As I suggested in my last post, below, the Republicans win big when Democrats are seen as incompetent at managing baseline federal responsibilities and favoring intrusive (and, yes, bullying) big government that, among other things, puts a regulatory stranglehold on business and stymies robust economic growth. Democrats win big when Republicans are seen as incompetent at managing baseline federal responsibilities and favoring intrusive (and, yes, bullying) big government that, among other things, violates individual rights to personal autonomy and equality before the law.
That is, of course, too simple. But voters, too, simplify very complex matters in such a way. In this round of midterms, the Democrats were blamed (rightly in my view) for government overreach and its consequences.
A big disappointment of the night was the defeat of openly gay GOP congressional candidate Richard Tisei in Massachusetts, but that was going to be an uphill battle after the scandal-mired Democratic incumbent was defeated in the primary by an Iraq War veteran. However, as of early Wednesday morning, in San Diego openly gay congressional candidate Carl DeMaio is leading by a thread, with 50.3% vs his opponent’s 49.7%. This one will probably go to a recount. Neither Tisei nor DeMaio were endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest and most influential LGBT political lobby.
DeMaio’s race was one of the ugliest, owing to the hatred unleashed against him by government union activists and the local LGBT establishment left. Whether the late-in-the-election charges of sexual harassment by volunteer staffers prove to have any substance or not (in a campaign where DeMaio’s opponents have resorted often to the ugliest of political tricks), we’ll have to see.
But the longer the LGBT establishment holds to its one-party strategy, the longer it will be until we have a country where gay equality before the law is firmly enshrined and safeguarded.
More. The openly gay Republican the left loves to hate.
Update. Dirty tricks, you say? NBC San Diego reports, “The man who accused Carl DeMaio of sexual harassment is the same person who provided confidential campaign documents to DeMaio’s opponent Scott Peters, according to newly unsealed court documents.”
Sadly, it’s being reported that Peters has won by a slim edge, having pulled ahead with absentee ballots. LGBT “progressives” and their new allies on the anti-gay right can have a joint celebration and share dirty trick secrets. Shame on them, and their enablers (but then, these folks have no shame. None whatsoever.)
50 Comments for “Midterm Election Reflection”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Neither Tisei nor DeMaio were endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest and most influential LGBT political lobby.
Stephen, I understand your antipathy toward HRC, but you should understand that, except in rare circumstances, HRC endorses incumbents, not challengers. The “incumbent preference” is clearly stated in HRC’s endorsement criteria.
In this election cycle, HRC did not endorse any of the openly gay challengers — Al McCaffrey (Oklahoma), Louie Minor (Texas), Clay Aiken (North Carolina), Richard Tisei (Massachusetts) or Carl DeMaio (California).
HRC endorsed all of the openly gay incumbents — Mark Takano (California), Jared Polis (Colorado), Sean Maloney (New York), Rep Mark Pocan (Wisconsin), Rep David Cicilline (Rhode Island), and Rep. Kysten Sinema (Arizona) — and all were relected, despite (in Polis’ case) strong and public opposition from Log Cabin Republicans.
I am not an HRC member, and I think that the HRC is overrated as an “influential LGBT political lobby (it does very good work in other areas, but it isn’t particularly effective in politics), but I think, going forward, it might be a good idea for you to make an attempt to be fact-based about HRC’s endorsement standards.
HRC does not, unlike the Victory Fund, base its endorsements on sexual orientation, and does limit its endorsements to incumbents, except in rare cases, because incumbents have a track record of actual votes on HRC issues. Basically, as I understand it, HRC tracks votes on its issues, rates each member of Congress, and endorses above a certain cut-off score.
The NRA and quite a number of other organizations making political endorsements follow the “incumbent preference” strategy, as well. It is a common practice that makes sense to me — it is easy to “talk the talk”, but it is “walking the walk” that counts.
But the longer the LGBT establishment holds to its one-party strategy, the longer it will be until we have a country where gay equality before the law is firmly enshrined and safeguarded.
I assume you are referring to the HRC. Again, a gentle fact-based reminder: HRC endorsed a number of pro-equality Republican incumbents, and did not endorse a single challenger to any of the pro-equality Republican incumbents.
posted by Houndentenor on
The incumbent preference was one of the rationalizations give for the D’Amato endorsement in 1998. It looks like they haven’t changed that policy. But never mind any evidence contrary to Stephen’s twisted world view. It’s all a grand conspiracy by the left to keep gay Republicans from making inroads into their own party because we have that kind of power. Yeah, that’s how it works!
posted by craig123 on
except in rare circumstances, HRC endorses incumbents, not challengers.
There was no incumbent in Richard Tisei’s general election race, so why not endorse him, given that the GOP was certain to keep the House? Because the only Republicans HRC will endorse are those who are locked into position. Believe me, the GOP understands this.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
There was no incumbent in Richard Tisei’s general election race, so why not endorse him, given that the GOP was certain to keep the House?
The HRC, to my knowledge, did not endorse a single candidate this election cycle who was not an incumbent.
Why not endorse Republican Richard Tisei or Democrat Seth Moulton? Because neither was an incumbent with a Congressional voting record on which to judge them.
Because the only Republicans HRC will endorse are those who are locked into position. Believe me, the GOP understands this.
Well, good. I’m glad the Republicans understand the “incumbent preference” policy for endorsement. Fact-based assessment is a good thing.
HRC is clear about the policy. HRC endorses on the basis of “walk the walk” — a voting record — rather than “talk the talk” — candidate statements.
The only exception to HRC’s “incumbent preference” endorsement policy that I can think of offhand was the group’s endorsement of Tammy Baldwin in 2012. When she ran, Baldwin was not an incumbent Senator. However, Baldwin had served 14 years in the House and had a 100% pro-equality record on which HRC could judge.
posted by Mark Peterson on
To take the most obvious example, HRC endorsed Susan Collins, even though her Democratic opponent had been one of the leaders in Maine’s marriage equality fight. Not much of a one-party strategy there.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Republicans win big when Democrats are seen as incompetent at managing baseline federal responsibilities and favoring intrusive (and, yes, bullying) big government that, among other things, puts a regulatory stranglehold on business and stymies robust economic growth. Democrats win big when Republicans are seen as incompetent at managing baseline federal responsibilities and favoring intrusive (and, yes, bullying) big government that, among other things, violates individual rights to personal autonomy and equality before the law.
I suspect that you are right are right when you say “That is, of course, too simple.” Gallup’s polling on the relative importance of “voting issues” doesn’t fit the “government overreach” profile you are drawing.
posted by Don on
I have to admit I’m genuinely excited now that DeMaio might win. What could he have done if there wasn’t such a weird-o campaign from hell. I’m not sure I’m on board with Stephen’s belief that they attacked him theory. But it will be interesting to see how Republicans like Louie Gohmert handle this. They will agree on the issues 90%+ of the time, but Louie just can’t handle homos. Will they sponsor legislation together? THAT would be awesome.
While we differ on many things, I do think DeMaio holds hope for leading us to a different future in gay politics. One where GOProud philosophies will be taken seriously. And the right will have to acknowledge that there are gay people who are in tune with their ideas.
I have to admit, I would be much more of swing voter if Florida’s republicans were less anti-anti-anti-gay. And they are starting to be. Little known fact: Orange County Commission (Orlando) passed a resolution urging for marriage equality. Then they directed the county attorney to draft an amicus brief supporting marriage equality. here’s the kicker: it was unanimous. And the commission is 4 republicans and 1 democrat.
Even though Scott and Bondi won their elections: start looking for a more equal Florida. Lots is in the mix right now. We have a good chance of having large republican support for ENDA here in Florida. (and we need Republicans to do it) Big business is pushing to make this happen here.
And it never would happen without bipartisan support.
posted by Francis on
There is nothing about GOProud’s “philosophies” to be taken seriously. Anybody who affiliates with that bitch, Coulter, is clearly an ideologue who must be kept away from office.
posted by Houndentenor on
Stephen neglects to mention that the worst thing thrown at DeMaio were four separate accusations of sexual harassment all of them by Republicans, several of those straight and none with any connection to HRC or the gay left. DeMaio is a creep and we already have enough of those in both parties in Congress. We don’t need any more and should be working to purge our politics of all of them (again, in both parties).
Stephen also ignores the HRC endorsement of Susan Collins but then she’s a “RINO” so I guess that doesn’t count?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
For an alternative to Stephen’s “government overreach” theory of why the Republican Party faired well in this election cycle, here’s Brian Brown:
The so-called “libertarian” wing of the Republican Party is not alone in crowing and claiming credit. My view is that this was a very complex election and that all of the “simple” theories are self-inflated puff.
posted by Mark J on
But the longer the LGBT establishment holds to its one-party strategy, the longer it will be until we have a country where gay equality before the law is firmly enshrined and safeguarded.
I’d love to know more about Stephen’s reasoning that leads him to think (wrongly, imho) that if only the LGBT community would start endorsing and embracing GOP candidates, somehow legal equality would follow?
Perhaps if we just surround them in our warm embrace of acceptance and support — and don’t forget the $$ — then it will melt all the Christian Righty Fundamentalist Hate they have for us.
Because it isn’t that they hate us, of course. It is that they hate us not loving them enough.
With enough self-immolation I’m sure the gay community will find common ground with the haters on the right. Why, we can even strike the match on the bonfire that consumes us all.
I’m relatively new to this forum. I’ve followed it off and on for a time, but don’t know all the players. But really, is Stephen always this obviously partisan and ridiculous?
posted by Don on
in the 1970s the Democrats were exactly where Republicans are. A handful supporting full equality, but majority saying “you want me to support perverts?” Look at where Republicans are now and where they are heading. Here in Florida we are getting more and more inroads into Republicans who support “get government out of our lives” when it comes to equality.
That’s all Stephen is arguing. Albeit he tends to make broad concessions for fundamentalist Christians, which I equate to the Chamberlain approach: never negotiate with absolutists on a crusade. Give them an inch, and they’ll mandate floor-length dresses for women. (jihadis aren’t the only ones that prefer “burkhas”, our versions just don’t have face-veils)
While his approach grumbles a bit too much about the “gay left” without any nod to the “anti-gay right” as much of the cause for the “gay left,” for my personal taste – there is a point he’s trying to make: staying a universally partisan group guarantees partisan gridlock on our issues forever.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
While his approach grumbles a bit too much about the “gay left” without any nod to the “anti-gay right” as much of the cause for the “gay left,” for my personal taste – there is a point he’s trying to make: staying a universally partisan group guarantees partisan gridlock on our issues forever.
Well, sure, Don. But in the decade that I’ve been around IGF, nobody has ever disagreed with that thesis. Stephen’s insistence that “a gay-supportive Republican Party is progressive LGBT’s worst nightmare” has little, if any, factual basis.
The evidence offered for the thesis, if evidence it be, is that gays and lesbians aligned with the left/progressive side of politics don’t drop everything and flock to the side of right-wing gay Republicans running for office. I can’t imagine why Stephen thinks that is a reasonable thing to ask.
Stephen certainly does not apply that standard to gay Democrats. Did pro-equality Republicans flock to Tammy Baldwin in 2012? In this election cycle, did pro-equality Republicans flock to support Al McCaffrey (Oklahoma), Louie Minor (Texas), Clay Aiken (North Carolina), Mark Takano (California), Jared Polis (Colorado), Sean Maloney (New York), Rep Mark Pocan (Wisconsin), Rep David Cicilline (Rhode Island), and Rep. Kysten Sinema (Arizona) ? No, and nobody expected them to do so.
It may be a reality that folks find good or bad, I suppose, but it is a reality that Democrats vote for Democrats and Republicans vote for Republicans. Left/liberals and progressive tend to vote for Democrats and conservatives tend to vote for Republicans. That isn’t going to change just because a candidate offered up by one party or the other is gay or lesbian.
posted by Jorge on
in the 1970s the Democrats were exactly where Republicans are. A handful supporting full equality, but majority saying “you want me to support perverts?”
The idea that a majority of Republicans consider gays to be perverts is on very shaky ground. That a majority of Republicans believe this AND that this is the reason they oppose gay marriage is right up there with Tom’s occasional accusation that the Republican party runs election campaigns in which they call gays faggots.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom’s occasional accusation that the Republican party runs election campaigns in which they call gays faggots.
For the record, I have never made the accusation that the Republican party ran election campaigns in which they call gays faggots.
I have, in the past, referred to the Republican Party’s systematic anti-gay campaign strategy of the 2004 election cycle as the “faggot, faggot” strategy.
The term “faggot, faggot” strategy is — and has always been used as — an historical allusion to the politics of segregation in Alabama during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s.
George Wallace was a racial moderate when he first ran for Governor in 1958. He ran on a platform of better schools, better roads, better government. He was opposed by John Patterson, who ran with the support of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization Wallace had spoken against. Wallace was endorsed by the NAACP. Wallace lost the Democratic nomination by over 34,400 votes.
That election, and the lessons learned, changed Wallace. The next time he ran, he ran as an ardent segregationist, on a platform that was expressed in this statement: “In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.
American Experience (“George Wallace: Settin’ the Woods on Fire”) has a reasonably full account of Wallace’s transformation. Here are relevant excerpts:
The rest is history. George Wallace became the face of segregation in this country, and remained so for many years. His runs for President in 1968 and 1972 were campaigns run on the ugly overtones of resistance and coded racism. The effects of his decision that he was never going to be “outniggered” again set the stage for prolonging the racial divisions in our country, a decision that continues to resonate to this day.
I’ve explained the historical allusion — that the reference to the Bush/Rove/Mehlman “faggot, faggot” strategy is an allusion to the “nigger, nigger” strategy deployed by George Wallace after 1958 — to you a hundred times, Jorge.
You don’t like it, because you think that George Bush was the “Great Emancipator” of gays and lesbians, instead of a crass politician who, in concert with Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman, sold out gays and lesbians for short term political gain during the 2004 Presidential election.
But that is what happened.
By 2000, the Republican Party was moving, along with the rest of the country, little by slowly, toward acceptance of gays and lesbians when George Bush took office. The days of Antita Bryant and the Briggs Proposition — the days in which gays and lesbians were characterized as child molesters and sexual monsters in order to whip up a frenzy of anti-gay sentiment — were slowly coming to an end. Neither party had yet embraced “equal means equal”, and politicians in borth parties had voted for DOMA, but both were making slow progress.
Then came 2004. Faced with the prospects of a close election, nationally and in the states, Karl Rove came up with a strategy to use gays and lesbians — and fears about marriage equality — as cannon fodder to whip up the conservative Christian base of the Republican Party, a base that was sick and tired of being pandered to about abortion with no tangible result, and leverage the base for short-term political advantage.
The result was a national strategy, coordinated in the states by the Republican Party, to use anti-marriage amendments as a way of energizing the conservative Christian base. The strategy’s implementation, overseen by Mehlman, characterized gays and lesbians as unfit parents, child recruiters and so on, while claiming that the goal of marriage equality was the destruction of “the institution of marriage” as the foundation of American culture.
The facts of the strategy are documented beyond dispute. Rove has acknowledged it, and discussed it. Mehlman has described it and apologized to gays and lesbians for his role in implementing the strategy. Laura Bush has remarked that she urged President Bush not to allow the strategy to move forward. The strategy has been described and documented by political scientists.
You don’t like the historical allusion, and you don’t like the facts that support the historical allusion. So instead, you insist that the historical allusion is “Tom’s occasional accusation that the Republican party runs election campaigns in which they call gays faggots.” When confronted with the facts — Rove’s and Mehlman’s acknowlegement of the strategy — you close your mind and claim it didn’t happen.
Your refusal to deal with either the historical allusion or the facts of the matter — to distort the allusion into the claim that the term means that the Republican Party ran campaigns that literally “call[ed] gays faggots” — is either willful ignorance or willful deception at this point. No other possible explanation exists.
posted by Jorge on
I’ve explained the historical allusion — that the reference to the Bush/Rove/Mehlman “faggot, faggot” strategy is an allusion to the “nigger, nigger” strategy deployed by George Wallace after 1958 — to you a hundred times, Jorge.
You don’t like it, because you think that George Bush was the “Great Emancipator” of gays and lesbians, instead of a crass politician who, in concert with Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman, sold out gays and lesbians for short term political gain during the 2004 Presidential election.
I don’t like it because I like political argument to be based on fact and stretching the truth to be reserved for satire.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t like it because I like political argument to be based on fact and stretching the truth to be reserved for satire.
It isn’t satire. Bush/Rove/Mehlman devised a political reelection strategy that used gays and lesbians as cannon fodder for short-term political gain.
The 2004 election cycle put in place anti-marriage amendments in about 24 states, amendments that set back the natural evolution of American acceptance of marriage equality by years.
It was a disgusting thing to do. Mehlman, at least, has apologized. Bush and Rove should do so, as well.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
More. The openly gay Republican the left loves to hate.
The “hate” and “hate group” meme is the watchword of the day, it seems. Stephen is one among many voices from the right repeating the “hate” meme over and over today, like a mantra. Even right wing groups that worked against DeMaio are now claiming that his win (if that it turns out to be after the absentee/provisional ballots are counted on Thursday) was a great victory over gay and lesbian “hate groups”.
In the “hate” meme, Unions did not oppose DeMaio because he tried to bust the unions. No, that wasn’t it at all. Unions opposed him because they hated him. Similarly, LGBT groups did not oppose DeMaio because he sat out Prop 8 and made it clear that he was not interested in advancing “social issues” (i.e. equality) if elected. No, that wasn’t it at all. LGBT groups opposed him because they hated him. And so on.
I cannot help but think that the “hate” meme is part and parcel of the larger attack and gays and lesbians currently being undertaken by the far right. Any semblance of objective reason for opposing “equal means equal” having been dismantled in open court, under cross examination by lawyers like David Boies and Ted Olson, NOM, the FRC and other far right opponents of “equal means equal” are now singing from the “gays are hateful” songbook, working night and day to discredit gays and lesbians themselves.
Tony Perkins, Bryan Fischer and Brian Brown are all singing “Gays=Hilter”, hysterically claiming that gays and lesbians are determined to destroy Christians’ civil rights, silence Christians, make it a hate crime to preach the Gospel, and jail Christians. Stephen, not far behind, has been harking the “Gays=Robespierre” tune of late, likening progressive gays and lesbians to the radicals of the French Revolution who stripped the nobility of property and condemned the opposition to the guillotine.
What nonsense. I cannot fathom what possible rationale Stephen may have for thinking that the “hate” meme will advance the cause of equality in the Republican Party or outside it.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Stephen keeps harping on HRC and Victory Fund — his primary focus for the LGBT groups that “hate” DeMaio — but ignoring the salient facts:
1) HRC & Victory Fund endorsements have a particular process and criteria that DeMaio did not follow or meet in either organization’s case
2) It’s the LOCALS in the LGBT community that have the problem with DeMaio (another ineffectual purportedly somewhat pro-equal=equal GOP member of Congress concerns me not one whit)
The “hate” isn’t from just the “left”. It was Red State’s Erick Erickson that state DeMaio would have been kicked to the curb by the Party for the sexual harassment and other allegations had he not been gay…
But nevermind, Stephen has seemingly bought into the right-wing meme of being a “victim”… and DeMaio must be also (if not a martyr).
posted by Jorge on
Don’t make an argument on principle if there are accusations which if true would vindicate both the principle and your opposition, making your words useless.
The sites mentioned in the link and in the link to the link allege that Carl DeMaio’s likeness was put on the body of a drag queen in negative advertizing.
That’s hate speech. There is no other way to describe that situation if true other than as a deliberate attempt to use his sexual orientation as a point of ostensible weakness in order to hurt him and other people who are gay as much as possible. There is no other way to describe that situation than to say, but for the fact that he is gay, he and his community would not be subject to an attempt at brutal humiliation.
So you don’t believe in “hate memes”. Methinks your timing is incredible and your standards nefarious.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
In your view, one outlier illustration constitutes a campaign of hate by gays and lesbians?
posted by Jorge on
If you think it’s an outlier, you need to say so and move on. You don’t use the “outlier” to argue that the person who presents it is disingenuous for saying it presents exactly what it presents.
When you do so you close your mind to the possibility of later evidence coming in that might lend support to Mr. Miller’s views. When people do this it is very transparent and generally serves to show that one cannot be counted on to look at things objectively or with fairness.
Let me ask you a counter-question. Do you view violent hate crimes against gays as part of a campaign of hate against gays or lesbians? If not, should we not dismiss all discussion of them as irrelevant because these crimes are social abberations, i.e., outliers?
My view is that both are not outliers but merely the tail ends of a smooth bell curve whose average is very easily identified, and which shifts based on predictable factors.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
When you do so you close your mind to the possibility of later evidence coming in that might lend support to Mr. Miller’s views. When people do this it is very transparent and generally serves to show that one cannot be counted on to look at things objectively or with fairness.
No evidence exists to support the claims that (1) unions and/or LGBT groups and/or left/liberals hate Carl DeMaio, or (2) unions and/or LGBT groups and/or left/liberals conducted a hate campaign against Carl DeMaio, or (3) unions and/or LGBT groups and/or left/liberals invented or coordinated the allegations of sexual misconduct on DeMaio’s leveled by his own staffers during the campaign.
By noting that, and objecting to Stephen’s “hate” meme because the “hate” meme is not supported by the known evidence, I am not — repeat not — closing my mind to “the possibility of later evidence coming in that might lend support to Mr. Miller’s views”. If such evidence surfaces, then the question needs to be revisited.
I do not believe that because there is a possibility that something be shown in the future, that we should claim the possibility as a current fact in being until it is substantiated.
Perhaps you use a different standard of fact than I do in that regard.
posted by Jorge on
By noting that, and objecting to Stephen’s “hate” meme because the “hate” meme is not supported by the known evidence
So, is the left is deliberately attempting to destroy Carl DeMaio out of hatred–the familiar the (far-)left hates everybody who’s not like them meme that juvenile right-of-center people (including once myself) argue against? Or is it more of an institutional bigotry, in which the left’s civil disdain of Carl DeMaio gives aid and comfort to those who are looking for an opportunity to destroy people out of hatred?
Intent is important. So is effect.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
So, is the left is deliberately attempting to destroy Carl DeMaio …
WTF are you talking about? Carl DeMaio was running for Congress. DeMaio was opposed in that effort by supporters of an incumbent Congressman. Nobody was trying to destroy DeMaio, any more than DeMaio supporters were trying to destroy Peters.
You conservatives life in a colorful, drama-filled world, and that’s a fact.
posted by Houndentenor on
That was shameful (the drag thing). Instead they should have talked about the four separate sexual harassment complaints against DeMaio all from Republican men.
posted by Jorge on
You know I haven’t heard of the newer accusations. But since I get all my truly outrageous, spectacular, (etc., etc.) “GAY News!” from this site, maybe I have a blind spot.
By the way, I have a double standard. He hasn’t been charged or sued or anything like that, so it’s scurrulous. Just like Bill Clinton wasn’t when he ran for president and Jennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones accused him. But Jim McGreevey is scum because only one person was about to accuse him. There, got that out (I really do have a difficult time here), so you can disbelieve everything I think and cash in a blank check.
http://obrag.org/?p=89048
This blog post cites two Republicans and a Democrat. Who are the other two?
Sure enough, KPBS broke the story on Sunday, naming Navy veteran Justin Harper as a second person accusing Carl DeMaio of sexual harssment. The former regional political director said while standing at a urinal the candidate emerged from a stall with “his pants up, but his fly was undone, and he had his hand grasping his genitals.”
Well, this summary doesn’t do the accusation justice. Mr. H alleges that DeMaio was hovering there after he came out, so that’s why he turned around to see who it was… the kpbs.org story is a little heartbreaking to read, and as I guessed, this is someone who is loyal to Carl DeMaio.
What we have here ultimately is three separate incidents involving an individual –who at best seems confused by the concept of truth– inappropriately showing his junk to other people. Nothing here is likely to amount to a crime; but I maintain there’s good reason to believe the pattern of behavior is not something conjured up by his many enemies.
The urge to tell people who have been wronged “It’s not you” is a very strong one.
posted by JohnInCA on
“But the longer the LGBT establishment holds to its one-party strategy, the longer it will be until we have a country where gay equality before the law is firmly enshrined and safeguarded. ”
You’re gonna have to give me a better reason to support Republicans then “they might change their mind”. The LCR has tried that for decades. The current national platform for the Republican party includes forced divorce for me and DADT re-instatement.
… so yeah, based on past performance, I don’t think your “vote for Republicans and they might change” plan is very effective. Perhaps you should try yelling at Republicans to be less anti-gay rather then yelling at gay people to be less anti-Republican?
posted by Houndentenor on
And the longer LRC and GOProud continue to endorse anti-gay candidates like Rick Scott, the longer it will be before the Republicans move towards equal rights for gay people. In fact in most of the country the GOP is getting worse, not better (including where I live where the republicans are revoltingly bad).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I agree, Houndentenor, but I would point out that the LCR is basically making the same point that Stephen made in the immediately preceding thread — that “equal means equal”, now out of the political arena and in the courts, has been neutralized for “libertarian-leaning” Republicans who would otherwise have qualms about supporting a politician like Rick Scott.
Compare Stephen’s statement:
with LCR’s statement on Scott:
I can’t find any daylight between the two statements, and I think that we are seeing the new and “improved” version of the “libertarian-leaning” Republican apologia.
I doubt that we will see much further effort on the part of “libertarian-leaning” Republicans to blunt the social conservative agenda. I hope I’m wrong.
posted by Houndentenor on
And where, pray tell, are all these libertarian-leaning gay-friendly Republicans? They certainly aren’t anywhere near me.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m not sure that it makes a lot of difference where they might be if they are no longer even talking about turning the party around by opposing jackasses like Rick Scott. I suspect that the future of the Republican Party will be more of the same-old, same-old, as least for the next few election cycles.
posted by Jorge on
But the longer the LGBT establishment holds to its one-party strategy, the longer it will be until we have a country where gay equality before the law is firmly enshrined and safeguarded.
What, marriage?
I keep hearing on this site these stories about local activists who work for years and years, and then suddenly they get an opportunity, they run with it–often over opposition or apathy by the Democratic establishment–and it works. Tom probably made or is going to make a comment about where are the gay Republicans who are supposed to convince the party. I think the better question is where are the gay Republican activists who are willing to work for years and years.
In a boring election that flipped control of the Senate, I had to take my encouragement from the story that the Congressional leaders are going to meet the President on Friday for an invitation extended from before the election. One of those puffball “we’re all in this business together” things–and maybe this time Mitch McConnell will say his “the most important thing is…” comment to the president’s face so that no one gets offended this time.
Anyway, we have a couple of those symbolic things on the gay Republican politics side, too. We had House Speaker Boehner supporting one or more of the gay Republicans’ campaigns–like I said, it was a very boring election. Boehner surviving that internal squabble will make more symbolic victories come more easily.
HRC endorsed all of the openly gay incumbents…
Do you know if they endorsed Nan Hayworth, who has (and had then) an openly gay son, over Sean Maloney in the last election?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Do you know if they endorsed Nan Hayworth, who has (and had then) an openly gay son, over Sean Maloney in the last election?
HRC did not endorse Nan Hayworth in 2014. HRC endorsed Sean Maloney, who was the incumbent and has a 100% pro-equality voting record. In a blog post discussing a Hayworth political ad featuring her gay son, HRC discusses Hayworth’s opposition to pro-equality legislation during her tenure in Congress and makes clear that the Maloney endorsement was based on his pro-equality record during his tenure:
posted by Jorge on
I asked about 2012, when Nan Hayworth was the incumbent.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t know the answer Jorge, although I would doubt it, based on Hayworth’s voting record in Congress during her two-year tenure.
She was a mile ahead of most Republicans in Congress during her tenure, but she has never supported marriage equality and did not support key legislation during the 112th Congress, such as the Respect for Marriage Act, the Uniting American Families Act, and the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, all key pieces of legislation factored in by HRC.
If you are looking for a New York Republican Congressman who has a strong pro-equality record, skip Hayworth and look to Richard Hanna. I think that Hanna has had a 100% pro-equality record (or close to it) during his tenure.
posted by Jorge on
Years ago I think it was you who gave gay Republicans a hand of five pro-gay rights Republicans in Congress. I don’t remember if it was over the Federal Marriage Amendment or the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal (probably the former). Then they started dropping like flies and now you’re giving me a hand of one.
I don’t even remember if I gave to Hanna this year, but I can’t find my acknowledgement for Hayworth, so I guess that means I gave to him, too. Nan Hayworth stays part of my hand.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. Likely voters in U.S. midterm elections TEND to be conservative (more so then in a presidential election cycle), so it is not terrible too surprising that candidates (in both parties) often tend to campaign accordingly. Also the party in a majority, often tends to lose seats.
2. Federally; It is probably too soon to know whether or not the election will help or hurt gay rights legislation. A Republican control of both Houses, probably means that it will hurt, but I hate to be so cynical, quite so soon.
3. As for State and local elections, it probably depends on the particular circumstances and what sort of issues are voting really interested in.
posted by Don on
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say anyone would drop the hundreds of other issues important to them just to cross over and vote for a gay candidate for the other party. I simply do not buy the argument that our taxes are too high and that government spending is always bad unless it’s for the military. I probably wouldn’t vote for DeMaio myself. Too conservative on non-gay issues for my taste.
But I think it’s good that he could be caucusing with Gohmert.
As for the super-anti-gay republicans, just like the racists, they only have one party to go home to. If that is a super-important issue, one really can’t support even a moderate democrat. And just like Wallace, it was a decision to court that vote, not a principled call on the party’s stance regarding “less government intrusion.”
I would vote for George Bush senior again. Because he didn’t believe in voo doo economics. and he didn’t offer platitudes of “less government regulation” without saying what it is he’s going to get rid of. That is what annoys me about “generic republicans” is that they are against all taxes, but rarely cut much of any of them really. spend just as much if not more than liberals.
When my very conservative friends tell me “I want them to cut regulations” I usually ask “which ones?” and they can never answer. More pollution? Fewer workplace safety regulations? allow discrimination based on race or marital status? They don’t want that.
And that’s why I can’t go “tea party” either. Because time after time it comes down to “cut my taxes and your government benefits.” Whenever I say “okay, i’ll cut 20% of all taxes if you take it all out of the military”, they never take that bargain. I’ve never had a single taker.
Still, I would prefer a pragmatic republican that is willing to balance the budget by taking the hits to their pet projects. And one that would raise taxes OR cut their preferred spending rather than burn down the whole government. But those people aren’t running for office right now. While many republicans freak out when Bill Clinton is mentioned, he did do a lot of the things that I think we should do. And most of them can’t admit that he was basically a center right republican. But he was.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Sixth Circuit has just ruled 2-1 to uphold Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee bans on marriage equality.
The majority opinion was written by Judge Sutton, as expected. As I read the opinion quickly, the decision was based largely on Judge Sutton’s view that the question of marriage equality should be decided by the political process, not the courts. Judge Daughtrey filed a blistering dissent.
The decision sets up a split in jurisdiction and will undoubtedly lead to review by the Supreme Court. Whether the Supreme Court will hear the case this term (2014-2015) or next (2015-2016) depends on whether the Sixth Circuit elects to hear the cases en banc.
If it does, the matter will almost certainly be set over to the 2015-2016 term, simply because the Supreme Court’s docket will fill up by the end of the year. If an appeal is made directly to the Supreme Court, there is a good chance that the Supreme Court will docket marriage equality this term.
Let’s hope that Justices Ginsberg (83), Kennedy (78) and Breyer (76) remain in good health until the Supreme Court hears the case.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
An update: The ACLU and Lambda Legal both immediately announced that the appeal will be directly to the Supreme Court, not to the Sixth Circuit for an en banc hearing. So it looks likely that the Supreme Court will docket the case this term.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Another Update: SCOTUSblog has a plain-English analysis of the logical steps taken by Judge Sutton to reach the result, and it is an interesting read.
posted by Mark Peterson on
Stephen’s hero, Mr. DeMaio, is now trailing by 800-odd votes.
On the Sutton opinion, the argument seems to be that gays and lesbians in Tennessee and Kentucky should just wait around for 20 or 30 years until a majority is willing to give them equal rights. Very depressing.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I suspect that IF the United States Supreme Court takes a case on the substantive issue of marriage equality, it will probably be later rather then sooner.
posted by Mike in Houston on
And DeMaio loses….
posted by clayton on
Time for a new update. DeMaio’s victory just turned to a loss.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Shame on them, and their enablers (but then, these folks have no shame. None whatsoever.)
Dead right. I have no shame whatsoever about voting for the principles I believe in, and for the candidates that best represent those principles.
With a very few exceptions, that no longer means that I vote for Republicans in Wisconsin. The Republican Party has gone so far to the right — think Glenn Grothman, our latest Congressman — that I no longer can align with it at all.
But how about you, Stephen? Are you proud of your long record on IGF, issuing apologia after apologia for “libertarian” Republicans who supported the religious right in order to win elections? Are you rethinking at all now that the religious right — NOM, FRC and all the rest — have turned on you, just as those of us on the left/liberal side of the political spectrum told you, over and over again, would happen? How do you feel about continuing to try to placate them with so-called “religious freedom” exemptions that accommodate their intent to discriminate against gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians alone?
Are you, finally, going to stand up and right the religious right in your party, or will it be more of the same old same old?
posted by Mike in Houston on
And now for the second act… decry the wickedness of all those who allegedly denied DeMaio his rightful place in the House of Representatives. RIP Representative, welcome Saint DeMaio — like all good right-wing apologists, you’ve achieved your martyrdom. Now join Stephen up there on the cross.
posted by Doug on
“. . . share dirty trick secrets. . . ” Do we need to list all the nasty dirty things that Republicans have done to win elections? I don’t have the time or energy but a simple Google search will suffice.
posted by craig123 on
Do we need to list all the nasty dirty things that Republicans have done
How utterly vacuous and mendacious. Republicans do bad things in elections (but not this one), so LGBT lefty progressive Democrats can lie, smear, and engage in the lowest form of corruption and character assassination. Hail the Democrats. As Stephen says, shame on you — but you have no capacity for shame. How very sad.