Gay Patriot Header Image

Memo to GOP: Ignore the Gays

During the course of the 2010 campaign, I was working on a blog post/op-ed with the title I use for this post.  But, as I followed the messages of Republican candidates across the country, I realized that, well, they had already gotten the message.  It didn’t seem necessary.  And since it wasn’t a winning issue in the campaign, it shouldn’t be a defining agenda when the 112th Congress convenes in January.

Thanks in part to the unpopular, big-government initiatives of the Obama Democrats and the concomitant (given popular opinion) growth of the Tea Parties, most Republicans campaigned on fiscal issues.  Those who made an issue of gays (or appeared to do as much) didn’t do as well on Election Day as polls forecast.

Now, our good friends at GOProud “and some Tea Party leaders” are pressing Republicans to stay true to their campaign rhetoric and “to keep social issues off” the agenda:

“On behalf of limited-government conservatives everywhere, we write to urge you and your colleagues in Washington to put forward a legislative agenda in the next Congress that reflects the principles of the Tea Party movement,” they write to presumptive House Speaker John Boehner and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell in an advance copy provided to POLITICO. “This election was not a mandate for the Republican Party, nor was it a mandate to act on any social issue.”

When Chris Barron of GOProud contacted Bruce and me about the project, each of us eagerly signed on.  His letter is exactly in the spirit of the ideas this blog has been promoting for six year — and that I have been promoting for at last fifteen.  Social conservative Tea Party folk are also signing up:

“When they were out in the Boston Harbor, they weren’t arguing about who was gay or who was having an abortion,” said Ralph King, a letter signatory who is a Tea Party Patriots national leadership council member, as well as an Ohio co-coordinator.

King said he signed onto the letter because GOProud seemed to be genuine in pushing for fiscal conservatism and limited government.

“Am I going to be the best man at a same sex-marriage wedding? That’s not something I necessarily believe in,” said King. “I look at myself as pretty socially conservative. But that’s not what we push through the Tea Party Patriots.”

Nice to see a gay conservative group actually working within the framework of conservative groups to keep the focus on the issues which have defined our party at least since the rise of Reagan — and have helped Republicans win elections in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994 and now 2010.

Even the Advocate has picked up on this.  Guess the message is that a gay Republicans can get media attention without attacking their own party.

Share

140 Comments

  1. Those who made an issue of gays (or appeared to do as much) didn’t do as well on Election Day as polls forecast.

    I notice you link to yourself quoting a reader as a reference for that claim.

    However, the Politico saw things exactly the opposite. They confirmed that those candidates followed Dan’s advice to the “tea” and didn’t run on social issues:

    Buck told the Denver Post this week that social issues were a key reason for his defeat, explaining: “It was part of their effort to focus more on their version of Ken Buck rather than the issues that I thought most voters were concerned about. I don’t know that there’s any way to avoid it; I wasn’t going to derail my message to have an election decided on abortion, or any social issue, for that matter.”

    A similar campaign unfolded in Nevada, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pummeled Republican challenger Sharron Angle for opposing abortion in all cases — and in particular, for telling an interviewer who asked about abortion in the case of a rape that some women were able to turn “what was really a lemon situation into lemonade.” Reid won women voters by 11 percentage points and nearly tied Angle among men, losing by just 2 points…

    In California, Planned Parenthood sent out a mailer comparing Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, charging that both “want to make criminals out of women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them” and branding both GOP women “too extreme for California.”

    These candidates all avoided social issues EXACTLY as you advocated, and they lost because of it.

    NOT because a majority of Americans disagree with them, indeed, polls clearly show that a majority of Americans are more in line with Republican positions on social issues from abortion to gay marriage, but because it allowed Democrats the opportunity to dishonestly define them, and motivate their base based on lies, demagoguery and complete and utter bogeymen.

    By avoiding the issue, these Republicans LOST the opportunity to either win over or at least get Hispanic, Black and other voters to not vote against them because polls show those groups are passionately opposed to abortion, LOST the opportunity to correct Democrats lies and demonizations, and LOST the opportunity to motivate that large segment of their own base that, polls prove, even in this economy, think social issues are more important than economic issues.

    ALL of which could have made the difference in these races.

    But instead, they followed your advice and CEDED winning, majority issues to the losing, minority side.

    One of the first rules of politics is to run on issues where you have majority support, and ignore or play down issues which you dont.

    Your, excuse me, naive, political advice was to put all their eggs in one basket, and they followed it, and lost. More proof that you dont understand the necessity of coalitions to achieve political victory. These losses are just a preview of the Republican bloodbath to come if Republicans are misguided enough to follow your advice when the economy is doing better.

    Another on of the first rules is to define or be defined. You advocated these candidates let themselves be defined on an issue they are closer to the majority on, and they did exactly that, and lost.

    And you have the gall to claim that LOSING by following your strategy somehow proves that you were right? That’s Obamaesque or at the very least Frumpian audacity.

    The truth is that you either don’t get why the Reagan coalition is still essential to winning elections, or you I am sorry to say this, foolishly, reject the Reagan coalition. The truth is that the Reagan coalition is still every bit as essential to winning as ever, and this election proves why. Because if you dont define yourself, and dont run on winning positions, then Democrats will define you, and will defeat you on issues in which a majority of voters are closer to your position.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 15, 2010 @ 6:19 pm - November 15, 2010

  2. Sorry, I wasn’t trying to make it sound like it was hundreds or thousands of politicians doing it and I wasn’t trying to specifically call out Arizona, my mistake. I was just using one example of a race in which a Politician pandered to the social conservatives in order to win re-election. Sadly McCain is not the only example, just the most recent, and prominent one.

    Good to hear that many of your friends don’t take him seriously. He, like many other politicians, dems and repubs, have only stood for one principle as of late, their own job security. Unfortunately, not enough people saw through his act since he was still has a job. Not that any of the candidates were all that great.

    Comment by AJ — November 15, 2010 @ 6:20 pm - November 15, 2010

  3. And by the way, the idea that you INVOKE Reagan while simultaneously REJECTING the Reagan coalition is the most audacious thing of all. Indeed, it goes beyond audacious into the realm of self-servingly offensive.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 15, 2010 @ 6:38 pm - November 15, 2010

  4. Actually moderates are closer in line with the American Public on the issues, not conservatives. As much as social conservatives like to push their success with Gay Marriage bans, they always fail when it comes to abortion. There is no support for an all out ban on abortion because most people don’t think in terms of strict ideology. Even in red states, Abortion bans fail again and again.

    As much as American Elephant wants to believe that social conservatism will help Republicans win minorities, it hasn’t over the past 30 years. Republicans have been embracing social conservatism for a long time and they haven’t made any inroads into African American community and only minimal gains into the Hispanic community. The fact is these groups vote more based on economic and social welfare than on gay marriage or abortion. Yes they vote against gay marriage and abortion when they are brought up but when it comes to candidates and party, they are much more aligned with the Democratic Party.

    Prop 8 did nothing to help Republicans in California in 2008, it passed but Obama won impressively. I wouldn’t be surprised if that abortion ban in Colorado motivated enough liberal and pro choice voters to come out and push Bennett over the line.

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — November 15, 2010 @ 6:58 pm - November 15, 2010

  5. “Okay, here’s the consistency/credibility test:

    (1) Will Dan, Bruce and GOProud go on record saying that congress must NOT overturn DADT no matter what the conclusions of the military report say? And that congress must not for any reason overturn DOMA?

    (2) Will Dan, Bruce and GOProud fight to get congress to drop the issues should they take them up?

    (3)If the answer to any of the above is “no”, or anything short of a definite, unqualified “yes”, how can you claim to have any credibility whatsoever on the matter?

    (If history is any indication, Dan will now conveniently stop replying to comments in this thread.)

    Comment by American Elephant”

    Very well put, AE. And yes, Dan will now conveniently stop replying to comments in this thread, at least the ones that pinpoint his hypocrisy and Texas size double standard.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — November 15, 2010 @ 7:03 pm - November 15, 2010

  6. “Okay, here’s the consistency/credibility test:

    (1) Will Dan, Bruce and GOProud go on record saying that congress must NOT overturn DADT no matter what the conclusions of the military report say? And that congress must not for any reason overturn DOMA?

    (2) Will Dan, Bruce and GOProud fight to get congress to drop the issues should they take them up?

    (3)If the answer to any of the above is “no”, or anything short of a definite, unqualified “yes”, how can you claim to have any credibility whatsoever on the matter?

    (If history is any indication, Dan will now conveniently stop replying to comments in this thread.)

    Comment by American Elephant”

    Very well put, AE. And yes, Dan will now conveniently stop replying to comments in this thread, at least the ones that pinpoint his hypocrisy and Texas size double standard.

    And that is why the MAJORITY of gay people do not buy Dan and GOProud’s peddling.

    It is obvious that the Tea Party has sadly been taken over by the Moral Majority and 1) spending WILL continue to rise 2) they WILL go on the attack on gay people as scapegoats when they fail to fix the economy.

    So Dan, Seane (the true voice of the GOP) has caught you in your HYPOCRISY. We all know that the GOP will be 100% devoted on social issues, and GOProud will do nothing about it as they promised NOT to get involved.

    So Dan and his self loathing friends at GOProud have shot themselves in the foot.

    Thanks Seane for helping shed light (even though I throughly disagree with your positions) on how the GOP really is and proving how gay republicans are truly delusional as their counterparts in the left (both economic and social issues).

    Comment by JS — November 15, 2010 @ 7:56 pm - November 15, 2010

  7. Just to toss this in, once DOMA and DADT are resolved, there will be no reason AT ALL for gays to be Democrats. Those are important issues, and it’s true that Democrats tend to be more supportive of gays (though that’s not entirely the case), but those are the ONLY issues where gays MIGHT want to be Democrats. Other than those 2 issues, what else is there that is so specifically gay that gays could only belong to one party?

    Republicans need to look forward to the day when gay marriage and military service are no longer issues. Then, they’ll need to find a way to attract a minority which prides itself on selfishness and superficiality–I sense a wave of leather and sparkles headed the Republican way. And if they nominate Palin, can it be long before “You go, Girlfriend!” becomes the new GOP rallying cry?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — November 15, 2010 @ 8:09 pm - November 15, 2010

  8. JS, I didn’t write anything on this thread but just quoted American Elephant. So if anyone on this particular thread “outed” B. Daniel’s and GOProud’s hypocrisy it was American Elephant. You should give the credit to whom it’s due instead of using my quoting of AE as a launch pad to condemn Republicans.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — November 15, 2010 @ 8:12 pm - November 15, 2010

  9. “In order to truly call a cease-fire on social issues, then these issues ought not be raised on either side. ” Exactly right, Brendan, but this isn’t about calling a cease-fire. B. Daniel and his band of gay “conservatives” are social liberals who despise social conservatives and are determined to defeat them in the culture war.

    Advising Republicans to ignore social issues isn’t about principle but about strategy. Getting Republicans to keep silent on social issues leaves that arena open to domination by the social Left. B. Daniel and his ilk have no intention of being silent on social issues, as they advise Republicans to be. Rather, they will use Republicans’ retreat to push for socially liberal action in the social arena.

    Actually, I don’t begrudge B. Daniel and his friends from fighting for what they believe in. The culture war is just that, a WAR, and the social Left will accept nothing short of total victory. I admire their tenacity and wish it was matched on the social Right. What upsets me is their hypocrisy and blatant lying about their actions and goals. As a social conservative I’m not stupid, regardless of what social liberals think. If gays are telling Republicans to stand down on social issues when they have NO intention of doing so themselves, that’s hypocrisy and I will call it out.

    And JS, I DID write this!

    Comment by Seane-Anna — November 15, 2010 @ 8:20 pm - November 15, 2010

  10. Awww, isn’t that cute. Now that Dooms was proven wrong again about left leaning groups (and basic geography) he goes back to his Ann Coulter thing.

    For the record, I don’t think Coulter should have called Edwards a stick of wood. After all, we know Edwards isn’t comfortable around those kinds of people.

    Now for Dooms’ next trick, he’ll endorse the party that is fighting for DADT and believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 15, 2010 @ 8:27 pm - November 15, 2010

  11. Tim in #36, it wasn’t a Republican filibuster which defeated DADT, but Harry Reid’s fumbling of the issue. Had he reached out to Maine Republican Susan Collins earlier and worked with her on developing a means to move DADT through the Senate, then it likely would have been repealed by now.

    AE, in #44, if the military report reaches a conclusion different from other reports & shows that gay people serving openly would compromise military effectiveness or unit cohesion, then I would certainly be open to changing my mind.

    But, then me say, I’d have to see the report first. Other reports have suggested that gay people serving openly would have no effect whatsoever on unit cohesion. If the coming report reaches a different conclusion, then I’d have to read the report and see how it reached its conclusion.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 15, 2010 @ 9:00 pm - November 15, 2010

  12. Dan, well and honestly answered.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 15, 2010 @ 9:15 pm - November 15, 2010

  13. Blaming the failed DADT repeal on Harry Reid is ridiculous. Yes, he may have been one of the reasons it didn’t pass, but across the board Republican opposition was another, more substantial reason. If Mccain would stay true to his word, or a few Republicans would break rank with their party and try and get things done that the American people believe in, it might have been repealed already.

    Looking away from one’s own party and solely blaming the other on this issue is disingenuous and a serious problem with the current political discourse in this country.

    Comment by AJ — November 15, 2010 @ 9:37 pm - November 15, 2010

  14. I generally agree, Daniel, Republicans should not focus on the social issues.

    Comment by Tom the Redhunter — November 15, 2010 @ 9:48 pm - November 15, 2010

  15. JS, you have provided no evidence to make your point, one compromised by the use of the self-loathing slur. If GOProud is self-loathing, please provide the evidence based of what its representatives have said — not with how left-wing blogs have spun those words.

    Um, AJ, hardly ridiculous. He’s the Majority Leader, the manner in which he pushed repeal upset the leading Republican advocate of repeal (Susan Collins). So, why didn’t he reach out to her to develop a bi-partisan approach? You can blame Republicans until you’re blue in the face, but they’re the minority in the Senate. He had a filibuster-proof majority for six months–why didn’t he move repeal then?

    Hardly ridiculous to blame the man who sets the Senate’s agenda.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 15, 2010 @ 9:51 pm - November 15, 2010

  16. And JS, I DID write this!

    LOL… And who else could have?

    Comment by JS — November 15, 2010 @ 9:54 pm - November 15, 2010

  17. Actually, I don’t begrudge B. Daniel and his friends from fighting for what they believe in. The culture war is just that, a WAR,

    I know huh, picking a WAR on your own citizens.

    So Lincolnisk of you.

    Oh yeah, Lincoln was after all Republican.

    Comment by JS — November 15, 2010 @ 9:56 pm - November 15, 2010

  18. JS, you have provided no evidence to make your point, one compromised by the use of the self-loathing slur. If GOProud is self-loathing, please provide the evidence based of what its representatives have said — not with how left-wing blogs have spun those words.

    Sure why not, lets go through this one more time:

    “On behalf of limited-government conservatives everywhere, we write to urge you and your colleagues in Washington to put forward a legislative agenda in the next Congress that reflects the principles of the Tea Party movement,” they write to presumptive House Speaker John Boehner and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell in an advance copy provided to POLITICO. “This election was not a mandate for the Republican Party, nor was it a mandate to act on any social issue.”

    You and GOProud jump around as if this is a sign that the GOP will not take on social issues. The fact that YOU bring this up not knowing what it actually says, jumping around like a little kid with a new tricycle, reeks of self-loathing. And it appears as such, because it is totally contradictory to where you supposedly stand on these issues. You either do want congress to take these issues up (repealing DADT, eg) or as you now seem to subscribe to this new “approach” in not dealing with it all. If that is what you want fine, but then you need to drop “Gay” from “Gaypatriot” since of course under a conservative rule, gays cannot be “patriotic” in the sense of fighting for their country.

    This is the characteristic of somebody that is self-loathing. The left is the same way when they peddled Obama and his ilk, thinking that they were a step ahead of everybody else.

    Comment by JS — November 15, 2010 @ 10:14 pm - November 15, 2010

  19. JS, I’m laughing so loud I may be disturbing my neighbors. I’m trying to figure out what you mean.

    I’m trying to figure out where the self-loathing is in looking the election returns, in elections Republicans won by campaigning against the Democrats’ big-government agenda and reminding the Republican leaders as much.

    You do try to twist things so you can convince yourself we’re self-loathing, but where is the evidence that we think our sexuality is a bad thing — that we’re ashamed of . . .

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 15, 2010 @ 10:18 pm - November 15, 2010

  20. Both parties put politics ahead of LGBT rights with this issue. The reason they didn’t vote on the bill when they had the super majority is because they didn’t have the political capital to do so and still get health care through. Democrats felt that healthcare reform was more important to the country than DADT.

    McCain and the Republicans he convinced to side with him said they didn’t vote for the bill because they wanted to hear the results of the study first. The bill, however, was contingent upon the results of the study, and his recent backpedaling with regards to the leaked study shows this was more “politics as usual” on his part.

    Both parties let petty political tactics and their egos get in the way of the will of the American people. If you want to solely blame the Democrats because they are in the majority, then that’s your right, tho I respectfully disagree. If Collins had been a woman of her convictions and truly believed that Americans were being treated unjustly because of this law, then she shouldn’t have let procedure get in the way of justice. Until these games stop in Washington, on both sides, the American people are the only ones that will suffer.

    Comment by AJ — November 15, 2010 @ 10:22 pm - November 15, 2010

  21. “When they were out in the Boston Harbor, they weren’t arguing about who was gay or who was having an abortion,” said Ralph King, a letter signatory who is a Tea Party Patriots national leadership council member, as well as an Ohio co-coordinator.

    ***

    Ouch – this quote looks way off for several reasons and lacks substance.

    First, aborting “useless eaters” wasn’t a common practice back then, so, of course it wasn’t on early Euro-America’s radar.

    Second, sexuality was a major issue in early America (but the emphasis was different), and let’s not forget this was before the AIDS epidemic. Don’t they teach history in the U.S.? (Embarrassing.)

    Although, I believe in a peaceful adult’s right to live how he or she wants to (if he or she pays his way and doesn’t social engineer children), fake conservative arguments like the above don’t impress.

    To ask social conservatives to self-censor (which is what liberal Republicans and Democrats want all real Christians and Jews to do) is circular. It is leftwing moralism dressed up as “tolerance.”

    Turning to historical records, I see that many of America’s greatest leaders (including Reagan) spoke seriously on many so-called “private life” issues because they led to public consequences.

    Comment by Ben — November 15, 2010 @ 10:26 pm - November 15, 2010

  22. […] of our readers claims it’s “ridiculous” for me to blame Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for the failure of DADT repeal. This […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Will Harry Reid Reach Out to Susan Collins to Move DADT Repeal? — November 15, 2010 @ 10:36 pm - November 15, 2010

  23. Actually moderates are closer in line with the American Public on the issues, not conservatives. As much as social conservatives like to push their success with Gay Marriage bans, they always fail when it comes to abortion. There is no support for an all out ban on abortion because most people don’t think in terms of strict ideology.

    Talk about the mother of all red herrings!

    Sorry DarkEye, your straw man argument isn’t even constitutionally possible, let alone true.

    Americans dont support conservatives on abortion because conservatives want to ban abortion? Not true, and not even constitutionally possible.

    The truth is that the conservative position is to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would NOT ban any abortion, but return the matter to the states where it belongs.

    And the truth is also that a MAJORITY of Americans agree that abortion should be more restricted than it is.

    So, nice try, but wrong.

    As much as American Elephant wants to believe that social conservatism will help Republicans win minorities, it hasn’t over the past 30 years

    The hell it hasnt.

    I am guessing that you and Dan have the same misconception here. That anyone is talking about winning over majorities of Hispanics and blacks. They aren’t. I am talking about consistently swinging the Hispanic and Black votes a few percentage points in our direction. IF Republicans can do that, CONSISTENTLY, the Democrat party as we know it is toast. Democrats know it, thats why they work so hard to keep Blacks and other minorities on the plantation.

    And as the percentages of Blacks and Hispanics in America continue to grow, and the percentage of whites in America continue to decline, it becomes INCREASINGLY important.

    George Bush did that and won twice. John McCain and Bob Dole did not.

    Dan seems to think the winning formula is to chase the decreasing white urban liberal vote instead of chasing the increasing ethnic minority vote, and I have presented about a hundred different reasons why that is a demonstrably bad idea. I’ve shown him that the exit polls dont support his position, the election results dont support his position, the demographic trends dont support his position, and I have even shown him that his own positions dont support his position — namely that he advocates for certain social policies that he claims to be ambivalent about while demanding the Republican party not run on, or address any social policies, even if it represents what a majority of Americans want.

    It is a naive understanding of the way elections are won in America that is based on demogoguery and misrepresentation of what social conservatives support as a group. It is either complete ignorance of why the Reagan coalition is necessary, denial of how it works, or a flat out rejection of the principles of the Reagan coalition to begin with.

    I dont particularly think of myself as a social conservative, although I guess I am. With the exceptions of behaviors that affect everyone, I think the government should stay out of people’s business. Rather I understand that the positions of social conservatives are the closest to libertarian, Constitutionalist principles of any faction of any party, without being as complete batshit crazy as libertarianism, and so I support them for that reason. And because I always like to support the unfairly, dishonestly maligned underdogs.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 15, 2010 @ 10:59 pm - November 15, 2010

  24. Holy crap. There’s a whole lotta crazy going on here.

    Did I miss a massive psychosis outbreak on HuffPo today or something??

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — November 15, 2010 @ 11:02 pm - November 15, 2010

  25. I say we (conservatives) should all stick the issues of redefining marriage and allowing abortion in their proper venue: state legislatures. That’d be the best National Conservative cease-fire.

    Brendan in Philly for Congress!!!

    Comment by American Elephant — November 15, 2010 @ 11:04 pm - November 15, 2010

  26. Dooms – please produce the Democrats’ gay rights accomplishments from 1955-1994, then 2007-2010.

    Whaa? You can’t?

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — November 15, 2010 @ 11:04 pm - November 15, 2010

  27. AE in 75, that’s what I’ve been saying for as long as I’ve been blogging.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 15, 2010 @ 11:18 pm - November 15, 2010

  28. AE, in #44, if the military report reaches a conclusion different from other reports & shows that gay people serving openly would compromise military effectiveness or unit cohesion, then I would certainly be open to changing my mind.

    Thank you for finally responding, I’m sorry I had to taunt you into it, but it was obviously necessary.

    And thank you for at least indirectly admitting your utter hypocrisy here. Congress should avoid social issues, UNLESS they are social issues you support, like repealing DADT which is a social issue congress SHOULD take up, unless the report shows that it would be harmful to do so, in which case you MIGHT reconsider whether they should repeal DADT, but then again, you might want them to go ahead and repeal it anyway.

    When someone shows your point to be blatantly intellectually inconsistent, your best move is not to dig in, or ignore them, but to look at your position and figure out why it is hypocritical, and change it so that it is not.

    If I may offer an alternative, I would suggest that you and GOProud stop pretending you want Congress to ignore social issues unless its true that you want Congress to ignore all social issues.

    Anything less is pure intellectual dishonesty.

    Second. If I may wager a guess, you are not altogether sure where you come down on social issues. You support the “conservative position” on some social issues while supporting the “liberal position” on others.

    I respectfully suggest you have bought into a load of liberal bullshit about what the conservative position on social issues is. While it is true there are some religious people who want to ban homosexuality, and throw women who get abortions into jail, that is not conservatism.

    The social conservative position is that the Federal Government — including the judiciary — has no business deciding these matters, that the Constitution clearly leaves them up to the states and to the people, and that the only time the judiciary should inject themselves into these matters is when someone is having their God given Constitutionally protected civil rights violated, and the only time the other branches of government should intervene is when the judiciary is violating the rights of the states and the people to define these institutions, and decide these issues for themselves. And in terms of the military and DADT the only time the policy should change is when it does not negatively impact recruitment, readiness or effectiveness.

    That’s a pretty easy position to remain consistent to. It allows you to support gay marriage if you want, it allows you to support allowing gays to serve, although it may mean a longer road for getting there. And it allows you to stop ignoring all the evidence your readers present that contradicts your assertions.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 15, 2010 @ 11:34 pm - November 15, 2010

  29. By the way, contrary to media spin, the leaks on the military report do NOT say that repealing DADT wont be harmful, all it says is that a majority of military personnel dont think its a big deal. But there are still sizeable minorities who DO think it will be a big deal. Particularly in the marines, where they continue to live together where members of other branches do not. 40% of marines said they have problems with the repeal.

    That’s a big f****n deal as Joe Biden would say.

    What we need to know now is HOW big of a deal do they think it is? How many would seek to leave the military if the change went into effect? How would it affect recruitment?

    Are more gays going to suddenly start volunteering if significant numbers of people decide to leave the military?

    Its not a popularity contest. Its not a matter of 70% > 30%. If 30% of our military personnel decided not to re-up, thats far more consequential to the military than the comparatively small number of gays who leave or get tossed out because of DADT.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 15, 2010 @ 11:46 pm - November 15, 2010

  30. Sadly, begging won’t work, they can’t wait legislate against you.

    Liberals: 2, Republicans: 0

    And let’s not forget all the nastiness from Chairman Obama’s rabid defense of DOMA and DADT via the DoJ.

    They claim gays are abominations akin to murderers, child molesters, and thieves. They claim that gays will be the downfall of America.

    Sounds more like what the democreeps have said about blacks. BTW, shall we count up the number of times they’ve legislated against blacks?

    Uh…are you just going to ignore that Ann Coulter is very fond of using the word “F***ot” on national television?

    Very fond? She said it once making a jab at the liberal left and, as usual, you liberals proved her point.

    Are you just going to ignore that Bill Richardson called a guy maricón (faggot) on national radio?

    Are you just going to ignore that Pete Stark called another congressman little fruitcake on Capitol Hill?

    Are you just going to ignore that Kathy Malloy, Helen Thomas, Chris Matthews made fun of Jindal’s Indian heritage?

    Are you just going to ignore Hillary Clinton and VP Joe Bigot making fun of Indians in general?

    Are you just going to ignore Chris Matthews making fun of Joe Leiberman’s Jewsih heritage on national TV?

    Are you just going to ignore Rev. Jackson’s “Hymietown” comment?

    Are you just going to ignore Sen. Chris Countrywide Dodd’s praise of Sen. Byrd (D,KKK): ”I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century.”

    Are you just going to ignore Lee Papa saying that black people may decide that rain won’t hurt them and head out to the polls?

    Are you just going to ignore this: http://tinyurl.com/7eaynh

    Are you just going to ignore that your beloved democreeps fought hard against the Civil Rights Act 1866
    Reconstruction Act of 1867
    Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866
    Enforcement Act of 1870
    Force Act of 1871
    Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
    1964 Civil Rights Act
    1965 Voting Rights Acts
    1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act

    Shall I go on, Doop, or are you going to address each?

    Civil Rights Act of 1875
    Civil Rights Act of 1957
    Civil Rights Act of 1960

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 16, 2010 @ 12:03 am - November 16, 2010

  31. AE – I cannot speak for Dan, but your gotcha tactic is too obvious.

    You are putting words in our mouths, not relying on our written record.

    I have no duty to be sucked into your childish MSNBC-like game.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — November 16, 2010 @ 12:21 am - November 16, 2010

  32. Sorry to whore my own blog, but I still haven’t figured out trackback.

    My thoughts.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 16, 2010 @ 12:24 am - November 16, 2010

  33. Bruce,

    Thanks for the name-calling.

    Which words did I put in your mouth?

    Did you not just sign onto a letter asking Republicans not to address social issues?

    Has Dan not been openly advocating that congress pass social issues, namely the repeal of DADT?

    How is asking for consistency being childish?

    How is defending social conservatives from red-herrings, not to mention erroneous arguments childish?

    How is demonstrating that the Reagan coalition is still VERY much needed in order for Republicans to win, using exit polls, election results, and demographic trends to back up my arguments childish?

    What is childish is constantly demanding that the leftists on the board address his points, and then ignoring people who do refute his points with hard facts.

    What is childish is having your argument be SHOWN to be intellectually inconsistent, indeed self-contradictory, and digging in and defending it anyway.

    I can’t remember the nature of the disagreement, but Ash several months back, demonstrated that I was blatantly, demonstrably wrong about something.

    I apologized and acknowledged my error. I didn’t dig in and try to defend myself by accusing him of playing childish MSNBC gotcha games.

    Please tell me where I have put words in your mouth, and I will apologize. And please be sure I was talking about you, and not about Dan. I dont believe I have.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 16, 2010 @ 1:23 am - November 16, 2010

  34. These guys who are worried about GOP “legislating against you” – what don’t they get about LIMITED government? The whole point of limited government is to leave room for all kinds of ways of living. Limited government protects a “hated minority” from being legislated against by a “hateful majority.” If you’re gay, the people you should be afraid of are those that want a more intrusive government.

    Comment by dbear — November 16, 2010 @ 2:05 am - November 16, 2010

  35. The reason they didn’t vote on the bill when they had the super majority is because they didn’t have the political capital to do so and still get health care through. Democrats felt that healthcare reform was more important to the country than DADT.

    No, liberals felt that sucking off the unions and taking over private industry was more important than gays. If libs and gays are really BFFs, how much political capital would it have taken?

    Given that the liberals have made it clear they don’t give a damn what the American people want, why would they let DADT stop them? They did whatever the hell they wanted on what they wanted to do.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 16, 2010 @ 2:47 am - November 16, 2010

  36. AE, I don’t see DADT repeal as a social issue. I favor repeal because every study I have read, going back to the Rand Study in 1993 has shown that open service by gay men and lesbians will not compromise military effectiveness.

    That said, should the Pentagon study contradict those studies, then I would be willing to shift my position. And even repeal advocate Colin Powell seems to support Senator McCain’s position.

    But, should the study offer the conclusion that Sens. Collins & Lieberman believe it will, would you be willing to change your mind?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 16, 2010 @ 3:26 am - November 16, 2010

  37. AE – For your information, my position on DADT (as I have written) is much closer to yours than Dan’s.

    So yes, you are putting words in my mouth.

    And since when is having a healthy discussion (on which Dan and I are not aligned) grounds for your wild-eyed rantings about us “proving our consistency”.

    I apologize for nothing because all you have done in the past 24 hours is invent positions on issues that YOU THINK Dan or I hold and accuse us with your imagination as the only evidence.

    So yes, you are acting very much like MSNBC.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — November 16, 2010 @ 4:31 am - November 16, 2010

  38. After the repeal failed in the Senate, didn’t the WH declare that we should wait to see what the DoD report said? If I’m not mistaken, that is what McCain’s position has been.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 16, 2010 @ 5:31 am - November 16, 2010

  39. AE, I don’t see DADT repeal as a social issue.

    I’m sorry, you’re right, you didn’t say to ignore social issues, you said to ignore gay issues, right in the Title of this post.

    I suppose you dont consider DADT a gay issue either? You refer to it as a gay issue all the time.

    So you are telling people who oppose “gay issues” to ignore them, while you simultaneously advocate for them.

    It’s still just as hypocritical, I just paraphrased poorly.

    That said, should the study offer the conclusion that Sens. Collins & Lieberman believe it will, would you be willing to change your mind?

    Change my mind to what? I don’t oppose the repeal of DADT, I’m fine with repealing it IF it wont hurt recruitment, readiness or effectiveness. EXCEPT, I do oppose distracting the military with this social issue in the middle of two wars. Absolutely.

    But if there is a report that shows that giving troops sensitivity training courses , and training on how to live with your new gay roommate in the middle of a war AREN’T a distraction from the mission, then sure, I would be happy to change my mind about that.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 16, 2010 @ 5:45 am - November 16, 2010

  40. My two (straight) C-bills.

    DADT isn’t a ‘social’ issue, it’s a military issue with social repercussions. i.e. will effectiveness be helped or harmed by rewriting DADT/UCMJ?

    It has already been argued that there’s a negative effect (the translators issue mentioned earlier) it’s also been argued there is a positive effect on morale.

    As to precedent, I’ll again point out that ‘gays in the military’ go clear back to Von Steuben. I also believe in a self correcting military.

    As to DOMA, let’s look at the ammendment language from 2003:
    “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups” (emphasis mine)
    shall be construed to require That’s the key. If CT or MA want to legislate marriage to be between two consenting adults, or four, or two adults and a hamster they can, but California doesn’t have to recognize that hamster, nor can their judges pull a ‘right to hamster’ out of their… hats. (you thought I was going there, didn’t you?)

    (Now, I’m not sure I like Congress dictating what a state’s constitution may be interpreted to say, but the good is not the enemy of the perfect),

    Such an ammendment limits the power of the courts, and limits the power of the Federal legislators. So for this small government conservative it’s worth getting behind it.

    DeMint was right on many levels, So-cons can’t be silent, and many constitutional issues do have social reprecussions. OTOH, arguing about DOMA when the economy is still tumbling is akin to debating changing the locks when the house is on fire.

    Conservatives should put the issues on the back burner. But if the libs do keep trying to slip their victories through. they need to stand and deliever.

    I am amused at the Democrat defense. I mean really guys, Harry Reid tacks DADT repeal on with his DREAM act and tries to stuff it in a budget request, and it’s the Republicans’ fault it died? Keep in mind we had Democrats cross the aisle to vote against it. Why aren’t you applauding the bipartisanship of the vote?

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 16, 2010 @ 7:03 am - November 16, 2010

  41. AE – For your information, my position on DADT (as I have written) is much closer to yours than Dan’s.

    I’m glad it is, if that’s the case then that means you are not being inconsistent. But Dan is not, and I am by no means the only one who sees inconsistency and hypocrisy in this letter.

    At least three other of your readers agreed, as did RedState who rightly point out, “if the Republicans and SoCons didn’t achieve a mandate then what the heck makes you [the signatories] think you did?”, and Allahpundit is utterly perplexed as to what the hell GOProud is even talking about, and zeroes right in on the same contradiction everyone else is: “Is GOProud suggesting that they not bring a bill to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” to the floor if the Pentagon review is favorable to doing so? ” with the obvious unstated answer being, of course they aren’t.

    And since when is having a healthy discussion (on which Dan and I are not aligned) grounds for your wild-eyed rantings about us “proving our consistency”.

    As I said, several of your other readers also see the inconsistency, other much bigger blogs see the inconsistency. But I’m a wild eyed childish MSNBC ranter for pointing out what others are seeing and are complimenting me for having said well, while you are engaging in healthy discussion by calling people who point out widely perceived hypocrisy names. Not sure how that works.

    I apologize for nothing because all you have done in the past 24 hours is invent positions on issues that YOU THINK Dan or I hold and accuse us with your imagination as the only evidence.

    Bruce, Look above. Look at the TITLE of the post that calls for Republicans to “Ignore the gays” and look at the letter that you signed that calls for Republicans to ignore social issues, while this blog, is consistently pushing social issues. Then look above and see that other people see the same thing. Then look at Red State and Hot Air seeing the same and similar things. Thats not my imagination, thats reality. It’s an INHERENTcontradiction.

    That’s the pitfall of belonging to a political group that defines ITSELF in terms of identity-politics. You cant both be active in a gay group called GOProud that exists because of identity politics and social issues and simultaneously tell other people not to push their social preferences. Its INHERENTLY contradictory, its INHERENTLY hypocritical.

    (The same way calling me a childish gotcha wild-eyed MSNBC ranter for seeing what other people see while claiming you are engaging in healthy discussion is inherently hypocritical.)

    But don’t worry, I didn’t ask you to apologize. I simply said what I do when I am wrong. Nobody likes being wrong, and different people handle it differently.

    And by the way, to the extent that the issue gets any attention, expect more people to notice the inherent contradiction too.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 16, 2010 @ 7:34 am - November 16, 2010

  42. AE, I just want to state that I find your arguments lodged here are appropriately pointed and I don’t get the sense that you’re putting words in anyone’s mouth or misstating the relevant aspects of DADT as mostly a social issue… nor the notion of how it plays into the toic… “Memo to GOP: Ignore the Gays”.

    I’m old enough to remember when most -not all- soc cons railed against gays in the military because they thought (as I did) that social experimentation on unit composition was a bad idea. I recall one GP commenter saying something like, “we hire troops to kill, not to make gays feel accepted”. And that brought out the old saw about gays not serving simply equals racial integration which, frankly, still don’t make sense to me.

    Not to go off-topic, but I think a group like GOProud will be best served if it stays on the course of arguing solid conservative fiscal issues and walks away from the temptations of becoming the obverse of HRC and playing identity politics from the Right.

    It’s a tough course to traverse… but the folks behind GOProud are unusually gifted souls and patriots. I’ll take those two qualities over a lot of other important traits any day as harbingers of success.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 16, 2010 @ 10:00 am - November 16, 2010

  43. I apologize for nothing because all you have done in the past 24 hours is invent positions on issues that YOU THINK Dan or I hold and accuse us with your imagination as the only evidence… Comment by Bruce

    (ILC coughs, stays otherwise tactfully silent)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 16, 2010 @ 10:03 am - November 16, 2010

  44. AE, you’ve been a total dick ever since your first comment. You came in with a hostile attitude and you’ve kept it throughout. That’s not like you at all and I have to wonder what’s got your panties in a bunch.

    I don’t know what it is that you don’t get about this. The point is that we’ve got bigger fish to fry than to get caught up in all kinds of other issues. We’ve got a ship that needs rescuing and we don’t need pissing matches over the color of the deck chairs.

    Frankly, I found the RedState piece condescending and insulting, but that’s just me.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 16, 2010 @ 10:30 am - November 16, 2010

  45. Besides a foolish consistency being the hobgobblin of little minds, I am not really sure this whole kerfluffle is about consistency at all.

    Memo to GOP: Ignore the Gays

    The GOP is under reconstruction. It is not a monolith and there is no one place to send the “memo.” The GAYS are diverse and becoming much less monolithic.

    The point, as I understand it, is well taken. We are sailing in a sea of red ink and being battered by gales of unfunded entitlements and giant waves of entitlement debt that are imperiling our ship of state.

    This is not the time to argue and divide over what the sex and color of the figurehead should be and whether its banner should be inclusive of gay marriage.

    I take this to be an argument about priorities in the storm while domestic issues are set aside.

    Of course, most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. But there is that corps of individuals who can only think of decriminalizing drugs or must have same sex marriage now or demand that trans-fats and toys in kids meals be driven from the restaurants. These issues have their points and rights on the public stage, but under the current pressures of survival, they are not very compelling.

    If we are in a triage situation, having a discussion about whether one leg is as good as two is not very productive.

    Comment by Heliotrope — November 16, 2010 @ 10:47 am - November 16, 2010

  46. I used to know a trans-fat. I think “her” name was Melissa.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 16, 2010 @ 10:51 am - November 16, 2010

  47. Helio, the “point” as I understand it is that the GOP needs to stay away from soc con issues like gay marriage, flag burning, English Only, the evils of I-legals, the intrinsic value of school prayer, 10 commandments in the courthouse and the criminalization of dope.

    The current fiscal crisis doesn’t force the GOP to stay away from those entangling and strangling soc con issues… our political saliency requires it.

    The GOP ought to stay away from soc con issues and not let the Party get high-jacked again by well-meaning but hegemonistic soc cons pushing their version of family values down everyone’s throats… just like some of those folks have battled against the push from the secular Left.

    In fact, we should dump the entire Culture War agenda as fast as we can… let the churches in our communities battle for the Christmas nativity scene at City Hall if it’s needed so badly… it isn’t the business of the GOP. Let media pundits play that card for all the ratings and controversy they can manufacture –it isn’t the business of the GOP. I hope the 2012 GOP Platform is void of those kind of vainglory exercises in chest thumping correctness.

    I want the GOP to focus on spending, getting taxes lower, natl security, winning the War on Terror and defederalizing our govt’s priorities & programs so that individual states are once again responsible for what they had been prior to say 1964. No, I don’t want black kids kept out of suburban schools or women pushed into the alleyways with a wire clothes hanger… but I want America to return to the concept of being “THESE United States” instead of “THE United States”… and that’s why Reagan’s message as a Gov, a lecturer and Prez is important to the GOP.

    And I want my frickin’ 3 gallon flush toilet back, too. To Hell with the water needs of the southwest –we’ve got the Gt Lks in our backyard.

    Just sayin’ what I thought the point was….

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 16, 2010 @ 1:51 pm - November 16, 2010

  48. So to reset back to thread topic… the Politico article is pretty good. It correctly identifies the Tea Party movement as “freewheeling” and “leaderless”. It has some choice quotes from Christopher Barron:

    “We’re not talking about pushing social conservatives out of the tea party movement. Those people aren’t only welcome but they’re a critical part of this movement.” said Barron.

    But ideas like the one Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) floated about banning gay teachers [ed.: ???] run counter to the tea party ethos, Barron argues. “How is that limited government?” he said.

    Correct. If it is true that DeMint has floated a (presumably Federal) proposal for banning gay teachers, that would be a violation of limited government, Tea Party principles.

    I like DeMint alot, for his leadership on fiscal issues. I don’t know if he’s really floated such a proposal. If he has, it would be a painful waste of time and energy. CA settled it 32 years ago in the Briggs Initiative fight, where Ronald Reagan famously helped to defeat such a proposal.

    As for DADT repeal: That will also be a waste of time, unless the military say they want it. (For example to help prevent de facto desertions by people who claim they’re gay just to get out.) Let it be a pragmatic question, guided by what the military says it wants. Put the bill forward if they want it for their own effectiveness… otherwise, not. That is the “consistent” position here.

    Long story short: My hope is that *both sides* of these social questions will hold their fire, saving it for the fiscal issues where it will be critically needed to fight the Marxists and Big Government types of either party.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 16, 2010 @ 2:29 pm - November 16, 2010

  49. Or maybe the whole “cease-fire” situation will free us all to look at morality in a new way. Which is actually the old way, because it’s the very way Christian teaching has advised all along.

    Instead of peeking in our neighbors’ windows and obsessing over what they may be doing, maybe we’ll starting “looking at the beam in our own eye,” before trying to take the splinter out of someone else’s. That’s sounder policy for everyone, gay and straight.

    We haven’t gotten very far with the other method. It’s only been used to grow government ever more gigantic, and encouraged us to use it in ever more intrusive ways. It’s “justified” using the tax code as a means of stealing from each other, making thieves of us all. It’s been used to rationalize the use of police-state violence against one another.

    None of which, of course, has anything to do with real conservatism.

    Christian teaching places an emphasis on leadership by example. We haven’t seen much of that lately from “conservatives.” When they use their faith as the rationale for their bully-tactics, they only besmirch it.

    I think the tea parties have opened up the way back to leadership by example. Funny hats and misspelled picket signs aside, they’re on to something.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 16, 2010 @ 3:10 pm - November 16, 2010

  50. Nothing to add, just wanted to be post 100 😉

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 16, 2010 @ 3:49 pm - November 16, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.