RECENT  POSTS:  » 'WaPo' conservative columnist: 'Strident' marriage equality opponents have lost » If John Eastman's allowed to intervene in Oregon, I submit his endorsement of this very anti-gay book » I apparently can fly; cool, I've always wanted to! » Starving selves to stop others' happiness: Virginia edition » NOM-aligned organization claims God will soon punish us for pro-equality rulings » GLAAD: The rise of toxic terminology: Losing anti-LGBT movement turns to corrosive labeling » Founder of anti-gay Boy Scouts alternative links sexual orientation, adultery; earns merit badge in ill-intended comparisons » 'Playbill' to let the two previously unaware playgoers in on Broadway's love for gays » New record: Anti-gay activist Ralph Reed contradicts self in less than minute » Read: NOM's guide to pressuring lawmakers to ban marriages (while pretending you're doing something good and positive instead)  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

05/30/2012

NOM hopes extra shot of pretense will caffeinate sluggish boycott

by Jeremy Hooper

In two months and nine days, the National Organization For Marriage has been able to accomplish what its counter forces were able to accomplish in just one twenty-four hour period. That is: NOM has finally garnered 40,000 signatures to its Starbucks-focused petition drive.  After gobs of attention and tons of energetic outreach, that's the current hover point.  

Meanwhile, that aforementioned counter effort currently stands at 649,669 sigs.  Which would be more participants.  Many, many more, in fact, born out of a wholly grassroots counter push to thank the coffee giant for standing up for equality.

But leave it to NOM to first gloat over their drastically outpaced number, as if its a good thing, and then attempt to cash in on that supposed "success":

Such chutzpah, this organization!  NOM's boycott has received the kind of press attention that a PR person would sacrifice a few vacation days to achieve, with press hits as mainstream as the New York Times and as niche as the Family Resaearch Council's far-reaching newsletters.  The word is out!  The problem, for NOM, is that people simply are not supporting their effort the way they had hoped.  Or worse, in terms of perception, is that people are not supporting the NOM boycott in any way near the way they're supprting the "Thank Starbucks" counter movement.

And yet here we have NOM not only ripping "victory" from the obvious jaws of dubious failure that are clenched down on this campaign, but also proceeding to put the burden on their supporters?  NOM is seriously acting as if it's the everyday supporter's lack of funding that's keeping this campaign from reaching the next level? This organization is pretending like a petition effort such as this even takes a ton of money ($50,000!) and not just a strong message with undeniable passion and heart? Brian Brown and pals think they can just craft out of whole cloth the idea that this glaringly no-impact campaign has been an accomplishment, even despite the sluggish signature drive and the fact that Starbucks stock has closed higher (and sometimes significantly so) on almost every day since the boycott began

Chutzpah, indeed.  In fact, NOM's tireless audacity has made me quite sluggish.  Time for a coffee.  I think I'll make mine a Venti.  Can I get you anything?   

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails