Comments on: ''An organization's endorsement means nothing if it does not have to be earned.''

''An organization's endorsement means nothing if it does not have to be earned.''

reklaw — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:51:00 -0800

Log Cabin Republicans Vote to Withhold Endorsement from President Bush.

By: cmonkey

cmonkey — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:06:49 -0800

Does this actually matter? I mean, are the Log Cabin Republicans going to vote for Kerry?

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:12:39 -0800

It matters in that there are about 45,000 gay republicans in florida. What percentage of these pepole not voting for Bush will be enough for the republican establishment to take notice?

By: kamikazegopher

kamikazegopher — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:14:20 -0800

I'm glad that the Log Cabin Republicans finally came to their senses. They've always reminded me of a dog that gets kicked over and over again, but still follows the abusive master because it just wants to be loved. I mean, the Republican party throws them a bone once in a while and sends someone to speak at one of their meetings, but will hardly concede anything of substance. I'm surprised it took them this long to acknowledge it, Bush has been talking about the anti-gay marriage amendment for months now.

By: jca

jca — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:19:56 -0800

Well, I never understood their "change from within" plan of attack -- how much credibility do/did they have with the GOP?

By: Wulfgar!

Wulfgar! — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:21:31 -0800

I think this matters a great deal. The Republican party is groaning under the weight of trying to be everything to everybody, while casting gross dispersions on the "loony left" strawman that they've built. In other words, they don't really represent anything anymore, except making those who follow them feel good about being one of "us", instead of one of "them". This was bound to happen. Sooner or later someone had to notice that the Republican agenda goes in all directions, but only accomplishes those agendas that streak to the far right. If Republican moderates are finally waking up, then it doesn't matter if they vote for Kerry, as long as some of them don't vote for Bush. This race is close, far closer than the Bush apologists will let even themselves believe. A victory for Kerry now, regardless of whether he is a lefty or not, will have a corrective influence on the Republican party. I don't much care, because a Kerry victory assures that moderates win in the long run (those that lean right, or left as I do). I would love to see the Republicans take their party back from the awful influence that controls it now.

By: chicobangs

chicobangs — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:22:00 -0800

Gay America has been a non-priority for the Republicans, especially this year. And if this cutting-loose of 45,000 Gay Republicans, and the publicity therefrom, attracts at least that many evangelicals to the polls who wouldn't have bothered before -- and who knows, it just might -- then they're ahead of the game. Of course, they're turning their back on another whole demographic, but it's obvious that representation of the needs of every American will take a back seat to getting enough of your guys out and getting enough of their guys to stay home. (Which, coincidentally, is what this Bush-will-obviously-win 10-point-lead crap coming from the networks is all about. Discouraging action. Really, why bother?)

By: alms

alms — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:23:13 -0800

I know a woman who works on this issue in California. In the course of a legislative campaign she got pregnant and had a child, and so she took the opportunity to have her breast milk tested. It tested positive for perchlorate. I can't imagine what it would be like to have a child and want to nurse it, but know that your milk contains poison. Even if breastmilk is still better than the alternatives, the knowledge that you are poisoning your child as you are feeding has to be one of the most extreme violations of basic humanity.

By: apollonia6

apollonia6 — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:24:09 -0800

Wait, so you mean they actually finally realized what party they're in?

By: fleener

fleener — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:25:36 -0800

Space Coyote , who cares? We know electronic votes can be forged without a paper trail. If you're expecting democracy, you've been fooled into thinking it still exists here.

By: Wulfgar!

Wulfgar! — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:28:45 -0800

If you're expecting democracy, you've been fooled into thinking it still exists here. That's not helpful at all. The right to have your vote counted, and your beliefs heard does still exist here. Claiming that it doesn't is the kind of defeatist crap that will ensure your cynical prognosis in the future. If votes are tampered with, its a crime, not the norm or expectation.

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:28:55 -0800

Um... alms, I think you're just one thread off. And chico, I seriously doubt there were more than one or two evangelicals who were planning not to vote for Bush because his party had a largely unrecognized splinter group of homosexuals. I get your point, but it seems a little far-fetched.

By: jpburns

jpburns — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:29:55 -0800

In other news, jews decide that that Hitler fellow was not a very nice person... (sorry for the Godwin...)

By: spilon

spilon — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:38:46 -0800

What's all this about Log Cabin Repubs and breast milk? Well, anyway, it is significant in one important respect: last time around the LCR's campaigned actively for Bush, and the result was about 1 million gay votes. An unusually high number for a Republican candidate. Hopefully, this time around, at least 990,000 of those folks will swing the other way.

By: chicobangs

chicobangs — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:56:19 -0800

I'm sure you're right, soyjoy, but -- I'm trying to figure out the line of logic here. If your only goal is to get re-elected (and I'm assuming it is), then every group you lose must be replaced by a group you gain. I just don't see where the upside is to this one, aside from the hardcore people we don't see much of in these here parts, who will heed Pat Robertson's call that now that the queers have been driven out of the party of the Lord, it's okay to go forth and vote for the Man You Know Is Right. Votes are all they care about. So how does this get them votes? on preview: 'swing the other way.' heh heh.

By: solistrato

solistrato — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:03:28 -0800

NEWS FLASH!!! Gay Republicans Vote To Stop Getting Repeatedly Kicked In The Groin "We Finally Realized It's Actually Excrutiatingly Painful"

By: jackspace

jackspace — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:21:32 -0800

Yeah, but the Bush twins attended a gay wedding, doesn't that count for anything with those ungrateful Log Cabin Republicans? :) Barbara: So do you think Dad will realize this is payback for stealing our stash? Jenna: No, that was uncle Karl, you ditz!

By: scody

scody — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:21:41 -0800

And if this cutting-loose of 45,000 Gay Republicans, and the publicity therefrom, attracts at least that many evangelicals to the polls who wouldn't have bothered before -- and who knows, it just might -- then they're ahead of the game. I'm genuinely curious about this, because I've heard this general line of reasoning elsewhere regarding the Bushies' support of a gay marriage ban and other "traditional values" issues. Is there actually a significant number of people on the evangelical Christian right who wouldn't be voting at all otherwise? It seems counterintuitive to me that there would be many people in that demographic who haven't made up their mind already to vote for Bush. In other words, if they're disinclined to vote at all, why would this latest volley over the issue make much of a difference? I guess I just find it hard to believe that there's a potential 45,000 other Bush-voters in Florida who were thinking of sitting out this election until today. Bush has always been "the traditional values" guy that actively appealed to the evangelical Christian right -- not just in this race, and not just over the question of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Hasn't that base long since been mobilized?

By: Postroad

Postroad — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:32:34 -0800

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:54:37 -0800

Konolia?

By: me & my monkey

me & my monkey — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:57:44 -0800

I assume that post means they will not endorse him but it does not mean that election time they also will not vote for him? Or does it mean they will vote for a Democrat for president? Or not vote at all? It simply means that the organization itself will not endorse Bush. It doesn't tell us anything about how its members, or others who hold that organization's endorsement in some esteem, will vote. I'd be really surprised if Bush got any significant number of gay votes this time around, though.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:57:53 -0800

Good move on the part of this organization. It's a sane and measured response to disagreement--why can't Metafilter be more like Log Cabin?

By: solistrato

solistrato — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:04:37 -0800

PP, I'm going to buy you some knitting needles and yarn, because you need a better hobby than trolling on MeFi.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:06:54 -0800

PP makes a moderate and sensible remark - gets called out anyway. News at 11.

By: sic

sic — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:08:04 -0800

I don't endorse Bush either.

By: scody

scody — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:13:18 -0800

I withhold my endorsement of ParisParamus. Is that better, dash_slot?

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:23:21 -0800

a Kerry victory assures that moderates win in the long run Is everyone paying attention?

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:24:26 -0800

Few mefites do, scody - and I've certainly wanted to take issue with some of PP's comments. Even so, he made a mild, uncontroversial remark and got whacked. Just seemed like people do it out of habit is all.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:33:22 -0800

Beating up on PP has become a bit of a reflex here I think.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:42:10 -0800

Beating up on PP has become a bit of a reflex here I think. it's a sane and measured response.

By: Espoo2

Espoo2 — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:47:15 -0800

it's a sane and measured response. Quonsar, I'm going to buy you some knitting needles and yarn, because you need a better hobby than trolling on MeFi.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:48:15 -0800

Me still ♥ q-man!

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:51:30 -0800

Does this actually matter? I mean, are the Log Cabin Republicans going to vote for Kerry? Of course not. If they were, they would endorse him. I'm glad to see them openly rejecting Bush's anti-gay rhetoric, but if you were strong and devout enough of a Republican to previously accept a party leadership of which at least half considers you not just to be "immoral," but an outright crime against nature, then one of your spokesgroups refusing to make an endorsement will be about as effective as Greenpeace refusing to endorse Kerry and thus making environmentalists across the nation vote for Bush. All this means is a huge number of gay Republicans are absolved of public ridicule for favoring a good tax bracket over their own human rights. It's no different than the "security moms" who don't care that racism and fear run rampant for the sake of their own fabricated sense of security, or the veterans in denial about Bush slashing their benefits for the sake of being angry at Kerry, or why Bush won't mention his gun policies in the North and Kerry his abortion views in the South. People don't shape their views around a candidate's values; they shape their view of the candidate around theirs. The Log Cabin Republicans are still going to vote for Bush. In the utmost of irony, they're simply going into a closet about it.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:56:21 -0800

The reality is that many of you can't handle someone who significantly disagrees with you, tries to make his points with some humor and hyperbole, but isn't a troll. How binary and primitive: either someone is left of Center, or someone is a troll.

By: solistrato

solistrato — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:08:32 -0800

I apologize to all for the detour into PPLand.

By: Wulfgar!

Wulfgar! — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:12:35 -0800

Paris, I've asked you with all respect to state your position and stand to your guns. You avoid, obfuscate and waffle. If you're not trolling at this point, then the burden of proof, for whatever position you might have, is on you; not those terrible left-of-center meanies. You claim X and then claim Y and then claim we're being mean to you. Come on, whiner, talk the talk that backs your walk ... or shut the fuck up. You're accusing people of calling you out for teasing with nothing, because you've claimed contradictory stances and offered nothing. That would make you the lame one, bright boy, in case you haven't noticed ... And in case you still don't get it, that would make you a troll, which you bitch about being called. You're fishing for response. You're being a troll, and then fishing for more response by denying it. Can I be more plain? Have some courage or shut the fuck up, PP!

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:15:44 -0800

Man, would I not like to have a beer with you.

By: me & my monkey

me & my monkey — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:30:00 -0800

I apologize to all for the detour into PPLand. Personally, as a gay man, I love PPLand - oh, wait a minute, I think I, uh, never mind.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:34:46 -0800

What the hell? Here's what Paris said: Good move on the part of this organization. It's a sane and measured response to disagreement--why can't Metafilter be more like Log Cabin? Now, what part of that is trollish in the slightest? I could have said it myself. Paris has certainly been, shall we say, childishly confrontational in the past, popping into threads to make some silly one-liner just to watch the denizens froth, but he seems to have been making more of an effort to actually converse lately, and this particular comment is completely unexceptionable. Those of you who let your bash-Paris reflexes blind you to what he's actually saying should be ashamed of yourselves, or at least think about how your reflex response might make others think of you. Dialogue = good. Random vituperation = bad.

By: Wulfgar!

Wulfgar! — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:42:22 -0800

Assuming that you're not being sarcastic, I don't think I'd much like having a beer with you either, Paris. And if you are being sarcastic ... no thanks. Not until you straight talk, for once. Your first comment in this thread was a good start, but ... I prefer my deception in football games. For what it is or isn't worth, Paris, I wouldn't have said jack-shit to you in this thread if you hadn't come out whining about liberal attacks. You've cried "wolf, (BITCHES)" enough to draw fire, Congratulations. Pay the consequences of your actions.

By: Wulfgar!

Wulfgar! — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:59:20 -0800

languagehat, just so that you are aware, PP's response was completely rational and sympathetic. And, considering past behavour, could also be a completely misdirective bullshit ploy. He has loosely argued that invading any country that *might* show signs of becoming a nuclear power is acceptable, in his eyes. He has stated that he will enjoy the shocked and explosive reaction of all us "lefties" when Bush gets re-elected (or elected for the first time if you will). Blaming others for not accepting the word of an established troll ... not so sensible, I'm thinking.

By: Elim

Elim — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:59:43 -0800

I like to think of our response to PPs post as similar to that of GWs, Attack them BEFORE they become a problem. I though PP would Like the refreshing Neo-Con solution.... Pre-emption Rules....

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:06:46 -0800

He was on topic. We now aren't.

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:06:56 -0800

I think it was Paramus' parting snark at MeFi that provoked the negative response. Basically being charitable towards the log cabin repubs insofar as he can use it as ammo against the community he continually participates in. Sort of like the angry alcoholic mother who points out what a nice holiday dinner the people on TV are having.

By: kamikazegopher

kamikazegopher — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:16:59 -0800

Wow, I thought this was a thread about the Log Cabin Republicans. When in reality, it was a clever ruse to lure in ParisParamus and discuss his trolly ways. ParisParamus? Do you hear that voice? This is your Mefi life... [Band plays].

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:31:25 -0800

I am mildly surprised that this is not a bigger story. I should think a sizable portion of his base breaking off would warrent a story on, say, the front page of CNN. The best I could find in a major media source was a tiny mention on the ABC page. Of course, now that I've written this, it has probably appeared everywhere. I think that might be a law somewhere, "the minute you publically complain about a story not being covered by the major media, that story will be covered by the major media."

By: sklero

sklero — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:39:11 -0800

I should think a sizable portion of his base breaking off... Man, that happened to me once. Hurt like hell.

By: callmejay

callmejay — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:00:20 -0800

I think that might be a law somewhere, "the minute you publically complain about a story not being covered by the major media, that story will be covered by the major media." If only.

By: prodigalsun

prodigalsun — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:02:44 -0800

Well, If I'm Karl Rove (and sometimes when my underwear is too tight I feel like him), I'm thinkin': "Alienate the Gays, loose a million votes, motivate the 4 million evangelicals that sat out the last election, not a bad trade".

By: wilberforce

wilberforce — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:18:29 -0800

I have to say, while PP often comes across as a raving loon, I thought this was a very sane, non-partisan and reasonable statement. I thought someone had hijacked his account. Sorry, completely OT.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:30:17 -0800

I only "come across as a raving loon" when the ambient dialog merits it, or the premise of the post, itself, is absurd or "loon."

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:38:27 -0800

I've noticed several sane comments from PP lately. It has been very surprising and very pleasant to see.

By: namespan

namespan — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:53:37 -0800

I'm on that page. PP's been both amusing and insightful recently. The troll label doesn't apply in this thread.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 21:16:57 -0800

Are we tired of this yet?

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 21:26:56 -0800

PP and I once discussed bathroom renovation.....truly : It was at the end of a heated political (what else?) thread, and I was, in fact, installing a toilet in my house. PP and I exchanged some technical points about the process. Indeed, I've recently had an amicable exchange with a noted right-wing (not PP) Mefi-ite about eating Habanero peppers. We're all mammals here, even primates as well - except for all of you goddamned aliens. What are you, anyway - lizards ?

By: clevershark

clevershark — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 22:13:41 -0800

The reality is that many of you can't handle someone who significantly disagrees with you I guess that's just an example of many illustrating why bashing PP has become a reflex for many here.

By: chicobangs

chicobangs — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 22:30:08 -0800

What the hell happened to this thread? There was a decent discussion happening here a few hours ago. Snap out of it. Topic, people. Does anyone think prodigalsun's line was being used by Rove or someone as a strategy for attracting votes from the batshit-insane-far-right? Is there a study anywhere that could possibly support this? I'm guessing no, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

By: namespan

namespan — Wed, 08 Sep 2004 23:41:05 -0800

Are we tired of this yet? Paris, don't make me sorry I defended you. We're all mammals here, even primates as well - except for all of you goddamned aliens. What are you, anyway - lizards ? /shifts shape, slips from room

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:06:41 -0800

Prodigalsun's Line (def.) The amount of voters you need to alienate to inspire a greater number of voters to support you. Attempting to cross Prodigalsun's Line is a risky maneuver, since failure means you alienate a bunch of voters and don't receive any gain.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:28:41 -0800

Victor Ashe has declared he has been Dubya's bitch for the last time dammit!