Log Cabin “Convention” — The Same Old Gay Talking Points with a Slight Sprinkling of Conservatism
As I reviewed the agenda of the Log Cabin “Convention”/Liberty Education Forum Symposium, I was generally disheartened by what seemed the banal agenda of a group eager to please the gay left. That said, the confab does show some signs of free thought, having included one of the most thoughtful (& responsible) advocates gay marriage — Jonathan Rauch — as well as a strong gay advocate of liberty — the Cato Institute’s David Boaz. And to my delight, it appears that gay abortion rights’ advocate Joe Solmonese will not be speaking in the panel on the State of the Gay Civil Rights Movement.
But, despite the recent lurch to the Left of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), the Liberty Education Fund decided to feature its executive director, Jody Huckaby in its “Symposium.” I laughed when I read that Log Cabin was calling its tribute to Andrew Sullivan, “The Courage of a Conservative.” Andrew Sullivan did indeed once have a great deal of courage where he raised his voice to challenge gay orthodoxy. And at one time, it might have been acccurate to call him a conservative.
Lately, however, Andrew has been anything but courageous, bending over backwards to badmouth the president in order to curry favor with the gay left and others in the B.D.S-afflicted MSM. While he may continue to hold some conservative views, no conservative would endorse John Kerry for President — or adopt that the tone he has used these past 2 years and (nearly) 2 months to describe the incumbent Administration. Log Cabin may well be the only group which calls itself Republican that honors individuals who endorsed John Kerry in 2004. This is not the first time. Others who have endorsed that left-of-center Democrat — and even renounced their GOP affiliation — remain members in good standing of the organization.
What is missing from this agenda is the stuff that makes up a real convention of a partisan political organization. There is no plenary session, to elect officers and to debate and set policy. Chapters can offer reports but club leaders have no forum where they can participate in the governing of the organization. They can’t even vote on resolutions.
There’s a speech “on the need for stronger Republican outreach to women,” but no seminars on how to elect Republicans or build bridges to the GOP. There is a panel discussion on the State of the Gay Civil Rights Movement, but no discussion of what it means to be a gay conservative, no consideration of whether the equality agenda of the gay left is compatible with the principles of conservatism. If Log Cabin were a serious Republican organization, instead of having speakers who, by and large, would not be out of place at the gathering of any other gay group, they would have more leading Republicans — and not just former and retiring elected officials. Once again, it seems Log Cabin is eager to conform to ideology of the gay left rather than offer a true conservative perspective (& agenda) on gay issues.
Nearly every time I write a post critical of Log Cabin national, I get an e-mail from a chapter leader (or member) detailing what his club is doing at the local level to help the GOP or to stand up to Democrats. While the national office may be kowtowing to the gay left, many of the clubs are working with their local Republican committees, elected officials and candidates — doing what it takes to help build the party. It’s too bad Log Cabin doesn’t see fit to have a panel discussion featuring chapter presidents — giving these gay Republicans a chance to provide other Log Cabinites the tools they need to build a more broad-based GOP.
With a few bright spots, this “convention” is just another gay confab with the Republican label pasted on. In recent e-mails — and other communications — Log Cabin has gone to great lengths to call itself a conservative organization. Yet, calling Log Cabin conservative is like calling the Easter Bunny a Jewish marsupial. Sure, there are some similarities — bunnies and marsupials are both mammals and some marsupials hop around like rabbits. And the faith which celebrates Easter did grow out of Judaism. But, despite these similarities, they are very different animals.
If Log Cabin really wants to be a conservative organization, it needs to do some things that a gay conservative group would do — and call the national gay groups on their left-wing agenda and their hateful anti-Bush rhetoric. And stand up for conservative principles of freedom, limited government and a strong national defense.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
34 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Just FYI…
“The 2006 Chapter Leaders Retreat will be held on April 27th – just before the start of the Log Cabin Republicans National Convention and Liberty Education Forum National Symposium. This year’s retreat will include training on Get Active, grassroots organizing, and event planning. Immediately after the retreat, we will be having a lobby day so you can meet with members of Congress. The National office will provide you with lobby training and coordinate scheduling with your elected representatives.
This event provides valuable programming designed to improve chapter effectiveness and a chance to discuss strategy with other Log Cabin leaders.”
http://online.logcabin.org/talking_points/2006-chapter-leaders-overview.html
Comment by Casey — April 22, 2006 @ 3:25 pm - April 22, 2006
#0 – “If Log Cabin really wants to be a conservative organization…”
But they have said explicitly they don’t.
National LCR said explicitly that it decided to be a gay organization within (it would like to think) the Republican Party; as distinct from, say, being a Republican organization in the gay community.
Comment by Calarato — April 22, 2006 @ 4:04 pm - April 22, 2006
If you compare Andrew’s opinions to President Bush’s actual policy implamentation, you will find that Andrew is much more of a Conservative than Bush could ever hope to be.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 22, 2006 @ 4:24 pm - April 22, 2006
It seems to me that the idea of any organization that weds itself to one political party over the other is just a bad one. If a party can expect the full-fledged support of an organization irrespective of the party’s policies, why should the party care about the organization’s preferences? The party will only work in the interests of coalitions it is likely to lose support from. Therefore, in one sense, Log Cabin’s defections seem to me to be entirely appropriate lest that organization become a mere mouthpiece for the party, like HRC has become for the Democrats.
Let’s therefore argue about specific policies and initiatives rather than worry about which party they came from. To paraphrase Chesterton, “my party right or wrong” is a little to much like “my mother drunk or sober.”
Comment by Other Eric — April 22, 2006 @ 5:30 pm - April 22, 2006
#3 – Right – Those tax increases he proposes on other people, Kerry endorsements, and (most important) those deluded, immoral condemnations he makes of U.S. policies in the war on Terror, are so very conservative.
Comment by Calarato — April 22, 2006 @ 5:37 pm - April 22, 2006
“Limited government”? Are you on crack? In what way has the federal government been limited by the Republicans in the last six years? Federal regulation is up. Federal encroachment into the traditional perogatives of the States is up. Federal spending is WAY up! And the seven Republicans who control the Supreme Court seem to have never met an issue that they thought was none of their business.
The “government” under Republican rule is bigger and more unlimited than ever. You seem to be saying that the Log Cabin Republicans are wrong for not opposing Bush’s policies of more spending and more regulation more strongly, even as you fault them for being “anti-Bush”!
Comment by Anonymous — April 22, 2006 @ 6:03 pm - April 22, 2006
Federal regulation is up. Federal encroachment into the traditional perogatives of the States is up. Federal spending is WAY up!
But of course.
Let’s take, for example, the Transportation Security Authority (TSA).
Prior to 9/11, airport screening and security was the responsibility of the individual states and airports; the Federal government, through the FAA and DOT, provided guidelines.
After 9/11, Democrats and liberals, most acting at the behest of the unions that represent the vast majority of government employees, demanded that transportation security be put under direct Federal control.
This increased government regulation, took power away from the states, and vastly increased Federal spending.
Every single expansion of government regulation, taking of power from the states, and increase in Federal spending has been either supported by Democrats or opposed, not because they were against the concept, but because it didn’t take MORE power from the states and impose MORE regulation and spending.
Let’s see Democrats and pseudo-”conservatives” like you, anonymous, stand up and say that the TSA should NOT have been federalized, or that Homeland Security should NOT have been created, or that additional money should NOT have been spent on any of it. Furthermore, let’s see you directly criticize the Democrats who wanted a LARGER Medicare Part D, MORE Federal control of education, and others.
My guess is you can’t, because that puts your attitudes in perspective. You don’t object to any of those — unless Bush supports them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 22, 2006 @ 9:23 pm - April 22, 2006
What I don’t understand is if gay conservatives don’t like LCR, why don’t they just form another organization? I don’t really care about LCR, and I wouldn’t even know what they were doing if not for the constant updates here. It seems like the constant talk about them just gives them even more attention and importance.
Comment by Carl — April 22, 2006 @ 10:20 pm - April 22, 2006
Couldn’t the post be titled: “Log Cabin Convention–The Same Old ‘Gay’ Patriot Screed”?
When, oh when, will this blog get constructive?
Comment by jimmy — April 22, 2006 @ 11:12 pm - April 22, 2006
The difference that North Dallas Thirty seems to miss is that Democrats don’t go around PRETENDING that they favor less regulation and smaller government. It isn’t the policy itself that is necessarily objectionable. After all, reasonable people can differ on the policy. It is the HYPOCRISY of Republicans who claim to be pro-Bush because they favor smaller government and fiscal responsibility that is the issue.
I am not saying that Democrats are advocating policies that I favor. But at least they are honest about it. The Republicans, on the other hand, claim to be for one thing and then turn around and vote for the exact opposite thing over and over and over for six years. And here comes along a Republican who now asserts that all those votes don’t matter. Bill Clinton vetoed more spending bills than Bush has… which isn’t difficult, since Bush hasn’t vetoed ANY spending bills during his entire presidency! That’s “limited government”? If you want to support Bush and his policies, that’s fine. But at least be honest about what it is you are supporting. Because it ain’t “limited government”!
And North Dallas Thirty doesn’t begin to explain to us how “the Democrats and liberals” were able to “demand” that the TSA and HS bills contain certain provisions. They were the minority party, and they had no say whatsoever in the writing of that legislation. It seems that when the Democrats are the majority, they get blamed for the bad laws; and when they are in the minority, they STILL managed to get blamed! Of course, there is no suggestion at all in his post that any responsibility is shared by the majority party or the President who signed these awful, terrible bills!
Comment by Anonymous — April 22, 2006 @ 11:17 pm - April 22, 2006
But, Other Eric in #4, it’s all well and good to say that Log Cabin shouldn’t be a mouthpiece for the GOP. My issue is that Log Cabin has become a mouthpiece for the left-leaning gay groups. (That’s the primary point of the post.) And rarely, if ever (at least on the national level) praises the GOP.
And anonymous in #6, I agree that the president has failed on cutting the size and scope of the federal government. And have said as much on the blog. And I’m not aware that Log Cabin has ever faulted the president’s high-spending policies. Its national leaders (as far as I’m aware) haven’t praised Senator Coburn or Congressman Pence for trying to curb federal spending.
And Jimmy, read my posts, you’ll see that I always offer constructive suggestions.
And finally, Gryph in #3, just by looking at the way Andrew has expressed his opinions for these past 2 years and (nearly) two months shows that he is not conservative. I’ll grant that he may be more of a fiscal conservative than the president, but let me repeat a point I made in the post — a conservative would not endorse John Kerry for president nor adopt the tone Andrew has when taking issue with this president.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 22, 2006 @ 11:34 pm - April 22, 2006
I am still unsure as to what GayPatriotWest’s complaint against the Log Cabin Clique is. It is that they are insufficiently conservative because they have supported the big-spending leader of their party instead of supporting the “grumbling” Mike Pence who is openly defying the leadership? Or is it because they are insufficiently loyal to Bush because they join conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Bob Barr to defy him on the FMA, despite supporting his big-spending ways? It seems that GayPatriotWest faults them if they stand with the President against Pence and his gang, and he faults them if they speak against the President along with other conservatives like Gingrich and Barr. It leaves the reader to wonder if the Log Cabins could do ANYTHING that would meet with his approval… they seem to be damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
And while a search of this blog finds only one mention of Congressman Pence’s efforts to limit the spending increases in the federal budget (albeit in the fiscal 2006 budget, which is really about 5 years too late, isn’t it?), I found no commentary about the fact that the Republican leadership of the House killed that effort in committee. (I’m sure that North Dallas Thirty will find a way to blame THAT on “the Democrats and the liberals”, too.)
Getting back to the hypocrisy, it seems odd that bloggers who claim to be champions of “strong national defense” would be fans of the RSC attempt to offset the costs of hurricane relief by cutting the defense budget, reducing health care for our soldiers and their families, and closing schools for the children of our soldiers serving overseas. (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1117445.php). I am not convinced that this is the best way to ensure a “strong national defense”. (Especially when we already suffer from an acute recruitment crisis… telling new recruits that their families are getting less support is hardly a selling point!)
Comment by Anonymous — April 23, 2006 @ 12:50 am - April 23, 2006
Your criticism of Andrew Sullivan is unfair and seems to me reactionary (the blogger doth protest too much?). What Andrew is doing is what any responsible dog owner would do: While one loves one’s dog, when it leaves a “calling card” on the pavement, the owner see’s it, acknowledges it’s presence and proceeds to clean it up!
Comment by JimG — April 23, 2006 @ 1:41 am - April 23, 2006
And North Dallas Thirty doesn’t begin to explain to us how “the Democrats and liberals” were able to “demand” that the TSA and HS bills contain certain provisions. They were the minority party, and they had no say whatsoever in the writing of that legislation.
The Homeland Security bill was approved by the Senate on November 20, 2002.
Can you tell us who the Senate Majority Leader was at that time?
And now that we’ve dealt with that massive flaw in your argument, let’s refer to this statement:
It is the HYPOCRISY of Republicans who claim to be pro-Bush because they favor smaller government and fiscal responsibility that is the issue.
You yourself have admitted that the Democrats favor LARGER government and LESS fiscal responsibility. Thus, in comparison, Republicans DO favor smaller government and more fiscal responsibility.
However, you seem to be indulging in Sullivan-esque window-dressing, which is to cloak irrational hatred of Bush by holding him accountable to a completely arbitrary set of standards.
To demonstrate that, I repeat my challenge:
Let’s see Democrats and pseudo-”conservatives” like you, anonymous, stand up and say that the TSA should NOT have been federalized, or that Homeland Security should NOT have been created, or that additional money should NOT have been spent on any of it. Furthermore, let’s see you directly criticize the Democrats who wanted a LARGER Medicare Part D, MORE Federal control of education, and others.
The reason that you dodged answering or doing any of those is because that would require you to actually take a position — and the danger in that is that you might then have to agree in some sense with Bush. You refuse to state your exact beliefs because they are very simple — anything that Bush does is wrong — but extremely irrational. You throw around words like “limited government”, but will never commit to exactly what that is to a level beyond saying that Bush has never done anything that constituted it.
In short, I think GPW was far too generous with you. I have now reached the point where I am demanding pseudo-conservatives like you to directly state your position, because more often than not it reveals that all it is is an irrational hatred of Bush. That includes Sullivan, who is such a rank hypocrite that he can bash one man for wanting to ban gay marriage while heartily endorsing and praising another who wants to do the same.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 23, 2006 @ 1:52 am - April 23, 2006
You guys criticize Andrew Sullivan a lot, but what about Tucker Carlson? Tucker is cute, conservative, and has by no means turned into a liberal. Still, i’ve seen him say on his show that President Bush is an incompetant leader.
Can someone not be a Republican if they don’t worship the ground President Bush walks on?
Comment by Erik — April 23, 2006 @ 2:50 am - April 23, 2006
And I might add, up until a year or so ago, Tucker Carlson was a strong advocate of the Bush Administration. But from what i’ve seen him say on his show as of late, he obviously has changed his opinon, like Mr. Sullivan.
Comment by Erik — April 23, 2006 @ 2:55 am - April 23, 2006
And can I just say, as a Democrat, I was against the Department Of Homeland Security. It’s a boondogal, plain and simple. However, didn’t Max Cleland, the former Democratic Senator from Georgia, oppose it as well? And wasn’t he then smeared by the RNC, labeled as unpatriotic and ended up losing his Senate seat? And he was called unpatriotic, mind you, despite having lost 3 of 4 limbs in Vietnam, including both legs?
Comment by Erik — April 23, 2006 @ 3:08 am - April 23, 2006
Anonymous (#12), if you would bother to read my posts, it would be very clean what my criticism of Log Cabin is. It is because they seem so eager to be part of he gay movement that they fail to distinguish themselves on gay issues from the gay left.
JimG in #13, Andrew has been far from responsible these past 2 years and 2 months. Let me repeat, it’s his tone. He has made several valid points of late — and I have commended him from that — but since 02/24/04, his criticism of the Administration has (by and large) been based more on emotion than argument.
Er, Erik in #15, why is it that you assume (as does Andrew) we write out of the GOP all those who don’t worship the ground the president walks on? We have criticized the president on this blog numerous times — as have many other conservatives and Republicans. The president has indeed made many mistakes, but he’s far from an incompetent leader.
And where do you go about making such assumptions when the main point of the post was to take issue with Log Cabin for conforming to the gay left rather than promoting Republican principles? I didn’t ask that they defend President Bush for his each and every action, but merely that they stand up to “hateful anti-Bush rhetoric.” That doesn’t mean worshipping the ground he walks on, just faulting those who unfairly demonize the man. Let me repeat the problem with Andrew Sullivan is not that he has criticized the president, but it is his manner of criticism with which I take issue. I question why a Republican organization would invite such a critic to its “convention.”
Like you in #17, I had some issues with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Its creation added a layer of bureaucracy which compounded FEMA’s problems in providing relief to New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. But, to say that the RNC labeled Cleland as unpatriotic is to misrepresent the ads used against him — and to borrow a dishonest talking point from the Democrats an their allies.
And what the blink does that have to do with Log Cabin’s kowtowing to the gay left–the point of this post (where I only mention the president to note that Log Cabin has invited an outspoken critic of the incumbent president of its own party while it fails to challenge the gay Left (including Andrew Sullivan) for their hysterical anti-Bush rhetoric)?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 23, 2006 @ 3:52 am - April 23, 2006
The problem with the LCR is that they are not a conservative caucus, in the sense that conservatism is based on principles, and the LCR are unprincipled.
If the LCR were a principled, conservative caucus, they would (among many other things):
oppose abortion, euthanasia, and other legalized murder
oppose incremental socialism
oppose legislation by an unaccountable, activist judiciary, as well as the advancement of a “representative” judiciary
oppose all hate crime laws, and expansion thereof
oppose all identity politics
oppose any subversion of national sovereignty to the UN or any other international body
support the Second Amendment without qualification
Yet, the LCR does none of these things. They are in bed with leftist organizations. What conservative principles they claim go right out the window when it comes to their own pet issues (gay marriage comes to mind).
Sullivan is exactly the same. He has no principle, and is no conservative. As to the question about why not create another caucus, it’s an interesting idea, but why do we need a special group? Conservatives don’t do identity politics. And I don’t want to step on anyone’s toes, but if you are so insecure that you need a little badge and a little special interest group, we don’t need you, thanks.
Comment by rightwingprof — April 23, 2006 @ 9:56 am - April 23, 2006
While a die-hard blindly partisan Republican would never have endorsed John Kerry, A Conservative might, if they thought it would lead to a better outcome for the country in the end, by providing a restrained government in the form of a divided government. Which is what Andrew did. Conservatism is practical, realistic. That does not describe the current make up of GOP leadership or rank and file.
Frankly GPW, your definition of what being a Republican and what being a Conservative is seems mixed. They are not the same things. Maybe they should be, but they are not.
And unlike you GPW, Andrew Sullivan does not, has not, ever claimed to be a Republican. You treat him as if he is committed some great betrayal of the Republican Party by criticizing the President. But he is not a member of the GOP, so that is a betrayal that by definition can’t occur.
As for your problems with the “tone” of Andrew’s criticisms of the President. Get real. You belong to the Party of Sean Hannity, Patrick Buchanan, Pat Roberston, Frist, Santorum, Marilyn Musgrave, etc.
That you can sit there with straight face and tell me all just comes down to Andrew’s “tone”… Bah.
NDT says:
Speaking of Rank Hypocrisy NDT, you do exactly the same thing when you bash Kerry and praise Bush. And there is a major difference between the two that you fail to acknowledge, and in fact that you always blithely skip over and omit, and that is that only Bush came forward to endorse and continually call for a Constitutional Amendment outlawing gay marriage. And only Bush, to this day continually campaigns for its passage.
Another difference between the two that you always omit is that Bush simply has more power than Kerry does to harm gay and lesbian people and families in this country. And with his endorsement of the Constitutional Amendment, he shows that he wants to do exactly that.
The last difference NDT, is that while President Bush says he is “OK” with domestic partnerships and the like, have you ever seen him come forward and endorse one? Has he made any attempt to influence the writing of the Amendment he wants so that it does not have language that would preclude those arrangements? -Nada.
NDT, you and the rest on this blog keep trying to dress up a cow-pie as a birthday cake and then you urge everyone to eat it because its “good for you”. But Bush is still a cow-pie and there is not a damn thing you can do to change that fact.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 23, 2006 @ 10:28 am - April 23, 2006
“calling Log Cabin conservative is like calling the Easter Bunny a Jewish marsupial” Very good, Dan! Maybe you can try your hand at some other assertions that could use some humorous deflating, Eg. “calling liberals patriotic is like…” or ” calling Islam the religion of peace is like…”, or “calling George Bush a partisan of American interests over Mexican interests is like…”. You could start a small parttime business.
Comment by EssEm — April 23, 2006 @ 10:54 am - April 23, 2006
Regarding the post, I had been led to believe that the Log Cabineers were supposed to be a Republican-adherent operation, not necessarily a conservative operation. The idea that the national Republican party is conservative in any way other than rhetorical gay bashing is preposterous in the extreme, but that’s another issue. So why would the poster believe that the Log Cabineers would be conservative–other than rhetorical gay-bashing, of course–is preposterous in the extreme.
Regarding the issue of the Log Cabineers inviting Andrew Sullivan to their confab, apparently the poster does not really know how these confabs work. The organizers of these confabs invite people who are relatively well known in hopes of getting people to pay to attend the confabs. Or, in the unlikely event that they don’t pay to attend, at least to enlarge the number of people who do attend, to make others believe that they have more clout than they do. It isn’t rocket science. I’ve worked with professional groups in organizing these kinds of confabs, and that’s precisely why more than a few of them are willing to pay huge amounts of money to have some well-known people to give a 20 minute stump speech at a luncheon.
I really feel sorry (/sarcasm) for the Log Cabineers. They are like the Janus of Don Quixotes: tilting at the Republican Party establishment, on the one hand, and unable to penetrate the resistance of most gay people on the other hand.
Comment by raj — April 23, 2006 @ 11:23 am - April 23, 2006
Dan:
Over the past few months that I’ve been reading this blog, your attitude toward, and the attitude of your co-blogger Bruce toward, the LCR seems reminesent Andrew Sullivan’s attitude toward the President. A wrong turn taken a couple of years ago colors your view of everything they/he have done since. Some of the critiques you and Bruce have provided have been meaningful, others just seemed bitter. (I particularly thought Bruce’s post on the Bolten/Bolton misspelling was beneath him. Mistakes like that are embarrassing but are indicative only of poor proofreading, not over arching incompetence. They occur everywhere – newspapers, signs, websites and this blog.)
A couple of months ago, I had the opportunity to have dinner with a small group that included Patrick Guerriero. Because of what I had read on this blog, I went into the evening with a high level of skepticism. By time the dinner was over, my view had begun to change. Assuming that what Mr. Guerriero said was true, he and LCR still have access to the President, Karl Rove and Republican leaders in both the House and Senate. LCR continues to lobby on gay issues such as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, same sex marriage, and non-gay specific issues as lower taxes. In fact, Mr. Guerriero emphasized to us the need to talk to our congressional and state leaders about conservative non-gay specific issues.
I will be attending the LCR convention next week. I’m doing my best to go with an open mind in an attempt to determine whether this is an organization with which I want to get further involved. We’ll see.
Comment by Michael K. Bassham — April 23, 2006 @ 12:27 pm - April 23, 2006
Once again, Gryph in #20, yes, the primary issue is Andrew’s tone. No, Andew has not claimed to be a Republican, but he has claimed to be a conservative. I may belong to the same party as Pat Robertson and Sean Hannity, that doesn’t mean I appreciate their tone. And Buchanan has long since written himself out of the conservative movement.
It’s more than Andrew’s tone. He has leveled many irresponsible criticisms against the president, notably his allegations of torture.
Michael in #23, I remain dubious of Patrick’s claims of access. Though I do think he is doing the right thing in instructing you to lobby legislative leaders on non-gay specific issues, my point remains — which you don’t address — is that the group has failed to distinguish itself from the gay organizations on gay issues.
And if you go back to my posts last April (after the New Orleans convention (e.g., here, here, here, here and here), you will see that I offered praise as well as criticism of the group. I praised the group for co-sponsoring the CPAC conference last year and in December praised Patrick in December for chastising the gay groups for rushing to condemn then Supreme court-nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 23, 2006 @ 1:18 pm - April 23, 2006
GPW, my posts were separate thoughts. And I focused on the Andrew Sullivan criticism because frankly, i’ve only been reading this blog a short time and i’ve seen about 3 or 4 posts directed at the man. So while you highlight that it’s not the criticism itself, but the manner of the criticism that bothers you, i’d say it’s the manner of your cricitism of Andrew Sullivan that has my attention. Basically, to me, it sounds like a jilted lover. It is bizarre.
Comment by Erik — April 23, 2006 @ 1:56 pm - April 23, 2006
Speaking of Rank Hypocrisy NDT, you do exactly the same thing when you bash Kerry and praise Bush.
Wrong, Gryph; you merely THINK I do the same thing. Your irrationality blinds you to the facts of the matter.
Of course, the reason for that is, having endorsed a homophobic bigot like Kerry who wants to strip gays of rights and given him millions of dollars, both you and Sullivan have to rationalize why you’re correct. Thus you make up all these arbitrary reasons for why Bush is worse, even though KERRY has repeatedly endorsed and pushed antigay constitutional amendments, had enormous influence and power as the Democratic nominee for President, and also deliberately endorsed an amendment that nullified civil unions (in Missouri), claiming it was “the same” as the Massachusetts legislation he supported.
I have made it clear that that is antigay bigotry regardless of who does it. You and Sullivan say it’s pro-gay and gay-supportive when Kerry does it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 23, 2006 @ 1:59 pm - April 23, 2006
No conservative would endorse a politician who has consistently opposed his own nation and national sovereignty, supports every socialist nutball idea that comes down the pike, and turned traitor the minute he returned from Vietnam.
Comment by rightwingprof — April 23, 2006 @ 2:55 pm - April 23, 2006
I’m not a full-blown conservative, yet even I have enough basic sense and logic to see that.
Comment by Calarato — April 23, 2006 @ 3:49 pm - April 23, 2006
P.S.
Why are Sullivan’s minions, such as Gryph, so eager to attach the word “conservative” to Sullivan anyway? Is there some kind of prestige factor in the word that they are (illegitimately) attempting to co-opt?
I thought “conservative” was supposed to be a slur, a bad thing, in such Gay Left circles as theirs.
Comment by Calarato — April 23, 2006 @ 3:54 pm - April 23, 2006
Because to loony leftists, anyone to the right of Stalin is a conservative, or just as likely, an “extremist.” It’s moving the goalposts and changing definitions to suit their own purposes.
Comment by rightwingprof — April 23, 2006 @ 4:35 pm - April 23, 2006
I can understand why many log cabin republicans don’t vote or support the republican party. If I were to label my political tendencies; I would have to say either Eisenhower Republican or a Libertarian. I find it extremely hard to associate myself with the Republican Party because it is no long a small government fiscal conservative party but a theocratical party. Maybe with our two party system the options are no longer big government vs. small government but are now theocratic governance vs. secular governance.
Comment by CensoredAgain — April 23, 2006 @ 6:39 pm - April 23, 2006
Censored–while I think you’re too harsh on the GOP, I fear its leadership has lost sight of the Reaganite small government principles. Though there are many Republicans who still fight for them. And hardly any Democrats who do.
Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — April 24, 2006 @ 2:36 am - April 24, 2006
Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — April 24, 2006 @ 2:36 am – April 24, 2006
Censored–while I think you’re too harsh on the GOP, I fear its leadership has lost sight of the Reaganite small government principles.
Please remind me again. When did the GOP have “small government principles”? Reagan certainly didn’t have any, neither did Bush I, and, quite frankly, neither did Bush II. Neither did Nixon–recall his “wage and price controls”? (Ford was a cypher, so I’ll ignore him.) Eisenhower didn’t, either.
So, remind me. When did the GOP have “small government principles”? The only Republican president who comes to mind who may have had “small government principles” was Calvin Coolidge. And we saw where that led to.
Comment by raj — April 24, 2006 @ 9:06 am - April 24, 2006
RWP attempts to define who is and isn’t a conservative. Since when has it been left to others to decide what we as individuals are? Who gave them the right to decide who is “right” and “left”?
And, more importantly, who gives it any weight in political circles? I could care less what RWP’s perspective is as to what defines a “conservative.”
Who says that social issues are what defines someone as a “conservative?” Would you call those predominantly social conservatives who have been spending like drunken sailors, afraid to challenge the President OR their constituents, as conservatives? NO WAY! For me, it is the belief in what the role of GOVERNMENT is that defines conservative and liberal, NOT some laundry list of issues with which you agree, but others may not.
I refuse to allow anyone to define or label my politics. It’s all just opinion, and I refuse to buy into the conservative/liberal clap trap any more than I would the Fred Phelps definition of what or who we are, and what or who we do.
Comment by GOPValues — April 27, 2006 @ 8:59 pm - April 27, 2006