Hillary And The Damage Done... In Down Ballot Races

Is it fair to point out that Hillary used anti-gay demonology as a tool to reach her goals? You be the judge by watching the video of her above sticking to her conservative principles and keeping in mind what she told an NPR audience just before she turned 50: "I feel like my political beliefs are rooted in the conservatism that I was raised with... I'm very proud that I was a Goldwater Girl."

Ever since Bernie started raising money for 3 outstanding progressive women running for Congress-- Zephyr Teachout (NY), Lucy Flores (NV) and Pramila Jayapal (WA)-- he Hill-bots have been out in force, putting aside, momentarily, no doubt, that Bernie is an NRA shill, for the message that he's homophobic. Since they have no video of him actually being a bigoted homophobic monster like the one of Clinton above, they came up with the twisted logic that because he's supporting these three progressive-- 100% pro-gay-- women he's anti-gay because 2 of them have gay opponents.

The Washington Blade, which endorsed Clinton back in February, covered the manufactured "news" under this deceitful headline: Sanders raising funds against gay congressional candidates.

[T]wo of these three candidates are seeking to defeat openly gay contenders seeking the Democratic nomination to run for Congress. As of right now, a total of seven lawmakers serving in the Congress are openly gay, lesbian or bisexual, or slightly more than 1 percent of the legislative body. That’s short of the estimated 3.5 percent of the U.S. population as a whole who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual, according to the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles. (Transgender people make up an estimated one-third of one percent of the U.S. population, but no member of Congress, nor any member of a state legislature, is openly transgender.)

Teachout is running against Will Yandik, an openly gay farmer and Livingston deputy town supervisor who recently had a child with his same-sex spouse. Their primary is on June 28, weeks after the presidential contest on Tuesday.

Jayapal is competing against two openly gay candidates: Joe McDermott, a former member of the Washington legislature and now a member of the King County Council, and Brady Walkinshaw, a member of the Washington State House. Their primary is set for August 2, some time after the Washington presidential caucuses for Democrats, which took place on March 26, and the Republicans, which is set for May 24.

Both McDermott and Walkinshaw told the Washington Blade they objected to Sanders’ endorsements of their opponents at a time LGBT people aren’t proportionately represented in Congress.

McDermott [who has endorsed the more conservative Clinton despite the fact that she lost the caucus' in his state 73-27% and failed to win even a third of the vote in his own county] called Sanders’ endorsement out-of-state interference in a race that should be decided by people of his district n Washington State... Walkinshaw said Sanders’ effort is undermining efforts to seat an openly LGBT and Spanish-speaking person as a representative in Congress.

The more conservative Clinton started in politics as an active Republican and has admitted, as recently as just before her 50th birthday, that her agenda is rooted in her conservative upbringing and that she's proud that she campaigned for Barry Goldwater. She was also president of the Young Republicans at Wellsley College. Nonetheless she has been trying to paint Bernie as less of a Democrat, despite the fact that while she was fighting for the racist right-wing Republican agenda, he was the president of his college's chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality and was arrested in an anti-segregation rally. He is more a Democrat in every way-- unless you define "Democrat" as being in cahoots with the party's corrupted Beltway elite, in which case no one beats Hillary.

Lately she's been whining that she raises money for down-ticket candidates and he doesn't-- another in an unending stream of Clinton lies that has made her into a despised and mistrusted figure among voters who pay attention. Her downticket exertions were primarily to win super-delegates for herself and the small amounts she has donated to congressional candidates, didn't go to any congressional candidates but to the corrupt, ineffective and incompetent party bosses at the DCCC, DNC and DSCC. Chuck Schumer, for example, isn't using DSCC money to defeat Republican Senator Pat Toomey, but using all of it earmarked for Pennsylvania to defeat the popular primary candidate Joe Sestak, who is the best-suited to defeat Toomey, and replace him with an unpopular Schumer puppet, Katie McGinty would would stand virtually no chance against Toomey. That's the Clinton vision for helping downtick races.

Bernie's political revolution has encouraged hundreds of thousands of dollars in small contributions to flow directly to progressive candidates-- like these at the Bernie Congress ActBlue page-- while Hillary has given money to the DCCC to push conservatives garbage candidates from right-wing incumbents who reflexively vote for the Republican agenda (like Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ), Brad Ashford (Blue Dog-NE), Scott Peters (New Dem-CA), Ami Bera (New Dem-CA), and Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY) to the motley collection of New Dems and Wall Street shills being pushed by Steve Israel, like non-Democrats Monica Vernon (IA), Randall Perkins (FL) and Mike Derrick (NY) as well as conservatives in bitter primaries against progressives, from Salud Carbajal (CA), Val Demings (FL) and the aforementioned DINO Monica Vernon (IA) to Harry Reid puppet Jacky Rosen (NV), Bryan Caforio (CA) and Bill Golderer (PA). Needless to say, the DCCC is not supporting progressives like Zephyr Teachout, Pramila Jayapal or Lucy Flores. With the tiniest handful of exceptions, the DCCC, like the DSCC, only supports corrupt conservative candidates. And of course, the venal, self-serving party bosses abhor independent-minded candidates like Teachout, Jayapal and Flores. 



Democrats are better off if Clinton stops financing corrupt conservatives from her wing of the party. Please consider helping progressives win congressional seats by tapping on the thermometer below:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Still Tolerates Ugly Homophobia Inside Her "Big Tent"... Blue Dog Dan Lipinski

It isn't just Republicans who embrace anti-gay fanaticism-- Lipinski and Wasserman Schultz

In theory a "big tent" political party is just fine-- and the Democratic big tent is way better than the ever-shrinking ideological GOP pup tent. But you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. I'm sure if some vile DINO started espousing enslaving blacks or putting Jews in concentration camps, even Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz would want to kick them out of the big tent. But what about horrible Blue Dog Dan Lipinski, a creepy-crawly pseudo-Democrat from the southwest Chicago Bungalow Belt? He represents a D+5 district that Obama won with 58% in 2008 and 56% in 2012, and ProgressivePunch rates him as an F. In the current session his crucial vote score is an abysmal 49.33.

None of this seems to faze the Democrats. What, then, about his ugly GOP-like homophobia? Lipinski backs GOP sociopath Tim Hueskamp's call for a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality for the LGBT community. The only other Democrats who had voting records as anti-gay as Lipinski's were fellow Blue Dogs Nick Rahall (WV), who was defeated in 2014, and Mike McIntyre, who was forced to retire or face certain defeat the same year.

Lipinski filled out a questionnaire from the Illinois Family Institute in which he avowed that he backs Hueslkamp's anti-gay constitutional amendment and every other anti-gay measure Democrats now routinely reject.

The two-page voting guide indicates the position of various candidates in the Illinois 3rd congressional district on issues important to social conservatives. Like his then-Republican opponent Sharon Brannigan, Lipinski indicated he supports H.J.Res 51.

The measure, introduced by Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas), was a U.S. constitutional amendment pending before Congress and that would have restricted marriage to one man, one woman regardless of action by the federal judiciary.

Additionally, the questionnaire indicates Lipinski opposes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act; supports a measure that would have prohibited the U.S. Justice Department from undermining the Defense of Marriage Act; and backs a controversial conscience clause in major defense spending legislation seen to enable anti-LGBT harassment of service members.

In terms of non-LGBT issues, the questionnaire also indicates Lipinski’s opposition to Obamacare and support for various measures that would restrict abortion rights.

...The Illinois congressman, a Roman Catholic, has a history of anti-LGBT votes as a U.S. House member. During his first term in Congress, he voted “present” in 2006 when a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage came to the House floor. In the subsequent Congress after Democrats took control, Lipinski in 2007 voted against a version of ENDA on the House floor.

In the current Congress, Lipinski is the only Democratic co-sponsor of the First Amendment Defense Act, which seeks to “protect” opponents of same-sex marriage from government action, but is seen to enable anti-LGBT discrimination. When an amendment came to the House floor seeking to prohibit spending on transportation or housing and urban development contractors without LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policies, Lipinski was the only Democrat to vote “present.”

Lipinski has no primary challenger this year, at least not so far. That's in no small part due to the undeserved support he gets from the Democratic Party Establishment. Hopefully when Wasserman Schultz is kicked out of her DNC chair, that will change.

Sean Eldridge's Fake, Pasted On Smile Doesn't Hide The Ugliness Of Identity Politics

Everyone in the photo above is proud gay and every one of them is a Democrat-- some, though, more proud of that than others. The first guy belongs at the top of the stairs. That's Madison, Wisconsin progressive Mark Pocan, a courageous brawler for working families and for equality under the law for all Americans. According to ProgressivePunch, he has the best lifetime crucial vote score of any Member of Congress. He's #1. Go Mark! I've talked to Mark's husband, Phillip, and he's very proud of what Mark has accomplished. He should be. So should every member of the LGBT community. Mark Takano (D-CA) is also in this lineup and he's another new congressional leader who goes beyond just voting well. Takano is another icon for gay men and women interested in government. Down the stairs is Tammy Baldwin, the senator from Wisconsin, an effective and progressive legislator and an inspiration for anyone who wants to reform Washington. But before the LGBT community gets all puffed up with pride about how wonderful their members are, right below Pocan is Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ), one of the worst and least trustworthy Democrat in Congress, someone who has betrayed working families and votes with the Republicans very consistently-- though not on gay issues, of course. Sinema is good on gay issues and good on Choice. Today she was one of only 7 Democrats to vote with the GOP in favor of their shameful Benghazi witch hunt. She's abysmal on almost everything else, a waste of a Democratic seat-- the worst Democrat, by score, in the entire House, worse than notorious traitors like fellow Blue Dogs John Barrow (GA), Jim Matheson (UT), Henry Cuellar (TX), Pete Gallego (TX), and Mike McIntyre (NC). Down at the bottom (left) is Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY), one of the only Democrats in Congress as horrendous as Sinema. Pocan's crucial vote score-- again, the best in the House-- is 98.69. Sinema's is 31.72 and Maloney's is 32.03. Both of them are disgraces to the LGBT community.

That's an example of the failure of identity politics. If you assume Sinema or Maloney must be good because they're gay, you're not only wrong, you're on another planet. This week one of the most longstanding publication in the LGBT community, the Washington Blade looked at another gay Democrat running for Congress, Sean Eldridge, not through the lens of identity politics, but with clear-eyed political analysis. And they find him wanting-- as we have here at DWT. Blade editor Kevin Naff's piece, Gays Behaving Badly, is not going to sit well with gay political careerists who just want too see gays-- good, bad or indifferent-- reach positions of political power. They are every bit as toxic to the progressive movement as EMILY's List.

Eldridge embodies much of what is wrong with our modern political system, which prizes money over achievement. LGBT advocates should reconsider supporting Eldridge’s vanity campaign for Congress from New York’s 19th congressional district.

Or is it the 18th district? It’s hard to keep track of where Eldridge and his wealthy husband-- who won the lottery by ending up Mark Zuckerberg’s college roommate as he was creating Facebook-- are buying their latest multi-million-dollar home.

We should abandon the term “carpetbagging” and call it “Eldridgeing” because he gives new meaning to the cynical practice of picking up and moving to a new district to buy a seat in Congress.

Eldridge is taking on incumbent Rep. Chris Gibson, a Republican who opposes marriage equality but is a co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Of course, no one would mistake Gibson for a gay rights advocate-- he earned a zero on HRC’s congressional scorecard-- but gay voters and donors should resist lining up behind an alternative just because he’s gay and rich. Surely there’s a viable, experienced Democrat living in the district. We won’t know because anyone contemplating a run was scared off by the Hughes war chest.

In sharp contrast to most newbie politicians, Eldridge shuns the media. He has refused multiple Blade interview requests. Politico last month published a profile of Eldridge and noted that he not only refused its interview requests, but locked the campaign headquarters door when a reporter showed up knocking. [Yes, another wretched Steve Israel "mystery meat" candidate, whip is destined to lose in November.]

Despite Eldridge’s arrogant approach to campaigning, LGBT voices are embracing him.

“They are young, rich, smart and good-looking. It’s a pretty powerful combination,” Richard Socarides told the New York Times in a predictable display of sycophantic ass kissing.

There’s no disputing they are rich. Hughes’ net worth has been reported to be between $600-700 million. The money came from his connection to Facebook’s Zuckerberg. As the New York Times put it, “For Mr. Hughes, a history and literature student with no programming skills, it later seemed to outsiders a lucky break.”

The couple bought an estate in Garrison, N.Y. along with 80 acres in 2011 for $5 million, the Times noted, quoting Eldridge as saying that’s where they “put down roots.” But just two years later, when the congressional seat in that area appeared out of reach for Eldridge, they bought a new, $2 million spread just north in the 19th congressional district.

Eldridge is just 27 but has a “deep commitment” to public service, according to his bio on Victory Fund’s website. It continues, “He helped lead the successful campaign for marriage equality in New York State in 2011.” That’s almost as ridiculous and brazen as author Jo Becker comparing HRC’s Chad Griffin to Rosa Parks in her new book Forcing the Spring… As gays find increasing acceptance and move openly into the halls of power, we mustn’t forget our own history, as HRC bet wrongly we would in the case of Becker’s book. That history has always been about a shared responsibility for helping each other overcome discrimination and hate. We all stand on the shoulders of a generation of gay men who died and the LGBT survivors who took care of them.

No one knows what the hell any of Steve Israel's grotesque "mystery meat" candidates-- including young Sean-- stand for or how they would behave in Congress… and that's the way it's supposed to be. Will Eldridge turn out to be another Mark Pocan or, more likely, another Sean Patrick Maloney (to whom he and Hughes have generously donated)? No way to know. So why vote for him? Better than a Republican? That's about it. Is that enough? I doubt it.

I'm really going to miss The L Word

Everyone eventually fell victim to the appalling Jenny (Mia Kirshner, left), including Helena (Rachel Shelley) and Tina (Laurel Holloman), seen here in the sixth-season opener, "Long Night's Journey Into Day."

"Sure, there are things that we could have done better. Some stories were successful and some less successful, but you don't get any do-overs. I just stand by the stories we told, and the most important thing I can say is that we did our very best. We were always trying to do our best and tell good stories to be true to the characters and entertain the audience."

-- Ilene Chaiken, lead creator and executive producer of The L Word

by Ken

A colleague passed along an interview that Washington Blade reporter Amy Cavanaugh did with Ilene Chaiken today, the morning after her Showtime series The L Word, which told lots of good stories about the lives of a group of women in Los Angeles, ended its six-season run.

It's a nice, sensible interview, which suggests that Chaiken and her team accomplished very much what they set out to. I think the above quote is not only a great answer (to the question "Do you have any regrets with various plotlines over the seasons?"), but a really great attitude.

I watched The L Word faithfully these six seasons, not because I was hungry for stories about lesbians, but because the producers and writers and actors made me care about the characters -- even that monster Jenny. (After all, we actually got to see her turn into that monster! It was fascinating to see how, to the end, she managed to believe that her behavior was sincerely well-motivated. At the same time, however it happened, I'm sure glad that in the end she got hers!)

I'm not saying I think the show should have gone on. Probably it was ended at a good point, and with a pretty good farewell episode. What I am saying is that will really miss the show.

#