HRC gets clocked

Comments

1. The Gay Species on Jan 4, 2008 1:39:43 PM:

   HRC is a PAC, political action committee. Why do people persist in the mistake that it is a human rights organization?

1. Double T on Jan 4, 2008 2:11:49 PM:

   HRC never endorsed Hillary Clinton.

   They remained neutral. Now, as far as reporting on Republicans, whose fault is that.

   Every invitation to GOP candidates must met with silence.
   The "please go away" silence.

   Why should they waste their time on these people?

1. Citizen Crain on Jan 4, 2008 2:38:10 PM:

   That's not the point, Gay Species. As a PAC, HRC is free to endorse and work for the candidate of its choosing. The problem is claiming neutrality and short-circuiting the endorsement process, in order to use donor money on behalf of a candidate favored by its leadership -- many of whom have been angling for jobs in an HRC Administration for years.

   Some at HRC may well have the same attitude you have, Double T, but it's political madness to write off one party in a two-party system. That's especially the case when a first-tier candidate on the GOP side, for the first time ever, has a moderate or pro gay rights record, as my post earlier today explores.

   I'm not saying HRC needed to be in the Iowa trenches working for Rudy, but if they wanted gays to be more active and visible in the caucuses, then it would seem active and visible Republicans are even more important symbolically than the well-established gay Dems.

1. North Dallas Thirty on Jan 4, 2008 2:41:36 PM:

   The reason the GOP candidates don't bother with HRC, Double T, is really quite simple.

   The group also helped congressional candidates from Arizona to Florida and Ohio, and party activists believe the organization can play an even larger role in the 2008 elections. The idea, leaders say, is to become a steady source of funds and grass-roots support for Democrats -- more akin to a labor union than a single-issue activist group.

   Furthermore:

   Instead of throwing its money at defeating ballot initiatives banning gay marriage, the HRC focused on electing Democratic majorities -- even if it meant helping candidates who weren't fully in support of their agenda, she said.

   This is why Hilary Rosen and HRC leadership were giving money and endorsements to FMA supporters.

   In short, why should Republicans bother with an organization that a) wants only to support Democrats and b) is utterly hypocritical, since it endorses and supports candidates who have the same positions as Republicans that it calls hateful and homophobic?

1. Kevin on Jan 4, 2008 2:57:49 PM:

   Re: Chris' reply to GaySpecies:

   ...and perhaps if, instead of a combination of annoying cutsie-pootsie crap pics and blatant electioneering for Clinton, the Human Rights Campaign had come up with a relevant role for themselves in Iowa (or the entire election campaign for that matter), devised an inspiring program to exert that role with clear, definable goals that furthered a broader platform of relevant ideas.... oh, I'll just give up right here.

1. Double T on Jan 4, 2008 6:01:57 PM:

   CC, HRC and the gay community in general didn't "write off" the GOP.
   They wrote us off. And the only one they seem hell bent on jumping in bed with are the religious zealots. I don’t know how to make this any plainer to you. It’s like describing music to someone born deaf.

   And it is very cynical to say( and continue to say) that all the HRC staff are after jobs in the White House. Kevin loves to jump all over me, claiming I make things up. You have proof that the staffers are sitting around filling out CLINTON WHITE HOUSE job application. PLEASE!!!! Come on Kev, why aren’t you screaming now for “fair and balanced” reporting.

   Please re-name the blog to CLOSETED REPUBLICAN (your words, not mine)
   Then I could at least respect you in the morning.
   

1. North Dallas Thirty on Jan 4, 2008 6:43:04 PM:

   This demonstrates a rather interesting point; even if one can quote directly HRC people writing off the Republicans and insisting they would only support Democrats, as well as clear examples of HRC and its leadership endorsing and supporting Democrat candidates who support things that HRC previously deemed "antigay"....it has no effect on a committed member of the HRC Borg like Double T.

   In short, these people are way, WAY beyond facts, logic, or any sense of rationality.

1. The Gay Species on Jan 4, 2008 6:45:08 PM:

   Citizen Crain:

   What do you mean that Emily's List, now the H.R.C., as a political action committee committed to electing its preferred Democratic candidates, is not "the point." The point of all PACs is to sponsor candidates and issues it favors, like Swift Boat Veterans. Surely, SBV is not "open" to choosing the candidates that veterans desire, but to misrepresent Kerry to elect GWB.

   H.R.C. is an odd organization. It represents itself as a "human rights" organization, but its non-profit status proves that a lie. It uses that "myth" to press employers to do right to GLBT, unless it is Wal-mart, then it doesn't care.

   Over the many, many years of receiving HRC literature, not once does it identify itself as a PAC. So the fact that it hides behind Hilary's skirtpants should not surprise anyone. That it tried to "eliminate" Gravel, Dodd, and Kucinich from its "HRC-LOGO" debate, perhaps because these three all favor marriage equality, and Hilary does not. That seems odd for a PAC promoting "GLBT" issues, no? Exclude your supporters?

   Not if HRC is a PAC that serves narrow partisan interests chosen by the Head of the List. The difficulty I have with HRC is not that it is a PAC, but that it equivocates its agenda, which is not (obviously) pro-GLBT necessarily, but pro-Solmonese's political allies.

   How else does one explain that HRC has spent not one dime on the seven anti-inclusive marriage initiatives in 2006, but found seven obscure Democratic partisans to fund instead. Your objecting that it is not "open" and "neutral," but it isn't even necessarily needing to be as a PAC. It sponsors "closed sessions," won't disclose financial records (save the IRS), and spends a fortune on fancy diggs, generous staff, and the party circuit.

   If I did not know any different, it looks, acts, smells, and is a Democratic Party PAC. "Open" and "neutrality" would be an oxymoron to one with a political agenda, which it could NOT be if it were a non-profit human rights organization.

1. Double T on Jan 4, 2008 7:58:20 PM:

   North Dallas Thirty,
   My heart goes out to you and all the other misguided fools, I feel your pain.
   But for the moment, let’s stick to the facts, I know this may be difficult for you, but let’s get a try.

   I did NOT say HRC has written off the GOP. I said just the opposite.
   Try to focus, I’ll try to use little words.

   In fact, if you had read HRC’s Blog you would see an effort was made to reach out to the GOP. Here in my state, the HRC Steering Committee has had long debates about supporting and honoring Republicans who are fair minded.

   WOW, I bet you didn’t see that coming.

   However, many elected members of the GOP are not comfortable being honored by a gay organization, or at least, that has been my experience.
   

1. Citizen Crain on Jan 4, 2008 9:28:17 PM:

   Gay Species, you're a bit impervious to facts: HRC didn't try to exclude Kucinich or Dodd. Only Gravel didn't make HRC's initial cut, as well he shouldn't have. I think it's a good thing that HRC is not endorsing until after the nominees are clear, since there's not a huge difference on gay rights among the leading Dems. But if HRC is to be neutral for now, then they shouldn't be giving aide and comfort to one candidate more than others.

   Double T, we were talking about HRC writing off the GOP in the presidential primaries, although I would disagree that they engage Republicans at the Congressional and state levels either. Unlike Emily's List, HRC is NON-partisan and should be encouraging Republican candidates with moderate and pro-gay records -- that includes Rudy Giuliani.

   Of course Log Cabin should be doing that as well, but instead has chosen some bizarre stealth strategy of attacking Romney on non-gay issues.

1. North Dallas Thirty on Jan 4, 2008 10:54:53 PM:

   Again, Double T, you demonstrate that facts are wasted on HRC members.

   I have written and referenceable proof of HRC writing off the Republicans and stating that they were only interested in supporting Democrats.

   I have proof of HRC leaders saying that they will (and that they did) publicly endorse and support Democrat politicians who fully support and endorse laws and positions that HRC claims are "homophobic" elsewhere.

   And your only response is to namecall and to cite things that you swear happened, but of which, oddly enough, you have no record or proof to produce.

   Now, to you and your fellow HRC members, my referenceable, cited, and specific statements are not facts....but your unreferenced, uncited, and nonspecific allegations are.

1. North Dallas Thirty on Jan 4, 2008 11:01:59 PM:

   Of course Log Cabin should be doing that as well, but instead has chosen some bizarre stealth strategy of attacking Romney on non-gay issues.

   LCR's strategy makes much more sense if you add the "a wholly-owned and operated subsidiary of the Gill Foundation and Democrat National Commitee" that should appear after their title.

   LCR has spent more money in the past three years on endorsing Democrats and attacking Republicans than it ever did on the opposite in its entire history; that makes it clear to Republicans that, as priorities go, inviting LCR to anything is akin to allowing the KGB to sit in on CIA briefings.

1. Double T on Jan 4, 2008 11:41:01 PM:

   NDT, thank you for the link to one newspaper story that proves nothing. You take one article and spin quite a web.

   I've sat in those meetings and know different.

   But thanks for the "facts".

1. The Gay Species on Jan 6, 2008 11:02:11 PM:

   "Unlike Emily's List, HRC is NON-partisan"

   Denial of the obvious won't win you friends or influence others. HRC is "non-partisan?" Then why is it NOT tax-exempt?

1. The Gay Species on Jan 6, 2008 11:09:13 PM:

   Who appointed YOU censor of dissenting political views?

   Imagine if Harvey Milk had been censored by the political elite of the day, because his dissenting voice "is not qualified?" Who are YOU to arbitrate? The politically-correct illiberal progressive, or the socially-conservative repressed theocrat?

   Those who create and live by double-standards become its victim. Is that your aspiration?