Time for New Leadership at HRC?

by on

Updated 11/7/10

Blogs B. Daniel Blatt at GayPatriot, it’s high time for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest and best funded LGBT lobby, to review its strategy and leadership:

if [HRC] is serious about advocating for gay and lesbian Americans in our nation’s capital, it needs new leadership. Its leaders just don’t get the issues which helped elect Republicans across the country. It is time for Joe Solmonese to step down and to be replaced by someone who knows how to “talk Republican”, given that Republicans will soon control one house of Congress.

Solmonese’s background is in left-wing partisan (Democratic) advocacy. Before coming to HRC, he worked for EMILY’s List, an outfit which defines itself as “a community of progressive Americans dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women“. . . .

People want government to leave us alone so we can solve our problems on our own. And that’s a message which should be welcome to gay and lesbian individuals and should certainly not be anathema to the gay community. . . . Just as government shouldn’t interfere in the marketplace, so it shouldn’t meddle in our homes. If it wants to have any influence in the 112th Congress, HRC’s leadership needs to tap into the freedom rhetoric that so resonated with the American people in yesterday’s balloting and lobby Congress not to enact laws which limit our liberty.

And to do that, they don’t necessarily need a Republican leader or one from the Tea Party movement, but one familiar with and respectful of the ideas which undergird it. Joe Solmonese is not such a man.

Too often, Solmonese has seemed more interested in defending the Obama administration to HRC’s gay donors rather than in playing hardball. As for lines of communication with the GOP, they appear to be nil. Even leaving aside the group’s failed one-party strategy, the people running HRC, as Blatt notes, don’t speak the language of “liberty” (from an intrusive government); their template for politics is one of “rights” (granted by a progressive government). They live in a different world from the party that now controls the House.

[Added: The arguments for marriage equality and open military service could be framed through either lens. But liberty talk just doesn’t come naturally to left-leaning progressives.]

[Added: Considering Joe Solmonese’s $300,000+ salary, he isn’t exactly being paid for performance.]

More. From the comments: “Don” observes, perceptively:

The point is not that LCR and GOProud don’t have their own jobs to do. The point is that HRC, as an organization that relies primarily on lobbying to advance gay rights, should act like a smart, professional lobbying team.

Every industry of importance uses lobbyists and every industry makes regular adjustments to its lobbying team in reaction to the political climate and which party is in control on the Hill. In 1992, Dem lobbyists were fully employed and GOP lobbyists were looking for work. In 1994, that situation flipped. In 2006, it flipped again and it will yet again in reaction to this week’s results.

Only at the HRC does nothing change. It is the same ineffectual in-house team year after year after year, regardless of who is in control. And to make matters worse, none of HRC’s people are former senior staffers or are otherwise personally connected to anyone of importance on the Hill. The result: this group takes in nearly $40 million per year (as opposed to about 600K for LCR) and even with Democratic super-majorities, is unable to achieve legislative goals that have been pending for more than 3 decades.

[Added: I’m told that it’s not that HRC won’t hire Republican lobbyists, it’s more that they would be expected to sign on to the organization’s broad progressive agenda—abortion rights, race-based affirmative action, etc. You’d have to be pretty RINO (Republican in name only) to make it through HRC’s screening.]

Furthermore. From GOProud: “According to CNN, 31% of self-identified gay voters supported Republican candidates for the U.S. House. This number is a dramatic increase from the 19% GOP House candidates won among gay voters in 2008.”

Is HRC listening?

From the Washington Post last month: “The most common responses were concerns about spending and limiting the size of government, but together those were named by less than half the groups. Social issues, such as same-sex marriage and abortion rights, did not register as concerns.”

Is the GOP listening?

39 Comments for “Time for New Leadership at HRC?”

  1. posted by John on

    Dan is right but Solmonese isn’t the only leader from Gay, Inc. that needs to go. In fact, HRC has been so compromised by playing the DNC’s biotch for so many years that I question whether a change in leadership will accomplish anything constructive. I will never forget nor forgive how they stabbed DADT repeal in the back by carrying water for Obama’s delay and retreat policy. Perhaps it’s better to close shop at HRC and allow others to move things forward. It will be a cold day in Hades before I ever give HRC another dime.

  2. posted by BobN on

    What utter nonsense. Besides, with LCR and GOProud, why do we need another gay-rights group who can “speak Republican”?

    Heck, both of them speak Republican so well, they contribute money to anti-gay candidates to beat pro-gay candidates.

    How ’bout instead of telling liberals what do to, maybe the gayOP should, you know, actually accomplish something on their own. Delivering a handful of GOP senators to repeal DADT would be a good start.

    Have at it, boys (and girl).

    • posted by Michigan-Matt on

      BobN, I wouldn’t expect someone like you who carries the Democrat water pail from election to election to even acknowledge that our community is hurt by appearing as gophers for the DNC… after all, for guys like you, being gay is all about being victimized by society and in need of institutional protection by liberals.

      Gays are doomed to policy failure until we break out of the DNC-treat-em-like-blacks mentality for gay issues. We aren’t DNC slaves on the Democrat plantation… that’s why 31% of gay voters pulled the lever for GOPers.

      Like Obama and Alexrod, that’s a message you’ll never get BobN. Never.

      • posted by BobN on

        Uh… how can “we” been seen as water-carriers of the Dems when, as you point out (in a statistic I think is useless) 31% of “us” apparently prefer to carry chamber pots for the GOP?

        Your argument, such as it is, is that gay people get nothing from the Dems. This is, of course, ludicrous. I have equal rights in my state because of Dems and over the unified opposition of the GOP. Heck, you in Michigan have some rights, again delivered by Dems and Dems ONLY. You suggest that the better version of this is to work hard for the GOP and get nothing, absolutely nothing. Heck, you’re probably not only going to get nothing in the next few months, YOU are probably going to LOSE the few rights you have in Michigan, and it won’t be Dems voting to take those rights away.

        • posted by Michigan-Matt on

          Spin away BobN, you’re proving to be as dense as Obama and Pelosi in “getting it” and learning from the messages of 2010. Gays, up to this election, have historically voted as a block monolith the near equal of black urban voters for the DNC. It’s why ACORN was so bloody successful with turning out the black vote for the DNC… and the gayLeft organs like HRC are equal to turning out gay volunteers and votes for the DNC left.

          That you continue to miss the message isn’t a surprise. You’re in the same company of Democrat water carriers like union members, blacks, indians and trailer trash living in the mobile home parks on the outskirts of town… you’ll never get the message of 2010 until you take off that tinfoil hat, put down the gayLeft’s water bucket and marched to the front gate of the Democrat plantation.

          • posted by BobN on

            “Gays, up to this election, have historically voted as a block monolith the near equal of black urban voters for the DNC.”

            Do you even read your own sources? The 2010 level of support for the GOP was lower than previous polls in 2004 or 2006 or something. Go look it up.

            I reject all those polls anyway, because the sample set is so ridiculously small, but if we’re gonna argue about them, at least get them right.

        • posted by Michigan-Matt on

          BTW, in Michigan, we have a constitutional amendment prohibiting gays from being able to ever marry –thanks to the collective cowardice of Dem leaders like Gov Granholm, Sen Debbie StupidCow and Carl Levin… who ran to hide in 2004 when the issue was on the ballot and winning by a 61-39% spread.

          Yeah, those Dems sure have delivered in Michigan. At one point, the HRC symbol of a yellow equal sign could have been turned on its side to represent the 11 states who had passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage… it’d be a better use of HRC assets… and fairer advertising than you suggest.

          • posted by Michigan-Matt on

            BobN> “Do you even read your own sources? The 2010 level of support for the GOP was lower than previous polls in 2004 or 2006 or something. Go look it up. ”

            I did BobN –gays in 2000 for Bush netted about 21.5% of the total gay vote –Gore got 79% of the gay vote… JFKerry got 77% of the gay vote… when you’re up to the high 70’s percentile, I think we can safely call it a monolith. By the way, your side of the spectrum loves to indict the GOP by saying they get 68% of the Southern white male vote in most prez elections… as if nabbing the white male vote to Democrats is an indictment worthy of shame for anyone but ScreaminHowieDean.

            Maybe before you try to argue out of your hat, it’d be better if you removed the tin foil lining that interrupts your reception from Dem Party Central Planning Committee?

        • posted by Jorge on

          Your argument, such as it is, is that gay people get nothing from the Dems. This is, of course, ludicrous.

          I agree with this deduction.

          He’s not even saying it’s a bad thing if gays don’t go monolithic Democrat, so why pick a fight on those terms? The real “problem” with where BobN would take us is that it accepts the gay community being divided and unable to speak with one voice, since it’s clear if we were united that would not be a down the line liberal voice. More than that, it accepts that the minority of gays who are center-to-right also reject dialogue and unity.

    • posted by Chuck Forester on

      As an early board chair of HRCF before it was HRC, our goal a the start was being true to ourselves. Changing our stripes was survival for most of us. Coming out meant we didn’t have to do that. As gay men we should continue to advance our interests with whatever political party is in party. With Republicans publicly opposing us cozying up to them isn’t going to change their minds. Being honest about who are has always what changed peoples minds. Continuing to be true to ourselves and what’s important to us as a community, like health care and jobs is where our energy as gay men should be focused us rather than calling each other names.

  3. posted by Jimmy on

    The notion that “government shouldn’t interfere in the market” is utterly out of the mainstream. A clear majority of Americans favor a strong regulatory regime applied to Wall Street, which is extremely unpopular.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/04/most_back_stricter_financial_r.html

    “People want government to leave us alone so we can solve our problems on our own.”

    Generally, you will find people are more than happy to utilize government services in the solving of their problems.

    “Americans continue to see major areas of government spending as essential. Whether it is Medicare, Social Security, national defense, food stamps, education, unemployment benefits or environmental protection, about nine in 10 call these programs at least somewhat important.”

    http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/views/128765-what-americans-think-of-government.html

  4. posted by Carl on

    I agree that HRC needs a lot of changes, but if there was ever a time that gay Republicans would have more of a voice without needing HRC, this must be it, since this election was supposedly not about social issues. Doesn’t that mean gay Republicans can focus on stopping some of the anti-gay legislation already brewing up in various states, or in trying to deal with DADT?

    http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2010/11/dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-a-likely-election-casualty.html

  5. posted by Lori Heine on

    “Doesn’t that mean gay Republicans can focus on stopping some of the anti-gay legislation already brewing up in various states, or in trying to deal with DADT?”

    That would certainly appear to be the sensible strategy.

  6. posted by Don on

    The point is not that LCR and GOProud don’t have their own jobs to do. The point is that HRC, as an organization that relies primarily on lobbying to advance gay rights, should act like a smart, professional lobbying team.

    Every industry of importance uses lobbyists and every industry makes regular adjustments to its lobbying team in reaction to the political climate and which party is in control on the Hill. In 1992, Dem lobbyists were fully employed and GOP lobbyists were looking for work. In 1994, that situation flipped. In 2006, it flipped again and it will yet again in reaction to this week’s results.

    Only at the HRC does nothing change. It is the same ineffectual in-house team year after year after year, regardless of who is in control. And to make matters worse, none of HRC’s people are former senior staffers or are otherwise personally connected to anyone of importance on the Hill. The result: this group takes in nearly $40 million per year (as opposed to about 600K for LCR) and even with Democratic super-majorities, is unable to achieve legislative goals that have been pending for more than 3 decades.

    • posted by AndrewW on

      “Every industry of importance uses lobbyists and every industry makes regular adjustments to its lobbying team in reaction to the political climate and which party is in control on the Hill.”

      We’re not an industry. You can’t “lobby away” moral issues. (SEE Abortion) Lobbying on behalf of LGBT-issues is a waste of resources. It may have a place in local issues, but even then that is best handled by members of our community. We can’t “hire” a solution, we have to be the solution.

  7. posted by Jorge on

    Even leaving aside the group’s failed one-party strategy, the people running HRC, as Blatt notes, don’t speak the language of “liberty”; their template for politics is one of “rights.” They live in a different world from the party that now controls the House.

    Baaaaaah, and what’s wrong with that? There has to be a better reason to turn away from “rights” ideology than simply saying it doesn’t represent the party in power, or even the American people. (I mean, that’s kinda the curse of being a 2-10% minority in this country.) Just the target audience needs to be different. What, is HRC supposed to cut off its head just because the political wind changes? It’s already far too late for the organization to escape its elitist lib-Dem skew. It should accept what it has become and either entrench itself or build what bridges it can on the basis of its core values.

  8. posted by Jorge on

    Doesn’t that mean gay Republicans can focus on stopping some of the anti-gay legislation already brewing up in various states, or in trying to deal with DADT?

    Even I will admit that if the election wasn’t about social conservatives, the moderates and reformists among the Republican party have even less favor. The two sides are going to have to work together.

  9. posted by Lori Heine on

    I’m not sure it’s even possible for a Republican to be a “moderate” anymore, if by moderate we mean somewhere in between the Left and the Right. That would, at this point, be like trying to straddle the Grand Canyon.

    The GOP seems divided, now, between social conservatives and libertarians. Even social conservative candidates have to echo the libertarian, Tea Party line if they hope to go anywhere. This means that the libertarians — long stuck in the back seat — are now at the wheel.

    If the social conservatives turn out to be wolves in sheep’s clothing, they will be fired. Because they want no more Obamas, Pelosis or Reids, Republicans will stick with what is proving to be working for them now — which is NOT the scary divisiveness of social conservatism.

    If they prove too dumb to understand that, they’ll be out in the wilderness again. The past few election cycles have shown that the American people are perfectly willing to fire those who disappoint them.

  10. posted by Jorge on

    I’m not sure it’s even possible for a Republican to be a “moderate” anymore, if by moderate we mean somewhere in between the Left and the Right. That would, at this point, be like trying to straddle the Grand Canyon.

    I saw Lindsey Graham (“gang of 14” member and the only person on the Sen. Judiciary Committee to vote in favor of Obama’s Supreme Court nominees) saying he wanted to work with the President and Democrats on health care reform, after they repeal the present bill. He’s not very well-liked among conservative pundits. Well we’ll see who wins this one. Republicans need to remember to fulfill their mandate and not to govern outside of it, or this will be a short-lived victory.

  11. posted by Tim on

    Oh Jesus, we’ve been down this road before. Jonathan Rauch, Andrew Sullivan and others have been making the conservative case for LGBT rights for years. Clearly the Republicans *should* see the merit in government non-interference in our private lives. But few of them do — or at least will not acknowledge it. The Republican Party will not rally to our cause. The very best we can hope for is that the GOP will be less stridently anti-gay than it was in the 80s/90s. Anything beyond that is pure fantasy.

  12. posted by Jorge on

    From the Washington Post last month: “The most common responses were concerns about spending and limiting the size of government, but together those were named by less than half the groups. Social issues, such as same-sex marriage and abortion rights, did not register as concerns.”

    Very interesting article about the Tea Party organizations there, but this line really caught my attention:

    “Eleven percent said that Obama’s race, religion or ethnic background was either a “very important” or “somewhat important” factor in the support their group has received.”

    Now, I know you all of little faith in the GOP must either think that the tea party movement is doomed, or that it’s racist, because we clearly see that it’s much less anti-gay than it is conscious of President Obama’s race. That’s just mind-blowing.

  13. posted by AndrewW on

    What’s amazing about these comments is the reality that “lobbying” doesn’t change any minds when it comes to “moral issues.” For those against us, we are still a moral issue.

    HRC provides the evidence: After 30 years and $550 million HRC has never persuaded a single US Senator to change their mind about LGBT-issues. Not one.

    Real progress is made when we educate, enlighten and enroll neighbors, friends, co-workers and even strangers. If you want to change a Senator’s mind, you need to get the constituents to do it.

    There is no “political solution” to our equality. It’s our job and today it feels a lot like 1994 all over again – I hope we don’t repeat the last 16 years and think we’ll create different results.

    It’s time to create an actual strategy to WIN, not simply raise money. HRC and the other “professionals” are more worried about their survival, than our equality. It’s time to wake up.

    • posted by Last of the Moderate Gays on

      “Real progress is made when we educate, enlighten and enroll neighbors, friends, co-workers and even strangers. If you want to change a Senator’s mind, you need to get the constituents to do it.”

      Agreed. And, how do you accomplish this? Over time. Bring people along incrementally. You will NEVER convince people trying to beat them over the head with an issue, no matter how legitimate. And, it’s also by acting like you deserved to be treated with respect.

      This means we’re going to have face some unpleasant facts and make some unpleasant choices. Like not supporting Pride parades with gyrating gym bunnies in leather thongs. Sorry, but the unpleasant reality is that mainstream America is going to find it very hard to support us with this yearly crapfest occurring. We’re providing our enemies with the bullets they need to shoot down any chance of meaningful advancement.

      It also means we’re going to have to make the unpleasant choice to settle for domestic partnerships first, before we push for marriage. Again, you have to bring people along SLOWLY. Show them that marriage by another name works, and we’ll get marriage. The HRC and other gay hardliners have pursued this disastrous, “all or nothing” strategy, and considering every time gay marriage has been up for a vote it has been defeated, I’m left to wonder how many more defeats does it take before they wake up and smell the java?

      Oh, BTW, think anti-gay issues didn’t play any part in this election? Pull you heads out of . . . the sand:

      http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hM5wbU0OAH1qV8cST_ry11G_VUzw?docId=bd87d01664c541409706972e4d025066

      Guess you’d better get that marriage license (for all it’ll be worth quickly down the line) now . . .

      • posted by AndrewW on

        The truth is we’ve never tried to enroll our fellow citizens – we defer to the “cultural conversation.” There has been significant progress and people are fully ‘aware” of us. Publicity stunts and protests are not necessary – it’s 2010 and the world has changed. Now, it’s our turn.

        There is good news: about two-thirds of our fellow citizens will support our full equality. That information is the result of a significant amount of polling data I commissioned during the last year, all done primarily on a stats-by-state basis. We MUST figure out how to demonstrate that support. That isn’t something HRC does or any other LGBT-Advocacy group.

        We may not demonstrate support in places like Alabama and Oklahoma, but 35 States are LGBT-supportive.

        We desperately need new thinking and new ideas to develop a comprehensive and cohesive strategy to win our full equality – we have never done that as a community. I believe we will not attract sufficient contribution and participation UNTIL we can demonstrate a real, verifiable “path to victory.” This would be a good time to change our thinking and let go of tired tactics of the Past and understand what really matters: we need to transform ourselves from a oppressed minority into a strong, creative and clever group of people that can enroll and demonstrate that equality is a basic human principle – regardless of religious belief or political persuasion.

        Politics will not save us. An interesting fact about the mid-terms is that only one-out-of-three adult Americans even voted. If we continue to focus on politics only, we simply repeat our same old “try everything” and hope that “someday” we’ll win. Hope isn’t a Plan and “someday” isn’t inspiring.

  14. posted by Jorge on

    What’s amazing about these comments is the reality that “lobbying” doesn’t change any minds when it comes to “moral issues.” For those against us, we are still a moral issue.

    HRC provides the evidence: After 30 years and $550 million HRC has never persuaded a single US Senator to change their mind about LGBT-issues. Not one.

    That’s quite an accusation. It’s also nonsensical on its face.

    http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/ead/htmldocs/RMM07712.html

    The beginning of the article cites a statistic that in 1982, 81% of the 119 congressional candidates the HRC contributed to went on to win their races. It stands to reason that somewhere between the 70th and the 90th percentiles there were some close races where the HRC’s funding provided the crucial difference that pushed the candidate over the edge. And it’s clear the HRC was selective; it did not help every single left of center candidate. Thus the HRC exerted power that made a difference in electing friendly candidates.

    Of course, I don’t know how many of the candidates HRC didn’t contribute to won their races (the key question this year as well). However the fact that the HRC still exists suggests to me that people wanted their money.

    I’d love for someone to prove me wrong and convince me that money is meaningless in politics, but that’s not going to happen.

  15. posted by Jorge on

    Real progress is made when we educate, enlighten and enroll neighbors, friends, co-workers and even strangers. If you want to change a Senator’s mind, you need to get the constituents to do it.

    What do you think lobbying is?

  16. posted by Carl on

    “Real progress is made when we educate, enlighten and enroll neighbors, friends, co-workers and even strangers. If you want to change a Senator’s mind, you need to get the constituents to do it.”

    Most elected officials are beholden to those who give them money or who run the party, not their constituents. That’s one of the reasons so many state legislatures and governors gerrymander seats as much as possible for their party — so they won’t have to worry about the people.

    The problem is that a lot of people might say, “Gays are alright,” but that doesn’t mean they care about our rights. They don’t see them as important. I remember reading about the gay parents who went to Mitt Romney to talk about gay marriage, and that didn’t change his mind. Then you have the politicians who oppose anything and everything from marriage to domestic partnerships to anti-discrimination to letting gays serve in the military to adoption and foster care, but someone says, “Well they have a gay intern/gay friend/gay relative and they get along great!” So this is someone else who is not personally homophobic, but that does not mean they will ever do anything but work against gay rights.

    While some straight people do care about helping support gay rights, when it comes time for voting, most of those who seem to care are the ones who show up to vote against the issue. And many other straight people have little opinion on the matter and are just going to vote based on what makes them feel better or what they think is easier. And I can’t really blame them, because it does not affect their life all that much. That’s the education part, or what the education part should be. To get someone who might vote for a Vicky Hartlzer or James Inhofe type of candidate to see the full impact of what they say or do.

  17. posted by BobN on

    The “reply” links seem to be acting up, so I’ll respond here.

    I think we can safely call it a monolith.

    My quibble wasn’t with “monolith”. It was rather clearly with the following, as you oddly quoted but failed to respond to:

    BobN> “Do you even read your own sources? The 2010 level of support for the GOP was lower than previous polls in 2004 or 2006 or something. Go look it up. ”

    You want to call it a “monolith”, go ahead, I guess. Not sure how that bolsters your argument that the gay community isn’t all the same, but knock yourself out.

    • posted by Michigan-Matt on

      So BobN, we can safely assume you have the reading comprehension of a 1st grader? Already answered –go look it up in the thread, ye-of-little-brain-stem.

      6:47 posting

      • posted by BobN on

        Fine, it’s a “monolith” with two parts.

        You win.

  18. posted by Jorge on

    I think BobN needs you to cite gay support for Republican congressional candidates, Michigan-Matt. There wasn’t anyone running for president in 2010.

    I have my own problems with your argument. First of all that 21.5% 2000 pro-Bush figure is the lowest I’ve heard for that year. My sources say it was 25%, and 23% even in 2004 (which is madness). To me, a 70/25 split (which is what 2000 was) is not a monolith. A 77/23 split in a year of extreme gay anger toward Republicans is not a monolith. A monolith is the ~89/11 split Kerry got in 2004 from African Americans, and the 95/5 split Obama got in 2008.

  19. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    Jorge, I think BobN made his best shot at trying to discredit the inconvenient truth about the gay vote being mostly Democrat –and nearly every major natl “gay rights” organization being controlled and staffed by former Democrat activists.

    I can understand, however, that nearly 80% of anything can’t be considered a monolith to you –it would damage your sense of reality… and using a line like “extreme gay anger toward” GOPers as a way to describe 2004 says a lot about where you stand, or sit.

    The farLeft -esp the anti-religion kooks– have long maintained the fact that Px conservatives are 78-80% GOP inclined is proof the Party is under the functional control of zealots.

    You can’t see the trees nor remember entering the forest because you’re too far in the woods, pal. “extreme gay anger toward” the GOP… did you get that off a HRC memo printed at DNC expense?

  20. posted by BobN on

    I’m at a complete loss in trying to figure out what your problem is, MM. I think it’s a great thing that most gays vote Dem. I wish more of them did and, in fact, I think the figures of 25-30% support for GOP candidates is bullshit. For three reasons: #1 poll sample size #2 willingness to disclose sexual orientation to pollsters and #3 failure to account for the parts of the country where it doesn’t really matter much which candidate you vote for because the state is so hopelessly anti-gay.

    I will not call 70% a “monolith”. It just plain isn’t. How ’bout “overwhelming majority”. Does that make you feel better? If not, try some other terms and let’s see if we can find one that will placate you.

    As for “extreme gay anger”, you seem quite extremely angry at someone.

  21. posted by Jorge on

    Jorge, I think BobN made his best shot at trying to discredit the inconvenient truth about the gay vote being mostly Democrat

    I think he scored a good hit with one hand tied behind his back. BobN is a strong Democratic supporter. He spends a lot of time on a site which does not support Democrats strongly and which argues that the gay rank-and-file is not politically monolithic. It’s a logical train of thought.

  22. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    Jorge, nice try at playing the thread apologist for gay Democrats struggling to keep gays on the Democrat Plantation… you remind me of the circus grand master trying to divert the audience’s attention from the highwire act that just fell to their death… “Folks! Folks! Over here, over here, just look at the poodle ride a bike over the ramp…”

    Can someone clean up the mess under the wires? That’s the gayLeft leadership trying to explain why the DNC and Obama have failed gays –again.

  23. posted by BobN on

    Jorge, nice try at playing the thread apologist for gay Democrats struggling to keep gays on the Democrat Plantation…

    You misrepresent — and perhaps misunderstand — my position entirely. The last thing I want is folks like some of the “conservatives” on here joining me in the Democratic Party. Some of you are fine, of course, but some of you… lord, I’d hate to pick cotton side-by-side with you. You know, down on the plantation.

    you remind me of the circus grand master trying to divert the audience’s attention from the highwire act that just fell to their death… “Folks! Folks! Over here, over here, just look at the poodle ride a bike over the ramp…”

    My problem with most of what goes on here is that many of the voices on here, especially those who create the threads, would contribute so much more to their own and my freedom if they directed all that effort at the GOP and got their party to turn around. Instead we get stuff like the above.

    Since we’re working with circus metaphors, Matt is sort of like the guy shovelling out the elephant cage while making fun of the poodle troop. Now, being a poodle isn’t that great (unless you’re Tony Blair) but compared to being shit on by the elephant, it’s a huge improvement. At least the poodles have gotten into the ring…

    (not my best work, but I thought Matt would enjoy the Dem=poodle metaphor)

  24. posted by Jorge on

    The last thing I want is folks like some of the “conservatives” on here joining me in the Democratic Party. Some of you are fine, of course, but some of you… lord, I’d hate to pick cotton side-by-side with you. You know, down on the plantation.

    Tell you what: I’ll give up any claim to your party if you accept George W. Bush.

    Think about it. With Bush Republicans swelling your ranks, you’ll get an unbeatable coalition backing big goverment problem-solving. You give me social security reform, I’ll give you health care reform. We’ll pass comprehensive immigration reform and end institutional racism together.

    Yes, I know, you demand the same level of cooperation on gay issues. I guess that slipped my mind and I got carried away. Will you take Rudy Giuliani instead?

  25. posted by BobN on

    Tell you what: I’ll give up any claim to your party if you accept George W. Bush.

    No need to get nasty!

    Seriously, I said “some” and the “some” didn’t include you. I already know you’re a conservative Democrat.

Comments are closed.