|
October 22, 2004
Organizational bloggledygook?
While I have never paid much attention to the Log Cabin Republicans, I am intrigued by the stories (denied here) that the organization's leadership has been taken over by Democratic political operatives. It has to be considered a bit odd that an ostensibly Republican organization would refuse to support an incumbent Republican president in wartime, but then, I have no more influence over the Log Cabin Republicans than I do over Pat Robertson. Skullduggery on the part of either would not surprise me. (Anyway, if there's no truth to the allegations, why the apparent coverup?) Is Blog Cabin Republicans taken? More disorganizations are needed!
It’s not that these gay Bush voters are stupid, it’s that they dissent from the approved gay view of what’s important in the world. It’s not that they don’t care about gay rights, it’s that they define gay civil rights on their own terms. It’s not that they’re easily sucked in by deceptive Republicans, it’s that they’ve been taken for granted by the Democrats. I know this is hard for gay activists in Washington, D.C., to believe, but not every gay person wakes up thinking life would be great if only Congress would pass a hate crimes law.Not that a million votes really matters much, but the author was speculating about why Bush got 25% of the gay vote in the last election. (Here's the actual 2000 gay vote breakdown.) Taxes are mentioned, but not a word on the war in Iraq -- and no mention of terrorism. It will be interesting to see how many gay people in 2004 place terrorism ahead of the right to a marriage license. Regardless of how the board of a national organization might vote, individuals tend to vote as, well, individuals: An informal survey of Log Cabin chapters around the country supported the notion that gay Republicans are angry at Bush for supporting the constitutional amendment. But surprisingly, very few vocalized any likelihood that they would abandon Bush over the issue and unify the gay vote behind Kerry.There's been a lot of discussion about gay voters' growing sophistication. I know I can't speak for everyone, but when I think about identity politics, "sophisticated" is hardly the first word that comes to mind. UPDATE (10/28/04): Megan McArdle (guest-blogging at InstaPundit) shares a similar opinion voiced by one of her best friends: ....I'm inspired by the example of one of my most beloved friends, who has decided to vote for Bush. She was persuaded by the debate in the comments section of my blog, but that isn't what inspires me. The truly inspirational thing is that she is gay. Does she like Bush's position on gay marriage? Hell no. But she isn't voting on gay marriage. She's voting on national security.I wish people could understand that (especially in time of war) the best interest of their country is also in their own best interest. posted by Eric on 10.22.04 at 09:07 AM
Comments
I have a gay friend who is a total queen, and you can see it from blocks away. He's a great guy, but also a total flamer cut right out of the stereotype. During the Bush v. Clinton in 1992, I was very surprised to find out he was supporting George Bush over Bill Clinton. I was curious to know why, and for him it came down to this: "Look at Barbara Bush. I'm sorry, I want REAL pearls in the White House." kraken · October 22, 2004 12:11 PM What confuses me is that these people say that they are supporting Bush for his "Conservative principles." What Conservative principles? I mean, come on ... Voting for Bush I because of a pearl necklace is another thing entirely and I don't believe that act was even invented when they were young'uns. Bill Clinton, though ... I think it's probably more likely that these voters are willing to set aside one issue (gay rights) in order to support the whole GOP hierarchy and power system, which they feel benefits them. I personally think that they are wrong. bink · October 22, 2004 04:17 PM Eric: ... I am intrigued by the stories (denied here) ... Only kinda-sorta "denied". - GayPatriot points to evidence that Log Cabin Political Director Chris Barron was a volunteer for John Edwards' 2004 presidential campaign. - LCR answers that "Chris was not a paid employee of the Edwards for Senate campaign or the Edwards for President campaign, nor is he affiliated in any way with the Kerry/Edwards campaign." LCR hasn't specifically denied that Barron was a volunteer for Edwards' 2004 presidential campaign. And note the possibly Clintonian change of verb tense: LCR says Barron isn't currently affiliated with the Kerry/Edwards campaign, but they don't say that he never has had such an affiliation. My guess is that Barron probably was "affiliated" with Edwards' 2004 presidential campaign as a volunteer. MDP · October 22, 2004 09:37 PM "Conservative principles" would include not seeing "hierarchy" and "power" as "dirty" words. Homosexuals are as capable, probably more so, of valuing hierarchy and power as are heterosexuals. It has also been observed, and I may have noted before, that sadism and masochism, the supreme sexual expressions of hierarchy and power, are more characteristic on the Right. Other conservative principles include limited government, individual responsibility, and individual freedom, all of which (particularly the last, but which is inseparable from the other two) are valued by homosexuals. It is conservative also for homosexuals to want to marry and to join the military. Some homosexuals also believe that their inalienable individual rights have their source in a Higher Power. Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato the Elder) the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · October 25, 2004 04:39 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I think President Bush views each person as an individual, perhaps with some shared opinions and group identity, but first and foremost an individual. To him, a typical voter doesn't focus on only one item in his platform, but looks at the whole.
JK, OTOH, views each person as a member of a group and panders to the main priority of the group. Gay, black, catholic, pro-life, pro-abortion, etc. This is why he can't consistently present a platform, because he wants to please everyone about everything.