Log Cabin Must Recapture Its Republican Roots
Almost since this blog’s inception, we have found ourselves at odd with Log Cabin. One of us (Dan), a founding president of one Log Cabin club and former vice president of another, first discovered the blog when he read a link to the other’s (Bruce) post telling Log Cabin to “stick it” for refusing to endorse the president in last fall’s election.
While we have largely been critical of the organization, questioning whether they are really Republicans, we have also praised them on occasion. We were also the blog which broke the story of Chris Barron’s involvement in John Edwards’ campaign for the Democratic nomination for president. His departure from Log Cabin offers LCR’s Executive Director Patrick Guerriero an oportunity to prove his commitment to the GOP. A commitment which many Republicans have questioned.
While we both have frequently disagreed with Chris, each of us has had met him and found him to be a bright man, a decent fellow and all-around nice guy. We wish him well in his future endeavors.
Given that an overwhelmingly majority (at least 90%) of gay Republicans voted to reelect President Bush last fall (even as many of us disagreed with his support of the Federal Marriage Amendment), Log Cabin must hire as its new political director someone who openly supported President Bush last fall. Even after the election, Patrick refused to say who he voted for, leaving some to wonder if he, like some fair-weather gay Republicans eager for media attention, voted for John Kerry.
In order to overcome the doubts of many gay Republicans, including your humble bloggers, Log Cabin needs to appoint a political director with strong and unimpeachable Republican credentials. And one who is as willing to defend conservative principles and our Republican president in gay circles as he is to promote gay issues in conservative and Republican ones.
We feel so strongly about this that this is the first “joint” posting we have ever done. We are watching, Patrick. The time is overdue that you put “Republican” planks back into the Log Cabin many of us helped build.
- GayPatriot (Bruce) and GayPatriotWest (Dan)
31 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Very well said!
Thanks guys!
Comment by Charles — November 18, 2005 @ 7:38 am - November 18, 2005
Absolutely true!
If Log Cabin wants to join the extremist agenda of the Republican Party it MUST follow Dan’s and Bruce’s advice. With so many Republicans and conservatives questioning Bush’s policies it only makes sense that Gayish Patriots support his policies to the extent of these requirements for the new Log Cabin head.
And Log Cabin will be further marginalized.
Not a bad thing.
(And the two of you posting together is sooooo cute.)
Comment by chandler in Hollywood — November 18, 2005 @ 8:44 am - November 18, 2005
At least in terms of the GOP, Log Cabin couldn’t be further marginalized than it already is.
But, Chandler, if you’re talking about Log Cabin being further marginalized from gay organizations, what you’re saying is damning about the narrow-minded partisanship of those groups — and the degree to which they have integrated Bush-hatred into their very organizational identities.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 18, 2005 @ 10:59 am - November 18, 2005
With so many Republicans and conservatives questioning Bush’s policies
I was led to believe that we never question Bush’s policies. Now we do? I’m confrused.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 18, 2005 @ 11:21 am - November 18, 2005
I think you are describing an old-school conservative, someone who is fiscally prudent, who believe in low taxes, and small Government. And someone who also believes in limiting government intrusion into the lives of American citizens as much as possible. Strong on Defense.
The Republican Party itself needs that kind of leadership more than we do. As much as you have disagreed with LCR’s actions, they are still much closer to the ideals of classical Conservatism than is the current leadership of the GOP, both in the Party hierarchy and the Congress. There is a real leader deficit right now in both parties. And has the President been an example of those characteristics that I’ve described above? Nope. Even if I was a straight registered Republican I would not have voted for Bush. I would have stayed home. He’s just not a Conservative as I understand the meaning of the term.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 18, 2005 @ 11:34 am - November 18, 2005
I put this up last night in the other LCR thread, but that’s sort of fallen by the wayside, so I’ll put the comment here as well.
#
The problem with LCR is relevance. They are not relevant with the current GOP, but that is not solely because their leaders are socially liberal. LCR was generally useless throughout most of the 90’s, and although the first year or so of GWB’s tenure saw some moderation on gay issues, Rich Tafel seemed to do nothing to keep that path going. The administration began to lurch sharply to the right in 2002 and 2003, and LCR was unable to make a difference. As of now the GOP does not feel they have any reason to be moderate on gay issues, and gays saying, “hey, I’m conservative too” or “I hate abortion too” probably won’t change that. What it may take is defeating reactionary, useless Republicans in primaries, and showing that the usual catchphrases and scare tactics are not enough to be powerful in the GOP.
And I’m not saying all Republicans are reactionary or useless. But there are certainly some Republicans, like some Democrats, who are so entrenched in state or federal government and give nothing back to voters. They can be defeated with the right candidate and enough effort.
The other problem is that many pro-life movers and shakers probably don’t want to associate with pro-life gays. I remember a few years ago when a pro-life organization arrested pro-life gays who tried to demonstrate in their march.
Just as another comment:
I think that we should be cautious of the idea, whether it was your intent or not, that somehow hiring people who are apologists for Bush will garner favor with the GOP or the White House. Even if LCR had long been the most conservative, faithful GOP-leaning group ever, many core parts of the Republican base will never trust LCR because of the gay aspect.
Comment by Carl — November 18, 2005 @ 12:26 pm - November 18, 2005
#5
You’re absolutely right. It’s best just to stay home and let the liberals win.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 18, 2005 @ 12:55 pm - November 18, 2005
Personally, I’d like to see someone like Steve Gundersen as the Political Director. Someone with experience and the political-connections, rather than someone from the “gay activist”-side. We need an activist for Field Director to motivate the local chapters and get new ones started. Someone with lots of energy. But for Political Director, there you want experience in “how things work” and a sense of proportion that only experience in actual governance. A personal that bring credibility and even “gravitas” to the position. An elder statesman, not a rock-thrower.
Just my own thoughts….
Comment by Ted B. — November 18, 2005 @ 1:00 pm - November 18, 2005
#9
What and support a Commie sympathizer with Christmas vacations in Cambodia seared in his head? Sorry. I can’t support a guy who tosses somebody else’s medals.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 18, 2005 @ 1:44 pm - November 18, 2005
This site was set up to protect George Bush and to trash or at least neuter the LCR. Republican gays would have been a natural power base for any opposition to Bush.
Comment by anon — November 18, 2005 @ 2:21 pm - November 18, 2005
Get out from behind the keyboard, and raise money, volunteer, organize the grass roots, show that you bring members in, not just bitch….. then you can have a say in who is hired at Log Cabin Republicans. Should I – as someone who is not involved with Open Source media, have a say in who is hired as the support staff?
The last thing I want to see is someone who is just an apologist for anti-gay policies.
Chris Barron is no moderate. He’s a Steve Forbes republican.
Comment by Eva Young — November 18, 2005 @ 4:25 pm - November 18, 2005
If you are referring to Kerry, that wouldn’t really be a win would it. The Congress is still overwhelmingly GOP. What it would have provided is a divided Government which I think is a good thing. It’s usually much better for the country when politicians in DC accomplish little to nothing during their tenure.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 18, 2005 @ 5:32 pm - November 18, 2005
Get out from behind the keyboard, and raise money, volunteer, organize the grass roots, show that you bring members in, not just bitch….. then you can have a say in who is hired at Log Cabin Republicans.
With all due respect, Eva, GPW, for one, already has. Founding an LCR chapter, I would think, qualifies on several accounts.
As I told Patrick when I met him a few weeks ago in Dallas, I was glad that LCR had the spine to make a principled non-endorsement of Bush in 2004; however, what upset me was the anti-religious rhetoric used to justify it. I also told him I was glad to see that he and LCR were making a conscious effort to recognize that religion is not an inherent enemy to gay people, and that I felt that would serve LCR well in the long run, especially as HRC et al. became more and more hateful and strident.
I too would like to see someone in LCR’s lead political role who has, as Ted so eloquently put it, “gravitas”, and I think someone like Steve Gunderson would fill the role quite well. Jim Kolbe immediately comes to mind too. I also, if we’re making wishes, wouldn’t mind seeing a female political director for LCR as well.
Meanwhile, for you, anon:
Republican gays would have been a natural power base for any opposition to Bush.
You underestimate Republican gays, Anon. Unlike Democratic gays, Republican gays will not use the fact that they are gay as an excuse to vote for waste, appeasement, unlimited abortion, antireligious hatred, punishing businesses and corporations, calling terrorists “freedom fighters”, and others.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 18, 2005 @ 6:07 pm - November 18, 2005
Well, anon (#10), we weren’t getting the hits (or attention) we’re getting now during the presidential campaign and yet the president managed to get at least 90% of the gay Republican vote. So obviously most gay Republicans didn’t need our persuasion to vote for the president.
I think LCR (and its non-Republican financial backers) saw Republican gays as that base for opposition against Bush. But, that just didn’t pan out. Because Repubilcan gays vote on more issues than just sexuality and on balance, Bush is far better than John Kerry. And that’s why Log Cabin just didn’t get gay Republicans. We vote on a great variety of issues.
It’s just too bad the president won’t follow the Gipper’s ideas on fiscal restraint and federalism and should be tougher on immigration.
And we (i.e, GP & I) should make clear more often where we differ from the president, where he strays from Republican principles.
That said, on the whole, he has done a good job, particularly on foreign policy/defense issues and judicial appointments. Despite the president’s flaws, when the alternative was John Kerry, the choice was easy. At least it should be to a Republican.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 18, 2005 @ 6:15 pm - November 18, 2005
I doubt Log Cabin would have the resources to hire a Steve Gunderson OR a Jim Kolbe as Political Director.
Yes – Dan HAS in the past been active with Log Cabin Republicans – and organized the Virginia chapter – but he is no longer so – and he has not been active in Log Cabin since 2000. Patrick – as President of Log Cabin Republicans makes the hiring decisions – conferring with the board.
What “anti-religious” rhetoric, NDT? Can you please give some specifics?
Comment by Eva Young — November 18, 2005 @ 7:17 pm - November 18, 2005
Eva, I think Zsa Zsa is calling you…
Comment by Peter Hughes — November 18, 2005 @ 8:45 pm - November 18, 2005
It isn’t the Log Cabin Republicans that ought to “return” to Republican roots. The Republican Party needs to return to its roots.
The Republican Party was founded on the issue of human rights and it believed in and advocated equality and civil rights until the far right took over the party.
I finally held my nose and voted for George W. Bush again in 2004, for complicated reasons I’m not sure I even understand anymore, but I certainly didn’t fault the Log Cabin Republicans for refusing to endorse him. How could an organizaion committed to dignity and equality for all Americans support a president who thinks the LGBT community are second-class citizens.
And I’m not focusing just on the federal marriage amendment. Bush has never condemned the Dobson-Robertson-Perkins-Bauer-Keyes-Falwell-Sheldon-DeLay-Santorum-Hannity-et al agenda to strip the LGBT community of basic rights.
Comment by Jack Allen — November 18, 2005 @ 11:23 pm - November 18, 2005
Eva, I think Zsa Zsa is calling you…….
Peter, you’re new here, so you may not be familiar with Eva Young, aka Lloydletta. Rest assured that Eva is among the staunchest and best defenders of gay rights that I know; she takes no guff from anyone, and she always tells it like it is. She and I do not always agree, but I respect her immensely. To imply she is merely a Gabor sister is a disservice both to her and to you.
Meanwhile, Eva, both GP and GPW have been involved with LCR at the grass roots and brought in new members/chapters; I should think Patrick would not only want their opinion, but would value it, especially since they are two examples of people who have become disenchanted with what Log Cabin has become. Furthermore, it is their right to express it.
As for antireligious sentiment, it was what was expressed in the advertisements LCR ran last year and in several of Patrick’s more fiery speeches, especially at the Republican National Convention.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 18, 2005 @ 11:39 pm - November 18, 2005
I’m curious what Bruce Carroll has done to bring in new members and chapters. I know Dan, and he used to be involved with Log Cabin Republicans – he left the organization in 2000. He is no longer a member as I understand it.
Well I’d disagree that the ads were anti-religious. They were anti-theocrat – and that’s fair enough. They also used footage of Fred Phelps.
Dan – With our Minnesota Chapter the folks were split on voting for Bush. The members who voted for Bush were not interested in having Log Cabin Republicans endorse him.
I’d like to know how you came to your numbers that 90% of gay republicans voted for Bush. What percentage of gays are republicans.
Gay democrats vote democrat for many non-gay issue reasons. The same goes for gay republicans. That goes without saying. However the point of a Log Cabin Republicans or a Stonewall Democrats is to work on gay issues.
If that doesn’t float your boat, then get active in the Republican party – but don’t bitch at those who think the party needs to make some changes in how it deals with gays.
Comment by Eva Young — November 18, 2005 @ 11:57 pm - November 18, 2005
If that doesn’t float your boat, then get active in the Republican party – but don’t bitch at those who think the party needs to make some changes in how it deals with gays.
I don’t think anyone here would say that it doesn’t, Eva. But the point being made is that what Log Cabin doesn’t need is another political director with three tons of baggage that makes him or her that much easier to distrust. Like it or not, that’s what Barron had, and his jump to Planned Parenthood confirms a lot of those suspicions.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 19, 2005 @ 12:57 am - November 19, 2005
Eva in #19, I get the 90% figure from the exit poll numbers. In 2000, these polls found that 25% of gay and lesbians voted for W. In 2004, they found that 23% did so. 23 is 92% of 25. We’ll assume that the president lost support equally from gay Republicans and gay Independents.
I should also add that it’s important that Log Cabin pick someone who supported President Bush because he’s going to be president for three more years. And as long as there’s a Republican in the White House, a gay Republican organization should try to build bridges to the executive branch.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 19, 2005 @ 4:17 am - November 19, 2005
LOL…..there’s two problems with that logic, Pussy.
1) As vote returns show, the US armed forces are overwhelmingly Republican; thus, Republicans ARE doing the bulk of the fighting.
2) You and your fellow Democrats aren’t running to enlist to fight in Afghanistan, which you allegedly support.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 19, 2005 @ 11:05 am - November 19, 2005
Dan, then your assumption is that 100% of gay republicans voted for Bush in 2000, and that all those who voted for voted for Bush in 2000 were republicans.
You have no basis for your 90% figure.
I had heard 40% of gays had voted for Bush the 1st in 1988. Then in 1992, that went down to 20% or so. It went up a little for Dole in 1996. Then Bush in 2000 got 25% of gay votes.
Schwartzenegger got 25% or so of gay votes. Why are you not counting that as a base rather than Bush in 2000 (who if you recall used gay baiting as part of his campaign against McCain in South Carolina)?
As I’ve said before – I don’t think Log Cabin Republicans ought to model their method of dealing with George Bush on the way HRC dealt with Clinton. HRC got nothing for their endorsement.
In my opinion, Log Cabin is going in the direction I want to see it – they are focusing more staff resources on developing chapters and the field.
I remember a while back the bitchy queen post over here about the lobbying group Log Cabin hired. That was a good decision – and the senior partner of that group was at our convention. He told me he LIKED working with Chris Barron on Log Cabin issues – because those issues were more interesting to him than his garden variety lobbying tasks. So it wasn’t the case of Log Cabin getting low level staff on this. I also talked with the Human Rights Campaign Republican lobbyist – and he had nothing but good things to say about Chris Barron. These were people who knew something about the way Chris works on the job.
On another topic, I’m curious what work either of the Gay Patriots have done to cultivate non-log cabin people in power – and if you’ve used your iinfluence to make a change on an anti-gay policy.
Craig Westover – conservative columnist in the St Paul Pioneer Press has another column about same sex marriage. It’s well worth reading.
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2005/11/craig-westover-same-sex-marriage.html
Comment by Eva Young — November 19, 2005 @ 11:23 am - November 19, 2005
Error – Arnold got 35% not 25% of gay votes.
Comment by Eva Young — November 19, 2005 @ 8:05 pm - November 19, 2005
Well, anon (#10), we weren’t getting the hits (or attention) we’re getting now during the presidential campaign and yet the president managed to get at least 90% of the gay Republican vote.
GP
=================
I’d like to know how you came to your numbers that 90% of gay republicans voted for Bush.
Comment by Eva Young
=================
Eva in #19, I get the 90% figure from the exit poll numbers. In 2000, these polls found that 25% of gay and lesbians voted for W. In 2004, they found that 23% did so. 23 is 92% of 25.
GP
=================
Dan, then your assumption is that 100% of gay republicans voted for Bush in 2000, and that all those who voted for voted for Bush in 2000 were republicans.
You have no basis for your 90% figure.
Comment by Eva Youn
=================
Eva,
Thank you.
Comment by chandler in Hollywood — November 20, 2005 @ 1:52 am - November 20, 2005
Eva, your criticism of my 90% figure is fair. Do you have any evidence that fewer than 90% of gay Republicans voted for the president? Just after the election, I rooted around on the web to see if I could get a breakdown of the gay vote by party and could not find such a vote. If you have seen such a breakdown, please let me know.
But, based on the statistics we have, our best guess is 90%. And we know that exit polls undersampled Republicans. My anecdotal evidence also yields a 90% figure. (I don’t know a single gay Republican who, in 2000, voted for Gore.)
And you seem to get upset every time we criticize Log Cabin — suggesting that we should never criticize them. I have praised the national office on occasion, indeed, 2 of my 5 “Reports from New Orleans” in April were very favorable and the other 3 were not entirely negative. I praised them for doing more to develop chapters. I regret that Jeff Cook has left his post as Field Director to run for office. As I know him to be a nice guy and it’s clear he was doing good work.
As the endorsement issue, LCR would have gotten respect (within GOP circles) and access for their endorsement.
As to your comment in your penultimate paragraph, we, unlike Log Cabin, are not a lobbying group. We try to change through persuasion, by posting here and by being openly gay in conservative circles. Why do you keep bringing this up? We’ve been through this before — many times.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 20, 2005 @ 5:18 am - November 20, 2005
Dan – you made faulty assumptions. As someone who states that 90% of gay republicans voted for Bush, it’s your burden of proof to defend that number. I’ve cast significant doubt on it.
If you can get hold of the datasets for the polling numbers, we could get the gay and republican numbers.
It’s always worth asking how many gay republicans voted for the Libertarian candidate in both 2000 and 2004.
Comment by Eva Young — November 20, 2005 @ 11:25 am - November 20, 2005
I’ve seen more items that have been persuasive to conservatives opposing the Federal Marriage amendment by Chuck Muth (who is straight – but has been a real advocate) – and is definitely part of the “vast right wing conspiracy”, and locally in Minnesota by Craig Westover, than I’ve ever seen over here on the GayPatriot blog. Your blog tends to play the role of the apologist. You defended Margaret Spellings rediculous action going after the Postcards from Buster series for example.
In fact, it seems like your blog over time has become a right wing version of Americablog – parrotting RNC talking points in the way that Aravosis parrots DNC talking points. When Aravosis started, he covered some gay related stories no one else did. Now Pam Spaulding has picked up on that niche.
http://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog
I got the story of the Dems trying to use Kilgore’s “sounding gay” story from Pam Spaulding. She is quite far left in her politics – but she will call democrats on it when they use gay baiting campaigns.
That open source media group seems like an echo chamber more than anything else.
Tammy Bruce NEVER answered my question about whether she gave permission for the Minnesota Family Council to use her quote to support the Minnesota so called “protection of marriage” amendment. What’s real interesting is one special election candidate who just signed on to support that amendment doesn’t want to support a “covenant marriage” law. This candidate had gotten a divorce when she was younger.
Comment by Eva Young — November 20, 2005 @ 11:37 am - November 20, 2005
“As the endorsement issue, LCR would have gotten respect (within GOP circles) and access for their endorsement.”
On the endorsement – Bush DIDN’T WANT Log Cabin Republicans endorsement. The Bush campaign deliberately chose to marginalize gays for political gain. Mainstream Republicans that I know understood this perfectly, and understood why Log Cabin did what they did.
You know as well as I do – because you were at the Log Cabin Republicans, that there were more mainstream Republicans speaking at the convention than there had ever been before.
The Republican Unity Coalition (which uses a different approach) pretty much stayed silent during the 2004 election after Bush supported the FMA. They put out a press release that said the amendment was a “distraction, divisive and wrong” then washed their hands of the election. Charles Francis didn’t raise more money for Bush after that. He didn’t publicly disparage Bush, but his lack of action on behalf of Bush spoke volumes.
Comment by Eva Young — November 20, 2005 @ 11:45 am - November 20, 2005
Btw, Chuck Muth (who I mentioned before) was critical of the way Log Cabin Republicans handled the endorsement – but he also continues to support LCR for the most part. Chuck has used the influence he has to try to get Republicans to look at the gay issue more rationally – and I think he was very helpful on that. His site on the FMA is at:
http://www.lawfullywedded.com
When rhetorical gay-bashing hurts Republicans more than it helps them, this will stop. The problem is that in politics, people tend to look at short term cost/benefit – not long term cost/benefit – and what the rhetorical gay bashing does is alienate gays from the Republican party. I know a number of gays who used to be Republicans who are now democrats for this reason alone. Some of these people are getting elected in Minneapolis – and that’s a shame. It would be helpful to the Republican party if these people were elected as Republicans.
Comment by Eva Young — November 20, 2005 @ 11:56 am - November 20, 2005
I know a number of gays who used to be Republicans who are now democrats for this reason alone. Some of these people are getting elected in Minneapolis.
Comment by Eva Young
========================
Eva,
You are the first woman EVER to cause me that much excitement.
Cigaertte?
Comment by chandler in hollywood — November 21, 2005 @ 8:07 pm - November 21, 2005