Joshua Green at the Boston Globeargues that he did, with his silly Brokeback Mountain jacket-wearing “I am victim, hear me roar!” ad, which garnered hundreds of thousands of dislikes on YouTube:
[The ad] put him back in the headlines, but not in the way he intended. The response was swift and dramatic. On YouTube, where political ads are judged and debated, sentiment was startlingly negative: People hated the ad, and in record numbers. In just a few days, “Strong’’ registered 6 million views and more than 650,000 “dislikes’’ – four times the number prompted by the latest Justin Bieber video. A YouTube spokesman told the website Talking Points Memo that the ad was the “most viewed video in America.’’
Obviously, this is bad news for Perry. But it could be a blessing in disguise for the legions outraged by his remarks. In the process of killing off his own campaign, Perry may have brought an end to the use of explicitly anti-gay rhetoric as a political tactic, at least for any candidate with national ambitions.
Perry’s mistake was twofold. First, public opinion has been moving rapidly toward greater acceptance of gays and lesbians. In September, the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell’’ policy was lifted with bipartisan support. A CBS News poll the next month showed that only 15 percent of Americans “strongly oppose’’ allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly. National polls also now routinely show majority support for same-sex marriage. Furthermore, it is legal in the key early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, and efforts to overturn it have failed. Perry may motivate some voters, but their number is shrinking fast.
I think Green is partially right. The response to Perry’s ad was pretty much across-the-board ridicule and condemnation. That being said, it’s useful to remember that GOP primary voters and their candidates don’t live in the normal world with the rest of us. Religious Right leaders are still clinging to outdated poll numbers from not so long ago, when a majority of Americans opposed marriage equality. There is a general feeling among these sorts of people that if the polls don’t say what they want them to say, that they must be wrong or biased. Even when every single mainstream poll is now showing majority support for marriage equality, they will continue to believe otherwise, and they’ll moreover use that to shore up their continued victim status. Everybody is out to get them, everybody is against Real Americans, etc.
So I doubt that this is the end of the overt gay-baiting in the GOP primaries. Now, when the general election comes? That’s where you might see a shift in tone, and that, as Green says, would be good news indeed.
A mayoral election in the Republican stranglehold stronghold of San Diego is underway, and two of the Republican candidates for mayor are also openly gay. Voters don’t care:
Two of the top Republican candidates for mayor of San Diego are openly gay and voters have barely registered it. According to the Associated Press, the issue just doesn’t come up at campaign appearances or in local news coverage. That’s because lesbian district attorney Bonnie Dumanis and gay city council member Carl DeMaio haven’t made their marks as LGBT activists, which, say political watchers, may help explain why their sexual orientation has been a non-issue even among social conservatives.
The article goes on to point out, though, that the question that remains is whether or not the Republican party will actually give one of the gay candidates their full backing. Supporting gay candidates is not historically one of the GOP’s strong suits.
As mistermix at Balloon Juice points out, the entire Dan Savage Salon interview is worth reading, but I would encourage readers to absorb his words on the Obama administration and embrace the circumspect quality of his words:
So how do I feel about the Obama administration? I’m really very pleased with what’s been delivered. I am not an idiot, and I’m not a Pollyanna sort of kumbaya type. I don’t doubt we wouldn’t have seen these things, that these things would not have been delivered, if we didn’t make it clear there would be a price to pay if they weren’t. Obama “isn’t there yet” on same-sex marriage — if you believe him. And, frankly, I don’t. I don’t think somebody who was for same-sex marriage in ’96 is against it in 2011. And I agree with Tracy Baim, the editor of Windy City Times, who did the interviews with Obama back in the ’90s when he was running for state Senate in Illinois, that we’re not going to listen to what he says anymore, because it’s too aggravating. We’re going to watch what he does. And he’s doing the right stuff.
[...]
So there are things that are frustrating and galling, still. But DADT, dropping the DOMA appeal, all the little fixes around the edges that they’ve done. All that adds up to something that has to be rewarded. The LGBT movement, I think, doesn’t do itself any favors if we convince our ostensible allies in the Democratic Party that we’re never satisfied. We won’t be fully satisfied until we have full civil equality, but these developments are satisfying and there has to be a payback. It’s a political process.
He points out that there are issues — serious issues — yet to be dealt with, but I pretty much agree with this assessment, and am a bit bemused by some who are shocked — shocked! — by the fact that Dan isn’t all Full Metal Firebagger about things.
Annise Parker was elected mayor of Houston in 2009, and it made news across the country because she was the first LGBT person to hold such a position in such a large city. Houstonians seem to like her for the most part. The Dallas Voice brings us news, though, that Parker is again being targeted for her sexual orientation by “homophobic electrician” Dave Wilson, who was a gnat in her face during the 2009 elections as well.
It was only a matter of time really: Dave Wilson is sending anti-gay letters (above) to Houstonians attacking Annise Parker, who’s seeking re-election in November.
Wilson, you may remember, is the homophobic electrician who sent 35,000 fliers like the one below to Houston homes during the 2009 elections with a picture of Parker’s swearing in for her previous position as City Comptroller, her partner Kathy Hubbard at her side. The 2009 fliers asked the question, “Is this the image Houston wants to portray?” To which Houston voters resoundingly replied, “Yes!” Parker became the first openly gay person elected mayor of a top 10 U.S. city.
Wilson’s latest attack is on a much smaller scale than his full color assault from 2009: It’s a personal letter sent to Parker’s donors and Houston Democratic precinct chairs.
They just don’t stop. Just as with DADT dead-enders who will cry about openly gay servicemembers until their dying breath, long after they lose and we win, they’ll keep complaining, keep annoying, and looking more and more unhinged to the general population in the process.
Here’s the letter [click to embiggen, of course]:
The Dallas Voice points out, sighing, that the claims in the letter are, of course, inaccurate, starting with the usual fundamentalist scare tactics about “men dressed as women using the women’s bathroom,” etc. But they also point out that this weirdo, Dave Wilson, actually funnels money into the mayoral races, so unfortunately, like most gnats, he’s impossible to ignore.
One of these days, gay and lesbian politicians will be able to do their jobs without their detractors’ complaints focusing on nothing but their sexuality. Maybe. We thought we were past that with race, but then Obama was elected and the Tea Party sprang into existence, using every code word they could to express their fear of a black president. So I’d say “one of these days” is probably a long way away.
Abe Sauer over at The Awl has been doing the best reporting on this since earlier in the year when everything blew up over Target’s donations to anti-gay Minnesota candidate [and now, loser] Tom Emmer. Apparently after they apologized, they just went on doing it. My point then, as it is now, remains that corporations, in the wake of Citizens United, can throw around more cash than ever in influencing our political process, and that I doubt Target is even paying attention to anything but their pwecious bottom line when choosing where to donate money. So, our strategy in the coming months needs to be to find a way to look at corporations and say “look, we know you’re not going out and looking for the biggest bigots you can, but could you at least try to pay attention to these issues when selecting candidates that will roll over and die in the face of your corporate agenda?”
Target did confirm that “consistent with past practices” it will be a sponsor for 2011′s Twin Cities Pride. Maybe not so consistent with past practices will be the reception the retailer gets from participants. Twin Cities Pride confirmed discussions with Target as a sponsor, though donation amounts have not yet been discussed. A Pride spokesperson added that the event organizers are “carefully considering the input we’ve received from the community and we’re working with Target to figure out how to best move forward in a way that is mutually beneficial for all parties involved.”
Twin Cities Pride may receive more input following revelations about Target’s political giving after the August 5 letter from Steinhafel.
[...]
After Steinhafel’s August 5 letter, Target’s Political Action Committee, helmed by the former right hand of Senator Thune, Matt Zabel, recorded $41,200 in federal election activity. Of that total, $31,200 went to anti-gay rights politicians or PACs supporting those candidates.
Supporters of gay equality did get some money. In September, Target PAC gave $1,000 to Chuck Schumer. It also sent a whole $500 to Keith Ellison, the Minnesota Congressman that anti-gay leader Bradley Dean accuses of supporting LGBT rights as a way to bring Sharia law to America.
But donations such as $1,000 to Kelly Ayotte (reported on September 22), who opposes both gay marriage and same sex adoption, are far more the norm.
That same day, there is a record of a donation by Target PAC to Spencer Bachus, who voted to ban same-sex adoption. Michigan’s David Camp, who, in addition to supporting a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage, voted against protecting gays from job discrimination based on sexual orientation, also reported money. Through October, Target PAC thousands of dollars in donations were recorded to Michael Crapo and Dave Reichert, both supporters of anti-gay Constitutional amendments, and Rob Portman, a supporter of banning gays from adopting. Portman’s position on other gay rights won’t surprise. On October 4, a donation was reported: $2,000 to David Dreier, whose position on gay rights is quite a bit of theatre.
There is so much more where that came from, so read it all. By the way, you all really should be reading The Awl on a daily basis. It’s one of the best things on this here internet.
Let me experiment with a new feature, since I often, at the end of the day, have approximately 50,000 tabs open, all of which are interesting, and none of which I will remember to write about, due to the fact that the next day will bring new stories about gays and stuff. Here are some links I have found interesting, and which you might also find interesting!
1. Interesting analysis at Politico of the changing strategy of wealthy donor/fundraiser Tim Gill, and how his political work, which used to be very behind the scenes, is now much more out in the open. Part of what’s really fascinating is that we’re now on the offense, and instead of support for gay rights hurting politicians, it’s the lack of support that’s proving in some areas to be the deal-breaker.
2. California state senator Mark Leno, who is openly gay, has introduced a bill to include gay civil rights history in textbooks. Might as well, since in twenty years, kids will be learning about how a well-funded cabal of bigots wasted their lives trying to hurt gay people, much like the segregationists of the past.
3. Disgusted by the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, AND anti-gay bigotry that are the hallmarks of the modern GOP, the founder of Muslims for Bush has switched parties. This is what I’m talking about when I fight back against the anti-Muslim bigotry that’s often found within the gay community…when you cling to such lazy black/white positions such as “Mooozelems wanna kill gays, Mooozelems bad!”, you’re forgetting that indeed, many Muslims, especially those who have been living in the West for years, are making the same strides toward becoming more progressive on social issues that the rest of the population is.
Okay, so read those articles and tell me what you’ve learned.
Nancy Pelosi is running for House Minority Leader, and she’s sent a letter to her colleagues that, as Greg Sargent points out, can basically be translated as “The GOP is rolling back this Congress’s accomplishments over my dead political body.” It’s truly a thing of beauty:
As you know, Democrats have produced historic legislation in the area of health care, veterans’ benefits, women’s rights, Wall Street reform, and cutting taxes for 95 percent of the American people and millions of small businesses. And we have restored fiscal discipline to the Congress by making the deficit-cutting Pay As You Go rules the law of the land.
These accomplishments have begun the difficult work of recovering from the worst economic collapse since the 1930s and, according to independent reviews, prevented our country from plunging into another Great Depression. As a result, numerous congressional experts call this the most productive Congress in a half century. This was only possible because our Members had the courage of their convictions and put the interests of the Country first.
Our work is far from finished. As a result of Tuesday’s election, the role of Democrats in the 112th Congress will change, but our commitment to serving the American people will not. We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back. It is my hope that we can work in a bipartisan way to create jobs and strengthen the middle class.
Many of our colleagues have called with their recommendations on how to continue our fight for the middle class, and have encouraged me to run for House Democratic Leader. Based on those discussions, and driven by the urgency of protecting health care reform, Wall Street reform, and Social Security and Medicare, I have decided to run.
President Obama met yesterday with a group of liberal bloggers, including Joe Sudbay of AmericaBlog and AmericaBlogGay, and there was an interesting exchange on the subject of marriage equality:
“I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine,” Obama said in response to a question from Joe Subday of Americablog.
“I think that it is an issue that I wrestle with and think about because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships. I have staff members who are in committed, monogamous relationships, who are raising children, who are wonderful parents. And I care about them deeply,” Obama continued. “And so while I’m not prepared to reverse myself here, sitting in the Roosevelt Room at 3:30 in the afternoon, I think it’s fair to say that it’s something that I think a lot about. That’s probably the best you’ll do out of me today.”
Later, Obama seemed to suggest that legalization of gay marriage is inevitable. “The one thing I will say today is I think it’s pretty clear where the trend lines are going,” he added.
Gay rights activists, many of whom have been deeply disappointed in Obama for failing thus far to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act–and for continuing to defend those laws in the courts, were heartened by Obama’s comments. Some said Obama seemed to be laying the groundwork to change his position on same-sex marriage before a likely re-election campaign in 2012.
“Presidents don’t usually think out loud unless they intend to send a signal that they are shifting a position,” said Richard Socarides, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay issues. “I think [Obama] realizes he can’t run as a gay rights advocate in 2012 and be against marriage equality. People see domestic partnerships are separate but equal.”
Socarides is right. Presidents don’t just casually think out loud.
Even if it’s a political move, and you can be sure that it is, it’s a nice change to see political moves in our direction instead of away from the gay community. And marriage equality is now the mainstream position, so this, in theory, should not be difficult.
Of course Democrats could—or could have—prevented the GOP from making inroads with conservative gay and lesbian voters by making good on their promises to gays and lesbians when they had the chance (see: 2009). But they didn’t and it’s looking they won’t be able to for a long, long time. So now the GOP can sweep in and argue, “You know in your hearts that the Democrats are never going to end DADT or pass ENDA or do anything about DOMA or help unite transnational gay couples. But we will cut your taxes along with everyone else’s. So vote for us and maybe one day you’ll be able to buy a $4 million condo in Chelsea too.”
Some gays and lesbians—the selfish and deluded ones who don’t see the bright and shining link between reproductive rights and gay rights, and who can’t see that the GOP’s divisive attacks on the “other” are an outrage even when the GOP moves on to attacking other others (gays in 2004, immigrants and Muslims in 2010)—might be taken in by the slogan, “GOP: No harm. Democrats: No good.”
That’s the risk we’re running right now. And he’s right that it will primarily work with selfish, deluded gay people. But selfish votes count just as much as votes from people who can see the big picture.
I love watching Rachel do this. In this clip, she and Joe Sestak discuss the weird, disturbed comments from Congressman Ike Skelton (Conservadem-MO), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, on DADT repeal. In case you missed it, Skelton doesn’t want to repeal DADT because he doesn’t want people in the United States to be talking about “gay” things, essentially, because it makes him feel icky or something.
