This April Fool's parody hits the nail on the head because you read and and think, if only. Would that the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest and richest lesbigay(&trans) lobby, had the sense to take such a logical step. But these partisan poobahs seem far less interested in advancing gay equality through broad political outreach then they are in being good party players, getting pats on the back from the liberal Democratic elite who rule their social circles. Alas, like the man who tried to walk using just his left leg, they've spent the last decade doing little more than spinning around in circles, moronically chirping "George W. Bush, You're Fired!" while dreaming of appointments as midlevel outreach apparachiks in the hoped-for Clinton restoration.
More. Andrew Sullivan isn't letting up his critique. Good for him.
And for those who wonder what a bipartisan approach to gay equality might look like, the Gill Action Fund here gives an indication. (There's more about them here.)
20 Comments for “If Only…”
posted by ETJB on
Gay conservatives are certainly free to start up their own organization. Wait, how many bi-partisan gay conservative groups are their?
posted by Avee on
ETJB, astoundingly (or not) fails to grasp what the item is about – the need for broad-based bipartisan outreach at the national level. So his response that there are no “bipartisan gay conservative groups” is totally senseless.
posted by Alex on
I agree that it would be a good idea to have Republican’s involved in groups like the HRC.
But as the Republican party seems to remain the party for the Radical Religious Right, is there anyone there to honestly engage with? The elected Republican’s still follow the Dobson’s, Fallwell’s, and other radical religious leaders.
posted by Brian Miller on
The issue isn’t that conservatives should start their own group, but rather, the April Fool’s issue addresses the base fraudulent premise of HRC as an “open bipartisan lobbying organization that represents all gay people.”
It’s really just a closed Democratic party front group that represents a few gay people.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But as the Republican party seems to remain the party for the Radical Religious Right, is there anyone there to honestly engage with? The elected Republican’s still follow the Dobson’s, Fallwell’s, and other radical religious leaders.
And yet, we see the Democrats doing this sort of thing with nary a whimper or cutoff of support from HRC; indeed, HRC’s leaders and gay DNC leaders like Andrew Tobias have no trouble with “maxing out” donations to FMA supporters.
Since HRC and its leaders have zero problem engaging with, endorsing, and channeling millions of dollars to Democrats who pander to 700 Club viewers and proudly proclaim they have the “same position” as the Republicans that HRC and other gays deem homophobic and under the control of the religious right…..what problem do they have in talking to Republicans?
The answer is simple. HRC is a political front meant to launder gay money for Democrats. They have made it clear that they have no interest in bipartisanship, and in fact are even pay people to run harassment campaigns against Republicans (i.e., their support of Mike Rogers, who tries to get gay Republicans fired from their jobs and who runs smear campaigns claiming that Republicans are refurbishing internment camps in the Pacific Northwest for gays, and their staffers who work on said outing and harassment campaigns, like Lane Hudson).
HRC has clearly shown that it and its leaders support as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” candidates whose stances it has deemed homophobic and hateful when held by someone of a different party affiliation. That’s why they have no credibility among Republicans, who realized a long time ago that nothing they do will satisfy HRC, and why Democrats use them like a cheap prostitute who works on credit and never collects.
posted by Alex on
ND30: You quoted my question but then failed to answer it.
But as the Republican party seems to remain the party for the Radical Religious Right, is there anyone there to honestly engage with?
posted by ETJB on
I certainly did not fail to grasp what the item was about.
Their is already broad-based bipartisan outreach at the federal (not national)level.
Yes, it certainly could be better but I do not see too many gay conservatives jumping with joy at doing such outreach.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, Alex, what I pointed out was that the fact that they pander to the religious right and support homophobia does not prevent HRC from reaching out to (or, more precisely, taking a death grip on and doing whatever they say for) Democrats.
In short, if homophobia and religious pandering are no barrier to engaging with Democrats, why not so with Republicans? If HRC leader Hilary Rosen and DNC treasurer Andrew Tobias can engage a religiously-dominated homophobe who supports the FMA like Harold Ford, what is stopping them from doing it with others?
Yes, it certainly could be better but I do not see too many gay conservatives jumping with joy at doing such outreach.
Explain to me why, ETJB, we should work with an organization that pays its staffers to harass us and try to get us fired from our jobs because we don’t kowtow to them, refuses to explain how it does its membership numbers or why it grants lucrative contracts to its board members, and makes it publicly obvious that it only supports Democrats and will fling nothing but hate speech at Republicans.
I phrase it this way. Solmonese has the brains of an ATM machine, which is fine; that’s all he needs to have to be HRC Executive Director.
posted by Brian Miller on
But as the Republican party seems to remain the party for the Radical Religious Right, is there anyone there to honestly engage with?
And since the Democratic party is the party of the Presidential DOMA endorsement, is there anyone there to honestly engage with either?
Can politicians, or either of the old parties — homophobic in both policy and practice — engage honestly on *any* issue?
Probably not.
But at least HRC can develop criteria that address the issues most important to gay people — in a fair, evenhanded way — and rank each individual candidate, regardless of party, on those issues.
It would be very fun to, say, rank the real comparative standings of Bush, Kerry, and Badnarik side-by-side, and watch Democrats explain why we should vote against Bush because he gets 38 out of 100 points, and for Kerry who gets 54 out of 100 points, when Badnarik gets 90 out of 100 points. 😉
posted by Alex on
ND30: Let me be plainer in the question: Which elected Republican(s) is approachable on issues that effect BGLT people? Or, plainer yet: Which Republican is open to having the discussion about the issues effecting BGLT people?
posted by Hank on
That’s easy Brian. Badnarik can’t get elected; he pretty much proved that in 2004. So a vote for him is actually a vote for whoever the winner turns out to be – Bush, of course, in 2004.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Which elected Republican(s) is approachable on issues that effect BGLT people?
Arnold Schwarzenegger, for one.
Also, the California Assembly candidates I mentioned in that post, all of which are Republican and gay.
But HRC and groups like “Equality” California prefer to insult and fling hate at those people instead, while their leaders give money to “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” Democrats.
And I’ll ask you this question, Alex; why should Republicans care, when gay leftist groups like HRC and their leaders have shown that they will endorse and support even those who are in favor of the FMA if their Democrat masters order it — and who pay leftist gay operatives and their own staffers to run smear and hate campaigns against Republicans?
posted by Audrey B on
I think many people on this board are missing the point. It’s not whether Democrats are “better then Republicans”, it’s the fact that when the Human Rights Committee claims to be non-partisan, it better damn well be non-partisan. If they’re just going to be lobbying for the bride of Bill, then I don’t want to give them a dime of my money.
posted by Timothy on
Alex,
You asked what Republicans are open to dialog. Rather than scream about evil Democrats, I’ll answer your question.
It depends on the issue. And the candidate.
It’s true that most of the truly vile homophobes are in the Republican Party. And some, like ex-Senator Santorum are simply unapproachable. They operate from a base of contempt and digust so there’s truly nothing you can bring them that won’t result in every effort to harm you.
However, some are pretty good on most issues – such as the whole New England contingent. Out of all of the Senate and House, only one Republican from the New England states voted for the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. There are a few others scattered around the states too. I think there’s a Florida congresswoman signed on to oppose DADT. And Hate Crimes generally picks up quite a few Republicans who can use “the police support it” as cover.
And ironically, with Guiliani in the race there is the possibility that the Republican nominee for President will be more supportive than the Democrat nominee.
Some are approachable on some issues but not supportive on others. Senator McCain is a good example, he’s often supportive but not consistently so. He will, for federalist reasons, oppose the FMA but then support a state wide ban on marriage. Or Frist, who generally will take an anti-gay position but will also give support on AIDS issues.
This illustrates the necessity of someone who knows the Republicans, speaks the language, and gets the votes when they can. Log Cabin Republicans generally fill this role. However, it would be nice for someone who truly isn’t partisan.
While HRC used to be at least somewhat bipartisan, they really have become party-first, gay-folks-second. At least if they were openly partisan, you could point blame (as others do when LCR or Stonewall Democrats put party over principle). But when HRC pretends to bipartisanship or nonpartisanship and then becomes a tool for the election of anti-gay Democrats, they embody the politics of sell-out and hypocrisy.
posted by Timothy on
Alex,
some more info can be found at the log cabin site
http://online.logcabin.org/talking_points/gop-heroes/recognizing-republican-heroes.html
posted by Brian Miller on
That’s easy Brian. Badnarik can’t get elected; he pretty much proved that in 2004. So a vote for him is actually a vote for whoever the winner turns out to be – Bush, of course, in 2004.
I’m perfectly willing to accept that standard if you’d also apply it to Hillary Clinton, Democratic frontrunner for president.
Given that every poll shows her losing decisively to any of the leading Republican challengers, she’s unelectable and thus should receive no rankings or dialogue from leading gay groups, right?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And some, like ex-Senator Santorum are simply unapproachable. They operate from a base of contempt and digust so there’s truly nothing you can bring them that won’t result in every effort to harm you.
Funny, that didn’t stop him from hiring and defending one.
The response to that fact was instructive; rather than stop demonzing Santorum, gay leftists like HRC simply declared that this individual was neither gay or black.
And that really is the point here; the issue is less with the Republicans than it is with the gay left’s complete and utter servitude to Democrat interests. It is easier for screaming puppets like Hillary Rosen and Andrew Tobias to demonize Republicans than it is to explain why their masters order them to give to homophobes.
posted by ETJB on
The problem is not really party, but belief. The H.R.C. entire belief is set on center-left perspective in dealing with gay rights.
How many federally elected Republicans has the H.R.C. not endorsed that you feel are better on gay rights issues then their Democratic Party alternative.
All meaningful political participation has to be channeled into these two parties. If you want more choices then head on over to Ballot Access News and Fair Vote USA.
posted by Foda-se. on
“rather than stop demonzing (sic.) Santorum”
Santorum has said gay people don’t have a legal right to their privacy and, as such, their sexual activity could be punished by law. Why would gays stop “demonizing” (i.e., condemning his blatant anti-gay stance) this person? Should women groups not “demonize” a politician who threaten their civil rights by saying, for example, that women should not vote? Or black people should be complacent with a public figure that in the Santorum way makes clear they think black people should not be granted the same civil rights as white people?
At the same time NorthDallas30 screams with intimidating rage how Democrats manipulate gay groups that supposedly are subservient to them, he makes his way to defend a Republican who, if given the due power, could jail people like himself. He condenms leftist gay groups for being too partisan, but he himself does not make a much better model. But I agree with him: for gays, groups like the HRC are a bigger problem than are Republicans, because, fortunately, gay people like NothDallas30, gay people who open their legs for anything that comes from the Republican Party, are still a thin minority.
The fact that he was able to stand up for a employee who first stood up for him is enough for inferring he is not anti-gay enough when he explicitly states we should be punished for the behavior two consenting adults practice in their privacy, without necessarily hurting anyone else’s life?
posted by Anonymous on
“rather than stop demonzing (sic.) Santorum”
Santorum has said gay people don’t have a legal right to their privacy and, as such, their sexual activity could be punished by law. Why would gays stop “demonizing” (i.e., condemning his blatant anti-gay stance) this person? Should women groups not “demonize” a politician who threatens their civil rights by saying, for example, that women should not vote? Or black people should be complacent with a public figure that in the Santorum way makes clear he thinks black people should not be granted the same civil rights as white people?
At the same time NorthDallas30 screams with intimidating rage how Democrats manipulate gay groups that supposedly are subservient to them, he makes his way to defend a Republican who, if given the due power, could jail people like himself. He condenms leftist gay groups for being too partisan, but he himself does not make a much better model. But I agree with him: for gays, groups like the HRC are a bigger problem than are Republicans, because, fortunately, gay people like NorthDallas30, gay people who open their legs for anything that comes from the Republican Party, are still a thin minority.
The fact that he was able to stand up for a employee who first stood up for him is enough for inferring he is not anti-gay enough when he explicitly states we should be punished for the behavior two consenting adults practice in their privacy, without necessarily hurting anyone else’s life?