Gay Patriot Header Image

Doug Hoffman for Congress

It would be nice if there were more men like the Rudy Giuliani in the Republican Party, strong leaders who are conservative when it counts, fiscal hawks who are tough on crime and strong on national security, yet not beholden to social conservatives on issues of concern to gay people.  More often than not, when a Republican candidate is more “liberal” on gay issues than the rest of the caucus, he (or she) is more liberal on many other issues as well, not opposed to higher taxes, less committed to regulatory relief and reform, weaker on national security.

So it is with Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee for Congress in the special election to fill the seat of John McHugh, vacated when he was confirmed as Secretary of the Army.  Aware that she had a record on gay issues similar to that of the former Mayor of the Big Apple, we at GayPatriot had initially remained silent on the campaign, not joining other conservative bloggers in trumpeting renegade Republican Doug Hoffman who is running on the Conservative line in this election.

That all changed upon learning from the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund that Scozzafava was “the most liberal member of the GOP caucus in the state legislature, scoring a 15% rating on the Conservative Party’s scorecard.”  And she’s not just liberal on state issues, she is also liberal on national issues as well, supporting the Democrats’ spendthrift “stimulus” and their “card check” legislation.

At a time with record growth in federal spending, record deficits and an ever-expanding federal government, we cannot afford another spendthrift federal legislator, least of all one who calls herself a Republican.  We need to hold the line on federal spending and cut, not expand, government regulation.  We could find no convincing evidence that the Republican nominee in NY-23 is committed to that small government conservative agenda.

That is why we at GayPatriot join other “grassroots conservatives” in endorsing Doug Hoffman for Congress in the special election to be held next Tuesday, November 3 in New York State’s 23rd Congressional District.  We believe the Conservative candidate will do a better job in standing up to the big spending/big government policies put forward by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats and support a real reform agenda, cutting back on the size of the federal government, reducing the scope of its regulatory authority.

We recognize that Hoffman is not an ideal candidate, but we don’t live in the ideal world.  In this election, citizens of upstate New York have three real choices.   Considering the broad range  issues of concern to us, he is by the best of the three.  We encourage all GayPatriot readers living in NY-23 to pull the Conservative Party lever in next Tuesday’s balloting.

Share

53 Comments

  1. I would hope that all readers in WA who value honest, principled government, and want to stop Democrat’s Trojan Horse tactics, will vote to REJECT referendum 71 in Washington. Because that’s all referendum 71 is — a dishonest and underhanded Trojan Horse attempt to use people’s good will against them to undermine Supreme Court rulings that upheld the definition of marriage that Washingtonians put into law and which they still overwhelmingly support.

    If, on the other hand, you’re an unprincipled lefty fascist rat bastard who thinks the ends justify any amount of lies and deceitful means, then by all means, vote for it.

    Oh, and go Hoffman!!!! Wooooot!

    Comment by American Elephant — October 30, 2009 @ 6:50 am - October 30, 2009

  2. comments lost. . .the FRC is endorsing Hoffman. Tony Perkins likes him. . . so he must be a good choice.

    Comment by rusty — October 30, 2009 @ 9:02 am - October 30, 2009

  3. I’ll refrain from joining any endorsement of Hoffman, mostly since I’m not in his district and have no idea what the politics are there. I will say though that I find his coziness with religious right groups to be very disturbing but Scozzafava being proud recipient of the “Margaret Sanger Award” would be enough for me to not vote for her. As for Owens, I haven’t a clue about him.

    With regards to WA’s Referendum 71, I fail to see the connection here and find no reason to support rejecting it. In fact, I endorse approval for what it’s worth.

    Comment by John — October 30, 2009 @ 9:52 am - October 30, 2009

  4. [...] GAY PATRIOT endorses Doug Hoffman. [...]

    Pingback by Instapundit » Blog Archive » GAY PATRIOT endorses Doug Hoffman…. — October 30, 2009 @ 10:24 am - October 30, 2009

  5. Great to see you come on board for Hoffman. Winning this race is huge; it helps open up a path for fiscal conservatives with a focus on individual rights to run and win as Independents. We’ve started looking at 80-90 districts and plan to Fire Fifty incumbents. http://www.firefifty.com/phpwiki/index.php

    Comment by motionview — October 30, 2009 @ 10:45 am - October 30, 2009

  6. I always look to the fiscal conservative over the social conservative. To me our health as a nation has more to do with our freedoms, which are guaranteed when government has less control over our lives.

    Comment by Leah — October 30, 2009 @ 12:35 pm - October 30, 2009

  7. Not being gay, I don’t have the same perspective in reviewing a candidate’s qualification that you do. I do suggest you consider whether the left has been on balance more favorable to gays than the right. Gays do not have the right to marriage in the US, but they are not singled out by the law for persecution or execution, such as in Iran. The left has done nothing to oppose such treatment, while conservatives have committed both blood and treasure in opposition. Impovershing the nation through destructive fiscal and political measures such as the stimulus and card check initiatives are not good for anyone, including gays. While Mr. Hoffman is not overtly supporting specifically gay initiatives, he supports a form of governing more favorable to gays than does his opponent.

    Comment by bill — October 30, 2009 @ 12:53 pm - October 30, 2009

  8. help me understand
    i am neither republican nor democrat. (READ AGAIN, I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT). im not even american (nor gay for that matter).

    what is the republican concept?

    what are the ideas behind this party?

    i have been reading up on republican “tea party” demonstrations against obama and, i’m sorry, but i have found them quite unsound. it seems that many blood and soil type sentiments have been flourishing, clouding rational analysis of the situation. maybe because obama is in fact black and seen as a foreign influence that cannot be trusted?

    in the press and media republicans seem disconnected. they disagree on key social issues (ie gay marriage and religious bullshit)

    as a word of advice to ALL republicans: the more rational your platform is, the more seriously you will be taken.

    as i said i am not american but i have seen public reaction towards the american republican party in europe, latin america, and asia (i’ve been around).. it seems to me that the general consensus is that it is not really a sound and serious, unified party. it seems that many decisions taken by republican party officials or pushed by republican grassroots organizations are guided by a largely emotional component (“we want freedom in america! less government!!”) or by a capitalist interest (halliburton?), rather than by true concern in the well-being of the american people.

    so what makes a nation? its soil or its people?
    a true patriot is first concerned with the well-being of his compatriots. a true patriot defends his country and nation by making sure that everyone in that nation has been given the true and righteous chance to make their life into something meaningful by their own standards.

    for the better part of the 20th century, many nations have been attempting to get to this ideal state of utopia through increased concern in education and health. this is because many nations have come to the realization that their true capital is in the capacity of their people, and education and health are precisely what you need for a STRONG, EDUCATED, HEALTHY group of individuals. and a group of people like that cannot be stopped (norway?)

    you guys might hate scandinavian countrie and dismiss them all as LEFTIES AND COMMIES AND SOCIALISTS. but if you stop being afraid of those words and find out what they actually mean, and stop all the senseless neo-mccarthyism, you might learn something from them.

    as i said, i am neither republican nor democrat, socialist nor capitalist, but i know that i can learn from every side of the political spectrum. thats the reason why i am here, visiting a gay republican blog. i have learnt a lot from this blog already.

    things i have read here lead me to believe that what needs to happen in this party is a reform towards a more rational approach, less tolerance for the populist and patronizing speech of certain politicians, and some concern for the well-being of your compatriots.

    it is not about whether you have MORE or LESS government. its about WHAT is going to be done with the government that you HAVE.

    Comment by not a democrat, i promise — October 30, 2009 @ 1:20 pm - October 30, 2009

  9. My thoughts on Hoffman are here.

    I do think that Newt’s criticism of national party involvement in local races is valid. On the other hand, if you, as a member of the party are sick of the direction of the party en toto, then this “interference”, as he puts it, is the logical outcome. The question is, will the change stick, or will this cause a revolt and split / kill the party, a la, the whigs and the slavery issue?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — October 30, 2009 @ 1:49 pm - October 30, 2009

  10. Hey 23rd’s G P’s, Go for it!!!!! The most dishonest party on the planet are the Dem’s. They say one thing and mean another. That also includes Gay issues. Lib’s want your money and could give a hoot about your concerns, your issues, and the RINO’s are not far behind. No I’m not gay, so what. Just a Minnesota boy at 56 encouraging anyone that has a conservative bone in their body to take a stand! NOW!!!! Anyone ever consider that AIDS maybe a “death panel” disposable body for the good of the country, in their feable liberal minds???? They will never tell you. This is about choice and the freedoms to choose. They want to choose for you, including your health care. NOT!!!! Gay’s are educated, fiscally responcible, and contribute allot to society as a whole. Has anyone ever done a study to see what value add the gay community gives back, not to mention the in community trade dollars? Yes it is sadly about money. The question you have to ask is whom is more responcible with it? Get out the vote and vote for Hoffman. Your wallet and peace of mind depends on it. Pride up!!!

    Comment by Rich — October 30, 2009 @ 2:02 pm - October 30, 2009

  11. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’ll say it until I’m blue in the face….

    …the solution for Republicans to the impasse over social issues is *federalism*.

    Rather than the social conservatives and the social moderates/liberals (I lean more toward the latter…although I am pro-life) both trying to gain the upper hand over the national party’s direction, they should instead:

    1) Agree to disagree. Few minds are ever going to be changed on issues that are often rooted in matters of faith, identity, and culture.

    2) Take it outside. By that, I mean, take it to the states. For GOP-leaning social moderates or liberals, that means being amenable to seeing Roe overturned so that the matter can be reverted to state legislatures (where it belongs anyway). For social conservatives, it means being amenable to rescinding DOMA and various other contentious federal matters…as well as ditching efforts to get abortion laws, marriage laws, etc. enacted at the federal level.

    The important thing here is that such a paradigm doesn’t require either side to give an inch on what’s vitally important to them.

    SoCons have got to come to grips with the likelihood that their agenda is never going to get very far at the federal level….but it could do quite well in a number of states.

    SoLibs, on the other hand, have to come to grips with the fact that a lot of areas of the country are pretty socially conservative. And the world isn’t going to fall apart if they’re allowed to be. If somebody can’t live in a place that outlaws abortion or gay marriage, they can easily relocate to somewhere else.

    I see this as the only workable solution to this increasingly problematic squabble. And, dammit, the GOP needs to have SoCons AND SoLibs if it’s to have any hopes of being nationally competitive and relevant again. The party really can’t afford to alienate either group.

    Comment by Contrarian_Libertarian — October 30, 2009 @ 2:21 pm - October 30, 2009

  12. @bill: “I do suggest you consider whether the left has been on balance more favorable to gays than the right. Gays do not have the right to marriage in the US, but they are not singled out by the law for persecution or execution, such as in Iran. The left has done nothing to oppose such treatment, while conservatives have committed both blood and treasure in opposition.”

    I’m hardly a fan of the American left, but this is preposterous. I don’t always agree with their general outlook on gay rights issues. But to suggest that the right’s done more to advance gay rights in this country than the left has is absurd.

    It’s among my biggest bugbears about my party. I’m not gay myself — but I do strongly believe that the fundamental promise of America, underlying all of our founding principles, is the freedom to self-actualization….the freedom to be yourself and to follow the path that you choose.

    We conservatives like to champion these founding principles — and with good reason. We’d do well to consider what they mean for all among us…instead of telling them that “you do have the same right to marry that everybody else has: you can marry somebody of the opposite sex!”

    Comment by Contrarian_Libertarian — October 30, 2009 @ 2:29 pm - October 30, 2009

  13. As a longtime liberal Democrat, I wish you guys all the luck in the world. The last moderate Republican in this district won the seat, 65 to 35. And you’re very close to handing it to us. More of this please …

    Comment by David in NY — October 30, 2009 @ 2:49 pm - October 30, 2009

  14. Does no one in Washington believe in Freedom anymore? They all think they know better than over 300 million private citizens.

    Do so few Americans even believe in it? Even a gay couple I know said a few weeks ago “people are too stupid to make their own decisions, we need universal healthcare/this/that/other to decide for us” If you point out people in government are just as stupid, so why give a small group power over a larger group it falls on deaf ears.

    I just don’t understand how people can be for some freedom but not other freedom. Freedom is freedom, if it works, if it’s good for society, then it’s good. Everyone wants to pick and choose and force their values on others, while demonizing other people who want to force different values.

    sigh

    Comment by plutosdad — October 30, 2009 @ 4:01 pm - October 30, 2009

  15. @David in NY: “As a longtime liberal Democrat, I wish you guys all the luck in the world. The last moderate Republican in this district won the seat, 65 to 35. And you’re very close to handing it to us. More of this please …”

    I think you’re missing the point of what’s going on here. It really doesn’t have much to do with who ends up winning the seat in this particular election. No matter who wins next Tuesday, I’m sure the Republicans will hold a primary next year, field one candidate in November, and stand a pretty good chance of winning the seat.

    What’s going on here is an active challenge from fiscal conservative activists of the party establishment that has given us too many candidates like Scozzafava over the years.

    The GOP has needed an enema for some time. This is part of that process.

    Comment by Contrarian_Libertarian — October 30, 2009 @ 4:15 pm - October 30, 2009

  16. What’s going on here is you guys, by becoming ever more reactionary, and by taking the Republican party along with you, are making it less and less palatable to most voters. It is your very success I applaud, for it dooms your electoral chances for years to come. And I love your inability to appreciate that. It is the sign of the truly deluded true believer. Go get ‘em!!!

    Comment by David in NY — October 30, 2009 @ 4:33 pm - October 30, 2009

  17. the fundamental promise of America, underlying all of our founding principles, is the freedom to self-actualization

    I agree.

    We’d do well to consider what they mean for all among us…instead of telling them that “you do have the same right to marry that everybody else has: you can marry somebody of the opposite sex!”

    But this is utter nonsense. As if civil marriage exists to aid in “self-actualization”. Perhaps you didn’t realize the implication inherent in this argument is that public validation is required for self actualization.

    If there is any self-actualization involved in marriage it has to do with the private aspects of being in committed relationships which gays are entirely free to do with whomever they want of whatever sex they want.

    Comment by American Elephant — October 30, 2009 @ 4:37 pm - October 30, 2009

  18. What’s going on here is you guys, by becoming ever more reactionary, and by taking the Republican party along with you, are making it less and less palatable to most voters.

    Too bad the polls dont agree with you.

    Most voters now trust Republicans to deal with ALL of the biggest issues facing the nation from health care to education, social security, taxes, the economy, abortion, immigration, national security, Iraq and government ethics.

    There is not ONE single issue on which voters trust Democrats more.

    And Voters have preferred Republicans on the generic congressional ballot for months! (since last spring)

    So while you may feel very strongly that way, your feelings dont jibe with the facts.

    Comment by American Elephant — October 30, 2009 @ 4:47 pm - October 30, 2009

  19. The problem with the liberal David in NY is that he truly doesn’t realize that the vast majority of Americans do not support teachers who encourage teens to have sex with adults, 9/11 Truthers who attack white people as environmental racists, aides who insist on defining for others what is and isn’t “news” and what is and isn’t a “news organization”, department heads who hold conference calls to order artists to produce propaganda for the regime, and foreign diplomats who, when they aren’t bashing their own country, are bashing other countries or demanding that they take back their power-usurping politicians with dictatorial aspirations.

    Or, in other words, Barack Obama and the Obama Party.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 30, 2009 @ 4:58 pm - October 30, 2009

  20. David, before you attack us for endorsing Hoffman, why don’t you read the post and address the reasons I spell out in making the endorsement. K?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 30, 2009 @ 5:01 pm - October 30, 2009

  21. Well, Mr. North Dallas, your completely mistaken views of what’s going on in the world are becoming the views of an ever more narrowly based Republican party which got crushed in the last election. You have already brought every House member in the party around to your nonsensical world view, except for the handful (2-5) of moderates like the Republican candidate in NY-23. You’ve won. And yet you are confused why the Democrats control both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. The reason? Because, as I said, your crazy views (just read the nonsense you wrote above) have become required for Republican candidates, and they are so extreme you can’t win any more outside the South.

    So go to it, I say. The more you “win” within your shrinking party, the more the Democrats win among the voters. Go to it!!!!

    And if you think I’m wrong, just look at the polls and the election results.

    Comment by David in NY — October 30, 2009 @ 5:06 pm - October 30, 2009

  22. B. Daniel — I just wrote to thank you for helping the Democrats out. I actually start by attacking your reasoning, which I understand, but think is deluded itself, especially, since I expect that your “small government” would privatize social security, continue to increase inequality of income in this country by failing to support the unions, and do all manner of other harm to the nation. But I tried to leave that aside mainly and just revel in the fact that you were nearly succeeding in giving my party another seat in Congress, as you will surely continue to do if you don’t reevaluate your positions, which I do not expect.

    I think the rigidity of the right-wing, which has captured the Republicans, is wonderful. Thanks. I appreciate what you and Sarah Palin are doing.

    Comment by David in NY — October 30, 2009 @ 5:17 pm - October 30, 2009

  23. Sorry, second sentence should say, “actually didn’t start by attacking” — which is correct.

    Comment by David in NY — October 30, 2009 @ 5:18 pm - October 30, 2009

  24. David, if you’re going to attack my reasoning, address my points, the ones that I made, not those you imagine me making.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 30, 2009 @ 5:27 pm - October 30, 2009

  25. Look, Daniel (may I call you Daniel), I didn’t come here to address your points. I came to point out the electoral madness of what you were doing. And I would extend that to say that your reasoning is so unpopular now (being not far off from standard House Republican fare, and look how well you’re doing) that you are all committing political suicide.

    I’m sorry that that’s being trollish, but it’s also true. The numbers bear me out.

    I have substantive criticisms of your insistence on “small government,” which I took to be your main complaint about Scozzafava, and to which I alluded above, though you seem to think my shorthand observations were not relevant. I think that pursuing “small government” is not only quixotic, it is positively bad, given that big government does so many good things, like social security, medicare, and now assuring universal health care (like every other big industrial country, finally).

    Anyway, I apologize somewhat for just pointing out the oddly self-defeating nature of your choice. I was really just being a troll, to some degree. I’m actually sure we do agree about a thing or two, since the Republicans are repulsively anti-gay and could have a substantive debate on the areas in which we disagree. But I honestly do think you all are living the political lives of lemmings, and that you should contemplate that. Sorry for interrupting the Hoffman love-fest.

    Comment by David in NY — October 30, 2009 @ 5:38 pm - October 30, 2009

  26. David in NY -

    big government does good things?

    Like what exactly?

    Social Security is bankrupt. Medicare is bankrupt. And universal health care is so bad in other countries, they 1) come to the US if they live in Canada 2) have private plans if they are British Health Care employees 3) are euthanize against their will in Holland and 4)suffocate to death during heat waves in French Hospitals that have no air conditioning.

    That’s 0 out of 3.

    Comment by Adriane — October 30, 2009 @ 6:57 pm - October 30, 2009

  27. your reasoning is so unpopular now (being not far off from standard House Republican fare, and look how well you’re doing

    LOL. I notice that David in NY is a typical dishonest liberal, completely ignoring the facts that obliterate his utterly retarded argument

    David, look how well YOU are doing.

    Democrats have had control of ALL the reins of government for a mere 10 months and the American people are sick to death of you!

    1. A majority of Americans want Republicans in congress over Democrats.
    2. Americans trust Republicans more on EVERY SINGLE MAJOR ISSUE
    3. A majority of Americans disagree with Obamas policies.
    4. A majority of Americans disapprove of Obamacare, far more than actually voted for Obama.
    5. A majority of Americans say the country is on the WRONG track.
    6. Only something like 42% of voters say they would vote to re-elect Obama.

    Americans put Republicans in charge for 12 years, and now that Democrats have been in charge for 10 MONTHS, America cant wait to put Republicans back in charge!

    The facts are in and they show that the truth is exactly the opposite of what you claim. America LOATHES progressives!

    The only thing Democrats have accomplished since gaining control of congress 3 years ago is to destroy the economy and make America HATE them!

    Comment by American Elephant — October 30, 2009 @ 8:21 pm - October 30, 2009

  28. One more fact just in case there is any doubt that America HATES liberals. This is an EXACT repeat of what happened last time America accidentally voted to put Democrats in charge of everything. When Bill Clinton first started his presidency, he swept a Democrat congress and a Democrat Senate into office with him.

    And Americans responded to your incompetence and Fascist policies with the Republican Revolution two years later, throwing Democrats out of office en masse and giving control of both chambers to Republicans in a truly landslide election.

    Once again, no sooner does America put the childish, greedy, corrupt Democrat party in charge than they realize what a grievous mistake it was and are absolutely cannot WAIT to throw you out of office again.

    Please, try to grow up and get real.

    Comment by American Elephant — October 30, 2009 @ 8:27 pm - October 30, 2009

  29. continue to increase inequality of income in this country by failing to support the unions

    David in NY, let me ask you this: assuming you have a job, are you the lowest-paid employee in the company?

    And if you aren’t, why? You should demand that you be paid only as much as the lowest-paid employee, regardless of what job you do, what responsibilities you have, and how well you perform — or you are increasing inequality of income.

    Go ahead. Please state that Barack Obama and everyone in the Obama Party believes that pay should never be different between jobs, that performance should be irrelevant in setting pay amounts, and that regardless of what degree of responsibility a person holds in a company or government, they should be paid the same amount.

    And if you can’t or won’t say that, you’re a g.d. hypocrite.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 30, 2009 @ 8:30 pm - October 30, 2009

  30. As a fellow gay man, I just can’t understand how you can with good conscience endorse Doug Hoffman. The man is diametrically opposed to our community, just look at his own website:

    “But a Republican should adhere to certain minimum GOP principles. Scozzafava is just too far to the left too often. And not only on social matters, like same-sex marriage and abortion.”

    So basically Doug Hoffman thinks it is impossible to be a Republican and support our rights to marry! I’m sure that’s really going to attract a lot of gay voters.

    -and-

    “Where do you stand on the issue of Same Sex Marriage? – I was brought up to believe marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s how I feel. I don’t want to persecute anyone but that’s what I believe. Marriage ought to stay marriage. Period. Dede Scozzafava: In Albany Assemblywoman Scozzafava voted for gay-marriage twice. Bill #’s A 8590 (6-19-07) and A 7732 (5-12-09).”

    I always thought Conservatism respected the individual, it wasn’t supposed to force individuals to conform to group thought based on someone’s own personal moral opinion. Yet, Hoffman is doing just that: “I was brought up to believe… That’s how I feel.” It just warms my heart to know that Hoffman doesn’t “want to persecute anyone”, I’ll be sure to remember that when he’s voting for the Federal Marriage Amendment in Congress.

    Let me reiterate, Hoffman has no soft spot in his heart for gays – he is the candidate who was endorsed by the National Organization for Marriage for God’s sake!

    I suppose those of you on this board who value your wallet more than your acceptance by society will be thrilled if Hoffman wins. Rest assured this is one gay man who will not. Those of you in NY-23 reading this, PLEASE vote for Dede Scozzafava, she’s the only one in the race supporting our community.

    Comment by Senatus — October 30, 2009 @ 8:41 pm - October 30, 2009

  31. Senatus, I’m sure you posted a similar comment to all posts where gay bloggers endorsed Obama since Hoffman has articulated the exact same position on same-sex marriage as has the Democrat.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 30, 2009 @ 8:56 pm - October 30, 2009

  32. #30: “Let me reiterate, Hoffman has no soft spot in his heart for gays – he is the candidate who was endorsed by the National Organization for Marriage for God’s sake!”

    Still a better endorsement than Margaret Fu*king Sanger.

    Comment by Sean A — October 30, 2009 @ 9:23 pm - October 30, 2009

  33. David thinks it’s “extreme” not wanting the Mafia to know who voted against the union.

    Comment by Elliot Ness — October 30, 2009 @ 9:55 pm - October 30, 2009

  34. Hah, the irony is that being endorsed by a “deviant homosexual” blog like this, you are actually damaging Hoffman’s already minuscule chances of election (bickering among petty, angry conservatives will serve to split the Republican vote and the Democrat gets in and we have one more pro-gay congressman – woo!). You might think conservatives appreciate you, or even ‘respect’ you to even a small degree. But they really, really don’t. They hate you just as much as they hate all other gays; you’re just not as uppity and I guess they feign tolerance for you, GayPatriot?

    In all seriousness, the idea of you endorsing an anti-gay conservative (Hoffman) over a rare pro-gay Republican (Scozzafava) is really quite shocking. Wouldn’t you prefer the Republican party wasn’t JUST made up of people who hate who you are, seek to undermine your relationship and judge you as untrustworthy with children? I guess not. Which is pretty sad …

    Comment by DavyJG — October 30, 2009 @ 10:40 pm - October 30, 2009

  35. You might think conservatives appreciate you, or even ‘respect’ you to even a small degree. But they really, really don’t. They hate you just as much as they hate all other gays; you’re just not as uppity and I guess they feign tolerance for you, GayPatriot?

    DavyJG

    I guess 53% of Californians are conservatives who hate you! I guess Barack Obama hates you! I guess John Kerry hates you!

    Because they ALL share the same opinion that marriage is important to society and should remain between a man and a woman.

    Your immaturity is exceeded only by your pathetic victimhood, bigotry, hate, and your willful ignorance.

    Comment by American Elephant — October 30, 2009 @ 11:13 pm - October 30, 2009

  36. Mr. Blatt

    To be honest, no, I did not criticize any of the liberal bloggers I regularly read for endorsing Obama. I usually keep my political opinions to myself; perhaps it would have been better to have done so here. As an American you are entitled to campaign for any candidate you wish.

    I know being gay is not the overwhelming factor when you, or a number of your readers, choose to vote for a candidate. However, for me, and I suspect a large number of GLBT people, it is the dominant part of our being, how we relate to the world. Being gay may be just a part of who you are, but it IS who I am. The struggle to come out dominated my teens and twenties, and, yes, dang it, I want my gayness to be pandered to, just as much as you want your tax preferences pandered to.

    The reason I rooted for Dede Scozzafava is because I rate a candidate’s gay issues stand far higher than anything else. Often times this means, as with Obama, choosing the least bad of two bad candidates. Obama has pretty much been a disappointment, but at least he’s doing SOMETHING, nothing would have changed under McCain.

    Still, I had a faint hope that this TEA Party movement might have changed things, finally producing a more Libertarian-leaning conservatism on social (specifically gay) issues. It looks like, if Hoffman is any indication, I was wrong. I just wish he could have said “I am running for national-level office, same sex marriage is a matter for the legislators in Albany,” and left it at that. After all, aren’t these TEA Parties supposed to be favoring federalism?

    Comment by Senatus — October 31, 2009 @ 2:05 am - October 31, 2009

  37. Yeah, Senatus, I wish he had said that too (leaving marriage to the states). If you’ll note the words of the post above, I acknowledged he wasn’t ideal. Also, the Tea Party movement didn’t produce Hoffman, it just rallied to his cause. Bear in mind this is the first election in which has played a serious part. Their support for him is just the beginning.

    Oh, and DavyJG, you have called Hoffman “anti-gay.” Okay, please provide your evidence for that accusation. And the evidence that conservatives hate us and that the GOP is made up of people who hate us.

    You throw around a lot of accusations that sound like talking points from left-wing media, but you don’t have much substance to your venom. And attach your name-calling to a post whose points you neglect to address.

    So, please address those when you provide evidence for the accusations you make above. But, somehow I have the sense you won’t provide it because it’s not about making a case, it’s about expressing your anger. And you do seem to harbor a lot of hatred. A lot. And prejudice.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 31, 2009 @ 3:35 am - October 31, 2009

  38. as a word of advice to ALL republicans (and really, for the betterment of your party.. because INTELLIGENT opposition is HEALTHY for a nation): the more rational your platform is, the more seriously you will be taken.

    i am not american but i have seen public reaction towards the american republican party in many places… europe, latin america, and asia (i’ve been around).. it seems to me that the general consensus is that it is not really a sound and serious, unified party. it seems that many decisions taken by republican party officials or pushed by republican grassroots organizations are guided by a largely emotional component (”we want freedom in america! less government!!”) or by a capitalist interest (halliburton?), rather than by true concern in the well-being of the american people.

    so what makes a nation? its soil or its people?
    a true patriot is first concerned with the well-being of his compatriots. a true patriot defends his country and nation by making sure that everyone in that nation has been given the true and righteous chance to make their life into something meaningful by their own standards (THIS DOESNT MEAN EVERYONE GETS PAID THE SAME AND IT DOESNT MEAN OBAMA IS COMMUNIST BLA BLA BLA)

    for the better part of the 20th century, many nations have been attempting to get to this ideal state through increased concern in education and health. this is because many nations have come to the realization that their true capital is in the capacity of their people. Education and health are precisely what you need for a STRONG, EDUCATED, HEALTHY group of individuals. and a group of people like that cannot be stopped

    you guys might hate on scandinavian countries and dismiss them all as LEFTIES AND COMMIES AND SOCIALISTS. but if you stop being afraid of those words and look into what you can learn from what you consider your antagonists, and stop all the senseless neo-mccarthyism, you might learn something from them.

    you know, i am neither republican nor democrat, socialist nor capitalist, but i know that i can learn from every side of the political spectrum. thats the reason why i am here, visiting a gay republican blog (that’s two things i’m not). i have learnt a lot from this blog already.

    things i have read here lead me to believe that what needs to happen in this party is a reform towards a more rational approach, less tolerance (less gullibility?) for the populist and patronizing speech of many of your politicians, and the understanding that universal health care doesn’t mean your country will go communist.

    THE UNITED STATES IS THE ONLY DEVELOPED NATION THAT DOES NOT HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. so stop hating on universal health care only because its being pushed by democrats. democrats are not communist and your country will not be communist if it has universal health care. a very significant amount of developed and capitalist nations (nations the United States OWES MONEY TO) have universal health care. its the smart thing to do, don’t be silly.

    also, just one last thing:
    it is NOT about whether you have MORE or LESS government. its about WHAT is going to be DONE with the government that you HAVE.

    Comment by Learn something from anyone — October 31, 2009 @ 6:26 am - October 31, 2009

  39. “Card check” ranks just under “collectivize the farms” on the scale of monumentally stupid public policies … one needn’t minimize the importance of gay marriage to recognize that preventing an obvious train wreck takes priority.

    Comment by Elliot Ness — October 31, 2009 @ 6:39 am - October 31, 2009

  40. David in NY is squealing like the little Obama yippy dog. I know Dems in panic when I see and hear them. NY-23 is seeing a huge influx of union thugs and Dem operatives this weekend desperate to get the few Dems that exist in 23 out to vote for…what? More of the crap and spew, thuggery and thievery, coming out of D.C.? I know Obama voters who are not only having second thoughts but second to the 10th power thoughts.

    This is about the rolling and steaming tea party movement, which will get an enormous boost going into 2010 from wins this coming week, if they happen, and Dems’ and lefties’ desperate, screaming fits and seizures to prevent this from happening. This is about conservatives telling the GOP “You are either with us or you are against us.” This is scaring the beejus out of the Obamites.

    Go Hoffman!

    Peg C. in NY-22

    Comment by Peg C. — October 31, 2009 @ 7:37 am - October 31, 2009

  41. dede just dropped out of the race. . .
    Republican Dierdre Scozzafava (sko-zuh-FAH’-vuh) has suspended her campaign for the New York House and is encouraging supporters to embrace Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman. sat oct 31

    Comment by rusty — October 31, 2009 @ 12:16 pm - October 31, 2009

  42. In all seriousness, the idea of you endorsing an anti-gay conservative (Hoffman) over a rare pro-gay Republican (Scozzafava) is really quite shocking.

    So let’s watch the entertainment value here.

    Hoffman:

    “I was brought up to believe marriage is between a man and a woman.”

    And DavyJG and the Barack Obama puppets scream “antigay” and “homophobic”.

    Barack Obama:

    “Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

    And DavyJG and the Barack Obama puppets scream “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    Pure, pure hypocrisy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 31, 2009 @ 1:22 pm - October 31, 2009

  43. a true patriot defends his country and nation by making sure that everyone in that nation has been given the true and righteous chance to make their life into something meaningful by their own standards (THIS DOESNT MEAN EVERYONE GETS PAID THE SAME AND IT DOESNT MEAN OBAMA IS COMMUNIST BLA BLA BLA)

    Of course it does.

    You see, whatever you are, you liberals refuse to acknowledge that the root of your attitudes is destruction of the productive. You cannot accept that some people succeed and some people fail; you demand that everyone achieve the same result. You may cloak this in whatever social welfare pap you like, but at the end of the day, your goal is to force those who succeed to pay for those who fail because of your belief that one can only succeed if others fail. According to you, success is illegitimate; a janitor who refused to go to school and refuses to put forth effort should be paid as much as a doctor who went to school and put forth enormous effort, and in order to achieve it, you will tax the doctor until their effective income is the same and give it to the janitor.

    That is not freedom. That is immoral.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 31, 2009 @ 1:33 pm - October 31, 2009

  44. Oh so good to see you Rita- NDT – Beads. . .

    here are some goodies for you to vent on:

    A surprise Vatican decision, announced 10 days earlier to make it easier for Anglicans to become Roman Catholics while retaining aspects of Anglican liturgy and identity, had left some wondering whether Rome would embrace married Anglican clergy in large numbers.

    A Holy See statement Saturday quoted Cardinal William Levada, the Holy See’s guardian of doctrinal correctness, as saying the Vatican would consider accepting married Anglican priests into the Roman Catholic priesthood as it has in the past — evaluating each case on its own merits.

    I used to have lunch with Sister Levada in Portland. Fine thing she was. She always enjoyed my and then BF, company. Seems like people are open to change.

    but then again, in response to your FSF bang drumming here is something else to consider:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570445,00.html

    Comment by rusty — October 31, 2009 @ 1:35 pm - October 31, 2009

  45. THE UNITED STATES IS THE ONLY DEVELOPED NATION THAT DOES NOT HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.

    Correction. We have universally-available health care to those who work and pay for it, and we provide emergency care to everyone regardless of their ability to pay.

    What we do not have is a system in which the government controls and manipulates the lives of everyone through the health care system, depriving people of the right to see whom they want when they want and spend their money as they choose, including NOT getting health coverage.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 31, 2009 @ 1:35 pm - October 31, 2009

  46. but then again, in response to your FSF bang drumming here is something else to consider

    I really wish you would actually read these, rusty; you might learn something.

    Notice how no one calls this woman “self-loathing” for speaking out against sexual exploitation of children. Notice how no one in that article insists that she’s “mentally ill” or that she “hates straight people”.

    Contrast that with your response when pedophilia is supported and endorsed by your fellow gays. Indeed, you leap to criticize gay people who criticize other gays for supporting children having sex wtih adults and for refusing to report it to the proper authorities.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 31, 2009 @ 3:33 pm - October 31, 2009

  47. THE UNITED STATES IS THE ONLY DEVELOPED NATION THAT DOES NOT HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.

    Correction. We have universally-available health care to those who work and pay for it, and we provide emergency care to everyone regardless of their ability to pay.”

    We also have the best cancer care, and do the vast majority of the advancement in medicine. Obamacare will end both of those cases in short order.

    A quick way to die in this world is to get cancer in a Socialized medicine nation and not have the money for private care (if you are in the UK or elsewhere that has a private option) or (especially in Canada) come to the USA to get the best of care available. The Homeless who seek treatment in the US get better cancer treatment than a pensioner in the UK or anyone using Canada’s horrid version of a system. When you look at those happy with their care in Canada, and those who are not, you find it really depends on whether they were seriously ill or not. Those who got something really nasty like Cancer are very unhappy with what they got. A simple tour of any border state’s hospital parking lots will turn up many Canadian plates.

    To paraphrase Churchhill “We have the worst health care in the world, until you have to use someone else’s.” Yes there could be some serious fixes to our care. Socializing it is not the fix.

    Comment by JP — October 31, 2009 @ 11:24 pm - October 31, 2009

  48. While I understand you are holding your nose and endorsing this guy, I cannot. I have been a republican for 25 years and this guy represents everything bad about the party.

    Supporting him is no different than the gays who supported Clinton or Obama. We cannot continue to support people who want to marginalize us. No matter which side of the aisle they are from

    Comment by RA — November 1, 2009 @ 12:49 pm - November 1, 2009

  49. @RA: “We cannot continue to support people who want to marginalize us.”

    So a politician who doesn’t support same-sex marriage necessarily “want(s) to marginalize” gay people? Really?

    Look, I’ve no doubt at all that there are people and politicians out there who truly are anti-gay in the way you describe. I don’t know what it’s like to be gay — so I won’t claim to have walked a mile in your shoes. And, so you know, I do support equal marriage rights…and don’t feel at all uncomfortable in the Republican Party holding that position.

    But I think you have to appreciate — at least a bit — that politicians are beholden to voting constituencies. And it’s difficult for them to survive if they’re too far out of step with the groups of voters they’re trying to appeal to.

    It’s hardly any secret that the Democratic Party’s voting blocs tend to be more amenable to gay rights issues than the Republican Party’s. But, even still, Clinton and Obama wouldn’t have stood a chance if they’d have been where you and I are on the SSM issue.

    The cracks in the dam are growing wider. If the tipping point on this hasn’t yet been reached, it’s fast approaching. Stop worrying. And, for God’s sake, stop looking at any politician who disagrees with you on this matter as wanting to “marginalize” you.

    I can understand why you’d be wary of somebody like Rick Santorum. But most prominent politicians are, officially anyway, opposed to gay marriage. That doesn’t mean they’re all a bunch of homophobes….it often means they’ve just made a calculation.

    Comment by Contrarian_Libertarian — November 2, 2009 @ 12:09 am - November 2, 2009

  50. @Senatus: “Still, I had a faint hope that this TEA Party movement might have changed things, finally producing a more Libertarian-leaning conservatism on social (specifically gay) issues. It looks like, if Hoffman is any indication, I was wrong.”

    I don’t think the Tea Party movement has had any immediately discernible bent on social issues one way or another….which is one of its most endearing attributes.

    Let’s hope it stays that way — rather than morphing into a populist uprising in the name of social conservatism.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m perfectly fine breaking bread with social conservatives when we share common purpose. I’m not aiming to exclude them from the fun. But neither do I want them coming in and claiming the mantle.

    The split in the NY23 race is being played in many quarters that way: that Scozzafava was deemed unsupportable because she’s pro-choice and pro-gay rights. I’m sure I’m not alone in saying that these positions were either not offensive to me or otherwise made no difference.

    What was offensive to me was her support for card check, her record on spending and taxes, her support for healthcare reform, etc.

    Comment by Contrarian_Libertarian — November 2, 2009 @ 12:17 am - November 2, 2009

  51. well said, Contrarian, very well said, especially this:

    I’m perfectly fine breaking bread with social conservatives when we share common purpose. I’m not aiming to exclude them from the fun. But neither do I want them coming in and claiming the mantle.

    We agree.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 2, 2009 @ 1:04 am - November 2, 2009

  52. Why McCain Picked Palin

    And let us not forget that libertarian Republican Dana Rohrabacher supported Hoffman.

    And don’t forget that Ron Paul is a socon – in his private life. He votes according to the Constitution.

    Comment by M. Simon — November 2, 2009 @ 1:10 am - November 2, 2009

  53. [...] than does the Commonwealth of Virginia, but maybe some of the voters have similar concerns.  When we endorsed Doug Hoffman, I heard from a number of readers who said he had run an anti-gay campaign.  I could find no [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Did Gay Issues Help Sink Hoffman? — November 5, 2009 @ 4:14 pm - November 5, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.