Reader writes: "Really, the support of candidates can work. And yes, HRC needs more transparency. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water."
AS replies: "Agreed."
Agreed to what, exactly? Nothing much, right?
No retraction of the mis-informed judgements (the capital campaign), the sham mis-characterizations (cf. "Hillary bots"), the aspersions (who's "really fighting for gay rights"), the gross attacks (the logo, the membership numbers), ... the list goes on.
A NON-FAUSTIAN BARGAIN
If there are two candidates, one Democratic and one Republican that are equally supportive of gay rights, tell me one, big reason why any LGBT person should throw support to a candidate that will caucus with a Republican majority that is hostile - openly hostile - to gays, overtly, demonstrably, and without any question of doubt. Is it really that symbolically important to have three GOP congressmen as co-sponsors on gay-rights bills, say, or really just a political triviality, an interesting personal footnote for them?
EMPTYHEADEDNESS IN THE NAME OF ORWELLIAN "TRANSPARENCY"
I was trying to find a manifesto in which AS lays out his own political plans (or even theory) of how to fight for gay rights. There do not seem to be any.
LOOK AT ME!
Although, I do suspect there is a long, forthcoming article in TNR or somewhere about the trumped up "debate" or some such similar among "longstanding activists" "raging" in the "gay community" right now. Is that like self-dealing, to stir up a controversy and then profiting from writing about it? We'll see.
I've already written about The Gill Foundation, showing their donations list. I'd rather join them than fight 'em. I mean it - no sarcasm. I'd love to work for them. When I looked through their financials, I saw money they spent to TCW, who didn't provide them with a return. I can do better and I'm not non-gay, like TCW.
Still, AS says it is all about "accountability", but Gill could walk away at any time, if he got disgusted, or shift his principal focus. The HRC doesn't have that choice, too much. I'll look into the idea that there was "less overhead", yet another unsupported assertion for which AS expects his critics, I guess, to do the work that he should have assigned to his blog staffers.
link, link: Bootstrapping Andrew Sullivan
