Former Congressman Tom Campbell, the fiscally conservative, pro-gay marriage GOP candidate running in California's Senate primary, had been leading his opponents but now trails failed CEO and gay marriage opponent Carly Fiorina going into next Tuesday's vote, as social conservatives ramp up their attacks.
Campbell has the best poll numbers against current Democratic Sen. Barbara ("No Ma'am") Boxer, best know for her advocacy of out-of-control government spending and disdain for the U.S. military. But he may not get the chance to face her.
It would have been savvy for LGBT activists who actually want to see gay equality advance within the GOP, and hence the nation, to at least give Campell support in the primary, but aside from Log Cabin Republicans they didn't. Much better to keep the Republican party avowedly anti-gay in order to fundraise against the GOP demons.
58 Comments for “How Opportunity Slips Away”
posted by Jimmy on
“Much better to keep the Republican party avowedly anti-gay in order to fundraise against to GOP demons.”
This suggests that power to transform the GOP rests in the hands of those outside of the party, and I just don’t see how that is. It’s pretty ludicrous to put the onus on the left to somehow make headway against the prevailing tide within the Republican party. Talk about a fool’s errand.
posted by avee on
Gay people who want to advance gay equality understand that it will NEVER happen unless the GOP is changed. So who is going to change it? Our largest LGBT groups are allegedly nonpartisan, but that’s a joke. They used to be bipartisan and to support pro-gay Republicans frequently. Not since they were taken over by Democratic operatives (HRC, etc.). So yes, the gay community should have bipartisan groups working to change the GOP. Sorry, but that is not “ludicrous,” it would be smart.
posted by Jimmy on
“Not since they were taken over by Democratic operatives (HRC, etc.)”
And since the GOP was taken over by the hateful, hysterical, hostile holy rollers, turning it into a party of the aggrieved and paranoid, trying to reason with it is an endeavor as fruitless as the efforts of Sisyphus.
posted by Stefano A on
How typical of you to again be bashing the “left” and criticizing “them” for Campbells’ trailing off and make absolutely no mention that your beloved gay conservatives GOPRoud ENDORSED Fiorina over Campbell.
posted by Throbert McGee on
If that’s true, a lot of gay people would fit right in…
posted by Jorge on
Even I can’t imagine someone as nutty as Boxer being worse than even the most ardenly pro-gay Republican on our issues. In other words, what benefit is there in knocking off a far-left liberal Democrat? Unless, of course, other considerations are in mind.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Yep, that’s true — probably because GOProud reasoned that (a) Campbell isn’t fiscally conservative enough; (b) as a woman, Fiorina might have a better chance at unseating Babs Boxer; and (c) Fiorina’s preference for same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships over same-sex marriage is NOT that big a deal, and does not make Fiorina “avowedly anti-gay,” even if it offends a few radically assimilationist homos who insist on EXACTLY DUPLICATING heterosexual marriage (except possibly for the “forsaking all others” part).
posted by Carl on
I don’t understand exactly what gay activists should have done. Fiorina can just write herself a check any time she is having a problem with her campaign. Campbell HAS raised money — it’s just that Fiorina always raises more. She runs ads constantly. Should gay groups have spent time and money for Campbell anyway, since Campbell supports gay marriage and Fiorina does not? Wouldn’t that make them the “single-issue voters” that gay conservatives frequently deride?
posted by another steve on
It’s wrong to state that only Republicans can change the GOP. As Bobby and others have noted, the National Rifle Association, by supporting Democrats for gun rights, has profoundly moved Democratic candidates away from the party’s traditional anti-gun position. That’s what interest group lobbying is about, causing shifts in parties. But the last thing that LGBT groups want to do is actually speak with Republicans.
As for GoProud, it’s a group of very conservative gays. That’s fine, but it’s the mirror of the very liberal LGBT groups. We need bipartisan groups that will support any candidate for gay rights — like the NRA supports any candidate for gun rights. And we don’t have any. What a mistake.
posted by TS on
I’ll preface this with the usual: I AM NO DEMOCRAT.
But you, sir, are positively delusional. How could you possibly spin the unfortunate defeat of Tom Campbell against your personal space-villains, the LGBT Democrat Cabal?
After all, it was the socially conservative Republican base that mobilized against him, thus insuring his defeat. And you’re trying to say that if only liberal LGBTs had rallied to him, he could have been saved? What folly. (This obviously would have rallied more conservative Republicans to the cause of stopping him.)
posted by William on
I was, like you and others, quite disappointed to see the change in Campbell’s fortunes. There are so many reasons it would have been good to get a gay-friendly GOP candidate for the Senate, who was also quite sound on the issues California needs right now, a good fiscal conservative. But how is this Democrat-leaning gay activists’ fault? Do you really think it would have helped his polling in the GOP primary had he got the support of HRC? The problem is that there are too many crazies in the GOP.
posted by another steve on
I am sure he would welcome gay PAC money; that’s how it would help. After all, it’s not a secret that he supports gay marriage and that the religious right hates him!
posted by Carl on
“It’s wrong to state that only Republicans can change the GOP. As Bobby and others have noted, the National Rifle Association, by supporting Democrats for gun rights, has profoundly moved Democratic candidates away from the party’s traditional anti-gun position. That’s what interest group lobbying is about, causing shifts in parties. But the last thing that LGBT groups want to do is actually speak with Republicans.”
This seems to go along with the idea that if gay groups are nice enough to Republicans, Republicans will suddenly stop using gays as political scapegoats, even though they have little to no reason to do so.
The Democrats are as sweet as pie to the NRA, but the NRA is still always going to spend more money electing Republicans and will always prefer a Republican government.
With stuff like what happened a few years ago when gay Republicans were not even allowed to have a presence at the North Carolina Republican convention, or this year when some guy at CPAC went onstage and complained about gays being there, just talking is never enough.
posted by Carl on
Sorry, I missed a sentence. Anyway, the main reason the Democrats pander to the NRA is because they will lose elections if they don’t. The GOP will not lose elections if they oppose gay rights. So if anything, if we follow the NRA’s example, that would mean becoming more opposed to Republicans.
posted by BobN on
Gay people who want to advance gay equality understand that it will NEVER happen unless the GOP is changed.
Nonsense. It has happened over and over with almost uniform opposition from the dying party. Just look overseas and you can find plenty of places where gay people have reached equality or near equality over the objections of the right-wing parties.
You can also find places where the right-wing has moved and joined in the fight for equality, of course, eventually, of course, reluctantly, of course. The same will happen here. In the meantime, don’t expect handouts from me on the frail illusion of “bipartisan” progress. I don’t waste my money. I’m, as you say, fiscally conservative.
posted by Bobby on
“The Democrats are as sweet as pie to the NRA, but the NRA is still always going to spend more money electing Republicans and will always prefer a Republican government. ”
—Wrong, the NRA develops voting records based on the second amendment only. The NRA for example hates Mayor Bloomberg (who used to be a republican) and had issues with Giuliani until the governor of New York met with them. In the end, the NRA isn’t stupid, if you’re voting record is anti-gun, they’re not gonna support you regardless of political party.
posted by Jorge on
Should gay groups have spent time and money for Campbell anyway, since Campbell supports gay marriage and Fiorina does not? Wouldn’t that make them the “single-issue voters” that gay conservatives frequently deride?
I don’t have any problem deriding single-issue voters, but gay organizations should be single-mindedly focused on the issues they were founded to fight for. Sometimes that’s going to mean they’ll have to make fools of themselves. It’s better than selling out.
(Some wiggle room here: the Log Cabin Republicans is upfront explicitly partisan and conservative and only cares about Republican politicians, and some gay organizations explicitly embrace progressive alliances.)
posted by Brian Miller on
It’s interesting to note that the only conservative gay group that has spent any money in the race whatsoever would be the self-loathing folks at GOProud, who launched an ad campaign targeting Campbell and promoting the candidacy of the failed former HP CEO and anti-gay marriage activist Fiorina.
posted by Jorge on
It must have took a lot of verbal contortioning on your part to frame that in such a way as to not to give LCR any credit whatsoever without telling an outright lie.
posted by Throbert McGee on
“BWWWWWACK! Pretty bird! Pretty bird!”
Thanks, Brian, for giving us a preview of what we’ll be hearing non-stop from gay-left Barbara Boxer groupies if Fiorina gets the GOP nomination — here’s a delicious cracker and a nice cuttlefish bone for you!
(And why shouldn’t they be dumb parrots? It’s not like they can point to Boxer’s record of achievements; her sole accomplishment is having a “D” after her name.)
P.S. Actually, it’s not totally accurate to characterize Brian as a “parrot” here, since he actually adds a significant innovation to what Stephen Miller said in the original post.
Before, Fiorina was merely an opponent of gay marriage; now she’s an anti-gay activist. Why? Because as a private citizen, she cast a “Yes” vote for Prop 8. That’s all it takes to make her not only “anti-gay” overall, but an ACTIVIST.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Incidentally, assuming that Fiorina does get the GOP nomination, will Stephen Miller suddenly and conveniently forget that she’s a ¡¡¡FAILED CEO!!! and a ¡¡¡GAY MARRIAGE OPPONENT!!!, and start promoting her as a viable challenger to Barbara Boxer (D)?
OR, will Stephen Miller abruptly forget his advice that gay people shouldn’t be one-party voters, and switch his allegiance to Boxer (D), rather than be seen showing support from an anti-gay activist like Fiorina?
OR, will Stephen Miller simply start going “la-la-la, not hearing this” whenever the November race for one of California’s Senate seats comes up?
In any case, there could be a dramatic change of tune from Miller after the CA Republican primary next week…
posted by Throbert McGee on
To be fair, if Campbell gets the nomination, GOProud will also have to change its tune: the group has been pretty one-note in criticizing Campbell as a fiscally liberal RINO. So if Campbell ends up being the one to challenge Boxer, GOProud will suddenly be finding reasons to praise Campbell’s incredible fiscal discipline!
posted by Tom on
I know — assume, anyway — that you put your money where your mouth is, Stephen, and contributed generously to Tom Campbell’s primary campaign.
I think you are right to suggest that it would be in our best interest to support gay-supportive Republican candidates in primary battles, regardless of our political leanings otherwise, and I hope that you are leading by example to encourage like-minded gays and lesbians.
I think, though, that it goes farther than just those of us outside the Republican Party supporting gay-supportive Republicans in primaries. Gay and lesbian Republicans have to make it a priority to turn their own party around, and work hard to do so.
posted by Debrah on
“Before, Fiorina was merely an opponent of gay marriage; now she’s an anti-gay activist. Why? Because as a private citizen, she cast a ‘Yes’ vote for Prop 8. That’s all it takes to make her not only ‘anti-gay’ overall, but an ACTIVIST.”
***********************************************
Stellar comments on this thread, Throbert.
It really should be against the law for you to be so very clever.
But thank heavens it’s not!
posted by Brian Miller on
This thread is an excellent illustration of what happens to LGBT people who try to waste their time with the Republican Party.
First, you get involved. You attend meetings held in secret locations so as not to reveal the closeted majority of the queer GOP. Online, they masquerade under pseudonyms like “Throbert McGee,” “Debra,” “North Dallas Thirty,” etc. as if it’s still 1965 and they’re members of a Mattachine Society branch in rural Georgia.
Assuming that doesn’t scare you off, you get involved in the candidacy of the gay-friendly Republican, Campbell. Your first encounter with the gay GOP establishment is when the best-funded group of queer Republicans launches attack ads — on the only pro-gay Republican.
Then, as it becomes clear that Carly Fiorina is front-runner, the remainder of the queer GOPers scurry to her camp. They claim it’s “unfair” to call her an anti-gay activist despite her vote for Prop 8, her fundraising efforts for Prop 8 at several Silicon Valley events, her speeches at events in favor of Prop 8, and her status as a contact for the Yes on 8 campaign in Silicon Valley.
Fiorina follows the typical path of the GOP candidate in the last decade — career/business failure moves to the top of the ticket by exploiting divisions of sexual orientation, race, and religion.
The gay-friendly Republican is thus vanquished — in no small part due to the efforts of the gay Republican closeted establishment.
Then one of the few out gay Republicans shows up to insist that it’s non-Republicans’ fault.
posted by Brian Miller on
Ironically, the latest LA Times poll shows that while Fiorina is defeated by a six point margin, pro-gay Campbell defeats Boxer by a seven point margin in a theoretical match-up.
This is another example of how the GOP rushes to the farthest-right extremes — running an anti-gay, anti-choice big government advocate like Fiorina over a more socially moderate big government candidate like Campbell who could actually win.
Yet somehow, that’s everyone else’s fault — not the fault of the actual Republicans themselves who have made their party toxic to all but the most ideologically-committed far-right extremists.
posted by Jimmy on
I think you pretty much nailed it, Brian.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The entertaining thing about Brian Miller’s tirade is that he’s demonstrated why the Republican Party doesn’t really see the point in wasting much time with gays and lesbians.
Simply put, someone who spends that much time weaving fantasies based on their own personal assumptions, stereotypes, and bigotry is not really going to respond to rational matters, facts, or logic, and instead is much more fixated on making decisions based on their minority status, skin color, or other irrelevant points.
In short, Republicans have realized that the vast majority of gays, as Brian Miller demonstrates, make their decisions based on skin color, and not on the content of character.
Case in point, and an amusing one.
Fiorina follows the typical path of the GOP candidate in the last decade — career/business failure moves to the top of the ticket by exploiting divisions of sexual orientation, race, and religion.
Really?
Well, Mr. Miller, since you claim to be “out and proud”, you’ll have no trouble posting your full name, where you work, and resume, so that your ability to assess whether or not Carly Fiorina is a “career/business failure” can be evaluated in the light of your own “success”.
Now, don’t hem and haw. You stated that “out and proud” gay and lesbian people should not be frightened at all. Go ahead and post your information. After all, you wouldn’t want to be a hypocrite, would you? Certainly you wouldn’t have anything in your career that might call into question your ability to judge other peoples’ success, now would you?
Come now, Brian Miller. Show your credentials. Show us what a brilliant businessperson and success that you are that you can make such assessments. Fiorina’s are public knowledge. Why not yours?
posted by Throbert McGee on
Hey, “Brian” “Miller” — what makes you think I’m posting under a pseudonym?
For all you know, my parents actually did name me Throbert because they’re incredibly eccentric and because they wanted it to be alliterative with my older sisters, Theremina and THX-1138.
But how can we be sure that your name isn’t a pseudonym, “Brian”?
posted by Jimmy on
Ms. Fiorina has allowed herself to be held up for public assessment of her career by running for public office, so dispense with the playground bully B.S., ND30. Carrying water for that loser, Carly, makes one look a bit flaccid.
posted by Jorge on
While I don’t consider myself particularly loyal to the Republican party, I think you are overgeneralizing, Brian Miller. We had some good years under Bush until the gay marriage issue exploded. Now the Democrats are carrying our torch, the conservatives are on the rise and the moderates and neoconservatives are on the decline, but this can’t last forever. Failure is a part of the political game; permanant defeats are very rare.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…notice how, when you ask an Obama Party member for their own qualifications to assess the validity of their judgments of others, they scream and whine that it’s “bullying”.
What makes it even more hypocritical and ironic is that these same Obama Party members mock “closeted” people, but seem to be adamantly against having their own personal and professional lives combed through by others.
You demanded transparency and openness, Jimmy. Now, if you want to state publicly that you only meant for OTHER people, not yourself, then at least you’ll be honest.
posted by Brian Miller on
my parents actually did name me Throbert
Uh, yeah, sure they did.
how can we be sure that your name isn’t a pseudonym, “Brian”?
You can look me up. I’ve served on the boards of two LGBT political organizations (including, most recently, Outright) and have an active LinkedIn profile. I’ve also appeared in television and radio and am a member of numerous LGBT professional groups. In other words, not in the closet. You should try that sometime. 😉
Interesting how nobody really disputed my account of how it works in the GOP, though. Many of us tried that route years ago and found it… unfulfilling, to say the least.
when you ask an Obama Party member for their own qualifications to assess the validity of their judgments of others
If the “Obama Party” member was running for office claiming a record of business success, your demand for proof of his/her qualifications would indeed be valid. Alas (for you), the individual in question isn’t.
Ms. Fiorina says that she wants to do for America what she did for HP. That should concern the average American.
Of course, her manifest anti-gay activism is also well-documented, but apparently off-limits for Republicsns to debate or discuss. Further underscoring the GOP’s lack of credibility as a serious party for people interested in LGBT issues.
posted by Brian Miller on
Show us what a brilliant businessperson and success that you are that you can make such assessments. Fiorina’s are public knowledge. Why not yours?
You first, “North Dallas.”
Post your full name, your city, and your profession, and I will do the same and one-up it with a link to my LinkedIn profile. 🙂
posted by Debrah on
TO “Brian Miller”–
You can live three lifetimes, and still not reach Throbert’s level of wit, wisdom, and complete and total joie de vivre.
LIke some gay men—although not quite enough!—he has a life.
Which renders the whole idea of gay parading a boring avenue.
Does everyone have to be slapped in the face with the idea that you get excited about male-on-male fellatio and their nude butt cracks?
Just a rhetorical question.
The answer is obvious.
posted by Brian Miller on
Does everyone have to be slapped in the face with the idea that you get excited about male-on-male fellatio and their nude butt cracks?
Not necessarily, but it is certainly more exciting than the bad wigs and peg-board makeup that excites you (judging from your blog, anyway). 😉
posted by Throbert McGee on
Well, ya got me there — I’ve never been on radio or TV, and belong to no LGBT professional groups. So I guess I’m closeted, by your metric.
posted by Brian Miller on
Well, if you’re gonna post under a pseudonym and provide that to others so that you’re not “outed,” that’s rather closeted. I don’t really take closet-cases seriously — neither do most other queer Americans who are politically active.
Blaming us for your cowardice (and inability to change your party growing out of that cowardice) is, well, unseemly.
posted by Debrah on
TO “Brian Miller”–
You’ve just given me a fabulous compliment without even knowing it.
Sorry, little man.
I don’t wear “wigs” (LOL!!! LOL!!!) …….but my hair has always been a trademark because of the uncommon lushness and thickness of the mane.
When I lived in Tokyo a hair stylist in Ginza offered me a hefty sum of yen if I would allow him to cut it and use the trimmings to make a wig.
LOL!!!
So your little girlish—albeit nutty—barb did conjure a most delicious reverie!
Thanks, Brian!
posted by Brian Miller on
Glad to be of service, my closeted dear. 🙂
posted by Rob McGee on
There, Brian — now I’m “out”.
posted by Debrah on
Throbert….oh Throbert.
Will you please translate “Brian Miller’s” (3:32 PM) for me.
I fear that he’s lost inside The Enterprise today from watching too many “Star Trek” reruns.
posted by Brian Miller on
Congratulations! My turn. Then, North Dallas’s. 🙂
posted by Rob (formerly under deep cover as "Throbert") McGee on
P.S. Deb, how can you say that my profile pic isn’t “chic”? Hello Kitty never goes out of fashion.
posted by Brian Miller on
I’m sorry Deb, are you trying to be witty?
posted by Throbert McGee on
I told you, Deb — he’s figured out that you’re secretly an L, G, B, and/or T. (And sometimes Y and W.)
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
I find the whole idea that “Brian” might think that hilarious.
However, I am pleased if such a fantasy produces excitement for him today.
LIS!
And your photo is fine…….but you’re in mufti.
You need a more mysterious one…….that shows a bit of the edge that is your true essence.
Just my suggestion.
posted by Brian Miller on
Meanwhile, Brian finds it hilarious that other people are speaking on his behalf (not to mention that he is speaking in the third person), and how illustrative the sheer hostility directed at him and other non-closeted folks is of the reception the average queer individual gets whenever he deigns to “engage” with the “Republican opportunity.”
posted by Debrah on
Brian–
I hate to say it, but your knee-jerk comments are so depressingly illustrative of how the Far Left thinks and operates.
You demand disclosure of cyber DNA from ND30 and other men on this thread just because they disagree with your views.
And most illustrative of this brand of insularity is that you cannot wrap your brain around the fact that someone who is not gay—that would be moi—might be engaging in exchanges here.
Because, after all…..horrors!…..it’s a gay blog!
My motto in life is to go where you can find the answers.
I had some concerns with this particular culture war debate and how it is often executed, so, consequently, I came to the dance.
You see, I’m not a wallflower. I like to dance.
Now, don’t go off on a tangent again, Brian.
I’m using metaphor.
posted by Brian Miller on
I’m actually thinking your comments are illustrative of how the Republican fringe right thinks, since I’m a libertarian (and likely more pro-free-market than yourself).
GOPers see “far left” shibboleths everywhere. They’re not welcoming of people who think differently. They grace queer forums with their “wisdom from on high” and patronizing cliches, yet reject active involvement in their party from gay people of character who have a unique perspective to offer them.
Then, when they fail to win a meaningful share of the gay vote, they blame everyone BUT themselves. It’s all those damn far lefties’ faults.
As for the “dance,” you’re stepping on your own feet, not listening to the music, trying to hum Lee Greenwood over the Fur Elise, and frightening off all but the most deaf on the dance floor (who, believe it or not, are not always seeking your prescriptive “wisdom.”)
posted by Debrah on
Brian–
I’ll skip over your clichéd logorrhea because:
1) I’m not a Republican. Have always been a registered Democrat, although I never vote the party line, but for the candidate.
2) I simply cannot abide country music. It’s not “in keeping” with the Diva vibe.
Try again.
posted by Brian Miller on
So basically you’re on here for mental masturbation’s sake? I guess that technically qualifies as queer. Knock yourself out!
posted by Jimmy on
“You demanded transparency and openness, Jimmy. Now, if you want to state publicly that you only meant for OTHER people, not yourself, then at least you’ll be honest.”
With just about 3 or 4 clicks, ND30, you can obtain all the information about me you need as I am quite connected, publicly, throughout the social media universe, so….suck it Big Brother!
posted by Jimmy on
“So basically you’re on here for mental masturbation’s sake?”
Gosh, Deb – I feel so used.
posted by Debrah on
“So basically you’re on here for mental masturbation’s sake?”
*************************************************
What else is debate and exchange of ideas but “mental masturbation”?
Besides, the grandest and most rapturous episodes of carnal bliss originate above the neck.
Two great minds and the right chemical pheromonic combination result in pure volcanic ecstasy!
Jimmy–
LOL!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You first, “North Dallas.”
Post your full name, your city, and your profession, and I will do the same and one-up it with a link to my LinkedIn profile. 🙂
Nope.
The reason for asking was to demonstrate the discrepancy between your resume’s and Fiorina’s, and in that, it succeeded brilliantly.
Next, and more amusingly:
Interestingly enough, that’s the same rant Brian Miller makes about the Libertarian Party because they refuse to accept his worldview as absolute.
In short, Republicans are to Brian Miller what Jews are to Helen Thomas, and both act similarly in response.
posted by Brian Miller on
Figured you’d be a coward, “North Dallas.”
My resume is pretty good. It’s not comparable to Fiorina’s because I didn’t run a major corporation into the ground and get a $42 million payoff after being fired, but hey. I’m not a member of the oligarchy.
Funny you should mention Jews, as I am one of those as well. I love it when Gentiles rush in to “defend” us from 89-year-old women. Scary, those 89-year-olds.
Doubly funny that you think you have any credibility.
As for my editorials on the Libertarian Party, they’ve largely turned out to be correct.
So keep slinging your shit at the wall, closet-boi. We’ve already proven you have no testicles, for you’re unwilling to provide even a fraction of information about yourself for inspection that you demand of all others. 😉
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Let’s see; Fiorina started as a receptionist, worked her way up through to an executive position with AT&T, oversaw the spinoff of Lucent, which was at the time the largest and most successful IPO in US history, continued on as one of its major executives, and then moved over to HP.
Starting off at the bottom of the pay scale and working your way up to the top doesn’t sound very “oligarchic” to most people, but then again, most people are not trying to use leftist and class-warfare buzzwords as an excuse for why they are enviously trashing someone whose demonstrated record of success and achievement far outshines their own.
Or, more precisely, they’ve turned out to be rather indicative of your behavior pattern — whine, scream, throw insults, and go running away convinced of your own self-importance.
In short, I might be concerned about your namecalling if it were actually in the least damaging. But frankly, as several other people who have had the misfortune of interacting with you relate, being insulted and screamed at by you is almost invariably associated with being correct.
For some reason, political parties aren’t huge fans of gay and lesbian bigots like yourself who sit up at the podium and call insulting peoples’ weight intelligent political discourse. You, of course, have deluded yourself into thinking otherwise, but the general consensus is that you did more damage to your “OutRight” group and its credibility with your antics than you ever did to the Libertarian Party.