Let's just say that a little leaked email proves LGBTs are seen as the easy gAyTM to the DNC that can be manipulated, ignored, and pickpocketed as mob rule strips us of civil rights without a finger being lifted to help at the eleventh hour. It's worse -- stripping resources at the time of need. I won't chronicle what John and Adam have detailed quite well, but if you had any reservations about the intentions versus the reality of how games are played with our community, this should clear it up.
I spoke with another DNC official today after my piece on the OFA's fuckups/refusals to help, and that official told me "Some Mainers inadvertently got the email, but it was not sent to our Maine list." I was also told that this was a "glitch", and the quote above confirms that. Okay, one might think, a glitch is your system has a few people with the wrong zip codes in them, so they get a blast meant for someone else. Whoops. Fine. That's not actually what happened. What happened, per Tobias' e-mail, is the DNC did a large e-mail blast on this, and wanted to make sure Mainers didn't get that e-mail, for fear that the gays might find out and ask, how come we didn't get this kind of help?
It's kind of like being forwarded a party invite the host doesn't want you to come to, and when you show up, everyone gets silent and it's a-w-k-w-a-r-d. The party, in this case, was electoral help, and OFA wanted to make sure people didn't find out it was being grossly insensitive by not extending an invitation to the gays in Maine. Awesome.
I don't know about you, but at the very least, it's a peek at the kind the two-timing that goes on in national politics with constituencies they find "troublesome" or a perceived "liability" (save the $$$, of course). The difference is that the peek inside makes you realize how easily you've been had. In the case of LGBTs, it's a screw job over and over. They don't mind lying flat out, but catching them with their pants down usually hits a raw nerve.
[T]he DNC has concerns about getting involved in local ballot initiatives? Why? They did it last year under Howard Dean, when they donated $25,000 to the coalition fighting Prop 8's repeal of gay marriage. President Jimmy Carter did it in 1978, when he came out against the Briggs Initiative, that would have banned gays and lesbians from being teachers in California. But regardless, why does the DNC (and the White House) have a problem getting involved when a core Democratic constituencyuency is having its civil rights taken away by the far-right base of the Republican party? We were promised that this administration would be our fierce advocate. Now all we get are excuses.
Shut the gAyTM down; only give directly to candidates and organizations you believe are truly working in your best interest. Not a penny to the DNC; it's the only leverage you have as an average citizen. The big donors in our community have to take a stand on this kind of nonsense, otherwise, they are enabling this kind of treatment of our community. It's party-building at our expense each and every time, as we watch windows of opportunity close. The thought of a halt to the cash flow will stop this BS pronto, if only to make them listen for a goddamn minute before stepping on the gas to run over us again.
Related:* 2010 panic: kiss our issues goodbye now...
This is why the NC GOP is dying the death of 1000 cuts. They are way out there in wingnut land and the laughingstock of NC politics. That it is now led by Tom "I am not gay" Fetzer only adds to the fun. (Under the Dome):The N.C. Republican Party is bringing in Doug Hoffman, the defeated conservative New York congressional candidate who helped spark a national debate about the party's future, to speak at a political fund raiser in Raleigh later this month.Hoffman is the guy who was drop kicked after Dede Scozzafava was smeared as too moderate for th for the GOP by such leaders as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. I honestly don't think inviting Hoffman can help the NC GOP move any more to the right than it already is. They are hanging from the fringe.State GOP Chairman Tom Fetzer said that Hoffman would be a good fit for Tar Heel Republicans, Rob Christensen reports.
"His candidacy in New York inspired conservatives across the country, and he will reach out to North Carolina conservatives to help us reclaim our government," Fetzer said in a statement.
Much is being made of the geographic clustering of counties where the majority of voters have approved R-71 (right, in green). Vote results are dismissed by some folk with a "well of course Puget Sound counties...". It is true that election results do rather neatly support the stereotype of Washington's east-west divide. But putting the R-71 results in historical context reveals a deeper story: almost every Washington county shows an increase in pro-equality voting.
The last time Washington voters had the opportunity to ratify a pro-equality law at the polls was in 1997. Initiative to the People 677 proposed an employment non-discrimination law. The ballot title read Shall discrimination based on sexual orientation be prohibited in employment, employment agency, and union membership practices, without requiring employee partner benefits or preferential treatment?.
The measure was rejected 59.7% to 40.3%. Contrary to the current image of the Puget Sound area of Washington as progressive, not one single county - not even Seattle's home of King County - voted to approve I-677. Contrast that with the current election where the electorate as a whole approved R-71 and majorities in 10 of Washington's 39 counties have approved R-71. But the truly stunning statistic is that the rate of ballot measure approval increased between 1997 and 2009 in all but one county.
Another mark of progress is the fact that voters in 21 counties approved R-71 by over 40%. Forty percent was the average statewide approval rate for I-677 in 1997. Those 21 counties are: Clallam, Clark, Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Kittitas, Klickitat, Mason, Pacific, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Skamania, Snohomish, Thurston, W Wahkiakum, Whatcom, Whitman.
As you consider the graph, realize that in contrast to R-71, I-677 was rather narrow in scope. It dealt only with the employment discrimination of individuals. Voting yes on I-677 didn't ask voters to contemplate the meaning of family; didn't ask voters to recognize the existence of gay and lesbian parents; didn't ask voters to find the fiction in school-focused scare tactics. In other words, not only have Washington voters moved towards equality in virtually every county, they've shown by their R-71 vote that they're open to supporting equality much more comprehensively in the law. This is big.
No comments:
Post a Comment