Now I certainly agree with their position that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is wrong and discriminatory. But what the fuck are they idiots thinking? Why are they stirring up another pot of shit 3 weeks before the election? Are they wanting to hand more ammunition to the Religious Fanatics that support the Bush Administration? The timing of this makes absolutely no sense. Why couldn’t this have waiting a freaking month?
I’m trying to figure out why this upsets you. I’d think that highlighting a division in the Republican party would work against Bush’s electoral interests, which you’d like. And what happened to all that “justice delayed is justice denied” talk you’re usually so find of?
Yeah, what the hell was Bush thinking when he instituted this homophobic policy. Clear evidence that Bush hates gays.
Oh wait-- it was Clinton who put that policy in place.
Having read the OP’s post in entirely (did the previous two posters? :P), I think Homebrow’s theory is that this will help Bush by inflaming the religious right.
I think this’ll help more than hurt. Anyone who thinks, “I gotta run out and vote for Bush to keep the homos out of the military!” has already long since decided “I gotta run out and vote for Bush to keep the homos from getting married!” Bush already has the homophobe vote sewn up. I don’t think there’s a significant amount of untapped support he can rely on from that quarter.
On the other hand, undecided voters who don’t have a strong position on gay rights one way or the other are more likely to be dissuaded from voting Bush by this further sign of dissention in the Republican’s ranks. I think they’re more likely to view this along the lines of, “If Bush can’t keep his own party in line, what does that say about his ability to run the country?”
I get the feeling from the limited information available in that article that they acted now, as opposed to a month from now, so that the suit would reflect on Bush and Rumsfeld and not on Kerry, should he become the President Elect on November 2nd.
If you’re a Log Cabin Republican, chances are you’re not thinking straight in the first place.
That’s a queer way of looking at the situation.
Brutus, I think Gamaliel just meant that being both gay and Republican was kind of contradictory; it wasn’t IMO a pun on “straight”.
You don’t say!
Well, if the answer to that question is “yes,” then it all makes sense. It could be that the chapter of the LCR that filed the suit thinks that re-electing Bush is far more important than having gays serve in the military and is strategically savvy enough to know that this is a great way to contribute to the re-election effort.
It seems to me that this will add fuel to the fire for the Falwells of the world. Highlighting differences between fiscal conservatives and Bush would be a good thing and show real problems in the Republican Party. But a marginalized group like the Log Cabin Republicans are insignificant except to inflame the social conservatives. These self-hating queens are so fringe that the Party started another group, the Unity Coalition, to further dismiss their importance.
There’s a big practical difference between a month and “some uncertain time in the future”.
John Mace :rolleyes: Kerry speechified against it.
Homebrew:
I’m a fairly conservative gay man. Does that make me self-hating somehow? Does the fact that I most associate with the Republican party make me a self-hating homo? I don’t think so.
Does that mean I’m voting for Bush? No. Why? Because I don’t, in fact, hate myself and would like to vote for somebody who can actually bring himself to admit that I exist as a citizen of this country, which Bush just never seems to get around to in his screeds about “activist judges”. See, that’s how it can work. I can be non-Democratic and still actually want to advance gay rights. Does it mean I cross party lines often in my voting record? Yeah, probably, but there actually are Republican candidates who are quite acceptable on gay issues and more line up with my views of what the country should be. I’ll vote for that.
In fact, my vote for that guy and not for Bush is in fact a protest and an affirmation. It is a protest against gay baiting for votes, like GW has done, and an affirmation of those Republicans who support my rights as a citizen. I believe the Log Cabin Republicans view things in a similar way overall. They’ve refused to endorse George W. Bush, ran ads against the Federal Marriage Amendment… maybe you think they straddle too close to the line, but I think you’re being very presumptuous in your assertion that they’re “self-hating queens”. The one does not equal the other and ad hominems do not add weight to your arguments.
May I applaud that post, sir?
In New York, I knew of a number of Republicans who met my political tastes, who were a touch wishy-washy on gay rights issues but nonetheless were within what I could accept as reasonable stances, and whom I happily voted for.
In North Carolina, the Republican Party has taken pretty much the stance that they are Stalwart Defenders of Truth, Justice, and the American Way against those anti-Americans like the ACLU, HRC, NAACP (they don’t admit that one; they want the black vote, but it’s implicit in what they’re saying), etc. Oh, and the idea that the Democrats are lying about their candidate’s stupidity, and really putting up men not fit to collect your garbage for public office – you should see some of the political ads.
So it would be my strong suggestion that people’s views about the stances of the parties generally are skewed by where they’re at geographically. Folks, there are a few people left who are committed to what the Republican Party used to stand for, and they may be worth your votes. And there are a lot of mossbound demagogues who have jumped on board the Bush bandwagon – and I recommend a strychnine cocktail in preference to electing them – it’s much quicker and less painful a way to go.
“Log Cabin Republicans” . . . Boy, they’re not trying to be subtle, are they? It’s like, “So how many logs have you had in your cabin, Senator?” 
Hardy-har-har.
Perhaps for your next act you could tell the one about the two gay men engaged in anal sex who were hit by a truck? It’s about on a par with that post, in terms of maturity and courtesy.
I believe the reference is to Lincoln.
I’d love to enflame them, but I can’t afford that much gas on a fixed income.
You could flame at them, that always gets them all flustered. It’s amusing, if perhaps personally distasteful.
Oh, you might do it incompetently, but I’m sure your flame runs hotter for its misguided and inept nature. How could I stand in your way?
My take is that the Log Cabin Repubs are feeling totally isolated by the current administration… and having no way to “vent” their political views in a more “polite” manner are pushing the boundaries.
What might they gain ? Either more recognition from the GOP or manage to push the gay vote defintely against Bush (and save the Republican party).
Like the OP mentioned the potential for backfiring is big IMHO, especially since many americans think if your not for Bush your for Kerry automatically... "Gays for Kerry ? Yuck ! I'm voting Bush" kind of mentality.