While I have frequently been quite critical of Andrew Sullivan on this blog, twice this month (here and here), I noted how he, like me, had faulted HRC for its unwillingness to debate gay marriage. In each of those posts, I wanted to make my argument (that the gay groups are more eager to attack Republicans than debate gay marriage) as solid as I could. And by bringing in someone with whom I am (more often than not) at odds, I sought to strengthen (at least one part of) my case.
To be sure, by so doing, I show Andrew to be critical of people other than the president, his party and their supporters. And acknowleding those views, I paint a picture of a more complex the image that many in the conservative blogosphere have of him — entirely in the camp of the Bush-hating left. If my primary purpose were to delegitimize Andrew Sullivan, I would not have mentioned his criticism of HRC (nor would I have praised him on a recent column).
Similarly, when the MSM was all in a tizzy over the NSA’s surveillance program of the international communications of terrorist suspects, conservative defenders of the program, frequently cited one of the nation’s leading liberal constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein, who found the program to be legal. We also referenced Clinton administration officials, including former Associate Attorney General John Schmidt, who held that “the President had the constitutional authority to authorize the NSA program.”
If our primary purpose were to discredit liberal constitutional scholars and that Democratic Administration, we would not have used these individuals’ opinions to buttress our own arguments.
In both cases, we conservatives cited the opinions of those with whom we might otherwise disagree in order to make the strongest argument possible. If, in so doing, we show certain liberals to be less one-sided in their views than our rhetoric might sometimes suggest, so be it. By honestly reporting their opinions, we’re presenting them accurately. More often than not, people aren’t as simple as their adversaries would have them be.
Which brings me back to the gay organizations’ failure to debate gay marriage — a significant point of which I have made much these past two weeks. If gay groups were interested in making the strongest possible argument against the Marriage Protection Act (MPA), they would have repeatedly pointed out that this is the one issue where, since taking office, the Vice President has publicly distanced himself from the president.
We strengthen our case when we show that those with whom we are otherwise at odds support us on an issue. That of course might give more credit to our erstwhile adversaries, but the point should be making a strong argument, not discrediting our adversaries. Unless our primary purpose is something other that advocating issues of concern to us.
If the past few weeks are any indication, it doesn’t appear advocacy of gay issues is one of the primary purposes of the national gay groups. Their primary purposes seem to be discrediting the Bush Administration and repeating (and so reinforcing) the far-left’s articles of faith, one of which is belief in the malevolence of the Vice President of the United States. Showing Dick Cheney as something other than the Dark Prince of leftists’ twisted imaginations might distance gay groups from left-wing dogma.
They seem more interested in pleasing the far left than in promoting a positive of gay people. They just don’t seem interested in making the strongest possible case against the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment.
The failure of these groups to acknowledge conservatives, even when it can help their case, shows that they really see themselves as little more than gay chapters of a broader left-wing movement. Something we hope the next leader of Log Cabin bears in mind when he (or she) takes office this fall.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
I totally agree with you. Our gay “leadership” is more concerned with kissing up to the left, even when they are spitting in our faces (and no I am not into that lol), and not supporting our cause or rights.
At what point do you use your considerable skills to explain/defend Republican policies? Your bona fides as a person who attacks other gay commentators is very well established.
Agape.
At least Sullivan decided to finally stop lying and be honest.
Dick Cheney is raising money in Minnesota for the anti-gay activist running for congress, Michele Bachmann.
http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2006/06/cheney-does-fundraiser-for-michele.html
Dan, it will be interesting to see whether HRC takes comments seriously, when the house version of the so-called marriage protection act occurs.
At the same time, why don’t you spend more time articulating those arguments rather than ragging on the gay groups?
Also, the real battles right now are in the states that have amendments on the ballot. Wisconsin and South Carolina to name a few.
I’d also suggest you put your money where your mouth is, and apply for the Log Cabin Republicans executive director position rather than micromanaging from the blog.
Eva, I think Bruce would be a disaster as ExDir of Nat’l Log Cabin.
First, he’d take the organization out of its new historic role of finding consensus with GayLeft groups, he’d try to lead the group toward a more GOP-centered, internal Party coalition building, reputation-restoring institution and THAT final aspect will doom him.
Second, Log Cabin may be beyond redemption –unless Christy Todd Whitman becomes President. PG’s “leadership” of the group and his political calculations hurt all gay GOPers for a longggggggg time to come.
The best choice I heard in DC this week was to find a strong leader to take over LCs, point out for the record PG’s failed leadership, declare the Nat’l LC Dead On Arrival, and then announce a new organization –more Republican, more gay, better informed and willing to stay on message.
From PG’s failed leadership, the Nat’l LCs have lost the opportunity to have a constructive impact on the 2006 elections… maybe they can get their new act together in time to affect 2008.
The benefit of having Bruce as LC’s ExDir is obvious, tho… he wouldn’t need training lessons on how to be a GOPer, nor how to lead, nor how to keep political opponents distinguished from political allies, nor how to be an effective spokesperson for gay interests, nor how to set the agenda, nor…. oh Hell, the list goes on and on.
Even with that potential, I’d rather see Bruce stay right here… improving his blog, providing good insight, keeping the gay agenda more diverse and the GayLeft somewhat honest.
I can’t believe I’m going to be the one to point this out, but previously Cheney has also called the Pentagon policy of kicking out homosexuals “a bit of an old chestnut”. (In Bush I’s Administration).
So I think its fair to say that Cheney also disagrees with Bush on the subject of DADT as well. So thats “two” issues, not one.
Actually if Cheney had not so utterly destroyed his credibility with me on the Iraq war with his almost bizarre pre-war predictions, and on the issue of torture, I would have much rather have had him as a President than Bush, about whom I’ve always had real doubts about in terms of his competence and fairness. Unfortunately, I think I’ve been proved wrong on Cheney and correct about Bush.
From the post
If gay groups were interested in making the strongest possible argument against the Marriage Protection Act (MPA), they would have repeatedly pointed out that this is the one issue where, since taking office, the Vice President has publicly distanced himself from the president. (emphasis added)
I suppose that the bolded part is sufficiently vague as to suggest that you may certainly want to believe whatever that means, but I’ll merely point out that Dick Cheney, who has said states should handle the issue of gay marriage, now says he would support President Bush if he proposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. He said that before Bush said that he supported the constitutional amendment in 2004. That doesn’t sound to me like much “distancing,” but if you want to believe that it is, that is your choice.
BTW, the link is to NewsMax, a fairly right-of-center “news” site.
I did an admitedly quick google search for the vice president on this issue & the most recent news story I could find was in the middle of the 2004 election. If someone can find a more recent one I’d be glad for the help.
And his stance was that “states should handle the issue” which far different from “gay people deserve the right to be married like their fellow Americans.”
One thing I do admire about the modern Republican is the ability to submerge an individual’s position and follow the leader (or appear to) in lockstep.
What is always amusing about reading some of my critics (indeed, the critics of those of us who generally support the president) is their assumption (as per Alex in #8) that moder Republicans “follow the leader (or appear to) in lockstep.” As I have noted on this blog (on more than one occasion), every conservative blog (and column) I read on on a regular basis has criticized the president (and the GOP for that matter) on more than one occasion. Including this one.
The Vice President made clear his opposition the marriage amendment after the president indicated his support in February 2004. I believe it was at a campaign event in August. The Vice President’s wife had already spoken out.
And Eva, you make a valid point in #4, I do need to do a better job of articulating those arguments. In my defense, I’ll say that this post just “came” to me as I found an analogy to drive home the notion that the gay groups are so focused on attacking Bush (rather than promoting gay issues). But, as the comments show, despite repeatedly “ragging on the gay groups” (as you, not I, put it), many of my critics would rather (just like those gay groups) bash Bush (& the GOP) than address the failings of those very gay groups.
As you have surely noted, there seems to be a contingent in the gay community that assumes these groups can do no wrong. While some falsely accuse me (and other general supporters of the president) for saying W can do no wrong, these individuals act as if the gay groups can do no wrong.
Gryph, if you take the time to look into the Vice President’s comments before the war — and his stance on “torture” — you will see them as being far more sensible than those who have spun them out of context to make him fit the image of the devious dark prince of their twisted imaginations.
Here’s a wonderful example of leftist hypocrisy:
And his stance was that “states should handle the issue” which far different from “gay people deserve the right to be married like their fellow Americans.”
Since Cheney espouses it, in the eyes of leftists, that position is antigay, bigoted, and hateful.
However, when Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, etc. espouse it, it’s “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” — even when they support state constitutional amendments and laws stripping gays of rights.
This is why Republicans don’t bother; gays have shown time and again that, like Alex, whether you’re pro- or antigay has nothing to do with your actions and everything to do with your party affiliation.
I will point out that LCR DID point out this fact in television commericals and radio ads during the 2004 election. And got castigated for it by the gay Right as being anti-Bush. (and therefore anti-Republican).
Patrick, and LCR did point this out in the recent debate on gay marriage — and I acknowledged them for doing so.
I’m trying to locate a dyed-in-the-wool GOP in DC who is quoted as believing the MPA is simply wrong in, and not merely that marriage is a matter to be left to the states. Can someone point in me in the right direct?
I meant a GOP politician in Washington of the same calibre as Cheney or McCain. 🙂
# 10 GayPatriotWest — June 16, 2006 @ 1:18 pm – June 16, 2006
The Vice President made clear his opposition the marriage amendment after the president indicated his support in February 2004. I believe it was at a campaign event in August.
Oh, let me understand this–irrespective of the fact that there is no citation. You aren’t really going suggest that we support for Cheney, after his having changed position twice within a few years–assuming that he actually did, per your assertion, switch back to his original 2000 statement. And that only a few months after he said that he supported whatever his boss, the president, wanted to do.
It seems to me that Cheney actually didn’t have a position on equal marriage rights for gay people, and that he just wanted to say whatever he believed that people might want him to say. I don’t have any problem with someone who, over a period of decades, changes his or her opinion on an issue, or even if it is over a period of mere years–although in the latter case it would be nice to get a reasoned statement as to why he or she changed his opinion. But merely blurting out whatever opinion the politician believes that would sell at the moment? No.
raj baby, would a wiki cite work for you? lol.
“Legitimizing” Andrew Sullivan is beside the point. You’re just plain obsessed with the man and we’d all like to know why.
dante, I don’t see it as an obsession here by Dan or Bruce or others.
I think its just speaking truth to a power on the GayLeft. Simple; when Andie is wrong so often, it requires more time to point it out. No obsession.