What some of us could see all along; the smear campaign against openly gay San Diego congressional candidate Carol DeMaio a Republican, was all a lie, and one that cost him the election (he had been leading in the polls against his Democratic opponent before the smear was unleashed; he lost by a razor-thin margin). So, in a campaign characterized by the LGBT left’s vehement opposition to DeMaio, partisan dirty tricks cost us an openly gay GOP congressman.
As I’ve said before, because it’s true, the worst nightmare of LGBT progressives is that the GOP should become less anti-gay.
10 Comments for “The DeMaio Lie”
posted by Mark Peterson on
I think there’s a wrong link here?
The linked article says that “just days before the election, a second staffer, Justin Harper, accused the candidate of exposing himself to Harper in a bathroom.” There’s nothing in the article that says Harper’s claims were “all a lie,” or part of a “smear” campaign. The linked article doesn’t say anything about Harper’s charges at all.
Also, while it’s clear that Bosnich (the admitted liar) intended to harm DeMaio’s political prospects, the article doesn’t say anything about his motives being ideological, alongside the “LBGT progressives” who wanted to elect a pro-gay, straight Democrat instead of a gay Republican whose record on LGBT issues wasn’t very good, as opposed to personal.
posted by Houndentenor on
If only there were any chance of the GOP becoming less anti-gay any time soon. It isn’t happening. In fact the GOP nationwide is doubling down on anti-gay positions with new anti-gay bills popping up in state legislatures every week. DeMaio wasn’t even pro-gay so I’m not sure why he became the poster boy from homocons last year. There are a few Republicans with good records on gay rights and yet when I bring that up with gay Republicans they call them RINOs and don’t want to support them.
it’s not my fault the GOP is anti-gay. It’s not anyone’s fault except Republicans who have stood by and let the religious right take over their party for decades now. I realize the corporate interests thought they could use the Christianists and toss them aside when they were done, but they took over the part in the south and midwest which is pretty much where all the states in which they have a majority.
If you want the GOP to be less gay then do something about it! Just stop blaming liberals and moderates. I didn’t have anything to do with it and wouldn’t have had anything to do with it. Stephen and people like him keep supporting anti-gay candidates and then expect something to change. That’s not how it works. That’s not how it’s ever worked.
posted by Doug on
Not only does Stephen support anti-gay candidates but then he blames progressives and the left for the GOP being anti-gay. That is almost pathological.
posted by Lori Heine on
Which quacks and frauds are we to support? Which direction will we be jerked today?
On this website, there’s always a smidgen of doubt, because the bloggers seem to genuinely believe that Team Elephant is really better than Team Donkey.
What a crock. If people who think like this would only stay drunk at football games, paint their faces, bare their asses and belch, instead of voting, this country would be a hell of a lot better off.
posted by Jorge on
I think there’s a wrong link here?
No, you’re just calling Mr. Miller on his overreach.
it’s not my fault the GOP is anti-gay. It’s not anyone’s fault except Republicans who have stood by and let the religious right take over their party for decades now.
All-or-nothing propositions are rarely true. If you are involved in evil activities, you are responsible for the fruit of them.
The GOP is not anti-gay. Really, now, if this is what the Republican party looks like when the religious right is controlling it “for decades now”, I wonder why I ever bothered to worry? Seems like the thing we need to do is give the religious right even more power. The more they act up, the bigger the backlash against them.
But I don’t think that’s a good idea. Sacrificing the electability of the Republican party in the name of gay rights is a little dangerous for the economic and national security of this country. Oh, and then there’s the madness they exported to other countries.
posted by Lori Heine on
Excuse me, but how is this not identity politics?
If we were to vote for a candidate solely on the basis of race, or gender, or fill in the blank with whatever other characteristic, when that candidate offered no history of supporting equality for the group in question, it would be decried, by Stephen & Co, as “identity politics.” And yet, somehow–they say– this isn’t.
How is that different?
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
As I understand it, the Congressional candidate had been accused of sexual harassment, and that may or may not have had an impact with voters. It is hard to say for certain, because we are talking about California.
When Arnold ran for Governor, claims of sexual harassment came out and did not seem to hurt his campaign (even through it later came out that he had been having an affair with one woman and fathered a son) If I wanted to find out why ANY major party Congressional candidate lost — something that can be quite interesting from a political science/academic viewpoint — I would want to do more research into the actual district (and its voters).
For example California is a State with closed primaries — enforced via party registration. Hmm. How many likely voters in the district were “in play”, as opposed to being strongly tied to one party or the other?
If the Congressional candidate wanted to appeal to the LGBT community in his district — hoping for cross party appeal — what did he actually do to promote this? Were their any Independent or third party candidates in the race?
I can think of a number of important questions that would need to be answered before I would jump on the “the evil, lying LGBT libtard, elites caused the candidate to lose his election.”
If the difference between the top two candidates was close, then their is little to stop Mr. DeMaio from running again (hopefully after he does some serious research on his campaign and district–if he wants to win).
—So partisan dirty tricks cost us an openly gay GOP congressman. As I’ve said before, because it’s true, the worst nightmare of LGBT progressives is that the GOP should become less anti-gay.
Again, this statement is assuming facts not really in evidence. I would need to see lots more research done — much of its quite common — before I jumped on the bandwagon.
I do not know too many LGBT progressives who cringe at the idea of the GOP becoming less anti-gay (granted, Stephen seems to think that anyone who is center-left is some left-wing ideologue).
posted by Jorge on
I can think of a number of important questions that would need to be answered before I would jump on the “the evil, lying LGBT libtard, elites caused the candidate to lose his election.”
Weaksauce. Mr. Miller has been making this case for over a year, with vapid posts on every single cue and movement. You’d have to be living under a rock not to have enough information to at least form a general impression.
Today, Mr. Miller posted what can reasonably be considered the most important single piece of evidence to put in a single post: changes in poll numbers.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
Jorge
Stephen has been long and hard on opinion, speculation, innuendo ovet this candidate.
When it comes to facts, serious research or analysis, he tends to come up….short.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Clearly, some people want to believe that the Congressional candidate was defeated by a manufactured scandal — organized by a vast, left-wing conspiracy to keep the GOP anti-gay in order to do, er, um, do more plotting? —
I am not saying that this conspiracy theory is impossible, just that far more evidence and research is needed before anyone can suggest a theory is anything more then the work of grumpy, gay conservatives upset that their lost (although not by much, which means that the next election will probably be competitive).