Leah Daughtry, DNC’s chief of staff, wasn’t enthusiastic about responding to anti-gay remarks from Marine Gen. Peter Pace. Her boss, Howard Dean, avoided commenting publicly on the controversy.
(Photo by Ed Andrieski/AP)
If the media are going to focus on candidates’ supporters, we can’t ignore McCain’s anti-gay Hagee
Clinton’s gay supporters must now line up behind Obama to prevent McCain from making Supreme Court appointments
advertisement
advertisement
|
KEVIN NAFF
Friday, February 08, 2008
THE LAWSUIT FILED by a gay man alleging the Democratic National Committee discriminated against him is yielding more insights into how the party interacts with gay media outlets and the sometimes tortured positions it takes on gay issues.
In one telling e-mail, Gretchen Cook, a writer for the Advocate, sends a note to Damien LaVera, a DNC spokesperson, regarding a story she’s writing about the party’s outreach to religious voters.
“As promised, I’m sending the quotes I’d like to use (though probably will get edited down in the final draft but it’s the gist of what I’d use from that conversation.),” Cook wrote. “I can’t imagine you’d have any problem with me using them but please let me know soonest.”
And what if LaVera did have a problem? Would the Advocate capitulate and allow a source to edit its story? It’s a disturbing revelation that calls into question the independence and toughness of the magazine’s reporting. Is this sharing of notes and submitting of stories for approval by sources common practice at the Advocate?
Another series of e-mails shows how skittish DNC officials are when it comes to publicly expressing gay-friendly positions. When Peter Pace, President Bush’s former chair of the Joint Chiefs, described homosexuality as “immoral” in an interview with the Chicago Tribune, many Democrats fumbled what should have been a no-brainer response.
Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama initially tried to sidestep the issue, but both later realized they had offended gays and sought to clarify their positions.
Newsday reported at the time that Obama did not directly answer when asked if same-sex relationships were immoral. He issued a statement a day later that, “I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years.”
Clinton, meanwhile, told ABC News that it’s for “others to conclude” whether homosexuality is immoral. But, like Obama, she released a follow-up statement after being criticized. Clinton said that she’d heard from gay friends who said her answer sounded evasive.
“I should have echoed my colleague Senator John Warner’s statement forcefully stating that homosexuality is not immoral because that is what I believe,” her statement said.
IT TURNS OUT Clinton and Obama weren’t the only ones struggling with how to respond to Pace’s remarks. LaVera penned a brief statement that rightly described Pace’s comments as “anti-gay” but fell far short of taking a strong stand. He wrote, in part, “Chairman Pace’s comments are not constructive.”
The weak and carefully constructed statement was then circulated among DNC higher-ups for review and comment. LaVera e-mailed Karen Finney, DNC’s director of communications: “Brian [Bond] is concerned that we might take hits if we don’t comment on it — not so much on the merits of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ but on Pace’s language about immorality, etc. Personally, I’m concerned that we’ll create too many problems if [DNC Chair Howard] Dean condemns the sitting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during a time of war. I think it’s better to do a statement from a DNC spokesperson saying Pace’s rhetoric isn’t constructive.”
What ensues is a laughable series of e-mails among senior DNC staff struggling to craft the lamest possible response. Leah Daughtry, Dean’s chief of staff, writes, “What are the pros and cons of issuing a statement?”
Well, Leah, the pros would be publicly defending a constituency from whom you happily and shamelessly collect lots of money and votes. Oh, and there’s that quaint notion of doing the right thing, too. The cons? Daughtry’s fellow Pentecostal worshippers who also speak in tongues might be offended that the Democratic Party stood up for those sinful gays who are going to hell.
In the protracted e-mail exchange obtained by the Blade, LaVera and Daughtry advocate for sending a statement only to reporters working for gay press and keeping any mention of it off the DNC web site. They also oppose sending the statement to mainstream news wires. That way, the DNC can have it both ways — placating the gays with a toothless statement while ensuring that any faintly pro-gay statements don’t gain traction or visibility in mainstream media. The DNC leadership wouldn’t want to go out on a limb and actually stand up for the dignity of gay service members who had just been called “immoral,” because that might offend one of those religious voters that Dean and Daughtry are so desperate to please.
Daughtry’s behind-the-scenes role in this and other gay-related debacles is becoming more troubling. She is Dean’s chief of staff, yet helped insulate him from the Pace controversy so he didn’t have to issue a public statement. She’s the head of this summer’s Democratic National Convention, but has undermined efforts at establishing quotas for gay delegates, even though every other conceivable minority group benefits from such mandatory goals. She leads party outreach to “values voters,” but is on the record opposing same-sex marriage — something that many gay voters value.
If the DNC employed a gay staffer who sought to undermine the influence of blacks within the party, there’s no question that person would be fired faster than Donald Hitchcock, who was canned shortly after his partner dared to criticize the party. The double standard that allows Daughtry to get away with her anti-gay behavior is a slap in the face to gay DNC donors. Gay supporters of the Democratic Party deserve better from Daughtry, Dean and the rest of the senior staff there.
|
 |
