Bloodless Coup

HRC and Logo's "Gay" Presidential Debate

Andrew Sullivan's intense dislike of the Human Rights Campaign is well established, so it's not too shocking that he would be the one to unearth the fact that the debate that the HRC is touting as historic isn't really (a similar forum was held in 2003). But while it might not be that an historic first, I don't know that it deserves the mocking that Sullivan gives it. He's annoyed with the "ghettoized" nature of it. This strikes me as really silly. It's a debate designed to address gay issues, so of course it's going to be "ghettoized" to a degree. And what Sullivan is probably really annoyed with is that there isn't any room for gay Republicans as questioners, or Republican politicians among the participants - to which I'd respond that 1) most gays vote Democratic, so unless you are going to have a large panel of questioners it probably makes sense to have Democrats asking the questions and 2) obviously the current crop of Republican presidential candidates would sooner openly dine with Satan than be at an event like this, so that's hardly the HRC's fault. Though I think it's appropriate for the press to ask why Republican candidates are uninterested in this kind of debate, or the one focused on issues in the black community that was held at Howard last month. And I also think Sullivan is a bit off base in praising having a Sam Donaldson-type asking the questions and demeaning having the gay-rights activists asking the questions. If it's a debate about issues that matter to the gay community ... well, why on Earth would you ask a Sam Donaldson or Tim Russert to moderate such a thing, as opposed to someone who's actually versed in those issues?

I think a lot of the jabs Sullivan throws out at the HRC from time to time are fair. But when it comes to how to best run a debate in which politicians address gay issues, I think he's rather off base.