Connect with us

Gays Gone Republican

Published

on

Back in September, on the heels of Ken Mehlman’s coming out, and the entire McCain camp — sans McCain himself — coming out in support of same-sex marriage, I asked, “Is Gay Republican The New Black?” Well, fast-forward to election day exit polls, and the answer is a resounding, “Yes.” It seems that gays are just as human as the the rest of society, and, despite all logic, can vote in large numbers against their self interests. Or, are they?

In “GOP: Gay Old Party? More gays voted Republican than in 2008,” the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart writes, “If you want more data that gay men and lesbians are pretty much just like everyone else — worried about the economy, freaked out about the direction of the country and perhaps ticked at the slow pace of change with regard to their civil rights — get a load of this exit poll result.”

Here it is — based on CNN’s exit polls.

In 2006, one in four self-identified gay men and lesbians voted Republican. That number dropped to one in five during the presidential election of 2008. This year, that number jumped dramatically. Amplified by a new, out loud and proud gay Tea Party PAC, GOProud — whose nationally-noted tony Manhattan fund raising party was headlined by extreme homophobe Ann Coulter — gay men and lesbians voted against their better interests one-third of the time. In other words, an astonishing thirty-one percent of self-identified gay men and lesbians voted Republican on Tuesday.

There is no doubt some politically-aware Republicans are courting the gay vote. This week, the day after the election, former GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani came out — in contrast to his 2007 position — in support of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and finding a way to praise the Log Cabin Republicans. Back when he was elected, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said his GOP needed to do a better job of wooing candidates and voters who support marriage equality.

Amanda Terkel in The Huffington Post adds, “I have been very concerned over these last two years that the connection between the gay rights community and the Democratic Party is in danger of being broken, because I think expectations were set so high as a result of the 2008 election, and people are extremely disappointed,” said Richard Socarides, a former assistant to President Clinton and senior White House adviser on gay rights.”

“More conservatives have been speaking out in favor of gay rights as the issue becomes more mainstream amongst the general public, and Republicans perhaps sense some vulnerability and dissatisfaction with Democrats.”

But the obvious question is, who are these people responding in exit polls? And, did “the gays,” frustrated by a perceived lack of action from their “fierce advocate” presidential candidate merely stay home and not vote?

The other obvious bit of information: in 2008, 56.8% of “possible” voters actually voted. In 2010, only 41.3% did.

The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne, Jr. adds, “Voters younger than 30 made up nearly a fifth of the electorate in 2008 but only about a tenth on Tuesday, according to network exit polls. This week’s verdict was rendered by a much older and more conservative electorate.”

It bears mentioning too, that, after the 2008 exit polls were “analyzed,” the “news” was that blacks were primarily responsible for passing Prop 8. (They were not.)

The truth of the matter is that in times of economic distress — and America is certainly is in one — people choose financial security over social agendas. “It’s the economy, stupid,” may be the most-true statement ever uttered in politics. Of course, the “stupid,” long-term, may apply to gays who vote for a political party that wants to put them in jail for being gay. The “stupid” may apply to gays who vote for a political party that wants to keep the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in place. The “stupid” may apply to gays who vote for a political party that continues to discharge them from the military, even after a federal court has ruled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” unconstitutional. The “stupid” may apply to gays who vote for a political party that wants to block legislation that would protect them from being fired because they are gay. The “stupid” may apply to gays who vote for a political party that is happy to take their money but works to deny them their inalienable civil rights.

The question becomes, which party are we talking about?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a staunch supporter of the Democratic Party. The GOP is merely pandering to the LGBT community. They can say they want to be more “inclusive” all they want. The proof is in the pudding, and their pudding comes without any rights for the LGBT community.

It’s time to get the Democratic Party to once and for all pander — and put their money where their mouth is — to “the gay agenda.”

For some, perhaps, it can feel liberating to berate their political leaders. At times, I certainly have done so — and with good reason. But there is a stark difference between being a critic of one’s own party — and country — and voting for the other side. The side, for instance, that wants, literally, to imprison us.

(Oh, if you actually like the shirt, yes, it’s for sale. No, I get nothing for telling you that.)
Subscribe to
The New Civil Rights Movement

// <![CDATA[
google_ad_client = “pub-6759057198693805”;
/* 468×60, created 10/21/10 */
google_ad_slot = “8507588931”;
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
// ]]>

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Can Be Used Against You’: Trump Took Big Risk Pleading the Fifth 400 Times in Deposition Says Legal Expert

Published

on

A newly released video shows Donald Trump pleading the Fifth Amendment hundreds of times in a deposition, and a legal expert explained how that could be used against him in court.

The former president was finally hauled in to testify last year in the $25 million fraud lawsuit filed against the Trump Organization by New York attorney Letitia James, and he exercised his constitutional right against self-incrimination nearly 450 times — but MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann said the move carried potential risk in a civil case.

“I agree with him on the point of taking the Fifth,” Weissmann said. “It’s important to remember everyone has a right to the Fifth if a truthful answer would tend to incriminate you. In a civil case, it can be used against you, unlike in a criminal case.”

“One other thing I would disagree is when he is saying there’s this witch hunt, he left out jurors,” Weissmann added. “The Trump Organizations went to trial, they had their day in court. They could present all of their evidence, [and] 12 jurors, that’s everyday citizens, found beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a multi-year tax conspiracy that his organizations were involved in, and there was evidence he knew about it as would make sense. That’s one more reason for him to be asserting the Fifth Amendment.”

Watch video below or at this link.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Stefanik Was Once ‘Laser Focused on Electing Santos’ – Now She Blames Voters for Electing Him as She Backs Away

Published

on

One of the most powerful Republicans in the House of Representatives, U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), used her reputation and geographic proximity to help get fellow New York Republican George Santos elected to Congress. But now, as her donors and his express anger at being misled and lied to, and ahead of what appears to be a likely federal investigation and possible prosecution against the freshman GOP lawmaker, Stefanik is blaming voters for electing him to Congress: “Ultimately voters make this decision,” she said Tuesday.

Stefanik is the Chair of the House Republican Conference, a role she was first elected to when the now former Congresswoman, Liz Cheney, was thrown out of GOP leadership for telling the truth about the January 6 insurrection and Donald Trump. Stefanik was re-elected to her role after the November election.

Amid Santos announcing on Tuesday he is temporarily recusing himself from the two committees he was appointed to, Stefanik was asked if she regretted supporting his candidacy.

Indeed, one of the top reasons Santos was elected was Stefanik’s endorsement – and all the donor money that came with it.

READ MORE: 2024 Fundraising Fail: Trump Took in Less Money After Declaring Run for President Than Before

“Stefanik’s team was laser focused on electing Santos to Congress – more than just about any other race in the country,” a senior Republican strategist involved in campaigns before the midterms told CNN. “Another donor, who attended a fundraising luncheon with Stefanik and Santos, confirmed to CNN through a representative that ‘he donated to George Santos because of Elise Stefanik’s endorsement.'”

It wasn’t just her endorsements. It appears Stefanik took great interest in getting Santos elected. CNN also reported that a source “said that a top political aide for Stefanik was involved in campaigning for Santos. Multiple sources told CNN that aide was closely advising Santos’ campaign and involved in hiring people.”

Stefanik’s spokesperson denied the allegations.

In July, Santos tweeted that Stefanik “has been one of my strongest backers and closest friends. I fully stand with her vote today as she stood up for civil rights. I look forward to serving alongside her when I’m elected to Congress in November.”

In fact, this was the banner atop Santos’ Twitter account for a very long time, up until recently:

Here is Stefanik tweeting her “major announcement” – her endorsement of Santos – on August 11, 2001, more than a year before Election Day.

READ MORE: ‘Ran a Bribery Center Blocks From the White House’: Comer Mocked for Claiming No Evidence of Trump Influence Peddling

“Excited to endorse my friend and fellow America First conservative George Santos for Congress in #NY03. @Santos4Congress will take on NYC liberal elites and bring a new generation of GOP leadership to NY and America. He has my full support!”

And in May of last year: “WOW! Great lunch event for @Santos4Congress! We raised over $100,000 to help George FLIP #NY03 George has my complete and total endorsement and come November, New Yorkers will send George to Congress! #SaveNewYork #SaveAmerica”

She literally told voters that electing George Santos to Congress will “Save New York” and “Save America.”

On Tuesday, Stefanik told voters something very different: it’s their fault they voted for him, she said, taking no responsibility for her endorsements.

“Like all of my colleagues, particularly in New York State, I supported George Santos as the nominee, and the people of his district voted to elect him,” she told reporters – not once mentioning there was no Republican primary and Santos automatically became the Republican party’s nominee.

READ MORE: Listen: Stefanik-Endorsed GOP Candidate Praised ‘Inspirational’ Adolf Hitler as ‘The Kind of Leader We Need Today’

“Ultimately voters make this decision about who they elect to Congress,” Stefanik declared, wholly removing herself, her endorsements, and any possible assistance she or her campaign may have given to Santos or his campaign.

See the tweets and video above or at this link.

Continue Reading

BREAKING NEWS

Santos Recuses Himself From Committees Amid Possible Criminal Investigation

Published

on

Embattled freshman U.S. Rep. George Santos (R-NY), in what is the first time he has taken any steps to acknowledge the depths of political and now possibly criminal challenges he faces, says he will recuse himself from his committee assignments until his ethics issues have been resolved.

Santos also told his Republican colleagues of his plans on Tuesday, NBC News reports. Santos is on the Science and Small Business committees.

The Daily Beast’s Roger Sollenberger, who has provided extensive reporting on the Republican frequently called a “serial liar,” adds that the Santos’ announcement came after a meeting with Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

“With all signs pointing to an active federal criminal investigation into his campaign finance activity, Santos has ‘voluntarily’ declined—after meeting last night with Kevin McCarthy—to stay off of committees, as Republicans try to sideline Ilhan Omar,” Sollenberger reports.

READ MORE: DOJ Signals It Is Conducting a Criminal Investigation of George Santos

Sollenberger broke the news that Santos, or his campaign, amended his FEC filing to indicate $625,000 in “personal” loans to his campaign were not actually from his personal funds.

Republicans are trying to keep U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), one of their regular, prime targets, from taking her seat on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Speaker McCarthy has already blocked Democratic Congressmen Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell from the House Intelligence Committee, invoking his ability to do so because it is a Select committee and subject to the Speaker’s decisions.

MSNBC reported the breaking news on-air. Watch below or at this link.

This is a breaking news and developing story. Details may change.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.