CommunityPam's House Blend

The gAyTM debate – the Obama Admin and Congress make the choice obvious

We’re keeping the gAyTM CLOSED.

My two cents…

Number one – thank you Blenders (and lurkers) for the large number of comments and dialog about the gAyTM and whether it should be opened for the DNC.  It’s good to see the passion about this issue, along with well-reasoned arguments to keep it shut.

After reading all of those comments, I went back into the PHB archives and retrieved just few of the images that have run on the Blend over the last year and put them in the post. The reality-based conclusion in the coffeehouse is that we’ve had it with the hopey-changey head fakes and fear-based approaches to extracting cash out of the gAyTM. It’s over.

As Lurleen said about Joe Mirabella’s diary, I’m glad Joe responded to my request to post his plea to leave the gAyTM open as midterms approach — the unanimity of disagreement by many non-regular commenters indicates a real problem for the Democrats. I’ve not seen responses at this level of passion and intent of purpose since the 2008 election.

We’re keeping the gAyTM CLOSED, only donating to pols and organizations that are pro-equality and have been effective in advocacy. I see nothing wrong with this.

I am not, however, an advocate of sitting out the midterms. If you have pro-equality candidates on the ballot, they deserve and need your vote. For instance, I need Elaine Marshall to beat Richard Burr. We need that vote in the Senate.

And because we held those liveblogs, we know right off of the bat that she’s good on all of our issues, and will be an advocate. And she wasn’t the choice of the DSCC; she was the choice of the people. I think that is also a bad sign for the establishment; a lot of people are tired of the kind of leadership we’re seeing from all of the consultants and vipers inside the Beltway. The only leverage we have is to turn off the spigot.


If you wind the clock back a bit, to last year around this time, the DNC was holding its annual Big Gay Fundraiser, a posh $1,000 a head event at the Mandarin Oriental hotel that turned into a publicity nightmare for them as there was a blog-driven campaign to tell invitees not to attend or donate. Afterwards, there was scrambling to ensure that it was known the event brought in $1 million (the figure was questioned at the time), in order to portray the boycott, which included a protest by SLDN at the event, as ineffective.

But the defensive posturing inside the Beltway about the call to keep the financial spigot closed is curious. As most of you know, the LGBT big donors are movers and shakers who hold high-dollar fundraisers and are responsible for bundling big buxx to deliver to the DNC and related arms of the party. This fact was used in arguments against the boycott’s effectiveness because we were targeting average LGBTs out there who are in large part small-dollar donors, and thus we have limited influence.

Then why do we see hand-wringing now about closing this gAyTM?

If it’s all about the big donors and bundlers, there’s no reason to make a plea to the small fry trying to keep a roof over their heads.

One bit of obvious evidence that your resistance to tired pleas for cash is that the DNC is on the defense – to my knowledge there was no big DNC fundraiser coinciding with Pride. If they were confident about the President’s and Congress’s record on concrete, permanent LGBT progress this year, surely it would have been held. Will it be held later? And who will attend?

And it would have generated a sh*tstorm of criticism and action from the blogosphere and reality-based LGBTs who are tired of being played. We’re tired of being told by Beltway advocates (who are in a political bubble) that to disagree with this White House’s LGBT “strategy” (if you can call it that) is “politically unsophisticated,” impatient or that it’s merely tantrum throwing.

Say whatever you wish about our position. The GAyTM is still closed.  

Previous post

Spooky Timing

Next post

Jagadeesh Gokhale: Social Security Advisory Board Member for Privatization (Plus: Does Astrue Want SS Chief Actuary Fired?)

Pam Spaulding

Pam Spaulding