Roll Call reports that openly gay Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) is gearing up to run for an open seat in the Senate:
Groups including the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and the Human Rights Campaign have supported Baldwin’s political career for almost 20 years, and they intend to tap into their vast supporter lists to fully back a Senate bid by the seven-term Congresswoman, whose voting record has consistently been among the most liberal in the House. …
The Human Rights Campaign has more than a million members and supporters nationwide, and it already has a fundraising portal for Baldwin set up on its website. “If Tammy decides to run for the Senate, we will step up our efforts to get the word out about her record,” HRC spokesman Michael Cole-Schwartz said.
Would that be her record for gay rights, or her record as one of the most left-liberal members of the House? And does HRC know that there is a difference?
More. An interesting if rather hard-core libertarian item from the Friends of Liberty Newsletter:
D.C.’s gay pride festival in June was a case study in how the Left operates. What struck me as I walked around the festival was how a young person would see all the Left-leaning institutions of the gay community and conclude, a) that’s normal, and b) there is no alternative way to think about being gay. Only the almost-invisible gay Republican and libertarian booths offered any kind of diversity of thought. A number of organizations with booths at the festival had “equality” in their name . … The real deal is never articulated – ‘Support us and we’ll give you equality but, oh by the way, what we’re not telling you is that you’re signing up to live in a socialist country.’
Furthermore. Baldwin joins with the hard left to vote against the deficit ceiling agreement, finding even a modest amount of decrease in the growth of spending too much of an affront to her spendthrift sensibilities. She’s one of our elected representatives who is most responsible for this.
18 Comments for “Baldwin’s Bid”
posted by William Quill on
We get it Stephen, HRC and Victory Fund are left-wing and effectively Democratic organs. It really is tiresome how you post incessantly sniping at this obvious fact. Why don’t you work at building a gay mainstream, encouraging those centrists, libertarians or conservative who come on board, which is surely more constructive?
posted by Houndentenor on
Meanwhile the alternative is voting for a Republican who runs on an anti-gay platform or a Libertarian who will get less than .01% of the vote.
Once again, I am struck by the fact that gay conservatives seem to be more anti-liberal than they are conservative or gay. If you don’t like the alternatives, then by all means create one or two. I see virtually no progress in the GOP on gay rights unless you count the spouses and daughters of politicians no longer running for office.
posted by JohnAGJ on
That’s just silly, Houndentenor. I can understand how, from your perspective, a gay conservative seem to be more anti-liberal than actually being conservative. However, how on earth does this make them any less gay? Whether you vote for a pro-gay, anti-gay or doesn’t-care-either-way politician if the voter was gay beforehand than guess what? They’re still gay afterwards. Or are you implying that a gay person is somehow less gay because they don’t vote the way you think they should?
As far as the GOP goes, I would agree with you that they have a loooooooong way to go. Yet this does not mean that the DNC is suddenly my party of choice. Wrong. There is so much I disagree with and can’t stand about the Democrat Party that I will not vote for them either. So I tend to vote Independent or select individual candidates of either party when possible.
posted by Houndentenor on
I stand by my assessment. I have been reading the postings and writings of gay conservatives for a long time now and the common theme is that they hate liberals (and then complain when we won’t date them).
posted by JohnAGJ on
So if true that would make them whiney, self-absorbed and petulant perhaps, but again I fail to see how this makes them any less gay. Or do you claim that gays are incapable of being whiney, self-absorbed, petulant, etc? I hope not because there are quite a number on the left that fit that description as well…
posted by Wilberforce on
Stephen, you’re starting to sound obsessed. And your attacks are getting weaker by the minute.
There is a difference between gay rights and liberalism, but not as much as you think. Gay rights are a central part of the liberal agenda. They are no part of the conservative agenda, despite your imagination.
And blaming liberal organizations because conservatives show a weak presence at Pride? Please Mary, you’re getting desperate.
And booths at the Parade are front groups for socialists? Oh my sweet Aunt Margaret’s blueberry cobbler. You are a hoot.
posted by Tom on
Tammy’s my representative in Congress. She is to my left, and probably to the left of the Democratic Party center, to be sure, but she has also done a very good job of representing the 2nd Congressional District, including, specifically, the rural area in which I live. She wins in rural, Republican areas, because of her strong representation of rural interests, and always polls ahead of other Democrats running in her District, usually by a significant margin.
So on to your “questions”:
(1) Would that be her record for gay rights, or her record as one of the most left-liberal members of the House?
In both cases it would be because Tammy has been a champion for “equal means equal”.
Let’s take the Victory Fund, as quoted in the article you cite: “We are really excited to break a glass ceiling for the LGBT community that has been there for a long time. It would be our top priority in 2012.” It is clear to all but the blind, deaf and dumb that the Victory Fund, which supports gay and lesbian candidates, is supporting Tammy because of her long record on “equal means equal”.
The “Run, Tammy, Run” petition on the VF website makes it clear even to the blind, deaf and dumb: “No openly LGBT American has ever served in the United States Senate, but that could finally change if Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin runs and wins the Wisconsin senate seat now held by Sen. Herb Kohl, who just announced his retirement. Tammy isn’t just the first and only out lesbian ever elected to Congress, she’s a tireless advocate for the entire LGBT community. This is a rare opportunity to move America forward and shatter another glass ceiling on our way to full equality.”
Then let’s look at the HRC: The quote in the article is a bit ambiguous, but the HRC-PAC website is not: “Tammy has made a career of breaking new ground and shattering glass ceilings. A champion in the fight for full equality, Tammy is the founder and co-chair of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus. … As the first (and thus far only) out lesbian elected to Congress, Tammy is a leader who is making a difference every day. This year she may be a candidate for Senate, and if successful, she would be the first woman to represent Wisconsin in the US Senate, and the first openly gay Senator.
(2) And does HRC know that there is a difference?
Pffffft!
Stephen, with all due respect, your butt crack is showing wide.
Is your hostility to the HRC so strong that you’d toss one of the the strongest advocates we have in Congress under the bus just because she is supported by two LGBT groups you don’t like?
Stephen, this is, I agree, getting tedious.
Why don’t you get off your butt and do something to further support of “equal means equal” within your own political party, instead of trying to undermine the political future of politicians like Tammy, just because she’s a Democrat?
No matter what you think, the fight for “equal means equal” is not a zero-sum political game. All gays and lesbians win with each step toward “equal means equal”.
posted by BobN on
So… we’re supposed to support gay Republican candidates — both hypothetically and in those very rare instances when they exist — cuz they’re gay, but Stephen gets to attack one of the most effective of the not-even-handful of actual gay Congresscritters cuz she’s too liberal for him.
Yeah, that makes sense…
I think the silly second part of this post was just to point out that, yes, some other people are even more whiny than Mr. Miller.
posted by another steve on
Stephen gets to attack one of the most effective of the not-even-handful of actual gay Congresscritters cuz she’s too liberal for him.
Well, it’s his blog… If you don’t like it, why do you come here everyday?
More but to the point, Miller is making a point about the need to expand the scope of support for gay rights beyond the liberal left. So backing gay Republicans who are challenging their party’s position, and not supporting gay liberals by citing their progressive records, fits into that greater strategy.
posted by Houndentenor on
And to that end it is useful when he can find conservatives with decent or better records on gay issues. For the decades of talk from Log Cabin et al. of moving the GOP on gay issues the Republicans are actually worse on gay rights than they have ever been and I don’t see any movement. The exceptions are indeed noteworthy and I’m glad someone is looking for people like Johnson, but there are so few of them that it’s obviously not something one could blog about regularly.
posted by BobN on
So backing gay Republicans who are challenging their party’s position
and not supporting gay liberals by citing their progressive records, fits into that greater strategy.
Gotcha on that first bit. But if the way to even out support for gay rights between the parties is to not support pro-gay, indeed thoroughly personally homosexual, candidates and, thus, trim back their number on the left to make the paucity on the right look bigger, uh… no way.
posted by Jimmy on
“Miller is making a point about the need to expand the scope of support for gay rights beyond the liberal left.”
And the counterpoint is justifiably put forward that it is up to those in the conservative movement, who can still claim to be sane, to do that. The majority of LGBT people are middle of the road, to center-left (me), to fringe left, on a whole array of issues, not just LGBT rights (as if people get politically active based on one issue). They are certainly not ideological conservatives.
We saw years ago where the GOP was tracking, which was hard right. And, across the board, on the state and federal level, people like Ronald Reagan and Dwight D. Eisenhower, and even Nixon, wouldn’t get very far in the GOP of today. All the whining in the world isn’t going to change that for the time being, certainly not the next couple of election cycles.
posted by Wilberforce on
We’re talking emotional issues here, issues serious enough to prevent Stephen from see the most obvious, neon flashing, hot pink evidence.
It’s the same over at JMG, where they spend all day spitting venom at our allies in the liberal church.
Man this community is broken. I’ve been waiting thirty years for our people to put away their internalized homophobia, grow up, and stop sabotaging our movement. Probably won’t happen in my lifetime.
posted by Pintuck on
Why do we pretend that the voice of queer culture has any value to gay people?
posted by Jimmy on
I suppose Miller’s posts of this nature serve to maintain his street cred amongst his peers. If only he could put as much energy into calling his ideological cohorts onto the carpet for their records on the question of equality.
posted by Tom on
Stephen’s writing on the subject gets more and more out of touch with reality every post, it seems.
The idea that VF and HRC are jumping at the chance to help put Tammy Baldwin into the Senate because she “one of the most left-liberal members of the House” and can’t tell the difference between a lesbian and a “left-liberal” is beyond bizarre.
It is a little bit like watching Fox News hawk the story line that Marcus Bachmann is a “victim” because the mainstream media is reporting on his lies about reparative therapy. An alternative universe, is what it is, in both cases.
posted by Lymis on
Ummm….
HRC is supposed to support the Republican over Tammy Baldwin?
In Wisconsin?
In this political climate?
Your underlying complaint that HRC knee-jerks in support of liberals may or may not have any substance, but holy cow.
If Tammy Baldwin runs against a Republican with anything resembling as good a gay-rights history as she has, then you can complain about an HRC endorsement.
But come on. This is just unhinged.
posted by Brian Miller on
I am one of those gay libertarians, and well, let’s just say that diversity is a two-way street.
The Libertarian Party didn’t exactly earn itself credibility by nominating DOMA author Bob Barr as its nominee. And the Republican Party’s platform federally and in most states articulates a brutal homophobic policy that includes — in several cases — advocating criminalizing of gay people.
In such a climate, is it any wonder that LGBT people default towards the left?