The hatred for John Aravosis here is appalling.

[Neecy]

I just read a big dose of it on LBN, and the frenzied attacks on him - I mean really ugly, vitriolic stuff - makes me wonder if there isn't something uglier lurking in the background here.

It's so out of proportion to anything John has written, and what appears in his blog isn't all that different from what many of us have been saying all along. It's almost like the attacks on him are a front to attack our entire community for daring to ask for action instead of rhetoric. The hostility is thick enough to cut with a knife, so much so that people now feel free to invade this forum and throw around terms like faggot and feel perfectly comfortable doing so.

Of course, John isn't the only person on tonight's enemies list....I believe so far we've racked up Time Magazine, Arianna Huffington and her "crew" and Saturday Night Live. I'm sure I've missed a few. But this is getting beyond ridiculous.

[Newsjock]

1. I certainly don't hate him

... but I respectfully think he blew it on this one. Let's talk about whether the White House "spokesman" should be calling out "far-left" bloggers; the fact that some of them just happen to be gay is tangential to the real issue here.

[Neecy]

2. Yes, and you're always respectful

And reasonable people can disagree on who exactly was the target of the "fringe" comment. But the hatred that was immediately generated tells me there's something beneath the surface here and it ain't pretty...

[TheWraith]

9. The "fringe" comment was pretty unequivocal.

The exact quote attributed to the anonymous White House staffer--who could be a secretary, for all we know--is this: "Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the Internet left fringe." In other words, they're referring to the "Obama can't do anything right" crowd that exists and thrives on DU, Daily Kos, and other places. Newsflash, folks: they REALLY ARE the fringe of the party. And I'm referring to style, not substance. Most of those 90% of Democrats who approve of Obama (like me, for example) support getting out of Iraq, and gay marriage, and all the rest of the right decisions just as much as do the 10%. The difference is that the 90% recognize not everything happens at once. People here are honked off about Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Well, they haven't passed the climate change bill through the Senate yet--does that mean Obama supports burning down the Amazon? Of course not. It's ludicrous on the face of it. But some people simply aren't happy unless they're railing against "the man" keeping them down, even when "the man" is busting his ass for their side. Yes, some issues get put on the back burner--in this case, because Obama is in the middle of the hardest part of his presidency right now, trying to keep people working and get real healthcare reform for the first time in a century. We'll get there eventually, but only if we don't freak out and start eating our own.

[ruggerson]

14. There is an election next year - 12 months away

so there is a ticking clock. These things need to get done while we control COngress and the WH. And your characterizations are not on target, because when the DOJ came out with that disgusting DOMA brief, it was the MAINSTREAM gay people all across the nation that got furious. Not some fringe element. To wit, it was on the front page of every major newspaper in the country. The "fringe" gay people, as far as I am concerned, are those who will come up with every far fetched excuse in the book to justify inaction on the part of this administration.

[TheWraith]

16. We're still going to control Congress and the White House.

That's not changing any time soon unless we decide to self-destruct.

And forgive if I don't get my knickers in a twist over the fact that a legal brief written by two Bush admin lawyers, which the White House had nothing to do with, sounded like something from the Bush administration. Kicking the incomps out of government is going to be a very long process.

[dsc]

24. We said this in 1993 too

it didn't work out so well. There is no way we will have as good a Congress in 2011 as we do now. None. We will lose some seats.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. He's rewritten the post to be more accurate

I don't think this paragraph was in there before:

So the gay community, and its concerns about President Obama's inaction, and backtracking, on DADT and DOMA, are now, according to President Obama's White House, part of a larger "fringe" that acts like small children who play in their pajamas and need to grow up. (And a note to our readers: The White House just included all of you in that loony "left fringe.")

The White House needs to make this right.

[ruggerson]

3. Agreed 1000 percent

it's all wildly out of proportion, as you note, and you're right on target with the rest of your observations.

[donco6]

4. Oh yeah.

Way beyond ridiculous.

[madrchsod]

5. you mean this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4099462

if so i think john should have known better .

how many times have we read --unknown sources or advisor's. it was the boys at nbc feeding a story line to the reporter who confirmed the story as if it were true.

so how is the white house supposed to respond to a story that has no truth? if they denied what the imaginary advisor said would anyone accept it?

it was a trap and to many fell into it

[Neecy]

6. So, did Harwood just lie out of whole cloth?

I doubt it.

[madrchsod]

10. yup.....he sure did.

you have your opinion and i have mine...

[Neecy]

11. Proof?

[Cherchez la Femme]

25. So you're contending that the reporter outright lied,

hat he made it all up?

Interesting, but wouldn't it backfire, quickly and obviously?


on edit: Had the page loaded while I looked at some others, didn't see Neecy ask the same question

apologies for being redundant.

[QC]

7. They are saying about Aravosis the things they really want to say about us,

the people on this forum who insist that our civil rights are more important than pinup pix threads.

It's the ultimate in passive aggression.

[mitchtv]

12. a lot of hair splitting

I know I shouldn;t say this, but the unnamed WH staffer sounds like Rahm

[donco6]

13. I think it aligns well with what Barney Frank was saying too.

I think the hardcore politicos are getting annoyed with those of us who aren't content to shut up. Too bad. Now we know what irritates them we can do it even more.

[TheWraith]

20. Right. Now Barney Frank is a homophobe and against gay rights.

What Frank said was some of the soundest advice I've seen in awhile. A "march on Washington" is a one day story. For the money it costs to put together, it doesn't change any minds, move any legislators, sway any voters. Real progress is made in day to day work on the ground, in personalizing a mass media narrative, and in backing up the elected officials who are on our side.

[Neecy]

21. Are you gay?

What's "sound advice" to you is a bunch of horseshit to us.

The march today was most certainly productive from an organizing standpoint. I heard from my friends who attended and the day was spent marching, yes, but there was also a great deal of networking and community actions organized. It was far from being a waste of time. Besides, we need to remind our own party that we aren't going to sit on the sidelines while our rights are being shunted to the sidelines.

[Toasterlad]

33. He's Not Gay, But He Plays One On Democratic Underground.

[donco6]

27. Uh, no.

He's an experienced political opportunist who knows how to dribble and drabble small "wins" to the public while further solidifying his own power base. Obama had to have taken lessons from him.

[mitchtv]

30. Barney is a little bit of an accommodationist for me

I sure didn't like it when he blamed Kerry's loss on the Gays.

[PVnRT]

32. You think activists aren't doing that?

Yes, they are doing day-to-day ground work and lobbying politicians. Why you assume they aren't is beyond me.

[chollybocker]

15. As a life-long homo...

...I can only say, THIS MAN DOES NOT REPRESENT ME. Aravosis' incoherent and oft-mispelt rantings are a big waste of internet space. Why are you so intent on defending him? He's just like the idiot owners of Outsports,com; fake Log Cabin outrage surrounded by homo stereotypes. I'm sick of that bullsh*t.

p.s.: Who said "faggot"? That ain't right....

[Neecy]

17. faggot appears in the veal pen topic

This isn't about defending him, or about who he does or does not represent. It's about the hatred that's being directed against him because they know they can't go all frontal attack on us here - although that's been happening at least since Prop 8.

[chollybocker]

18. "in the veal pen topic"

Translation requested. Thanx.

[Neecy]

19. it's in the subject line

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x147328

[chollybocker]

22. Heep!

My city-sheltered existence has kept me far from the expression "veal pen." Thanx for the thread link; I'd missed it. If I may I reiterate: "That ain't right." More reading to do! No offense meant or intended. :)

[Neecy]

23. Oh no, none taken at all

:)

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

26. Thanks for ....

... saying what needed to be said.

I can't tell if the severely misplaced hatred of John's blog is secondary to jealousy, spite, or just plain there being a disproportionate number of bitchy and mean-spirited old queens on this board.

It's a damn shame. John - along with David Mixner, Andy Towle, Joe of JMG, Pam, and Good as You - represent the top tier of not only gay oriented blogs, but those with vital general political, cultural, and social content as well.

John does more in one day for GLBT progress that the aforementioned bitchy old queens have done in their entire lifetimes.

[Neecy]

28. The hatred isn't in the GLBT forum

It's within the straight DU community. They've been savaging John for months, but it's recently gotten much more venomous.

[QC]

29. Aravosis was quite popular here at one time, when he was savaging Hillary every day.

Then he was quite the conquering hero around here.

But once he started holding Obama to his own promises, well, you see the response.

[Ben777]

31. Maybe,

it's because he's such a sexist, self-serving tool.