Mr. President, the GayTM is no longer in service.

[Pab Sungenis]

For allowing Cardinal Dolan a bully pulpit (and I mean "bully" in its literal sense) last night to spew his hatred of gays, I am done with your campaign.

I will not be making a donation or campaigning for you until and unless you apologize to us. This GayTM is out of cash.

I will vote for you solely because I do not have a choice, but I'm done funding Conservative "Third-Way" Democrats from now on. I am done funding those who insult us. No more hippie-punching or queer-baiting from our candidates will be tolerated.

[cali]

1. I'm sorry that Dolan spoke

but this is a President who has done a lot for the equality- from repealing DADT to Marriage Equality.

I will be voting for the President happily and proudly and poor as I am, I've donated and even if it means digging change out of the couch cushions and car, you're damned straight I'll be donating to him again.

Thanks for your little post. It's galvanized me.

[msanthrope]

16. Bigotry? No...impatience is not bigotry. I am annoyed that the OP

doesn't discuss the issues I raise downthread. Doesn't make me a bigot.

[loli phabay]

22. wasnt aimed at you. you gave a reasoned argument not a snide little comment

[msanthrope]

31. I know...but I don't think cali was bigoted. nt

[loli phabay]

39. mayby that was the wrong word to hse but the little snide comment got me

Thats why i never went after you. I found the total lack of respect of the op opinion very annoying.

[progressivebydesign]

172. disagreement is not bigotry. that's a huge stretch there because someone doesn't agree with you

and is tiring, like me, of the many many posts like yours today. I'm sorry, but it's way too dramatic for me.

If you don't want to donate, fine. Don't. Write them a letter. But the endless threads here about it... does nothing.

If you truly believe that the President has done NOTHING for the GLBT community, then fine. Don't donate. That's your choice. But if you're making this big dramatic proclamation, and holding your nose, just KNOW that people who get pissed off about ONE thing.. in the middle of a year long campaign, and four years of championing the GLBT rights like no other President has, then it comes off as just a bunch of self-serving posturing.

[cali]

17. bigotry? How fucking cheap, dishonest, and classless could you possibly be?

Calling someone a bigot who has displayed NO bigotry at all is one of the slimiest tactics I can imagine. And you accuse me of having no class? Get thee to a mirror and take a good long look.

And long before most people here, I was working on marriage equality and spending my own money on it here in Vermont- Like 15 years ago.

[loli phabay]

24. and yet you still felt the need for the little snide dismissive comment

The lady doth protest etc etc

[arthritisR_US]

26. The lady protests rightly!

[cali]

66. lol. all the cliches belong to you

[loli phabay]

71. and yet you do seem to wear them well and with pride

And still you think your little comment was funny kinda sad really

[obamanut2012]

118. Dolan IS a huge bigot

He is proud of it. He was proud of it last night.

[Marrah_G]

21. I'm very disappointed in this post from you

To be perfectly honest I am going to put you on ignore for a while.

[Ms. Toad]

65. While my feelings are different than Pab Sungenis I find your response painful.

I posted my feelings about Cardinal Dolan speaking here.

While allowing him to speak does not cause me the kind of anguish or extreme sense of betrayal that previous actions by this president, and the Democratic Party have, I am well aware that my feelings are not universally shared by others in the LGBT community. This administration's record on LGBT rights and inclusion, up until the time at which it became clear we were needed for the next campaign, were atrocious.

I believe Obama (at least) has truly had a change of heart, although I reserve some skepticism about the timing. But it is also a perfectly reasonable response (both rationally and emotionally) to believe it is all driven by political expediency -and to see the invitation to Cardinal Dolan as one more indication that we are tolerated when it is politically expedient to do so - and just in case they miscalculated Dolon gives them a hand to grab to be pulled out of their mistaken calculation. LGBT individuals and alllies who are angered, anguished, feel betrayed by this administration and the Democratic Party repeatedly lending their names to expressions of bigotry should be free to express those feelings without it being implied that we are once again whining about not getting our special pony.

[yardwork]

74. "Thanks for your little post." /nt

[goclark]

105. Galvanized me as well cali

I just sent in $$$ to the President last week and will give again.

[Marrah_G]

2. I held my tongue last night because the rest of the night was great

The President's decision to allow this bigot to give a SPEECH, a hateful anti-choice, anti-equality SPEECH, not a prayer, to close out what up until then had been a wonderful, inclusive three days filled with hope and love, both infuriates me and boggles my mind.

I went to bed angry instead of elated and much like the inauguration, the night will forever have that taint for me.

If anyone from the DNC reads DU...................FUCKING ENOUGH ALREADY. STOP PANDERING TO BIGOTS, ZEALOTS AND PEOPLE WHO WILL NEVER EVER FUCKING GIVE YOU THEIR MONEY OR VOTES.

[obamanut2012]

120. This

[Zorra]

223. Yes. That, for sure. nt

[bigtree]

3. I don't think President Obama was 'hippie punching' or 'queer-baiting'

. . . but for whatever reasons he chose to allow that hater priest to close the convention (and I think it was done out of ignorance, more than out of some hate or antipathy toward the LGBT community) it was wrong to have him speak; even in prayer.

I'd go so far as to say that his ignorance in allowing the hater priest is rooted in a deeper lack of understanding of the cancerous hatred that relishes in the light he allowed the priest to stand under. He very well should understand; and would understand if he would equate the LGBT struggle for respect and room for dignity with the one which his generation of black Americans gained the support of the majority of the nation to overcome.

I very much respect your decision and I'm extremely sorry that the hater priest was allowed to speak at our convention (whoever's fault it was or why).

[hlthe2b]

7. I did not see the ending convocation. That said, the entire week was one of inclusion & empowerment

and support for Latinos and other minorities, for women, for LGBT. Very strongly so.

I don't condone anything this bigoted Cardinal may have said and regret that he was included, but his few minutes does not wipe out an entire week that strongly sends the message that is consistent with our own progressive values. I refuse to let this one despicable man wipe out the social justice message of Sister Simone and all the social equity messaging of so many others. THEY represent our party. Cardinal Dolan does NOT.

[bigtree]

10. of course, it doesn't 'wipe out the entire week' at all

. . . it's something, I think, which can credibly be objected to all on its own (as the op has)

[hlthe2b]

18. I wasn't implying you were saying so. Actually, I responded to your post in agreement with you

[bigtree]

23. it was a great week

. . . our Democrats are a fine bunch of folks with a fine agenda.

Dolan was stupidity, hatred, and political ignorance personified. I think we're just going to have to live with the fact that folks with strong and righteous conviction are not going to countenance one bit of what happened on that stage when the hater priest was allowed to appear and speak.

[Bluenorthwest]

90. I think you all should BE the folks with strong and righteous conviction refusing to accept this.

But instead you say you will have to live with those of us who do the right thing...all I can say is wow, poor straights, having to live with those who will not help you excuse bigotry. How DO you all endure such things? Hard to imagine the suffering you all face....

[hlthe2b]

108. Lashing out at those who firmly in support of you?

Last edited Fri Sep 7, 2012, 12:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Really? These cretin RW Catholic bishops are also diminishing women's lives to chattel, you know--both straight and Lesbian. They would prefer to allow any woman here to die rather than allow her to have a life-saving abortion--or live with the horrendous mental health scars of a forced pregnancy resultant from violent rape. Do you not realize that this is more than 50% of the population, who may be straight or Lesbian, that are likewise impacted by the beliefs of these Catholic bishops and their RW fundy brethren. Yet, it is the Catholic NUNS who have stood arm in arm with Democrats/Progressives to push back against this kind of radical social agenda and to argue for social justice. And, they were there, despite the repercussions they may face by a very retaliatory church hierarchy.

Perhaps you need to widen your scope and perspective a bit.

I think it was a mistake to let him speak. I wish they had not. But, I'm not pulling my support from this campaign or Democrats in general. Rather, I will double down on my efforts.

[bigtree]

164. actually, I AM one of the folks refusing to support this

I don't really have enough money to donate. I give six dollars a month to the Obama campaign and I think the President has fulfilled enough of my expectations in office and the stakes in this campaign are high enough to merit that contribution.

As with other issues in this presidency, some dealing with life or death, I disagree strongly with this decision to let the priest speak at the convention. It was hurtful, and, it was an encouragement to others who would adopt and project the hatred he was promoting from the President's stage.

It's true that I don't share your sexual orientation. It's just sophistry to suggest that my 'straightness' prevents me from recognizing that the decision to let him speak offends very core values, that I, btw, personally don't segregate and parse according to who folks may chose to love and have relationships with.

Yes, the folks who object to those of us who speak out on this issue will have to live with that advocacy and dissent. Since I'm already firmly opposed to the priest's appearance, and firmly supportive of those folks who don't feel they can contribute to a campaign that allowed this to happen, I have NOTHING that I need to 'endure.'

I'm practically prostrate on this issue (in your favor) and you still want to dress me up in the priest's robe.

[Bluenorthwest]

186. then I misunderstood.

I was in fact, rather hurt thinking you said the other thing. It's just so sad that this is what comes at the end of every damn Democratic event since 07. I'm sick to death of it. Spoils all the fun, and it seems intentional. It was gay baiting, sorry to say.
The fact is, Dolan's presence means that all that equality talk might be the same as the talk of public option, just said for votes, forgotten after election day for 'pragmatic reasons, and of course, God in the mix'. I do not trust politicians who are willing, even once, to pain any minority group as inferior to others.

[muriel_volestrangler]

106. Here's a transcript

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=20613

Someone above was right that it's closer to a speech than a prayer; and it makes political points about abortion ("we ask your benediction on those waiting to be born, that they may be welcomed and protected&quot and same-sex marriage ("empower us with your grace so that we might resist the temptation to replace the moral law with idols of our own making, or to remake those institutions you have given us for the nurturing of life and community&quot , while avoiding the obvious keywords. It also arguably talks about assisted dying ("strengthen our sick and our elders waiting to see your holy face at life’s end, that they may be accompanied by true compassion and cherished with the dignity due those who are infirm and fragile&quot , though I haven't heard that brought up much as a national political issue.

This shows that religious organisations still have too much political clout in the USA. They should have gone with one of the nuns, if they thought they had to have something religious.

[obamanut2012]

122. This was literally what the DNC ended with

A man spewing hate against LGBT and women's rights. It really ruined the night for me.

Tone deaf decision.

[hlthe2b]

131. Tone deaf decision...

Yup, I agree. I'm glad I missed it. That said, I can't let this impact my determination not to double down in my efforts toward Obama in the WH and as many of ours in House and Senate as possible. The alternative is too devastating to consider doing otherwise. I don't even think we can afford to take much time to be annoyed, however justified we are to be so.

That said, I know such pragmatism sucks...

[dmallind]

57. It was done for the exact same reason anything that caused complaints at this convention was done

The common thread of the platform "vote", the capitulation behind it, and Dolan, is blindingly obvious - to appease Christofascists who cannot accept a single fucking thing in life, from a coin that cannot buy a candy bar through a baseball game to a President, without having it slathererd in fellating fawning to their big imaginary friend.

[bigtree]

60. agree

[treestar]

59. Does the President choose Dolan, or the DNC?

I don't know why they bother with these prayers. They must think that without them, they'll be harmed by the M$M pointing it out. They could look for a pastor without these views, but that may be difficult to find among the prominent clergy of the nation.

[bigtree]

68. it's just that

. . . to suggest that the President had no control over that decision at his own convention would be, to me, an amazingly weak view of his influence overall. Of course he could have intervened and chosen another pastor; just like he did when they ramrodded god back into the platform.

[treestar]

89. Maybe, but he may have to delegate a lot and this included

I'm not a big second guesser of President Obama, as I think he's pretty smart. Maybe there are names of clergy that could do these prayers who have liberal views, surely there are some - it's just what would the media make of it.

[enlightenment]

112. If they have to bring religion into it at all,

why do they need 'prominent' clergy? Are they worried about their TV ratings?

I thought all Christians pray to the same God? What difference does it make if the one offering up the prayer is a prominent figure or the pastor from the church down the street?

Prayer or political speech, this was a nasty bit of work and a sorry conclusion to the convention. Maybe it didn't completely undermine the good - but it sure as hell put major doubts in the minds of many - and tossed whole groups right back under the bus. Aggressive and open bigotry, barely sugar-coated.

They say you should start as you intend to end, so I guess the DNC did that. Starting with forcing the inclusion of a reference to God over the votes of the delegates - and ending with a hateful, bigoted religious message.

[obamanut2012]

123. Good point -- ask clergy from Charlotte or NC

Charlotte has a huge Unitarian community.

[treestar]

150. I don't know why they choose this

I'm not even totally non-religious, but I'd be OK with eliminating it from the government and conventions entirely. It's just not necessary. It must be a politically based decision - they think they'd alienate voters and we know the media would go on and on about the lack of prayer, especially with Obama involved.

[Bluenorthwest]

88. Who ever's fault it was....yep there's that lack of accountability again....

You know whose fault it is that this keeps happening? It is the fault of the excuse making straight folks, who coat the haters in protective impunity. It takes millions of accomplices to cover such a hate monger. And those millions are eager and casual in their defense of that which is wrong.

[bigtree]

159. I stock shelves for a living

I don't have a clue how this decision was made and you're just making it up as well.

You hear what you want. The important thing I said above was that the decision to let him speak was wrong. I didn't equivocate at all. But, you act as if I had the power to stop the idiot from speaking.

The poster who responded to you had it right. You're lashing out at folks you expect to support you. Not cool.

[TreasonousBastard]

182. Glad to hear you say that...

I interview people for a living, but not newsmakers and I, too, have no clue what backroom deals, accommodations, and blackmail go on when putting together a speakers list in something as large as a party Presidential convention. I go nuts just working out the seating a dinner party.

There wasn't one person I saw at that convention who would publicly agree with Dolan, and very few, if any, would privately agree. But, he is the leading voice in the largest religious organization in the country, and whatever deals, threats, or promises he made could not be ignored. To lash out here at people who are trying to get a handle on that is letting emotion take over and not even trying to understand the reasoning.

We once worked with Stalin to take out Hitler, ferchrissakes-- now we can't let a bishop make a speech to keep the peace?

[Bluenorthwest]

193. Are you making excuses for it? No, you are not. I said 'excuse making straight people'

The excuse makers, those who do not speak up and out. The straight community needs to put an end to this behavior, and too many of them make excuses and rationalizations for it. Some of you are trying to change that. The excuse makers are not the ones seeking change. They are not you. No one suggested it was you.

[yardwork]

197. I enjoy your posts and I appreciate the support you are expressing in this thread.

You have posted some beautiful, moving, and highly informative posts that have helped me understand things I didn't know much about. I appreciate that. Here in this thread I can see that you are listening patiently even to people who are understandably frustrated and upset that the Democrats have - yet again - felt it necessary to include overt homophobic bigotry in their election strategy.

I really appreciate your posts here. Thanks.

[yardwork]

196. I think that you may be misunderstanding some posts here.

Most of the posters in this thread are strongly repudiating Dolan's speech and agreeing that it was a mistake to include him at the convention.

It's very frustrating and upsetting that the Democratic convention included this bigotry, but folks here on DU agree with us for the most part.

[Jamastiene]

153. Thank you.

I usually do not agree with you on how to or not to criticize President Obama, but this post was actually very kind, imo. I appreciate that you took the time to applaud the inclusiveness in the rest of the convention AND to voice your sorrow that a hateful person was allowed to speak. To have our disappointment in that part of the convention acknowledged respectfully does wonders. I know it means a lot to me.

[msanthrope]

4. Why do you refuse to talk about the background of this conflict?

You know that Dolan was asked to speak at the RNC. When he accepted he stated that he wanted to speak at the DNC too to be "fair."

We know that that's bullshit though.... dolan wasn't interested in being fair. he was interested in pushing his martyrdom.... he still running around claiming Religious Liberty is in jeopardy in this country because of the contraception issue.

So what was the DNC supposed to do? Have a pissing match with a Catholic Cardinal 60 days before an election?

The RNC want a culture confrontation. Don't give it to them.

[hlthe2b]

9. Yes... you are right about the context.

[msanthrope]

11. Note that no major gay rights organizations took the bait. BO isn't being

criticized by those who understand Dolan was trying to start a conflict.

[loli phabay]

46. still does not mean people cant be annoyed or upset.

[msanthrope]

99. Absolutely. But posting about not donating is another thing. nt

[enlightenment]

114. Frankly, the excuse that they couldn't tell the man, "no thanks"

is ridiculous, but accepting that they were forced into allowing him to speak, why didn't they arrange to have another pastor give a short closing speech after this man - perhaps one who lives in the 21st century and not the 15th.
There are PLENTY of ways they could have diluted this - plenty of ways they could have made it clear that they do not support what this man was saying. Instead, they allowed his nasty, bigoted remarks to stand unchallenged.

It astonishes me that you are more upset because the OP is angry than with what the DNC allowed to happen last night and doubly astonished that you keep looking for ways to justify it.

[msanthrope]

121. They had one of the "Nuns on the Bus," and frankly, did you hear a speaker that did not talk about

gays and women?

Unchallenged??? Where have you been for three days? Dolan acted like a peevish idiot because he knew his message had already been rejected by the President himself.

[morningfog]

244. So is everyone on DU required to donate to the Obama campaign?

Or at least not say they aren't?

The OP said they are voting for Obama. I would think that is enough, even for the puritans.

As for the OP not responding to you, maybe they have you on ignore.

[nobodyspecial]

19. Wow, that explains A LOT

Speaker after speaker during prime time, including the president during, spoke of the freedom to love who you want and inclusion and equality. This is the platform. This is the agenda. I will listen to the voices of the 99% rather than one person who blackmailed his way onto the stage.

As far as withholding contributions because you have an issue with one person, who does that hurt? Will the GOP be as supportive? No, it will only amplify the voices of people like Dolan and codify them into law.

[Vattel]

41. I am not convinced by your assessment of the political consequences of declining the invite.

I don't see why it would have started some costly pissing match to simply thank him for the offer, but politely decline to have him give a prayer because of the desire to have some other worthy pastor or priest to give the closing prayer. Would that have cost Democrats some conservative Catholic votes? Maybe a few, and maybe they would have picked up some votes for being principled enough not to give a bigot and hater a political platform at the Convention.

[msanthrope]

102. It would have started a pissing match because Dolan is a repuke ally and would have whined about it.

This was a made-for-Fox-News-Reverend-Wright style scandal in the making.....

Just imagine the headlines on Murdoch's New York Post....

[Vattel]

160. I think you are just rationalizing a mistake.

[msanthrope]

163. Respectfully, I think you are incorrect. nt

[Zorra]

224. I was hoping that Dems were finally done with giving their lunch money to RW bullies

who might say mean things about them if they didn't fork it over.

I really was; submitting to the opposition out of fear makes for highly ineffective governance. It's distressing to hear that RW windbags can control Dems this way.

Don't we want a party that's going to stand up for us, and not sell us out simply because Rush Limbaugh might say mean things if they don't?

[suffragette]

247. Sounds like doubling down on the wrong to me.

Making a choice to invite someone who represents the opposite values and platform of civil rights, diversity and inclusion from the Democratic Party to speak sends a mixed message of what the Party supports or not.

Choosing to invite someone who is a Republican ally out of concern for how that ally would view this or respond and/or out of concern for how Murdoch's empire would report it is absurd. Dolan will still find things to whine about. And so will the NY Post, as if Murdoch's empire isn't just going to latch on and/or create scandals out of anything real or imaginary they can think of anyway.

And yes, this was a CHOICE to invite Dolan and give him a platform to spread hate.

[NCTraveler]

56. "Have a pissing match with a Catholic Cardinal 60 days before an election? "

No. They should have filled the spot with someone else. Poor little DNC.

"You know that Dolan was asked to speak at the RNC. When he accepted he stated that he wanted to speak at the DNC too to be "fair."

He gets to decide where he speaks. That is very weak. He wanted to be fair so the DNC had to let him. F that.

"We know that that's bullshit though.... dolan wasn't interested in being fair. he was interested in pushing his martyrdom.... "

And that is exactly what he was allowed to do. In the face of some of the best democratic supporters. LGBT and women.

Dolan was a disaster to end what was a great week.

[treestar]

61. Heck maybe the WomanTM ought to close too

But I don't see any women getting so mad about it they want to shoot themselves in the foot - at least not on DU.

[enlightenment]

116. Because if you don't see it, it isn't happening?

Maybe they don't feel like handing you the broom to sweep them under the bus today. That doesn't mean they aren't angry, just that they're not sharing their thoughts with people who apparently sleep with "The Prince" under their pillow.

[treestar]

149. Of all those claiming to be disappointed in Obama or seeing problems

Women don't seem to be doing that. I don't see it. It's from those who are very socialist and disappointed in the lack of a public option, people very anti-war and wanted the wars over sooner. Obama's actions have been pretty supportive of women's issues, as with gay issues. Yet Dolan likely doesn't support most women's rights, either.

[LadyHawkAZ]

173. Some of them might have learned their lesson

about expecting politicians to be perfectly perfect all the time in 2000. How quickly we all forget.

I didn't see the speech/prayer. I turned it off, since they were kind enough to dump him at the end after all the good stuff was over. I already know the RCC hates me, for being bi, for being atheist and for being female. I think it was a bad choice to allow him to blackmail his way onto the DNC stage, especially with so many people having the predictable reaction of "blame Obama". I get why they did it, I'm over it and it's time to work for November, with every scrap of enthusiasm I have in me.

[deutsey]

72. That's a good point

I wasn't aware of that larger context.

[JoeyT]

73. Well the context changes everything.

I was totally unaware Dolan was the only priest left on the planet. Otherwise it would have been kind of stupid to give him a stage rather than find a priest (Any priest) that wasn't a raging homophobe and misogynist.

No one is addressing your point because you don't have one. Should we allow the white supremacists the Republicans cuddle up to speak too? After all, wouldn't want to create a culture of conflict!

[msanthrope]

104. You are my 7th direct reply. So, yeah, people are addressing my point, thanks. nt

[JoeyT]

181. Sadly you ignored mine.

Why did they have to use *THIS* specific guy? Why couldn't they get another priest/preacher? Or a dozen of them? A hundred of them, even.

The only possible reasons are someone just flat out didn't think about it (Dumb), caved to the idea that Fox might be mean to them (Cowardly) or just didn't think potentially offending gay people was a big deal(Bigoted). It's not as if Obama personally handpicked the man to speak, so I'm not sure why people are even defending it. The best solution would be to say "Yeah, it was a stupid thing to do, and was probably unintentional.".

All defending the indefensible does is make the people that are rightfully offended dig in their heels that much harder. People wouldn't have been nearly as angry at Obama over Rick Warren if there hadn't been a constant chorus of "STFU homoz!" in response to their very valid complaint. It does far more harm than it does good.

I wonder if we'd be seeing these defenses if they'd let the Grand Dragon speak.

[joshcryer]

229. It sounds like they tried. If you recall Obama rebuffed Dolan.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/cardinal_sin_bam_blew_off_blessing_aLYqq7VnyqG8maCqZaui2K

A senior Obama campaign official said yesterday that the Democrats would have a “high-ranking” Catholic at the convention, but indicated the arrangements weren’t yet final.

“I can’t announce it because the person hasn’t got their plane ticket,” said the official.

But then the "high ranking official" they had in the works seemingly dropped off the radar.

It seems like Dolan told that official that he wanted to do it and to decline.

[TreasonousBastard]

183. May I be the 8th? Or...

were there more downthread?

Anyway, as I said to Bigtree above, I can't see any reason to go to war with the leading voice of the largest religious group in the country when we're trying to re-elect a President. A President who leads a party that doesn't agree with a lot of what this bishop says.

Someone said something about NYC gay groups, who know Dolan a lot better than most here do, not taking the bait. And bait it apparently was-- were we given a Hobson's choice of letting him speak or having conservative clergy from Southern Baptists to Missouri Synod Lutherans join with him and the Republicans condemning us for whatever they can loudly think of? Very loudly-- trying to drown out our message and shake our solidarity.

The sainted FDR worked with Stalin to rid the world of Nazis. Could we calm down a bit and let a bishop make a rude prayer in the name of peace? And victory?

[jeff47]

209. The point is Dolan could have spent a lot of time screaming about how Dems are attacking religion

by not inviting him. It would not matter if we used another clergyman for the prayer. The fact that Dolan wanted to and was rebuffed by the godless Democrats would be the story.

Does that mean we have to invite the KKK if they ask? No. But putting this guy on after spending the rest of the week bashing his beliefs neutralizes him - nobody thinks the Democrats believe him, since they outright said they don't. And he can't go to Fox and whine about Satan-worshiping Democrats attacking religion by not inviting him.

[joshcryer]

230. Except he *was* rebuffed. Dolan still weaseled his way in there.

A senior Obama campaign official said yesterday that the Democrats would have a “high-ranking” Catholic at the convention, but indicated the arrangements weren’t yet final.

“I can’t announce it because the person hasn’t got their plane ticket,” said the official.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/cardinal_sin_bam_blew_off_blessing_aLYqq7VnyqG8maCqZaui2K

I still think the Dems failed hard here because they could've seen that coming easily. A nice progressive pro-gay Christian little known bishop or priest would've been perfect.

[jeff47]

240. Perfect if you only think about the convention itself.

The next two months of "Democrats hate religion" from Dolan and company would make it not so much.

It's unfortunate we're in this situation, but those progressive pro-gay Christians didn't do much in the public sphere over the last 40 years - they felt actually helping people would be better. Meanwhile, the conservative Christians were working their asses off in the public sphere since they were not interested in helping anyone.

It's going to take some time to undo that difference. So we'll have unfortunate situations like this for a while.

[joshcryer]

228. It's a strategic fail. They should've seen it coming.

Hell, they should've proposed someone like Gene Robinson come in and then when Dolan gave his little quip they could've rebuffed him in a nice way by saying "No thanks, we have that position booked, but thank you very much for the offer. Maybe some other time?"

Anyway, I agree with another poster that it wasn't as bad as Rick Warren, but it's still damn stupid and wrong if not bigoted.

[iemitsu]

5. i felt that way about the president's speech.

though mr obama will get my vote in november, i thought his speech was the least inspiring of all the speeches at the convention (i didn't listen to dolan).
while it may have been a good strategy for the president to validate center-right policies (what americans call moderate) promoted by republicans and blue dog dems. it reminded me of how i felt when obama chastised the left for expecting him to represent us.
i would rather give my vote to michelle obama.

[jsmirman]

115. Well, she ain't running

it's time to win a damn election.

[iemitsu]

188. yeah, i know.

and mr obama will get my vote.
i would like, sometime before my death, to have the opportunity to vote for someone who was not just the better of two choices. the two party system does not offer choice when both parties are beholden to the same interests.

[jsmirman]

212. Can you begin

to grasp the dissatisfaction I have, as someone who lives and breathes better treatment for animals, protecting the Earth, and holding corporations accountable, with the two party system?

You're a fuckload closer to having an actual choice, trust me.

[WinkyDink]

8. Obama/Biden/Clinton/Granholm: THEY spoke for us. Dolan was rope-a-doped, a useful idiot.

[ananda]

13. Useful how?

Dolan was a bad ending to an otherwise great convention!
I turned my set off when his name was announced, simply
because I see the Catholic church hierarchy as oppressive
towards children, gays, and women.

But I don't see Obama and the other Dems that way, and
they will get my vote for sure!!!

[WinkyDink]

14. Useful in catching any stray conservative Catholics. "Hey, Ma! Look who spoke for Obama!"

[Marrah_G]

20. How about next time we get a preacher from Stormfront?

Heck, might be some stray racists out there who's vote we can catch.

The best thing any liberal can do right now is make it clear to the party in a unifies voice that we no longer will tolerate this kind of hate speech given under the guise of "preaching".

The worst thing we can do as liberals is tell two big very loyal parts of the party that their objection to hate speech is frivolous.

[jsmirman]

30. False equivalency

a "preacher from Stormfront" would not have been in the position to make the "you both will have me at your convention" "offer" that Dolan did.

The party united by telling him to go fuck himself by having every last speaker (minus Clinton) make reference to LGBT issues and not just in perfunctory ways.

[loli phabay]

34. problem is thats not how some people see it. you gotta realise we all have different

Perceptions and its very easy to shrug stuff off when you dont feel personally affronted or attacked.

[jsmirman]

43. And yet almost the entire Convention rollout is an affront to the issues

I hold near and dear, and while it sure as hell isn't "easy" for me to shrug it off, I do, and work toward electing Democrats, because that other party will kill my causes in a way that I can't outlive.

[loli phabay]

50. yup and thats your call to make. i would no more attack you for complaining

About something that got your goat. For a lot of people this was throwing the cat amongst the pigeons.

[jsmirman]

53. Unfortunately for us, we know what to expect

it's to the credit of the LGBT movement that so much progress has been made on so many issues.

Like I said in another thread, though, for an animal advocate or an anti-corporatist - the two issues that flat-out animate my life - this feels like being a starving man stumbling past two people complaining that the dessert souffle wasn't quite moist enough.

[loli phabay]

55. yup we all ha e different causes and its hard sometimes to wear the other persons heels

But stuff hurts and we should try to understand each other though we are all guilty of thinking our view is the most important and the correct one.

[Bluenorthwest]

93. Equal rights is not a complaint about a souffle.

nt

[jsmirman]

125. You've lost the plot. You're complaining about one guy after

a convention full of speaker after speaker who said tangible, clear, and powerful things in support of LGBT rights.

Equal rights isn't the souffle in that analogy - 1 appearance placed against hundreds of speakers is the souffle.

And for God fucking sake - I've got this fucking administration SHOOTING FUCKING WOLVES FROM THE SKY - how the fuck do you think I feel about that as an animal advocate - and yet I'm willing to play ball because what's best for my country is this party instead of the other one.

Souffle?

Do you know what I got served at this convention? Shit, Shit, and Jack Shit.

Shit for breakfast, shit for lunch, shit for afternoon tea, shit for dinner, and a massive dump on my pillow instead of a turn down chocolate.

The whole shpiel is going to be "DU is gay-bashing etc. etc." - do you have any idea what the fuck an animal advocate goes through here day after day after day?

Animal suffering happens to be the issue of MY LIFE.

But I deal with it.

No one is gay bashing because they think that a speaker we join with you in hating is not enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It's great that LGBT rights have not only come as far as they have, but have come to be embraced so fully by this party.

I doubt much of anyone here is against that. I sure as hell am not.

But this all is starting to, as one says, "get my goat."

[Bluenorthwest]

91. So you are saying that the mention of LGBT issues was for HIM? So all of those mentions were

simply exploitations of GLBT rights as a sort of weapon to attack this one guy, they were saying 'go fuck yourself' to the man they asked to pray when they mentioned those issues? Got to say, that's worse that perfunctory, that is simply using us.

[jsmirman]

119. What? That's insanity.

You're way too smart for such nonsense.

How do you not get that I mean the very existence of a major party convention that so consistently sounded support for LGBT rights is an implicit fuck you to him AND TO ANYONE ELSE LIKE HIM.

Good gravy.

[obamanut2012]

128. I read your post that way, too

[jsmirman]

135. You read it as "this was all a show for Dolan" or

you read it as "an entire party speaking strongly on LGBT rights is an implicit fuck you to anyone who opposes them"?

[Doctor_J]

37. Maybe next time Wayne LaPierre can speak

to pick up the stray gun nuts.

Sometimes the apologists make me

[piratefish08]

48. he should have had a speaker from every religion then. you know. to catch all the strays.

[obamanut2012]

126. The crazy anti gay preacher lives in Maiden

Only about 30 minutes from Charlotte. He would have said the same thing Dolan did, just with redneck accent and words, instead of a plummy accent and two-dollar words. Literally no difference. None.

[Lucy Goosey]

12. Giving Dolan the pulpit was a colossal mistake

Bully pulpit, indeed.

The convention was just so good, and there was so much overt, explicit talk in favor of abortion rights and marriage equality - and then they end with Dolan!? It makes no sense to me whatsoever; it was really offensive, actually.

[ananda]

15. Yeah, I just don't understand that ending either.

It was so offensive to children, their parents who seek to protect them,
gays, and women.

But, that said, I still see Obama and the Dems as inclusive and willing
to protect the rights of the oppressed and under-represented.

[Curtland1015]

25. It didn't end with Dolan, it ended with Obama.

...and he mentioned the gay community by name. Something that really Presidents pretty much never do in speeches.

Not that I'm saying that's a justification for letting that closed minded turd speak. It's intolerance and it's WRONG.

But it was one sole voice against the dozens who made their support of GLBT rights known, and one that really wasn't given much hurrah.

I'm not saying anger is unjustified. Just that this nut certainly wasn't made to look like a real voice in the democratic community.

[Bluenorthwest]

95. Don't do that. It ended with Dolan, Dolan had the last and final word, and that word was

framed as being from God, no less. A man like the President, who has at various times said he supported equality and that he opposed equality because of his God needs to never ever muddle that message is he is in fact with us. Perhaps all those words of 'support' were just political, like the 'support' for a public option which vanished into the ether?

[obamanut2012]

129. It ended with Dolan, not President Obama

[mick063]

27. Don't pull out the "gay" card

Unless you plan to use it tactfully. If you pull it out habitually.

It becomes a weapon for the opposition.

And you ultimately defeat your purpose. There are different levels of tolerance for the LBGT community only because the concept is relatively new for America. Don't push your luck.

[bigtree]

36. while I'm looking in on this post

. . . let me say that I disagree strongly that opinions and discourse on issues of basic human rights and dignity are 'cards' which should be held tightly out of concern for what an 'opposition' might do in response. It may well be prudent for politicians to dither around important issues, but *we are not constrained at all in our advocacy or dissent, nor should we be, by political concerns. In fact, it is the very existence and persistence of that outside advocacy or opposition which is the ONLY motivator in the political arena which has a chance of effecting progressive change.

Push your luck.

[obamanut2012]

130. So, our civil rights are now "The Gay Card"?

WTF

[Marrah_G]

157. Gay card....really?

Shame on you

[sibelian]

161. What looks like a "card" to you has significant consequences for the lives of real people.

Gay people don't really have the option of not speaking up. Doubtless you are sufficiently comfortable in your own personal circumstances not to have to worry about legislation being drafted and passed regarding some aspect of your person over which you have no say, and are unable to relate to or understand this concept, so I will explain it to you in simple words - gay people speak because if they don't, people start attaching us to trees and fences and smashing our faces with baseball bats.

Awfully sorry to spoil your fun, do have a nice time otherwise.

[DURHAM D]

175. Good lord - could you be more insulting.

Gay rights are human rights and not a "card" trick.

You need to delete this ugly post.

[Heidi]

238. Please think about what you just posted. Would you have said, "Don't push your luck" to a person

of color when the civil rights movement was getting a foothold?

That we even speak of "tolerance" in this day and age is disgusting. What is there to "tolerate" about equal human rights? Anyone, left or right, who is only "tolerating" equal human rights is a bigot.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerance

[dogday]

241. You are fucking kidding, right?

Please say that you are not serious about what you posted... omg

[jsmirman]

28. COME ON. See post #4

Speaker after speaker, including all of the most important ones (except, yes, Clinton) specifically reaffirmed their support of the LGBT community.

And at what fucking cost? You think that's politically easy? You think that's a polling slam dunk? I had my ears open to mentions of LGBT issues. One speaker after another. And I think that's great.

Please go back and listen to each of those speeches, see how speaker after speaker glowingly supported issues that have electoral challenges, and still complain that it wasn't perfect enough.

I agree with the poster in #4 just about, well, never, but she's right on this one. If speaker after speaker powerfully and resonantly taking up your cause isn't enough to keep "the GayTM" open, well that is a bank with unreasonable requirements.

I wish he hadn't spoke and I'm sorry he did, but as per post #4, they were obviously between a rock and a hard place. But close the GayTM. Let Dolan win. Because then we can elect a party that really hates your ass, we can totally lose the gains toward equality on marriage and everything else, and you can be that much more happy being a martyr.

If LGBTers are playing right into Dolan's trap - allowing his actions to further the cause of the party that is truly intolerant - well, anyone doing that is straight up fucking up. I'm sorry, but there's no sugar-coating it.

[msanthrope]

35. I've got my ice skates on, and Satan just ordered Hitler to rev up the Zamboni......

[jsmirman]

45. Indeed

capture the moment in time

[loli phabay]

52. lol is this one of these magical kodak moments ive read about ;)

[jsmirman]

54. It's like a lemur mating with a goose

I even agreed with Ruby on something the other day. Cast in contrast with the party of utter hate and divisive greed, many of us actually find ourselves on common ground.

[dogday]

242. I can picture it right now

what an image

[Bohunk68]

29. I've been working at

civil rights for the GLBT community ever since I was ousted from the Navy for being gay back in 1964. I've been out and proud when it was not a popular thing to do. I constantly am on fb slamming the pedophile priests and those who protect them, Nolan being one of them. I live in a rural redneck community and am out there for the last 32 years. I live in danger every fricking day. As it was, I heard about the controversy before it happened and managed to change my C-span and not hear the slimeball. What he said does NOT in any way detract what all the other Dems said over and over again. I choose not to go into a corner and pout. It seems to me that you were just looking for an excuse not to contribute and you have it. You do a disservice to all others on the ticket.

[SidDithers]

32. Well said...

I choose not to go into a corner and pout. It seems to me that you were just looking for an excuse not to contribute and you have it. You do a disservice to all others on the ticket.

Sid

[jsmirman]

33. Thank you

What he said does NOT in any way detract what all the other Dems said over and over again.

This.

[ProSense]

47. Well said, and thank you! n/t

[Bohunk68]

92. thanks to the three of you who responded to me

Frankly, I expected to become flame bait. I just get so sick and tired of the cry babies that get all upset over a goddamn prayer. I, and many others of my age group have had to go through a pile of shit each and every day of our lives, some of us being killed and maimed within an inch of our lives. To see some getting so upset is just surreal. I serve in the local ELCA congregation here in Upstate NY in the most conservative conference and have been the only out Deacon in all of Upstate NY for going on 20 years. Now, we have a gay pastor AND his husband serving in a community near me. THAT'S FRICKING PROGRESS!!! It would not have happened if I had not been present at conferences and being the GLBT person that I am. If I had stayed home and pouted I might have felt good about it, but it's not about me, it's about those coming after me. My partner of 27 years passed away 6 years ago and we could never get married, though now we could. I could not even sign to have him cremated OR to receive his cremains. So, suck up your anger, and keep up the good fight. Like Grandma used to say, smile and the world smiles with you, cry, piss and whine and you do it all alone.

[jsmirman]

132. Thank you again - so frustrated - this whole thread feels like a Dolan win

this feels like we're doing exactly what Dolan wanted us to do by pulling his "I'll pray at both conventions thing."

Dolan is NOT easy to dismiss, unfortunately.

He is the most powerful representative of the Pope in America.

I really wish we could all agree that we all hated his message and focus on many of the positive things that occurred at the Convention.

[progressivebydesign]

171. + a million. n/t

[obamanut2012]

138. "Cry babies"

[obamanut2012]

137. "Pout"?

whatever

[Egnever]

180. Thank you

You clearly have your eye on the prize and have had for years. The op seems to be looking for an excuse to be mad and ineffective at the same time.

I was amazed and proud of the support for the LGBT community in this convention. We have come a looong way.

[GoneOffShore]

192. Well said - It's good to hear that you get it where others here don't.

Pragmatism is where it's at.

[rdking647]

38. because romney will be so much better

you can stay on the high horse. do nothing to help obama. and then come january when romney is sworn in you can see just how well your plan worked

[BeyondGeography]

40. Absurd

[lunatica]

42. I think it would be good if you sent your complaint to the White House

And the Democratic Party leaders. Don't you? Why burn your bridges in the middle of the fight? Do you think you and the gay community's will be better off with Romney and Ryan? You need to look out for your rights.

[Safetykitten]

44. Oh silly, we learned from the Rick Warren gig, and we do not do stuff like that...oh nevermind.

[ProSense]

49. You're not going to support Democrats, but

there are gay groups opening their pockets for Republicans. See the problem?

This is over a political appearance, not the positive actions taken and inclusive policies the Democratic Party espouses.

[marmar]

51. It was a terrible choice.....I'm going to give the DNC the benefit of the doubt.....

..... and assume it was a case of bad vetting by convention organizers. But who knows?

[The Link]

58. Why wasn't an outspoken racist given a speaking role?

Because homophobia is a form of bigotry that is apparently acceptable within our party.

[treestar]

64. There's a big difference between those two things

This country is still religious and having no prayers would create a media storm. Finding someone for the prayer - it's going to be hard to find someone who isn't a male chauvinist gay basher.

[justiceischeap]

96. You could have any number of religious figures close the convention that supports equality

it would not be a difficult task to do so. There's a synagogue right down the street from where I live that has a huge banner in front of their church that states that marriage equality rocks. There are Unitarian ministers that could have handled the job. As Brian Schweitzer said last night, that dog don't hunt.

It was a huge display of tone-deafness on the DNC's part. If they are going to include LGBTQ equality as part of the party platform, then they should have someone from the LGBTQ community giving input on what will resonate poorly within the LGBTQ community. Their decision to allow Dolan to address the convention was an EPIC FAIL, just as having Rick Warren at the inauguration.

[treestar]

111. Maybe a gay clergy person

There are some.

[obamanut2012]

141. Jim Wallis, Sister Simone, John Spong, local Charlotte clergy

who are UCC, UU, liberal Episc., MCC, etc. Not really hard to do.

And, no different than having a minister come in and "pray" about lazy blacks or welfare queens. No difderence.

[treestar]

147. Never heard them pray about that

usually they are fixated on the social issues.

Wonder what would have happened had they used the people you mention. Media would probably look into them in depth - I would think the Democrats would prefer people like that but don't pick them due to some concern over giving the media an issue.

[jeff47]

210. Homophobia is a form of bigotry that's acceptable to the nation

Or at least a significant portion of the nation. A portion of the nation Dolan wanted to rile up by having the DNC refuse him.

"Look at those Godless Democrats! They rejected Dolan because they hate religion!" was going to be the line taken on Fox and beaten continuously for the remaining two months.

Letting Dolan speak removes that. Spending the entire week bashing Dolan's position disarms whatever he hoped to do by speaking. The lazy media has their nice little bookends and equivalency, so there's no story.

So....you can be pissed about one speaker after a week of speakers saying the opposite, after years of killing DADT and DOMA, and all sorts of other gains. Or you could pay attention to the actual track record instead.

[IdaBriggs]

62. Give your money where you want.

Or don't, as pleases you.

I didn't watch the Cardinal's speech - did he spew homophobia on a national stage, or are you angry because of how he behaves elsewhere?

If he got up and publicly repudiated the Democratic platform with its support of equal rights for all, then you should not give another dime.

If he got up and spoke about the values he has in common with the Democrats, then unfortunately, he had a right to be there.

We don't have to agree with EVERYTHING to work toward a common good; worse, we have to keep a dialog going with people who disagree with us on some things.

My "push button" issue is Reproductive Issues & Women's Health - I don't find the Cardinal's views on it of value. I get your upset. But don't become "invisible" - make sure your voice is heard.

You Are Here! You Matter! And you need to be VISIBLE to the Cardinal, which means he shouldn't be excluded, either.

It's a tough road. We are getting there, step by step...

[marmar]

67. "he had a right to be there"

Regardless of whether he was on his best behavior last night, someone who espouses bigotry and inequality does not belong at the Democratic National Convention. This isn't a public park or a library - this is a showcase of Democrats and their values.

[IdaBriggs]

155. My misunderstanding was that he wasn't trying to meet anyone even part way.

Forgive me, but what kind of an idiot would allow a bigot to come scold us at a national convention?

Marmar, you are right, and since I was not fully aware of the circumstances, I am going to have to acknowledge that this was a mis-step by the convention organizers. (I said it below - not as big as Clint Eastwood talking to a chair, but a mis-step nonetheless.)

I still feel energized and proud of the people who represented well; for me, he represents the incentive to do more.

I think I may go donate to Obama again, thanks to him. I don't want him, or his cronies anywhere NEAR power!

[yardwork]

77. Yes, as a matter of fact Dolan did "spew homophobia" and he publicly repudiated the Dem platform.

That's exactly what he did. Dolan spoke out against marriage equality in very strong terms. Used the opportunity as a guest at the DNC to "publicly repudiate" our platform and our values "on a national stage."

[IdaBriggs]

154. Just went and googled the speech - and am appalled.

I am an optimist and was hoping he was attempting to demonstrate unity as a country, compassion for the poor, and other appropriate values. Learning he took the opportunity to take a swipe at "liberal values" - including the party platform at a national convention - well, I can understand the outrage!

It was a mis-step by the organizers - not as big as Clint Eastwood, but still a mis-step. I'm not going to let him ruin the rest of it for me, tho. I'm going to take it as incentive to work harder! (Then again, I am Very Stubborn - lol!)

Google led me here: http://www.salon.com/2012/09/07/dolan_spoils_the_party/

Hugs to those who were hurt by the snark of the Cardinal!

[yardwork]

176. I agree with you - it was appalling but in no way ruins the rest of a great convention.

As somebody else posted, Dolan is an asterisk.

[obamanut2012]

142. He spewed homophobia and anti women garnage in his so-called prayer

And, why did he have a right to be there?

[IdaBriggs]

156. My original statements stand, with a subsequent clarification:

I said, "If he got up and spoke about the values he has in common with the Democrats, then unfortunately, he had a right to be there."

I also said I hadn't paid attention to him, and that meant my original comments were (politely) uninformed. I have since googled the speech (http://www.salon.com/2012/09/07/dolan_spoils_the_party/) and am officially in the appalled camp that he was actually nervy enough to come on stage at the convention and try to scold.

I believe in the Big Tent, but I think a better analogy in this case is a Life Raft, and this is a guy who wants to toss many of us into the drink to drown.

Very inappropriate, and a mis-step by the organizers. (I have also said "not as a big of a mis-step as Clint Eastwood talking to a chair, but a mis-step nonetheless.&quot

I am debating donating (again) to Obama. I really don't want these people near power over anyone's lives but their own. I am also very proud of our speakers, and am choosing to be "energized" by them, as opposed to "demoralized" by this man's "scolding."

I'll give the man this: it took nerve. Yes, I'm definitely going to go donate again....

[ecstatic]

63. When did he speak, and Pres. Obama and most other speakers stood up for gay

americans. NOBODY at the RNC did. Talk about not seeing the forest through the trees!

[liberalmuse]

70. I turned it off before that.

I'm an atheist anyway, but having someone who is so divisive say the benediction was wrong. This man had no place in our convention. I'd never even heard of him until his hateful rhetoric was brought to my attention, and sadly, I think that most people don't know who he was or how inappropriate it was for him to be involved in any way, shape or form with the DNC. I'm so thankful for DADT and the updated Democratic Part platform, and that the LGBT community had a larger role than ever before in this convention, but it's clear we still have a ways to go. I'm really sad that this person has hurt so many people, and that for whatever reason, he was allowed to close out what was a beautiful 3 days. I hope that next time, there is no room for intolerance, even in the name of "inclusiveness". Bigotry has no place in our party.

[Prism]

75. There's a difference now. The administration has a track record.

I wouldn't put this quite on the same level as Rick Warren. While on the surface, it may appear similar, we're in a different place now than we were in January 2009.

Back then, we were reading tea leaves about what the nascent administration might do. The campaign got entirely too comfortable with homophobia, and we had no guarantee about DADT, DOMA, and the President's constant cowardice on the issue of marriage equality.

Now, things are different. The President is fully supportive, we're in the party platform, DADT is gone, and DOMA is being actively opposed in the courts.

That is a great deal of substance to weigh against this bigot speaking. With Warren, we didn't have that substance or acceptance yet. We only had words and intentions. When all you have are words, promises, and intentions, every word, speech, and invitation has gravity.

Now, that invocation should be weighed against what the party and President are doing. They've done and are doing quite a bit. So I'm not in the same place as I was in January 2009. I think the first president and party platform to speak out in favor of marriage equality should be supported as much as we possible can.

Yes, Dolan pisses me off. Yes, I sighed and rolled my eyes at how clueless it was to invite him.

But, on balance, we still need to do everything within our power to make this re-election happen. What the President and party have done for us is just too significant to allow this trifle of a bigot derail us now.

JMHO, but I do know how you feel. And again, I loathe a lot of the responses here.

[yardwork]

76. I agree. I said that in Zorra's thread about this, too.

[Prism]

78. Hey you!

[yardwork]

79. Hey there, buddy. How ya doing?

[jsmirman]

85. Well, this seems reasonable

[Prism]

208. He's earned the break from me

Some of us have really ridden the President's ass during his first term, and I do think it's a good idea for a politician to feel rewarded when they do the right things. So while I'm incredibly disappointed about Dolan - and some of the defenses being offered about it - I don't feel like it warrants going to eleven on the President.

[jsmirman]

211. Here's a question

can you at least accept that with over 60 million Catholics in the United States that the leading representative of the Pope in America put a very uncomfortable proposition to the Dems with his proposal, knowing the Repubs would say yes?

I think it's disgusting of him to have used his appearance for politicking.

It makes me think even less of the pedophile-shielding Church than I already did.

[Prism]

217. I was raised conservative Catholic

I'm honestly having trouble believing that many Catholics would care about it. I don't think, especially after the child abuse scandals, that very many Catholics are terribly in thrall to the hierarchy. The easiest solution to that dilemma would have been inviting a Catholic who is more amenable to Democratic ideals and the Catholic history of social justice. There are plenty of them out there.

It seems to me that the people who would change their votes based on Dolan probably aren't going to vote for President Obama in the first place.

[jsmirman]

218. You might be right

I just think you might not be.

I know the relationship between some Catholics in America and the Church is more strained than in the past, but asking the party to give up on the votes of anyone who actually still sees some resonance in the figure of the Pope...

I mean, I know the Republicans have banked hard for everyone who follows the Pope's every word, but on the other hand, I don't think the crowds that greet the Pope are exclusively made up of people who fit that description...

[Prism]

219. I'm somewhat at a loss, though

I don't understand why a suitably less politically charged Catholic bishop could not have been invited. A simple "We'd love to have a Catholic official do the closing prayer. However, we feel Bishop X is more suited to the atmosphere we're trying to foster. But we're very excited about welcoming the Church to our event."

Sure, Dolan would probably have made a stink, but he wouldn't be able to say the DNC was snubbing Catholics. Any stink he made would clearly be an act of personal ego rather than a dissing of an entire faith. Which brings me back to the idea that anyone cleaving that closely to Dolan's conservative, dogmatic approach to Catholicism just doesn't sound like an Obama voter to me.

[jsmirman]

226. But I don't think he's just "Bishop X"

unless I misunderstand, I believe he's the Bishop Numero Uno in the U.S., the Pope's chosen top representative in the United States.

Regardless, I don't imagine I'm going to get any movement in this conversation, so it's the last I'll say on it.

[Prism]

227. He's the Head of the Conference of Bishops

It's an organization whose leadership is voted upon by all the other bishops within it. The Pope doesn't typically involve himself in that process. Presidents of the conference serve three year terms. (Random aside - one recent President, Wilton Gregory, confirmed me when he was still an auxiliary bishop in Chicago. He was pretty great.)

I'm not sure if that affects your opinion in any way, but Dolan wasn't appointed head guy by the Pope. He's just the current administrative leader of the conference and could retire from that or be replaced as early as next year. Being elevated to cardinal is the bit involving the Pope. But there are many Cardinals in the U.S. Any one of them could have sufficed.

[jsmirman]

233. My knowledge is not something I'd go to bat on here

I just know that being a New Yorker, we sure get the impression that Dolan is a big deal, and that he was selected to take the NYC spot for a reason.

That could just be New York-centric New York'ism, that's where I get my impression from, though.

[DURHAM D]

177. The thing about Dolan is that it was an unforced error,

avoidable, nonsensical, amateurish from a political standpoint.

As I said elsewhere, once I heard the news he was speaking I canceled my volunteer schedule (20-24 hours a week). I thought maybe I would return but after reading what Dolan actually said I don't know that I can.

I live in a swing state and can not be the only person who decided to stand down, at least for awhile. I don't know what I will do. I wish the campaign would issue an apology for their mistake and then I would return to headquarters and take my already written campaign contribution with me.

[Prism]

207. I'm much cagier about the election

I don't share the prevailing DU sentiment that it's in the bag, so right now I'm not personally in a place to withhold support over Dolan.

However, if you feel that that's what you need to do to make yourself heard and shift the perception of the party leaders to make sure they never do it again, I support you 100% in a decision you feel you need to make.

[Swede Atlanta]

80. As a gay man I am disappointed in Dolan....

by using his invitation to address the convention, the nation and the world to engage in this kind of people bashing...

But I am absolutely enthusiastic about the convention and fired up to support this President and other Democratic candidates. We cannot allow the comments of one person to derail the train. Speaker after speaker affirmed the party's support for the LGBT community. The party platform endorses equality including marriage equality. What more do you want?

[DonRedwood]

84. + a gazillion

[Bluenorthwest]

103. I'd like to see the Democratic community stand up and reject that message loudly

so that the LGBT community is not, yet again, stuck being the only Democrats actually speaking the truth and calling for justice. They need to stop accepting the Dolans, who do in fact define their community and their faith, it is their job to say 'we are not that' and to let the Party know that any donations made are made in spite of Dolan, not because of him.
This is politics. Last convention, the President said he would demand a public option, then he simply did not. So the rhetorical 'support' of equality might have all the meaning of other politically expedient statements. Later, people will say 'it was an election, politicians say things in elections, you didn't really think that was going to happen did you'....show me law, show me my rights, rhetoric is often tossed aside, but the law is the law. What more do I want? Equal rights in reality, not in some pie in the sky by and by future.

[DonRedwood]

189. agreed...but will you stop voting democrat until you get it?

[progressivebydesign]

170. + a hundred bazillion. I don't view one incident as a reason to turn my back on my fellow americans.

that's what some of the purists do, and it drives me nuts every election.. this is a liberal thing, and why we screw ourselves.

[sabrina 1]

225. 'Purists' 'ponies'! You know what? This is what drives ME nuts in every election.

Last election we heard the same thing. The same talking points always aimed at those who dare to stand up against the denial of rights to any American.

But no prepared talking points for the bigots, though. There are always a slew of these insulting words and phrases ready to aim at the those doing that 'liberal thing', standing up against bigotry, or for Health Care for everyone, or for the poor, or against forever war.

If anything this now old strategy only strengthens the resolve to be even more outspoken, as it makes clear that even our own party is not on the right side of these issues.

Your anger seems misdirected to me for a Democrat.. It should be directed at those who continue to make it necessary for people to have to keep doing that 'liberal thing' that drives you so nuts.

It's like being angry at the person who was mugged rather than at the mugger.

Had people listened to these now so familiar admonitions Gays would still not be able to serve openly in the military and the President would still be saying that 'marriage is between a man and a woman'.

Clearly we have not been loud enough about the PO or Social Security either, thank you for reminding me.

Words like 'purist' are insulting, their intended meaning is reprehensible.

Asking for Civil Rights is the right thing to do but the words 'purist' and 'ponies' etc. imply that it is the wrong thing to do. It's like there is little bag somewhere that is hauled out every election season and the contents are recycled. It got old a long time ago.

We have only party that is likely to do something about all these issues, and the last thing people need to do is to let them think these issues are not important to those who are the most likely to vote for them.

[jberryhill]

81. Cardinal Dolan thanks you

Mission accomplished.

[vaberella]

94. I see what you mean but I understand where the poster is coming from. n/t

[jberryhill]

113. I understand it too

Cardinal Dolan engaged in a manipulation in order to get the slot and use it that way.

The poster has fallen for the manipulation.

When someone has fallen for a con, I perfectly understand what led the victim to fall for it.

The poster is allowing his/her actions to be governed by Cardinal Dolan.

I am sure the Cardinal would be pleased if Catholics in general obeyed him as assiduously as the OP.

But, sure, I understand it too.

[Fumesucker]

140. The ones that fell for the manipulation were the Democratic leaders..

The OP is just doing what the Democratic leaders should have full well expected when they allowed Dolan to manipulate them.

[jberryhill]

146. I believe our Democratic leaders are going to continue to advance the cause of equality

And that the OP is going to just sit that out.

If you want to put Cardinal Dolan in the driver's seat when it comes to what YOU do in this election, then he only has the power over you which you choose to give him.

[Fumesucker]

152. He only has the power that the Democratic leaders choose to give him..

They too had a choice and made the wrong one by putting a sexist and homophobic bigot on their stage.

[slampoet]

100. +1000

Unless this person replies to their own thread this is just trolling

[DonRedwood]

82. In 1975 it was illegal on the West Coast for two men to dance together.

The changes for gay people have been HUGE in the past few decades. I'm an out teacher on my HUSBAND's insurance and my contract allows me family time off if my HUSBAND is ill.

Change is slow. You are choosing to ignore EVERY person at the convention who supported us, every voter who has voted for us and every gay person who has been fighting a long hard battle.

I'll except a national convention where Presidents and first ladies and governors, senators, congressmen, and more have stood and publicly proclaimed their support for me and my rights.

I'll ignore the one dipshit and gladly accept the love and respect and support from everyone else who was there.

I guarantee you it feels a lot better than being mad about the Catholics again.

[mstinamotorcity2]

83. I think having the Cardinal

at the end served a different purpose for me. It showed me that in this country we still have to show unity with our LGBT community. And the contrast of those who believe in non-inclusion. I would rather know who they are. So I can avoid them.

[vaberella]

86. I completely respect and support your post. K/R

I still love him but really...Dolan is an ass and religion needs to stay out of these conventions or at least kept neutral.

[cliffordu]

87. How much were you going to donate?

[Robb]

97. You missed a great opportunity. You should've donated

...then demanded it be returned. Then donated again.

[great white snark]

178. Snort!

[slampoet]

98. Wow a post from a "gay" contributor that overreacts and offers no facts as to the back ground and

Last edited Fri Sep 7, 2012, 06:20 PM - Edit history (1)

ends up blaming the politically convenient wrong target. And when challenged, silence.

Gee that isn't new.

[The Link]

101. By challenged you mean bashed?

I wouldn't respond to it either.

[DemocratsForProgress]

109. ugly, disgusting remark n/t

[obamanut2012]

143. appalling post

[QC]

166. Jury says it's OK, though.

No surprise there.

Since the coming of the jury system, this place is basically a Yahoo message board with a nicer user interface.

[Iggo]

245. Yeah. Juries.

[sibelian]

162. I suggest you go and read Dolan's speech. nt

[Starry Messenger]

185. What are you, twelve years old?

Why not just call him a f*****? It's obvious you're thinking it anyway.

[Bluenorthwest]

187. Wow, a Democratic event featuring anti gay rhetoric to please the Straight Community

who later pretends it was done to please some other community, and demands that no complaints about it sully their precious eardrums. But of course, that's not new. That's old and tired.

[LeftyMom]

234. What's up with the scare quotes around gay?

[IVoteDFL]

107. I know some people don't think this is a big deal

Maybe to you, it isn't. I live in a state that has a marriage amendment on the ballot this year though. It bothers me a lot. It especially burns my buns that there are many gay-friendly religious leaders that could have given the prayer, but they still chose Cardinal Dolan. I would have *loved* for Father Bob Pierson (look up his youtube video!) or someone like him, since he is an unknown small-town guy.


Of course, I will still donate my time and what cash that I can for President Obama. I can't forget about the fact that LGBT rights were added to the platform. This convention is very different than in 2008 towards the issue. It might make all the difference when it's time to vote on the marriage amendment here in November. Things still aren't 100% perfect in the party, but it's a long way from where we were.


I do think people still have a right to be upset about it though. It's not fair to say that they had the rest of the week, and that Cardinal Dolan is a non-factor. He is a factor, and if I'm THIS pissed off about Cardinal Dolan I can only imagine how angry gay people are with the situation.

[larkrake]

110. what a childish response. many dems are catholic and deserve representation

it isnt all about you Pab

[obamanut2012]

144. So, all Catholics are anti gay and anti women's rights?

Like Biden, Sister Simone, John Kerry? Uh huh.

Should say, the anti LGBT Baptists who are Dems have had the preacher from Maiden, NC, get to "pray," too?

How about the delegates who are kinda racist? Or who really don't care for atheists?

[obamanut2012]

117. I was shocked he was allowed to speak

We have folks like John Spong, Jim Wallis, Sister Simone, lots of UU ministers, a liberal rabbi, etal who could have done the benediction.

Not only does he loathe gays and women, he expressed that last night. He did not express that the the RNC, because they are "pure."

It was an unnecessarily bitter and hateful and divisive ending to several days that really and truly made me feel happy and included and full of hope.

I do not fault Pab or anyone else really appalled and disgusted by this. The President has come a long way from Rick Warren, but last night was like a horrible bookend to that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

136. "Didn't Do Shit For Gays"

Must have missed the repeal of DADT which did more to welcome GLBTQ folks into mainstream society than any piece of legislation in our lifetimes.

[enlightenment]

127. I appreciate your frustration,

and understand your anger.

If it's any consolation, your OP looks like it has won the full coverage "Justification of Action and Set Response to Criticism" Bingo card.

[southernyankeebelle]

133. Well go luck with that. See if you will find what you are looking for any place else. I'm catholic

when I saw Dolan I muted him. You could have done the same. If I see what I don't like I change the channel. You are not going to change that man's mind. So by leaving the dems you are giving Dolan what he is looking for. You are playing into the religious rights hand.

[Bluenorthwest]

184. So when you see your neighbor subjected to libel and injustice, you just look the other way?

I think that is a huge, huge part of the problem. The good people do nothing, they switch the channel, pretend the neighbor is fine and refuse to say a word about what you know is wrong to those you know are doing that wrong.

[southernyankeebelle]

195. If my neighbor needed me I would be there in a second. You only can control the tv by muting or

changing the channel. I have stood my many friends. I was raised right. But you can't fight a creep on the tv. That man is set in his narrow minded ways and you aren't going to change his mind. No amount of saying anything to him is going to change his mind. I wish it would but its not. Those damn bishop, and cardinals aren't going to change. Once they keep losing people enough they will be forced to change. People aren't going to do it today. In the catholic church sometimes change takes centuries.

[TeamPooka]

134. Repealed DADT and spoke out for Marriage Equality, not defending DOMA....I think he's doing okay

IMHO

[valerief]

139. Yes, cuz if we can't get everything right, we shouldn't get anything right.

[obamanut2012]

145. Dolan also publicly repudiated the Dem platform

A point Yardwork made in this thread.

Get that? The DNC ended with Dolan publicly declaring the platform of rights and inclusiveness was wrong. He publicly started that, to God and the American public.

[jeff47]

213. And it was heard by about 6 people.

On the other hand, "DNC refuses Dolan's offer because they hate religion" was going to be a major talking point for the next two months. And he'd be able to talk much, much longer to many more people.

The fact that liberal religious people have not effectively stood up to the conservatives in their religion leaves us in a place with poor options. The Nuns on the Bus is a good start, but there's about 40 years of conservative work to be un-done.

[Ikonoklast]

148. I am glad that you do not speak for every gay person, even though you think that you do.

Very grandiose mind-set.

By gay ex-BIL is happily canvassing for President Obama, so there is one you don't speak for.

[DevonRex]

151. Pab, yours was never open. We know that. Nt

[slampoet]

200. .

[scheming daemons]

158. Oh FFS

95% of this convention was perfect.

It was the most LGBT-friendly convention in the history of American politics.

Almost every speaker made a positive reference to marriage equality.



But because 0.01% of the convention time was given to a bigot, you're taking your ball and going home.


Whatever. You weren't going to donate anyway. You were looking for some excuse.


President Obama is the greatest friend the LGBT community has ever had in the White House. And you know it.

[Arugula Latte]

165. Who was responsible for booking that colossal asshole?

Does anyone know?

[SoapBox]

167. I was just going to ask the same question...

Man, this is one fiery thread.

Personally, I will support President Obama. While not every decision is perfect, it is a BIG job...a SUPER big job. I would challenge anyone here to try and do it...and make every single American happy. I don't think that is going to happen, ever.

I did not see this creep but I've heard some about him previously. Rather than assaulting the President for allowing him to speak, I think it best to find out exactly who allowed him to participate and then take action. Did the President REALLY, personally, put him on? I doubt it. With facts in hand, I would not have a problem letting the White House and DNC know that it was distasteful, at best. I always feel that you get the best results if a complaint is measured, honest and accurate vs. a rant.

Yes, there is work to be done in support of the LGBT community but it feels like that old phrase, about cutting off your nose applies. We must work with what we have (better than the other choices...see below) being constant and consistent.

Remember...these were/are the other choices!

McCain and Palin!

Romney and Ryan!

Bullies and Baggers...controling the White House, Senate and Congress!

Keep all that in mind please.

[sibelian]

168. Well, I suspect this is for the benefit of the site.

I think the administration that repealed DADT deserves more time.

[progressivebydesign]

169. Cool. I think you and your friends will really enjoy life under President Romney.

I'm grateful that my family and friends, some gay, don't want to destroy the Country for everyone else because ONE thing didn't suit them a a Convention.

[jsmirman]

214. + a billion to this

[politicasista]

174. What did Obama do to people here?

It was the DNC's decision. Obama has done good for the LBGT community, but that's not good enough for some.

[geek tragedy]

194. Some people just crave discord and seek attention.

The OP somehow omits the fact that the DNC platform calls for marriage equality.

[politicasista]

199. Exactly n/t

[Pab Sungenis]

201. Obama personally intervened to change the platform.

Had he wanted to, he could have and should have intervened to prevent this man from speaking.

For those who criticized my not participating in this thread, I've been on the road since 9 this morning preparing for and traveling to a convention. But the level of most of the responses here makes me glad I wasn't around to take part.

Remember the lessons of 2010: when Democrats alienate their base they lose!

[sibelian]

236. Yeah you're NOT their base, though, are you?

[great white snark]

179. Don't give Dolan's speech the import it doesn't deserve.

The Convention as a whole was affirming and uplifting.

[Cha]

190. I didn't hear dolan's "speech" but

it sounds like he's his own worst enemy and shouldn't be given any power. Fuck 'im.

[geek tragedy]

191. Yawn. This kind of phony victimhood

is so 2009.

Enjoy Mitt Romney--you're his tacit ally.

[yardwork]

198. It's not just gay folks who are offended, but all feminists and child protection advocates as well.

Dolan is an appalling person. Anti-women, anti-gay, and an apologist and money launderer for pedophiles.

It's very disappointing that the Democratic leadership gave into this. I understand that Dolan offered to speak and threatened to create a public relations issue if we refused his invitation, but we should have refused. Other religious leaders are much more deserving of a role at our convention.

That said, this is a relatively minor event. Dolan's views are in opposition to the official platform of the Democratic Party. That is real progress and I celebrate it.

[Puglover]

202. Agreed.

However some of the responses in this thread are amazing. I think there is a fine line between "I can see why this is painful for you but" and "Sit down STFU, enjoy President Romney" Unreal.

[yardwork]

203. Well, that's nothing new. /nt

[LiberalAndProud]

206. It is progress and I will celebrate with you

at the same time that I anxiously await the day that religious leadership will cease and desist from the hate mongering and blackmail. I have no regard for Dolan or his opinion.

Pab, if you read this ...

[jeff47]

216. Unfortunately, there's about 40 years of work by conservative religious figures that has to be

countered by liberal religious figures. And the liberals just started. Hopefully it can be un-done much faster than it was done.

Until then, discordant notes like Dolan's appearance are going to have to happen.

[Bolo Boffin]

204. Wouldn't this statement have more weight behind it had you been doing those things before now?

My recollection is that you have taken every available chance to piss on Barack Obama's parade here at DU that you could find.

[SidDithers]

205. +1...nt

Sid

[alp227]

215. Wait, TIMOTHY DOLAN did a prayer at the DNC?

I never knew about that! I wish the Democratic Party would be a secular party.

[Marrah_G]

221. I alerted on your nasty, offensive, insulting post

You should delete this and apologize to her.

[JackBeck]

222. I've invited Pab to participate in many events in our shared state of NJ

and for whatever reason he never seems to show up. Whether it's to testify for marriage equality, or show-up in Trenton for rallies, he's never been able to communicate to me that he was there. If he was there, I would love to have built on that relationship to figure out how to bring more people in from South Jersey.

I've given him Garden State Equality's Executive Director's contact information when he expressed concerns about his treatment by local electeds when trying to run for office, but he never engaged in any follow-up.

I've done all I can to engage this poster in local politics in NJ, yet all I see from him are toxic and disruptive posts.

Make your own conclusions.

[NNN0LHI]

237. Thank you JackBeck

Your post was a real eyeopener.

Thanks again.

Don

[dogday]

243. Yikes, that don't sound good

[ibegurpard]

231. so let me get this straight

as a gay man, I'm supposed to be offended because, despite the outspoken and repeated shout-outs to gays and lesbians by Democrats across the spectrum at the convention, some priest said a prayer that implied something other than that.

yeah, not so much...

[Summer Hathaway]

232. Thanks so much for saying that

and so eloquently and concisely.

Reading the OP, I couldn't help but think of The Princess and the Pea, the former being so adept at finding something to complain about, she went on to regale all with how wretchedly she'd slept on twenty eiderdown quilts and twenty feather-bed mattresses, due to a single, tiny, irritating pea at the bottom of the pile.

[JNelson6563]

235. I wish my conscience would let me do this.

But damn I can't live with the notion of Romney picking a Supreme, working to bring back DADT, crushing marriage equality in the bud and cutting off those who are in desperate need.

How I wish I could call it quits and live a peaceful election season because I didn't like a speaker at convention or something.

Julie

[mitchtv]

239. I'm sure I would've been angry if I had watched

but I thought it was over , and put on another channel, missed the idiot completely

[Joe the Revelator]

246. This guy is just a terrible poster...

...the worst.