I suppose I should say something about the sniping that some supporters of GOProud, the newer, more conservative (and more party line) gay Republican group are engaging in against the Log Cabin Republicans (LCR). Basically, I think there is room for gay groups of a variety of political persuasions on the right/center right (just as groups on the LGBT left range from party line Democrats to far left-wingers).
As I understand it, GOProud's founders were critical that LCR would not endorse George W. Bush's re-election campaign in 2004 (after Bush endorsed the anti-gay federal marriage amendment). Log Cabin did endorse John McCain (who opposed the amendment) in 2008.
[Added: An e-mail received from GOProud states: "GOProud's founding has nothing to do with LCR's non-endorsement of Bush in 2004. ... we were founded because we believed there was a void in Washington. While there were lots of gay organizations, including Log Cabin, working on a narrowly defined list of 'gay issues' like ENDA or hate crimes, there was no organization talking about tax issues, social security reform, free market healthcare reform, etc. We are the only gay organization working on these conservative agenda items."
Perhaps, but some gay conservatives posting at GayPatriot are still fuming over Log Cabin's "refusal to endorse the only Republican in the Presidential Election of 2004."]
This year, GOProud endorsed former CEO Carly Fiorina's successful bid in the California GOP Senate primary against Tom Campbell, while LCR endorsed Campbell, a former congressman.
Campbell favors marriage equality for gay people, while Fiorina supported Prop. 8, which amended the California constitution to ban gay marriage (but allows domestic partnerships). GOProud and its allies (at GayPatriot, for instance), castigate LCR and argue Fiorina is more fiscally conservative than Campbell, but Fiorina has no public record to point to, just words. Campbell was a leading deficit hawk while in the House, but subequently while serving as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget director supported a tax increase. The right wing of the party has never forgiven him.
On another matter, some GOProuders attack LCR for accepting funds from the Gill Foundation, which also supports activists on the LGBT left. But software entrepreneur Tim Gill seems to fund a variety of groups working for gay equality, and LCR's acceptance of his money does not make them part of the left or the foundation's puppet, as some charge.
And then there was this year's GOP primary for Viriginia's 8th congressional district (Arlington/Alexandria), where openly gay Log Cabin member Matthew Berry, who served in the Bush Justice Dept., lost to Iraq war veteran Patrick Murray. It is not true that the national Log Cabin organization supported Murray, as some assert. But it is true that the new executive director of LCR, Iraq War veteran R. Clarke Cooper, did endorse fellow-vet Murray before accepting his position at LCR. Subsequently, he withdrew that endorsement. Murray's campaign sent out mailers playing up Berry's support for gay rights (misleadingly so, because in fact Berry favored waiting for the military to complete its review of don't ask, don't tell before taking action, and felt states should decide the gay marriage issue).
The local Log Cabin club of Northern Virginia gave support to Berry and criticized Murray's playing of the gay card (as I noted here). LCR national responded to the charge that the organization supported Murray, here.
Having Tom Campbell in the Senate would have been an important advance for those within the GOP who support gay legal equality, as I wrote, so I was with LCR on that one. But I think LCR's Cooper stumbled badly with his initial endorsement of Murray over Berry in the Virginia House race. Still, I'm willing to give him a chance to recover. LCR has many loyal members who want to support Republicans who support gay rights, and the organization has an important role to play.
It might be too much to expect GOProud and LCR to carve out their own niches and for their supporters to otherwise get along, but that would be a more constructive approach for them to take, especially as it seems highly likely that the GOP will make major congressional advances in November. We'll want, and need, to have our voices (plural) heard within the party.
More. There are a great many claims and counter-claims going on between Log Cabin and GOProud (and GayPatriot, whose founder and co-blogger, Bruce M. Carroll Jr, is a GOProud board member). But I trust my friend David Lampo of Log Cabin's Northern Virginia chapter, who left this comment at the GayPatriot site (it's followed by Bruce Carroll's response).
76 Comments for “The Gay Republicans’ Feud”
posted by avee on
Thank you for a level-headed look at this "feud." Actually, I’m not sure how much of the sniping is coming directly from GOProud (their website is pretty minimal) and how much is being whooped up by the Log Cabin haters at GayPatriot, a site that seems increasingly infantile.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, it does.
Tim Gill is well noted for forming false-flag groups that claim to be ostensibly “Republican” or “pro-life”, and then using them to attack a candidate that they want gone.
In the California Senate race, that’s obvious. Knock out an actual Republican who can go toe to toe with Boxer and win in terms of personal and business credibility in favor of a John McCain clone — without the record of actual achievement. A nice patsy Republican, just ready to cave at any moment as Boxer starts going full-bore shrieky liberal and start me-too’ing.
Pity the false-flagging didn’t work for Gill this time.
posted by Bobby on
Gill is a huge progressive, just like George Soros, any money that comes from him is dirty and LCR has no business accepting it.
posted by A.J. on
Assertions aside, I see little proof for the allegations about Gill putting a left-wing agenda above a gay-equality agenda. NDT links to a story that is not about the Gill Foundation, but about Gill personally helping to support a pro-life group trying to defeat rabidly anti-gay (and pro-life) Marilyn Musgrave. Well, I’m pro life and pro-gay, so I’d support that group! Gill was trying to defeat an outright homophobe, something Log Cabin (but maybe not GOProud) would be onboard with, in any event.
posted by Sonny on
It seems as if GOProud and its posse has only two purposes: the personal advancement of a few big egos and attacking Log Cabin, mostly with lies. Log Cabin has members throughout the country working for gay and lesbian equality and for Republican candidates and causes. There are no personal or hidden agendas, which will come as quite a disappointment to those wanting to buy into gossipy, catty, conspiracy chatter.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Which was pretty much their intention.
But if you look at the actual filings, you notice that a) all of their funding came from six donors, b) all of those donors are radically pro-abortion and liberal, and c) the stated goal of these donors was to elect the pro-abortion and liberal Obama Party candidate.
I mean, there really is nothing that Gill and his fellow leftists won’t do to support their Obama Party goals — .
posted by Bobby on
Hey A.J., people like Gill play really complicated political games, let me give you an real-world example using George Soros. 1. George Soros invest in Petrobas, a Brazilian oil company that wants to drill oil in deep waters outside of Brazil. 2. Oil companies are used to leasing equipment to drill for oil, because it’s cheaper and faster than building it yourself. 3. BP has an oil spill. 4. Soros funds the Center for American Progress which tells Obama to ban oil drilling in the gulf. 5. Oil drilling is banned, equipment is shipped to Brazil.
Of course, people like Soros wait until there’s a crisis to then invest in Petrobas, tell the Center what to do, and manipulate Obama using environmental concerns when in reality they don’t give two shits about the environment.
Gill is doing the same, he knows he can’t win by running ads that say “Musgrave is a homophobe. Boo hoo hoo.” So instead they invest a pro-life group that pretends their candidate is more pro-life than Musgrave, fool the people and win elections.
Remember, progressives think you’re too stupid to know the truth, so instead of telling you what they really want, they use trickery, exploit a crisis, change the name of unpopular legislation in the hopes of securing passage, and eventually they secure complete power, and that’s when they take off their masks and you see what these people are really like.
Luckily, we have Glenn Beck and others exposing them, I just hope enough Americans are paying attention because we need to take our country back.
posted by nomad on
It’s interesting that the attacks against Log Cabin and the false claim that the organization supported Patrick Murray for congress in Virginia are coming from both GOProud and GayPatriot, and from gay left sites like Queerty and Joe.My.God. Keeping in mind that GOProud co-founder Chris Barron cut his political teeth working in John Edwards’ campaign for the Democratic nomination for president, and you can cook up a very nice alternative conspiracy theory.
posted by Jorge on
As I understand it, GOProud’s founders were critical that LCR would not endorse George W. Bush’s re-election campaign in 2004 (after Bush endorsed the anti-gay federal marriage amendment). Log Cabin did endorse John McCain (who opposed the amendment) in 2008.
If that’s true then they sound very dense. Almost 50% of the country voted for the other guy, and for good reasons. If people who support the GOProud agenda (whatever it is) want respect, they should show some respect for others. If they just want to isolate or schism themselves, and be secure in their own choices, they should observe the same rules they want applied to them.
“Sniping” seems like it should be more the province of social conservatives than libertarians.
posted by Tom on
I think that this takes us back to a brief discussion we had a month or so ago — whether or not gays and lesbians should be as single-minded about advancing gay and lesbian equality as the NRA is in advancing its views on the Second Amendment. It seems to me that we should be single-minded, supporting gay and lesbian equality, as we individually understand it, on all fronts at all times, and let the political chips fall where they may.
posted by Debrah on
“Keeping in mind that GOProud co-founder Chris Barron cut his political teeth working in John Edwards’ campaign for the Democratic nomination for president, and you can cook up a very nice alternative conspiracy theory.”
******************************************
Oh, the irony…….
…….since it has been widely reported how homophobic Edwards actually is.
It seems, however—for public consumption, anyway—that his insipid, phony, and now-estranged-power-hungry wife Elizabeth pulled Edwards into the “gay-friendly” arena during their pathetic campaigns clawing for the White House.
Yet one would die of thirst waiting for any Liberal Democrat to admit just how many closet homophobes there are in their own political camp.
And again…….why exactly will Obama—and his most “progressive” administration—not support SSM after almost 100% support from the gay community during his 2008 election?
Cricket chirping.
posted by Debrah on
“As I understand it, GOProud’s founders were critical that LCR would not endorse George W. Bush’s re-election campaign in 2004 (after Bush endorsed the anti-gay federal marriage amendment).”
*********************************************
Is this why so many gays hate GWB?
In a kind of rabid and childish way?
Many times in the past—without knowing that a particular blogger was gay—I detected that almost anything remotely positive said about GWB was met with clear disdain.
Almost like the cross-over-a-vampire reaction.
Hilarious to hate someone so much simply because of the way you express yourself below the waist. And it minimizes the credibility of the “haters” simply because observers can never trust their critiques any longer…….
…….knowing how omnipotent they view their own effing-methods……beyond all else, including professionalism.
As a side bar, this from Mort Zuckerman is a must-read.
Read it in its entirety. It places a focus on the way many of us are beginning to feel about our decision to have supported Obama in 2008.
Very scary analysis, to be blunt about it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Um, it was more than refusing to endorse. It was about spending a million dollars to run attack ads against Bush and Republicans in the 2004 campaign.
Which was also pretty interesting, when you consider that LCR had never before in its history spent that much on an ad buy, or even really had that kind of money sitting around to make that sort of buy — and then they use it to attack Republicans?
Refusing to endorse is a principled stance that the vast majority of people would have respected. But running attack ads against the candidates from your own party in the main election cycle? That makes it pretty clear that someone else is pulling your strings, and it’s very typical with the Tim Gill methodology of false-flag organizations.
posted by Jimmy on
“Is this why so many gays hate GWB”
No, but it’s a start.
“I detected that almost anything remotely positive said about GWB was met with clear disdain.”
Yeah, like Obama’s detractors are ever so genteel.
I agree with everything you said, Debrah, about Mr&Mrs Edwards.
“Yet one would die of thirst waiting for any Liberal Democrat to admit just how many closet homophobes there are in their own political camp.”
Especially below the Mason Dixon line. Somethings never change. We’d hoped via the Southern Strategy that we had rid ourselves of these rubes. Guess not.
“And again…….why exactly will Obama—and his most ‘progressive’ administration—not support SSM after almost 100% support from the gay community during his 2008 election?”
I am on record that Obama is nowhere near the progressive or liberal that he is painted to be, which is what makes those tea partiers look even more clownish.
“Hilarious to hate someone so much simply because of the way you express yourself below the waist.”
It would be equally as irrational to love somebody for it. Liberal gays hate W. (and Palin, and Bachman, and Beck, et al) because they’re liberal first, and also happen to be gay and unashamed.
posted by Jorge on
Um, it was more than refusing to endorse. It was about spending a million dollars to run attack ads against Bush and Republicans in the 2004 campaign.
Which was also pretty interesting, when you consider that LCR had never before in its history spent that much on an ad buy, or even really had that kind of money sitting around to make that sort of buy — and then they use it to attack Republicans?
Refusing to endorse is a principled stance that the vast majority of people would have respected. But running attack ads against the candidates from your own party in the main election cycle? That makes it pretty clear that someone else is pulling your strings, and it’s very typical with the Tim Gill methodology of false-flag organizations.
I strongly disagree. I see zero meaningful ethical distinction between the various choices (endorse Bush, endorse nobody, endorse Kerry, and everything in between) the Log Cabin Republicans had in response to a very serious ethnical and political dillema. Only ideology is relevant. In choosing to endorse neither candidate, we have seen the Log Cabin Republicans set a tone and affirm their mission: they only endorse Republicans, and they fight for gay rights. That is their choice, no one else’s.
I found your argument so ridiculous it took me a very long time to make my rebuttal coherent.
As a side bar, this from Mort Zuckerman is a must-read.
Read it in its entirety.
Sorry, I don’t like Zuckerman. I only read the title.
He combines extremely depressing columns with being almost always right or convincing (actually I love him).
I think that this takes us back to a brief discussion we had a month or so ago — whether or not gays and lesbians should be as single-minded about advancing gay and lesbian equality as the NRA is in advancing its views on the Second Amendment….
While I do like to see single-minded gay organizations, I think the NRA members we have here are not so single-minded individually, but care about many things.
posted by Tom on
I notice that GOProud’s principles include this statement: FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.
I wonder whether GOProud supports or opposes the 2010 Republican Party of Texas platform, which reads: “Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.”
I guess it might depend on whether GOProud considers the Republican Party of Texas a “radical regime”. I’d say it is relatively normal, considering that it’s Texas.
posted by Tom on
Sorry, blew a “close link” on the previous post.
I notice that GOProud’s principles include this statement: FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.
I wonder whether GOProud supports or opposes the 2010 Republican Party of Texas platform, which reads: “Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.”
I guess it might depend on whether GOProud considers the Republican Party of Texas a “radical regime”.
posted by Bobby on
The party platform isn’t that important, Tom, even the homophobes know that it’s much easier to say you oppose “sodomy” in your party platform than to take the necessary steps to once again pass sodomy laws.
Gay republicans like me are more worried about Obama giving Petrobas $2 billion dollars to drill offshore while suspending offshore oil drilling in America, than a tiny line in the Texas GOP party platform which was only put there to keep the Christian vote. I could care less about the party platform because what matters is the individual politicians I vote for.
Sodomy laws are not coming back, SCOTUS already invalidated them, most conservatives know they are unenforceable, it’s no longer important.
posted by BobN on
r a t i o n a l i z i n g
posted by Jorge on
I wonder whether GOProud supports or opposes the 2010 Republican Party of Texas platform…
You could ask. But it’s the kind of question that a politician, at least, wouldn’t answer, so then if you’re really curious, you’re left to scavange around for something resembling a record.
I think you already know the answer to the question you have asked.
posted by Debrah on
This just in!
The new Rolling Stone article has resulted in Gen. Stanley McChrystal, top commander in Afghanistan, being ordered home.
Quite illuminating how ill-prepared the White House really is.
posted by Tom on
I don’t. GOProud has been silent on the issue, as far as I know.
posted by Tom on
So would you vote for an individual politician who supported re-criminalization of sodomy, assuming that he was in accord with you on Petrobas?
posted by Jimmy on
I find statements from unnamed, out of control senior aides to be illuminating in this respect: how does a general run a war when he can’t control his own staff? McChrystal and his group clearly spend their days disparaging their commander-in-chief rather than respectfully following orders. History informs us what happens to generals, better ones than this one, who run afoul of their boss.
Sounds to me like McChrystal is daring Obama to fire him. Will Obama make him a martyr by doing so?
posted by Tom on
It sounds to me like a replay of Truman-McArthur.
posted by Bobby on
“So would you vote for an individual politician who supported re-criminalization of sodomy, assuming that he was in accord with you on Petrobas?”
—Yes I would, because the likelihood of sodomy becoming a crime again is zilch while the likelihood of oil prices rising to $7 or $10 a gallon is probable if democrats keep ruining America with their anti-drilling policies (which don’t apply to Brazil, interestingly enough, I guess it’s ok to have an oil spill as long as it happens far away in a third world country).
There’s more to life than gay rights, I hate how Obama is turning America into a third world country. Will all those liberal gays be able to afford their lifestyle when the Bush tax cuts expire and new higher taxes come in place? Will they drive their Miatas at $7 or $10 a gallon? Will they vacation in the Greek islands when fuel costs raises the tickets to $2,000 in coach? Will the leather people have enough money for $10,000 cages and $500 vests under a bad economy?
I’m not gonna vote for some asshole pro-gay politician that kisses my ass and raises my taxes. I don’t care if some republicans tell me that they love the sinner but hate the sin. Fine, hate the sin all you want, just lower my taxes so I can go forth and sin some more. 😉
posted by Tom on
Bobby, reasonable men differ, I guess. I wouldn’t vote for a politician who favored re-criminalization of sodomy, period.
You illustrate the conundrum facing Stephen Miller and others who want to see the Republican Party turn around on gay and lesbian issues.
The Republican Party will not turn around so long as gay and lesbian Republicans continue to support the party and Republican politicians who play the “faggot, faggot” card. And few gay and lesbian Republicans are willing to stand up to “faggot, faggot”, demanding that the Republican Party change and penalizing Republican politicians for taking radical anti-gay stands, like re-criminalizing sodomy.
So Stephen and others of like mind are forced to look outside for someone else to change the Republican Party, and are reduced to criticizing liberal gays and lesbians, who don’t agree with the Republican Party on other issues, for not doing enough to work change within the Republican Party.
It is not going to work. Gay and lesbian Republicans won’t change their own party, and liberal gays and lesbians can’t. So the Republican Party will continue down the path of “faggot, faggot”.
The problem with the Texas Republican platform, however, goes well beyond the problem of whether and how the Republican Party can be brought to its senses on gay and lesbian equality.
I want you to notice what the Texas Republican platform says about the means of re-criminalizing sodomy.
Because of the Lawrence decision, any attempt by Texas to re-criminalize sodomy would be struck down as unconstitutional, as you have pointed out. Given that fact, the Texas Republican platform says this: “We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.”
In other words, if the courts, enforcing the Constitution, check the criminalization of sodomy, then Congress should remove the check by removing federal court jurisdiction, so that the Constitution no longer constrains the Texas legislature.
Removing the jurisdiction of the federal courts to enforce the Constitution with respect to sodomy laws is not the only area in which the Texas Republican platform calls for jurisdiction to be removed. The “Family and Defense of Marriage” section of the platform contains a similar call: “We are resolute that Congress exercise authority under the United States Constitution, and pass legislation withholding jurisdiction from the Federal Courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage.“, as does the section titled, oddly, “Preserving American Freedom: “We urge Congress to withhold Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights.”
Do you hear that?
The Texas Republican Party is on record in favor of removing the jurisdiction of the federal courts to enforce the Bill of Rights.
I am appalled. To my mind, that is simple tyranny.
I remind you of the adage that freedom is not free. Keeping our freedom requires vigilance and determination, courage and action.
If gay Republicans will not stand up and be counted on this issue, so central to our constitutional system of checks and balances, so critical to preserving freedom, then the results you get are the results you deserve.
posted by Jimmy on
The more a state tries to differentiate itself from the federal constitution, the more unlike America it becomes. And if it is unlike America, then what is it? An independent sovereign? So be it. No one leaves unless they can finance it; meaning, a refund check send to federal treasury by the former state for any services it did not pay for.
If they can’t pay, they are automatically in receivership.
posted by Debrah on
“If gay Republicans will not stand up and be counted on this issue, so central to our constitutional system of checks and balances, so critical to preserving freedom, then the results you get are the results you deserve.”
****************************************************
I’m not gay, obviously.
Nor am I a Republican.
Like many, I do possess a keen built-in detector of grotesque hyperbole so incessantly displayed as a substitute for realities that affect society as a whole.
Kind of like this guy who has to be gay and who has honed the same bullsh!t self-serving agenda.
This is the type of article that literally makes my blood boil.
I’ve just about had it with these self-serving and irresponsible sperm-burpers putting forth such inanities and further attempting to usurp public safety.
Everything that passes for intelligence and common sense will, eventually, be eclipsed (as it will always be sooner or later by such selfish infantile clowns) by the fantasy that sexual orientation is comparable to one’s race or ethnicity……
……and that sex between gay men is not riskier than all other forms.
It’s very clear why most of these dishonest people try to hang their hats on the current youth demographic.
Teens and twenty-somethings would have no clear knowledge of the rampant AIDS epidemic that was spread—unrepentantly, irresponsibly, and shamelessly—when most of us were in our youth.
It’s all presented now by older gays as rhapsody, lace, and honey in which the “rights of gay and lesbian citizens” are somehow on par with the horrific civil rights issues of centuries past.
The public good must be the prime concern. Not the fact that they want to place their appendages inside the fecal canals of other men and pretend that this practice is “just like any other sexual relationship”.
For this reason, it is preferable to know someone’s sexual orientation for the sole purpose of preparing for the inevitability…….
…….that they will always bring their f*cking into any professional arena.
I doubt anyone cares to inhibit any consenting adult—gay or straight—from engaging their “desires”; however, it would be refreshing if more than a few were to come out with an honest assessment of it all…..
…….instead of trying to cover up what the practice has done to spread STD’s (among them AIDS) with abandon.
Tout the negatives along with the “rights” you so clearly possess to give it and take it in the rear.
Please.
For the sake of the general population.
posted by Jimmy on
You need to get over it, Deb, and move on.
“Every time I look in the mirror
All these lines on my face getting clearer
The past is gone
It goes by, like dusk to dawn
Isn’t that the way
Everybody’s got their dues in life to pay” – Dream On.
posted by Tom on
It is un-American.
The Bill of Rights, quintessentially American, is the guardian of our security as well as our liberty.
posted by Debrah on
Cute lyrics to a song, Jimmy?
Here’s another one. Truth hurts.
A song is a song is a song.
No one will move on.
To what?
A parallel reality in which all I have said is untrue?
Dream on.
posted by Jimmy on
Gorgeous video.
posted by Tom on
It doesn’t sound like the Republicans plan to make McChrystal a martyr.
John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham issued a statement today: “We have the highest respect for General McChrystal and honor his brave service and sacrifice to our nation. General McChrystal’s comments, as reported in Rolling Stone, are inappropriate and inconsistent with the traditional relationship between Commander-in-Chief and the military. … The decision concerning General McChrystal’s future is a decision to be made by the President of the United States.”
The United States has many competent general officers. I don’t know whether President Obama will relieve General McChrystal of command, but if he does, I think that most Americans will back the President. Our military has no place for a general running rogue.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….oh, what blatant and obvious hypocrisy.
Where were you when Kerry supported bans on gay marriage, Tom? That’s right, you were voting for and endorsing him.
Where were you when HRC and your fellow Obama Party members were pushing FMA supporter Harold Ford for office? That’s right, you were giving them money and supporting them.
Where were you when Howard Dean and the DNC were discriminating against gay and lesbian employees? That’s right, you were endorsing and supporting them.
And where have you been when Obama Party members are cultivating Louis “Filthy Homosexuals” Farrakhan for support? That’s right, being a good little gay and keeping your mouth shut.
The Republican Party realized a long time ago that gays and lesbians like you were hypocrites, Tom. You endorse and support fully in your Obama Party what you shriek is “faggot, faggot” elsewhere. It’s really nothing more than trying to justify your behavior by claiming that all gays are hypocritical Republican-hating antireligious leftists like yourself.
And as for your whining over the Bill of Rights? Please. Your Obama Party openly supports suppressing dissenting opinion. Your Obama Party openly states that you consider disagreeing with Obama to be treason and sedition.
In short, why should they follow your rules? You don’t.
posted by Jimmy on
The statement by the three senators lends credence to the saying that the US Senate is composed of 100 individuals who believe they should be president. At least they’re consistent with regard to the wide ranging powers of the chief executive and commander.
posted by Bobby on
If Obama asks the American people to choose between him and McCrystal, he’s gonna lose. Most Americans support their generals, they are not gonna allow some know-nothing community organizer belittle a great man.
posted by Tom on
True enough. The problem comes when generals believe they are President. Just about every wartime President has had trouble with generals at one point or another.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Meh.
Be that as it may, civilian control of the military and military deference to civilian control are proud and enshrined parts of our law and tradition, and what McChrystal was criticizing does not rise to the level of justifying what he did.
That being said, let’s see if the Obama Party gays here are willing to state that generals who criticized Bush — and the Barack Obama Party and Barack Obama himself who supported them for doing so — are hypocrites if they discipline or in any way punish McChrystal.
Republicans can condemn McChrystal’s actions with a clear conscience. Any Obama Party member who does is a hypocrite, and Obama himself is the biggest hypocrite of all.
posted by Jimmy on
“If Obama asks the American people to choose between him and McCrystal, he’s gonna lose.”
If Barry dared “ask” something like that, he would deserve to be seen as a eunuch.
posted by Debrah on
“If Barry dared ‘ask’ something like that, he would deserve to be seen as a eunuch.”
***************************************
Oh, no.
Jimmy’s throwing down now.
It’s serious.
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
Here’s a ‘bedtime video’ for you.
You’re always accusing those of us who support Israel, totally, of being “Zionists”.
Listen to Bruce Bawer.
He has also written several books on this ominous and foreboding reality.
(My apologies for having no choice but to inflict Bill Moyers on everyone.)
posted by Jimmy on
The question I don’t often hear asked is: What happens to Israel once Arab Israelis are the ethnic majority. More Apartheid? Civil War?
Armageddon.
posted by BobN on
If Obama asks the American people to choose between him and McCrystal
If you asked the American people about “McCrystal”, the American people would think that McDonald’s had expanded into the illicit drug market.
posted by Tom on
Bobby, You seem to think that the Republican Party of Texas 2010 platform is “just talk” that was (as you put it) “put there to keep the Christian vote…” Leaving aside the question of what Christians are up to these days — and it isn’t good if this is any indication — I want to point something out to you.
Stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction over “culture war” issues is not new. It damn near happened in 2004, just six years ago. The Bush administration got the “Marriage Protection Act” through the House in 2004; Democrats in the Senate stopped the bill from becoming law.
Had the bill become law — and it was a narrow miss, because it passed the House and would have been signed by President Bush if it had passed the Senate — we wouldn’t be talking about Perry v. Schwarzenegger or saluting Ted Olson and David Boies; the federal courts would had no jurisdiction to hear the case, and the case would not exist.
So, given that this is something the Republicans have tried before, I don’t share your comfort that this is “just talk”.
What is new and, in my view, extremely dangerous, is the scope of the 2010 Republican Party of Texas platform’s attack on federal court jurisdiction: “We urge Congress to withhold Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights.”
The idea that we should remove checks and balances from the entire Bill of Rights, including, expressly, the 1st Amendment guarantee of religious freedom, is appalling to me.
I recognize that you, as a member of the majority religion, may not share my concerns, as a member of a minority religion, about efforts to render the 1st Amendment toothless. I am concerned, and in my view, rightly so. Removing jurisdiction of the federal courts to hold adherents of the majority religion in check effectively gives the adherents of the majority religion the power to limit the religious freedom of minority religions. Given the history between our two religions — I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you are at least nominally Christian — I don’t have much confidence that modern-day Christians are going to act much differently than Christians acted in earlier times.
I would think, however, that you might more readily share my concern about the viability of the 2nd Amendment if the federal courts are stripped of jurisdiction. If the federal courts cannot hold the power of Congress, state legislatures and municipalities in check, what is to stop them from banning or limiting our right to bear arms? Cases — critical cases challenging the power of states and municipalities — are pending in the federal courts as we speak. If the cases are dismissed for want of jurisdiction, who holds government in check?
If we have learned anything from history, it is that power unchecked will be abused, sooner or later, and that the end result is tyranny.
I can’t believe that Republicans in Texas actually put this in their platform. I can’t believe that you’re not concerned about it.
Maybe its because you believe it is “just talk” that was (as you put it) “put there to keep the Christian vote“.
I don’t. We came too close in 2004 for me to believe that for a New York minute.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Tom,
“The Bush administration got the “Marriage Protection Act” through the House in 2004; Democrats in the Senate stopped the bill from becoming law.”
—It wasn’t just the democrats, there were plenty of republicans who weren’t too sure if amending the constitution was a good idea. Besides, a constitutional amendment needs 2/3 of the states to ratify it, and the polls just weren’t there.
“So, given that this is something the Republicans have tried before, I don’t share your comfort that this is “just talk”.”
—George W. Bush himself refers to the sodomy laws as a symbolic gesture of family values. That means GWB knew that enforcing sodomy laws was impossible, so when SCOTUS abolished them neither him nor most republicans did anything to bring them back.
“What is new and, in my view, extremely dangerous, is the scope of the 2010 Republican Party of Texas platform’s attack on federal court jurisdiction: “We urge Congress to withhold Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights.”
—It’s never gonna happen, and if it does happen there will be lawsuits. It’s like the famous Obama oil drilling moratorium, thankfully, the courts ruled against him, so now that bastard is sending his own lawyers to appeal the decision. This is how our system works. Politicians have ideas and then the lawyers decide if those ideas are good or not.
“The idea that we should remove checks and balances from the entire Bill of Rights, including, expressly, the 1st Amendment guarantee of religious freedom, is appalling to me.”
“I recognize that you, as a member of the majority religion, may not share my concerns, as a member of a minority religion, about efforts to render the 1st Amendment toothless.”
—Au contraire, mon ami. I am Jewish. Of course, I’m more scared of minorities like Muslims that invent things like “Islamophobia” and persecute conservative speakers than I am of the GOP. Besides, it’s Obama and his fellow nazis that want to render the first amendment toothless, have a kill switch for the Internet, put Beck in jail for “sedition,” pass “hate speech” legislation, bail out progressive newspapers like The New York Times and others. I’m not making things up, I have seen stories about this in all kinds of places. You have no idea what people say on CSPAN when they think nobody’s watching.
“I am concerned, and in my view, rightly so. Removing jurisdiction of the federal courts to hold adherents of the majority religion in check effectively gives the adherents of the majority religion the power to limit the religious freedom of minority religions.”
—Ok, I don’t know what you’re talking about, secular progressives dominate the culture and the only religion that intimidates them is Islam. Comedy Central ridicules everyone yet they’re too scared to show a picture of the prophet Muhammad. All accross America schools are refering to the “Christmas Break” as “Winter Break” while schools are stoping kids from singing Christmas carols and doing any cultural activities that now are labeled as sectarian. So your fears about majority religions are unfounded.
“I don’t have much confidence that modern-day Christians are going to act much differently than Christians acted in earlier times.”
—Are you saying we’re gonna bring back the Inquisition or start burning witches? That’s silly. Christianity is a religion of love, love the sinner, hate the sin. Islam is a religion of hate, it was spread through war and the Koran itself advices Muslims to either kill the infidel or convert him.
“I would think, however, that you might more readily share my concern about the viability of the 2nd Amendment if the federal courts are stripped of jurisdiction. If the federal courts cannot hold the power of Congress, state legislatures and municipalities in check, what is to stop them from banning or limiting our right to bear arms? Cases — critical cases challenging the power of states and municipalities — are pending in the federal courts as we speak. If the cases are dismissed for want of jurisdiction, who holds government in check?”
—Conservatives and republicans usually love the second amendment, if gun control is gonna come from anyone, it will be the left. Just like Obama ordered the drilling moratorium without passing a law, maybe tomorrow he’ll try to do the same with guns.
“If we have learned anything from history, it is that power unchecked will be abused, sooner or later, and that the end result is tyranny.”
—-What about activists judges who make rulings based on International law and things that have nothing to do with the Constitution or legal precedent? What about that danger? If America follows the principles of federalism and small government, then we won’t have to fear a big federal government.
“I can’t believe that Republicans in Texas actually put this in their platform. I can’t believe that you’re not concerned about it.
Maybe its because you believe it is “just talk” that was (as you put it) “put there to keep the Christian vote”.”
—Remember when health care reform passed and there was a provision to tax tanning by 10%? A provision nobody knew about because it was hidden in a 1,000+ page bill? That’s where politics really occurs, it’s the reason why most political organizations score candidates based on how they vote rather than what they say.
I lived in Texas, I’ve met republicans in Texas. It’s a wonderful state, taxes are low, the cost of living is cheap, gays have their own ghettos and everyone gets along for the most part. You worry about some homophobic line in the GOP’s platform, yet Texas has had a republican governor for years and I don’t see him rounding up gays and sending them to the ovens, do I?
So you see, party platforms don’t matter. Worry about the voting records, the pork, the language in the bill.
posted by Tom on
Where do you get the idea that limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts requires a constitutional amendment? You’ve said this earlier in the thread, and it just isn’t so.
I think you live in a comfort zone that is more imagined than real. I don’t trust conservative Christians any farther than I can throw them, and I don’t think that their vision of a “Christian nation” is just a talking point.
posted by Jorge on
The worst is McChrystal’s and an aide’s statements about Vice President Biden (“Vice President Biden? Who’s that?” “Biden? Did you just say ‘bite me?’). It’s just shockingly inappropriate for this to come out in public. What would happen to most of us in our jobs if we were caught saying stuff like that? Obama needs to discipline McChrystal, and if he can’t do that cleanly without firing him, he’ll have to lose the general.
posted by Tom on
A vision of contentment and bliss, to be sure. You ought to try living as an out gay couple in White House, or Tyler, or Wichita Falls. Your eyes would bug out.
posted by Jimmy on
“Conservatives and republicans usually love the second amendment, if gun control is gonna come from anyone, it will be the left.”
Bobby, getting shot tends to modify that love. At least, it did for Saint Ronnie.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html
posted by Debrah on
“What happens to Israel once Arab Israelis are the ethnic majority. More Apartheid? Civil War?”
**************************************
Jimmy–
My senses tell me that you did not watch that video.
It wasn’t focused on Israel, really. Bawer outlined very clearly what Islam is doing to Europe.
You always want to offer up moral equivalency, but fundamental Islamic culture, as he points out, exists on a completely different moral plane.
This is what Israel has endured for decades. Israelis must deal with the 7th century Islamic mentality every day for its very survival.
Check out what Bawer has to say about Islamic attitudes toward homosexuality. He’s lived in Europe for a long time and has discovered what is just now beginning to take hold in the United States.
This is no hyperbole. It’s very real.
There is no honest assimilation by Islam in Europe just as there is no honest assimilation in the U. S. by the Mexican-Latino population.
Just a utopian and deceitful multiculturalist present that is clearly failing.
Unchecked illegal immigration and multiculturalism are a lethal mix.
This country might have coped with one or even the other, but surely not both at once.
Islam does not respect the rights and the cultures of other groups. Therefore, any country who opens up a carte blanche avenue will be essentially taken over by those who go by their own rules.
Similarly, the Hispanic population in the U. S. doesn’t even make an effort to learn English…..yet there are back-bending rules for Americans to learn Spanish.
Go to any country around the globe for a brief visit or to live for a while.
You have to go by their rules and most normal people at least try to learn the language in order to function.
Let me underscore than I enjoy other languages and cultures….just as a matter of course.
No xenophobe, I.
However, as Bawer illustrates so well…….Islam, like some other cultures, essentially takes over from within, and does not really want to “assimilate”.
You really should watch the entire video……..and also read some work from Victor Davis Hanson.
posted by Jimmy on
They CHOOSE to live there, Deb! Because some white Europeans were deplorable to them (also whitish Europeans), lets stick ’em in the middle east and cover our asses by saying, without a hint of proof, that God gave it to them.
I probably watched that when it originally aired, and cannot disagree with his POV. But, this is all about choice.
Now, back to my original question about the changing demographics of Israel.
posted by Jimmy on
I’m weary of those who have to reassure those around them that, “I am not a racist, but” or ‘I am not a xenophobe, but”.
It’s the “but” that tends to lose me.
posted by Debrah on
“They CHOOSE to live there…..”
*****************************************
Jimmy, you’re such a hypocrite who, like a few other members of the IGF commentariat, will make excuses galore for the Leftist cause……as you and Tom sarcastically ridicule Bobby for his choices that sometimes do not square with the “enlightened agenda” you think still reigns supreme.
And please don’t get lost inside your “weary” bell jar.
Those of us who can function quite easily inside other cultures do not have to become brainwashed by them.
You’ve will need to step up the talking points. They’ve become stale.
posted by Jimmy on
And still no response to the Israeli/Arab proposition. In fact, everything but.
posted by BobN on
—It wasn’t just the democrats, there were plenty of republicans who weren’t too sure if amending the constitution was a good idea. Besides, a constitutional amendment needs 2/3 of the states to ratify it, and the polls just weren’t there.
48 voted no. Of them, 7 were GOP.
49 voted yes. Of them, 2 were Dems.
“Plenty”, indeed.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00163#top
posted by Bobby on
Jimmy, I’m shocked, an opinion piece in the New York Times supporting gun control? What’s the world coming to. By the way, indegayforum has an article about a gay couple that was able to stop 10 gay bashers from killing him just by pulling out his gun. He didn’t even have to shoot it, it simply reminded the brutes that beating the crap out of someone is not fun when there’s a possibility you might get shot.
posted by Jimmy on
“Jimmy, I’m shocked, an opinion piece in the New York Times supporting gun control?”
Written by Ronald Raygun, Hisself – you insufferable dumbass.
posted by Jimmy on
McChrystal has apparently resigned.
posted by Tom on
Bobby, let’s look at some of your assertions:
And who, pray tell, is going to hear the lawsuits if the federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear them? State courts don’t have jurisdiction to decide whether an Act of Congress is constititional. Local courts don’t have jurisdiction to decide whether an Act of Congress is constititional. If the jurisdiction of the federal courts is removed, no court will have jurisdiction to decide whether an Act of Congress is constititional.
Are limitations on the free exercise of religion any less odious if mandated by “secular progressives”, as opposed to “dominionist” Christians or radical Islamists? I think not.
If we remove the jurisdiction of the federal courts over First Amendment cases, no court will have the power to decide whether a federal law limiting the freedom of religion is constitutional. Nobody will be able to stop whoever is in the majority.
I don’t want to start a religious war between Christians and our co-religionists on IGF. I will simply say that the history of relations between Christians and our co-religionists is a difficult and tragic history, and I believe, personally and not speaking for anyone else, that anti-Semitism lies just below the surface in the present day, always dangerous.
Christianity, like all religions, can be a force of oppression. I need not remind you, I hope, that the original European settlers of Massachusetts, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, among others, were settled by Christians seeking to distance themselves from oppression by other Christians. Christianity may be “a religion of love”, but Christians often miss that mark, rather blatantly, in the real world.
Leaving aside that question, though, I would point out that ours is not the only minority religion in our country, and that not all examples of unconstitutional interference with freedom of religion are cases where one religion oppresses another. In the last few decades, the federal courts have decided freedom of religion cases involving Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, Old Amish, Amish and Mennonites, a number of Native-American religions, as well as Christians and Jews. Most of these cases involved laws seeking to enhance secular goals, such as permitting companies to require workers to allow themselves to be scheduled for work on the sabbath,
If the federal courts had been stripped of jurisdiction over First Amendment cases in the past, no court would have been able to hear those cases, and the laws that unconstitutionally limited freedom of religion would be law today.
And your answer to that is to remove the jurisdiction of the federal courts over the Second Amendment, so that the courts cannot stop them? It doesn’t make any sense, Bobby.
The judicial system, with multiple jurisdictions and layers of review, tends to self-correct toward the center. It isn’t perfect, but it is a lot better than letting Congress, state legislatures and local governments operate unchecked.
I would invite you to think about that for a minute. I checked a 2006 list of the “freedom of religion” cases then being handled by the ACLU, and I think that it might be instructive for you. of the cases in federal courts, the vast majority involved limitations on freedom of religion by state and local governments, school districts and so on. A small number involved the federal government. The same, of course, is true when it comes to gun control. The cases currently pending involve municipalities, for the most part.
But even if the federal government were the only source of government abuse of the First and Second Amendment freedoms we enjoy, how does removing the power of the federal courts to hear those cases ensure, assist or enhance our freedom?
I do, which is why I pointed out the 2004 Marriage Protection Act to you. What worries me is that Republicans, at least in Texas, still believe that removing checks on government abuse of power is the solution, not a problem.
posted by Lori Heine on
I would think that the gay GOP organization most likely to be attacked by our enemies would be the one most deserving of our support.
The Family Fraud Reactionary Research Council is now attacking GoProud for being too conservative. I am not making that up.
Maybe they’ve also gone after Log Cabin for this, but I can’t recall it having happened.
posted by Tom on
I’m glad to hear that GOProud is standing up and fighting back. It is about time that somebody in the Republican Party did.
FRC, FocFam and the rest of the crowd, dating back to those charlatans Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, have virtually destroyed the Republican Party.
The GOP has now gotten to the point, apparently (assuming Bobby’s analysis is correct, and I suspect that it is), where the Republican Party has to endorse de-facto repeal of the Bill of Rights in order to “appease” these folks. No offense to those of you who are Christian, but Jesus! We should give up the core principles of our freedom to “appease” these idiots?
The FRC, FocFam and the rest have never espoused conservative principles.
What I don’t get is why the Republican Party doesn’t just go ahead and tell Tony Perkins & Company to take a hike. Hell, I don’t get why it didn’t happen thirty years ago. Barry Goldwater would have, and he said so.
posted by Bobby on
“and I believe, personally and not speaking for anyone else, that anti-Semitism lies just below the surface in the present day, always dangerous.”
—Anti-semitism today comes from the left, it’s the left that organizes the Israel Apartheid Week, it’s Hugo Chavez who refers to the Israelis as “Christ-killers,” don’t believe me? Go on huffingtonpost and see the comments people leave on any story that has to do with Maddoff, Israel, banks, etc. Then go on freerepublic.com and you’ll see that 99% of the posters there are pro-Israel.
“Christianity, like all religions, can be a force of oppression. I need not remind you, I hope, that the original European settlers of Massachusetts, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, among others, were settled by Christians seeking to distance themselves from oppression by other Christians.”
—Yes, and today oppression comes from Muslims and the secularists, so why are we talking about the past? By the way, our founding fathers invented freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. The secular nazis think any government official that utters the word God is violating the separation of church and state. Frankly, I think God is the new porn, at least that’s how the secular media treats religion, as some dirty x-rated obscene thing. I used to work in advertising, not once was I allowed to write “Merry Xmas” or “Feliz Navidad” because my secular nazi clients didn’t want to offend Jews, atheists, Muslims, or any minority religious group. The irony is that 99% of our target audience was Christian.
“Most of these cases involved laws seeking to enhance secular goals, such as permitting companies to require workers to allow themselves to be scheduled for work on the sabbath,”
—There’s a limit on how much accommodation a private employer can give you. Abercrombie & Fitch should not be forced to hire women that want to wear the hijab. Of course, Muslims act like the world has to accommodate them, Orthodox-Jews are different, they either work at their own Jewelry stores or at places where their religious practices are tolerated, maybe even accepted. The amish are also smart, they keep to themselves in their own communities, without bothering anyone else. That’s the way to do it when you’re really weird.
“And your answer to that is to remove the jurisdiction of the federal courts over the Second Amendment, so that the courts cannot stop them? It doesn’t make any sense, Bobby.”
—I didn’t say I agreed with the Texas GOP Platform, maybe it’s wrong, maybe they didn’t think of the implications when they wrote it. Besides, I’m more worried about who interprets the law than what the law actually says. Women like Kagan and Sotomayor are a lot more powerful than a tiny platform sentence.
“I would invite you to think about that for a minute. I checked a 2006 list of the “freedom of religion” cases then being handled by the ACLU,”
—This is the same ACLU that sued a town in Arizona because they had a giant cross in a mountain, the same ACLU that sees red if the 10 Commandments are posted in a courtroom. Yet when students at a public university orientation where forced to learn about Islam, the ACLU didn’t give a crap.
I don’t trust the ACLU, sometimes they get it right, but they’re behind a lot of wrong. By the way, the ACLU was founded by a communist.
posted by Jorge on
McChrystal has apparently resigned.
I hate it when President Obama is right.
What?
posted by Tom on
That’s a good-sounding slogan, Bobby, but it isn’t true.
The founders insisted on the free exercise OF religion in the private sphere — the freedom to believe what you want, and the freedom not to believe at all — and on freedom FROM “establishment” (read government sanction or sponsorship) of religion.
I worry, too, about who interprets the law. Judges typically have reasonably defined judicial philosophies, and I prefer judges with a centrist judicial philosophy rather — Sandra Day O’Connor is a good example — than judges on the fringes — William Douglas and Antonin Scalia come to mind — because I think that the courts on which they serve are more likely to “get it right” more consistently than courts in which the fringes are shouting at one another. If you study appellate cases (three-judge and full-bench appellate cases) and Supreme Court cases (nine judges), over the last few decades, I think you’ll see that I’m right about the role of “centrists”. But, while I worry, the courts, in the end, have a high rate of “getting it right enough” as case lines develop over time. Sometimes the courts get it dead wrong — Plessy, Hardwick, for example — and have to reverse themselves. But for all the imperfection, it beats having no check on government abuse of power.
Yes, it is the same ACLU. The ACLU brings both “free exercise” and “establishment” cases, pretty much in equal measure, because governments violate both clauses of the First Amendment.
And of course the ACLU gets it right sometimes, and wrong other times. Do you know any organization at all, other than the Republican Party, of course, that ALWAYS gets it right, every time?
The ACLU gets involved in cases that it thinks are important from a constitutional standpoint, and is a good advocate. But it doesn’t decide the cases. The courts do, and sometimes the ACLU wins, and other times it loses. You seem to think that the ACLU should always be right. It won’t happen.
By the way, I request, as a simple matter of respect for those who died at the hands of the Nazis, that you refrain from trivializing the evil incarnate of the Shoah by referring to “my secular nazi clients” and some such. I won’t mention it again, but I think that such references are inappropriate.
posted by Jimmy on
“I hate it when President Obama is right.”
You’ve said more than you realize, Jorge.
posted by Jorge on
You do realize it’s a joke. But what do you mean?
posted by Tom on
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana
Internecine oppression among zealous Christians has a long history, dating back at least to the 3rd Century, and played a seminal role in the development of our country’s culture of religious freedom. If nothing else, remembering our our nation’s religious history provides a reminder that Christian zealotry is as dangerous to religious freedom as the zealotry of any other religion.
Although the focus today — your focus, anyway — may be on “Muslims and secularists”, I think that it is important to keep a vigilant eye on the “Christian Reconstructionist” movement — insistence that the laws of the United States conform to “God’s Law” as understood by conservative Christians, rather than “man’s law”.
Mike Huckabee, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and other influential conservative Christians — including a number in public office — have expressed that view, and I think that it is extremely dangerous.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Mike Huckabee, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and other influential conservative Christians — including a number in public office — have expressed that view, and I think that it is extremely dangerous.
Which view? That they should be doing God’s will and the Lord’s work?
Funny, you fully support and endorse that in your own Obama Party and with your own Barack Obama.
Incidentally, Tom, you’ve often railed that churches who allow their facilities to be used for political activism should be stripped of their tax exemptions, and that politicians who invoke “God’s will” are dangerous theocrats.
Care to flip flop?
posted by Tom on
No, ND. The first sentence contains only one possible referential point, and it isn’t “they should be doing God’s work and the Lords’ work”.
So let me rephrase the exchange:
Yes, ND. Got it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No, ND. The first sentence contains only one possible referential point, and it isn’t “they should be doing God’s work and the Lords’ work”.
Funny, Tom, you and your fellow Obama Party screaming bigots tried using doing God’s will and the Lord’s work as an example of “Christian reconstructionism” during the campaign.
So what we have here is, once again, you and your fellow bigots shrieking about things said by Republicans and then flip-flopping, endorsing, and supporting something said by Obama Party members.
For example, here we have the prayer of Obama:
Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will.
Now, when Palin prayed that, you shrieked “dominionist” and “reconstructionist”. Why did you flip-flop with Obama?
posted by Tom on
Nice try, ND, but I’m not biting.
posted by Patrick on
“Perhaps, but some gay conservatives posting at GayPatriot are still fuming over Log Cabin’s “refusal to endorse the only Republican in the Presidential Election of 2004.”]”
To say that those over at gay patriot are conversative is a bit like saying Fred Phelps is a christian.
Partisan fanatics would be a more accurate term. They have often sneered at people for voting on candidates based on their GLBT positions, calling them “single-issue” voters. But they have proven again and again that they are the true single-issue and single-minded contituents. Party identity trumps all other cards in gaypatriotland.
posted by Jorge on
Which view? That they… insistence that the laws of the United States conform to “God’s Law” as understood by conservative Christians, rather than “man’s law”?
At the risk of butting in, this is a multi-cultural, multi-religious country in which each man has one vote. Everybody is free to insist that our laws conform to their God’s laws; the result is a melting pot. It is political participation, period, that protects our democracy.
posted by Jimmy on
“Everybody is free to insist that our laws conform to their God’s”
So long as their gods’ laws comply with the US Constitution, and none other – no bible, no torah, no koran, no veda – none.
You would agree, right Jorge?
posted by BobN on
Everybody is free to insist that our laws conform to their God’s laws
Hmmm… How about naturalized citizens? They did, after all, take an oath to uphold the Constitution, something natural-born citizens do not have to do. That oath, if they abide by it, includes a commitment to laws which are not crafted to conform to their religion. It’s fine if there’s overlap, of course. And, once a citizen, you can always change your mind, immoral as that may be.