[nyt reporter voice]

What? There's no conflict of interest here! Move along now!

[/nyt reporter voice]

TO: Stephen Green
RE: Old Intell Truisms

When things don't make sense, you're missing information. And it could be vital.

This is a classic example.

It also ties in with the second rule of exercising power....

Wherever possible, withhold information from people so they cannot make the best decisions for themselves.

Thanks for the report. Things are a lot clearer now on this matter.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Let's not forget that the LCR would never have withdrawn its endorsement of the President had the President not turned his back on gays, Republican or otherwise.

That would explain the nature of Christopher Barron's comments in a Washington Post piece last week following the "Mary Cheney is a lesbian" thing by John Kerry. (Click the link to go to the article)

There's a serious difference between the LCR in general having disagreements with the party platform or the DMA (and entirely reasonable ones) and having a former paid Edwards operative making public statements on their behalf.

Well, maybe, but Patrick Guerriero is a real Republican. Well as real Republican as a Massachussets Republican can be, anyway. He was actually my mayor and was on the ballot with "Sweet Baby" Jane Swift (thank God for Romney).

Couldn't figure out why are gays support Kerry when his position on gay marriage is identical to Bush's. Now we know.

Identical? How are they indentical? Yes, they both oppose gay marriage, but Kerry supports civil unions and Bush supports a constitutional amendment to the US constitution that would ban them forever.

Kerry supports allowing gays to serve their country in the military. Bush would kick them out.

Kerry opposes sodomy laws. Bush favors them and actually threw gays into jail in texas.

Sorry - but Kerry and Bush are diametrically opposed when it comes to gay rights.

And that's why conservatives like me cannot support this president anymore.

And sorry, but the only people who have the right to speak for Log Cabin Republicans are the Log Cabin Republicans themselves.

I don't see many Log Cabin Republicans complaining about the non-endorsement. Most gay republicans are rightfully fed up with this President who has used anti-gay sentiment as a vote getter in this campaign.

Bush has made a stratetic decision that he doesn't want gays in the Republican party anymore, because he prefers to get the votes of bigoted envangelicals instead.

So Bush only has himself to blame when gay Republicans vote for someone else or abstain from this election instead of supporting him.

How is this any different than Dick Morris working for R's and then Clinton?

NYC L - you mean, he *gasp* upheld the law in Texas instead of declaring that the laws didn't matter?

Gosh, I wonder who has the responsibility for starting and passing a bill to repeal a law? Couldn't be the Legislature, could it?

NYCL- By your logic, you have no right to speak for anyone who does not identify themselves as "NYCL".

And of course, all evangelicals are bigoted. How inclusive of you.

I'll let someone else explode your little lie about Kerry "supporting" gay marraige, though since he has publicly claimed both sides of that issue (along with almost every other issue) I just might give you a pass on that.

I will not, however, let you slide on your assertation that gays should vote based on their sexual choice rather than on the long-term good of their nation. If you wish to put the Rainbow Nation higher in your priorities than the United Staes... move there.

The Log Cabin Republicans have succeded in marginalizing themselves. If Kerry wins, they will get no help. If Bush wins, they need not go asking for favors- they'll get none, at least not now. "It was worse than a mistake, it was a blunder..."

Sully's intellectual dishonesty has been astonishing.

Well, what about the Log Cabiners is Republican? Maybe they are actually extremely conservative Democrats or will find they are Libertarians.

The "gay marriage" issue may not be one for which a compromise is available. I am Catholic,(a real one, not the John Kerry kind) and have real-world as well as religious reasons for opposing government-sanctioned homosexual unions. Both sides have laid out substantial cases, and to dismiss either one out of hand is bigoted. Dismissing someone simply because of their religious views is also bigotry, however popular a sport that has become.

Religion is an active facet of many American's lives. Just because some people's morality and concience is informed by their religion, (even our politicians,) does not automatically make us a theocracy. Rules come from somewhere, and the rule of civilization has supported the union between man and woman almost exclusively. The tired old arguments about slavery and the subjugation of the female do not support such drastic change of societal norms and practices.

This issue is intensely emotional and extremely divisive. Can this or any other division actually be laid at the feet of any one person or group, or is it the natural state of an evolving free society? As a nation, we are at a cultural crossroads, at a time when there are other more immediate life-or-death issues at hand. All of these issues are important, and all citizens have their own priorities. Some among us are single issue, some are reactionary, and the legendary "undecideds" seem to be concerned with nothing at all. There are others(many others I hope), however, who approach all issues with true and thoughtful conviction.

TO: NYC L
RE: Okay...

"And sorry, but the only people who have the right to speak for Log Cabin Republicans are the Log Cabin Republicans themselves." -- NYC L

Then nobody but a veteran has the authority to speak about matters militaire.

Show me your DD214 or shut up about the military.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Guns don't kill people. I kill people. -- US Army Airborne-Ranger-Infantry]

P.S. And if you ain't a BORN AGAIN Christian...you know what....

Hmmm.

So sad to be used.

The Log Cabin Republicans lodged a
suit against
The United States of America
and Donald Rumsfeld in his official capacity as
Secretary of Defense over the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" DOD policy
-U.S. District Court
-Central District of California
-October 12, 2004

Is this the "October Surprise?"

And they make a big deal about "loyalty."...must be like some sort of gay mafia, do what they say, or else.

As a member of the VRWC & a homo I have never bought into this Log Cabin bullshit anyway.

"gay mafia"... I'm not even gonna TELL you what images that brings to mind.

...um, actually Dave, I think that has already been covered in "The Sopranos".

I'd submit that the biggest difference between gays and straights is not sexual preference, but how they relate sexual preference to everything else in life. It's OK to think with the big head sometime, guys.

Hmmm.

1. As in The Fairy Godfather?

sorry. couldn't resist it.

2. So what exactly makes them "Republicans"? They're hiring Democrats as employees. They're producing propaganda to be used against the GOP.

Is there any way to trademark "Republican"?

Um, does anyone really take the Log Cabineers seriously? The Republican party hierarchy certainly doesn't. Neither do most gay people I know, including those on the moderate and conservative end of the spectrum. They make a lot of noise, but that's about all.

Bigot Dave -

" you mean, he *gasp* upheld the law in Texas instead of declaring that the laws didn't matter?"

No - I mean George Bush actively SUPPORTED these laws, argued that they should remain in place, and then proceeded to enforce it and throw gay people in jail after invading the privacy of their own homes.

Bigot Dave -

"I will not, however, let you slide on your assertation that gays should vote based on their sexual choice rather than on the long-term good of their nation. If you wish to put the Rainbow Nation higher in your priorities than the United Staes... move there."

Wrong - I put freedom and liberty above the interests of the Republican party, as do the Log Cabin Republicans. Sorry - but I really have no interest in being a part of a country which wishes to make me a second class citizen. We are fighting the Taliban and Islamic facists because we believe in freedom, not so we can impose a fascist theocracy in this country instead....

Bigot Dave -

"The Log Cabin Republicans have succeded in marginalizing themselves. If Kerry wins, they will get no help. If Bush wins, they need not go asking for favors- they'll get none, at least not now. "It was worse than a mistake, it was a blunder..."

The Log Cabins have actually doubled in membership this year. They have more prominence than they ever did. And they've shown that their vote has to be earned. If they had proceeded to endorse Bush, they would have been ignored for eternity, because the Republicans would have realized that they could treat them like shit and still have their support.

No longer the case, and thank god. The Log Cabins have shown that they have self-respect. No self respecting gay person would ever vote for George Bush.

Bigot Dave -

"And of course, all evangelicals are bigoted. How inclusive of you."

Of course every evangelical is a bigot. Can you please name me one evangelical who's not a bigot. By bigot of course I mean the dictionary definition:

"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

That sounds exactly like an evangelical to me. They are extremely intolerant of anyone who differs with them, they hate all homosexuals, and they wish to put all homosexuals to death (because that's what the Bible says to do with gay people - kill them). And evangelicals believe in the strict interpretation of the Bible.

Evangelicals want to write laws to oppress gay people, put them in jail, and treat them like second-class citizens.

And then they are SHOCKED, SHOCKED, that gay people don't want to vote for George Bush.

You're a pathetic joke bigot Dave.

Eric says he's gay.

Funny - on his blog, he's got anti-gay rants.

Looks like Eric is a liar.

Raj,

"does anyone really take the Log Cabineers seriously?"

Actually Raj - the Republicans certainly don't take them seriously. They obviously don't want the one million gay votes they got time.

That is their loss. One million votes will mean a lot in this election.

I guess they don't want them. I'm sure John Kerry and Badnarik will gladly take them.

Clomerdug,

"I'd submit that the biggest difference between gays and straights is not sexual preference, but how they relate sexual preference to everything else in life. It's OK to think with the big head sometime, guys."

Awfully easy for you to say that as a straight person. I highly doubt you would really act that way if George Bush was trying to pass an amendment to prevent YOU from ever getting married, if it was ok to kick YOU out of the military simply for being who you are, if it was ok for YOU to be fired for simply being who you are, if it was ok to be denied housing for simply being who YOU are.

But of course you're straight so you will never have to worry about that.

If you were alive in the 1800's you would be telling a slave how selfish he was for wanting to be free and not taking the view of the plantation owner into account.

You would have told women 100 years ago how selfish they were for wanting to vote.

You would have said that black people were selfish for voting for candidates soleley based on whether they were against segregation or not.

Sorry - but YES, my fundamental rights mean a lot to me

But not the only thing. I voted for George Bush in 2000 after all.

But he has crossed a line with the Federal Marriage Amendment, and sorry, but I'm going to hold that asshole of a President responsible for that, and he ain't getting my vote.

Most Log Cabin members very much support Log Cabin's choice to withhold endorsement from Bush. Bush didn't even want the Log Cabin endorsement, and made a calculated choice to write off the gay vote. There's consequences for that decision - especially in Florida.

Well, that's great.

All the Log Cabineers can go off and elect John Kerry. Then maybe they'll have some remote chance of holding some civil union ceremonies while Islamofacist terrorists blow up some more skyscrapers. Glad they have their priorities straight like that.

Wrong Freeman.

It's Bush who didn't have his priorities straight.

If he did, maybe he'd give more credence to the gay Republicans who actually DID vote for him, rather than pandering to the evangelicals who DIDN'T.

So your response is that Bush didn't have his priorities straight and therefore the Log Cabineers shouldn't have their priorities straight either?

I fail to see the logic in that.

I'm pro gay marriage all the way. But I'm also pro killing terrorists and ending the Islamofacist regimes that give rise to them.

As far as my "pros" go, I think the latter is enormously more immediate than the first.

My. I disagree with NYCL and all of a sudden I'm "bigot dave". Disafgreement = bigotry... I'll have to remember that. I will also note that that seems to be the MOST sensible thing NYCL puts in her replies. Also note that not being in favor of gay marraige means "moving towards a theocracy". Evidently where NYCL comes from, you can move neutrals into becoming allies by screaming insults at them. Remember that next time you feel stereotyped or discriminated against, genius. You get what you give.

If you had tried to apply logic or sense, I would have disputed with you. I don't waste my time with children. Welcome to the "ignore" file...

Bigot Dave,

It's your homophobic remarks that make you a bigot. But of course you're too blind to see them.

You have obviously never had a gay friend in your entire life, and your contempt for them is quite obvious in your remarks.

Freeman,

Obviously you don't believe in freedom. The Log Cabins are free to endorse whoever they want, and they are remarkably consistent in their priorities.

When you start complaining about Pro-Life Republican organizations who refuse to endorse pro-choice Republicans such as Pataki and Giuliani, then I would give you some credibility.

But of course I'm sure you would say that it's entirely consistent for a pro-life Republican organization to refrain from endorsing Republicans who are pro-choice.

But you are bewildered at how a gay Republican organization refuses to endorse a Republican who is the most anti-gay President in history.

Astonishing that people like you can have zero understanding of what it means to have a backbone.

NYC L:

You make a lot of false assumptions. If Bush were pro-choice, and the pro-lifers wouldn't vote for him, I'd think they were idiots as well. I have no idea why you assume I'd see them differently.

And what is is "Obviously you don't believe in freedom" ridiculousness? Of course they can endorse or not endorse whoever they want. I also have the freedom to comment on what I think about it.

Plus, I'm not really concerned about the endorsement. I'm concerned about people who would actually not vote for Bush over the gay marriage issue. If there's any issue to be a single issue voter about this season, it's national security. Not gay marriage.

Knowing where to put your priorities is pretty fundamental to the good of having a backbone.

Evidently where NYCL comes from, you can move neutrals into becoming allies by screaming insults at them.

Well, I've learned more than I would have liked to about LC"R" over the past few days, on this blog and others. Sadly, this style of "persuasion" seems to be the norm among its defenders. Instead of finding a group which is working to forge a coalition that will best represent the interests of conservative and libertarian gays, I found hysterical dogmatics who would put Chiang Ching to shame. It's been a real eye-opening experience, and a big disappointment.

Freeman at October 22, 2004 11:56 PM

>All the Log Cabineers can go off and elect John Kerry. Then maybe they'll have some remote chance of holding some civil union ceremonies while Islamofacist terrorists blow up some more skyscrapers. Glad they have their priorities straight like that.

This is funny.

And just who was pResident the last time some Ialamofascists blew up some skyscrapers? It wasn't a Democrat. Seems to me it was Shrub. A Republican.

And what did he do to try to stop them? Absolutely nothing.