From Richard Grenell at the Huffington Post, “Gay Leaders Need a Tea Party Style Shakeup—111th Congress a Total Failure“:
The entrenched gay leaders in Washington, DC, have spent the last two years blaming Republicans for the fact that they themselves have struck out on Capitol Hill and will end the 111th Congress with nothing to show for their multimillion-dollar fundraising efforts. If this were a public company, the Board or the shareholders would have run these leaders out of town a long time ago.
Despite campaigning for decades to put Democrats in control of all of Washington, their dream ticket of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama failed to deliver what the gay leaders themselves promised the movement. . . . [Gay leaders in Washington] have turned their comfortable and high-paying perches into a safe haven free from the consequences of job performance evaluations.
Read the whole thing.
More. Democratic party control of the White House and both chambers of Congress (with substantial majorities) was a once-in-a-generation occurrence. We will not see it again for a long, long time. But a permanent campaign to restore it will keep HRC’s fundraising coffers full for the next decade.
42 Comments for “Performance Review”
posted by Performance Review — IGF Culture Watch | Warrenperformance.com Blog on
[…] rest is here: Performance Review — IGF Culture Watch ch_client = "laman6130"; ch_width = 468; ch_height = 120; ch_type = "mpu"; ch_sid = "Chitika […]
posted by Bucky on
I have been saying for years that the entrenched gay rights organizations that “fight” for our equality don’t actually want to be successful. If we reach a point where we have achieved legal equality, then there would be no need for such organizations; bye-bye to those “comfortable and high-paying” jobs.
Human Rights Campaign, one of the leading DC-based gay rights organizations recently built a costly new building to house the organization. Their fundraising efforts for the building fund talked about the need for a “permanent” home for HRC.
The fact that they need to build a fancy new building to house their “permanent” efforts to achieve equality tell you all you need to know about how hard they are working toward the goal of equality.
posted by Jorge on
In early 2009, Sarvis sent a strong message to his Democratic friends that it wasn’t the right time for the Democratic Party to take up gay issues yet. He told the Washington Times that waiting until at least 2010 for some LGBT victories made sense. “Where does ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ fall in all this?,” Sarvis asked. “I would say it is not in the top five priorities of national issues.” His Board should have fired him on the spot.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but are you guys giving me permission to ease off Obama in exchange for laying into the gay rights leadership?
Hmm… nope, not gonna happen. I can barely find Greenwich Village on a map, I’m not going to waste my time looking for those ivory tower figureheads.
But we can tea party about it if we like. We’ll plot to take over the world from our small kitchens and meet lots of interesting people.
posted by james on
well im no fan of HRC however i believe that if us gay folks were as worried about our equality as we were the latest fashion trends, who has the fanciest sports car, who is the latest diva, who is the next celebrity, how big can i get my chest, what kind of designer drugs are in the glove compartment we would already have equality. most people i meet in florida are really not into equality there more into partying.
posted by Jimmy on
All of those characteristics apply to any who follow pop culture, not just gays – so, get off it. You happen to live in a place where people explicitly go to “party”, so the population is a bit skewed.
Move to Kansas.
posted by james on
well thats ironic because in tampa when you have a meeting or a protest or anything to do with advancing equality you have a pathetic turnout. however throw a party in ybor city with some pop diva singing and a couple of muscle studs and you cant get near the place for all the gays coming out.
posted by BobN on
What’s this? Another anti-Dem piece from another gay Republican who lives in deepest blue America? And not just any gay Republican, this one served Dubya while Dubya stood before the nation and called for a constitutional amendment banning gay relationships.
y a w n
I promise to start listening more seriously to gay Republicans when they manage to deliver, say, 20% of the GOP vote in Congress on any pr0-gay issue. I swear. Heck, make it 15%.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Amusing, considering that BobN and his fellow HRC Obama Party puppets were quite supportive of “constitutional amendments banning gay relationships”.
So BobN is a hypocrite. But we knew that already.
posted by BobN on
IGF’s fondness for the “why didn’t the Dems shove gay rights down America’s throats when they had the chance?!??!!?” position is puzzling.
posted by Carl on
Wouldn’t it be a better idea for the media to actually wait and see if the Tea Party has any effect on GOP policies before they talk about a “Tea Party makeover”? Not to mention that in the past Democrats have had liberal makeovers and yet it still didn’t get a lot of liberal legislation passed. The press and Democrats aren’t calling him that now but for a lot of 2008 Obama was seen as being far more liberal than Hillary Clinton.
We are repeatedly told that gays and lesbians need to embrace Republicans and Republican principles, yet there is usually little focus on how to actually do that, other than reminding gays again and again that Democrats aren’t going to help them. Yes, that’s fine. So now what?
If we’re talking about Obama’s failures regarding DADT, then this is a better example than more about HRC.
http://67.59.172.92/article/World_News/World_News/Lifting_gay_ban_could_endanger_US_Marines_general/73273
posted by Tom on
Bob N, its not the IGF’s fondness so much as it is Stephen Miller’s formula. Stephen uses his posts to push an agenda, which is to get gays and lesbians to set aside our push for legal equality while social conservatives get around to prying their heads out of their asses. He purports to be baffled about why 70-75% of gays and lesbians vote for Democrats, ignoring the reality of the elephant in the room. DADT would be a slam dunk if the Republicans in the Senate and the House weren’t captive to the religious right. The House is going to vote on a stand-alone DADT bill, and probably the Senate, too. Count the pro-repeal votes from both sides of the aisle, and the elephant will be evident.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, Tom, since gays and lesbians like yourself fully support and endorse things like the FMA, you’re really nothing more than a hilarious hypocrite.
But again, we knew that already. It’s one of the reasons why people don’t take the gay and lesbian community seriously; they know that people like you are hypocritical bigots who aren’t capable of rational evaluation and make decisions based solely on your sexual orientation.
posted by avee on
Jorge: are you guys giving me permission to ease off Obama in exchange for laying into the gay rights leadership?
Since the issue is the gay “leaders” servile subservience to Obama and his party, no need to ease off at all.
Tom: Stephen uses his posts to push an agenda, which is to get gays and lesbians to set aside our push for legal equality while social conservatives get around to prying their heads out of their asses.
Not Stephen Miller, if you actually read him rather than demonizing him. Miller’s themes are (1) LGBT leaders put fundraising for Democrats above playing hardball, and (2) there is a small group of Republicans who could be worked with, and if we did so that group would get bigger. But LGBT leaders make it clear that their goal is electing Democrats, not working in any kind of nonpartisan way (re: NRA’s willingness to endorse Harry Reid becasue they’re a gun rights group, not a GOP-fundraising group).
But hey, Tom, your preferred strategy has acheived, well, nothing in the past two years but a “hate crimes” bill. You must be very pleased with yourself and your party for that achievement, won over the opposition of the GOP minority in Congress!
posted by Carl on
“But LGBT leaders make it clear that their goal is electing Democrats, not working in any kind of nonpartisan way ”
HRC endorsed and gave money to Republicans like Susan Collins and Chris Shays. I don’t remember IGF ever giving them any real praise for that (although I might be wrong), and this endorsement strategy led to them being belittled by the left.
If you endorse the Republicans in Congress who do not parrot anti-gay votes, you will be endorsing about a dozen people at most. And my guess is that that those who see HRC as out of touch would still feel that way.
posted by Jorge on
IGF’s fondness for the “why didn’t the Dems shove gay rights down America’s throats when they had the chance?!??!!?” position is puzzling.
I’ll say it all day long, but for me it is not a position but an argument. Break the chains of enslavement to the Democratic plantation.
If we’re talking about Obama’s failures regarding DADT, then this is a better example than more about HRC.
I don’t understand your point here. It’s not like Obama had any control over the results of the study, and the conditions for overcoming this objection are clear.
We are repeatedly told that gays and lesbians need to embrace Republicans and Republican principles, yet there is usually little focus on how to actually do that, other than reminding gays again and again that Democrats aren’t going to help them. Yes, that’s fine. So now what?
I’d like to know myself. But somehow I think we’ll be fine. It only takes a couple of geniuses in the right place to spark a movement.
posted by another steve on
HRC endorsed and gave money to Republicans like Susan Collins and Chris Shays.
And that’s about it for HRC’s bipartisanship. HRC will only support the most liberal Republicans who favor a broad liberal agenda (esp. being pro-choice on abortion).
And they are inconsistent. In the NY-23 congressional race, they supported the Democrat who opposes gay marriage (Bill Owens) over a Republican who supported gay marriage (Dede Scozzafava).
posted by Carl on
“And that’s about it for HRC’s bipartisanship. HRC will only support the most liberal Republicans who favor a broad liberal agenda (esp. being pro-choice on abortion).”
I thought HRC tended to support Republicans who voted a certain way on gay rights legislation. I know they were also focused on abortion, but there aren’t any Republicans in Congress I can remember who are pro-life and also support gay rights.
I guess I don’t see it as being that different than the NRA supporting Democrats who support gun rights. The main difference is more Democrats support gun rights than Republicans support gay rights.
That’s true about NY-23, but then, considering Scozzafava’s campaign collapsed because of conservative anger about her views on fiscal and social issues, an HRC endorsement would have made her even more doomed.
posted by another steve on
HRC endorsed and gave money to Republicans like Susan Collins and Chris Shays.
The initial Collins and Shays endorsements date back to Elizabeth Birch’s tenure as head of HRC. Although they’ve been re-endorsed subsequently, it’s extremely doubtful that Joe Solmonese would have allowed them initially, given his commitment to a Democratic House and Senate (and witness the refusal to endorse Scozzafava for NY-23).
The clear message from HRC under Solmonese: we’re part of the Democratic Party.
posted by BobN on
What’s stopping LCR and GOProud from drowning moderate Republicans who support gay rights with money? Oh, ooops, now that I typed it, I realize how ridiculous that question was. Let’s try again. What’s stopping LCR from drowning moderate Republicans who support gay rights with money?
I don’t buy the claims of uberpartisanship on the part of HRC, but, really guys, what would it matter if the gay rights stepped up? HRC could spread the money of the Dem gays over hundreds of candidates while you guys could spread your rather larger portion of the pie over a couple dozen. Your folks would be shoe-ins, no?
posted by Tom on
Tom: Stephen uses his posts to push an agenda, which is to get gays and lesbians to set aside our push for legal equality while social conservatives get around to prying their heads out of their asses.
Avee: Not Stephen Miller, if you actually read him rather than demonizing him. Miller’s themes are (1) LGBT leaders put fundraising for Democrats above playing hardball, and (2) there is a small group of Republicans who could be worked with, and if we did so that group would get bigger. But LGBT leaders make it clear that their goal is electing Democrats, not working in any kind of nonpartisan way (re: NRA’s willingness to endorse Harry Reid becasue they’re a gun rights group, not a GOP-fundraising group).
Stephen is clear on both scores, Avee, and I agree with him on both points. I am not an HCR member, and I agree that a small — very small, in terms of percentages — number of Republican candidates vote in favor of gay and lesbian equality.
I do not think that the HRC is doing the job, and if you’ll look back into the posts from a few months ago, you’ll see that I advocate the NRA strategy. I’m a life member of the NRA and I think that gay and lesbian lobbying organizations should be as single-minded and relentless as the NRA has been and will remain. No compromise, no prisoners.
But I don’t think that I’m “demonizing” Stephen.
Stephen’s posts go well beyond his legitimate complaint about the HCR and his support of the small number of Republicans who endorse equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians.
Stephen, you may recall, (a) in past years opposed (1) the push for same-sex marriage instead of civil unions and (2) the use of courts instead of waiting for the legislative process, and (b) has made it clear that he believes that social conservatives need to be brought around before gays and lesbians can achieve legal equality.
I think, on the whole, that my characterization of his posts, if harsh, is founded in fact, and I think you’d see that if you looked at the landscape of his posts 2005 and forward.
But hey, Tom, your preferred strategy has achieved, well, nothing in the past two years but a “hate crimes” bill. You must be very pleased with yourself and your party for that achievement, won over the opposition of the GOP minority in Congress!
My “preferred strategy” is to work on behalf of gay and lesbian equality, relentlessly, and to support candidates willing to do the same thing. I don’t vote for, give money to, or support any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who does not support “equal means equal” and is willing to stand up and make that position public during an election campaign.
As a result, I almost always vote Democrat these days.
I switched over during the Reagan administration, when it became clear (as Barry Goldwater pointed out) that the GOP was selling out to the religious right, and would, as a result, no longer be able to maintain any integrity on traditional conservative issues (individual liberty, small government, fiscal responsibility). At the time, LGBT rights weren’t even on the agenda, but I believed Goldwater was right, and his opinion has stood the test of time.
I don’t agree with the liberal Democrats on a lot of issues, but I’m not sorry I switched. The GOP is hopeless right now because Republicans cannot survive the primary process without hewing to religious right orthodoxy.
A case in point: In 2006, the Republican Party in Wisconsin worked with Wisconsin Family Action to amend the Wisconsin constitution to ban same-sex marriage and similar or equivalent civil unions.
In 2008, Democrats took control of the Assembly, the State Senate and the governor’s office. In 2009, Wisconsin passed a limited Domestic Partner Act granting very limited rights (hospital visitation, medical and end-of-life decisions, funeral arrangements, inheritance).
Last November, the Republicans retook control of both houses and the governor’s office.
Now listen up: Every Republican who won, in both houses of the legislature, and in all statewide offices, without a single exception that I have been able to find pledged to repeal the Domestic Partner Act on a Wisconsin Family Action candidate questionnaire.
So what do you think will happen this Spring or Summer when Julaine Appling and the WFA calls in the chips?
I’d consider supporting a Republican IF the religious right didn’t have the party completely locked down in this state.
As far as I can tell, that’s true in almost all states, except for a few states on the coasts. I hope that those of you who are active in the GOP — and I urge you to become active if you are not — will be able to turn that around.
Meanwhile, I’ll make you a promise.
I will, in the 2012 election cycle, contribute the maximum amount allowed by Wisconsin law to any Republican Assembly or State Senate candidate in the general election who is willing to take a public position in favor of repealing Wisconsin’s anti-marriage amendment.
If you and Stephen are right, and the Republican Party is pulling out of the death-lock, I expect that I’ll have to spend some money. I’m I’m right, I won’t.
posted by Carl on
That’s a very sobering story about Wisconsin. It’s also another example of how no matter how much we play along with what the social conservatives want, they will always find another reason to oppose these laws. Remember when we heard that it was all about opposing judicial activism, and it should be up to the legislature? As soon as the legislature started passing these, it became “let the people decide” and the legislature would be overruled.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, Tom, you’re just making excuses.
You see, your problem is right here:
I don’t agree with the liberal Democrats on a lot of issues, but I’m not sorry I switched.
So why should Republicans take you seriously? You clearly want to be pandered to and receive special treatment based on your minority status, not on the content of your character or what you contribute to society.
And that’s what the Wisconsin electorate figured out. It realized that gays and lesbians like yourself genuinely don’t care about taxes, schools, business environments, jobs, or anything of the sort; your only concern is who panders to you and how much.
Throw in the obvious antireligious bigotry you carry, and it wasn’t a difficult choice for them.
posted by Tom on
BTW, the promise in the previous post applies to Wisconsin Republican candidates only. Just to be clear.
posted by BobN on
As far as I can tell, that’s true in almost all states, except for a few states on the coasts.
Check out the House vote on repealing DADT that just happened a few minutes ago. The GOP on the coast appears to be almost completely indistinguishable from the GOP of the “heart”land.
posted by Tom on
BobN, I think that it is possible for a moderate Republican to make it into the general election in areas if a few coastal states — California, New York and New England.
I’m not suggesting that the religious right’s influence over the party in those states is negligible, but simply that it isn’t a death-lock.
Until recently, there was a relatively strong moderate wing of the Republican Party remaining in Illinois, but I don’t know whether that’s still the case.
I will be very curious to see the House vote in the next hour or so — a stand-up, stand-alone, up-or-down vote on DADT repeal. I wonder how many Republicans will vote for repeal?
It seems to me that if there is any issue on which the GOP could vote with us, it would be DADT repeal. After all, polls consistently show that about 75% of Americans favor repeal, the DOD study is in and favorable, the military has a implementation plan in place, and the CJCS has asked Congress to repeal DADT.
How could the light be greener?
posted by Carl on
Social conservatism has generally taken over the state GOP in NY, IL, and CA too. That’s why California no longer elects Republicans to anything other than the very gerrymandered Congressional seats, and why when various generic social conservative Republicans managed to win IL Congressional seats, they still couldn’t win the governor’s race. Mark Kirk, who generally seems to do as the GOP tells him on all issues, barely managed to eke out a win against a horrible, scandal-plagued candidate.
posted by Tom on
The House vote on repeal is in:
D: Y-235; N-15; NV-5
R: Y-15; N-160; NV-4
In simple terms, 8% of the Republicans in the House voted for repeal, and 90% of the Democrats. The House voted to repeal DADT. Now the question is whether the Senate will vote at all.
posted by BobN on
Uh… 92%.
posted by Tom on
Right. I did the math in my head and didn’t get it right on the Democrats.
I hope that the Republican-leaning members of this forum will get behind the 15 Republicans who voted “Yes” in the next election cycle: Biggert, Bono Mack, Campbell, Cao, Castle, Dent, Diaz-Balart, Djou, Dreier, Ehlers, Flake, Paul, Platts, Reichert, and Ros-Lehtinen. You can bet that each of them will face a primary challenge from the religious right if they seek re-election.
posted by Carl on
Cao, Djou, and Castle won’t be returning for the next Congress. I’m not sure which Diaz-Balart voted for this but one of them is retiring.
I’m surprised at a few of those names — I wonder if the lame duck session made them less wary of a challenge.
posted by Tom on
The voting combo that fascinated me was Mack & Bono-Mack, who went their separate ways on the issue — she for repeal, he against.
posted by avee on
BobN sneers: What’s stopping LCR from drowning moderate Republicans who support gay rights with money? . . .HRC could spread the money of the Dem gays over hundreds of candidates while you guys could spread your rather larger portion of the pie over a couple dozen. Your folks would be shoe-ins, no?
In what universe? HRC’s budget (and campaign contributions) dwarf LCRs (which a year ago didn’t even have a single permanent employee in its national office). Many successful gay people who are not “of the left” give money to HRC’s pac because its solicitations make it sound nonpartisan. They’re getting ripped off.
posted by Carl on
Money is important but what matters most is allocation of that money and also use of resources like volunteers. That can help Republicans in primaries. If not Congressional, then state legislative, or on city councils, etc.
That’s how the religious right got their foothold. That’s also why I wish that IGF spent more time talking about this type of strategy instead of reminding us again and again that Democrats and HRC are bad for gays. There is rarely, if ever, any alternative mentioned, other than let’s be nice to Republicans and then they might pat us on the head. The Republicans currently in power have zero reason to support anything which is supportive of laws such as partnership contracts or DADT repeal. There are Republicans out there who might feel differently. Yet they are rarely, if ever, acknowledged.
posted by Jorge on
What’s stopping LCR from drowning moderate Republicans who support gay rights with money?
It’s not like they have much of a choice. With so few such candidates to choose from, every one of them gets a deluge. Or is it that there’s so few candidates there isn’t enough space to create a deluge?
Anyway, two Republicans who were at least mixed on gay issues lost the general election (in fact they were the only two Republicans in the House who lost in the general election). I think a liberal state would be far more likely to elect a liberal Democrat than a moderate Republican.
I’d consider supporting a Republican IF the religious right didn’t have the party completely locked down in this state.
As far as I can tell, that’s true in almost all states, except for a few states on the coasts. I hope that those of you who are active in the GOP — and I urge you to become active if you are not — will be able to turn that around.
It is far more in my best interests to get the religious right to relinguish its hand against gay rights than it is to drive it out of politics entirely.
posted by Tom on
It is far more in my best interests to get the religious right to relinguish its hand against gay rights than it is to drive it out of politics entirely.
Well, if you want to work on toning down the religious right rather than working on getting the Republican Party to stop letting the tail wag the dog in the primaries, get busy on that, then, Jorge.
Something has got to give if the religious right’s death grip on the Republican primary process is to be broken. Work at it from whichever end of the stick you think best fits your interests, but work on it.
posted by Debrah on
“Stephen uses his posts to push an agenda, which is to get gays and lesbians to set aside our push for legal equality while social conservatives get around to prying their heads out of their asses.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is nonsense. All Stephen Miller does is illuminate the obvious—what has taken place—as the Leftists attempt to blame everything that doesn’t fall their way on the big bad GOP (of which I am not a part, by the way).
It must be embarrassing for one small group like the gay community to continually vote liberal almost 100% of the time and STILL not get what you want.
I know I have voter’s remorse for having supported Obama in 2008. Everything he’s doing is virtually a carbon copy of the policies of his much-maligned-but-already-smelling-like-a-rose predecessor, GWB.
Where’s that “hopey-changey” we heard so much about?
As a side bar, I thought you guys might like to read this one from Lori Heine that I stumbled upon this morning while doing my daily Diva tweets!
Happy Diva Holiday!
posted by Carl on
“It must be embarrassing for one small group like the gay community to continually vote liberal almost 100% of the time and STILL not get what you want.”
The gay community is actually less committed to a liberal vote than most other minority groups. Usually about 25-30% of gay voters will vote Republican.
Yet the GOP never seems to be interested in this vote.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, they are very interested.
You see, Carl, you put things like minority status, skin color, and sexual orientation ahead of everything else and make your decisions based on them. That’s what makes the Obama Party an ideal fit for you; it establishes ideology based on minority status alone, and makes it clear that all Hispanics, all black people, and all gay and lesbian people must think, act, and behave in the same fashion because they belong to the same minority. The Obama Party enables the fact that you simply don’t rationally evaluate issues, instead claiming that there is a correct “gay” ideology on such things as abortion and taxes.
Republicans do not need to pander to that 25-30% because that group is already voting Republican for the right reason — because they agree with their principles, not because they’re being pandered to.
posted by BobN on
Usually about 25-30% of gay voters will vote Republican.
According to highly unreliable polling…
posted by Bucky on
North Dallas Thirty.
WOW.
What to say?
It has been obvious that he is a hateful and bigoted. But WOW, those last four comments are so full of bile and vitriol it is just hard to stomach.
posted by Thomas Jefferson on
1. I have no problem working to educate and lobby members of both parties. When a candidate or politician says something that I agree or disagree with, I do not look at their party affiliation and shape my response accordingly.
2. Again, this repeated assertion that we cannot trust the Democrats because they had a majority and nothing [so we are told] got done for gay rights. To quote from, ‘My Cousin Vinney’, its a ‘BS question’. As long as we have primaries, party discipline will be very difficult to enforce and a politician in a more conservative district or State is probably not going to chuck his career because other members in his party tell him to.
3. I have many beefs with both parties, but the religious right almost always controls GOP politics at the local and state level [especially in the upper Midwest where I was born and raised]. Maybe that will change, but until that time it tends to mean that I have two voting choices; an imperfect Democrat or a crazy Republican.
posted by Thomas Jefferson on
The Human Rights Campaign is not perfect. Some people treat it as a mere stepping stone to more lucrative paying jobs in the public and private sectors. I hear nightmare tales of their 2000 march and they seem to have almost no clout outside of federal lobbying efforts.
However, what progress has been made at the federal level is, probably, largely due to them. They manage to put on professional looking, upscale funding raising events even generate some measure of credibility for gay rights issues.
I personally agree with the overall philosophy of the Human Rights Campaign, most of the time. Clearly, a candidate that is not likely to win or does not agree with this philosophy is unlikely to get an endorsement.