HRC releases endorsements, mum on NC U.S. Senate race
Submitted by Pam Spaulding on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 9:37pm
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) put out its first wave of endorsements as it touts its Election 08 website, where voters can
gauge the political landscape of each state, donate to candidates, access the latest news and information on LGBT issues in the campaigns and view a report card on where the candidates stand on key issues in the race for the White House.
Curiously, HRC has decided to keep its powder dry on the U.S. Senate race here in NC, not endorsing either Jim Neal or Kay Hagan. I think it's unfortunate based on the clear differences between the candidates in their approaches to LGBT issues in this campaign.
See the DKos diary, Human Rights Campaign REFUSES to Support Gay Candidate in North Carolina for a LOT of anger at the DC-based advocacy and lobbying org.
Some context: the problem with HRC and the G&L Victory Fund (another gauntlet that gay candidates have to run) is that they are sadly part of the Beltway establishment, more concerned with gambling only on those with the best chances of winning - and thus continuing their levels of access to power, rather than truly cultivating LGBT candidates that go against the grain or not play by their rules.
You have to play their games to obtain an endorsement rather than being measured by your message and grassroots support.
It's a vicious cycle -- particularly in a Red/Purple state you need the support of the gay orgs to fundraise, yet you need to prove to them that you can win - this is absurd. Well of course it's hard to win if you shut off avenues for fundraising by benign neglect or actively working against a candidate.
Honestly, HRC hasn't the gravitas within the LGBT community that it purports to have -- and it knows it. Blogs are seen as a threat because donors read them -- and react. For instance, every time I have a post on any HRC activity, the comments erupt with complaints about the ineffective, insular Beltway behavior that often runs counter to the grassroots. And that's even when my post is positive about HRC's efforts on a given project.
However, HRC is always the go-to organization when the MSM wants to get a comment from the "LGBT community." HRC is often out of step because self-preservation means courting incumbents (like Joe Lieberman in the last cycle!), rather than supporting candidates with the most LGBT-supportive positions.
- Pam Spaulding's blog
- Login or register to post comments
HRC
I'm not an insider on organizational matters, but my sense of the HRC matches yours. I'm sure they do some good work, but they seem compromised and out of step with the grassroots. It reminds me of some of the big environmental groups that helped give cover for North Carolina's pathetic energy legislation last summer.
Human Rights Coalition has done some good work in the past, but
instead of real advocacy, they allowed expediency to rule the day when they endorsed Barney Frank's ENDA bill without protections for gender identity. They lost their two T board members over it, too. Apparently that still wasn't enough to wake them the hell up.
Discrimination is discrimination, and they let it go, showing they only cared about the LBG and not the T of the community. We're on their mailing list for donations, etc, but they won't get a dime of our money until they admit that they threw a significant portion of the queer community under the bus for a little safety.
A little history for straight folks who may not know - transgendered people were some of the first loud advocates for gay rights - Stonewall might not have happened if it weren't for them.
But Human Rights Coalition just didn't stand up for them. Right now they mean less than nothing to me. I won't even bother looking at their endorsements - and neither should you.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors