A damning critique of the now fully partisan Human Rights Campaign, via Chris Crain, referencing this laudatory Boston Globe story. Comments Crain:
How has the hijacking of HRC by Democrats worked out so far? For one, HRC took money out of the fight against ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage, even when they would amend state constitutions. "[HRC leadder Joe] Solmonese said the group decided after the losses of 2004 that they could be more effective by focusing on candidates instead of ballot initiatives," the Globe reported.
So instead, HRC sank money and support in favor of Democratic Party priorities, like winning a majority in the New Hampshire state Senate. In fact, the Globe reports, HRC was the single largest donor on New Hampshire state Senate races. How exactly does that move gay Americans closer to equality?
The effect of the new HRC strategy is to put all the gay movement's marbles in the Democratic Party basket, even though from Bill Clinton and John Kerry on down, the party has almost never taken a political risk for its gay constituents. The Globe story compares the new HRC strategy as akin to that of labor unions. We can all see how powerful they aren't, after sinking themselves into a one-party, no message strategy.
Some lessons need to be learned over and over, it seems.
27 Comments for “Party Puppets.”
posted by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) on
Shameful. It’s time that the HRC drop it’s ‘false-flag’-claim of bi-partisanship and just openly admit it’s a Democratic Party PAC.
posted by jomicur on
I’ve been critical of HRC for years, over a lot more than partisanship. The fact that it represents a top-down, “do as we tell you” organization strikes me as even more problematic (remember the pointless Millennium March that they initiated then bailed out of when things got hot?). But Steve Miller is almost certainly suggesting that we put some of our “eggs” in the GOP’s basket, which makes no sense. Sad as it is, a party that MIGHT–just possibly–do something for us is preferable to one that clearly won’t. Like many other regulars here, I think the logical strategy for the gay community would be to help build support for a third party, presumably either Green or Libertarian. But there’s no chance HRC will ever do that. And if they did, I daresay Steve would be just as critical of them anyway.
posted by Antaeus on
Never discuss politix with kweens. They don’t know what they’re talking about!
posted by frozen cynic on
Bumpersticker from the 04 Presidential Campaign: “Why settle for the lesser evil: Cuthulu for President”
posted by Carl on
Yet, at the Washington Blade/Southern Voice/etc. chain of papers, Chris Crain hired and continued to employ for many months Jeff Gannon, who was a puppet of the GOP. He can’t have it both ways.
posted by ETJB on
More senseless partisan gimmicks from a gay conservative.
(1) Gay Americans have almost never won a state ballot initiative on gay rights issues, and we were not likely going to win the marriage ones so please dont lay that at the door of the HRC.
(2) The federal Republican Party leadership has made it clear that it has little interest in gay rights. Maybe that will change some day down the line, but that is the political reality that the HRC works in.
(3) Their is nothing to stop you from starting up your own interest group to raise money for gay Republicans that chase after barely legal interns, get us involved in bad wars and dont raise our taxes.
posted by ETJB on
Agreed. The hiring of Jeff Gannon undermines the credibility of the newspaper. Not because he is a conservative, and not because he is a Republican.
Gay conservatives often complain that the gay press is bias to the Democrats and left-wing, but this same press was more then willing to hire a Republican whoes major creds seem to be that he had a pulse and nice ass.
posted by Xeno on
Ummm… I’m confused. Where does the HRC get its money? Who actually donates to ineffictive political organizations?
posted by Xeno on
BTW that last question also includes religious extremist political organizations like Focus on the Family, “Family” Research Council, American “Family” Association, Traditional Values Coalition, and the rest of those nutjobs.
posted by Randy on
The HRC still doesnt’ know how to play in the big games. They should focus on lobbying for gay rights at the local and federal level, and not so much on political campaigns. And by lobbying, I mean building relationships with both Rs and Ds. why they don’t get this simple message, I don’t know.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
It’s time for HRC to come clean on its partisan activities and give up its false “bipartisan” piety.
Incidentally, comparing Crain’s decision to employ Gannon on a paper with diverse views to HRC’s dishonesty is ludicrous in the extreme (and thus par for the course for Democrats). The Washington Blade hired and employed a very diverse number of columnists ranging from conservative, to liberal, to libertarian — a wide range of views. That’s called “diversity,” something that Democrats claim to favor all the time.
Let’s have a look at HRC’s board now. Its president is a partisan Democrat, its board is filled with Democrats. It has no prominent conservative Republicans in high level management, no prominent Libertarians or Greens anywhere in the organization (despite the fact those parties both have much better records on gay rights than the Democrats), and no prominent independent members. Whatever happened to “diversity?”
Even worse, if you donated cash to HRC to fight for gay rights, a great deal of your cash went to fund Democratic candidates who voted in favor of anti-gay marriage initiatives, anti-gay adoption laws, and other policies that are unquestionably against gay people.
But such hypocrisy par for the course — not only for the Democratic Party and its minions, but also for the HRC. Kudos to Crain for using his platform as an independent voice to point it out.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
And before I forget, here’s a candidate who the HRC campaigned against in new Hampshire — Libertarian Party member Steve Villaincourt. Due to ballot restrictions against Libertarians in NH, he ran as a Democrat and switched to Republican status in order to remain on the ballot after the Democrats tried to oust him from their party. Now the Republicans are trying to get rid of him and re-establish control of the statehouse seat in Manchester, where he campaigns.
He is an outspoken proponent of gay rights, including gay marriage equality, and sat as a member on the committee that issued a report on gay marriage — blasting the report as a “homophobic document” and defending a gay statehouse rep who was attacked as a “faggot” on the house floor.
Did HRC endorse him or provide funds due to his strong support for equality? Nope. They endorsed his opponent — who was opposed to gay marriage (and supported a law banning gay marriage) but who favored “civil unions.”
If HRC had succeeded in their campaign against him, they would have destroyed the political career of one of NH gays’ biggest allies in order to advance the Democratic party agenda — and support an opponent of marriage equality.
posted by dalea on
AFAIK HRC is a group that depends on ‘elite’ gay men and liberal socialites for support. Last run in I had with them, the caller was selling tickets to some dinner they were having. Five hundred a seat, or something like that. Said I could not afford it. Caller said that almost no gays she had called could or would. But they filled the dinner anyway, with a few actual gay people and a whole bunch of liberal socialites.
Ever notice how there are virtually no HRC grassroot events? Like where people can just show up and do whatever. Instead, endless high end fundraisers and such like. But nothing to involve ordinary gays.
Plus, the leaders are not elected by the members. Just another social event extravaganza that does some slight political work. Not worth much IMHO.
posted by cesqua on
never actually worked FOR the HRC. i volunteered in SUPPORT of the HRC via meetup.com. dalea is dead on in that it’s only a few very ell off gay men and some lezbo’s that show up after to stack all the chairs. the grassroots work was done by us and PAC. chumps.
posted by cesqua on
BWAHAHAHA frozen cynic i love you!!!!
posted by Carl on
-ncidentally, comparing Crain’s decision to employ Gannon on a paper with diverse views to HRC’s dishonesty is ludicrous in the extreme (and thus par for the course for Democrats). The Washington Blade hired and employed a very diverse number of columnists ranging from conservative, to liberal, to libertarian — a wide range of views.-
The problem with this analysis is that there really was nothing to Jeff Gannon but his being a reporter for the White House, asking them the most favorable questions whenever he could. That’s fine, that was what he wanted to do, and it paid well, I’m sure, but how did this qualify him to be hired at Washington Blade? He was fired as soon as Crain was out the door.
I think Crain hired him because of how close he was to the GOP. So that, to me, mars any criticism he has about gay groups or gays who are too partisan.
posted by ETJB on
“The Washington Blade hired and employed a very diverse number of columnists ranging from conservative, to liberal, to libertarian — a wide range of views.”
Like I said. The hiring of Jeff Gannon undermines the credibility of the newspaper. It has nothing to do with the fact that he is a conservative or a Republican. In MN Eva Young is (was) chair of the MN LCR and I enjoy reading what she writes (Lavender gives he space off and on), even if I may disagree with it.
Having diversity in a LGBT newspaper is a good thing, but hiring some one’s whoes journalism experience amounts to having a pulse and a nice ass is never a good thing.
Although I would wonder how many people in the newspaper are in fact members of the Socialist, Green or Libertarian Party and how many columnes of theirs get published.
The HRC is not likely going to have third party members on its executive board because third party candidates have almost no political power in America and will not have any until we change a few things.
Most interest groups in America understand that — for better or for the worse — we live in an electoral system with only two viable choices. Although the two Independent US Senators are likely to support several gay rights issues.
How many LGBT Republicans would be eager to sit on the board or the HRC? How many Republicans in Congress really deserve the support of the HRC?
posted by ETJB on
…”a candidate who the HRC campaigned against in new Hampshire — Libertarian Party member Steve Villaincourt.”
Again, you will find that most interest groups in America are not going to endorse a third party candidate. Third party candidates are generally not taken seriously by most interest groups or the mainstream media. Yeah, it may suck but its not the fault of the HRC.
It is largely the fault of election laws and who campaigns operate in most cases.
Yes, I do agree that in many cases ballot access laws for independent and third party candidates are unfair. But that is likley beyond the scope of the HRC. I would suggest that you subscribe to Ballot Access News and do what I did – organize a interest group to lobby for fair and equitable ballot access laws in your state.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The problem with this analysis is that there really was nothing to Jeff Gannon but his being a reporter for the White House, asking them the most favorable questions whenever he could. That’s fine, that was what he wanted to do, and it paid well, I’m sure, but how did this qualify him to be hired at Washington Blade?
The fact that he was newsworthy would seem to be one reason. Another reason would be the fact that he participates in the political dialogue.
The entire argument of “censor ‘Gannon’/Guckert” or “oh yeah, well you printed articles from so-and-so” alternates between “that person shouldn’t have a voice” or “that person is a low quality commentator.”
Considering the other low-quality commentary to be found in the gay press which is significantly less interesting (such as “bitchfests” and “celebrity gossip”), I find the latter objection to be as amusing as the former is hypocritical.
I think Crain hired him because of how close he was to the GOP. So that, to me, mars any criticism he has about gay groups or gays who are too partisan.
Except that neither Crain nor Guckert were defrauding gay people by claiming to be a “nonpartisan civil rights group for gay people.” Whereas HRC is actively defrauding those who give it money and believe said mission statement.
you will find that most interest groups in America are not going to endorse a third party candidate
You obviously didn’t read my post, which is no surprise. Villaincourt was a Democrat and is now a Republican — to avoid the ballot access issues his Libertarian status provided to him.
HRC provided his anti-gay Democratic opponent with material support — despite the fact that Villaincourt beat out the anti-gay Democrat in every way and is also the incumbent.
I know you Democrats like to come up with myriad excuses as to why you cannot have “nonpartisan” groups support anyone other than a Democrat, but for HRC to endorse a more anti-gay candidate (who “just happens to be a Democrat”) against a pro-gay incumbent legislator of ANY party is just the rank hypocrisy that so many people have come to expect from the left-wing campaign establishment.
In the case where a third party candidate is a successful incumbent and the best on gay issues, the HRC should not hesitate to endorse that candidate. In the case where a third party or an independent campaign is running the only pro-gay candidate in the race, HRC should not hesitate to throw its support to that candidate either. Its excuses to the contrary have become quite tiresome.
posted by ETJB on
I am sorry. But the fact that Jeff Gannon managed to get himself noticed by bloggers is hardly worthy of giving him a job.
Especially when he did everything that he could to not be noticed. Again, the man had a pulse and a nice ass and that seems to be it.
Many LGBT people participate in the political dialogue. If Jeff Gannon is the best man or woman to reflect the gay conservative viewpoint, then that says plently about that viewpoint.
Some one like Eva Young is much more qualified to be writing a regular column in a newspaper like the Wash Blade from a Log Cabin Republican viewpoint then Jeff Gannon.
“Except that neither Crain nor Guckert were defrauding gay people..”
Well, Gannon certainly was engaging in all manner of fraud. His fake name. His fake news organization. His copy and pasting press releases.
I did read your post. A Libertarian Party candidate filed for office as a Democrat and then switched to a Republican to avoid the rather messy and oftentimes unfair ballot access laws.
People are still going to see him as a third party candidate.
“I know you Democrats like to come up with myriad excuses as to why you cannot have “nonpartisan” groups support anyone other than a Democrat.”
So, you can read minds? I have not give time or money to the HRC. I know that they have endorsed qualified Republicans and at least one Independent in the past.
Again, you seem unwilling to accept the fact that we live in a two-party system.
That influences how every interest group looks at its endorsement process.
Most interest groups are not going to look at the positions of every candidate that is on the ballot and then make an endorsement.
They are going to look at positions of the two major candidates; Democrat vs. Republican.
Some one that is a Libertarian but runs (or formally files) as a Democratic or Republican to get on the ballot is likely going to be treated as a de facto third party candidate.
I am more then willing to talk about how we can have better election laws, but first you need to accept how things are and then talk about how things oaught to be.
Yes, their are numerous social and legal baises against third party candidates. Not unlike racism or sexism or homphobia.
But that is not the fault of one party or interest group.
Accepting that these social + legal biases exist is the first step to talking about how we can start to change them so that an interest group endorsement standards do not quickly dismiss third party candidates.
So that voters have more viable candidate choices. So that major candidate debates do not foolish exclude independent/minor party candidates etc.
Yes, I believe that the HRC should be willing to endorse qualified candidates that are Democrat, Republican, Independent or third party.
But their are long standing social and legal reasons why third party candidates are not taken seriously, by the public or interest groups or the news media, etc.
posted by Bill from FL on
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Jeff Gannon is NO friend to the gay movement or the gay community! Have you ever read his website? Other than maybe an arcane admission I have never seen anything self-affirming as a conservative who happens to be gay. What it looks like is “uh I’m not denying the photos or my past but I am not saying anything about it, and I hate the gay movement and most of what it stands for, they are intolerant liberals and Oh by the way I am a born again Christian”
If they want a conservative POV I would suggest the WB does better!
posted by Roy X. Penguin on
Perhaps if groups like HRC would do the unthinkable – endorse third party candidates – it would send a message to the Democrats that they cannot take us for granted, and they might actually do something for us. Of course (most) third party candidates would lose. But look at the following scenario:
Say that, in a hypothetical election, a pro-gay rights third party candidate ends up with 6% of the vote, and the Dems lose by 2%. Say that the HRC (and other gay rights groups), in that hypothetical election, was very vocal that it would not endorse the Democrat and instead endorsed the third party candidate. Say that exit polls indicated that the vast majority of gay voters voted for the third party candidate. Analysts would crunch some numbers and realize that Dems need us to win, and that we are not afraid to vote something other than Democrat, and ONLY then would Dems truly do something for us. Right now, they take us (or the 75% of us that vote for them like idiot automatons) for granted.
But this is just an unrealistic dream. HRC and others – and gay voters – need to grow some balls and realize that you can lose a battle and win a war. The Dems, by and large, will not do anything for us. Throw a few elections by voting for libertarians or greens, and they will sing a different tune.
posted by ETJB on
I think that Gannon came out — eventually — as being bisexual. I stand by what I said about him.
The HRC has endorsed Republicans and Independents in the past.
However, endorsing a third party candidate tends to have the same impact as voting for one — under our current system.
posted by Bill from FL on
ETJB: I am glad you said it and I do agree on JG. I wonder how much the WB paid him! I didn’t read that he came out as “bithexual” uh bi but it doesn’t surprise me. In another day he would be like a Roy Cohn.
posted by Timothy Kincaid on
Perhaps not many. But to some extent the Republican party is no more cohesive than the Democrat party. On gay issues, region seems to be a major determinant as to support or opposition.
For example, pre-election there were 34 Senators (12) and Congressmen (22) who represented New England to the Federal Government. 22 Dems, 10 Reps, 2 Ind.
Of those 34 individuals, only one voted for the anti-gay marriage amendment.
Which is to say that while the Dem party has a better track record than the Rep party (by far), I think that a New England Republican is more deserving of support than, say, a Democrat from Tennessee (Ford).
Unless, of course, one only sees the world through the prism of party.
posted by ETJB on
The Republican Party is largely cohesive on gay rights; it opposes them.
Yes, you do have a rare elected gay or straight Republican that will support gay rights. But the party leadership has made their position clear; gays are evil.
Region does have some impact. New England has traces of some now dead concept of County Club Republicans and Progressive Democrats.
Party leadership plays a bigger role, especially as you move higher on the election food chain; what bills will and will not get introudced. what bills do and do not have a chance of passing.
“I think that a New England Republican is more deserving of support than, say, a Democrat from Tennessee (Ford).”
Apples to oranges. The HRC is not faced with such a choice. Both candidates would be running in different elections. You are not likely to find a ‘New England’ Republican in Tenn or a Tenn Democrat in New England.
You have to look at each election, which candidates are viable and make decisions accordingly.
The HRC, like most interest groups in our system, is often stuck with endorsing the lessor of the two evils.
Unless, of course, one only sees the world through the prism of party.
posted by Craig2 on
Sorry, but I can see the HRC’s point in campaigning for the Democrats, although it does surprise me that they’re flicking off liberal Congressional Republicans.
Bipartisanism is the best strategy to achieve durable LGBT rights legislation. What the US LGBT communities need to do is to make the fundamentalist constituency so toxic that Republicans won’t touch them with a ten foot barge pole. It worked in Canada. It may well work south of the border.
Incidentally, too, given the US
First Past the Post electoral system, in most states, it is a
two horse race. If the United
States ever adopted proportional
representation, then it’d make more sense to include Greens and
Libertarians. However, it hasn’t.
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand