A common theme is making itself known throughout the blogosphere these days, and though it's an old theme, nonpartisanship, rather than bipartisanship, seems to be taking hold on some otherwise diametrically opposed bloggers. Mal has a post today about New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and his handling of the gay-marriage debate. His take is that Bloomberg's tactic will ultimately be more effective:
Bloomie is handling this precisely the right way. He is following the law and respecting the process. Gay marriage in New York should rise or fall without the help of sycophantic politicians who flout the law and stack the deck.
Interestingly enough, partisan democrat Mike Osteroy seems to be thinking along similar lines and vetting the possibility of a Bloomberg third-party run for the White House in '08:
As if this record wasn't enough to attract voters, consider that his politics represent the mood of a majority of Americans today: socially moderate and fiscally conservative. He's got the track-record, the deep pockets, and the f**k-you attitude towards special interests to appeal to the tens of millions who are fed up with the current state of politics.
I'm all in favor of a strong third party candidate who supports gay rights, and have said so before in other forums. Bloomberg may be the first candidate who could actually compete for a plurality of votes and not be accorded purely a "spoiler" status–that's usually reserved for Ralph Nader. Relatedly, a recurring question among gay bloggers has been "why do organizations like the HRC–purportedly gay friendly–keep endorsing politicians who continually vote against gay interests? Are they mere shills for the Democratic Party? I've seen a number of posts that indicate the HRC is becoming more and more out of touch with today's gay voter, and the gay voters are finally striking back. It's about damned time. Consider this report from 365gay.com:
One gay man is reportedly so angry he is writing HRC out of his will, an action that will see the organization lose an estimated $1-million.The Desert Sun reports that Thomas J. Van Etten has instructed his lawyer to amend his and his partner's will to exclude HRC. Other LGBT supporters are threatening to withhold donations to the group.HRC endorsed (Rep. Mary) Bono over Democratic challenger David M. Roth for the 45th Congressional District seat. She is the only House Republican the organization has endorsed this election cycle. It has endorsed 34 House Democrats.
Bono is the stepmother of Chastity Bono, daughter of the late Sonny Bono and gay icon Cher. Evidently, the HRC thinks that is reason enough to endorse Bono, who supports civil unions only, over the democratic contender, who reportedly supports full marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. If the HRC's true intention was gay equality, the choice for their endorsement should have been clear.
Chris Durang, blogger at the Huffington Post, is similarly withdrawing his support from the HRC for supporting Joe Leiberman, whose support on gay issues is shaky at best. What brings all of this together, then? Why, liberal Durang wrote what I've read time and again from the libertarian Malcontent:
I think they've probably been a player in Washington too long.
Undoubtedly so. Let's support candidates who actually DO something to support the same issues we do, and not those who merely give good lip service.