They are where they are because in the past they have made valuable contributions and because people pay attention to them, and what they do does reflect on skepticism in general. They don't have to be elected for them to be the public face of skepticism as far as, for instance, the media are concerned (the current round of drama got started in part because Rebecca said in a newspaper interview that skepticism wasn't safe for women). This kind of thing also gives ammunition to quacks who can deflect any criticism by pointing out how unserious skeptics are.
It all depends on what you want skepticism to be. If it's a venue for astrophysics trivia and dilution jokes (and there is nothing wrong with either), then this kind of thing is irrelevant noise. But if you (a) like the community in general and/or (b) think that good can come from skeptical activism (whether it's making sure that tax money isn't spent on quackery or providing a counterweight to popular nonsense that makes the world a dumber place), then recent events do have ramifications, and caring about them and wanting to avoid them in the future is entirely reasonable.