Gay political lobbies should stand by the incumbents who stand by them (that is, us). So without doubt Log Cabin was right to vigorously support Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island in his successful but bruising GOP primary battle against Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey.
On the other hand, Chafee's opposition to pro-investment tax cuts is a point on which fiscal conservatives can reasonably take issue, so it's not surprising that the Club for Growth lobby backed Laffey. And, while the campaign was brutal, I'm not sure what's accomplished when Log Cabin, in a post-election release, called the Club for Growth's attacks on Chafee "a vicious effort," thereby poisoning the waters further between the two.
Club for Growth is not an anti-gay group, although (and alas) many candidates who most strongly support letting people keep more of their own money are often conservative on social issues. But for those of us who would like to see more candidates with libertarian/limited government views on both social and fiscal matters, leaving the door open for LCR and CFG to work together on future races would seem like a good idea. Here's hoping.
More. GayPatriotWest reaches a very similar conclusion, uring that "When Log Cabin's new leader takes office, he (or she) needs to reach out to mainstream Republican groups like the Club for Growth."
25 Comments for “Log Cabin vs. Club for Growth: The Wrong Fight”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Working together for gay equality AND fiscal conservatism are unlikely outcomes in today’s Republican party, bottom line. And given the apologists for the GOPcrats who appear on the forums regularly, it appears standard operating procedure for long into the future as well.
Gay people shouldn’t waste their time with the Republicans. . . they don’t need or want us (except as scapegoats to bash heartily when their poll numbers are down).
posted by Alex on
Im sorry to complain I just do not see this as a story. Your right they should try and not burn any bridges. But the two groups were supporting different people. Groups always tend to take a few shots at each other in this kind of situtation. It happens all the time and I doubt this is the start of some ill will toward each other.
posted by Randy R. on
Even though I am firmly a liberal, I once belonged to the LCR. They are a nice bunch of people.
However, the LCR would support people who are against gay rights, or at least are neutral. George Bush is just one example. in my opinion, ANY gay political group, whehter it’s HRC or LCR or something else, should have as a priority support for gay friendly politicians. If the pol isn’t outwardly in favor of gay rights, then he or she should have zero support from any gay political organization. Otherwise, why join LCR or HRC? I wanted a liberal who is against gay rights, or neutral, I don’t have to join HRC to support him, I could just be a member of Dems!
These groups should make it plain: We have a litmus test if you want our support. What that litmust test actually is, I would give some leeway, but support for gays to live their lives openly without prosecution, fear, or retribution in the home or office, is a basic start. If a pol can’t assure that, then he deserves no money or other support from any gay group.
posted by Bobby on
Randy, LCR is a RINO group, and I don’t mean the animal.
Get rid of that a-hole from Massachussetts, bring a southern gay conservative, and maybe I’ll reconsider my views about LCR.
posted by kittynboi on
So how are LCR not Republican enough for your bobby?
posted by dalea on
Just how are tax cuts ‘pro investment’? There is no requirement that the beneficiaries use the money to invest. In fact, they can do whatever they wish with the money, which seems appropriate to me. The counter argument, that these are not ‘cuts’ but ‘deferements’ makes a lot of sense. In which case I would tend to agree with the LCR. Until the federal governments finances are in better order, tax ‘cuts’ are simply not an available option. At least the LCR stood up for traditional Republican fiscal rectitude.
As for ‘support letting people keep more of their own money’ it remains to be seen if such is the case. Did the people in question actually earn the money, or is it the result of manipulating the government, siphoning off public subsidies, grabbing whatever means of tilting things in their favor and in short corporate socialism.
In many ways, this strikes me as an ideological trap that libertarians keep falling into. Defending the right to keep money while studiously ignoring just where from and how it came to the current owner. It seems to me that the right has become the party of rentiers.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Can you imagine the stink Bobby and his ilk would kick up if a prominent liberal demanded that they get rid of a fellow because of his region?
This is one reason why I look forward to the impending Republican party crack-up, it will at least get rid of the ugly regional bigotries which characterize modern “conservatism.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
However, the LCR would support people who are against gay rights, or at least are neutral. George Bush is just one example.
As I recall, LCR specifically declined to endorse Bush in the 2004 election.
In contrast, HRC endorsed John Kerry and his support of state constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights because of his religious beliefs.
In the current California elections, Equality California, ostensibly a nonpartisan group, has endorsed the non-gay opponents of four of the five non-incumbent openly-gay candidates (they declined to endorse in the fifth race) running for office, such as Steve Sion, who supports gay equality.
Why? Because they’re Republicans.
No one seriously believes any more that groups like HRC or EQCA care one whit about gay rights; it’s plainly obvious that all they care about is party affiliation.
But what is really petty is that these groups get a free pass for supporting bigots, while LCR gets bashed for something they didn’t even do.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Just how are tax cuts ‘pro investment’? There is no requirement that the beneficiaries use the money to invest. In fact, they can do whatever they wish with the money, which seems appropriate to me.
Very true.
However, if they save it anywhere other than under their mattress, they’re re-investing it. For instance, if they put it in a bank, that is money that the bank then can loan to businesses to expand or to people to buy a house.
Even if they spend it, THAT’S investment in either goods or services.
What tax cuts do is to eliminate the middleman of government and make money more immediately available. Democrats prefer tax credits, which are refunds of taxes you’ve already paid to them, because it puts the money in their hands.
Did the people in question actually earn the money, or is it the result of manipulating the government, siphoning off public subsidies, grabbing whatever means of tilting things in their favor and in short corporate socialism.
Oh, for Pete’s sake.
Consider if I have a trucking and delivery business.
I am leveraging a publicly-funded resource (the roads) to make money; is that wrong?
If I lobby Congress to make the road system better so that I can improve my on-time deliveries, am I trying to manipulate the government?
Should I make my employees use porta-johns, rather than hooking up to the sewer system, because doing so helps me improve my business?
posted by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) on
Too many foget that the Republican party is not JUST conservatives, there are progressives and libertarians who belong-to or support the party for it’s positions on small government and individual liberties. There even used to be a liberal-wing in the GOP. Where you stand on school prayer, abortion or gay rights is not the only litmus test for being a Republican….particularily here in the Northeast.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
these groups get a free pass for supporting bigots
Not from me — although you seem to do your utmost to defend your party’s candidates, regardless of their gay rights bona fides.
If I lobby Congress to make the road system better so that I can improve my on-time deliveries, am I trying to manipulate the government?
There’s no difference, practically, between demanding the government improve roads so you can get more deliveries through and demanding the government buy you a new truck so you can get more deliveries through.
posted by dalea on
‘I am leveraging a publicly-funded resource (the roads) to make money; is that wrong?’
This really does not strike me as a right or wrong situation. Instead this goes to a word thrown around a lot by ‘the right’: earn. You do make money; but there is a portion of it you do not ‘earn’. Instead you are grabbing a subsidy from the taxpayers, just like a standard issue welfare mother. The portion of your income that comes from the roads is really not your income. It is ‘welfare’. Lets call it ‘road stamps’, which you would produce whenever you need to use a road.
Which can be more or less calculated. Say it is 1/3 of income; and your taxes, not fees for service, are 30% of gross income. In effect, your tax rate is negative by about 3 1/3%. This is what the school of JS Mill calls a ‘rent’. People who receive ‘rents’ are ‘rentiers’. Actually this is one of the firmest and most established forms of libertarian analysis. And the one that most right wing libertarians shy away from. Perhaps because the conclusion it leads towards is that the bulk of government subsidies go not to the poor but to the rich and the middle class. The modern right wing including many libertarians retreats in terror from the obvious results of their own ideology.
posted by raj on
dalea | September 14, 2006, 11:38pm
Just how are tax cuts ‘pro investment’?
This “pro-investment” clap-trap is merely more marketing rhetoric by the Republicans.
Tax cuts aren’t necessarily “pro investment,” but the issue is far too complicated to go into detail, in large part because it is impossible to figure out what the desired end results of these “investments” are supposed to be. Is a desired end result increasing capital investment which may–just may–increase employment in the US? Is a desired end result increasing stock prices? Is a desired end result increasing investment in government bonds to cover the increased deficit resulting from the tax rate cuts. (I emphasize that they are rate cuts, not tax revenue cuts, but that’s a side issue.)
A few scenarios:
(i) Company wants to issue new stock, the proceeds of which will be invested in new plant, equipment, development, etc. Perhaps–but just perhaps (more on this later, see (iii)–the tax rate cut will free up monies that the people can use to buy the new stock issue. In that case, the new investment may lead to increased employment, etc., etc., etc. But I’ll merely point out that the increased employment may not be in the US. And that it is unlikely that a company would want to issue new stock unless there is a market for the product or service that they will want to provide using the proceeds of the new stock. Accordingly, it would seem to be counter-productive to substantially skew the benefits of the tax rate cuts from those who are most likely to buy the company’s product or service, namely, those who are not the rich and the super-rich. Of course, Bush’s tax cuts were skewed to the rich and the super-rich.
(ii) Unlike (i), there is no new stock involved. People want to use the proceeds of his tax rate cut to buy additional existing shares on, say, Wall Street. That would tend to increase stock prices, but not in a way that would benefit the company. What that would tend to do is to inflate the share prices–remember, more dollars chasing the same amount of goods tends to create demand-pull inflation. Who benefits? Companies don’t, but the shareholders who currently own the shares certainly do.
(iii) This relates to your tax deferral issue. A person could choose to use the proceeds of his tax rate cut to buy government bonds. If the tax rate cuts are not accompanied by commensurate spending cuts–or at least spending restraint–the government will have to borrow to make up the difference between reduced revenue in and increased (or even steady) spending. If that occurs, the government will be competing in the capital market for the same monies that the company that wants to issue new stock (item (i)) and purchasing of existing stock on Wall Street (item (ii)). History has shown that gov’t will not restrain spending, and so tax rate cuts oftentimes lead to increased borrowing. This was certainly true in the Reagan administration, and it is true beyond peradventure in the Bush II administration.
One thing regarding item (iii), the borrowing to make up the increased deficit actually compounds the problem because the government will have to pay interest on the monies that it borrows. So, not only is there a current year increased deficit that has to be made up by increased borrowing, but there is also an increase in the out-year deficits for the additional interest cost. And, since the annual budgets appear to be continually locked in deficits, each year’s interest costs will be added to the deficit for succeeding years.
At least the LCR stood up for traditional Republican fiscal rectitude.
“Traditional Republican fiscal rectitude”? Give me a break. That is representative of nothing more than another public relations ploy by Republicans. They had control in the Senate during the first six years of the Reagan administration and did nothing to reign in the deficit. And, except for some period of time 2001-2002 when they lost control of just the Senate, Republicans had control of Congress, and they did nothing to reign in the deficit.
posted by dalea on
‘However, if they save it anywhere other than under their mattress, they’re re-investing it. For instance, if they put it in a bank, that is money that the bank then can loan to businesses to expand or to people to buy a house.’
How is buying shelter an investment? It looks like a plain consumption expenditure to me. But wait, the government subsidizes housing for the well to do. The poor are left with very little government assistance in the housing market. People who can jump through enough hoops to qualify for a government gauranteed mortgage get a nice bit of deduction for doing the state’s bidding. It appears that the bulk of government funding for housing goes to the better off portion of the population, not the poor. I have never seen this mentioned prominently in any right wing libertarian literature.
‘Even if they spend it, THAT’S investment in either goods or services.’ Nonsense. There is a distinction between consumption and investment. You buy a hot dog and eat it, it is consumption not investment. This is not a viable line of thought.
posted by raj on
I’m not sure where this came from (I got it from DaleA, but I doubt that it originated from him)
‘I am leveraging a publicly-funded resource (the roads) to make money; is that wrong?’
but I’ll merely point out that governments at the federal and state level impose rather hefty taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel that are supposed to be deposited into various “trust funds” to pay for road construction and maintenance. The taxes would probably be likened to a “use tax.” So, the user of the “publicly-funded resource (the roads)” would likely be actually paying for usage of “the roads” when he purchases gasoline or diesel fuel to make money.
IIRC, during either the Reagan or the Bush I administration (or both), the federal government was rather niggardly with respect to dispensing monies from the federal highway trust fund to the states for road building and maintenance, primarily to reduce deficits that they would otherwise have to report.
posted by raj on
From the post
More. GayPatriotWest reaches a very similar conclusion, uring that “When Log Cabin’s new leader takes office, he (or she) needs to reach out to mainstream Republican groups like the Club for Growth.”
Oh. I had been led to believe that the ridiculously named “Club for Growth” was an offshoot of the Cato Institute. It had been reported that the CfG was founded by Stephen Moore, then of the self-described “libertarian” Cato Institute. Are we to infer from GPW’s comment that the Cato Institute is a “mainstream Republican group”?
I’ve long suspected that the Cato Institute has evolved into an adjunct of the Republican party, but this is ever more evidence.
posted by dalea on
I got it from North Dallas 30 Raj, it was his response to something I said.
From what I have seen, the portion of the roads paid for out of the gas tax is rather small, on the order of 20 to 55 percent. Mainly, what the federales let loose of, goes for maintanence and upkeep. New construction is funded either by bonds or direct levies. Which includes eminent domain and government property grabs. So, the guy with the trucking business is really not all that different from the woman with 3 illegitimate children. Only difference is he has learned how to mask his welfare payments.
And so, I find that ND30 is ignoring the picture of just how much subsidy is flowing and where it is flowing to. With his confusion of consumption with investment, and rather shaky idea of what an investment is, yeah this is a major issue. While it may be Republican party flim flam, it is definitely a part of the right wing agenda. A part that survives because the believers never look too closely at it.
At least the LCR did not fall for this tax cut=investment charade.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
CATO have been an offshoot of the whole Republican Liberty Caucus for years. Both are frauds.
The RLC recently wrote Libertarian (and libertarian) voters in several districts encouraging them to vote for their “pro-liberty” Republican candidate since the Libs weren’t running anyone in the district. They cited their candidate’s position on taxes as “evidence” of his “strong libertarian credentials.”
What they didn’t do was point out that all the candidates favored anti-gay laws, the Iraq War, increased government spending, more regulation on business, public support for private religious charities, and a whole host of other unlibertarian things. Not minor points of disagreement, mind you, but positions so clearly unlibertarian that anyone who knows a thing can clearly see that dubbing them “libertarian Republicans” is a flat-out lie.
They ended up getting burnt when a couple of Libs did some digging and pointed out these facts, at which point the CATO and RLC people pitched a fit and whined that “if we wait for purism we’ll never get libertarians in power.” Well, if electing far-right-wing statists into power is a “libertarian” strategy, why not also write in Eugene Debs’ name while I’m at it?
The whole CATO/RLC movement, like the rest of the Republican party, is a cynically calculated lie designed to fool and manipulate a diverse constituency into handing over power to incompetent power-hungry fools.
posted by dalea on
‘The whole CATO/RLC movement, like the rest of the Republican party, is a cynically calculated lie designed to fool and manipulate a diverse constituency into handing over power to incompetent power-hungry fools.’
And how stupid are right wing libertarians that they fall for this over and over again? Thirty five years by my count. So, right wing political movements manipulate people into supporting them by appealing in libertarian leaning language. They wouldn’t do it if it didn’t work.
I have come to suspect that in the realm of degrees of stupid, right wing libertarians are side by side with fundamentalists.
posted by Mark on
“But for those of us who would like to see more candidates with libertarian/limited government views on both social and fiscal matters, leaving the door open for LCR and CFG to work together on future races would seem like a good idea.”
Please do call me when you find a Republican fitting that description.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
how stupid are right wing libertarians that they fall for this over and over again
They’re certainly not alone in complicity — the same Democrats who sniff about how stupid libertarian Republicans are for supporting the GOP work side-by-side with the GOP to keep Libertarian candidates off the ballot and out of debates. One can hardly blame the Republican libertarians for sticking with the GOP when there was some hope of political power, especially given the collusion between the Dems and Reps to ensure that anyone who didn’t subscribe to neoconservatism or socialism simply had no place at the political table.
Fortunately, in the last couple of election cycles, Libertarians have gained a more significant political voice and a bigger base of support. We’ll be working to make sure those libertarian Republicans can come home and count on having their voices heard, despite the efforts of “conservatives” and (ironically titled) “liberals” to prevent their perspective from getting any airtime (despite being more common amongst the electorate than the socialism which gets center stage in the Democratic platform).
PS — looks like spambots have managed to get around the anti-spam confirmation. Could it be time for account registration?
posted by Carl on
Wasn’t Club for Growth the group who fired Steve May (according to him at least) because he was gay? That would tell us how they feel about gays.
Why is it so many people think if gays beg for support, they will get that support? CfG has no reason to care about helping gays. They can just use us as campaign fodder.
How many pro-gay or moderate Republicans have been backed by CfG? Can you name any?
posted by ETJB on
If the third political parties got together in a state, they could lobby for fairer ballot access laws or even a statewide ballot measure on the issue. Yes, Democrats and Republicans have written unfair ballot access laws, but I have known plently of independents and minor party members that complain about the unfair ballot access rules (rightly in my view) but dont really do anything about it.
In Colorado and Georgia, interest groups and lobby efforts were helpful in improving the laws. States with an I&R process could get something on the ballot, as occured in Florida. I would suggest subscribing to Ballot Access News.
posted by Tim Hulsey on
How many pro-gay or moderate Republicans have been backed by CfG? Can you name any?
Well, other than Chafee how many are there?
Club for Growth is a good, moderating influence in GOP politics: When there are two anti-Gay candidates on the Republican slate, CfG will usually back the less extreme of the two.
The Club for Growth people generally consider themselves Goldwater Republicans, and we know where Goldwater stood on GLBT issues.
posted by raj on
Tim Hulsey | September 20, 2006, 9:34pm |
>>>How many pro-gay or moderate Republicans have been backed by CfG? Can you name any?
Well, other than Chafee how many are there?
Chafee wasn’t backed by the CfG. His opponent Laffey was. I have no idea whether Laffey was pro- or anti-equal rights for gay people, but Chafee was not the CfG’s candidate.
I’d like to see Chafee defeated in the general election (polls suggest that he is behind), not because he isn’t a good guy, but that he would help Republican party to continue to organize the Senate. And we have seen where that has led to–symbolic measures being brought to the Senate floor merely to allow Republicans to bash gay people–rhetorically, of course.