General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMichelle Obama confronts protester, threatens to leave fundraiser.
First Lady Michelle Obama experienced a rare face-to-face encounter with a protester late Tuesday approaching the activist and threatening to leave a fundraiser if the person did not stop interrupting her speech.
Obama was addressing a Democratic Party fundraiser in a private Kalorama home in Northwest Washington when Ellen Sturtz, 56, a lesbian activist interrupted her remarks to demand that President Obama sign an anti-discrimination executive order.
Mrs. Obama showed her displeasure pausing to confront Sturtz eye to eye, according to witnesses.
One of the things that I dont do well is this, she said to applause from most of the guests, according to a White House transcript. Do you understand?
A pool report from a reporter in the room said Mrs. Obama left the lectern and moved over to the protester. The pool report quoted Mrs. Obama as saying: Listen to me or you can take the mic, but Im leaving. You all decide. You have one choice.
the rest: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/04/michelle-obama-confronts-protester-threatens-to-leave-fundraiser/
Pragdem
(233 posts)People that shout over others deserve nothing but being dragged to the nearest exit and having the door slammed in their face.
FreeState
(10,572 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)FreeState
(10,572 posts)Have you called and asked him too?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Heckling Michelle is way out of line.
p.s. next time on the phone with BO I'll mention it.
FreeState
(10,572 posts)as for protesting the way it was done tonight and in the 60s with the civil rights movement, why is it wrong now but was perfectly fine in the past with civil rights?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)taking shit from hecklers. Rosalyn Carter wasn't so popular but nobody publicly harassed her that I recall. Hillary, possibly, but Michelle is not Hillary and BO is not Bill. Babs, hell no. So why is it okay to heckle Michelle?
FreeState
(10,572 posts)Nancy Reagan was several times (cant find the news stories now, but any AIDS history of act up or her "Just Say No" campaign should mention it).
Laura Bush
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/17/bush.protester/
Pat Nixon
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19710818&id=VvNRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2XUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5087,1465899
Here a ton of the presidents too:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/president-interrupted-hecklers-presidents-past/story?id=16580756#.Ua6y95W50T0
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)at a "private" fundraiser, not a public appearance, though evidently media were at the ready. A gotcha IOW and a really ugly one.
FreeState
(10,572 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)FreeState
(10,572 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)to have been in the room.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)Sorry, not much sympathy for Mrs. Obama here. Hecklers are part and parcel of political events, and you learn to deal with them. Obama has done so masterfully. Others have just stopped, waited for security to escort the assholes out, and continued on with the speech.
You don't give disruptors one more second of attention that they do not deserve, and you definitely don't let them control your message and let them have the final say, no matter what they're yelling about, because that is **all** that's remembered at the end of the day. Mrs. Obama should know better.
Leaving in a huff is embarrassing, and just emboldens others to see how far they can push her at her next event. She needs to learn to deal.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Maybe you haven't noticed but the Obamas don't seem to have any. If Michelle didn't shut her down that heckler would still be yacking.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The gay community came out in numbers in 2007 to support "hope and change". Were they disappointed. Pres Barack Obama could have easily ended the discrimination of gay federal workers. But he didnt. I can understand the disappointment of the gay community. I have friends that are directly affected. Knowing what they have gone thru for the last 5 years lessens the concern for Ms. Obama's embarrassment. When there is a gross injustice, somehow I have a hard time blaming the protestor.
Response to FreeState (Reply #123)
nebenaube This message was self-deleted by its author.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Pres Obama nominates Penny Pritzker. His version of Mit Romney. Apparently he has no clue.
But your response is for the down trodden to be polite. Children are going to bed hungry in our country and you worry about this. Your priorities are misplaced.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)so poverty is not an issue here, and neither is Penny Pritzker, and I think you well know it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The nomination of Penny Pritzker should shown the most ardent Obama followers that he doesnt support the 99%. He supports the 1% capitalist vultures like Penny Pritzker, Obama's Mit Romney.
There is a class war on and I know it hurts but Pres Obama has sided with Wall Street and the 1%, ala. Penny Pritzker.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)He also got ACA passed and initiated an economic recovery that soon even you won't be able to ignore. I'd be satisfied with that but he's done a hell of a lot more too.
p.s. Pritzker appt doesn't mean jack because BO calls the shots or haven't you been paying attention the last 4 years?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)she helped him and he wants to return the favor. He has nominated Republican after Republican. But somehow you rationalize that is ok because he has a nice smile. He supports Bush's Patriot Act, domestic spying and indefinite detention. His wealth makes him part of the 1% and he is acting like it.
How do Penny Pritzker and Mit Romney differ??
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Did you skip civics class or what?
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Taxes, education...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)today would you embrace him?
Some apparently dont care what Penny has done as long as she calls herself a Democrat.
The Ruling Elite want us to believe the war is between the D's and the R's. After all, that takes no thinking at all. You dont even have to go to civics class. "D's" are good and "R's" are bad. If someone changes their letter from "R" to "D", they automatically become good.
The war is between the Ruling Elite 1% and the rest of us. And there are Democrats that belong to the Ruling Elite.
Some of the 99% want badly to side with the Ruling Authoritarians, hoping for some of that tinkle down, I guess.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)We get stabbed in the back by Obama, the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and here on DU all the FUCKING TIME.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Bringing it up here is a clear symptom of ODS.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)did the rest of the attendees pay $500 to hear a heckler interrupt Michelle, or did they pay to hear Michelle?
The heckler was an ass....and a selfish one at that.
The message was fine, hijacking the venue wasn't.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)A coalition of nonprofit organizations has released a comprehensive report detailing ongoing discrimination against LGBT American employees. Titled A Broken Bargain: Discrimination, Fewer Benefits and More Taxes for LGBT Workers, the study was helmed by the Center for American Progress, the Movement Advancement Project, and the Human Rights Campaign, which termed it the most comprehensive report to date about issues faced by LGBT workers.
The report has determined that among the estimated 5.4 million LGBT workers in 93% of U.S. counties, nearly 2 million leave their positions each year due to workplace discrimination. In addition, these workers are far more likely to be poor. An estimated 21% of LGBT couples have incomes close to the poverty line, compared to 6% of straight couples.
The study also draws attention to the absence of federal protections for LGBT workers and their families, which can still be denied benefits related to health, retirement, and disability in the United States. Under federal law, these employees can still be fired for their sexual orientation and gender identity.
http://www.advocate.com/business/2013/06/04/hrc-study-reveals-ongoing-discrimination-against-lgbt-workers
whathehell
(29,067 posts)I never SAID there was no relation, but my point was, she wasn't protesting poverty IN GENERAL,
she was protesting discrimination, job and otherwise, against LGBT people, half of whom are WOMEN
by the way, who, gay and straight, have been systematically discriminated against forever.
Beacool
(30,249 posts)Hillary has been heckled since forever. She knows how to take it in stride. She even had to use a bulletproof vest on occasion when speaking for healthcare reform back in the 90s.
Well said and I support your point. Besides, that whole "heckling" is just a walk in the park. Folks need to thicken up the skin a bit
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)It's not Michelle Obama's job to do that - I didn't vote for her - and she is NOT an elected official.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)What do you think will happen when a Republican wins the White House? You really think your rights will remain when they are only protected by an executive order?
Stop fighting for nearly useless crap, and put your energy where it belongs: Congress.
I am so sick of hearing about the things "Obama could do with the stroke of a pen." Since there are so many things, he can't get to them all. And where a Republican president could undo them "with the stroke of a pen" why make such a big deal of it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Or did I misunderstand. The President has the power to end this discrimination now, but you tell them to "Stop fighting for nearly useless crap,"? Sure it might go away if a Republican gets the WH, but why would Pres Obama deny these rights. He had the ability in 2008. Just think of the pain that could have been alleviated.
I agree that Congress should be pressured, but there is more than one road.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The EO only applies to the executive branch of the federal government. An area where the LGBT community is not currently experiencing discrimination - The Obama administration isn't firing people for being gay.
You are doing the eqivalent of attacking the Governor of New York because "gay marriage" is illegal in South Carolina.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)It doesn't register with people who have ODS.
ZRT2209
(1,357 posts)Beacool
(30,249 posts)Where did you get those pics?
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)than all the presidents before him combined.
Even the radio show host Stephanie Miller has said that (and she happens to be gay herself). Just by Obama being the 1st incumbent president to announce his endorsement of gay rights, for instance, he has done a great deal to help many gays out of the closet. I just got through saying on another thread that so many liberals are quick to blame the wrong people for the lack of progress in this country. They blame Obama for not closing GITMO even though he has tried, and they blame him for unemployment lowering too slowly among other issues, when the blame should be places mainly towards the people on Capitol Hill. They're the ones blocking jobs bills and thwarting efforts to close GITMO. They're the ones who have been hate-mongering against gay people. Far too many liberals seem to forget about the checks-and-balances system and equate a president with a king.
ZRT2209
(1,357 posts)dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Who don't give a shit about equality for all Americans
Threads like this expose the bigots, those who value political points over fairness.
You easily make the above list.
I am glad you are ok with discrimination. WHy the hell aren't you a republican?
demosincebirth
(12,537 posts)FreeState
(10,572 posts)demosincebirth
(12,537 posts)quakerboy
(13,920 posts)Last time I looked at Wikipedia, it was 12 states. Approximately 25%.
And it is explicitly banned in 28 states.
So... your portrayal is not exactly accurate.
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)Bad example.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)In 29 States it is perfectly legal to discriminate in housing or employment against LGBT people and there is no Federal Law to prevent is.
You sound very uninformed, and yet typical of the straight community.
Call Me Wesley
(38,187 posts)you're living up to your signature quote.
demosincebirth
(12,537 posts)Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Heckling the First Lady ain't gonna cut it. Grow the fuck up.
Response to Zoeisright (Reply #146)
Post removed
rbixby
(1,140 posts)SunSeeker
(51,564 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Did King do private speeches for the hyperwealthy? Or was he out there sweating, getting abused and arrested?
rbixby
(1,140 posts)I'm just saying that there's a respectful form of civil disobedience, and then there's the way that just makes you look like an asshole.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)To pretend there was no civil disobedience during those times is absurd. Compare leadership to leadership.
Being happy to continue legal discrimination against minorities makes the entire straight community look less than excellent and far from decent.
rbixby
(1,140 posts)It would be unwise for the president to make any changes until after the supreme court rules on DOMA.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)To try and draw a parallel between an organized march vs. the sudden appearance of a heckler at a paid fundraiser, is hillarious.
And without too much brain power, it pretty easy to see that the joint effort of thousands, of tens of thousands of individuals coming together to promote one unified messages. The power that one person, MLK has to bring those kinds of numbers together in an oprganized march (trust me this wasnt a spur of the moment gathering), vs, one heckler assuming all those that paid $500 for a ticket are there to listen to them instead of the speaker on the agenda.....you really don't see the difference?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)to a great leader, that to suggest a comparison is a bunch of bullshit. How you got the opposite out of that I have no idea. The proper comparison would be to other regular people and things they did in terms of civil disobedience. That is what I said.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)my apologies
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Short apology for that blizzard of verbiage from bullshit city. But hey, all you wanted to do was ring that bell.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Response to rbixby (Reply #333)
merrily This message was self-deleted by its author.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I think you are simply yanking our collective chains. One of the most disingenious statements you have made today. Here is the difference:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2949617
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Please be specific, thanks.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)hidden. The post that supported the First Lady got to stay while the other post got hidden. Just sayin.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Sad.
skeewee08
(1,983 posts)hopemountain
(3,919 posts)but please don't do me any favors and scream for me. screaming at michele obama is rude. disrespect does not win friends or get someone to hear you. on the contrary, it repels the very people you want to hear you.
IF i had the money to go to a fundraiser, i would have gotten the first lady's attention by first, being respectful of her as a person. i would have asked the hosts how i could arrange to have my issue/concern heard - a private phone call, or request advice on how to effectively & directly communicate my concerns.
with all individuals, there is a common ground. can you identify it and call upon it's power? save the immaturity, disrespect and anger for the assholes who deserve it when you see THEM - getting people on your side does not happen when you shove it down their throats.
sure, you got attention. what did it accomplish? alienation. the very thing you are trying to overcome.
rbixby
(1,140 posts)Response to Zoeisright (Reply #146)
dbackjon This message was self-deleted by its author.
ZRT2209
(1,357 posts)LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)this, but are there different stages of ignore? Can you half-ignore someone on DU?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)don't show and you can set it so they also can't send you DU mail. That's full ignore.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)In response to the quote, "I'm sick of not having my civil rights" you respond with, "welcome to full ignore"
How magnanimous of you.
QC
(26,371 posts)and can't keep his hands off it.
I didn't know the same phrase would be repeated ad nauseum throughout this thread.
It's annoying the fuck out of me.
His threats of alerting are funny though.
QC
(26,371 posts)I am still laughing. Thanks so very much QC.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And you have plenty of rights. The right to free speech, etc.
mfcorey1
(11,001 posts)the previous Presidents. The republicans are waiting for the day that they can undo all of the positive legislation for the LGBT community. Hopefully the next president will be a Democrat who will continue the work. I think that he gets little credit for anything that he has advocated and actually done. If we erase the thing for the LGBT community that has happened under this administration, it would be damaging.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Unreal to see this open bigotry on DU. This person thinks it is ok that there are no Federal laws to prohibit discrimination against LGBT people, thinks the 29 States that allow discrimination in employment and housing show that LGBT people have 'plenty of rights'. No right to not be evicted for being gay, but still, plenty of rights.
I am amazed that anyone is ok with this on DU. Plenty of rights, said about a minority group that is fired for existing in most of the nation. Plenty! Can not marry nor file as a household nor jointly, as THIS POSTER CAN.
Plenty of hubris, arrogance, and open contempt for equality is what I see here. Plenty.
treestar
(82,383 posts)When you have every other right. And President Obama has done more to make progress than any other president. I don't think gay marriage is the only issue or even the number one issue.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)This, one concern at a time BS is just that. It's bull shit. Everyone deserves to be treated equally under the law. You and I, everyone. That's all.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)(in this case LGBTQ) I have seen on DU so far. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Just in case you decide to self-delete:
you responded to this post:
with this:
QC
(26,371 posts)and for DU discussions of LGBT issues in general.
It's easy to think that maybe things have changed a bit around here, but then comes a thread like this one to remind us that everything is pretty much the same as it ever was, that many, if not most, DUers still believe that LGBT people are just a bunch of impudent pony-demanders who need to sit down and shut up.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)because you are right.
Again, please accept my apology.
QC
(26,371 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)There there is only one right you do not have. And people who give no credit to Obama for what he did already while making as if it is the only issue that matters are just wrong. There's always going to be some new demand. I am a woman and we don't have all our rights all the time, or some are threatened, but this is the US where we can talk about it, protest and I don't go around saying I have no rights. Not when looking at women in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia for instance.
If I am a bigot for caring about other issues, then fine. I don't think gay marriage is the only civil rights issue there is. Or the only issue that matters. And there is free speech. And the rest of the bill of rights. You should be ashamed for not caring about anyone or anything else.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)and dismissive about LGBTQ minority rights AND claim they are a Democrat is absolutely beyond me.
Never mind you don't even know what this particular incident was about because according to you, right to marry is the ONLY right LGBTQ minority doesn't have in US.
Your bigotry toward LGBTQ minority became even more clear after this statement (capitalisation is mine for clarity):
You assumed I am gay because I care about equality? I guess straight person just can't possibly be passionate about minority rights. I am not going to buy an explanation that it was a mistyping, this is clearly more than that. With that statement you draw a line between 'us' and 'them'. If this is not bigotry, I don't know what is.
It IS bigotry to say to a member of severely disadvantaged minority 'shut up and be happy with what you have'. You only dare to say it because this is about rights LGBTQ minority doesn't have. You wouldn't dare to say it if this was race related issue.
I dare you to post 'you should be happy you have a right to abortion at all' in the next OP that talks about yet another attempt to take that right away. I will be waiting.
No wonder you have such a twisted idea what Universal Human Rights are all about. I don't have a reason to be ashamed because I believe EVERYONE has the right to be treated equally, to have an affordable housing, to have means to make a living, to have a right to Bodily Integrity, right to free education, right to free Healthcare. Those are just few of the Universal Human Rights, there are more.
P.S. I can't believe I was told I should be ASHAMED because I care about Universal Human Rights. On DU, of all places.
yardwork
(61,622 posts)First of all, I'm a woman too, as well as being gay. So I'm affected by the "war on women" just as much as you are. I mention this because there seems to be a misconception that all gay folks are men. This puzzles me. Maybe you never heard of lesbians. I'm one.
Second, we lack a whole bunch more rights than just one. I can be fired just for saying that I'm gay. Please let that sink in. I'll repeat. I can be fired just for saying that I'm gay.
Also, I can be kicked out of my apartment complex just for saying that I'm gay. Apparently you didn't know that. It's true.
Furthermore, there are thousands of other mean things that people can do to me just because I'm gay that they aren't allowed to do to any other minority groups. You know all those laws and statutes that guarantee "equal rights" to people and list the many ways in which they can't be discriminated again? Well, apparently you never noticed this but being gay isn't included in most of those laws and statutes, certainly not in my state. So it's perfectly legal for people to discriminate against me just for being gay.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)yardwork
(61,622 posts)I really appreciate it. More importantly, hundreds and perhaps thousands of people reading but not posting on DU - many of them young people, teenagers who are gay - are reading your posts and maybe feeling just a little bit of hope.
You'll never know if you saved a life today. Very possibly so.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Definitely not here on DU, and most definitely not IRL.
There is nothing more important than equality for all, without damn tags attached to it. There is no need to decide what should be done first, it's perfectly realistic to do more then one thing at once.
This is NOT 'gay rights' issue. It affects ALL of us., one way or another. This is Universal Human Rights issue - some of us have more rights and some of us have less rights and there is no reason and no excuse whatsoever for it. It's that simple. At least it is for me.
William769
(55,147 posts)I'll match you easily.
LGBT people are up to over 1400 rights denied.
Come on inquiring minds want to know!
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Or if you favor one over another.
dsc
(52,162 posts)Gays can be fired, simply for either being gay or merely perceived to be gay, in nearly 3/5 of states, including such places as Texas (2), Florida (4), Pennsylvania (6), Ohio (8), Michigan (10), Georgia (11), NC (12), VA (13). But we have all our rights.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)And can I have some of yours?
FUCKING INCREDIBLE.
So we should be happy with 1/2 rights and just shut the fuck up?
adigal
(7,581 posts)Not when MO acts like a child, threatening to take her ball and go home.
Not when President Obama drops drones on innocent children.
THERE WILL BE NO CRITICISM OF DEMOCRATS HERE. EVER!!!!
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)but it goes too far when people start acting like he is some king who can disobey the checks-and-balances system and just do anything without Congress's approval.
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)For those who covet the struggle.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)That gays should just shut the fuck up because we have gained a few rights?
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Do you even realize how bigoted and insulting that post was? Jeezus.
rbixby
(1,140 posts)Also, see my post on this thread below.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Or the blatant disrespect Obama and his fellow bigots show GLBTs all the time.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)And having people LIKE YOU defend bigotry
fUCK THAT
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)I adore Michelle, but I also have a huge place in my heart for civil disobedience and protesters.
ZRT2209
(1,357 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)You keep repeating the obvious, as if anyone would care that you do what you always have done, avoid facts and brag about it.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)their money to hear Mrs. Obama speak would have been thrilled to have their night ruined by this woman who was shouting down a person with no power to do anything.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)so many assume the heckler "gets" to do this because she paid for a $500 ticket. Well, if I had been one of the other participants I would have been pissed if all my $500 bought was a surprise-time listening to a heckler with a personal agenda.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,942 posts)ZRT2209
(1,357 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Yes. For an activist, at one specific point in time, "their" issue is the only one on the plate.
Their are 8 "issues" that I currently actively involved in. In a few of them, there is some coalition cross over in a case by case basis. BUT, if I am a partner in one focused action over any one of those 8, I'm not going to bring up the others.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)home. it wasn't a public space where you're drawing public attention to your cause by violating the normal rules of politeness, or demonstrating that there's a constituency for your cause by gathering a lot of people to violate the rules.
i don't see how this one individual doing this in a private home achieves anything except alienating the person she's trying to win over. the other poster mentioned alternatives, like calling the host & asking about face time. i presume the reason for attending such fundraisers is *access*, & i presume there's some access built into the event. so why be rude?
the reason public protesters violate 'civility' is because they *don't have* access like people who can buy into private fundraisers do.
FreeState
(10,572 posts)thanks for your support on making it so federal LGBT employees have the civil rights as you do.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And going after her as a proxy for her husband is driven by sexist assumptions.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)There's nothing sexist about it at all.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)could be had by gay couples?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)You are thinking of a provision for certain (not all) Federal Employees to be able to share benefits with their partners just as other couples do. These are not the 'federal benefits' such as Social Security as we still can not name our partners to get survivor benefits, we still can not file to the IRS as anything but single and on and on and on....
What he did was a positive, but a tiny one, effecting only those in the employee of the government directly. Contractors can still screw us. As can any employer in 29 States, all of whom can simply say 'you are fired for being gay'.
Speaking about very important things without the proper education can seem arrogant and dismissive, even bigoted. Are you incapable of looking up the details of the order you speak of? No. So the 'question format' is an affectation.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)That's why the heckler was heckling. This discrimination could have been ended 5 years ago. There is no excuse.
It's too bad that the first lady was inconvenienced but under the circumstances, considering the inconvenience for the gay community, I think this action was warranted.
Laurian
(2,593 posts)This protestor did her cause no good with this behavior toward the first lady.
brooklynite
(94,587 posts)Laurian
(2,593 posts)situation described in the OP.
brooklynite
(94,587 posts)...I'm thinking about some other folks here for whom any "progressive" groups deserve praise, no matter their behavior.
JI7
(89,250 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)HAMILTON, N.J. A woman wearing a T-shirt with the words "President Bush You Killed My Son" and a picture of a soldier killed in Iraq was detained Thursday after she interrupted a campaign speech by First Lady Laura Bush.
Police escorted Sue Niederer, of Hopewell, N.J., from a rally at a firehouse after she demanded to know why her son, Army 1st Lt. Seth Dvorin, 24, was killed in Iraq. Dvorin died in February while trying to disarm a bomb.
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/sep/17/nation/na-laura17
xoom
(322 posts)CatWoman
(79,302 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)There were plenty of DU posts condemning them for that. I think there are many DUers who would not have thought much of anyone doing the same to Mrs. Bush either.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)I appreciate someone who is willing to stand up and make their voices heard.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)She is also someone who actively campaigned for her husband and is a de facto public figure. She has her husbands ear and is a legitimate target for someone who wants to give voice to a cause.
She should have used humor and defused the protester with more elegance.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)You cheer the heckler but Michelle has to STFU? For fucking what?
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)I shouldn't have taken it out on you.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)I really admire the First Lady.
I just also have that rebel streak in me that loves protesters standing up for a good cause.
I have a bit of an issue with the "how DAAAAAARE she do that to Michelle" idea.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)The protester needs to learn how government works and go after the people who are REALLY standing in the way of progress and passing lasting legislation.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)She was being party-political, and was thus 'a legitimate target'.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)HAMILTON, N.J. A woman wearing a T-shirt with the words "President Bush You Killed My Son" and a picture of a soldier killed in Iraq was detained Thursday after she interrupted a campaign speech by First Lady Laura Bush.
Police escorted Sue Niederer, of Hopewell, N.J., from a rally at a firehouse after she demanded to know why her son, Army 1st Lt. Seth Dvorin, 24, was killed in Iraq. Dvorin died in February while trying to disarm a bomb.
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/sep/17/nation/na-laura17
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Woman arrested after interrupting Laura Bush speech
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x831469
Note the reaction here to that protest.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)How many death threats do you think the President and his wife have received over the last 5 years?
What if this lesbian had been a gun nut?
Or, just deranged?
This could have turned out much, much worse than Michelle just offering her the microphone.
People need to think things out before they post on the internet.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)I can't see what your "what ifs" have to do with this at all. You say "people need to think things out before they post on the internet", but I want you to apply that to your own post, because it just seems irrelevant.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Beacool
(30,249 posts)The guests would have been screened before Michelle even showed up.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)They wouldn't bump their ass when they hop.
Hypothetical scenarios are not what happened. What actually happened is what happened. I doubt very seriously she would have made it into the event if she had a gun. So, why even bring hypothetical scenarios up?
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)Good.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)I love how people think they can throw disrespect at this POTUS and FLOTUS from every corner and have the nerve to be shocked that they don't stand there and take it.
I wonder what she would've done if she'd gotten a Chris Christie-style response?
riqster
(13,986 posts)Those that dish it out should be able to take it when it is served back to them.
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)I have no doubt of that.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Good.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)ZRT2209
(1,357 posts)nolabear
(41,984 posts)Says a lot about your lack of judgment. I appreciate frustration but that will get you nothing, and if you don't know that then you need a clue.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)This is why she would never want to be President. She would have to be in too many faces all the time. She is not patient like her husband. And I love both of them for the opposite characteristics of each.
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)In that post where Laura Bush was heckled, she was flustered. But, the current first lady was quite blunt, wasn't she?
Essentially, it's me or you, sister...was my take away from that exchange.
I'd say the first lady won the moment. When you can leave a heckler wondering...what the heck just happened? I'd say that was pretty impressive.
Now, I'm not sure if this means hecklers will try again to rattle her. Or, if they'll get the message that this is no ordinary first lady.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)the issue.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)because a commoner challenged her.
A woman who can have any platform at any time to express her views.
There was quite a bit of praise for President Obama when he directly addressed Medea Benjamin when she called him out. People called him a gentleman.
Was Ms Obama being a lady?
The woman should have taken the mic and let Ms Obama walk.
Do you understand?
brooklynite
(94,587 posts).......
......
......
okay, what WAS accomplished?
Was Ms. Obama convinced of the protester's opinion, and will lobby the President?
Were the other's in the audience convinced, and will pressure the groups they give money to?
Will there be an upswell of public support based on reading stories about the protest?
Or did somebody waste $500?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)$4800, at the last moment, of access to a fundraising event for his reelection coffers and then canceled the transaction before the organizers looked at the books the next day.
We had a successful protest that was national news. And that was the point, bringing the point to the national news. (Well, actually, we thought it would only make local news but we were damn happy that it aired across the nation.)
1) What was accomplished.
You know about it.
2) Was Ms. Obama convinced of the protester's opinion, and will lobby the President?
Ms Obama didn't give a flying fuck. But she wasn't the target.
3) Were the other's in the audience convinced, and will pressure the groups they give money to?
An audience of wealthy swells was not the target.
4) Will there be an upswell of public support based on reading stories about the protest?
Activists don't expect upswells. It is one person at a time.
brooklynite
(94,587 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)brooklynite
(94,587 posts)I know it's orthodoxy around here, but as someone who 1) contributed to his campaign, and 2) worked on his voter protection team in Florida, I submit that Kerry lost it all by himself, by running a mediocre campaign that made little if no distinctions between what Bush did and what he would do.
Add to that the fact that neither Senator Kerry, nor any Party or elected official from Ohio challenged the results on the basis of election fraud.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)brooklynite
(94,587 posts)...but I'll opine that your protest -- at a Republican fundraiser -- didn'y change any minds on that score.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)skills. To be very clear with you, the power to end this sort of event is in the hands of the moderate centrists who keep giving us the cold shoulder. I don't think they are smart or kind enough to figure it out. What if we'd just had debate in Congress about the immigration bill instead of removing the 'gay parts' to please centrists and Republicans?
The answer can not always be 'not now, shut up, we cant'. Not if you want respect in return, you have to give that which you wish to get.
nebenaube
(3,496 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)IMO there are people who get caught up in things to the point where they prefer nothing happen, so they can continue to enjoy being a victim - somehow they get something out of that.
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)Jesus Christ. Maybe another Whitehouse.GOV petition was in order...
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)because, as we know! They always result in action!
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)endless whining on an Internet discussion. board.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)They paid to see the First Lady speak. I'm sure that's distasteful to you. But too fucking bad.
MFM008
(19,814 posts)an open forum is one thing but a private dinner or event is another.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Like you said, an open forum is one thing. This was not an open forum.
REP
(21,691 posts)Heckling her is not the same as heckling someone who holds elected office and has political power.
Being rude to her is just being rude. Not 'speaking truth to power' or whatever the phrase du jour is.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)So put your phrase du jour in your hat and smoke it.
REP
(21,691 posts)... but some, it seems, prefer to speak out of one.
1983law
(213 posts)when Laura Bush was heckled?
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)I can't remember a specific instance.
1983law
(213 posts)Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)1983law
(213 posts)But I really do not want to belabor this. If folks feel that the flotus is untouchable, then so be it. I believe that equal treatment for everyone--heckle one, then all get it and so on. In this thread, I support those using their voice towards what may be the closest they will ever get to the person they believe can effect change. Kids are of course the exception.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)sounds like shallow GOP thinking to me.
Where are the du masses that think what was done to past FLOTUS's is accepteble and therefore an excuse to do it today to Michelle? Again, pretty shallow assumptions.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)What the FUCK purpose does heckling MICHELLE serve?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)when she heckled him and now these same DUers will praise Michelle for NOT being a gentleman... er, lady, in a similar situation.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)REP
(21,691 posts)Or was she the wife of a politician being inappropriately solicitated at an event that was not a news conference or policy discussion?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)offer and let Michelle walk.
blue neen
(12,321 posts)"Sturtz said she paid $500 to attend the fundraiser, part of a protest cooked up by the gay rights group GetEqual, which gained notice in Obamas first term for hectoring him during speeches and demanding more action on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues."
IMHO, Ms. Sturtz was the one lacking manners.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)Sorry. But those are the rules.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Michelle could have handled this better.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Good for Michelle and the negativity spinners can take their usual walk.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)with elegance or elegantly as you mentioned up thread? what would have been elegant to you?
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)hopemountain
(3,919 posts)please explain.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)BainsBane
(53,035 posts)She has no political power. Her role is ceremonial. She is married to the president. Good lord, there are many, many more influential women. There are women as heads of state in Brazil, Argentina, and many nations around the world.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)They do not control an empire.
Anywhere in the world that Michelle visits is created as a state event with pomp and circumstance accorded to a queen.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)That's absurd. She's married to the President. That doesn't give her any political power. She has absolutely nothing to do with this bill.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Will you also claim that any appeal to Eleanor Roosevelt (and she received oodles) in regards to economic and social justice had no affect? That, even though she had no "power" she had no influence?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)If the President behaved like an emperor, he'd squash you like a bug.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You have to understand that, since she is a wife, she is a proxy for her husband and has no independent identity as a human being.
That's what women are FOR.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)Jennicut
(25,415 posts)She isn't even the most influential First Lady of all time. Hillary and Eleanor Roosevelt were far more influential.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Good grief.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Ask the people of Spain and Greece and Cyprus if Angele Merkel is less influential than Michelle Obama is because of her choice of intimate partner.
Note also that Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton somehow fall below Ms. Obama in this estimation.
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)Now that is the most influential woman in the world. Actually holds a position of power.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Particularly given Germany's dominance in the EU.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Geez we are on a role (sorry everyone else, inside joke).
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)under both our names and read through the first several pages, and the only thing I found was some mild disagreement about Kaitlyn, and my views on that case aren't even firm. So I'm missing what we disagree so much about. Is it possible that you think about the disagreements more than writing them in response to me?
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I can't remember for sure. Maybe I confused you with someone else. I was just poking at you anyway.
FreeState
(10,572 posts)and yes Im revering the First Lady.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)one_voice
(20,043 posts)What the fuck kind of question is that? What exactly is being a lady? What fucking constitutes being a fucking lady?
Please explain what a fucking lady is. Be very specific. Cuz I really wanna know what your fucking definition of a lady is.
Do YOU understand?
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Unless she's the heckler, in which case it's all good. But Michelle? I guess she's not allowed. For some reason.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Benjamin?
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)Remind us.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)husband's party.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)A rare thing for that particular occupational group he is in.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)simple question, "what elective office does Michelle Obama hold?" And if you can answer that, then tell us what was the last bill she sheperded through Congress? And then answer, what constitutional amendment gives a first lady the capability to sign an executive order?
This was a stunt, and it may get a couple of days of news coverage like the Benjamin stunt, but what's really happening is you guys are turning potential allies into possible enemies. I know that doesn't bother you, because being a NorquistDogLake luminary, you could care less about building consensus with Democrats, and if I'm honest, I could care less about you guys.
Rudeness to the First Lady won't get what the protestor wants, but she was smart. She chose her venue wisely, because if she did that shit in my neighborhood, where Michelle Obama is revered, the young lady would've had to have security, not to restrain her, but to protect her. Bank on it!
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Woman arrested after interrupting Laura Bush speech
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x831469
Interesting reactions to that back then.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)participate in that thread, so I'm not sure what your point is?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Since you did not participate in that thread, can you share how you felt about Laura Bush being heckled? Is it different from Michelle Obama?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and the huge difference between gentleman and lady.
well, that would explain lots.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)And stop fightin'.
1983law
(213 posts)But I support the message.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)SHE wasn't the one interrupting a speaker who clearly had the floor.
Exactly WHAT was unladylike about anything she said or did?
I would've loved to see the heckler ACCEPT the offer. FLOTUS would have graciously left, and the crowd would have been PISSED. I don't think your hero would've gotten the hero's welcome you imagine.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)I have never seen any hint of Michelle Obama adopting an attitude of being superior, or treating other women as 'commoners'.
This was not a matter of being 'challenged' so much as a matter of being interrupted while trying to speak, as she had been invited to do - and expected to do. While you might say the heckler has a right to free speech, so does Michelle Obama. And the people who paid to be there had a right to hear the person they'd come to hear.
If the assembled guests had paid to hear Ms. Sturtz speak, it would have been equally as inappropriate for Michelle Obama to have interrupted her when she had the floor.
"There was quite a bit of praise for President Obama when he directly addressed Medea Benjamin when she called him out. People called him a gentleman."
Are you suggesting that Michelle is somehow obligated to act exactly as her husband would act in similar circumstances? Or is she not free to conduct herself as she chooses?
As has been pointed out by others in this thread, if Ms. Sturtz really wanted to speak her mind on any topic that involves official policy or legislation, she should have directed her efforts towards those in a position to act, rather than the First Lady.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)with harassment and disparagement the way her husband does on a daily basis. She is a woman, one who is free to not take shit if she chooses not to.
apples and oranges
(1,451 posts)Mrs. Obama, holding no political power, chose NOT to accept the disrespect and kudos to her for that. Everyone has to set their own boundaries and stand firm to them. It's better for her to know her boundaries and walk rather than end up on the same level as the rude heckler.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)Mark my words.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)That drunken idiot yelled across a room "WWWWWAAAAA TELLL YOUR BOSS TO STOP BOMBING BABIES!!!"
Her reply: "Why don't you tell him yourself??"
Brigid
(17,621 posts)There is nothing wrong with that. The disrespect coming to the Obamas from all sides the whole time they have been in DC has been absolutely breathtaking. I wonder how many young people have been noticing this and deciding they never want to run for office.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Tell 'em to stick the mike where the sun don't shine.
I love it.
auntsue
(277 posts)to get your message heard and respected. I think I would have waited for Q & A then asked my question about the executive order. When you act like a screaming fool you end up ejected. I sympathize with the issue and I'll bet both Obama's do too.
boilerbabe
(2,214 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Copy: Fox News or our Leftist Friends?
Ya nevah, nevah know...
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)never liked her in the first place. She sounds like she thinks the common people don't dare to interrupt her or something. Did she say, "Don't you know who I am?"
shawn703
(2,702 posts)And she has had plenty of experience dealing with immature children throwing temper tantrums.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Are little children throwing tantrums?
I'm saying that people who behave like children should be treated as such. Not everyone who wants equality feels what happened here was appropriate.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)It's just plain rude, I don't care who you are.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)How dare me. Just giving the perspective of how a non-devotee will take this incident.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)I didn't take them at Laura Bush and I don't take them at Michelle Obama. A First Lady has no political power. Her position is entirely ceremonial and unpaid. She has nothing to do with that bill. You don't need to worship her to have common courtesy.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)so all protesters must have unfairly took shots at President Bush when they were shouting and protesting at him. Of course, Bush never heard it anyway, because all the troublemakers would be moved far far away in "free speech zones". Brilliant.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)I have no objection to the woman heckling Obama. The First Lady is another story. She wields no political power.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Jennicut
(25,415 posts)And annoying. They don't usually accomplish much. I personally would have tried to ignore the lady but what can you do. If people came to listen to you and someone keeps interrupting you, do you just stop talking altogether and leave? Michelle Obama has never really came off as a snob. She seems pretty down to earth to me. I mean next to Cindy McCain or Ann Romney, she seems like a decent person.
FreeState
(10,572 posts)I cant believe what I am reading here on DU.
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)Especially one that has not gotten as involved on policy decisions in the WH. It would be like protesting the Iraq War to Laura Bush. Not sure I get the tactic.
FreeState
(10,572 posts)to follow through with his campaign promise of implementing an executive order to stop firing LGBT federal employees. So yes, pressuring the person closest to the only one that can do that IS going to help change that.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)BuddhaGirl
(3,607 posts)I can't believe I'm reading posts actually supporting this asshole here on DU.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)which of course is racially motivated criticism.
I've always suspected you of being a right winger attempting to disguise yourself as a liberal. This is yet more proof.
Thanks.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)considered heresy, so you don't need to give any more evidence of that to me.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The daughter.
Another tell-tale sign.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)about me, by the time you all are done, I'll be a combo of Hitler and fucking Ted Bundy, no doubt.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Off to the gulag with you.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)great white snark
(2,646 posts)Thank you.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)edited to add: chip on shoulder...typical winger speak.
One doesn't have to be a 'devotee' to agree that what the protester did was rude.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)But I'll do the same silly thing you did with your question and ask you one along similar lines. The protester was a lesbian and asking for support for her issues. So, do you hate gay people or what?
one_voice
(20,043 posts)I think the protester was rude to what she did. Michelle Obama is not an elected official. Her husband is. If it were President Obama giving the speech, fair game.
I didn't ask you if you hated anything either---Did I ask if you hated Michelle Obama? Nope, but here you are asking me if I hate gay people.
I love gay people....some of my favorite people in this world are gay.
But when I come into contact with people like you, I'm reminded of why I like my dogs so much more than most people.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)and say that I don't write for Fox.
ZRT2209
(1,357 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)You keep on telling everyone who you disagree with they are on ignore though. It will be a nice and quiet restful place for you.
treestar
(82,383 posts)who wanted the opposite on gay issues?
This is about rudely interrupting.
And there are plenty of other issues, so it would be OK for anyone, right?
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)This must be her only way/chance to say anything about her issue. Odd, in America.
I believe in being polite enough not to interrupt a speaker everyone else is there to hear, and talking at another time and place. Or writing and publishing. We live in a free country with plenty of chance to express ourselves and campaign for our issues without being rude to other people.
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)This was a wonderful act of civil disobedience. This was not a milk and cookies event for kindergartners.
Sturtz seized the opportunity in front of her to publicize her cause. Like her or hate her, progressive protestors should never be criticized for being rude as rudeness is at th center of civil disobedience. If you dismiss the rudeness, you dismiss pretty much all acts of civil disobedience.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)you never liked anything about any Obama ever.
Is this supposed to be a confession or reveal or something when it's been plastered all over the walls of DU for ages?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I must be an evil person then huh? Maybe worse than Charlie Manson even, for this crime?
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)This is a serious crime.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)You're the great defender of those oppressed by uppity black folks you hate. We get it.
Nobody's gonna send you to Gitmo, because your bullshit is amusing, at best. You're harmless.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)communist as well. Give me some damn credit.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)babbling about now?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Quinnox is the admiral of the failboat fleet!
treestar
(82,383 posts)Now that is right winger territory.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)No surprise.
JI7
(89,250 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)I'm horrified and completely disgusted.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)have done absolutely nothing in regards to LGBT civil rights. Michelle gets heckled at a private home and called dog whistle words here on DU. I am angry and sickened.
Pirate Smile
(27,617 posts)CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)That explains a LOT.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)not liking Michelle is not a sin, despite what most BOG-ers may think.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)She'll cope without your disapproval.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)you're peddling rightwing racist tropes.
You never liked her? That reflects well on her.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
shawn703
(2,702 posts)Good for Michelle.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)You think you are our keepers? Is that how you treat your children? Well, actually it is, straight parents often reject their gay kids for being gay. We have entire organizations dedicated to rescuing the kids straights throw away for being who they are.
shawn703
(2,702 posts)Sorry, you completely lost me. A child was throwing a tantrum, and the adult wasn't going to stand for it.
Logical
(22,457 posts)ZRT2209
(1,357 posts)Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)I hate your "you're on full ignore posts"... WHO THE FUCK CARES????
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)When we have the likes of Chris Christie being practically abusive to people who disagree, FLOTUS dares to respond very civilly to a rude interrupter, and she gets the finger-wag for being not as "classy" as her husband...whom many around here hate, but in this case, let's use him to compare FLOTUS unfavorably.
Logical
(22,457 posts)BainsBane
(53,035 posts)She has no political power. She doesn't sign bills. Leave her alone.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Throwing creme pies at Michelle is really a new low. And frankly this is worse than a cream pie because anything she says or does can and will get spun as "unladylike," see above.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)in political environments.
You don't get the upside without the blow back. She is acting as a political proxy, that means you get more than just the adulation and the fund raising, you get some heat as that proxy too. Don't like stay out of the politics entirely.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Is not a political speech.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)FreeState
(10,572 posts)LGBT workers have ZERO federal protection.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)I prefer real action myself and not tantrums.
But hey that's just me.
FreeState
(10,572 posts)or only the gay ones? Cause these actions have a strong history in US Politics from our own damn party.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)fundraiser in a private home.
it's piss-poor tactics for achieving anything.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)as the First Lady because none of them have anything to do with that bill.
FreeState
(10,572 posts)She was talking about an executive order.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)I thought everyone learned how govt worked in grade school. Apparently not.
FreeState
(10,572 posts)BainsBane
(53,035 posts)about an issue, this is the best way to assure he doesn't advocate for the cause. In addition to being rude, it's just plain stupid. A polite conversation after the speech would have been far more effective.
FreeState
(10,572 posts)so whats changed now? Uppity queers demanding there rights is somehow over the line. Straight people can do this but not gays, got it.
The tactic used tonight is one steeped in democratic party traditions. Look up the 60s.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)When did that happen? Selma, Montgomery, and the luncheon of the Daughters of the American Revolution?
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Seriously, wow.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)it seems that we really all turn into weird law abiding authoritarians only when a democrat is in office. other times civil rights protests of any kind are a thing to revere.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)were par for course here
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Laura is fair game for heckling as a de facto Public figure. Deriding her.. not so much
The kids are always off limits in my book until such time as they are of age and are themselves involved in politics.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Does that help?
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)which is exactly what i was saying.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Laura was not.
I would've thought anyone who heckled her would have looked rude doing so as well. There's no strategic gain to heckling the FLOTUS no matter who it is.
Let's try focusing on the people who are IMPEDING legislation. Since many are so far beyond reason, they need to be voted out. Put more Dems in Congress and we wouldn't need short-term band-aids to try to accomplish anything significant.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)i bet most here dont.
people heckle when they feel their leaders are ignoring them. it's one of the ways to get them to listen
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)it is definitely a "our guy" vs "other guy" issue
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)But of course,In a million years, I would not have voted for Eisenhower either. I am a big Adlai Stevenson fan.
but then in a million years, Bush would never have been President if everyone didn't vote for Ralph Nader in 2000,
sigh.
Protesters in 1968 directly and singlehandedly handed Richard Nixon the election, after which the Bush's took power.
Had LBJ won reelection, of course, there never would have been a Bush presidency, and the whole 2001-8 would not have happened.
And Repub. Rep. Wilson never would have shouted Liar at the State of the Union, something I did protest loudly of.
oh how great life would have been had Nixon not sabatoged LBJ, had the war ended in 1968.
and never would Reagan/Bush41/Bush43 and Jeb Bush be anywhere near the presidency.
Michelle for President 2024, 2028 after Hillary retires after her two turns.
BTW, speaking of equal rights, why don't people heckle Rand Paul, who most certainly is NOT for equal rights for anyone
that Thomas Jefferson didn't SPECIFICALLY write about when he stated "all men are created equal".
Or Republican Peter King, Long Island. Or any of the other HOUSE members?
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)"BTW, speaking of equal rights, why don't people heckle Rand Paul, who most certainly is NOT for equal rights for anyone
that Thomas Jefferson didn't SPECIFICALLY write about when he stated "all men are created equal".
Or Republican Peter King, Long Island. Or any of the other HOUSE members?"
The Paul clan is among the main people who claim to champion civil liberties, yet they've been at odds with gay rights in addition to other issues of civil rights. So why aren't these protesters going after them? Why aren't some of these same people in this thread going after Congressional Republicans for impeding progress and hate-mongering?
The First Lady isn't even an elected position!
oberliner
(58,724 posts)HAMILTON, N.J. -- A Hopewell woman whose son was killed while serving in Iraq was arrested Thursday after she interrupted a campaign speech by first lady Laura Bush.
Sue Niederer had refused to leave the rally and demanded to know why her son was killed in Iraq. She was eventually escorted from the rally site, a local firehouse, by police.
Here's the DU reaction:
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x831469
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)edit:
I don't see the point in settling old scores.
Pragdem
(233 posts)Then maybe we'd hear some outrage that would actually be a little bit understandable.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Bill Clinton was a master at it.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)clearly that is far less of a concern for du'ers.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You need Congress to enact a law to change that. The best Obama could do is an Executive Order, which will be overridden the moment a Republican takes the White House.
But please, keep attacking a woman who has no actual power. That'll really change the law.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)and is therefore worth having. Be realistic - the Republican majority in the House will not enact a law. So, even if Democrats manage to overcome the gerrymandered House, in a mid-term election (which is very, unlikely), it's one and a half years before any law could even start its way through Congress.
Your "it's all or nothing" purity approach is impractical, and has bad real-world consequences for the people who don't get protection now. You also seem to think that the activists would stop the moment the EO is issued, and never try to get a law passed too. Which is incredibly naive of you.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Remember, the EO would apply only to the executive branch of the federal government. I'm not aware of a vast number of homosexuals being fired by the Obama administration.
So the EO would do exactly nothing.
It's incredibly naive to think that attacking your allies for not doing something that's useless is a great way to get your desired policies enacted.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)They are a significant sector (22% of employment, according to the GetEqual estimate), and it is quite possible some of them are currently discriminating. It's also about transgender employees, as well as homosexual.
So, this is not 'useless'.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Thanks for demonstrating your EO would not do anything.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)Universities get federal grants for research. She would be covered. And we see discrimination in a wide variety of situations - a long-term care facility (also covered by this, because of Medicare?), a police force, and a law firm. These are not organisations run by some individual bigot, but by educated people - and they discriminate. It's absurd to think that no federal contractor ever discriminates.
Why are you so keen to deny the reality of discrimination?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)From Congress.
From Congress.
And these organizations are not part of the executive branch of the federal government.
Lovely straw man. Makes it much easier to argue when you lie about someone else's argument, huh?
An executive order can only apply to people working for the executive branch of the federal government. You've provided examples of people who are not working for the executive branch of the federal government. Therefore, an executive order would do all of jack shit to fight the discrimination you are complaining about.
If you want to list incidents that would actually be covered by an executive order, that would help your argument. However, you didn't. So we're back to pissing off someone with no political power to fight for something that will not solve the problem you rail against.
You might as well be protesting McDonald's menu by lining up outside Wendy's.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)So, now we've established you don't know what this is about, we can start dismissing your claims.
From Congress.
No, not from Congress. From the NIH - http://grants.nih.gov/grants/glossary.htm - DoD, Dept. of Energy, etc.
From Congress.
That would still be federal, wouldn't it? And therefore covered by this.
As we've established, it's organisations that get money from the federal government this is about. That's why it's over 20% of all employment.
An executive order from President Obama would ensure that hundreds of thousands of LGBT federal contract employees could go to work every day without fear of being fired for who they are or who they love, said HRC President Chad Griffin. I am grateful to these leaders in the Senate for speaking out on behalf of LGBT Americans who want nothing more than a fair shot at a job.
Federal contractors employ more than 20 percent of the American workforce and earn around $500 billion from federal taxpayers every year. According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, prohibiting anti-LGBT employment discrimination by federal contractors would extend equal workplace rights to more than 16 million workers, and would help ensure that they are not forced into the ranks of the unemployed based solely on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Its outrageous that in the year 2013, it is still legal to fire someone based on who they love, said Sen. Jeff Merkley. The President can protect millions of workers from unfair discrimination with the stroke of a pen. Im pleased that 36 of my colleagues have joined together to push for more equality in the workplace.
http://www.hrc.org/press-releases/entry/37-u.s.-senators-call-for-non-discrimination-executive-order-from-president
This is not some fringe idea that there might possibly be a handful of people being discriminating against. It has majority support in the country - see the poll referenced in the article I linked to.
Yes, you are denying the reality of discrimination. That is literally what your posts are doing. I'm not lying. "Your EO would not do anything".
Wrong. As we can see, this is about the 20% of the workforce working for federal contractors. But you've been denying that.
Fuck me, the kneejerk "Obama can do no wrong" replies to this thread are sickening. 37 Senators wanting some protection for a significant part of the workforce, and DUers are busy denying it could ever be a problem, with some saying LGBT people should shut up and sit down, in case their please for protection rocks the boat? Shameful.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You'd have to look into the details of each grant to determine if it came from the executive branch or from Congress. The fact that an executive branch agency administers the grant does not mean the grant itself was from the executive branch.
No. The money was given to the medicare facility by Congress. Just because it's federal doesn't mean it's from the executive branch.
No, you keep trying to pretend all federal spending goes through the executive branch. That is utterly false.
What makes it a "fringe idea" (not the term I'd select) is that people are asserting the need for protection without showing any discrimination that would be prevented by this.
I'm not arguing discrimination doesn't happen. What I'm requesting is some evidence of discrimination by the executive branch during the Obama administration. For your proposal to do any good, it would have to be stopping actual discrimination. Otherwise, it's just a "feel-good" effort that won't do a damn thing in the real world. In my opinion, such things weaken broader efforts by causing people to say "I thought we fixed that". Finally, it will be reversed the instant a Republican is sworn in, so the people who benefit from such a ruling would still be destroyed when a Republican is elected.
I'm arguing we should be fighting like hell for laws protecting against discrimination. Not fighting for half-ass solutions that fix problems that no one can point me to a specific incident, so that allies say "I thought we fixed that" when we press for a complete fix.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)"What I'm requesting is some evidence of discrimination by the executive branch during the Obama administration"
And, for the umpteenth time, read the fucking article. Find out about the executive order that is being proposed. It's not about discrimination by the administration. It's about discrimination by federal contractors. Who employ 20% of the national workforce.
A business that contracts with the Federal government to provide supplies, services, experimental work, or research.
http://www.workrightsny.org/glossary/labor-relations-terms-a-h/
"with the Federal government". Are you saying Congress isn't federal?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I'm saying if the contract is with Congress, it is not with the Executive branch. Which means it would not be covered by the EO.
But the entirety of my point is we should attack discrimination where we can show it's actually happening. That way it will actually do some good.
What you propose is to fight discrimination where it is not actually happening. Or at least you have not pointed to an incident that would be covered by your proposal.
I'm saying instead of settling for an at best 20% solution, and then having to rev everyone up again to continue the fight, we should be fighting for the 100% solution.
We have different opinions on tactics to reach the same goal.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)Look, here's a list of the largest 100 federal contractors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_100_Contractors_of_the_U.S._federal_government
In it, you find the University of California and MIT - ie universities. If you look at the 2012 report here, you'll find the top 100 contractors for each department. There are hundreds of employers there, many of whom will not be in the states that have anti-discrimination laws.
Do you really think the Human Rights Campaign is trying to push an executive order that will have no effect whatsoever? That 37 Senators (which will be most Democratic senators - let's face it, not many Republicans will sign on to a pro-LGBT proposal) are backing a completely worthless idea, just to piss off Obama?
And people don't make their contracts with Congress anyway. They make them with the executive branch. That's the whole point of it, by definition. It executes government policy. The contracts are with the government departments, like the DoD.
ZRT2209
(1,357 posts)Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)"Good luck advocating from there!!!!"?? Does the sun rise and set on you?
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)how will i live
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)CBHagman
(16,984 posts)If your chosen action won't produce the desired result and may even hurt the cause, it's time to find a better means of getting the message across.
FreeState
(10,572 posts)has been such a failure in the past /sarcasm (look up DADT... shouldn't be surprised to get no support her for actually pressuring the president into doing what is right either, but I have yet to learn.)
bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)...which likely strike down the discriminatory laws, and set the stage perfectly for an anti-discrimination measure at the federal level. That's the way its supposed to work within our system.
Now, if Obama were to issue an executive order pre-empting the supreme court ruling, imagine how stupid that would be, what kind backlash it would generate? And what an awful precedent it would set.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)The 'precedent' it would set would be the head of the executive branch telling the federal government to not discriminate. Seems a pretty awesome precedent, to me.
Or were you being sarcastic?
bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)Civics 101 - that's not how its supposed to work, and I can't think of an example of it ever being done.
The court is expected to rule on and invalidate DOMA around the end of the month, and it is possible that the decision could be broad enough to invalidate a whole array of discriminatory state legislation. If the supreme court decides it, that is how its supposed to work, how its always worked, and something that people are largely ready to accept.
How about if Barack Obama steps in a decides it himself, via executive order instead, how do you think that will go? Think about it.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)They are not the same thing, and so Obama would not be "putting himself above the supreme court". "It is possible that the decision could be broad enough to invalidate a whole array of discriminatory state legislation"; perhaps it is, but this isn't about state legislation anyway. It's about the employment practices of federal contractors. It's hard to see that a DOMA ruling will automatically make contractor employment discrimination automatically illegal; if you think it would, then please spell out how, because I can't see it.
I think that if Obama issued this executive order, the Supreme Court would not change their decision on DOMA at all, because it's a separate area.
bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)It could invalidate a whole array of discriminatory laws, or it might just narrowly address the issue at hand. As far as their history on things like that, I think its about 50/50 which way they go...but the upside of a broad ruling is worth not screwing with them.
The supreme court can strike down state laws. Congress can strike down state laws. But if the president does it all on his lonesome with an executive order, how do you think that will work out?
If challenges to an executive order wind their way through the courts, how do you think the courts will decide? Executive orders don't create law, typically they are used to establish procedure within the executive branch, or to establish policy. Trying to establish law, or invalidate state laws, by executive order is simply a stupid idea. And it would severely muddy the waters in advance of what is expected to be a historic and favorable supreme court ruling. Why would anybody do that?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)Again, this is not about the president striking down laws. It's about him saying the federal government will not do business with firms that discriminate.
"If challenges to an executive order wind their way through the courts, how do you think the courts will decide? "
Let's do it and find out. I'd guess some courts would support the executive order, and some would oppose it, since judges seem to find a wide variety of reasons for such decisions. Yes, this is indeed about establishing procedure within the executive branch. And it's not about "trying to establish law, or invalidate state laws". Why do you think it is?
rug
(82,333 posts)What's more important, the President signing an executive order or a wealthy donor signing a check.
Hmmmm . . . .
:idea:
Pretty clear choice. Take the mic and say why the order should be signed. Anyone who didn't want to listen could retire to the music room and sign their checks in peace.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)will be sorely disappointed.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)What would Michelle say to him that he doesn't already know about the implications of the Executive Order?
As if he's just being a stubborn, clueless holdout and if she 'enlightens' him, he'll go ahead and sign it?
That discredits them both.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Some of us are still having to 'harass' those who refuse to take action just to get a law that says we can't be fired for existing.
What's it like to live on the good side of the tracks?
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Fuck this shit.
rug
(82,333 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Luckily I'm not the president. I get really pissed off when somebody fucks with my husband and children. Also luckily, President Obama will not withdraw his support for full LGBT civil rights because of this incident.
Since I'm a woman I get angry when people throw around words like 'unladylike' when a woman stands up for herself. Or classless and graceless. Or when they say the African American First Lady has a chip on her shoulder and pretend she said 'do you know who I am?' Or that she stomped her little foot. And that she should stay home from political events from now on if she's above it all, as if an intimate function in a private home is like a huge campaign stop where one might well expect such a thing to occur.
I'm glad Michelle stood up for herself. That's what strong women do. Anyone who expected her to meekly put up with it was thinking about some other First Lady.
rug
(82,333 posts)This has nothing to do with you. Your bombast is wasted.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)with some people as long as it's used against an African American woman. How ironic. Bombast away on your own particular issue, though. I'll feel free from now on to minimize it as such.
rug
(82,333 posts)While you're at it, what would you call this anonymous posturing on the internet?
I repeat. This is not about you and what you claim you would do if it happened to YOUR spouse. (Excuse the caps but I want to be accurate.)
It's about a public figure at a political fund raiser and a protest over a civil rights issue which, imo, is a hell of a lot more important than socializiing with political donors for money.
Now, if you're trying to call me a bigot I suggest you be more explicit. Snide ugly insinuations are repellent.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)as bombast in your above post. I can and do see the issues raised by the LGBT community. I object to the way Michelle has been attacked here for standing up for herself, with the examples I gave above. Your reaction was a big shrug and minimization.
I do happen to think that a protest in such close quarters is far too in-your-face. IMO it is too confrontational and insulting. You may believe the First Lady is not worthy of protection or respect. I disagree. Setting makes all the difference, as in the SOTU and "you lie." But this time the person was within feet of Michelle.
demosincebirth
(12,537 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)and some thing a speech at a fundraiser is more important than other peoples civil rights.
FreeState
(10,572 posts)DU ceases to amaze me.
demosincebirth
(12,537 posts)dbackjon
(6,578 posts)If you are a bigot, and value political points above eauality for all Americans, I could see how this would confuse you.
demosincebirth
(12,537 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)I know he believes very strongly in adhering to the established protocols so he can't be accused of being the "angry black man". But imagine if he would have stopped his SoU speech at the "You lie" instant and said:
"I am here because the Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to present to the Congress the state of the union at regular intervals. I will not be interrupted in the performance of this Constitutional duty. Mr. Speaker, you have two options. Either remove the heckler from this chamber at once or else I will suspend this presentation until such date that you can ensure the proper decorum will be respected. Which will it be, Mr. Speaker?"
Brigid
(17,621 posts)SunSeeker
(51,564 posts)Why not shout down teabaggers, or show up at the local Repuke's district office and scream at him or her? Screaming at Michelle Obama at a fundraiser is just rude and serves no purpose other than blocking the fundraising efforts, which helps Republicans.
for the win.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)What do you think is the first thing that goes through their minds when they are at an event and there is some kind of sudden commotion and shouting?
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)It'd be nice if they took the fight to the people who are actually impeding progress.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)Oh, she did do that:
Thank you Ellen Sturtz for coming up with this idea way back last year at the GetEQUAL Greater Los Angeles protest of the Republican Presidential Debate at the Reagan Library and for paying out of your own pocket to have the photographic posters made. Hopefully the day will soon come when we can retire them.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=289572831077420&story_fbid=369971159746535&_fb_noscript=1
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/09/07/313929/gop-reagan-library-debate-live-blog/
It's a mistake to assume that just because this is the first time we've heard of a protester, they've never staged different protests before.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Someone should have started shouting at the heckler for not supporting Bradley Manning.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)(unlike her spouse) -- so she can't be fired. So if she gets fed up enough to essentially tell someone to either behave or kiss her ass goodbye, I don't really have a problem with it. The one I have problems with is the one who can actually wield the signature pen, and that's not Mrs. Obama.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Thank you.
boilerbabe
(2,214 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Great to see it all coming into the open.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)You are sinking into the gutter by saying that someone pointing out that she was speaking at a political fundraiser, in reply to a claim that she is not a politician, is making an "uppity" reference. It has fuck all to do with race, and you know that damn well. You should be ashamed.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Not classy, not a lady, above it all, "she has a chip on her shoulder," and every other buzzword for either uppity or animalistic or unworthy you can think of.
It is too fucking bad you ONLY see one side. I also see a side in which people are treating a woman like fucking dirt because she dared to stand up for herself. If the protester has the right to free speech then so does Michelle. And she used it. Deal with it. She's a strong woman who doesn't take shit from anybody. Neither do I.
And if the fucking protester can't take the heat then maybe SHE should avoid political events from now on. She's a whiny ass idiot.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)Fuck me, your post is fucking stupid. Just read what you're fucking replying to, can't you?
It's too bad you have a kneejerk reaction of insulting any DUer who says that when Michelle Obama makes a speech at a political fundraiser, she isn't above politics. That's not treating her 'like fucking dirt'. It's a perfectly reasonable, non-insulting, non-confrontational comment. The DUer didn't say that she couldn't reply to the heckler; they were pointing out that the idea that she's not in politics is wrong, as shown by her speaking at a DNC fundraiser.
So take back your offensive accusation that boilberbabe is calling her 'uppity'. You are making it impossible to actually call out real racists, if you idiotically misuse the accusation like that.
Your post makes DU suck.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)making DU suck. I know buzzwords when I see them and they're peppered all through this thread. It's fucking gross.
boilerbabe (1,999 posts)
31. that was eye opening. nt
Little remarks that imply a whole lot are what make DU suck. I decided to reply to the second one. Saying the First Lady of The United States of America should stay away from political events (dripping with nasty sarcasm) was the stupidest post I've ever read here.
And, the fact that she talked about the plight of hungry children is apparently lost on SOME people here. And the fact that the heckler was right next to Michelle, yelling at her. Yet if Michelle stands up for herself, the above poster says "that was eye opening" and she should stay home from political events. And you say I'm the one making DU suck? Fuck that shit all to hell.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)"that was eye opening"? How the fuck is that a problem?
boilerbabe did not say she should stay away from all political events, which you'd know if you took the time to read before spouting off. It was "... if she is above it all". The problem here is the ludicrous assertion in #176 and many other posts that the First Lady is above politics - even when she's speaking at a political fundraiser.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)recording to speak of until AFTER the heckler started her bullshit and somebody turned on their phone. That is PERSONAL and deliberately insulting. That's not a public Code Pink-type protest that has meaning, or a Dan Choi kind of protest. HE did it perfectly. He was always positioned in places where the cameras and microphones could get his story and actions. Not inside a private setting yelling at President Obama's wife while she pleaded for hungry children.
As for my reply to that poster, I stand by what I said 100%. If you choose to close your eyes to what's been said and implied about Michelle in this thread that's your business.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)The speech is about getting Democrats elected to Congress. She mentions various areas of policy; at that moment, she happened to have got to gun violence, and how it affects children.
Yeah, maybe the heckle would have been better timed if it had waited until "for example, legislation on equal pay for women failed by two votes in the Senate -- two votes in the Senate" - that being about equality and non-discrimination. But that was later in the speech, after the heckler had left. She interrupted a political speech with a complaint about what the leader of the party asking for money is doing on a political matter.
You are still calling DUers racist, however, when they're just saying the First Lady can be criticised when she is being political. That's the real problem.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Pirate Smile
(27,617 posts)This wasn't an anti-war protester interrupting Laura Bush. This was an ally going after FLOTUS - not a teabagger which would be the equivalent of the Laura Bush example.
Allies shouldn't aim at POTUS's family - which is supposed to be somewhat off-limits.
A lot of people here also seem oblivious to how the disparity in treatment toward POTUS, FLOTUS & the First Family is viewed by much of a critical portion of the Democratic coalition - Black Americans.
Stupid move.
HipChick
(25,485 posts)yet I wish Michelle had bitch slapped her after karate chopping her in the throat..
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)leftstreet
(36,108 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)ZRT2209
(1,357 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)That's how socks get busted.
ZRT2209
(1,357 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)FULL IGNORE
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)The two are different. If DOMA is overturned, employers can still discriminate about gay and transgender people.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Corporate America is thinking of it as a new market.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)The idea that somehow public figures are the personal property of anyone, who want something from them. And that any demand made of them in any forum is acceptable.
IMO, this form of protest is on a par with construction workers yelling out to passing women to expose themselves.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)rightsideout
(978 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)civil rights, there is no such thing as too much standing up for them, any time, anywhere. They are too damn important to sit down and shut up about.
Michelle Obama isn't a politician but she was fundraising for a party that is supposed to be for civil rights, but has frequently chickened out in the most egregious ways when it comes to upholding them. So as far as I'm concerned it was a political event and as such subject to protestors.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)Examples, please?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Warrantless wiretapping.
Others, probably, but I haven't had my coffee yet.
Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #292)
Summer Hathaway This message was self-deleted by its author.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)Shameful and cowardly.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)that it is the DoJ's job to defend the law as it stands?
No, apparently you don't.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)poor taste. the person could have voiced their concerns during q&a or schmooze time. she was a guest in a private home, not a protester in a public space.
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)Should she had just held her tongue?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)you get access.
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)Many of these fundraisers offer a speaker and nothing else. It's like attending a rock concert - you pay to see the attraction in their element without interacting with them.
Sturtz is a progressive hero much like we saw in the South 50 years ago.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)to the civil rights movement here.
the venue was a private home, not a stadium. there's no comparison to a rock concert here.
just a stupid and counter-productive stunt. she's no hero, and will be forgotten by the next news cycle.
Cha
(297,275 posts)It was time to let the First Lady speak. If Ellen Sturz' goal was to get people talking about this.. then she succeeded.
The people at the Fundraising obviously wanted to hear from the First Lady.. they know she has their back.
The incident came hours after White House press secretary Jay Carney reiterated the presidents focus being on legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, that would ban most private employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and not the proposed executive order
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/michelle-obama-heckled-for-presidents-inaction-on-proposed-l
Looks like the President is wanting this to work through the Legislative Process because I believe it would be stronger. We'll see how it works out.
Wonder what Prez Obama said to Michelle tonight?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)"Honey,
That's what he better have said..
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)It won't get past a Republican majority in the House. So it can't pass until 2015 at the earliest; and few people think the Democrats can take back the House in a mid-term election for a Democratic president (which are normally good for the party opposing the president), especially given the districting of House seats gives Republicans an advantage. So 2017 is a more realistic date - and even then, the districting is a problem, and you have to wonder if the Republican fuckheads in the Senate would filibuster it anyway (or do we need to wait for filibuster reform too?)
All in all, ENDA is a long-term process. An Executive Order could do good now.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Three seats. That's our majority in the Senate, and West Virginia is going Red just as sure as God made little green apples.
Two seats, really.
And it's 2014 -- the Democratic Base has a time-honored tradition of not showing up for mid-term elections, and a "Stop The Homos" campaign by the Tea Party would bring their side out in droves.
So unless you're itching to hear the phrase "Senate Majority Leader McConnell" we should all just try to be patient and get this done through legislative channels.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)I actually think it wouldn't be an electoral problem at all - the Republican homophobia may well be a net electoral loss for them by now. Gay marriage is more support than opposed, overall, and it's hard for them to campaign with a message of "we want to be able to discriminate".
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)The tide is turning, but it's not out yet. If I had Obama's ear, I would counsel him to wait until December 2016 to drop a bomb like that.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)16 states already have anti-discrimination laws in place - and another 5 for discrimination for sexuality, but not gender identity:
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-important-step-toward-workplace-equality-an-executive-order-on-federal-c
All this is proposing is that federal contractors have to catch up with the better states in the country.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)In my opinion fight for the legislation is the best option.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)In fact, that's just how laws against racial discrimination got their start:
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would bring uniform protections to all American workers under federal law. Short of such a law, however, President Obama has the authority to extend significant protections to the LGBT workforce. Specifically, the president can either amend a current executive order or issue a separate executive order to prohibit federal contractors from discriminating in employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Dating back to World War II, presidents from both political parties have used their power as the chief executive to prohibit companies doing business with the federal government from discriminating against employees based on certain nonwork-related characteristics. In its current form, Executive Order 11246 prohibits federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Existing policy does not, however, explicitly prohibit these businesses from discriminating against employees based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Extending Executive Order 11246 to include nondiscrimination policies based on sexual orientation and gender identity would give substantive workplace protections to a significant number of LGBT Americans. Currently, federal contractors legally bound to comply with Executive Order 11246 employ 28 million individualsor approximately 22 percent of all U.S. civilian workers.
President Obama has the authority to issue such an executive order even though the Employment Non-Discrimination Act has not yet been passed by Congress. Historically, Executive Order 11246 is part of a series of executive orders in which past presidents made workplace nondiscrimination compliance a condition of federal contracts before Congress ended up passing federal statutes applying similar requirements more generally. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, which legally prohibited nearly all employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, was built upon executive orders signed by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower that prohibited contractors from discriminating on the basis of race. An executive order for LGBT workers could be similarly issued before congressional passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2013/02/19/53931/an-executive-order-to-prevent-discrimination-against-lgbt-workers/
The earlier executive orders: http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/about/History_EO11246.htm
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Michelle Rocks!
Raine
(30,540 posts)HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Humanity's disgraces on parade.
Cha
(297,275 posts)HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Sounds funny coming from people who have no problem with religion in every aspect of their lives.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)IMHO neither deserves a seat at the table if they can't act like adults. Code Pink has repeatedly supported Rand Paul with 100 tweets in a week. The woman who protested at the fundraiser should have been a) thrown out by her ear; and 2) her money returned to her with a note telling her she is not welcome at future fundraisers.
I find it funny how the group that protested tonight put such blatant lies on their website about what happened.
Before someone with ODS asks me, yes I support human rights. Rudeness and shouting is not the way to further the cause. Anyone who agrees with what these two did hurts the cause instead of helping it.
http://getequal.org/blog/2013/06/05/release-lgbt-activists-press-for-employment-protections-at-dnc-event/
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Do you seriously claim that the current discrimination in this country is somehow 'adult' and worthy of respectful discourse?
Those of you who claim to know the way to properly get things done really ought to think about stepping up and doing it.
If you can do better, please do so, at long bloody last, finally. Show us how it is done. Please. Back up the big talk with some action.
Years of calloused inaction on the part of the majority hurts the standing of that majority when they mount the podium and begin to preach of ponies and poutrage.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)How the hell do you know (or presume to know) what the fuck I do? I am a US Citizen living overseas and have constantly written legislators both in Oregon and in Washington on a variety of causes. Every single person in my Congressional delegation with the exception of Greg Walden (who is an asshole) supports the cause of LGBT. I am involved both during election cycles and between election cycles.
As for ponies and poutrage maybe you should look in the mirror tough guy.
Pragdem
(233 posts)I called the protestor a "deviant," and someone thought I was referring to her sexuality. I never, ever use derogatory terms about the sexuality of others. Not even the juvenile "that's gay." And I have had many fights here in the rural area of my red state defending LGBTs against Christian bigotry.
Deviant is defined as: "Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society," and I can see how someone would misinterpret that as a shot in the dark at her sexuality... but I would apply that term to anyone causing a ruckus at an event and showing such disrespect toward someone speaking.
I apologize if anyone was offended in thinking the term was being used to describe her sexuality, but I do not apologize to those offended because they like to shout over top public speakers in an immature manner.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)context is everything. The right choice of words in the context of the discussion is critical to getting your point across. Using the word "deviant" in this context is unfortunate and completely avoidable. Perhaps saying that the protestor's interruption was "not acceptable behavior in this social setting" would better describe what your opinion was without the unfortunate choice of the word you used.
Then you could have avoided having to spend 3 paragraphs "splainin'" what you meant...
Pragdem
(233 posts)CTyankee
(63,912 posts)A lot of times I just don't contribute my opinion at all, because the context is so volatile on so many deeply felt issues that all the "cool reason" in the world won't work...
quinnox
(20,600 posts)William769
(55,147 posts)Don't come fucking crying to me when your time comes to be thrown under it.
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)Sturtz is a hero as far as I am concerned.
Response to LonePirate (Reply #309)
JaneyVee This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)a trait no toddler would approve of, but Republicans do.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Much more a progressive than the bigots on this thread.
politicasista
(14,128 posts)Getting tired of the 24-7 disrespect of this First Family.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Which has been added and abetted by said first family in the past.
And by equality haters like yourself
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)while paying very little attention to what people are doing across the aisle that are at odds with their interests. Despite being the 1st sitting president to endorse gay marriage, despite repealing DADT, and signing a Hate Crimes bill along with other policies, he still gets no credit from his critics. Even Stephanie Miller (who happens to be gay herself) has said that this administration has accomplished more for gay rights than all of his predecessors combined. Meanwhile there are people from the GOP who have been hard at work thwarting the right of gay people to marry, to join the military, boy scouts, and they've been peddling that "pray away the gay" nonsense, yet I see no outrage from you about that. Why are there no hecklers on Capitol Hill? Why aren't these hecklers showing up at Republican events instead?
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)People are not really willing to listen to you when you interrupt them while they are speaking. Michelle Obama isn't even the President, so it's not like this served much of a purpose.
Blue_Roses
(12,894 posts)You don't invite someone to your home and then bully them--and that's just what this amounted to. Interrupting and berating someone who is ON YOUR SIDE, doesn't do much to win affection. You catch more flies with honey, not with vinegar.
I'm so sick of the blatant disrespect for this president and first lady, especially cloaked under the excuse of civil rights. MLKjr did not advance the cause of civil liberties with disrespect and bullying. He knew that a conversation could not be had if he handled it with disrespect and he was right.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 6, 2013, 09:29 AM - Edit history (1)
Call it a private function if you want, but it was an event for the DNC. Say she has no power if you want, that is bullshit. Protesting her event is fair game. Her reaction was fine.
I do think, at this point of the discussion, Michelle's own words need to be added. These are not from her on the night being discussed.
"MICHELLE OBAMA: This is an important issue for millions of Americans, and for Barack and me, it really comes down to the values of fairness and equality we want to pass down to our girls. These are basic values that kids learn at a very young age and that we encourage them to apply in all areas of their lives. And in a country where we teach our children that everyone is equal under the law, discriminating against same-sex couples just isnt right. Its as simple as that."
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Do you understand? Fluster my ass.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Do YOU understand now?.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)This is yet ANOTHER reason I like Michelle Obama: She doesn't take crap. I follow her example (I've followed it for years, but she has finally re-popularized the practice for liberals). One thing is certain: Bullies WILL continue to practice their bidness if they get whines about "being bullied." When they get backed up by a strong person, there is a good chance the bully will discontinue the practice, and better yet, others will see the example and follow that strong person's lead. I'll go with the odds on this, and I hope others will as well.
They key here is others will see the example and follow that strong person's lead.
I sincerely hope my humble explanation is of sufficient clarity.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)I'm sure I need no explanation, humble or otherwise.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)What importance/how high do you place the 'plight of inner city children' in your ranking of worthy causes?
apples and oranges
(1,451 posts)Mrs. Obama sounded like she was either close to or already in tears while giving an extremely passionate speech about helping children, and then comes the heckler. The heckler either has very little common sense or low emotional intellgence if she thought THAT moment, of all moments, was an appropriate time to heckle.
Helping disadvantaged children means a lot to Mrs. Obama (who is also a big supporter of GLBT rights), especially when you consider that she was born/raised in Chicago which right now is being overcome by violence and failing schools.
How hard would have been for the heckler to pull Obama aside afterward, and plead her case?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)She got her ass embarrassed and doesn't know how to handle it. Ha ha!
When people interrupt a movie that I have paid to see I will ask them to shut the f up or get the f out. If they don't I ask for my money back. And that's only 20 dollars.
If I paid 500 to see Michelle Obama speak and there was some crazy lady heckling off topic I would run her out of there.
She just wanted some attention obviously, since she was heckling the wrong person.
Prism
(5,815 posts)But, whatever. The problem with enormous privilege is that you begin to feel entitled to deference. I wouldn't have chosen that venue or that target for heckling.
But then, we are now discussing federal LGBT discrimination, so I suppose it worked in its own way.
Meh, still like FLOTUS just fine. Wish she handled it better, but it doesn't really shatter my general admiration of her.
Meanwhile, DU is as awesome as usual on LGBT issues. "You have plenty of rights!" Loved that one. Bigotty goodness.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)it's the reactions of du'ers that amazes me
Prism
(5,815 posts)(Although the activist's reaction to her reaction is sort of cluelessly amusing).
I'm with you, though. An epic meltdown born of veneration. That can't be good.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)they can and do often wrong others. they are not gods and goddesses and we should retain the rights and ability to criticize them
Last edited Sat Jul 18, 2015, 07:55 PM - Edit history (1)
...