At AmericaBlog, a response to Donald Hitchcock's letter to the Washington Blade (which I posted here) from DNC Treasurer Andy Tobias. Note that the response is not an official one, but from Tobias personally.
Like John, I know Paul and Donald personally -- have even done their laundry when they stayed with me -- and wish them well.
But there's a lot in Donald's letter that's off the mark and, unintentionally, counterproductive.
Donald says "Gov. Dean barely addressed the LGBT caucus with only 5 minutes worth of comments, and no questions from the floor."
The Governor's comments to the DNC LGBT caucus were well received by a packed room. And when questions were invited from the caucus, none of the caucus members chose to ask one. (One audience member did raise his hand but, as it turned out, only wanted to offer thanks rather than ask a question.) If Donald or Paul have questions not answered below, I'd be glad to try to answer them.
Donald says, ". . . my reasons for standing up to Gov. Dean's reluctance to treating our community with dignity and respect, an action for which I was fired. I claim that firing as a badge of honor."
Donald is of course entitled to his view, but having spent a lot of time observing the Governor ever since he signed -- and then spent months stumping his state in a bulletproof vest promoting -- the nation's first civil unions bill, I have seen him consistently demonstrate nothing but a respect for and commitment to our community.
As for his "badge of honor," Donald frequently attacks the DNC, assuming it will not attack him back -- and he's right. But as someone who likes Donald and who shares his commitment to our community, I can nonetheless say that I do not share his sense of outrage over the way he was treated.
Am I sorry it didn't work out? Very.
Do I agree with his view of why it didn't work out? No.
"After Gov. Dean became Chair of the DNC, two LGBT political positions were abolished, and two finance positions were added, for a total now of four positions in Finance and zero in Political."
After Governor Dean became chair, ALL the constituency desks were "abolished" in favor of a different organization the Governor and his staff thought would be more effective. You can argue that the old system was better -- or not -- but you can't argue that our community was singled out. The African-American desk was "abolished," the "Hispanic desk" was abolished -- ALL the desks were "abolished."
Instead, you have now at the DNC the head of the Northeast political desk who happens to be gay, and the head of the DNC training program -- who, pivotally, interacts with hundreds of our field organizers every year -- who happens to be gay (and lets them know it!). And, yes, you have several finance staffers who happen to be gay (raising money IS a big part of what the DNC does), including Brian Bond, who has a sterling resume within our community, and who spends a lot of his time interacting with other LGBT leaders who I think would vouch for his good efforts.
Indeed, from a practical point of view, Brian brings our community clout that Donald -- through no fault of his own -- could not. That's because, as it happens, Brian gave the DNC's chief operating officer his very first job in politics. That is the kind of relationship and level of trust within the DNC that Donald can't be faulted for not having had -- but that is good news for our community.
Donald and Paul have both criticized the level of financial support the DNC put into fighting the anti-marriage amendments.
After eight years as DNC treasurer, I have pretty much given up on getting Paul's or Donald's support, much as I admire their passion and good intentions.
Indeed, Paul has called upon major LGBT donors to *withhold* financial support from the national Democratic Party committees.
He and I obviously disagree that this is the best way to advance the goal of LGBT equality, which we both share.
The DNC has worked hard ever since I've been soliciting funds to elect candidates who in almost every instance were FAR better on LGBT issues than their opponents.
(Of the 107 Senators and Congressfolk with perfect 100% ratings from HRC in this past Congress, 103 were Democrats and only four Republicans. Of the 156 who rated ZERO, 152 were Republicans. The difference could hardly be more stark.)
In 2006, our principal focus was on the effort to win back the House and Senate. That's where the bulk of the LGBT money went. I, for one, am pleased with the results. Not only are our newly-empowered leaders like Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Barney Frank far more fair-minded than their predecessors; our victory in the Senate may also have an impact on judicial appointments that last for decades.
The Senate victory was so close that I think it can be fairly said it might not have happened without support from the DNC that was made possible by LGBT dollars.
Of course, that is true of other communities' money and effort as well. But I think those of us in the LGBT community should feel very proud that we pitched in. And even leaving pride aside, it was simply in our selfish best interest to do so.
Donald is quite right that only a little DNC money was diverted in 2006 specifically to fight the anti-marriage amendments. But one reason for that is simply that the precious "federal" dollars the DNC raises (precious because contributions are limited by law) are not *required* to fund statewide efforts . . . whereas *only* federal dollars can be used to fund federal elections.
So it makes sense for someone like me to give his federal dollars to the DNC, expecting them to be used mainly for federal purposes, while giving non-federal dollars to non-federal groups to fight the anti-marriage initiatives.
On the non-monetary side of fighting the anti-marriage initiatives, we were able to do more in some states than others. But there's no question that GLLC director Brian Bond worked hard to be helpful. I don't think the same can be said of efforts over at the RNC.
As unfortunate as it is that things did not work out with Donald, there are important, historic battles to be joined and won for our equal rights. Widening our margin in Congress and winning the White House in 2008 will only help. That's what the DNC is working hard to do. Onward and upwards, guys.
One of the key things to note about this is that what we're getting from the Democrats, albeit only one of them, is dialogue (if you can forgive the politically correct corporate boardroom diction). A reasoned discussion. What do you think the response would have been if the context had been the RNC? One of the reasons I think most gays are left-friendly is that the left has, historically, been more sympathetic to our community. Keep in mind that, Andrew Sullivan notwithstanding, American conservatives have historically espoused limited government along with personal freedom for some members of society. The only difference now is that the criteria for determining who gets the goodies have changed -- wealth and position are no longer enough. (And please keep in mind that, from a historical perspective, "conservative" does not equate to "Republican" at all times.)
While you're at it, check out the comments at "That Anti-Catholic Nonsense", where my ongoing discussion with Robbie of The Malcontent is taking place -- at least, this installment.
2 comments:
Dear Editor:
DNC National Treasurer and chief fundraiser Andy Tobias in his personal, not-to-be-confused-with-an-official-DNC, response to my partner Donald Hichcock’s letter confirms and agrees with two of Donald’s three substantive points. (Donald’s letter and Andy’s response follow this letter and I urge you to read both and decide for yourself.) To be fair, Andy views both incidents differently, but does not dispute the facts.
1.) He agrees that the Democratic Party, despite claming to have a strategy, gave very little money to fight the ballot intiatives, and
2) He agrees the community lost two outreach positions inside the Party.
More interesting than the personal attacks and attempts to focus on trivial points, are the substantive points the DNC chooses to ignore:
*They ignore the fact that the two GLBT outreach positions that were abolished were effectively merged into the finance department—for a total of FOUR GLBT positions currently.
*They ignore the fact that over the last year the DNC has valiantly tried to convince the community that the GLBT outreach positions had been merged into the American Majority Partnership (the new DNC constituency operation) like all of the other constituency groups that lost outreach positions. I guess the community has not been convinced so they have stopped using that talking point.
*They also ignore Donald’s substantive point concerning Dean’s statement that there was no exit-polling numbers for GLBT voters available for the 2006 elections. We are almost three months past the mid-term elections and the exit-polling is not only available but widely reported upon. I guarantee Dean knows the exit-polling for evangelicals which the DNC was proud to court over the last election.
I know that this may sound strange, but as a loyal Democrat for over 20 years I believe that the Party belongs to all of us and it is our obligation to make it better and more inclusive for all. The DNC Treasurer is being disingenuous, however unintentionally, by trying to paint my partner Donald and I as insiders with an agenda. Not because that’s not true, but because he has his own agenda: to raise as much money for Democratic Party priorities as possible. Donald and I’s agenda is to see the Party treat our community with dignity and respect and to help advance GLBT equality priorities. Sometimes those two agendas will not be in synch and, sometimes, our agenda will be counterproductive to his. But, even so, both Donald and I have refused to make this personal no matter how much easier it may be than discussing the substance.
Before contributing another gay dime you have to ask yourself two questions:
“If my ultimate goal is GLBT equality, will paying for Democratic Party priorities or GLBT equality priorities help me achieve it?
“Is it ok for our friends to just not act like our enemies, or should we demand that they act like our friends?”
I think that this discussion is of utmost importance for the GLBT community to be having.
Paul Yandura
Washington, DC
______________________________________________________________________________
DONALD’S ORIGINAL LETTER FROM AMERICA BLOG+WASHINGTON BLADE
Dear Editor,
After attending the recent Democratic National Committee LGBT Caucus meeting, it reaffirmed for me my reasons for standing up to Gov. Dean’s reluctance to treating our community with dignity and respect, an action for which I was fired. I claim that firing as a badge of honor.
Gov. Dean barely addressed the LGBT caucus with only five minutes worth of comments, and no questions from the floor (a rule announced by the caucus chair prior to Dean’s arrival). And unfortunately, his talking points had shifted from the comprehensive plan to address the anti-LGBT state ballot measures offered last year to throwing only “a little bit of money” into the states at the end of the fight. So much for the strategy to combat them that he touted in the LGBT press prior to the elections. A recent survey shows that the DNC gave states less than $20,000 in-total, despite having raised almost $2 million from the LGBT community in 2006. But we will never know the exact amount given to state groups since the DNC is embarrassed to officially release the numbers.
The most shocking revelation during the meeting was that Gov. Dean misspoke by claiming that there were no 2006 LGBT exit-polling numbers, stating that “people won’t admit that they are gay” to pollsters while walking out of the voting booth. However, as many of us know, there are indeed exit polls reporting that approximately 80% of LGBT voters voted Democratic. Obviously, either his staff still does not have access to brief him on our issues, or he is not listening. I wonder if he would address any other constituency group, not knowing this basic information.
At the meeting, LGBT finance staff and key fundraisers did sit at the Caucus table, as before, but what is different is that lately we seem to be treated solely as an ATM for the party, with our civil rights seeming an afterthought or burden. After Gov. Dean became Chair of the DNC, two LGBT political positions were abolished, and two finance positions were added, for a total now of four positions in Finance and zero in Political. Given the meeting, it’s obvious that we continue to be invited to the table, pay for the meal, but we are not allowed to eat.
I have great faith in the community to continue to ask questions, and hold our party accountable. That is the only way real progress can be made.
Sincerely,
Donald Hitchcock
Washington, DC
Jeebus! I'm a soapbox.
Y'know, if you'd e-mailed me, I would have been happy to put the letter up as a post. I may do it anyway, since I may have some comments. That may change, of course, once I've had some sleep.
Thank you very much for visiting, and I truly am happy to have your comment.
Of course, now I'm having the deal with the idea that people actually read this thing.
Post a Comment