No Big Tent for Log Cabin Republicans

I will say it again; I read the Flash Report so you don’t have to.  And what I read there over the past week or so troubles me.  There are a series of articles and posts about Republican candidates for office rejecting the endorsement of Log Cabin Republicans, a pro-Gay Rights GOP group seeking to change the party from within.  Their mission statement reads something like this:

Log Cabin Republicans work to make the Republican Party more inclusive, particularly on gay and lesbian issues.  Equality will be impossible to achieve without Republican votes.  Working from inside the Party—educating other Republicans about gay and lesbian issues—is the most effective way to gain new Republican allies for equality.  Log Cabin also exists as a voice for GOP values among members of the gay and lesbian community. 

Here’s a post from publisher Jon Fleischman detailing some of the rejected Log Cabin endorsements, and another one, and another one:

Sue Horne is locked in a neck and neck primary with Dan Logue in Assembly District 3 — and was caught completely off guard when, unsolicited, she was endorsed by the state’s Gay Republican organization, the Log Cabin Club of California.  Similarly, in Assembly District 71, which straddles the Orange/Riverside County boundary, Neil Blais is in a blowout primary with opponent Jeff Miller.  Blais, as well, was the subject of an unsolicited “drive by endorsement” by the Log Cabin Republicans.  Neither candidate went after the endorsement of the group, and as it turns out, neither candidate wants it.”

I am reminded that Republicans frequently consider themselves the party with the Big Tent.  Well, there may be a Big Tent, but for members of the Log Cabin Republicans, there’s an awning for them to stand outside on. 

The hostility in the posts is what gets me.  Ray Hayes had an earlier post on Flash where he demonstrated quite cleary that Republicans in general don’t know very much about gays and lesbians; perhaps the LCRs might like to consider a friendlier party — the one with the Donkey as its symbol?

 

  40 comments for “No Big Tent for Log Cabin Republicans

  1. Jubal
    May 5, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Dan:

    Take a step back and look at it more from a political perspective. Let’s say the Pro-Life Democratic Council (I’m making this group up) released a list of its endorsements in Democratic legislative primaries, but based not so much on the endorsed candidate’s abortion record but how they voted on other issues.

    You’d see the same reaction from those endorsed Democratic candidates.

  2. Vern Nelson
    May 5, 2008 at 4:48 pm

    Hm. I really don’t think that’s true at all, Jubal, for one thing a lot of Democrats are “pro-life,” but I couldn’t see any candidate I know, pro-life or pro-choice, rejecting an endorsement from a pro-life group, especially if, as you say, the endorsement is “based not so much on the endorsed candidate’s abortion record but how they voted on other issues.” Nope, wouldn’t happen.

    What sounds interesting though, is the parallel you draw between the Democrats’ support of a woman’s right to choose, with the Republicans’ desire to either “cure” the homosexuals or hide them in the closet. Interesting parallel.

  3. Folk Mass Singer
    May 5, 2008 at 4:51 pm

    leave it to cunningham to support bigots

  4. Dan Chmielewski
    May 5, 2008 at 4:52 pm

    Matt –
    There are a number of Democrats who are ProLife; Ed Rendell, Harry Reid, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Bob Casey Jr., Heath Shuler, and John Murtha are all pro-life to name a few. The issue of Pro-Life/Pro-Choice vs Log Cabins Republicanism is apples and oranges. I think the list of Republican who support gay marriage is a lot smaller than the list of pro-life Democrats.

  5. Bladerunner
    May 5, 2008 at 5:48 pm

    I get Jubal’s point but not sure the analogy he uses is applicable here in the OC. If this was a west LA assembly primary in a lock Democratic seat, an endorsement by either the traditional Values Coalition or even a Pro-Family PAC with a reputation for opposing abortion rights would be like an albatross around the neck of the recipient. There would be plenty of money to mail the hit piece to Democratic households about how candidate Jones, the endorsed candidate of the anti-choice folks that want to send our young girls to get back alley abortions, would threaten our women’s right to choose.

    But this doesn’t necessarily play in the OC. First, in all but the 69th, there is not enough primary money in the AD’s to do a districtwide positive piece, more or less a hit piece. And in the one A.D. where the Dems rule, the 69th, its primarily latino. Latino Democrats have not historically either voted pro-choice or at least not in the significant numbers as non-latino democrats. The GOP Assembly Caucus did a study after one of the parental notification ballot measures failed that showed the measure did much better in majority latino Democtatic A.D.’s than non-latino Democratic A.d.’s. I’d submit, without looking at the data for the last state ballot measure restricting gay marriages that it did well in the 69th A.D. So the endorsement of such a pro life group certainly wouldn’t cause any qualms.

    Tthink if Jose Solorio had gotten the endorsement of an anti-union group(the national Right to Work Committee) during the campaign just as he was trying to get the SEIU to endorse and help his campaign. he would protest. Even if they endorsed him for his other votes. Perhaps a better example.

  6. May 5, 2008 at 5:53 pm

    Before we go off on Jubal/Matt Cunningham on this issue, I’d like to remind you that he is one of the few OC GOP folks who deals with the Log Cabin organization like an adult. I disagree with his analogy.
    But at the very least he does not make “queer” jokes and homophobic remarks when talking about LGBT folks, unlike Mike Spence and some of the other men (always men) on conservative blogs. The rest of them behave worse than junior high boys when the subject of gay rights/marriage equality is mentioned.
    A welcome step in the right (correct) direction.

  7. Anaheim Melissa
    May 5, 2008 at 6:28 pm

    Attention Reps: Gays and lesbians are not bad people. They deserve equal rights, just like you. They go to work, pay taxes, contribute to society, etc. Stop being mean. Live and let live. Go home to your families and concentrate on them rather then stepping into the lives of those you don’t know. Also, gay marriage will happen. It is just a matter of when. They should have the right to be miserable just like the rest of us and given that the only 1 in 2 marriages end up lasting, saying that marriage is “sacred” between a man and a woman is a crock of s–t! Those who have the freedom to marry should not prevent those who want that same right. It is un-American.

  8. Jubal
    May 5, 2008 at 7:25 pm

    leave it to cunningham to support bigots

    And leave it to you, FMS, to substitute your hallucination of my point for the pint I was actually making.

  9. Dan Chmielewski
    May 5, 2008 at 7:28 pm

    Matt is always welcome to debate on this blog; we often disagree along partisan lines buts agree on the big things. In addition, he welcomes our comments on his blog with a measure of respect and he deserves the same here.

  10. Bladerunner
    May 5, 2008 at 8:08 pm

    Let me join in the amen chorus—-Jubal has that Servite training which encourages vigorous debate and discussion, has a point of view, sometimes very pointed, but is fair. On this issue I agree with his point, I just don’t think the analogy works here in the OC.

  11. May 5, 2008 at 8:43 pm

    Gosh, I’m feeling the love, Dan and BR.

    BR, thank you for making my point better than I was able to. I was trying to move beyond mutual defense-playing for our respective parties and look at this phenomenon of the unsolicited Log Cabin GOP endorsements from a purely political campaign standpoint, in order to better understand the reactions of various GOP candidates.

    Think of some emotional issue that is a litmus test with a large key constituency — it doesn’t necessarily have to be abortion or gay marriage.

    Here in California, gerrymandering had all but eliminated competitive districts, so the fight is in the primary. More often than not, the primary fights are between candidates who don’t differ much philosophically. So if you a candidate locked in a tough fight with ideologically similar opponent(s) and some group comes along and hands on of your opponents an unwanted endorsement — like Log Cabin Club in a conservative GOP district or a pro-life endorsement in a liberal Democratic district — you can bet you’re going to beat the other guy/girl over the head with it.

  12. May 5, 2008 at 9:00 pm

    I agree with your point, but I think many people forget that not all Democratic districts are liberal on all social issues. And not all Republican districts are conservative on all social issues. There are MODERATE districts (and voters) on both sides.
    It’s amusing to watch Republican candidates try to “OUT-conservative” each other every primary season. On the Dem side, I think most contested primaries are about real differences in experience and perspective.

  13. Paul Lucas
    May 5, 2008 at 9:11 pm

    I always get a chuckle out of the Log Cabin Republicans endorsement being used as a stick with poo on the end of it.

  14. just...asking?
    May 5, 2008 at 10:42 pm

    Paul,

    Did you just describe your political career?

  15. Latino Democrat
    May 5, 2008 at 10:58 pm

    Paul, is it entirely possible for you to stop blogging until the heat dies down on you?

    You’re a baggage of damaged goods and you need to be repaired. Blogging isn’t helping your cause or your campaign. I hope you’re ready for removal at Central Committee.

  16. d'Anconia
    May 6, 2008 at 1:16 am

    A fair discussion about this issue. I’m glad BR and Dan were able to understand Matt’s point.

    Oh and can I just say that I think Vern Nelson is an idiot?

    thanks

  17. Dan Chmielewski
    May 6, 2008 at 6:53 am

    Matt –
    The gerrymandering issue protects those Republican safe seats a lot more than safe Democratic ones. With Republicans hovering around 30 percent in statewide registrations, if we had meaningful redistrictring, I have to believe you guys would be a smaller minority.

    But back to my point a bit, I think if Republicans really want to say they have a big tent that there needs to be room for Log Cabinites.

  18. Vern Nelson
    May 6, 2008 at 7:35 am

    The Idiot is back with some sound, fury, and clarification. It’s neat that Dan, BR, and Matt Cunningham can discuss these issues with such clinical detachment like perfect gentlemen and thoughtfully analyze the advantages to be obtained from their respective parties by the distancing of themselves from their activist bases.

    But as a Democrat I’m proud that – by Cunningham’s own formulation – my party is known for its commitment to a woman’s right to choose and equal rights for gays, while the GOP is the party of illegal abortion and shame over homosexuality. Looks like if you want human rights and liberty you gotta go with the Dems, while the Republicans will do their best to take you back to the 1950′s.

    Or have I misread Jubal? Sorry, d’Anconia, idiotic, I know.

  19. May 6, 2008 at 8:31 am

    while the GOP is the party of illegal abortion and shame over homosexuality.

    Well, Vern, let’s apply your formula to the general Democratic stance on those two issues. In that case, “commitment to a women’s right to choose and equal rights for gays” becomes “commitment to the mass slaughter of unborn children and the destruction of marriage.”

    Colorful language isn’t the same thing as intelligent argumentation, Vern.

  20. Vern Nelson
    May 6, 2008 at 8:38 am

    That last part always really puzzled me, Jubal (if you’re still here)

    How is it that giving equal rights to gays would destroy marriage? Do you have any insight into that? (I know you are supposed to be one of the saner Republicans on that issue)

    Oh and by the way I’m pretty sure that the very cautious Log Cabin Republicans are not even pushing for gay marriage.

  21. Vern Nelson
    May 6, 2008 at 10:10 am

    Final attempt, sans “colorful language,” to translate Jubal’s initial comment (though I don’t see how “illegal abortion” is an unfair characterization of the “pro-life” stance:

    “The GOP’s (general) rejection of gay rights is comparable to the Democrats’ (general) embrace of reproductive rights.”

    Any objections?

  22. May 6, 2008 at 11:21 am

    This is why the GOP is a dying breed in California. Just talk to young people today. They are nowhere near as homophobic as most adult Reeps. And in just a few years they will be voting.

    My own kids have been brought up to hate new taxes and politicians who don’t serve the public. But just as I have let go of the social issues that the Republican Leviticans cannot let go of, so too have my kids grown up with an open mind. They are the future and I can guarantee you that they won’t be voting for the Taliban wing of the OC GOP.

    Of course in a few years, at this rate, there may not be much left of the OC GOP.

    The sad thing is that we NEED Republicans, because the Dems all too often roll over for new taxes. Just look at Santa Ana where the City Council last night voted to support Measure G, the latest school bond from the dysfunctional SAUSD. In November I am told that the City Council will be putting a new parcel tax on the ballot. And the SAUSD will be coming back with ANOTHER bond measure, regardless of what happens with Measure G. And I hear that the Rancho Santiago Community College District is ALSO planning another bond measure for November.

    And how many Republicans are left on our City Council? One. The lame Carlos “Space Commander” Bustamante. Not good!

    I am no fan of the GOP at this point, but I can see that they are needed as a counterpoint to the Dems. At least until a viable third party can arise, but the odds of that are not great. If only the Reeps would stop hating gays, immigrants, minorities, etc, they might not be a vanishing party in California.

  23. May 6, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    “The lame Carlos “Space Commander” Bustamante”

    Isn’t this the same Carlos Bustamante that you were praising last week for his support of Janet Nguyen?

    WOW!!! You sure change your position on folks awfully quick.

  24. Vern Nelson
    May 6, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    REALLY grasping there, Sean. Did the Space Commander suddenly turn un-lame just because he made one endorsement that Art agrees with?

    I agree, as a Democrat, that we need a much more honorable opposition party. I am trying to track down the lawyer Ronald St. John who is running in the Republican primary against Dana Rohrabacher; from what I hear he could be representative of a future OC GOP (way future). I heard that he wants his party to be more inclusive of Latinos and gays, and will see if I can interview him for a post.

  25. d'Anconia
    May 6, 2008 at 1:37 pm

    Wow, you really ARE an idiot Vern.

    How about THIS instead?

    “The GOP’s (general) rejection of gay rights is comparable to the Democrats’ (general) rejection of fetus’ rights.”

    What Matt was saying is that you can change the language to fit your argument, but it hardly means anything.

    I’m not surprised it went over your head though.

  26. Dan Chmielewski
    May 6, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    Vern –
    with due respect, don’t use this blog to promote future topics you want to write about on yours. Just go ahead a write it so Art can brag about all page views you get; we don’t go over to OJ to plug this site because we don’t have to.

  27. May 6, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    “REALLY grasping there, Sean.”

    Is that so Vern?

    Your boy talked about how Carlos has “come back to earth” just because he endorsed Janet Nguyen.

    Perhaps the questions you are asking me should actually be asked of your boy. He is the one who propped up Carlos based on “one endorsement”.

    And as always thanks for visiting the LiberalOC.

  28. Vern Nelson
    May 6, 2008 at 3:16 pm

    ok dan … sorry … was just thinking out loud … i’ll be leaving now … bye dan … bye sean … [door hits Vern on his way out]

  29. May 6, 2008 at 7:36 pm

    As a Log Cabin Republican, I have to say “sure” I’d join the Democrat party – if I didn’t have to eat that big manure sandwich that comes with free membership.

    I just have to blame oil companies and ‘W’ for everything that’s wrong in the world, I have to talk about uniting the country while knowing that’s the furthest thing from my mind, and I have to acknowledge Bill Clinton as the greatest gay president ever – even after he gave the gay community Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act.

    I’d have to allow our Democrat colleagues to tell us what great friends they are to the gay community, then the next minute allow them to stab us in the back – and then not utter a word about drive-by incident.

    So yes, sure, I’ll join – whenever my gay Democrat colleagues open their eyes.

  30. Dan Chmielewski
    May 6, 2008 at 8:13 pm

    so Dale, do you really think you’re going to change Republicans on the issues of Gay Rights?

  31. Art Pedroza
    May 7, 2008 at 11:50 pm

    Dan,

    Your comment to Vern was rather rude. He is a great guy. I don’t see any reason to treat him that way just because he writes for me. Is it really in your nature to be that bitter? I have met you in person several times and you seem like a nice enough guy. I think you owe Vern an apology.

    And he was not trolling for hits. He was commenting on your post. It would appear he got the point. Congratulations on chasing off a reader. Hope you feel better now.

  32. Art Pedroza
    May 7, 2008 at 11:52 pm

    Sean,

    Vern said it quite well. One good endorsement hardly makes up for the Space Commanders other lame actions. In fact he is supporting Measure G, which is ridiculous.

    Bad enough you carry water now for Miguel, Claudia and Sal. But the Space Commander too? Have you NO pride left?

  33. Vern Nelson
    May 8, 2008 at 8:21 am

    Ah, I wasn’t scared off, I was just clowning around (and tired of this thread.) But it’s true Dan is always hostile to me, ever since I said his surname can’t be typed but must be copied and pasted. One of these days we’ll meet (at Drinking Liberally or something) and he’ll realize that we agree on most things. Apart from Barack v. Hillary.

    I’m new at blogging though – if it’s some kind of breach of protocol to mention what you’re working on at another site I won’t do that.

  34. May 8, 2008 at 9:29 am

    Pedroza,

    Go back and read what I wrote genius. I would hardly call that “carrying water”. I simply pointed out that you were singing Carlos’ praises when he endorsed your girl Janet and then the next day he was “lame”. You as usual were being a hypocrite.

    As far you asking for anyone to apologize is completely laughable. You in your position as the “bully of the blogosphere” have smeared, libeled and viciously attacked so many people and I have yet to hear you apologize for anything.

    I would be happy to chase off yet another reader if it meant that we didn’t have to read your crap on our site anymore.

  35. Dan Chmielewski
    May 8, 2008 at 10:07 am

    Art/Vern –
    I asked Vern, nicely, I might add, to not use our blog comments to promote his posts of your blog; Mind you, Vern often provides links to his posts in the comments of this blog/ If you want to promote your blog posts gentlemen, might I suggest you purchase an ad to do so; we already include links to your posts in our Liberal Launchpad, but I guess that’s not good enough.

    Vern – openly hostile? I think I might have disagreed with your self-assessment about a great example of online sarcasm, but its hardly hostility. So the comment about not being able to spell my last name but only cut and paste was meant to be funny? How very third grade.

    Back to you Art. I’m not bitter. I asked a blogger for another site not to promote a “future” post on this site. It wasn’t rude. But Art you are the last person here who should be judging anyone for being rude. Do you read your own blog or just look at your page views and hits? I will remind you Art, since you like to rerwrite history, that it was Vern who broke the truce between our blogs on the first day by posting a comment “does that mean I can’t call Sean a dick?” We let that slide. You yourself said SMS couldn’t wait for the truce to be broken to go after us. “Chomping at the bit” was the expression I believe.

    Look at your own blog today; you accuse Marty Wisckoll of being on the payroll for Van Tran because he posted something about Janet Nguyen owing Jimmy Camp money; then you criticize Camp as someone who looks like he hangs out with homeless people (but he was still good enough for Janet to hire, wasn’t he?). And of course, SMS goes after Andrew Davey for posts about the Ed Chau’s campaign. And this is just today’s posts. Oh, and then saying that last bit was being sarcastic is no defense for what you said of Marty. It’s libel. Because its false. You know it was false. It was written with malicious intent and you ran with it anyway. And I’m not practicing law here; just applying what I learned with my journalism degree.

    I owe Vern an apology? There’s nothing to apologize for. I asked him to take his promotion of a not-yet-written post to your blog. And I mentioned that one of his posts wasn’t nearly as funny as he thought it was. But if he (or you) post comments here with links back to OJ, I will spike the comment. Is that enough warning for you?

    Lose you guys as readers? Please; you are among our best readers. Vern has posted several times since I shooed him away and you’re here several times a day. SMS can’t stop writing about us or trying to comment to posts here.

    When are *you* going to apologize to Joe Dunn, Marty Wisckoll, Commie Girl, Jimmy Camp, Chief Walters etc etc etc?  Shall we define what “canoddle” means again? Changing a post and saying it was inadvertent or sarcastic or it was vindictive doesn’t excuse it from being libelous or plagiarized. Art, given the amount of flame throwing you and your people do, I am amazed by how fragile the egos are over there.

    Politics is a contact sport. Might I suggest you guys all wear cups.

  36. Dan Chmielewski
    May 8, 2008 at 9:07 pm

    wow; I’ve been waiting all day for some snappy comeback here. So Art, do you think you owe Matt and Marty an apology for the Janet/Jimmy camp post you wrote calling them both liars. I think that was rather rude.

  37. Vern Nelson
    May 8, 2008 at 10:31 pm

    Oh God. One of us was supposed to have a snappy comeback? How do you know when these things are over?

    As a musician I look for a cadence, and that felt like one. “Politics is a contact sport. Might I suggest you guys wear cups.” That was a fine way to end, now you’ve gone and ruined it. Ask Heather’s husband, he’s a musician too.

  38. Art Pedroza
    May 9, 2008 at 12:52 am

    Dan,

    They did lie. Look at what Wisckol had to admit today, that it was all a misunderstanding. You bet it was. Janet’s consultant and Camp apparently were not on the same page re the payment due Camp, and Wisckol and Red County made it look like Janet did not pay her bills. That was a load of BS.

    BTW, your boy Hoa appears to be having some campaign finance issues. Isn’t he a lawyer? What an embarrassment! And your party endorsed him. What a joke.

    Lastly, we are going to be changing our site’s blog engine to WordPress. Soon we will have our own launching pad, but it will include ALL the political blogs in Orange County, and I won’t be monkeying around with the links.

  39. Jubal
    May 9, 2008 at 6:40 am

    They did lie. Look at what Wisckol had to admit today, that it was all a misunderstanding. You bet it was. Janet’s consultant and Camp apparently were not on the same page re the payment due Camp, and Wisckol and Red County made it look like Janet did not pay her bills.

    Ha! Martin didn’t “admit” anything, and neither did I.

    Jimmy Camp said Janet owed him $2,500 annd filed a lawsuit to collect. Both Red County and Total Buzz reported that.

    The next day, Janet agreed to pay Jimmy. Then the face-saving “it was all a misunderstanding” statements were issued.

    The only online lying was in that vicious, hallucinatory post you wrote, Art.

  40. Dan Chmielewski
    May 9, 2008 at 9:35 am

    Art –
    Have to agree with Matt on this one; can’t you simply admit Janet makes mistakes? Jimmy sued her to get paid and its all a big misunderstanding. Re-reading your post on this at OJ, and you’re the only one who got the story wrong.

    Hoa is not “my boy.” I don’t live in the first district, remember? Yes, my party endorsed him as he is the only democratic candidate in the race. He needs to come clean in his financial reports in much the same way Janet had to the last time she ran.

    Changing your site to WordPress! Wow, welcome to technology that’s been readily available for a couple of years now. I will tell you the same thing I told Vern, promote your site on your site, not here. I’m not being rude; just telling you its not appropriate for you to promote what you’re doing on your site on this one.

Comments are closed.