Gay Patriot Header Image

California GOP Endorses Openly Gay Candidate for State Assembly

About 20 minutes ago, received an e-mail from an acquaintance, parroting a liberal talking point, telling me that extremists had taken over the GOP.  Not long after that, opened an e-mail providing evidence showing a much more tolerant party.

In the latter, Scott Schmidt reported that “the Republican Party of Los Angeles County and the California Republican Party” had endorsed West Hollywood small business owner Brad Torgan. . . .  Torgan is only one of seventeen non-incumbent candidates for the State Assembly to receive the State Party’s nod before the June 5, 2012 election.  The endorsement will be published alongside the Candidate’s name on the sample ballot sent to voters before the election.”

Oh, and Brad Torgan is gay.

And he supports the unifying small government principles which bring together most Republicans, heralding the endorsement with these word, “I will fight for limited government, fundamental freedoms and cleaning up Sacramento not because those are Republican values, but because they are what the people of the fiftieth district, and the State of California, are asking for.

Sounds like the kind of guy I can support.  And for whom I will most definitely be voting.  (This is my district after all.)

Share

17 Comments

  1. I know Brad. he’s a great guy who do good work up in Sacramento.

    Comment by JSF — March 12, 2012 @ 6:45 pm - March 12, 2012

  2. JSF, seems to be my impression as well. Based on what I know, I expect to endorse him, but first need to confirm he is a much a free marketeer as he sounds. Should the impression hold once I’ve examined his record, his will both my endorsement — and my financial support.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 12, 2012 @ 6:51 pm - March 12, 2012

  3. Brad Torgan

    Wasn’t that the henchman in Manos, the Hands of Fate?

    Comment by TGC — March 12, 2012 @ 9:10 pm - March 12, 2012

  4. This ought to send Little Kiwi over the edge.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — March 12, 2012 @ 9:32 pm - March 12, 2012

  5. I hope he wins: California needs all the help it can get.

    Comment by Geena — March 13, 2012 @ 9:59 am - March 13, 2012

  6. I think this is great–good for you all. But does it prove anything about today’s Republican Party? Not so sure. Hasn’t the Cali. GOP run a few gay candidates against Pelosi in the past? I can’t claim to be an expert on CA politics, but I’m assuming any assembly district with West Hollywood within its boundaries is not going to be a competitive race for the GOP. So why not support a gay guy? It’s sort of like saying the Democrats endorsed Congressman Gene Taylor in Mississippi, and thinking that proved something about the Democrats as a whole.

    If you want a better example of what I would call a more typical Republican stance on the issues: New Hampshire. I’d certainly like to see how many of you are willing to admit that the only thing standing in the way of the GOP repealing the NH marriage law is Democratic Governor John Lynch. Now, I get that there are some Republican lawmakers in NH that will vote no on the repeal. Good for them. But like this endorsement, they’re the exception, not the rule.

    Comment by Mike — March 13, 2012 @ 11:33 am - March 13, 2012

  7. If you want a better example of what I would call a more typical Republican stance on the issues: New Hampshire. I’d certainly like to see how many of you are willing to admit that the only thing standing in the way of the GOP repealing the NH marriage law is Democratic Governor John Lynch. Now, I get that there are some Republican lawmakers in NH that will vote no on the repeal. Good for them. But like this endorsement, they’re the exception, not the rule.

    Comment by Mike — March 13, 2012 @ 11:33 am – March 13, 2012

    Your language betrays the point, Mike.

    You have made abundantly clear that your predetermined conclusion is that all Republicans hate gays and that all gays should blindly support Obama Party members.

    Hence your request has nothing to do with how the politicians in question view gays or how they actually act; it’s just your hatred of their political affiliation and your attempt to silence, shut up, and attack other people who disagree with you. You make clear in this example that regardless of how Republicans vote or act, they are always antigay, and that’s just how it is. You have no interest in intelligent debate, nor are you capable of it; today marriage bans are bad and their supporters are evil, yesterday they were good and their supporters were awesome, and tomorrow they’ll be whatever your Barack Obama needs them to be at that point in time, just like how harassment and discrimination against gays was always bad until the Obama Party base said it was OK.

    To repeat a now-classic:

    The unspoken assumption – and Ann Althouse helped me see this – is that there is some sort of consistent principle which the left applies. There isn’t. Other than the Goal. Everything else is ad hoc and contingent. Yesterday we have no problem with intemperate language – against conservatives. Today we are outraged by intemperate language – against leftists. Yesterday we offer an apology and that should be the end of it. Today we demand an apology and when you offer it it’s not good enough. Yesterday we’re outraged you didn’t include our pet activist in your hearing. Today she’s the only one speaking at our press conference.

    The left is simply grabbing whatever rhetorical and emotional weapon is available for attacking anyone who would stand in the way of their agenda. So to say “only liberal apologies are accepted”, while maybe true, is to assume there’s some sort of consistent principle here. There isn’t.

    Comment by Rick67 — March 5, 2012 @ 7:02 pm – March 5, 2012

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 13, 2012 @ 3:09 pm - March 13, 2012

  8. So by Mike’s lack of logic, actions he agrees with are aberrations, while those he doesn’t agree with represent ‘the party as a whole’?

    Way to keep those illusions up. Now when a Republican President says that gays should be killed or Clarence Thomas says that an undesirable group should be sterilized, then maybe your viewpoints might be true.

    JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae—in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion…. – Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg

    Comment by The Livewire — March 14, 2012 @ 8:35 am - March 14, 2012

  9. So yes, then, Democrat John Lynch is the only thing standing between the NH GOP and their desire to repeal a legislatively approved marriage law, and invalidate same-sex marriages throughout New Hampshire. Thanks for tacitly admitting that in your responses guys.

    Comment by Mike — March 14, 2012 @ 10:51 am - March 14, 2012

  10. Also: LOL@Harold Ford. Did you miss the part where the guy was humiliated nationally for trying to angle into the NY senate race, largely because of his ridiculous “change of heart” on gay marriage? And Jesse Jackson? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Is it 1983? Clearly, a discrimination suit against Jesse Jackson is the same thing as a party in the state legislature trying to repeal a law. A law I might add, that passed only because Democrats won the legislature and the governorship, though that’s a fact I suspect no one here wants to recognize.

    Comment by Mike — March 14, 2012 @ 11:21 am - March 14, 2012

  11. So yes, then, Democrat John Lynch is the only thing standing between the NH GOP and their desire to repeal a legislatively approved marriage law, and invalidate same-sex marriages throughout New Hampshire. Thanks for tacitly admitting that in your responses guys.

    Comment by Mike — March 14, 2012 @ 10:51 am – March 14, 2012

    Actually, none of us said anything of the sort.

    Which makes you a liar, Mike. It also illustrates that you will lie and misrepresent statements to suit your prejudiced outcome — which makes you a completely unreliable and non-objective source.

    Meanwhile:

    Also: LOL@Harold Ford. Did you miss the part where the guy was humiliated nationally for trying to angle into the NY senate race, largely because of his ridiculous “change of heart” on gay marriage? And Jesse Jackson? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Is it 1983? Clearly, a discrimination suit against Jesse Jackson is the same thing as a party in the state legislature trying to repeal a law. A law I might add, that passed only because Democrats won the legislature and the governorship, though that’s a fact I suspect no one here wants to recognize.

    Comment by Mike — March 14, 2012 @ 11:21 am – March 14, 2012

    So by your standards, you are tacitly admitting that it is perfectly all right for Obama Party politicians to support marriage bans and discriminate against gays.

    Which rather demonstrates the point. Your arguments are not based on objective facts or evaluation, but are nothing more than pure partisan bigotry and hatred on your part.

    Furthermore, Mike, you do the gay and lesbian community no favors by ascribing your own petty bigotry and hatred toward Republicans to all gays. You only make it clear that gays and lesbians then are irrational bigots who will oppose Republicans regardless of what they do and who will irrationally support Obama Party members regardless of what they do.

    Gays are better than that. But you aren’t, Mike, and you drag down the rest of us by insisting your sexual orientation is justification for what is clearly hatred, prejudice, and bigotry.

    Be a man instead of a coward. Own up to your own prejudices rather than hiding behind your sexual orientation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 14, 2012 @ 2:55 pm - March 14, 2012

  12. Adverb
    tacitly (comparative more tacitly, superlative most tacitly)
    In a tacit manner; done in silence or implied.

    I’m glad I could teach you a new word! It’s ok though, I’m not surprised by the rhetorical pretzel you twist yourself into trying to ignore New Hampshire Republicans and their attempt to repeal that state’s marriage law. Even if you can’t bring yourself to admit that Democratic Governor John Lynch (and to a lesser extent minority party Dems in the legislature) is the only thing protecting the marriages of same-sex couples in that state from Republicans in the legislature, I’ve no doubt that those couples are fully aware of that fact themselves. So the next time you blather on about how gays “hate” Republicans and won’t even consider voting for them, stop and think about this situation. Republicans are such misunderstood victims!

    From reading this blog, one wouldn’t even know anything was happening in New Hampshire. I’ve got some theories on why that is. It’s particularly difficult to deflect the conversation on this topic to blame Democrats, Pres. Obama, the media, the liberal judiciary or anything else other than Republicans in that state attempting to repeal a marriage bill enacted almost entirely by Democrats in the legislature and signed by a Democratic governor. You can’t even deflect the conversation to direct democracy, as with the Prop 8 debate. This battle lays bare the basic truths about the Republican Party that you’re unable or unwilling to admit.

    Apparently, you’d rather discuss Harold Ford and Jesse Jackson, neither of whom hold any elected office or have any real influence over a political or legislative agenda. Indeed, I’ll even bite, to show that unlike you, I’m willing to address your “points”, such as they are: Ford was shamed off the public stage by Democrats when he attempted to re-gain office. He was never a particularly effective congressman, and I wasn’t surprised when he lost his senate race. If Jesse Jackson discriminated against someone based upon sexual orientation, he should certainly be held liable (probably under an Illinois anti-discrimination law enacted by Democrats!).

    Meanwhile, your leading candidate for president has endorsed the actions of New Hampshire Republicans on this marriage issue. You’re grasping at straws, and for good reason.

    Comment by Mike — March 15, 2012 @ 9:55 am - March 15, 2012

  13. The hilarious part about your attempts, Mike, is that you and your fellow Obama supporters are already on record stating that banning gay-sex marriage is perfectly OK when Obama Party members do it.

    That really drives this point. You have already sacrificed and will continue to sacrifice gay and lesbian couples to serve your Obama Party. You have already sacrificed and will continue to sacrifice gays and lesbians who are harassed and discriminated against by Obama Party leaders to serve your Obama Party.

    Want an example? Imagine the rant and statements of “homophobe” you would make about a Republican who said that he believed marriage is between a man and a woman and that it is a “sacred bond”. Make them and come back to us, and we will show you why no one here takes you seriously. :)

    Furthermore, you underestimate us here. We are people, members of society, businesspersons, taxpayers, believers in religious faith, and the like. You don’t care about any of that; indeed, you expect us to chuck all of those things and sign up for a party that mocks our belief in hard work and productivity, demonizes our businesses, demands that we pay ever more out of that for which we work to support people who don’t, and wants our faith suppressed and destroyed — all for a tiny slave cabin on the Obama Party plantation.

    Sorry. I for one decided long ago that I was going to be judged on the content of my character rather than my sexual orientation, and that I would never tolerate a party like the Obama Party that wanted me fired for disagreeing with them or would call me racist for criticizing someone of a different skin color.

    You’ve made the choice to accept and embrace that, and you have to rationalize it. Hence your running around here desperately trying to reinforce your predetermined and bigoted conclusions.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2012 @ 1:30 pm - March 15, 2012

  14. Haha sorry for thinking a blog called gaypatriot was a place to discuss gay issues (indeed under a story about a gay candidate no less). I hope you’ll email Daniel an ask him to take down any reference to sexual orientation issues. I notice that you have “homophobe” in quotes and yet I never use that word. Looks like you’re characterizing people, not me. I have kept my comments to policy issues, which you obviously can’t address. I can see why you’re so flustered. You can be all of the things you mention above, businessperson etc, and yet at the end of the day, the NH GOP doesn’t care. You, like me, are unfit to be in a marriage to the person of the same sex. So either you agree with them (which is entirely your right) or you agree with me and Democratic Governor John Lynch, whose veto threat is the only thing slowing down Republican efforts to invalidate the marriages of every same sex couple in New Hampshire. I’m glad he beat that Republican back in 2010, as are plenty of gay couples in New Hampshire I bet.

    Comment by Mike — March 15, 2012 @ 3:54 pm - March 15, 2012

  15. Haha sorry for thinking a blog called gaypatriot was a place to discuss gay issues (indeed under a story about a gay candidate no less).

    Ah, but you see, Mike, you don’t want to discuss gay issues; you want to bash Republicans.

    That was my point. Gay-sex marriage bans are wrong, except when Obama Party candidates and politicians support them. Harassment and discrimination against gays are wrong, unless it’s an Obama Party leader doing it. Gay couples are harmed by marriage bans, unless Obama Party members push them. The only consistent thread in anything you bring up about “gay issues” is to attack Republicans and blindly support Obama Party members — which has nothing to do with gay issues and everything to do with your blind partisanship and hatred of Republicans.

    Which brings us to this:

    You can be all of the things you mention above, businessperson etc, and yet at the end of the day, the NH GOP doesn’t care. You, like me, are unfit to be in a marriage to the person of the same sex. So either you agree with them (which is entirely your right) or you agree with me and Democratic Governor John Lynch, whose veto threat is the only thing slowing down Republican efforts to invalidate the marriages of every same sex couple in New Hampshire.

    Comment by Mike — March 15, 2012 @ 3:54 pm – March 15, 2012

    Perfect example. You expect me to cast my vote solely based on gay-sex marriage. No other consideration. No other thought. Just vote the way gay-sex marriage supporters want. Lynch is a liar, he’s an incompetent, all these different things, he could even break Federal law and steal billions of dollars, but if you don’t ignore that and vote for him solely based on gay-sex marriage, you’re a bad person.

    I used to buy that theory — until I realized that doing it was simply stating that I was nothing more than my sexual orientation. And I am so much more than that, with far more to offer society than that.

    So no, I’m not coming to live on your plantation. You can continue to play into the stereotype that pleases your Obama massas of gays being idiots who will do anything for the promise of gay-sex marriage.

    Except perhaps in your case, it isn’t a stereotype, but the actual truth.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2012 @ 8:24 pm - March 15, 2012

  16. Lynch is a lying incompetent and you post a story about….Jon Corzine to prove it? I am in awe of your research abilities. I’m sure the RNC could use your talents. Speaking of Corzine, maybe he’ll move down to Alabama and run against Spencer Bachus, what do you think?

    Apparently in your book, the only thing a decent man like John Lynch need do to rate those slurs is to be a Democrat attempting to prevent the marriages of gay couples from being dissolved. Lynch is a successful former CEO who refused to enact a sales or income tax in his state. Sounds like something Republicans could agree with. So why do you hate John Lynch, NDT? Because he’s a Democrat standing up for gay people.

    In any event, I’ve had my fun. This NH issue proves what happens when you can’t deflect blame on the “liberal media”, judges, imaginary communists, the Black Panthers, Muslims, or President Obama. This is pure and simple a Republican effort to repeal legal, legislatively enacted marriages, and you can’t make it about anything else. And that’s why you have no argument. Have a good night!

    Comment by Mike — March 15, 2012 @ 11:26 pm - March 15, 2012

  17. Apparently in your book, the only thing a decent man like John Lynch need do to rate those slurs is to be a Democrat attempting to prevent the marriages of gay couples from being dissolved.

    Comment by Mike — March 15, 2012 @ 11:26 pm – March 15, 2012

    Oh no, silly. That was just to see if you would do your research, since all you’re clearly doing is repeating Liar Lynch’s talking points, conveniently fed you by the Obama Party.

    You see, Lynch likes to feed gullible gays and lesbians like you this line:

    So either you agree with them (which is entirely your right) or you agree with me and Democratic Governor John Lynch, whose veto threat is the only thing slowing down Republican efforts to invalidate the marriages of every same sex couple in New Hampshire.

    Comment by Mike — March 15, 2012 @ 3:54 pm – March 15, 2012

    and claims like this:

    Apparently in your book, the only thing a decent man like John Lynch need do to rate those slurs is to be a Democrat attempting to prevent the marriages of gay couples from being dissolved.

    Comment by Mike — March 15, 2012 @ 11:26 pm – March 15, 2012

    Which work fine on the typical Obama gay like you, Mike, who is programmed to believe whatever the Obama Party tells him and who irrationally hates Republicans.

    But the reality is quite different:

    Based on party lines, House and Senate Republicans both have veto-proof majorities.

    So Lynch essentially has no power to veto the bill or stop it from proceeding. The only reason it hasn’t advanced is because Republicans have chosen to focus on other things first — namely the budget which gay-sex marriage supporters like yourself thoroughly f’d up and tried to paper over with tax increases.

    And:

    Since then, about 1,900 same-sex couples have wed in the state. The repeal bill would not invalidate those marriages, but would allow only civil unions for gay couples moving forward.

    So no marriages are being dissolved. That’s just a flat-out lie coming from Liar Lynch, who is desperate to salvage what shreds he has left of dignity when he leaves office at the end of the year with his liberal tail tucked between his legs, voters having repudiated both him and his tax-and-spend Obama Party for their gross mismanagement and outright lies to the voters.

    But it gave us this laugh-out-loud line from you:

    Lynch is a successful former CEO who refused to enact a sales or income tax in his state.

    And the desperate Obama gay flip-flops again, insisting that the CEO types that he insisted were thieves and liars at his OWS Obama rally are suddenly wonderful and the people who opposed tax increases that he said were homophobes who hate the poor at his Obama Party/HRC dinners are awesome.

    And furthermore, as we’ve always had, gays and lesbians like you, Mike, fully endorse and support gay-sex marriage bans when Obama Party politicians push them.

    So let’s see. Your talking points have been proven to be outright lies, your arguments have been shown to be completely ad hoc, contradictory, and irrelevant to anything other than your partisan hatred of Republicans, and your outright hypocrisy when it comes to supporting marriage bans and the dissolving of gay marriages has been fully and completely illuminated.

    No wonder you’re running away.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2012 @ 2:04 am - March 16, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.