2012 Election | Ari Ezra Waldman | GOProud | Log Cabin Republicans

Decision 2012: What Does It Mean for the Gay Republican?

BY ARI EZRA WALDMAN

The LGBT community played an outsized role in Tuesday's Democratic sweep. Constituting 5 percent of the electorate in 2012, the gay community went 77 percent to 23 percent for President Obama. If you do the math, the number of LGBT voters who chose to re-elect President Obama exceeded the margin of votes separating him and Mitt Romney. That means that our community delivered the election to the President.

Log-Cabin-Republicans-Rainbow-Elephant-300x265Eloquent commentators from Andrew Sullivan to Matt Yglesias have all seen this as part of a larger trend toward the emergence of a modern American electorate that is less white, more Hispanic, younger, and fairer than before. Their words are, as usual, worth a read.

There's more to the story, though. Both the increase in gay voting numbers and the increase in our already heavy Democratic tilt, together with a sweep of the four states voting on the freedom to marry and the elections of the openly gay candidates across the country, have a lot to say about the role of gay identity in modern politics. It is not simply, as Richard Socarides said, that today, supporting gay rights is no longer the albatross it was in the 1990s and, instead, is a banner to wear proudly. He's right, but that's too simple. Nor is it simply about gays being liberal. There are a lot of gay conservatives, but being conservative and voting Republican are two different things.

Our victories on Tuesday prove the hollowness of the gay Republican talking point that gay identity is tiny in politics. For all the talk that gay people want jobs, too, and for all the chatter about the economy being of supreme importance no matter who or how you love, the idea that our identity as gay persons does not mean that equal rights are more important to us than, say, our concerns about the debt is simply not true. Gay Republicans and gay conservatives risk irrelevance if they stick to the notion that "being gay is only a small part of who I am" and then proceed to endorse candidates who are anti-gay in the traditional sense. Being gay is who we are. It tints the way we see the world and how we interact with others. It informs our vote, as well. 

We need gay Republicans. We need them to talk with fellow Republicans, to teach them that gay people are good, moral, upstanding citizens, who love their country, each other, and their children. We need them to push their party's leadership away from "legitimate rape" and away from "it's wrong on paper" to a mainstream party -- like the Tories in England -- who support the freedom to marry not in spite of their conservative principles, but because of them. But, voting for a Republican who wants to rescind their rights because gay Republicans are more concerned with other things than being gay is at once wrong -- by all accounts, Mr. Romney's tax plan and proposals for spending trillions the military did not want would add to the debt and raise taxes on the middle class -- and foolish. No one will respect them until they respect themselves. 

This election showed that gay social identity is predominant in determining our political identity. If they ever hope to attract more of our community, even the conservative among us, to the Republican fold, gay Republicans should take heed, drop the canard that being gay doesn't matter, and embrace the importance of equality. 

I explain exactly what I mean, AFTER THE JUMP...

LogcabinMany people construct their identities on a host of social ties, from their families, religions, genders, socioeconomic status, national heritage, wants, desires, professions and professional goals, and so on. The list is endless. But, for almost everyone, there is usually one -- or two or three -- of their community ties that are more important than others. For some, however, the most powerful social identity is the one that is subject to hate or disccrimination from the outside world. That is, women tend to see themselves more as women voters than men see themselves as men voters, in part because historic discrimination against women forced them to organize together. The same is true for most black voters and Hispanic voters. I am not saying that there are no men who see themselves as voting to stand up for masculine ideas, whatever those are. Indeed, there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that characterizes quite a few of Mr. Romney's supporters. Notably, the evidence suggests that this minority identity is less strong among Asian voters, but as seen in Tuesday's election, that is changing as well.

For many of us, being gay and subject to discrimination as gay persons defines our political identities. We may not always want it this way, but the challenges we face because others discriminate against us is an identity thrust upon us. Surveys of gay voters show lopsided skews toward liberalism in politics, but when asked how they would feel about this or that economic issue or this or that candidate in a future world where there is zero sexual orientation discrimination, suddenly our community becomes political diverse.

The identity theory of the gay Republican is different. We can talk all we want about assuming that gay Republicans are self-haters or rely on contrarian social theory that posits that some gay people say they are Republicans because they think it's pretty cool to be different from the herd. Those are caricatures of gay Republicans and only foster divisions within our community. 

Instead, I think it is a matter of degree. Most gay persons see themselves as gay voters, voting for President Obama and our Democratic allies because they, not the Republicans, are protecting our rights, recognizing our equality, and actually moving the levers of government to enshrine those rights. Gay Republicans like to say that "being gay is only a small part of who" they are, that they, like everyone else, are concerned about the debt, jobs, and foreign policy. Their identities are no less thickly constituted than ours. It is just that their gayness makes up a smaller portion of that identity.

There are several explanations for this, and self-hate and contrarianism do play a role. But we cannot ignore the fact that gay people, like every other person, are subject to a multitude of community ties. Some are bound to be stronger than others because of unique facts of a person's background and goals. And, we should respect those personal journeys that are different than ours.

However, this notion of gay identity for gay Republicans is a losing idea. If it is legitimate at all, it is describing fewer and fewer members of our community. It emptiness is the reason why Sean Patrick Maloney and Tammy Baldwin, two openly gay candidates who embrace their identity, won, and why Richard Tisei and Carl DeMaio, two gay Republicans who claimed over and over that their gayness means very little to their political ideals, lost. And, I think there are three reasons why. One reason concerns politics, the second reason concerns messaging, and the third reason concerns the underlying failure of gay Republican identity.

M_romneyFirst, the 2012 election gave us an unprecedent choice between, on the one hand, a man and party -- President Obama and the Democrats -- that have actually done many great things for the gay community, and, on the other hand, a man and a party -- Mr. Romney and the Republicans -- that want to take away our rights. Previously, our community looked to progressive candidates like Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry who either never talked about gay rights or gave half-hearted vocal support to a particularly palatable gay rights issue only to frustrate us while in office (in the case of former President Clinton).

We had the choice between the bad and the not so bad, the guy who hated us and the guy who probably didn't hate us but who couldn't talk about us because of what it would mean for his election prospects. As Mr. Socarides said, the world is different now. President Obama and the Democrats are proudly wearing their support for the freedom to marry and other gay rights causes because it will bring them votes. But, again, it's more than that. The President hasn't just spoken about his support for our community; he's done something about it, supporting the freedom to marry, stopping the Defense of Marriage Act, keeping binational couples together, giving us hospital visitation rights, supporting our service members' right to serve openly, and so on.

In a world where one candidate gets an A and the other candidate gets a D on gay rights, gay identity has to mean more to a vote than when the two candidates get a C and D. Our sexual orientation matters less when the choices are more fungible because our various identities are more fungible with respect to how the candidates represent us.

Second, gay Republican insistence on endorsing Mr. Romney was a messaging problem that damaged their credibility. That so many of us see our social identity as essential to our political identity, openly flouting that identity by endorsing a candidate so brazenly opposed to our social identity showed gay Republicans to be craven and only out for political posturing in a possible Romney administration. As it happened, Romney lost, makig the Log Cabin and GOProud endorsements irrelevant. Their role in the party could only shrink.

DadtAnd, that's a shame. The Log Cabin Republicans have been strong allies in some of our most important struggles over the past few years. They challenged "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and their victory in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States most likely pushed the military and the legislative branches into faster and comprehensive action on repeal. Log Cabiners helped pass the freedom to marry in New York, working alongside the HRC and all of us who met with Democratic and Republican officials and reaching across the aisle to their contacts in the Republican party.

We need a vibrant, strong gay community in the Republican Party. Ignoring their identity to endorse a Republican who wanted to take away their social rights made them look foolish.

Third, the idea that being gay is "only a small part of who we are" is constantly in tension with gay people's lives. Our social identity is forced upon us as a political identity by those that seek to discriminate against us. That is a fact. Ignoring it only perpetuates the assumed acceptability of continuing that discrimination. Therefore, the centrality of our social identity as gay persons is not a small part of who we are as voters. It is who we are as political animals.

There is nothing inconsistent with having a robust concept of gay identity and being conservative. The only way the Republican Party will learn that is through not simply the presence of gay Republicans, but through the presence of gay Republicans for whom being gay is the most important thing in their political lives.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. "It tints the way we see the world and how we interact with others. It informs our vote, as well."

    I agree with this, but I would endorse Keppler's point that to the extent that gays are unified, it is because tribalism is foisted upon us; were it not for the manifold oppression, you would see more gays adhering to the values of those around them. Yes, there might be inherent difference, but it is often esoteric, and it is not universal.

    "There are a lot of gay conservatives, but being conservative and voting Republican are two different things."

    I think this is an important point for both gay conservatives and gay non-conservatives. Being a conservative should not necessarily lead to voting Republican. Similarly, there is nothing morally wrong with being a gay conservative - I generally reject the tenets of conservatism, but that's an intellectual debate, not a moral one.

    Posted by: Nat | Nov 9, 2012 3:37:00 PM


  2. well, to be fair, its not just "gay voters" - it's our friends and family who understand that a party that runs a campaign of human inequality is doing so to trick the Plebes into voting against their own financial interests.

    it's not just the "gay guy" vote - it's the votes of every family member and friend who possesses integrity.

    it's worth noting that we need to thank the black community for getting Akin out. check out the demographics - the only group that favoured him were "old white guys"

    to reference the past - it's the harvey milk thing. the lgbt people. the ethnic and cultural minorities. the women. the elderly. the USs.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Nov 9, 2012 3:39:40 PM


  3. Gay Republicans have rightly been compared to meth addicts: self-destructive, delusional, a blight on the community. Gay Republicans are politically analogous to "Jewish anti-Semites" for actively supporting the totally homophobic Republican Party.

    There's something obscene about dignifying Gay Republicans with serious commentary; like meth addicts, they are pathetic and to be pitied at best.

    Posted by: Alex 0_0 | Nov 9, 2012 3:42:59 PM


  4. "to reference the past - it's the harvey milk thing. the lgbt people. the ethnic and cultural minorities. the women. the elderly. the USs."

    Precisely!

    Posted by: John | Nov 9, 2012 3:45:24 PM


  5. Alex,

    As a former meth addict, I find that incredibly offensive. I'm sorry that I made you look bad. But your reaction is identical to that of gay Republicans. You want to just get rid of everything that makes you look bad because you're selfish and think everything is about you. Try having some compassion for others for once. Addiction is often a sign of someone in need of mental healthcare, and substance abuse is frequently a coping mechanism. Why kick someone when they're down?

    Posted by: John | Nov 9, 2012 3:57:29 PM


  6. Most Democrats go "ewwwww" when they see two guys kiss. Nuff said.

    Posted by: jason | Nov 9, 2012 4:18:31 PM


  7. most democrats support the right of two men to get married.

    most republicans do not.

    sorry jasontroll. may you one day grow a pair of testicles.


    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Nov 9, 2012 4:20:57 PM


  8. Self hate? Did this 'writer' actually say that is a reason to vote Republican? Simply put, Obama is a snake oil salesman. He didn't fool me the first time and I didn't think it was possible that he could win another term. His win is a testament to how many people are on drugs, take government handouts and don't pay income tax. That's all there is to it. This country is about to find out what this joker is all about - the financial destruction of the USA. If you have a command of the facts, you can hear the lies every time Obama opens his mouth, including today when he speaks about the fiscal cliff. Raising income tax on the top 2% won't even cover a month's worth of deficit spending. What a joke. And the joke is going to be on everyone who voted for this lunatic. Your lives are about to become a living hell. As of yesterday, over 1,400 companies have filed reports with the labor department declaring their intention to layoff over 2 million. This is just the beginning. As Obamacare phases in, millions more will be reduced to part time so smaller companies can skirt paying fines and larger companies can reduce their exposure to having to provide health insurance. This country will be on its knees by the time Obama leaves office if he is not impeached first.

    Posted by: Johnny | Nov 9, 2012 5:49:07 PM


  9. No, we don't need gay Republicans, not yet.

    Look at the way the Republicans are using women, black people, and to a somewhat lesser degree, Latinos - they find a token, who, other than the demographic, represents the worse aspects of the party, and parade them out to show that they are a big tent.

    Sarah Palin and Ann Romney and all the Fox News bimbettes are supposed to represent American womanhood. Michael Steele is supposed to represent the African-American experience.

    Yes, the party as it stands is going to decide it needs a gay presense, and they're going to go straight to GOProud, who will die in orgasmic bliss, while not in any meaningful way representing LGBT people.

    "WE* do not need gay Republicans. The Republican Party needs to become willing to actually speak to LGBT people, and change their policies so that some LGBT people feel their needs are best met by them. There's a huge difference between the two.

    Posted by: Lymis | Nov 9, 2012 5:58:35 PM


  10. I've known gay Republicans my entire adult life. They vote Democrat, especially in national elections.

    We need to STOP buying into the idea that GOProud represents gay Republicans. The organization is funded almost entirely by STRAIGHT Republicans. It was founded by straight Republicans. Its purpose is to confuse the debate.

    LCR doesn't fall into the same category as GOProud. But it, too, it essentially irrelevant because it represents so few gay Republicans. Most stay away from it because there just hasn't ever been a way to support gay rights and support the party or its candidates until very, very recently. Plus LCR has hardly been the champion of gay rights that it could be, though in recent years it developed the balls to not endorse Bush. Pity it lost its balls this year.

    "We" need a strong gay Republican organization. Someone should start one.

    Posted by: BobN | Nov 9, 2012 7:06:49 PM


  11. Jason: prove it.

    Posted by: BETTY | Nov 9, 2012 9:21:39 PM


  12. LOL JOHNNY! Stop being such a concrete thinker! The only snake-oil salespeople came straight out of the GOP: the party deeply invested in keeping rich people rich and poor people poor. And white people sparkling white, at any cost.

    As for our lives becoming a living hell, bring it on. We're talking about Democratic principles that brought this country great prosperity during the Clinton years, not the Bush/Rove/Cheney policies that ripped the beating heart out of millions of people's retirement plans. Or Tea Party obstructionism that stripped us of our AAA credit rating.

    Expand your horizons beyond Limbaugh's and O'Reilly's hyperbolic parallel universe. Understand that this country is incredibly complex and our government must evolve as the body politic does. Confront your racism and realize that IT'S the most serious threat to the physical security of our country: divided we fall, remember?

    And good luck with that impeachment thingy.

    Posted by: Sean in Dallas | Nov 10, 2012 12:48:06 AM


  13. It's almost cute the way that KIWI comes up sputtering like a feisty child regaining his air after RICK's opinions on true masculinity have threatened him. "Grow some balls" he shrieks and "show us your face on line" . He cannot hope to counter the fact that naturally masculine men are effortlessly more appealing than the affected stereotypes who distort the fact that most men who are attracted to other men are not the least bit effeminant.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Nov 10, 2012 2:42:38 AM


  14. "[Republican national chairman] Priebus and other party officials also will meet with constituency-group leaders representing Hispanics, African Americans, veterans, evangelicals, tea party activists, business groups, youth voters, centrists, Asian Americans and women."

    Where are the gays? I'm so surprised;-)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/republican-party-begins-election-review-to-find-out-what-went-wrong/2012/11/08/74acf0fa-29d6-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_story_1.html

    Posted by: Diogenes Arktos | Nov 10, 2012 3:36:15 AM


  15. There were gay Republicans in the times of Harvey Milk. They were called California Gay Republicans before they became Log Cabin Republicans. Most were real estate companies Owners and executives and business owners and Forbes 500 executives who thought Harvey was too liberal.(Harvey was for rent control). One gay Republican(Kevin Wadsworth) wrapped himself in American flags on his campaign brochures and ran against Harvey for District 5 Supervisor. The one common thing they all had was the fact there were no blue collar workers among them, just like today's Republicans.

    However, I knew many liberal Democrats who once they became rich switched party's too. Many HRC members are closet Republicans who attend Black-Tie events (that they can write off on their taxes) that give to so called gay causes.

    The one thing I discovered was "Being on the Left,was being on the "RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY"!

    Posted by: Jerry Pritikin aka The Bleacher Preacher | Nov 10, 2012 8:41:20 AM


  16. Sorry, Mr. Waldman, but once again you are way off the mark. I suggest you climb down from your stylish, academic, ivory tower and put two feet squarely on solid ground.

    For the record, I don't need "a vibrant, strong gay community in the Republican Party". In fact, Mr. Waldman, I don't need the Republican Party at all and to be as blunt as I can be, I definitely do NOT need "gay Republicans". Gay Republicans can kiss my righteous, queer ass.

    Anyone remember 2004? Ken Mehlman (now a solid, upright member of the Log Cabin Republicans) and Karl Rove USED the gay community to stoke fear and hatred and bigotry and accrue millions of dollars in fund-raising among the Republican Party rank-and-file to be used against us. It was downright ugly, nasty and vile. The LCR? Quiet as church mice.

    That, Mr. Waldman, I will never, ever forgive. It was that election that I realized and continue to feel that any Republican is and always will be my mortal enemy, one that if I were to succumb to my baser instincts I would blithely and gladly bash a baseball bat into their heads.

    Who needs the Log Cabin Republicans and/or R. Clarke Cooper? I sure as hell don't. Oh, yes, they did do the DADT lawsuit and they might possibly be "allies" in the struggle for civil equality under our Constitution, but in the end, Mr. Waldman, does it matter? The Republican Party is generically hateful and beholden to an ideology that sticks to it like white on rice and which it will never be able to rid itself of.

    Let's just get to the nut of the matter: once an LCR or a GoProuder can actually define to me what "conservative" means to them without resorting to the standard "strong national defense strong economy less government lower taxes" bullsh*t they always say, I might consider at least listening to them.

    But, I and dozens of the wonderful (and not so) who post here live in the real world. The REAL world which has no room for the nattering nabobs of "sound fiscal policies" because "sound fiscal policies" are not what has caused me my own personal anguishes over the years or watched people I love suffer from the vile homophobia that has been part and parcel of the Republican Party since at least 1977.

    You can't have it both ways, Mr. Waldman. You want to make "nice nice" with the LCR and GoProud? Go ahead. But I will remind you that the LCR came about because an elitist WHITE segment of the gay community decided that they did NOT want to associate with all those icky, um, not-white people and drag queens and effeminate, flamboyant men who pranced about at gay pride parades, or associate with those mannish lesbian Democrats because they, the LCR's, didn't want people to think that THOSE people had anything to do with those white Fire Island manque-gays' "gayness".

    As one early LCR told me: "I'm much more than my sexuality." My response was: "Yeah, well, when they hand-sew the pink triangle onto your 'much more than my sexuality' ass, let me know whether or not the christo-fascists will understand that distinction."

    Jimmy LaSalva split with the LCR and started GoProud frankly because the LCR had the audacity to speak respectfully of Mr. Obama. For the GoProuders then as it is now, it's all about race. That split was based on the virulent racism that still taints many corners of the white, gay male community. Jimmy, darling boy, was having none of being "nice" to Mr. Obama.

    The LCR and GoProud are moral, philosophical and intellectual frauds. They are absolutely irrelevant to the gay rights movements and to the LGBT community in general.

    Again, if you, Mr. Waldman, want to believe that there is any place in the Jesus-Uber-Alles Republican Party for gay men or lesbians, well, continue to delude yourself.

    This country does not need the Republican Party at all. Ever. And, for any of us who rejoiced this Tuesday past at our collective victories, let's also acknowledge that the demise of the Republican Party is not over until Democrats, progressives, centrists, and all Americans of goodwill vote in the 2014 elections and turn The House of Representatives into the deepest of Blues. Then, and only then, with that final spike driven firmly into the collective heart of the Republican Party, will millions of us in the LGBT community finally feel safe.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Nov 10, 2012 12:35:09 PM


  17. "The GOP is too rotten to rehabilitate."

    It always amazes me to hear something like this because it betrays a certain amount of historical ignorance. The Democratic Party by far has an extremely odious record prior to the mid-20th century on civil rights, from slavery to secession to segregation, yet instead of being relegated to the dustbin of history a la the Whigs it was in fact rehabilitated. Civil rights activists, among others, essentially did a "hostile takeover" of that party. The opposition was just as strong and just as objectionable as many might see in the GOP today. It's very difficult to form a new party that becomes as dominate as the two major parties we have today. The GOP could end up going the way of the Whigs, the party it actually replaced in the mid-19th century, but far easier to reform it from within. In that the Democrats may do the Republicans, and the country I'd argue, a huge favor by settling many of these social issues largely on their own and therefore removing them from the table. However it works out while the GOP will continue to take its well-deserved lumps at the polls for awhile, which the DNC deserves as well for other reasons, I wouldn't count it out just yet. At the very least a younger generation of Republicans combined with a more libertarian-minded group could end up taking over as the social cons die out or get pushed out little by little. I'd like to see the parties actually debate the real issues on tax policy, role of government in our lives, etc. rather than continue to wallow in the wedge issues.

    Posted by: JohnAGJ | Nov 10, 2012 12:46:12 PM


  18. masculine men don't denigrate other males that may be deemed effeminate.

    the only people who do that are cowardly boys who still live in fear of their families thinking "they're like those OTHER gays"

    learn something from those *others gays* - stop hiding like such wimps and putting so much stock into what others think.

    you show me a femme-hating internet troll and i'll show you a grown-adult coward, furious that he hasn't yet had the balls to come out and live life openly and freely.

    for once i'd love some femme-denigrating commenter to put a face to their comments.

    won't happen. that's the domain of the closeted coward.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Nov 10, 2012 4:16:10 PM


  19. I don't care what anyone says about a gay person being a Republican and that being ok. It is not ok. Yes, it is ok in the sense of we live in a democracy, but when your own political party hates you and thinks so little of you, how is their justification to affiliate with a party that is mainly white, heterosexual, Christian and male? It is total bulls... that gay Republicans vote Republican because of fiscal conservatism. Most Americans wants fiscal conservatisms, but it is not reality. It is pure fantasy! My theory is that most gays who are Republican have internalized homophobia and don't want to identify as GLBT because of their shame and guilt about being gay. And as we see the message is quite clear from the American voter, that GLBT equality and rights are on the rise and the anti-gay, conservative movement has been mostly shut down.

    Posted by: Bernie | Nov 10, 2012 5:25:20 PM


  20. SEAN IN DALLAS: Here is what you don't understand. Obama tries to compare his policies to Clinton - there is no comparison, zero in-fact. I voted for Bill Clinton. I prospered and owned 3 businesses during the Clinton era. I'll bet money that NONE of the people who are posting these idiotic pro-Obama comments read or could even understand the Federal Register. Does anyone even know what it is? Every new law, administrative regulation, federal contract, signed legislation and on it goes is posted there.

    You can't get a loan for a small business today unless you have liquid collateral. That means cash, CD's, Treasury Bonds, or A rated securities. Under Clinton you could pledge raw land, equity in real estate and various types of collateral that banks can't accept, even if you had a 20 year perfect payment history due to regulations set out by the Obama administration. You could even pledge future income of an established business, not any more! I got 100% loans for multi-million dollar projects based on projected cash flow. The projects didn't even exist, but they made sense to bank analysts. This is impossible today. This is only one example and there are thousands.

    The Chamber of Commerce in Washington DC said over a year ago that it is now impossible for a small business to be aware of all the regulations which affect any business. The cost of staying on top of this would bankrupt you today. A very average lawyer is $300 an hour. If you want a true counselor - $600 - $750 and hour. And given the complexity of these regulations and the fact that on average 96 are filed per hour to the Federal Register, the research time alone would be in the $10's of thousands. Mission impossible. So the government plays the "gotcha game". And there is only one thing to do these days, show them the door the minute they walk in.

    This is what Americans I refer to as "headline readers" simply don't get. And for that matter, the press does such a poor job of explaining this to the public, there is no wonder they are beyond confused. But I can tell you this, listening to anything Obama says is going to take you in one direction, right off a cliff. This guy is a complete idiot on all subjects expect how to rig an election. He has the best crooks and people who have studied all the dictators in history to guide him. That in a nutshell is what's going on. My thinking is not concrete or fixed in stone by any means. It just means I won't listen to anything Obama has to say - period. Every time I do, I hear the lies and distortions because I do have a photographic memory and I can instantly compare what he has said in previous speeches. It NEVER matches. And even if it is a new subject, like the fiscal cliff, there is zero rationale in what he is saying. His new catch phrase "balanced approached" is the biggest joke yet. Start by cutting the waste and fraud out of the budget! That one one of his pledges before he took office his first term. All he has done is more than double the federal deficit and he's running the largest economy in the world without a budget four years running. There needs to be a host of new laws enacted that actually require the Executive Branch to perform or face impeachment or ineligibility to run for a second term. Certainly, given Obama's abysmal record of performance, which I think anyone of even average intelligence should be able to comprehend, how in the hell did he get elected to a second term? The contradictions are constant and I think most of it is quite on purpose, to keep the sheep hopelessly confused. The only difference between sheep and the "Obama Zombies" is that sheep know by instinct when to run in the face of danger.

    What we are talking about here is common sense. Not being a Democrat or a Republican, but a patriot.

    Posted by: Johnny | Nov 11, 2012 2:38:48 PM


  21. so did you vote from Romney, "Johnny"?

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Nov 11, 2012 2:43:08 PM


  22. @LittleKiwi: I'm sure he voted for Romney, just like anyone else who lives in the Faux News bubble. I know he lives in the Faux News bubble becase his head would have exploded from Romney's post-truth campaign if he had heard about it from outside news sources. (Such as his oft-repeated lie that Obama doubled the deficit when he in fact reduced it.)

    Posted by: Diogenes Arktos | Nov 11, 2012 3:35:14 PM


  23. I've often said that I'll defend to the death the right of an LGBT person to be a Republican if he or she really wants to -- but at the same time, I can't help but roll my eyes at some of the insane troll logic they have to use to justify themselves (such as buying into the notion that our equality rights aren't important, and on and so forth.)

    The truth is, on the whole the LGBT community is actually quite moderate and centrist politically. If our rights were genuinely secured and we didn't have anything to fear from either side of the political divide, in all likelihood we'd vote in proportions much like those of society at large: about a third Democrat, a third Republican and a third centrist swing voters who can go either way depending on the circumstances and issues at play in any particular election.

    In the world that we actually live in, of course, we vote disproportionately Democratic because the Democrats tend to be much more welcoming and accepting of us. (And yes, sometimes that is more lip service than genuine heartfelt commitment -- but that's still better than active hostility.) But if the Republicans ever actually get over their homophobia and start treating us like human beings who have just as much right to be treated fairly and equally as anybody else does, they'd probably find a lot more of us willing to at least *consider* voting for them than they do right now.

    Posted by: Craig S | Nov 11, 2012 7:17:28 PM


  24. @Diogenes and LittleKiwi - The complicated overlay of regulations is a problem for all business owners. Everyone who has had a business, especially a business in a city, knows this. Unfortunately the smaller the business ,the harder the problem is to overcome. I don't know that Republicans have ever done anything to reduce regulation for small businesses. Certainly there has been no improvement of the SBA under any Republican administration. The removal of banking regulations in the Banking Modernizations of 1999, 2000 were done with bi-partisan support. The word regulation is used by Republicans as a bogey man but the last time they made a half-hearted attempt to improve them for the little guy was when they first took over under Gingrich.
    So don't trash a small business owner who is really doing a difficult task (and employing people) because it doesn't appeal to your perception of sound-bites. Regulations are a necessary evil, but it would be nice if government made an effort to allow business activity to grow more easily.

    Posted by: Markt | Nov 12, 2012 6:58:54 AM


  25. I see your point but agree that it's phrased badly.

    Gay people didn't "deliver the election" so much as it is clear that gay voters make up enough of a presence that it is no longer safe to use homophobia as a campaign tactic and expect it not to cost you.

    Saying we can't be safely ignored or actively attacked is different from saying we swung the election - because the exact same thing is true of a lot of other groups.

    And you also have to look at how much we mattered in swing states. The gay vote contributed to the win in places like Illinois and California, but even if every gay person there had voted Republican, those states would have been blue, so the claim doesn't hold up anywhere but in states that were very close AND had enough of an out gay presence to matter.

    Posted by: Lymis | Nov 12, 2012 10:13:56 AM


  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Dan Savage to Tony Perkins: ''I'll See You in Court' - VIDEO« «