The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.
NC U.S. Senatorial Candidate Forum, Durham, NC. (Cunningham, Lewis, Marshall) You can review the Tweets from the event: @PamsHouseBlend. My wrap and video are here.
One source said LGBT leaders had sent "strong signals" to the White House that they want repeal to happen this year and that there would be "repercussions" if it did not. The source would not say what form those repercussions might take.
-- from Kerry Eleveld's article, "Activists Call Urgent "Don't Ask/Tell" Meeting"
Now I'm kind of concerned that Big Gay is out there issuing ultimatums on our behalf, because I'm sure you don't want to see our movement go down in flames when the Obama admin and Congress jerk us around again -- and there are no repurcussions of significance.
I think it's ironic when the gay netroots have been calling for action for a long time (The "No Excuses" theme regarding action on our issues was not created in HRC's shop, btw) and have been chastised endlessly for the lack of patience -- "he's only been in office __ months." Well now our leaders are pissed, (and, now many progressives as well) about getting the shaft by Congress and the White House. They are late to the game.
We sad little know-nothings in Cheetos-stained pajamas saw this coming, but hey -- we're just rubes, politically unsophisticated, you know. Just not smart enough to understand how it all works.
Well, thankfully our movement's movers and shakers are finally waking up to political reality -- the cocktails for a few came along with a big "talk to the hand" for everyone else. Our community (or rather, those who do have access) must be seen seen as easy to buy off and stall.
Our movement has wasted the opening months of this administration trying to denigrate voices from the outside who knew our civil rights were going to get backburnered because of 1) health care, 2) the endless military debacles, 3) all other progressive causes waiting in line that have been out in the cold for years. The only way to move ahead in the line when it comes to civil rights and a group -- LGBTs -- is to stop the glad handing and to have a plan, not fret over the gay netroots.
The bottom line is that LGBT rights are not seen by the vast majority of potential allies as worthy of moving up the action chain because of the baseless perception that we are a political liability for elected officials and not really hurting. The black tie gladhanding is not seen as any indicator that hardball politics is going to be played. These elected officials drained our ATM to get elected. They work for us. The shuffling and tap dancing time is over, people.
And so there was the emergency meeting (as John Aravosis noted, was not organized by these groups, but by a third unnamed party). Kerry:
The two-hour long meeting was unusual in that it assembled the advisers to major LGBT political donors from outside the Beltway such as Tim Gill, Jon Stryker and David Bohnett alongside DC-based lobby groups such as HRC, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, the Center for American Progress, and The Palm Center as well as lobbyists with ties to the White House and Congress.
The gathering resulted from a growing sense of urgency that 2010 is a make-or-break moment for repealing the military's gay ban and that the White House would likely make a decision about how to move forward on "don't ask, don't tell" sometime in the next several weeks.
Participants declined to discuss specific strategy with The Advocate but said they mulled over how LGBT leaders would move forward if the White House decided to make a strong push for repeal or, alternatively, if it took a pass on the issue this year.
And after that, the whole "repurcussions" quote came up. There's no need to keep this a secret -- what, pray tell, will our institutional leaders do when the WH and Congress take the football away as our peeps try to kick it?
John:
In contrast to past statements from gay groups and administration officials that "there is a plan" with regards to the President's gay rights promises, including DADT, the secret meeting (and the Times article) both made clear that there still is no plan at all.
Both the meeting and the Times article confirm that the White House has not even decided if it will push for the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, let alone what exactly it will push for for, if anything (as noted in the Times article, the Pentagon is even considering whether a "separate but equal" policy should be adopted). The hope is that the White House will come to a decision and announce what, if anything, it is going to do about moving forward on the repeal of DADT sometime in the next month or two. But the groups have no idea what the White House is going to decide, or when it will decide, and therefore cannot and will not endorse an all-out campaign to support the repeal of DADT until the White House makes up its mind.
The unnamed source John spoke to clearly indicates the White House is calling all of the shots here, and is flexing its muscle to shut criticism down.
Maybe I can just make up a plan. Will we get the memo when it's time to "do something" when nothing passes in 2010?
Some attendees expressed guarded optimism during the meeting because many in the room had "been guaranteed that this is a priority for the president" -- some by President Obama himself and others by some of his top advisors. But one source weighed that against the fact that health reform was also a top priority for the administration and its passage has not gone smoothly. "There's an awful lot of distance between something a president says and actually making it come to light," said the source.
Another hurdle, many felt, was that although advisers like White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Jim Messina, Director of the Office of Political Affairs Patrick Gaspard, and Director of Domestic Policy Council Melody Barnes are viewed as pro-LGBT, there's really no single power broker in the White House who's consistently pulling for LGBT issues.
OK. I have to ask a question here. Where has Brian Bond, the Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement (aka the LGBT liaison) been during all of this? He's nowhere in this piece and he's supposed to be the Obama administration's primary contact with our orgs all this time. (BTW, Brian never did get back to me about any further WH plans to interact with LGBT New Media/citizen journalists, as the WH has with other interest-group media. Take what you want from that. )
This does raise a broader, more structural problem about our connections to the White House, since there are allegedly so many pro-LGBT people on staff - what is has been done to facilitate action so that it didn't come to this point?
You'd have thought our leaders would have been incensed earlier on, given the dodging and polite screwing our community received in 2009. Suddenly there is an epiphany? We've been watching all the way here in the coffeehouse, seeing the quotes of commitment, promises of action and general platitudes about how important civil rights is to this administration. We've also seen FAIL-worthy DOMA defenses, completely insulting press conferences where ignorance of the status of our issues has become a broken record.
Whatever maneuvers were going on behind the scenes over the last months to solidify a plan of action on LGBT legislation, it didn't work. On the Hill, too many of the spines are weak, scared of the Blue Dogs that they will never get pro-gay votes out of, not calling for action to get LGBTs to call their fence sitting pols to move.
None of this is news. I'm glad these folks, who do have a form of recognized power, got together to strategize, but the downward spiral of effectiveness has been going on for months now. Where is the game plan -- there's so little time to do anything bold -- that's what you do early on. Now it will be hold on for the 2010 elections, then the run up to Obama's re-election. Our issues are not seen as a priority, only a liability (and I think it's BS, but assume it's true) -- our people on the inside have not made the case to move legislation forward with enough vigor to withstand the inertia in DC to go along and get along and keep the money flowing and keep controversy low.
It's time to stop putting activism into silos and use all the resources (and I'm not talking money) to engage in this fight for equality, and set the egos aside for a change.
Readers -- are you holding your breath on that one?
Tune in to SiriusXM OutQ today at 3:30 PM ET to hear Michelangelo Signorile and I discuss my exclusive on-camera interview with Brian Bond, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement (a.k.a the White House LGBT liaison).
OUT 100 2009 honoree Kerry Eleveld's weekly column for The Advocate, View From Washington, covers progress on DADT repeal and my recent excusive interview with Brian Bond, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement (a.k.a the White House LGBT liaison).
Only days earlier, he answered questions via email for Q-Notes. What I didn't know at the time of my interview was that Bond was not only a hard "get," he was an impossible "get" -- as in he had not, to date, agreed to an in-person, on-the-record interview with any LGBT news outlet, something Kerry noted:
Pam Spaulding of PamsHouseBlend was the blogger who managed to snag Bond outside of the entirely controlled confines of a written interview. Not sure why all the love for the Tar Heel State - where Spaulding is also based - but it's most notable because Bond has proven to be an almost invisible presence given his position in the Office of Public Engagement.
His sudden emergence leaves one wondering if administration officials sense they have a PR problem on their hands with LGBT Americans. Bond is not the highest-ranking gay official to go on record to date - John Berry, the director of Office of Personnel Management, has granted several interviews. But knowing what I do about how press-shy Bond is, I would be inclined to think he has been pushed into the spotlight by forces greater than himself.
What's worth noting here is that none of Obama's inner circle has agreed to an interview with the LGBT press yet, let alone the commander in chief himself - who has granted a series of interviews to other constituencies' news outlets.
The emphasis above is mine because it echoes my point in my post that Bond has been invisible and inaccessible prior to now, suggesting the administration is under pressure to address communication issues/problems of the White House's own making. Why the lack of transparency and direct communication with LGBT news media to date when other constituency groups have been granted on-the-record interviews? Are we pariahs except when cash is needed from the gAyTM? Certainly that doesn't make for good relations, in the absence of open discussion of any kind. I think the silence and even lack of press releases from Bond's office on any topic related to our issues is simply odd, given his post is about outreach. His own definition of the job from the interview:
1) To advocate within the building, and 2) Let the people know where the President stands on LGBT issues and the work we are doing for equality under the law.
You'd think that this position, based on the title, is one that involved traveling around to meet heads of state equality organizations, local orgs that may receive federal funds, regularly meeting with LGBT journalists, to show the official Obama administration's face to our community, and to take information back to the administration. That Bond appeared at Equality NC's Conference as a keynote speaker is a good start, but where's a press release touting this outreach to let others know he's available for similar events to do Q&As with average people out there?
Where's the digital suggestion box for LGBTs to inquire about policy with this position? How is social networking, clearly another way to connect to the grassroots, being leveraged by this position? What about liveblogs or webcasts? This isn't occurring, and it may be part of the problem the administration has in 1) conveying a clearer understanding of what progress is being made and where it is stalling (and why), and 2) understanding that the lack of information only causes people not in-the-know (which in this case would be most in the community) to fill in the blanks with speculation and conspiracy theories. As it stands now, what information we do receive comes via the e-blasts from the Press Office or the occasional question answered by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (and we all know the quality of those answers to date). In any case, it would be good to see some follow through to develop the "Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement" into more than a lofty title by putting into action some of the basic communications mentioned above -- certainly technology in the Obama campaign wasn't lacking -- and plain old availability to the LGBT press.
I had a chance to sit down with Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement (aka the LGBT liaison)Brian Bond at the ENC Conference on Saturday, before his keynote address before attendees. In the White House food chain Bond reports to Valerie Jarrett, the senior advisor and assistant to the president for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Bond has been in contact with me several times over the last year to set up a meeting, but given my lack of proximity to DC and my schedule, it just hasn't happened until now.
Brian has been an elusive "get," by the way, when it comes to LGBT media, but Matt Hill Comer of Q-Notespublished a Q&A with Bond (via email) on policy questions you should click over to read. There are some standard talking points there, but here's a summary of what was covered by Matt...
Bond says the administration "will not waiver in their support for equal rights"
Asked about a timeline for a DADT repeal, Bond said the policy "will be repealed sooner than people think," that Obama has already begun to talk to the military and Congress, "but Congress will need to actually repeal it and we are committed to working with both the House and Senate."
On DADT, Bond says he "would hope people will take the president at his word and give him the time to do this right."
Bond said the administration has been working on a host of non-legislative issues, including pro-LGBT changes and initiatives in several agencies and departments.
Bond says, "...it took over a decade to get hate crimes done, I don't think it will take near that long to accomplish the repeal of DADT, and passage of ENDA"
So read the Q-Notes piece, my interview and watch the video of the keynote and assess for yourself if there's anything to read into his comments.
The Pam's House Blend interview.
(transcript below the fold.)
With that in mind on Saturday, I decided to take a different tack with Brian Bond. The interview I conducted focused on the strained relationship between new media/bloggers/advocacy journalists (I'm being charitable here), and the total disconnect between the Obama campaign's new media competence and the Obama White House's blindness, gaffes and outright unhelpful alliances that have potential to really damage progress for our movement.
What is puzzling is that Brian Bond didn't think he was going to be asked to go on the record with me, but I wasn't having that. Since I knew there would be talking point regugitated to obvious question I chose to ask him more philosophical questions about how this White House relates to new media, the lack of trust in engaging a large slice of the online LGBT community) and why more than one-way, highly massaged communication isn't working, and isn't believable when compared to this admin's actions.
During the course of the interview, Bond offered this definition of his role as White House Deputy Director for the Office of Public Engagement/LGBT liaison:
1) To advocate within the building, and 2) Let the people know where the President stands on LGBT issues and the work we are doing for equality under the law.
Well, given #2 is part of his job description, Bond has been invisible and inaccessible prior to now. His demeanor and openness about the schism, suggests the administration is under pressure to address these communication issues/problems of the White House's own making, but that no one is quite sure how to deal with it, thus this meeting and visibility of Brian Bond.
***
Brian Bond Keynote and Q&A from the 2009 Equality NC Conference
(No transcript yet). The breaking news here is his response to a question about transgender appointments to the admin in the first term. Bond said it will be "sooner than you think." (30:07) There is also a question and challenge (47:50) to the President for accepting the honorary title of Chair of the Boy Scouts, which kicks gays out of its organization .
NOTE: At some point during his Q&A, Bond steps off camera (which was on a tripod unmonitored) to answer questions, so you'll see only the empty podium; eventually he returns so he can be heard and seen via mic. Apologies.
This was chock full of talking points we've heard in the past, he told the attendees at the conference about accomplishments and promises, including:
* Hate Crimes Bill * Ryan White HIV Funding reauthorization * A fully-inclusive ENDA * DADT: it will be repealed (no timeline, of course). Bond said it "cannot be addressed with the stroke of a pen." * Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act * DOMA: Didn't mentions likelihood of passage other than "It will take a lot to get this done." Bond said in his opinion that a repeal of DOMA will need to have an inclusive ENDA passed and made into law. That, I also believe, makes strategic sense - but that doesn't preclude a vote to see where pols stand. * Health Care Reform. Issue of portability and pre-existing conditions are paramount and it's clearly relevant to LGBTs
He emphasized the type of leader Barack Obama is -- he means what he says and will hold true to his promises. He acknowledges that much needs to be done, but that there needs to be patience because the POTUS has only been in office 10 months.
He urged those in the audience to "push us and work with us." If change was easy, he said, we wouldn't need all of the advocacy groups we have -- he mentioned the NBJC, Servicemembers United, and several others, but notably, not HRC.
As the time nears for the official A-gays at the White House event, here are some perspectives out there today. Read, digest and comment; I share my thoughts at the end -- plus a couple of questions. First, let's look at the framing from the White House itself, from Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement Brian Bond.
As a gay kid growing up in rural Missouri - I never thought I would end up helping to organize an LGBT Pride event in the White House. Then again, I never thought I would ever realize my dream to work in the White House. But thanks to the historic election of Barack Obama, today I am honored to be working here.
To me, today's event is more than just a reception honoring LGBT Pride month. It is an opportunity for the Administration to provide the world with a snap shot of the real heroes across the country that do the day-to-day work fighting for equality. People like State Representative Patricia Todd in Alabama to Sheriff Lupe Valdez in Dallas, and may other local LGBT elected officials that will be here today. And it's people - ordinary families - that by simply living their lives openly are changing hearts and minds. It is also an opportunity to welcome the people upon whom shoulders we stand, people like Frank Kameny, as well as Phil Wilson, Bishop Robinson and Ambassador Hormel, who I know personally, and those who stood up to bigotry at Stonewall. I really wish people like Bayard Rustin could be standing here with us today. He would be up for the fight ahead of us and proud of the place we now stand.
People may not know this, but there hasn't been a significant event since the President took office that hasn't included the LGBT community -- discussions on the economy and the recovery, or health care -- but this event is special to me and to many of the people that haven't been here for many years.
We have a lot of work ahead of us. We will work together to pass Hate Crimes and ENDA and to end DADT and DOMA, but today is an opportunity to celebrate who we are and affirm who we are as Americans. But the truth is that in this White House we do this every day. With over 60 out appointees working in this Administration already, we are free to be ourselves. But not everyone is in this country is able to do the same, and we are here to help change that.
I am here because I know the President and this Administration believe that too and are committed to fighting for equality - yes it will take time, and yes we should be pushing and yes you should too. We are all in this together and I am equally proud of both my President and my community.
I will take a little time out today to celebrate the diversity and depth of our community with my President. And we will get back to work. Everyone in this building is very clear -- from the President on down -- are committed to equality. So for a young, ok for a now aging and balding gay guy from rural Missouri, this is my way to celebrate Pride month and our community's importance in the American fabric.
The incoming president of GLAAD (and fellow Dallas Principles author), Jarrett Barrios, wrote an op-ed in the WaPo about why he's going to be there. Read a snippet below the fold.
Tune in to SiriusXM OutQ today at 3:30 PM ET to hear Michelangelo Signorile and I discuss my exclusive on-camera 
As a gay kid growing up in rural Missouri - I never thought I would end up helping to organize an LGBT Pride event in the White House. Then again, I never thought I would ever realize my dream to work in the White House. But thanks to the historic election of Barack Obama, today I am honored to be working here.
