Gay Patriot Header Image

Gay Lefty Moonbat or Log Cabin Prez?

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 8:20 am - December 2, 2005.
Filed under: Liberals,Log Cabin Republicans

As I pack up and hit the road for the move to Charlotte, NC this morning, I thought it might be fun to post a short quiz for everyone to take.

The quiz is called “Gay Lefty Moonbat or Log Cabin Prez?” Below are quotes from either radical Gay Leftist “reporter” Rex Wockner or Patrick Guerriero, Log Cabin (Republican) President. As difficult as it may be, try to determine who said what….

Ready? Set? Go!

A “Yes, it’s ugly. Yes, the theocrats control the [Republican] party apparatus. Yes, the President has been a humongous disappointment, particularly his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.”

B – “There are days when I wonder if I will be able to stay sane these next four years. Not only is this truth-challenged primate our president, but 51 percent of the voters I walk by on the street reelected him. I just can’t come to peace with that. Three months later I still hurt, and I still cringe when I see his smirk on television.”

C – “I’m concerned about the misinformation around weapons of mass destruction. I want us to figure out an exit strategy that doesn’t leave Iraq in a civil war and leave terrorists to use that experience to bolster their activity around the world.”

D – “Hey, whatever it takes to get rid of the Bushies is A-OK with me. I just don’t understand why Bush’s outright lying about Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent “weapons of mass destruction” — and, um, his starting a WAR in order to seize or wipe out these nonexistent weapons isn’t enough reason to bring down the administration.”

E – “It would be easy for folks to run away from the battle going on in the Republican Party right now — a party that is too often controlled by theocrats.”

F“This current administration is very beholden to that subgroup of Republicans, so it kind of puts all gay Republicans in a tighter bind than they might have been in under a less-religious-right-co-opted administration, like Bush number one, when it wasn’t like this so much.”

Not as easy as you might have think given one of these men is supposed to be a Republican. The answers are:

Guerriero: A, C, and E; Wocker: B, D, and F

Recently, Guerriero has been on what appears to be a public relations blitz of the Gay Leftist Media. First this nauseating puff piece in the current issue of The Advocate. (Dan commented on the Advocate piece earlier in the week).

Not only did it expose The Advocate for its Gay Left Echo Chamber/Non-News Credentials… (What? No questioning of Patrick about the million-dollar defamation lawsuit from one of Log Cabin’s former high officials??)… but it cemented Patrick’s total abdication of Log Cabin’s ability to create positive change from within the Republican Party.

As my fellow blogger Dan says, calling Patrick a Republican is like putting a wig on a trucker and calling him a drag queen.

Oh, but I’m far from done…..

If the Advocate’s smoke-up-the-ass article isn’t enough to convince you that there’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing at Log Cabin, the “interview” of Patrick at 365gay.com by none other than Rex Wockner a couple days later, should seal the deal.

Twice Wocker commented how he and Patrick were alike. Here’s one of Rex’s gems:

“Well, look, you and I are not that different. I’m liberal on social issues and moderate on economic issues. I feel overtaxed. I haven’t voted for a Republican since 1980, and why is that? I guess social issues matter.”

Patrick crows these days about how he isn’t hanging around in GOP circles anymore. These are Patrick’s own words from the Advocate piece:

“I don’t need to be invited to every GOP cocktail party. And yes, I’ve been invited to fewer GOP cocktail parties since the decision. So be it.”

Excuse me, then what the hell are you doing? I also have it on very good authority that two important Republican Members of Congress that Log Cabin repeatedly cites as “friends” have never even heard of Patrick or former Political Director Chris Barron…. and they certainly have never seen them. Why? Because those GOP Members are at GOP cocktail parties. That’s where politics and influencing is done.

Patrick’s own words this week jarringly contradict with an article from February 2005 that Log Cabin currently still has on its own website. (Gay Conservatives To Work With GOP – ABC News)

The Log Cabin Republicans, a lobbying group for gay Republicans, is regrouping after an election proved a national consensus against gay marriage has broadened its legislative goals this year. The group is reaching out to conservative organizations and vowing to be a partner with the Bush administration.

If the Guerriero’s Moonbat Leftist Talking Points rhetoric of late is being a “partner” with the Bush administration…. Well, I’d hate to see an enemy. The fact is Guerriero and the Log Cabin board have sold out the very foundation of Log Cabin in order to become the new darling of the Gay Left. More proof is that Log Cabin’s largest single contributor has a long history of personally supporting the most radical of the liberals in the Democrat Party, including borderline socialist the late Senator Paul Wellstone. (More on the “follow the money” story in the next few days.)

My only question now is….. where is the home for true gay Republicans? Not an organization run by a liberal from Massachusetts. The United States as a whole has rejected that option twice in my lifetime.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

146 Comments

  1. Nothing better than hanging them with their own words – when is the board gonna get a clue about this bozo?

    Comment by buckeye bill — December 2, 2005 @ 10:09 am - December 2, 2005

  2. Amazing. Patrick doesn’t give a hoot (by his own words) about hanging with the GOP, supporting it, or persuading / lobbying it to change from within.

    How can he be in charge of a Republican organization?

    Why doesn’t he just become a Democrat?

    (Well, the second one’s easy. The sheer fun of taking a Republican group’s money, and of saying “I was a lifelong Republican but EVEN I find this Administration… blah blah blah…” and perhaps getting the admiration of some Andrew Sullivan groupie, is likely too strong for him.)

    Comment by Calarato — December 2, 2005 @ 10:57 am - December 2, 2005

  3. Anyone get the idea that Patrick is really more interested in peer approval, rather than becoming an effective advocate for gay issues?

    Comment by V the K — December 2, 2005 @ 11:25 am - December 2, 2005

  4. This raises the issue of the LCR Board and it’s oversight. As a member of LCR, I still don’t have the means of contacting nor loibbying any members of the board. Their names are listed on the web-site, but without telephone numbers or e-mail addresses….and the Board is not elected by the membership.

    Again this shows the importance of filling the political and national field directorates. It Patrick doesn’t want to “do the GOP cocktail circuit”, the new political director must. All the more reason that he needs to be a respected old-hand in GOP circles…not just in DC’s gay clubs. And a politically-vigorous field director is needed to both coordinate the existing chapters and clubs, and to energize new ones.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 2, 2005 @ 12:06 pm - December 2, 2005

  5. I’m quite active in the Party and unfortunately a lot of it is controlled by the religious right. Hell, here in Texas, LCR can’t even set up a booth at the Republican Convention. That isn’t moonbat talk, it’s just the way it is. Patrick was here in Texas recently and we talked about what’s going on and I can assure you he’s no cut and run lefty. He’s from Mass. and I’m from Texas so I’m sure that I’m more conservative on some things that he is but I don’t have any major problems with him. I think that we are aiming to get to the same place. Support and elect Republicans who are right on our issues and longer term have LCR “go out of business” because there is no need for a seperate gay Republican group.

    I urge all who read this blog to go check out your local LCR group. If it’s anything like ours in Dallas, you may be surprised at how conservative the membership is. If you are unhappy with the national office, just focus on local and state issues. I also suggest that you see if there is a national LCR board member near you, look them up, go have a drink or lunch and tell then what you think. Again, I think that you will be pleasantly surprised at the reception you get.

    Gay Republicans/conservatives need a place to gather and right now LCR is it. I assume that most who read this blog (excepting Ranting Trollweasels) are active in working to change the Party to be better that it is now. It’s the conservative party and we’re conservatives so we take the good and try to change the bad. LCR is the same way. Get involved and work to change what you don’t like.

    Comment by Bobo — December 2, 2005 @ 12:17 pm - December 2, 2005

  6. Re: #5 It’s ok to go to LCR to meet and greet other gay Republicans, and speak your mind about what you disapprove of. However, if you disapprove of what they’re doing, give them as little money as possible. I still go to events and meetings sometimes and I know MANY people there who feel as I do, but I don’t intend to renew my membership until they behave in a manner which I consider acceptable. IMHO, I don’t think they can even begin to heal the massive damage they’ve done to our inroads with the GOP until they change directors. That is the bare minimum it will take before I’ll consider supporting them again. They ought to do it as vocally and publicly as their endorsement decision but I won’t hold my breath.

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — December 2, 2005 @ 12:32 pm - December 2, 2005

  7. Wow, I’ve never looked at it that way before. I will no longer give to LCR.

    Comment by Hello Moto — December 2, 2005 @ 12:41 pm - December 2, 2005

  8. Bobo said: “If you are unhappy with the national office, just focus on local and state issues.”

    And keep giving money of course…that’s just how the national offices of all these gay groups want it… be a good cash cow and if you don’t like the leftism, “Are you as much an activist as I am? Shut up and work on local issues!”

    Bobo said: “Get involved and work to change what you don’t like.”

    Yeah – get rid of Patrick!!!

    I had been a Democrat for 20 years and even I figured out that Bush was better for gays in 2004, because he wasn’t actually homophobic (look at the tripling of AIDS funding, again) and his vigorous War on Terror was more good for gays, overall, than his FMA foolishness (that Kerry agreed with) was bad.

    If even I figured out that much, and Patrick couldn’t for the life of him… What would that make him? Does the phrase “freaking idiot” come to anyone else’s mind?

    Comment by Calarato — December 2, 2005 @ 12:42 pm - December 2, 2005

  9. Long story short: He is supposed to be a hardcore Republican, and he couldn’t figure out what even I (a patriotic centrist libertarian and ex-Democrat) figured out.

    Comment by Calarato — December 2, 2005 @ 12:59 pm - December 2, 2005

  10. Is anyone surprised that Patrick is on a public relations blitz? He has a $15 million dollar wrongful termination law suit filed by the former COO who was apparently terminated after questioning Patrick’s business ethics and handling of the money on his heels as well as an office manager who quit due to a “hostle work environment, illegal HR practices, improper financial practices and being told by Patrick that the board and specifically Chairman Brownson did not trust her.” They claim there is no merit to the COO’s law suit but what about the office manager, a straight black female, 20 year veteran of the US military who’s last assignment was under General Powell — Does her claim have no merit too? — Sounds to me like he’s going to need more then a PR Blitz.

    Comment by AnAtlBoiNow — December 2, 2005 @ 1:10 pm - December 2, 2005

  11. FYI, the LCR Chapters pay a flat fee to the national so joining your local group will not effect how much goes to DC either way.

    The $15M lawsuit, as far as I can tell, has about as much merit as the Ronnie Earl inditement of Tom Delay. Lots of noise, not much substance.

    Calarato, myself and pretty much every LCR member I know voted for Bush, warts and all. The President put us in a bad spot with the FMA foolishness and LCR had to respond. I think that Patrick took the least bad of the options available. You think that he is a “freaking idiot”. No problem, we can agree to disagree. I’m sure that we agree on a large percentage of the issues discussed here. How about we save the harsh stuff for the Ranting Trollweasels and moonbats?

    Comment by Bobo — December 2, 2005 @ 2:12 pm - December 2, 2005

  12. Jeez. What a thread. #5 has it exactly right. I don’t know where to start with most of the rest of you. You sound like Sally Field: “please GOP like me…” And the cocktail party invite reference by Patrick G. was a metaphor. To quote Zel Miller to Chris Matthews right after his amazing speech at the GOP convention: “do you know what a metaphor is?”

    If LCR had endorsed George Bush last year after he supported the FMA it would have been the laughingstock of the GOP. Nobody would have respected LCR….I can just hear Karl Rove: ” wow those suckers they still endorsed us after we used them as a wedge issue.” You make progress by being respected and fighting back. Not by getting hit in the stomach and then asking for another….. “please sir (GOP) may I have another.” That’s what LCR needs to do and its job is to do it within the Republican party. And that, unfortunately, requires tough talk and actions by the leadership of LCR. LCR also calls the LGBT community to task when its apprpriate. But attacking every stupid remark is pointlesss and counter productive. Has Bush not taught you that you need to “husband your political capital and spend it wisely?”

    As for the Advocate piece. Would you rather they did a slanted slam job on LCR which has happened so many other times in the “gay media?” It’s nice to get puff pieces every so often. It means the LCR message that you need advocates in both parties has respect and resonance in the gay community. That couldn’t be said 3 years ago. LCR was then seen as Uncle TOms inside and outside the GOP. I call that REAl progress and Patrick G. deserves a lot of credit for that.

    It comes down to this: if you want REAL progress for LGBT equality LCR needs to follow a carrot and stick approach. If you want to be a GOP ra ra go join the Young Republicans or other groups like that. Patrick G. wouldn’t be following the mission of LCR (fighting for LGBT equality) if he listened to all of these postings.

    Did Goldwater, Reagan, and W (yes W)not teach you anything? They all stood up on principle and didn’t care about being popular. That’s what LCR is doing and history will vindicate this strategy

    Comment by dom — December 2, 2005 @ 3:02 pm - December 2, 2005

  13. “Did Goldwater, Reagan, and W (yes W)not teach you anything? They all stood up on principle and didn’t care about being popular. That’s what LCR is doing and history will vindicate this strategy.”

    Have you recently been taking adult ed classes at LEBA (Left Exactly Bass-Ackwards) University?

    Standing on principle is what LCR / Patrick certainly are not doing.

    Seeking popularity – seeking cooing profiles from The Advocate, Rex Wockner, and colleagues at Planned Parenthood, HRC, and the National Socialist Gay and Lesbian Task Force – is what they have been up to recently.

    If they stood on principle, it would have to be Republican principles (that’s the ‘R’ in LCR, right?). What that would look like is:

    Having the guts to endorse a President – or at least refrain from disparaging a President – that even non-Republicans are able to see is better than the alternative (John Kerry) for gay people, and Americans in general, on balance.

    Doing it even if it means no cooing profiles from Rex or The Advocate.

    Comment by Calarato — December 2, 2005 @ 3:10 pm - December 2, 2005

  14. Maybe the “R” in LCR doesnt stand for Republican anymore and that’s why they, under Patrick’s direction, recently changed the organizations corporate name to LCR, Inc.

    Comment by AnAtlBoiNow — December 2, 2005 @ 3:18 pm - December 2, 2005

  15. Comment 11 –

    Bobo, either Bush is better for us (gays and Americans) than Kerry on balance… or, he isn’t.

    Which is it? You and Patrick can’t have it both ways.

    LCR didn’t just refrain from endorsing Bush… they attacked him outright.

    In other words: national LCR actually tried to elect somebody who would be worse for us (gays), on balance, than Bush is, as well as a non-Republican.

    I can’t see any integrity in that. What does national LCR stand for now? Neither Republican principles, nor gay ones, apparently.

    If the problem here is that you can’t agree Bush is better for us (gays and Americans), on balance, than Kerry: then why did you vote for Bush?

    Iin what warped universe does it make for any Bush voter to then say, “…But I worked for his opponent”? What wonderful principle is involved in that type of fence-sitting or two-facedness, that I should admire and look up to?

    It reminds me of nothing so much as Kerry’s “I was in favor of the war, before I was against it”.

    Comment by Calarato — December 2, 2005 @ 3:36 pm - December 2, 2005

  16. Sorry – “I voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it” – my mistake.

    Comment by Calarato — December 2, 2005 @ 3:39 pm - December 2, 2005

  17. I’ll say it yet again. We took Bush to task with a campaign against FMA and we WON. Not everyone supported that, but I did. When it came time to endorse or not, LCR should have based it on who was the best candidate for the country. To not endorse when most of the members (as the pro-LCR posters here have admitted) voted for Bush was hypocritical. I think most people would say that’s what “endorse” means. It means LCR as an organization believes he’s the best candidate overall, just as one’s vote means that for an individual.

    If LCR must base its decisions strictly on the basis of who is better on very specific positions on gay rights, it needs to just go ahead and become a Democrat organization. Being Republicans is what once separated LCR and showed it to have a broader vision rather than the tunnel vision of most special interest groups. When I was a member, I saw our role as making the party better on social issues, thereby a better party overall, because I feel the Republican vision as a whole is what this country needs. The latest anti-Republican rhetoric creates the impression that it’s more of a spy working behind enemy lines. The tactics lately demonstrate an attitude of being willing to sabatoge the party if they don’t get their way on our special interest platform, even in the face of a war in which Democrats are bordering on traitorous! It reeks of narcissism.

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — December 2, 2005 @ 3:48 pm - December 2, 2005

  18. #15 I think that you are arguing based on a false premise. LCR didn’t try to elect Kerry any more than someone who critizes the President on his failure to use the veto to control spending wants Howard Dean to be President. One can strongly disagree with a candidate on an issue(s) and still vote for them. As I said previously, I personally don’t know any LCR members who voted for Kerry. If they did, I too would be a bit sceptical of how Republican they really are.

    And please, you can call me names but don’t compare me with John Heinz-Kerry.

    Comment by Bobo — December 2, 2005 @ 3:51 pm - December 2, 2005

  19. Hmmm. Its odd I think, that I, a self-proclaimed independent would have no trouble at all distinguishing who quoted what. Perfect score, first time around. And I notice no one is actually challenging Guerriero’s observations. Perhaps its because he actually is a member of the “reality-based” community.

    Anyone get the idea that Patrick is really more interested in peer approval, rather than becoming an effective advocate for gay issues?

    Since his “peers” spend so much time criticizing him rather than helping him, I doubt it. And something you are overlooking is that he already has been an effective advocate for the dignity of gays and lesbians. It’s not his fault that so often these days in the GOP it falls on deaf or even hostile ears. Thats who makes up the Party right now.

    If Guerriero’s “peers” spent as much energy and time actually “working within” the GOP for change as they do criticizing him, then they would all be a lot farther along in achieving their goals. Instead they have become overly concerned with personalities rather than principles.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 2, 2005 @ 3:52 pm - December 2, 2005

  20. Bobo – Sorry man, I have not called you any names, but here is your false premise.

    You seem to think that because LCR didn’t endorse Kerry and distribute his buttons, they weren’t working for him.

    But LCR attacked Bush – the candidate whom (you imply) they secretly knew to be better for us.

    They validated the premises of their opponents. Refer to Bruce’s post, which gave us 3 (more recent?) examples.

    To validate the false premises of one’s opponents, is to work for their victory. Period.

    Patrick should have been going around telling people, “You better re-think your crazy Bush-hating thing, because the war on Islamo-fascism is good for gays”, plus some of the pro-gay stuff Bush has done.

    Instead, he did the opposite (failing even to just keep his mouth shut).

    This ties in with Comment 12’s question, “As for the Advocate piece. Would you rather they did a slanted slam job on LCR which has happened so many other times in the “gay media?” It’s nice to get puff pieces…”

    Part of LCR’s mission is to stand up for Republican principles in the gay community (as much as to stand up for gay principles in the Republican community).

    How do I know? – Because if it’s not true, why be Republicans at all? Why bother? Republican officials don’t listen, if they know they have zero common principles with you.

    The essence of the puff piece approach is: “Look how harmless and (gay-)normal these LCR guys are. They agree with our crazy lies about Bush! They aren’t going to challenge us! They won’t ask us to think!”

    In other words, to get the puff pieces, Patrick seemingly neutered himself and LCR.

    I really don’t have a dog in this race, again, except I am astounded at how little (as in nothing) Patrick has given me to look up to.

    Comment by Calarato — December 2, 2005 @ 4:33 pm - December 2, 2005

  21. Bobo,

    One point about the lawsuit that has never been explained is why was Lodge fired one week before his contract expired? If his performance was as awful as their attorney said it was to the Blade why not just not renew his contract?

    A Texas board member assured me that the board was not prepared to renew Lodge’s contract for another year. If any board members are reading this they must ask themselves why was this decision made days before the contract was up – they surely know that is was not going to be renewed! This simply does not pass the smell test and board members should ask why this was done.

    Why take a mean spirited slap (a week before Christmas no less!) and fire the guy? The National Office was closed anyway for the holidays!

    This was clearly a very poor decision (once again) from Patrick. DC is a work at will locale – why was Lodge not dismissed months before his contract was up? The only person who can explain this to the membership is Patrick. The board should insist he tell the members why he made this incredibly stupid decsision – perhaps there is something we or the board does not know – PG should tell us what it is.

    This action has put the national office in jeopardy and the legal team that is defending PG/LCR is NOT cheap. They are one of the finest firms in DC and they are most assuredly not doing pro bono work on a employment case!

    Patrick your silence is not helpful. And don’t say its an employment issue and you can’t comment on it. Tell us why YOU made this decision – what was the urgency and neccesity…….we are waiting.

    Comment by buckeye bill — December 2, 2005 @ 4:36 pm - December 2, 2005

  22. Comment #11

    “The $15M lawsuit, as far as I can tell, has about as much merit as the Ronnie Earl inditement of Tom Delay. Lots of noise, not much substance.”

    Bobo, on what basis can you say the lawsuit has no merit? What about the office manger who quit due to hostle work environment? Are you aware that the unemployment office granted her unemployment after they investigate the claim and determined she quit for good cause. Are you aware that LCR did not appeal the claim? On what evidence do you base your claim that the lawsuit has no merit? Enquiring minds want to know?

    Comment by AnAtlBoiNow — December 2, 2005 @ 4:49 pm - December 2, 2005

  23. It’s very interesting. In all of the postings I’ve read there’s been tons of stuff about LCR being disloyal to the GOP. But I haven’t heard any strategy recommendations for how we get the GOP to care more about protecting LGBT families. And sucking up to people and going to cocktail parties aren’t strategies. And guess what, there are good reasons for LCR to work with other LGBT organizations: to get anything done legislatively you need a coordinated strategy with BOTH parties. I have LGBT friends who have LOST their adopted chilfdren because of the hate and discrimination in many parts of this country. DO any of you care about this? Or are you going to spend time arguing about whether LCR supported Kerry (they didn’t) or how we get in good with GOP leaders (who aren[t going to help us unless we stir the pot and be in their faces). Get real here.

    Comment by dom — December 2, 2005 @ 5:28 pm - December 2, 2005

  24. Comment #14

    An LEF boardmember tells me under Patrick’s direction Log Cabin not only changed the organizations legal name to LCR, Inc. but the foundation (Liberty Education Forum) has offically severed it ties with LCR to allow the foundation to soliciate money from non-Republican sources.

    Comment by DoesAnyoneCare — December 2, 2005 @ 6:01 pm - December 2, 2005

  25. The problem is, Dom, is that the apparent strategy is to make nice with, ally with, and publicly support groups like HRC and NGLTF that are virulently antireligious, pro-abortion, and anti-Republican.

    You seem to be laboring under the impression that HRC and NGLTF are gay-rights groups. They are not. What they are is money-laundering agencies for the Democratic Party, run by mendacious queers like Joe Solmonese and Elizabeth Birch who are paid by the head for gay votes by the Democratic Party and who would tell queers that concentration camps are good for them. The goal of these organizations is to convince gays that in order to be gay, they too must be antireligious, pro-abortion, and anti-Republican.

    Straights have good reason to hate gays, Dom. HRC and NGLTF, which claim to speak for all gays, belittle their religion, their intelligence, their political views, and where they live — all in the name of “gay rights”. The years of hate speech spread by Matt Foreman, Elizabeth Birch, Hilary Rosen, and others are finally coming home to roost, and voters are making sure of the fact that these same people who launch vicious attacks on them are rebutted in kind.

    For gays to continue down the road of enabling these vicious haters, as Patrick is doing, is political and social suicide. What is needed for voices to stand up, to point out that sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with abortion, appeasement, antireligious bigotry, hate speech, and the numerous other things that the pseudo-“gay rights” organizations try to link to it — and Patrick has, by order, specifically prevented LCR as an organization from doing that.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 2, 2005 @ 6:34 pm - December 2, 2005

  26. #21 & #22 Methinks that you know a hell of a lot of details about the lawsuit. My bet is that it’s because you’re a party to it.

    #20 & #25 I think that this boils down to a judgement call on strategery. In Dallas, we just got done working quite a bit in coalition with some pretty far left (in my opinion) folks at Stonewall, LGRL, etc. to try to defeat the Texas anti-marriage amendment. On a personal level everybody got along pretty well but I know that on a political level we’re very far apart on most things. On that one issue we had common cause. Even though we got our butt kicked, I think that is was a good thing for LCR. A whole lot of folks in the community got to see that we aren’t a bunch of Jewish Nazis, selfish rich boys or whatever other cliche’ you want to throw out there. And I think that this has opened the eyes of many people who are naturally conservative and made them open to re-examining their anti-Republican bias. I see the work that the national office is doing as the same thing writ large.

    Lose the Uncle Tom tag and there a lot of natural, low tax lovin’, strong defence supportin’ gay conservatives out there who are ripe to becoming Republicans. We don’t get them and the political muscle that comes with their numbers if, like HRC et al, we just agree with everything the Party does, no matter how outrageous. Why does the Black community get screwed repeatedly by the DEMs? Because they support the DEM Party no matter what. Why does the Christian Right get pandered to? Because they will be good Republicans just so far. If we want to have the political power to change things our way, we have to get bigger and have our vote in play when it comes to certain core issues. This makes a lot of sense to me. I want to win and be right most of the time instead of being right all of time and not win.

    Comment by Bobo — December 2, 2005 @ 7:08 pm - December 2, 2005

  27. Dom, liberal groups demonize and villify Republicans for their anti-gay views. We don’t accomplish much by just being one more ranting voice. Like NDT said, a lot of their feelings about gays are formed by the stereotypes that these hateful liberal groups reinforce. The left will never reach most of them because their tactics are the suppression of opinions which differ from theirs rather than persuasion and logical debate. We can help to change their perception of gays by showing them that some of us care about this country too, that there is more to us than our sexual orientation, that we care about the things that they care about like family and country and the truth. To do that we have to be clearly separate from narcissist special interest groups and DEMONSTRATE that there is more to us than that. We can engage them in logical discussion about the myths that fuel their misimpressions of us instead of just dismissing them as hateful because they don’t agree or understand. That is an effective strategy.

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — December 2, 2005 @ 7:17 pm - December 2, 2005

  28. Would there really be any point in having a pro-government, pro-tax increase, pro-abortion Republican party?

    Comment by V the K — December 2, 2005 @ 7:40 pm - December 2, 2005

  29. I’m pro-choice. Can I still be a Republican if I support 2 out of 3?

    Comment by Bobo — December 2, 2005 @ 7:42 pm - December 2, 2005

  30. What does this “blog” do besides tear people apart like tired, old drag queens of the 70s? Does this “blog” do anything to advance the place of lesbian women and gay men in the Republican Party? Does it try to do anything but just plain bitch?

    Does it TRY anything productive? At least LCR does…

    Comment by jimmy — December 2, 2005 @ 7:43 pm - December 2, 2005

  31. #25. “Straights have good reason to hate gays…”

    There you have it.

    Comment by jimmy — December 2, 2005 @ 7:46 pm - December 2, 2005

  32. comment #26

    There you go again BoBo you still havent told enquiring minds why the lawsuit has know merit as you claim you only suggest that I am party to the suit which i assure you i am not. could it be youre either Patrick or the Chairman?

    Comment by AnAtlBoiNow — December 2, 2005 @ 7:49 pm - December 2, 2005

  33. Bobo, the Texas chapter is definitely conservative. The Minnesota Chapter is moderate. I’ve always been of the opinion that it’s important that the chapters welcome everybody.

    I was very impressed by your getting Grover Norquist to speak at your event.

    How is Kerry worse for gays than Bush? Kerry opposed the Federal Marriage amendments, went back and forth (as was his wont) on some state amendments.

    On the lawsuit, if there is merit to this, the courts will deal with it. I don’t think much of trying these things through blogs.

    If there are financial irregularities and the lawsuit has merit – I agree, Patrick shouldn’t work for LCR – but I’m not able to judge that – and in my opinion, I like to presume innocence on these things.

    I am totally opposed as an LCR member to firing Patrick for criticizing Bush and Rove exploiting anti-gay animus for political gain. If LCR doesn’t publicly stand up and be counted on this, who will?

    Comment by Eva Young — December 2, 2005 @ 7:50 pm - December 2, 2005

  34. Bobo,

    Methinks you avoid my question – yes or no – is it wise to fire someone one week before their contract is up? Remember your firm is closed and no business is being conducted…it is Christmas in DC – quite dead…. yes or no? Maybe their is more to this than an incomptent employee. On that note how long would YOU keep an incomptent COO – Patrick kept him over 8 months……I’m just sayin….

    Comment by buckeye bill — December 2, 2005 @ 7:51 pm - December 2, 2005

  35. Dom, in #12, actually you got it wrong, it’s Patrick’s who’s acting like Sally Field (except Sally can actually act). He’s desperate for the gay groups to like him.

    Log Cabin made itself the laughingstock by turning the non-endorsement into a media event. If they were truly Republicans, they would have issued a short release announcing the non-endorsement, “In light of the President’s support of the FMA, Log Cabin decided regrettably not to endorse his reelection despite our strong support of his leadership in the War on Terror.” This way they show some sadness in the decision which true Republicans would show (and not burn bridges to other Republicans). Not only that. They should have also refused to take press calls on this.

    I do hope you opposed HRC in 1996 for continuing to endorse Clinton after he signed DoMA.

    The problem gets worse as LCR actively (& gratuitously) bashed the president in the course of the campaign. (See e.g., the CNN article I link here.)

    And no, LCR doesn’t call the LGBT community to task when appropriate. Patrick has made it a firing offense for his employees to speak ill of other LGBT groups. Of course, they shouldn’t attack every “stupid remark” (as you put it), but he’s decided not to take issue with any “stupid remark.”

    Yes, it is nice to get puff pieces every now and again. But, this puff piece clearly shows that Log Cabin is more interested in currying favor with the gay groups than building bridges with the GOP, the crux of our differences with this organization. They got the puff piece by selling out their Republican principles.

    We’ve never said that need to go “ra ra” as you put it for the GOP. They just need to make clear that they’re Republicans and not slavishly following the lead of the left-wing gay groups.

    As to your last paragraph, it seems clear that Patrick’s primary interests is being popular. Indeed, he cares very much about that, being popular within gay circles. History won’t vindicate their strategy. History will show LCR to be pusillanimous people, so eager to get along with gay groups, they ignored their own purpose.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 2, 2005 @ 7:52 pm - December 2, 2005

  36. Bobo in #18. Steve May endorsed Kerry and then showed up in April at the Log Cabin Convention. And Log Cabin certainly acted like they were supporting Kerry, spending, for example, more time bashing Bush in a press statement ostensibly faulting Kerry for attempting to use the Vice President’s daughter as a wedge between the President and his base. What do you call attacking their own party’s nominee in the last weeks of the Presidential campaign while soft-pedaling their criticism of Kerry, the opposing party’s candidate?

    Dom, you do make a good point in #23 about how to get the GOP do more for gays. But you get the cocktail party strategy wrong. We’re not going there to stuck up, but rather to be cordial to our fellow Republicans and in being cordial make our case.

    And we’ve never said LCR shouldn’t work with other LGBT groups. I’ve said repeatedly they should work together on issues of common concern. The issue is that Patrick seems to have aped their rhetoric and policy proposals — and not just on gay issues.

    And Jimmy in #30, it’s obvious you don’t read this blog very much. Just on the topic of Log Cabin, I have offered suggestions where they might improve in my Reports from New Orleans (go to our April archives for those), you will see where I praised them on their successes even as I criticized. Just read the blog and you’ll see how often we post positive posts. Heck, I recently even praised NGLTF on their ads against the Texas marriage referendum.

    Eva, in #33, how can Guerriero expect to work with the president and his top political aide when he has so vociferously criticized them? That’s part of the issue here. And his latest statements show that he is not doing much to mend fences with the GOP.

    There’s been some great discussion here. And I wish I had more time today to better engage y’all.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 2, 2005 @ 8:07 pm - December 2, 2005

  37. … “Log Cabin made itself the laughingstock by turning the non-endorsement into a media event. If they were truly Republicans, they would have issued a short release announcing the non-endorsement, “In light of the President’s support of the FMA, Log Cabin decided regrettably not to endorse his reelection despite our strong support of his leadership in the War on Terror.” This way they show some sadness in the decision which true Republicans would show (and not burn bridges to other Republicans). Not only that. They should have also refused to take press calls on this. “…

    In this I agree with GPW. It was not the “non-endoresement”, but how it was handled that rankled many within the LCR…myself included. Rather than announcing the “non-endorsement” and taking an aggressively neutral stance towards Bush-Cheney 2004; they created the perception that they were throwing their tacit support to Kerry-Edwards. That was not their intent, but it was the result by how it was handled. And my own opinion was that the LCR shoud have been more aggressive in supporting LCR-friendly federal and state candidates by saying that the LCR was shifting it’s financial support and resources to those races and away from the National race. The LCR should have spent the now-famous $1,000,000 demonstrating their commitment to Republican principles in those races…and shown they were still “good Republicans” to the Party at the federal and state-levels. Instead they grabbed their balls, announced they weren’t going to play anymore, and stomped home in a huff.

    Rather than support federal and state races where they could have made a positive impression, Patrick went on a press-blitz that “implied between the lines” that he and the LCR Board (and it’s members who were NOT ASKED) were supporting KerryEdwards…or that was the impression that was left behind. And unfortunately they played into the hands of the homophobes within the Party, demonstrating that FMA and DOMA were “hot buttons” that would rile “The Gays” and scare the social-conservative into the voting booths.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 2, 2005 @ 8:29 pm - December 2, 2005

  38. #36 GPW, I totally agree that what Steve May did was wrong from the Republican point of view. He’s free to support who he likes but endorsing Kerry pretty much negates your Republican credentials. For me, he’s a Dem who hangs with a lot of Republicans until proven otherwise for quite a while otherwise. I also agree that if it was me, I would have been a lot more agressive in highlighting Kerrys faults on both gay and non-gay issues. That said, I still think that the fundamental strategy is correct. And, I don’t think that Patrick has gone over to the dark side. But if we all agreed on everything, who would bother to read the blog?

    Eva, do you know how we got Norquist to speak? We asked. When I was in DC earlier in the year meeting on SS reform he said that he was available to Log Cabin anywhere in the country. I don’t know if the offer is still good given the death of SS reform and the fact that he got major flak from the FRC, AFA and other social extremists. In fact one described him as a “homosexual rights activist”. Heh. But, I would be happy to get you the contact info for his people in DC if you wish. Go to dallas.logcabin.org, hit the email button and I’ll see it.

    Comment by Bobo — December 2, 2005 @ 10:02 pm - December 2, 2005

  39. Thanks Bobo. I’ll email you off line – it would be interesting to find out more about this.

    I wrote Norquist to thank him for speaking to the Texas chapter.

    Comment by Eva Young — December 2, 2005 @ 10:11 pm - December 2, 2005

  40. 35% of America — including you two queers — are the only ones to support this jerk (GWB, not Patrick). Patrick is a TRUE conservative and a REAL Republican. You GWB freaks are off on your own masturbating tangent. Thankfully, Patrick is a GENUINE conservative and Republican, even if you two dudes are theocrats and internalized homophobes. Hey, conservatism is a respectable position, but GWB is NEITHER a conservative NOR a republican. He’s an a**hole writ large. GWB is a BIG government theocrat who wants the Robertson, Dobson, Sheldon, et alia agenda to succeed. I suppose there will always be queers who will accept the theocratic agenda. SHAME on both of you.

    Comment by Stephen — December 2, 2005 @ 11:09 pm - December 2, 2005

  41. Danger, Ranting Trollweasel.

    Comment by Bobo — December 2, 2005 @ 11:14 pm - December 2, 2005

  42. Ted B./Charging Rhino, as usual, you nailed it.

    Bobo, while there were things that LGRL/Stonewall/etc. did that were helpful, remember what Ted’s (not Ted B./Charging Rhino) response to their attempt to argue (on legal grounds that could only be described as “wacky”) that the amendment would invalidate ALL marriages in Texas? Personally, I hold that responsible for at LEAST the amendment vote going over 60% against.

    Now, to Eva’s question:

    How is Kerry worse for gays than Bush? Kerry opposed the Federal Marriage amendments, went back and forth (as was his wont) on some state amendments.

    Bush doesn’t get millions of dollars in cash and free publicity promoting him as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” to other gays and voters. Bush doesn’t stand up and say he supports “full inclusion” and “equality”, but then argue that both are “wrong”and that banning them is “doing the right thing”. That’s the simple explanation.

    On a deeper level, what we need to realize is that the reason the FMA battle gets so much attention is it’s because it’s a desirable fight for gay activists, not because it’s a relevant one. While the FMA is a disgusting concept, one has to remember what it takes to pass a Federal constitutional amendment — a two-thirds vote of the entire membership of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states. In contrast, state constitutional amendments, as we’ve seen, often can be done by simple petition and majority vote or legislative vote.

    Logic would suggest that, if you want to stop alterations to fundamental law, that you focus your activities at the state level — after all, that is where both Federal and state constitutional amendments must be ratified. However, that would require spending money outside the Beltway and talking with icky voters, and such a thing is antithetical to the pampered gay elite, who would rather play expensive lobbyist in Taj Mahal headquarters.

    In short, gay rights organizations, LCR included, spend millions of dollars fighting something that will never likely happen due to sheer inertia, and pittances fighting battles on the state level, where the issue will ultimately be decided and is being decided on a regular basis.

    Think of what you could do, Eva, if instead of spending a million dollars on slick TV ads and airtime, LCR National had pushed even a tenth of that money back into your fight against Minnesota’s amendment, or our fight here in Texas. While “gay rights activists” waste time dilly-dallying in DC trying to get on Senators’ calendars, the voters who elect them — and to who those Senators will ultimately respond — are, due to their not understanding the issues involved, sending a clear message that gay rights will not be tolerated.

    You don’t need to lobby politicians if you take care of the voters who elect them first.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 3, 2005 @ 1:03 am - December 3, 2005

  43. In #28 VtheK asks: “Would there really be any point in having a pro-government, pro-tax increase, pro-abortion Republican Party?” I would ask whether we want an anti-equality, anti-civil rights Republican Party. A lot of you are forgetting that the Republican Party was founded in great part on the principle of human equality and dignity.

    GayPatriotWest, you refer in #35 to “…building bridges with the GOP”. That’s like the Alaskan bridges to nowhere! Please name someone among those who control the party apparatus, the White House, the House and the Senate who might be willing to take up the agenda for equality.

    And to Dom in #12, please, oh please, do not put Barry Goldwater and George W. Bush in the same league on anything. Senator Goldwater to the core of his soul believed in the freedom and dignity of individuals.

    Comment by Jack Allen — December 3, 2005 @ 1:10 am - December 3, 2005

  44. Please name someone among those who control the party apparatus, the White House, the House and the Senate who might be willing to take up the agenda for equality.

    There are none, Jack, and there is a good reason why.

    You see, the “agenda for equality”, as pushed by the “gay rights” groups like HRC, NGLTF, and others, and silently agreed by LCR National, consists of the following:

    — Unlimited abortion and the removal of parental notification

    — Denouncing religion as “superstition” and of the religious as bigots and theocrats

    — Bashing of conservative voters as “ignorant”

    — Calling the right of voters to vote on laws as they see fit “immoral”

    — Calling Democrats who support antigay state constitutional amendments and Federal legislation stripping gays of rights “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” for opposing gay marriage

    — Calling Republicans who oppose antigay state constitutional amendments and support existing partnership rights for gays “antigay” and “gay-hating” for opposing gay marriage

    — Characterizing Republicans as wanting to exterminate all gays

    That is the “agenda of equality” that “gay-rights” groups are pushing, that Patrick Guierrero has made criticism of grounds for firing an LCR employee — and that you wonder why you can’t find any Republicans to support.

    Chew on that for a while and see if you can understand why.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 3, 2005 @ 1:31 am - December 3, 2005

  45. I’m uneasy with phrases like “fighting for our rights” and “fighting for equality.” That’s the language of the Left.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — December 3, 2005 @ 2:38 am - December 3, 2005

  46. Well said, Conservative Guy in #45. I’m for fighting for freedom, fighting to live our lives as we choose without state interference.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 3, 2005 @ 2:54 am - December 3, 2005

  47. Yeah, LCR is sooo effective that the FMA made it out of committee once again a few weeks ago, thanks to a tie-breaking vote by LCR hero Arlen Specter.

    Comment by Hello Moto — December 3, 2005 @ 3:04 am - December 3, 2005

  48. Bobo in #38, if you think the strategy is correct, how do you address Patrick’s attacks on the president the Bruce references in this post and which I reference in my previous posts? And his own acknowledgment that he doesn’t get invited to GOP gatherings. I was at the 2005 convention and there were exactly as many people there as were at the convention in 1998. Maybe their membership is up, but it didn’t seem that as many people were active as previously. And the 2005 was in a more popular vacation destination (pre-Katrina New Orleans) than the 1998 one (Dallas).

    Let’s see, Stephen in #40, the president’s poll numbers have climbed and are well above 35% now. We’re not the ones calling people names. As to Patrick’s conservatism, well, genuine conservatives believe in smaller government. Alas, the president fails on that score. But, whereas Patrick (as Conservative Guy noted in #45) talks the language of the left, we conservatives talk about freedom, liberty and equal justice under law (as don’t use the more abstract term, “equality”).

    Jack, in #43, the Republican Party was founded on freedom. As to building bridges to the GOP, when I was president of Log Cabin of Northern Virginia, we built ties to Tom Davis, who subsequently joined the House GOP leadership. Indeed, when he came to one of our club’s meetings, I was the first Log Cabin president to introduce a member of that leadership to a Log Cabin gathering. You build bridges by working within the party apparatus and talking to these leaders at cocktail parties and fundraisers — places where I first introduced myself to that leading Northern Virginia Republican.

    And ND30 does a great job in #44 explaining why there aren’t many Republicans who support Log Cabin’s agenda.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 3, 2005 @ 3:14 am - December 3, 2005

  49. “How is Kerry worse for gays than Bush? Kerry opposed the Federal Marriage amendments, went back and forth (as was his wont) on some state amendments.”

    That’s a very charitable representation of Kerry’s view!

    Kerry’s own words from the third (I think) Presidential debate were that he and President Bush have the exact same view on all gay-related issues. Do the math.

    But, you asked how Kerry is worse. I can give several more direct answers.

    No one can stab gays in the back like a Democrat. Bill Clinton gave us both “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Still Pursue”, and DOMA.

    In short, Democratic Presidential candidates, unlike Bush, are deceptive toward gays and lesbians, in (mis)representing themselves as pro-gay, then accomplishing the exact opposite agenda when in office.

    But again, I digress.

    The real, most important answer about how Kerry is worse for gays than Bush is simple. Kerry would lose the War on Terror.

    Fighting Islamo-fascism is a pro-gay cause. Eva, when the Islamo-fascists succeed in proclaiming Sharia in Washington DC, or in Amsterdam, they will kill you.

    Don’t try to kid yourself or anyone else that Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc. (whom Bush does NOT support, by the way – just look at the appointment of John Roberts to the Supreme Court) are in any way the moral equivalent of the Islamo-fascists.

    Defending America from the Islamo-fascists, vigorously, is pro-gay.

    And Mr. Flip Flopper Opportunistic “It’s just a question of getting Osama” Kerry didn’t, and doesn’t, cut it. He has been on the wrong side of every security question in his public career.

    Comment by Calarato — December 3, 2005 @ 3:49 am - December 3, 2005

  50. Oh, and while I’m at it:

    – Private Social Security accounts are pro-gay. The money one would pay to a private account could be left to one’s partner, stepchildren, or the HRC for that matter. The money one pays into today’s Ponzi scheme for Social Security, obviously cannot be.

    – Tax cuts are pro-gay. No one is punished more under current tax codes than (legally) single professionals who work long hours. More broadly, anything that helps America be freer and more prosperous is inherently pro-gay. Now, it’s true that Bush has it only half-right here (utterly failing to bring down spending). I’ll take half-right over none-right.

    – A profit-driven, non-socialized medical system is pro-gay. All the new drugs of the last 20 years, for breast cancer as well as AIDS, sure as heck weren’t produced by the Canadian, British or German systems, or by any public research or socialized medicine.

    Long story short: All aspects of existence are, in reality, integrated to one another. If you want to see who is pro-gay or what is good for gays, there is a big picture to look at. The conception of “gay rights” advocated by the Left gay activist groups is incredibly parochial, narrow and self-serving (of them), and thus inevitably mistaken.

    Comment by Calarato — December 3, 2005 @ 4:09 am - December 3, 2005

  51. Final note – Why am I the one saying all this? Why isn’t Patrick Guerriero, a supposed Republican?

    Comment by Calarato — December 3, 2005 @ 4:15 am - December 3, 2005

  52. hey calarato, patrick g has been talking about a lot of these issues. but so many posters on this blog seem to be more concerned about eating one of our own that many have failed to notice this.

    I also am dismayed that I hear very little discussion on this blog about how we protect LGBT families. Most of you seem more concerned about trashing LGBT leaders and LCR. Instead of mouthing off why don’t you get involved? If you think LCR is so bad get involved and share your concerns and views.

    Comment by dom — December 3, 2005 @ 10:33 am - December 3, 2005

  53. Some of us feel that the protection of “LGBT families” includes things like protecting the quality of education for LGBT families by promoting school choice, protecting the economic security of LGBT families through lowering taxes, protecting the property rights of LGBT families by restraining overzealous government regulators, protecting the physical security of LGBT families by strong law enforcement and vigorous military defense of our country.

    Perhaps you should work on getting the supposedly pro-LGBT families Democrat party to adopt those positions instead.

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2005 @ 10:52 am - December 3, 2005

  54. Unfortunately, in return for getting lip-service to the concerns of LGBT, we are asked to align ourselves with a political party (the Democrats) that favors teachers unions over parents and students, that favors criminals like Tookie Williams over victims of criminals, that wants us to surrender to terrorists in Iraq and compromise our sovereignty to the corrupt and abominable UN, that favors bureaucrats and regulators over the needs of ordinary citizens, and constantly asks families to “cut back just a little more” so that taxes can be increased to feed Government (which must never, ever be asked to make do with less.)

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2005 @ 10:57 am - December 3, 2005

  55. #47 – Well, based on the fact that two supposed “LCR friends” who are Members of the US House do not know who Patrick is…. I even wonder if Specter has ever met him?

    PS — Specter=Republican makes me laugh.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — December 3, 2005 @ 10:59 am - December 3, 2005

  56. NDT #42 You’re right, it was a bad move. When myself and other LCR members worked the polls on Election Day we had numerous voters say that they weren’t even going to vote until they got calls saying that the Amendment would ban all (not just gay) marriage and it really pissed them off.. This just illustrates a major problem for the Left. They think that they are smarter than the rest of America and therefore can and need to fool and confuse the proles into doing the “right thing”.

    GPW #48 Patrick saying that he doesn’t “get invited to as many cocktail parties” is more of a rhetorical device. Access is down and many Republicans, inlcuding many posters here, are pissed but LCR is not shut out. I’m no DC insider by any strech, but earlier this year I was with Patrick when we met with Frist, Sununu and Norquist. It’s possible that they are the only Republicans that will meet with LCR but I doubt it. And I suspect that they aren’t meeting with HRC or the rest of the Gay Left. Patrick was more aggressive in his comments about the President than I would have been, but I haven’t won 5 elections and do this sort of work professionally. I believe that Patrick is a good Republican who wants to get to the same place I do so I have to trust his intelligence and skill to get the job done. You guys don’t but I think that you are seriously mistaken if you characterize Patrick as some sort of Liberal/Left tool who just wants to be popular with the HRC/Gay Establishment.

    #47 Hello Moto To use your style… The HRC/Gay Establishment is sooo effective that the FMA made it out of committee once again a few weeks ago, despite having 50 to 75+ times more money than LCR and fancy new buildings just down the street from the Capitol. Their efforts, much like lame snarky comments, appear to be just so much hot air and wasted time.

    Calarato #49 & #50 You stole all of my Fie, fie!!! on Kerry and the Gay Left talking points! Now all I can do here is plagairize you. Seriuosly, I’ve heard LCR leadership pretty much take the same position on your 3 points in #50. Patrick has decided that explicitly pointing out your conclusion is not OK for LCR leadership. I guess that makes it our job and, like you, I’m happy to do it.

    Comment by Bobo — December 3, 2005 @ 12:15 pm - December 3, 2005

  57. Comment by Patrick (Gryph) – “I notice no one is actually challenging Guerriero’s observations. Perhaps its because he actually is a member of the “reality-based” community.”

    Gryph – Normally I don’t read or respond to your comments, because you generally show a “one-off” type of commenting behavior in this forum – telling others what you think, but not coming back (apparently) to read their responses to you or learn anything – Not engaging in dialogue.

    In this instance, though, I just happened to read the remark and I feel like responding.

    The reason no one is challenging Guerriero’s observations is because they are self-evidently dumb and false.

    And because they have been discussed in other, more appropriate threads many times. (The subject of THIS thread is Guerriero per se.)

    That makes your remark, in itself, really false and dumb.

    Comment by Calarato — December 3, 2005 @ 3:39 pm - December 3, 2005

  58. P.S. And since you seem to want to take silence as assent, let me make it explicitly clear that my silence about the remainder of your remarks is NOT assent to them.

    Based on your past track record (again), plus the dumbness of your first remark in comment 19 that I did respond to, I calculated that I needn’t bother with the remainder of your remarks. Just so you know and don’t try to take my silence the wrong way.

    Comment by Calarato — December 3, 2005 @ 3:45 pm - December 3, 2005

  59. Bobo in #56, you say “You guys don’t but I think that you are seriously mistaken if you characterize Patrick as some sort of Liberal/Left tool who just wants to be popular with the HRC/Gay Establishment.” Well, if he’s not a Liberal/Left too, he needs to do a better job of showing his commitment to the party. Just go to the website and see how infrequently he praises the party. For example, recently, he couldn’t make up his mind about supporting the confirmation of Judge Roberts as U.S. Chief Justice. Log Cabin’s statements on this were so banal, so milquetoasty, as if they’re going out of his way to say nothing to avoid risking offending anyone.

    I’m delighted that he arranged meetings with those leading Republicans. That is certainly a good sign. But, we want to know what he is doing criticizing the president so regularly in public statements to gay media — and sidling up to the left-wing groups which dominate the gay establishment. And this was the primary issue of this post and our criticism this week.

    If Patrick were a true Republican, in talks with the gay media, he would try to correct the false impression in that media of the Republican president as an anti-gay demon instead of playing to their prejudices.

    Dom in #52, here’s our challenge to you. We check the Log Cabin website regularly and often google his name, please provide us links where Patrick talks about “these issues” (i.e., conservative ones).

    As to getting involved, I tried that, but found that the national office only listened to club leaders, no matter how successful, who agreed with me. I have tried that and been met by silence, ostracism — AND name-calling behind my back. And now my interest primarily writing.

    When you say we trash LGBT leaders and LCR, you indicate you don’t read this blog very much. We criticize them and more often than not offer suggestions for improvements. Just check our archives, particularly our Log Cabin archives. And given my comment in the paragraph above (that my interest in primarily writing), you will see how frequently (in my posts) I have praised Log Cabin.

    And I just don’t see what Log Cabin has done to, as you put it, “protect LGBT families.”

    And Patrick (Gryph) as to Patrick Guerriero’s comments, they’re just so ludicrous and off base, drawn from Democratic and left-wing talking points and not based on the reality of the GOP — or the president’s record. The real point is that he, who calls himself a Republican, is repeating those talking points.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 3, 2005 @ 4:04 pm - December 3, 2005

  60. Let’s look at some of the things usually included when the gay left is “fighting for our rights” and “fighting for equality”:

    Hate Crimes Legislation: If someone breaks two windows and spray paints “I hope you die” on the garage door at my neighbor’s house, then comes next door and breaks two windows and spray paints “I hope you die” on the garage door at my house, he’s committed exactly the same crime against two different victims, right? But if he’s apprehended and says he vandalized my neighbor’s house because they’re Republicans, and he vandalized my house because I’m gay, under hate crimes legislation we have two different crimes with two different penalties. There is no equality there. Hate crimes legislation says that we are different because of who we are. In this instance it also places an inappropriate emphasis on motives, but that’s typical of liberalism emphasizing feelings and intentions over actions and results.

    Employment Discrimination: If I want to hire all Mexicans to work at my Mexican restaurant, or only women with big tits to work at my Hooter’s franchise, or only cute young gay men to work at my gay bar, that should be my prerogative as a business owner. Same thing if I think it’s best for my business to hire all men, all women, all young people, only people between 30 and 50, all Jewish people, all Christians, all black people, all white people, or all Lesbians. Government should not be involved in these hiring decisions. Most businesses want the best qualified candidate regardless of color, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. But if they think it gives their business an advantage to do otherwise, government should not be interfering.

    Abortion rights: Somewhere back before my time the gay rights movement and the feminist movement got mixed up together. I’ve never understood why gay rights groups take the full-throttle abortion position.

    Housing Discrimination: Just like employment discrimination, if I want to rent apartments only to families with children, only adults without children, or have an apartment community that’s all Latino or all Vietnamese or all white or all black, or all gay or all straight, the government should not be getting involved. I should be able to do what I think is best for my business.

    AIDS funding: Prostate cancer kills more American men every year than AIDS does. When you consider the number of people with heart disease and all forms of cancer, and who die every year from heart disease and cancer, compared to the number with HIV/AIDS, the AIDS funding is way out of proportion. I’ve lost more than twice the number of friends and relatives to cancer that I have to AIDS. The top five causes of death in this country are heart disease, cancer, emphysema, asthma, and pneumonia. AIDS isn’t even in the top 15. Yet the U.S. government spends more money per patient on AIDS than any other disease. In 2002, it was $13 billion on AIDS.

    Gay marriage: This fight, in spite of all the money poured into it, has achieved more anti-gay marriage state laws and state constitutional amendments than anything else, some of which have language restricting or nullifying even civil unions. Sure, when my partner died, it would have been nice if I could have rolled his 401k into mine instead of being forced to liquidate the account and pay the tax. As for funeral arrangements, I was in such deep grief and shock that I was glad when his parents stepped in and wanted to take that responsibility. Anyway, much can be accomplished with wills and power of attorney, and also working on things like changing tax laws and persuading companies to offer same-sex partner benefits. The fight for gay marriage has done gay couples more harm than good nationally, but again we’re not supposed to judge liberals by their results–only their good intentions.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — December 3, 2005 @ 4:37 pm - December 3, 2005

  61. GPW #59 You have a point. Perhaps he should throw some red meat to us red state folks but in total I don’t think that he’s nearly as bad/liberal/left as some here believe him to be.

    Comment by Bobo — December 3, 2005 @ 4:48 pm - December 3, 2005

  62. Comment 52 – dom – Pray tell, who are you to assume I’m not involved? – As for what anyone says in this thread: it is a discussion thread, about one Patrick Guierriero, is it not?

    Comment 56 – Bobo said to me, “Patrick has decided that explicitly pointing out your conclusion is not OK for LCR leadership.” Bobo, that’s precisely what builds the case that Patrick is out to gain popularity with the Left gay groups, at the cost of neutering LCR.

    General comment, on Re-reading the thread –

    There seems to be a concern or set of false premises that some of us object to Patrick Guierriero over his willingness to criticize Bush over the FMA matter.

    I dont. I hate the FMA. I slam Bush for the FMA. (Clear?) And for other matters, like not controlling the borders, creating massive new government entitlements and abjectly failing to control ‘pork’ spending.

    What’s wrong with Patrick is that:

    (1) for the sake of ephemeral popularity and cooing puff pieces (apparently), he actively validates certain OTHER criticisms of Bush that arise from demonstrably false and destructive Left premises. Which is what the leader of a Republican group should not do.

    (2) for the sake of ephemeral popularity and cooing puff pieces (apparently), he orders LCR not to counteract the crazy, false and destructive premises being spread by gay Left groups.

    Can anyone deny either of those?

    By the time we let Patrick do (2), we may as well not be Republicans, conservatives, or (in my case) patriotic libertarians at all.

    As Dan said, “We’ve never said that [LCR needs] to go “ra ra” for the GOP. They just need to make clear that they’re Republicans and not slavishly following the lead of the left-wing gay groups.”

    I’m sure NOT going to add LCR to my list of involvements, while someone like Patrick is the “leader” taking credit for my contribution, or claiming he speaks for me.

    Comment by Calarato — December 3, 2005 @ 4:51 pm - December 3, 2005

  63. Comment 60 –

    Interesting analysis, CG!

    I may not be with you 100% on every detail, but one thing I can tell you: on the day they figure out how to screen for gay fetuses in the womb (based on hormones, brain scan, maybe some genes, etc.) so parents can abort them, the pro-abortion gay Lefties will be in for one rude awakening.

    Comment by Calarato — December 3, 2005 @ 5:07 pm - December 3, 2005

  64. Dan in entry #46 you wrote, “I’m fighting for freedom, fighting to live our lives as we chose without state interference.” Amen! Everything I’ve personally done in politics has been dedicated to that. So, Dan, how then can you be so supportive of a Republican Party that rolls over, plays dead, sits, begs, barks or whatever the likes of James Dobson, Allan Keyes, Donald Widmon, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer and the other theocratic wackos demand?

    I agree with you that we’re seeking freedom, liberty and equal justice under the law. When I use the term “equality” it’s nothing more than shorthand for those goals. My sister and her partner live in Nebraska, where, thanks to “conservatives” — especially the Catholic church and its deep pockets, “equal justice under the law” is nothing more than a lie carved into the marble above a door to the state capitol building.

    I respect the efforts you made in Virginia to build bridges, but what has Tom Davis done to promote “equal justice under the law”? It’s not his fault, but the Virginia Republican Party is one of the most anti-gay rights GOP groups in the country (and I’m not talking just about same-sex unions).

    Bruce, in entry #55, are you really sure you want to question whether Senator Arlen Specter is a Republican? Please don’t support the goal of James Dobson and others on the far-right who want to fold up the “big tent” and limit the Republican Party to those who conform with the theocrats’ thinking.

    Comment by Jack Allen — December 3, 2005 @ 5:59 pm - December 3, 2005

  65. And Patrick (Gryph) as to Patrick Guerriero’s comments, they’re just so ludicrous and off base, drawn from Democratic and left-wing talking points and not based on the reality of the GOP — or the president’s record. The real point is that he, who calls himself a Republican, is repeating those talking points.

    The dominant force in the GOP today is the religious right. I just don’t see how you can deny that. They control the state parties, they control the national agenda, almost everything. Thats not a talking point. Thats reality. And the particular flavor of the religious activists are not a generic blending of Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church either. They belong to a particular branch of Evangelicals called dominionists. While calling them “theocratic” is a bit over the top, these people really are not interested in a balanced democratic and limited system of government.

    However, if you want to excommunicate Patrick as a Republican, fine. Yet the growth of the LCR membership under his tenure is undeniable. Consider whether or not his views, no matter what you think of them, are more representative of LCR than yours are. Perhaps its time to consider whether or not the majority of LCR members are more “liberal” than you are comfortable with. They do not seem to have the problems with Patrick that are so frequently mentioned here.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 3, 2005 @ 6:41 pm - December 3, 2005

  66. Ah yes, that’s right, all Republicans are Dominionists.

    Read that report and you’ll figure out something….those claiming that it’s undeniable that Dominionists control the Republican Party have to do a lot of quote-chopping, editing, and taking things completely out of context in order to make their point.

    You have to wonder if they don’t start with the conclusion, then alter reality to suit their beliefs.

    Meanwhile, Gryph, do you realize that, if you worked for LCR, you would have been fired for your posts criticizing Bevan Dufty and Tom Ammiano concerning their actions against the Iowa?

    The more I read about this, the less comprehensible these actions become. Why put so much effort into combating an imaginary threat like Dominionism, but silence those who speak out against those who try to use gay rights to legitimize their antimilitary bigotry and treating something that represents the service of thousands of Americans like dirt?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 3, 2005 @ 7:43 pm - December 3, 2005

  67. Hey, I’m all in favor of tax cuts, but one has to cut spending as well. GWB has outspent LBJ, meanwhile cutting taxes so that our next generation will be stuck with a horrendus bill. Is that conservative? If you’re GWB, balanced budgets are an anachronism.

    This war on a nation that had NO WPD, no intent to build them, and wasn’t a part of al Qaeda. Excuse me, but OBL was in Afghanistan, NOT Iraq. Now the Iraqis by a wide margin want us the hell out. They can’t decide whose done more damage: GWB or Hussein. Now there’s no exit strategy, and no plan to win (if ever there was). Meanwhile, we spend $1.7 billion/week for this fiasco, but can’t provide our service people with sufficient armor. The whole mess is worse than a fiasco. Maybe that’s why public support for Iraq no longer exists.

    Then there’s Medicare Part D. It took an idiot to come up with this bizarre Republican plan. Sure, it benefits insurance and pharmacuetical companies, but the beneficiaries are screwed. What it will do to the already over-burdened federal deficit is anyone’s guess. But hey, at least big industry gets its rewards. Is that what conservatism is all about?

    What about the bailout for the Petroleum industry? Did it really need a government bailout? Not according to their latest financial statements! But hey, GWB was a loser oilman. Guess he needs to reward the profiteers and show them he isn’t a loser after all.

    How about the Alaskan bridges to nowhere? One of the biggest government programs ($258 BILLION) seems such a small price to pay to put people back to work. Is that a conservative program? But $58 MILLION to rehab New Orleans (much less money to have rehabed the levees) is financial irresponsibility. F**k them black people if they couldn’t get out and afford an Embassy Suite.

    Let’s not forget the GWB Amendment to the Constitution. In America, equality use to mean equality, but not under GWB. In his VISION (both political and religious), equality is only for US, not THEM. That warm kiss on Musgrave was obscene. But hey, this is GWB’s Amerika, not our Founders! Robertson, Sheldon, Dobson, et alia were besides themselves. After all, this is a Christian nation, right? Tell that to Madison, Paine, Jefferson, et alia.

    Free enterprise use to be the backbone of the nation. Tell that to GWB, whose Medicare Part D, failure to approve Plan B, and other non-scientific meltdowns don’t fit his agenda. After all, despite all the evidence to the contrary, Gawd created the heavens and earth in SIX days. That’s why almost all scientists have resigned under GWB. No doubt the Lord spoke to GWB personally. Kansas is still in the woods. At least Dover, PA, told the religious fanatics to take a hike.

    Of course, the Constitution and the importation of the Geneva Conventions are another myth. Gawd bless the Patriot Act, in which native Americans are held without habeus corpus. “Militant combatants” are tortured and many have died. Hey, this Amerika, isn’t it? GWB is president. Even though his poll standing is about 35% (and IS NOT going up), even scared Americans are more frightened of our loss of constitutional rights than whatever the hell the Islamofascists can do. If not GWB, there’s always Cheney, to scare the hell out of us.

    And lest we forget, DADT was a Clinton scheme. But now that it’s become known that fags are the only ones who can speak Farsi, let’s keep them until this WAR is over. We can eject them then. Sure, they are helpful in CERTAIN situations, but queers don’t belong in the military UNLESS they are useful and don’t mind dying for GWB’s irrational cause. Hush, and don’t let it be known that the Monterey Institute is FULL of queers. We’ll get rid of them when the time is right for US.

    Queers for GWB? At least Patrick had the guts and fortitude to say “Bullshit.” GWB isn’t right for Amerika. And he sure as hell isn’t right for queers.

    Comment by Stephen — December 3, 2005 @ 11:06 pm - December 3, 2005

  68. Stephen makes Kevin sound reasonable.

    Comment by John — December 3, 2005 @ 11:36 pm - December 3, 2005

  69. Let us explain a basic economic concept to you, Stephen; if cutting the price on something means you sell more of it, you can cut price while INCREASING profit. This is how Wal-Mart is systematically kicking the butts of retailers who operate like Democrats, whose only solution for anything is to raise the price.

    Tax cuts do exactly the same thing. The fastest way to make more money in this country is to invest it in capital improvement that allows you to make more and better product (if you’re a business) or in business so THEY can invest it in capital improvement (if you’re an individual). However, if doing so is punished by vastly-increased taxes, people aren’t going to invest for return because it gains them nothing; they’re going to put it in tax-shielded investments like — ironically — tax-free government bonds.

    If you want to see how effective tax cuts are in stimulating the economy, consider the fact that the Clinton collapse that began in 2000 and accelerated in the first quarters of 2001 reversed itself within months — and that includes the economic impact of 9/11. Right now, the economy is growing at incredible rates and adding jobs despite having weathered (excuse the puns) two unprecedented natural disasters within a month of each other. Yet Stephen and his fellow Democrats are screaming that the economy is in collapse and that the country’s in a recession — although they’ve shut up about the Clinton economy now that the Bush economy has blown the doors off it.

    Then there’s Medicare Part D. It took an idiot to come up with this bizarre Republican plan. Sure, it benefits insurance and pharmacuetical companies, but the beneficiaries are screwed.

    Explain this one to me — how are beneficiaries “screwed” when they go from having NO prescription drug coverage under Medicare to HAVING prescription drug coverage under Medicare?

    What about the bailout for the Petroleum industry?

    To what “bailout” are you referring? Links, please.

    This war on a nation that had NO WPD, no intent to build them, and wasn’t a part of al Qaeda.

    Resolution 1441, by the most hapless and inept of international bodies relative to Iraq, the UN, says you’re wrong on all three counts. Bye now.

    How about the Alaskan bridges to nowhere? One of the biggest government programs ($258 BILLION) seems such a small price to pay to put people back to work. Is that a conservative program? But $58 MILLION to rehab New Orleans (much less money to have rehabed the levees) is financial irresponsibility. F**k them black people if they couldn’t get out and afford an Embassy Suite.

    So you would rather rebuild a city in the wrong spot, in an area rated at extraordinarily high probability for destruction, than fix and update the entire United States highway system.

    Personally, I’m all for not giving New Orleans a dime until the Democrats like Stephen who claimed they had no buses to get people out of the city BEFORE the hurricane hit explain why hundreds of schoolbuses and city transit buses were underwater in New Orleans AFTER the hurricane hit. I think we see how “conservative” Stephen is when he says that we should just give people money because they’re black.

    Finally, Stephen’s ilk are the ones who pay professors at state universities to teach hate speech and ridicule about religion.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 3, 2005 @ 11:44 pm - December 3, 2005

  70. Yeah, no one can do crazy rants quite like Stephen – even when about half of what he says happen to actually be true.

    His “This war on a nation that had NO WPD, no intent to build them, and wasn’t a part of al Qaeda.” – One of the single most crazy, cowardly delusions ever repeated (and repeated, and repeated, and repeated) on this blog.

    Comment by Calarato — December 4, 2005 @ 1:38 am - December 4, 2005

  71. (repeated by Stephen, I mean; evidence never affects him)

    Comment by Calarato — December 4, 2005 @ 1:39 am - December 4, 2005

  72. Well, for those who say the religious right controls the GOP agenda, I have this to ask: given that the GOP controls the White House, both houses of Congress and a good number of legislators, how come so little social consecrative legislation gets passed, even at the state level. Yes, there are a few obnoxious bills here and there. But, even without the “religious right,” states would be passing bills banning gay marriage. Lots of Democrats vote for those.

    As to what Gryph said in #65 about “excommunicating Patrick [Guerriero] as a Republican,” well, it seems he has already done that. Not even the most liberal Republicans make the “misinformation” claim (on Iraq & WMDs) as he has done. And I have to say I’m not skeptical of the growth of LCR membership under his tenure. (I have received information questioning LCR’s numbers.) He claims a growth of several thousand this year. Political organizations rarely grow in off-years — and never by that amount.

    Perhaps the majority of members of LCR are more “liberal” than we are. (I speculated as much in an earlier post only to receive e-mail from disgruntled LCR members saying they were dissatisfied with the direction of the national organization.) As long as LCR calls itself Republican and as long as its leadership criticizes the president and our party, we will continue to take issue with them and use this blog to make clear our disagreements.

    More anon.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 4, 2005 @ 2:44 am - December 4, 2005

  73. Very useful portrait of the RINO phenomenon. Paste an R after your name to get elected in a red state, or to rise to the top in the relatively sheltered field of advocacy groups, and watch the rubes fall in line in your support.

    Comment by Jeremy Abrams — December 4, 2005 @ 8:50 am - December 4, 2005

  74. A brilliant mind at another blog recently summed up the zeitgeist of current American politics this way: Instead of Yin-and-Yang, American politics have become Yang-and-We-Hate-Yang.

    Good point.

    So, here is my challenge to the forum’s lefties. Instead of repeating the bumper sticker slogans and ‘Theocrat’ name-calling you use to explain why you hate Republicans, give me an affirmative reason why I — as someone for whom tax cuts, limited government, judicial restraint, parental notification, school choice, the right to bear arms, social security choice, and a strong military are very important issues — should support the Democrats.

    Comment by V the K — December 4, 2005 @ 12:59 pm - December 4, 2005

  75. No. It’s not that LCR is more “liberal” than you are, it’s that they’re more conservative and true to the Republican ideals than you are. You guys are GWB apologists, come what may, despite the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that GWB is NEITHER conservative NOR Republican. GWB is a big-government, theocratic, imperialist. And that’s what YOU are defending. Certainly, GWB needs all the support he can get, assuming he’s not impeached, and you two and your incestuous cohorts can look the other way while GWB drives this country into the ground. Fortunately, yours in a minority opinion, whereas LCR is more representative of gay conservatism and the Republicanism mainstream. Even something SO basic as a balanced budget you won’t address, because you know that GWB’s budgets have exploited everyone, except the extremely rich. Even Right Wing Bob Barr thinks GWB’s Amendment to the Constitution is a STUPID idea. And, why are Republicans largely running for cover and refusing to have GWB campaign for them? Is it because the chickens have come home to roost, and what they are crowing about is the illegal war, deficit spending, more tax cuts for the wealthy, the largest government spending, etc. So go ahead and defend the indefensible. Someone needs to.

    Comment by Stephen — December 4, 2005 @ 4:39 pm - December 4, 2005

  76. I wonder if Stephen thinks that crazy rants grow less crazy through repetition?

    Comment by Calarato — December 4, 2005 @ 4:50 pm - December 4, 2005

  77. North Dallas Thirty is a prime example of the non compus mentis on this blog. Besides assuming facts that are false and his liberal use of ad hominems, he dances around issues rather than confront them. But I guess this kind of approach is the only one left when you’re an apologist for GWB. Surely, the “record” is indefensible.

    For the record, I am not a Democrat. I’m a Republican. Granted, I am NOT a Robertson, Dobson, Falwell, or Sheldon Republican; like GWB these idiots have hijacked the Republican party to suit their own theocratic, big-government agenda. They scare me MORE than the Islamofascists. I am, however, a Guiliani, Weld, Pataki, Schwarzenegger, Ron Paul Republican, which is no doubt excluded from your small tent.

    Also, while gay issues are NOT the only reason why I vote for a certain candidate, they certainly influence my final decision. That GWB wants to exclude gays from parity and equality by amending the Constitution is certainly one of many GWB negatives I cannot in good conscience support. His corporate subsidies, largess spending, deficit spending, federalization of education, the Patriot Act, the War in Iraq, cronyism, etc. are some of the “other” reasons I cannot support GWB, and further reasons why I am convinced he is NEITHER conservative NOR Republican.

    Gladly, GWB will marshall in the end of religious reich “conservatism.” I don’t know how much damage he’ll do to normative Republicans, but the rein of “Republican” governance will end under GWB’s hubris. Practically EVERY conservative principle has been undermined by this president, who people now associate with the religious wing nuts rather than the tradition of Barry Goldwater. Certainly the polls suggest that Republicans have REASON to worry. Like the rest of us, we’re tired of GWB’s lying, deceit, incompetence, and imperialism. In retrospect, Bill Clinton was a better “conservative” than GWB.

    Comment by Stephen — December 4, 2005 @ 5:30 pm - December 4, 2005

  78. I guess the answer is yes! 🙂

    Just for the benefit of anyone not in the know: There are just so many points of disconnection from reality in Stephen’s rants. Basic stuff – like the fact that Dan is a huge Schwarzenegger fan (as am I) and has blogged about it repeatedly; the fact that almost every regular commentor here openly criticizes Bush for pork spending and deficits; many other wildly misplaced accusations.

    Comment by Calarato — December 4, 2005 @ 5:38 pm - December 4, 2005

  79. Oh, and plus his “smuggled-in” far Left premises / beliefs about the world (despite the protestations of solid conservatism).

    All of which some have dialogued or corrected Stephen on for months – in the very beginning (way back) with due patience, although I will admit that it has been quite some time since I personally have shown Stephen any patience.

    Just for the benefit of any newbies, again.

    Comment by Calarato — December 4, 2005 @ 5:50 pm - December 4, 2005

  80. Stephen’s paranoid rants are entertaining, but do not answer the challenge I posted in #74. For someone who accuses others of ” liberal use of ad hominems” and “dancing around issues,” Stephen seems utterly incapable of making any argument without throwing out deranged accusations or hurling epithets like “theocrat,” much less capable of explaining why the Republican’s failure to uphold conservative principles should drive any conservative person into the arms of a Democrat party overtly hostile to issues important to me (vis. my comment #74).

    So, let’s try this. What is the evidence, in terms of policy, that Bush is pushing a theocratic agenda?

    Comment by V the K — December 4, 2005 @ 6:15 pm - December 4, 2005

  81. I think you need to define what you mean by “theocratic”.

    If it means “Passing Constitutional amendments to implement formal theocracy” or “Systematically installing religious leaders as government leaders”, there would of course be zero evidence.

    But then why start the discussion? So perhaps you intend a watered-down or even meaningless version of the word “theocratic”, like, say, “Following certain policies that happen to be influenced by religious leaders or principles”.

    But, if that is what you mean, it really is a meaningless since the U.S. has followed policies influenced by religious leaders and principles since its inception.

    Indeed, the very notion of a free society under the rule of law (in which none may kill or harm others) is a political expression of, and was at least somewhat influenced by, the Ten Commandments.

    Long story short – Tell us what you mean by the word “theocratic”, such that:

    (1) it stands a chance of actually having some evidence to it (this probably means a definition short of true theocracy); AND

    (2) it is distinguishable from what all Presidents have more or less done for 213 years (meaning, whatever it is, it is truly new and different with Bush 43).

    I’m sure that the FMA and aid to “faith-based” charities are evidence of something; but I don’t know what. Certainly not “theocracy” in any meaningful definition of the word I am aware of.

    Comment by Calarato — December 4, 2005 @ 6:50 pm - December 4, 2005

  82. Besides assuming facts that are false and his liberal use of ad hominems, he dances around issues rather than confront them.

    LOL…. I stand by my posting.

    And I’m STILL waiting for your proof of your alleged “bailout” of the oil industry, or your explanation of how going from NO Medicare prescription drug benefit to having one “screws” Medicare beneficiaries, or how even the UN managed to figure out that Saddam had WMD, the intent to build more, and connections to international terrorists when they were being paid billions of dollars to think the opposite, or how hundreds of schoolbuses that could have carried thousands of the people out of New Orleans ended up underwater when Dems were claiming there “were no buses” to get people out.

    And as for your claim to be a “Guiliani, Weld, Pataki, Schwarzenegger, Ron Paul Republican”, I don’t think any of these men stand for insane and irrational hatred of Bush. You’re more of a Howard Dean/Hillary Clinton/John Kerry/Ted Kennedy “Republican”, in my mind.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 4, 2005 @ 7:16 pm - December 4, 2005

  83. #81 — I think “theocrat” is the new “racist.” Being racist used to mean you hated people of other races. Now, it just means you have disagreed with a liberal. Similarly, to judge by the way leftists use the word, “theocrat’ can describe anyone more religious than the ACLU. Soon, it will just mean, “I hate Bush,” if it doesn’t already.

    Comment by V the K — December 4, 2005 @ 8:07 pm - December 4, 2005

  84. I think it’s pretty clear that GDub is not a fiscal conservative. Yet, I still support him because of his firm stand against the terrorists. He’s at least got that going for him. Do I have to completely agree with someone on every single issue in order to support him? National security and fiscal restraint are both important to me, but if I can’t have both, I am willing to prioritize security over fiscal issues. I thought the left was supposed to understand nuanced positions.

    Comment by Hello Moto — December 4, 2005 @ 8:09 pm - December 4, 2005

  85. #84 — Well, the other thing is, Bush is terrible on fiscal restraint, but the Democrats are worse. It’s like the choice between a disaster and a catastrophe.

    Comment by V the K — December 4, 2005 @ 8:53 pm - December 4, 2005

  86. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, BALANCED the budget. Call it a catastrophe, if you insist. He even paid down the deficit. I guess that’s even worse!

    Let’s address Medicare Part D. For a premium of anywhere between $5.41 to $122.15 you get to pay a $250 deductible, Medicare pays 75% until $2,500, after which the beneficiary pays everything until $5,100. Thereafter, Medicare pays 95%. Only some idiotic bureaucrat could have designed such a convoluted scheme with such disparate premiums. Who benefits? The insurance companies (why were they even necessary?) and the pharmaceutical industry, both big supporters of GWB. The “average” out-of-pocket cost for someone with $10K in prescriptions can vary from $5,000 to $8,400. REAL benefit! Assuming the government (i.e. Medicare) actually pays anything, GWB hasn’t appropriated a dime to cover these expenses. Great fiscal management.

    Why did the oil companies need economic incentives to drill for more oil. Isn’t their exhorbitant prices at the gas pump enough for R & D? Every economist seems to think so. Why was so little been allocated to “alternative” energies? Because it did not reward the oil companies. So much for free enterprise. Just like insurance and pharmaceutical companies, big business can’t do it alone, they MUST have government subsidies. GWB is there with the handouts.

    How about the LARGEST government program in recent history — the $258 BILLION highway program that builds bridges to out-of-the-way places in Alaska? The largest PORK since LBJ. This is OBSCENE.

    Oh, let’s not forget the war against the Islamofascists, who were in Afghanistant UNTIL we started a war against Iraq. And we did this for WHAT reason? So that every Islamofascist could come out of the woodwork to fight back, killing more than 2,100 U.S. personnel, maiming another 18,000, and killing 30,000 Iraqis? All because GWB decided to provide SELECTIVE information to Congress, purged of any doubts, crosscurrents, or contradictions. Even Republicans are pissed! Oh, and by the way, Osama is STILL on the loose three years later. And our military personnel are REFUSING suicide missions because they lack adequate armor. Rumsfield and GWB actually claim we are winning. We’ve certainly LOST the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, over 80% of whom want us OUT. GWB deceived Congress into this war, has deceived the American public about it, and still hasn’t a clue of what’s even going on over there. Like the great Commander he is, GWB shows up in a highly secured area (an oxymoron for Iraq) before military-only audience to claim victory. The man is either out-of-touch or STUPID or both.

    Indeed, GWB ONLY shows up when an audience is purged of anyone not known to be a supporter. Boy, that’s courage! Only the Jeff Gannons of the world get to ask GWB questions at the infrequent press conferences for fear GWB might have to answer a REAL question. GWB is running SCARED, and he should be.

    Comment by Stephen — December 4, 2005 @ 11:49 pm - December 4, 2005

  87. #77 Stephen, this is what gives you away as a Leftist: “like GWB these idiots have hijacked the Republican party to suit their own theocratic, big-government agenda. They scare me MORE than the Islamofascists.”

    No Republican of any stripe would be more afraid of GWB and conservative Christians than they are of Islamo-fascists. The conservative Christians want to pray for us and persuade us to enter ex-gay programs. GWB says this is America and people can do what they want. The Islamo-fascists want to throw us from tall buildings or bury us alive under half a ton of bricks.

    Certainly some Republicans, such as Christine Todd Whitman, resent the influence of conservative Christians in the party), but they understand that Islamo-fascists are a lot more scary than Pat Robertson.

    When you’re ready to admit who you really are, maybe then we can debate some of your points.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — December 5, 2005 @ 12:17 am - December 5, 2005

  88. Slick Willy “balanced” the budget by taking money from the Social Security lockbox.

    Since politicians have been raiding the Social Security trust fund for years, assuming we are able to meet our obligations under the present system, we should count all the money we owe to current and future retirees as part of the deficit. Adding that bit of realism to government accounting will show that the deficit has been there for decades and really hasn’t gone away. The Social Security debt dwarfs both the cost of the Iraq liberation and the president’s prescription drug entitlement for the “gimme” generation that brought us big government.

    Comment by Hello Moto — December 5, 2005 @ 12:40 am - December 5, 2005

  89. Stephen, your rant in #86 is so full of falsehood and innuendo. I’ll just address a few of your lies/misrepresentations.

    (1) Clinton needed a Republican Congress to balance the budget.

    (2) The president did not deceive us into war. Which Republicans are pissed? 80% of the Iraqis don’t want us out. The elected government wants us to stay. And please provide evidence that the president “deceived Congress into this war” or that he deceived the American people about it. All serious studies of the “path to war” show no such deceptions. That line you offer is itself a lie which only the most left-wing Democrats and the angriest of Bush hates offer.

    You claim he is running scared, but I have no idea what you mean since the Constitution prevents him from running for a third term. (How exactly is he running scared?) And if you just watch the footage of any of the president’s press conferences, you will see that most of the questions have been hostile, e.g., his press conference in Argentina last month. (So it’s not just Mr. Gannon who, I believe, in his short time at the White House asked a total of one question.)

    If anyone is providing selective information, it is you and your ideological allies.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 5, 2005 @ 1:27 am - December 5, 2005

  90. Oh, and Stephen, perhaps, I shouldn’t scroll backwards when I read comments, because after posting my comment # 89, I just discovered your #77 and #75. In #75, you claim that LCR is more conservative than we are. Please provide examples. Conservative critics don’t raise the “misinformation” claim (as Patrick does) without evidence.

    You also claim that “LCR is more representative of gay conservatism and the Republicanism mainstream.” Hmm . .. while more than 90% of gay Republicans (by our best estimate) voted for President Bush last fall, Patrick won’t tell anyone who he voted for. Although we criticized the president for FMA, we, like most gay Republicans and conservatives voted for the man. So, you’re wrong here. We’re more representative of the gay conserative/GOP mainstream than LCR.

    And in #77, please tell us which facts ND30 uses that are false.

    Let’s see, if you bothered to read this blog, you would have read my praise of Arnold and my support for Giuliani in ’08. And BTW, both men endorsed President Bush last fall and campaigned for him. And Giuliani is actively campaigning for many Republicans–all across this nation.

    And no, W. does not want to exclude gays from the party.

    Yeah, he has made mistakes and we have criticized him for some, but it’s you who assuming falsehoods as facts and liberally using ad hominems. But, at least you’re making our comment section more interesting.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 5, 2005 @ 1:39 am - December 5, 2005

  91. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, BALANCED the budget.

    And yet, the National Debt increased during every year of Clinton’s presidency. How is this possible? Sounds like Enron-accounting to me.

    I keep hearing Democrats promise government-paid universal access to health care for everyone, government-paid college for everyone, more money for education, more money for cities, more money on environmental projects, more money for AIDS research, more money for foreign aid, more money for the UN, a “Manhattan Project” for alternative energy. In fact, in the 2004 campaign, John Kerry proposed $2,300,000,000,000 (trillion, but putting out all the zeroes really brings it home) in additional spending beyond GWB’s already insane bloated budget. That’s enough money to rebuild New Orleans 10 times. If Hurricane Katrina was catastrophe, John Kerry was 10 catastrophes.

    And while kvetching about how horrible it is that GWB wastes money, Stephen complains that the Prescription Drug Giveaway doesn’t spend enough money.

    And when the Senate tried to repeal some of those “OBSCENE” pork-barrel monstrosities in the Highway Bill, every senate Democrat voted against it. In fact, about the only people who voted for it were those vile, irresponsible, conservative Republican ‘theocrats’ I hear so much about it.

    Comment by V the K — December 5, 2005 @ 5:28 am - December 5, 2005

  92. Stephen behaves very oddly for a self-proclaimed “Republican.”

    For one thing, all of his anti-Bush talking points are straight off MoveOn-dot-org, to the point of parroting discredited leftist mythology about lying about WMD and paranoid rants about theocracy. Next, he’ll be ranting about how the Bush oil cabal stole Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. It’s curious that a self-proclaimed Republican attacks Bush using talking points from the far left.

    Another curious behavior for a self-proclaimed Republican is that Stephen makes no criticism at all of Democrats. In fact, he goes out of his way to praise Bill Clinton. Strange, that.

    One suspects that the truth is that our friend Stephen is, in fact, a partisan leftist Democrat, who thinks he can be more effective masquerading as a conservative “Republican,” but his partisanship is so transparent it makes it pretty obvious that he is either a.) lying or b.? Pat Buchanan.

    I don’t have anything against honest criticism or honest debate, but people who misrepresent themselves offend me. Especially people who are too stupid to pull it off effectively.

    Comment by V the K — December 5, 2005 @ 7:00 am - December 5, 2005

  93. Comment 87 – “When Stephen is ready to admit who he really is, maybe then we can debate some of his points.”

    D. Stephen Heersink. (sometimes ‘DSH’ in this forum)

    Generally, what he publishes under his searchable full name is more carefully calculated to sound rational, than are his crazy rants here.

    Comment by Calarato — December 5, 2005 @ 10:17 am - December 5, 2005

  94. Comment 90 – “But, at least Stephen is making our comment section more interesting.”

    Dan, I respectfully disagree with that. I think he’s made it boring. Certainly he’s de-railed it.

    Though the people answering him have done nothing wrong, I think you should delete all of the comments from #67 onwards, with the exception of #72-74 – to re-focus the discussion on Patrick Guerriero (and relevant offshoots).

    Comment by Calarato — December 5, 2005 @ 10:36 am - December 5, 2005

  95. liberal use of ad hominems

    Giggle giggle giggle… 🙂

    Comment by Frank IBC — December 5, 2005 @ 11:55 am - December 5, 2005

  96. NDT. Perhaps when you get ot SF you can go have a drink with Mr. D. Stephen Heersink and work things out.

    Comment by Bobo — December 5, 2005 @ 12:27 pm - December 5, 2005

  97. Per LEGAL FICTION:

    The reason blind partisanship is bad is because it reveals a lack of thought. In an ideal world, people would assess the merits of various debates and then, on any given issue, align themselves with the party that takes a similar view on that particular issue. In this same ideal world, people’s ultimate party affiliation would be a function of which party they side with more often (or at least on those issues for which they have an intense preference).

    Blind partisanship flips that process on its head. When a given issue comes up, blind partisans (e.g., Hugh Hewitt) first determine what the party line is and then align themselves accordingly. Their flaw is a lack of critical thinking in adopting their various positions.

    Comment by Stephen — December 5, 2005 @ 2:32 pm - December 5, 2005

  98. Their flaw is a lack of critical thinking in adopting their various positions.

    So, where do paranoid rants about “theocrats” and refusal to cite sources or answer direct challenges fit into this scheme of “critical thinking?”

    Comment by V the K — December 5, 2005 @ 2:40 pm - December 5, 2005

  99. You keep encouraging him.

    Obviously he has no idea what critical thinking is (as distinct from oppositionalism).

    Comment by Calarato — December 5, 2005 @ 3:06 pm - December 5, 2005

  100. Pat Robertson, Lou Sheldon, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson are just SOME of the better-known Republicrats who I think most people would consider theocrats, and who have embraced GWB’s agenda. Of course there are lesser-named individuals, who like the above want to “restore America to its Christian roots.” Of course, America (Madison, Jefferson, Paine, et alia) weren’t Christian at all. Never mind these problems, the theocrats want the Bible to be the Rule of Law. That’s why they opposed Harriet Miers; she couldn’t prove her bona fides.

    Oh, and while we’re at it, how about the FAILING grade the bipartisan 9/11 Commission just gave the GWB Administration for “insuring” the nation’s security. Despite millions of dollars, harassment of old ladies, delayed airport times, there’s been no appreciable improvement in the nation’s security since 9/11. Why should we expect anything less? FEMA couldn’t even do its part in New Orleans or the rest of the Gulf. Not that cronies operate these parts of government! Oh no. Brown had impeccable credentials as the President of the Arabian Horse Training Ass’n. What a perfect “match” for heading FEMA.

    Comment by Stephen — December 5, 2005 @ 3:44 pm - December 5, 2005

  101. So, basically, Stephen can’t point to any particular Bush policy that leads to the establishment of a ‘Theocracy,’ just to some religious people he doesn’t like who happen to support Bush.

    No wonder I’m no good at ‘critical thinking.’ I guess I’m too much of an empiricist.

    Comment by V the K — December 5, 2005 @ 5:01 pm - December 5, 2005

  102. Dan – the 90% of gay republicans voting for Bush estimate you made from taking the highest exit poll for Bush (23%) and dividing it by the 25% who voted for Bush in 2000. You are assuming that 100% of gay republicans voted for Bush in 2000 – but have no evidence to support that assumption. I remember reading that 40% of gays voted for Bush I in 88. That went down to under 20% when he ran for reelection. Dole got 20% of the gay vote in 1996, and Bush II got 25% in 2000, then between 17% and 23% in 2000 – depending on which exit poll you believe.

    I pointed this out to you before, but you continue to make this estimate.

    Comment by Lloydletta — December 5, 2005 @ 5:38 pm - December 5, 2005

  103. So tell me, Stephen, why can’t the Democrats defeat these “losers”?

    Comment by Frank IBC — December 5, 2005 @ 9:43 pm - December 5, 2005

  104. Everything is wrong, Everything is horrible, it’s all so horrible that people are too incredibly stupid to even know how horrible it is, it’s horrible if we do X and it’s horrible if we don’t do it, blah blah blah blah blah…

    Comment by Calarato — December 5, 2005 @ 9:45 pm - December 5, 2005

  105. “So, basically, Stephen can’t point to any particular Bush policy that leads to the establishment of a ‘Theocracy,’ just to some religious people he doesn’t like who happen to support Bush.

    ______________________________
    Hmmm. Its not that difficult.

    This amendment should fully protect the sanctity of marriage while enabling state legislatures to make their own decisions about defining legal arrangements other than marriage….President Bush

    Note the use of the word sanctity. The dictionary definition of this word is “Godliness”. Exactly what the hell would the federal government be doing in defining what is “sanctified” or not? And if I want to know what is “sanctified”, I’ll talk to a preacher for moral guidance thank you very much, not, of all people, a politician.

    Other Presidential or GOP initiatives:

    The establishment of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, in order to fund religious non-profit organizations, and including support to allow public religious institutions such as hospitals to discriminate in employment and treatment on the basis of religious grounds. -Basically there are now government-funded departments in various federal organizations such as the State dept, Veterans Administration, etc. thats only purpose is to fund religious programs. And does this fit in with the traditional conservative ideal of limiting bureaucracy instead of creating it? I think not.

    The replacement of scientists on government advisory panels such as the FDA based on religious/political ideology rather than qualifications.

    The support of allowing doctors and pharmacies to withhold care from patients based on religious grounds.

    Support for the constitutional DOMA, which puts a religious definition of “marriage” into the Constitution, in order to interfere with what is basically a private contractual agreement. (See “sanctity” above).

    A federal program to encourage marriage. (for straight people only, of course). Some of this money has gone to such things as the Catholic organization that does marriage counseling, for example.

    Support of school voucher initiatives, which permit public funding of private religious schooling.

    And of course on the local level, its not the Democrats who have taken over school boards and forced the inclusion of Creationism under cover as “Intelligent Design” into science classes, which is ridiculous. And no, I’m not opposed to its discussion in school, but it belongs in a philosophy class, not a science class.

    No doubt, many will criticize my choices as being simple GOP ideology rather than strict religious tenets. However, thats my point. They are now the same thing.

    And how many of the things above truly reflect the traditional idea of conservatism as a limited role for government? And do you think the President would have any problem raising taxes if it means funding for faith-based institutions? I doubt it.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 5, 2005 @ 9:48 pm - December 5, 2005

  106. Allow me to quote Thomas Jefferson, Gryph:

    “The paradox with me is how any friend to the union of our country can, in conscience, contribute a cent to the maintenance of anyone who perverts the sanctity of his desk to the open inculcation of rebellion, civil war, dissolution of government, and the miseries of anarchy.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1815. ME 14:235

    Now, as for the rest, you do well with making charges of “discrimination”, Gryph. However, let’s see you prove it; on the other hand, I CAN prove that taxpayer-funded educational institutions are sponsoring classes and paying professors who teach, profess, and indoctrinate students in antireligious hatred. How do you feel about public funds being used to promote THAT?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 5, 2005 @ 10:50 pm - December 5, 2005

  107. I don’t have much time to comment right now.

    Eva in #102. Just because you pointed something out doesn’t make it right.

    And indeed, if you had read the full text of my comment #90, you would note that I reflected your criticism in that comment by writing “more than 90% of gay Republicans (by our best estimate).” Emphasis added. Since you’re making such a fuss of my using this number, can you please provide evidence to prove it wrong? I believe the 17% number was from the LA Times whose polls are notoriously biased.

    Even if it’s not 90% as I’ve said before, it’s clear we better represent gay Republicans than does Log Cabin. Remember that before the election, LCR’s then-Political Director said the president’s gay percentage would be in the single digits. So, he assumed that only a handful of gay Republicans would support W. Obviously he didn’t understand gay Republicans very well. (After the election, Patrick claimed he had assumed 30% of gay people would vote for W, but I have yet to find any comments he made to that end before the election.

    Given that Log Cabin endorsed W in 2000 and he then won well over 90% of the Republican vote, let’s assume he won a similar percentage of the gay GOP vote. Then, this year he would have won well over 80% of the gay vote. So, by that math, maybe I should say he won at least 80%. But, even if we go with the 17% figure, we still have him winning a majority of the gay GOP vote. And that’s my point.

    Because of your observations, I have decided to use the “by our best estimate” expression, but will continue to hold that he won an overwhelming majority of the gay Republican vote unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.

    Patrick in #105, thanks for taking the time to engage us with arguments and facts. I don’t have time now to give your comment the time it deserves, but will do so as soon as I get a moment. Thanks for getting me into the kind of debate I’d like to have instead of one where I rebut nonsense and name-calling.

    And until you can provide evidence to the contrary, I will use an 80-90% figure.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 5, 2005 @ 10:56 pm - December 5, 2005

  108. Patrick,

    I disagree with your cherry-picked definition of sanctity:

    The dictionary definition of this word is “Godliness”. Exactly what the hell would the federal government be doing in defining what is “sanctified” or not?

    Sanctity/sanctitfy/sanction all share the same religious roots, but have long been accepted as synonyms for public and social approval. Not the best argument for your theocracy theory.

    I do, however, completely agree that marriage is a “private contractual agreement”. Get government out of the marriage business for both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Why should government sanction( Support or encourage as from public opinion or established custom) any private relationship?

    Comment by John — December 6, 2005 @ 12:23 am - December 6, 2005

  109. #100 “President of the Arabian Horse Training Ass’n”

    Actually, Michael Brown was Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — December 6, 2005 @ 12:36 am - December 6, 2005

  110. In this thread, we’ve have some good discussion, some solid defenses of our ideas (thanks fellas) and some good criticism as well as some ranting and name-calling.

    First, let me address some of the rants:

    In #97, I basically sort of agree with Stephen in his description “blind partisanship” being bad. It does reveals a lack of thought.” The same could be said for blind opposition. He’s right, blind partisans determine the party line, then react accordingly. Blind opponents just oppose whatever their chosen enemy supports. They become like Ramsey Clark. We should strive to avoid both.

    And in #100, he should note that those on the far right have not always been pleased with the president’s agenda. They’re upset that he didn’t rescind President Clinton’s executive order barring discrimination of federal employees based on their sexual orientation. Oh, and Stephen, check your facts, Dobson backed the confirmation of Harriet Miers. As I believe did Robertson. And please check U.S. history and you will see that most of our founders were indeed Christians.

    As to the former 9/11 commission, yes, it did gave the government some failing grades, but it did note several improvements.

    So, please check your facts before posting. Patrick (Gryph) in #105, however, has taken the time to check his facts before posting (and actually makes an argument, one with which I happen to disagree while recognizing its merits).

    Let me address them one by one.

    His first point (where he see us as advancing toward a theocracy) is the “establishment of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.” while I have some concerns with the president’s policy, I don’t think that amounts to creating a theocracy, rather the policy merely allows for federal funds to go to religious social service agencies. Now, I have a problem with the federal government doling out so much money, to groups private or sectarian, but if the feds are going to fund social services, it should at least fund groups that work and some of the best social service agencies are religious.

    His second point was about replacing scientists based on relgious/political ideology government advisory panels. This also concerns me, but given that these are advisory and not policy-making bodies, again, I don’t think this amounts to creating a theocracy. I also think the president’s appointments represent a judgment call & he was elected to make such judgments.

    The third point, I agree with the president on freedom grounds. I don’t think doctors should be required to perform certain procedures to which they have moral objections. (I have to say this issue is not cut and dried and I have many thoughts on and perhaps should add this to the list of things I want to blog on at a later date.)

    On the FMA, we have said repeatedly that we disagree with the president, but I don’t think this amounts to creating a theocracy.

    I don’t think federal money should go to promoting marriage, but again, this hardly amounts to creating a theocracy. It’s using the federal government to promote an institution which many find federal social policy has undermined. (Conservativeds should favor eliminating those offensive programs instead.)

    As to school vouchers, well, I support the president here. If he were giving this money exclusively to sectarian schools, that would be a problem, but here the president gives the voucher to the parent who then chooses the school. Hardly a move creating a theocracy.

    And yes, you’re right about the Intelligent Design issue. First think the notion of Intelligent Design is fascinating. Even Einstein spoke of an Unmoved Mover. But you’re right, it doesn’t belong in a science class — except perhaps as a box to note how people interpreted the cosmos and the origin of man before Copernicus and Darwin. Of course, if I had my way, that “box” would include a number of different Creation stories — and not just the Judeo-Christian version. But, even though this is primarily at the local level, this is not a positive development. Still, while this teaches one viewpoint to students, it doesn’t impose it on them as it would in a theocracy.

    Thus, none of these amount to the creation of a theocracy. Some of these developments remain troubling. Troubling as they may be, these policies (or policy proposals) do not amount to forcing citizens to adhere to one religion or another — or the tenets of any religion.

    I don’t think this president would ever raise taxes no matter what end.

    You raise a good point about these proposals and the traditional notion of (limited-government) conservatism. Only two (school vouchers & letting doctors/pharmacies choose to withhold care) are libertarian-conservative initiatives. Two of the others involve bringing social conservatives into programs that true limited-government conservatives would seek to dismantle.

    I’m not entirely pleased with some of these developments, but don’t think they amount to the creation of a theocracy.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 6, 2005 @ 3:40 am - December 6, 2005

  111. #150 — So, basically, Bush has supported protecting the same definition of marriage that 70% of the American public does, school choice, letting faith-based organizations apply for government grants for non-religious welfare work, appointed scientists skeptical of Global Warming hysteria, and supported the discussion of Intelligent Design in addition to (not replacing) evolutionary theory.

    Wow! It’s just exactly like the Taliban!

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2005 @ 7:28 am - December 6, 2005

  112. I think people who fling around the word ‘theocracy’ over minor public policy issues have been swilling ACLU propaganda for so long, they hear the president say ‘God Bless America,’ and their Pavlovian response is to recoil in dread, having been taught that “God Bless America” is secret code for “outlaw sex.”

    Full disclosure: I’ve spent many more cumulative hours during my adult life in churches than in gay bars, but the facts on the ground as I see it is that Christians are the open-minded, tolerant ones in this debate. Christians are saying, “we want to discuss ID,” but the secularists are the ones shouting, “No, the dogma of Evolution is perfect, absolute, and above question.” It’s the atheists like Michael Newdow and the ACLU who want to erase every public expression of faith (kind of like the Taliban blowing up those Buddhas). It’s Christians who want school choice, it’s the secularist teacher’s unions who are sayin, “No. There shall be only government schools for you!”

    As I see it.

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2005 @ 7:56 am - December 6, 2005

  113. Dan’s comments, while accurate, are restrained to the point of understatement.

    Theocracy means: A system of government in which priests rule in the name of God, or a god. (Oxford English Dictionary)

    I know it makes Lefties feel all warm and fuzzy – like they are doing something with their small lives of pathetic illusion – to say, “That’s just exactly like Bush wanting to support school choice and the presentation of Intelligent Design!!!”

    But – IT ISN’T.

    Not even close. Not in the ballpark.

    That’s a huge problem that our Leftists and our local ranting crypto-Leftists will simply never be able to get around.

    Dan – you/we have spent enough time on this slur. “Theocrat”, “theocratic”, “theocracy” should be made to follow “Ch*ckenhawk” into the electronic dustbin.

    Comment by Calarato — December 6, 2005 @ 10:22 am - December 6, 2005

  114. OK, maybe not – because if you did that, then we couldn’t discuss the world’s dangerous, real theocracies – like the former Taliban, or the current, about-to-go-nuclear Iranian theocracy.

    But do you see my point? It is a truly mindless nonsensical slur, on the pathetic level of the “ch*ckenhawk” days.

    Comment by Calarato — December 6, 2005 @ 10:31 am - December 6, 2005

  115. The support of allowing doctors and pharmacies to withhold care from patients based on religious grounds.

    So you’re opposed to freedom of religion for doctors and pharmacists?

    Support for the constitutional DOMA, which puts a religious definition of “marriage” into the Constitution, in order to interfere with what is basically a private contractual agreement. (See “sanctity” above).

    I’m beating a dead horse here, but why are you only against the DOMA when it’s Republicans supporting it?

    Support of school voucher initiatives, which permit public funding of private religious schooling.

    Private religious school = BAD. Right? Why should one type of school system (monopoly, run by local governments, strangled by teachers’ unions) be the only type which may receive public funds?

    Comment by Frank IBC — December 6, 2005 @ 12:13 pm - December 6, 2005

  116. #106 & #108

    I disagree with your cherry-picked definition of sanctity:…Sanctity/sanctitfy/sanction all share the same religious roots, but have long been accepted as synonyms for public and social approval. Not the best argument for your theocracy theory.

    The use and context of the word determines which meaning to use. I don’t see how you can conclude that a President who is very vocal about his Christianity and beliefs, when talking about “Marriage”, -not civil unions. for example, is using a secular meaning of the term. “Sanctity of Marriage” as he uses the phrase means “blessed by God”. He certainly did not mean “blessed by the State”.

    NDT, time and context also apply to the Jefferson quote. And did he use the term while acting

    as

    the Office of the President of the United States? President Bush called a press conference and made that statement, that he, as President, was protecting the “sanctity” of marriage. What was the context of the Jefferson quote? Was he speaking publicly as President or writing a letter to an acquaintance?

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 6, 2005 @ 2:47 pm - December 6, 2005

  117. #150 — So, basically, Bush has supported protecting the same definition of marriage that 70% of the American public does, …supported the discussion of Intelligent Design in addition to (not replacing) evolutionary theory.

    Regarding marriage, 70% percent of the American people AND the President are factually, ethically, simply wrong. A majority of opinion does not automatically grant legitimacy to that opinion. Those are two different concepts. The majority is just as capable of being a tyrant as any dictator. The correct moral choice for the President would have been to either come out against the amendment or to not endorse it. As President, he can’t actually start the Amendment process anyway, which lends it the appearance of it being a crass political stunt, not just a statement of opinion. Once again, he was speaking AS the President of the United States, not as an individual citizen. And yes, I am making a moral judgment of the man, and I find him, and 70% of the American public, lacking. Too. Bad.

    As far as Intelligent Design goes, it does not belong in a Science class. From all that I have read about it, it doesn’t even qualify yet as a “theory”, in scientific sense. It would have to be provable, testable in some way, and currently there is just no data on the subject that is reliable, or at least lends credence to the question. The other thing I have against it is that it is being pushed into schools by religious conservatives, not scientists. Usually with the help of Jay Sekulow’s legal foundation. “Intelligent Design” is not an “alternative” theory to Evolution. It does not even have enough evidence to reach that level of comparison. Leave it in the Philosophy class where it belongs.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 6, 2005 @ 3:43 pm - December 6, 2005

  118. Support for the constitutional DOMA, which puts a religious definition of “marriage” into the Constitution, in order to interfere with what is basically a private contractual agreement. (See “sanctity” above).

    I’m beating a dead horse here, but why are you only against the DOMA when it’s Republicans supporting it?

    You need to beat that dead horse some more. Where does it say I do?

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 6, 2005 @ 3:45 pm - December 6, 2005

  119. It’s the atheists like Michael Newdow and the ACLU who want to erase every public expression of faith…

    Compare them to the American Center for Law and Justice from Jay Seculow, and you come out even. http://www.aclj.org

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 6, 2005 @ 3:48 pm - December 6, 2005

  120. His second point was about replacing scientists based on relgious/political ideology government advisory panels. This also concerns me, but given that these are advisory and not policy-making bodies,…
    The third point, I agree with the president on freedom grounds. I don’t think doctors should be required to perform certain procedures to which they have moral objections. (I have to say this issue is not cut and dried and I have many thoughts on and perhaps should add this to the list of things I want to blog on at a later date.)

    Dan, the FDA is a policy making body, and it has blocked the approval of certain drugs, such as the so-called “morning after” pill. It claimed that there was doubt as to the safety of taking the drug. In direct contridiction to their own science advisory panel. Note that the FDA claimed they were rejecting it based on scientific, not ethical, grounds.

    A doctor should never have the right to deny emergency treatment to anyone, but othwerwise, I agree with Dan that they should be generally allowed to reject anything they find it morally objectionable. But even that would have exceptions. A Doctor that refuses to treat gay patients and is the only doctor within 100 miles, should not be able to refuse basic treatment, even if its not of an emergency kind. And I also think that doctors working at public, tax-payer funded hospitals should have to perform any legal procedure or treatment, whether it violates their religion or not. It’s a service occupation, if they can’t handle that, then they have no business being Doctors in the first place.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 6, 2005 @ 4:04 pm - December 6, 2005

  121. When liberals stop using science classrooms to propagandize ‘Global Warming,’ then they can tell me that ID can’t be discussed in science because it’s not scientifically valid.

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2005 @ 5:12 pm - December 6, 2005

  122. Gryph’s rebuttals have failed to convince me that we are on the edge of a theocratic abyss, in which unbelievers will be put to the sword, and sodomites and adulterers will be stoned to death. Maintaininf traditional marriage and saying to schoolkids, “Maybe life in the universe isn’t a random accident,” just doesn’t quite connect the dots for me.

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2005 @ 5:20 pm - December 6, 2005

  123. “A doctor should never have the right to deny emergency treatment to anyone.”

    To me, that is a shocking statement. It means doctors are basically slaves. These good women and men of honor and skill can never say “No – I’ve had enough”, according to Gryph, without it being a crime.

    Indeed, that’s how liberals view doctors: as slaves to be locked down and made to serve – that is what my LIBERAL DEMOCRAT doctor relatives in Pennsylvania tell me, with bitterness.

    Though admittedly, PA is one of the worst / most oppressive states for doctors, at the moment.

    Comment by Calarato — December 6, 2005 @ 5:39 pm - December 6, 2005

  124. P.S. Read Atlas Shrugged sometime, Gryph.

    Comment by Calarato — December 6, 2005 @ 5:40 pm - December 6, 2005

  125. You know, Gryph, the American Bar Association does permit lawyers to refuse to represent gay clients. You should look into that.

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2005 @ 6:04 pm - December 6, 2005

  126. The name “faith-based initiatives” was a bad and misleading choice, but all he did was remove the automatic disqualifier from organizations that happen to be religious, i.e. he ended religious discrimination. The money was already given to all types of organizations that do charity work and they all must comply with government rules about how they do it to get the money, religious or not. Before someone rehashes the tired old argument that the religious organizations might take the opportunity to preach their beliefs to recipients, I say “SO WHAT?” People have their own brains. They can CHOOSE to believe it or not. They aren’t allowed to discriminate and refuse care on that basis. Speech, in and of itself, is not dangerous. Ignorance is. Let’s address the ignorance instead of suppressing the speech. Besides, the secular organizations, much like our public schools and colleges, are preaching all kinds of things that I find terribly offensive to captive audiences, like communism, and using my tax dollars to do it.

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — December 6, 2005 @ 6:06 pm - December 6, 2005

  127. #126 — You make a good point, Dale. Supposedly, science is based on the idea of questioning accepted dogma. When a belief becomes hostile to the idea of being questioned, criticized, or cross-examined, it is a sign of weakness, not strength.

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2005 @ 6:16 pm - December 6, 2005

  128. Patrick in #120, I have read articles referencing potentially life-threatening side effects from some “morning after” pills. I will try to find them when I have a moment.

    You raised a good point in your second paragraph on the requirement for doctors to treat any patient. As this is a more complicated topic than I have time to address at this time, I’ll have to same my thoughts for a future post.

    I don’t think any doctor should be required to perform an abortion — even in taxpayer-funded hospitals.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 6, 2005 @ 6:35 pm - December 6, 2005

  129. Interesting paradox here.

    Gryph is horrified at the slightest hint of a “Theocratic” Government. Presumably because such a government would use law to enforce the moral precepts of the religion it serves.

    Yet Gryph is untroubled by … no, he literally advocates the Government forcing doctors to commit an act that they regard as morally equivalent to murder.

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2005 @ 6:53 pm - December 6, 2005

  130. I think I also noticed Gryph or someone expressing horror at the idea of “school boards being taken over” by conservatives.

    Let’s ask the question……Taken over from whom?

    How can one speak of conservatives taking over any school board….unless it were true that the same board previously was taken over somebody else, who had denied an effective voice to that community’s conservatives?

    And remember, we’re talking about boards “taken over” by conservatives who win elections – meaning that either the board’s previous occupants were not representative of the majority, or, there is a new majority.

    It sounds awfully like these shocked and outraged liberals don’t care much for democracy, do they?

    Let’s be more clear. When you boil it down, these liberals don’t oppose “theocracy” per se. They merely oppose the defeat or dismantlement of their theocracy. (Atheist, socialist / leftist, secular humanism.)

    Don’t get me wrong: I agree Intelligent Design is poor, as scientific theory. It posits an “extra” agent not needed to explain the facts, and whose existence, properties and activity are in no way testable.

    But that’s a side issue. Poor science will always be defeated in the end by good science; so ID theory doesn’t scare or horrify me.

    It’s as if certain communities suddenly wanted to start teaching phlogiston theory, or astrology. It’s an uncommonly silly idea, but nothing to get all upset about. Not all communities will do it and the ones that vote it in democratically, deserve to have it.

    Comment by Calarato — December 6, 2005 @ 9:30 pm - December 6, 2005

  131. Liberals don’t oppose “theocracy” per se. They merely oppose the defeat or dismantlement of their theocracy. (Atheist, socialist / leftist, secular humanism.)

    Which is consistent with Gryph’s #117 in which he states that people who disagree with him on same-sex marriage are morally, ethically, and factually wrong. Apparently, because he says so.

    He’s one of those lefties who believes that everyone has a right to his opinion.

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2005 @ 10:18 pm - December 6, 2005

  132. To me, that is a shocking statement. It means doctors are basically slaves. These good women and men of honor and skill can never say “No – I’ve had enough”, according to Gryph, without it being a crime.

    That is a rather hysterical reading of my comment. I simply think that a doctor does not have the right to let a patient die in the emergency room because his religion tells him that the patient is unworthy of treatment. I’m pro-life, get it?

    Yet Gryph is untroubled by … no, he literally advocates the Government forcing doctors to commit an act that they regard as morally equivalent to murder.

    You are deliberatly misreading my statement, but yes, if an abortion is needed to directly save the life of the mother, then yes, he must perform the abortion. I really don’t think I’m out of the mainstream on this issue. Do you think an white supremicist EMT should have the right to refuse treatment when called to black Americans house?

    You know, Gryph, the American Bar Association does permit lawyers to refuse to represent gay clients. You should look into that.

    If a lawyer doesn’t want my money, thats fine with me.

    There is a real difference here that you are not “getting”. Being a Doctor, Nurse, or EMT, is not just a job, its also a vocation. It carries with it a basic obligation to not turn away from someone who needs your help to survive an injury. I don’t think any good and ethical Doctor would have a problem with what I’ve outlined, even the Christian Conservative ones.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 7, 2005 @ 2:35 pm - December 7, 2005

  133. Liberals don’t oppose “theocracy” per se. They merely oppose the defeat or dismantlement of their theocracy. (Atheist, socialist / leftist, secular humanism.)

    Which is consistent with Gryph’s #117 in which he states that people who disagree with him on same-sex marriage are morally, ethically, and factually wrong. Apparently, because he says so.

    He’s one of those lefties who believes that everyone has a right to his opinion.

    You know, there is absolutely no difference between those on the Left that call everyone who disagrees with them Nazi’s and those on the Right that call everyone that disagrees with them secular humanist atheistic commies.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 7, 2005 @ 2:42 pm - December 7, 2005

  134. Why do lefties always whine that they’re being ‘smeared’ whenever someone quotes their exact words, and then explains what those words mean within the context of conventionally accepted definitions.

    Comment by V the K — December 7, 2005 @ 2:58 pm - December 7, 2005

  135. Anyway, Gryph, see if you can answer a simple, direct question without weaseling. In your mind, is it morally acceptable to use abortion as a form of birth control?

    Comment by V the K — December 7, 2005 @ 3:07 pm - December 7, 2005

  136. Anyway, Gryph, see if you can answer a simple, direct question without weaseling. In your mind, is it morally acceptable to use abortion as a form of birth control?

    No.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 7, 2005 @ 3:17 pm - December 7, 2005

  137. Patrick in #120, I have read articles referencing potentially life-threatening side effects from some “morning after” pills. I will try to find them when I have a moment….

    Dan,

    To be clear, I am NOT referring the pill known as RU-486 or whatever it was. That is used to induce a miscarriage after a pregnancy had already been detected.

    What I am referring to was the proposed move to make a version of “The Pill” available as an over-the-counter medication. It is called “Plan B”. If taken after sex it prevents ovulation or implantation taking place. It is already currently available by prescription, but it is a time-sensitive drug, meaning the sooner you take it, the better it works.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 7, 2005 @ 3:37 pm - December 7, 2005

  138. #136 — Why not?

    Comment by V the K — December 7, 2005 @ 3:45 pm - December 7, 2005

  139. #136 — Why not?

    Because I said so.
    And as you have said, everyone has a right to my opinion.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 7, 2005 @ 6:02 pm - December 7, 2005

  140. That’s what I get for trying to engage a leftist in intelligent conversation.

    Comment by V the K — December 7, 2005 @ 8:17 pm - December 7, 2005

  141. Patrick, in #137, my misunderstanding. I had not heard of “Plan B” (though I have commented on Plan 9 from Outer Space) so can’t comment on it.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 8, 2005 @ 3:43 am - December 8, 2005

  142. That’s what I get for trying to engage a leftist in intelligent conversation.

    I was just pointing out that because you already had decided what opinions I held, any reasoned arguments I might make are useless.

    And Calarato, if you are still reading, this is why I don’t often engage or respond to rebuttals to my posts. It becomes pointless pretty quick and often becomes a waste of everyones time.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 8, 2005 @ 3:46 pm - December 8, 2005

  143. The evil of the word “Nazi” is watered down by the flippant manner in which many groups toss it around to demonize anyone they don’t like. Besides that, the Nazi party, being a shortened form of National Socialists, is about as close to the polar opposite of the conservative / libertarian philosophy as you can get. They represented one of the most intrusive governments in history all the way up to committing genocide. I have never actually met a person who considers himself a Nazi. I’ve seen some weird webpages on the net but none that showed any signs of conservative viewpoints. I’m not saying there aren’t any out there, but just pointing out that Nazi groups are fringe groups at best. “Nazi” has become a universally recognized insult.

    In contrast, there are many liberals who openly use terms like “secular humanism” to describe their philosophies and goals, or “communist” or “athiest”. I have two friends that I know are openly communist. This is a term they use to describe their political views, and those are just people I know personally. As a resident of L.A. and someone who visits West Hollywood regularly, I hear these terms frequently and casually in converstation. Those aren’t even derogatory terms except in context by someone who disagrees with those philosophies.

    There is a HUGE difference between the two tactics. It is not intellectually dishonest to use any of these terms WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE.

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — December 9, 2005 @ 1:00 pm - December 9, 2005

  144. Excellent site! Great comments and I look forward to coming back to read more. I love the blog template :0)

    Comment by disaster enterprise recovery solution — February 19, 2006 @ 11:26 pm - February 19, 2006

  145. Very impressive blog. I agree with the last few comments and posts. Keep up the great job.Blog away!.

    Comment by canada voip phone service — February 28, 2006 @ 9:12 pm - February 28, 2006

  146. Hey great website. I happen to come across it doing research on internet blogs. I read through the comments and even some archive posts and really enjoyed the information on this site. I am planning on getting together with my webmaster to try to implement a blog myself. I put you in my favorites and will certainly stop by again! Thanks 🙂

    Comment by cheap cellular phones covers — March 3, 2006 @ 3:46 pm - March 3, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.