WATCH: John Aravosis on President Obama's HRC Dinner

Surprisingly, he wasn't bitchy about the speech. The executive order bit is unrealistic, but that's most of Aravosis' stances. 

Now, here is my quick points... I really don't think he (Obama) needed to spit out every LGBT issue in his speeches. President Obama has kept his promises and will continue to keep his promises.

Plus, this year seems to be all about his jobs bill. With most Americans placing Jobs and Economy on the top of their list; I think gay marriage may not make this year's list. But, I think we will see the end of DOMA in his 2nd term.

I don't need to hear these magic words and all will be okay. I trust his actions and so far, he has delivered.

WATCH: Dennis Prager and John Aravosis argue over the Reporting of the NY Gay Marriage Win

WATCH: John Aravosis vs. Fred Sainz on President Obama and Gay Rights

SHOCKER! President Obama had a Strong Standing with LGBT Community before the DADT Repeal

In 2010, many LGBT bloggers try to serve President Obama's head on a platter. They pretty much failed at that attempt; and this piece of info continues the good news.

Polling data conducted by a prominent Democratic firm shows that President Barack Obama's standing in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities was far better than his standing with the public at large, even before he signed into law the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy banning openly gay servicemembers.


In an October survey conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, 64 percent of self-described LGBT community members said they approved or strongly approved of the way Obama was handling his job. While only 30 percent of all likely voters said the country was headed in the right direction (62 percent said the opposite), 46 percent of LGBT respondents answered "right direction" (49 percent said "wrong direction").

The poll numbers, which had not been previously released, were sent to The Huffington Post on the condition that the full survey not be published. The high-ranking LBGT operative who passed the numbers along cited them as evidence that the gay community was not disaffected with the president prior to November's midterm elections and that they would not lose patience with Obama even if he fails to persuade Congress to move major agenda items in the years ahead. 

So this is interesting and very telling. I wonder if David Mixner or John Aravosis seen this. They should, because if they were already full from Crow, here's comes the Crow meatloaf, tacos and Crow pudding.

source

For those who don't know... This is John Aravosis

And I'm not a fan. But... Obama has to bold, hopefully he has a plan.

Gays Bloggers and Activists played a part in the DEMS election fallout

I'll say it and put it on the carpet... Some of our gay bloggers and activists played a decent role in the Republican win last week.

They can't deny it. After all they did in order to hold Obama and Dems accountable, their actions took on a powerful negative effect. I will highlight a few of these actions from the past 2 years:

• Showtime! Ever since Obama was elected, several folks were all over CNN, MSNBC and the internet, dooming Obama's actions on the LGBT community. Dan Savage and Dan Choi, could be found any news outlet, pushing a lot of their anger, but never offering many solutions.
• Blog, Rant, Blog- Pam Spaudling, John Aravosis, David Mixner and journalist Kerry Eleveld spent the majority of their blogs or posts about Obama/Dems failing at everything Gay. In fact, they blogged more negative posts on Obama/Dems than positive. After a while, a faithful reader of their work would be convinced that Obama hated Gay people. I'm not saying they should be all roses and unicorns about Obama, but they could have at least threw a dog a bone.
• Boycotts- There were at least 3 DNC boycotts, trying to make gays close the gAyTM. It didn't really work, but it did send the message to everyone that was watching.
• Attacking within. There were so much infighting within our activists. Without strong leadership, everyone with after everyone. The usual target was HRC. In fact, the online Town Hall meeting of LGBT bloggers spent most of their time attacking HRC and yet, STILL not putting out many solutions.
• getEQUAL- They could have been great, but their breakout performance left many confused and bitter. I hope they will get better in time.
• Confusion/Half-truths/partial stories - John Aravosis was a puppetmaster. He basically spat out a lot of foolishness, that critical thinking person could easily see through. However, his popularity allowed him to manipulate many folks into believing in his crap. Only a few LGBT activists and writers called him out, only a few.
• No accountability on the quality of the info spewed out by some LGBT bloggers/activists. And if you challenged them, you were attacked by many of their drones.
• Presenting the LGBT Civil Rights movement as a quick fix. If anything, the Civil Rights movement in the 60s should have taught us that this will take time.
• Not educating ourselves. I believe some us took a lot info for granted and not challenge the validity of the content or the credibility of the writer.

Okay, I'll stop there, because there are more issues. Yes, there are things Obama/Dems can improve on, but we really need to do the same. Looking back at everything over the past 2 years, made me really sad. The lack of leadership and clarity cause many of our fam to vote Republican or not vote at all. Instead of educating our peeps, some of our "activists" used them to their own advantage, trying to build up their readership by causing chaos and confusion.

We really did a number on ourselves, we really did. And instead of claiming that it didn't happen, we need to own it, so we can move forward and not go down this path again.

For the Record: No Segregation of Gay Troops

What is it with Gay bloggers f**king up info or rewriting stuff like Texas Board of Education? It's a hot ass mess, for realz.

The latest drama comes from you know who... John Aravosis.

Yesterday he posted this:

The Pentagon confirmed on Friday that it is considering segregating gay troops, specifically with regards to creating separate showers and/or barracks for straight and gay troops. Advocate reporter Kerry Eleveld just transcribed the following quote from Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell at Friday's briefing about the new "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" survey:

"We think it would be irresponsible to conduct a survey that didn’t try to address these types of things. Because when DADT is repealed, we will have to determine if there are any challenges in those particular areas, any adjustments that need to be made in terms of how we educate the force to handle those situations, or perhaps even facility adjustments that need to be made to deal with those scenarios."

Segregation, folks. Separate but equal. In the year 2010. And from a black president, no less. How do you feel about the segregation of blacks in the first half of the 1900s? Did you think it was disgusting that African-Americans weren't permitted to drink out of our fountains, swim in our pools, sit at the front of the bus, share the same bleachers at a game, as the rest of us? Then why is it okay to even talk about segregating gays and lesbians? What would have happened to an Obama administration spokesman who talked about segregating blacks?

He goes on and on, but pretty much he ran this info as fact. Now, most folks who knows John's style should know to triple check his info, because it could be inflated or overhyped.

Well, some folks didn't and once again, took this for fact and posted this mess on their blogs.

Later, Chris Geidner got the truth and put it out there:

By time John Aravosis got a hold of it this morning, here's how Megan's carefully couched claim -- that, from my review of my recording still overstates what Morrell said, which was that "facility adjustments" were a hypothetical possibility -- had been twisted:

Does the White House not understand that a black president cannot institute a policy of segregation? Apparently they don't.

The Pentagon confirmed on Friday that it is considering segregating gay troops, specifically with regards to creating separate showers and/or barracks for straight and gay troops.

Of course, that wasn't what Morrell said -- and it wasn't even what Carpentier wrote. But, it's what Aravosis told the LGBT community and his readers today.

The segregation portion of Morrell's interview with Think Progress blogger Igor Volsky:

MORRELL: So, when I was asked, about the, you know – this is in the context of “why are you even asking these questions?” – well, we’re asking these questions because in our engagements with the force thus far, this has been an area of some concern. Now we need to test it to see if that holds for—if it really reflects the concerns of the force, and which members of the force. Is it older members? Is it younger members? Are they, you know—which ones? And, and then along with this information, the working group will make some recommendations about how to deal with those concerns. It could be, as I said, who knows? This could be dealt with through education programs, through training programs, or it may require “facilities adjustments.” But no one, no one is considering “separate but equal” bathing or living facilities for you know, gay and straight troops. That’s just not ever a consideration.

Q: So that’s off the table.

MORRELL: Absolutely off the table.

I don't get people sometimes. The truth was out there and folks just ran their own story. I need to know if they think about the impact this foolishness. Because of John's crappy post, I saw too many racist comments and I tell you, I wasn't Gay and proud at all when I read them.

It's really sad to see.

Interesting Quote: John Aravosis

Such a disappointment when an African-American president who campaigned on "change" defends laws that would have made George Wallace proud.

George Wallace? Really, John? Thank you for using the issue of race in stupid, stupid way.

John, you are an asshole!

Are those Boycotts of the DNC working? Nope, the DNC raised $13 million in March.

The Dems ain't playing, y'all. They raised millions in March, $13 million in fact. They also beat the Repubs, which is considered a rarity.

The Democratic National Committee raised at least $13 million in the month of March, nearly $2 million more than the Republican National Committee, a Democratic source tells the Huffington Post.

The haul represents a fairly rare victory for the DNC, which traditionally lags behind its GOP counterpart when it comes to raking in donations. A Democrat with the committee pointed to a rejuvenated and enthusiastic Democratic base that is willing to open up their wallets after the passage of health care reform.

I have to take a dig at the boycotts and AmericaBlog's Don't Ask, Don't Give, because I knew they would not affect the numbers. It was a silly ploy from the start, but hey, they tried.

But, I think they should stop now.

Crazy Idea: Maybe one of the Gay Progressive Bloggers should be the HRC President

So almost every other day, somebody is calling for the head of Joe Solmonese and the HRC. Mostly from John Aravosis, Pam Spaulding, Dan Savage or Magneto.

However, we have no idea what they would be like as REAL leaders. So I wonder... Instead of them always bashing the HRC, why don't they run for the president of the largest LGBT group.

I mean, they always, always have something to say about it. Why not try to lead, not from a computer screen, but really lead. Now, I don't know the process to become the HRC president, but since they are not pleased with the leadership, why don't they step up and take charge.

I proposing this because they believe they know what's best for us. I think they should challenge themselves and truly step it up. Now, I'm sure the folks in HRC will feel differently, but I think it would really put their money where their mouths are.

If they know what's best and if they think they can do better, bring it. I would actually love to see them actually lead.

Blog Swarm, Hog Swarm

I received this "letter" in my email.

OUR MESSAGE TO HRC IS SIMPLE:

Publicly demand that President Obama take the lead in getting DADT repealed this year.

1) That means the President needs to state publicly that he wants Congress to repeal DADT this year; and

2) The President needs to take the lead in working with Congress to make sure the repeal happens.

HRC Front Desk: (202) 628-4160
TTY: (202) 216-1572
Toll-Free: (800) 777-4723

HRC Web site comment page.
General membership email at hrc: membership@hrc.org

Some may say that there is little the President can do, or that this is up to Congress now. That is simply untrue. The President can send a powerful signal that he wants the repeal done this year. He can include the repeal of DADT in the Defense Budget he sends to Congress in the next few months. If the President is serious about keeping his promises to our community, now is his chance to prove it.

BLOG SWARM SPONSORS

Today's blog swarm is sponsored by the following bloggers and sites, all of which will also be writing about this issue today, and urging their readers to contact HRC:

Joe Sudbay and John Aravosis, AMERICAblog
Pam Spaulding, Pam's House Blend
Michelangelo Signorile, Sirius OutQ & the Gist
Markos Moulitsas, DailyKos
Andy Towle, TowleRoad
Joe Jervis, Joe My God
Bil Browning, Bilerico
Taylor Marsh, TaylorMarsh.com
Dan Savage, Slog

MOMENTUM HAS TURNED TO CONFUSION

HRC may argue that it's already told the President it would like to see DADT repealed this year. Well, that's not enough. And here's why.

We've had an amazing few weeks of momentum on DADT repeal following the mention of DADT in the State of the Union, the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing during which both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs both stated their support for repeal, and the unexpected support we've received from former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell and former Defense Secretary and Vice President Dick Cheney.

But that momentum is quickly slipping away. After talking to people around Washington over the past two weeks, Joe and I have found a vacuum of leadership that is leading to confusion. The Hill has no idea if the President does or doesn't want them to move ahead with repeal this year. The House has already said that it's waiting for the Senate to do something. The Senate is in turmoil after the Democrats lost a single seat in January. And the DADT proposals being discussed in the Senate are focused on every possible approachexcept full repeal this year.

As we painfully learned last year during health care reform, nothing happens in Congress unless the President leads. And when the President doesn't lead, disaster is guaranteed.

Whatever HRC has been telling the White House about DADT, it clearly isn't working. In spite of the President's positive comments during the State of the Union, no one knows where President Obama stands on repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" this year. All the while, unnamed administration officials are telling the media that it could be years before repeal finally happens. The White House clearly didn't get HRC's message, and as a result, we are losing this historic momentum.

WHY HRC?

Why are we focusing on HRC? Because HRC is our community's largest, best-funded gay rights organization in Washington, and they carry the most sway with the White House. In fact, HRC often boasts about their close working relationship with the White House. HRC's President, Joe Solmonese, is so close to the White House that he gave the President political cover during the uproar over the administration's brief in support of DOMA. It's time HRC, and our entire community, got something in return for everything we have done for this President, this Congress, and the entire Democratic party.

Okay, it's cute for 'good intentions' sake, but to be real, this will fall on deaf ears.
Here are my reasons:

1. Most of the people involved or sponsoring this effort has been hating on the HRC from the gate. Seriously, if you have been asking for my resignation, questioning every move I make, criticizing everything I do without offering any concrete plans of your own, launching useless boycotts against me... Would I listen to you? Or even take you seriously?
2. The President already talked this in his State of the Union speech, folks are already working on the repeal so what's the rush? This has to be planned out carefully, this is not a job for the microwave to heat up in 30 seconds.
3. This is coming from the same (give or take few) folks that always play the roles of haters.
4. I'm sorry to be bold here, but this sounds like a ego power game vs anything serious for our community. It comes off like, 'With our Powers Combine, We can Make them Do Anything'! No.
5. Basically, this a waste of time. These progressive bloggers should get us to contact CONGRESSMEN, not the HRC, but the folks who actually make an impact in game. If I want chocolate, I'm not eating Hershey's, I'm going for Godiva.

I know they are trying to help, but really, this not an effective campaign. So far, all of the boycotts and hater parades has burned some bridges. To demand action like this is almost laughable.

Next on Obama's Smackdown Tour: Progressive LGBT Bloggers

After watching Obama address the GOP, I think he should address another group, the LGBT progressive bloggers.

This would be perfect because they have been the most critical of Obama for things that were understandable and for things that made no sense.

If I could, I would have John Aravosis, Pam Spauding, Dan Savage and David Mixner sitting across from him and let the 'speech' roll. Obama could thank them for their concerns, but call them out on their foolishness.

As y'all know I'm not a huge fan of these folks. Mostly because they were stirring up nothing but trouble, and had no solutions or real plans to strengthen the LGBT community. They were doing more harm than good sometimes, and when we needed inspiration, they provide bitterness and discord.

Obama can take some their issues, and address them truthfully and directly. They need to know the real impact of their claims and hear from the man himself.

I believe this event could:

• Remind us why we voted for him
• Reminds us that we need new voices in our community
• Hold them accountable for their actions
• Keep him on task about our issues
• Keep us on the real, we need to remember that change is tough

I would give up Long John Silvers famous fish for this meeting. Their actions and words are not doing a thing for us. If he addressed them, maybe we would see that new leadership in the LGBT community is in order.

Barney Frank, John Aravosis and thing called Hubris

Barney Frank announced that DADT might be on next year’s Department of Defense authorization bill.

“Military issues are always done as part of the overall authorization bill,” Frank said, insisting that this has been the strategy for overturning the policy all along. “'Don’t ask, don’t tell' was always going to be part of the military authorization.”

This idea worked for the Hate Crimes Act, so I can see the strategy, but lo and behold somebody thinks their magic powers made this happened.

That someone is the King of Pure Hubris, John Aravosis.

He posted why he thinks Barney made this announcement.

And don't for a minute think that Barney didn't say this to try to help the White House out of a tight spot because of the DNC boycott. He clearly did. Which means they're worried. And that's good. But it's not enough, and here's why.

He goes on about why, but seriously it's nothing worth talking about.

Now, I will say this. I don't hate John or the others in his pocket. I actually respect their work and appreciate the hard work they put forward for us. However, I feel that his ego (and a few others' egos) has gotten in the way.

It's very interesting to hear him take credit for this. I mean, does he and the others think they are making the Dems shake in their heels?

Child Cheese.

It's like this... Hearing John and 'em claim they have that much push in political world, is like Gleek claiming to be the most powerful member of the Superfriends.

Maybe a different approach to this Stupid DNC Boycott

Contributor	Total
Susman Godfrey Llp	$107,700
Nix, Patterson & Roach	$91,200
DreamWorks SKG	$76,000
Dreamworks Animation	$76,000
Blenheim Capital Management	$75,800
Democratic National Cmte	$63,502
Willis	$63,300
Time Warner	$61,800
Time Warner	$250
Paradigm Talent Agency	$60,800
Eton Park Capital Management	$60,800
Wallace Global Fund	$60,800
Keil & Goodson	$60,800
Winner Wagner	$60,800
Burton Snow Boards	$60,800
Gotham Capital	$60,800
Douglas Telecommunications	$60,800
Paramount Corp	$60,800
Abraxis Bioscience	$60,800
Midland Oil	$60,800
DataTreasury Corp	$60,800

Hey DNC Boycotters! While y'all wasting our time with idle threats, maybe you (John Aravosis and other) should look at the top contributors so far for Obama and DNC (2010) .

Maybe y'all should hit them up first considering they are the top donors for now. Or better yet, holla at ActBlue, that's the powerhouse.

Oh, why am I doing this? I want the boycott/pause/foolishness to fail.
It will, but I thought I would "try" to help ;-)


source

The Infighting must Cease!

I'll keep this brief.

I know folks want to keep things in check, but these boycotts, idle threats and tired knee jerk reactions are weakening our defenses.

Again, certain gay activists and self appointed leaders are trying stir up foolishness and drama within our community. I have to ask, Do they know who our real enemies are?
Sometimes, I'm not sure. While they are ready to burn Obama on stake, NOM and other groups like them, are beating us at every step.

They are raising record amount of money and gaining tons of support. But what are some of our community members doing? Launching DNC boycotts, threatening to vote Republican and stirring hate at the Obama administration.

We should hold them accountable, yes, but we should be civil about it. This may lead into a backlash we can't come back from. All I ask is for these folks to come up with a more civil way to address this. Let's extend a hand, instead of a clenched fist.

I just don't think this will work. Maybe I'm missing the point. Please share your views on this

John Aravosis launches Don't Ask, Don't Give

Gay activist and blowhard, John Aravosis is launching a new campaign called Don't Ask, Don't Give. Their goal is keep the DNC and Obama on track.

Joe and I are launching today a donor boycott of the DNC. The boycott is cosponsored by Michelangelo Signorile, and soon others. It's really more of a "pause," than a boycott. Boycotts sounds so final, and angry. Whereas this campaign is temporary, and is only meant to help some friends - President Obama and the Democratic party - who have lost their way.

We are hopeful that via this campaign, our friends will keep their promises. So please sign the Petition and take a Pledge to no longer donate to the DNC, Organizing for America, or the Obama campaign until the President and the Democratic party keep their promises to the gay community, our families, and our friends.

You can find our Frequently Asked Questions, below, that explain the entire campaign. You can use our "Tell a Friend" page to tell all of your friends, family members, and coworkers about this effort (and we won't keep any of the email addresses you entire, they'll all be deleted after the emails are sent).

Their FAQ does tackle some legitimate concerns, however it's still snarky at best.

I'm not sure this will do anything, since the DNC always get their money, but it could open the door to more discussion.

But I do like this Q & A:

President Obama has only been in office less than a year, why the rush? In less than a year, serious damage has already been done to the President’s commitments to the gay community. The problem isn’t only that he hasn’t been quick enough to fulfill his promises, it’s that he has actually backtracked on his promises and hurt the cause of civil rights and our community, as detailed above.

Serious damage? Really? So I guess the past 8 years wasn't serious damage at all, no sir, none at all.

I'll tell you this, John could win Best Actor in a Dramatic Role in a heartbeat.


source

DNC, please explain your stance on LGBT issues

I'm a little confused about the role the DNC is playing. Earlier this year, they had a gay fundraiser and after the failed boycott from gay leaders, they still raised a million dollars.

However, they haven't really used it for LGBT issues, so I have to know... What is the DNC's plan for us?

Now, I'm not going to give up on them like so many others. I usually need concrete proof of betrayal before I cut you off. And I'm not going to go all John Aravosis-like and starting believing the world hates gays, but I can't let this shake off so easily.

I need to know a few things from the DNC.

• What are their plans for the LGBT community? I mean, they raised all of that money for us, at least give us list or something.
• What is plan for all that money raised during the LGBT dinner?
• Can the DNC explain their involvement in ballot measures and candidates?
• Is there a LGBT board within the DNC?
• Will there be an agenda about the LGBT community posted?
• How does DNC define their support of the LGBT community?
• Will they clear the air about Maine and the lack of support? Is there a policy we don't know about?
• How do they plan to win back the disgruntled LGBT supporters?

I think the DNC should say something to clear the air. Right now, their name is getting dirty due to Aravosis and gang.

To be real, I take John Aravosis, Dan Savage, and peeps over at Pam's blog with a grain of salt. But I have to admit there's some foolishness lingering about. If the DNC want folks to stay on their side, we'll need some answers... Soon.

Examples of Internet Left Fringe

I thought I would be (silly) nice and give examples of Internet Left Fringe.

• An Internet Left Fringe person takes a statement like: I didn't like Milk the movie into I hated Harvey Milk and everything he stood for.
• To the ILF, if you disagree with their stance then you are a self-hating gay who tortures cats.
• They see and hear things that are not there, like your Aunt Clara who see fairies in the toilet.
• Trying to end DADT, DOMA and ENDA is as easy as blinking your eyes.
• They do not believe in details.
• They are impatient and paranoid, a dangerous mix.
• They love attention and can be very myopic. In fact, notice how some of them took this issue all out there and make it all about them see here
  
• They have a loyal following.
• They are only happy if they are right in a situation.
  

Yes, this list is crazy, but the way these folks carry on sometimes is ridic. Look at how Pam, John Aravosis and Dan Savage act once they get their wheels turning. It's discouraging and can be harmful to our overall cause.

I hope they will chill, step back and think through their stuff. Because this crying wolf mess is getting old.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/12/bloggers-furious-at-white_n_317424.html

What folks (haters) had to say about Obama's Speech

Obama said what he had to say. I thought his speech was good to hear, no it wasn't new stuff but it was reassurance. However to many haters and tough critics, it wasn't enough.

John Avarosis

All in all, the evening was a disappointment, but not unexpected. President Obama doesn't do controversy, and we, my friends, are controversy. So, the bad blood between this administration and the gay community will remain, and continue to worsen. It's unfortunate, but at some point you have to have enough dignity to say enough is enough. The Obama administration doesn't respect our community, and doesn't respect the seriousness of our cause. It's our job to hold them accountable. And we will.

Andrew Sullivan

But the point of electing a president who pledged to actually do things is to hold him to account, and to see if he is willing to take any risk of any kind to actually do something. I had a few prior tests of his seriousness or signs that he gets it, a few ways to judge if this speech had anything new or specific or clear. He failed every test.

Dan Savage

So long as the president refuses to remove DADT from his own plate—and I'm not holding my breath—I don't have much sympathy for him where his plate is concerned. Yeah, there's a lot on his plate. No doubt. But until he takes DADT off his plate I'm not interested in listing to him or his apologists whine.

Queerty... just see for yourself

Of course, they wasn't pleased. You can't please them. However, here's a few things they need to remember.

• Obama will keep the majority of the LGBT community on his side. Let's be real... Where else are we going to go?
• A timeline for a repeal is not realistic. I think it's best to work continuously on any repeal so it will get done right. It may takes months or a year. Again, we want this done RIGHT, right?
  
• If none of you have a realistic tangible plan, then shut it up! What is your plan Dan, John, Andrew and the twinks at Queerty?
  
• Go to Congress, bitches!
• And get over yourselves. Believe it or not, most of us are not feeling you or your rants. To be real part 2, you are not the voices of the gays.
  

Jim Jones on DADT and John Aravosis' (over) Reaction

National Security Adviser Jim Jones believes the time has to be right for DADT. I (I'm a minority) believes he is right.

John Aravosis overreacts as usual.

"What could Jones have said? How about, there’s a new analysis from a Department of Defense-related publication that…the ban can be lifted without hurting morale and cohesion. Or how about saying that the President just wrote to Senator Reid, agreeing to work together to lift the ban? Nope. None of that. All we got was another reason why the president may never be able to keep his promise. The Obama administration is doing next to nothing - and perhaps nothing altogether - to move the ball forward on repealing DADT. This isn't the kind of policy you just wake up one morning and say "ah, today is the day to lift the ban.”

Okay, then stop thinking it's that easy, John.

This will take time, my God, John I don't get you at all!


source