GOP Group Withholds Endorsement of Bush

WASHINGTON — The Republican Party's largest gay and lesbian organization, which endorsed President Bush in 2000, is withholding its endorsement of the president for re-election because of his support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

The national board of Log Cabin Republicans voted 22-2 Tuesday night to hold back the endorsement and called Bush "disloyal" to the 1 million gay men and lesbian women who it said supported his candidacy four years ago.

"It is impossible to overstate the depth of anger and disappointment caused by the president's support for an antifamily constitutional amendment. This amendment would not only ban gay marriage, it would also jeopardize civil unions and domestic partnerships," Log Cabin political director Chris Barron said.

The organization said significant victories for gay rights marked the early days of the Bush administration, including the appointment of openly gay employees in the administration and anti-discrimination protection for federal employees.

Log Cabin executive director Patrick Guerriero said the administration shifted from initial reluctance over a ban on gay marriage to full support after the campaign decided to focus its re-election efforts on persuading evangelical Republicans who stayed at home in 2000 to go to the polls this year.

"Log Cabin's decision was made in response to the White House's strategic political decision to pursue a re-election strategy catered to the radical right. The president's use of the bully pulpit, stump speeches and radio addresses to support a constitutional amendment has encouraged the passage of discriminatory laws and state constitutional amendments across America. Using gays and lesbians as wedge issues in an election year is unacceptable to Log Cabin," Guerriero said.

The group also denounced what it called "the continued flip-flops on gay and lesbian issues" by Democratic nominee John Kerry. It said Kerry has repeatedly made clear his opposition to civil marriage equality and has supported discriminatory constitutional amendments in Massachusetts and Missouri.

Kerry has said he opposes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, calling it a matter for states to decide. He has said he supports civil unions.

On the Net:
Log Cabin Republicans: http://www.logcabin.org

Unfortunately, this will probably lead to the end of their group. I'm guessing a substantial number of LCR members still support Bush and will want to see him endorsed. I see two smaller groups coming out of this. one will be touted by the President for inclusion, the LCR will be punished for taking a stand.

Well, their board voted 22-2 not to endorse. Is your guess based on anything in particular. I'm sure there are some (hell, there were gays working for Buchanan 8 & 12 years ago) but "substantial"? That would be kinda sad.

I'm reminded of actor and outspoken uberLiberal Ron Silver, who spoke at the RNC because he's become a 9/11 Bushie a la Dennis Miller... Silver said "I'll live to fight another day on liberal social issues" but that for now it was important to re-elect Dubya. Unfortunately 4 more years of Bush means there might not BE "another day" for a lot of people.

Actually, just the opposite is happening. Since Bush began demonizing gays and shilling for the FMA, LCR's membership has doubled - from 6,000 to 12,000 - and fundraising has increased so dramatically that for the first time ever LCR is paying for an ad campaignn stating its positions.

Agreed, MM. However many may hope for LCR's demise - on the radical right AND left - it ain't gonna happen. Just what part about "we're in this for the long run" don't people understand? :confused:

And what can the GOP do to "punish" us? No GOP group is under any obligation to endorse its candidates; the obligation is not to oppose them and there IS a difference between the two. I'll be curious to see how many LCR members are tossed off any local central committees they were elected to - itself another story largely ignored in the gay and mainstream press. Since we're guessing, I'll guess none.

Finally, don't look for any other splinter groups to form. "The Austin 12" never stayed afloat after it met with then-candidate Bush and most of its members have stayed active in LCR at at least their prior level of activity. As for the Republican Unity Coalition, it too poses no diversionary - dare I say 'dilutionary'? - threat, since it likewise failed to really do anything more than hold a Inaugural Breakfast the day before President Bush took office. Members of both groups - myself included in the latter - tired of biding our time or being lectured by the likes of former-Sen. Alan Simpson. The President's unfortunate and ill-advised position on FMA was the last straw for too many who worked too hard in LCR over the past 25+ years for our rights. True, many LCR members will vote for him in November, but in the meantime we've served notice that we're not his or anyone else's patsies and aren't going to let up criticizing - and working - from within. It never ceases to amaze me how anyone in his right mind could have predicted we'd do anything other.

I, for one, am proud of LCR for taking this stand. I am impressed by this, and it makes the organization look less like the "Abused Housewives" of the party that keep coming back for more. There are some good moderate Republicans out there who need the support. If the LCR can help get some of these folks elected it might start to turn the tide of the party away from the radical stance it leans now.

If thier non-endorsement turns even a few of them away from a Bush vote (to Libertarian or other) the message would be loud and clear, especially if Bush loses by a small margin.

Denver I agree with you. Every vote is going to count in November, and should Bush lose this group, he may very well pay the price.

Outspokenness by Gays and Lesbians and anyone else with a moderate voice in the Republican Party is a good thing IMO.

They should just hold their noses and vote for Kerry already. If they want to send a signal that the FMA and the platform against civil unions are wrong, get them out of office. Teach them (Bush and the religious right wing) a real lesson.

I've never understood this whole 'not going to vote/ going to vote for some third party candidate' thing when it comes to this issue. If they want real change, they'll make the current admin pay for their antigay position. Can't have it both ways. If he gets elected again, who cares whether or not LCR refused to endorse him? They'll be written off all the more (as in, see, who gives a toss what you think, we won anyway). The only effective message is one that refuses endorsement coupled with Bush's loss.

Now, I realize the organization can't say vote Kerry, but I sure hope that most, if not all the members do. What's the point otherwise?

[ September 08, 2004, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

Denver, I need to note that "abused housewives," as you put it, don't "keep coming back for more."
Please get acquainted with some literature or organization dealing with domestic violence. Your characterization of it is as out of touch as a Model T Ford.

I too salute the LCR for this stand - although it seems relatively minor, it is a huge step for a party that has prided itself on unity for the last few decades.

I also don't think this will weaken the group, although they may lose some short-term influence (and let's face it, with the "Christian" right running the party, that influence was minor at best). In the long term, as the GOP fights the influence of the radical right in the next few years, this stand should help the LCR gain power and influence with those who, with any luck, will be running the party in 10 - 20 years.

Can you actually imagine how it would be if the LCR were able to get the GOP to capitulate on issues of gay rights?

Nobody here cared about this analogy, even if it was a very general assumption, they got the point I was making, It's not like I am here to write a psychology report and have to support a thesis. This is a message board where we rant, nothing professional, so back off!

And besides, my characterization is fine, my mother was abused for years and would never leave, and would continue to forgive, it was as if she was "Coming back for more" I witnessed this for years, and my father's behavior would never change because he knew she would always return to him!

SO DON'T YOU DARE QUESTION MY EXPERIENCE OR KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH A SUBJECT!


Now get back on topic!

[ September 08, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]

re: "Can you actually imagine how it would be if the LCR were able to get the GOP to capitulate on issues of gay rights?"

The only way they can do that is to make sure Bush loses. And that's to vote for Kerry.

Keep in mind that the religious right won't capitulate. They get their marching orders from selective reading of the Bible, and that won't change.

What moderates have to do is prove that it's a losing proposition for a presidential candidate to be antigay. Be antigay--as the platform was--and you lose is the only effective message. Keep in mind that it's a winning issue for him now. And a losing one for Dems, which is why they're being wusses about not supporting gay marriage.

[ September 08, 2004, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

That would require Dubya to associate himself with comma-sekshul pre-verts, which would rankle (if not alienate some of) the Religious Right base to which he's kowtowing in the first place. As Dana Carvey would've said, "nah guh nuh" happen. Dubya kissed "inclusion" goodbye long ago.

KUDOS to the LCR's! Now put your vote where your mouth is and vote for John Kerry. A win by Bush in November will be interpreted as a mandate for anti-gay initiatives at any level on any issue for years to come.

And just as scary, Supreme Court nominees are at stake this time. eek!

I agree - Congratulations to the LCR - I honestly didn't think they had it in them. Might almost get me to reconsider a donation this year...nawww

As for a 'mandate for inclusion' - don't hold your breath - remember Clinton? and Kerry is far more wishy washy than C ever was...

Rob

Though I applaud the LCR for the decision, I have to wonder whether it will embolden the hard religious right currently in ascendancy in the Republican Party. They can claim they forced the LCR--a moderate group--to take the action and will be on the hunt for other moderate groups. Ultimately, if the Republicans become too beholden to the religious, it will come back to hurt the Party (not that I--proud to be a liberal Democrat--would do anything but laugh) and could cause major schism within the Republican Party.

~Adam

Thought that occurred to me: Gay Republicans should vote for John Kerry. A loss for Bush may give moderate Republicans such as McCain, Ahnuld, Rudy, and Bloomberg (sp?) ammunition to assert themselves with. If Bush wins, what reason does the party have to move away from Delay, etc.? If it ain't broke, why fix it?

ITjock,

I didn't say a word about "inclusion", or gaining any for that matter, if Kerry is elected. You didn't get my point. The possibility of escalated EXCLUSION exists since one of the MAIN wedge issues is about gays and taken up by W with a little too much gusto if you ask me.

The LEADER of the free world is trying to deny our rights by way of a Constitutional amendment. This should not be rewarded with a vote for Nader or our current sitting President.

[ September 08, 2004, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]

You are correct, the only way that the LCR is going to have any real influence with the Republican National Committee is when they demonstrate that they are able and willing to sink candidates that cross them. The LCR’s board should not merely have declined to endorse Bush. It should have endorsed Kerry on the perfectly true and logical grounds that Kerry is the lesser of two evils.

If even half of the group’s members follow such an endorsement and Bush subsequently lost the election, the LCR would establish itself as a major and independent player in the GOP.

The LCR, of course, is not going to do that—its leaders are too wedded to the GOP. The only reason that they declined to endorse Bush is because he forced their hand by spitting in their faces with the FMA. They had to take the half-step of non-endorsement in order to salvage what was left of their dignity and credibility in the gay community at large.

I'm pretty sure that as a Republican org, they can't endorse Kerry.

No, I don't think they can officially endorse Kerry and I truly didn't expect that of them. They've done what they had to do and it is a bold and historic act on their part, IMHO. It shows they really have some fight that we've all openly doubted for so long.


(As an aside, who were the two that voted against this action anyway?) :confused:

Fight? - welllllll I suppose - maybe like putting a small kitten in with a mountain lion...

Still - I didn't think they would do that much...

I applaud them for what they did do....

William and gmg?? eek!

That raises an interesting point, even if Bush wins have the Republicans with their "moderate" convention, touting McCain and Rudy and the Governator, pushed moderate candidates to the forefront and given them the jump on '08? With the current VP not a viable alternative, how will the radical right act if Guliani or McCain is the Republican nominee?

I am just wondering where the 1 million votes will go? If they don't vote for Bush are they suggesting not voting at all or for Kerry? I haven't heard the "N" word mentioned either. That's Nader guys!!

No, indeed you haven't. That's because the Log Cabin Republicans are REPUBLICANS, duh! And why are they Republicans, we wonder? Well, maybe because, while disagreeing with the GOP on gay issues, they agree on... oh, economic policy, environmental policy, foreign policy, tax policy... a whole raft of issues that don't exactly line up with Nader's agenda.

Besides, what's the practical difference between voting for Nader and voting for Bush? They have the same net effect, which is to elect Bush. Just like last time.

BBall, Good thoughts, as always. I'm glad to see someone else understands long-term strategy and thinking about "four more years" in the waiting, not electing, sense. To combine your thoughts with Adam's, if the RR is over-emboldened by a Bush victory this November, but then - predictably, judging from past experience - becomes too dictatorial in its dealings with other groups within the GOP, look for it to ultimately lose power by '08 as others within the GOP finally see what LCR has been telling them all these years. That would really set the stage for GOP moderates to come forward, especially if the RR pulls its usual tantrum and threatens to "stay home." Let 'em, I say; with a moderate, gay friendly, strong on defense and law-and-order candidate like Giuliani or McCain, the GOP can win handily without the RR and send them packing - if not back to the Democrats from where we inherited them.

TomF, you're right; a Republican organization is subject to Republican rules and, just like the Demos and other parties, may not endorse candidates opposed to one of their own. "Dignity and credibility in the gay 'community'" - whatever that amorphous thing is - has nothing to do with it. Unlike HRC, we make no pretense of being a non-partisan group, but are proud to be an "openly Republican organization" directed to Republicans and their beliefs. We are not "all things to all men" but offer gays and lesbians choices and ways to be politically active they'll not find elsewhere. Agree with us or not, but just make sure you understand the factual basis for doing so, so yours is truly an informed decision.

Finally, I don't know who the two LCR Board members are who voted against the non-endorsement motion, but you gotta love that diversity, huh?

Or it could lead to the Republicans becoming a pathetic, marginal fringe nationally, as they have in Illinois (where the moderates, having been pushed to the side, are giving the far right enough rope to hang itself -- which the far right seems quite happy to do).

The hardcore religious clique running the GOP now makes the '64 Goldwater campaign look moderate. If he were here now, they'd use him as window-dressing, the way they used McCain and Giuliani, but exclude him from any real decisions because they wouldn't consider him one of their own. That's how much they've shifted the "center" of American politics to the right in the past 20 years.

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" Other than the fact that your President, party heads, machinery, platform, etc. think you're perverts who deserve to be demonized for politcal advantage, how is the GOP?

My God -

gmginsfo - you give "Four More Years" a whole new - and to me a terrifying - meaning...

Rob

Or, better yet, to some right-wing equivalent of the Greens. Third (and fourth and so on) parties have the luxury of ideological purity, as do parties in a European-style parliamentary/coalition system. Duopoly parties don't.

Giulani would have an extremely hard time in any Republican primary--where more conservative voters tend to turn out, just as more left-leaning Democrats turn out for primary voting--due to his stand on abortion rights.

I still believe that if there's a second Bush term(shudder) Cheney will resign after about a year and Bush will nominate (and the have approved) some probable 2008 nominee. That choice will signal whether the whacked-out religious right are still in ascendancy.

~Adam

I think this election is going to be so close that the non votes for Bush will help, even if they don't go for Kerry. If you look at the news today about the senate striking down his new overtime rules and another item (I can't remember off hand but I said yaaa!) I think even if he gets in again the people who matter are on to him now and he will be pretty ineffectual. It would be great to put down this awful religious right faction and get moderate members like McCain to the fore. Speaking of religion it would be like David and Goliath if he lost because of the log cabins, huh? And highly appropriate!