Criticism over endorsements lacks understanding of goals

May 25, 2010

By ROB SCHLEGEL
Former Publisher, Las Vegas Bugle (1986-2002)
Special to Las Vegas Night Beat and QVegas

Politics is life, as I am fond of saying, but in the LGBT community of Southern Nevada, it appears politics only comes to life when someone disagrees or is offended. Such is the case with the recent joint effort by QVegas and the Las Vegas Night Beat when they published their endorsement list in the May issues of their respective publications.

That stated, let me once again explain what these two, privately owned publications have attempted to do – and in my opinion, performed a valuable service for their readers.

Southern Nevada has never sustained a non-partisan, political organization. Were such an organization to exist, both publishers would most likely defer endorsements to a community group, rather than write their own.

In 1979, we had Nevadans for Human Rights, a LGBT political group which responded to Nevada’s version of the Briggs Initiative, which would allow school teachers to be fired simply for being homosexual. Later that year, Nevada’s US Senator Paul Laxalt introduced the anti-gay Family Protection Act. NHR disbanded in 1987.

The anti-gay Minority Status and Child Protection Act threat came along and we formed Nevadans for Constitutional Equality, which was disbanded upon the defeat of that initiative. We then organized the Equal Right to Marry Coalition, later resurrected Nevadans for Constitutional Equality to repeal the state’s sodomy laws, followed by Equal Rights Nevada which fought the anti-gay Question 2.

Win or lose, our community lost interest after the battles, and the groups disbanded. No one seemed to care about elected offices.

It’s the Nevada State Legislature and Congress that have the most effect on equal rights for LGBT persons. It’s the US Senate that decides if we have fair-minded justices on the Supreme Court. If we want equal rights, we need to be concerned with who is elected and which political party has a large enough majority to effect change. But typically, we do nothing unless attacked and then it’s usually too little and too late. The one exception has been endorsements offered by the LGBT press.

When I published the Las Vegas Bugle (1986 through 2002), I was constantly besieged by readers, wanting to know my recommendations prior to each election. I sought advice from a group of friends, who met informally, and drew up a list which was published by the Bugle prior to each election. I was criticized for not sending out questionnaires and for not having an editorial board meet with every candidate. While I appreciated my capability being compared with a major daily newspaper, the reality in the LGBT publishing business is we don’t have dozens of staff members or editorial boards. We don’t have the resources to do candidate questionnaires and interviews.  Currently, there are over 425 persons running for office in Southern Nevada. Even the most vocal, partisan political group, which is angry more of their candidates weren’t endorsed, admits to interviewing only 70 of the candidates.

We always have candidates (and supporters) who complain we didn’t give an endorsement when there is no primary. In the most popular races, we have taken to mentioning some candidates without primaries but mostly to reduce the complaints from readers who don’t understand how the primary races are conducted, i.e., not all races have primaries.

There are many factors in deciding who to endorse in a race and it’s not always who we agree with most. As an example, I happen to be the one person who I agree with 100% of the time. If I were running for US Senate, I would never endorse myself for the simple reason I wouldn’t stand a chance of winning. The endorsement committee for QVegas and the Night Beat would endorse someone else, not wanting readers to waste their vote. Likewise, this committee understands political parties vote in near-unison, once its members get elected – it’s how political parties work and the job of the whip to bring members in line with their party. If the best candidate were a Republican, but if elected would change the balance of power and prevent our issues from being passed, we might go for the Democrat. Occasionally, we must endorse a lesser candidate because they are more electable. The alternative could be supporting the most perfect candidate, throwing the election to an even lesser, third candidate – and then, what have we accomplished?

The best example of party-voting rather than voting for an individual would be the current US Senate race. With 58 Democrats and 40 Republicans, the minority party can essentially neuter the majority party by threatening a filibuster. It’s happening now and that’s why nearly 300 bills passed by the House are awaiting action by the Senate. Even if Sue Lowden (Rep.) was with us on 100% of our issues, it will simply be worse gridlock if Sen. Harry Reid (Dem.) is defeated. While the Democrats haven’t passed much of our desired reform, there’s no chance we’ll ever get any reform passed if the gridlock worsens. Yes, we want “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repealed but until the majority party has a super majority (60 or more), the Republicans will most likely kill the bill. Perhaps Sen. Harry Reid, as Majority Leader, isn’t your favorite but reducing his majority from 58 to 57, 56, 55 or less, will end any chance – no matter how remote – of getting any type of reform specifically for the LGBT community. The same argument can be put forth for the House of Representatives.

Partisan politics can get ridiculous but one must operate with the knowledge of how those politics can work in our favor or work against us. Partisan politics can’t simply be ignored.

As for those who complain about our endorsements, both publications and the endorsement committee stand by them. The arguments, pushed mainly by a local gay Republican group, offer plenty of criticism of our choices, push various Republican candidates but fail to mention which Democrats they would support. It’s true some politicians haven’t lived up to their promises but Republicans have been the primary stumbling blocks to reform sought by Democrats. Nearly every anti-gay ballot initiative, constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage, efforts to kill SB-283 (the Nevada Domestic Partner bill in the State Senate and the governor’s subsequent veto), laws against LGBT parents adopting children, and more, have been primarily pushed by Republicans.

I hope our critics are right proud of their record.