Gay Patriot Header Image

Tim Gill: Log Cabin’s Million Dollar Man?

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 2:25 pm - April 26, 2006.
Filed under: Liberals,Log Cabin Republicans

I’ve repeatedly asked the folks at Log Cabin (Republicans) to account for where they got the money to fund the $1M ad campaign against President Bush in 2004 in key battleground states. This is a Federally-regulated organization (IRS and FEC rules apply!), but they have never documented where this money came from. *crickets still chirping*

I always assumed that the money came from Tim “Deep Pockets” Gill.

A successful entrepreneur, Tim Gill is an active philanthropist who cares passionately about many issues. Through both his philanthropy and socially conscious business practices, Tim is setting a powerful example by valuing all people for their unique talents, backgrounds and skills. Tim founded the Gill Foundation in 1994 with the mission of securing equal opportunity for all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender expression. Through the Gill Foundation, Tim provides millions of dollars annually to gay and lesbian and HIV/AIDS organizations along with other charitable causes.

Tim has always been an advocate for civil rights. In addition to funding the gay and lesbian movement for equal rights by supporting hundreds of national and state-wide organizations, he is also a strong supporter of social justice organizations and educational institutions. Tim was one of the first major contributors to the Colorado AIDS Project and has long supported local public radio and television through program underwriting.

Through the Gay & Lesbian Fund for Colorado, established by the Gill Foundation, Tim has provided financial support to numerous organizations which serve the general public, such as $100,000 to the American Red Cross for flood relief in Fort Collins, Colorado, more than $200,000 to the Colorado Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, and nearly $1 million to the American Red Cross for Hurrican Katrina disaster relief.

As founder and former Chairman and Chief Technology Officer of Quark, Inc., a desktop and internet software company, Tim was recognized as an innovative business leader. Tim founded Quark, Inc. in 1981 with a $2,000 loan from his parents, and worked to build Quark into a leading developer of page layout software for the graphics market.

The evidence, while circumstantial, is compelling. Log Cabin never had so much money at one time in its life… then suddenly it had one million big ones to bash President Bush in a tough election year. Astounding.

And it just so happens that Tim Gill’s 501(c)(3) charitable organization uses the same public relations firm, Witeck-Combs, as Log Cabin used for the $1M Bush-Bash Ad Campaign.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I highly admire Mr. Gill. He is a successful American and has the resources to be a very giving and charitable man. I completely applaud that. Mr. Gill’s latest effort is what triggered this posting….

Colorado software millionaire and homosexual activist Tim Gill yesterday started an unprecedented advertising campaign aimed at promoting his domestic-partnership referendum, even though the initiative has yet to win a slot on November’s ballot. The $1.5 million television buy, easily the most expensive in state history for a ballot initiative this early in the race, stunned political pros and worried the state’s traditional-marriage advocates, who have their own ballot measure in the works but a significantly smaller war chest.

But Mr. Gill is a far cry from a gay Republican…. He has a very interesting political spending record for being Log Cabin’s assumed biggest donor. He gives mostly to liberal Democrats and their party organizations. (See here and here and here). Including some of the most anti-free market, anti-business, anti-War on Terror Democrats in Congress: Patty Murray, Tom Daschle, Erskine Bowles, and Mark Pryor.

Mr. Gill even maxed out his allowed contributions to Al Gore and John Kerry. And, as North Dallas Thirty will be happy to tell you, Mr. Kerry is no friend of the gay community. Yes, Gill has made token contributions to the usual Republicans that the Gay Left will tolerate: Jim Kolbe, Gordon Smith and Lincoln Chafee (coughing on my own vomit on that one). But Mr. Gill’s track record shows a clear and unwavering pattern to favor the Liberal Democrat over the Republican in key battleground races that would make a difference in which party protected American in a time of war.

Well, at least Mr. Gill has never given money to Ted Kennedy. Though I wonder why not.

So what makes Tim Gill a LOG CABIN REPUBLICAN? Beats me.

So these are my questions, not for Mr. Gill, but for Log Cabin (Republicans):

1 – Why have you embraced Mr. Gill’s money, but not admitted it publicly and to your membership? What’s the big secret?

2 – Why was this money not reported to the Federal Elections Commission?

3 – Why does Log Cabin advocate for gay marriage, but clearly Mr. Gill is putting his weight behind a Domestic Partnership plan in Colorado. Does he know something about winning that you don’t?

4 – Why has your organization accepted money from a man who clearly supports liberal causes over Republican causes?

Most importantly, Mr. Guerriero…. did you accept Tim Gill’s million dollar ‘Deal Or No Deal’ because you were a part of Mr. Gill’s desire to defeat President Bush in 2004? That is a far cry from a non-endorsement. That is being complicit in an organized campaign AGAINST the President of your own party during a time of war.

I expect the crickets will continue to chirp from Log Cabin Unaccountable Central Command.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)



  1. It still astonishes me that you refuse to accept the fact that there are many, many of us who voted for the President in 2000, but refused to in 2004 because as President he backs an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that discriminates against us. Hell, Lincoln Chaffee didn’t even vote for him.

    Comment by Jeremy — April 26, 2006 @ 2:53 pm - April 26, 2006

  2. If Tim Gill has created real value (wealth) in the economy in his time… and moreover, is willing to put up some of it in a constructive (I hope) campaign for DP laws or civil unions… great for him! thank you, Sir!

    But turning to LCR… I am astounded just to learn that LCR spent $1 million in 2004 AGAINST President Bush! I would have thought a statement of non-endorsement would be more than enough.

    Comment by Calarato — April 26, 2006 @ 3:12 pm - April 26, 2006

  3. Once again I thank this site for making sure I never joined the Log Cabin Repubs. because apparently they exist in name only. I would never give them a dime and they are a mockery since they say one thing one moment and then something completely opposite the next. They would be perfect to run John Kerry’s next campaign…maybe even Hillary’s and you can bet if she runs, the LCR would endorse her.

    Comment by benj — April 26, 2006 @ 4:17 pm - April 26, 2006

  4. What is astounding to me is that LCR actually had US$1million to spend to oppose Dubya. Or for any purpose.

    Frankly, I doubt that they actually did have US$1million to spend to oppose Dubya, but I could be pursuaded otherwise.

    Comment by raj — April 26, 2006 @ 5:13 pm - April 26, 2006

  5. Bruce, interesting post and not to be contrarian, but I thought the $1m was spent in opposition to the federal Marriage Amendment –not Bush’s reelection bid. I’m not a supporter of LCR either… but for a group that can barely bundle $50k together in an election cycle for leading pro-gay GOP politicians, it seems a biggggggg stretch to argue the LCR spent $1m to defeat Bush. Somehow that dog just don’t hunt.

    I don’t think they even have $5k in their LCR PAC these days… nor pledges of any significant amount –of course, they’ll have a pitch for PAC donations at the “Convention”, for sure.

    I think the $1m was for FMA opposition. Remember those LCR newspaper ads opposing DADTDH with the American flag in the soldier’s pocket? Or the LCR ads portraying average Americans opposed to “putting discrimination into the Constitution”? Or the LCR ads offering that marriage laws are properly regulated in each State? Or the LCR-RR TV ads about hope, not fear driving American politics?

    As someone who has had to help produce those kinds of ads for national, regional and statewide campaigns, I can attest the effort eats up a ton bucks muyo fast –a ton.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 26, 2006 @ 5:59 pm - April 26, 2006

  6. Matt-

    The sheer fact that the anti-FMA ads were only run in battleground states in a razor-thin election year is enough to convince the powers at be at the White House and the RNC that the $1M was indeed an anti-Bush campaign.

    Gill’s political history makes it a cinch deduction.

    Comment by GayPatriot — April 26, 2006 @ 6:45 pm - April 26, 2006

  7. Bruce, I can appreciate the ads may have been targeted to battleground states, but we saw the ads here in Michigan –which was never counted on as being in the Bush camp except for the folks who actually believe in Hail Mary Passes in the closing seconds. I wonder where else they ran without impact?

    We did see the roving (no pun) pack of wolves ad from the Bush camp, tho. I think those were intended to convince independent voters to pull the lever on nat’l security preferences –which Bush clearly won over the flip-flopping windrider from Massachusetts.

    But Bruce, the anti-FMA ads weren’t intended to bring Kerry voters out –those folks were coming, no matter what. I think the “gay vote” broke 90-5-5 for Kerry, Nader, Bush. The ads weren’t meant to convince independent voters to reconsider their alleged support of Bush and vote Kerry –the swing vote closed up shop about 17 days out from Election Day with less than 0.5% movement in Michigan.

    When I saw those ads, I thought they were targeted to progressive GOPers –a small, dying group in Michigan that harken back to the days of Gov Milliken in the 1970’s. And those progressive GOPers were not going to pull a lever for Kerry no matter what Teresa intoned as the wannabe Jackie II bringing Camelot back to 1600.

    I appreciate your perspective, Bruce. I don’t doubt the WH and RNC folks saw the ads as anti-Bush as well as the non-endorsement or neutrality of the LCR. You’re right, the LCR needs to come clean on how those $$$ were spent, where they came from, etc. As you rightly call them out. Maybe you can pin Patrick down on the question at the “Convention” whine&dine?

    If those ads were intended to bring Kerry supporters out or convince Bush/Independent voters to stay home or vote Kerry, they were ineffective crappy ads and the media firm’s executives should be shot at the curb.

    But like you note, in a razor thin election, even a little nudge can translate into electoral disaster –as Gore’s ever-changing sweaters, locklipped kisses and equivocations proved to the max.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 26, 2006 @ 7:16 pm - April 26, 2006

  8. I’m looking at the “Hope Not Fear” television ad found here:

    I’m going to assume that was the ad. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

    First: What a murky ad. It has zero direct message content. If it’s what they spent the $1M on – geez, what a bunch of losers. These guys can’t even show a pubic hair – much less any balls – in their Bush-bashing.

    Second: Since the ad has no direct message (not even against the FMA!), we are forced to interpret its message functionally. I.e., who would it have helped or hurt, at the time? The ad makes dark hints (only hints) about the Republicans facing a certain kind of choice and doing a bad job of it. So, on balance, it’s negative on Republicans. Now, it was released in August 2004. And Bruce tells us, the $1M was spent playing it in Bush-Kerry battleground states.

    Hmm, what are we left with? A very murky, but ultimately Republican-negative, TV ad is run specifically in States where President Bush, a Republican struggling for re-election, is having a particularly difficult time. Conclusion: It was a campaign ad against President Bush. Period.

    I challenge someone to come up with a better interpretation. (“Better” meaning, you really aren’t just giving me a pile of bull.)

    Final note: If the FMA is what the LCR guys supposedly were against, which would be justifiable… well, bullhockey to that theory as well. The ad I’m seeing doesn’t come close to even a vague allusion to the FMA.

    Again, if they spent the $1M on a different ad, please let me know (and where I could view it).

    Comment by Calarato — April 26, 2006 @ 7:17 pm - April 26, 2006

  9. Calarato – You’ll see the anti-FMA add about two thirds of the way down the page, it has a photo of VP Cheney next to it. I think this is where the bulk of LCR’s spending went when they talk about the million dollar ad campaign.

    Comment by Casey — April 26, 2006 @ 7:54 pm - April 26, 2006

  10. Bruce, the LCR explanation of where the ads would run doesn’t help your argument. At least I don’t see it…

    LCR said it would be DC and 7 swing states, but the results for DC show Kerry won over Bush 10 to 1, the swing states respectively are FLA went Bush by 400k, Bush lost MN by 100k, Bush took MO by 200k, Bush lost NH by 8-9k, Bush won NM by 6k, Bush took OH by 150k and lost WI by 11k. The only state “lost” that Bush didn’t expect to lose in the LCR’s definition of “swing states” was WI –and that was all about the state’s economy and no TommyT to run the engine.

    Again, I’m not defending LCR or their rebuke of the Prez… GOPers can contest an incumbent’s right to continue serving and it doesn’t send them outside the tent forever. I remember RR challenging incumbent Gerry Ford for the nomination and ultimately, 4 years later, RR’s brokers tried to seduce Gerry Ford into a superVeep position on RR’s ticket… politics doesn’t always get the final chapter written until more time unfolds. Rightly, no one spoke about RR’s indecent challenge to Gerry Ford at RR’s funeral… which is ironic since RR’s memory embodies that adage of never speaking ill of another GOPer.

    I guess the question boils down to whether the LCR ads were intended to press the Prez away from the FMA, demonstrate the LCR’s bona fides to the gay community, or meant just as anti-Bush ads… and maybe a little of all and more. I just don’t see them as the latter –no one with even marginal political skills would be that ineffective on purpose.

    (Calarato, you can see the other media ads on LCR’s site.)

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 26, 2006 @ 8:06 pm - April 26, 2006

  11. #8 – OK – As an anti-FMA ad, that works a lot better. Direct content and nicely presented.

    Now, again, on a which-candidate-did-it-help-or-hurt analysis… well… which candidate did it help or hurt? In the manner (times and places) it was played in the 2004 campaign, I mean?

    #9 – Weak analogy with Reagan because, once Ford got the nomination, Reagan closed ranks behind him. Endorsed him and (if memory serves) even campaigned for him, I think. On that analogy, LCR would have switched to a pro-Bush message around August 2004.

    “I guess the question boils down to whether the LCR ads were intended to press the Prez away from the FMA, demonstrate the LCR’s bona fides to the gay community, or meant just as anti-Bush ads…”

    Yeah, that’s the question. I’d need confirmation on exactly which ad was played, where and when in 2004.

    Comment by Calarato — April 26, 2006 @ 8:25 pm - April 26, 2006

  12. Sorry, my refs above should have been to #9 and #10, respectively.

    Comment by Calarato — April 26, 2006 @ 8:27 pm - April 26, 2006

  13. P.P.S. They released the FMA ad much earlier in the year – Feb 2004.

    Intuitively, I might guess that the later ad (that I panned) is the one they would have broadcasted in the campaign. Hence my asking further info.

    Comment by Calarato — April 26, 2006 @ 9:10 pm - April 26, 2006

  14. What in hell is the point of this conspiratorial fantasy?

    Are you actually arguing that an organization should not accept donations from people who do not cleave 100 percent to its ideological agenda?

    Serioiusly, what’s the point? It reads like innuendo of the worst sort produced by the moonbattiest left. You praise Gill for his good work and then you suggest something wrong in the LCR accepting money from him because he’s not a card-carrying member. And you admit that you’re speculating and then accuse them of the crime of not reporting your speculation to the FEC.

    You people need to get over your hatred of the LCR. If you read this kind of shit on the left, you’d be screaming for proof.

    Comment by NitPicking4Jesus — April 26, 2006 @ 9:23 pm - April 26, 2006

  15. Regardless of “where” the money came from, it makes me ill over how much grassroots organizational development could have been accomplished with “that” million-dollars. There are still a number of states that STILL do not have LCR Chapters up-and-running. And a considerable number of metropolitan regions with large enough gay populations for LCR Chapters in their own right. Contrary to the fantasies of the both the Left and the Right, there are gay Republicans in every state town and county in this Nation. In an era of one-billion-dollar Presidential races…think I’m exaggerating, look at St. Hillarybeast’s potential 2008 war-chest…a million-dollars doesn’t go very far in “buying friends” on the Hill anymore. But that same million-dollars could have been the fertilizer that brough budding gay Republicans out of their “political closets”.

    If the LCR is to be more than a rationale for Patrick’s being invited to post black-tie Beltway parties, the LCR should be concentrating on it’s grassroots…rather than anxiously-being a fellow-traveler with the Democratic Party’s zombie-Gay Rights/Abortion Rights thralls; the HCR, the Victory Fund, and the NGLTF. Personally I fervently believe that a partisan G/L political organizations shoud be supportive the the politically-minded partisan G/L members of the community, and not the “gay issues”. A “gay Republican” organizations shoudl be seeking-out and supporting “gay Republicans”, not gay issues. There are plenty of effectual and ineffectual “issue-oriented” gay organizations out-there already.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — April 26, 2006 @ 10:47 pm - April 26, 2006

  16. Bruce’s blind contempt for Patrick Guerriero and LCR is warping his judgment. As he often does, Bruce left some facts out of his post: the ad campaign was aganist the FMA. It’s outright distortion (or at best a real stretchhhhhhhhhh) to claim that it was a campaign to bash President George W. Bush.

    Yes, LCR refused to endorse Bush’s re-election but I never saw any campaign against Bush.

    Comment by Trace Phelps — April 26, 2006 @ 11:10 pm - April 26, 2006

  17. “…during a time of war.” Can’t make this stuff up!!

    Comment by jimmy — April 27, 2006 @ 1:49 am - April 27, 2006

  18. I am appalled, nay disgusted, that Bruce has once again used this forum to bash the good peeps at LCR. Then again this is his forum and I suppose he can use it for whatever means he so desires, but please for the l/o/g stop this endless tirade against the LCR. Just drink the kool-aid and get on board. 🙂

    Comment by ralph — April 27, 2006 @ 4:37 am - April 27, 2006

  19. If the LCR is being ‘dumped’ on unfairly, the LCR can refute the allegations in a formal reply. Until then, Bruce is “dah man!”

    Comment by benj — April 27, 2006 @ 6:39 am - April 27, 2006

  20. Calarato, on the RR-Gerry Ford example, it wasn’t meant as an analogy for direct application to the LCR-Bush situation –it was to underscore that challenging an incumbent Pres for the nomination or breaking ranks with the GOP leadership doesn’t mean you’re anti-x, y or z… it simply means your ego and issues are driving the decision rather than “what’s best for the Party or the incumbent”.

    LCR made it clear to the WH in 2003-04 that the FMA was a critical issue to their leadership. The WH didn’t listen; you have to be willing in politics to pull the trigger if threaten sanctions.

    Back to RR-Ford, incumbents are sometimes helped by a serious challenge… Ford was not helped by RR in 1976. Bush wasn’t hurt by the LCR FMA campaign –those weren’t Bush voters in the first place and if gay, they were breaking 9:1 for Kerry. Pragmatic politics does make strange bedfellows –it’s all about necessity of building winning coalitions, not purity tests or litmus issues.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 27, 2006 @ 8:58 am - April 27, 2006

  21. “If the LCR is being ‘dumped’ on unfairly, the LCR can refute the allegations in a formal reply. Until then, Bruce is “dah man!”

    Why in hell should the LCR have to disprove a purely speculative allegation? That’s like saying it’s incumbent on Bruce to prove that he’s not on the take from David Duke just because I say he must be.

    Hey, did you know George Bush was in financial cahoots with the bin Laden family and knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when he luanched the invasion? You didn’t know? Well prove me wrong.

    Comment by NitPicking4Jesus — April 27, 2006 @ 10:54 am - April 27, 2006

  22. NitPicker, although I think you’re trying out for a spot in the theatre of the absurd with your last screetch, it would be funny if your last outrageous comments weren’t actually held to be true by some of your allies on the GayLeft over at 4300 S Capitol –art trying to imitate life?

    Bruce isn’t asking LCR to disprove the accusation; it’s more like he’s holding them to account. Up til now, the response has been chirping crickets. Fair enough; the WH press and MSM throughout society do it everday and sometimes that’s the answer they get –until they have a chance to head into the labs and forge some documents like the Democrats did and led to one of their icons getting dusted (Dan Rather).

    Quick question for your NitPicker, what are some of the other names you go by on here? Just curious.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 27, 2006 @ 2:37 pm - April 27, 2006

  23. Question for you Matty? What the hell difference does it matter what name anyone goes by here? It’s an anonymous medium. It’s not like I’ve cloned myself into a majority voice. Another strawman.

    By the way, I don’t regard myself as a leftist, but then the LCR is being called liberal here, so what the hell do I know? I must be whatever you say I am — just as the LCR is a liberal oasis because it allegedly takes a donation from someone whose credentials don’t suit you either.

    As for taking a role in the theater of the absurd, I plead guilty. But don’t mistake the actor for the theater, sweetheart.

    Comment by NitPicking4Jesus — April 27, 2006 @ 5:20 pm - April 27, 2006

  24. My impression as someone involved at the time was that LCR was interested in the promotion and visiblity for the group more than anything. It was red meat for the liberal media so it got them in the news a lot and I was told that membership grew significantly during and shortly after that ad and after they chose not to endorse Bush. That’s my impression. However, I think the premise given was that it might sway the president somewhat as he would not want to be perceived as intolerant by soccer moms in swing states.

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — April 27, 2006 @ 7:51 pm - April 27, 2006

  25. LCR is being called liberal here

    I was calling LCR “liberal” even when I was an active and supportive member. It was a shortcoming that I tolerated for what I perceived to be the greater good at the time.

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — April 27, 2006 @ 7:55 pm - April 27, 2006

  26. #23 – The different it makes, Nit, is that some nasty trolls try to re-appear after they’ve been banned, and/or to play “sock puppets” (multiple monikers that they would use to praise and defend one other, escape scrutiny for past misbehavior, etc.).

    After seeing your defensive answer, Nit, now I’m as curious as Matt. What are some of the other names you go by, on here? (If any)

    Trustworthy people are never touchy about matters of verification and trust, Nit.

    Example: assuming you just asked me the question, my answer without hesitation is that I have no other names here. (I used a different name in the past, but that, also, was my only name at that time – so, no “sock puppets” or anything.)

    So, Nit – how about you?

    Comment by Calarato — April 27, 2006 @ 7:57 pm - April 27, 2006

  27. LCR collectively spent $1 million, beginning in March 2004 over about a five or six month period of time, in direct opposition to the effort to pass the FMA. If you watch the ad you will see that it was simple: use the Vice President’s comments from the 2000 vice-presidential debate to undercut arguments in favor of the FMA. Nothing more.

    Money to pay for the ads was matched from national against local/state money. I believe that Michael Huffington was one of the donors who would match up to $100,000. That goal was achieved. I also know that substantial amounts were spent in CA, NY, and I believe TX (non-swing states). The ads also ran in states considered “swing” and in states where the local chapters raised funds to have the ads run. I know since I helped raise funds for running the ad in WA during the WA State GOP convention.

    That ad was NOT anti-Bush, did not advocate voting against or for any candidate, and was on target in states where we wanted to scare Republicans in swing districts (and the Senate) to oppose the amendment. It was about defeating the FMA and nothing more.

    Regarding whether or how that money was reported … since the FMA (and the ads opposing it) was strictly an issue ad, I don’t believe the rules in place at that time required reporting of so-called 527 issues campaigns, or that PAC funds be used to pay for such ads if they occur within a certain time frame of the election. Either way, I’m comfortable with the fact that the funding and reporting issues were handled in a proper and legal manner.

    Bruce, you can say a lie repeatedly until someone believes it, but the reality is that the ads were developed and run LONG before a decision was made on whether or not to endorse the President (August 2004). To claim they were “targeting” the President is false. Nowhere in the ad does the President’s name (or his opponent) appear. Nowhere does it say vote against the Republicans. Nowhere does it say anything other than LCR agrees with what VP Cheney said in 2000: leave it up to the states. That’s a good, solid TRUE Republican perspective on a federalist issue. Trying to label it as anything other than that does disservice to everyone trying to attain legal equality in our country. And the timing of the ads, before a vote on the FMA yet over 5 months before a decision on whether to endorse the President or not, and 8 months before election day, undercuts your argument that it was aimed at undercutting the President.
    I could give a damn about being liked; I just want my rights as an individual protected. If the government is going to continue to legally acknowledge the relationships of heterosexual individuals, the government needs to legally acknowledge the relationships of us homo individuals as well.

    (GP Ed. Note: This poster has a direct relationship with Log Cabin at the national level. It is not surprising that his comment is full of the talking points on the ad campaign that Patrick and Chris Barron spouted to me repeatedly.)

    Comment by GOPValues — April 27, 2006 @ 8:36 pm - April 27, 2006

  28. GOPValues:

    OK – Now what about the “Hope Not Fear” ad?

    It was released in August 2004. Please extract my review comments from whatever else I said in #8. It was murky, but at the end of the day, implicitly anti-Bush. Where was it aired, and when? How much money, if any, did LCR spend on airing it? Thanks in advance.

    Comment by Calarato — April 28, 2006 @ 12:45 am - April 28, 2006

  29. Bruce, on the editorial note for the GOPValues comments, I think just about anyone here with a tad bit of common sense could discern the writer was from or connected to LCR… the specificity of information and flavor of advocacy is too strong to connote otherwise.

    Were they talking points used as spin tools or just pertinent information? I think the latter. Thanks for the insight GOPValues.

    And as far as your point about “I could give a damn about being liked…” ummmm, you need to change that attitude if you intend to be successful in political advocacy –even Ralph Nader and Howie Dean, at some level, understand that being “liked” helps advance the ball.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 28, 2006 @ 9:03 am - April 28, 2006

  30. Matt, some fine points, but personally I appreciated Bruce’s reminder.

    And, I would appreciate somebody knowledgeable answering #28 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — April 28, 2006 @ 10:46 am - April 28, 2006

  31. (listening to the chirping crickets…)

    Comment by Calarato — April 29, 2006 @ 4:03 pm - April 29, 2006

  32. I agree with Michigan Matt that GOPValues was stating the facts.

    If anyone knows the answer, it would be very enlightening if we were told what’s so personal between Bruce and Patrick G. at LCR. It has to be more than envy or jealousy.

    Comment by Trace Phelps — April 29, 2006 @ 11:35 pm - April 29, 2006

  33. I don’t think these ads were run in Minnesota.

    Comment by Eva Young — April 30, 2006 @ 1:13 am - April 30, 2006

  34. #32 – It could be the fact that LCR under its current National leadership rarely if ever resembles Republicans.

    Gee, do you think that could have anything to do with it? 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — April 30, 2006 @ 2:18 am - April 30, 2006

  35. Despite the numerous replies, it seems many of you would have taken the time to understand the numerous ways for people to funnel money into politics. Given that Mr. Gill wasn’t ‘Bush Bashing’ as people have been led to believe by Bruce’s comments; his campaign was focused on informing people that gays have had many basic rights taken away (i.e. being terminated for being gay, taxable health care benefits for our Domestic Partners, Adoption benefits, etc.). These types of campaigns do not have to be disclosed on FEC reports as it was an informational piece and could be paid for with 501c3 dollars.

    Second, let’s take a second to understand that progress for gay marriage can’t be a partisan issue. As a black male, I’m appalled to think we are pushing for either R’s or the D’s to be on our side…should Tim Gill receive our utter disrespect for giving half of his fortune to give rights to us all?!? For understanding that progress will be made only when you take it away as a wedge issue? And given the opportunity for progress, Tim understands that it doesn’t come in a giant leap, that Domestic Partnerships are better than Constitutional Marriage Bans. It most certainly did not for my rights as a black male republican and it most certainly will not for being gay.

    So take the time to say thanks gentlemen for progress of any kind. For Tim helping us grow the membership of LCR, for giving money to both sides. And if you can’t find it in your hearts to do that, put half of your fortune on the table. It’s awfully easy to hide behind our curtain isn’t it?

    Comment by Alex Bartlett — May 1, 2006 @ 1:04 pm - May 1, 2006

  36. Interesting that Bruce added an editorial note on my posting.

    I’m not sure what is meant by “direct relationship with Log Cabin at the national level.” I’m no longer President of LCR of Washington (state). I’m a member through our local chapter, and I’m an openly gay elected official. Please Bruce, tell us what constitutes the “direct relationship” and clarify that for your readers. Would you be so kind?

    Second, my “talking points” come from me and me alone. I was pointing out facts, as I know them, regarding the FMA ads. Anyone who knows me knows that I speak my own mind and cut my own swatch, much to the chagrin of LCR’s national office (I’m sure they’d tell you the same thing.)

    Regarding the other ads that ran, I have no idea. I never saw them. They didn’t run here in Washington state and we didn’t raise money for them, so I can’t speak to those, Calarato.

    And as for my comment about being liked by our opposition or not, I stand by them, Michigan-Matt! Being polite is one thing, being liked though is entirely something different and I’m long passed the point of trying to make people like me or not. They either do or they don’t.


    Dave Kaplan
    Des Moines, WA

    Comment by GOPValues — May 1, 2006 @ 11:17 pm - May 1, 2006

  37. P.S. – My apologies for the multiple misspellings and wrongly used words. It was a long few flights back from D.C.

    Comment by GOPValues — May 1, 2006 @ 11:20 pm - May 1, 2006

  38. Dave/GOPValues, I understand the impulse to thump on your chest and hammer the shoe into the podium when puntucating the need for serious progress on civil rights –but, when I wrote “liked” I should have written civil, polite… screaming doesn’t get us ahead. It’s why the GayLeft has failed all of us in advancing the ball. It might feel good for them to scream, fist pound, throw a tantrum by withholding political support –but unless the other side wins, by doing all that we cut ourselves off from the power centers that can help us.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 2, 2006 @ 9:50 am - May 2, 2006

  39. […] I have speculated before that Gill was also the Log Cabin (Republicans) “Million Dollar Man&#8… in their anti-Bush TV ads in 2004.  This TIME piece makes it seem even more likely given Gill’s “stealth tactics.  LCR repeatedly flashes Gill’s ads on their website, so he is obviously still a major donor.  But to date, Log Cabin has still not publicly accounted for where this money came from.  At least the Hypocrite Rights Campaign has finally opened their Kremlin doors and have offered some accountability.  When will Log Cabin? […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Tim Gill: The Gay George Soros — November 19, 2008 @ 7:27 pm - November 19, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.