for gay people, however well qualified, is not worth the necessary expenditure of political capital involved.
December 4, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
As with most issues facing his upcoming administration, I can't imagine Obama having a "shallow understanding" of any of this.
December 4, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The kool-aid tinged flavor of your reply notwithstanding, I shouldn't have predicated Obama's decision on the "shallowness" of his understanding.
Rather, it will take real courage to challenge the CW that "gays in military = mistake" paradigm so prevalent in the MSM. Seeing as a leading candidate for the position is openly lobbying for an eminently qualified woman whose positions on labor issues accord with the needs of the constituency the position was created to serve, we'll see if Obama has the courage to appoint her.
December 4, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Courage. Oh, please. Obama's deputy campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand, is openly gay and has a life partner.
Openly gay Tammy Baldwin was a big Obama supporter and the first openly gay congressman was just elected. He's from Colorado.
It doesn't take courage for a progressive Democrat to nominate a gay person in 2008, just like it didn't in 1994. Appointing a gay person to the cabinet or other high level position isn't nearly as touchy as gays in the military or gay marriage (although those issues shouldn't be touchy either, but they are.)
If she's the best person and the person Obama wants, he should appoint her. If she's not, the fact that she's gay shouldn't matter a bit.
December 4, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You underestimate the implications of advice and consent. Submitting an openly gay person for Senate approval represents an act of courage and should be seen as such if Obama indeed nominates Maxwell.
December 4, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. It should be seen as nominating a stellar person for the job. If Maxwell fits that criteria, I can't see anyone rising up to oppose her--at least not enough to get a filibuster. But if she's not up to it and her appointment is seen as tokenism, it would be a disaster.
I'm not saying she's not qualified; I'm only saying that her qualifications (not her orientation) should be the criteria.
Looks like you're laying the foundation for saying that if Obama doesn't nominate her, it's because he doesn't have the guts to nominate a gay person. When it's likely that if she doesn't get the job, it's because he simply wants someone else.
December 4, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't it be both an act of courage, if the nominee is gay and likely to encounter a significant backlash in the confirmation process, and a choice of the best personnel?
The either/or logic you deploy masks political reality under the veneer of idealism to serve ends that aren't readily intelligible.
December 4, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because I don't believe there will be a backlash for nominating her, that's why.
December 5, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough; I disagree. As evidence, I submit the use of anti-gay state referenda by the GOP in 2004 as a (quite effective) tool to mobilize voters.
Indeed, as long as gay rights has existed as a movement, people have tried to vilify gay people and organizations for political gain. Maxwell, should she be nominated, won't be an exception.
December 5, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, you're talking apples and I'm talking oranges. Getting a person through senate confirmation is quite different from getting the population as a whole to vote on something so inflammatory like gay marriage, etc.
I can probably name on one hand the US Senators who are caveman enough to oppose a good appointee based on his/her sexual orientation. Most, including the Republicans, are simply unwilling to gay bash like that. They might oppose gay marriage or gays in the military because they can say it has a societal effect.
But they would catch hell for saying a president doesn't have the right to the best advise and council simply because his person of choie is gay. That would be seen as outright discrimination and most folks wouldn't stand for that.
December 5, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
We'll have to agree to disagree on the political valence of a potential openly gay cabinet member.
What makes you think avowed popularly elected socially conservative members of congress (even if they aren't cavemen, as you contend) won't react to the inevitable drumbeat from the wingnut echo-chamber in the name of the constituents who elected them?
December 5, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because even the wingnuts believe that gays should not be discriminated against in the workplace, etc. Several polls have documented this.
When openly gay people are elected to Congress by large margins, it demonstrates that most people don't object to gays being a part of society. I think you're stuck in the 70's.
December 5, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kindly explain why Clinton's failure to integrate the military didn't result in a popular backlash against the joint chiefs. And while you're at it, explain the fact that not one single anti-gay referendum has been defeated.
Just because people in Barney Frank's district support him doesn't mean the nation as a whole is tolerant of gays.
December 5, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ion, gays in the military was in 1993!!! 16 fucking years ago. And I just stated that there's a difference between how people perceive "institutional" changes like gays in the military and gay marriage v. individual discrimination.
I know tons of people who are opposed to gay marriage and gay adoption because that's viewed as societal changes. They view that as an encroachment on "traditional" values. But I don't know one person who thinks gays should not be hired or should be discriminated against for housing, etc. Do you? That's the difference.
December 5, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pauline Kael didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon, so what's your point?
December 5, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
See my post below. This is getting too thin.
December 5, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent discourse Free Rider. I concur wholeheartedly.
December 5, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
This dialogue is prima facie evidence of the types of obstacles that gays face if those who would be sympathetic to gay causes are so ignorant of the obstacles gay people face in public and private life.
December 5, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Last time I checked it's 2008 and still no gays in the military....
December 5, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are thousands of gays in the military.
December 5, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not openly, and as you may or may not be aware, since "don't ask, don't tell," the number of dishonorable discharges for sexuality has increased exponentially.
December 5, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ion, our society has the right, by law, to discriminate against any conduct. The law does not discriminate against individuals who are gay being in the military. The military discriminates against lewd and drunken behavior as well. You are mixing apples and oranges. It is not at all conducive to military morale/structure/deployment for same gender sex. Opposite gender sexual conduct is not condoned either.
December 5, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
One need not act on their sexual desires in order to be expelled, so the issue of conduct, and hence your "argument," has no force.
December 5, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
So are you saying they simply tell everyone they are gay? I suppose there would be a lot of folks claiming to be gay in order to be discharged whether they are not.
December 5, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
In which case that would be happening now...
December 5, 2008 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the record, we soundly defeated an ballot proposal to change the constitution "to protect marriage" in Idaho a few years back. It wasn't even close.
December 5, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mary Beth Maxwell and Barack Obama share the same progress activism background. She would be a perfect fit in an Obama administration.
December 4, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for adding a link to her bio. It's kind of a bummer being a homosexual is the "achievement" people are talking about(bummer it's the focus, not bummer she's a homosexual).
We should be happy to see the very best in every post, regardless of any other factor. She seems pretty damn good - so why not focus on that? I love that she's new to the government side of things!
The only thing that worries me is her association with NARL - that seems like Bush appointing someone who ran Focus on the Family. If the objective is to foster bipartisan negotiations, what message does it send? Especially if Obama really does sign a "Free Choice Act". It seems like it could interject the abortion culture wars right into labor policy - would the GOP use her ties as a justification to be obstructionist? It might give them political cover with a base who otherwise would be inclined to press for a more pro-labor policy. I sort of expect republicans to be grasping at straws, so I wonder if it's smart to give them any.
December 4, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
@kgb999:
Huh???
"It might give them political cover with a base who otherwise would be inclined to press for a more pro-labor policy"
What part of the Republican "base" do you imagine is going to be even remotely interested in ANY "pro-labor" policy? Of any sort? The principal GOP constituencies are economic royalists, small-business-owner types and "social conservatives" (i.e. theocrats): the first two view unions pretty much with the early-19th-Century definition (criminal conspiracies), the third either thinks the same, or doesn't care. Or cares more for the enjoyment of the prospect of being able to vent righteous outrage at having a "pro-abortion lesbian" in the Cabinet.
Republican will busy themselves in the next Congress being obstructionist as a matter of policy: they won't need any "straws"!
December 4, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was the only negative that popped out at me in the 30 seconds between when I read her bio and posted. It was just a thought ... probably not even a good one, but it went like this:
I'm new to the area, but I sort of consider the people up here in Idaho to be part of the republican base. Everyone up here isn't a racist knuckle-dragging moron; most are better described as easily duped or simple. Remember, the West isn't the South.
In doing a little legwork to gin up support for Minnick, I found people were pretty hip to see the increase in minimum wage(and credit democrats). They also generally hate the "right-to-work" laws that keep our wages much lower than over in WA. Labor issues could be the democrat's strongest suit here - that's what I focused on with great success.
The state GOP establishment is a mess, and they just lost a congressional seat to a democrat (which was so unthinkable that TPM only mentioned the race once the entire election). And Idaho isn't alone. I don't think most democrats understand the barrel the GOP is over if they play their cards right.
Sali voted against the minimum wage increase, against forestry payments and supported several other anti-worker positions. He's gone now. Simply put, the GOP can't just keep voting against their citizen's interest in "safe seats" unless the democrats give them a bogyman. Enter the NARL-loving labor secretary who wants to bring unionized abortion clinics to Idaho mines.
I was thinking maybe spend the next 12 months putting nails in the GOP's coffin instead picking fights over social hot-buttons. Again, don't know if it's a good thought - but it's a thought.
December 5, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "achievement" wouldn't be "her's," but, rather ours in terms of what it represents to US society.
How ironic that many who would correctly point to the historic nature of Obama's election to the presidency can't seem to wrap their heads around the very open and aggressive discrimination that people face because of the people that they can't help loving.
December 4, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think voting for Obama because he is black would be wrong - if he weren't the most qualified. If a person is being considered for a post that calls for the most qualified person in the nation, maybe you do that person a disservice to emphasize their sexuality (or race) instead of their qualifications.
To do otherwise indicates that sexual orientation (or race) is a valid metric by which to make an appointment. I feel it isn't - period.
December 4, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Sexual conduct is not a basis for job consideration.
December 5, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's election was historic because he is black but that's not why he was elected. He was the best candidate. Al Sharpton's or Jesse Jackson's election would have also been because historic because they're black but we should not have elected them to make history since they were utterly unqualified!
I don't have to wrap my head around appointing a gay person to a position if, IF said gay person is not qualified or a good fit for that position. And you advocating that her sexual orientation should be the primary consideration is truly troubling.
December 4, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where did I say primary consideration? Indeed, if you look over my posts, I said "all other things being equal."
Again, I too voted for Obama - primary included - because I believed him to be the best candidate for the job. Nevertheless, that doesn't preclude me from appreciating the historical import of his victory and what it represents. I would say much the same of an openly gay cabinet member.
December 4, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Ion, you are saying much of the same. Obama did not run to be President because he was black or representing blacks. He did not advocate or pander for votes on the basis of race.
You however are pandering for an individual to get a job on the basis of their sexual conduct. Your posts assert that her 'open conduct' is a valid reason for her to get the job.
We are simply saying that it is her experience and expertise not her sexual conduct that should be promoted as the reason for her to get the position.
Obama is President of ALL Americans not just blacks or whites or hispanics or asians or democrats or republicans.
Max should not have to represent any group based on her conduct either if she were to be selected for a post.
December 5, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, again, I said, everything else being equal, having an openly gay cabinet member represents progress. That's very different from the "pandering" of which you accuse me of advocating.
And, once again and finally as explaining the same simple ideas is getting boring, it's possible to be proud that Obama, as the best qualified candidate, won while, at once, appreciating what his victory represents as an historical phenomenon. The mutual exclusivity of these issues upon which you insist seems rather dull.
All the best to you, over and out.
December 5, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is pandering. Doing anything openly as a basis for advocacy is pandering. Obama could make race the basis for all decisions if we use your logic. Because that would make it 'openly racial'
December 5, 2008 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Free Rider it is very troubling.
December 5, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I must say pressurizing is never a good sign.
I don't know much about either person, but I hope sexual orientation doesn't influence the decision either way.
December 4, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what "pressurizing" means (is it in any way related to the "keep your tires inflated" brouhaha?), but if you think that organized movements don't attempt to influence political outcomes, you're hopelessly naive.
December 4, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just looking back at all the push for Hillary for VP or Kerry for SoS, now I'm sure Daschle is pissing off the transition team by making his case more visible. Obama doesn't seem to comply under pressure.
I appreciate your effort to make me less naive. Good try.
December 4, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you see, looking at issues from the FISA cave, to the retention of Gates, to the Rubinite economic team, Obama indeed does respond to pressure.
So, following your logic, would it be better if movements that desire certain policies not pressure Obama?
December 4, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean no offense, but that makes absolutely no sense. When and where did Obama's cabinet picks ever come as a result of "pressure"? I've heard a many number of things concerning why he made the picks he did, but "pressure"? I wish I could be less blunt, but that theory seems like a delusional leftist excuse rather than an actual insight into the how and why.
December 4, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you not think that the telecom industry exerted pressure on Obama to change his stance on FISA? Why did he speak against immunity only to change his position?
The same can be said of Obama's position on repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Does anyone here seriously believe the supply-side argument that funding jobs programs and middle class tax relief at the expense of the super-rich in any way hinders our ability to emerge from this recession? Why has Obama hedged on the economic commitments upon which he so forcefully campaigned if not pressure from those who oppose such an agenda? Again, the same can be said for the windfall oil profits tax.
While I lack the firsthand knowledge to draw direct lines from cause to effect in cabinet appointments, do you not think the MSM's fawning coverage of Obama's cabinet appointments relates to the gratification of real interests and concerns.
How is Timothy Geithner "change"? Obama correctly pointed out during the primary that Clinton wasn't nearly as influential in changing the US political paradigm as Reagan. Yet Obama appoints nothing but Clintonites and expects us to believe that the "vision for change comes from [him]." What is such logic if not that of a cult of personality? In a very real way, especially when dealing with complex bureaucracies that oversee scores of policy decisions, thousands of employees, and billions of dollars, personnel = policy.
Perhaps you can offer more insight than my "delusional left[ism]" into the "how and why" of Obama's decision making, but I challenge you to do so without painting the president in waiting a cynical hypocrite who resorted to demagoguery in order to win votes.
December 4, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The pressure on FISA came from the left and Obama basically flipped us the bird. There was not an ounce of pressure on Obama from the right to flip on FISA. In fact, they wanted him to oppose it to use it against him in the general. And Telcom industry didn't need to pressure Obama because the bill passed OVERWHELMINGLY. He did what he thought was best for his campaign.
Why is he letting the Bush tax cuts expire instead of repealing them? Duhhhh. Because every economist (including the liberal ones) say you should not raise taxes in a recession. Obama made that pledge a year ago when we weren't in this economic shit hole.
Windfall profits? Hello. Gas is 65% cheaper than it was when he proposed that. There won't be any windfall profits.
As to appointing Clintonites, who else should he appoint? If he wants to appoint Democrats with experience should he get people from the Johnson adminstration or the Carter administration?
And name ONE economic policy Obama has backed away from since the election.
You talk kool-aide but you've obviously been sipping the "where's the change" kool aid from the right wing.
I guess if he really wanted to prove he was change, he would ditch the WH and move into the Hyatt. Or he would fill his cabinet with Libertarians instead of Democrats because so many of them worked for Clinton!
December 5, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
That you say "they wanted him to oppose it [etc.]" constitutes the pressure I'm talking about: the pressure of power as capacity to impact decision making.
As for your other points, not every economist - see Nobel laureate Paul Krugman for one prominent example among many - agrees that repealing the Bush tax cuts equals a tax increase; gas prices will increase as the economy improves; Paul Krugman is another argument for someone with experience who lacks ties to the Clinton administration; your comments about the Hyatt and Kool-Aid are silly.
Where did I say that Clintonites are categorically evil? It's as though criticizing Barack for his very meager gestures to movement liberals amounts to heresy. Sheesh.
December 5, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I said the Right wanted him to oppose FISA, just like the left wanted him to oppose FISA (for different reasons) but he supported it despite the pressure.
I didn't say there wasn't pressure; I'm saying he didn't bend to it. Just like he didn't bend to pressure to make Hillary veep and he didn't bend to the pressure to not make her SOS. And he chose Gates despite the anger from the left.
Tell me. Which would you rather have: a change in faces or names you've never heard of or a change in policies? Obama could appoint folks from the freaking Jefferson administration.
As long as he brings the troops home, addresses climate change, closes Gitmo, stops torture, gets a sane energy policy and reforms healthcare. If these *meager* things are addressed, then he can appoint a cabinet full of shit-chucking apes for all I care!
If he backs away from these issues, then I'll be all over his skinny ass like a pit bull on a poodle. Call me a silly kool-aid driker.
December 5, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ion pandering for civil rights on the basis of sexual conduct is the ultimate deranged ego narcissitic cult personality,
December 5, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
To equate committed gay relationships with sexual conduct is commit the same logical fallacy as to draw the same equivalence with committed heterosexual relationships.
It's time to dispense with appeals to reason and call you the unabashed homophobe you are.
December 5, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ion, committed relationships are not the legal basis for marriage. Your name calling is indicative of limited ability to discuss the topic rationally. The use of inflammatory words and terms serves no purpose. Either you have a logical rebuttal or you don't. Please don't stoop to grade school name calling and taunting. Focus on responding cogently instead.
December 5, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot to include the connection between Rahm Emmanuel as chief of staff and the resignation of Howard Dean (and concomitant firing of over 200 state level organizers hired by the DNC under his watch) a mere few weeks after it was announced he would be retained as DNC chief.
But, yeah, sure, Obama's impervious to pressure. All sniping aside, the sociologist Steven Lukes wrote a book that has helped to clarify my understanding of the issues we've been discussing: check it out.
December 4, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard Dean made it clear that he would not serve another term at the DNC way before Rahm was chosen as chief of staff. Check the news accounts. Back during the summer, he said he'd be moving on.
December 5, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
But Dean stayed on, didn't he?
Nevertheless, maybe your right about Dean - now explain the firing of locally cultivated, experienced, state-level organizers?
December 5, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
What on earth are you talking about? Dean's term ends January, 2009. He said back in the summer that he would not serve another term because he wanted to work on national policy issues. I don't know what you mean about stayed on.
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that state-level organizers left. And I try to comment on things with which I'm not familiar for fear of talking out of my ass. But I doubt anyone has been forced to leave. Obama has been very happy with the 50-state strategy and the way Dean organized the state parties. After 2006, even Rahm came around to Dean's way.
December 5, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
State level organizers didn't leave, they were fired.
December 5, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. You didn't follow my logic.
I don't think any of his nominations, thus far, were made under pressure. I don't agree with all his appointments, but I don't believe he made any under pressure. Atleast not under visible or public pressure. I just think his appointments allign with his politcal approach, whether we like it or not.
December 4, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I follow your logic but submit that no political context can exist without pressure, so your position is a sophistry.
What's more, I find the implications of your statements - "at least not under visible or public pressure" - insidious.
December 4, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're sufferring with buyer's remorse. The picture you see turned out to be different from the one in your head. I'm sorry for you.
I don't have the same cognitive dissonance- much of what I see doesn't surprise me. So, for starters, may be you should stop suggesting sophistry or naivete.
If you expect a reasonable discussion you should avoid condescending bullshit.
I don't have the luxury of an inside view and that's why I said no visible or public pressure.
I have news for you. You will find yourself pissed quite a bit for the next four years. Compromises and back tracks will be inevitable in governance.
December 4, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't feel sorry for me - not in the least because pity is utterly useless in any circumstance.
I knew Obama to be a mealy mouthed neoliberal all along and saw him - like Kerry, Clinton, Dukakis, etc., etc., - as the lesser of two evils (a very good reason to support a candidate, imo).
What I don't understand is why people merely accept backtracking as inevitable (which it surely is) while resenting those who would point it out (a necessity for real change), holding us to our "higher angels," as it were.
I have no cognitive dissonance, merely negative capability, and, since this little chat is going too far in the direction of the ad hominem for my taste, I bid you adieu.
December 4, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This little chat is going too far in the direction of the ad hominem for my taste, I bid you adieu.
I'm glad we finally agree.
December 5, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you feel Obama is just the lesser of two evils, why did you support him in the primary when there were lots of people to choose from?
December 5, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because I thought he represented the best chance to win and the alternatives, given our experience since Reagan, are far too terrifying.
December 5, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You thought a "mealy-mouth neoliberal" offered the best chance to win? Now that's delusional!
December 5, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean, he won didn't he?
December 5, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. He won. Precisely because he's NOT a mealy-mouth neoliberal. You see, I understood that. That's why I supported him from the beginning. You supported him and don't have a clue about who he is or what he stands for.
December 5, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know what a neo-liberal is? If so, kindly define.
December 5, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
....
December 5, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
....still waiting.....
December 5, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she's the best person for the job, she's the best person for the job.
It worries me a little that she has no previous experience inside the DOL bureaucracy nor time in one of the major unions. But she has forcefully advocated the Employee Free Choice Act, and I don't doubt her commitment to supporting collective bargaining. As with Obama's other choices, I'm willing to believe that the homework has been done by his selection committee until she acts to prove the contrary.
It may be inspiring to openly gay Americans everywhere to have a Cabinet secretary who is openly gay. But "a fresh new face" and "new generation" is no more substantial a description of what we can expect from the new Administration than it was to hear "faith-based initiatives" and "compassionate conservatism" with regard to this past one. Fixating on who she is at home, to the total exclusion of what change she's advocating as a potential Secretary of Labor, is an old-media problem that we should be able to overcome here.
December 4, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ion, Answer my question. Do you know anyone who thinks gays shouldn't be hired? Yes or no. I take it that you don't.
You obviously see my point that the very same people who oppose gay marriage, etc feel very differently about issues of discrimination. Opposing this woman would be seen as discrimination against an individual. The vast majority of people think it's wrong.
December 5, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand your opposition of "societal" to "discrimination," especially considering the inability to pass, despite much effort by gay political organizations, laws outlawing anti-gay discrimination in the workplace.
While I don't know anyone personally who opposes hiring people merely because of their sexuality, that's not a valid criterion for social analysis. I can name - and I'm sure you can too - plenty of very powerful people who oppose allowing openly gay people to occupy positions of power. And these people - again I cite numerous referenda, etc., etc., - are eminently capable of mobilizing public opinion behind their cause.
December 5, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Free Rider, you are absolutely right. Americans do not oppose individuals having the right to be hired and fired without regard to their race, gender or sexual conduct. Thus Ion's silence.
December 5, 2008 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry I didn't click on your profile earlier. I would've seen that you're not only homophobic, but an antisemite who posts here to infuriate people on the left whose politics you despise.
I'll never make the mistake of responding to you again.
December 5, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Ion,
Just plowed through this thread. Thanks for running rings around whiterosebuddy and his misogynist sidekick freerangechicken. Your arguments were flawless. Thank you.
December 5, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I plowed through it, too.
I may be mistaken, but I stronly suspect that FreeRider and whiterosebuddy are one and the same person commenting under 2 usernames.
December 5, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously didn't read my posts very well if you think that. Just to reiterate. I am a heterosexual who fully supports gay marriage, gay adoption, etc.
I disagree with this whiterosebuddy clown who calls being gay "sexual activity."
Now, tell me what did I post that was in any way homophobic? Ion stated that it would take courage for Obama to nominate an openly gay cabinet member. I disagreed because I don't think most people are opposed to that, even those who oppose gay marriage, etc.
My disagreement with Ion on this issue is at one point only: I don't think an openly-gay appointee would face much/any blowback and would be confirmed easily because even though many people oppose gay marriage, etc., those same people have no problem with gays in the workplace and are opposed to discrimination based on sexual orientation.
December 5, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Free Rider in that most people probably oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation (let's ignore whiterosebuddy's ignorant classification of "sexual activity").
However, I think that you're underestimating the very vocal and very active minority which does oppose such equality, and that there are representatives in Congress who think the same way. I'm sure she would be confirmed, because she's highly qualified and actually supports workers' rights, but there would definitely be some pushback--although the opposition will attempt to make it appear as though they oppose her on the merits.
December 5, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The House and the Senate are two entirely different bodies. The Senate is much more moderate because they have to run state wide. Other than clowns like Inhoffe from OK and possibly a couple of tards from AL & MS, I don't see who would have the cajones to raise a stink about Maxwell based on her sexual orientation.
Can you really imagine even the biggest ass raising her orientation at a senate confirmation hearing? "Miss Maxwell, I understand you sleep with women. Can you guarantee that as labor secretary, your degenerate behavior won't infect our pristine work places and corrupt hourly workers?" Puhleeze. Not gonna happen!
December 5, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
See what I just said above--if they oppose her, they'll couch their opposition in different terms. She would be bad for business, blah, blah, blah. But I think you'll find those Senators are also many of the ones who have opposed equal rights or gay marriage.
Bottom line, she would be confirmed, so I don't care what they or other ignorant bigots think.
December 5, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm also not sure if sexual orientation is a protected class under federal employment or civil rights laws. I know they're protected in some states, but not sure if the public support has actually translated into federal law. Another reason I doubt the Senate is as moderate or progressive on this issue as some would think, there must still be some resistance, but I still think she would be confirmed.
December 5, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
No gays aren't protected at the federal level, and the Matthew Shepard act - the gay equivalent of an anti-lynching law - didn't get signed into law.
December 5, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
But isn't attacking a person on the basis of them being a homosexual a Hate crime, already covered by the law?
December 5, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sexual orientation, like gender, is not covered under the federal hate crime law.
December 5, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obamaman,
It is really easy to ignore facts that can't be refuted to try to win an argument. Simply because you ignore the facts doesn't make your point of view valid, in fact it discredits it.
If you took the time to read the definition of homosexual you would know that it is a sexual act. Nothing more. In fact, individuals can committ, hetero/homo or bisexual acts. Because the terms refer to nothing except sexual activity, just like prostitution does. Now, if you are able to present a logic cogent argument as to how those terms mean anything other than a sexual activity individuals engage in..you might beging to make sense.
Until then, you perpetuate the ignorance of the uninformed who want to insist that homosexuality is something other than a sexual activity.
I do not think that Max would encounter opposition on the basis of her sexual preferences from the GOP given that the GOP has their own subset of republicans called LogCabin republicans. Point of fact, the majority of sexual indiscretions regarding homosexuality involve LogCabin republicans, like Foley and the MN foot tapper...sooo your reasoning does not hold up under partisan examination.
Opposing credentialed people on the basis of their sexual choices is sooo last MILLENIUM...doesn't stand a chance.
December 5, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just for the record, I never thought freerider to be a homophobe and understood our disagreement as he/she describes.
December 5, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry FreeRider - my suspicion was largely based on what appeared to be a tag team attack on Ion, which I now see was 2 separate discussions - I should have paid more attention to the timestamps. I did not say you were making the same arguments as whiterosebutthead. I said I may be mistaken, and I was - no personal offense meant. I really do apologize.
December 5, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Putty not only are you wrong. But I support civil unions, the right for gays to be free from discrimination when it comes to housing and unemployment. All the same rights that other individuals in this society have. What you and others of your ilk miss is that you have no basis to classify a group of people who bind together based on the gender of their sexual partners as anything other than a sexual activity.
While you may want to stammer, yell and stutter that it is an orientation, there is no evidence whatsoever that being a homosexual is anything but a sexual act. Even homosexuals who are honest admit, that there is no such thing as homosexuality ...only INDIVIUALS who commit homosexual acts.
Homosexuals only seem to understand that distinction when they want to refute that they engage in pedophilia. THEN they get it!!
Homosexual acts are sexual acts, it is a conduct a behavior it is not who individuals ARE. It is something INDIviduals DO.
So, until you can produce facts to the contrary I will consider you ignorant as to what exactly homosexuality is.
December 5, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Even homosexuals who are honest admit, that there is no such thing as homosexuality ...only INDIVIDUALS who commit homosexual acts."
Sure thing . . . go find me some gay people who would agree with this preposterous statement.
December 5, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a quote by Gore Vidal. Is that homosexual enough for you?
December 5, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you both very much. The combination of well-intentioned naivete and transparent bigotry left me in quite a state last night; now I feel a bit better.
December 5, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Niavte? Because I don't think an openly gay cabinet appointee is a big deal? In the same year when recently-red Colorado sent an openly gay man to Congress by a wide margin?
December 5, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which district did he win? Your asymmetrical comparisons don't support your contention.
December 5, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can look this up yourself if you're truly interested. I think you're invested in perpetuating some kind of victimhood.
Mind you, I know that there is homophobia and discrimination by some yahoos. But I believe that (for the majority) denying employment to qualified people based on their sexuality is so 1992. Most people work with and live in the neighborhood with gay people and readily accept their full participation in those venues.
Most people don't know any married gay people or gays with kids so they mistakenly believe they have something to fear or that this will somehow impact their lives.
When Dean signed civil unions into effect several years ago, it was a BIG deal. Now, civil union barely registers. I predict the same thing will happen to gay marriage in another decade after people realize that MA, CT and Canada didn't go up in flames for enacting it.
Have a good day.
December 5, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I criticized your use of evidence in the sense that 1) personal experience is not a valid criterion from which to generalize about society, and 2) likewise, congressional elections do not indicate policy preferences on the national level.
As for the "victimhood" thing - I do resent paying federal taxes on the insurance benefits I get from my partner of 7 years, but raising a reasonable complaint does not equal some sort of pathology arising from social identity.
That you stoop to such a crass ad hominem attack when I've presented empirical, falsifiable, publicly verifiable arguments to back up my positions demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of your contentions.
December 5, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and you still haven't shown that you know what neoliberalism is.
December 5, 2008 3:26 PM |