. . . he’d be folk hero to gay and lesbian activists.

Not only did he risk alienating part of his party’s conservative base in the 2000 Vice Presidential debate by speaking out in favor of gay couples living openly, but in the 2004 campaign, he opposed his running mate, President Bush, on only one issue when he spoke out against a constitutional amendment defining marriage.

But, it’s not just what he has done publicly which would make him a folk hero to these activists were it not for the visceral hatred of Republicans, particularly those, like the Vice President, closely associated with President George W. Bush. Behind the scenes, he has also been a force for tolerance and acceptance of individual gay men and lesbians.

Just one anecdote from Mary Cheney’s must-read book, Now It’s My Turn shows how good a man Vice President Cheney is. After the president announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), a longtime supporter of the president, just coming to terms with his sexuality, feared that he might be “outed” as part of a campaign by angry gay activists to target gays who had not yet come out and who worked for Republicans or who otherwise supported the president.

Mary told the man he should come out to his supervisor. When she mentioned this man’s concerns to her father, that good man said, “I want you to go back and tell this person that if anyone–I don’t care who it is–if anyone gives him any trouble, he is to come see me and I’ll take care of it.” When she told the man what her father, the Vice President of the United States had said, it helped relieve him of “at least some of his worries.”

The Vice President willing to go to bat for a gay man who fears that his coming out could hurt him professionally. Sounds like the kind of story gay activists would want to tell. But, of course it they told that story, it might upset their narrative about the narrow-mindedness of conservatives, particularly those close to President Bush.

Once again their narrow partisanship prevents them from telling the real story about this Administration — and the ever-improving conditions for gay people in America, even under George W. Bush’s leadership.

I’m not out of my funk….but I’m trying to get there.   As part of my journey, I went back and read some emails that I’ve saved.  I am glad this one was there for me to read again.  With permission, I am reprinting it with my thanks to this great lady.

I am an avid reader of blogs, and I read yours daily, because I am in complete support of your views. I am a 70-year-old straight white happily married woman–a former chemist, and a former public school teacher, and presently a writer of science fiction that I sell on the Internet. Politically, I am a centrist, who, lately, votes Republican, because I don’t trust the Democratic Party as it exists today to keep America safe from terrorist attacks, or to fight terrorism world-wide. I am an agnostic, a supporter of abortion rights as long as the abortion takes place within the first four months, but an opponent of “partial birth abortion” which I view as murder. I live with my husband of 37 years on a cattle ranch in Western Wyoming–a very red state. I got a big charge out of the post you wrote after going to your first rodeo. We, too, play the national anthem at rodeos, and everyone stands respectfully and salutes the Flag, while the national anthem booms from the loudspeaker. We unabashedly love our country here.

I am writing to tell you how glad I am that you continue to point out to the fog-bound leftists in this country that “The Iranian government is executing gay and bisexual men under the cover of rape and kidnapping charges…” etc. What hypocrisy, the silence of the radical left regarding the atrocious treatment of gays in Moslem countries! Do these deluded American liberals–gay or straight or in-between–really wish to live under Sharia law? When will they wake up to the danger creeping up on us from within as well as from without?

I believe in gay marriage and all the legal benefits such legislation would bring.  I believe in the right of gay men to live as they please, peacefully and cooperatively, as members of a community that accepts the right of any pair of consenting adults to live in whatever sexual relationship they please.

I am firmly of the opinion that the leftist radicalized gay movement is going more than a little overboard in its demands–that it is hurting the cause, rather than helping it–by adopting overly aggressive political strategies used also by radical Moslems. I think you know that, and I admire you for taking the firm stands you have, on your blog.

I expect that when you see by my Internet address that I am a resident of Wyoming, you will think immediately of the Matthew Shepard case. That’s only natural. Well, let me tell you a few facts about that vicious attack and its dreadful consequences.

First: before the news of that heinous murder ever hit the prime time news, the Laramie police had the two perps in custody. They also had secured hard evidence of their guilt: evidence that stood up in court. Second: the two perps were high school dropouts who were high on methamphetamine when they committed the crime. The drugs played as big a part in the tragedy as did their anti-gay bias. Third: the photos that appeared on the national news, of people holding up revolting, disgusting, hate-filled placards at Matthew’s funeral–photos that the news services let their viewers believe were images of Wyoming residents–were not such. They were photos of members of the hate group–a so-called “church”–run by a bigot named Fred Phelps. (Today he takes his followers to disrupt the funerals of servicemen, damn his appalling gall). Phelps and his adherents had hastened to Wyoming from Kansas and Texas as soon as they heard the news. What the media did NOT show, was that the students of the University of Wyoming formed a human wall between those demented purveyors of hatred and the family of Matthew Shepard, forming a solid, impassible line with their bodies to shield the family members from the sight of the placards. Fourth: Wyoming does NOT have a “hate crimes” law. But we do have the death penalty for murder. The authorities tried the less guilty man first, and he got life without possibility of parole in the Rawlins Penitentiary (not a good place to spend one’s life, believe me!) The more guilty of the two–the man who actually committed the murder–I truly believe would have gotten the death penalty, but for one thing: Matthew Shepard’s mother made a dramatic appeal at the trial that the murderer not be given the death penalty. She swayed the jurors and the judge. But for that highly emotional appeal–one with which I did not agree–the convicted man would have been executed, and no one in this state would have raised any outcry. As things turned out, the guiltier of the two perps also got life in Rawlins without possibility of parole. Actually, a good case could be made that the punishment turned out to be worse than death. I personally hope the two criminals find it so.

Wyoming people may vote solidly conservative, and some undoubtedly disapprove of the gay lifestyle, but Wyomingites universally condemned those two murderers. Wyoming people tend strongly to judge the people they meet on their merits, not on those people’s degree of wealth, their political affiliations, their sexual orientation, their race, their religion or lack thereof, their ethnic origin, or any other such distinction. Wyomingites judge a newcomer mainly by his ability to be a good neighbor, in the old, classic sense of the word. This is a land that’s still not fully tamed. There are times when one’s life or livelihood depends on one’s having good neighbors. That’s the acid test applied to any newcomer, be he rich or poor. If he measures up in a pinch, he’s accepted. Oh, yes, the old ways are passing–but slowly. And when they’re gone, the United States will be the poorer for their going.

My husband’s grandfather was the first settler in this part of Wyoming. He came in 1885, bringing his wife and a herd of cows. All of the cows but one died in the blizzard of 1888–the one made famous by Charlie Russell in his drawing entitled “The Last of 10,000.” Cows, that is. My husband’s grandfather wanted to move on, but couldn’t afford to. So he stayed, and our family grew. My husband is the last of his descendants to remain in the cattle ranching business here.

I admire you for entertaining views that conflict with those of radical gay men. I hope that some day, if you should be passing through Wyoming, you’ll take time to stop off and attend a rodeo here!

You can count on it!  And thanks for reminding me that sometimes the windmills we run toward are important.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In order not to disturb the common left-wing perception of the Vice President as a dogmatic right-wing demon, most gay groups commenting on Mary Cheney in recent days, have ignored the Vice President’s record of tolerance and his outspoken opposition to a constitutional amendment defining gay marriage. One notable exception to this sorry trend has been a group with which this blog has often been at odds — Log Cabin.

While I would certainly make a few changes to Log Cabin’s release last week on Mary Cheney, the group does recognize the salient fact about the Vice President’s stand on that constitutional amendment, that it is the only issue where, “since being sworn in as Vice President,” Mr. Cheney has “publicly expressed disagreement with the President.” That’s a pretty strong indication of the Vice President’s positive attitude toward gay people. It’s a shame most other gay groups chose to ignore it.

And if gay groups were truly concerned with changing attitudes toward gay people and promoting social acceptance of gay and lesbian citizens in civil society, they would delight in the Vice President’s willingness to speak out on this issue — and herald him as a leader who stands tall against discrimination. But, the largest gay lobbying group, hasn’t mentioned Mary Cheney in a single release since the 2004 campaign. The group thus did not even acknowledge her recently released book — or the love and acceptance the Vice President has shown for his lesbian daughter.

It seems Washington Blade Executive Editor Chris Crain is right, Solomonese’s HRC is little more than lapdog to the Democratic National Committee, eager to please Chairman Howard Dean.

In August 2004, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) Executive Director Matt Foreman said he was “heartened” by the Vice President’s expression of opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. Earlier in the year, however, his group had accused the Cheney Family of “hypocrisy.” And this year, the Task Force has also been silent, failing to use the occasion of the release of Mary’s book to note the Vice President’s positive attitude toward his lesbian daughter.

Elizabeth Birch and Hilary Rosen do acknowledge the book and welcome Mary to the national stage in a Washington Post editorial, but they fail to mention her father’s opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment and only indirectly concede his embrace of his daughter and her same-sex partner. They “feel” (as I pointed out in a previous post) that the “her family . . . perpetrated” wrongs “on the gay and lesbian community” (without identifying those wrongs).

While these two at least noted that Mary’s relationship with her partner “seems to have become a part of the Cheney household,” they, like all too many on the left, fail to acknowledge that this conservative man treated his lesbian daughter as we would like all parents to treat their gay or lesbian children. Or to note, as did Log Cabin, that the one issue on which Vice President dared to differ with his boss — was when he came out against the constitutional amendment defining marriage.

(more…)

You may have noticed, or not, that I haven’t been posting a lot in the past two weeks.  Frankly, I’m in a funk.  

The whole world looks to be crumbling and, like Glenn Reynolds said recently, I am one of those who has lost faith in the “entire governing class” and feel that it “lacks the seriousness and self-restraint necessary to run a major nation.”   One of the main problems, of course, is that the American people do not seem to have the will to fight a world war anymore.  And that is scary to me.  But where is the leadership to rally this nation when its underpinnings are being attacked by jihadists who eat, breathe and sleep planning how to kill Americans and destroy Liberal Democracy as we know it?  And our whiny elitists get upset and scream “impeachment” when our national security agencies try anything to protect us.

Meantime, us peeps are told, don’t you worry now… just go out there and spend your money to help the economy.  Well, I have…and, it worked!  But yet the Establishment (the Opposition Party and their comrades in the US media) won’t even admit, or give us people credit, for a booming economy.  How freaking frustrating is that?  And the governing class (Republicans) seem to have been stuck in the mud with spinning tires since November 2004.

The Spring Of Discontent has gotten more visceral for me with the immigration debate.  It is mind-boggling that the “governing class” is thumbing its nose at legal Americans and legal immigrants in favor of law-breakers with no more allegiance to the United States of America than Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez.  The fact that Senator Cornyn’s amendment barely passed yesterday in the Senate with a skimpy vote of 50-48 is outrageous and depressing.

“This amendment simply requires an employer to look for U.S. workers first. If proponents of the compromise bill were serious when they say that certain provisions are needed because immigrants do work Americans won’t do, then they would have supported this amendment.”

“America is a compassionate country and we want to make sure we do this immigration reform plan correctly. But one of the things we don’t want to do is hurt American workers. We simply must protect American workers and adjust future work visas to meet the needs of the economy.”

As currently written, the immigration bill pending before the Senate would allow unskilled temporary workers – 200,000 a year – to obtain permanent green cards regardless of whether U.S. workers are available to fill the jobs. The Cornyn amendment would fix that flaw in the pending bill.

Maybe I’ve become one of these conservatives suffering “battle fatigue”?  All I know is…. from the White House to Congress, my elected leaders are not governing responsibly.  I don’t know what I’ll do in November.  My “sitting out” the election won’t matter much because my Rep. Sue Myrick is very good and very tough on illegal immigration.  She will win, but maybe my lack of appearance at the polls will send some kind of message.

All I know is… I’m starting to remember why Ronald Reagan was such a strong leader and how increasingly disappointed I am with all of those who followed.  It also doesn’t help that the Angry Left is making this nation ungovernable for anyone who follows President Bush.  We might as well hand over the keys to Congress to Bin Laden for all they care.

To top this all off, American Idol has really sucked this year.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

While activists criticize the Vice President’s lesbian daugther Mary for not publicly lobbying for gay rights, this “woman who once preferred to fly under the radar” has probably done more than any of them to promote social acceptance of gay people in American civil society. While they work to change laws — or attack Republicans — Mary has lived her life quietly, but openly, in full view of her father’s conservative associates and political allies.

By not drawing attention to her sexuality, but attending public events, including the president’s victory speech after the 2004 election and his inauguration, together with her partner Heather Poe, she shows how normal their relationship is. Instead of seeing an angry activist criticizing their actions, conservatives see a gracious and intelligent woman devoted to that same-sex life partner. As they see this woman embrace her family, they began to understand that same-sex couples do not threaten family values.

If you don’t believe that such experiences change people’s attitudes, then look at this fact. The Vice President has, almost never*, disagreed with President Bush publicly over important policy matters. Yet, both he and his wife have made clear, on more than one occasion, that they disagree with the president on a constitutional amendment defining marriage.

If HRC’s Joe Solmonese really wants to defeat this pernicious proposal, instead of trying to score points with the political left, he would reference the Vice President’s opposition in every public statement he makes on the current debate.

Conservatives love the Vice President. Today, on the Al Rantel Show, über-conservative Ann Coulter said she liked the idea of a President Cheney. If his goal is to defeat the amendment, what better way to sway its conservative supporters than to remind them of this respected conservative’s opposition.

It is because this man so deeply loves his daughter that he understands how damaging the amendment could be. It is unfortunate that so many on the left have been using the publicity surrounding the release of Mary Cheney’s book to fault the Vice President’s daughter for missed opportunities and “cowardice.” But, as they rant on and on, suggesting that she somehow failed the community because she was silent when the House and Senate voted in 2004 on a constitutional amendment, they should note that the amendment failed to clear either House — when it needs a two-thirds majority in both to be sent to the states.

She didn’t need to come out publicly to stop the most unfortunate piece of legislation on gay issues in the president’s first term.

(more…)

As I worked on my piece yesterday on HRC President Joe Solmonese’s silly letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, I found the post growing in the writing. What began as mild mockery of an activist for insulting a man he was (ostensibly) trying to influence became, in part, an expression of my support of a public debate on amending the constitution to define marriage.

While I oppose Senator Frist’s proposed amendment, I do agree with what one thing he said in the 2004 Senate debate on the issue. “The question before us is fundamental: should marriage remain the union of husband and wife?” He’s right; the question is fundamental. And such a fundamental quesiton requires serious debate.

Those who advocate gay marriage should welcome such a debate. If they believe, that it’s (to use one of the terms they’re fond of) about “basic fairness,” then with solid arguments they should be able to convince a majority of the American people of the wisdom of their position. As these advocates present their case, those now opposed to (or skeptical of) changing the centuries-old definition of marriage will realize that individuals who want to marry someone of their own gender, enter into such a union by accepting its responsibilities in order to secure its benefits. Good arguments could make it easier to change their minds.

These advocates need to bear in mind that they’re proposing a significant social change. And there has always been opposition, some sensible, some not-so-sensible, to such changes. While many cultures have recognized same-sex unions throughout human history, I am (as of yet) unaware of single one (until the past decade or so) that used the same term for such unions as it did for those joining two individuals of the opposite sex.

We’re in this situation we are now (with many states amending their constitutions to ban gay marriage and with Congress considering such an amendment to the federal constitution) because some gay-marriage advocates tried to bypass public debate and force the change through the courts.

(more…)

It’s tough to be a moderate Democrat. Hatred of George Bush has changed the loyal opposition into the bitter opposition, less interested in policy than in punishing their bête noire. It’s particularly tough for Democrats who supported the invasion of Iraq, the defining George Bush moment, and who oppose withdrawal.

–Tom Donnelly
“ The Loneliness of the Liberal Hawk“
The Weekly Standard

Perhaps because I had written 5 posts in 24 hours that I felt drained when I finished the fifth of those posts on Monday. Combining that with my disappointment in the president’s speech, I was a little down last night. Not only that. I didn’t sleep well and was woken early by the construction crew next door. As a result, I began the day in a sour mood.

In the morning, I couldn’t focus on my reading for class. I gave up and was, I acknowledge, a little self-destructive. It seemed the day would be shot — and I was going to do nothing to prevent that from happening. But, when I bumped into a cute acquaintance and learned that he had warmer feelings for me than I had assumed, the day began to pick up.

It wasn’t only his kind words — though maybe they, in some way, spurred me to write and get things done that I needed to take care of. I turned to my writing, expressing that disappointment with the president’s speech in one post and channeled my amusement at a silly HRC press release into another where I expressed (in part) my conviction that the gay left, by and large, has failed to engage opponents of gay marriage in serious debate.

Satisfied with that piece, I finally got around to reading blogs and discovered the Anchoress’ excellent piece (on conservative reaction to the president’s speech) which helped me put things into perspective. Maybe it wasn’t as bad as losing an election.

Despite my lack of sleep, I made it to the gym, did some cardio, then returned home to get reading done for my graduate program. By that time, my whole perspective on the day had changed. What seemed, in its first hours, to be a day headed for disaster, turned out to be a productive one, in large part due to a kind word from someone (I’d like to know better) and my own determination to accomplish something.

Looking back on the day, I realized that, on most days, we have in within our power to turn things around. My experience today thus serves, in some way, as a reminder to all of us when we’re feeling down. And to those of us who might hesitate before saying a kind word to a friend — or even a stranger.

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

To know how out of touch the Human Rights Campaign is with Americans outside the Washington Beltway — and how in touch the group is with the Republican-hating left, you just need to read a handful of their press releases, like the one I received in my morning e-mail. In the release, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese includes a letter he wrote to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, asking him to “heed First Lady Laura Bush’s advice: don’t use marriage as a campaign tool.” Like Joe, I agree with the First Lady on this one.

But, Joe doesn’t really help his cause by the tone of the letter.

Joe, if you’re trying to influence a man, you want to praise him and address his concerns rather than confront him. While you’re right to note that gay marriage does not rank very high “on a list of voter priorities,” it doesn’t help you convince someone who supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage to call it “divisive” and to suggest it would put “discrimination in the United States Constitution.”

Unless you show how it would do these things. Instead, all you do in your letter is offer sound-bytes attacking the amendment. You don’t use the letter (as you should) to make serious arguments against the Majority Leader’s pernicious proposal. Here’s a post which might help you make that case.

But, Joe, it’s not just that you have failed to make a strong case against the constitutional amendment. It’s that your letter to Frist reads like a screed from an angry left blog (and even a few angry right ones). You claim “recent polls show that the Republican base has fractured as a result of failed leadership from Republican leaders.” While it is true that the GOP base has fractured, it doesn’t help your cause to tell the Senate Majority Leader that it’s because of his failed leadership.

Yeah, Joe, you’re really going to influence a man by calling him a failure!

Not only that, you repeat another left-wing mantra by suggesting that the GOP’s “2004 playbook” included gay marriage. Whether or not that’s true, it doesn’t help your case to bring that up, especially given that the “2004 playbook” (whatever it contained) worked quite well for the GOP. Reminding a coach of a playbook which helped him win would, if anything, cause him to revisit it.

Joe, you don’t influence a politician whose party you frequently lambaste by lecturing him on politics. The very tone of your letter makes clear that you’d rather bait than influence the GOP. No wonder your organization dropped bipartisan from its mission statement.

Like Joe Solmonese, I’m eager for the FMA to be defeated, but, unlike him, I don’t fear a congressional debate on the topic. Why is that so many advocates of gay marriage fear public discussion? They prefer to go through courts rather than legislatures, much better fora for real public debates. I actually welcome such a debate.

(more…)

Given that I blog and the president delivered an important speech last night, I feel somehow that I should share my thoughts with our readers. And while I am not as disappointed in the speech as Bruce and many others on the right seem to be, I was not entirely satisfied with it. I think it was a good start, but that he doesn’t go far enough.

I am pleased that the president recognizes the imperative of beefing up border security, but I fear he doesn’t “get” why so many of those once so enthusiastic about him are upset with his “guest worker” plan. So, I repeat what I said in an earlier post–he needs to meet the Minutemen.

Other conservative bloggers have more detailed responses to the speech. Michelle Malkin and the folks at Powerline were particularly disappointed. I kind of feel like the day after an election where you thought you had a chance of victory, but your man came up short. And last night, while taking a few steps in the right direction, President Bush came up short.

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

UPDATE: I basically agree with Captain Ed’s assessment of the speech:

President Bush tried reaching for the center — a position he has occupied on this issue all along. He tried a one-from-column-A, two-from-column-B approach that probably will leave all sides more or less dissatisfied. His declaration that catch-and-release would end was the most welcome news in the entire speech. He delivered that well and sounded forceful and presidential, but most people will wonder why this practice didn’t end on September 12, 2001. His tone remained measured and firm and he insisted that Congress pass a comprehensive plan that includes both tight security and normalization.

Now read the whole thing and follow the links for some good discussion of the speech.

UP-UPDATE: I join the Anchoress in her call for calm (via JustOneMinute), a must-read post for all conservatives. I’m not going to let my difference with the president on this issue get in the way of my overall support for the man. He has been, on the whole, a good leader in a time of crisis and has appointed judges who will serve the nation well for the generation to come. I remain disappointed with his speech last night, but confident that he can otherwise continue to lead our nation in the right direction.

UP-UP-UPDATE: Tony Blankley’s right, the “single highest strategic objective is to secure the border.” I agree with him that the “president has moved measurably, but insufficiently, toward that position.” He suggests a compromise on this difficult use for throughout American history, “Even sordid compromises were indulged in to gain even larger objectives.” It’s a thoughtful piece, so read the whole thing. (Via Powerline.)

Sometime in early 2005 — or maybe it was late 2004 — I recall defining myself a Giuliani/Schwarzenegger Republican. This shocked my conversation partner who said something like, “But you’re so conservative: these guys are moderates.”

I noted that while I disagreed with each man on a handful of issues, they were conservative where it counted, Giuliani on law enforcement and fiscal discipline and Schwarzenegger (at the time) for his commitment to holding the line on state spending, reforming state programs and reducing burdensome regulation. While each man was relatively liberal on a number of social issues, including those affecting gay men and lesbians, they were remarkably conservative on a number of fiscal issues, often promoting more radical conservative reforms than other Republicans perceived as far more conservative than they.

Perhaps it was their record on gay issues which caused others to define them as moderates. In 1998, then-Mayor Giuliani signed “landmark domestic partnership legislaton.” Governor Schwarzenegger has defended the Golden State’s domestic partnership program and signed a number of bills expanding gay rights, including a few that I oppose (on libertarian grounds). Hence, given their conservatism* on the issues most important to me and their tolerance of gay people, I saw these men as representing the kind of Republican that I am.

So, despite their fiscal conservatism, most, looking at these Republicans’ entire record and decided that they were moderates. By the same token, I would call President Bush a moderate. To be sure, he has been conservative on a number of the most important issues at the federal level, his leadership in the War on Terror and his appointment of conservative jurists to the federal bench, but like Schwarzenegger and Giuliani, he has taken liberal positions on others.

(more…)

Recently, someone asked me why I keep repeating some of the same charges I have been making against Log Cabin nearly since I started blogging. As I begin yet another post taking issue with that ostensibly Republican organization, I recall the words of French writer André Gide (my translation): “You know the story. Nonetheless, we will tell it again. All things have already been said; but as no one is listening, it is ever necessary to start again.”

I can repeat and repeat and repeat my points — and yet few (of my critics) will address them. As Gide might say, no one seems to be listening. In the first 75 hours after I had posted my piece asking for examples of Log Cabin criticism of Democrats — or others on the Left, only one person wrote in to provide such examples. While some have addressed points I raise in my points on Log Cabin, few address my primary charge against the group — that it seems to be bending over backwards not to offend the national left-leaning gay organizations.

While we’re pleased that Patrick so wittily and energetically took down Howard Dean, I note that all gay groups were doing so. By taking on Howard Dean, he didn’t risk offending HRC or NGLTF, who also made statements critical of the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Patrick — and other national leaders of Log Cabin — have to be unafraid to distinguish themselves from the gay left and willing to stand up against the gay organizations as Patrick did when he chastised them on Alito.

When I was active in Log Cabin, among the many complaints I heard about the national office was that it failed to provide an alternative to the national gay organizations which, these gay Republicans believed, ill-represented their concerns. And while the leadership of Log Cabin has changed, the left-leaning agenda of the national gay groups has not.

Indeed, if anything, it has become pronounced. I receive press releases, statements and news articles from (or about) these groups on a regularly basis. Frequently, they take gratuitous pot-shots at the president and the GOP — or otherwise misrepresent their record. And yet, Patrick has worked to increase his Log Cabin’s “standing among liberal national gay rights rights groups.”

It’s not just that Log Cabin seems to be bending over backwards not to offend the gay left, it’s that they lack a vision of their own. As I noted previously, a friend who attended their “convention” left the banquet not knowing what the group stood for. Even their allies are grumbling. Returning from that confab, Log Cabin member BoiFromTroy wrote:

Lacking a clear message–an overriding philosophy–Log Cabin stands for little more than tax cuts and sodomy. While both are things that Log Cabin members like, it is not a winning message in the heartland or on The Hill.

While I think Boi is a bit harsh on the president (W may be wrong on gay marriage, but he hasn’t launched a “jihad against” it), Boi wrote a solid post which all those who care about Log Cabin should read.

(more…)

Just returned from my neighborhood Barnes & Noble where I bought Mary Cheney’s book Now It’s My Turn: A Daughter’s Chronicle of Political Life, a book I have been looking forward to reading since I first learned of its impending publication. I knew I couldn’t buy it at A Different Light, my local ostensibly gay bookstore, since BoiFromTroy reported that the book “wasn’t available” there. While he did not find books by this openly lesbian Republican (at the “gay” bookstore), he did find books by straight leftist Noam Chomsky*. I have long since stopped shopping at that bookstore since they prominently featured books by another disingenous straight leftist.

As I said in my comment to Boi’s blog, the “bookstore certainly has the freedom to carry whichever books it wants. And I have the freedom to shop elsewhere.” That’s why I went to Barnes & Noble today to buy the book. As usual when I visit a Barnes & Noble, I delight in the diversity of their selection.

Not only did this bookstore carry Mary Cheney’s book, but they also carried books by other thoughtful conservatives like Victor Davis Hanson — and books by blowhards of the left as well as those of the right. I laughed out loud when I read the blurbs on the back of a book whose subtitle, “Voices of Dissent and the Risk of Speaking Out,” suggests a certain left-wing paranoia. I may lament that my critics do not address the arguments I raise in my posts and often deliver broadsides against me (and others on the right), but I wouldn’t even suggest their attacks pose a risk to my speaking out.

Yet, while Barnes & Noble delights in books of all political perspectives, its rival Borders has chosen not to stock the April/May issue of Free Inquiry because that magazine published 4 of the Mohammed cartoons. Now, just as the West Hollywood bookstore, Borders is free to stock whichever magazines it chooses. And I’m free to shop at Barnes & Noble because that bookstore doesn’t let intimidation get in the way of the pubications it carries. (H/t to Tammy Bruce for reminding me of this story on her Talk Radio 790 KABC-AM radio show Saturday.)

I was delighted to learn that Lambda Rising, a gay bookstore I frequented when I lived in the Washington, D.C. area, is carrying Mary’s book. They were even trumpeting that on their front page when last I checked. Kudos, Lambda Rising.

It is a sign of how politicized our gay culture has become that I would offer kudos to a gay bookstore for carrying the book by the lesbian daughter of the Vice President of the United States.

By so politicizing their selection, my local gay bookstore not only loses a sale from the books they refuse to carry, but by making gay conservatives feel unwelcome, they also discourage us from browsing — and gaining sales from treasures we discover while idly looking around. It was in so browsing nearly a decade ago in Washington’s Lambda Rising that I chanced on Robert Hopcke’s Jung, Jungians & Homosexuality, a book with which I was then unaware. I bought it, just as I bought a book by Hanson which I discovered while browsing in Barnes & Noble today (after having picked up my copy of Mary Cheney’s book).

Just like Borders, my local gay bookstore will surely lose business by discouraging bibliophiles like me from shopping there.

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

*I wonder if that bookstore’s owners are aware that Chomsky recently paid tribute to the terrorist organization Hezbollah, whose policies on gays are certainly worse than those of Mary’s father — an outspoken opponent of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

One of the greatest disappointments I have had about blogging is that after putting time and thought into a serious post which I hope will generate serious discussion, some reader will comment and dwell on some particular in the post while ignoring my argument altogether or attack me for something I didn’t say or bring up some beef he has with the Bush Administration, the GOP, or conservatives in general. And in some cases, either our defenders (or even Bruce or myself) will take issue with that critic and then lead the discussion away from the subject of the post. The conversation that I had hoped to engender would, alas, not come to pass.

Not until 75 hours after I had asked for examples of Log Cabin criticizing Democrats when a reader, 59 comments into the thread, provided one. This is not to say that we haven’t had good discussions without ad hominems which have gone off topic (from the post to which they’re attached) because we have, even in the thread to that post on Log Cabin. It’s just to lament that we don’t always generate the kind of discussion this medium can and (in my mind) should inspire.

Earlier today, I deleted a comment where the critic refused to address the substance of the post, misrepresented my position in a recent post and then smirkingly recited a list of Democratic talking points. That wasn’t the only thing he misrepresented. Clearly, like a number of our critics, this reader, who hides behind his anonymity, is more interested in attacking us than in engaging us. I have always wondered at those readers who spend so much time on this blog only to pay so little attention to the points we raise, wondering instead (as did that reader) why we didn’t talk about what he wants us to talk about.

If he doesn’t like what we have to say and prefers we blog about something else, there are other countless blogs he can read which may address items of his concern. Not only that. The very tone of some of these critics is not one of argument but of animosity.

In my recent post on Ken Blackwell, I raise, what I believe, is one of the most pressing issues for gay Republicans — what do we do when our party nominates a candidate with whom we agree on the issues, but who publicly attacks gays. Even if Michigan-Matt is right (that Blackwell’s “comments were taken out of context . . . and misconstrued“) and that question doesn’t apply to Ohio’s gubernatorial nominee this year, the dilemma remains. Only a handful (Matt among them) chose to take my point seriously. Alas, that others used the post as an excuse to bait rather than as a means to understand gay Republicans.

To be sure, many of our critics — and our defenders — have used the comments thread to promote a serious discussion of a great variety of issues, not always limited to the issue addressed in the post. Perhaps I go on too much about this, but there are few things I enjoy more than a good conversation, particularly with those who have different views than my own. As an undergraduate, my favorite Political Science professor was a Marxist whom I visit whenever I return to Williamstown. In my last semester in law school, I chose a course with my second favorite law professor (one of the most liberal members of the U-VA Law faculty) over one (which met at the same hour) with my favorite professor (a conservative) because I thought I could learn more from teacher with whom I frequently disagreed.

I would hope that our critics who visit this blog regularly would come here for a similar education. And while there are a handful who do — and who raise thoughtful objections to our ideas — all too many would rather attack us than understand us. And that is truly unfortunate. An unhappy sign of a decline in civil discourse.

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

While it seems I’m back to regular blogging, this past week has turned out to be a rather odd blogging week for me. No sooner do I take issue with Andrew Sullivan for seeing only the dark side of the Bush Administration, that he acknowledges (what I have called) the president’s mixed record on gays — and the Vice President’s opposition to the president’s support of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Barely forty-eight hours after I ask for examples of Log Cabin’s criticism Democrats, its national Executive Director Patrick Guerriero provides one — joining national gay groups in taking on Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean. Kudos, Patrick.

I might have caught that story earlier had a number of ideas for posts come to mind when the story broke (on Wednesday). I rushed home from my errands to turn the brainstorms I had while stuck in traffic into posts where I could communicate them to our readers. Back home, I was so busy writing, I barely had time to check the web. And the one brainstorm I had that morning, a post I dashed off in a matter of minutes got (thanks to an Instalink) more attention than a post I had been working on for nearly a week.

Then, finally, on Friday, when I had lots of time to post and ideas in my head for several short posts, our site went down and I couldn’t post, so I ended up watching two DVDs instead of writing.

Then, two posts which I did not promote got picked up by other sites, my post on immigration by the Washington Blade‘s blogwatch (albeit with a misleading and somewhat inaccurate title) and my post on Jerry Lewis by Pajamas Media. I guess it just goes to show that we can’t really anticipate which of our posts will strike a chord with other blogs.

Sometimes, I’ll have, what I believe is a great idea certain to get people talking, only to find that it gets limited attention in the blogosphere. Other times, I’ll whip off a post in a matter of minutes without expecting any reaction (e.g., my post on Barney Frank and Eason Jordan) and find that it helps generate a blog-storm.

I’ll just keep on blogging and delight that at least some of my posts generate serious discussion — or momentary amusement.

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

Not since Bob Dornan’s narrow loss ten years ago to Loretta Sanchez have I delighted in a Republican’s woes as I delight in the woes of another Southern California Congressman, this time, Jerry Lewis.

Last month, he “refused to go along” with a spending outline negotiated between the fiscally-conservative Republican Study Committee and the House leadership, forcing leaders to pull the bill before a vote. Lewis, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, led the committee’s 13 subcommittee chairmen in objecting to modest reforms in the budgeting process.

While it appears House Speaker had been listening to disgruntled Republicans, calling a bloated Senate version of an emergency spending bill “dead on arrival in the House,” spendthrift Republicans like Lewis prevent the GOP caucus from uniting behind the party’s Reaganite principles.

Federal prosecutors are now investigating ties between Lewis and a lobbyist linked in the bribery scandal of former Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham. It appears that lobbyists hosted poker parties, featuring prostitutes, to attract lawmakers — and other officials — they wished to influence. As the earmark process has grown out control, it’s no wonder lobbyists have devised a variety of means to influence decisionmakers so they can better feed at the federal trough.

It would be no great loss (in fact it would be quite a boon) to the House Republicans if this champion of pork-barrel politics departed in disgrace. Indeed, such a departure would do much to help end pork-barrel politics in Washington– and to restore the GOP to the Reaganite principles which brought our party to power just twelve years ago.

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

Because I think pork-barrel politics is one of the great failures of the GOP Congress, with this post, I am introducing it as new topic for our blog.

UPDATE: In Mark Tapscott’s excellent post, he links an insightful piece by your humble blogger’s occasional correspondent, Bruce Kessler, and looks at the president’s strengths and weakness. Like me, he lauds the president on his leadership in war and for his federal judicial appointments. But takes strong issue with the “congressional wing of the GOP,” focusing on their spendthrift policies and offers a positive agenda for how the GOP can once again become the party of Reagan, rather than continue down the path of Lewis. Since Glenn alerted me to this piece, I’ll just say as he might say, read the whole thing.

While Polipundit is convinced the president will push for amnesty in his televised address on immigration on Monday, I remain hopeful that he will say something like this. I do basically agree with Polipundit that the president can, by and large, attribute his tumbling approval numbers to his stance on immigration. I remain cautiously optimistic that he will change it to meet some of the concerns of his erstwhile supporters.

No matter what the president says, he should at least take the advice included in the above link: “If you really want to get the conservative base back in your corner, go and meet with the Minutemen–on camera–and tell them you appreciate what they’re doing.” Until the rallies last month, I was pretty laissez-faire on illegal immigration. I favored letting them in as long as they worked and stayed off welfare. Today, I see the Minutemen acting in the finest of conservative traditions, undertaking a private initiative to secure our borders.

As the descendant of immigrants, I appreciate that many long for the freedoms and opportunities of our great land. Had America not opened its doors to my ancestors, my parents would have been murdered while they were still children. When my great-grandparents came here, they wanted very much to become Americans. My mother’s parents, who grew up speaking Yiddish, refused to speak that language in front of their daughter. English would be her first language.

Right after 9/11, I, like many Americans, attached a flag (a real one, not a sticker) to my car and noticed that nearly half of the Angelenos similarly flying such flags were Hispanic. I had thought that most immigrants were like them, eager to come here and proud of their adoptive land. And so I welcomed them.

If, however, they’re going to come here, claim loyalty to another nation and insult our country, its leaders and institutions, even its history, then we should not grant them amnesty, but instead do what is possible to send them back to the nation whose flag they wave so defiantly.

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

Since San Francisco is my destination for today and tomorrow, I thought it would be fitting that I post this item, courtesy of North Dallas Thirty, which updates the deranged SF Board of Supervisors rejecting the docking of the USS Iowa in their fair city.

Why Patience Is A Virtue – North Dallas Thirty (in exile in SF)

Some of you may recall how pissed I was at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for rejecting the mooring of the battleship Iowa for reasons that are, to put it bluntly, stupid.

As the turn of events has revealed, though, karma is far friendlier than one can expect; the oxygen-deprived decision of the BoS has created an even better opportunity.

Vallejo council tosses hat into USS Iowa ring – Examiner.com 

The City’s infighting over having a historic naval battleship docked at one of San Francisco piers has been once again muted as Vallejo’s City Council voted last week in support of bringing the USS Iowa to Mare Island.

The Board of Supervisors rejected a proposal to bring the battleship here, citing concerns of costs and placing a military warship in anti-war San Francisco. Supporters rallied state and federal officials in support of docking the Iowa in San Francisco. The debate brought national attention to The City, famous for its anti-war statements.

Vallejo, on the hand, is welcoming the opportunity to incorporate the ship’s military history into its own.

“We’re different [than San Francisco],” Vallejo spokesman Mark Mazzaferro said. “The city has a long naval history, so we think it would be an asset on Mare Island.”

As NDT says,

What better place to put the Iowa than somewhere that would draw tourists away from San Francisco, recognize and reward the long-established naval tradition of a city, be within eyesight of the Board of Supervisors — and be right in the face of the chief anti-military and pro-terrorist harridan who lives nearby?

I don’t know where Vallejo is…. but they can count on my tourist dollar if this historic battleship ends up in their port.

In the meantime, I’m wearing as much RED as I can tomorrow while I troop around the Communist Bay Area.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

(h/t – Instapundit)

As reported last night by the Washington Blade…

Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean has contradicted his party’s platform and infuriated gay rights advocates by saying the party’s platform states “marriage is between a man and a woman.”

And gay rights groups are furious. Log Cabin Kommander, Patrick Guerriero leads the charge:

“Howard Dean puts his foot in his mouth so often that he should open a pedicure wing in the DNC during his tenure,” Log Cabin Republicans President Patrick Guerriero said Wednesday. “Howard Dean’s positions on LGBT issues have changed more often than the weather in New England, where he’s from.”

Look at you, Patrick! Going for the gay and metrosexual crowds with the “pedicure” slam. Nice one. Patrick must have been reading Dan’s post earlier this week. I guess this was his answer. Bravo, Log Cabin. It is about time you remember who you are.

GPW adds:”Kudos, Patrick. You dun good and wittily so.”

The Dean outrage is echoed by the Stonewall Dems…

“Democrats do not believe that the federal government should forcefully dictate family policy for individual states, as championed by congressional Republicans and the Bush administration,” she said in a statement. “Therefore, we strongly point out that Governor Dean incorrectly spoke when stating that the 2004 Democratic Party platform defines marriage as between a man and a woman.”

… National Gay & Lesbian (Socialist) Task Force….

“Disturbingly, this is not the first time he has misrepresented this important and affirming plank [of the Democratic Party platform], and he has been asked before to correct the record and to cease making these misleading statements,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the Task Force.

Foreman said in response to Dean’s “pandering and insulting interview” with the Christian Broadcasting Network, the Task Force would return a $5,000 donation it received from the DNC.

“We do so with great sadness, knowing that the Democratic Party has long been a champion of our rights,” he said.

Yes, Matt… the Dems have been really great when in power — providing us with DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Awesome grasp of history, dude!

Man, and here I thought I would be in a foul mood today due to having to fly United Airlines across the country.

*doing happy dance*

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Details over at Instapundit. 

But, Glenn, are “porkmeister” and “probe” the best words to use to describe someone involved in the Duke Cunningham affair?

*letting out Beavis-like snicker*

-Bruce (GayPatriot)