« | »

Gay Obama Fundraisers Forced His Decision

This piece from the Washington Post is an updated version of an article originally published two days before Obama’s historic announcement. The original Post article seems to have been scrubbed from the internet:

The Influence Industry: Same-sex marriage issue shows importance of gay fundraisers

By Dan Eggen, The Washington Post
Published: May 9, 2012

President Obama’s announcement Wednesday that he supports same-sex marriage highlights the importance of the gay community to his re-election effort, which could get a boost in donations as a result.

Many of Obama’s key financial supporters are gay–including finance director Rufus Gifford and Democratic National Committee treasurer Andrew Tobias–and the campaign has regularly held fundraisers focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender donors.

A review of Obama’s top bundlers, who have brought in $500,000 or more for the campaign, shows that about one in six publicly identify themselves as gay

And that number is just those who have publically identified themselves as gay.

Some liberal gay donors had threatened to withhold contributions over Obama’s stance on gay marriage as well as his administration’s decision to shelve an executive order banning sexual-identity discrimination by federal contractors…

Which is why we have had Mr. Obama’s ‘gutsy call.’

Chad Griffin, the incoming president of the Human Rights Campaign, which has at times criticized Obama’s stance on gay issues, has raised between $100,00 to $200,000 for the president’s re-election campaign.

Griffin was the person who asked Biden at a recent closed meeting with gay activists, “How do you feel about us?” Biden recounted the question, and his emotional answer supportive of gay marriage, during his interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Griffin said in an interview with the Washington Post earlier this week that he had repeatedly pressed Obama in private to support marriage equality….

What a coincidence!

Here is more from the Washington Free Beacon:

Gay for Pay

May 9, 2012

President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage less than 48 hours after the Washington Post reported that prominent political donors were threatening to withhold donations over the president’s position on gay rights.

“[A]t a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told ABC News in an interview.

For once Mr. Obama seems to have been telling the actual truth.

Left-wing blogger Greg Sargent reported on Monday that “leading gay and progressive donors” were angry with Obama over his increasingly convoluted position on gay rights and same-sex marriage, and were refusing to donate any more money to Priorities USA, the pro-Obama Super PAC.

Sargent cited Paul Yandura, a political adviser to prominent Democratic donor Jonathan Lewis, who emailed that: "A number of gay and progressive donors, unsolicited, have indicated to us that they aren’t considering requests to donate to the Obama SuperPac because of the president’s refusal to the sign the order. And those are high-dollar asks, some in the seven digits. We have heard from at least half a dozen major gay and progressive donors that they stand united with us."

UPDATE: The liberal Talking Points Memo reports that one Obama bundler, Jon Cooper, said the president’s announcement will make fundraising for the re-election campaign “immeasurably easier.”

So basically we are being told that Obama was blackmailed into making his pronouncement. Isn’t that wonderful?

How else will Mr. Obama’s views ‘evolve’ because he is threatened by his donors?

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Thursday, May 10th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

14 Responses to “Gay Obama Fundraisers Forced His Decision”

  1. fallingpianos

    What’s this? A poor, disadvantaged, oppressed minority (victims of constant “discrimination”, you know) has enough money to influence a sitting president?

  2. tranquil.night

    This country needs a collective conversation/intervention with these poor, oppressed Hollywood & media celebrities. Nobody in their greedy, predatory, fascist industry are properly informing them of the inherent mental risks that come with being a professional actor/musician/artist. It’s worse than a concussion from a linebacker.

  3. xdannyh

    Hmmm? I think the progressives are missing an opportunity for taxation to balance the playing field for social justice. If some of the donors are in the seven digit category it would be in the best interests of the country to make sure that they are paying their fair share. But I don’t think Oblah blah would want to run a “tax the gays” platform.
    Even more regrettable than this pandering to a constituency is the bringing of his children into the decision making process, this man is truly an embarrassment.

  4. David

    A number of gay and progressive donors, unsolicited, have indicated to us that they aren’t considering requests to donate to the Obama SuperPac because of the president’s refusal to the sign the order.

    What does this “order” mean? What could Obama possibly sign that would allow gay marriage in the States?

    This whole things seems ridiculous to me. The next president will either be Romney or Obama. Both have said it is a States issue so neither one will actually do anything as President to further or hinder gay marriage. So the choice for gay couples is still:
    1. A President who agrees with you on one topic but is driving our country to bankruptcy.
    2. A President who you disagree with on one topic and is leading the country to financial stability.

  5. Anonymoose

    This may end up backfiring on them as the image the gays have been portraying this whole time has been of these poor meek, defenseless little people who are on the receiving end of the hatred from the evil right wingers. Instead they played their hand and showed what I’ve suspected a long time, a a cadre of wealthy and powerful gays pulling strings and calling shots to get what they want. Things are going to get weird and messed up, that’s for sure…….

  6. mr_bill

    He has changed his mind on the subject so many times, his head should be spinning. Last time he “evolved” it was for votes. This time it’s for money. What won’t nerobama do for a buck ir a vote? (Purely rhetorical. I don’t even want to imagine some of the possible answers)

  7. wirenut

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch. This gives new meaning to the “hot-mic” moment.
    Tell Vlad, I’ll be more flexible after the election. Forced? Come on! The only thing missing here is, penetration.
    Commie&Commie whannabe. Send in the clowns.

  8. cali

    Well, one thing, I believe, he lied about is bringing into this conversation about gay marriage the opinion of ‘his kids'; michelle is the one against gay marriage so, I think he just tried to get justification and sympathy by bringing this up.

    Since he’s so easily swayed or ‘blackmailed’, Putin has already asked him to bend over and, hold his ankles by telling him ‘no’ to the upcoming summit.

    I am convinced that Putin is not the only one playing him like a fiddle, although the militant gay lobby just got played by obama.
    He must be grinning from ear to ear this morning counting the cash collected from these poor sapps.

  9. Mithrandir

    Democrats: The Home of Anal Intercourse

    MAKE THEM DEFEND THIS!

    ►My god, a slam dunk, gold medal, fist-pumping victory lap WIN EVERY TIME! Hang this albatross around their neck in every single argument!
    “How can you be for health care, when you are for disease-spreading anal sex?”
    “How can we talk about children’s safety issues, when you support gay adoption?”
    “How can you talk about keeping costs down, when you support gay disease that costs everyone in the long run?”

    ►The Democrat coalition will start cracking when blue-collar union guys, black Christians, Conservative Hispanics have to share the same political bed as homosexuals. BUT NO, instead of “working the cut” making their coalition be disgusted with each other, and fall apart, Republicans crawl under a rock and hide, lest they be called a bigot.

    ►THE LAST THING LIBERALS WANT TO DO IS TALK ABOUT ANAL SEX! *The first rule of gay politics is DON’T TALK ABOUT GAYS! Talk about bigotry, talk about the Bible, talk about tolerance. Jesus tap-dancing Christ, conservatives get talked out of, every direct and potentially humiliating conversation about homosexuality. They get re-directed so easily it’s like they have A.D.D. or something.

    -Establishment Republicans self-censor through political-correct brainwashing, by thinking, “Gee, I don’t want to offend anyone and look like a bigot, so maybe I should just avoid this 100% winnable subject.” –Ugh!

    ►Any and every time gay marriage, civil unions, gay adoption are brought to the front I would just turn it around on them:
    A: “So Congressman so-and-so, why are you against human rights?”
    B: “I’m not, perhaps you can explain to us just precisely what it is about gay men engaging in anal sex that you support?”
    A: (eyeball rolling, exasperated groan) “Uh gee, that’s just inappropriate.”
    B: “Why? These are YOUR people, these are your voters, defend your policy.”
    A: (Tongue clicking) “This is really childish, we are talking about civil rights here.”
    B: “Answer the question. Gays are defined, and define themselves exclusively by their sexual conduct, so let’s examine their conduct, what are you afraid of? I am going to talk about their behavior, and related health issues all day, and if you can’t defend it, perhaps you should cancel the interview.”

    When they protest meat, they throw every disgusting thing in your face, the slaughter house photos, the 1 out of 1,000,000 mishaps or bacteria outbreak, sad pictures of de-skinned animals, splash fake blood on fur-wearing women, BUT OH NO! Throw the disgusting reality of homosexuality in their face and it’s “Oh this is so childish.”

    ►www.Zombietime.com (Right-hand column: “Political Nudity”) <–these are who the democrats are, make them defend it.

    • Anonymoose

      I think focusing on just that would backfire, it’s okay for them to make some sexual references about the Tea Party but they’d just dismiss this as some crude fixation. I know plenty of supposedly pro-gay liberal people who cringe at the sight of two guys just holding hands and that would be enough; make people see what they’re supporting.

      Instead they’d just need to show more of gays are they really are, since they are their own worst enemy. Show them when they’re ugly and hateful and fighting with each other. The whole image being presented to us is these harmless meek people who met their “sweetheart” in college and just want to live their lives together and raise a child, and that is a complete myth to the unstable and angry people they are in real life. Use the media’s own tactics against them and let the gays sink themselves with their spiteful arrogance.

  10. wirenut

    Anonymoose, I respectfully disagree. It was the “left” that put the sexual reference to the Tea Party. Teabagger is slang for a ballsucking deviant’s way of life. I’m with Mith. Beat them over their heads with their own poison.
    If you’re going to put a label on me. Mark it with freedom. I’m sure were on the same page. Just fight fire,
    with fire.

  11. JohnMG

    …..”So basically we are being told that Obama was blackmailed into making his pronouncement……”

    No one blackmailed him, but you’re right. He’s laughing all the way to the bank.

    This is a textbook example of his gaming the system. He may have had to pull the trigger a little earlier than he wanted (thanks to “Sheriff Joe”) but he had this planned a long time ago. The Chump’s for sale…..he has no class, no morals, and no scruples. He’s the perfect tool.

  12. wirenut

    JohnMG, this scumbag has played more games than the Parker Brothers. “Twister”, seems to fit it best. Lefthand, “green” than “Righthand” “blue”. Quite a balanceing act. Ayers over Wright, over right. I find this man
    repugnant.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »