Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:13:44 -0800 (PST) Thu, 17 Feb 00 12:53:54 -0600 From: Kevin Ivers Subject: Rich Tafel Responds to Elizabeth Birch LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS Letter to Elizabeth Birch ebirch@hrc.org Ms. Elizabeth Birch Human Rights Campaign 919 18th St NW #800 Washington, DC 20006 Dear Elizabeth: I'm sorry you were disappointed with our response to your early endorsement of Al Gore. I don't want to start a public colloquy with you on this, but let me respond to a few points you made. First, my statements were carefully worded not to be an attack. You have an important, and, at times, thankless role, and I appreciate what you and your organization does. So, we were careful not to attack. As you point out, we have too often borne the brunt of ad hominem attacks-- even from HRC. Our goal was to remind you that when you speak as "the largest bipartisan gay and lesbian organization in the country," a certain responsibility comes with that. First and foremost is to live up to the mission you've articulated. Endorsing Al Gore over Bill Bradley wouldn't concern anyone if you were speaking as a Democratic organization. But that's not what happened. The reason we need to challenge what you've done is that you claim to be one thing, a bipartisan, one-issue organization, and you do something else, that is, behave as a Democratic establishment team player. I value Democratic establishment team players and I know that many respect our work in the GOP. But that's not what HRC claims to be. You said you "dream of a day when presidential candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties vie for the support of gay and lesbian Americans. When this occurs we will have essentially won our fight - at least on the political front - for equality." We both share that dream. The question is how to we make that dream a reality. The answer is that each of us must play our role with integrity. The Stonewall Democrats are divided between Al Gore and Bill Bradley. That is what all of us would expect of gay Democratic organizations. Those in each camp are positioning themselves for the March 7 primaries. A truly bi-partisan organization makes an equal effort to educate and reach out to candidates in both parties, to work hard to cover all bases throughout the nominating process as things twist and turn. They seek the opportunity to meet with candidates from both parties. Public meetings are a huge opportunity to educate, which must happen before endorsements can take place. Then, with the best effort put forward, and with a truly bi-partisan mission in mind, an endorsement comes at the end of that process. That's what bi-partisanship with integrity means. You tell us that "it is hardly HRC's fault that the rhetoric and records of both Democratic presidential candidates is undeniably superior to that of their Republican counterparts." Elizabeth, I don't know if it is anyone's fault. But for your twenty years your organization has claimed to educate Republicans and Democrats on our issues. If there is such a great disparity, doesn't a truly bi-partisan organization, in fact, share the responsibility for that result? The success among gay Democrats is clear. But your ability to educate Republicans has been less successful. LCR was created for this purpose. And we were created because organizations that claimed to be bipartisan, were, in fact, simply Democratic in reality. If you claim to be a bipartisan organization that has been around for twenty years educating Democrats and Republicans, then you must also accept that the failure of GOP candidates to understand and support our issues to your liking is indeed your responsibilty. To claim bipartisanship and then say "it's not our fault" that Republicans don't live up to your expectations is very inconsistent. LCR has had some success of changing the tenor of our party. It has been a tough and lonely fight. We accept that. We're not in this to be liked, but to fight for change. But, when an organization that claims to work equally within both parties then endorses before they even know the nominees of each party, and admits that the move was designed to help decide the primaries in one party, that undermines our overall message as a movement. The message should reflect the reality that the gay vote can be won by Republicans and Democrats who support our issues. Your message is that gay vote overall is only a factor in the Democrat Party, telling Democrats that we are safely in their back pocket and telling Republicans that they can once again ignore our concerns. Had you come to your conclusion after a process based in integrity, we would have no issue with your position. Had you come to the conclusion as a gay Democratic organization, we would have no problem with your position. (Though, frankly, I'd be puzzled in the same way Bradley was by NARAL's endorsement of Gore.) As long as you claim to objectively work in both parties, we'll continue to hold you to that. There is a lot of work to do in the GOP,and we are very aware of it. Your endorsement of Gore at this time, and the clear reasons behind it, only makes our work more difficult in the long run. During this season of partisan politics, we are sure to disagree again. I hope that you don't view these differences in strategy as attacks, but instead view them as a healthy debate among two organizations that ultimately share the goal of one day achieving equality. We look forward to working with you on our common goals. Sincerely, Rich Tafel Executive Director Log Cabin Republicans Kevin Ivers (202) 347-5306 phone Director of Public Affairs (202) 347-5224 fax http://www.lcr.org