Georginamight also be of interest and relevance.
And the mayor of Houston, Texas, a very big city indeed: Annise Parker - Wikipedia
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?
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.
Who knows, with so many others dropping out, he could easily become the front runner! 
I would rather like to see the WH redone in a polychrome paint job like one of those San Francisco Victorians . . .
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:
It’s already been pointed out that gays do get the Republican vote.
Not nationwide, they don’t.
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.
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.
I went back through the thread, and I don’t see a single instance claiming this. What am I missing?
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.
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.)
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.
From what I understand of Texas, you need Republican support to be elected to just about anything.
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.
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?