Edwards Parades Gay Endorsements
---
John Edwards recently made a very public announcement that no fewer than 25 liberal gay activists have already endorsed his candidacy for president:
The organizations the supporters reflect, meanwhile, are typical far-left entities: Human Rights Campaign, AFL-CIO, Stonewall Democrats, DNC, etc. Plus several unaffiliated but self-described "LGBT Community Activists." Whatever.
So some Democrats are endorsing a Democrat. Hardly newsworthy at first glance. But consider:
--On the one hand, perhaps it's a good sign that a major candidate feels a need to pander to the radical gay liberal base (i.e., as opposed to simply taking the gay vote for granted as in so many past campaigns).
--On the other hand, is it not a wiser strategy for gay liberals to withhold such premature support for any one Democratic candidate? Shouldn't they be holding every candidate's feet to the fire on every gay issue? These 25 "leaders" are now, as a matter of 2008 presidential politics, non-entities. They have, to put it indelicately, shot their wad.
As for Edwards specifically, let's keep a few data points in mind:
--He, like his 2004 running mate, could not be bothered to show up for the critical Senate vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment. And for this gay "leaders" reward him?
--More recently, he declared that he is "just not there yet" on the subject of gay marriage. And for this gay "leaders" reward him?
--Edwards, a multimillionaire trial attorney, one of the most successful ever, still has never addressed the reports that he never, not once, personally took a pro bono case. This is the behavior of a "dedicated public servant"?
--Should gays, the current foot soldiers in the Culture Wars, be so quick to embrace a candidate whose entire 2004 campaign was, and most of his 2008 campaign is, predicated on class warfare and the fiction of "Two Americas"? Is going from culture war to class war really such an improvement? Is that the star to which gays should hitch their wagon?
There is of course no way, no never no how, that Edwards will get my vote. I might be open, however, to arguments that he is the least bad candidate. But not so ridiculously early in the campaign and not from overeager liberal gay show dogs. (Or is it "lap dogs"?)
Other thoughts, some more favorable to Edwards, from InterstateQ, Pam's House Blend, Citizen Crain.
"I am honored to have the support of so many well-respected LGBT leaders," said Edwards. "They work hard every day to make our country a better place and I am proud to join with them to fight for equal rights for all Americans."None of the names means anything to me, but then again I don't move around in gay activist circles, especially liberal gay activist circles. I make my donations, write my blog and play with my dog -- which is much more fun than attending a black-tie fundraiser.
The organizations the supporters reflect, meanwhile, are typical far-left entities: Human Rights Campaign, AFL-CIO, Stonewall Democrats, DNC, etc. Plus several unaffiliated but self-described "LGBT Community Activists." Whatever.
So some Democrats are endorsing a Democrat. Hardly newsworthy at first glance. But consider:
--On the one hand, perhaps it's a good sign that a major candidate feels a need to pander to the radical gay liberal base (i.e., as opposed to simply taking the gay vote for granted as in so many past campaigns).
--On the other hand, is it not a wiser strategy for gay liberals to withhold such premature support for any one Democratic candidate? Shouldn't they be holding every candidate's feet to the fire on every gay issue? These 25 "leaders" are now, as a matter of 2008 presidential politics, non-entities. They have, to put it indelicately, shot their wad.
As for Edwards specifically, let's keep a few data points in mind:
--He, like his 2004 running mate, could not be bothered to show up for the critical Senate vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment. And for this gay "leaders" reward him?
--More recently, he declared that he is "just not there yet" on the subject of gay marriage. And for this gay "leaders" reward him?
--Edwards, a multimillionaire trial attorney, one of the most successful ever, still has never addressed the reports that he never, not once, personally took a pro bono case. This is the behavior of a "dedicated public servant"?
--Should gays, the current foot soldiers in the Culture Wars, be so quick to embrace a candidate whose entire 2004 campaign was, and most of his 2008 campaign is, predicated on class warfare and the fiction of "Two Americas"? Is going from culture war to class war really such an improvement? Is that the star to which gays should hitch their wagon?
There is of course no way, no never no how, that Edwards will get my vote. I might be open, however, to arguments that he is the least bad candidate. But not so ridiculously early in the campaign and not from overeager liberal gay show dogs. (Or is it "lap dogs"?)
Other thoughts, some more favorable to Edwards, from InterstateQ, Pam's House Blend, Citizen Crain.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
Posted by Kip on
12 April 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
