Stonewall 2010

As much as I dislike Harold Ford (4.00 / 1)

I'm going to give him credit for showing up.  I'm not happy to see this phrase:  

(he was forced to leave the stage as the crowd became uncontrollable),

I would have hoped for some better behavior, because yes, there's anger, and then there's the sort like this, which does not help to advance the message.  

---

by: Norbrook @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 02:02:00 AM UTC

No, not anymore (0.00 / 0)

Harold Ford, Jr. has consistently demonstrated, on the record, hate and discrimination towards the gay community during his time in public service. Now that he needs that community to grab a Senate seat from New York, he is willing to say he has repented and seen the light.
Gay Americans are fed up with being pandered to and are ready and willing to take such hypocrits to task. The issue is not the audience's response, it is the sheer contempt he has shown towards the needs and feelings of the very people he actively worked to keep as second-class citizens, but now claims to support.

Tax the Church.

---

by: furiousdee @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 02:21:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And the media spin will be (4.00 / 1)

"gays riot at Harold Ford speech."  Sorry, but exactly how is this any different from what the Tea Party people were doing back in August?  

---

by: Norbrook @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 02:44:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, it's sad you can't see the difference (0.00 / 0)

The gay rights movement has been fighting for equality for nearly 50 years, entrusting those leaders they have supported at the ballot box and with their own donations to do the right thing. Time after time those leaders have told them to wait all the while still courting that support.
Mr. Ford is the latest in a long line of politicians once again courting needed LGBT support to achieve his goals. His gamble that we would buy what he is selling after his record says exactly the opposite, is an insult to all who have marched, sacrificed and died in the cause of equality. Through the Stonewall riots to Matthew Sheperd and beyond, the gay community is no longer buying what they are selling. You desire civility in discourse? Start pointing fingers at those who deny Americans their civil rights and don't point them at those who are angry their rights are being denied.

Tax the Church.

---

by: furiousdee @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 04:50:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right, yup. And this is going to get politicians to listen. Not. (0.00 / 0)

Let me see if I can make this clear.  Stonewall invited him to speak.  He didn't show up just for the hell of it.  Now, from what you're saying, the only reason you invited him there was so that you could all take turns screaming at him, causing him to leave.  That's really helping your position there, isn't it?

All that has been accomplished by this is to make you feel better, because people got together and yelled, jumped up and down and waved signs at someone you use as a handy target.  In terms of actual discussion of your issues, and a chance to bring them out in a reasoned manner, you'd rather indulge in "righteous rage."  

All that you've really accomplished is to ensure that any politician who is not fully behind your stances is going to ignore you, and stay away from you.  Even those who might be persuaded aren't going to go near you.  In short, you've accomplished nothing except to make yourself feel better about yourself, but haven't advanced the policy discussion one iota.  Good going.  

---

by: Norbrook @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 17:26:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What policy discussion? (4.00 / 3)

Whether gays should be treated equally? That's not up for discussion. And, when a candidate comes looking for votes from a constituency who he has repeatedly voted against through a long career in politics, he/she should expect a good old-fashioned shout-down.

Anyway, it's all silly - this pretend candidacy was over before it started. The announcement will be coming any day.

---

by: noweeman @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 17:34:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

what exactly is surprising about any of this? (4.00 / 2)

I'm having a hard getting upset about this in any direction.  I kind of wondered what Ford was thinking going, and wondered why the Stonewall Dems invited him.  Those might be the hard parts of the story to figure out.

But what actually happened?  Dunno.  Not civil, but I don't see how it could have been.  And Ford gets out the message that he's brave enough to approach a hostile crowd, while his opponents make clear to a larger audience why they don't like him.

Seems like politics to me.

---

by: simonstl @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 18:02:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and just where wuld they run? (0.00 / 0)

Tax the Church.

---

by: furiousdee @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 19:22:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ignore us? Not if you want to win as a Democrat (0.00 / 0)

Just where do politicians who desire to run in a NY state Democratic primary run to, if not to the liberal wing of the party? The LGBT community is a large, well-informed, primary-voting bloc of that liberal wing. Why do you think Harold Ford showed up anyway - he needs LGBT support to win the Senate primary.

The message here is we will not be taken for granted, we will fight for everything the rest of society enjoys, and if you do not support equal rights for all, we will see to it that you go down in defeat.

That truly is something to "jump up and down for"; I do it gladly with no apologies.

Tax the Church.

---

by: furiousdee @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 19:36:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Only inside of NYC (0.00 / 0)

Elsewhere, you're just a minor power bloc, and Democrats do quite nicely without you.   The message you think you're sending is not the message you sent.  

You may think that you sent the message "we will not be taken for granted" but what you actually are sending is "we're out of control jerks."  Just like the Tea Party groups.  I don't see any difference in your behavior whatsoever.  

We Democrats liked to complain about the Tea Party groups and their disruptive behavior when meeting with Representatives.  I remember all sorts of blogs and comments about how bad it was, how disruptive it was to civil discourse and policy discussions.  Apparently, indulging in the same behavior is OK if you're LGBT.  

Right.  OK, from now on, I don't ever want to see a single complaint from any of the LGBT groups about Tea Party activist's behavior.  After all, pot=kettle.  

---

by: Norbrook @ Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 18:25:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How very inclusive of you (0.00 / 0)

The gay community of NYC and NY state have been in the forefront in the fights for civil liberties, equality in access to healthcare, funding for AIDS, equality in housing, protection under the law, and adoption rights.
These are all Democratic principles, embraced by a community who over and over have been marginilized again and again by the very party they have proved to support.

So now we are angry. An anger justified in the refusal of politicians to stand up for what is right and fair.
I'm not sure why this is so offensive to you?

To quote Sally Brown (see " A Charlie Brown Christams") - "all we want is what's coming to us, all we want is our fair share..."

From now on, I want to see a little more thought when responding to a community who has had enough of promises not kept, and hopes denied.

That's the Democratic Party and nation I fight for. Sitting down and shutting up are increasingly becoming a non-option. Your blind spot towards what is important to a vital part of our party actually proves that what happened Wednesday night is not only appropriate, but necessary.

Tax the Church.

---

by: furiousdee @ Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 05:36:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think the behavior was totally appropriate (4.00 / 2)

Officials should consider the consequences of taking a great big shit on a community. Someday, you may need them.

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:33:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, and "uncontrolled" mean (4.00 / 1)

they chanted "anti-choice, anti-gay, Snake oil Harold, go away," three times in a row, while being asked to stop.

Ford lost the crowd when Dan Choi spoke and suggested our community was not going to "fire" (his word) Gillibrand by backing Ford, which was met with thunderous applause.

But it was totally over when he didn't know what "Lawrence V. Texas" was and had to ask what the ruling was about. Groans everywhere. A handful of people I spoke too admitted, the name of the case probably didn't reverberate outside our community.

But still, as one person put it on Twitter: "To be fair, it WAS 2003 and Ford still hated the gays then."

He left not because the mob was uncontrollable but because they were clearly irretrievable.  

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:38:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He most recently voted FOR gay adoption (4.00 / 1)

All over the interwebs I see this labeled incorrectly. He voted against it in 1998 but by 1999 had changed his mind. His vote is clear on the matter.

His record on gay matters speaks for itself: its awful. We don't need to give him something to point to and say we're lying, that undercuts all of the parts that are true.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 04:34:36 AM UTC

(Video) Harold Ford Jr meets the Stonewall Dems (4.00 / 1)

News report from NY1 tonight. And a couple of photos off the newswire.

(Getty) NEW YORK - FEBRUARY 24: Angry activists shout down possible New York Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr. at the Stonewall Democratic Club February 24, 2010 in New York City. Ford, who is considering a challenge to fellow Democrat Kirsten E. Gillibrand for one of the New York Senate seats, was received skeptically by members of the noted New York gay-rights organization, who challenged him on his previous positions on gay rights, same-sex marriage and other social issues.

---

by: Scarce @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 05:11:48 AM UTC