HRC's Solmonese goes on Signorile show; later calls for stop to DADT discharges on Hardball

Excellent post, Pam.

I posted a diary about this earlier this morning, but yours is much, much more thorough.  Two minds with but a single thought... ;)

It's been clear for a long time now that HRC has been in the business of telling the Democratic Party to take their time on LGBT issues (to the extent that they acknowledge T at all), and that, in effect, "Don't worry, we can keep the community in line."  HRC's apologists have always denied that, but I can't see that there can be much doubt left now.  Let's hope that these reports get wide circulation, and we see the end of that poltroonish double-dealing on HRC's part.  Or better yet, let's hope the community finally starts to simply ignore them and get on with strategies that work.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 07:42:03 AM CDT

The denial from Schumer's Office didn't address the claim

The claim was that Schumer's Office had told LGBT activists meeting with them on DADT that HRC had told them to hold off on the issue.  Schumer's office's response was that Senator Schumer never made this statement.  That is probably true, but doesn't address the issue raised.

---

by: lloydletta2 @ Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 07:44:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've pretty much decided.

Obama is waiting to get the big thing he wants passed: health care. He's not going to make a move on anything controversial until he's signed the bill.  

---

by: Disuberence @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 07:52:40 AM CDT

Then why

did he end the ban on stem cell research and the restrictions on abortion funding in aid to overseas family planning agencies?   Why did he see fit to, in essence, nationalize GM, which is as wildly controversial as anything he's likely to do?  Why did he select Rick Warren for the inauguration gig, angering any number of his core constituencies?  Why is it only LGBT issues that "he's not going to make a move on"?

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 08:06:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The things you're listing aren't that controversial

A majority of people support a woman's right to choose & stem cell research. It's just that the people who are against them make a lot of noise. As far as the stuff related to the economy goes, polls show that the electorate is being patient with the president b/c they realize he was handed a raw deal by the last administration. Rick Warren? That controversy mainly played out among progressives. Most of the country didn't know what the big deal was about and the ones who did probably don't even remember.

The only thing, at least that I can see, that will give Republicans the ammunition to label him an out-of-touch liberal elite is pushing LGBT issues. That is not to say he shouldn't do it.  That's just where I think is his thought process is.

If he can pass health care, his place in history will for the most part be secure, whether he pushes gay rights or not. My guess is that when he went into office in January, he had a couple of priorities and is not willing to jeopardize them for issues he thinks can be handled later (i.e. gay rights).

Again, let me say that I DO NOT THINK THIS IS RIGHT. I'm not trying to give the president cover. I simply think it's better to actually try to figure out what The Powers That Be are thinking. That way you can come up with an effective strategy to advance your issues.

---

by: joneke @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 09:53:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A good analysis but the problem

is the 2010 elections. The Democrats are well known for scattering like roaches from LGBT issues when it comes election time. After the 2010 elections (and history shows they will probably lose some seats) is the runup to the 2012 elections.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:00:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"scattering like roaches"

Excellent.  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:15:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There in lies the problem

The way politicians see it, there's never a good time to push for a minority's rights, especially when those rights are politically damaging.

The administration does legitimately have a lot on its plate, and I really do believe there are limits to what they can do so I'm somewhat sympathetic. But at the same time how long are people supposed to wait to be recognized as full citizens?

Can't say that I have a lot of answers or really any answers, for that matter. Just a bunch of rambling comments.

---

by: joneke @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:29:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I like you a lot

and appreciate your comments, joneke.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:33:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A lot of noise....like shooting abortion doctors

Anti Choice Extremists and Homohaters are often joined at the hip....like Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry who called the recent murder justified and publicly disowned his gay son and Eric Randolph now in prison for, among other things, bombing two abortion clinics and a gay bar.

BUT a recent survey shows that abortion generally remains a much hotter topic than gay rights, with a bare majority now considering themselves "pro life" while a significant majority supports eliminating DADT.

So, please, enough with the building of excuses for Obama on the sand.

They're too easy to wash away.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 13:41:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hold on, Michael

joneke knows that I don't agree with all of her opinions. But I love the way she expresses them.

Don't knock me for trying to cultivate an ally (and a straight ally at that) even though I disagree with them at certain times. I am hardly a "party line" person and I never have been.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 13:52:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This reply chain construct can mislead...

I wasn't responding to anything you wrote Kev, but

Obama is waiting to get the big thing he wants passed: health care. He's not going to make a move on anything controversial

by: Disuberence

:-)

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 02:44:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

He got involved...

with banking and GM because HE IS TRYING TO STABILIZE THE ECONOMY. He is risking political capital on that because he KNOWS that if the economy stabalizes and improves, he will personally reap the benefits and be able to do more. THAT is the issue that he was elected into office to fix.

Stem cell research was not controversial at all. Only the most ardent conservatives supported Bush's ban. Nancy Reagan, the keeper of the Reagan torch, supported his decision. It was a risk free choice that he KNEW the GOP had no support with

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 09:58:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree but

More than likely he will lose some political capital at some point simply because that's what happens. Is there a ceiling to how much political capital he needs to work on gay issues? He's probably pretty near that ceiling already.

Remember, most of the political capital that the Clintons lost in the runup to the 1994 elections was on the tax increase and on healthcare, not DADT. Even when Obama tackles these "big issues" (and I agree they are big) he will lose political capital. What then?

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:08:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't forget Cuba

Obama made moves to normalize relations with Cuba.

That is of vital importance to Americans in...um...Nevada?  Maine?  Where??

I guess Cuba is more important and less controversial than the citizenship of LGBT Americans.

---

by: Patrick @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 08:51:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The key here...

Is that he made "moves." He has not normalized relations with Cuba at all. All he has done so far is return things to where they were when Bill Clinton was President. Indeed, most of these policy decisions have been aboout turning back the clock to the Clinton era and undoing Bush's damage.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:00:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know.

I don't see why else he would delay on this. I'm sure it has to do with that whole "political capital" thing. I just want to think that he hasn't abandoned us completely. I can still be naive! I'm young enough!

---

by: Disuberence @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 08:15:15 AM CDT

Don't let this crusty old cynic bring you down.

But there are other reasons I can think of why he won't act.

1) As this posting indicates, HRC may have counseled him not to.  Why they would have done so is a mystery to me (their motives always have been), but it appears that they have.

2) His whole party, at the national level, has always been reluctant to address our issues except in ways that hurt us (DADT, DOMA).  They say all the right things, but when the chips are down, they act just like the Republicans.

3) He is genuinely not a friend to our community.  Remember the whole "God's in the mix" thing?

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 08:25:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Saw Matthews and Solmonese live

and came away equally unimpressed.  

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 08:28:41 AM CDT

Wellcome To My Nightmare

As I see this it is the priority that has Gay and Lesbian people sooooo hot about 'national security issues'.

If we are going to call HRC you need to be honest.

National Security? Common. I am a transgender Vet. Gay and Lesbian people are up in arms about having one of there priorities on hold while a bill that would dirrectly benifit transgender people receives top attention from HRC.

Hate Crimes will save lives of transgender people. Most Gay and lesbian people DO NOT have what makes them different displayed 24/7 in plain sight of there misogynistic and transphobic employers and public

Welcome to transgender HRC HELL.

---

by: kellib @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 08:34:45 AM CDT

screw politics as usual

From the outset, the Homosexualist Retrograde Club was doomed to be seen in their current light.  Built on PAC behaviors and political horse trading, the organization has never recognized the fierce urgency of Queer equality: homophobia kills, and homophobia enshrined in public policy and law oppresses EVERYONE.  Our Queer identities must not be shrouded to make us be perceived as indiscernible from the mainstream; and full citizenship for Queer Americans is NOT an ideal to be scheduled, debated, or [GASP!] watered down to gain some other end.

Yesterdays of yesterday were the time for the repeal of DADT, DOMA, and "no promo homo" and the passage of ENDA and inclusive hate crimes laws, and HRC needs to become impatient for these to pass or stop stealing oxygen, money, and momentum from the movement.

---

by: greatwhitebear @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 08:41:15 AM CDT

Displacement

For every NAACP, there is a Brotherhood of Pullman Porters that it displaces.  HRC has become irrelevant - far too entrenched in the existing power structure to ever be a threat to it.  Same goes for GLAAD and their endless series of self-congratulatory banquets.

RIP, HRC.  Long live the Dallas Principles and direct action!

---

by: popebuck1 @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 08:48:02 AM CDT

I can't believe it!

I'm about to defend HRC!

Backroom deals of this sort happen all the time in government and in pushing legislation. Certainly this happened duting the Civil Rights movement when Johnson passed the Civil Rights Bill in 1964 but wasn't willing to pass the Voting Rights Act until 1965 (not willing to spend the political capital).

The fact that the HRC has been caught offguard by the equality train, yes, criticize them for that. For not being answerable to the gay community and their obnoxious saleries, yeah criticize them for that. But for a backroom deal to push certain legislation over other legislation.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 09:13:38 AM CDT

I need to finish this

If this is what took place, I can't criticize them for that.

I mean it's not as if Chuck Schumer has anything against HRC. Is it?

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 09:15:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

the back room deal

isn't the real problem here. That is a staple of politics. The problem is the purported deal itself (still denied by HRC and Schumer's office). To put Hate Crimes legislation as the centerpiece and the sole focus in 2009 is pretty low-hanging fruit; that's going to pass. DADT is also, IMHO, low-hanging fruit because stopping the discharges is within the power of the WH. It is also well supported by hearings, polls and those currently serving. It's about our national security.

That's why I'm glad HRC is now being vocal that the Obama admin should stop the BS about it's only in the hands of Congress. If we are spending billions, I repeat, billions over in Iraq and Afghanistan, this country, under a president who wanted to get rid of this discriminatory and national security-endangering policy, the discharges must be stopped. This administration has been playing helpless to do anything.

Congress, as slow-moving as it is, can then take up the debate about repeal when The Nancy and Harry Show can get its act together.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:04:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But I thought

Hate Crimes and ENDA were part of that deal for this session, Nancy Pelosi said this months ago.

I do agree that where the Obama Administration is so very very week is that Obama is not "putting his foot" in Nancy and Harry's ass (as my Mom would put it) and being that fierce advocate. There not even any indication that his Administration is doing that behind the scenes.  

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:15:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"very very weak"

did I do that?

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:21:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You think that..

that might have something to do with the fact that he is a litte preoccupied with other issues?

Besides, to my knowledge they did not say this session, but this YEAR.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:23:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hate crimes now

and ENDA in the fall is my understanding. Hey, Obama is the one that said that the Presidents needs to be able to do more than one thing at a time, I didn't.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:29:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Unless I'm missing something...

he is doing ALOT more than one thing at a time. But, as with anything, there is alimit to what can be done...or at least done well.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:45:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But NO limit to what you'll say to defend Obama, Geek.

Admit it, whether your getting paid to shill or not,
you've sold your soul to St. Obama and any damage to gays is just collateral damage.

You live to serve HIM.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 13:45:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So, do you really think

HRC did this out of their skilled legislative savvy--of which we've never seen a trace before, and which has never produced a thing for our community?  I suspect there's strategy at work here, but of another sort.  

HRC's spin machine has managed to identify them with ENDA.  In a lot of people's minds, it's their bill, their initiative has pushed it.  (That's baloney, but I'm talking about the spin, here.)  So when/if it passes, they'll be able to claim a victory--and won't hesitate to use it in their ongoing fundraising appeals and PR.

DADT on the other hand is not identified closely with HRC.  Other groups (SLDN, more recently Knights Out) have taken the lead on it.  Not much to gain for HRC there.  But if ENDA happens first, HRC will be able to claim that the other bills got passed on their coattails.

In all the decades I've been watching HRC, everything with them seems to come down to fundraising and self-promotion.  I honestly doubt if this is much more complicated than that.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 14:43:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This HAS been bugging me

I know that HRC has been the go-to group for lobbying but I always thought that SLDN was heading the efforts as far as DADT repeal. Whta would they be doing making a deal like this at all, especially if SLDN wasn't in that backroom conversation.

Gotta love the intrigue here.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 14:56:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey, this is something the trans-community has been saying

that you cannot trust Joe Solmonese. He flat out lied to us and he will lie to the LGBT community.

He got up before several hundred trans-people and said that the HRC was 100% behind a gender inclusive ENDA, when in reality he was talking to Rep. Franks about a non-inclusive ENDA.

Mr. Solmonese has a big creditability issue.  

---

by: Diana CT @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 09:15:40 AM CDT

Now I agree with that

The problem is less to do with the HRC prioritizing legislation then their credibility in doing so.  

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 09:21:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I heard it said

During the Hawaii second-class marriage-er, civil union battle, and I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, that Joe Solmonese doesn't speak for us. He speaks for himself, and other cisgendered wealthy white male gays inside the Beltway. He has no business claiming that he represents any LGBT people. Especially T. HRC's wink-wink-nudge-nudge to gut ENDA was disgraceful and wrong. You are exactly right, Diana; he has a big credibility issue. While we're on the subject, so does Barney Frank, and for the same reasons.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:20:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Happy Birthday, Keori!

I know, OT as hell... who cares. Hope you're having a great day, kiddo! :)

Love, Mom

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 14:05:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Mom!

Never had a birthday in another country before...I wish you could be here. We'd party on the rooftop garden. Or at least have caffe and conversation. **HUGS**

You know...gays and lesbians can serve openly in the Italian armed forces.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 14:48:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Viva Italia!

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 16:21:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i find it hard to believe

that Tammy Baldwin would consider repeal of DADT more controversial than hate crimes legislation.

It has been reported that repeal of DADT enjoys a 70% approval rating.  It wouldn't cost any politician anything politically to ACT on an issue with 70% approval.

I don't imagine repeal of DADT is any more controversial that funding embryonic stem cell research.  But, Obama didn't have any problem following through with his commitment on that one.

And, as far as the "secret" plan of HRC and the White House.  They promised us we would be seeing ACTION in June to coincide with Pride Month.  I hope that action is more than just the proclamation from Monday.  It better be MORE than that.  That proclamation was even lacking.  In it Obama made a call for ACTION.  But, he left himself OUT of that call.  He called on the LGBT community, organizations and congress to work together to advance equality.  INstead of calling on those to work TOGETHER, he should have called for them to work WITH HIM.  Why wasn't Obama included in the ACTION?

---

by: timNC @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 09:28:28 AM CDT

Contrary...

To GOP talking points, Embryonic Stem Cell research was NOT controversial. Bush's ban had almost no public support. Indeed many conservatives opposed the policy including a vocal Nancy Reagan.

The GOP were certianly not going to attack her.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:05:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fine, so stem cell reseearch was not controversial.

So Obama risked...nothing when the repealed the ban on it, because there was so much public sentiment?  All well and good.  But there is also massive public sentiment for stopping the discharges under DADT.  It follows that he would risk nothing by doing that.  So, why isn't he?  If as you say it would jeopardize his presidency, why did he promise to make it a priority?

Don't you ever get tired of your double-talking attempts to defend the indefensible?

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:49:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, we are all "trannies" now......

because the crunching sound that we have been hearing since before election day was the bus that we were thrown from rolling over us, driven by the HRC.

They bargained our rights.
The tried to snuff out the post-prop8 protests with warnings of consequences.
They bargained a timetable that is unacceptable to those living on the edge or in the military.
Would Joe like to face the brave Lieutenant and Rachel Maddow and explain how he felt that careers were trading chits?

Autumn, I apologise for the use; I wanted to parallel it to the frequently used term during the ENDA fiasco.


I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 17:29:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

too many in DC

are still afraid of the conservative echo chamber known as talk radio and Fox News.

Too few have realized they're never going to win those votes. They don't have to. They need to win a decent majority of everyone else. We can do that in spades while supporting gay rights.

the only way to get DC Democrats to take action on our issues is to make them more afraid of us than they are of Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh, no matter how ugly a person he is, won't cost democrats votes. Abandoning our rights, however, can: there are tens of millions of gay people and hundreds of millions of allies. They ignore us at their peril, but HRC hasn't awoken up to that memo yet. Perhaps they think saying such mean things to their cocktail friends would mean less cocktail parties? Meanwhile, 18 year air force vets, gay military heroes, are being thrown out of the military for being gay. Shame on HRC.  

---

by: RyansTake @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 23:17:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What I want to know is...

Why do people have a problem with HRC negotiating with Congress on legislative priorities?

These are the issues that they think they can get passed this year without a massive ideological fight. The House already passed hate crimes. Its not up to the Senate. The president is Publically supporting the legislation.

ENDA is also on the immediate agenda. Why risk losing everything when a step by step approach cuold be more successful?

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:08:07 AM CDT

Now we agree on this, SciFi

It's the way government really gets done and I would hope that HRC is in those backrooms.

HRC's credibility (especially after the ENDA debacle) is more the issue here.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:11:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

see my reply to the back room

upthread.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:13:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

and how is DADT repeal a "risk"?

The fact is that hate crimes will pass unless we have a sudden number of jellyfish make themselves known. The position that DADT has some sort of risk attached is a holdover panic from the Clinton era.

This policy has to go now. The discharges can be stopped without Congress, which can go back and take care of repeal later. What the White House has to do is either 1) claim it isn't a priority even with Osama bin Laden and terrorist groups still on the loose, and two major war circumstances going on, or 2) those two conflicts can be adequately fought as discharges of valuable, trained service members continue to occur.

The problem is watching HRC and the Obama admin using an old playbook when the game has changed.

The fact that Joe S. came out and called for Obama to act is a change in public strategy, so you cannot deny that the external events outside control of the organization is having an impact. He said so in the Signorile interview as well.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:17:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't want the HRC negotiating on my behalf...

...specifically because I don't trust the organization, and I specifically don't trust or believe what David Smith and Joe Solmonese say after ENDA 2007/2008.

The problem is that they, at that time, were doing a bogus poll of 500 LGB people to justify excluding trans people from ENDA, while at the same time saying nothing about it to us, the LGBT public, until the day they released the poll results -- which is the same day they came out in favor of a less than fully inclusive ENDA. And this is after Joe's comments at SCC 2007 saying he and the HRC strongly supported the fully inclusive version of ENDA.

Frankly, I see the HRC as having the very bad habit of saying one thing to the public, and doing something else behind the scenes. I believe the folk at the Palm Center more than I believe David Smith or Joe Solmonese.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:28:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bingo!

HRC's credibility problem is the crux of the issue here.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:31:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

damn right!

I'm with Autumn on this one -- I trust "Uncle Joe" and HRC about as much as I do any other elitist organization.

Listen to "TransTalk" every Monday from 4-5pm ET on http://www.falconradio.org beginning January 11th!

---

by: Marlene @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 14:45:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Why do people have a problem with HRC negotiating with Congress on legislative priorities?"

'Cause some people love to complain; that's what they do.  A better question for all the keyboard revolutionaries is, please tell us what exiting organization (or even planned organization) you envision fulfilling these tasks?  Or, another question, if HRC is so irrelevant, why does anyone even care?

---

by: Pollyanna @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 14:04:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

really?

Join the Impact
The new DLB group challenging Prop 8 nationally.
Groups like MassEquality could be brought forward at a national level.
Stonewall Democrats, who at least fiercely fight for transgender people and don't give money to Log Cabins, like HRC.

HRC sucks up a vast sum of our collective monetary resources. GLBT people feed them tens and tens of millions a year. Their very existence prevents other, better organizations from existing. $30 million of what HRC spends yearly could instead be spent on 1,000 Field Organizers across the country. That's how large that organization is -- and, wtf does it do? Seriously? That would still leave $10+ million for political ads, PAC donations and, yes, even occasional cocktail parties.

For an organization to have that much capital and have so little to show for it is a clear, clear sign for its demise. Give that cash to people who will spend it better. Use some of it to fund sites like PamsHouseBlend, giving them paid staff to research stories. Build up internet resources that are capable of amassing tens of thousands of volunteers -- and then deploying them, getting them on the phones and into legislative offices. HRC has the budget for it, but not the spine -- or the energy, drive or desire or intelligence to abandon the 1990 tactics that failed all liberal constituencies.  

---

by: RyansTake @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 23:34:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

you think it's okay to negotiate on the rights

of our gay military heroes?

They're being shot and dying for this country -- and you think its okay for them to be thrown out in turn, because it could somehow stop other issues? Even if that was somehow morally acceptable (in my book, it's not), what evidence is there that suggests we can't pass ENDA and DADT bills in the same year? If anything, passing one makes the others more likely.

Why risk losing everything when a step by step approach cuold be more successful?

We've been fed that bs for how many years? It's amazing that people actually buy it! What step by step approaches have been successful federally? NONE! We either demand our rights or we get rolled over because DC Democrats sense weakness. If they think they can get our money, volunteers and votes without anything in return -- including taking on the 'risk' of going up against Rush Limbaugh -- guess what? They'll abuse us each and every time. HRC doesn't get that. That's why they need no longer exist.  

---

by: RyansTake @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 23:22:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Better yet would be an omnibus bill.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 08:13:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

One more thing...

I wish people would STOP brigning up Harry Truman in this. Doing so completely misrepresents what actually happened.

Harry Truman became president in 1945 DURING WWII. He did not issue any order on desegregation unitl 1948, 3 years after he entered office and after the war ended. Thus he went into the whole matter with plenty of Political capital after, you know, winning the war.

Furthermore, segregation remained in effect in the military until 1954 (under Eisenhower).

Segregation in the military DID NOT end with the stroke of a pen and Truman did not do it right away. So when people compare him to Obama and his FIRST SIX MONTHS in office, they are being intellectually dishonest. This notion that Obama has some sort of SPECIAL obligation to wreck his presidency right out of the gate on this is just silly.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:18:36 AM CDT

and the specific danger is...?

This notion that Obama has some sort of SPECIAL obligation to wreck his presidency right out of the gate on this is just silly.

You seem to have little faith that DADT can be done away with successfully, without costing this president a chance a re-election. I disagree, and clearly I won't be able to convince you otherwise, and that's ok.

Aside from the crusty retired military, a demo everyone knows would oppose repeal, the support is there to get rid of DADT. I see no evidence that its repeal is presidency-destroying.  

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:26:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But is there support there within the military?

From what I understand, the current brass don't want to deal with DADT right now. Isn't that what the "Obama's Being Rolled by the Generals" meme is about? In order to show that Dems can be tough on national security, he's trying to keep the generals happy, blah blah blah...

http://politics.theatlantic.co...

I do think he'll lose significant political capital if he repeals DADT, especially if it is done by executive order. I hope I'm wrong, but the other theories I hear posited don't make much sense. If it were easy, it would already have been done.

That being said, I think/hope the repeal will happen. In reality, I'm not particularly surprised by the way Obama is handling this issue. There is nothing in his history that ever made me think he was going to come into office sign an executive order halting DADT. It's frustrating, particularly for those with skin in the game, but that's his style.

---

by: joneke @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:52:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'd hate to say this

But Obama IS the boss. Isn't he?

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:58:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"right now" or "at all"?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 14:07:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I actually think that

DADT CAN be done away with. I just think that there is a constructive way to do it and that it need not be rushed. A change in the law that sticks is a much better option.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:01:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There are many guilty, but that is beside the point

Sure, a change in the law is what is ultimately necessary.  That is why my ire also extends to Pelosi, Reid, and Skelton.

The fact that they have not acted in the years that they have been in the leadership in Congress, however, does not excuse the President for not publicly pushing them to do so, as he promised to do, or not stopping the separations, which he has the authority to do.

As for “rushed,” this policy has been wrong since its enactment. To wait for its repeal without exerting further pressure on either executive or congressional leadership would be an act of great trust that they would accomplish its repeal in a reasonable time without that pressure.

I have seen nothing that would justify that trust. Until I do, the pressure stays on.

---

by: pgraydon @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 13:57:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Remember Clinton?

Maybe, maybe not. Remember how DADT was suposed to be Clinton's effort to make things better for LGBT folks in the armed services? That's how it started out. Remember all the great progressive things that Clinton was able to achieve after the success of his effort to make things better for us in the military? Hmmmm, me neither.


--ish

---

by: ish @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 12:26:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can't remember, Ish? That's because you're a fathead.

For all his failings Clinton did accomplish some things for gays both before and after getting napalm bombed by Nunn, Powell, et al.

One of them was appointing gays like Jesse Helm's favorite "damn lesbian" Roberta Achtenberg...whom, tho she was on the O transition team, someone from the White House had to call Tuesday morning to "profusely apologize" for forgetting about her when they wrote O's worthless pride proctomation [sic].

Say hello to Geek for me at the next Obamoonie Meeting. What flavor Kook Aid are you serving then?

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 13:52:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Roberta who?

Yeah, left a lasting impression.

LAY OFF THE FUCKING FAT JOKES SCUMBAG

--ish

---

by: ish @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 15:01:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

She's got a resume so big even you couldn't eat it.

San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Senior Vice President for Public Policy at the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
Chair of the Board of Trustees of California State University

etc., etc.

I'm sure you've left your mark, too. Just tell us which stalls they were so we can avoid them.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 15:47:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I repeat

LAY OFF THE FUCKING FAT JOKES


--ish

---

by: ish @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 16:26:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Remember the turn of the millenium?

All those years ago? Hmmmm, apparently not.

Welcome to the 21st century, ish. As you step our of your time machine, you'll see we've made many remarkable achievements since the first Clinton days. One of them has been mentioned numerous times, right here in this very thread: 70% approval for eliminating DADT.

We'll wait until you're acclimated before we start sharing some of the more shocking developments of the last 16 years, shall we?

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 13:56:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pass the ERA!

I got a great idea, let's have a constitutional amendment for women's equality--everybody supports that, right? No biggie!


--ish

---

by: ish @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 15:03:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Non sequitur in aisle 9

A constitutional amendment has what to do with repealing a law?

Please be specific, and show your work.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 17:08:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Discussions for desegregating the Armed Forces

actually began under the Roosevelt Administration in the late 1930's but remember that DADT was always a compromise by the Clinton Administration and it was fully expected that the ban would be lifted even then once political conditions allowed it. Those political conditions are there now, with nearly 75% of the American public approving it. Obama has the political capital now.

But with the public support that Obama now has for ending the ban, I don't see how that portion of your argument holds water.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:27:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, what's silly, and BTW mistaken in fact, is

the notion that ending discharges would 'wreck his Presidency'.

That's the whole point of this conversation.

HRC, like it or not, IS the federal lobbying arm of our movement until we replace them with something more responsive to grassroots concerns. (Stipulating for this thread that this is both a noble and an unlikely cause, being that 'above-it-all useful idiots' is synonymous with 'DC lobbying firm repping a progressive cause'.)

HRC, in all its useful idiocy, is providing cover to the Administration as if the issue were radioactive, when in fact 70% of Americans agree that DADT discharges could end tomorrow and they'd be happy.

Also, Truman acted at the first juncture in which a) he needed the military to function cohesively within the US, see any history of the postwar labor battles for details, and b) he could not rely on black servicemen to overlook the indignities of segregation in exchange for protecting their families from fascism. Truman was a pragmatic one.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:34:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

SciFi Geek's comment brings up a problem I have with analogies

They do more to derail dialogue than they do to advance it. It's useful to reference history, but the two situations are different in enough ways to give proponents of DADT enough ammunition to avoid confronting the simple reality that not allowing gays & lesbians to serve openly in the military is wrong. What happened over sixty years ago is irrelevant to that point.

Like SciFi wrote above, we were several years into Truman's presidency before he issued that now famous executive order, and even at the end of the Korean War in 1953 it still had not been fully executed. If Truman is to be the model, elected Dems can just say that we should wait a couple of years when "the timing is right" or "we need to move slowly".

---

by: joneke @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:12:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Executive Order 9981

was signed by Harry Truman on July 26, 1948. Now Truman didn't have as much political capital then (an election year) as Obama has now.

That didn't happen, although the election was one of the closest in American history. There was discontent with Truman that year on a number of fronts -- including high taxes, labor strife, and the onset of the Cold War. In a Gallup Poll conducted that April, only 37% of Americans said they approved of Truman's performance as president.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/744...

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:20:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The "political capital" argument

doesn't cut it, according to the 1948 poll data.

60% of Americans thought desegregation of the Armed Fporces was a poor idea.

5% thought it was a "fair" idea.

28% thought it was a good idea.

According to the 1948 Gallup poll on the issue in the link above.

Obama has far far more political capital than that right now

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:23:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Truman was supposed to loose and perhaps a bit desperate

Thomas Dewey was expected to win but Truman was able to pull the upset by winning California, Illinois, and Ohio in large part because he garnered so much of the black vote (a vote that at the time was in flux between the two parties). When you're polling behind you tend to throw caution to the wind and do some risky things.

But again, I say: who cares? Times are different and the situations are different. That's to be expected. The case for repealing DADT stands by itself.

I find having arguments about how Obama should be like Truman pointless and unhelpful. When you make historical analogies like that your opponents spend more time picking apart your analogy than they do discussing the merits.  

---

by: joneke @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:50:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

To add to that

I suppose it's a question of strategy. My patience tends to wear thin when I have to argue with people who think DADT is a good idea and if I have to add their objections to Truman comparison into the mix, I'm probably not going to finish the conversation. I guess if you've got the stamina, go for it.

---

by: joneke @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:57:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was looking up the history

for my own personal interest more than anything, actually.

Although I could argue that risks should be taken when you do have political capital as well, as LBJ did in 1964(to use another analogy).

Point being, there never is going to be a right time to do it.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:58:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The truth is Greek to Geek!

Don't know about others, but I never claimed Truman had no political capital. It's beside the point anyway because Obama does, too.

But what is important behind your fart screen is that not just the military, not just Congress was against Truman ordering the military integrated but a majority of the public was, too, including his own friends who were known to use the "n-word" and his won mother who refused to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom because its namesake freed the slaves.

Not only does a majority of the public now support gay integration but homophobia in every sector is NOTHING close to the racism that existed in 1948.

That the full literal black integration took a while is also beside the point. It wouldn't have happened at all if Truman hadn't ordered it.

BTW, you know of course that you're contradicting your own Lord & Savior Barack Christ with this nonsense because he declared TWO YEARS ago that America was ready for military gays THEN?

I know, I know, you've uncovered an underground stream of Kool Aid. So just keep spitting at us. Facts are always the perfect HazMat suit while you are the intellectual and integrity equivalent of a toxic waste dump.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 14:00:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah, the "he can't waste political capital" argument

is extraordinarliy weak. Obama has far more political capital than Harry Truman (who was unelected at the time, remember, he was President because FDR died in office) did and the public is on his side also.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 14:08:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You know

I'll be upfront, and state that I've stayed out of this argument for the following reasons.

1)  I'm not a democrat, never was, never will be.
2)  I didn't vote for Obama, I won't in 2012.  I just don't agree with him enough for me to give him my vote.

So that being said:

Fine, he's got alot on his plate.  The economy is in the tank, we've basically got two un-winnable, and unpopular police actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and no real clear strategy for them, OPEC is still yanking our chain at will, the Healthcare system in this country is a joke.

Fine, I get that.

He's a busy man.  He probably should be, he's the President of the United States of America.

Now, can any of you honestly tell me that you believe that he's sitting down, in the Oval Office, by himself, and doing all the research, and writing all his own policy decisions?

No, he's not.  That's what staffers are for.

You mean to tell me that he can't toss GLBT issues at a small working group of his staffers, have them put together a clear, concise action plan, and maybe clue us in?

Maybe a word here and there, when something like Maine passing SSM through the legislature, or Nevada passing their crippled DP law?   Even if he doesn't support it, just a mention, even through his Press Secretary?

Hey, if he and his staffers aren't going to tackle things like DADT, DOMA, ENDA, etc right now, just friggin TELL US.

That's all I'm asking.   I know it's asking alot of a politician to be honest and forthcoming.

I'm annoyed with Obama over this issue, the same way I was with Bush over his lack of any sort of strategy concerning Iraq/Afghanistan.  I don't care WHAT your position/plan is, as long as you give me some sort of idea what that position/plan IS.

(Well, I do care what your position/plan is, but that's not the point of this comment....)

Is that too goddamned much to ask?

---

by: sfalken @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:42:32 AM CDT

Exactly!

Of course no one expects that all of his campaign promises should have been fulfilled by now. But a "progress report" from the Administration from time to time would be nice and not to much to ask for.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:50:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

HE HAS

told us that he does not want to handle DADT and DOMA right now. How many does he and his staff need to say it?

The goal is ENDA and the Mat Shepperd Act this year.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:51:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually Obama has said

very little of that, though Nancy Pelosi has. Now I do think that we should be putting a lot more pressure on Congress and even on hate crimes, Obama probably does need to put his foot in Harry Reid's ass.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:54:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

IF.

This has been stated in a clear and concise way through some sort of press release, I'd like to see it.

Because I don't recall that (and maybe I just missed it, it's entirely possible, I don't watch television or listen to news radio, nor do I spend all day scanning whitehouse.gov)

Because all I'm hearing are hints, clues, and other non-direct communication, that require me to connect the dots.

Clear and concise, this administration has not been on a great many things.

And frankly, to borrow a phrase:

If not now, when?

That's all I'm asking for.  Apparently wanting to know what the game plan is makes me hyper-critical?

---

by: sfalken @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 10:57:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The President hasn't said jack

If you look at song-and-dance man Robert Gibbs's press conference performances, they don't want to say anything concrete, nor do they seem interested in telling the truth, which to me is a big problem. The nonsensical position he holds on marriage to take one example, has hamstrung him from discussing the trend of states that have moved to equality. The kind of bully pulpit advocacy that a "fierce advocate" would have to lay the groundwork with the American people to change hearts and minds is non-existent because the "God is in the mix" position is forcing him to be silent rather than condemn all the fundies who continually cite Obama's position as theirs. Well, they can, can't they?

You see, it's more than not producing results -- everyone can debate the merits of incrementalism vs. assertive advocacy, but no one can reasonably defend the silence and dodging that is going on in this administration. It is embarrassing, and even more so that our advocacy org on the Hill was saying nothing publicly critical of the Obama White House or Congress until this point.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:04:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly

My point.

Thanks for that Pam.  I assume that if there had been a clear statement from the administration, you would be one of the people that could confirm it...

---

by: sfalken @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:10:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

can you point to

the speech or position paper where Obama lays out the timeline for LGBT legislation?  Cuz I've never seen such a document.  All we get is unattributed 4th-hand gossip.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 11:11:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't Bash Our Best Advocates

As far as I am concerned next to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is the best national advocates the GLBT community has in it's corner on Capital Hill.   I think we need to be careful about what we listen to and believe, based alone on what we might hear.

I completely agree that I would like to see Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed.  I also agree that it is a priority that should be made at it is a priority that should be acted on now.  

That being said, we are also seeing the Nation bounce back after a terrible eight years of the Bush administration.  And as we can see, it's going to be a really long road back.  However, just since this last election, we have seen four States having passed gay marriage laws and two more considering it.   The Human Rights Campaign has been active in helping to push a hate crime's legislation bill through Congress (even if it is only half way there), and a bill for the State Department regarding same-sex families that travel to and/or from the United States.  It's been a busy year.   The most disappointing matter so far has been the California Supreme Court's decision to uphold Prop 8.

President Obama and our Leaders are politicians, not magicians.  And Gay rights bills and issues have a full backing of many gay rights advocates and organizations all over the country.  But we also have the malicious religious right wing that spin their webs of hate all over.   Is it right that this is how it is?  No, absolutely not.   Could our legislators and new President be moving faster and better to get these things done?  Yes, of course.  

What is needed in these issues is not just "strong arms of the law" legislative bills, laws and measures that allow suits and/or people in trouble for not following policies.   What is also needed is education of individuals, groups, families.  We need not just a change of the Governments pace on these matters, but also the changing of hearts and minds to understand that gay rights is about how we as GLBT people love and who we love, but it is also about us loving and being loved by others.  Loved and cherished to the point where people wouldn't dream of NOT having us in society.   The change of people's hearts and minds needs to move from the point of "Oh, those gay people are at it again!" to "Look at what those wonderful people do, now all of us can enjoy the same rights as anyone else."   We've begun to move in that direction, but we are far from having reached that point.

If HRC and even President Obama have chosen a slower agenda to getting some of this accomplished, while it doesn't solve all of our problems in the here and now, it may be the beginning of helping to resolve these matters in the long run, and not just for the duration of a particular administration's time in office, but for a much longer period.  The kind where even those who would oppose us later, would have a problem getting it taken off the books, because the hearts and minds of the American public that got those laws put there, put the laws there and they mean something to a whole lot of people.  

Let us not stop demanding that our leaders and organizations work toward that perfect society we all want, but let us all work together with them to achieve those goals, not work against them.

---

by: PBearBudMN @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 12:06:33 PM CDT

you are calling constructive criticism bashing.

let us all work together with them to achieve those goals, not work against them.

And calling for assertive advocacy is "working against them"? That's called constructive criticism.  Too often those who sit back and become too comfortable in the Beltway environment of backslapping and cocktail parties forget that advocacy involves not just listening, but actually pushing.

The fact that HRC is now calling for an executive order is a shift -- and that is directly as a result of constructive criticism and thinking outside of the box that wasn't happening internally because of the 90s playbook they were using.

President Obama and our Leaders are politicians, not magicians.  

No disagreement there, but the silence and lack of any kind of honest dialogue about what a plan is with the LGBT community is telling. It's the "sit back and let it do it our way" arrogance that is damaging and only exacerbates inertia and stale thinking.

That's not an indictment only of HRC, btw -- it is a problem most too-well-established organizations of ANY KIND have that are too homogenous and entrenched in a particular way of thinking -- an echo chamber if you will, that is guided as much by desire for access, power and self-preservation as its original mission. And when it gets out of whack, and stops listening to the grassroots, you get an organization that is out of touch and often alienated and alienating of the very constituency it advocates for.

So if you took what I was writing at face value, you'll see that I'm not calling for heads to roll, or the demise of any institution, I'm suggesting that our movement is not being guided in a direction that is assertive enough, which is why I believe in The Dallas Principles. I offer those ideas and goals in the hope that others who agree will sign on, but that doesn't mean there aren't other approaches that lead to the same end goal, or that my view is superior to another. My point is that our "voices" in Washington need to be more open about these ideas than dictatorial about what is the best course of action.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 12:46:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the second best glbt rights organization in DC?

Elsewhere in this thread, someone mentioned their budget. It's tens and tens and tens of millions a year. Almost all of that comes from hardworking glbt people who have been told, repeatedly, how "essential" HRC is and how "effective" they are for our rights.

Name me one freaking bill they've helped pass in terms of addressing equality issues at the national level where it concerns marriage rights, federal rights that come with marriage, protecting our gay military heroes from being forced to live in the closet and even then still thrown out of their careers by the hundreds a year. What bill have they passed that grants freedoms and protections in the workforce or in finding housing for people in our constituencies? What have the done for our trans allies -- other than trying to throw them on the back of the bus and pass our rights while telling them to screw off?

You are only deluding yourself if you think this organization is effective at all. In reality, not only are they useless, but they're counterproductive. The money they get for the cause could be spent far more efficiently and effectively. They're so obsessed with DC and "access" that they forget this is a national fight: where are they in any of the states? Where were they when young people on Facebook organized millions across this country for rallies, protests and demonstrations? The fact of the matter is a couple of local leaders spread across the country in all 50 states have been far more effective using Facebook, without salary, than HRC and other 'premiere' glbt organizations.

That $35-45 million they get per year should be spent across the country, hiring field organizers to organize congressional districts and lobby congress and state governments all across America, instead of overpaying boards and administrators and a pretty but costly building HQ. $30k would get us a young, energetic field organizer who could organize an entire cities and counties in this great country -- imagine what $30 million worth of those field organizers could do? Imagine how many doors they could knock? Imagine how many bills they could pass, glbt+ally candidates they could get into office and how many people they could energize and bring to our side if we went this route, rather than the DC cocktail party route for a very few, privileged and "elite" HRC lobbyists and spokespeople who make hundreds of thousands to tell our Congress to WAIT on our rights.

---

by: RyansTake @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 23:06:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Constructive Criticism is One Thing, Bashing is Another

If what was being said was in fact constructive criticism, that would be fine.  However, I do not agree that what President Obama and our Congress are doing in regards to GLBT legislation is necessarily "sit back and let us do it our way."   What I see them and HRC doing is say: "You keep the comments coming, and we will do what we can.  It may not happen on everyone's preferred time table, but in time, yes it will happen."  Once again, would I like to see it all move forward faster?  Yes.  Does this mean I stop asking them to keep on working and even imply "Hey, when are you going to deliver on the promises you made during the election?" No, of course I will.  They made the campaign speeches, now it's time for them to deliver.  Could they deliver better and faster?  Of course, but so could everyone else who gets hired for a job.  The only difference between them and most jobs is whether or not they get the job done, they still get paid and/or kept in place until it's time to put someone else in their place.

That is why I make the plea, they are people and politicians, not magicians.   Keep on their case, make our case known to them.   But by the same token, give credit where credit is due.  In the last Administration we could hardly get good things started.  In this one, we at least have a beginning, however much it might be less than what we've hoped for.  The beginning has the potential to go somewhere, now lets encourage them to do so, by working with them, encouraging them and balance that with insisting that they keep on the track they are beginning.  Let's not run a smear campaign against HRC.  Let's not cut off our nose despite our face in terms of who are advocates really are.

Call on them to improve and do better, but don't give our adversaries fire, by throwing too much mud in the face of our advocates.  

---

by: PBearBudMN @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 13:23:13 PM CDT

The reality is...

That this is turning into a circular firing squad and its all because some people have grown almost irrationally impatient. All they are succeeding in doing is dividing what should be a united front into two warring factions.

There are people like me that can look at the whole picture and see that things are moving. We are the folks that recognize that Obama has been President for all of 6 months and we reject this unending stream of hysteria that because something is not done over the last few months or in the next few weeks, that it won't happen at all (or that we've somehow been lied to). Anyone with a sense of history knows that right now our government is actually moving faster than is usually the case.

On the other hand, you have the hysterics that are mad that the President and congress have not kicked things up to warp 10, and knocked everything else over in the process. I've been involved with all sorts of social justice groups for a long time, and I've never seen the level of hysteria that I've seen take over the LGBT community. There are immigrant rights groups and poverty advocates whose constituents are in FAR WORSE conditions than the bulk of the LGBT community who have shown more patience and been more restrained.

What gets me is the fact that after a mere six months in office, Obama is being held to some magical standard that no other leader has been or is held to. In fact, many people seem to actively disregard the sheer volume and scope of the problems that he has to deal with. These people have decided that they have been betrayed or lied to. They apparently have access to a time machine and have journed to 2012 and know that nothing has been done. I mean that is the only explanation for this. Obama said that he would deal with these issues during his term in office. That term has only just begun for the rest of us. But apparently we have precogs in our midst who KNOW the future and have decided to be botter and angry 3.5 years early.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 14:53:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Again, it's the time frame

and my "scattering like roaches" theory.

The Democrats will not want to deal with this come time for the 2010 elections. The Democrats will not want to deal with this come time for the 2012 Presidential campaign. You have your faith in Obama on your side, I have some historical precedent on my side. The time windows that we have are very few and are very short.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 15:01:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You have your time frame...

...and I have the voters. Ramming alot of stuff that people oppose down their throats will cause indegestion. If the leadership is not careful it can blow up in their faces and jepordize everything else in the process. This is one of the reasons why I think that Obama and Congress really want to get the health care package done first. Its a signature issue that the American people unambigously support and where the GOP is hemmorraging support. Health care, a suprem court pick and a major energy initiative would be huge. Ad to that a healing economy and thepresident would be riding high, with not one issue for the GOP to use against him or the Democrats.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 15:13:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I actually agree with you on health care

but that is going to cost some political capital. Large portions of the Democratic constituency doesn't want to hear this AT ALL and the time will never be right for them.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 15:19:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But see...

at that point, it won't matter nearly as much because come election time, the key issue that the Democrats have is

We fixed the economy
We reformed health care
We have a viable energy plan
We got the first Latina on the Supreme Court

etc

When the GOP starts scremaing gays in the military, the refrain from the Democrats need only be "are you better off now than you were a year ago?...vote Democratic"

If they get that legislation passed, no one will care about gays in the military or much of the other culture wars crap that the GOP will try to fall back on/

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 15:29:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It is curious that you seem to blame all the impatience on those demanding progress

If congressional and executive leadership actually wanted my trust and patience, they could earn it. A major piece of queer-rights legislation passing both houses of Congress and being signed by the President would go a long way. Putting the other pieces on a calendar would be a big help too.

What the heck is so irrational about a group of people who have been routinely screwed over in the name of political expedience — including by this president with his statements about marriage — demanding a good reason to trust someone before they do?

---

by: pgraydon @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 16:04:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sick Of Solmonese

Joe Solmonese needs to go.

If anti-gay rhetoric were a baseball, Joe Solmonese would be the pussy who's screaming and running, trying not to get hit with it.  

---

by: bluegrassfool @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 14:28:30 PM CDT

What about the strategy itself?

Forget who knew what, when, etc.  Let's focus upon the HRC strategy - and our strategy.  

There are those defending the 'go slow' approach, but I think it is a mistake.  What HRC is ignoring by focusing upon ENDA is that getting ENDA passed (assuming that someday it will be passed) is an iterative process. It will have been introduced several times and that was also the case with many civil rights laws.

So the longer we wait to introduce the repeal of DADT, the longer it will take to pass it. In the meantime, 230 or so enlisted gays and lesbians have been kicked-out of the military because of DADT under Obama's leadership.

Another issue is DADT and some of the recently-discharged gays and lesbians are getting a lot of attention in the national media. The average 'Joe' on the street knows about this issue. The average Joe has never heard of ENDA. This is important because the passage or defeat of DADT will be an event of national importance and provide us with 'synergy' to move to tackle the next issue (if DADT passes) or to work harder with more advocates on DADT (if it doesn't pass).  If anything, ENDA can 'ride the coattails' of the DADT vote, regardless if it repealed or not.  

I discuss this at http://www.notonenickel.blogsp...

But it looks like HRC is caving to our pressure.  So let's keep up the heat.  

---

by: Gary SF @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 14:49:51 PM CDT

OR

It could serve as a lightning rod to galvanize anti-gay oppononets not only against our legislation but help to reenergize all of those values voters against the rest of the progressive agenda.

The people who are against LGBT rights tend to be very vocal in opposing them and have a way of swayiing the public against our interests when they really get mobilized (prop 8 is a prime example of that). People tend to forget that ALOT of people that support Obama and the democrats on economic matters (or security) do NOT necessarily support LGBT rights. Our more vocal LGBT advocates simply refuse to acknowledge that. If the President did as these advocates wanted and just rammed these LGBT issues down their throat against their will....well the GOP will be right there to exploit their anger.

The GOP is itching to try and shatter the Democratic coalition. They saw what happened with Prop 8 just like the rest of us. They know the coalition is VERY fragile around these issues. People of Color and working class whites are NOT on board with this. If the administration looks like they are pushing an LGBT agenda instead of working on the economy, the right will scream bloody murder.

The Democratic leadership knows this and is trying to move carefully.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 15:06:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Then this is a Democratic Party problem

as Pam has been saying for eons. The Democrats have continually swept the homophobes in the Party under the rug, saying we'll deal with them later. According to a certain infamous poll, 36% of those who voted for Proposition 8 were Democrats.

Move carefully my black ass, the Democrats rather not move at all. Again, that is their pattern and it is the Democratic Party's responsibility.  

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 15:11:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Would you rather...

that that 36% percent shift to the GOP? Right now they are on board with the Democrats, and that means an opportunity to push some long needed, and hopefully long term policy initiatives.

You push that segment away and not only do you lose the LGBT legislation, but you lose everything else in the process. This is exactly what the GOP exploited over the last 8 years. Its what they are itching to exploit again (because that's all they know). Why give them the opportunity if a more careful and cautious approach can keep them on board AND get you what you want.

No one is saying NEVER here. What is being asked for is time and patience. Let the Democrats get some of the big victories under their belt. As I've said before...its only been 6 moonths. He's got 4 years. Let them go at the pace they feel can work.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 15:20:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Uh, given the racism and the anti-immigrant rhetoric

of the GOP, exactly where are they going (at least in California)? The GOP would have to go to the left to catch them.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 15:30:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They could simply

not vote. It has the same effect of weakening Democratic support while energizing GOP support. Plus, never under estimate the GOP's ability to sow the seeds of distrust.

If the GOP had its head on straight, they could use this issue to peel off conservative minorities. they usually have no problem getting blue collar whites with this.

Remember its the size and breadth of the democratic coalition that has the potential to keep the GOP out of power for awhile. Fact is that there are more Democrats in the US that Republicans and there has been for a long time. The key is that most Democratic voters don't vote. When they come out in force, Democrats do very well. You choke the life out of that initiative and the GOP has a fighting chance.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 15:45:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The gay community could simply decide

not to vote, also. I didn't vote in 1996 and voted Green in 2000 (of course I live in Cook County so...)

Point being, the Party is in a better position than it was under Clinton. if they can't 1) Work on the homophobia within their own Party and 2) support civil equality legislation for a very loyal gay constituency, then what since does it make to support them or to give them money or to work for them?

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 15:53:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

AND

the gay community might take a lot of the young voters (who are also foot soldiers) with them. And you would probably have a similar scenario.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 15:59:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

every campaign i've ever worked on

approx. 50% of the volunteers and staff are gay.

The Democratic Party would lose dozens of seats in 2010 if gay people stopped volunteering en mass. They'd lose more seats if our political donations stopped flowing. They'd lose even more seats in close districts if the 5-10% of us stopped voting by 20-30% -- because gay people vote at vastly higher proportions compared to the rest of the population (at least in presidential election years).

These are all intangibles that HRC refuses to use. The Democratic Party would reel without our full support and impact. Yet, Joe Solomnese and the HRC folks are too preoccupied with being the 'cool kids' to do anything that might take them off the cocktail list and make it harder to talk with other Cool Kids in DC. They make all those wonderful contacts, spending all those political donations, and then refuse to do anything with them. They need to go the way of the Dodo.  

---

by: RyansTake @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 22:52:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

More likely that they are milking us until the next election.

I don't agree.  Prop 8 was the result of very well-funded opposition combined with a very lame anti-8 campaign.  

With 75% of people polled saying they support gays and lesbians serving in the military, just where are the Republicans going to get credible support to make this an issue?  In case you haven't noticed, the Republicans are pretty much neutered for now.  

And Obama's new Army Secretary - a Republican - supports 'changes' in DADT, presumably to eliminate it.

Strike while the iron is hot.  The time is now.  

---

by: Gary SF @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 15:13:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So what you're saying...

is that he is putting people in place who can and will support the initiative when it comes. Especially a Republican. That seems like a reasonable path. No one is saying never, just that you be patient and let them get themselves together.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 15:23:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes and No.

I don't think that the new Army Secretary's opinion (John McHugh) about DADT had ANY bearing on Obama's decision to appoint him.  I am guessing that the numbers game (of Republicans, that is - in this case Republicans from New York and of course, the number of Republicans in the House) had everything to do with this appointment.

While McHugh SEEMS to support the repeal of DADT, he voted FOR the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, voted to deny same-sex couples the right to adopt, etc.

He is far from what we could call a friend of the LGBT community.  

You seem obsessed with defending Obama - why?

---

by: Gary SF @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 15:58:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I keep asking that, too.

"Geek - You seem obsessed with defending Obama - why?

When the primary/candidate blood bath was going on I thought, "OK, the Obama supporters can get a little psycho but it's just because they think he'd be better for LGBT rights than Clinton or Edwards or Richardson  etc."

But now that Obama's only "opponent" is what he said as candidate Obama it's become clear, as they twist and squirm to defend anything he says/doesn't say; anything he does do/doesn't do, that their obession is not what's best for LGBTs but what's best for HIM.

If the LGBT community were a country they'd be guilty of treason!

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 18:25:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't wait for HRC alll....

Joe S was put to sleep by Valerie Jarretts'  "We'll be inviting you to the Whitehouse a lot speech of February 2009...that he 'bragged' about in the EQUALITY Magazine.

They have his number!

Also.... Just last wee there was HRC trying to sell nifty!!

SAME SEX MARRIAGE Shirts....

I fired back...which sandpile do you guys have your heads in????

Its MARRIAGE EQUALITY... we don't even let the opposition use SSM anymore. 

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 16:23:08 PM CDT

An observation

When one has one's head buried in the sand, all others can see is an ass.

---

by: TomaHawk @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 20:52:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where does the HRC money go?

Here are links to the IRS Forms 990 that were filed for the year 2008 for the Human Rights Campaign, Inc., and for the Human Rights Campaign Foundation.  These show the income and expenditures for the year.
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.or...
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.or...

HRC, Inc had total income of $32,092,256 of which  $27,862,504 is from member donations.
HRC Fdn had total income of $11,225,890 of which $8,239,480 is from member donations.

That's $43,318,000 between the two.  Has anyone seen any action that justifies that total?

Mr. Salomonese draws salaries in the amount of $225,909 (33 hours/week) from HRC, Inc and $30,800 (4.5 hours/week) from HRC Fdn.  Total income of $256,700 plus benefits.

Between me and thee, I can't see that all that money is having much of an effect other than to pay for a lot of administration.

---

by: TomaHawk @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 21:12:01 PM CDT

No longer the largest gay rights group

Join the Impact organized millions of people using real grassroots strategies by being uncompromising on our rights, getting people to come to rallies across the country through facebook, friends and contacts. They have no money and a limited website. It's just people working the leather on their shoes, spending their own time and money, ensuring that their rights are being fought for locally.

HRC couldn't do the organizing like that even if they stopped using all that money they get in donations to sellout our gay military heroes in favor of issues that also haven't been moving quickly.

We need new leaders in this movement. We need our public heroes. Others are rising up and we should support that. Duncan Lance Black has done more in one Academy Awards speech, pushing for a national, umbrella approach toward equality, than HRC has done in its completely useless and counterproductive existence. HRC has had its chance and been proven a massive failure. It's time for them to go the way of the Dodo -- our entire movement would be better served by their being ripped from existence for being the cancer that they are. Enough with people concerned about access, now's the time to flex our muscles and demand equal rights or else.  

---

by: RyansTake @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 22:42:38 PM CDT

The Gay Voting Bloc

I surf over to DailyKos every once in awhile. Here is a fascinating diary by someone who I believe is a contributor to the Blend as well.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

The Democratic Party needs to stop dangling the Republican bogeyman to gay voters. Personally, I believe that a poltically organized bloc of gay votes could already decide Florida.

I did not give the nation's "first black president" a pass because of DOMA and Jocelyn Elders, I did not vote for Bill Clinton (or anyone else) in 1996. I voted Green in 2000 and for Kerry and Obama. I forgave Obama for the gay and race baiting (Donnie Mcclurkin, "Gawd in the Mix"). I will not do the same in 2012. The Democrats need to deliver.

---

by: kevinchi @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 09:36:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

people say HRC gets too much money, are you donating to your local LGBT group?

For all the complaining people are doing about HRC's inflated budget, I think they should put their money where their keyboards are.  

I assume each state has some kind of LGBT organization.  Most are underfunded and have trouble getting people to volunteer.  How about "buying locally," if you will, and sending some support their way?  

If you believe that a national strategy is the way to go, there are organizations besides HRC that are willing to accept your dollars.  Maybe y'all should give your funds to the Dallas Principles, I'd be very curious to see what would happen if they had millions of dollars.  I suspect that the criticisms levelled at HRC/"professional gays" would start coming their way, as it's impossible to cater to everyone's concept of the proper way to win LGBT rights.

I am not the biggest fan of HRC, but I am seeing too many people stuck on the problem and not possible solutions.  There are things you can do to change the situation, just go out and do them.  

Be better, not bitter!

---

by: Anthony in Nashville @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 09:52:04 AM CDT