Dean: Gay Republicans aren't in their right mind

[spiderhead]

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

I agree with Dean.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

Well, he's right.
But Democrat gays aren't in their right minds, either. The only party that really accepts gays as people, not as a special interest to be manipulated or an embarrassing minority to be kept hidden, is the Libertarian.

 

[byro]

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

I agree with Dean. How must the Log Cabin Republicans feel after seven years of Bush/Cheney??

 

[byro]

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

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.

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.

 

[Spensed]

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

Anyone who votes for any party based on one set of issues isn't in their right mind.

Simply not true.

Sure some people don't want to decide which party to vote for based on one issue.

But others, who put a premium on gay civil rights, do. For these people, the situation is no different than black guys refusing to vote for a racist candidate whatever the candidate's other views.

This is especially true in the context of making sure that the Supreme Court doesn't have a right wing majority that will take every opportunity that comes before it to reverse the gay civil rights achievements over the last few decades.

I think Dean's perfectly right. The Republican party is great at its PR in harnessing people to vote against their own economic or social interests.

Gay Republicans have freeloaded on the advances in gay rights achieved by other people and, if McCain does get in, one remaining perverse pleasure will be watching McCain-supporting gays eat dirt as Andrew Sullivan and other gay pro-Bush supporters had to do. Fun, fun.

 

[hothead]

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

I refuse to take seriously anyone who squeals like a greased pig like Coward Dean did when he lost the Iowa caucuses in 2004. I think of many good reasons not to support either of the two major political parties in the US.

 

[Nagash]

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

Yeah, I agree with him as well. Gay Republicans doesn't make any sense. It's like chickens for Colonel Sanders.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

I refuse to take seriously anyone who squeals like a greased pig like Coward Dean did when he lost the Iowa caucuses in 2004. I think of many good reasons not to support either of the two major political parties in the US.

Have you ever watched the actual footage of that, instead of just the media's version?
He was trying to be heard over an excessively loud crowd.

 

[JayHawk]

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

I think it is interesting that he is being sued for sexual orientation discrimination. Interesting to see how that turns out. Could very well be another politician talking out of both sides of his mouth.

 

[D8Na2R]

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

That is Governor Dean's opinion. Opinions are like assholes. We all have one.

I can't wait until he vomits forth another pearl of wisdom.

 

[cityboy-stl]

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

I mostly agree with him...but I find very little reason to vote blue just based on this one issue...the Democrats aren't beating down the doors to champion our rights.

But they're not actively trying to take away our rights like the republicans are.

 

[Spensed]

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

To vote for a party based on one issue is stupid.

It depends on what priority you give that issue.

If you were a black guy, you wouldn't balance a racist cadidate's negative policies on race against his positve policies in other areas. You wouldn't vote for him because, in principle, it would just be the wrong thing to do.

If gay civil rights are a critical issue for you, you might well not vote for McCain because of that one issue.

The other point is that his position on that one issue colors his other policies. A right wing Supreme Court will not only re-criminalize gay sex, it'll also get it wrong on government sponsored torture, anti-individual and pro-corporate decisions, etc., etc. So, as with race, what looks like one issue quickly widens to problems on many issues.

I still think pro-McCain gays are falling for the myth and not the reality of McCain and his chronies and that, if McCain is elected, there'll be much regret and disappointment amoung his gay supporters as there was amoung Bush's gay supporters. As per the cliche, if you don't learn from the past, you just repeat it.

 

[jackoroe]

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

No one has done more harm to gay people than William Jefferson Clinton. He instituted don't ask, don't tell. And he willingly signed DOMA. Yet many gays still foolishly think he's the bees knees. (I've always wanted to use that phrase!)

 

[letme]

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

Mattie...

I seldom agree with some of the things you write here.
But you got me smiling with this

I have a hard time thinking a gay man could be a republican if the most important issue to him is gay rights...but I don't have a hard time understanding gay republicans if they are conservative at heart...of course the conservative platform is gonna speak to them more than the liberal one.

That is me and , maybe , several others here.

Being Gay & Republican is a working lifestyle.
GAY is not an issue with me in politics. My heart is.

Thanks.

 

[Spensed]

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

No one has done more harm to gay people than William Jefferson Clinton. He instituted don't ask, don't tell. And he willingly signed DOMA. Yet many gays still foolishly think he's the bees knees. (I've always wanted to use that phrase!)

Oh not that tired old Republican wives' tale again.

Time for a reality check methinks:

http://www.americablog.com/2007/03/so-gay-republicans-think-bill-clinton.html

I'm getting tired of hearing gay Republicans repeat the mantra that Bill Clinton was a disaster for gay rights, that this proves how much the Democrats have failed us, and somehow this exonerates how hateful the Republican party is to gays. Yes, Clinton screwed us on DOMA, and his wife is following suit. But putting that aside, and it's a big thing to put aside I admit (and I'll be addressing it shortly), the gay Republicans are lying to us in an effort to assuage their own guilt at still supporting a party that hates them.

The biggest complaint against Clinton, aside from DOMA, is, seemingly, that he didn't pass any great pro-gay legislation like ENDA, hate crimes, marriage, etc. Well, that's all well and good, until you realize that presidents don't make and pass legislation - Congress' do. And from 1994 until 2006, the Congress was Republican (albeit we had a brief Dem stint in the Senate when Jeffords defected). So any gay Republican who has a problem that we haven't had any great gay rights successes at the federal level in 12 years need go only in search of the nearest mirror in order to find who's to blame.

Now, let's start with DOMA. How conveniently the gay Republicans forget whose idea DOMA was in the first place: the Republican congress. They came up with the legislation to bash Democrats by bashing gays. The Republicans came up with the brilliant move (and I mean brilliant) to put the Dems in the mid-1990s in the position of either supporting gay marriage - something that was politically untenable ten years ago (and is still not super popular with the public today) - or of bashing gays. Most Dems, including Clinton, chose to bash gays rather than fall on their swords. Yeah, it sucks. But I don't hold politicians that responsible for falling victim to "gotcha" votes unless we as a community have done our homework in laying the groundwork to make it possible for those politicians to vote against this kind of legislation (though Clinton bragged in radio ads about supporting DOMA, and that was wrong). As a community we didn't do this on marriage, and still haven't done this on marriage.

The Republican majority gave the Democrats in Congress a Sophie's Choice. Yeah, I'm still pissed at Sophie, but let's not forgot the Nazis who forced the choice on her in the first place.

Next point, supposedly Bill Clinton didn't do anything for gays. We've already established that Bill Clinton couldn't pass ENDA or hate crimes or marriage or anything else pro-gay because the Republicans controlled Congress for 12 years, and Congress is the one that makes laws. What Bill Clinton could do, and did, was make political appointments, write regulations, submit budgets, and use his bully pulpit. And on all of those, he did his job for our community.

Let's look at what Bill Clinton did for gays. First off, keep in mind, we're talking 1992 here. Not 2007. It's easy now to say "George Bush also supports AIDS research." Yeah, but Ronald Reagan, who has president just 4 years before Bill Clinton, refused to even say the word AIDS for most of his presidency. It was huge for the community that Bill Clinton ran as an openly gay-friendly president and went on to be a president who supported massive AIDS funding, and appointing openly-gay staff to ambassadorships and senior government positions. And before anyone poo-poo the importance of gay jobs in the administraiton, remember the battle over Roberta Achtenberg? Appointing lesbians to political jobs was a big deal in the early 90s, even if today it might seem old hat. Clinton took a huge amount of heat for appointing Roberta, Jesse Helms practically shut down the Senate, but Clinton stuck by her, stuck by us, and got her confirmed.

We also got our first openly gay ambassador under Bill Clinton, Jim Hormel. We got job protections for federal employees based on sexual orientation - a HUGE change from the days of Reagan when gay employees were witch-hunted, lost their security clearances and their jobs. I spoke recently to a senior openly-gay State Department official who was the subject of a witch hunt in the 1980s under Reagan. The administration threatened to ruin his career if he didn't out every gay person he knew at the State Department. He said 'no' and hired a lawyer (a rather brave thing to do in the mid-80s). He told me that when Bill Clinton came in EVERYTHING CHANGED. I said to him, yeah, but things weren't still a problem in 1992 when Clinton came in were they? He told me I was wrong, it was, and the witch hunts didn't stop until Bill Clinton made them stop.

Then there's my story. I took and passed the Foreign Service Exam (oral and written) in 1989. It was my dream to join the Foreign Service. And I didn't because I was convinced they'd find out I was gay and that would be the end of my career. Funnily enough, prior drug use wasn't a problem for getting your security clearance, but being gay potentially was. I eventually refused to file the papers to get my first appointment, and that was that. The end of at least one of my dreams.

So spare me the revisionist history crap from self-loathing gay conservatives who need to convince us that the Democrats are as bad as Republicans on gay issues. That the pro-gay achievements of Democrats like Bill Clinton were no big deal at the time. The Republicans, the party of Ann Coulter, hate us. They make no bones about it. They are the folks who authored DOMA. They are the folks who block hate crimes legislation (Trent Lott personally killed it right after Matthew Shepard died). They are the folks who came up with the anti-gay amendment to Constitution to ban gay marriage. They are the folks who empowered the religious right and invited them into the entire administration, handing them the levers of government. Anyone who dares talk about how bad the Democrats are on gay rights, especially as it compares to the Republicans, is either delusional or a liar.

Yes, the Democrats aren't perfect. And as I've said, it's high time for Mr. and Mrs. Clinton to admit that DOMA was forced upon the president by the Republicans, and that it was a mistake he now regrets. But gay Republicans need to stop seeking therapy through historical revisionism. Gay GOPers are still in love with the prison guards, and no amount of lies is going to change that simple fact.

 

[Spensed]

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

Mattie...

I seldom agree with some of the things you write here.
But you got me smiling with this

That is me and , maybe , several others here.

Being Gay & Republican is a working lifestyle.
GAY is not an issue with me in politics. My heart is.

Thanks.

All you're saying is that the political struggle for civil rights, whether for women, blacks or guys, has room for those passengers, who benefit from the political struggle but are content not to participate.

That's the way of the world. It may slow the emergence of full political civil liberties, but, in the end, thankfully it doesn't stop them.

 

[jackoroe]

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

DOMA was forced upon the president by the Republicans

Talk about revisionist history! What a load of bullshit! BJ Clinton had he option of vetoing the legislation. Of course he did what he always did. He caved into public opinion just like he did on welfare. He signed legislation that harmed gay people far more than anything ever signed into law by Bush.

If BJ was had any core beliefs, he would have vetoed the bill and forced the pugs to override him. But gutless, pissy pantsed weenie that he was, and still is, he folded like a cheap tent.

That's the reality of history. Deal with it!

 

[Kulindahr]

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

All you're saying is that the political struggle for civil rights, whether for women, blacks or guys, has room for those passengers, who benefit from the political struggle but are content not to participate.

That's the way of the world. It may slow the emergence of full political civil liberties, but, in the end, thankfully it doesn't stop them.

Oh, horse-hockey.
You think that a gay Republican, whose constituents know he's gay, isn't going to vote for things helping gays just enjoy ordinary human rights?

They are participating, by being there and in the Republicans' eyes as ordinary people that aren't some sort of monster 'cause they watch a different gender's ass and think about getting in those pants.



Switching subjects, I always wondered about those security clearances. Did the KGB or someone have a whole lot of really hot studs trained the seduce men, or something?

 

[Spensed]

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

Oh, horse-hockey.
You think that a gay Republican, whose constituents know he's gay, isn't going to vote for things helping gays just enjoy ordinary human rights?

They are participating, by being there and in the Republicans' eyes as ordinary people that aren't some sort of monster 'cause they watch a different gender's ass and think about getting in those pants.

That kinda expands on my point.

I wasn't just saying that Uncle Toms don't have a role to play.

 

[Spensed]

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

Talk about revisionist history! What a load of bullshit! BJ Clinton had he option of vetoing the legislation. Of course he did what he always did. He caved into public opinion just like he did on welfare. He signed legislation that harmed gay people far more than anything ever signed into law by Bush.

If BJ was had any core beliefs, he would have vetoed the bill and forced the pugs to override him. But gutless, pissy pantsed weenie that he was, and still is, he folded like a cheap tent.

That's the reality of history. Deal with it!

You must not have read the earlier post. Deal with that.

How conveniently the gay Republicans forget whose idea DOMA was in the first place: the Republican congress. They came up with the legislation to bash Democrats by bashing gays. The Republicans came up with the brilliant move (and I mean brilliant) to put the Dems in the mid-1990s in the position of either supporting gay marriage - something that was politically untenable ten years ago (and is still not super popular with the public today) - or of bashing gays. Most Dems, including Clinton, chose to bash gays rather than fall on their swords. Yeah, it sucks. But I don't hold politicians that responsible for falling victim to "gotcha" votes unless we as a community have done our homework in laying the groundwork to make it possible for those politicians to vote against this kind of legislation (though Clinton bragged in radio ads about supporting DOMA, and that was wrong). As a community we didn't do this on marriage, and still haven't done this on marriage.

The Republican majority gave the Democrats in Congress a Sophie's Choice. Yeah, I'm still pissed at Sophie, but let's not forgot the Nazis who forced the choice on her in the first place.

http://www.americablog.com/2007/03/so-gay-republicans-think-bill-clinton.html