When John Bolton to sign my copy of his book (reviewed & recommended here and here) at the Log Cabin “convention” this weekend, I, noting how he had been asked of having a temper during his confirmation hearings, asked how he maintained his cool during the constant frustrations of diplomatic negotiations at the United Nations and elsewhere.

His reply (as best as I can remember it) was that if he were the man portrayed in the media, he wouldn’t have supported his own confirmation.

What impressed me about John Bolton the man when he spoke to Log Cabin last Friday was how diplomatic and unassuming he was. Given what I’d read in the media, I expected a man to emerge spouting fire and emitting smoke.

Instead, a level-headed man emerged, able to talk thoughtfully about world affairs. I had assumed he was a man like many passionate men (including yours truly) who on occasion when frustrated lose their cool and say and do things they later regret. I had believed that the MSM was making overmuch of a handful of outbursts, to which they themselves may also be subject.

But, after observing him, albeit for a limited time, I could see him keeping his cool, even under trying circumstances.  He showed his real strength in the breadth of knowledge he offered in his responses to the various audience questions.

To a question on Cuba, he was not only able to talk about current conditions on that island prison, but also to discuss the history of Soviet aide. He even knew that about the popularity in Russia of a 1990s documentary about those subsidies.

Focusing on the current contest for the White House, he found a “conceptual gulf” between John McCain and either of the two Democratic presidential contenders. If we allow the Democrats to win in ’08 so GOP could retake the White House in ’12, he said, the country would be “at risk.” He warned of the Democrats controlling both House of Congress and the White House as they had for the entirety of the Carter Administration and the first two years of Clinton’s.

He also acknowledged that “nobody’s going to be satisfied with candidate’s view on every issue.”

(more…)

As I return to Los Angeles from the Log Cabin “convention,” I hope to do a few posts, singling out the salient features of the confab and their implications for the this fall’s presidential race, the future of the organization itself and the attitudes of gay Republicans in general.

First of all, the hotel we stayed at the Town and Country Resort and Convention Center was a most unusual choice. It was far from the center of the city and not within easy walking distance to any interesting locales. Not just that. It seemed that it hadn’t changed since the 1970s, but at least it was well-maintained and had nice landscaping.

I was delighted to learn that most people there were familiar with this blog, with some (including members of Log Cabin’s Board) reading it on a regular basis. Patrick Sammon, Log Cabin’s President, was more visible at this gathering than either of his two previous predecessors as previous meetings. It seemed he wanted to shake hands and chat with all participants.

Until the banquet on Saturday night, the staff did a great job of keeping things moving. At previous conventions, we would sit in sessions or at lunch while the speakers (or Log Cabin staff) blathered on without giving us much time to weigh in with our own thoughts. I was particularly impressed at the lunch on Saturday when they were able to accommodate the Governor without cutting too much into our free time. They made sure the speakers did not go on overlong and allowed for questions afterwards.

The banquet was a different story. You would think that at a “Black Tie Optional” dinner they’d serve hors d’oeuvres. Maybe it was because of the open bar. They wanted to get us a little buzzed so we might bid more readily at the silent auction.

Then, there were presentations before the meal, then presentations afterwards. Not to mention the auction. Like past banquets, this one just seemed it would go on forever. Well, at least, it wasn’t as bad as the one in Dallas in 1998. We were out by about 10 or so.

I was pleased that this “convention” had fewer representatives from national gay-left organizations than past confabs. With John Bolton speaking as well as the Mayor of San Diego, the County’s Republican District Attorney (Bonnie Dumanis) and the Governor of the Golden State, there seemed to be more Republicans here than at past gatherings. And we knew it was a Republican crowd when participants rose to give an extended standing ovation to Eric Alva, an openly gay veteran, the first man wounded in the Iraq war.

(more…)

After an excellent talk from future Secretary of State John Bolton and current California Governor Arnold Schwarzengger. BoifromTroy has more on what the latter had to say.  

Rather than expand on what Scott has to say, I’ll just comment briefly on the Govenor’s presence.  He seemed almost Reaganesque when he spoke, yet when he sat down for what he called an Oprah-style question-and-answer session with Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon, he seemed less in his element. 

Hearing John Bolton, especially the facility with which he handled the questions and the deep knowledge he showed of world affairs and the politics of other nations in his responses, convinced me ever more that he would make a first-rate Secretary of State.  

The Governor talked a lot about “post-partisanship” and made clear his strong support for John McCain, even his commitment to victory in Iraq (though the Governor did not use that word), he also said opposes the marriage initiative that social conservatives are trying to put on the state ballot this fall.

It’s a half-hour into the townhall meeting where members are supposed to offer their input, but we still have not been allowed to speak.  Patrick is now defending Log Cabin’s decision to run ads attacking Mitt Romney last fall in the GOP presidential contest.  

What further comments I have on this meeting, I’ll include below the “jump:”

(more…)

I have to say I’ve, by and large, been impressed with James Vaughn’s presentation in this “On Both Sides of Log Cabin.” While I don’t support much of the legislation he advocates, I do like the broad “strategy” he has outlined for talking about issues, noting for example how certain core conservative ideas have particular benefits for gay people.

He also notes the particular challenges in talking to gay Democrats, largely because they can’t defend their choice of partisan affiliation. As he wrote in his Powerpoint presentation:

Often they don’t know why they are Democrats except that in what the LGBT media or liberal media told them. Often not informed about current events.

That does seem to be the case that so few of them only understand conservative ideas as presented by the MSM (and gay media). No wonder some of them have trouble addressing my posts because I put forward ideas which such media either doesn’t represent or mispresents.

Back to his point about where the GOP, in particular conservative ideas are good for gay people. He singled out:

• Social Security Accounts:  enabling gay people to leave them to our spouses, even partners in relationships not recognized by the state.
• Gun Control: how it allows us to protect ourselves from hate crimes (echoing a point I made here)
• Small business: Republican policies promote entrepreneurship which benefit gay people who want to set up their own businesses
• War on Terror:  GOP has better policies for confronting challenging Islamofascism at a time when Islamic countries are executing gays.

I don’t agree with all the legislation that James (and Log Cabin) favors. But, I do like that he wants to talk about how conservative ideas benefit gay people. I have long believed Republican ideas are better for gay people because smaller government makes it easier for “marginalized” groups to set up their own institutions and businesses to respond to changes in the marketplace.

That is, when we don’t look to the government to provide solutions to our problems, we will be more likely to address them on our own. The record shows the private sector is more efficient at making things works and responding to social change (see e.g., the number of private corporations adopting non-discrimination policies and providing domestic partnership benefits).

James also talked about how we can find common ground with social conservatives, reminding them if the state can take away gay people’s freedoms, it could take away their freedom to home school their children.

In the past, Log Cabin has failed to talk about how conservative ideas benefit gay people. That James outlined a strategy to do so in a panel at this Log Cabin gathering is a most welcome development. Now, let’s see if the national office makes this an official policy.

At “breakout” session where James Vaughn who is the California Director for Log Cabin is speaking. He just noted that a survey he conducted for the group found that most members found it easier to come out as gay in Republican circles than they did coming out as Republican in gay circles. Reminds me of something I blogged on when we were over at blogspot. (Reposting that as first posted on October 24, 2004 below the “jump.”)

James also noted the difference between “rational and irrational” gay activists. The irrational ones won’t even give us the time of day as soon as they learn our partisan affiliation. Hmm. . . some who comment to this blog spend a good deal of their day, but devote no time trying to understand our ideas.

And he noted how many gay people affiliate with the Democratic people because they’re just following the crowd.

Seems that with the post I have re-posted below, this particular piece kind of has a theme, so will conclude it wondering why it is that some gay activists, while preaching tolerance, are so intolerant toward gay Republicans

(more…)

Tomorrow at the Log Cabin “Convention” here in San Diego, after a just-announced visit from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, attendees will participate in a “town hall meeting” where we will be able to weigh in on “Log Cabin’s role in the presidential election.”  This will be the one chance members will have to offer their input on whether Log Cabin should endorse its party’s nominee for President of the United States.

It should come as no surprise to readers of this blog that I will be speaking out in favor of Log Cabin endorsing John McCain.

While I do favor this endorsement, I wonder if it will make any difference.  Four years ago, when the group failed to endorse the party’s then-nominee, the MSM made it seem gay Republicans were deserting the president in droves, when it fact, only a few abandoned Bush.

Perhaps that endorsement created the impression that Bush was captive to social conservatives.  It may even have cost him support among socially liberal suburbanites and others who might have been inclined to vote for the president because of his leadership in the War on Terror.

But, it didn’t cost him the support of the overwhelming majority of gay Republicans.

Given that we know that most gay Republicans stuck with Bush in 2004 despite Log Cabin’s endorsement and with an increasing number of gay Republicans able to voice their support for the party (through blogs), it will be difficult for Log Cabin to claim it speaks for all gay Republicans.  Should it fail it to endorse, honest journalists will need note how inconsequential the 2004 non-endorsement was to gay Republicans (well, given the state of the MSM, expect most journalists to leave that out).

All that said, in reading the tea leaves this year (through parsing public statements of Log Cabin officials and listening to conversations with members of the organization), I expect the group to endorse John McCain for president.  This endorsement may actually make the 2004 non-endorsement a boon to the 2008 GOP nominee, as it will show that recent efforts of Democrats and left-wing blogs (and pundits) notwithstanding, our nominee retains the support or more socially liberal Republicans even as he reaches out to social conservatives.

A non-endorsement will only serve to further marginalize Log Cabin.  

That said, I do believe Log Cabin’s Board will endorse John McCain. And those gay Republicans will join the million gay Americans who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 as well as countless Independents and numerous disgruntled Democrats in selecting this courageous veteran as our choice for the next President of the United States.

We have often faulted Log Cabin for not criticizing the other national gay groups for make broad attacks on Republicans or misrepresenting the stands or statements of individual Republicans. We have also criticized them for failing to take on Democrats as aggressively as they take on their own party.

With their recent release faulting Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean for wondering why sane gay people would join the GOP, that seems to be changing.

To encourage Log Cabin to issue more such statements and to make it an organization policy to take on gay groups’ narrow and distorted views of Republicans in general and gay Republicans in particular, could we introduce resolutions at Log Cabin’s “convention” (which begins later today), I would write one requiring the national office to regularly criticize the heads of national gay groups, the groups themselves and even other prominent gay figures when they attack Republicans, including and especially gay Republicans.

Too often, Log Cabin seems more interested in securing its place at the table of the gay organizations in our nation’s capital than in promoting the party with which it claims affiliation. Yet, this self-proclaimed Republican organization doesn’t seem to recognize that many of those groups see themselves as gay auxiliaries of a broader left-wing movement, promoting an accomodationist foreign policy, pushing for an increasing government role in the lives of individuals and defeating Republicans at the ballot box.

If Log Cabin wishes to regain the credibility it has lost in Republican circles and show its commitment to the GOP, it should more regularly challenge those gay voices which seek to undermine our party and thwart its thwart its electoral success.

And I wish I could introduce a resolution to that effect at the group’s “convention” this week.

Usually when I describe Log Cabin’s coming gathering in San Diego, I make sure to put the word “convention” in quotation marks. The reason I do so is that at most organizations’ conventions, the assembled delegates, representatives of chapters around the country, vote on the organization’s platform, policy statements, resolutions and/or other proposals to set its agenda for the coming year. And they elect national officers.

At the Log Cabin “convention” later this week in San Diego, we will be doing no such thing. There will be one session called the “Road Ahead” where participants will have a chance to offer “input about Log Cabin’s role in the presidential election.” But, the delegates won’t get to vote on that role. It will be left to the unelected Board to determine whether or not the ostensibly Republican organization will be endorsing the party’s nominee in this fall’s campaign.

As a result, “convention” participants don’t really have much of a stake in the proceedings. As they don’t really have much say over the direction of the organization.

Shortly after Log Cabin ran a series of ads attacking then-GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, we not only wondered who was paying for their ads, we also questioned why Log Cabin was running them.

Turns out we weren’t the only ones. I learned later that several club presidents (and other local leaders) were not happy with the ad campaign. And even though they represent the organization in various jurisdictions around the country — and are actually elected by their members — they heard about them the same time we did. (And like us, they too wondered who was paying for the ads.)

The Board approved the ads. Just as it sets the organization’s agenda. But, unlike those club leaders, Board members are not elected by Log Cabin members. It seems they’re a self-perpetuating lot, but I’m not really sure how they’re chosen as I can’t find Log Cabin’s bylaws on the web (though I did find the Bylaws of the Virginia chapter which I wrote back in 1997, though amended slightly since then).

(more…)

When I moved from the Washington, D.C-area to Southern California in 1999, I resolved to give up activist politics. Tired of being labeled “that gay Republican,” I wanted people to see me as more than a seemingly discordant mix of sexuality and conservatism and instead recognize my diverse passions, to treat me as a complex individual rather than dismiss me as an apparent oxymoron.

While, from time to time, I did share my political views on a friend’s listserv, in my first years in LA, I, by and large, steered clear of politics. At one point though, I almost did come out of my political closet. When, in the spring of 2000, the then-leader of Log Cabin threw a hissy fit, attacking publicly the twelve gay Republicans who met with George W. Bush, the then-presumptive Republican presidential nominee, I castigated him in an Op-Ed, “Of Babies and Bath Water.” That leader soon changed course. I withdrew my piece before it was published.

My public silence then continued until 2004, indeed, many of my friends in that period had no clue about my political leanings.

That changed when some blog (I think it was Instapundit, but it may have been Polipundit which I then read regularly) linked a blogger who was telling Log Cabin to shove it for failing to endorse President Bush’s reelection. So much did I agree with the post that I wrote the blogger and was delighted (and honored) to receive Bruce’s response (though he did not then identify himself by name). Soon we were exchanging e-mails and Instant Messages. Before long, he invited me to join the blog.

The rest is history.

I’ve now been blogging for over three and one-half years and have, by my estimate, written well over one thousand posts. As I was preparing to attend Log Cabin’s San Diego “Convention,” I realized I may not have penned (metaphorically speaking) a single one of those (on a great variety of topics not limited to politics) were it not for Log Cabin.

I started blogging largely because I believed that in the 2004 campaign, Log Cabin did not speak for gay Republicans, even as the media made it seem they did. As if all (or a great majority of) gay Republicans were refraining from supporting Bush, with many voting against him. Log Cabin’s then-political director claimed gay support for the then-GOP nominee would be “in the single digits.”

I wanted to join the then-anonymous GayPatriot in challenging that notion, contending that there were gay Republicans who did not define ourselves by our sexuality and who considered a great variety of issues when casting our votes.

(more…)

In last week’s “Inclusion WEST,” Log Cabin’s West Coast e-mail, its editors included a blurb noting that one of its members serves on a committee of Hillary Clinton backers:

Gay General — The Closet & Member of Log Cabin
Made famous by CNN/YouTube debate, Kerr seeks repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

During the 43 years Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr served in the military, he didn’t so much lie about his sexual orientation as he let others draw conclusions from intentionally vague statements. [snip] Kerr told Southern Voice he served silently for most of his military career. “I didn’t bring it up,” he said. [regarding his YouTube] question] “What happened was in April or May of 2007, one of my friends called and asked me if I would add my name to the list of veterans for Hillary, and I said ‘yes’ because I knew she supported a repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” Kerr said. “I totally forgot about that at the time I submitted the YouTube question. I probably belong to 12 or 14 other organizations. As a matter of fact, I’m still a member of the Log Cabins Republicans.”
http://www.southernvoice.com/2008/3-21/news/localnews/8296.cfm

(Bold and italics in original.)

While Kerr may have forgotten that he had agreed to add his name to a list of veterans supporting the Democratic presidential contender, he never asked to have it removed. This March 1, 2008 release from the former First Lady’s campaign includes him in a list of “Flag Officers Endorsing Hillary Clinton for President and Commander-in-Chief.”

Twenty-five days later, Log Cabin boasts that he’s a member of Log Cabin. Seems Log Cabin is so delighted to get media recognition that it would advertise this Clinton supporter’s membership in the organization.

If we could introduce resolutions at Log Cabin’s convention this week, I would pen one rescinding the membership of anyone in the organization who publicly endorses the candidacy or joins or the campaign a Democratic candidate in a contested partisan election where a Republican is running.

I may need to tweak the language, so it’s clear that if a member supported a Democrat and told friends about that support (but did not otherwise advertise the support), he would not forfeit the membership. Or further define public endorsement. By it, I mean statement in a newspaper on a blog (as a post) or at the podium of a public meeting. (I might further want to tweak it to allow for endorsements of non-Republican candidates in unusual races like the 2006 Connecticut Senate race.)

The language would allow a member to refrain from endorsing the Republican candidate or choosing to vote against him.

If Log Cabin is serious about being a Republican organization, it will revoke Kerr’s membership or ask him to remove his name from the list of “Flag Officers” supporting Mrs. Clinton.

As the Log Cabin Convention (this Thursday through Sunday in San Diego) approaches, I’ll be doing a series of posts on Log Cabin at 15, this being the fifteen anniversary of the opening of the national office.

When I learned that my candidate for Secretary of State will be speaking, I resolved to go and look forward to leading a standing ovation for this good man and hearing his remarks.

First, could you let me know if you’ll be attending and are interested in setting up a cocktail hour for GayPatriot readers. Thanks.

Second, please feel free to use the comments section to this post to offer general thoughts about the organization, address the more specific ones to the various pieces I’ll be posting. Unfortunately the convention agenda does not allow for members or clubs to introduce resolutions or vote on the group’s policies.

I encourage you to suggest resolutions you believe a gay Republican organization should consider. Perhaps, I’ll distribute these in San Diego and wonder why this convention does not have the aspects of a typical organization’s convention where members gather from all over the country to elect officers and set the agenda for the following year.

Were there something to vote on, members might feel they have a stake in the organization and be more likely to spend the money and take the time to attend.