Replying to CultureWatch's criticism of the Victory Fund's decision not to endorse an openly gay Democratic Senate candidate, the Fund's Denis Dison writes:
The Victory Fund's endorsement decisions have absolutely nothing to do with the desires of any political party. We endorse against party picks all the time...
Our endorsement decisions are necessarily private because it is not fair to applicants to publicly air our evaluations of their campaigns, particularly when we decide not to endorse. The decision not to endorse any particular candidate is the result of the same application and evaluation process every candidate goes through, and our endorsement criteria are public.
Read the full text here.
-- by Jonathan Rauch
------------------------
More. Reader "avee" comments:
although it didn't come into play in this primary race between two Democratic liberals, the Victory Fund has a firm litmus-test policy of only endorsing candidates who strongly favor abortion rights. That's an easy way to rule out many gay Republican moderates who show less than all-out enthusiasm for abortion on demand without parental consent (and preferably at taxpayer expense).
Maybe they should call themselves the Gay & Lesbian Abortion Rights Victory Fund.
-- by Stephen H. Miller
--------------------------
Reminder: comments that consists of personal insults will be deleted.
20 Comments for “Victory Fund Responds…”
posted by another steve on
This was a case of Schumer and the party bigwigs recruiting a straight primary opponent of a gay Democrat with a strong background. At one point, Neal was even with his Schumer-recruited opponent. So the Victory Fund needs to do a much better job of explaining why they didn’t buck the party bigwigs to support a well-qualified gay candidate.
I hope some Log Cabiners chime in with examples of qualified gay Republicans who didn’t get Victory Fund help — I recall that the only gay GOPers they are likely to help are those running in districts where it would be virtually impossible for a Democrat to win. Otherwise, forgetaboutit.
posted by brad on
The Victory Fund has always made a point of examining a candidate’s viability before endorsing them. They must have looked at Jim Neal and come to the conclusion he stood no chance of winning. As it turned out, they were absolutely right and he lost in a blowout, by about 3-to-1.
posted by avee on
At one point, Neal was polling even with his primary opponent. Gee, you think lack of support by the usual Democratic Party advocacy groups maybe didn’t help?
By the way, although it didn’t come into play in this primary race between two Democratic liberals, the Victory Fund has a firm litmus-test policy of only endorsing candidates who strongly favor abortion rights. That’s an easy way to rule out many gay Republican moderates who show less than all-out enthusiasm for abortion on demand without parental consent (and preferably at taxpayer expense).
posted by ETJB on
I suspect that candidate viability is an important factor here, and one that can be subjected to lots of good faith arguments and grumbling.
posted by bleeb on
i did some research on those polls that showed neal and hagan tied a few weeks before the primary. um, did anyone notice that 45% of respondents were undecided, and that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM BROKE FOR HAGAN AT THE END? what that means is that the poll was useless and showed that nobody then knew who either of these people were. so if you looked at their two bank accounts you absolutely knew who was going to win this in a walk because neal raised no money. this isn’t rocket science.
posted by jim on
We should not have such kind of prejudice and discrimination. I support him and many of my friends on the site http://bicupid.com/user/bimate also support him. Hope he can do more for GLBT.
posted by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) on
Just like the HRC, the Victory Fund is NOT a gay-rights organization, it’s an abortion-rights shill flying a false flag. Nor is it bi-partisan despite it’s claims to the contrary. It’s rarely ever supported a gay GOP candidate…regardless of viability or his/her actual position on gay issues. Why do supposed “gay-rights” advocacy groups consistantly allow themselves to be politically-hijacked by the anti-abortionists…to the detriment of the G/L community at-large.
posted by ETJB on
Many LGBT people believe that those people who wish to prohibit abortions are also the people who wish to oppose equal rights. How many pro-life, pro-gay activists are their?
Endorsements are a tricky business becomes it deals with the issue of who is and who is not a ‘viable candidate’. In America this almost always excludes non-major party candidates.
Incumbency is also greatly, greatly favored under our current system.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Many LGBT people believe that those people who wish to prohibit abortions are also the people who wish to oppose equal rights.
The legal theory that underpins court protection of gay rights — for example, the Supreme Court decision that invalidated sodomy laws — is built on the same recognition of privacy that underpins the right to abortion.
Directly overturning Roe v Wade would have the side effect of re-opening the prohibition of anti-sodomy statutes. The line of cases started with Griswold v Connecticut, which threw out a state law banning the sale of contraceptives to unmarried people.
The wingnuts hate the privacy doctrine, because privacy isn’t mentioned anywhere in the constitution. Of course, the 9th amendment opens the way for protection of rights not listed, but wingnuts have a big, fuzzy blind spot when it comes to that one.
Aside from the legalities, in the real world the anti-abortion crowd isn’t “pro life” at all. Rather, it’s about suppressing sexuality outside of heterosexual marriage. The roots of that battle go very deep, really all the way back to the spirit vs. flesh stuff that’s embedded in the orthodox Abrahamic religions.
The Enlightenment was the first major breach in that doctrine. The industrial revolution and the resulting mass material advancement widened the breach. The birth control pill pretty much shattered it. The wingnuts never got the message, and like Humpty-Dumpty men, they’re trying like crazy to put him back together again.
The more futile it is, the madder they get. Those who hate themselves and crave a mythical respectibility, like Michigan Matt and North Liar Forty, are caricatured versions of people fighting for a lost cause.
What’s really kind of sad is that they actually seem to believe that gay pride parades are the problem, and that if we’d just cancel them and dress appropriately, everything would be okay. You don’t know whether to laugh at them or cry for them.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, there’s a reason for that morality, Charles Wilson; had you and your partner been monogamous and never had promiscuous sex, this would never have happened.
On Sept. 22, 2004, he died of the combined effects of AIDS and chronic alcoholism.
Now, we realize that liberals like yourself consider the death, disability, and maiming of people by sexually-transmitted diseases to be acceptable collateral damage for your need for “fun”; after all, that’s why liberal gays and lesbians like you so oppose traditional ideas like heterosexual marriage and monogamy, and why you mock people who support both.
But I don’t think that the teenagers you and your fellow liberal gays insist on having sex with and transmitting HIV to should have to suffer all of that for your sexual pleasure.
Society has supported heterosexual marriage and monogamy and suppressed sexuality outside of either for millenia for one simple reason; our ancestors realized that people who were promiscuous got sick and died.
Which makes them much smarter than gays like you, Charles Wilson.
posted by m on
An excellent post, Charles — you’ve more-or-less hit every relevant nail right on its proverbial head.
posted by avee on
Many LGBT people believe that those people who wish to prohibit abortions are also the people who wish to oppose equal rights. How many pro-life, pro-gay activists are their?
And many gay people do not believe that the ethically complex issue of ending a life mirrors the rights of consenting adults to love one another. There are, in fact, gay anti-abortion activists such as the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians. But much more importantly there are anti-abortion or abortion-neutral gay PEOPLE whose views don’t mirror those of the activists who claim to speak, on our behalf, for the mythic “LGBT community.”
posted by Richard on
I am not going to offer a personal opinion on abortion politics, frankly both sides are a bit like the summer i shoveled hoarse shit on a farm back in the 1960s.
Yet, it is a simple fact that LGBT people are probably going to make a coalition with people that support them. In the abortion politics, “pro-life” people tend to oppose gay rights.
Yes, I have known a handful of self-identified “feminists for life”, but they do not control the movement and probably never will.
So if we are going to be upset that the “community” is siding with the pro-choice camp, we better be willing to take a good, hard look at what the pro-life camp has to offer.
“Gay Pride” events have also been a bit of a controversy within the gay community. Like any event, the people who do nothing often want to tell the people who get stuck doing everything what they should do.
posted by Pat on
I am not going to offer a personal opinion on abortion politics, frankly both sides are a bit like the summer i shoveled hoarse shit on a farm back in the 1960s.
Richard, one thing I promised myself is that I will keep my opinion on abortion to myself. Your reason and apt analogy explains it well.
But I will say that it would do us all good if gay organizations stay separate from pro-life or pro-choice groups. Gay persons belong to all the various positions regarding abortion.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So if we are going to be upset that the “community” is siding with the pro-choice camp, we better be willing to take a good, hard look at what the pro-life camp has to offer.
But, of course, as we see, liberal gay and lesbian people have no problem supporting people whose views they would previously claim as “antigay” — if those people are pro-abortion.
Solmonese, who is also gay, contends that activists critical of the Tenenbaum endorsement are missing the ?bigger picture.?
?If you work in the business of politics, you understand that, in this situation, two people are running for Senate in South Carolina,? Solmonese said. ?If one of them comes to Washington, he will be in lockstep with the conservative right.
Add to that the endorsements by national liberal gay groups and their leadership of John Kerry and Harold Ford, both of whom proudly touted their views on gays as having the “same position” as the Republicans that liberal gays scream were “antigay” and “homophobic”, but both of whom were pro-abortion.
So really, what that makes obvious is that whether or not people have “homophobic” views doesn’t matter to liberal gays, Richard; it’s all about whether or not they’re pro-abortion (and Democrat).
Like any event, the people who do nothing often want to tell the people who get stuck doing everything what they should do.
Nobody asked them to throw a parade. Indeed, the amount of money they waste on it every year here in San Francisco could pay for all the loopy lefty things they want, like free drugs and free housing.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Like any event, the people who do nothing often want to tell the people who get stuck doing everything what they should do.
You’ve got that right!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard offers: “”Gay Pride” events have also been a bit of a controversy within the gay community. Like any event, the people who do nothing often want to tell the people who get stuck doing everything what they should do.”
It’s not uncommon for the organizers of these events to feel like the weight of the world in on their shoulders… most gays have been trained to think like victims, act like martyrs, complain like everything aggrieves our “rights”. I think, given the events I attended earlier in my life, “organizers” is a stretch to call what these folks do to host the event.
I think the bigger issue is why so many gays remain silent in the face of most Pride events being used to pander to the lowest denominator in our community… it seems like, from a PR point of view and being in public and all, we ought to be claiming our rightful place in a decent, ordered society as functioning members… after every Pride event here the newspapers the next day are replete with stories of drinking in public, lewd behavior in nearby public parks and the single image from the events are either of some really fat, smoking lesbians or twinks in speedos between drag queens in bad hair hamming for the camera. Party is one thing… the PrideParade should be conducted in a way that reflects its PUBLIC mission.
I mean, really, is it any wonder we can’t get ahead in society when our own most important PR event is an annual showcase for the nutjobs?
I wish we could get our local organizers to ban/bar/block NAMBLA from setting up booths near the entrance… hey Charles Wilson, you’ve had some experience in banning, barring and blocking… how can that be made to work? Or do you think NAMBLA ought to be there?
(just kidding, no answer needed)
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard offers: “”Gay Pride” events have also been a bit of a controversy within the gay community. Like any event, the people who do nothing often want to tell the people who get stuck doing everything what they should do.”
It’s not uncommon for the organizers of these events to feel like the weight of the world in on their shoulders… most gays have been trained to think like victims, act like martyrs, complain like everything aggrieves our “rights”. I think, given the events I attended earlier in my life, “organizers” is a stretch to call what these folks do to host the event.
I think the bigger issue is why so many gays remain silent in the face of most Pride events being used to pander to the lowest denominator in our community… it seems like, from a PR point of view and being in public and all, we ought to be claiming our rightful place in a decent, ordered society as functioning members… after every Pride event here the newspapers the next day are replete with stories of drinking in public, lewd behavior in nearby public parks and the single image from the events are either of some really fat, smoking lesbians or twinks in speedos between drag queens in bad hair hamming for the camera. Party is one thing… the PrideParade should be conducted in a way that reflects its PUBLIC mission.
I mean, really, is it any wonder we can’t get ahead in society when our own most important PR event is an annual showcase for the nutjobs?
I wish we could get our local organizers to ban/bar/block NAMBLA from setting up booths near the entrance… hey Charles Wilson, you’ve had some experience in banning, barring and blocking… how can that be made to work? Or do you think NAMBLA ought to be there?
(just kidding, no answer needed)
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Ooops, sorry for the double post stutter there Richard.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Gay pride celebrations aren’t my style. I’ve been to two of them, and that was enough. I didn’t see any NAMBLA booths, but then I wasn’t looking for them.
I will say this much, though: I recall having a conversation 25 years ago with someone who’d I’m sure be very acceptable to those who demand respectability — a Marine Corps officer who, unlike right-wing hero Matt Sanchez, wasn’t a lying whore.
I was younger and dumber than I am today, and was off on a mini-rant about gay pride parades showing off the worst. He said, “Yeah, that’s true enough, but what those things are really about is visibility. No matter what they look like, they let everyone know that we’re here and we’re not going away.”
The comment surprised me, which is why I still remember it today. Oh, and the Marine Corps officer thought it was funny to see bearded, obviously masculine men in high heels and dresses. He didn’t do it himself and it wasn’t a turnon. He was amused by the clownishness of the whole thing.
But then, he had a sense of humor.