Washington Blade editor Chris Chrain on Howard Dean's "gay lapdogs":
Rather than actually defend gay families and make the case for gay marriage, [the Human Rights Campaign] is stuck in a three-year strategy of arguing that the American people don't-and shouldn't!-care about marriage equality for gay couples.
"Voters want candidates focused on soaring gas prices, a health care crisis and national security," [HRC head Joe] Solmonese says in the release, "not putting discrimination in the United States Constitution."
What sort of gay rights strategy is it, when the attention of Americans is focused on our issues, to argue that our rights aren't important, and refuse to engage our opponents in the debate over our equality?
It only makes sense if your foremost mission is to be Democratic Party operatives, and certainly not to advance the fight for gay equality on a nonpartisan basis.
In response to Crain, the Blade ran an op-ed by Mark Kvare of the National Stonewall Democrats, who warns that we by gosh better not make Howard mad:
If I'm Dean, chair of the party, I just got a lot less interested in putting myself out there in the future for a community that turns on me...the moment I enter hostile territory in an attempt to expand our electoral chances.
I guess all those gay dollars and hours of volunteer labor don't actually count for much, do they? Criticize Dean for sucking up to Pat Robertson and you risk being punished like the ungrateful uppity outsiders you are.
37 Comments for “Lap It Up.”
posted by Lori Heine on
Let’s face it. The Left has an agenda, and we are only interesting to them as long as we are willing to help it along.
If there ever was any credibility to the Democrats’ claim that they stood for human rights on general principle, their attitude since the 2004 election has blown that away. They have scapegoated gays for Kerry’s having lost to Bush (couldn’t be HIS fault, now, could it?), and they are so totally bereft of any principles that now they’ve decided we’re a liability and they’re ready to sacrifice us on the altar of political expediency.
They think all Republicans are one-dimensional bigots, so they think all they have to do is out-bigot the GOP candidates and they will start winning elections again. How pathetic.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Here is what I sent to Mr. Kvare. Stonewall needs to feel our outrage.
From: Rick Rosendall [mailto:rick.rosendall@glaa.org]
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 8:37 AM
To: ‘kvareCA@yahoo.com’
Subject: Column in the Blade
Mr. Kvare,
I think your column in today?s Washington Blade slamming Howard Dean?s gay critics is particularly foolish. How can the legitimate criticism of his deliberate betrayal be called an ?ambush?? Dean?s appearance on the 700 Club was not merely ?an attempt to expand our electoral chances,? but a deliberate pander to right-wing fundamentalists whom the Democrats desperately need to stand up to. Yes, of course we need to reach out to and persuade large numbers of people in middle America, but that requires responding to the lies of nutbags and bigots like Pat Robertson, not kissing their behinds. To be sure, it is crucial that we not allow the radical right to get away with claiming the rhetorical high ground on faith, flag, and family, but doing what Dean did does not challenge them at all. Dismissing what you call his misstatement about an irrelevant party document misses the point by a mile. Dean did not misspeak, he lied. He went to the 700 Club to do it, a broadcast led by one of our worst enemies, and anti-Semite and business partner with thuggish African dictators who likes to threaten gay-tolerant cities with hurricanes. If a Democratic Party worthy of support is going to defeat the radical-right-dominated GOP, it has to be by refuting their message, not by embracing it.
Paul Yandura?s criticisms of Dean were entirely correct, and if you would really dump your partner in a similar situation you would be making a mockery of a committed, loving relationship which Paul has with Donald Hitchcock.
Gays need to fight back and stop being lapdogs for the Democratic Party. Of course we need to take a strategic approach on the subject of our equal marriage rights, but that doesn?t mean rewarding people who are not just being careful but are running away from us and refusing to defend us against the GOP?s cynical election-year efforts to distract voters from its own shortcomings by stirring up anti-gay panics in state after state. We cannot win by hiding. There is no way that those who are speaking up quite rightly about Dean?s betrayal (and yes, that is what it was) deserve your attack.
Rick Rosendall
Washington, D.C.
posted by Anthony on
Let’s be frank here – both parties are always searching for votes. It comes down to certain principles and priorities for each of us. I’ve stated mine over and over again. Being gay is one facet of who and what I am. Yes, I struggle with squaring my sexual orientation with my politics. But I also know that I can be pro-marriage, pro-Employment Non-Discrimination Act, pro-hate crimes legislation, anti-Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, anti-bans on gay adoption, etc. and still be a Republican because there are a host of other issues that are just as important to me. Tom gave me some terrific advice the other day by suggesting ways to deal with the paradox I and others face. To leave the GOP for me is not an option. It is my political home. To stand up and fight for certain things inside the party interests me far more than walking away. The Dems offer me nothing as an alternative, other than colorful web sites devoted to gays and nice, flowery language in their platform. It all comes back to what each person values most and where they seek to have those values validated or at least debated.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Anthony wrote: “To stand up and fight for certain things inside the party interests me far more than walking away.”
Amen. Any gay Democrats who still cannot understand the importance and value of gay Republicans staying in their party and fighting from within, even after the recent behavior of Howard Dean and the DNC, are deliberately blinding themselves. Given the internecine warfare that we are now seeing within the GOP, Log Cabin and other gay Republicans have new reason for hope.
posted by Anthony on
Thanks Richard. I sometimes wonder if most of the folks posting in here are what Rush Limbaugh terms “seminar callers” or in this case “seminar posters,” in other words people who claim to be of a like-minded partisan mindset but who really seek to cause division and ridicule those they purport to stand with. My politics were shaped long before I dealt with my sexual orientation. My values, principles and gut-level beliefs are still the same. Yes, I favor marriage for gays, I support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, adding sexual orientation to the list of hate crimes punishable by law, adoption and foster parenting rights, so and so forth. But I can battle for those things as an individual inside the Republican Party, which, in spite of its current struggles, still represents the vast majority of my views. Becoming a Democrat is a false choice. Joining the Libertarians is throwing away my vote. Declaring myself an independent may sound good but makes little sense in the two-party system that will always thrive in America. I chose a side back in 1984 as a junior in high school and remain there to this day. You can question that or attempt to challenge my core beliefs but you will not succeed in changing them. I am a Republican for a whole host of reasons. Being gay is part of it, actually, because I believe gays are most likely to benefit from lower taxes to start businesses, etc. There is much to be said for battling the far-right on marriage, immigration and the like and I’m a-okay with that. But to insist that we just throw in the towel and give up on our deeply held attachment to our party is unfair and counterproductive in my judgment.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Think of your vote as something you exchange, something of value.
What have Democrats or Republicans done to earn your vote? I’m not talking “let’s face it, only one of them can win” or “they’re not as bad as so-and-so.” I’m talking doing some tangible things which you can actually support, which you value, which link to your beliefs and priorities (whatever they are).
If they don’t work to earn your precious vote, why give it to them? Give it to someone who has earned it through his campaign philosophy, taking a stand, and mapping to your most important priorities.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Joining the Libertarians is throwing away my vote.”
Anthony, a growing number of people disagree with you. We believe that an expectation like that can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Republican Party was once a third party. I’m sure many people used the same excuse for not joining it. You yourself must count it as fortunate that enough people did not share your attitude with regard to the GOP. If they had, it would probably not exist today.
Too many people in this country have their heads stuck in the 20th Century. This is a new century, presenting new challenges.
When I look at President Bush, I do not see an evil man. I see a man who, for the sake of political expediency, has ruined himself morally. He sold himself to the Far Right to get elected, and realized only too late that once you’ve sold your soul, the devil doesn’t give it back.
The devil now controls both the Democratic and the Republic Parties. I personally do not find it an acceptable compromise to merely work for change within the devil’s dominion.
posted by Anthony on
Lori – your comments about the devil controlling both parties only solidifies my argument against becoming a Libertarian. Making statements of that magnitude in which you broadbrush an entire party (which includes an array of opinions and stances on various issues)gives folks like myself reason to stop and think about why we’re sticking with our party – but not for the reason you’d hope. Leftists, the far-right, the Green Party and yes, the Libertarians, are all slivers of the two major parties, emphasis on the term SLIVERS. They represent small segments of the Republican and Democratic parties. It’s that simple. Lori, you may choose not to work for the issues you care about through the “devil’s dominion,” as you put it, but plenty of us believe that while there are some bad seeds, overall the two-party system works. There are so many variations of Republicans and Democrats and that’s what makes it so important to fight the battles internally. Until your guys can prove themselves to be more than dissatisfied malcontents the vast majority of Americans will reject this so-called “other” choice. I, for one, have no intention of putting my talents, money and beliefs into an organization that has no electoral track record, other than one member of Congress from Texas whose impact has been muted at best.
posted by Michael S on
When I saw him sucking up to Robertson, I saw him as the consumate hack politician he is, and decided to distrust every one of them. He visits my home town on Fire Island every summer where the gay residents fawning over him in admiration. Still, he’d have made a better President than Bush.
posted by Anthony on
Ah yes, Fire Island – the bedrock of Americana. It is hardly the place one could point to for validation of reality. Sorry, but the previous post just reminded me of why my partner and I are happy to live in a red state, with our family close by and our friends too. When are gay people going to wake up and realize that anger and bitterness are most unbecoming?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“When are gay people going to wake up and realize that anger and bitterness are most unbecoming?”
Should I point out… nah. Too obvious. The irony is there for all to see.
posted by Anthony on
Yes the irony is that you have convinced yourself that you have something to contribute to ANY conversation.
posted by Anthony on
Got a suggestion for the so-called independent northeast liberal-atarian: if you haven’t already created a blog then do so as soon as possible. Your desperate need to refute literally everything I post here suggests that you lack the fortitude to speak your own thoughts and can only react to others. Hmmm – sounds a lot like a liberal to me.
posted by kittynboi on
Being gay is one facet of who and what I am.
Perhaps it is to you, but there are many anti-gay people out there who won’t see it like that. They won’t see you as a gay conservative who is conservative on this or that issue. They won’t see past you being gay at all. And those people seek power.
Your desperate need to refute literally everything I post here suggests that you lack the fortitude to speak your own thoughts and can only react to others.
If you dislike him refuting and questioning your posts, then the only way to keep him from doing so is to stop posting.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Your desperate need to refute literally everything I post here suggests that you lack the fortitude to speak your own thoughts”
It’s neither desperate nor a driving need — I’m simply trying to point out that you sound exactly like the liberals you claim to oppose. All slogans, double-standards and a lack of interest in dialogue or discussion. Your earlier bashing of Lori and her excellent points on the Libertarian Party are evidence of that. . . your suggestion that we’re just a sliver of the Republicans was particularly laughable. When have Republicans ever reduced the role of government in the lives of ordinary people?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Perhaps it is to you, but there are many anti-gay people out there who won’t see it like that. They won’t see you as a gay conservative who is conservative on this or that issue. They won’t see past you being gay at all. And those people seek power.
Two words: Who cares?
If someone is dumb enough to see only homosexuality, that’s their problem. Kind of like the Democrats Steve rightly skewers in this post who look at nothing other than party affiliation to determine who is and who isn’t a “Jewish Nazi”.
As polls clearly show, the vast majority of Americans support some — not all — aspects of gay rights. Yet the gay community constantly repeats the, “Everyone hates you, nobody loves you, get your ass down and support our unrelated leftist causes and write checks to the Democrats” rhetoric. It’s about bloody time we acknowledged the reality and started ALLOWING gays to have multiple opinions, instead of the mindless demands for conformity of the gay left — and quit blaming everyone else for the fact that they think we’re out-of-touch leftist assholes.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“If someone is dumb enough to see only homosexuality, that’s their problem.”
Well, until they join with other authoritarian sorts and pass laws to deprive you of your right to contract, etc. because you’re gay.
posted by Anthony on
Kitty, you are positively correct. Stopping my posts would keep others from replying to them. Wasting my time and energy in here engaged in silly, petty and pointless “discussions” with people who clearly have far too much time on their hands is just that – a waste. Thanks for the advice. I will gladly take it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, until they join with other authoritarian sorts and pass laws to deprive you of your right to contract, etc. because you’re gay.
LOL…..NL, at one point in time you pointed out rationally that a major problem with gay rights was that too many unrelated and pointless issues had attached themselves to it.
The polls show that the vast majority of Americans are not opposed to some form of legal protections for gays and gay couples. Perhaps you ought to consider that those people who are “joining with” are not voting against gay rights per se; they’re voting against support for terrorism, higher taxes, punishing corporations, unlimited abortion and removal of parental rights, and the other lamprey causes with which gay rights are associated.
posted by Anthony on
One parting thought: Does anyone in here, particularly the lefties and quasi-lefties, do anything to advance their causes and issues? Or is it all about screaming and shouting, bitching and moaning? There are countless gay people working in government agencies, elected offices, on Capitol Hill, etc. doing things DAILY to contribute. What can you all say for yourselves?
posted by Anthony on
ND30 – I do admire your tenacity and sense of purpose and I agree with the vast majority of your points. But why waste your time arguing with people who are just as obsessed with self-victimization as those on the whacko left? Surely you deserve better, I know I do. 🙂
posted by kittynboi on
Thanks for the advice. I will gladly take it.
9_9
Is this your response to all criticism on here? You just storm off in a huff only to come back later? It’s not just here. IF you have such a problem with people responding too and picking apart your claims, then perhaps political discussion, especially on the internet, is not something you should be taking part in.
posted by Ed Brown on
“It’s about bloody time we acknowledged the reality and started ALLOWING gays to have multiple opinions.”
So then, shall I expect your generous check to Ballot Access News and Fair Vote?
posted by Ed Brown on
BTW, What the HRC said is likely truthful. Most Americans likely DO care more about the GOP bungling of gas prices, a health care crisis and national security. Also most polls seem to show little support for a federal amendment
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So then, shall I expect your generous check to Ballot Access News and Fair Vote?
No, because the Constitution already outlines what I feel is a perfectly adequate and intelligent process for getting people on the ballot. It’s not my fault that your candidates lack the ability to appeal to enough people to get there.
Most Americans likely DO care more about the GOP bungling of gas prices, a health care crisis and national security.
Quite possibly. But what HRC is doing is tying gay rights to the Democratic solution which, since it is based on massive tax increases on working people, punishing businesses, and vastly increasing governmental spending and controls, is not going to fly with voters.
Once again, HRC is allowing itself to be used as cover for unpopular leftist causes — and gay rights will continue to suffer.
posted by Lori Heine on
Anthony — “broadbrushing” a party, and simply being realistic about how it operates, are two totally different animals.
American politics have become another Cold War, where a policy of mutually-assured destruction rules. We have our own little nuclear arms race going on here. Each “side” wants to gain near-absolute power over the other. It must tyrannize everyone in order to keep from being tyrannized by its “enemies.”
THIS is the most powerful argument for the Libertarian option. Which may be our only chance to bring some civility and mutual respect back to the political system. If we don’t do this, within another few decades we may no longer have a country to save.
I’m tired of hearing the “waaah, poor us, we don’t have any options” crowd. You people are bellyaching while Rome burns. That “sliver” of which Anthony speaks IS only a sliver precisely because people like him will not vote for it, work for it and help to empower it in every possible way.
At the end of my life, I believe my Maker will ask me what I did with my vote. “He” isn’t going to ask me what other people did with theirs. Whining about how unrealistic the best option is — simply because, at the moment, it may be unrealistic — is the one way of making sure that it so remains.
posted by Randy R. on
I, for one, am proud to be a liberal in most senses of the word. Hence, I usually vote Democratic. And I support the Dems at election time, and I even vote for people like Kerry, who was against gay marriage. Now, many people have castigated Dems for not doing much for gays, and point to Kerry as exhibit No. 1. But then they also state that being gay is only part of their make up.
Well, you can’t have it both ways. Have you ever considered the fact that I voted for Kerry despite his stance on gays, and that I supported his view on most other issues? And that many gays viewed Kerry as the lesser of the two evils?
Having said that, you might be surprised that I was a dues-paying member of the Log Cabin Republicans for several years. Why? Because, like Rick Rosendall, I believe that gay rights will only be won when people from BOTH sides of the aisle agree to it. We cannot rely upon only Dems or Reps to give us our rights, simply because if we rely on only on party, that party will surely take us for granted.
So, to answer Anthony, that just some of the things that I do to try to get us our rights. I confront lots of people, both liberal and conservative, to engage them in the debate. I donate money. I am an out as possible so that people will see that gays are not some abstract notion, but a real person. I try to hold myself up to the highest standards so that no one can any blame bad behavior on my sexual orientation. I am active in quite a few gay organizations, and I even started a gay literary series so that gay people can come to gether to support the book industry that is supporting us. I write letters to newspapers. I post on anti-gay websites. I do whatever I can to get gay people involved and be part of the debate.
posted by Randy R. on
Question: Had a anti-gay speaker been invited to give the commencement address, would you all argue that the students at the New School should have sat there politely and listened carefully? HOw about a Holocaust denier? Someone arguing for intelligent design to be taught in the schools? I suppose the students should have listened because, afterall, they might learn something.
My point: How disagreeable does a speech or a speaker have to be before you all agree it’s okay to stand up and protest? Stand up and heckle?
posted by Frank on
How about a consideration that having government involved in a religious-based ceremony is simply unconstitutional? Therefore, ANY marriage would officially unrecognized?
posted by Frank on
How about a consideration that having government involved in a religious-based ceremony is simply unconstitutional? Therefore, ANY marriage would officially unrecognized?
posted by Scott on
I read the posts above and came to the conclusion that Randy is truly disturbed. The guy needs some help. Just because someone, I believe his name is Anthony, poses a hypothetical question about what someone does or doesn’t do for gays doesn’t mean Randy has to go off on some sermon about what all he’s involved. I know plenty of folks who devote all their time to one group or organization but aren’t grounded in their lives. On the point about the Libertarians I’ve researched them and find nothing that makes their views appealing to me and you know why? Because if they gained power they’d be no different from the two major parties. They’d have factions and not always be dedicated to their platform. It’s silly to think they’d be different.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Have you ever considered the fact that I voted for Kerry despite his stance on gays, and that I supported his view on most other issues?
Of course.
But you see, Randy, the problem is that that logic is only allowable when you vote for Democrats. People who use it for Republicans get called “self-loathing”, “Jewish Nazis”, “kapos”, and numerous other charming phrases.
I suppose the students should have listened because, afterall, they might learn something.
NOW you’re getting the picture. 🙂
And Scott, I don’t think it’s fair for you to brand someone as “mentally disturbed” based on their blog posts.
posted by Lori Heine on
“On the point about the Libertarians I’ve researched them and find nothing that makes their views appealing to me and you know why? Because if they gained power they’d be no different from the two major parties. They’d have factions and not always be dedicated to their platform. It’s silly to think they’d be different.”
Scott, that tells us nothing about their views. All it tells us is that you take a defeatist attitude about getting anything whatsoever done in American politics.
This country has come to resemble a gigantic junior high school, in which each of us is obsessed over what “everybody” is doing and thinking. Well, personal integrity is about doing what you or I believe is right — not about milling around, amid the herd, and waiting to see which direction “everybody” is going to take us.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“personal integrity is about doing what you or I believe is right”
And Lori hits the nail on the head!
Much of the debate on this site is defending people and politics who the defenders know, deep down, are wrong and immoral. However, the “other side” is so unbelievably evil that they must be stopped!
Thus you get the supreme ironies of left-leaning sorts complaining about GOP plans to grow government and the deficit, and right-leaning sorts complaining about “intolerance” on the left. Such arguments are enabled not out of a bona fide belief in small government or tolerance, but in an all-consuming need to prevent “those guys” from winning and destroying everything.
Libertarians, on the other hand, realize that our national crisis has been created by both old parties. We offer a better way, one which isn’t compromised by the unprincipled and hypocritical Demopublican politics. Some don’t believe it’s possible, some believe they can “make change” in one of the old parties, some think that resistance is futile. Libertarians know that all of those positions are akin to polishing one’s own chains.
posted by Ed Brown on
“Libertarians…offer a better way”
Let us see, Harry Browne’s book felt that America was pretty close to the libertarian ideal pre-1950’s…..Nuff said.
posted by Scott on
Keep whining Lori and Northeast Libertarian. You’re only insuring that your party is going to stay on the fringe, which is where the two of you clearly are as well. (YAWN)
posted by Scott on
Oh good grief, why do we have to be so careful and politically correct? I said that I thought Randy was disturbed and now he’s got a defender in ND30 suggesting that I said he was “mentally ill.” PULLLLLEEEEAAAZZZEEEEEE!Is this a therapy session for losers or what?