GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Blogging, Tone, Log Cabin & the Governor’s Speech

by

Since writing for this blog in October 2004, I have, from time to time, had second thoughts about pieces I have posted. Sometimes, I wondered if it had been appropriate for me to post them, other times, I find I may have posted in haste — or my views had shifted since I first put metaphorical pen to paper.

While I have corrected errors (and misunderstandings) in some posts, of the 600-odd pieces I have posted, I have pulled only two, one because I had misrepresented an article which I had criticized. That time I was right to do so. Several months before that, I pulled a piece because four readers savaged in it the comments (while none came to its defense). On later rereading (an archived version of) that post, I learned that I needed to develop a thicker skin, as it was an even-handed piece. I should have let that one stand.

In some ways, I now wish I had not posted the piece I had written on Monday, faulting Log Cabin’s spin on the Governor’s speech. That said, after re-reading the piece, I stand by the points I made. I also appreciate how some of the criticism has enabled me to expand upon/clarify my points. It is, in part, out of respect for those critics, some of whom, despite their tone, made some very valuable points that I’m keeping that post up. If I pulled the post, I would also be pulling their comments.

I first considered blogging on the topic when I read Log Cabin’s press release. While Log Cabin claimed the Governor made a strong case of equality, the coverage of the speech, including Log Cabin’s own release, indicated that his theme was tolerance. I tried to get a copy of the speech. On Monday, I called the Governor’s campaign and learned that Schwarzenegger, like the Gipper when he served in the Golden State, spoke off the cuff; they did not have a written text of the speech.

So, I read a few blogs and online articles about the speech which confirmed my initial evaluation — that its theme was tolerance, not equality. I wondered why Log Cabin would so spin the speech. Not only that, I kept reading stuff which I felt was important to include in the post — hence its length. While I stand by my arguments, I should have adopted a different tone so that I could have better made my point. And should have kept it brief.

The reason I write this post now is that last night, after returning from the movies with a good friend, I read Dale in LA’s comment to my followup post to the post in question. He wrote:

GPW’s latest beef with Patrick is a small thing, but it’s based on a history that Patrick has made for himself and that GPW has pointed out repeatedly on this blog. In a vacuum, it would be a silly argument over semantics, but it’s not in a vacuum.

In fewer than fifty words, Dale said what I had failed to say clearly in more than ten times than many. It was just another example of Log Cabin adopting the same rhetoric as the left-leaning gay national groups.

One of my biggest problems with Log Cabin is, as I have expressed repeatedly on this blog, that it defines its agenda on gay issues in the same terms as those of the gay left, focusing on the word “equality.” I believe Log Cabin should use different language in order to distinguish itself from those groups, which are frequently allied with the far left and just as frequently at odds with the GOP on any number of issues, not limited to those directly affecting our community.

The Governor’s speech, with a strong appeal for tolerance and understanding, gave them a chance to do that — to use different language on gay issues than that of the gay left. I should have made that observation and left it at that. I apologize for not having been more succinct in my prior post.

-B. Daniel Blatt (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Comments

  1. Dan, while it’s clear to all but the most partisan Left here, you are conscientious and deliberate in your writing, thoughts, and carefully weigh responding commentary… I think you’ve come as close to picking lint out of the proverbial bellybutton with this post as a writer can come without appearing indecent with a wad as big as Kansas.

    Your continued posting brings up a sizable question about the simplest issue: with PG on his way out, why is it important to continue to catalogue his GayLeft predilections?

    Is it out of concern that the Board (who may read this blog) might forget how well he undermined GayGOP influence in the WH?

    Could it be that they might forget the positive impact of his tenure at LC was overshadowed by his dance with the anti-Bush GayLeft and the willingness at which he played into their blood soaked hands?

    Could it be that people outside the Beltway will forget the true temper of his service? Hell, I dare say that people outside the Beltway even familiar with PG’s tenure at LC is limited to several hundred at best.

    His time and few accomplishments at LC will be a blip. When the next guy gets hired… you’ll have to search high and low to find someone willing to admit knowing PG.

    And it’s not because three cocks crowed. It’s because LC and PG no long matter in GOP politics. They just don’t. In Michigan, we spell it r-e-l-e-v-a-n-c-e.

    Don’t even bother to write a piece about his departure when the day rolls around… write about his successor and the sizable challenges facing the LCs. That’s worthy of your pen, your brain, your talents.

  2. Vera would prefer to see all posts and comments; warts and all.

    It’s not just for completeness (although that’s important) but it shows an evolution of the writers, the intellects, the viewpoints and the social history of the blog and its readers.

    Vera would guess most authors, columnist, and writers would jump at the chance to go back to past works and rewrite, edit, or rethink statements if they could, but most realize it wouldn’t be an accurate portrayal of their thoughts and words.

    Leave it as it stands and be proud of long held beliefs, embarrassed by fleeting fits of rage, and amused by poison penned posters pulling punches.

    Vera’s included.

    Thanks for a wonderful blog and an always interesting discussions and comments.

    Cheers!

  5. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – July 4, 1776

  7. One thing that the poster (GPW) might want to consider is that he has beaten the dead horses (LCR and Patrick Guerriero) to death numerous times. He (GPW) has complained that he has other obligations than posting here, which is presumably correct. But if he didn’t insist on beating on LRC and Guerriero as often as he does, he might have more time to beat on other issues. Surely there are other issues relevant to gay conservatives than LCR and Guerriero that enervate him.

    Or are they just convenient whipping bois?

  8. Raj, your comment reminds me of people who say that if you don’t like the way things are in America, why don’t you just leave? Well, that’s fine if you’re a liberal because there are lots of Socialists countries that you think are so much better than here. But for conservatives, this is our last bastion of freedom in the world.

    LCR is the only activist organization that at least claims to speak for gay conservatives so we tend to be pretty hard on them. They are the most visible thing when people think of gay conservatives. People will tend to judge us by their actions even if most of us don’t agree with them. If we’re not going to join them, and we’re not, we need to at least try to speak as loudly so as to clearly distinguish ourselves and try to reach the true conservatives when LCR fails.

  9. #8 Dale in L.A. — July 7, 2006 @ 1:11 pm – July 7, 2006

    Raj, your comment reminds me of people who say that if you don’t like the way things are in America, why don’t you just leave?

    Um, no. As I’ve said here many times before, if someone doesn’t like the politics of a particular organization (such as the LCR) he should consider forming an organization whose politics are along the lines that he likes, and see how many people join him. It really is as simple as that. And, unlike the “America, love it or leave it” types, he would not have to leave America in order to do that. So, your analogy falls flat on its proverbial face.

    Actually, he (the someone who doesn’t like the politics of the “particular organization”) has another option. He, and other likeminded people, can join the organization and attempt to divert it into a course that he and they prefer. That tactic is not unknown–in recent years a group has been trying to do something like that in connection with the Sierra Club. I don’t recall the issue, and I don’t recall how it has played out, but it has been happening.

    LCR is the only activist organization that at least claims to speak for gay conservatives…

    Sorry, but I had been led to believe that LCR claims to speak for gay Republicans, not gay conservatives. Some Republicans may want to view themselves as being conservative, but, as I have argued here for some time, Republicans are largely tax-and-spend liberals. Conservative? Give me a break.

    My point to GPW was something different, though. He has made it clear that he doesn’t like LCR’s direction or Patrick Guerriero, a number of times even over the past few weeks. How many times does he have to say it in a day, a week, or a month? If he doesn’t have anything else that he wants to bitch and moan about, that’s fine–it’s his blog. On the other hand, if he can’t find something else to bitch and moan about, it seems to me that something is amiss.

    BTW, as I have also argued, if not here, but elsewhere, LCR is between a rock and a hard place. They don’t have a clear mission. They purport to present gay issues to a Republican party that generally speaking doesn’t want to have anything to do with gay issues. And they purport to be trying to sell the Republican party to a gay constituency that knows that the Republican party does not want to provide them with equal rights. As far as I can tell, the LCR is little more than a business networking organization for professional gay people.

  11. You mean Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t bastions of freedom, too? What do you think is wrong there? Why wouldn’t you like to live in Iraq or Afghanistan?

    Better question: Given the choice between Taliban Afghanistan and Ba’athist Iraq and their present-day counterparts, in which one would you as a gay person prefer to live?

    Oh, and before you quote gay propaganda minister Ali Hili at me about how wonderful things were under Saddam and how gays were never persecuted, please note that I have direct evidence of his admitting the following:

    “In the late ‘80s and early ‘90s there were a couple of gay clubs in Baghdad,” Hili explained, “but they were all shut down in 1993 after sanctions were imposed against Saddam’s regime and Iraq. We had a weekly gay nightclub in the Palestine Hotel that became the gathering place for gay people, especially for actors and others in the entertainment world, but it, too, was shut down. I was arrested three times for being gay, and tortured. After several attempts, I finally was able to escape the country, going first to Dubai, then Jordan, then Syria, and finally reaching England.”

  12. So, Dale has no response, and North Dallas Thirty is trying to change the subject? I’ll take that as an admission that Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t the bastions of freedom they have been advertised to be…

    I’ll be happy to address ND30’s question if he will bother to address mine. Simply suggesting “better” questions isn’t an answer, it’s a dodge.

  13. “How many times does he have to say it in a day, a week, or a month? If he doesn’t have anything else that he wants to bitch and moan about, that’s fine–it’s his blog. On the other hand, if he can’t find something else to bitch and moan about, it seems to me that something is amiss.”

    Two words.

    Andrew Sullivan.