There has been some negative talk about the recent endorsement of Mike Lake for Lt. Gov. by the Stonewall Democrats, but what have been omitted were the reasons why such a group coalesced around Mike Lake.
First, Mike Lake has been listening to the voters of Massachusetts for four years by relentlessly campaigning – even while maintaining his own career in the non-profit sector at the United Way and Leading Cities, on which board, in full disclosure, I serve with him.
Second, more specifically, Mike Lake has a long-standing record of support for issues of importance to the GLBT community, going way back to supporting marriage equality years before other politicians caught up with the public on that issue.
Third, Mike Lake is not the kind of politician who bullies his way into endorsements, and it is quite possible that Stonewall simply appreciated this, and after combining this reform-minded approach with Lake’s history, decided to make an independent judgment about which candidate for Lt. Gov. was most likely to be relied upon in the future.
We’re lucky to have great candidates for Lieutenant Governor. I think it is a credit to Mike Lake that a group like Stonewall decided that Lake merited its endorsement despite the storm that might follow.
Terry McGinty
Organizations like Stonewall are expected to endorse openly gay candidates. Steve Kerrigan is an openly gay candidate, but his involvement and engagement in local gay politics has not been evident. Mike has been a great straight ally. he is well thought of by many members of Stonewall and I can understand why the organization would endorse him.
I am a member of Stonewall, but not on the endorsement committee, though I certainly endorse Mike Lake.
I have an aversion to identity politics based organizations such as the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund for a myopia on a candidates identity, rather than examining the wider context in which they are running and if their records can advance their cause. GLVF did itself a disservice by backing Richard Tisei over John Tierney who has a far better record on LGBT issues in the national realm and won’t vote for anti-equality Speakers or take their money.
In this case, Stonewall Democrats did themselves a service by acknowledging the long work and dedication of Mike Lake to the cause of marriage equality specifically and LGBT rights more broadly. He was on the Statehouse Steps as a straight ally long before it was fashionable statewide, attending a march that Project 10 East at CRLS had attended. We were the first gay straight alliance representing the first city and state to allow gay marriage, and Mike Lake stood with us and hundreds of other straight ally’s to protest a real threat of putting the issue to the voters. His record here is unparalleled in this race. Cheung, Kerrigan, and De Rosa are just as committed but they have not been in this fight for as long.
the Victory Fund endorsed Tisei over Tim Murray, which in Massachusetts means that the Victory Fund endorsed Baker/Tisei over Deval Patrick/Tim Murray.
The Victory Fund has forever lost all credibility to me ever since.
I am reminded of the times they endorsed Lincoln Chaffee and Arlen Specter over pro-choice Democratic candidates knowing full well either would keep anti-choice Billy Frist in the majority seat. Their bet that Specter would have their back on Judiciary very publicly backfired. I was more sympathetic to Chafee, but even he acknowledges he should’ve lost in 2006.
It was PP and NARAL in those races, but Emily’s List, while it only endorses female pro-choice Democrats, has had a bad tendency to back centrist frontrunners in competitive primaries where other women also have a shot (Hassan, Clark, and Coakley come to mind).
An organization may work incredibly hard to lobby a politician from a party typically associated with the other side to a particular issue or keep them on board under intense scrutiny from that person’s own party ranks.
Should that organization blow up that relationship at the next election because the same party’s leadership wouldn’t allow something to come up to a vote?
I’m not going to answer that question — it’s not an easy one to answer — but did want to point out that it’s more complicated than we sometimes think.
To this day my parents do not regret their votes for Weld for Governor in the 90’s, precisely because they felt he was an independent voice that would steer the GOP to the middle. I don’t necessarily defend them in that equation, and they reverted back to Harshbarger in 98′, but there was a time, quite recently, when it made sense to make allies on that side of the aisle since there were actual allies to be had. I think those days are over. I would pick the pro-life Tennant over the pro-choice Republican in the West Virginia race for instance, since I am far more confident that Majority Leader Reid will do a better job protecting choice than a Majority Leader McConnell.
But to get back to the OP-I think the Stonewall Democrats actually did the right thing here. They backed the candidate they had the longest and most productive relationship with, who is the most progressive overall. Something the Victory Fund and Emily’s List would take not of, if they could only get a prescription for the near sightedness first.
Reminds me of how the Human Rights Campaign endorsed Susan Collins in 2008 even though her Democratic challenger had a higher rating in the HRC scorecard.
Although not all my candidates are openly gay, even though I am, I am OK with these sort of organizations existing. Gay and lesbian candidates are likely to recieve less funding compared to their heterosexual counterparts, and of course the representation in government by openly gay people is smaller than the percent represented by women.
These candidates need support and funding, just like women candidates and candidates of color.