When I read lefty gay blogs and communicate with gay bloggers and politically aware gay friends, I often hear a different critique on Joe Solmonese than the one I offered last night.
Their basic argument is that the HRC chief, instead of playing offensive on gay issues is playing defense for the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats. “Too often,” Stephen H. Miller writes on the Independent Gay Forum’s Culture Watch, “Solmonese has seemed more interested in defending the Obama administration to HRC’s gay donors rather than in playing hardball.”
I wonder if the Senate would have moved on DADT repeal had Solmonese called Harry Reid in May after the House voted on repeal and demanded that he move forward immediately on a vote or risk a loss of HRC support of Democrats in the fall elections. Surely, he has contacts in the Senate Leader’s office. Such ultimatum might have worked wonders on the then-vulnerable incumbent.
And while HRC may still have contacts in the offices of the Senate Democratic leadership, Miller says “lines of communication with the GOP . . . appear to be nil”:
Even leaving aside the group’s failed one-party strategy, the people running HRC, as Blatt notes, don’t speak the language of “liberty”; their template for politics is one of “rights.” They live in a different world from the party that now controls the House.
So, now we see two basic criteria HRC’s board should consider in picking a new leader, first, someone who can talk Tea Party Republican and, second, someone willing to play hardball with Senate Democrats.
The element common to both lines of criticism – Joe can’t/won’t build bridges to Republicans, Joe can’t/won’t play hardball with the Democrats – is that ol’ Joe is too much a captive of Obama. Ineffective in advancing the proverbial “gay agenda”.
I think both Daniel and Stephen Miller are correct, but my experience shows that Miller may be a little “more correct”. The knee-jerk lib gay boys I know have been playing defense since Clinton gave us DADT and DOMA. The mantra always is: yeah but the Republicans would be worse, and {fill in the blank with any dimwit democrat politician} will help us next year blah, blah,blah.
The HRC puts on fabulous formal fund raising dinners in many cities and cleans out the local gay cash registers. Then frauds like Solmonese can pour money into the coffers of Washington democrats, thereby staying on the A-list for the cocktail circuit.
Roger, one thing HRC does very well is make those dinners the gay social highlight of the season in the various cities they take place.
I recall, in the days when I was semi-closeted politically in LA, a friend suggested I go to the dinner for networking purposes. I declined, pleading poverty.
I recall, in the days when I was semi-closeted politically in LA, a friend suggested I go to the dinner for networking purposes. I declined, pleading poverty.
Just a reflection, maybe more gay folk (conservative gay folk) aren’t living a semi-closeted life
#2: “The HRC puts on fabulous formal fund raising dinners in many cities and cleans out the local gay cash registers.”
Do people still call it the “Human Rights Champagne”?
Has anyone noticed that the most gay-unfriendly Tea Partiers lost? Paladino, Buck, and Miller at the top of the list (well, Miller hasn’t technically lost yet) Angle and O’Donell? Those are the ones who made comments or had positions that don’t set well with gay people. And don’t get me wrong, I would still have voted for any of those 5 over the Democrats, but I was just sayin’.
“Has anyone noticed that the most gay-unfriendly Tea Partiers lost?”
Yes, I noticed. Though I think it has more to do with the fact that the Tea Party message is supposed to be for smaller government. Social conservatism is, essentially, big-government. When candidates start talking trash about gays, people suspect they mean to use the guns of government against them.
Many Americans are waking up to the fact that if the government is big, powerful, aggressive and intrusive enough to bully gays around, it can — and will — do it to straight people, too. Basic American civics are making a strong comeback, and it’s about time.
Duly noted, Eddie. May well be fodder for a blog post–a reminder that if the hint of an anti-gay attitude can compromise an election. An important reminder for 2012.
#6: Definitely an interesting observation, Eddie.
“At its core, this is a center-right country where things like ‘hope’ and ‘change’ are still measured against our greatest ideals. It’s still a place where freedom matters more than ‘progress.’ Where faith is fought for, not against. And where standing for life means not standing alone. Voters are looking to the GOP to take us–not down the path of least resistance–but the road less traveled.
“In race after race, we witnessed the raw power, not of the Republican Establishment, but of the deep alliance between social and Tea Party conservatives. Despite what the old guard will say, this synergy is based on more than policy or disillusionment. It’s rooted in a common passion to restore the Constitution, the family, life, and faith to a place of honor in American law. And the GOP ignores it at their peril. Americans are looking for men and women of conviction.” – Family Research Council head Tony Perkins, telling the GOP that they’ve been put on notice for not being anti-gay enough. JMG
#10: “Family Research Council head Tony Perkins, telling the GOP that they’ve been put on notice for not being anti-gay enough.”
Uh, yeah, rusty. That’s exactly what I take from those words. “It’s rooted in a common passion to restore the Constitution, the family, life, and faith to a place of honor in American law” just SCREAMS “God hates fags.”
Here you go Sean A. . .more on Perkins by GoPROUD
GOProud Fights Back, Calling The Religious Right “Dinosaurs Headed to Political Extinction”
Submitted by Kyle on June 23, 2010 – 12:30pm
Today, GOProud, the only national organization of gay conservatives and their allies, responded to attacks from the anti-gay Family Research Council. “Over the last week, the Family Research Council has shown its true colors – attacking GOProud for working with the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America to protect 2nd Amendment rights, attacking GOProud for supporting cutting taxes on American families, and for supporting the free market healthcare reform proposal offered by Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK),” said Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director. “These attacks make it clear the Family Research Council doesn’t care one iota about the conservative agenda.”
GOProud isn’t the only organization that has come under fire from Tony Perkins and company. In March, Perkins attacked tea party organizations, Freedom Works, and the Contract from America. Perkins’ attacks followed former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee’s criticism of the Conservative Political Action Conference, an event GOProud sponsored. “We wear attacks from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council as badges of honor,” said Christopher Barron, Chairman of GOProud’s Board. “The rise of the new right and the tea party movement in this country is a total reputation of their ‘big government conservatism.”
“Tony Perkins and his cronies at the Family Research Council aren’t for limited government,” continued Barron. “They support policies, like the federalization of marriage and family laws, which would represent one of the greatest usurpation of state’s rights in the history of this country.”
“Tony Perkins referred to GOProud’s opposition to the death tax and Obamacare as ‘radical’ and has singled out our organization’s support for urban economic empowerment zones first championed by conservative icon Jack Kemp,” said LaSalvia. “Maybe Tony Perkins could explain to conservatives everywhere exactly what is so radical about supporting these conservative policies?”
“Big government conservatives like Tony Perkins and Mike Huckabee are dinosaurs, headed to political extinction. The truth is that the conservative movement has moved on, and has done so without them,” concluded LaSalvia.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/groups/goproud
So Lori Heine social liberalism isn’t big government? I hate social big government types of any stripe. I wouldn’t want to be lectured by Kathy Griffin and other types that being a woman with lower number of partners (or gosh a virgin) is a mental illness. How about the fact that happy meals were banned in San Francisco in a while? How about identity politics and affirmative action? I think state’s rights are the best for USA. Liberal state with liberal laws, conservative state with conservative laws, moderate state with moderate laws and so forth.
“So Lori Heine social liberalism isn’t big government?”
Wherever, Jane, on the good Lord’s green earth, did you ever get the notion I DON’T believe social liberalism is not also big government? In your little black-and-white world, only one group of people has gotten the notion to force itself on the people via the power of the State?
I am a L-I-B-E-R-T-A-R-I-A-N. Look up what that means. It doesn’t mean that because we oppose the Jets, it means one may assume we automatically side with the Sharks.
Talk about jumping to knee-jerk conclusions. Take a pill.
“So Lori Heine social liberalism isn’t big government?”
Kindly cite, Jane, where you got the bizarro-world notion that I believe social liberalism is not big government.
I have never made any bones about the fact that I am a libertarian. Look up what that means.
Talk about knee-jerk notions. Take a pill.
Lori,
It’s an honest mistake I think, like Jerome4all’s being upset that people accuse President Obama of being a Keynesian, when he was born in Hawaii