DNC Annual Grassroots Report Omits Any Reference to GLBT Americans

[Brian_Expat]

http://outfordemocracy.org/arch/000429.html

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) released their Annual Grassroots Report today to the public. The document does not mention any outreach to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) community. In fact, in stark contrast to previous DNC reports on grassroots outreach, the document fails to even mention GLBT Americans by name.


Compare this to Terry McAuliffe's work as Chair of the DNC:

"Under the leadership of Chairman McAuliffe, the DNC in partnership with the Kerry campaign, embarked upon the most comprehensive GLBT pride outreach program in the history of a national political party and presidential campaign. During this election year, the DNC manned tables and marched in more than 75 gay pride events in 22 states, taking the DNC's message of equality and fairness to more than four million GLBT and allied voters. This year's DNC Convention was a historic one for the GLBT community, with a record number of GLBT delegates, standing committee members, DNC members, and staff."

Another gay snub from the DNC in the past 2 months.

[sui generis]

1. sounds like Sherrod Brown's priorities too

and apparently Dean's.

Fine. If you want our vote, earn it. It's not free this time.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Careful there

Offical cant is that if you are not one hundred and ten percent behind the Democratic Leadership, you are with the Republicans.

[Brian_Expat]

3. You want Bush to win!

Trust us, we know what we're doing. Look at our rousing victories in 2000, 2002, 2004, and the inevitable building on those landslide victories we're building in 2006!

[sui generis]

5. bwa ha ha ha

as if I care what any puny girlie man librool thinks

:hide:

Yeah, unfortunately there is a cultural fault line among progressives. There are the "authoritarian" progressives who use a lot of phrases like "should be allowed" and "should ban", oddly, and there are anti-authoritarian progressives, like me, whose skin crawls when our democratic leadership tells us who we need to vote for, almost as if they thought they could take my vote for granted.

Not this time Great Democratic Leaders. Pull your heads out of your asses and represent your multi-cultural multi-ethnic and multitudinous base, not the potential republican converts.

[guruoo]

28. Which Democratic leadership?

DNC, DLC, or DCCC?
Gets hard to tell sometimes.

[Brian_Expat]

29. There is leadership in the Democratic party?

That's funny, all I see are people explaining how George W. Bush is bad because he wants to do 100% what they want to do 89.67%. ;)

[foreigncorrespondent]

33. Why should we get...

...110% behind a party that is just ike the fucking repukes? Haven't you heard we don't have to turn out and vote period! If those fuckers aren't wiling to work for us, then quite frankly we won't be voting for them.

For crying out loud I am fucking tired of being told if we don't follow these fucking idiots no matter what then we are with the republicans. That is fucking bullshit and doesn't wash with this lesbian.

[TechBear_Seattle]

38. My point exactly; thus, the satire n/t

[foreigncorrespondent]

39. Please...

...next time say "satire" somewhere in your post.

But I am big enough to say I am sorry. I didn't realize it was satire.

[TechBear_Seattle]

46. Not to worry

I find it kind of sad, though, that something that should have been obvious satire gets mistaken for a genuine attitude. :scared:

[dsc]

12. Please point out where Brown has a bad record on our issues

I lived in the adjoining district to his for several years and recall quite the opposite.

[sui generis]

24. voting no on a constitutional amendment

is not the same thing as being FOR civil marriage for all Americans.

Please point out where equality and civil rights for GLBT is on Brown's issues list.

Please point out one direct quote attributable to Brown where he says he thinks gays should have equal rights under the law or where he supports civil unions or civil marriage.

They're awfully hard to find -

[dsc]

32. No it isn't

and I will admit he likely isn't for that. But I have personally heard him speak on gay rights.

[sui generis]

41. well Hackett was for that

and quite openly and unabashedly, no ambiguity in the message. That's what WE need for us, to protect our families.

The bigger issue in the democratic party right now is this quiet move to make us "disappear" in time for the elections so that we aren't a political liability for them. But if they can't downplay us right out in the open to people who think we're a liability, we are never going to be equal.

I personally don't care. I have resources, dual citizenship, and a rapidly fading sense of duty to America. I can always hire the lawyers I need to take care of myself and family, or move us somewhere that we do have full equality, so when I'm fighting for it, it's for people who don't have those resources, options, or choices, for people who really ARE impacted by petty laws, and who really are impacted by being "downplayed" in the platform.

We are always defending our positions as a party, so we don't want to have to defend equal rights for immoral gays. Well that's the wrong approach. We have to go on the attack. We have to say "if you think that some Americans don't deserve happiness and the same life opportunities as other Americans just because of what you THINK they do or don't do in the bedroom, you are an immoral bigot, and you are unAmerican."

That's what Hackett did. That's not what Brown will do. Hackett was going to drag them kicking and screaming into some semblance of common sense, while Brown will just pull that southern belle crap of "if you knew me well enough you wouldn't have to ask". I have no patience left for mincing words, or for relying on the kindness of strangers. We need strength, and an offense rather than just an entrenched defense.

[papau]

4. Dean said there'd be no specific mention - of any group.

They reorg'ed

The specific group outreach programs are now one out-reach program.

[sui generis]

6. it's a bad strategy

so again, we have an administrator of this program calling the shots without any special input on specific needs and organizing the global outreach effort in a vacuum.

Bad strategy - I like Dean but this was not smart.

[Brian_Expat]

9. It's also not true

The only group NOT mentioned in the "grassroots report" was gay people.

Now I'm not a politically correct sort demanding "the proper terms" be used. But to pretend that not mentioning gays in a document about grassroots campaigning is an effort to "broaden focus" in a document which discusses blacks, and poor people, and hispanics, etc. is just foolish.

[papau]

18. That I did not know - I took Dean at his word - Does the report reflect

any "consolidating" of outreach? I find it hard to believe that the words gay, or sexual orientation,are not in the document - but I have not got an electronic version I can search and am in the dark beyond knowing what Dean said.

Given your report, I totally agree that the "grassroots report" is very poorly done.

[Brian_Expat]

20. The document is linked in the article at the top of the thread

You can read it for yourself -- it mentions various other groups but nothing about gays at all.

[papau]

21. thanks , But the URL does not get you to a report - I suspect it's pulled

I am told that the report doesn't list any specific group but rather lists core values, and individuals from many groups that exhibit those values.

Last years McAuliffe quote part of the report is here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/parties/dnc05facts.html

The jury may be still out on whether there has been a slight, or whether somebody is just trying to stir up trouble...

[Brian_Expat]

7. Also not true

The document mentioned blacks, women and other constituencies -- it was only silent about gays.

Some other quotes from that gay Democrat's blog:

I'm totally not surprised. I was at a house meeting last month in SF at which Dean appeared to see whether there was *any* reason to give him a chance and the Dems as a party, by extension. To my utter amazement, Dean, in this 99.9% GLBT-attended gathering, answered a lesbian who said she was ready "to walk" if the party didn't start sticking up for gay marriage and equal rights, that we needed to give the party "a break" in the upcoming elections in '06 and '08 by "not demanding that the candidates take public positions on our issues". Then Dean said that "if any Dem candidate took antigay positions" he, personally, "would kick their butt in private",

. . . snip. . .

We progressives have been "chumped" long enough by this kind of defeatist thinking. We are expected to vote for Dems because their hearts are in the right place? ...because they tell us "off the record" that they support our issues? We should stand by while they vote AGAINST our interests (not because THEY hate us, but because everybody else hates us, and the Dems want to be on the winning side). When the Dems had the White House under Clinton and both houses of Congress, what did they do for us? They gave us Don't Ask...Don't Tell, followed by the Defense of Marriage Act. They couldn't even pass an Employment Non-Discrimination Act. ...and why should they, when they know our votes can be had cheap?

If this is "a new approach to supporting gays," I'd hate to see a decision to, oh, abandon us.

[dsc]

10. It did not mention blacks

I just got done reading the report, which was linked at your link. It mentioned Asians, women and Latinos in passing but not blacks or gays. Nor Jews for that matter.

[Brian_Expat]

13. It does mention blacks

Quote:

We also elected mayors in West Virginia and Alabama, including the first African-American mayor of Mobile

[dsc]

16. I will admit that I missed that reference the first time

but that isn't mentioning blacks but a black which is a big difference.

[papau]

19. I agree - I get my GLBT news via friends who are gay - but most in

general are not political - and will not be up to speed on this for a few weeks.

I know they will be upset once they know what has happened.

[dsc]

8. It also doesn't mention african americans by name

and barely mentions women, latinos, and asians. This isn't a gay snub, it is a change in the way all minority communties are addressed. I happen to be skepitcal but willing to wait and see.

[Brian_Expat]

11. Not true

It mentions most minority ethnic communities.

It excludes gays -- despite the fact that the Republicans are gearing up an anti-gay campaign starting in the Senate.

I'm beginning to wonder what use this party has.

[dsc]

15. It mentions one black who won a race for mayor

it doesn't mention blacks as a minority group.

[Brian_Expat]

17. Curious they didn't mention any of the gay Democrat mayors who won, eh?

They're clearly taking pains to isolate/abandon us.

[dsc]

31. what gay mayors would those have been?

I don't know of any city which elected its first gay mayor last year.

[zanne]

14. OK--now I'm convinced.

A few days ago, I responded to a post made here about Dean backing away from support of GLBT issues. I thought, since Howard Dean is, after all, Howard Dean, it was much ado about nothing. It seems clear to me now, however, that the Dems are trying to distance themselves from the GLBT community in the coming campaign season. It sounds like they're afraid of the big bad wolf and will let the Republican party frame the debate.

[sui generis]

25. that's all right - because this time we may distance ourselves

from the democrats until they earn our vote.

Will most likely do so. Voting for a "good" bigot isn't much better than voting for a "bad" bigot - which takes us right back to voting for the candidate that supports your issues.

If our issues are the ability to keep our jobs, get a mortgage, have health insurance, protect our families, and protect our property, homes, loved ones, and spousal rights, and nobody on either side is batting for us, why SHOULD we vote? It's a slap in the face to be expected to vote for you when you don't vote for us.

If this is just "downplaying" equal rights issues because you think it will make the dems lose, then why should we believe you won't downplay them to stay in office?

[Brian_Expat]

26. Don't drop out. . .

. . . vote third party -- Green or Libertarian.

Watch the Democrats' jaws drop when third party candidates arise with a strong grass roots network, decent funding and a sizable turnout that more than covers their margin of loss to the GOP. Or, better yet, sends a Democrat and Republican home and sends a Green or Libertarian into office.

[sui generis]

27. of course will vote for someone

but just don't take our vote for granted.

I'd rather vote for a democrat, but the magic, vision and message has got to be there or I'm not wasting it on more of what we already have.

If you want something better or different you have to do something better or different.

[rogue emissary]

22. others omitted

No mention of Jesus
Wiccans
Christians
Catholics
Muslims
Atheist
Pagans
Hindus
Buddhist

In fact there no mention of religion in the document, has Dean turned his back on religion?

No mention of gun owners
No mention Unions
No mention of middle class
any other that I missed?

[Brian_Expat]

23. Nice spin attempt

But we go from a serious mention in the last report to total deletion in this platform -- at a time when the opposition party is planning to run an anti-gay campaign kicked off with a constitutional amendment vote in the Senate?

How many anti-Wiccan or anti-Catholic or anti-union constitutional amendments are the Republicans proposing?

Open your eyes.

Be real.

[donco6]

30. Exactly.

"How many anti-Wiccan or anti-Catholic or anti-union constitutional amendments are the Republicans proposing?"

[rogue emissary]

35. Who's eyes aren't open again?

This administration has ruled the Wiccan religion doesn't warrant funds from the Faith Based initiative. They have aggressively gone after unions and union organizers. How about the Catholic worker union that was under investigation by f-ing pentagon for their protest. Just like the pro-gay college student found out they were being watched just for protesting Don't ask Don't tell.

I only added Christians and Catholics to be accurate. Funny thing is I don't like the dissolving of the out reach chair. I will say I'm open to the idea of a coordinator that would work to bring the DNC's communities together than just treat each group as special interest. I also don't want the DNC to send people out to tell other what to do, but that's my own assumption on what an outreach chair does.

Now hears something to think about. How long has the DNC had the position and what has the LGBT community received in accomplishments by having it?

[Brian_Expat]

44. Where's the constitutional amendment banning unions or Wicca?

It ain't the same, and you know it.

[rogue emissary]

45. Your right there different,

but it's nice to see when they destroy unions it won't be a big deal to you. The Marriage Amendment is devastating for this country and they won't stop there. A lot of groups the Democrats represent won't be sitting pretty the next three years.

[closeupready]

47. Oh, please! Give me a break.

Here's the old "you HAVE to vote Dem; you NEED to vote Dem, because otherwise, Republicans are going to be even worse!" argument. Tired.

[rogue emissary]

48. Thanks for so aptly proving my point.

:)

[foreigncorrespondent]

34. Uh-huh!

And since when have the repukes proposed a bill to write discrimination into the constitution against any religion or gun owners or middle class, etc?

Get real, mate.

[rogue emissary]

36. re:Uh-huh!

You think their going to stop with Gays once they write hate into the constitution?

The Atheist, Wiccan and Pagan will most certainly be next. pro-choice women are seeing their rights taken away as a number state have introduced legislation to make abortion illegal since Alito's conformation to the bench. From my memory the plan didn't mention abortion or fighting for the pro-choice community. Only a vague out reach to women sentence.

Again you only focus on the groups that you know both parties go love ex Christians, gun owners. Yet the DNC never had an Atheist out reach and the President to my knowledge has never said gays should be and couldn't be president of the US. Something he and his father have expressed about Atheist.

[foreigncorrespondent]

37. Uh-huh!

So shouldn't we be stopping their discrimination against each group as they do it? The DEM'S are beginning with the LGBTIQQ community, do WE have your guarantee and support that you will stop at nothing to stop them in their tracks?

You see that is the problem with a lot of people. They tell us not to be one issue voters, the only problem is, it is the Dem's making us one issue voters by NOT standing up for us. And it certainly doesn't help when you have DUers saying "the time is not now," "just wait a little longer," "this is a wedge issue," "the gay community is responsible for Bush*s win in 2000," etc. Well you see someones life should never be considered a wedge issue yet queers see it happen a lot right here. Do we get those peoples support too? I highly doubt it, so why should we once again put ourselves on the back burner for a party that is continuously showing us we are not good enough for a seat at the main table?

[rogue emissary]

40. re:Uh-huh!

I never suggested that Democrats should back away from supporting the Gay community. Just pointing out that the plan didn't include a lot of groups and issues important to a majority of Democrats. To answer your questions, Yes the Democrats should fight discrimination against Gays. Well I won't and don't believe in violence. So I can't say I'd stop at nothing in fighting them.

This is going to sound flippant, but their wrong. DU is a living example that every Democrat isn't right on every issue.

Now I have a question for you. I've been reading posts in this forum since it started and with the '06 election underway. there's been little mention of pro gay Democrats and getting out support for them. An example being Kweisi Mfume. He's been against the Marriage Amendment, and last week he announced that he fully supports Gay marriage.
http://www.washblade.com/2006/1-27/news/localnews/mary.cfm

He's not a shoe in and hasn't raised a lot of cash, but he has a chance to win a crowed (4-5 person) primary. Yet there's little discussion on his candidacy and his support for Gay marriage, why is that? Also,I don't won't to make this out as if he's your only choice in the MD race. As Cardin, Mfume main opponent is pretty progressive as well.
It's just that I'd rather focus on those who are right on the issue and forceful in there support for the causes I support.

[foreigncorrespondent]

43. And you usually...

...don't hear of support for candidates until the HRC releases their statement.

But you find that those who are pro gay rights will end up with a good following by the gay community, so long as their voting record proves it.

And your whole thing about pointing out that the plan didn't point out a lot of groups, I am pointing out to you that those groups are NOT currently under attack. Also those groups didn't have their grassroots outreach program shut down all the while keeping the one section that lobbies for donations from said group. Yet this is exactly what has happened to the LGBTIQQ community. The message that sends is that our votes and money is good enough, but our issues won't be dealt with.

[Wind Dancer]

42. They are afraid of the religious right .

The Dems need a leader that is willing to embrace the GLBT community as a civil rights issue. I've decided that my money, time and support will only be given to candidates that endorse policies giving EVERYBODY equal rights.

We are living in the 21st century yet a few religious fundamentalists control policy and the airways.

I'm so disgusted with the spineless Dems for their silence on this matter. :mad:



:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: