Michael Steele’s GOP and Its Alternatives
Twice in my adult life, I considered abandoning the GOP and voting for a Third Party candidate for president. And each time, after considering the alternatives, understanding that my vote for a non-Republican would be one less vote for the candidate mostly likely to defeat an untrustworthy Democrat, I returned to the Republican fold.
In 1992, upset with then-President George H.W. Bush for not holding the line on domestic spending and hiking taxes after promising not to, I briefly flirted with voting for Ross Perot. But, the more we saw of that Texan, the more unhinged he appeared. Still, even as late as Election Day, I considered pulling the lever for him. In the voting booth, when I saw Bill Clinton’s name, I opted for the man who had once so loyally served the Gipper as Vice President.
Almost twelve years later, when that Bush’s son endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment, I considered voting Libertarian even penning, er, pixeling a number of e-mails to a libertarian listserv, weighing the advantages of voting for a candidate who had no chance of winning. I wrote in Rudy Giuliani for President in the California primary. But, then I started listening to John Kerry. I returned to George W. Bush’s camp.
A comment to my recent post on the Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele’s unfortunate statement on same-sex civil unions caused me to revisit the choices I made to vote for Republicans named Bush with whom I disagreed on important issues. While praising me for criticizing Steele, Tom in Lazybrook asked if there would be “any loss of support for the GOP by the Gay Patrioters?“
Despite the tone on his comments (and of my hasty response), I grant there is some merit in his question.
Why should we support a party when we don’t agree with its leadership on every issue?
I would rather the GOP support repealing the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell ban on gays serving openly in the military and of enacting some kind of federal recognition of same-sex unions. But, Republican demographics being what they are, that, alas, is just not going to happen, at least not on the national level.
Simply put, few people can agree with their party on every issue. And for now, the GOP, imperfect though it is, represents the best bet for challenging the spendthrift policies of the incumbent Democratic Administration and its fellow partisans controlling Congress. If an alternative party emerges with a real chance of political success (as did the Republican Party in the 1850s), then I would gladly support it.
While the Libertarian Party is certainly solid on domestic issues, its leadership all too often suffers from the Ross Perot syndrome, sounding good at first, but coming across as unhinged after they’ve been at the podium for too long. Not just that, at this point in time, we need a more assertive foreign policy.
So, yes, I am very concerned about Michael Steele’s recent statement on same-sex unions. While it might be reassuring to social conservatives, it is counterproductive at best. It won’t help the GOP win those most easily reached right now, socially liberal/fiscally conservative independents who abandoned the GOP in the last election because of the Democratic nominee’s campaign commitment to holding the line on federal spending.
They’re not likely to join (or, in some cases, return to) a political party which appears to prefer social issues to fiscal ones.
Should, however, the president continue in the direction he has been heading since his inauguration, they too might support Republicans as the most viable alternative to Obama’s big-spending Democrats, saying something similar to what Winston Churchill said about democracy, that the GOP is the worst political party except for all the rest.
44 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
GayPatriotWest – If Obama does as he has said he would and gets the deficit on the downward slope, halving it by the end of his first term, and if he repeals DADT as he has promised he would, would that make a difference to fiscally conservative, socially liberal Gay Patriots like yourself?
Comment by huckupchuck — March 1, 2009 @ 7:55 pm - March 1, 2009
I posted this elsewhere but I think it never made it so I will repost here. sorry for the repetition.
I am not surprised at Mr. Steele’s comments. In my opinion he has not been “Gay friendly” or accepting of Gays and Lesbians. It actually saddens me to read that he stated what it stated but it doesn’t shock me.
As to VP Dick Cheney, he has been consistently supportive of civil unions and letting each state decide the issue of marriage since under the federal Constitution, marriage is left to be decided by the states.
Dick Cheney in 2004 clearly stated that he disagreed with President Bush on the FMA and publicly stated that he disagreed with President Bush and said I leave it at that. I mean he was VP not President but he stood his ground and stood up for the Gay community.
I find that Steele is not even in lock step with the GOP and I bet if you asked Republicans they would tell you that they support civil unions and most GOP elected officials do support civil unions and I am betting you will find a fair share that support marriage equality.
As to Governor Dean he admitted that he was not for civil unions but realized that he had to uphold the laws of the State of Vermont so I do credit him for standing up and supporting civil unions. At the time, I remember reading about the fierce debate in VT and seeing the MSM reports on it. I was pissed at Dean for not supporting full marriage equality, which the VT Supreme Court indicated was a possibility the VT Legislature could enact, but at least civil unions were enacted and as I recall they were also enacted for heterosexual couples.
I believe that unless the GOP national leadership comes into the 21st century at the national level, it will face problems for decades to come.
We need more Dick Cheneys and less of the homophobia expressed by the outer fringes. I would remind Mr. Steele he represents all Republicans and not his own view point. However, I am not suprised by his view points….it is nothing new that he has expressed.
On the other hand, the homophobia of President Obama also angers me even more so..I mean how can a person who can publicly state that when his parents were married that in in many states they would never be allowed to marry yet at the same time claim that I am less then and not entitled to the same constitutional rights as he is and other heterosexuals. Nobama angers me for his positions of discrimination based upon his own parents’ history and how he can say I am less then is beyond the pale of any decency. It makes me angry beyond all belief!! Add to that and he cravenly uses the marriage equality issue by stating that he is for “separate but equal’ federal rights for Gays and Lesbians just not for marriage when he knows full well that unless Congress repeals DOMA in full that will never happen, particularly since Section II of DOMA states that any laws that resemble the incidents of marriage and its attendant rights are not legal at the federal level. So, thus, he can’t propose any so called equality of statutory marriage law benefits at the federal level unless DOMA is repealed and he doesn’t support a full repeal of DOMA and opposes marriage equality. To me, NOBAMA is just as craven and homophobic in his view points as is the likes of Mr. Steele, who to me has not been welcoming of Gays and Lesbians in the Republican Party.
Comment by Rocket — March 1, 2009 @ 8:51 pm - March 1, 2009
When you find a party with which you agree on every issue, let me know. I wont hold my breath.
Comment by American Elephant — March 1, 2009 @ 9:13 pm - March 1, 2009
I don’t think it’s even slightly likely they will need to worry about making that choice.
Comment by a different Dave — March 1, 2009 @ 9:14 pm - March 1, 2009
I think the question answers itself. It’s immature to expect to agree with a party – any party – on every issue. In fact, if you do agree with your chosen Party on every issue, I have a newsflash for you: you’re an automaton from George Orwell’s _1984_.
In my case, I can’t bring myself to join the GOP because it remains just “too questionable” on gays in the military and gay civil unions / marriage, all things that I support. So I’m an Independent. But I can still vote GOP. I vote GOP if, and whenever, they’re “the lesser evil”. If the Democrats were to magically become sane on economic issues – pro-entrepreneur, anti-tax, anti-regulation, anti-debt, anti-deficit – and more sane than the Republicans, then I would happily go back to the Democrats. (I was with them over 15 years, before turning Independent in the early part of this century.)
So it’s about voting for the party that, currently, one can trust the most (or distrust the least) on key issues. For me, the most important issues are the economic and national security issues. Because, even if gays *don’t* get civil unions / marriage and the ability to serve openly the military, America is still a way better place for us gays than 95% of the world’s other countries. Gays used to hold up The Netherlands as an example of a better country for gays, but what with all their Islamic immigrant problems (gays murdered in the streets), there isn’t enough money in the world to get me to move there.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2009 @ 9:21 pm - March 1, 2009
Hell has indeed frozen over,
Assuming adDave is referring to comment #1, we’re in agreement.
I think Michael Steele did make a mistake in ruling out civil unions, and should revisit it.
To start with, one can be in favour of DOMA and Civil Unions at the same time
Comment by The_Livewire — March 1, 2009 @ 9:23 pm - March 1, 2009
First, it’s absurd to think that he can cut the deficit like that. Second, I SERIOUSLY doubt that he wants to. But let’s pretend that he does. That would certainly be praiseworthy.
But I won’t hold my breath for either.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 2, 2009 @ 12:23 am - March 2, 2009
You can’t expect to agree with every aspect of a party platform. But I will never consider voting for anyone whose stated position is that gays don’t deserve the same rights afforded every American.
Comment by leftrightleft — March 2, 2009 @ 12:31 am - March 2, 2009
Actually, I’m not as upset about Michael Steele’s comments as I first was. He just threw the obligatory piece of red meat to the social cons. He has stated that the gay marriage fight shouldn’t be the focus of the GOP. Hopefully, they’ll be reading between the lines on that.
Comment by Jimbo — March 2, 2009 @ 12:47 am - March 2, 2009
Jimbo, I’m pretty much with you, provided of course he henceforth remains silent on same-sex unions and continues to focus on economic issue.
Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — March 2, 2009 @ 1:41 am - March 2, 2009
Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…
…
Trackback by Anonymous — March 2, 2009 @ 5:09 am - March 2, 2009
The reason to stay in the party despite its somewhat idiotic position on issues like this is that from within the party you can continue to work to put it back on the right path, remind people of the party’s tradition of championing individual liberty, and have a voice which some in leadership will listen to and eventually respond to in a positive way. From outside the party you can’t play that kind of role effectively.
Dave
Comment by Dave Nalle — March 2, 2009 @ 8:14 am - March 2, 2009
I’ll vote Republican before I vote for the party that gave us both DOMA and DADT … but that’s just me.
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — March 2, 2009 @ 8:15 am - March 2, 2009
This is another Obama rhetorical sham of the same genus as “create or save 3 gazillion jobs”. It’s far too easily manipulated to be binding. First of all, Obama doesn’t mean our current deficit… he means the trillion+ deficit of his own. Which means if he cut the “deficit” by half, we’d still be at late Bush deficit levels of 600 billion+. WOW what an improvement! And even if this were his plan, it would mean cutting spending and raising taxes: neither of which would cover the deficit…
Why, you ask? Because Defense is the only program Democrats think is worthy of being cut, and you’d have to eliminate Defense entirely to hack into the budget as much as President Unicorn suggests. And taxing the “rich” won’t help because even if you soaked the “rich” for every dime they have, it wouldn’t cover the nation’s profligate spending.
Comment by DoDoGuRu — March 2, 2009 @ 8:18 am - March 2, 2009
Fiscal Year 2008 would be the last for which Bush was the sole responsible President, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, its deficit was $438 billion. FY 2009 would be larger because of the drop in revenues, but Obama and the Democrats are making it even larger with the pork and bailouts (which they now control, and therefore *own*).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2009 @ 8:32 am - March 2, 2009
Senator Jon Kyl is reported to have said:
“This budget” meaning Obama’s new long-term budget blueprint. I don’t know for sure that Kyl is right, but he’s been right before.
Long story short: A doubling (or near-doubling) of the U.S. national debt is now being sold to, and by, the Obamoonies as “deficit reduction”. It’s a scene from George Orwell’s _1984_. Specifically, page 51 of the Signet Classic paperback edition, where the Party sells a reduction in the chocolate ration as being somehow an increase in the chocolate ration.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2009 @ 8:41 am - March 2, 2009
do people who blame DADT on clinton realize that he only settled on that policy as a compromise because of the congressional republicans? i’m not bill clinton defender, but clinton wanted to get rid of the discrimination against gays in the military altogether; republicans used this cultural wedge issue and forced clinton to find a middle ground. i’m aware of democrats such as sam nunn on the issue, but to blame clinton for that policy is short-sighted and, frankly, revisionist.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 2, 2009 @ 8:43 am - March 2, 2009
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2009 @ 8:48 am - March 2, 2009
Julie, there’s plenty of good reasons to vote Republican and not vote for Democrats. And I don’t like that a Democratic president with the help over half of his party, and almost all of the other party, was responsible for DOMA. However, the Republicans, while in power, made zero effort to repeal DADT, and tried to add to DOMA by going for the FMA.
Comment by Pat — March 2, 2009 @ 8:48 am - March 2, 2009
Fixed it for ya. And yes, we do.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2009 @ 8:50 am - March 2, 2009
#15
Interesting quote.
Perhaps you quote it because you are relieved to have someone in office who is not going to sugarcoat his budgets with 2+2=5isms
For example, Republican budgets simply hid costs like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Or reckless tax cuts’ effect on the deficit was not accounted for.
Isn’t it nice to have a president who treats you like an adult?
Comment by gillie — March 2, 2009 @ 9:00 am - March 2, 2009
Oh yes. It’s so much nicer having smoke blown directly up one’s butt to the tune of “save 3 million jobs” no matter what actually happens, “tax cuts for 95% of people” when 40% don’t pay taxes, or “cut the deficit in half” after I increase it by 200%.
Comment by DoDoGuRu — March 2, 2009 @ 9:14 am - March 2, 2009
ILC, you do realize that before DADT, gay people were explicitly forbidden from serving, and everyone was asked if he or she was gay flat out. i don’t agree with DADT, but it was an improvement (believe it or not) that clinton settled for, rightly or wrongly, because of the mostly republican opposition to allowing gays to serve. clinton stated openly that he wanted to remove any and all bans on gays serving in the military, and he was met w/ fierce opposition. were there some democrats on the wrong side of the issue? of course. but who do you think strongly opposed this measure the most…secular liberals or bible belt conservatives? hmmm. it’s not like gays could serve openly and then clinton came in and enforced DADT.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 2, 2009 @ 9:18 am - March 2, 2009
Gillie, isn’t it great to have a President who proposes “Global New Deals”, on top of a trillion dollar bailout (most of which will go to big business), on top of a half-trillion-dollar bailout (most of which went to big business) … and then lectures on fiscal responsibility and living within your means?
Comment by DaveP. — March 2, 2009 @ 9:22 am - March 2, 2009
ILC, do you believe that if Sam Nunn was the only senator who supported the current DADT, while all Republican senators supported allowing openly gay persons serving, that Clinton still would have caved in and supported DADT as it is now?
No, this doesn’t excuse what Clinton did, but there is plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn’t end at Clinton and Nunn. Let’s not excuse the Republicans who voted for DMA. And let’s not excuse the previous administration, when for six years, also had control of Congress, who did not repeal DADT to allow openly gay persons to serve in the military.
Gillie, it’s nice that supposedly, everything is out on the budget, no hiding schemes. I’ll be waiting to see if he gets the deficit down to at least the level that it was last year. Oh, and I’ll also see what effort he makes in repealing DADT and DOMA (or at least push for federally recognized civil unions as he promised). I’m not afraid to push the Republican lever. I’ve done so many times before, including when Clinton ran for re-election.
Comment by Pat — March 2, 2009 @ 9:30 am - March 2, 2009
“DMA” should be “DADT” in second paragraph above.
Comment by Pat — March 2, 2009 @ 9:32 am - March 2, 2009
“I’ve done so many times before, including when Clinton ran for re-election.”
Hell, I think I even voted Repub when Clinton ran for re-election.
Comment by a different Dave — March 2, 2009 @ 9:44 am - March 2, 2009
Pat, of course Republicans also supported DADT. And you’ve made other fair points. Bottom line, though, is still the following:
- David Mixner promised us that Clinton would end the ban on gays in the military “with the stroke of a pen”, i.e., a simple, decisive Executive order, a la Truman 1948. Clinton strongly encouraged him (and us, in believing it).
- At that point (1993), an Executive order is all it would have taken.
- When the time came, Clinton muffed it. Then a Democrat came up with DADT. Clinton signed it.
- As a result, it now takes a positive act of Congress to end the ban on (open) gays in the military. Tahnks, Democrats! (not)
- Clinton could have, alternatively, vetoed the bill and rallied people of good will (Republican ex-Senator Barry Goldwater comes to mind) to gather the minority 1/3 Congressional vote needed to sustain such a veto. He didn’t. Then, as now, there were/are as many anti-gay Democrats as anti-gay Republicans.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2009 @ 9:47 am - March 2, 2009
Back to the thread’s topic and the central question of “Why should we support a party when we don’t agree with its leadership on every issue?”
For you, especially Dan, I’d reference a former pol you liked in the prez primary: Rudy Giuliani.
Remember his speech before the Values Voters Summit in back in October 07?
He said “Isn’t it better that I tell you what I really believe, instead of pretending to change all of my positions to fit the prevailing winds?”
He then cited his — and the audience’s — hero Ronald Reagan for the proposition that “my 80% friend is not my 100% enemy.”
For years the GOP has struggled with appeasing the single issue voters… whether it was abortion in the 70s, war hawks and supply-siders in the 80s, SSM opponents in the 90s or illegal immigration condors in the 00s.
The Reagan-Giuliani Rule of 80/20 ought to be a signpost for the GOP. It ought to answer your questioning of Steele on SS unions… but more importantly, you ought to be engaging Steele directly on the issue. Take a team of representative conservative GOPers to DC and meet with him. He’s very approachable, more accessible than Haley used to be and you know he’ll listen thoughtfully… your time won’t be wasted.
Dick Cheney was right: “Freedom means freedom for everyone”.
:
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 2, 2009 @ 9:58 am - March 2, 2009
Spam filter alert. Thanks
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 2, 2009 @ 9:59 am - March 2, 2009
Lesser of Evils…
This past week, a friend of mine who happens to be gay and I were discussing various issues and support of political parties. My friend said that he, too, is fiscally prudent, and doesn’t seem too enthralled with at least……
Trackback by what if? — March 2, 2009 @ 10:17 am - March 2, 2009
If gay marriage is your single issue, I imagine you had best stick with the Democrats. The Democrats, being a patchwork of victim groups, will get to the gays when they think it is safe for them. With Democrats, it all depends on the polls and whether they will gain more power by taking on the single issue cause. It is not a matter of principle with Democrats, it is a matter of keeping and growing the base through handouts, promises and lying.
Between now and 2010, the Democrats have a lot on their plate. They have to sell their tax and spend fix for the recession. They have to show that they are “smarter” on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Israel, the Mexican border, the global economy, US unemployment, growing the economy, and installing the Socialist States of America.
If their approval ratings hold up, they might well calculate the odds for them if they take on gay marriage.
So far as Republicans are concerned, of all the issues they need to focus on for rebuilding the party, gillie and his merry band of littleletterpeople are not anywhere on the radar screen.
Comment by heliotrope — March 2, 2009 @ 10:47 am - March 2, 2009
Matt, I agree with your points, except your bottom line. Maybe it would have taken more than a stroke of a pen for Bush to get rid of DADT. He could have at least urged Congress in an address, like SOTU, to say he fully supports eliminating DADT, and having openly gay men serve in the military. He didn’t. Same with DOMA. In fact, he urged passage of FMA, and did so TWICE despite the fact that it appeared that he couldn’t get passage.
So the Bottom Line is this. Clinton and Bush both dropped the ball. As well as any members of Congress, then and now, that still support DADT.
Comment by Pat — March 2, 2009 @ 11:04 am - March 2, 2009
ILC, 4. has it right. That is what differentiates gay conservatives from gay liberals. We make our choice based on how much we agree with the party, the candidate, and the platform. They vote gay interest only and to hell with the rest, even if it is to their own disadvantage. We could ask them the same question, why do they vote for Democrats when they want to cozy up to radical islamists, like Ahmadinejad, who holds them as anathema to allah and would either hang them or decapitate them.
Comment by Roberto — March 2, 2009 @ 11:49 am - March 2, 2009
#32 Remove the ‘gay’ part and you have it.
just curious about DADT. What was the original reason for banning gays in the military? I find reference to security risks, i.e. blackmail concerns stemming from the 40’s and 50’s. but I assume it’s older than that. At least now the blackmail fear is removed. Heck, now-a-days, you’d get a reality TV show.
Buggery in the Barracks (Baraks?) would be punsihable under the military code of conduct IIRC, regardless of gender.
Comment by The Livewire — March 2, 2009 @ 1:20 pm - March 2, 2009
TL, I think a lot of it had to do with the idea of guys living in close quarters and the gay guy might ‘look’, might ‘prey’ if he gets into a position of authority, and so forth.
As you point out, those things happen anyway in a mixed-gender service and can/should be dealt with under UCMJ / codes of conduct in a gender-neutral, orientation-neutral way.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2009 @ 2:40 pm - March 2, 2009
As you point out, those things happen anyway in a mixed-gender service and can/should be dealt with under UCMJ / codes of conduct in a gender-neutral, orientation-neutral way.
But, ILC, the difference is that the armed forces not only use the UCMJ, but take proactive steps to separate the genders except under the most extreme conditions.
If you separate on the basis of gender, you should also separate on the basis of orientation. However, it is impossible to separate on the basis of both gender and orientation simultaneously; therefore, given that gay people are such a tiny fraction of the population and are not absolutely necessary to the war effort (as is the case in Israel), there is no compelling argument for gays serving in the military.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2009 @ 3:27 pm - March 2, 2009
NDT,
I’d point out Phillip of Macedon did the segrigation with the ‘t-h-e-b-i-a-n speckled band’
More relevantly it still can be presecuted by the UCMJ, and internally, by peer pressure. i/e. if a drill sergeant takes advantage of a strapping young man, his fellow instructors can educate him to the error of his ways. Preferrably by using large bars of soap in socks. Best of all, it’s non0discriminatoiry.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 2, 2009 @ 3:57 pm - March 2, 2009
And the liberals did what?
When they gained control of congress they floated bill after bill after bill to declare defeat in Iraq. If they actually gave a crap about DADT, why didn’t they put forth any bills to do away with it? Why didn’t they campaign on it? Last time I heard it mentioned was in the Logo deba….I mean info-mercial.
Fixed it for ya. And no, I don’t.
If he truly wanted to treat us like adults, he wouldn’t have hid his background and carried out his slash and burn campaign against anyone who dared ask questions or opposed him, namely Palin and Joe the Plumber.
You have to act like an adult yourself before you can treat others like adults.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 2, 2009 @ 5:42 pm - March 2, 2009
Thanks for putting my question for a spin. This is much more like a blog that actually addresses Gay issues.
By the way, those of you that will actually punish the Republicans for being anti-Gay have credibility when you criticize some Democrats for being anti-Gay (and there are some).
Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — March 2, 2009 @ 7:33 pm - March 2, 2009
So Tom, you’re forming a third party?
Since I see no action to ‘punish’ democrats, I assume you have no credibility for criticizing Republicans.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 2, 2009 @ 7:41 pm - March 2, 2009
“They vote gay interest only and to hell with the rest, even if it is to their own disadvantage.”
Of course, you have interviewed all gays who vote for candidates other than those you support so you know for sure that we vote gay-interest only. That line is just pure right wing arrogance at it’s best. You simply cannot back up that claim with any real evidence (and I mean real not NDT or WorldNetDaily vomit). The sad fact (for you) is that we are not all going to vote for the candidates you think are best and we do so for as many different reasons as there are voters. If that offends you I’m sure you can find a country where there is no choice. There are those on both sides who vote pure party line or vote one issue, to claim one side is worse than the other is just ignorant.
Comment by a different Dave — March 2, 2009 @ 8:27 pm - March 2, 2009
Actually, saw something the other day that liberals vote straight ticket like 20-30% more often than Republicans. Wish I could remember where I saw it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 2, 2009 @ 11:14 pm - March 2, 2009
And the liberals did what?
Had Bush pressed for repeal of DADT, they would have at least voted for the repeal. But to answer your question, the answer is, not enough.
Comment by Pat — March 3, 2009 @ 7:05 am - March 3, 2009