Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsMonday, June 22, 2009
Politics / Homo You've Got To Fight...
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:39 AM
...for your right... TO PARTY!
This is pretty outrageous. In the midst of all the anger from LGBT people over the DOMA brief and the inadequate response — so far — by the Obama administration, gay lobbyists, executive directors and assorted others who comprise what is identified as the gay leadership apparently have been invited to a party at the White House thrown just for them.It's another photo-op in which everyone — the president and the gays — can look happy and like they're having fun, but more so, it's a way for the White House to wank off the gay leaders a bit while still not delivering. None of them should fall for it — and that means they should not attend this event — most all the Human Rights Campaign. We don't want cocktails for high-paid gay and lesbians lobbyists and executive directors looking to schmooze and feel important. We want action on our rights, and at this point it means DOMA and DADT....
What we need now is real action. Not these crumbs, whether it be the census inclusion or some benefits for federal employees. We need something big, and until then, the DNC fundraisers should continue to be threatened, and nobody among the gay leadership should be partying with this president.
In other big gay news: pickets of DNC fundraisers to protest inaction by the White House and Congress on gay issues is spreading to other cities.
1
Yeah, set up an adversarial relationship with the president because he hasn't legalized gay marriage six months into his first term--that's a reasonable and prudent course of action, sure to get exactly the response you want.
3
I wonder if any of the 265 service members who have been discharged under Don't Ask Don't Tell since this administration took the reins will be invited to this party. @1, if you are concerned about your relationship with the President then you will get exactly what he brings to it, which is pretty clear at this point.
6
Dan, when you used to go on those TV shows being all persuasive, charming, erudite, etc., you could actually hear people changing their minds about gay marriage in favor of equality and civil rights. In recent weeks the tone--yours and the movement's--has been more demanding, even shrill. And while I totally get why you'd want to see big action on this, stuff like gov't employees getting equal rights and benefits is an important, if small, step. It sets precedent. I think you're a better MLK Jr than Malcolm X.
I especially dislike the adversarial tone being established with Obama--it's not politically savvy. I think a combination of guarded but positive support for the Dems as well as withholding contributions will lead to the behind-the-scenes deals necessary to see real change. If they feel they're being attacked, they may get their back up and stall even more.
I especially dislike the adversarial tone being established with Obama--it's not politically savvy. I think a combination of guarded but positive support for the Dems as well as withholding contributions will lead to the behind-the-scenes deals necessary to see real change. If they feel they're being attacked, they may get their back up and stall even more.
7
It seems the gays have moved out of the White House, opened separate bank accounts, and now they refuse to even listen to Obama's efforts to reconcile, claiming "too little, too late."
Sounds like a divorce. How sad for the kids.
Sounds like a divorce. How sad for the kids.
8
I will do my best to be charming in future. But we're pissed, and... we're pissed. We can't be amusing all the time.
11
I really don't get this all-or-nothing mentality.
Yes, Obama was certainly the lesser evil, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be above criticism when he's a wanker.
You had enough brownnosing under the last administration. Is that really what you want to see more of?
Yes, Obama was certainly the lesser evil, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be above criticism when he's a wanker.
You had enough brownnosing under the last administration. Is that really what you want to see more of?
12
Dan's right, this isn't about pundits whipping a crowd into a frenzy for their own personal aggrandizement -- it's a populist movement experiencing a groundswell of popular support. Just like the tea parties to protest Obama's outrageous taxes!
13
Dan, I disagree that prominent civil rights activists shouldn't party with the president. What Obama needs right now, I think, are lots of gay people in his personal space reminding him of the promises he made them. This is an opportunity for face-to-face discussion and civil advocacy. Jump on it.
14
It is so ridiculous to imagine that there are leaders of a sexual orientation. Are there tranny leaders? Hetero leaders? What are the implications in this concept that a diverse demographic can have representatives? Will Obama feel as though he "understands the gays" and their oppression if he meets with their chiefs?
I think what "gay leaders" really means is wealthy 'mos. Just sayin.
I think what "gay leaders" really means is wealthy 'mos. Just sayin.
15
i think something other than outright boycott is needed here, i'm just not sure what it is. c'mon, gays are famous for thinking outside the box, right? what clever but still civil bit of subversion can you all pull on this event? oh, i'm just an unimaginative straighty-oh, but maybe each one of these gay bigwigs who has been invited can bring a date, and the date for each of them can be an ex-member of the armed forces who has been kicked out for being too openly gay. this is photo-op time for the white house, make it photo-op time for y'all, too.
16
Screw tone. Tone is for television cameras. The only reason the administration is "listening" is because the money was going away. Democrats, Republicans, elected officials of any stripe listen when the money goes away. Period. While I agree that the public debate should strike a civil tone, the old adage still applies when it comes to action....Money talks bullshit walks.
17
I think it's great to protest and cut off funding for the DNC fundraiser. It is right to voice our displeasure at the president in a variety of ways.
But Aravosis and Signorile are wrong about boycotting this party. Cutting off contact with the president is dumb. Cutting off contact with people you disagree with is bad foreign policy, and it's bad strategy for the GLBT community.
If the A-list gays go to the party, and take the opportunity to make it clear to Obama why we are dissatisfied, why we feel he is not keeping his promises, and what our expectations are, then they will have made good use of their effort. If they go to the party and just suck him off for the photo shoot, then they should be boycotted along with the DNC. But the party, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.
But Aravosis and Signorile are wrong about boycotting this party. Cutting off contact with the president is dumb. Cutting off contact with people you disagree with is bad foreign policy, and it's bad strategy for the GLBT community.
If the A-list gays go to the party, and take the opportunity to make it clear to Obama why we are dissatisfied, why we feel he is not keeping his promises, and what our expectations are, then they will have made good use of their effort. If they go to the party and just suck him off for the photo shoot, then they should be boycotted along with the DNC. But the party, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.
19
@14: "Gay leaders" in this case means gay white males, with a token white female thrown in for "flavor" to appease the feminists that almost sank the GLBT movement in the 80s and early 90s for its blatant sexism.
Of course, one could reason that it wasn't sexism, it was the urgency of the gay male population trying to find ground in the face of the AIDS crisis, which similarly leads one to reason that that's probably largely the reason it's also predominantly white, since it was, in general, the first population to admit the crisis in public to any vocal extent.
Of course, one could reason that it wasn't sexism, it was the urgency of the gay male population trying to find ground in the face of the AIDS crisis, which similarly leads one to reason that that's probably largely the reason it's also predominantly white, since it was, in general, the first population to admit the crisis in public to any vocal extent.
21
Anyone who was paying attention during the campaign saw this painful ordering of the administration's priorities coming more than a year ago [e.g., slog]. The question at this point, five months into the administration, is why you and others have decided that taking the screaming, foot-stomping, nuclear option is the best way to successfully advance these issues with a president whose statements indicate that he's already on the right side even though he's moving too slowly and clumsily?
I'd love to hear how you think this should play out -- executive vs. congressional vs. legal channels -- you have a big audience eager to be educated instead of merely incited.
I'd love to hear how you think this should play out -- executive vs. congressional vs. legal channels -- you have a big audience eager to be educated instead of merely incited.
22
Ahmandinejad did not help Obama get elected. This party is not a meeting. It is a very expensive and public bitch slap. Civil rights will never and have never been handed over or given to easily. Push Push Push.
23
I'm of the mindset that both attending and no financial support needs to be in place. Obama needs to be surrounded by members of the LGBT community, to be reminded that his actions and inactions are affecting real humans and real families. The DNC needs to understand that the gAyTM is closed, as is their financial support by individuals like me. There needs to be a fire lit under congress as well. That's my $0.02.
24
wouldn't it be counterproductive to NOT meet with the president when you want his attention? sure, the media might be looking for a photo op, but i'm guessing it's tough to get a face-to-face with obama and these gay leaders can use it to their full advantage. staying home just gives him the day off to think about other stuff, right?
25
Finally, I'm all for protesting the President, but up until now Congress (the ones who can make real lasting change) have been left of the list of those to protest, let your elected officials know that they cannot let Obama be the fall guy, if this all goes to hell they will share equally in the blame, and share equally in the success.
27
We're justifiably concerned (or, if you prefer, angry) about the Obama administration's treatment of gays and lesbians. So we refuse to even talk to the administration?
That's quite Bushian in its approach.
I'm all for withholding donations, civil disobedience, etc, etc, etc. But I'm never for cutting off communication. That's just childish and petty.
But then again, it seems like a lot of our gay leadership - and I'm talking about the HRC types - are all about childishness and pettiness. I used to listen to the HRC radio show, and it was nothing but Joe Salmonese and his lesbian counterpart namedropping and talking about their vacation homes.
Personally, I'd go to the party, get a nice glass of wine, stroll up to the president, and ask him, genially, "Mr President, what's with the mixed messages from your administration? Why are you stalling and trying to placate us? What are your plans moving forward? You do realize that we're not going to shut up about this, don't you?"
And if he started to get all flowery and rhetorical, I'd say "Mr. President, answer the question please". And if he persisted in the speechifying, I'd just walk away, letting him know I wasn't interested in that sort of drivel.
But then again, I'm not a gay leader.
And a word about Dan: I'm not as angry as he is - I'm more concerned and disappointed than angry - but I'm glad to have people out there to rile the troops. This is an important issue to all people who are concerned about civil rights, and we need honesty, if nothing else, from the administration. And they and the DNC need to be reminded that we shouldn't be taken for granted. Dan is doing what activists and editorialists (if that's even a word) have always done, only in a new technological format. If you don't want to read about civil rights - and there's are times I don't want to - just don't read the posts. But don't bitch at him for fighting the good fight.
More...
That's quite Bushian in its approach.
I'm all for withholding donations, civil disobedience, etc, etc, etc. But I'm never for cutting off communication. That's just childish and petty.
But then again, it seems like a lot of our gay leadership - and I'm talking about the HRC types - are all about childishness and pettiness. I used to listen to the HRC radio show, and it was nothing but Joe Salmonese and his lesbian counterpart namedropping and talking about their vacation homes.
Personally, I'd go to the party, get a nice glass of wine, stroll up to the president, and ask him, genially, "Mr President, what's with the mixed messages from your administration? Why are you stalling and trying to placate us? What are your plans moving forward? You do realize that we're not going to shut up about this, don't you?"
And if he started to get all flowery and rhetorical, I'd say "Mr. President, answer the question please". And if he persisted in the speechifying, I'd just walk away, letting him know I wasn't interested in that sort of drivel.
But then again, I'm not a gay leader.
And a word about Dan: I'm not as angry as he is - I'm more concerned and disappointed than angry - but I'm glad to have people out there to rile the troops. This is an important issue to all people who are concerned about civil rights, and we need honesty, if nothing else, from the administration. And they and the DNC need to be reminded that we shouldn't be taken for granted. Dan is doing what activists and editorialists (if that's even a word) have always done, only in a new technological format. If you don't want to read about civil rights - and there's are times I don't want to - just don't read the posts. But don't bitch at him for fighting the good fight.
28
What exactly are these gay "leaders" going to say to Obama in this situation? They will be fumbling all over themselves wondering if the lighting is good or if the cocktails are weak or "how good he looks in person" etc......The President, as well as the Democratic leaders of Congress already know what they need to do. Fuck being his friend and showering him with gayness so he can get it. Withhold the $$$$$$ for the DNC, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest and they will get it. Obama needs to issue a stop-loss on discharges while DADT is reviewed, get legislation moving through committee on repeal of DOMA, and kick his DOJ in the ass for letting that reprehensible better "When the President calls you come." Yeah Joe, again and again and again.
29
sorry .....@28 reprehensible brief getting filed on DOMA. Joe Solomese could not have made the point better......@15 and 20 good ideas...
30
I've copied this important point from Catalina Vel-DuRay's post @27 because it fell below the 'jump' and deserves to be seen:
"And a word about Dan: I'm not as angry as he is - I'm more concerned and disappointed than angry - but I'm glad to have people out there to rile the troops. This is an important issue to all people who are concerned about civil rights, and we need honesty, if nothing else, from the administration. And they and the DNC need to be reminded that we shouldn't be taken for granted. Dan is doing what activists and editorialists (if that's even a word) have always done, only in a new technological format. If you don't want to read about civil rights - and there's are times I don't want to - just don't read the posts. But don't bitch at him for fighting the good fight."
"And a word about Dan: I'm not as angry as he is - I'm more concerned and disappointed than angry - but I'm glad to have people out there to rile the troops. This is an important issue to all people who are concerned about civil rights, and we need honesty, if nothing else, from the administration. And they and the DNC need to be reminded that we shouldn't be taken for granted. Dan is doing what activists and editorialists (if that's even a word) have always done, only in a new technological format. If you don't want to read about civil rights - and there's are times I don't want to - just don't read the posts. But don't bitch at him for fighting the good fight."
31
Didn't see any masses of gay couples dressed up in their wedding finery at Seattle's largest non-Seafair parade, the Fremont Solstice Parade.
Still more people on the streets in Tehran than showing up at our local courthouse ready to be arrested for insisting on their rights ...
Still more people on the streets in Tehran than showing up at our local courthouse ready to be arrested for insisting on their rights ...
32
Interesting reading on DADT, the bill in the House of Rep., and the search for sponsers, specifically GOP in the Senate.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/16/reid…
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/16/reid…
33
I think they should go to the party and steal all the silverware, but maybe someone else could come up with a better, more mature suggestion.
I do like the idea of every invited guest bringing as their date someone who has been discharged under DADT.
I do like the idea of every invited guest bringing as their date someone who has been discharged under DADT.
34
So, I just got a really amazing e-mail back from Senator Cantwell that seems to indicate a level of Congressional involvement and awareness that I wasn't expecting.
Suffice it to say, she will be getting my vote and my money.
Suffice it to say, she will be getting my vote and my money.
35
"I do like the idea of every invited guest bringing as their date someone who has been discharged under DADT. "
Now, that is a BRILLIANT idea!
Now, that is a BRILLIANT idea!
36
I'll take a free presidential cocktail! And I'll throw it in his face a la Joan Collins from "Dynasty!"
37
The idea of inviting LGBT to a party is exactly the same as giving a child a cookie to make it stop crying. It's insulting and anyone with an ounce of political savvy would know that a party setting is going to shield Obama from any serious discussion of issues. Do you really think you would be able to take the President to task at a party at his house?
38
He's just like a boyfriend who messed up trying to get back with us. Remember everyone, we are in full-on ignoring him mode now!!!
Let's freeze him out until he repeals DOMA!
Let's freeze him out until he repeals DOMA!
39
"It is no longer the practice that only extreme illness or death prevents otherwise well-bred citizens from accepting a White House invitation ... What is rude is to refuse and then to brag that it was really disapproval of the president's stand on some issue that motivated you." - Judith Martin (Miss Manners)
Of course gay leaders should go to the party. Time with the president is time with the president. Signorile is either pissed that he wasn't invited, or a sanctimonious asshole (or both).
Of course gay leaders should go to the party. Time with the president is time with the president. Signorile is either pissed that he wasn't invited, or a sanctimonious asshole (or both).
40
For a view of what a White House reception or dinner entails, @37, please see comment @36. Of course, the thrown cocktail is typically via words, but it's often just as harsh.
43
@40: Baconcat! So glad you could make it tonight. Now, now, let's not have that long face. Everyone is having such a nice time! Look stand next to me and we'll take a photo that you can show your friends. And if you'd really like to take up that issue of yours schedule a meeting with my secretary. (never hears from the POTUS again)
44
Hey Kresblamania:
The political process includes and is predicated on political ploys.
YOU'RE REALLY ON TO SOMETHING THERE.
The political process includes and is predicated on political ploys.
YOU'RE REALLY ON TO SOMETHING THERE.
45
@41: My guess is that she would be surprised at anyone receiving a White House invitation who was unaware that the president is a politician.
One of the exceptions she gives to the "death or serious illness" rule is in the event that the invitee is planning to give a public endorsement to another candidate. It is polite not to drink the president's whiskey under such circumstances.
One of the exceptions she gives to the "death or serious illness" rule is in the event that the invitee is planning to give a public endorsement to another candidate. It is polite not to drink the president's whiskey under such circumstances.
46
How does turning down a cocktail party count as "cutting off all contact" with Obama? People will still negotiate with him and communicate with him. But you can't pretend not to know that a cocktail party creates a certain "all's well" context that isn't called for right now.
Turning down the party IS communication; it's communicating the idea that Obama needs to do something substantial in order to win over the gay community. See, all the uproar in the gay community isn't about a lack of cocktail party invites. It's about a lack of real movement. I think it's ridiculous that all Obama has to do is throw a gay prom, and half of slog is crying, "what more do you WANT from this man?"
It's great that he's finally reaching out, but something about this party feels like it's another means of beating around the bush. He has hurt his own reputation by completely freezing his gay rights agenda. After such a freeze, it's natural that people are going to be a little dubious about it once it appears to be thawing maybe just a little. He needs to do something more substantial than yet another feel-good gesture if he wants people to believe that, this time, he MEANS it. So what might have been enough four months ago, before his neglect of gay rights was so blatant, is not enough now. To borrow a favored phrase from the "he's too busy" crowd: that's politics for you. He made bigger promises than pride months and Uhaul rentals, so it's only natural that people expected bigger actions, or at least (by now) a strategy towards those actions.
Obama can throw the cocktail party later. After he's suspended enforcement of DADT so that nobody else has to lose their job before Congress gets off their fat asses to repeal it officially. He can throw a cocktail party after giving a speech directed at Congress, urging them to pass a repeal of DOMA so that he can sign it. He can throw the party after he's proven to the gay community that he really is committed to accomplishing these things, and is going to use whatever influence he has to motivate whoever he has to. But a party in and of itself isn't proof of this.
No, he doesn't have to do Congress' job for them (Congress deserves even more shit for their inaction on DOMA, in my opinion). He doesn't have to wait until his actions achieve their end results (that's the part that people expect to take more than six months or even a whole term). He does, however, have to wait until he's gotten the ball rolling towards those results, which shouldn't have taken six months, not even with all those other issues on his plate.
More...
Turning down the party IS communication; it's communicating the idea that Obama needs to do something substantial in order to win over the gay community. See, all the uproar in the gay community isn't about a lack of cocktail party invites. It's about a lack of real movement. I think it's ridiculous that all Obama has to do is throw a gay prom, and half of slog is crying, "what more do you WANT from this man?"
It's great that he's finally reaching out, but something about this party feels like it's another means of beating around the bush. He has hurt his own reputation by completely freezing his gay rights agenda. After such a freeze, it's natural that people are going to be a little dubious about it once it appears to be thawing maybe just a little. He needs to do something more substantial than yet another feel-good gesture if he wants people to believe that, this time, he MEANS it. So what might have been enough four months ago, before his neglect of gay rights was so blatant, is not enough now. To borrow a favored phrase from the "he's too busy" crowd: that's politics for you. He made bigger promises than pride months and Uhaul rentals, so it's only natural that people expected bigger actions, or at least (by now) a strategy towards those actions.
Obama can throw the cocktail party later. After he's suspended enforcement of DADT so that nobody else has to lose their job before Congress gets off their fat asses to repeal it officially. He can throw a cocktail party after giving a speech directed at Congress, urging them to pass a repeal of DOMA so that he can sign it. He can throw the party after he's proven to the gay community that he really is committed to accomplishing these things, and is going to use whatever influence he has to motivate whoever he has to. But a party in and of itself isn't proof of this.
No, he doesn't have to do Congress' job for them (Congress deserves even more shit for their inaction on DOMA, in my opinion). He doesn't have to wait until his actions achieve their end results (that's the part that people expect to take more than six months or even a whole term). He does, however, have to wait until he's gotten the ball rolling towards those results, which shouldn't have taken six months, not even with all those other issues on his plate.
48
@43: Well, I can tell right now you've never dealt with career politicians. :)
@46: Again, facetime with the president is facetime. D.C. operates on one-page memos, 3 paragraph letters and 45 second conversations. That's how 10-second soundbites become hundreds of pages of stimulus package or healthcare bill. That's why rallying cries have always been short like "No taxation without representation!", and why people frequently encapsulate sweeping speeches into brief blips like "I have a dream!" or "We the people" or "The right to bear arms" or "The freedom of speech".
If you can't summarize your plea, it doesn't stand a chance in Washington.
@46: Again, facetime with the president is facetime. D.C. operates on one-page memos, 3 paragraph letters and 45 second conversations. That's how 10-second soundbites become hundreds of pages of stimulus package or healthcare bill. That's why rallying cries have always been short like "No taxation without representation!", and why people frequently encapsulate sweeping speeches into brief blips like "I have a dream!" or "We the people" or "The right to bear arms" or "The freedom of speech".
If you can't summarize your plea, it doesn't stand a chance in Washington.
49
Amen Bonefish. Thank you
As a gay submarine vet (SSN-663) I find the inaction on DADT reprehensible. My Congressperson is a Republican and she is a co-sponser on HR 1283 (legislation to repeal DADT.) Obama can suspend discharges now. Where is he on this? I am sick and tired of hearing wait... wait. Yes Clinton fucked this up years ago but it is not the same political climate. The country and the Armed Forces are ready for this. Obama needs to push Congress. It is
HIS military that is losing on this. Each discharge is the end of someone's professional career and the end of benefits. Get it. This is not an issue, it is about someones life, not to mention a huge $$$ loss for the military. His silence is inexcusable. 265 discharges under Obama's watch and counting. No more GAYTM until there is ACTION.
As a gay submarine vet (SSN-663) I find the inaction on DADT reprehensible. My Congressperson is a Republican and she is a co-sponser on HR 1283 (legislation to repeal DADT.) Obama can suspend discharges now. Where is he on this? I am sick and tired of hearing wait... wait. Yes Clinton fucked this up years ago but it is not the same political climate. The country and the Armed Forces are ready for this. Obama needs to push Congress. It is
HIS military that is losing on this. Each discharge is the end of someone's professional career and the end of benefits. Get it. This is not an issue, it is about someones life, not to mention a huge $$$ loss for the military. His silence is inexcusable. 265 discharges under Obama's watch and counting. No more GAYTM until there is ACTION.
50
So what about this cocktail party boycott would be "too complicated" for Washington politics?
The thing is that the President already knows the gay community's pleas. He's known them since his campaign; at least he must have because he summed it all up very well in his campaign speeches. Nobody needs to go to a cocktail party to remind Obama that gays want that whole DADT thing gone. And maybe some of them marriage benefits, too. He already knows.
What needs to be communicated to Obama is that we expect results, not just words and gestures. The best way to communicate this is to turn down his empty gestures until he starts working towards things that will get results.
Maybe one gay activist can show up to the party, reiterate that point for him, and leave. But a bunch of them accepting the invites, regardless of the conversations they plan to have with him once they get there, would serve as a public gesture that the gays have finally been placated. And that's not what we need right now.
The thing is that the President already knows the gay community's pleas. He's known them since his campaign; at least he must have because he summed it all up very well in his campaign speeches. Nobody needs to go to a cocktail party to remind Obama that gays want that whole DADT thing gone. And maybe some of them marriage benefits, too. He already knows.
What needs to be communicated to Obama is that we expect results, not just words and gestures. The best way to communicate this is to turn down his empty gestures until he starts working towards things that will get results.
Maybe one gay activist can show up to the party, reiterate that point for him, and leave. But a bunch of them accepting the invites, regardless of the conversations they plan to have with him once they get there, would serve as a public gesture that the gays have finally been placated. And that's not what we need right now.
52
The White House has a way of intimidating people, even those who are famous and powerful in their own spheres.
Remember Eartha Kitt's White House rant to Lady Bird Johnson about the Viet Nam debacle?
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politi…
Clearly the Obamas could benefit from having a few gay friends - but what they don't need is gay sycophants. If you are invited, Dan, ask Prez O for his take on Harry Truman's ballsy decision to racially integrate the U.S. military and to compare that decision with his ability to abrogate DADT. In any event, enjoy the tea and strumpets.
Remember Eartha Kitt's White House rant to Lady Bird Johnson about the Viet Nam debacle?
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politi…
Clearly the Obamas could benefit from having a few gay friends - but what they don't need is gay sycophants. If you are invited, Dan, ask Prez O for his take on Harry Truman's ballsy decision to racially integrate the U.S. military and to compare that decision with his ability to abrogate DADT. In any event, enjoy the tea and strumpets.
53
Who said anything about pouting? There's a difference between protests and pouting. Comparing protests to pouting is just an old trick that's been used as an attempt to discredit political movements for centuries. It's a bullshit sentiment that sellouts use to justify their own selling out. I'm not buying it; sorry.
54
Apparently I'm missing something, but Obama's not going to be at this party, so there is no "face time" with the president to be had, even if you show up.
Unless you think your time with Biden will somehow magically translate itself over to Obama. However, I'm pretty sure that Biden reporting back that he had a houseful of nobody there (= no money raised) is going to carry a lot more weight than a few notes from some outraged homos that did attend.
Unless you think your time with Biden will somehow magically translate itself over to Obama. However, I'm pretty sure that Biden reporting back that he had a houseful of nobody there (= no money raised) is going to carry a lot more weight than a few notes from some outraged homos that did attend.
55
Dan, didn't I explain about a dozen DOMA Obama posts ago why Obama upheld this? It's a political move, as he realizes he doesn't have the votes in the Senate nor the pull on his own to strike down DOMA. He has to wait until 2010, and hope that the Dems pick up more seats, before he can do anything substantial.
56
@55 We're waiting for Franken (especially us in MN) to be seated soon. How many more Senate votes do you expect Obama to pick up? He has to move now. You really think he can wait until 2010? He CAN do this now.
As a single, straight guy w/ no kids, I got no horse in this race, except to stick up for equal rights for my friends.
He CAN do this now, and should. He may not get a better opportunity.
As a single, straight guy w/ no kids, I got no horse in this race, except to stick up for equal rights for my friends.
He CAN do this now, and should. He may not get a better opportunity.
57
@54: Yes, you're missing something - we are talking about a party at the White House hosted by the president, not the DNC fundraiser hosted by Biden.
58
@6 - I kinda agree with eric here - ghandi didn't lose his persuasiveness as the years went on, he did the hard work, reliably, regardless of how mad he was getting. Likewise the Dalai Lama, MLK, et al. Keep the tone you started with, and augment with more righteous facts, 'oh my god honey did you hear that' statistics, and heartfelt anthems of liberty & equality for all.
lol @ doug - nice .
@14 and yet there are church leaders that pester the white house, and the worst of the lot, the 'prolife' lobbyists and leaders [ but aside from serial killers, who isn't literally pro-life? ]
@15 ellarosa - you are a nice casual voice of reason - your idea is perfect: "oh, but maybe each one of these gay bigwigs who has been invited can bring a date, and the date for each of them can be an ex-member of the armed forces who has been kicked out for being too openly gay."
I'd add: someone should offer to be Barack's date. [and a female escort for Michele, of course]. At bare minimum, a gay boy needs to ask him to dance.
@19 sadly, gay boys and dyke girls haven't been able to see enough common ground, or maintain the few relationships started - this has been painfully true since stonewall. I wish all the progressives could unite as one big voltron of righteousness and knock out the stupid, controlling and tyrannical things in our nation / world.
lol @ doug - nice .
@14 and yet there are church leaders that pester the white house, and the worst of the lot, the 'prolife' lobbyists and leaders [ but aside from serial killers, who isn't literally pro-life? ]
@15 ellarosa - you are a nice casual voice of reason - your idea is perfect: "oh, but maybe each one of these gay bigwigs who has been invited can bring a date, and the date for each of them can be an ex-member of the armed forces who has been kicked out for being too openly gay."
I'd add: someone should offer to be Barack's date. [and a female escort for Michele, of course]. At bare minimum, a gay boy needs to ask him to dance.
@19 sadly, gay boys and dyke girls haven't been able to see enough common ground, or maintain the few relationships started - this has been painfully true since stonewall. I wish all the progressives could unite as one big voltron of righteousness and knock out the stupid, controlling and tyrannical things in our nation / world.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (58) RSS