Well, its all over except for dusting up the floor and turning the lights off….
Patrick and I had a very good conversation, mostly focusing on the Log Cabin ad campaign against Mitt Romney. Feel free to listen to our whole show right here. Just press the play button in the blue box below to enjoy the fun.
Or click on the button below to go to our BlogTalkRadio site.
I think I have finally mastered the technical side of this broadcast/podcast thing! Yeeehaw.
But really folks… y’all need to CALL IN next time. It is more fun that way. No one wants to hear me blather on by myself!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
What do you have in mind?
Hmm…I’m thinking I’d better just listen to this one rather call in. LCR isn’t among my favorite groups at the moment.
Bruce, I doubt that Patrick expects you to be on your “best behavior”. I hope you’re civil but firm.
Ask the tough questions you and others have asked here: why the attack ads on Mitt? Where did they get the $$ to do it? Ask him how the LCR intends to return to its Republican focus. Why isn’t the LCR working to recruit and fund pro-gay candidates WITHIN the GOP? Does Patrick think the past tactics of the LCR (esp the non-endorsement of Bush) were “smart” moves? How does he intend to make the GOP more receptive to pro-gay policies if the LCR isn’t a viable part of the GOP? How does the LCR intend to get folks on the Natl Convention’s Rules Committee or Platform Subcommittee? Pin him down. Get him to be specific. Thank GOD you’re no LarryKing… no creampuff questions.
And don’t let Patrick spin you or evade you. Tell him when it’s a non-answer or quaffle… don’t let him off. You may be the only chance in a long time to get this guy to answer the basic questions most gay GOPers have for the LCR.
Good Luck! I’ll be listening.
GP, while being nice, please be sure to press him on (1) why LCR is running ads against a Republican’s *abortion* stance, (2) where they’re getting the money, and (3) what they plan to do if that Republican proves to be the next President.
#4
Go Bruce O’Reilly!!!
Anybody want to take bets on this interview? Something tells me he’ll cancel at the last minute. Maybe before.
the money is coming from wealthy folks in Boston (Richard Babson etc) LCR should have let Rudy take out Romney…its gonna be a lonely LCR booth at the convention in MSP next year. too bad Patrick Sammon is a really nice guy but he is not a political operative…and it shows
That joke pretty much writes itself.
I was asleep during the show. I’ll have to catch it later.
You did make it clear that it was a call in show, right?
World War 3 or Cold War 2?
The War On Terror is closer to the Cold War than either of the World Wars.
In World War I and II, the battle was against particular states: The Axis Powers.
Despite having a primary state sponsor in the Soviet Union, the Cold War was a departure from traditional wars in that the enemy was primarily an ideology: Communism.
The War On Terror is also a war against an ideology: Islamic radicalism. However, in this instance the connection to state sponsors is even more opaque. There simply is no dominate state sponsor for Islamic radicalism in the way that the Soviet Union was to communism.
That’s why it’s so ridiculous when people compare the War On Terror to World War II. The paths to victory are entirely different. You can’t fight an ideology the way you’d fight a state.
Should I point out the difference between Soviet Communists and Islamo-Fascists, or is it so obvious that anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see it?
There simply is no dominate state sponsor for Islamic radicalism in the way that the Soviet Union was to communism.
How ’bout Iran and Syria?
Norman Podheretz prefers the name (and I with him) World War 4. With the Cold War as WW3.
BTW, our very success in WWs 1, 2 and 3 is what has driven our nation-state enemies in WW4 (Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iraq under Saddam, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and rogue elements in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan; with Russia / Putin stirring their pots again) to be so deceptive/circumspect, i.e., to fight the war “secretly” via Islamo-terrorist proxies.
One of the great failings of the Bush Administration, I believe, is that it hasn’t exposed and named our present nation-state enemies. After naming Iraq (rightly) as a terror sponsor and getting mass recriminations and denial for its trouble, it has given up. So Iran and Syria get to keep up their sponsorship of the terrorism now haunting Israel, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Here is a Cold War Analogy that Chase won’t like.
The US defeat in Vietnam and subsequent “malaise” encouraged the Soviet Union and its communist allies to aggressively expand their conquests. In Central America Nicaragua fell to communism and El Salvador teetered on the brink. Soviet-backed communist insurgencies gained power in Angola and in the Horn of Africa. Meanwhile, Cambodia and Vietnam endured mass killings and genocide.
All the while Jimmy Carter said our fear of communism was “inordinate,” just as the modern Democrat left calls our fear of terrorist Islamism exaggerated.
So, given that, anyone care to guess what effect would American defeat in Iraq have on the spread of radical Islam? Or is this also too obvious for anyone with an IQ above room temperature.
I just listened to the show on itunes. Good job Bruce. My impression of Patrick, is that during his time in DC he learned how to be the politico. He was good at evading answers. He does come across as a conservative, not one I would agree with all the time.
But I did not get an answer as to why LCR, which has Republican in it’s name, felt it so important to attack Romney. Also, I’m tired of the constant references to Ronald Reagan, none of these candidates are Reagan, or even Reaganlike. So if in 1994 Romney distanced himself from Reagan – that is still not a reason to attack him in the primaries.
Patrick is very scared of Hillary, but not scared enough to come out and say he will support whomever the Republicans nominate.
Not very impressed, but not surprised, I think Patrick falls in with all the other interest group leaders – protect myself and my organization (job) first, then see how much of our mission statement I can really live up to.
Thanks Leah! My iTunes ratings just doubled! 🙂
I thought he gave well-crafted very DC-tailored answers as well. Perhaps evasive. But he also leads a board-driven organization that naturally would rein him in on a specific answer on endorsements, etc.
He was very gracious with his time, and no topic was off limits.
I just had a lot more on my list and the clock ran out.
I just want to mention that I can’t find any number to be able to call in on your show. I don’t see anything on the blogtalkradio site. You didn’t mention the number in your post, and I didn’t hear you give the number during the program, though I admit I didn’t catch all of it. Just what IS the number?
Dotty
Bruce, thanks for at least asking the tough questions and trying to follow-up on some of Patrick’s more evasive replies… I can’t understand why you didn’t nail him though on the nonsense about LCR’s choice to protect “donors” (crap) identity rather than support traditional democratic values like openness, transparency, accountability when asked who is funding the LCR and the Romney ad.
The reason Patrick was coy has NOTHING to do with protecting LCR’s donor base… it has everything to do with the LCR’s alliance with anti-Bush, anti-conservative, anti-GOP interest groups intent on using LCR as an attack dog to cause division and contention within the Party.
Patrick is a tool of those forces as much as was his vanquished and discredited –but richly rewarded– predecessor. It’s time for the RNC to denounce the Log Cabineers and find a way to fund a real Republican gay advocacy group.
The other attempted gay republican group was even a pale imitation of the log cabin republicans, however if log cabin cant improve. we should try to make an organization thats a mix between the social views of arnold with the economic views of california state senator tom mc clintock or dick armey former house majority leader.
We dont need soros, or tim gill to dominate the group. But we should learn how to communicate as Republicans, but not as pawns.
You were very gentle on Patrick. I expected more challenging questions. I agree that it would be nice to hear about this:
Ask the tough questions you and others have asked here: why the attack ads on Mitt? Where did they get the $$ to do it? Ask him how the LCR intends to return to its Republican focus. Why isn’t the LCR working to recruit and fund pro-gay candidates WITHIN the GOP? Does Patrick think the past tactics of the LCR (esp the non-endorsement of Bush) were “smart” moves? How does he intend to make the GOP more receptive to pro-gay policies if the LCR isn’t a viable part of the GOP? How does the LCR intend to get folks on the Natl Convention’s Rules Committee or Platform Subcommittee? Pin him down. Get him to be specific. Thank GOD you’re no LarryKing… no creampuff questions.
EY: I agree with Mark Mead – LCR should have let Giulianni take down Romney. The ads did not fit with LCR’s mission. The ads LCR did during 2004 did. (I know some people disagreed on that point).
For a future interview, I’d suggest getting Barney Frank on to talk about ENDA…. It was really funny reading your “I agree with Barney Frank” post.
Good interview – though I thought you weren’t as hard on him as I expected. I hope you get him back on your show.
Interesting comment by Mark Mead – Mark are you the guy who used to work for LCR a ways back?
Interesting interiew. Thanks, Bruce.
Just listened to the interview. Enjoyed it much and would like to hear more interviews on your blog in the future.
Patrick Sammon was actually more candid than I expected him to be. I’ve met and chatted with Mr. Sammon, myself, and although I like the fellow very much, he does not seem fully comfortable yet with answering questions about LCR’s mechanics — I think he is simply attempting to be cautious with his words, which is usually a good thing. I would be the same way in his position. I am a trustee with LCR, which simiply means I give over 1K per year, but I’m not a big-time contributer by any means; nevertheless, I fully support the Romney ads. The role of groups like LCR is not to be a cheerlearder for anyone and everyone who calls themselves Republican; it’s to get into the decision-making trenches, it’s to poke and prod these fellows who want to be our leaders. Well, maybe I shouldn’t say “poke and prod” when discussing LCR tactics — Sammon would never be so careless with his phrasing — but you get my point. (On a lighter note, Patrick is mighty cute; I wouldn’t mind getting in the trenches with him. Sorry.)