Pennsylvania state representative Mike Fleck came out last year but said the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund advised him to stay in the closet, even after winning re-election, reports the Washington Blade, in a story first reported by the Philadelphia Gay News. According to the Blade:
Fleck’s comments to PGN prompted lesbian commentator Faith Elmes to write a column for the Pennsylvania blog Keystone Student Voice questioning the Victory Fund’s motives…. Elmes accused the Victory Fund of pushing for Fleck to stay in the closet long enough so that gay activist and attorney Brian Sims, a Democrat, would emerge as the state’s first openly gay member of the Pennsylvania House.
The Victory Fund and the Human Rights Campaign are closely aligned with—and many would say controlled by—the Democratic party, and their leadership typically consists of Democratic party activists. As I’ve often said and firmly believe, many “progressive” LGBT activists’ worst nightmare is a Republican party with more openly gay and gay supportive office holders.
Added: The Victory Fund has supported gay Republicans over the years who met its stringent pro-choice on abortion criteria, but excluded openly gay Republicans who have not. Let’s hope publicity over the above incident serves to deter a further HRC-type decline into rank partisanship.
17 Comments for “Serve the Party!”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Victory Fund and the Human Rights Campaign are closely aligned with—and many would say controlled by—the Democratic party, and their leadership typically consists of Democratic party activists. As I’ve often said and firmly believe, many “progessive” LGBT activists’ worst nightmare is a Republican party with more openly gay and gay supportive office holders.
If you have come to that conclusion, then move on and organize and/or support organizations that support gay and lesbian Republicans (or more usefully, pro-equality Republicans, both gay and straight). Several do exist, you know. LCR, GOProud, and the American Unity Fund come to mind, although anyone reading IGF has to look hard to find any reference to the groups.
Although I do not doubt that both HRC and the Victory Fund have become aligned with Democratic politics, I think that you are conjuring up a conspiracy when none exists.
Both HRC and the Victory Fund are examples of the the corrosive effect that the intersection of money and power have inside the Washington. Both depend on a base of supporters built from cocktail parties and black-tie events, and both organizations exist almost exclusively within the closed, self-important and self-congratulatory world of inside-Beltway politics. Both organizations have, to my mind anyway, become primarily focused on self-preservation — maintaining funding and “influence” — within that world, and have long since lost the integrity of their mission.
Both, to my mind, are useless politically.
I was involved in ground level Democratic politics as a volunteer for many years, volunteering in campaigns, writing campaign plans, developing and executing campaign strategy and organizing the ground work that results in a winning campaign. Keeping a promise to my partner, I retired from political work when my term as Chair of the DPW LGBT Caucus ended last June, so now I’m just a geezer-kibitzer.
But my experience is deep enough and recent enough, I think, to justify an observation: In the 2012 election cycle, the DPW ran five LGBT Assembly candidates in the November general election, one an incumbent and the other four challengers. I was involved in four of those campaigns, as well as two other campaigns for straight pro-equality Democrats. Neither HRC nor the Victory Fund provided any useful support for any of those campaigns.
I frankly wonder if either organization does anything, except as chimera, outside the Beltway. Neither does squat in Wisconsin, anyway.
The Gill Action Fund, on the other hand, is useful. Gill is the Democratic equivalent of the Republican-oriented American Unity Fund, channeling money into campaigns, and I’ve been involved in campaigns for pro-equality Democrats where Gill money made a critical difference. My guess is that the American Unity Fund will do likewise in the future if people like you will put some money behind it.
So, I don’t know what to say to you, Stephen. You seem to be heavily invested in exposing the “perfidy” of HRC, the Victory Fund and GLAAD. You are so focused on these organizations that you post about one or the other of them every few weeks, and you don’t seem able to move on. It baffles me when so much else is going on, and progress toward “equal means equal” is moving fast. I suspect that you’ve lived around the Beltway so long that you can no longer see the forest for the trees, and actually think that organizations like this make a difference.
Well, here’s a dose of reality: Dazzle doesn’t win political victories. Volunteers, organization and campaign contributions do. The HRC and the Victory Fund play the Washington dazzle game. That isn’t useful.
Get out in the real world and actually get involved in a pro-equality political campaign. It is a lot of fun. At least it has been for me.
posted by Jorge on
This seems to be an isolated incident. I’ll wait for the repeat.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I agree.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Given Stephen’s propensity to use dubious sources for stories, I highly doubt this.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Given Stephen’s propensity to use dubious sources for stories, I highly doubt this.
No, the story is true. The Blade story is accurate enough, unless Mike Fleck is lying, which is unlikely. The Victory Fund, to my knowledge, has not denied Fleck’s account, so I think we have to take it as a given. Stephen’s interpretation may be off base, but the essentials of the matter seem clear enough.
If you’d like to read an interesting take on the story, I found this commentary fascinating.
posted by Houndentenor on
>>>”As I’ve often said and firmly believe, many “progressive” LGBT activists’ worst nightmare is a Republican party with more openly gay and gay supportive office holders.”
LOL There’s so little chance of that happening that it hardly sounds like effective nightmare material. Given that not a single one of the (all GOP) elected officials that represent me at the local, state or federal level is anything short of openly hostile to any rights for gay people, I think you have a lot of fucking nerve to whine that it’s the fault of people like me that things are this way. I would be happy to vote for someone who was neutral on gay issues in next year’s primary, but it looks like my choices are going to be the incumbent anti-gay bigots and challengers to the right of them on social as well as other issues.
And again, the HRC is a joke. Always was.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Stephen makes the “progressives worst nightmare” statement about every three weeks on IGF.
It is nonsense, but he believes it and it is obviously a burr under his saddle, for some reason. I don’t get it on either score — why he believes it and why it bothers him so much. If he’d get his head out of the Beltway for a year, he’d know better and he might relax. But I have a feeling that this meme is beyond the power of facts to change.
I don’t know about you, but my worst nightmare is that Scalia/Thomas clones will replace one or more of Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Kennedy before the Loving-equivalent case is considered by SCOTUS in 4-6 years. Going forward, we will be heavily dependent upon the Court, and the Court can be tipped against us by a single, strategic appointment.
I shudder to think who true believers like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio might appoint to the Court to appease the social conservatives. That’s my worst nightmare.
Bush did more than enough to screw us with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, and if Obama hadn’t been elected, we’d have two more like them, rather than Justices Kagan and Sotomayer, on the Court right now. If you want to stay awake nights, think about how the Court would have decided Windsor and Perry last summer with two hard-core social conservative justices on the bench instead of Kagan and Sotomayer, and then think forward to 2018-2020.
posted by Houndentenor on
I remember in 1998 when HRC endorsed Al D’Amato. He lost to Chuck Schumer. HRC endorsements mean bupkis. They don’t deliver votes. Never have. Besides there are TWO gay Republican organizations. They can’t raise money? There are no wealthy gay or gay-friendly Republican donors to fund either/both of those organizations? Really?
posted by Don on
Stephen’s overriding theme seems to be to elect Republicans, not Democrats full stop. Not elect conservatives instead of liberals. Members of the Republican party. It’s appears to be the only consistent aspect to the threads. This one entitled “serve the party!” clearly lays bare that the only problem with the situation is that he has indicated an organization that has failed to serve the right party. At the end of The Blade article, even Sims indicates that it’s just wrong to try and stick a label as “first out gay . . .” on either of them noting they “became at the same time” and then not wanting the title for himself.
I think those who wish to have more Republicans in office would prefer an unopposed gay republican official not come out during election season. They will be asked about their thoughts toward the individual. and although base republicans are 98% in agreement against gay republicans, the general electorate is not. Fleck coming out would have likely hurt other republicans, not democrats running a gay guy in a liberal district.
Maybe I’m wrong, but if he held back his coming out, it only had to help republicans because “how antigay I am” is only a good tool in a primary, or a general election where no liberal is going to run (Ala., Miss., Texas)
posted by Kosh III on
” Given that not a single one of the (all GOP) elected officials that represent me at the local, state or federal level is anything short of openly hostile to any rights for gay people, I think you have a lot of fucking nerve to whine that it’s the fault of people like me that things are this way. ”
Well said.
I’d challenge all you Beltway blabbers to come out into the real world. Come to one of the states that still proudly waves the flag of Treason and see what decades of “conservative” rule has done. Come to Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama etc. See how these places have the highest rates of obesity and bad health, the lowest educated populace and the worst schools, the nastiest attitudes towards anyone who is not WASP plus massive corporate cronyism and corruption.
You sure won’t find Log Cabin in Tennessee, nor any other pro-gay group EXCEPT liberal/progressive/Democrats. I’ll not vote for any GOP/conservative who is eager to destroy my life. Why should I?
posted by Don on
Careful, Kosh, I voiced such concerns about the nature of rural, southern conservatives before. I was admonished that I might have some “issues” for being so generalizing about the fat, uneducated masses in small town America. Maybe some “boyhood hurts” that were unresolved.
I stand by the position that it’s an accurate description of much of red America. But watch out for admonishments.
posted by Houndentenor on
Well, you will certainly have no trouble finding people who fit such stereotypes in many parts of the country, but obviously there are people who don’t fit that who will not be happy with the generalization. I just responded to someone who made a remark to the effect that no one in New York City went to church which is also not true (there are plenty of churches there and most of them are not empty on Sunday mornings). Always remember that there are liberals and moderates in the deepest red areas and hard-core conservatives in the deep blue. I met plenty of right-wingers in NYC and I know plenty of people far more liberal than I right here in a very safe Republican district. What I don’t hear very often is “boo hoo it’s so hard being a liberal working on Wall Street” but there’s plenty of “poor me it’s so hard being a conservative in Hollywood. I sucked it up and took the paycheck and so can everyone else.
posted by Jorge on
Oh, never mind. It’s not like I shy away from saying unkind things about the northeastern low-class.
But I would admonish those who get it wrong.
posted by Kosh III on
“I know plenty of people far more liberal than I right here in a very safe Republican district. ”
Quite true. I know plenty of folks that live in a deep red Cong. district south of town and they are quite progressive. They are also young, well educated, hikers/gymrats and more.
But they get outvoted by the folks who believe any lie the Republicans tell. Such as in 4th Cong district whose Rep. runs on a Teanut platform of opposing abortion in ALL instances.
Turns out he had affairs with his patients(he’s an MD) he forced one girlfriend to have an abortion. But all he had to do was go BooHoo I’ve repented and Jesus loves me and the idiots reelected him.
posted by Kosh III on
“I stand by the position that it’s an accurate description of much of red America. But watch out for admonishments.”
And who admonished you? Beltway bonzos who don’t believe in life outside of NYC, DC and LA?
If folks want pro-gay GOP, then go lobby Thad Cochran, Richard Shelby, Lame-ar Alexander or Lindsay Graham.
posted by Don on
a regular contributor. I think he meant well. essentially “don’t be so quick to judge/generalizations aren’t helpful/sounds like you have childhood issues against the South.”
which I decided to take on face value and use the criticism constructively. but the presumption of my alleged emotional imbalance as a result of childhood trauma at the hands of hillbillies annoyed the hell out of me – for a day.
toyed with penning a variety of responses, but it all boiled down to bruised ego for me. and he was right. my generalizations were too broad, and too nasty. I’d gone full teahadist and might as well have been shouting Jeebus! and Constitoooshun! alternately in wholly inappropriate situations. You know, like any attempt to curtail my right to persecute other people based upon my religious beliefs is a violation of my constitutional right. that kind of craziness.
So I am trying to tone it down. No reason you should. I should have gone full libertarian and gone more “live and let live”
posted by Shadow Chaser on
I am center/left Democrat from suburbs of Pittsburgh who follows Pennsylvania politics closely.
In the 2012 Democratic primary, Brian Sims ran against and defeated an incumbent state legislator who had been his boss. That particular state legislator was the particular bete noire of the Pennsylvania legislature’s most ardent homophobe, State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler County). So much for loyalty to your mentor.
Sims represents an urban district in Philadelphia. I don’t think he had any problems getting elected once he won the nomination, nor do I suspect he will in the near future.
On the other hand, I am concerned for Fleck’s political future. Yes, I am a Democrat but the Pennsylvania legislature will probably be controlled by the Republicans for the foreseeable future. I would hope the Fleck would speak out in the meetings of the Republican caucus.
Fleck represents a rural district in central Pennsylvania. Yes, I know that his district includes part of the Altoona and State College metropolitan areas, but no one would ever confuse Altoona and State College with Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. He might do well with the liberal leaning academic community at Juniata College in Huntingdon, but the rest of the district is dominated by conservative farming communities
I don’t know if money and endorsement fron gay political groups would hurt or help Fleck with his rural, conservative constituents. Such endorsements could backfire and hurt his campaign, especially if a religiously-movitated candidate enters the race.
Things are getting interesting here in the Keystone State