We have to credit the folks over at the Calitics blog for our headline this week because it warrants spreading the news to a wider audience. In the aftermath of the shocking Senate upset in Massachusetts last month, where Democrat Martha Coakley lost to Republican Scott Brown in one of the bluest states in the country, eyes have turned to the California governor's race. If you're an LGBT voter or ally, it's not a pretty sight at the moment.
The Calitics headline refers to state Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is coy about whether he's running for governor this year. We've repeatedly asked Brown, who served as governor in the 1970s, if he's running, to which he has responded that he's "not ready to announce yet" or some equivalent. Once San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom had dropped out of the race last fall, we thought it was only a matter of weeks until Brown would announce his candidacy.
But now it is February 2010 and there's still no announcement from Brown. And the Republican front-runner is filling the vacuum.
For months now, Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, running in the Republican primary, has spent millions of dollars for radio ads. For all the lack of specifics about Whitman's plans for governing the state and stretching the facts, these ads have broadened her name recognition to the point that she is catching up with Brown in the polls. The commercials feature a folksy Whitman who encourages voters to "Talk to Meg" and directs listeners to her Web site. Whether Whitman actually reads any of the comments sent to her is unknown. For all her skill with the radio ads, Whitman has been loathe to meet with reporters in one-on-one interviews or subject herself to candidate debates. Just this week she nixed the idea of a debate with her GOP rival, Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, at the spring state GOP convention.
The other big problem with Whitman is that she is not the moderate her campaign ads would suggest. She is staunchly conservative and opposed to marriage equality.
Campaign finance reports released this week indicate that Whitman spent $19.5 million last year. In contrast, Brown spent a tiny fraction of that amount, $370,525. While Brown does enjoy wide name recognition and an uncontested primary, we believe he is in danger of being complacent and taking the electorate for granted. Just because many Californians are fed up with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't mean they will automatically vote for Brown this fall. He cannot afford to let Whitman define the race.
California's unemployment rate is hovering at 12.1 percent. Putting people back to work is a central theme of Whitman's campaign, though we disagree with her plans to slash government jobs and don't see how that will create more jobs. However, the point is, where is Brown's plan?
There is also another factor to consider: Senator Dianne Feinstein. For months, she too, has been noncommittal when asked if she will run for governor, a job some insiders say she has long coveted.
Now is the time for Brown to declare his gubernatorial bid, or for Feinstein to jump in the race if that's what she wants to do.
This waiting game has gone on long enough.
No change being created
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's annual Creating Change conference – taking place this week in Dallas – is one that many grassroots activists and organizers look forward to. Long considered the more progressive national LGBT organization, the Task Force, while not funded to the level of the Human Rights Campaign, plays a key role in the ground game for full equality toward which the LGBT community is working.
It was, therefore, deeply disappointing to learn that a marriage institute session being presented at the conference by Freedom to Marry's Evan Wolfson is closed to the media. This decision is reminiscent of a similar effort last year by members of both the Courage Campaign and Meet in the Middle to kick reporters out of a leadership summit because so-called secret polling results on same-sex marriage (that reporters already had) were going to be discussed.
Such moves are counterproductive and only serve to make many people in the community even more distrustful of what they see as a top-down approach to community organizing.
In an e-mail, Wolfson defended his decision. He pointed out that the marriage institute isn't closed to the press, rather, it is off the record. To us, that is a fine distinction that hardly results in unfettered reporting from that session. For its part, the Task Force did not respond to an e-mail query we sent to its communications chief.
If the session had been about hate crime victims, or victims of sex abuse, we could see the rationale about keeping discussion off the record. But this is an institute about marriage. Anyone who was following the federal Proposition 8 trial via Twitter or on numerous blogs knows full well what the community is up against regarding opposition to marriage equality. And for goodness' sake, if progressive activists and others can't articulate their views in a public forum, how are they ever going to accomplish the hard, on-the-ground work of talking to people – in public and private settings?
The Task Force blew it when it acquiesced to Wolfson's request, and we, the greater LGBT community, are poorer for it.