Karl Rove, Bush's key political adviser, is resigning. Good. As the Washington Blade reports:
Rove is widely seen as having masterminded the 2004 campaign against gay marriage. That effort, which resulted in gay unions being banned in 11 states, was designed to drive conservative voters to the polls and increase Bush's popular vote tally....
Patrick Sammon, president of Log Cabin Republicans, said such campaign strategies were proven ineffective two years later, when vehemently anti-gay voices, such as Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, were defeated. He said a majority of Americans now support certain gay rights and protections, and the 2004 campaign might mark the final time any "anti-gay strategy" is used on the national stage.
"It's disappointing and unfortunate that Karl Rove pursued the strategy he did in 2004," Sammon said. "He went down that course and divided the country and it was a mistake, and I think history will judge him harshly because of it."
To gay "progressives" who place fealty to the Democratic Party above all, the GOP is basically unredeemable (and the more homophobic all the better for keeping gay voters on the correct political reservation). But, in fact, there can be no widespread victory for gay equality without moving the GOP to accommodate statewide moves toward same-sex unions/marriage and turn against enshrining discrimination at the federal level.
Early in his administration, it seemed that Bush was willing to be more open on gay issues, but when the going got tough he opted to listen to Rove and pursue an appeal to prejudice (much as Nixon had done a generation earlier with his "Southern strategy").
But Log Cabin's Sammon is essentially right; as gay openness increases and we and our families are seen as part of the "normal" fabric of society, ginning up bigotry for political gain becomes less effective. Which is why this is no time to embrace the "one party" strategy. Not only will that never ensure gay rights ("Hey Democrats, free votes from gays; nothing required") but it's an affront to the 25 percent of gays who routinely tell exit polls they vote for Republicans, and who aren't going to abandon their beliefs that confiscatory tax rates, government-controlled healthcare and anti-trade protectionism are disasters that must be averted-and that gays deserve full equality from their government.
29 Comments for “Good Riddance to Rove”
posted by Randy on
Let’s see — Bush ran as a compassionate conservative who abrupty abandoned his image of fairness to gays to pander to the far right.
And when Rudy runs as a compassionate conservative who is pro-gay and then abandons that to pander to the far right, well, that’s all terrific with you?
As W says, fool me once, shame of me, fool me twice, shame — well you don’t get to fool me again.
(God forbid a Democrat should act this way. you’d all hang him in a new york minute)
posted by Randy on
“. Which is why this is no time to embrace the “one party” strategy.”
I totally agree with this. There is no way we can secure our rights without the aid of both parties, and I believe the Log Cabins should be doing what they can to bring republicans along for support. And I agree that there are many liberal groups out there that don’t see it this way, and demonize the GOP and won’t reach out to them. And I completely disagree with that approach.
Yet….I don’t see much in the way of the LCR’s reaching out to the Dems either. I don’t see any effort on this website to find common ground with liberal gay groups. Instread, I see sweeping statements that a youtube on Guiliani is representative of how ALL liberal groups act.
I suppose you can say that you won’t reach out to the dems until they move first. Well, someone has to move first, and if you believe in this so strongly then just do it. Instead, you engage in the same partisan bickering that you accuse the liberal groups of doing.
Why not be a real leader and reach out and build bridges with liberal groups? They may turn you away, so than what that means is that you come back a little later and try again. If spurned again, they you try again. That’s how all great movements succeed — by continually doing what is right and focusing on the bigger prize.
Instread, you focus on smally fry like a silly youtube film, and complain bitterly about how the liberal groups act so badly when they could do better. I agree, they could do better. So why not be the better example?
posted by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) on
…. ("Hey Democrats, free votes from gays; nothing required") …. Well, the last 9 months have demonstarted that to be point-on. Have they done a damned-thing other than a few Memebers’ posturing? DADT is still military law, ENDA is dead in the water and DOMA is still the law of the land while the Democrats control BOTH Houses of Congress. And I’m supposed to give them blind and unquestioning support while the pick my pockets and act against my own self-interests??
posted by Brian Miller on
Any hope that Republicans are planning to be “more pro-gay” in a substantive way is about the same as the Democratic gay assertions that Hillary is going to support immigration equality and gay marriage “any day now” — a pipe dream.
The reality is that only two national parties in this country support real equality for gay and lesbian people — the Libertarians and the Greens.
posted by Avee on
Randy writes: “I don’t see any effort on this website to find common ground with liberal gay groups. Instead, I see sweeping statements that a youtube on Guiliani is representative of how ALL liberal groups act.”
Randy, have there been any denuciation of the anti-Giuliani video from the Democrats? Not that I’ve seen. Instead, the Democrats commenting on this site all support the video, and the left-leaning gay media run puff pieces about it. Sounds like this ugly use of homophobia to help Demcrats by hurting a (relatively) pro-gay Republican is just fine with the party of the left!
posted by Brian Miller on
One of the noted differences between libertarians and conservatives is the lack of a sense of humor that the latter have. All the breathlessly outraged comments over these silly videos illustrates that gulf in stark relief.
Frankly, the world needs more humor taking down humorless control freaks like Giuliani a notch. Republicans, Democrats, and their supporters all take themselves far too seriously — a fact made even more stark when you compare their records of failure with their pretensions of respectability!
posted by Doug on
Ted B. Lets get real here. Everyone knows that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to get anything passed, and last I checked the Democrats had 51 if you count Lieberman. A simple majority only allows you to have the microphone and gavel.
Given a choice between a party that is proactively antigay, the GOP, and a party that is proactively not antigay, the Democrats, I know where my vote will go
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
The only problem Doug is that Ted B has no interest in how law-making is actually accomplished. As long as he can make blanket accusations and repeat sound-bites he is happy…don’t confuse him with the truth.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Everyone knows that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to get anything passed, and last I checked the Democrats had 51 if you count Lieberman. A simple majority only allows you to have the microphone and gavel.
Funny; according to you and your fellow leftists, the Republicans passed bill after bill after bill full of evil and hate, dripping with homophobia…..but the highest they ever got was 55 seats in the Senate.
So that means one of two things: either it doesn’t take 60 seats, or your “friendly” Democrats actively conspired to screw you over, even as you were coughing up tens of millions of dollars.
And if it doesn’t take 60 seats…..
Meanwhile, what exactly do you define as “proactively antigay”? The Democrat Party and its candidates support the FMA, support state constitutional amendments, support pandering to Pat Robertson, fire gay DNC employees who speak out against DNC homophobia, and promote their having the “same position” as the Republicans you call homophobic, all with the connivance of HRC’s leadership, as I pointed out before — but you and your fellow gay Democrats call that pro-gay and gay-supportive and channel it tens of millions of dollars.
posted by Randy on
Thanks, Avee, for proving my point that there is no interest on this website for any bi-partisan cooperation. It’s all about bashing liberals.
Now, that’s fine. But then don’t say that you want to work together for gay rights.
If it is true that we need bi-partisan support to get gay rights, then people like you are just as much to blame for the failure of not having those rights as the liberals you complain about.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Exhibit A, Randy.
One can be gay and conservative but one cannot be gay and republican. That’s akin to being a jewish nazi.
Exhibit B, Randy.
What we see is the following:
1) Liberals loathe gay Republicans and conservatives as “Jewish Nazis” and support attacks on and harassment of them.
2) Liberals endorse as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” actions taken by Democrats that they scream are “homophobic” and “antigay” when Republicans allegedly do the same.
In short, liberals and liberal groups a) don’t want to work together and b) fully support antigay actions when ordered by their Democrat masters.
Perhaps if you purged your hatemongering bigots and your servile leaders, you might find us a bit more cooperative. But I, for one, see no value in allying with liberals when they support the same antigay activities and abusive behavior as does the right with zero ideological similarity to my beliefs on other topics.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “…according to you and your fellow leftists, the Republicans passed bill after bill after bill full of evil and hate, dripping with homophobia…”
Complete bullsh*t. Care to cite an example where ANYONE has made that claim? You can’t and we both know it. Why do you feel the need to resort to distortions and lies to make your points? Don’t you see how your fabrications and hyperbole hurt your ability to make a cogent point?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Complete bullsh*t. Care to cite an example where ANYONE has made that claim?
Again, to clarify, ColoradoPatriot: you are saying that no gay person or organization has ever criticized the previous Republican Congress for proposing and/or passing bills or laws that they consider evil, homophobic, and hateful.
Do you really want to do that?
posted by Bobby on
“Good Riddance to Rove”
This headline demostrates bias to a brilliant man who got Bush elected twice. Whatever, Rove is a great man, people who work closely with him know this, and all your defamation and insults will do nothing to diminish his legacy.
Frankly, a lot of democrats could use a man like Rove, specially John Edwards who accused Ann Coulter of name-calling and then proceded to call her a “she-devil” on TV.
Or what about Hillary Clinton? She’s hated by the right, hated by the far left, she could use a Karl Rove but then again, why would Rove waste his time? Bush may be “unpolished” but he’s got principles. Hillary’s principles are whatever her advisers tell her to think.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “…according to you and your fellow leftists, the Republicans passed bill after bill after bill full of evil and hate, dripping with homophobia…”
These are YOUR WORDS ND30…You can’t post lies and fabrications and then complain about being treated unfairly. Please document where someone (anyone) has accused the Bush administration of “pass[ing] bill after bill after bill full of evil and hate, dripping with homophobia…” You can’t. You lied.
posted by instafaggot on
Does every friggin post have to contain some sort of a random, unsupported slam against Democrats? Answer: yes.
The question is Why? Why is this necessary? Why does every damn thing that ever happens have to be framed in partisan terms? And please don’t give me that fallacious “they do it too” argument.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Again, to clarify, ColoradoPatriot: you are saying that no gay person or organization has ever criticized the previous Republican Congress for proposing and/or passing bills or laws that they consider evil, homophobic, and hateful.
Do you really want to make that claim?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “Again, to clarify, ColoradoPatriot: you are saying that no gay person or organization has ever criticized the previous Republican Congress for proposing and/or passing bills or laws that they consider evil, homophobic, and hateful.”
I would never make such a flimsy comment and, if I had, I would be man enough to own up to what I said. What about you? You made this claim, “”…according to you and your fellow leftists, the Republicans passed bill after bill after bill full of evil and hate, dripping with homophobia…”
Are you willing to admit that no one has made such a statement and that you in fact lied when you accused people on this board of supporting the sentiment?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I would never make such a flimsy comment and, if I had, I would be man enough to own up to what I said.
Why not? There’s nothing in that clarification that isn’t in the first statement of mine you cited.
For some reason, you seem quite unwilling to back up your claim that not a single gay person or organization ever accused the previous Republican Congresses of passing or proposing homophobic, evil, and hateful legislation. Why is that?
posted by kittynboi on
“”This headline demostrates bias to a brilliant man who got Bush elected twice. “”
This site certainly oesn’t make any claims to be anti biased about these matters.
So whats the problem with them having a bias against Rove?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “For some reason, you seem quite unwilling to back up your claim that not a single gay person or organization ever accused…”
I have never made such a claim. You are LYING.
posted by Randy on
ND30: “But I, for one, see no value in allying with liberals when they support the same antigay activities and abusive behavior as does the right with zero ideological similarity to my beliefs on other topics.”
Well, I don’t see Democrats supporting any of the likes of James Dobson, the FRC or any of the other anti-gay groups. Of course, there are some nut cases in every party, but what I see here consistently on this website is a belief that every single Democrat, liberal, activist hates gays and supports anti-gay legislation, and unless every single one of them toe the Republican line on every issue, then the people here, like ND30, will never reach out to liberals and help to secure gay rights.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, I don’t see Democrats supporting any of the likes of James Dobson, the FRC or any of the other anti-gay groups.
You might try looking.
Harder.
.
Lots harder.
So let’s see…..that constitutes the head of the Democrat Party, the Democrat Presidential candidate, the head of the Democrat Leadership Council, and a leader of HRC.
Would you mind explaining why, if Democrats who hold and espouse these positions are “nut cases”, they end up in such high leadership and elective roles in the party and in gay organizations, elected by the members of said organizations and party — and why gay Democrats and gay organizations support and endorse them with tens of millions of dollars?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, I don’t see Democrats supporting any of the likes of James Dobson, the FRC or any of the other anti-gay groups.
You might try looking.
Harder.
Harder.
Lots harder.
So let’s see…..that constitutes the head of the Democrat Party, the Democrat Presidential candidate, the head of the Democrat Leadership Council, and a leader of HRC.
Would you mind explaining why, if Democrats who hold and espouse these positions are “nut cases”, they end up in such high leadership and elective roles in the party and in gay organizations, elected by the members of said organizations and party — and why gay Democrats and gay organizations support and endorse them with tens of millions of dollars?
posted by Randy on
Your first link merely showed that Howard Dean says that the Democrats have family values, but it doesn’t mention any support for Pat Robertson. Dean was (gasp!) actually reaching out to the religious right to try to show that Democrats are not twinhorned devils. That’s a far cry from saying that he ‘supports’ Pat Robertson.
Your other links say anything about Democrats supporting the FRC or James Dobson. They merely say that Kerry and other Democrats didn’t support gay marriage.
So my statement stands. I don’t see any Democratic leader supporting James Dobson or the Family Research Council, or Gary Bauer or that whole crew. By support, I don’t mean that they necessarily have differing opinions, but that they actually say in word or deed that these people or groups deserve money, access, power and that sort of thing.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So I see.
— It’s not antigay and hateful to show support for Pat Robertson’s values, including his antigay ones
— It’s not antigay and hateful to support state constitutional amendments
— It’s not antigay, hateful, and homophobic to support the FMA
— It’s not antigay, hateful, and homophobic for gay leaders and organizations to give money to and endorse FMA supporters
Thank you for clearing that up, Randy.
And also showing why it would be utterly pointless to work with you; whether or not a behavior is homophobic and hateful is based, not on the behavior, but whether or not you like the person’s political affiliation.
posted by Bobby on
“This site certainly oesn’t make any claims to be anti biased about these matters.
So whats the problem with them having a bias against Rove?”
—The problem is that is the INDEPENDENT Gay Forum, not the DEMOCRAT Gay Forum, so Miller should have written “Goodbye Rove” or “Rove resigns,” but not a headline that assumes all gays are glad Rove is gone.
“The question is Why? Why is this necessary? Why does every damn thing that ever happens have to be framed in partisan terms?”
—Because most people identify their views strongly with one or two political parties. Lawyers love democrats because democrats love litigation and lawsuits. Doctors love republicans because they support caps on those lawsuits. Labor Unions love democrats even though their members may not (the dems are too liberal for those blue collar folks). Environmentalists love democrats because democrats hate drilling for oil in Alaska, hate building new oil refineries and think that the best way to get Americans to use less fuel is to raise the fuel tax.
Business people love republicans for the opposite reasons.
Dude, people are partisan, I knew the son of a doctor, who was very much a liberal but ended up voting for Bush after seeing how much his father had to pay in lawsuit insurance.
And before anyone says “let’s vote for a third party.” Let’s remember that a libertarian government could not work because liberals want their gun control, conservatives want the military to go to war and people can’t agree on anything.
That’s why we shall always have the two party system and every 10 years the partisans will be terrified of what the other party will do. Just be happy we’re not in England where if you vote for Labor or Tory you get basically the same shit.
posted by kittynboi on
“”—The problem is that is the INDEPENDENT Gay Forum, not the DEMOCRAT Gay Forum, so Miller should have written “Goodbye Rove” or “Rove resigns,” but not a headline that assumes all gays are glad Rove is gone.””
Independent doesn’t mean neutral. Nor does this site claim to represent all gays.
posted by Randy on
ND30: “And also showing why it would be utterly pointless to work with you; whether or not a behavior is homophobic and hateful is based, not on the behavior, but whether or not you like the person’s political affiliation.”
Not quite, ND30. You see, I made a simple statement, that none of the gay democratic groups support Pat Robertson & Co. You have conflated that to another subject, which is gay marriage, something I didn’t raise at all. Then, having created the straw man of gay marriage, you find instances where dems have been against gay marriage.
Well, very true. But that’s not my point. My point hinges upon the definiation of ‘support.’ By support, I mean actually saying that James Dobson is right, and deserves money and manpower, and giving him a direct cell phone number and all that. In none of your examples did you show that anyone was giving him support of that kind.
True, Howard Dean spoke at a CBN forum. But that’s really stretching it to say that Dean ‘supports’ Pat Robertson. I thought reaching out to opponents is a good thing, but I see you disagree.
I agree that it is a bad thing to give money and support to organizations that support the FMA. But the Democratic party was against the FMA, and almost all voted against it, whereas almost all repubs voted in favor of it. Therefore, according to you own standard, it would be better for gays to give to the Democratic party, right?
As for myself, I was actually a member of the Log Cabin republicans for a number of years. It was because I actually do believe that gay rights cannot be achieved in a lasting way without support from both sides of the aisle. I dropped out only because I my life got very busy, and I can’t do everything. But yes, I did support republican candidates — with money and effort — who were pro-gay. And I still do.