Comments on: I’ve Changed My Mind

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:12:13 +0000

Yeek, I haven’t gotten an invite and don’t expect one. I understand though that those invited are allowed to bring a guest. So if by some miracle I should be invited, I’ll be happy to bring you along.

By: Yeek

Yeek — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:13:11 +0000

It seems we’ve come down to the usual plea we so often hear from the wounded hopeful: ‘He just doesn’t understand. Once he meets us, *really* meets us, once he sees the human faces behind this injustice, the scales will fall from his eyes and he’ll realize the right thing to do. He’ll change.’

I’m paraphrasing, of course. But I think it’s ridiculous to think that the president hasn’t met gay people, hasn’t heard heart-wrenching tales of injustice endured by loving couples, loyal soldiers, etc. etc. He’s been hearing this stuff ever since his candidacy started, and it’s been going on at every strategy meeting since. Given what he has seen, he will not change because he meets a few more veterans face to face (as if the Secret Service will allow that).

I’m just amazed at how credulous people are at believing that this event will be full of one-on-one conversations and hand-shaking and emotional breakthroughs. It won’t. He’ll come in, surrounded by Secret Service. He’ll shake hands with two or three pre-selected individuals. He will give a brief speech about how he wants to do things better. And then he’ll leave.

And all the guests who want to believe they haven’t just been had will tell us that this was real, meaningful access, because, you know, he looked so sincere and really listened.

Hope your publicized change of heart got you that invite, Jim.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:25:48 +0000

Jim,

Just bear in mind that this is the typical Washington M.O. Groups like HRC like cocktail parties because it proves they have access and can provide it to big donors. Best of all, they don’t have to talk policy at these things–that would be impolite.

They get to smile, glad-hand, and have their photos taken with important people. They then post these on-line and in their publications so that those with money can say to themselves–ooh look how important I am–there’s a picture of me shaking hands with the Deputy Assistant Assistant Deputy Secretary of Transportation–the gay guy (or convincing non-attendees to pony up the next time).

Even though this isn’t HRC-planned, it’s still that same inside-the-beltway philosophy that has left us treading water for many years. Unfortunately, it is the same game played all over Washington across the political spectrum and is why a swamp drained remains a swamp.

And I used to be such an idealist…

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:50:16 +0000

Jason D,
The question is, will people really get to speak to the President, or will he waltz in, give a speech and be gone.

The new Obama theme song:
Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don’t-
I’ve come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
cut a little swathe and lead the people on.

By: Jason D

Jason D — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:03:49 +0000

Rick,
by the same logic, you can’t be heard if you don’t show up.

What was that Act Up Slogan from the 80′s? Oh yes, “silence = death”

We have no right to complain when given the opportunity to speak directly to the President, we decline.

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:37:38 +0000

Bullsh*t. This is exactly why we don’t trust our leadership. You can’t be missed if you never go away.

By: Pender

Pender — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:59:11 +0000

No, “access” is NOT what we want. We already have access; it’s the currency the Democrats use to bribe officials at organizations like HRC.

What we want is CHANGE.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:24:20 +0000

Keith, please provide support for your assertion that Log Cabin worked for Tom Tancredo.

CPT_Doom, I agree with that strategy. It would be interesting if half the people shaking his hand said, “Hello, Mr. President, why are you firing me?”

By: CPT_Doom

CPT_Doom — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:08:20 +0000

I was against anyone going to the cocktail party – mainly because it appears to have been thrown together at the last minute – until I saw Rachel Maddow last night. She interviewed Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, one of the openly gay service members who is fighting his discharge, and it turns out he is attending the party, as the guest of SLDN. I think that is a great strategy and every guest should follow it – go to the party, but bring an openly gay or lesbian service member who has been, or is about to be, discharged to confront the President with their stories.

By: Jason D

Jason D — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:01:36 +0000

The best argument that Jim makes is being present.
Not going to this event is a lot like not voting, you’re silencing yourself, giving up any chance you might have to make a difference and influence the President.
Dialogue, face to face, is always better than a stern “no thank you”. Having someone right in front of you is hugely different than their list of reasons why they won’t show up.
I don’t think people get it. Jim wasn’t saying “if the king commands you must obey”
It’s more like – if the most powerful man in this country (possibly the world) wants to hear what you have to say — you’re an idiot if you say “no thank you” and as LGBT “leaders” we have an obligation to represent our people and use the opportunity to be both seen and heard.