Gill The Gay Mogul

According to this Time article, Tim Gill, founder of the Gill Foundation, is a powerful force in American politics today.  He must be, if he could get Patrick Guerriero, former head of the Log Cabin Republicans, to help him elect (mostly) Democrats. 

We’re in the process of looking at the new political landscape and deciding where the most strategic opportunities are,” says Gill Action Fund director Patrick Guerriero.”There will be shifts in where the money is spent. We’re watching legislative activity, we’re watching where there’s heated cultural debate.”

This is a good thing, I think.  FOF and co. have directly said that this is a cultural battle that’ll be fought state-by-state.  It’s nice to know someone on our side is spearheading the same type of strategy right back at them. 

Check it out.  It’s an interesting read. 


7 thoughts on “Gill The Gay Mogul

  1. Sorry, but this is HRC with better money laundering.

    Worse, it now seems that Gill’s ego and the gay left’s foolish need to publicize him are going to ruin the primary thing that allowed him to do what he has — which was stealth.

    Gill’s philanthropy is a step in the right direction, because it appeals to people, rather than politicos and brings forward a more positive picture of gays. But his political activism is the same old idiocy that the gay left keeps pulling over and over again, thinking that they can get rid of homophobia by getting rid of politicians and doing so by back-door maneuvering. Can you imagine what’s going to happen in 2008 when people, tipped off, start telling the voters that their opponent is being funded by and will be beholden to rich gay out-of-state leftists whose avowed goal is to force gay marriage?

  2. The same thing that happened in 2006 when the voters were told that their candidate was deeply in the pockets of Big Oil which can directly trace its money back to nations that are a source of terrorism, specifically the terrorists that plotted and executed 9/11?

    In other words, nothing at all.

    To misquote Robert Bolt: We sold our soul a long time ago. If we’re only just missing it now, it can’t have been that important.

  3. QJ, I think you’re missing the difference between a traceable activity and a paranoid conspiracy theory.

    In short, you’d have a hard time proving that terrorists were secretly pumping money into the pockets of oil executives to elect more pro-terrorist candidates. But this article proves quite nicely that gay leftists are secretly pumping money into the pockets of leftist candidates to push gay marriage.

    The voters will not take that nearly as quietly.

  4. I utterly disagree, NDT. Both that the voters will care (other than the ‘values voters’ which probably wouldn’t be voting for candidates Gill supports anyway) and that Saudi Arabia being a supporter of terrorism and that Bush has direct links to Saudi Arabia is paranoid conspiracy theory.

    Voters vote on issues that affect them directly, not on who gives money to who. Send sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers off to fight an unclear war for an uncertain amount of time with undefined goals for victory and voters will let you know how they feel about it. Be in office when a housing bubble bursts and families with less than excellent credit ratings who were buying more house than they could afford suddenly are worse off than they were before, and voters will let you know how they feel about it (even though Bush’s connection to this is pretty dubious at best). Have oil companies post record profits while gas prices jump to record highs, then voters will let you know about it. Have a significant portion of the population unemployed or, even worse, underemployed, voters will let you know about it.

    Point fingers about where the money comes from, and voters will be mildly titillated but ultimately unresponsive at the polls. Unless there’s a legal scandal involved. Or a blowjob. Then the story might have some legs.

  5. But this article proves quite nicely that gay leftists are secretly pumping money into the pockets of leftist candidates to push gay marriage.

    Nooooo, it emphasizes that a small group of gays are supporting candidates who actually support gay issues. Not “leftist candidates.”

    The money is not always filtered through political parties, although much goes to Democrats. Almost all goes to tax-exempt 527 political organizations.

    Note that “much,” not all, goes to Democrats. Which would be expected since dems are generally better on gay issues.

    Please keep the absolutism at home.

  6. LOL….right, jamie. And HRC is “bipartisan”, too, only giving “much” of their money to Democrats who “actually support” gay issues.

    Gill’s record of individual donations to Democrats speaks for itself. Furthermore, if you look at his breakouts of 527 spending, it should be obvious that his claim of “bipartisanship” is based on an apparent belief that Democrat organizations, founded by Democrats, run by Democrats, and existing expressly for the purpose of funneling money to Democrat candidates, are giving money to Republicans.

    In short, Gill is doing the same thing as HRC, which is to pretend he’s “bipartisan” while shoveling dollars to organizations that do nothing but support Democrats — and which have no problem with supporting Democrats who support positions which Gill allegedly opposes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s