Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mind

[JayHawk]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

LOL. Keep thinkin that. You know it wasn't but just a short time ago people were tellin me "She's gonna be President"

Now she is a smoking hole. If it weren't for money and spite she would be gone.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

I'm sorry that I'm late to this party, but I've been busy as a Mod around here.

I don't think we have much to dance about either. The Dems have been very spineless about gay issues over the past few years. I think they are afraid to rock the boat by taking a strong position on gay issues and I don't think that will change much even when we get control of the whole game. They'll still be afraid because a short two years later comes mid terms. We'll have to have control for a long time before they'll gain some balls.

I agree!

You're right, we don't have anything to dance about and things aren't likely to change much under Obama or Clinton. But at least, unlike the Log Cabin Repubs, we haven't been supporting people who are actively working against us, esp in the form of the ban on gay marriage amendment. The Dems give meager lip service to supporting us and then do nothing, but the Repubs actively turn people against us which, in a best case scenario gives official sanction to hate and, in a worse case scenario, leads to hate crimes. When national civil unions are eventually allowed (whether it's in 2 years or 100) you can be sure it won't be Republicans leading the way.

Yes, we've been supporting a party that hasn't been actively work FOR us either!

The Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment here in Texas back in 2004, passed out of the Texas Legislature to the Texas Electorate at large by two Democratic votes; one in the Senate and one on the House of Representatives.

Those two votes from long standing Democrats is all that the GOP needed to make "Gay Marriage" an issue in Texas, for no other reason that to get more of them elected.

THEN at the 2006 Texas Democratic Party Convention in Ft. Worth, Texas, we learned that one of the reasons why the measure passed by a nearly 3 to 1 margin, was because Howard Dean told the Texas Democratic Party to "stay out of it."

This knowledge came about when the position for Texas Party Chair was being challenged for the first time in nearly 15 years by the first openly Gay State Representative, Glenn Maxey.

Despite the fact that the Texas GLBT Community had put together one of the most diverse groups in Texas History to oppose the 2004 Constitutional Amendment, the Texas Democratic Party was nowhere to be found!

Where in the fuck was the Texas Democratic Party on this issue?

Taking marching orders from the DNC Chair, Governor Howard Dean from Vermont.

There's nothing that Chairman Dean can say on behalf of the GLBT members of the Democratic Party that I'd give two wits about.

For someone like Howard Dean to claim that "Gay Republicans arent' in their right Mind," well at least Gay Republicans KNOW who their enemies are within the GOP, because this Texas Democrat who identifies as "Gay," knows when he has a party chair who's just as quick to sell us out for political expediency as anyone in the GOP.

Fuck Dean, I'm so looking forward to voting his ass out as my party Chair, the next opportunity that I get!

 

[LaloGS]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

The idea that someone would make a post claiming they dislike racism and that why an entire group of people flock to a cause based only on their own misguided experience is absolutely ridiculous.

The hate in your post based on one experience shows how easy it is to be a racist.

What twisted logic. Only someone who doesn't see or even understand the main agenda of Log Cabin would say something like that. Or maybe you just like fat daddies in back rooms smoking cigars.

They don't love you Mazda, why do you believe there is room for you and your kind in the Repuglican party? I don't want to hear you claim you have conservative leanings and claim to be a Republican because they are the conservative party. Look at what they do and have done, and then get out a dictionary and look up the word conservative. That is not what they are.

 

[LaloGS]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

Not true -- and history shows it.
The Socialist Party in America never got anyone into high office, but it pulled enough votes that both the Democrats and Republicans scrambled to put socialist programs into their platforms.

America's most intensive Socialist period was under FDR. The country was so grateful to his social programs, they readily passed a law to elect him to a third term. There is not a Repuglican alive today who would institute a social program that would come close to the effort FDR made to save America from ruin. They'd rather see it go down than to lift a finger to help. It is not in their agenda.

 

[JayHawk]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

Lalo how is your comparison or the likeness you apply to many based off your impression of two not a form of sexism? or maybe it is political-ism. Not really a race your hating but it is an unfair generalization. If you think that is fair then you agree with the deep south white guy who hates balck people because one he knew was a piece of shit. So he hates all of them all though he only knows
the one. I could make many comparisons but i dont know if you would get it. If you cant see that generalization of an entire group of people based off the example of two is wrong, then I can not help you. It is simply mind boggling.

 

[LaloGS]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

LaloGS...I'm not talking about that era even...I'm talking about now.

Here is the state of gay rights as I see it...this is just my opinion.

We will not see any great advances under either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton as President. DOMA will not be removed...modified at the most, but not removed. DADT will be moot because either of them will lift the ban on gays serving in the military...therefore making DADT disappear.

Our party lacks the balls to make bold moves on our behalf. The Democrats will play everything safe for the next two years because they don't want to lose our gains this fall in the midterms in 2010. We'll have to have solid control for years before they make any significant changes on our behalf...not just so it's easier to push stuff through but because there are priorities WAY ahead of our community on the mids of the blues.

The leaders of our party have been anything but leaders in recent years when it comes to gay issues. They do their best to stop anti-gay stuff when it pops up which I really appreciate...but they aren't actively trying to give us our rights.

Mattie, the point I'm trying to make, is that, even under Bill Clinton, Democrats have struggled to accomplish any part of the Democratic platform. Those hot buttons like gay rights, gay military service, and much needed social programs, not to mention education programs which would help people like you have all been at the effect of Repuglican Congresses. This time around, there is an opportunity to deep six most of the Repuglican bastards who have put drag chains and anchors on Social progress in America. If we can achieve a predominant Democratic Congress this time around maybe there can be some movement forward. The current Congress appears to be weak, only because it doesn't have the majority needed to over ride Bush's vetoes. Because the Repugs in their seats do nothing but rubber stamp any Bush proposal.

If we can stack the House and Senate with Democrats perhaps the strength of the Democratic party will move forward and we will see what is possible in this country.

Remember the great strides forward in social programs back during Johnson's Great Society. The country had never before had such a great leap forward, and Johnson even had to coached before every speech on how to say "Neegro," instead of "Niggra."

So nothing is perfect, but some things are better than others, and a Democratic controlled Congress has to be better that a Repuglican controlled Congress by a long shot. It is time to start thinking about who is running for Congress. The presidential race is less important now than the Congressional seats coming up this year.

 

[JackFTwist]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

Man Jack, you don't seem to have much of a grasp on the political situation during Bill Clinton's time in office. You ought to start trying to educate yourself a little. He didn't institute Don't ask don't tell, it was the best compromise he was able to get out of a majority Repuglican Congress. He tried to get a law passed allowing gays to serve openly. And at least the compromise stopped the military from asking about sexual orientation of any volunteer recruit. He came under such hateful attacks from both the Repuglican Congress and the high military (mostly Repuglican) brass, that his goal to allow gays to serve openly had to be dropped. At least he tried to move forward for gay rights.

May I try to very politely disagree with your posts as to what happened in 1993.

Clinton had ran and won on many things including the promise that he would drop the ban on gays in the military. That is achieved by Executive Order. He was not trying to get anything passed. The Republicans and some Democrats (Sam Nunn in particular) voiced their very loud opposition. Clinton caved and pulled back the proposed good executive order and instead issued the don't ask don't tell executive order.

It was Clinton's Harry Truman moment. Truman by Executive Order desegregated the military in the face of fervent, vehement opposition. This was before the civil rights era had begun. Truman took the heat. The military is now one of the most equal things we have in society. Clinton could have taken the heat. Goldwater was even standing with him. Clinton could have issued the Executive Order eliminating discrimination against gays in the military. All he had to do was sign the EO. He caved instead. The Executive Order that he did not give, and the one that he did, will always be a testimony to his weakness and as they say now, ability to throw us under the bus as he did with DOMA. And in another matter, just as he caved on Lani Guenier.

His philosophy was to triangulate. He did and triangulated right out of doing the right thing but instead did an easy thing and leaving us in a bad place. The big accomplishment of Don't ask don't tell was they would no longer hunt for gays.
If Clnton had guts like Truman, he would have done the right thing.

 

[JayHawk]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

What twisted logic. Only someone who doesn't see or even understand the main agenda of Log Cabin would say something like that. Or maybe you just like fat daddies in back rooms smoking cigars.

They don't love you Mazda, why do you believe there is room for you and your kind in the Repuglican party? I don't want to hear you claim you have conservative leanings and claim to be a Republican because they are the conservative party. Look at what they do and have done, and then get out a dictionary and look up the word conservative. That is not what they are.

The sad thing is with one paragrapgh you seek to impune my intelligence and then make generalizations about my sexual taste.

You then proceed to tell me, for my own good I imagine, that they dont have my gay interest at heart. Gee willikers, really?

If we can not fix our own thought processes to remove hate and smarming, look down your nose attitude then we will never reach any form of equality.

 

[JackFTwist]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

Dean is just wrong on some points. First, blacks have prospered far more (in terms of power) from Republicans. You don't have to like the party or even support it. But the facts are there.

what facts? I'd love to see them. The only token claim that can be made is the office of secretary of state. Clinton broke the glass ceiling by appointing a woman. You make your claim about token republican appointees all you want -- but get yourself photographs of any republican national convention and look for the African Americans empowered by the GOP: their is always one token in a sea of whiteness. It was J C Watts most recently. But it is farcical to my mind to connect the few positive events of Reconstruction with the current republican party as it has been since Nixon's southern strategy.

Back in the day the republican party in Cook County IL was ok - those of us in IVI and IPO (independent voter organizations made up of anti machine Dems) used to work with them a lot. There were some good republicans that I helped elect let alone vote for - Richard Ogilvie, Bernard Carey, Joanne Alter. But... the Reagan Revolution ended moderate republicanism. And the token few things done since are just that.

It is clear the Bush is not personally a racist. He loves sports and sports practices diversity. We have the secretary of state spot. Nothing else. Katrina. Inaction. Katrina was good for the blacks because they got to come as refugees to Houston. (B. Bush) Hey, be a republican all you want, but to offer them as people of black empowerment is not realistic as I have seen it all my life.

 

[LaloGS]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

Lalo how is your comparison or the likeness you apply to many based off your impression of two not a form of sexism? or maybe it is political-ism. Not really a race your hating but it is an unfair generalization. If you think that is fair then you agree with the deep south white guy who hates balck people because one he knew was a piece of shit. So he hates all of them all though he only knows
the one. I could make many comparisons but i dont know if you would get it. If you cant see that generalization of an entire group of people based off the example of two is wrong, then I can not help you. It is simply mind boggling.

You know Mazda, statistics are based on percentages. While I agree that it is iffy to draw a conclusion about a group from two examples, the demographics of the two I draw the conclusion from, was actually about 70% higher that the average demographic used by national polls which generally is around 1000/300,000,000. So I stand by my conclusion. Regardless of what you think is ridiculous. Even if it is plus or minus 4%. You can't have it both ways. If you want to play statistics, my two man poll would produce more accurate results for Log Cabin that any presidential poll by a long shot, given the fewer numbers of Log Cabin members.

 

[JayHawk]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

So based on two people you will infer the racist intentions of the many. Please do not ever run for office.

 

[JackFTwist]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

<clip>
There's nothing that Chairman Dean can say on behalf of the GLBT members of the Democratic Party that I'd give two wits about.

For someone like Howard Dean to claim that "Gay Republicans arent' in their right Mind," well at least Gay Republicans KNOW who their enemies are within the GOP, because this Texas Democrat who identifies as "Gay," knows when he has a party chair who's just as quick to sell us out for political expediency as anyone in the GOP.

Fuck Dean, I'm so looking forward to voting his ass out as my party Chair, the next opportunity that I get!

oh, can we have lots of bash Dean threads? It will unite us all! Are you on the DNC? Damn those people should never have elected him and he has been a diaster. Dean is the worst chait we have in my memory. He needs be gone.

 

[LaloGS]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

Dean is just wrong on some points. First, blacks have prospered far more (in terms of power) from Republicans. You don't have to like the party or even support it. But the facts are there. Republicans were far more supportive after the Civil War and helped blacks gain elected seats in the South and since then they have appointed blacks to higher positions than Democrats. Hispanics are typically more conservative and so are Asians so that would be another.

Each side wants to perpetuate myths like "Republicans are racist" and "Democrats are pushing a 'gay agenda.'" Each are hurt by their extremes.

I'll give him the points on gay issues. Democrats have typically been far more supportive. However, they could do a lot more. Even now neither Democrat in the race today supports gay marriage.

Jav, pointing to the party of Lincoln to claim the Republicans have done more for blacks is hypocritical to say the least. Those blacks who benefited were carefully chose for their lack of education to punish the white south. They were never intended to be legitimate legislators. And the current party does not show ant representative group of blacks unless you count Ms Rice, and the token Supreme court justice. Their best proof was Colin Powel, but he's anathema and doesn't want anything to do with the creeps anymore.

 

[LaloGS]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

May I try to very politely disagree with your posts as to what happened in 1993.

Clinton had ran and won on many things including the promise that he would drop the ban on gays in the military. That is achieved by Executive Order. He was not trying to get anything passed. The Republicans and some Democrats (Sam Nunn in particular) voiced their very loud opposition. Clinton caved and pulled back the proposed good executive order and instead issued the don't ask don't tell executive order.

It was Clinton's Harry Truman moment. Truman by Executive Order desegregated the military in the face of fervent, vehement opposition. This was before the civil rights era had begun. Truman took the heat. The military is now one of the most equal things we have in society. Clinton could have taken the heat. Goldwater was even standing with him. Clinton could have issued the Executive Order eliminating discrimination against gays in the military. All he had to do was sign the EO. He caved instead. The Executive Order that he did not give, and the one that he did, will always be a testimony to his weakness and as they say now, ability to throw us under the bus as he did with DOMA. And in another matter, just as he caved on Lani Guenier.

His philosophy was to triangulate. He did and triangulated right out of doing the right thing but instead did an easy thing and leaving us in a bad place. The big accomplishment of Don't ask don't tell was they would no longer hunt for gays.
If Clnton had guts like Truman, he would have done the right thing.

Executive orders are not permanent. He was trying for something that would make gay service permanent. The military brass got so up in arms the compromise of DADT was the best he could manage. By starting off his presidency with such a controversial attempt, he really was only successful in lining up Repug hatred against him. That was what started the grumbling and negativity that ultimately culminated in his impeachment. Repugs wouldn't acknowledge anything he did as being successful and twisted and spun all of his successes into negativity.

I think you are not taking into consideration how much Clinton was hated. The Repugs wanted to continue their disastrous economic program, and G.H.W.Bush was too easily beaten because people were tired of sliding down the economic poll. (Remember: "It's the economy stupid?") Clinton still succeeded with the entire Repug party doing everything in its power to foil his success. Once Clinton left office, leaving a balanced budget, and money in the bank, it took Boy George less than 6 months to make Clinton's balanced budget vanish and begin to build the largest debt the world has ever seen. So don't lay all the blame for not getting gays in the military passed by law or executive order. Your party of choice played a major roll in all of Clinton's failures, and yet they continue to blame him for failures that are actually their own opposition and previous Repuglican administrations all the way back to that idiot Reagan.

 

[LaloGS]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

So based on two people you will infer the racist intentions of the many. Please do not ever run for office.

Don't worry, I won't ever run for office, but I don't think I'm wrong. the two Log Cabins I jumped on were offended that I didn't like them throwing around the "N" word and "Spick" like it was the thing to do in a mixed party. Most of their hate was pumped out a full volume and was despicable in any situation much less a gay party.

So from what you know, why do you think they chose to spout such racism at a gay party? I still think they were racists, and as much as they were promoting Log Cabin, they certainly made it pretty clear that they at least felt comfortable in a group of gay guys to be racists. By inference, their Log Cabin meetings must be comfortable with that level of racism.

Close your eyes if you want, but what other reason would the Repuglican party tolerate a homosexual arm? There must be something they can all agree on and it certainly isn't cock sucking. We have numerous examples of how the party reacts to even long term Repuglican cocksuckers when they are exposed.

 

[Spensed]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

^ Thanks. I appreciate your comment.

 

[byro]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

Gay Republicans have freeloaded on the advances in gay rights achieved by other people

I had never thought of it quite this way before, but you're dead-on. Ditto civil rights in general. If they're not going to help in a fight that's in their own best interest, they need at the very least to get the hell out of the way and stop obstructing the delivery of their gift.

 

[JayHawk]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

Don't worry, I won't ever run for office, but I don't think I'm wrong. the two Log Cabins I jumped on were offended that I didn't like them throwing around the "N" word and "Spick" like it was the thing to do in a mixed party. Most of their hate was pumped out a full volume and was despicable in any situation much less a gay party.

So from what you know, why do you think they chose to spout such racism at a gay party? I still think they were racists, and as much as they were promoting Log Cabin, they certainly made it pretty clear that they at least felt comfortable in a group of gay guys to be racists. By inference, their Log Cabin meetings must be comfortable with that level of racism.

Close your eyes if you want, but what other reason would the Repuglican party tolerate a homosexual arm? There must be something they can all agree on and it certainly isn't cock sucking. We have numerous examples of how the party reacts to even long term Repuglican cocksuckers when they are exposed.

You are truly [removed by moderator]. I do not want to violate the forum rules but the maginitude of which you are deluded is amazing. I can not believe others are in agreement.

From two people you are able to formulate the ideology of all. Amazing. You would have fit well in [removed by moderator]. I am completely astounded and sickened.

However you rationalize their behavior it is sickening to believe you apply that to every person calling themselves conservative, republican and gay.

I can tell you one thing. The men I have lived, loved and fought with bleed just as red whether black, yellow or brown. You unfortunately will never have the courage to give of yourself enough to know that.

I believe fully that if this society we have benefited from with all of its bruises and blemishes is the only future for the gay man. I also believe that it will not be sustained without loss of life and blood. You and yours have never been capable of giving more than a broken nail. I hope sincerely that the freedoms you enjoy are relished with a sense of thanks. But I know that is asking too much.

Many cultures around this globe feel the pleasures of the freedom we have earned. They do not however feel the need to defend such freedom. So go back to colombia. Spend your free American dollars because you failed to plan. Continue to bitch about how bad you have it. But do not ever tell me I do not contribute to your ability to gather that meager sum of money that enables you to exist.

It is obscene to me that you believe all people are based off the example of two. If your a bear then what do you think of two queens? Completely sick.

 

[PSCGuy]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

Ah. Not black enough for you. Why don't you come out and say if they aren't "liberal" blacks they don't count?

Colin Powell and Condi Rice are bad examples because they were unelected.

How many black Republican members of the US House are there? How many black Republican members of the US Senate? How many black Republican state governors?

The Democratic Party hasn't been amazing with electing black officials either, but at least their answer to those last questions isn't 0.

 

[JayHawk]

Re: Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mi

^ True but does the Republican or Democratic party elect people or do the people who vote for them?

The chicken or the egg argument if ever I have heard one.