12/03/2008
Kate Kendall Hits Back at Damning Rolling Stone Prop 8 Piece
The current issue of Rolling Stone has posted its Prop 8 article online, which takes to task the "No on 8" campaign for its failure to anticipate that it had a major opponent in the Mormon church and criticizes its strategies both on the ground, and on the air.
An excerpt:
"But evidence of entrenched homophobia and religious intolerance obscure a more difficult truth. Prop 8 should have been defeated — two months before the election, it was down 17 points in the polls — but the gay-rights groups that tried to stop it ran a lousy campaign. According to veteran political observers, the No on Prop 8 effort was slow to raise money, ran weak and confusing ads, and failed to put together a grass-roots operation to get out the vote. 'This was political malpractice,' says a Democratic consultant who operates at the highest level of California politics. 'They fucked this up, and it was painful to watch. They shouldn't be allowed to pawn this off on the Mormons or anyone else. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and now hundreds of thousands of gay couples are going to pay the price.' From the start, the leaders of the No on Prop 8 campaign and their high-priced consultants failed to realize what they were up against. According to Geoff Kors, who headed the campaign's executive committee, the No side anticipated needing no more than $20 million to stop the gay-marriage ban. The Yes side, by contrast, set out to change how initiative politics are played, building a well-funded operation that rivaled a swing-state presidential campaign in its scope and complexity. It also built a powerful, faith-based coalition that included the Catholic Church, Protestant evangelicals and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 'The direct involvement of the Mormon church — moving donors in a very short window to give early — was stunning,' says Patrick Guerriero, who was called in to take over as campaign manager of No on Prop 8 in the final month. "It was unprecedented — and probably impossible to predict."
National Center for Lesbian Rights executive director Kate Kendall (katek), hit back at the magazine in a comment to the article online.
"When Dickinson called to interview me about the No on Prop 8 campaign it became obvious he wasn't interested in the facts about the campaign, he wanted only information that supported this hit piece. When he didn't like my answers, he just asked more leading questions. We lost. Yes, as in any campaign, mistakes were made, but to quote from unnamed sources and anonymous gay leaders running for cover in the wake of this devastating loss while ignoring all facts that don't support your assasination attempt against those who worked tirelessly for months is not jouralism, it's just trash. Dickinson should ply his 'blaming the victim' tactics with the National Enquirer."
Two other follow-up Prop 8 pieces you may have interest in:
Special Investigation: Prop. 8 Postmortem [inMagazine LA - Karen Ocamb]
Follow the Gay Money: No on 8 Expenditures [petrelis files]
Same-Sex Setback [rolling stone]
Posted 8:55 AM EST by Andy Towle in California, Gay Marriage, Magazines, News, Proposition 8 | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
As a magazine run by a gay man, which has hardly been pushing an equality agenda (and often the opposite through its rock n roll macho posturing), Rolling Stone is a bit hypocritical.
Which doesn' t necessarily make the article poorly written or untrue.
As for the "tireless working", it's the big vacations -- in the middle of a campaign!! -- by the executive No on 8 that galls. They couldn't have postponed summer vacation til Nov. 5th in an election year? I read that Lori Jean is in Hawaii this month, all month. Then after, on a sabattical to recoup her energy. Is that true? I sure as hell hope not.
Posted by: Strepsi | Dec 3, 2008 9:06:48 AM
The truth hurts a bit, doesn't it?
Posted by: ANON IN SOCAL | Dec 3, 2008 9:23:14 AM
I have to agree with Rolling Stone on their take of the Proposition 8 debacle. From everything I've read, the leadership against Proposition 8 didn't re-act when it was obvious that the Mormons, the Catholics and the fundamentalists were pouring money and volunteers in getting the Proposition passed. I'm from Florida, I'm 73 years old and I gave money to defeat Proposition 8 in California because I thought it was the right thing to do, not because I was solicited to give money. I think that the campaign (against Prop 8) suffered from a lot of hubris and they simply assumed they couldn't lose. Well, they did!
Posted by: TomJ | Dec 3, 2008 9:26:16 AM
I side with Rolling Stone magazine. This could have been easily defeated had the organizers of "No on Prop 8" been a little more steward-like with the equity of the project. I called this months ago; the only message getting out was "We need more money then them".
Yes, Anon, the truth does hurt.
I hope to HELL the WHOLE gay community refocus's on this, and not just those with a vested interest. I am already sensing that the matter is withering on the vine in our community.
Rad
Posted by: Rad | Dec 3, 2008 10:01:08 AM
NCLR has been an important part of the legal battles behind marriage equality, including those now before the CA Supreme Court. That said, there's nothing in this quote from the Rolling Stone article that many people on this blog and elsewhere, including me, were not saying all summer long. The No on 8 leadership didn't want to hear it then, and apparently doesn't want to hear it now. Their turn is over.
Posted by: Gianpiero | Dec 3, 2008 10:07:23 AM
I have met Kate Kendall several times. She is a woman of remarkable integrity and conviction, and is an effective advocate for glbt folks. The sniping by people who did little or nothing at people who tried their best to do something to stop Prop 8 is an example of the worst of our community. Cut it out, it achieves nothing.
Posted by: Steve | Dec 3, 2008 10:31:18 AM
As a married, gay Californian, I must say I agree with this article. Watching the campaign unfold was difficult. The No campaign ought to do some real assessment of their approach, learn from it for the next battle and not be defensive. The campaign was not very well thought out.
Posted by: Sean Murray | Dec 3, 2008 10:34:10 AM
All you have to do is watch Milk and you see what the No on 8 people did wrong.
But Harvey lost 3 campaigns before he won the supervisor seat and the proposition.
Rather than be defensive, they should say, "We f*cked up, we failed, we lost. Now let's fight on. TOGETHER."
Posted by: JeffNYC | Dec 3, 2008 11:01:02 AM
What, exactly, is Kendall pissed about in this article? Looks pretty accurate to me. What "facts" of the campaign did Dickinson leave out?
Posted by: Andrew | Dec 3, 2008 11:04:05 AM
I've been waiting to hear from people like Kendall, responsible for ignoring experience professionals early on that informed everyone concerned that the campaign and it's message was doomed to fail, how tirelessly they all worked.
BS.
I don't care how hard any one of them worked - I bet they had to work like crazy with all the obstructionist, closed door bureaucracy they set up - these people are all supposedly experienced executives, as the poll numbers fell they should have stepped aside immediately for the cause and to honor all the people that gave money that couldn't afford to!
Resume building, self-promoting, control freak, unqualified, serial-bunglers...I've been waiting for these jackasses to start waving printed reports around that documents how many hours they worked, how much they sacrificed, how many phone calls they made. It's the same old song and dance from jerks that put themselves and their professional agenda before the mission. It is the story of gay/lesbian social service orgs and local politics - - except this time they took our money and wasted it!!
Posted by: David B. | Dec 3, 2008 11:13:57 AM
The work of those lawyers NCLR has done for marriage equality has been exceptional. Unfortunately, the "leadership" of "our" organizations still don't get it. In the most expensive campaign in the history of state initiatives and the 2nd most expensive campaign in the 2008 election, we lost. As a result we as a community MUST look at our leadership and see where are we going wrong. Many are focusing on the positive concerning margins of votes. But the focus in California neglects the results in Arkansas, Florida, and Arizona where these measures clearly passed with large margins, resulting in worse laws. Other leaders are stoking the fire of reverse bigotry against religious organizations or minority groups, forgetting that those opponents will only sap our energy and resources and not gain us popular support. It is our job as "leaders" in our own communities to question our leadership and Ms. Kendell just doesn't seem to get that they must turn to us for help and not expect us to blindly continue to support their agendas. We have no 50 state strategy as a community. We have no strategy beyond fundraising and legal framework to promote activism. We have only national and state polling saying that people in general support rights but hate the use of the word marriage. Yet, we still are waiting on job discrimination protection in most states and the federal realm, and gay and lesbian families are still struggling to gain economic security over their homes and children. I ask Ms. Kendall, "What have we won nationally truly?" Instead we bicker on what letter to include in the community acronym and hold back our agenda either because one of the those acronym letters complains that they were left out or straight leaders tell us to wait until next year. I am sorry but my family is tired of waiting and tired of giving the apatheic nod to an unelected leadership. Harvey Milk led the the fight against Prop 6 in a worse political climate and won; we ran a campaign in 4 states in a more tolerant political climate and lost. Is that really progress?
Posted by: Sean | Dec 3, 2008 11:15:25 AM
As far as I can tell, the RS article is pretty much spot-on. It's great that everyone has rallied since Election Day, but it's a case of trying to close the gate after the horse is out of the barn. I don't care how much integrity Ms. Kendall has--she and her cohorts did a shitty job, and the fact that the proposition passed at all is proof of that.
Posted by: troschne | Dec 3, 2008 11:28:02 AM
While I am one of those who has met Kendall, have been an admirer of her for several years, it takes nothing away from her past achievements to say that, sadly, she is showing her proverbial true colors now.
It takes a larger than average ego to run any successful political organization, particularly a gay one, and what worked to her advantage in the past has now become a shameful liability, and she has stooped to the lowest form of response: shooting the messenger.
If she...and Kors...and Jean...and Smith...simply said, "We admit we fucked up and we're sorry," there MIGHT be reason to forgive them. But the fact that NONE of them have, that they are subjecting us to repeated public hand washings while insisting someone else, everyone else, anyone else is responsible for the blood in the water REQUIRES their continued denunciation even as it is NCLR's right to keep her if they want; EQCA's to keep Kors; LAGLC to keep Jean.
But it is our right to say: Fuck off and politically die. We will never listen to you again. We will NEVER send another cent to ANY group or effort with your names on the letterhead or behind the scenes.
This WAS an instance when the sofa WAS already on fire when they sat down on it as tge style and tactics and fundraising potential of the Antigay Industry have been repeatedly telegraphed over the last 30 years, from Anita forward, to anyone who was paying attention.
Kendall, et al., either weren't or would have us believe that they were born the proverbial yesterday: "we didn't know this, how could we know that, blah blah blah."
"No More Mr. Nice Gay" is a great slogan, and it's time we applied it to some of our own who failed and continue to fail us while arrogantly claiming their innocence.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Dec 3, 2008 11:40:51 AM
Agree with everything Sean wrote, except to respectfully point out that Harvey Milk was not THE leader of the No on 6 fight but one of them. Troy Perry, Del Martin, Leonard Matlovich, Dave Kopay, David Mixner, and a few others were just as much as part of its success as he.
Further, no matter what the movie might claim, it was not Milk's [or any other gay person's] direct persuasiveness that turned the tide but the number of conservative influencers that people like Mixner got to come out against 6, including, remarkably, the THEN Archbishop of San Francisco. His real coup was an opposing statement from Ronald Reagan [whom I despise] and afterwards the Field poll showed that support/oppositon went from 63 & 37 percent to 45 & 43 IN ONE MONTH.
Rewriting history, whether it's Kendall or well-intentioned if misinformed filmmakers, is not going to help us change the future.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Dec 3, 2008 11:59:11 AM
Of course there are things each of us and our leaders could have done differently, but we can not allow the majority to steal our rights and then blame us for losing them. When in the history of the LGBT civil rights movement have we found ourselves in the "jaws of victory?" We are a small minority. We have a lot of work to do to gain enough support from the majority.
Those people who would use religion to explain their hate remain responsible for all damages that result from that hate.
Posted by: Tony in West Hollywood | Dec 3, 2008 12:08:46 PM
Leland:
Having now seen the movie, I can now properly comment on your assertion that the movie claims that Milk was the cause of the defeat of 6.
This is actually not what the movie says at all. What it does is to portray Milks role in the efforts as well as the tightness of leadership.
In fact, on the night of the defeat, if you remember from the movie, Milk is stunned to know that LA County had come out 65 percent against 6.
It was a movie focused on Milk's life. Not the entire gay movement. So of course, it would focus on his part of it.
You are the one projecting additional things on to what the movie actually covers.
Posted by: The Gay Numbers | Dec 3, 2008 12:28:38 PM
Thank you, G#s, for your perception of the film. However, note, I wrote, "no matter what the movie MIGHT claim...."
I phrased it that way because I have not yet had the time to see it myself, however:
1. my clarification of the reality was in response to exactly what Sean wrote, "Harvey Milk led the the fight against Prop 6," a mispercerption either from the film or its coverage I have repeatedly seen asserted by others.
2. given that previews I've seen and the film's press materials DO misstate that Milk was the first "openly gay man elected to major office"——an insult to the memory and achievement of Allen Spear whose reelection to the state legislature in the much more conservative Minnesota A YEAR before Harvey's election from the Castro district—it was not illogical to assume that the film distorted No On 6 details, too.
You might have the intelligence and objectivity to realize that the gay movement, even in San Francisco, did not begin with Milk any more than he was born in a manger, but too many others are being encouraged to believe it.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Dec 3, 2008 1:44:29 PM
Leland
You are ultimately arguing that people should know history. That's a different point than this is a bad movie misrepresenting history. That's too much burden to expect any 2 hour movie to take on. What it can do is elucidate and give a sense of a moment in time, and tell one person's point of view in the form of the lead. Even the he was the first gay person in US history to be elected was a matter of characters saying it rather than briefly breaking away to randomly mention- oh, no there was this guy before Milk. I think you expect too much from a movie. Your real beef it seems is with the audience.
Posted by: The Gay Numbers | Dec 3, 2008 2:33:10 PM
Kate is a great leader. She asked for donations before September because she knew the other side was planning an ad blitz in the final months. Unfortunately most did not listen. Once the polls tightened people started to donate but it was too late.
The No on 8 campaign was run by a heterosexual male named Steve Smith. In every study conducted on anti-gay prejudice have found that heterosexual males are either moderately or severely anti-gay. None have found no anti-gay prejudice with heterosexual males. It should be no surprise than how Steve Smith undermined the campaign by not responded to the Yes on 8 attacks quickly and never mentioning gay people.
Posted by: Bill | Dec 3, 2008 4:55:34 PM
I'm afraid that the JOIN THE IMPACT folks might just be headed down the same road as No on 8. I'm sure I'm not supposed to say this but I think we who care about matters of LGBT equality really need to take the failures of the N0 on 8 "leaders" as a cautionary tale and make sure our new self appointed "leaders" don't fall into the same traps of egotism and layers upon layers of command which insulate them from the troops on the ground
Posted by: Derek Washington | Dec 3, 2008 6:23:44 PM
While you know I often agree with you G#s, your last apologia is self-contradictory. You defend the errors in a movie whose entire raison d'etre IS to educate people by saying that people are uneducated.
And your attempt to defend its greatest falsehood by saying it was only some character in the film saying it as if it were a real person simply getting a fact wrong is absurdly disingenuous. It's in the film; it's in the trailer; and it's in the second complete sentence in their press releases. "... In 1977, Harvey Milk was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, becoming the first openly gay man to be voted into major public office in America."
Not just too lazy to read a single book on gay history themselves blogites are repeating it over and over but the media. Sunday's "San Francisco Chronicle" printed a retraction of the parroted false claim they'd printed the Sunday before.
Nor did I suggest anything remotely like your "briefly breaking away to randomly mention" someone came before.
All they would have had to do was add four words and change a fifth:
"[ONE OF THE FIRST] openly gay mEn elected to major office"
How big a "burden" would that have been?
Further, I did not say it was a "bad film"—just a dishonest one. And if you had any respect for those who came before you'd let that be.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Dec 3, 2008 6:28:56 PM
Leland, maybe you shouldn't talk about a movie you haven't seen yet. Just sayin'. And since when has a Hollywood film been 100% historically accurate? Lighten up will you? Go see the damned thing before you criticize!
And it is DEFINITELY our leaders that are mostly at fault. Could we have volunteered more? Sure. Could we have given more money? Maybe. But we GAVE TONS of money. Unprecedented amounts of money! For the first time in my life I gave money to a political cause! And there were lots of volunteers. Every day for months as I walked out of my house on Castro St. I was accosted by the No on 8 people begging for money. I even gave them my number to call me to volunteer but NEVER got a phone call. And I can tell you of a hand full of friends that experienced the same thing. And I don't give a shit about polls and such, we as a queer community will never get ANYWHERE if we succumb to internalized homophobia but running a political campaign without showing our faces. It reeks of shame and self hatred. PERIOD.
Posted by: Mr. E | Dec 3, 2008 7:34:52 PM
And, Leland, sorry, that second part is obviously not directed at you. I agree with you 99% of the time. You take is always spot on, in my book. Regarding Milk, unfortunately recorded history is never as accurate as actual history. Yes, there were other openly queer people elected to other offices, but no one as dynamic as Milk. We need his message right now.
Posted by: Mr. E | Dec 3, 2008 7:53:09 PM
France:
I agree with Mr. E that you really should see a movie you are criticizing.
My point was not to defend. It was to provide context. You want a movie to correct the incorrect ideas that its characters may hold? Uhm- like I said before you are good with history, but not so good with movie making. This sort of "well that's what people perceived' attribution that I am discussing is par for the course for characters in a movie. They believe in correct things all the time. That's part of them being characters rather than teachers providing historical dissertations. If you can't accept that, you can't accept narrative films, documentary or fictional. It's what they do. They are not by design about historical accuracy. They about looking at the human condition, and hopefully entertaining and giving some artistic sense of it.
Like said before, and you confirm it- your problem is with the fact audiences do not know the greater history. You want the movies to take on that role. That's not the purpose of art. Art isn't history. It tells a greater truth that history does in its own way. Just like history tells a truth in its own way. This is no defense. This is what these things are. They may overlap, but they are always going to have the tension of what they are suppose to be sometimes coming into conflict.
If you still do not get filmmaking (which is what I was discussing- not history), I will just say you should watch the movie. You should realize that its not trying to place Milk up on a pedestal. He's an imperfect obsessive guy about politics in the movie. I think you are being unfair. You should also realize some of the scenes and bits of dialogue are taken out of context in the trailer.
Again, it sounds like your beef is with audiences. I don't have a problem with that. I simply think its unrealistc and would lack artististic merit to expect a movie to replace what people are not learning on ther own. The best you can do in a movie is capture the heart of who a character is and try to tell their story while capturing greater themes and questions. Moslty , in the good films- just question. I liked the themes and questions of Milk. People are taking the right things from it. That's what I want from art. Not that it tells me what happened exactly when and where.
Posted by: The Gay Numbers | Dec 3, 2008 7:53:18 PM
Bottom line for me is that the NO on 8 leaders raised more than 35 million dollars amongst them and couldn't produce one compelling television spot. With all the talented gay men and women in Hollywood it seems absurd to me that not one compelling spot couldn't be achieved with our communities inherent resources -- not one. Yet the YES on 8 campaign produced multiple compelling television spots (though they were filled with lies and filled with fear-mongering) that surely worked to sway voters to take AWAY our previously afforded rights. Now I am not saying we needed to end up in the gutter like the YES on 8 folks, but surely we could have had a more focused, well thought out television ad campaign. And sadly I am just focusing on the television spots ... so let's just hope those in power don't fcuk it up next time around.
Posted by: robertmalcolm | Dec 3, 2008 10:00:39 PM