Is it a smart strategy to maximize the party's political hold on Congress, or an unwarranted snub that showcases the divide between rhetoric and reality, as Democratic senatorial campaign honchos decide a gay candidate in North Carolina is not worthy of support?
The Charlotte Observer reports:
Former Wall Street investor Jim Neal of Chapel Hill announced he was running for the U.S. Senate. [North Carolina State] Sen. Kay Hagan of Greensboro declared a week later that she was not running for the U.S. Senate. Both are Democrats. Guess which one received a phone call from U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, who heads the Democratic Party's efforts to recruit Senate candidates? ...
Neal...falls into a coveted category of candidates: self-funder, someone who will sink a chunk of his own wealth into the race. Such candidates typically get at least a courtesy meeting from their party's national political committees, particularly in the state where former U.S. Sen. John Edwards showed that an unknown with a lot of money can succeed.
Neal, 50, and others suggest that the fact that he is gay drove the actions of the Democratic Senate committee and other leaders of a party that criticizes Republicans for their anti-gay rights platform. … "There are a lot of people within the Democratic Party establishment who are uncomfortable with my candidacy," Neal said last week. ...
A former staffer at the national Democratic Senate committee said he was surprised Schumer didn't at least meet with Neal. The gay community has reliably contributed to Democrats, said the former staffer, who asked not to be identified....
Yes, yes, the GOP is, for the most part, worse. But they don't receive the lion's share of gay political dollars, do they.
6 Comments for “But Some of Their Best Friends Are…”
posted by Brian Miller on
Gay people are only useful to Democrats when we support their leaders, unquestioningly, and give up on equal rights (marriage, tax treatment, adoption) to instead embrace big-government special rights programs that enrich Democrats (such as ENDA/employment quotas).
For candidates who are interested in pursuing an equal rights agenda, instead of a special rights agenda, Democrats quickly scream in terror and hide. I’ve heard — hundreds of times — from Democrats who say “yes, but if we support marriage equality/adoption equality/military service equality/immigration equality, the people on FOX News will say mean things about us, and we have to win the election.”
Gay people should demand that Democrats *earn* our votes and campaign dollars. If we’re going to campaign for quotas and special rights, why not have the Democrats paint the way by granting quotas and special rights to gay people within their own party, rather than shut everyday gay folks out of the leadership and candidate’s pool and patronize us from on high with their gassy rhetoric?
posted by Karen on
“For the most part”?
posted by Greg Capaldini on
No surprise, really. Politics in the U.S. is primarily about coalition building and only secondarily about leadership. I’m even seeing that at the local level, and my vote is devaluing faster than the currency of a one-crop economy during a drought.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Wow, he’s cute! My vote goes to the most attractive openly gay man.
posted by ETJB on
It may or may not have been because he is gay. How many openly gay politicans are in NC?
However, at least gay Democrats can be open and still for public office in their own party, instead of hiding in the closet and engaging in self-destructive behavior.
posted by Brian Miller on
at least gay Democrats can be open and still for public office in their own party
Actually, the point is that the openly gay candidate for office was sabotaged by his Democratic cohorts just as nastily as he would have been had he been a Republican.
For gay candidates, the “choice” between an anti-gay party that says “we don’t allow homos” in public and blocks them in private, and a party that claims to “embrace” gays in public yet blocks them in private is pretty small.