Wow, I can only imagine what the AS inbox looks like on this one!
Well, we start out with an unsubstantiated gripe, with clear overtones that it is the Democratic nature of the HRC that is objectionable:
I've watched the military battle and the marriage battle for almost two decades now. HRC has been AWOL on both. ... If you're for gay rights, do yourself a favor. Give your money to groups that actually care about gay rights. ..HRC is a patronage wing of the Democratic party, ... - AS
Next, we shy away from Democratic to just "Hillary bots" and ineffectual compared to how Gill spends his money (by the way, Gil wasn't on the first list of endorsed groups who "really stand for gay rights").
Last, it's a "rebellion against a bloated behemoth", and a shifting of the burden of proof to Petrelis who thinks that HRC are arrogant (compared to writing recklessly about AWOL and who really cares about gay rights)?.
Look, the HRC (aka "Champagne Fund") has its place on the spectrum of gay political activity. I can remember back when HRC were the "sane" alternative to local groups aspiring to go national, to borrow one of Andrew's favorite adjectives in such matters. However, if one gives to local groups and state-by-state strategies, that seems smart currently, but the idea that a National group won't once again be in vogue is silly. Certainly chasing the national GOP for patronage is not just a wasted effort, it's a set-up for public humiliation on almost all policy issues, today. Myself, I never liked it when *any* of the national groups started to endorse candidates, so many years ago now, rather than do issue advocacy straight-up; but, as a friend explained to me, endorsements are how Washingtonians (including Andrew?) think about their relationship with the electorate - and the elected.
The rest seems emotional AS as his worst. Whatever are these unnamed dictates from Clinton? Former President Clinton indicated that you cannot expect to move elected officials too much ahead of the electorate itself - that's not his "dictate", that's a hard political reality. Expecting a slew of legislative results in the face of it is absurd.
Another 2-cents.
