Don't Mess With Aravosis

You just don't want to be on the wrong side of John when he's on a mission:

Guess who's coming to dinner?

Pam Spaulding has published an email detailing just who's coming to the DNC's $1,000 (and up) a head gay fundraising dinner at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Washington, DC with VP Biden next week. I suspect those folks are going to be under a lot of pressure to pull out (Andy Towle and David Mixner have already said they're not attending). Pam is asking folks to contact our gay elected leadership in Congress, Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis, and ask them why they're still hosting this event. The email includes the following, in bold:

   "Did I mention that the Mandarin Oriental has a 10,400-square-foot spa?"

Did I mention that the attendees are going to need a 10,400 sq ft spa and a plane ticket out of the country after our community gets a hold of them.

John's asking folks to call Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, and Jarid Polis to encourage them to drop-out of the Biden fundraiser. Go help.

Tags: Barack Obama, doma (all tags)

Comments

21 Comments

Re: Don't Mess With Aravosis

Just a thought: wouldn't showing up and actually confronting Biden publicly be useful too?

by mikeinsf 2009-06-16 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't Mess With Aravosis

He will nod and agree with you as he pats his wallet filled with your money (the money you spent getting in to see him).

Then he'll head back to DC and keep silent on the issue as does his boss.

Paying to get in to see him won't work.

Not donating and not giving your votes is the only language they understand.

by cuppajoe 2009-06-16 12:35PM | 0 recs
a misunderestimation

Prop 8 has radicalized the queer community in the U.S..  If having rights preemptively prevented is bad, having rights taken away at the ballot box is terrible, and a huge wake-up call.

I think Obama and his team are just starting to realize how much the equality movement is snowballing, and they'd better catch up quick with some action.  

by chiefscribe 2009-06-16 10:03AM | 0 recs
I won't participate

Obama has only been in office for 4 months.  If he hasn't done anything for gay rights during the 4 years in office than he doesn't deserve another 4 years but I am in the wait and see mode.

by puma 2009-06-16 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I won't participate

How long do we wait and see? How long are we supposed to wait for rights?

Wait and see is for people who are first class citizens. Those of us who are second class citizens are tired of being told to wait and see. Enough excuses.

As a gay man who has been in the movement for quite a long time, wait and see is not the way I feel or will ever feel. We didn't wait and see when things were wrong -- we pushed head on and made a difference.

Ask the people who had been fed up with waiting and seeing when they were at the Stonewall forty years ago -- they will tell you that "wait and see" got them nowhere.

Four months is enough for him to have at least made some statements to back up some of the promises he made during two years of campaigning. It's all "just words" and that is becoming abundantly clear.

His failures on gay/lesbian issues are mounting up.

Time for action, not wait and see.

by cuppajoe 2009-06-16 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I won't participate

You are right. The point now is to put pressure on Obama to get what we can.

by bruh3 2009-06-16 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: put pressure

You are once more lying.

by bruh3 2009-06-16 12:52PM | 0 recs
pwned

if all bruh can say is "you are lying" it means he's out of arguments.

Congrats!

by DTOzone 2009-06-16 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: pwned

That may be so, but personally I cannot remember many examples of bruh calling the President nasty names.

by Steve M 2009-06-16 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: pwned

It means what it says.  You are both bad faith actors.

by bruh3 2009-06-16 01:28PM | 0 recs
by DTOzone 2009-06-16 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting that in all the outrage

What's your point?

We know that public opinion has changed favorably on DADT -- and yet, Obama and the Congress still won't act. And others keep saying wait, wait. Still others say there is such a culture of Christianity in the military that DADT will never get repealed (sure enough, it won't without leadership which is willing to actually LEAD on the issue).

And the article you point to speaks of Gates allowing gays/lesbians into the CIA. This is good, but 20 year old news. What's that got to do with the current failure to act?

What's your point relative to the discussion of the furor over Obama's non-action on DADT and offensive action on the DOMA issue, and silence on a number of other GLBT issues?

The article mentions in a whisper that the Obama administration is moving "however slowly" to abolish DADT. I challenge anyone to come up with real information and data on that. The article claims it without proof.

by cuppajoe 2009-06-16 05:12PM | 0 recs
Why is it relative?

Because all this talk about Obama being a homophobic coward who secretly hates gay people isn't true...here's a rationale way.

You want someone to lead...why can't you lead, why can't we lead? What are we sheep? We need to be led?

Instead of shitting on the only person who can possibly help you, HELP HIM help you.

by DTOzone 2009-06-16 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is it relative?

If I remember correctly, he was elected to lead. Not us. We voted for him because he promised to lead on these issues. He isn't doing that.

No one is "shitting" on anyone. No one was using all that hyperbolic language.

We aren't sheep but we do have a system in which a person is elected to lead. We shouldn't have to do what we are paying those elected officials to do.

And by expressing our feelings, by expressing outrage, and by trying to get someone to do the things he promised he'd do, I think that we're doing what you're saying we should do. Or, are you asking that we do it quietly, behind closed doors, politely, and on our knees?

by cuppajoe 2009-06-16 06:21PM | 0 recs
What?

We shouldn't have to do what we are paying those elected officials to do.

That's a cop out...we are a democracy, which comes from the Greek demos kratos or people strength

In a democracy, what the people say goes, or should go...the people don't rank your rights as important...what are you going to do about it? Sit back, complain on a blog and bitch that the leader of the people isn't doing it by himself.

We didn't elect a person to do all the fighting for us...we don't have leaders in a democracy, WE are the leaders in a democracy.

by DTOzone 2009-06-16 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: What?

Since you don't know me, you wouldn't know that I've been on the front lines fighting for gay rights for a long time (maybe even longer than you've been on the planet). So I'm not copping out when I say we shouldn't be doing the work of people we elected.

We didn't elect them to do all the work but we sure as hell elected them to fight WITH us and lead others along with us. Otherwise why do we bother to elect leaders who believe in the things we believe in? So that they can sit and look pretty or so that they can actually DO something?

I also teach political science and sociology so I'm well aware that this is a democracy and that we the people need to do some work.

That said, however, we elect leaders to lead. They need to be opinion changers, too. If they believe in what they say they believe in, then they need to help pull the population along with them and help us in our struggles. Truman did it, LBJ did it, and so did many others.

The American people are more and more in favor of gay/lesbian rights (even the article you pointed us to says that). And we fought for every percentage point of approval and acceptance.

No, I don't spend all my time on blogs etc. I happen to do a lot of work from home and it's easy to participate on these sites now and then.

But I'm also working actively outside of the Internet and with groups who are making changes every day. But we can use some help from those we elected to help us.

So don't presume to judge me. You have no basis to do that and your silly words don't intimidate. They hardly even amuse me.

by cuppajoe 2009-06-16 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting that in all the outrage

He doesn't have a point other than to defend Obama. You are wasting your time.

by bruh3 2009-06-16 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't Mess With Aravosis

THe Human Rights Campaign has pulled out fo the fund raiser so it seems that while some here can not get the reasons why people are angry, they do.

by bruh3 2009-06-16 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't Mess With Aravosis

I stopped reading Aravosis during the primary battle hen he came after Hillary Clinton with the enthusiasm of a rabid dog.  Now that nothing has changed so far for gay rights he seems to be taking aim at Biden, not so much the man in charge, Barack Obama.  I am a gay guy, a Democrat and I supported BO in the general.  If Aravosis is willing to put his money where his mouth was, specifically shouting why an Obama administration would serve the needs of our community so much better than HRC, then I am willing to listen.  But that will necessitate taking on the big guy, not just his minions.

by CMM 2009-06-16 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't Mess With Aravosis

Aravosis has been really hysterical about this for a long time, but until the DOMA brief, it was never deserved.

It is now.

by MNPundit 2009-06-16 03:31PM | 0 recs
Aravosis

I've never been a fan. In fact, he's rather self-serving.

Show Obama you mean business, donate to AMERICAblog.

John Aravosis has never spoken for this gay lad.

by Charles Lemos 2009-06-16 09:28PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads