<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mission Accomplished?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/08/52543/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/08/52543</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 03:04:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/08/52543/comment-page-1#comment-225278</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 07:12:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=52543#comment-225278</guid>
		<description>Nevertheless, Matt, I think we are best served by having strong national cat herders and I&#039;m saddened by this hiatus.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nevertheless, Matt, I think we are best served by having strong national cat herders and I&#8217;m saddened by this hiatus.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MattNYC</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/08/52543/comment-page-1#comment-225151</link>
		<dc:creator>MattNYC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 04:59:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=52543#comment-225151</guid>
		<description>Timothy, I think it also may be as simple as a &quot;herding cats&quot; explanation.  Stonewall was never intended to be a top-down organization.  State and local Democratic clubs have their own agendas, and messaging they want to focus on.  Not to mention egos.

And you have dominance by the well-populated and funded States/Cities, even though the board was drawn from all parts of the U.S.

Since many states have elections in odd-numbered years, I think this gives everyone a chance to focus their attention and money locally in 2013 and still be able to come back and work on Congressional, Senate and Presidential politics in 2014.

I hope they keep enough presence though to ensure that they don&#039;t go defunct.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Timothy, I think it also may be as simple as a &#8220;herding cats&#8221; explanation.  Stonewall was never intended to be a top-down organization.  State and local Democratic clubs have their own agendas, and messaging they want to focus on.  Not to mention egos.</p>
<p>And you have dominance by the well-populated and funded States/Cities, even though the board was drawn from all parts of the U.S.</p>
<p>Since many states have elections in odd-numbered years, I think this gives everyone a chance to focus their attention and money locally in 2013 and still be able to come back and work on Congressional, Senate and Presidential politics in 2014.</p>
<p>I hope they keep enough presence though to ensure that they don&#8217;t go defunct.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/01/08/52543/comment-page-1#comment-224767</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:38:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=52543#comment-224767</guid>
		<description>Stonewall has always pretty much from the start had difficulty keeping the national group united.  If I recall correctly, there were a couple separate starts and certain groups didn&#039;t want to share power with others.

But I thought they&#039;d worked through that and were a viable and meaningful organization.  So I&#039;m surprised.  And sad.  And troubled.

I very much think that Stonewall has a great national need and purpose.

There will always be - even in the most supportive organizations - a need for an organized gay presence.  We are a tiny minority and even those who support us don&#039;t always consider us when crafting bills or writing policy.  Someone has to be there to say, &quot;ahem, I think you forgot how this clause here impacts my community&quot;.  

And there is a need for a national voice to respond to political gaffes, or even politicians within the Democratic Party who take hostile or antagonistic positions.  Someone has to be there to say, &quot;Hey, I&#039;m part of this party and what you are saying is wrong.&quot;  Because no matter how supportive they are today, unless we are there in the future that can all go away.

I have no answers for whatever is contributing to their problems.  But I think that perhaps they have let the &quot;non partisan&quot; groups speak for gay Democrats.  And that may be something they wish to consider going forward.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stonewall has always pretty much from the start had difficulty keeping the national group united.  If I recall correctly, there were a couple separate starts and certain groups didn&#8217;t want to share power with others.</p>
<p>But I thought they&#8217;d worked through that and were a viable and meaningful organization.  So I&#8217;m surprised.  And sad.  And troubled.</p>
<p>I very much think that Stonewall has a great national need and purpose.</p>
<p>There will always be &#8211; even in the most supportive organizations &#8211; a need for an organized gay presence.  We are a tiny minority and even those who support us don&#8217;t always consider us when crafting bills or writing policy.  Someone has to be there to say, &#8220;ahem, I think you forgot how this clause here impacts my community&#8221;.  </p>
<p>And there is a need for a national voice to respond to political gaffes, or even politicians within the Democratic Party who take hostile or antagonistic positions.  Someone has to be there to say, &#8220;Hey, I&#8217;m part of this party and what you are saying is wrong.&#8221;  Because no matter how supportive they are today, unless we are there in the future that can all go away.</p>
<p>I have no answers for whatever is contributing to their problems.  But I think that perhaps they have let the &#8220;non partisan&#8221; groups speak for gay Democrats.  And that may be something they wish to consider going forward.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
