A VA Partisans' Member Response to the Miller Endorsement

By: Doug in Mount Vernon
Published On: 5/4/2006 3:15:33 PM

At this point, I feel compelled to post my reply to Josh Israel, President of VA Partisans, as a member of the organization and a Webb supporter.

I hope this diary post leads to some interesting discussion, and to further information on Harris Miller's true stance on GLBT issues.

Please e-mail me with any constructive thoughts.

Also of interest, Josh let me know yesterday that they will not make the answers available on-line as they don't want answers available publicly because some candidates are running in parts of the state that this may be used against them (I understand this political calculation given I was a former candidate in such a position), and also because the answers may contain information about specific persons who are or may be gay, but are not out.  I believe that we as members of Partisans', however, should have every right to see these questions, and each candidates' answers.
Josh, I would like to talk to you about this endorsement. 

I understand the DADT issue for Webb is not perfect, although obvisouly a concern for GLBT persons thinking about going into a military career, it is but a very minor consideration in the panoply of GLBT rights and causes that we should be fighting for, at this point in time, in my opinion.  We have limited resources and immense opportunities facing us, and this kind of endorsement and focus is going to blow it.  It's sort of an "effect" if you will of the broader "cause" that is the lack of recognition of our relationships and larger non-discrimination protections.

At any rate, I am very concerned that the Partisans' Board, in my mind, seems to have willfully ignored the waffling of Harris Miller on civil unions, while Jim Webb has pledged 100% consistent and full support to both state and federal level civil unions.

Am I missing something?  Has Harris promised to vigorously support federal level civil unions if elected?  Has he stated unequivocably support for full and equal marriage (the only thing that could best Webb at this point)?

I think, at the very least, Partisans' should've refrained from making an endorsement in this race, clearly supporting the winner against Allen, however, obviously.  To me, there is a clearly better candidate, one who can and will beat George Allen, and he is Jim Webb.  Harris Miller, even with a clearly inferior record and stances on our issues, cannot win a statewide race in Virginia.

I remain resolved the Jim Webb is the best candidate for our community, and that he is the only candidate who has said precisely and consistently stated where he stands on our issues, and he's the only one we can count on to fight for our rights.  He is not 100%, and many are working with him to convince him to change his position on DADT, but again, there are for more in our community far more affected by the denial of partnership rights than by DADT.  This seems to be shooting at the wrong target, in my mind.

I'm sorry, but endorsing someone who, standing three feet in front of me in February, pledged to support the constitutional amendment, is not an endorsement of someone who I will support.  I find it remarkable that Miller seems to be getting our support, even though he is NOT a champion, in any way shape or form, of our issues and has been very inconsistent on GLBT issues around the state (also sounding very anti-gay in Roanoke & SW VA, from what has been reported).  Miller has often repeated the mantra that "the Republicans just want us to talk about those divisive social issues, " like gay rights, "instead of the REAL issues."  Oh thanks, Harris, I guess the lack of recognition of my partner is not a real issue and reflects no injustice?

I call into question this endorsement.  As a Partisans member, I protest.

Is the questionnaire on-line and available for members to read all the questions that were asked UNEDITED, and to evaluate candidates' responses, completely UNEDITED so that they reflect the responders words?  I would like to see the questionnaire questions and to know how they were written--it strikes me that they may have been written to emphasize Harris's advantage over Webb on DADT, and downplay Webb's truly superior support for other issues affecting more GLBT people and relationships.  It is not fair the break the issue of civil unions/partnerships down into a few individual and specific "rights" and not ask the broader questions about support of civil unions/ and or marriage.  Was this asked?  If not, this is a set up, and it's WRONG.

I am a bit offended by this endorsement as a long-time loyal Partisan.  This is the first time in my experience that I feel VA Partisans' has made a serious mistake, and I vigorously and angrily disagree with this endorsement.

Sincerely,

Doug Reimel

Comments



Very Powerful Doug (JC - 5/4/2006 4:25:23 PM)
Thank you for writing this comment.  I'm proud to recommend it and link to it from my site.

--J.C.



Amen (Alicia - 5/4/2006 4:31:29 PM)
"I'm sorry, but endorsing someone who, standing three feet in front of me in February, pledged to support the constitutional amendment, is not an endorsement of someone who I will support"


Agreed (Doug in Mount Vernon - 5/4/2006 5:26:58 PM)
That was the single most powerful moment for me personally in understanding that it may not be wholly sincere on Harris' part (what he is now saying about GLBT rights, including his stance on the amendment).

But it's also the fact that, when asked, on three separate occasions in my presence, he has refused to answer affirmatively that he supports civil unions or marriage for GLBT couples.  He has stated the he supports certain specific "domestic partnership" rights (e.g. hosptial visitation, inheritance, etc.) and that is certainly positive, but it falls short of legal relationship status recognition.



This is typical (Ingrid - 5/4/2006 6:26:36 PM)
of insincere candidates: they will tell you what you want to hear, when you want to hear it.  If Webb's opponent had known that there were VA Partisans in the audience, he might have answered differently.  If the audience had been African American or Latino, he might have had a different answer.  We have seen this hypocrisy again and again on the Iraq invasion, paper verified voting, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc.  He was an insincere, inept candidate in 1984; history repeats itself.


It is the difference... (Loudoun County Dem - 5/4/2006 8:37:38 PM)
...between answering as if it is a questionaire of your stance on the issues (Webb) or a test (Miller).


Excellent post (DanG - 5/4/2006 4:47:24 PM)
I hope Mr. Israel reads this.  It's a very moving post.


Agreed. The Partisans should seriously reconsider. (Lowell - 5/4/2006 4:57:06 PM)


This was emailed to him yesterday (Doug in Mount Vernon - 5/4/2006 5:23:50 PM)
As a Partisans' member, this was written as my immediate response to Josh when I received the e-mail announcing the endorsement.

Also, a side note, I had a good conversation with Josh after he read this.  This is not in any way a criticism of the leadership that Partisans' is blessed to have, only this particular decision.

The Board of Partisans' has done an amazing job leading our organization in the Democratic Party, and I don't want anyone out there to think I disrespect this Board, personally.  Just this decision.



Ouch (Doug in Mount Vernon - 5/4/2006 6:05:09 PM)
I just realized I've been totally misusing the possessive apostrophe after the plural of "Partisans" in all my posts!  Egads, I'm horrified!


Appreciate the post (Vivian J. Paige - 5/4/2006 8:02:09 PM)
Doug I appreciate your taking the time to express your views on the Partisan endorsement.


Webb and his potential to advance the cause of gay rights (DemTilDeath - 5/4/2006 8:20:50 PM)
I was disappointed by this endorsement as well.  From my perspective Webb, who is a man respected for his ethics and character by Americans on both sides of the political spectrum, is in a unique position to actually convince Americans of the justice of civil unions.  It's difficult for me to believe that Miller's position will cause anyone to rethink their bigotry on the matter.  But when Webb says he supports civil unions because the government shouldn't be in the business of interfering with people's happiness, that means something.  That could make people think.  At some point I believe Webb's position on DADT will change, but Miller will still be Miller, a lobbyist with limited personal appeal.  He might vote against DADT if that comes up for a vote, but Miller will never help America's consciousness to evolve on partnership rights and inclusion the way that Webb can. 


I'm A Long Time Member of VA Partisans Too (AnonymousIsAWoman - 5/5/2006 2:11:51 PM)
Both my husband and I are members - I guess we never got the memo that straights couldn't join. And I've always supported this group and will continue to do so. Supporting gay rights protects everybody. Ignoring anybody's basic human rights imperils every minority. So, I tend to join and support groups that work to end discrimination, period.

However, when I received the email from VA Partisans that they had endorsed Miller (proudly no less), I confess that I had a "what are they thinking?" moment.

I'll continue to support the Partisans and their agenda to end discrimination against gays because it's the right thing to do. But I'm still gonna be scratching my head over this one.



As always... (Maura in VA - 5/5/2006 4:32:09 PM)
...your work is thoughtful, measured, and right on target, Doug!

What surprised me in reading about the Partisans' endorsement was that they said that Miller and Webb were essentially equal on all issues on the questionnaire except DADT.  I had thought that Miller was "an old testament sort of guy" (his quote) and that he had publicly said in at least one or two forums that he supported the hate amendment and opposed civil unions.  If his answers on the questionnaire were different, that would have surprised me.

So do we have unequivocal answers from both candidates at this point about the marriage ballot question this fall?  Do they both oppose it?