Whenever I speak to other conservative bloggers (including a number of gay ones) and the topic of Log Cabin comes up, many recall that ostensibly Republican organization’s failure to endorse President Bush in the 2004 election while its then-President badmouthed his party’s nominee on national television later in that fall’s campaign. They, like many Republicans with whom I’m spoken over the years (and in the past few months), question Log Cabin’s commitment to the GOP.
And these aren’t anti-gay Republicans, many of these individuals (bloggers as well and activists) oppose a constitutional amendment defining marriage, some support gay marriage, while others think the party should lay off the gay issue and focus on those unifying ideas which helped our party win presidential elections in the 1980s and congressional elections in the 1990s.
I dare say it came as no surprise to these Republicans and conservatives when they learned yesterday that openly gay retired brigadier general Keith Kerr whom CNN flew in to participate in Wednesday’s Republican debate serves on Hillary Clinton’s “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender steering committee” while claiming to be a member of Log Cabin Republicans. This isn’t the first time this self-professed member of an ostensibly Republican organization has supported a Democratic presidential candidate. Just four years ago, he was “active in John F. Kerry’s 2004 campaign for president.”
Claiming to be a member of a Republican organization while supporting Democratic candidates for president in two successive presidential elections?!?? Some might say he is not comfortable with the direction of his party, but to sign up for a Democratic candidate for president in the current campaign before the GOP has even picked its nominee even when there is a Republican candidate with a record of accomplishment on gay issues.
This supposed Republican is not even trying to influence the direction of the party. He’s already signed up with the opposition!
Given that many question Log Cabin’s commitment to the GOP, it seems a no-brainer for Log Cabin to distance itself from this man. All the organization need do is issue a short statement, perhaps commending the general for his military service and thanking him for supporting the group in the past (he spoke at its 2004 convention), but say that while Log Cabin welcomes Republicans of diverse views, it does not welcome members who regularly support Democratic candidates, particularly partisans like Mrs. Clinton.
In the past two days, since General Kerr’s affiliation with the Clinton campaign has come to light, Log Cabin has remained silent on their member’s* support of that Democrat. Both Bruce and I contacted Log Cabin’s President Patrick Sammon, asking him to comment on this matter. He refused to to comment on the record. Nor has Log Cabin has issued a public statement on his claimed affiliation with the group.
This silence is telling. Here, Log Cabin has a chance to make clear that theirs is an organization for Republicans who seek to build a more inclusive party, but not for those who work to defeat Republican candidates. Instead of issuing a simple statement, Log Cabin went ahead with a planned press release announcing its release of yet another round of ads attacking a Republican candidate for president.
Let’s see, Log Cabin is busy attacking a Republican candidate for president while not distancing itself from a member who serves on a steering committee for a Democratic candidate.
Now you see why in our category for the organization, we keep the word “Republicans” in parentheses.
– B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
*We are taking General Kerr at his word that he is a member of Log Cabin.
Good man. I think it’s more likely (and more scandalous) that Log Cabin does have Kerr as a member and will happily let Kerr represent Log Cabin on national TV, than that ‘Kerr lied’ about having an LCR connection.
If he’s not a member, all Log Cabin need do is release a statement saying as much. That would further undermine the General’s credibility while slightly enhancing the organization’s stature.
zakly š
One word of criticism of Kerr or Mistress Hillary and Timmy Gill pulls the plug on their money supply.
Kerr can say whatever he wants to but to have the Log Cabin REPUBLICANS allow him to either use or actually be in their organization when he is a liberal supporter proves how useless that group has become. They need to change their name to Stucoo Vernacular Yahoos. They are no more Republican than Move on Dot Org in my opinion.
The word is ‘stucco’….
A Republican is one who supports his party, even when he has to hold his nose. The Log Cabin Republicans had best pull the plug on Kerr or ditch the name Republican. Or perhaps, they could amend their name to: Log Cabin Single-Issue Bloc Tending to Vote Republican, But Only When it Doesn’t Put Us in a Snit.
I have learned from this site to pay little attention Log Cabin Republicans. I appreciate the information. We Republicans have enough house cleaning to do as it is.
Log Cabin Republican means nothing to me.
Heck Republican means nothign to me.
I dont belong to any party. Occasionally a Republican candidate will meet my stanards otherwise, no party gets my vote either.
funny, I thought America was about choice and picking the candidate you thought was best for the job. Clearly the General does have basic conservative leanings, but its also clear that he doens’t believe the GOP candidates are filling that bill.
You on the other hand seem to believe in only un-wavering allegiance to the party ideals – something like a communist or fascist idealism, don’t you think?
[Give me a break. We’re not asking for unwavering allegiance. Just not to count as a member a man who regularly supports presidential candidates of the opposing party. Would you welcome someone as a Democrat who backed W in ’04 and then was serving on a steering committee for Mitt Romney? –Dan]
CNN should have done better research on this issue. SLDN could have found another person to ask the question in the debate.
That being said, you can be a Republican and still choose to support a Democrat for President. It happens all the time. Did the right wing get all crazy with Zell Miller for supporting Bush? No they still called him a Democrat. Remember? If you’re number one issue is DADT as I am presuming the case is with Gen. Kerr, then it would follow that he wouldn’t support any of the GOP Presidential candidates at this time.
The assumption that you can’t support Hillary Clinton if you are a Republican is kind of close to what the Virginia Republican party is doing with their ‘loyalty oath’, right?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
#10: Well stated, Tom. And a great point about Zell Miller. I would also suggest that of the major Dem candidates, Hillary is probably the most conservative and could easily be mistaken for a moderate pro-business Repub. That’s probably why Kerr supports her.
[If Hillary is the most conservative, it’s more a sign of how far left the Democrats have gone. Recall the vote when she was one of 14, or was it one of 12, Democratic Senators who voted against funding the war? And didn’t many Democrats try to disassociate themselves from Zell Miller in ’04? –Dan]
Vince,
Keep laughing. If the GOP Presidential candidates want to offer the American people another heaping plate of ‘more of the same’ in ’08, Kerr wont be the only Republican voting for Hillary.
Tom, Bush isn’t running.
And as I recall its’ Senators Lierberman and Miller who said the party left them, not the other way around.
If the Democrats had two more senators, does anyone really thik they’d let Senator Lieberman caucaus with them?
Tom… are you actually trying to pass Hillary off as some sort of change?
Everything that was bad about Clinton’s administration in the 1990s had her fingerprints all over it. The real big scandals were really all hers. The travel office, the fbi files, the lawfirm papers.
You think people want to go back to that?
I will laugh.. cuz you’re hysterical.
Hillary is probably the most conservative.
Considering Hilldog is an unapologetic “We’re going to take things away from you for the common good” Marxist, that tells you just how radical the rest of the Democratic pack is.
Sure, she’s pro-business… As long as the business is run by the Communist Chinese and can launder campaign donations through busboys and dishwashers.
Have any of you heard about the Hillary – Stan Lee (creator of Spider-Man), Peter Paul campaign finance scandle?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019&q=clinton+peter+paul+site%3Avideo.google.com+duration%3Amedium&total=9&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=4
This video makes it pretty clear that Hillary did a few felonies
You know, much as the Sorocrats whine about Rudy supposedly misappropriating funds to pay for his police protection, at least we have his records to scrutinize. Hilldog still refuses to release her White House records for public scrutiny. I wonder what she’s hiding.
#12: Dan, if you want the conservative litmus test to be support for the continued occupation of Iraq, be my guest. It makes most of the country liberal.
Vince,
Yawn. Conservative conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton stopped being credible when they went down the ‘Hillary murdered Vince Foster route’.
14
Bush isn’t running, but the current GOP candidates save Ron Paul aren’t much of a departure from his policies. You and I’ll will just have to see how this one plays out.
The Right Place Blog Fakely But Accurately Recreates the Clinton News Network/YouTube/Miracle Gro Republican Debate. Fairly funny.
As I recall, Miller wrote a book about how today’s liberals aren’t Democrats anymore. Neo-Socialist al-Qaeda cheerleaders is more like it.
Perhaps to the grossly uninformed, which is EXACTLY the way libs like their voters.
#18:
Actually, it’s not Rudy protection that’s an issue, rather it’s police protection for his mistress’ dog among other things!
Oh and BTW, how about that National Review fabulist? I can hardly wait for all the breathless commentary on him.
I think Monica was getting secret service protection, technically, when giving bj’s in the oval office. The Clintons have set lots of precedents.
#13 people voting Republican for more of the same? We can only hope. Booming economy, 45 million muslims and Arabs freed from tyraney, real income up, poverty down, inflation in check, no sex scandals in the oval office, no WACO massacres, no RUBY RIDGE massacres, no lying to a grand jury, no new taxes, low unemployment, record employment, North Korea rolling over, 2 years without a hurricane making landfall, 7 years of no terrorist attack, NE Patriots dominate, time for….”four more years” chants.
#24: Which we all know about because Rudy, unlike Mrs. Clinton, allows his records to be scrutinized by the public. What’s Hillary hiding? Why won’t she release her White House records?
“General” Kerr
#26:
Um, Gene, I hate to break this to you but Ruby Ridge was George H. W. Bush’s fiasco.
#25:
Yeah as part of standard White House protection. Somehow though, I doubt they were picking up her dog’s poop.
The founders of Log Cabin were all conservative Republicans. I was not a charter member but an early one. We busted our humps to have members of the Assembly come to our dinner meetings at MichaelĀ“s in Los Feliz to know who we were. We got shot in the arm when the National Enquirer headlined in Sept of 1980; Gays Support Reagan!
By 1992, the organization grew to a number of chapters in California and the leadership changed. One of our members actually had a Clinton bumper sticker on his car. As we were out registering voters a
relatively new club member and a member of the Central Committee was telling the registrants that he was supporting Clinton. The fact that I voted for their removal fom the County Central Committee made me somewhat of a pariah. There are still some real conservatives in the club. Considering the number of members nationwide and the fame, there is no place to go. In L.A. the radical left who felt Stonewall was too moderate for them started the Harvey Milk club.
Kevin, you seem to think that un-wavering allegiance to party ideals-something like a communist or fascist idealism. Who in the hell marches lockstep more to party ideals then the radical left.
#26
Not to mention a shrinking “income gap”.
That may be, but families weren’t burned alive so Reno could demonstrate how liberals practice “separation of church & state”.
#32: Are you really going to defend a child abuser like Koresh? Oh, I forgot, he’s one of the tribe’s mythic heroes.
33 is trying to say that Reno had to burn the children to death in order to save them
Exactly, Vince P. I guess that is the Clinton’s justification, better children get burned to death than (allegedly) abused.
#31 (Robert), re LCR’s having Clinton bumper-stickers: seems to me LCR’s (and parents and friends of LCR’s) need to have a serious discussion about what consitutes conservatism for LGBTetc. people who regard themselves as such. What are the defining, core indispensable principles, virtues, etc.???
It might be a bit too blunt, but frankly too bad. Bush chose to run on a strategy that used gay marriage as a wedge issue, which really encompassed homosexuality in general once the extreme Right got hold of it. I don’t blame LCR for not endorsing the man in 2004, in fact I would have dismissed them if they had. You keep speaking about party loyalty but partisan politics only goes so far and my loyalty to the country and what I believe is best for this country is far more important. When I see the GOP or the DNC taking a position that I believe is detrimental to the country, you’re damn right I’m going to speak up and I don’t care if either party doesn’t like it.
Agreed and I’m the same way.
While I personally cannot imagine ever voting for that…woman, I wouldn’t dismiss Tom’s comment so blithely. Enough liberal/moderate Republicans disgusted with social cons may indeed make such a decision next year to put her over the top. Even those who cannot vote Hillary may decide to go Independent or stay home. Staunch conservatives, especially social cons, dismiss the rest of the base at their own peril.
Yes. Why? Because they know that they need more than just a majority, they need 60+ to avoid filibusters and are not likely to go too far to piss off a potential supporter in many areas. You forget that while Lieberman is a defense hawk, he is also quite liberal on most things ad provides a vote they want for those items. Eh, we might see this theory put to the test next year when Virginia at least adds another Senator to the Dem column…
Those on the radical right who are just as partisan, just as shrill when they don’t get their way, etc. They are birds of a feather.
Fair enough and good point.
Related, AP Coverage of Clinton Campaign HQ Hostage Crisis Lavishes Praise on Hillary. This “news” story sounds like it was written by Clinton PR flunky, but since the MSM is the PR wing of the DNC, that should not be surprising.
VtK, you called it. Brent Bozell has a new book out, Whitewashed, about the MSM’s soft-glove treatment of her, from 1992 to the present.
To Gene in Pennsylvania
Booming economy? Eh.. Enron, subprime mortgage crisis??
45 million muslims and Arabs freed from tyraney Eh… and are now all dying by millions?
real income up, poverty down, inflation in check, ? Eh. how’s the kool aid over there?
no sex scandals in the oval office? Eh… Jeff Gannon?
no WACO massacres… Yeah! Just Katrina!
no RUBY RIDGE massacres… This is Bush’s
no lying to a grand jury? Hmm… Scooter Libby, Cheney, and who else was involved?
no new taxes? … But that’s because they chose to have more budget deficit?
low unemployment, record employment? … Hows the koolaid over there?
2 years without a hurricane making landfall? … Like anybody but God can control the weather! Hmm you must be desperate if you want to give credit to anybody.
NE Patriots dominate? who cares about New England!
Joe is a great example of the mindlessness of the Left.
Somehow according to the illogic of the Left, the best way to show something is wrong is to bring up a counterexample.
Somehow the counterexample’s existance nulls the existance of the first object.. like a matter – antimatter reaction.
As if two things are mutually exclusive.
For example…. a defunct energy company from the early 2000s nulls the currect economic condition of Amerca in 2007.
Joe: thanks for showing you are unable to engage in a conversation.
I’m sure Brent Bozell’s book is an even handed, well reasoned tome that was written with no agenda in mind. Nah.
Yes Ian, lets watch the Right blogosphere. Say, Michelle Malkin? Or NRO fessing up? Or Captain’s Quarters?
See Ian, unlike, oh, say, you. They’re not only asking the tough questions, and answering them.
Well Enron went bankrupt in December 2001. You seem to believe that they didn’t start their shenanigans until after January 20, 2001. It had been going on for years, mostly during lord BJ’s reign of destruction. Further, Republicans passed legislation to help prevent that sort of thing, the liberals did not.
This is priceless:
Then you do a 180:
Which is it?
Here’s a good one:
Says who? Iraqis were dying by the millions during the 90s, but liberals didn’t give a flying damn then. Why should we believe you suddenly do now? Or was it ok, under BJ, because “our allies” and Kofi Anan profited heavily from it?
And what, exactly, does Jeff Gannon have to do with Oval Office sex scandals?
Iām sure Brent Bozellās book is an even handed, well reasoned tome that was written with no agenda in mind. Nah.
But you’re not going to risk having that assumption challenged by actually reading it.
Somebody dares disagree with the mighty liberal drive-by media and DNC mouthpieces? Couldn’t possibly be worth anything.
I donāt blame LCR for not endorsing the man in 2004, in fact I would have dismissed them if they had.
The non-endorsement is not the problem, John. Republicans understand the notion of the principled stance — and it shows Log Cabin’s superiority to Stonewall and HRC, who went ahead and endorsed and spent millions of dollars in support of a politician who boasted that he had the “same position” as the one they were calling homophobic and hateful.
The problem is, bluntly put, that Log Cabin has spent more money and time attacking Republicans than it ever has on endorsing or supporting them, and its high-profile members like Kerr have spent more time supporting Democrat campaigns.
There is a huge difference between simply refusing to support someone with which you disagree and allying with their enemy to destroy them. Log Cabin and its members like Kerr have done the latter.
Something the Religious Right is not above doing itself when it suits their own pet causes. While the ‘alliance’ may not be overt, the effect certainly is there. If it is this overt alliance by LCR with Democrat elements, okay I can understand criticizing that. Yet if this is about LCR running ads against Romney or loudly denouncing what the direction the GOP leadership has taken the party, I very much disagree. Again, the RR has done both and continues to do both, with an even larger platform to voice their discontent than LCR.
Is any Leftist/Liberal able to discuss a topic without using counterexamples?
Argument by counterexample is an empty device.
“Everybody else does is it” just tells me you have nothing else to say.
John, you are missing the point. The Religious Right is not a chartered
organization of a Republican county or state central committee. The Log Cabin Clubs are. As such, they should be supporting the party nominee or just be silent. What happened in L.A. in 1992 was overt. Hwo anybody votes is between themselves and their conscience. To be vocal for the opposition is a violation of the central committee rules. If General Kerr is indeed a Republican and is either an elected or appointed member of the County Central Committee, he should be removed for the position he holds in the Clinton campaign.
You know, I really don’t like it when liberals try and hide behind technicalities instead of taking responsibility for the insane rhetoric from their radical groups, so what makes you think I appreciate it from conservatives? I have no idea what official connection the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, Christian Coalition, etc. have to the GOP but it’s a mistake to think that these are not Republican organizations. They are just much partisans for their party of choice as most unions, MoveOn.org, NARAL, etc. are for the Dems. The same kind of asinine rhetoric comes from all of these groups against those people whom they view as being “the enemy”. Yet when someone points this out and questions politicians about it, well the convenient ‘out’ is provided because why these groups are not really part of any party. Give me a break. To top it all off, partisans from both the Left and the Right have the temerity to use this line when it’s their side being skewered but then have convenient amnesia when “the enemy” is caught doing this. You cannot hold the Democrats responsible for radical liberal organizations if you are unwilling to do likewise when it comes to Republicans and radical conservative groups. Both Dems and Repubs spout the rhetoric of these groups.
Agreed, but this is an individual we are speaking about who has chosen to support Clinton (God knoweth why). I do not see where LCR endorsed Kerry or Clinton.
You are right, LCR, did not endorse Kerry, but the lack of endorsing the party nominee sends a message, especially to the gay community, vote the other way. The way LCC in California had made gains in the party by getting elected to thc County Central Committees and working for the party. When an elected member openly supports the Democrat and is removed from his/her seat, this diminishes the gains that were made.
Dear VinceP:
“Everyone does it” truly is a lame excuse. It would be more useful if we all called those on our own side when they do this rather than only use it when we don’t like the point the poster/speaker is making.
I have no idea what official connection the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, Christian Coalition, etc. have to the GOP but itās a mistake to think that these are not Republican organizations.
They do not claim to be Republican organizations.
Log Cabin, on the other hand, puts “Republican” right there in its name and demands access to Republican events and whatnot on the grounds of being Republican.
What you are trying to argue is that an organization that claims to BE Republican and to support Republicans should spend more money on attacking Republicans than it does on supporting them.
What you are trying to claim is that it’s all right for an organization that claims to BE Republican and to support Republicans should have leadership and representatives endorsing and supporting Democrats and Democrat campaigns while ATTACKING Republicans and Republican campaigns.
I used to think banning LCR from Republican events was petty. Now I see that it’s akin to letting the KGB sit in on CIA meetings.
A distinction without substance given that the RR groups demand access to GOP events, work on behalf of the GOP, assist in writing the platform, etc. You are hanging your hat on the “Republican” part of the LCR’s name which is specious reasoning and this technicality you are using to exonerate soc-con groups is absurd.
John, if pro life Governor Casey of Pennsylvania declared himself a candidate for the Democratic nomination and the Christian Coalition endorsed him, does that make the Christian Coalition a Democratic
organization?
NDT is absolutely correct. The operative word is CHARTERED. The fact that the cited organizations have supported Republican candidates, participated in Republican sponsored events does not make them an official organization of the party because they do not possess a charter from the either the state or the county central committee. Log Cabin Clubs are official party orgaizations because they are chartered in the various states and counties around the country.