John Tierney's 100% Pro-Gay Voting Record Results In An Ugly Stab In The Back By The Victory Fund

Over the weekend, NPR ran a story from WBUR in Boston about how Rep. John Tierney could lose his Massachusetts House seat to Republican Richard Tisei. This is vaguely interesting for a couple reasons: Tisei is (now) openly gay (he used to be in the closet and voted against the LGBT community and says he's sorry); no Republican has held a House seat in Massachusetts in 15 years; and this could determine who holds the Speakership, rabidly anti-gay John Boehner (if Tisei wins) or stalwart LGBT champion Nancy Pelosi (if Tierney is reelected). A further irony: one of the creepiest of the Inside-the-Beltway "I wanna play with the big boys" organizations, the Victory Fund is backing Tisei, despite the Boehner threat and despite the fact that Tierney has a 100% career-long voting record on LGBT issues.

Why would any straight politician want to ever trust the Victory Fund again? And why would any of their wealthy donors-- Henry Van Ameringen, David Bohnett, Jim Hormel, Esmond Harmsworth, Wes Miliken, Jim Johnson, Steve Elmendorf or Ronald Ansin-- think it would be a good idea to get mixed up with these brilliant strategeryists?

Tierney is ranked as the 8th most progressive Member of Congress by ProgressivePunch. This is what he told us about his voting record in regard to LGBT issues specifically: “I have continually supported marriage equality and resisted Republican efforts to undermine the rights of gay couples. I oppose any form of discrimination, and believe all Americans deserve equal rights. Unfortunately, my Republican opponent would enable Speaker John Boehner to implement the rigid, right-wing ideology that adamantly opposes marriage equality. With a Democratic majority in Congress we can continue to work on critical pieces of legislation such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. My opponent cannot say the same if a GOP majority is in Congress. I am proud to have the support of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT civil rights organization in the country."

Victory Fund's strategy is seriously flawed. A group that is not respected on the grassroots level, mostly because they refuse to back openly gay progressive Democrats like Trevor Thomas (and then apologize afterwards), Victory Fund has made themselves into a bad joke. Barney Frank seemed shocked that the group is backing Tisei:

"[T]he Republican Party has become increasingly hostile to openly gay candidates in their party. But I noted, when asked about Mr. Tisei, that the Republican Party has also long treated Massachusetts as an exception, and has in the interest of maintaining control of the Congress, given Massachusetts Republicans a pass with regard to purity. Their willingness to accept Mr. Tisei as an openly gay candidate is an example of this, but it is of limited relevance for the LGBT effort to win equality, and in fact if Mr. Tisei wins, it would be a setback for LGBT issues.

"The fact that Mr. Tisei benefits from the Republicans in Massachusetts exception is no indication that the hostility to openly gay candidates is lessening anywhere else. Second, and most important, while Mr. Tisei is himself supportive of LGBT issues, if he wins the effect will be to help perpetuate a rigid and militant anti-LGBT majority in the House. Voting to keep the Republicans in control of the agenda, as chairs of the committees, and of the leadership positions, means that no effort supportive of LGBT equality will have a chance. John Tierney has been a consistent, enthusiastic supporter of our rights, and will vote to put the Democrats in the majority-- and if the Democrats are not able to take back the House, whatever Mr. Tisei’s personal views are, there will be zero chance of any advancement of any legislation that vindicates equality."

Wednesday, WBUR released a poll that shows Tierney with a 7 point lead over Tisei. Boehner held a fundraiser for Tisei, and the National Republican Congressional Committee has pledged nearly $1 million toward a TV ad campaign targeting Tierney. Interesting company for the Victory Fund to be keeping. Or boneheaded.


UPDATE: Barney Weighs In Some More

A few minutes ago Congressman Tierney's campaign issued a press release that explains the press conference Barney Frank held on behalf of his campaign today.

Peabody, MA -- Today, Congressmen Barney Frank and John Tierney held a conference call with members of the media to outline what is at stake in the 2012 election for LGBT Americans and to highlight Tierney’s work for equality and fairness for all. During the call, Frank expressed his full support of Tierney and made a strong case for why voters should re-elect John Tierney this November.

“John Tierney’s election, as opposed to Richard Tisei’s is better for the advancement of the legal equality we are seeking,” said Congressman Barney Frank. “If the Republicans retain control of the House no bill advancing [LGBT rights] will come up. If Democrats take back the House we will be in a position to undo DOMA and pass the Employment Non-discrimination Act (DOMA).”

Barney Frank, the most influential LGBT leader in Congress, contrasted Tierney’s steady record of supporting equality with Tea Party Republican Richard Tisei’s inconsistent pattern on LGBT rights. Frank told reporters that Tisei will not be in a position to advance the cause of equality in Congress and would only empower the right-wing forces that continue to block equality.

Frank said he was appalled that Tisei actually attacked one of his past opponents for supporting gay adoption. He spoke about Tierney’s strong advocacy for the LGBT community and Richard Tisei’s inability to influence his fellow Republicans on issues of equality.

“No legislation that is supportive of us can come up if Republicans are in power. From the standpoint of advancing the legal rights of LGBT people, John Tierney’s election is in our interest,” added Frank, the senior Gay member and the most active leader on LGBT issues.

Richard Tisei has taken numerous votes against equality, including the following:

•Tisei voted against final passage of the bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (H. 5427. Roll Call #483 on 10/23/89)

•Tisei voted to prohibit the Department of Social Services from placing children in its care with gay or lesbian foster parents. (Massachusetts State House Roll Call Vote #94, 5/17/90)

•Tisei voted against a bill to make it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, housing, public accommodation, and insurance in Massachusetts. (HR 3123 and Roll Call #701 on 9/23/85)

John Tierney has been endorsed by the influential Bay State Stonewall Democrats and the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LBGT civil rights organization in the country. Earlier this year Tierney launched a coalition of LGBT Leaders that are supporting his campaign.

“I am honored to have the support of my good friend and colleague Barney Frank in this campaign,” said Congressman John Tierney. “I have continually supported equal rights of all Americans and although we have made significant strides toward equality, we still have a long way to go. I will keep fighting to end discrimination against LGBT Americans.”

Mr. Frank emphasized the work the House Democratic majority did to advance LGBT rights from 2007-2010. Frank said if Republicans had been in power during that time they would not have repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Frank also praised Tierney’s support for marriage equality, the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). He went on to cite Tierney's strong record on education policy, help for our fishing communities and other matters, and said his unwavering support for LGBT rights is one more reason to support Tierney.

Victory Fund Jumps The Shark

Does the Victory Fund have Stockholm Syndrome now?

I know I haven't written much about the Victory Fund-- a kind of less effective gay version of EMILY's List-- but I've been hearing a lot about them from progressive candidates from the LGBT community. The Victory Fund, they all tell me, are a bunch of Inside-the-Beltway hacks who make grassroots candidates jump through hoops and then never help anyway. I don't know much about them but I never hear anything good from people I respect. I've just kind of kept my distance and warned progressive coalition builders that it would be completely inappropriate to include them. And yesterday I saw a news report featuring them crowing about how they've endorsed a gay Republican in Massachusetts, Richard Tisei, who may be able to defeat a Democratic incumbent. I'm good with defeating Democratic incumbents and, Lord knows, there are plenty of really bad ones. In fact on gay issues, there are plenty who are worse than some Republicans. Among the Democrats in the House with ZERO scores from ProgressivePunch on crucial LGBT issues are Mark Critz (PA), Larry Kissell (NC), Mike McIntyre (NC), Mike Ross (AR), and Heath Shuler (NC). But they aren't the Democratic incumbents the Victory Fund is trying to defeat with a gay Republican. No, their target is John Tierney. Tierney has a ProgressivePunch score on gay issues as well. It's 100%, a perfect score-- perfect this year, perfect last year, perfect for his entire career. He's never voted against the LGBT community, not once; never ever. Not even before the Victory Fund existed. When I saw the story about Victory Fund pushing members of the LGBT community to donate to Tisei, I called Rep. Tierney to ask him if he had done something anti-gay that I wasn't aware of. He hadn't.

“I have continually supported marriage equality and resisted Republican efforts to undermine the rights of gay couples. I oppose any form of discrimination, and believe all Americans deserve equal rights. Unfortunately, my Republican opponent would enable Speaker John Boehner to implement the rigid, right-wing ideology that adamantly opposes marriage equality. With a Democratic majority in Congress we can continue to work on critical pieces of legislation such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. My opponent cannot say the same if a GOP majority is in Congress. I am proud to have the support of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT civil rights organization in the country."

They really are the EMILY's List of gay politics-- maybe worse. EMILY's List endorses conservative women against progressive men even if the progressive men are stronger on Choice issues than the conservative women. But at least they don't endorse Republicans, just conservative Democrats. Victory Fund is so eager to use a discredited 1980's Beltway model for fundraising that they are bending over backwards to find Republicans to back to "prove" how "bipartisan" they are.

And guess what, the gay-friendly Tierney has a far better record on supporting the LGBT community than the gay Tisei. What is Victory Fund thinking? Oh, yeah... raising money. Tisei's had a checkered history when it comes to supporting equality in his home state, one that Victory Fund should have caught and one that should disturb the donors they've been misleading. He voted against adding sexual orientation to discrimination laws to make it illegal to discriminate in employment and housing. During Tisei’s 1990 campaign, he attacked his Democratic opponent for being in favor of allowing gay people to adopt children and voted for a bill prohibiting the Department of Social Services from placing children with gay foster parents. He also voted against including gays in the State Civil Rights Statutes. That's the kind of garbage the Victory Fund wants unsuspecting donors to finance-- and to destroy the career of an unswerving ally of the LGBT community? Does this make any sense to anyone? Certainly not to Barney Frank (D-MA). He explained what's wrong with that strategy:

"[T]he Republican Party has become increasingly hostile to openly gay candidates in their party. But I noted, when asked about Mr. Tisei, that the Republican Party has also long treated Massachusetts as an exception, and has in the interest of maintaining control of the Congress, given Massachusetts Republicans a pass with regard to purity. Their willingness to accept Mr. Tisei as an openly gay candidate is an example of this, but it is of limited relevance for the LGBT effort to win equality, and in fact if Mr. Tisei wins, it would be a setback for LGBT issues.

"The fact that Mr. Tisei benefits from the Republicans in Massachusetts exception is no indication that the hostility to openly gay candidates is lessening anywhere else. Second, and most important, while Mr. Tisei is himself supportive of LGBT issues, if he wins the effect will be to help perpetuate a rigid and militant anti-LGBT majority in the House. Voting to keep the Republicans in control of the agenda, as chairs of the committees, and of the leadership positions, means that no effort supportive of LGBT equality will have a chance. John Tierney has been a consistent, enthusiastic supporter of our rights, and will vote to put the Democrats in the majority-- and if the Democrats are not able to take back the House, whatever Mr. Tisei’s personal views are, there will be zero chance of any advancement of any legislation that vindicates equality."

What's next-- will the Victory Fund endorse Aaron Schock, Patrick McHenry, David Dreier, Lindsey Graham, Miss McConnell and the rest of the anti-gay gay Republicans in Congress?

Yesterday, Blue America and a healthy sampling of progressive groups from around the country, from DFA, the National Stonewall Democrats, the Progressive Women's Alliance and grassroots-oriented labor unions to virtually every pro-Choice group in the country, helped openly gay activist Trevor Thomas fight an uphill primary against a wealthy self-funding conservative Neanderthal Democrat, Steve Pestka. Predictably-- and disgracefully-- Victory Fund sat that one out, working instead to push their bizarre, self-serving Tisei agenda. They refused to endorse Trevor, despite his incredible work in getting Congress to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I hope they're real proud of themselves today. Bad group-- real bad.

And speaking of "bad," here's a good list of incumbents with the worst voting records on LGBT issues-- or, I should say, a list of the Democrats running against them. Bachmann's opponent, for example, is Jim Graves; Buck McKeon's is Lee Rogers; and Steve King's is Christie Vilsack. Don't expect Victory Fund to go after these monsters. They're too busy trying to empower them by electing another Republican to the House and defeating a Democrat with a perfect voting record.

Two Polls, Two House Seats-- Bad News For Progressives In Florida And Massachusetts

Richard Tisei prefers males but on almost every issue he'll vote as badly as Allen West

Everybody wants to see Allen West defeated, right? Sure, West is a deranged bag of wind, a divisive teabagger and a war criminal whose presence in Congress is a rebuke to democracy itself. He has nothing particular to do with government policy and his influence even on the GOP is, at best, minimal, but symbolically he's one of the monsters who embody the derailment of the Republican Party-- along with Bachmann, Steve King, Akin, Gohmert, Virginia Foxx...

First the good news: current polls show West losing his seat next month. After redistricting made the 22nd bluer (now a 57-43% Obama district), he fled north to the new 18th (now a 51-48% Obama district). The new district starts just above West Palm Beach at Palm Beach Gardens and follows the I-95 through Port St. Lucie and Fort Pierce. Much of it was part of the old 16th district, which had been represented by Mark Foley before Rahm Emanuel was able to replace him with lifelong Republican-turned-Blue Dog Tim Mahoney. Mahoney voted with the Republicans on most crucial rollcalls and acted like a Republican as well, having had several extramarital affairs, including with a staffer, in his one sad term. I had dinner with Foley the other day and he told me flatly that West would be reelected. Recent polls say otherwise. And it isn't even that close. In one poll West is down by 4 points and in a more recent-- and more solid-- one, he's down by 9.

The bad news is that the DCCC-- who remembers when Steve Israel took over and said he was "just like Rahm but without the potty mouth"-- recruited another lifelong Republican for the seat. Patrick Murphy isn't much of anything... just his wheeler-dealer father, Thomas Murphy's boy. Thomas is financing and running the campaign. Until he ponied up $250,000 to start his own personal SuperPAC, American Sunrise, for the sole purpose of spending unlimited money to buy his son a career in politics, his biggest political contribution ever had been $25,000 to the RNC. Now that they see the family business' future with the Democrats, Thomas (and Patrick) have been donating heavily to the most corrupt, ethics-free Democrat they could find in the state of Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. So, the good news: no more Allen West; the bad news: Patrick Murphy, who has already hooked up with the New Dems-- basically our fathers' Republican Party.

Most of the polling news out of Massachusetts is just dandy. Barney Frank's open seat in the 4th CD is clearly going to Joseph Kennedy III, not to anti-Choice/anti-Medicare kook Sean Bielat and Elizabeth Warren is pulling away from Republican incumbent Scott Brown. Here are the half dozen most recent public polls in the Senate race:

But there's a bad poll that was released by the Boston Globe yesterday as well. It shows conservative Republican Richard Tisei pulling ahead of dedicated progressive John Tierney. The poll, which shows almost a third of the voters undecided, has Tisei at 37% and Tierney at 31%. Massive amounts of dark money are pouring into the district on behalf of Tisei, the GOP hopeful that they can use a victory there to stave off a Democratic takeover of the House. Ironically, Tisei, a long time hypocritical closet case who voted against the LGBT community while sneaking around in dark places, is being helped by one untrustworthy gay group, the Victory Fund, eager to suck up to wealthy gay donors who aren't necessarily committed to progressive economic policies. The Victory Fund has given Tisei cover as though he were part of the mainstream, when, in fact, he's another puppet of Paul Ryan's Austerity Agenda... but a gay puppet. 

Massachusetts's congressional delegation has been Republican-free for over two decades. Tierney whose lifetime Progressive Punch score is in the top 10 of all Members of Congress (95.42-- stronger than Lynn Woolsey's, Jesse Jackson's, Donna Edwards' or Keith Ellison's)-- and has a perfect 100% on LGBT issues, far better, in fact, than Tisei's-- has run into trouble because his wife's brothers are a couple of crooks who were running an illegal gambling ring. 

Tierney’s vulnerabilities, combined with Tisei’s relatively moderate stances on many issues, have made the Sixth Congressional District race one of the most competitive in Massachusetts and the most closely watched nationally. If elected, Tisei would be the first openly gay Republican congressman to disclose his sexual orientation before being elected.

National Republicans are targeting Tierney with attack ads that demand he “man up and tell the truth-- the whole truth” about the gambling operation. Tierney’s wife, Patrice, spent a month in federal prison last year after pleading guilty to “willful blindness” while managing a bank account for one of her brothers involved in the gambling ring, and for helping that brother file false tax returns. John Tierney has not been accused of any wrongdoing, and has said he had no knowledge of any illegal activity. But the poll indicates his image has been tarnished. In 2010, Tierney won handily with 57 percent of the vote.

But Tierney, like many congressmembers, has coasted to reelection so many times that his campaign chops are in bad shape. It's as though he forgot how to do electoral politics, having put all his time and energy into policy. 

Some Massachusetts voters are asking if it would really be "that bad" to have a Republican in their state's delegation. Well, aside from helping keep Boehner and Cantor in control of Congress, let's take a look at just one issue that came up this week. It's the 36th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment, which limits women’s healthcare rights and which Tisei's party is hell-bent on extending. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), the co-chairmen of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, of which Tierney is a member in good standing, issued this statement yesterday:

“In 1976, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment that limits women’s healthcare coverage and puts politics between a woman and her doctor.

“Our country has changed since 1976, but many members of Congress continue to push an agenda that harms women by limiting their healthcare coverage if they receive Medicaid. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives’ Republican leadership has continued this trend. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has used his position to push for a budget that would weaken many existing programs and institutions that support and protect women.

“In fact, since Republicans took control in 2010 the Ryan Congress has voted against women’s issues 55 times-- almost once each week. These include 17 votes allowing health insurance companies to discriminate against women; 11 votes cutting women’s access to preventive care; 10 votes restricting abortion rights or access to legal abortion; and 3 votes blocking access to reproductive and maternal care services. Rep. Ryan’s budget includes other measures that would limit women’s healthcare coverage even more.

“Politicians should never take away a woman’s right to make her own health decisions or withhold her healthcare coverage just because of the type of insurance she carries. Politics should never stand between a woman and her health decisions.”

The Victory Fund and their far right allies don't care about women's Choice. It's not their issue. But women in Massachusetts-- and men who like them-- need to think what replacing John Tierney, whose record on Choice is impeccable, with someone like Tisei, who may like sleeping with other men but is otherwise just as bad as the rest of his deranged political party, especially when it comes to women's issues.

Weirdly Mixed Night For Gay Republicans

There aren't going to be all that many Democratic freshmen next year. Seth Moulton's win in MA-06 yesterday was one of the bright spots. The district is the northeast corner of the state where the 495 and the 95 join up and head up into New Hampshire. It starts in the Boston's northern outer suburbs-- Lynn, Saugus, Wakefield, Burlington and Bedford and shoots north to Salem, Gloucester, Ipswich, Newbury and Merrimac. It's been John Tierney's district since 1997 but Moulton beat him in a primary on September 9. Although every poll showed Tierney winning, Moulton had closed to within 3 points the weekend before the election and then won 36,575 (50.8%) to 28,915 (40.1%). Last night he won 149,449 (54.65%) to 111,848 (40.90%), beating Tisei far more convincingly than Tierney had in 2012 (48-47% with less than 4,000 votes separating them).

On their October 15 FEC reports Moulton was seriously out of cash compared to Tisei-- $109,572 for the Democrat and $714,104 left for the Republican. The biggest outside expenditures on behalf of Tisei were $997,339 from a right-wing operation calling themselves the American Unity PAC; $700,212 from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; $256,237 from the National Association of Realtors; $494,832 from the NRCC's Congressional Leadership Fund; $151,158 from a shady Big Oil funded 501c called Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions. Meanwhile Moulton's biggest backers are the VoteVets PAC ($4,036,122), and the DCCC and their House Majority PAC (for a combined $782,570). VoteVets spent $3,001,776 last week.

The last 2 polls, one by Emerson College and one by Republican polling firm ;Øptimus, both last week, showed an extremely tight race with Tisei ahead but within the margin of error.

One of the oddities of this race is that the Republican, Richard Tisei came out of the closet and campaigned as openly gay. The rabidly homophobic National Organization for Marriage, a regular part of the Republican coalition, endorsed Moulton, not because they like him but to stop Tisei. NOM president Brian Brown told his members and supporters to vote for Moulton because it's better to have a Democrat-- even a pro-gay one with a gay brother-- than a gay Republican in Congress who opposes "the values of marriage, family, and life." Moulton told NOM to take their endorsement and shove it up their asses.

“Seth Moulton fundamentally disagrees with everything NOM stands for and has long said that equality is the civil rights fight of our generation,” said Carrie Rankin, Moulton’s communications director. “Fighting against groups, like NOM, that deny equality as a basic human right will be a priority of Seth’s in Congress.” Rankin noted that Moulton has a gay brother and Moulton has said, “It’s fundamentally wrong that he and I don’t share the same rights just because of who he is.”

The other openly gay Republican who ran-- Carl DeMaio in San Diego (in a D+2 district)-- ousted New Dem Scott Peters, 50.26- 49.74%, despite two gay sex scandals breaking about him within a month of each other and despite homophobic GOP congressmen urging Republicans to vote against him.

Barney Frank Has An Important Message For The LGBT Community

A vote for Tisei is a vote for this duo leading Congress

John Boehner, who the DCCC made sure would have no opponent of his own to force him to campaign in Ohio, has been stumbling around the country, getting drunk and doing fundraisers for vulnerable Republican incumbents and for promising GOP challengers who will help him carry out the toxic right-wing agenda. He even wandered up to Massachusetts to campaign for the conservative gay Republican, Richard Tisei. I was wondering if he and Gay Victory Fund head Chuck Wolfe and Boehner campaign together for Tisei.

We've been explaining why the LGBT community should stick with progressive incumbent John Tierney and not support Tisei just because he's finally come out of the closet. For one thing, Tierney has a better LGBT voting record than Tisei-- not to mention a better everything else voting record as well! Yesterday Barney Frank, the most distinguished openly gay Member of Congress went much deeper in an essay, DO THE MATH-- PARTY MATTERS IN THE FIGHT FOR LGBT EQUALITY. Below is Barney's entire essay:

The upcoming elections will be the most important in our history from the standpoint of legal equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. In decades, there has not been a sharper distinction between the two parties on any issue than there is today on LGBT legal equality. President Obama, the Democratic platform, and the overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress support abolishing the restriction on federal recognition of same-sex marriages in states that have proposed them, and support an employment non-discrimination act that is fully transgender inclusive. Mitt Romney, the Republican platform, and more than 90% of Congressional Republicans strongly oppose them.

I have been asked by many people why I inject partisanship into the effort to advance our rights. The answer is statistically very clear: it is not those of us who support LGBT equality who have made this a partisan issue; it is the modern Republican Party in its current extremely conservative mode that has done so. If you take Mitt Romney, Speaker John Boehner and Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell at their word, no legislation advancing our rights has any chance of passage if these men control any of the three branches of the federal government. And if Mitt Romney is President, and especially if he has a compliant Republican Senate Majority, we can expect Supreme Court vacancies to be filled with more Antonin Scalias. Romney’s decision to make Robert Bork one of his primary advisors on judicial issues guarantees this-- Bork is the only person I can think of who has held federal judicial office who outdoes Scalia in his venom against us.

Given that, if you care strongly about LGBT issues the case for voting Democratic is very clear. I recognize that there are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people who put LGBT rights behind other issues in deciding how to vote. Some wealthy gay men and women who live in states where there are many protections apparently feel that their lives are already well-protected against prejudice and that it is more important to pass new tax cuts for the rich, or to block action on climate change, or to oppose reductions in military spending. But the facts are clear: there is simply no logical basis whatsoever for arguing that voting for Republicans this year is a good way to advance LGBT legal equality.

Yet the Log Cabin Republicans argue exactly that. Given the stakes for our rights in this election, it is important to examine their rationale.

First, the facts should be established. The Log Cabin Republicans have consistently endorsed candidates for Congress who are collectively far less supportive of our rights than most Democratic members of Congress, and in all but one case that I can think of-- Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in Florida-- the Congressional candidates backed by the Log Cabin Republicans are less supportive, in many cases by significant percentages, than the Democrats opposing them.

An example of this disparity comes from the current very important debate over our right to marry people of the same sex. There are four states where referenda will be held on this subject in November-- Maryland, Minnesota, Maine and Washington. There are 34 members of Congress from those four states. Of the 22 Democrats, 21 publicly support our right to marry and are urging their constituents to vote that way in the referenda. Of the 12 Republicans, none support us, while 10 are opposed and two have refused to take a public position. It is important to note that among those who are publicly opposing us are two Members of Congress, David Reichert of Washington and Erik Paulsen of Minnesota, who have been recipients of Log Cabin endorsements in the past. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who for the second time is refusing to help us win a same-sex referendum in Maine, nonetheless is held up by the Log Cabin Republicans as the best example of the kind of candidate they back. I understand that it is difficult to get people to be supportive of our rights in some states, but Washington state, Minnesota and Maine are among the most progressive states in the country. The failure of the Log Cabin Republicans to produce a single Congressional supporter of same-sex marriage in these three states is indicative of their inability to produce results.

I applaud efforts to persuade Republicans to become more supportive of LGBT rights, but I object when the Log Cabin Republicans claim far more success in this regard than they’ve actually had, and when they thus mislead people into voting for unsupportive Republicans on the premise that doing so will somehow advance LGBT rights.

A similar pattern is clear in the list of Republican Congressional candidates that the Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed. Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, who represents South Miami Beach, Florida and other areas, is the only Republican who is equally supportive of us as more than 100 Democrats. Her voting record is not 100%, but she is very close. Currently, there are three other Republicans in the House who have been much more supportive than not-- Congresswoman Biggert at 70%, Congresswoman Hayworth at 71%, and Congressman Hanna at 76%. While these are nice numbers, they are clearly in the cases of Ms. Hayworth and Mr. Hanna lower than their Democratic opponents. Ms. Hayworth defeated John Hall whose record was 90%. She is currently opposed, by the way, by Sean Maloney, an openly gay, prominent official in the Clinton and Cuomo administrations who would certainly be a 100% vote, 30 points higher than Ms. Hayworth. Mr. Hanna at 71% defeated Mike Arcuri at 87%.

Unfortunately, Ros-Lehiten, Hayworth and Hanna represent the strongest cases for Log Cabin endorsements. In the current Congress, there are ten other members of the House who have been endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans but who have far worse records. Here is the list with their voting record as compiled by the Human Rights Campaign: Bass- 15%, Jenkins- 0%, Reichert- 0%, Stivers- 0%, Dold- 35%, Fitzpatrick- 5% Dent- 0%, Paulsen- 0%, Bono-Mack- 45%, Reed- 0%.

It is important to note that these are not only meager percentages, but in every case but one, the Democratic opponents of these people either did score or would score much higher.

To repeat where repetition is appropriate-- six of the candidates the Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed this year have 0% on the Human Rights Campaign LGBT scorecard.

If your major focal point is LGBT rights, why would you support someone with a poor or mediocre record on that issue against someone with a far better one? The Log Cabin answer is that doing so represents an important step towards persuading more Republicans to break with their anti-LGBT positions. I admire that objective, but I am very critical of the way in which they seek to achieve it.

The primary error of the Log Cabin Republicans is to settle for far too little from their candidates in terms of LGBT support. I am reminded again of the comment by their Executive Director, Clarke Cooper, who said that he was pleased with the selection of Paul Ryan-– who has an almost unanimous record of opposition to our issues-– because Ryan was “willing to engage” with them. The Log Cabin Republicans also argue that they have succeeded in lowering the amount of anti-LGBT rhetoric in the Republican conventions and elsewhere. That is not the basis for a self-respecting and effective political movement.

What the Log Cabin Republicans could be doing is to let Republicans know that they agree with them on economics, foreign policy, the environment etc., and that they are prepared to be supportive of those Republicans who move in the right direction on LGBT issues. That would probably result in continued endorsement of Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, but not too many others. The argument that these Republicans should be rewarded because they are willing to stand up at least part of the time for us in difficult political circumstances is obliterated by the fact that in virtually every case they are running against Democrats who are far more supportive. In the 2010 election which gave control of the House to the Republican Party, some of the Log Cabin-backed candidates unseated Democrats who were 100% supportive on our issues. It can hardly be argued that these Republicans would not have been elected if they had been as supportive of LGBT issues as the Democrats they defeated.

As I mentioned earlier, the second part of the Log Cabin Republicans’ mistaken approach is that they are misleading people by giving them the impression that the Log Cabin Republicans are far more successful than they have been. A series of headlines this summer began with a proclamation by the Log Cabin Republicans that they were going to have an influence on the Republican National Committee’s party platform. The series culminated with an article pointing out that ultimately, the Log Cabin Republicans had zero effect on the Republican platform which was as opposed to us on every single issue as it is possible to be.

The last variant of this argument-- supported recently by the Victory Fund-– is that we have to give the Republicans time. The Victory Fund argued recently that gay Republican Richard Tisei, running for Congress in Massachusetts, was trying to do now what I had begun 25 years ago, namely to begin to move an anti-gay party in the right direction. Parenthetically, I acknowledge with some gratitude their apparent view that I am much younger than I am; in fact it was 40 years ago that I introduced the first gay rights-– as we then called it-- legislation in Massachusetts history. Although it is true that at the time neither party was very good on our issues, by 1987-- 25 years ago-- the Democrats had already begun significantly to improve while the Republicans had not. For example, the major issue important to our community in the 1980s was the effort to get a federal response to AIDS both in treatment and in research, and the major obstacles to this were a series of amendments by right-wing Republicans, supported by most Republicans, that would have imposed outrageous and intrusive homophobic conditions on this. It was the Democratic leadership with some Republican support that mobilized to beat them back; even 25 years ago there clearly was a difference and the Democrats were the better party.

Thus, I believe that the Log Cabin Republicans are creating a false equivalence to argue that what I was doing in the 1980s is parallel to what the Log Cabin Republicans and the politicians they support are doing now. At no point did I ever urge people to vote for for members of the party that was worse than the other party. In two cases, where there was an anti-gay Democrat running against a pro-gay Republican, I supported the Republican-- that was in the district in Connecticut held by Stu McKinney who was opposed in his last term by an anti-LGBT Democrat, and when that Democrat ran against Chris Shays to succeed McKinney, I made my support for Shays very clear. But by the 1980s Democrats were more supportive than the Republicans and becoming even more supportive. In fact, that is a trend line that has continued-– the country has gotten less prejudiced; the Democrats have become more supportive faster than the country as a whole, while the Republicans have regressed.

I also have found it odd that the Victory Fund stated that Mr. Tisei and other pro-Republican LGBT activists were starting now to do what I was doing 25 years ago. Why weren’t they doing it 25 years ago? Was there some rule that said they couldn’t start until now?

In fact, the Log Cabin Republican Club was founded more than 20 years ago. My point is not that they should not have been trying all of these years to make the Republican Party better, but they should not pretend that they have succeeded when in fact they have failed-- and when the Republican Party is, if anything, worse than it was before. As for Mr. Tisei, it was not that he was ignoring LGBT issues 20 years ago-- as a Republican member of the state legislature, he attacked his opponent, a Democrat, for supporting the rights of adoption by lesbian and gay people, and opposed an anti-discrimination law. I am glad he has now changed his position on these issues, but there is no reason I can think of why he might not have done that earlier.

If the Democrats win the Presidency, the House and the Senate, I am confident that we will have on the agenda a repeal of that section of DOMA which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriage rights and a fully-inclusive ENDA. With Democratic majorities, they will clearly pass the House and we’ll have the support of the President. It will also pass the Senate if there are Democratic majorities, unless blocked by a Republican filibuster. Given the likelihood that 90% or more of Republicans will support a filibuster on DOMA or ENDA, the more Democrats elected in November, the likelier we are to win on both of these critical issues. I wish that these issues were not partisan, but overwhelming Republican opposition to our issues has made party affiliation predictive of whether or not there will be progress on our issues, and therefore it would be mindless to ignore political party.

And a central point regarding the Log Cabin Republicans bears repeating-– you do not persuade people to change their behavior by rewarding it. Continuing to support Republicans who fall far short of significant support for our efforts to achieve legal equality in cases where they are running against Democrats who are fully supportive, reinforces the bad behavior; it does not change it.

I have one final point regarding the Victory Fund. I have been a supporter of the Victory Fund from its inception, and I think electing openly LGBT people to office is significant. We defeat prejudice by letting people know who we are, and by being in visible positions and at the table when decisions are made. But I have never thought it wise to announce to incumbent elected officials who are strong and energetic supporters of our issues, that should they be challenged by someone who is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender we will abandon them. And that is a principle to which I have always adhered-- including with lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender primary opponents of Democrats. Former Democratic Congressman Tony Beilenson of California was an early and staunch supporter. When he was opposed by an openly gay activist in a primary, I strongly supported Beilenson on the principle that it is subversive of our efforts to win if we tell incumbents that no matter how supportive they are, if they happen not to be gay or lesbian they will lose our support.

So my support for John Tierney over Richard Tisei is based only in part on the fact that if the Democrats take back the House we have a very good prospect of legislative victories, while if Mr. Tisei succeeds in keeping John Boehner as Speaker, we have not. It is also because I do not think it is appropriate for us to go to John Tierney and others, solicit their support-- and in the case of John, receive it wholeheartedly-- but tell them that we may withdraw our support for them not because of anything under their control but because they have the wrong sexual orientation.

Barney has always supported the Victory Fund. I have never. I've watched them destroy one gay progressive candidate after another with their refusal to ever back any grassroots fighters-- most recently Trevor Thomas (D-MI) and Ed  Potosnak (D-NJ). When Barney was still backing them I had already pegged them as another worse-than-useless insider suck-up outfit that was 90% about the career aspirations of the management and 10% about equality for the LGBT community. They exist on massive contributions from a small handful of gay millionaires and they are contemptuous of the LGBT grassroots. These are their donors. I wonder which one made them back Tisei over Tierney. From what I can tell all these donors have given hugely and generously to Democrats and Democrats and more Democrats... except Weston Miliken (but he hasn't given to any Republicans either).

VAN AMERINGEN, HENRY

NEW YORK, NY 10011

VAN AMERINGEN FOUNDATION

02/08/12

$75,000

BOHNETT, DAVID

BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212

BARODA VENTURES LLC

05/02/12

$50,000

HORMEL, JAMES C

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94101

EQUIDEX INC.

04/19/12

$50,000

HARMSWORTH, ESMOND V

BOSTON, MA 02116

ZACHARY SHUSTER LLC

02/08/12

$50,000

MILIKEN, WESTON F

CHICAGO, IL 60660

SELF

03/30/12

$50,000

JOHNSON, JAMES M

NEW YORK, NY 10013

JOHNSON FAMILY FOUNDATION

04/24/12

$30,000

MILIKEN, WESTON F

CHICAGO, IL 60660

SELF

04/03/12

$30,000

ELMENDORF, STEVE A

WASHINGTON, DC 20009

ELMENDORF STRATEGIES

03/14/12

$25,000

ANSIN, RONALD M

HARVARD, MA 01451

RETIRED

01/31/12

$10,000

The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund-- Even Worse Than EMILY's List… Or Just As Bad

Rep Carol Shea-Porter (D) and Dan Innis (R)

So far this year, Blue America has only backed two incumbents on a special page designed for true-blue progressives who need electoral help this cycle. Each of them is an independent-minded and stalwart fighter for equality and for a shining progressive vision of America. Fortunately for Mike Honda, his Republican-lite primary opponent, Ro Khanna, isn't a gay guy who wants to cut Social Security. He's just a straight guy who wants to cut Social Security. If he was a gay guy who was campaigning on cutting Social Security, the self-styled Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund would be backing him. But they're not. Instead, they're backing Republican Dan Innis, a gay guy who wants to cut Social Security by beating New Hampshire progressive Carol Shea-Porter, who was fighting for gay equality long before the careerist hacks who use the so-called Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund to enrich themselves, were ever calling themselves the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund.

They're also backing Richard Tisei again against another strong LGBT ally, Democrat John Tierney of Massachusetts. We covered the Tisei vs Tierney dynamic a lot last cycle (as you can see at the link above). Let's just concentrate on Carol Shea-Porter's race. It's far more serious because she's heavily targeted by the Republican Party and she's in a shaky Republican-leaning seat with a PVI of R+1. Obama won the district last year, but only with 50% of the vote. The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund could tilt the balance against her, against a woman who said "As long as our LGBT brothers and sisters are denied the right to marry who they love, or they are denied equal protection under the law, we still have work to do." Against a woman who fought to help end Don't Ask Don't Tell. Against a woman who was an original cosponsor of ENDA and who signed the historic amicus brief regarding the unconstitutionality of DOMA. Why would any straight LGBT ally ever want to work with these people at the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund if this is how they treat their allies?

The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund specializes in supporting conservative gays. They refused to help openly gay progressive Democrats Ed Potosnak (D-NJ) and Trevor Thomas (D-MI) when that support could have helped them against their conservative opponents. Long ago, I pegged them as another worse-than-useless insider suck-up outfit that was 90% about the career aspirations of the management and 10% about equality for the LGBT community. They exist on massive contributions from a small handful of gay millionaires and they are contemptuous of the LGBT grassroots. These are their donors. I wonder which one made them back Tisei and Innis over Tierney and Shea-Porter. From what I can tell all these donors have given hugely and generously to Democrats and Democrats and more Democrats... except Weston Miliken (but he hasn't given to any Republicans either).

VAN AMERINGEN, HENRY
NEW YORK, NY 10011
VAN AMERINGEN FOUNDATION
02/08/12
$75,000

BOHNETT, DAVID
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
BARODA VENTURES LLC
05/02/12
$50,000

HORMEL, JAMES C
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94101
EQUIDEX INC.
04/19/12
$50,000

HARMSWORTH, ESMOND V
BOSTON, MA 02116
ZACHARY SHUSTER LLC
02/08/12
$50,000

MILIKEN, WESTON F
CHICAGO, IL 60660
SELF
03/30/12
$50,000

JOHNSON, JAMES M
NEW YORK, NY 10013
JOHNSON FAMILY FOUNDATION
04/24/12
$30,000

MILIKEN, WESTON F
CHICAGO, IL 60660
SELF
04/03/12
$30,000

ELMENDORF, STEVE A
WASHINGTON, DC 20009
ELMENDORF STRATEGIES
03/14/12
$25,000

ANSIN, RONALD M
HARVARD, MA 01451
RETIRED
01/31/12
$10,000

When Barney Frank broke with the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund last year, he explained that his "So my support for John Tierney over Richard Tisei is based only in part on the fact that if the Democrats take back the House we have a very good prospect of legislative victories, while if Mr. Tisei succeeds in keeping John Boehner as Speaker, we have not. It is also because I do not think it is appropriate for us to go to John Tierney and others, solicit their support-- and in the case of John, receive it wholeheartedly-- but tell them that we may withdraw our support for them not because of anything under their control but because they have the wrong sexual orientation."

What About Party Discipline?

John Barrow, from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party

Yesterday we saw that most of the 17 Democratic House Members from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party who voted for Darrell Issa's strictly partisan resolution to hold Eric Holder in criminal contempt were defeated in 2012. Among the few remaining 3-- Bill Owens (New Dem-NY), Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT) and Mike McIntyre (New Dem/Blue Dog-NC)-- picked retirement this year over certain defeat at the polls. That leaves John Barrow (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) and Nick Rahall (Blue Dog-WV). The DCCC isn't punishing them for their vote against Holder; Blue Dog Steve Israel is rewarding each with millions of dollars in campaign ads.

• Barrow- $1,160,000 in ad reservations
• Peterson- $1,500,000 in ad reservations
• Rahall- $1,225,000 in ad reservations

And it isn't just the criminal contempt vote against Holder. All three have horrifying voting records. According to ProgressivePunch they are three of the 10 most Republican-voting Democrats in the House, each voting more frequently with the Republicans than with the Democrats on crucial roll calls. Barrow's the worst, voting in the 2013-14 session just 26.87% of the time for progressive legislation, followed by Peterson (33.92%) and Rahall (40.97%). Why not give them even more millions?

The Republicans are much more likely to discipline their members who evidence the kind of disloyalty these Blue Dogs and New Dems regularly display. Yesterday, writing at BuzzFeed, Chris Geidner, gave examples of how extreme right-wing GOP coalition organizations--National Organization for Marriage, Family Research Council, and CitizenLink-- are campaigning against Republicans they view as not right-wing enough. The funniest example is Carl DeMaio of San Diego, who's lame New Dem opponent, Scott Peters, has been endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce because of DeMaio's affiliation with Tea Party extremists. But these GOP groups find DeMaio is guilty of being too liberal gay. In fact another of the 3 Republicans they're fighting is Richard Tisei, another gay man. The third is some weird lady the Koch brothers dug up in Oregon, Monica Wehby.

“We cannot in good conscience urge our members and fellow citizens to support candidates like DeMaio, Tisei or Wehby,” the presidents of the three groups write. “They are wrong on critical, foundational issues of importance to the American people. Worse, as occupants of high office they will secure a platform in the media to advance their flawed ideology and serve as terrible role models for young people who will inevitably be encouraged to emulate them.”

DeMaio and Tisei are the only out LGBT federal candidates from the Republican Party to be appearing on the ballot this fall.

“The Republican Party platform is a ‘statement of who we are and what we believe.’ Thus, the platform supports the truth of marriage as the union of husband and wife, and recognizes the sanctity and dignity of human life,” NOM President Brian S. Brown said in a statement.

Brown called it “extremely disappointing” to see candidates supported “who reject the party’s principled positions on these and other core issues.”

Of the effort to urge people to oppose DeMaio, Tisei, and Wehby, he said, “We cannot sit by when people calling themselves Republicans seek high office while espousing positions that are antithetical to the overwhelming majority of Republicans.”

The letter was sent to House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Greg Walden, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Jerry Moran, and others in Republican congressional leadership.

In it, the three conservative groups also warned that it is a “grave error” for the party to be supporting “candidates who do not hold core Republican beliefs and, in fact, are working to actively alienate the Republican base.”

The only left-leaning group that has ever done this-- at least in recent memory-- is Blue America, which ran the TV and radio ads that defeated Bobby Bright in 2010. Most Democratic-oriented groups buy into the DCCC/DSCC kool-aid that they need to support the lesser of two evils. This isn't supporting progressives against conservative in primaries-- which we do routinely-- but helping defeat bad Democrats in a general election. If we weren't so busy trying to help elect Shenna Bellows (D-ME), Rick Weiland (D-SD), Paul Clements (D-MI), Kelly Westlund (D-WI), Mike Obermueller (D-MN) and our other candidates, we'd be running ads against John Barrow in Georgia. He really needs to be disciplined and I hope Democratic voters stay away from the polls in his district in November. He certainly hasn't done anything to earn their voters… just their contempt.

Will Obama Manage To Throw Away Another Massachusetts Senate Seat?

2 Iraq War supporters-- when do we get a new guard?

It appears likely that a member of the uppermost crust of the ruling elite, Senator John Kerry, will put his own ambitions to serve in the Cabinet-- either as Secretary of State or as Secretary of War-- ahead of the need of the Democratic Party to hold onto the Massachusetts Senate seat he would have to give up in order to take whichever Cabinet position he can guilt Obama into giving him as a career-capper. Wall Street spent over $2 million each on only 5 candidates this cycle, all slavish servants to their toxic, predatory agenda:

• House Majority Leader Eric Cantor- $2,044,500
• Banking Committee Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Security and International Trade and Finance Bob Corker- $2,499,065
• Presidential wanna-be and Wall Street shill Kirsten Gillibrand- $2,809,971
• Speaker John Boehner- $3,211,702
• half-term freshman Scott Brown- $4,500,026

Did Brown ever get the most-- and by a lot! He was Wall Street's #1-- and he lost. Would they bankroll him again if Kerry tosses the seat away like it was a used tissue? You bet they will! They're drooling at the prospect already. The Wall Street Journal is busily spinning its web: "The odds-on favorite in that race would be the just-defeated Republican Sen. Scott Brown-- who won his seat in a 2010 special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy."

Mr. Brown lost re-election this year to liberal Elizabeth Warren due to the president's coattails and concerns among moderate Democrats and independents that a Brown victory would give Republicans control of the Senate, a risk which Ms. Warren played up on the campaign trail and which voters consistently identified in polls as their reason for favoring her.

However, Mr. Brown never lost his popularity. A few days before the election Mr. Brown boasted a higher approval rating than both the president and Mr. Kerry, even as he trailed Ms. Warren by several points. A Democrat running in a special election couldn't flog the hobgoblin of a Republican Senate and wouldn't benefit from a high Democratic turnout for Mr. Obama.

Plus, the Democratic bench is weak. The state's liberal congressional baron, Ed Markey, would be the favorite, but he might have trouble winning over independents. Other Democrats that have been floated include Congressmen Michael Capuano and Stephen Lynch.

Mr. Brown in recent days has indicated he'd be interested in running again should a vacancy arise, and less prominent Republicans in the state have said they'd defer to him. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid certainly seems to fear Mr. Brown's candidacy. Yesterday he denounced the Republican to reporters as "one of the most partisan people that's ever served here."

Although it's certainly true that the immensely unpopular Romney hurt the whole Republican ticket-- possibly helping save John Tierney's House seat from Republican Richard Tisei, after virtually every Beltway pundit predicted he would win-- Elizabeth Warren proved herself a far better candidate than Scott Brown and beat him decisively and demonstrably in each and every debate. In the end she ousted the incumbent-- the only Senate incumbent in America to lose the general-- 1,678,408 (53.7%) to 1,449,180 (46.3%).

The two Democrats with the best chance to hold the seat, Governor Deval Patrick and retiring Congressman Barney Frank, have both taken themselves out of the running, leaving two popular progressives, Michael Capuano and Ed Markey, wretched reactionary DINO, Stephen Lynch and a bunch of state pols and business leaders (including, believe it or not, Stephen Pagliuca, a Bain managing partner, who has contributed to Romney and whose wife has given Republicans over $50,000 in 2012) as the best bets for a heated primary. If Brown decides he wants to run for governor in 2014 instead, both Tisei and former Governor Bill Weld seem ready to jump in.

Presumably Patrick wouldn't wrest a pledge out of whomever he appoints as the interim senator to not run in the special and, in fact, it's more likely that the Democrats will settle on their strongest choice and that Patrick will appoint him so he can run as a quasi-incumbent. This time, though, there could be a far more serious fly-in-the-ointment. If Obama uses the Grand Bargain to damage Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid-- which looks likely-- the Special Election will be the first opportunity for progressives to declare their independence from the Democratic Party and their disdain for Obama and other Wall Street shills in the party, especially if Senator Warren is among the progressives who oppose the Obama-Boehner deal.

Victory Fund Needs New Leadership With A Coherent Strategic Vision

An OpEd by Peter Rosenstein in the current issue of the Washington Blade takes Beltway gay careerist organization, the Victory Fund, to task for the shortcomings that were demonstrated by their approach to the 2012 election cycle. Although they would like to claim credit for helping Tammy Baldwin win a Senate seat, they will be better remembered for their strategically flawed attempt to defeat a tried and true friend of the LGBT community, John Tierney, while working to replace him with a top GOP/Young Gun priority, Richard Tisei, a gay conservative, who only stopped voting against gay people when he finally came out of the closet. As Rosenstein noted, the Victory Fund is "more concerned with their percentage of winning candidates rather than building for the future. Many of our finest politicians lost their first campaigns and went on to have stellar political careers. First time potentially viable LGBT candidates need our support and most believe it is the Victory Fund’s mission to provide that support and encouragement." Victory Fund has an ugly history of refusing-- often with special cruelty-- to support LGBT grassroots candidates. Blue America watched the disappointment and heartbreak in several candidates made to jump through childish hoops only to be shunned by the insipid, power-crazed Victory Fund careerists. This past cycle we saw that in New Jersey with Ed Potosnak and in Michigan with Trevor Thomas. The Victory fund was too busy with Richard Tisei to help either of them.

As you might recall, Ed Potosnak, a science teacher and small business owner, ran a hard fought race in 2010 in a New Jersey Congressional district that President Obama carried in 2008. As a candidate for Congress who was openly gay, Ed made his case for support to the Victory Fund to no avail. Despite this lack of support, Ed was able to secure the nomination over the Democratic Party’s insider candidate in the primary. Ed then went on to mount an aggressive, grassroots, campaign against the freshman incumbent/teabagger Leonard Lance. Blue America supported Ed because of his commitment to keeping America competitive, creating jobs, ending cronyism and reforming elections, strengthening the middle class, and protecting the safety net. After an unsuccessful first bid, Ed reentered the race for the 2012 as an even stronger candidate in NJ’s most completive district. The second time around the DCCC added Ed’s race to their watch list, but the Victory Fund insisted on sitting on the sidelines. During the critical “off-year” Ed continued to campaign and raise money amassing more than $175,000 by year end, all without the help of the Victory Fund-- although, he did have some help from fellow LGBT progressives Barney Frank and Jared Polis. Ed ended his campaign this past January to lead the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters, still dismayed that the Victory Fund refused to back him.

A recent congressional race in Michigan’s 3rd District is a prime example of where the Victory Fund has gone astray. Trevor Thomas, a gay man running in the primary asked for a Victory Fund endorsement early in his campaign. The Victory Fund turned him down suggesting that if he could raise $100,000 on his own and prove he was a viable candidate it would reconsider. Trevor did that and the Victory Fund turned him down again. A Victory Fund board member recently told me that the group decided not to endorse Thomas because they thought even if he could win his primary he couldn’t win the election. That board member also told me that the Victory Fund looked at the DCCC and saw that it wasn’t supporting Trevor in the primary but instead supported a self-funded candidate. [Let me mention that the self-funded candidate, Steve Pestka is a rapid anti-Choice fanatic and a really vile social conservative.]

Thomas raised a lot of money on his own in the primary. He received the endorsement of two current members of Congress early in his campaign. About a month before the primary, the DCCC realized that in the pre-primary reporting period his opponent raised a weak $4,000, while Thomas pulled in nearly $40,000 in less than 15 days without a single dollar coming from PACs. The DCCC then gave the green light for other sitting members of Congress to endorse, including Barney Frank. He received endorsements from two former members of Congress, including Patrick Murphy, the leader in repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Still, the Victory Fund wouldn’t endorse. Thomas found support from former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm; from the state’s former lieutenant governor who had just run for governor; a progressive PAC dedicated to veteran’s issues and Cecile Richards of National Planned Parenthood. The chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, Rep. Diana DeGette, along with Frank, started raising money for him. What he didn’t ever get was support from many big LGBT donors who told him they only contribute to candidates endorsed by the Victory Fund.

Trevor Thomas wasn’t an unknown quantity. He was deputy communications director at HRC and communications director for SLDN during the final fight for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The executive director of the SLDN was an active supporter and fundraiser for Thomas.

Thomas raised about $400,000 for his campaign and had an independent group backed by veterans chip in another $150,000. He got 45 percent of the vote against a competitor not particularly friendly to the LGBT community, who spent $700,000. If only Thomas had had the early support of the Victory Fund, he might have either kept his opponent out of the race or gone on TV earlier to get his message out. Democratic pollster Mark Mellman shared a poll early in the campaign with the Victory Fund showing if Thomas had the money to get his message out he could win big-- with one test showing a win by as much as 20 percent. Thomas’s story was compelling, including the fact that he was a product of the auto-industry, both his parents working the line for more than 30 years.

In Trevor’s case it wasn’t the mere $5,000 the Victory Fund gives to endorsed candidates but rather making people aware of his candidacy so they would give. While the Victory Fund wasn’t even interested in listing him on its website, National Planned Parenthood and a national veterans group, along with Jennifer Granholm, didn’t blink. They knew Thomas, knew his talents, but then so did the silent Victory Fund.

The time has come for the Victory Fund to take a look in the mirror and perhaps rethink their mission. The Victory Fund is based on ground broken by EMILY’s list whose name stands for Early Money Is Like Yeast. Early money is often primary money for an LGBT candidate. It allows them the chance to grow and get their message out. I fully understand having a set of criteria for an endorsement but it is clear that if Trevor Thomas didn’t qualify there is a problem with the current criteria. In Michigan it was EMILY’s List that stood early with Jennifer Granholm when others stood with her primary opponent in her race for governor. The source and power of EMILY’s List is clear; they stand loyal in oftentimes divided primaries, going up against the DCCC if needed and they fight like hell and win. That’s a lesson to be learned.

Maybe it’s time to develop another organization so LGBT candidates can get their names out to the broader community; a place where every “out” candidate can list themselves, their bios, their positions and an analysis of how they see themselves winning. If the Victory Fund doesn’t feel it necessary to review its current criteria maybe they shouldn’t be the only gatekeeper to funding for LGBT candidates. We need the Victory Fund but if they don’t feel this is their role then we also need an organization dedicated to building that bullpen of LGBT candidates who will become the leaders of the future.