At Least He’s Not a Gay Republican

San Diego’s Democratic mayor Bob Filner has apologized for his behavior and said he needs help, amid allegations that he sexually harassed women.

You might recall that last year LGBT activists fell over themselves to support Filner against an openly gay Republican, city councilman Carl DeMaio, in a race with no incumbent.

However, given the political culture these days, I don’t think harassment charges are likely to hurt Filner much.

More. Third accuser goes public against San Diego Mayor… But at least he’s still not a gay Republican, because that would be really, really bad.

27 Comments for “At Least He’s Not a Gay Republican”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    I think we’ve been around this track, Stephen. Keep trying, though.

  2. posted by Jorge on

    Or a gay Democrat. Go Weiner!

    Sptizer can go Cheney himself.

  3. posted by Houndentenor on

    By Miller’s logic, gay Republicans should have rallied around Tammie Baldwin last year. I’m not entitled to support a candidate just because he or she is gay. Since gay Republicans are allowed to support openly anti-gay candidates, I don’t know why that concept is so difficult to grasp.

    • posted by Jorge on

      If you’re not going to support a candidate just because s/he’s gay, then you should support him or her because s/he’s a Republican.

      Not because of the party label. Because of the candidate and their platform.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        Not because of the party label. Because of the candidate and their platform.

        Exactly. And that is what most gays and lesbians are doing, supporting candidates that support equality, and rejecting candidates that don’t.

        For many gays and lesbians, “equal means equal” has a high priority when making voting decisions, and it is for that reason that 75-80% of gay and lesbian voters support Democrats.

        For other gays and lesbians, other issues trump “equal means equal” in priority. Nobody expected Stephen, for example, to support Tammy Baldwin, despite the fact that she has a long record as a champion of “equal means equal”, because Baldwin’s positions on other issues are antithetical to Stephen’s political views, antithetical to the point where the other issues trumped “equal means equal”.

        I don’t know how far Stephen would take that principle. Tommy Thompson was (in his view, not mine) a “moderate” on LGBT issues. Would Stephen had felt the same way if Baldwin were running against, say, Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann?

        I don’t know, but Stephen, it seems to me, is asking “left/liberal” gays and lesbians to do something he doesn’t.

        Stephen frequently criticizes “left/liberal” gays and lesbians for failing to support gay Republican candidates like Carl DeMaio or Richard Tisei, both of whom were, well, lackluster supporters of “equal means equal”, and antithetical to “left/liberal” values on other issues.

        My question, is why should Stephen expect “left/liberal” gays and lesbians to abandon their political values to vote for a gay Republican, when he doesn’t (understandably) abandon his political values to support a gay Democrat?

        Beyond that obvious question, I think that there is a lesson to be learned in the tale of Sanders and DeMaio, both conservatives on the “other issues”. Sanders got widespread support from the LGBT community in San Diego, and DeMaio did not. The lesson to be learned is simple: Republicans will start picking up more of the gay and lesbian vote when Republicans start supporting “equal means equal”, and probably not before.

        • posted by Houndentenor on

          I also have to laugh if I’m supposed to be included in the left/liberal group. I have a lot of REAL left/liberal friends and they give me no end of grief for my positions which they views as too moderate/conservative. I guess left/right is a matter of perspective and from a far right viewpoint everyone else is a socialist/communist.

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            I also have to laugh if I’m supposed to be included in the left/liberal group. I have a lot of REAL left/liberal friends and they give me no end of grief for my positions which they views as too moderate/conservative.

            I’m in that boat, too. I’m scorned by the “progressives” in our county as being too moderate. So be it. I am what I am.

            It the Republican Party ever returned to its senses, I’d split my ticket like I used to do. Instead, the sensible Republicans like Olympia Snowe and my State Senator are being driven out of the party.

            I guess left/right is a matter of perspective and from a far right viewpoint everyone else is a socialist/communist.

            Yup. Not to mention that folks like Stephen claim that we are out to destroy the Republican Party by keeping it anti-gay, apparently by sprinkling anti-fairy dust in their general direction.

  4. posted by jared on

    The Democratic operatives who haunt this list just love to attack Stephen for pointing out the obvious and thus committing heresy against the one true party. LGBT activists supported a corrupt jerk against a moderate, energetic, next-generation openly gay Republican. And the above commenters can’t even admit that it turned out poorly. They can only insult the blogger, as they do with every posting. Pathetic, guys. And sad.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I think that you should do what I suggested Stephen do — read the NYT article that Stephen cites.

      The San Diego LGBT community strongly supported Mayor Jerry Sanders, a pro-equality straight Republican with otherwise conservative political positions. The San Diego LGBT community did not support gay Republican candidate Carl DeMaio, who you describe as “a moderate, energetic, next-generation openly gay Republican”.

      You might ask yourself why, if you want to understand the dynamics of LGBT support for political candidates. To me, the reason, explicitly stated in the NYT article, is as plain as a goat’s ass: Sanders supported “equal means equal” when it counted during the Prop 8 fight and was unwavering in his support thereafter; DeMaio sat on his hands when his support would have meant something, and then, after Prop 8 passed, he made it clear that “equal means equal” wasn’t a priority for him.

      Read a little further into the article Stephen cites, and you’ll find that LCR supported a different Republican candidate, a pro-equality Republican candidate, and (I gather reluctantly) got on board with DeMaio only after DeMaio emerged as the Republican candidate.

      … a moderate, energetic, next-generation openly gay Republican …

      The sad thing is that you are right. A Republican these days counts as “pro-equality” if they sit on their hands and make carefully modulated noises while assuring the base that they don’t intend to actually do anything to advance “equal means equal”. That’s what counts for “moderate” in today’s Republican Party.

      Stephen, for example, touted “GOP moderate Tommy Thompson” over Tammy Baldwin in last year’s election.

      To my knowledge as a long-time participant in Wisconsin politics, Thompson has never uttered a single public word in support of “equal means equal”, and his record is unwaveringly anti-equality. Thompson voted against Wisconsin’s landmark anti-discrimination law while in the Assembly, eliminated the Wisconsin’s Council on Lesbian and Gay Issues the minute he became governor, fought for Wisconsin’s anti-marriage amendment, supported DOMA, issued continued statements in opposition to marriage equality when he ran against Baldwin, and claimed, after he got caught out saying that employers should be free to fire gays and lesbians at will, that he had to pee so bad he didn’t understand what he was saying. Thompson couldn’t even find it within himself to actually come out against the FMA — he expressed “reservations” while pledging to “defend the federal law – one man, one woman for marriage.”

      Meanwhile, pro-equality Republicans like Rob Portman are shunted aside as embarrassments, while social conservatives sharpen the knives for the next primary.

      When we point that out to you, you don’t like it. Understandably.

      Listen up. Gays and lesbians within the Democratic Party spent thirty years turning our party around on equality. That’s why gays and lesbians vote 75-80% for Democrats. If you want LGBT support, earn it by doing the same within your party, rather than complaining that gays and lesbians won’t support your “moderate, energetic next-generation” couch potatoes.

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        Here’s what I find baffling about gay Republicans. They are always defending and even touting anti-gay candidates. Yet, this week three GOP Senators bucked their party and voted to add gays to ENDA in committee. I would think that would cause much rejoicing from gay Republicans. It is a sign that the party, or at least part of it, may be moving in a positive direction on gay issues. This isn’t the first time that such an event has gone unnoticed here and elsewhere. I really don’t understand.

        • posted by Jorge on

          Huh? I thought ENDA was about gays in the first place.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      I’m an “operative”? When did that happen, and where’s my check from the DNC?

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      What’s sad is when all someone has to offer is an ad hominem attack. At least engage people on the substance of their argument, otherwise they will assume (rightly, most of the time) that they are correct.

    • posted by another steve on

      Jared, well said! Most people I know who enjoy this blog have long ago stopped reading the comments because it’s just the same-old, knee-jerk spittle directed at everything Miller writes. They really are incensed that he doesn’t toe the party line, and that’s all they really have to say.

      • posted by Aubrey Haltom on

        another steve – what did Tom Scharbach do BUT respond to the issues Miller raises in his post?

        And, btw, I’ll assure you there are multiple reasons for people to have stopped commenting (or even coming to this site at all). A few years ago I was a daily reader, and commented often.

        The repetition of Miller’s whining about the gay left/liberal not supporting gay Republicans is tiresome at best. At worst it suggests a lack of any substance beyond the constant complaints.

        The repetition of Miller’s whining about the gay left/liberal not supporting gay Republicans is tiresome at best. At worst it suggests a lack of any substance beyond the constant complaints.

        You can disagree with Scharbach. But how is his response anything but a point-by-point argument to Miller’s post?

        Since you seem to support Miller’s contention, why don’t you engage Scharbach’s criticism? Or is imitation the sincerest form of flattery for you – and you’ll follow Miller’s lead and just complain as well?

  5. posted by kuriko on

    DeMaio was backed by supporters of Prop 8, and lacked the courage to publicly support issues impacting the LGBT community! Why would gay & lesbian voters support him? He’s also from a party that has made its primary identity one of opposing any LGBT rights. Whatever Filner has done doesn’t change that fact. What an asinine argument.

  6. posted by Kosh III on

    “Instead, the sensible Republicans like Olympia Snowe and my State Senator are being driven out of the party. ”

    Indeed, I never thought I’d miss moderate GOPers like Tn’s former Senator Howard Baker and his wife Sen. Nancy Kassenbaum, instead we get corporate fascists like Corker or blatantly anti-gay Alexander.

  7. posted by Kosh III on

    Forgot to add:
    I met Filner years ago when he was a City Councillor. This was at a meeting on homelessness, held in one of the toughest barrios in town. He was open and willing to work to solve the problem–unlike most modern Republicans like Romney who wouldn’t stoop to going to a “bad” part of town and sure don’t give a frak about “human rubbish” who ought to just be swept up and thrown away. That’s a quote from Cal Thomas btw.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Reading your comments about Filner, I was reminded of jared’s comment: “And the above commenters can’t even admit that it turned out poorly.

      That leads me to wonder if, in fact, Filner “turned out poorly” in terms of his policies for San Diego and the work he has been doing as mayor. I don’t know, but it seems to me that a politician’s personal failings don’t really speak to the question of whether or not the politician is doing a good job as a public official. Sometimes the two coincide; sometimes not.

      Do you know how Filner has been doing as mayor?

      • posted by Kosh iii on

        Haven’t a clue about his Mayoral work, we left SD in 96 and now reside in Nashville, a lovely semi-progressive city stuck in the middle of teanut fascist hell.

  8. posted by Don on

    This is probably the thorniest issue in gay politics. Supporting gay candidates who are conservative in their outlook but take anti-gay positions or at least refuse to take any position regarding equal means equal.

    Gays on the right want some support for the tiny fraction of gay conservative candidates. Don’t blame them. But their candidates don’t hold positions that attract gay support very well because they are usually anti-gay to curry big money supporters on the right, or incredibly gay-neutral, which suggests they will be too fearful to vote equal means equal once in office due to offending their core supporters on the right.

    I think its unfair to paint gay voters as “leftists who hate gay conservatives” because they won’t vote for a gay candidate with a record that makes them reasonably wary.

    Still, I don’t think one can insist the party of gay-haters (not all in the party are, but gay haters are in control of one of the two parties . . .) to jump for joy for a gay candidate who promises to not enact gay-affirming legislation. In fact, by simply going out and running, they are doing what many suggest: do the hard work to change the party from the inside. Harder to get more inside than holding office.

    And so here we are. Gay republicans can be gay, but not for gay rights (mostly). And liberal gays can’t be that surprised that not every gay supports them because they will advance gay rights. But they will, and do, get the lion’s share.

    • posted by TomJeffersonIII on

      —In fact, by simply going out and running, they are doing what many suggest: do the hard work to change the party from the inside. Harder to get more inside than holding office. – See more at: https://igfculturewatch.com/2013/07/12/at-least-hes-not-a-gay-republican/comment-page-1/#comment-176009

      Yes, LGBT Republicans (or straight GOP allies) running for office as a Republican might be a step in the right direction. Certainly, gay Democrats and straight Democrats who supported gay rights did so over the decades.

      However, you also got to get involved with GOP politics beyond running for public office. I am not sure how the GOP is organized, but if you read what people have said here about how they got the Democratic Party to gradually progress on the issue, you would probably find some common areas to work on.

      Also, I am not entirely sure I understand how the gay Republicans and their supportive straight GOP allies seem to work — in terms of fixing their own party.

      An openly gay man ran for President in the GOP Primary– granted a long shot campaign but if he had been able to raise money he would have gotten more media attention and perhaps taken seriously internally. He was support of ‘equal means equal’. He got virtually no support from most of the gay Republicans (or straight GOP allies that I know)

      Yet, they became very supportive — hold up as a role model — a gay man who run for State legislature and get really upset when a straight man wins more praise/attention. Well, in terms of gay rights the straight alley actually had a better record (or at least statements).

      So, it seems like some gay Republicans get really excited over an openly gay GOP candidate who has — at best — a lukewarm interest in ‘equal means equal’….but when a GOP candidate — gay or straight — is willing to campaign for equal rights, they (gay Republicans) seem to lose interest….

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        If it hadn’t been for very liberal gay media I’d have never known Fred Karger was running for president.

  9. posted by Kosh III on

    I’d probably vote for a straight Trotskyite(if such really existed outside the delusions of Rush Drugbaugh) who was adamant on equality instead of a gay conservative who votes against equality.

  10. posted by Aubrey Haltom on

    A thought struck me as I read the 2 posts (Miller’s 7/14/13 post on the far-left anti-marriage critics and this post of Miller’s re: the gay Republican SD mayoral candidate).

    The far-left lgbt crowd criticizes the lgbt community (especially the orgs like HRC, etc…) for supporting a “conservative” issue like marriage equality – and treats their own community as a monolithic apparatus blindly manipulated.

    Miller tends to do the same from a different vantage point – he constantly chastises the lgbt community (led by those same orgs, e.g., HRC) for blindly following the Democratic-leaning of these same leaders.

    Both critics – these far-left ‘anti-equality’ advocates and Miller’s Republican Party cheerleaders – insult the lgbt community in their critique.

    I find it fairly obvious that most in the lgbt community vote to support their own self-interests. However an individual might define what is of value.

    If that means the lgbt community finds value in marriage equality – then the far-left would benefit from trying to understand why people value that equality. Rather than complain about it being ‘conservative’.

    And if gays and lesbians vote predominantly for Democrats (as the polls show) – then Miller and his crowd would benefit as well from trying to understand what draws this community’s majority vote towards the Democratic Party. Rather than constantly criticize the voters (and their orgs) for the choices they make.

    btw – I’ve read a good bit of the ‘anti-equality’ writing. At least, I’ve read a lot from an organization called “Against Equality”.

    And I’ll admit I find much of what they have to say compelling – e.g., I can agree with much of their argument against tying benefits to marriage at the federal level at the expense of other relationships (single parent, grandparents raising children, etc…)

    But this ‘anti-‘ group is very similar to Miller, imho, in the way they fail to understand the ‘whys’ of the community – why marriage equality is important to so many (if not most), and why most vote Democratic.

    Instead we are fed insult after insult – apparently both critical book-ends (the far-left and the ‘Miller-Republican’) feel it sufficient to assume we are all sheep with no mind of our own.

  11. posted by Tom Jefferson III on

    1. I am not familiar enough with local California politics, but gay and lesbian voters that give high ‘salience’ to the concept of ‘equal means equal’ are probably going to vote for candidates that agree. Some gay and lesbian voters may give priority to “other issues” and will vote accordingly. Why aren’t more Republican candidates supporting ‘equal means equal’?

    2. Sexual harassment is certainly a serious accusation. Voting for a straight or gay candidate does not magically mean the candidate is not going to do something like that. It does not mean that they will either. I am not if these accusations were well known during the campaign — again, not a local — but

    I do remember reading a story years ago at how (somewhere in the South) their were two major candidates on the ballot; one was corrupt and the other was a member of the KKK. I cannot recall what sort of corruption it was, something to do with money or taxes, but those were the choices before the voters.

    I think the campaign slogan was ‘vote for the criminal, its important.’…..

  12. posted by Kosh III on

    This is why gay people reject the GOP
    http://americablog.com/2013/08/alabama-gop-tries-to-force-out-college-republican-chairwoman-for-being-pro-gay.html

    “An Alabama Republican Party member’s Facebook post in support of gay marriage catalyzed a proposed amendment to the state party’s bylaws that would remove anyone publicly supporting a position contrary to the national GOP platform….”

Comments are closed.