2012 Election | Barack Obama | News | Newt Gingrich | Republican Party

BigGayDeal.com

Newt Gingrich Tells Gay Iowan: Don't Vote for Me, Vote for Obama

Gay Oskaloosa, Iowa resident Scott Arnold told the Des Moines Register about an encounter he had with Newt Gingrich, who is apparently willing to allow his bigotry to trump his desire to win an election:

Arnold“I asked him if he’s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him? And he told me to support Obama,” said Scott Arnold, an associate professor of writing at William Penn University.”

Arnold, a Democrat, said he came to the event at Smokey Row coffee house with an open mind. But he wanted to ask Gingrich about how he would represent him as president after reading past comments the former U.S. House Speaker as made about gay and lesbians.

“When you ask somebody a question and you expect them to support all Americans and have everyone’s general interest,” Arnold said. “It’s a little bit frustrating and disheartening when you’re told to support the other side. That he doesn’t’ need your support.”

Newt Gingrich to gay Iowan: Vote for Obama [des moines register]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. note to open-minded gay dems: republicans hate the idea of equality, regardless of whether they acknowledge it or not

    Posted by: h | Dec 21, 2011 9:40:07 AM


  2. seriously, what did he expect? Newt and his gay sister obviously loathe each other. Keep moving.

    Posted by: doug | Dec 21, 2011 9:42:15 AM


  3. Newt's answer is refreshingly-honest. Wish he supported gays, but I respect his honesty...and I may do as Newt suggests and vote for Obama.

    But I'm inclined to vote for Gary Johnson - the President we REALLY need.

    Posted by: Chris | Dec 21, 2011 9:42:20 AM


  4. Sure looks like the only reason Newt is campaigning is to polarize the GOP. They want to make whomever is nominated easier to swallow. Seems to be working pretty well.

    Posted by: Sean in Dallas | Dec 21, 2011 9:53:02 AM


  5. This feels a little shocking, at first. I mean, why would someone running for office ever say, in effect, "don't vote for me." But it reminds me of an GHW Bush quote, something to the effect of "atheists shouldn't be considered citizens, nor patriots, and don't get 1st amendment protection." That one was considerably more incendiary, but ultimately wasn't a disqualifier for ol' Bush I. He may have lost the atheist vote, but like gays, atheists are small enough of a voting block that we can be dismissed. I do wonder if that kind of blanket disrespect would turn off moderate heteros, and allies.

    Posted by: Billy | Dec 21, 2011 9:54:48 AM


  6. It's not 'a little bit disheartening' it's a profound insult to your agency and personhood, it's the disavowal of your existence, actually.

    Call things by their proper names and do not vote for this bloated narcissistic bigoted toad.

    Posted by: yonquersconquers | Dec 21, 2011 9:55:07 AM


  7. It just shows what an ignorant a** he is to make a statement like that! I am a VERY openly gay Republican, I know, I know, it's like an oxymoron these days, but at least I'm not just a moron like Gingrinch!

    Posted by: Shane | Dec 21, 2011 10:32:16 AM


  8. But you know what? There are gay republicans, those Cabin folks, who will vote for Newt should he be the chosen one.

    Posted by: Kevin | Dec 21, 2011 10:32:19 AM


  9. At least he is honest but if you guys are shocked by this, then NOTHING the GOP can do will get it through your sweet little heads that they are SOCIOPATHS.

    Money first.Comprende? People second. Claro?

    Bueno.

    Posted by: Rowan | Dec 21, 2011 10:36:41 AM


  10. @ ROWAN:
    Actually, money is a great adjudicator...money has no prejudices. Money does not care whether you're black or female or gay.

    It is in nearly all businesses' long-term self-interest to treat everyone fairly - treat employees based on performance, and welcome all customers and treat them fairly.

    Treating any constituent unfairly is uneconomic - prejudices (religious and otherwise) and short-sightedness are uneconomic.

    Except for a few businesses which exist for the purpose of discriminating, an optimally-run business would never discriminate.

    In Newt's case...he's honestly voicing right-wing-nuts' emotional (and uneconomic) prejudices. It's emotional - not economic.

    Posted by: Chris | Dec 21, 2011 11:07:26 AM


  11. Notice how the GOP takes up Congress, state & local government's time & money marginalizing gays (marriage, employment, military, etc.), but Newt know the reality is we're a minutia when it comes to voting numbers. We're an insignificant minority that only has a voice if our friends & family stand with us. We're a weapon of mass distraction while Congress gets paid to make sure nothing changes.

    Posted by: Nice.... | Dec 21, 2011 11:39:07 AM


  12. Not shocking at all. The publicity of rejecting a gay American is perfect to get the support from his Republican voters (his base.) There's is nothing but win for Newt here.

    Posted by: unruly | Dec 21, 2011 11:45:43 AM


  13. In August 1994, a voter asked Jeb Bush what his administration would do to help the black community. His response (rather, two words of it) became an instant classic:'Probably nothing.' Buchanan joked about the Jewish votes he garnered in Florida during the 2000 race. Newt's answer to this prospective gay voter was arrogant but honest.

    The GOP has been since Nixon's "Southern Strategy" a party of white, heterosexual, protestant religionists (Jews are courted because they play a role in the Middle East and the prophesied Biblical apocalypse. Catholics are now tolerated.) If they garner any gay votes, it's a plus for them and they take pride in accepting those votes by treating gays with open contempt. For minorities to expect anything from the GOP is the result of ignorance or naivete.

    Posted by: Bob R | Dec 21, 2011 11:50:12 AM


  14. Ron Paul (R-TX) has openly said that it is none of the governments business, to interfere with gay rights. Basically that it's not worth arguing about, in the sense that it's common sense that gay, and lesbian Americans should have the same rights as All Americans. This is one of the things that makes it harder for him to win the older, more pig headed, republican's vote. If you want good change, and your tired of Obama, you have to nominate Ron Paul for 2012, and Elect him into the white house. It's the only way all Americans will get their liberty back, to live life as we see fit, without interference from big government.

    Posted by: Anthony | Dec 21, 2011 12:08:51 PM


  15. It really isn't all that surprising. At least Newt is honest in his disrespect. And, he's a shameless hypocrite. But, if he's the nominee, GOProud will practically fall all over themselves to vote for him.

    Posted by: Walt | Dec 21, 2011 12:11:00 PM


  16. CHRIS - very well-put!

    Posted by: TJ | Dec 21, 2011 12:20:29 PM


  17. @Anthony: Ron Paul would seem like a good libertarian candidate, but if he is successful in Iowa, watch out for the establishment Republicans to remind GOP primary voters about his baggage. Also, even if Paul were to be elected, he's still a member of the Republican Party, and his Congressional party members will not have as much of a Libertarian streak and are not going to support equality for GLBT Americans.

    Posted by: Albert | Dec 21, 2011 2:33:09 PM


  18. @ ANTHONY: Paul's stance is problematic for two reasons: he really doesn't like us (see the Bruno video mentioned here) and the fact that each of us citizens depends on government for many things, including the 1000+ benefits of legal, federally-recognized, marriage (also mentioned here).

    He'd be on slightly better footing if he said, the gov't has no business discriminating on which adults get married to each other. I personally don't think polyamory should be included since I think it doesn't support the security that children need—but that's arguable.

    Posted by: David R. | Dec 21, 2011 3:18:22 PM


  19. @anthony: whenever i'm told, by his cult-like supporters, how gay-friendly ron paul is i remember him in the movie, 'bruno', running down the hall screaming "he's a queer! get him away from me!!".
    gingrich's flippant dismissal of the concerns of millions of americans makes him ineligible for the office of president. i'm sticking with romney who, like obama, is somewhere in the mushy middle when it comes to gay rights but is also, unlike obama, for smaller government and fiscal responsibility.

    Posted by: el polacko | Dec 21, 2011 4:33:51 PM


  20. Okay, I understand his stance is a bit soft, but the opposite is quite bad. Let me put it this way. I am not gay. I have gay friends, I have a gay employees, and I have gay and lesbian customers. I will not pretend to know the struggle that Gay and Lesbian people go through, but I do believe that These Friends, employees, customers, and all others should have the same rights as any american. As far as I know, Ron Paul's stance is that, it is a church and state matter. He does not feel that the government has any business interfering with this. If a church chooses to let gays marry, great. they understand that God isn't a Mean bully who would make people the way they are to send them to hell. If they don't want to, their loss, another, truly God following church will. As far as the Bruno thing. He was caught by surprise, and had no idea what was going to happen next. Honestly, if that happened to me, I would have been uncomfortable, having just met this man, and not knowing what he would do next.

    Posted by: Anthony | Dec 21, 2011 4:36:22 PM


  21. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD-zOX1M4BM

    Posted by: Anthony | Dec 21, 2011 4:37:44 PM


  22. yeah nice try, newt. we have someone worlds better than obama. that's gary johnson, who's not a bigot, & not afraid to show he's not a bigot. now if only more folks knew about him.

    Posted by: krikit | Dec 22, 2011 6:12:44 AM


  23. Ron Paul is no friend of the gay community; he has no problem with allowing state governments to oppress gays and everyone else. He is no constitutionalist, because he doesn't acknowledge the 14th amendment.

    Posted by: Nathan | Dec 22, 2011 8:33:03 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «NASA Discovers First Earth-Size Planets Around an Alien Star: VIDEO« «