September 8, 2004

TRADE YOU OUR GAYS FOR YOUR BLACKS?:

Gay GOP Group Won't Endorse Bush Reelection (Johanna Neuman, September 8, 2004, LA Times)

The national board of Log Cabin Republicans, the gay political group that tried unsuccessfully to get a "big tent" unity plank in the GOP platform last week, voted Tuesday to withhold its endorsement of President Bush.

The 25-member board made the decision on a 22-2 vote.

The organization, with 12,000 members nationwide, said it would instead devote its financial and political resources to elect "fair-minded Republican allies to local, state and federal offices."


The Democrats are the party of single-issue voters, especially when the issue is a claimed right to behave immorally.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 8, 2004 9:25 AM
Comments

It's one thing to believe that the government shouldn't interfere in people's private sexual behavior, it's quite another for your sexual practices to be the defining characteristic of your life.

If you want smaller government, an assertive foreign policy, a real defense against terror, you should be a Republican. If you're looking for affirmation, rather than mere tolerance, of your deviant life style, go somewhere else.

Posted by: Bart at September 8, 2004 9:55 AM

Let me know when smaller government becomes a reality.

Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at September 8, 2004 10:14 AM

Ali:

It will never get smaller--indeed, it will grow massive--we'll just own it.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 10:24 AM

Bart,

They all ready have gone somewhere else, to the Democratic Party and liberalism, along with many other single issue voting groups and we have almost lost the country as a result. Now, the Christian right segment of the Republican Party is mistaking the disillusionment of 60 years of liberalism with a mandate for a Christian utopia complete with all its moral trimmings.

What a shame, the gays I know are more conservative than just about anybody else and really truly loathes liberalism. Only thing is they can't accept a government driven by a moral based agenda of a minority group of people. So rather than continue towards conservative ideals of small government, individual responsibility, and a give rather than take mindset, we will most likely splinter over time into a three party system:

Old liberals, (takers), - welfare recipients, government employees, unions, and the elderly.

Religious right, (moral agenda), religious conservatives

Independents, (libertarian agenda), economic conservatives, middle class blacks, small business owners, gays, social liberals

Of course, little progress will be made toward anything but hopefully not as bad as Europe.

Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 10:30 AM

The organization, with 12,000 members nationwide,

And that makes this news? Oh, wait, it's the evil, hate-filled, VRWC, exclusionary gay bashers. Well, no wonder.

Posted by: John Resnick at September 8, 2004 10:37 AM

The government has gotten smaller all over the place, haven't you guys been reading the news :-)

Layoffs at State and local levels have been tremendous, had to, couldn't make budget

Oj,

Don't understand your "own it" comment. As an owner, you want 28 million state and federal emplyees on the payroll?

Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 10:37 AM

Perry:

"they can't accept a government driven by a moral based agenda"

America is a moral based agenda.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 10:42 AM

Perry:

Privatized Social Security will still be a government mandated program but will be vastly larger than the current "trust fund".

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 10:44 AM

Oj,

America is, I would agree. But the government? No way. I think you confuse the two, just my opinion - Perry

Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 10:44 AM

Yes, lets take SS system private, then we can do away with current SS system which is really sham old style welfare and do away with it. This makes gov smaller right?

Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 10:47 AM

Perry:

Every law is an expression of morality.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 10:49 AM

OJ,

There is a difference between 'moral' and 'sectarian.'

Perry,

Economic policy is not even seriously debated anymore on the Presidential level. Thus,we are left with this tedious, imbecilic 'culture war.' Had we not had the War on Terror, for me this would be a Seinfeld election, an election about nothing.

Posted by: Bart at September 8, 2004 10:53 AM

Yes, but the need to criminalize everything?, and who's expression of morality?

Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 10:56 AM

Perry:

There are--or were--laws, you know? The expressions of morality come from the same source as our Founding.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 11:04 AM

Bart:

Not a meaningful one.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 11:05 AM

Perry:

No, it makes it much larger. Your private account isn't voluntary--it's a government mandate and governed by the feds.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 11:07 AM

Bart,

Even Bush is putting big gov programs through. The war on terror has given him cover but he has ticked off many conservatives. The Republican party would have been much to splintered to win had 9/11 not occured. I am much more concerned with economic liberalism than anythings else and so are many people. Economic policy is only a tip of that iceburg so I wouldn't bring out seinfled yet.

My point is Republicans have some cover now, a religous right movement is not providing it, it is the terrorism thing, so you guys maybe should modify your morals or you won't have a party next time. After all, arn't one set of morals as good as the next?, (I'm being serious here)

Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 11:07 AM

Perry,
Who wants to criminalize everything? Nobody I know.

On the other hand, it seems there are people who would like to decriminalize everything.

Posted by: Roy Jacobsen at September 8, 2004 11:12 AM

OJ,

Mandate ageed, but some government is necessary, I just focus on the amount and whether it limits competion and puts government emplyees on payroll. You wouldn't consider the NYSE a government program because SEC regulations apply would you? Mandate is a much more government light approach than a full fledge gov operated program

Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 11:14 AM

Oj,

If the founding fathers were are the final authority, why do we have amendments, and why didn't they put a no gays allowed clause in the constitution?

Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 11:20 AM

Who wants to criminalize everything? Nobody I know.

The Left operates on the assumption that everything that isn't expressly permitted is to assumed to be forbidden. Which is how in their rush to decriminalize all sorts of so-called victimless crimes, they can support "hate crimes" legislations, or confiscatory zoning and environmental legislation, or micromangement of business large and small. The Left only cares about govenment intrusion when it threatens their having a good time on Saturday night. (Or in the case of abortion, cleaning up the mess afterwards.)

As for the Log Cabin Republicans, like any other single issue group, whether it's abortion, immigration, taxation, termlimits, the deficit-- if you think the another party is more likely to support your agenda, then you should be leaving. Othersize, quit whining.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 8, 2004 11:23 AM

Perry:

If the government requires you to put 14% of your earnings in the NYSE you won't consider that a government program?

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 11:33 AM

God made gays.

OJ thinks it is moral to demonize them.

God, you listening?

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at September 8, 2004 11:33 AM

perry,

Your point is well taken. The GOP was united in the 50s-80s by the Cold War. Religious conservatives, business-oriented types and libertarians were all united in wanting to defeat the Soviets. People who wanted a soft line on the Soviets became Democrats. Remember all those Reagan Democrats, economic liberals who voted GOP in the 80s.

The fissures were showing throughout the 90s, to a great extent explaining the success of Bill Clinton. Even the dopey Al Gore mananged to carry many traditionally GOP suburban areas which were turned off by Bush's apparent devotion to an interventionist religious conservatism that secular professional GOP voters didn't like.

The War on Terror is serving to reunite the Reagan coalition in a way that I thought would never happen again in my lifetime. Libertarians, seculars, religious types, businessmen, farmers, etc what unites the GOP is a belief that America is great and America is good and above all America is worth fighting for and we will never give up, never give in to the animals who decided one fine day to fly 747s into American buildings and kill thousands of innocent people. We will do what needs to be done to eliminate the threat. That is why a room full of religious conservatives could cheer for Rudy and Arnold. That is why John McCain for all his demurrers from the Bush Administration and his huge ego could enthusiastically endorse Bush. That is why a lifelong Democrat, Zell Miller, could wholeheartedly endorse Bush who is running against a Massachusetts liberal who just doesn't get it.

Posted by: Bart at September 8, 2004 11:33 AM

Bart:

Zell Miller agreed to work with Bush way back in Dec 2000.

And you're deemphasising how much issues like abortion, gun ownership and gay marriage matter to Republicans. Enough that Bush was able to win in 2000.

As for Clinton, don't forget that if it wasn't for Perot siphoning off likely GOP voters in both 92 and 96, it's quite possible the GOP would have had a lock on the White House strecthing back to 1980.

Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at September 8, 2004 11:40 AM

Here is the Republican agenda, as articulated by the President:

  • What Americans do in the privacy of their own home is their own business.
  • All Americans deserve to be treated with dignity.
  • The constitution should be amended to reflect the clear desires of a substantial majority of the citizenry because we can't trust the courts to honor that desire.
  • Now, I'm against amending the constitution (even to strike the amendment procedure), but I can't see this as intolerant or extremist. In fact, it's more or less Bill Clinton's position, back when we thought that DOMA was constitutional.

    Posted by: David Cohen at September 8, 2004 11:40 AM

    Jeff:

    God made Man. Upbringing makes gays.

    They aren't demons--they're ill.

    Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 11:41 AM

    Bart:

    George Bush lost because two guys ran to his Right.

    Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 11:42 AM

    McCain's pro-life and Zell converted to pro-life.

    Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 11:48 AM

    "It will never get smaller--indeed, it will grow massive--we'll just own it."

    Yes, let's all invest in a massive boat anchor.

    Posted by: Robert Duquette at September 8, 2004 11:53 AM

    Oj,

    "Allows" as an alternative to "requires" more accurately describes it in my mind. And if it is a zero sum move from SS system to a system with much choice, then it is a good thing and yes I would deem it a small government approach and acceptable. The money is now available for the capital markets to use and more importantly puts budgetary pressure on the general government's fiscal operations.

    Also, please don't under estimate this ownership society principle. Many people I know who are sympathetic to the michael moore class warefare mantra, own stock via 401k and IRA's and so will probably vote for Bush as he is the perceived choice for a better stock market.

    Drive by your friendly neiborhood government housing project and you can see this phenamenan in action for yourself. Looks like ground zero on the outside but many interiors are like anybody else's home as the occupant perceives the interior AS THIERS and has their self interest at heart and pride in ownership

    Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 11:54 AM

    Perry:

    It won't allow--it will require.

    Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 11:56 AM

    Robert:

    That is exactly its purpose, to anchor the society by giving everyone ownership interest in it.

    Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 11:58 AM

    If gay marriage and abortion are so all-fired important to Republicans, what were Arnie and Rudy doing at the Convention? Why were they being cheered when their positions on those issues are the exact antithesis of what you claim the GOP position is?

    The Democrats, if you've seen their spokespeople on CSpan, have been dreaming about the GOP making the election about the 'social issues' and the 'culture war' because then the Democrats don't get the support merely of the deviants and the misfits looking for approval, but they also get the votes of people, like myself, who don't believe that government should be looking in the keyholes of people's bedrooms in the dark of night. In an election where there is no difference on economics, or on terror, why should someone who believes in leaving others alone to live their own lives as they see fit, vote for a candidate who believes government should dictate the way people live their private lives?

    By picking a candidate who can easily be perceived as 'Soft on Terrorism' the Democrats have insured that the War on Terror will be the defining issue of the campaign.

    The Democrats would have had to nominate McGovern or Carter for me to have voted for Old Bush in 1992, when I voted for Perot.

    Posted by: Bart at September 8, 2004 11:58 AM

    But David, doesn't Bush support marriage ammendment? This kind of stuff is stupid, just plain stupid and will lose votes. There is activism, clearly not neutral, and will squander a golden opportunity to drive a stake in Liberalism in all its forms, not just socialism

    Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 12:02 PM

    Bart:

    So far what's this government done that makes it so odious to social liberals\libertarians like yourself?

    I don't recall gay marriage being legal before 2000 for a start.

    Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at September 8, 2004 12:04 PM

    Bart:

    Hiding their positions on social issues. One holds no office and the other can't run for President. Both won races no other Republican could so they are the best the party could do. However, we are just months (maybe a couple years, but no longer) away from a Rudy Giuliani "awakening" during which he will do some deep soul searching and discover that he opposes abortion after all.

    Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 12:05 PM

    "It won't allow--it will require."

    Oj,

    You are ducking the point. This is still "small governemnt" approach and should be the model, Please rebut my point about the SEC regulating NYSE because I think analogy holds well

    Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 12:07 PM

    The left has had an equal amount of votes siphoned off as well. Looks like the basis for a third party IMHO, Socially liberal, economically conservative. If the republicans can't get there, it will unfortunatley go third party.

    Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 12:28 PM

    Perry: Bush does support the Marriage Amendment. I don't. I think I can still bring myself to vote for him.

    I do think that you're wrong on the politics. Gay marriage is a political loser. When on the ballot, it not only loses, but it loses big, it loses in both parties and it increases turnout.

    Posted by: David Cohen at September 8, 2004 12:29 PM

    I don't support gay marriage either!, and neither do most people I know. But don't confuse this one issue with how most people feel. Most people are not anti-gay just because they don't support gay marrige. I would do away with all marriage laws. Goverment should not have a position here. No one could then complain. Personally, I don't care if you marry a tree as long as it doesn't bother me or cost me money in the form of entitlements.

    Gay marriage is one thing and doesn't have support, agreed, but don't confuse this with a mandate to go on a crusade against gays, this counrty won't have it

    Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 12:40 PM

    Perry

    What's with this "crusade against gays"? I missed that in the newspapers.

    Posted by: h-man at September 8, 2004 12:44 PM

    Just as to an alky the Constitutional Right To My Next Drink must be preserved at all costs, so My Constitutional Right To Dip My Wick In Anybody Or Anything I Want must be preserved no matter what the collateral damage.

    Posted by: Ken at September 8, 2004 12:44 PM

    h-man,

    Why don't you ask the Log cabin republicans, I think they made the headlines didn't they?

    Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 12:48 PM

    The only "crusade" going on that relates to homosexuals is a hysterical temper tantrum via courts pushing for "gay" marriage".

    Posted by: h-man at September 8, 2004 12:51 PM

    Perry: Your position is close to mine, although I think we get there by different routes.

    I have no idea why you think that either the administration or the Republican party has the slightest interest in doing anything to or about homosexuality that could even come close to being rationally called persecution. Remember the three points of the president's position:

  • What Americans do in the privacy of their own home is their own business.
  • All Americans deserve to be treated with dignity.
  • The constitution should be amended to reflect the clear desires of a substantial majority of the citizenry because we can't trust the courts to honor that desire.
  • Posted by: David Cohen at September 8, 2004 12:57 PM

    Get married in you church, leave the federal, and State government out of it, what is so hard to understand. Marriage laws are for sissy's

    Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 12:58 PM

    Perry:

    Yes, the SEC, FDA, OSHA & EPA are all small government.

    Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 12:59 PM

    Yes they are, much smaller than if they tried to provide the service they regulate for us directly

    Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 1:01 PM

    Perry:

    The social issues are the wedge that drives conservatism--the rest of the stuff you want freeloads along.

    Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 1:03 PM

    No, just the opposite. Conservatism is the belief in the individual and the notion that the individual is best suited to make his/her own decisions and not driven by dogma or morality plays

    Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 1:08 PM

    Perry:

    As those agencies that regulate every facet of life are "small government" I have trouble following why regulation of morality is "big government"?

    Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 1:08 PM

    Perry:

    No, that's libertarianism, not conservatism.

    Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 1:15 PM

    Regulation of morality, that's good and very to the point. The answer is you impinge my freedom by regulting my morality, so no level is justified unless you can show harm to yourself as an indivual. A very hard thing to do when your talking morals. Usually requires making the "because God said so argument"

    If you had no government regulation of meat standards for instance, you would most likely be eating spoiled meat on a regular basis. But I am not advocating the gov go in the meat packing business just like I donot advocate the government being in the social security business

    Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 1:17 PM

    thanks guys, have to go

    Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 1:18 PM

    Actually, food safety is one area in which leaving it up to the producers/retailers might actually work, and, in fact, that's the de facto norm in America right now, the Dept. of Agriculture notwithstanding.

    Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 8, 2004 4:38 PM

    It is hysterical how libertarians like Perry pride themselves on being so smart and reasonable, yet they end up sounding so dumb. He states that if the government were not regulating meat, most of us would be eating spoiled meat on a regular basis, but he is fine with that because his unyielding faith in his philosophy overrides what is rational.

    Posted by: Vince at September 8, 2004 5:09 PM

    Michael, go to your local fish restaurant, order escolar and get back to me.

    Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 8, 2004 7:17 PM

    Harry:

    You know better than I that gov't agents don't inspect every piece of food, or even anywhere near every facility that produces or processes food, so what's your point ?

    Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 8, 2004 8:19 PM

    "That is exactly its purpose, to anchor the society by giving everyone ownership interest in it."

    That is the silliest nonsense I've heard in a while. Government programs do not provide ownership, they provide reasons to redistribute wealth. They let everyone indulge their sense of social resentment by voting themselves benefits that they "deserve". This kind of doublespeak will only serve to weaken the institutions of true ownership. OJ, you are closer to the statist Euros than you realize.

    Posted by: Robert Duquette at September 8, 2004 8:59 PM

    Vince writes:
    "...but he is fine with that because his unyielding faith in his philosophy overrides what is rational. "

    I'm hysterical?, the Vince the Christian just accuses me of ignoring rationality because of my faith, HA!

    Posted by: Perry at September 8, 2004 9:44 PM

    Robert:

    One thing even Harry and I agree on is that the FHA made homeowners and thus a more conservative society.

    Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 10:17 PM

    Perry, a philosophy is just a religion without supernatural elements. It preaches morality just like a religion, and anyone who is a strict follower of it is a fundamentalist; therefore, you are a religious fundamentalist. Congratulations! You and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have much more in common than you had previously thought.

    Posted by: Vince at September 9, 2004 3:17 AM

    Vince,

    I will not waste my time debating whether or not I am a follower of a philosophy built on "supernatural elements" as you put it. You obviously have an opinion and are entitled to it.

    I was just pointing out what a hypocrite you are.

    Posted by: Perry at September 9, 2004 8:31 AM

    I was simply pointing out that you are as much a religious fundamentalist as any other religious fundamentalist. So, I guess I was just pointing out what a hypocrite you are.

    Posted by: Vince at September 9, 2004 1:01 PM

    Robert:

    Privatized SS accounts, although part of a government programme, will be owned by their contributors, and can be parts of their estate.

    Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 9, 2004 5:18 PM
    « LIBERTY'S KIDS ARE ALRIGHT: | Main | TEN POUNDS OF HATE IN A FIVE POUND SACK: »