[Please note that I rewrote a couple paragraphs of this post to correct some misunderstandings which arose because of errors in the initial draft. I apologize for not having better edited that draft.]
Political courage, I believe, is when an elected official does something where he risks losing as much (if not more) support as he gains by that action. To that end, my governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, showed a lot of guts last Thursday when he spoke to Log Cabin. Perhaps my criticism of Log Cabin’s spin on the event may cause some to think I do not recognize the event’s significance. But, I do. I agree with Bruce that the governor’s appearance before a gay group is “big news.”
It is, as far as I can tell, the Governor’s only fundraising appearance this year on behalf of an organization other than his own campaign. That’s says a lot about the man that he would choose to lend the power of his presence to help a gay group.
It also was an act of political courage. The Governor risked alienating that small percentage of social conservatives who vote Republican, but don’t want to back a candidate who appears before gay groups and signs pro-gay legislation. Not only has the Governor signed a number of pro-gay bills, but he has also made clear his support for the state’s landmark domestic partnership program. This was not the first time he has risked the wrath of certain social conservatives.
Given the Govenor’s positive actions on gay issues, some social conservatives are considering not voting for him this fall — or pulling the lever for a third-party candidate. In a close election (the latest polls show the gubernatorial contest in the Golden State to be next and neck), the loss of these votes (upon which Republicans normally can count) could prove decisive.
Indeed, some social conservatives contacted the Governor in an attempt to persuade him to “cancel his appearance” at the Log Cabin fundraiser, with Randy Thomasson, president of the lobbying group Campaign for Children and Families, faulting the governor for promoting “transsexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality.” Thus, in standing up for gays, Governor Schwarzenegger alienated social conservatives, part of the GOP base.
Contrast Governor Schwarzenegger’s actions to the crass political calculation of Bill Clinton. In 1993, after gay voters contributed to his campaign — and helped elect him president, Clinton broke a campaign promise and did not repeal the ban on gays in the military (which he could have accomplished in 1993 with the stroke of a pen).
Three years later, after having secured the endorsement of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), President Clinton, in the dead of the night, signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It took no courage for Clinton to sign the bill — and appeal to socially conservtive indpendents because he knew that gay voters wouldn’t abandon him. Ineed, even after he signed the bill, HRC refused to rescind its endorsement of that opportunistic Democrat.
As gay leaders express hostility toward Governor Schwarzeneggger (largely, they say, because of his veto of the gay marriage bill), they show (yet again) that they hold Republicans to a higher standard than they do Democrats. Bill Clinton’s infractions were more severe, yet he continued to enjoy the support of gay activists, including HRC’s endorsement, after having broken his campaign promise to repeal the ban on gays in the military — and signing DOMA.
Even if Republicans have accomplished as much as had Arnold Schwarzenegger, gay activists will hold them in contempt for the slightest deviation from their party line. The governor may have vetoed the gay marriage bill, but he signed a number of other pro-gay pieces of legislation — when there was a political price (for him) to pay by signing them.
It’s too bad gay activists prefer an opportunistic Arkansas Democrat to a courageous California Republican. I guess for them that (D) after a candidate’s name means far more than his accomplishments.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Ummm….instead of comparing Schwarzenegger to someone who hasn’t been in the White House for over 5 years, how about comparing his stance on gay equal rights to your beloved current president?
Frankly, it’s no surprise about Arnold …he’s always been known for being socially liberal and I actually admire him for it (let’s not forget that he’s married into the Kennedy family) As a governor overall though, he hasn’t been exactly stellar. He tried to buy votes by spending his own money on advertising for propositions he pushed, none of which got passed. He came in as “kick ass, get things done” governor, yet he seemed unaware there was a state legislature to work with. Finally, the timing of his election to governor is a bit suspect. Many spoke of having him run for Governor in 2002, yet at the time he was finishing “Terminator 3” so campaigning would have interferred with his filming schedule. It was just a bit too convenient that less than a year after Davis was re-elected a recall campaign to oust Davis was orchestrated and, Californians being the odd breed they are, thought that a kick ass movie star would translate his onscreen persona into state government.
I’d have to agree with the first commentor, comparing Arnold to Bill is a little weak. Further, Arnold is not exactly Trent or Ralph, so it is not exactly surprising that he supports gay issues. That said, I think Arnold’s decision was more calculated than you think. California is not Mississippi. I meet many on the right who are positive on gay rights. What Arnold has done is make a great play for the middle D, who may not like the idea of Phil raising taxes.
I might also add, that most people know when they are being played. One of the biggest obstacles the right must overcome is the perception that they are playing gays and blacks. Ask your everyday gay or black man on the street if they think that Big D is on their side, they will probably reply something to the effect no, but it is the devil that I know. Ask them if they would considering switching, you get a resounding no, just don’t trust the other party. Their moves tend to be calculated hollow promises.
Um, Kevin, the reason I make the comparison is because so many gay people still go ga-ga over Clinton — even after he showed no courage by doing nothing for gay people when he could have — and as he had promised to. Despite all that our good Governor has done, gay activists excoriate him. That’s what the comparison is relevant.
Um, GPW, re-read your lead paragraph. It’s practically illiterate. Um, mkay? YOur penultimate sentence is especially fut up.
Your argument for comparing the gubernator to the seminator is just ridiculous. Why not compare him to Roosevelt? So many gay people go ga ga over Franklin.
Anyway, Arnold should have been speaking to a confab of Gay Patriot readers, the REAL gay Republicans. All 17 of them.
On a related note, Victor Davis Hanson asks an interesting question: which is the bigger quagmire**, Iraq or California?
** Giggity!
Despite your tone, dante, you are right about the first and penultimate paragraphs. Thanks for drawing my attention to the errors there. The problems of needing to get a post done so I could meet my other obligations of the day — and of working without an editor.
The editorial changes should better explain why I compared my man Arnold to your man Bill. HRC endorsed Bill even after he signed legislation limiting gay marriage. Arnold, by contrast, may have vetoed legislation on gay marriage, but he did sign a number of other pro-gay bills.
My tone is completely consistent with your own, GPW.
4: No, it’s the “sore winners” attitude that prevails in conservative circles. Bill Clinton was the president and will never be president again. However, it just goads the hell out of conserservatives that even for all his failings (including the signing of DOMA) he continues to remain a popular guy with many people and has even partnered with George Sr. on a number of important world issues.
Of course, it think its also attributed to the anti-Hillary campaign y’all have going as well. All things said, it’s still overwhelming the Republicans who deal in hatred towards gays and denail of equal rights. Arnold is very much the exception and not the norm with conservatives.
Does anyone know who wrote this article? I’ve looked around but I havent found anything. If you leave a comment with the answer that would be really helpful!
Thanks,
♥ Emily