Gay Patriot Header Image

Gay Republican and Conservative Groups Embrace Ryan Selection

Back in the 1990s, nearly a full year lapsed between Republican Congressman and candidates signing the Contract with America and Log Cabin endorsing that document promising government reform.  The prominence Republicans gave to the Contract returning its focus to real reform and fiscal responsibility.  Having gained such prominence from attacking the GOP in 1992, the then-leadership of the ostensibly Republican organization was wary of embracing the GOP, even when it was not focusing on social issues.

How thing have changed.  Two days after presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney announced his selection of Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate, the current Executive Director of Log Cabin, wrote in the Daily Caller that

Congressman Paul Ryan is a strong choice for vice president, and his addition to the GOP ticket will help Republican candidates up and down the ballot. As chairman of the House Budget Committee and author of the Republican “Path to Prosperity,” nobody is more qualified to articulate a conservative economic vision to restore the American economy and stimulate job creation.

Unfortunately, Cooper used his opinion piece to make the case for statist legislation, but the fact remains that he has openly embraced the “conservative economic vision” that Ryan has promoted.  He even indicated on Facebook that he “liked” Paul Ryan for VP:

Clarke’s willingness to champion Republican politicians like Ryan and real conservative reforms has served to distinguish him from some of his predecessors. And Clarke is not the only right-of-center gay leader to herald Romney’s pick. Shortly after the Republican announced his choice, GOProud’s Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia called Ryan “a bold and inspired pick“: (more…)

Of Shootings and Double Standards

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:54 pm - August 16, 2012.
Filed under: Liberal Hypocrisy,Media Bias

As I debated how to post on the shooting yesterday, I recalled an editorial I had read in the New York Times just after the Arizona shooting (in January 2011) when the editors of the Old Gray Lady contended that the shooter “is very much a part of a widespread squall of fear, anger and intolerance that has produced violent threats against scores of politicians and infected the political mainstream with violent imagery.

They added further that it was “legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge.” Recognize that prose? I paraphrased it in my first post on the shooting.  Indeed, I borrowed my title from that journal, substituting “District of Columbia” for Arizona.

That post caused one of our most frequent critics to fall right into the trap I set.  He contended it was “completely absurd” to engage in “hand-wringing about the ‘gale of anger’ and how gay groups are ‘setting the nation on edge’”  Of course it was absurd.  And that was my point.  It was similarly completely absurd for the Times to engage in the same sort of hand-wringing.  Bear in mind, our critic quotes as “absurd” words first used by the Old Gray Lady’s editors to respond to a shooting.

Leading voice in the legacy media, like the New York Times editors, ever swift to hold Republicans responsible for a shooting where there is no evidence whatsoever of political motivation all but avoided the notion that there could be a political motive in this yesterday’s shooting even where is considerable evidence of a political motive.

That said, gay leaders are no more responsible for the shooting than Sarah Palin was for the Arizona shooting.  Let us not ascribe to our ideological adversaries responsibility for actions they neither sanctioned nor encouraged.

No, the FRC shooting was not act of terrorism

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:18 pm - August 16, 2012.
Filed under: National Politics,Post 9-11 America

On Fox News this afternoon,” reports the Washington Examiner’s Sean Higgins, “Family Research Council President Tony Perkins told host Megyn Kelly that he believed the shooting yesterday that injured a guard at the group’s DC headquarters fit the definition of domestic terrorism:”

I spent about five years working with the State Department on anti-terrorism back in the 90s and training foreign police officers in anti-terrorism, so I’m somewhat familiar with what terrorism is. Terrorism is designed to intimidate and to drive people back and make them fearful. That, I believe, would describe what they tried to do yesterday here at the Family Research Council and by extension to traditional values supporters,(and) Christians across the nation.

No, the shooting yesterday was not an action designed to intimidate, but instead the actions of a disturbed young man acting alone, just as were the shootings in Arizona and Colorado.

And although gay organizations may have adopted rather harsh rhetoric toward social conservatives, like those who work at the FRC, they  do not advocate — or even encourage — violence against such organizations.

Bloodshed and Invective in the District of Columbia

We here at GayPatriot have never been fans of the Family Research Council (FRC).  And much as we disagree with many of that social conservative organization’s policies, particularly its narrow (and often inaccurate) portrayal of gay Americans, we disagree as well with those, including the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center, who dub FRC a “hate group.”  As John Hinderaker puts it, “gay activists and their allies have consistently smeared the Family Research Council as a ‘hate group’ because it supports traditional marriage.

Support for traditional marriage does not, however, necessarily mean hatred of gay people.

Yet, given that the man who shot a guard at the Family Research Center in Washington, D.C. yesterday had volunteered at a local gay and lesbian center, we need to ask if a different climate of hate , a climate that exists within all too many gay organizations and which we read on some gay left blogs, spurred him on.  Indeed, there are reports that the shooter  “made statements regarding [FRC’s] policies, and then opened fire with a gun striking a security guard“.

It is, to be sure, facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Democratic or LGBT activists. But it is legitimate to hold gay organizations and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the a good number of threats against advocates of traditional marriage, setting the nation on edge. Many on the gay left have exploited the arguments of division, reaping media favor by demonizing Mormons (and other Christians), or social conservatives, or Republicans. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that social conservatives are not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.

And despite these arguments of divisions, to their credit, a number of gay and lesbian organizations released a joint statement yesterday condemning the shooting: (more…)

The media have had enough of presidential attack politics?!?

Even the media’s had enough“, reports Politico’s Kevin Cirilli:

The race for the White House has grown so toxic that it’s become a top topic among reporters and analysts covering the contest — and some are even calling on President Barack Obama and presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney to call a truce.

The media have had enough? You mean, the media that have parroted Democratic talking points about Mitt Romney’s dog, asked his neighbors for dirt on him and sough information about his high school years from classmates on the opposite side of the political fence?

Geez, wasn’t Mr. Obama supposed to elevate the tone of American politics?  And which candidate was it whose team first raised issues unrelated to his opponent’s ability to lead the country?  “You have“, writes Commentary’s Alana Goodman

a Democratic campaign that’s painting its opponent as a felon, a tax-dodger, a dog-abuser, and a killer who will bring back slavery. On the other side, you have a Republican campaign that’s responding to these attacks as “hateful” and “inappropriate.” The media spinBoth sides need to tone down the “toxic rhetoric”

She reminds us that (more…)

The choice in 2012

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:57 am - August 16, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Paul Ryan

Thanks to Glenn for reminding me about the great conclusion Jim Geraghty penned to his post on the coming debates:

This is your choice, America: an approach that Obama’s own debt commission co-chair calls “sensible, straightforward, honest and  serious” … or dog-on-the-roof jokes and an accusation of a return to slavery.

(I had initially intended to include that in this post, but, well, it didn’t quite fit.) As usual, Geraghty offers some sage insight, this time by contrasting Romney and Ryan’s rhetoric with that of the respective Democratic adversaries. (The post, as most stuff by the CampaignSpot blogger is well worth your time.)