Blogcabin California

April 29, 2008

6 Comments »

1. Here is what I would like to ask, what was the criteria that led to an endorsement. I know that there are people that totally agree, people that you would not mind having a drink with, they are friendly but unfortunately would not vote with us, and people who would rather give us a black eye if they met us.

   Comment by Matt in California — April 30, 2008 @ 11:51 pm

2. Criteria:
   1. Republican
   2. Anti-tax
   3. Pro limited goverment
   4. Pro personal responsibility
   Happy?

   Comment by Christopher — May 1, 2008 @ 6:33 am

3. Our endorsement process was on a case by case basis and focused most of all on issues related to being in favor of lower taxes, limited government and public safety. Because gays and lesbians have almost every right there is in California (other than marriage but that’s inevitable) there is less need to focus on “gay issues” because there is nothing left legislators can do in future about that. We didn’t talk to any candidates because we based decisions on how they were publicly presenting themselves the way voters make decisions. So no secret deals…sorry to disappoint you…

   Nationwide polling done by Tony Fabrizio of Republicans found the party is older, more male, more white and more conservative. And those people said by 77% that it should be illegal to fire someone because they are gay or lesbian. (See the full poll on our website http://ca.logcabin.org) So we’re moving on to looking at more “traditional” GOP issues. If you don’t have a record in voting - so what. Won’t matter cause there’s nothing to vote on. (Marriage is a non issue because it passes regardless of how many Republicans oppose or support it). If you have a record we looked at who voted in favor of higher taxes and opposed them unless there were other factors to consider. (That’s why Walters didn’t get our vote. Raising taxes on senior citizens is anti-GOP) Sometimes the rest of the record was ok to endorse, sometimes it wasn’t and other times we decided to offer no recommendation because there wasn’t consensus.

   People need to get over the gay stuff in the Party because the rest of the world has moved on. The only people shrieking about it these days are those found in airport men’s rooms when not trying to convince the rest of us how anti-gay they are. (I don’t mean Mike. We’re perfectly happy to know he belongs to your team) So the short answer Mike is that gay issues figured in a much reduced way than it has in past because we’re looking past this in the hopes that the Party will shut up about it so we can start winning elections again. The difference between CRA and Log Cabin Republicans seems to be they’d rather be right even if they are the last three people in the Party and we’d rather win. (CRA has lost almost every gay issue that they’ve challenged and tell me which gay issues the Rev. Lou has won on in the last five years?)Californians are happy to lower taxes, they aren’t about to push gays out of their community and back into the closet. Polling on marriage alone shows 48% to 47% in California support marriage with the rest undecided. And for the record, we don’t want to end traditional marriage, we want to be part of it. The so called gay agenda is raising children in healthy marriages while serving in the military. That used to be the GOP agenda, when did it become “unmarried couples, with children in foster homes and denying the military the best people to fight terrorism?” The military kicked out a bunch of gay translators needed to interrogate terrorist suspects so now there’s a shortage. Boy I sure feel safer now, how about you?

   Now that gay rights are secured in California, we want to get our taxes lowered, deal with immigration and all of those other things that only a GOP majority can accomplish. Having an anti-gay platform these days is like saying you oppose suffrage and support prohibition. There very well may be people out there who feel that way, but it’s not going to change so why keep fighting a battle that’s already lost? Makes you wonder who it is who’s really the most obsessed about gay sex these days…us or CRA… We endorsed on issues not related to it, but it would seem that is the main criteria for CRA. ; )

   Comment by Christopher — May 1, 2008 @ 6:43 am

4. I agree. There are bigger issues in California to focus on than to marginalize the LGBT population of our state.

   Our state government is becoming fiscally insolvent and people such as Mike Spence would rather marginalize our community instead of focusing on fixing our state budget and improving California’s infrastructure.

   I did not read Jon Fleischman’s column asking about the criteria for endorsement, but I was curious. It seems each election cycle there is always press about the endorsements LCR issues.

   Comment by Matt in California — May 1, 2008 @ 12:06 pm

5. So, what differentiates those on the “No Endorsement” list from those on the “No Recommendation” list? Because there is an “Acceptable” list, one could conclude that those on the other two lists are to be considered “Unacceptable”, but if those on the “No Recommendation” list got there because there just wasn’t concensus either way, what reasoning does that leave for those on the “No Endorsement” list…….? (especially given the names on that list and the stated criteria for being on the “Endorsed” list.)

   Comment by Gary — May 1, 2008 @ 12:48 pm

6. I think Acceptable should be those who do not want the Log Cabin endorsement because
   a: They feel the endorsement is like the kiss of death in their district because they have loads of wingnuts in their community.
   b: The organization believes that they are inclusive leaders fit for office.

   I think BRIAN NESTANDE and perhaps RUSS BOGH needs to be moved to the acceptable list since he does not want to be endorsed by the group according to the flash report.

   And endorsements in 2010’s election cycle should only be given to those who want the endorsement.

   No Recommendation, should be those who write very hostile legislation or advocacy against the LGBT community such as Huff and Lopez.

   The backlash from the traditionalists shows that there is still more on the fight for equality and inclusion in the legislature and the party.

   Comment by Matt in California — May 1, 2008 @ 1:56 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment