Terry Michael, who supports Libertarian Gary Johnson, asks a pertinent question: “Why do LGBT voters ask so little of Hillary? He writes:
I am baffled how organizations supposedly representing us have positioned the LGBT community as an adjunct to the Democratic Party. … The prime example of LGBT organizations seduced by the Democratic Party and The Clintons is the Human Rights Campaign — the other HRC — and its executive director, Chad Griffin, a Clinton crony from Bill’s hometown of Hope, Ark.
As I’ve said, Griffin’s HRC and other well-heeled LGBT lobbies are first and foremost Democratic machine operations, with a mission to corral LGBT dollars and votes for the party ticket.
More. Via the Wall Street Journal, ‘Country’ Gay Couple Backing Trump Receives Threats and Barbs—From Other Gay Men:
It’s not OK to be gay, and also support Donald Trump—that’s the overwhelming reaction from more than 900 people who commented on a Wall Street Journal video of a young couple at a Trump rally posted to Facebook earlier this month.
The Journal’s interview with Dewey Lainhart, 31 years old, and his fiance Cody Moore, 22 years old, at Mr. Trump’s rally in Cincinnati on Oct. 13 has gotten around 200,000 views.
In the video, Mr. Lainhart says he works in the steel industry and shares Trump’s skepticism about multilateral trade deals. He says, “It’s time for a change, and Trump’s the man for it.” He started a Facebook page in support of the candidate called “LGBT for Trump.”…
Most of the comments ridiculed Messrs. Lainhart and and Moore for supporting Mr. Trump — calling them “rednecks” and suggesting that someone should “take away their gay card.”
I’m a free-trade supporter (just one reason I can’t back Trump), but the condescension toward this couple and the call to “take away their gay card” is classic.
22 Comments for “The Other Option”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It has been 96 days since you announced that you would vote for Gary Johnson.
In that 96 days, you’ve occupied your time by (1) bemoaning the fact that some progressive LGBT’s fail to recognize that TPP is the most gay-supportive Republican presidential candidate in the history of the party and (2) chastising progressive gays and lesbians for not demanding enough from Secretary Clinton.
You don’t support either TPP or Secretary Clinton. We are 18 days away from the election.
Is it time yet for you to make the case why gays and lesbians should vote for Gary Johnson?
If not now, when?
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t get that either. I understand why gay conservatives are voting for Johnson this year. It’s a vote that makes sense. But it’s not about what they are for. It’s about hating liberals. You don’t have to listen to any gay conservative for more than 5 minutes to know that.
posted by Lori Heine on
A lot of gay conservatives (and libertarians) do hate liberals. I’m beginning to be one of them. I’ve reached the point where I’m so sick of them that I believe the left needs to be destroyed–and replaced with something that isn’t an utter fraud.
Every time I get the chance to ask a gay conservative or libertarian if he or she ever was a liberal and why that has changed, I discover something very interesting. The majority were liberal–before they came out. The experience of being out, and having to deal with the left, has driven them to the right.
When I mention this to liberals, they simply give me constipated stupid face and change the subject. But nearly twenty years after coming out, the process of transformation into a libertarian conservative has become complete for me.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, and when I press for more details I find that they found some fringe lefty group and though that was typical of everyone left of the far right. Most of us are not as liberal as the right makes us out to be. If we were Bernie Sanders would be the Democratic nominee and he’s not. Sorry, but that’s just absurd. The left does not run the Democratic party. The far right does however run the Republicans.
posted by Lori Heine on
I don’t disagree that the far right has an outsized influence on the GOP. Which is the main reason I’m not a Republican.
I have, however, come to consider myself a classical liberal conservative. Which means that I’ll be working for change within the right itself. That’s the only way change takes place.
Those on the outside can do nothing. And the “center left” is a place I no longer feel that I belong.
posted by Houndentenor on
I sincerely wish you luck with that. Having at least one major party off the deep end is not good for democracy. Some sane genuinely fiscally conservative Republicans (NOT supply-siders but actual conservatives) would offer an interesting alternative for voters.
Also, I just finished going over my sample ballot. Ugh. What a mess. But you will be happy to know that I am voting for a number of libertarians including one for statewide office. No Republicans. My sheriff vote is a protest vote but no way in hell am I going to vote for the asshole who claimed he wanted to commit physical violence against trans people. Yeah, its’ that bad.
posted by Jorge on
Every time I get the chance to ask a gay conservative or libertarian if he or she ever was a liberal and why that has changed, I discover something very interesting. The majority were liberal–before they came out. The experience of being out, and having to deal with the left, has driven them to the right.
Hmm. The issue that caught my attention was race for me.
Liberals believe in achieving good things through means that are fundamentally unwise and destructive, so there are some redeeming things about progressivism. I believe we should be better than liberals.
Yes, and when I press for more details I find that they found some fringe lefty group and though that was typical of everyone left of the far right.
If they were content to be fringe groups, that would be fine, but too many so-called mainstream liberals are willing to placate them.
The problem that the left is only now awakening to is that of fringe right groups becoming more powerful. It is utterly ridiculous and hypocritical of them to complain and be horrified about such a thing.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Do you know what I call it when someone tries to compel as “fact” finding nearly identical a political platform that ends in inviting an openly gay person to speak in primetime and an open promise to support the rights of LGBT people to a platform that begins with overturning Obergefell and ends in overturning bans on ex-gay therapy?
My assertion is that TPP’s positions “closely align” with positions taken in the 2016 Republican Platform. I think that’s a correct assessment. You don’t, apparently.
It sounds to me, from your comments, as if you are familiar with the 2016 Republican Platform planks, but less familiar with TPP’s positions on the issues discussed in the planks, so here is an issue-by-issue: comparison:
In short, TPP’s statements indicate that he agrees with 7 of those 8 positions. TPP has made no statement on 1 of those 8 positions. TPP’s statements indicate that he disagrees with none of those 8 positions. In my view, TPP’s positions and the positions in the 2016 Republican Platform “closely align”.
Who tries to enforce as “fact” a comparison finding “the most anti-gay Republican platform in history” with a political platform that calls radical Islam’s violence against LGBTs “not good” in a first-ever mention of the term LGBT in a president’s RNC acceptance speech?
I assume that “the most anti-gay Republican platform in history” is a reference to the 2016 Republican Platform (since you quoted Log Cabin Republican on the matter) and that “a political platform that calls radical Islam’s violence against LGBTs “not good” in a first-ever mention of the term LGBT in a president’s RNC acceptance speech” is a reference to TPP’s statements and positions? Is that correct?
If so, my position has never been that TPP’s positions are identical with the 2016 Republican Platform, or that TPP does not espouse positions not taken in the 2016 Platform. My assertion is that TPP’s positions “closely align” with positions taken in the 2016 Republican Platform. I would suggest that is demonstrated by the immediately preceding issue-by-issue comparison.
I do not discount the importance of TPP’s invitation to Peter Thiel; TPP’s invitation was a bold, groundbreaking move for a Republican. It is striking, though, that Thiel did not mention LGBT issues in his address to the convention, except to note that the issues were of no importance:
Nor do I discount the importance of TPP’s statement about gays and lesbians in his acceptance speech:
TPP is the first Republican candidate for President to stand before a convention and call for an end to foreign terrorist violence against gays and lesbians. His was an act of undaunted political courage, and, I hope, a precursor of the day when a Republican candidate for President can stand before a convention and call for an end to domestic violence against gays and lesbians.
But the two “infamous events” and/or “infamous statements” (and similar positives) do not tell the whole of the story, and that is my argument with you, David Lampo, LCR, Stephen and others who slide TPP’s negative positions on LGBT issues under the rug when touting him as a champion of gays and lesbians, and then call it an “honest look”. In my view, it is not at all “honest” to tout the positive and ignore/deny the negative. To me, it is a “dishonest look”, a distortion of reality, a half-look at best. That has been my point throughout this thread. I stand by my assessment.
And who does so by using veiled threats to call someone an Aunt Mary or straight-acting as a wedge issue in a discussion on that topic?
If this is a reference to something you imagine I’ve written, then you might want to calm down and stick to what I’ve actually written. Unless you can come up with a “veiled threat” from what I’ve actually written, your assertion strikes me as preposterous.
I call it [asserting that TPP’s positions on LGBT issues align with the 2016 Republican Platform and that this fact should be included in an “honest look”] cheap political hackery.
You would. But that won’t change TPP’s positions on LGBT issues. And it won’t change my view that an “honest” look requires an assessment of the totality of TPP’s record and statements, not just cherry-picking along the lines that you, David Lampo, LCR, Stephen and others who tout the positives while sliding negatives under the rug, seem to be determined to do.
So I guess we are at odds, which is not a surprise to me, but I’ve made my case as clearly as I know how. You can make of my position what you will, using your finely-honed critical thinking skills, and no doubt come to the opposite conclusion. I hope that your will be content with the quiet knowledge that I am a hopeless dolt for suggesting what seems to me to be obvious.
A lot can happen in life and politics in just one year. You would do better to consider check in on what those changes might be.
I agree. And I do check in. The biggest change in the political environment during last year — closer to 18 months, actually — is that Obergefell instituted marriage equality across the land and a strong majority of Americans accept the decision. Republicans don’t yet, but that will change over the course of the next decade.
As an aside, do you (or does anyone else on IGF for that matter) know why Log Cabin Republicans failed to endorse TPP his election cycle, after much ballyhoo touting him as the most gay-supportive Republican candidate for President in the history of the party? It doesn’t make much sense to me to failed to endorse, given LCR’s prior endorsements of President Bush II, Senator McCain and Governor Romney, none of whom were even close to gay-supportive while running for President. I can’t imagine that LCR is going to have much of a “seat at the table” should The President Presumptive become the President Elect in 19 days. Sad.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Sorry. This comment was supposed to have been posted in the immediately preceding thread, and I have now done so. Ignore it here.
posted by Houndentenor on
Not all gay people are impressed by HRC (the organization, not the candidate with the same initials). But you ignore that it’s less that we ran to the Democrats than we were chased away by the Republicans. I was a Republican in my teens and early 20s. They don’t want us and make it clear in the platform. So no, the Democrats don’t have to offer much to get our votes. Imagine if both parties were good on gay issues? But that’s unimaginable so long as the Teavangelicals run the party.
posted by TJ on
LGBT and straight allies within the Democratic party worked hard over the many years to improve the party and it’s major nominees position.
Republican party supporters have been less successful, especially since the party leadership purged the so-called moderate and liberal ” RINO” folk from most major leadership and candidate positions.
For voters – who support equality and understand that we live in two party system – this often means that they can vote for Hillary (not without faults) or Trump (who has backed off on his initial equality positions in favor of the alt-right movement.
posted by Houndentenor on
More often than not when I point out pro-gay Republicans to gay Republicans, they dismiss them as RINOs. So, no, they aren’t making any progress in the party.
posted by TJ on
Now, why don’t more LGBT and allied people vote Libertarian? (Not a horrible question. given the the author is backing the Johnson/Weld ticket and wondering why Hillary isn’t being asked more).
Some people believe that campaign law reform is required before a third party candidate is a viable choice.
Some people don’t really like third party candidate’s and generally associate them with American. Communist or Fascist party candidates.
Yet, some of it may be a rejection of a specific small or third party platform.
As an example ; The Libertarian party feels that public assistance, safety nets and human services (and the like) should be done by charities or not at all.
The Libertarian party looks at civil rights laws as good, except when they apply to the private sector.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The question I asked in another thread yesterday — if anyone knew why LCR hadn’t endorse TPP, who the organization described some months ago as the most gay-supportive Republican Presidentical candidate in history — was answered today. LCR will not endorse TPP this election cycle.
The following is an excerpt from LCR’s press release:
Both Politico and The Hill report that the vote to withhold endorsement was close and contentious, and that a majority of LCR state chapters favored endorsement.
posted by JohnInCA on
“Why do LGBT liberals ask so little of HRC?”
Matthew 7:3 Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
Or to put it another way: when LGBT conservatives bother asking anything of their own politicians and representatives, I might treat the question seriously. As-is, LGBT liberals have asked for, and received, a lot. Mostly because they put in the hard work to get it. LGBT conservatives, on the other hand, spend most of their time whining about LGBT liberals and doing nothing.
When you’re part of the “doing nothing” crowd, your complaints that “everyone else isn’t doing enough” doesn’t carry much weight.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Most of the comments ridiculed Messrs. Lainhart and and Moore for supporting Mr. Trump — calling them “rednecks” and suggesting that someone should “take away their gay card.”
So only progressive gays and lesbians are subject to criticism and ridicule according to your lights? And conservative gays and lesbians exempt? Tsk. Tsk.
posted by Houndentenor on
The headline makes it sounds like the Trump supporting couple has received legitimate death threats and yet the worst example they can come up with is someone threatening to “take away their gay card” which is only a joke. That’s not a threat. It’s just snark. The right is as bad as the left with their thin skins. If you are going to go public with an unpopular position, people are going to say not nice things about you. This is nothing. It’s laughable that anyone thinks it’s even worth the bandwidth to report it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The headline makes it sounds like the Trump supporting couple has received legitimate death threats and yet the worst example they can come up with is someone threatening to “take away their gay card” which is only a joke.
You have to keep the headline’s audience in mind — WSJ readers — the crowd that wears wingtips to the beach, for God’s sake.
posted by Jorge on
Now, why don’t more LGBT and allied people vote Libertarian?
What do either libertarianism or the Libertarian party have to offer the LGBT community that
1) They don’t already offer to everyone else, and
2) That neither the Democratic or Republican parties offer?
It seems to me that all they can offer is the right combination of Democratic and Republican philosophies.
posted by Lori Heine on
I mailed in my early ballot a few days ago. Predictably, I voted for Gary Johnson for president. All the usual judges were retained–I must confess I don’t even know who most of them are, but I didn’t hear anything bad about any of them.
A former fiance is running for county treasurer, and I actually voted for him.
For every reason I can think of, this is the most bizarre election year in history.
posted by Jorge on
I have a former school bully running for a state office. I am not voting for him. He’ll win.
posted by Lori Heine on
Yes. And I may live to rethink my vote when I get my first property tax bill from someone I’ve seen naked.