Posted on 11/05/2007 3:10:02 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The Republican party’s having a gay identity crisis as of late - and the ideological winner could change the party’s political fate, not to mention the election.
As Kerry Eleveld eloquently explains in the Advocate, three of the presidential contenders oppose a federal amendment against gay marriage: John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, although the latter wants to make sure no one state has to endorse another’s married gays. Regardless of Thompson’s middle ground, his and his peers’ moderate stances show that the Republican party’s facing an important decision. Will they stick to their guns and give the once omnipotent Christian right their anti-gay wish, or will they move toward the left? While we can’t yet answer that pressing question, Eleveld offers a peek into the political implications of a Giuliani nomination:
"With Giuliani as competition, presumably a Democrat would have to work harder to distinguish himself or herself on gay issues. Democratic political consultant Paul Yandura puts it this way: “A Giuliani that would come out and be just inches away from any other Democratic candidate [on gay rights] is going to force the issue.”
True, Giuliani isn’t as gay-friendly as the Democratic front-runners: He has studiously dodged questions about ENDA, has said it isn’t time to revisit “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and has gone out of his way to assure conservatives that he will appoint “strict constructionist” judges to the federal bench. But to make the distinctions clear, the Democrat facing Giuliani is going to have to highlight those points—that is, discuss gay issues. “With most Republican candidates, the Democrats might be able to take the gay vote for granted,” says Sherrill of Hunter College. “As a result, they would operate on the assumption that they will get 75% to 80% of the gay vote no matter what they do [and] probably say as little as possible on LGB-related issues.
It’s known as “electoral capture” when a candidate can take an interest group for granted because they have no place else to go with their votes. Ironically, the Christian right faces the same dilemma with Republicans—only they’re so thoroughly dissatisfied with their choices this time around, “they’re having a bit of a temper tantrum right now,” says Sammon.
Eleveld goes on to dissect the Evangelical’s threat to support a third party candidate, which could destroy the party’s electoral future. Unless, of course, the party aggressively pursues the gay vote, which would change the entire presidential debate. The Democrats, of course, would then be forced to flex their gay friendly muscle.
I thoguht Rove did that with the GOP base as a whole?
I’m sure he takes a “wide stance” on the issue.............
The GOP has a “Big Tent” but it doesn’t have any “glory holes” in it.......
“Eleveld goes on to dissect the Evangelical’s threat to support a third party candidate, which could destroy the party’s electoral future. Unless, of course, the party aggressively pursues the gay vote, which would change the entire presidential debate. The Democrats, of course, would then be forced to flex their gay friendly muscle”
What percentage of the electorate is the gay vote vs the evangelical vote? And how much of the gay vote would the Republicans get even if they went all out for their vote? The Republicans should also consider voters (like me) who arent evangelicals but who would abandon them if they support the gay agenda.
I don’t want any dude ‘sticking’ anything to me.
This article involves more wish fulfillment than logic.
The only gays who are going to vote Republican are a few log cabin types who consider fiscal policies important enough to split with the Democrats.
None of the flaming gays are going to vote Republican just because Giuliani is running, when they can vote for a Democrat. Democrats and gays are joined at the hip.
But it’s no use cursing the Evangelicals because they have said they would go third party rather than vote for Rudy. It’s perfectly true.
So, what’s the solution, if you’d rather have the Republicans win? Don’t nominate Giuliani.
If he goes openly gay, it will only further alienate the base, without drawing in any more gay votes whatever.
What you said makes more sense than anything else I have heard lately. LOL
He hasn't assured anything. The author of Roe v. Wade was a "strict constructionist."
The term means little when it comes to Giuliani and his false assurances.
Here's to hoping the GOP sticks it to Giuliani.
Ain’t it amazing what the media considers important to the 2008 presidency? You would think they might actually be concerned with the country, what it needs, its security, its oppressive taxation, and what its REAL people actually want.....(I know, get real).
guess that says it all...
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
I poll I saw today indicates that 49% believe that Rudy is either gay (21%) bisexual (28%). Only 35% believe Rudy is “straight.”
What does “strict construction” mean to someone who thinks that abortion and homosexual marriage and homosexualism in general are protected in the Constitution?
Anybody have some stats on how many of the 1-2% actually vote?
Seems to me this is way, way too much ado over relatively little.
they control Holly Weird....
“What percentage of the electorate is the gay vote vs the evangelical vote?”
Less than 2% of the entire population is homosexual by orientation. Now how many others are dedicated homophiles (friendly towards homosexuals) is something I’m not sure of. Amoung Republicans, I will venture that of those that actually vote, less than 10% are homophiles or homosexuals. On the other hand the moral/values/social voters probably make up more than 25% of Republicans that actually vote.
The politically smart choice for any republican candidate is to move towards the right on homosexuality and oppose the homosexual agenda. In the same way, active opposition to abortion would also help. However, I’m beginning to be convinced the top tier just isn’t listening.
Guiliani was a lost cause from day one, I don’t know what McCain’s problem is. Senator Thompson’s “Frederalism” (the honorable Senator’s brand of federalism) is hurting him with moral/value/social conservatives. I don’t say that to bash him, it is just plain fact. Whatever, he has staked a position and won’t move from it.
In my opinion, “Frederalism” is going to cost Senator Thompson the nomination and because the value/moral/social conservatives will vote for Huckabee or Hunter (and Romney). This will spliter the moral block and cause Guiliani to win the nomination. If that happens then, as many have predicted, it will permanently fracture the GOP coalition. IMO Thompson could be the GOP winner easely if he would abandon “Frederalism” at least on the hot buttom issues of Abortion and the Homosexaul Agenda. He has been clear he will not.
“I love Rudy”
signed, Michael Jackson
and...?
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.