Liberals Say, “Does Not Compute, Does Not Compute…”

The New York Times reports:

As gay rights advocates intensify their campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, the bulk of their money is coming from an unexpected source: a group of conservative financiers and wealthy donors to the Republican Party, most of whom are known for bankrolling right-leaning candidates and causes. . . .

The donations are financing an intensive campaign of television advertisements and grass-roots activism coordinated by New Yorkers United for Marriage, a group of same-sex marriage advocates. . . . The newly recruited donors argue that permitting same-sex marriage is consistent with conservative principles of personal liberty and small government.

More. Apparently, some are too young to get the allusion.

20 Comments for “Liberals Say, “Does Not Compute, Does Not Compute…””

  1. posted by T-Zero on

    Actually, liberals say THANK YOU! and commend these donors.

    Meanwhile, it’s the current Tea Party and GOP talking heads (along with their anti-gay supporters — Focus on the Family, NOM, et al — and the current batch of potential presidential candidates of the GOP that are saying “Does Not Compute, Does Not Compute…”

  2. posted by RMSD on

    Like T-Zero, I am grateful that a few dozen very wealthy New York GOPers have donated a lot of money to the cause. I’m unclear who this equates to “Does not compute” by liberals. To the great chagrin of Mr. Miller, no doubt, not one liberal is described in the linked article as frothing at the mouth that these people have donated. What is a heck of a lot more relevant, and what Mr. Miller ignores, is that millions upon millions of GOP supporters and about 99.9% of that party’s leadership, is implacably opposed to the even the mildest civil recognition of the existence of gay and lesbian people in this country, let alone marriage equality…

  3. posted by esurience on

    Who the hell is Miller quoting, and why is this joker still making posts on this site?

    • posted by another steve on

      Oh, come off it. There are been many, many comments by liberals throughout previous posts claiming that there is no real libertarian presence in the GOP, and that those who feign libertarian, limited government sympathies are really crypto social conservatives. Go back and read through the comments to earlier posts by Miller. Maybe even some left by you.

      There is also a repeated meme in many liberal comments that Miller should not be allowed to post on IGF because of his political heresies against the correct liberal party line. Not much different from the way progressives shout down and otherwise silence non-lefties (including libertarians) who try to speak on college campuses. The comment above is an excellent example of this.

      • posted by Tom on

        There are been many, many comments by liberals throughout previous posts claiming that there is no real libertarian presence in the GOP, and that those who feign libertarian, limited government sympathies are really crypto social conservatives.

        I don’t know about “crypto social conservatives” but I think that the observation that “there is no real libertarian presence in the GOP” is a fair observation, at least when it comes to issue affecting gays and lesbians.

        Whatever libertarian presence there is in the GOP doesn’t translate into Republican legislative votes on “equal means equal” issues.

        Maybe it will be different this time in New York. Maybe the libertarian presence, expressed to the tune $1 million in contributions, will change things. We can hope that the vote won’t be “whatever to zero” in the Senate this time, as it was the last time around.

        But I don’t think that things are going to change in the Republican Party unless and until pro-equality Republicans — and that, pretty much, means the “libertarian presence”, since there is a strong correlation, statistically, as Stephen pointed out some months ago, between “Tea Party”, on the one hand, and “anti-gay”, on the other — stop supporting anti-gay Republican politicians, across the board.

      • posted by esurience on

        It’s not his “political heresies”, it’s his factual inaccuracies — once he just outright lied about a candidate’s positions… and I haven’t trusted any claims of fact that he’s made since.

        And most conservatives who say say things about wanting to keep the government off people’s backs really are lying… they really do want a bigger, more intrusive government.

        That some conservative individuals have made donations to support marriage equality doesn’t change that.

        Why does Miller need to bash liberals every time conservatives do something praise-worthy? Is it because it’s so rare that conservatives do?

        And I wouldn’t necessarily complain if it was a relevant and substantive criticism of liberals… but he just fucking whines all the time with shit like this headline. It’s never anything substantive or relevant.

      • posted by Jorge on

        There is also a repeated meme in many liberal comments that Miller should not be allowed to post on IGF because of his political heresies against the correct liberal party line.

        And most conservatives who say say things about wanting to keep the government off people’s backs really are lying… they really do want a bigger, more intrusive government.

        You’re not helping your case here, esurience. Your defense is elaborate, but not very telling.

        I think we should use any suggestion on your part that we have to take people who really believe what your wrote–that self-professed small government conservatives are lairs–seriously as a strong argument in favor of discouraging any attack on Mr. Miller’s suitability as a blogger.

        • posted by esurience on

          I couldn’t parse your last sentence there, Jorge.

          Most self-professed small government conservatives want less taxes, they don’t actually want less intrusion into people’s lives. That’s just obviously true… that’s the whole reason we can even speak of a “libertarian-wing” of the party. Because that libertarian-wing is… well it’s just a small wing.

      • posted by BobN on

        I’ve often suggested Miller publish elsewhere, though not to shut him up, but to get him to preach gay rights to conservatives instead of his endless insults to liberals here on IGF.

  4. posted by Carl on

    Did any of these donors get involved in any New York Congressional races last year, where I don’t remember hearing about any pro-equality Republicans winning anything? I think at the most there were a few of the pseudo-“moderate” Republicans who win.

    Meanwhile, House Republicans and Republicans in Minnesota continue to push for anti-gay legislation. We don’t seem to hear very much about that…

  5. posted by Tom on

    “Liberals Say, “Does Not Compute, Does Not Compute…”

    I’m not sure what doesn’t compute, exactly, or what Stephen is quoting other than his own imagination, but I’ll be curious to follow the votes of Republican legislators.

    So here are two possibilities to fill out Stephen’s double “Does Not Compute, Does Not Compute”:

    (1) Does Not Compute #1: “Liberals say that the backing of major Republican donors in New York is not likely to compute into Republican legislative votes for marriage equality.”

    New York should be a perfect storm for the Republican Party to vote in favor of marriage equality. Polls show strong support for marriage equality in the state, prominent Republicans like Michael Bloomberg support marriage equality, and now major Republican donors are telling Republican legislators, in essence, “Its a safe vote …” and putting their money behind it.

    Taken together, that should compute into a solid majority of Republican legislators voting for marriage equality.

    We’ll see if that’s what happens …

    (2) Does Not Compute #2: “Liberals say that pro-equality Republican donors supporting anti-equality Republican candidates for election to the legislature does not compute.”

    After the vote, I think that it would be interesting to take a look at the New York legislative donations of each of the named contributors, and see how much money, if any, the donors put into the campaigns of Republican legislators (hopefully, a minority) who voted against marriage equality.

    My own view — I don’t know about “liberals” — is that it “doesn’t compute” for pro-equality donors to financially support the political campaigns of anti-equality politicians.

    I don’t give a dime to politicians who are anti-equality, because for me, it would be like buying bullets for a guy who waiving a gun in my face.

    If the named donors are supporting anti-equality Republican politicians, that “does not compute” in my view. To me, it is a serious disconnect. But then, I’ve always felt that way about gays and lesbians who contribute to the likes of Mike Huckabee, Michelle Bachmann and the rest of the pander-crowd.

    Perhaps Stephen will update the post to be more explicit about whatever it is he’s struggling to say with the headline. Then, as least, we’ll have something to discuss.

    But, whatever Stephen is trying to say or not say, I am glad to see major conservative donors standing up publicly for marriage equality in New York. I’m also glad to see prominent New York Republicans like Michael Bloomberg working for equality.

    That’s not something we see out in the hinterlands. I can count the number of pro-equality Republican legislators in Wisconsin on, well, on less than one finger.

    • posted by BobN on

      Miller is struggling to say what he always says: liberals = doodoo

  6. posted by Houndentenor on

    So your idea of “forging a gay mainstream” is making up quotes and attributing them to “liberals”?

    Yes, there are probably quite a few major Republican donors who are not with the party on the social issues, but while donating to some liberal social groups they also continue to support anti-gay and anti-choice politicians. If that money were to disappear, the GOP would be in big trouble but it’s not going away because those folks want a tax cut more than they want equal rights for all Americans.

    Also, Bloomberg switched his voter registration from Democrat to Republican in 2001 just before running in the GOP primary for mayor. Recently he switched his registration to “Independent”.

    • posted by Tom on

      From the NYT article Stephen quoted:

      The donations are financing an intensive campaign of television advertisements and grass-roots activism coordinated by New Yorkers United for Marriage, a group of same-sex marriage advocates. The campaign is aimed chiefly at persuading several members of the Senate Republican majority to join most Senate Democrats in backing same-sex marriage, which was defeated in the Senate in 2009. The State Assembly, controlled by Democrats, has repeatedly passed same-sex marriage bills.

      Noted, dryly: It is about time that Republicans started to fund efforts to persuade Republican politicians to back marriage equality.

      Noted, more dryly: “… persuading several members of the Senate Republican majority …” Given that the named donors have put up about $1 million, according to the NYT article, I wonder how much it will come out to per Republican vote actually gained?

      Last time around, $1 million didn’t buy a single Republican vote: “All 30 of the Republican senators opposed the bill …

      Let’s hope for better luck this time.

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        Is this $1 million supposed to balance out the millions donated to an anti-gay party and anti-gay politicians over the years? I’d be happy to cash such a check on behalf of my organization but this hardly balances the scales.

        I look for the day when the Republicans who claim they aren’t anti-gay talk to their party leadership rather than to me about how upset they are about the anti-gay rhetoric. I’m not convinced and telling me doesn’t change anything anyway.

  7. posted by Tom on

    Stephen linked to the “does not compute” Wiki, which defined “does not compute as follows: “The phrase indicated cognitive dissonance on the part of the device, conventionally leading to its self-destruction.

    I couldn’t come up with a better description of the actions of pro-equality Republicans who financially support anti-equality Republican politicians if I tried. Believe me, Stephen, nobody misses that sense of “does not compute”.

    So if that’s what you mean by “Liberals Say, “Does Not Compute, Does Not Compute…“, then I’m with the liberals … It doesn’t compute for pro-equality donors to financially support anti-gay politicians.

    I wonder when big-money pro-equality Republican donors will catch up with Gill and say to Republican candidates, as Gill does to Democratic candidates, “If you want our money, then pledge, right here, right now, in plain English, to support equality …”

  8. posted by Jorge on

    Uh, you guys need to lighten up. So you don’t think the joke was very funny or accurate.

    It’s a seemingly surprising story that supports what a minority of gays think about the direction the right is moving in or being pushed toward when it comes to gay rights issues. It is surprising because 1) the predominent sentiment seems to deny the trend has ever existed, and 2) conventional wisdom is that recent events suggest the right is moving in or being pushed away from support of gay marriage.

    “The new donations represent roughly two-thirds of the same-sex marriage coalition’s fund-raising, making New York the rare state where a lobbying campaign in favor of legalizing gay unions is not being financed primarily by liberal donors and Democrats.”

    I’m still wrapping my head around this myself. Possible explanations: New York is the only state where the Republican Party (or the right?) is not loyal to the Tea Party Movement? Rockerfeller Republicans are (not) making a comeback? New York social conservatives are getting weaker? New York liberals are all unemployed thanks to their own policies?

    “Mr. Cohen, who runs SAC Capital Advisers and has become increasingly active in Republican fund-raising, described his views simply: “We believe in social justice for all Americans.””

    This is only the second or third Republican in my life I’ve ever heard embracing social justice–one of the others is me.

    “Some of the donors were recruited by Ken Mehlman, a contributor to the coalition and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, who has since announced that he is gay.”

    Ah, yes, the Harvey Milk effect. We should all thank him and everyone else who advocated coming out as political change. A social movement as torturous as the coming out process itself.

    • posted by esurience on

      Jorge, we’re not talking about the Republican party here… we’re talking about a few rich guys who have been persuaded to openly support marriage equality and put some money behind it… out of probably hundreds of people who were asked to.

      How many rich Republicans told Ken Mehlman to fuck off?

      Because we can’t draw any conclusions about whether the party is getting friendlier or not without that information. (And we’d still need more information than that — in fact the idea that this kind of thing is a good way to measure the republican parties love for gays is a bit crazy, there’s much better ways of measuring it, like how they vote).

      • posted by Jorge on

        I think it’s the Rockerfeller Republicans are (not) making a comeback, too.

  9. posted by BobN on

    Well, this liberal’s first thought was “about fucking time!”. This should have “computed” decades ago. Since so many of you seem to be too young — or too blinded by your politics — to remember, someone needs to remind you that NY republicans used to support gay rights. Of course, that was before St. Reagan’s unholy alliance.

    Upon further reading, when I see this was only $1M, “about fucking time!” becomes “big fucking deal”.

    The only thing that computes around here is Miller’s disdain for the people who have him every single bit of freedom he has as a gay man. Ingrate.

Comments are closed.