Chuck Hagel | Log Cabin Republicans | News

How Did The Log Cabin Republicans Buy That Chuck Hagel Attack Ad?

LCRPosterLike so many others, journalist Glenn Greenwald has some lingering questions as to why the Log Cabin Republicans decided to run that full-page New York Times ad against potential Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel.

For example, why did the gay GOP group suddenly decide to take such an ardent stance on Israel, which former Sen. Hagel's opponents claim he doesn't support? "The only mention of [Israel] on its entire website is as part of a laundry list of nations which allow gay and lesbians to serve in the armed forces," he writes at The Guardian

Greenwald is equally perplexed by LCR's sudden interest in Iran, the decision to oppose Hagel's past homophobic comments. They have after all supported anti-gay lawmakers in the past, including Mitt Romney in 2012's presidential election.

And, most importantly, Greenwald wants to know how cash-strapped Log Cabin Republicans paid for an ad space that goes for about $100,000. So, ever the diligent reporter, Greenwald asked R. Clark Cooper, the Log Cabin's outgoing executive director. Cooper, as one can assume, was not forthcoming.

In response, the group's Executive Director, R. Clark Cooper, confirmed that LCR did not pay for the ad out of its existing funds. Rather, he said, the ad campaign "is being funded by a number of donors". But he not only refused to identify any of those donors, but also has thus far refused to say whether those "donors" are from the self-proclaimed "pro-Israel" community and/or are first-time donors to LCR: in other words, whether these donors are simply exploiting gay issues and the LCR to advance an entirely unrelated agenda as a means of attacking Hagel.

Between the lines, Greenwald sees what he says is a "favorite neocon tactic": "cynically exploit liberal causes to generate progressive support for their militaristic agenda." And he thinks the LCR should have the decency to tell us who's working behind our backs: "Gay advocates are the exploited tools in this effort. We should at least have some transparency about that fact."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. "exploited tools"? Well perhaps it's more appropriate to call em "duche nozzles"

    Posted by: mikeflower | Dec 30, 2012 9:05:06 AM


  2. Well they are, after all is said and done, republicans. What would you expect? It is part of their mantra to value personal expediency over justice. Otherwise they would just have to call themselves "Log Cabins" Manipulation of causes is typical of their tactics. We should stop thinking of them as Gay republicans and instead see them as republicans who also happen to be self-hating homosexuals.

    Posted by: Alex Parrish | Dec 30, 2012 9:17:12 AM


  3. We don't yet have a name for this sort of pink-washing in reverse. It probably doesn't deserve anything better than toolery. Saps and suckers.

    Posted by: Bingo | Dec 30, 2012 9:31:15 AM


  4. BUSTED!

    Posted by: Wavin' Dave | Dec 30, 2012 9:51:46 AM


  5. Mr. Adelson, you can remove your hand from Mr. Coopers butt now.

    Posted by: bkmn | Dec 30, 2012 9:55:25 AM


  6. This was the first thing I thought of when I learned of the ad- WHO PAID FOR IT?

    Of course, don't expect any truth from LCR- they live in a fantasy world where the Republicans are pro-gay and the Democrats are anti-gay.

    Posted by: homer | Dec 30, 2012 10:28:40 AM


  7. Alex is correct

    Posted by: chasmader | Dec 30, 2012 10:40:45 AM


  8. Glenn's take on that icky flick is also a must read:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/14/zero-dark-thirty-cia-propaganda

    Posted by: iban4yesu | Dec 30, 2012 11:03:13 AM


  9. And the previous one:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/10/zero-dark-thirty-torture-awards

    Posted by: iban4yesu | Dec 30, 2012 11:22:56 AM


  10. And an Out article on Glenn and his Brazilian partner (and the immigration inequality):

    http://www.out.com/news-commentary/2011/04/18/glenn-greenwald-life-beyond-borders

    Posted by: iban4yesu | Dec 30, 2012 11:36:02 AM


  11. TYPOS, Andrew, TYPOS! Are you Brendan Thorpe? "The president would like to marriage equality in Illinois." And what's with the sentence on Iran in this piece? My eyes, they burn. Make it stop!

    Posted by: Rob | Dec 30, 2012 11:55:38 AM


  12. The article pointed out that R Clark Cooper contradicted a position he enunciated just a few days earlier. I'm so surprised;-)

    Posted by: Diogenes Arktos | Dec 30, 2012 12:13:46 PM


  13. they paid for it from the money they made blackmailing college kids into performing sex acts on them.

    that's sorta how gay republicans do anything.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Dec 30, 2012 12:31:25 PM


  14. Nailed. Can't recall any LC ads against any of the numerous GOP homophobes. Now, when the neocons and AIPAC want to stick it to Obama, the LC are there to, as an above commentator puts it, "reverse pink wash" Hagel. Total shills.

    Greenwald, as always, is spot-on.

    Posted by: mikemike | Dec 30, 2012 12:51:49 PM


  15. How, exactly, are Log Cabin Republicans relevant in any national discussion? Really, they are such a freakish niche that I don't see how they could have any influence over a cockroach much less a cabinet nomination.

    Posted by: Boone68 | Dec 30, 2012 1:07:53 PM


  16. The Log Cabin Republicans are nothing but a bunch of tongue-wagging butt-boys for their conservative task-masters. Thanks Mr. Greenwald for busting the LCR assholes and exposing them for the lackeys they are.

    Towleroad, could we now just let the LCR and GoProud alone? 98% of the people here DO NOT CARE about the LCR or GoProud (except to deride them mercilessly which I admit is quite entertaining).

    Posted by: jamal49 | Dec 30, 2012 1:09:00 PM


  17. The only positive thing I can think of that the LCR ever did was the lawsuit against DADT... Normally my inclination is to automatically take the opposite position - so if they are against Hagel, I'm for him...


    Posted by: MikeH | Dec 30, 2012 1:12:49 PM


  18. The only positive thing I can think of that the LCR ever did was the lawsuit against DADT... Normally my inclination is to automatically take the opposite position - so if they are against Hagel, I'm for him...


    Posted by: MikeH | Dec 30, 2012 1:12:51 PM


  19. exactly, MikeH.


    you know that every day gay republicans need to get out their fine-tooth combs to search for things "brown people are connected to" to complain about, rather than the outright bigotry of their fellow white conservatives.

    the irony is galling. criticizing a man for comments made more than a decade ago whilst throwing their support to bigots who say equally incendiary (and WORSE!) things in 2012.

    fail.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Dec 30, 2012 1:16:54 PM


  20. LCR an "exploited tool?" I think you meant "fool."

    Posted by: I'm just sayin' | Dec 30, 2012 1:48:09 PM


  21. Oh and FWIW, the LCR would have no problem whatsoever with Hagel if he were appointed to the post by a GOP prez. But they, like others in the GOP, fear that Obama will add a "bipartisan" feather to his cap with the appointment, and that simply must not be allowed. Any GOPer who would agree to work for Obama is therefore a traitor and fair game. This story is all about rigid partisanship and ideological extremism, and nothing to do with Hagel's personality or views on specific subjects such as Israel or gay rights. The LCR are just being manipulated and used as water carriers for others in the GOP establishment.

    Posted by: Scotty | Dec 30, 2012 2:05:04 PM


  22. Does anybody really doubt for a second that had Hagel been nominated for SecDef by a Republican administration, this fight would be played out exactly in reverse? Progressive gay rights groups would be calling Hagel unacceptable and laughing at a 14-year late apology, while Log Cabin types would denounce the whole affair as a tempest in a teapot. The problem, as usual, is partisan hackery.

    Posted by: John Farmer | Dec 30, 2012 2:07:09 PM


  23. @Scotty: The SecDef for the first 2 1/2 years of Obama's presidency was a Republican. The Transportation Secretary is also a Republican. There is an obvious partisan angle to this, but I think it's pretty clear that the GOP establishment is opposing him for primarily ideological reasons.

    Posted by: John Farmer | Dec 30, 2012 2:20:41 PM


  24. That Pink logo is awful. Looks like two elephants humping... very bad taste. Are you sure it isn't a prank??????

    Posted by: Jimbo | Dec 30, 2012 3:16:04 PM


  25. We should have greater respect for LCR over GOProud.

    For one, LCR is a legitimate organization, whereas GOProud is a handful of people with too much money.

    For two, LCR is not nearly as hypocritical and out-of-touch-with-reality like the GOProud bunch.

    Unfortunately, it is fair to say the GOProud bunch is our equivalent to Westboro Baptist Church... sorry, but true...

    Posted by: TonyJazz | Dec 30, 2012 4:19:53 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Obama Offers Spontaneous Support For Marriage Equality In Illinois« «