Updated several times since original post; keep scrolling down.
It’s no surprise that the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT fundraising pac, would endorse Barack Obama’s re-election. There’s no doubt that he’ll be far better on LGBT issues than anyone whom the GOP eventually nominates. But what would an LGBT pac that didn’t function solely as a fundraising arm of the Democratic party (or any party) look like? That is, a pac that sought to move both parties in a vigorously gay-supportive direction, even by setting them against each other where possible (and in some jurisdictions, it is)?
Well, such a pac might still endorse Obama in May for the Democratic nomination, but it might also endorse, say, former two-term New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson for the GOP nomination. And it might take note that Johnson supports recognition of gay civil unions and repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” — in marked distinction to, say, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney.
Will Johnson be the GOP nominee? He’s clearly a very long shot. But a popular former two-term governor isn’t exactly beyond the realm of possibility, either. And at least a GOP primary endorsement would have made a statement that recognizes the achievement of gay equality needs both parties to come onboard, so it becomes the American (and not just the liberal) consensus.
Related. Gay Patriot points out that the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has awarded its best blog distinction to Joe Jervis, a blogger who likes to compare gay conservatives to Nazi collaborators (e.g., calling GOProud, which broke the barrier against openly gay groups at the Conservative Political Action Conference, “kapo bootlickers”). Nice, eh.
More. Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah and former U.S. ambassador to China, is weighing a run for the GOP nomination. He also is on record favoring recognition of gay civil unions. The GOP is not all of apiece, and support for those who support us would yield a more gay-friendly party. But that’s not in the interest of Democratic party power-bearers, is it.
Furthermore. Lots of heavy partisanship in the comments, as usual. I think commenter “Another Steve” has an interesting perspective:
what if HRC had remained the nonpartisan organization it was founded to be? In the 80s, it often endorsed GOP congressional candidates and stayed out of the presidential race entirely in order not to be seen as partisan. But after the liberal firestorm following the reelection endorsement for GOP Sen. Al D’Amato (who supported ENDA and letting gays serve in the military) against a liberal Democrat, the funders laid down the law — HRC was to be an adjunct of the DNC, period.
The backlash to the D’Amato endorsement (over Chuck Schumer!) was a factor, but control over the LGBT movement by Democratic party operatives has been a long march.
Still more. From the Washington Blade, a comment from John Aravosis of AmericaBlog:
“While I’m sure HRC will claim they got lots of juicy promises in exchange for the endorsement, everyone else learned a long time ago that the president is unlikely to keep his promises unless you get in his face, and HRC will never get in his face,” Aravosis said. “So the promises are meaningless, and thus the president got HRC’s endorsement for nothing, and now won’t have to do anything for the next two years to truly earn that endorsement. I’m sure it nails down the president for the next HRC dinner, but that really shouldn’t be the goal here.”
Added Log Cabin Republican head R. Clarke Cooper:
By prostrating themselves before Barack Obama eighteen months before the 2012 election, the Human Rights Campaign has effectively told the president that he doesn’t have to do anything more to earn gay and lesbian votes,” Cooper said. “Given his lackluster record in the fight for ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal, LGBT Americans were counting on HRC to hold the president’s feet to the fire on his other campaign promises, not to become a branch of his re-election campaign.”
Cooper further criticized HRC by saying the endorsement sends “the wrong message” to potential Republican presidential nominees who may want to reach out to the LGBT community. “There are several possible candidates who deserve to be fairly judged on their own merits, and the dialogue on equality issues for the 2012 campaign has barely begun,” Cooper said. “This decision makes it clear that Joe Solmonese’s greatest priority is an invitation to drinks at a Democratic White House, not securing votes for ENDA, DOMA repeal or tax equity. Such a pre-emptive endorsement is a mistake and will undermine equality efforts.”
70 Comments for “What a Nonpartisan HRC Might Have Done”
posted by Tom on
My view is that HRC (of which I am emphatically not a member) and other LGBT organizations should do what the NRA (of which I am a member) does — give every politician running for federal and statewide office a rating based on objective criteria, make those ratings public, and let voters who are interested make their own decisions.
BTW, with respect to your continual assertion that the HRC PAC is “a fundraising arm of the Democratic party”, if you have evidence of illegal activities, including specifically illegal cooperation between the HRC and the Democratic Party, you should make that information public and report it to the authorities. If, on the other hand, HRC PAC is doing nothing more than making contributions based on its stated criteria, you might want to tone down your language a bit so as to avoid confusion about what you are saying.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
BTW, with respect to your continual assertion that the HRC PAC is “a fundraising arm of the Democratic party”, if you have evidence of illegal activities, including specifically illegal cooperation between the HRC and the Democratic Party, you should make that information public and report it to the authorities.
Oh, that’s been around for forever.
Playing down its support for gay marriage, the HRC mobilized its 650,000 members to staff phone banks, raise money, and participate in get-out-the-vote campaigns to elect candidates sympathetic to gay issues, even if they didn’t support gay marriage. The group was the single biggest donor to Democratic state Senate races in New Hampshire, helping the party take control of both chambers of the Legislature for the first time since 1874.
The group also helped congressional candidates from Arizona to Florida and Ohio, and party activists believe the organization can play an even larger role in the 2008 elections. The idea, leaders say, is to become a steady source of funds and grass-roots support for Democrats — more akin to a labor union than a single-issue activist group.
In short, HRC is openly stating that they are a fundraising arm of the Obama Party.
Please take the time to educate yourself in the future instead of letting your bigotry and hatred towards Stephen Miller do the talking. You don’t add to the discussion when you so ignorantly attack Mr. Miller and insinuate that he is lying when there is so much evidence, including bragging from HRC publicly, that they are nothing more than a fundraising arm for the Obama Party.
posted by Tom on
In other words, HRC PAC is doing nothing illegal, is not contributing funds to the Democratic Party, and is not illegally cooperating with campaigns — all it is doing is making PAC contributions and encouraging its members to actively support “candidates sympathetic to gay issues“.
The fact that almost all of them are Democrats should be no surprise in the current political climate, it seems to me. An organization with HRC PAC’s stated criteria for endorsement and contributions would have been flat out of its mind to give a dime to any of the Republicans who ran in Wisconsin for statewide office or the legislature in 2010, for example — all were pledged to repeal the state’s domestic partnership law — and things aren’t materially different anywhere else.
Change your party’s positions, 10-short, and things might change.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why, Tom?
After all, as that clearly states, HRC PAC gives money to people who oppose gay-sex marriage.
And that’s really the whole point. People, especially in Wisconsin, recognize that gays and lesbians like yourself and your organizations like HRC support and endorse candidates who by your own standards “oppose equality”.
And that leads us to this:
Change your party’s positions, 10-short, and things might change.
Sure. Just like your definition of “homophobe” and “antigay” changes to match whatever your Obama Party needs it to match.
People in Wisconsin have realized that your opposition to Republicans is not principled, Tom; it’s just based on bigotry. They are aware that you and your fellow gay-sex Obama liberals give and give and give to Obama Party members who engage in behaviors and take stances that you shriek are “homophobic” and “antigay” elsewhere. You’re nothing more than an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson who screams “racism” every time he doesn’t get what he wants.
And thus, Republicans have realized that you’re a waste of time. You’re a bigot, Tom, and that is not going to change; why should they then do destructive things to the state economy to try to win the support of bigots like yourself?
posted by Tom on
10-Short: Why, Tom? After all, as that clearly states, HRC PAC gives money to people who oppose gay-sex marriage.
That is one of two reasons I am not a member of the HRC. The other is that the HRC seems remarkably ineffective to me. I don’t contribute to the campaigns of candidates who so not support equality, and I don’t give my money to organizations that aren’t effective.
But HRC PAC doesn’t purport to give money only to candidates who support civil marriage, so I don’t see why you are having a conniption in this instance.
Here are the HRC PAC’s stated criteria, since you seem to have chosen not to read them:
I think that the HRC PAC is relatively transparent in its objectives and operations. Since “viability” is one of the criteria, I can see why the HRC PAC doesn’t generally endorse Republican candidates for federal office. A Republican Congressional candidate in Wisconsin, for example, who stood with the HRC PAC on the issues it lists would get about three votes in the Republican primary, given the current political environment in this state.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But HRC PAC doesn’t purport to give money only to candidates who support civil marriage, so I don’t see why you are having a conniption in this instance.
Because, Tom, you insist that any organization that gives money to candidates who don’t support gay-sex marriage is wrong.
I am holding you and HRC to the same standards you do others. Not surprisingly, you a) fail and b) whine about being required to meet the demands you place on others.
posted by gilbert on
Too rich. ND40 calls someone a “bigot.” Un-ironically. Sometimes I love reading the comments here just for the laughs.
posted by Eric on
Given the nature of the Republican base at the moment, isn’t any endorsement from an entity like HRC more of a problem for the candidate in question than it is a benefit?
posted by BobN on
So… HRC should endorse Gary Johnson, those torpedoing his campaign before it events gets underway (love it when I can manage to be consistently nautical).
Marvelous idea. I wonder what Gary Johnson would say about the suggestion. And I can imagine the howls of complaint about HRC “meddling” in GOP politics and scuttling (wow, three!) one of the GOP’s least weird candidates (though one of its least well known, as well). I wonder whose howls would be the loudest, GOProud’s or Sarah Palin’s?
posted by Doug on
Gary Johnson has about as much chance of winning the GOP nomination as my dog. If you believe anything else I’d like some of what you are smoking. Let’s get real here and stop fantasizing.
posted by another steve on
can imagine the howls of complaint about HRC “meddling” in GOP politics and scuttling (wow, three!) one of the GOP’s least weird candidates.
This may be true, but it’s because for the past decade-plus HRC has been nothing but a shill for the Democrats (e.g., the NY congressional race with no incumbent, where HRC endorsed the Democrat who opposed gay marriage running against a moderate Republican who supported gay marriage). So of course the GOP would be suspicious.
But what if HRC had remained the nonpartisan organization it was founded to be? In the 80s, it often endorsed GOP congressional candidates and stayed out of the presidential race entirely in order not to be seen as partisan. But after the liberal firestorm following the reelection endorsement for GOP Sen. Al D’Amato (who supported ENDA and letting gays serve in the military) agaisnt a liberal Democrat, the funders laid down the law — HRC was to be an adjunct of the DNC, period.
Gary Johnson has about as much chance of winning the GOP nomination as my dog
1) That’s not the point; the issue is whether to give a primary endorsement to the most pro-gay equality Republican in the race. And if not, why not.
2) Successful 2-term governors from small states who were initially ignored have broken out before. It may be unlikely, but certainly not impossible. Your dog being nominated is impossible. You are logic-challenged.
posted by Doug on
Money should only be given to a candidate who has some reasonable chance of winning, to do otherwise is a waste of money.
posted by BobN on
I love the way you re-write history and ignore that HRC just plain ran out of pro-gay GOP candidates to endorse.
And you manage to somehow blame them for that, too.
It was REAGAN and his embrace of the religious right, not the petty machinations of a marginal lobbying group that poisoned your party.
posted by Tom on
That’s not the point; the issue is whether to give a primary endorsement to the most pro-gay equality Republican in the race. And if not, why not.
I think that the answer might be found in HRC’s stated criteria for endorsement:
(1) HRC has an “incumbent preference” and prefers to make a single endorsement.
(2) HRC does not endorse when to do so would do more harm than good and does not endorse except when a candidate is clearly viable:
(3) HRC’s policy agenda is left-oriented rather than right-oriented (for example, “… hate crimes prevention, employment non-discrimination and HIV/AIDS care, treatment, prevention and research …” Whatever the right-oriented policy agenda (articulated, I guess, but GOProud and the Libertarian Party), it is not HRC’s policy agenda.
I do not understand why HRC seems to be so important to conservatives. HRC does not seem to have an existence outside the Beltway, and HRC PAC is just one among hundreds. For me anyway, HRC PAC is like GOProud, a Beltway millionaires club that isn’t relevant to Wisconsin politics.
posted by BobN on
It’s important to them to destroy HRC. All the whining about HRC doing what lobbying groups do should make everyone scratch their heads as to the motives of the whiners.
The argument that HRC is so ineffective couples with the complaint that they don’t support GOP candidates reminds me of nothing more than the classic teenage girl tantrum, “Sally’s parties suck and everyone hates them, but why won’t she invite me?!?!?”
posted by Greg on
the NY congressional race with no incumbent, where HRC endorsed the Democrat who opposed gay marriage running against a moderate Republican who supported gay marriage
Do you have any more information or the names of the candidates another steve?
posted by another steve on
November 2009. In New York’s 23rd congressional district, liberal, pro-gay-marriage Republican Dede Scozzafava was challenged on the right by Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman, and on the left by Democrat Bill Owens, a gay-marriage opponent . No HRC endorsement for Dede.
posted by Tom on
HCR did nothing that Dede Scozzafava didn’t. After she dropped out of the race, realizing that she was not a viable candidate, she endorsed Bill Owens, too.
When she dropped out, Scoozzafava was polling under 20%. I would refer you, yet again, to HCR’s stated endorsement policies: HRC does not make dual endorsements and does not endorse candidates that it does not consider viable.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Gary Johnson has about as much chance of winning the GOP nomination as my dog”
Four years ago, many people were saying the same thing about Obama.
posted by Doug on
There were essentially only 2 candidates in that race: Clinton and Obama, not like all the clowns now trying for the GOP.
posted by Lori Heine on
— For the Democratic nomination, of course I mean.
posted by esurience on
And Stephen H. Miller is consorting with people who call the “gay left” the “american taliban.” Yeah, GOProud said it.
I suppose Stephen H. Miller would rather an award be given to GOProud, even though they’re not even a gay rights organization (in fact, like almost all conservative organizations, they’re anti-gay).
posted by Tom on
GOProud, even though they’re not even a gay rights organization …
I’ve never been quite clear what GOProud thinks is, or how it relates to the Republican Party.
Is it the equivalent of the LGBT Caucus of the Democratic Party, that is, part of the party and funded by it, or is it the equivalent of the Stonewall Democrats, a group of LGBT Democrats who are legally and financially independent of the party?
posted by Lori Heine on
“There were essentially only 2 candidates in that race: Clinton and Obama, not like all the clowns now trying for the GOP.”
Two of the most clownish, Huckabee and Trump, are out of the race. Pawlenty isn’t exciting or entertaining enough to be a threat (clowns are supposed to be fun). Bride of Chucky Bachmann will scare the hell out of everybody with an I.Q. greater than their shoe size. And Santorum is another very-unfunny clown.
That narrows the field down a bit. More may jump in, but they’d need to do it soon. If Johnson perseveres, he might just find himself with a better chance than the naysayers realize.
posted by Hunter on
HRC seems to be a joke to everyone except the gay right — it certainly doesn’t have much support among gay progressives. The only ones who take HRC as representing the GLBT community are D.C. pundits and the administration — and I’m sure on the administration’s part, that’s only because it means they don’t have to deal with any real gay groups. I suppose, though, there are some who pay attention to HRC’s endorsements. I can’t think why.
Related: I’m sort of amazed that you present GOProud as a gay group. No, they didn’t break any barriers at CAPC — true, they were allowed to participate — once — and after the dust settled, they were told they will be allowed to come back as long as they “don’t say gay.” Looks like GOProud is just about as effective as HRC. I do have to admit, though, that Chris Barron and Jimmy LaSalvia are much better at whining than Joe Solmonese.
posted by another steve on
I’m sort of amazed that you present GOProud as a gay group. No, they didn’t break any barriers at CAPC — true, they were allowed to participate — once — and after the dust settled, they were told they will be allowed to come back as long as they “don’t say gay.”
Can’t speak for Stephen Miller, but GOProud most certainly did break a barrier by being an out and proud gay conservative group participating in CPAC, the largest annual gathering of political conservative organizations. That sent a message more powerful than any by LGBT liberals talking amonst themselves only on the left.
As to your sniping that (since this victory was followed by a backlash and the announcement that GOProud won’t be invited back next year), it doesn’t amount to anything, you could not be more wrong. Progress is made by two steps forward and one step back. It’s never linear. GOProud acheived something substantial, and there was a backlash. They fought a strong fight, and they will continue to fight. You, no doubt, will continue to belittle them and hope they fail.
posted by Hunter on
“They fought a strong fight, and they will continue to fight. You, no doubt, will continue to belittle them and hope they fail.”
If you call that a “strong fight,” you’re setting the bar awfully low. As for hoping they fail, I have no idea what their goals are, except that they seem to oppose any guarantees of equal civil rights for gays. Seriously, what pro-gay initiatives have they supported? Having a booth at CPAC? While they’re opposed to ENDA and any other legislation that might actually do something for us? I’d much rather support LCR, who actually are doing something to advance equality, and who are also much closer to being the kind of Republicans I used to vote for — you know, the kind who were actually interested in governing, not just being in office.
posted by Houndentenor on
I must agree that it is premature for HRC to endorse a candidate for 2012. It’s probably too early to endorse a GOP candidate since not everyone expected to run has announced. Johnson might well be a good endorsement for LCR. So might Giuliani (should he decide to run). In any event any endorsement this far out is premature. That said, I think we can all admit that the chances of the GOP nominating a candidate who isn’t openly hostile to gay rights is slim to none.
posted by Doug on
Giuliani turned anti gay the last time he ran, he’s not to trusted and is not a viable candidate anyway.
posted by Jorge on
What, because he said he was against gay marriage? So was Obama. But he never repudiated signing the domestic partnership law, which was more of a record than Obama had in 2008 (today, obviously he has a better record than Giuliani). Or was there something else?
posted by Doug on
Giuliani against Domestic Partnerships.
http://yourfreepress.blogspot.com/2007/12/giuliani-comes-out-against-civil-unions.html
posted by Jorge on
Yes, I remember that now. I don’t remember my reaction to it at the time.
posted by Houndentenor on
I believe I said MIGHT. Obviously we’ll have to see what the actual positions are and who the actual candidates will be. Romney ran for the Senate as a gay-friendly candidate once upon a time. Things change especially in a national election. (Obama himself distanced himself from a pro-marriage stance he once held while running for the state senate in Illinois.)
Also, MARRIAGE IS NOT THE ONLY GAY ISSUE. DADT, ENDA and immigration for partners of gay Americans are also issues among others.
posted by Houndentenor on
I must also state that I am not a member of HRC (and haven’t been since 1998). I don’t like how the organization is run and find it embarrassingly ineffective overall. I’m sure no one at HRC cares about my disapproval since they only seem interested in talking to other Gay A-listers and Beltway insiders who make them feel important while they accomplish nothing.
posted by MNP on
Because one party has fought gays every step of the way since the beginning and one party hasn’t. Even if they supported gay friendly republicans and they won, those kinds of republicans have no power either legislatively or with the Republican base as a whole.
posted by Tom on
Because one party has fought gays every step of the way since the beginning and one party hasn’t.
I think that it is worth noting that this was not always the case. During the first 10-15 years of the post-Stonewall era, when the struggle was at its most difficult, both parties were more or less on the same footing.
For example: Republican legislators were crucial to passing the union’s first anti-discrimination law that included gays and lesbians, and the bill was signed into law by a Republican Governor, Lee Dreyfus. Republican Governor Ronald Reagan was the critical factor in defeating the Briggs Initiative in California.
The difference between the two parties is that the Democratic Party has continued, however haltingly and at times inadequately, along the trajectory of supporting gay and lesbian equality, while the Republican Party reversed course.
The Republican Party reversed course in the mid-1980’s after the Religious Right was invited into the party, becoming the party of “Never!” on gay and lesbian equality as the “culture wars” developed.
The Republican Party is now at the point where (in Jorge’s words) “gay-affirming hints” from long-shot candidates are the brightest spot on the Republican horizon, while the Republican mainstream fights each and every step toward equality tooth and nail, while working to reverse gains already won (DADT repeal, Wisconsin’s domestic partnership law, decriminalization of sodomy, among others).
It wasn’t always that way, though, and it doesn’t have to be that way in the future. If the Republicans on IGF would spend half as much time working to change the Republican Party as they do complaining that Democrats aren’t doing enough for them, and other conservative gays and lesbians did the same, the Republican Party could turn itself around and get back on track.
posted by Joe Jervis on
My last name is Jervis, not Jarvis.
And the 2011 GLAAD Media Awards took place three and half months ago, not that GayPatriot has ever been au courant.
posted by Amicus on
Yes, Jarvis is the butler.
Seen here singing “Until you love me” (irony intended):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkUatLNPV64
🙂
posted by Amicus on
Actually, it’s not irony, now that I think about it, and it was not ‘intended’, just welcomed, ’cause you gotta admit it has double-entendre funny in this context… We can all still laugh with each other, or have I outlived myself in that belief?
posted by Jorge on
Wait, wait, didn’t LCR wait until it endorsed a presidential candidate last time? I believe they waited until John McCain picked Sarah Palin as her running mate. My impression was it gave the message of letting people stew a bit–they didn’t give out the endorsement right away.
Now that the HRC has given an early endorsement, is it a green light for the Republicans to go 100% anti-gay? Is that their secret plan? Push away any gay-affirming hints from the Republicans so that the Democrats will still keep them in their tent and so that gay voters will think only the gay partisan leaders can do anything for them. That is how the Democratic party has kept the black vote in lockstep without doing a thing for them.
So the HRC isn’t that important, after all, you all say? Well that is good news.
posted by Tom on
“Now that the HRC has given an early endorsement, is it a green light for the Republicans to go 100% anti-gay? Is that their secret plan? Push away any gay-affirming hints from the Republicans so that the Democrats will still keep them in their tent and so that gay voters will think only the gay partisan leaders can do anything for them.”
Huh? Secret plans? It is laughable, Jorge. The next thing we know you’ll be looking under your bed for the Gaychurian candidate …
This is very simple. HCR is left-oriented. HCR’s legislative agenda (hate crimes, ENDA, dual adoption, marriage equality, all the rest) is left-oriented. HCR’s membership, for the most part, is left-oriented.
Is it all that surprising, then, that the HRC PAC endorses Democrats?
Again, let me suggest that you read HRC PAC’s stated criteria for endorsement.
HRC PAC endorses candidates who support its legislative agenda. HRC PAC endorses candidates who “encourag[e] other policy-makers to act on HRC’s agenda”. HRC PAC does not endorse candidates it does not consider viable. HRC PAC does not issue dual endorsements. HRC PAC “does not make an endorsement in a situation where the candidate has no chance of getting elected but is supportive of HRC issues”. HRC PAC “favors incumbency and when an elected official in a particular seat works consistently on behalf of LGBT Americans, HRC rewards that loyalty”.
Given those criteria, it is objectively clear why HRC PAC does not endorse long-shot Republican candidates signalling “gay-affirming hints“, particularly Republican candidates like Governor Johnson, who are not, by any stretch of the imagination, viable.
No secret plots. Just transparency for those who want to open their eyes and look at what is clearly stated.
posted by Jorge on
Are you saying that’s not how the Democrats managed to keep blacks in lockstep?
….it is objectively clear why HRC PAC does not endorse long-shot Republican candidates signalling “gay-affirming hints“, particularly Republican candidates like Governor Johnson, who are not, by any stretch of the imagination, viable.
…
HRC PAC endorses candidates who “encourag[e] other policy-makers to act on HRC’s agenda”. HRC PAC does not endorse candidates it does not consider viable. HRC PAC does not issue dual endorsements. HRC PAC “does not make an endorsement in a situation where the candidate has no chance of getting elected but is supportive of HRC issues”. HRC PAC “favors incumbency and when an elected official in a particular seat works consistently on behalf of LGBT Americans, HRC rewards that loyalty”.
I think your post would make more sense in this order. How long has the HRC’s endorsement criteria been this stacked? I wasn’t completely serious with that “secret plot” crack. Your post just fed into it.
posted by Tom on
How long has the HRC’s endorsement criteria been this stacked?
I don’t know, Jorge. I’m not an HRC member and I don’t pay a lot of attention to HRC PAC, since my focus is on state politics and HRC PAC endorses in federal races.
But I know enough to know that HRC’s legislative agenda has included hate crimes legislation and ENDA for as long as I’ve know about it, so my guess is that HRC has been left-oriented from its inception.
posted by Tom on
As to “HRC PAC “favors incumbency and when an elected official in a particular seat works consistently on behalf of LGBT Americans, HRC rewards that loyalty”.” that is standard practice among PAC’s. The NRA also favors incumbency and rewards loyalty on its issues, reserving the highest “grades” to incumbents with a proven track record.
A viability threshold (“HRC PAC does not endorse candidates it does not consider viable.“) is standard among every major PAC I’ve worked with or sought endorsements from on behalf of candidates for state office in Wisconsin. It is also a criteria for every PAC to which I contribute, as well as a criteria for my own political contributions, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Why put resources into a dry well?
posted by Jerry on
Tom, you have to explain this statement to me. “HCR’s legislative agenda (hate crimes, ENDA, dual adoption, marriage equality, all the rest) is left-oriented.”
I don’t see any of these goals as left oriented but as goals guaranteed by the constitution. Congress has passed any number of laws barring discrimination of citizens for all kinds of reasons. I happen to think those laws are a kin to carrying coals to Newcastle since the constitution plainly states that discrimination is not permitted. The courts and especially the supreme court has upheld laws prohibiting discrimination where there has been no harm to society by banning it and harm to citizens for allowing it.
There is nothing in your list that I would not consider a rock-ribbed conservative position.
posted by Tom on
Jerry: Tom, you have to explain this statement to me. “HCR’s legislative agenda (hate crimes, ENDA, dual adoption, marriage equality, all the rest) is left-oriented.”
Jerry, by “left-oriented” I meant only that the proposals are, in general, supported by Democratic politicians and rejected by Republican politicians.
Jerry: “There is nothing in your list that I would not consider a rock-ribbed conservative position.”
I agree. I’ve argued for a long time on IGF — since I started commenting on the list about six years ago — that (a) “equal means equal” is not only consistent with, but demanded by, authentic, constitutional conservatism, and (b) the task before us all is to get the Republican Party out from under the thumb of social conservatives so that it can return to its roots.
I’m not holding my breath. In the current political environment, Republican politicians, at both state and federal level, vote as a solid block against equality. The few exceptions that are so highly touted by Stephen prove the rule, as far as I can see.
It wasn’t always that way, and that’s what is sad.
posted by Houndentenor on
Republicans are against employment non-discrimination laws? Is that in the party platform? Do candidates (other than Rand Paul) mention that on the campaign trail? Where was the bill repealing those laws while Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House?
Oh, maybe you meant that Republicans oppose non-discrimination laws for gays but favor them for everyone else?
posted by Hunter on
“HCR’s legislative agenda (hate crimes, ENDA, dual adoption, marriage equality, all the rest) is left-oriented.”
I find this puzzling, to say the very least. I realize that to the right, anti-hate crimes legislation is an attempt to control thought, although I’ve never seen an actual argument along those lines that made sense. I also note that those opposed to hate crimes legislation refuse to consider the possibility that hate crimes are a form of terrorism, meant to intimidate an entire group. So that somehow makes hate crimes laws “left-oriented”? I thought all real Americans hated terrorists.
As for ENDA, I take it you don’t think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a legitimate use of government power, i.e., the government has no business creating legal guarantees of equal treatment for groups that have been historically discriminated against. Seems to me that’s one of the few legitimate uses of government power — much better than unlimited detention with no court review, eavesdropping on American citizens with no court review or oversight, or assassinating American citizens on the president’s say-so.
Dual adoption and same-sex marriage seem ideologically neutral to me, and there are enough conservatives outside the religious wacko wing who agree that I don’t see how you can call either of those “left-oriented.” Read the 14th Amendment again, the part that guarantees “all persons” equal protection under the law. That by you is leftist?
posted by Tom on
Read the 14th Amendment again, the part that guarantees “all persons” equal protection under the law. That by you is leftist?
By “left-oriented” I meant only that the proposals are, in general, supported by Democratic politicians and rejected by Republican politicians. I would have been clearer if I had said “more closely aligned with the Democratic Party’s positions”. But I think that it is an objective fact that Democratic politicians generally support HRC’s legislative agenda, and Republican politicians generally fight it tooth and nail.
But it fascinates me to read your comment. “Left-oriented” has morphed into “leftist” by the end of the comment, and the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, which, with the exception of LCR, is just about the only constituency within the Republican Party that is not fighting “equal means equal” tooth and nail, has been marginalized if not completely ignored.
Now, let me be clear. I am a Democrat. Although my first presidential vote was for Barry Goldwater and I have a strong libertarian streak even now, I left the Republican Party, probably for good, after the social conservatives took over the party, pushing an agenda of government-sponsored discrimination against gays and lesbians, and prevailing. Things have not changed at all, to my mind, as evidenced by the near-universal Republican support for DADT last December, the anti-equality pandering of the viable contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, and the myriad of legislation at state level this year pushing that agenda. So I won’t be back this year, for sure. And I’m old enough that I probably won’t live long enough to see the Republican Party return to its authentic constitutional conservative roots, so I probably won’t be back, period.
Nonetheless, I encourage conservatives who remain aligned with the Republican Party to become active within the party, and to try to change the party’s direction.
That change can come from two directions, it seems to me, each reflecting a philosophical wing of the Republican Party, acting in concert.
Republicans, like the LCR, who believe that government has a role in ending discrimination and using law to enforce “equal means equal”, can push for measures like ENDA (as Wisconsin’s Republican legislators and governor did in the early 1980’s, when they enacted and signed into law the nation’s first anti-discrimination law that included sexual orientation), while, at the same time, working to remove government-imposed discrimination, such as DADT, DOMA, bans on dual adoption by same-sex couples, bans on foster parenting by same-sex couples, and other similar laws.
Republicans, like the libertarian constituency, who believe that the government should not be involved in governing private discrimination, may not join in support for ENDA, hate crimes legislation and other similar laws, but can nonetheless asset themselves by insisting that government-sponsored discrimination — laws like DADT, DOMA, bans on adopting and foster parenting by same sex couples, and so on, laws that create special impediments for gay and lesbian citizens — be repealed.
It also seems to me that both groups can join in fighting to remove the disgusting legacy of the Bush years, the anti-marriage amendments passed in state after state with overwhelming Republican support in state legislatures.
posted by Hunter on
In terms of support among political parties, your use of “left-oriented” does pass muster — these days, at least. It wasn’t always the case, which is why I felt perfectly comfortable splitting my vote — once upon a time. However, if there’s a significant difference between “left-oriented” and “leftist,” it eludes me. I would be happy to be enlightened.
As for the libertarian wing of the Republican party, those who seem to represent it don’t inspire great confidence, especially in their reliance on market solutions for everything, which seems to be the prevailing paradigm. Sorry, but Ron Paul notwithstanding, the free market is not going to end discrimination. It never has, and I don’t see any reason to think that is going to change. Yes, that wing could be very useful to the cause of equality by insisting that DOMA, etc., be repealed, but will they? They don’t seem to care one way or another.
posted by BobN on
“Read the 14th Amendment again, the part that guarantees “all persons” equal protection under the law. That by you is leftist?”
Application of the 14th amendment to gay people is rejected by the virtually every GOP politician, the vast majority of conservative “thinkers”, and many Republican-appointed jurists.
Not HRC’s fault.
posted by Jorge on
Fortunately for us, Justice Kennedy wasn’t one of them. But first credit goes to former Justice Stephens.
And it’s funny, but the only GOP politician I remember who outright rejected Lawrence v. Texas, which was decided on 14th Amendment grounds, was Rick Santorum. No doubt he was and remains a significant leader, but look at where his standing is today compared to then.
Surely you mean application of the 14th amendment to marriage. I, for one, think civil unions pass constitutional muster.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Therefore, by that impeccable logic, any bans whatsoever on marriage violate “equal protection”.
Fortunately, the same Supreme Court that decided Loving looked at the issue in Baker v. Nelson, and made the very straightforward determination that bans on gay-sex marriage did not violate equal protection — and indeed, were not even worthy of consideration by the Court.
You would think that the same Supreme Court that used the Fourteenth Amendment as justification for Loving would have done the same if they felt it applied to gay-sex marriage. However, they did not, which quite nicely indicates that it does not — and that Loving is thus also irrelevant to the question of gay-sex marriage.
posted by BobN on
Well, we can only hope that the SCOTUS will, eventually find a right for civil unions as, even in the current make-up, they don’t appear to be nearly as solidly anti-gay as our own ND.
posted by Tom on
The GOP is not all of apiece, and support for those who support us would yield a more gay-friendly party. But that’s not in the interest of Democratic party power-bearers, is it.
Let me ask you a blunt question, Stephen. Have you made a significant contribution to either Governor Johnson’s or Ambassador Huntsman’s campaigns, either financially or as a volunteer in their campaign organization? Do you plan to do so? Are you active in conservative political organizations, specifically the Republican Party? Are you doing anything, other than complaining about Democrats, to change the Republican Party or lend “support for those who support us”?
I’m not trying to put you on the spot, personally, so much as to suggest that if those of you who who are not satisfied with the current political environment want the Republican Party to change, then you need to do more than complain about the Democrats — you need to get off your haunches and get to work within your own party, as those of us who are Democrats have been doing for the last forty years.
Why not start with working toward a small shift in position within GOProud, a group which you have praised in past posts? The group’s legislative agenda has this plank:
How about working to expand that plank to cover domestic extremists as well, such as the extremists in the Republican Party who voted planks into the party’s platform in three states calling for recriminalization of sodomy?
It isn’t much of a step, but GOProud is, after all, a group you appear to support, so it might be a place to start.
posted by Cindy on
I’m certainly no fan of HRC and find their early endorsement rather ridiculous. However, if the best our side can do is GOProud, then it’s no wonder HRC has more influence. GOProud seems more interested in snarky attacks on the so-called “gay left” than on really making a difference in shifting the GOP from its anti-gay platform.
posted by Tom on
GOProud is pretty useless as a change agent, I agree. But with any luck, Cindy, GOProud will be replaced by Republican groups that support equality, and are committed to returning the party to the principles embraced earlier in the struggle for equal rights under the law. The Republican Party has to change because the country is changing around it.
posted by Cindy on
Exactly, Tom. Now that’s very encouraging. We need more of this and less HRCs and GOProuds.
posted by Tom on
In the 80s, it often endorsed GOP congressional candidates and stayed out of the presidential race entirely in order not to be seen as partisan. But after the liberal firestorm following the reelection endorsement for GOP Sen. Al D’Amato (who supported ENDA and letting gays serve in the military) agaisnt a liberal Democrat, the funders laid down the law — HRC was to be an adjunct of the DNC, period.
Well, that’s one explanation, and there is some truth to it. But Stephen and Steve both ignore a more important fact: The Republican Party in 2011 is a very different Republican Party than it was in 1980.
Who in today’s party would vote for and sign non-discrimination legislation against gays and lesbians, like Wisconsin Republicans and Governor Dreyfus did in 1982? Who in today’s party would stand up for gays and lesbians in the face of the religious right, like Ronald Reagan did in 1978?
Stephen and Steve, you a thumping on an empty drum. You are asking HRC to do the impossible — reform the Republican Party for you when you won’t do it yourself. If you don’t like the fact that HRC PAC doesn’t endorse Gary Johnson or Jon Huntsman, why don’t you get to work and get GOProud to endorse one or both? You can bet that GOProud won’t do it, and that’s the real you have, not the HRC PAC. Your gay and lesbian 527 wouldn’t touch such an endorsement.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Tom keeps whining about how everyone else other than him needs to change.
Not surprising, when one remembers what Tom supports and endorses.
Related. Gay Patriot points out that the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has awarded its best blog distinction to Joe Jervis, a blogger who likes to compare gay conservatives to Nazi collaborators (e.g., calling GOProud, which broke the barrier against openly gay groups at the Conservative Political Action Conference, “kapo bootlickers”). Nice, eh.
So again, we have Tom and his fellow gays and lesbians calling Republicans Nazis, insisting they want to put all gays in concentration camps, and branding conservative and Republican gays traitors, Uncle Toms, and collaborators.
An objective observer would spot immediately that Tom is an irrational bigot who is making insane and hateful claims — and who clearly wants anyone who would disprove his hateful claims to be silenced.
That’s why you lost this fall, Tom. People got sick of you and your fellow HRC/GLAAD bigots calling them Nazis, sick of you whining about “homophobia”, and sick of you demanding respect when your behavior demonstrates anything but.
Behave like a human being worthy of respect and you may get some. Continue to support GLAAD, HRC, and other groups who call Republicans racists, Nazis, and the like, and you’ll continue to get exactly what you deserve.
posted by Jerry on
That one position in 78 by Reagan in no way excuses the lack of care for people who were dying while he was President. When questioned in 85 about AIDS he claimed he had been working vigorously his entire term on the problem and that was a flat out lie. The first budget item for AIDS didn’t happen till 83 and it was a paltry $12million. In 85 he claimed he had put $125million in the budged. That too was a lie. His budget request was for a bit more than $60million, Congress bumped it to 94 million and Alan Simpson got an amendment knocking it back to 71 million .
posted by Tom on
That one position in 78 by Reagan in no way excuses the lack of care for people who were dying while he was President.
As the religious right became an established constituency of the Republican Party — Barry Goldwater warned about the result, which we are now seeing, and President Reagan paid no attention, preferring the votes — the Republican Party became captive. Lack of AIDS funding wasn’t the half of it.
I don’t know where Reagan was personally on the question — I’m not sure anyone knows — but he sure as hell wasn’t going to fight the religious right.
posted by Amicus on
In the 80s, it often endorsed GOP congressional candidates…
—–
Is that accurate?
I don’t recall HRC actually starting to endorse candidates until very late 80s…
posted by Tom on
Steve Endean established the “Human Rights Campaign Fund” in 1980 as a PAC, to raise money for gay-supportive congressional candidates. I don’t know whether HRCF formally endorsed the candidates it financial supported or not. PACs typically endorse and contribute as a single step, but I don’t know what HRCF’s practice was in those days.
posted by Tom on
The backlash to the D’Amato endorsement (over Chuck Schumer!) was a factor, but control over the LGBT movement by Democratic party operatives has been a long march.
The link that you posted, Stephen, is fascinating, because it illustrates the fork in the road that both the HRC and the Republican Party took after the religious right began its long march toward dominance the Republican Party.
The focus of the article, is, of course, the HRC decision to endorse a moderate Republican incumbent and the aftermath of that decision.
But the article also foreshadows the mess that the Republican Party currently finds itself with respect to equality issues. Notice the following:
In today’s political environment, Republican candidates routinely walk hand-in-hand with far-right social conservative groups — it is expected, like union support for Democratic candidates, so nobody pays too much attention to it, and elections are decided on other issues, for the most part.
But look back a few years, and you see a different picture.
In those days, it was still relatively common for Republicans like D’Amato to have decent voting records on equality issues, and it Republican support for hard-core social conservative politicians, groups and issues still had shock value for moderate Republican and independent voters, shock value that could cost an election as it did in these two cases.
That hasn’t been the case in recent years.
posted by Houndentenor on
I remember all this quite well. Believe it or not there was concern in 1998 that the GOP could wind up with a supermajority in the Senate. Actually what happened (and it took everyone by surprise) was that the Democrats did quite well in 1998 without the party running much of a campaign (they didn’t see the point at the time). (This is often attributed to the fact that most voters did not think the Clinton/Lewinsky matter deserved as much attention as it was getting from Congress. People may agree or disagree with that now, but that’s what the polling showed at the time.) So, there was concern that a vote for D’Amato was the equivalent of handing Trent Lott a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Absurd in hind sight I suppose but it was a real concern at the time. And, as we have learned, a committee chair or majority leader can block bills that would pass quite easily if they were to come up for a vote.
posted by Jorge on
The only reason I know any of that is because I loved Clinton.
posted by Hunter on
Jorge — “Surely you mean application of the 14th amendment to marriage. I, for one, think civil unions pass constitutional muster.” (For some reason, I wasn’t getting a reply button on that comment.)
I have a response to that one: Brown vs. Board of Education. Separate is not equal, especially when the separate institution creates a de facto class difference, which is what civil unions do. That’s not just my opinion — New Jersey took the time to study the issue and came up with the answer that civil unions are not equal. And the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the term “marriage” itself carries a social weight that cannot be equaled by any other term. (Any anthropologist could have told them that.) Civil unions are a convenient first step to give people time to get used to the idea of legal same-sex unions, and that’s all.
posted by Monday Links - Big Tent Revue on
[…] Stephen Miller goes after the Human Rights Campaign for endorsing President Obama a year and a half before the […]
posted by TomJefferson on
One of the problems is that is actually very difficult to “move” a major political party forward on gay rights. ..beyond what gay Democrats and gay Republicans are already doing. Within the LGBT community we get disagreements about whether some issues are gay issues (based on political beliefs and affiliations) and major party candidates are often picked by primaries and conventions where it is very, very, very difficult for a Republican (beyond certain situations) to be a serious candidate and not be anti-gay. Heck, I just learned that a gay Republican is running for president. Interesting? Yes. Does he say many things I would agree with? Yes. Does have a snow ball chance in heck? Nope. Yes, money MIGHT help encourage gay or gay-friendly candidates to run but how many people are going to raise/give say, $10,000 to a group that plans on giving half to gay-friendly Democrats and half to gay-friendly Republicans? Also, as an Independent I tend to find it odd how Independent and minor party candidates are frequently ignored (in terms of endorsements of fundraising)