Archives for October 23, 2012
Twice in the past twenty-four hours or so, I have received reports via Facebook of gay men coming out for Romney, only to encounter attacks from their gay peers.
People “are surprised”, one wrote, as if writing about my own initial experiences coming out conservative, “when I say I’m a republican. They ask me how I can be a Gay Jew and a republican at the same time.” The other had a “Question for you Dan! Why do LGBT people hate conservative LGBT people … I have so many haters right now!”
Yes, why do they hate?
“Let’s be honest,” the second man wrote
. . . the left doesn’t hate me because I am mean or brash or too aggressive – the same label can be applied to many of my critics. No, the left hates me because I have the audacity to stand up to them. They hate me because I am a conservative who happens to be gay. They hate me because I won’t be bullied by them. They hate me because I have dared to wander off the liberal plantation, because I refuse to play the victim card, and because I have rejected their failed big government, single-issue, tunnel-visioned agenda.”
He concluded, “They hate me because I am a conservative who happens to be gay.”
Upon reading the first draft of this post, the first correspondent disagreed with the language used by the second:
my frieends and I don’t hate each other they just become another person when they find out that I am a Republican. [Read more…]
Dan wrote a post the other day reminding our readers that while he is the mainstay of content here at the blog, I have become “the Twitter guy.” He also underscored and that we are two different people though we agree a lot.
Today, we disagree!
I appreciate Dan’s enthusiasm with the Mitt Romney “qualified” endorsement by Log Cabin Republicans, but I’d like to throw some very cold water onto the parade and express my own views.
First, as always, I fully disclose that I am a founding board member of GOProud — a national organization of gay and straight Americans seeking to promote freedom by supporting free markets, limited government, and a respect for individual rights.
I supported the creation of GOProud specifically because Log Cabin Republicans had become a spokestool of the Gay Left. I’m glad that some are excited by their more recent move to embrace Republican candidates, but that hardly makes LCR a “conservative group.”
To the contrary, from the moment this blog was founded in 2004, I have documented the close ties that Log Cabin Republicans had, and still maintains, with Tim Gill — an ultra-left wing progressive activists whose Gill Foundation is a documented recipient of grants from George Soros.
So while I appreciate Dan’s nostalgia for the ideal of wanting Log Cabin Republicans to be what he and I hoped it would be — the fact remains it is not.
This endorsement of Mitt Romney is about as useful as handleless screwdriver. Sure looks like it will do the job, but you will never get anything done. That’s what Log Cabin promised in their “endorsement” — nothing. No action. Nada. Zip. Sitting on hands. Kaput. Zero.
In fact, the truth is at least one Log Cabin Board Member was threatening to quit if Log Cabin even brought the Romney vote to the board. Further, two local Log Cabin chapters urged their national board NOT to endorse Romney.
So while Dan has an affinity with Clarke Cooper that I don’t understand, the Log Cabin board are still bought and paid for shills of Tim Gill.
This is how Log Cabin’s “qualified endorsement” is being reported by the Associated Press.
A lengthy explanation released by Log Cabin Republicans under the banner “We Are Americans First” was part endorsement, part rebuke to a Republican Party whose standard-bearers the group said “appear to be caught up in an outdated culture war.” The group argued that Americans of all sexual orientations have suffered financially under President Barack Obama, and while Romney may not share all of their views, he could be worse.
“Mitt Romney is not Rick Santorum, and Paul Ryan is not Michele Bachmann. Otherwise, our decision would have been different,” the group said.
Damn. With friends like this, who needs enemies? Also, Log Cabin went out of its way to say it will not lift a finger to assist electing Mitt Romney. So what’s the point?
Far from reaching across differences to align with the conservative movement to defeat Barack Obama, Log Cabin has merely re-ignited the culture war meme that they claim they abhor. Hypocrites.
Let’s cut to the chase, the Log Cabin endorsement of Romney might as well be three words: I Love Lamp.
For this blogger, it has, in a way, come full circle. I wouldn’t be blogging here if, in 2004, the then-leadership of Log Cabin hadn’t made a spectacle of itself in very publicly not endorsing George W. Bush.
Either Polipundit or Instapundit, two of the blogs I read back then linked some blog telling Log Cabin to stick for not endorsing W. I followed the link and discovered GayPatriot, e-mailing the blogger and telling him that he was right. Soon, Bruce asked me to join the blog. I never thought I would devote as much time to it as I do today.
And today, Log Cabin announced that they were endorsing Mitt Romney for President of the United States:
“The decision to endorse is the right one for our members, our community, and for the nation as a whole,” said Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director, R. Clarke Cooper. “Despite our disagreement with Governor Romney on the issue of marriage, on balance it is clear that in today’s economic climate, concern for the future of our country must be the highest priority. We are Republicans, and we agree with Governor Romney’s vision for America in which success is a virtue, equal opportunity is ensured, and leaders recognize that it is the American people, not government, that build our nation and fuel its prosperity. [Read more…]
As I read coverage of the debate last night on conservative (& libertarian) blogs, a number of things struck me, two from left-of-center pundits, the first, David Gergen, practically the mouthpiece of the D.C. Beltway establishment.
But Romney also had a strong debate, in pursuing different goals than the president. He sought to come across as reasonable rather than confrontational — a candidate comfortable with the campaign’s trajectory.
“Attacking me is not talking about an agenda,” Romney said at one point.
Emphasis added. Snap polls called Obama the winner. He may have “won”, but he didn’t seem to persuade. Conservatives wishing for a knockout punch* (and Chris Matthews) were disappointed that Romney wasn’t more aggressive. But, then he wasn’t trying to appeal to conservatives (or Chris Matthews). “His target audience was,” Paul Mirengoff maintains, “above all, non-partisan voters and females.”
Another consensus reaction seemed to be that Romney looked more like an incumbent, Obama more like the challenger. As Yuval Levin put it on the Corner:
If you knew nothing about Barack Obama and Mitt Romney except what you saw in their final debate, you would have assumed that Romney was the incumbent president, that Obama was the challenger trying to unseat him, that Romney was clearly leading in the polls going in and that he remained there going out. You wouldn’t necessarily think Romney won the debate, but you would think he was winning the race.
Obama apparently came out as quite snide, peevish, condescending and small. He wants to make this election a referendum on the challenger, but since, as Gergen put it, Romney passed the commander-in-chief test, that dog just won’t hunt any more.
We’re stil waiting to hear Obama’s agenda for his second term. Should he win one.
“Personally,” writes our reader Kurt, commenting at Neoneocon
I was disappointed that Romney wasn’t more aggressive and that he didn’t go for “the kill” when he could have by hitting Obama hard about numerous issues. But the talking heads afterward were saying that was not his strategy, and that corresponded with what I observed while watching the debate. I was watching at a Romney campaign office near my house, and two of the people in the office were Romney staffers who recently relocated here from Boston to help with the campaign here. One of them was pointing out every time Romney hit on his strongest campaign points; the other was worried about the women’s vote, so she became a little anxious when things became too contentious, fearing it might alienate women voters.
Partly with that in mind, Romney managed to lure Obama into a few big tactical traps. For one thing, Obama couldn’t resist being nasty and snarky at times, and as Kolnai said above, it was easy to see when he was getting mad. Obama would look at Romney much of the time, but then he would get really mad and look at Bob Schieffer and act impatient and irritated. I think those were little points scored by Romney because they made Obama look petty and thin-skinned. [Read more…]