I've made it to the initial round for favorite progressive blogger in the Air America Cruise Contest. I have to stay in the Top 5 before the second voting round begins, so your vote is appreciated! First voting round:
The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
"I am not saying to Christian conservatives, 'There is no place for you.'. I am saying, 'Please stop saying there is no place for us.'
Wow. While Meghan McCain's been grabbing all the headlines for her speech to the LCRs over the weekend, Christine Todd Whitman, the former NJ governor, said the above during her speech at the LCR gathering.
Her remarks are spot-on -- the fundies claim at every turn that they are being oppressed and ignored. The truth hurts, bible beaters -- and now a few party moderates are decloaking because they've simply had enough of the Religious Right destroying the party by pushing for a theocracy.
"Well, I am somebody who believes in the separation of church and state and that the government, frankly, ought to be out of the business of marriage entirely," Whitman told CNSNews.com after her speech.
"It ought to be everybody - heterosexual, homosexual. When you go down and register to get married, that's when the legal transfer of everything occurs and that's a legal recognition of a relationship - and if you want to get married in a church, a temple, whatever, and you find one, great!" she said.
..."I would like them to take it out. I just don't think it's an issue that ought to be in a party platform. It's a personal issue, not a political one."
Gee, that doesn't jibe with Rudy Giuliani's gay former roomie Howard Koeppel, who said that Rudy's "opposition to gay marriage stems from his religious and political beliefs, not his personal ones."
The irony is that in comparison to Whitman, McCain's remarks, while supportive, don't drive home the points nearly as well.
I did not expect my frustration with what I perceive to be overly partisan and divisive Republicans to cause a national incident. And no, I'm not that engaged with myself to think it was even that much of an incident. People in our country have much more important issues to deal with on a daily basis. But the experience did reinforce what I learned on the campaign trail in some major ways. I'll summarize them in three points:
1. Most of our nation wants our nation to succeed.
2. Most people are ready to move on to the future, not live in the past. and
3. Most of the old school Republicans are scared shitless of that future.
Yeah, those folks are scared, but few moderates are willing to speak out and specifically question the motives and lack of respect for the separation of church and state -- Whitman pulled no punches.
As you might imagine, the Freeper swamps were filled with seething knuckledraggers who launched into tirades over both women. Read the insanity below the fold.
My wife and I understand schism. My international and national church has always been a bridge between theological divides. We have always understood that a perceived "advantage" by one wing brings a reaction that sometimes includes schism as the result.
Lesbian couples with children like our daughter also include Lynn Cheney and Heather Poe. We have also mentioned the granddaughter of the late Jesse Helms, with her wife and children. Both the Cheney and Helms women are active in GOP politics. The children of homophobes like Phyllis Schaffly and Tim LaHaye are gay and work for their parents. There were openly-gay members of Congress, but they are all out of office. There are rumors that there are closeted members of the GOP conference in both the Senate and House today.
The Log Cabin Republicans will meet between April 16-19, 2009. It is our understanding that these gay Republicans are without leader and without resources and support. There is also a new GOP gay group of "conservatives" who have already created a schism between gay right wing citizens.
My daughter and her wife worked for Hillary Clinton's presidential primary battle. At first, they both had difficulty translating to Obama, but did so eventually by the time of the DNC. She told us the story at the time that a Helms activist was living with his husband in MA and their three adopted children in "holy hypocrisy." It seems that there are gay and lesbian singles or couples with or without children who actually support the very individuals or organizations who persecute them.
In fairness, there are gay Republicans who contend that the GOP is now in disarray. There are no longer any Republicans - moderates or conservatives - in the US House from New England and most of the GOP are in the old Confederacy and Midwestern states. Gay Republicans feel that they can make the GOP a more "inclusive tent" and that they can fight "the Right Wing theocrats" from within the political party.
My wife and I do not know how to do this very well. Our experience has been with liberal and conservative Churchmen and women. This seems to be similar and somewhat different simultaneously.
How do Blenders feel about gay conservatives or Republicans?
There were rumblings about a split coming, given 1) the LCRs were flailing and off message/off mission during the 2008 campaign, and 2) it was revealed by the Washington Blade that philanthropist Tim Gill (who has backed many pro-LGBT Dem candidates) has not only given generously to the LCR, but has had what they see as too much influence on decision-making. Gay conservatives have now officially moved to shore up their POV and credibility in the party by launching a 527. Ben Smith @ The Politico:
A dissident faction of gay conservatives is launching a rival group to
the traditional voice of gay Republicans, the Log Cabin Republicans.
GOPROUD, the new 527 group, will launch next week, according to a media advisory. The contact given for the group is Christopher Barron,
a former Log Cabin political director who broke with the group.
..."Essentially, there's no voice for gay Republicans or gay conservatives in particular in D.C. right now. Log Cabin has been completely and totally absent here in D.C. for months and months," Barron said. "It has simply moved way too far from the left and is basically indistinguishable from any other gay left organization."
Ben also notes that the LCR's support of hate crimes legislation had also rubbed conservative gays the wrong way, further spurring the decision to spin off an effort to take matters into a different direction.
It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.
This is a strange Log Cabin development, covered by the Washington Blade. While we've had a good laughs over the denial of the reality that their party hates them, gay Republicans are trying to regroup to get rid of the, er, logjam that the LCR has found itself in.
The LCR has no paid staff at this time, even as its convention approaches, and a couple of former staff members seem frustrated enough by the missed opportunities to suggest gay conservatives find another home to build a better organization.
Chris Barron, a former Log Cabin political director, said he's involved with activities such as "talking to gay Republicans and kind of getting a sense for what the priorities of gay Republicans are right now."
"A lot of folks who care a lot about the direction that this party is headed in ... are seriously concerned about the lack of a voice for gay Republicans in the party right now," he said.
Jimmy LaSalvia, a former Log Cabin policy director, said he's had discussions with gay Republicans at GOP events and concluded that Log Cabin is "missing a lot of opportunities to provide a voice for gay conservatives."
"We're looking at a political landscape where gay Republicans aren't represented," he said. "Log Cabin's absence has left a void on the political landscape."
Well, after a campaign by John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008 that was explicitly anti-gay, things can only go up -- if the GOP will even listen to them. RNC chair Michael Steele has been all over the map on the issue. Depending on the day he thinks civil unions are a non-starter or that the whole matter should be left to the states. That's the glimmer of hope these gay Republicans are hanging on to -- that there will be someone willing to give them a seat at the table.
As often as I derided the self-delusional press releases and blog postings that the LCR churned out last year, it's always been tempered by a disappointment that our movement has not been able to achieve good pro-LGBT representation in both parties in order to keep each party on guard and competing for our votes. Democrats take us for granted, and the GOP would rather have us be content as second-class citizens. The LCR really looked like a soiled doormat after this past election cycle. No wonder Barron and LaSalvia want to start fresh.
When asked about the prospect of forming a new gay Republican group, Barron would say only that people should "stay tuned" and "for right now, we are speaking out on issues gay Republicans care about because no one else is."
LaSalvia said he and Barron have made no official decision about starting a new organization, but said they are investigating the feasibility of forming a new group and are "talking with folks who might be interested in something like that."
If they believe they can fix their party and enable "change from within" (something I'm glad no one is holding their breath waiting for), I'm not sure what model will work.
So far, the power establishment in the GOP has decided that they would like to keep squeezing the last bit of use out of its overtly anti-gay posturing to win elections. Until they dump that attitude, gay Republicans will serve as ATMs for candidates who are still willing to be boosters for the homophobic platform of the GOP.
Well this will add fuel to the fire for conservative gays who were already suspicious of the Log Cabin Republicans. The Washington Blade reports that gay philanthropist Tim Gill, who is well known for supporting pro-LGBT pols (and has supported the LCR to the tune of $250K last year), is playing a significant role in the regrouping of the financially troubled organization.
The amount of money that the Gill Action Fund has contributed to the Log Cabin Republicans - about one-third of its total budget in some years - is raising questions about Democratic influence over the GOP organization and its search for a new president.
...One source described Gill as "the largest single contributor to Log Cabin." But another source expected that the amount of money that Gill Action donates to Log Cabin this year would be somewhat less because one of the big contributions made in 2008 - around $75,000 - was intended to help the organization maintain a presence at the Republican National Convention.
Gill Action didn't respond to the Blade's requests for comment on its involvement with Log Cabin. Terry Hamilton, chair of Log Cabin's board, didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Gill has been associated with Democratic candidates (well, the pickings are slim in the party re: pro-LGBT Republicans outside deep Blue states), so obviously the tin-foil hat Republicans will have a field day. It's too bad because it's clear that Gill wouldn't be providing that level of assistance to the LCR unless he believed that in the fight for equality, we need a voice in both parties to effect change in the long view. However, now that this cat is fully out of the bag, it remains to be seen how this shakes out.
But one source said Gill's involvement with Log Cabin has rendered the organization "political poison" in GOP circles, alienating its base of donors and other supporters. The source said Democratic involvement with Log Cabin is particularly problematic due to the Republican Party's significant losses in 2006 and 2008 because "now more than ever, there needs to be a Log Cabin that's relevant and able to speak out on the rebuilding of the party."
"Sadly, almost everyone in the Republican Party sees Log Cabin as little more than a tool of the Democratic left," the source said.
The sources also said they believe Gill Action is influencing Log Cabin's presidential search process by offering Log Cabin a $100,000 donation in exchange for final approval of its next president.
OK. Since this source doesn't want to go on the record, that last charge, which is pretty incendiary, is left to float out there. The Blade also reports that at this point and time, with the LCR National Convention just a couple of months a way, has no full-time staff on board.
I was really, really, really hoping that the Log Cabin Republicans would not try to explain away Michael Steele's recent comments indicating that there was no way he would consider civil unions (see Waymon's earlier post). When asked about CUs by radio host Mike Gallagher today Steele said:
No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you crazy? No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country. I mean this isn't something that you just kind of like, "Oh well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage." I mean, this is a foundational principle of this country. It is a foundational principle of organized society. It isn't something that, you know, in America we decided, "Let's make it between a man and a woman; oh well now, let's change our mind and make it between anyone and anyone." No.
(Washington, D.C.)- Today, Terry Hamilton, National Chairman of The Log Cabin Republicans responded to RNC Chairman Michael Steele's recent comments regarding civil unions. "The politics of the past were clearly rejected in the November election. We hope Chairman Steele will work to build a more inclusive Republican Party that can win elections," said Log Cabin Republicans National Chairman Terry Hamilton. Hamilton continued, "Such comments marginalize gay and lesbian Americans, and further alienate the mainstream, moderate, and independent-minded voters that left the Republican Party in the November election."
We need an inclusive GOP to reach out to new constituencies and to attract younger voters, women, Latinos, African Americans, and others who share our view of limited government and low taxes. The Log Cabin Republicans remain committed to working with other mainstream GOP groups and fair-minded Republicans to rebuild the Party.
This is absolutely the right message and framing. The LCR, at least, in this response, is looking forward, and lets Steele know he's moving in the wrong direction just on the basis of party-building during a time when the GOP is an utter wreck.
One of the critical strategic mistakes the LCR made during the presidential campaign was to do its dance with John McCain in the back room, because the failed presidential candidate almost immediately went out on the road afterward to continue publicly courting anti-gay religious extremists by making a public statement of support for Prop 8, making the LCRs look like a used rag.
Not that the LCR wants my advice, but I'll dole it out anyway -- I think the organization should meet with Steele, with the caveat that both parties give public statements about the meeting, no secret get-togethers. Then Steele will be forced to be "straight up" with the group about his position on where their party is going, one way or the other. Face-to-face discussions with the head of the RNC is exactly what Peter LaBarbera and friends don't want the LCR to have, which is why we've seen the obsessive wailings by the head of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality that have been running all over the anti-gay media.
Steele, who has been trying to walk some sort of disingenuous moderate-friendly line since his election, has learned quickly that the fundie wing will tolerate nothing less than overt anti-gay statements from the party chair. It's pretty clear when cornered on a specific matter, in this case civil unions, he spins the anti-gay top faster than Linda Blair's character's head in The Exorcist.
The fact of the matter is the GOP got its ass kicked in the last election in every growth demographic; this insistence on trying to move the party into the 21st century by alienating voters who are pro-reproductive freedom, people of color, and pro-equality is not a winning formula. It simply makes no sense to do this if the party wants to expand its reach.
Its undereducated, white, evangelical, Flat Earth base is flailing and becoming even more extreme in its expressions of racism and homophobia as its members come to the realization that their point of view is on the losing side of history. That this embarrassing base of the party was on full display during the election, proudly touting its xenophobia, homophobia and religion-based ignorance, had to be painful for moderate Republicans to watch. Well it obviously was, because many crossed over to vote for Obama.
Does Steele honestly want to keep its party in the ditch that McCain drove into this last cycle? He should be listening to the message being delivered by the LCR if he has any common sense.
And to think people say I never have anything nice to say about the LCR...
Peter LaBarbera has been on a mission to take a bat to the knee caps of the Log Cabin Republicans since the election of Michael Steele to head the RNC. Last week he tried the scare tactics, alerting Steele that "the Log Cabin ideologues are 'gay' activists first and Republicans second" (ok, pick yourself up off of the floor now), and that meeting with the group would somehow send the party on the path to "restrict our precious religious and First Amendment freedoms by using the government to promote aberrant sexual lifestyles."
This week, through Don Wildmon's AFA "news organ" OneNewsNow, The Peter's trying a new tactic -- ignore the LCR because it is irrelevant ('not a worthwhile exchange').
"Every time a new guy like Steele comes in, the Log Cabin Republicans try to say, 'Hey, he's one of our guys. He's for inclusion,'" claims LaBarbera.
But Steele, says LaBarbera, would give up substantially more than he would gain should he reach out to the homosexual activists. "[T]he reality is there's only 20,000 members all across the country of this tiny homosexual activist group called the Log Cabin Republicans," he shares. "It's not a worthwhile exchange to get 20,000 votes to lose millions and millions of faithful, pro-family religious conservatives who are the grassroots of the Republican Party."
Well, then Peter, since the LCR is irrelevant, why are you bringing it to the attention of Brother Steele? And if as you say (and we witnessed it here during the election cycle), the LCR always claims its party's nominee is somehow inclusive (look at how it viewed McCain/Palin), then you're dropping a public pantload for no reason at all. Has The Peter's 24/7/365 gay-gay-agenda-a-go-go finally gotten to him, or does he just like the attention (hm, hard guess)? I see no reason for him to worry about a "tiny homosexual activist group" if the "millions and millions of faithful" are out there ready to suit up for the culture war. Is our Agenda so powerful that the LCR's feeble and ultimately rejected attempts to move the GOP away from its homophobic habits is a threat to Peter's world?
In other Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality news, Mike Tidmus pulls out his digital pen and produces some entertainment for you. It's below the fold.
UPDATE: Jesse at Pandagon handicaps the RNC chair race. The hilarity is below the fold.
It must be depressing for the Log Cabin Republicans to find out that even after the ass-kicking the party received for its socially retrograde views, that in the race to anoint a new leader of the party they are using anti-gay tactics that feature the LCRs as the pariah to smear candidates with. Apparently former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele is perceived as too moderate for the fringe base.
The RNC Chair race continues to push the party organization toward it's conservative base, and the latest salvo comes from James Bopp Jr., a committeeman and conservative litigator from Indiana, who isn't committed to a candidate but doesn''t seem to be a fan of Michael Steele.
The hand-annotated, 13-page .pdf, emailed to RNC members, goes after Michael Steele for his association with two toxic parties: Former New Jersey Governor Christie Todd Whitman, who has called for a return to the center, and the Log Cabin Republicans the gay GOP group.
After it was confirmed earlier this month that the Log Cabin Republicans had skidded into $100K after a poor fundraising year, it wasn't clear if the organization, which endorsed John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008, was going to stay afloat.
The Washington Blade reports that some unidentified deep pockets threw the LCRs a lifeline.
A number of donors have come to the rescue of the Log Cabin Republicans in an attempt to alleviate the group's debt of at least $100,000, according to Patrick Sammon, the group's outgoing president.
Sammon confirmed earlier this month that his organization had at least $100,000 in consolidated debt. He told the Blade Wednesday that a number of donors have recently committed "upwards of $125,000" to the organization.
"So I hope and expect that by the end of March, our long-term debt ... will be all paid off," Sammon said.
It's apparently slash and burn time at the operation, already down to a skeleton crew of Patrick Sammon as president (he steps down at the end of January) and director of communications (and BlogCabin scribe) Scott Tucker. The latter told the Blade he has stepped down.
And all of this is going on as the LCR is planning its national convention, slated in April. With a budget slashed an estimated 35-40% less than 2008's, it's difficult to see how barebones that will be. Who's invited?
Sammon said this year Steve Schmidt, the campaign manager for U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during his 2008 presidential bid, and Megan McCain, the senator's daughter, are expected to be guests at the convention.
The convention will have a theme focusing on the "future of the Republican Party," Sammon said.
The Log Cabin Republicans, hampered by lackluster 2008 fundraising, is facing financial difficulties and ended the year at least $100,000 in debt, according to Patrick Sammon, the organization's president, who spoke to the Blade Friday.
Sammon said he expects the organization to have around $100,000 in debt or "maybe a little more," adding that the figure is made up of consolidated debt.
"It's not like we're not paying the rent or not paying the phone bill or anything like that," he said. "We're current on the bills that we owe, but we do have some debt that's consolidated."
OK, before you all pull out the tiny violin or set off fireworks, consider that the overall mission of the LCR is necessary, in spite of the brutal slaps in the face time and again by the rest of the Republican party at the national level. I wish the organization had had the cojones to refuse to endorse a ticket that chose to pander to the anti-gay extremists.
John McCain had a chance to flip the agents of intolerance the bird, but he went whole hog sucking up to the fundie vote because, well, the party has painted itself into a corner where it needs the homophobes, racists and Dominionists to be viable.
This left the LCR with few feeble positives to point to (an unpublicized meeting with McCain, one of his staff showing up at an off-site meeting during the party convention), and a whole lot of damage control. I mean how demoralizing is it to try to find some crumb of tolerance in the record of Sarah Palin (for being legally coerced into providing state partner benefits)? And remember this statement after the election?
"We had an election that didn't turn out as we hoped, but we had a progressive, pro-gay nominee, and the tenor of the campaign was 180 degrees different than four years ago," he said. "We've unquestionably made progress in four years, and I'm proud of the work we did."
If only the GOP would realize that they need to listen to the LCR and others who want to return the party to one that respects individual freedom. So far, based on the recent absurd debate by the candidates to run the RNC and the Saltsman "Barack the Magic Negro" flap, precious few are listening.
Watching this organization flounder during the 2008 presidential campaign has been like observing a train wreck in slow motion. No matter how the Log Cabin Republicans tried to spin it, the man its party nominated for president, John McCain, expressed open contempt for LGBT rights even as he shook hands with LCRs and called them "my friends." The party continued to cleave to the bigot demographic all the way.
You'd think a public reality check would be in order, but unfortunately, it's not the case. Patrick Sammon, who is stepping down from his post at LCR:
"We had an election that didn't turn out as we hoped, but we had a progressive, pro-gay nominee, and the tenor of the campaign was 180 degrees different than four years ago," he said. "We've unquestionably made progress in four years, and I'm proud of the work we did."
Please help me out here -- what progress has been made to moderate the party? Marriage amendments were still supported and passed. Adoption ban in Arkansas...passed. Their nominee picked Sarah Palin who is loved by the professional Christian set.
I'm sure that there is slow change occurring at the state and local level, but what is driving that isn't coming out of DC or the LCR. It's the cultural change -- more people coming out of the closet and bringing anti-LGBT discrimination out into the open so it can be debated and challenged. One thing the LCR is right about is the need to broaden the GOP.
"There is a unique opportunity for Log Cabin to play a role in the redefinition of the Republican Party," he said. "Log Cabin has a critical role to play in that discussion, by pointing to places where candidates were successful, like Gov. Mitch Daniels in Indiana, who won with a campaign that was conservative fiscally but not socially. That's what we hope to advocate, and we want to try to engage the party in that dialogue."
Sammon said the GOP needs to "get back to the basics" to coalesce party members in the move forward.
Bob Kabel, chair of the D.C. Republican Party and a longtime Log Cabin member agreed, saying that the "party is obviously doing a lot of self-examination."
"I think that Log Cabin can be very helpful with that examination," he said. "There are so many candidates Log Cabin has supported over the years who have been inclusive rather than exclusive, and who have had successful careers. Log Cabin needs to continue to make the case that you win by broadening the party."
I just don't see what influence the LCR has had to wrest the Republican Party from its dependence on the fundamentalist, under-educated and bigoted base that we saw emerge in public as the McCain mobs. These people do not want a big tent GOP. They are stuck in the past, in denial, and looking to silence anyone who doesn't agree with their worldview.
The party will never draw the Independent voters if it continues down the path it did in 2008.
Posted without comment, other than to ask who would want this thankless job?
News Release
For Immediate Release
November 13, 2008
Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon Announces Departure
National Board Conducting Search for Replacement
(Washington, DC)—Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon will be leaving his position early next year."After five years at this organization and more than two years leading Log Cabin, I am ready to tackle new challenges.I'll be doing documentary filmmaking, which is what I did before joining Log Cabin's staff," said Sammon."I told Log Cabin's national board earlier this year I would be moving on after the election.I'm proud of the progress we've made and I know Log Cabin is well positioned to impact the GOP's future direction."
"We thank Patrick for the excellent job he has done as President," said Log Cabin National Board Chairman Pete Kingma."His communication ability and political skills served the organization very well."
Log Cabin's Board of Directors has started a national search process."After Patrick's strong leadership, we are confident we'll find an excellent candidate to lead Log Cabin Republicans and the Liberty Education Forum," said Kingma.
Sammon will stay in his position until the end of January. "With the election behind us, it's a good time to make a transition," said Sammon."I have put my heart and soul into this organization and I am proud of our achievements."
As you know, Bible Spice recently told Daddy D that she supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. When Mike Signorile opened his lines on his Sirius OutQ radio show to see what support is still out there in the gay community for McCain/Palin, a caller in Colorado, Mike, rationalized why Palin made the ticket complete for him:
Seriously, could the number of gay Republicans supporting McCain/Palin fit in a clown car at this point? It's a clearly anti-gay ticket, and I'm sorry but McCain's promise of low taxes for everyone one of the main reasons for LCRs for supporting the nominee, is patently not true.
UPDATE: Rod McCullom of Rod 2.0 contacted the LCR for a reaction and here it is, from Patrick Sammon:
We disagree with Gov. Palin on this issue, but we're glad that Sen. McCain agrees with us. The president sets the policy for the administration. Sen. McCain twice voted against the federal marriage amendment and continues to believe the states should decide this issue.
We report, you decide how lame that is.
Log Cabin Republicans -- do you need to know any more about Bible Spice's perspective on gay and lesbian relationships now? McCain doesn't support FMA, a fact the LCRs has touted early and often, even though it's misleading because he is merely taking a federalist position -- he supports state amendments, and actually would support FMA if it looked like marriage equality was going to be the law of the land in a SCOTUS rulling.
But Governor Palin leaves no doubt about where she stands in this interview with David Brody, CBN News Senior National Correspondent (CBN has video):
Brody: On Constitutional marriage amendment , are, are you for something like that?
Palin: I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage. I'm not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can't do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that's casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it's the foundation of our society is that strong family and that's based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.
Now how about her purported lifelong gay friend that she mentioned in past interviews -- does she really believe that if her friend is in a committed same-sex relationship that there should be no legal recognition at all? It's nice to know she likes tossing her close friends under the bus like that.
I would love to see this friend come forward to comment on how she feels about Sarah Palin as a close confidante. Of course she may be an LCR for all I know.
This week, the Washington Blade has a piece up by Dale Carpenter entitled Goodbye to the GLBT movement. In the piece, Carpenter explains why he concludes "that [the] marriage of gay left and gay conservatives has failed," as well as his belief that the language that LGBT (or as he writes, GLBT) progressives have been using against gay conservatives this election season has been the "worst vitriol" he's ever heard.
I believe Carpenter's conclusion entirely misses what's actually happening. I don't believe that the LGBT progressives that are spewing vitriol at Log Cabin Republicans because these folk have conservative ideologies, instead it's because the Log Cabin Republicans have stuck with the Republican party. In other words, Carpenter has conflated "Conservative" and "Republican" -- what many progressive LGBT people are commenting on isn't how Log Cabin Republicans are conservatives, but instead are commenting on how Log Cabin Republicans are Republicans.
Let's go back to the birth of the Log Cabin Republicans, as told on the Log Cabin Republicans's A Proud History webpage:
Log Cabin got its start in California during the late 1970s. After several years of advances for the cause of gay and lesbian rights, a backlash was building. Singer Anita Bryant led a successful "Save Our Children" campaign to overturn an anti-discrimination ordinance in Dade County, Florida. Also, the legislatures of Arkansas and Oklahoma had banned gays and lesbians from holding teaching positions.
In California, Republican State Senator John Briggs, who had ambitions to be governor, proposed a statewide ballot initiative to prevent gay and lesbian people from teaching in public schools. The so-called Briggs Initiative also permitted the firing of any educator who was determined to be "advocating, imposing, encouraging or promoting" homosexuality. Briggs' vicious campaign to "defend your children from homosexual teachers" seemed to be heading for victory. One poll showed support for the Briggs Initiative leading 61% to 31%.
Many prominent politicians in the Republican and Democratic parties were hesitant about standing up to the bigotry of Briggs and his allies. That's when gay conservatives turned to former governor Ronald Reagan. At the time he was preparing to mount a campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 1980. His advisors all thought he was committing political suicide when he decided to be an outspoken foe of the Briggs Initiative. Reagan declared that the initiative "is not needed to protect our children - we have the legal protection now."
UPDATE: The LCRs are already pimping the interview as proof we're just wrong about McCain. See that below the fold, as well as responses by Stonewall Dems and HRC.Surf over, read and decide whether this interview with John McCain at the Washington Blade (by William Kapfer). It is, as far as we know, the first time a GOP presidential candidate has agreed to answer questions from a national LGBT publication. This was a written interview submitted to the McCain campaign for a response, so you know that these answers have gone through the spin cycle multiple times.
That out of the way, is there anything that represents a significant change from his rock-solid, anti-gay public policy positions? Not really.
* He said that the discriminatory position of the Boy Scouts, supported in a Supreme Court ruling, is a matter for the organization to decide;
* Marriage should be a matter left to the states, but he supports his home state's marriage amendment (as well as measures in CA and FL) that would bar gay and lesbian couples from marrying.
* McCain indirectly states his opposition to the right of gays and lesbians to adopt ("I believe a child is best raised by a mother and father."), and leaves it as a matter for the states to decide.
* He reiterates his opposition to the repeal of DOMA, and would consider a federal marriage amendment "as long as no state is forced to adopt some other state's standard."
* He gives props to the LCR, of course, saying he's "always willing to listen to all viewpoints," and that he appreciates the "Log Cabin's effort to make the GOP more inclusive."
On the latter question, it would have been interesting to follow up that one with questions about his relationshipt to conservative evangelicals in his party and what he feels he owes to that base of voters in the GOP.
There was a bit of news made. Read it below the fold.
Here is the new ad out from Republicans Against 8, the brave souls who, at least on this issue, are bucking the religious fringe wing of the party by opposing Proposition 8. It's too bad they can't convince McCain/Palin to take this position on the issue.
The ad is called "Freedom is a Republican Value" -- Republicans Against 8 campaign manager Scott Schmidt, who passed this video along, said:
The video ends with a dual message to Republican voters in November: "It will take a Republican to put a woman in the White House," and that, "The Republican Party is the Party of freedom, not taking it away." The group is asking voters to reject Proposition 8, the California Initiative Constitutional Amendment which would eliminate the right to marry for same-sex couples.
"Just a Century ago, women had fewer rights than gays and lesbians have today," said Schmidt. "It took Republican leadership to make progress in expanding rights for women. Members of our party should not turn their backs on that Grand Old legacy of promoting fairness and freedom."
OK, now I happen to think that using Ronald Reagan (who did oppose the Briggs amendment), and Richard Nixon (who helped make Title IX a reality) are smart examples to showcase their POV, but WTF was Sarah Palin doing in that ad ("It will take Republicans to put a woman in the White House)? That undermines the group's legitimate entire spin on the issue of freedom.
Sarah Palin has no record of being pro-LGBT and believes in state control of a woman's reproductive freedom. The one bill she did sign (for same-sex partner benefits in Alaska), was one she disagreed with. It was only because she knew a veto wouldn't fly in the courts that she came on board. That's not advocacy for extending freedom. It's too bad this group's ad overreached in trying to make the point by giving any air time to Palin.
The better part of wisdom would be to keep the focus on Arnold Schwarzeneggar, who embodies a much better grasp and balance of the issue of freedom. His approach on marriage equality, though slower than many would have liked, ultimately resulted in the legal foundation to make passing this amendment difficult.
The fainting couch is needed for Scott Tucker over at BlogCabin. He's worked up over the reporting by Michelangelo Signorile and Mike Rogers about John McCain's professionally closeted Senate chief of staff Mark Buse and the hypocrisy it represents, given the Republican nominee's public anti-gay position on every major issue related to LGBT rights. (BTW, Mike Signorile has audio of an interview by Lisa Keen with yet another former Buse boyfriend who has gone on the record.)
The title of the post sums up the dilemma of the Log Cabin Republicans -- "The Politics of Personal Destruction at its Worst."
Mark Buse has been openly gay for years and has acknowledged as much. So the notion that he has been "outed" is simply false. But secondly-and this is the bigger point-this political stunt by Mike Rogers just proves what Log Cabin has been saying for years. John McCain is an inclusive Republican who hires the best people, regardless of sexual orientation.
I rest my case. Where is the "personal destruction" that Scott Tucker is referring to? If Buse is out, then discussing the fact that Mark Buse is gay shouldn't be of any consequence -- unless there is something wrong with being out of the closet to the Republican base.
Isn't that the real problem here? If John McCain is personally inclusive, why can he not be so as a candidate? McCain might consider Buse a family friend and not fire him for being gay, but what about the young gay person working at a DQ with an anti-gay boss -- he has no protections from getting axed if that boss learns of his employee's orientation. It's not inclusion when it only means the people in your inner circle.
And take this ridiculous statement from Tucker:
[C]an we please stop childishly lobbing the "homophobic" insult at Republicans who don't agree with us on every issue? Rogers and his crowd keep saying McCain is "homophobic" or "anti-gay." Words mean things. Calling John McCain homophobic doesn't make it so. The truth is, Sen. John McCain is anything but homophobic. This is a man who has a record of hiring gay staff members-as evidenced by this recent "bombshell."
Homophobia ("irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals") -- well, McCain's clearly not afraid of the homos. He's certainly willing to institutionalize discrimination of teh gayz, so what part of that "meaning" is misunderstood?
Even cutting Scott Tucker some undeserved slack -- what are you supposed to call someone who believe in tolerance on a one-to-one basis, but campaigns in support of anti-gay state marriage amendments, the continuation of DADT ("open homosexuality within the military services presents an intolerable risk to morale, cohesion, and discipline."), hate crimes expansion, ENDA, etc.? A professional anti-gay personal homosexualist? Is that more accurate? Or perhaps...um, a hypocrite?
This is why this story is newsworthy. The apparent fealty to the fringe anti-gay right by the McCain campaign -- from the opposition to basic LGBT rights to the selection of the real-deal fundie Palin -- does not project anything remotely resembling inclusion on our issues from my POV. It would be illuminating for the mainstream media to take a look at the public positions and personal practices of the Republican party generally, and specifically the McCain/Palin ticket to clear up any misconceptions people have -- both the "gay left" and the social conservatives on the right -- about where they truly stand.
Would the Log Cabin organization support some clarifying reporting on the matter?
As Mike Signorile noted, a post on Daily Kos about the Buse/McCain news is 626 comments strong -- it does show the interest, relevance and importance of the story.
Who is the bigger hypocrite here?
Mark Buse, an openly gay man who is spending his life helping John McCain block important gay civil rights issues like marriage and adoption?
Or John McCain, who obviously has no problem with gay folks, but has adopted an anti-gay platform out of political expediency and a desire to court people like Sarah Palin, who think that if they just hate enough, they'll be Raptured into the love of Jesus when the End Times come.
NOTE: I can't wait to see how the professional "Christian" set is taking the news, since calls were directed to Focus On the Family HQ for a reaction. Daddy D is supposed to issue a statement.
OMG. This op-ed by Patrick Sammon at the Washington Blade is beyond belief. We all know that the Log Cabin Republicans endorsed John McCain after a political season of the candidate crapping on them at every turn as he courted the Dobson vote. But this continued defense of McCain as some sort of plus for LGBTs is intellectually dishonest.
The lengthy piece doesn't mention LGBT rights save the lone positive the LCRs repeatedly point to -- McCain's vote against the FMA.
First, McCain is a maverick - a different kind of Republican who's willing to buck his own party to stand up for what he believes. Case in point is his consistent opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. He's the only candidate in this race who paid a political price for voting in a way that benefits the LGBT community. Social conservatives still distrust McCain because of his vote on the FMA.
And he paid them back by placing a real fundie on the ticket -- and they are pleased as punch. Also, the FMA vote is meaningless because McCain's motivation was that this is a matter to be determined by the states. Moreover, he supports the discriminatory marriage amendments that will be on the ballot this fall. How is this good for gays and lesbians? Sammon doesn't mention this.
The rest of his op-ed focuses on McCain's policy positions on health care, homeland security, etc. -- all relevant from a non-LGBT perspective. Obviously most LGBTs voting for Obama for myriad reasons aren't going to find this appeal worthy of more than laughter. But this one passage is mind-blowing:
Fifth, he'll provide a strong voice challenging the radical Islamic regimes that criminalize same-sex behavior - and even execute gay people. McCain wants to confront tyrants like Iran's president. Obama wants to talk to him without preconditions.
Oh really? As someone wrote me, "He'll execute anti-gay extremists in other countries? McCain will go into Saudi Arabia and chop off the head of the King who rules the court that condemns LGBT people to death?"
I think not. My question -- why is Patrick Sammon debasing himself like this? I certainly understand the need to build support for equality in both parties, but the LCR has failed. Time and again the party cleaves to the radical right, including McCain, who has sold out the LCRs so many times this election season I've lost count. Bottom line - he goes with the fundies because they turn out the numbers.
Daimeon just came across another recent interview by Cenk of The Young Turks at the RNC. This one is with Patrick Sammon, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, who sits down to make his case that progress is being made in bringing the party to the center.
Patrick: "I'll never defend a bigot, I'll never defend someone who tries to use gay and lesbian people to win elections. We have a history of standing up and taking on those Republicans."
Cenk: "But doesn't that eliminate almost every Republican in the country?"
It's worth viewing the whole video (it's 20 min). Patrick, I think, does make a case in principle that an inclusive Republican party is desirable, but in reality there's just precious little to celebrate. I seriously question his contention that the Democrats are in some way equivalent obstacles to equality as the Republicans; that's preposterous. I have a ton of problems with the spineless Democrats, but we're not seeing Republicans leading the way to pass pro-LGBT legislation at the federal level. The counter is true -- the party is explicitly, vehemently anti-gay.
And that, sadly, includes John McCain -- no matter that he has said he respects the work of the LCR, he has laid down with the flea-ridden bible-beating dogs of the right by choice. That's actually more insulting; he could have been benign on the issues, but has purposely, publicly supported the marriage amendments on the ballot this fall, and said that gays and lesbians should not be able to adopt. That, quite frankly, isn't progress.
Deb Price has a column up this week about McCain and the LCR endorsement -- and the signs that may be ahead for the party as it seeks to realign itself.
There were other changes afoot as well in St. Paul, Minn., signaling potentially important shifts in the Republican Party.
In what appears to be a first, the Republican nominee sent one of his highest ranking people -- national political Mike DuHaime -- to accept and thank Log Cabin for its endorsement. DuHaime said McCain is "running an inclusive campaign and will have an inclusive administration."
Later, the McCain team sent chief strategist Steve Schmidt to a second Log Cabin luncheon, where he said, "Your organization is an important one in the fabric of our party."
So -- Q of the day: is there hope that the GOP will move toward the center? Does the answer differ if they lose (or win) in November? Will the fundie wing remain in tight control?
This week, through Don Wildmon's AFA "news organ" OneNewsNow, The Peter's trying a new tactic -- ignore the LCR because it is irrelevant ('
UPDATE: 
UPDATE: The LCRs are already pimping the interview as proof we're just wrong about McCain. See that below the fold, as well as responses by Stonewall Dems and HRC.
The fainting couch is needed for Scott Tucker over at 
I rest my case. Where is the "personal destruction" that Scott Tucker is referring to? If Buse is out, then discussing the fact that Mark Buse is gay shouldn't be of any consequence -- unless there is something wrong with being out of the closet to the Republican base.
