War Room: Gay bloggers organizing boycott of DNC

[BurtWorm]

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/11/09/boycott/index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room

LGBT activists -- not to mention plenty of other people in the community -- have never been particularly impressed with President Obama's efforts on their behalf. Despite his campaign promises, he's not yet moved towards ending "don't ask, don't tell," or put his weight behind repealing the Defense of Marriage Act or passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. And that's only the beginning: He'd already put activists on the alert when he had an anti-gay singer join him on the campaign trail.

The tensions between the LGBT community and the administration have been constantly bubbling under the surface, and at times there've been open battles. Though the White House made some moves to at least quiet the most public of those fights, they've still been unable to bring the gay activists who'd normally be a solid base of support back into the fold.

Now, the fighting's back out in the open, as two prominent gay bloggers -- John Aravosis, who's previously written for Salon, and Joe Sudbay of Americablog -- have announced that they're organizing what they're calling a temporary donor boycott of the Democratic National Committee. Joined by another high-profile figure in the movement, Michelangelo Signorile, they're asking people not to donate "until the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is passed, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) is repealed, and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is repealed."

It will be interesting to see how the White House responds, if at all. And it will also be interesting -- and instructive -- to see how members of the LGBT community, and voters of all kinds, respond. The gay organizations haven't been at the forefront of the opposition to Obama; instead, it's been people like Aravosis and Signorile leading the charge. Success now might help them further supplant the traditional power structure in the community.

[geek tragedy]

1. I support this.

GLBT Americans have been taken for granted for too long.

[RKP5637]

4. Ditto!!! n/t

[joeybee12]

2. I agree, when I pay money at a store, I expect to get someting in return,

and i don't mean just a kick in the pants.

[madfloridian]

3. Recommended.

I think women should organize as well.

[Lorien]

78. +1.

[Bluebear]

5. The GayTM is closed.

[flvegan]

28. The AllyTM is as well.

I stole that from the GLBT Forum.

[Jim Sagle]

36. If Obama doesn't wise up soon, the whole BaseTM will shut down too.

[QC]

37. Not to worry. Goldman Sachs and Aetna can make up the difference. n/t

[imdjh]

6. Health Care is gay intensive as well.

Many of the heterosexual women I have worked with over the years, worked in our stifling corporate environment for one purpose: family medical coverage at levels and prices which are simply not possible for self employed people. Meanwhile, their husbands worked in high wage trades or self employment which would not be possible for a responsible person absent the corporate health insurance the wife was providing. Yes, there was the occasional sex role reversal, but the rule was as I have described it.

Once again, marriage rears its ugly head as a favored status in our society which is denied to same sex couples. Yes, many companies now have DP benefits, but as everyone here knows, that doesn't necessarily mean equal benefits when you get down to the tax ramifications and that sort of thing. Moreover, gay couples do not enjoy the economic mobility of their heterosexual counterparts, when changing jobs or cities for a gay couple raised the question of whether DP benefits will be available where they are going.

[RKP5637]

7. I'm for this, but they already seem to be getting all the money they want from

corporate interests. I'm not donating anything anymore to the DNC until I start seeing results in line with what I voted for. I don't want to see Rs back in, but damn, to me at least, the Ds are falling short of what I had expected. I well might be too impatient... maybe.

I have friends that donated considerable sums to the DNC and now they are wondering WTF with a lot of things. With the majority I expected more. Did the Bush administration stop and appease democrats on each item... hell no.

[Cherchez la Femme]

87. Let the corporations vote them in

very unwise to hold $$$ over number of votes... but then unwise seems to be indicative of all politicians as of late, both D and R.

[theHandpuppet]

8. I'm in!

:thumbsup:

[Riverman]

9. Last Yr I Donated to Obama and the local Dem congressional

candidate who lost to a Rep, where the former Rep is being indicted for pigging-out at the pblic trough. Not anymore of my money will go to any politician who does not act on behalf of my interests, or for the interests of my personal or wider family of people! Nor, will I work on their campaigns, walk precincts, make calls, nor write letters to editors on their behalf. No More!

[HillbillyBob]

10. I was a very small donor in Pres Os senate campaign

I am on a fixed income (SS disability). My partner has health coverage at work, they pay for married spouses insurance, but not ours..and he just told me he has to carry the entire bill nw that the company is going to stop paying any of it.

The DNC can go screw themselves. We are struggling now to make ends meet the bastards have screwed us for the last time. We gave money we could not really afford only to get shit on again and again.

At least the bloody repugs warn you they are going to shit on you.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. I thought we already were! I mean, Tim Kaine is simply anti gay

and I myself have boycotted them since he took over. And the 'gay organizations' are antiquated and self defeating, they exist to get salaries for themselves and nothing more. Also boycotting them. When broke, it is really great to go on a boycott bonanza, as it is soooo easy!

[frebrd]

12. I already stopped donating to the DNC years ago.......

I didn't want my money going to support "Centrists".

[tsuki]

13. I signed on the dotted, but I had already let the DSCC volunteer

that called a couple of days ago how I felt about the misogynistic, homophobic Blue-Cross dawgs. Only progressives.

[placton]

40. I prefer "Blown Dogs" myself

[donco6]

14. They haven't gotten a dime from me since Warren.

And I like the "if/then" requirements.

[JoeyT]

15. I'm not sure what the Democratic leadership is thinking.

Do they think that shitting on LGBT rights is only going to create backlash among LGBT activists and that it isn't a significant enough number to hurt their chances of winning? Do they honestly think straight people won't be leaving with them? An awful lot of the Democratic party's base is pretty hardcore on the idea of equal rights for everyone. Empathy is what's supposed to separate us from Republicans...When we lose our empathy and our desire for equality for all, what do we have left?

[RKP5637]

16. +10 Rec

[TornadoTN]

17. Agreed. I'm all for equal rights - period

I support equal rights across the board. It's far past time for us to end this divisiveness and demonizing of people who are "different" than the typical American.

I live in a pretty red area, so I send money elsewhere to fight against the GOP and their agenda. Not anymore, for so many different reasons.

[Toasterlad]

21. They're Thinking What They Always Think: "Where Else Are They Gonna Go?"

As long as the Democratic party thinks they've convinced us that they're the only game in town, they can shit us on with impunity, and dangle the Republican boogeyman in front of us whenever we get antsy.

Until we demand action by withholding money, time, and votes, nothing will ever change.

I will never, EVER vote for another candidate who does not support full equality. I don't care if the alternative is Palin/Bachmann. I'm done taking responsibility for the failure of the Democratic party to live up to it's ideals. If they go down, it's their own fucking fault.

[Ignis]

22. "Thanks for the vote, don't slip under that bus now!"

...Or something like it.

[BurtWorm]

18. kick

[Toasterlad]

19. I'm Way Ahead of Gay Bloggers.

I've been saying this since that first fucking DOMA brief. The GayTM is closed. When it reopens is entirely up to them.

[struggle4progress]

20. Has anyone done a Congressional nose-count on DOMA-related issues?

The questions are: (1) Can we muster the votes to pull down DOMA? and (2) If we do, what are the implications for homophobic marriage amendments?

With respect to (1): The administration may have limited leverage, as shown by the continuing unified Republican opposition on various issues and by continuing defections by conservative Democrats

With respect to both (1) and (2): The rationale for DOMA was that it defused a Republican push for a Federal marriage amendment. Reaching across the aisle on DOMA might involve getting anti-DOMA votes from folk who wanted more stringently homophobic law

With respect to (2): Constitutional amendments aren't necessarily hard to push through: on average, there's been one every eight years in the last century, and one every decade in the last half-century. The map shows over half the states have constitutional prohibitions against marriage. That doesn't mean a Federal amendment would necessarily succeed -- but it does mean that beating back a Federal amendment might require some continuing and dedicated organization, and the examples of California and Maine might suggest progressives need to organize better than we have

[Johnboi70]

23. Why don't we go after hate groups instead of our friends, for a change? n/t

[VMI Dem]

24. What fucking friends?

What a joke.

[unhappycamper30]

25. The DNC is no friend to LGBT citizens.

[Bluebear]

27. "our friends" - LOL, good one!

[placton]

41. Rahm? Izzat you?

[Bluebear]

42. :)

[donco6]

61. "I say we let him go!"

Chiquita!

[anonymous171]

26. Good. This is how you get shit done in politics. Democrats take note nt

You have to fight for what you want. Compromise doesn't work.

[Unvanguard]

29. Democrats being weakened and/or losing is bad for everyone. Including LGBT people.

And the reluctance of conservative Democrats in Congress to support an equality agenda is not something the Democratic leadership can solve, any more than they can bring them in line on health care reform.

The anger is understandable, but this is a counterproductive, self-defeating tactic.

[cate94]

30. Really?

Well the conservadems are pretty much the result of Rham and the dscc. Yeah, leadership can solve this problem but they don't want to twist arms. If it starts costing them money they will find away.

Self defeating? Well how about electing people who say one thing and do another? That is what we have now. Fierce advocate of can't do it this year.

This GayTM has been closed since hearing about the Doma brief. I thought about reopening my wallet when the hate bill was signed but then I saw how little the DNC and Obama cared by looking at their inaction in Maine. Screw it. Hate crimes isn't enough, show some fierce advocacy, as promised, or look elsewhere for money. That simple.

[Unvanguard]

31. The "conservadems" are the result of the political realities in this country

which are that there are many places where strongly socially liberal Democrats simply cannot get elected. This is nobody's fault but the American public's. If you want to be outraged at them, I'll gladly join you, after last Tuesday's Maine vote especially.

Neither the Congressional leadership nor Obama has dictatorial power over the decisions made by individual members of Congress. The US has fairly weak political parties; nobody makes a list of the Democrats who will be elected and who will form the caucus, so loyalty is not something that can be dictated. That's the unfortunate reality; it blocks the Republicans sometimes, and it blocks the Democrats sometimes too.

The Democrats who are obstructing progress on equality did not run on pro-equality issue positions. Obama did, but Obama can do very little without Congress. If a DOMA repeal were sent to him tomorrow, he would sign it, but it is not going to be, and that is not his fault.

[cate94]

33. Actually

You are sounding very much like Rahm. He doesn't think a progressive can get elected so he made sure they didn't. We ended up with crap. Cegelis in IL, WOULD have been elected if Rahm didn't fund and run Duckworth We ended up with nothing. Thanks. There were numerous examples but my memory ain't what it used to be.

DLC B.S. is all it is. Glad you are buying it but I am not.

Loyalty can't be dictated but that isn't how you twist an arm, is it? Jesus Christ. The reality is that the President actually does hold some sway. There are all sorts of methods. Frankly the only reason that the Dems are weak is because they refuse to stand for anything. They were compromising on health care before it went to committee and they made it clear they were compromising on gay issues before Obama was sworn in.

[Unvanguard]

43. The frustration of activist-oriented people with politicians is probably as old as politics itself

and it is hard to ascribe something so fundamental to the way advanced societies work to a mere tactical error on the part of the Democratic leadership.

"There are all sorts of methods" is unfortunately not a very thorough reply. Unfortunately, even more sophisticated replies do not really get much better; the American public has this enduring myth that presidents are responsible for the policy that goes on during their presidency, but it is only very partially true. Congress is a genuinely independent actor; it is not very susceptible to presidential persuasion, it thinks and acts on its own. There is some good academic literature on this subject; I would suggest George C. Edwards' The Strategic President.

[cate94]

53. I didn't realize

I needed to write a dissertation in response to an item posted on a message board. Arm twisting in politics is not a new concept and I assumed that most readers of DU didn't need to be schooled on the meaning. You can twist arms by withholding access, witholding money, witholding committee assignments, etc. There is always finding the skeletons they may be hiding and holding that over their head as well. Rahm Emmanuel was supposed to be a pitbull that could get things done. That was the reason we were given to not get up in arms over his appointment.

The President is responsible for promising fierce advocacy and not delivering. Who blamed him for what? I blame him for Holder and subsequently the DOMA brief. I blame him for waffling on DADT. I blame him for Kaine and the DNC's lack of action on Maine. I don't see anything in the OP or in my response that actually blames him for what Congress has or hasn't done. You brought up Congress.

Fierce Advocacy doesn't include throwing up your hands and saying it is all the fault of Congress. Fierce advocacy means just that. Advocates put their necks on the line and speak up for the people they say they are advocating for. Did you see the President in Maine speaking out for the civil rights of GLBT's? I didn't. Did you see him speaking out against the DOMA brief? I didn't. Did you hear the President say to the military that we have to quit going after GLBT's? I didn't. We can argue about whether DADT goes through Congress or if it can be accomplished by an Executive order; however, the President can insist that it be implemented and interpretted in a more liberal fashion than it has been and he hasn't even done that. There's some advocacy for you.

[Unvanguard]

64. You don't, but you need to be a little more specific if you want to make an argument.

You've done that. Thanks.

Withholding money and political support from "disloyal" members of the party is not something the party leadership is generally willing to do at an aggressive level, for two reasons. First, the members of Congress who don't vote party-line are usually in the most vulnerable districts; the most important thing in Congress is party control, and risking seats going to the Republicans is a greater threat than bringing wayward members into line. Second, having lots of disaffected and alienated caucus members, which would be the result of rigidly controlling votes, is not something any party wants to do; that ultimately only weakens its capacity to advance its policy agenda in Congress. The crucial factor here, the overall ideological diversity of the Democratic caucus and the districts that it represents, is not something any quantity of tactics or "arm-twisting" can alter: it is built into the American political system, and is going to be an especially salient fact in a Congress like this one, where the Democratic majorities are so large. The people have not moved that far leftward from 2004 to 2008; the partisan shift aside, Congress hasn't either.

Again, this problem is one that plagues both parties, all the time. It is far-fetched to pretend that the problem here is just that the Democrats are spineless. They are not spineless; they just know better than to attempt to do what they cannot. We don't have party-list proportional representation; there is no strict loyalty requirement to run and serve as a Democrat, and the leadership has little control over who manages to do so (and more importantly, what kind of candidates can actually manage to win while doing so).

As far as your specific complaints against the president, the one with by far the most merit is his failure to say anything about Maine, an action that probably would have cost him next to nothing politically but might well have helped increase liberal turnout against Question 1. It seems likely that the Administration did not want to be attacked in yet another way in the midst of the health care debate, and perhaps that it appreciated the delicate near-hypocrisy of Obama's Prop. 8 stance, against same-sex marriage except where it already exists; whatever their reasons, I think they decided wrongly. But the most important thing in a president as far as equal rights goes is his stance on federal issues, not state ones where he has much less influence, and Obama has consistently voiced support for ending DADT, DOMA, etc.

The Department of Justice nearly always (there is an extremely limited range of exceptions) defends federal law in the courts. Its doing so is not dependent on the president happening to agree with the law in question. After the first brief that generated such controversy (which seems to have caught the administration by surprise), each one has said that the president opposes the law and wants it repealed; that hardly accomplishes much of anything, true, but it highlights the fact that the Administration's defense of the law in the courts hardly amounts to hypocrisy or "flip-flopping." It's not clear to me what your alternative to their course of action here would be; simply refuse to perform their legal duty?

I don't know how much discretion the President has over how "liberal" the implementation of DADT is; I'm not sure what it means to throw people out of the military for their sexual orientation in a "liberal" fashion. Considering that he pledged publicly and explicitly to end it at the HRC dinner, I find it hard to believe that he would not have considered all his options; he knows he's making lots of people angry, and if he were too fearful of the political consequences he would have hedged instead, or merely repeated theoretical support like he did with respect to DOMA.

Edit: As for "fierce advocacy", you're right, he is no "fierce advocate", and it was stupid of him to say he was in the first place, especially as apologetics for inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. But fierce advocacy only makes sense when something can be done with it, when the political resources exist to make the goal achievable; that's far from clear in the present situation. There would be political costs for Obama to, say, make repealing DOMA a centerpiece of his domestic agenda, but no political benefits if it failed to pass the Senate.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. Time Kaine is Chairman of the DNC and he opposes all

forms of rights for gay people, including 'civil unions'. Shove your academic lit on the subject, it pales next to street level reality. This is not about your Beltway Culture, this is about OUR culture. So get ready. The bigots are going down.
Obama appointed his fellow religious bigot Kaine to lead the Party deeper into divisions and prejudice based on dogma. Is there academic lit to explain why bigots and haters are appointed to high office?

[Unvanguard]

66. But how much effect does that have on Democratic issue positions?

They dropped the ball on Maine, I'll give you that. But the DNC Chair does not dictate the Congressional agenda, nor does he control the president. He's in charge of tactics more than policy, and even there he shares power with the president, who is effective party leader.

I don't know what you mean by " Beltway culture"; I love DC, until very recently I lived near it, but not within the Beltway, and I'm certainly neither politician nor political consultant. I find it indicative, though, that you prefer your "street level reality" (whatever that means) to both actual academic scholarship and apparently to the expertise of the people who are actually directly involved in politics. Preferring practice to theory is one thing; opposing both in the name of gut feeling is quite another. I thought anti-intellectualism was one of the problems with conservatism?

[Jamastiene]

93. Bullshit!

Time has come today. Hell, even North Carolina went blue and is electing openly gay people now. Right here, in the middle of the Bible Belt, people are opening up to gay rights and realizing gay people are just people. It's happening all over the country. Gay rights WILL HAPPEN.

It's about time Democrats stopped saying "How high?" when Republicans and right wing strong arm groups tell them to jump. The time is now. Gay rights WILL HAPPEN. The Democratic Party can lead, follow, or move out of the way. In any case, no more GayTM until they start representing we, the people.

[rpannier]

50. So what's your suggestion

Keep giving them money while they kick the GLBT Community in the stomach

One can go to Act Blue or directly to candidates web sites and give money -- that's what I do

I wouldn't give Evan Bayh the time of day, much less any money

[donco6]

62. Suck it up. I guess. n/t

That and keep giving money.

[Jamastiene]

94. Hell, no. The GayTM is closed.

:fistbump:

[Unvanguard]

70. Yes. Keep giving them money.

It's not pleasant, it's not fair, it's certainly not how I would like it to be. But the political realities are the political realities. If the Democrats lose big in 2010, any possibility of progressive policy change, on equal rights and on everything else, will be quashed; the constructive thing to do is to support the people who at least sorta-kinda support equal rights, rather than those who obstructed every piece of federal LGBT rights legislation when they had control over Congress, and tried to foist upon us the disgusting "Federal Marriage Amendment" to boot.

ENDA and hate crimes are not by any means enough, not even close, but it is something, and in all likelihood both will pass this session.

[BR_Parkway]

89. If the Dems lose big in 2010 - it'll be because they didn't act like Dems

they begged for majorities and then squandered it. They begged for bipartisanship to give themselves cover for their selling out to the corporate interests, then they can point that they had to compromise in the name of working together - but they compromised already then went begging for a Republican to vote with them to 'prove' that they had to do it. That's the real political reality

It won't be because we choose not to send in more money - or use that money to fund progressive challengers to the status quo. We voted for Change, overwhelmingly - not more of the same. And on gay issues, it's always been lip service and forget about it until after the 'next' election.

[Chan790]

90. Hardly...

if the Democrats lose in 2010 and pundits point to these sorts of actions as the cause; there will be a blood-purge...that's how politics work.

Kaine will get his jockstrap handed to him on his way out the door. Rahm will be given the clear message, like others before him (both Bob Strum and Terry McAuliffe come to mind), that his losing services are not desired any longer in shaping the direction of this party. People they would have backed in 2012 will not see that support and will stay out of their respective races. Other leaders of our party will be re-energized or re-emerge as the "elder-statesmen" voices of a new direction...I think both Gore and Dean are likely to be cast into that role. New leaders will emerge. Leadership rises to fill a void...where exactly did our current POTUS come from exactly? (oh yeah, he was some nobody who spoke at the Democratic National Convention and immediately brought a new energy into the room at the exact time we needed a new direction and energy.) Kerry was a crap nominee in retrospect, dead energy and dead momentum of a failed party-direction which emerged after the 2000 loss because we took the wrong messages away from that defeat.

Political parties are only shaped by losses. As long as there is no bloodbath, there will be no purge. As long as there is no purge, there will be no sea-change. We've become a centrist party at a time when trend-lines show a liberalizing nation and our adversaries grasping at extremes to hold on to existence. (They'll survive, parties rarely falter completely...they tend to pick up the shedding chafe of the other party. We need to shed some centrist weight to the unaffiliated middle, very little will carry to the other side...but some will.) If we want to become a liberalizing party in line with a liberalizing nation, the architects of the current course and direction have to lose their jobs. Sorry. I hope we win in 2010 because these sorts of actions catch attention, cost the President a bit of political capital and the course-correction occurs before then; but if it does not, then losing isn't a bad thing if it kills off weak Democrats. Otherwise we're going to "win" ourselves right out of power.

Liberals in specific and Democrats in general need to stop being so damned afraid of bloodsport. Politics is bloodsport. This touchy-feely "let's compromise to make our way" shit is for quislings and prey. Grab some turf, take a stand and to quote H.L. Mencken "hoist the black flag and start slitting throats."

[dballance]

32. I Haven't Given to the DNC for Some Time

Every time they call me I tell them that when the Democratic party gets organized and gets a spine I'll give money. But until then I'll give to individual candidates as I see fit. No money for the DLC and no money for the DNC. Not from me.

[NMMNG]

34. Hear, hear

No more of this "give us your money, your votes and your support but don't ask for anything in return until it's convenient for us" shit. I'm sick of being told "now is not the right time because (there's an election coming up, the bigots will have the vapors, the war/the economy/the moon is in Venus)--but don't forget to vote for us". They've thrown us under the bus far too many times while we've supported them all along. No more.

[FLAprogressive]

35. the chickens are coming home to roost for the national party. They've used us for far too long.

[dana_b]

38. k&r

good for them.

[placton]

39. I signed the petition

and will extend my Blown-Dog-Cot to several other liberal issues

[donheld]

44. As we should. We've been ignored by Barack from the minute he won election

He used us.

[Touchdown]

45. I signed. K&R.

:thumbsup:

[WestSeattle2]

46. Right on. My checkbook is closed. n/t

[Divine Discontent]

49. I have donated far less to many different poligroups because I feel they're ignoring & taking me for

granted. I am thrilled that so many others are doing the same with this political group.

[WestSeattle2]

100. My pockets aren't horribly deep, but I can guarantee that my

phone will be ringing off the hook come 2010 election season. A thousand here, a thousand there, pretty soon they take notice.

[PatrynXX]

47. I'd rather stay out of it.

If people wanna do this. Go ahead.

I'd rather see someone stick Union up Target's ass. That company needs one severely. Lured my brother away from his $25,000 a year job and fired him in a month. (because supposedly they hired too many people) according to my brother it was more they needed employees that did not think. And a week before this they offered all families of the employees a tour. Shit that place is a danger waiting to happen. Way way too automated for me though.

He worked in the 15-20 below freezer section. Now why did I go in that thing with shorts?? :P

[Divine Discontent]

48. that is BS about your brother! poor guy. hope he finds work.

you posted in the thread, so you're 'in it', and I'm not many of the direct differences I have with many people I meet on a daily basis but I fight for their rights, and put my own self at risk to defend others. so we need everyone who's a real Democrat to stand up with their fellow Dems whether they be fighting for union rights, women's rights, gay rights, racial rights, etc... if we believe in our rights, we everyone to stay in the fight.

[Le Taz Hot]

59. And Obama and the Democratic Party are doing

exactly WHAT for the union and workers? Please elaborate.

[iamforobama]

51. Most of this is Bull Shit.

the right wing loves it! anything to devide us...wake up!

[Lyric]

55. Yep. And that's exactly as it should be.

In American politics, money speaks louder than anything else. Time to make our money do some screaming.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. Then tell Kaine and Obama to stop dividing us!

Tell them to stop with their prejudiced and dogmatic world view. Superstition ain't the way.

[Jamastiene]

97. Yeah, right.

Heard it before. Same old, same old. We keep electing people who won't stand for equal rights for all or for anything we elect them to do, really. It's not working. If you keep doing the same thing over and over again and it doesn't work, a sign of intelligence is to stop doing that and try something else. Money talks. Bullshit walks. This will work like nothing else.

[Echo In Light]

52. K&R

[impik]

57. Seriously? Now?? At the most crucial time for HC fight???

Can't this boycott wait a few more weeks?

Nice going.

[DainBramaged]

58. And after HCR they should wait another few years while yet another crisis

of epic proportions forces another wait?


:eyes:

[impik]

60. No. I totally agree with the frustration

And i will support this boycott AFTER the end of HC fight. But not now. No way.

[donco6]

63. Two things.

One, if you think our contributions can make any possible headway against the onslaught of the insurance co.s ads, you're very mistaken. Two, there never is a good time. At least, that's what you guys are always saying. Besides, if we wait for a time they DON'T need money, what kinda dumbass tactic is THAT?

[Iggo]

68. And in a few more weeks you'll say, "Really? Now?"

And a few more weeks after that, and after that, and after that...

It's been like this for a long long time. Not now...later.

Well, now it's now.

[WhollyHeretic]

75. They should just wait a couple of months...

But wait that will be 2010. We've got to think of the midterm elections...

They can't jeopardize the midterms so we'll have to wait until after that...

2011. We'll fight for it in 2011...

But then again we'll be ramping up for the next presidential election...

We really shouldn't jeopardize a presidential election...

2013. We can work on it in 2013. Provided no other issues are facing the country that year...

[2QT2BSTR8]

77. We did not elect our leaders to address only one issue at a time.

So yes.. NOW is the time!

[impik]

83. Seriously? You accuse this president in dealing with only one issue at a time?

Oh well.

[Jamastiene]

95. Don't be afriad because the Republicans and Blue Dogs might get the vapors.

Money talks. This is happening and it's not just GLBT people and it's not just the Democratic Party. Lincoln Republicans are doing it to the right wing of their party too. It's a lot of people who are sick and tired of giving and giving and giving and not getting representation in return. It's time we, the people, are heard. Get used to it. It's happening.

[dionysus]

65. their grievances are real.

[Morning Dew]

67. link to americablog -

http://gay.americablog.com/2009/11/dont-ask-dont-give.html

Can you give examples of how the President and Democrats have not been fierce advocates for the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans?


•Asking a religious right activist who claims to have been “cured” of his homosexuality to headline campaign events in South Carolina. Then letting the anti-gay bigot spend half an hour, on stage, haranguing gays at the Obama event.
•Refusing for months to interview with LGBT newspapers during the campaign, while his opponent did repeatedly.
•Flubbing question on whether gays are immoral.
•Inviting anti-gay activist Rick Warren, who helped pass Prop 8 in California, to give the invocation at the inaugural.
•Inviting a gay bishop to the inaugural festivities, then not beginning the TV broadcast until the gay bishop has finished and left.
•Refusing to appoint an openly gay Cabinet member.
•Abolishing the LGBT outreach position at the DNC and never reinstating it.
•Refusing to re-establish the White House Office of LGBT Outreach and the White House LGBT Liaison (which was a Special Assistant to the President at one point).
•Continuing to discharge two gay servicemembers a day, even though he could stop it immediately by issuing a stop-loss order immediately.
•Asking for a study on “whether” repealing DADT would hurt national security, rather than a study on how to repeal it, as promised

+ more at link.

[myrna minx]

69. K&R.

This is a human rights issue. In addition, the DNC's apparent apathy turns off straight allies who fight for equal rights alongside our LGBT brothers and sisters. I'll happily join this boycott.

[Iggo]

71. + a bajillion

[bridgit]

72. There is no DNC, no Democratic Party; just an un-stitched patchwork of bullied & broken dreams

[Lorien]

79. There certainly isn't a party that represents me or most on this board

sadly, it seems to have died after Reagan took over. What's left is a mishmash of corporate lackeys with a handful of lonely Democrats thrown in the mix-dinosaurs like Kucinich and Grayson who only serve to remind us of what once was.

[KittyWampus]

73. And this will accomplish? I guess it'll make the protesters feel better having vented some spleen.

But you'd think there'd be more effective strategizing going on in the Gay Activist leadership.

[Cherchez la Femme]

88. What is more effective than withholdng money?

Other than withholding votes?

There's been plenty of (non)"effective strategizing" and it just hasn't worked!

So too fucking bad.

[pleah]

74. K&R

[2QT2BSTR8]

76. I support this 110%!!

[we can do it]

80. Sign Me Up-

In general I've told any one calling for donations - NOPE- no action no money and spare me the we only need a bigger majority- its total BS...the sooner they realize where their support is coming from the better.

[swilton]

81. Although I do not follow LGBT issues closely

I support this and thank you for keeping me informed. While my advocacy and activism has been dedicated to the issues I list below here, I am behind this issue wholeheartedly - equal rights for everyone.

I am not impressed with Obama's efforts on a number of progressive issues -
to include but not limited to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the fiasco with health care to name just the two that come to mind. Others of equal importance but not on the front burner this week include the economic bailouts and the economy in general, and the environmental summit.

The changes coming from the White House have largely been cosmetic - it may be attributable to the Chief of Staff or whatever - the person in the White House picks the Chief of Staff. Furthermore, the person occupying the White House picked the campaign slogan 'Change We Can Believe In'. :grr:

[AllTooEasy]

82. and if Dems lose elections because of this ....

...can you live with the alternative/repercussions?

Look, I support all the causes and I'm shocked that more progress hasn't been made by now, but do you honestly think the Republicans will be of better assistance??? Seriously?!

OFCOURSE NOT!!! Dr. King was also frustrated with the DNC, but he never said "Fuck it, I'll let the Reps win the next election". No, because he wasn't a dumb-ass!

Hey if you are LGBT, hate the environment, anti-choice, Ayn Rand capitalist, pro Christian nanny state, pro death penalty, pro war, racist, sexist, anti-(fill in a non-Christian religion), anti civil liberties, anti-health care, pro guns, anti-academia, and pray before pics of Reagan, J.H. Hoover, and Coulter everynight...then I'm out of arguments.

[Jamastiene]

96. What repercussions?

If we keep electing Blue Dogs for fear of offending the Republicans and they (Republicans, Blue Dogs, Democrats afraid to take a stand for progressives) ram conservative legislation down our throats either way, there are no repercussions. Same shit, different day. Business as usual.

We have had it. It's not just the GLBT community. It's everybody who is sick and tired of being inadequately represented or not represented at all. We demand representative government or we won't re-elect them. We'll find better ones who will actually represent us. Simple as that.

The only "repercussions" to this will be that elected leaders get the message finally.

[AllTooEasy]

101. listen to what you just said

"We demand representative government"...well that's what you are getting in those Blue Dog states/district. The people being represented in those areas are a bunch of LGBT-hating bigots.

Liberal on mostly everything else, but bigots on the LGBT issue.

[xxqqqzme]

84. They need to get Planned Parenthod, NARAL & NOW

on board.

[LiberalArkie]

85. I would rather vote and contribute to someone who openly hates me, rather that someone that lies to

me, and appears to hate me behind my back.
I will more than likely vote for Blanche Lincoln's and Mark Pryor's opposition next time

[bertman]

86. Signed up and fully participating (in the boycott). Recommend. And not JUST due to the

lack of support for gay Americans, but that is certainly a large part of my dissatisfaction with the DNC.

When Kaine was appointed I decided to take a wait-and-see approach. I've waited and I've seen. I'm outta there.

[FarLeftFist]

91. It's only been a year. This man has been handed the worst job in the world.

I know for some this is a personal issue but could we expect this to have been priority number 1. I agree he should keep his promises but he never gave a timeline as to when those promises will be met. Knowing how hard it is to progress America I think he's trying to knock out some pretty tough issues right now. I voted for him b/c (among other reasons) I wanted to know what it may possibly feel like to live in America and not be at war, never having experienced it before. That will never happen, but you all still have a lot of hope left.

[Bluebear]

92. It's only been a year. It's only been 2 years. It's only been 3 years....

By the way, he was not handed the job, he ran for the job.

[Jamastiene]

98. And if recent events and actions by our Congress

and him are any indication, it'll never happen.

Hope doesn't put food on the table. Hope doesn't pay the bills. Hope doesn't do shit without actions to back it up. Hope is a pipe dream. Hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which one gets full the quickest. Results matter. That is business 101. They KNOW that too. They also know they've had us fooled and afraid for far too long now.

They don't seem to be listening. We need to speak up. Nothing does that better than pointing out to them that they need our money and they need our votes.

[David Zephyr]

99. Democrats are really, really stupid to piss off the GLBT community.

When we disappear from donating and voting and working for their candidates, they will wish they'd done what they promised to do.

I agree with the boycott. Still, I will contribute to Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown here in California. That's it though.

Enough.