The anti-gay National Organization for Marriage and LGBT progressives fight on the same side. For you see, they share the same nightmare: the election of a conservative, pro-marriage-equality, openly gay Republican.
DeMaio faces an uphill race, and if he’s defeated NOM and the LGBT left can hold a joint celebration, as both work to ensure that the GOP remains an anti-gay party.
More. NOM is also backing Democrat Seth Moulton against openly gay Republican Richard Tisei in his Massachusetts congressional race. Tisei, however, is much more soft-edged than DeMaio (no history of standing up to government employee unions), and hasn’t engendered the hatred of the LGBT progressive establishment the way DeMaio has.
23 Comments for “Strange Bedfellows”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The anti-gay National Organization for Marriage and LGBT progressives fight on the same side. For you see, they share the same nightmare: the election of a conservative, pro-marriage-equality, openly gay Republican.
Yawn.
Don’t give up your day job to become a political analyst. Or a Jungian analyst, for that matter.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
Nationally, NOM is probably on its last legs and it’s leaders are (to be polite about it) less than thrilled about having to go out and find another job.
The Victory Fund does not automatically endorse any and all gay candidate. That is not why they exist and shame on people for suggesting otherwise.
Frankly, I am not sure how many local gay voters actually follow the Victory Fund endorsement with any sort of religious-like obedience.
I would have to see more research on the voting behavior and motivation of glbt voters.
posted by Clayton on
I’m part of the LGBT community, and I consider myself a progressive, and my worst nightmare has nothing to do with the election of a conservative, pro-marriage-equality, openly gay Republican.
Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann in the White House? Now that’s that’s a nightmare!
posted by Don on
Aside from the interest the race has drawn for gay TEA party republican, it has been clearly one of the weirdest congressional races in quite a long time. Sexual harassment charges, stealing of a political playbook after denials of nothing being stolen – only vandalism, then charges that the break-in was staged. Then the police chief weirdly non-corroborating a telephone call with the candidate. And let’s not forget alleged hush-money, accusations of publicly masturbating, and just plain weird stories that don’t add up for any body on any side of it. Did any of it happen? None of it? Who’s lying? Frankly, who isn’t lying at this point.
Is this because local political enemies have the long knives out for him? or is he possibly the worst candidate since Carlos Danger? Regardless of the gay/tea party dynamic playing out, this is a bizarre race.
And no, Stephen, I don’t think it has to do with NOM/leftist LGBTQs.
posted by Houndentenor on
I still have ptsd from 9/11 and get freaked out when planes are flying too low overhead, but my WORST nightmare is that some not-really-pro-gay gay Republican will get elected to Congress. Yeah, like that’s a thing.
posted by Doug on
You can sing that same old song till the cows come home, Stephen, and it won’t change reality.
posted by Clayton on
What I find interesting is that more than one source says that the “pro-marriage-equality” gay man, DeMaio has accepted donations from Prop 8 backers, and even the Log Cabin Republicans have stated that he does not have a record of supporting or advancing gay rights. Scott Peters, on the other hand, is a straight man with an established history of supporting LGBT rights. So NOM should, logically speaking, be more inclined to support DeMaio than Scott, but won’t do so because of the simple fact that DeMaio is gay. NOM likes to claim that it does not stand for bigotry, but asking people to vote for a straight man solely because he is straight, and against a gay man solely because he is gay, sounds like bigotry to me.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It is interesting the LCR’s endorsement doesn’t mention DeMaio’s support for LGBT issues.
The closest it seems to come is to quote DeMaio’s statement “With the support of our broad-based coalition that now includes Log Cabin Republicans, I want to drive the debate on pocket-book, economic and quality of life issues – and urge politicians to stay out of issues that are frankly none of the government’s business in the first place.” The “issues that are frankly none of the government’s business” presumably includes marriage equality.
In contrast, LCR’s endorsement of Richard Tisei makes much of his support for “equal means equal”:
I wonder why Tisei is almost never mentioned on IGF. Maybe he’s not conservative enough to suit Stephen.
Well, I’m resigned to Stephen’s constant drum-banging for DeMaio. The election is a toss-up, as I understand it, and if DeMaio wins the election, we’ll get a chance to see how keeping the government out of equality issues works.
posted by Mark Peterson on
If DeMaio wins and (as almost certainly will occur) has no impact in changing the House GOP’s implacable hostility to gay rights, I’m sure Stephen will still find a way to blame the “progressives.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The question is whether he’ll do one single thing to try to change the House. Tisei will, in the unlikely event he’s elected. I know that because Tisei has been taking the fight to the social conservatives, as did Dan Innes before he lost his primary. You can bet that Tisei will fight the good fight if he is elected. DeMaio? Don’t count on it.
posted by Houndentenor on
DeMaio will be too busy fending off sexual harassment charges and other problems. The more I learn about him the less I like him. Tisei would indeed seem to be a more likely person for gay Republicans to support but that support seems weak to nonexistent. I find that odd. He’d certainly be a huge improvement over the Teavangelical nutbags running where I live (at every level).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
DeMaio faces an uphill race …
This is an example of why you shouldn’t give up your day job to become a political analyst.
DeMaio is in a statistical dead heat (1% ahead in one recent poll, 3% ahead in the other recent poll), after blowing a 7-point lead he enjoyed last June.
The 52nd is a traditionally Republican district, although it should probably be considered “Leans Republican” rather than “Strong Republican” after the 2010 Census redistricting, which removed some heavily Republican areas from the district’s north end.
Peters’ election in 2012 was considered a fluke, swept along in the 2012 election against a weak Republican, Brian Bilbray. The 2014 election was DeMaio’s to lose, and (whether he ultimately wins or loses) he’s doing a good job of blowing it.
… and if he’s defeated NOM and the LGBT left can hold a joint celebration, as both work to ensure that the GOP remains an anti-gay party.
Bitter, you are, and that’s a fact.
But let me point out something: If you and others like you had spent the last decade (1) exposing the hard core religious right for the frauds that they are, instead of becoming their apologists, and (2) fighting to lessen their influence in your party, instead of sitting on your hands slamming “progressive LGBT activists” while letting the religious right take over, then the FRC wouldn’t have been in a position to hand-craft the party’s 2012 platform and we wouldn’t even be talking about NOM right now.
But no thanks to the joint celebration. The “LGBT left” isn’t interested in is drinking that religious right’s Kool-Aid. Never have been, and never will be. That’s for gay conservatives to do.
posted by Kosh III on
Gay-friendly Republican? No such thing down here in Stephen’s Conservative Paradise. Maybe he’d realize that if he dared to leave his comfy liberal city.
What scares me are not imaginary gay leftists but real Republican legislators who still labor to keep us inferior third class citizens–along with their allies in the Southern Bigot Convention.
posted by Houndentenor on
Not only are none of the GOP candidates gay-friendly here in Teabagistan, but they go out of their way in the primaries to show just how anti-gay they are. Not one peep about that from the supposedly gay friendly republicans while that’s going on either. So no, I will not be voting for any Republicans again this year. They have all (the ones on my ballot) made it clear that they are anti-gay bigots. (Note: the Democratic candidate for the state house of representatives in my district is an out lesbian. I’m sure Stephen and company fully support the election of a gay candidate against an extremely anti-gay Republican, right?)
posted by Lori Heine on
I have decided simply not to vote at all this year. I’m registered (again) as a Democrat, but nothing speaks louder than just not voting. Contrary to the rhetoric, that, too, is a vote. I have never done that before. I will do it until I’ve got somebody worth voting for.
Because I’m living, again, in the house where I grew up and Dad was a lifelong Republican, I’m getting an endless barrage of calls for GOP candidates. Usually they’re robo-calls, but when a live person calls, I give them an earful. Arizona is still fielding horrible Republican candidates, and all the Dems are doing is crying, “Look how horrible they are!”
That’s not enough. Not anymore. The commenters here are spot-on that homocons must do more than sit on their hands and blame LGBT progressives for the situation. But Dems must do something besides act like ten-year-olds and point to how bad the opposition is.
It’s almost impossible, anymore, to make a living in this state. What have the Dems done about it–besides blame the Republicans? Phoenix’s attitude toward small businesspeople has been especially callous. I’m tired of hearing about the “green jobs” we’ll supposedly have in 20 years. By then, I’ll be in my seventies and living in a cardboard box at the dump.
There are very real reasons why people are getting frustrated enough to listen to the Tea Party. Yes, it’s been completely taken over by social conservative loons (I just got an email the other day from them, invoking the holy names of Bachmann and Gohmert). But other than playing against them as if they were convenient stock villains in a melodrama, what else have the “progressives” done?
posted by Jorge on
Aside from the interest the race has drawn for gay TEA party republican, it has been clearly one of the weirdest congressional races in quite a long time. Sexual harassment charges, stealing of a political playbook after denials of nothing being stolen – only vandalism, then charges that the break-in was staged. Then the police chief weirdly non-corroborating a telephone call with the candidate. And let’s not forget alleged hush-money, accusations of publicly masturbating, and just plain weird stories that don’t add up for any body on any side of it. Did any of it happen? None of it? Who’s lying? Frankly, who isn’t lying at this point.
Is this because local political enemies have the long knives out for him? or is he possibly the worst candidate since Carlos Danger? Regardless of the gay/tea party dynamic playing out, this is a bizarre race.
This /\ is how you beat a dead horse.
So it’s the time of year when people talk about their views of voting, is it?
Here’s my view: I’m happy.
One of my delegates tells me the other day as a side comment that he thinks the government is untrustworthy and corrupt and doesn’t care about people. I told him that because I vote, I’m untrustworthy and corrupt (whatever language he was using).
Every single one of my elected officials is a Democrat, all but a few of them are either a little too liberal for my taste (yeah whatever) or do things I consider toxic scum, and my vote doesn’t make the least bit of a difference in the outcome this year. Am I voting? Yes I am. Nothing beats those moments when the elected officials stand as heads and representatives of state, at some of the most important occasions in history, instead of just politicians. And for a brief minute in their busy speeches, they look directly at my vote. Why should I decide whether I’m more important than everyone else? They’re still going to hear me anyway.
posted by Lori Heine on
“So it’s the time of year when people talk about their views of voting, is it?”
Yes, dear. Since it’s the time of year when we vote, and an election year at that, people are talking about their views on voting. Why that strikes you as the least bit absurd, inappropriate or humorous is unclear.
By registering as a Democrat and not voting, in a year when the Dems are repeatedly begging everyone to “please-please-pleeeeeeeaaase get out and vote,” I am most decidedly sending a message. I want change. Libertarian Democrats need to stand up and speak out, just as libertarian Republicans do.
We won’t get change by simply giving them their way every time they ask for it. They need a good trouncing before they’re going to wake up.
Hope that clears it up for you.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Libertarian Democrats need to stand up and speak out, just as libertarian Republicans do.
I agree with that, but I don’t think that sitting out an election sends a message, let alone constitutes “stand up and speak out”. The message is “I didn’t vote …” without any indication of why. What message does that send, other than (maybe) “I don’t care.”
The way to change the Democratic Party toward libertarian principles is to do what gays and lesbians in the party did — get involved in the party’s platform and primary processes, work to change the party from the county level up.
posted by Lori Heine on
That is exactly what I am doing. But getting involved in the party’s platform and primary processes is not the same thing as passively voting for the unacceptable candidates available in the meantime.
The only message sent by voting for a lesser evil is “Give us more evil.”
I see nothing even remotely progressive about that.
posted by MR Bill on
Checked in with the Daughter in San Deigo yesterday, and she thinks DeMaio is going down to defeat: lots of bad press, even in a conservative district, and she’s actually got a $10 bet on him loosing…
posted by Kosh III on
“I am not sure how many local gay voters actually follow the Victory Fund endorsement with any sort of religious-like obedience.”
Perhaps they have some influence in the comfy blue enclaves where all these avowed gay conservatives(Stephen, Sullivan etc) are living in freedom but here in the South, like the Log Cabin Republicans and gay-friendly Republicans, it’s NOWHERE to be found.
If a gay person wants to vote for equality it’s Democratic(usually), Green or nothing.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
It is INTERESTING that in a State such as Minnesota – quite progressive with respect to LGBT rights – most of the groups that do endorsements of openly gay candidates (Victory Fund, Stonewall Democrats and Log Cabin Republicans) don’t get too many requests outside of say the Twin Cities or some of the smaller cities.
West Center Minnesota is a rather large region of the State that tends to be much more like the American South (i.e. the don’t ask, don’t tell line given to the CEO of Apple by the local mayor…..at best) when it comes to gay rights.
Many LGBT people in west central Minnesota don’t feel safe or secure in coming out, even through the statewide laws on the books are quite progressive.
Much of this is an urban versus rural phenomenon, but I suspect that race and class always coming into play.
Race relations in west-central Minnesota are complicated and gradually shifting. Much more overtly polite then the South, but less so when talking behind-the-scenes.
Class issues are significant as the CEO of Apple can be pretty confident that he will be judged on his merits, not his sexual orientation.
People who work as say in blue collar, or service industry type jobs are much less likely to feel like they come out.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tisei, however, is much more soft-edged than DeMaio (no history of standing up to government employee unions), and hasn’t engendered the hatred of the LGBT progressive establishment the way DeMaio has.
Tisei is a lot closer to what we used to think of as a Republican than the motley lot of Teavangelist radicals that currently dominate the Republican Party. Tisei is a Republican who independents and moderate Democrats could vote for; DeMaio is definitely not.
Tisei has not “engendered the hatred of the LGBT progressive establishment” (as you put it, although “opposition” would be a less extreme, more accurate term) because Tisei has consistently supported gays and lesbians. In this election cycle, Tisei has strongly supported “equal means equal”, taking the fight to his own party, while DeMaio continues to toss gays and lesbians under the bus, arguing that “social issues” aren’t important.
I will never figure out why you are so enamored of DeMaio, and barely toss an “attaboy” at Tisei. It is too weird for words.