Gay Patriot Header Image

Ken Blackwell & the Real Gay Republican Dilemma

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 12:23 am - May 11, 2006.
Filed under: Gay America,Gay Politics

After reading my post last week on Ken Blackwell’s victory in the Ohio Republican gubernatorial primary, a reader from Texas wrote in with one of the best questions I have received since I started blogging. Noting that he couldn’t vote for candidates who suck up “to the hard line anti-gay right,” he asked:

if you still resided in your home state [Ohio], knowing what you know about Blackwell, would you vote for him and/or would you encourage others to support him as well? Why or why not would you take this position?

It is this question which, I believe gets to the heart of the real gay Republican dilemma. What do we do when our party nominates a candidate, with whom we fundamentally agree on matters of principle, makes anti-gay statements? It’s one thing to disagree with a candidate on one or two matters of policy, especially given the diverse array of issues with which our elected officials have to deal. It’s another to support one who badmouthes us.

We can’t agree with a candidate on everything. That’s one reason I came around to supporting the president even after he announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). As I said to Bay Windows reporter Ethan Jacobs just after the 2004 election, “The whole point is that gay conservatives have a variety of issues, and on most of them we think Bush would be better than Kerry.”

Importantly, although the president supported an amendment that I oppose, he did not attack gays as had some of its proponents. Not only that. Article V of the Constitution leaves the excutive out of the amendment process. While the president could use the bully pulpit of his office to promote the amendment, he couldn’t vote to enact it. (Still, I would have preferred that he opposed it — or at least remained silent.)

That rationale doesn’t exactly apply to the Blackwell situation. Unlike the president, as one reader noted Blackwell is invovled with the Ohio Restoration Project, an evangelical group which defines gay unions as “deviant,” and who has himself made a number of unfortunate comments about gays. And while Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn has made similar comments, he has distinguished himself in promoting federal programs to fight AIDS.

Aware of his leadership on AIDS issues, I could vote for Coburn, particularly given his efforts to stop federal pork-barrel spending, but could I vote for Ken Blackwel? That’s the real dilemma. He’s good on so many issues, yet, unlike Coburn, does not appear to have taken any stance which would “redeem” him for gay citizens.

When I replied to my reader, I wrote “the short answer is I don’t know” how I’d vote this fall if I lived in Ohio. I would have to find out more about Blackwell’s Democratic oppoent, Congressman Ted Strickland. If he is as moderate as he appears, I could see myself voting Libertarian in the fall. But, if he were a liberal, planning spending increases and tax hikes (which could hurt Ohio’s fragile economy), I might have to pinch my nose and vote for Blackwell.

It’s not an easy issue. I would rather not vote for a candidate who routinely badmouths gay people. At the same time, I would love to see a Republican elected who would stand up for Reaganite principles, providing for public safety, promoting fiscal discipline and reducing regulation and so encouraging entrepreneurship. Ken Blackwell is committed to those goals.

This reader raised a very important issue which all serious gay Republicans need to consider. I think Log Cabin would improve its standing among conservatives if it promoted discussion of this topic. Perhaps a panel at their next gathering, a panel that would include at least one gay Republican who would support an otherwise principled conservative who had repeatedly made anti-gay remarks. A panel that would consist entirely of Republicans.

In 1996, much as I mistrusted Bill Clinton, I knew that, in the unlikely event that my party nominatd Pat Buchanan, I would have voted for the Democratic incumbent — and not just because of Buchanan’s anti-gay attitudes. Another gay conservative friend said that not only would he have voted for Clinton in those circumstances, he would have given money to his campaign and put a bumper sticker on his car. In 1991 in Lousiana, I would have voted for the crook on the Democratic line (Edwin Edwards) over the Klansman on the Republican (David Duke). There are some people so extreme and so hateful that I would definitely vote for their Democratic opponents.

Distasteful as some of his comments on gays are, Ken Blackwell is neither a Pat Buchanan nor a David Duke. Unlike them, on most issues, he is a Reagan Republican. But, because of those remarks about gays, I would have a great deal of difficulty voting for him. At these stage of the game, I’m not sure how I’d vote if I still lived in Ohio, but I would certainly pay attention to the policies his opponent was proposing. And to the merits of the Libertarian candidate.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Share

29 Comments

  1. So, you couldn’t vote for someone who was “planning spending increases and tax hikes”, but you could vote for someone who is planning spending increases WITHOUT the tax hikes.

    Once upon a time, paying for your spending what what Republicans and conservatives called “fiscal responsibility”. The first President Bush at least tried to adhere to this principle, even breaking his campaign promise of “no new taxes” rather than run up the deficit with spending that wasn’t paid for. This is what the Democrats now stand for, and what the Republicans now oppose.

    One of the first things Nancy Pelosi plans to do when she becomes Speaker of the House is to reinstate the “pay as you go” spending rules that the Republicans enacted when Clinton was President and then promptly repealed as soon as Bush was elected. That is fiscal responsibility. It used to be a conservative value.

    How odd it seems that a self-styled conservative is now complaining about the fact that a candidate seems to believe that our spending should be paid for today, rather than running up the taxpayers’ credit card. What is better than a man who wants to pay for his spending? Why, it’s a man who doesn’t want to pay for his spending! Vote Republican, for all the spending you can take with none of the responsibility!

    Comment by Anonymous — May 11, 2006 @ 12:50 am - May 11, 2006

  2. My answer, GPW:

    — Vote as you please

    — State your position, including with what you agree and disagree, publicly

    — Sit on your wallet

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2006 @ 1:17 am - May 11, 2006

  3. Anon, I should really probably delete your comment because I raise a serious issue in this post which you ignore. Just another sign that some of our critics would rather bait than engage us.

    And since your comment has nothing to do with the post to which you attach it, I won’t dignify it with a response. Please remember that this is our blog and we are more than generous in not deleting your rants.

    Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — May 11, 2006 @ 4:20 am - May 11, 2006

  4. You don’t think it is relevant that you (along with the Republican Party) seem to have abandoned all pretense at fiscal responsibility? I would say that this fact goes directly to several of your claims in this post: that you are a conservative, that you don’t have fundamental disagreements with the Republican Congress, and that Republican spending habits are somehow connected to “fiscal discipline”.

    If you are truly a fiscal conservative, then you should be supporting the Democrats who want to bring back the “pay as you go” spending rules. If you are a die-hard supporter of the big-spending, deficit-raising Republicans, then you need to stop calling yourself conservative. One way or the other, this is entirely relevant to the central premises of your post.

    Your ENTIRE argument here rests on the assumption that, as a “conservative”, you agree with Blackwell and the Republicans on just about every issue except the ones related to gays. I just don’t buy that, and my response was directed at challenging that assumption. If you REALLY hold the traditional conservative views on fiscal policy, foreign military intervention, federalism, education policy, and welfare, then you should be siding with the Democrats and not the Republicans. Conservatives believe in pay-as-you-go. Conservatives believe that we aren’t the world’s policeman and conservatives don’t see “democracy” as one of our exports. Conservatives believe that the federal government shouldn’t be regulating personal choices and behaviors, nor should it be telling the States what kinds of laws they can and cannot pass. That is why so many conservatives, including a great many of the gay ones, are abandoning the Republicans. It isn’t because they disagree with the GOP on just ONE issue… but because they find themselves opposed to almost every aspect of Republican public policy.

    Leaving aside the gay issue, your public statements of what you believe in are so out of whack with the kinds of policies you actually support that it is getting difficult to give them any kind of credence. As a staunch supporter of the Republican leadership, I was shocked that you could actually type the words “fiscal discipline” without your keyboard bursting into flames. The GOP has flip-flopped on pay-as-you-go, so much so that they are now in the position of opposing THEIR OWN RULES! But according to your post, you support them because you believe in fiscal discipline. How gullible do you think your readers are?

    The supreme irony is that the gay Republicans who so often say “I am so much more than my sexual orientation” are now the ones complaining that the debate isn’t being limited to just the gay issue! This isn’t just about whether some Republicans have taken a stance that might redeem them with gays, but also whether the Republicans have adopted any actual policies that would redeem them with conservatives. If you are REALLY “a conservative who happens to be gay”, then THAT is what you should be talking about. I can see why you WOULDN’T want to discuss that, but don’t blame the rest of us for doing so.

    Comment by Anonymous — May 11, 2006 @ 10:27 am - May 11, 2006

  5. Dan, that’s a great question –for me, I’m still stuck with the notion that pragmatic political alliances require compromise… it’s why I get turned off by the one issue, litmus tests of the GayLeft or Pro-Life or Concord Coalition or farm subsidy proponents or affirmative action activists or Libertarians practicing as GOPers.

    You really don’t have a “dilemma” as a “gay Republican” because, by definition, a dilemma means that both of your options are mutually exclusive. I would offer that if you’re a GOPer, you need to support the party’s candidate –whether or not they specifically advance and/or support “your” issues. If you don’t like the candidate, the place to oppose is in the primary battle or within the party leadership.

    Once chosen, the candidate deserves your support if you are part of the party. If you want to sit on your wallet per NDXXX, don’t. It’s the prerogative of the precocious –not the party pragmatist.

    Party politics isn’t like heritage based hyphenating of “American” with every single nationality or cultural tie (I recently heard a college professor at UofM refer to himself as Persian-American)… there shouldn’t be any hyphenated GOPers AFTER a primary; it’s just GOP –not gay-GOPers.

    Politics is all about compromise, consensus, leadership and coalitions… and, not to be too cliché, politics is the oil that allows the engine of govt to produce power –don’t want to make political decisions weighted in compromise, get on the sideline until you’re ready to accept the notion that being part of a political party doesn’t translate into perfect results on litmus tests.

    The preferable end result of party politics is keeping control over govt –whether or not one likes or accepts or approves of every candidate in the party, every plank in the platform. No control, little power to advance an agenda.

    Gay GOPers should support their party. They should support those candidates they’d prefer to see hold office but, once the primary is finished, fall in line and accept that politics is all about compromise and pragmatic political alliances.

    Blackwell won the primary fairly; if you are part of the gay wing of the state party, it’s time to support his candidacy. There’s no dilemma –just an opportunity for dramatic gestures by single issue/litmus test voters. I appreciate you’re not by living in CA –but if you were in Ohio, I’d urge you to buck up, bite the bullet, and behave.

    And that final point ties in with all the criticism here and elsewhere about how the Log Cabineers aren’t being GOP enough… hold up the mirror and let it reflect thy image for enlightenment. You can’t chide the LCR leadership for not toeing the party line in deference to the GayLeft and then do it as a gay GOPer in reference to Blackwell. It’s not consistent.

    I’d have the same advice for “fallen away” Catholics, too, Dan… and GOPers who see fiscal conservatism as the benchmark for party fealty. It’s about governing and majorities –first and foremost. “Sending ‘em a message” by withholding votes, support, money is for the sunny day fair weather Republicans –and you don’t strike me as a fair weather GOPer.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 11, 2006 @ 11:03 am - May 11, 2006

  6. It is this question which, I believe gets to the heart of the real gay Republican dilemma. What do we do when our party nominates a candidate, with whom we fundamentally agree on matters of principle, makes anti-gay statements?

    Making “anti-gay statements” is also an expression of principle. These are not two separate things, they are interrelated. While I’m not talking about GPW specifically, I’ve noticed that in general, gays and lesbians who are unabashedly partisan, whether on the Right or the Left, seem to carry around two sets of rulebooks on what is acceptable. They divide “the gay thing” as separate from everything else a candidate stands for. And they give it a different and lesser value.

    In this way I think their really can be a case made for the stereotype of the “self-hating gay” who votes against his or her on interests.

    To put it simply, gays and lesbians will often accept a candidate who is anti-gay, such as Bush or Kerry, so long as they agree with them on other issues or they think it will accomplish a goal.

    But if the issue were say, about race, they would never consider supporting them in a million years.

    Think about it. If President Bush had come forward in support of a Constitutional Amendment to limit marriage to between members of the same race, even if it were a gay marraige, very few gays and lesbians would ever consider supporting him. If Senator Kerry had ever said that he thinks that a marriage is only between two people of the same race, they would never support him.

    Yet if the issue is about gays and lesbians, they are willing to give them both a Pass Go and Collect $200 PAC donation card. Why? Why be so magnanimous when it is unjustified?

    You can argue about whom; whether black Americans or gay and lesbian Americans, have suffered the most from the effects of prejudice. But nevertheless, the issue is morally the same thing. Prejudice is prejudice. Whether you are prejudiced toward gays and lesbians or black Americans you are still going to go to hell for it. It makes no difference, its the same sin.

    Yet gays and lesbians are willing to forgive this sin if it is directed at themselves, but not when it is directed toward others.

    If we can’t view ourselves as being of morally equivalent worth, we can’t expect other Americans, including our politicians, to either. We have given up the field of battle without laying a single footstep upon it.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — May 11, 2006 @ 12:04 pm - May 11, 2006

  7. Of course he is a fair-weather GOPer! He said up-front that he would have voted for Clinton rather than GOP-nominee Buchanan. He would have voted for Democrat Edwards over Republican Duke.

    What does a man have to say before he strikes you as a fair-weather GOPer, Matt? Admitting that he would vote for Clinton over a Republican who he found unappealing should have convinced you!

    I personally don’t see ANY difference AT ALL in GayPatriotWest abandoning Buchanan or Duke to vote for Clinton or Edwards and the rest of the Log Cabin club abandoning Bush to vote for Kerry or Bednarik or whoever the hell they voted for. Same song, different verse.

    As I said before, this is just faux conservatism. It isn’t principled in the least. Matt is right about one thing: if you have principles, then you stick to them regardless of how much you don’t like where they lead you. If you are going to say that you are a Republican as a matter of principle, then you have to dance with them that brung ya. If you are going to say that you are a conservative as a matter of principle, then you have to support whichever party is advancing a conservative policy agenda. GayPatriotWest seems to have found the worst of both worlds… he is a disloyal Republican when it comes to supporting candidates who are too anti-gay for him to tolerate, but he is too loyal a Republican when his party asks him to betray the conservative ideals to which he claims to adhere. In the end, he’s just betraying everyone and everything at some point.

    But, none of that is relevant, right?

    Comment by Anonymous — May 11, 2006 @ 12:16 pm - May 11, 2006

  8. BTW, in a hopefully permissable aside Dan, re: GOP gubernatorial nominee J Kenneth Blackwell’s comments about comparing gays to barnyard animals? Honest, I’m not trying to test your patience.

    Blackwell’s since spoken on the matter and you haven’t given notice to his clarification… just ran with the story as presented by WTOL “reporters” –which ought to beg caution by itself.

    In an interview with Columbus’ alternative paper “The Other Paper” (how clever) Blackwell claims his comments were taken out of context –sort of the way AGJ did in the 1st post on Blackwell here– and misconstrued. Gee, can you imagine some group of passionate, red meat feeding radicals taking an opposing candidate’s comments out of context for baiting it’s base?

    Seems that Blackwell said his comments –for which no recording exists– were misconstrued ala the liberal MSM’s famous misconstruing of Bill Bennett’s comments about reducing the abortion rate among blacks would translate into higher crime rates for society.

    Blackwell isn’t a sleazebag, no matter how much common ground you may find with the GayLeft in bashing him -and groups like Kos, DemoUnderground and others are doing that with high style.

    Blackwell has committed the ultimate apostasy for gays though… he doesn’t think gay rights movement is the moral equivalent of racial civil rights and he doesn’t think being gay is inherent character trait.

    And the IRS “investigation” spoken/commented upon in another thread here and Blackwell’s connection to it? Pure Left BS. Actually, the IRS hasn’t done jack. It’s a politically motivated complaint by a group of pro-liberal pastors seeking to bitchslap a few conservative mega-churches in Ohio who are taking all the Christians away from the liberal churches –politics practiced by the Left religious! Oh my! Quick, someone limit THEIR free speech rights.

    The more I think about it, your presentation of a “dilemma for gay Republicans” is great for generating debate but what the public square of civil discourse needs is less heat and more light.

    Strickland, the Dem nominee, offers that the 62% of Ohioans voting in favor of the recent Marriage Amendment are wrong or were misinformed and voted out of fear.

    http://www.tedstrickland.com/content/278/strickland-speaking-the-other-paper-march-15-2006

    What crap. Now that’s the old limo liberal riding high and mighty –the voters just can’t be trusted with these tough questions that might go against the wishes of MY favored special interest groups.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 11, 2006 @ 12:23 pm - May 11, 2006

  9. Thanks Anonie-non; with “friends” like you, who needs enemies?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 11, 2006 @ 12:25 pm - May 11, 2006

  10. GrampaGryph???? Have you lost all credibility and integrity? You write: “Whether you are prejudiced toward gays and lesbians or black Americans you are still going to go to hell for it. It makes no difference, its the same sin….”

    THIS from a religious bigot? Good God, you have no shame man.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 11, 2006 @ 12:30 pm - May 11, 2006

  11. Matt, if you have links to back up your point in #8, that would make it a lot easier for me to vote for him were I to live in Ohio. I just haven’t seen such stuff. But, if you have them, I would do a followup post.

    oh . . . and Anon, no, alas, few Republicans are as good as Senator Coburn on cutting government spending, but most Democrats are worse, far worse. If you can provide any examples of Democrats who would have proposed substantial cuts in non-defense related federal spending, I might take you seriously. To be sure, there have been a handful of Democratic governors (like Virginia’s Wilder in the early ’90s) who have held the line on state spending.

    But to imagine a Democratic majority in the U.S. Congress considering spending cuts even ones as modest as those the president has proposed in his last three budgets is to see a party that its leaders don’t even claim exists. They would use their pay-as-you-go program to hike taxes not cut spending.

    And the “dilemma” in this post in this: how does a gay Republican vote when he agrees with the Republican candidate on nearly all the issues, while that candidate harbors — and expresses — anti-gay sentiments. So, no, you don’t address my point.

    Finally, I have criticized the president and House Republicans for their lack of fiscal discipline. So, please address your criticisms to the blog to which you post and not to the Republicans you are eager to despise.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 11, 2006 @ 12:56 pm - May 11, 2006

  12. You’re welcome, Matt. But it has nothing to do with friends or enemies. It is about cold, hard logic… something that you rightly focused on. GayPatriotWest is a good Republican, except when his gay identity requires him to betray the party; and he is a good conservative until his Republican party loyalty requires him to betray his ideals. In the end, he is loyal to nothing and no one. You were quite right to point it out.

    I am still rather surprised that you can’t bring yourself to call it what it is, which is just being a fair-weather GOPer. You don’t strike me as the type to pull your punches.

    Comment by Anonymous — May 11, 2006 @ 1:04 pm - May 11, 2006

  13. GayPatriotWest–

    Do you not understand that raising taxes to pay for more spending is MORE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE than spending without paying for it? That’s the point. The willingness to raise taxes to pay as they go is what makes the Democrats the fiscally responsible party. Why don’t you get that?

    Pay-as-you-go (which is the Democrat position) is more fiscally responsible than deficit spending (which is what the Republicans have done for five years and vow to keep doing). Are you conservative or not? I can’t tell. If you are just another big-spending Republican, then leave off the pretense of a faux conservatism. A real conservative knows that big spending paid for by high taxes is STILL better than big spending and mountains of debt.

    It is the fact that you favor Republican deficit spending over Democratic balanced budgets is what calls your conservative credentials into question. And that is entirely relevant to your original post, which is about your own internal, Hamletesque debate over the choice between the conflicting demands placed upon you by your Republican identity on the one hand and the principles of true conservatism on the other. Matt is right: be a Republican or be a conservative, but give up this futile effort to be both. At this point, you aren’t succeeding at either. The Blackwell affair is merely a symptom, not the cause. Trying to be Republican is making you a conservative only when it is convenient, and trying to be conservative is making you a disloyal Republican. And all that is BEFORE you factor in the gay thing (which most Republicans will say disqualifies you from being a Republican at all)! At long last, just pick one, and be done with it!

    Comment by Anonymous — May 11, 2006 @ 1:21 pm - May 11, 2006

  14. Dan, there were a lot of items in #8 –which ones did you want cites for?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 11, 2006 @ 1:35 pm - May 11, 2006

  15. Anonie-non, right –I didn’t mean it was about friendship, pal; it was a cliche to offer you weren’t helping my case by restating my points erroneously as “…if you have principles, then you stick to them regardless of how much you don’t like where they lead you. If you are going to say that you are a Republican as a matter of principle, then you have to dance with them that brung ya.”

    I made the specific point that it is OK to battle for ideas within the party and up to the primary –but once the candidate is chosen fairly, the line of support forms behind her/him.

    I don’t know if Dan is a fair weather GOPer or not. I do know he’s wrong about there being a dilemma for gay GOPers who have to suffer candidates who don’t conform to some litmus test or who “bad mouth” gays… just like I have to support Pro-Choice GOPers sometimes and women candidates who clearly think men ought to suffer up until women have 50% of all seats in the boardroom, the govt, or the bathroom.

    It is part of being a good party regular on a team –not just an election.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 11, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - May 11, 2006

  16. Matt,

    You say “I don’t know if Dan is a fair weather GOPer or not.”

    Well, I know. Anyone who reads his post knows. He would rather vote for Bill Clinton than for a Republican nominee who is too anti-gay. That pretty much settles the matter, doesn’t it?

    Again, I think you are pulling your punches, and I’m not sure I understand why.

    Comment by Anonymous — May 11, 2006 @ 3:16 pm - May 11, 2006

  17. Our Founding Fathers put in place a system that rewards those who do not subordinate their values to political power. If you vote your conscience, and disregard political considerations, politicians will be forced to listen to you.

    However, if, in the example examined in this discussion, a Republican nominee can expect your support no matter how much his positions contradict your values, he has no reason to listen to your voice. Voting blindly for your party is the dumbest thing you can do — you’re just asking to have your vote taken for granted.

    I am/was a Republican because I am a limited government conservative, not the other way around.

    Comment by Bla — May 11, 2006 @ 8:29 pm - May 11, 2006

  18. I’m sorry that I sound like a broken record and I’m sorry again for not addressing your point Dan but talk like this DRIVES ME CRAZY

    If you are a die-hard supporter of the big-spending, deficit-raising Republicans, then you need to stop calling yourself conservative.

    Do you not understand that raising taxes to pay for more spending is MORE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE than spending without paying for it?

    Anon, explain to me why the deficit is actually shrinking (and why doesn’t anyone know this or care to hear it)? How could we possibly have shrinking deficits with all this out of control spending. Could it be that the growth in tax revenues currently outpaces the growth in spending by nearly twice as much? Your answer is to raise taxes on this growing economy? That doesn’t sound very responsible.

    Comment by John in IL — May 11, 2006 @ 10:45 pm - May 11, 2006

  19. Several points:

    Michigan Matt is off base with his demand that people who consider themselves Republicans must blindly support the party, no matter what. Registered Republicans aren’t obligated to support Republican candidates who abandon the party’s core principles. Loyalty is a two-way street and the party, and its candidates, should be loyal to the party’s supporters.

    Dan, I agree with you and if facing the choice in 1996, would have voted for Bill Clinton against Pat Buchanan. And had I been a Louisiana voter facing a choice between Edwards and Dukes I would have voted for Edwards. But, Dan, you left out another option. That of not voting. In 2004 I held my nose real tight and voted to re-elect George Bush but the rest of my family, sick about the choice, voted for neither Bush nor Kerry.

    The House Democrats’ “contract with America-type” promise for “pay as you go” government, a rule enacted by Republicans, by the way, makes a lot more sense than the GOP’s “put it on my kids’ tab” approach.

    As a small example of a mutli-billion-dollar problem, take the Republican majority’s approval of a $700 million earmark by Senator Trent Lott to move a railroad line along the Mississippi coast (allegedly to make more room for resort and casino development). Rather than borrow most of the $700,000,000 from the Peoples Republic of China, wouldn’t it make more sense to either chop $700 million out of the budget somewhere else or raise revenue to pay for it.

    BTW, having re-read all of the comments above, my vote is that Anonymous made the best arguments. I took note of how little effort was made to refute his many points.
    [Anonymous did not address the point of the post hence there’s no need to refute him. Moreover, he seems to think fiscal discipline doesn’t require any discipline on the spending side. Fiscal discipline means cutting wasteful spending. Anyone knows that, in the unfortunate event that there is a Speaker Pelosi, pay-as-you-go means higher taxes to pay for ever more spending. We favor the Pence/Coburn approach, slash spending and eliminate earmarks. –Ed.]

    Comment by Trace Phelps — May 11, 2006 @ 11:21 pm - May 11, 2006

  20. The House Democrats’ “contract with America-type” promise for “pay as you go” government, a rule enacted by Republicans, by the way, makes a lot more sense than the GOP’s “put it on my kids’ tab” approach

    This is another junk argument. “Put in on my kids tab”….huh? Are you unhappy with our horrible economy or your high taxes now as a result of paying for your parent’s big government spending thirty years ago? Spending now does not result in a lump sum payment in the future. Scare tactic #1

    Rather than borrow most of the $700,000,000 from the Peoples Republic of China

    Scare tactic #2. China owns about 3% of our total national debt. Not sure how that translates into “most”.

    Comment by John in IL — May 11, 2006 @ 11:55 pm - May 11, 2006

  21. and that is assuming the entire 700 million was borrowed (which it wasn’t).

    Comment by John in IL — May 12, 2006 @ 12:02 am - May 12, 2006

  22. It is always suspect when a politician does not disavow the quote, only the context. Translation: I said it, it’s what I think, but will lose me votes.

    Comment by arthur — May 12, 2006 @ 4:03 am - May 12, 2006

  23. Trace writes: “…Michigan Matt is off base with his demand that people who consider themselves Republicans must blindly support the party, no matter what.”

    What part of my statement about working for YOUR preferred candidate during the primary, working with the Party’s leadership to affect change, and all the rest of it sounded to you like “blind loyalty”? Really, now; are you that discussion-challenged?

    What I said correctly is that after the primary is fairly won, it’s time for good party regulars –not the fence sitting, fair weather GOPers– to fall in line behind the party’s choice for office. Period. End of statement.

    How that becomes “blind loyalty” to you is a mystery to anyone with a smattering of common sense or any political acumen.

    Trace, get it right or keep it quiet.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 12, 2006 @ 7:33 am - May 12, 2006

  24. Do you not understand that raising taxes to pay for more spending is MORE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE

    Two words for you, oh economics-illiterate one:

    Laffer curve.

    Comment by rightwingprof — May 12, 2006 @ 7:42 am - May 12, 2006

  25. Blind loyalty to the GOP, even when its candidates offend you, is lunacy. Grow a pair, folks. A candidate who would demonize and scapegoat you isn’t worthy of your support even if you agree with every single one of his other positions. Why? Because bigotry speaks to deeper character flaws that cannot be papered over by an abiding hatred of the estate tax. Jesus, it’s not that diffcult.

    Comment by DCposter — May 12, 2006 @ 2:12 pm - May 12, 2006

  26. The willingness to raise taxes to pay as they go is what makes the Democrats the fiscally responsible party.

    Until you consider the fact that increased taxes drive up business expenses, drive up the cost of consumer goods, decrease the size of peoples’ take-home pay, and make it prohibitively expensive to invest money in long-term growth and capital improvement — all of which leads to a loss of business, jobs, and then tax revenue.

    In precise economic terms, this is known as “killing the golden goose”.

    And as for “fiscal responsibility”, “pay as you go” as a concept is about at the level of a eight-year-old’s allowance. For a twenty-eight-year-old, “pay as you go” is a concept that would prevent him from buying a house because he would have to borrow money — despite the fact that buying a house, because of the tax benefits, potential for equity growth, and shelter it confers, is one of the wisest decisions one can make from a financial standpoint. Furthermore, if the house’s roof sprung a leak, Nancy Pelosi’s “pay as you go” concept means that he would have to wait until he could save up the whole amount to fix it — which would probably be right about the time the water damage bill equaled the roof repair cost.

    In contrast, the Republican “pay as you go” mantra dealt more with requiring cuts in existing spending to pay for new projects — like most people have to do. It works on the concept that most peoples’ incomes are finite — which means that they have to prioritize expenses. If your roof is leaking, don’t go buy a new Mercedes.

    However, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry, all of whom are multimillionaires with inherited wealth, don’t understand that concept. Having inherited their wealth, they think that they have the inherent right to spend, spend, spend, and Daddy will raise their allowances to help pay for it.

    I have a better idea. Why don’t we just pass a law that says Democrats can be taxed at the rate the Dems want to tax them, and Republicans at the rate the Repubs do?

    I guarantee we’d see a party switch of seismic proportions.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2006 @ 6:35 pm - May 12, 2006

  27. A candidate who would demonize and scapegoat you isn’t worthy of your support even if you agree with every single one of his other positions.

    Unless, of course, it’s John Kerry, who publicly praised states for demonizing and scapegoating gays because of a trait with which they were born.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2006 @ 6:36 pm - May 12, 2006

  28. As being a member of Log Cabin Republicans, I’m going to find it very hard for LCR Ohio to endorse Ken Blackwell for governor. Of course, we are not going to endorse Strickland either because he’s a Democrat. The only issue will be to endorse the Republican candidate for governor.

    Bush 2004 = Blackwell 2006? I think the non-endorsement of Bush in 2004 was to protest his endorsement of FMA, a single issue. With Blackwell 2006, we get the whole baggage of anti-gay, anti-“homosexual” rhetoric with the extra bonus of dealing with Rod Parsley and his gang.

    To get respect you have to give respect. Blackwell doesn’t even have an gay outreach link on his website. To come against anything gay or “homosexual” is paranoid. I just cannot see us endorsing Blackwell.

    I love to try to see if we can get an endorsement meeting with Ken Blackwell. Do we really have to tell you how this is going to come out?

    Comment by Dale Giesige — May 27, 2006 @ 5:03 pm - May 27, 2006

  29. […] I think I know what the group would say about the vile attacks on Ted Strickland, if this comment by current chapter president Dale Giesige is any clue: As being a member of Log Cabin Republicans, I’m going to find it very hard for LCR Ohio to endorse Ken Blackwell for governor. Of course, we are not going to endorse Strickland either because he’s a Democrat. The only issue will be to endorse the Republican candidate for governor. […]

    Pingback by Plunderbund » Will Cleveland Log Cabin Republicans Go See Mehlman? — August 7, 2006 @ 9:26 pm - August 7, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.