From the Oct. 19 Wall Street Journal story, "Uphill Hike for Republicans in Colorado":
In the Fifth District, retiring Rep. Joel Hefley refuses to endorse the Republican running for his seat. And in the vast rural Fourth. . .the national party is spending heavily to save [anti-gay stalwart] Rep. Marilyn Musgrave. . . .
Ms. Musgrave, a star to the Christian right but a lackluster campaigner, is proving to be costly. Not only has she required sizable aid form the national party, but her actions helped to jeopardize the race for the seat from the neighboring Fifth District, by aggravating the divide between traditional Western conservatives such as Mr. Hefley and a more aggressive type of conservative identified with her national campaign against same-sex marriage.
"I wonder if they are going to get tired of saving Marilyn and look at somebody they don't have to save every time," Mr. Hefley says.
The Journal reports that Musgrave was instrumental in lining up money and support for fellow wingnut Doug Lamborn, who took the August primary in Hefley's district, accusing GOP rivals of "supporting a radical homosexual agenda." Hence, Hefley's declaration "I will not vote for Doug Lamborn, I will not."
A couple of welcome GOP House losses (starting with Musgrave and Lamborn) along with senators such as Rick Santorum (R-PA), is sorely needed to flush these toxins out of the party.
More. OK, maybe pollution metaphors are a bit too much like the fascistic and dehumanizing slurs often thrown our way. Maybe Rick Santorum really is a nice guy who actually fears that gay marriage will lead to man-on-dog sex. Could be (though I'd argue Musgrave and some others do, in fact, come across as haters seeking political gain by scapegoating a vulnerable minority). In any event, the GOP would be better off without them.
22 Comments for “The Rift Widens.”
posted by Antaeus on
out of the party…and, more importantly, out of the nation’s capital.
posted by Peter LaBarbera on
My, my… “toxins.” Imagine if someone said that about Barney Frank. Interesting to see “gay” activists use the same hateful and de-humanizing rhetoric against their foes that they once decried being used against them. PL, http://www.americansfortruth.org
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
That dog won’t hunt, Mr. LaBarbera. If we honest-to-God are as intolerant as you, then shame on us. But it just isn’t true. You seek to deny us equal protection of the law, while we merely seek to expose your lies and slanders against us. Politically, many of us are eager not merely to have one party prevail over another in the midterm elections, but to see intolerance and extremism defeated in both parties. If you pay any attention to IGF, you know that IGF authors are strongly critical of the far left. It happens, however, that the far right of the GOP has had much more influence over Republican policies, and a much greater hold on real power, than is true of the far left in the Democratic Party. Of course, anti-gay propagandists like you treat all advocates of gay equality as radical leftists, but you have ample evidence to know that is not true. You simply cannot acknowledge that any self-respecting gays could be moderate or conservative without your whole enterprise collapsing.
posted by raj on
This is a hoot. “Porno Pete” LaBarbera is advertising his ridiculous web site here.
posted by Audrey on
Remember everybody, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and Peter LaBarbera is for truth.
posted by John on
Purge the ‘Toxins’ from the party? They are the party. Religious extremism has been a primary platform of the Rep. party since Reagan was first elected. If those ‘toxins’ are purged what’s left? The Log Cabin folks and a few libertarians?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
John, nothing is gained by overstating the case. The Foley scandal has demonstrated that many Republicans on Capitol Hill have not been as homophobic as they have wanted the party’s religious-right base to believe. The virulent homophobes like Santorum and Musgrave are far fewer in number than those who know better but are silent for partisan reasons. I would agree, though, that the GOP needs to lose more than a few bad apples; it needs to lose control of Congress for serious reform within the party to have much chance.
posted by raj on
Richard J. Rosendall | October 20, 2006, 10:02am |
Richard, it really doesn’t matter whether Republicans on Capitol Hill are themselves “as homophobic as they have wanted the party’s religious-right base to believe.” What matters is that more than a few of them have pandered to the anti-gay right in order to get elected and stay in office–generally to the detriment of equal rights for gay people.
BTW, from the recent polls that I have seen, Santorum is losing in Pennsylvania–and not because of his anti-gay stances, he’s viewed as being something of a nut. On the other hand, Musgrave is ahead in her Colorado district by a wide margin, and her only claim to fame is her anti-gay stance. So, query, what is one to conclude from that? I would conclude that Republicans–not necessarily the politicians, but their constituents–are more anti-gay than you might hope to believe.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Raj wrote: “What matters is that more than a few of them have pandered to the anti-gay right in order to get elected and stay in office–generally to the detriment of equal rights for gay people.”
Raj, you cannot have read my writing and believe that I disagree with this, unless you are determined to read into my comments something that isn’t there. If cautioning against overstatement makes me a defender or excuser of the GOP, then please go ahead and believe that, but that would be a ridiculous caricature of what I have written. I continue to hope that electoral losses (which will have to be in more than one election) will improve the chances for reform with the GOP, a position I could hardly take if I did not have serious problems with that party as it is current constituted and led. My column in Bay Windows 3 weeks ago ended with the phrase, “Vote Democratic.” If that is not clear enough for you, then just shoot me.
As to Marilyn Musgrave, it is hard to understand why the GOP would feel compelled to pump so much money into her campaign if she is really so far ahead. In any case, when nearly half the voters have voted for GWB twice, and both houses of Congress are likely to remain closely divided even in the Democrats retake control of both, it is clear that we have our work cut out for us to persuade more Americans of the harm of theoconservative politics. Accomplishing that will require that we appeal to and persuade conservatives and centrists. Talking to them as if they are fools and bigots will not do the job.
Given how much damage Bush and the GOP have done, it is hard to restrain our countervailing passions. And I am all for channeling our passions into defeating Republicans on November 7 (not just the worst, like Santorum and Musgrave, but all Republicans because even the moderatese will vote for their party’s leadership at the start of the new term, and the leadership has not been moderate and has enabled Bush’s depredations). But looking beyond the election to the task of governing and policymaking, we need to realize that the poisoned well of ultra-partisan viciousness does us more harm than good in the long run. It will be hard to open up space in the political center for more moderate and civil discourse, but it is in our best long-term interest to try.
posted by raj on
Richard J. Rosendall | October 20, 2006, 12:21pm |
As to Marilyn Musgrave, it is hard to understand why the GOP would feel compelled to pump so much money into her campaign if she is really so far ahead.
Not necessarily. According to Talking Points Memorandum for 10/20/2006, Musgrave is ahead by 10 points (49%-39%), but there is a third party (Reform?) that is polling at 10%. On the assumption that the third party might collapse by or on election day, and since neither major party is polling a majority, the race might end up much closer than appears today.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
If cautioning against overstatement makes me a defender or excuser of the GOP
What you call “overstatement,” many others simply see as the bare-knuckled truth.
Politics has long been the art of self-deception and hollow hopes. Looking at the facts, as they stand, and concluding it’s simplistic to observe them — without adding some “nuance” which doesn’t really do anything but distort the situation — isn’t sophistication. It’s sophistry.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
NL, you are forcing me into your narrow, preconceived categories more than responding to what I actually wrote. No surprise there.
posted by Bobby on
Fine, they may be homophobes but they got almost perfect conservative voting records. That alone is important to many people.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
forcing me into your narrow, preconceived categories
That angry drama queen act might work in various community forums, but it doesn’t work with me. You need to face up to the fact that the narrow, preconceived categories which you’re attempting to frame all discussions in don’t fit many (perhaps even most) of us. Further, the only alternatives you’re offering are narrow, preconceived, and highly constrained.
The whole “vote Democrat but Republicans aren’t really all that bad” line is pretty darn narrow, certainly preconceived, and constraining as heck. Many of us desire a different choice and find defense of the status-quo, along with defeatist rhetoric by same, to be quite amusing. The faux outrage which comes in response to our suggestion that the status-quo is unacceptable is simply the cherry on the sundae.
they may be homophobes but they got almost perfect conservative voting records
What *is* a conservative voting record?
It used to be about small, limited government which spends less. How many Republicans vote for such things today? Very few.
It would seem that the Republican party should focus less of its energy on “gays redefining marriage” and more on their own folks defining conservatism. Because a look at conservatism today shows a federal government exploding in size, with bloated spending, soaring employment, thousands of new federal programs, the number of earmarks growing by an order of magnitude in just 10 years, efforts to regulate the conduct of ordinary Americans in their personal lives through law, efforts to nullify the Geneva Convention, efforts to nullify the Bill of Rights, and so on.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
NL wrote, “That angry drama queen act….”
More bullshit that is so utterly unconnected to what I wrote that it makes me stop reading. More dishonesty, more bluster, more refusal to address my actual statements and recognize that I simply have not begun to earn the dismissive and scornful tone that you are determined in advance to adopt. You, NL, are a waste of my time. I would like to have a serious discussion, but you are just too bound up in your need to score points. Suit yourself.
posted by dalea on
My perspective has been that the battle is already lost: the theocons control too much of the Republican party and the rational people control too little. It is not clear, at least to me, how the rational people could retake the party. What seems to be going on is that the theocons have grabbed enough state apparatuses, mainly in the South and West, to be close to a stranglehold.
Now it would be nice, and politically helpful, if the rational types were in a position to grab back all that is lost. But just how could this be done? The rational appear to be the remnents of the older GOP, centered in New England and the Upper Midwest. Which areas are trending heavily Democratic. The loonies control the South and West, where they actually do win elections.
Richard, I wish you well with your struggle. But can not figure out how this could work. If the Republicans do loose this fall, the remaining office holders will most likely be even more heavily theocon as they tend to have safer seats.
For the moderates to make a comeback they would need some base withing the elected DC officeholders. And I can’t see that they have much now, and probably will have even less after the elections. Chafee looks to be going down, and so does Shays.
How is this suppossed to work?
posted by raj on
Dalea: I doubt very seriously that it would work.
On a lighter note, it looks like the Log Cabineers of Massachusetts have pretty much given up on the state Republican party for the 2006 state election:
Mass. Log Cabineers take it easy this November
It looks like the state Republican party is only contesting about 1/3 of the seats in the state legislature.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
More bullshit that is so utterly unconnected to what I wrote that it makes me stop reading.
Richard, you don’t read much. You do, however, have a lot to say. Why not sit back for a while and let some other people who don’t live in your inside-the-beltway bubble have a discussion without your condescending interjections? Thanks!
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
How is this suppossed to work?
It doesn’t work, but some folks cannot help but see things the old-fashioned way — rather than realize we’re seeing a political reorientation today which resembles the rise of the religious right in the 1980s as a political force.
The religious right has overreached and is set to go into decline. Another generation is beginning to take control, and it will result in profound changes to the political priorities of this country — including gay rights.
posted by dalea on
This whole discussion reminds me very much of the way gay Roman Catholics defended staying within their church in the 70’s. The argument ran something like this. We are working steadily within the organization to improve life for gay people. You may not see it, but it is going on. And we are making progress and allies. We have gay people who are in high positions of authority. They will apply the pressure and persuasion to make things come our way. And when a new, younger Pope comes in, great changes!
Yeah, right. Now it seems to be that Dignity is formally out of the RC. Gay ministries are forbidden unless of the exgay or celibate type. Gay supporters are routinely denied communion throughout the world (plaid sash). RC gays are now popping up in Episcopal churches.
This whole drama appears to have moved to the Republican party. And will probably play out the same way. It is difficult to realize now how vibrant and open gay RC’s were 30 years ago, what a vast movement they were. It looks like the same will be true of the gay Republicans. In fact, I find the arguments here made by gay Repubs to eerily echo those of Dignity years ago.
Centralized, authoritarian organizations, regardless of how many gay appartchiks work there, can easily become relentlessly anti-gay very easily. So, what must happen for gays and their allies to retake the Rep party?
posted by dalea on
Conservative gay catholics spent over 30 years hitting their heads against a stone wall. And conservative gay people seem dedicated to repeating this error with the republican party. Once the implacabld right takes over something, it is over. The only choice is to move on, and go elsewhere.
NE will point out the benefits of the Libertarian Party, which are real and many. I personally have come to a place where I can live with the Dems. These are two real and viable destinations. Staying however, simply does not look like a workable strategy for gays.
AFAICT the idea of staying with the Reps seems to rest on the occurance of miracles and highly improbable events. How is this a good way to proceed?
posted by Carl on
The main reason Musgrave is in danger is because she is not charismatic and she supposedly has poor constituent services. She has gotten as far as she has only because of the support of the anti-gay forces in Dobson-land, not because of any great skill on her part.
The GOP is going to have a hard time keeping that district as well as Hefley\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’s district if Lamborn wins.
I truly believe Musgrave is the reason Republicans lost so much in Colorado in 2004. She is the true face of the Colorado GOP, of much of the national GOP, that they had kept hidden until that time.
As for the MA Log Cabin Republicans, I feel sorry for them, until I remember they were dumb enough to endorse Mitt Romney in 2002. I noticed they aren\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’t endorsing the gay Republican who\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’s running against Sarah Peake for an open seat. Good. He is against gay rights.