Fred Karger | News | Republican Party

Gay Presidential Hopeful Fred Karger Profiled in Washington Post

Karger

Activist Fred Karger, who is exploring a run for president, gets a big profile in the Washington Post:

He wants young gay people to see him run for president. He'd be the first-ever openly gay presidential candidate for a major party if he formally declares. He can see himself as the moderate voice in a debate crowded with hard-liners.

He has visited New Hampshire more than any other presidential prospector in this young election cycle. This skiddy late-night ride from a gathering in Keene to his Concord hotel is part of his 11th trip to the state in the past year. He's slingshotting around, hosting tiny town halls, collecting volunteers one by one and arranging coffee dates with policy experts, academics and state politicians.

This is not a stunt, Fred insists.

Karger recently ran an ad in New Hampshire exposing NOM's anti-gay tactics. Check it out here.

The WaPo is also running a poll halfway down the page on whether or not America is ready for a gay president. As of this posting, the 'yes' column was 47%, the 'no' column 54%. Maybe we can change that.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. As an independent, I can see myself voting for him. Time to look up his record.

    Posted by: Adrian | Feb 2, 2011 5:51:03 PM


  2. Honestly, parts of America aren't even ready for a President of Color (see the meteroic rise of the tea party as well as the birthers, and the rallies filled with "go back to africa" signs). Although I'm ready for a gay president, I don't think America is ready for a gay president at all.

    Hell, primetime television doesn't even have a show that revolves around a gay person (and not just shared screentime like W&G or in supporting roles like on Glee, but all about them).

    But, I am glad to see Karger getting this profile. I hope he gets into the debates.

    Posted by: Joe | Feb 2, 2011 6:01:50 PM


  3. Echo Adrian.

    Cue the inevitable insults and race-baiting from the left...

    Posted by: Max | Feb 2, 2011 6:02:03 PM


  4. Three comments in and already this thread is surreal.

    Posted by: justme | Feb 2, 2011 6:12:17 PM


  5. the question is, is America ready for a self-hating President who consistently acts against his own best interests? because, to be a gay Republican is pretty much that.

    Posted by: ant | Feb 2, 2011 6:14:04 PM


  6. Joe just pulled the race card.

    Obviously America *is* ready for a "President of Color" because it voted for one. And I may be wrong here, but I believe the U.S. is the first white-majority nation to have voted for one?

    It's this incessant left-wing race-baiting that is going to make me *run* to the first Republican who isn't an anti-gay bigot.

    And here comes Ant, the first attack dog of this post. We don't have marriage equality in New York because *Democrats* voted against it (specifically, minority Democrats). So what's it like to be a gay Democrat? And how do you feel when Obama tells you that "marriage is between a man and a woman"?

    Posted by: Max | Feb 2, 2011 6:27:34 PM


  7. @Max

    Gurl, and how many Republicans in the New York State Senate voted for gay marriage in New York?

    Wher are all this right wing trolls coming from...oh, never mind...

    Posted by: Chitown Kev | Feb 2, 2011 6:33:41 PM


  8. I have no problem voting for a Republican and have in the past. My concern with Karger, though, is that even on his own website he's really light on detailing his stance on issues other than marriage equality. His resume is also fairly light in terms of public office holding. Sure, it's good to have someone outside the beltway and all, but just like Obama was criticized for his relative political experience, that goes even moreso for Karger who seems to have less.

    Further, his tenure with The Dolphin Group and their involvement with Phillip Morris and Proposition 188 is disturbing, to say the least, and argues he'll be little more than a shill for big business as he's been little more than a shill for Big Tobacco. The Dolphin Group also has some nasty racist advertising in their past, so fighting for the rights of LGBT citizens isn't impossible for Karger, but past involvements don't argue for it.

    The U.S. may or may not be ready for a gay President, but until he's on record regarding issues outside LGBT, it doesn't seem like Karger is the one to attempt it.

    Posted by: Quakerjono | Feb 2, 2011 6:43:29 PM


  9. A gay republican president? Maybe in an alternate universe

    Posted by: wondermann | Feb 2, 2011 6:45:05 PM


  10. A gay republican president? Don't the Logcabin Republicans claim we already had one.

    Posted by: PLAINTOM | Feb 2, 2011 7:01:49 PM


  11. I'd be pretty damn surprised if America votes for a gay president. True, some of the country wouldn't vote for a black man. But that black man was voted in and does have an approval rate of 50% and climbing, even through all the bullshit. 30% of this country views our relationships beneath pets and animals. Same-sex marriage is 50-50, and that's not even leading the entire country nor affects these people directly, and most of the bad 50 are the ones who vote. So, sadly, no, I don't think a gay president could win election, and I sure as hell don't think a gay Republican will until/unless that party actually starts recognizing LGBT citizens as fully human. And especially Fred Karger, who has a questionable record and little national attention.

    We've made a ton of progress, but it's going to take years, and by that I mean the people over 35 getting older and dying off, and being replaced by the younger generations, to see this potentially happen.

    Posted by: Francis | Feb 2, 2011 7:07:24 PM


  12. It's controversial just to have gays at the Conservative PAC convention. He might make it to the first debate early on where there are 8-12 people on stage, but nothing more than that.

    Even a straight candidate who was unmarried would be controversial. Wife, kids, and grandkids are the typical props needed for politicians.

    Posted by: Brian in Texas | Feb 2, 2011 7:32:17 PM


  13. A few months ago Karger created a commercial, posted for a short period on YouTube, showing him making phone calls to random people introducing himself and telling them he might run for president. Unfortunately, he was filmed making these phone calls WHILE HE WAS DRIVING A CAR. He memorialized himself on film engaging in distracted driving. The video was yanked pretty quickly.

    It could be cool to have a respectable gay candidate, but I don't think this particular individual is ready for prime time.

    I believe, also, Sarah Palin, actually has more governing experience. Perhaps, though, a clueless, inexperienced Republican gay guy running for president will grease the skids just a little for a more appropriate candidate-who-happens-to-be-gay in the future.

    Posted by: lacrosse | Feb 2, 2011 7:35:02 PM


  14. While I'm not familiar with him, I can't help feeling that regardless of the outcome, this is an excellent thing he is doing and I applaud it. (If he's still running by the time of the MA primary I may even vote for him, even though I have no intention of voting for a Republican presidential candidate in the following November.)

    In 1972 Shirley Chisholm ran for president. As a black woman, she was at least thirty years ahead of her time, but it was still an excellent thing to do at that time.

    Likewise in 1928 Al Smith ran for president and was the first Roman Catholic to do so. He too was about thirty years ahead of his time. Yet that was still an excellent thing to do when he did it.

    Bravo to Mr. Karger!

    Posted by: RedCedar | Feb 2, 2011 7:48:06 PM


  15. This man is a novelty act. People might be ready for a gay president, but not a clown.

    Posted by: Gregoire | Feb 2, 2011 7:49:35 PM


  16. Well, his candidacy won't go far for any number of reasons, and I wouldn't vote for him in a million years, but at least--unlike the Ann Coulter worshippers at GOProud--he speaks up for gay rights and can make a difference in that regard.

    @Max: I give you credit for consistency. You never let a fact get in the way of Democrat bashing or obsession with race. If we have marriage equality legislatively in NY or anywhere else, it will be because Democrats are in the majority. Every state, plus DC, that has passed pro-gay legislation is Dem-controlled. A skimpy handful of pro-gay Republicans do not get the job done by themselves. The real world is calling you back from outer space.

    Posted by: Ernie | Feb 2, 2011 8:05:24 PM


  17. "Gay Presidential Candidate Profiled in Washington Post" For just a moment, savor this headline and consider how quickly the world is changing. We can argue politics and parties but think how quickly our culture is changing. I seriously doubt he will last the entire primary season since most candidates don't but a GAY man is running for POTUS. He will undoubtedly lose but we have already won. The tide of history is on our side. We need patience and we will have to work hard against those who would deny us our rights but we will achieve equality.

    Posted by: Austin | Feb 2, 2011 8:35:53 PM


  18. No, Ernie. The post was about a gay Republican. The second comment - not from me - pulled the race card. I merely called him out on it.

    Personally, I don't give a crunk whether someone is a Democrat or a Republican. I care about their views (on a variety of issues). What bothers me is this LGBT knee-jerk devotion to all things Democrat, when most Democrats are just as homophobic as their demonized, Republican counterparts. It's not Democrat-bashing, it's LGBT-battered-wife-syndrome bashing.

    Certainly many Democrats in office are worthy of our gratitude.

    Democrats were in control in New York at the time, if I'm not mistaken. (Not sure - feel free to fact check.)

    Posted by: Max | Feb 2, 2011 8:42:51 PM


  19. @Max, you pull the race card in pretty much every post you make, then accuse others of doing it. And I'm aware the post was about a gay Republican. It's quite possible to support his stand on gay rights while not supporting him as a presidential candidate.

    The Democrats as a party are clearly not as homophobic as the Republicans. To suggest an equivalency is pure nonsense. Look at records around the country. Legislative success on gay rights is due to Democratic majorities. A Democratic majority does not guarantee marriage equality success--there are homophobic Democrats, obviously--but a Republican majority guarantees equality failure and gay civil rights setbacks. Many of us vote for liberal candidates because we're liberals, not sure why that's so hard to understand. The delusional GOProud folks are the ones with the battered-wife syndrome.

    Posted by: Ernie | Feb 2, 2011 9:01:34 PM


  20. He has no experience and no chance. The same would be true if he were straight, but the gay thing really kills it in most states: Democrats don't like him and Republicans don't want him.

    This profile reminds me of another profile the Post ran in 2004 of another broke and fairly desperate candidate. I can't even remember his name or find it on a quick search.

    Posted by: Paul R | Feb 2, 2011 9:31:02 PM


  21. Fred has been involved in politics for years and he is moderate. He is just what the R party needs!

    Posted by: ty | Feb 2, 2011 9:49:49 PM


  22. Republican. Wolf in sheep's clothing.
    No thank you.

    Posted by: Chris | Feb 3, 2011 2:22:09 AM


  23. So long as he is a Republican I will never vote for him, it means conservative right-wing policies and jurists on the supreme court. YUCK!

    Posted by: NY2.0 | Feb 3, 2011 3:20:03 AM


  24. Go Fred, Go! Hooray for a Republican that speaks up for gays. He needs to get into the debates and that will really shake things up.
    Fred deserves tons of credit for standing up to NOM. He caught the Moron Church breaking the law in California and fought NOM in Maine where they still haven't complied with campaign disclosure laws. He is calling them out in New Hampshire. Meanwhile, where is Gay, Inc.? Thank you Fred Karger.
    With Obama the presumed nominee, all the Democrats in Iowa could go to Republican caucuses and vote for Fred. It would upset the entire process. Same is true in New Hampshire. So let's make history, folks.
    Support Fred Karger!

    Posted by: TruthSeeker_Too | Feb 3, 2011 4:02:54 AM


  25. I don't get it. How is this different than asking women to vote for Sarah Palin?

    Is it too much to ask that people vote for some brainy uncharismatic nerd that actually has a good head for business and strategy instead of cults of personalities and minorities based off of personal interest alone?

    Oh. Yeh. I forgot. It is.

    Posted by: The Grinch | Feb 3, 2011 7:35:26 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Attempt to Ban Gays in Virginia National Guard Dies in Committee« «