Apparently there is quite a back-and-forth debate going on between Scott Tucker at Log Cabin Republicans and a slew of gay lefty bloggers (Pam’s House Blend, Queerty & Towleroad to name a few).
The issue: Anti-gay robo-calls in Florida allegedly tied to John McCain.
LCR’s perspective: Here and here.
Had anyone bothered to reach out to the McCain Campaign, they would have realized Sen. McCain immediately stopped the calls. The campaign told us Sen. McCain never saw the script and never approved it, which is why he stopped the calls ASAP.
<…>
And just what exactly does it say about how the Clintons consider “queer” citizens when President Clinton urged John Kerry to support anti-gay state constitutional amendments in 2004? What does it say about the way the DNC considers “queer” citizens when they don’t lift a finger to stop these amendments? (But keep those checks coming, “queers”!) What does it say when the former President still refuses to take any responsibility for the results of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”–the despicable law he signed–and instead blames the Pentagon?
If LGBT people are ever going to be anything more than shills for the Democratic Party, we have to start holding EVERYONE to the same standards to which we hold our leading Republican presidential contenders.
*sigh* Okay, while I wholeheartedly agree with the bolded statement above…. I have to just shake my head in disgust that Log Cabin (Republicans) are now holding water for John McCain. It truly proves that the organization is NOT comprised of gay conservatives at all. And John McCain’s LGBT record is certainly nothing to hang your hat on: it is nearly as bad as Bill Clinton’s.
I suppose since LC(R) bashed Romney in expensive TV ads (for which they have never disclosed their financial sources), they had no where to go except McCain after Rudy G. dropped out. I, on the other hand, am quite willing to join the anti-McCain forces where ever they may exist. And that may include sitting home in November.
This rapid move to suck-up to McCain reminds me YET again why I don’t give money to Log Cabin anymore…….
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
“It truly proves that the organization is NOT comprised of gay conservatives at all.”
http://gaypatriot.net/2008/01/24/bolton-to-speak-at-log-cabin-convention
Well, now I’m sort of confused about what Gay Patriot’s position on the LCR are. (Not is, right, because Republicans is plural? Still sounds wrong.)
Please touch base with all of your friends and fellow bloggers in the Tuesday primary states and suggest that they vote for Romney. He is our only alternative…….McCain is not a Republican candidate that I as a lifelong R can vote for, and I may also be sitting home in November.
Sit at home in November? Seems that whenever moderates say that about ultra conservative nominees we get cvalled RINO’s. I guess the horn is on the other forehead now. Sitting at home is a vote for Hillary.
Yes, and how’s Romney’s record on gay issues? While he was actively testifying on Capitol Hill in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, McCain voted against it.
That is good advice, there still is a chance for change on super Tuesday.
On the other hand, not voting for McCain in November may make you feel good, but is not good for the country.
Victor David Hanson puts it far better than I could:
I have to decide in the next week, and I’m still divided. McCain’s made an aweful lot of political compromises over the years, yet I fear that Romney’s merely posing as a (social) conservative out of expediency. Neither has a very good track-record as a fiscal-conservative, as a friend to (small) business, nor as a friend of the G/L community. Yet I reject the meme that one must be a rock-rib conservative to be a Republican…especially as that veres dangerously-close to be a social-right anti-gay, anti-abortion bigot. Smaller government, lower taxes and a strong defense trump these regardless of “label”.
It gets back to my initial analysis from last year; McCain too-old and politically-compromised, and Romney’s too-unprincipled and unelectable. Huckebee not-so-secretly despises the gays and Paul wears a tin-foil hat.
At this rate, maybe I’lll invest in Aluminum futures next week….
okay, romney doesn’t like us, but i don’t care. i am still a conservative and john mccain is NOT. if i was going to choose a candidate based only on his stance on gay issues, i would vote for kucinich.
we cant be one issue voters! mitt romney is all we have left! (gulp)
The way I look at is McCain has screwed me several times in the past, has done it badly, is still proud of his performance and then calls me just a “friend” every time I see him.
It’s time to let someone else have a go at it. Romney…You’re up.
Back on topic… Bruce, I appreciate your scorn at the LCRs seeming or unseamly turn toward supporting McCain now that the moderate-2-progressive Giuilani is out of contention as Prez nominee… but the part of your post that has me wondering is your contention that the LCR ought to be conservative. Conservative? Really?
Right, I know you had some “come-to-Jesus” discussions with the LCR’s exec dir and he contended he was a conservative… or something to that effect. But LCRs have never been anything but a more liberal, progressive or moderate element in the GOP. They’ve never been conservative because the purported “conservative” agenda doesn’t embrace sexual diversity and equal civil rights… let alone, anything close to toleration. Just ask Hispanics. Or Blacks. Or Muslims. Or lower income families. Or labor.
I wonder why, now, you seemed surprised at the LCRs drift toward John McCain in a ditch to embrace someone who at least appears not to harbor resentment and antipathy toward gays, gay GOPers, and moderates. They aren’t conservative and to suppose their spokecharacter’s attestation to you that they might be anything other than moderate to progressive is, frankly, just wishful thinking. Should they work with conservative leaders in the GOP? Sure. Should they support the move to moderation in the Party? You bet! It makes more sense given their historic role in the Party.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a supporter of LCRs. I think they still ought to stand out in the field of political inconsequence for a few more years after their turncoat decision not to endorse Bush 43 for reelection in 2000.
But to think they should be conservative would be like expecting a group like NOW in the Democrativ Party to re-engage the political reality of the 21st Century and embrace the value of stay-at-home moms. It ain’t going to happen.
The LCR can’t be conservative… please insert here a cliche about leopard and spots.
I agree with MichiganMatt, the LCR…and many gay Republiucans aren’t “conservative” Republicans; they’re moderates and progressives who support smaller government, lower taxes, reasonable support for buisiness and a strong defense. They may or may-not support the social-conservatives anti-abortion position; BUT that hardly makes them self-loathing homosexuals or “Jewish Nazis”. (God, I hate that political analogy.) Why does a Repubican-of-good-conscience HAVE to be a social-conservative? Why do WE allow the two to be conflated?
As a small busineman, I want lower taxes, greater economic freedom and the government to stay off my back. I don’t agree with the collectivist labor unions, the NEA, nor the kleptocracy of the Liberal elites; therefor I support the Republicans. Do I wish they’d layoff the gay-basing and the Fundementalist gay-baiting, of course. But do I want the liberal-nanny state telling me what I can’t do, while having it’s hand in my pocket everyday picking my wallet and taxing my capital; hell no….
The American political electoral-landscape is polar, you only have two choices. There are no nice, nuanced splinter-parties like in Europe where you can be a “trimmer”. You pick the party you can mostly-support, or support the opposition party to the one who can’t agree-with. When you go into the booth you have to make a choice. And I strongly feel that a responsible American does not sit-out and election when he doesn’t love his candidate-choices. It’s your duty to vote, regardless of who’s on the ballot. If you don’t like either, vote for the less-damaged, the more palatable. Or in desparation vote AGAINST the one you loathe most.
To paraphrase Mr. Rumsfeld, “…you go into the voting booth with the candidates you have.”
The same with political parties.
Romney can’t poll out of the 30%’s in a match up with Clinton or Obama. With the exception of Michigan, Romney has always finished within 1-2% of his final polling numbers. Undecideds will not break for Romney, his national negatives are too high.
He would be a reverse coattail disaster for Republicans at all office levels. The only advantage is he would be the equivalent of a political bear market washout for Republicans, and the only way from there would be up.
I agree with the first bit, and therefore, I don’t get the second bit. Remember MM, “conservative” has been a dirty word for you, in many of your GP blog comments. Come to think of it, “conservative” is a slightly-dirty word for you even here, in this thread. You say:
Thus hinting at the Ian-like canard I’ve seen you expound in other discussions, that conservatives are all racists at heart, yadda yadda yadda.
Oh, there it is. I see now. You disagree with LCR’s party disloyalty. Hmm, one could almost say you, ah, want to impose a loyalty test on them. 😉
Personally, I’ll never forget meeting a prominent local (to L.A. area) LCR couple at a certain party and hearing them say “Don’t worry, we’re a social group and all about having fun and political moderation; we never get into conservative ideas.” I thought, …and you think that’s a good thing? a reason I should like you? LOL