Only Two Democrats In The House Scored Low Enough To Be Labeled Homophobic This Year

Abnormally ugly men are often obsessively homophobic. This is Dan Lipinski

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) put out its 2016 congressional scorecard in time for the election. Almost all the Democrats scored 100 and almost all the Republicans got 0. The short version:

• 190 Members of Congress earned perfect scores (188 Democrats, 2 Republicans).
• The average score for Representatives was 53.
• Average score for Democratic Representatives is 96.
• Average score for Republican Representatives is 10.
• The average score for Senators was 54.
• Average score for Democratic Senators is 98.
• Average score for Republican Senators is 20.
• The Northeast and West continue to elect Members of Congress with strong support of LGBTQ issues; the average score for Representatives and Senators from the Northeast was 73 and 93 respectively; in the West it was 64 and 57 respectively.

Looking at the outliers is obviously more interesting than just observing, randomly, that every member of Congress from Kansas and every members of Congress from Arkansas is a Republican and that all 4 from each state scored zero. It's more interesting to note that any score under 80 would have to be considered anti-gay and that this year only 2 Democrats could be described as homophobic by that standard:

Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)- 57
Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- 64

In terms of the Blue America candidates, who are uniformly supportive of the equality agenda, their opponents have a mixed record on the LGBT community.

• Tom Wakely's opponent in TX-21, Lamar Smith, has a zero
• Ruben Kihuen's opponent in NV-04. Cresent Hardy, has a zero
• DuWayne Gregory's opponent in NY-02, Peter King, scored 4
• Carol Shea-Porter's opponent in NH-01, Frank Guinta, scored 16
• Mary Hoeft's opponent in WI-07, Sean Duffy, scored 31
• Doug Applegate's opponent in CA-49, Darrell Issa, scored 32
• Mary Ellen Balchunis' opponent in PA-07, Pat Meehan, scored 48
• Paul Clements' opponent in MI-06, Fred Upton, scored 48
• Alina Valdes' opponent in FL-25, Mario Diaz-Balart, scored 64

Please consider defeating homophobic members of Congress by replacing them with pro-equality progressives. Just tap on the thermometer:

Homophobia Is A Bipartisan Disease, As We Just Saw Again-- This Time In North Carolina

I'll attribute it to bad staff work, but Friday night Rachel Maddow misled her audience into thinking the viciously anti-LGBT bill that the North Carolina legislature just passed, HB-2, was a strictly party-line vote. True, the leadership in both chambers of the legislature is Republican and true, the Republicans pushed this bill through from beginning to end. BUT, at least in the North Carolina House, the Republicans found 11 like-minded, bigoted Democrats to give them a hand.

Maddow: "The Republicans in the legislature did this all in the space of 12 hours, with such a small amount of debate, with so little transparency that the Democrats in the legislature simpy walked out in protest before the vote was even taken." Actually, Maddow gets a "Half True" on that. The Democrats in the Senate did walk out and refused to vote. The House, however, was a different story-- one that Maddow never alluded to.

"Governor Pat McCrory and Republican state legislators may be super-psyched," she offered, "about the fact that they got this done and they may be super-psyched that North Carolina cities are not allowed to prevent discrimination against gay and transgender people..." Look, I don't expect Rachel to know every single legislature in the country, but NBC has quite a large staff for this kind of thing. These are the 11 conservative Democrats who crossed the aisle and voted with the GOP for the anti-LGBT legislation:

• William Brisson, NC-22 (Bladen, Johnston, Sampson)
• Elmer Floyd, NC-43 (Cumberland)
• Charles Graham, NC-47 (Robeson)
• George Graham, NC-12 (Craven, Greene, Lenoir)
• Ken Goodman, NC-66 (Hoke, Montgomery, Richmond, Robeson, Scotland)
• Howard Hunter III, NC-5 (Bertie, Gates, Hertford, Pasquotank)
• Larry Bell, NC-21 (Duplin, Sampson, Wayne)
• Garland Pierce, NC-48 (Hoke, Richmond, Robeson, Scotland)
• Brad Salmon, NC-51 (Harnett, Lee)
• Billy Richardson, NC-44 (Cumberland)
• Michael H. Wray, NC-27 (Halifax, Northampton)

Although none of them have endorsed Bernie Sanders, at least five of them are part of the Hillary Clinton North Carolina Leadership Team:

• Charles Graham
• George Graham
• Howard Hunter III
• Garland Pierce
• Billy Richardson

What does the affinity of these legislators tell us about Hillary Clinton, whose own record on the LGBT community was pretty dreadful until it became politically safe and politically expedient to support equality. I would imagine if these conservaDems had voted to authorize discrimination against women or blacks or Jews, Hillary would reject their endorsements, loudly and proudly. The gay community should ask itself why she hasn't done so with these homophobes. She takes umbrage-- or she did before she was in a primary with an actual progressive:



HRC (Human Rights Campaign, not Hillary Rodman Clinton), some cocktail-swilling establishment types in DC who make a living by purporting to represent the LGBT community, have given her cover with an undeserved and shameful endorsement. And how offended Bill and Hill were when gays on the frontline against bigotry pointed out that HRC is just another tool of the DC establishment.

HRC gave me a leadership equality award in 1997 and if you've been around DWT for a while, you may recall that I smashed it up with an ax when they endorsed Joe Lieberman. Last the time, I noted that their fancy new 8-story building symbolized their institutional self-perpetuating role inside the DC insider game and that it was clear that what HRC values is access to power. Friday, Michelangelo Signorile, a far more admired and trusted voice in the gay community than anyone involved with HRC on any level, spoke out of their latest outrage against the interests of the people they claim to support as they decided to help the GOP retain control of the U.S. Senate. Illinois incumbent Republican, Mark Kirk, a typical frightened, little DC anti-gay closet case, has a 78% score on the HRC scorecard and his Democratic opponent, Tammy Duckworth, has a 100% score, but HRC endorsed Kirk over Duckworth. If Kirk retains his seat, the violently anti-gay GOP majority will retain power in the Senate.

Mark Joseph Stern at Slate acknowledged the “long game” HRC may be playing in backing GOPers who vote pro-gay, but nonetheless drew the line at allowing the terribly anti-gay GOP leadership to retain the Senate this year, observing that HRC “does not seem to grasp...simple reality.”

At The New Republic, Eric Sasson rightly pointed to HRC’s “serious diversity problem” per an internal report that leaked, and to the optics of backing a white male Republican with a meager score over a woman of color and a combat veteran who lost both of her legs in the Iraq war-- and who has a perfect score. Chris Geidner at Buzzfeed had obtained the internal report last year, which called HRC “exclusionary,” “sexist,” and “homogenous.” This endorsement certainly lent more credence to that.

The simple truth is that in 2016 in Illinois we don’t need Mark Kirk-- he needs us. Kirk is in a deep blue state and he absolutely must support full LGBT equality in order to win. His coming out for the Equality Act is not brave; it’s about his own survival. And the first vote he’ll take upon winning back his seat will be a cowardly one to make the anti-gay McConnell (with an HRC score of 0) the Senate Majority Leader again.

There’s no question that the Democrats’ path to taking back the Senate very much includes defeating Kirk, who is in the bluest state among those where GOP senators are embattled. So HRC’s action does raise questions about how committed the group really is to seeing the Democrats take back the Senate, and if it perhaps has conflicting interests. Daily Kos’s David Nir surmised that HRC’s Kirk endorsement is all about keeping “donations flowing from corporations and wealthy gay Republicans,” and he may be on to something.

One only has to look at the website where Chad Griffin posted his response to get a feel for HRC’s aims. Rather than posting the response on its own website or on a progressive or LGBT site (or on Medium, where Griffin later posted a response to the North Carolina debacle), Griffin wrote his defense of the Kirk endorsement on the Independent Journal Review, which was founded by former Republican Party staffers Alex Skatell and Phil Musser, and has been described by GOP consultant Alex Castellanos as a cross of “RedState with BuzzFeed.” The New York Times described it as having “a steady stream of articles critical of President Obama and other Democrats.”

Skatell, now 30, started the first Facebook page for the Republican Governor’s Association (RGA) when he was 22. One major donor to the RGA is the GOP New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer-- who also happens to be a major donor to HRC. Singer’s foundation and the Daniel S. Loeb Foundation committed $3 million to the group, incurring criticism because Singer makes a lot of his money from a “vulture fund“ that sues poverty-stricken countries for their debt.

Singer has a son who is gay and worked on the push for marriage equality in New York, credited with helping persuade four Republicans to vote with Democrats to pass the bill. But Singer has his priorities: He bankrolled the campaigns of some of the most anti-gay GOP Senate candidates who won in 2014, like Joni Ernst of Iowa and Shelly Moore Capito of West Virginia, and he became a key fundraiser for the presidential campaign and super PACS of anti-gay Marco Rubio, who promised to overturn the Obergefell ruling. In 2016, Singer’s firm, Elliott Management, is the third largest contributor to the RGA, which is working this year to re-elect none other than Pat McCrory, the North Carolina governor who this week signed the most anti-LGBT law we’ve seen.

Singer also has been among those leading the anti-Trump effort among Republicans, which doesn’t look very promising right now. Looking at the possibility of Donald Trump winning the GOP nomination, it’s no secret that GOP leaders have focused on putting all of their efforts on retaining the Senate. Surely Paul Singer will be critical in that effort, bringing hard and steady pressure to bear wherever it is necessary. It’s not a surprise, then, that the American Unity Fund, which Singer founded, has been tweeting and retweeting support of HRC for its endorsement of Mark Kirk, in what seems like an attempt to counter the many LGBT people who are expressing their anger and to whom HRC believes it is not answerable.

If HRC is not answerable to LGBT people, however-- and its president, Griffin, rarely even gives interviews to LGBT media, while speaking often in the larger media-- exactly to whom and what is it answerable, and what are its true priorities? One thing is clear: HRC doesn’t speak for the LGBT community, and the sooner that politicians and those in the media grasp that, the smarter they will be.

Robert Reich on Money & the Left Political Establishment

Endorsement process when Clinton is endorsed (source; click to enlarge)

by Gaius Publius

Money uses money to neuter Democrats and enable Republicans.

You've no doubt heard by now of the dust-up (or "dust-up," meaning the manufactured kind) over Bernie Sanders' remarks when he said, while he'd like the endorsement of all the big left organizations, he understands that establishment organizations are going to endorse the insider (my phrasing).

Here's Sanders' original statement, made on-air to Rachel Maddow (my emphasis). [Update: Includes the rest of this quote.]

Maddow: "Senator, let me ask  you another question in terms of how the campaign is going forward.

Your policies on issues like gay rights and reproductive choice are very consistent, they should be very attractive to progressive groups, but there have been a series of very high profile endorsements of groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL. They've gone out of their way to make early endorsements for Secretary Clinton.

Just today the Human Rights Campaign announced their endorsement. Are you competing for these groups endorsements and not getting them? Or are you not trying to get them?"

Sanders: “I would love to have the endorsement of every progressive organization in America. We’re very proud to have received recently the endorsement of MoveOn.org. We’ve received the endorsement Democracy for America. These are grassroots organizations representing millions of workers.

“What we are doing in this campaign, it just blows my mind every day because I see it clearly, we’re taking on not only Wall Street and economic establishment, we’re taking on the political establishment.

“So, I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund and Planned Parenthood. But, you know what? Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very, very long time. Some of these groups are, in fact, part of the establishment. I will challenge anyone with regard to my record on LGBT issues. You know, I was one off the few, relatively few, to oppose and vote against DOMA, etc. In terms of women's rights, I believe we have a 100% lifetime pro-choice record.

“But that's what happens in politics. Look, I'm going to do well, and hopefully win, not because of establishment support. What we are going to do well at, and what we are doing well it, is rallying the grass roots of this country. ...

“So Rachel, I concede. I'm not going to get establishment support. I'm not going to get support of the governors and the senators, with a few exceptions, or many of the major organizations. But the reason we are doing so well ... is not from the establishment. It's from the grass roots of America.”

Nothing mean-spirited about that, but an acknowledgement that the big left organizations are also part of the prevailing "political establishment" in the Democratic Party ecosystem. (Many labor unions are in this position also, which accounts for many of their endorsements.) Note the distinction between "grassroots organizations representing millions of workers" and the "political establishment." An organization that reflects the views of its members is different from one that makes political endorsements that reflect the views of its board and leadership.

Sanders has since "walked back" those comments — in that he repeated the original assertion and said that even so, a group that runs women's health care clinics is without question a good group:

Planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Campaign and other progressive groups that have endorsed Hillary Clinton are not part of the political establishment, Sen. Bernie Sanders said Thursday, walking back comments he made earlier this week on MSNBC.

“That’s not what I meant,” Sanders told NBC News in an interview during his campaign swing through the first-in-the-nation primary state. “We’re a week out in the election, and the Clinton people will try to spin these things.”

Pressed on whether he views the groups as “establishment,” Sanders said: “No. They aren’t. They’re standing up and fighting the important fights that have to be fought.”

Sanders said he was specifically talking about the leadership of those groups and their endorsement decisions.

Again, are Planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and NARAL, to name a few, establishment in the work they do? No. Are their leaders acting like and supporting the "political establishment" in their endorsements? Yes. The last sentence in the supposed walk-back is key. Note that it reiterates his main point rather than reversing it.

NARAL and Planned Parenthood Supported Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont

Are groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood, to name just a few, part of the "political establishment"? Of course, they are, in the sense that the leaders cause their organizations to support positions and political figures which they deem advantageous to the organization's goals as organizations, whether or not those endorsements advance the goals of those they represent and/or serve. For example, consider that (national) NARAL and Planned Parenthood endorsed Joe Lieberman over Democratic candidate Ned Lamont in the election for Senate in 2006.

Now consider that a second time. That information should stop you cold. Joe Lieberman was known as "Short Ride" Lieberman for these remarks (emphasis in original):

Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn't be forced to do so.

"In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said.

Why did Planned Parenthood and NARAL endorse Joe Lieberman over the clearly more-pro-women's rights Democrat? "In order to advantage the organization (and perhaps its leaders) politically" is the obvious answer. Does advancing the career of Joe Lieberman better the lives of those whom PP and NARAL serve and represent? Of course not. Lieberman did all kinds of damage in the Senate, before and after 2006, including give us Samuel Alito by voting for cloture, which guaranteed his later confirmation.

None of this speaks to motives, but in cases where the interests of the members or constituents of an organization are opposite to the actions of its leaders, one is forced to ask questions. And when those contrary actions help keep in place powerful establishment political figures, no matter how deserving they are of that support, the answers suggest themselves.

Robert Reich on Money and the Left Political Establishment

Robert Reich was asked about Sanders' remarks by Chris Hayes recently, and while the video has been taken off of YouTube, we have Reich expanding on his remarks in this Facebook post (my emphasis below; note the Davos reference, which we'll return to):

Last night on Chris Hayes MSNBC show, Chris asked me if there’s a “Democratic establishment.” Of course there is. It’s comprised of current and former Wall Street executives who make massive campaign donations to Democrats (some of whom have served in the Clinton and Obama administrations and then returned to the Street); hedge-fund partners who make even larger contributions; moguls from large high-tech corporations and entertainment companies who both contribute directly and also “bundle” contributions from their friends; and major Washington lobbyists and lawyers who focus their bundling and their political activities on Democrats (half of all retired Democratic members of Congress in recent years have become Washington lobbyists).

The Democratic establishment is slightly more liberal than the Republican establishment, but their world views are not wildly dissimilar. After all, they have similar large homes in Westchester or Bethesda; they frequent the same vacation spots in the Hamptons or the Vineyard; attend many of the same charitable balls and dinners; serve on many of the same corporate and nonprofit boards; go to the same conclaves, such as Davos; travel in similar private jets; and are invited by presidents (Republican or Democratic, depending on who they’ve supported) to attend similar White House parties and receptions, and to serve on similar presidential commissions and advisory boards.

So the Democratic establishment sees the world much as the Republican establishment sees it: a system of privilege and power, to which they’re entitled because of their superior intelligence and ambition. And they view the vast and widening inequities of income, wealth, and power in America as natural and inevitable and, ultimately, just.

In the Hayes interview he was much more pointed about the effect of all this left-wing money on the organizations that take it. For some reason, all YouTube versions of that interview have been taken down, but from the transcript (again, my emphasis):

HAYES: Now, I asked Robert Reich, the former secretary of labor under President Clinton, if establishment is a meaningful term within the context of the Democratic Party.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROBERT REICH, FORMER SECRETARY OF LABOR: I think it is still clear because there are party leaders, big corporation, Wall Street. There are very wealthy individuals who kind of represent where the Democratic Party, the official Democratic Party was and to some extent still is.

HAYES: And what about these groups? I mean, the controversy over these comments, which as we noted Senator Sanders has walked back, he`s been attacked over them by Hillary Clinton, the context was Planned Parenthood and Human Rights Campaign, which I think a lot of people feel like, well, those are progressive organizations. It`s – they`re not the establishment.

What do you think about that?

REICH: Well, they`re not really the establishment. And I can`t obviously speak for Senator Sanders or about Planned Parenthood. But what we do see, and we`ve seen for years in America, is that the establishment, that is, the big banks and the executives and the wealthy do support a lot of non-profits and make the non-profits basically walk to the tune of the establishment.

So, there`s sort of a chilling effect on non-profits and the media and a lot of other places because the establishment is so powerful. That`s where the money is.

HAYES: Yes, having been a political reporter in Washington, D.C., you know, there are a variety of groups, Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Sierra Club, that are groups that do very good work, that do a lot of things that I personally believe in, that are also as a descriptive matter they`re part of what you`re going to call an establishment in Washington of the sort of center-left probably, Center for American Progress. They are part of it.

What I think is interesting is that term is so pejorative or understood to be so pejorative and there`s a real difference between how Republicans, it seems to me, think of that and how Democrats do. I don`t think Democrats feel as negatively about the Democratic Party establishment as Republicans do feel about their party`s establishment.

REICH: Well, I`m not so sure about that, Chris. I think the big problem is you have a vicious cycle of wealth and power in America that`s just gotten completely out of control and you`ve seen it in politics.

I was there in Washington in the `90s. It was pretty bad then. It`s much worse now. And that vicious cycle is you`ve got again big corporations, executives, Wall Street, very wealthy individuals in both parties who are calling the shots.

And you`ve got to just follow the money. You see it. There`s no countervailing power.

HAYES: That may be true. But the Planned Parenthood – I mean, is Planned Parenthood – it just doesn`t seem to be plausible that Planned Parenthood is part of the establishment in that sense. Or maybe you think they are.

REICH: I don`t know, and I don`t – I don`t think they are. But again, every organization, no matter who it is, just follow the money. I mean, I was just last week, I was asked to talk at a religious congregation about inequality. And just before I began, the minister who headed the congregation whispered to me and he said, don`t talk about changing the estate tax and don`t in any way attack the rich because we are dependent – you know, we`re dependent on them.

Well, this happens to me again and again and again. So, what we really need to understand here is that it`s all about power. This is where the surge is coming from for Bernie Sanders. In some ways, it`s a very different – it`s a different surge, but it`s coming out of the same sort of sense of fundamental powerlessness and anger and frustration for Donald Trump.

HAYES: But I think politically there is less juice to be squeezed out of that orange in the Democratic side. I mean, my feeling is your median Democratic voter, they`re angry at the banks or they`re not psyched about companies that outsource and things like that.

But when they think about a group like Planned Parenthood or Human Rights Campaign, when they think about even the Democratic Party writ large or elected Democratic officials, I don`t think they feel the same visceral anger toward those people, I think they generally trust them in a way Republican Party members don`t. Or maybe you think I`m wrong about that.

REICH: Well, I think – I think generally speaking. Certainly I would trust the Democrats and the Democratic establishment more than the Republican establishment. But I think you`ve got to understand, Chris, and I mean this in the sense that what has happened is so dramatic in terms of people`s feeling that the establishment – you know, the big corporations and Wall Street and the wealthy individuals even in the Democratic Party don`t really get it.

They don`t understand that they have had a huge impact on changing the rules of the game to favor themselves and hurt average working people. There`s not the same degree of resentment and anger, I don`t think, but there is a deep desire to change the power structure. That`s what this is all about.

HAYES: All right. Robert Reich, thank you very much.

REICH: Thanks, Chris.

Reich: "Every organization, no matter who it is, just follow the money." Let's consider one such organization.

Why Did Human Rights Campaign Also Endorse Clinton So Early?

Consider the pro-gay rights Human Rights Campaign (HRC). They have also endorsed Clinton. Here's activist and radio host Michelangelo Signorile, writing at Huffington Post, on that decision:

This week the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest LGBT group, endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. It was a bit of a shocker not because HRC endorsed a Democrat -- the group has only endorsed Democratic presidential candidates, as the GOP has always been hostile toward LGBT rights -- but that it occurred before even one vote has been cast in the Democratic primaries and while two hugely gay-supportive candidates are so close in the polls in the first contests.

In 2008, HRC endorsed Barack Obama, but not until June, when it was clear he would be the nominee. (For 2012, the group endorsed the president, who had no major challenger, in May of 2011). In 2004, HRC also endorsed the Democratic nominee, John Kerry, in June, after all the votes in the primaries were in. And it's very first endorsement of a presidential candidate, Bill Clinton, came in June of 1992....

But here we are less than two weeks from Iowa, and Senator Bernie Sanders is surging in the polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire, looking like he will take one or both. He has many LGBT donors and supporters, many of whom are HRC contributors who are, judging from Twitter, bewildered and angry. As I wrote last fall, Sanders has a stellar gay rights record, having been one of only a small handful of federal legislators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act (when he was in the House), and he's been out front in this campaign. ...

As I've also written, Hillary Clinton has responded to criticism by some LGBT donors and activists who were frustrated by what they saw as slowness on her part to publicly speak to the issues, and in recent months she released a robust, far-reaching and more detailed plan to foster LGBT equality. That's a great thing. And it's not unfair to suggest that Sanders' presence and his record had some effect.

So why didn't the largest LGBT group keep it going?

The key question, of course. Why did the largest LGBT group endorse so early and preëmptively. Signorile's answer (my emphasis):

The only answer to that question has to do with access to the White House, and perhaps what the Clinton campaign may have said to HRC, and to Planned Parenthood, the Brady Campaign on Gun Violence and other groups that have endorsed early, about the kind of access they might get -- and what they might not get if they didn't endorse now. (Let's also not forget that Chad Griffin, HRC's president, worked in Bill Clinton's administration, and raised much money as a bundler for Obama's and Clinton's campaigns.) And it is a campaign that needs those endorsements now, calling in its chips, as Bernie Sanders and his insurgency has taken the Clintonites by surprise. What seems like an early burst of enthusiasm from a group that hasn't ever endorsed any seriously contested presidential candidate before any votes took place may actually be an indication of the fear and loathing inside the Clinton campaign.

Shorter Signorile — they did it to get "access," to avoid being denied access, and because its leadership is interconnected with the Clinton administration and fund-raising infrastructure. Plus the Clinton campaign needed that endorsement now.

What does that access mean, not just for the organization, but its leaders? More on Chad Griffin, HRC's president, from this Washington Blade piece by White House reporter Chris Johnson (my emphasis):

Sen. Bernard Sanders retracted his comments about the Human Rights Campaign days after he made them, but labeling the nation’s leading LGBT advocacy group as part of the “establishment” last week struck a chord with some LGBT critics.

Some said Sanders was correct in labeling as “establishment” the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT group known for black-tie fundraising dinners, lauding corporations with pro-LGBT records in its Corporate Equality Index, close ties to Democratic Party leaders and support for Republicans who back LGBT rights (even when their Democratic opponents are stronger on LGBT issues).

The day after Sanders made the comments, Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, was in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum where Vice President Joseph Biden spoke in support of international LGBT rights.

Andrew Miller, a member of the New York-based grassroots group Queer Nation, said Sanders’ comments were accurate.

“I’m surprised Chad Griffin wasn’t flattered that Bernie Sanders labeled HRC ‘part of the political establishment,'” Miller said. “Griffin, who has just returned from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, certainly runs the organization as if that’s what they aspire to. It’s gratifying that at least one American politician understood — at least for a moment — that HRC represents the 1 percent, not the majority of the LGBT community nor the values of LGBT Americans.”

Reich: They "go to the same conclaves, such as Davos; travel in similar private jets..." How is an organization like HRC, at the leadership level, not the "left establishment" in the same sense that the owner of the private jet that ferries them around is also "left establishment"?

In that light, consider HRC's endorsement of Hillary Clinton. About the timing, as Signorile indicates, one could easily see her getting that endorsement because now is when she needs it, when she's in trouble in Iowa.

Now consider who is most revealed by endorsements like these — Clinton, Sanders or groups like HRC and their leaders?

The Great Unmasking

I'll expand on this later, but there's a bigger story here. This primary election is the "emperor's new clothes" election. Bernie Sanders is telling the truth, finally, and people are saying, yes, I agree. Then they're watching their leaders, their progressive and "progressive" leaders, sort themselves into two camps — Sanders' camp and the emperor's camp.

Those leaders can say, "No, the emperor is perfectly well dressed. Now let's just get on with business as usual. 'Cause Republicans...." Or they can say, with Sanders, "Yes, I see that too." The election is not calling out the left electorate. It's calling out the left electorate's professed leaders, sorting them into groups for us. In that sense, this election is performing quite a service.

It's as though one day everyone in town assembled in the town square, and all of the nobles and town officials took the stage as a group and threw off their masks. What a sight for the townspeople. Masks flying into the air like birds from a tree.

And another sight, the sudden revelation of who's really who. On the one hand, those for whom the mask is identical to the face —  the Keith Ellisons of the world — those who've been working for the town, in other words. On the other hand, those for whom the mask is very different from the face — the Chad Griffins of the world, if Signorile is to be believed — those who've been pretending, but really working for themselves, their careers, their enrichment all along. And those who've been trying to straddle both worlds, with only a mask to hide their failure to do so.

This is turning into an amazing election, the most interesting in my lifetime. Also the most consequential, as I tried to indicate here. Isaiah Poole and I discussed this election and more on a recent Virtually Speaking Sundays discussion. Tune in and listen if you like.

(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you'd like to help out, go here; you can adjust the split any way you like at the link. If you'd like to "phone-bank for Bernie," go here. You can volunteer in other ways by going here. And thanks!)

GP

Will Any Gay Mainers Be Fooled By HRC's Transactional Endorsement Of Republican Susan Collins?

The LGBT equality movement has been successful with the help of dedicated allies like Shenna Bellows and Marianne Williamson

Maine Senator Susan Collins doesn't have a bad voting record on LGBT rights… for a Republican. Fir a normal human being, though, her record is awful-- and disgraceful. And when it comes to any kind of leadership for LGBT equality she gets a flat-out "F." Her ProgressivePunch lifetime crucial vote score is worse than any Democrats' and worse than several Republicans', including Kelly Ayotte (NH), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Marco Rubio (FL). She's exactly tied with GOP closet case Lindsey Graham (SC), who's obsessed with staying on the good side of South Carolina bigots while keeping his own dating options open.

People who think HRC is an idealistic organization trying to advance LGBT equality-- rather than a pathetic bunch of self-serving Beltway hacks looking for personal career advancement, cocktail party invitations and "access"-- may have been shocked when the organization endorsed Collins for reelection last month. The LGBT community in Maine, knew better and ignores them completely, just like anyone outside the Beltway does.

Over the weekend, Betsy Smith and Pat Peard, respected leaders of Mainers United for Marriage, penned an OpEd for the Portland Press Herald that basically laughed in the faces of the worthless fools and knaves at HRC down in Washington. The progressive Democrat and dedicated leader on behalf of LGBT rights, Shenna Bellows, who is running for the seat Collins occupies, "practices," they wrote, "the politics of conscience, even when it means taking the long road instead of the easy road."

As executive committee leaders of the successful Mainers United for Marriage campaign, which passed the nation’s first marriage equality voter initiative, we write today to endorse Shenna Bellows for U.S. Senate, and to share our enthusiasm for her campaign.

Working with Shenna for seven years to expand Mainers’ civil rights-- including allowing same-sex couples to marry-- showed us she’s the kind of dynamic, hardworking leader our state needs in Washington.

In 2006, as we were laying the foundation for a public education campaign on marriage equality, we asked Shenna to join our leadership team because we knew she was hardworking, principled and determined to win the tough fights. From Day One, and for seven consecutive years, Shenna’s contributions were invaluable.

Her coalition-building approach to passing legislation led her to set up dozens of well-publicized news conferences with groups of supporters including business owners, medical professionals and faith leaders, to name just a few, all of whom conveyed important messages about why same-sex couples should have the right to marry.

We won the freedom to marry in Maine due in no small part to Shenna’s strategic communications and brilliant legislative advocacy.

When voters and activists told us it was too soon for marriage equality and the fight couldn’t be won, Shenna stood shoulder to shoulder with the leadership team in firmly believing that equality wasn’t just the right fight, it was a winnable fight.

She led the effort to establish Republicans United for Marriage at a time when very few people saw the potential for that kind of coalition-building. To this day, many of those Republicans-- and a growing number-- are engaged in the movement to win full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Maine.

Her determination and hard work speak volumes about the kind of person she is and the kind of leader she will be. Without her leadership skills at the table, gay and lesbian Mainers might still be waiting for the freedom to marry.

Marriage equality isn’t the only victory in which Shenna played a critical role. We were fortunate to have her as part of the leadership team that defeated a dangerous 2007 transgender discrimination bill. She was also essential in writing and passing Maine’s 2012 anti-bullying law that provides schools with more resources to combat bullying against all youth.

These weren’t easy fights, and like marriage equality, they weren’t short fights. Shenna’s early, strong, out-in-front stances-- and the hard and persistent work she did to back them up-- are good examples of why we support her this year over Sen. Susan Collins, who until recently has been silent on marriage equality.

We have appreciated the support of Sen. Collins on several LGBT issues, and in particular her leadership on the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but her lack of support on the critically important issue of marriage equality during the two statewide referendum campaigns in 2009 and 2012 clearly differentiates Sen. Collins from Shenna Bellows.

Shenna doesn’t just support issues important to Maine, she also stands up and leads the charge. Her activism and willingness to keep working for years to help win the freedom to marry-- in addition to the myriad of other issues on which she has been a leader-- prove she has the vision and leadership our state needs in Congress. The contrast is clear, and we think the choice is, too.

One more point needs to be made. Sen. Collins’ unwavering support for Gov. LePage is a grave concern to us. He has been an intentionally divisive figure from the day he took office, and she has not stood up to him.

Right now Blue America is closing in on our July fundraising goal for Shenna's campaign ($20,000). At $19,497, we're just a few hundred dollars away. Can you help us, even with just $5 or $10 dollars, get there? Here's the Blue America Senate 2015 page. There is no contribution too small. Shenna has raised over a million dollars so far and the median contribution is right around $7.50.

League Of Conservation Voters Sells Out Again

LCV Climate Change poster child, Susan Collins

The Establishment-oriented LGBT organization, HRC, endorsed Republican Senator Susan Collins, who has an record of studiously ignoring gay equality issues in Maine and voting precisely 50% of the time with conservatives and 50% of the time with normal senators on gay issues in DC. Yesterday Digby explained the tragedy of HRC abandoning one of the LGBT communities most dedicated advocates, Shenna Bellows, on behalf of Collins.

They say that no good deed goes unpunished and nothing illustrates the truth of that old trope more vividly that the Human Rights Campaign endorsing Maine Senator Susan Collins over her Democratic opponent, the stalwart defender of human rights and civil liberties, Shenna Bellows. It wasn't the first time Republicans have been unjustly rewarded with endorsements from national liberal organizations, unfortunately. But there are few Republicans who have been more lauded by people for whom she has consistently done so little than the bucket of lukewarm water known as Susan Collins.

This endorsement was particularly galling. Shenna Bellows is not just another Democrat who supports marriage equality. She has devoted her life to expanding civil rights and civil liberties. In her capacity as the Director of the Maine ACLU she helped lead the way for marriage equality in Maine and was instrumental in getting the Maine Human Rights Act passed. It's a truly bold piece of legislation, one of the strongest anti-discrimination laws in the country, which Bellows promises to bring to the national level. She has said:

The important thing we learned in Maine was to aim big and be persistent. Frankly, Congress could benefit from our example. The debate in Congress has focused for too long on weak versions of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which only covers employment decisions and now has such a big religious-exemption loophole that many activists no longer support the bill. As Ian Thompson wrote for Slate in April, the loophole "opens the door for religiously affiliated organizations to engage in employment discrimination against LGBT people-- for any reason." That's not the stuff big civil-rights advances are made of.

I'm proud to say we've done better in Maine, and I'll do better in Washington. We need a national Human Rights Act along the lines of the Maine Human Rights Act. We need to outlaw discrimination in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and educational opportunity on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation-- once and for all, nationwide, no exceptions. Sen. Al Franken has done good work on this issue, and I can't wait to join him. The LGBT community isn't alone in worrying that its Washington allies are aiming too low.

Many immigration-reform groups rightly wonder not only why Republicans won't support them but why too many Democrats supported a weaker House bill in this Congress than the one they introduced when they were in the majority. We can't fall victim to lower expectations or lesser ambitions, no matter who controls what branch of government. Good policy is good policy, and fighting the wrong legislative fights won't get us where we need to be.

That's the kind of leadership we need so desperately in Washington --- leadership that understands that we are all in this together. If you agree, you can donate to Shenna Bellows' campaign here.

You will not be surprised to learn that Senator Collins is all for that "religious exemption." And her definition of courage is to wait until the nation has largely moved forward before she reluctantly leads from behind: it was only last week that she could summon the nerve to support marriage equality even in principle, much less to act to make it a reality.

As you can see from Shenna Bellows' comments, her approach to basic human rights and liberties stems from her clear, strong set of principles. She doesn't put her finger in the wind, she kicks up a storm and makes things happen. Maine would not have the strong protections and rights available to LGBT citizens that it has today if not for Shenna Bellows. Yet the thanks she gets from the National Human Rights Campaign is an endorsement for her opponent. With friends like these…

Moments after Digby's post appeared, another DC Establishment suck-up group like HRC, League of Conservation Voters, stabbed Shenna in the back and endorsed Collins, just as they had done in 2008 when they backed her against a much more environmentally friendly Democrat, Rep. Tom Allen. Collins won and continued voting against the issues most important to LCV want. Perhaps LCV donors will wake up some day and realize that scam LCV has become.

According to ProgressivePunch, Collins has a lifetime crucial vote score of 39.77 on environmental issues that have come before the Senate. Yes, she's better than Ted Cruz. Is that why LCV donors send checks to the organization? Shenna responded to expected endorsement by reminding LCV that they had just placed Maine State Sen. Troy Jackson on their Dirty Dozen List for a record that isn't even as bad as Collins'!

"I am running for United States Senate because we need bolder leadership to confront climate change before it's too late," Bellows said. "Climate change is one of most serious threats confronting our nation. Protecting the status quo won't protect the environment for the next generation. I've been a consistent voice for more renewable energy, stronger clean air and water standards and an end to the Keystone XL Pipeline project, and I'll proudly stack my environmental values against Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins and any other Washington Republican."

"You have to ask why in this race a lifetime D grade merits recognition," said Portland City Councilman and former State Rep. Jon Hinck. "It's disappointing to see LCV fall into the incumbent protection trap. Half-a-loaf environmentalism is not half good enough. Our air and water don't care about political parties and legacy ties. Every candidate should be considered on the merits of what he or she would do to keep our environment clean. Energy and global warming challenges make this a critical time for Maine and the entire country. Shenna Bellows, unlike the incumbent, has the vision and drive to meet those challenges."

A Huffington Post article last week pointed out many that Maine environmentalists objected to some groups' continued support of Collins despite her low lifetime rating. Emily Figdor, the director of Environment Maine, was quoted in that story saying Collins "has not had a consistent record on climate change. It's high time she really stands up and starts to lead on the issue."

In 2011 Collins introduced the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, which a June 24, 2012, op-ed in the Lewiston Sun-Journal pointed out was "roundly condemned by environmentalists as an attempt to gut EPA regulations intended to clean up the nation’s dirtiest industrial power plants-- many of them fueled by biomass, and several right here in Maine. She then tried to attach her legislation to the unrelated transportation bill [in the spring of 2012], an effort that only narrowly failed."

As far back as 2009, Collins led the fight to eliminate tens of billions of dollars in clean energy funding from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. Among other cuts, her plan would have eliminated:

• $4.5 billion in renewable energy loan guarantees at the Department of Energy
• $1.4 billion in research grants and facilities construction at the National Science Foundation
• $1 billion from energy efficiency and renewable energy projects at the Department of Energy
• $300 million in laboratory upgrades at the Department of Agriculture.

If you live in Maine, you have an opportunity to vote this November to replace Collins with Shenna Bellows. If you live anywhere else in the U.S., you can still help-- right here. Yesterday, Sean Sullivan explained to Washington Post readers how Collins can keep winning in Maine, but it's a trend that we can stop… now.

The endorsements Collins just won amount to a lesson about the power of incumbency. She is very popular back home and considered a safe bet to win reelection. By offering her their support, groups from the left such as LCV and HRC can bolster the odds that she will support their causes in the future. By opposing Collins and supporting a long-shot incumbent against her, they would do themselves no favors in the long run, assuming she wins another term.

…The general election threat-- albeit a minor one at this point-- presented by Bellows may have forced Collins to stake out a harder position on gay marriage now and roll out the LCV endorsement sooner than she otherwise would. But she was always going to emphasize her crossover appeal sooner or later.

Craven groups like HRC and LCV empower Collins and help her lay claim to the term moderate, but her friend and ally Rick Santorum put it best when he told right-wing donors that Collins may vote moderate sometimes, but at least she is a team player who "always plays with the team and never plays against the conservative side even if she has to give the liberals a vote because she's from Maine."

Too Bad I Can't Chop Up My HRC Award Twice

I heard about HRC endorsing Susan Collins again a few hours ago. It seems to have surprised a lot of people. It would have surprised me if they hadn't. Susan Collins and HRC are made for each other. Don't they always. Last time, in fact, was the same year they chose not to endorse Tammy Baldwin's congressional election, the same year I removed them from my will. I dug this up from a post I wrote this just over 8 years ago, May 30, 2006:

Because I was lucky enough to have had something of a reputation as an enlightened corporate leader for several years, my mantle is filled with awards from progressive public advocacy groups like the ACLU, GLAAD, People For the American Way and HRC. Actually my mantle used to have an HRC award on it. But a little over a week ago HRC endorsed Lieberman over clear, enlightened, unambiguously progressive and pro-gay Ned Lamont. So I took the award down and put it in a box where no one-- including, or especially, myself-- will see it.

In 1997 I had been so proud to accept HRC's Leadership Equality Award "for outstanding corporate leadership and dedication to the gay and lesbian community." My mother and my grandmother were kvelling and my boss, the Chairman of Warner Bros, was beaming at my side when I went up to make my speech. Last week I thought about calling friends and family over and having a smashing-up ceremony but I decided to just wait and see if HRC changes and gravitates more towards their roots as real agents for change and leaves the severely compromised kiss-up politics that pervades the sick, sick system Inside the Beltway to others. I'm not overly optimistic. HRC's fancy new 8-story building symbolizes their institutional self-perpetuating role inside that insider game.

My old friend Hugh Baran wouldn't have been surprised either. "Ultimately," he wrote, "what HRC values is access to power, and its money certainly does provide it with access. Consistent support of an incumbent like Lieberman, especially when he is facing a tough race, is certainly a way, if he is elected, to help maintain that access. But HRC is never going to lose its access or influence by not supporting people like Lieberman. It would only stand to gain by withholding support in the race, or by coming out strongly for Lamont. HRC already has access, but what good has it been, when the situation of LGBT Americans has for the past decade remained little changed?"

Two years later, I found that award and chopped it up with an axe when HRC endorsed Susan Collins in her race against Tom Allen. Inside the crazy world known as "Inside-the-Beltway," Collins was deemed to be "good... for a Republican" on gay issues. Rep. Allen was perfect on gay issues as a human being and as a Democrat. I went on Michelangelo Signorile's radio show to discuss it with him, prompting this e-mail from an old friend the next evening:

I got two calls from HRC today.

I couldn't take the first call and, good for them, someone called me back a couple of hours later.

They asked me if I would renew my membership so they could lead the fight in anti-gay initiatives.

I told her no because HRC endorsed Susan Collins.

Her:  "Who is that? Some local person?"

Me:  "No, she's a United States Senator."

Her: "Well, I've never heard of her and we don't even do endorsements"

Me: "Actually that is one of the most visible things that HRC does."

Her: "Well, I don't think that we do that and this is the first time that I have heard of that woman's name."

Me: "Well, she is a Republican and she votes for the anti-gay Republican leadership and she has voted for Bush's nominees for the Supreme Court."

Her: "OK..... so would you like to renew to fight these anti-gay initiatives?"

Me: "No, I need to recover from the Collins endorsement.... And this when I had almost recovered from HRC's endorsement of Lieberman and D'Amato."

Her: "Well, I don't know who that is... In two days of calling this is the first time I have even heard that name.... So you don't want to renew?"

Me: "uh No... thank you."

Tonight, Blue America is co-hosting an event for Shenna Bellows with the Feminist Majority, DFA, PCCC, and Council for a Livable World as well as by the 2 progressives, Marianne Williamson and Ted Lieu, who recently ran for Congress in the district where the event is taking place. Shenna, who helped lead the first successful fight-- in the whole country-- to pass marriage equality in Maine in 2012 through a voter referendum, just sent a response to the HRC endorsement of Collins. She recently said in a widely read Huffington Post article that one of her first acts as senator would be the introduction of a national Human Rights Act to prohibit anti-LGBT discrimination in marriage, housing, education, access to credit, public accommodations and employment. Read what she has to say and if you think she would make a good replacement for Collins, please consider contributing what you can to her campaign here.

"I've been proud and very privileged to be a leader in the LGBT equality movement for many years. As executive director of the ACLU of Maine, I spent every day bringing Republicans and Democrats together to expand civil liberties and strengthen equal protection under the law. I believe in taking strong stances in favor of Constitutional protections and equal rights even when they're unpopular. Remaining silent on some of the biggest civil rights issues of our generation, even after the voters have spoken, isn't leadership, and it isn't how Maine became one of the most inclusive states in the country for LGBT rights.

"My opponent, Republican Susan Collins, had the chance to speak up in favor of marriage equality in 2012 or any time in the previous decade. Two years after her constituents made their feelings known at the ballot box, she has refused to break her silence. I believe Mainers need, want and deserve more proactive representation on equal rights-- on allowing LGBT students to learn without fear of bullying, on applying for jobs and going to work without fear of discrimination, and on much more. I'm running for Senate to provide that proactive representation and to expand Constitutional protections for our LGBT community.

"This is one endorsement in an election year. Mainers are more interested in both candidates' records, and my record speaks for itself."

If you lost that contribution link, here is is again. Oh… and by the way, the HRC website states that "The HRC Board of Directors has the ultimate authority over the organization's actions, including fiscal management and budget approval. Board members also establish the official policies that direct HRC." Know any of 'em?

• Tracie Ahern – New York, NY
• Lacey All­ – Seattle, WA
• Ian Barrett – Houston, TX
• Bruce Bastian – Orem, UT
• Terry Bean – Portland, OR
• Vanessa Benavides – Dallas, TX
• Les Bendtsen – Minneapolis, MN
• Michael Berman – Washington, DC
• Scott Bishop – Charlotte, NC
• Paul Boskind – San Antonio, TX
• Chris Carolan – Brooklyn, NY
• Bill Donius – Ladue, MO
• Chris Flynn – Boston, MA
• Jody Gates – New Orleans, LA
• Kirk Hamill – Washington, DC
• Suzanne Hamilton – Cleveland, OH
• Jim Harrison – Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX
• Tom Knabel – Minneapolis, MN
• Chris Labonte – Philadelphia, PA
• Joan Lau – Philadelphia, PA
• Joni Madison – Hillsborough, NC
• Joshua Miller – Henderson, NV
• Hank Provost – Denver, CO
• Cheryl Rose-Mack – Columbus, OH
• Cathi Scalise – Dallas, TX
• Linda Scaparotti – San Francisco, CA
• Molly Simmons – Atlanta, GA
• Steve Sorenson – Newport Beach, CA
• Meghan Stabler – Round Rock, TX
• Brad White – OC/LB/PS
• Frank Woo – San Francisco, CA
• Tony Woods – Washington, DC

Planned Parenthood Goes To Maine-- Dumps Bush Rubber Stamp Susan Collins

I was furious the other day when I read that the Sierra Club had declined to endorse Darcy Burner (D-WA) in what is arguably the most important congressional race in the country. It made me think back to Markos' first book, Crashing the Gates and how he chastised single-issue advocacy groups playing politics (badly) by bending over backwards to appear bipartisan, damaging any semblance of a progressive coalition in the process. In the past we have attacked boneheaded moves by HRC and NARAL when they've endorsed Republicans whose only quality was that they were not quite as bad as your garden variety, drooling fascist GOP member of Congress. HRC, an out-of-touch, Inside-the-Beltway gay civil rights organization, for example, endorsed Susan Collin's mediocre record on gay issues while ignoring Tom Allen's 100% record. Their callous political calculations-- that if Allen won he'd be pro-gay anyway and that if Collins won she'd "owe" them, are just plain putrid and it's typical of these one-issue, puffed-up Insider orgs in Washington.

Today the opposite happened, thanks to some foresight from Planned Parenthood. Collins Watch broke the story in Maine.

In a precedent-setting move with national ramifications, Planned Parenthood has broken decisively with Sen. Collins, and will endorse Rep. Allen's bid to unseat her.

The decision to intervene in the race--coming from the nation's most important and respected pro-choice organization--sounds an urgent warning to pro-choice Collins supporters, admonishing them to take another look at the junior senator's record.

And because Planned Parenthood backed Collins in 2002 (and frequently endorses Republicans) its support for Allen represents a serious, nonpartisan challenge to Collins' carefully-cultivated "moderate" image.

It's the first time Planned Parenthood has backed the challenger to a senator it had previously endorsed. It also seems to be the first time Planned Parenthood has backed a Senate challenger over an incumbent who identifies as pro-choice. And It also serves as an example to other so-called "progressive" groups, showing that it's possible to avoid reflexively fluffing those in power. It still irks actual progressives that NARAL endorsed Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont-- and Lincoln Chafee over Sheldon Whitehouse. There have been rumors all year, in fact, that the undependable NARAL would even, despite her overwhelmingly rubber stamp posture and intense support for McCain, endorse Collins this year. In light of Planned Parenthood's courageous decision, NARAL might be more hesitant to make such a move. Instead they should remember that Collins:

-voted for the confirmation of anti-Choice radical Sammy Alito to the Supreme Court.
-voted for nearly all of President Bush's lower court judicial nominees, including right-wing activist appointees like Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown.
-voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a law that pro-choice groups saw as a backdoor attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade.
-has remained silent about the Bush administration's recently proposed DHHS rule, which grants health care providers wide latitude to deny services to women on a case by case basis.

So... today we congratulate Panned Parenthood for doing the right thing. This is probably a good time to remind everyone that Tom Allen's race to win the Maine Senate seat is tightening and that Tom needs help from grassroots donors. You can do that here at our Blue America ActBlue page.

From Planned Parenthood:

The national Planned Parenthood (PPAF) Action Fund board unanimously voted to endorse Congressman Tom Allen in his bid to unseat Senator Susan Collins.

...We need a leader who will represent the interests of the thousands of Mainers served by Planned Parenthood...We need someone in the Senate who understands prevention and who will support quality, affordable health care...Planned Parenthood wholeheartedly agrees that Tom Allen is that leader."

...[Allen's] record proves he will support and protect a woman's right to make personal childbearing decisions...This election is absolutely pivotal for our organization and the people who count on us. We look forward to doing whatever we can to ensure the people of this state know who they can trust to protect their rights, protect our courts, and protect the health and safety of all Mainers."

AT LEAST ONE HRC MEMBER REFUSES TO RE-UP HIS MEMBERSHIP BECAUSE OF THEIR SHAMEFUL ENDORSEMENT OF REPUBLICAN SHILL SUSAN COLLINS

A few weeks ago I was huffing and puffing about a gay human rights outfit, HRC endorsing Susan Collins, who has a so-so record on gay rights ("good for a Republican") against Rep. Tom Allen who has a perfect record on gay rights issues. I don't want to go through the whole thing again, but if you missed it in April, it's all at the link above. The next day Michelangelo Signorelli called and asked me to be a guest on his radio show and I tore into HRC more strongly than I intended to. After my interview was done they called Michelangelo and asked if they could have a representative on to rebut me the following day. Exciting, huh? Below I have an embedded mp3 of the HRC spokesman's interview. It's pretty amusing and I recommend listening to it.

This evening an old friend send me this:

I got two calls from HRC today.
I couldn't take the first call and, good for them, someone called me back a couple of hours later.

They asked me if I would renew my membership so they could lead the fight in anti-gay initiatives.

I told her no because HRC endorsed Susan Collins.

Her:  "Who is that? Some local person?"

Me:  "No, she's a United States Senator"

Her: "Well, I've never heard of her and we don't even do endorsements"

Me: "Actually that is one of the most visible things that HRC does."

Her: "Well, I don't think that we do that and this is the first time that I have heard of that woman's name"

Me: "Well, she is a Republican and she votes for the anti-gay Republican leadership and she has voted for Bush's nominees for the Supreme Court"

Her: "OK..... so would you like to renew to fight these anti-gay initiatives?"

Me: "No, I need to recover from the Collins endorsement.... And this when I had almost recovered from HRC's endorsement of Lieberman and D'Amato."

Her: "Well, I don't know who that is... In two days of calling this is the first time I have even heard that name.... So you don't want to renew?"

Me: "uh No....thank you."

OK, so here's the radio show: HRC Interview

Michelangelo starts by playing a couple of soundbytes from my interview the day before. They he talks with the HRC guy. You can see why Michelangelo is considered a master-- not just as a church painter, but as a radio interviewer. I actually started feeling sorry for the HRC guy after al while. I don't have a clue if many gay people read Down With Tyranny but if you are gay and if you do belong to HRC I want you to listen to that interview and think about donating whatever you would have donated to them this year, to Tom Allen instead. The money you give to them-- or at least some of it-- will go to help re-elect Senator Susan Collins who has vowed to continue voting for viciously homophobic judges who not only oppose granting rights to gay men and women but who are committed to taking away current rights, like the right to adopt children. You can donate to Tom Allen's campaign here.

Notice when they are discussing raging homophobic maniacs like Leslie Southwick, the HRC guy admits that they don't agree with her on those votes but excuses it by saying "many Democrats voted for those nominees." Well, I don't want to quibble over the definition of the word "many," but I can tell you that one was another HRC endorsee and Bush rubber stamp, Holy Joe Lieberman. I can also tell you, with no equivocation, that no one, not a Republican and not a Democrat, has ever or will ever be endorsed by Blue America if they vote against equality under the law for any minority. The "many Democrats" are reactionaries like Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor and Ben Nelson, none of whom are supported-- and are all frequently chastised-- here are DWT.

When the Senate was debating whether or not to confirm the proven bigot Leslie Southwick, HRC's own president Joe Solomonese, didn't equivocate either. "A nominee who so callously disregarded the rights of GLBT families clearly cannot be trusted to safeguard the rights of any American... This vote for Leslie Southwick is a vote against the dignity and safety of our families, and an insult to the millions of dedicated GLBT parents raising happy and healthy children across this country." OK, we agree, so why funnel thousands of dollars from working gay men and women into her re-election campaign, when her opponent has a perfect voting record on equality and has pledged to never vote to confirm any bigoted judges?

HRC HAS SOME BAD POLITICAL ADVICE FOR GAY PEOPLE AND THEIR ALLIES

So whose side is HRC on, anyway?

In the gay political universe HRC doesn't only stand for the candidate working with John McCain to tear down the Democrat McCain will face in November. It also stands for something far more loathsome and treacherous than Hillary, the Human Rights Campaign. HRC is an Inside the Beltway kiss ass advocacy group for gay people. I was very proud in 1997 when they gave me a Leadership Equality Award for my work at fostering equality in the workplace at Warner Brothers. I even wrote them into my will.

But what opened my eyes to what HRC has become was their endorsement of Holy Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont. After I learned more about them I smashed my award and removed them from my will. HRC is one of those Inside the Beltway organizations that has long ago lost sight of its original mandate. Instead of fighting for gay equality, they fight to win DC status games and to enhance the future career prospects of the staff. When it comes to electoral politics, you can almost always expect the worst from HRC.

This past February their in house magazine prominently featured Republican rubber stamp and fake moderate Susan Collins (R-ME), including a 2 page spread giving the false impression that Collins is not the enemy of gay people. One of the more outrageous parts of their interview with Collins is a bit about the Gang of 14. They make it sound like her membership in it should be praised, but that’s pretty naive considering that one of the only accomplishments of the Gang was to ensure the confirmation of viciously homophobic, right-wing crazies on the federal bench like Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and Bill Pryor. But that's exactly what HRC has turned into-- an organization so concerned with looking "mainstream" and "adult" Inside the Beltway, that they will support the worst enemies of gay people on the political scene.

Today HRC announced its endorsements for Senate races around the country. They are asking the gay community to donate money to 10 cash-rich incumbents and four Democratic challengers, Jeanne Shaheen (DLC-NH), Mark Udall (D-CO), Tom Udall (D-NM), and Al Franken (D-MN). Among the incumbents is Collins, of course, who is running against a Democratic congressman, Tom Allen, who's voting record on gay issues is excellent and who is a true friend of the gay community and someone who, again, unlike Collins, will never ever, vote to confirm rabid homophobic judges. Among the other incumbents they endorsed are some outstanding senators like Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), John Kerry (D-MA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), and Jack Reed (D-RI) and at least one with a spotty voting record, Louisiana's conservative Democrat, Mary Landrieu, who, like Collins, routinely rubber stamps homophobic judges the Bush Regime pushes for lifetime appointments.

This morning I called Tom Allen and asked if I missing something about why HRC has endorsed Collins. Tom, the most positive campaigner I've ever met, never wants to say a negative word about anyone. Instead he wanted to talk about his own record on his support for gay people. “My record of fighting discrimination on all levels and for standing up for equality is consistent. When I was on the Portland City Council in Maine, we led the state in nondiscrimination practices by banning bias based on sexual orientation for housing, credit and employment. As a Member of Congress, I have consistently supported fairness and equality measures while opposing discrimination. As a member of the Senate, I will continue to do what is right for all people. Specifically, I will not support judicial nominees who don’t understand fairness and equal rights.” It would have been nice if HRC could have at least wrung something like that out of Collins before sending a confusing signal to gays and lesbians in Maine.

HRC's own scorecard for the 109th Congress-- the 110th isn't out yet-- gave Tom Allen a 100% rating and gave Collins a 78% although that rating doesn't reflect her votes and maneuvering for anti-gay judges. (She voted for both Alito and Roberts). None the less, aside from fundraising against Tom on her behalf, they claim they are also doing "on-the-ground organizing [and] GOTV efforts" on behalf of Collins and pushing her at gay pride events.

But it was a Senate race they chose to ignore that is the most shocking and disappointing element of their announcement today. North Carolina has two extreme right wing senators, Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr, each of whom can always be counted on to do whatever they can to make the lives of gay men and women less palatable and less safe. One, Elizabeth Dole, is up for re-election in November. There are two Democrats in a neck and neck primary battle to take her on, Republican-lite Establishment-backed Kay Hagan and grassroots progressive Jim Neal. Frankly, I don't know where Hagan stands on gay issues. I do know where Neal stands-- 100% with the gay community, of which he is an upfront member. Yes, one of the first times that an uncloseted gay man is running for the U.S. Senate-- in a race he can win-- and HRC is... abstaining. When we reached Jim this morning, he seemed disappointed. "There's no question their endorsement would have helped in fundraising and I certainly would have liked to have had it. People look to the HRC to encourage participation and promote change in the political system. Is it doing that? That's a valid question, and after this election is over, I think we need to look at groups like HRC and their endorsement process." Amen!

Tom Allen and Jim Neal have both been endorsed by Blue America. If you're a member of HRC how about skipping your HRC dues this year and sending the money to where it will do some good instead? Like here, for Tom and Jim. By the way, the first five donations today of at least $30 get, as a thank you, an autographed copy of Al Franken's book The Truth.


UPDATE: PAM SCHOOLS ME ON WHERE KAY HAGEN STANDS... THE MYSTERY DEEPENS

Pam pointed out this afternoon that Jim Neal is very clear on where he stands on gay issues. Kay Hagan? Not so much.

Even when I saw Hagan's communications coordinator Colleen Flanagan in person at the BlueNC blogger gathering yesterday (many pro-LGBT candidates were there, including Jim Neal), she didn't say when or if Hagan would issue any positions on:

1. Federal hate crimes legislation.
2. Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
3. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal
4. The Uniting American Families Act (H.R. 2221, S. 1328)
5. The federal Defense of Marriage Act
6. Whether her view that the definition of marriage should be left up to state law can be reconciled with 1967's Loving v. Virginia, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated state bans on interracial marriages and whether that should have been left a state matter.

This is basic stuff. Sen. Hagan has in fact sponsored anti-discrimination measures at the state level, but for whatever reason, she can't manage the gumption to state her positions on the above for publication. A simple "Yes" or "No" would have been clear. Follow up questions to the campaign were not only not answered, but not acknowledged in any way, as I said above.

If HRC is looking at who would be the best candidate on our issues, we already have a non-responsive fossil sitting in that seat right now-- Elizabeth Dole. No matter what you think of Jim Neal, he has been both responsive and clear on our issues, and Kay Hagan has been MIA.