And I thought we were harsh on HRC
Just take a gander at this post over at Queerty where they take on the gay auxiliary to the Democratic Party Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
Somonese and HRC’s and Allison Herwitt were among the guests (list here, PDF) for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s January event, where well-connected civilians (read: moneybags from McDonald’s, Altria, Home Depot, and Merck) got to hob nob with senators including Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin, Robert Menendez (DSCC’s chairman), and Claire McCaskill (who we identified as the star of today’s hearings).
If you query HRC, they’ll tell you that HRC’s involvement in DSCC invents, and the Democrat party in general, is crucial to their efforts in lobbying lawmakers to pass gay rights legislation. That is partly true. To us, however, it sounds like more of the Gay Inc. organization’s business-as-usual M.O., where the group’s annual budget is devoted to Solmonese making nice with lawmakers in exchange for inaction, platitudes, and delays.
These bloggers contend it’s all about Joe getting a chance to schmooze with the big (Democratic) boys and girls at some swank South Beach resort. It sure looks like that to us as well.
Well, while HRC may not be a very effective lobbying organization, it is effective at raising money. And all that money’s got to pay for something, so why not let Joe have a swell time with his fellow partisans?
“It might smell like ineffective strategy” contend the folks at Queerty, “but it reeks of self-aggrandizement.”
Those guys don’t mince words. Read the whole thing.
3 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
In other words, eeeeeeeevil corporations (cue Williams’ Imperial March).
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 3, 2010 @ 12:46 pm - February 3, 2010
I’m not surprised by this. I’m just upset that the gay community continues to allows itself to be used by these people. All for some pricy dinners and access to the powers that be?!?!?! For me, I never will join HRC or any other mainsteam gay group. They serve no purpose and they do more damage for gay rights.
Could someone tell me why no one made an issue about the Ft. Hood terrorist attack. A known muslim terrorist was allowed to remain in the military, while patriotic servicemen and women, who have valuable skills, are regularly discharged for being gay!?!??! These organziations should have been the first ones to make a statement about this double standard!!
Comment by Scherie — February 3, 2010 @ 1:50 pm - February 3, 2010
That’s an interesting point, Scherie, and perhaps one that should be taken up by those of us who are both national security hawks and support allowing gays to serve openly in the military.
Unfortunately, those of use who should make that connection comprise a rather small proportion in the debate. The bigger sides in the debate will have a problem with it because either one end or the other is at odds with their own positions. Those who support a repeal of DADT, but aren’t national security hawks (most Democrats) won’t admit that Nidal Malik Hasan was a known terrorist or that there was any way the powers that be could have reasonably foreseen his massacre. Those who see the Fort Hood Massacre as a preventable terrorist attack, but support DADT (most Republicans) aren’t going to explicitly connect the two because it argues against their preferred DADT policy outcome.
Nonetheless, allow me to repeat, I like your point, and those of us who favor a strong national defense and oppose DADT, might do well to make that connection.
Comment by Alex in Denver — February 3, 2010 @ 3:22 pm - February 3, 2010