-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://gay.americablog.com/2009/11/dnc-misled-gay-community-dnc-treasurer.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
THE AUDACITY OF NOPE™
Supporting full marriage equality doesn't actually hurt legislator re-election.
Now, what was that comment from earlier this week? Oh yeah. "Man up."
And I don't blame you one bit, cardance! I totally relate. :-)
Tobias and Plouffe seem to believe that the election was the sole purpose of everyones time and money.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/11/hill-dems-do...
Even worse, Senator Dick Durbin, the Assistant Majority Leader and close Obama ally, also said repeal of DADT may not come up next year.
http://gay.americablog.com/2009/11/second-ranki...
But, Tobias says AMERICAblog is turning people away from the Democrats. Right. We're only asking Democrats to do what Democrats said they would do. And, the Democrats are just going to keep telling us to wait--- but to give more money because if we don't, they can't deliver on their promises, which they don't deliver on anyway.
I'm still wondering how many dishonorable discharges have been issued for the Don't Ask side of that policy in the almost two decades of its existence. Zero is about what I expect.
I'm a little late to the party, but I can tell you I don't need John to tell me how to think. I'm not gay yet DOMA and DADT are important to me because I believe in extending rather than retracting civil liberties. I haven't seen the Obama administration actually do anything concrete or positive on either front. Please don't talk to me about increments or baby steps. I don't want to hear it. Besides, that's not change I can believe in.
I have found the homophobic legal brief written by DOJ appalling and rather vicious. I also find the lack of action by the President or any of his subordinates telling. I keep hearing that this President supports this and the President supports that, but I have yet to see him work publicly to pass legislation for the GBLT community or health care or for anything else I voted for when I cast my ballot last November.
I've seen his administration seek to shift Guantanamo to Bagram in an attempt to avoid providing detainees who might not be guilty of anything (See: http://law.shu.edu/publications/guantanamoRepor...) with their legal rights as per previous court decisions in their favor. In fact, I've seen the Obama administration argue against telling the truth about what happened to detainees (e.g., Binyam Mohamed) under the Bush administration. And after he and his AG acknowledged that the preceding administration committed war crimes, Mr. Obama failed to follow US law enacted under Reagan as well as International law. I'd like to see Nuremberg rules, thanks.
I could go on, but I won't. This post is long enough. For more of my opinion about the Obama administration and the Democratic party, see my letter to Organizing America: http://mehculpa.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/my-let...
After thirty-something years I'm no longer a Democrat, but as much as I like him it didn't take John Aravosis to alienate me from the party. No, you can thank Diane Feinsten, who kept voting like a Republican, for my departure from the party, but you can thank the DNC and the Obama administration for my unwillingness to return.
There is a clear disconnect between the Democratic Party organizationally, the Obama Adminstration and the actual issues on the ground. President Barack Obama waged a truly inspiring campaign. I was a blogger for, and supporter of John Edwards, it was Barack Obama's words in the HRC Forum that pulled me over to his campaign.
The sad reality a year after his election is, "Hope and Change" were very easy to talk about in a campaign, but there is little courage to act on those words now when governing.
Nobody can pulll defeat out of the jaws of victory better than the Democratic Party. We are feisty and full of energy when we lose and are in the Minority. But when we win, and actaully get to govern we become frozen with fear of losing the NEXT election. Consequently all the GOP has to do, is run a very simple; "See, the Democrats couldn't deliver!" campaign and they win.
I fear that is what we are in for in 2010 AND 2012 unless the President shows he can lead.
Right now Barack Obama is NOT a leader he is a speaker. He says wonderful things then does nothing. As a result the Democratic Party, being leaderless, stumbles around like a headless chicken, bumping into things, tripping over its own feet, and (when it can get its hands on the firepower) shooting itself in the foot.
The sad reality is the homophobia on the LEFT does as much if not more damage than the homophobia on the Right. For the DNC the LGBT community is seen mostly as a source of campaign money that outside of election years, they wish would sit quietly and not cause any trouble. Even more unfortunate is how large national Gay Rights groups like the HRC have enabled that treatment.
The fact is unless the Obama Adminstration is able to overturn DADT or repeal DOMA is this term, they will lose the support of the LGBT community. Millions of LGBT Americans will close our wallets and stay home in 2010 and 2012.
Unless the Democratic Party and the Obama Adminstration find the courage of their STATED convictions, I see this Adminstration going down in History as a "One Term Gutless Wonder".
Bottom line - Obama lied about his support to the GLBT community, and too many people bought it. They chose the man who surrounded himself with active homophobes (e.g., Donnie McClurkin, James Meeks) instead of the woman who has marched in numerous pride parades and actually worked for the community. Heck, even McCain stood up for his friends in politics who came out of the closet.
But no. Rather than going with some who had a proven track record for our community, "Just Words" won out.
Not only do they not give us support when we need it. They try to cover up just how badly and hypocritical their lack of support was.
I am just so angry
How can we expect any kind of substantive support from Obama, when this is the kind of support we get from those members of our community who are supposed to be advocating for us?
This is where our money goes: to pay the Joe Solmonese's $360,000/year salary; I don't know how much Andy Tobias' pieces of silver amount to. It isn't just our politicians who have been bought and paid for; it seems our advocate are earning their Judas coins as well.
Lame excuses at that. And outright lies! And what is even more infuriating is how pitifully stupid and transparent the lies and excuses are. It's so insulting to be treated like we are totally brainless. They don't even put their best effort into lying to us. We just don't matter. I'm sick of the lot of them.
It has become clear that it behooves gay and lesbian Americans to distrust the Democratic Party. It has also become clear that we cannot trust HRC or the "professional class" of GLBTs in DC to run our campaigns.
In the future, I'll be looking to support ONLY GLBT causes and candidates who have actual GLBT street-cred. No more blind devotion to Democratic candidates.
You willingly work hard for the unions. Why not us? You go out and recruit African-American, female and Hispanic candidates. Why not us? You speak to our issues (on occasion) but don't back it up with deeds.
You want to win me back? Have the DNC support GLBT candidates and causes 100%. That means money. That means using resources. That means using the party assets to MY benefit.
Here's an idea: hire a seasoned professional (someone like Stephanie Schriock, who brought Al Franken's candidacy back from the dead, to run the next gay-rights initiative. Put her or him on the DNC payroll and take our next fight to a higher level.
Until then, the DNC is basically dead to me.
So when does the HRC meet with the WH to celebrate with more wine and crackers?
". . . and as Democratic activists vote our way, this was a small but positive effort to be helpful."
Note that when they need our votes and money, we are a vital member of the team. We have to give it our all! But when we need them, suddenly they are courteous strangers at the bus stop, deigning to do some small but positive thing on our behalf. And we should be ever so grateful!
One other thing: Tobias's own actions this year have been loathsome. As a successful author, investor, and creator of Lotus 1-2-3, he is worth many millions. As the DNC fundraiser for many years, he has unprecedented ability to raise money. Yet he gave nothing, zip to WA. In ME, he gave $1,000. There are secretaries and civil servants who gave more. Check out the No on 1 disclosures. Finally, he made no effort to use his extensive financial network to raise funds for No on 1. Instead, Jesse Connolly was begging for a few tens of thousands of dollars 24 hours before the election.
I had hoped that Pres. Obama's election would usher in an era of actions as well as hopes, and that we would achieve the just society that we should have. I've seen no evidence thus far that will happen. Instead we get timid congressional leaders who can't stand up and say, "In case you've forgot -- we won!" If we can't enact change now, we never will, and neither the President, the congress or the DNC show the slightest inclination to do the jobs they were hired to do. Lobbyists still swarm all over Washington DC -- probably more than ever before.
No, I didn't need this blog to point out any of that to me. It's time for all elected Democratic officials to understand that their behaviors (and lack thereof) have consequences, and a very significant portion of the straight ATM can be turned off, too. I know that the portion I gave has been off for some time.
You're going to close your wallets and stay home in 2012? Oh, yeah, after you helped elect the openly-declared bigot in 2008, that threat has a lot of credibility. By your actions, you've taught the Democratic Party that it doesn't have to give a damn about us; your rhetoric now isn't going to worry them.
I didn't do anything to help elect him in 2008, in hopes the Democrats would then nominate a non-bigot in 2012. Instead, it looks like I'm going to have to wait for 2016 at the earliest to get a non-bigot President, unless the Republicans do something totally weird.
Same tactics and angles - one against marriage, one against "everything but".
This is about gay.
"A lot of Obama voters, 122,439 to be exact, did not turn out and vote, period."
Obama was quite clear about his opposition to gay marriage during the campaign. It's certainly reasonable to conclude that many Obama voters DID come out, and they voted according to the President's leadership.
The DNC didn't support you on this measure because... they don't support you on this measure. It's really that simple.
Everybody knows that coalitions of different groups is what wins elections. Your job is to build that coalition to support Democratic candidates. Considering you just further alienated an entire group from your coalition, I'd say you suck at your job. I hope you get fired, and you can't use the gay card to defend yourself because advancing gay rights helps get Republicans elected according to you.
They know that as long as gays don't have equal rights they will keep voting for Democrats. Once you guys have equal rights, they will start losing you to Republicans. Thus they will try to keep marginalizing equal rights for the foreseeable future. Also, they are far more scared of losing the fiscally liberal but socially conservative black vote than they are of losing the gay vote.
Your only realistic option is to go to the Libertarians or to try to get pro-gay rights republicans elected.
Elections are won on small percentages. The gay allied vote is a small percentage that can make or break the Democrats.
If they don't know this, than they need to be taught.
If they insist on learning it the hard way, that's their problem.
Also, I don't recall ostensibly libertarian poster boy Ron Paul being particularly friendly to the cause. I mean he wasn't gonna criminalize homosexuality or anything, but could Teh Gays please keep it to themselves?
Sorry, there has yet to be ANY political leadership of significance.
kudos!!!
keep exposing ALL of these fake politicos/homohaters!!!
peace,
alicia banks
eloquent fury
Honey I know this is something you really care about and I have promised for a long time to take care of it
and I will some day but we are married and therefore you have to do what I say and I say that today isn't the day.
You could walk but there is noone out there as good as me so save yourself the hassle and deal.
Yeah honey, you DID mean to slap me and break my arm, because you knew I'd take it. As for love, you have no idea what that is. You're never going to change, and you're a really bad example to people who should be looking up to you. They're going to end up thinking they can act just like you. So, not only for myself, but for the sake of those for whom you're setting a bad example, I'm leaving you. I'm sure there are people better than you out there, but even if there aren't, that doesn't make you any less of a loser. And I am SO done with losers.
or . . .
In the words of my deceased and flamboyantly Irish uncle: "Don't aks me, I'm just a dumb Democrat!"
Switch to the Green Party. They can use your intelligence, drive, direction, and passion.
Why then, should we not direct our best energies and efforts into people who actually DO and WILL support us? Others will notice and make the move. For once let us move into a nice neighborhood and then see what we can do with that as the starting point. Just for once.
John's going to wake up next to a disembodied horse head with a "Love, Rahm" note stuffed in its mouth.
Message back, "We've seen what happens when we do that... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!"
Waking up is a good thing, but really -- anybody who is at all surprised by this, let alone "outraged," has either been asleep for 20 years or willfully blind.
I understand submission in the context of a sexual act, but folks, when it comes to protecting our rights, LEAVE IT AT HOME!
Not another penny from me...and I won't lift a finger for any Dem initiative which doesn't directly benefit me.
And, one more point.... Your post seems to assume that none of Obama's voters voted YES on 1. I wouldn't be so quick to jusmp to that conclusion....
And I agree about the numbers above, re Obama voters, being a guesstimate rather than certain. I'm sure some voted against us. But we only needed 25% of those voters to go our way. If Obama urged them, would they have, rather than stayed home, gone out and voted against what Obama asked? I doubt it. If anything, they'd have still stayed home. My point, if you were that opposed to gay marriage, you'd probably have already voted against us anyway, not stayed home.
John isn't turning people against supporting the Democrats. The actions of Democratic "leaders" are doing that well enough with John's help.
I do see a difference between Obama and Bush. Bush knew how to push the things he cared about through Congress.
Signed,
A lifelong Democrat getting rather hacked off these days without John Aravosis' help
And it's not like they're afraid to look bad for something or someone they care about. Obama campaigned for Corzine enough, didn't he?
Andrew seems to have picked up the new Dem messaging meme: It's OUR fault they suck.
Are you for real? People pay you for this?
"Having legitimate criticisms about the current president's inaction and waffling helps the Republicans!"
Where have I heard THAT before too?
Oh wait!
"Sit down, shut up, stop rocking the boat, know your place."
You programmed automaton, totally ignoring valid criticism and spewing bland propaganda.
This is what goes on in DC? Good god.
What's the point of beating Republicans when Democrats won't do anything anyway. Either way, again, both parties are road blocks to equality. Why should I donate, campaign or even vote anymore?
Andy, You went to Maine to the J-J Dinner. You knew there was a referendum on marriage equality. How come A.G. Holder didn't know when he was in Maine? You know or should know that Obama was asked to mention Maine and Washington in his HRC speech. How come Obama didn't? It was a conscious decision. Why? And, how come the Dept. of Justice once again defended DOMA on the Friday before the Maine election?
The DNC treats the LGBT community like an ATM. You know it. Those days are ending unless the DNC steps up.
And in any case, back to the issue at hand. If you care to explain to our readers why the DNC lied to us about their involvement in Maine, we're still waiting.
If anyone intentionally lied to you -- which I doubt -- I want to know who and will do my best to do exactly what you would want me to. No one should be lying to anyone. That's a strawman. You just keep asserting it and demanding proof -- write or call me privately if there's something here I should know and I will act on it.
But even if, as I doubt, anyone intentionally lied to you (and thus, as you note, to your readers), there is a simple question here: do we want to strengthen our allies or not. If it's smart not to, so be it (tho I'd like to understand why).
Otherwise, we should follow a two-pronged approach: press for more and faster results, as you do (thank you for doing it); but recognize that it's in our own interest to strengthen our allies, not weaken them.
That would mean NOT dismissing the signing into law of gender-identity inclusive hate crimes legislation (the first federal LGBT legislation in history) and NOT dismissing the Medals of Freedom and the lifting of the HIV travel ban and NOT dismissing the terrific LGBT appointments and NOT dismissing the appointment of a Secretary of the Army who favors lifting the ban and NOT dismissing the President's call to Congress to repeal the DADT law it passed (which many of our staunchest advocates -- albeit not all -- agree is the best strategy) and NOT considering the possibility that it's in the national interest (and our own) to get health care done before tackling the next LGBT legislation and NOT assuming the worst of our allies, as so many assumed the worst of Howard Dean and his DNC.
I'll wait for your email or call.
Thanks,
Andy
FISA
But in the meantime, we already have all the proof we need. You told everyone in that email that the Mainers were included intentionally in the Corzine email. The DNC official told me the Mainers were included by mistake. Adam Bink talked to a 3rd DNC official who also told him that the emails to the Mainers were a mistake, a glitch.
You all contradict each other. And what's worse is what I was told off the record, which flat out contradicts what you wrote in your email.
Ask around, I'm not going to divulge an off the record source to you, especially when you claim to be here as a private citizen not representing the DNC, even though you're the Treasurer of the entire organization.
You can't have it both ways.
And, with all the back and forth on this this evening, you still haven't explained to our readers why your email to the donors contradicted the on the record quote I got from the DNC, and the information Adam Bink got, regarding those main emails. When do you plan on doing that? Since that is the basis of my concern that someone is lying.
You wouldn't have gotten where you are without being able to think better than that.
<< When I was in Portland a couple of weeks ago to address the Maine Democratic Party, I didn’t know how directly and forcefully to speak about No On One.
One of our key allies there had asked me not to stress the “national significance” aspect of the vote, saying that Mainers don’t like to be told by outsiders what to do.
So during cocktails, speaking with a potato broker and his wife from outside Bangor, and others – even as I wore my No On One button – I was trying to figure out just where the audience’s head would be on marriage, and how much, as the keynoter for the Party dinner, I should make it specifically an LGBT speech and how much it should be about health care and the economy and OFA and all the rest.
Well, the dinner began and Governor Baldacci, Representatives Pingree and Michaud, and the chair of the Maine Democratic Party – all of them straight – spoke before me . . . and they spoke almost exclusively about the importance of No On One, to what appeared to be not just “widespread” but in fact unanimous and rousing applause.
This made me very proud to be a Democrat . . . very proud of the work Equality Maine and so many others had been doing . . . and optimistic about our chances. (And freed me of any fear of overemphasizing the issue.)
Needless to say, like you, I was very disappointed last night.
So now let’s talk about the DNC.
1. An email went out asking activists to make calls to New Jersey. It was insensitive not to omit Mainers from that email. I apologize that no one thought to do that. I can’t imagine it could have cost No On One even a dozen votes, but I still wish someone would have thought of this in time to catch it. Mistake noted.
2. A different email went out to Mainers urging them to vote. As the only thing of substance anyone was voting on in Maine was Question One, and as Democratic activists vote our way, this was a small but positive effort to be helpful.
I would have liked to see that email discuss No One One directly, in case there may have been an email-enabled Organizing for America activist someplace in Maine who did NOT know where Maine Democrats stood on this issue. (Out of the country without Internet access until the night before the election?) But I’m told there was concern that advocating specifically for a ballot initiative, whether LGBT or otherwise, would set a precedent for every other ballot initiative. Bureaucracies are nervous about setting precedents.
Which brings me to the precedent of the $25,000 out of $84 million (if that $84 million figure is accurate) that the DNC gave to fight Prop 8. I thought it was a mistake.
My view is that it’s unwise to use precious federal dollars, limited by law, to fund non-federal efforts. (The logic: a billionaire can legally wire $25 million into fighting Prop 8 or Question 1 overnight. That same billionaire can give the DNC only $30,400. Federal money is like the blank in Scrabble or the Queen in chess. You should use it, or sacrifice it, only when there’s no alternative.) Many of you disagree, and believe it would have been smarter to divert to the California Prop 8 fight millions of federal dollars being used = to turn out votes to win the White House, increase our majorities in Congress and in state legislatures. You may be right; but please know those of us who disagree with you do not do so out of disregard for equality.
So what DO you get for your money?
Well, you get a President and First Lady who promised to include us in their vision of America – and have.
You get a President who tells the NAACP and virtually every African-American minister in the country watching that speech – a key audience we need to move – that “the pain of discrimination is still felt in America.” And who, in making that statement, full-throatedly includes “our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights.”
You get Democrats up and down the ticket (in Maine and elsewhere) who are close to unanimous in their support of almost all our issues – instead of Republicans who are almost unanimously opposed. (Wouldn’t it have been nice if Olympia Snow and Susan Collins had joined Baldacci, Pingree, and Michaud in opposing Question One?)
You get an Administration with scores of proudly gay employees in meaningful posts . . . an Administration that actively looks for ways to advance equality, as with the recent HUD and HHS administrative actions posted here (defining “family” to include us in housing regs and providing funds to assist in elder care issues).
You get a President who promised to sign gender-identity-inclusive hate crimes legislation, the first federal LGBT legislation in the nation’s history – and has.
You get a President who has promised to lift the HIV travel ban, sign ENDA, repeal DA/DT and repeal DOMA – and will.
Yes, it’s taking longer than any of us – including the President – would like. But the commitment is there, and real.
Meanwhile, it’s no secret that in Congress, not all Democrats are perfect on our issues.
Indeed, in New York-23 we almost had that infinitesimally rare situation where the Republican was actually BETTER on our issues than the Democrat (Scozzafava favored marriage, Owens favored civil unions; she wanted to repeal DA/DT, he wanted to hear what the military said first).
But look what happened. The Republican Party would not STAND for this, and so threw its support against their own party’s candidate.
(What’s more, even before Scozzafava dropped out, Owens had already learned enough about the DA/DT issue to have publicly changed his position. He saw that President Obama’s Secretary of the Army favors lifting the ban, and that was all the reassurance he needed. I fully expect that, now that he’s won, we have picked up another House vote to repeal DA/DT. My hope is that, given a little time for him to get to know us, he will be with us on DOMA as well. This will be a priority for me.)
But I think those who attacked the DNC for helping Owens miss something. The decision to help him had nothing to DO with his LGBT positions (which as soon as we found out about them we began to try respectfully to enlighten). Instead, it was about trying to elect a Democrat to vote with the Democratic leadership on most things -- and also, not insignificantly, to try to have a good showing in this heavily scrutinized off-year election. The better last night’s showing had been, the more leverage it would have given the President.
The DNC tries, in all things, to strengthen the President’s hand. Strengthening the President’s hand helps him succeed at the things, LGBT and otherwise, most of us want to see him succeed at.
That’s really what an awful lot of this comes down to: do we want to strengthen the President’s hand? Or not?
I would argue that, as imperfect as his Presidency will inevitably be – on the economy, on health care, on the environment, on equal rights, on foreign affairs, on election reform – on anything and everything we care about – it will be CLOSER to perfect if we help strengthen his hand, FURTHER far from perfect if we choose not to help . . . and more imperfect still if we actively encourage OTHERS not to help.
Those who advocate weakening his hand by encouraging people to boycott the DNC (or who worked to boycott the DNC because they didn’t believe Howard Dean was with us) totally mean well. I absolutely get that. I just don’t see it as a way to move the country forward, either on our primary issue or on the other issues most of us care about.
People on this list have asked how one can reconcile simultaneous protest (as in joining the SLDN picket of the June dinner) and support (as in chipping into that dinner to help fund Organizing for America and the critical voter file function the DNC serves and its opposition research and the rest). Easy! We SHOULD be respectfully pushing and signing petitions and marching and lobbying and all that. But in my view, we should also be doing everything we can to strengthen the President’s hand. And to elect Democrats, who are overwhelmingly better on our issues – even when they are not great – then their Republicans opponents would have been.
I think WE make a mistake if we let something like the Maine emails enrage us or demoralize us or take our eyes off the ball.
Sorry for such a long email, and thanks for all the amazing support many of you HAVE given the President and the DNC.
I’m really sad about Maine. The dinner left me so optimistic – I didn’t expect to lose this one.
Andy >>
You must think we are dumb, but Andy, we are smart enough to know that threats, pressure and closing the GayTM are the only things that will actually make things happen. You are advocating that we do not use pressure to effect politics - but that's what politics is - pressure.
And Obama could have helped strengthen OUR hand by not filing that f**cking DOMA brief.
You're an ass if you think this email changes anything.
And BTW, voting Republican or Independent next year is not a threat. Granted most won't, but if enough do and others just stay home - you're f**ked.
Good luck.
Just because a person has a D next to their name does NOT automatically make them a "better" candidate. We should NEVER have to "settle" for a "better" candidate, we should be striving to get the BEST candidate. And in this aspect, the Democrats AND Republicans FAIL!
With the DNC, they ask us for money then stab us in the back!
Stop the presses!
Sigh... a new gown all for nothing...
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2009/11/maine-gay...
I know we disagree on tons of things -- e.g., you thought Ray Buckley was Hispanic and dismissed the fuss made over him at the DNC meeting we both attended in Washington as trivial. But actually he's not Hispanic, and if the event we were congratulating him on had gone the other way, he would not now be the openly gay elected President of the Association of Democratic State Chairs. (Which is pretty neat when you think about it: the 100+ state chairs and vice chairs elected the very openly gay New Hampshire state chair to be their leader.)
My point being: sometimes, even with the best of intentions, you jump to the wrong conclusions. Howard Dean was +not+ the enemy so many worked so hard to portray him to be; he was and remains a terrific ally . . .
. . . as are the current DNC chair and the current DNC and the President. Perfect? No. Worth supporting? Absolutely -- as I argued in that email from which you excerpted and which I invite you to post in its entirety.
My mantra has long been that we should assume the best of each other, as I assume the best of you -- because among those many of us working for equality, it's usually a pretty good assumption.
All best wishes,
Andy
You want more support?
EARN IT.
Use some of that political capital.
Stop this namby pamby, unsupportive stream of empty rhetoric, platitudes and total inaction. Show some damn backbone and courage and DO THE RIGHT THING.
Doing the right thing means you actually have to DO something. This hands off, non committal, positionless pap you have the temerity to call leadership is creating more disenchantment than you know in that little DC bubble of yours.
The gAyTM is closed until you do something worth supporting.
That includes gay issues, that includes the abhorrent continuation of the Bush debacle horrors the President campaigned against, then did a 180 and embraced, and a host of other issues that have been festering since he took office.
Take that back to the current DNC chair, the current DNC, and the current President.
Take it back, slap it on their desks and make them read it.
Take your good wishes, your empty promises, and your token Administration queers, put them in Maine's newly-legalized pot pipes, and smoke them. I don't give a damn how many openly gay people are shilling for money on your behalf. I don't care how many u-haul reimbursements federal employees get. I care about protecting my family with the one crumb of a $100K life insurance policy we get from my private-sector employer. I care about having the Constitution I spent ten years in uniform defending ACTUALLY APPLY TO ME.
The LGBTQ community doesn't need John or Joe or Pam or Jeremy or Andy or anyone else to "turn the gays against the DNC." The DNC and this Administration have done that quite handily enough on their own, thankyouverymuch. More and more of us are refusing to be the timid little wife that Democrats slap around to shore up their manhood in the face of the oh-so-terrifying Republican minority.
I knew what you people were about in October 2008 when I unsubscribed from the Obama/Biden campaign's email list.
http://keori.livejournal.com/238507.html
I changed my voter registration to "independent" the day after I sent that letter.
Have a great day.
Sorry, you know, I just don't have time to get around to the DNC's issues this year. Maybe next time.
It's this sentiment that drives us crazy, Andy. As long as the Democrats are a hair less bigoted and psychotic than the Republicans, they expect our active support like it's a birthright. If we react to that strategy as you hope, how would the DNC ever have an incentive to become more than a hair better than the Republicans?
Those days are over. You guys aren't our direct opponents, but you sure aren't our friends either, and until that changes, it's nutty to expect us to support you over the tons of worthier causes we could contribute to instead. Like Lambda Legal, or Equality California, or individual New York State senators, etc.
It's clear the DNC has no interest in supporting our equality under the law. That's really sad, and I really hope it'll change, but until it does, most of us have no interest in supporting the DNC either.
Almost all Dems vote our way on almost everything, almost all Reps vote against us on almost everything. How is that a hair?
Their President tries to amend the Constitution to ban marriage, our President is committed to repealing DOMA. How is that a hair?
They vote against and vow not to sign hate crimes legislation? We vote for it and sign it into law. How is that a hair?
Their President and Congress eschew any open show of support and respect for 8 years; our President awards two of our activists the Presidential Medial of Freedom and repeatedly, officially, invites us to televised White House ceremonies to publicly reaffirm support for our cause. How is that a hair?
We go out of our way to appoint as ambassadors gays who have worked long and hard and visibly to advance equality; they allow a gay career foreign service officer they did not appoint to advance to ambassadorial rank rather than fire him (their only alternative - it's up or out). How is that a hair?
2) All the rest is irrelevant. Ooh, medals. Wow, parties. Oh, he said some pretty words but didn't actually DO anything in regards to those causes.
3) He's committed to repealing DOMA. Interesting. He said so, so that makes it true. What's he done? What tangible action has he taken?
4) DADT.. anything happening with that? Nope. Now there's talk of waiting even more on that note.
Oh, but we're told wait till later. Wait till 2010. Wait till 2014. Oh it needs to be studied. Oh it's not the right time.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Where have we heard that before?
Oh right!
"Wait till we have the house back!"
"Wait till we have the senate!"
"Wait till we have veto proof majorities!"
"Wait till we have the Presidency!"
"Wait till after health care"
"Wait till 2010"
"Wait till the President's second (maybe) term"
"Wait till 2017"
Keep waiting, cuz he's committed to doing things at a later date! Oh btw, can we have more money?
Andrew, seriously? Does everybody in DC have the memory span of a goldfish or something?
Are you honestly delusional enough to believe that the Dems are going to have a supermajority in 2011?
Words are just that - words, and we didn't even get that much from the DNC or the President in Maine and Washington in the face of vicious smear campaigns from the forces of the religious right. Fierce advocate my ass. DoJ relaxes its enforcement of federal marijuana statutes while continuing to defend DOMA in the ugliest ways imaginable in our courts. The President refuses to issue a stop-loss to end DADT, saying that he wants it to come from Congress, and when Reid asks him for specifics (months ago, btw), silence.
I'll make this simple for you - Until *tangible* progress is made in repealing DOMA, DADT, and updating ENDA, our major issues, you will not get one red penny from me, and by the looks of it, a whole lot of others here.
Welcome to the GLBT equality movement of the 21st century. We are no longer content with your table scraps.
A Supreme Court Justice - now that would have been "going out of your way".
God what an ass you are!!!!
Do you actually believe all this silliness you're posting, or are you just repeating talking points handed to you by party strategists?
If the latter, I commend you for doing your job in tough circumstances (even if I don't agree with your job). If the former, I feel sorry for you!
Thanks for the question and the open mind.
After Prop 8, you, a gay man in the DNC saw another one coming at us and did.......nothing. You do nothing, you get nothing -- it's as simple as that.
Last year my "domestic partner" and I gave $12,000 to Democrats, in 2010 much less, in 2012 we'll see. I'll give to Alan Grayson for instance because at least he has balls. I thought Obama had balls, he doesn't.
Seriously?
Hate crimes, medals of freedom and televised white house appearances is exactly what I mean by a hair better. Those things are not quite but almost meaningless. What I want is equality under the law. Barack Obama's official position is that I should not have it.
"our President is committed to repealing DOMA."
I don't think my definition of commitment is the same as yours. Name one thing he's done to further this end, because all I have noticed is him repeatedly filing briefs defending DOMA by saying that denying us the right to marry our soulmates "is not discriminatory" or "is not discrimination."
I'll give you this: I'll be a total and abject convert if the Democrats can repeal DOMA by 2012. But if, as I suspect is more likely, our 60-seat Senate majority and President don't mount a real, honest-to-god effort, I'm writing in Harvey Milk for President.
And, you went, "out of (y)our way" to appoint ambassadors - does that sound like a Republican talking point to you?
as a friend says "Obama did it too? Big whoop."
Think of daughter Cheney - she's got so much money and resources (which equals power) that she can literally +afford+ to support a party which acts against her own civil rights interests.
As you also seem able to do. If you can afford thousands of dollars in legal fees to secure your partner or family, why agitate for the rest of the poor schmucks?
Tell you what, feel free to cash in on the value of my next statement:
I am committed to the DNC in action as much as it is committed in action to securing my rights.
In the meanwhile, enjoy your ivory tower.
I'm after the legal equality for my humanity which my bank account won't cover.
If they aren't given a chance to vote on a bill in the first place, that's rather a distinction without a difference, don't you think???
Your examples just reveal how little you have done for the GLBT community and you are only a 'hair' better than the republicans because it's all theater. You embrace us with one arm and stab us in the back with the other.
What about gay soldiers living and dieing in the closet? What about the husbands and wives of American citizens denied entry because of DOMA. Our families are defined out of existence but we are suppose to be happy about a fucking cocktail party. Fuck You.
Just how often do the Dems in this supermajority ever BRING SOMETHING TO A VOTE?
"Their President tries to amend the Constitution to ban marriage, our President is committed to repealing DOMA. How is that a hair?"
"committed to repealing DOMA"? With the brief they filed on it? How stupid do you think we are? When you can come back to us and say truthfully that the President HAS repealed DOMA then we'll talk.
"They vote against and vow not to sign hate crimes legislation? We vote for it and sign it into law. How is that a hair?"
Wow, and it only took 20 years.
"Their President and Congress eschew any open show of support and respect for 8 years; our President awards two of our activists the Presidential Medial of Freedom and repeatedly, officially, invites us to televised White House ceremonies to publicly reaffirm support for our cause. How is that a hair?"
That and a buck will buy me a Dunkin Donut.
"We go out of our way to appoint as ambassadors gays who have worked long and hard and visibly to advance equality; they allow a gay career foreign service officer they did not appoint to advance to ambassadorial rank rather than fire him (their only alternative - it's up or out). How is that a hair"?
How many thousands of soldiers have been fired during the same time that Obama appointed (how many?) gay ambassadors?
Take your token gestures and shove them up your ass, Andrew.
Shirley Temple got to be one of those!!! :)
Andrew, can't you do better than that???
Mr Tobias, what has "our President" done to repeal DOMA or DADT or even ENDA? Talk is cheap Andy and that's all I've seen. No ACTION from the Presidents or Congress' part on these issues.
"Their President tries to amend the Constitution to ban marriage"
Damn right he did, he ACTIVELY worked toward it. I haven't seen "our President" ACTIVELY do anything than speeches.
At least the Republicans have the balls to look the LGBT community in the eyes while they stab us in the gutts. The Dems don't have the balls to stand up with us. They want our money during campaign season yet turn around and stab us in the back once December comes.
Can't do it, right? He's "committed to repealing DOMA," but doesn't actually do anything to make that commitment happen.
For the record, I campaigned for Obama. During the primary (in Texas) and during the general election. Right now, if he were up for re-election he not only wouldn't get my time, he wouldn't get my money or my vote. I'm not the only one of the former army of campaign volunteers who feels this way. This is a problem that the DNC needs to solve. Actually responding to supporters' concerns (or even making a minimal effort to show progress towards fulfilling campaign promises) would be a start.
Right back at you. You, Congress, the liar-in-chief ought to start demonsrtating leadership instead of asking us to blindly follow. The LGBT community is seeking the rights of marriage. Based upon actions only, it is clear that the Democrats and this President do not think it is worthy to support or, god forbid, advocate on our behalf.
There is no demonstrable reason why we should "assume the best of each other". The administration and Congress is not working for equality. DNC holds the presidency and a 60 vote majority in the Senate. It hold a large majority in the house. We could have DOMA repealed, DADT repealed and a host of other substantive actions taken immediately - if Democrats lived up to their rhetoric and their promises.
From where I sit, you are in enemy territory right now. Perhaps not on this blog per se, but within my circle of LGBT and Progressive friends. The Dems and Obama keep thinking they have political capital with the gay and progressive communities. Like the dollar, it's worthless. We're now on a barter system and you don't have anything I want.
I'm looking forward to 2010, when I can demonstrate myu dissatisfaction in the voting booth. Mr. Obama is a one-term president.
This administration has taken every opportunity to slight the Gay Community and for you to come on here and, so smugly, offend only further proves the blatant disregard the DNC and this administration has for a community that fought fearlessly and contributed time and money to get Obama elected.
My mantra has long been " If it walks like a duck...".
All best wishes,
Troy
Good point.
Here's the email John excerpted. I apologize for its length, but a lot is at stake here:
<< When I was in Portland a couple of weeks ago to address the Maine Democratic Party, I didn’t know how directly and forcefully to speak about No On One.
One of our key allies there had asked me not to stress the “national significance” aspect of the vote, saying that Mainers don’t like to be told by outsiders what to do.
So during cocktails, speaking with a potato broker and his wife from outside Bangor, and others – even as I wore my No On One button – I was trying to figure out just where the audience’s head would be on marriage, and how much, as the keynoter for the Party dinner, I should make it specifically an LGBT speech and how much it should be about health care and the economy and OFA and all the rest.
Well, the dinner began and Governor Baldacci, Representatives Pingree and Michaud, and the chair of the Maine Democratic Party – all of them straight – spoke before me . . . and they spoke almost exclusively about the importance of No On One, to what appeared to be not just “widespread” but in fact unanimous and rousing applause.
This made me very proud to be a Democrat . . . very proud of the work Equality Maine and so many others had been doing . . . and optimistic about our chances. (And freed me of any fear of overemphasizing the issue.)
Needless to say, like you, I was very disappointed last night.
So now let’s talk about the DNC.
1. An email went out asking activists to make calls to New Jersey. It was insensitive not to omit Mainers from that email. I apologize that no one thought to do that. I can’t imagine it could have cost No On One even a dozen votes, but I still wish someone would have thought of this in time to catch it. Mistake noted.
2. A different email went out to Mainers urging them to vote. As the only thing of substance anyone was voting on in Maine was Question One, and as Democratic activists vote our way, this was a small but positive effort to be helpful.
I would have liked to see that email discuss No One One directly, in case there may have been an email-enabled Organizing for America activist someplace in Maine who did NOT know where Maine Democrats stood on this issue. (Out of the country without Internet access until the night before the election?) But I’m told there was concern that advocating specifically for a ballot initiative, whether LGBT or otherwise, would set a precedent for every other ballot initiative. Bureaucracies are nervous about setting precedents.
Which brings me to the precedent of the $25,000 out of $84 million (if that $84 million figure is accurate) that the DNC gave to fight Prop 8. I thought it was a mistake.
My view is that it’s unwise to use precious federal dollars, limited by law, to fund non-federal efforts. (The logic: a billionaire can legally wire $25 million into fighting Prop 8 or Question 1 overnight. That same billionaire can give the DNC only $30,400. Federal money is like the blank in Scrabble or the Queen in chess. You should use it, or sacrifice it, only when there’s no alternative.) Many of you disagree, and believe it would have been smarter to divert to the California Prop 8 fight millions of federal dollars being used = to turn out votes to win the White House, increase our majorities in Congress and in state legislatures. You may be right; but please know those of us who disagree with you do not do so out of disregard for equality.
So what DO you get for your money?
Well, you get a President and First Lady who promised to include us in their vision of America – and have.
You get a President who tells the NAACP and virtually every African-American minister in the country watching that speech – a key audience we need to move – that “the pain of discrimination is still felt in America.” And who, in making that statement, full-throatedly includes “our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights.”
You get Democrats up and down the ticket (in Maine and elsewhere) who are close to unanimous in their support of almost all our issues – instead of Republicans who are almost unanimously opposed. (Wouldn’t it have been nice if Olympia Snow and Susan Collins had joined Baldacci, Pingree, and Michaud in opposing Question One?)
You get an Administration with scores of proudly gay employees in meaningful posts . . . an Administration that actively looks for ways to advance equality, as with the recent HUD and HHS administrative actions posted here (defining “family” to include us in housing regs and providing funds to assist in elder care issues).
You get a President who promised to sign gender-identity-inclusive hate crimes legislation, the first federal LGBT legislation in the nation’s history – and has.
You get a President who has promised to lift the HIV travel ban, sign ENDA, repeal DA/DT and repeal DOMA – and will.
Yes, it’s taking longer than any of us – including the President – would like. But the commitment is there, and real.
Meanwhile, it’s no secret that in Congress, not all Democrats are perfect on our issues.
Indeed, in New York-23 we almost had that infinitesimally rare situation where the Republican was actually BETTER on our issues than the Democrat (Scozzafava favored marriage, Owens favored civil unions; she wanted to repeal DA/DT, he wanted to hear what the military said first).
But look what happened. The Republican Party would not STAND for this, and so threw its support against their own party’s candidate.
(What’s more, even before Scozzafava dropped out, Owens had already learned enough about the DA/DT issue to have publicly changed his position. He saw that President Obama’s Secretary of the Army favors lifting the ban, and that was all the reassurance he needed. I fully expect that, now that he’s won, we have picked up another House vote to repeal DA/DT. My hope is that, given a little time for him to get to know us, he will be with us on DOMA as well. This will be a priority for me.)
But I think those who attacked the DNC for helping Owens miss something. The decision to help him had nothing to DO with his LGBT positions (which as soon as we found out about them we began to try respectfully to enlighten). Instead, it was about trying to elect a Democrat to vote with the Democratic leadership on most things -- and also, not insignificantly, to try to have a good showing in this heavily scrutinized off-year election. The better last night’s showing had been, the more leverage it would have given the President.
The DNC tries, in all things, to strengthen the President’s hand. Strengthening the President’s hand helps him succeed at the things, LGBT and otherwise, most of us want to see him succeed at.
That’s really what an awful lot of this comes down to: do we want to strengthen the President’s hand? Or not?
I would argue that, as imperfect as his Presidency will inevitably be – on the economy, on health care, on the environment, on equal rights, on foreign affairs, on election reform – on anything and everything we care about – it will be CLOSER to perfect if we help strengthen his hand, FURTHER far from perfect if we choose not to help . . . and more imperfect still if we actively encourage OTHERS not to help.
Those who advocate weakening his hand by encouraging people to boycott the DNC (or who worked to boycott the DNC because they didn’t believe Howard Dean was with us) totally mean well. I absolutely get that. I just don’t see it as a way to move the country forward, either on our primary issue or on the other issues most of us care about.
People on this list have asked how one can reconcile simultaneous protest (as in joining the SLDN picket of the June dinner) and support (as in chipping into that dinner to help fund Organizing for America and the critical voter file function the DNC serves and its opposition research and the rest). Easy! We SHOULD be respectfully pushing and signing petitions and marching and lobbying and all that. But in my view, we should also be doing everything we can to strengthen the President’s hand. And to elect Democrats, who are overwhelmingly better on our issues – even when they are not great – then their Republicans opponents would have been.
I think WE make a mistake if we let something like the Maine emails enrage us or demoralize us or take our eyes off the ball.
Sorry for such a long email, and thanks for all the amazing support many of you HAVE given the President and the DNC.
I’m really sad about Maine. The dinner left me so optimistic – I didn’t expect to lose this one.
Andy >>
I'm not sure you're helping your cause here.
I think?
You're excuses are lame, your explanations are strained, and your record is a disaster.
Until and unless you do a 180 and start producing results, you'll keep losing supporters in droves. Blaming Americablog for sowing discontent is like blaming a town square for inciting protests. It's not the cause of the anger, it's just a place where the anger is heard.
No more.
The state I live in forbids me from adopting a child and from marrying my partner. I can be fired simply for being gay and have no recourse if I am. You know what? This is the EXACT SAME THING as I had in 1977. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING has changed.
I don't care if we have gay diplomats. What good does that do me? We've had gay diplomats since 1997, hell even BUSH appointed a gay diplomat. All the diplomats in the world could be gay and it wouldn't change my life one bit.
Medals of Freedom? While it might be a niceity to present them it does nothing for the gay community at all. Nothing. Besides, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have both been awarded this same medal. How much of an honor could it really be?
A President who promises to include us in his vision for America? Just that vision doesn't include full equal rights including the right to marry. Oh, and there is that nasty little defense of DOMA thing. Why was that prosecuter not fired? Obviously because he fits into the President's vision for America. We don't. DADT? A stop-loss could be put in place in a heart beat. It hasn't been. Again, not his vision for America.
We finally have a Federal Hate Crimes Bill - the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Act signed into law. PIGGYBACKED ON A DEFENSE SPENDING BILL. And that was in a Senate with a 60/40 supermajority in our favor and a House packed with Dems. 11 years after Matthew was killed simply for being who he was. Shameful. And it won't bring him back or protect any of us before we are attacked or killed. Only after - better hope you survive without permanent disability or disfigurement.
As my name says I am 'trapped' in a red state. My elderly father has no other living relatives nearby and at this point in his life refuses to relocate. I could never be so heartless as to leave him alone. Instead I've done my best to 'make do' over the years contributing to, working for and voting for Democrats who have promised to help me secure my equal rights. But as I've already said my situation has not changed after 32 years of hard work and financial sacrifice on my part. I've done my part but my elected officials haven't done theirs.
Blanket contributions to the party will now be redirected to my 'Relocation to Canada fund' instead. If I'm going to spend my hard earned money on something it may as well go towards something that will guarantee me the right to civil marriage and nationalized health care. I'm tired of being used and abused by a non-caring ,callous 'spouse'. Consider Canada my battered spouses shelter.
If you want to maintain the relationship between the gay community and the DNC or the White House you'd better start making some changes and you'd better do it quick. This blog hasn't made me feel this way... nor has any other. I'm not some Fox News/Rush Limbaugh brainwashed sheep following the herd. I quit contributing when Obama said he didn't support full marriage rights. I'm glad I did... I'll have a much nicer home when I get to Canada since I didn't waste all that money buying things for my abusive 'spouse'.
While I'm here I'll continue to vote for Democrats, or anyone else who supports full marriage equality REGARDLESS OF PARTY. If they don't I'll simply not vote in that race. You want my vote... earn it by your actions and not by your words.
If Obama wants to earn back the trust of the gay community, and it's funds, I will suggest the following steps:
1. Immediately call for and WORK towards a repeal of DOMA.
2. Immediately call for and WORK towards a repeal of DADT. You also have to issue an immediate stop-loss directive to make this one count.
3. Immediately call for WORK towards a Federal Civil Marriage Act that cannot be overtuned by the individual sttes
4. Immediately call for WORK towards a Federal Act that prohibits states from putting individuals civil rights up to a popular vote.
5. Appoint several LGBT individuals to MEANINGFUL positions. Judges, up to and including the Supreme Court are a good start as are policy making level jobs.
You're going to have to take these steps in order to win back our trust. After years and years of using us for our votes and money and then abusing us with your lies and condesention you've made your bed and you must lay in it. But the abused spouse has reached their breaking point. You'd better act fast lest the bed get set on fire.
I do not know you, nor you me. A life-long Democrat, I would not vote for a Republican. A couple of days ago I first posted a comment here, after reading this blog for a number of years. It was a copy of the email I sent the President, the DCC and the Maryland local Democrat party, informing them that my vote would not be forthcoming in future elections unless the Democrat was an active supporter of gay rights - not a "fierce advocate" in words only but in deeds.
If the Democratic party does not become active supporters of gay rights, with deeds, not words, and continues to remains silent on issues like no on one in Maine, visciously support DOMA in filings, pretending they are ignorant of the meaning of a significant issue in Maine (the AJ of the US), people like me, those in the background who do not protest, rant on blogs or simply make themselves "known" to the media are going to quietly and swiftly make the Democratic party pay a high price - no contributuons, no votes. People like you are in a position to inform the ones who matter about this potential problem for the party. People like me are going to simply turn away and look for another group to support. You would be remiss to not understand the enormous anger that is brewing that you are not even seeing on sites like this one.
I am done with being considered a patsy by the Democratic Party. Produce tangible results or learn the hard way what happens when a party walks away from a part of its base.
2. Nope, it's glib, I was right the first time:
"who did NOT know where Maine Democrats stood on this issue. (Out of the country without Internet access until the night before the election?)"
Yup, glib.
The rest of your wall of text I confess to skimming over, it's long been my practice not to wade through a river of shit, neck deep, just to find one pearl.
And your blatant hero worship of Obama is disgusting.
Try judging people on their actions instead of their words.
Andy, the only thing at stake for the DNC is our money, our votes, and our time.
We, on the other hand, stand to lose our families, our homes, our jobs, our lives because we aren't really citizens under the law.
You do the math.
This goes so far beyond marriage, it would be laughable if it weren't so tragic for so many. Christ on a pony, have you even seen the recent crap about our families in "health care reform?" Once again, our families are being kicked to the curb because "family" is not clearly defined to include unmarried interdependent couples and household children. Whatever pathetic, watery version of HCR your bosses spew out won't cover us.
Really, just who the hell do you people think you're dealing with? We're not stupid. We notice these things. We take note of EVERY. SINGLE. THING. in Washington that affects our families. We know what bullshit smells like, and the DNC stinks to high heaven.
As a progressive who spent a lot of time during the campaign, helping to get President Obama elected, I am disgusted at what the Democratic Party has turned into. It has become the party of moderate Republicans....especially, the DLC wing of the party. That seems to be the wing that now permeates the White House and is facilitated by the DNC.
My disgust at President Obama and Mr. Emanuel has to do with his governance on a wide range of issues, but mostly their non-performance on glbt concerns and health care reform.
Nothing that I have seen thus far has led me to believe that Obama offers more than empty promises to the glbt community. Sadly, he is enabled in this regard by groups like the HRC that prize access more than anything else, and inaction by politicians such as Barney Frank, who apparently craves his own personal power and access, over commitment to community.
As just one example, DADT. Polls show a majority favors lifting the ban...a ban that has been thoroughly disproven by the global model that shows integrating gays into the military has had no negative effect on our allies. Yet, President Obama does not even have the courage to issue a stop/loss order, which you know he has the power to do, to prevent further discharges while this gets reviewed. Enough is enough.
I had been a Democrat all my life, but let me tell you the effect that President Obama's dismal performance has had on me. I am now registering as an independent and will no longer contribute to the Democratic Party (increasingly populated by 'bought' Blue Cross Democrats). I will only contribute to, and work for, progressive candidates in the primaries. While I will most likely vote for a Democrat over a Republican, I will no longer expend any effort for them in a general election, unless the candidate is a proven progressive.
Obama and the DNC cannot count out my support at this time (and there are many like me Andy, trust me on this one). The passion that he has aroused in people like me has been replaced by a profound anger.
I used to blog for the president under a pseudonym scootmandubious, which garnered an awful lot of hits in the run-up to the election. I also had a deliberate strategy of cross-posting in swing state forums. I now fully regret wasting my time as corporate money seems to have corrupted the Democrats, as well.
As for what happened, or didn't happen in Maine, it is no secret that there are segments of the Democratic party that are heavily homophobic. As we saw in California, it wasn't just the Republicans that led to our defeat. President Obama surely knows this and there is much he could do or say to advocate for gays. He chooses not to.
Let's be honest about this, Obama does not believe in gay marriage, so it is clear why he and the DNC chose to not formally weigh in on No on 1.
This is 2009, we are so behind the rest of other western countries on glbt and other social issues that it is a joke. Obama and the DNC continue to govern in fear of offending social neanderthals.
That is not good enough.
If I actually see the DNC and President Obama do more than simply make promises and give lip service to the gay community, I will consider renewing my support.
However, I have no illusions that that day is a long way off. If it ever comes at all.
The couple of "bones" that they have thrown to gay people, recently, are more than canceled out by the hard work to preserve DADT and DOMA in court. The Mathew Shepard act will very likely not be applied more than once or twice in the next century.
Defending DOMA in court is the exact opposite of working to repeal DOMA. Just tell a court is is facially unconstitutional, and let the judge strike it down. By defending DOMA, this administration is actively breaking an explicit promise.
Pass ENDA, and get serious about trying to repeal DADT, and stop defending DOMA in court. Then, AFTER THOSE THINGS HAPPEN, we can talk about money again.
In the mean time, spare us the bovine manure. Actions speak far more loudly than words. Repeated promises, after too many times, become empty words.
Who ever said Dean was the enemy?
What the hell are you talking about?
First you reel in a HUGE red herring, and then you go into absolute crazy town with the next paragraph.
ramble ramble ramble ramble.... off the rails.
Your seeming lack of understanding of electoral organizing is both fascinating and depressing. It actually takes more than a bland GOTV e-mail to get people to vote. Not everyone "knows where Maine Democrats stand" and that's certainly not a big influential on people's votes. What's more, it would have been nice to have Maine OFA members, you know, actually organize in support of No On 1, not just vote. That would have helped us with more than "a dozen votes".
http://www.openleft.com/diary/15871/dnc-treats-...
I'm glad you've decided to weigh in, and I'm sure the readers will appreciate having the chance to interact with a senior DNC official.
I am, however, confused as to the first part of your email. You're telling us that I was at a meeting and thought that some man was Latino and he wasn't? And that somehow proves that I'm a journalist who gets things wrong. Uh, ok. That's a bit weird, and I have no idea what you're talking about, but it really doesn't respond to the matter at hand. Namely, that there are now 3 DNC sources all contradicting each other on this story of why the DNC, OFA and the White House refused to help the gay community fight for its civil rights on November 4th.
Going back to your initial point, about the DNC winter meeting I covered a few years back with Joe Sudbay, the only controversy I remember from that meeting was the ongoing battle between the DNC and Paul Yandura and Donald Hitchcock, in which Paul and Donald were charging the DNC, and suing the DNC, for anti-gay bias. At the time, I published a letter from Paul and Donald about the issue, and you asked me for a chance to respond on the blog, and I said sure. You then gave me a draft piece for this blog that contained a factually incorrect allegation about the LGBT caucus meeting at the DNC winter meeting. I knew it was factually incorrect as I was there. I told you it was factually incorrect, and that I could not in good faith publish an allegation on my blog that I knew to be untrue. I know that at the time you were unhappy with me, and kept insisting that I publish the factually incorrect allegation on my blog, even though I was a witness to the event and knew it was untrue. Perhaps that's the controversy you're referring to. I honestly have no idea what you're even talking about, or why you brought that up.
Anyway, back to the question at hand - could you tell our readers why the DNC, OFA and the White House refused to help us fight the repeal of our civil rights in Maine and Washington State. And then explain why the at least 3 people at the DNC gave at least three other people totally different stories as to why the DNC emailed Mainers and asked them to help re-elect Corzine in New Jersey, rather than helping defeat ballot measure 1 in Maine.
Thanks again for joining us. I'm sure folks will find this interaction illuminating.
JOHN
PS I have no idea what you're talking about with regards to Howard Dean. I loved Howard Dean. And I regret every day the way the Obama campaign, and then Obama administration, has shunned Dean. He was a leader with balls, though I'm sure that when he messed up, we held him accountable for it, just like we do any Democratic (and every Republican). I never called Dean an "enemy" of anyone. That's just bizarre that you would even write that. But anyway, if you care to disprove the allegations about the DNC and OFA and the White House abandoning the gay community in WA state and Maine, please address points directly.
What the fuck with Tobias bringing Dean up as if WE hated him.
NEWSFLASH, ANDY: Rahm hates Dean.
Guess what?
I hate Rahm.
He's a conceited pig and an obvious corporatist who claimed credit for the job Dean did in the 2006 and 2008 election cycle.
Dean has always supported gays.
Rahm on the other hand, holds his nose and pinches his ass cheeks in fear whenever a man looks his way.
And when he was done stealing credit he didn't deserve, he turned around and stabbed Dean in the back.
Are you really this ignorant of the goings on, or is it just those stars in your eyes colluding your view?
If you don't remember all the criticism and abuse Howard and his DNC got at the time, fine. (And if it's my memory that fails and you were constantly standing up for him at the time while others were bashing, my apologies - I stand corrected.) No need to rehash it here. I just think the same will prove true when we look back on the signing into law of ENDA and the repeal of DADT and DOMA, even though none of it happens as fast as any of us -- including the President -- would like. People will look back and feel as though the President and his DNC did a pretty good job for equality.
My only point in trying to plead my case here, and inviting you to post my entire email, is that we actually hurt our chances for success when we go beyond pressuring Congress and the Admin -- which we should do (I was right there at the march with everyone else and do my best to press our case wherever and whenever I think I effectively can) -- and get to the point that we actually withdraw support. Because a weaker President will do less well getting us what we deserve. A Congress with fewer Democrats will do less well at getting us what we deserve.
(I know that because in 99.9% of the races even a "bad" Democrat is stronger on our issues than his or her Republican opponent. That was almost knocked down to 99.8% in NY-23 -- Owens favored civil unions where Scozzafava favors marriage -- but even that rare, rare case evaporated, because the Republican Party stepped in and knocked her out of the race. So it's still 99.9%.)
I can't possibly answer all the posts here, and no one here trusts me. But they trust you. So when someone posts that there's barely a "hair's" difference between the two parties, I'd urge YOU to step in and reply.
Thanks,
Andy
You have a majority now you're not doing anything with anyway!
We gave you the house, the senate and the presidency. You had our support.
Try doing something with it if you want more. We want a return on our investment! We're not sinking any more of our hard earned time, money, and votes into an organization until it produces something of worth for us.
Welcome to capitalism: PERFORM OR FAIL.
The onus is on the DNC, Congress and Obama to PROVE they are with us and leading the charge. Not on us to prove we support the DNC. Shit Andy, we already did that. The ball is in your court and it looks like its headed for a foul.
"The onus is on the DNC, Congress and Obama to PROVE they are with us and leading the charge. Not on us to prove we support the DNC. Shit Andy, we already did that. The ball is in your court and it looks like its headed for a foul."
We all know that after the 2010 elections, the Dems will no longer have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. We all also know that there was never an easier time to pass controversial bills than the first few months of the new administration. We are rapidly reaching a point where progress on major gay-rights legislation will become impossible because of the onset of an election year, mid-term election losses, and the subsequent onset of the president's re-election campaign, which, from my perspective, is itself starting to look shaky.
It's amazing to me how DNC insiders think common folk are so stupid that they'll just uncritically swallow party spin, hook, line, and sinker. The betrayal in Maine was calculated and deplorable.
I've certainly never said there's no difference between the parties. That's your red herring. What I say is that the community has to light a fire under some Party asses, and shutting off the gAyTM is the only effective way to do it. If you want more money--and my partner and I gave the maximum to the Obama campaign in '08 and raised tens of thousands more--earn it.
Unfortunately for the Party, we learned an important lesson during the Bush Administration. The lesson? Even when the Dems are not in power in DC, our movement can still make great strides, as we did between 2001 and 2009. We not only survived the Bush Administration but emerged much stronger than we were at its start. Our movement matured into a social force beyond the party system. Accept that changed reality. It isn't 1993 anymore.
After all the hateful, two-faced shit the Obama campaign and now Administration, and the DNC have done to us, I'll write it off as "about fucking time" and keep right on walking.
I'm sorry if the DNC doesn't approve of the responses from our readers, but you have to understand that they don't appreciate being lied to, and then condescended to.
It's clear now that, after coming here in a rather ham-handed manner, you've created even more public relations problems for the DNC and the White House than they had before, but I don't agree with you that it's my responsibility to somehow police my own readers when the DNC comes to our comments and provokes our readers with half-truths and, frankly, a rather passive-aggressive attitude. Having supported Barack Obama in the primaries before it was cool, and risking half our readership that favored Hillary, and then raising nearly $50,000 for this president, and over $100,000 for Democratic congressional candidates, I think we've long since proven our Democratic bona fides.
But as you can see, we are an open forum and I welcome the DNC's involvement and opinion. You are certainly free to disagree, and correct, any of my readers who the DNC thinks are also "helping the Republicans."
Best wishes, JOHN
I will not work with a person that lies to me. Obama and the DNC told me how much they loved me and wanted my vote and would fight for my rights. I gave them my money and I gave them my vote. Now they got want they wanted and the truth comes to surface that they have no intention on doing anything for me.
Please let your friends know that they don't get to keep their job for another term without our votes and our money. We don't have to vote for a Republican bot we don't have to vote either. I am perfectly willing to send a message by staying away from the voting booth for the first time in over 20 years. As I said at the beginning of my post, I will not work with a liar.
This is just part of the problem.
You think it's about trust, we think it's about action.
John has more history, yes, but no one here agrees with him all of the time.
We do have his previous actions (some of which I still disagree with) to weigh against current action.
With Obama, the pretty words say one thing, the actions tell a different story.
Maybe you're right, and it's all of us who are wrong - but if that's the case, the fault lies with the intense level of tone-deafness coming from the administration on the points for which he was elected.
I knew when I voted for him that he was barely any different than the center right Clintons (only in America would they be seen as part of the left), and I think that is in part why I do not share some of my fellow's rancor towards him.
You can't campaign on "change you believe in" and then turn that into "change you can wait on" and expect people who believed to be happy.
The overly cautious game of "wait and see" does nothing to help the cause, it has let the wind out of the sails for so many, and to continue that metaphor, those ships have sailed. Good luck getting them back to the dock.
Remind me, how many conservative nut-bags has this strategy swayed to the side of reason?
Hi, I am a dutiful democrat, have been for over 20 years now, ever since I came out. You want to know why gays like me don't trust you, the DNC, President Obama or OFA? Try Bill Clinton.
The only reason I got on the O team was because it would mean keeping Bill far away from the WH. Us gays are sick and tired of being told incremental change, and crap like that. The DNC, Obama and OFA blew it and you know that.
I personally donated over 5K in the 2008 election cycle, all to dems, and I will not donate one red cent until I see tangible support from the DNC, OFA, and Obama, till then you guys can call someone else for support. This wishy washy oh I like you but lets not tell anyone we are dating shit is really old.
Unless there's a thoroughly enlightening answer in the rest of that email to John's question about the DNC and WH's appalling lack of interest in our rights being put up to popular vote this past Tuesday, I'm pretty sure I could care less. We were hung out to dry while the right mobilized, loaded their coffers, and spread lie upon lie upon hideous lie to scare the people of Maine into denying us the rights that heterosexuals take for granted. And unless the DNC, the White House, and Capitol Hill can get it through their heads that the astounding lack of tangible progress on DADT, ENDA, and DOMA/Marriage is what we're pissed off about, then there's nothing you're going to be able to do to quell this anger. The supermajority is not going to last. Remember when Karl Rove swore with unshakable confidence that they were creating a Republican dynasty, even though populist anger was rising, the economy was tanking, and the cards were clearly not in the right's favor? Please don't be Karl Rove. This is make or break for us, and very few people on your end seem to be interested in figuring that out before it's too late.
Obama's lukewarm opposition to Prop 8 was unsettling, though somewhat understandable so close to victory. The Fred Phelps-esque defense of DOMA was an outrage, as were the subsequent times your DoJ repeated it, despite relaxing enforcement of other federal statutes. Being told that we have to wait on DADT because our not-long-for-this-world-supermajority Congress wants to avoid "hot button issues" in the upcoming election year, and despite Sen Reid's long since unanswered request for guidance on verbiage for the bill from the White House, is crap on a stick (Tell that to LTC Fehrenbach's face. I dare you). The silence of the White House, the ambivalence of DoJ, and the utter lack of help by the DNC on the ballot issues in Maine and Washington are simply beyond the pale. Go up there to Bangor, sit down with a GLBT couple that has been lovingly together for 30+ years, and explain to them why their party and their "fierce advocate" didn't lift a finger while their lawfully granted right to marry was taken from them by well funded hate-spewing fear mongers. Again, I dare you.
Don't get me wrong, we're happy about the hate crimes bill (though I'm not sure what the President did to secure that other than say he would sign it), and we're all about medals and GLBT appointees, but we're far beyond the days when token gestures and no-brainer acts of legislation would keep the gay ATM open.
If the President had recorded an ad, made an appearance, sent an email to that massive list you have, even made a 30 second robocall spot in support of our rights in Maine, I would not be writing these words.
You want our support back? You want our votes and our money? Tell your friends in Congress and at 1600 PA to stop waffling and re-negotiating on their campaign promises, and get the hell to work on something truly meaningful. You probably have more access to them than I do.
I've been a fan of yours for a very long time since back in the days of your Managing Your Money software. It was a sad day for me when that product was retired.
I want to say that I am in full support of witholding blanket contributions to the DNC because it has become obvious over the years that is not the best choice of investment in our future.
I do agree with you that in terms of our issues in general, voting for Democrats is better than voting for Republicans. In my view, that is not what this is all about. This is about investing in our future. It is time for us to invest wisely rather than just throw money in the general direction of people who stink less than Republicans stink. It is time for us to invest in those who smell good. There are plenty of Democrats willing to work at providing a good return for our investment, and we need to invest in them individually. Investing in smelly Democrats simply facilitates perpetuation of the stink.
For decades now we have seen the Democrats in general come to us for money and votes only to be insulted and ignored by them when it comes to our issues. We will no longer accept or support that behavior. You claim that witholding generalized funding of the DNC somehow fails to help strengthen the administration. I disagree. The president is supposedly a "fierce advocate" for us. By supporting only those who support our "fierce advocate" in our issues, we are strengthening him in that area.
I must say, however, that I am not convinced that Obama is a true friend of our community, particularly since he announced during the campaign that he does not support marriage equality because of his religious beliefs. And then came his unwillingness to order a stop to the DADT firings until Congress repeals the unjust law as well as the other things I need not repeat to you or the readers here.
What we want to do is strengthen our true friends, Andy, not the ones who want us to think they are friends in the hopes of accessing the GayTM. Sure, we'll probably vote for the Stinkers with Ds, but it is a foolish waste of our time and resources to do anything to strengthen them.
If you make any further comments regarding this issue, either in this place or elsewhere, please stop trying to characterize this as a "DNC boycott." That is nothing but a red herring. I know you understanding the distinction between investing in something with a good return versus a poor return versus a negative return. That's what we're talking about, investing only where there's a good return. Maybe you can even help create a situation in which the overall DNC can produce a good return on investment as opposed to its rather marginal return recently and in past decades.
Check out the list of co-sponsors of Rep. Nadler's Respect of Marriage bill for a good start on where to find an investments with a good potential returns. And do take note of the glaring absences.
Mike
News flash: BLUE DOGS ARE NOT DEMOCRATS!
It's not up to us to assume the best of you. It's your responsibility to demonstrate to us, the voters, why we should believe you take our interests seriously.
You say: ". . . as are the current DNC chair and the current DNC and the President. Perfect? No. Worth supporting? Absolutely"
Excuse me but the current head of the DNC, an Obama appointment, is a creep. Tim Kain not only opposes Marriage but also Domestic Partnerships. While he doesn't think we should be beat up and killed because we are gay that's about all. So please don't tell me that Kaine's appointment is anything other that a insult to the LesBiGay community.
For more fun facts on Gov. Kaine see:
http://nobhillobserver.blogspot.com/2009/06/tim...
Oh, I think you can add OH to that list.
As I mentioned on another thread, I was solicited by the DNC today for a donation and politely informed them that this gAyTM is closed.
But what about the 99.99% of gay people that Obama can't appoint or the 99.99% that the DNC can't give token positions to?
They sent a generic email so it would cover their inaction when they were actually spending time and money wasting it in NJ and VA.
And THIS IS THE TOPPER.... Good to know that the Democratic campaign group is an inefficient mess....good specific reason to not enable a bureaucracy when it should be a campaign (does that mean he is saying the GOP are right about Democrats!?!?!??) >>>>But I’m told there was concern that advocating specifically for a ballot initiative, whether LGBT or otherwise, would set a precedent for every other ballot initiative. Bureaucracies are nervous about setting precedents. <<<
And what a bitchy comment..he should 'man up' in his assessment.. >>>in case there may have been an email-enabled Organizing for America activist someplace in Maine who did NOT know where Maine Democrats stood on this issue. (Out of the country without Internet access until the night before the election?)
You're right, you deserve - like American blacks - everything you don't get.
Second, I hope you got a real eyeful and earful of how it is out hear in the fields in contrast to your village brothers and sisters. Me, I'm pretty much on the NO GAY RIGHTS, NO GAY $$$ side, and whoever opens the envelopes up there will see more "Where is our fierce advocate?" returns without money until some of that "political capital" comes our way.
Don't be a stranger. But expect to be roundly insulted, because it is pretty freewheeling around here. Not as bad as the right-wing sites, not by a long shot. If you made an appearance at freerepublicdotcom I dare say you would barely escape with your life.
But in any case, dialog is good. It is nice to know that the anger and frustration we've been voicing for lo these many months is at least being heard in Washington, because all indications in the press are that the Administration couldn't care less what we think.
Want to know how the gay-lesbian-bi-transgendered on the street feels? How your base feels? Stick around. Here and a dozen other sites. And watch Rachel Maddow.
Want my money? Want me to volunteer door-to-door? Want me to urge everyone within earshot to get out and vote Democratic? Results. Tangible results. That's what we want to see. And the Medal of Freedom and the Ambassadorships should be taken for granted by now. That sort of thing was last decade's battle.
Just remember, all of the pissed off bros and sisses here will be the first to do a 180 as soon as the Administration comes up with the real thing.
Y'all come back. Hear?
Prophetic.
"Run away! Run away!"
Bye Andy!
WE WANT ACTION
NOT WORDS.
Ever hear that actions speak louder than words? That is all everyone is asking for.
I don't understand this comment. Didn't Maine vote Obama's position on Tuesday, against Gay Marriage? That's Obama's position - why would Obama voters not be expected to vote his position?
..This is a debacle...
Oh, and I thought NJ didn't matter. It was just a "local" election. Ha!
We had a similar problem in Oregon when the allegedly Christian right had an anti-gay measure on the ballot. Senator Packwood kept saying that a Senator should not interfere in a purely state issue until I was able to persuade him to come out against it. He finally did and there's no excuse for President Obama or the DNC under his chosen leader having refused to help in Maine against the very same forces.
Andy, I had the pleasure of meeting you several times about a decade ago, through a mutual friend, the late Todd Jennings. I even went to a few of your fund-raising parties. I think you are a decent man. But I no longer support the DNC that you still tirelessly fundraise, and advocate, for.
As a progressive who spent a lot of time during the campaign, helping to get President Obama elected, I am disgusted at what the Democratic Party has turned into. It has become the party of moderate Republicans....especially, the DLC wing of the party. That seems to be the wing that now permeates the White House and is facilitated by the DNC.
My disgust at President Obama and Mr. Emanuel has to do with his governance on a wide range of issues, but mostly their non-performance on glbt concerns and health care reform.
Nothing that I have seen thus far has led me to believe that Obama offers more than empty promises to the glbt community. Sadly, he is enabled in this regard by groups like the HRC that prize access more than anything else, and inaction by politicians such as Barney Frank, who apparently craves his own personal power and access, over commitment to community.
As just one example, DADT. Polls show a majority favors lifting the ban...a ban that has been thoroughly disproven by the global model that shows integrating gays into the military has had no negative effect on our allies. Yet, President Obama does not even have the courage to issue a stop/loss order, which you know he has the power to do, to prevent further discharges while this gets reviewed. Enough is enough.
I had been a Democrat all my life, but let me tell you the effect that President Obama's dismal performance has had on me. I am now registering as an independent and will no longer contribute to the Democratic Party (increasingly populated by 'bought' Blue Cross Democrats). I will only contribute to, and work for, progressive candidates in the primaries. While I will most likely vote for a Democrat over a Republican, I will no longer expend any effort for them in a general election, unless the candidate is a proven progressive.
Obama and the DNC cannot count out my support at this time (and there are many like me Andy, trust me on this one). The passion that he has aroused in people like me has been replaced by a profound anger.
I used to blog for the president under a pseudonym scootmandubious, which garnered an awful lot of hits in the run-up to the election. I also had a deliberate strategy of cross-posting in swing state forums. I now fully regret wasting my time as corporate money seems to have corrupted the Democrats, as well.
As for what happened, or didn't happen in Maine, it is no secret that there are segments of the Democratic party that are heavily homophobic. As we saw in California, it wasn't just the Republicans that led to our defeat. President Obama surely knows this and there is much he could do or say to advocate for gays. He chooses not to.
Let's be honest about this, Obama does not believe in gay marriage, so it is clear why he and the DNC chose to not formally weigh in on No on 1.
This is 2009, we are so behind the rest of other western countries on glbt and other social issues that it is a joke. Obama and the DNC continue to govern in fear of offending social neanderthals.
That is not good enough.
If I actually see the DNC and President Obama do more than simply make promises and give lip service to the gay community, I will consider renewing my support.
However, I have no illusions that that day is a long way off. If it ever comes at all.
I've never thought we should expect very much from the Democratic Party (or the Republicans), and I have long questioned the strategy of throwing money at them and expecting a different result. They take our money, then they do what is politically expedient.
It has always been this way. I am surprised it is taking so long for gay donors and activists to realize this.
The best thing we can do is to invest in our own third-party gay rights organizations and our straight allies, so that we have independent capacity to win elections. Then we will truly be powerful.
All it does is help finance their DC cocktail parties, so they can maintain their access and presumed 'power.'
But generally I agree with you. I give money to candidates in local and state races who support my equality under the law.
Just not HRC!!! They are now inside Washington schmucks that endorse candidates that will help their organization rather than the most pro-GLBT candidates. Put your money to better use than putting another champagne glass in Joe's hand at some ritzy Obama gala.
Imagine those funds actually going to work for us via organizations like Lambda Legal and the many state-level lgbt rights groups that are (generally) more accountable since they are local and not at D.C. cocktail parties.
Most general elections are closer than that - so the DNC, DCCC and OFA better start paying attention to how pissed off we are.
We may not vote R (I sure hope that with occasional exceptions, we aren't) but we can vote 3rd party, vote on local races only, or stay home.
We may be a small part of the US population, but we are not to be marginalized at this point - when Dem party I/D/ is stagnant and independents are on the rise.
Good luch getting a dime from me, too.
1) If 3% positively identify as gay at the polls, you can probably assume that the number is significantly higher. There are many gays who, out of fear, would never admit to being gay, even in an allegedly anonymous survey. I know quite a few folks who definitely would not.
2) Adding the B component would increase that number substantially as well. There are clearly folks who engage in bisexual behavior, pushing that number higher.
3) Most importantly, families and good friends of gay people vote. It is not just gays themselves who support glbt civil rights. Passionate advocacy is shared by family and colleagues of gays, so, even if we take that 3% as a given, the impact of pissing our community off has far greater repercussions when we count those in our sphere of influence. My brother, sister and good friends would never support someone they perceived was harming our community. And I am vocal enough to inform them of who those people are.
There are many in my own sphere of influence who had no idea how Obama and the Democrats have let us down.
They know now.
I'll never forget that.
But that's just quibbling about numbers. There appears to be more than enough room for all of us under the bus as far the DNC is concerned.
I live in NJ. I got a "get out the vote" email from some part of the Obama/democratic hierarchy.
Part of the GOTV email had a place to click to find my polling place. When I clicked through, I got my polling place and a request to call NJ folks to urge them to vote -- I don't remember if I was to ask them to vote for Corzine.
The initial email did not prompt me to vote for Corzine.
I used to donate thousands a year to the DNC and Dem candidates: Not one penny more.
Corporations don't vote. Yet.
And I'm skeptical about democrats, but think that Andy Tobias raises some valid points.
I understand how this sounds like a pointless semantic issue but as an OFA volunteer I can tell you that failing to differentiate between OFA and the DNC would be like failing to differentiate between Democratic and Republican members of Congress (Hey, they all work in the same building doing similar things, right?)
Futhermore, I have no intention of sacrificing the larger liberal agenda for marriage rights. Time is on our side. Take a breath.
It has a LOT to do with privileges, immunities, rights and benefits. It's not just about ensuring those protections for oneself, but for one's loved ones.
Apparently you have none. Can't say I'm surprised.
I now have every intention of sacrificing the larger liberal agenda, because the idea of even incidentally assisting simpletons like you in so much as the most incremental way makes my skin crawl.
As pathetic posts go, yours is at the head of the class.
If you are indeed gay, might I suggest you add a hyphenated qualifier the next time you feel the need to address a forum about your sexual orientation.
Please add 'self-loathing.'
I mean, its obvious by the content of your post, but why not just be up-front about it.
First give-away is that he has to idenify himself as gay. Then goes on to paint himself in the broadest stereotypical shallow gay circuitboy image, uses buzz words like 'liberal agenda'. This is baitting, trying to creating anger while being patronizing.
Get lost Neil D, whoever you really are!
grover norquist is a danger to this country.
The couple of "bones" that they have thrown to gay people, recently, are more than canceled out by the hard work to preserve DADT and DOMA in court. The Mathew Shepard act will very likely not be applied more than once or twice in the next century.
Pass ENDA, and get serious about trying to repeal DADT, and stop defending DOMA in court. Then, AFTER THOSE THINGS HAPPEN, we can talk about money again.
If the Democrats refuse to do those things, then the Republicans are no worse. There is no point in giving money or support to a part that consistently votes against my interests.
Law of Attraction can help us get our rights as citizens when we start approaching things froma different perspective. We deserve all goods and equality on every level of our social / cultural life. Had to share it with all of you. We can do a lot together : )