Let's see if we can follow the bouncing logical ball of one Democratic Party lesbian leader as the 2008 presidential race for money heats up.
From the Bay Area Reporter's February 15 issue:
Clinton has the support of Hilary Rosen, another longtime Democratic activist and a member of the governing board of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. Rosen said she's personally known the Clintons for many years – ever since she babysat for their daughter Chelsea.
"I think she is just practically the smartest, deepest candidate in the race and frankly one of the smartest leaders I've ever met," said Rosen, who for many years served as head of the Recording Industry Association of America [...] "I think she has – on gay issues in particular and as senator for New York– broadened her horizon on the political interests and needs of gays and lesbians. I think, frankly, she's a wonderful person. I know her. I've always liked her."
Rosen said gay issues are her number one criteria in evaluating candidates and that she trusts Clinton to get the United States out of Iraq. Rosen said she is helping raise gay money for Clinton and predicted she will "pay a lot of attention to gay issues."[Emphasis added.]
"No one should contribute to the DLC [Democratic Leadership Council] or support it if Ford becomes its new chairman. Ford campaigned saying he would be the first in line to vote for the Tennessee amendment. The LGBT community and it's allies should never forget his advocacy on behalf of these amendments. We also should not give a pass to straight friends who think these actions are no big deal."
107th Congress: 100%
108th Congress : 44%
109th Congress : 25%
10 comments:
The reason you don't understand it is because you really think that Ford is against gay marriage.
But you see he's not. If being FOR gay marriage would help get the man elected, then he'd be for it.
Rosen knows this.
She knows that Ford's opposition to gay marriage is the only way he can get elected in the state that he is from.
She know's that it's not a principled stand. Ford has no principles, except getting elected. Same as Hillary. When it was popular to be for the war in Iraq, Hillary voted for war. It's no longer popular, so now Hillary wants to withdraw.
Can't you see the nuance? I mean, really.
Got this from Andrew Tobias today:
In a message dated 2/20/2007 5:39:31 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, ATobias writes:
<< MPetrelis asks: Why did lesbian leader Hilary Rosen, former head of RIAA and honcho of the Human Rights Campaign, give money to Rep. Harold Ford in his homophobic and losing bid for a seat in the US Senate? >>
My guess -- having maxed out to him myself -- is that she wanted to win the Senate and thereby (among other things) avoid any more awful lifetime judicial appointments.
(And, noting that Congressman Ford had rated 100% on the HRC scorecard before he started running for Senate, she might have felt that, in his heart, he would be a lot less bad than his opponent.)
It's fine to take the pure stance, as, say, Ralph Nader did, so long as you're okay with bearing responsibility for the consequences (the war in Iraq, etc.).
In this case, the consequence of our not doing all we could to take back the Senate could have been one more right-wing appointment on the Court (not to mention many on the lower Federal courts) that could have blocked our equal rights for decades.
Some will look at the trade-off and, like Nader, conclude: never compromise, no matter what.
Others will look at it and wonder how could people of good will could FAIL to do all they could to try to win back the Senate.
Happily, this question turned out to be moot -- because everything else broke our way and we didn't need the Tennessee seat to gain the majority.
But who could have been sure of that outcome in advance?
Best,
Andy
And this came from Rick Rosendall in DC:
In a message dated 2/20/2007 5:51:30 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, rrosendall@starpower.net writes:
Andy,
I substantially agree with you. But one doesn't have to be a
never-compromise purist in order to oppose someone as reprehensible as
Harold Ford sadly turned out to be. Surely you acknowledge that there are
more alternatives than "never compromise" and "always compromise"? Because
of the threat that this unchecked president posed to our country, I respect
the choice of those who backed Ford in order to help retake the Senate.
Politics ain't beanbag, as is often said. But we need to find supportive
candidates who will not sell their souls as Ford did.
Rick
And one last comment from Andy Tobias:
In a message dated 2/20/2007 6:33:38 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, ATobias writes:
<< Surely you acknowledge that there are more alternatives than "never compromise" and "always compromise"? >>
Thanks, Rick. And I substantially agree with YOU.
But in this particular case, I think you either wanted Ford to win, wanted him to lose, or -- the alternative I forgot -- didn't care. With the Senate and Court hanging in the balance, I saw only one alternative worth supporting.
(As for "always compromise," I don't think I advocated that. There are situations where it can make more sense not to compromise. But I don't think this was one of them.)
Best,
Andy
All this talk of compromising and playing to win aside, my question is how do we know Ford would have voted against another one of Bush's fetid judicial appointments? From the looks of his increasingly smelly record, it would appear that Ford would be perfectly fine - if not enthusiastic - about anyone Bush would put up for a judgeship...
And while I'd like to personally administer death by a thousand cuts to Ralph Nader, I do think we'd be very wise to consider suspect any candidate who is happy to accept our money, while they actively participate in the ongoing effort to deny us full Human Rights. There is something to be said for the old adage "Screw me once, shame on you...Screw me twice, shame on me."
What's everybody excited about? This is exactly the kind of treachery HRC and its careerist staff and supporters have been practicing since its founding as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the national Democratic Party.
The furthest thing from the minds of these political opportunists is any kind of principled advocacy for the LGBTQ Community. In exchange for their blind obedience to the DNC powers-that-be, these folks can count on receiving invitations to Democratic Party functions where they get 'face time' with the Party movers and shakers who can help them along with their careers.
The Party has found that they can mollify the outrage of the LGBTQ demographic by wining and dining these Judases who claim to represent Gays/Lesbians. They show up to black tie extravaganzas and dinners at the White House (while the Clintons lived there)...pretty heady stuff for members of a scorned minority!
These critters reciprocate by delivering the votes of the Community and by not rocking the Dem Party boat over little things like same-gender marriage or Clinton's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (Lie and Hide) policy. They are more than willing to accept scraps from the DNC table if it means they can rub elbows with the Harold Fords of the world.
This ain't 'News'...it's business as usual.
HRC endorsed Mary Bono AND Joe Lieberman, so that bs about Ford just doesn't wash. No support for HRC ever.
"LGBTQ Community"?
I know what the first four letters in "LGBTQ" stand for, but what's the "Q" mean, and when did they add the letter?
LGBT(Q)...Queer Gendered! It's relatively new!
I really hate this compromising attitude. I happen to be a member of two minorities, one of which is screwed by Republicans and the other by Democrats. Guess how I feel about party solidarity.
All compromising does is validate your enemies. You can still pick a party to work within, but you never support candidates you disagree with; instead, you try to vote your own candidates in (I mean, the Democratic party used to be uber racist, and now it's not--how do you think that happened?).
Post a Comment