updated Sept. 29
The never-ending presidential race has sucked the air out of every other issue, save for perhaps the credit crisis-thank you Barney Frank and Acorn-empowering Obama, who has the gall to blame Republicans for the mess caused when he and his fellow Democrats used government to pressure lenders to make subprime loans to lower-income families (i.e., "community activism"). Maybe voters are so ill-informed that they'll buy it; well see. But I digress. Below are more as-of-now political musings.
If McCain wins, I think it will show that the U.S. remains a center-right majority electorate, and that working singularly within the Democratic party in the hope of a leftwing ascendancy remains a failed strategy.
If Obama wins with a Democratic Congress (the likely outcome, given the nation's GOP-fatigue), we'll see how well the Democrats deliver on their promises -- and whether it's better than when Clinton had both houses of Congress and our rights went backwards because the party saw no need to spend political capital on gay voters. This under-reported back-tracking by Obama on "don't ask, don't tell" doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Gay activist Wayne Besen, formerly of the Human Rights Campaign, recently penned a column in which he calls on the Log Cabin Republicans to disband. He's beside himself over LCR's endorsement of John McCain-heresy, heresy, HERESY. (Ok, that's a paraphrase). But his concern is that we don't quite have 100% of our eggs in just one basket, and everyone should be toeing the party line.
I'd counter that, with increasingly rare exceptions, LGBT liberal-left activists are no longer even trying to woo the center-right (where I believe most Americans reside). So if Besen would have Log Cabin disband, here's my own proposal: If more gay people joined their local GOP committees and supported GOP/conservative groups and pacs that are either gay supportive (LCR) or avoid social issues (Club for Growth), and worked within them (while being open about being gay), we'd begin to counter the influence that the religious right has exerted throughout the GOP. And that might do more to advance gay equality than partying with fellow liberal Democrats ever will.
More. Log Cabin's Patrick Sammon on why gay Republicans are standing with McCain. Sammon cites not only McCain's consistent opposition to the federal marriage amendment, but also his support for allowing people "to invest part of their Social Security taxes [into] private accounts that can be left to one's partner-something prohibited under the current system that Obama defends."
46 Comments for “Eggs and Baskets”
posted by Brian on
Yup.
But for one, that is harder and scarier. Two, LGBT may share other values with Democrats than the gay issue and would be unwilling to compromise on those in order to advance their own equality.
posted by Jorge on
This guy Benson is an idiot. He’s essentially saying that’s no rational reason for anyone to vote Republican, and then saying that’s why gay Republicans definitely shouldn’t vote Republican since they’re also anti-gay.
Well, last time I checked, Obama has a slight lead over McCain. And recently a poll game out in which the public’s preference for Democrats over Republicans was rather slight.
So until he gets it through his thick skull that almost half the country, having studied all the issues of this election with equal vigor as everyone else, actually prefers Republicans to Democrats, I’m not lifting a finger to enlighten him.
posted by ETJB on
It would seem that gay Democrats and Republicans tend to have blinders on when it comes to looking at the American electoral process, gay rights and the likely outcome for gay rights.
If McCain wins, we can probably expect the White House not to promote any gay rights bills or endorse them. The judges that he will nominate to federal courts will likely interpret the Constitution to the disadvantage of gay Americans. Whether or not a McCain White House pushes for anti-gay bills, remains to be seen.
If Obama wins, we can probably expect White House support on the ENDA and HCPA, AIDS/HIV prevention/research and maybe some decent hearings on the military and civil unions. The judges he will nominate to the federal courts will probably interpret the Constitution in a way that is better for gay Americans.
Much of this depends on not just which party controls the House or Senate, personally I am leery of one-party government, but the type of philosophies of the particular candidates. The fact that exit polling puts the number of gay voters at around 5%, means that we compete with other groups of citizens who are in much larger numbers and better financed.
Not all Democrats or Republicans think or vote alike, especially when they feel that their constituents (who incumbents worry about pleasing more then their party coworkers) are likely to be more liberal or conservative on certain issues.
Yes, the Democratic Party leadership tends to be more supportive then the Republican Party leadership and that has some sway.
One possible suggestion would be to look at the number of House and Senate incumbents who score below a 70% from the Human Rights Campaign. Yes, the HRC scorecard is hardly perfect, but just as a starting point to give us an idea how many Democrats and Republicans have really horrific voting records on gay rights issues.
Then we look at the State or district and ask ourselves, how socially conservative is the district or State? If polling data shows little or no support for gay rights, well we should not be too shocked if both candidates follow the voter’s prejudices.
Then we look at nominating candidates for these particular House or Senate seats who are either (1) LGBT or (2) a straight ally. They can be an Independent/Minor Party candidate, with the right laws, funding and campaign plan, or they can push to win a Democratic or Republican party primary.
Depending on the State law, it is not too difficult to get onto a primary ballot, major party, and change your party ID to vote for that candidate. It would be entirely possible — given the low turn out in most primary races — to have our LGBT or straight alley candidate winning a primary race.
(1) Presidential elections are won — most of the time — by winning a plurality of the popular vote in enough states to get 270+ Electoral College voters who will probably vote for you and your VP.
Generally, the majority of Americans prefer a candidate who (center left or Neo-Liberal) is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Yet, we do not have national, majority rule presidential elections.
The never-ending presidential race has sucked the air out of every other issue, save for perhaps the credit crisis (thank you Barney Frank and company). So here’s another post with my as-of-now political musings.
If McCain wins, I think it will show that the U.S. remains a center-right majority electorate, and that working singularly within the Democratic party in the hope of a leftwing ascendancy remains a failed strategy.
If Obama wins with a Democratic Congress, we’ll see how well the Democrats deliver on their promises (and whether it’s better than when Clinton had both houses of Congress and our rights went backwards because the party saw no need to spend political capital on gay voters).
Gay activist Wayne Besen, formerly of the Human Rights Campaign, recently penned a column in which he calls on the Log Cabin Republicans to disband. He’s beside himself over LCR’s endorsement of John McCain ?heresy, heresy, HERESY. (Ok, that’s a paraphrase). But his concern is that we don’t quite have 100% of our eggs in just one basket, and everyone should be toeing the party line.
I’d counter that, with increasingly rare exceptions, LGBT liberal-left activists are no longer even trying to woo the center-right (where I believe most Americans reside). So if Besen would have Log Cabin disband, here’s my own proposal: If more gay people joined their local GOP committees and supported GOP/conservative groups and pacs that are either gay supportive (LCR) or avoid social issues (Club for Growth), and worked within them (while being open about being gay), we’d begin to counter the influence that the religious right has exerted throughout the GOP. And that might do more to advance gay equality than partying with fellow liberal Democrats ever will.
posted by ETJB on
Despite what some gay Democrats say, McCain winning will not be the end of the world or a dawn of a new era in gay-GOP relations. Likewise, Obama is not Moses liberating the oppressed people, nor a member of the loony left.
Either man will have to deal with the House and Senate, with candidates worried about offending voters more the sticking to a platform, an assortment of interest groups, left and right wing media and, of coarse, the midterm and next presidential race. Here is what I see, in terms of gay rights;
A McCain White House will not push for any gay rights bills, but will probably not promote many overtly anti-gay ones — beyond abstience based programs and possible a federal marriage amendment. His federal justices will probably interpret the constitution in a bad way for gay Americans.
He will maintain a image of being vaguely personally respectful to and tolerant of gay people, but does not want to lose that socially conservative evangelical voter base.
He may listen to the Log Cabin Republicans, or the Republican Unity Caucus, but if it comes down to ‘the gays’ or ‘the Christian Right’, policy wise, he is not going to risk a second term.
Obama may push for mainstream bills — ENDA and HCPA –, but federal civil unions or lifting the military ban will probably not happen until a second term. Decent hearings is what we might expect. His judges will probably not be as hostile to the four, major positive U.S.S.C gay rights cases; freedom of speech/press, equal protection, same-sex sexual harassment and privacy/equal protection.
I doubt that either man will officially repeal the executive order concerning federal civilian employment or security clearances.
(1) Presidential elections are won — most of the time — by winning a plurality of the popular vote in enough states to get 270+ Electoral College voters who will probably vote for you and your VP.
Generally, the majority of Americans prefer a candidate who (center left or Neo-Liberal) is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Yet, we do not have national, majority rule presidential elections.
The never-ending presidential race has sucked the air out of every other issue, save for perhaps the credit crisis (thank you Barney Frank and company). So here’s another post with my as-of-now political musings.
If McCain wins, I think it will show that the U.S. remains a center-right majority electorate, and that working singularly within the Democratic party in the hope of a leftwing ascendancy remains a failed strategy.
If Obama wins with a Democratic Congress, we’ll see how well the Democrats deliver on their promises (and whether it’s better than when Clinton had both houses of Congress and our rights went backwards because the party saw no need to spend political capital on gay voters).
Gay activist Wayne Besen, formerly of the Human Rights Campaign, recently penned a column in which he calls on the Log Cabin Republicans to disband. He’s beside himself over LCR’s endorsement of John McCain ?heresy, heresy, HERESY. (Ok, that’s a paraphrase). But his concern is that we don’t quite have 100% of our eggs in just one basket, and everyone should be toeing the party line.
I’d counter that, with increasingly rare exceptions, LGBT liberal-left activists are no longer even trying to woo the center-right (where I believe most Americans reside). So if Besen would have Log Cabin disband, here’s my own proposal: If more gay people joined their local GOP committees and supported GOP/conservative groups and pacs that are either gay supportive (LCR) or avoid social issues (Club for Growth), and worked within them (while being open about being gay), we’d begin to counter the influence that the religious right has exerted throughout the GOP. And that might do more to advance gay equality than partying with fellow liberal Democrats ever will.
posted by ETJB on
Frankly, I do not have much love for most of the ‘national’ LGBT rights groups; HRC, LCR, NGLTF, or Stonewall Democrats. I known good and bad people in all such groups, but I think they all have flawed ways of looking about gay rights and how to implemented policy.
posted by Mike A on
Did Stephen Miller actually read Wayne Besen’s article?
Besen didn’t tell gay conservatives to vote Democrat; he told them to withhold their endorsement of an intemperate, reckless panderer to the religious right (not to mention Iraq-war neocons and corrupt Wall Street executives that are cashing in on trillions in taxpayer bailouts).
If the LCR or gay Democratic counterparts had any integrity whatsoever, they would withhold their endorsements of antigay candidates. Miller rightly blasts gay Democratic groups, but he writes a blank check for the LCR.
That’s not the talk of a center-rightist nor of a genuine political independent. It is the talk of blind fealty to bipolar partisan politics at their worst.
posted by avee on
Yeah, right. Log Cabin Republicans should refuse to endorse the guy who stood up to his party to denoucnce the anti-gay federal marriage amendment, and has the scars inflected from his own party’s right wing to prove it. A non-endorsement would have announced that gay Republicans are not, in fact, interested in being Republicans. Which would no doubt suit Wayne Besen and Mike A., who would rather demonize McCain in language right out of Daily Kos — i.e., "intemperate, reckless panderer to the religious right (not to mention Iraq-war neocons and corrupt Wall Street executives").
I guess they’re happy supporitng the guy with no substantial achievements on behalf of gays, or anyone else, but who sure can promise an awful lot — out of both sides of his mouth.
posted by Jorge on
It would seem that gay Democrats and Republicans tend to have blinders on when it comes to looking at the American electoral process, gay rights and the likely outcome for gay rights.
Before I respond to that, could you explain what gay Democrats and Republicans are thinking that is naive?
Generally, the majority of Americans prefer a candidate who (center left or Neo-Liberal) is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Yet, we do not have national, majority rule presidential elections.
That’s a very good description of voters in my home town of NYC vote. I’ve heard that people in other parts of the country are a little more conservative.
posted by Mike A on
Somehow I missed the memo from God which dictated that membership in a political party requires blind allegiance to whomever the lame presidential nominee happens to be. A party that demands such loyalty as a condition of participation is too corrupt to be redeemed anytime in our lifetime.
The campaigns of both Obama and McCain have been full of costly false promises that cannot be kept with an $11 trillion-plus national debt. Neither has offered concrete measures to slash that debt. Instead, both have made promises that will greatly increase that debt.
I suppose it’s easier for partisans to shill for either party’s corrupt storytellers than to make a serious effort to establish a genuine political movement for reform.
posted by Bobby on
“Besen didn’t tell gay conservatives to vote Democrat; he told them to withhold their endorsement of an intemperate, reckless panderer to the religious right (not to mention Iraq-war neocons and corrupt Wall Street executives that are cashing in on trillions in taxpayer bailouts).”
—Actually, McCain supports regulating Wall Street (which is a big mistake), Bush is bailing out private companies (another big mistake), and as for the war in Iraq, it’s obviously not a big deal, otherwise Obama’s poll numbers would be 70% or even 80%. Why is Iraq not a big deal? Because there’s no draft. If you don’t have to serve, you don’t care, if they don’t raise your taxes, you don’t care. And since gays are not allowed to serve in the military, I don’t mind the breeders dying for freedom. In fact, I consider them lucky, they get to die with honor instead of living boring, mundane, 9 to 6 cubicle-driven lives like the rest of us.
Obama is a progressive, gays who vote republicans are not progressives. So unless McCain goes on TV and literally says “I hate gays, they’re an abomination and should be put to death,” gay republicans are still gonna vote for McCain.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Wayne Besen is an excellent example of what’s fundamentally wrong with our current self-described and self-appointed “leadership” in the gay civil rights movement… they are stuck in reverse… in Wayne Besen’s case, the gears have worn down from his perpetual grinding of the gears, untimely clutching and lack of coordination… and he’s still stuck in reverse. Hell, he can’t even find the brakes –as his silliness here demonstrates.
Besen is the perfect tool for the gayLeft and gayDemocrats.
For a very long time, gays on the farLeft and gayDemocrats in general have been searing into the gay subconscious that the biggest threat to our “gay-dom” are those evil, church-a-goin’, God worshiping Christianists… and if we just muzzle those buggers and get ’em out of politics, it would be all rainbow sidewalks, honey for lubricant and free-Folsom sex.
At least that’s been the promise and audacity of hope.
Here’s a chance for the farLeft and gayDemocrats to prove themselves, finally. Just like the LogCabinRs took on Bush 43 in 2004, the gayLeft should take on our gay-marriage-opposing BarryO by voting for McCain and helping GOP moderates and political independents strip the GOP of its farRightReligious influence.
As RonnieReagan proved, it only takes one election to change the course of the world, the Nation and a Party.
Of course, gayDemocrats and the gay farLeft would rather keep the status quo because it helps them rally the middling troops when the EmptySuited BarryO comes to town to whisper promises in our ears… or the next Democrat who has a supposed “lock” on the presidency.
posted by ETJB on
Let us see here; we can vote for Obama (who has an imperfect but very good right on gay rights), or we can vote for McCain (who has an incredibly shitty record on gay rights but well, has been nice enough not to call for the death penalty for gays).
OR we can vote for some independent or third party — Libertarian, Green, Socialist, etc. — candidate who has zero chance of winning and will help or hurt Obama or McCain (in a close race). I am not terribly too sure how anyone, but a totally addicted and foolish gay partisan can be thrilled with our electoral choices.
How will gays (5%) voting for McCain — who opposes just about every single gay rights issue — going to help weaken the hold that the religious right — 10% – 40% — has on the GOP? If he and Sarah Palain win, they will keep opposing gay rights and will appoint bad judges to the courts.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET, you’re sounding more like those shrill voices of the NARAL folks in the Democrat Party every day now… “it’s the judges, I tell ya; they’ll put gays in concentration camps, abortions in the alleys, our environment in the toilet and the evil military in charge of our 1st A rights.”
Or maybe with this line –“I am not terribly too sure how anyone… can be thrilled with our electoral choices”– you’re sounding more like Michelle Obama, the High Priestess of I’m-Finally-Proud-of-America. The election isn’t supposed to be like watching BradyBunch reruns or new episodes of WhatNotToWear –go get your thrills elesewhere, this is serious civic duty time and you’re far, far short of what’s needed to participate.
You continue to avoid at all costs the fundamental facts in this election: 1) the two top candidates are no different on the #1 gay issue (gay marriage or nothing, damn it); 2) McCain’s candidacy is due to the heavy influence of political independents and moderate GOPers in the open GOP primaries; 3) the farRight religious types can’t control McCain anymore than BarryO can control Rev Wright or Bill Ayers; 4) the gayDemocrats’ #1 boogeyman for the last 25+ yrs has been the farRight religious types inside the GOP; and 5) helping to elect McCain will diminish the power and influence of the farRight religious types inside the GOP just like the NeoCons stole the Party in 1980 for RR.
It isn’t about the lowball 5% gay vote, as you try to suggest… that’s a part of the answer, not the whole entire answer.
You may not be able to understand it.
That’s no surprise.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
avee wisely notes: “Which (LCRs not endorsing McCain) would no doubt suit Wayne Besen and Mike A., who would rather demonize McCain in language right out of Daily Kos — i.e., “intemperate, reckless panderer to the religious right (not to mention Iraq-war neocons and corrupt Wall Street executives”). I guess they’re happy supporitng the guy with no substantial achievements on behalf of gays, or anyone else, but who sure can promise an awful lot — out of both sides of his mouth.”
That nails it pretty tightly shut, avee. For Obama and his gayDemocrat protectors, it’s all about the whispered promises for action after the election… oh, and “Look, quick look over here, McCain wants to invade Iran!”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I found Wayne Besen to be a zealot when I first met him in his former capacity as an HRC staffer, when he favored barring anti-gay PSAs (made by P-FOX) from the DC Metro System (a quasi-governmental agency) while I and GLAA invoked the First Amendment and insisted that the proper response to offensive speech was more speech, not censorship. (How this marks me a leftist, only MM will be able to discern.)
In my opinion, Besen usually goes too far. He also rarely misses an opportunity to beat a metaphor to death. I would still think it fairer to hang him by his own words than to paraphrase him tendentiously. But that point is less important here than Besen’s presumptuousness in telling gay Republicans what to do. When has Besen shown gay Republicans the slightest respect, that they should care what he thinks of them? If there is evidence that he has, I’d be happy to see it. If Log Cabin is mostly irrelevant within the GOP as presently constituted, Besen’s demands of Log Cabin are even less relevant.
Gee, avee and MM, I guess that if you repeat often enough the false claim that Obama has never done anything for gays, it becomes true! In fact, he supported gay rights legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and has just as pro-gay a record in the Senate since his arrival there as Hillary Clinton. For those interested in a serious comparison between Obama and McCain on gay issues, visit http://www.lgbtforobama.com/
As to MM’s “gay marriage or nothing” comment: I for one, as a strong proponent of marriage equality, do NOT support the all-or-nothing stance. Here in D.C., that would have meant nothing for the past 16 years since we passed our first domestic partnership law. I am a strong supporter of incrementalism, thanks to which domestic partners in D.C. now have legal protections close to those enjoyed by married same-sex couples in MA and CA. Obama supports civil unions and would grant federal recognition to civil unions. That is one of many gay issues on which Obama is clearly superior to McCain.
In other news: According to Ben Smith at Politico, Manhunt founder Jonathan Crutchley’s contribution to John McCain was NOT returned. Which suggests that McCain, although he endorses anti-gay ballot initiatives, is still willing to take our money. Where do I sign up?!
Crutchley wrote, “If we have an experienced, seasoned person defending the country in this dangerous age, we will be able to argue about the gay agenda later.” I guess this means, Vote for Obama and we’ll all die before we can move the gay agenda forward. Or perhaps it just means, Support McCain and he’ll get around to your concerns later. Much later.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
For those interested in a serious comparison between Obama and McCain on gay issues, visit http://www.lgbtforobama.com.
On a similar note, I can find a serious comparison between several Chrysler cars and trucks and their competitors on the Chrysler website.
Oddly enough, the Chrysler product always wins these comparisons. Given how poorly Chryslers have been selling, there is only one conclusion: since the Chrysler site proves that Chryslers are always better than their competitors, that means Americans are bigoted against and full of hate for Chryslers.
Thus, it should be no surprise that a site titled “LGBT For Obama” can demonstrate in a comparison that Obama is superior to McCain. However, whether or not such a comparison can be said to be in the least bit “serious” is rather in question.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
“On a similar note, I can find a serious comparison between several Chrysler cars and trucks and their competitors on the Chrysler website.”
NDXXX, pithy, on target, apt dismissal of the usual gayApologists’ theatrics… gheeeez, who would have thought that a pro-BarryO website would confirm the gayLeft’s wholehearted endorsement of BarryO… despite his lifelong associations with bigoted homophobic black ministers and churches (not mentioned), his political career-long association with bigoted homophobic black politicians (not mentioned), his shared vision on gay marriage (the gayDemocrats’ #1 issue) with the evil, darthVader’ish GOP candidate McCain… and BarryO’s stirring tribute to the 21st Century’s leading gay hero on the last few years of 9/11 Memorial Days… oh, wait, BarryO didn’t do that… that was the evil and anti-gay John McCain.
BarryO was busy worshiping at the knees of SlickWilly –you know, the President who signed DADT, DOMA, and so on… yeah, those Democrats… love the whispered promises of action AFTER the election.
Last Democrat Administration: “We kept all the campaign promises we intended to keep”.
RJR declares: “As to MM’s “gay marriage or nothing” comment: I for one, as a strong proponent of marriage equality, do NOT support the all-or-nothing stance.”
Cool, we agree. Now, are you ready to really leverage your vote on Election Day by casting your vote for McCain and helping the legions of GOP moderates, Ripon & LCR progressives and political independents free the GOP from the clutches of the farRight religious types?
Wanna be part of a REAL seachange moment instead of just the audacity of hype… oppps, I mean hope.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
RichardJ, old Chinese proverb: “Wisdom begins with putting the right name on a thing”.
You write: “How this (defending anti-gay PSAs on 1st A grounds) marks me a leftist, only MM will be able to discern.”
Not just me, RichardJ… for years the ACLU has likewise defended clients and cases where it would appear they were defending enemies who hate them and issues which should be an anathema to the uber-liberal ACLU.
Think Skokie, think Nazi, think Larry Craig, think Rush Limbaugh, think the AlpineVillageInn neo-Nazi restaurant patrons, think ACLU preventing black youth from attending better charter schools and making them attend decayed, corrupt innercity schools, think BongHits4Jesus, think… oh well, you get the idea.
Lefties appearing to defend free speech even if it’s of their enemy? Nawh, never could happen in America… too, too, too difficult to discern even for RichardJ. (wink)
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
In other words, MM, evidence of non-leftist actions and principles by someone you have designated a leftist doesn’t count, because once you have pigeonholed them, they are stuck with your facile label, and that’s that. How pathetic.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 wrote, “it should be no surprise that a site titled ‘LGBT For Obama’ can demonstrate in a comparison that Obama is superior to McCain. However, whether or not such a comparison can be said to be in the least bit ‘serious’ is rather in question.”
So kindly tell us which claims on the LGBT for Obama site are wrong, and provide evidence. If, as I suspect, you can’t do that, you can try to change the subject.
MM wrote, “Now, are you ready to really leverage your vote on Election Day by casting your vote for McCain and helping the legions of GOP moderates, Ripon & LCR progressives and political independents free the GOP from the clutches of the farRight religious types?”
No, MM. You see, unlike you, I can respect people with views different from mine. I have worked amicably with Log Cabin folks for many years. The last time I mentioned this to counter your false claims, I seem to recall someone desperately trying to make the case that LCR had been under the control of Democrats. Personally, I agree with George Will’s column this morning, in which he question’s whether someone of McCain’s temperament is fit for the presidency.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
King Richard pronounces: “In other words, MM, evidence of non-leftist actions and principles by someone you have designated a leftist doesn’t count, because once you have pigeonholed them, they are stuck with your facile label, and that’s that. How pathetic.”
“Pathetic” is it King Richard? Shall we start the countdown to your likely use of “self-loathing Republican” label?
Not pathetic, accurate.
Sorry, your Emperorness, you were the one who tried to take an undeserved swipe at me by suggesting liberals & lefties defending their political opponents was rare and somehow evidence of your true bipartisan stripes –I pointed out that the ACLU has been doing exactly that for years now and no one would confuse them for anything but lefties, far, far farLefties.
You failed to marshal any meaningful counterpoint and instead did the usual gayLeft thingie with the heavy (falsely burdened) sigh, “pathetic” line.
I really have to wonder, someone actually PAYS you to write? Gheez, they deserve a major refund.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Moving quickly onto the porcelain throne, eh, King Richard?
“The last time I mentioned this to counter your false claims, I seem to recall someone desperately trying to make the case that LCR had been under the control of Democrats.”
Not “desperately”, your Emperorness. I simply pointed out that the timeframe you like to claim your “I’m friends with GOPers” credentials is about the same time that the LCRs were clearly, indisputably under the control of gayDemocrat funders operating in DC and the LCR leadership –isolated and given pariah status by most state LCR chapters– were more interested in swilling Pink Cosmo drinks with your usual group of suspects from the gayDemocrat left.
You seemed shock to learn that the LCRs you were dealing with weren’t even considered to be Republican by most gay GOPers… imagine someone being so disconnected not to know that? Hmmmmmmm.
No false claims. Except to prove your “I’ve got friends who are Republican” credentials, King Richard.
It seems for you (sports analogy coming honey, get ready to cover your ears) the notion that skating faster on thin, breaking ice is your normal method of operation in dealing with critics.
Luckily, most of the IGF readers aren’t the forgetful, shallow, unthinking idiot stooges you normally appeal to.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
BTW King Richard, that stellar website by the Obama, for the Obama, indivisibly Obama, all for Obama and Obama for all…
Of the 30+ last posted articles –each one a gutterball posting intended to inflame and excite gays to grab their hoes, stand up in the rows and chant “OH-Baam-AH, OH-Baam–AH” — only a few have solicited bare, perfunctory comments from the gay RedMeatCrowd of worshipers from the Temple of Barack.
I think the phrase “self-serving” should lead your description of the site?
That, and the phrase “absolute failure”.
You know, you guys from the GayDemocrat left should really focus in and spend your time on convincing racist, bigoted Democrats to vote for BarryO –because at nearly 32% against BarryO, that’s going to mean another failed Democrat presidential bid on Election Day in the purportedly “Year of the Democrats”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So kindly tell us which claims on the LGBT for Obama site are wrong, and provide evidence. If, as I suspect, you can’t do that, you can try to change the subject.
And again, Richard, you dishonestly try to present a site that is sworn to the Obama campaign as making truthful and fair comparisons.
Example:
So ? why this BLOG and fundraising tool site? We want to give you everything you need to easily raise money:
1. Easy to absorb lists comparing the stark differences between Barack Obama (absolutely stellar) to John McCain (abysmal);
2. Pre-designed digital postcards explaining how and why to contribute that you can forward to your contacts;
3. Moving video clips to demonstrate Senator Obama?s commitment to the LGBT community and all that affects us;
This is just another example of an Obama campaign astroturf site.
Meanwhile, the reason that McCain is better is because McCain treats gay people like people. Obama treats them as a special-interest leftist group, and supports people like Mike Signorile and Sandra Bernhard who use their sexual orientation to attack others and who demand compliance to a political affiliation based on sexual orientation.
Actually, Signorile’s latest “outing”, if true, demonstrates that point quite nicely.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
King Richard demands: “So kindly tell us (NDXXX) which claims on the LGBT for Obama site are wrong, and provide evidence.”
It really isn’t all that hard, King Richard.
Let’s take the site’s first 100 words, which contain a clear lie: “Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have polar opposite records and stands on almost every issue important to LGBT Americans and our families.”
I guess “almost every” excludes the #1 gayDemocrat and gayLeft gay civil rights agenda item of “Gay Marriage Now or Nothing, Damn It!”. Oh, it doesn’t?
Because on the #1 gayLeft issue, gay marriage, McCain and BarryO have the same position on three key aspects: 1) both think marriage is a sacred union between 1 man and 1 woman; 2) both think that individual states are the best venue for deciding any changes on marital laws; and 3) neither McCain nor our GaySaviorBarryO care what the gay community’s thinks about their position.
The only VEEP nominee/candidate/wannabe over the last 20+ yrs who does support gay marriage is the sitting, GOP Vice President, Dick Cheney.
First hundred words.
It’s as easy as shooting fish in a barrel or skinning a snake. Care to spin-up a defense, King Richard? Or are you awaiting the arrival of ET sockpuppet from the spacecraft?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Staying with the first 100 words limit, there’s this fabulous lie-filled claim by the blog
“Obama supports LGBT people being treated equally under the law while McCain has opposed every pro-LGBT piece of legislation that has come his way.”
Ummmm, paging King Richard… I think the 2 votes against the FMA that put McCain in the doghouse with the farRight religious types and his own Party’s social conservatives would make that claim a lie.
It really isn’t all that hard… are you working on some more spin King Richard to defend that terrific ObamaHacks4Obama site?
Or is this going to be one of those times you go suddenly silent, run deep and get out the sockpuppets for some handwork?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Once again, MM insists on mixing name-calling with his responses to my arguments. Anyway, he says, “I think the 2 votes against the FMA that put McCain in the doghouse with the farRight religious types and his own Party’s social conservatives would make that claim a lie.”
Um, no. MM said this in response to a claim that “McCain has opposed every pro-LGBT piece of legislation that has come his way.” Do I really have to point out to MM that FMA is not covered by this statement because it is not a pro-LGBT piece of legislation? If you count the repeal of the ban on HIV-positive servicemembers, then that would be an exception to the claim made. It would be the only exception.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I agree with ND30’s criticism of Mike Signorile, and am proud to have been condemned in print by Mr. Signorile many years ago. OTOH, if we are going to talk about campaigns’ associations with nasty and unscrupulous people, the list on McCain’s side of the ledger would be a lot longer.
If McCain’s purported comfort with gay staffers trumps everything else, then a lot of right-wing members of Congress deserve to be re-elected regardless of their terrible records on gay issues. But this is nonsense. You think McCain as a politician is above dealing with interest groups? Hah! And pardon me, but “interest group” is another term for citizens organizing to defend their interests. Gay-rights advocates have generally been outspent by those supporting McCain.
ND30 has helpfully shown us that the site titled “LGBT for Obama” is, in fact, a pro-Obama site. What he has not done is tell us (with evidence) which claims on that site are wrong. At least MM made a small effort.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If McCain’s purported comfort with gay staffers trumps everything else, then a lot of right-wing members of Congress deserve to be re-elected regardless of their terrible records on gay issues. But this is nonsense.
LOL……and there we see your problem, Richard.
You insist that Democrats are “pro-gay” because they pay lip service to pretty legislation — even as they support that which you claim to be antigay and openly discriminate against gay and lesbian employees who complain about homophobic attitudes.
Meanwhile you complain that Republicans are antigay and homophobic because they don’t support the laws you want, even though they themselves are quite obviously hiring and employing gay people — which is allegedly what you want — without a law forcing them to do it.
In short, you support the people who promise what you want and do the opposite, but you oppose the people who don’t promise what you want and do it anyway.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
You know, if people who are not laughing out loud would stop peppering their messages with “LOL,” that tiresome tic would disappear.
Contrary to ND30’s claim, I have not said that all Democrats, or Democrats in general, are “pro-gay” in some static and monolithic sense. Nor do I avoid critizing Democrats who do anti-gay things. I do say what is plainly true, which is that Democrats overall have a much better record on gay-related issues than Republicans. But, again, I do not then refuse to give due credit to Republicans who have earned it.
ND30 cites items about Hilary Rosen having given $1000 to Rep. Harold Ford, and about Howard Dean and the DNC. I don’t recall having defended either, while I do recall having critized Rep. Ford in print. One may disagree with Rosen’s notion that helping Ford was justified because his election to the Senate would help the much-more-pro-gay Democrats take control of that body, but in any case one decision by one party insider (one who has little use for me, I might add) does not say much about gays and Democrats in general. As to Gov. Dean, I have never particularly liked him. I am bored by all the drama between Dean and Don Hitchcock. I generally give directly to candidates than to party organizations, though I recall giving modest donations around the end of 2007 to the Senate and House Democratic campaign committees. The DNC member I know best is Donna Brazile, and she has always been gay-supportive and respectful toward me.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 wrote, “In short, you support the people who promise what you want and do the opposite, but you oppose the people who don’t promise what you want and do it anyway.”
In short, no. That is not an accurate characterization.
I have given money to Reps. Barney Frank, Keith Ellison, and Jesse Jackson Jr., all of whom have pro-gay records and are vocal in their support of gay rights. I have also given money to Barack Obama, about whom I have written a good deal that has not been honestly refuted.
Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that John McCain would be the better choice for reasons having nothing to do with gay rights. That’s fine, and you may have noted that in my “Obamaphobia” article I did not knock Log Cabin Republicans for their philosophical differences with me. Personally, though, I think that Bush has been reckless militarily, diplomatically, fiscally, constitutionally, and scientifically, and that because of all of this recklessness the Republicans should not be returned to the White House. Those are not gay-specific issues.
posted by Mike A on
Here, Rick Rosendall finally raises a pertinent issue: Wayne Besen’s potential lack of standing with the LCR.
Contrast that relevant assertion with the original post on this page, which 1) mischaracterized Besen’s statement, and 2) failed to note that Chris Crain — an IGF contributing author — said the same thing as Besen: That LCR should have withheld its endorsement of McCain.
No doubt Chris Crain is now considered a charter member of the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
King Richard ascends the throne and issues his own bull, if not quite up to Papal Bull standards: “You know, if people who are not laughing out loud would stop peppering their messages with “LOL,” that tiresome tic would disappear.”
Hey King, if some people here would stop using sockpuppets to advance their self-absorbed commentaries, stop use affective language like “whilst” etc and quit playing one-ups-manship games better suited for a junior high school remedial class on civics, I think we’d all get more from the discussion and appreciate your cooperation and compliance. Countdown to King Richard’s denial in 3, 2, 1.
Like when advancing the proverbial gayDemocrat marching orders for our GaySavior, BarryO, while ignoring the fact that he is no better than McCain on gay marriage and the Party has already driven the ObamaBus over the interests of gayDemocrat elites. Oh, wait, you THINK he is better than McCain… why you even linked an Obama4Masta website which is harshly partisan and wildly misleading… like BarryO’s ads on McCain, his team’s recent smearfest on Palin, and so forth.
It seems kind of, well, queer for you to try to claim to be the purported voice of gayDemocrats worshiping at the Temple of Barack and then, in a nanosecond, try to distance yourself from the DNC actors who have hammered gayDemocrats and still be willing -yourself- to pull a lever for your DNC keepers.
I wonder, King Richard, how many times does BarryO have to drive the ObamaBus over gay civil rights before you, like Rev Wright and Rev Meeks and women and the “retreat-at-all-costs-Left” get the message from the Temple, you and your causes are no longer relevant to the HighPriest of Liberalism in the Temple of Barack?
Once?
Twice?
Three times?
OH-Baam-AH, OH-Baam-AH. Yeah, right; whispered promises.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
King Richard pines: “Do I really have to point out to MM that FMA is not covered by this statement because it is not a pro-LGBT piece of legislation?”
Umm, no, your Worshipfulness. Given that the defeat of the FMA was a major pro-gay initiative of the gayLeft and gayDemocrats, I’m trying to understand how anyone –even someone like you routinely who twists the truth into a pretzel– doesn’t see the defeat of FMA as being pro-gay… exactly like nearly every, single major gayLeft advocacy group.
Oh, of course, I forgot!
King Richard has determined the truth in this instance. Everyone who disagrees, to the rack for some more tortured nonsense from King Richard.
How silly you’ve become King Richard. When, with a seeming str8 face, you have to actually try to claim defeating the FMA (twice, no less) isn’t a pro-gay position.
But then, you’re whole proof of why gays should stay on the Plantation gets reduced to whispered promises.
Last Democrat Administration who signed DOMA & DADT: “We kept all the campaign promises we intended to keep.”
Go back to your day job, King Richard, selling the gaybrethern into voteSlavery.
posted by ETJB on
(1) McCain has left open the possibility of support the Federal Marriage Amendment at a later date. His opposition is not out of a respect for LGBT Americans, because he does not respect them or their committed relationships, but because he wanted to find something to justify his fading ‘maverick’ image and opposing a proposed bill that you know is not going to pass, fit the bill.
(2) Obama supports civil unions which would not only provide for the issue of partner benifits but many other legal areas.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET phones in again from the tinfoil-covered alien spacecraft… “Obama supports civil unions which would not only provide for the issue of partner benifits (sic) but many other legal areas”.
Do you have a single instance where BarryO, the ChosenGaySavior, has voted to support civil unions? Didn’t think so, ET. It’s all whispered promises and waiting until AFTER the election.
Last time I checked, BarryO said this about marriage: “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
Sounds like another ObamaBus driving over the gayLeft’s and gayDemocrat’s #1 agenda item… plus, there’s that added problem for the anti-religion secularists here at IGF… it seems BarryO is inclined to impose his religious views on society and govt policy. Wait, didn’t the gayLeft brutalize GOPers for doing that on a host of gay issues?
And you guys can still claim he’s the ChosenOne, the change we’ve been waiting for, the next “gay” President?
Wow, that’s a lot of fantasy running loose in gayDemocratLand this month.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
BTW, just keeping track of the deceptions of King Richard (just in this thread)… he asked for examples where his personal ObamaWorshipWebPage misstated facts or was deceptive about McCain or Obama.
We gave him two examples, within the first 100 words of the WorshipfulWebPage. Neither of which he can refute with a str8 face or honest voice.
Maybe the Emperor doesn’t have clothes? Wow, someone should write a kiddie lit book on that theme.
posted by ETJB on
M&M takes a break from his serial assault on Miss Truth, Mr. Justice and American Way Jr. to claim:
We have several cases where McCain has voted against giving same-sex couples, like Mark and his longtime companion, any degree of equity. Where he has voted against the ENDA and the HCPA. Voted against lifting the ban on gays in the armed forces. Voting against us, time and time again. Yet, that does not seem to stop you in your quest to erect a temple to McCain-Palin.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Like I wrote in another thread, ET you can continue on with your nonsense, but IGF readers are on to your self-serving, audacity of hype for BarryO.
Still trying to spin McCain is anti-gay, anti-Mark Bingham? Maybe we should ask McCain’s 20+ yr Chief of Staff and senior policy advisor? Seems he might be able to speak with some authority on what’s honorable for gays and what’s not.
McCain honored Bingham, twice on the natl stage. You think he demeans Mark and his partner.
Well, Mark Bingham didn’t agree with you. Nor does his Mom. Nor does his boyhood friend.
His lover and partner, Paul Holm, doesn’t agree with your either… he still stands up with McCain and has contributed $2,900 in 2008 to McCain… in honor of Mark.
How can anyone believe or have trust in a gaybrethern like you who would dishonor and smear the Nation’s greatest gay hero of this century, Flight 93 victim Mark Bingham?
I guess they can’t. Time to phone home, my midget friend.
posted by ETJB on
M&M aka S&M;
You continue to engage in your self-serving, hateful, malicious, and deceptive hype for McCain-Palin. A presdiential ticket that has rountinely demeaned gay Americans, voted against mainstream, tri-partisan gay rights bills, including the gay hero; Mark Bingham.
Is it honorable to oppose giving any legal equity to same-sex couples? John McCain thinks so. Is it honorable to oppose allowing gay people to adopt or have custody of kids? John McCain thinks so. Is it honorable to fire some one from their job or deny them housing because they are gay? John McCain thinks so. Is it honorable to oppose equal protection under the law and due process for gay citizens? John McCain things so.
You continue to out right lie. You continue to claim without a shred of proof that I have attacked or demeaned a gay hero. Nope, did not happen. You know that it did not happen and I know it did not happen. But you need to keep this malicious and vile lying going.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That, ETJB, makes Michigan-Matt’s entire point: you presume to speak for Mark Bingham because he’s gay, even though what you claim goes exactly opposite to what his mother, what his partner, and what his other associates have said.
I think they knew Mark Bingham much better than you ever did. All you know about Mark Bingham is that he was gay — and isn’t it amazing, you think that that means Mark Bingham agreed with you on everything.
Bluntly put, you use your sexual orientation as an excuse for your hatred and bigotry — and by linking yourself and your behaviors to Mark Bingham, you slander and demean him.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
NDXXX, thanks for helping ET better understand his conduct… but it’s like speaking to a brick wall.
Like I wrote: “How can anyone believe or have trust in a gaybrethern like you (ET)who would dishonor and smear the Nation’s greatest gay hero of this century, Flight 93 victim Mark Bingham? I guess they can’t. Time to phone home, my midget friend.”
ET whines: “You continue to out right lie. You continue to claim without a shred of proof that I have attacked or demeaned a gay hero. Nope, did not happen. You know that it did not happen and I know it did not happen.”
Sure you did, ET; you demeaned Mark Bingham and his memory and McCain’s compassionate, loving tribute to Mark on the 7th Anniversary of 9-11.
I’ve pointed it out to you repeatedly and in several threaded comment sections, complete with individual references back to your remarks here.
The simple truth is that, just like PrincessPriya, tristam, RichardII and a host of other gayLefties here who scream “link, link, we demand a link”, the reference is promptly provided and you leave for several days… then ignoring it upon your salvating return.
You not only demeaned Bingham in the manner that NDXXX notes… you also demeaned him when you said he didn’t matter and a tribute to him didn’t matter because he was dead and his memory is history… and I think you tossed in the smear of McCain and Palin can only accept gays who are dead or non-existant.
For someone who professes to be religious (right), you’ve got a very tiny capacity for accepting your failings, ET.
Try repeating after me: “Mark Bingham was a great American and gay hero. He made the ultimate sacrafice for others. His memory does matter to all and I didn’t intend to demean it or dismiss McCain’s honorable tribute of Mark’s sacrafice.”
Come ET, you can do it. Have the audacity of redemption.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Eggs & Baskets, is it?
The gayLeft has placed its eggs in the same basket and it’s coming back to haunt us.
Last week, BarryO, speaking to a gay reporter, told the journalist that he might not be able to keep his campaign promise of immediately reversing the military’s policy on DADT because, now, he’s claiming he needs more time to think about it and make sure it’s the right thing to do.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20080918_Obama__Go_slower_on__Don_t_Ask__Don_t_Tell_.html
Wow, did the gayDemocrats here see that ObamaBus’ headlights running over them one more time?
Last week, CodePinkies and the other RetreatWithDishonor types learned that BarryO’Biden wouldn’t be meeting with the Joint Chiefs on Inauguration Day and demanding the pull out of Iraq begin within 72 hours… they didn’t see that ObamaBus coming to run over them, either.
And now, BarryO tells gays that he may not be inclined to reverse DADT –after months of gayDemocrats telling us it is Priority #1?
I guess we need to refresh the last Democrat Administration’s line to gays: “We kept all the campaign promises we intended to keep.”
What were the gayLefties here saying about how great BarryO is for gays? Something about a savior worthy of worship by all gays??
posted by Brian Miller on
There’s only one pursuit I can think of that’s an even bigger waste of time than being a Stonewall Democrat, and that’s being a Log Cabin Republican.
posted by Brian Miller on
PS — all the proof necessary is to be found in this thread.
Republican apologists arguing over what the definition of “is” is, and Democrat apologists trying to sell a candidate who cavorts with anti-gay religionists (and who “boasts” a VP nominee who was an enthusiastic supporter of DOMA and the anti-gay military policy).
Both useless to the cause of real equality under the law, because they’re exclusively focused on beating the other guy (and selling out the gay community to do it).
To these two groups, gay rights are just a bit of rhetoric to employ for tactical advantage, and mean nothing more than that. Their record of failure in implementing meaningful change through their respective parties simply underscores this.
Waste. Of. Time.
Declare your independence. Own your vote. Withhold it from homophobes, and make sure they understand why you withheld it. That’s how real change will occur.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Brian, the only waste of time is voting for a third party candidate or a Libertarian.
I’ve argued here that gayDemocrats have the unique opportunity to help independents and moderate GOP voters finish the seachange moment that’s brought McCain to the nomination… help wrestle the GOP away from the farRight fundamentalist influence by electing McCain and bringing moderation, pragmatism and progressive politics back to the GOP –AND– by doing so, gayDemocrats can help land a knock-out blow to the #1 “enemy” of gay civil rights… the fundamentalists inside the GOP.
You say both parties are homophobic? I disagree. The GOP’s VP is the only VP who stand in support of gay marriage and marriage equality for gays.
There are far, far better uses of a gay person’s vote this fall than tossing it away by not voting… or voting for some irrational third party cheesecake candidate… or supporting a Democrat who mocks and thumbs his nose at gay marriage.
It’s to help retake the GOP and restore moderation, pragmatism, and progressive politics that was the GOP’s hallmark for most of the 19th and 20th centuries.