California U.S. Senate Candidate Tom Campbell, leading in the GOP primary, has an interview with Frontiers magazine on marriage equality and individual freedom:
Tom Campbell does not look or act like the Republican politicians LGBT people are used to seeing on cable news. He's more Clark Kent with a sense of humor. But underneath that collegial demeanor is the steel spine of a strongly principled moderate/conservative Republican with a laser focus on federalism, less government and more individual freedom.
....
Interestingly to LGBTs, Campbell is leading among the usually anti-gay Republicans, despite his long-held views as a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-marriage equality social moderate.
Many gay people say they will never vote for the party of Lincoln because of its past decades of opposition to gay equality. But what if there were a brilliant Republican U.S. senator from the nation's largest state who opposed Proposition 8? Mightn't that help to bring about the Republican party they'd prefer to see? Along with Sen. Scott Brown (who calls marriage equality in Massachusetts "a settled issue"), wouldn't we begin to see, finally, a less southern, less conservative-religious party? And why wouldn't that be a really good thing?
More. David Boaz takes aim at Sarah Palin's misguided endorsement of Campbell's chief primary opponent, failed CEO Carly Fiorina.
45 Comments for “GOP, v.2?”
posted by Jorge on
Between her stance on the Arizona law and her increasingly frequent endorsements in Republican primaries, I do think Sarah Palin is spreading her integrity a little thin. There’s nothing wrong with any of her actions there. Attacking a moderate as a carbon copy liberal during a primary election is as American as apple pie. But it cheapens the brand. She works better as an ideological leader, not a political one.
posted by Jimmy on
The observation is there to be made that secessionist rhetoric seems to increasingly find a welcoming ear from some sectors of the “party of Lincoln”. The same sectors will paint guys like Campbell as RINOs.
Now, if I just arrived in GOP territory, and reviewed the lay of the land, I would say that Campbell is going be rather lonely out on his frontier – certainly ignored by leadership.
And, I don’t know why, for the life of me, I should give a sh*t.
posted by TS on
This California Republican is just that, a California Republican. In California, a state where rich celebrities need politicians to give them social and ecomonic freedoms, small-government (libertarian) Republicans have a great niche in that state.
But unlike you, I am not fooled into thinking that nationally speaking, the Republican party is not supported by a major fascist, anti-gay streak.
posted by Tom on
Every step in the right direction is a good thing. LGBT-supportive Republican politicians like Tom Campbell and Mark Kirk are hopeful signs. As is, I suppose, Scott Brown (who I would not call LGBT-supportive, given his history, but at best a pragmatist unwilling to sacrifice his political fortunes to a losing proposition in a state where the marriage issue is settled).
But gays and lesbians have to live in reality The reality is that in almost all areas of the country, social conservatives and religious conservatives virtually control the Republican primary process, and, as a result, the Republican party will not return to its senses on LGBT issues, or to constitutional conservatism, any time soon. What happens in a few states might be a hopeful sign for the distant future, but doesn’t reflect the reality on the ground for those of us living in the rest of the country.
In Wisconsin, for example:
(1) The 2006 election cycle brought us a “nuclear-option” anti-marriage amendment (banned marriage, civil unions or any other “identical or substantially similar” recognition of same-sex relationships. The anti-marriage was sponsored voted onto the ballot by Republicans in the legislature. In the 2006 election, the Republican party was on record favoring the amendment; the Democratic party opposed. Religious conservatives and social conservatives mobilized the troops, with the cooperation of the Republican party and Republican politicians, and the anti-marriage amendment passed.
(2) In 2008, Democrats won close majorities in both houses of the legislature.
(3) In the summer of 2009, the Democratic legislature enacted, and the Democratic governor signed, a limited domestic partnership law, granting medical visitation, medical power-of-attorney, end-of-life decision, funeral decision and inheritance rights to registered domestic partners. Every Democrat in the legislature voted for the bill. Not a single Republican in the legislature voted for the bill.
(4) Wisconsin Family Action, the FRC of Wisconsin and the prime mover behind the 2006 anti-marriage amendment, immediately brought a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the domestic partnership law. The Republican Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen, refused to defend the law in court, making a big political show of his view that the law was unconstitutional. The lawsuit was dismissed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court for want of jurisdiction.
(5) Wisconsin Family Action vowed to overturn the law, and is working hard to ensure that “right-thinking” Republicans prevail in Wisconsin’s September primaries and in the November election. I am aware of no Republican politician in the state running for the legislature who is on record supporting the law. Most are on record favoring repeal; some are silent at this point in the election cycle.
Now, consider this, Stephen:
I live in a “swing” Assembly district, a District that could go either way in November. The seat is held by a small-business, moderate-left Democrat who has done a good job for the District and has demonstrated independence from the Madison liberals on issues of importance to rural areas of the state. If he loses in the November election, it is likely that the Republicans will hold a majority in the Assembly.
The Senate seat in our area, held by a moderate-right Republican, is not up for relection this year, so that is not an issue.
The Governor’s race will be the big-ticket fight this year. The Democratic contender, the current mayor of Milwaukee, is on record in favor of preserving the domestic partnership law. The leading Republican contender is on record favoring repeal of the law.
Accordingly, the reality of Wisconsin’s internal politics, for those of us who are gay or lesbian, are that if Democrats lose the narrow majorities in the Senate or Assembly, and the Republicans win the Governor’s race, we will be in a hard-fought battle to preserve our limited domestic partnership rights, and will probably lose them.
On the national level, Senator Feingold’s US Senate seat is up for grabs.
Senator Feingold is an iconoclastic liberal in the tradition of William Proxmire. Feingold went on record favoring same-sex marriage in 2006.
Feingold is being challenged by Dave Westlake, Terrence Wall, and Richard Leinenkugel. All oppose same-sex marriage and hew the standard Republican line on other LGBT issues, some more vehemently than others.
It is not clear which of the the Republicans will prevail in the primary. In any case, Feingold will be opposed by a Republican taking the standard anti-gay line on DOMA, ENDA and other issues.
So a question for you, Stephen: Given the reality on the ground in Wisconsin this year, is Tom Campbell’s and Mark Kirk’s support for gays and lesbians in other states reason enough to vote for anti-gay Republicans in November?
I don’t think so.
posted by Bobby on
Jorge, what’s wrong with the Arizona law? Federal law demands that immigrants carry their papers, even if it’s a driver’s license. 70% of Arizonans support the law, in fact, it’s insulting that illegal aliens are being compared to legal immigrants by people like Obama and his allies.
posted by Jorge on
You make a passionate case, Tom, but I find it interesting that most if not all of the examples you cited were about same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is the major fault line right now, but we’ve got a lot of other interests on which we have stronger political prospects. We get like a half dozen celebrities coming out every year. The opposition has lost ground on civil unions, hate crime laws, and workplace nondiscrimination. The fact that the fault line is on same sex marriage shows how far we’ve come even in the past decade. The conservative right can’t reverse that because they’re not as united on those issues as they are on marriage. I see nothing wrong with taking advantage of that.
Bobby I am not going to argue the wisdom of the immigration law with you. I am questioning the wisdom of Sarah Palin taking a strong public stance in support of something that is controversial even within her own party. I think she failed to show any outstanding leadership and that she came across as just another baying voice on the issue. She’s allowed to do that once in a while, but if she does it too often she loses her importance.
posted by esurience on
No mention that GOProud is actually running advertisements against Tom Campbell? (Because although he’s pro-gay, he’s not sufficiently right-wing enough for them… yeah, because that’s a realistic combination to look for).
This site criticizes organizations like HRC for being more of a Democratic party organization than gay-rights organization. Seems GOProud may deserve the same criticism. Disappointing that there’s been no mention of that.
posted by Throbert McGee on
There, fixed that. Mr. Miller knows as well as I do that if Fiorina had voted the correct way on Prop8, then her “failure” as a CEO at Hewlett-Packard would be completely irrelevant to to him and pretty much everyone else in Gayville. And I put the word “failure” in scare-quotes because I actually troubled myself to Google for backstory about Fiorina’s tenure and dismissal as HP’s CEO. She successfully pushed through a controversial merger that was, arguably, a very wise move for HP’s long-term financial health. But the merger hugely offended the Hewlett heirs, and the feud between the founder’s grandchildren and the current CEO depressed HP’s stock price in the short term, so Fiorina got canned.
It wasn’t necessarily the wrong move to dismiss Fiorina — certainly, HP’s stock prices rose after she was gone. But to sum her up as simply a “failed CEO” only tells part of the story, and to do this for no better reason than that you’re personally offended by the way she voted on a completely unrelated matter is downright dishonest of Mr. Miller.
Grow some stones and say what you actually mean.
If Miller wants to make a single-issue litmus test about Fiorina’s position on Prop8, he’s free to do so — but for fuck’s sake, BE HONEST ABOUT IT, instead of trying to create a simulacrum of thoughtful, in-depth analysis by bringing up “controversies” that you don’t actually care about.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I guess it’s possible that Miller DOES care about Fiorina’s firing as CEO because he owns a lot of HP stock, or something — but if that’s the case, he’s definitely got an ethical obligation to disclose this point.
But I’m sticking to my theory that he really and truly doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Fiorina’s professional CV — he beats the “failed CEO” drum because he’s pissy over her Prop8 stance, and for no other reason at all.
If only the Equality!⢠fetishists were as honest about it as the guys who can’t get an erection unless they’re sniffing penny loafers, or whatever.
posted by William Quill on
There are many good fiscal reasons to support Tom Campbell, who I think is great. “A good man who likes low taxes, he’s like Arnie Vinick but better”, I described him to someone recently. But from a gay rights and marriage equality perspective, it’s the impact his election would have on the Democrats rather than the Republicans that I think is more important. The Republicans have long had moderates elected, with little impact on the extremists (Edward Brooke and Jesse Helms were Senate colleagues). But with a Republican who supports equality, it becomes ever harder for Democrats, including the president, to justify their lack of support.
Having said that, provided he actually wins, and I think there’s a good chance of that, it’s a reassurance to moderate Republicans that what happened to Scozzafava won’t necessarily happen to them. But only if they’re as lovable as Tom Campbell.
posted by Throbert McGee on
If Campbell wins the Republican nomination and then subsequently wins the Senate seat from incumbent Barbara Boxer (D³), it could certainly reassure moderate Republicans that open support for same-sex marriage isn’t poll-poison.
On the other hand, California would continue to have domestic partnerships instead of same-sex marriage — which is, of course, exactly the same outcome as if Fiorina wins the nomination and the Senate seat, or if DeVore does, or if Boxer beats whomever turns out to be the Republican challenger, and retains her seat. Which is why I think it’s fucking daft for conservative or GOP-identified California gays to treat Campbell as the only “lovable” candidate going into the Republican primary, based on the sole issue of Prop8. They should vote against Fiorina and Devore for the GOP nomination, and in favor of Campbell, if they think that Campbell, out of the three, has the best chance of taking Boxer’s seat for the GOP. And in the election itself, they should go ahead and vote for the proverbial “yaller dog” if the pooch has an (R) after his name, because the mostest RINO-est of RINOs is still likely to be less un-conservative than Boxer is.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Having said what I said about the California GOP primary, I think Tom made a reasonably good case that conservative/Republican gays in Wisconsin should strongly consider holding their nose and supporting the Democratic incumbent Feingold. Wisconsin is not California is not Alabama. California gays are in such a strong position, legally speaking, that they can well afford to NOT be single-issue voters on “LGBT issues”; gays in other states don’t necessarily have that luxury.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I’m pretty sure that GOProud opposes Campbell on the specific grounds that he appears to be much less fiscally conservative than Fiorina, and not on the broad grounds that Campbell isn’t “sufficiently right-wing” overall.
If you wanna rebut the claim that Fiorina is a more fiscally conservative candidate, by all means do so.
posted by Bobby on
“I am questioning the wisdom of Sarah Palin taking a strong public stance in support of something that is controversial even within her own party. I think she failed to show any outstanding leadership and that she came across as just another baying voice on the issue. She’s allowed to do that once in a while, but if she does it too often she loses her importance.”
—Palin is indeed very wise, she represents the common person rather than people like David Frum who are more interested in getting along with The New York Times and Bill Maher. The GOP is divided between Washington Republicans and common conservatives, the Washington Republicans or RINO’s support the status quo, they’re more interested in getting along with democrats than in supporting real change. Palin’s views on immigration and other issues resonate with real republicans.
She’s not going to lose her importance, she’s going to become a powerful voice within the GOP, a sort of conservative Oprah. The time for independent republicans and mavericks is over, even John McCain had to change his views on immigration and support the Arizona law, he knows that the GOP will not survive if it moves to the center.
posted by Tom on
Not in Wisconsin. We’ve got an anti-marriage amendment that bans same-sex marriage and civil unions, and neither same-sex marriage nor civil unions will become an issue until the US Supreme Court overturns the amendment. By then, of course, it won’t be an issue.
So although the fault line nationwide is same-sex marriage, we’re focused on trying to keep very basic rights, rights like hospital visitation, medical power-of-attorney, end-of-life decisions, funeral arrangements and the right to inherit. The Republican party is fighting us on that score.
True enough. But the conservative right continues to fight on all issues, even when the American public has long since grown beyond them.
In Wisconsin, for example, several polls indicate that well over 60% of Wisconsinites favor the domestic partner law. And yet the Republicans talk about repeal. The same seems to be true nationally on DADT repeal, heavily favored by the American people, but a third rail for Republican politicians.
That’s why Republican politicians are going to find themselves in a deeper and deeper mess as the social conservative tail wags the GOP dog on DADT and other issues.
As long as Republicans in Wisconsin continue to keep their heads up their asses in order to appease “the base”, I’m not voting for them.
I think that its great that Californians might have a choice between a LGBT-supportive Democrat and an LGBT-supportive Republican in the November election. That’s teh way it should be everywhere. The Republican party has lost its way.
posted by Throbert McGee on
In the meantime, I will simply point out that with patient repetition and food rewards, even a fucking mynah bird can be trained to say “I support gay marriage equality.”
For that matter, I could easily train my pet rat Ramona to always pull the “Gay Marriage” lever, and never pull the “Domestic Partnership” lever, via the judicious application of food treats, cuddling, and minor electric shocks. And she’s got a brain the size of a garbanzo bean, at best.
(Actually, I wouldn’t dream of electro-shocking Ramona, even when she eats my houseplants, because she’s so goddamn cute. And, honestly, she works a lot harder for my affections than the houseplants do — rats are practically puppies in their whorish displays of gratitude for feeding.)
posted by Throbert McGee on
posted by Throbert McGee on
Just so no one rushes off to buy a rat at PetCo and then accuses me of misleading them, the “puppies” comparison was a bit of an exaggeration.
But if you want a small caged pet for yourself or for a child, rats are VASTLY better at social interaction with humans than hamsters or gerbils, and can be reasonably compared with cats (though not dogs) in the degree to which they’re able to “reciprocate with affection” in return for food and gentle scratching — rats will come when called, groom you, and sit on your lap “purring”, whereas hamsters and gerbils treat you like walking furniture.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Why are they fighting us on that score? Is it mostly because:
(A) They are mean and homophobic and hate gay people and want us to suffer;
or mostly because:
(B) A lot of LGBT activists have made it abundantly clear that “we” see domestic partnership laws as little more than a convenient springboard towards the goal of government-mandated “marriage equality.”
posted by Tom on
Well, I’ll take your word for it, Throbert.
But I would have thought, given all the fuss Stephen has been making about LGBT organizations failing to support Campbell, that might be a meaningful difference in the level of support between Cambell, Fiorina and Devore on LGBT issues.
Devore, for example, has a 10% rating from Equality California in 2009, a 0% rating in 2008 and a 10% rating for 2007. By Midwest standards, that’s a pretty good rating for a Republican, but I wouldn’t call it “LGBT-supportive”, myself.
posted by Tom on
That’s bullshit, Throbert. The reason that Republican politicans, in Wisconsin anyway, hew the line on repealing the Wisconsin domestic partnership law is that social conservatives control the Republican primaries and moderate Republican politicians know damn well that they’ll be in for a primary fight if they don’t hew the line.
posted by Jorge on
The GOP is divided between Washington Republicans and common conservatives, the Washington Republicans or RINO’s support the status quo, they’re more interested in getting along with democrats than in supporting real change.
Really? Whatever happened to the big tent?
Either Sarah Palin is the de-facto figurehead of the grass roots Tea Party movement, or she’s an ideological bulldog carrying water for the right wing of the Republican Party. The two are not the same, and she cannot be both.
posted by Throbert McGee on
What criteria does Equality California use to rate candidates? You won’t find that information on any of their three affiliated websites, and a percentage rating without an explanation of methodology is fuckin’ meaningless.
I mean, for all I know, they might’ve docked DeVore 50 percent because he once made hurtful remarks about Judy Garland. Or they might’ve lowered his rating because his position on some issue unrelated to gay rights — such as illegal immigration from Mexico, or gun control — offended their progressive sensibilities. (How do I know they have progressive sensibilities? Well, the blog posts by their Executive Director celebrating May Day — not the morris-dancing ’round a beribboned pole May Day, but the other one — and urging LGBT people to share his horror at Arizona’s new immigration law, provide a clue to discerning readers!)
And exactly how much did they subtract from DeVore’s score simply because he supported Prop8?
I dunno. You also don’t know. Nobody knows, except for a few people at Equality California, because they just put out numerical scores without bothering to explain how the scores are derived.
posted by Bobby on
“Really? Whatever happened to the big tent?”
—The big tent means we invite all kinds of people, it doesn’t mean we let them corrupt our party platform and turn us into some boring centrist goulash. If the DNC has embraced the left, why should the GOP not embrace the right and libertarian principles?
“Either Sarah Palin is the de-facto figurehead of the grass roots Tea Party movement, or she’s an ideological bulldog carrying water for the right wing of the Republican Party. The two are not the same, and she cannot be both.”
—The Tea Party movement has no leaders, it’s entirely grass roots, it’s made of people dissatisfied with government spending and there are democrats and minorities within the ranks. Palin is popular because she represents those values, she’s admired because instead of aborting her baby with down syndrome she decided to have it, she’s beloved because instead of having elitist ideas she has mainstream ideas. And unlike David Frum, you’ll never see her go on Bill Maher and bitch about common republicans and Tea Partiers.
Barrack Obama lied to the country, he ran as a centrist yet he’s governing as a progressive. Did you see the latest outrage? He made a youtube video saying he needs blacks, latinos and women to support him? Imagine if a republican did the same video asking to be supported by white men?
Obama has lied, his government isn’t transparent, the debt commission meeting is closed to CSPAN, he promised unity and instead uses terms like “tea-bagger”, attacks Arizona, ignores the flooding in Tennessee, promotes class warfare, and does everything he can to piss of the center and the right.
posted by Tom on
Oh, come on, Throbert. The scorecard is readily available and reasonably transparent. Equality California does exactly what other groups do — track legislative votes.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Thank you for the link, Tom. I stand corrected — EqCa does indeed publish their methodology for rating the various candidates.
But having looked at the scorecard, I will say that their methodology is totally fucking stupid, in that a Yes or No vote on a purely symbolic, feel-good resolution is apparently weighted exactly the same as a Yes or No vote on a bill that might have tangible, real-world effects on the lives of gay people. For instance, DeVore lost points because he voted against AB 1003, which purportedly “improves and expands access to a state domestic violence fund for LGBT-specific organizations that serve victims of domestic abuse.”
Well, fair enough. But he evidently lost the same number of points merely for voting against a resolution that did nothing more than say “Yippee! You go, girl!” when the U.S. Congress and Obama passed the “Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Prevention Act”.
DeVore also lost points because he declined to vote in favor of establishing a statewide Harvey Milk Day. Mind you, he didn’t vote against Harvey Milk Day; he merely abstained from voting on the issue, and in so doing, he failed to contribute a “Yes” vote to the tally — what a monster!
posted by Jorge on
The big tent means we invite all kinds of people, it doesn’t mean we let them corrupt our party platform and turn us into some boring centrist goulash. If the DNC has embraced the left, why should the GOP not embrace the right and libertarian principles?
I must admit, that’s a stunningly good way of explaining it. Fine, I’ll try not to whine about it.
Oh, well. WAR! There is absolutely wrong with losing, mwa-ha-ha! B.O. is unspeakable shank. But you and your Darth Vader Right X-Wingers are nothing but robots controlled by Dick Cheney’s pacemaker.
Did you see the latest outrage? He made a youtube video saying he needs blacks, latinos and women to support him? Imagine if a republican did the same video asking to be supported by white men?
At the risk of mirroring the racist elite liberal media, what do you think calling for the support of the middle class, traditional Americans, all-American/traditional values is? Of course, there are plenty of Republicans who add a healthy understanding of women, Latinos, and Blacks.
posted by Tom on
I think he gained points, actually, because if you compare his score with those who voted against all the measures, they got “0” and he got points.
But I agree with you that it would make sense to weight votes on the basis of importance, and Equality California, like most of the groups that “rate” according to legislative vote, all across the spectrum, could do a lot more sophisticated job of it.
posted by Bobby on
“I must admit, that’s a stunningly good way of explaining it. Fine, I’ll try not to whine about it.”
—Thanks, it’s almost the same thing the democratic party does with pro-lifers. “Hey pro-lifers, come on over, just don’t try to outlaw partial-birth abortion or bitch if Obamacare covers abortion, other than that, we’d like you to vote for us.”
“Oh, well. WAR! There is absolutely wrong with losing, mwa-ha-ha! B.O. is unspeakable shank. But you and your Darth Vader Right X-Wingers are nothing but robots controlled by Dick Cheney’s pacemaker.”
—You underestimate us, remember when Dick Cheney’s daughter was outed as a lesbian by the vice-president nominee? The libs thought “oh, those dumb conservatives won’t vote for Dick if he has a lesbian daughter.” Yet we re-elected Bush, no problemo.
“At the risk of mirroring the racist elite liberal media, what do you think calling for the support of the middle class, traditional Americans, all-American/traditional values is? Of course, there are plenty of Republicans who add a healthy understanding of women, Latinos, and Blacks.”
—Those values aren’t race-based, there are plenty of blacks, hispanics, asians and women who share those values.
posted by Jorge on
Thanks, it’s almost the same thing the democratic party does with pro-lifers. “Hey pro-lifers, come on over, just don’t try to outlaw partial-birth abortion or bitch if Obamacare covers abortion, other than that, we’d like you to vote for us.”
As far as I’m concerned, that’s a two-way street, only more like a pendulum. The Republicans are living on borrowed time until the Democrats get their act together. Like I said, I see nothing wrong with losing.
You underestimate us, remember when Dick Cheney’s daughter was outed as a lesbian by the vice-president nominee? The libs thought “oh, those dumb conservatives won’t vote for Dick if he has a lesbian daughter.” Yet we re-elected Bush, no problemo.
I was not being serious. Frankly I have much too little patience for the real Darth Vader and evil robot marionnette. But since you ask, I remember it quite well. I don’t remember that anything happened until Kerry did it again.
Those values aren’t race-based, there are plenty of blacks, hispanics, asians and women who share those values.
Too bad they still vote Democrat.
posted by Walker on
Tom asks: So a question for you, Stephen: Given the reality on the ground in Wisconsin this year, is Tom Campbell’s and Mark Kirk’s support for gays and lesbians in other states reason enough to vote for anti-gay Republicans in November?
That’s a fair question to ponder, but it’s not relevant to Stephen’s post. He suggested that it would be good to have a gay-supportive Republican senator. He didn’t say anything about voting for ANTI-gay Republicans, and the logic of his post doesn’t suggest that one should.
posted by Bobby on
“As far as I’m concerned, that’s a two-way street, only more like a pendulum. The Republicans are living on borrowed time until the Democrats get their act together. Like I said, I see nothing wrong with losing.”
—The Democrats aren’t getting their act together, if you watch Glenn Beck you’ll see that things are getting a lot worst. Progressives have waited decades to transform America, and with Obama in the White House they have the power to do that, for now.
The republican party must not lose, our country cannot afford it.
“Too bad they still vote Democrat.”
—Minorities and women voted for Ronald Reagan, Carter was a horrible president, his policies like Obama’s broght misery into America, he was a weak leader, he didn’t stand up to terrorism and the American people were quick to abandon him. Obama’s poll numbers are pitiful, his silly rhetoric is wearing thin, the love the media has for him is becoming annoying, believe me, things are changing and if unemployment remains at 10% for long, if the deficit increases, if gas prices keep going on, the people will grow to hate Obama, hate his policies, hate his party and they will vote republican and the GOP will be triumphant once again.
posted by BobN on
their methodology is totally fucking stupid
Uh… if they weighted their tallies, he’d have an even lower score.
You might want to rethink your complaint about their scoring.
posted by Throbert McGee on
He got points because he voted “Yes” in support of a bill that was related to the safety of LGBT prisoners serving time in California “correctional facilities.” (The bill was vetoed by Schwarzenegger on the grounds that it was redundant and that existing policies provided sufficient protection.)
That was DeVore’s only “Yes” on the LGBT-related votes included in the 2009 Scorecard — he had two non-votes, and five “No” votes.
Maybe he would have gotten a lower score, but so would a lot of the individuals who got a “perfect 100%” under the current system, because the scorecard wouldn’t be rewarding them for clapping along as “Yes”-vote cheerleaders on purely symbolic feel-good measures, such as “showing support” for federal bills they weren’t even voting on as state legislators.
Weighting the issues so that a “Yes” OR “No” vote on easy, political-tokenism measures counts less than a “Yes” OR “No” vote on substantive bills would make the scorecard LESS USELESS than it is now.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Oops, sorry — that second quote I responded to was from BobN, not Tom!
posted by BobN on
Wouldn’t anyone getting 100% still get 100% with a weighted scoring system?
I would have no problem with a weighted system. Maybe if you donate enough money to EqCA, they can afford to build a meaningful one.
I’m a bit perplexed, though, as to why you think “feel good” votes on national issues on the part of state pols are irrelevant to analysis. Isn’t the whole point of deciding whom to support for higher, national office based on what you hope they’ll do once they get there?
Any statement from Campbell on federal recognition? How ’bout Fiorina? Some who voted for Prop 8 doesn’t strike me as someone who would work for nationally recognized civil unions.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I wouldn’t give a dime to EqCA, even though I agree with some of their positions, because I reject the “Equality!” mantra altogether. I think “Equality” is a false god whose worship leads to quota systems, so-called “reverse discrimination,” and regression to the mean. We should instead insist first and foremost on our Liberty, and secondly on Legal Parity. In iconic terms, HRC’s = sign ought to be replaced with â.
Which, by the way, is represented by the HTML code sequence
The “asymp” part stands for asymptote, as in a curve whose value eventually comes to approximate 0, without ever reaching 0.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Dagnabbit. Let’s try:
& asymp ;
…except that to produce the ≈, you remove the spaces between the ampersand, “asymp”, and the semi-colon.
While we’re on the topic of basic high-school math symbols in HTML:
& ne ; for ≠
& infin ; for ∞
& divide ; for ÷
& plusmn ; for ±
& deg ; for ° (as in 98.6°F)
& radic ; for √ (as in √-1 = i)
& sup2 ; for ² (as in, Andrew Sullivan is an idiot²😉
There are many others, of course, but most of them don’t have relatively easy-to-remember names, and are unlikely to ever be needed in non-mathematical contexts.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Correction, BobN — someone who voted for Prop8 probably wouldn’t be proactive and take the initiative on working for nationally recognized civil unions, but might well be willing to partner with another legislator (even a Democrat) in co-sponsoring a bill for nationally recognized civil unions.
posted by Lymis on
“—You underestimate us, remember when Dick Cheney’s daughter was outed as a lesbian by the vice-president nominee? ”
Can we PLEASE drop that silly idea? Mary Cheney was out in public and her career for years prior to her dad’s campaign. She worked for Coors as the liaison to the LGBT community, for goodness sake, and made no secret of her orientation or her relationship.
She wasn’t outed in the campaign. She was already quite out at the time. The Republicans, however, considered that to be a dirty little secret, not to be spoken of. And rejecting that you can’t speak of an out lesbian AS an out lesbian is not inappropriate.
And you can’t even complain that as a private individual, her personal life didn’t belong on the table – because she was working on staff at her dad’s campaign at the time, which isn’t quite private.
posted by BobN on
The libs thought “oh, those dumb conservatives won’t vote for Dick if he has a lesbian daughter.”
Actually, libs thought dumb conservatives would wonder how a man with a lesbian daughter could run on an anti-gay platform and run a national campaign exploiting gay people.
Then “conservatives” bought the how-dare-he-out-poor-Mary deflection, proving that a good number of them are dumb.
posted by Bobby on
“Actually, libs thought dumb conservatives would wonder how a man with a lesbian daughter could run on an anti-gay platform and run a national campaign exploiting gay people.”
—Just because your daughter is a lesbian doesn’t mean you have to support same-sex marriage, nor should it mean that we attack candidates for the daughters they have. All politicians appeal to a base, the base was against same-sex marriage so that was the appeal they had to make.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Conservatives merely looked across the way and recognized that liberals were fully supportive of gay-sex marriage bans and were stating that they had the “same position” on gay-sex marriage.
That was when conservatives and Republicans finally and completely recognized that gay and lesbian people were irrational bigots who would attack Republicans for holding the same positions as the Obama Party members that gay and lesbian people supported.
You can’t reason with the irrational. Why should conservatives waste time doing it? Gays and lesbians need to demonstrate that they can be rational individuals not dominated by their sexual orientation first.
posted by BobN on
I continue to be amazed at the collection of trees that ND30 has assembled and his determined efforts to convince others that there is no forest.
posted by Brian Miller on
Yes, those poor, poor Republicans — facing endless attacks from the bigoted gay and lesbian community (well, except the closet cases like ND). Some things never change. 🙂