Successful advocacy organizations are like icebergs: you don't see them until they rip a hole in your ship's hull. Or, in this case, tear up the Eyeman campaign. The real action is on the DL. We hope.

Dan, if you want to find out what's going on, find out in private - off the record. Attacking organizations because they aren't good enough is counterproductive and scares people away from supporting a cause. Don't screw WWD over like you did Gay City. Help it. Beating Eyeman is more important than moving tabloids.

Hey, here's another question. Does "FNARF" stand for "Foolish Nitwit Airing Retarded Fodder"?

Second, she may be concerned in these days of litigation about a suit if she spills any beans if any are to be spilled. Sometimes, personalities don't fit inside organizations. Would the Stranger agree to pay for her legal expenses? This is not unheard of for print publications to do so in exchange for a source providing details they are otherwise reluctant to do.

Because she's now a private individual, it seems rather blase of you, Dan, to ask her to open up. I'm not defending her, the group, nor our legal system, but those are the parameters in which she's operating, and it may have some bearing.

For starters, it's spelled "Eyman." Current events!

And if WWD, ERW or another likeminded organization believes that voter education is a covert practice and that affecting change only occurs in secret, then that group's shortcomings most certainly should be brought public. And that group most certainly will not be receiving any part of my paycheck.

After all, this is not about who's sitting at whose lunch table. It's about promoting an important message and affecting change.

If Dan can't tell you you're full of s__t, who will? The voters?

The way to do that is to support a movement. That means either building faltering organizations or starting new ones. Is does NOT mean spilling barrels of sour ink at one group.

Nobody benefits when a media agency that supports a cause is also the leader of an attack on an organization doing the work. That just scares funders, leaders and volunteers. Remember, Blues, how the Reds have won. United. And how we have lost. Divided.

Dan. Unite us for change and, if necessary, help get a better organization off the ground. Don't kill our only hope just because you can.

BTW, Horatio, you misspelled "sans".

I agree that personal attacks on people are weird.

But.

I have seen little inkling of a "message" getting out.

I have seen little change affected, and Election Day is just about six months away.

All I have seen are the top folks in a few big-deal advocacy groups quit for nebulous hippie reasons.

If this is indeed the "only hope" vs. Tim Eyman's referendumb, it's looking pretty meek in the public eye -- no matter what The Stranger does or doesn't report.

From Lorrie's post it sounds like Eyman pulled a fast one on the title and the yes v. no vote. This also worries me.

Working in the gay community can be VERY difficult. It's horrible actually (dealing with all the in fighting and constant criticism)and will have an impact on our ability to recruit talent to this battle. But both McKay and Evans have been there before working for Hands Off Washington so I can't believe they both did not go in with eyes wide open.

They need a good campaign manager. Karen Cooper at Washington NARAL ran the campaign to successfully defeat 2 anti discrimination initiative in the 1990's -- maybe she would be willing to take a year off from NARAL to defeat this? Although CHOICE is under attack so I don't know if NARAL can spare her.

Who is on the board besides Levinson? I think Ann is smart and pragmatic but who else is there calling the shots. Ann was on the board of Hands Off Washington during the effort to defeat the initiatives. It was when she and some other campaign veterans like Cooper, Rollin Fatlian, etc. left that the organization lost its focus (a subject Mr. Savage brought up again recently in a port about WWD). We are going to need a real campaign with people who know what the hell they are doing. People who can run a 'decline to sign' educatiion effort, who can find a clear and concise message that resonates with undecided voters, and people who can recuit volunteers, donors and resources.

I am worried. The departure of both McKay and Evans is concerning.

I mean absolutely no disrespect to Lorrie when I say this. I think she is a fantastic field organizer and coalition builder but I am not sure of her ability to lead a campaign and keep it all together and moving in the right direction. I also don't think she has ever managed people or a big campaign before. She is smart and maybe she could have learned it on the job-- but maybe she is just not the right fit.

I hope WWD can hire a campaign manager who is a veteran. They need some real campaign strategy people, they need good media folks and they need an extensive field campaign. They will need a good campaign manager who can be a great leader and bring that all together and not get frazzled by the community and their incessant criticism of every decision this person will make.

For the good of us all let's hope WWD gets a great campaign manager as soon as possible.

My point is that we likely all have a different take on the people involved, the tactics, the direction, etc. Shit, that's just the way it is with us. Please refrain from the personal assessments. this could easily spin into yet another war of personalities and words, and then we all look like fucking idiots.

So sorry that McKay and Evans are gone. Will we crash like the monorail? Wait, remind me who was a top administrator for that misguided boondoggle?

See what I mean? The answer to that question only adds fuel. Let's avoid the infighting. otherwise we all look like idiots.