John Aravosis and Joe Subday of AMERICAblog, two bloggers who frequently cover gay rights issues, have announced that they and a handful of other gay activists and liberal bloggers are organizing a boycott of the Democratic National Committee and Organizing for America (what has become of Obama's campaign apparatus, now led by the DNC) until President Obama puts his political weight behind moving their key issues through Congress--namely, repeals of "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act, and passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
The boycott's "cosponsors," as Aravosis and Subday put it, are Daily Kos, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, Paul Sousa, Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler, Bil Browning, and Jane Hamsher.
The boycott is a financial one: they're calling on supporters to refuse to donate to the DNC and OFA.
They've got a pledge, which they're encouraging people to sign online. It begins:
President Obama promised to be a "fierce advocate" for LGBT Americans. But while making modest progress on a scant few issues, on the major campaign promises made to our community, the President and the Democratic party have failed to keep their commitments.Gay rights activists have been frustrated with the administration, to varying degrees across the movement. (Alex Koppelman sums up the White House/gay activist politics nicely at Salon.) And, to be clear, Obama did stand for these issues during the campaign--and he has yet to make them a priority for his administration, as the stimulus, cap and trade, and health care have dominated the White House agenda thus far.
When Barack and Michele Obama hosted an LGBT reception at the White House in June, activists were already grumbling, some openly, that Obama hadn't turned out to be the president they thought they were electing. The Obamas drew a warm response from the crowd, and the president managed to deliver a themed message of "this is your house," not "be patient."
But that's the message some activists have gotten from the administration, and, while they've been frustrated by the administration for some time, the AMERICAblog-led boycott is the first instance of organized opposition to President Obama that's come out of it.
What has many of us in the LGBT community angry is that Obama has made no effort to do even the most basic and easy to do thing - place a stop loss order on the insulting "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy.
That is a no brainer. I think some of us who follow politics recognize that repealing the "Defense of Marriage Act" and perhaps even the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" may not be doable in the near term, but DADT is a no brainer with no political consequences since a majority of Americans oppose the policy.
"Fierce advocate" my ass!
Agreed. For all of Obama's bluster about "changing the law", all it would take is for the President to decide he is no longer going to enforce the law. (Presidents do this all the time.) He certainly has no compunction about abrogating laws in the name of national security (warrantless wiretapping, state secrecy, etc.), so isn't getting rid of soldiers due to their sexual orientation a national security issue, when we are faced with three wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and with terrorism, and we need every soldier we can muster? Is there some reason he can't sign the executive order, or instruct the SecDef to basically suck it up? Are there some weak-kneed generals afraid that their much-cherished homophobic institution will fall to the Pink Brigade? Closeted gay soldiers dying for our country aren't good enough for the deaf and dumb masses back home?
What really took place is that we were relegated to the back burner by Rahm and Co. (I sincerely think that Obama doesn't even know we exist.) They ran the numbers, and they figured we would have no choice but to support them. Where else are we going to go, right? Sucker born every minute. Lowest priority. Etc. Our money and our votes helped put him over the top, and yet we still don't count. We're a minority that can be bought off with promises of next year. (Yeah, right.) Well surprise, surprise! Unless Obama makes significant progress in his first, and possibly only term in office, for us, he won't be able to count on my vote or my money, no matter how much he tries to bullshit us. He will actually have to burn up political capital in equalizing opportunities for all Americans, gay or straight, black or white, and one of the first steps is to actually get some courage and do the right thing. I'm not asking for marriage. I'm not asking for every last right that every other American enjoys, no matter how stupid, hateful, or intolerant they may be. But I am asking for a black man to recognize that the civil rights pioneers who fought and died to help get him where he is deserved to be honored with more than the bullshit excuses that the White House Press Office concocts every day to explain away their "progress".
I'm sorry, but a stop-loss order would be horribly idiotic. One, we'd have to justify why it was necessary for this while we just eliminated stop losses in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would make the order look openly political (thereby weaken public support for it). Two, it would be temporary and, at the same time, give Blue Dogs an excuse to do nothing on the issue. Three, we're fighting a huge and disruptive battle on healthcare until Christmas (at the earliest) and tossing DADT on the conservative fire before then would likely lead to both measures getting burned. Four, we're going through the normal legislative process to eliminate it and it looks like it won't last another year; a big sideshow only interrupts that process and delays it actually happening.
This is one of those "chill the f**k out, I got this" moments. Rahm knows exactly what he's doing.
One, a stop-loss on DADT would allow service members who want to stay in the military to stay in. The usual stop-loss is to keep members who want to get out from getting out. One ALLOWS people to stay in, the other FORCES people to stay in. See the difference?
Two, do you think the Blue Dogs would do anything on DADT anyway?
Three, the crazy right-wing doesn't wait for any fuel for their fires. They go ahead and manufacture their own all the time - ask the birthers, the death-panelists, the ACORNists, and the tea-baggers.
Four, every day that goes by ruins the careers of more honorable service members who only wish to serve our country, even though that country hasn't seen fit so far to allow them equal rights in the military or society at large. What you would call a "big sideshow" I would consider a bold and dramatic statement by the President that we need to take strong action to change the policy formally and immediately so our national defense has the benefit of everyone qualified and willing to serve in a time of war.
Unfortunately, I'm beginning to think that the President believes that "bold and dramatic" applies only to words, and not deeds.
Why any self-respecting gay man or lesbian would want to join the military is beyond me. They are hated by the conservative military just as Muslims in the military will no doubt find themselves hated in the wake of the Ft. Hood shooting.
But no, we'll boycott our friends in the DNC rather than boycott the military and the religious communities that hate us.
hey this is really goo news and this is one of the most interesting way to make teachers to take up their seriously.... hereafter we can except a 100% result..
-huan
http://www.hbzjkx.com
The function of the gay and lesbian community for the Democratic Party is to be captive fundraising livestock. If all gay issues were solved gays could not be counted on as a servile voting, and especially fundraising, block.
Many substantive and serious issues of gay inequality and gay oppression by the State and Democrats are never even spoken about. For decades gay men and lesbians have been forced to give up over 6% of their income in FICA taxes. But the spouses and children of the surviving spouses of gay people receive no Social Security benefits, and gays, especially during the AIDS crisis, do not live as long as heterosexuals, and so often do not collect retirement benefits.
Every special interest group thinks their issues are most important and if they aren't addressed with early in a term that the President is reneging on his promise.
They are called special interest for a reason, they aren't big issues. They are big to a few, but not to most people and they won't affect the countries future well-being. Afghanistan, the economy, health-care are big issues that have to be addressed.
Wait until he's addressed the big issues and moved on to doing smaller ones before you complain.