Friday, October 12, 2007
Sometimes the New York Times is So Conservative I Have to Shit in My Pants
Here is an article in its entirety.
Liberal Base Proves Trying to Democrats
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: October 12, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 — Of the three most recognizable Barneys in America, one is a singing purple dinosaur, another is a prehistoric cartoon character and the third is a gay congressman from Massachusetts.
Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat, is as closely tied to the issue of gay rights as Barney Rubble is to Fred Flintstone. But recently, Mr. Frank has been under siege by gay rights groups.
They are angry because Mr. Frank has removed specific language about “gender identity” from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that would protect gay men and lesbians in the workplace and that gay rights advocates say would now leave transsexuals and transgender individuals vulnerable.
There is almost no chance that President Bush would ever sign the bill. But the bitter tug of war between gay groups and one of their best friends on Capitol Hill is the latest example of how Democrats in Congress, since regaining majority control this year, have been torn between making compromises needed to pass legislation and satisfying the unrelenting demands of the party’s liberal base.
Mr. Frank, in an hourlong news conference on Thursday, defended himself and said he would press ahead with the bill knowing that by not including the transgender language he could attract enough votes to get it approved. But he also expressed frustration that the Democrats were hampering themselves.
“There is a tendency in American politics for the people who feel most passionately about an issue, particularly ones that focus on a single issue, to be unrealistic in what a democratic political system can deliver,” Mr. Frank said, “and that can be self-defeating.”
“This is a moment of truth for responsible liberals in the Democratic Party,” he added.
The tension between Democratic lawmakers and their base has been most visible on the Iraq war, where the insistence by some of the most outspoken antiwar groups on setting hard deadlines for the withdrawal of American troops has often handcuffed Senate Democrats trying to reach a bipartisan deal on legislation to change the war strategy.
To the delight of Republicans, it has also played a role in a host of other issues, including a fight over increased fuel economy standards in the energy bill, and demands for more spending on environmental programs in the farm bill.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi disappointed Democrats seeking major changes to the federal farm subsidy program — changes that Ms. Pelosi had supported in the past. Instead she adopted a more moderate approach that made some changes but left most of the subsidies intact and that she called “a good first step.”
On the energy bill, the Democrats struggled to navigate the demands of two powerful factions in their base: organized labor groups tied to the auto industry and environmental groups. Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, thwarted Ms. Pelosi’s efforts to increase fuel efficiency standards.
The liberal group MoveOn.org started a campaign that included radio advertising branding Mr. Dingell, who is 81, “Dingellsaurus” for opposing the energy standards that the group said would combat global warming.
Representative Adam H. Putnam of Florida, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said Democrats were struggling with tensions between the party’s liberal wing, which provided money and support for the 2006 elections, and the views of many freshmen Democrats who won office in moderate or conservative districts.
“The freshmen who actually won seats in districts that had voted for Bush, in conservative-moderate districts, having nothing in common with Code Pink or MoveOn,” Mr. Putnam said, referring to the antiwar groups.
“The base turns on them in every single case,” he added. “So at some point they have to stop falling into the trap of constantly playing to the base and try to solve problems.”
Democrats point to a series of legislative achievements this year, including an increase in the minimum wage, new lobbying and ethics rules, and an overhaul of student-aid programs, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi, Brendan Daly, said she was providing responsible leadership.
“One of the things she says is that an activist — that’s their role to be persistent and unsatisfied and try to push the envelope,” Mr. Daly said. “But when you are in a position of leading, in Congress, you have to be realistic at some point.”
Sometimes, though, the in-fighting can seem unreal, as with the recent fury directed by gay groups at Mr. Frank.
“Barney Frank is not gay enough?” asked Representative Thaddeus McCotter, Republican of Michigan, one of the most conservative members of the House .
Even Mr. Frank acknowledged the weirdness. “The likelihood that somebody is going to run against me in my district on the grounds that I have been insufficiently pro-gay is not very high on my list of concerns,” he said.
He has put gender identity protections in a separate bill that is not expected to be acted upon this year.
But many gay rights groups said they were truly angry and bewildered, especially because the compromise involves a bill unlikely to be signed by Mr. Bush. A coalition of some 280 groups sent Mr. Frank a letter urging him to include gender identity in the bill to be voted on soon. “What we are talking about is stripping out a part of our community for a symbolic vote, which in our opinion does not advance the struggle for civil rights for our people,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
“If the goal here is for the new majority to demonstrate that it is responding to a core constituency,” Mr. Foreman said, “passing a non-inclusive bill is not going to accomplish that.”
Some Republicans in the House have said they wished Mr. Frank had included the language on transgender and transsexual people because it would have made it easier for them to vote against the bill.
Mr. Frank, at his news conference, said that including gender identity would kill the bill while approving a compromise measure would be a momentous step. “It is an important sign to the rest of the country that we are making progress,” he said.
“On the other hand,” he continued, “an announcement that this new Democratic Congress led by a woman who has been as committed to full rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in every aspect of her career, that she had to kill a gay rights bill and couldn’t do anything at all would, I think, be the most negative message we could send.”
First, Barney Frank's bill. While admitting, right at the outset, that "there is almost no chance that President Bush would ever sign the bill," David Herszenhorn goes on for paragraph after paragraph torpedoing the alleged stupidity of the Democrats' 'liberal base.' Even though the bill itself, irrespective of the language or provisions it contains, is so wacky and far to the left--imagine, protection for gay people enshrined in the law of the land--that our arch-conservative president would, without a doubt, veto it, the writer goes out of his way to browbeat the stupid, angry activists who don't understand how Congress works. Imagine, the very audacity of pushing for unpopular civil rights legislation! Those stupid hippies, this isn't the United States of Dolores Park! Trannies are way, way too fucked up to be included in 'realistic' legislation. They're like, boys who wish they were girls! This is Congress we're talking about. They only deal with serious things.
I actually agree, tentatively, with the substance of Frank's objections. It seems hypocritical, if not dangerous, to live and work in New York, under city and state employment protections, and hold Mississippi homos hostage to a provision that would certainly damn the legislation. And you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But if Bush is going to veto the bill anyway, no matter what, it seems incumbent to pursue inclusive language. To do otherwise is tantamount to saying "America might be ready for lesbians in the workplace, but FTMs? No way." You don't compromise on purely symbolic votes. That's why symbols mean things. They're supposed to be bold and unambiguous.
However, it's the tone and form of this Times article that I find so horrendous. It originates from a loathsome, insider perspective that considers all citizen activism to be a gnat-like distraction from the business of the adults who live and work among all the pretty white pillars. It reminds me of the scene from "The Pelican Brief" where outside the court are protesters holding signs saying "Overturn Roe v. Wade" and "Ban the Bomb!" as if people who believed those things would be standing side-by-side ranting at The Government. The attitude that vocal critics who aren't columnists or lawmakers are all just one big amalgamated mass of irrational blowhards is totally baseless and condescending, more so because irrational blowhards are basically the only kind of people on TV and in government.
But wait, there's more. Who is this article really attacking? Homophobic Republican congressmen? No! The Democratic party's "unrelenting demands" of the party's liberal base are to blame. Who cares if Nancy Pelosi is a catastrophic disappointment and Harry Reid's goal of appearing strong to voters will remain rather elusive with his strategy of capitulating to Bush on every minor detail? Fuck those hippies, especially when they're gay hippies! Those chaotic, well-organized, mellow, touchy, type-A free spirits must be kept as far as possible from power.
Even more stupefyingly, the article quotes a Michigan Republican's thinly veiled sarcasm: "Barney Frank isn't gay enough?" This is incredibly revealing. It's the single most frustrating tactic in existence. Rather than call McCotter out on his bullshit, they're using his words to make the point that gay people should be satisfied they got one of their own in the door and whenever there's a disagreement, the responsible and serious adult is always right and the salivating hordes are always wrong. It doesn't matter if Barney Frank is kowtowing to a reality that doesn't actually exist, except in the talking points of That McCotter and his comrades. How gay do you gays want it? Too gay, Congress has concluded. Transgender people are, like, gayer than gay. Not going to happen. Some Republicans in the House have said they wished Mr. Frank had included the language on transgender and transsexual people because it would have made it easier for them to vote against the bill. You can almost taste the contempt. Activists are so stupid that they're playing right into the GOP's hands...by doing something the GOP never would.
The best course, naturally, is to govern to the right of George Bush. It's a surefire way to convince Americans that Democrats are serious and to repeat the stunning electoral coups they had 2002 and 2004. You know, after last year's stunning rout for the grassroots. Not that political reporters seem to care much about the governance of the nation. They just want to maintain their Versailles and will do anything to keep the hoi polloi out of it. Far more important than the passage of legislation is the need for the media-government alliance to crush the activists. The New York Times, a supposed paragon of liberalism, will even join rhetorical forces with a conservative Republican if necessary to make this point. It's the paramount concern of all parties.
The second most important thing is to parrot the innermost desires of GOP re-election strategists as gospel truth. The far left [sic] wants to cram its agenda down America's throat, every Democrat who won in 2006 is actually a conservative from Lubbock, the electoral map will be infrared in 2008, blah blah blah. That way, no matter how far to the right conservatives lurch, liberals have to leap towards them or else get hammered for being obstreporous and 'far left.' Compromise has to be the operative word in everything they do, since the purpose of National Review is to make Republicans principled and audacious (to put it kindly), the apparent reason for the Times's little quasi-editorials is to demand that the Democrats be quivering jellyfish, even on symbolic votes pertaining to social justice. Way to go, liberal media.
Liberal Base Proves Trying to Democrats
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: October 12, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 — Of the three most recognizable Barneys in America, one is a singing purple dinosaur, another is a prehistoric cartoon character and the third is a gay congressman from Massachusetts.
Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat, is as closely tied to the issue of gay rights as Barney Rubble is to Fred Flintstone. But recently, Mr. Frank has been under siege by gay rights groups.
They are angry because Mr. Frank has removed specific language about “gender identity” from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that would protect gay men and lesbians in the workplace and that gay rights advocates say would now leave transsexuals and transgender individuals vulnerable.
There is almost no chance that President Bush would ever sign the bill. But the bitter tug of war between gay groups and one of their best friends on Capitol Hill is the latest example of how Democrats in Congress, since regaining majority control this year, have been torn between making compromises needed to pass legislation and satisfying the unrelenting demands of the party’s liberal base.
Mr. Frank, in an hourlong news conference on Thursday, defended himself and said he would press ahead with the bill knowing that by not including the transgender language he could attract enough votes to get it approved. But he also expressed frustration that the Democrats were hampering themselves.
“There is a tendency in American politics for the people who feel most passionately about an issue, particularly ones that focus on a single issue, to be unrealistic in what a democratic political system can deliver,” Mr. Frank said, “and that can be self-defeating.”
“This is a moment of truth for responsible liberals in the Democratic Party,” he added.
The tension between Democratic lawmakers and their base has been most visible on the Iraq war, where the insistence by some of the most outspoken antiwar groups on setting hard deadlines for the withdrawal of American troops has often handcuffed Senate Democrats trying to reach a bipartisan deal on legislation to change the war strategy.
To the delight of Republicans, it has also played a role in a host of other issues, including a fight over increased fuel economy standards in the energy bill, and demands for more spending on environmental programs in the farm bill.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi disappointed Democrats seeking major changes to the federal farm subsidy program — changes that Ms. Pelosi had supported in the past. Instead she adopted a more moderate approach that made some changes but left most of the subsidies intact and that she called “a good first step.”
On the energy bill, the Democrats struggled to navigate the demands of two powerful factions in their base: organized labor groups tied to the auto industry and environmental groups. Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, thwarted Ms. Pelosi’s efforts to increase fuel efficiency standards.
The liberal group MoveOn.org started a campaign that included radio advertising branding Mr. Dingell, who is 81, “Dingellsaurus” for opposing the energy standards that the group said would combat global warming.
Representative Adam H. Putnam of Florida, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said Democrats were struggling with tensions between the party’s liberal wing, which provided money and support for the 2006 elections, and the views of many freshmen Democrats who won office in moderate or conservative districts.
“The freshmen who actually won seats in districts that had voted for Bush, in conservative-moderate districts, having nothing in common with Code Pink or MoveOn,” Mr. Putnam said, referring to the antiwar groups.
“The base turns on them in every single case,” he added. “So at some point they have to stop falling into the trap of constantly playing to the base and try to solve problems.”
Democrats point to a series of legislative achievements this year, including an increase in the minimum wage, new lobbying and ethics rules, and an overhaul of student-aid programs, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi, Brendan Daly, said she was providing responsible leadership.
“One of the things she says is that an activist — that’s their role to be persistent and unsatisfied and try to push the envelope,” Mr. Daly said. “But when you are in a position of leading, in Congress, you have to be realistic at some point.”
Sometimes, though, the in-fighting can seem unreal, as with the recent fury directed by gay groups at Mr. Frank.
“Barney Frank is not gay enough?” asked Representative Thaddeus McCotter, Republican of Michigan, one of the most conservative members of the House .
Even Mr. Frank acknowledged the weirdness. “The likelihood that somebody is going to run against me in my district on the grounds that I have been insufficiently pro-gay is not very high on my list of concerns,” he said.
He has put gender identity protections in a separate bill that is not expected to be acted upon this year.
But many gay rights groups said they were truly angry and bewildered, especially because the compromise involves a bill unlikely to be signed by Mr. Bush. A coalition of some 280 groups sent Mr. Frank a letter urging him to include gender identity in the bill to be voted on soon. “What we are talking about is stripping out a part of our community for a symbolic vote, which in our opinion does not advance the struggle for civil rights for our people,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
“If the goal here is for the new majority to demonstrate that it is responding to a core constituency,” Mr. Foreman said, “passing a non-inclusive bill is not going to accomplish that.”
Some Republicans in the House have said they wished Mr. Frank had included the language on transgender and transsexual people because it would have made it easier for them to vote against the bill.
Mr. Frank, at his news conference, said that including gender identity would kill the bill while approving a compromise measure would be a momentous step. “It is an important sign to the rest of the country that we are making progress,” he said.
“On the other hand,” he continued, “an announcement that this new Democratic Congress led by a woman who has been as committed to full rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in every aspect of her career, that she had to kill a gay rights bill and couldn’t do anything at all would, I think, be the most negative message we could send.”
First, Barney Frank's bill. While admitting, right at the outset, that "there is almost no chance that President Bush would ever sign the bill," David Herszenhorn goes on for paragraph after paragraph torpedoing the alleged stupidity of the Democrats' 'liberal base.' Even though the bill itself, irrespective of the language or provisions it contains, is so wacky and far to the left--imagine, protection for gay people enshrined in the law of the land--that our arch-conservative president would, without a doubt, veto it, the writer goes out of his way to browbeat the stupid, angry activists who don't understand how Congress works. Imagine, the very audacity of pushing for unpopular civil rights legislation! Those stupid hippies, this isn't the United States of Dolores Park! Trannies are way, way too fucked up to be included in 'realistic' legislation. They're like, boys who wish they were girls! This is Congress we're talking about. They only deal with serious things.
I actually agree, tentatively, with the substance of Frank's objections. It seems hypocritical, if not dangerous, to live and work in New York, under city and state employment protections, and hold Mississippi homos hostage to a provision that would certainly damn the legislation. And you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But if Bush is going to veto the bill anyway, no matter what, it seems incumbent to pursue inclusive language. To do otherwise is tantamount to saying "America might be ready for lesbians in the workplace, but FTMs? No way." You don't compromise on purely symbolic votes. That's why symbols mean things. They're supposed to be bold and unambiguous.
However, it's the tone and form of this Times article that I find so horrendous. It originates from a loathsome, insider perspective that considers all citizen activism to be a gnat-like distraction from the business of the adults who live and work among all the pretty white pillars. It reminds me of the scene from "The Pelican Brief" where outside the court are protesters holding signs saying "Overturn Roe v. Wade" and "Ban the Bomb!" as if people who believed those things would be standing side-by-side ranting at The Government. The attitude that vocal critics who aren't columnists or lawmakers are all just one big amalgamated mass of irrational blowhards is totally baseless and condescending, more so because irrational blowhards are basically the only kind of people on TV and in government.
But wait, there's more. Who is this article really attacking? Homophobic Republican congressmen? No! The Democratic party's "unrelenting demands" of the party's liberal base are to blame. Who cares if Nancy Pelosi is a catastrophic disappointment and Harry Reid's goal of appearing strong to voters will remain rather elusive with his strategy of capitulating to Bush on every minor detail? Fuck those hippies, especially when they're gay hippies! Those chaotic, well-organized, mellow, touchy, type-A free spirits must be kept as far as possible from power.
Even more stupefyingly, the article quotes a Michigan Republican's thinly veiled sarcasm: "Barney Frank isn't gay enough?" This is incredibly revealing. It's the single most frustrating tactic in existence. Rather than call McCotter out on his bullshit, they're using his words to make the point that gay people should be satisfied they got one of their own in the door and whenever there's a disagreement, the responsible and serious adult is always right and the salivating hordes are always wrong. It doesn't matter if Barney Frank is kowtowing to a reality that doesn't actually exist, except in the talking points of That McCotter and his comrades. How gay do you gays want it? Too gay, Congress has concluded. Transgender people are, like, gayer than gay. Not going to happen. Some Republicans in the House have said they wished Mr. Frank had included the language on transgender and transsexual people because it would have made it easier for them to vote against the bill. You can almost taste the contempt. Activists are so stupid that they're playing right into the GOP's hands...by doing something the GOP never would.
The best course, naturally, is to govern to the right of George Bush. It's a surefire way to convince Americans that Democrats are serious and to repeat the stunning electoral coups they had 2002 and 2004. You know, after last year's stunning rout for the grassroots. Not that political reporters seem to care much about the governance of the nation. They just want to maintain their Versailles and will do anything to keep the hoi polloi out of it. Far more important than the passage of legislation is the need for the media-government alliance to crush the activists. The New York Times, a supposed paragon of liberalism, will even join rhetorical forces with a conservative Republican if necessary to make this point. It's the paramount concern of all parties.
The second most important thing is to parrot the innermost desires of GOP re-election strategists as gospel truth. The far left [sic] wants to cram its agenda down America's throat, every Democrat who won in 2006 is actually a conservative from Lubbock, the electoral map will be infrared in 2008, blah blah blah. That way, no matter how far to the right conservatives lurch, liberals have to leap towards them or else get hammered for being obstreporous and 'far left.' Compromise has to be the operative word in everything they do, since the purpose of National Review is to make Republicans principled and audacious (to put it kindly), the apparent reason for the Times's little quasi-editorials is to demand that the Democrats be quivering jellyfish, even on symbolic votes pertaining to social justice. Way to go, liberal media.
