The New York Times reports that hedge fund manager Paul E. Singer is
providing $1 million to start a new “super PAC” with several Republican compatriots. Named American Unity PAC, its sole mission will be to encourage Republican candidates to support same-sex marriage, in part by helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it. …
In an interview [Singer said] he’s confident that in Congressional races, which would most likely be the super PAC’s initial focus, there are more than a few Republicans “who could be on the verge of support” or are “harboring and hiding their views.”
In politics, money talks. Change won’t come quickly, but over time promoting pro-gay Republicans, which remains anathema to certain LGBT Democratic operatives, is essential to changing the dynamics for gay legal equality.
10 Comments for “A Welcome Development”
posted by A Welcome Development | QClick Radar on
[…] Welcome Development Independent Gay Forum Mon, June 11, 2012 3:27 PM UTC Independent Gay Forum Rate Loading … Share (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); […]
posted by Houndentenor on
“Change won’t come quickly, but over time promoting pro-gay Republicans, which remains anathema to certain LGBT Democratic operatives, is essential to changing the dynamics for gay legal equality.”
Please. I’d be happy if gay and gay friendly Republicans would just stop promoting openly anti-gay politicians.
posted by Doug on
Singer is also pumping millions of dollars into the Romney campaign who just happens to want a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality
posted by Mark on
Where are the “certain LGBT Democratic operatives” who view support of pro-gay Republican Sens. Grisanti, McDonald, and Saland in NY as “anathema”? Who view the many Republicans in the NH House who voted to uphold equality? These seem to be the same LGBT Democratic operatives who Stephen fantasized as supporting civil unions for straight couples in North Carolina.
As for Singer–however supportive of marriage equality he might be, based on his 2012 donations, other issues are simply more important to him. He seems to see no problem in doing all he can to elect a president who has promised to promote an anti-marriage constitutional amendment and to appoint a justice to replace Justice Kennedy, if Kennedy retires, who will ensure the Supreme Court won’t uphold marriage equality in a generation. There’s no evidence that Singer is using the extraordinary influence with Romney that his money is buying for him to push Romney to abandon his fanatically anti-gay policies.
posted by Don on
I have to agree. How can you forge “a new gay mainstream” when you keep bashing anyone who doesn’t already think tax cuts cure cancer and Obama has destroyed America? See, didn’t you just feel an overwhelming desire to see my point of view right after I got done belittling yours?
posted by Houndentenor on
Because it’s easier arguing with a strawman.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
1. I think that the basic idea behind this new Super PAC (setting aside my sentiment on the Supreme Court case on the subject) is a sound one. Oftentimes supporting gay rights will cost Republicans money from big right-wing backers, if not also votes. So, this at least has the potential to address the financial challenge in getting Republicans to back something like marriage equality.
2. The fact that the creator of this Super PAC is also backing Mitt, does sort of seem to undermine the point of the Super PAC. Although, it is (sometimes) hard to know what Mitt stands for at any given moment. When it was politically helpful, he had pretty socially liberal views and when he was looking at being a serious presidential candidate, he became pro-life and anti-gay rights.
Personally, Mitt may not care too much if a employee or staff member is of the “oscar wilde sort” or living on the “down low”.
But, he does not strike me as someone who has the leadership or integrity to move his party, much less, the nation forward on gay rights issues.
This sort of reminds me of a chat I had with an older gay Independent-former Republican who was active in politics during the Reagan-Bush era.
He said that the anti-gay policies of Reagan and Bush (sr.) were largely for the religious right voter base. He said that personally, they were not too homophobic, considering their generation, but they were not going to risk their careers by standing up the religious right.
posted by Doug on
The point is that while Reagan and Bush(sr.) may not have been terribly homophobic they nonetheless pandered and used anti gay rhetoric to rouse the religious right to get elected. That says a lot about their personal integrity or lack there of. I find it disgusting.
posted by Houndentenor on
Whether one is a homophobe or willing to pander to homophobes to win elections is irrelevant. The effect on gay people is exactly the same.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
My conversation with the former Republican was at a gay community center event.
One think that might impact the issue of gay rights at the national level is the prospect of a serious Independent or minor party presidential candidate coming along in say ten or so years.