More NGLTF Hypocrisy
The hypocrisy of the gay left never ceases to amaze me.
Just yesterday, I wondered at the eagerness of gay activists to support Barack Obama although he had welcomed the support of anti-gay singer Donnie McClurkin. Later, I read that Dave Noble, Director of Policy & Government Affairs for National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund (NGLTF), had called on Republican presidential nominee John McCain to reject the endorsement of Rev. John Hagee because that clergyman blamed gay people for Hurricane Katrina.
Did Mr. Noble ask Senator Obama to reject the endorsement of McClurkin or to apologize for not appearing in a picture with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom? (A few google searches turned up no such statement.)
Noble writes:
There was widespread disgust when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed LGBT people for the Sept. 11 attacks. Yet more than six years later, John McCain is still embracing leaders who make these sorts of wild claims. A media concerned with the truth about who John McCain is and what he truly stands for should hold him accountable and ask tough questions about why he’s proud to accept this endorsement.
Well, McCain never made any of the wild claims that Noble attributes to Hagee (or the late Reverend Falwell). But, I’m wondering why, given Senator Obama’s record, Noble hasn’t asked why a media concerned with the truth about who Barack Obama is and what he truly stands for should hold him accountable and ask tough questions about why he’s proud to accept Donnie McClurkin’s endorsement.
But, then again, to the gay left, only Republicans deserve such scrutiny and should be held accountable for the crazy statements made by those who endorse them.
UPDATE: In an essay on retiring NGLTF Exective Director Matt Foreman’s legacy, Jamie Kirchick, an assistant editor at the New Republic gets at the roots of his organization’s apparent hypocrisy, its “conflation of liberalism with the very notion of gay rights itself:”
It’s a garden-variety liberal interest group posing as a gay rights organization . . . [where] the battle for gay rights suddenly becomes part and parcel of the battle to redistribute wealth, weaken American sovereignty by making the United States subservient to the whims of the United Nations, and mandating racial quotas. In this vision of the world, the fight for gay rights is inseparable from the campaign to, say, oppose welfare reform.
While he is too kind to HRC and the Gill Action Fund in his concluding paragraph, Jamie wrote a solid piece and I encourage you to read the whole thing!
20 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
More of the same. You can’t make the argument that McCain is good on gay issues. None at all. So you attack any failings of Democrats on that issue.
As I read from the gay right, Democrats must be 100% or the fail. Republicans can score 1% and that is considered a victory. Fairness? Please.
Comment by Houndentenor — March 5, 2008 @ 1:19 pm - March 5, 2008
And another thing. Would McCain repeal DADT? No. Would Obama? Yes.Â
Comment by Houndentenor — March 5, 2008 @ 1:20 pm - March 5, 2008
I’m confused.. what’s wrong with using the methodology of choice of the Democrat Party?
Comment by Vince P — March 5, 2008 @ 1:23 pm - March 5, 2008
My point is that gay Republicans use the fact that Democratic candidates aren’t perfect to excuse voting for Republicans who are much worse on gay issues.
I wonder what the platform is going to look like with so many Huckabee delegates at the RNC this summer.Â
Comment by Houndentenor — March 5, 2008 @ 2:11 pm - March 5, 2008
My point is that gay Republicans use the fact that Democratic candidates aren’t perfect to excuse voting for Republicans who are much worse on gay issues.
That would be because gay Democrats claim that Republicans have to be perfect, or they’re homophobic and antigay.
What is patently obvious, Houndentenor, is that gay Democrats don’t even believe their own rhetoric about how candidates who aren’t perfect are antigay and evil. Why, then, should gay Republicans be bound by it?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 5, 2008 @ 2:38 pm - March 5, 2008
I have never had a perfect candidate on gay issues.   On the national scene we’ve never had one (unless you count fringe types like Kucinich).
Yes, Obama screwed up with the McGurklin thing. I was pissed at the time and there was a LOT of flack over that. How quickly we forget. Hillary had a similar problem back in 2000 when she agreed to march in the NYC St Patrick’s Day Parade. (This is the NYC political minefield for those of you who aren’t familiar with the whackiness of NY politics. The NY St Pat’s Day Parade does not allow self-identified gay groups to march (other towns do). Marching riles up the gays. Not marching riles up the Irish. And those are both important constituencies in the city. Clinton stepped into that one bigtime and got out of it by marching in a parade upstate. )
Anyway, I’m well aware of the McGurkin flap (whatever that guy’s name is). And I don’t think you will see the two of them appearing together again. (Actually they didn’t appear together then since Obama didn’t actually attend the SC concerts in person.)
Comment by Houndentenor — March 5, 2008 @ 2:48 pm - March 5, 2008
Houndentenor, you have missed the entire point of the post. Did you read the title? It’s about NGLTF.
Did anyone from that organization ask that Senator Obama reject McClurkin’s endorsement and hold him accountable for accepting the anti-gay singer’s support.
That’s the issue here, please acknowledge and respond.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 5, 2008 @ 3:13 pm - March 5, 2008
I love how Clinton marching in the St Patrick’s Day parade is somehow equal to Obama willing taking on an anti gay, ex gay pastor to win over Votes in the black community. It is not a gay pride parade…its a St Patrick Day parade…so I think the focus is on that heritage, and I am pretty sure you can be gay and march.
I think all politicans fail on some level to gays but they have to govern for everyone and do what is realistic. I am not bothered that Clinton doesn’t push for full marriage rights, I would rather her be elected than lose in a land slide over that. Politics is not all about hopes and dreams, it is about realisitically accomplishing goals and rewarding those who helped you. She will do good things for the gay community, but not everyone will be happy about it.
Probably if Republicans could count on gay votes or support, they would be more willing to push or accept gay causes. Politicans have to repay those who vote for them, thats how it goes.
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — March 5, 2008 @ 3:17 pm - March 5, 2008
I just ran across this video of John Hagee on Glenn Beck’s CNN show.
It cracks me up how Leftists are trying to protray this guy as some sort of hateful villian. I think they project too much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mvFspqtGR4
Comment by Vince P — March 5, 2008 @ 3:55 pm - March 5, 2008
Houndentenor’s preferred change-of-subject is being discussed in GPW’s other thread.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 5, 2008 @ 4:14 pm - March 5, 2008
I thought this was interesting in Kirchick’s last paragraph:
From the Human Rights Campaign to the Gill Action Fund to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, these worthwhile groups do not waste their time advocating for causes that have absolutely nothing to do with gay rights, support for which rarely redounds in reciprocal backing for gay causes.
He must have missed this example.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 5, 2008 @ 6:29 pm - March 5, 2008
Are you delusional???
From the Op-ed you didn’t even bother to read:
Even that is a serious understatement. Bush and the republicans arent responsible for any anti-gay legislation, while the Clintons amd the Democrats signed a raft of it into law. And yet you seem to think Democrats are better on gay issues.
The entire commentary was about how counter-productive YOUR attitude is. It was very reasonably and very persuasively written. If you really do care about gay rights as you claim to you should read the column with as open a mind as you can muster.
Comment by American Elephant — March 6, 2008 @ 1:00 am - March 6, 2008
AE: Are you joking? Democrats don’t do introspection.
Comment by Vince P — March 6, 2008 @ 1:22 am - March 6, 2008
I don’t belong to NGLTF or have any dealings with them. They don’t speak for me any more than Log Cabin speaks for most of you.Â
And since when do we have a relevancy test for responding here.
There’s a lot of hypcrisy in politics. Obviously you are going to vote for McCain no matter what his stance on gay issues is. So why are you even bringing it up.
Maybe if you were for something instead of so eager to attack liberals at every turn there might be a basis for some discussion. But you don’t really care about gay freedom, just liberal bashing. Shame.
Comment by Houndentenor — March 6, 2008 @ 2:12 pm - March 6, 2008
Vince, I do a lot of introspection. I have done quite a bit of soul searching over which candidate to support. I was deeply troubled over the McClurkin (whatever his name his) incident. In the end I’m going to have to make some compromises because none of the major candidates are where I would like them to be on most of the issues I care most about. I didn’t take this likely nor did anyone I know, Democrat or Republican.
I know how much you love to hate Democrats, but we are people too and do think long and hard about our issues. We just disagree with you about them.
Comment by Houndentenor — March 6, 2008 @ 3:32 pm - March 6, 2008
Houndenneor, I repeat, did you even read the title of this post?
To say I don’t care about gay freedom is to ignore every post I’ve written on this blog and even the e-mails I took the time to wrote you when we corresponded.
The issue here is this. NGLTF asked a Republican candidate to "reject" the endorsement of a clergyman who made some crazy statements, including anti-gay ones. A Democratic candidate received an endorsement from a singer who had also made such statements. And NGLTF has not asked the Democratic candidate to reject the endorsement.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 6, 2008 @ 5:04 pm - March 6, 2008
Fairness? Please.
Well, if you’re going to be fair (and honest), you have to reject the bullshit that Hagee, Falwell etc. blame gays for the disasters. On top of that, you’d have to reject the bullshit that was spun about Santorum’s comment. If you’re not going to be honest, there’s no point in discussing anything.
Would McCain repeal DADT? No. Would Obama? Yes.
Would McCain subvert the military and run it by opinion polls? No. Would Orgasma do that ignoring the officers on top of gutting it from stem to stern? Obviously.
BTW, it’s not up to the CIC to unilaterally repeal a law.
Maybe if you were for something instead of so eager to attack liberals at every turn there might be a basis for some discussion.
What’s to discuss? Liberals are hell bent on destroying America from the inside and instilling their brand of Neo-Socialism. Besides, the liberal’s idea of "discussion" requires folks on the right bending over and grabbing their ankles. People are sick and tired of "discussion" because it always ends with Americans getting FCUKED.
But you don’t really care about gay freedom, just liberal bashing. Shame.
The real shame is that liberals don’t give a damn about freedom of any sort. They believe in a huge government nanny-state that decides what we eat, drink, drive, wear, work, and on and on. All the while we’re supposed to be impressed with half-assed efforts to "cut tens of billions in wasteful spending" all they while they add almost a trillion dollars more. So don’t give me this bullshit that liberals care about gay freedom. They care about themselves and how to fcuk over everybody else.
but we are people too and do think long and hard about our issues.
You can’t convince me of that. Being a liberal takes ZERO thought whatsoever. You’re thinking "long and hard" is actually vomiting forth the lying points which tell you what to think.
We just disagree with you about them.
Exactly. You disagree with the freedoms that we have and disagree with the greatness and exceptionalism of this country and her people and that’s a damn shame. You can’t stand the fact that we exist without even so much as a "by your leave". You believe that we must live under the oppressive, stifling thumb of the anti-American liberal left.
There’s your discussion. Cheers!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 6, 2008 @ 6:10 pm - March 6, 2008
Not to mention, do you really want a prissy pants who voids himself if somebody uses his middle name as the leader of the free world? Do you want this douchebag "fighting" for gay rights while opposing gay marriage? When you ask him if he really gives a damn about you, see how many times he talks about "hope" and "change" before you realize he couldn’t give a rotten shit less about us buggering churls.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 6, 2008 @ 10:03 pm - March 6, 2008
some threads at DU, actual cut and pastes
Is Keith Olbermann on the payroll of the Obama campaign?
Now I know why Ann Coulter supports Hillary
I’M SICK OF THIS MI & FL SH*T
Should Hillary Clinton be kicked out of the Democratic Party?
MONSTER!!!
KO just said it was actually clinton’s party that contacted the canadian govt:
Can we at least all agree that the word BITCH is out of bounds?
The ticket will be Clinton-Obama, get used to it, Hillary is going to destroy the hope peddler
JUST REMEMBER THAT REZKO WAS FINANCE DIRECTOR for OBAMAS DEMOCRATIC US SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN CMTE.
Keith O: Is Hillary a Lieberman Democrat?
Poor Hillary, everyone is against her!!
Clinton knows she cant win, wants McCain to win so she can swoop in in 4 years.
Maybe you want to rethink Obama before it’s too late…
Obama supporters- what is wrong with you?
HILLARY CLINTON IS A MORAN!!!
Cluster Bomb Clinton
You all are F’n Nuts!!!!
Comment by Vince P — March 6, 2008 @ 11:15 pm - March 6, 2008
#19
Liberals imploding – Priceless
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 7, 2008 @ 3:57 am - March 7, 2008