OFA's 'Petition to Nowhere' on DADT is a joke, and the joke's on you

And some people wonder why we've called on the gay community, and our allies, to stop donating to this increasingly worthless organization.

Organizing for America - formerly Obama for America, but now an arm of the DNC and the White House - just sent out an email to (some of?) their members about Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Did the email call on OFA's twelve million or so members to bombard wavering Senators with phone calls in support of repealing DADT?

No.

So what did OFA's email provide as an action on DADT? They ask you to sign a public declaration that you stand with the president for the repeal of DADT.

Ooh, that should scare wavering Senators. Not an action alert targeting individual Senators, not an effort to raise money for ads targeting those Senators, but rather, a petition to nobody.

Now, how, you might ask, does a petition to nobody help us pass the DADT compromise? It doesn't. But OFA's efforts on DADT aren't about actually getting DADT repealed. We've written about their fake support for our civil rights before. They''re about raising more gay money for the DNC. (Note that after you sign the Petition to Nowhere, you're sent to a DNC fundraising page.)



The second reason OFA is doing this, they're scared. Of you. But not nearly scared enough. Rather than actually doing something to help repeal DADT, the president's henchmen at OFA and the DNC are sending out fake action alerts, that accomplish nothing, in the hopes that you'll be duped into thinking they're doing something to help the gays. When they're really not.

And you could almost forgive OFA for trying to collect more names and email addresses of gay supporters - or even raise money from gay supporters - if OFA had any plans to actually do something, anything, pro-gay, for real, at any time in the future.

Joe and I, for example, are asking folks to sign a public letter to President Obama, that we will deliver to the White House, calling on him to start making some phone calls to wavering Senators about DADT repeal. Note the concrete message, and the concrete action we want. Note the very public way in which we're trying to pressure the president to act. That's what effective advocacy is about - doing something that has a concrete, effective goal, and doing it in a way that has a chance at influencing the person you're going after. OFA's "alert" doesn't target anyone. It's quite literally "the petition to nowhere."

The Democratic party isn't interested in helping you get your civil rights. They're not building this list, and this war chest, in order to help you finally share in the American dream. They're treating you like an ATM. And a rather mindless ATM at that.

Well this GayTM is closed. Read the rest of this post...

Signorile: If Dems want our money, they need to work for it. And they haven't yet.

Michelangelo Signorile in the Advocate:

For [openly gay DNC Treasurer Andy] Tobias, Democrats’ shaky midterm prospects have little to do with their own mediocre track record among those who voted them into power. Republicans are a much easier target for blame. Though the GOP has faced a far-right mutiny by Tea Party zealots and have the smallest minority in both houses in decades, Republicans, we’re led to believe, have somehow miraculously railroaded Obama’s “change” message, forcing him to pander to bigots like pastor Rick Warren. If that’s true, it’s only because Obama and the Democrats let it happen by alienating their own base and playing nice with people who didn’t vote for them—and likely never will.

Why should we be expected to mop up the mess Democrats have created even as we warned them over and over again while they caved in to Republicans? They pandered to conservatives on everything from energy policy and the health care public option to civil liberties and the war in Afghanistan, while spitting on the constituencies in their base who cared about those issues deeply.

And today, the desperate Dems’ message to LGBT voters continues to make little sense. Even while they claim that Obama can’t make progress on LGBT rights because of sinister Republicans, they also claim the Administration has done enormous things for us—more, to quote Tobias, than “any president in history,” as if we’ve really been waiting since George Washington to get the hate-crimes bill passed.

Tobias’s argument is that we must give money to our friends or else our enemies will completely seize control. But how can we continue to give money to friends who sell us out—taking our cash while sleeping with our enemies? How can we give money to the DNC, knowing it will dole the cash out to Democrats who run from our agenda or actively vote against it? If they want us to save them, they’re going to have to treat us a lot better, and right now that means supporting full civil rights. No more settling.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t support individual Democrats this year. There are plenty of Democrats who deserve your support because they’ve done some good things and are pushing hard for equality. By all means, give to their individual campaigns. But not a dime should go to the DNC. And if Obama isn’t willing to push the party hard—and come out for full equality, including marriage rights—then we’ll need to think about withholding money from him too in 2012.

Read the rest of this post...

Fierce Advocate wants you to... join his email list so you can work on other non-gay issues

So Joe is surfing the Web yesterday, and he sees the following Google ad:


That's great - Obama's Organizing for America, now run by the DNC, is finally doing something on a major gay commitment of the President.

So Joe clicked through. Here's what he got:



Wow, it's a page where you can join OFA's email list, and help them on every other issue BUT gay issues in the future.

Nowhere is there a Senate target list, nowhere do they ask you to call the Senate to push for the DADT compromise to be passed. Just as they did a few months ago, OFA is simply dropping in on our civil rights in order to build their email list so they can fight on other issues that have nothing to do with gay civil rights.

It's pretty sleazy.

Now, if OFA had a track record of fighting for gay civil rights, then building a gay list might be a fine strategy - it would only help them contact that many more people when the time came to have everyone call their members of Congress. But OFA doesn't have a track record of fighting for gay civil rights. They in fact have a track record of using our civil rights to build their email list, then they ignore us.

So this is basically a PR stunt, and a sly way to build their email list, without really doing anything to help repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

And they wonder why they're having problems with the gay community. Read the rest of this post...

The DNC did a video about us. Forget about repealing DADT and DOMA, and passing ENDA. They did a video!

Yes, the DNC did a video about us. All about us. And if it were 1985, we'd be on our knees thanking them for acknowledging our pathetic existence. But since it's 2010, it's not enough for the Democrats to keep doing these very public but very lacking in substance efforts to buy off our money and our votes.

I've made the comparison to high school before. And how when we were all insecure children, we practically waited on pins and needles for that one moment in the hallway when one of the popular kids might look our way and smile, or maybe even said "hi."

But we're not pathetic kids anymore. And doing a video about us, showing up at some organization's dinner, or throwing us a cocktail party in the White House isn't going to cut it anymore. We no longer feel the overwhelming need to be accepted into the cool kids club. We are the cool kids now. Our community has the money, the votes, the power. We are a key constituency of the Democratic party, and you'd better damn well be wooing us, because you need us. And we've finally come to realize that point. YOU need US.

That's why another sweet-nothing, which this video is, is not going to cut it. Truman didn't do a video instead of integrating the military. Johnson didn't do a video instead of getting the Civil Rights Act passed. This little YouTube isn't going to get Dan Choi his job back. It's not going to help the lesbian fired from her job. It's not going to let gay couples finally marry like everyone else. The President didn't promise us videos and dinner appearances. He didn't promise an administrative fix to hospital visitation rights that will go away the next time a Republican president takes office along with those "new" benefits for gay federal employees that we found out weren't new at all, and in fact, gay federal employees have been getting since the Clinton era. The President promised us the repeal of DADT and DOMA, and the passage of ENDA.

So where are they?

When you come up with that video, the one telling us you repealed DADT and DOMA, and passed ENDA, get back to us.

PS And please don't claim credit for DADT when the legislation currently being discussed doesn't even repeal the law, doesn't require a repeal in the future, doesn't mandate what is to replace DADT if it is ever repealed, and in fact gives DOD 2 votes to the White House's 1 vote for repeal. When you can tell us the discharges have stopped - when you can tell us WHEN the discharges will even stop - then get back to us. Read the rest of this post...

Rabid homophobe, favored by White House and DSCC, to run for Evan Bayh's seat - supported FMA, voted to kill ENDA, silent on DADT

Wonder if they'd support a racist?

From Cillizza at the Post:

Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth has decided to seek the seat being vacated by Sen. Evan Bayh and will announce his intentions in a statement to be released shortly, according to a source briefed on the matter.

Ellsworth emerged as the favored candidate of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the White House in the immediate aftermath of Bayh's stunning decision that he would not seek a third term.

And from Bil Browning we learn that Ellsworth has a whopping 30/100 record on gay rights - even the Republican Senator from Indiana beats him by a factor of two - and Ellsworth supporting putting anti-gay bigotry in the United States Constitution:

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation's largest LGBT political organization, ranks Ellsworth as one of the ten worst Democratic Congress members when it comes to LGBT issues; he scored a meager 30 out of 100 possible points.

Asked how the organization would react if Ellsworth were chosen as the Democratic nominee, Michael Cole, spokesperson for HRC, said, "We do not generally get involved in these types of state party decisions. During his 2006 campaign, Brad Ellsworth voiced his support for the federal marriage amendment, making him ineligible for our endorsement."

Motivating the Party Faithful
Senator Bayh, on the other hand, earned 90 points on the same ranking and even Republican Senator Richard Lugar scored 60. After Bayh announced he wouldn't seek re-election, the Indiana Stonewall Democrats chapter praised Bayh's commitment to LGBT rights.

It's pretty deplorable that being an anti-gay bigot doesn't seem to matter to the White House or the DSCC. But I'm sure they'll be looking for your money to help this homophobe, so he can get into office and screw the Obama administration on every campaign promise they've ever made. As we've said before, it's time to take the pledge to stop donating to the Democratic party until they keep their promises to our community.

Stonewall Dems has a petition up about this, and Adam Bink at OpenLeft has more on Ellsworth's conservative leanings:

Ellsworth, as many of you know, is a Blue Dog who voted against the stimulus package, voted for Stupak [anti-abortion], voted against federal funding for stem cell research three years ago, voted for the GOP motion to recommit on health care reform [i.e., to kill HCR]. Yes on FISA [domestic spying], Yes on the bailouts, Yes on the war supplemental, No on Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. As Taniel pointed out in Quick Hits this morning, he is as far to the right as you can get for a potential Senate Democrat. He's a virtual Parker Griffith, the right-wing Democrat who just switched parties.

Read the rest of this post...

A reader writes the DNC

I get a lot of emails like this. Need to post more of them. Today's is from reader Andrew Johson of Chicago. The DNC sent him their "2010 Presidential Survey," which was basically a fundraising letter. Andrew was having none of it. He writes:

Like many, I received my DNC "2010 Presidential Survey," and true to my "Don't Ask, Don't Give" pledge, they won't receive any money from me. I did fill out the survey, though, and sent it with an attached letter since the survey's "Comments" section only contained a puny four lines.

Here's the letter he sent back to the DNC:

Dear Democratic National Committee,

I will not be donating any more money to the DNC until it is clear to me that the politicians my money serves in turn serve the interests I hold dear. I am deeply dissatisfied with the disconnect between the rhetoric of hope and progressive change and reality (as exemplified by the Obama administration thus far). Health care: a debacle muddied by DNC-funded ads like those featuring Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, denouncing and celebrating the end of the “public option” in HCR legislation, even though Obama campaigned IN FAVOR of such a thing in order to secure votes of people like me who see a desperate need for such a thing to challenge the hegemony of the health insurance industry.

As a gay American wooed by Democratic campaign promises of progressive change toward the purposes of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and support of marriage equality, I am utterly devastated.

Despite this economy and its prospects, I have money to donate and a desire to use it politically to advance the interests of our nation. I DO NOT see at this time the DNC as a beneficiary of such largesse, as meager as mine may be, as long as it supports and promotes ideals its progressive base detests. Republicans will never get my money (their “ideology” and reality ensure that much), but neither will Democrats until and unless they start enacting the kinds of reform our nation needs.

The DNC sends me a survey and a solicitation for money; I send you back my honest reply: no way, not now--earn it. The political power I possess is with my vote and with my wallet. If the DNC wants WE THE PEOPLE to help fund its operations, then it must start serving we the people again. Right now, I feel like a fool having contributed to a political party with a significant majority in Congress which has effected so little progressive change in a post-George W. Bush America.

And while I can appreciate “pragmatic” approaches to governing, President Obama has yet to take a consistent leadership role in helping to shape progressive change. Far too often he is content to pass the buck to Congress (where it is true the process must take hold), but in doing so he plays it safe by invoking a desire for bi-partisanship and by many times failing to take a firm, definitive stance on key issues, all the while allowing the Republican and conservative political and media machine control the narrative.

It has become clear that representatives in both political parties are utterly beholden to the corporate interests that fund them; the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. FEC only portends much, much worse. I will not throw my hard-earned money down a well of gridlock and this dismal status quo.

I sincerely hope someone at the DNC has taken the time to read my thoughts here, and perhaps even pass them along. I look forward to the day when I can enthusiastically donate to the DNC, when it is clear that the money I send is helping to shape the political reality I believe in and know is right to advance our nation’s interests, especially for America’s middle and lower classes who desperately need governance that will stand up for their well-being.

Sincerely,
Andrew S. Johnson

Read the rest of this post...

To acknowledge the gay community's concerns, DNC gives self permission to send emails with hyperlinks

I am not kidding.

While the Snowmageddon was descending on Washington, DC, the DNC winter meeting held a vote meant to acknowledge the serious concerns the gay community and our allies have about the party's inaction, and sometimes backwards movement, on gay rights issues over the past year. So they passed a resolution meant to address the concerns, voiced here first, that the DNC's Organizing for America had asked Maine voters to help make phone calls for Jon Corzine in NJ, while not asking Mainers to do anything to help stop the now-successful marriage repeal effort in that state. A lot of us felt that it looked like the DNC was afraid of touching "the gay."

So they passed a resolution to rectify the matter. Let me quote you the salient part:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that OFA will continue to support the efforts of the Democratic Parties at the state and local level in communicating their positions on state issues by the most appropriate method, including sending individuals to state party websites whenever possible.

If you read it very closely, here is what it means:

OFA will continue to support state parties, and they'll use the "most appropriate method" to do so. Uh, okay. I would hope the DNC has always been using the most appropriate method to contact folks, but that's fine. The rest of the sentence says that those appropriate measure might include sending people the URL to their local state party web site, sometimes, but maybe not.

Why did we need a resolution to tell the DNC that they can email their members hyperlinks to state party sites? Was OFA not permitted to email hyperlinks to state party Web sites before? Not to mention, the resolution doesn't direct OFA to send those hyperlinks, it simply says they may, if they deem it appropriate.

So how does this have anything to do with our concern that the DNC refused to tell Maine voters to vote against the anti-gay ballot measure?

The full resolution is after the jump:

This resolution was considered by the DNC Resolutions Committee at its meeting on February 4, 2010, and the Committee moves its adoption by the Democratic National Committee.

The DNC adopted this resolution on February 6, 2010.

Submitted by: Jess Durfee, California

WHEREAS, in the 2009 election, OFA used its list to email supporters in several states; in two states -- New Jersey and Virginia -- supporters were asked to vote for the Democratic gubernatorial candidates; in select other states, emails were sent to supporters reminding them to "Vote on Tuesday;" and these emails did not include recommendations on key ballot measures on which the respective state parties had taken positions; and

WHEREAS, OFA has proven to be an incredible resource that has tapped into the vast pool of volunteers and activists that were inspired and mobilized by President Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign; and

WHEREAS, since many state and local elections include voting on propositions and ballot measures, active support by OFA, where possible, will be a critical factor in securing election outcomes favored by Democrats and such OFA support on propositions, initiatives and ballot measures in 2010 and beyond will be critical to the future success of the Democratic Party in our states and territories;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that OFA will continue to support the efforts of the Democratic Parties at the state and local level in communicating their positions on state issues by the most appropriate method, including sending individuals to state party websites whenever possible.

Read the rest of this post...

Largest gay rights group in NJ to stop donating to political parties, asks members to do the same

This is a warning shot fired over the head of the Democratic party. It's also remarkably similar to our Don't Ask, Don't Give campaign we launched in November.

It's no longer just a few f'g r------ complaining about the party's inaction, and backwards movement, on various promises to the Democratic base. The Democrats are losing their base, and they're very much in danger of losing gay money and gay votes in November. Things will only get worse as other state-based gay groups make similar decisions to no longer give to either political party. And the situation won't be any better come October when DADT still isn't repealed after all the President's promises to do just that.

From Garden State Equality, via Andy Towle:

Sending a bold signal that no political party should take the support of the LGBT community and its allies for granted, Garden State Equality’s Board of Directors has unanimously approved a new provision for the organization’s bylaws that immediately precludes Garden State Equality from giving financial contributions to political parties and their affiliated committees. Under the new policy, Garden State Equality will make financial contributions only to individual candidates and to non-party organizations that further equality for the LGBT community.

The bylaws provision asks Garden State Equality members, who make their own decisions as to individual political contributions, to refrain from contributing to parties and their affiliated committees.

“No political party has a record good enough on LGBT civil rights that it can rightfully claim to be entitled to our money on a party-wide basis,” said Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality. “No longer will we let any political party take our money and volunteers with one hand, and slap us in the face with the other when we seek full equality.”

"Our Board of Directors felt so strongly about adopting this new policy," Goldstein said, "that it unanimously decided to include it in the organization's bylaws."

Read the rest of this post...

A gay man's response to a fundraising letter from the DNC

Matthew Barker got a fundraising letter from the DNC. As a gay man, he was not amused. Here's the letter he sent back to the DNC. You can click the image below to see a much larger version. (In the letter, Matthew refers to our Don't Ask Don't Give campaign.)

Read the rest of this post...

President Obama continues to disregard laws he finds objectionable, unless the laws discriminate against gays - then he's fine with them.

Today's NYT notes that not only does the Obama administration continue to disregard laws that it finds objectionable, but it's doing so in a manner that's even less transparent than what George Bush did, and for which Bush was routinely castigated by, among others, candidate Obama.

At the same time, the Obama administration, and its apologists in Congress (Frank, Baldwin, Polis) and the Democratic Party (Tobias), have the temerity to lecture the gay community on how the President simply couldn't put a temporary stop to the two-a-day discharges of gay service members, couldn't provide federal employees with health benefits for their family members, couldn't permit the foreign partners of gay Americans to enter and stay in the United States, couldn't even argue against DOMA and DADT in a court of law - all because we simply must respect the rule of law, to hell with how 'wrong' we think that law is.

Now we know that this was a lie. From the NYT:

[T]he approach will make it harder to keep track of which statutes the White House believes it can disregard....

[T]he administration will consider itself free to disregard new laws it considers unconstitutional....

Mr. Obama, whose advisers sided with the latter camp, has characterized Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements as an abuse and pledged greater restraint.

Mr. Obama nevertheless challenged dozens of provisions early last year. The last time was in June, when his claim that he could disobey a new law requiring officials to push the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to adopt certain policies angered Congress....

Last year the Obama administration disregarded a statute that forbid State Department officials to attend United Nations meetings led by nations deemed state sponsors of terrorism. Congress has included that restriction in several recent bills.

Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, Jared Polis, and Andy Tobias have some explaining to do.

All four have done a fine job defending the Democratic party's anti-gay actions over the past year. And make no mistake, it's flat out homophobia and bigotry that we have been witnessing from the White House and the DNC since President Obama assumed office. They were happy to make promises to our community in exchange for our votes. But now that they're in power, we're supposed to understand that our civil rights, our humanity, is just a tad too embarrassing for the Democratic leaders we put in office. We're supposed to understand why Frank, Baldwin, Polis and Tobias defend the Democratic party's recurring attacks on our community. (But hey, they did have a gay band in the inaugural parade.)

No more.

We have a serious problem. The Democratic party likes our money, and it likes our votes, but, as one commenter noted a few months back, whenever our civil rights come up in a public discussion, the White House, especially, comes down with a sudden case of political gay panic. Yet the rich gay funders continue to bankroll the Democrats. They continue to go to the party fundraisers. They continue to pay for the cocktail parties being thrown by the DNC and the White House to buy off our leaders. They continue to give the Democrats cover for their political homophobia.

And for those who might argue that nothing is wrong, where is ENDA? We were told that it would be passed by the end of 2009. So where is it? Where is the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell? We were told that we should expect it to be passed by the spring of 2010. Yet now we hear that no planning is going on, whatsoever, to make that a reality. And as for President Obama's promise to repeal DOMA - a law he once called "abhorrent" - we are mocked by senior Democratic party officials for simply asking the President and the party to keep their promise. We are told that we're naive to think that DOMA could ever be repealed, and that it won't be this term. No. We simply believed Barack Obama when he promised to get it done.

Via this blog, Joe and I have raised over $300,000 for Democratic candidates and causes (the exact figure is on ActBlue). Our allegiance to the party cannot be questioned. But at some point you have to ask yourself why you are helping put politicians in office who don't keep their promises, who don't put a high value on your own humanity. As Democrats, we routinely mock gay Republicans for supporting politicians that doesn't see them as fully human. We make perhaps too harsh comparisons to Jews who would be Nazis, and blacks cozying up to the Klan. But how can we look at gay Republicans with a straight face, as it were, and tell them that they're selling out when our allegiance to our own party is not equally contingent on a basic respect for our own humanity?

It's great that the Obama administration has hired 100 gay officials. As they should. 2010 is not 1994. Democrats do not get kudos for not discriminating against gays in their hiring practices. You do not get kudos for issuing the Pride proclamation equivalent of National Ice Cream Day. You do not get a pass on your promises on ENDA, DOMA and DADT simply because you gave a speech at the HRC dinner. We are not your grandfather's gay community - words and crumbs are no longer enough. We have matured in the past decade, and even in the past year since Prop 8 was repealed. Our party, however, is still stuck in the past.

How else to explain President Obama's obviously uncomfortable comment to NBC's Brian Williams, in response to a question about the infamous DOMA brief, that the President believes gays should be able to visit their partners in the hospital? Yes, they should. How very 1994 of you to agree. And how 1974 of you to squirm when being asked a question about the gays.

Our party is stuck in the past. And so, unfortunately, is much of the leadership of our community. How else to explain why Joe Solmonese, the head of the Human Rights Campaign, attended a hastily arranged Oval Office meeting intended to give the President political cover following the DOMA brief fiasco? At the time, Solmonese told Michelangelo Signorile that when the president calls, you come running.

No, his dog comes running.

The leader of the largest gay civil rights organization in our country, when asked to provide political cover for an incredibly homophobic act, does not come running until and unless he exacts a good pound of flesh in return. And a commitment to speak at an HRC fundraising dinner is not the quid pro quo we had in mind. Too many of the old gay guard seem incapable of fighting today's battles. They're too accustomed to the old days and the old ways, when simply being acknowledged (oh my God, he spoke to me!), or invited to the table (regardless of whether dinner was actually served), was enough. It didn't matter what we got out of the deal, so long as the new guy beat us less than the old guy (sure he keeps breaking his promises, but at least he's not ReaganBushMcCainPalin!). We promise to be good, and to accept whatever scraps were thrown our way.

Democrats, and far too many of our own leaders, think that if the President meets the bare minimum of what was expected from a Democratic president nearly two decades ago - hiring gays in the administration (but not to too senior a position), giving a few speeches about your commitment to gay civil rights (but only to gay crowds), and signing a law that the President didn't lift a finger (or spend an ounce of political capital) to get passed - then that's all that is needed to buy our community's favor.

It may be all that is needed to buy off our leaders. But our leaders are no longer "the community."

With the advent of the Internet and modern communications, we are all HRC.

Pam Spaulding is HRC. Mike Signorile is HRC. Dan Savage is HRC. Joe Jervis is HRC. Jeremy Hooper is HRC. Andy Towle is HRC. The 'Join the Impact' kids are HRC. And even Rachel Maddow is HRC.

Our national organizations no longer have a monopoly on message or activism. And while the Obama administration and the DNC continue to control many of our leaders, our people become more angered by the day.

I am not optimistic about the Obama administration keeping its promises on Don't Ask Don't Tell, DOMA and ENDA. And I am not optimistic that HRC, our rich gay donors, or most of the other national gay rights group will do what is needed to hold the Democrats responsible for their promises. I am however optimistic about the ability of a people to hold its leaders, both gay and straight, responsible for their actions. We have shown with this blog, and our new generation of gay leaders across the country have proven with their successful activism, that those who would stand in the way of our human rights cannot keep us silent by simply buying off our leaders. That they cannot forestall bad press, and the increasing ire of a core Democratic constituency, by simply keeping our traditional groups, and our representatives in Congress, at bay.

The only way we are going to get our civil rights, the only way the Obama administration is going to keep its promises to repeal DADT and DOMA, and to pass ENDA, is by demanding them. The only way our party is going to care about what we say and what we think is by holding them responsible for their actions.

Joe and I, along with a number of other Netroots leaders, including Markos Moulitsas, Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler, Bill Browning, Dave Savage, Mike Signorile, Jane Hamsher, David Mixner, Andy Towle, Michael Goff, Taylor Marsh and Paul Sousa, launched the Don't Ask Don't Give campaign just two months ago in order to make clear that we expected our party, and our President, to simply keep their promises before we gave them even more money in exchange for more broken commitments. Today, nearly 10,000 of you have joined our campaign, and more are joining every day.

Make no mistake, we are proud to be Democrats. We simply expect our party to be proud of us in return. Read the rest of this post...

Gays don't make the cut on OFA's 'to do' list

Joe has mentioned to me several times how the President's top gay rights promises - repealing DADT and DOMA, and passing ENDA - never seem to make it on any of the "top legislative priority" lists for this coming year. Now, remember, we'd been told that ENDA would be passed and signed into law at this point (it hasn't even passed out of a committee in either body of Congress), and that this spring they'd be repealing DADT (in fact, we hear nothing is being done to even plan for DADT's repeal). So it's interesting to see the DNC's organizing arm, Organizing for America (the follow-on to Obama for America, and an entity largely considered run by the White House), doesn't even mention gay civil rights as one of its priorities for the year. Perhaps it's time everyone took advantage of the "write in" category for what they'd like the party to focus on this year.

In the meantime, Don't Ask Don't Give.

UPDATE from Joe: OFA was the entity that sent the email to Mainers urging people to vote on November 3rd, but failed to mention the premiere issue on the ballot in Maine, which was, of course the marriage question. Funny, or not, how OFA omits the gay issues. Read the rest of this post...

A strong pride proclamation?

From Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly:

In his first year, the president has presented a package of domestic partnership benefits for federal workers, addressed the diplomatic passport issue, issued a strong Pride Month proclamation, hosted a White House event to honor the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, signed an expanded hate crimes bill into law, lifted the travel/immigration ban on those with HIV/AIDS, and recommitted to do even more. It's not a bad start.

Barack Obama also let a gay band into the inaugural parade to make up for the fact that he chose a homophobe leader of the Prop 8 repeal to do the invocation at his swearing in.

Look, let's revisit Steve's list of things we should be thankful for:

1. The President did not present a package of domestic partner benefits for federal employees. As the NYT reported, after I got OPM director John Berry to admit it, the benefits weren't "new" at all. They were benefits that gay federal employees have been accessing since the Clinton administration.

2. The diplomatic passport issue. I think Steve may be conflating two issues. Some new benefits for partners of State Department employees and the administration permitting married gay couples to put their married name on their passports. Both nice changes. Not earth shattering by any means.

3. A strong Pride proclamation? Give me a break. We are a core Democratic constituency. Issuing proclamations does not merit being on the list of serious civil rights accomplishments.

4. An event to honor the 40th anniversary of Stonewall. Well, no, actually it was a cocktail party that the White House organized, at the last minute, to assuage a select group of "good gay" community leaders during the uproar over the administration's DOMA incest/pedophilia brief. Many other gay leaders were blackballed from the same event for criticizing the administration's efforts to defend DOMA in court.

5. Signed an expanded hate crimes law. Okay, that was a good thing. It also required the White House to spend zero political capital. Hate Crimes had already passed the House and Senate during the last Congress, and even beat an attempted filibuster in the Senate. The President did nothing to get the Hate Crimes bill passed. He did sign it, but so would any other Democratic president. He gets our thanks for signing it, but let's be serious here. The administration did nothing to get the bill to the President's desk, so the credit here is minimal - this does not count as a chit they earned so now they don't have to act on another promise.

6. Lifted the HIV travel ban. This was good. Congress had already passed the "lifting," but it's good that the administration went through with it.

7. Recommitted to do more. Whatever.

Look, the administration and the DNC are always happy to put out long lists of their pro-gay "accomplishments" during their first year. And the list is quite lengthy, and quite lacking in actual substance. Joe and I detailed a good 40 grievances the community had with the Obama administration and the Democratic party during the first year of Obama's term alone. Many are quite serious, such as continuing to defend DOMA in court (and invoking incest and pedophilia to justify the law). Please do review the list, it's quite bad. And it's why Joe and I launched the Don't Ask Don't Give campaign right after marriage was repealed in Maine. Democrats are not going to act on their major promises to our community - repealing DADT and DOMA, and passing ENDA - unless and until our community is willing to hold Democrats responsible for those promises. If we continue to give them money, if we continue to show up at their cocktail parties in order to give them political cover, then we will always be told that the time just isn't right to set our people free.

The President has taken a piecemeal approach towards our civil rights, while keeping our community at a distance. We have graduated beyond Pride Proclamations and giving some benefits to some employees of some agencies. We helped elect a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, based on their promises to enact major change on behalf of our civil rights. There is zero indication that anything is happening, or being planned to happen, on DADT, DOMA or ENDA. Zero. I'm not talking zero action in the Congress, I'm talking no one is talking about it anywhere - the planning isn't even taking place for it to eventually happen.

And nothing will happen, so long as we continue to be content with speeches and half-measures better suited to 1994 than 2010. Read the rest of this post...

Another reader tells the DSCC that the gAyTM is closed

What's interesting is that Joe and I didn't really include the DSCC and the DCCC in our DADG campaign. Only because it helps to limit your targets, so you can stay focused, and the DNC, Organizing for America, and President Obama have all three either gone back on promises to our community, snubbed our community, or harmed our community. Still, I'm hearing from a number of readers who have sent similar messages to the DSCC. These messages help.

Greg gave me permission to republish his name and email:

From: Greg Fickas
Date: December 1, 2009 11:06:47 AM CST
To: info@dscc.org
Cc: John Aravosis
Subject: Re: quick note

Dear J.B.,

As a gay American I have taken the Don't Ask Don't Give Pledge. This administration made promises to the LGBT community that it has not only failed to keep, but has worsened through actions such as its insulting and homophobic legal defense of DOMA which compares same-sex marriage to pedophilia and incest.

The LGBT community was proud to support candidate Obama, but President Obama's record on LGBT issues so far has been very poor. In fact, it started out poorly from his inauguration when homophobic bigot Rev. Rich Warren was invited to give the invocation. It should also be noted that the very same Rick Warren has as yet failed to condemn pending legislation in Uganda that would criminalize homosexuality with penalties of life imprisonment and death and even penalties of prison for individuals who fail to report on their friends and family members whom they suspect being homosexual. What is the President's position on this barbarism that will terrorize a segment of the Ugandan population and which is condoned by the man who gave the invocation at his inauguration?

I'm sorry it has to be this way, but this is a civil rights issue that the administration simply must address. Until there is progress on these LGBT issues and more, I will no longer be making any more contributions to the DSCC.

Sincerely,

Greg Fickas
Centennial, Colorado

--- On Mon, 11/30/09, J.B. Poersch wrote:

From: J.B. Poersch
Subject: quick note
To: greg
Date: Monday, November 30, 2009, 6:56 PM

Friends,

I need your help right now. The DSCC's November fundraising deadline is midnight, and Republicans stand ready to defeat health reform and destroy us. If we don't match their intensity, we'll lose this argument - and our majority.

Click here to donate, and a group of senators will chip in the same amount. Even $5 will make a difference.

Thanks for your help.

J.B.

BTW, donate today, and you'll get 20% off in the DSCC Store.

------------------------------------------------

Paid for by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee,
http://www.dscc.org, and not authorized by any candidate or
candidate's committee.

------------------------------------------------

Read the rest of this post...

I just got hit up for cash from the DCCC. I told them to take a hike.

Well, it finally happened. The DCCC called asking for money and were shocked...SHOCKED I wouldn't give.

The women on the line was just incredulous I wouldn't continue to give. I told her I had pledged my support for the "Don't Ask Don't Give" campaign and she wanted to know why. She just could NOT understand I wouldn't give, as a gay man, when Obama and the Democratic Party has treated our community so poorly in its fight for civil rights, justice and equality.

At one point in the conversation she claimed, "Obama is a fair President. He would NEVER discharge someone in the military for being gay!" I immediately let her know I had been discharged for being gay, and knew Obama as Commander-in-Chief had the power to issue a stop-loss order that would halt the discharges of almost two gay or lesbian troops per day while "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was being overturned. She tried to claim "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was a law, but she could not explain why Obama wouldn't sign an order that would stop the discharges of gay patriotic troops while the law was being reviewed.

Then, she tried to get me to give by arguing about Health Care, and I told her my congressman was DINO Dan Boren, and he didn't vote for Health Care reform. I told her if the Democrats in congress started acting more progressive on my issues, and others, then I would gladly give back pay to help out.

I don't know how many other ways to tell the Democratic Party the gAyTM is closed until we see major movement on ENDA, DOMA and DADT? I explained to her I worked very hard to get Obama elected, and was involved in local politics. I would open my wallet every time they asked if they moved in a more progressive direction. The woman tried mightily to get me to change my mind by imploring how important it was for Obama to keep his majorities in congress, but I'm done with paying for a party that says one thing, and does another. The conversation lasted an exceptionally long time for a fund raising call. Maybe she knew I was pretty reliable for cash donations in the past? Maybe she is getting a lot of people declining to give? All I know is I'm not giving until "DADG" is officially lifted.

NOTE FROM JOHN: Joe and I limited our DADG campaign to the DNC, Organizing for America, and the White House since each entity has, in one way or another, turned its back on the gay community We didn't specifically include the DSCC and the DCCC, but we're certainly not going to stop anyone from sending a loud and clear message to those party organizations as well. (As always, if there's a truly good pro-gay candidate, do give them to them - once you're sure that this time they actually mean it.) Read the rest of this post...

Huff Post on the White House's most recent case of Gay Panic

Someone wrote recently that the White House seems to get a case of "gay panic" whenever they deal with gay civil rights issues. And it's a brilliant observation. It's as temporary insanity kicks in, colored by fear, whenever the gays get on the White House agenda. Case in point: Last week's brouhaha over senior adviser Melody Barnes having kinda sorta endorsed gay marriage at a public talk she gave in Boston. The White House freaked out, as usual, and made sure that a private video of Barnes' talk wasn't released for days.

Sam Stein at Huffington Post has more.

[W]hen one of Obama's top advisers, Melody Barnes, suggested that she personally supported gay marriage before a crowd at Boston College last week, it could have been a minor story. But it became a bigger one when the White House press office responded defensively, first insisting that no such support for gay marriage had been offered and then not signing off on the release of the video of Barnes's appearance until the dead-news hours of Friday afternoon....

[F]or a White House that has been extremely cautious when it comes to cultural issues, the endorsement of gay marriage by even one official apparently presented a very unwelcome diversion.

Indeed, even after the video surfaced, the White House seemed particularly eager to move on to a new topic. The Huffington Post asked several times to talk with Barnes for this piece. The requests were denied.

Read the rest of this post...

The EDGE on Don't Ask Don't Give

From The EDGE, about our Don't Ask Don't Give campaign:

There is some concern about the potentially negative effects a financial boycott will have on the Democratic party, especially with the 2010 midterm elections coming up. "The danger is that people’s impatience becomes self-destructive," said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) on Thursday during a reception for the LGBT community in Providence, Rhode Island.

Whitehouse said if bloggers wished to continue their boycott until Christmas, that would be fine, but if they prolonged it any further, there would be damage to the Democratic party in the midterm elections.

’LGBT Americans are a core constituency of the Democratic Party, and we wield significant influence in the party.’Andrew Tobias, an openly gay man who serves as treasurer for the DNC, believes in Obama and hopes the LGBT community will continue to support him."The administration is going to continue to make steady progress on our issues whether or not we help strengthen its hand," Tobias told EDGE . "But the stronger it is, the faster that progress will come."

It doesn't help to strengthen a hand that slaps you. Read the rest of this post...

Bil Browning supports Don't Ask, Don't Give -- and thinks you should too

Excellent post at Bilerico.com from Bil Browning on Don't Ask, Don't Give:

I've had enough of the Blue Dogs running the Democratic Party. Until those Blue Dogs can stop licking their own asses long enough to stand up our civil rights - our basic human rights - they won't get a dime from me. Instead, I'll continue to donate directly to progressive candidates who believe that I am an equal person with the same rights and responsibilities as any other citizen.

If you feel the same way I do, I'd suggest you stop donating to the party too. Join the Don't Ask, Don't Give boycott with John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay of AmericaBlog, Daily Kos, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, David Mixner, Andy Towle and Michael Goff of Towleroad, Paul Sousa, Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler and me.

Thanks, Bil. The support from Bil and our fellow bloggers and activists, both gay and straight, has been amazing. There is a lot of frustration with the lack of action. Those who think otherwise aren't really paying attention -- or they're probably looking for something -- a job or a party invitation -- from the Obama administration. All of us worked hard to elect Barack Obama. We kept our part of the bargain. Now, it's his turn.

You can sign the Don't Ask, Don't Give pledge here. Read the rest of this post...

The Nation on "Don't Ask Don't Give"

Ari Melber at the Nation discusses our Don't Ask Don't Give campaign:

Unlike other donor strikes by a single blog or organization, the "Don't Ask, Don't Give" campaign is swiftly attracting allies and attention in the political media -- including that lead Politico article today. (Obama's top aides pay attention to Politico, even though they claim otherwise, as David Plouffe's new book revealed.) Some of the allies are explicitly striking for gay rights, like blogger and pundit Jane Hamsher, The Stranger's Dan Savage and blogger Pam Spaulding, while others are pushing strikes against Democratic Party committees based on broader grievances about Democrats voting against core party priorities, such as health care.

Read the rest of this post...

Markos on "Don't Ask Don't Give" DNC boycott

Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos explains why he lent his name in support of our "Don't Ask Don't Give" pledge not to donate to the DNC, OFA, and the Obama campaign until they follow through on their promises:

Now the DNC is a bit different, because I have lent my name to Americablog's Don't Ask, Don't Give pledge. This is simple: Democrats made a series of promises, DADT among them, and vowed to make change happen if only we gave them our votes. And we did, in record numbers, and Democrats have huge majorities in Congress and a White House with a national mandate.

I get that some things take time, and the legislative process isn't always as fast as we'd like. But here's the thing -- don't come begging for money when you haven't delivered on your promises.

We did our part. It's now our party's turn to deliver. Until they do, it seems ludicrous for them to ask for money, especially with whines about "Republican obstructionism". The obstructionism is coming within our own party. When it gets its house in order and delivers on their promises, then that'll be different.

p.s. Remember when we had a real DNC chair?

More on the Don't Ask Don't Give pledge here. And as I mentioned earlier, Markos is advising readers to avoid the DCCC as well, and to only give directly to good progressive candidates, not party organs. Read the rest of this post...

A reader's response to the DCCC

Joe and I haven't added the DCCC and the DSCC in our boycott, simply because those two organizations didn't betray the gay community. That isn't to say that you'd be wise to give any money directly to candidates who you know to be pro-gay and progressive.

Read the rest of this post...