in 2004, in the decision that would (indirectly) launch my blogging career, Log Cabin passed up an opportunity that Richard Grenell yesterday seized with relish–the chance to articulate the role for gay conservatives within a party whose  entire agenda we do not support.

By failing to endorse George W. Bush (and making a spectacle of their non-endorsement), they failed to show their commitment to the broad principles of the GOP, particularly those relating to national security.  The organization’s leaders could have said although we disagree with President Bush on the Federal Marriage Amendment, we support his leadership in the War on Terror and share Ronald Reagan’s view that “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.”

“Like many voters,” Grenell wrote yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, “I rarely agree with a candidate’s every position. I can support Mr. Romney for president but not agree with all of his stated policies.”  In 2004, Log Cabin could have well served gay conservatives by offering a similarly succinct statement supporting the reelection of George W. Bush.  In so doing, they would have made it a lot easier for skeptical (and non-doctrinaire) social conservatives to help us find welcome within the party’s ranks.

The good news is that the current executive director of Log Cabin, R. Clarke Cooper, (as did his immediate past predecessor) appears to share that view.  His rhetoric (alas!) may from time to time ape that of the gay left, but his commitment does seem to be finding a place for gay Republicans in the GOP.  (He has even used to his Facebook page to praise the man his organization once maligned — George W. Bush.)

It’s nice to see Log Cabin on the same page with Richard Grenell who, despite the Romney campaign’s awkward handling of his appointment, has shown a strong commitment to an imperfect GOP.  And has given greater voice to a notion we have been pushing at GayPatriot at least since Bruce launched the blog — and that I have promoting since I first joined Log Cabin in 1995.

Good morning from the center of the right-leaning blogosphere this weekend! Yep, BlogCon has occupied Charlotte, NC today and tomorrow for two days of information, fun & networking.

So a hearty welcome to the Queen City (no jokes, puh-lease!)

PatriotPartner (John) and I will be attending the sessions today and tomorrow and we were so thrilled to see everyone last night at the BlogBash party at RiRa Irish Pub.

Watch for updates from Twitter. And occasional posts from me here. Maybe photos, too!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In a post earlier today, I took issue with Hugh Hewitt, holding that Mitt Romney did not lock up the nomination with his Sunshine State victory and contended that Rick Santorum had, in “the wake of his February hat trick, winning Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri all on the same day, . . . a read chance to capture the Republican nomination.”

He did well on that day as well as in a number of primaries and caucuses over the succeeding seven weeks, galvanizing evangelicals and convincing voters looking for a “credible conservative candidate” that he is the man they’re looking for.  This cycle, we on the right have long longed for an alternative with records like those of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan or rhetoric like that of such leaders as U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla) and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, all putting forward policies or articulating ideas in accord with the Reaganite principles of small government and individual liberty.

Perhaps had Santorum focused on those unifying principles, instead of letting himself be diverted by media questions on social issues, important to many Republicans voters, but anathema to others, he might not find himself today struggling to win his home state.  If the Pennsylvanian, after his early February victories, A.B. Stoddard contends, had kept his focus, for example, on Romney’s supposed weakness on health care, he might have changed the dynamic of the race:

It was the pivotal moment in the race none of the Romney rivals who preceded him had achieved — and Santorum blew it. He veered off course, and out of this millennium, enthusiastically bemoaning birth-control pills, free prenatal testing and college education. He insulted Obama, calling him a snob, and President Kennedy. Santorum, a devout Catholic, said Kennedy’s insistence on a strong separation of church and state made him want to throw up.

Given the tendency of the legacy media to magnify such statements, Santorum appeared oblivious to the real concerns of American voters and more interested in discussions that many Americans, including large pluralities of Republicans, believe beyond the purview of politics.  He failed to establish himself as a conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan or even Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, the latter, to be sure, a social conservative, but a disciplined candidate, able to keep his campaign focus on the fiscal issues of greatest concern to his constituents. (more…)

In the course of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney has shown a level of grit and determination that few politicians have matched.  He has withstood attacks from the mainstream media and the emerging conservative media as well as his fellow contenders.

He has seen his poll numbers plummet and the possibility of his nomination dismissed.  And yet he kept on fighting.  Not only did the former Massachusetts governor show how much he wanted to win, he also showed how attuned he is to the criticisms of conservatives, progressively spelling out a bolder and more Reaganesque economic agenda.  That hasn’t satisfied everyone on the right, but it does seem to have moved a number, including Rush Limbaugh (more on this in my next post).

That said, he still has to tend to a lot of “coalition maintenance.”*  He needs to reach out to conservative leaders, activists and bloggers, chief among them RedState’s Erick Erickson, one of Mitt Romney’s harshest critics in the blogosphere — but a principled enough man to acknowledge the conservatism of Jon Huntsman’s economic plan (even as he frequently criticized and ocasionally criticized the man).  In fact, I would recommend that when Romney schedules meetings with conservative bloggers, he sit down privately with Erickson so he can hear the full measure of the blogger’s message.

To show you just how well Erickson, himself quite sympathetic with social conservatives, understands the movement, let me quote from his piece acknowledging that Romney will be the nominee, in particular, his remarks on Rick Santorum’s failure to rally enough conservatives to his cause:

The Santorum campaign stumbled badly in Puerto Rico, gave up a lead in Illinois, and the candidate proved horribly undisciplined. Like Dug the dog in Up getting distracted by every random squirrel, Rick Santorum loses all ability to focus when social issues come up. (more…)

There are two stories coming out of yesterday’s primaries and caucuses, the first which has gained the greatest currency that Rick Santorum lost the two biggest contests, the second, mentioned mostly on pro-Romney (or anti-Santorum) blogs that Mitt Romney won a plurality of the delegates.

The former Massachusetts governor cleaned up in American Samoa, winning all nine of the territory’s delegates and won a big victory in Hawai’i, running twenty points ahead of Santorum, capturing an absolute majority on the island of Oahu and narrowly losing to Ron Paul on the big island.  As a result, as John Hinderaker pointed out, Romeny “added six delegates to his lead“.  Hugh Hewitt says he netted only 5, winning 40 delegates to Santorum’s 35.

That said, Mitt Romney’s failure yessterday to build on his showing in previous Southern contests (as per Jay Cost’s analysis) indicates that he still need do some serious “coalition maintenance” (to borrow an expression Paul Gigot coined in a January edition of WSJ.com’s Political Diary (available by subscription) back in January).

Not quite sure what he needs to do, but it might help him to reach out to some conservatives who have been critical of his candidacy.  Should Romney win the Republican nomination, he’s going to need a fully activated, energized and operational conservative base not just to win the presidency but to help his fellow partisans in down ballot races in order to have a governing majority come next January.

If Rick Santorum were the consensus conservative choice for the Republican presidential nomination, Newt Gingrich’s support would long since have melted away. And although his chances of winning the Republican nomination are slim, he still wins the support of sucy prominent mainstream conservatives as Fred Thompson and Tea Party favorites and this former governor who dubs the former Speaker the “cheerful one”:

Since the former Pennsylvania Senator’s hat trick last month in the Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri beauty contests, he has not exceeded 40% in a single state whereas Mitt Romney finished well above that barrier in Arizona, Massachusetts and Idaho.* Newt won over 40% in each of his victories, South Carolina and Georgia, respectively.

There’s a lot of talk about Republicans looking for a non-Romney, but some conservatives, it seems, are looking for an acceptable non-Santorum.  Indeed, in John Hawkins’s poll over conservative bloggers, he found Gingrich coming out ahead of Santorum when all candidates were included and beating Santorum in a head-to-head matchup.

And to many conservatives with doubts about Santorum, Newt remains the most acceptable alternative.

* (more…)

Reporting on the passing of Andrew Breitbart at LGBT/POV, Karen Ocamb dubbed the new media mogul a “Conservative Gay Ally.”  Indeed, Breitbart very much represented the new face of conservatism, reaching out to gay conservatives and welcoming us into the coalition.  When I approached him last June, identifying myself as a blogger at GayPatriot and asking him to sign my book, he did so with relish.

Not only did he serve on GOProud’s board (leaving only, as Ocamb put it, “over the purported outing of an official in Rick Perry’s presidential campaign”), he criticized CPAC when the organizers of that conservative confab barred the gay conservative group. Calling Breitbart an “unexpected gay ally,” Chris Geidner of Metro Weekly reminded us what Breitbart said when CPAC announced its decision to exclude GOProud:

When the presence of GOProud at CPAC in 2011 was questioned by some on the right, it was Breitbart who told Metro Weekly, “If being conservative means rejecting gay conservatives because they are gay, then fine, I’m not a conservative.”

And yet some lefties contend he is part of the “racist, sexist, anti-gay” right.

Christopher R. Barron and Jimmy LaSalvia, Co-Founders of GOProud, mourned his passing, calling him “an amazing friend and ally to this organization.”

Nice to see that some in the gay media recognize the changing face of American conservatism.  Andrew Breitbart was part of that change.  And we gay conservatives feel his loss most acutely.

This past weekend, as a favor to my sister and brother-in-law, I drove up to the Bay Area so they could have an adult in the house with their three-year-old son while they shared a romantic evening at a nearby hotel.  Of course, this favor was a duty most pleasant as I had the chance to hike with my sister and spend countless hours playing trucks, running races, imitating pirates and dancing the dragatusi (sometimes known as the dragon-tusi) with my nephew.

When his parents were away, that precocious young man had a nightmare, waking in tears.  I rushed to comfort him, but he wanted his Daddy, asking me repeatedly where his father was.  I assured him that Daddy was coming back the following day.

None of Andrew Breitbart’s relatives will be able to provide a similar assurance to his children.  Today, we in the conservative movement mourn a man John Hinderaker called “irreplaceable“.  But, our loss pales in comparison to his children’s.  And his wife’s.  One hopes, one prays, that she has the strength to comfort them in this trying time.  And that she has relatives who can support her in the difficult task of raising children who have lost their father.

“He was kinetic,” wrote Michelle Malkin, “brash, relentless, full of fight, the bane of the Left, and a mentor to the next generation of right-wing activists and citizen journalists.”  And a father to four children.

Other bloggers have talked about his contributions to the conservative movement, how in the words of one, he “lived large“, following “his own path” and doing what he thought to be right — “no matter whom it offended or how it affected his own personal bottom line.”  Another called him “a friend and mentor“, with his family losing “a caring husband, a wonderful father and their center of gravity.”

Indeed, as yet another put it, he was not just “a brave warrior” and a “great guy”, but also a “committed family man.”  And his family will feel his loss even more deeply than we do.

May he rest in peace and may the Holy One provide comfort to his family.

Shocking news this morning from the Big Journalism site…

Andrew [Breitbart] passed away unexpectedly from natural causes shortly after midnight this morning in Los Angeles.

We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior.

Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love.

Andrew Breitbart was a force of nature.  He took names, announced them, left the tattered lies of the Left he exposed behind… and moved on to the next castle of liberalism to storm.

I had the pleasure to meet and know Andrew.  As many of you know, he was on the GOPROUD Advisory Council for most of the last two years.  It goes without saying that without Andrew, GOPROUD would not have been as successful as it has become.  Andrew was a fighter and he was at his best when he was fighting for the little guy — he saw gay conservatives as the little guy and we are better because of it.

Many in the conservative blogosphere knew Andrew better than I.  But I am saddened greatly this morning because I know what an important figure has been lost in our movement.  He was someone that always fought against the tidal waves of doubt and conventional wisdom.

A life taken way too soon.

Andrew, I’ll miss your force in the world greatly.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Where, I asked in January, “is the conservative candidate at this conservative moment?” “In the current contest, . . . no candidate has emerged to take on Reagan’s mantle.”  In their search for a charismatic and principled conservatives who could rally the party faithful, many Republican voters, dissatisfied with the frontrunner and eager to find an alternative, have embraced, at various points during the campaign, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and now Rick Santorum.

Unlike Bachmann, Cain or Gingrich, however, Santorum has never really embraced the libertarian economic policies which defined the Gipper’s domestic policies — and now form the basis for the Tea Party’s agenda.  Moreover, as Ace observes, echoing John Podhoretz, Santorum lacks Reagan’s sunny disposition:

Santorum’s problem, again and again, is that he doesn’t want to make apositive uplifting case for things. He might have given a speech encouraging a newfound, recovered respect for the trades. He might have given a speech about the positive virtue of sweat. And it’s importance in America.

Instead he just brands those who wish their kids to go to college “snobs.”

Taking issue not with Santorum’s tone, but with the content of his recent robocall (faulting Romney for supporting TARP while opposing the auto bailouts), Jay Nordlinger seems dumbfounded, “And this is our guy? Santorum is the conservatives’ guy?”

Many conservatives supported the bank bailout and opposed the auto bailout. You can look up arguments within NR editorials. Conservatives all over the country, in all sorts of forums, made arguments for and against — for and against either bailout. Those arguments continue now, retrospectively.

But is there any thinking or respectable conservative who uses Rick Santorum’s language — the bank bailout was for Mitt Romney’s “Wall Street billionaire buddies” while Michigan workers got their faces slapped? (Santorum opposed the auto bailout, too. Was he slapping workers’ faces?) (more…)

If Mitt Romney can succeed in energizing conservatives behind his candidacy, he could conceivably lock up the nomination by Super Tuesday and put himself in a strong position to defeat Barack Obama come November.

That, however, is a big “if.”

Since Santorum’s sweep on Tuesday, a number of conservative commentators and bloggers have come to a consensus about Mitt; he needs to provide red meat for the conservative multitude.  Some say he needs to adopt bolder proposals, others that he needs to retool his message. Basically, he would serve himself well to learn from Jon Huntsman.  That former Utah governor (who, in dropping out of the race for the GOP nomination, endorsed Romney) put forward a bold economic plan, filled with conservative reforms.  But, he didn’t make that plan the focus of his campaign.

Romney needs thus to adopt a bold plan — and make the plan part of his pitch —  as John Podhoretz puts it, to be fervent not about his business experience, but about conservative ideas, to woo and win the conservative base by articulating their concerns.  These voters want to “hear that their cause is just, their battles are noble, their leaders are tribunes and that righteousness as they see it will prevail.” Via Powerline.

James Pethokoukis offeres some tips on the bold plan Romney could articulate, stressing entitlement reform and specifying the federal programs he would cut. Most importantly, he need put forward a “tax reform plan worthy of the name“: (more…)

Just over two weeks ago, I asked, “Where is the conservative candidate at this conservative moment?”

If this election were held on which party had the best vision for the future of America, the Republicans, should they hew to Reagan’s ideals, would win hands-down. Polls show a continuing, if not growing, distrust of the federal government and a skepticism for the types of solutions President Obama has been offering.

Note that his biggest political victory of 2011 was outmaneuvering Republicans on a tax-cut.

We need someone, as I wrote in January, who can take the fight to Obama–who can stand up for conservative principles.  Rick Santorum, despite his absence of real accomplishment in the Senate and lack of executive experience, has, since Newt’s meltdown, done that better than anyone else in the race.  No wonder he did so well last night.

Let us hope Mitt Romney learns from his defeat.

Santorum may be able to articulate conservative principles, but he didn’t when he was in Congress, he didn’t lead the fight to stem the growth of federal spending or limit the scope of government regulation.  And he comes with baggage that will not endear him to independent voters.  As Jim Hoft reminds us, in April 2003, the then-Pennsylvania Senator

. . . stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states’ ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual.

Just over five years ago, in the wake of his Senate defeat, I wrote

The lesson for Republicans in Santorum’s defeat is that expression of anti-gay sentiments will not help advance a candidate’s cause. Most Americans, while opposing gay marriage, don’t harbor much, if any, animosity against gay people. But, on the whole, they do seem to seem to have an antipathy to politicians who readily express anti-gay bias. (more…)

Rick Santorum will end his bid for the White House with a higher standing among conservatives than that he enjoyed when he launched what once appeared an entirely quixotic quest.  Unless Newt Gingrich concedes defeat with grace, he may will leave the contest a pariah on the right.

What a change this campaign brings; after Santorum’s landslide loss in 2006, few conservatives looked to him for leadership.

I’m no fan of the former Pennsylvania Senator, indeed, have mocked him on more than one occasion on this blog, but do acknowledge that, by and large, he has conducted himself with class on the campaign trail, earning the respect of one Romney-supporting blogress and the endorsement of another very highly-regarded conservative blogress and of a similarly regarded blogger.   Stacy McCain has been beating the drum for Santorum at least since Herman Cain dropped out.

Maybe Santorum is doing well because he comes across as a nice guy.  He enjoyed that reputation when he served on Capitol Hill.  Although, to be sure, the Senator has said some strange things about gays, he has treated the one member of his staff who has been publicly “outed” as gay with dignity.  Indeed, his one-time spokesman Robert Traynham said “was open with Santorum about his sexual orientation” and that he had “never heard Santorum voice an anti-gay or bigoted comment” in the ten years he had worked for him.

In addition, conservatives have been impressed with his determination, campaigning on a shoe-string and traveling to all 99 counties in Iowa in the run-up to that state’s caucuses.

Perhaps, the main reason Santorum has increased his standing on the right relates to his ability to articulate conservative ideas.  As Ed Morrissey, the aforementioned highly-regarded blogger, put it today in announcing his support for Santorum:

In my estimation, Santorum is the last consistent conservative standing, and the only one both promoting the conservative agenda and campaigning as a conservative in the race.  That doesn’t make Santorum perfect; he lacks the executive experience I’d like to see, and some of his positions in the past and present give me pause.  However, compared to the heterodoxies of his competitors in the GOP race, Santorum has a superior record on promoting conservative policies and values.

Read the whole thing.  Given that the 2010 CPAC blogger of the year has regularly supported including gays in the conservative tent, I trust that among the Senator’s positions which give him pause include his comments on gay people. (more…)

Conservative pundits/politicians who claim to know what’s best for We, The People are no less heinous than the liberal ones.

You can surmise who I’m referring to. Hint: More than one person.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Polls show considerable popular dissatisfaction with the president’s policies, particularly his big-government initiatives like Obamacare.  They also show support for the broad conservative policies which have defined the GOP at least since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980.  The best attempts of the media notwithstanding, conservative ideas are ascendant.

At the same time, the incumbent struggles to regain the footing he had four years ago, with his attacks on Republicans more redolent of class warfare demagoguery than reflective of the reality of his partisan adversaries’ policies, his own dismal poll numbers inflated by a compliant media, the administration’s spin reported as if it were news, its scandals treated as if they were the inventions of a right-wing cabal eager to destroy anyone trying to free the country from the control of a corporate elite.

If a conservative candidate, with a record of executive accomplishment, could take the fight to Obama, he could not rally the right, but appeal to independents as well.  The electoral map would not resemble that of the past few national elections, but would look more like the one in 1988.  Every state where Republicans did well in 2010, including such purplish “blue” states as Maine, Michigan Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, would turn “red.”

In the current contest, however, no candidate has emerged to take on Reagan’s mantle.  At the Washington Examiner, Philip Klein lamented, that “one of the miracles of America’s founding was that so many great men emerged at once and complemented each other with unique skills. But now, in a time of great crisis, we’re stuck with painfully bad choices.”

Over at Red State, Erick Erickson (with whom I don’t often agree) didn’t mince words when weighing in on last night’s results:

Newt Gingrich’s rise has a lot to do with Newt Gingrich’s debate performance. But it has just as much to do with a party base in revolt against its thought and party leaders in Washington, DC. . . . (more…)

I’ll be Twittering my thoughts in “real time”, but I’ll also use this space for other comments about tonight’s GOP Debate on ABC TV.

UPDATE at 9:09PM — I think I’m bored already.

UPDATE at 9:15PM – Rick Santorum knee-capping Ron Paul is TEH AWESOME. The young man owning the old dithering senile maniac.

UPDATE at 9:30PM – Ron Paul makes me sick. It is LEFTISTS that use the word “chickenhawk” against conservatives. He is disgusting.

This is all so frustrating. Our “news media” is a farce. ABC News should be ashamed of this debate.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

My good friend Ben Howe has the chance of a lifetime. He’s a finalist in WBT-AM’s context to find the “Next Talker” contest.  Ben is contributor at RedState, plus a funny, energetic and influential activist in the new Conservative movement in America.  He’s also a big supporter of us here at GayPatriot.

All of the details are here at RedState.  When you go to the WBT webpage — make sure to “Register” and then “Like” in order to vote for Ben.

Thanks for all of your help in advance!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I guess the only “real gay bashing” is one that involves gays of a Leftist persuasion? (h/t – Peter Hughes)

Via The Daily Caller:

Good evening folks! Long time, no see (unless you follow me on Twitter!!!!)

I’m dashing off this quick post from the media room at Wofford College, site of the Republican Presidential Debate. They let me in! LOL. The debate airs live on the CBS television network at 8:00PM Eastern Time. I’ll be live-tweeting and blogging as long as the power on my iPad lasts.

Photos should follow later, too!

For UP TO THE MINUTE reports from the SC GOP Debate, please follow me on Twitter – @GayPatriot – (www.twitter.com/gaypatriot)

UPDATE!

Two early debate photos….

The mostly empty “spin room”…

The FOX News satellite truck outside the auditorum…

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Alone among the contenders for the Republican presidential nomination Newt Gingrich, like Ronald Reagan in 1980 (and 1976 for that matter), has already made a significant contribution to the conservative movement.  As the Gipper helped articulate an upbeat conservative vision long before launching a bid for the White House, so did Gingrich make the 1994 mid-term elections turn, in large part on that small-government ideal, helping elect the first Republican Congress in forty years.

Not just that, he became in the 105th Congress the first Republican Speaker to serve consecutive terms since Theodore Roosevelt’s Cincinnati son-in-law relinquished the gavel to Democrat John Nance Garner in 1931.

Having once interned for Newt, I didn’t take him too seriously as a presidential candidate.  He seems more a man of ideas than a leader of men.  And more often than not, he’ll articulate any idea which pops into his head, even those to which he has given little thought.  He didn’t often seem to have the focus necesary to serve as chief executive.  He didn’t have a desk in office when I worked for him .  Sometimes, he seemed he couldn’t sit still.

Maybe age has mellowed him.

I haven’t been following the debates, but have read (in posts by bloggers and pundits I respect) that he has acquitted himself quite well.  Well, last night, as I was preparing to watch Captain America (should have seen it on the big screen), I caught the former Speaker on Greta van Susteren’s On the Record.  I found him so compelling, I delayed staring the movie.

True to what I’d read in the blogs, he didn’t attack his fellow competitors for the party’s nod, critiquing Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, to be sure, but praising the businessman for his boldness in penning such a proposal.  And he faulted Romney’s plan for not being bold enough.  (In fact, I’m pretty sure I heard him praise the quality of the debate he and his fellows were conducting, raising real issues of substance related to the current crisis.)

What impressed me the most was the same thing which impressed me when, as a college freshman, I first heard Newt speak.  Like the Gipper, this guy can see the big picture. (more…)