Basic Rights Oregon ignores an old political maxim

If you are going to be involved in politics, whether as an elected official, a lobbyist, an interest group, or a contributor who sometimes asks for a favor, one essential skill to have is how to support your friends without turning their political opponents into your enemies.  It’s a delicate skill that takes time to learn.  I once asked a backroom operator why he gave money to both candidates in a race, and he said cheerfully, "I like them all!"  Behind his jest was a point: he wanted to be on good terms with the eventual winner.  Even in races where he had a favorite, he made a point of not unnecessarily antagonizing the other candidates.  An 1940s-era operative who supported candidate A put this principle this way after B beat A: "We were for A, but we were never against B."

For the past several weeks a lively debate has been going on in other corners of the local blogosphere, and I suspect in conference rooms as well, about whether Basic Rights Oregon fumbled (Worldwide Pablo uses a different f-word here) this principle in how it handled the race between Diane Linn and Ted Wheeler for the Multnomah County Commission, where it clearly endorsed Ms. Linn. 

Some background, as I understand it (and please correct me if I get this wrong):  Basic Rights Oregon may endorse a candidate — that is, recommend voting for a candidate — but it mainly (exclusively?) "greenlights" candidates.  To "greenlight" a candidate means that BRO says that the candidate’s views on, and history with, issues of importance to gays and lesbians are acceptable to BRO.  A greenlight is not a recommendation to vote for that candidate, and BRO may greenlight several candidates in one race.

As chair of the Multnomah County Commission, Ms. Linn pushed through the county’s brief recognition of same-sex marriages, an issue of importance to gays and lesbians, and BRO understandably greenlighted her.  BRO did not, however, greenlight Mr. Wheeler, whose record on those issues apparently contains nothing objectionable to BRO but simply doesn’t contain enough that BRO considers positive.  A blog called "BRO Watch" started up, and many of the posts on BRO Watch argue that BRO acted against its rules, and against its best interests, when it decided not to greenlight Mr. Wheeler.  It would have been easy for BRO (and any group caught in a similar pickle) to say, "We find the views of both candidates acceptable.  We recommend voting for Candidate A because Candidate A went above and beyond the call of duty in taking action on an issue of importance to us."  One other reason BRO endorsed Ms. Linn and did not greenlight Mr. Wheeler is that it followed the apothegm "Dance with them that brung you," and Ms. Linn did put her political capital on the line to support same-sex marriage for BRO.

As it happened, the issue of same-sex marriage didn’t affect the outcome of the Linn-Wheeler race.  About 40% of the Multnomah County voters voted against Measure 36, the statewide ban on same-sex marriage, in November 2004, but only 20% voted to re-elect Diane Linn, so it’s clear that a fair number of the supporters of same-sex marriage voted for Mr. Wheeler.

I predict that Mr. Wheeler will give the members of Basic Rights Oregon a respectful hearing, if they should call on him after he takes office, but BRO won’t have the same access and influence at the county that it enjoyed during Ms. Linn’s administration.  But BRO shouldn’t be surprised or offended if Mr. Wheeler saves most of his dances for "them that brung him."

[BlueOregon has an extensive discussion, here.]