Sorry, hit the wrong button.
When Salon* broke the story about Henry Hyde’ affair, exposing his hypocrisy in the Clinton scandal, DeLay called for the FBI to investigate to find out who supplied the information to the magazine. This seems to indicate a disturbing willingness to abuse his power to silence detractors. That certainly casts doubts on his support of Civil Liberties, including the First Amendment.
Ok, Delay’s really right wing. Granted, and I don’t like him either. But, first off, is this meant to be a rant or a debate? If it’s a rant, who are you ranting against? Delay himself? Congressional Republicans for picking him as majority leader? The LCR for issuing a statement saying they think they can work with him?
Alternatively, if it’s a debate, what are we debating? Whether Delay is right in his stances? Whether he should have been picked as majority leader? What sort of statement LCR should have put out, if any, when he was? Whether gay people should be in the Republican party? What a special interest group in a political party should do if the party leadership is opposed to their topic of interest?
Help me out here.
Most of the Log Cabin Republicans I’ve met are more concerned with the tax breaks that they expect from voting as such rather than human rights issues. (That’s not to say I haven’t met some that are vehemently pro-life and can’t imagine how one could vote for a pro-choice candidate. ) I lived in Charlotte, NC for 7 months a couple years ago. I talked with a lot of gay Jesse Helms supporters. (The supporters were gay, not Jesse Helms that is wink). Anyway, they liked him because he defended the tobacco farmers which kept the economy going. My eyes rolled so much that they detached and were found under a sofa cushion.
Needless to say, no party will fit everyone. One just alligns one’s self with the party closest to the beliefs they find the most important.
As for Mark Mead’s statement (or show of ignorance, depends on your definition), he exudes optimism that his voice will carry wait and that he and his will be properly represented. Might as well add some welfare mom’s to your cabin there, Mark, as it ain’t gonna happen if Delay has his say.
And as for the word “Queens”, hmm, seems like a term more aptly used for the BBQ pit and not GD.
Just my tax-free-republican-controlled-congress $0.02.
Notice I don’t question your characterization of Mr. DeLay as “anti-gay”. While there’s at least some debate to be had there, I think it’s obvious to the most casual observer that there’s enough in Mr. DeLay’s record to support a fair-minded person calling him “anti-gay.”
But you went farther than that. You said that he “…problems understanding the concept of Civil Liberty for non-white, non-Christians…” It is this statement that I’m calling on you to defend, and you haven’t yet done so. You cannot post unsupported argument in GD - indeed, anywhere on this Board - and then dismiss attempts to get your basis for the argument by saying, “Oh, it’s a screed.” Even rants in the Pit are held to a certain standard; no post in GD is immune from the requirement.
Nor does your post above address this concern. If the best comment you have is that he made statements about promoting a Biblical worldview in American politics, you fall woefully short of the mark. At best, this casts doubt on his ability to place his Christian views in their proper perspective; nowhere does it suggest he has any particular racial bias. And even that doubt is a mere scintilla, a mere gnat’s kiss, since it doesn’t say with any particularity what his idea of a “biblical worldview” is. Given Jesus’ commands to “love your neighbor as yourself”, it’s equally arguable that his “biblical worldview” is to create a nation of openness and compassion for all.
Needless to say, his comments about Columbine are not directed towards non-white or non-Christians either. Had you excoriated him on his insensitivity towards working mothers who need daycare, this would have been a nice piece of supporting evidence; it has absolutely no value in defending your actual words, however.
Unless you happen to know that the perpetrators of that exposé were non-white or non-Christian, and you happen to know that Mr. DeLay knew it as well, this, too, bears absolutely no relevance to his supposed bias against non-whites or non-Christians, does it?
Frankly, about the only thing you’ve proven to my satisfaction is that the anti-DeLay movement embodied by Homebrew is guilty of unsupported character assassination and outright lies. Mr. DeLay may be anti-gay, and unclear about the needs of working mothers, but he doesn’t appear to be the kind of person that posts lies on message boards about his political enemies. You, Homebrew, appear to be such a person, based on this thread.
Defend your statement or retract it.
Okay, let’s backtrack a bit. Say the year is 1960. How would you react to a screed like:
"Blacks for Kennedy: What Kind of Idiots Are These People?
Black voters are overwhelmingly supporting John F. Kennedy, and are likely to vote a straight Democratic ticket across the country. Are these people crazy? It was Republican-appointed judges who made desegregation possible. The Democrats, by contrast, are largely pro-segregation. Oh, a few Democrats give lip-service to civil rights, but look at who they make their committee chairmen in Congress: racists and segregationists like Richard Russell and J. William Fulbright. The Democratic Party clearly doesn’t WANT civil rights for black Americans. Only the most foolish (or suicidal) black Americans should consider voting for a member of this party."
You tell me- were black Americans wrong to think the Democratic Party would ULTIMATELY give them more of what they wanted and needed than the Republicans?
SOMETIMES, expedience requires us to hold our noses and vote for the candidate that offers us MOST of what’s important to us, even if he/she falls WAY short in other areas.
In 1960, black Americans held their noses and voted for some contemptible racists, believing that, in the long run, they’d be better off. Is it so odd that many latter day gays, facing a similar choice, might go Republican?
Since this thread includes an attack on Tom DeLay, it seems appropriate to look at some of the good he has done.
So, december, against the 14 instances in the OP, you can only find one example of DeLay’s good?
Just for the record, I may be conservative, but I most emphatically am not a Log Cabin queen! They are a sad-, self-hating pack who delude themselves that somehow the homophobic Republican leadership respects them and actually has any interest in their issues.
And Tom DeLay is a bigoted reactionary who has spoken at meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a racist organization.
What? Do you honestly believe it’s more likely that Republicans will pay more attention to civil liberties for gay folks than Democrats will?
Anti-gay sentiment comes solidly from the right; though this isn’t necessarily permanent, it would seem more reasonable to vote in the party that is more favorably inclined unless you have definite cause to believe that this is likely to change in the near future.
This illustrates the fault line, and potential fatal weakness, of the Pubbies. You got your political conservatives, small government, anti-tax, PRO-business, all that sort of thing. I have serious political disagreements with these people, issues to be debated.
Then you have your social conservatives, religious bigots and social reactionaries who want to return to a Golden Age of “family values” that never existed in the first place. There’s nothing to debate with these people, no argument is possible because no rational basis for that argument can be established. They are the enemy of everything that I hold dear, everything that I believe is truly American. Mr McCain is wrong, but I respect and admire him. Tom DeLay is simply loathsome. Like Newt Gangrene, he has all the qualities of a rattlesnake, save that he lacks the warmth.
People must have freedom of political choice, or that choice is meaningless. Blacks have historicly supported the left because they were oppressed by the right. As thier equality becomes more manifest, it is entirely reasonable to expect some portion of them to become more conservative. It is an ugly fact of human nature that as soon as someone can say “I’ve got mine” he generally regards things as being as they should, and become suspicious and resistant to change. It is useless and futile for the left/progressive to depend on oppressed minorities. The truer goal is to work for thier equality, acknowledging that some portion of the oppressed are only committed to thier own equality and well being, they are allies of convenience only.
To be true to our principles, we must accept, even applaud, that development: it is not only not antithetical to our goals, it is the goal itself! No gay, no black, no hispanic should be confronted with an accusation of betrayal because he chooses conservative political principles, principled and humane conservatism is a valid stance, and I welcome vigorous debate with such as that.
But the oppressive, negative, anti-human “conservatism” represented by Mr. DeLay is the true enemy. The crippling moral failing of the Republican Party is its failure to repudiate these morally repugnant elements for the sake of political power. Without the support of the Troglodyte Right, the Bushistas would be out on thier ear, and they know it.
Finally it comes down to this: we don’t need better laws, we need better people.
elucidator, i agree with a number of your points. especially with the notion that noone is a traitor because their political beliefs allegedly don’t match their skin tone, religious preference, sexual preference, etc. hooray! huzzah! yippee!
however, i have to disagree with a number of your points.
i’m socially conservative. i agree that social and moral legislation is antithetical to freedom. but you’re arguing that NO rational arguments can be advanced in favor of two-parent homes, parents putting children first, personal responsibility, etc.? i realize that we’re not debating family values, and i myself have some problems with the notion of “family values,” but i don’t buy your argument that there is NO rational basis for family values or socially conservative legislation.
i don’t think you’re going back in history far enough. many blacks voted for JFK despite the fact that in the '50s and '60s, the democratic party was being run by southern democrats, who typically opposed civil rights for african-americans. at that time, the republican party had a stronger record in support of civil rights. and that attitude goes back even farther. lincoln was a republican, and he was pretty clearly a civil rights advocate. JFK, LBJ, and the democratic party in general probably ended up promoting more civil rights legislation, but i think astorian was making the point that the democrats used to support Dredd Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson (state’s rights), and other “separate but equal” positions, and the predominantly northern republican party supported equal rights under federal law.
surely you’ll admit that people vote republican for better reasons than “i’m rich now and want to keep my money.” i grew up poor (family income below the poverty line), and yet i and my family typically voted republican because of a number of issues (fiscal/freedom/foriegn policy/military). yes, even the poor can support fiscal conservatism. and despite your apparent contention, the republican party backs other interests besides greed.
i couldn’t agree more.
Matty I don’t content that no rational argument can be made for “family values” (if you will permit reducing your list into a code phrase.). Just that much of the conservative emphasis comes from a “hell in a handbasket” sense of decay, which is not a rational argument. There are all manner of ways to create an environment that functions as a “family”. To insist that only one is valid, that only Ozzie and Harriet are “correct” is based on just such an irrationality. I have seen any number of children raised in “non-traditional” environments, raised one myself in an “overextended” or “thermonuclear” family. All in all, they are not demonstrably better, nor demonstrably worse. Responsibility isnt about obedience, its about conscience.
Conservative in this definition does not directly relate to party. In my estimation, history has credited JFK with far more liberal committment than he deserved, he didn’t really do all that much to advance the cause of equal rights. LBJ did far more, even though is own personal feelings were a confusing mish-mash of determined eqalitarianism and outright bigotry. He was a giant composed largely of massive contradictions.
I label the opposition to civil right movement “conservative”, perhaps “reactionary” might be better term. Nonetheless, conservatives in this sense were committed to the preservation of an utterly unacceptable status quo.
When any group of people vote for a party because that party seeks to advance the cause of thier equality, that is, of course, perfectly valid. But as that cause advances to fruition, as has in the case of black Americans (or at least to some debateable degree) that loyalty can, and should, erode. A progressive must be committed to enabling freedom of choice, and accept the results of that freedom willingly and happily. Some people will vote for what is good for the country, others, whats good for themselves. Enabling that free choice comes first, persuasion to another view comes after.
Of course. And surely you will admit, as well, that many Republican’s are, in fact, entirely committed to preserving thier advantages. They have allied themselves with the social conservative right in order to exploit thier greivances. A “family values” type person may not have any views at all as to whether or not more regulation on business is desireable, but will vote for a man who pretends to care about those things. Case in point: Newt Gangrene, who in the midst of great and fulsome condemnation of Bill Clinton’s lack of “morality” was sneaking off to motels for precisely the same purposes.
If the fault line between the “social values” conservatives and the “business values” conservatives breaks open, the Republican party will be in very very deep kim chee. As you have likely surmised, nothing could please me more.
Some gay men, like David Brudnoy and Andrew Sullivan, do indeed believe that Republicans will pay more attention to civil liberties than Democrats will. E.g., medical and drug compoany regulation. Pharmaceutical companies’ freedom to operate as they please is important to these two men, who are suffering from AIDS and are hoping that unimpaired research will produce further medical advances.
More generally, Democrats are more apt to restrict medical availability in the process of expanding it. E.g., consider the single-payer system proposed by Ms. Clinton 9 years ago and recently advocated by Al Gore. This approach would likely restrict people from paying for their own medical care. It might provide an average level of care to all, but average isn’t good enough for an AIDS sufferer.
Furthermore, it’s not unreasonable to believe that in general today’s Republicans favor civil liberties more than Democrats do. Note that Libertarians tend to go more with the Republican Party than with the Dems. Here’s a list of issues where Republicans tend to be on the side of civil liberties:
– University speech codes
– Campaign finance reform
– Big government
– Business regulation
Add cigarettes/smoking/tobacco to that list too. One of my main beefs with the Dems, and a reason I almost never vote for them, is their anti-tobacco stance. They see tobacco as a “big business” and launch into attack mode. They apparently don’t see all the adults making a lifestyle choice as is their right. They apparently don’t see the farmers and their farmhands just trying to earn their living. They apparently don’t see the large numbers of poor people who are being unfairly taxed, indirectly through the costs of the tobacco settlement being passed onto the consumer, and directly through regressive tobacco taxes across the nation. Al Gore’s anti-tobacco rhetoric turned me off of him for good. The myth that the Dems are for civil liberties and personal freedoms has shattered. They’re for whatever liberties will get them the best voting block.
By the way, I’ve tried to get my two gay-republican friends to switch over to the libertarians, but it won’t work. They’re a little too hawkish for the libertarians, for one thing. Just goes to show, you can’t please everyone.
And, yet, I said “civil right for gay folks” and not civil rights in general. I’m no so pigheaded a liberal to contend that the Democrats have the monopoly on being in favor of expanding individual civil rights.
Gay rights is essentially owned right now by the Democrats. Where do the objections to gay marriage, gay adoption, protection of gays in the workplace, etc. come from? Always from the right – because of the religious conservatives elucidator mentioned. Until those folks are given the swift booting from the GOP that they richly deserve, I have to say that it seems foolish to vote Republican if you’re gay, unless there is some issue that you find more pressing than your own personal liberties.
The majority of Democrats in Congress voted for the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell military policy. And the majority of Democrats in Congress voted for the so-called Defense of Marriage Act – including the late and “liberal” Sen. Paul Wellstone.
And of course, the Democratic president signed both bills instead of vetoing them.
From my perspective, as a devout hetero, the marriage issue is a chimera, it is a wrong headed rallying point. There are many forms of partnership that dont include the word “marriage” and they remain available. It is somewhat like the attempt by some feminists to make pornography central to their cause. In a word, dumb.
To fight oppression, stick to the basics: legal rights to employment, voting, etc. Save your ammo for the real fights, don’t give the enemy an emotional drum to pound. If progress comes at all, it comes in increments, a massive sudden pro-gay change in attitudes just isnt going to happen.
My evidence that it is a fake gay rights group is that it supposedly a gay rights group that supports a political party hostile to its agenda in every respect. Here is their official website page on the “issues” they support: http://www.lcr.org/issues.asp. They do not appear to be taking the initiative on any gay rights issue as far as I can see. Do they sponsor litigation against gay discrimination? Not as far as I can tell. Do they take the initiative in advancing new legislation to make it safe to be gay? Not as far as I can tell. While they do weigh in on gay issues, these are things that liberal gay rights organizations started and advance, and they tag along to make a Republican presence and take some credit. These men http://www.lcr.org/events.asp (where are the lesbian republicans) do nothing to advance gay rights that others aren’t doing, they are in my opinion and looking at their web, political cover for republicans.
If someone would like to argue that the Log Cabin Republicans are a legitimate gay rights group, perhaps someone could show a gay rights accomplishment that they originated. Barring that, how about a single one that they have proposed. Barring even the slightest evidence that these folks advance a gay rights agenda, I think it is perfectly fair to conclude that they are republicans who happen to be gay who have nor shame in attempting to fool people into believing that the republican party supports gay rights, which it most assuredly does not.
OK, fair enough. I should have been more specific. When the challenges come from the left, they are are accompanied by the right far more so than vice versa.
Do I recall correctly that when a gay Republican spoke at the Convention in 2000–on a completely unrelated subject–the Texas delegation ignored what he said and knelt in prayer for him the entire time?
Dr. J