Posted on 07/08/2004 1:10:40 PM PDT by Polycarp IV
Log Cabin Republicans Happy With GOP Convention Speaker Line Up
The homosexual group known as Log Cabin Republicans praised the Republican national convention for its choice of “inclusive, big-tent Republicans to speak in prime time at the convention in New York City,” reports the June 30 issue of the Advocate.com, a self-described award-winning national gay and lesbian newsmagazine web site.
“The speakers include former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Senator John McCain, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and New York Governor George Pataki.”
“These speakers represent the future of the Republican Party,” said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans. “These Republicans are among the leading voices for inclusion in the GOP.”
McCain, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, and Pataki have all been critical of what they call the “anti-gay” Federal Marriage Amendment. Each of these Republicans has a track record of running winning “inclusive” campaigns and of support for many issues critical to the gay and lesbian community, according to the Advocate.
Giuliani, Schwarzenegger and Pataki are ardently pro-abortion as well, as is New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, and former finance chairman of the Republican National Committee Lew Eisenberg, all of whom are playing a major role in financing and organizing the Convention.
Reagan conservatives are, so far, not to be found among those who will present their views to the nation in prime time during the convention. A few pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage conservatives, who, after all, represent those of us who are the stakes that hold up the “big tent,” will probably be featured during the morning hours of the Convention, when the rest of the American people are busy with their daily duties and not watching television.
This sorry state of affairs prompted Kate O’Beirne, Washington editor of National Review, to point out in her 7/7/04 column, (http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/obeirne200407070839.asp) that the only announced Convention speaker who actually agrees with President Bush on major issues is a Democrat – Senator Zell Miller of Georgia!
“When the only Reagan Republican to enjoy a prominent supporting role at the party’s Convention is a Democrat, the GOP has a serious identity problem.”
“Given the political ambitions of some of the speakers, the party faithful should pray that Rockefeller Republicanism is not back in the future.” [Is that an echo we hear?]
So if they do not want their taxes doubled, does that make them single-issue voters? If a candidate proposed killing all seniors at age 70 to save social security, would they become a single-issue voter? It's insane to criticize someone for prioritizing matters of life and death. It's just a way to make the issue about something other than what it's about. "You can't care about it becuase other things matter too." What kind of lame argument is that?
I dont hate queers. Pushing their perversion on me through parades, media, school indoctrination, and laws I despise and should.
"Exclusion and shunning are also ugly. (Have you NO homosexuals in your family? If not, you must have a very small family.)"
Heterophobia is ugly...There are none in my family that I know of, and if there were I could love them and hate what their perversion is doing to them at the same time, imagine that! If that didnt work we all have stunguns.
"And, preferring to lose than to win, is pathological."
You misunderstood again, my point was we can win without the Log Cabin "Republicans" and should.
"Would you like the same can to be said about you?"
I wouldnt try to be something im not in the 1st place ,like a real Republican. Our agenda is not gay.
"I would rather win with the Log Cabin Republicans on board, than lose with you."
My party will win with or without you, its a moot point.
So you are a LC"R", or gay, or a close family member is?
Why not give full disclosure in your reply? Its hard for me to trust a group who claim to be in my party but holds opposing beliefs that are that extreme.
And be able to win elections by not giving it to their demands.
Thanks for the numbers.
You nailed it good, Trojan Horse is what they are.
I don't know that he's defending the rump spelunkers, but he seems mighty anxious for the GOP to cater to that crowd. I think several posters have addressed the dangers of that proposition.
It's a defense alright. At least his posts to me were.
But, hey, according to him we are "sick" if we pass judgement (or voice an opinion) on what we consider perverted, so says our pole-smoking friend, Trillium.
You did it now Dog by agreeing with him, he is in love.
No speculation required on his attitude if you didnt.
Gays don't bother me. The radical left gay agenda that claims to represent all gays bothers me greatly. But the notion that someone who is gay can't embrace Republican principles is silly. Of course they can. They are probably not aligned with those in the party from the Christian right, but they can be more at home in the GOP than with the Democrats. It's an individual choice.
"They want to silence Christianity as a cultural force in American life. They want to criminalize Bible-based Christianity as "hate speech" and tax churches that defy them by preaching God's word. They want Gay Pride days at your work place and "Heather Has Two Mommies" on your child's desk at school. Only in a society where nobody cares what the Bible says will sodomy be accepted as normal. They know that. So why should we pretend that these people could ever be our allies ? "
Add me to your ping list please.
Actually give them the one thing the ask for a pro-life, pro-family candidate, even one who just plays lip service, and they are there.
There is a large portion of the Christian right who will vote for those liberal candidates because of the economic issues or because most of the candidates that day they will be voting for are pro-life, pro-family and they just vote straight republican ticket, but that does not make them any less Christian right.
Piss them off as a whole with the total takeover of the liberals, and the chance loosing them to a 3rd party who is a strong moral and economic party is great. Especially if their choice is to stay with the Republicans and vote liberal Rockefeller lightweights in who do not even stays steady when it comes to the economic side of the equation.
Just because they are the Christian right does not mean that most of them do not vote Republican when not satisfied, even though many don't (enough to throw elections). Nor does it mean they will not walk when liberal part of the party takes completely over. Just because they have towed the party line in the past for party unity does not mean they will continue to in the future when an other option is given them and it will be given to them if dished by the Republicans.
Liberal Republican party that refuses to stay pro-family, pro-life or upstart moral, economic conservative party. That choice will kill the Republicans. Many people would have no choice even though they know it would kill the party. Why go there, when you are on the verge of having it all and winning the argument? You have the winning ticket why change the equation now and blow off your base? yes they are your base.
If they're still willing to vote GOP then I'd call them a conservative gay and welcome their vote.
Homosexuality doesnt seem to me like a positive social value,but maybe I didnt get the memo.
Here I thought the promoted Judeo/Christian values, that the democrats say are very negative.:-)
Actually no it would explain a lot about where you are coming from and you lack of understanding.
I want to win as bad as you, but wont take that risk. At least one of LCRs main goals has to be just that.
No, what I actually said was that," This struggle has been going on within the party since I started voting during Reagan's second term, and I am sure it had been going on long before. ".
Since you seem to need me to explain what I mean with that statement, here goes....I would need to do research to understand what was happening and the dynamics in the party before 84, but I have witnessed this Rockefeller Republican, moral conservative struggle since 84 with the conservative base winning and the liberals being the weak minority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.