I got this tidbit about the Log Cabin folks from The List - the email newsletter that John Aravosis compiles and sends out...john@gayadvocacy.com
Well, now Log Cabin is working on behalf of Bush's anti-gay judicial nominees. One in particular who the Log Cabin folks seem to really love, is Michael McConnell, an anti-gay activist judge who Bush wants to put on the 10th circuit court of appeals. You can read all about this farce in a new article by Mike Signorile here:
More Log Cabin Fun
Full Version: Log Cabin: Anti-Gay support?
Another case in point regarding Log Cabin's brown-nosing sycophancy!
Billy, dude, if you're kidding, you should put a there or else this thread will get clogged up with name calling.
Hello, GMG, hello? Paging GMG for a stinging rebuttal.
*Sigh* The Log Cabin'ers provide a vital service--working to change things from within the Republican Party--but they have the uncanny ability to seem as if they never do even the most basic research in to whether the people they are endorsing are good or bad for The Gays. Ultimately, LCR only exists because they're gay (otherwise, they could just be party regulars), so I just wish they'd show a little more nuance in their endorsements.
It's all about the judiciary, isn't it?
[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
Hello, GMG, hello? Paging GMG for a stinging rebuttal.
*Sigh* The Log Cabin'ers provide a vital service--working to change things from within the Republican Party--but they have the uncanny ability to seem as if they never do even the most basic research in to whether the people they are endorsing are good or bad for The Gays. Ultimately, LCR only exists because they're gay (otherwise, they could just be party regulars), so I just wish they'd show a little more nuance in their endorsements.
It's all about the judiciary, isn't it?
[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
Ponder this equation:
Gay Republican=Jewish Nazi
Gay Republican=Jewish Nazi
[quote]Originally posted by m1011:
Ponder this equation:
Gay Republican=Jewish Nazi
Don't you think that is a little harsh? I wouldn't throw the word Nazi around lightly. I'm not a LCR-man myself, but the least you can do is show a little respect to your opposition.
Ponder this equation:
Gay Republican=Jewish Nazi
Don't you think that is a little harsh? I wouldn't throw the word Nazi around lightly. I'm not a LCR-man myself, but the least you can do is show a little respect to your opposition.
[quote]Originally posted by m1011:
Ponder this equation:
Gay Republican=Jewish Nazi
Ponder this: Go F$#& yourself. I'm a gay Republican, and I really don't appreciate being called a Nazi.
Ponder this equation:
Gay Republican=Jewish Nazi
Ponder this: Go F$#& yourself. I'm a gay Republican, and I really don't appreciate being called a Nazi.
[quote]Originally posted by m1011:
Ponder this equation:
Gay Republican=Jewish Nazi
That is offensive beyond belief.
I am LCR and I take great umbrage at your linking of the two. You really need to think with at least a modicum of intelligence about what you're suggesting.
Ponder this equation:
Gay Republican=Jewish Nazi
That is offensive beyond belief.
I am LCR and I take great umbrage at your linking of the two. You really need to think with at least a modicum of intelligence about what you're suggesting.
No offense meant-- my point is that the Republican party has made it clear that gays are not welcome, just as Jews were not welcome in the Nazi party.
The Republicans have fought against our drive to achieve equal rights, are presently suppressing the efforts to solve the AIDS crisis, and allowed thousands of people to die in the early 80's because of their prejudice.
I was not equating you with Nazis- I meant to suggest that you may be associated with a party that does not have our best interest at heart.
The Republicans have fought against our drive to achieve equal rights, are presently suppressing the efforts to solve the AIDS crisis, and allowed thousands of people to die in the early 80's because of their prejudice.
I was not equating you with Nazis- I meant to suggest that you may be associated with a party that does not have our best interest at heart.
I was going to point out that not every gay man blindly supports ENDA or thinks that the HRC has some God-given right to micromanage the Boy Scouts, but what's the point? You guys hate Republicans, you hate dissent, you think we're Nazis, blah-blah-blah. No sense arguing. Isn't it ironic, though, that in this NY Press article, McConnell stresses the need to "highlight the intolerance of gay-rights activists." BD and L1011 seem to doing a fine job of it.
Who are "you guys"? I, for one, don't hate Republicans, I just disagree with their politics in a lot of cases. And I've yet to hear a credible reason why how wanting lower taxes or less PC government intervention trumps the Written-In-Their-Platform anti-gay stance of the Republican Party. Someone? Anyone?
I don't hate dissent. I AM tired of having ideological stink bombs lobbed my way, however, and when I or others object, being told we have no sense of humor or that we're supressing dissent. And frankly, W1865, it's a bit risible for you of all people to claim shock and outrage at a gross overstatement made here. If I didn't actually have to get some work done today--you know us slacker liberals--I could dredge up any number of inflammatory analogies that you've made. Doesn't feel so great when it's aimed at you, does it?
And while using the Nazi analogy is now, in the wake of the "Bush is using Nazi tactics" firestorm in Germany, beyond tired and ultimately futile, the right certainly doesn't hesitate to dredge up leftie's support for Russia in the 30's or other bogeymen to beat liberals over the head with an ideological stick. There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the political fence.
I don't hate dissent. I AM tired of having ideological stink bombs lobbed my way, however, and when I or others object, being told we have no sense of humor or that we're supressing dissent. And frankly, W1865, it's a bit risible for you of all people to claim shock and outrage at a gross overstatement made here. If I didn't actually have to get some work done today--you know us slacker liberals--I could dredge up any number of inflammatory analogies that you've made. Doesn't feel so great when it's aimed at you, does it?
And while using the Nazi analogy is now, in the wake of the "Bush is using Nazi tactics" firestorm in Germany, beyond tired and ultimately futile, the right certainly doesn't hesitate to dredge up leftie's support for Russia in the 30's or other bogeymen to beat liberals over the head with an ideological stick. There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the political fence.
[quote]Originally posted by m1011:
Ponder this equation:
Gay Republican=Jewish Nazi
m1011, this is so extreme it made me laugh out loud! Ann Coulter couldn't have done better. But seriously, this is insulting to Jewish people first and foremost, who were the target of the Nazis' extermination policies, as well as to homosexuals, who also died in the death and work camps. It also is grossly unfair to American Republicans and to gay Republicans--don't forget that this party once included the likes of Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and Theodore Roosevelt.
As for William's indignance, I agree with Jim Allen. I mean, just recently the non-partisan Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund was called "socialist" by one poster here. Isn't there a thread started by William himself called "Democrats=Crooks"? It does no one's argument credit to go to such extremes. Many liberals and progressives on this list don't hate Republicans. As I said, give me Lincoln Chafee or William Weld any day!
Ponder this equation:
Gay Republican=Jewish Nazi
m1011, this is so extreme it made me laugh out loud! Ann Coulter couldn't have done better. But seriously, this is insulting to Jewish people first and foremost, who were the target of the Nazis' extermination policies, as well as to homosexuals, who also died in the death and work camps. It also is grossly unfair to American Republicans and to gay Republicans--don't forget that this party once included the likes of Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and Theodore Roosevelt.
As for William's indignance, I agree with Jim Allen. I mean, just recently the non-partisan Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund was called "socialist" by one poster here. Isn't there a thread started by William himself called "Democrats=Crooks"? It does no one's argument credit to go to such extremes. Many liberals and progressives on this list don't hate Republicans. As I said, give me Lincoln Chafee or William Weld any day!
A quick reply-- first, I am a Jew myself and this Republican party bears no resemblance to the party of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, or even Gerald Ford.
I've always been amused at the self-important doublespeak propagated by many leftwing gays. They preach about tolerance, and publicly brag about how diverse the viewpoints in our community are, but when those views differ from their own the words are exposed as empty platitudes mouthed by hypocrites who reveal themselves to be as hateful and selfserving as those who they seek to damn. We wind up with those who have eagerly sought out moral high ground instead sinking in a quagmire of hatred and intolerance of their own making.
So while I give you points for quickly realizing how abhorrant your linkage was, you'll have to pardon me if I look at the source and consider it to be just so much posturing. Enjoy your next self-congragutulatory HRC event, where no doubt you will all talk about how tolerant you are while simultaneously making rude and hurtful comments about those whose viewpoint differs from your own. But bear in mind that organizations like that do not speak for THIS very proud gay man, nor for many (dare I say the majority?) of others.
OK, I'm spent. Descending soapbox.....
So while I give you points for quickly realizing how abhorrant your linkage was, you'll have to pardon me if I look at the source and consider it to be just so much posturing. Enjoy your next self-congragutulatory HRC event, where no doubt you will all talk about how tolerant you are while simultaneously making rude and hurtful comments about those whose viewpoint differs from your own. But bear in mind that organizations like that do not speak for THIS very proud gay man, nor for many (dare I say the majority?) of others.
OK, I'm spent. Descending soapbox.....
While I'm wary of agreeing with a Yankee fan at this time--go you Angels--um, I agree with a lot of what MM wrote. At least when the right are being hypocrites, they don't hide behind piety and superiority!
Is the HRC even a factor any more? Seems that a lot of LCR have a burr up their bums about them. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of gay men don't even know they exist--which might be more damning of gay apathy than anything, really--but I guess in a narrow, can't-see-outside-the-Beltway kind of way, they are The Opposition. I lost all interest in the national gay orgs (which I would argue are needed) when Urvashi Vaid become Head Comrade of NGLTF (National Gay & Lesbian Task Force); I was appalled that such a relic of 1968 was chosen to lead a national gay org. Of course, there's the issue of said orgs being dominated by lesbians but that's a whole other Pandora's Box.
Is the HRC even a factor any more? Seems that a lot of LCR have a burr up their bums about them. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of gay men don't even know they exist--which might be more damning of gay apathy than anything, really--but I guess in a narrow, can't-see-outside-the-Beltway kind of way, they are The Opposition. I lost all interest in the national gay orgs (which I would argue are needed) when Urvashi Vaid become Head Comrade of NGLTF (National Gay & Lesbian Task Force); I was appalled that such a relic of 1968 was chosen to lead a national gay org. Of course, there's the issue of said orgs being dominated by lesbians but that's a whole other Pandora's Box.
At least when I call people names I don't put pretentious crap like "Ponder this..." in front of it. What's that supposed to be, Masterpiece Theater? Besides, I'd rather be called a crook than a Nazi. And I was obviously referring to the national Democrat establishment, not to anyone specifically on this board. L1011's comment was aimed directly at us gay Republicans.
Most important, though, I really, really like saying "Go F&#* Yourself," and this seemed like a great opportunity, especially since it was that rare occassion in which I could sarcastically preface it with "Ponder this." I'd never tried that before, it felt really good . . .
(By the way, I know the guy's "name" is m1011, but I like the plane, so I'm going with that.)
Most important, though, I really, really like saying "Go F&#* Yourself," and this seemed like a great opportunity, especially since it was that rare occassion in which I could sarcastically preface it with "Ponder this." I'd never tried that before, it felt really good . . .
(By the way, I know the guy's "name" is m1011, but I like the plane, so I'm going with that.)
Okay, what do you say we stick to the topic? The more we (both sides of the aisle) refer to the other side as "they, them, those ********," the less actual discerning of information we accomplish.
The LCR's are apparently supporting a not subtle but harshly anti-gay judicial nominee. The piece by MS suggests that Bush and Ashcroft have been kissing some LCR butt (or perhaps just trading favors, who knows?) in order to silence what will surely be a gay outcry over the possible appointment of a judge with a horribly anti-gay record.
Where do our "present and more than capable of posting intelligent though often inflammatory postings" LCR's and other gay Republicans think about this issue? I want to hear what you all think about this issue!
The LCR's are apparently supporting a not subtle but harshly anti-gay judicial nominee. The piece by MS suggests that Bush and Ashcroft have been kissing some LCR butt (or perhaps just trading favors, who knows?) in order to silence what will surely be a gay outcry over the possible appointment of a judge with a horribly anti-gay record.
Where do our "present and more than capable of posting intelligent though often inflammatory postings" LCR's and other gay Republicans think about this issue? I want to hear what you all think about this issue!
[quote]Originally posted by m1011:
Ponder this equation:
Gay Republican=Jewish Nazi
Sorry, as a gay Jewish socialist, this one doesn't pass the smell test. Nazi means something beyond what the Rebpulican party can be accused of. Now, if you want to call them fascists, I'll happily introduce you to a fellow who has come up with a rather thorough correlation between the current Republican administration and traditional fascism, but even this raving hippy who never left the 60's refuses to call Republicans Nazis.
Ponder this equation:
Gay Republican=Jewish Nazi
Sorry, as a gay Jewish socialist, this one doesn't pass the smell test. Nazi means something beyond what the Rebpulican party can be accused of. Now, if you want to call them fascists, I'll happily introduce you to a fellow who has come up with a rather thorough correlation between the current Republican administration and traditional fascism, but even this raving hippy who never left the 60's refuses to call Republicans Nazis.
Bryan, thank you for gently herding the dustballs back on topic . I usually follow these threads with some detachment because the rhetoric gets so inflamed.
NPR had a pretty good piece on this judicial nomination last week. I believe the judge was saying that he could put his personal beliefs aside when reviewing issues/cases where he had been a very strong opponent of abortion, gay rights, separation of church and state, etc.
The NPR piece was making the point that this judge had much more extreme views than the woman judge from Texas that was recently rejected, but he had a broader range of academic support (conservative and liberal). This was supposed to make the debate more difficult.
Personally, I would find it difficult for anyone to not let their personal beliefs color their actions despite words to the contrary and I find it difficult to understand why LCR would want to support this particular nomination. Isn't there another judicial candidate that LCR can throw their support behind that makes them feel good to be Republicans that happen to be gay?
NPR had a pretty good piece on this judicial nomination last week. I believe the judge was saying that he could put his personal beliefs aside when reviewing issues/cases where he had been a very strong opponent of abortion, gay rights, separation of church and state, etc.
The NPR piece was making the point that this judge had much more extreme views than the woman judge from Texas that was recently rejected, but he had a broader range of academic support (conservative and liberal). This was supposed to make the debate more difficult.
Personally, I would find it difficult for anyone to not let their personal beliefs color their actions despite words to the contrary and I find it difficult to understand why LCR would want to support this particular nomination. Isn't there another judicial candidate that LCR can throw their support behind that makes them feel good to be Republicans that happen to be gay?
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Most important, though, I really, really like saying "Go F&#* Yourself,"
I've always been partial to, "Why don't you go outside and play hide and go f&#* yourself?"
Most important, though, I really, really like saying "Go F&#* Yourself,"
I've always been partial to, "Why don't you go outside and play hide and go f&#* yourself?"
thanks, kenny, for furthering the discussion..and thanks jqueer for not...
It appears that although LCR has intelligent well-educated members, it hasn't yet proven that its got any balls amongst the Republicans. Ashcroft and Bush are bullying them, I suppose, into submission on this issue, which doesn't do much for the "we're changing them from within" claim of LCR. Hopefully, this extremist judge will be rejected as well.
It appears that although LCR has intelligent well-educated members, it hasn't yet proven that its got any balls amongst the Republicans. Ashcroft and Bush are bullying them, I suppose, into submission on this issue, which doesn't do much for the "we're changing them from within" claim of LCR. Hopefully, this extremist judge will be rejected as well.
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to feel insulted or congratulated. I'm always willing to give a guy the benefit of the doubt.... I'll go with insulted
But on topic, I took the LCR position (no, not on my back with my legs in the air) in an argument with an anarchist friend of mine recently. I do advocate change from the inside. But he made one excelent point I had no response to. Changing the Catholic Church from the inside is one thing. You can be an advocate for changes in policy nnd dogma. You can be vocal and a thorn in the side. But calling yourself a Catholic does nothing to support the Church policies you're trying to change. In politics however, no matter how annoying you are from the inside, when you vote for a party candidate, you are putting your personal stamp of approval on the policies that party espouses. As he put it, "the only way to change a party is to vote against it." If otherwise conservative queers were to vote against the Republican party en masse, then it would change.
But as liberals, are the bulk of politically active queers doing any better? What has voting Democrat gotten us other than Don't Ask, Don't Tell? I advocate a gay political party in America. We put up candidates that respect our issues: marriage rights, civil service rights, employment rights, property restrictions (we go into a neighborhood, fix up the houses, plant the damn gardens and then we're gonna let some breeder slob not mow the grass?).
The only truely scary part of this is the horrible fights over the name of the party.
But on topic, I took the LCR position (no, not on my back with my legs in the air) in an argument with an anarchist friend of mine recently. I do advocate change from the inside. But he made one excelent point I had no response to. Changing the Catholic Church from the inside is one thing. You can be an advocate for changes in policy nnd dogma. You can be vocal and a thorn in the side. But calling yourself a Catholic does nothing to support the Church policies you're trying to change. In politics however, no matter how annoying you are from the inside, when you vote for a party candidate, you are putting your personal stamp of approval on the policies that party espouses. As he put it, "the only way to change a party is to vote against it." If otherwise conservative queers were to vote against the Republican party en masse, then it would change.
But as liberals, are the bulk of politically active queers doing any better? What has voting Democrat gotten us other than Don't Ask, Don't Tell? I advocate a gay political party in America. We put up candidates that respect our issues: marriage rights, civil service rights, employment rights, property restrictions (we go into a neighborhood, fix up the houses, plant the damn gardens and then we're gonna let some breeder slob not mow the grass?).
The only truely scary part of this is the horrible fights over the name of the party.
[quote]But as liberals, are the bulk of politically active queers doing any better? What has voting Democrat gotten us other than Don't Ask, Don't Tell?
Uh, um....passage of The Defense of Marriage Act that was done so quickly my head spun around ala Linda Blair? Er, Babs singing for her supper at one of the Inagurations? "Well, er.....I'm stumped frankly", said JA, Democratic voter since 1978.
In a lot of ways, especially since their 12 years in the political wilderness--aka The Regan/Bush the Elder Years--has forced the party to list rightward, I increasingly vote Democrat because, simply put, the Republicans are just so inept at reaching out and actually enacting politices that aren't hostile to people who might have reasons to vote for them on various issues--low taxes, less government etc.--that I just can't vote for them. As an organization, they just seem to me like people with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: No matter how they try to moderate the stridency of their policies towards gays, women and minorities in general, it doesn't seem that their hearts are really in it and so they keep making boneheaded moves like electing Bill "Ho of the Christian Right" Simon to run for the governorship of California against the odious Gray Davis.
I went to hear Andrew Sullivan give a book reading about 3/4 years ago. I'm not a big fan of his politics but I like some of what he writes about gay issues. He urged the crowd to basically start holding the Democratic Party accountable for their increasingly gay-hostile actions or else we're shortchanging ourselves and playing in to the Christian Right's hands etc. etc. and, sad to report, the crowd turned on him. It got VERY heated and at one point this silly cow huffily played armchair therapist to Sullivan: "Andrew, you're a very angry man and I can't stand to be around your anger any more". She then flounced out and I'm sure she heard my muttered "Stupid ***" as she walked by.
Sullivan--and me and others--were dumbfounded by this as he never raises his voice and speaks like what he basically is, an Oxford don-type who made the somewhat bizzare choice to become an American political pundit. His basic point has a lot of validity and has stayed with me and I despair of ever encountering a truly viable 3rd party in this country. I now consider the Dems and Republicans to be pretty much the same thing, with each party representing the different ends of the ideological spectrum in one party. I know, Vote Liberatarian etc. etc. but it's the Catch-22: I don't vote for them because they're not viable, but they're not viable because I don't vote for them.
The overall Gay Liberation/rights movement in this country has never really shaken its roots in the Mattachine Society's basis in communist/labor politics, and although I think if homosexuals had waited for conservatives/Republicans to "give" us anything in terms of rights, hell would have frozen over first, I find a lot of the ideas of the national organizations hopefully dated. While I can at some level support what the LCR's are trying to do, I'm just completely baffled about how they can support total anti-gay candidates/judges and still claim to be "working for change from within". Sounds to me like it's business as usual, actually.
Uh, um....passage of The Defense of Marriage Act that was done so quickly my head spun around ala Linda Blair? Er, Babs singing for her supper at one of the Inagurations? "Well, er.....I'm stumped frankly", said JA, Democratic voter since 1978.
In a lot of ways, especially since their 12 years in the political wilderness--aka The Regan/Bush the Elder Years--has forced the party to list rightward, I increasingly vote Democrat because, simply put, the Republicans are just so inept at reaching out and actually enacting politices that aren't hostile to people who might have reasons to vote for them on various issues--low taxes, less government etc.--that I just can't vote for them. As an organization, they just seem to me like people with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: No matter how they try to moderate the stridency of their policies towards gays, women and minorities in general, it doesn't seem that their hearts are really in it and so they keep making boneheaded moves like electing Bill "Ho of the Christian Right" Simon to run for the governorship of California against the odious Gray Davis.
I went to hear Andrew Sullivan give a book reading about 3/4 years ago. I'm not a big fan of his politics but I like some of what he writes about gay issues. He urged the crowd to basically start holding the Democratic Party accountable for their increasingly gay-hostile actions or else we're shortchanging ourselves and playing in to the Christian Right's hands etc. etc. and, sad to report, the crowd turned on him. It got VERY heated and at one point this silly cow huffily played armchair therapist to Sullivan: "Andrew, you're a very angry man and I can't stand to be around your anger any more". She then flounced out and I'm sure she heard my muttered "Stupid ***" as she walked by.
Sullivan--and me and others--were dumbfounded by this as he never raises his voice and speaks like what he basically is, an Oxford don-type who made the somewhat bizzare choice to become an American political pundit. His basic point has a lot of validity and has stayed with me and I despair of ever encountering a truly viable 3rd party in this country. I now consider the Dems and Republicans to be pretty much the same thing, with each party representing the different ends of the ideological spectrum in one party. I know, Vote Liberatarian etc. etc. but it's the Catch-22: I don't vote for them because they're not viable, but they're not viable because I don't vote for them.
The overall Gay Liberation/rights movement in this country has never really shaken its roots in the Mattachine Society's basis in communist/labor politics, and although I think if homosexuals had waited for conservatives/Republicans to "give" us anything in terms of rights, hell would have frozen over first, I find a lot of the ideas of the national organizations hopefully dated. While I can at some level support what the LCR's are trying to do, I'm just completely baffled about how they can support total anti-gay candidates/judges and still claim to be "working for change from within". Sounds to me like it's business as usual, actually.
[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
I don't hate dissent. I AM tired of having ideological stink bombs lobbed my way, however, and when I or others object, being told we have no sense of humor or that we're supressing dissent. And frankly, W1865, it's a bit risible for you of all people to claim shock and outrage at a gross overstatement made here. If I didn't actually have to get some work done today--you know us slacker liberals--I could dredge up any number of inflammatory analogies that you've made. Doesn't feel so great when it's aimed at you, does it?
THANK you!
I don't hate dissent. I AM tired of having ideological stink bombs lobbed my way, however, and when I or others object, being told we have no sense of humor or that we're supressing dissent. And frankly, W1865, it's a bit risible for you of all people to claim shock and outrage at a gross overstatement made here. If I didn't actually have to get some work done today--you know us slacker liberals--I could dredge up any number of inflammatory analogies that you've made. Doesn't feel so great when it's aimed at you, does it?
THANK you!
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
You guys hate Republicans, you hate dissent, you think we're Nazis, blah-blah-blah. No sense arguing.
Where's BoSoxRudy when you need him??!!
VICTIM ALERT VICTIM ALERT VICTIM ALERT
[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]
You guys hate Republicans, you hate dissent, you think we're Nazis, blah-blah-blah. No sense arguing.
Where's BoSoxRudy when you need him??!!
VICTIM ALERT VICTIM ALERT VICTIM ALERT
[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]
[quote]Originally posted by bryan d.:
Okay, what do you say we stick to the topic? The more we (both sides of the aisle) refer to the other side as "they, them, those ********," the less actual discerning of information we accomplish.
The LCR's are apparently supporting a not subtle but harshly anti-gay judicial nominee. The piece by MS suggests that Bush and Ashcroft have been kissing some LCR butt (or perhaps just trading favors, who knows?) in order to silence what will surely be a gay outcry over the possible appointment of a judge with a horribly anti-gay record.
Where do our "present and more than capable of posting intelligent though often inflammatory postings" LCR's and other gay Republicans think about this issue? I want to hear what you all think about this issue!
Bryan, you're the one who called LCR's actions in favor of McConnell a "farce." That's the level of discourse at which we started, thanks to you. Not exactly the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, eh?
You then - in pursuit of the ever-so-lofty goal of "discerning information" - accuse the Bush Administration of "kissing butt," and then seem to throw in some sort of sexual innuendo that I don't really get. "Trading favors"? Favors!?! Get it?? (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Maybe I just haven't been laid in a while and I'm reading too much into it, who knows?
Again, I will reiterate - and it is my most sincere hope and prayer that this moves the debate a bit further up the respectability scale - just because someone disagrees with you does not make them harshly anti-gay. It just means they disagree with you.
As far as this "I want to know what you think about what LCR's doing," I personally support it because I don't think this judge is so awful. Please remember a few things.
A) You are probably not going to agree with any of Bush's judicial nominees. I suspect you might find them all a bit to your right. So really, we could probably just cut and paste this whole debate and repost it the next time LCR supports a Bush nominee because you will probably have the same concerns.
Is this nominee perfect from a gay political standpoint? Certainly not. I'm not sure of any who are. But politics is all about messy compromises. I want Connie Morella to be reelected in Maryland even though I probably disagree with her on about (conservative estimate, of course) 80% of the issues. But in the big picture it will be better is she, as a Republican, wins. Similarly, I suspect LCR sees here a well-qualified and ideologically tolerable nominee who has an excellent chance of winning confirmation. The more LCR can do to advance what is already a very likely outcome, the better it looks for them as a force in the party, and the more political capital they have for future battles.
C) You, of course, are not concerned with LCR's political liability, which is completely understandable. Those of us who support the group are - also completely understandable. Thus we enter into this debate with different goals in mind, and I'm not sure that our disagreements can be resolved to any significant extent. But I certainly respect your views and concerns, butt kissing and all.
Okay, what do you say we stick to the topic? The more we (both sides of the aisle) refer to the other side as "they, them, those ********," the less actual discerning of information we accomplish.
The LCR's are apparently supporting a not subtle but harshly anti-gay judicial nominee. The piece by MS suggests that Bush and Ashcroft have been kissing some LCR butt (or perhaps just trading favors, who knows?) in order to silence what will surely be a gay outcry over the possible appointment of a judge with a horribly anti-gay record.
Where do our "present and more than capable of posting intelligent though often inflammatory postings" LCR's and other gay Republicans think about this issue? I want to hear what you all think about this issue!
Bryan, you're the one who called LCR's actions in favor of McConnell a "farce." That's the level of discourse at which we started, thanks to you. Not exactly the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, eh?
You then - in pursuit of the ever-so-lofty goal of "discerning information" - accuse the Bush Administration of "kissing butt," and then seem to throw in some sort of sexual innuendo that I don't really get. "Trading favors"? Favors!?! Get it?? (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Maybe I just haven't been laid in a while and I'm reading too much into it, who knows?
Again, I will reiterate - and it is my most sincere hope and prayer that this moves the debate a bit further up the respectability scale - just because someone disagrees with you does not make them harshly anti-gay. It just means they disagree with you.
As far as this "I want to know what you think about what LCR's doing," I personally support it because I don't think this judge is so awful. Please remember a few things.
A) You are probably not going to agree with any of Bush's judicial nominees. I suspect you might find them all a bit to your right. So really, we could probably just cut and paste this whole debate and repost it the next time LCR supports a Bush nominee because you will probably have the same concerns.
Is this nominee perfect from a gay political standpoint? Certainly not. I'm not sure of any who are. But politics is all about messy compromises. I want Connie Morella to be reelected in Maryland even though I probably disagree with her on about (conservative estimate, of course) 80% of the issues. But in the big picture it will be better is she, as a Republican, wins. Similarly, I suspect LCR sees here a well-qualified and ideologically tolerable nominee who has an excellent chance of winning confirmation. The more LCR can do to advance what is already a very likely outcome, the better it looks for them as a force in the party, and the more political capital they have for future battles. C) You, of course, are not concerned with LCR's political liability, which is completely understandable. Those of us who support the group are - also completely understandable. Thus we enter into this debate with different goals in mind, and I'm not sure that our disagreements can be resolved to any significant extent. But I certainly respect your views and concerns, butt kissing and all.
[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:
Where's BoSoxRudy when you need him??!!
VICTIM ALERT VICTIM ALERT VICTIM ALERT
[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]
Raze, Raze, Raze. I'm not saying I'm a victim of anything. It doesn't hurt me emotionally, physically or mentally that some people hate the GOP, think we're Nazis, etc. I'm certainly not a victim the way that, say, Arkansas was a victim of Alabama last weekend. Was that last weekend? Maybe the one before. You probably remember that better than I do, much as I'm sure you'd like to forget. I'm fine, thoough, really. But thank you for your concern.
Where's BoSoxRudy when you need him??!!
VICTIM ALERT VICTIM ALERT VICTIM ALERT
[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]
Raze, Raze, Raze. I'm not saying I'm a victim of anything. It doesn't hurt me emotionally, physically or mentally that some people hate the GOP, think we're Nazis, etc. I'm certainly not a victim the way that, say, Arkansas was a victim of Alabama last weekend. Was that last weekend? Maybe the one before. You probably remember that better than I do, much as I'm sure you'd like to forget. I'm fine, thoough, really. But thank you for your concern.
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Raze, Raze, Raze. I'm not saying I'm a victim of anything. It doesn't hurt me emotionally, physically or mentally that some people hate the GOP, think we're Nazis, etc. I'm certainly not a victim the way that, say, Arkansas was a victim of Alabama last weekend. Was that last weekend? Maybe the one before. You probably remember that better than I do, much as I'm sure you'd like to forget. I'm fine, thoough, really. But thank you
for your concern.
How dare you mix sports and politics!!
It was last weekend by the way and yes it was ugly.
Raze, Raze, Raze. I'm not saying I'm a victim of anything. It doesn't hurt me emotionally, physically or mentally that some people hate the GOP, think we're Nazis, etc. I'm certainly not a victim the way that, say, Arkansas was a victim of Alabama last weekend. Was that last weekend? Maybe the one before. You probably remember that better than I do, much as I'm sure you'd like to forget. I'm fine, thoough, really. But thank you
for your concern.
How dare you mix sports and politics!!
It was last weekend by the way and yes it was ugly.
[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
I went to hear Andrew Sullivan give a book reading about 3/4 years ago. I'm not a big fan of his politics but I like some of what he writes about gay issues. He urged the crowd to basically start holding the Democratic Party accountable for their increasingly gay-hostile actions or else we're shortchanging ourselves and playing in to the Christian Right's hands etc. etc. and, sad to report, the crowd turned on him. It got VERY heated and at one point this silly cow huffily played armchair therapist to Sullivan: "Andrew, you're a very angry man and I can't stand to be around your anger any more". She then flounced out and I'm sure she heard my muttered "Stupid ***" as she walked by.
Jim, Andrew Sullivan *does* raise his voice and he can get as strident as anyone else. He has done it in print, and I've seen him do it in person. Don't believe that "donnish" act--that's all it is. He and I got into a screaming match some years ago--the issue of note at that point was the apartheid regime in South Africa (which certainly dates me). I was utterly against it....
I have encountered him since and have been cordial enough, but I find his politics repulsive, and I ceased to give him the time of day when he came out hysterically against Clinton's Lewinsky shenanigans (as did other Republican hypocrites like Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich, who were later found to have engaged in their own outrageous extramarital affairs).
Labeling leftists "a fifth column" (see the Spinsanity site on this) that constitute "the enemy within the West itself" was the final punctuation point for me concerning this played out loser.
The national Democratic and Republican parties are both heavily oriented towards big business and corporate interests, but I do find many individual candidates in the two parties to be quite different in their ideological orientations. Barbara Lee or Chaka Fattah are QUITE different from Tom DeLay or Dick Armey. Even in the Senate there are truly liberal/progressive (Harkin, Kennedy, Feingold, Levin, Mikulski) and semi-liberal (Boxer, Kerry, Edwards, Rockefeller) Democrats alongside the moderates (Landrieu, Lincoln, Carnahan) and could-be-Republicans (Bayh, Miller). Hillary Clinton, who is often denounced as a liberal, is far to the right of either John Corzine or her fellow New York senator, Chuck Schumer. I used to not believe that she was angling to become president, but the more I look at some of her idiotic positions, like supporting that awful pro-credit card company bankruptcy bill, which really harms poor and working class consumers, who put her over the top in her race against Rick Lazio, the more I begin to think that she's about as dreadful and fake as they come.
[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]
I went to hear Andrew Sullivan give a book reading about 3/4 years ago. I'm not a big fan of his politics but I like some of what he writes about gay issues. He urged the crowd to basically start holding the Democratic Party accountable for their increasingly gay-hostile actions or else we're shortchanging ourselves and playing in to the Christian Right's hands etc. etc. and, sad to report, the crowd turned on him. It got VERY heated and at one point this silly cow huffily played armchair therapist to Sullivan: "Andrew, you're a very angry man and I can't stand to be around your anger any more". She then flounced out and I'm sure she heard my muttered "Stupid ***" as she walked by.
Jim, Andrew Sullivan *does* raise his voice and he can get as strident as anyone else. He has done it in print, and I've seen him do it in person. Don't believe that "donnish" act--that's all it is. He and I got into a screaming match some years ago--the issue of note at that point was the apartheid regime in South Africa (which certainly dates me). I was utterly against it....
I have encountered him since and have been cordial enough, but I find his politics repulsive, and I ceased to give him the time of day when he came out hysterically against Clinton's Lewinsky shenanigans (as did other Republican hypocrites like Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich, who were later found to have engaged in their own outrageous extramarital affairs).
Labeling leftists "a fifth column" (see the Spinsanity site on this) that constitute "the enemy within the West itself" was the final punctuation point for me concerning this played out loser.
The national Democratic and Republican parties are both heavily oriented towards big business and corporate interests, but I do find many individual candidates in the two parties to be quite different in their ideological orientations. Barbara Lee or Chaka Fattah are QUITE different from Tom DeLay or Dick Armey. Even in the Senate there are truly liberal/progressive (Harkin, Kennedy, Feingold, Levin, Mikulski) and semi-liberal (Boxer, Kerry, Edwards, Rockefeller) Democrats alongside the moderates (Landrieu, Lincoln, Carnahan) and could-be-Republicans (Bayh, Miller). Hillary Clinton, who is often denounced as a liberal, is far to the right of either John Corzine or her fellow New York senator, Chuck Schumer. I used to not believe that she was angling to become president, but the more I look at some of her idiotic positions, like supporting that awful pro-credit card company bankruptcy bill, which really harms poor and working class consumers, who put her over the top in her race against Rick Lazio, the more I begin to think that she's about as dreadful and fake as they come.
[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
I want Connie Morella to be reelected in Maryland even though I probably disagree with her on about (conservative estimate, of course) 80% of the issues. But in the big picture it will be better is she, as a Republican, wins.
I don't get this. Please explain.
I assume that whoever Morella's opponent is, you disagree more than 80%.
Fine, but I"m still unclear on what "big picture" are you looking at?
Once again, I'm reminded of the idea that the only way to change a political party is to not vote for it. You don't like what Connie has to say? Vote for someone else. It doesn't have to be a Democrat. I've always fetl the ultimate comment against a candidate is to run against him. If you are against 80% of someone's message, then voting for that person verges on criminal. And this sillyness we have about third parties... yes, if you don't vote Republican, it is likely the Democrat will win, but next time, the Republicans will have to pay better attention to your needs if they want to get elected.
I want Connie Morella to be reelected in Maryland even though I probably disagree with her on about (conservative estimate, of course) 80% of the issues. But in the big picture it will be better is she, as a Republican, wins.
I don't get this. Please explain.
I assume that whoever Morella's opponent is, you disagree more than 80%.
Fine, but I"m still unclear on what "big picture" are you looking at?
Once again, I'm reminded of the idea that the only way to change a political party is to not vote for it. You don't like what Connie has to say? Vote for someone else. It doesn't have to be a Democrat. I've always fetl the ultimate comment against a candidate is to run against him. If you are against 80% of someone's message, then voting for that person verges on criminal. And this sillyness we have about third parties... yes, if you don't vote Republican, it is likely the Democrat will win, but next time, the Republicans will have to pay better attention to your needs if they want to get elected.
[quote]Originally posted by jqueer:
I don't get this. Please explain.
I assume that whoever Morella's opponent is, you disagree more than 80%.
Fine, but I"m still unclear on what "big picture" are you looking at?
Once again, I'm reminded of the idea that the only way to change a political party is to not vote for it. You don't like what Connie has to say? Vote for someone else. It doesn't have to be a Democrat. I've always fetl the ultimate comment against a candidate is to run against him. If you are against 80% of someone's message, then voting for that person verges on criminal. And this sillyness we have about third parties... yes, if you don't vote Republican, it is likely the Democrat will win, but next time, the Republicans will have to pay better attention to your needs if they want to get elected.
First, I'm not in Morella's district, so it really doesn't matter whether I vote for her or not (though I might volunteer for her campaign). The big picture is control of the House. If she wins, GOP has better shot at keeping the House Majority. If she loses, it's that much tougher. And if Morella wins, she will vote for Hastert, DeLay, etc. for leadership positions, because they have been helping with her campaign (a fact M's opponent is quite understandably using against her). So despite her flawed views, if she wins, people who I agree with 90% of the time will (probably) run the House. That's the big picture.
I don't get this. Please explain.
I assume that whoever Morella's opponent is, you disagree more than 80%.
Fine, but I"m still unclear on what "big picture" are you looking at?
Once again, I'm reminded of the idea that the only way to change a political party is to not vote for it. You don't like what Connie has to say? Vote for someone else. It doesn't have to be a Democrat. I've always fetl the ultimate comment against a candidate is to run against him. If you are against 80% of someone's message, then voting for that person verges on criminal. And this sillyness we have about third parties... yes, if you don't vote Republican, it is likely the Democrat will win, but next time, the Republicans will have to pay better attention to your needs if they want to get elected.
First, I'm not in Morella's district, so it really doesn't matter whether I vote for her or not (though I might volunteer for her campaign). The big picture is control of the House. If she wins, GOP has better shot at keeping the House Majority. If she loses, it's that much tougher. And if Morella wins, she will vote for Hastert, DeLay, etc. for leadership positions, because they have been helping with her campaign (a fact M's opponent is quite understandably using against her). So despite her flawed views, if she wins, people who I agree with 90% of the time will (probably) run the House. That's the big picture.
What you didn't say, WIlliam, is that the 80% of what you don't agree with is her left leaning stances on guns, abortion, animal rights, affirmative action, welfare and other social issues. I do hope her stance on ENDA is part of the 20% you do agree with. So, unless I completely have misread your political position, you still haven't answered the questions put to you as an LCR member. One, what part of the Republican platform is friendly to gays warranting official gay support? Two, how is voting for candidates that oppose your right to exist going to change their position on that issue?
[quote]Originally posted by jqueer:
What you didn't say, WIlliam, is that the 80% of what you don't agree with is her left leaning stances on guns, abortion, animal rights, affirmative action, welfare and other social issues. I do hope her stance on ENDA is part of the 20% you do agree with. So, unless I completely have misread your political position, you still haven't answered the questions put to you as an LCR member. One, what part of the Republican platform is friendly to gays warranting official gay support? Two, how is voting for candidates that oppose your right to exist going to change their position on that issue?
See, this is all very tricky, at least the first question is, because I'm going to answer, and then you are going to say, "This issue isn't good for gays," "That issues isn't good for gays," "This other issue isn't good for gays," etc. So I feel like this isn't really a question about which issues would cause gays to support Republicans, but a sort of bait on which to challenge me on every issue imaginable. Not that I'm scared to debate these issues. I'm not scared to go to McDonald's, but I just don't want to right now. Also, I just vote differently than most gays, and probably most gay Republicans. I'm hardly the best representative of offiical LCR doctrine. Most LCRs want to "change the party from the inside," etc. Not me. I like the party, and want it to win. Thus, for me personally, it's not about "what benefits" gays but what I believe. So I'm totally the wrong person to answer this question. Email Rich Tafel and ask him. That said, I am Republican because I am pro-life, I support tax cuts, gun rights, Social Security privatization (I'm not running for office, so I'll use the word, even though it's not completely accurate) and a strong defense.
I know not all gays agree or vote on these issues. But I do. And I'm not going to debate these issues bit-by-bit, down to the marrow. We all know the pros and cons and we've probably all got our minds made up.
Your second question, this whole "right to exist" nonsense, I'm not even going to play that game. It's obviously a loaded question.
What you didn't say, WIlliam, is that the 80% of what you don't agree with is her left leaning stances on guns, abortion, animal rights, affirmative action, welfare and other social issues. I do hope her stance on ENDA is part of the 20% you do agree with. So, unless I completely have misread your political position, you still haven't answered the questions put to you as an LCR member. One, what part of the Republican platform is friendly to gays warranting official gay support? Two, how is voting for candidates that oppose your right to exist going to change their position on that issue?
See, this is all very tricky, at least the first question is, because I'm going to answer, and then you are going to say, "This issue isn't good for gays," "That issues isn't good for gays," "This other issue isn't good for gays," etc. So I feel like this isn't really a question about which issues would cause gays to support Republicans, but a sort of bait on which to challenge me on every issue imaginable. Not that I'm scared to debate these issues. I'm not scared to go to McDonald's, but I just don't want to right now. Also, I just vote differently than most gays, and probably most gay Republicans. I'm hardly the best representative of offiical LCR doctrine. Most LCRs want to "change the party from the inside," etc. Not me. I like the party, and want it to win. Thus, for me personally, it's not about "what benefits" gays but what I believe. So I'm totally the wrong person to answer this question. Email Rich Tafel and ask him. That said, I am Republican because I am pro-life, I support tax cuts, gun rights, Social Security privatization (I'm not running for office, so I'll use the word, even though it's not completely accurate) and a strong defense.
I know not all gays agree or vote on these issues. But I do. And I'm not going to debate these issues bit-by-bit, down to the marrow. We all know the pros and cons and we've probably all got our minds made up.
Your second question, this whole "right to exist" nonsense, I'm not even going to play that game. It's obviously a loaded question.
For what it's worth, I go to Log Cabin events mainly to pick up guys, with marginal success. Ideologically, they have nothing to offer me. So there. Cat's out of the bag.
I'm....I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to see W1865 actually explain himself instead of just firing back with 2 sentences of sarcasm. Obviously, the earth is going to spin off it's axis and crash in to the sun at any moment.
[quote]Your second question, this whole "right to exist" nonsense, I'm not even going to play that game. It's obviously a loaded question
But isn't that the nub of the gist (tm Monty Python)? I suspect that most gay Dems aren't ideologues that disagree about the fine print in Social Security privitization, for example, but people that are tired of the Republicans tacitly condoning by silence the nutjob far right wing of their party. If the Republicans would truly expunge the anti-gay rhetoric and support of anti-gay policies, I'm sure a lot of queers would flock to them and their illusory promises of lower taxes and smaller government. As usual, your mileage may vary.
Fantomas, thanks for the info about Andrew Sullivan. He seems to have begun to quietly lose his mind the further he is from having left England.
[quote]Your second question, this whole "right to exist" nonsense, I'm not even going to play that game. It's obviously a loaded question
But isn't that the nub of the gist (tm Monty Python)? I suspect that most gay Dems aren't ideologues that disagree about the fine print in Social Security privitization, for example, but people that are tired of the Republicans tacitly condoning by silence the nutjob far right wing of their party. If the Republicans would truly expunge the anti-gay rhetoric and support of anti-gay policies, I'm sure a lot of queers would flock to them and their illusory promises of lower taxes and smaller government. As usual, your mileage may vary.
Fantomas, thanks for the info about Andrew Sullivan. He seems to have begun to quietly lose his mind the further he is from having left England.
I think the differences come about in what qualifies as a "gay issue." To me, issues like minimizing government, keeping taxes at a reasonable level, providing a strong national defense, defending the rights of gun owners ARE gay issues, just as I think they're issues for EVERYONE.
I don't care for a lot of the rhetoric on social issues, but I don't see how it would make things the slightest bit better to completely abandon the GOP, especially since, like the majority of the electorate, I put more weight on "pocketbook issues." That would simply give the extreme right free reign in the party. I think if I were a Democrat I wouldn't want to see that happen, either - it would allow the Dems to simply presume the gay vote was in their column and not even make the pretense of addressing the issues our community faces. Also, quite frankly, I prefer knowing where I stand. I don't have a problem with agitating from within and constantly pointing out that there's another viewpoint that deserves an audience - I did it for many years as an investment banker on Wall Street, and I did it as a McCain delegate at the convention in 2000. I prefer that to what I perceive to be the Democratic way - talk the talk at gay fundraisers, preach to the converted, then sell folks down the river after the campaign contributions are safely in the bank. I feel that was what happened during the Clinton years, and I feel it will continue to happen because there is a very visible element of the queer movement that feels it beneficial to further the image of queers as uniformly in not only the Democratic column, but in the far-left-wing-odious column of Kennedy, Wellstone, etc. My guess is if you could get all gays to honestly self-identify to pollsters as gay, you'd find a split between the political parties that, like the population as a whole, was rather evenly divided. So do I think the GOP is perfect? Far from it. Do I think our community would be better off if I didn't keep letting them know that "we're here, we're queer, we're Republicans?" That, for me, is a resounding no, because there is far too much that I do agree on, and that I think is important for our entire country.
With that, I remind myself that I've violated my "2 posts max on a thread because it inevitably gets ugly otherwise" rule, and I skedattle back over to the baseball boards (hey, Jim Allen, I'll bet you a beer at the Outsports convention, plus a bootleg CD of Callas singing "Norma," the Yanks take the Angels).
Apolgies if I came on too strong earlier - ultimately we're all sistuhs!
[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Munson Man ]
I don't care for a lot of the rhetoric on social issues, but I don't see how it would make things the slightest bit better to completely abandon the GOP, especially since, like the majority of the electorate, I put more weight on "pocketbook issues." That would simply give the extreme right free reign in the party. I think if I were a Democrat I wouldn't want to see that happen, either - it would allow the Dems to simply presume the gay vote was in their column and not even make the pretense of addressing the issues our community faces. Also, quite frankly, I prefer knowing where I stand. I don't have a problem with agitating from within and constantly pointing out that there's another viewpoint that deserves an audience - I did it for many years as an investment banker on Wall Street, and I did it as a McCain delegate at the convention in 2000. I prefer that to what I perceive to be the Democratic way - talk the talk at gay fundraisers, preach to the converted, then sell folks down the river after the campaign contributions are safely in the bank. I feel that was what happened during the Clinton years, and I feel it will continue to happen because there is a very visible element of the queer movement that feels it beneficial to further the image of queers as uniformly in not only the Democratic column, but in the far-left-wing-odious column of Kennedy, Wellstone, etc. My guess is if you could get all gays to honestly self-identify to pollsters as gay, you'd find a split between the political parties that, like the population as a whole, was rather evenly divided. So do I think the GOP is perfect? Far from it. Do I think our community would be better off if I didn't keep letting them know that "we're here, we're queer, we're Republicans?" That, for me, is a resounding no, because there is far too much that I do agree on, and that I think is important for our entire country.
With that, I remind myself that I've violated my "2 posts max on a thread because it inevitably gets ugly otherwise" rule, and I skedattle back over to the baseball boards (hey, Jim Allen, I'll bet you a beer at the Outsports convention, plus a bootleg CD of Callas singing "Norma," the Yanks take the Angels).
Apolgies if I came on too strong earlier - ultimately we're all sistuhs!
[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Munson Man ]
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Most LCRs want to "change the party from the inside," etc. Not me. I like the party, and want it to win.
Frankly, William, I asked you the wrong questions because I didn't know enough about your position. In that sentence you've answered my doubts, and I respect your position. I will take you off my mental list of LCR's who should be chanllenged on the "changing the party from the inside."
That still leaves the fact that the Republican party seems to be in favor of criminalizing your sexual behavior (I assume your sexual behavior includes contact with members of your own sex). I do think that's a legitimate question even to you, but as I've said before, Democrats aren't exactly manning the barricades to get sodomy laws repealled, so the question loses a lot of its urgency.
For the record, gay issues are only those issues which relate to public policy with regard to sexual orientation and behavior.ENDA is a gay issue. Affirmative action is not. DOMA is a gay issue. Gun laws are not. Social Security is only a gay issue as it pertains to survivors benefits, not privatization.
Most LCRs want to "change the party from the inside," etc. Not me. I like the party, and want it to win.
Frankly, William, I asked you the wrong questions because I didn't know enough about your position. In that sentence you've answered my doubts, and I respect your position. I will take you off my mental list of LCR's who should be chanllenged on the "changing the party from the inside."
That still leaves the fact that the Republican party seems to be in favor of criminalizing your sexual behavior (I assume your sexual behavior includes contact with members of your own sex). I do think that's a legitimate question even to you, but as I've said before, Democrats aren't exactly manning the barricades to get sodomy laws repealled, so the question loses a lot of its urgency.
For the record, gay issues are only those issues which relate to public policy with regard to sexual orientation and behavior.ENDA is a gay issue. Affirmative action is not. DOMA is a gay issue. Gun laws are not. Social Security is only a gay issue as it pertains to survivors benefits, not privatization.
edited to delete duplicate
[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: jqueer ]
[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: jqueer ]
Munson Man, you're on re: Angels v. Yankees. Though, I can't stand Maria Callas or Norma, I'm a 20th century opera boy (see: Wozzeck). Wow! I feel like governors swapping shellfish for steaks or something. [quote]I prefer that to what I perceive to be the Democratic way - talk the talk at gay fundraisers, preach to the converted, then sell folks down the river after the campaign contributions are safely in the bank. I feel that was what happened during the Clinton years, and I feel it will continue to happen because there is a very visible element of the queer movement that feels it beneficial to further the image of queers as uniformly in not only the Democratic column, but in the far-left-wing-odious column of Kennedy, Wellstone, etc. My guess is if you could get all gays to honestly self-identify to pollsters as gay, you'd find a split between the political parties that, like the population as a whole, was rather evenly divided.
Well said.
What JQueer wrote.
Feel the LOVE in the P & R forum.
[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
Well said.
What JQueer wrote.
Feel the LOVE in the P & R forum.
[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
William - the first paragraph of my original post was written by me introducing the 2nd paragraph - written by John Aravois which lead to the link...
hope that snuffs out your previous and no doubt good natured snit...
hope that snuffs out your previous and no doubt good natured snit...
I am a republican. I am a proud out gay man. GU alumnus and formerly of the Hill. I am a log cabin member who chose to not go to any of the meetings because as William has pointed out, so many of those present are there for the "social aspects" of the get together.
many valid arguments made from both sides of the aisle. But I'm just amazed at the amount of vitriol from both sides also. am I surprised? No. But still disheartening nonetheless.
why are the democrats surprised that LCR (as a REPUBLICAN organization) supports the candidacy of a nominee to whom they are opposed? That is the nature of the beast. Is it not? We are in opposite/competing parties. Therefore, as William noted, no matter which conservative nominee we support, you will find fault. Just as any candidate Ted Kennedy would nominate, we would find reasons to critique.
Do you really expect LCR republicans to support a democrat approved candidate?
Why are we also screaming at each other only to retort that the other party is screaming?
One last comment.... M1011.... you said "I was not equating you with Nazis- I meant to suggest that you may be associated with a party that does not have our best interest at heart"
But what you wrote was
"gay republican = Jewish Nazi"
This symbol (=) in mathematics is the "equality sign". Therefore you were, in fact, equating us with nazis. There can be no other intrepretation to what you wrote.
many valid arguments made from both sides of the aisle. But I'm just amazed at the amount of vitriol from both sides also. am I surprised? No. But still disheartening nonetheless.
why are the democrats surprised that LCR (as a REPUBLICAN organization) supports the candidacy of a nominee to whom they are opposed? That is the nature of the beast. Is it not? We are in opposite/competing parties. Therefore, as William noted, no matter which conservative nominee we support, you will find fault. Just as any candidate Ted Kennedy would nominate, we would find reasons to critique.
Do you really expect LCR republicans to support a democrat approved candidate?
Why are we also screaming at each other only to retort that the other party is screaming?
One last comment.... M1011.... you said "I was not equating you with Nazis- I meant to suggest that you may be associated with a party that does not have our best interest at heart"
But what you wrote was
"gay republican = Jewish Nazi"
This symbol (=) in mathematics is the "equality sign". Therefore you were, in fact, equating us with nazis. There can be no other intrepretation to what you wrote.
I'm not defending his poorly chosen analogy but I believe he was making a comparison between two seemingly incongruent combinations: being a jewish nazi is obviously a grave contradiction and in complete opposition...and that being a gay republican was also a direct contradiction in terms....I think we all agree that it was a poor choice and perhaps we can now let it go...
And, Ung, I do think the thread is not about that one party will predictably be against another party's choice, but that the gay members of the Republican party are supporting an anti-gay nominee...one would think that that would be a problem for someone who's gay...but, as many believe, one's gay integrity gets somewhat diluted when a member of the republican party...
And, Ung, I do think the thread is not about that one party will predictably be against another party's choice, but that the gay members of the Republican party are supporting an anti-gay nominee...one would think that that would be a problem for someone who's gay...but, as many believe, one's gay integrity gets somewhat diluted when a member of the republican party...
[quote]Originally posted by ung:
I am a log cabin member who chose to not go to any of the meetings because as William has pointed out, so many of those present are there for the "social aspects" of the get together.
If this is a common occurrence what does this say about Log Cabin itself?
I am a log cabin member who chose to not go to any of the meetings because as William has pointed out, so many of those present are there for the "social aspects" of the get together.
If this is a common occurrence what does this say about Log Cabin itself?
what does it say about Log Cabin?
Probably no more and no less than what can be said about just about any other civic, political or charitable organization where the stated goal often is secondary (or even tertiary) to networking, making contacts and social climbing.
It goes without saying that this is not unique to republican gays.
Probably no more and no less than what can be said about just about any other civic, political or charitable organization where the stated goal often is secondary (or even tertiary) to networking, making contacts and social climbing.
It goes without saying that this is not unique to republican gays.
[quote] I go to Log Cabin events mainly to pick up guys
Like, eeeeewwwwwww, yuck!
Like, eeeeewwwwwww, yuck!
[quote]Originally posted by Billy:
Like, eeeeewwwwwww, yuck!
There are some Hotties in suits & ties there - I like that clean cut all - american look! !
Like, eeeeewwwwwww, yuck!
There are some Hotties in suits & ties there - I like that clean cut all - american look! !
[quote]Originally posted by m1011:
A quick reply-- first, I am a Jew myself and this Republican party bears no resemblance to the party of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, or even Gerald Ford.
Thank you m1011.
And you don't have to be Jewish, you can be LGBT, gay especially.
- - - - -
That link didn't work when I tried it - oh well....
[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]
A quick reply-- first, I am a Jew myself and this Republican party bears no resemblance to the party of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, or even Gerald Ford.
Thank you m1011.
And you don't have to be Jewish, you can be LGBT, gay especially.
- - - - -
That link didn't work when I tried it - oh well....
[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Ponder this: Go F$#& yourself. I'm a gay Republican, and I really don't appreciate being called a Nazi.
You know what galls me about this type of response? It occurs as too self-serving. Although it was absolute and damning, it was not personal. And since when William1865, was the cause yours alone, and no one else's?
Curse if you like, but escalating a political argument that we ALL have a stake in to such heights, as if you have all the responsibility for what transpires in the political arena, is, at the least, surprising; at worst, ludicrous.
This goes for all people (Republicans or not) who are taking this a little too seriously. Remember, we're probably not going to have a chance to vote for you, anyway - so, at least make a civil (and, dare I say, professional?) show for your party.
- - - - -
The EQUATION of LGBT Republicans with Nazis is untrue; nevertheless, I intend to speak out whenever LGBT people work against me (again I didn't read the link, so I can't speak directly to the article).
On a related note: There was an Advocate piece some years ago about the gay official who was Hitler's right-hand man. I don't think there was definitive proof; yet, enough to justify publishing an article.
Point: There ARE LGBT people who work against us, and work for our detriment. And, it's up to us to recognize it and counter when we can, because WE are the ones who are meant to suffer.
- - - - -
P.S. You know, if I were looking for a reason to go with the Republican point of view - I have had, on occassion, flashes of elephants.....why is it that I can never get it? Yes, I am speaking somewhat generally, but my take on things, ESPECIALLY FROM THIS FORUM, is that Republicans are always prepared to shoot an argument down by degrading its author, but no opposing and equally reasoned alternative is offered.
I don't care to be shot down; but, if my arguments are so unfounded - I think I deserve the courtesy of a proper counter. After all, this is supposed to be a forum, isn't it?
Trying to get me to believe I don't have to right to analyze and critize will NEVER get it - because my vote is, in the end, my analysis.
[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]
Ponder this: Go F$#& yourself. I'm a gay Republican, and I really don't appreciate being called a Nazi.
You know what galls me about this type of response? It occurs as too self-serving. Although it was absolute and damning, it was not personal. And since when William1865, was the cause yours alone, and no one else's?
Curse if you like, but escalating a political argument that we ALL have a stake in to such heights, as if you have all the responsibility for what transpires in the political arena, is, at the least, surprising; at worst, ludicrous.
This goes for all people (Republicans or not) who are taking this a little too seriously. Remember, we're probably not going to have a chance to vote for you, anyway - so, at least make a civil (and, dare I say, professional?) show for your party.
- - - - -
The EQUATION of LGBT Republicans with Nazis is untrue; nevertheless, I intend to speak out whenever LGBT people work against me (again I didn't read the link, so I can't speak directly to the article).
On a related note: There was an Advocate piece some years ago about the gay official who was Hitler's right-hand man. I don't think there was definitive proof; yet, enough to justify publishing an article.
Point: There ARE LGBT people who work against us, and work for our detriment. And, it's up to us to recognize it and counter when we can, because WE are the ones who are meant to suffer.
- - - - -
P.S. You know, if I were looking for a reason to go with the Republican point of view - I have had, on occassion, flashes of elephants.....why is it that I can never get it? Yes, I am speaking somewhat generally, but my take on things, ESPECIALLY FROM THIS FORUM, is that Republicans are always prepared to shoot an argument down by degrading its author, but no opposing and equally reasoned alternative is offered.
I don't care to be shot down; but, if my arguments are so unfounded - I think I deserve the courtesy of a proper counter. After all, this is supposed to be a forum, isn't it?
Trying to get me to believe I don't have to right to analyze and critize will NEVER get it - because my vote is, in the end, my analysis.
[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]
[quote]Originally posted by bluebird48234:
You know what galls me about this type of response? It yadda-yadda-yadda
Wow. Mr. Bluebird on my shoulder all of a sudden, chirping away. I think I've explained my fondness for the phrase "Go etc." and my willingness to use it with little or no provocation. To everything else, I'm just going to go with my standard Jenna Bush reply: What-ever.
You know what galls me about this type of response? It yadda-yadda-yadda
Wow. Mr. Bluebird on my shoulder all of a sudden, chirping away. I think I've explained my fondness for the phrase "Go etc." and my willingness to use it with little or no provocation. To everything else, I'm just going to go with my standard Jenna Bush reply: What-ever.
Ah, there's the flaw with message boards: that "What-ever" just can't convey the proper amount of Valley Girl accent, dismissiveness and boredom to make it truly effective. [quote]There was an Advocate piece some years ago about the gay official who was Hitler's right-hand man. I don't think there was definitive proof; yet, enough to justify publishing an article
It was probably about Ernst Roehm. There's very little doubt that Roehm and a portion of the SA were homosexual; the Night of the Long Knives took care of them once they had served their purposes to Der Fuhrer. Proof, as if any were really needed, that not all homosexuals are nice people.
It was probably about Ernst Roehm. There's very little doubt that Roehm and a portion of the SA were homosexual; the Night of the Long Knives took care of them once they had served their purposes to Der Fuhrer. Proof, as if any were really needed, that not all homosexuals are nice people.
Apopollylogies - I watched "Clockwork Orange" the other night - for my absence, JA, William et al. I was gone from the 3rd thru the 8th for my college homecoming/fraternity reunion and electronically incommunicado. A nice trip all around. (Memo to Bridgeport Jake: figured out a bike route from downtown Hammond to Calumet Park without having to endure diesel trucks, railroad tracks and all the other detritus of now abandoned industrial zones.)
Since returning and picking up this thread, it's interesting to note a few things. First, the thread went dormant for over a week from 10-6 thru 10-14, until Billy frayed it anew by caterwauling "eeeeewwwwwww, yuck!" This resurrection act's been done before and it bespeaks a lack of a life as much as his post offers nothing to the debate. That too's been done before.
Second, most my arguments in rebuttal have already been nicely made by you and several others, Ung among them. The bottom line is this: just because gay GOPers don't buy into the leftist line that has claimed to represent all GLBTs, doesn't mean we're anti GLBT. There are many ways to skin the civil rights cat, and we're doing it our way. Together, with a variety of approaches, we'll win; it's just a matter of time. Isn't that one of the oft-touted benefits of this so-called "diversity?"
And yes, Copman, "coats, ties, bedroom eyes ... and down below, a nice surprise!" Clean-cut - or not! A lot of guys in LCR, myself included, are drawn to it for social reasons as well as political ones - Hell, for us political animals politics IS socializing! - and we like to do so with compatible people. The left isn't going to start telling us whom we can hang out with now, are they? "Festa omnibus, festa nemo" - a party for everyone is a party for no one.
Now, the 10th Circuit nomination. As a lawyer, I respect McConnell's learning but I don't agree with his politics or judicial philosophy at all. But the issue that Tafel and others and I do agree on is the Patrick Leahy's stalling the judicial nominees from ever getting voted on by the full Senate. The "advice and consent" clause means the full Senate, NOT its constituent committees and that's the real issue. If McConnell's nomination went to the floor and he lost, I wouldn't shed any tears. In fact, it might prompt the administration to abandon its apparent litmus test of pro-lifers for the bench and maybe even lead it to appoint a gay lawyer to a federal appeals court, which would be a first and would score HUGE points with most all LGBTs - except the HRC crowd of course, who resents it mightily when the wind is drawn from their sails. But there are two separate issues here and that's what Tafel was referring to.
Finally, at the risk of opening a new thread, did anyone watch ESPN Classic's running of "Rudy" last night? Not a bad flick, but even better commentary and color by the two hosts. And then who shows up at a GOP rally in SF for us local candidates this a.m? MY MAIN MAN, RUDY G. OF NYC! Now, THAT's the way to celebrate Columbus Day!
Since returning and picking up this thread, it's interesting to note a few things. First, the thread went dormant for over a week from 10-6 thru 10-14, until Billy frayed it anew by caterwauling "eeeeewwwwwww, yuck!" This resurrection act's been done before and it bespeaks a lack of a life as much as his post offers nothing to the debate. That too's been done before.
Second, most my arguments in rebuttal have already been nicely made by you and several others, Ung among them. The bottom line is this: just because gay GOPers don't buy into the leftist line that has claimed to represent all GLBTs, doesn't mean we're anti GLBT. There are many ways to skin the civil rights cat, and we're doing it our way. Together, with a variety of approaches, we'll win; it's just a matter of time. Isn't that one of the oft-touted benefits of this so-called "diversity?"
And yes, Copman, "coats, ties, bedroom eyes ... and down below, a nice surprise!" Clean-cut - or not! A lot of guys in LCR, myself included, are drawn to it for social reasons as well as political ones - Hell, for us political animals politics IS socializing! - and we like to do so with compatible people. The left isn't going to start telling us whom we can hang out with now, are they? "Festa omnibus, festa nemo" - a party for everyone is a party for no one.
Now, the 10th Circuit nomination. As a lawyer, I respect McConnell's learning but I don't agree with his politics or judicial philosophy at all. But the issue that Tafel and others and I do agree on is the Patrick Leahy's stalling the judicial nominees from ever getting voted on by the full Senate. The "advice and consent" clause means the full Senate, NOT its constituent committees and that's the real issue. If McConnell's nomination went to the floor and he lost, I wouldn't shed any tears. In fact, it might prompt the administration to abandon its apparent litmus test of pro-lifers for the bench and maybe even lead it to appoint a gay lawyer to a federal appeals court, which would be a first and would score HUGE points with most all LGBTs - except the HRC crowd of course, who resents it mightily when the wind is drawn from their sails. But there are two separate issues here and that's what Tafel was referring to.
Finally, at the risk of opening a new thread, did anyone watch ESPN Classic's running of "Rudy" last night? Not a bad flick, but even better commentary and color by the two hosts. And then who shows up at a GOP rally in SF for us local candidates this a.m? MY MAIN MAN, RUDY G. OF NYC! Now, THAT's the way to celebrate Columbus Day!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.