Obama senior adviser tells GLBT's "It gets better": WHEN?

[Bluebear]

by John Aravosis

There was something somewhat distasteful about Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett co-opting Dan Savage's anti-bullying message by taking its name and using it as the title of her speech at the Human Rights Campaign's annual "No Excuses" dinner last night.

And it's even more distasteful that she mentioned Dan's slogan "it gets better" in her speech, but didn't even bother mentioning the anti-bullying campaign it represented, or the fact that Dan was spearheading it. Better to plagiarize than give credit to a real fierce advocate.

But putting aside that little bit of chutzpah, there's the larger gall of anyone in the Obama administration daring to tell gay people that things are going to get better when things in Obama-land keep getting decidedly worse.

The President blew off DADT, ENDA and DOMA in his first year. He finally decided to get to DADT in his second year, but was so afraid to stand up to his own Secretary of Defense that he cut a deal that pretty much guaranteed repeal would never happen under his watch. As for ENDA, it's gone. And DOMA, well, no one in the Democratic party wants to touch it with a ten foot pole.

And now with the upcoming November elections expected to be a disaster for Democrats, even if we keep the House (which pundits consider unlikely at the moment), Democrats will be so shell-shocked they won't touch anything smacking of "liberalism" or "controversy" for years to come.

The President who repeatedly promised to be our "fierce advocate" has been pretty much business as usual. He pays lip service to our civil rights, but doesn't seem terribly interested in spending any political capital to help make them a reality. And the effort he did make, on DADT, was so botched, so amateur, that it's pretty much dead in the water, as many of us predicted it would be.

Promise after promise from this administration, to the LGBT community, to people who care about the environment, to Latinos, to women, to Americans concerned about civil liberties, have been broken time and again. It's come to the point where very few people believe that the President's word means anything at all. And Valerie Jarrett shows up on the scene to tell us that she feels our pain, and that things will get better?

When exactly is it going to get better, Valerie? 2017?

Joe had dinner with Jarrett at the Netroots Nation conference last year, and from all accounts, she's a very nice woman. But the situation has moved beyond nice. We didn't vote for nice. We voted for change. We voted for someone who promised he would be fierce, he would be our advocate. When in fact, he's been quite mediocre at best.

Yes, he signed the hate crimes bill, while lifting nary a finger to get it past. He issued a memo on hospital visitations that will get thrown out by the next Republican administration. And he gave federal workers a bunch of benefits that they already had, even though he pretended that they were new. And don't forget the Easter Egg roll - if you can't get married or keep your job, there's always the Easter Egg roll. Can't you feel the change?

When does it get better, Valerie?

When will the President ever start actually fighting for the things he's promised? When does he start making phone calls to Senators on DADT the same way he makes phone calls to women's basketball teams? When does he stop defending DOMA and DADT in court, undercutting our entire civil rights legal strategy? And when is the President finally going to agree to do an interview with a gay publication - he hasn't done any as President. Does Kerry Eleveld have the cooties, or is the President just too busy with that women's basketball team?

It's all well and good for you to come the HRC dinner and try to co-opt Dan Savage's anti-bullying campaign to give your boss cover for the abominable job he's done on his promises to our community. But no one's buying it, Valerie. How can you claim to be against bullying gay youth when your own administration politically bullies them each and every day? How is it not bullying to tell a gay kid that God doesn't think he deserves to marry the person he loves? How is it not bullying to go to court and invoke incest and pedophilia while defending the hideous Defense of Marriage Act? How is it not bullying to tell those same kids that their civil rights just aren't as important as getting chummy with a bunch of basketball players?

And how is it not bullying to accuse people of sowing discord when they are simply asking you to keep your promise?

So I ask you again, Valerie, on behalf of every single gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender person who voted for Barack Obama, donated money to Barack Obama, and worked their ass off to put Barack Obama in the White House: When does he get better?

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/10/so-when-does-it-get-better-valerie.html

Made available under the Fair Use statute in an effort to advance understanding of the emotional, intellectual, social, physical, spiritual, occupational, and environmental issues related to gay Amercians.

[ThomCat]

1. Holy Fuck!

She plagiarized the "It Gets Better" campaign for political purposes?

She tried to co-opt an anti-suicide message to try to generate support for Obama?

:wtf:


After trying to sell us minor policy changes as a substitute for real civil rights,

After stalling, delaying and lying about every promise they have every made to deliver real civil rights,

After insisting on defending homophobia in the courts when there was no legal need, showing all of us that this was their choice, and their real policy position,

Is this administration now really trying to do Everything Possible to be OFFENSIVE to our community by saying that they can co-opt our own messages of hope for their fund-raising purposes?

:grr:

[WillParkinson]

2. But....chess...pony...and a bunch of other things!

Just sit down and be quiet while the adults tell you how and when you'll get your rights. Oh, and be sure to keep your wallet open at all times.

[Bluebear]

9. Yes , They Did!

[bobbolink]

32. Every time you think they've reached the bottom of the barrel....

:nuke:

[Smashcut]

3. Hypocrisy Lite

x(

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dragonfli]

5. Sometimes people lie like rugs to get votes, the only thing left to do

is stop believing anything a known liar tells you.

Someday, someone that believes in equal rights may gain some power, until then - keep your eye on your wallets and your trust.


I am deeply and truly sorry, for all the good that does.

[Jamastiene]

11. Best advice I have seen in a long time.

It is true. If they lied to your once already, they will lie to you again.

Thank you. :hug:

[hendo]

136. Everyone lies at one time or another. NT

[saracat]

6. I am so very sorry Bluebear . And I am embarassed that anyone

would do such a horrible thing.This was really not good. Sigh. When? I wonder when equality will actually matter to anyone.

[Occulus]

7. Reprehensible

but at least I won't be fooled twice.

[Skittles]

8. he was never gonna do squat

it's all a big dog and pony show :thumbsdown:

[Jamastiene]

10. What-the-fuck-ever.

I won't be holding my breath for that. I would just pass out and have to wake back up to the reality if I did.

I'll believe it when I see it. Quit talking out of both sides of your mouth, Obama admin. Either put up or shut up. False hope is the cruelest sick joke you can ever play on a person or a group of people who just want basic human rights.

That's my message to the fierce advocate and his admin. Shit or get off the pot.

[Behind the Aegis]

31. +1

You know what though, perhaps all the gay people SHOULD hold their breath because if he and those in Congress and our other "fierce advocates" actually saw a bunch of blue people, then our rights might be more important.

[terrya]

12. That is wrong on every single, goddamned level. Disgusting.

Shame on her for using that phrase. When her administration is consistently fighting to uphold bigotry and discrimination like DADT and DOMA in the federal courts, to use the phrase "It gets better" is quite frankly sick. In light of the recent rash of gay kids killing themselves. In light of a horrific, monsterous hate crime in the Bronx.

The HRC needs to stop inviting these people to their dinners. All it is is words, words, words, blah, blah, fucking blah, etc. And nothing happens. Oh, wait...yes, something happens...the admininstration fights to defend some bigoted law in court. Yes, that's what happens. That's "fierce advocacy" for you.

I've watched many of the "It gets better" videos. I always have a lump in my throat when I watch them...because I so wish they were around when I was in high school...when I was bullied, and taunted for being gay. I had no friends in high school whatsoever because no one wanted to be around a "faggot". There were many times when I wished I were dead then. Those videos...that campaign...is real advocacy. And for some administration flack to go to some black tie dinner and steal that phrase to trumpet some non-existent "record" of working for our equality is sort of despicable.

[ThomCat]

16. You really get to the heart of it.

"It gets better" is about life and death for our kids when they feel that they have no hope and nothing to live for. When they feel that the entire world hates them and despises them, and they'll never, ever be able to be safe, or loved.

To take that from us,and do it just to slap us on the nose like disobedient dogs... "Bad dog! Sit! Roll Over! Beg!" Because we aren't obedient enough, aren't giving enough money, aren't cheering loud enough... That's disgusting.

And it shows that really don't understand the crisis our teens are facing. Worse, they just don't care. :grr:

All they care about is getting their votes and getting their money. The lives of our kids, our rights, none of that matters to them. x(

[bobbolink]

35. "Beg!"

That is it exactly.

Homeless kids, vulnerable on the streets, are of primary importance, and fuck those who play games.

:puke:

[zipplewrath]

44. Sullivan really disses HRC

I'm not up on on the "inside politics" nature of it, but Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic is really down on HRC. Basically accusing them of being mostly a fund raising machine that accomplishes very little and gives political cover to various politicians.

[xchrom]

13. yes -- i watched the video in the political videos forum -- didn't want to say

anything there.

but she did and i'm not sure she even realized anybody would notice -- but it was out there like fireworks.

awful.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muffin1]

15. This reminds me

of the Seinfeld episode where George was complaining about a woman he wanted to date turning out to be bald. Elaine was laughing like hell while he was going off about it. Finally, George asks Elaine what is so funny. She gets in his face and tells him "YOU'RE BALD!"

"No Excuses"? From the administration that is giving us NOTHING BUT EXCUSES. Good Lord.

K&R

[Kurovski]

17. K&R. (nt)

[Starry Messenger]

18. k & r

[kratos12]

19. How the hell are things getting "worse" with Obama for Gays?

The author states:

"But putting aside that little bit of chutzpah, there's the larger gall of anyone in the Obama administration daring to tell gay people that things are going to get better when things in Obama-land keep getting decidedly worse."

By what objective measure does the author base this on?

What is his solution, place the reigns of Government back into the hands of the right wing? Will that make thing's "decidedly better"?

talk about cutting your nose off the spite your face.

[muffin1]

20. Maybe it's just me,

but I expect to get screwed by my enemies, not my 'fierce advocate'. Millions of gay folks believed Obama when he said he would change things for the GLBTQ community. They gave of their time, their money, and their hearts. My best friend had his doubts when Obama stated his same-sex marriage stance, but I convinced him that Obama was being politically expedient. I told him to just wait and see - no one as smart as Barack Obama would be bigoted. My friend came around and decided Obama was his best chance at finally getting Equal Rights. At the very least DADT would be done away with in short order. Obama made NO BONES about that being one of his top priorities.

So we both jumped in with both feet. We campaigned and volunteered for him - wholeheartedly. And on election night, after they announced he had won? Sheer elation. My friend actually did his "happy dance", I'm not the greatest dancer, so I just sat on the couch and sobbed happy, heaving tears of joy.

Fast forward two years later...Not only did Obama not advocate fiercely for the repeal of DADT, but he still maintains that gay couples do not deserve marriage equality. News of violence against gay people have been everywhere for the past few weeks. So far, not a word from 'The Advocate'. Maybe if one of the victims had been names Professor Henry Gates...who knows, maybe they'd get an invitation to speak personally with President Obama at the White House.

I'm lucky my friend is still speaking to me. And by the way, he wants to know how it's better to get screwed by Mcain than Obama.

[ThomCat]

22. Did you even read the OP?

Did you understand any of what it said?

It doesn't matter that republicans would have been worse if they they won the last election. Obama won the election. He is the president. He made the promises. He is the one who failed to keep the promises. He is the one who failed to even TRY to keep the promises.

When he has failed us repeatedly, lied to us repeatedly, and clearly doesn't even understand how badly he has messed up his relationship with us, he has the nerve to send someone to Reprimand Us for Not Supporting Him! Do you see the hypocrisy in his decision there?

Do you see how Offensive it is for his staff person to steal our campaign slogan, one intended to raise hope to save kids lives, and then use it to try to raise money and votes from us by claiming that he's more of an advocate than he really is? Do you understand how this really shows a lack of real understanding and a lack of support for the LGBT community? Do you see how this undermines any claim they make for being fierce advocates for us? Do you see how this shows that this administration came as hypocrites to this meeting, and has been hypocrites all along?

This was a faux pas so insulting that this woman should lose her job for this. But it was so typical of this administration, that we can't be surprised by it.

[Bluebear]

25. You sound as arrogant as the administration on this issue

[EFerrari]

107. No. This is refusing to sit still while somebody else cuts off your nose

to spite your face.

[Le Taz Hot]

21. K & R

It just goes to show you the longer you live, the more likely you are to be dancing the same dance to the same tune.

The exactly same arguments were made during the battle for Civil Rights for minorities and women. "Go slow." One more time: Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.

[bobbolink]

38. You forgot the big one.... "Can't you take a joke?"

Yes, the lines of oppression are the same.

As are the oppressors.... Putting out the glad hand, and acting like your buddy.

:puke:

[hendo]

137. yup, the parallels are striking. NT

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Val Jarrett put on a disgusting display of heatlessness

and typical co-opting of other people's work and words. Of course, Val needed something to say and now that too much truth has come out, she and her bosses are no longer able to speak of bringing their hate club 'to the table'. We note that Val as emmisary from the religious President did not have the honesty to mention the Eddie Long truths. We note that Val, while no doubt a friend of Oprah's, failed to mention what Donnie McClurkin has to say about the vicious attacks inspiried by his work, occuring a few miles from his home 'chruch'. Back during the campaing, old Barack was big pals with all the hater evangelicals, and told us that they were in his words-good, decent and honest. Like Eddie Long. Like other hate spewers and violencet inciters.
Val Jarrett kicked aside the dead and injured in order to mount the podium and use stolen words to tell more lies and worse, to avoid speaking to the core issue, what the Obama crowd did with McClurkin and Warren and others, and how that teaches the young people they have no value.
This administration is filled with cold, apathtic, flinty souled little people like Jarrett. Her friend won an election, so here she is, set free to do more harm to our young people.
The fact that she did not even acknowledge Dan Savage and all of the contributers to the very project she was plagerizing says so much about her, the administration, and how they view GLBT people as worthy of contempt, worthy of being stolen from. She tried to own that wonderfu work as her own. Shame on Jarrett.

[muffin1]

24. +1,000,000

I hope Dan Savage will have something to say about this disgusting display...maybe tonight on Keith/Rachel?

[donheld]

100. +1,000,000 more

[MrScorpio]

26. Okay then. So, what path should be taken?

Engage, but still support the Obama administration, as well as using the other two branches of government to secure concrete gains for full equality....

Or disengage and withdraw support, making it that much easier for the GOP to retake control?

Which of course, will have the direct effect of setting full equality back, right?


Or. is there a suggested and feasible third way?

[JuniperLea]

27. I think those are great questions, Mr. S.

Slamming someone you want something from doesn't seem the way to go regardless of the situation... there must be a better way.

[MrScorpio]

28. I don't mind criticism...

But I don't think that criticism is all that helpful if no solutions or alternatives are offered as well.

[JuniperLea]

39. Right...

Criticism for the sake of criticism is how it appears when there's no alternative ideas presented, and that doesn't help anyone.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbolink]

69. I see... so I can't repeat the names we were called, like "Fucking retards" "Whiners" "Childish"?

We can be called those names, but we can't repeat what we were "criticised" with?

[hendo]

138. the r word should never be used, period

Just because they do it, that does not make it right for us to.

[muffin1]

73. It isn't criticism

for criticism's sake. It's criticism for treating gay people like second-class citizens. What do you expect us to do, get down on our knees and beg Obama not to be a homophobe? Only he can search his heart and HEAD - that Harvard-educated head - and see that he is WRONG.
Discrimination is always wrong. Jesus H. Christ, if some people would stop enabling his behavior, maybe that would help. What have you done to help change his mind?

[ThomCat]

123. Thank you for that backhanded criticism of the LGBT community.

I'm sure it's so very welcome. :eyes:

We have repeatedly given this administration a lot of advice about how to move forward to help us get our rights. We have been ignored, lied to, needlessly delayed, and the DoJ is currently Defending homophobic laws using homophobic language.

So, at what point would you kindly allow us permission to be upset about it?

Do we keep giving advice again, while withholding anger and judgment for yet another year, even though we can see damned well that we are being ignored and lied to?

When do we have permission to be angry at being ignored and lied to?

And why the hell do we need permission from the Straight community? :wtf:

[ThomCat]

122. All our advice community's advice to this Administration

has been ignored, and all we have been given in exchange for that advice is lies, needless delays, obfuscations, and requests for financial support that hasn't been earned.

So what do you expect us to do then? Bend over and say "Thank you sir, may we have another?"

At what point do we have your royal permission to be upset? :eyes:

[FreeState]

29. There is - you demand leadership and if it does not come you support someone else n/t

[MrScorpio]

30. Any ideas who should be supported, in lieu of the president...

Especially, at this stage in the game?

[FreeState]

34. Im still at the demanding leadership stage

if Obama does not act on his promises to the community I will support someone with a history of being supportive in actions and their words in the primary. But thats two years away - he can and must improve in the next two years - and I suspect the best way to be sure that he does so is to stop making excuses for him and hold his feet to the fire.

I suspect that most the people online that tell GLBT members they are going about it the wrong way have never once written or called the circuit board to demand leadership from the President on GLBT issues - and thats one of the problems of online activism in general - its a lot finger pointing and not enough action. (Im not saying this about you BTW - just a general observation)

[MrScorpio]

40. Well, you're still at the "support, yet engage" stage

Which is perfect understandable.

But, I didn't see any stage in the OP's source.

It's very difficult to understand where he wants to go... If all we got was where he's coming from.

[stevenleser]

67. What's worse is this is probably just a staffer's extremely poor choice of words.

Ultimately, what that staffer said doesnt mean much.

The rest, I understand. Progress has been extremely slow and disappointing on the LGBT front.

[MrScorpio]

71. I think that the level of progress has been left wanting for one reason

It's that a many folks expected unilateral action on behalf of the Obama Administration and much of it was anticipated to happen in a vacuum... But, like anything else in DC, the issues became convoluted because of all the other political cooks who couldn't resist jumping feet first into the soup.

That's always been Washington's nature and only a very few things ever escape that process.

From all of that, the eventual frustration is pretty much expected.

[ruggerson]

89. McCLurkin and Rick Warren did not result in gay people being "disappointed" at the lack of progress

in this administration.

That was about a politician deliberately using anti-gay bigotry as a quiet wink and nod subtext to appeal to a voting bloc.

That's not to say other Democrats didn't do it before Obama. They did. But people expected, in 2008 to at least have a leader who would treat gay issues and the gay community with respect and decency.

Trotting out someone who trumpets that he's an "ex-gay" is not just disrespectful, it's aiming a loaded gun at gay teenagers. A lot of us were very clear about that at the time.

I still vote Democratic and don't need anyone to tell me to do so. I will vote for Obama's reelection almost exclusively so that we maintain the power to appoint judges.

But for many people, we are way beyond being angry or frustrated about the lack of progress. And this
was long before Jarrett gave her asinine speech.

[MrScorpio]

101. Yep... Compromises...

We all have to make them from top to bottom.

[ThomCat]

121. Where is YOUR support in all of this

if all you are going to do is criticize us for being upset at the LGBT community for not being supportive enough of Obama?

Where is your support for OUR rights if you don't think we have a right to be upset, and a right to express that?

[Erose999]

116. Dennis Kucinich. Apparently some of us won't be satisfied until he's president.

Also, Nancy Pelosi, Alan Grayson, Barney Frank, Al Franken.

Those are just some in Congress who are willing to take a stand...

[JuniperLea]

50. I can live with that...

But who/what is being supported in this OP? That's the question.

[bobbolink]

41. LOL!

"Slamming someone you want something from doesn't seem the way to go regardless of the situation... there must be a better way."

"Fucking retards"

"Whiners"

"Childish"

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[muffin1]

72. You mean like telling

potential voters they are 'whiners'?

[Bluebear]

114. +++

[Mimosa]

33. You tell US what's 'feasible'

The LGBT community isn't confused. Nor do we want to enable Republicans to get in office.

But it seems to me the administration is the one which is engendering apathy if not discord by not differentiating their policies from Gingrish, Bush, Cheney, etc.

[MrScorpio]

45. Hey, look. I don't think that it's my role at all to tell gays what to do

As I'm sure that at lot of LGBT people have differing opinions on what steps should be taken as well.

That's not confusion, but instead is DEFUSION of both leadership and organization at various levels.

If anyone is confused however, it's me. Because, I didn't detect any hint of positive feedback at all in that OP source.

Perhaps, we can all get clued in on what the next step is

If so, I have a feeling that something like that could alleviate a substantial amount of anxiety over this issue.

[Prism]

52. And yet, that's all you seem to do, over and over and over.

Weird that.

[Behind the Aegis]

53. +1...Hell, plus 2!

[MrScorpio]

54. What, ask questions?

That's the only thing that I'm doing now, right?

[Prism]

58. Tell gays what to do, how to feel, what to think, etc.

It seems to be a minor hobby. I just watch in fascination. The lack of empathy or self-consciousness as you patronizingly explain our reality to us is kind of interesting in a removed sort of way.

I read it purely from a socially curious perspective at this point.

[JuniperLea]

59. That kind of activity is pretty disgusting, but I'm not seeing it in this thread...

Kindly point it out so I'm enlightened?

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrScorpio]

61. So, perhaps you can tell me...

What solutions did you read in the OP?

Was it statement that support should be withdrawn from the Obama administration and another strategy applied elsewhere?

Or was it one confirming a commitment to support Obama and continue to engage, especially in light of upcoming elections?

Not that I'm saying that I know what the purpose of the OP's source is, or his intent...

I'm merely asking you where do you think he's coming from and where do you think he wants to go.

Hey, I can sit here and get upset about this whole thing along with you, if you'd like.

But, do you have any idea what good that's going to do all by itself?

[Prism]

62. The article is intended to stoke anger that will result in protest.

And protest is a very valid form of activism. It has gotten the LGBT community where it is today.

I am not supportive of people who spit in my face. I am not supportive of Obama in the slightest at this point. Oh, I'm still a Democrat. I'll vote for Barbara Lee and Brown and Boxer, because they're all solid allies. But I will not work for, vote for, or support Obama unless there is a miraculous 180 and an apology in the works over the next two years.

What Jarrett just did isn't even spitting in our faces. She just pissed on our dead.

You could get upset, but that's not really your thing when it comes to what the LGBT community has to deal with. You just lecture us instead.

You're lecturing the wrong people, bub. And the fact you repeatedly use moments of pain and hurt in the community to share this patronizing, condescending lecture time with us is very telling.

[MrScorpio]

64. I don't that it's wrong to point out that the OP source is missing something

I look at like this: It was surely intended as the equivalent of getting up on a soapbox and rabble rouse. Which, of course, is all fine and dandy.

But, where he was supposed to tell everyone how to channel all of that justifiable righteous indignation, it's like he jumped OFF his soapbox and left everyone hanging.

It was an anticlimax, if I ever read one. Is that how you read it too?

But, at least you yourself have some answers about what to do and where to go from here.

Which says a lot more positive things about you than it does the OP source.

[jumptheshadow]

125. Solutions...

1) Give money ONLY to local candidates who have proven records of supporting our community,

2) Withdraw the GayTM when the President's representatives come calling in another year,

3) Support an alternative candidate with a proven record of backing our community.

Use all GLBT funding constructively to elect representatives who will vote for us. Identify the races where our money will help this year.

Then work to elect a president who will take action on our behalf, not just suck up our funds and then smack us in our faces.

[muffin1]

74. Hell fucking yes.

You would think instead of telling us "Na na na na na na...what are you going to do, vote for Palin?", they could at the VERY LEAST say they agree with the shitty treatment of GLBTers in this country, and by this President.

That is exactly what is so fucking frustrating. Right now, there is no other place to turn. A whole hell of a lot of gay people put a whole hell of a lot of hope in President Obama, and now feel very betrayed. But instead of showing some empathy, some seem to take glee in telling us we're "whiners" and "losers", and a whole host of other names.

[stevenleser]

80. Whenever I have seen you accuse people of that, what they are really doing is objecting to what they

perceive to be an over the top reaction. That isnt the same as telling you how to feel.

[TriMera]

91. Interesting.

You don't think that telling people that their reaction is "over the top" equates to telling them how not to feel. I think telling someone how not to feel is the same as telling them how to feel.

[donco6]

93. LOL!

:thumbsup:

[Starry Messenger]

98. Bingo.

:thumbsup:

[stevenleser]

No, it isnt

If someone cheats you out of something, I understand being mad at that person.

Being mad to the point where you are contemplating shooting that person in the head is over the top.

You can still be very mad without being murderously mad.

[stevenleser]

117. No, it isnt

If someone cheats you out of something, I understand being mad at that person.

Being mad to the point where you are contemplating shooting that person in the head is over the top.

You can still be very mad without being murderously mad.

[stevenleser]

118. No, it isnt

If someone cheats you out of something, I understand being mad at that person.

Being mad to the point where you are contemplating shooting that person in the head is over the top.

You can still be very mad without being murderously mad.

[ruggerson]

94. Maybe it would beehove some

to listen, really listen, respectfully to the vast majority of the gay people here concerning these issues.

Just a thought.

[ruggerson]

111. and it would behoove some as well

my fingers ain't what they used to be

[TriMera]

112. It's okay, ruggerson...

I think we knew what you meant.;)

[stevenleser]

119. I listen every time. And I agree with the general idea 100% of the time

n/t

[donco6]

92. No fucking kidding. He has "gay" on his speed search just to chime in.

And it's always . . . icky.

[MrScorpio]

103. "icky"?

I'm not sure how that relates, but, you're quite welcome to tell me that I don't have any right to share any of my opinions or observations about certain sensitive subjects, due to an excessive amount of "ickiness" on my part.

I'll understand.

[donco6]

104. Good, glad that's settled. n/t

[Bluebear]

113. You said it.

[QC]

99. Oh please! You spend about 90% of your DU time telling us what to do

and what to think.

[MrScorpio]

102. Well, hey! This this series of posts most be part of the other "10%" then

I'm just an observer!

[Spazito]

36. Is Mr. Aravosis wanting to depress the turnout of GLBTs who supported the Dems/Obama...

and voted for them in 2008? With a crucial mid-term election less than 6 weeks away I fail to understand the intent behind this blog entry. Is Mr. Aravosis wanting the GLBT community to withold their votes on Nov 2nd or is he wanting votes for the repubs?

Does Mr. Aravosis think the repubs winning the House and/or the Senate will further the issues related to gay Americans or does he think publishing blog entries like this will encourage gay Americans to get out and vote for the Democratic candidates up for election in order to ensure the repubs don't gain control?

I truly don't understand the underlying rationale for this blog at this juncture of an upcoming crucial mid-term election and I hope the OP poster might have some insight into the rationale that I am missing.

[RandomKoolzip]

49. The rationale? GLBT Americans are tired of being shat on by an administration

that continually lies about being their ally. What's hard to understand about that?

[Spazito]

56. So his intent is to depress the vote for Democrats?

Mr. Aravosis certainly would be aware of the risk of depressing the vote in publishing this blog at this time so, again, what is his intent? Your post doesn't answer the question at all as to the rationale for publishing this at this juncture of a crucial mid-term election.

[terrya]

68. Precisely.

We get nice little words from people like Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett, speaking at swanky black tie dinners. About how they are committed to passing DADT and DOMA repeal. And then...the only action we see from this administration is defending those odious laws in federal court.

DADT repeal is dead in the water right now. Nothing...zero...about acting on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which has been introduced in various Congresses for over 20 years now.

Of course they're lying to us, RKZ. With DADT repeal, there was such a groundswell from the gay community that this White House felt they had to do something. But what resulted...the legislation not even really repealing it...is a sham. This is entirely dependent on some study by the Pentagon...which may or may not be released sometime in December. And then, of course, the Senate has to act on it again anyway in the lame duck session of Congress...which also may or may not happen.

Obama doesn't really give a damn about us. I know that. Hell, I'd have to be remarkably dense to see that. Sub-Cabinet appointments and invitations to gay and lesbian families for the White House Easter Egg Roll are well and good. But they're just scraps. Otherwise, it's meaningless promises.

[muffin1]

75. OMG

If you tell the truth now, they won't vote!!!! Hold back the truth for another month!!! We need those gays out there raising money and voting for us!!!!!:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Spazito]

78. So, what was the intent of writing this blog at this juncture?

Smilies aside, you have not addressed the intent behind writing this blog? I certainly hope no one thinks Mr. Aravosis's viewpoint is without influence or relevance to the political environment that currently exists with a crucial election less than 6 weeks away. I certainly don't and that is why I have asked what is the intent behind writing the blog at this time and have yet to receive a response addressing that question.

[muffin1]

79. I'm confused by your confusion

The event happened, and he is writing his opinion about what transpired. I really don't understand your question. Are you actually saying he should have waited until November 3rd so Democrats would not lose votes? If Democrats don't want to lose votes, perhaps they shouldn't lift words from actual gay activists to cover their own shitty record. Perhaps they shouldn't have a shitty record to start with. Problem solved.

[Spazito]

81. "If Democrats don't want to lose votes,..."

From your statement, it seems you see the blog article as one that is written to depress the vote for Democrats in the upcoming election. Interesting. Your statement only bolsters the reason why I asked the 'rationale' question in my first post.

I hope you have read the transcript of Ms. Jarrett's speech, it is quite interesting. If you haven't, I can certainly provide it for you or you can go to Mr. Aravosis' site, you have to click on the link within his article which leads to another site to find it but the extra work is worthwhile.

[muffin1]

82. I said "If Democrats don't want to lose votes..."

because that seems to be your primary concern. That was the farthest thing from my mind after reading the OP.
I do not, however, believe the truth should be hidden to fool the voters. You seem to be fine with it, though. Interesting.

[Spazito]

83. Given your post was very clear wrt "If the Democrats don't want to lose votes"...

which says to me the OP did influence your thinking in that regard to the extent you felt it necessary to post it. As to the truth being hidden, I would hope you don't subscribe to that and, therefore, actually read the transcript to discern what IS the truth, I know I did.

[muffin1]

84. *sigh*

In my response to you, I asked if you were implying that the blog should have been written after the election so the Dems wouldn't lose, BECAUSE you kept asking 'WHY NOW? Is he trying to depress votes?' THEN I said that if the dems don't want to lose votes...

To the best of my recollection, I hadn't mentioned anything of votes prior to hearing all of your concern regarding 'depressed votes'. I'm am upset about my GLBT brothers and sisters being treated like dirt tonight. I couldn't care less about how this affects anyone but them.

I'm done with this tonight.

[donco6]

96. Ain't that the truth! LOL!

The truth can be so . . . inconvenient.

[dsc]

37. Unphathomably stupid

I just can't phathom what they thought this would accomplish. I didn't think gays could get any madder but they found a way to rub a little more salt in the wound.

[ProSense]

43. It's a campaign

National Coming Out Day- Come out against Bullying and Homophobia

[KoKo]

86. Yes...and we must be quiet...until after Mid-Terms..when the 2012 Election starts to get in gear...

A long time for "Quietude." :shrug:

[treestar]

46. Don't recall seeing so much hatred for Bush on the issue

as I see here against Obama.

[Behind the Aegis]

47. When did Bush campaign as a "fierce advocate" for GLBT folks?

[dsc]

48. Oh really?

Care to back that up. Why don't you search under my name and back that the fuck up. In case you need reminding he was President from Jan 20, 2001 to Jan 20, 2009 and if you can't find posts of mine critizing Bush for his anti gay behavior, I will apologize here and now, but I am quite sure that they are there.

By the way, when you find those posts, the words you are looking for are " I am sorry I lied about gays on this website"

[muffin1]

77. He can look up my posts, as well. And get the same results.

This thread is about to make me puke. I cannot believe that it is so fucking hard for people to admit Obama's shitty record on Equal Rights. We're not asking them to solve the fucking problems themselves, just show some fucking support.

:evilfrown:

[Forkboy]

128. Treestar is a hit and run poster, especially on the topic of gays.

He won't back it up. He won't even try.

[Prism]

51. Yes, gays were totally silent during the Federal Marriage Amendment

It isn't the painful ignorance about the LGBT community that grates . . .

Wait, no, it's the painful ignorance about the LGBT community.

Seriously. You don't recall LGBT people going absolutely ape shit over what the Bush administration got up to?

Just because you weren't paying attention because you didn't give a good god damn until there was a Democratic president to defend doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[foxfeet]

63. Bravo!

[Zenlitened]

133. "Just because you weren't paying attention..."

Just because you weren't paying attention because you didn't give a good god damn until there was a Democratic president to defend doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Seriously, some of these Professional Denialists seem to believe the GLBT rights movement sprang into existence in 2008, with the sole purpose of pestering Pres. Obama.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so pointless and tiresome.

[terrya]

70. I was ready to throw a heavy object at the television....

when Bush proposed the Federal Marriage Amendment during the State of the Union address in 2003. I was literally shaking with anger when I heard him. Seeing that living pustule santorum grinning and applauding after made it even worse.

Of course, Bush didn't actively campaign to get the GLBT vote as Obama did.

[Nye Bevan]

88. Well, we kind of expected that Bush would suck on LGBT rights.

Obama, on the other hand, has been an enormous disappointment, given that I fully expected that he would suspend the implementation of DADT as one of his first acts as President. I guess our reaction to Obama's stance on this issue is similar to what rich people would feel if a Republican president refused to give them a tax cut.

[ruggerson]

90. Don't know how you missed it

n/t

[Zenlitened]

134. I imagine Not Giving a Damn makes it easy.

[donco6]

97. Seriously? n/t

[QC]

105. You know, that might be the stupidest of the 51,756,005 posts on this site. n/t

[Forkboy]

127. I don't recall you ever caring about it, then or now.

[pgodbold]

55. Thank you Bluebear for posting this. I am crying. I am so discouraged. God damn them.

You've put into words the heavy spirit in my heart.

[donco6]

95. Me too. n/t

[Prism]

57. Using our dead children for petty political cover. Gross.

Is there any other word for that? Standing atop the corpses of dead LGBT teens so you can excuse your boss's immoral inaction and defense of anti-gay laws.

I mean, what the hell? These people aren't liberals. I don't know what they are, but the way Jarrett sauntered over a pile of skulls to make insincere and hilariously dishonest remarks by invoking our dead isn't offensive. It's so far beyond offensive.

It's a kind of petty political evil.

They don't care about us, they don't think about us, they're not going to move an inch for us.

And if people didn't realize that before, Jarrett's little display just crystallized exactly how little thought or concern they're giving us outside of "Appear in attempt to wring campaign cash out of these people."

That's as far as they're going without massive protest.

[MuseRider]

65. This administration keeps on giving

exactly what we feared and then knew it would. Sadly, disgustingly.

When will it get better, Valerie? I know I know!!! When someone else is in the Oval Office, not now but it will get better.....they promise. LOL :-(

I really had hoped it would get better under a Democratic administration because isn't this kind of thing what we, Democrats/Liberals are all about? Sadly not any more, sadly. It is just as hard to work on all these issues now as it was before under Bush**, in fact worse when you can't get anything moving with a "fierce advocate" in the big office.

I am going to rec this but with a heavy heart.

[Behind the Aegis]

66. It will get better when we stop demanding to be treated with dignity, respect, and as equals.

We should just accept the breadcrumbs and nice words and accept we are nothing but second-class citizens and demanding our rights to equality is just "too much" right now and there are "more important" things happening and we need to know our place. :sarcasm:

[muffin1]

76. I know I just said this, but

can you fucking believe this place?

[EFerrari]

108. It's a measure of how myopic this administration can be

that they don't even recognize the most successful movement in our national social justice world.

[KoKo]

85. When it gets better for the REST OF US...which is a toss up?

:shrug:

[cherokeeprogressive]

87. And the HITS just keep on comin'...

Fierce Advocacy at its finest.

[EFerrari]

106. The Week in Failed PR: co-opting an anti-suicide campaign slogan

and a White House photo op for children used in an anti public school film.

:wtf:

These people all seemed so smart to me during their campaign. What happened to them.

[QC]

110. You just want Sarah Palin!

:cry:

[Safetykitten]

109. I hate to say this, but I think we are going to have to not expect anything for a LONG time.

The window of opportunity has closed, and now we are in for a long period of inactivity and window dressing. The next two years nothing will happen except things that will make a good poster at GLAAD, this because of the beating we will take as a party in a couple of weeks. After November, it will be easier to get bankers free limos than gay rights.

Then in 2012, the new president, most likely a republican will seal the deal for nothing to happen for another eight years.

[theHandpuppet]

115. "We didn't vote for nice. We voted for change."

Amen to that!!!

[mkultra]

120. probably in the second term

fact remains that this issue is controversial and the first term is always kept cool to maintain the independents. Second term is when all the safeties come off.

[Major Hogwash]

124. Or later.

That's been the message for almost 20 years now, later dudes.
"Thanks for the vote, gay people, see ya later."

The last 3 Democratic candidates for President promised equal rights for gays.
And 2 actually won the White House.

Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad, but if real equality doesn't come sooner, it will never come later.

I'm so sick of spineless Democrats I could die.

I'm just about ready to march in the streets over this shit, and I'm not even gay!
If I'm this pissed off over it, just imagine how gay people really feel about it.
Talk about a letdown.
I'm tired of being lied to.

We're all in this boat together, and by gawd, we should either lift all boats at the same time or just stop fooling ourselves and quit saying we're better than Republicans.
Prejudice is not just a Republican quality, and I'm thinking this homophobia shit runs just as deep within our party as theirs.

[mkultra]

126. sounds like bullshit to me

The last dem provided progress and your bitching about the unfulfilled promises of a candidate who didn't take office?
The simple facts of this are that just like civil rights for black folk, what it comes down too is not unilateral presidential action but a ground swell of positive opinion that will make change.

I personally support full equal marriage rights for all people but im not of the opinion that Obama has shit on the heads of gays or is intentionally walking their rights backwards. For that simple opinion, i have been virtually spit on in this very forum so much that frankly i don't give a shit what happens anymore. You hear that? That's important.

I realize that equal rights SHOULDN'T be an issue for popular vote but in REALITY, it is. Just like civil rights in the 60's, you should be pulling your supporters close to you, not shoving them out the door based on a purity test.

[Forkboy]

129. "you should be pulling your supporters close to you"

LOL

[mkultra]

130. exactly .

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[theHandpuppet]

131. Gee, where have we heard that before?

And after the 2010 elections the excuse will be they're worried about the 2012 elections. We've all been there before, done that.

[mkultra]

132. I dont know. when did you hear that before?

im talking about the presidential term btw. not the mid terms.

[theHandpuppet]

140. Every election cycle, matter of fact.

Evidently you think some of us have short memories.

[mkultra]

141. I guess my memory must be short then

Because clinton was the last dem president. What did he promise in the second term that he didn't deliver? Or are you just bloviating.

[hendo]

135. Gah! does she have no shame?!? NT

[hendo]

142. Even a teabagger that i went to highschool with thinks DADT is BS. NT

[mcollins]

143. Maybe this is what the VP means

when he says we just don't understand the message.


WTF?