Hmm..actually I have asked two of my friends who are gay ex-military what they think and they've wanted it to be gotten rid of.  WHy do you assume that this is all some hatchet job against Webb.  I'm not putting words in Webb's mouth, I'm just asking what he thought?  In my mind DADOT is a homophobic peice of trash.  Maybe that means I've been insulated from your viewpoint.  But don't go saying that this is all because I just don't like Webb.  THAT IS BULLSHIT.  I've met Webb and I've met Miller and both seem fine to me.  And if you've seen any other post I've put on here, you've prolly read that...I'm STAYING NEUTRAL IN THE PRIMARY because this one seems especially vitriolic between both sides, and I'd rather just attack the republicans then do this inter-party sniping.  My logic on Howard Dean was that his trashing in the primaries ruined my interest in primaries becuase it seems like the party ends up choosing the winner no matter what before voters even decide for the bigger races.  When I say Kerry ruined electability for me, I meant that, I don't care about electability anymore because I think in races against an incumbent, we have to make the election about the incumbent not our own person, you can't beat an incumbent unless you show them to be incompetent.  If Webb can do a better job of that then Miller can, then sign me the fuck up.  Thanks for listening

Let's also accept that we'll have to agree to disagree in the end.  It's no use ranting--I don't agree with the call that the Partisans made, but it was their call to make.  We'll all have to live with the consequences, if there are any.

If he wins the Democratic nomination, Jim Webb has quite a good chance of defeating George Allen. On the other hand, Harris Miller also stands a pretty fair chance of winning, assuming a giant meteor strikes Virginia and kills everyone who does not live in Fairfax or Alexandria.

The upside to all of this is that Jim Webb is not a vindictive guy and he'll honor his commitment to seek fair treatment for ALL Virginians whether or not he receives an endorsement of this kind.  Also, the Partisans will finally have a little peace and quiet because Harris Miller will no longer be pestering them for this endorsement. 

Indeed, the Partisans may never hear from Harris Miller again.

It's just silly that Harris Miller has announced no support and consistently avoided the question, whilst Webb, even if sometimes awkwardly, has consistently stated his support for civil unions.

THE PARTISANS' BOARD ARE IGNORING FACTS AND SHOULD REPEAL THIS ENDORSEMENT.

That's what I assume is going on here.  Most people don't have the stomach to read about what Miller has done or watch the testimony in that hearing and objectively set it aside knowing the human toll that he is responsible for.  The guy is a one-man human rights disaster.

And unless he's talking about someone other than himself, Miller's statement is an absolute falsehood: "We deserve a Senator who will stand up for equality and fairness for all Virginians, not one who will play partisan political games with hot-button social issues."

Miller has done nothing but play games with minority communities throughout this campaign.  It's a disgrace that he is running for any sort of office.

I'm really not liking the tone of this post, Lowell. It is almost as if you are saying "Hey, I know what's better for you than you do." We all know that you are a Webb supporter but I think you've gone too far this time. The Virginia Partisans - and everybody else, for that matter - is entitled to their opinion. Don't go calling them stupid simply because they don't agree with you.

Besides that, as I have said in my other comments, I believe that ALL interest groups should look at the candidate in a broad light of electability, credibility, and a range of issues besides their own narrow ones.  This applies to enviro groups, labor groups, womens' groups, and pretty much any other group.  For instance, if you look at the NAACP's rating factors, you will see that they don't only focus on civil rights issues, but also on education, the death penalty, the budget, etc.  I agree with the NAACP's approach.

They clearly should've remained neutral in this race.

"Finally, and perhaps most erroneously of all, the Partisans somehow concluded, against all logic and evidence to the contrary, that EITHER candidate could defeat George Allen.  Huh?  The Partisans seriously believe that Harris Miller can defeat George Allen?"

What we need is more interest groups endorsing those candidates who they believe would best promote their agenda if elected, without regard for electability.  Electability is something for politicos, a calculation to be made by voters.  Not for interest groups.

Even if (and I am speaking very hypothetically here) Miller were to be elected (see meteor scenario above) he has no credibility with the military whatsoever.

I'm sorry Waldo, but liberal and progressive interest groups do need to engage in realpolitik if they are ever to have any chance against the Republican machine.

But, as I said above, Webb is not a vindictive guy.  There is no down side to this for the Partisans: either way they win, either way they get someone pledged to look out for their interests.  The only way they lose is if Miller decides to trade away the GLBT's interests for, oh let's just say for argument's sake, a massive increase in the number of H1-b's issued next year.

That's not a trade that Webb is likely to make.

While other groups may have this luxury, a group like VA Partisans can't do that, or they've lost a little of what they stand for.

As a gay man, I believe sexual orientation shouldn't factor into the military at all, but why should straight soldiers get to talk about their wives/girlfriends, and gay soldiers have to hide their personal lives. Do you actually believe that our personal lives are less than straight soldiers (I doubt you do, knowing you, but it's the way a lot of us feel is the perception.)

African Americans had to wait more than a hundred years to BEGIN to realize the gains they made in June 1865.  Those gains took hard work: the seizing of small victories wherever possible leading up to the great victory of Brown vs. Board of Education. It's been almost one-hundred forty-one years since Juneteenth, and we still have completely solved the problem of race in America.

It's not been quite forty-seven years since the Stonewall riots.  I sincerely hope that my GBLT friends won't have to wait another one-hundred years to fully realize their civil rights.  The history of the (African American) Civil RIghts movement suggests to me that it takes a series of smaller wins to set up a major breakthrough.  The election of Jim Webb would be a major step forward for GBLT Americans.

"Why?" you may ask, "he only scored six out of seven." 

Consider two factors Greg: electability and credibility.

1) Electability -  Jim Webb is electable; Harris Miller is not.  Harris Miller can promise you the Sun, the Moon and the Stars: he will deliver nothing.  Six birds in the hand are worth more than seven birds in the bush.

2) Credibility - Jim Webb has shown time and time again that he means whhat he says and he'll stick to it: he's a man of honor.  He's undertaken to work for six of the seven things that GBLT Virginians have said are important to them.  Such a promise from such a man is deeply significant: once a man like Jim Webb has engaged his personal honor in an undertaking he is incapable of backing down.  It simply isn't in his nature.

Compare this to Harris Miller: only weeks ago he was running around Virginia assuring conservative Democrats (and this includes African American evangelicals) that he was in favor of the marriage amendment "just like Tim Kaine and Mark Warner."  Just one problem: Tim Kaine and Mark Warner oppose the marriage amendment for reasons of their own (and neither has taken a position as clear-cut and principled as Jim Webb).  So how much credibility does Harris Miller have on this issue?  What is the likelihood that someone with Harris Miller's background and history will back away from his campaign promises to the GBLT community once he has what he wants?

Simply put: not all promises deserve equal consideration.  Jim Webb's word is his bond.  Harris Miller will always follow what he perceives to be his own personal interest at the moment. Six birds in the hand are worth more than seven birds in the bush.

While I agree that nothing will get done if we can't get someone elected (cough cough Ralph Nader), the civil rights movement took small steps, but it never comprimised (now, we're in a different time, because gays and lesbians have a voice, where as blacks were oppressed).

Personally, I believe that Webb can do more for me than Miller, but I also believe that VA Partisans endorsed Miller because he agreed more with their values. I don't think it should be considered a mistake with this group of people, who are open minded, brilliant, and want to do the right thing.

What bothers me is that Harris Miller said he was against the MA, but yet, VA Partisans endorsed him. I'm wondering if it was based off a survey only instead of some reasearch (Josh Isreal might be able to answer).

Nice one, JC.  No way anyone beats you in debate, that's for sure!

Electability is perception.  Perception is shaped by public reaction to candidates.  A significant part of public reaction is premised on how interest groups rank and react to candidates and subsequently promote them.  When interest groups base their endorsements on electability, even in part, they are engaging in circular logic and have abdicated their responsibility in promoting their own interest.

In last year's Democratic primary in Charlottesville for Mitch Van Yahres' seat, we had three candidates.  David Toscano, attorney and former mayor.  Rich Collins, veteran environmental attorney and negotiator.  And Kim Tingley, a developer.  The Sierra Club endorsed David Toscano because they felt he was more electable.  That pissed a lot of environmentalists off, because Toscano had only a brief record on environmentalism, whereas Rich Collins travels around the globe each year for speaking engagements for every major NGO on the topics of sustainability and natural resource management.  The Sierra Club abdicated their responsibility to their own interests in their endorsement of now-Delegate Toscano.

When interest groups nominate candidates based on their perceived electability, rather than their support for that interest, they may well be buying into a lie or, worse still, furthering a false public impression.  Let the interest groups endorse where they may, and leave the electioneering and handicapping up to the party.

Hey, have you read "Crashing the Gate" yet?  If not, you really really should.  Markos and Jerome write powerfully about everything wrong with narrow interest group politics, and how it keeps losing us elections.  I agree with them 100%.

This is a clear example of the Partisans shooting themselves in the foot, but I don't just blame them.  Without a majority all of our interest groups will languish in the doldrums as rights erode, the icecaps melt, and theocracic aristocracy rule supreme under the Bushists.

We're a team.  We need to remember that.  That's something the Partisans forgot in this case, I hope that they will come around after Jim Webb wins the primary.

;)

Josh

I fear, however, that the phrasing in the press release may have caused some confusion.  When we endorse a candidate in a primary, we do so with the hope and belief that they will become the party's nominee.  We see no need to endorse someone in the primary and then re-endorse them again after they win.  As such, the press release indicated our support for Harris Miller and the dates of both the primary and the general.

As Lowell correctly reported, the big difference between the candidates is their stance on whether we need to re-examine whether to allow open military service by GLBT Americans.

According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, between 2000 and 2004, an estimated 4800 servicemembers were discharged from the US Armed Services based on their sexual orientation.  An usually large percentage of these patriotic Americans happen to have been Arabic translators---perhaps one of the most valueable commodities for our nation's defense today.  A recent report by a Blue Ribbon Commission at University of California-Santa Barbara estimated the cost to taxpayers of this unnecessary and discriminatory policy at, conservatively, $363.8 million dollars.  The Partisans Board feels strongly that this remains an important issue for our community and for our nation.

While we disagree with Jim Webb's view that "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" is working, we appreciate his support for our community on many other issues.  Senator George Allen has shown a strong opposition to non-discrimination---of course, we'd support Webb against Allen in the general should Webb be the nominee.

The Miller campaign was in no way trying to mislead--the press release they posted on their website was our press release--it appears on our site as well.

Again, I sincerely apologize for any confusion.  The Partisans are proud to support Harris Miller for Senate.  On June 14th, we will be proud to support our party's nominee and do everything we can to send Senator Allen into early retirement. 

If anyone has any questions about this matter, please address them to me at PRESIDENT@VAPARTISANS.ORG

Respectfully,

Josh Israel
President
Virginia Partisans Gay & Lesbian Democratic Club
www.vapartisans.org

Thank you for taking the time to clarify.

I know Webb believes that DODT is a logistics issue and doesn't believe in discriminating, and I respect that. However, if Harris Miller is for full disclosure, which is very important to gays and lesbians, then Harris Miller should recieve the endorsement.

I think Vivian said it best.

However, to take the example to the extreme, if you've got one guy who is super electable, but he only scores 2 out of 7, and one guys who might not be as electable, but scores 6-7 our of 7, you don't pick the homophobe that got 2.

And I'm with you Lowell, I think VA Partisans have backed the wrong horse, but I can only blame them if they're only going off the survey and not other research. I don't agree with candidate surveys.

In fact, has this guy ever pandered?

Webb has support in the gay community because he is good on gay rights.  Oh, he's not perfect.  Well, no matter what we think in NOVA and Charlottesville, Va is not buying the full gay rights agenda any time soon.

I expect interest groups to be serious.  I expect them to analyze a race and consider whether the candidate they like has a chance of winning.

I support full civil rights for gays and lesbians, including the ability to serve openly in the military and civil marriage. I disagree with Webb on some things. Having George Allen in the Senate is not helping progressive causes.  Lets see how a war hero/ war critic / believer in individual rights with a long background in foreign policy does against George Allen.

Kos said it of pro-choice groups threatening to run (briefly) a third-party challenge in PA against Casey and Santorum, but the logic is the same: self-immolation in the name of purity of interest group.

As for the rest...I don't know.  100% beats 86%.  That's simple math.  Whether you think their system of judgement is correct, that's your own perogative.  But if they are confident with their system of judgement, let it be. 

Let me Just Say this To Anybody who Reads this:

Yes, Webb supports DADT.  So did Bill Clinton, and many other respectable Democrats.  But I'm not trying to excuse Webb.  Some Democrats, like myself, happen to agree with Webb.  Many others do not.

My point is that you should look at other things in this campaign as well.  We're stuck in a war that has lost us over 2,400 lives.  Who can help get us out of there?  Jim Webb.  Our jobs are being sent to China and India as poverty rises.  Without Governor Warner, this state would be in shambles.  Who can look after the Virginia Working Man when Mark Warner and Tim Kaine are gone?  Jim Webb.  Corruption has infiltrated the Congress in Washington.  Our most sacred American values: intergrity and justice, no longer seem to matter.  Who can help restore them?  Jim Webb. 

If you want a man of the people, vote for Jim Webb.  If you want a man of integrity, vote for Jim Webb.  If you want a man who will stand for Civil Rights, including Gay Rights, vote for Jim Webb.  If you want a man who can restore reason to our foreign policy, vote for Jim Webb.  And if you want a man who can defeat George Allen next fall, vote for Jim Webb.

Please don't make this a single issue campaign.  Don't just focus on Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  Because regardless of that policy, both Gay and Straight are dying in Iraq.  Regardless of that policy, both Gay and Straight are losing jobs.  Regardless of that policy, voices of both Gay and Straight are being shut out by a corrupt Government.  And in this Senate race, only Jim Webb can help them.

Having said that, I see a few people are attacking a GLBT rights organization for endorsing based off GLBT rights issues, and not the war in Iraq. If that doesn't make sense to anyone, please speak up.

VA Partisans is there solely to speak and lobby for GLBT, and not the war in Iraq, Affirmitive Action, or any other special interests.

The only mistake here is that possibly Harris Miller gamed the survey, and if so (I really hope Lowell can find the quotes), then I'll send Josh Isreal an e-mail asking him to comment on it.

But seriously, don't read this thread, and claim that the Partisans want to make this a one issue debate. It was 7 or 8 issues, they endorsed Miller because of DADT, but that doesn't mean it's a one issue race to them. It's 7-8 issue race for the organization (and I say organization because you have to seperate the organization from the entitiy).

"This may very well be the most moronic move by any organization this election cycle," seethed Markos Moulitsas Zúniga (aka Kos), godfather of the influential liberal blog Daily Kos, in a post last week, referring to the Sierra Club's plans to stump for the moderate Republican. He followed it up with a post this week on the League's endorsement: "LCV joins the loser's circle."

Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope explained the group's move on his blog and on the blog The Huffington Post. "We need more Republicans like Sen. Chafee and we will continue to praise those who, like him, stand up for the environment," he wrote.

But, like Kos, Sierra Club members went into virtual revolt. "What idiocy! You should be ashamed," one commented on Pope's blog. "I've been a member of the Sierra Club for a decade but I will never give you money again," wrote another. Nor did Pope get much sympathy from commenters on Grist's own Gristmill, or on the progressive blog Firedoglake, where the Sierra Club was dubbed "Wanker of the Day.

True, in this case the Partisans endorsed a Democrat, not a Republican.  And, as I've said before, I respect the Partisans and the work they do greatly. However, I believe they - like the Sierra Club and LCV in the case of Chafee - made a big mistake in not looking at the broader picture.  In the case of Chafee, the problem is that he's part of the Republican majority in Congress, and the Republicans are waging a war on the environment. 

In the case of Miller, he's a long-time lobbyist who will say or do whatever it takes - including endorsement of right-wing Republicans like Spencer Abraham! - to get what he wants.  Also, he's a sure loser against George Allen, who is an UNMITIGATED DISASTER on GLBT issues.  Jim Webb will be a leader on GLBT issues, as he will be on so many others, when he is Virginia's next great US Senator.  Go Webb!!!

And I know GLBT people who are already heavily supporting Webb, so I think it will be a wash anyways.

Who knows. Maybe in some sick way this will help Webb with conservative Democrats and prevent Allen from making a huge issue of this in the general.

It is naive and unsophisticated to accept at face value answers to these "surveys" run by every special interest under the sun (including the anti-abortion and the far right loonies). Surely by now we all realize what a chore filling out these many, many surveys are for candidates, and the potential for "gaming the system." Any one who has really been paying attention should well understand they need to research the candidates far beyond the answers to such questionnaires, which questionnaires are often poorly worded, even misleading.

Sorry, but inattention to the whole history and character of a candidate PLUS a personal interview is truly the only way to know enough about a cnadidate to decide whether or not to make a formal endorsement. That is what we have done in other PACs to which I belong (like the Realtors, for example). Rating some one's political views is a tricky business.

Frankly, I am disappointed not only in what the special interest group did here, but even more in the discussion which has gone on above. Just like Bush going into Iraq, we should be looking more than one move ahead. If, for example, George Allen wins his re-election, then where will your special interest be? The longest journey begins with a single step, not a flying leap to the desired destination. Let's get real here, make a tactical move in our strategic plan and then go on from there. In other words, a mistake has been made. Rectifying it would require a recission of the endorsement, publication of the exact questions and answers, and, if you insist, a recommendation which takes into consideration the larger reality in which we live at this time. 

  Miller supported all 7 issues, huh?  I wonder if we support them once he was elected.  After all, he is an "Old Testament" kind of guy.  Even for gays, who I know have struggled for years and years to get policies that do not discriminate, this means siding with a candidate who obviously says what people want to hear, rather than what he really believes.  Frankly, this is not about DADT, it is about the larger issue of trusting a candidate to do what he says.  If Miller somehow got the nomination, how quickly do you think he would reverse course on those 7 questions once prompted by folks in the Red areas of Virginia?  Electability must come into consideration when endorsing a candidate.  Let's say hypothetically that Webb has a 50/50 chance of defeating Allen and Miller has a 1/7 chance (~14%) chance of defeating Allen (although it is probably less than that).  Suddenly 6/7 (50%) means the candidate that if Webb gets the nomination, the gay community have a 3/7 chance of having any of their issues supported.  However, it they endorse Miller, they have a 1/7 chance of having any of their issues supported.  Sure this math is odd, but it is a rough idea of why to support a candidate.

It seems to me that credibility is everything in the context of whether a candidate should be endorsed or not.  It would be hard to find two candidates with approaches to life that were more diametrically opposed.  Jim Webb's life has always been built around standing up for your beliefs and damn the consequences. 

Webb has said that he supports most of the platform promoted by the Virginia Partisans and the Partisans themselves acknowledge this is so.  We know from Webb's background, his personal history, that he would not say so unless he meant what he said and was willing to act on those beliefs.

Contrast that with Harris Miller.

Harris Miller is now, and always has been, a creature of the get-along, go-along culture of Capitol Hill.  Harris Miller is accustomed to the accumulation of support, support that can then be traded away to advance his own agenda (or that of his clients).  Miller is not an advocate for anything: he's a trader, a deal maker.

Here at last is my question.  Can any special interest group--not just the Partisans, but any special interest group--really be certain that if they endorse Harris Miller, that Harris Miller won't sell them out somewhere down the line when it suits his purpose?

Harris Miller has made a very good living selling out other people.