Log Cabin Republican President Sammon a Kenneth Cole Poster Boy
Log Cabin Republican President Patrick Sammon has been hailed by Kenneth Cole as a "non-uniform thinker" in his latest ad campaign celebrating "25 years of non-uniform thinking".
Sammon is also featured in a video on the site.
Recently
Log Cabin Republicans Defend Gay-Bashing McCain Robo-calls [tr]
GOP YouTube Debate: Log Cabin Republicans [tr]
Choosing to associate with a group that so outwardly detests you certainly is "non-uniform thinking"!
Posted by: JLS | Feb 6, 2008 9:49:48 AM
More like caught in a cognitively dissonant straight-jacket: dudes with a remarkable capacity for self-deception and rationalization.
Oh well yay for diversity?
Posted by: justincredible | Feb 6, 2008 9:58:42 AM
I can't wait to see the next one: "WE ALL WALK IN DIFFERENT SHOES: ALVIN JEFFERSON, AFRICAN-AMERICAN WHITE-SUPREMACIST FIGHTING FOR EQUAL RIGHTS WITHIN THE K.K.K."
Posted by: Strepsi | Feb 6, 2008 10:02:45 AM
Dis pichure doesnt make me wanna buy the clothes.
Posted by: anonymous | Feb 6, 2008 10:19:45 AM
Dis pichure doesnt make me wanna buy the clothes.
Posted by: anonymous | Feb 6, 2008 10:20:46 AM
Maybe this is some super subtle joke from Mr. Cole that just didn't come off right. LCR had some integrity under Patrick Guierreo, but under Sammon they have gone back to being the GOP's much abused buttboy.
Posted by: Bloggernista | Feb 6, 2008 10:30:11 AM
The mere fact of being a gay Republican means you have credibility issues.
Posted by: phil | Feb 6, 2008 10:37:12 AM
From the comments posted so far, looks like the advertisement is dead-on.
Oh, the irony of liberal intolerance.
Posted by: JusTruthin | Feb 6, 2008 11:25:07 AM
I understand why most gays do not like the Republicans b/c of DADT and the marriage thing. Maybe log cabins look at the vast majority of issues and agree with Republicans on most issues kind of like how I agree with the Democrats/Obama on most but disagree with how he wants to give illegal aliens licenses.
Posted by: Matt | Feb 6, 2008 11:25:23 AM
is "non-uniform thinker" a euphemism for "idiot"? and, if so, why is that a selling point?
Posted by: nic | Feb 6, 2008 11:30:03 AM
Log Cabin Republicans need to be institutionalized. They;'re nothing but a bunch of self-loathing, second class citizen syndrome suffering ignoramuses who need serious psychiatric help. The truth is that out of some 30+ million gays in this country, Log Cabin Republicans can boast a membership of less than twenty thousand members. It's time to stop paying attention to these insignificant nut cases...
Posted by: Robert In WeHo | Feb 6, 2008 11:32:04 AM
Justruthin, it seems you were the opnly one to see the irony. All the posts prove the point that if you're not goose stepping with the gay orthodox you are a traitor to the great cause.
Oh and Matt it was A DEM President that gave us DOMA and DADT!
Posted by: tommy ousslander | Feb 6, 2008 11:48:54 AM
"I understand why most gays do not like the Republicans b/c of DADT and the marriage thing. Maybe log cabins look at the vast majority of issues and agree with Republicans on most issues kind of like how I agree with the Democrats/Obama on most but disagree with how he wants to give illegal aliens licenses.
Posted by: Matt | Feb 6, 2008 11:25:23 AM"
your analogy makes NO SENSE, unless you are an illegal immigrant yourself. because i am assuming you are not one, that's why you can be against it.
your analogy will make PERFECT SENSE, if you are an illegal immigrant in the republican party, who knows full well that the republicans want to send you back but you agree with them on all the other issues like iraq war, gay mariage e.t.c. but you differ in whether they want your ass out of the country. YOU GET IT NOW.
Posted by: johnosahon | Feb 6, 2008 12:10:16 PM
LOL. Yeah, Kenneth Cole clothing is so very avant-garde. Right.
Posted by: Princess Superstar | Feb 6, 2008 12:17:03 PM
Being against the Log Cabin Republicans has nothing to do with "gay orthodoxy" and has everything to do with common sense and being honest to one's self. Supporting the Republicans is like being in an abusive relationship. You're dependent on the abuse to validate your existence because you don't have the courage to validate yourself on your own. And for the reprobate who points out that a DEM gave us DOMA and DADT: try having a gun pointed at YOUR head and see if YOU don't flinch. No one gets off "blame-free" on those two despicable laws, but you can thank the Republicans (who were the cause of the vitriolic and hateful attitude that engendered such legislation) for forcing Clinton's hand. Anyone who supports the Republican Party and does so without any sense of irony is someone in serious need of a proctological exam--because that's where you will find your head.
Posted by: mike | Feb 6, 2008 12:20:11 PM
Johnosahon,
You didn't have to be all rude. I was just simply stating that maybe the gay republicans agree with the republican party on other issues other than the gay issues and that's why they vote for them. That's all I was trying to say. I'm sorry if my analogy was poor in your eyes.
Mike,
I don't understand your arguement of Clinton's hand was forced. Doesn't he have the right to VETO any legislation? I mean if the Republican congress wanted it bad enough wouldn't they just override him? Could you please go into further detail of how his hand was swayed? Was it a compromise of if I sign your legislation will you pass mine kind of thing?
Posted by: Matt | Feb 6, 2008 12:33:28 PM
"Oh, the irony of liberal intolerance."
There's nothing intolerant about calling a stupid person stupid. Now, not hiring a LCR because he's a selfish, selfhating worm, or firing him when you discover that he's a LCR that would be intolerant, but emminently chrisitian.
Posted by: MBSF | Feb 6, 2008 12:40:34 PM
Mike I was thinking the same thing thing about the relationship between the gay community and the democratic party.
Against gay marriage,done nothing to repeal DOMA or DADT,campaign with homophobic bigots of the religious bent but let's throw our money and votes at them and maybe this time they will not hit us or throw us uinder the bus. Well that would still be okay if they make worhtless proimises and bring flowers.
Posted by: tommy ousslander | Feb 6, 2008 12:49:52 PM
DADT was passed by a Dem congress in 1993, a Dem congress where the conservatives in both parties ganged up on Clinton and passed that dispicable, discriminatory and unconstitutional bill. Got that, conservatives in both parties! Not the liberals, liberals don't write legislation like that, we believe in individual liberty and think it means more than just making money. DOMA was passed by a Rep congress in 1996, and yes, Bill could have vetoed it, but if you'll recall he was engaged in out-flanking Gingrich et al. from the right at the time. Oh triangualtion! The moral of the story, elect more liberal democrats to congress and you won't have to deal with conservative bs.
Posted by: MBSF | Feb 6, 2008 12:56:38 PM
I agree with Strepsi's analogy of blacks working within the KKK for equality. Spot on. And yes, liberals CAN be intolerant in that we have no tolerance for intolerance!
Posted by: TroyTooner | Feb 6, 2008 1:16:46 PM
Thanks to those still holding on to the complicated facts in the face of a mountain of McCarthyism by the gay Obamaites which, at least in California, are waaaay in the minority contrary to so many who scream the loudest on blogs.
In California, “gays and lesbians also broke sharply for Clinton, backing her 60 percent to 25 percent” - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/06/BA3IUT6L8.DTL
And to reinforce the point, Elisabeth Birch [whom I do NOT like] was head of the Human Rights Champagne fund while Mr. Clinton was President. She used to say nicer things about him, but has decided to loathe him now even as she supports Hillary for Prez.
Anyway, she told gay historian Eric Marcus years ago that as much as she wanted President Clinton to attempt to defy Congress at the time on DADT for purely symbolic reasons she knew that they would have simply overridden him.
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 6, 2008 1:41:36 PM
Yeah, DADT and DOMA were the product of a Dem President, just like Lincoln was a "Republican", and Segregation supporters in the mid-20th century South were "Democrats". Politics is a rocky, foggy road, people.
But we can't ever lose sight that it is just that- politics. You can't use the fact that Dems haven't always been 100% with us to justify supporting Republicans, or even to justify NOT supporting Democrats. That's the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Wouldn't it be great to have a humanist, secular, progressive candidate with 100% rating from the Task Force? Sure! But that ain't what we got. Again, politics. Not real life. If you don't like voting "for the lesser of two evils", you can simply choose not to participate, and please do.
Otherwise, don't ever think that your vote is, should be, or could be, an exact representation of your views. Cause if that's what you want, YOU should be running.
Posted by: Jeff | Feb 6, 2008 3:01:02 PM
So that's what a self-loathing homosexual looks like.
Posted by: peterparker | Feb 6, 2008 4:44:54 PM
I love the line that the LCR use, "There is more than one issue." Which always means the wallet.
The only difference between a Gay Republican and a Jewish Nazi? There is none.
Posted by: patrick nyc | Feb 6, 2008 9:23:25 PM
Hey Patrick you are out of line. No better than Rush and Mann Coulter with stupid comments like that. Shame on you.
Posted by: Vi Agara | Feb 6, 2008 10:02:41 PM