Gay Patriot Header Image

Log Cabin (Republicans) Hit Job on Herman Cain

What is old is new again!  The alleged “gay Republican organization” known as Log Cabin has once again decided it is more important to tear down our candidates rather than defeat President Obama’s America-destroying agenda.

Log Cabin – a fully bought-off affliliate of the Radical Gay Left’s Tim Gill — attacked Cain after the GOP candidate appeared this morning on “The View”.

“It is unfortunate that Mr. Cain chose to divert attention away from a solid platform of greater liberty and smaller government by indulging in anti-gay rhetoric. Log Cabin Republicans sincerely hope that Herman Cain is open to hearing the evidence and changing his mind on these issues.”

Chris Barron has an awesome, and gosh…. FACTUAL…. response to this Cain smear campaign by The Professional Gays.

 Cain specifically says on The View that he hasn’t seen enough scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality isn’t a choice and he admits that others have drawn different conclusions.

Finally, far from attacking gay people, Mr. Cain has made it clear that he is willing to be a President for all Americans – including gay people.  Mr. Cain does not support a federal marriage amendment, will not reinstate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, supports policies like the Fair Tax, free market healthcare reform and social security personal savings accounts – all of which would benefit gay and lesbian Americans.

Back in June I wrote about the left, and in particular the gay left’s reaction to Cain:

For the gay left none of this will matter.  All that matters is the group hug.  For the gay left, it isn’t important whether the policies pursued by a candidate or a party actually improve the lives of gay people, all that matters is that they get the pat on the head – the assurance that they are ok.  I don’t need the group hug, nor do I need affirmation from the government that I am ok.  What I need is a President and a Congress that will pursue policies that will make life better for me and my family.

It is time the gay community put real policy before emotional theater, and that is exactly why gay people should be willing to listen to and consider the candidacy of Herman Cain.

The Gay Left, including their paid-off Log Cabin affiliate, are too invested in the Obama Democrats to have a rational response to the Cain candidacy.  Too bad.  But their hatred of conservatives is too blatant to ignore these days.  So at least there is that.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

57 Comments

  1. When did Cain say that he wouldn’t reimpose DADT? I missed that or have forgotten about it.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 4, 2011 @ 2:51 pm - October 4, 2011

  2. http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Herman_Cain_Civil_Rights.htm

    CAIN: If I had my druthers, I never would have overturned “don’t ask/don’t tell” in the first place. Now that they have changed it, I wouldn’t create a distraction trying to turn it over as president. Our men and women have too many other things to be concerned about rather than have to deal with that as a distraction.

    Comment by GayPatriot — October 4, 2011 @ 2:53 pm - October 4, 2011

  3. Really – thats NOT what he said on THE VIEW….Uncle Tom says WHAT?

    Comment by Disgusted American — October 4, 2011 @ 2:58 pm - October 4, 2011

  4. http://republican2012.org/issues/160-herman-cain-on-the-issues.html

    Herman Cain On Gay Issues

    Cain is a staunch opponent of gay marriage and believes that we Americans need to protect the sanctity of marriage as defined between one man and one woman. He does not support civil unions and would reinstate ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ which prohibits homosexuals from serving openly in the military.

    Comment by rusty — October 4, 2011 @ 3:01 pm - October 4, 2011

  5. Oh yeah I remember that now, thanks. I even recall giving him props for his answer which was far better than I expected from most of these Republican candidates.

    Still, I’m not impressed with the hitjob on LCR especially by GOProud. LCR for all of its past faults had a large hand in bringing about the demise of DADT while GOProud was all talk and no action.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 4, 2011 @ 3:03 pm - October 4, 2011

  6. He does not support civil unions and would reinstate ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ which prohibits homosexuals from serving openly in the military.

    Why do you say that? The quote from Cain that Bruce reminded me of says the exact opposite with regards to DADT. I really don’t care what the man thinks about whether it should have been repealed or not, just whether he wants to reimpose it or not since its now gone and will have been at least a year and a half by the time he would potentially take office.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 4, 2011 @ 3:06 pm - October 4, 2011

  7. Once again, the gay left shows that having their egos stroked is more important than the fiscal and economic recovery of the USA.

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2011 @ 3:10 pm - October 4, 2011

  8. Follow the money, John. LCR is bought and paid for by the radical Gay Left. Think about that.

    Comment by GayPatriot — October 4, 2011 @ 3:11 pm - October 4, 2011

  9. I’m not impressed with the hitjob on LCR especially by GOProud.

    I know I’m not the most ejumacated guy around so would you be so kind as to show me the “hitjob on LCR by GOProud”? Cheers.

    http://www.goproud.org/

    Comment by TGC — October 4, 2011 @ 3:19 pm - October 4, 2011

  10. Follow the money, John. LCR is bought and paid for by the radical Gay Left. Think about that.

    If that is true than that doesn’t say much for the “radical Gay Right”. LCR helped bring about the demise of DADT. GOProud did nothing but talk about it. LCR has worked to end DOMA while GOProud lacks courage to take any position at all. Beyond that I could care less what either group believes because I really don’t look at gay groups of any political persuasion when it comes to those matters. Frankly, I also do not see the need for any of these groups on those other matters as well.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 4, 2011 @ 3:28 pm - October 4, 2011

  11. If you can read my comments here TGC, you should be able to read Bruce’s post as well and then you’ll have your answer even if you disagree with me.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 4, 2011 @ 3:29 pm - October 4, 2011

  12. If you can read Bruce’s post AND the links, then you know damn well that the article came from Barron, himself, and not GOProud. I can only, therefore, conclude that you didn’t catch that or you intended to mislead.

    Which is it?

    Comment by TGC — October 4, 2011 @ 3:35 pm - October 4, 2011

  13. Uncle Tom says WHAT?

    That coming from a DNC abused little bitch.

    Comment by TGC — October 4, 2011 @ 3:37 pm - October 4, 2011

  14. ‘Why do you say that?’

    John, the info comes from the Republican2012.org site.

    Comment by rusty — October 4, 2011 @ 3:40 pm - October 4, 2011

  15. [Cain] Now that they have changed DADT, I wouldn’t create a distraction trying to turn it over as president…

    Exactly. DADT ended, because the Pentagon got to a point where it wanted it to end. No Republican President is going to defy them on that. This is all a sideshow. In this election cycle, security issues matter. Economic and financial issues matter. Putting government on a diet, matters. America is too benign on gay issues (or far gone, depending on your viewpoint) for gay issues to matter more than those others. Some people, it sounds like, still need to get real.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2011 @ 3:44 pm - October 4, 2011

  16. Cain is a staunch opponent of gay marriage

    … which is, and should be, a State-level issue for the next few years. As a longtime vocal gay marriage supporter, no I don’t like Cain’s stand here. But he seems like a good guy and I don’t expect him to agree with me 100%… fixing Obama’s damage to the economy is the order of the day.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2011 @ 3:50 pm - October 4, 2011

  17. Some people, it sounds like, still need to get real.

    Gay Inc., it sounds like, still want to matter even though there’s bigger fish to fry, as it were.

    Comment by TGC — October 4, 2011 @ 4:00 pm - October 4, 2011

  18. Cain is a staunch opponent of gay marriage

    And that is more important than his ability to repair the economy how?

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2011 @ 4:21 pm - October 4, 2011

  19. Who is “paying off” Log Cabin? Please let us know.

    Comment by Fred — October 4, 2011 @ 4:42 pm - October 4, 2011

  20. The full statement of the LCR inviting Cain

    (Cain was asked by Behar to clarify his stand on social issues and DADT but didn’t respond but did go off on his GAY is a choice)

    Log Cabin Republicans to Herman Cain: We Can Show You the Science

    (Washington, DC) – Log Cabin Republicans invite GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain to meet to discuss the science of sexual orientation and the benefits of repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ after his having made such remarks on ABC’s The View today.

    “If Herman Cain truly wants to see the science proving that sexual orientation is not a choice, Log Cabin Republicans would be happy to show it to him,” said Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper. “The claim that a person chooses to be gay or lesbian has been discredited by every major professional medical organization, starting with the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association. An individual’s orientation is no more a choice than the color of his skin or whether he is left-handed, and too many people have been hurt because of failed attempts to change the way they were born.”

    “I would also be happy to discuss my experiences as a current Army reserve officer and combat veteran, and the testimony of military leadership that the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ strengthens our armed forces and furthers America’s national security interests. It is unfortunate that Mr. Cain chose to divert attention away from a solid platform of greater liberty and smaller government by indulging in anti-gay rhetoric. Log Cabin Republicans sincerely hope that Herman Cain is open to hearing the evidence and changing his mind on these issues.”
    Date: 10/4/2011
    Copyright 2011 Log Cabin Republicans

    Comment by rusty — October 4, 2011 @ 4:53 pm - October 4, 2011

  21. I am not up to speed in playing the “gotcha” game on Cain. If he was going to reinstate DA/DT before he was not going to reinstate it, so be it.

    Anyone insisting on a full fledged support of the entire gay agenda has cranial-recto-inversion and is trying to peek out at the world though his navel.

    I expect Cain to undergo continual proctological examination by those who are rooting for him to trip and fall. I expect their vetting to be as intense as looking the other way was for Obama.

    Cain is at the beginning of a long learning curve. I fully expect him to be a quick learner and to gain the habit of letting grumpy dogs bitch.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 4, 2011 @ 5:00 pm - October 4, 2011

  22. Obama & Biden are staunch opponents of gay marriage.

    Only one major national political figure of any Presidential ticket has supported gay marriage in US history —> Richard Cheney.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — October 4, 2011 @ 5:03 pm - October 4, 2011

  23. Know what, though? I couldn’t give a good goddamn if he wants to reinstate DADT OR believes gays are born that way or not. Who cares? Let him do it. Gay Inc. Is goanna whine, piss and moan anyway. Getting your tampon all wadded up and attacking your own is pissing people off.

    Get over yourself.

    Comment by TGC — October 4, 2011 @ 5:12 pm - October 4, 2011

  24. But Bruce, Obama’s thoughts on gay marriage are ‘evolving. . .’

    from a commentary of Sarah Hinn @ the Indiana Daily Student

    Many, myself included, wish he would go further and publicly support gay marriage. That’s what this country needs — a leader who is committed to true equality.

    But Obama’s gay rights résumé is impressive. He successfully repealed the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy; he’s the reason the soldier could openly ask the question at the debate.

    And his belief in civil unions is a good step. It’s not the end result I’d like to see, but most states haven’t even achieved such progress. A civil union would allow gay couples to have the same legal benefits heterosexual couples enjoy.

    Obama also ordered the Justice Department to stop enforcing a law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

    Even though the president’s biggest group of supporters — young Democrats — is largely in favor of gay marriage, Obama’s unwillingness to commit to it probably won’t hurt him in the election. In fact, it could win him votes from moderates who support equal legal rights but aren’t willing to toss the term “marriage” into it.

    Even if Obama’s stance receives lukewarm support among his fan base, it’s not like people are going to choose another candidate because of the issue. Obama’s Republican opponents don’t support gay marriage at all; voting for them would be taking a step in the wrong direction.

    Some political analysts think Obama will decide to support gay marriage, but only after the 2012 election, when it can’t hurt his chance of re-election. If the president’s current stance is a way to win votes, he’s making a politically smart, if morally ambiguous, move.

    Comment by rusty — October 4, 2011 @ 5:43 pm - October 4, 2011

  25. Some political analysts think Obama will decide to support gay marriage, but only after the 2012 election, when it can’t hurt his chance of re-election. If the president’s current stance is a way to win votes, he’s making a politically smart, if morally ambiguous, move.

    Gay marriage is the least of Obama’s problems right now, and isn’t likely to mean diddly-squat to his chances at re-election.

    Comment by Eric Olsen — October 4, 2011 @ 5:48 pm - October 4, 2011

  26. Gay marriage is the least of Obama’s problems right now, and isn’t likely to mean diddly-squat to his chances at re-election.

    So True Eric. . . but he is still looking for money.

    Just like Cain is pandering to folk with his ‘GAY is a choice’ platform.

    Comment by rusty — October 4, 2011 @ 5:57 pm - October 4, 2011

  27. What this really show is that there is a danger of a group going national.
    When we were just the one and only LCC there was never a doubt about our commitment to conservative principles. Our endorsement for Ronald Reagan for President in 1980 was a front page headline of the National Enquirer. The downside of going national is that it has attracted all sorts of persons, RINOS, moderate Democrats who were told they think like Republicans. This happened in 1992 to a university student who joined and while we were registering voters, particularly Republicans, he was telling people they should vote for Clinton. I voted to have him removed from our A.D. and the County Committee, as well as another, club member who was on the LARCCC and sported Clinton. Incidents like their comment on Herman Cain, is something that should be expected until there is a TEA Party within the LCR.

    Comment by Roberto — October 4, 2011 @ 6:08 pm - October 4, 2011

  28. No one has yet answered my question about why is gay marriage is more important than fixing the economy, which I first asked several days ago.

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2011 @ 7:19 pm - October 4, 2011

  29. If you can read Bruce’s post AND the links, then you know damn well that the article came from Barron, himself, and not GOProud. I can only, therefore, conclude that you didn’t catch that or you intended to mislead.

    When Barron makes a public statement on a political matter he represents GOProud, even if he claims otherwise. It’s no different than how whatever I say in public can reflect upon my employer as well. Hence why folks can be and indeed are fired when they say something in public that their employer doesn’t care for. I cut Barron no more slack than I myself get as well as how most people would look at any organization whose top leader makes statements. Given Bruce’s role in GOProud that goes for his post as well.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 4, 2011 @ 7:53 pm - October 4, 2011

  30. John, the info comes from the Republican2012.org site.

    Okay. It looks like the webmaster for that site needs to do an update then because I’ve seen the video clip of Cain making the remarks that Bruce quoted.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 4, 2011 @ 7:55 pm - October 4, 2011

  31. Obama also ordered the Justice Department to stop enforcing a law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

    If this were true than it would be an impeachable offense. Presidents do not have the power to make such decisions under our system. However, since the Obama DoJ instead just withdrew defending DOMA in court and turned such defense over to Congress, which it is allowed to do by law, all while still enforcing the law (officially at least), your point here is moot.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 4, 2011 @ 8:34 pm - October 4, 2011

  32. When Barron makes a public statement on a political matter he represents GOProud, even if he claims otherwise.

    BULL. The “public statement” was made on his personal blog and not on the GOProud site. Ergo, it was his and his alone no matter how desperately you try to make it otherwise. It’s patently absurd to call it a GOProud hit piece when it clearly wasn’t.

    No matter how badly you want it to be so, this apple sure as hell ain’t no orange. Never gonna be one either.

    Comment by TGC — October 4, 2011 @ 9:18 pm - October 4, 2011

  33. Gotta say, the more Mittens panders on social security, ethanol subsidies, and global warming… the better Cain looks.

    Comment by V the K — October 4, 2011 @ 9:58 pm - October 4, 2011

  34. No matter how badly you want it to be so, this apple sure as hell ain’t no orange. Never gonna be one either.

    Actually I don’t really care. You are the one who seems to be worked up about it. I’m quite confident that most people would find the caveats and distinctions you wish to make in separating them to be meaningless. The fact remains that what the leaders & representatives of organizations and companies say in public is a reflection upon who they work for. Hence why when they say something inappropriate they are disciplined, which can include termination. I’m also amused by all of this because if it were, say Joe Solmonese’ “personal blog” with statements you disagreed about you’d be singing a very different tune.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 4, 2011 @ 10:04 pm - October 4, 2011

  35. #28- V the K,
    “No one has yet answered my question about why is gay marriage is more important than fixing the economy, which I first asked several days ago.”

    I’d like someone to answer that question as well.

    Comment by Richard Bell — October 4, 2011 @ 10:52 pm - October 4, 2011

  36. Those of us from Georgia who have listened to Herman Cain for years on his radio talk show *KNOW* that he is the only real candidate in the field who will be a superior President compared to those on the current roster. Let people get their panties in a wad over what he might believe when it comes to social issues, but he has said (repeatedly, ad nauseum) that his personal beliefs will not impair his judgment when it comes to decisions that will affect ALL Americans. So all the single issue voters out there can continue to rail on this one subject; it doesn’t hold a match to his true, pure American character and his ability to do the things to make us great again and lift up ALL Americans.

    Comment by The Other Peter H — October 4, 2011 @ 11:14 pm - October 4, 2011

  37. First and foremost, the entire sophomoric piece is riddled with goading the impressionable far Reich into a diversionary mindset that the corresponding source is affiliated with an entity that the reader can clearly throw a few hissy fits at, e.g. Log Cabin. Yes! Yes! Let the author discredit the messenger though guilt by association, because that’s how intellectually honest folks construct their rebuttals. *roll eyes*

    Cain specifically says on The View that he hasn’t seen enough scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality isn’t a choice and he admits that others have drawn different conclusions.

    So, Mr Cain has “examined” the other side, if there is any, which establishes a reasonable doubt in his mind that being gay is somehow a choice! Really? Really my gay Teanuts friends? Here is a guy who doesn’t even consider your sexual orientation as something you are born with — your very identity — yet you’re down on your knees fondling his marbles!

    It’s as astounding as watching a Jew being dragged into a gas chamber while admiring the disciplinary regiment of Nazi soldiers. Oh, I’m sorry, did my hyperbole get caught going down your throat?

    Finally, far from attacking gay people, Mr. Cain has made it clear that he is willing to be a President for all Americans – including gay people.

    Yes, and of course, Cain is promoting very identity that makes you who you are, regardless of your political affiliation, as something parallel to a teenage’s libel mood. So may I ask on which days of the week, you “choose” to be gay and on what days, you wish to be anything other than chasing the boys? How risible!

    Mr. Cain does not support [the reinstatement of] Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell…

    Yes, but if the degrading law still was on the books, he would have gladly kept it which tells me more than enough about his anti-gay views.

    […] supports policies like the Fair Tax, free market healthcare reform and social security personal savings accounts – all of which would benefit gay and lesbian Americans.

    Oh ya, the verbal gymnasts at the gay-hating congregation of Conservative tent once again gathered to deviate from the gist of the discussion, which is Cain’s statement regarding being a gay is an inherit trait or can be wiped off like a nail polish. A designed grade school argument.

    For the gay left none of this will matter. All that matters is the group hug. For the gay left, it isn’t important whether the policies pursued by a candidate or a party actually improve the lives of gay people…

    Indeed, how can it not be. I mean, except when the candidate doesn’t even acknowledge your very core identity. For you confused gay people, I suggest you check out the title (and domain) of the website before breaking into hist of dismissing your sexuality against your economical views.

    a mind, indeed, reels.

    all that matters is that they get the pat on the head

    As opposed to the far loons getting a boot on their necks! Meow boys.

    Comment by TeanutsTheEndofAmerica — October 4, 2011 @ 11:28 pm - October 4, 2011

  38. Mr. Teanuts, I approved your comment because in your anger and bile, you manifest a level of intolerance and prejudice that characterizes many gay leftists who remain clueless to the real nature of American conservatism.

    Now, unlike my co-blogger I haven’t endorsed Mr. Cain nor is he even on the list of candidates I’m considering as the California GOP primary approaches, but let me ask you this, why should it matter that this accomplished businessman “doesn’t even consider [our] sexual orientation as something you are born with — [our] very identity”. Are you saying that your sexuality defines your identity? My “very identity” happens to far more complex than my sexual orientation.

    And why should it matter what the President of the United States thinks about my identity? His job is to administer the federal government, defend the Constitution and protect the United States from enemies. My personal life, my very identity, as you put it, should be none of his business.

    As you attempt to rebut my co-blogger’s arguments (not all of which I agree with),blind to how smaller government benefits gay people, you’re the one engaging in verbal gymnastics, attempting to show that you just have to have a president who validates us as gay people. Indeed, you refuse to even consider his points, focusing on the candidate’s failure to acknowledge our identity.

    We’re comfortable enough in our skin that we don’t need a president to validate our identity.

    So, no, Bruce is not deviating from the gist of the discussion. Indeed, he’s sticking to it, focusing on the core issue facing America today: should we turn to government to solve our problems or should we trust to private institutions and individuals?

    It’s unfortunate that you come to a gay conservative blog and remain so consumed with your animus to conservatives that you can’t even consider why we believe broad conservative policies are better for gay Americans, indeed, better for all Americans.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 4, 2011 @ 11:53 pm - October 4, 2011

  39. It’s unfortunate that you come to a gay conservative blog and remain so consumed with your animus to conservatives that you can’t even consider why we believe broad conservative policies are better for gay Americans, indeed, better for all Americans.

    It may be unfortunate, Dan, but it is hardly surprising.

    He speaks of getting “a pat on the head,” yet seems to be content to receive just that (and only that) from those incompetent, soon-to-be-unemployed narcissistic bullshit artists for whom he so gleefully slaps on the knee pads.

    “TheEndofAmerica” should read, “TheDeathoftheUnicorn”

    Comment by Eric Olsen — October 5, 2011 @ 7:15 am - October 5, 2011

  40. It’s unfortunate that you come to a gay conservative blog and remain so consumed with your animus to conservatives that you can’t even consider why we believe broad conservative policies are better for gay Americans, indeed, better for all Americans.

    In other words, gay marriage is not more important than economic recovery, fiscal solvency, and national security combined.

    I am still waiting for rusty, John AGJ, Brendan one of the others to make the opposite case.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2011 @ 8:49 am - October 5, 2011

  41. Thanks to “TeanutsTheEndofAmerica” I have been exposed to how one “victim” of the “oppressed” minority spews his invective at those he considers sell outs to the core of the “oppressed” minority.

    It ain’t pretty. I am more used to listening to the radicalized black, but the twisted message is about the same.

    Thanks for letting “TeanutsTheEndofAmerica” have his say. I would love to read the curriculum in his re-education camp.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 5, 2011 @ 8:55 am - October 5, 2011

  42. TGC,

    BULL. The “public statement” was made on his personal blog and not on the GOProud site. Ergo, it was his and his alone no matter how desperately you try to make it otherwise. It’s patently absurd to call it a GOProud hit piece when it clearly wasn’t.

    When I make even a comment about heath care, I make a point of including the disclaimer that I don’t speak for my employer, nor would they want me to.

    If Barrone is going to make statements that related directly to his job, then he should include the same disclaimer. Even though I don’t take my job home with me, I hold to this rule.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 5, 2011 @ 12:45 pm - October 5, 2011

  43. 37: Nioce demonstration of Godwin’s Law, pal. Whatever point you are trying to make here it’s safe bet that you’ve lost most folks as soon as they read “far Reich” in your comments. For all of its flaws, and Lord knows it has many, there is no comparison between the GOP and the Nazis. And for the record, the same applies to those who like to compare Obama to Lenin or the DNC to the CPUSSR. Trust me, the DNC has many flaws I could spend hours listing but it hasn’t degenerated to that point yet. Ditto for the GOP.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 5, 2011 @ 3:28 pm - October 5, 2011

  44. why should it matter that this accomplished businessman “doesn’t even consider [our] sexual orientation as something you are born with — [our] very identity”. Are you saying that your sexuality defines your identity? My “very identity” happens to far more complex than my sexual orientation.

    I do not entirely agree with you because it does have bearing on the man’s judgment and outlook on the world, both of which have direct influence upon how he would act as president. The same would be true if Cain held a “pro-gay” viewpoint on the matter as well. We are electing someone to fill the most powerful office in the land, if not still the world, and whatever he or she may think about this matter or any other is fair game to all voters in making their decision whom to select as their choice.

    As for the rest of that commentor’s remarks and the overall manner in which they expressed their disapproval, they ain’t worth spit so I won’t waste my time on them.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 5, 2011 @ 3:33 pm - October 5, 2011

  45. I am still waiting for rusty, John AGJ, Brendan one of the others to make the opposite case.

    You’re waiting for a response from me to a strawman argument that you’ve constructed? Get comfy because I usually ignore them as a waste of my time. I pick and choose my own arguments, thank you, and not anyone else.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 5, 2011 @ 3:35 pm - October 5, 2011

  46. If your political position is, “I would rather see Obama re-elected than replaced with a Republican who had a sound economic plan but opposes gay marriage,” it isn’t a Strawman.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2011 @ 6:51 pm - October 5, 2011

  47. I do believe that most of the GOP candidates “do not stand up for the men and women in uniform” when those wearing them are gay or lesbian – espeically openly so. …. Most of the GOP candidates I think would be better than Obama on many issues, particularly regarding the economy, but that too doesn’t mitigate this. No, 2012 is shaping up to be yet another year where I look at both sides and am just disgusted with the lot of them. I can’t say for certain until next November, but it also will probably be the first time ever I vote Independent in a presidential election.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 3, 2011 @ 12:19 am – October 3,

    So, the issue wasn’t gay marriage, but the principle is the same. You stated you would vote to keep Barack Obama in office and let him sledgehammer the economy for another four years rather than vote for a Republican with a superior economic plan who didn’t pass your litmus test on a gay issue.

    Comment by V the K — October 5, 2011 @ 10:17 pm - October 5, 2011

  48. @Blatt

    Mr. Teanuts, I approved your comment…

    Good to see the policy of censorship is still alive and kicking in the landscape of American blog-sphere, or least its vacuous threats of political bowdlerization is being practiced at some level.

    Now, unlike my co-blogger I haven’t endorsed Mr. Cain nor is he even on the list of candidates I’m considering as the California GOP primary approaches

    Impertinent to the blog entry and the points I brought up, but that doesn’t stop you from proselytizing, does it?

    […] why should it matter that this accomplished businessman…

    The guy wasn’t even a stellar leader for the first 8 years when he took over — his record with respect to sales, revenue, and perpetuating the company on a path of “contraction” is a testament to his intransigent and single-minded methodology to handle the business. No, I’m not going to bash him as an utter failure; he did certain things right to pull the company out of its slump, but certainly, he wasn’t what some people are desperately trying to make him to be.

    Nonetheless, I can’t care less about his dabble in the business world, whether as a successful candidate or otherwise. Problem with folks who laud business faculty as a litmus test of a qualified candidate to the highest public office is that the world of politics is much different than of the world of business. The former requires a broad consensus among coalition of ideologies while the latter is executed through an administration of an iron fist.

    Being cognizant of various corporate or political parameters is just that; it doesn’t mean you are automatically going to perform superbly on the other side of the field. Being a skilled politician doesn’t make you a versed CEO either. Just because someone unilaterally bellows into a microphone in an empty room, filibustering himself, it doesn’t make him a qualified candidate.

    He is a radio pundit; I don’t trust his breed because the majority of drivel spewed on these shows are substandard pomp and show. When you spend several hours each day echoing through your own voice, you’ll end up becoming another blowhard with myopic world view who lacks major refinement, and it shows in most of his interviews, as much as he tries to present himself as a level headed guy with some ideas that is usually marinated as “common sense.”

    I’m just glad he finally seems to be passing the stage of, “When I get elected, I’ll come around forming a council to explore new solutions.” People like Cain who are dismissive of subtleties are bound to inanely omit the wide spectrum of nuances that might in fact be aiding them to see the bigger picture, and therefore, effectively discover a comprehensive solution. That being said, Cain’s thought processing is structurally logical although only for a segment of an issue that he has seemingly bothered to ruminate upon.

    Are you saying that your sexuality defines your identity? My “very identity” happens to far more complex than my sexual orientation.

    Yes, my heterosexuality is a “part” of who I am. Let me put it this way, assuming I’m married to my wife, such union (taking out the politics and the law that governs it for a second) signifies my relationship and deep emotional connections towards the other person, which pretty much what makes us inadvertently human. She becomes me, and I become her, unified as one.

    Now, if a candidate vehemently refuses to even acknowledge my sexual orientation, in this case a straight man, then what does it tell me about his mentality toward my relationship — the very thing that I, as a person, cherish so dearly? Therefore, when you flippantly brush such predicament off, it goes to show the height of plausible deniability that you are willing to clench in order to down play his flawed perception of who you are.

    We are a sexual being; if you suggest that my relationship is worth stepping all over, then you are attacking me, my relationship and a big part of who I am. Of course, for the majority of readers the response is clear, “stop sulking.”

    And yes, your very being is more multifarious than just your sexual orientation, but your sexual orientation is veritably an important part of what makes you, you, and without it, you are simply being systematically reduced to a constant guilt trip by those who deny you of your essensia. That’s Stockholm Syndrome.

    His job is to administer the federal government, defend the Constitution and protect the United States from enemies. My personal life, my very identity, as you put it, should be none of his business.

    Indeed, their responsibility is to defend the “constitution” where everyone’s liberty and personal freedom is to be protected — the very tenet our Conservative friends beat the pulpits on a daily basis for. Yet, you have no problem when the same government, on a federal, state, or local level, engages in policies that clearly contradicts such adorned axiom.

    As you attempt to rebut my co-blogger’s arguments (not all of which I agree with)…

    The title of the entry is about an alleged erroneous response of a gay-rights advocacy group to Cain’s attempt to fall on a default position through omission. The only thing your co-blogger managed to do was to link the challengers, the Log Cabin Republicans, to another Left wing cabal in order to elicit a reflexive reaction from the regular readers without actually rebutting anything.

    The correct response would have been to offer Mr. Cain factual research studies done by every other professional medical or physiological community, that clearly suggests homosexuality, and more inclusively sexual orientation, is not a choice, but rather something that you are born with it. Unless, you and your co-blogger wish to challenge the notion, then in that case, I must say all hopes are lost.

    People like Cain are always inclined to open their ignoramus mouth and regurgitate every piece of droller he happens to pick up at some campaign stop. It doesn’t inspire much confidence in the rest of us, when a candidate Cain, who is being hurled as a character with acumen, doesn’t even bother researching a subject matter that is readily available to any person with more than two brain cells before offering a grade school concocted flummery as a response just pander to his misguided constituents.

    Indeed, you refuse to even consider his points, focusing on the candidate’s failure to acknowledge our identity.

    Being aware of his philosophy in governance or proposed policies is not the topic in which this entry was based upon. This is about Cain making an egregious remark regarding homosexuality. Please, try to keep up.

    We’re comfortable enough in our skin that we don’t need a president to validate our identity.

    I know it and you know it that acceptance of gays and lesbians by our government is the goal that all of you seek. You might quibble that you’ve chosen a different path to reach your goal. However, you will never achieve it if you cease to dispel blatant falsehood, and this is an opportunity to sway a candidate’s opinion who, through his own admission, feigns ignorance. Unfortunately, you still resort to diversionary tactics, i.e. bringing about the importance of his Conservative views trumping misplaced comment, just to conceal his short coming on this matter. Why?

    Espousing his economical views is a different topic. Quit trying to pretend you have no sake in having a president, and a country, that sees your community as an equal to your other fella countrymen.

    should we turn to government to solve our problems or should we trust to private institutions and individuals?

    A generalized one-dimensional statement that begs no rational response. I know such charade is en vogue on all partisan Left and Right pundit websites, and frankly, I have no desire to engage in such vacant discussion.

    It’s unfortunate that you come to a gay conservative blog and remain so consumed with your animus to conservatives that you can’t even consider why we believe broad conservative policies are better for gay Americans, indeed, better for all Americans.

    Just because I come to a Conservative or a Liberal blog, it doesn’t mean I have to adhere to either tenet or worse, alter my belief to match the prevailing politics of a place where I’m commenting at. Your economical philosophy is absolutely impertinent to the gay inequality that has its roots in social reform. Your action clearly brands you a mutinous against your own kind.

    Comment by TeanutsTheEndofAmerica — October 5, 2011 @ 10:22 pm - October 5, 2011

  49. So, the issue wasn’t gay marriage, but the principle is the same. You stated you would vote to keep Barack Obama in office and let him sledgehammer the economy for another four years rather than vote for a Republican with a superior economic plan who didn’t pass your litmus test on a gay issue.

    Actually I’ve only said that I would probably vote for Obama if the GOP nominee were Bachmann, Huckabee or Santorum. As for the rest of the current GOP crop I’ve so far stated I will probably vote Independent instead. Why involves more than just “gay issues” but a general disgust for the the overall direction the social cons which to take the country and one I will not support. Keep up.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 6, 2011 @ 1:25 am - October 6, 2011

  50. When I read Teanuts, I just see another insecure gay lefty crying out for Government to validate his existence, resentful and threatened by those who don’t need or want such government validation.

    Comment by V the K — October 6, 2011 @ 6:18 am - October 6, 2011

  51. Shorter John AGJ: My gay social issues trump economics and national security.

    Comment by V the K — October 6, 2011 @ 6:19 am - October 6, 2011

  52. a general disgust for the the overall direction the social cons which to take the country

    Individual rights, self-reliance, strengthening families, getting Government out of our daily lives … what a crazy agenda.

    Comment by V the K — October 6, 2011 @ 6:22 am - October 6, 2011

  53. Oh, gee, whaddaya know? One of those radical, tea party social cons AGJ is so afraid of opposes her state’s proposed anti-gay marriage amendment.

    Comment by V the K — October 6, 2011 @ 8:28 am - October 6, 2011

  54. Shorter John AGJ: My gay social issues trump economics and national security.

    Nope, but keep telling yourself that if it helps.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 6, 2011 @ 3:50 pm - October 6, 2011

  55. Individual rights, self-reliance, strengthening families, getting Government out of our daily lives … what a crazy agenda.

    Nice slogans. Pity that about half of them are just mere buzzwords that social con politicos use to get elected while having no intention of upholding. Two out of four is okay I suppose but not good enough. Social con politicos are as bad as their liberal colleagues when it comes to Big Brother, they only differ in what they want use the power of the State for. Peas in a pod.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 6, 2011 @ 3:54 pm - October 6, 2011

  56. Oh, gee, whaddaya know? One of those radical, tea party social cons AGJ is so afraid of opposes her state’s proposed anti-gay marriage amendment.

    That’s nice. She can join the bare handful of other Republican politicos. Perhaps she can make a call to her colleagues in New Hampshire and Minnesota, along with those in her home state of North Carolina. I’m sure that AFA, FRC, NOM and their affliates will be expressing their “concern” shortly in that peculiar way of theirs that brings joy to the hearts of some when folks think of social conservativsm. Of course SSM/civil unions or even the whole slew of “gay issues” isn’t concern here, it’s the whole social con agenda as expressed by their leaders.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — October 6, 2011 @ 4:02 pm - October 6, 2011

  57. Good to see the policy of censorship is still alive and kicking in the landscape of American blog-sphere, or least its vacuous threats of political bowdlerization is being practiced at some level.

    Wow, he must be posting this from WallStreet. His knowlege of protection from censorship is as complete as the average protestor’s knowlege of government.

    For those of us in America, it comes down to this. “You have a right to freedom of speech. You do not have a right to my microphone.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 7, 2011 @ 8:10 am - October 7, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.