Comments on: Log Cabin attributes GOP loss to Social Conservatives; I disagree

By: gene ballard

gene ballard — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:21:12 +0000

I believe that we must enlist the power of all gay republicans.If interested. Please contact me at :

Gene Ballard
20 Schoonman street
Danielson,Ct. 06239

Call: 860-779-2277

By: Carl

Carl — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 08:05:36 +0000

-. As stated elsewhere on this blog, the Arizona ban affected heterosexual couples as well as gay couples. As stated elsewhere-re Ian- they already have laws in Arizona which make gay marriage illegal so the issue for the voters was it’s affects on the benefits of straight couples as the gay marriage aspect was redundant.-

Many other amendments which already passed in previous years and this year had the same type of language. That this one failed was a very nice surprise, and hopefully a sign of the future.

Many people vote for this amendment thinking it is only about marriage. When people find out more, the amendment has a better chance of failing.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 04:59:00 +0000

Excuse me, but with Republican rule in both the house, senate and white house, people discovered what democrats have known for years: Politically active republicans are all about catering to big business not to the citizens of this country. Look how Bush talked out of both sides of his mouth: tough on immigration, but dang if he didn’t want to let anyone in who would work for sub-standard wages for big compaines.

By: Ashley Hunter

Ashley Hunter — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 04:07:26 +0000

Dan GPW, I predict that someday historians will determine that the dissatisfaction among moderate Republicans and Independents that led to the ouster of Republican majorities in congress had its birth in the widely resented attempt by President Bush and the congressional leadership to interfere in the Teri Schiavo case.

By: keogh

keogh — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 03:03:30 +0000

the dems have already brought change to Iraq!
Rummy is gone!
If the Repubs would have won, he would stay, and Iraq would suffer

By: Ahksel

Ahksel — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 00:08:37 +0000

re 36
7 states passed a ban on gay marriages. That’s a large chunck of the electorate. In fact in every state they have been proposed they have passed except arizona, this leads one tto believe that this is a rather universal sentiment among americans no matter what the turnover in their state was. As stated elsewhere on this blog, the Arizona ban affected heterosexual couples as well as gay couples. As stated elsewhere-re Ian- they already have laws in Arizona which make gay marriage illegal so the issue for the voters was it’s affects on the benefits of straight couples as the gay marriage aspect was redundant.

By: Ahksel

Ahksel — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:57:07 +0000

I say let they impeach him, perhaps they will drive him out of office before he can sign an amnesty bill and perhaps his replacement would veto it. Wouldn’t that be poetic justice for the dems’. So motivated by hate that they’d shoot themselves in the foot. I can guarantee you that won’t happen though. Bush won’t make any trouble for them, they’ll get whatever they want from him. The man has NO HONOR, he won’t FIGHT these next two years. He will give them what they want so he can go back to texas in peace. the man who supposedly always stood by his friends just fired Rumsfeld…..AFTER the election. Guess he really only is so loyall when the cost-benefit analysis permits. BTW, Rumsfled should have gone years ago, his policies are what led us to where we are now in Iraq.

By: Carl

Carl — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:55:47 +0000

-If dislike of social conservatism is what made voters choose democrats then how do you explain those same voters approving amendments to ban gay marriages in seven or so states?-

Most of the states with big turnover in Congress didn’t have a gay marriage ban on the ballot. The one that did (Arizona) defeated the amendment.

By: Ahksel

Ahksel — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:46:46 +0000

If George Bush had done what many previous leaders would have done after 911, namely wiped out several middle eastern cities with “nook-you-ler”(sic.) weapons then I think I could guarantee you that the republicans would be in a much better spot today. It is his WEAKNESS, and his questionable ties to business profiting off this war which have cost the republicans. Don’t forget that somebody was going tto make a huge profit off of the Dubai ports deal. Apparently American’s didn’t forget. Yes we are frightened at what the democrats will do. But it seems to me that the only difference between the Bush republicans and the democrats is that whereas the democrats seem to want to give this country away the bush republicans are trying to sell it to the highest bidder. Perhaps in the end to many people the result would be the same and they just resented someone making a profit off their freedom.

By: Ahksel

Ahksel — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:22:34 +0000

Innocent nation?!!! Look dear, they want us dead. they want each other dead( shites and sunnis), they’ve wanted each other dead for hundreds of years, they’re whole culture is about killing and torture and brutality. This is the culture that produced saddam, this is the culture that produced bin laden, this is the culture that produced the current mad man in iran, this is the culture that has been killing hindus in india for hundreds of years, this is the culture that has been killing buddhists for hundreds of years, this is the culture that tried to conquer christian europe and has been capturing and killing/and or enslaving christians on the high seas for hundreds of years (read robinson crusoe sometime babe). This is the culture that had a genocidal slave operation in africa long before the europeans arrived. This is a culture where the victim of a rape is punnished instead of the rapist. This is the culture of “honor killings’ where a boy is dutybound to kill his sister if she is raped.
So they are back to killing each other because we took Saddam out and he had been preventing that by killing them himselves. BIG DEAL.Sounds like business as usual for them. If they didn’t want us in their neighborhood then they should have stayed out of ours. But they didn’t. They didn’t because we are the most powerful nation on earth and christian. They didn’t because the fact that they are nothing compared to us causes them shame, jealousy and envy. They did it because they have nothing else besides killing, no science, no scholars, nor authors, no artists, no entertainment, nothing. The only thing they have is oil and that’s only after WE built an industry there to exploit that rescource.
So yes, If we leave and all that happens is that they go at each others throats then I’d be verry happy with that. We’d alll be getting what we wanted. They’d get to kill and we’d be left alone and would have to fear a saddam with a nuke. My fear of course is that they wouldn’t leave us alone

By: God of Biscuits

God of Biscuits — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:56:28 +0000

The GOP got too accustomed to being the party in power and sought to stay in power by ladling out the pork.

Which is the kind of thing your disagreeing commenters have been saying for a long time. Have you no shame?

By: Rachel

Rachel — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:45:50 +0000

Arrogance like yours costs us lives – the obession with Dubya probably will destroy an inoocent nation more than what W has done – while you blame it all on him (while You gave him the ok in 2002) and then pretend like nothing has happened. I’m sorry, but I have too much conscience to fob it off on one “demon”. I’ve seen the true colors of my party (D) after 6 years and it’s left me sickened.
If Iraq’s a mess, it’s on both hands.By choice.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:41:18 +0000

i don’t have a problem with that ahksel. I have a problem with moral fraud. Both parties are guilty of it. and Iraq could suffer the consequences. Happy?

By: Ahksel

Ahksel — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:32:13 +0000

By the way Rachel. I would have preferred to wake up today and heard that the republican’s had held onto the house and senate. If I don’t like Bush it is because he has not been a conservative in that he has fought this war like a school marm, he want’s to flood this country with millions of illegal aliens who will vote in elections and steal it right out from under our feet, and he wanted to let the saudis( through a Dubai front company) controll our ports. I think that’s plenty of reason’s not to like him, sorry if you have a problem with that.

By: Ahksel

Ahksel — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:27:00 +0000

I’ll take the former, but the latter doesn’t sound too bad to me either. More troops was only part of the answer. We should have pacified the country just like we pacified Germany after world war II.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:58:56 +0000

so ahksel, are you willing to win (by actually persuing war against the insurgents) so that Iraqis have a chance of peace ?
or are you willing to watch a nation slaughter itself just to get at a President you don’t like?
it’s strange…if everyone knows more troops was the answer, who says more troops insn’t the answer now?

By: Ahksel

Ahksel — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:51:39 +0000

“Stay the course”
is probably one of the big reasons republicans lost. Whether or not one actually agrees that we should have done it one has to admit that the actuall invasion of Iraq was a brilliant military feat. We took the country quickly and with very few casualties. The problem is that it soon became apparent that we had to do much more than just take the territory. Pacifying the population required us to take action that nether Rumsfeld nor Bush were willing to take. They wanted to win a war and be considered nice guys at the same time. The problem the american people had with this is that we know it is not possible and we know more and more of our sons will have to die for a goal the leadership was unwilling to achieve . We’ve been told we cant afford to lose but at the same time we know that the leadership is unwilling to win. It became apparent to most that Bush’s decision to “stay the course” represented nothing more than a stubborn digging in of the heels to continue this situation in the hopes that some miracle could get him out of it. America doesn’t want to lose more men waiting for a miracle that is highly unlikely. Now of course, youo’d rather think the results of this election validate everything you believe in but I’m afraid that just isn’t so.

By: Ahksel

Ahksel — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:35:18 +0000

re Ryan and the Judas remark

Your feeling that gay men who support conservatism are betraying you is based on the false assumption that our sharing the same sexuality actually means anything. It has been my experience that gay men, through their everyday contact with each other, feel no obligation to consider the well being or safety of each other. On the contrary, one can say that they routinely put their pursuit of pleasure above their own and their fellows welfare. To try to put forward the idea that we are all members of a common community with a common interest is just ludicrous when one considers how gay men actully live. It is also insulting to tell other gay men that they should hold the narrow political interests of their group above those of the country as a whole. Many of us put the wellbeing of the country above the political agenda you desire. Many of us see your political agenda as damaging to the country as a whole and are steadfastly against it. Your emmotional reasoning and name calling only make you look like a silly…queen.

By: Ahksel

Ahksel — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:18:54 +0000

If dislike of social conservatism is what made voters choose democrats then how do you explain those same voters approving amendments to ban gay marriages in seven or so states? Clearly, social conservatism was not the reason the republicans lost, especially when one considers that they had abandoned it in the past several years.

By: Carl

Carl — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:07:58 +0000

I DO blame social conservatives. The reason that so many moderates lost their seats last night is because independent and Democrat voters in those districts decided they could no longer support even their favorite congenial Republicans.

I mean, Rick Santorum lost 59-41. That’s a huge loss for an incumbent senator.