• Gay BlogAds


  • Gay News Watch


  • Chris Tweets



  • « More Palin problems | Main | Barack really is one of us! »

    September 02, 2008

    Log Cabin's big McCain mistake

    Posted by: Chris

    UPDATES embedded and at the end of the post. Be sure to refresh your browser because I've added in quite a lot.

    Johnmccainpodium

    Is political insanity running rampant among Republicans these days?

    First, John McCain threw good sense to the wind and tapped Sarah Palin as his running mate, even though she is untested and astonishingly unqualified to be one septuagenarian heartbeat away from the presidency.

    Now Log Cabin joins in the fall foolishness by going forward with an endorsement of the McCain-Palin ticket without even waiting to ask, much less get answers, about the Alaska governor’s unknown views on a range of issues important to gay Americans. We only learned today, for example, that she opposes hate crime laws.

    (UPDATE: LCR told Reuters it is taking "a wait and see approach with Gov. Palin about her views on gay issues." Huh? A bit late for that at this point.)

    My understanding is that Mike DuHaime, the McCain campaign's political director, thanked Log Cabin from the podium today at the group's luncheon. That's encouraging, though let's see if there's any acknowledgment from the podium of the convention itself. Then again, why wouldn't the political director say thanks? The LCR nod helps confuse voters into believing McCain is a "compassionate conservative" on social issues, and he had to do next to nothing to get it.

    (UPDATE: DuHaime told Congressional Quarterly the Log Cabin endorsement is "very helpful" because McCain is "running an inclusive campaign." I rest my case.)

    It’s as if our gay Republican friends forgot the basic politics of the carrot and the stick. Now that McCain and Palin are happily chomping away on the endorsement carrot that Log Cabin could have kept dangling in front of them, all they’re left with is the stick. With apologies to my friends among their number, including my beloved co-blogger Kevin, gay Republicans aren’t exactly known for carrying a big stick.

    With the Log Cabin endorsement in hand, the pressure is off Palin to commit either publicly or privately to what some accounts suggest is her “openness to anti-discrimination legislation.” If McCain is elected, inside support from Palin might be the best shot at avoiding a veto of workplace protection, since the “inclusive” senator from Arizona has voted against such legislation multiple times.

    Cynics will no doubt see the rushed endorsement as a desperate ploy by Log Cabin to gain entree into the GOP’s “big tent,” a concept that gay and pro-choice Republicans have demonstrated a much greater commitment to than has the rest of the party.

    Ridgeliebermanmccain Witness how McCain picked Palin after he was forced to bypass his first two choices, Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman, because social conservatives vowed a floor fight over their selection solely because Lieberman is pro-gay and both favor abortion rights.

    This two-issue litmus test gives no credit to the eminent qualification and political advantages of both: Ridge, a former Homeland Security secretary, was twice elected governor of Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state, and Lieberman, a longtime Connecticut senator, was Al Gore’s running mate and has broad appeal among independents, conservative Democrats and Jewish voters.

    Yet these same conservatives are ecstatic about Palin despite her obvious weaknesses because she chose not to abort her fifth child after learning he’d be born with Down’s Syndrome. (It also mattered not that this special-needs child is still an infant and requires far greater attention than Palin could give as vice president or president.)

    (UPDATE: After reading the early comment train to this post, I officially regret including the above parenthetical about Palin's infant son. Not because I think I was wrong, but because it's a total tangent from the rest of the post.)

    Pete Kingma, Log Cabin’s board chair, defended the endorsement by claiming McCain enjoyed “overwhelming support” among members. Listening to the grassroots is a good thing, and no doubt some gay Republicans will conclude that non-gay issues outweigh McCain's opposition to every form of gay rights legislation ever introduced at any level of government. But a record like that ought to preclude official backing from a gay rights group like Log Cabin.

    The national board's decision not to endorse President Bush four years ago divided Log Cabin's members and donors, even though he had pushed for a federal marriage amendment. Even so, a rushed decision to satisfy internal critics who insist on a litmus test based on party affiliation is exactly what Log Cabin has for years rightly criticized the Human Rights Campaign and gay Democrats of doing.

    Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon insists McCain earned the nod by opposing Bush’s marriage amendment:

    Sen. McCain showed courage by bucking his own party’s leadership and the president – twice voting against the amendment. He gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor, calling the amendment "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans."

    Sammon’s statement is most remarkable more for what it leaves out — for one, McCain’s opposition was entirely based on states’ rights, not support for legal recognition of same-sex couples. He even appeared in TV ads backing an amendment to his home state’s constitution that was so extreme – banning gay marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships and even D.P. benefits – that Arizona voters rejected it back in 2006.

    Sammon also neglects to mention that for awhile now McCain has been backing away from his opposition to a federal amendment, and he pledged last month to back an amendment if even one judge rules the notorious Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

    McCain’s motive is transparently political, considering that DOMA itself is profoundly “antithetical” to states’ rights, since it requires the federal government to completely disregard those states that recognize gay relationships, and allows sister states to do likewise.

    It’s no surprise, then, that even though McCain controls an overwhelming majority of delegates, he went along with a Republican platform plank saying that to “preserve our children’s future,” the country needs a federal amendment to block marriage and “other arrangements equivalent to it,” meaning civil unions.

    When McCain completes his inevitable, slow motion flip-flop, he will actually be worse on gay issues than President Bush.

    (UPDATE: Sammon told Reuters that "Sen. McCain is no George Bush when it comes to gay issues. We are much more optimistic and enthusiastic about Sen. McCain." Why is that? President Bush has never said how he feels about non-discrimination and hate crimes legislation. Despite veto threats from his staff, there was some indication he might have signed ENDA or the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill if they had passed the Democratic Congress after certain limiting amendments.)

    Log Cabin has made a big deal of its “productive” relationship with the GOP nominee's campaign, which they hope will translate into White House access if McCain is elected. Declining to endorse might risk that door slamming shut, but going along to get along sends the more dangerous signal that opposition on the issues doesn’t matter so long as Republicans answer the phone when Log Cabin calls.

    NOTE: Sammon offered one other justification that's worth noting, praising McCain as "a different kind of Republican" from those who "use divisive social issues in an effort to win elections." That whopper is deserving of its own post, so stay tuned for that…

    UPDATES: Sammon exaggerated McCain's record even more in an interview with CNN:

    He’s a very inclusive Republican, a different type of Republican. At the same time we have honest disagreements on some issues.

    "Very inclusive"? "Some issues"?! Does Sammon qualify as a "partisan hack" at this point, Kevin? ;)

    And this in the same CNN report from Log Cabin member David Valkema, a director of a fine arts foundation in Chicago:

    He's teachable.

    Exactly where does Valkema see that in McCain's decades-long record of opposing every form of gay rights legislation?

    Have these good folks forgotten entirely how they gave George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt back in 2000 and got royally burned as a result? Do they realize how much more they are giving to McCain than he has or will give back to them?

    Shame on Reuters, by the way, for reporting Sammon's praise for McCain "not inflaming passions around the issue of gay marriage," then noting "proposals to ban same-sex unions will be on the ballot … in California and Florida" and failing to mention McCain gave his public support for the California measure.

    I've also yet to see a single MSM press report that notes how McCain has backed away from his opposition to the federal marriage amendment.

    This from Roll Call:

    The nod is significant not just because it allows the party a semblance of unity between its socially conservative and moderate wings but also because Log Cabin is announcing its decision earlier than it has in any recent presidential election. … Four years ago, the group made its non-endorsement [of Bush] by the end of September. In 2000 and 1996, the group endorsed Bush and former Sen. Robert Dole (R-Kan.), respectively, after the GOP conventions.

    With this history in mind, Log Cabin's early nod this time around is even less defensible -- especially since Sammon says they're taking "a wait and see" attitude toward Palin.

    This important nugget courtesy of Marc Armbinder:

    A CBS News / New York Times poll finds that 48% of Republican delegates support either gay marriage or civil unions for gay people.

    With very encouraging numbers like that, Log Cabin ought to have raised the bar on what it takes to win their backing, especially considering McCain opposes absolutely any form of recognition, including largely symbolic domestic partnership registries by local governments and not-so-symbolic D.P. benefits by any level of government or public universities and the like.

    Jimmy LaSalvia, director of programs and policy for the Log Cabin Republicans, told Reuters  yesterday in the video interview below that Sarah Palin's "priorities are our priorities," and "if being anti-gay was a priority for her, we would know about it."

    This is the problem with rushing to endorse, Jimmy, since Palin actually indicated in a 2006 questionnaire to the conservative Eagle Forum that her No. 2 priority as governor would be "preserving the definition of 'marriage' as defined in our constitution." That definition, of course, was established by a 1998 ballot measure that amended the constitution to overturn a preliminary ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court that excluding gay couples from marriage violated equal protection.

    LaSilvia also credited Palin (in a mainstream press interview, no less) for her D.P. benefits veto without any mention of her reluctance to do so, her opposition to any benefits for same-sex couples or her support for yet another constitutional amendment to accomplish what the bill she vetoed legally could not.

    Alas, the "fall foolishness" continues unabated…

    Another video interview, this time Patrick Sammon on CNN.  It's actully less bad than the other MSM interviews Log Cabin has done, but that's not saying much. Sammon corrects anchor Soledad O'Brien's suggestion that McCain supports a federal marriage amendment but (a) never answers her central question about why the nominee who controls the delegates allowed a platform plank to contradict his supposedly fervent opposition, and (b) never acknowledges how McCain has backed away from his opposition on the issue.

    The big problem here, of course, is that Sammon does a huge disservice to gay rights by misrepresents McCain as a "much different Republican" than President Bush, when in fact he is worse than the president on issues besides the amendment (i.e., non-discrimination and hate crime laws, and Bush has spoken somewhat approvingly of civil unions, which McCain would ban, along with domestic partnerships and D.P. benefits by public entities). Hat tip: Rebecca Armendariz/Blade Blog

    |

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e554dad9088833

    Comments

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Sep 3, 2008 3:23:53 AM:

      (It also mattered not that this special-needs child is still an infant and requires far greater attention than Palin could give as vice president or president.)

      And now Chris Crain, who holds no medical degree or certification, who has never raised an infant himself, who has no experience with raising a child with Down's syndrome, and who has never even seen Trig Palin in person, much less charted the exact demands that Trig places on his mother's time, has just made his authoritative diagnosis that Trig's care would require "far more attention" than his mother could give.

      Your concern for Trig's welfare is appreciated, Chris; however, it's considered in the light of the vicious and hateful abuse you and your fellow gay liberals are currently heaping on his mother, his father, his sister, his soon-to-be brother-in-law, and everyone else who you think it might be politically advantageous to attack.

      In short, you've made it obvious you don't care one whit about the Palin children's welfare if you believe hurting them will hurt their mother -- which means your only reason for caring about Trig's welfare is if you can use him to smear his mother as being a bad parent because, in your own biased opinion, she won't be able to spend enough time with him.

    1. Charlie on Sep 3, 2008 4:59:03 AM:

      You're right, it's unfair to suggest that Trig needs special attention because he has Down's syndrome. How about something simpler... because he's an INFANT? Either she is going to have to drag this child all over the planet with her once she is sworn in, or she will rarely be around, or she will be unable to properly perform her duties as vice president. The first option speaks of a lack of concern for the child's developmental progress (special needs or not), the second one runs counter to her "family values" base appeal, and the third is just a good reason not to vote for her. Seriously, if the air isn't too thin up there on your high horse, can you provide other possible alternatives? Why do you think this is somehow above debate?

      And now Chris Crain, who holds no medical degree or certification, who has never raised an infant himself, who has no experience with raising a child with Down's syndrome, and who has never even seen Trig Palin in person, much less charted the exact demands that Trig places on his mother's time, has just made his authoritative diagnosis that Trig's care would require "far more attention" than his mother could give.
      I'm certain Sarah Palin has superhuman mothering skills that will allow her to take on one of the most important jobs in the world, the Vice Presidency of the United States of America, and juggle it effortlessly with the truly most important job in the world: motherhood. I'm absolutely convinced of it and won't be swayed to believe otherwise, even after watching relatives and friends move like zombies through their daily lives for the first two years of their children's lives, and telling me that they have no time for me because the kids take up all their time, and that crazy puffy-eyed look my sister has had in her face for the past four years because she works too hard and has two kids under the age of four (and two over the age of four). Nope, I'm convinced, Sarah Palin is such a maverick, she does mothering DIFFERENTLY. She will run counter to 100% of the anecdotal evidence I've seen about the demands of motherhood. I'm convinced!

      Your concern for Trig's welfare is appreciated, Chris; however, it's considered in the light of the vicious and hateful abuse you and your fellow gay liberals are currently heaping on his mother, his father, his sister, his soon-to-be brother-in-law, and everyone else who you think it might be politically advantageous to attack.

      I have not seen Chris attack Palin at all, and certainly not her family. I've seen him raise questions about her stance of gay rights, and other groups' interpretation of that stance. Is that an attack now? Did I miss it? Because if it was, as you say, "vicious and hateful," I'm sure it will make for a fun read. Chris is normally so restrained.

      In short, you've made it obvious you don't care one whit about the Palin children's welfare if you believe hurting them will hurt their mother

      I'm sure Trig is crying right now because of the awful things Chris said. But comforted in the knowledge that you've defended him from all this .. hurt. Has anyone called the kids "ugly" yet? Or is that a criticism we reserve for the apparently fair-game children of Democrat presidents?

      which means your only reason for caring about Trig's welfare is if you can use him to smear his mother as being a bad parent because, in your own biased opinion, she won't be able to spend enough time with him.

      She'd have plenty of time to spend with him, and her teenage, pregnant daughter, if she wasn't going to be so busy campaigning. Hey, that's her call, not mine. Just like the Twinkies commercial from my childhood: "Sometimes Moms have to make unpopular choices..." If my Mom had run for Vice President, I'll bet I would've gotten more Twinkies as a compensation.

    1. Charlie on Sep 3, 2008 5:04:29 AM:

      And why do we even know, or need to know, that Trig is "special needs"? The liberal media conspiracy, out to damage this fine woman's reputation by suggesting her genes are less than perfect?

      Nope... she told us. Why did she tell us? Could it have been, oh, I don't know, maybe ... to make herself look better? To bolster her "right to life" stance? No, couldn't be! What kind of mother would use her own infant child as a political shield? Oh... THAT kind of mother.

      But now that she's told us, you better not use it against her, because that would be hateful.

    1. MARTY on Sep 3, 2008 6:35:46 AM:

      If the LCR was going to endorse McCain, it should have been terse and to the point like what Bill Clinton issued officially for Obama a couple of months back. The verbiage they came up with to support their endorsement is truly mind-boggling. I never before knew they were so out of touch with and/or creative with reality! I still do not think they are evil as some of the hysterics would have it be believed, but more and more it does appear that they are quite misguided.

    1. Andoni on Sep 3, 2008 8:18:09 AM:

      Chris may not have any experience raising a special needs child, or any children for that matter. However, a mother who raised 5 children, including a special needs child says the following in a letter to the New York Times today:

      "Ms. Palin’s primary responsibility and moral obligation is to give all of her children the attention they deserve and only a mother can provide.

      It is my belief that running for vice president of the United States does not serve this obligation well. I have read and listened to various political pundits marvel at her ability to “do it all.” The honest truth is she can’t. Trust me, I know. Myrna Olsen"

      You can read the whole letter at:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/opinion/l03gop.html
      It's the 7th letter.

    1. Tim C on Sep 3, 2008 8:23:47 AM:

      I am really disappointed in LCR. There is no way to, without much spin and other gyrations, to cast McCain as pro-gay equal rights, especially given his most recent statements about the conditions under which he would support a Federal Marriage Amendment. This is 2008. It is no longer acceptable to be just not anti-gay in order to gain endorsement -- you have to demonstrate that that with you the situation would advance, and McCain has not shown that. In fact, I believe he has backslid some from his positions of 2000. When you can hold the positions McCain has been holding during this campaign cycle, and still receive an endorsement, it makes one wonder what an endorsement is worth. LCR should have issued an apologetic statement of non-endorsement, laying out the specifics of their disagreements, held the door open for further discussion, wished McCain luck, and gone off to concentrate on local and state races. They would have appeared principled and certain, and would have remained an honest broker.

    1. Kris on Sep 3, 2008 9:55:19 AM:

      Thank God LCR has endorsed McCain.
      COUNTRY FIRST!!!!
      I could never support the Obamanation, a wimpy ass pussy of man.

    1. David L. Wylie on Sep 3, 2008 10:17:39 AM:

      Palin’s Pregnancy: When Abstinence-Only Sex Education Comes Home to Roost

      The recent disclosure of the pregnancy of VP nominee Sarah Palin’s unmarried teenage daughter is a stark reminder that the abstinence-only sex education policies instituted by George Bush and strongly supported by the Alaska Governor have been an utterly miserable failure.

      Abstinence-only education has been criticized in official statements by the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and the American Medical Association, which all maintain that sex education needs to be comprehensive to be effective. Members of these groups are on the front line of education, prevention and treatment and are acutely aware of the disastrous consequences of ten years and over a billion dollars of the religious based ‘wait till marriage’ philosophy.

      Commenting on the gravidity of the Republican VP pick’s offspring, Senator Obama said, “I think people’s families are off limits. And people’s children are especially off limits. This shouldn’t be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin’s performance…as vice president.”

      I respectfully disagree with Senator Obama. Sarah Palin knew her daughter was ‘with child’ before she accepted the VP nomination. Palin had to have known that this news would break. You can cover a baby bump with an infant sibling for only so long during those pesky photo ops. Palin made a decision to advance her political career onto the national scene, rather than choosing to finish out her term as Governor of Alaska, a choice that would have granted her daughter some semblance of privacy.

      It could also be argued that this unexpected pregnancy, not unwanted of course, because we all know there is no unwanted pregnancy among the religious right, is relevant to Palin’s performance as vice president. As a woman and as a mom, Palin, if elevated to Vice President of the United States, will play an influential role in the health and educational policies affecting our children and teens. Her anti-condom, anti-birth control, abstinence only leanings have not served her family well. I highly doubt they’ll be any more effective in reducing the national rates for teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

      John McCain’s camp was quick to rally around the newly announced VP choice during this current crisis. “Sen. McCain’s view is that this is a private family matter. As parents [the Palins] love their daughter unconditionally and are going to support their daughter. Life happens,” said Steve Schmidt, spokesman for John McCain.

      Yes Mr. Schmidt, life does happen! For the Palin’s 17-year-old daughter, I’m happy that life is happening while she has the support of her family, friends and the whole Republican Party.

      But life also happens for that young 14-year-old girl who’s forced to decide whether to raise her child alone or make the heart wrenching decision to terminate the pregnancy. Life happens when the promising high school athlete and future college scholar is forced to end his educational aspirations in order to support a new born infant. Life happens for that HIV infected gay teenage boy who didn’t understand how the ‘wait till your married’ sex education he received in middle school could possibly apply to him. After all, the Alaska Constitution prohibits gay marriage, a constitutional amendment that Palin supported.

      Perhaps life would have happened differently for all these individuals, including Palin’s daughter, if they’d been given the opportunity to receive a comprehensive sex education instead of a Sunday School lesson.

    1. Kary on Sep 3, 2008 10:54:02 AM:

      Log Cabin Repukes at this convention are like chickens having a convention at KFC. Idiots. But then, it's the anti-intellectual, anti-science, we-love-stupid party. Dubya is Exhibit A.

    1. Steve Clark on Sep 3, 2008 11:12:22 AM:

      How telling - and amusing - that the only thing that critics like North Dallas Thirty care to comment on is Chris's aside about Trig Palin. I assume that means Chris's post is otherwise unimpeachable.

    1. Bob on Sep 3, 2008 11:59:33 AM:

      Is Sarah Palin good for gay issues? Maybe not as she, herself has made her personal positions known. But I don't think it is so clear cut. Alaskans are fierce in their independence and their belief that all should live free. That is one reason why they brave the harsh Alaskan environment. This could temper the way she governs in regards to gay issues. She has shown she will at least think about it rather than just knee jerk react.

      Not even a month into her administration as governor, she vetoed a ban on same-sex benefits instuted and passed by the Republican Party of Alaska. To me, this suggests she isn't as one dimensional as people are making her out to be. Most people aren't.

      I do like the fact that she seems to think about things and will buck the "establishment" when she feels something is right. Not a bad trait and I believe there is a whole campaign being built on just that idea for another candidate.

    1. Brian B on Sep 3, 2008 12:14:22 PM:

      The Log Cabin Republicans are such a tragic group of people, good grief.

      The last few days I have realized this more and more.
      They can not get anywhere within the GOP to build allies. They jump to early conclusions and outright fabrications regarding how "gay friendly" their candidates really are. They never seem to come across very well when in front of the press.

      Just stay home and shut up LGR - you don't do us any good.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Sep 3, 2008 12:28:55 PM:

      How about something simpler... because he's an INFANT? Either she is going to have to drag this child all over the planet with her once she is sworn in, or she will rarely be around, or she will be unable to properly perform her duties as vice president. The first option speaks of a lack of concern for the child's developmental progress (special needs or not), the second one runs counter to her "family values" base appeal, and the third is just a good reason not to vote for her.

      Or:

      I'm certain Sarah Palin has superhuman mothering skills that will allow her to take on one of the most important jobs in the world, the Vice Presidency of the United States of America, and juggle it effortlessly with the truly most important job in the world: motherhood. I'm absolutely convinced of it and won't be swayed to believe otherwise, even after watching relatives and friends move like zombies through their daily lives for the first two years of their children's lives, and telling me that they have no time for me because the kids take up all their time, and that crazy puffy-eyed look my sister has had in her face for the past four years because she works too hard and has two kids under the age of four (and two over the age of four)


      You know, what's really entertaining about these arguments are that they're made by the party and people that lionize John F. Kennedy, who, when he was President, had a three-year-old daughter, a son who was born sixteen days after he was elected, and a pregnant wife who ended up delivering a special-needs child (after she had already miscarried a few years prior from the stress of being a political wife).

      Funny, no Democrat ever criticized him for not caring about his child's "developmental progress", or that he was contradicting his belief in strong families, or that having children made him unfit to perform his duties as President. No Democrat ever tried to argue that he wasn't capable of balancing the responsibilities of children and career, that he would be moving through the first two years like a zombie, or that he would be all puffy-eyed and unable to perform his job.

      I like the way that WomenCount.org put it:

      The obvious retort is whether anyone would ask the same question of the father of a four-month-old with Down Syndrome and a pregnant teenager. We think not.

      Radio talk host Ed Schultz on CNN Monday night took things even further by declaring that Palin would not be able to focus on her job given her family distractions.

      And Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn wrote: “Of course, women can be good mothers and have careers at the same time. I’ve done both. Other women in public office have children…but…a mother’s role is different from a father’s.”

      The message? Sarah Palin: bad mother.

      On that count we have no doubt these accusations would never be made about a man. In that sense, Sally Quinn is right – and that’s why things have got to change.

      The very notion that Sarah Palin should not have accepted this nomination because she is a mother with demanding challenges underscores just how far we have to go.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Sep 3, 2008 12:43:30 PM:

      Chris may not have any experience raising a special needs child, or any children for that matter. However, a mother who raised 5 children, including a special needs child says the following in a letter to the New York Times today:

      That's interesting, Andoni, because "Myrna Olsen" left out a few details.

      1) By "special needs", what does she mean? If her child was a thalidomide baby born without arms and legs, that is a considerably different workload than an infant with Down syndrome.

      2) If "special needs" also means Down syndrome, what was the degree of disability? Children with Down syndrome vary enormously in terms of health, cognitive capabilities, physical abnormalities, and issues; the belief that they are all a certain way is quite unsupported by facts.

      3) When she says "five children", what, exactly, was their spacing? Palin technically only has four children at home, given that Track is already in the military; of those children, they are age 17, age 13, age 7, and an infant. That is a significantly different workload than having "two kids under the age of four (and two over the age of four)".

      4) What was her employment and family situation? Does she have a husband? Was that husband employed? Did she have, as Palin has, a tight network of relatives, friends, and family? If she was a single mother, or if both she and her husband worked outside the home, that would be a significant difference as well.

      Again, though, Andoni, you're merely trying the same line of argument that Chris did, that Charlie did, and which WomenCounts.org has correctly labeled "sexist".

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Sep 3, 2008 12:56:47 PM:

      Finally, first to David Wylie: San Francisco teaches "comprehensive sex education" in all of its schools, as does Los Angeles.

      Since you insist that even one teenage pregnancy indicates that an entire philosophy and practice is a failure, comprehensive sex education is a failure by those standards.

      We'll leave out the irony of gay men, the only population group in which the rate of HIV is rising, lecturing people about supposedly not practicing safe sex.

      And second:

      How telling - and amusing - that the only thing that critics like North Dallas Thirty care to comment on is Chris's aside about Trig Palin. I assume that means Chris's post is otherwise unimpeachable.

      Not really, given that Crain himself demonstrated that supporting constitutional amendments, bragging about having the "same position" as a person branded as homophobic, and endorsing so-called "theocrats" wasn't going to stop him from endorsing candidates.

      The entertaining part is that Crain justifies all of these on the need to not push the Democrat Party, to help them elect candidates, and to accept incremental change -- and then blasts the LCR for following the same tactics and strategy.

    1. Charlie on Sep 3, 2008 1:46:43 PM:

      You know, what's really entertaining about these arguments are that they're made by the party and people that lionize John F. Kennedy

      What's entertaining, actually, is my discovery this morning that, according to you:

      1. I am a party, and 2. I lionize John F. Kennedy

      That would be neat! But unfortunately, neither are true. Please don't attribute my arguments to a party, since I am not affiliated with one. So would I make the same arguments about a man running for VP with a five-month old Down's syndrome baby at home? Dunno, depends how much I want to buy into the idea that a baby (any baby, special needs or not) needs two strong parents around consistently.

      But your hypothetical conjectures aside, do you REALLY, HONESTLY think it's appropriate to compare the political landscape of the early 60's with the concerns of today? When Kennedy was elected, blacks were forced to the back of the bus. Now we have one running for President. When Kennedy was elected, women were expected not to work except to devote all their energies to running a household. Now we have one running for Vice President. Were you old enough to vote then? Were you even alive then? (I wasn't, but I'm not the one who brought Kennedy up.) Yes, totally equivalent! Maybe we should shift our primary concern to what was a huge deal back then: Did you know that Joe Biden is, gasp, CATHOLIC?

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Sep 3, 2008 2:44:16 PM:

      Dunno, depends how much I want to buy into the idea that a baby (any baby, special needs or not) needs two strong parents around consistently.

      I'd say you already have bought into it, given this statement:

      How about something simpler... because he's an INFANT? Either she is going to have to drag this child all over the planet with her once she is sworn in, or she will rarely be around, or she will be unable to properly perform her duties as vice president. The first option speaks of a lack of concern for the child's developmental progress (special needs or not), the second one runs counter to her "family values" base appeal, and the third is just a good reason not to vote for her.

      Next:

      When Kennedy was elected, women were expected not to work except to devote all their energies to running a household. Now we have one running for Vice President.

      And, oddly enough, the same rationalizations about women not being able to balance the demands of work and family without harming their children are being made now in regards to that woman running for Vice President.

    1. JC Allen on Sep 3, 2008 2:54:21 PM:

      To quote James Kirchick's article featured in the Los Angeles Times on 8/26/08~"Gayness is a sexual orientation, not a political one. Gay liberals are always crowing about the importance of "diversity" and lauding its importance on matters of race and gender. Too bad diversity doesn't count when it comes to politics."

      I am a Republican because I am an AMERICAN FIRST. I do not believe in Marxism, therefore, Obama will not get my vote.

    1. Wes on Sep 3, 2008 3:25:16 PM:

      Oh my God. You would would think that the LCR's endorsement is somehow ....relevant....by the blood pressure it is pumping up around here. IT IS NOT. I would dare to say that not one vote was changed by their endorsement. Because most people know the LCR is a marginalized organization desperate for attention in a party that considers them probably right there with rabies and leprosy. And ironically enough, the Democrats also considers them right there with rabies and leprosy.

      All that said, the LCR loses whatever credibility it may have had supporting this ticket and then aruging that they see such great potential in the ticket. If you are a gay Republican and cannot stomach Obama's socialism and want to vote for McCain then just say that is why. But don't get your fog machine out and start blowing it telling everyone how sunny tomorrow will be.

    1. SteveJ on Sep 3, 2008 5:07:02 PM:

      When Biden entered the senate he was a single (widowed) father of very young children. No one suggested he stay at home.

      Different families make different decisions. Sarah Palin and her husband have decided that mom is going to go to work. Suddenly, liberal Democrats are shocked, shocked that mom isn't playing her traditional role.

    1. John Santos on Sep 3, 2008 5:23:04 PM:

      We'll leave out the irony of gay men, the only population group in which the rate of HIV is rising...

      HIV/AIDS: New Infections in Africa Still Rising—Epidemic Continues to be Region’s Leading Cause of Death and Lost GDP, says World Bank

      http://tinyurl.com/55e5xy

      Latino HIV Infections Rising

      http://tinyurl.com/6hux45

      HIV/AIDS Cases Rising Among Older Women

      http://tinyurl.com/6cfcd4

      Do you ever tire of being wrong, Jeff?


    1. North Dallas Thirty on Sep 3, 2008 5:53:10 PM:

      LOL.

      The number of young homosexual men being newly diagnosed with HIV infection is rising by 12 percent a year, with the steepest upward trend in young black men, according to a new report.

      The double-digit increase in young gay men is about 10 times higher than in the homosexual community overall, where the number of new infections is going up about 1.5 percent a year.........

      The study found that homosexual men were the only risk group in which the number of new infections rose annually from 2001 through 2006.

      A bit of advice....your last link is from 2004.

      And oddly enough, had you actually read through and clicked on the link to the story in question, you could have seen from where the increase among Latinos is primarily coming.

    1. Darren on Sep 3, 2008 5:53:12 PM:

      Chris, like a typical liberal activist, you failed to include that it was Bill Clinton who created "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and DOMA. It was during the corrupt Clinton Administration that some of the most homophobic legislation in history was passed. During that time, Senator McCain was opposed to the Clintons' socialist policies.

      Even author Andrew Sullivan has lauded McCain for his gay friendly attitude (he attended Mary Cheney's wedding) and maverick reputation. It seems the liberal homosexual elite seem to vote based on only one single issue - their private bedroom lifestyle. Conservatives are more mature than that and we don't put our sexual habits as our first priority. It is no wonder that heartland Americans are uneasy with us teaching or influencing their kids. Must everything with gays be about sex and hedonism?

    1. John Santos on Sep 3, 2008 6:01:37 PM:

      You might want to read the law before you cite it or claim that it was broken, Santos.

      (a) An offender commits the crime of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree if
      (1) being 16 years of age or older, the offender engages in sexual penetration with a person who is 13, 14, or 15 years of age and at least three years younger than the offender, or aids, induces, causes or encourages a person who is 13, 14, or 15 years of age and at least three years younger than the offender to engage in sexual penetration with another person;

      Which, of course, should be taken as accurate in exactly the same sense as which you read the Alaska statute cited
      above.

      So, your mother is wrong? If your soul is not in peril for living as a sodomite, why is your mother praying for your sexual conversion?

      is that you are threatened by the existence of gay people who think and believe differently than you do.

      I'm concerned about gays who ally themselves with anti-gay forces and who choose to work with said forces to overturn hard fought equality. Uniform queens who've never served a day in their lives, deciding that gays should not serve in the military. Petty gays, upset that their pet project to re-write the tax code has failed miserably; wallowing in sour grapes over the fact that gays whom don't hold your political views, have managed to turn the tide in California and will soon see legalized equal marriage.

      ...your antireligious bigotry...

      Coming from a man who denounces Biblical teachings to suit his own sexual desires?

      ...your misogyny...

      Proof?

      ...your sexual promiscuity...

      I'm not HIV+.

    1. John Santos on Sep 3, 2008 6:10:18 PM:

      A bit of advice....your last link is from 2004.

      And oddly enough, had you actually read through and clicked on the link to the story in question, you could have seen from where the increase among Latinos is primarily coming.

      You provided one link to back up your argument and derided one of the three links I provided, huh?

      And I did read through the article and click the link, NDT. That is why I posted the link, cupcake.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad