These opinions warrantied for the lifetime of your brain.

Loading Table of Contents...

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Still No Evidence Of A DPI Conspiracy

Rob is right that ExCom as a body had no more notice about the DPI endorsement than the line on that morning's printed agenda.  However, Rob is wrong to say that this amount of notice amounts to "blindsiding".  For example, there was no more notice given in Sep 2007 for our endorsements at that month's meeting of the ANSWER anti-war rally and the AB43 gay marriage bill.

Rob is also wrong to suggest that before this agenda item was discussed there was some kind of factional split between DPI "supporters" and "opponents", so that "backers" of DPI could "blindside" its opponents.  I doubt if anybody on ExCom besides the 3 Outright members and our Chair had even heard of DPI before the meeting.

Rob is also very likely wrong to claim that the resolution wouldn't have passed if ExCom knew then what it knows now. I doubt Rob can name a single ExCom member who now says he would vote differently, especially after Rob's press release said we "endorsed a massive federal tax hike".  (Is this an example of the political acumen of the Outright leadership?)

Rob, thank you for admitting that the passage of DPI would not harm your family, and would in fact not only help your family (by repealing Prop 8) but would (according to you) cost my family thousands of dollars.  I continue to find it odd for you to worry that LPCA endorsement of DPI could put Prop 8 repeal at risk, when only a couple of weeks ago you were itching to bet that the 1% vote total of a paper LPCA candidate for governor could never tip an election away from Tom Campbell.  Maybe I'll change my mind about the political calculus when (as you claim is imminent) the LA Times finally exposes the conservative conspiracy behind DPI.

Debra complained that Outright wasn't consulted, and it's clearly more relevant to know that half of Outright's national officers were in the room than to know merely that two were in the room. But of course, I gave both pieces of information.  Meanwhile, Rob, you say that 0% of the Outright officers supported the DPI endorsement, but what you don't tell our readers is that the other Outright officer abstained rather than vote with you.  (Similarly, you conveniently declined to point out that you were going to resign even before you knew about the DPI resolution.)  Thus only 1 of the 3 Outright members in the room opposed the resolution.

What this comes down to is a set of questions for your political intuitions:
  • Do you think DPI is a Republican/conservative conspiracy?
  • Do you think DPI has any chance in hell of getting the 700K signatures needed to get on the ballot?
  • Do you think that DPI somehow getting on the ballot would delay Prop 8 repeal?
  • Do you think that the Obama/Pelosi regime would let DPI passage cost married Californians hundreds of billions in lost tax advantage?
  • Do you fear (rather than welcome) a hypothetical game of chicken between DOMA and millions of married Californians?
  • Do you think "marriage" is a label that the LP should try to help win back from the religious right using electoral politics, instead of having the LP advocate for government neutrality in the culture war?
Rob apparently answers a confident "yes" to each of these questions, but my answers for now are all still provisionally "no".  If Rob ever does come up with evidence that DPI is a conservative conspiracy, then I will move to reconsider our endorsement.