Why aren't you outraged over bill clintons breaking prop 8 boycott?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

THIS IS ADDRESSED ONLY TO GLBT FOLK AND THEIR VERY STRONG ALLIES

I am sure you guys are aware of this story: "Despite a petition from the Courage Campaign signed by more than 26,500 people calling for him to respect the boycott of Proposition 8 supporter Doug Manchester's Manchester Grand Hyatt, former President Bill Clinton gave a speech there Sunday to the International Franchise Association, the San Diego Union Tribune reports"

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/02/bill-clinton-cr.html


So why are you outraged or not outraged?

Here is why i am not outraged even though i am somewhat disappointed:

1. I dont know of a single straight person keeping any boycotts for the GLBT community. I know a lot of straight allies and I don't remember any of them boycotting anything for us. So, maybe it's my expectation of bill clinton as a straight person. i remember inviting several straight allies to come to rallies after prop8 in NYC, none showed up.

2. Bill clinton helped us on PRop 8 more noticeably than others.

http://www.noonprop8.com/articles/2008/10/31/president-bill-clinton-asks-california-voters-to-vote-no-on-proposition-8/

3. According to his aides he tried to have this changed (maybe a cop out but maybe not)

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/16/bn16clinton121733/

4. Bill Clinton has also kind of become unimportant since he seemed to not really understand what the public wants during his wife's campaign. He seemed clumsy.

So tell me why you are or are not outraged.

[EFerrari]

1. It is outrageous but I just don't expect very much from Bill Clinton.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

10. I'm just going to ignore that, cboy4, because my support for this community

is very strong and has gone all over the net. But, thanks anyway. :)

[Parche]

2. True

some boycotts are just not worth it

most are never organized well

the thing we need are reminders of who/what we need to boycott
on a regular basis and why, what did they do.

Now the Mormon church is a different story, there were tons of those
'mission' guys in here yesterday, I should have said something to them
but my mind was not focused
They are the ones we need to boycott big time
:hi: :hug:

[FreeState]

9. This boycott is very well organized and successful

Its been ongoing for over 6 months - everyone in San Diego knows about it and every time a convention is booked the party is contacted and informed of the boycott. Its estimated that it has cost Manchester over 2.5 million already.

http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/

Im not sure how you boycott a missionary though... their 19 year old boys who are just doing as they have been told - nothing you do to them will help, and in fact will embolden their persecution complex. The best way to boycott mormons is to not do business with those that donated because not all LDS members agreed with the church on this and many spoke out. That and dont go to Utah for any reason and if you must do research first and choose GLBT friendly businesses to do business with.

[roody]

48. elders, not mission boys

[Chulanowa]

3. Because his name is "Clinton" and not "Obama"

Personally though, now that I know, I am pissed. It's the same as breaking a picket, in my eyes, and sends the same message: "Fuck you"

[KitchenWitch]

4. I am disappointed but not outraged

My reasoning is logistical.

As a former POTUS, Bill Clinton is entitled to a Secret Service detail. As such, any event that President Clinton attends has to undergo a rigorous security screening, accounting for any number of bad things that could happen. This type of security detail is started months in advance of the event, giving the Secret Service, and the venue ample time to nail down any issues that might come up.

Finding a new venue for this would have been both costly and nearly impossible on short notice.

[Sebastian Doyle]

5. It was lame of him to do, but not unexpected.

The Clintons and the DLC are known for throwing certain Democratic party constituencies (LGBT, Liberals, Labor, etc) under the bus in the name of political expediency under the justification of "where else are ya gonna go?". So, unfortunately, no surprises there. Just the usual disgust at the complicity. :puke:

[FLAprogressive]

7. because some people here are so blinded by Clinton love they can't see straight

hero worship if you will

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. some people are so blinded by hate that they cant read or answer questions. nt

[KitchenWitch]

18. Gee, the same could be said for the Obama love here too.

Apparently to some folks around here, Obama can do no wrong.

Just go to GD-P and bask in the Obama lovefest there and tell me about hero worship of Clinton.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

19. i also asked a question. someone down thread made a comment

that the clinton team knew about this months ahead. thats a good reason to be upset.

i am not just asking people to support my stance. this random insulting is just stupid.

[EFerrari]

20. Could I ask a question? As a supporter who equally criticizes Clintons and Obamas?

lol

I also emailed Clinton and got nothing back. But, what did people expect him to do? I didn't expect much but maybe that's just me.

What did other people expect from him?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. i told him i was disappointed much in the same way i told obama i was disappointed about warren

my expectations were the same. which is to say nothing

[EFerrari]

24. Thank you. n/t

[FreeState]

25. People expected him to move his speech -

thats what others have done. Many actually. There are several appropriate places within walking distance to move it to (the convention center, other hotels etc.) - thats all anyone officially asked for.

[EFerrari]

27. It would have been easy enough to do. If there's a new round of emails

that need to go out, I hope someone posts about it.

I just don't see Clinton as very engaged with much right now except his own projects.

[FreeState]

30. The speech was last Sunday - its too late to move it LOL n/t

[EFerrari]

31. Yeah, lol, but not too late to respond to his choice. n/t

[FLAprogressive]

21. GD:P (GD:DLC) is your official home for hero worship....

[frazzled]

11. It's untrue that not a single straight person keeps boycotts for the GLBT community

There are those of us straight folk around who didn't eat Florida oranges for years back in the Anita Bryant days.

Over the recent months, I have boycotted Cinemark movie theaters as a direct result of their Prop 8 support. Just the other week my husband wanted to go see a film in advance of the Oscars, and the best time and most convenient place to see it was at a Cinemark theater: I reminded him that we should be boycotting them, and he wholeheartedly concurred. We drove miles and mile away to go to the movies elsewhere.

I agree, however, that most boycotts are useless. I do it only for my own peace of mind, never expecting that there will be much of an effect.

In the meantime, though, I'll keep boycotting for you, and you should reciprocate by, say, boycotting pharmacies that won't fill birth control prescriptions for women. Okay? :)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. dude, i didn't say that..... i said I didnt know one personally

i go to all the NOW rallies and will happily boycott pharmacies that wont fill birth control for women.

:hug:

[Kajsa]

45. Frazzled, I am one who boycotted FL oranges

for years since Anita Bryant opened her big, homophobic mouth
and inserted her foot in it.

Come to think of it, I still do,
even though it's been years since she was around.

[FreeState]

12. I am outraged about it...

I have sent multiple emails and made several calls.

Here is why I am outraged - Clinton's people knew about the boycott months ago. Not only did he spit in the face of the local GLBT community he crossed a Union line. The hotel treats its employees awful and thats part of the joint boycott.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. i sent him emails and made calls too.

[blm]

14. helped more NOTICEABLY? recording a message to be played to registered Dem phones is as QUIET

as it gets in politics.

You wouldn't dare see him in front of a CAMERA on Larry King Live would you? In 2004 he used LKL and other highprofile shows to DEFEND Bush's decisions on Iraq war vigorously. At Dem gatherings with no national cameras around he'd offer some weak criticism of Bush because it was expected.

That's what Clinton did with prop 8 in 2008 - the MINIMUM and and MOST unlikely to get national cameras.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. dems did vote against us. some people who voted for obama voted

against us.

it wasn't irrelevant to contact dems.

the other politician (mayor of sf) was most vocal and has always been a strong support of us, but clinton didnt do nothing unlike most other important dems.

[blm]

39. Clinton gets ACCESS to media and to major platforms to exercise leadership in a way

that very few Dems have ever had the last 2 decades. The way he has chosen to use that privileged access over the years has been painful for progressives.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

23. Giving this a kick and recommend.

I don't get outraged easily, but this is worth examining. I think there's a fine line to be walked with our people, recognizing that we do live in a world of political realities, and we can't sweat the trivial stuff. But also wanting to make sure that our elected people know where opinion sits. There may be mitigating circumstances such as KitchenWitch suggested, but in this case it's not like some valuable political purpose was served by showing up.

[FreeState]

26. Do you think this is "trivial stuff" ? n/t

[TheWraith]

29. Relative to something which actually has impact, yes.

Compared to something important--state legislation, DADT getting boxed, etc--yes, what hotel Bill Clinton walks into is of relatively trivial importance. As I said, it's useful for our people to know when they've done something that is disapproved of, but in this case what more is going to come out of it? A lot of online bloviation about how Bill Clinton doesn't care? It's wasted energy on something that's already a done deal, energy that would be much better off directed at moving public opinion.

While I think it's only appropriate that there are boycotts going on of major Prop 8 supporters, I don't have a lot of faith that they're going to be effective except on a limited scale in and around the entertainment industry.

[FreeState]

32. This is one that has been extremely successful outside of Clintons snub

Manchester has lost a lot of money over this boycott - more than he donated.

And just an FYI Prop 8 would have never been on the ballot if it was not for Manchester - his donation helped fund a substantial portion of the signature gatherers. It would have never got enough signatures without his money. Its not a petty issue IMO. Legislation that is being drafted is influenced by donators like Manchester as well - without big donations they dont have the recourses to push anti-gay agendas..

Until we demand our leaders treat us with respect and dignity GLBT persons must hold all leaders, even former leaders, to a higher standard.

[damntexdem]

28. As an ally, I certainly have boycotted -- e.g., Cinemark.

Some may see the difference between paying to patronize an establishment and making a speech there. On the other hand, had Clinton refused to make a speech there, he would likely have had immensely-more impact than thousands not patronizing.

Still, with boycotts, it's best to not be outraged when people don't observe them -- instead, the passion should likely be in encouraging their observation. A boycott is basically begging people to not patronize something; and in that case, that is as true of GLBT people, allies, or the general public.

[donco6]

33. Does Bill Clinton matter anymore?

:shrug:

[tbyg52]

34. I am taking my cue from this forum as to whether I am outraged or not

so I don't know....! ;)

There are a lot of good arguments on both sides.

Left to my own simple-minded devices, I would be furious. Anybody in that position should pay attention to the symbolism of where they speak.

[Chovexani]

35. I don't expect anything from straight people at this point

I love and appreciate those who are genuine allies but so many have been two faced backstabbing opportunists at this point that I really don't expect anything else, sad to say.

I'm happy to be pleasantly surprised.

[tbyg52]

40. I hope I'm not on the list

I am furious on my own behalf (see #34) - but I consider (or at least read) the arguments I've seen on this thread.

[Jamastiene]

36. This is going to make me very unpopular in DU's GLBT community, but I have to say it.

If I am going to be truthful, I have to tell how I really feel about this.

In the GLBT community, President Clinton has been criticized and outright hated for YEARS now because of DADT and DOMA. DOMA, I won't argue with anyone about. I didn't agree with DOMA then and still do not now. Fire away on that one. I won't disagree. DOMA is an atrocity.

DADT though, was a compromise he had to make. You have to take into account that back in 1992, standing up for gay people in the military or standing up for gay people AT ALL took some MAJOR balls.

Back then, hating gay people was a completely dominant norm even in the heavy metal community. Gee, those guys were supposed to be the rebels and all that shit. Yet, even the "subculture" of the time hated gay people. Anyone who stood up for gay people back then was roundly hated and shunned too.

When Bill Clinton stood up for gay people during his campaign, I thought, "Well, that's nice of him now, but will he keep his campaign promises?" I, overall, liked what he was proposing and hoped for the best, but I know what he had to work with...lemons. Naturally, the compromise (DADT) was bitter.

The truth is, he tried to keep his campaign promises and ended up with a predominantly Republican (and conservative and turncoat anti-gay Democratic) Congress. He had Newt Gingrich, Jessie Helms, and that whole bunch doing everything from threatening his life if he set foot in North Carolina to setting up "Contract with America" to keep America conservative despite where GenX wanted to take America (more progressive).

Bill Clinton took a lot of fucking heat for standing up for us at a time when it still wasn't the "in" thing to do it. We all know how politicians lick their fingers, stick them in the air, and only go with the majority opinion, whatever the "in" thing is at the time. The truth is, there was no way in hell he was going to get a total lift of the ban for gay people in the military. So, he had to compromise as best he could. Even he said he wished it could have been better. Read about the Rand Report if you want some more history on this.

The fact is, he tried and failed. I commend him for trying and failing rather than being a fucking coward and not standing up for gay people until it was the "in" thing to do it like so many other politicians do. The point is, he tried, but had to work with what was given him.

Ever since then, so many in the gay community have outright hated him and called him every name in the book. Even if he was to cop an attitude toward so many in the gay community at this point, I wouldn't blame him. The fact is, that both he and Hillary Clinton have been faithful allies to a community that expects too much from them, given the opposition they both have had to face. They are politicians, not magicians for fuck's sake.

As far as DADT is concerned, mark my words:
1. He could have back burnered the entire effort and we wouldn't have even that.
2. DADT will be the segway to any future legislation that lifts the ban on gay people in the military. Without it, we would have a lot further to go. With it, we stand at least a little bit of a chance

...with a future president. Where are we now on DADT and DOMA? Are they gone yet? Has President Obama done the sweeping changes to them he talked about doing? Has he? Does he plan to?

Do I hate President Obama for that? No. I do not. Am I disappointed? For now, yes. I'll give him time and give the current political climate time to completely transition before I'll hold it completely against him. Give it time. That's my plan. Sure, he's done enough to piss me the fuck off when it comes to GLBT issues, but in other ways, I think he'll try later down the road. It's just a gut feeling that I have.

What role do you really think DADT will play? Where would we be when that time comes without it? We would have a much steeper hill to climb toward the end of the ban. At least, it's a foot in the door and a constant reminder. Otherwise, future presidents could just ignore the issue entirely. Sure, DADT is a stinker in hindsight, but in the grand scheme of things, it'll be the landmark that will eventually help us toward getting the ban lifted. I am sure of it.

Am I going to argue with anyone about this? Nooooo. I know how I feel about this and nothing is going to change my mind any more than I am going to change anyone else's mind about it, but this is my honest opinion. President Clinton did all he could at the time to help us. It wasn't the best we could have hoped for, but you can bet in the future, that anything good that comes to us, will be because he stood up for us and put us on the national political radar when no one had had the balls to do that before him. For that, I will always give him credit where credit is due. For that reason, y'all can count me as a lifelong Clinton supporter, both him and Hillary.

Edited to add: Yes, I primarily talked about DADT, but this incident is no different. I know the Clintons are not homophobic. He tried...once again, but couldn't get it changed.

[Iggo]

37. Hmm...

[Jamastiene]

38. It's definitely not going to be pretty.

I can't help it. It's how I feel. :shrug:

[TechBear_Seattle]

41. Clinton brought us DOMA and DADT. He created the situation that allowed Prop 8 to exist.

I cannot summon any more outrage against him than I already feel.

[dsc]

42. that is a total crock

Sorry but you don't have a right to make crap up. DADT was forced on Clinton by Congress, that isn't my opinion, it is objective fact. Sodomy is likely still against the law for military personel (that hasn't been litigated yet) and thus even Obama can't order non celebate, openly gay, military personel to be accepted. He had a weak hand due to needing Congress to change the law and Congress' unwillingness to do so.

[TechBear_Seattle]

43. When was the veto repealed?

Clinton signed DOMA. He signed DADT. He could have vetoed these measures and forced Congress to override, but he did not. He signed DOMA as secretly as was possible: very late on a Saturday night, with no fanfare or ceremony. Not only did Clinton sign these bills, he then put a lot of effort into trying to convince the American people that these were both progressive laws that actually furthered the cause of equality.

Your justification is the total crock.

[dsc]

44. Letting gays in the military REQUIRED PASSAGE OF A LAW

that is, a law repealing the prohibition against sodomy under the UCMJ. In case you have forgotten the Presidential veto only stops laws. Thus he wound up with two choices, one no gays at all in the military or DADT. This isn't my opinion, it is the truth.

[TechBear_Seattle]

46. Irrelevant with regards to DOMA, isn't it?

And Clinton still could have vetoed DADT, saying that bigotry in any form is imiscible with American ideals.

[dsc]

47. If your read, which you apparently don't, I didn't mention DOMA in either post

but it would have been stupid to veto DADT when the default was a return to the witch hunts. There are literally thousands of gays who had military careers who wouldn't have if had vetoed the bill. But my major point was, and still is, that you were wrong, wrong, wrong when you claimed that Clinton was responsible for DADT, he wasn't.

[TechBear_Seattle]

49. I did mention DOMA

But please: feel free to keep making excuses.

[dsc]

50. as usual you are making crap up

You got caught telling stories you like which weren't the truth plain and simple. At no time did I dispute you on DOMA but you were flat out gold carat wrong about DADT.

[TechBear_Seattle]

51. So I lied when I said that Clinton could have vetoed DADT?

Where, exactly, did I lie in this thread? Or are you the one lying in your desperate justification of Clinton's actions?

[dsc]

52. You certainly lied when you implied that veto would have let gays serve openly

[TechBear_Seattle]

54. You are deluded: I implied no such thing. n/t

[Jamastiene]

53. Like our military was so open for gay people before DADT.

DOMA, I won't argue with you about. It was an atrocity, but DADT was a compromise he was forced into making. He didn't go in there with the intent to have such watered down legislation. He went in there with the full intent of totally lifting the ban on gay people in our military. He had to face the likes of Jessie Helms and Newt Gingrich whipping up hate and threatening him...including threatening his life if he set foot in NC. Come on. Be realistic. Don't act like the ban on gay people in the military was Clinton's fault. He tried to lift the ban.

[closeupready]

55. Sorry, guys, I completely agree with TechBear, and I'm probably

older than most of you here, and I remember that battle like it was yesterday.

Colin Powell was the driving force behind keeping gays out of the military, and Clinton promised he would integrate the military if elected. So what does he do? He compromises on that with his own staff people. Give me a fucking break. You don't COMPROMISE with your staff people - YOU LAY DOWN THE LAW!

I don't want to pick fights with people here who are otherwise friends, but I do feel I need to point out that there are those among us who will NEVER forgive Bill Clinton for his bullshit betrayals of our community - and organized labor, by the way.

So here is he is now, taking money from a Prop. 8 financial supporter. What a surprise. NOT.

[dsc]

58. and how was he going to fire Sam Nunn?

Oh and he couldn't even fire Colin Powell who he inherited from Bush 1 without an immense amount of drama. Imagine a Southern white guy firing the first AA Joint Chief over that issue.

[closeupready]

59. Clinton was more powerful than Nunn and Powell put together.

I guess it doesn't bother you when the boss let's his subordinates play bad guy and he claims, "what could I do - they made me do it". I don't know or care about the drama that would have surrounded Clinton if he'd fired Powell; not my problem. He made promises to us, and he broke them. On several occasions. AND in 2004 he advised Kerry, remember, to come out publicly swinging against gay marriage.

Your respect/admiration for him troubles me.

[dsc]

60. Nunn wasn't Clinton's subordinate

He didn't get the GA Senate seat due to a Clinton appointment. He got it be being elected and reelected several times. He was the Chairman of the Armed Sevices Committee and as such had near veto power over any changes in that policy.

[closeupready]

56. To answer more directly, no, I am not outraged, because I expect little support from Bill Clinton

for the GLBT community. He has done some admirable work on AIDS relief funding, for that I give him credit.

But I never liked him, and as time has passed, I've come to like him less with each passing year. I would need to like him or to see him as a role model in order to feel outrage about his betraying the gay community.

[Deep13]

57. I'll stay away from businesses that I know discriminate or support the same.

I don't know who around here does discriminate. I can't boycott a hotel in CA if I had no intention of going there in the first place.

[Lilith Velkor]

61. Because I don't really give a shit about Bill Clinton

I like to torment those who are obsessed, but that has nothing to do with him.