Two words.

Andrew Sullivan.

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.

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.”

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? According to Congressman Steve King (R-IA), Baghdad is safer than Washington or New Orleans (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/29/132706.shtml?s=ic) Doesn’t that sound nice?

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.

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.

Or are they just convenient whipping bois?

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!

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.