Former San Diego City Councilman Carl DeMaio, an openly gay and “new generation” Republican, is a potential congressional candidate. As Roll Call reports:
National Republicans view DeMaio, who has yet to announce his candidacy, as a top potential recruit to take on [Rep. Scott Peters]. The freshman Democrat ousted GOP Rep. Brian Bilbray in November in one of the closest and most expensive races in the country. . . .
In a matchup with Peters, DeMaio led 49 percent to 39 percent. The poll was taken April 22-24 and had a 4.9-point margin of error.
DeMaio has solid favorable ratings. In the poll of likely voters in the district, 51 percent said they had a favorable impression of him while just 28 percent viewed him unfavorable.
Not surprisingly, as the New York Times reported last year about the mayoral race that Demaio would narrowly lose:
A victory for Carl DeMaio…would make San Diego the second-largest city in the country to elect an openly gay mayor, and by far the largest to elect a gay Republican. Yet, perhaps no group has opposed Mr. DeMaio as loudly as this city’s sizable gay and lesbian population. …
[P]arts of the crowd booed Mr. DeMaio at a mayoral debate at the gay and lesbian community center here. He was booed again as he walked hand in hand with his partner in this year’s gay pride parade. . . .
Jim Kolbe, an Arizona Republican who became the second openly gay Republican in the House when he came out in 1996, said he faced opposition similar to what Mr. DeMaio has encountered from gay voters.
Successful gay Republicans who could move the GOP forward on gay issues are LGBT Democratic activists’ worst nightmare. All the more reason why it would be grand to have an openly gay Republican congressman again. Here’s hoping.
34 Comments for “Gay Republican Could Make Credible Run for Congress”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Successful gay Republicans who could move the GOP forward on gay issues are LGBT Democratic activists’ worst nightmare.
This is just nuts, Stephen. LGBT Democratic activists have worked hard for three decades to drag the Democratic Party to “equal means equal”, and all of us — at least among those of us who are actively involved in grit of politics — know full well that we will need Republican support (the “handful of Republican legislators” you keep talking about) to repeal the 30+ anti-marriage amendments that the Republican Party put in place during the last decade.
We have been harping on Republican gays and lesbians — you, GOProud and so on — to stop enabling anti-equality Republican politicians and start supporting equality. We’ve had almost no success in convincing any of you to do so, and, frankly, most of us are beyond frustrated by you all.
The day will come — probably long after the fight for equality has been won, at the rate LGBT Republicans are moving — when equality is no longer an issue that divides the parties, and we can move on to other, more important, issues that have been sidetracked for two decades by the Republican-sponsored “culture wars”.
I look forward to that day.
Maybe you do, too, but you sure as hell aren’t doing anything to get there. What you’ve been doing is deriding LGBT Democrats for pushing too hard and too fast (the oft-repeated “inviting a backlash that will set us back a decade” meme of past years) while, at the same time, deriding us for supporting LGBT Democrats like Tammy Baldwin instead of GOProud-endorsed Tommy Thompson, who never uttered a public word in favor of equality in his entire political career, and, just to put the icing on the cake, complaining that we hadn’t somehow transformed the Democratic Party fast enough to suit you.
Now, your latest meme (at least it has been constant for the last year or so) is that LGBT Democrats are sabotaging the pure and noble efforts of LGBT Repubicans by refusing to turn our backs on 100% pro-equality Democratic candidates whenever the Republican Party manages to put a gay or lesbian candidate into a Republican primary. As Governor Christie observed about something else: “That’s bullshit.”
Let me remind you, once again, of a fact that keeps going missing in StephenWorld™: When the day comes that every Democratic and Republican candidate for office is 100% pro-equality and the playing field between the parties is level in that respect, LGBT Democrats will still support Democratic candidates. We will do so because of the differences between the parties on issues other than the “culture wars” — taxes, the social safety net, background checks, Obamacare and so on. That’s why we are Democrats. We fought within the Democratic Party to move the party in the direction of “equal means equal” because we are gay and lesbian Democrats.
You and your fellow LGBT Republicans should do the same — be Republicans because you believe in whatever you think that the Republican Party might stand for these days, but work to move your party in the direction of “equal means equal” by supporting pro-equality Republican candidates and extracting a political price from anti-equality Republican politicians.
If you want the Republican Party to change, get off the Washington cocktail circuit and get active in Republican politics. Change your party from the ground up, like we did.
We’re not going to do it for you. We can’t.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
BTW, Stephen, you might consider the following excerpt from the NYT article you cited, because it offers a reason why the LGBT community didn’t fall all over itself for DeMaio:
In others words, a pro-equality Republican mayor got strong support from the LGBT community, but the community did not support DeMaio because his support for equality was lackluster, at best.
Try to turn a frog into a prince if you want to (its been known to happen), but don’t expect it to work with a toad.
posted by Houndentenor on
Funny you should mention Kolbe. I remember well the Republican Convention when the entire Texas Delegation (seated up front) turned their backs while Jim Kolbe spoke (about foreign policy, not even mentioning gay issues). There are people who have a problem with openly gay politicians and most of them are Republicans, not gay liberals.
posted by Houndentenor on
One other thing, gay people are under no obligation to support a candidate just because he’s gay. If they were then Stephen would have supported Tammy Baldwin’s candidacy for the Senate. He did not. I’m not voting for someone whose policies I oppose just to have a gay person in office. Someone’s being a bit hypocritical here.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
One other thing, gay people are under no obligation to support a candidate just because he’s gay.
That’s not Stephen’s point, Houndentenor. Stephen’s point is that LGBT Democrats have a obligation to save the Republican Party from the social conservatives they tout in general elections, so that LGBT Republicans can have their cake and eat it, too.
I don’t know about you, but I’m getting tired of the whining about Democrats. You’d think that with all those Bible-thumpers in the Republican Party, Stephen might have heard “God helps those who help themselves …” somewhere along the way.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’ve obviously been tired of that meme for a long time. The social conservatives ran all the self-respecting homosexuals out of the GOP a long time ago. One of the founders of LCR is my sister’s best friend from college. He finally threw in the towel in the early 2000s and was openly campaigning for Kerry by 2004. Republicans were always happy to hire him as a campaign consultant (he was a whiz at setting up certain kinds of campaign outreach) but he never could get anyone to budge on the anti-gay rhetoric of the party down here in Texas. Yes, most gay people see Republicans as the enemy. That’s because in most cases they are. No, not all Republicans are anti-gay. The country club Republicans are often quite friendly to their gay “friends” as they write big checks to anti-gay politicians. They chastise me if I criticize their political support for anti-gay politicians and never (at least to my knowledge) do they say a word in the many chances they have to say something to those anti-gay pols. It’s somehow my fault for bringing up the inconvenient truth. I threw in the towel in 2004 with a good many relatives and “friends”. I certainly wouldn’t vote for a racist, sexist, or any other kind of bigot. But I’m a “bully” for pointing out that these “friends” were happy to stab me in the back for the promise of a tax cut. But that’s all somehow MY fault? what a load of crap.
posted by clayton on
“God helps those who helps themselves” comes from Poor Richard’s Almanac, not the Bible. Ben Franklin gets credit for that one.
posted by Mark F. on
“…to repeal the 30+ anti-marriage amendments that the Republican Party put in place during the last decade. ”
Right, no Democrats voted for those amendments. It’s all the fault of Republicans! And Bill Clinton didn’t support DOMA and DADT, etc.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Right, no Democrats voted for those amendments.
I think that the story in Wisconsin is typical of most states:
The amendment was considered in two legislative sessions (as required by our Constitution.
You can be as snide as you want, Mark, but you can’t rewrite history. The facts of the matter are indisputable. The Bush/Rove strategy of using the issue as a “wedge” in the 2004-2006 election cycles is too well documented for you to be anything other than snide. “[T]he 30+ anti-marriage amendments that the Republican Party put in place during the last decade …” is an accurate description.
That is not to say that a number of Democratic politicians didn’t vote to put the amendments on the ballot, or that a number of Democratic politicians still oppose marriage equality in 2013 (witness Rhode Island, the latest legislative vote). But to try to wiggle out the facts doesn’t cut it.
posted by Houndentenor on
Math for homocons: If 1% of Democrats vote for an anti-gay bill and 99% of Republicans vote for that same bill, then the Republicans are just as good on gay issues as Democrats. If that makes sense to you, then you are probably a gay Republican.
posted by Don on
I’d like to focus a bit less on the institutional opposition to gays within the republican party and focus a tad more on why more gay people are reluctant to support gay republican candidates. the first debate is good, but it’s all we’re doing here.
I believe many gay/lesbian people are not supporting of gay republicans because the other parts of the party platform are very establishment oriented. by that, I mean it’s a ‘trust the system’ platform. ‘don’t rock the boat’ etc.
that doesn’t work for marginalized groups. its how the liberal coalition is based. the system is stacked against you. let’s band together and shake up the system. that appeals to anyone who has been isolated and attacked by the system. gay people fit that description very well. even today. especially today. we’re finally visible. and the system is coming at us tooth and nail.
so when a marginalized person who has been personally attacked by the system or hear rants about ignoring the rule of law, illegals, and all kinds of other stuff along those lines, the normal reaction is to buck the system and not trust it to have your best interest at heart.
I know this having come from a family who is the system. They benefit enormously from it. it’s in our DNA. and they are simply shocked at what I went through. How I suffered in a binational relationship. and how all their power and connections meant nothing because they were finally outside a system bigger than them.
when you can see that, then you can see how many gays/lesbians aren’t crazy about the rest of the republican platform. when I see LCR and GOProud, I see unusually privileged white gays. More so than me. And I was born in the top 10% of white people.
It takes A LOT of privilege to convince someone to not buck the system and be gay.
posted by Houndentenor on
Thank you for telling your story. People near to hear stories like that. I think a lot of people sincerely believe that couples can be sufficiently protected with a few documents like power of attorney. They don’t understand how things really work in very critical moments like yours or like a partner in ICU or worst of all a partner who has just died. Yes, some of it is about taxes and inheritance, but a lot of it is the inhumanity of being treated like a stranger when the person you have chosen to be life partners with needs you the most. It’s inhumane and anyone who hears those stories and still isn’t convinced of the necessity for full equality under the law is just too heartless to care about anyone but themselves. But I think a lot of people can be convinced if they actually hear these stories and not the BS that gets discussed when issues like gay marriage come up.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I read Don’s comment with interest. I’m going to think about it, but it might be the puzzle piece I’ve been missing in my thinking.
I’ve given a lot of thought over the years to the reluctance of LGBT Republicans to get involved in the fight for equality. I just don’t understand it at all. It would seem to me that if you are marginalized and despised, you would be strongly motivated to get off your ass and do something about it.
Because of my own background (growing up in the stolid rural Midwest in the 1950’s, a non-Christian among Lutherans and Catholics who both still taught in those days that we were responsible for the murder of God and that we were deservedly a wretched and cursed people scattered to the ends of the earth, growing up with a powerful and restless mind that separated me from my peers, a farm kid who smelled of cows and who was looked down on by the town kids, among other things), I never felt anything other than “outside”.
I had a taste of the power of the system as an adult, as a partner in one of the largest and most powerful law firms in the United States, but I never felt “at home” within that system of power and privilege.
So I didn’t have the experience that Don talks about in his comment, and, thinking about it, I don’t have a lot of friends who grew up that way. Most the people who are my friends are either working class people, farmers or men and women like me who struggled to make something of themselves, moving up a class in terms of education and income, but still rooted in what Lincoln called the “plain” people. I don’t have, really, any idea what it means to take privilege and position for granted.
But if Don is right, and LGBT Republican “leadership” (e.g. the GOProud and LCR types) are of that privileged class, I can begin to understand, perhaps, why they don’t want to marginalize themselves and get down to the dirty work of intra-party political infighting.
I don’t understand it at one level, though, and I probably never will. How can any gay or lesbian be so comfortable that listening to the dreck that social conservatives spew forth day and night doesn’t make them angry enough to fight back?
posted by JohnInCA on
It’s actually pretty simple, and ties into part of why those self-reported surveys show more gay people in the economically disadvantaged then the wealthy.
When you have more to lose, you’re willing to eat more crow to keep it.
When you have nothing to lose, there’s nothing holding you back from fighting for everything.
Same reason why companies like hiring married men with children over single men. A single man will only put up with so much crap before he says “shove it” and tries his luck elsewhere. A married man? He’s got a wife and kids that depend on him, he can’t as easily take the bigger risk.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
When you have more to lose, you’re willing to eat more crow to keep it. When you have nothing to lose, there’s nothing holding you back from fighting for everything.
That’s true enough, but at some point the playing field levels out again — wealth and position bring relative immunity from the haters, not because you have nothing to lose, but because the haters can’t take it away.
If the profile of GOProud and LCR members I’ve been seeing on IGF and elsewhere (white, male, relatively wealthy, living in the safety of “blue” states) is correct, the members have little reason to fear retribution.
I think Don is on to something. The GOProuders are somehow either (a) so vested in the system as “insiders”that they don’t see a reason to fight back against the haters, or (b) so invested in the system economically that they are willing to put up it in order to keep the Republican economic strategy of increasing wealth for the wealthy alive and kicking. Maybe the two are one and the same, for all I know.
posted by Mary on
I heard either last year or the year before that Republicans who support civil unions and Republicans who support marriage equality added together constitute a majority of all Republican identifiers. I know this is not the same as a majority of Republican party activists, but it’s a significant factor: one that is bound to be felt in the near future.
I understand the hostility here for GOProud (or “GOProstrate” as I like to call them).) They are a bit strange and always attacking fellow gays. When I switched sides on the gay rights issue I decided to join Log Cabin because GOProud was just not liberal enough. I don’t blame gays for thinking that LCR is a a waste of time. It certainly doesn’t function in the Republican party the way gay rights groups in the Democratic party do. But that may not make it completely useless. LCR can serve as a way to legitimize pro-gay sentiment within the party and give pro-gay Republicans a section of the party they can call their own.
posted by JohnInCA on
Call me when those self-identified republicans punish their politicians for voting against their wishes.
Until then, it’s support so bland you don’t even notice it.
posted by Houndentenor on
LCR did a very good job of moving the DADT cases forward through the courts. I don’t mind giving people grief when they deserve it but they were very proactive on that issue and I give credit where credit is due. GOProud is just astroturf. The board is mostly straight people some of whom aren’t all that pro-gay. Sorry but it was to avoid the embarrassment that happened when LCR refused to endorse in 2004 from happening again.
What bothers me most is that I never hear positive stories about pro-gay Republican here. Not one mention of the GOP state senators in RI who voted for marriage equality. You’d think sites like this would be throwing those politicians a parade and well they should. I find that odd. I don’t see a lot of effort to reach out to Republicans. I find a lot of liberal bashing. not that liberals don’t deserve a lot of criticism, but it has become obvious to me that the outspoken gay conservatives are more about hating liberals than they are about trying to win over conservatives to support gay rights. I’m happy to be proven wrong because what I see is rather twisted.
posted by Jorge on
What bothers me most is that I never hear positive stories about pro-gay Republican here.
Most of what I learned that was positive about the pro-gay Republicans (most of whom have since been voted out of office–their locals ran moderate Republicans for a reason) came first from the Democratic posters here, and second from all the junk mail I got after giving to them.
How I miss them.
posted by Houndentenor on
Since at least 1992 polls have shows that about 1/4 of self-identified gay people vote for the Republican candidate in presidential races. That number goes up and down a little but is rather steady. (I suspect the variations have more to do with turnout than with individual voters changing their votes from one election cycle to the next.) That being the case, there is no reason that LCR and GOProud shouldn’t be able to raise enough money to hire full time lobbyists to reach out to Republicans on gay issues. If they can’t, why not? It’s not as if HRC is all that effective. (I can’t think of a single legislative accomplishment they can take credit for.) But somehow it’s liberals’ fault that gay conservatives can’t reach out to their own party? That’s just lame. I understand the difficulty. It’s not as if we didn’t have to drag the Democratic party kicking and screaming towards supporting gay rights. Meanwhile I don’t see much of an effort except for individuals reaching out to their own representative. The NY gay marriage vote was a good example. Citizens went to their own state representative or senator with no real support from HRC or any other group and talked them into changing their vote. It can happen. What those New Yorkers did NOT do was sit around and bitch that no one was doing something on their behalf. At some point you realize that if you want something done, you may well have to do it yourself.
posted by Jorge on
Successful gay Republicans who could move the GOP forward on gay issues are LGBT Democratic activists’ worst nightmare.
Actually, successful gay Republicans who put the GOP to sleep on gay issues are their worst nightmore. Because then reform STOPS. Short. Immediately. Forever. Do not pass ENDA, do not collect 250 votes. The gay rights movement has won, rest in peace.
I think this accords with Don’s post. Liberal gays have no interest in declaring an easy victory that’s good for the gay community but leaves them out of power.
posted by Houndentenor on
That’s nonsense. Civil rights didn’t disappear with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. There are always other issues to focus on. The idea that the only reason that ENDA hasn’t passed is because liberal Democrats don’t want it to is absurd. Once again I find that people who say these things are conservatives living in deep blue territory who never actually talk to red state conservatives. People here aren’t just against ENDA, they are mad that the sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional. It’s not that they are for civil unions but not for marriage, they don’t know why the state can’t round up and imprison gay people. If you think I’m making that up, go to any Baptist church in a city with under 100,000 people and you’ll meet these folks. That’s the base of the GOP.
What we have here is an absurdity created by homocons to convince themselves that Democrats aren’t really for gay rights. What they actually are is cowardly in the face of very loud Teavangelicals in their own district. They are all terrified that ENDA will lead to them getting voted out of office in a 1994 style Republican victory. I don’t think that would happen, but they certainly are afraid of the right-wing anti-gay bigots.
And then, Stephen adds an addendum (his favorite way of shifting the argument he knows he’s losing) expressing doubt that we should even have ENDA. In that case what is the point for the argument at all? And if we shouldn’t have ENDA for gay people why have it for anyone. Please encourage Republicans to run on repealing ENDA since most voters would potentially face workplace discrimination without it based on sex, race or (especially) age. Honestly I’m more likely to be discriminated against for being over 40 than for being gay because nothing on my resume says that I’m gay but when applying for a job online the first questions are about race and year of birth. But of course they won’t use that information to discriminate against anyone. No, how could anyone think that? So, yes, we need ENDA because while most employers really do just want to find the best employees, many people involved in the screening process are closet bigots. I’ve met enough of them to know that’s true.
posted by Jorge on
That’s nonsense. Civil rights didn’t disappear with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. There are always other issues to focus on.
Precisely my point. What’s the status of the black civil rights movement now, versus the status of black civil rights (a risky question; I don’t know if you’re a liberal or a conservative on the issue of race).
The most wanted terrorist in American right now is a Black Panther terrorist. Now I’m not going to claim that we’re about to witness an era of gay terrorism should gay rights cease to be an important political issue, but I am going to say that the history of every single civil rights movement in this country is that it has ended prematurely according to the perspective of those in the minority, and right on time according to the perspective of the majority.
posted by Jorge on
A slight misstatement. The most wanted woman. But a terrorist.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The most wanted [woman] terrorist in American right now is a Black Panther terrorist.
I wonder why the FBI (1) never put Assata Shakur (formerly Joanne Chesimard) on the “10 Most Wanted” list, (2) waited 36 years after was convicted and escaped to Cuba to put her on the “10 Most Wanted Terrorists” list (she murdered a policeman in 1973, was convicted in 1977, escaped from prison to exile in Cuba in 1979, and put on the list only last week), and (3) why killing a policeman has been elevated to terrorist status.
Maybe it was a slow terrorist week at the FBI. Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that the government is putting pressure on Cuba right now. Who the hell knows? But it makes no sense to me.
The Obama administration has an excellent record of tracking down and eliminating terrorists, but I can’t imagine that someone isn’t out there who is a hell of a lot more dangerous than a 60-year-old radical living in Cuba and apparently fighting with nothing more than words.
Now I’m not going to claim that we’re about to witness an era of gay terrorism should gay rights cease to be an important political issue …
That good, because the idea that there was an “era of African-American terrorism” is preposterous. A few BLA and BP radicals don’t exactly an “era of terrorism” make. You want an “era of terrorism”, look to the “troubles” in Ireland.
… but I am going to say that the history of every single civil rights movement in this country is that it has ended prematurely according to the perspective of those in the minority, and right on time according to the perspective of the majority.
Or, alternatively, well after “right on time”. The political progeny of the Dixiecrats are working as we speak to eliminate affirmative action, discourage African-American voting, and provide government funding for the “Christian Academies” that were created to avoid Brown.
posted by Jorge on
I think it’s somehow related to the controversy surrounding the White House inviting rap artist Common, who produced a song honoring her, to perform at an event. Although I can’t connect the dots by any means.
That good, because the idea that there was an “era of African-American terrorism” is preposterous.
They were a terror group, they were African American, and they were ostensibly motivated by the best interests of African Americans. That is well enough to put them in the same category as the IRA.
Or, alternatively, well after “right on time”. The political progeny of the Dixiecrats are working as we speak to eliminate affirmative action, discourage African-American voting, and provide government funding for the “Christian Academies” that were created to avoid Brown.
“Mission Accomplished”: the two most dangerous words in politics.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
They were a terror group, they were African American, and they were ostensibly motivated by the best interests of African Americans. That is well enough to put them in the same category as the IRA.
Pffft …
The BP killed less than a dozen — maybe a half dozen — most in shootouts with the police, didn’t bomb anyone that I know about, and were more an extortion ring than a terrorist organization.
What they mainly did was cause major disruptions in our cities because they scared the bejesus out of white folk, with attendant results upon municipal sewer systems.
posted by Houndentenor on
“I don’t know if you’re a liberal or a conservative on the issue of race.”
Actually, I think race is a social construct based on junk science. The people who thought that up couldn’t even figure out that Native Americans are the descendents of Asians. Yes there are a few physical characteristics that are common among people whose ancestors are from various regions. But the genome project shows that there is far less genetic variety in our species than had been predicted and that people from vastly different parts of the globe share genes because they too share common ancestors. The idea that a few physical characteristics (mostly adaptations to deal with the amount of sunlight available where people lived) means something beyond that is not based on science. I don’t know what any of that has to do with being liberal or conservative. I am obviously against racial discrimination but I see it all the time. It hasn’t gone away. I don’t care much for quotas, set-asides or specific programs but I am not so naive as to think that they aren’t sometimes necessary. I do see in the younger generation (those under 30 now) far more interaction between people who appear to be different (but who may well share very similar interests or backgrounds). We are moving in a positive direction. Race is no longer going to be an issue in this country in a few more generations.
As for an African American or a gay person being a terrorist, well yes I suppose such things happen. What does that have to do with the rest of the people who share that one similar trait with said terrorist? Nothing. No one has the right to commit acts of violence on others. I oppose that no matter who is doing it to whom.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Actually, successful gay Republicans who put the GOP to sleep on gay issues are their worst nightmore. Because then reform STOPS. Short.
Gays and lesbians will need Republican votes in the legislatures to repeal the anti-marriage amendments.
In about half the states with anti-marriage amendments in place, we won’t need to many, but we will need, as Stephen puts it, “a handful”. In the others we will need more than “a handful”.
We are fast approaching the point where we will have won marriage equality in the “blue” states. We got there because of the work that LGBT Democrats did in the Democratic Party, for the most part. The votes were more or less along party lines, with a small number of legislators voting in opposition to their own parties.
Soon we have to move on to the “purple” states, and eventually, the “red” states.
In those states, we will need more than nominal Republican support — not silence, not “new messaging”, not “sleep”, but actual pro-equality votes. That’s why we need to turn the Republican Party, and why those of us on the liberal/progressive side of this movement are pushing those of you on the conservative side.
My worst nightmare is not a pro-equality Republican Party. I welcome that development. If the Republican Party turns, we repeal the hated amendments without a Loving-type decision from SCOTUS, and move on to other issues. That’s the worst-case scenario for LGBT Democrats, and there is no downside to it that I can see.
My worst nightmare is that we will get stuck legislatively after marriage equality has been won in the “blue” and “purple” states, and we will face a long, bitter divide in the county while we await a decision from SCOTUS, which will put an end to marriage discrimination, but will not put an end to anti-gay political “wedges” from one side or the other, just as we see on race and abortion — an endless sniper fight between the pro-equality majority and a permanently aggrieved anti-equality minority. Unless the Republican Party is turned around, that’s what will happen.
posted by JohnInCA on
Why do you think DeMaio would have moved Republicans anywhere on gay issues? He kinda made a point in his campaign that he would attempt no such thing.
posted by Lori Heine on
The current state of the GOP, so far as I can see, is one of hanging desperately onto dwindling power by pretending all is hunky-dory and that no scary changes will be made. This is an obvious attempt to appease the overgrown brats and spoiled babies in the social conservative wing.
Thus the sick comedy of people like Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham on FOX still cluelessly talking about gays and Christians as if they belong to two separate, hermetically-sealed compartments. And thus does this candidate in California — of course — make a point in his campaign that though he is openly gay, he will not push gay issues.
There is nothing attractive, to me, about a candidate like that.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. Yes, it is nice to see an openly gay Republican actually running for a Federal office. Not sure why the openly gay Republican running for president in 2012, was apparently not worth gay Republicans time, but I digress.
2. I am not sure how ‘credible’ he is in terms of primary/general electability or in terms of being able to break up the anti-gay lock on his party. I would have to know more about that district, local GOP party politics, etc.
3. It does seem just a tad bit strange that a openly gay man would take money from the pro-Prop 8 folks. While I can understand that a mayor may not actually have a lot to say about gay rights policy, if he wants to get praise for being an ‘out’ GOP candidate then he probably needed to come up with something — gay rights wise that he could influence. A Congressional candidate could — if elected — actually have some policy influence on gay rights issues, so he probably should not duck the issue.
4. I do not know why people booed/hissed him in the parade. I do not know these people. Again, I think its a bit tacky way to express ones disagreement (and folks on the left and right do it — this sort of thing), but I am not sure that means that they were ‘Democratic Party activists’.
posted by Doug on
A mayor can influence a lot, if he or she chooses to use the bully pulpit and wants to make the effort. Of course it would take leadership to take that political risk . . . . maybe DeMaio doesn’t have the guts to do that.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A mayor can influence a lot, if he or she chooses to use the bully pulpit and wants to make the effort.
Of course he can. Look at Mayor Bloomberg of New York or Mayor Daley of Chicago — both of whom used the bully pulpit to change public attitudes on marriage equality in their cities.
Or closer to home, look at former San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, a straight Republican who came out for marriage equality in 2007 (while in office) and fought hard to defeat Prop 8, while DeMaio, a gay Republican San Diego city councilman, kept quiet as a mouse.
It is because Sanders spoke out and DeMaio hid out, as the NYT article Stephen cited pointed out, that Sanders got strong support from LGBT activists and DeMaio did not.
I think that it is important to have gays and lesbians “at the table”, but I think that it is more important to have folks — gay or straight — at the table who support equality.
Ken Mehlman is gay, but he didn’t do equality any good while he was RNC Chair and kept quiet as a mouse while he implemented the Bush/Rove anti-marriage amendment strategy as Bush’s 2004 campaign manager, or when he did the same in 2006 as RNC Chair.
Was Mehlman the kind of gay Republican we should have been supporting, back then? What good was having him “at the table”?
According to the NYT article, DeMaio repeatedly made it clear in his mayoral run that “social issues like gay rights … would not be a priority for him as mayor“. And Stephen wonders why he was not supported by gays and lesbians, when Mayor Jerry Sanders, a Republican champion of gay rights, was?
Go figure.