Chafee’s Victory, Log Cabin & the Club for Growth
I had hoped to do a series of posts on the future of Log Cabin now that Patrick Guerriero has stepped down as the group’s head, but given that he departed on the day of my father’s birthday when the PatriotFamilyWest was gathered to celebrate that most wonderful occasion, politics had to take a back seat to that which matters most.
Now that Patrick is gone, I’m concerned that the interim leaders of the organization are not focused on building bridges to the GOP and conservative organizations. While I share the group’s delight in the victory of the Lincoln Chafee, the most liberal Senate Republican, in yesterday’s Rhode Island Republican, primary I wouldn’t call the Ocean State’s Junior Senator a “mainstream Republican.”
Unlike Joe Lieberman whose votes put him in the middle of the Senate’s Democratic caucus, Chafee’s votes put him far to the left of his GOP colleagues, even to the left of a handful of Democrats. That said, while my views are closer to those of his erstwhile GOP opponent Steve Laffey, if I lived in Rhode Island, I would have voted for Chafee because he has a better chance of holding the seat for my party in one of the most Democratic states in the union.
Chafee’s victory shows that our party does not have a litmus test for membership. While Connecticut Democrats rejected their 2000 Vice-presidential nominee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and Rhode Island Republicans stood behind this Republican who is far from the party’s mainstream.
However, Club for Growth, a conservative advocacy group (which I have supported in the past) which backs GOP candidates “who support limited government and lower taxes” spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to defeat Chafee, largely because of his support for bigger government and increased federal regulation. While I think their money could have been better spent helping pro-growth Republicans in tough races against Democrats, given Chafee’s record, they had good reason to back Laffey.
Given the Club’s commitment to Reaganite fiscal principles, this is one group with which Log Cabin should seek to find common ground. Instead, in their release heralding Chafee’s victory, Log Cabin called its support of Laffey a “vicious effort.”
Rather than the Club’s efforts “vicious,” Log Cabin leaders should reach out to Club President Pat Toomey and make clear they support his efforts to return the GOP to its Reaganite principles, supporting its goals of cutting government spending, reforming Social Security, expanding free trade and enacting regulatory reform. We want to turn Congress’s attention to these issues rather that focus on items which are not in the purview of the federal government.
When Log Cabin’s new leader takes office, he (or she) needs to reach out to mainstream Republican groups like the Club for Growth and steer clear of such left-wing groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
48 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
An excellent point. The Club for Growth would be a extraordinary strategic ally for the LCR…particularily since many LCR-members are of the progressive and libertarian wings of the GOP. With the Club for Growth’s strong economic and business-ties, it shoud be a natural alliance. It’s heartening to see the explosion of domestic-partner benefits in both large and small businesses, and many have embraced gay-friendly corporate practices and non-discrimination policies already.
With no LCR chapter in my state (grrr…), I tend to support the activities of the local chapter of the Club for Growth instead rather than the GOP state committee. Instead of attempting (futilely?) to counter the clout of the social-right in the GOP on the “social”-level…perhaps we should seek common-ground with the “economic”-driven agenda of the business-wing of the GOP. Particularily since it’s the economic/security arguements of the GOP that make many of us GOP-supporters rather than being gay-Democrats. When we ask eachother “why” we’re Republicans, “…it’s the ecomony, stupid” that’s usually the answer; taxes, size of government, governmental over-reach, etc… Many members of the Club for Growth would give you the same answer. And it’s worth noticing that the Club for Growth has a great deal of political-clout in certain GOP circles…
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — September 13, 2006 @ 6:03 pm - September 13, 2006
I’m sorry, but I don’t think any GOP candidate should apologize for being conservative. They should, however, apologize for running a campaign to the left of the RATS.
Part of me wishes Laffey would have won, and that would have sent a clear signal to the GOP - pay attention to your base. The race to replace Jim Kolbe in Arizona is another such example.
However, I’ll take a RINO rather than a DINO, especially in the case of the blue-blue state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, where conservatives are endangered species.
Aside - how come the smallest state in the Union has the longest freakin’ name? Size envy?
Peter’s Prediction: Chaffee wins in RI, Steele wins in Maryland and the GOP retains the Senate.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 13, 2006 @ 6:24 pm - September 13, 2006
Log Cabin Republicans: We’re supportive of Republicans- as long as they vote like they’re Democrats!
Of course this would matter more if the LCR hadn’t completely marginalized themselves by opposing President Bush in 2004.
Comment by DaveP. — September 13, 2006 @ 9:03 pm - September 13, 2006
So how do the leftists feel about the take over of the House and Senate?
Can the Republicans offer Leiberman a chairmanship that’ll get him to switch to the good guys?Democrat heavy weights try to help Leiberman in the Conn primary and he loses. Republican heavy wrights try to help out Chafee and he wins in R.I. Think the MSM will give us reports on the contrast? Question who went bankrupt first the Democrat Party or Air America?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 14, 2006 @ 12:27 am - September 14, 2006
Yeah! Stay away from those fag groups.
Comment by sean — September 14, 2006 @ 1:03 am - September 14, 2006
Dan, I really think this time YOU need to put down the kool aid rather than the usual moonbats here. The LC(r) reaching out to the C4G? We might as well ask Israel to accept German troops in vintage SS uniforms to serve as UN Peacekeepers in Lebanon.
The C4G’s prez, the majority of its staff and its membership base is decidedly hostile to the presence of gays –GOP, Democrat, Independent or other– in politics. While they are fiscal conservatives, Pete duPont is probably the ONLY moderate within 1000 yds of the center at the C4G. I know some of the C4G members here in Michigan and they have -0- tolerance for gays –conservative or otherwise.
Here in Michigan, the C4G worked tirelessly to elect a clearly anti-gay homophobe (Tim Walberg) and remove a moderate GOP member (Joe Schwartz) who wasn’t marching in the single issue parade of C4G. I doubt LC(r) leaders could even get a meeting with C4G prez Toomey… he knows his base would hear about the meeting and see it as a betrayal of the members’ social concerns. Heck, Toomey would probably have more support for meeting Satan head2head to discuss common political interests than the LC(r).
Dan, you’re usually more pragmatic than this… and your political instincts are better than to submit this outreach effort as being realistic. The LC(r) does need to move away from their cozy, cuddlely relationship with radical GayLeft groups… but not if it means a negation of their agenda. I think for them to sit down with the C4G leadership would be a negation of any pro-gay agenda… whatever that might finally be.
LC(r) can learn something from the C4G, though… like get off their collective duffs, build a strong relationship with moderate GOP groups, organize and develop an agenda, raise money, recruit volunteers, work to see candidates win office. Fight for the Center.
You know that groups which “debase their base” sign their own death warrants… and working with LC(r) would sink the C4G leadership in a nanosecond. This isn’t business; this is politics and two groups who routinely practice litmus test loyalty on their members, staff and advocacy efforts.
Now, if you had suggested the LC(r) reaching out to GOP Main Street, Rep Leadership Council, SouthPark Republicans or It’sMyPartyToo… that’s different.
And if I can submit: the “Borking” of Chaffee, Specter, Schwartz, Whitman, Powell, Giuliani and other moderate GOPers by staunch, single issue conservatives –the very conservatives who won’t heed Ronald Reagan’s own seminal advice to not speak ill of fellow GOPers but will bleed RR blue for political allegiance and purity tests– is sheer folly.
C4G’s Toomey is one of those conservatives: he’d hazard and forego an incumbent GOP legislator in order to “purify” the Party. Isn’t Toomey a charter member of the RINO Hunters Club? WTF?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 14, 2006 @ 9:26 am - September 14, 2006
Chaffee is not my cup of tea, but the Republican party did the right thing by holding their collective noses & went for him. Folks, this is called pragmatism. Rhode Island is deep blue - if Chaffee lost & the other guy won, the seat would have gone to the Democrats (i.e. Harry Reid would have been MAJORITY leader). The GOP needs all the seats it can get to offset any losses (most likely in Pennsylvania, although the loss of Santorum wouldn’t break my heart).
Comment by Jimbo — September 14, 2006 @ 10:17 am - September 14, 2006
Does the Club for Growth seek out and maintain ties with the reactionary Right social conservatives? If they do, they LCR will be unable to make alliance with them.
You are assuming that the Club for Growth would be interested in making common cause with LCR, even on just the items they agree with. I think you should look for evidence of that before condemning LCR outright.
And once again, the social Conservatives are the larger and more powerful arm of the Party. It makes more sense for the Club for Growth, from their point of view, to make alliances with them, not LCR.
And one thing the Social Conservative Right has made clear, is that you cannot maintain ties with both gay and lesbian organizations and themselves. They don’t tolerate that.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — September 14, 2006 @ 11:05 am - September 14, 2006
Gene,
I think most democratic voters quake in their boots about this election.
Dems. SHOULD win but alas, we probably won’t…
Its too bad as this country could use some new leadership…but I just think the Dems are too invisible and can’t take power….
In the unlikely chance dems take over the Senate, Lieberman will stay with the Democratic Caucus as the majority of the Democratic Powers that Be, supported him.
Comment by keogh — September 14, 2006 @ 12:20 pm - September 14, 2006
Why are people so mystified about a persons sexuality. Its like the 60’s with colored people. Gay is good. Gay has brought fashion to new levels and gay clubs have the best music and light shows. Here is a great article I found yesterday on gay marriage -
gay marriage - http://www.bestbraindrain.com
Comment by B. Smithey — September 14, 2006 @ 2:06 pm - September 14, 2006
This is the Club for Growth’s Mission Statement; it sure look’s like a set of principles that most gay Republicans would support…and why they are “Republicans” in the first place.
“The Club for Growth is a national network of over 36,000 men and women, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom. The Club for Growth exists to encourage, and make possible, the enactment of pro-growth economic policies by the federal government. The primary tactic of the Club for Growth PAC has been to provide financial support from Club members to viable pro-growth candidates to Congress, particularly in Republican primaries.
Club for Growth Policy Goals:
- Making the Bush tax cuts permanent
- Death tax repeal
- Cutting and limiting government spending
- Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts
- Expanding free trade
- Legal reform to end abusive lawsuits
- Replacing the current tax code
- School choice
- Regulatory reform and deregulation
Would it hurt for LCR National to at-least talk to them?
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — September 14, 2006 @ 2:26 pm - September 14, 2006
I pretty sure that this has been or will be done at the National level. LCR worked quite closely with Grover Norquist on SS reform and he continues to be supportive. In fact I spoke with him in April in DC at the LCR Black Tie Dinner that he attended with his wife. LCR National, despite what many think, is involved with a number of “good” conservatives.
Comment by BoBo — September 14, 2006 @ 2:49 pm - September 14, 2006
#11 - Thanks, Ted, for posting this.
And may I add: I sure as hell don’t see “definition of marriage amendment to the Constitution” as one of their goals. As I’ve said time and time before, true Federalists believe that such an amendment is wrong and encroaches upon the powers of the states as outlined in the Tenth Amendment.
And in #9 - welcome to reality, keogh. GLad you could finally make the time to join us.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 14, 2006 @ 2:49 pm - September 14, 2006
I received mailings and e-mails from the Club for Growth and have yet to read anything hostile to the presence of gays within the GOP.
I think it’s essential that the new leader of Log Cabin, once he (or she) takes office, sit down with Pat Toomey to find ways to focus on areas of common concern. It will be interesting to see how Toomey responds to this invitation. It’s important that Log Cabin let this group know that it supports this group’s domestic policy agenda.
Bobo makes a good point. Log Cabin did support the president’s plan on social security reform. Log Cabin needs not only work with prominent conservative groups, but make that clear on its web-site (which needs to be redesigned).
Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 14, 2006 @ 3:15 pm - September 14, 2006
Here in MN this issue is splitting the Republican Party.
We have a recently open (or outed) gay legislator who just won his GOP primary.
However before the election the regional GOP chair predicted that his being gay and opposition to the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was the death of his political career.
There is talk of a “true” conservative revolt in his district which is traditional a GOP stronghold…if that is true, the DFL could pick up an important seat.
Do the LCR republicans want to be involved in a fight such as this, or do they just want these types of fights to go away?
Comment by keogh — September 14, 2006 @ 3:29 pm - September 14, 2006
I’ve done some more research into the political background of the Club for Growth; it’s a political action committee influenced by the libertarian Cato Institute, and the Hoover Institute. Looking through the CfG’s web-site, and other sites commenting on the Cfg, they appear to be social-libertarian/fiscal conservatives. If there’s a anti-gay tinge to the CfG, I suspect it comes from Pat Toomey who’s a Roman Catholic, social-conservative ex-Congressman that the CfG backed against Arlen Specter, and who is now the CfG’s president. Most of the big-wheels in the CfG are liberatarian/small government types from the business and fiscal/tax reform side of the GOP.
If you look at the Cato Institute positions and policies, they support gay rights and oppose the FMA. From their mission statement;
“The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato’s work has increasingly come to be called “libertarianism” or “market liberalism.” It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.
The market-liberal vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, they recognize that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is–or used to be–the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.
Market liberals have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We reject the bashing of gays, Japan, rich people, and immigrants that contemporary liberals and conservatives seem to think addresses society’s problems. We applaud the liberation of blacks and women from the statist restrictions that for so long kept them out of the economic mainstream. Our greatest challenge today is to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.”
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — September 14, 2006 @ 4:13 pm - September 14, 2006
Conservative Senator Jim Bunning was quoted in a story in the Cincinnati Post, here is part of it -
U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning had a stronger opinion about the Club for Growth.
“They’re really not Republican, they’re ultra-conservative,” the Southgate Republican said recently. “They’re conservative, hardcore.”
Bunning said the group would be aligned with a “very fringe group” in Northern Kentucky that have recently gone up against candidates he supports.
http://news.kypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060914/NEWS02/609140371/1014
Comment by anon — September 14, 2006 @ 4:18 pm - September 14, 2006
It’ll be interesting to see whether any of this tepid support for Chaffee outlasts the Bolton nomination battle.
Comment by vaara — September 14, 2006 @ 4:59 pm - September 14, 2006
Of course, LCR could always come forward with some statement affirming basic Republican principles. Such as the right to execute anyone without ever letting them see the evidence presented against them. That should build some bridges. Why, they might even get White House support.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — September 14, 2006 @ 6:19 pm - September 14, 2006
Such as the right to execute anyone without ever letting them see the evidence presented against them.
Gryph, here’s the problem: allowing these individuals to see the evidence brought against them and to cross-examine allows them to determine how it was collected.
Furthermore, attorney-client privilege and privacy laws allow them to communicate that to their terrorist friends — a fact that one Democrat lawyer has already demonstrated that they are doing.
For instance, suppose we managed to infiltrate an al-Qaeda cell with an operative. If we were to bring one of the cell members to trial based on evidence that operative provided, we would be forced to acknowledge that we had infiltrated the cell — and thus blow apart our information-gathering capability.
Tribunals should always have the right to put certain forms of evidence off limits. True, it could be abused, but failing to do so puts our intelligence-gathering apparatus at risk.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 14, 2006 @ 7:40 pm - September 14, 2006
NDT:
Don’t expect much in the way of “debate” from me on this issue. Its not negotiable.
You are giving a good argument for the Kremlin, not a system of American justice. If you want iron-clad security, then try a Stalinist oriented regime. It would be more to your liking.
You are saying that is OK to string someone up without ever showing them any evidence of their crimes and to allow them to defend themselves against their accusers.
You might as well save yourself the trouble and skip the trial and go right to the bullet in the back of the head.
If you want to cower under your bed in such utter and abject fear of terrorism that you feel you must create state-sanctioned murder, (NOT capital punishment) thats your choice, but don’t expect my yes vote.
You are supposed to be a goddamn conservative. Do you really trust your government, ANY government with that much power? If so, then more the fool you.
Yes. I’ll agree that America would certainly be safer from terrorism if we would only adopt wholesale the Bush doctrines and allow State-sanctioned murder.
But safety shouldn’t always be the overriding concern. Safety is the number one priority of cowards and tyrants, not free men. At least in theory.
Bush today:
And who will protect the homeland from the government?
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — September 14, 2006 @ 10:25 pm - September 14, 2006
Gryph, because you are unable to think past your irrational fear of the Bush administration, you are advocating that thousands, perhaps millions of lives, be put at risk by hampering our intelligence-gathering capability.
And yes, I DO trust my government with that much power. I have done so for my entire life, and I will continue to do so. Ours is the greatest system in the world, with safeguards and structures that have preserved it for hundreds of years. I hold no fear of being falsely accused, or spied upon.
The ultimate form of cowardice, Gryph, is being unable to trust others.
You fall well into that category.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 14, 2006 @ 11:15 pm - September 14, 2006
“Rhode Island Republicans stood behind this Republican”
Dan, please! They knew that if Laffey won the primary, the Dem would be a shoo-in. This is in stark contrast to CT where there was no scenario where both Lamont and Lieberman would lose.
Here in Arizona, the GOP shows its true colors: a marriage amendment that will ban ANY state or local government providing domestic partner benefits for employees gay or straight, a nominee for Governor who has long been a leading activist against ANY recognition of gay relationships or provision of partner benefits and fought against elimination of the sodomy laws, and a far right wingnut as GOP nominee to replace Jim Kolbe. The latter virtually ensures that the seat will flip Dem.
Comment by Ian S — September 14, 2006 @ 11:37 pm - September 14, 2006
I’m no fan of big government. It’s my biggest complaint with W and his administration. But geez in todays world is that really your number one fear? Leftists are NOT aggitated when many FBI files come up missing and months later are mysteriously found sitting piled up on a table in the White House and no knows how they got there. And they were files of the opponents of the Clintons. No leftistes are outraged and “afraid” of their liberties when the chief executive sexually abuses 19 year olds at work. No leftists are “afraid” when a President under oath dissembles and isn’t truthful about said affair. It’s only sex. No outrage when influence is peddled and sleep overs occur at the White House. Almost all leftists were making excuses and attacking the opposition for being upset. So spare us the angst about oppressive government. As has been demonstrated I’m much more afraid of Big Media who feel free to make up stuff like Natl Guard documents, CIA friends leaking, exit poll twisting, hurricane disaster responsibilities, on and on.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 15, 2006 @ 12:31 am - September 15, 2006
Well said, Gene.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 15, 2006 @ 1:14 am - September 15, 2006
I find myself in agreement with Michigan Matt’s comment in #6.
From what I’ve seen of C4G, if Fred Phelps changed parties (he’s apparently an Al Gore Democrat) and ran against a moderate GOP candidate the C4G would support him if he supported its conservative objectives — without regard for what Phelps’ positions on other issues might do to the Republican Party.
Comment by Trace Phelps — September 15, 2006 @ 3:32 am - September 15, 2006
#21 - “Don’t expect much in the way of “debate” from me on this issue.”
We don’t, Gryph.
There may indeed be some points about U.S. policy toward captured terrorists that are worth discussing… but once again, your “contribution” is virtually anti-American in the way it combines willful misinformation, irresponsible misplaced rage, and irrelevance - i.e., pure trollhood.
Comment by Calarato — September 15, 2006 @ 3:32 am - September 15, 2006
“willful misinformation, irresponsible misplaced rage, and irrelevance”
Sounds like a Clinton Basher to me.
Comment by keogh — September 15, 2006 @ 9:18 am - September 15, 2006
Paddie at #19 (de)posits: “Of course, LCR could always come forward with some statement affirming basic Republican principles. Such as the right to execute anyone without ever letting them see the evidence presented against them.”
More of that deep seated bigotry coming to the forefront, Patrick; you need help out of the HateBushBox.
If you followed even the headlines –skip any responsibility to actually READ the articles– in newspapers you’d know that the GOP leadership in Congress is deeply, fundamentally divided on the issue of top secret evidence shared DIRECTLY with the accused terrorist.
The prohibition of sharing the info does NOT apply to the chief magistrate; it doesn’t apply to the terrorist’s attorney… it only applies to the terrorist directly because, if they are indeed a terrorist, they would have little restraint in sharing the secret info with others to insure the source of the info is eliminated… if you didn’t know that critical and keenly central fact it’s because you don’t even read the headlines these days and just operate off BushHatred –as many have pointed out here.
Republicans are not partisan toads marching in lockstep on this issue, Patrick. You’d know that –and what the critical issues are in this matter– if you would read to comprehend rather than “read to indict” per your BushHatred indoctrination classes.
Come off the Democrat Plantation, Paddie boy. The world is more diverse and far more complicated than your base BushHatred animus will allow.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 15, 2006 @ 9:28 am - September 15, 2006
keogh at #28 writes: “‘willful misinformation, irresponsible misplaced rage, and irrelevance’ Sounds like a Clinton Basher to me. ”
Nope, Calarato didn’t use impotent or impeached for then you’d know it was a Clinton basher. And the focus was Patrick –not Clinton.
Nice try keogh-of-the-lower-case-clan. No bashing of Slick Willy… just a fair representation of Patrick’s MO.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 15, 2006 @ 10:14 am - September 15, 2006
#28 - Then keogh, sweetums: you need to take a look at this information about me. Or for that matter, see how I stick up for another Democrat here. LOL
#30 - thanks Matt
Comment by Calarato — September 15, 2006 @ 10:37 am - September 15, 2006
Its nice to see you two admit (whether intentionally or not) that your primary interest here is in insulting other people.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — September 15, 2006 @ 1:20 pm - September 15, 2006
…Gryph said to the mirror.
Comment by Calarato — September 15, 2006 @ 2:04 pm - September 15, 2006
(p.s. GryphTroll: don’t make me re-link that lengthy, yet only casual / incomplete, list of the petty names / insults you’ve cast in just the past 2 weeks)
Comment by Calarato — September 15, 2006 @ 2:11 pm - September 15, 2006
Patrick, get serious. Your time for juvenile nonsense is long past. Maybe you need to stick with OutSports and the leering 55+ yr old men drooling over male athletes young enough to be their grandkids. That, or go burn a pentagram into a minister’s lawn. But get serious, would ya?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 15, 2006 @ 2:19 pm - September 15, 2006
LOL, from Sullivan this morning:
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — September 15, 2006 @ 2:26 pm - September 15, 2006
But I have to make a correction to my #34. Change “GryphTroll” to simple “Gryph”.
I was wrong to actually call him (the person) a troll, thus sinking to his level.
I was accurate in identifying his COMMENTS in this thread as trolls for the attention I’m giving him here… but that’s a separate question.
He made a comment in another thread this week that wasn’t just trollhood, insults on others, etc. I complimented him on it.
The fact that his troll/insult comments generally outnumber his real comments, week to week, is neither my problem nor any of my business; and neither is it my place to tell you other readers (via name-calling) what you should think of him. So, I apologize for the over-reach.
Comment by Calarato — September 15, 2006 @ 2:36 pm - September 15, 2006
#36
…Andrianna said to the mirror.
LOL
Comment by Calarato — September 15, 2006 @ 2:38 pm - September 15, 2006
#36 - Finally: Gryph, if you are really determined (in troll-like fashion, let’s say) to take this thread of Dan’s off track into your “torture” agenda….Then:
1) Why don’t you or Andrianna start off by providing (or: EVER provide) a rational definition of what y’all would mean by the word “torture”?
2) Why do you not ever provide credibly-sourced cases where your concept or definition of “torture” was violated?
3) Why do you hate Bush so much, for asking first (a) the Justice Department, and then (b) Congress, to provide rational definitions of what is and is not torture, then have our CIA and service men/women follow the latter? And,
4) Why would you call yourselves American patriots, when, in fact, on this subject you seek only to obfuscate, or to prevent rational discussion that would help our our CIA and service men and women do their jobs of protecting us?
Needless to say, I won’t be expecting a valid reply.
Comment by Calarato — September 15, 2006 @ 2:59 pm - September 15, 2006
Gosh, you’re quoting AndieSullivan now, Patrick? As some kind of insight on the issues of the day?
LOL. Like I said: Get serious Gramps. The time for tolerating more silliness from the GayLeftBorg is over.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 15, 2006 @ 3:13 pm - September 15, 2006
1. The Geneva convention treaty, which we signed, is specific enough. And yes, I think water-boarding is torture. And if your not sure it is torture, then don’t do it.
2. I have many times. However, when I pointed to actual US military reports describing such events, I was accused of aiding and abetting terrorism. (Also as an aside, whenever I link to multiple sources and documents when posting, it gets trapped by the spam filter.)
3. You are re-writing history. Bush did not ask Congress to define “torture”. He instead put the programs into place on his own authority first, and in some cases without the knowledge of Congress. Same goes for the military tribunals. And Guantanamo.
And there is for all practical purposes, no division between the Justice Dept and the White House. They are the same thing. He did not “ask” the Justice Dept. anything. He told them to come up with justification for his program in hindsight. And they did. Those that objected, were pushed out or lied to. That is why the majority of the legal opposition to the Presidents policies have been coming from military JAGS. The Justice Dept. under Bush on most issues is just a political tool to be wielded, not upholders of “justice”.
4. This isn’t a question. You are instead making a statement; Its just yet another insult you are attempting to disguise as a question. Rhetorical thuggery that is typical from the apparatchiks around here such as yourself.
As an addendum to #2, I realized many months ago that evidence was completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Simply because there is no evidence that you would ever possibly be willing to accept that is contrary to your little “we do not torture” script.
Lastly. The reason I “hate” Bush is simple. Its because both he and the President of Iran share something in common. They both think that God wants them to be President.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — September 15, 2006 @ 4:14 pm - September 15, 2006
1) OK, for the first time EVER in this form, you have indicated that your definition is: whatever is in the Geneva Convention.
Fortunately, the United States has, in fact, followed the Geneva Convention in its treatment of detainees all this time. (Even though significant questions should, and did, arise as to the extent to which GC applies to parties who themselves have not signed it nor honored it.)
2) Bullshit. Link one GP comment where you provided a military (.mil) report on an actual case of the U.S. practicing torture. Ever.
3) Bullshit. You re-write history. From 9-11 on, the Bush Administration has turned to the Justice Department and lawyered the hell out of its anti-terrorist programs. They did everything by the best understanding of the law available at the time, and consulted with key Congressional leaders from both parties. More recently, when the Supreme Court issued a new pronouncement that the military tribunals did need an authorizing law from Congress, the Bush Administration leapt instantly to work with Congress to get that law. My comment to you cited “Justice Department” and “Congress” correctly.
“And there is for all practical purposes, no division between the Justice Dept and the White House.”
The Justice Department, and all students of the American system of government, would be shocked to learn that.
The Justice Department is an independent career bureaucracy, like others, with a relative handful of political appointments at the top.
4) Yes it is a question. For months, Gryph, you have been trolling here with your sick views on the “torture” non-issue. You have done nothing but spread obfuscation that (if spread generally, e.g. by Andrianna, Daily Kos, etc.) undermines the ability of our CIA and service men and women to do their jobs. That’s not an insult; merely a conclusion based on months of observation and experience. If you find it insulting, take stock of your life and change your wrong behavior, Gryph. I was merely curious about what psychological process would enable you to leap from there to considering yourself a constructive, helpful patriot. So I asked you, drumroll, a question.
As I said, I did not expect a valid response - and I did not get one.
Now let’s look at your closing argument.
First, you make a gratuitous insult at this blog and everyone on it. Far from evidence being irrelevant, I have been begging you for some credibly sourced evidence - and never gotten any, this time as always. I know that GPW and others have as well.
Next, you make a gratuitous insult at President Bush. You have no valid reason whatsoever to believe that he believes himself Divinely appointed, in the way Ahmadinejad does. Yet you seek to arbitrarily claim he does, or to make him equivalent to Ahmadinejad. In other words: Your comment merely seeks to insult and inflame - i.e., to troll.
Game, set, match… Gryph.
Comment by Calarato — September 15, 2006 @ 5:00 pm - September 15, 2006
Caralato:
Bush:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE0D91F3BF934A25753C1A9629C8B63
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/7036-.html
Actually since he thinks being President is a “sacrifice”, then I suppose he believes God wants him to be a martyr as well.
Compare that attitude to that of Lincoln and his comment when he was asked about who’s side he thought God was on during the Civil War.”I only hope that we are on God’s side.”
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — September 15, 2006 @ 6:36 pm - September 15, 2006
As I said.
You have no valid reason whatsoever to believe that Bush believes himself Divinely appointed, in the way that Ahmadinejad does. Yet you seek to arbitrarily claim he does, or to make him equivalent to Ahmadinejad. In other words: Your comment merely seeks to insult and inflame - i.e., to troll.
I could simply point out the obvious meaning, in context, of Bush’s remarks, and demostrate how that differs from Ahmadinejad’s evil intentions. But it we both know it won’t do any good. Why? Because, as I correctly grasped, your purpose is to insult and inflame via puerile, invalid equivalences - i.e., to troll.
Comment by Calarato — September 15, 2006 @ 11:15 pm - September 15, 2006
Patrick, I don’t know why you even try… you are so outclassed by Calarato, NDXXX, Peter and the others. I don’t know why you even try… oh wait, no one reads your blog so you have the time to spend on a blog that actually gets read.
I see. I think unmasking the lester-keogh sockpuppets, the raj/Ian sockpuppets and now the PatrickTroll ought to be enough for one decade… but I doubt it.
You have to start getting serious, Patrick. You’ll always be outclassed but at least you can be taken seriously then. Maybe.
================
“The reason I “hate” Bush is simple. Its because both he and the President of Iran share something in common. They both think that God wants them to be President.” –Patrick
For the record, the Prez of Iran prays to Allah, not the Western God of your Forefathers or the Founding Fathers. If you weren’t a hyperbolic religious bigot, you’d know better. But then, facts have never been a determinant of your reality.
Get serious, Patrick.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 16, 2006 @ 5:28 pm - September 16, 2006
Matt, additional key differences:
(1) President Bush is nowhere near believing that God commands him to kill us all if we don’t Submit(tm of Islam).
(2) President Bush is nowhere near believing that God commands him to wipe entire countries from the Earth.
(3) In context, the quote Gryph provided simply means that President Bush didn’t care (in 2004) if he would win the election. Bush was saying that in a sense, his re-election didn’t matter because we are all in God’s hands anyway and going by a larger plan.
Now, even that much in point (3), I do NOT necessarily agree with. But I do possess the rather minimal amount of sanity and goodwill needed to see it’s different from Ahmadinejad.
Gryph starts in a place of hating Bush and desperately wanting to try to score certain “points”; then searches for flimsy evidence and entirely puerile (Gryph, that means “childish”) analogies / equivalences to give himself an illusion that he has scored those points. The grownups know he hasn’t.
I also found it interesting that Gryph concentrated his efforts on substantiating a Bush-hating claim, rather than his “I know credible cases of U.S. torture” claims.
The latter would have been the thing to spend time on. A much more important question… and as well, Gryph’s stated reason for hijacking this thread away from Dan’s topic (refer to comments #19, #21, #36).
Comment by Calarato — September 16, 2006 @ 7:14 pm - September 16, 2006
Wasn’t Club for Growth the group who fired Steve May (according to him at least) because he was gay? That would tell us how they feel about gays.
Why is it so many people think if gays beg for support, they will get that support? CfG has no reason to care about helping gays. They can just use us as campaign fodder.
How many pro-gay or moderate Republicans have been backed by CfG? Can you name any?
Comment by Carl — September 19, 2006 @ 2:46 am - September 19, 2006
#6 — Amen, Matt!
Comment by GOPValues — September 19, 2006 @ 6:34 pm - September 19, 2006