Obamanation is starting to scare me worse than G-Dub’s neo-fascists ever did. Rick Moran writes in a post at American Thinker:
Opponents of gay marriage in California are suffering the effects of a childish tantrum thrown by those who lost on Proposition 8. There have been attacks on Mormons for leading the fight for the ballot initiative as well as racial epithets hurled at African Americans because 70% of them voted “Yes” to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
Now these activists have taken their derangement to another level; they are publishing lists of ordinary people who donated to the “Yes on 8” coalition
[…]
This is stupid and self defeating. Rather than trying to change their opinion, they are making these people enemies for life. And carrying out pogroms like this against people who oppose gay marriage based on their religious beliefs borders on bigotry.
There are other means of protest to make your displeasure known than targeting individuals. All the gay marriage advocates are doing is sealing their fate the next time such a measure goes before the votes.
I live in California and I voted against Prop H8 because I think gays and lesbians have just as much right to be miserably married as us straight people. Unfortunately, the majority of the voters here disagreed with me, including a bunch of people who voted for Barack Obama. While American Thinker is a conservative website, I agree with Rick Moran that targeting individuals, businesses and churches that supported Prop H8 is wrong.
Not everyone agrees with me, however. TBogg in a post at Firedoglake titled “Blowback is a Bitch” writes:
The kind of person who contributes money to deny their fellow citizens their civil rights are not someday magically going to be part of the solution: they’re the problem. These are not people to be reasoned with; they’re ignorant, they’re haters and they’re bigots and the only thing people like that understand is power.
So when they stick their noses in other people’s affairs, they forfeit the right to be considered just another “ordinary person”. They’re involved and they would be foolish to expect that those other people in whose private affairs they have meddled wouldn’t return the favor. As they say: you pays your money and you takes your chances.
You “takes your chances” when you exercise a Constitutional right? When did that become a progressive principle? From the comments to TBogg’s post:
“Your freedom of speech does *not* include freedom from the consequences. Deal with it.”
and:
“Take no prisoners.”
and:
“If you enlist in the Culture Wars (e.g. writing a check), expect to receive fire.”
and:
“Isn’t there some scripture verse about sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind?”
That rhetoric is not very reassuring, is it? There is a word for people who use intimidation to get their way. The word is “bully.” But it doesn’t stop at FDL. John Cole posted this at Balloon Juice:
This is pretty amusing. After actively campaigning to end the right to marriage for a large group of people, including donating money, blackmailing businesses, and turning the issue into a religious crusade, people are absolutely mortified to find out to be publicly associated with the cause. There is, after all, a reason the Klan wears hoods.
Yeah John, because people who sincerely believe that marriage is a religious sacrament between a man and a woman (a view shared by the candidate you fanatically supported and many of your fellow Obama supporters) are no different than a terrorist organization that lynched black men. Why, they deserve to be punished, not persuaded!
Perhaps we should make the people who supported Prop. H8 wear special armbands so they can be easily identified. Businesses and churches could be required to post signs identifiying them as well. I seem to recall that tactic being very effective at intimidating people in the past. I also recall you being outraged in the past when conservatives “outed” or retaliated against people they disagreed with. Hypocrite much?
Leave aside for the moment that targeting political opponents is counter-productive, it is also anathema to democratic principles. That’s why we have secret ballots. There is also the “Law of Unintended Consequences” to consider. Did it ever occur to anyone that targeting donors for retaliation provides a good reason to repeal the laws requiring public disclosure of campaign donations? Jeebus!
Progressives used to have principles. Liberals still do.
Filed under: General |
The Confluence 
If they can target Prop H8 supporters, why not registered Republicans? Or PUMAs?
You got it, Myiq – all of us can be victims of this unethical behavior – sickening – 😦
We probably already are targeted.
This is a continuation of what obots do: Attack. They need to continually attack someone to keep their all important Obama kool aid high so they don’t have to look at Barry’s flips.
Hillary, Palin….now on to fresh attack meat. In bad cases, their Barry buzz is paramount to everything else, including friends, family and country.
I think most members of the LGBT community can see how wrong this is. They’ve always been targeted for attacks; they won’t be the ones targeting other people’s freedom of speech.
It’s the same kind of unexamined privilege that the blogger boiz rest on that make them delight in this.
Attack dogs gone wild.
What did Voltaire say about disagreeing with someone but defending their right to say it?
If people know they may face retaliation if they donate to a candidate or cause, won’t that inhibit free speech?
The Sturmabteilung were Hitler’s brownshirt bully-boys. They attacked and intimidated the Nazis’ political opponents.
The difference between the SA and the Obamanationals on the internet is the SA’s violence was physical, but so far Obamanation’s has only been virtual.
Still, if it wasn’t effective we wouldn’t be here.
This whole thing cracks me up. As far as I’m concerned, the GLBT community that overwhelming supported Obama can burn.
For the next 4 years, as they expend bllod, sweat and tears, I sincerely hope they remember what a friend/leader and we had in Hilary.
Rather than trying to change their opinion, they are making these people enemies for life.
That’s just what they did to women in the primaries — hence the Pumas. It’s their MO. (No, not that MO, their modus operandi). Well, why not — it’s worked so far.
They disgust me.
Torchwood:
This isn’t just the GLBT community.
This is a license for Obama supporters to go after conservatives.
Notice that they are not targeting anyone in the AA community.
I hope women continue to focus on attacking a probelm that will plague us in 2012 and beyond if we don’t keep up the heat. Sexism in the media must end if women are to have any chance.
If Andrew Sullivan makes u retch then here is an Excellent post at Femisex.com :
http://www.femisex.com/content/asked-and-answered-the-atlantic-asks-should-women-rule-world-the-atlantic-gives-90-its-bylin
“The Atlantic asks: Should Women Rule the World; The Atlantic gives 90% of its byline space to Men, Pays Misogynist Andrew Sullivan to write about Hillary’s “Cooties” and Palin’s “Massive Boobs” and “Porn-style Pumps”
I remember I used to think freepers were mutants because they wanted to punish the waitress who reported the Bush twins underage drinking – and posted her information on the internet. Since, lots of PUMAs got the same treatment when posting on B0bot sited in the beginning of the race. I don’t think they’ll outlaw the republican party. But they’ll certainly FISA the hell out every disloyal not-for-Obama and then use the information next election.
EOF:
They don’t need to outlaw the GOP if they can intimidate it’s members into silence.
BTW – many Obots emerged from Freeperville
myiq2xu, with respect, I beg to differ….
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1117/p03s01-uspo.html
And to be honest, I was expecting this too. Just not so soon.
Wanted to post this somewhere last night .. no place to do it .. not really here either, forgive me .. But it sorta goes along with Sadies comment…
Huffington Post Mutes Women’s Voices
New media, same gender imbalance
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3647
I made a squishy poopie in my big boy panties!
Hee hee, I said “poopie”
Brundlefly wasn’t warned about how I respond to liars who spew propaganda
Torchwood:
“Most election-related threats have so far been little more than juvenile pranks.”
We have more than our fair share of asshats in the country. Let me know when they organize and actually try to do something.
Actions have always been more impressive than “Just WORDS” .. Myiq2xu … …so .. well done .. lol
Whether we agree with them or not, people have the right to vote however they choose. Having this campaign donation info available on the web is really creepy. I donated to Hillary’s campaign and was horrified to find the money donated and a mapquest map to my house on Google for all to see.
In future I’ll take a tip from Obama’s anonymous donors. I’ll buy a prepaid credit card for political donations and use a fake screen name.
Hmmm I’m conflicted about this. There are number of things in play here.
There does seem to be hypocricy here as I seem to recall people complaigning about precisely this kind of “blackmailing” with regard to prop 8 before the election though I could be confusing it with something else.
Certainly I think we could all agree that people should not be intimidating people with violence or threats because of free speech they have made.
On the other hand boycotting people for whatever reason is also a form of speech is it not? If someone says “I hate X and I will work to effect policies that restrict the behavior of X” and I say, OK well I won’t frequent your business because I don’t want to support you,” is that not just another form of speech?
Donating money is a form of public speech, as is boycotting or recomending boycotting of a business.
On the other hand there are other kinds of real threats or harassment that will certainly result from the generation of these kinds of focused lists. And that is crossing the line.
So is the generation of the list in and of itself the problem? Or is it the behavior recommended on the basis of the lists?
Brundle,
Thank you for crediting PUMAs with this much influence. I thought we were a group of only 6 or 7 crazy bitter old ladies, according to our fair-and-balanced media.
I engaged in prowls against people who exhibited no sense of decency during this election, including NJ delegates who decided to go for Obama although Hillary won the state. I also prowled against a misogynistic amoral media. I’m proud of PUMA standards, designed to redress election fraud, voter disenfranchisement, and the deranged propaganda used to prop up the Obama candidacy.
OT
Myiq, thanks for posting the http://www.despair.com pics. I ordered calendars as Christmas gifts.
BTW, just ordered stocking stuffers from http://www.perpetualkid.com
They have a hilarious selection of big kid gifts.
I agree with those who support gay marriage, and these nasty, unethical and unConstitutional methods p+ss ME off.
Imagine how opponents of gay marriage feel.
The conservatives are right. The Freepii of the Left really DO hate free speech.
Gawd, the Obots are vomitous.
A great new one from kenosha Marge…how opinion changes over time…hope for us who know about Obama’s fakery…
The Rise and Fall of Great Expectations
http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/the-rise-and-fall-of-great-expectations/
Brundlefly,
While I’m not a PUMA historian or even a long-time participant, I do see a significant difference between sending e-mails to media pundits, public officials, party officials and business establishments and harassing those who give to a cause.
On the other hand, I think Obama should be forced to publish, in readable form, all of the names of the people who gave even five bucks to his campaign so I’m ambivalent about this issue.
britgirls:
That’s why I blog pseudonymously
myiq said: The difference between the SA and the Obamanationals on the internet is the SA’s violence was physical, but so far Obamanation’s has only been virtual.
But there have been physical retaliations – and 80 year old grandmother was hit and spit on last week for voting the “wrong way” she voted her heart and mind – how can that be wrong? 👿
We need to put pressure on the FEC to do audits of all campaigns – with the winners first.
Joanelle – right, and let’s not forget the man who beat a female McCain supporter in the face with her McCain sign here in lovely NYC.
The violence is escalating. These people are crazy and their leader is not afraid to unleash them on dissenters.
There’s a reason I call him O’Stalin and Dear Leader.
What’s most absurd about all of this is how selectively the outrage is targeted.
I mean, Obama wouldn’t even come out and decry publicly the use of his own words, and his own voice in support of Prop 8. So far as I’ve heard, he hasn’t mentioned this issue even to this day.
He put himself on record before the election as being opposed to Prop 8, because, he said, it was discriminatory. But he said it in the lowest speaking voice he could, so that no one would know it. Even when he was clearly winning in the polls, he wouldn’t denounce the use of his own words to support Prop 8 when, supposedly, he opposed it.
Does anybody seriously doubt but that if Obama had chosen to go very public with his opposition to Prop 8, and respond with robocalls of his own on behalf of the opposition to Prop 8, that he might very well have turned the tide against it? And isn’t it obvious that he had a special obligation to do so precisely because his own words and voice were being used to support Prop 8? (My own guess is that supporters of Prop 8 knew perfectly well what a moral coward they had on their hands in the person of Obama, and knew that he would never renounce their use of his words in a visible public manner).
Where is the outrage over his abject cowardice here? No where to be found, apparently — not with the likes of TBogg or John Cole as best I can see.
myiq2xu:
True, but the piece mentions some “groups” that automatically trigger my “ugh!” reflex. I would consider that to be somewhat organized if not entrenched
My thought/fear is that it’s only two weeks after the election and already groups that were together (GLBT and AA Obamatrons) are starting to splinter and P.O.’d groups that were splintered (white supremist and homophobes) now have something to rally around.
Heck, the man isn’t even sworn in yet. Forget about the election. That’s history. Can you imagine what 4 years is going to be like?
(My own guess is that supporters of Prop 8 knew perfectly well what a moral coward they had on their hands in the person of Obama, and knew that he would never renounce their use of his words in a visible public manner).
*****
frankly0, my guess is that they attended that private meeting with Obama and rightwing religious-types that got so little attention in the media. I always thought that he was trading away some abortions rights at that meeting but it appears that gay rights may have been at the top of the agenda.
Torchwood:
The Secret Service will be protecting Obama and the cops will be investigating every hint of violence against him.
Will his opponents have the same protection?
frankly, I suspect BO supports Prop 8 himself.
Politics prompted her assault, Augsburg student says
startribune
http://tinyurl.com/5l9bzb
Frankly0 – yup. A gay friend of mine went to the protest in NYC yesterday. They were screaming at a Mormon church.
It’s just so f*cking dishonest. If Obama had opposed Prop 8, he might have lost his evangelical AA base. Why, why, why are we still hating each other because our pastors claim Jesus told us to? Cause, you know, HE DIDN’T.
votermom,
I suspect that you may be right in the sense that Obama himself in his heart of hearts, does support Prop 8.
That’s assuming of course, that he has a heart of hearts — not always something that’s particularly obvious for any politician, but is even far more doubtful in the case of Obama.
And in the end no one cares what he “really” thinks. What matters is what he’s officially signed onto, and is therefore supposed to support. He’s said he’s against Prop 8. His words, though, were used to oppose it. He has an obligation to set the record straight in a highly visible public way, to fight the highly visible distortion of his own stated belief. Because of moral cowardice, and for no other good reason, he refused to do so.
Imagine if you donated to a pro-choice group, and suddenly you have a bunch of Operation Rescue types picketing outside your home of business, screaming at you whenever you enter or leave.
Would you ever donate again?
myiq2xu:
“Will his opponents have the same protection?”
The question is, will some of his supporters have the same protection now that they’re not going to be needed until 2012?
frankly0, at 12:26 pm Said:
“And in the end no one cares what he “really” thinks. What matters is what he’s officially signed onto, and is therefore supposed to support. He’s said he’s against Prop 8. His words, though, were used to oppose it.”
**********
What he thinks, what he says……… It’s time to assess the man on his actions. He convened a transition team and has asked for more donations. Anything else?
I’m not surprised the high turnout for obama resulted in Prop 8 passing. I am also not surprised that the “progressives” are now targeting Christians for the protests.
Yes, probably there were a bunch of Christians opposed – but the problem is obama’s base. The “progessi ves” aren’t libruls – that much is clear. If only a few of obama’s base had voted against the measure, it wouldn’t have passed.
The blanket anti-Christianism of the “progressives” is disturbing to me. It is ignorant considering there are many churches that are Reconciling in Christ, meaning they are openly welcoming GLTB. My church has a female pastor and we have congregatoinal leaders who are gay and in loving committed relationships, just not a problem. I think pastors are supposed to be celibate if they are not married… I think that isn’t very fair, but we are working on it through the ELCA.
madamab,
Yes, targeting the Mormon church and white evangelicals is, of course, the safe thing to do — even if it isn’t the effective thing to do.
I rather doubt that the white evangelical community voted in significantly larger numbers than the AA community in favor of Prop 8 — it’s hard to beat 70%.
The difference? No one really expects that white evangelicals are going to support gay marriage, and it’s foolish to expect them to. Any strategy hanging on the idea that they will change their minds is based in some kind of idiocy.
But the AA community is supposed to be an ally in the fight for equal rights for marginalized minorities. They are the beneficiaries of efforts on behalf of all such groups. Yet the community clearly feels no important obligation to support similar rights for a fellow marginalized group.
We do, generally, expect a lot more out of our allies than out of our opponents.
myiq2xu, on November 17th, 2008 at 12:28 pm Said:
Imagine if you donated to a pro-choice group, and suddenly you have a bunch of Operation Rescue types picketing outside your home of business, screaming at you whenever you enter or leave.
Would you ever donate again?
NOPE!!! 😯
Oops – I meant if only a few MORE of obama’s base had voted against Prop 8, it would have passed.
jjm:
My problem isn’t with who they are targeting but with the fact that they are targeting anyone at all. The purpose is to intimidate political opponents.
I’m a liberal, and that’s not how we roll.
You have to win over hearts and minds. It’s probably much more satisfying to try and punish people who supported prop 8, but that doesn’t get the job done. There needs to be outreach in the churches, perhaps a public campaign against homophobia, so that depriving gays of their right to marry becomes as unpopular as depriving blacks of their civil rights.
But I understand all this outrage and turmoil. And Obama is entwined in it. He’s the Great Progressive Hope and even though he flat out said he doesn’t support gay marriage, some people insist he was just saying that. He didn’t really mean it, blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile it is Arnold, the Republican, who has stuck his neck out and supported gay marriage.
My personal belief is that in order to achieve gay rights in this country we have to rid ourselves of partisan steriotypes. Joe Biden once voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, it was Sarah Palin who vetoed a bill that would have banned gay benefits. It was a Republican Ca. Supreme court that upheld gay marriage and it was Dem voters that shot it down.
I don’t think economic boycotts are entirely misplaced. If an area business owner donated a major chunk of change to Yes on 8, it’s my prerogative to not patronize his business. Opponents of GLBT right have deep pockets and I won’t intentionally add to their coffers.
Businesses with a sizeable gay clientele can’t really expect to hide from their customers’ displeasure when word gets out of a donation to Yes on 8.
I think the displeasure should be scaled to the size of the support, though. A $100 donation is something different than $10,000. The latter denotes a serious commitment to suppressing gay rights.
I am tired of being the political and religious football every election.
This is more than “just an opinion”…Jim Crow Laws were passed because of “the opinion” of the people .
Discrimination in this country continues and has continued because of someone with a collar speaking from a pulpit, intimidating the masses or working on fear fro some political posturing.
The AA community joined forces with the until recently racists Mormon church. I am still waiting for a comment from the HRC regarding the Obama robocalls on Prop 8.
If |Hillary was the candidate we wouldn’t be here discussing this, but unfortunately we are. Obama has played every constituency against each other with each thinking that Obama believes in “their cause”. Obama only believes in |Obama’s cause. So I have little use for him also.
It’s the speed with which the people I thought of as “Us” have turned into “Them” that makes me dizzy.
Persecution, payback, threats — even death threats, I see on Heidi Li’s Potpourri — all that stuff that was so bad when the enemy did it.
Now we’ve met the enemy, and they are us.
JeanLouise, I think, I just accidentally deleted a comment you made. I was trying to delete something else entirely and my finger slipped.
I’m really sorry. Can you recreate the comment?
Newsflash — Who will Obama appoint as Oregon’s U.S. attorney? Well, we don’t know who he WILL appoint, but we know who he WON’T appoint: a woman. Apparently there are no qualified women lawyers in the whole state of Oregon:
http://www.politickeror.com/brittenchase/3373/who-will-be-oregon-s-next-us-attorney
Government: It’s just like my last law firm!
myiq: I agree with you.
I am horrified at harrassment being passed off as a protest. I want to be able to support any cause or candidate I want to without feeling like I will be a target for doing it. I don’t think we waive our right to privacy the moment we speak out. I’ve never thought the bill of rights was a ‘choose one, forfeit the rest’ kind of deal.
It’s okay, KB. It gives me a chance to enlarge upon it.
In response to myiq, I said that the internet has changed behavior. Clicking away is much easier for me than writing and mailing a check. If need be, I’ll take the time to use the untraceable credit cards that were so popular with Obama supporters.
I don’t want to be picketed and I will seriously consider whether any cause is worth that result. Specifically, reproductive choice is, to me. It’s not really an issue, nowadays. I was a NARAL supporter until they bowed down to Teleprompter Jesus.
I did get in someone’s face for planting Yes on 8 signs—but because he was doing it on mall property. He’s got a constitutional right to free speech, but on his property, not shopping mall property. That was rather pushy of him and he wanted a little pushback.
I’m not a progressive but as a liberal I will say I am glad that they are forcing people to be accountable for their decisions. The gay right activists have every right to be pissed and I support their position as radical as it may seem to be. The bottom line is the system is broken for them and they are doing what they think they need to do to fix it. I find it no less bullying then a 30% solution which I wholly support. Sometimes radical needs to happen.
Ugsome
if you look anything like your avatar I would not f*** with you.
Did the guy run?
I think going after the small donors is wrong and a bit scary.
However, I have no problem with protesting outside of specific churches who donated millions of dollars for a hatefull ad-campaign outside their own state.
And yes, white evangelicals voted more than 80% in favor of the ban, worse than, and in far greater numbers than black evangelicals. Although I have no problem with protests outside those churches either.
I think the protesters cross the line when they start targeting every individual who was influenced rather than just the organizations that preach the hate.
However, there is also the blue-book which publishes the donor histories and policy histories of large organizations. I have no problem with Prop 8 donors being included in this. People have a right to know if businesses they patronize are using their money for causes they don’t support. Again, I think the line is drawn when it goes from targeting an organization to targeting individuals – unless the individuals are the heads of those organizations.
I think the savage tactics adopted by the Obama campaign and the DNC this year has led to an addiction to hate, hostility, and verbally violent fauxrage. They just can’t let go of the pumped up anger, not even for a greater cause. Remember how we observed that the obots would literally rather lose with Obama than win with Clinton? This is another symptom of the same sickness. It reveals itself as the most vicious when the specter of potential Obama-criticism is in the air, but it’s on high blast all the time.
By all means, cut off your nose to spite your face. Fire up the war, so that the hardcore opponents of marriage equality never give up, never stay home on an election day, and even better, alienate all the persuadables with your ugly tactics.
I’m constantly amazed by reactions like these. I’d like to ask each and every person “Didn’t your mother ever teach you any manners?”. Except it’s not about manners but a basic understanding of human behavior.
Which would you rather have, marriage equality, or your outrage? It’s a simple choice. Choose wisely.
Ah, Valhalla. They (bloggers like TBogg et al) don’t give a rat’s ass about marriage equality. Obama’s victory is about personal validation of their worldview: Republicans evil, Democrats Good.
If The Precious is challenged in any way, it is as if they themselves are being attacked. Hence, the mouth-foaming fauxrage.
If they cared about issues, they would have supported Hillary.
Catarina–he sputtered and drove off. I am not physically imposing but I certainly was pissed. And he wasn’t expecting to be called out in front his teenage daughter at 5:45 a.m. (I was out walking the dog.)
This isn’t about whether it’s ok to boycott businesses that contributed to Prop 8’s passage. Of course that’s part of freedom of expression.
This is about publishing personal information about people accompanied by savage, enraged diatribes about how contributors should be punished and stripped of their rights.
Read myiq’s post again.
Turn the example around (as myiq did upthread). I respect Operation Rescue’s free speech rights. But I firmly believe that the buffer zone laws around clinics are both needed and in keeping with free speech; your free speech is not allowed to interfere with others’ constituional rights. How would we all be reacting to diatribes from the anti-abortion activists who advocated killing abortion providers or seekers? Even if it was ‘just words’ on a blog?
And btw, boycotts are stupid and wasteful if they are impractical. Anyone motivated to give to pass Prop 8 is not going to change their minds because of a boycott, or would change their votes in such low numbers as to be irrelevant. Boycotts need to be aimed at the people and businesses who are persuadable or influenced by economic considerations.
But rage and anonymous verbal threats are easy; persuading voters is hard. It’s a lot of hard work and can’t be done on a freakin’ keyboard. You have to get off your butt and go out into the communities and risk face to face disagreement, you have to make calls and get petitions signed by real people, you can’t sit around cowering over your keyboard in your parents’ basement.
That’s what MassEquality did here. In…what was that? the only state where gay marriage is legal and which survived an attempt to get a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the ballot. So suck up the anger and become part of the solution, boyz. Or STFU.
madamab — yes, you’re right. I’m spitting into the wind, I know.
Valhalla–I most certainly agree with you there regarding publishing person information. I just wanted to make clear that economic pressure and certain forms of political pressure are acceptable.
I am beginning to think that Obama and whoever is pulling the strings wants BC’s list of donors to use it for themselves. The Chicago Machine wants to go international.
And how has Hillary deliberately made this SOS vetting public? Wasn’t it Obama camp that started the rumours
myiq2xu,
“Torchwood:
This isn’t just the GLBT community.
This is a license for Obama supporters to go after conservatives.
Notice that they are not targeting anyone in the AA community.”
Ding, ding, ding! They are scapegoating the Mormons to keep from looking at the “inside of the tent” elephant.
Actually, I think it’s bread and circuses. It’s just another distraction, another ignore the man behind the curtain moment.
And now that they’ve (predictably) trotted out the Bill-is-the-problem cr*p again, I think the whole SoS thing was just another distraction. So we don’t notice that Obama’s filling up his staff and cabinet with pro-torture *sshats, Blue Dogs and warhawks.
Now I’m just waiting for the next perverted logic on SoS — Bill Clinton’s finances cost women ANY power positions whatsoever in Obama’s administration.
Ding, ding, ding! They are scapegoating the Mormons to keep from looking at the “inside of the tent” elephant.
————————————————
I think that’s true, but I think they are playing a very dangerous game. Once you start promoting hate, it’s very, very hard to put it back in the bottle. Cf. The French Revolution.
I’m sure that any number of members of the GLBT community have noticed that the AA community played a pivotal role in the success of Prop 8. If you start letting hatred get out of control, it will end up seeking out any natural target.
In families as in politics, the only correct solution is the same: figure out where the responsibility really lies, and find a rational and constructive way of criticizing those responsible so that you can get better results. That’s how such problems get solved, if they are going to be solved. It’s no solution to give some of those responsible a free pass, nor is it to lash out in anger, but making sure it’s only at those who happen also to make convenient scapegoats.
I see these tactics leading to futher polarization. People who may have voted for the ban lukewarmly may very well be offended by these actions. it will only result in more sterotyping, and less common understanding. Is this making the Mormon church look any worse in the eyes of the nation ?
i want to point out that yes it is true there is this move to try and intimidate. but the backlash has started. i am sure most of ya’ll remember nixon’s silent majority and obama’s bitter gun loving religeous foks. they are one in the same. now you can include the lefties who won’t get what they want and the aa’s who won’t get what they want either. as far as the gay community, well for those who voted with a sense of reality, i am sorry to see you disappointed yet again. for those obots who trashed others and now want to be treated right, i say to heck with you.
cwaltz, your rights end at the tip of my nose. don’t go past that. you infringe on my rights yelling that someone stepped on yours won’t lead to your getting rights at all. it might get you a fine or a trip to jail. i don’t care which it is, but you aren’t getting past my nose. furthermore any chances of getting someone’s supports ends with a bad attitude no matter how justified they think they ar.
also remember that obama wants to reach out to the evangelicals. that’s right there are more active voters among them than the lefties. there are active voters in the aa community who are conservative than in the left side of the spectrum. so which way would obama go? why where the most votes are. the rest can join us under the bus.
Hey,
Lists of contributors to public campaigns are “public information.”
If the supporters contributing don’t know that, then they better get an education in the U.S. Republic’s ways and laws.
Nice graphic, reminds me of the group who showed up for my husband’s funeral to scatter his ashes. He died with his parachute on, but they didn’t seem to connect any dots with that.
dum dum:
Why don’t you use your real name?
When liberals and progressives urged boycotts on companies or even universities that had investments tied to the aparteid regime in South Africa, they patted themselves on the back for “outing” these funds and encouraging the economic sanctions that freed Mandela from prison and toppled the aparteid regime. I’m not saying that was wrong, and I’m not condeming opponents of Prop 8 from outing its supporters either, as Prop 8 is equivalent to civil right aparteid.
Gee, Rob, I never patted myself on the back for any of that.
But thanks for playing!
It’s a bit ironic that a group who defines marriage as between a man and several women are tagged as the tipping point in the vote to deny gay people their rights to marry.
Remember that Obama backers established an organization that was going to research the lives of people who established and contributed to anti-Obama 527s.
As a gay man I really have little sympathy for gay CA residents who backed Obama in the primaries and in the GE. If they had paid any attention they would have known that Obama was not a friend to the gay community. They would have insisted, loudly and unequivocally during the campaign, that they wanted Obama to speak out against Prop 8. But they didn’t. He didn’t. And here we are. They made their bed, they can lie in it.
britgirls> I agree with you. I donated to Hillary and HuffPo not only lists full names and addresses of those who donated, there’s a google map to my house! Astonishing times we live in…
The Obama Campaign did nothing to help the No on 8 effort. We were seriously on our own. A few callers did add No on 8 on their own. Plus Obama sucked up all the money and volunteer energy in California. I worked events trying to get money and volunteers for No on 8; over and over heard that likely people were all tied up with Obama, had nothing to give. So, this uproar does not come from the Obama folk; it comes from the GLBT community. BTW this is the only Kerry demographic to give less support to Obama.
The donor information is from the Secretary of State’s office. By law, anyone donating to a campaign in CA must list their legal address, name of employeer and so forth. Only those giving over $200 make it onto the public list.
Gay groups have been going after donors to anti-gay efforts for over 30 years. This has been a very successful political effort. Many people give without realizing there are gay people in their life. Or that they have gay customers. Every time we have done this, we have won over people. Arguing against this is counter-factual and shows a lack of understanding of gay history. Going after the other side’s donors has always been a smart move for gay people. Always.
The Mormon Church has worked with the Roman Catholic Church on this since 1997, as recently released documents show. The Mormons required their members to donate money and time to the campaign for 8. Over 20 million can be traced to them so far.
This is a bad idea? Remember the great and powerful Anita Bryant Ministry? We took her on and won. And now we target the Mormon Church and its Magical Underwear. Mormons must marry at a Temple; when we picket they close. No marriages. So we will keep marching: if we can’t marry neither can they.
The Temple in Beverly Hills takes up about 9 acres. Do you have a notion of how much a small lot in BH is worth? Think in the hundred of millions not on the tax roles. We are all taxed more so the Mormons can have their luxurious Temples. And take our rights away.
I have to tell you, as a lesbian I am really tired of people voting on my rights. I’ve worked my ass of for decades to “convince” people that gays and lesbians really are plain old Americans, just like everybody else. I pay my taxes; I help in my community; I vote. I am an American. Why is it okay with so many, including, it sounds like, many of the commenters here, for my rights to be subject to a vote?
The LGBT community has tried, for decades, to do it the nice way, to talk and persuade. What the hell good has that done us? Only 2 states let us marry. Over 30 have amended their constitutions to explicit;y exclude us from a basic right that everyone else gets to take for granted. Enough!
Was it wrong for AAs to sit in at lunch counters in the 50s and 60s? Anybody want to criticize Rosa Parks for not moving to the back of that bus and thereby sparking the Montgomery Bus Boycott? Anybody want to sit down and explain to John Lewis how the black civil rights movement did it wrong? How, they should have just talked to folks, persuaded them that blacks weren’t scary; spoken softly about how much blacks wanted to vote. Unless you are willing to sign on to that criticism of the civil rights movement, then your complaints about the response to Prop 8 by the LGBT community is either hypocritical or bigoted or both.
This anger from gays and lesbians is not about Obama. Do you not know that it is easier to deny me my civil rights than it is to pass a tax bill? That is what this is about.
None of this is about targeting people because of their vote. This is about refusing to support businesses, churches and anyone else who spit in our faces and told us to get back in the closet.
I am so saddened by the comments here. This really is not about Obama. This is about fellow Americans who just want equal treatment.
Reflecting, I find this article completely misunderstands the whole situation. What the No on 8 protests represent is a huge rejection of Obama and the Democratic Party. The Obama campaign sucked up all the energy in the CA Dem Party. Nothing was left for us. Democrats take our votes and interests for granted. We are fed up with this treatment. We do not get support from candidates. On and on.
Additionally, the GL vote for Obama was about 90% of Kerry’s vote. And may have had a lower turnout than in 04. All of the No on 8 workers I met were very unenthusiastic about Obama. Many were angry with him for not helping us.
These are prime PUMA types the author seems content to drive away.
caseyOR> Clearly you are missing something in what the post and the majority of comments are saying. No one is saying it’s wrong to boycott businesses. This article specifically addresses targeting individuals. Just like someone can target me for donating to HRC’s campaign. And it seems like DaleA – who worked in CA on this issue and, like you, has some problems with the post – appears to think that this is about Obama and the Dem Party. Obama not only did not lift a finger to oppose Prop 8, he had Douglas Kmiec campaigning for him in CA as part of his faith initiative. The scapegoating of the Mormons, when 70% of Latinos and African-Americans voted for Prop 8 as well, is disingenuous. No doubt the Mormons’ Beverly Hills property cost a pretty penny. But Trinity United is pretty big as well, and they built Rev. Wright his own multi-million dollar villa in a gated-community.
DaleA> You might have met some Obama supporters who were against No. 8, but did they make much noise about Obama’s refusal to help? I didn’t hear any. I suspect they were just quietly hoping things would work out and didn’t want to in any way get in Obama’s way. Just like that woman in the youtube video: If we take care of Obama now, I won’t have to worry about my mortgage later! She’s in for a big surprise, just like the gay community appears to have been. And the fact is, the gay community in CA should not have been surprised. The NYTimes wrote an article weeks before the election predicting that Prop 8 would pass with huge support from Obama backers. If the people you worked with were paying attention they don’t appear to have made enough noise to rattle Obama cages. Either because they just wanted to have him elected at any cost (the cost is Prop 8) or there weren’t enough of you.
Okay, myiq2xu did say he thinks it’s wrong to boycott business. And there I disagree. Business and groups and churches are fair game.
i have no problem with civil disobedience. i have a problem with somone personally harrassing me because of my vote or who i support. i say cut off the businesses you don’t want to support. call in and talk about it. demonstrate all you want. introduce the legislation you want. but stay out of my face on the sidewalk. don’t call me and be rude. i furthermore have little sympathy with the mindset of trying to push others around because you were. the right wing pushed too far and look what happened. martin luther king wanted non violent demonstrations. he never started the violence. others did. so there is no excuse for stepping over the line with “they did it” or we have the right. you don’t have the right to get past your neighbor’s nose. and who for and why they vote is not your business either. just as your vote isn’t theirs.
Those in the LGBT community who thought that BO was going to “change” things for them or for LGBT rights obviously never paid attention to that he specifically said that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. How anyone interprets what BO said to think that BO is for LGBT rights is beyond my comprehension. It’s like deciphering a “no” to mean a “yes.” BO never showed that he was for anyone but for BO. Just as you were pretty much on your own under GWB, you’re back to being very much on your own under BO.
dyb101 my point is that the protests over 8 are coming from a group that is truly furious with Obama and the Dem Party leadership. Not from an enthusiastic Obama cult group. If you want to make headway for PUMA, it would behoove you to join in on this. Instead of disrespecting us.