GOP Chairman Racicot Defends Meeting with ‘Gay’ Pressure Group [Alienating the GOP base]

www.cwfa.org ^ | Robert Knight

[Polycarp]

After Richard Land noted that the GOP’s flirting with homosexual activism “divides its friends and unites its enemies,” Racicot said, “I’m not as suspicious as you. I don’t have the agenda you think I have.”

John Willke told him that the GOP needs Democratic votes to win elections, and that many Democats have two “hot-button family issues — abortion and homosexuality.”

Paul Weyrich said that “we want a clear, strong, unequivocal statement” from the GOP that homosexuality is immoral. Wildmon of AFA also said a statement was needed, and that he was tired of watching the GOP drift in the same direction as the Democrats on the issue of homosexual activism. He noted that if the GOP continued on this path, “we would walk.” He explained that many pro-family voters would not necessarily vote Democratic instead, but just stay home. Gary Palmer noted that millions of evangelical Christians did not vote in the 2000 election, that a vast majority of evangelicals who did vote pulled the GOP lever, and that the razor-thin GOP presidential victory might not be repeated in 2004 if the GOP alienates even more Christians.

Ping

[lilylangtree]

Racicot (believe it's pronounced Roscoe) is a weasel.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Sorry

After living in Rascals Montana, I cannot believe a thing he says. Yes he was one of the most popular Governors this state has ever seen, but he's nothing but a Dim in Republican clothing IMHO.

Semper Fi

[Paraclete]

Keep the heat on. The politicians need a "backbone" check every now and then.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Yes it is pronounced Roscoe

However I prefer to call him Rascal, it's a better fit.

Semper Fi

[RockBassCreek]

I agree with Racicot. His job is to meet with everyone. He should do it.

I think the family associations, such as Wildmon's, do good things, that they are the base, and that they have a better vision for American families.

At the same time, we must be open to participation by all manner of people. Is it possible to enforce a Christian morality in one area and not enforce it in others? Shouldn't Republicans have a plank about adulterers or About alcoholics if it has one about homosexuality? I don't say this facetiously.

If someone wants to start a Christian Conservative Party that has certain religious requirements for membership, then they have every right to do that and to run candidates from that party.

If, however, there is a greater liklihood of getting some of what you want with a secular POLITICAL party, then there's some leeway that needs to be given.

It's an extremely tough area to define.

[RAT Patrol]

Weak, but at least it's a start.

Racicot said, “I’m not as suspicious as you. I don’t have the agenda you think I have.” Not consciously, MAYBE, but he's aiding that agenda just the same.

I wonder if he is going ot prisons and meeting with those groups. Is he meeting with street gangs? Is he meeting with "swingers"? Maybe he would like to me with the KKK or NOW. I don't know, I bet we could name groups Racicot would refuse to meet with all day long.

[RJCogburn]

I'm with Marc.
Bauer is a bad joke.

[RAT Patrol]

John Willke told him that the GOP needs Democratic votes to win elections, and that many Democats have two “hot-button family issues — abortion and homosexuality.”

So we see ourselves out in order to win? Exactly what do we win then?

[EdReform]

Thanks for the ping! BTTT for later...

[Trace21230]

Agree.

I consider myself to be part of the GOP base, yet I am not alienated in the least by what Racicot has done.

In fact, I'm heartened. It's what we need to do to win elections.

Trace

[GrandMoM]

BUMP for later!

[Desdemona]

There's a difference between meeting with groups and endorsing their agendas. The pro-family base will never accept the homosexual groups, but to counter them, their tactics need to be studied.

Really, unapologetic, simple "I disagree with the homosexuals," rather than ranting goes a lot farther, but we have to be articulate on their agenda. They're very organized and they will pull no punches to get their way.

[gopwhit]

I agree too. If the 2004 GOP platform includes some kind of anti-gay stance (and I apologize I'm not sure what it currently says about Gays--if anything) I will be the most pissed off Republican in the state of Georgia. This kind of thinking (among other issues I realize) is what weakened our base in 1992 and turned GOP heads to Ross Perot. It started with Pat Buchanan's keynote at the GOP convention and it led to the worst 8 years this country has ever seen. Gay people are citizens, and Marc is giving them the respect they deserve.

[Trace21230]

Exactly. In 2000, the gay vote went 25% for GWB, arguably handing him his margin of victory (1.1 million votes).

http://www.logcabincolumbus.org/VOTE%20ANALYSIS.htm

Now, I realize this is from the Republican gay group, but I haven't seen any other analysis of the gay vote.

Particularly interesting is the comparison between the gay vote for Bush (1.1 million) and the total vote for Pat Buchanan (@400,000). Suggests to me that tolerance is a winning political issue.

If anyone else has competing studies of the gay vote, I'd be interesting in seeing them

Trace

[UCFRoadWarrior]

This catering to the HomoPhilia agenda is stupid......why shoot yourself in the foot when you have such an advantage already.

Ronald Reagan was elected 2 terms as President because he never abandoned his core.......the GOP slips every time they try to "open up" to gay groups, illegal alien groups, and other groups that will never (in large numbers) ever vote GOP

If Christians stay home on Election Day in 2004......it may not cost the Presidency....it will cost the GOP the House and Senate

[BibChr]

At the same time, we must be open to participation by all manner of people. Is it possible to enforce a Christian morality in one area and not enforce it in others? Shouldn't Republicans have a plank about adulterers or About alcoholics if it has one about homosexuality? I don't say this facetiously

I'd like to attempt a thoughtful response to your thoughtful posting.

I think it's largely a matter of official recognition and, therefore, validation. And so I'd put it this way.

First, there is no doubt that the GOP does in fact do business and form common cause with drunks, druggies, adulterers, thieves, homosexuals, child molestors, and the like.

But, if any of those groups formed an official group identified by that one trait (i.e. "Scarlet Letter Republicans," "Pedophile Pubbies," etc.), then such a group should not and must not receive formal recognition and validation.

I think that's the big issue. And, to be clear, unlike the group in the article, I do intend to draw a parallel between Log Cabin and NAMBLA.

Dan

[reasonseeker]

"the GOP slips every time they try to "open up" to gay groups, illegal alien groups, and other groups that will never (in large numbers) ever vote GOP"

If the GOP resists inclusiveness, why should gays and aliens ever vote GOP, when even people on Freep will tell them to get lost despite their voting GOP? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[tdadams]

Pity poor Marc Racicot. He's being called on the carpet by the hyper-paranoid, self-appointed guardians of the troglodyte wing of the Republican Party.