http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGALJCNIO5D.html
My favorite part of this is where the Log Cabin guy accused Simon of "a complete turnaround to pander to the religious right" and said he couldnt be trusted.
A republican pandering to the religious right???
Shocking!!! Cant be trusted? Even more shocking!
Full Version: GOP's Simon dropped from fund raiser with Mary Cheney
The shocking thing is the Log Cabin has actually shown a grain of principle, as opposed to their typical brown-nosing sycophancy. Considering their track record, as in their support of John Ashcroft during the confirmation hearings or their spin in behalf of Orrin Hatch's attempt to pass a hate crimes law stripped of the words "sexual orientation". No, this isn't what I would have expected Log Cabin. After all, they have enthusiastically backed candidates and office-holders who have expressed more hostility toward gay rights than Simon. Maybe in this case they simply decided not to hitch themselves to a sinking ship.
Well, that's a start.
Log Cabin could use some backbone. The last thing we need is for them to dilute their mission, even if they cut back on their pet projects.
They're in a difficult position, mind you; but, they have been selling out quite a few unnecessary times. They're still in the survivalist stages, I suppose. I, for one, will be glad when they don't have to kiss up and smile anymore.
Log Cabin could use some backbone. The last thing we need is for them to dilute their mission, even if they cut back on their pet projects.
They're in a difficult position, mind you; but, they have been selling out quite a few unnecessary times. They're still in the survivalist stages, I suppose. I, for one, will be glad when they don't have to kiss up and smile anymore.
While there was some strong rhetoric from the LCR rep, and it was LCR that put out the questionaire, I think it's important to note that the disinvitation came from the Unity Coalition, rather than the LCR. I think with more conservative gay groups out there, they can gain strength from each other and display more of a backbone in a hostile environment.
[quote]Maybe in this case they simply decided not to hitch themselves to a sinking ship
Well, good for them. Simon is the worst candidate I can think of in my time as a voter (since 1978). He makes Michael Huffington seem like a heavyweight. Simon has botched his campaign from the get-go, which sucks as it basically leaves Gray Davis unopposed for the governorship of CA. Davis did a brilliant hatchet job on Richard Riordan in the primaries and it left the door open for the incompetent Simon. A businessman running for office in this climate, what bad timing! And he's a BAD businessman too. Oh well. 4 more years of Davis--or hopefully, he'll quit to run for President with that huge war chest of his.
That Log Cabin guy Rich Tafel sure is hella cute though.
Well, good for them. Simon is the worst candidate I can think of in my time as a voter (since 1978). He makes Michael Huffington seem like a heavyweight. Simon has botched his campaign from the get-go, which sucks as it basically leaves Gray Davis unopposed for the governorship of CA. Davis did a brilliant hatchet job on Richard Riordan in the primaries and it left the door open for the incompetent Simon. A businessman running for office in this climate, what bad timing! And he's a BAD businessman too. Oh well. 4 more years of Davis--or hopefully, he'll quit to run for President with that huge war chest of his.
That Log Cabin guy Rich Tafel sure is hella cute though.
The Republicans made a big mistake in nominating this loser. He even makes Gray Davis look good and that is saying a lot.
Richard Riordan would have been a better choice and may well have defeated Gray. That's what happens when extremists hijack a political party.
Richard Riordan would have been a better choice and may well have defeated Gray. That's what happens when extremists hijack a political party.
[quote]Originally posted by m1011:
The Republicans made a big mistake in nominating this loser. He even makes Gray Davis look good and that is saying a lot.
Davis ran all kinds of ads against Riordan before the primary because he wanted to face Simon - the more conservative candidate. <-- Repub Copman... But that was Very Smart on Davis's part. Also did they allow crossparty voting?
The Republicans made a big mistake in nominating this loser. He even makes Gray Davis look good and that is saying a lot.
Davis ran all kinds of ads against Riordan before the primary because he wanted to face Simon - the more conservative candidate. <-- Repub Copman... But that was Very Smart on Davis's part. Also did they allow crossparty voting?
Just random thoughts: Why is it an "inclusive" political stance to support a Gay Pride Day? Doesn't it exclude people who oppose such silliness? This being America, where you're free to oppose this, that and the other (I'm sure many of you will disagree, "Dissent is not allowed here," blah-blah-blah), any political platform is essentially exclusive because it excludes those who exercise their right to disagree with it. True inclusion is found, I suppose, only in Cuba or North Korea (utopias, I'm sure, as far as some are concerned), where people are included whether they like it or not.
Also, why does supporting a Gay Pride Day place one in the political middle? Are the Gay Pride Dayers a moderating influence on militants who support Gay Pride Week, hardliners who support Gay Pride Month and radicals who support Gay Pride Year? I didn't know such factions existed!
Why, for that matter, does supporting domestic partnerships place one in the political middle? To the right, I understand, is opposition to such partnerships. To the left is . . . what? Gay marriage? Do gays who want domestic partnerships not support marriage? I always thought DPs were a baby step toward marriage.
Not to take a stand on any of these policies, but it is just so frustrating to see groups put out mindless press releases full of these ridiculous, self-righteous cliches, and to see the media mindlessly print them as fact. But then I don't claim to be in the middle of anything, so what do I know?
Also, why does supporting a Gay Pride Day place one in the political middle? Are the Gay Pride Dayers a moderating influence on militants who support Gay Pride Week, hardliners who support Gay Pride Month and radicals who support Gay Pride Year? I didn't know such factions existed!
Why, for that matter, does supporting domestic partnerships place one in the political middle? To the right, I understand, is opposition to such partnerships. To the left is . . . what? Gay marriage? Do gays who want domestic partnerships not support marriage? I always thought DPs were a baby step toward marriage.
Not to take a stand on any of these policies, but it is just so frustrating to see groups put out mindless press releases full of these ridiculous, self-righteous cliches, and to see the media mindlessly print them as fact. But then I don't claim to be in the middle of anything, so what do I know?
Copman, no cross voting was allowed in CA's 3-5-02 primary. The law originally written to allow it was voided by the courts after BOTH parties joined forces to challenge it.
The best coverage of this development comes from today's Washington Post, LATimes and SFChronicle. I'll leave it to others more tech-savvy - and with more time than my lunch hour permits - to link to the articles.
Billy, you wouldn't want to overstate - and thereby diminish - your case now, would you? To call LCR a bunch of brownnosers is as hyperbolic as it is inaccurate. Yes, we supported Ashcroft and Hatch - no real crime there, BTW - but we've also stood up to the really radical rightists in our party and have achieved solid results, like stripping the CA GOP platform of its abusive language against gays as I personally did three years ago. I don't blame you for not being knowing this - the press, especially the gay press - routinely ignores or belittles our accomplishments unless, as in this Simon case, it makes other Republicans look bad. It's a fact, deal with it, accept it, as we have for these many years. But please don't resort to name-calling to make a point; there's no need to decry us along with our actions.
And bluebird, what concrete examples of selling out are you talking about, so I can respond to them, whether or not I convince you or others of our integrity?
JQ, there's a lot of crossover between LCR and RUC; I and others have been heavily involved with both and intend to remain so. You're right about real diversity; it DOES strengthen the debate and the debaters. Hopefully, it'll strengthen the GLBT "community" as well.
JA, most of us in LCR CA and the RUC STRONGLY supported Riordan and were GREATLY disappointed when he lost the primary. Yes, Davis cleverly manipulated him into a corner, but Riordan wasn't exactly the most aggressive campaigner; he took his nomination for granted. But don't expect those of us in LCR or the RUC who hold positions within the party to castigate Simon. Under Party rules, we can get booted for doing so and we are NOT about to sacrifice all we've worked for and achieved over the years to satisfy a fit of spite, ours or anyone else's. Enough said? We'll save our ammo for the real Kulturkampf to come.
The feeling inside LCRCA right now is that we've stood our ground and maintained our integrity, leaving others to handle theirs as they may or may not. We're in the process of posting Simon's signed responses to our questionnnaire to our site and I'll post the link once we've done so, so everyone can see for themselves just what we asked and what he wrote in response.
The best coverage of this development comes from today's Washington Post, LATimes and SFChronicle. I'll leave it to others more tech-savvy - and with more time than my lunch hour permits - to link to the articles.
Billy, you wouldn't want to overstate - and thereby diminish - your case now, would you? To call LCR a bunch of brownnosers is as hyperbolic as it is inaccurate. Yes, we supported Ashcroft and Hatch - no real crime there, BTW - but we've also stood up to the really radical rightists in our party and have achieved solid results, like stripping the CA GOP platform of its abusive language against gays as I personally did three years ago. I don't blame you for not being knowing this - the press, especially the gay press - routinely ignores or belittles our accomplishments unless, as in this Simon case, it makes other Republicans look bad. It's a fact, deal with it, accept it, as we have for these many years. But please don't resort to name-calling to make a point; there's no need to decry us along with our actions.
And bluebird, what concrete examples of selling out are you talking about, so I can respond to them, whether or not I convince you or others of our integrity?
JQ, there's a lot of crossover between LCR and RUC; I and others have been heavily involved with both and intend to remain so. You're right about real diversity; it DOES strengthen the debate and the debaters. Hopefully, it'll strengthen the GLBT "community" as well.
JA, most of us in LCR CA and the RUC STRONGLY supported Riordan and were GREATLY disappointed when he lost the primary. Yes, Davis cleverly manipulated him into a corner, but Riordan wasn't exactly the most aggressive campaigner; he took his nomination for granted. But don't expect those of us in LCR or the RUC who hold positions within the party to castigate Simon. Under Party rules, we can get booted for doing so and we are NOT about to sacrifice all we've worked for and achieved over the years to satisfy a fit of spite, ours or anyone else's. Enough said? We'll save our ammo for the real Kulturkampf to come.
The feeling inside LCRCA right now is that we've stood our ground and maintained our integrity, leaving others to handle theirs as they may or may not. We're in the process of posting Simon's signed responses to our questionnnaire to our site and I'll post the link once we've done so, so everyone can see for themselves just what we asked and what he wrote in response.
[quote]We'll save our ammo for the real Kulturkampf to come.
Wow, I'm confused. Did I just step in to a rip in the Space Time Continuum and transport back to 1980? Kulturkampf is it? Well, unless there's a drastic change in my lifetime, the Right has lost the Culture Wars. My impression is that the majority of people in this country may agree with the Right about taxes & smaller government amongst other things, but poll after poll--yes, it's tenuous to rely on polls--shows little stomach for Culture Wars as proposed by George Will and Patrick Buchanan and others. The Kulturkampf thing, is, IMHO, a fantasy of pointy-headed geeks in conservative think tanks. The 60's happened, a lot of the values espoused by the hippies and Left have been assimilated in to the mainstream, it's never going a Father Knows Best fantasy of the 50's again. Your mileage, obviously, may vary.
W1865, I share your antipathy of Pride Parades but not for ideological reasons, really. My main objection is that they're outdated and most of all, boring as all hell! Of course, I'm a jaded fag who's been out for donkey's years, but they still provide something real and vital for those just coming out.
But don't let hyperbole get in the way of making a point, hear?
[quote]I'm sure many of you will disagree, "Dissent is not allowed here," blah-blah-blah
Oh puh-leeze. That Left baiting is sooooooo tired, as boring as "All gay Republicans are self-hating" kinds of thinking. And considering that GMGinSFO wrote "But don't expect those of us in LCR or the RUC who hold positions within the party to castigate Simon. Under Party rules, we can get booted for doing so", a bit of a pot/kettle/black thing?
Wow, I'm confused. Did I just step in to a rip in the Space Time Continuum and transport back to 1980? Kulturkampf is it? Well, unless there's a drastic change in my lifetime, the Right has lost the Culture Wars. My impression is that the majority of people in this country may agree with the Right about taxes & smaller government amongst other things, but poll after poll--yes, it's tenuous to rely on polls--shows little stomach for Culture Wars as proposed by George Will and Patrick Buchanan and others. The Kulturkampf thing, is, IMHO, a fantasy of pointy-headed geeks in conservative think tanks. The 60's happened, a lot of the values espoused by the hippies and Left have been assimilated in to the mainstream, it's never going a Father Knows Best fantasy of the 50's again. Your mileage, obviously, may vary.
W1865, I share your antipathy of Pride Parades but not for ideological reasons, really. My main objection is that they're outdated and most of all, boring as all hell! Of course, I'm a jaded fag who's been out for donkey's years, but they still provide something real and vital for those just coming out.
But don't let hyperbole get in the way of making a point, hear?
[quote]I'm sure many of you will disagree, "Dissent is not allowed here," blah-blah-blah
Oh puh-leeze. That Left baiting is sooooooo tired, as boring as "All gay Republicans are self-hating" kinds of thinking. And considering that GMGinSFO wrote "But don't expect those of us in LCR or the RUC who hold positions within the party to castigate Simon. Under Party rules, we can get booted for doing so", a bit of a pot/kettle/black thing?
JA, My reference to the Kulturkampf was a pimp on Justice Scalia's analogy re: same in his dissent in Romer v. Evans, the CO Amdt. 2 case. I like to get as much mileage out of his quotes as I can - especially when used to make a point opposite their (his?) original intent.
As for the CA GOP's rules, those were imposed, and have been solely utilized by, radical right GOPers in CA to tailor the party leadership to their notions of what it should be, NOT anyone else. So, it does make sense to lump them together with leftists who are similarly intolerant. In LCR, we're working against both.
As for the CA GOP's rules, those were imposed, and have been solely utilized by, radical right GOPers in CA to tailor the party leadership to their notions of what it should be, NOT anyone else. So, it does make sense to lump them together with leftists who are similarly intolerant. In LCR, we're working against both.
GMG, thanks for the clarification. As I was driving home, I was thinking "Wow, the Cali Republicans aren't stupid enough to think they could initiate a culture war in California and NOT get their asses kicked backed to the Middle Ages are they"? That crap may play in places like Nebraska but it's a total non-starter here.
And as much as I have zero sympathy for Republicans for letting their party be hijacked by the right, in one sense I wish they'd get their act together here in California so that there would be at least be a pretense of a 2-party system on a statewide level.
And as much as I have zero sympathy for Republicans for letting their party be hijacked by the right, in one sense I wish they'd get their act together here in California so that there would be at least be a pretense of a 2-party system on a statewide level.
[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
And as much as I have zero sympathy for Republicans for letting their party be hijacked by the right, in one sense I wish they'd get their act together here in California so that there would be at least be a pretense of a 2-party system on a statewide level.
Well, Jim, that's exactly what we in LCR and a few other groups of level headed GOPers are trying to do for CA. You can always move to SF and vote for me! Actually, how about if we trade places???
And as much as I have zero sympathy for Republicans for letting their party be hijacked by the right, in one sense I wish they'd get their act together here in California so that there would be at least be a pretense of a 2-party system on a statewide level.
Well, Jim, that's exactly what we in LCR and a few other groups of level headed GOPers are trying to do for CA. You can always move to SF and vote for me! Actually, how about if we trade places???
Originally posted by gmginsfo:
But don't expect those of us in LCR or the RUC who hold positions within the party to castigate Simon. Under Party rules, we can get booted for doing so and we are NOT about to sacrifice all we've worked for and achieved over the years to satisfy a fit of spite, ours or anyone else's.
OK so you cant express an opinion on your party's nominee - what is it exactly that you have "worked for and achieved over the years?"
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]
But don't expect those of us in LCR or the RUC who hold positions within the party to castigate Simon. Under Party rules, we can get booted for doing so and we are NOT about to sacrifice all we've worked for and achieved over the years to satisfy a fit of spite, ours or anyone else's.
OK so you cant express an opinion on your party's nominee - what is it exactly that you have "worked for and achieved over the years?"
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]
More evidence the Cal. GOP chose the weaker candidate. A new poll shows that Riordan would beat Beige Davis by 15%.
gmginsfo,
With all respect, I stand by my initial comments. LCR's behavior during the Ashcroft and Hatch affairs was pure brown-nosing sycophancy. John Ashcroft had one of the most viciously anti-gay voting records in the entire U.S. Senate, and LCR offered him its uncricital and unconditional backing. As for the Hatch episode during the hate crimes debate, I can respect one who expresses principled opposition to the concept of hate crimes legislation. But what Orrin Hatch tried to do to this bill was to leave the enumeration of protected categories in place, but delete "sexual orientation" from them, which for us is the worst of both worlds, as it would say that we are less deserving of protection than other minorities, or that we don't even qualify as a minority on par with religion or race because homosexuality is simply (deviant) behavior and not a condition or state of being. And then, LCR tried to spin it as if Hatch were doing us a favor and that Ted Kennedy was the one who sabotaged the bill. If that isn't sycophancy, then I don't know what is.
My impression, based on the group's record, is that LCR doesn't give one whit about advancing gay rights, but is interested only in securing a place for itself on the political gravy train.
With all respect, I stand by my initial comments. LCR's behavior during the Ashcroft and Hatch affairs was pure brown-nosing sycophancy. John Ashcroft had one of the most viciously anti-gay voting records in the entire U.S. Senate, and LCR offered him its uncricital and unconditional backing. As for the Hatch episode during the hate crimes debate, I can respect one who expresses principled opposition to the concept of hate crimes legislation. But what Orrin Hatch tried to do to this bill was to leave the enumeration of protected categories in place, but delete "sexual orientation" from them, which for us is the worst of both worlds, as it would say that we are less deserving of protection than other minorities, or that we don't even qualify as a minority on par with religion or race because homosexuality is simply (deviant) behavior and not a condition or state of being. And then, LCR tried to spin it as if Hatch were doing us a favor and that Ted Kennedy was the one who sabotaged the bill. If that isn't sycophancy, then I don't know what is.
My impression, based on the group's record, is that LCR doesn't give one whit about advancing gay rights, but is interested only in securing a place for itself on the political gravy train.
Not really much to do with my original post but speaking of LCR.. A couple of years ago the Texas republican party held their state convention in Ft Worth. LCR tried to rent a booth to pass out literature. The state party wouldnt even let them do that, LCR went to court and lost.
I asked a friend of mine in LCR how that made him feel, he answered with their tired mantra - "we can run and hide or stay and fight." I suggested to him that if his party wouldnt even let them pass out pamphlets to other republicans that the battle may have already been lost.
I asked a friend of mine in LCR how that made him feel, he answered with their tired mantra - "we can run and hide or stay and fight." I suggested to him that if his party wouldnt even let them pass out pamphlets to other republicans that the battle may have already been lost.
RZBack, I didn't say I can't express an opinion on BS - I said party rules preclude us from "castigating" him or urging others not to vote for him.
As for our achievements, and as in other encounters we've had on this board, I urge you to read my prior posts. In short, we've brought the GOP from the near Neanderthal stance on gay rights Southern Democrats imposed on it when they crossed over to our ranks in the '70s to something approaching where the Democratic party they left behind was at about the same time. I told you about my own involvement in pulling abusive, anti-gay language from the CA party platform, and others have achieved results like having senior CA GOPers meet and speak to us at our conventions, kept open the convention tables and hospitality suites that were denied by and to your fellow Texans, arranged meetings and appearances at our national conventions with Senators and Reps, established the RUC and the unprecedented attendance of national political leaders at its events, been elected (thrice, in my case) and appointed to leadership positions on state and local central committees and a whole host of other achievements that have told the GOP - and our other critics - loud and clear that we're here - if not exactly queer - and AREN'T going away.
You really should check out the national site and the various state ones as well for a more complete answer to your question. I can only tell you what I know from personal knowledge.
Billy, we disagree, fine, but you remain the name-caller, not me. As for your belief that LCR is in this only for its own members' personal advancement, your argument reminds me of the "they choose to be gay" theory. Why would we forego political and judicial appointments to take on gay rights cases that publicly attack the bigots in our party, as I did, endure the hostility and personal attacks from both the right and left - as you ably evidence - and generally persist in our efforts to bring some sanity back to the GOP in order to reap some personal gain that you and others like Razorback argue remains non-existent? Sure, we got Scott Evertz appointed as Bush's AIDS czar, but where are the gay judges, party chairmen, etc? Where's the party platform that affirms equal rights for all and disavows domination by radical right fundies? There remains a lot of work to be done and we're going to stay out there doing it - whether you understand or appreciate it or not.
As for our achievements, and as in other encounters we've had on this board, I urge you to read my prior posts. In short, we've brought the GOP from the near Neanderthal stance on gay rights Southern Democrats imposed on it when they crossed over to our ranks in the '70s to something approaching where the Democratic party they left behind was at about the same time. I told you about my own involvement in pulling abusive, anti-gay language from the CA party platform, and others have achieved results like having senior CA GOPers meet and speak to us at our conventions, kept open the convention tables and hospitality suites that were denied by and to your fellow Texans, arranged meetings and appearances at our national conventions with Senators and Reps, established the RUC and the unprecedented attendance of national political leaders at its events, been elected (thrice, in my case) and appointed to leadership positions on state and local central committees and a whole host of other achievements that have told the GOP - and our other critics - loud and clear that we're here - if not exactly queer - and AREN'T going away.
You really should check out the national site and the various state ones as well for a more complete answer to your question. I can only tell you what I know from personal knowledge.
Billy, we disagree, fine, but you remain the name-caller, not me. As for your belief that LCR is in this only for its own members' personal advancement, your argument reminds me of the "they choose to be gay" theory. Why would we forego political and judicial appointments to take on gay rights cases that publicly attack the bigots in our party, as I did, endure the hostility and personal attacks from both the right and left - as you ably evidence - and generally persist in our efforts to bring some sanity back to the GOP in order to reap some personal gain that you and others like Razorback argue remains non-existent? Sure, we got Scott Evertz appointed as Bush's AIDS czar, but where are the gay judges, party chairmen, etc? Where's the party platform that affirms equal rights for all and disavows domination by radical right fundies? There remains a lot of work to be done and we're going to stay out there doing it - whether you understand or appreciate it or not.
In reading my earlier posts on this thread, I don't see where I called anyone a name or made any personal attacks, as you charge. While I am inclined to agree that the Republican Party's staunchly anti-gay platform and record (which cannot be denied!) is attributable somewhat to the "southernization" of the party, more specifically to the movement of the religious conservatives into it, to state that the party has softened its stance and moved away from its hard line against gay civil rights is an outright falsehood. Sure, they play it down at election time, at least in California and Massachusetts, but they have not renounced it at all. The anti-gay language is still in the national Republican platform. (No, the Democrats in the 60s and 70s NEVER had this kind of language in their platform.) Republicans candidates still fan homophobia when politically expedient (for example, in Vermont in the 2000 elections). Republican legislators, for the most part, still bitterly fight anything, no matter how trivial or symbolic, that would move this country in the direction of tolerance and acceptance. And the rightists continue to hold all the positions of power within the party. (Of course, it appears that you consider Ashcroft and Hatch to be moderates, so I have to wonder what you would qualify as extremist!) So no, I don't see any progress here.
[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
You really should check out the national site and the various state ones as well for a more complete answer to your question. I can only tell you what I know from personal knowledge.
I did check out their national site once and sent an email to ask what their position was on an issue. I never did get a response back but I did get put on their email list.
You really should check out the national site and the various state ones as well for a more complete answer to your question. I can only tell you what I know from personal knowledge.
I did check out their national site once and sent an email to ask what their position was on an issue. I never did get a response back but I did get put on their email list.
It does not seem to me that the Christian coalition has hesitated to attack pro-choice Republicans. I think as long as the LCR proceeds under the assumption that it needs the Republican party more than the Republican party needs the votes of conservative gays, you'll always be negotiating from a position of weakness. And I have to wonder: did the LCR really get Republicans in California and the northeast to change their stance, or did the Republicans in these regions simply feel that overt homophobia would attract negative media coverage that would lose them more votes than they would gain.
Billy, you may not consider calling people "brown-nosed sycophants" name-calling, but I and a lot of other folks do. Accusing folks of writing "outright falsehoods" amounts to calling someone a liar, but I'm used to hearing that as a lawyer so it doesn't really bother me. If we differ on what constitutes common courtesy, so be it.
If you don't also agree that the GOP hasn't seen a repeat of Frank Buchanan's screed against gays at the '92 Houston Convention by anyone else in the GOP, except for a few non-elected fundamentalist faith stealers, then I guess we also differ on whether or not there's been improvement in the GOP. I and others are inside it, working to change it, and we've seen it. If you don't take my word for it, fine. To quote a longstanding line, usually ended with an exclamation point, from the left, "We don't need your approval."
BTW, there is no current national GOP platform and I never said I consider Ashcroft or Hatch to be moderates. Moderate your tone and your content, don't put words or beliefs into my mouth, and then we can have a proper debate - provided you're willing to really listen. In the meantime, we in the GOP have work to do and aren't going to be deterred from doing it.
If you don't also agree that the GOP hasn't seen a repeat of Frank Buchanan's screed against gays at the '92 Houston Convention by anyone else in the GOP, except for a few non-elected fundamentalist faith stealers, then I guess we also differ on whether or not there's been improvement in the GOP. I and others are inside it, working to change it, and we've seen it. If you don't take my word for it, fine. To quote a longstanding line, usually ended with an exclamation point, from the left, "We don't need your approval."
BTW, there is no current national GOP platform and I never said I consider Ashcroft or Hatch to be moderates. Moderate your tone and your content, don't put words or beliefs into my mouth, and then we can have a proper debate - provided you're willing to really listen. In the meantime, we in the GOP have work to do and aren't going to be deterred from doing it.
[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
If you don't also agree that the GOP hasn't seen a repeat of Frank Buchanan's screed against gays at the '92 Houston Convention by anyone else in the GOP, except for a few non-elected fundamentalist faith stealers, then I guess we also differ on whether or not there's been improvement in the GOP.
Who's Frank Buchanan?
My opinion is that there's been little if any improvement. The same beliefs are still there, but they're better hidden.
[quote]BTW, there is no current national GOP platform
Is there only a platform during presidential election years? If a party adopts a platform at the convention in 2000, isn't that considered their platform until 2004?
If you don't also agree that the GOP hasn't seen a repeat of Frank Buchanan's screed against gays at the '92 Houston Convention by anyone else in the GOP, except for a few non-elected fundamentalist faith stealers, then I guess we also differ on whether or not there's been improvement in the GOP.
Who's Frank Buchanan?
My opinion is that there's been little if any improvement. The same beliefs are still there, but they're better hidden.
[quote]BTW, there is no current national GOP platform
Is there only a platform during presidential election years? If a party adopts a platform at the convention in 2000, isn't that considered their platform until 2004?
Sorry, JIP. I've been reading too much Civil War naval history. It's Pat! (Remember her, BTW?)
To the extent that platform have ANY credibility, they're only effective for the election for which they were adopted at the convention preceding, which in this case was the Y2K convention platform - now forgotten by all and, correct me if I'm wrong, not even available on line. They mainly serve as a position from which to posture, although sometimes good use can be made of them in the negative, by attacking and moderating them as we did here in CA.
To the extent that platform have ANY credibility, they're only effective for the election for which they were adopted at the convention preceding, which in this case was the Y2K convention platform - now forgotten by all and, correct me if I'm wrong, not even available on line. They mainly serve as a position from which to posture, although sometimes good use can be made of them in the negative, by attacking and moderating them as we did here in CA.
Nah, it's still there. Being in a good mood today--the Angels won again, 10-1, even if it was the pathetic D Rays--I didn't read much of it The big joke: [quote]We rely on the home, as did the founders of the American Republic, to instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself. That belief led Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act, which a Republican Department of Justice will energetically defend in the courts. For the same reason, we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law
So, could someone, anyone, explain to me what queers having protection from not getting fired, kicked out of your apartment and other protections has to do with the promotion of families? It's one of those non-sequitars that makes me roll my eyes. And [quote]We therefore oppose discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin and will vigorously enforce anti-discrimination statutes
So. It's not a principled objection to anti-discrimination laws ("We're all equal blah blah blah") but just homo's they object to. And to think that some gay men think that the Republican party is hostile to them! Wow!
And I'd REALLY love to find out how me living by mself in my apartment undermines The American Family. The Republicans love to natter on about "personal responsibility"--how's about the freakin' heterosexuals take some personal responsibility for the sorry state of the American family? It isn't our fault, you blockheads. *Cough* Sorry. /Rant.
GMG, who are you? You kidded that I could vote you--as IF I'd move to SF but I want to look your name up in the election results to see how you did. NOTE: This is note a ruse to tar you with being a sports-lovin' gay man, almost sure death electorally in the gay community!
So, could someone, anyone, explain to me what queers having protection from not getting fired, kicked out of your apartment and other protections has to do with the promotion of families? It's one of those non-sequitars that makes me roll my eyes. And [quote]We therefore oppose discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin and will vigorously enforce anti-discrimination statutes
So. It's not a principled objection to anti-discrimination laws ("We're all equal blah blah blah") but just homo's they object to. And to think that some gay men think that the Republican party is hostile to them! Wow!
And I'd REALLY love to find out how me living by mself in my apartment undermines The American Family. The Republicans love to natter on about "personal responsibility"--how's about the freakin' heterosexuals take some personal responsibility for the sorry state of the American family? It isn't our fault, you blockheads. *Cough* Sorry. /Rant.
GMG, who are you? You kidded that I could vote you--as IF I'd move to SF but I want to look your name up in the election results to see how you did. NOTE: This is note a ruse to tar you with being a sports-lovin' gay man, almost sure death electorally in the gay community!
[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
The Republicans love to natter on about "personal responsibility"--how's about the freakin' heterosexuals take some personal responsibility for the sorry state of the American family?
Damn right! I'm so tired of these people. They blame others for their own problems. They're all just part of this "Cult of Victimhood" I'm hearing so much about these days.
The Republicans love to natter on about "personal responsibility"--how's about the freakin' heterosexuals take some personal responsibility for the sorry state of the American family?
Damn right! I'm so tired of these people. They blame others for their own problems. They're all just part of this "Cult of Victimhood" I'm hearing so much about these days.
[quote]For the same reason, we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law
If you just take out the word "special", you'll see what the GOP really wants thinks:
"We do not believe sexual preference should be given legal protection or standing in law."
There is nothing SPECIAL about extending these rights to homosexuals. It's just giving them the same rights as everyone else.
If you just take out the word "special", you'll see what the GOP really wants thinks:
"We do not believe sexual preference should be given legal protection or standing in law."
There is nothing SPECIAL about extending these rights to homosexuals. It's just giving them the same rights as everyone else.
Now, the BILL SIMON campaign is blatantly lying about the candidate's endorsement of some gay rights intiatives in California, according to this article today on washingtonpost.com: Simon Losing Friends in Calif. Race
The campaign is trying to claim that his "signature" on a Log Cabin Republicans questionnaire was an unauthorized "electronic" signature. The LCR's say, no, it was signed in ink. Simon's a liar. Bearing false witness: how will that go over with California's miniscule religious right whom he is desperately trying to appease.
For those folks who thought Mary Cheney was some sort of gay/lesbian quisling, she's owed an apology. She obviously is principled and honest, even if folks may disagree with her principles.
Simon, on the other hand, is toast. In fact, he's worse than toast. He's those burnt crumbs left over at the bottom of the toaster after you've made toast. I think the national Republicans will figure out a way to get him to resign from the ticket and to allow Dick Riordan to be the Republican candidate. There is precedent for this.
In Minnesota, back in 1990, moderate Republican Arne Carlson substituted in as the Republican candidate for governor in late October, after having lost the nomination in the primary. If memory serves me right, the nominee (whose name escapes me) was a political novice/businessman who was caught in a hot tub with some teenage girls. Carlson was elected, even though he was a write-in. So it's not too late for the Republicans to pressure Simon to do an Andrew Cuomo (i.e., get out of a losing race to salvage any hope of a political future) and to replace him with Riordan. Who would win.
The campaign is trying to claim that his "signature" on a Log Cabin Republicans questionnaire was an unauthorized "electronic" signature. The LCR's say, no, it was signed in ink. Simon's a liar. Bearing false witness: how will that go over with California's miniscule religious right whom he is desperately trying to appease.
For those folks who thought Mary Cheney was some sort of gay/lesbian quisling, she's owed an apology. She obviously is principled and honest, even if folks may disagree with her principles.
Simon, on the other hand, is toast. In fact, he's worse than toast. He's those burnt crumbs left over at the bottom of the toaster after you've made toast. I think the national Republicans will figure out a way to get him to resign from the ticket and to allow Dick Riordan to be the Republican candidate. There is precedent for this.
In Minnesota, back in 1990, moderate Republican Arne Carlson substituted in as the Republican candidate for governor in late October, after having lost the nomination in the primary. If memory serves me right, the nominee (whose name escapes me) was a political novice/businessman who was caught in a hot tub with some teenage girls. Carlson was elected, even though he was a write-in. So it's not too late for the Republicans to pressure Simon to do an Andrew Cuomo (i.e., get out of a losing race to salvage any hope of a political future) and to replace him with Riordan. Who would win.
[quote]Simon, on the other hand, is toast. In fact, he's worse than toast. He's those burnt crumbs left over at the bottom of the toaster after you've made toast
Buwahahaha! Good one.
It's just mind-boggling how badly run Simon's campaign is. Gray Davis was ripe for the plucking on any number of issues--the state budget, his handling of the energy crisis, the shady deal with the State's computer system, for a small list--and he's spent his whole campaign in crisis-managment mode, often trying to recover from self-inflicted wounds.
But if he's held up as an example of what happens when you curry the favor of the religious right, maybe his sinking ship will have done some good. Oh, who am I kidding? Any future candidate will just say "I'm not going to make the mistakes he did! Now, where's that check from the Christian Coalition?"
Buwahahaha! Good one.
It's just mind-boggling how badly run Simon's campaign is. Gray Davis was ripe for the plucking on any number of issues--the state budget, his handling of the energy crisis, the shady deal with the State's computer system, for a small list--and he's spent his whole campaign in crisis-managment mode, often trying to recover from self-inflicted wounds.
But if he's held up as an example of what happens when you curry the favor of the religious right, maybe his sinking ship will have done some good. Oh, who am I kidding? Any future candidate will just say "I'm not going to make the mistakes he did! Now, where's that check from the Christian Coalition?"
Now for some good news for Simon, from the Washington Times:
"The California gubernatorial race between incumbent Democrat Gov. Gray Davis and Republican challenger Bill Simon is still very much in play," United Press International reports in its Capital Comment column.
"A recent statewide Field poll showed Simon trailing Davis by 7 points with both candidates polling at less than 40 percent. This means that voters are still trying to make up their minds and will likely break late — making a last-minute scandal or October surprise potentially devastating — but also increasing the importance that solidly committed voters will play in each campaign," the wire service said.
"Therein lies some good news for Simon, according to a new poll conducted for his campaign by the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies. The survey shows Simon has pulled ahead of Davis 'among voters most likely to vote' in the upcoming Nov. 5 election. Turnout is expected to hit almost historic lows on Election Day, giving the hard-core supporters of each candidate a disproportionate degree of influence on the outcome of the race.
"Among 'most likely voters,' Simon leads Davis 41 percent to 36 percent. The survey of 800 voters was conducted after the Field Poll and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The survey also found that 56 percent of respondents say they want the state to have a new governor, while only 39 percent want Davis re-elected."
"The California gubernatorial race between incumbent Democrat Gov. Gray Davis and Republican challenger Bill Simon is still very much in play," United Press International reports in its Capital Comment column.
"A recent statewide Field poll showed Simon trailing Davis by 7 points with both candidates polling at less than 40 percent. This means that voters are still trying to make up their minds and will likely break late — making a last-minute scandal or October surprise potentially devastating — but also increasing the importance that solidly committed voters will play in each campaign," the wire service said.
"Therein lies some good news for Simon, according to a new poll conducted for his campaign by the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies. The survey shows Simon has pulled ahead of Davis 'among voters most likely to vote' in the upcoming Nov. 5 election. Turnout is expected to hit almost historic lows on Election Day, giving the hard-core supporters of each candidate a disproportionate degree of influence on the outcome of the race.
"Among 'most likely voters,' Simon leads Davis 41 percent to 36 percent. The survey of 800 voters was conducted after the Field Poll and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The survey also found that 56 percent of respondents say they want the state to have a new governor, while only 39 percent want Davis re-elected."
Although I hesitate to get into this fray, I hardly think it's good news that CA might elect a governor that (apparently) is on the far right of Ghengis Khan as far as gays go (at least according to his latest stated opinions - not those included in the questionnaire that someone or something else supposedly signed for him). I'm sure, however, that Gray Davis will mount an effective negative campaign on Simon, as he did on Riordan in the primary.
As far as the LCR and RUC go - I am impressed not only with their prinicipaled stand in this situation, but the no-nonsense language used to denounce their party candidate. As a card-carrying Democrat, I am not blind to our own party's (and politicians' of all stripes) unwillingness to take a stand with fellow party members. There were precious few, if any, Dems willing to criticize Clinton for diddling with an intern in the Oval Office. I wish just one of his cabinet members would have had the guts to resign the day he admitted to them that he had lied to the American people. Don't get me wrong, I voted for him twice, and would again in the same situation, but was appalled at his trailer-park trash behavior. I don't think he should have been impeached, but I think he should have resigned for the crime of being tacky.
As far as the LCR and RUC go - I am impressed not only with their prinicipaled stand in this situation, but the no-nonsense language used to denounce their party candidate. As a card-carrying Democrat, I am not blind to our own party's (and politicians' of all stripes) unwillingness to take a stand with fellow party members. There were precious few, if any, Dems willing to criticize Clinton for diddling with an intern in the Oval Office. I wish just one of his cabinet members would have had the guts to resign the day he admitted to them that he had lied to the American people. Don't get me wrong, I voted for him twice, and would again in the same situation, but was appalled at his trailer-park trash behavior. I don't think he should have been impeached, but I think he should have resigned for the crime of being tacky.
[quote]Originally posted by CPT_Doom:
Although I hesitate to get into this fray, I hardly think it's good news that CA might elect a governor that (apparently) is on the far right of Ghengis Khan as far as gays go (at least according to his latest stated opinions - not those included in the questionnaire that someone or something else supposedly signed for him.
Though I'm not at all familiar with Mr. Khan's political platform, you'll note that in my previous posts I said "good news for Bill Simon," not for any particular state or voting bloc.
Although I hesitate to get into this fray, I hardly think it's good news that CA might elect a governor that (apparently) is on the far right of Ghengis Khan as far as gays go (at least according to his latest stated opinions - not those included in the questionnaire that someone or something else supposedly signed for him.
Though I'm not at all familiar with Mr. Khan's political platform, you'll note that in my previous posts I said "good news for Bill Simon," not for any particular state or voting bloc.
[quote]Though I'm not at all familiar with Mr. Khan's political platform
Erm, wouldn't it have been: Invade. Rape. Pillage. Slaughter. Repeat as needed. That Mr. Khan, he sure knew how to stay on message!
CPT, I agree with you about the Democrats but they lost me with the way they couldn't sign the Defense of Marriage Act fast enough. It was a stupid bit of legislation borne out of hysteria and the way Slick Willy capitulated on that was the final straw viz me supporting him. He let some stupid intern blow his 5 inch cock that bends to the right a little? Didn't care, he was dead to me by then.
I'm sadly put in the position a lot of times to vote Democrat just because the Republican candidates are so odious; it's certainly not that I think that the Democratic candidates are Great Political Leaders of Our Time. And with the 3rd party's like the Libertarian and Greens, it's the Catch-22 of it; I don't want to waste my vote on them because they don't have a chance to win, but they don't have a chance to win because I don't vote for them.
*Sigh*
If Davis actually thinks Simple Simon is a credible threat, he has so much money that he can flood the airwaves with negative ads; Simon doesn't have the financial clout, organization or solid support of his own party to counter that. He's toast.
But 4 more years of Davis? Sheesh.
Erm, wouldn't it have been: Invade. Rape. Pillage. Slaughter. Repeat as needed. That Mr. Khan, he sure knew how to stay on message!
CPT, I agree with you about the Democrats but they lost me with the way they couldn't sign the Defense of Marriage Act fast enough. It was a stupid bit of legislation borne out of hysteria and the way Slick Willy capitulated on that was the final straw viz me supporting him. He let some stupid intern blow his 5 inch cock that bends to the right a little? Didn't care, he was dead to me by then.
I'm sadly put in the position a lot of times to vote Democrat just because the Republican candidates are so odious; it's certainly not that I think that the Democratic candidates are Great Political Leaders of Our Time. And with the 3rd party's like the Libertarian and Greens, it's the Catch-22 of it; I don't want to waste my vote on them because they don't have a chance to win, but they don't have a chance to win because I don't vote for them.
*Sigh*
If Davis actually thinks Simple Simon is a credible threat, he has so much money that he can flood the airwaves with negative ads; Simon doesn't have the financial clout, organization or solid support of his own party to counter that. He's toast.
But 4 more years of Davis? Sheesh.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.