Log Cabin’s Sammon: Open to Criticism from Gay Conservatives
In blogging on my cross country journey, I commented on my meeting with Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon. I had thought to offer a detailed account of that meeting and may do so at a later date, but given my propensity for long, essayistic posts, I believe a shorter one where I hit the salient points may better serve our readers.
First, the one thing that most struck me about Patrick was his decency. When we talked, he listened to me as I offered criticisms of Log Cabin, often taking notes, even jotting down things at odds with the group’s policy (e.g., my rationale for Log Cabin coming out against ENDA).
As I wrote ten days ago, Patrick is the first Log Cabin leader (in “the twelve years that I have been involved in the organization“) to meet with me and listen to my concerns. (He gave me a better hearing than did the leadership of Log Cabin when I presided over its fastest growing club in the 1990s.) Indeed, I would argue that he is the first Log Cabin leader to take gay conservative critics seriously.
While I found his predecessor Patrick Guerriero to be a nice guy with a polished presence, in the course of the New Orleans convention in 2005, that Patrick made several snide remarks about bloggers, clearly a reference to the criticism this blog leveled against his organization.
And it wasn’t just during the meeting where Patrick (Sammon) has listened to my concerns. I have e-mailed him my posts critical of the group’s decision to launch an ad campaign attacking Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney. In each case, he has replied, taking issue with some (but not all) of the points I have made–in a civil manner. In those e-mails, he showed respect for the issues I raised.
I still think he’s wrong on this issue, but at least he acknowledges the seriousness of my criticism, showing an understanding of the ideas undergirding my points, something which some of our frequent critics and even some of his own defenders fail to do when criticizing us in the comments section to our various posts.
Log Cabin does have a “brand name” problem. Many Republicans and conservatives see them as the group with “Republican” in their name while constantly getting headlines for attacking other Republicans. I asked Patrick how he planned to address this and the only response he gave was to note the work local clubs are doing to help elect Republicans in their communities.
That’s not enough. Given the national nature of this ad campaign — as well as the anti-Bush ads in 2004, Log Cabin needs to do something at the national level to show that they are dedicated to electing Republicans — and defeating Democrats. Perhaps an ad campaign attacking Hillary for misrepresenting her husband’s stand on DOMA in the Logo Forum. Or something to show how she shifts her positions with the political winds, works to silence dissent and prefers power to principle. (Hmmm. . . Kind of similar, but far worse, far, far worse, to the Romney they portray in their ad campaign.)
As I said in my post from New York, I think Patrick’s openness to criticism from gay conservatives stems from two factors, the first being his own personality and the second being the blogosphere. With this new media platform, we gay conservatives can more easily get our message out. And this Log Cabin leader seems to be listening.
Time will tell whether his openness to a broader spectrum of ideas than those offered in the narrow confines of the Log Cabin board will lead to changes in the organization. One can only hope.
14 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Ridiculous! What’s the point of a gay GOP group that won’t criticize even an antigay GOP candidate like Romney? It sounds like all you want is a club for Republicans who happen to be gay but who just want to do what other GOP groups do–support GOP candidates and attack Democratic candidates, while basically ignoring gay issues. Hell, just start a gay chapter of the Club for Growth if that’s all you want. Meanwhile, Guerriero accomplished quite a feat in 2004. By criticizing both Bush and Kerry, he managed to make LCR sounds like the most consistent, authentically gay voice in the country. It sounds like you’re just interested in a club for spinning, hypocritical party hacks–like the Stonewall Dems. Needless to say, LCR never sounded goofier than when it was touting how gay-friendly George Bush was in 2000, while digging up some mid-80′s moderate positions of Al Gore to try to portray him as more gay-hostile than Bush. Yeah, political dialogue will really be enhanced by more of that idiocy!
Comment by Steve — October 25, 2007 @ 3:41 pm - October 25, 2007
I just don’t get it. I have no problem with you hating Democrats, but why on earth do you support Republicans when they go out of their way to get elected based on hating homosexuals?
Comment by John Paul — October 25, 2007 @ 4:51 pm - October 25, 2007
but why on earth do you support Republicans when they go out of their way to get elected based on hating homosexuals?
Such as….?
Why do gay liberals genuflect and throw money to liberals when they are openly hostile to homosexuals? The biggest anti-gay legislation has come from the liberals and we’re supposed to fellate them for that?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 25, 2007 @ 7:13 pm - October 25, 2007
You would have a point there if the ad was about Romney’s anti-gay stance. But it was about his flip flopping on the abortion issue. Remind me again, why is abortion a gay issue?
Comment by Leah — October 25, 2007 @ 7:29 pm - October 25, 2007
Um, Steve, maybe Guerriero did criticize Kerry, but his group didn’t run ads bashing the then-Democratic nominee. His group paid to attack his party’s nominee. And when he had a chance to criticize Kerry for being the first presidential candidate (at least in the television era) to make an issue of his opponent’s running mate’s child, he devoted more words in the release (ostensibly attacking Kerry) to criticize the nominee of the party he claimed as his own.
And also, if you bothered to read my posts, you’d understand that the issue isn’t that that Log Cabin has criticized Romney, it’s that once again Log Cabin is garnering headlines by attacking a Republican. If Log Cabin, on the national level, were spending money and devoting resources to attacking Democrats, then I might be more sympathetic to this ad campaign.
In some ways, you’re right, I pretty much think that except for repealing the ban on gays serving openly in the military and passing some form of state recognition of same-sex partnerships, that the government should basically ignore gay issues. Because, as we’ve seen, when the state leaves us alone, the market provides solutions. And that is an inherently conservative approach to gay issues rather than one which apes the statist policies of the left-leaning gay groups.
Finally, it’s too bad you attach your screed to a post where I devote most of my attention to praising Patrick for listening to his critics. Alas that you seem incapable of this quality, paying attention to the ideas with which you take issue.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 25, 2007 @ 8:40 pm - October 25, 2007
The only justification for the existence of the Log Cabin Republicans is to try to change the Republican Party and move it away from its consistently and overwhelmingly homophobic positions. How can they do that if they don’t take action during primary season to oppose the more homophobic candidates and support the least homophobic candidates? You can’t aim to change the Republican party and not take a position during the primaries.
Comment by Jon — October 25, 2007 @ 10:57 pm - October 25, 2007
Romney may stink, but we also need to go after the Democrats for how they stink as well.
Comment by Matt from California — October 25, 2007 @ 11:19 pm - October 25, 2007
yes, but Jon, how can they convince the GOP they’re serious about building the party if they’re constantly attacking other Republicans. Taken out of context, this may seem a shrewd move. But, given that their last national media campaign in a presidential election was attacking the Republican nominee, they need first show their GOP bona fides. Maybe had they run an ad attacking a Democratic contender, I might take them more seriously.
The organization has a record of seeking media attention by attacking other Republicans. Until they change that, I’ll continue to criticize them.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 26, 2007 @ 12:18 am - October 26, 2007
In fact, abortion is a gay issue.
When the gay gene is finally discovered, the gay community is going to have to make their own “choice” — either support a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy because she doesn’t want a gay child …
… Or admit that there are some circumstances where the right to life supercede’s the so-called “right to choose.”
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — October 26, 2007 @ 8:22 am - October 26, 2007
Why do they have to be against somebody?
Spend that money to get the vote out for Rudy,
you want a political earthquake — help Rudy win New Hampshire.
Comment by Geena the Transgirl — October 26, 2007 @ 11:09 am - October 26, 2007
” … he acknowledges the seriousness of my criticism, showing an understanding of the ideas undergirding my points, something which some of our frequent critics and even some of his own defenders fail to do …” uber hot and keeps a pen and pad on person to jot notes.
PS It seems you harbor an on-going grudge against Rich Tafel, but for the record, Rich was always much more personable and genuine with me than anyone at that level whom I’ve since met. (Just my personal observation.)
Comment by MikeInSedona — October 26, 2007 @ 2:07 pm - October 26, 2007
Uggg. My comment (above) got chopped up when I added the html, so now it makes no sense. Oh well. Ignore it. Sorry.
Comment by MikeInSedona — October 26, 2007 @ 2:09 pm - October 26, 2007
Mike, if I just started to detail my criticisms about Rich, you would see that it has less to do with a grudge (as his allies then claimed) and more to do with an indifference to the clubs. And much more than that. Much, much more.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 26, 2007 @ 3:18 pm - October 26, 2007
[...] It’s not just this endorsement which put the organization in a better light. Â It’s also Patrick Sammon’s attitude to Log Cabin’s gay conservative critics. Â As I’ve said before, in contrast to his predecessors, Sammon listens to his opposing views, taking our criticism seriously.“ [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Patrick Sammon: Republican — September 19, 2008 @ 8:21 pm - September 19, 2008