As I worked on my post faulting Log Cabin for bending over backwards not to offend the gay groups, most of which have left-of-center leanings, I kept coming across information, mostly on Log Cabin’s own web-site, which confirmed many of my suspicions about the organization. More often than not, I came across statements where the organization took issue with the President or conditioned its praise of his statements or initiatives. They seemed almost as reluctant as HRC to confront Democrats.
Given the length of my post, I wanted to highlight (in a briefer post) the most troubling of LCR President Patrick Guerriero‘s statements and juxtapose it with a Log Cabin statement (also cited in the post) released fewer than three weeks before last fall’s election.
Patrick considers it a firing offense for an employee to “speak ill of another LGBT group” even as his organization took gratuitous swipes at his own party’s presidential nominee (and his closest political advisor) in that statement ostensibly faulting the opposing party’s nominee for politicizing the sexuality of the Vice-President’s daughter. We can argue on the merits of Log Cabin’s non-endorsement of the president last fall. Indeed, North Dallas Thirty, who usually agrees with me, thinks Log Cabin did the right thing.
But, Log Cabin went beyond professing neutrality in the presidential race and actively criticized President Bush and Karl Rove, his top political aide and campaign strategist. On CNN, Patrick “lashe[d] out” at the president. Of the 115 words in the text of LCR’s statement on Senator Kerry’s Comments Regarding Mary Cheney, 45 took issue with that Democratic nominee’s comments (and those of his running mate) while 54 faulted the Republican team. The remainder were devoted to delivering a message to “both campaigns.” (Shouldn’t that be the job of the officially “bipartisan” Human Rights Campaign?)
An organization whose president considers it a firing offense to take issue with another gay group devotes more space in a statement ostensibly faulting the opposing party’s nominee to attacking its own party. Not only that. LCR said Senator Kerry’s comments “shouldn’t distract” them from finding fault with the president’s campaign. With those words, LCR leaders made clear that their real issue last fall was reminding Americans of their distaste for the incumbent Republican Administration. If their non-endorsement was merely that a non-endorsement and not a slap at their own party, then they would have faulted Senator Kerry without similarly faulting the president.
This supposedly Republican group, however, wouldn’t let a Democrat’s pandering get in the way of their speaking ill of their own party’s nominee. Perhaps, Log Cabin leaders feared that if they had merely faulted Senator Kerry (without linking that to criticism of the president), they might lose the favor they had gained with the Bush-bashing gay leadership. The very organization which considers it a firing offense to “speak ill” of other LGBT groups went out of its way last fall to speak ill of its own party’s nominee for the highest office in the land.
President Bush did a fundraiser for Marilyn Musgrave today.
I have no problem with Patrick calling it as he saw it on that bottom feeder, Karl Rove. That strategy – of marginalizing gays for political gain was morally bankrupt.
Are you defending those Democrats want to ban the bible and allow gay marriage flyers?
I would like to have seen Stonewall Democrats say the same sort of thing about the pathetic democratic campaign attacking Jerry Kilgore for “looking gay”.
The message that Log Cabin would be giving – if they followed your advice – is that there is no political cost for Republicans to use anti-gay political strategies. The ONLY way those things will change is when those tactics COST them. Log Cabin speaking up on this, makes sure those tactics backfire.
Eva-
There is no one left in the national GOP that cares what Log Cabin thinks. LCR is now engaged in mutual masturbation love fest with HRC, NGLTF, etc.
This is simple – Patrick is not an honest broker with GOP leadership on the hill and the White House. He attacks Presidential staff (Rove) but it is hands off to left wing fringe leaders. Mehlman, Cino, Bartlett et al don’t trust him (with good reason) to keep his personal commitment and promises – it is not about stonewall dems – it IS about attacking staff, the Presidency while forbiding staff to comment on Democrats. By his own admission Log Cabin is now a gay rights organization. So sad.
The arguments here remind me of Cleo Manago’s arguments criticizing Keith Boykin and the National Black Justice Coalition – for taking it “outside the family” and criticizing Louis Farrakhan and the Millions More March for homophobia.
I’m curious whether either of you have used your insider influence – and political capitol to try to change things for the better.
It’s interesting that noone active in the national gop cares what Log Cabin thinks any more. Bob Kabel is on the RNC now. There were more big name mainstream republicans at the Log Cabin convention in New Orleans than I’d ever seen in the past.
Patrick did excellently when he was interviewed by Dave Thompson – a socially conservative talk show host in Minneapolis.
He didn’t forbid staff to comment on Democrats. He said that staff shouldn’t make public statements bitching about other gay organizations.
Buckeye Bill – have you TALKED with Cino, Bartlett, Mehlman to get this information, or is this speculation on your part?
Fine, Eva, call Rove a “bottom feeder” if you want. But that description of the president’s top aide seems derived only from critics of that good man. It’s not based on evidence but on innuendo.
As long as Rove remains one of the president’s top aides, it does Log Cabin no good to bash him. Because in attacking him, they only limit their chances of gaining access to the White House. It thus seems counterproductive if they want to influence the GOP. Perhaps, they are badmouthing Rove to prove their bona fide to the gay left to whom demonizing Rove is practically the equivalent of sacrament.
I mean, c’mon, what does it accomplish to attack him? Beyond proving that you hate the “architect” of the president’s reelection? Perhaps, if they were columnists or bloggers, such criticism would be warranted (if they could provide evidence to substantiate their claim). But, as a political organization, making such criticism is just plain silly.
Eva, quit putting words in my mouth. You should know better than to say what you said in comment #3. We’ve been through this before. I’ve never said Log Cabin shouldn’t criticize Republicans for such tactics. It’s merely their manner of presentation. The press release I cite on Kerry proves my point. There was no reason to attack Bush in that release. None at all. And yet they did it.
Those tactics backfire? Last I checked, LCR didn’t endorse the president and he won while his party, my party — THEIR party — picked up seats in the House and Senate.
And as to your comment in #6, we’re not political activists. I don’t have such political capital. Log Cabin leaders are paid to influence the GOP. Perhaps there were a few big names at the New Orleans Convention, I don’t recall any current federal elected officials.
Patrick is the one more like Cleo Manago. Let me repeat–I’ve never said we shouldn’t criticize the GOP. Patrick doesn’t want his staffers criticizing other gay groups. Sounds a lot like Mr. Manago.
From several sources, I’ve heard that Marie Cino doesn’t trust Patrick because he broke his word to her in 2004. He had hinted to her that LCR wouldn’t endorse the president, but promised to stay out of the presidential campaign and focus on electing pro-gay Republicans, like Arlen Specter, to other offices. He broke his word by speaking out against the president (in the midst of a contested presidential election campaign) and by attacking him (& Rove) in the release I cited in this post.
Do you defend him for that release? Do you defend him for attacking the president on national TV in the middle of a campaign even though he promised not to?
The arguments here remind me of Cleo Manago’s arguments criticizing Keith Boykin and the National Black Justice Coalition – for taking it “outside the family” and criticizing Louis Farrakhan and the Millions More March for homophobia.
Actually, Eva, I would argue that Patrick’s moratorium on criticizing other glbt groups is more akin to enforcement of that “keeping it in the family” that you criticize above.
The single biggest problem of the gay rights movement is that it isn’t about gay rights — it’s about being anti-religious, anti-war, anti-military, anti-Republican, anti-corporate, pro-abortion, pro-union, pro-taxation,pro-Democrat, and numerous other issues that have nothing to do with gay rights.
As I’ve written elsewhere, for instance, polls show that a vast majority — nearly 70% — of Americans support parental notification laws on abortion; only 29% support unlimited abortion with no restrictions whatsoever. However, Joe Solmonese (he who gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to FMA supporters because they’re pro-abortion) and Matt Foreman stand up and scream that parental notification and supporting restrictions on abortion are “antigay” and an “attack on gay rights”. It would behoove one of the national organizations to stand up and say that being gay has nothing to do with one’s stances on abortion, neither do gay rights rise and fall on whether or not abortion is restricted; however, Patrick’s gag order ensures that LCR won’t be the ones doing it when they ought to be.
As to the flyers you mention above, Eva, they were indeed lies; Democrats, as John Kerry showed, want to ban gay marriage and permanently strip gays of rights.
However, what you ought to consider is this; why is it so good when someone does support gay marriage, but “gaybaiting” when someone’s opponent points out that they support gay marriage?
President Bush enthusiastically thanked Musgrave for her proposal of a Federal Marriage Amendment at the fundraiser he did with her today.
If “there is no one left in the national GOP that cares what Log Cabin thinks,” it may be because they just don’t care what gay people think.
Cheers to Marilyn!
Do tell, Jimmy. Got a link? The one I have says this:
The president later hugged Musgrave, who generated controversy two years ago by promoting a constitutional ban on gay marriage, a campaign she said she has put on hold while she runs for re-election.
Or are you just afraid to publish the latest DNC talking-points release?
Finally, since you and your fellow DNC-bots call banning gay marriage and stripping gays of rights “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when Democrats push it, what does that say about what Dems think of YOU?
President Bush enthusiastically thanked Musgrave for her proposal of a Federal Marriage Amendment at the fundraiser he did with her today.
If “there is no one left in the national GOP that cares what Log Cabin thinks,” it may be because they just don’t care what gay people think.
Cheers to Marilyn!
Comment by jimmy — November 30, 2005 @ 3:12 am – November 30,
Hey Jimmy – Whats it like to be so gung-ho about losing your rights, and being put under 2nd class citizenship?? Cheers to Marilyn??? You mean Marilyn the batalax – you see, even she has forgotten the struggle women fought for 12 long, labored yrs to obtain the right to vote. What was the excuse MEN used to keep women from voting..? Oh yea…”If women vote, it will UNDERMINE THE TRADITIONS AND VALUES OF AMERICAN SOCIETY” – sound familiar?? Is that not the same argument used for the fight against Inter-Racial Marriage? …and now Gay Marriage…..America / Amerika = Land of Liberty and justice for ALL Heterosexuals….Land of Hypocracy is more like it. I myself don’t want to marry anyone – but I will fight til my dying breath to obtain it for younger gay people, and gays not born yet!
I don’t dispute that the non-endorsement and statements against the President’s position on the FMA have hurt LCR in the Party in the short term. But they have certainly helped boost membership and interest in LCR and we certainly haven’t lost all access. I personally was a part of meetings with Sen. Frist, Sen. Sununu and Grover Norquist in DC earlier this year. In fact, Norquist later came to Dallas and was the keynote speaker at our local LCR Chapter black tie dinner.
My understanding is that LCR is working on growing the grassroots so that it can be a more effective political force in the longer term. In that context, the pain that we are now experiencing, will be rewarded down the road.
GP, I think that you are a bit over the top when you say, “LCR is now engaged in mutual masturbation love fest with HRC, NGLTF, etc.”. I think that it’s a matter of LCR doing some coalition work with other groups on particular issues. I certainly wouldn’t approve of and don’t see LCR becoming some liberal group. That doesn’t describe the members of our local chapter, the Texas LCR or those that I have had signifigant contact with nationally. What we are seeing is political sausage making which isn’t pretty to watch but will produce a result that we can all be happy with.
What about LCR doing some more coalition work with the GOP? They did make a good effort on Social Security reform. Let’s hope they make similar efforts next year.
LCR’s decision NOT to endorse GWB made imminent sense and made this Republican proud. GWB is neither a conservative nor a historical Republican, but the stooge of Karl Rove and the theocrats. Spending under GWB almost exceeds LBJ. Not generating enough revenue to balance the budget is inexusable for any conservative. Writing hate into the Constitution and taking away people’s freedom to marry not only offends the GLBTs, but offends the Goldwater tradition of “live and let live.” Maintaing DADT is bad enough, but then keeping GLBT personnel to fight the war only to be dismissed later is repugnant to almost everyone. Invading a soveriegn nation under false pretenses was bad enough, but failing to provide basic armaments for our military personnel is abhorrent. Mishandling the Iraq post-invasion is beyond inexcusable, it is incompetence at its worst. Federalizing education is repugnant to every conservative and Republican ideal. Adding trillions to the deficit is blatantly immoral and contrary to sound economic principles. The administration’s involvement in leaking private CIA information offends every rational being. GWB’s disregard for the environment is offensive. His policy of torture of “military combatants” against the Geneva Conventions is reprehensible. Locking up Americans without redress or their day in Court is simply unAmerican. Supporting the biggest pork spending since the days of LBJ is unconscienable, with enormous public work projects (like bridges in Alaska) and granting corporate welfare to the oil interests is contrary to free enterprise. Cutting drastically support for the less fortunate and PWA is vicious. The Patriot Act is no less unAmerican. His appointment of incompetent cronies defies comment, e.g., Harriet Miers, Michael Brown, et alia. Now he plans to grant amnesty to millions of illegals and continue the influx of aliens to help business pay substandard wages is incomprehensible. The administration’s granting of unbidded contracts to Halliburton defies logic and congressional mandates and has caused corporate welfare and profits to Halliburton at taxpayer expense. Millions, perhaps even billions, have been misappropriated in financing nation-building in Iraq. Giving millions of dollars to Churches and religious organizations for their evangelism is antithetical to Republican ideals.
GWB is NO conservative nor a Republican. He is a big-government theocrat. The LCR rightly recognized this fact to their enormous credit. I am proud of LCR, because it put principle ahead of partisan politics and theocratic agendas. You guys would do well to look behind the veneer of GWB’s policies and see them for what they are: AntiAmerican.
Stephen, I’d put it this way…..I have yet to see anything in your writings that goes beyond being attempts at rationalization for your irrational hatred of George Bush.
For example:
Spending under GWB almost exceeds LBJ.
Then this:
Cutting drastically support for the less fortunate and PWA is vicious.
So in other words, you blame Bush for a) spending too much on social welfare and b) not spending enough on social welfare.
It amuses me to see you fuming “Goldwater Republicans” pervert the name of a person whose statements were built on rational principles to support your irrational hatreds. Barry Goldwater would never have screamed as you did that social spending cuts were wrong, then blasted people for raising social spending. You’re just stealing a good man’s name to make yourself look like something other than a bigot.
Don’t even pretend to support LCR’s decision on its merits. You support it because you perceive it as being anti-Bush, and you would support anything as long as it was anti-Bush.
Uhh…. Counting words isn’t exactly a fair way to judge something. Really.
The comparison to Cleo Manago, is he was defending an appalling “sermon” by Willie Wilson, ED of the Millions More March. His argument was that the National Black Justice Coalition was too confrontational, because they went public – and confronted Willie Wilson and Louis Farrakhan in the press.
I didn’t make my point well by calling Karl Rove a “bottomfeeder”. Name calling generally isn’t the way to go. I do have contempt for Karl Rove – and his ilk – which I put Clinton operatives James Carville and Paul Begala in also. Rove’s strategy of trying to exploit anti-gay animus for political gain was successful in the 2004 election, but long term, it’s not a successful strategy for Republicans.
I’m not privy to the conversation between Patrick Guerriero and Maria Cino – and unless either Patrick Guerriero or Maria Cino would be willing to go on the record about the conversation, it’s hard to comment. If you are asking whether I believe that people should keep their commitments, I do think they should.
Also – just to be very clear, while I am still a member of Log Cabin Republicans, I’m past president of our local chapter, but I no longer speak for the MN chapter, and when commenting, speak for myself.
I’ve had my differences with things that Log Cabin has done nationally – and have said so. I just feel strongly that Log Cabin Republicans does have the obligation to be true to mission – which is to push for an inclusive Republican party – and to speak out against things that are contrary to that. Anti-gay ad campaigns – with the RNC name attached are contrary to that – and carry long term risks.
I also think they can do more to condemn democrats… I’m not sure whether they condemned that disgusting campaign that went after Jerry Kilgore for “sounding gay”. Stonewall Democrats should also have publicly spoken out against that campaign. Left wing blogger, Pam Spaulding to her credit, blogged about this (in fact that’s where I read about it).
But again – if you want Log Cabin Republicans to listen to your advice, then get involved in the organization. Bobo is exactly correct…
And yes, you are political activists. You’ll be going to a Clairmont Institute dinner. That’s a good opportunity to building influence and using that influence.
“I’m also proud of the fact that she stands up for values that she thinks important. It’s really important for the United States of America to promote a culture of life, to be a welcoming society — (applause) — to recognize the value of each person. Marilyn is a strong supporter of developing a culture of life. And she’s a strong supporter of the sanctity of marriage — (applause) — who supported a constitutional amendment to make sure that activist judges do not redefine traditional marriage. And I’m proud of your support of that important piece of legislation, Marilyn. And the people of this district ought to send her back to Washington, D.C. because she shares the same values as most people in Colorado. (Applause.)”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051129-4.html
There you go. Yay Marilyn!!
Now see? That wasn’t so hard, was it?
Meanwhile, Bush is wrong to praise her for supporting the FMA, and Musgrave is wrong to promote such a thing. It’s nothing but antigay bigotry, and I’ve said as much.
Now, let’s see if you’re half as quick to criticize this:
Sen. John Kerry said in an interview published yesterday that he would have voted for the gay-marriage ban passed overwhelmingly this week by Missouri voters.
The Democratic presidential nominee, who spent parts of two days stumping across the state, told The Kansas City Star the ballot measure was the same as one his home state of Massachusetts passed a few years ago. Kerry supported that measure.
Or you can do like other liberals and gay Democrats and call that “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Hey, I consider myself a Goldwater Republican and I don’t hate Bush. So please don’t turn that into an epithet. There are a lot of things to be unhappy about with the President’s policies but compared to the alternatives, he’s the 2nd coming of Abe Lincoln.
Also GP and GPW, you guys need to get back involved with LCR at least at the local/state level. In a lot if not most of the country LCR provides a safe and sane place for conservatives to gather and exchange ideas. In Dallas, the sorta joke is that it’s a lot easier to come out as gay that as a Republican/conservative. Help provide that kind of space where you live. If you don’t like some of what is happening at the national level, then go ahead and let people know.
Bobo, I know you better than that. 🙂 My point was that people like Stephen are taking Goldwater’s name and dragging it through the mud as a justification for irrational hatred of Bush.
And you STILL owe me that picture of me with Patrick!
NOT surprising! NOT one person quibbled with the anti-conservative, anti-Republican agenda of GWB. You may have your own perverse reasons for supporting this idiot, but NOT one was a point of fact about GWB’s being totally unconservative and unrepublican. Indeed, REASON magazine did an analysis of non-military, discretionary spending under both LBJ and GWB. Guess who’s the larger spender? GWB! Of course, he wants our children to pay for his huge run-up of deficit spending.
I realize internalized homophobes and closeted queers might support the anti-gay agenda of GWB’s theocrats, supporting Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Lou Sheldon queer-haters. Some people seem able to RATIONALIZE anything, including the WORST president in modern history. Rationalize away. But you CANNOT deny this queer-hater is NEITHER conservative nor Republican.
But at least admit you are theocratic homophobes! Because if you like GWB, you aren’t a conservative and you aren’t a Republican. You’re a bible-thumping queer-basher. 65% of America doesn’t trust this idiot, and majorities think GWB LIED us into Iraq and deficits. Of course, they aren’t homophobes, just reasonable people. For GAYS to support this homophobic, big-government agenda is absolutely incoherent.
I support/ed Bush because on the most important issue by far, the war against the islamofascists, his stategy is to fight/kill them until we win and they are destroyed. The Democrat plan is to do whatever the opposite of what the Predisent is doing. American bible-thumping queer-bashing theocratic homophobes are bad but they aren’t even in the same league as the Islamic Quran-thumping queer-murdering theocratic homophobes we are at war with. We have to win this war, period. Every other issue comes in second.
While I’m disappointed in GWB, I’d still vote for him over Sen. Albert Gore of TN or Sen. John Kerry of MA. And as much as that may pain people, those were the final choices…so pick ONE when it’s that time every 4-years! There’s no third, fourth of fifth alternate, that’s how the system works.
“If’n yu ain’t gonna vote fo ’em, vote ginst ’em”
#21. Apparently it was hard for you to find the White House site, but not so difficult for you to play snide, like a cheap imitation of a Boys in the Band character, but sitting on the internet dishing and bitching in that particularly patronizing, yet cheap style.
My point: The President continues to support the amendment and to do so publicly–he even works to get the sponsors of the thing re-elected. Should LCR endorse this? Support this? Hell, even show up at the event and praise her? (Why not? The President is!!) What would be their purpose, other than functioning as a fund-raising group for the GOP, if they failed to demand equality and fairness for lesbians and gay men…Republican lesbians and gay men?
The constant attacks on LCR throughout these pages is fascinating–inasmuch as they are launched from armchairs. Not only left and liberal lesbians and gay men, but conservative lesbians and gay men find themselves in the crosshairs time after time. Are there no gay people that are safe from these tabloid-like attacks?
But, in the end, thanks for admitting that the President engages in anti-gay biogtry. I’ll wait to see if that shows up in an item on the main page.
Stephen is a bit of a crazy – as we know from when he was posting here a lot more, a few months ago – don’t waste too much time on him.
My point: The President continues to support the amendment and to do so publicly–he even works to get the sponsors of the thing re-elected. Should LCR endorse this? Support this? Hell, even show up at the event and praise her? (Why not? The President is!!) What would be their purpose, other than functioning as a fund-raising group for the GOP, if they failed to demand equality and fairness for lesbians and gay men…Republican lesbians and gay men?
There is a substantial difference between supporting the President and supporting everything the President does. No one is demanding that LCR support Bush’s antigay bigotry, or not speak out against it. However, what they ARE saying is that LCR should not be taking gratuitous swipes at the President or his advisors, or staying silent in the face of inane statements made by other “gay rights” groups, all in the name of making kissy-face to those same gay rights groups.
Meanwhile, as I pointed out, John Kerry openly and vocally supported amendments banning gay marriage and stripping gays of rights. Bill Clinton signed and promoted the fact that he signed legislation stripping gays of rights. HRC, NGLTF, and Stonewall Democrats endorsed this, supported this, and showed up at their events and praised them.
If LCR did that for Republican candidates, you would say that they “failed to demand equality and fairness for lesbians and gay men” and they would have no purpose “other than functioning as a fund-raising group for the GOP”.
What then, does that make Stonewall, HRC, and NGLTF? Even better, what does that make organizations like LCR who gag themselves from criticizing such practices?
P.S. “NOT surprising! NOT one person quibbled with the anti-conservative, anti-Republican agenda of GWB….” is a famously old shtick of Stephen’s. We went over all this repeatedly, months ago. MANY of us quibble with the non-conservative elements of GWB’s program; while praising (where appropriate) the conservative elements of GWB’s program. Stephen was/is unable to name a single conservative element of GWB’s program, even after being given many great suggestions, showing himself plain irrational on GWB.
NOT surprising! NOT one person quibbled with the anti-conservative, anti-Republican agenda of GWB.
That is because, as I pointed out in #17, the person making the accusation and outlining the alleged “agenda” is contradicting themselves repeatedly. You can’t bash Bush for spending too much on social welfare and also for cutting it; the one precludes the other.
Meanwhile, Stephen, do you also call John Kerry supporters “internalized homophobes”, “closet queers”, “theocrats”, and “bible-thumping queer bashers”, given that they supported a candidate who wanted to ban gay marriage permanently and strip gays of rights?
#29. The pretense that each party is equally bad on gay rights issues is a joke. To think that the party with anti-gay planks in its platforms does not have a significant role in shaping the context in which DADT and DOMA were signed is barely more than blindness. Leaving aside the question of whether John Kerry was engaged in political expediency or not, would John Kerry have had to even address the marriage issue if the President didn’t have his little press conference on an amendment to the constitution in the rose garden in the first place, making it an issue?
In other words, which party is more pro-active on the anti-gay agenda? If you can’t even be honest about this, I’m sorry for you.
The President, while you are mumbling on about John Kerry and (still) Bill Clinton, is cheering the work of Musgrave and a push for the amendment. This week. Now. And all you can do is talk about Bill Clinton. What about the members of Congress that put the DOMA ball in motion, only two of which, I think, are Democrats: REPS. BOB BARR (GA), STEVE LARGENT (OK), JIM SENSENBRENNER (WI), SUE MYRICK (NC), ED BRYANT (TN), BILL EMERSON (MO), HAROLD VOLKMER (MO), IKE SKELTON (MO)?
But that harks back to the past as well. The President cheers the prospect of an amendment and a woman that despises gay people today. Today. How stupid would LCR look if they were to cheer for this man? About as stupid as it would be to invoke John Kerry in a response.
#31. PORK ain’t social welfare. Please don’t pretend it is.
Spending can be up in general, with social welfare spending down. There are other items in the pie.
Leaving aside the question of whether John Kerry was engaged in political expediency or not, would John Kerry have had to even address the marriage issue if the President didn’t have his little press conference on an amendment to the constitution in the rose garden in the first place, making it an issue?
Fact is, Kerry did, Kerry was blatantly antigay, and you and yours still endorsed this, supported this, and showed up at his events and praised him. Same for Bill Clinton.
What are you upset about, Jimmy?
Is it that your bigots were forced out of the closet and made it obvious that they were lying when they said they supported gay equality and inclusion?
Is it that it was made obvious that you and yours, who claim that any gays who endorse, support, show up at their events, and praise antigay politicians are self-hating loathsome homophobes, are shown to be doing it yourself, to the tune of millions of dollars?
Fact is, Jimmy, when John Kerry was “now”, you and your fellow gay Democrats WERE cheering for him. Just like you cheered when Bill Clinton was “now”, just like you cheered when antigay bigot Tim Kaine won the Virginia governorship.
What’s even funnier is that you claim these people aren’t really bigots, they’re just doing it out of “political expediency”. That has two problems:
— It only works for Democrats
— It assumes that a politician, once in office, will act in a fashion completely contradictory to the will of the voters who put him there.
But it’s a good excuse for puppet Democrats like yourself who can’t call a bigot a bigot.
#34. Who wrote the legislation for DOMA and DADT? You make it seem like it isn’t the Red Party advancing the anti-gay agenda–so I can not take you at all seriously. For example, Clinton intended to move on the gays in the military issue: from where did his opposition come? Who pushed on the other side, resulting in a shitty compromise DADT policy? These things do not occur in a vacuum.
And I hope you get your amendment out of your President. But, please, by all means, DO NOT SPEAK ILL OF HIM or his very active anti-gay bigotry.
Drop scoop of drink mix in glass of water, stir vigorously, and drink your kool aid.
Done with you and your nonsense. But first, let me write your response: Bill Clinton, Jon Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Jon Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Kerry,Bill Clinton, Jon Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Kerry,Bill Clinton, Jon Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Kerry,Bill Clinton, Jon Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Kerry,Bill Clinton, Jon Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Kerry……
Let’s start with DATA. It was was pushed through by DEM Sen. Sam Nunn at at time when DEMs controlled both Houses of Congress and the President happened to be a “friendly” DEM. Yoo bad you can’t blame a Rethug. Unless of course, you are a Kool-aide slurpin’, self-hatin’, “internalized homophobe closet queer”. Sorry Jimmy, I guess I should be more sensitive, brecause that must be quite a burden to bear. I know that the pain of being a Jewish Nazi Dem apologist is difficult to deal with but you really need to work hard on being a member of the reality based community.
27: North Dallas Thirty makes legitimate points about anti-gay actions by the Democratic nominee, John Kerry. I see no point in calling Dan Blatt, North Dallas Thirty – and other conservative gay Bush supporters “self-loathing” and whatever nonsense. I disagree with Dan Blatt strongly about what Log Cabin Republicans should stand for (in particular, Log Cabin should speak out PUBLICLY against anti-gay campaigning when done by Republicans). However, to call Dan “self-loathing” because he takes a different stand on that point is nonsense. The identical debate goes on within Stonewall Democrats and within HRC about confronting anti-gay democrats.
National Stonewall Democrats – to their credit, when many democratic house members supported the FMA, the Stonewall Democrats posted the names of those democrats on their blog, Trailmix, and urged their readers to contact the Democratic FMA supporters directly. The “bi-partisan” HRC would never do something so courageous.
Thanks Bobo…. I didn’t think Sam Nunn was a Republican.
WRITING bills does not make them law, Jimmy. SIGNING them does. Nothing forced Bill Clinton to sign DOMA or DADT. Just like nothing forced John Kerry to support and praise stripping gays of rights via constitutional amendments.
Nothing, that is, other than pure antigay bigotry and hate — which they get away with because there are enough mendacious queers like Joe Solmonese and Elizabeth Birch who will gladly manipulate uninformed ones like you for the right amount of money.
#39. HAHAHAHA!!! You’re joking, right? Would there be anything to sign if they weren’t written in the first place?
Once the authors and sponsors of the bills foist them upon the public and push these bills through the legislative process, those in office operate in the context of public opinion, one which is not at all favorable to gay and lesbian people (and in certain places more than others). It is the likes of Musgrave and friends, with the hugs and smooches of the President, that continue to push the anti-gay agenda, that give a legitimate voice to it, and that use it to their advantage.
Are you saying that it is the sole responsibility of the President for the ridiculous amount of spending that has been going on? He did sign the budgets, no? So it must be his fault alone. Just his. Congress is totally off the hook?
Stop being such a caricature. And, I might add, stop make all sorts of assumptions about comment writers and stick to the points made. Otherwise you look like a total joke, masquerading as a serious person who is reduced to your guessing games and ad hominem attacks.
Are you saying that it is the sole responsibility of the President for the ridiculous amount of spending that has been going on? He did sign the budgets, no? So it must be his fault alone. Just his. Congress is totally off the hook?
Actually, Jimmy, that’s YOUR argument. Funny how you and your fellow liberals claim that Bush is solely responsible for spending, that Congress has nothing to do with it, but then claim that Clinton had nothing to do with DADT or DOMA, that it was solely Congress’s responsibility.
Furthermore, Jimmy, even if you admit that you are wrong, DADT was passed by Congress in 1993. What party controlled Congress in 1993?
Furthermore, as far as using DOMA to his advantage, why else was Clinton advertising the fact that he signed it on Christian radio stations as proof of his “defending American values”?
Poor, poor Jimmy. You really CAN’T admit that it was antigay and bigoted for Clinton to sign and promote DADT and DOMA, can you? You really CAN’T admit that it was antigay and bigoted for John Kerry to push stripping gays of rights via constitutional amendments, can you? Of course you can’t, because you and yours have been screaming all along that Democrats aren’t antigay, that they would never support antigay positions for political advantage, etc.
Sucks to have your hypocrisy and falsehoods shown, doesn’t it?