First major party gay candidate for president [Archive]

Kolak of Twilo

03-28-2011, 09:30 AM

Chronos

03-28-2011, 03:18 PM

I have a hard time believing that he's the first gay guy to ever file to run with a major party. Surely there have been gay activists who've run pie-in-the-sky campaigns before this?

Bijou Drains

03-28-2011, 03:34 PM

I have a hard time believing that he's the first gay guy to ever file to run with a major party. Surely there have been gay activists who've run pie-in-the-sky campaigns before this?

Maybe, but I can't recall one. New Hampshire primary normally gets a ton of guys/gals on the ballot so it's possible in the past a gay person ran in NH.

Simplicio

03-28-2011, 03:37 PM

Seems like a nice enough fellow. I wouldn't mind seeing him do well enough to be included in some of the debates and canidiate forums that are likely to be held during primary season. That could be very interesting.

Whats the bar to being let into the primary debates? Given the past participants, it can't be that high.

Little Nemo

03-28-2011, 05:35 PM

Is it 2084 already?

Jonathan Chance

03-28-2011, 06:43 PM

There is certainly an argument out there that not only have we had a gay major candidate but a gay President.

It's been a point for decades that fifteenth President James Buchanan was gay and that many members of official Washington knew it. It was certainly the opinion of one of my graduate professors (My degree is in history. This would have been about 1988 or so) that he was quietly gay during his time as an elected official.

Our Queer President (http://lindholm.jp/chinf_buc.html)

James Buchanan: A Lesson in Name Calling (http://www.american-presidents.org/2006/09/james-buchanan-lesson-in-name-calling_17.html)

waterj2

03-28-2011, 06:53 PM

Whats the bar to being let into the primary debates? Given the past participants, it can't be that high.First, find a party who's debates aren't hosted by homophobic bigots (http://instinctmagazine.com/blog/fred-karger-banned-from-iowa-debate-by-christian-group).

Simplicio

03-28-2011, 06:58 PM

First, find a party who's debates aren't hosted by homophobic bigots (http://instinctmagazine.com/blog/fred-karger-banned-from-iowa-debate-by-christian-group).

Well, going by that article, I guess the bar to getting in the primary debates is just to get the group thats hosting them invite you. Which may be kinda dicey for a gay GOP candidate.

Optimism!!

waterj2

03-28-2011, 07:09 PM

Well, going by that article, I guess the bar to getting in the primary debates is just to get the group thats hosting them invite you. Which may be kinda dicey for a gay GOP candidate.

Optimism!!Well, at the same time, the people hosting the debate have to get candidates to show up. Can you imagine getting all the major Democratic candidates to show up to a debate that blatantly discriminated against gays? Also, I think the RNC's top guy for the debates is a lawyer that represents anti-SSM groups that are trying to keep the names of their donors and petition signers secret. And Fred Karger is one of the main people on the other side of that legislation. I can't find the story at the moment though.

Quartz

03-30-2011, 04:39 AM

I guess he won't get very far, he is Republican

http://fredkarger.com/posts/fred-karger-first-to-file-for-president-at-fec-in-washington-dc

Being gay didn't stop Condi Rice from being right up there, did it?

Simplicio

03-30-2011, 06:56 AM

Being gay didn't stop Condi Rice from being right up there, did it?

She didn't run for President (or anything else).

But in anycase ,there's a pretty big difference between running for office while being rumored to be gay like Buchanan and running while being openly gay like Fred Karger.

I imagine if Lindsey Graham or Charlie Crist wanted to go to the Iowa debates, they wouldn't have a problem getting in, despite long running rumors about their sexuality.

Really Not All That Bright

03-30-2011, 12:31 PM

Condi Rice is openly gay?

Captain Amazing

03-30-2011, 12:35 PM

No, she's not. People have spread about the rumor that she is.

Boyo Jim

03-30-2011, 08:05 PM

First, find a party who's debates aren't hosted by homophobic bigots (http://instinctmagazine.com/blog/fred-karger-banned-from-iowa-debate-by-christian-group).

From the linked article:

...I will work overtime to help ensure that your political aspirations are aborted right here in Iowa...

Hypocrite! He's officially anti-abortion.

Bijou Drains

03-31-2011, 08:07 PM

There are gay members of Congress but never an openly gay senator (that I recall.) Of course NJ had a gay governor for a few years but he was in the closet until he quit.

appleciders

03-31-2011, 09:58 PM

Wow. Good for him. I'm curious where he stands on other traditional social-conservative issues.

levdrakon

03-31-2011, 10:08 PM

I wouldn't mind if he didn't use the word "queer."

Little Nemo

04-01-2011, 02:12 AM

Condi Rice is openly gay?Baby steps. Conservatives are still getting used to her being openly black.

BigT

04-01-2011, 07:41 AM

I wouldn't mind if he didn't use the word "queer."

I thought that was one of those words where the minority took them back.

Khaki Campbell

04-01-2011, 09:15 AM

First, find a party who's debates aren't hosted by homophobic bigots (http://instinctmagazine.com/blog/fred-karger-banned-from-iowa-debate-by-christian-group).

Heh. Being right-wing and homosexual are not incompatible. Even far-right, cf. Ernst Röhm, Yukio Mishima, Pim Fortuyn...

Captain Amazing

04-01-2011, 10:02 AM

Pim Fortuyn was to the left of most Democrats. He just didn't like Muslims. But I don't get why everybody portrays him as far-right.

levdrakon

04-01-2011, 10:43 AM

I thought that was one of those words where the minority took them back.I know, but this little minority never felt empowered by that word.

Gay, lesbian and homosexual work just fine. What is queer anyway?

Really Not All That Bright

04-01-2011, 11:31 AM

Pim Fortuyn was to the left of most Democrats. He just didn't like Muslims. But I don't get why everybody portrays him as far-right.
He compared himself to Silvio Berlusconi, for one thing. In any case, extremists are often going to be pigeonholed based on their extremism. The Klan was largely populist and concerned with social justice, but you wouldn't call them progressive.

Boyo Jim

04-01-2011, 01:29 PM

Heh. Being right-wing and homosexual are not incompatible. Even far-right, cf. Ernst Röhm, Yukio Mishima, Pim Fortuyn...

I don't know about the latter two, but Rohm's party eventually killed him. I suspect the Republicans will kill Karger, though probably in a more figurative than literal sense.

Chronos

04-01-2011, 04:32 PM

Gay, lesbian and homosexual work just fine. What is queer anyway? I understand "queer" to be used as an umbrella term encompassing all non-mainstream sexualities. Like, a group might campaign for an end to discrimination against gays and lesbians and transsexuals, rather than just focusing on discrimination against one of those groups. Since all non-mainstream sexualities are usually lumped together in contexts like that, it makes sense to have a single term for those categories collectively.

waterj2

04-02-2011, 06:28 PM

Heh. Being right-wing and homosexual are not incompatible. Even far-right, cf. Ernst Röhm, Yukio Mishima, Pim Fortuyn...But being openly gay and being successful in the Republican Party of today are indeed incompatible.

Captain Amazing

04-05-2011, 01:01 PM

Barbara Jordan didn't run, but she got a vote at the 1976 Democratic Convention, and people were talking about her as a vice presidential candidate. She wasn't out of the closet, though.

BobLibDem

04-05-2011, 01:31 PM

Condi Rice is openly gay?

I always thought she was the chief handler of the president's staff.

Farmer Jane

04-13-2011, 09:18 PM

Bryan Ekers

04-19-2011, 07:48 PM

His first act as President will be to order the printing of three-dollar bills!

dhkendall

04-19-2011, 08:19 PM

Lies My Teacher Told Me! A+

Well, there's really no proof for either Buchanan's homosexuality or heterosexuality. In fact, I'd wager and say there's really very little proof for anyone's sexuality - I am married to a woman and have two kids (for the whole "proof of sexual intercourse" angle) but so do many other people who have since come out.

Elendil's Heir

04-20-2011, 10:27 AM

...The Klan was... concerned with social justice....

In their own particularly appalling and monstrous way, I suppose they were! :dubious:

Bryan Ekers

04-20-2011, 11:16 AM

I am married to a woman and have two kids (for the whole "proof of sexual intercourse" angle)

Well, that's her proof, anyway....

:D

Elendil's Heir

04-20-2011, 03:42 PM

His first act as President will be to order the printing of three-dollar bills!

Please. Redecorating the White House will obviously be of higher priority.

Sampiro

04-20-2011, 04:37 PM

Next time he'll know to take TRUTH instead of DARE.

Chronos

04-20-2011, 04:41 PM

While it's still a new field, you can learn something objective about someone's sexuality by measuring blood flow to the genitals or brain activity via MRI when presented with various images, or by using eye tracking to see which of two images the person focuses more attention on. Of course, there's a bit of a self-selection here, in that the sort of people who would agree to take part in such experiments are probably more likely to be open about their sexuality to begin with.

Sampiro

04-20-2011, 06:33 PM

While it's still a new field, you can learn something objective about someone's sexuality by measuring blood flow to the genitals or brain activity via MRI when presented with various images, or by using eye tracking to see which of two images the person focuses more attention on.

Though it's much easier just to sing "Dark lady laughed and danced and lit the candles one by one...!". Both gay men and lesbians are physiologically and psychologically incapable of not clapping their hands twice.

Quartz

04-21-2011, 01:32 AM

This article (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100084286/the-queering-of-the-republican-party-generational-change-is-driving-a-rethink-on-gay-rights/) about the growing acceptance of gays will be of interest.

bengangmo

04-21-2011, 02:24 AM

Georgina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgina_Beyer)might also be of interest and relevance.

Elendil's Heir

04-21-2011, 03:24 PM

Georgina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgina_Beyer)might also be of interest and relevance.

And the mayor of Houston, Texas, a very big city indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annise_Parker

iamthewalrus(:3=

05-19-2011, 01:09 PM

Looking at Karger's issues page, he's:

Pro-choice
Wants to remove forces from Iraq/Afghanistan
For marijuana legalization

Why is this guy running as a Republican?

Nametag

05-22-2011, 10:54 AM

He's a California Republican -- pro-business, believes in lower taxes, less regulation, and strong property rights. Most conservative social issues are not defining for Republicans in California, especially in Liberal enclaves like Los Angeles, where Karger's consulting work is based. Republicans in California must be viewed in opposition to Democrats in California, who are mostly strong liberals -- the conservative Democrats one finds in the South are almost unknown here, at least in high-level politics. Social conservatism in California is mostly the "public decency" type that crosses party lines, and is more correlated with class and age.

This is only a generalization -- there are lots of counter-examples, but they don't often carry much weight state-wide.

Quartz

05-23-2011, 10:24 AM

Who knows, with so many others dropping out, he could easily become the front runner! :D

BrainGlutton

05-23-2011, 10:34 PM

I would rather like to see the WH redone in a polychrome paint job like one of those San Francisco Victorians . . .

Budget Player Cadet

05-23-2011, 11:06 PM

Looking at Karger's issues page, he's:

Pro-choice
Wants to remove forces from Iraq/Afghanistan
For marijuana legalization

Why is this guy running as a Republican?

This.

It's a bizarre thing he's doing... As a homosexual, he will not get the republican vote. It just will not happen. As a republican, he probably won't get the democratic vote... Unless the rest of his platform is like this, in which case he's, well, you know, a fucking democrat. :smack:

Quartz

05-24-2011, 02:58 AM

This.

It's a bizarre thing he's doing... As a homosexual, he will not get the republican vote. It just will not happen.

It's already been pointed out that gays do get the Republican vote.

Chronos

05-24-2011, 11:38 AM

Not nationwide, they don't.

Simplicio

05-24-2011, 01:51 PM

This.

It's a bizarre thing he's doing... As a homosexual, he will not get the republican vote. It just will not happen. As a republican, he probably won't get the democratic vote... Unless the rest of his platform is like this, in which case he's, well, you know, a fucking democrat. :smack:

Alot of people run for President without hope of winning, either to raise the profile of issues their interested in (Tom Tancredo), force the other candidates to move towards more extreme sides of their political spectrum (Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich), to raise their national notoriety (Donald Trump, Newt), to set up for a future run (John Huntsman) or because they're insane (Alan Keyes, Mike Gravel).

I'd imagine our gay Republican is running to try and raise the profile of the moderate, socially liberal wing of the GOP, rather then because he thinks he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning.

Quartz

05-24-2011, 02:02 PM

Not nationwide, they don't.

Is that provable?

Chronos

05-24-2011, 02:10 PM

Is that provable? Given that no openly gay Republican has ever been elected to national office, and that many Republicans have been elected to national office by railing against the evils of the "gay agenda", I'd say that yes, it is provable and proven.

Boyo Jim

05-24-2011, 03:40 PM

It's already been pointed out that gays do get the Republican vote.

I went back through the thread, and I don't see a single instance claiming this. What am I missing?

waterj2

05-24-2011, 05:39 PM

Incidentally, out of the 4,000 or so Republican state legislators nationwide, there are zero who are openly gay, last I checked. Prior to the 2010 elections, I believe the number was three (Roy Ashburn in California was outed when he was arrested for drunk driving after leaving a gay bar, and I think was term-limited in his next election. Robert Tisei in Massachusetts ran for lieutenant governor instead of being reelected. I don't know who the third was). So I'm not seeing really any evidence of Republican willingness to elect gay people. I wouldn't say you can prove that it's impossible, but there aren't actually any openly gay people at the level of state legislator or above that have been elected as Republicans. So I don't consider the statement "gays don't get the Republican vote" all that controversial.

Boyo Jim

05-24-2011, 05:48 PM

I'll go a step farther. As a Republican he won't get the Democratic vote, and as gay he won't get the Republican vote. Which leaves... the Greens? Libertarians?

On the plus side, if his campaign makes just enough progress so state Republican campaigns aren't so openly hostile to gay Republican candidates, that would be HUGE progress. (Don't think it will happen, though.)

Quartz

05-24-2011, 05:55 PM

I went back through the thread, and I don't see a single instance claiming this. What am I missing?

You're right; I phrased that badly: see posts 40 and 42.

Boyo Jim

05-24-2011, 06:07 PM

You're right; I phrased that badly: see posts 40 and 42.

Can you clarify what you meant? I do not understand. The article claims that some Republicans are suggesting the party no longer spew hate at gays, and even be gracious enough to allow them basic civil rights. That's a long long way from voting a gay into public office, and the mayor of Houston is a gay Democrat. There a quite a few gay Democrats at the state and Federal levels.

Quartz

05-26-2011, 03:49 AM

From what I understand of Texas, you need Republican support to be elected to just about anything.

The article claims that some Republicans are suggesting the party no longer spew hate at gays,

I didn't read such hateful language in the article; I hope you're just using hyperbole.

Anyway, the main reason Karger hasn't a hope is not because he's gay but because he's got no money.

Sage Rat

05-26-2011, 05:35 AM

Anyway, the main reason Karger hasn't a hope is not because he's gay but because he's got no money.

And only about 5% of the electorate to collect donations from.

Quartz

05-26-2011, 06:41 AM

And only about 5% of the electorate to collect donations from.

If you read his website, he's appealing to the Reaganite wing. Isn't that still a pretty large part of the party?

Of course, what he needs is a gay billionaire backer.

Beyond that, he's laying a pretty good marker for 2016, isn't he?

Elendil's Heir

05-26-2011, 11:07 AM

And only about 5% of the electorate to collect donations from.

Overall, it's a pretty economically-successful group, though: http://registeredrep.com/wealthmanagement/wealth_managers_target_gay_lesbian_market/

Quartz

05-29-2011, 12:42 AM

So, what if he does get some money behind him?

Least Original User Name Ever

05-29-2011, 12:49 AM

So, what if he does get some money behind him?

He hits a predictable brick wall within the Republican Party, assuming he falls into enough money to wage a decent campaign from this hypothetical source.

levdrakon

05-29-2011, 07:20 AM

I actually think very many Republicans would vote for a gay Republican eons before they'd ever be caught dead voting Democrat. Quite a few Republicans I've known over the years, straight and gay, are they type who simply need to be told what to do by their party leadership, whoever that happens to be.

iamthewalrus(:3=

05-31-2011, 12:14 AM

He's a California Republican -- pro-business, believes in lower taxes, less regulation, and strong property rights. Most conservative social issues are not defining for Republicans in California, especially in Liberal enclaves like Los Angeles, where Karger's consulting work is based. Republicans in California must be viewed in opposition to Democrats in California, who are mostly strong liberals -- the conservative Democrats one finds in the South are almost unknown here, at least in high-level politics. Social conservatism in California is mostly the "public decency" type that crosses party lines, and is more correlated with class and age.I'm a native Californian. All those things you said are true, but they don't really relate to the three issues (four, if you count being openly gay) I mentioned. Those aren't anywhere near the Republican party positions even in California.

XXX19

06-04-2011, 10:31 PM

I have a hard time believing that he's the first gay guy to ever file to run with a major party. Surely there have been gay activists who've run pie-in-the-sky campaigns before this?

There probably were some but nobody knew it. There might have even been some gay presidents that never
came out of the closet.

Just saying, ya know.

:cool:

The highest ranking and documented of a gay official I know was J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI. His assistant was hired
strictly because he was gay and they lived together for a long time and I think he even got Hoover's will.

Agents called them Johnny and Clyde but not to their faces.

XXX19

06-04-2011, 10:39 PM

I forgot to mention that Hoover was the only official who knew that
Philby, the Russian double agent from England and turned all their
secrets plus some of ours over the Ruskies was a traitor.

He also knew he was homosexual. You know, from one gay to
another.

Simplicio

06-05-2011, 12:23 AM

The highest ranking and documented of a gay official I know was J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI. His assistant was hired
strictly because he was gay and they lived together for a long time and I think he even got Hoover's will.

Agents called them Johnny and Clyde but not to their faces.

Hoover is speculated to be gay, but I don't think its really "documented" anymore then speculations about Abraham Lincoln mean that he's been "documented" to be gay. Hoover certainly wasn't openly homosexual, and so all we have is rumors and the fact that he was obviously very close to his Associate Director.

XXX19

06-05-2011, 12:47 AM

Well, that's a term from an old article I read on this site but here's a pic of Johnny and Clyde relaxing together on the beach so that's
documentation. They have their clothes on but this shows them together during non-duty hours. They often vacationed together,
dined out together and took meals together.

I was right too that Clyde got Hoover's entire estate and is buried just a few yards from him.

Rumor has it that the mafia had evidence on his gaydom which is
why he never seriously went after them. He supposidly had a file
on Eleanor Roosevelt's alleged lesbian encounters.

The Russians knew about his gaydom and tried to discredit him and like I said, even his own agents called them Johnny and Clyde.

That's plenty of documentation in my book.

See the pic of them sunbathing together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover

Captain Amazing

06-15-2011, 05:25 PM

Given that no openly gay Republican has ever been elected to national office, and that many Republicans have been elected to national office by railing against the evils of the "gay agenda", I'd say that yes, it is provable and proven.

If by "national office", you mean president-vice president, that's true, but Congressman Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin was reelected after he had been outed on the floor of the US House of Representatives, no less. Likewise, Arizona congressman Jim Kolbe was outed in 1996 by a gay rights group after his vote for the Defense of Marriage act, and he was in Congress until he resigned in 2006.

Nametag

06-17-2011, 10:44 PM

I'm a native Californian. All those things you said are true, but they don't really relate to the three issues (four, if you count being openly gay) I mentioned. Those aren't anywhere near the Republican party positions even in California.

You asked why he's running as a Republican, and I gave the reasons. The issues you mentioned (gays, abortion, Iraq war, marijuana) are not defining for the kind of Republican Karger is, and plenty of California Republicans just don't give a crap about them. Social conservatism is a big loser in the large population centers, where Karger is active.

Penderel

06-29-2011, 11:55 AM

On Condi Rice:

Baby steps. Conservatives are still getting used to her being openly black.

I know its off-topic and quite late, but it seems to me that conservatives aren't the ones who have trouble with Condi (or Colin Powell, Herman Cain, Alan Keyes, Larry Elder, etc.) being black. The people who believe that political views are somehow innately determined by skin color are the ones who have the problem with it. If you want any evidence, check out some political commentary and see who mentions these people's race most often.

A similar principle is at work with the gay presidential candidate. I don't hear Obama touting his heterosexuality every day and making it the centerpiece of his identity. If a president were gay and treated it the same way, I'm sure many people wouldn't even notice.

Cliff's Notes version: Identity politics are stupid.

Miller

06-29-2011, 03:55 PM

That's plenty of documentation in my book.

Your book has a defective definition for "documentation."

Chronos

06-30-2011, 12:36 AM

Penderel, people shouldn't care about a candidate's skin color (unless it's colloidal-silver blue) or sexual orientation, but that doesn't change the fact that many people do care about those things.

Penderel

06-30-2011, 08:48 AM

Penderel, people shouldn't care about a candidate's skin color (unless it's colloidal-silver blue) or sexual orientation, but that doesn't change the fact that many people do care about those things.

I agree, but my point was that there are a lot of snarky comments about conservatives not liking black candidates, or women, or homosexuals, and the people bringing up race, gender, and sexual preference are almost always liberals (or, at least, anti-conservatives).

The people (in the media, I mean) who purport to be the most accepting are typically the ones who attack politicians based on race, gender, etc. Look at how Condoleeza (sp?) Rice has been attacked over the years simply because she dared to not fit the racial stereotype (black women MUST be flamingly liberal) as determined by folks who label themselves tolerant and accepting.

Prejudice will never be totally erased, as people will attack others based on their differences (the most obvious of which would be their appearance, i.e. skin color). But the notion that someone like Ms. Rice is not accepted by conservatives because she has been marginalized and attacked by left-wing pundits and politicians is glaringly flawed logic.