Gay Patriot Header Image

Why I’m Rejoining Log Cabin Tonight

In just a few hours, I will be heading to a meeting of Log Cabin of Los Angeles with something I usually don’t bring to such gatherings. My checkbook. For at this meeting, I intend to do something I haven’t done in at least five, possibly six, years, join Log Cabin.

Now that the man who supported the group’s decision not to endorse his party’s nominee in the 2004 presidential election, who attacked that nominee after claiming to remain neutral in the race and who even refused to indicate whom he had voted for after that good man had won a decisive reelection, has stepped down as head of the organization, I am joining in the hope that the group’s new leadership will spend more time building bridges to the party whose very name is in the organization’s name and less time trying to get along with the left-leaning gay groups.

Over the course of the two-years that I have been blogging, I have delivered a largely mixed report on Log Cabin. Even if it meant delaying my bedtime, I have made sure to post items showing the group in a good light, most recently praising interim leader Patrick Sammon for condemning “outing” in his statement on the Foley affair.

My greatest criticism of immediate past Log Cabin Executive Director Patrick Guerriero has been his dedication to improving Log Cabin’s “standing among liberal national gay rights groups.” This commitment seemed odd given how frequently these groups criticized President Bush and the GOP — and how regularly they allied themselves with a variety of left-wing organizations.

I understand it’s no easy task to lead the Log Cabin Republicans. A prominent gay Republican who lives in DC described the job as “thankless.” That said, the new leader must reach out, not to gay organizations (though he (or she) should be cordial to their leaders), but to broad-minded elected Republicans and to those in think tanks — and advocacy organizations — concerned about the GOP’s departure from its Reaganite principles.

The new leader of Log Cabin needs to do what House Republicans did in 1994, that is, make clear where his organization stands on the key issues of the day. To show that they are committed Republicans, Log Cabin leaders should forward an agenda, not limited to gay issues, indeed, an agenda that focuses on conservative ones, supporting the President in the War on Terror, promoting a strategy for victory in Iraq, cutting the size and scope of the federal government, supporting judicial restraint and above all, returning to rhetoric which has defined the GOP since its inception 160 years ago — stressing that freedom is the motivating for our involvement in politics and the goal of a truly republican government.

It is in the hope that as Log Cabin’s new leadership will return to these noble principles that I will be rejoining the organization tonight.

– B. Daniel Blatt (

2006 — An Election, not a Realignment

The last time I devoted an entire post to the 2006 elections, I suggested that the GOP would Hang on by the Skin of Its Teeth. Now, I’m wondering if the Democrats could nudge the GOP out of power. Fred Barnes, normally one of the most optimistic (about the GOP’s prospects) pundits, predicts that the Democrats will win 18 seats, enough to capture the House.

While I still hope (and believe) the GOP will hang out, it’s entirely possible that the Democrats could win just enough seats to garner a majority in the House for the first time in twelve years. And while I think the Democrats will make gains in the Senate, it seems increasingly likely that the GOP will hold that house, even if the Vice President has, once again, to cast the deciding vote for control.

Should the Democrats win, they — and the MSM — will of course spin this as a repudiation of President Bush and an affirmation of liberalism. That analysis will be based less on the actual election returns — and the dynamics of this year — than on their own wishful thinking. Outside of some very “blue” regions, Democrats this year have, by and large, eschewed ideology while many Democrats is tight races have moved to the center.

A Democratic majority with a number of freshmen Democrats from “red” districts looking forward to their first re-election in a presidential election year, are not likely to join a House Speaker from America’s most liberal city in pushing forward a left-wing anti-Bush agenda. These freshmen will join those centrist Democrats who have voted with the GOP on a number of controversial issues this session. Thus, given the dynamics of this election, while a Democratic majority would not be a good thing for President, it would not be the disaster some are forecasting.

Expect instead a Democratic majority at least as fractious as that voted out in 1994. Today’s Democrats lack the “philosophical glue” (such The Contract with America, the set of policy proposals which helped the GOP win that year) that held the GOP caucus together for the better part of its first year in power in forty years.

That said, given the extreme leftism of a number of potential committee chairs in a Democratic House, I’m supporting my party this year despite is failure to live up to the ideas which brought it to power just twelve years ago. It’s a choice between a Republican Party which sometimes gets things right — and a Democratic Party interested primarily in preventing the GOP from getting anything accomplished.


Pink Purge? What Pink Purge?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:01 pm - October 23, 2006.
Filed under: FoleyGate,Gay Politics,Media Bias

One of the most amusing things about the aftermath of the Foley affair is the number of leftists, Democratic activists, MSM reporters and pundits and other Bush-haters speculating about what this means for the GOP. I mean, you’ve got people who have never attended a Republican meeting, who don’t spend much time with rank-and-file Republicans, who only know about the GOP from what they’ve seen in the media, trying to explain the party’s attitude toward gays.

And while outside of various urban and coastal areas, the GOP has not exactly embraced gay people with open arms, except in a few jurisdictions scattered across the country, various GOP committees and auxiliaries haven’t been rejecting us either. It seems that, by and large, most Republicans are willing to accept gay people into their organizations, but are unwilling to support gay marriage and, in some cases, wish we weren’t so open about our sexuality.

Last Wednesday, Johanna Neuman headlined her piece in the Los Angeles Times, “Some Seek ‘Pink Purge’ in the GOP.” Only it seems the “some” in her title refers not to Republicans, but to enemies of the GOP. She quotes one such enemy as seeing a “huge schism on the right,” leading a conservative pundit to ask “Isn’t it a bit unwise to use an enemy to the GOP as a source for about what is going on IN the GOP?

And despite what the MSM has said about social conservatives, even the most anti-gay among them “deny they are interested in removing gay staffers from the party.” Their concern is more where an elected official stands on their issues.

To be sure, things are not ideal for gay Republicans. The gay Republican staffers whom Ms. Neuman contacted for her article would not “speak for the record.” While we still have a ways to go with our own party, the GOP is hardly the anti-gay institution as defined by its enemies on the gay left — and their allies in the MSM. More often than not, they paint a picture of party that does reflect the party as it is, but as they have perceived it in their imagination.

While there’s no pink purge going in the GOP, there are still many places where gay Republicans cannot be all that open about their sexuality. For my part, I’m eager to work with the new leader of Log Cabin to address that problem, not through confrontation, but through gentle suasion.

– B. Daniel Blatt (