Chuck Wolfe, outgoing president of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, in an interview with Metro Weekkly, has some decent things to say about the need to support LGBT candidates in both parties, such as “if I have an opportunity to put an openly gay person or an out lesbian in the Republican caucus who can speak up inside that caucus meeting I’m going to do it.” But then he reaffirms the Victory Fund’s litmus test to only endorse candidates who are thoroughly pro-choice on abortion, which has eliminated a good many gay Republicans from receiving Victory Fund support.
And, of course, the Victory Fund bent knee to LGBT left and union activists by refusing to support San Diego’s Carl DeMaio this year in his race for Congress, which he narrowly lost after LGBT Democrats unleashed a slew of last-minute dirty tricks.
No surprise there, since former George W. Bush press secretary Dana Perino revealed that in DeMaio’s 2008 race for San Diego mayor, “The Victory Fund not only declined to endorse DeMaio, it’s common knowledge in San Diego that it then gave his confidential campaign information to the Democrats and bragged about it.”
Sorry, Chuck, but bipartisanship doesn’t mean soliciting money from gay Republicans as well as Democrats. Either you’re bipartisan in offering support to qualified candidates who can win, or you’re not, and Victory Fund isn’t.
15 Comments for “The Victory Fund’s Spurious ‘Bipartisanship’”
posted by Mark Peterson on
The Victory Fund endorsed both Republicans Tisei and Innis.
As for DeMaio, according to the AP: “The organization said DeMaio never sought its endorsement, which is a necessary first step to getting it.” (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/gay-candidate-faces-criticism-opposing-camps-0)
So Victory Fund is to be criticized for not endorsing someone who never asked the organization for its endorsement?
posted by Houndentenor on
Thank you for pointing this out. Stephen keeps claiming that the Victory Fund did something wrong by not endorsing DeMaio but most organizations do not endorse candidates that didn’t ask for an endorsement. No political group wants an embarrassment like when the Dole campaign sent back the check from Log Cabin Republicans in 1996.
posted by craig123 on
If DeMaoi didn’t seek the VF endorsement, might it be because they gave his campaign info to his Democratic opponent in his earlier mayoral race? Gee, you think?
I know credible Republicans who have run for Congress and not gotten the VF endorsement because they were not liberal enough on non-gay issues. Abortion funding is the litmus test they are open about, but on other issues, too. VF didn’t endorse David Catania in his winning run for the DC council as a Republican (he later became an independent and has gotten VF support).
But sure, very liberal GOP candidates will get the sop — good to show the rich GOP donors!
posted by Jason Burns on
Actually as someone who has supported David Catania for longtime I can tell you that Victory has always supported David in every single race – including his Mayoral bid.
posted by Houndentenor on
Thank you for providing information. Correction, craig?
posted by craig123 on
Not true! Do your homework before you comment. He was NOT endorsed by VF in his first winning race for Council in 1997. I was there!
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If DeMaoi didn’t seek the VF endorsement, might it be because they gave his campaign info to his Democratic opponent in his earlier mayoral race? Gee, you think?
Evidence, please? The accusation that the Victory Fund turned over confidential information from has become gospel among so-called “libertarian” Republicans
The source of the accusation is Carl DeMaio himself, and he has never offered a shred of evidence to back it up. Nor has anyone else, including the oft-quoted Dana Perino, who Stephen cites in his post.
The Victory Fund has categorically denied DeMaio’s accusation.
The story has become gospel in the “libertarian” echo chamber, but that doesn’t mean that it has any substance.
posted by Houndentenor on
Also, I find these “blame the messenger” tactics of political campaigns revolting. An accusation either has merit or it doesn’t. If it’s true, why does the source matter? Shame on all of us for allowing lies and distortions to dominate our politics and defending them when they suit our own purposes.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
What is there to say that hasn’t been said, again and again and again, on this topic?
Midterm Election Reflection by Stephen H. Miller on November 5, 2014;
Strange Bedfellows by Stephen H. Miller on October 29, 2014;
Politics as Blood Sport by Stephen H. Miller on October 9, 2014;
Anti-Gay Groups Favor Democrats to Pro-Gay Republicans by Stephen H. Miller on September 27, 2014;
Dinner with Log Cabin Republicans by Stephen H. Miller on September 17, 2014;
Primary Night by Stephen H. Miller on September 10, 2014;
The GOP’s Cultural Contradictions by Stephen H. Miller on June 15, 2014;
Marriage-Go-Round by Stephen H. Miller on May 21, 2014;
Conservatives for Gay Equality Is a Good Thing by Stephen H. Miller on May 7, 2014;
DeMaio’s Fight by Stephen H. Miller on April 28, 2014;
Small Steps Forward Are Still Steps Forward by Stephen H. Miller on March 31, 2014;
Coming Round by Stephen H. Miller on March 26, 2014;
Gay Republicans Who Might Win Drive LGBT Democrats Berserk by Stephen H. Miller on March 9, 2014;
New Times, Old Times by Stephen H. Miller on February 12, 2014;
To Change the GOP, Support Openly Gay Republicans (because HRC won’t) by Stephen H. Miller on December 7, 2013;
At Least He’s Not a Gay Republican by Stephen H. Miller on July 12, 2013; and
Gay Republican Could Make Credible Run for Congress by Stephen H. Miller on May 3, 2013.
Nonetheless, just for the record:
I’ll grant you that Carl DeMaio represents the best that the so-called “libertarian” faction of the Republican Party has to offer, but he wasn’t born in a manger, and he didn’t he offer salvation to gays and lesbians in the Republican Party. DeMaio is a clever politician, who dealt with gay and lesbian issues symbolically by marching with his non-husband in a parade and mentioning him in campaign literature in order to deflect attention from his record on gay and lesbian issues, but (unlike two “openly gay” Republicans who were not supported by the so-called “libertarian” noise machine, Dan Innes and Richard Tisei) showed no stomach for taking the fight to social conservatives in the party.
And, if I may dare to ask, in this day and age what is so special about being “openly gay”? It is relevant only because the Republican Party remains a political environment in which it notable for a politician to be “openly gay” as opposed to closeted. As DeMaio, who ran as a self-described “new generation Republican” urging the Republican party to focus on the economy and government efficiency and stay away from divisive social issues, demonstrated, it doesn’t translate into change in the party’s political environment. “We just won’t talk about the issue …” doesn’t advance the ball.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Hey Stephen, do you read the comments threads to your posts? Or are you content to just plop some shopworn post time and again and just toddle along? Pal, you’re getting owned left and right on comment thread after comment thread. Join in with us, have the courage of your convictions and don’t be afraid to butt heads. What’s the matter? Are you afraid of being corrected by people who actually know what they’re talking about?
posted by Don on
I think Carl is not as deft a politician as some give him credit. While he did run some clever moves and did pretty well overall, his campaign ended up being one of the biggest shit shows in America. I’m not down with the idea that it was a dirty trick. DeMaio’s responses were too bizarre. And to have the police chief ducking and dodging questions about his factual assertions? How was that a liberal gay conspiracy? When a candidate has a bizarre and terrible response to a scandal, it’s not the other side’s fault. He stunk twice as bad as a result. Think Clinton debating “is.” When the defense is that weak, it makes you sound guilty and incompetent.
Did liberal gays make his campaign manager quit and turn against him in the middle of the campaign? If there is an operative alive who can pull that kind of stunt off, s/he can name their price for running any campaign in the country. I think Lee Atwater and Karl Rove would admit that one simply isn’t possible.
Still, DeMaio managed to almost win. And he had a mountain of bad press and poorly handled accusations lobbed against him. I think that proves Gingrich’s point about Republicans: they will vote for whoever gets their party’s nomination. and the vast majority of them will turn out to the polls whether they like their candidate or not.
If we can get more conservative gays in primaries and actually win them, THAT is the way to changing the party.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If we can get more conservative gays in primaries and actually win them, THAT is the way to changing the party.
If we can get more conservative gays who support equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians in primaries and actually win them, THAT is the way to changing the party.
posted by Houndentenor on
Or just candidates who support equal treatment under the law for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trans people, be they gay or otherwise. Again, I had planned on voting in the GOP primary here in Texas last spring but after researching the candidates they were all (and for every office on my ballot) absolutely heinous on a host of issues including gay rights so I voted in the Democratic primary instead. Meanwhile this happened:
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/local_gop_vows_to_defeat_any_republican_who_supports_giving_special_rights_to_homosexuals
posted by Kosh III on
“If we can get more conservative gays in primaries and actually win them, THAT is the way to changing the party.”
Ummm, not quite. they also need to be willing and able to speak out AND work for true equality and vigorously oppose the bigots in the GOP. It hasn’t happened yet.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Two quick update on the legal front:
(1) The Supreme Court has now scheduled all five pending petitions for cert (four from the 6th Circuit and one from the district court ruling in Louisiana) for consideration at the January 9 conference. It is looking increasingly likely that the Court will decide on marriage equality this term.
(2) The Florida situation remains murky. Although the Supreme Court refused to extend the January 5 stay, a number of county clerks are apparently planning to heed legal advice from the county clerks’ association’s counsel, and wait to issue marriage licenses until under order to so so from a court of competent jurisdiction. It is starting to look like marriage equality will come to Florida on January 6, but perhaps not to all of Florida.