LCR Endorses Romney, with Qualifications

As I’ve said before, it makes sense. If they failed to do so, albeit with well-stated qualifications, they would have been frozen out with no access, as happened when the group’s former leadership failed to endorse George W. Bush’s re-election. Being in the room when the platform is debated, for instance, didn’t win the day this year, but over time it will. This is a long-term strategy that, if we’re serious, we need to support.

LGBT Democratic party operatives will have a field day, of course, but their goal has never been moving the GOP forward—quite the opposite. The more virulently anti-gay the Republican party remains, the better for their party. But their braying should not dissuade efforts to work within the GOP, particularly for those who wonder if, after four more years of Obama, there will be much left of the once-prosperous and dynamic U.S. economy for Chris Christie to salvage.

22 Comments for “LCR Endorses Romney, with Qualifications”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    LGBT Democratic party operatives will have a field day, of course, but their goal has never been moving the GOP forward—quite the opposite. The more virulently anti-gay the Republican party remains, the better for their party.

    This statement is positively Romneyesque in its mendacity.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      The same old strawman. Some version of it shows up in almost every post. Any excuse to avoid blaming the GOP for it’s own platform.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        More to the point, an excuse to avoid looking at the fact that $500 wine and cheese fund raisers haven’t gotten the job done.

        In six years on this forum, I’ve never once seen Stephen actually suggest that conservative gays and lesbians do any of the in-party grunt work that left-liberal gays and lesbians did to turn our party around. Access is nice, but work is what does the trick.

  2. posted by Carl on

    Given New Jersey’s economic struggles even with Christie as their savior, good luck there.

    No mention of Romney’s view that hospital visitation is a “benefit” and should be left up to the states?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-mcgonnigal/romney-may-end-hospital-visitation-rights-for-many-gay-couples_b_1996964.html

    I don’t blame the LCR for endorsing him – they have no real choice – but they will have zero power in a Romney administration, no matter what, and my guess is they know this and that’s why they waited so long.

    I’ve never seen a Republican Presidential candidate who actually becomes more and more opposed to gay rights as the election goes along. That means it’s going to be about twenty times worse if he’s in the White House.

    • posted by Vitalis on

      This pisses me off as a NJ Republican and I do not think that I am alone. I feel coetelpmly disconnected from my party now.We want a real conservative running in 2012 not some flip flopping closet massachusetts liberal!Since Christie basically rules the NJGOP with an iron fist, I now see the direction the plan on taking. I will be sitting this 2011 election out for sure. Clearly none of the NJGOP supported Republicans are the types of conservatives that we should have running our government.And to think, if the Governor had just worried about staying home and working on NJ issues for the next month I would have come out and voted for the GOP in the 2011 election. Now I don’t have to waste my time.

  3. posted by Doug on

    There must be a lot of internalized homophobia in the LRC. Given Romney’s hostility to gay people a vote for Romney is a vote to make yourself a 2nd class citizen.

  4. posted by Jorge on

    As I’ve said before, it makes sense. If they failed to do so, albeit with well-stated qualifications, they would have been frozen out with no access, as happened when the group’s former leadership failed to endorse George W. Bush’s re-election.

    Oh, please. If they care so much about “the movement”, it makes even less sense now than before. This isn’t about being frozen out. This about their fear of GOProud having exclusive access. And this isn’t going to change the fact that GOProud will continue to have preferential access within the Republican party, and probably the White House as well. Even if LCR declined to endorse Romney (which I would *not* have agreed with, by the way), they could have been public about the direction they want to see the country go in such a way so as to provide enough aid and comfort to continue the conversation going–am I too naive?

    Here’s another angle. When are the Log Cabin Republicans going to actually be relevant in a Romney administration? Gay rights issues are not being covered this election, but are still in play. I predict overall that’s going to be the way it is, until very big issues like the Federal Marriage Amendment come along. And when they do, the LCR is going to get plenty of press time regardless of if they have White House access or not.

    I’m just very dissatisfied with the idea this group seems to have that marriage is the be all, end-all of gay rights interests. Doesn’t Romney have more of a record, more of a position than merely same sex marriage?

    No mention of Romney’s view that hospital visitation is a “benefit” and should be left up to the states?

    It’s an ugly position to be caught endorsing, but I think it’s the correct one.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I’m just very dissatisfied with the idea this group seems to have that marriage is the be all, end-all of gay rights interests.

      Marriage equality, like it or not, is the predominant issue of the day, and that is not likely to change. Marriage equality has become the predominant issue of the day because it resolves, with a single change of law, a whole host of other issues — adoption, hospital visitation, end of life decisions, inheritance and so on, leveling the playing field.

      Doesn’t Romney have more of a record, more of a position than merely same sex marriage?

      Romney does have positions and a record.

      Romney’s positions are unfailingly anti-equality. Romney supports federalizing marriage and banning same-sex marriage and marriage-equivalent civil unions. Romney supports Section 3 of DOMA. Romney supports banning weddings on military bases and denying same-sex married military personnel and veterans the compensation and benefits granted to opposite-sex married military personnel and veterans. Romney opposes adoption by same-sex couples, married or not. Romney opposes taxing same-sex couples, married or not, on the same basis as opposite-sex couples. Romney supports differential treatment of same-sex married couples for immigration purposes. Romney is pledged to appoint “original intent” Justices and judges. I could go on, but you get the drift.

      Romney’s record is also unfailingly anti-equality. Romney promised that he would be “better than Ted Kennedy” on equality issues while running for Governor of MyState™, but spent his time in office opposing marriage equality, dissolving a state Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, blocking an anti-bullying school guide, exploiting a loophole in an obscure 1913 law to prevent out-of-state same-gender couples from marrying in Massachusetts, and so on.

      Romney supposedly offered “private” assurances to LCR that he would support ENDA, although he won’t endorse ENDA in public. I don’t know whether to believe that or not. In the last several debates, he’s changed his positions on just about everything else, so I suppose it is possible. But to my mind, support for ENDA doesn’t come close to leveling the playing field in Romney’s case. The long-term damage that will come from an “original intent” Supreme Court far outweighs the gains to be made from ENDA.

      This isn’t about being frozen out. This about their fear of GOProud having exclusive access. And this isn’t going to change the fact that GOProud will continue to have preferential access within the Republican party, and probably the White House as well.

      That sounds right. GOProud actually had the “field day” Stephen imagined that “LGBT Democratic party operatives” would have, attacking LCR hours minutes of LCR’s endorsement: “We are disappointed that they have offered only a qualified endorsement and made it clear they won’t work to elect Governor Romney. We need all hands on deck and every vote we can get right now to help defeat Barack Obama.

      I don’t pretend to know what goes on in LCR and GOProud, but I know this: The strategy, whatever it is, isn’t working. The 2012 Republican Platform is abysmal, the most explicitly anti-equality platform in the party’s history. Romney’s stated positions are more explicitly anti-equality than McCain’s or Bush’s stated positions. That’s a fact. LCR and GOProud need to rethink.

      The Republican Party and American voters are beginning to diverge. Today, almost half of Americans live in states with various forms of relationship recognition for same-sex couples — marriage equality (CT, DC, IA, MA, MD, NH, NY, VT, WA), marriage equivalency (CA, IL, HI, OR, NV, NJ, RI) or limited-rights recognition (CO, DE, MA, NM, WI). The world has not come to an end. Americans “get that”, and the recent polls suggest that a slim majority of Americans favor marriage equality. The political tide has turned.

      And what has been the Republican response? Despite Stephen’s whistling in the dark about “silence” on LGBT issues, and despite LCR’s assurances that Republicans have “no appetite” for anti-marriage amendments, NOM and other anti-equality groups, with the cooperation and support of the Republican Party, have spent tens of millions of dollars this year to ban marriage equality in California, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Washington. Don’t tell me about “silence” or “appetite”.

      • posted by Jorge on

        Holy Q*Bert-squared wall of text, Batman.

        Marriage equality, like it or not, is the predominant issue of the day, and that is not likely to change.

        I like it not and I will not obey any social convention that purports to pretend that it is.

        Romney’s positions are unfailingly anti-equality… I could go on, but you get the drift.

        You mentioned gay marriage 6-7 times separately and only one issue (gay adoptions) that is not related to gay marriage. There is something that people need to understand: Citing separately every one of the 10,000gazillion marriage benefits gay couples are denied, each more irrelevant than the last to people’s quality of life (I’m all for immigration reform but to be honest I couldn’t care less if Romney deports Dora the Explorer), does not make a strong or compelling argument about gay rights. It makes a desperate and shallow one.

        Romney’s record is also unfailingly anti-equality…

        Somewhat better.

        Despite Stephen’s whistling in the dark about “silence” on LGBT issues…

        Oh, dear, I didn’t mention this angle? I believe that with our national politicians mostly silent right now, the social/cultural battle still continues in earnest, on a very local level. We’ll have to work a lot harder and be vigilant in our own communities to make this country one that is forthright and supportive. So it appears the battle is joined…

        • posted by Jorge on

          I believe that with our national politicians mostly silent right now, the social/cultural battle still continues in earnest, on a very local level.

          Ehhh, I meant to phrase that a little more broadly. I mean things like the petition for that gay Eagle Scout candidate that Ellen highlighted on her show, the It Gets Better Project, we can’t all make national news but it’s the small stuff that goes drip-drip-drip.

        • posted by Tom Scharbach on

          Oh, dear, I didn’t mention this angle? I believe that with our national politicians mostly silent right now, the social/cultural battle still continues in earnest, on a very local level. We’ll have to work a lot harder and be vigilant in our own communities to make this country one that is forthright and supportive. So it appears the battle is joined …

          No, you didn’t mention it, Jorge. I did, because the meme of both Stephen’s recent posts on IGF and the LCR endorsement is that the recent “quiet” from the Romney campaign is a sign that the Republican Party won’t pursue anti-equality legislation in the future.

          I look at the party platform and the party’s actions this year and think that the meme is delusional. You don’t have to even scratch the surface to see the anti-equality forces joined up with the Republican Party in most states, heals dug in, fighting equality on numerous fronts, or worse, trying to reverse what gains we’ve made, as is the case in Wisconsin.

          However, I agree with you that the battle is being waged culturally and on many fronts, not just marriage. In Wisconsin, marriage is off the table until SCOTUS acts in 2025 or so, and the battle being waged statewide is over whether or not our Republican Governor and Attorney General will succeed in eliminating our Domestic Partner Act, which grants very limited rights to same-sex couples. In my rural area, the battle is being fought over a GSA in a local high school, a proposed “equal benefits” ordinance the next town over, and other issues that might make the local paper, but go no further. That’s probably true all over the country.

          You are dead right about the importance of “It Gets Better”. Michael and I wore our t-shirts frequently this summer, and we’ve both had more than one young person come up to us and thank us.

          Kids need hope. When the conservative churches and Republican politicians ramp it up, telling those kids that our relationships shouldn’t be recognized, that we should be banned from adopting kids, and so on, they give kids just the opposite.

          But while I agree with you about the importance of local issues, the Republican platform pledge to wipe out marriage equality and marriage equivalency nationwide is a serious issue that needs to be taken seriously, in my view.

          And, in my view, SCOTUS appointments are going to make the difference between whether we are blocked for another 15-20 years or not. Romney-Ryan’s pledges about “original intent” appointments are ignored or airbrushed by pro-equality conservatives, and it seems to me that is folly.

          Well, look, we are all in the fight. Each of us doesn’t have to fight every battle. I’m focused on marriage equality because getting that into the DPW and national platforms has been my charge for the last 18 months. But I’m grateful for others who don’t work in the political battle as I do, but work on other aspects of the fight for equality, culturally and legally.

  5. posted by Houndentenor on

    It would be different if I were reading of gay conservative groups endorsing candidates with some track record of supporting gay rights. Voting to repeal DADT, for example. But endorsing someone who has said repeatedly that he isn’t for gay rights in any form (at least when speaking in front of Republicans) is baffling. Does LCR really believe that the only reason they were shut out during the W years is because they didn’t endorse him? Would they have gotten anywhere with that administration otherwise? Seriously?

  6. posted by Doug on

    So much for Romney promises to LRC. Keep believing those promises made out of the public eye and behind closed doors.

    http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/romney-denied-new-birth-certificates-for-gay-parents

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Not buying it. I can’t believe Romney promised them ENDA nor that he could have delivered on such a promise (if he had made it) or would have had any intention of doing so. It would at best have been a meaningless gesture unless he had the same promise from Boehner and McConnell, neither of which seems likely to allow a vote on such a bill much less get it passed.

      Sorry, just not buying it. On any level.

  7. posted by Don on

    I believe the true loser in these stories has been the gay community. Rather than being non-partisan, we’ve picked a side. And although there is not unanimity on that front, those who go against the grain look ridiculous.

    I guess it goes back to the fact that Democrats have been more socially liberal across the board while the Repubicans have grown more draconian on social issues as time wears on. It’s not just us, look what they did to Terry Schiavo.

    My greatest hope is that things get so out of whack on the right that the libertarians finally get their way. For a party that prides itself in getting government out of people’s lives and being as small as possible, it sure is working hard to make it bigger and badder.

    I am grateful to LCR for this: they are keeping us in the news. Every time a gay voice is heard and our issues are debated, we change hearts and minds. When anyone is forced to defend an unprincipled prejudice in public, they find their arguments for what they believe crumble. Some double-down, but most start to question what they believe. And THAT is why we’ve come so far, so fast.

  8. posted by JohnInCA on

    The thing that really bugs me about LCR and GOProuds endorsements of Romney isn’t that they gave ‘em. They’re Republican groups after all, and I can understand having different priorities.

    What bugs me is that they try to dress it up as Romney being somehow better for gay people then Obama. See, that’s when it stops being a case of “we have different priorities” and becomes “we’re going to lie about our motivations”.

    So I can handle a gay Republican. What pisses me off is when he tells me that Republicans are better for gay rights then Democrats.

    • posted by Jorge on

      Republicans are better for gay rights than Democrats….

      …after you get the Democrats to take the vanguard and kick butt. You need someone to wage peace.

  9. posted by TomJeffersonIII on

    I would agree with this; So I can handle a gay Republican. What pisses me off is when he tells me that Republicans are better for gay rights then Democrats.

    The fact that the Log Cabin Republicans endorsed Mitt is not really surprising, it is a Republican Party association after all. I am not really sure that this means that (a) a theoretical Mitt White House is going to risk alienating anti-gay voters by supporting gay rights or doing anything but to ignore or undermine gay rights. (b) I am not sure that being in the room is going to make that much of a difference either.

    You gota do a bit more then simply show up, if you expect to change things and frankly, I have not gotten that sort of vibe from gay Republicans….too often….As long as they get a cushy job in government or on a campaign staff, they are happy to be demonized and or ignored.

  10. posted by Francis on

    I really find hard to take seriously that 22 percent of the LGBTQs will vote for Romney. Really, where do people get this stuff?

    • posted by Jorge on

      Where do you get your numbers yourself? Last time I checked, 23% of GLBTs voted for Bush in 2004. I expect the numbers to be higher for Romney this year.

      I find it hard to take seriously certain groups of people who break over 9-1 for a party that only cares about them in election years. No, I don’t want to hear it. Not interested, don’t care, don’t want to hear the excuses, people are entitled to their own opinions, doesn’t mean I have to take them seriously, save it for the ballot box and either crow in victory or suffer in defeat. You don’t need to hear my thoughts on this matter, either.

  11. posted by Centrist on

    If the LCRs wanted to retain any credibility, they’d have issued a statement saying that they really wanted to endorse Romney, but couldn’t do it because of Romney’s hardline anti-gay views. Instead, the LCRs decide to (once again) be a bunch of cringing toadies.

  12. posted by Akira on

    Ron Paul might be the best fit for President, but realistically hee2€™s not going to get the niomnation because the actors are already on the stage and hee2€™s not.While saddening, I fully agree with this. A cursory study of the will show how controlled it is, and easily explains why certain people receive overwhelming media attention (Anna Nicole Smith, Bald Britney, etc.) while others who should, do not (Ron Paul, Ignacio Ramos, Jose Compean, Security and Prosperity Partnership, and a host of other important people, policies, and events).Thank God for the internet.

Comments are closed.