The forced, "us"-versus-"them" character of AS's postings on the HRC are raising new questions (for me) about how to assess him and his body of work.
He sets up a goal of being "Of No Party or Clique", but then he lists who the clique is. *blink*
I could have predicted a Blade article yesterday - one of Andrew's apparently avid readers wrote on his blog that he had talked to a Blade reporter. Guess what, I predict they will write another one, maybe in 3-5 days. Peter's blog makes it clear that he has inside info, so ... and I'd bet he's a friend or acquaintance. ("Citizen Crain's" connection less clear, to me, so far, but something tells me it'll be found out before someone says, "That's all she wrote".)
Don't misunderstand me. It's great to have friends. It's just deliberately misleading to the readers to present it all as if it were 'confirming' evidence, rather than manufactured.
A Clique wouldn't bother so much, except that it is not independent or balanced at all. Balance would have involved looking at other organizations, who had a building of their own (how many cities have their own GLBT Community Centers, now?), and at least addressing apparent contradictions in his own storyline (e.g., which is it, was HRC on the job on marriage and "failed"/resigned or were they absent?).
"Blog power" in such a context? One can only think of Ben Franklin, "A [blog] mob is a monster; heads enough but no brains."
THE GATHERING STORY
AS invites his readers to look through his latest with Sam; but, given that his pieces read like confessionals, I have to ask, with this recent sour taste, do I really want to know more about this person?
Eh. Who knows. Not today. Besides, it was starting to wander badly, anyway, that dialog.
Sometimes I feel like there are two Andrews, the one who writes about being "people of God" and about his uniquely styled spirituality, and the other, callous Andrew, who appears to me to be a hair's breath away from bullying and false witness, if not just plain half-truth.
Whatever. I'm not his counselor or his judge. I just used to like reading his blog, which I thought was cleverly edited, but now I'm getting a fuller picture, I guess.
DEBUNKING THE PUTTING-DEMOCRATS-AHEAD-OF-GAY-RIGHTS MEME
I'm going to write some more on this, when I have a chance.
The fact is that "Gay Rights" wouldn't be anywhere without the democrats, because the GOP aren't leading on the issues, and when they do, it puts the gay community on the defensive. Barney Frank is right. Were it up to the GOP alone, GLBT folks would all still be criminals. So, blogger, please, don't lecture about how the HRC put the democrats ahead of gay rights. No doubt, it may look that way on this or that endorsement or misstep - or in the context of a gradualist policy, when or if one is pursued, but find your absolution on the issue in something other than vacant statements of blame.
I've noticed that people who advance the meme, including AS on his blog by obvious incorporation without refutation or comment, do not have any strategy themselves. They use phrases like "waste", but it seems more likely that they are just at odds with the priorities that have been set and the strategy that has been chosen (and that's being charitable).
Mostly, they look like they just want to pay some money, snap their fingers, and get Gay Rights. As if.
postscript: I hope the HRC have the wherewithal and self-respect not to respond. Why should they compete on such unfair terms for AS's useless "flowers and chocolates" award when they have a multi-million dollar organization to run and members who, presumably unlike Andrew, may have actually paid them to do what they do?
link: Bootstrapping Andrew Sullivan
