SFist: Everyone has to be ready to have difficult conversations NOW

manys

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:11:43 -0800

Poor baby.

mattymatt

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:00:54 -0800

ZING

peej66

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:56:44 -0800

I have a feeling you should fuck off.

sfrealist

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:11:22 -0800

Who made the decision to let the same guy manage Prop 4 and Prop 8? Sure, it's great for his consulting/campaigning/business/whatever, but that's a terrible idea for the rest of us. I'm sorry, Prop 8 was too important to have the head person spend half of his time on it. Seriously, someone made the decision to hire him, and that was a terrible, awful call. This issue is important enough that the head person should be spending 100% of his/her time on it. I'll get more and more angry, so I'll stop now

manys

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:59:42 -0800

If "the heteros," eh? I'm anxiously awaiting your confirmation that every single homo considers those propositions to be "affronts," however you're defining them. News stories or legitimate polls will do fine. Something tells me you're one of the nine that lost the proposition in the first place, hitting back against people with better ideas than you.

mattymatt

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:58:18 -0800

I believe that was Campaign Manager Steve. And he was very clear that he meant it. It does contradict what I heard during the campaign, when they said that they didn't want to include images of gays because it alienated swing voters. But it's consistent with what I've heard from organizers outside of the campaign. I can't explain that inconsistency; my best guess is that it was timidity on the part of Steve. His tactic seemed to be to hold back on anything even remotely risky -- debating the other side, using Obama, showing gays, talking about education, publicizing poll numbers. And yes, maybe some people would be alienated if they saw gay couples. But only temporarily. The more they see us, the more they get used to us. The consensus that I'm hearing emerge from strategists is that showing gay couples is the only way we're going to win. But! I worry that older people respond to those images very differently than younger people.

peej66

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:33:33 -0800

I believe I would be quoting correctly by crediting the asshole consultant last night when he said. "YOU will (eventually) win." Not us. Not we. YOU. As far as I'm concerned the longer we keep referring to Prop 8 as an attack only on marriage and not on citizenship, then we can look forward to always having a philosophical circle jerk over civil unions/domestic partnerships and every viewpoint about assimilation and family. That is a waste of time and it drives me crazy. If this is just about marriage and not about retaining the legitimacy of the state and by extension federal constitution for all citizens then I don't want a part of this. How's that for homosexism? If the heteros don't consider amendments like Prop 8 and the 29 others to be an affront then we better develop some serious homosexism pretty damn quick. I would like us to find a way to say fuck you to California voters and then maybe the moderate vomit that comes from the mouths of NCLR and EQCA will sound much more appealing to the "mushy middle" that might want this problem to go away without having to be associated with the Fred Phelps of the world or attacked by a gay al quaeda. Plus I'd really enjoy it.

Chris Daley

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:30:10 -0800

MattyMatt - thanks so much for taking the time to do the great write-up. It's really helpful to have a record of these meetings. One question, do you remember who said this: "According to No On Prop 8's research, the best way to win people to the No side was by showing married gays."? It is a pretty direct contradiction of everything we've heard to date about the research that the campaign had. I'm wondering if someone misspoke. Thanks.

manys

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:05:42 -0800

They were in charge and still turned over the big decisions to hetero schemers that do not have ANY investment in the outcome. That homosexism wasn't keeping you warm last night?

manys

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:02:36 -0800

Nice writedown! I think you're absolutely right that one problem is that these "acknowledgments" of generational differences, mistakes that were made (by someone invisible), deaf leaders, Facebook-ignorance and so on are all just excuses not to make necessary changes. To your example of working-class gays, it's absolutely apt that old-guard homo-politics would be threatened by new ideas (and they weren't exactly clamoring for help from straights, either). It's really similar to the financial crisis these days, and how the planning is coming from and benefits are still going to: the people who got it wrong. If the acknowlegements are accepted, then the status quo can survive. If the mistakes were made by invisible people, then the status quo is strengthened even more. Throw the bums out and start over. They can lend their Rolodexes and bank accounts if they want to help, but that's it. In any business, they (the nine, at least) would have been fired on Nov 5th.

peej66

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:54:07 -0800

I wasn't exactly sure what the point of the meeting was beyond allowing us to vent frustrations, which isn't a bad thing...but we've pretty much processed the shit out of the election in the past 4 months, haven't we? What else were Kendall and Co supposed to do besides squirm and confess and apologize? It wasn't very convincing. Is Geoff Kors really a human? He is so strange acting...not quite aloof...never passionate...he has no salesman-like schtick...how was he made into...whatever the hell position he has? I don't get it. And more than anything else about last night, I have a feeling that we are in complete disarray. Kendall said she will never run another campaign. Who wants Kors anywhere near the next response? They were in charge and still turned over the big decisions to hetero schemers that do not have ANY investment in the outcome. That was the most disappointing revelation of the night. The campaign was a bigger mess than I could have guessed. So now what? The court probably won't overturn 8 - and if they do, you can bet your sweet ass that judges will be threatened with recall (remember rose bird). We need a Town Hall meeting after the court decision - a board of people with diverse community and economic backgrounds and life experiences - to organize the next step. We cant allow justices to be sacrificed for us. We must repeal 8 if they don't throw it out. We must be able to trust and recognize and know and LIKE our leadership. I should have said something last night, but by the time I put ideas together it was late and the list of speakers was long and i was starving and FREEZING. I won't be crying into my candles next Wednesday for the pre court worry bead festival. But maybe some of us should show up and figure out how to take the next step and who do we need to be the next target...fuck this is maddening....

wsanders

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:51:09 -0800

I am convinced the reason Prop 8 passed is because the opposition took advantage of the Gavster lording it over everyone in the TV ads. Like it or not, SF politics and politicians are despised by the rest of the state, not to mention the rest of the country, even by middle of the roaders, so the less this is viewed as a SF issue, and seen as a statewide, commonsense issue, the better. If you live in SF, *don't make noise* - figure out a way to get the rest of the state to make noise for you. The support is there.

Wagnerian

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:44:58 -0800

How old is Matty Matt? I'm a child of a boomer and I'm 37 freaking years old. I have gay parents who are married, and Facebook have had absolutely ZERO to do with my activism around Prop 8 or anything else. I did GOTV in Oakland on election day for Prop 8 and it was a mess. I had gone to a two hour 'captain' training and then was assigned to show up at the Oakland Democratic party headqtrs and meet with someone who would give us are our assignments. Instead we were told by the DEM people to drop flyers door to door for Obama. There was a bit of a confrontation between the dems and the Prop 8 folx, and then we decided to just organize ourselves and find polling places on our own. Next time we can definitely do better. I don't think that it's an older vs. younger thing. I worship my gay dads. It hurts me that there is any thread in American life that would consider them 'lees than'. They are luddites, but they were active in gay liberation in the early 70s, among many other things. They got a lot to say. I think the actual dischord in gay politics is not about generational/internet things, but is infact about issue around class and race. Higher 'Gay leadership' pretends to represnet this wide swath, but infact (just as an example) there is no working class representation in gay politics at all. A yearly Oscar fundraiser does not a powerful gay rights movement make. A multitude of websites doesn't really either, ultimately...just saying. Anyway, nice report. Do post about the video. I couldn't make it, I had exams.

Greg

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:41:48 -0800

when political movements become institutionalized and act like a non-profit, they tend to lose sight of their goal. so that's why you get a top-heavy campaign that can't "handle" volunteers and spends a lot of money on an endless array of campaign consultants and run everything by committee. It's similar to what happened to Emily's List - once a source of early money for insurgent candidacies by women to upset the Old Boy Club is now primarily an institution devoted to incumbent protection instead. That's fine, we don't want to lose our women Senators and Members of Congress, but that wasn't the point of creating it. Likewise when rights groups and such become big, expensive permanent operations in DC and Sacramento, and place a higher value on "getting along" with power that is already established, they tend not to place any value on actions (direct or political) that would upset the establishment as is.

manys

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:40:57 -0800

Hear hear. You can have your "head screwed on tight" and still be incompetent for a particular task. The inclination toward "Past Exonerative" is perfect: activism should not tolerate passive voice. Active/passive, get it? I'm guessing this is the last time the No8 campaign lead...er, losers will allow themselves to mix with the rabble.

MT

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:35:48 -0800

I'm not in California and SFist is the only place I am reading about this with this level of detail (thanks by the way). Prop 8 seems to have fallen off the radar for the rest of the country. With gay rights laws getting shot down nationwide you really need to make a louder noise about Prop 8. Like Anita Bryant's crusade back in the day, we are getting nailed by a national campaign of hate that is knocking down states like dominos. You need to realize that this is not just a local issue. California has the power and influence to turn the tide. Not for nothing, but pretty much everyone you talked about in this posting is a total douchebag. I think you are right in that they are a bunch of dinosaurs who don't know how to run a modern movement. The next generation may know how to use the internet, but this generation is going to make sure they are screwed and helpless in the face of the law by inaction and inadequacy. They sit there chattering about past mistakes and deflecting blame and don't say anything about what they are doing to correct the issue. The opportunity for action is slipping away right in front of our faces. To sum it up: MAKE SOME F**KING NOISE, YOU MORONS! IT'S ALMOST TOO LATE!

pancakebreakfast

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:15:40 -0800

Everyone in charge of the official Stop 8 campaign was and still is disgustingly incompetent and couldn't execute a competent or effective political strategy if their lives depended on it. As far as I'm concerned, they're just as culpable as the Mormons or any other pro-8 group.

bornandraised

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:09:17 -0800

"We'll have more info about that as the day (March 7) approaches" This is one of our inherent problems, I believe. We don't plan, and we don't endure! I wouldn't have realized this was occurring unless I had clicked on the extended post, and in order for me to remember to plan for it at the time when I am thinking ahead, I need to be consistently reminded in venues I am liable to run across without even thinking of Prop 8 (fliers at the bus stop, banner ads on facebook/sfist/etc). One of the things the pro-prop 8 group did was to deliver a consistent and persistent message. I couldn't turn on the TV without seeing the girl asking her mom about the book they read in school. But some of the anti-prop 8 ones are more fuzzy in my memory now.

mattymatt

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:57:11 -0800

Ha ha, whoops! I'm so funny.

aj

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:51:10 -0800

exorcising diplomacy? indeed.