Andrew Sullivan: Joe Solmonese Must Resign
UPDATED
Speaking from the Equality to End HIV/AIDS Rally and Vigil which was held on Saturday evening at the Ellipse in front of the White House, Andrew Sullivan calls for Joe Solmonese, the President of the Human Rights Campaign, to resign.
Says Sullivan of HRC's leadership: "They are so out of touch. They are so out of touch with the young generation. They are so out of touch with what America actually is and could be. They are full of fear and self-loathing, and we have to stand up to them."
And here's something of a companion piece to the video.
UPDATE: Today, Sullivan posts some thoughts after reflecting a bit. "I was wrong to personalize this, but at some point the anger needs to be expressed. I'm not a politician and this video helps explain why. I should have let myself cool down before gabbing in front of a camera."
Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...
Posted Oct. 13,2009 at 6:46 AM EST by Andy Towle in Andrew Sullivan, Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese, News | Permalink
This is one instance when I actually agree with him. The HRC is like any number of professional fund raising organizations. It's not in their long term interest to be successful.
Posted by: jeffg166 | Oct 13, 2009 7:07:49 AM
HRC is far from perfect, but let's not forget that it wasn't so long ago that Sullivan was endorsing Republicans and opposing nearly every single item of the HRC agenda, including ENDA and hate crimes laws. HRC started opposing him publicly wawy back then, which is when his irrational hatred of that group began. His lurch leftward did not happen, conveniently, until he became a blogger. Before we start listening to this guy telling us our groups in DC have not done enough, remember that he helped empower the very Republican ascendancy that set us back so many years. Beware leopards who try to change their spots.
Posted by: Jeff In Boston | Oct 13, 2009 7:48:59 AM
They are totally out-of-touch, and trying to engage them on that fact is worse than pulling teeth without Novocaine. We really do need new leadership.
Posted by: DR | Oct 13, 2009 7:54:10 AM
It's so much easier to destroy than to create.
Posted by: BMF | Oct 13, 2009 8:05:18 AM
Speaking of out of touch, Andrew....
Posted by: Mike | Oct 13, 2009 8:19:53 AM
I agree with Andrew, but I always seem to recall his barebacking incident and can never think of him in the same way.
Posted by: Tim | Oct 13, 2009 8:24:30 AM
Regardless of Sullivan, the HRC has taken a very arrogant stance by believing the President has the presidency on his pocket for a second term. I'm upset with Joe Solmonese and the leadership of the HRC, they undermine our cause and have placed is in that back seat on the bus.
Posted by: Rafael | Oct 13, 2009 8:26:31 AM
Who do I hate more-- Andrew Sullivan or the HRC? Ultimately, Sully. I reserve a special contempt for gay men like Marc Cherry and he who feel the need to lecture women about how they should not get abortions. The HRC is not evil-- it's just a front fundraising PAC for the DNC with about the same level of commitment to gay issues as Barney Frank-- none. But the DNC is not evil. Andrew Sullivan is ultimately still a front for the Catholic Church, which is evil. Sully is worse than HRC.
But--- he is right here. Solmonese must step down.
And be replaced by a woman of color. The HRC needs to be run by someone who represents the people who feel least seen by it. We do not need a white male face representing us. That is not us.
Posted by: Landon Bryce | Oct 13, 2009 8:29:55 AM
The HRC drives me nuts also, and I do think they need new leadership. Sullivan is absolutely correct that letter was over the top. I got it in my email and thought "What the F@ck?????"
I also remember Sullivan supporting the Republicans and tilting at windmills so to speak. That said, that doesn't negate the fact on this issue, I think he's on target. That is why I didn't join the HRC after doing a bit of research, I picked NGTF instead. They aren't perfect, but aren't as much of a tool as HRC.
It's time for the HRC to get on the train or get run over. Looks like they are choosing the latter.
Posted by: Mike | Oct 13, 2009 8:30:38 AM
I never thought I'd say this but I agree with Andrew Sullivan. Not only does SolmonSLEAZE need to go. But a majority of its Board Members need to be replaced, its strategy overhauled and its salaries and expenses cut in half.
Posted by: Wolfie | Oct 13, 2009 8:35:33 AM
Just exactly what has Sully really every done substantively for LGBT civil rights?
Almost everything that folks have fought for, he's spoken out against -- except, of course, for those things that affect him personally: immigration parity; ending the HIV travel ban; etc. Remember when he was excoriating Solmonese and the HRC for not working in a bi-partisan way with the GOP and how Bush wasn't all that bad?
For Andrew, it is and always has been about him. Put him in the same box as Barney Frank. Narcissists.
Posted by: Mike in Houston | Oct 13, 2009 8:36:56 AM
Okay Mike now that you've attacked the person who made the statement and believe me he's not my favorite either, How about adressing the statement?
Posted by: Wolfie | Oct 13, 2009 8:48:03 AM
Andrew Sullivan is first and formost a Narcissistic Elitist and a "Conservative" - same thing for many and certainly for him.
He has long waged war against the establish Gay Rights Movement as it correctly stood up to him when he was until the middle of this decade supporting George W Bush and fighting against the likes of Bill Clinton and Al Gore.
He was one of the first misguided HIV positive people to promote poz men seeking out barebacking partners - instead of having promoting safe sex to save others.
Again and elitist that instead of working with the community - he has long been at war with the community.
As someone who has had to sit and watch this tool in full leather getting his boots shine in The Vault in Ptown .... I understand he has quite the different public and private face.
As someone who remembers him supporting Reagan as HIV spread - while Andrew made big bank as a closeted young Republican... I say .... Andrew shut up and go back to your million dollar homes.
Posted by: walter | Oct 13, 2009 9:13:44 AM
F - HIM
What the hell --- he hid in the closet during the HIV crisis.
He promoted Reagan.
He fought for the ELECTION of George W Bush.
He fought for the INVASION of IRAQ.
He has NO ROOM TO SPEAK.
He is looking to take down someone who has stood up to him.
Andrew beliefs change day to day --- and he is always the elite thinker in his own mind.
ACCESS --- from this IVY LEAGUE TOOL.
He has not gone to the dinner for 20 years --- that was 1989! Maybe if he has worked with them instead of being an ARCH REPUBLICAN working to get Bill Clinton impeached and George W Bush elected - F HIM
Some of us remember.
Posted by: walter | Oct 13, 2009 9:18:08 AM
Andrew Sullivan: The QUEER GLEN BECK
Posted by: MCnNYC | Oct 13, 2009 9:21:27 AM
Remember, you can never legitimately attack an argument by attacking the character of the person advancing the argument. Socrates 101.
Sullivan is allowed to make his mistakes. He's even admitted he was wrong about a few of 'em (but we all know that doesn't count). We don't have to like him, but if we allow personal enmity instead of facts to decide which argument is best, we're heading towards a long string of disappointments.
Posted by: Yeek | Oct 13, 2009 9:22:08 AM
NGLTF has no influence and couldn't even endorse the march until a month before.
When NGLTF gets off their addiction to raising funds from circuit parties come talk to me about the hell they have accomplished.
Posted by: MCnNYC | Oct 13, 2009 9:25:11 AM
I wish I had known about the vigil. I would have been there. Information on all the events was hard to follow. As for Andrew's statement concerning Joe Solmonese, he is right. Leadership should change. Many of the other gay groups do not like Joe and his personal agenda.
Posted by: tommy | Oct 13, 2009 9:28:58 AM
I've worked with Joe Solomnese and disagree with A.S.'s assertions that he or the HRC is out of touch with the "younger generation" or that the HRC as an organization is "useless". I also know from our conversations -- and with others in the HRC leadership circle, that they are just as frustrated with the pace of change as anyone. Despite the seemingly rapturous applause Saturday night, there were many in the room that were sorely disappointed by the lack of milestones in Obama's speech, not to mention the general lackadaisical way the Administration and Congress have approached our legislative agenda.
Joe has taken an organization that was pretty moribund under Elizabeth Birch and gotten in much more focused and, yes, professionalized -- but with plenty of opportunities for anyone to get involved at the grass-roots.
If you're looking for "fault" within the HRC -- start at the local level. This is where the cocktail-party reputation has been built & perpetuated -- to the exasperation of many of us in the Federal Club ranks (and beyond). They do a great job fund-raising, but little else in the local community -- and that needs to change. I have often advocated moving at least part of the HRC operations out of D.C. to somewhere else (like Houston) to shake things up.
As for Joe resigning, which I think would be a mistake -- how far back would that put us? Like it or not -- and some will never like it -- the HRC (and Joe) are positioned to speak both to the Feds and to the moveable mainstream... and be listened to. Throwing away those relationships gains nothing.
Let's take the energy from this last week and put it to positive use. I, personally, am rededicating myself to the cause of LGBT progress -- wind in the sails and all that. The March was my excuse (if I really needed one) to step up my game.
Posted by: Mike in Houston | Oct 13, 2009 9:30:21 AM
@Yeek
We're attacking hypocrisy, Socrates. I don't give a rat's ass what Sullivan does in his personal life.
But he can't use his perch at The New Republic and other places to attack gays and the work of HRC, praise(and actively promote) the Republican advance against them, and then claim more than a decade later how shocked (shocked! I tell you) he is that these allegedly self-loathing homos haven't advanced far enough on his pet causes that tend to benefit him while all the others he's written off as victimization politics.
I've lived in Boston and Ptown. If I wanted to attack him, I would. I could. But that is not what I am doing. If his character gets dirtied by pointing out his inconsistencies and narcissistic tendencies, that is just a pleasant by-product.
Posted by: Jeff In Boston | Oct 13, 2009 9:53:06 AM
HRC is not exactly my cup of tea, but I support them anyway. I also have memberships and contribute to the Task Force, GLAAD, various AIDS charities, gay professional organizations, local community groups, etc. They all have their part to play & attaining equality means taking action on many levels.
As far as I'm concerned, HRC relates to the big boys so I don't have to. Their fortress in DC is emblematic of power & that's what lawmakers recognize.
As for Andrew Sullivan, his defense of Catholicism, GWBush, and barebacking alienated me years ago. Yet even an egotistic asshole like him is sometimes helpful with his punditry.
Posted by: JONNY NYNY2FLFL | Oct 13, 2009 9:56:24 AM
Landon Bryce,
Pardon me, but don't speak for the entire community like that. "That is not us." I am a white male homosexual, and that IS me. Am I any less deserving of representation in the fight for my rights?
Sex, Race, etc... shouldn't play any damn part in deciding the leadership; it should be whoever will do the best job.
Posted by: Jack | Oct 13, 2009 10:00:10 AM
Jack:
I am a white, male homosexual, too. You know what? We've got the white male homosexual vote nailed down as well as we ever will. We need to stop acting as though we are out own primary audience. Joe Solmonese cannot represent me as well as Pam Spaulding.
Posted by: Landon Bryce | Oct 13, 2009 10:10:24 AM
Why can't we stop pointing out what is wrong with each view-point and start supporting all the view-points and actions that are moving us forward.
The Indian struggle against the British had M. K. Ghandi and Bhagat Singh. If not for the actions of Bhagat Singh and his followers the British might have not moved to work with Ghandi. Both ways were needed.
So, can we please stop fighting over our methods and who is leading and understand that there are many ways to accomplish the same goal.
Posted by: Daya | Oct 13, 2009 10:16:46 AM
Landon, having read through Pam's site, a lot, I can honestly tell you that Pam Spaulding would NOT represent me any better than Joe. Pam is reactionary to say the least. The last thing we need is a leader of a gay rights group who cannot pick and choose the appropriate battles. Take the current "pajama" comments from the WH. It's obvious that they were talking about ALL of the far left fringe but she and AmericaBlog tried to turn it into an attack on the gay community. It was totally counterproductive. She is too busy trying to make blogs more important than that actually are. Any moron can register a domain and type out an opinion.
No, Pam Spaulding most certainly would not be a better leader than Joe.
Posted by: Mike | Oct 13, 2009 10:24:48 AM