Unleashed!

by on

Jon’s post on the CPAC Crack-Up glosses over the most important part of this story: GOProud.  In fact, Jon doesn’t even mention them by name, referring only to “a gay Republican group.”

Credit where credit is due.  In the more than three decades of its existence the Log Cabin Republicans never provoked this level of anguish and inflammation in its party – or, more accurately, this level of public anguish and inflammation.  Log Cabin has been a private thorn in the party’s side since 1977, but up until now, the party has been able to brush them aside in its public pronouncements.

But it’s also true that Log Cabin has been something of a team player.  In contrast, GOProud is the Republican ACT UP.

And I mean that in a literal sense.  GOProud is unleashing power.  Republicans have spent a lot of political energy in the last decade trying to finesse and manage their religious problem, while benefiting from it electorally.  The religious wing of the party expects all people who call themselves “conservatives” to share their abhorrence of and intolerance for open and honest homosexuality.  The party has given them lip service; pledges and resistance to progress, and even a couple of outspoken backbenchers who show all the signs of being true believers.

They also gave them Texas.

But no political party can live with intolerance indefinitely; compromise always creeps in, and the world outside the party can’t be denied for long.  Lesbians and gay men aren’t going away, and it’s hard to maintain the closet as an institution if they keep refusing to cooperate.  Today, there are simply too many examples of decent, moral, public and powerful homosexuals to sustain the notion that “they” are evil or harmful or much of anything other than fellow citizens, friends, coworkers, neighbors and family members.

Republican leaders have suppressed their party’s best instincts about this for too long, and GOProud is, as ACT-UP did before it, unleashing the power that’s been there all along.  GOProud can be as juvenile and theatrical as their predecessors, but they are also, like ACT-UP, a deeply serious group – as this reaction to their existence shows.

Maybe the timing is better for them than it ever was for Log Cabin.  Or maybe Log Cabin’s political strategy wasn’t what was needed to blow up the party’s entrenched hypocrisy.  But either way, GOProud is now forcing their party to have a public conversation about a fundamental question that has been kept at the margins: What would Republican conservatism look like if it weren’t anti-gay?

That won’t be resolved at CPAC.  But it’s a question whose resolution will affect a lot of people, gay and straight, Republican and Democratic.

66 Comments for “Unleashed!”

  1. posted by BobN on

    Ha!

    In contrast, GOProud is the Republican ACT UP.

    Yes, I remember those days of ACT UP activists surrounding big-pharma corporate headquarters and shouting approving rah-rah chants at the CEOs and executive committees, thanking them for their callousness and lavishing praise on their policies.

    The idea that GOProud is somehow pushing the envelope of gay rights in the GOP is ABSURD. The only reason they were even invited to CPAC is that they are GOP-first toadies. I can’t believe I’m defending LCR, but they weren’t invited because they’re too PRO-GAY.

    This is the weirdest thing I’ve ever read from Link. There’s looking for a silver lining and then there’s gulping down hallucinogens…

    • posted by John on

      I never would have made the connection myself, especially because I despise ACT-UP, but the comparison does have some merit. Understand that we are talking about a group of Republican gays being the “ACT-UP of the GOP”, so while their actions may differ from the original group they will be seen as being just as radical by many of their fellow Republicans. So the fact that they are “GOP-first toadies”, as you put it, is actually something in their favor for getting their message through to non-gay “GOP-first toadies”. What surprises you about this BobN? It’s not like the Stonewall Democrats, HRC, NGLTF, or any of the plethora of other liberal gay groups are going to be able to reach Republicans effectively. I personally see GOProud as a waste of time overall, but it is proving useful to some extent as these stunts at CPAC are showing.

      • posted by Throbert McGee on

        I personally see GOProud as a waste of time overall, but it is proving useful to some extent as these stunts at CPAC are showing.

        WHAT stunts?!

        To the extent that anyone has been engaged in theatrical stunts at CPAC, it has been the opponents of GOProud, such as Ryan Sorba last year and FRC & Friends this year — but not GOProud itself, whose biggest “stunt” to date has been hiring Ann Coulter to do her schtick at a private GOProud event.

        Now, if GOProud had successfully goaded the libertarian side into expelling FRC & Friends from CPAC, that would surely count as “unleashing power.” But let’s recall that the theocons weren’t booted from CPAC; they walked out voluntarily. Not only that, but FRC — one of the most powerful theocon groups — has been investing energy and money in its own “conservative summit” for several years now. So when FRC and its allies announced their boycott of CPAC, they weren’t bravely walking out into the cold and rain as a show of principle; they were walking to a different home (the “Values Voter Summit”) that they’ve been preparing for themselves for some time already.

        Add to this the facts that the debate over legal recognition for same-sex couples was about a decade old before GOProud was even founded, and that the fiscally-oriented Tea Party movement was also vying for conservative loyalty well before anyone had heard of GOProud, and it seems over the top to credit GOProud as being anything more than a minor and late catalyst in a sequence of developments that was already moving under its own steam.

        • posted by John on

          I was including groups reacting to GOProud when I said “stunts”.

  2. posted by Jorge on

    This is the weirdest thing I’ve ever read from Link.

    Given that he is generally the center-left part of Culture Watch, I certainly do find his analysis surprising.

    I think GOProud is the Republican ACT UP, and that the LCR has been a GLBTeam player. And I’ll keep to that view until I see evidence otherwise.

    I can’t believe I’m defending LCR, but they weren’t invited because they’re too PRO-GAY.

    That wouldn’t surprise me, but is that actually true?

    But either way, GOProud is now forcing their party to have a public conversation about a fundamental question that has been kept at the margins: What would Republican conservatism look like if it weren’t anti-gay?

    Ah, yes, that question has been on the margins for a while now.

    http://oldarchive.godspy.com/reviews/Gay-Conservative-Writer-Disgusted-By-Pride-Weekend-An-Interview-With-Steve-Yuhas.cfm.html

    Such a philosophy is extremely dangerous to the left because, when you avoid the bigotry trap everyone else falls into, you can argue a hard-line social conservative position (including on gay rights) very convincingly. Hence the need to deride gay conserva-wackos as uncle Toms.

    Not incidentally, Steve Yuhas is (or was) on GOProud’s advisory council. (At least I thought he was, but I can’t find any mention of it on the internet anymore.) But so are some people a lot more moderate than he is.

    ANYWAY, the time will come when GOProud will be forced to declare its stand, or it’s decision not to make a stand at all, on the gay rights issues it has not addressed.

    Fair statement?

  3. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    Perhaps we need a posting of what the gay and lesbian community is demanding be done today.

    Sarah Palin should be called in for questioning NOW!

    The Republican Party is a criminal organization that should be shut down by the authorities and indicted for conspiracy to murder.

    • posted by John on

      Joe Jervis is not the “gay and lesbian community”. He is a radical leftist blogger.

      Also, just to be clear I am not the “John” who commented earlier.

      • posted by Jimmy on

        Just exactly what makes Joe a “radical”?

        Let’s not forget Sharron Angle suggesting people “take up 2nd Amendment remedies” to get rid of members of congress they don’t like.

        Time and time again , in this country, we see that domestic terrorism usually appears in the form of some wound-too-tight anti-social, anti-government, right-wing nut who loses it and starts shooting up the place, or blows up a building full of women and children.

        • posted by John on

          I’ve read enough of his writings. He is definitely a racial leftist.

          Why do you presume I would find Sharron Angle any better? She’s a nutjob.

          • posted by jimmy on

            “Why do you presume I would find Sharron Angle any better? She’s a nutjob.”

            I didn’t. I’m pointing out that Palin is not solely to blame. Both of them are cut from the cloth.

            “I’ve read enough of his writings. He is definitely a ‘radical’ leftist.”

            If you say so.

        • posted by Jorge on

          Time and time again , in this country, we see that domestic terrorism usually appears in the form of

          In this century? Don’t go there.

          We’re just counting our blessings the shooter wasn’t a Hispanic.

        • posted by Jorge on

          Sorry. I need to respond to the Sharon Angle thing, now that one of North Dallas Thirty’s links links showed the context.

          Angle: I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who’s in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical…

          Manders: If we needed it at any time in history, it might be right now.

          Angle: Well it’s to defend ourselves. And you know, I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.

          On second thought that’s a little disturbing. I agree with her on the first point. And I agree with her on the second point (talen alone it sounds like she was referring to the open borders problem.) But not taken together.

      • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

        Funny, John, his statements and beliefs blaming Sarah Palin, Republicans, and religious people are endorsed by your fellow gay marriage supporter and official Courage Campaign blogger Rob Tisinai.

        Seems quite mainstream and reflective of the attitude of the gay and lesbian community.

        Not to mention Jimmy’s defense below.

        • posted by Jimmy on

          It’s hardly radical to blame those who are at fault.

          • posted by John on

            I see nothing indicating that the folks mentioned are at fault.

        • posted by John on

          I see where Tisinai is blaming rhetoric from Palin, Angle and Jesse Kelly for helping create a climate where such violence can occur. I share his concern about the inappropriateness of some of their statements but believe his overall analysis is less-than-convincing. It’s obvious he put that post together quickly and allowed his emotions so soon after the shooting to get the better of him. So? Tisinai is liberal to be sure but I haven’t seen from his writings that he is radical like Jervis is.

    • posted by Jorge on

      “Sarah Palin’s Rifle Crosshairs Targeted Rep. Gabrielle Giffords For Elimination”

      Oh, lovely. ND30, in trying to link us to the gay looniverse, instead gives me my second helping of the far-left looniverse today, only this time from an actual website instead of one of the loony left thrall-soldiers. And the first such website being a gay website. Hey, I guess that is the gay looniverse, after all.

      Don’t you wish this guy would use his critical eye and actually call these guys loons instead of making such gross generalizations?

      All right, “gay and lesbian community”, lets’s see what you guys really say about that.

      …..

      “people tend to pooh-pooh the vitriol,… by people doing that… That may befree speech, but it’s not without consequences.” [The Sheriff at the News conference just a few seconds ago]

      Oh FUDGE! I can’t believe he said that.

      Well, I’ll let him off easy without judging, but I deny it. I DENY it.

    • posted by John D on

      I know that Joe Jervis is not some skinny twink, but isn’t it sizeist to call him “the gay community”? He’s one gay man who has a popular blog, not some official representative of the gay community.

      Come to think of it, there aren’t any official representatives of the gay community.

      North Dallas Thirty disagrees with Jervis. NDT is gay. Therefore, the gay community disagrees with Mr. Jervis. It’s so simple.

      • posted by John on

        I see this mentality on both sides which drives me nuts. Politically on most issues I do not agree with liberals. I find some of their hardcore activists to be beneath contempt, but you know what? I see the same on the right among conservatives as well who are so blinded by their own partisanship that they cannot see their blatant hypocrisy. Being an a-hole transcends political afflications I guess you can say. Just because I disagree with someone doesn’t make them an a-hole. It just makes them wrong and blinded to the truth of my own brilliance since I am, after all, a legend in my own mind.

  4. posted by avee on

    The only reason they were even invited to CPAC is that they are GOP-first toadies.

    You are not invited to CPAC; you sign-up and pay the fee.

    I can’t believe I’m defending LCR, but they weren’t invited because they’re too PRO-GAY.

    LCR sees itself as the gay lobby within the GOP; GOProud defines itself as gays working for the broader conservative cause (but also supporting legal equality). LCR, I suspect, has no interest in attending CPAC. If they did, there is no reason to assume they’d be excluded.

    • posted by BobN on

      You are not invited to CPAC; you sign-up and pay the fee.

      To attend, perhaps. To co-sponsor, the executive committee (or whatever) votes to include you or not. GOProud, as I recall, got a tie on the first vote and barely won the second vote.

    • posted by BobN on

      And one more thing, GOProud most certainly does not support legal equality. They remain opposed or non-committal on the greatest questions of equality facing us: non-discrimination and legal recognition of our relationships.

  5. posted by John on

    If you’re going to cherry-pick from comments, you should also pay attention to the people congratulating Palin today for the same.

  6. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    I’m sorry, John, could you provide a link to what you’re claiming? And would you also state that you, as a gay man, believe Sarah Palin ordered the attack on Gabrielle Giffords, and that your attitude is in fact very typical of gay and lesbian people?

    • posted by Jorge on

      Let’s look in the forest of Sarah Palin references and see what we find.

      Radaronline.com cites the connectios neutrally. Oh, let’s look at the comments…. no.

      cbsnews.com reports the criticism of Sarah Palin neutrally. The comments again reveal a no.

      I’m afraid the comments of both are about half split between people who blame Sarah Palin and those who think it’s ridiculous to blame Sarah Palin, but so far I haven’t found anyone cheering the incident.

      I reeeally don’t want to enter a “your radicals are nuttier than ours” argument but I think it’s probably inevitable.

    • posted by John on

      I’ll dig, see if I can find it. Was from a link in the rush of twitter posts yesterday.

      And would I say that she “ordered” the attack? Nah. I would say that influential politicians and figures (such as Palin) were probably *influential* in this, in that when you purposefully throw out violent rhetoric you can’t be surprised when someone (stable or not) takes you up on it, but that’s different then being responsible in the sense of pulling the trigger.

      And is my attitude is typical of gay and lesbians everywhere? How the fuck would I know. I live in a small town of 8000 people in the middle of a desert with maybe a handful of glbt folk that I know of. I certainly have no idea what *their* attitude is, nevertheless people I’ve never met.

      My comment really was quite simple: if people are going to cherry pick from the comment threads of a gay blogger as an example of what “the gays” think, then it’s only equally (un)fair to cherry pick from other comment threads for what “the right” thinks. The implied take-home message being, of course, that you’ll probably get a wrong impression in both cases.

      • posted by John on

        Found it. Reportedly taken from Sarah Palin’s facebook page: http://yfrog.com/gzpcdzj

        Also was some fun stuff on Free Republic, I believe, but I think they scrubbed all that off (whether you think they *should* self-censor in the wake of a tragedy or not is up to you).

        Take it as you will.

        • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

          Oh, I definitely will take it that way — as an example of the hypocrisy of the gay and lesbian community.

          You see, before gays and lesbians here were claiming this:

          Not even you can reasonably expect anyone to be persuaded by such tenuous threads… “Looky! I’ve found a commenter who said something ridiculous! Now I can just copy and paste and show that “the gay community” == this loon! Q.E.D.”

          But now, when you post it, that can then be taken and generalized to everyone and that is completely valid reasoning.

          • posted by John on

            … you know, I was going to respond to this seriously, but now I’m just baffled at this entire thread.

            I start off with a comment about the dangers of cherry-picking comments, respond when asked and clarify that my point was that it’s dangerously unfair to paint a group from a comment from the fringe, and, because asked, provide a link to a extreme fringe comment.

            And you’ve somehow taken this to mean that I’m trying to paint Sarah Palin as… well, *anything*. And decided that I’m retroactively persuading people to blame *anyone* for *anything*. Because clearly me linking to an extreme-right fringe comment on Sarah Palin’s facebook page, without comment, is enough to go back in time and persuade people *before I linked it*.

            I mean fuck, razz the newb I suppose, but talk about not discussing in good faith.

          • posted by Jorge on

            That’s life on intelligent political comment threads: you get accused of being a conservative, a liberal, an atheist, or a bible fanatic by people a couple of feet short of paranoid schizophrenia. You want the real paranoid schizophrenics, go to Yahoo or cbsnews.com.

            I wasn’t going to respond to your rebuttal at first, but what the hey. The fact that they scrubbed the right wing cheering off kinda wrecks my lazy assertion that the left wing nuts vastly outnumber the right wing psychos. I’m sure it’d hold up, but I’m not interested in making a meaningful study of the question.

  7. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    And now the gay and lesbian community really seems to be showing its true colors with this latest comment over on Box Turtle Bulletin:

    How would the GOP (Gods own personal) react to Sarah Palin being shot or one of her children in revenge of the 9 year old girl?

    Calling for revenge killings. Gee, where would they get the idea that Sarah Palin or one of her children should be killed? Maybe from the “irresponsible rhetoric” that Box Turtle Bulletin and other gay and lesbian sites are posting about Sarah Palin assassinating Gabrielle Giffords?

    • posted by Christopher K. on

      Oh, c’mon ND30 — you’re not even trying! It’s like your heart just isn’t in it anymore.

      Not even you can reasonably expect anyone to be persuaded by such tenuous threads… “Looky! I’ve found a commenter who said something ridiculous! Now I can just copy and paste and show that “the gay community” == this loon! Q.E.D.”

      • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

        Sure I can.

        After all, you seem quite persuaded by “John”, don’t you?

        John January 9, 2011 at 7:28 pm

        Found it. Reportedly taken from Sarah Palin’s facebook page: http://yfrog.com/gzpcdzj

        Also was some fun stuff on Free Republic, I believe, but I think they scrubbed all that off (whether you think they *should* self-censor in the wake of a tragedy or not is up to you).

        So why is it, Christopher, that it isn’t a valid argument — unless you desperately need it to attack Republicans and smear Sarah Palin?

        Are gays and lesbians like you capable of following your own standards?

        • posted by John on

          While you are, of course, entitled to your own opinions, I’d appreciate it if you don’t purposefully misrepresent my own.

          • posted by BobN on

            You’re really better off just ignoring him.

    • posted by John on

      Funny how you pick something from a commentor at Box Turtle Bulletin to include in your indictment of all gays, but ignore what the hosts of that blog themselves actually say:

      I know there are a lot of people tempted to indict the Tea Party. About an hour ago, I would have been first in line with the pitchfork and torches. But I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. Yes, Loughner’s talk of language, currency, unconstitutional police actions — these are all topics that are favorites of tea-partiers, but the concepts that the tea party is pushing are utterly absent in Loughner’s videos. Instead, what clear to me is that he is trying to do what a lot of people with the most serious cases of schizophrenia are trying to do. He is trying to create some sort of ordered structure out of the chaotic shards of his perceptions. And failing. I’ve seen this too many times before.
      http://tinyurl.com/2dpa7kz

      • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

        Funny how a commenter from Sarah Palin’s Facebook page trumps anything she says, isn’t it?

        • posted by John on

          While you are, of course, entitled to your own opinions, I’d thank you to not purposefully misrepresent mine.

        • posted by John on

          Wrong “John”, NDT. I personally could care less about Sarah Palin’s Facebook page nor attach much importance to a commentor at some blog.

          • posted by John on

            A peril of a common name, I suppose. I should probably take the time to get a pic up.

            Either way, I didn’t attach importance either, I was just using it as an example of why you shouldn’t generalize from cherry picked comments.

      • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

        Actually, you’re missing a good meltdown by Jim Burroway.

        There is a massive, massive difference between using non-violent potty language on the one hand, and on the other drawing gunsight targets on congressional districts, carrying firearms to rallies, accusing Democratic opponents of instituting “death panels”, singling out fellow citizens for infringements of their constitutional rights as a matter of law, sending package bombs in the mail to Homeland Security, bashing out windows of Gifford’s congressional office after she voted for health care reform, sending white powder to the congressional offices of another Arizona Democratic congressman, and insinuating that opponents are not just un-American, but also, in some cases, non-American.

        Interestingly enough, I don’t believe that the investigations of the mail bombs, window smashing, and white powder have turned up any suspects — and yet here Jim Burroway is trying to claim that Sarah Palin and Republicans were responsible for all of them.

        In short, Burroway is being dishonest, as is typical for him.

        • posted by John on

          Why are you lying, once again? Burroway made no such claim about Palin or Republicans culpability in this recent shooting. Instead, he rejected any moral equivalency claims about the FCKH8. Now as much as you may strongly disagree with him on this, he still isn’t saying what you claim he is. Instead, he is saying the exact opposite and indeed in an earlier comment says this:

          I am very angry at what the teahadists have done to our political culture. But I’m looking for specific evidence that Loughton was in any way influenced. I don’t see it yet. I’m not saying it’s not there or we won’t see it in the future as we learn more (especially if we learn something about the other “person of interest.”) But right now, there is a profound lack of evidence tying Loughton to the tea party, or even its rhetoric. Teahadists are more than happy to do the whole guilt-by-association thing, and carry it to its most asinine conclusions. But I won’t. I’m looking for evidence. And unless you’re not better than the tea party, you shouldn’t either.

          Burroway obviously is not a fan of the TEA Party movement and his own pet label for its followers hardly helps the case he is trying to make. Yet I don’t see here where Burroway is blaming the GOP or Palin for the shooting, instead I see where he is denying such linkage.

          • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

            My advice, John; stop trying to spin for Jim Burroway and his bigotry.

            Because it’s getting pretty darn obvious.

            But as we were driving around town, we heard on the radio that the second person of interest turned out to be Jared Loughner’s taxicab driver. The driver accompanied Loughner into the Safeway while Loughner got change to pay the driver. He had nothing to do with the shooting. And with that, the most promising immediate link that may have tied the shooting to extremist right-wing rhetoric has vanished once again.

            Let me emphasize: it’s not to say that there is no link. But if there is one, no evidence has been disclosed for it yet. So if someone wants to claim that there is one, they better come up with some sort of hard facts for it. So far, none has surfaced. And believe me, if it does, I will be among the most eager to put that evidence right here.

            That’s because, setting aside whatever Loughner’s motivations may be, I firmly believe that because of the political climate exemplified by that billboard, we are living in extremely dangerous times. And whatever demonization taking place on the far left pales, in terms of both the scope and the influence, to the far greater demonization from the far right that is amplified daily on Fox News and Clear Channel. I believe that as strongly as I do that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

            And this is the most pathetic statement of all:

            Given what we know today, I see no reason why those of us who consider ourselves progressives can’t concede that Palin, Limbaugh, and the others got lucky (if you can call it that) and that they probably aren’t responsible this time.

            “Concede”? What is there for “progressives” to “concede”? That Palin, Limbaugh, and others are not guilty of the crime of which the bigot Burroway and his fellows accused them of completely without evidence?

            Jim Burroway and the gay and lesbian community he represents are accusing Palin, Limbaugh, Republicans, Tea Partiers, and religious people of murder COMPLETELY WITHOUT FACTS — and then trying to pompously “concede” that these people are not guilty of the immediate accusation Burroway and the gay and lesbian community made against them.

            This is bullshit. And it needs to be sent far and wide to every religious person, every Republican, every Tea Partier, and so forth — the gay and lesbian community is accusing you of murder even as they admit they have no evidence or proof of it.

          • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

            And here’s the link for Burroway’s latest example of bigotry.

          • posted by Jorge on

            And here’s the link for Burroway’s latest example of bigotry.

            zzzzz

            Even I find it interesting that for all his imagination and vigilance, North Dallas Thirty never could have broken the CPAC story, never would have broken the CPAC story, and probably never will admit that it is a story in the first place.

            I mean we have here a situation where we have demonstrably proven that only a fraction of the gay community is bigoted enough to even be suspicious of the right’s culpability in the Arizona shooting–and demonstrably proven that nothing more than suspicion exists among said fraction. All to mask a situation in which not just a few individuals, but multiple organizations are bigoted enough to refuse to be in the same tent as a gay organization.

            That is not an invitation to post even more F-grade citations that the gay community is bigoted, ND30, unless those are direct links about CPAC.

            I mean, wow, people accuse me of being in denial but I must say I’d be hard-pressed to think of the damage to your psyche were you to acknowledge that there are famous, highly reputable conservative organizations that refuse to be in the same room as people who do nothing more than admit they are gay. Would be well worth it, though.

          • posted by John on

            My advice, John; stop trying to spin for Jim Burroway and his bigotry.

            Burroway is a big boy and can do his own spin. Like I said, I do not agree with him nor is obviously a fan of the TEA Party and other groups on the right. So what. He still isn’t saying what you’ve accused him of saying, even if you do not like what he is actually saying. This isn’t so much about defending him as responding to your hypocritical whining about how the left is engaging in dangerous stereotyping while such is a staple of your posts. Every time you post it is always the worst demonization and generalization about liberals, “fake” conservatives, the “gay and lesbian community”, etc. You are so woefully guilty of that which you are crying about coming from the left that it’s pathetic.

        • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

          I mean, wow, people accuse me of being in denial but I must say I’d be hard-pressed to think of the damage to your psyche were you to acknowledge that there are famous, highly reputable conservative organizations that refuse to be in the same room as people who do nothing more than admit they are gay. Would be well worth it, though.

          You know what, Jorge?

          There are famous, highly reputable conservative organizations that refuse to be in the same room as people who do nothing more than admit they are gay.

          See? Very simple. No damage incurred.

          But you know what else?

          There are famous, highly reputable conservative organizations that are perfectly fine to be in the same room as people who do nothing more than admit they are gay.

          AND there are famous, highly reputable conservative organizations that are quite pleased that they will be in the same room as people who do nothing more than admit they are gay.

          That’s kind of why I don’t see this as much of a story. Having worked with several nonprofits on conferences and fundraisers, I’m well aware of the “if we invite them, so-and-so won’t come” mentality. You can either take it as a monumental slight or write it off to free association, and over time, you learn that doing what you think is important and writing rejections off to free association is by far the most adult, rational, and intelligent solution to the issue.

          I mean, seriously. The only reason it would bother me that such and such groups weren’t at CPAC is if I needed their presence to validate my existence, and I don’t. What exactly are you asking me to do?

          And also, I’ll flip-side that. When do you intend to ask all the gays and lesbians commenting, i.e. BobN, Jimmy, and Tom, how the fact that there are famous, highly reputable conservative organizations who not only are OK with gays being at their gatherings, but are even actively encouraging it, lines up with their “ZOMG!ALLCONSERVATIVESWANTTO PURGEGAYSFROMEXISTENCE!ELEVENTY!!!!!!!!” mindset.

          • posted by Jorge on

            I must admit I’m surprised you went that far. I appreciate it.

            What exactly are you asking me to do?

            Show a little deviation from time to time. Be a 90/10 split so that you say novel things and are sometimes unpredictable as new events happen. Even that spiel you gave on why this is not a big story to you, well we need to hear that.

            And also, I’ll flip-side that…

            You mean to suggest that they’re arch-left to your arch-right, or whatever. The difference (where I recognize one) is that they concede about 10% of the time and their intensity varies a lot depending on the topic and the circumstances. There’s arch, and there’s rubber stamp arch. They also take the time to rebut and respond to the topic at hand that they think is “not much of a story”. So the dissent is much more about ideology and judgment.

    • posted by Jorge on

      Let me respond to your citing those posts by Andrew Sullivan and Pam Spaulding, because that would be serious if your point stood.

      Sullivan says nothing worth noting. He doesn’t call the incident an assassination, he asks whether it is an assassination. For example:

      “We don’t know who tried to kill congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (she appears to be still alive) and we should be very cautious in drawing any conclusions yet about why. But we can know that, whoever tried to kill her and for whatever reason, political rhetoric involving words like “target” and “gun-sights” is inherently irresponsible.”

      …

      “Giffords was one of twenty members of Congress placed within metaphorical “gun-sights” in SarahPac’s graphic. That is not the same thing as placing a gun-sight over someone’s face or person. No one can possibly believe – or should – that Sarah Palin is anything but horrified by what has taken place. But it remains the kind of rhetorical excess which was warned about at the time, and which loners can use to dreadful purposes.”

      I don’t approve, but it’s a perfectly mature posting.

      As for Pam:

      “The violence in the language perpetrated by the right wing has consequences.

      …

      “Now most people of any political stripe would not take this bombastic lunacy seriously, but the eliminationist fringe that the right wing pretends doesn’t exist in its ranks when it’s not convenient is populated by gun-toting, unbalanced people who are pumped up by this rhetoric in ways that lead them to act out. As I noted earlier, one has to ask why all the site scrubbing if the right wing thinks the shooter isn’t one of “their own?”
      ”

      I REALLY don’t approve, but that’s not beyond the limit of my tolerance. So my question to you is: what are the liberals and moderates here going to say about it, and what is our national “leadership” going to say?

      The first has already been answered to my satisfaction. You have a strange way of interpreting good information.

  8. posted by Throbert McGee on

    (I disagree with David Link on a lot, but I never thought I’d be arguing that he’s giving a Gay Republican group more positive credit than they’ve actually earned!)

  9. posted by Throbert McGee on

    @avee:

    LCR, I suspect, has no interest in attending CPAC. If they did, there is no reason to assume they’d be excluded.

    I can think of two reasons they might be excluded:

    (1) They’re better established than GOProud — which is arguably two guys with a mailing list — and theoretically would bring in more gay members to CPAC than GOProud could currently hope to do. But from CPAC’s perspective, more attendees isn’t necessarily better, if those prospective attendees are all gonna be, you know, gay. (I’m reminded of an All in the Family episode where Mike is shocked to learn that a regular at Kelsey’s Bar is gay, and Kelsey has known this all along. Kelsey explains that he doesn’t mind this particular gay guy because he doesn’t bring in any of his gay friends with him — Kelsey, of course, doesn’t want his bar getting a reputation as a hangout for fairies. So, a handful of openly gay members isn’t a problem for CPAC, but a lot of gay members might be.)

    (2) Remember, one of the events that precipitated the founding of GOProud was LCR’s refusal, in 2004, to endorse Dubya over John Fuckin’ Kerry (because of Dubya’s support for the FMA). When a group with “Republican” in its name declines, on the basis of ONE issue, to endorse the Republican Presidential candidate over the Democrat — in a Presidental election that is expected to be very close — that’s kind of a big deal! Mind you, I’m not sure if CPAC is even aware of this particular detail in the histories of LCR and GOProud, but if it came to their attention, it’d be pretty reasonable of them to hold this point against LCR.

    • posted by Throbert McGee on

      Remember, one of the events that precipitated the founding of GOProud was LCR’s refusal, in 2004, to endorse Dubya over John Fuckin’ Kerry (because of Dubya’s support for the FMA).

      Just to be clear, I don’t think it was wrong for LCR to repudiate Bush over his FMA endorsement — I mean, I’m aware of how radical the early versions of FMA were, and that a number of non-gay Republicans also criticized Bush for backing a measure that was so sweepingly federal and hostile to state autonomy.

      I’m just saying that if anything might disqualify LCR as a CPAC member, the snubbing of Bush in 2004 seems like the most obvious.

    • posted by Jorge on

      Question.

      If the group is a gathering of conservatives rather than Republicans, how is a failure to endorse Bush or McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, based on ONE issue relevant? Are there no other organizations in CPAC that place their own narrow agendas ahead of where the Republican party happens to stand at the time?

      Answer: Some of these organizations have declined to endorse CPAC based on what amounts to even less than ONE issue. It’s interesting the way the axe of ideological purity cuts, isn’t it?

      • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

        If the group is a gathering of conservatives rather than Republicans, how is a failure to endorse Bush or McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, based on ONE issue relevant?

        Actually, Jorge, there is some color commentary that needs to be added to that statement.

        First, Log Cabin did not just fail to endorse Bush and other Republicans; they spent a million or so dollars on advertising ATTACKING Bush and other Republicans.

        Second off, the primary source of funding for Log Cabin Republicans, including said advertising attacking Republicans and Republican candidates, turns out to be the Obama Party.

        I fail to see how or why a group made up primarily of conservatives should support or accept a group that spends millions of dollars annually attacking conservatives and conservative candidates with the bulk of its funding for doing so provided by liberals.

      • posted by Throbert McGee on

        If the group is a gathering of conservatives rather than Republicans, how is a failure to endorse Bush or McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, based on ONE issue relevant?

        It’s interesting the way the axe of ideological purity cuts, isn’t it?

        I hear what you’re saying, Jorge, but you reached for the wrong metaphorical tool in the metaphorical shed.

        Try: The nail that sticks out farthest gets hammered down first.

        That said, I can’t deny that it was the gay factor that made GOProud the most conspicuous outlier (i.e., the nail that caught the religious right’s eye, though in this case, GOProud did not get hammered down)

  10. posted by avee on

    the primary source of funding for Log Cabin Republicans, including said advertising attacking Republicans and Republican candidates, turns out to be the Obama Party.

    That’s way over the top distortion, and it’s why so many people dismiss you, NDT.

    LCR accpeted money from openly gay entrepreneur Tim Gill’s foundation. Gill also gave money to HRC and others. He says he gives money to all who are seriously working for gay equality, regardless of party affiliation. LCR felt that Bush’s backing of the Federal Marriage Amendment, writing into the U.S. Consitution language that would permanently make gay people second class citizens, was a major assault on our rights, and it was. Even John McCain was against the FMA and called in “un-Republican.”

    For what it’s worth, LCR has new leadership now that strikes a much more conservative tone on non-gay issues, in part in response to GOProud, no doubt.

  11. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    LCR accpeted money from openly gay entrepreneur Tim Gill’s foundation. Gill also gave money to HRC and others. He says he gives money to all who are seriously working for gay equality, regardless of party affiliation.

    That’s interesting, because Gill gave scads of money to John Kerry, who was going around proclaiming how he had the “same position” as Bush and extolling the value of state constitutional amendments like Missouri’s to “do what’s right”.

    So I think we can safely say that, if constitutional amendments are anti-equality, then Tim Gill funds anti-equality politicians. It would be more accurate to state that Tim Gill funds Obama Party politicians and attacks on Republicans regardless of their stances on “equality” issues.

    And that is why LCR and groups like it are not invited to CPAC; there is no need to include people who not only attack you, but are paid specifically by Obama Party financiers like Tim Gill to do it.

    That’s way over the top distortion, and it’s why so many people dismiss you, NDT.

    Oh, avee, no one is under the impression that you would take seriously anyone who disagreed with, criticized, or presented facts contrary to your already-established opinion in the first place. There’s no need to pretend as if you haven’t already dismissed the argument regardless of the information presented.

    • posted by Stephen H. Miller on

      That’s interesting, because Gill gave scads of money to John Kerry, who was going around proclaiming how he had the “same position” as Bush and extolling the value of state constitutional amendments like Missouri’s to “do what’s right”.

      I have to wonder if you even care about the difference between truth and your own accusations. Bush supported a FEDERAL marriage amendment; Kerry did not. Kerry did support state amendments (and then clarified that these would need to allow for recognition of domestic partnerships).

      • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

        Oh, I see; so now the rule is that, if you support state constitutional amendments, you’re “pro-equality”. It’s just the Federal ones that cause problems.

        Thing is, Tim Gill and the gay and lesbian community funded people who supported those, too, so down goes that particular rule.

        Wouldn’t it be simpler to say that Tim Gill, and by extension the leadership of the gay and lesbian community, determines whether or not something or someone is “anti-equality” based on political affiliation, not on actual actions, words, or behavior?

        And with that in mind, why should CPAC bother inviting a group that supports Obama Party members and attacks Republicans and conservatives?

  12. posted by Tom on

    With respect to the withdrawal of the anti-gay groups from CPAc, my view is that any development that marginalizes and/or lessens the influence of the groups within the Republican Party is a good thing. The Republican Party is eventually going to have to get off “faggot, faggot” or itself be marginalized.

    With respect to LCR/GOProud, I’ve gained some insights into the respective roles of the two groups within the Republican Party from the comments in this and other recent threads discussing the two groups.

    The only comment I would add is that LCR brought (and continues to pursue) the DADT lawsuit, has an active PAC, employs staff lobbyists in Washington, and seems to have a larger membership base. I’m still not sure what GOProud is doing in terms of advocacy.

Comments are closed.