This Advocate article looks at efforts by the nonpartisan Gill Action Fund to elect fair-minded (read gay-friendly) officials beginning at the lowest levels and then supporting them throughout their careers, a strategy that has been used successfully by the religious right and, more generally, by the conservative GOPAC. Interestingly, the two leaders of this effort are Patrick Guerriero, a former leader of the Log Cabin Republicans, and Bill Smith, a former employee of Karl Rove.
These guys seem willing to play hardball for providing select candidates with financial support. That's a refreshing change from gay Democrats, whether at the Human Rights Campaign or elsewhere, and gay Republicans, who are primarily party activists looking to elect their party's candidates, and then expand their niche in the party as a reward for their service. That's fair enough (except when HRC pretends to be nonpartisan, when it clearly no longer is). But I'm glad to see efforts such as this one that don't put partisanship first.
8 Comments for “No Partisan Passes from Gill Guys”
posted by Richard on
The Human Rights Campaign is indeed non-partisan when it comes to either major party, but not when it comes down to philosophy.
It is a center-left gay right organization that supports like-minded candidates. The fact that that few Republican candidates are centrist is not the fault of the HRC.
posted by avee on
I guess by “centrist” Richard means those who support abortion on demand (preferably at taxpayer expense) and race-based preferential mandates, both of which have appeared as litmus test items on HRC’s congressional scorecards. Well, it’s certainly one way to rule out all but the most left-leaning Republicans.
posted by Richard on
I am not a terribly big fan of the HRC. They are pretty much the only game in town, in terms of federal lobbying, but too many of the people I have met in the group seem a tad bit elitist, if not a bit inept. Frankly, I been equally disappointed with the LCR.
Yet, the simple fact is that the HRC group has always been a bipartisan center-left organizations.
It a (mostly) group for educated, successful enteratiners/professionals who are socially liberal, but generally fiscally responsible. This is well within a basic center-left philosophy.
They have endorsed moderate Republicans in the past, but there are simple so few of them. That is not the fault of the HRC.
Most of these HRC people support a women’s reproductive rights and feel that some type of affirmative action policies are needed.
posted by David Skidmore on
I suspect that even if the HRC confined its questions to purely gay issues, it would tend to support more Democrat or independent candidates rather than Republicans. The Log Cabin Republicans last election couldn’t even bring themselves to endorse their own presidential candidate:
http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/press_090804.html
Things are pretty bad in the Republican Party for gays if a group of their members felt obliged to do that.
Btw, I haven’t seen a HRC questionnaire to candidates but they should stick to the gay issues. Let NOW deal with issues around reproductive rights.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
David, nice try but I think most readers at IGF know the LCRs were hijcked by the gayLeft prior to the 2002 congressional campaigns and that “failure to endorse” Bush was required if the gayLeft and marginal Democrats in the LCRs were going to keep spending the $$$ to keep it afloat.
You might want to take off the blinders and head over to GayPatriot.net and gain some insight into what GOPers really thought about the LCRs during this period… and I’m not entirely certain that era is over for the LCRs.
You write “Things are pretty bad in the Republican Party for gays if a group of their members felt obliged to do that” –LOL, now that is news… there were GOPers over at LCR?
LOL.
posted by Clay on
The Log Cabin Republicans declined to endorse Bush in 2004 specifically because he endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment in an anti-federalist effort to score political points by permanently restricting the civil rights and aspirations of gay Americans.
Which is more than Human Rights Campaign did in response to Bill Clinton’s signing DOMA in 1996.
posted by David Skidmore on
“…there were GOPers over at LCR?”
The LCR are Republicans even if you hold a conspiracy theory about them really being part of the “Gay Left” (whoever they are).
posted by RIchard on
In our two-party system, the LCR could not endorse Bush, because Kerry had a better record on LGBT rights. When you oppose one major party candidate, you tend to — even by accident — endorse the only other viable alternative.
The HRC had two two candidates to pick from in their endorsement process. The LRC, as a gay partisan group, only had one.