Alex Blaze

Log Cabin Republicans lash out

Filed By Alex Blaze | September 12, 2008 10:00 AM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics, Politics, The Movement
Tags: Cleveland, gay issues, gay Republicans, John McCain, lcr, log cabin republicans, Ohio, palin, Sarah Palin

Log Cabins simply hate being labeled as traitors to the LGBT community, and perhaps their complaints would be more credible if it weren't for statements like this (full release after the jump):

Gay Democrats have confused Democrat party rhetoric with LGBT accomplishment.

As far as LCR Greater Cleveland is concerned, the political field is even.

American energy exploration and development, pro-growth prosperity, choice and competition in education, secure US borders, peace and security for the people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and national security will be the centerpieces of this presidential election. Log Cabin Republicans believe in these American ideals. Gay Democrats do not.

John McCain and Sarah Palin are the best team for the White House in 2009.

I think this statement mocks itself.

Republicans like to fashion themselves as perpetual victims, and LCR's aren't much different. But let's just remember this statement the next time they talk about how hurt they are when the larger LGBT community calls them traitors to the cause: they're just as willing to pull the traitor card, and much more cynical about it.

Log Cabin Republicans of Greater Cleveland supports the endorsement of John McCain as our next president and Sarah Palin as our next vice-president by our Log Cabin Republicans National Board of Directors.

Yes, Log Cabin Republicans of Greater Cleveland are well aware of the "positions" of the local, state, and national Democrat Party on issues of hate crimes, ENDA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, DOMA, transgender equality, gay marriage, and LGBT parenting rights. It's the same position as always: Democrats talk with inspirational speeches, full of love and affection for the gay community - then sit on their dead bottoms and pass nothing but gas.

The presidential elections from 1996 forward have not been about gay rights, ever since LGBT Democrats refused to hold President Bill Clinton accountable for DADT and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Gay rights organizations like HRC have not been about advancing gay rights, but about electing and re-electing their fellow Democrat politicians - no matter what their lack of achievement is on gay issues.

Gay Democrats have confused Democrat party rhetoric with LGBT accomplishment.

As far as LCR Greater Cleveland is concerned, the political field is even.

American energy exploration and development, pro-growth prosperity, choice and competition in education, secure US borders, peace and security for the people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and national security will be the centerpieces of this presidential election. Log Cabin Republicans believe in these American ideals. Gay Democrats do not.

John McCain and Sarah Palin are the best team for the White House in 2009.

Log Cabin Republicans of Greater Cleveland welcomes everyone, including LGBT Hillary voters and hockey moms, into our chapter.

Vote McCain/Palin 2008. DUMP DENNIS! Vote out the corrupt Democrat Party of Cuyahoga County on November 4th.

("Dennis" is Dennis Kucinich.)

I do like the argument that McCain and Bush have brought security and peace to Iraq and Afghanistan and "pro-growth prosperity" to the US.

The invitation to LGBT Hillary voters is also a nice touch, making this a perfect douchebag press release.

I seriously don't think there's a way to make it any more douchbaggy. Good on Cleveland's LCR! It makes sense that this is the quote that appears on their site:

Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torments of man.
-- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

Well, that's one way to counter a message that centers around hope.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Are Gary Welsh and Jocelyn Tandy doing ghost-writing jobs for the Cleveland LCRs nowadays? That statement sure sounds like our local GOP nutterballs hacked it out for them!

You should have titled this, "Log Cabin Republicans Lash Out . . . Again." I have to say it isn't very hard to show their hyprocracy because they demonstrate it on such a continous basis. As a person who likes to point this out about them, they make your job writing about them sooooooo much easier. I'm sure you could put together a stand-up comedy routine from just the material they've given you.

"Take my gay Republican. Please!"

Geees. Gay Republicans. Ya gotta love 'em . . . NOT!

I've tried to formulate a response to this four times now. I'm speechless. To say that hope is an!

Hope will not help us. Although the LCR's remind me of a "Jews for Hitler," club. I can understand fiscal conservatism, but why would you vote for someone who wants you not to exist?

They have a very good point about Bill Clinton. How many times to gays have to be bashed (physically or politically), before they will return the volley as did the brave heroes of Stonewall?

What will it take for us to band together? Can we find each other and agree long enough to work on our common cause--liberty?

They're right about don't ask don't tell. Clinton wasn't willing to spend much political capital on gays in the military. He was handed his head by a fellow Democrat - Sam Nunn. And the gay democrats gave him a pass on it. Clinton bragged on conservative talk radio about being for the Defense of Marriage Act, and gay democrats gave him a pass on it. Hillary essentially ran on her husband's record which includes his failures in the gay rights arena. Gay Democrats gave her a pass on it.

If we're going to ask LCR- members whether they're gay first or Republican first, we need to ask the same thing of gay Democrats.

They're wrong about HRC though. HRC has taken heat for endorsing proGay Republicans. Does anyone remember the furor over the endorsement of Al D'Amato?

The problem with HRC is that Republicans are never satisfied. They don't care how many pro-gay republicans they endorse, the LCR (and other gay republicans) will never, ever, ever, ever, ever think it's enough unless HRC completely stops endorsing pro-gay Democrats.

I don't think many gay Democrats would identify as Republican first. haha, I kill me.

And Clinton's record doesn't do much here to offset McCain's, which is far worse and a decade later.

I know a few gay Democrats who are republican first.

Clinton's record may be a decade older, but I wonder if faced with a similar circumstance today if his answers would be the same. How much political capital are gay issues worth? Despite the rhetoric, I don't think much has changed in that regard.

I know what you're saying about Clinton. I was one of the gay Democrats who gave him a pass. In many instances I tend to be a Democrat first.

I am not attempting to defend LCR ideology. In some cases it is pretty inexcusable. What I'm advocating for is greater acceptance of the reality that being gay does not automatically make someone subscribe to any given set of political beliefs.

I realize that we all know this intellectually, but looking at the visceral responses the actions of gay republicans there is a sense that we haven't accepted in our hearts that which our minds know to be true.

They should change their name to reflect what they really are: The Log Cabin Sellouts

The worst part of all of this is that we're debating, "Why would someone want to be a gay Republican?" and our alternative - Democrats - are usually painted to be the good guys.

Sadly, there are plenty of "blue dog" Democrats (like the 3 here in Indiana!) who might as well be Republican-lite.

I hate to sound like Bill Purdue, but it does make me long for a time when there are viable 3rd parties. (That's where Bill and I part ways; I said viable.)

Which 3rd party candidate did the best in modern history, btw? Was it Ross Perot?

It's amusing how they justify their vote by pointing out the spotted record of Democrats. It still doesn't excuse the disparity in positions.

Then again, in case you haven't read the constant swipes at Pam Spaulding, "douchebaggery" (THAT is one professional term, Blaze) is the LCR specialty.

Wasn't it Teddy Roosevelt as a Progressive "Bull Moose" candidate in 1912? I think he came in second place ahead of the Republican and won quite a few electoral votes. But even then, all he managed to do was split the Republicans and end up electing the Democrat. No third party candidate since our modern parties emerged has done anything other than play the role of spoiler. It's a fact that Ralph Nader still stupidly refuses to admit.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | September 13, 2008 2:32 AM

One of the problems with third, fourth or fifth parties is the confusion of choice of the electorate. If with just two parties the majority of Americans can vote against their pocketbook interests how confusing would it be with additional parties.

These parties have their greatest effect in the legislature. Witness the Israeli Knesset where a couple of ultra orthodox parties hold the whole assembly from voting on any issue they do not approve. And we complain about a "do nothing" congress already. It would be worse and no voter would be able to get their heads around what the devils were doing.

Part of the American mentality on why we seem to only embrace a two party system is the same reason they insist there are just two genders. They cannot think beyond binaries.

well ... yes and no ...
[sorry, couldn't resist!]

Brynn Craffey Brynn Craffey | September 12, 2008 2:21 PM

This statement has to be a joke, it is so far out of touch with reality!

No, wait...being light-years out of touch with reality has become the defining feature of the modern Republican Party--vis-a-vis the "War on Terror," evolution, global warming, energy policy, the economy, healthcare, LGBT rights, etc. etc.

Back in the day, when you created your own reality, it got you a one way trip to a padded cell wearing a stylish white strait jacket.

Now, it's a qualification for being a Republican.

The best way to handle the LGR is to ignore them. Simply don't react, and give them no attention. They are like a weed in a field on the farm where I lived as a child. If it keeps getting light it will keep growing. Pull it up by the root cast it aside in the shade and then forget it.
Educate our young people and this will pull it at the root then forget this twisted vine and let it fade away in the dark cast into a place of forgetting.
As far as I am concerned Log Cabin is for pancakes.

I love being pre-judged by a community that promotes diversity and hates being pre-judged themselves. Democrat Gays believe in diversity as long as it agrees with them.

I can be open minded, why can't Gay Democrats? Whenever I hear "Why would you be in a group that hates you?" I cringe. It shows ignorance and prejudice. I wasn't asked why I will vote McCain/Palin, but I am pre-judged (hence the word "prejudice") and dismissed by my own community.

I am not a member of LCR, but I want to vote for who I feel will be right for the country. It irks me that I am being told that I can only vote for the Democrat candidate. I understand why the LBGT community would support Obama, but I have many other issues with Obama and the Democrat stance. I weigh all factors, not just the fact that I gob the knob.

Ok, I'll bite. What are your "problems" with Obama? What are your "problems" with the Democratic stance (which is sounding a lot like Larry Craig's area of expertise)?

I am against the coincidence = causality argument of global warming
I am against providing stimulus checks to those who don't pay taxes.
I am for NAFTA
I am against a government run health care
I am pro Surge
I am for restricting abortions
I am for allowing competition for choice of schools
I am for reducing taxes on all / a flat tax or nationalized sales tax would be nice

That's all I can think of right now. The following are things that are against the standard GOP montra:

I am anti-Prop 8
I am for legalizing soft drugs
I am for legalizing prostitution
I am for free speech on the internet (porn)

Ok now it's not prejudice. I know what you stand for, and I think your positions are a detriment to the gay cause. They are putting personal greed above the common good. Despite what the good folks over at Independent Gay Forum write, all of those issues have a bearing on the lives of gay peoples.

Folks on the right make such a big show of not being one issue voters, and whine when those of us in the center and on the left consider the totality of the political landscape in deciding who to support.

Prop-8, drugs, prostitution, and porn are all issues of self agency. In order to express self agency a person needs legal autonomy. The very autonomy that is compromised by restrictions on a woman's right to choose.

So, please share how your issues are beneficial to the larger gay communities.


I want to thank you for asking me my opinion. I do think you are wrong on your assessment of me, but I respect your opinion. I vote on the whole political landscape. It seems that you do too. We just have different opinions.

I do not want to get into a tit for tat on the issues with you. I am just not into yet another perpetual back and forth bulletin board battle between who has the superior argument. I would rather just agree to disagree.


No, I'm not a LCR and this isn't the first time I've seen this argument. It was presented to us in a gov't class here at FSU two years ago. The professor challenged us, a class of 89 persons, to find ONE national level activity by a Democrat representative (regardless of office) in the last 40 years. He even offered a cash reward for doing so. It made us think and LOOK!! (CASH, the great motivator!! lol)
But, we found none. So, I do, in part believe the LCR's assertion that the Democrat Party, at large, has been pissing on our leg and telling us it's raining.
I'm not so certain they are ranting against 'hope' as some of the other posters suggest, but moreso against the methodology of hold hope out to us as a group/class yet not acting on that 'hope' on our behalf.
If my partner were to promise change in himself, in whatever arena...and promise, and promise...eventually I should see his promise for what it is: a manipulation of ME.

I haven't decided yet who to support on the national level, but I don't typically support individuals anymore who say before the election how much they love us (and even THEY have a gay friend or two)..and who distance themselves once they've been elected. This has happened to two State Representatives from out district the last two cycles out (and thankfully, they're now gone).
Anyway, I don't see things as black and white as i used to, and I most certainly don't listen to words that rarely have action to back them up.
I think mostly this leaves us, as gay citizens...a group without a voice STILL and much the Man Without a Country.
YAY! Connecticut, btw!