GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Comments

  2. Perhaps “that’s the ticket” then

    LOL! Yes, indeed, the adultery ticket. Perfect for the “Family Values” crowd. I would have thought you guys would want someone who took the vows of marriage seriously. Dan certainly has made some good observations about how gay people need to show their commitment to marriage vows. One would have thought it at least as important that the leaders of the Moralist i.e. Republic Party do so too.

  3. I thought I would share this with you Republickers, by way of Garden State Equality

    Log Cabin Republicans is seeking to begin a New Jersey chapter. None currently exists in our state.

    The LGBTI community is enormously strengthened when both LGBTI Democrats and Republicans are involved in their respective parties. Let there be an LGBTI voice at every political table in New Jersey.

    If you’re an LGBTI registered Republican and are interested in being part of a New Jersey chapter of Log Cabin Republicans, e-mail your name, address and telephone number of David Verchere of New York Log Cabin Republicans, charged with helping to start a New Jersey chapter: Verchere@NewYork.LogCabin.org

  4. #2: Ian, your gleeful ‘LOL’ and disdainful sarcasm affirm Bruce’s query. Your fear is flattering.

    I’m for Rudy, but Gingrich has been lambasted so thoroughly due to the very successful Contract that he would only provide a deadweight. (Remember ‘Contract On America’, etc.?) Plus, the MSM is full of Ians and unfortunately, most Americans are too stupid to recognize them.

    I wonder how much influence the Veep nominee has on the success of the Prez candidate. I’ve read a study that concluded it has virtually none, but I can’t remember where I read it, so I can’t quote or reference it. However, I do remember some of my liberal friends (they’re people, too) not liking Clinton, but could hardly wait for the moment when Gore would presumably take office. (These were Democrats that referred to Clinton as ‘the first Republican I ever voted for’.)

    I don’t think Giuliani can win without a nod to the religious right, so I suspect he’ll choose a current congressman or senator. Hutchison might be a good choice — she’s a candidate with legs, as they say. Kempthorne is a possibility, though he’s not well known. There are lots of possibilities.

  7. Ian, Giuliani is not a member of the Religious Right, as you obviously haven’t noticed. While Gingrich is certainly a conservative, I don’t know how ‘religious’ he is. I don’t doubt he claims to be a man of faith, but then so does Bill Clinton. I don’t know that either Giuliani and Gingrich are ‘repeat adulterers’, as you state — and neither do you. If you read many of the posts on this blog carefully, you just might realize that being a Republican doesn’t make you a conservative, being a conservative certainly doesn’t necessarily mean you’re friendly to the GOP, and being a ‘moralist’ isn’t at all limited to the right side of the political aisle. Ever heard of a guy named Noam Chomsky? He’s about as sermonizing as you can get.

    It’s clear that many including yourself don’t take the Republican Party seriously. Why, after all, would there exist a largely Republican (and largely conservative, but not necessarily so) blog that links politics and (gasp!) homosexuality, one that you seem to enjoy? I encourage your ignorance. I’m not a fan of GWBush, but his greatest strength has been his ability to defy the low expectations of those like yourself. Keep it up, Ian…all the way to the White House.

  10. #7 – Hobbit, don’t waste your time with the lower-case-libtrolls. They all think that “left is right and right is wrong.”

    Sort of like trying to squeeze water out of a stone.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  11. Hi, Peter.

    Yeah, I’m still learning who is worthy of response.

    The thing I don’t like about Ian and others is the complete lack of desire to engage in constructive conversation. I suppose it should be obvious that certain participants aren’t interested in being reasonable and my efforts to make sense to them are for naught.

    At any rate, I’m not one to trumpet my morals: I still smile when I recall that I found this site while surfing for porn.

  12. Is that where the “hard” part of your handle comes from?

    Sorry – couldn’t resist…

    Watch – now we’ll get some libtrolls to air their dirty laundry about your last sentence. Then it will turn into some kind of stupid rant, like “the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals say hi to each other at the 24-hour bookstore.”

    I made that line up, by the way. You-know-who is probably googling every single quotation I make to try and play “gotcha” politics.

    Maybe for kicks I’ll throw one in and innocently claim that I didn’t know it was a real quote. See if I can mess with their minds. Such as they are.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  13. These are good candidates and if nominated I will support either or both if they´re both on the ticket. They are not my primary choices. I have problems with Rudy on gun control and I felt Newt rested on his laurels after 1994. He should´ve done a sequel with Contract with America 2. An article published in Fortune magazine indicated that congress did shrink government somewhat but 156 agencies were duplicated services and could´ve integrated furhther reducing the government payroll. As for their past marital problems, all I can say if it didn´t keep Bill Clinton from being elected and reelected. However, my idea of a winning ticket is, Secretary of State,Codelezza Rice and former Secretary of State, Gen. Colin Powell.

  14. The NRA and the evangelicals are the two strongest republican grass root lobbies.
    Will they support Rudy? (A pro-choice, pro gun control candidate)
    Nope.
    It looks like it will be Brownback and Huckabee for you guys

  15. 156 agencies were still duplicating services and could have been integrated into a single agencies further reducing the government payroll.

    if it didn´t keep Bill Clinton from being elected and reelected, WHY SHOULD IT BE AN ISSUE now?

  16. I’d rather see Newt than Rudy as President. I fear Rudy might stall and fall “off message” in-between crises. A battle of ideas, not parties, would be Newt Gingrich vs Bill Richardson.

    I do think that Newt is better-capable of talking his way across the aisle to get true bi-partisan cooperation from the Democrats on 2009 than the other hopefuls.

  18. #7:

    Ian, Giuliani is not a member of the Religious Right, as you obviously haven’t noticed.

    Well, I don’t think I ever claimed he was. I just find it interesting that the party that’s always claiming the moral high ground on everything would think it appropriate to nominate two repeated adulterers for the top of the ticket. Jesus, as I’m sure you know, had a lot to say about that particular sin. Now the morality angle may just be marketing for some in the GOP but I suspect that for the religious right, it’s far more than a slogan.

    As for Rudy, let’s face it, as a pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-gun control candidate, he could run as a Dem and nobody would bat an eye. But it certainly raises eyebrows among the holier-than-thou that dominate the base of your party. That’s why you’ll end up with a Brownback or a Huckabee as your nominee.

  19. You’re right! I was going to name myself HardnosedHobbit, but decided to leave out the anatomy and let you guess.

    Good line re. bookstores — be careful shaking hands!

    And you even cited your source! What’s next? Demands for MLA formatting and Works Cited links?

  20. I disagree, which is why I wrote that Rudy would do well to have a runningmate that is a member of the RR.

    Most realize that it’s important to get elected and Rudy has so much going for his candidacy (especially against Hillary and Edwards — Obama is another matter) that many members of the RR will swallow hard and vote for him. Besides, gun control isn’t really much of an issue these days. No one is discussing it except you — certainly Rudy isn’t and neither are any of your candidates.

    Brownback and Huckabee aren’t well-known enough to be serious contenders and McCain, although respected in some circles, doesn’t really have the following he once had. Romney is the only other serious candidate and is very appealing. I’m not even sure Gingrich has formed an exploratory committee. Personally, I doubt he’ll run.

    As for the GOP being the ‘moralist’ party, let’s not forget Hillary’s shrill sermons and book It Takes a Village. As I stated above, this kind of moralizing certainly needn’t be strictly religious in nature. Dennis Kucinich is one of the most holier-than-thou candidates to have graced the political scene since Jimmy Carter, except he’s a secular high priest rather than a literal one.

    Remember all the staged photo-ops self-consciously showing Hillary and Bill going in and out of church? I’m assuming we’ll be seeing alot of that and soon. So — is this kind of cynicism O.K. because you know it’s just for show, or do you have a problem with folks faking piety?

  23. #20:

    As for the GOP being the ‘moralist’ party

    When it comes to issues of gays and abortion, the GOP will be doing a real flip-flop if it decides to go with Rudy. I think there’ll be enough dirt dug up in the primaries that Rudy won’t look quite the saint he does now.

    As for Brownback and Huckabee being unknowns, so were Clinton and Carter at this point prior to their first Presidential elections. Now, it seems that the GOP generally sticks with a presumptive nominee fairly early on but then that would mean you’ll get McCain and I think that’s pretty unlikely – he’s headed downhill fast.

    As for Clinton and Kucinich, neither will get the Dem nomination.

    Because Bush is determined to prolong the Iraq mess well beyond 2008, the war will be the source of tremendous voter discontent. Even more so should Bush start a war with Iran. That’s why I think the next President will be one who either always opposed the war or, if they originally supported the war, has strongly reversed course and now leads in opposition to it.

  24. I support Rudy because I’m a libertarian Republican (less government in general, mildly liberal on social issues, very conservative on economic issues). I have never claimed that Giuliani is a saint and wouldn’t vote for anyone who had such a reputation. You fail to understand that although the RR is a vocal part of the GOP, it is merely a part and doesn’t represent my views nor the views of many, many other Republicans. You yourself have reasoned that international conflict will be the decisive issue in 2008, so why are you harping on abortion and gun control? No one else is.

    I mentioned Kucinich not because I think he’s a viable Democrat (I don’t think any thinking person does, which is a heavy indictment against Kucinich) but because he’s an example of the type of professional scold in the Jonathan Kozol/Hillary Clinton/Paul Wellstone vein — one who absolutely uses morality as a political plank. Are you so naive to think that it’s impossible for environmentalism to have become a religion to some in your party?

    While it’s true that Clinton and Carter were unknowns this early in their own respective campaigns, remember that the Democrats really had few options. I was just a kid at the time, but I remember that had the election of 1975 been postponed for a week, Ford likely would have won.

    I assume you’re hoping that Huckabee will be the nominee, thus galvanizing the leftist fringe into one big knot of hatred against a man of faith having the audacity to run for public office. This and your focus on non-issues indicates you’re scared of Rudy and I mean trembling, change-your-underwear scared. That’s one of the reasons I’m supporting him.