Gay Media Taking Note of HRC’s Partisan Tilt
It seems we’re not the only gay “publication” taking on the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Blogger Michael Petrelis alerts us to an editorial in the Bay Area Reporter (no conservative voice that) taking the organization to task for “flailing its arms at critics and derogatory candy ads” and remaining silent when “straight Wyoming Republican state Senator Dan Zwonitzer voiced support for gay marriage and killed legislation that would have prevented the state from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states.” (Emphasis added)
As the Reporter put it: “HRC’s actions have led to mounting questions in recent weeks about its purpose and ability to work in a bipartisan fashion.” That’s something we’ve been saying for as long as we’ve been blogging. We’ve noted that HRC dropped the word, “bipartisan” from its mission statement.
The editorial notes further that HRC “kowtows” to the Democrats while is leader Joe Solmonese devotes his time to attacking “gay media outlets and LGBT pundits.“
We’re delighted to note that others — and not just those who share our political views — have begun noticing HRC’s partisan tilt. It would be nice if Log Cabin would join those gay voices from a great variety of fora in taking issue with HRC’s evolution into the gay wing of the Democratic Party. And that is new leader Patrick Sammon would not be as eager as his predecessor to cozy up to this increasingly partisan outfit.
Following in the footsteps of his fellow Wyomingite, Vice President Dick Cheney, a Republican legislator blasts a gratuitous state bill which would ban gay marriage in the Cowboy State. Gay organizations should be praising this good, straight man for standing up against legislation harmful to us. But, since he has that pesky little (R) after his name, most gay groups would rather ignore him than herald yet another Republican standing up for gay people.
And Kudos to those gay voices on the left who have taken the time to praise that good man. Alas, that HRC is not one of them.
UPDATE: Chris Crain has more on the Bay Area Reporter editorial. And I highly recommend his piece on HRC’s reaction to the Snickers’ ad featuring the male mechanics’ kiss.
UP-UPDATE: Over at Malcontent, home of the ever adorable Robbie, Matt looks into the very partisan nature of HRC. Read the whole thing!
20 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
(My nice, warm feeling that I stopped donating to HRC or having anything to do with them about 4-5 years ago, reinforced…)
Comment by Calarato — March 1, 2007 @ 3:25 pm - March 1, 2007
I stopped donating to HRC about two years ago. Last year, at a pride event, I was approached by an HRC representative. Apparently, the individual was only interested in getting pledges. I expressed the issues I had, and she didn’t bother countering it, only regurgitating some script. So I said that I wouldn’t be donating again until the matter is addressed.
Comment by Pat — March 1, 2007 @ 3:34 pm - March 1, 2007
HRC = Human Rights Campaign, or Hillary Rodham Clinton?
And are they any different? Methinks not.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 1, 2007 @ 3:52 pm - March 1, 2007
Keep in mind that if you have ever given a single dollar to HRC, you are counted among their 650,000 members. The only way to no longer be a member is to specifically ask that your name be removed from the membership roles.
Comment by Michael K. Bassham — March 1, 2007 @ 3:54 pm - March 1, 2007
[...] Original post by GayPatriotWest [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Gay Media Taking Note of HRC’s Partisan Tilt — March 1, 2007 @ 4:21 pm - March 1, 2007
Pfffft, I’m a visionary.
Comment by Robbie — March 1, 2007 @ 4:29 pm - March 1, 2007
[...] UP-UPDATE: GayPatriot welcomes others to the party. [...]
Pingback by Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Now « Blowhard — March 1, 2007 @ 4:36 pm - March 1, 2007
They don’t read our site anymore, Robbie.
Comment by Matt — March 1, 2007 @ 5:01 pm - March 1, 2007
Wow, this is the first time I have been to this site. I am suprised to find other opinions that echo my own concerning HRC. I have always found HRC to be pushy, patronizing, and one sided with a disconcerting patina of sleeze. I will certainly be returning to this site.
Comment by Mindy — March 1, 2007 @ 5:55 pm - March 1, 2007
Just my opinion, nothing more.
The so called “over zealous volunteer” who supposedly was behind the Foley media shopping and subsequent outing appears to be a fiction.
There is a December 2005 newsletter at the web site bimen.org that reads like a thinly veiled threat to out a politician. This was mentioned as early as October of 2005 in a more generic, less threatening newsletter.
Shortly after that, the founder of bimen.org had some serious health issues and was on the net literally begging for money to cover unpaid hospital bills. Seems the poor chaps bills ran in the hundreds of thousands.
Shakedown? Oh yeah. That’s this cats opinion.
It appears that the two organizations are related. The H.R.C seems to be acting in a manner to protect bimen.org.
Now if you will excuse me, I have to wait for the telemarketing calls.
Comment by Deigo Katt — March 1, 2007 @ 11:48 pm - March 1, 2007
#9
Sleeze? Curious.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 2, 2007 @ 1:44 am - March 2, 2007
#10 - Diego, you certainly have a point. Very curious indeed.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 2, 2007 @ 10:58 am - March 2, 2007
Well, the telemarketing call arrived last night, as predicted. The el cheapo answering machine proved it was up to its job of screening and in their usual fashion they sat on the other end cowering. Was really surprised by the number that was fed into the P.B.X, it is one that they haven’t used in a good 9 months.
They are soooooooooooo scary! NOT! Most people at least have the guts to leave a message or something.
The averice never ends. Tsk, tsk, tsk. How tacky and uncouth. For some reason they don’t like me very much. I have a hard time understanding it, cause I am just a nice guy.
{:p
Comment by Deigo Katt — March 3, 2007 @ 7:31 am - March 3, 2007
Perhaps Sleeze is not the best word I could have chosen. But semantics aside, everytime I have come in contact with HRC, at pride, events, or otherwise, I find that their advertizing and the tactics they use to solicit contributions to be incredibly pushy and less than professional. I use the word sleeze because they have reminded me more than once of less than ethical lawyers and car salesmen. Not to mention telemarketers In a nutshell, they have just never given me a warm fuzzy. I’m sure that they have done some good. I certainly would hope so with all of the money that they have received in donations, but I don’t find their approach very comforting, and I am concerned with the image they are potentially protraying of the gay community.
Comment by Mindy — March 3, 2007 @ 5:33 pm - March 3, 2007
#14 - Right, Mindy. I too am worried about how the mass public perceives the HRC simply because they think ALL of us belong to it.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 5, 2007 @ 11:04 am - March 5, 2007
There are republicans in power that are understanding of our needs. I think that at times HRC is as much of a hinderance to our cause as it is a help. Their Full-speed-ahead, tactless and brazenly partizan tactics I’m sure have turned some who were on the fence about the issue one way or another. Although there are times when such a method is called for, I don’t believe it should be a blanket method. I know that I for one am generally turned off by pushy, mudslinging politics and would rather be represented by a group with a more professional and politically moderate demeanor. I think that HRC represents the whole of the gay community no more than the outspoken fundamentalist christians who demonstrate at servicemens funerals and pride events represent the whole of the christian community.
Comment by Mindy — March 5, 2007 @ 11:23 pm - March 5, 2007
Mindy, since we’re on the topic, did you hear about Hillary Clinton’s visit to the HRC to enlist their support in her campaign?
Of course not - because the MSM refused to cover it. And since we know how homophobic the black and Islamic communities are (Farrakhan, anyone?), no wonder she sucked up all the air in Selma.
I will lay odds that if any of those pastors of the Religious Left ever got wind of her speech at the HRC, they’d pull all their support and send it Obama’s way.
The only group more intolerant to gays and lesbians than so-called “Christian conservatives” is the black community. That’s the Gospel truth.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 6, 2007 @ 3:58 pm - March 6, 2007
Actually, Peter, I had heard about that. I also noticed that it was kept quite quiet
Although I am certainly all for a female president and I personally feel that Clinton has the best realistic chance at this distinction, one has to ask why her support of gay rights is being kept hush,hush.
Comment by Mindy — March 6, 2007 @ 6:43 pm - March 6, 2007
For Shrillary, “You’ll have to ask my campaign” is the equivalent of:
“Keep asking me these embarrassing questions and you’ll be found in Fort Marcie Park under mysterious circumstances.”
If I were Obama I’d be hiring a bodyguard ASAP. No telling what a deranged woman might do to him on the campaign trail.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 7, 2007 @ 4:14 pm - March 7, 2007
Wow, they called today too! I must have really tee’d them off this time. Good thing I didn’t discuss The State of California’s strict regulations regarding charitable organizations.
Oopsies, my bad.
{:p
Comment by Deigo Katt — March 8, 2007 @ 5:04 am - March 8, 2007