Dean fires Dems' gay outreach chief

[William769]

Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean on May 2 fired the party's gay outreach advisor Donald Hitchcock less than a week after Hitchcock's domestic partner, Paul Yandura, a longtime party activist, accused Dean of failing to take stronger action to defend gays.

Dean immediately hired gay former Democratic Party operative Brian Bond to replace Hitchcock, according to DNC spokesperson Karen Finney, who called Bond a "proven leader."


Bond served from 1996 to 2003 as executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, a bipartisan national group that raises money and provides training to help elect openly gay candidates to public office.


"It was not retaliation," Finney said of Hitchcock's dismissal. "It was decided we needed a change. We decided to hire a proven leader."

http://www.sovo.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=6536

related link

http://washingtonblade.com/2006/4-27/news/national/dnc.cfm

I have always supported Dean in this position, but if it comes to light that there is any truth to this, I will be the first in line for his ouster!

[eShirl]

1. I'll bet thre is a lot more to this story, on both sides. (n/t)

[willing dwarf]

2. Help me out

I don't get what the trouble is with this.

Do you think Dean did something wrong in switching leadership here? --If Hitchcock is so unhappy that his domestic partner is complaining about Dean's leadership, then perhaps they were simply out of sync (Dean & Hitchock)

There are always difference in expectations and agenda in a political campaign, aren't there? But perhaps there are aspects of the GLBT agenda in relation to the larger party that I'm not understanding?

Afterall, since the GLBT support is limited, not the only group brining support to the Democrats, isn't it natural that they need to work with Democratic leaders? They can't expect to get everything they want immediately anymore than can, say, African Americans around issues reparations I suppose.

[William769]

4. I have been unhappy with the DEM leadership on any issue so far

Thats the problem!

And if this man was fired just because Dean doesn't like to be criticized, thats a major problem!

[willing dwarf]

6. As in "What Democratic Leadership?"

Yes, you're right. We've gotten very little real leadership out of these self serving mealy mouthed democrats. It's very discouraging.

[GodlessBiker]

16. I don't understand. On the one hand you say that Democrats are . . .

"mealy mouthed," while on the other hand you say that gay folks "can't expect to get everything they want immediately" and that "they need to work with Democratic leaders."

Should Democratic leaders lead the charge on gay rights or should they not?

[willing dwarf]

19. Good question!

Hmm...I guess I think of liberals as having power outside of the political arena. I think a lot of us who are liberals are working for change outside of the halls of government. The office holders sure are mealy-mouthed (for the most part) -- but leadership happens in all sorts of ways and change happens in places far removed from the obvious places of power.

Now regarding the need for taking it slow. I think legislation comes as a result of consensus building. That takes time. usually the last people to get on the wagon are the people in elected office. Until the change works through the system, the leaders will have no reason to be anything but mealy mouthed.

Thanks for letting me clarify my thinking here! hope it passes the sniff test.

[GodlessBiker]

21. So, should they or shouldn't they?

You seem to say that political leaders in fact do not lead the charge in pursing agendas on behalf of constituencies and that they are the last "to get on the wagon."

But, should political leaders lead the charge on this or any other issue and get out in front of the wagon, as it were?

[willing dwarf]

23. Absolutely

Sure, if they would! i guess I'm just not expecting it.

[GymGeekAus]

25. I believe there is some confusion here.

Who is in charge of Congress right now? The Republicans. Who is in the White House right now? The Republicans. Who just got to put two sycophants onto the Supreme Court? The Republicans.

The Democrats are the minority party, people. And the Republicans are pursuing a partisan agenda like mad.

To spend your time screaming at Dean right now is outright ridiculous. Democrats do not control policy right now. If the country is headed in the wrong direction, you have to yell at the people who are leading it there. Like, say, the Republicans.

There are bigger fish to fry, people.

For example, we might just have a clinically insane man in charge of our nuclear arsenal. Between Bush and Rumsfeld, I'm pretty sure at least one of them is outright nuts.

[William769]

26. "To spend your time screaming at Dean right now is outright ridiculous"

Yea right. :eyes:

I bet you enjoy your rights that you take for granted don't you?

[GymGeekAus]

28. Which rights are those, William769?

What did you just assume about me, might I ask?

You didn't (gasp) just assume I was a breeder, did you?

Nope, I'm a gold star boylover. Not a single blemish on my record. Marriage to the person I love and have spent the last seven years with is not one of my "rights to take for granted."

I live in Texas. Austin, at least, where this month we get to vote on Proposition 6, which would return domestic partnership rights to city workers. Early voting for two more days, people, then the actual election next week. If you live in Texas, you are in the middle of the municipal voting cycle. Don't forget to vote!

Any legal battles you want to give a shout-out on, William769? What is going on in your region?

[meegbear]

7. I'm not digging this either ...

I'll never go repug, but this ain't making me happy being a Dem.

[terrya]

9. We can make our voices heard with our pocketbooks.

I'll certainly never go repug, but this pisses me off. It's "taking us for granted" time again. When Dean sends out another fundraising email, maybe that might be a good time to let him and the party fundraising arm, that this crap needs to stop.

[Jane Austin]

11. How do we know the person replaced wasn't undermining other

Dem programs or candidates?

I don't think there is near enough information yet to know why Dean did this.

I can't imagine he'd do anything to deliberately piss off Gays and Lesbians. He's trying to build the party, not fragment it.

[William769]

13. Did you read the end of my post?

ON EDIT: Timing is very suspect.

[Jane Austin]

18. Actually, what I didn't read were the links, owing to download times out

here in the boondocks.

Perhaps I would have understood the situation better if I'd had time to read the links.

[NavyDavy]

3. why?

he got someone in there that will do more for gay rights, like they asked him to do....

[acmejack]

5. Haven't you been raising hell about him NOT doing enough about this issue?

Now he does something and you publish this? WTF? Sounds like a classic case of damned if he does, damned if doesn't. Just what would you have the man do?

[quickesst]

8. A rather...

frequent occurrence here. I ALWAYS look, before I leap. Some people have to understand that being a minority, gay, black, etc. does not make one automatically right, good, intelligent, AND a victim. Little reality check. Thanks.
quickesst

[William769]

12. Care to share any links about where I have been raising hell

About him not doing enough?

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. It is forbidden to ask for a seat at the front of the bus

And even more forbidden is sassing His Holiness, the already appointed nominee for President of the United States.

[Brian_Expat]

14. John Aravosis is blogging on this

He's friends with the fired man and says it has all the hallmarks of retaliation. The worst thing is that it would be illegal if the two men were legally married -- remember that the DNC and leaders including both Dean and Kerry are opposed to that.

He's being flamed BIG TIME in the comments section as a DLCer, "pro-Jewish so you must be Republican," a "stealth homo for the GOP" etc., etc., etc.

Yeah, I feel REAL welcome in this party.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/05/howard-dean-fires-gay-man-in-apparent.html

[William769]

15. Well at leat me & him have something in common.

[dsc]

22. actually I don't think it would be illegal to fire a straight spouse for

this. I may be wrong but I honestly doubt it.

[mitchtv]

17. I'll reserve judgement

I'll also reserve my donations. The party has been silent on our issue,and I'm getting to old to wait in the back of the bus

[pinto]

20. Thanks for both links. I think we'd be wise to let the dust settle

some before making broad accusations or decisions about the DNC and it's relationship with the GLBT community.

Seems to be a lot more to this change than may meet the eye at first take.

:shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

24. "This shows what they think about domestic partners."

Waitwaitwaitwait...I'm not saying that this is necessarily why Dean fired Hitchcock, but suppose for the sake of argument that he fired him for this thing his domestic partner said. That might not be fair, but wouldn't that be an act of recognizing the domestic partnership? So what's Yandura even saying here? He sounds like he's not above using transparently manipulative tactics, like trying to play a card in a context where it doesn't even make any sense.

[Brian_Expat]

27. Recognizing partners for firing, but not benefits

Some "equality."

Howard Dean's actions say "you silly faggot! You're fired for what your partner said. See, you're equal now! But don't you dare call it marriage, lobby for equal tax treatment, try and get your partner a visa, etc., etc., etc. Negative equality is what YOU get."