General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums“She came right down in my face,” Sturtz said. “I was taken aback.”
By John Newland, Staff Writer, NBC News
Michelle Obama confronted a gay-rights protester who heckled her at a Democratic fundraiser in Washington on Tuesday, offering to give her the microphone and leave, before the crowd cheered for the first lady to stay.
Obama was 12 minutes into a planned 20-minute speech at a couples home when a woman standing at the front of the small crowd interrupted, demanding that President Barack Obama sign an executive order on gay rights.
One of the things I dont do well is this, the first lady said before walking down from the lectern and approaching the protester, according to a pool reporter covering the event.
Obama told the woman that people gathered in the backyard tent could "listen to me or you can take the mic, but I'm leaving, before telling the crowd, You all decide. You have one choice.
At that, the crowd began chanting for Obama to stay as one woman told the protester, You need to leave.
The woman was escorted out, shouting that she was a lesbian looking for federal equality before I die.
Obama then returned to the lectern and finished her speech, getting loud applause as she did.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/05/18769606-michelle-obama-confronts-gay-rights-heckler-at-fundraiser?lite
I really don't have any sympathy for any these god-damned hecklers, whether they be on the right or the left.
All I can wonder about is whether or not these people would be so bold if they didn't have the first Black First Family currently occupying the White House to scream at.
Kudos on Mrs. Obama for handling this disrespecting Ellen Sturtz person with class and intelligence. Ms. Sturz obviously tried to bite off more than she could chew And then some.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I'm actually glad that she got a little heated....
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)In my opinion Michelle Obama's behavior was admirable. She was able to act rather than react.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)implying that this was a relatively intimate presentation; Ms. Sturz starts shouting to interrupt Mrs. Obama's speech, and Mrs. Obama got into her face? Sounds like code for "uppity angry black woman " to me!
My daughter reminded me of the proper response to this: "Don't start nothin', there won't be nothin'!"
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)The heckler was being disrespectful and I'm glad the First Lady said what she said. Now I just hope that the President was watching and picked up a few tips on how to handle the Republican members of Congress.
calimary
(81,283 posts)And I frankly don't see how it makes any sense at all to dump publicly on the wife of the ONE President who's done more to advance equality and progress for the LGTB community than anyone before him. Hell, even Andrea Mitchell pointed that out on MSNBC today.
I'm glad Michelle Obama got in that woman's face.
DAMN! This First Couple has been disrespected more than I can remember ANY First Couple ever, EVER having to face - while deserving it the least of them all, in my opinion.
And I've gotta say - I'm FUCKING SICK AND TIRED OF IT!!!!!
indepat
(20,899 posts)First lady and the President.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)close to MICHELLE and was yelling. Michelle didn't put up with it.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)The Secret Service pointed at him and he shut up. I don't know if they went to his location or not. That's when Michelle got up to talk about poor kids and gun laws. And the female heckler started in on Michelle right in front.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Just fuck it. After seeing the names she's been called by people on the left? Hell no. I'd find other ways to spend my time.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)No one in real life puts up with that unless they are yelling too.
Michelle said, 'I don't do this very well, or I don't do this.'
That is honesty, not arrogance. She did Sturtz the respect of telling her to take the mike to let her make her case to the room, but the woman refused a golden opportunity. So she wasn't there for that purpose.
As far as the 'I was stunned' routine, she clearly intended to 'stun' everyone there and 'stun' or silence Michelle. The FLOTUS handled it with grace, but some think she should have bowed her head in shame and taken a beat down.
I'm not sure in what universe it is people think this is effective. Maybe those accustomed to watching television with bad actors who use volume in a failed attempt to ratchet up emotion and interest, might find this valuable. From the 'Hey, look at me!' school of cheap thrills drama. Meh.
Heckling is not the practice of talking to anyone, but talking at a person in order to insult, embarrass, degrade or shut them up.
It's a monologue of the heckler's own opinion and no one else's, not sharing the same space with others that may very well agree. No answer will be allowed by the heckler but subservience by the heckled and total agreement.
It's not intended for dialogue, but to silence the other, and to influence those watching. It's a power play. This disruption was not about getting a voice in a hostile environment. It was pushing the limits of public discourse in order to end discourse, period.
clarice
(5,504 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Poor dear
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 6, 2013, 04:46 PM - Edit history (2)
EDIT: Because of more information from links. From people that were there and more statements. The agents were paying attention but they didn't pull any stunts as we're accustomed to seeing from the RW crowd.Real examples of suppressing free speech by the GOP/ Tea Party:
The Bush era free speech zones, all visitors vetted and no opposing voices allowed...
Rand Paul's security's knocking down a woman and stomping her head on the curve in 2010.
Joe Miller's security denying reporters rights that same year.
Paul Ryan having seniors daring to quetion him manhandled and arrested in 2012.
Wisconsin, Texas, Michigan, etc. and now weekly in North Carolina...
Really, the list goes on.
There is no improper behavior by Democrats or the Secret Service as proven by numerous incidents showing just how open this administration is to the public.
But media, especially conservative venues, will use this to smear Michelle AND gays.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)The heckler should take her fight to the ACTUAL enemy and spend $500 on a more productive effort.
treestar
(82,383 posts)that his heckler might want.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I think the first lady did just fine.
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)And it sounds like she did.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)but your statement reads like it is good that our betters are scaring the common folk.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...it's because you're reading that into it. Nothing in it says or implies any such thing. It was a simple statement that he was glad one jerk got put in her place. There was zero mention of "betters" or "common" people.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)The "royalty" and the "common" people.
It's as embarrassing as it is stupid.
The Obama haters are really showing they ass as racist scumshits over this one. They were waiting for an opportunity to pounce on "uppity" (or "chip on her shoulder" Michelle Obama for years now.
To quote my man Ice Cube, "Nothing but a come up / But ain't that a bitch / They hate to see...." (finish that line, and you'll have a good sense of the haters' mentality).
movonne
(9,623 posts)had a cause and didn't use good sense presenting her cause...
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)I guess the new approach to gin up anger at the POTUS/FLOTUS is to paint them as economic "others", despite the fact that they both came from poverty and earned what they have...the very antithesis of the welfare stereotype the Right wants to advance, and one more thing the Right can't pin on them, driving THEM crazy.
...and here they're portrayed as some imperial king and queen, even though the President won't govern like one.
Apparently some need to figure out how to channel their hatred, anger and resentment at the Obamas while trying to fly under the radar.
Obama Derangement Syndrome abounds all over.
emulatorloo
(44,130 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)but I also have no problem with the heckler- they are to be expected when you are a public figure. What I took exception to was that he said he hoped this public figure scared the heckler. I don't think she was trying to intimidate, but the person who I responded to seemed to be applauding intimidation.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)My post is not about the heckler in the least bit.
7962
(11,841 posts)but then Ive had a long day at work too. Maybe I missed something. as the OP said, I cant STAND hecklers left or right. It does nothing but make you look like a fool. It sure doesnt help your cause.
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)But then again I wouldn't consider someone that pays $500 to go to a private home for an event and then raises a ruckus at said event "common folk".
She got owned by MO. I give her credit for at least realizing that.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)I will say that the Obamas do deal with hecklers much better than their predecessors. Had it been a Bush function, someone would have gone to jail.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)eissa
(4,238 posts)has endured is unprecedented. I don't blame the Michelle for her response, this is getting old. Does this heckler really believe that this President is not supportive of her cause? Did she really think that heckling the First Lady would force the President to sign an Executive Order? Great strategy there, much better than waiting for the Q&A and making a reasoned argument for her cause.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)To me it's not just about her being a woman, but being a woman of color. They have had to live through all the brutality and every bit of filth tossed at them as if they are not humans.
It says a lot more about their detractors than it does them, yet they persist in exercising their sense of entitlement to spit on her heart.
The heckler had her issue but this comes off as I see often, that the poor and minorities weren't important to her. They have no money to travel to these venues. Taking advantage of what some think should be the First Lady's role as a woman is wrong.
She is a professional working for those with no voice on matters of life and death. Lives that don't seem to matter much to Libertarians who often show up to heckle the Obamas. But to those that know them, their lives are important.
so right. From what I've seen heckling gets the person no where except invited to leave. Like you said better to wait for the Q&A to state your case.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Executive Orders are not the cure all to everything.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Pulling massive rank on a heckler, not so much. But for now, our casual acceptance of our real masters continues apace.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Instead, she turned down the one that Michelle Obama tried to hand her.
Don't you have a parade to rain on or something?
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)She's obviously the elite . . . OR . . . someone put her up to it. So who put her up to if if she didn't have the money herself?
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Which was the subject of the talk that she interrupted.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)At a, no doubt, luxurious private home for $500 bucks a plate. And no one sees the irony in this?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Please elaborate.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/04/first-lady-clashes-with-protester-threatens-to-leave-event/
Children did get mentioned in her speech, but so did Democratic supporters, writing checks for elections, knocking on doors, and many parts of the Democratic platform. This is a standard party political speech; it's not specifically about children, inner-city or otherwise.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)less than a grand a plate, and much more frequently the elites paid twenty five grand--and UP.
You DO understand that all that money goes to HELP the plight of those inner city kids, and that Michelle isn't running off with a sack of dough for appearing at the event...?
What's ironic is that you think it's odd that you go looking for money to support a cause from people who HAVE money.
You want she should pass the hat at the diner on skid row? Yeah, that's the ticket!
frazzled
(18,402 posts)And wouldn't you think it equally ironic to be protesting discrimination in federal contracting there, too? And is that more important than child proverty?
Give me a break.
MADem
(135,425 posts)deed. http://www.theroot.com/blogs/grapevine/why-heckling-michelle-obama-doesnt-pay
GetEqual can GetStuffed, as far as I'm concerned. Why aren't they boldly going where no one has gone before, and heckling Speaker Bonehead in support of a change in the law? Why is that "too hard" for them? Because he'll say no? Why not make his life miserable until he says yes? Why not go to the guy who can put the issue on the agenda for a House vote, instead of crying for a stopgap measure that -- should a GOP president return to the White House--will be used as toilet paper and will throw the whole Equality movement ten steps back? Alienating people friendly to your cause is just hubris-laden attention seeking, and it backfires as we have seen in this instance.
Heckling people who support equality is stupid. Demanding a "stopgap measure" that could expire when this President departs office is doubly stupid. Three years of expectations, maybe even seven or eleven (assuming we can elect another Dem POTUS)... quite possibly followed by four years of setback? Maybe eight? Yeah, that's a plan--not. Work for the permanent solution, and direct that ire at people -- like Congressmen who refuse to support equality-- who deserve it--not spouses who are not on the payroll.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Going to the root - Teahadists - would be hard. GWB wouldn't have allowed any of them in the door to begin with.
Can't figure out if his was a Libertarian (Koch funded) effort or Log Cabin (also Koch funded, like the entire GOP) incident.
They'll use it to fire up the RWNJs with the 'see, blacks are getting out of hand' tactic to get them to vote. It's the only thing to top the 'angry black people' and the Obama royalty/dictator pictures they post on the net:
Those images don't leave the subconscious. So the non-verbal cue filters the words that follow.
Their other tactic is much more effective. By ratfucking DU they demoralize Democrats and get them to not show up to vote.
They win either way.
There are many pictures of the 'angry black people' on the net. They will be used for this event today. This is just one:
That will be used for this event today.
MADem
(135,425 posts)ire towards people who OPPOSE change, not people who support it. They don't like "spineless?" Why don't they try not being spineless, and taking their message where it needs to be heard, instead of preaching to the choir, like they ALWAYS do?
What also kills me is how many people who call themselves progressives and liberals will tolerate the shitty treatment of the Obamas, and the not-so-subtle racist overtones, too.
emulatorloo
(44,130 posts)Amen! Thank you so much for posting this.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)The usual suspects. Lather, rinse, repeat.....
lunasun
(21,646 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)They operate out of Berkeley.
When I lived in Berkeley I saw some STRANGE SHIT coming from purportedly left groups.
They have nothing to say about this recent embarrassment.
They have nothing, NOTHING, good to say about the Obamas.
I think they may well be a RW or Libertarian backed shell disruptor group.
http://getequal.org/blog/2013/02/07/release-pres-obama-participates-in-prayer-breakfast-supporting-anti-lgbt-legislation/
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)but I sometimes wonder if we have posters like that on this site. It seems like whenever Obama does or supports something that the Left agrees with, his biggest critics are rarely anywhere to be seen in the comments. Yet during other times, they all but call on him to act like some king who can bypass Congress and disobey the checks-and-balances system. Unemployment isn't lowering quick enough? Well it would be if it weren't for Republicans blocking Jobs Bills.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)If you believe that you have 'masters', that's wholly on you and your own decisions in life. However, it may be less than accurate to casually apply that nom de'plume to everyone else...
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink greetings!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Oh heavens.
Lex
(34,108 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Javaman
(62,530 posts)In todays society were any comment on the internet is, for the most part, anonymous; when one makes a comment on a forum, one can not choose to reply or simply delete the message (on many forums) without even reading it.
However, due to that kind of mentality, when someone is actually confronted in real life, I find it really interesting how someone who is generally a jerk on the internet suddenly is humbled in person.
It's certainly an interesting duality that is taking place in society as a whole.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Because as you pointed out so well, it can be a humbling experience in real life.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)I'm always amazed and humbled by the patience and graciousness of the Obamas. Michelle has had her patience worn thin after years of being mocked for her body and every single idea she dares to put forward which is her right as FLOTUS and an intelligent, hard-working professional woman.
Who just *happens* to be black, which some believe means she should 'just take it' as that is what they expect from blacks, to just put up with whatever white people dish out at them. We see this in the arrogance of O'Reilly, Rush, Boortz, and most of the GOP. I want those days to be over with, right now.
The people she was meeting to get support for the millions who are suffer and die who represent generations who have been held back by race for centuries, and are still dying long after the 'peculiar institution of Negro slavery' was said to end, are in a learning curve. Most have never dealt with the implications of a belief system that their social destiny was based on the color of their skin which they have been unable to escape. You cannot hide being black and it shouldn't be a crime, but in this country, it is in most cases.
The people she is working to help are disenfranchised by a poverty that those who can afford $500 to attend a meeting cannot begin to understand. They are weary of being treated as if they don't exist. I believe Michelle wants to keep the promise their hope in her and Barack that their day has come after centuries of race hate. And although she has achieved much in this life, she still feels their disappointment keenly.
JMHO.
sheshe2
(83,773 posts)The hate and abuse that has been heaped upon our President AND Our First Lady, appall's me.
Does it surprise me that such disrespect is being thrown so freely. Sadly no.
Obama advocated of her husband's policy priorities by promoting bills that support it. Obama hosted a White House reception for women's rights advocates in celebration of the enactment of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 Pay equity law. She supported the economic stimulus bill in visits to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and United States Department of Education. Some observers looked favorably upon her legislative activities, while others said that she should be less involved in politics. According to her representatives, she intends to visit all United States Cabinet-level agencies in order to get acquainted with Washington.
Snip:
Michelle Obama stated that her goal was to make this effort her legacy: "I want to leave something behind that we can say, Because of this time that this person spent here, this thing has changed. And my hope is that thats going to be in the area of childhood obesity."[96] Her 2012 book American Grown: The Story of the White House Kitchen Garden and Gardens Across America is based on her experiences with the garden and promotes healthy eating.[100] Her call for action on healthy eating has been echoed by the United States Department of Defense, which has been facing an ever expanding problem of recruit obesity.[101]
Snip:
Michelle Obama has been an advocate of the LGBT rights. In the 2008 US presidential election, Michelle boasted, to gay Democrat groups, her husband's record on LGBT rights, including, his cosponsoring of a bill amending the Illinois Human Rights Act to include protections for LGBT people which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace, housing, and all public places, his support for the Illinois gender violence act, his support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, his support for hate crimes protection for sexual orientation and gender identity, his support for renewed effort to fight HIV and AIDS, his support for repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, his support for a full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, his support for civil unions, and his opposition to constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage in the federal, California, and Florida constitutions. She said that the US Supreme Court delivered justice in the Lawrence v. Texas case and drew a connection between the struggles for gay rights and civil rights by stating We are all only here because of those who marched and bled and died, from Selma to Stonewall, in the pursuit of a more perfect union,[102][103][104]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Obama
I applaud our First Lady ~
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Equality is what Michelle and Barack are all about. I see no heckling of the people blocking equal rights and who are against things progressives and liberals support, but only on those who are fighting for them.
I'd ask 'Who's kidding who' but there will be no answer. Another day, another faux outrage by media. They never get upset by the RW spouting hate about women, the poor, minorities and gays. So they are not Dems, but working for the other side to hurt the causes they claim to support that are our platform.
calimary
(81,283 posts)Good Grief. I guess no one expects any consequences for their actions anymore.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)And this self-important person (who apparently must've paid $200 to get in) decides that her issue about federal contractors and discrimination is more important than the subject at hand?
I agree that these hecklers do nobody (including their own causes) any good. There's a time and a place for principled intervention. And it should be rare, very rare, if it's going to be effective. This was neither the time nor the place, and it did nothing to advance the protester's cause.
I feel very sorry that the hecklers have been mainly women lately. Not that we women don't have a right to scream every once in a while. But to scream off-topic is not the right channel for advancing one's cause. You'll only end up hurting it.
Audio of part of FLOTUS's talk, plus intervention, below:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/lgbt-rights-activist-heckles-flotus-at-dem-fundraiser
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Sounds so.......teabaggerish to me.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)i.e. heckling, and then being taken aback by the lack of civility after she heckled. Pretty funny line.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)nt
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)"Fuck it then, we'll do it live."
Glorfindel
(9,730 posts)This heckler should be deeply ashamed.
hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)People had obviously paid for tickets, etc. to be there to hear Michelle Obama. Not some heckler.
And while I think the heckling of anyone, in particular, is pretty much rude and useless, I would certainly NOT expect to have to put up with it had I paid money to hear a speech by a specific person. Same with going to a concert to hear an artist sing and having to listen to some idiot next to me talking on a cell phone, interfering with the ability to enjoy what you've paid to hear.
And no, I don't think hecklers would be as bold as they seem to be if it were not a Black First Family occupying the White House.
I like the way Mrs. Obama handled this.
eissa
(4,238 posts)the First Lady's response makes even more sense. She was talking about something very dear to her -- the plight of inner city children. She wasn't talking about the weather or stumping for a candidate, but speaking very passionately about a topic she cares deeply about. And right in the midst of it she's rudely interrupted. That the heckler is "disappointed" that her rude behavior was confronted, and that the entire crowd (which paid to her FLOTUS, not her) supported Michelle, is just rich.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)for heckling. That time and place are when a speaker is lying shamelessly or is egregiously violating the informal protocols of public decorum. It is never the time merely because one differs with or is unsatisfied by another persons position.
Response to MrScorpio (Original post)
Adsos Letter This message was self-deleted by its author.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)Her intelligence, style, wit and honesty are just a few of the qualities I so admire.
siligut
(12,272 posts)Michelle Obama is an extraordinary woman.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)EC
(12,287 posts)when the President leaves office. And besides that I'm guessing if he did it the Senate would just table any further legislation on gay rights because the order would have "taken care of it" and they won't have to put their asses on the line with votes. So IMO an executive order would just gum up things for a long time (especially if a repub gets in next time around)
brooklynite
(94,581 posts)An Executive Order becomes a standing rule for the Executive Branch until it's replaced/repealed by another one. If every Executive Branch policy expired at the end of a Presidential term, the Government would grind to a halt.
EC
(12,287 posts)you think it would stand?
brooklynite
(94,581 posts)"Environmental Justice" was an EO imposed by President Clinton. It's been in effect ever since.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)rolled back black lung benefits, lowered standards on allowable contaminants from coal burning electrical generation facilities?
When Bush loosened inspection of polluting businesses to allow voluntary inspection by business without being fined, defunded EPA superfund sites, and didn't enforce federal rules which resulted in the West, TX disaster and others, did not prosecute damage to native and minority communities under his watch, what kind of environmental justice are you talking about?
How did this environmental justice EO work after Clinton left office to protect those groups?
I'm not disputing what you say, was you may have experience or knowledge in this field, but I remember the Bush years and his environmental record was not a good one in my eyes and did not create any form of environmental justice.
So kindly inform me, as I must have missed something that you did not in those years.
brooklynite
(94,581 posts)I've had to prepare or evaluate environmental documents for agency projects for the past 15 years. The EJ regs were the same under Clinton, Bush and Obama.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)And a policy cannot be enforced if it is not funded.
I hold that a policy or an EO has no bearing in reality and will never meet the lofty goals stated in the piece quoted, if there is not enough money to hire staff to enforce regulations.
They become without effect, and the government under Bush was hallowed out nationally. Not just with environmental rules in the CFRs.
I saw what he did in Texas prior to the presidency and the same tactic was used there to hide what he had done and prevent debate. The facade of the agencies were there. But when people went expecting help, even if they qualified or their case was valid and met legal definitions, they had no money.
Are you saying environmental justice since Bush has made a difference and that polluters are being regulated after he made that voluntary?
After he changed other rules?
I understand you did the paper work for legal purpose, and may have helped a company who had best intentions to meet the goals suggested. But you may not have lived with the lack of regulation due to not funding enforcement powers.
I appreciate your answer and would appreciate more.
It is so ridiculous this obsession with executive orders. During the DADT overturning, which the President wanted to be by legislation, because that is much stronger, there were tons of posts on the board screaming about how the President was a bigot because he could just do away with it with a "stroke of his pen." Which any R President can simply undo.
People don't know how the system works and in such cases, their contribution is little.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)I guess Sturtz thought she was going to take advantage of "No Drama Obama". Wrong one, dummy.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)EQUALITY DELAYED IS EQUALITY DENIED
Ellen Sturz is a REAL AMERICAN HERO
ZRT2209
(1,357 posts)dbackjon
(6,578 posts)bye bye
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Since you like to assume everyone is a bigot:
It might actually do some good for that chip on your shoulder.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)ANd yes, the people I call bigots, are.
If you are not for full and immediate equality - you are a bigot
If you try to minimialize the discrimination that gays face - you are a bigot
If you are more concerned about cheap political points than equality - you are a bigot.
If you tell me to keep quiet, you already have plenty of rights - you are a bigot
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)...for someone that likes to portray themselves as better than the 4 points listed in your post.
"do as I say, not as I do" seems like your meme...and it's pathetic.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)I am for immediate equality for all.
It is very simple
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)If we don't think, do, and say exactly what you do, then we are bigots.
Got it.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Supporting immediate equality takes you out of the bigot camp.
I am sorry if the truth hurts.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Someone says "I don't support what person A has done (because of their behavior), and you call them a bigot. Once again got.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)Is respect returned in spades.
If you want Mrs. Obama to do something - then get her elected to office.
Why should one black woman take one ounce of shit from one white woman? What did Ms. Sturz want? Mrs. Obama to come fan her down? She treated Mrs. Obama like a maid in The Help and expected to get respect? That's just rich.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Nothing.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)But then, after all, I'm black.
Or does that not matter here?
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)From all sides.
Logical
(22,457 posts)pnwmom
(108,978 posts)lunasun
(21,646 posts)of course I remember at the beginning of the tea party scourge many here argued that racism had nothing to do with their antics & appeal
and perhaps,...still think that
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)I've seen great strides made for the GLBT community since President Obama has been in office.
You don't think it's at ALL significant?
Because us black folks? We've had to take a seat at the back of the bus this ENTIRE Presidency. She was talking about poor little black and hispanic kids (for the most part - the poor inner city).
And don't think we haven't seen how about a third of the Democratic party has 'tolerated' the President and Mrs. Obamas skin. We see it.
And for ONCE she got to speak about poor minority kids - and this asshole has to go and make it about her.
And if you DON'T think 99% of the bullshit thrown at this President, his wife, his children, his mother has been about his skin color - then you are delusional. She sounded no different to me than Ted Nugent or Ann Coulter or Newt GingriNch, or Ted Cruz etc. etc.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)And to the hero Sturz
Yes, there are plenty of racists that hate the Obamas because they are black.
But you diminish the effect when you claim racism every time someone disagrees with them.
So we are not allowed to criticize the Obamas?
I voted twice for President Obama. Race had zero to do with my vote
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)And you should have! He did things that we thought would NEVER happen in our life time for the GLBT community.
But - if the GLBT community INDIVIDUAL member acts like A drooling idiot IndieTeaPublican (code for bigot) - then I WILL show them how they are acting JUST LIKE a jackhammer in a tricorn hat.
And every last one of THOSE PEOPLE are bigots.
So either be polite - or get lumped in with the dregs. She's getting lumped in with the dregs - because she acted just like one of them.
To INCLUDE getting whiny and cry baby because Mrs. Obama had the nerve to put her in her place.
She couldn't have raised her hand and politely ASKED to speak? She couldn't have approached her after the event?
Behave like a jack ass, get treated like one and have people believe you are one.
She's not a hero. She's a rich elite woman who acted like a spoiled little snot and for once didn't get a pony or lollipop and is now whining about it. Ohh - but the tall girl was mwweeaaan to meeeeeeeeeeeeee. Well yeah - you were mean to her first.
More elected Democratics should act like Mrs. Obama did. Maybe then the IndieTeaPubs would shut the fuck up already.
Number23
(24,544 posts)MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Would you like to see HER take on all of this?
Here's her post:
You disrespect us but then simultaneously expect us to cater to your whims, needs, and desires. Without backlash or consequence.
The white neo-liberal politic at work here, especially the white queer feminist neo-liberal politic. Where brown bodies are not important until they have something to be gained.
(Im not even going to get into how short sighted executive orders for civil rights have historically been in terms of sustainable social change)
http://navigatethestream.tumblr.com/post/52222483293/first-lady-michelle-obama-confronts-gay-rights-heckler
OneGrassRoot
(22,920 posts)MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)And that's the one being offered by Black Queer voices.
Interestingly enough, those voices are standing up for Mrs. Obama and NOT for Ms. Sturtz.
OneGrassRoot
(22,920 posts)I try to stay out of these DU frays on display in this thread.
Not judging, not blaming.
I'm a white, heterosexual female. I can try to empathize but just don't feel I can offer an informed opinion.
There's a lot of suffering and anger all around. Hell, I'm angry about the myriad injustices but can only speak intelligently about what I've experienced or witnessed directly. I just wish things were different, with true equality and social justice all the way around, but we all know we're far from that.
I appreciate seeing links like you shared though, for even more perspective.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)An article about Respectability Politics.
Fame + Fortune
Illustration by Angie Wang
In February 2012, PBS host Tavis Smiley interviewed Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer about their Oscar nominations for their roles as Aibileen and Minny, Jim Crowera domestic workers in The Help. Im pulling for both of you to win on Academy Award night, Smiley ventured. But theres something that sticks in my craw about celebrating Hattie McDaniel so many years ago for playing a maida reference to the actor who won for her role as Mammy in 1939s Gone with the Wind. I want you to win, Smiley concluded, but Im ambivalent about what youre winning for.
Davis countered that it is hard for black actresses to find multifaceted roles in Hollywood, and that pressure from the black community to eschew portrayals that are not heroic makes it even harder: That very mind-set that you have, and that a lot of African-Americans have, is absolutely destroying the black artist . If your criticism is that you just dont want to see the maid...then I have an issue with that. Do I always have to be noble?
For black women, particularly those in the public eye, the answer to this question is often a resounding Yes. They are required to be noble examples of black excellence. To be better. To be respectable. And the bounds of respectability are narrowly defined by professional and personal choices reflecting the social mores of the majority culturepatriarchal, Judeo-Christian, heteronormative, and middle class.
Spencer ended up taking home an Oscar later that month for Best Supporting Actress (Davis lost to Meryl Streep for Best Actress), but Smiley had articulated a discomfort many in the black community felt about their big-screen roles. For all its popularity and acclaim, The Help illustrates that Hollywood still filters (and distorts) the lives and histories of minorities through the eyes of the majority; celebrates white saviors; and, 72 years post-Mammy, is still more comfortable casting black women as maids than as prime ministers, action heroes, or romantic leads.
http://bitchmagazine.org/article/no-disrespect
Something else to consider in light of Ms. Sturtz's confrontation of Mrs. Obama.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)And that surprises... who, exactly???
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Both women are the members of more than one discriminated against group. Seems like there should be an intersectional way they could have handled this that did not end up with a zero sum game, loser vs a winner.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Ms. Sturtz started out by interrupting the First Lady in an attempt to usurp the narrative with a concern of her own and found out that the crowd would not support her when given an opportunity by Mrs. Obama.
It pretty much demonstrated the flaw in most hecklers' logic. There isn't any. They heckle because they want attention, yet without the added responsibility of having that attention.
She tried to ride Michelle's skirt tails was promptly told to, "Step off."
I'm with Michelle Obama all the way on this.
TekGryphon
(430 posts)I have seen Michelle throw herself at nutrition and child nutrition programs that affect all of us for years. She set aside ONE day to discuss issues important to the black community, and Sturz decided that it was outrageous enough that she was going to interrupt and heckle Michelle.
Fuck her and fuck anyone in the LGBT community that thinks the social justice spotlight should be on them 100% of the time with no other important social issues allowed to be discussed until they get everything they want.
We're all in this together and that means giving mutual respect to important social justice causes beyond your own.
Pisces
(5,599 posts)Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)Obama is king--he can enact any law he wants to without Congress! He is just being his usual sellout, spineless moderate Republican self.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)but bullshit
there's a time and place for these discussions and this was not the time nor the place
eissa
(4,238 posts)of LGBT rights, i.e., not the first couple who have been very supportive. She could have done so much more for her cause if she simply waited for the Q&A portion and made a reasoned and intelligent argument at that point. She would have had not only the First Lady's attention (and probably support) but the entire room's as well. It was a Democratic fund-raiser for pete's sake, I'm sure the entire place was on board with her cause, just not her method. Opportunity totally wasted.
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)The first lady was invited to speak. The audience paid to hear the first lady speak. The audience expected to hear the first lady speak and confirmed this...but asking the heckler to leave.
How was the first lady disrespectful?
I can't wait to hear this explanation. It's bound to be good.
A strange woman, standing up and interrupting the First Lady of the United States of America as she speaks passionately about poor, disadvantaged children is (to you) a real American hero.
The First Lady who has (dare I say it) the AUDACITY to think she should have the floor, because, she's the one that was invited to speak was disrespectful according to what... Bad Manners and Heckling 101?
See, that's the real problem, right there. Up is down, and down is up. No wonder DU is confused, half the time.
What should Mrs. Obama have done according to you?
Oh...I'm sorry, Ms. Sturtz. Although, the audience would like to hear me. Your voice is more important. Let me go sit down over here in the corner and then we will all listen to you. Then, I'll get on the phone and call my husband and tell him...I have just gone to a speaking engagement to hear Ms. Sturtz. And, she says she knows exactly what you need to do. By the way, she's free to also advise you on foreign affairs. But, she's going to be tied up the rest of this week. But, she may be able to squeeze you in next week.
Because apparently, the world revolves around Ms. Sturtz.
No...she found out the world does not revolve around her.
There is a time and place. Sturtz didn't pick the time or the place. In a 24 hour day, she picked an hour that didn't suit her objective. It happens. She didn't pick the right place. It happens.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)If you want respect, show some.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)She has no power over this issue except to express her opinion.
Ellen Sturz failed in her target selection process. She'd be better off heckling in the Congress, which is the proper venue for overturning DOMA/etc. Or in the Courts.
The executive is not a king, even if I grant that Michelle might have some influence over Barack's opinion on this issue. He has already directed the DoJ not to defend it anyway. It's up to the courts/legislature now. (And to us, the people)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I don't think either woman behaved inappropriately.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)I would have done the same thing. This was a private home. The heckler was standing right next to her. Yelling. What the fuck did she expect? A hug?
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Captain Stern
(2,201 posts).....but it isn't because of her actions at this speech.
Her actions at this speech make her an asshole.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)And she still doesn't have equality YET. This was NOT the time or place to heckle the First Lady. Yes I want equality too, but heckling the first lady is not how one does it. Perhaps the heckler could have asked Michelle a question after her speech.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Perhaps I can just be equal now.
thucythucy
(8,057 posts)with someone who is heckling you. Especially if she keeps at it after she's made her initial point.
I know I wouldn't be able to do it.
What do you think Ms. Obama's response should have been?
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Promise to ask her husband to KEEP HIS WORD, and then ask the focus be turned back to the issue at hand - raising money.
Response to dbackjon (Reply #177)
thucythucy This message was self-deleted by its author.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And does that apply to any of us. We can just take our issue and interrupt anyone else, any time? There will never be another speech given.
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)Michelle Obama showed she lacked empathy by...expecting to be able to speak at an event that she was invited to speak at...???
I can't even fathom it.
How did Michelle Obama display a lack of empathy for a woman yelling at her while she was trying to speak?
So, was the first lady supposed to be quiet while the heckler spoke? Is that it?
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)By definition.
It was rude and from my own viewpoint, reflects badly on our community.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)"I was taken aback."
Really?
What did she think was going to happen? Spontaneous applause? A ticker-tape parade? A revolution?
She was rude (not just to Ms. Obama, but to everyone in attendance) and got called out for it.
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)"Once she threatened to leave, others in attendance reportedly told Sturtz that she had to go."
William769
(55,147 posts)Pisces
(5,599 posts)Wanted to shout at someone and the person just take it. Mrs. O just let everyone know that she is not President Obama, and she doesn't have to be gracious to rude people!!
Myrina
(12,296 posts)I obviously wasn't there but personally, would have preferred if FLOTUS would have countered with "We can discuss your issue after I'm finished here. This is a different subject matter entirely. Please sit down." or something like that in a firm tone, but to say something to the effect of "either shut up or I'm leaving" sounds like something a teenager would do, not a lawyer/mother of teenagers.
JHMO, flame away.
adigal
(7,581 posts)She sounded like a petulant child.
"If you don't shut up, I am going to take my ball and go home." And then allowed the others to bully the woman into silence.
I like Obama, but this makes me rethink her. I think she has been inside the bubble too long.
frylock
(34,825 posts)my beef is more with the people cheering Michelle on. it could've been handled a lot better. smacks of do you know who I am?
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)da best!
2naSalit
(86,636 posts)Our First Lady expressing her role as a mother first and foremost. She handled this like a mom with a rude and unruly child... not that this Sturtz woman was not advocating a worthy cause (I am not up to date on the issue but still) she was disrespectful to the cause Mrs. Obama was speaking about and to claim that "getting down in her face" was unexpected, well it makes me laugh. If you are going to be confrontational in an erratic fashion, you should anticipate an unusual response. Mrs. O certainly handled it well and with class and intellect. Good on her. As for the heckler, I hope she learned something of value from the experience with regard to respect and staying on topic.
adigal
(7,581 posts)MO was speaking, and when interrupted, sounded like a child who was going to take her microphone and go home.
I like Michelle Obama, but think she handled this very poorly. She could have spoken to the woman for a moment and asked her for respect, but instead, she threatened the crowd with leaving, and got them to bully the heckler.
Doesn't sit right with me.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)adigal
(7,581 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I would have been shocked if Laura Bush had stood up for herself. Heckler would have been strong armed out of the room.
calimary
(81,283 posts)Has everyone here forgotten the infamous "First Amendment Zones" that were always set up BLOCKS away from any bush gathering - so far away that the press wasn't there and the protesters were rendered completely irrelevant? People were subjected to searches before they were allowed to enter. It was always invitation only. Cherry-picked audience-members to make sure only the "chosen" followers and sycophants were allowed in. For the entire last "presidency," it was like that. I've noticed the glaring difference, since then, between the bush/cheney years and the Obama years. There was zero tolerance of ANY opposing views from 2001-2009. NOBODY outside the bubble got a fair hearing, or even a chance to confront the "king."
Since the beginning of the Obama years, that whole feeling changed. It seemed as though the doors were opened a lot wider and anyone could come in, regardless, and at least get their few moments to vent. What would have happened if some hothead Dem shouted "You LIE!" at bush during one of the State of the Union addresses? Such an individual would have been rudely and abruptly escorted OUT, and then the press would have rained down its own criticism - "how DARE you do that to the President during the SOTU!?!?!?!?" But some pipsqueak like joe wilson hollers it out during President Obama's SOTU and is damn near lionized for it. AND he was allowed to stay for the rest of the speech, instead of being taken by the scruff of the neck and kicked out the door.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)calimary
(81,283 posts)I still do. INFURIATING!!!!!
raccoon
(31,111 posts)calimary
(81,283 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)If only he had been that alert and nimble before 9/11/01.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)The arrogance of interrupting the speaker and expecting them to hand you a positive result on a platter? Really?
The heckler could have taken a more positive approach for making a demand.
jen63
(813 posts)have been put in that position in the first place. Like others have pointed out, the level of disrespect and contempt levied at this couple is unprecedented. Pure bigotry.
a kennedy
(29,669 posts)who's giving a speech. It's just disrespectful, period, and I don't care who's speaking.....
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Funny cause the right was pushing so hard to end affirmative action and do away with laws against discrimination before the president was elected but after the past five years of outright ugly open bigotry they've shown that if anything we need to double down on that stuff for a generation or two more.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)honest question.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I do however think race played into how the situation was approached and handled.
GoCubsGo
(32,084 posts)It was a left-leaning activist behaving like a teabagger, and throwing a tantrum because she isn't getting every she wants right NOW. I don't know why this twit thought she was going to accomplish anything by harassing Mrs. Obama, who has no say-so in any of it.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)She's been attacked since Day One and I am amazed she has held it together in the face of an army of hypocrites attacking her, her children and husband.
I am tired of teabaggers of ALL persuasions, who demand to be addressed immediately, just stop every damn thing, and to hell with every other person around them, or else they pitch a fit and scream repression.
And you are correct, she has no say-so on law. It was just venting on the FLOTUS, since human rights are not a matter of pillow talk and opinion between her and Barack, but law.
I believe this was not an honest act on the part of the protestor, but done to divide Democrats. It will work, too, just watch.
GoCubsGo
(32,084 posts)I'm sick of the teabaggers demanding instant gratification, too. But, I'm just as sick of it coming from the Left. I don't know if this woman was really trying to divide the Dems, although judging by what I'm seeing here at DU, she's doing just that. Personally, I think she is just attention-hungry.
I'm also really sick of people demanding the president write executive orders. He has been bending over backwards to make sure changes that are made are permanent. That isn't going to be accomplished by executive orders. What's this woman going to do if Chris Christie becomes president and reverses them?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)And really, they know better if they know anything about the Constitution. The Libertarians will use any of the traditional issues to split Democrats, but they are just giving them lip service right now.
Obama has already issued federal changes in Medicare and hospital rules which was in his power, to stop some of the worst abuses of gays which was the cruelty of denying hospital visitation. But that's not a LAW.
And yes, EO's get overturned, and they have NO funding for enforcement if the House of Representatives can defund whatever they say. The POTUS does not have the power of the purse, Congress does, and he has to shuffle around for funds. It takes changing Congress to get all that we want done.
I just found the video of the first time I heard John Kerry speak in public in 1971 when I was there for the anti-war demo April 24th. There were over 200,000 of us there, but some said it was half a million. Only one senator came out to see us, and John Kerry who was leading the VVAW spoke of that.
He said if those in office would not bring the troops home, we would go to the polls to remove them and then transform the government ourselves. A lot got accomplished in those days. But now we have people saying not to vote, pointing up the faults of liberals, progressive and Dems, and it always turns out they are Libertarians who profit by the status quo now, and would be better off without all that pesky government that Kerry spoke of transforming society, and did.
Libertarians don't want that in the long run, they want the government to have no power to end discrimination and regulate and change things that way. That leads to more power for the well off and those were the people that I feel Michelle was speaking about to people with money.
Agree on the attention seeking and instant gratification... How many millions in this country have not recieved either? The activist could have waited to the end to say her piece, but at times it appears activists have no heart for anything but the group they say they represent. Do we know anything about her, except she got her moment of fame?
We've seen so many people take a piss on the Obamas, not because they care or because they are truly concerned. They are making political points for the media to grind out to make the White House look bad. She would have gotten her issue answered, which she likely knew Michelle was incapable of helping with, at the end of the presentation.
But now she has media face time and a platform to say that Michelle Obama is out of line, and that she doesn't care. What is really going on here?
Libertarians won't acknowledge that centuries of slavery and racial discrimination in this country have made an unequal playing field that libertarianism does not have a solutions for, except the invisible hand of the market and other magical ideas. They are doing a good job of destroying the Demcratic Party by pretending to be liberal or progressive. If they were, they would embrace lifting up the poor that Michelle was making an impassioned case there.
And there are some on the Left who want the Democrats to fail in 2014 and 2016, just as they advocated even here on DU, as they think a glorious uprising of the miserable will lead to their revolution. Guess who dies first in all of these processes?
Not those with means who are cheering storming the Bastille, but the poor who are suffering now. When Libertarians come here and attack Democrats for what they can use a wedge on social safety net issues, I cannot forget that they don't believe in having one period.
When I see them wail about the justice system, I cannot forget that they want all regulation and laws and courts, public schools, fire fighters and public hospitals to all go away and be privatized. Their starve the goverment plan eliminates public defenders, diversion plans for those who would be locked up, and a fair appeal process for the poor.
So, they want the government gone, and who will get health care, decent housing, food and water other than the rich, and who will not get them?
So I have little patience on this, as I feel that I am being lied to, and I appreciate your take on the matter.
Cha
(297,254 posts)at the Fundraiser..
From Gwendolyn in the comments:
Thankfully, we have such a positive and effective First Lady. The dumb republicans do not understand grace!
http://theobamadiary.com/2013/06/05/rise-and-shine-520/
And, some Tweets from "April"..
April @ReignOfApril
I want to get my point across at a private home fundraiser, I slip @FLOTUS an impassioned letter signed by many on my issue. Not heckle her.
April @ReignOfApril
You confront the wife of the leader of the free world but then are "taken aback" when she confronts you right back. That's privilege, folks.
April @ReignOfApril
Ellen Sturtz goes to heckle @FLOTUS in a private home & then describes the crowd's response as "unsettling & disturbing." Girl, bye.
Oh the Irony!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Cha
(297,254 posts)First Lady Michelle Obama at a fundraiser before a heckler interrupts. Photo by SJSB.
http://mahoganie.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/flotus-the-heckler-south-side-chicago-in-the-d-c-house/
And, a blogger who 'splains the South Side of Chicago..
Michelle Obama Let a Protester Have It and I Approve!
http://www.awesomelyluvvie.com/2013/06/michelle-obama-protester.html
An unrelated pic of Michelle looking like AND?!? Whatchu gon do?
sheshe2
(83,773 posts)Kurovski
(34,655 posts)with that Bill Maher quote?
I think the nice lesbian lady actually backed down, sans rage. Maybe she got that her timing was off.
But you seem to engage in some conflating of issues throughout the thread here. Do you think at her core, the lesbian lady is a good person? Do you think lesbians can be considered to be decent people at all, even if they get pushy, rude and insistent about equality? It's difficult to tell from all the conflating...and what-not, steam-rolling maybe? Just a little?
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)if I was the host I'd would have asked her to leave my residence PDQ. She not only disrespected the FLOTUS she did so to all the attendees.
ZRT2209
(1,357 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)ZRT2209
(1,357 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)ZRT2209
(1,357 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Care to explain why you chose to use it in this context?
frylock
(34,825 posts)people like to throw that term around whenever they can't form a cogent argument to back up their point of view. anyone and everyone that isn't 101% satisfied with Obama is clearly a racist.
Kurovski
(34,655 posts)trolls be trollin'.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)she would have kick her ass. I'm so sick and tired of the uppity and angry black shit. She human just like all the naysayers.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Mz. Sturtz, does have a good point, however she should have waited untill the end for questions and made her point then.
Really not fair to dominate a fundraiser when a small group of people did donate to have Mrs. Obama speak.
appleannie1
(5,067 posts)should be dealt with in the manner of an adult scolding a 2 year old having a fit of temper. Our First Lady did just that. You would be better served joining a cause to have the laws changed, not just demanding you get your own brand of candy. And doing it in a respectful manner might just gain you some respect and a couple ears that will listen.
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)This is not the middle ages and Michelle Obama is not a queen for whom we are all to bow down to by penalty of death.
Sturtz is a hero and a true progressive by standing up and speaking out for civil rights.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)Sturtz was running her mouth in a private venue, and was doing so against the wishes of the homeowner and those who were in attendance. Your attempt to equate the two is laughable at best, and could accurately be described as dishonest and insulting to a real hero. (In case you forgot, Rosa Parks went to jail, Sturtz was escorted from the room and didn't get to finish her $500 lunch.)
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)The fact that you feel it is not OK for people to protest for LGBT rights also speaks volumes about your commitment to Democratic principles.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)So, tell me, should the First Lady be interrupted every time she makes a statement about anything other than GLBT rights?
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)I don't care about the circumstances or the issue. The person likely is aware of any consequences that may befall them, so I applaud their courage to speak out.
This issue has made it clear that many, many people here on DU do not support LGBT civil rights. For me, civil rights trump decorum any and every day. Sturtz is a hero for championing civil rights, regardless of what people think of her methods.
It's funny how the people criticizing Sturtz are not criticizing President Obama for not signing the EO. If he had signed the EO when he promised he would sign it, then this event probably wouldn't happened. Sturtz is not to blame, Barack Obama is.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)GLBT rights?
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)He, too, just makes shit up and throws it out there. Show us where you either said that Michelle Obama should or should not be interrupted every time she speaks to an issue other than LGBT rights. Not whether or not you support it in some cases, not amorphous bullshit about "questioning authority", just plain and simple, should it always happen? That was my question. You can answer it or not, but you can't pretend that you have done so when you have not.
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)I support any citizen directly questioning and criticizing people of authority and influence.
MO is undeniably a person of influence. If someone wants to heckle or protest her, then they have my support. Is that clear enough for you?
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)SHOULD Mrs. Obama be interrupted any time she speaks about an issue other than LGBT rights? You are more than willing to laud as a "hero" the person who did it this time. If indeed Sturtz's actions were "heroic", then SHOULD they not be repeated any time a speaker addresses a different topic?
But just for shits and giggles, if the First Lady WAS speaking out about LGBT rights in a setting where that topic had been advertised as the reason for her speech, and a teabagger interrupted her to begin railing against "Obamacare", "death panels", "socialism", and "traditional marriage"; would you support that individual's "questioning and criticizing a person of authority and influence"?
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)Hopefully that response doesn't confuse you.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)then in your estimation the First Lady SHOULD be interrupted any time she speaks on a topic other than LGBT rights. But she SHOULD also be interrupted when she is speaking about LGBT rights. Well, now you are on the record in stating that First lady Michele Obama (and by inference everyone else you deem to be influential) should never be allowed to speak about anything without being interrupted by whomever has a a pet issue.
I salute you for your consistency, but I hope that I never have to sit anywhere near you in a movie theater. Or a play. Or a concert. Or at a fucking speech where the topic of said speech had already been made known to all of the attendees.
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)It's too bad DU couldn't muster the same level of outrage for President Obama's unwillingness to sign the EO, especially since ENDA will never pass the Republican led US House.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)from reading a thread pertaining to a completely different subject. I would never presume to speak for DU, but ordinarily I voice my outrage at the lack of civil rights afforded to my GLBT brothers and sisters in discussions dedicated to that issue. Likewise, I prefer to confine mention of my lack of affinity for rude assholes to discussions related to that issue.
But that's just me.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I don't know about you, but several people yelling over one another, each touting their one true passion at the same time, makes it all sound more like a bunch of hissy white noise. Is that what you are touting? Because I don't see how that yelling thing works for one group without saying it's ok for every group to do that...while using each others forums to promote their personal agenda.
So by all means lets that anti pipeline people, anti vacc people, the pro porn people, the bankers, the gold buyers, the pro Vap cigarette people, the gay advocates, the anti gay advocates, the athiests and the Muslims and Hindus, the pro polygamy, the christian Right, PETA and every other advocate all press their point at the same time, because it's what one does to be a hero?
Sturtz messed up big time. She could easily have spoken out at a time and place that gave her the public undividded attention and listening ear.
While there are several civil rights and social issues that are ALL important, there is nothing Sturtz did that maked her statement more important than the one that was being addressed.
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)as for MO's attention and lisening ear...you think that was acheived by this stunt? Do you suddenly rearrange your life and take on the mantle of someone that heckles you in public? Sturtz isn't a hero, she failed and actually hurt her cause....read the rest of this thread and you will understand that Sturzt didn't acheive political capital at all.
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)Sturtz's actions were widely successful as far as heckling and protesting goes. Just because you think she was rude for daring to interrupt the First Lady, that does not mean she didn't bring attention to her cause.
Those of us here at DU would be wise to champion civil rights instead of championing personalities, regardless if we support Sturtz or MO in this situation. From my perspective, it seems like most of Sturtz's supporters put LGBT civil rights ahead of her while it seems like MO's supporters put MO ahead of LGBT civil rights. That's a big problem for me.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)did Sturtz affect any policy change or did Sturtz humiliate herself in public and draw negative attention to the subject matter.
Unfortunatly, I think it more of the latter.
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)Anybody who is more offended by the interruption than by the lack of LGBT civil rights has some seriously screwed up priorities - and that includes many people here at DU.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)to sign anything into law via EO, is actually quite nuts.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)to a man. That is vastly, infinitely different from what the jackass that shouted at the First Lady did.
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)Thus you only support a cause when they sit down and shut up about it?
patrice
(47,992 posts)anyone's and everyone's?
If one issue group can/should demand that, ALL of them can and SHOULD.
Why should one issue receive special treatment and not others?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Someone funds the group that paid for her and a male heckler to be there. IMO, it was Koch money through a front group.
The male with her first heckled Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, had intimidated her into silence as he went on, until Secret Service agents pointed at him. Meaning they might have taken him into custody. So he shut up.
Immediately Sturtz yelled that he should be allowed to speak. I've seen this tactic used to take over things and shut others up in the name of freedom of speech, but only for the people crashing meetings.
They are oblivious to the rights of others in the Commons. They walk into places with a sense of entitlement that is aggressive. This sounds like the woman backing up the Infowars nutnik in Boston, too. They came to start a ruckus at Democratic fundraiser and get publicity and most likely aren't Democrats.
I've seen this before, it's worse when there it's a open house, where everyone is welcome to come and eat for free or donate if they want to. It is a time for people to discuss what is going right and wrong in their area, and talk to the representatives of the district and find out how bills are progressing or not to address their needs.
These are loosely run meetings, and like many liberal functions, are vulnerable to disruptors. When you have one going, the Libertarians and LaRouchies show up and try to take over the meeting and overpower people trying to answer questions. It has a chilling effect on discourse outside the parameters they are demanding the conversation take place, which is completely derailed. They are the real life version of trolls on the internet who want to shut up all liberal and progressive voices.
They disrespect everyone that has taken the time out of their lives to come and act together, and huff and puff if they don't get their way. They act like the gun owners parading with rifles at gun control meetings to scare people off, or how Tea Partiers shouted down and threatened both representatives and citizens over the ACA. In those cases, they photographed their faces and license plates and they even followed the citizens home.
This is brownshirt fascism and it's happening cross country and they, the disruptors, are doing more harm to freedom of speech by running others out of the public square designed to intimidate peaceful, concerned citizens from civic involvement.
Obama immediately signed many EO's as soon as he was sworn into office in 2009, to overturn those written by Bush. To yell for these in a meeting and not go through the process of making law is just baiting. And in this case, using media to generate another faux talking point off the Sequester, the good that Obama has done, and all Michelle and the administration are working on. It's red meat for the FRW and FLW NJs and a way to demoralize the rest of us.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Debbie and Michelle. Worst fucking protesters EVER. Fox News sure as fuck loves 'em today tho. Gave them a great excuse to rag on the African American First Lady and the Jewish head of the DNC. Because you know those fundamentalists only love Israel because of end-time prophecy.
And BTW, if Michelle is anything like me, her protective instincts undoubtedly got stirred up when the first guy heckled Debbie.
Thankfully, this will not have a chilling effect on President Obama's support for full civil rights for LGBTs. Or Michelle's and Debbie's. Or the Democratic Party's.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Anyone who has read the DNC platform, watched all that the convention said about rights for all, no matter if popular or not, won't be fooled or swayed.
Anyone who has watched and read of Obama's support for LGBT's, women, children, immigrants, the disabled and all Americans, including those who hate him, knows that he is a man of principle and knows the Constitution very well. And that he has changed the laws.
His haters know that too. As far as Fox and RWers, they will be the ones spinning this against LGBT's, not Democrats. Our party record and platform is clear, so the ones who strive to instigate division among us are not part of us, pure and simple.
Those who are working to divide the American people from each other will not win, history is against RWers.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)as though anyone who disagrees with them is absolutely an authentic person who hates LGBT, or is racist, or misogynistic, or opposes the 1st Amendment, or hates the Obamas, or whatever suits their characterization of their issue opponents.
So, even if what you describe, freshwest, isn't relevant to a given instance, . . . . because it gets treated as though it is - BY GOD KNOWS WHO (since most of us a posting under pseudonyms) that's what it becomes, in some cases unintentionally, in other cases with full intentionality.
I don't understand why so many people are acting as though everyone here, or elsewhere on the internet, is in fact who/what they say they are. Trolling REALLY isn't that hard. It seems so obvious to me that you shouldn't 100% believe whatever ANYONE presents themselves as, so it really makes me wonder even more why all Obama, or LGBT, supporters are assumed to in fact be Obama, or LGBT, supporters (or any of the other issue groups) and that is assumed especially if they disagree about something like heckling, or say something hateful about anyone, or if they say something really stupid. There are people who jump in and really cheer lead without even mentioning any other possibilities and we're on the FUCKING INTERNET, so what the hell gives here???
We go through what could, to a very significant proportion, be propaganda theater on this board over and over again. And no one wants to call anyone else out on the likelihood of these highly erroneous assumptions, because that wouldn't look good to whichever group s/he identifies with.
It's very depressing, maybe even hopeless, so perhaps I should re-consider my support here.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Those who have not paid attention or had an open mind to the first couple and their initiatives, well, they won't start listening now and they've made up their minds the USA is done and over with.
Constant negativity is a version of being clever and cynicism means you can never be found wrong or made mistake, since the cynic never tries anything. But has never done anything in the end, but support the status quo.
It's a good thing the future doesn't count on them, because the future has the young people we've seen being helped. These are the people are oppressed, whose survival is at stake, who they don't want to die or live miserable lives. They have the will to live and change.
The ones those who do the most snarking and attacking haven't got time for learning their needs and wants and hopes. They just don't rise to the level of gravity for them, they don't meet the patterns they find important and meaningful. So they are living in the dead past and will not be changing the world, standing aside and tossing acid at others.
They think the world and our democratic hopes are dead as they do not match up to their old visions. It reminds me of the GOP and their hysteria over changes by people they do not know and do not think can run this nation.
And they have enough time on their hands to agitate others with the bogeymen of the past. We can learn from the past, we must learn how things got how they are, but not to feel defeated. Such things can lend color and depth to our understanding. We seek patterns that are familiar, but those who are transitioning to changes with open minds are figuring out new ways to make things work.
The ones who are changing things don't need our fears. They will be defining and refining their purposes and their hearts. When I look at all these recent disasters and how people are identifying with those across the country and the world, instead of tearing down and dividing, I know that Americans are much more united and willing to work together than some people here.
We have a mixed group and I now seek to meet like minds. I am a work in progress. When I see some are stuck in their ways as I work to change my own, that is for them. I am for keeping to what works, respecting what is great that was done before, but still see great things ahead.
As far as DU, the ratfuckers can only fool those who don't have a sense of history, instead have been taken in by a slick version of history that tells them to give up and run away. Independence is one thing, giving up and then putting down others is another.
We have a mixed group, and some of our new posters are great people, just as some of our old posters are. Some will keep on shooting others down, won't see the big picture. That's their unhappiness that I won't join.
I'm glad you are here, patrice, you have a deep mind. You have learned certain disciplines I find fascinating, but I don't always understand them. See you later.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And why don't we all go and interrupt speeches? We can keep those big shots from ever saying a word. Let's just all go and yell at them from the audience. It can be a cacophony of yelling, all of us demanding Executive orders.
The President should immediately sign an EO allowing all immigrants to be citizens! He should sign another one nationalizing the banks! And another one creating the death penalty for rape! Another one promising Julian Assange he will never be prosecuted by the USA! Another one stopping the war in Syria! That no Chinese imports be allowed! No more H-1Bs! No more pollution! Raise taxes on corporations now! Don't wait for Congress!
frylock
(34,825 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)about how Michelle Obama was "aggressive" for having the temerity to talk back to a white woman.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57587731/michelle-obama-confronts-heckler-at-fundraiser/
"She came right down in my face," Sturtz told the Post. "I was taken aback."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/michelle-obama-protester_n_3386874.html
Leaf said Wasserman Schultz replied that the way to get ENDA passed was to help Democrats retake the House.
He said he was disappointed in Obamas reaction to Sturtz and surprised she approached Ellen as aggressively as she did.
"Oh heavens, that Negro lady talked back to us. I've never had that happen before. Didn't she see The Help?"
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)The dog whistling is plain as day.
The white man calls people names and gets a positive spin. The black woman, despite an abundance of tact, induces fear and concern.
Never mind that the heckler didn't have the backbone to at least OWN her disruption.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)PragmaticLiberal
(904 posts)I remember when that Hillary supporter freaked out and called then Sen. Obama an "inadequate black male".
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)yet those comparisons are made daily here at this "progressive" website.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)I have had it with hecklers and I love the way Michelle Obama handled it.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)It would seem to me, she should be heckling all of the republicans who have opposed gay rights.
TekGryphon
(430 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)~ Tom Baker
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)not for someoone to continuously try and interrupt and take over the meeting.
Crow73
(257 posts)Because it isn't how you say it, it is where you say it?
Yeah how is that bank prosecution going?
Defending the Obama family is awesome. Where is the meat?
Seems to me I was promised that Obama would be so much better than Mittens. I haven't seen much change from W.
MADem
(135,425 posts)calimary
(81,283 posts)I used to remind my kids of that. Seems to be quite true.
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)Michelle offered her the mic, but it seems she didn't have much to say. I've attended several protests in my life (several were not political) and I was always prepared.
The woman was made a fool of.
calimary
(81,283 posts)I mean, REALLY! THIS President, over and above all the others in American history, has singlehandedly done more to advance gay rights than ANY of his predecessors. And they STILL have a bone to pick with him?????????? Forcryingoutloud!!! She should have been giving grief where it was deserved: the republi-CON obstructionists who insist on standing in the way of progress and enlightenment.
Wash. state Desk Jet
(3,426 posts)cause and effect.
No doubt Sturtz thought out all probable scenarios leading to an inevitable exit via escort. All eyes on the heckler protester what have you.
But having the table reversed did not prefigure.
kind of like a surprise counter attack initiated to the order of the immediate, the thing that cannot possibly happen.
Disruptor's disrupt in public places -they go off on crazy rants and people as a rule just watch. Eventually someone from the establishment will deal with it. People just watch and wait for it to be dealt with somehow by somebody.
Make no mistake the first ladies time is valuable and the heckler was wasting valuable time.
The point to it was staying involved -get involved ,remain involved. Do something other than wait and watch.
When they insisted that the first lady stay and continue-thats getting involved actively.They took back what theirs in time.
Cause and effect.
Can't' confront all those hecklers that way- and yea,that was good !
The table was turned perfectly on the heckler,protester what have you. and the point was put across perfectly-get involved -stay involved -be more than just a spectator.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)suggestion as to where she can shove it once she cashes the check.
mindfulNJ
(2,367 posts)what IS the reaction you're trying to get when you heckle someone?? Isn't a confrontation from the "hecklee" what you are going for? Why was this person "taken aback" by Michele Obama's reaction?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Nothing but shamed submission would have been the proper answer for a heckler. Although I have never heckled, as it's not effective in the long run. It's a cheap thrill many are addicted to and they want to see drama.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Heckler didn't make no sense anyway.
JI7
(89,250 posts)to her ?
Kurovski
(34,655 posts)But The First Lady admits she's just no good at being interrupted (and who is, Mr. President?) and the Heckler was just a run-of-the-mill lesbian, so, whatever. Just verbally knock the woman around some more, even though Michelle Obama--with perfect technique-- herself already did a masterful job of turning the room against the heckler.
dem in texas
(2,674 posts)Ms. Obama was there to give a speech. Everyone should respect her time while she is giving the speech. Then if they want to talk, they can. It is just plain old fashioned good manners. When I see someone acting rude or being a bore, like sitting next to you talking on their phone at a concert, they know they are rude but will try to get away with it as long as the people around them try to be nice and not speak up. Ms. Obama did exactly the right thing and called out this rude woman.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Flaxbee
(13,661 posts)of the bad behavior of one person is ... rude.
Yes, Michelle should have called the heckler on her behavior.
But threatening to leave? Petty. Not classy.
I admire Michelle Obama, but this seemed like she was scolding a roomful of kindergartners.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)....for generations. And it was probably I am going to turn this buggy arouund! For ages before that.
Amazing that a spoiled brat heckler expected to be treated with respect when she brought none.
If you are shouting people tune you out. It is that simple.
She is not a hero. The heckler...all hecklers are attention hounds.
They help no cause.
Flaxbee
(13,661 posts)And I'm not kidding on this.
It is harder to treat someone who is being disrespectful with respect, but that's the best way to behave in all circumstances, unless, of course, your physical safety is threatened.
Otherwise, do unto others.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)You do NOT let poor behavior from a rude person destroy the experience for everyone.
Again. No one listens to someone who is shouting.
Flaxbee
(13,661 posts)Right. Remind Sturtz what is acceptable. But don't threaten to leave simply because someone else is behaving badly.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)I am going to turn this car around right NOW!
When in the history of time has a car ACTUALLY been turned around?
It is a signal for the cooler heads of the group to cool things down.
Because...yeah Mom's pissed.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Just like Nugent calls Obama names and says he'll kill him. Just like the Repuke who yelled 'liar' at Obama while giving the SOTU. Just like Libertarians and Teabaggers who call him an illegitimate president.
When they aren't calling him the Anti-Christ. And it is racial on their part, I know it, since I've argued with them for years. None of what the right has put out is in a vacuum and it's all being used on low-information voters on the Right and the Left.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)If you wish to accord it to everyone ... teabaggers, racists, homophobes, Limbaughs, etc, by virtue of their mere existence; I suppose that's your prerogative.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the event to have the escort booted out of the building.
Flaxbee
(13,661 posts)until she was finished, and respect all those who were there to hear her, or leave?
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Because, judging from the crowd reaction, they were quite pleased by the First Lady's response.
Frankly, I think that it's ridiculous that some people are putting this Sturtz person on equal footing with Michelle Obama.
With the exception of Sturtz herself, not one person in that room paid a thin dime to hear her open her pie hole out of turn.
I see that you didn't like the fact that Mrs. Obama threatened to leave had Sturtz took the First Lady's offer to take the mic. But again, judging from the crowd reaction, it's quite clear that one of these women had a finger on that crowd's pulse, while other misjudged both the crowd AND the person that they were dealing with.
I'm sure that Michelle Obama's very first thought was that she had neither the time or patience to deal with some usurping loudmouth. Right after she told Sturtz to take the mic, the crowd on the other hand made damn sure to express their feelings that Mrs. Obama came correct.
Sturtz was outclassed and out-thunked in a heartbeat by Michelle. Whether she took the mic as offered or declined to take it, as she did, Sturtz was in a thoroughly lose-lose position.
On the bright side, however, her foolishness got her name in the paper. But, mostly because of the fact that she looked like a complete idiot.
Flaxbee
(13,661 posts)Threatening to leave is on par with saying she's going to take her marbles and go home. "Choose me, or I'm leaving".
Just struck me as the way people deal with children.
We're all equal, and while Sturtz was inappropriate and behaved badly and has ultimately ended up looking like a fool, she is MO's equal. WE ALL ARE. And I don't think MO or BO would like to think, or project to the public, otherwise.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Within the context that you're making that both Sturtz and the First Lady are equals, could it be that your point is "yes?"
Now who, other than Sturtz herself in that room, paid money to listen to her confront the First Lady?
When Michelle offered the mic and offered Sturtz the floor, I would think that you would have thought the invitation to her equal was quite appropriate.
But you're objecting to the First Lady giving Sturtz that particular opportunity to state her own case in front of that crowd.
The crowd, on the other hand, escorted Sturtz out the door and voiced their support of Michelle Obama to stay and continue her presentation.
What about them?
The only person in that room was that was childish was that selfish brat of a person, Ellen Sturtz.
Flaxbee
(13,661 posts)But in your first response you seemed to imply that Michelle deserved more respect than Sturtz, and I'm saying as human beings, that's not accurate.
There's a time and place for everything. Sturtz has a right to heckle, and accept the consequences (which is to be removed from a private setting). Free speech does have its boundaries and limitations. I'm saying that Michelle's "choose me or I leave" message struck the wrong chord with me. It's the way many adults deal with children. I don't like it when adults treat kids that way, and I don't think adults should be treated that way, either.
Everything else I have no issue with. Michelle didn't need to threaten to leave to handle the heckler. Michelle was saying if Sturtz spoke, she'd leave and wouldn't listen. And then everyone who came to see Michelle would have to suffer because of the actions of one bad actor.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Who in that room had time to coddle an insolent heckler?
Not certainly Michelle Obama, who made it abundantly clear to both Sturtz and the crowd that she DIDN'T have time to deal with any of that crap.
Sturtz acted a fool and was appropriately dressed down by Michelle Obama. She obviously didn't think her actions, to interrupt and shout slogans, through.
The basic reason, perhaps, that Michelle dismissed her as one would treat a child was that Sturtz was acting childishly.
I don't blame the First Lady one bit. Her move was brilliantly played.
Flaxbee
(13,661 posts)extremely progressive Democrat.
I don't think she walks on water or is infallible, and while I think challenging Sturtz was the right thing to do, the way she did it, as I said, struck me as punitive.
Raine
(30,540 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)Cha
(297,254 posts)April @ReignOfApril
Ellen Sturtz goes to heckle @FLOTUS in a private home & then describes the crowd's response as "unsettling & disturbing." Girl, bye.
http://theobamadiary.com/2013/06/05/rise-and-shine-520/
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)presidency. Not because of slavery, but because the president, etc., was verbally challenged as Ms. Sturz did Ms. Obama more frequently.
I think that Ms. Obama should learn how to deal with dissent and protestors in her audience before she gives another speech.
The President does it well. Michelle Obama should ask him to teach her how he does it.
I don't think she came away from that minor protest with as much respect as she had before. To appear and be heard is the right of every American. And if politicians can't respect that right, and deal with people who have no adequate way to communicate with them other than interrupting a speech, maybe they have chosen the wrong profession.
The Lincoln/Douglas debates are an excellent example of speeches that were frequently interrupted in what some would now consider a discourteous way. It's in the transcript in one of the books I have. Unfortunately, today, politicians are less tolerant of interaction with the ordinary folk.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)No one in that room, with the exception of Sturtz herself, was there to listen to her open her pie hole out of turn about a subject that wasn't even the topic of discussion. The crowd itself made that point obvious.
If Sturtz wanted to be heard, she should have brought her own mic and got her own crowd to pay money for HER time, instead of trying to upstage Michelle Obama with her silly antics.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Methinks someone thinks the First Lady of the United States is a little uppity and needs some learnin'.
Dogwhistles and condescension.
I love how people selectively ignore that the FLOTUS has come from humble beginnings and frequently reminds audiences of that fact.
But I guess it's easier to take potshots when one can pretend she's above the little people and loving it. It creates a target.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I'm surprised that Michelle Obama lost her cool. She is usually more poised than that. Poise is not a matter of family wealth. Some of the least poised people are wealthy. Think about Donald Trump. A socially awkward person if I ever saw one.
Ms. Obama is normally very poised and handles situations very well. I wonder why she lost her cool. It's a shame.
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)Honestly, I am perplexed. And, you really may have a point I am overlooking. What was Ms. Obama supposed to do?
Let's say I invite the first lady to speak an event. It's a fundraiser for a cause we both support. And, then we send out invitations for other like minded individuals to attend. One person, comes to the event, for no other purpose other than to disrupt the event.
What was Ms. Obama supposed to do, exactly? Did the one person, who did not come to hear her speak, somehow have more rights than everyone else in the room at the moment?
I get the fact that she had important rights that were being denied. But, her rights were not being denied by Ms. Obama.
It's almost like having the guy across the street slap you, and to make sure your angst is understood, you slap the neighbor who offers to help you up.
What should the first lady have done? She did not know this lady. Should she have simply stood there, quietly and listened. How long would have been long enough? 5 minutes...10 minutes. How would you know?
Most hecklers I have seen don't have a prepared speech. They have a few lines that they repeat over and over again. So, is that it? She should have stopped everything and the entire audience should have listened to her repeat one or two lines over and over again. Forget the event. Forget the discussion of poor children. Poverty. It seems to be the one topic that we never ever discuss. And it couldn't even have that event.
What would have been exactly the right thing for her to have done that would have been well received? And, honestly, you may know. I do not. I thought her response was fine. But, clearly I'm not seeing a full enough picture. I don't mind the debate. I'm willing to learn.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)First rule, agree with the host ahead of time on how to react if there is a heckler. Ask the host to take charge. Don't take charge yourself. Perhaps Michelle Obama would have been wise to just allow the heckler to heckle until the audience handled the heckler itself.
I attended a meeting with my congressman. We were encouraged to ask questions and one man just went on and on and heckled. My congressman just waited. The crowd took care of the heckler. Had Michelle Obama waited a bit, the audience at the event would have silenced the heckler. A politician or a surrogate for a politician should never show impatience with hecklers or dissidents. It really is not a part of the politician's or politician's wife's or other surrogate's role to silence hecklers in any discourteous way.
I am normally a big fan of Michelle Obama, in fact one of her best fans. She is a beautiful, wonderful woman. But she messed up here. I hope she handles these situations better in the future. She will meet up with them more than once. Maybe it was just a bad day. She is normally a lovely, patient woman.
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)I am pretty sure I answered another one of your posts hotly because this incident Has really got my temper up.
I disagree, but I understand your point. I think.
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)"Put UP or Shut Up". Most of the time the one being heckled will just let security handle it. But one MUST be ready when the heckled gets down and meet you tow to tow.
It happens. Can't take it, don't heckle.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)She acted like a spoiled brat.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)And how?
Fearless
(18,421 posts)That is why people are annoyed. It is exactly the same as the "you people" comment from Ann Romney. Very pathetic.
HipChick
(25,485 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)HipChick
(25,485 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)She acted like a spoiled brat by threatening to leave if the crowd didn't get behind her and shun the other woman's voice.
Frankly I find that much more damaging than interrupting a speech.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)And wanting to hear the person you came to hear rather than a disruptor is not equivalent to or symbolic of silencing the voices of people who are fighting for their rights.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)What a minority says, does not mean the statement that was said is any less valid. Please see this post for my assessment of the situation. As it is long, I don't think pasting it here would be a good idea for sanity's sake...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022950046#post255
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)It was none of the kind.
Who in that room, other than that idiot Heckler herself, paid to listen to her open her pie hole while Michelle Obama was in the middle of a presentation about needy kids?
What about the children
who in that room was thinking about them?
Sturtz made a fool of herself and she was promptly escorted out.
I don't have to defend Michelle Obama, she did just fine.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)And, if so, why?
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Primarily, I am disappointed with Michelle Obama's response to the protester
This is because her comment comes across as both belittling and holier-than-thou. She attempted to, intentionally or unintentionally, use peer pressure to verbally bully another human being into silence by threatening the guests that she would leave if the person did not be quiet. Her comments come across as very belittling of the issue the protester had and thereby also of an entire group of people.
As you may well have seen today, the LGBT population of this nation (and certainly of DU) is wary to believe in or otherwise trust political figures (and she is a political figure, whether by title or association it doesn't matter). This is because we have been heavily targeted by politicians in the last century as objects of evil and sin, as political tools to spread conservatism, and generally as aberrant citizens.
Now, as we are gaining ground and have won several important (albeit small) victories towards equality, it is extremely vexing to see someone, who thus far has seemed to be passively accepting of LGBT people (ie. neither ardent supporter nor detractor), act in such a way. It is disheartening to see that someone in her position, whom we have come to trust to some extent, respond, intentionally or otherwise, using peer pressure to silence an LGBTer.
Why is this particular moment important? It is because it wasn't planned. It was a gut reaction. When challenged on LGBT equality, rightfully or improperly timed as it may be, she responds contemptuously and wholly without regard or respect for the issue at hand but rather the opposite. She responds like we would expect a Republican to respond.
Had she dismissed the issue simply and kindly or sought to actually point out her support for LGBT issues, would have made this a complete non-issue. To AT ALL vocalize support of LGBT issues in that moment, as a gut reaction, she would have come across strongly to the LGBT community. But in that second, she reacted very negatively. When you look at that reaction through the lens of LGBTers experience with politicians, you ignite anger and frustration. LGBTers feel betrayed by someone who has in the least been a passively positive supporter of LGBT equality. It is, essentially, a giant slap in the face.
By demonizing the protester, she demonizes all those people, and there are millions of us, who feel EXACTLY the same frustration the protester feels that caused the protester to act in the way she. We are frustrated that in the 21st century we are still being judged by our innate characteristics instead of by our contributions. It is maddeningly frustrating to see and be a part of the 2008 and 2012 elections, to witness a giant step towards racial equality, and yet to be left behind by an administration that has not moved quickly enough on LGBT issues.
Many suggest that the Obama administration has been the most LGBT-friendly administration in history. And they're right. It has. But, we share a common ground with the Obama's. We both know hate and intolerance. We've both fought the same battles, often together, to bring equality into being. The president and indeed Mrs. Obama are both intelligent, experienced individuals. Both know what inequality means in this country still to this day. And both could be doing so much more because of that knowledge to further social equality in this nation. Have they done more than any president in the past for LGBTers? Again, yes. But with their understanding, with their roots in social movements in their youth, they could do SO much more, but haven't. They have not used their privileged knowledge of inequality to the best of their abilities to affect lasting meaningful change. In much the same way that you applaud a "C" student for getting a "B" on a test whereas you would suggest that a perennial "A" student should try harder if they only achieve a "B" on the same test, I believe the Obama's should be held to a higher standard than average wealthy WASP administrations because they KNOW what inequality is. They are not ignorant of the fact. They have experienced it first hand working in Chicago. There is a different standard they must be held to, because they are able to do more. They both simultaneously do more than any previous administration and fail to do enough because of that standard and the expectations that can be had of them based on their understanding of social inequality.
So take all this in and understand all the hate, violence, intolerance, and disrespect we've been dealt as a group for generations and see it being perpetuated by someone we had come to see as an ally and we can't help but feel betrayed.
I hope that helps,
-Fearless
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)The First Lady didn't have the time nor patience to kiss the lilly white ass of some screaming sob sister when she was trying to make an important point about needy kids.
But, obviously here, those kids and all the people who paid their money listen to the Michelle Obama just had to take the backseat to an interrupting person who had every right, in your esteemed opinion, to go all off subject with an issue that wasn't even in the conversation at all.
Now at what point did Michelle Obama tell Ellen Sturtz that she was dismissing the needs of LGBT rights
When she offered that slogan shouting person the mic and the podium?
Perhaps you can inform me on how Michelle Obama could have solved Sturtz's concern as she was being interrupted in mid sentence and shouted at?
But no, everything has be dropped, no matter what the other important subject is and the First Lady was required to take the time to address some person who's screaming at her. Nothing else matters, I imagine.
Michelle Obama didn't disrespect all LGBT people by offering Sturtz the floor and you know it. There are quite a few other LGBT people around here who have said that as much.
But maybe the next time when Michelle Obama wants to give a speech about childhood obesity, gun violence, poverty, nutrition or sports to a paying crowd, she can pencil in a spot for the next off-topic heckler for equal time. Especially if it's an off-topic subject that you're so fervently concerned about at the time
Or at all times with the exclusion of everything else.
Would that help?
Fearless
(18,421 posts)1) If everyone was so enamored by the starving children you mention, you'd think that the millionaires in that crowd would throw a few hundred thousand dollars in their direction at least. No? In reality, they're present because Michelle is a relevant social icon. People are attracted to that. Otherwise, why have her speak?
2) The outburst by the protester is not what is up for debate here. I have not stated that it wasn't ill-timed or ineffective. This is a debate talking about her response to that outburst. I have detailed for you exactly why it is offensive. If you don't agree, that's your prerogative, but I am as equally entitled to my opinions as you are. Likewise, I have considerably more experience in LGBT politics than you do.
3) The outburst wasn't about solving the problem at that exact second. It was about providing a voice to an issue that NEEDS to be addressed. Again I direct you back to my statement on whether it was effective or not.
4) By attempting to use peer pressure as a means to control discourse in the room, she is dismissing the issue. All she needed to say is, "This is an important issue, I agree with you, but right now I'm here to speak about XYZ." Not spout off holier-than-thou attempts at peer pressure.
5) She did not actually offer her the floor. That was a call out. She was using peer pressure to shut someone up. Do you honestly think she would have handed her the mike?
6)Citing "other LGBTers" as evidence of me being incorrect is a faulty argument. No quantity of people supporting your opinions will dictate that my point of view is incorrect. And conversely the opposite is true as well. To debate a point of view, you need facts not the mention of opinions.
7)Why is a member of the Billionaires for Weathcare (for instance) considered a protester and yet this woman is considered a heckler? They both spoke up at paid events for other topics. Yet, we laud one and abuse the other? Why is that?
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Of course, the behavior of Ms. Sturtz is up for scrutiny here
She was the one who started it by interrupting the First Lady in mid-sentence with loud-mouthed slogans of an off-topic nature.
Had Mrs. Obama gotten the chance to address Ms. Sturtz's off-topic concerns between, you know
Ms. Sturtz's loud mouthed sloganeering, do you think that Ms. Sturtz would have taken the opportunity to accept the response by the First Lady, as you've suggested, and just shut the fuck up for a second?
I really doubt that such a thought would have occurred to Ms. Sturtz, as she was in the midst of making a spectacle of herself in a crowded room. Great way to garner free publicity for one's previously little known organization, is it not?
Do you really think that that was good way to for Sturtz to state her case? I don't. That's a pretty piss-poor way for Sturtz to show respect for her own concerns, isn't that freakingly obvious here?
Mrs. Obama went down there to where Ms. Sturtz was loudly sloganeering and told the lady that she could have the floor. Ms. Sturtz was then disturbed by the fact that the First Lady of the United States (That's who we're talking about here), turned the tables on her ass with a supportive crowd backing her up.
Well, boo-fucking hoo. Sorry, Ms. Sturtz, but you are WAY out of your league here.
And, yes If Ms. Sturtz had taken the mic from the First Lady as offered (I really do think that she would have handed it her, she said as much), then Ms. Sturtz would have had to contend with a crowd that wasn't there to listen her loud-mouthed sloganeering in the first place.
It's nice to know that you believe that everything else that the Obama White House and the First Lady has to deal with in this world at any particular time actually has to take a backseat to your own interests I figure that's just your way of informing me that you don't believe that they're capable of handling more than one thing at a time.
But it's a well worn axiom that opinions are just like assholes, everyone has one I just think that yours sucks in this particular case.
But it's pretty clear to me that Ellen Sturtz wasn't doing anyone any favors by being an interrupting jerk about it.
Michelle Obama and the crowd that she was addressing made it perfectly clear that it was not the time nor the place for Ms. Sturtz to act foolish. And if you think that taking the moment out to coddle Ms. Sturtz and her loud-mouthed slogans would have been such a great move, then it's really hard for me to understand why that such a reply could have helped the needs of LGBT rights in the long run.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)However, I did understand them the first time and they really don't answer or rebut any of the statements I made in the previous post. I will assume the discussion is over?
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Absolutely no reason to say anything but BAAAD things about HER!!
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Then they should be spoken about. Yes. I am not name-calling. It is acting like a brat to act like she did.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Who does she think she fucking IS anyway, donating her TIME, raising MONEY to ELECT MORE DEMOCRATS???? THE MOTHERFUCKING HORROR OF IT ALL.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)It is perfectly possibly to be supportive of any or all of them.
She showed disrespect for LGBT people through her belittling of the heckler.
She acted like a brat.
This has nothing to do with why she was there or what they were raising money for. It has to do only with the comment she made and the belittling commentary she holier-than-thou uttered at the woman in question.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)disrespect the LGBT community. She acknowledged the disruption of someone who interrupted her speech. That person happened to be a member of the LGBT community, and it could have been someone who represented any cause, be it pro-NRA, Right to Life, or anything else.
And here people are on these boards calling the First Lady of the United States a spoiled brat, who would likely become apoplectic if someone charged that they are disrespecting the African American community by name-calling the FLOTUS.
Double standards...
You're wrong.
I'm not saying she intentionally disrespected the LGBT community but did so as a knee-jerk reaction to a protester, which, frankly, may be worse.
See this post....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022950046#post255
Wash. state Desk Jet
(3,426 posts)I think the person doing the brat'en is the one who as it turned out was most unwelcome.
The first lady showed tact and diplomacy in fact.
This unique reaction executed by the first lady brought all the folks together kind of like rebinding the seam.
The heckler was bent on unraveling the carpet whilst attempting to pull the floor out from under everybody.The hecklers rant was nothing more than a waste of valuable time ,time that was paid for by all those in attendance. Not to mention the first ladies time is valuable.
Since time is money as the saying goes the heckler was trying to rob all the other people of a time allotment. So,wut's a thief ?-The heckler wanted to bring the whole thing down-ruin it for all. It just takes one monkey to spoil the show.
But that didn't happen.
The heckler was offered the mic and the stage,but that didn't happen either. The reason that didn't happen is because the heckler in truth had nothing to say. It was all about grabbing head lines at the expense of everybody else.
So, wut's a brat >?
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Fun double standard, no?
Please see this post so that you can understand why what she did was inappropriate. If you choose to continue to suggest I'm wrong, you'll do so with a full understanding of the situation and not a disjointed ramble bearing no understanding of the mental processes of either person involved...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022950046#post255
Wash. state Desk Jet
(3,426 posts)The heckler was in the wrong place to pitch that one . (Somebodies back yard.)That heckler was also an intruder. The mental process yes- cause and effect . It was about publicity on the hecklers end of that.
Thats what I think.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)I am not saying that it was an effective place to protest. I am saying that the response is what you would expect from bully pulpit Republicans and not worthy of the FLOTUS to this point.
And I can't be wrong in my previous post. I didn't assert anything other than opinion there.
Wash. state Desk Jet
(3,426 posts)And I get what you are on about. And yes indeed it was not the place -she said she just couldn't help it-. The heckler's response to the media about the ordeal is up on cnn. I read that too.
Reflecting back in 08 it was Michelle Obama who effectively reminded us all at the time the candidate is simply human, he will stumble along the way and make mistakes same as all human beings. She went on to say he is no superman .And she said everybody must pitch in to make change happen.
The point being ,do not expect more than there is.
Change is not forced it must be ushered in. It is not all about just sign it and be done with it.
The heckler grabbed a head line -it's there for all to see.She just couldn't help it, she was just about to burst. I don't buy that,-
But thats just my opinion.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)When the party was private and no media was covering it.
Kurovski
(34,655 posts)"Me or thee." But you had to bring up the whole "brat" thing?
That worthless, time-wastin' lesbo. God damn her. Nothing to say. Priviliged gay gal with one too many rights for her own good. --None of it's fair, now is it?
"Whilst"? Really?
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)If anything, I feel more misrepresented by the heckler than Mrs. Obama's response.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)At least in comparison to the vast majority of LGBTers on DU this afternoon voicing their opinions regarding the issue.
I don't see why that's important however. It adds neither content nor discourse to the discussion at hand.
Just because you disagree doesn't make something more true or false.
Truth is highly subjective and tends to be written by the victor or lacking that, the one who yells the loudest or the fastest.
Kurovski
(34,655 posts)You mean to say that she was actually out there looking for Democratic politicians who will actually motherfucking vote for gun control?
That's a tall order. Us moho's had best shut up until that little project is completed.
HoosierRadical
(390 posts)I think they serve a purpose, however, in this situation, Flotus doesn't have the power to sign an executive order, that is the Potus job. Ellen Sturtz played herself.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)quakerboy
(13,920 posts)As it should be. It ain't like she got a beat down for stepping out of the free speach zone. If your going to stand up in front of a group and disrupt a speaker, be prepared to be engaged. Or ignored. or ejected.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Kurovski
(34,655 posts)Looks like the heckler thought better of it and took the high road.
Uhmp, why you got to be so negative?
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Exactly. That kind of thing does nothing for any cause. Another person obsessed with the POTUS doing things instantly with the stroke of a pen. Get on Congress and the State Governors and Houses.
BootinUp
(47,154 posts)Cha
(297,254 posts)the dailybeast.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2013/06/05/michelle-obama-takes-on-heckler-audio.html
thanks for the thread Mr Scorpio
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)She shouldn't have to waste her beautiful mind being concerned with GLBT people that don't know their place.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)inner City kids and their plight ARE deserving issues. Something that Michelle cares about and was addressing at that point in time. No one said anything about Michelle only having a one dimesional issue on her mind. The focus at that meeting was not gay rights and executive orders.
Your attempt to paint LGBT issues as the only one that matters...ever...every single time... are insanely shallow.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)It was a DNC fundraiser. I expect people to be claiming the woman personally kicked an inner city child to the side to get to the microphone.
Yes, equal rights for all people is horribly shallow of me. I forgot the peasantry isn't supposed to interrupt their betters.
Meeting? It was a fundraiser. For a political party. One that acknowledges LGBT people when the GayTM needs opening and votes are necessary, then mostly forgets about them.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/04/michelle-obama-heckled-at-dnc-event-threatens-to-leave/#ixzz2VSbwUz9I
and quit the the martyr thing. no one said LBGT rights are not important....time and place, honey....time and place. This was neither for Ms. Sturtz
agentS
(1,325 posts)I think Ms. Sturz has every right to challenge public figures and 'get up in their grill'.
Making people uncomfortable is how you make things change.
HOWEVER, targeting potential allies and ANNOYING THEM is NOT going to win the battle. Instead of talking about the EO promise, we're arguing about Ms. Sturz, and that's a SHAME!
Ms. Sturz and GETEqual should try the same methods on Boener and the Tea Party during THEIR fundraisers, and have audio/video recorders handy. I guarantee the 'cause' will get a lot more movement out of Boner and CO.'s responses than the Obamas. It would certainly help progressives allies (besides Alan Grayson) if they had their Tea Party opponents on tape bashing GLBT.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)have histories well known to LGBT members of DU.
Well known indeed.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)I doubt she would want that.
Kurovski
(34,655 posts)The eager vehemence turned-up just one notch higher than the situation seems to require is the tell.
ruggerson
(17,483 posts)N/t
mfcorey1
(11,001 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Sturtz began immediately after the man with her intimidated Debbie Wasserman-Schultz into silence. When she took the floor again, Sturtz complained, and when Michelle began to speak, she started in on her.
This reminds me too much of the town hall meetings where the tea partiers yelled and didn't allow any information on health care reform to be discussed.
Such meetings are open to all, like the one where Giffords was shot and intended for sharing information within community and taking care of needs. Or in plainer terms, petitioning and speaking their greviances to their elected representatives.
People whose names and faces are not known to media, but whose time is valuable, get silenced when others who don't care about them come to disrupt. No one seems to think about their right to speak, only paid voices get to speak in the media, this is their only chance.
This was in a private home that was offered to use as a fund raising event as well as to raise consciousness on the plight of inner-city children who are being hurt by funds being cut, and centuries of discrimination. The FLOTUS respects her own time and has little of it to spare.
I find the vitriol against her and Obama in the big picture to be more offensive than anything a heckler does or doesn't get to do.
mfcorey1
(11,001 posts)during her speech.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)I just watched video of this. Mrs. Obama's voice and face was not angry as she walked to Sturtz and her stance wasn't aggressive.
But before Sturtz began yelling, as she was talking, I could hear the strain and emotion in her voice over the topic.
This talk was also about gun violence and the hopeless of inner city youth that go into gangs as they see no way out. They are handicapped by years of poverty and being demeaned in our country.
Children have been killed near the Obama home in Chicago. She was emphathic, to impress people how serious it is and what a disaster it is for all of us.
She and her daughters attended the funeral of the young lady who had just been honored a week before at the White House, gunned down in a senseless act of gang violence. The girl was not in the gang or with gang members, but she was killed and all of her hopes gone.
Hadiya Pendleton was a 15-year-old honors student and a majorette who took part in events at President Obama's second inauguration.
Michelle sounded emotional as she talked about saving the lives of the children and tired. Too tired to deal with a woman who came to an event hosted at the home of a lesbian couple who wanted to raise awareness of the plight of children and funds for the DNC. So I question this action, too. And she's not PBO, who is in charge of politics.
Obama is working at this time with Eric Holder (a staunch advocate for civil rights for gays, minorities, voting rights and changed laws on charging drug cases that disproportionately affect people of color) on codifying into law what Sturtz asked for, the long term solution to discrimination.
Some will pick sides according to their own filter. I have gone to too many meetings as as citizens go to tell our representatives what we need and get reports back of progress. At times our open meetings are disrupted by Libertarians or LaRouchies who despise Democrats and what we are working for, but of course they don't tell us before they come in to raise hell. The time of everyone gets wasted and then people figure it's not a good use of their personal time and energy if they are allowed to derail us there.
So I tend to filter my opinion of these events from experience. Nice talking to you here.