quote:In recent years, the Republican Party aimed to broaden its appeal with a "big-tent" strategy of reaching out to voters who might typically lean Democratic. But now a debate is growing within the GOP about whether the tent has become too big — by including gays whose political views may conflict with the goals of the party's powerful evangelical conservatives.
Some Christians, who are pivotal to the GOP's get-out-the-vote effort, are charging that gay Republican staffers in Congress may have thwarted their legislative agenda. There even are calls for what some have dubbed a "pink purge" of high-ranking gay Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the administration.
quote:A recent incident that upset social conservatives involved remarks by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week. With First Lady Laura Bush looking on, Rice swore in Mark R. Dybul as U.S. global AIDS coordinator while his partner, Jason Claire, held the Bible. Claire's mother was in the audience, and Rice referred to her as Dybul's "mother-in-law."
"The Republican Party is taking pro-family conservatives for granted," said Mike Mears, executive director of the political action committee of Concerned Women for America, which promotes biblical values. "What Secretary Rice did just the other day is going to anger quite a few people."
quote:Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said in a television interview last week that there should be an investigation into whether gay congressional staffers were responsible for covering up for Foley.
Perkins also has questioned whether gay Republican staffers on Capitol Hill have torpedoed evangelicals' priorities, such as a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. "Has the social agenda of the GOP been stalled by homosexual members and/or staffers?" he asked in an e-mail to supporters.
The wondering if gay staffers are responsible for covering up for Foley part seems to me like a ridiculous stretch in an effort to shift blame, and perhaps like a wonderful excuse for conservatives who have never been comfortable with gays in the Republican party to assert a little power. The other part, where they worry that fiscally conservative gay members of the republican party will "dampen" the get-out-the-vote efforts of the socially conservative members seems like more of a realistic, if horribly cynical, concern.
I'm interested in how our conservative members feel about this -- if the ones who are against gay marriage think the party's values would be better served by pushing that harder, even if it alienates some of the moderates who are currently swinging right, and if this would, if it happens, cause the fiscally conservative/socially moderate or liberal people who've been voting Republican to leave the party.
posted
I think this is perfect! Anything that further fragments and drives people away from the decaying corruptness that the Republican party has become is a welcome thing! (Just as an aside I'd like to see people leaving in droves from both major parties. The Republicans just serve as better examples because of their supposed higher morals).
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess, since they decided to ride the tiger of the conservative/evangelical right-wing, they are going to have to go where that takes them or deal with the consequences.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay: Nice to see you're getting glee from my discomfort...
Every day that goes by I'm more and more convenced that authoritarianism will win and there's nothing that can be done about it. I have this nightmare where the republicans and democrats both split and the environmentalist/socialists and christians get together to form some super party. I don't think all the fiscal conservative/social liberals in the world could stand up to that.
We'd have monsterous taxes, our economy would collapse and the Bedroom Inspectors (metaphorically speaking) would be out in force.
It would be like the soviet union without the vodka to kill our pain.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is all a mess. I have seen the stories that charge that there was widespread knowledge about the specifics of what Foley was doing. I do have to wonder why, if that is true, it was seen as okay. If there was widespread knowledge and it was seen as okay, then those are not people I want to have working in my government. That's just not right.
I am not a Republican, however, and I couldn't care less what happens to the party.
I think conflicts like this inevitably happen when people are united by some things but not by other things. When the things that unite are overshadowed/accomplished/become-less-important than the things that divide, there will be some rending.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ya know, I used to not mind the psycho religious conservatives... as my father used to say "Why should the Democrats get ALL the ignorant vote?"
But the party seems so focused on them now...
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't take being a psycho religious conservative to be uncomfortable with covering up a 50-year-old Congressman propositioning a high school boy.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat: Honestly I don't give a rodent's buttocks about scandals anymore. Both sides throw them at eachother and scream and flail their arms while the other side says "It's not that big of a deal".
Like Bill Clinton never slept with underaged girls. (Well, not that anyone proved anyway.)
So get Foley out of office for what he tried to do and be done with it.
In 2009 when Hillary takes office and her scandals all come to the surface, we can talk about your outrage then.
posted
I'm sorry, The Pixiest, but I'm not sure what about my post you see as gleeful. I included the smiley on the end because since I am not a Republican, I wanted to indicate that this was meant as an honestly curious question and attempt to start discussion, not an attack.
Personally, I think it's a shame that anyone would let a single issue be the pivot for how and if they vote. That includes people who would consider not voting in this election because they're unhappy about gays in the party and people who vote Republican purely on the gay marriage issue. (I'm sure there are similar hot buttons for voting Democrat, but I can't think of one right now.)
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Propositioning young boys and covering it up is very different than referring to someone's partner's mother as a "mother-in-law". Let's avoid the Republicans' mistake and refrain from conflating the two issues.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Personally, I think it's a shame that anyone would let a single issue be the pivot for how and if they vote.
Do you just think it's a shame for our current crop of litmus test issues, or are you against it with all possible single issues?
In other words, do you think there could ever be a single issue that was so important to you that it could turn you into a single-issue voter?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not conflating the two. The outrage over the mother-in-law remark is only possible because of the coverup of Foley's trolling for action among the pages.
In other words, normally the people upset about the mother-in-law remark would get no support at all. The coverup lends some credance to the idea that they may have a point.
I don't think they have a point. I don't care about the mother-in-law remark.
I do care about the other, and I care whether the minor is male or female. It's an abuse of power, and it shows a lack of responsibility, a failing to properly honor stewardship, and a whopping sense of entitlement in the congressmen and those who supported him. They are not fit to serve.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like Bill Clinton never slept with underaged girls. (Well, not that anyone proved anyway.)
I wasn't aware that Bill Clinton was ever even accused of sleeping with underage girls, not that it was just unproven. Am I missing something? Or are you trying to cast unfounded accusations around in hopes they'll still in someone's head?
Adultary is bad, but statuatory rape is much, much worse, and if you're just speculating that's really poor form.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay: If I stop voting republican (or stop voting at all) because I'm furious about the gay marriage issue, is that a shame as well?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay: Bill was my Gov'r of my state long before he was president. Accusations of infidelity, pederasty, etc were not uncommon.
Robert "Say" McIntosh (D) Little Rock, a prominant black leader at the time, used to distribute fliers all the time acusing Bill of, among other things, Hiring 3 black prostitutes at a time for orgies at the Gov'rs mansion. I have no idea if this was true and it was irrelivant in my dislike for the man.
But given Monica's age, do you really doubt that he picked fruit that wasn't ripe?
posted
It's a huge accusation. Considering all there is to honestly accuse him of, it's not cool to just make stuff up.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
m_p_h, Idealogically I am against it for all possible single issues. I think that there are too many important considerations out there to base your vote on one thing, and it also worries me that someone with some really bad intentions could get into office by pandering to the "correct" one thing at a particular moment in time.
Practically, I realize that I may have just not found my single-issue yet. I can't think of anything that I would consider important enough to vote on just that item, regardless of a candidate's other positions, but I don't have the hubris to say it's impossible.
I do understand, somewhat, single-issue voting for people who consider abortion murder. If you believe that it's currently legal to murder a group of people in this country, that's probably an important enough issue to have it weigh pretty darn heavily on your vote, although I'd hope you (theoretical you) still wouldn't vote for someone if you found the rest of their platform morally deplorable. But that's about the only situation where I can put myself into the position and think it might make sense to me.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Errr...I date 22 year olds. Are you calling me a pedophile?
What Bill Clinton did was wrong. He greatly abused his power and brought shame to the office. But making up completely unsubstantiated stories about him is low, even for you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: ElJay: If I stop voting republican (or stop voting at all) because I'm furious about the gay marriage issue, is that a shame as well?
Yes. I already included other Republican's who may stop voting because of this issue on the other side, why wouldn't I include you as well? Anyone not voting is a shame, period. Anyone not voting over one issue is both a shame and, I think, rather silly.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I'm not sure what the race of the prostitutes would have to do with if it was okay to hire them for orgies in the mansion or not.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay: It was an appeal by Mr McIntosh to appeal to racists of both races. That was also why I mentioned Mr McIntosh's race.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, this thread has gotten way off what I was hoping for. I know that happens, but I'm not going to participate in my own derailing anymore. I'm just going to say that I hope some other people who have voted Republican in the past will come in and talk about how they feel about this article. Thanks.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
twink: No, that's the point. I don't care. I don't care about scandals anymore. I eventually got sick of them under clinton and I'm tired of them under bush.
I don't care if vince foster was murdered or commited suicide
I don't care if Ron Brown's plane crash was intentional
I don't care about Monica or Paula or any of the dozens of other women he supposedly had sex with.
I don't care about Worldcom or Enron or whitewater.
I don't care about the iraqi casuality statistics.
I don't care who mr foley tried and failed to have sex with.
I don't care about Ms Plame.
Most of all I don't care who tried to cover any of this up.
All I care about is the issues. And in that, both the republicans and democrats suck so much monkey butt that they're in danger of turning the monkey inside out.
posted
I feel that this article is typical of most of the articles about Republicans right now. There are filled with "Some people in the party" who might possibly be angry because event X happened. Doesn't matter what event X is because the story is not about event X. The story is about showing what some people may be thinking that could possibly damage the Republican party. Sure some Republicans may not be comfortable with gays in the party, but oddly the article leaves out that some Republicans are comfortable having gays in the party. The outrage about Foley is not really that he was trolling for interns, but specifically he was a Republican trolling for interns. Had Foley been a Democrat then the page would suddenly be of age (which 16 is of age in DC) and the entire thing would be be about Republicans obsession with sex and how anti-gay they are. Bill Clinton was accused of having sex by many women, he was accused of rape, but did it really matter? Nope, all that mattered was Monica and why? Because she had the dress. Had it not been for that dress she would have been run out of town just like all the other women. So this article is really only about smearing the Republican party as much as possible right before an election in hopes to influence that election. If you read it again it is not filled with facts, but rather filled with what people think might of happened. There is a huge difference between the two. Don't you think it is more odd that you very rarely hear stories about what some Democrats might be doing that could possibly anger some of their voters?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: both the republicans and democrats suck so much monkey butt that they're in danger of turning the monkey inside out.
Now that is FUNNY! I laughed out loud when I read that one If you don't mind, I would love to be able to borrow variations of that line for some other conversations... "how was my day? My day sucked monkey butt so hard that the monkey got turned inside out!" I do apologize for the crudeness, but man was that funny! Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure some Republicans may not be comfortable with gays in the party, but oddly the article leaves out that some Republicans are comfortable having gays in the party.
I don't think it does. It mentions many gay-friendly people and actions within the party, including quoting people who say they are against the idea of a purge.
As for why Monica mattered more than the other accusations, I don't recall Anita Hill mattering all that much when Clarence Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court. Without some sort of evidence, accusations are just he said she said and there's not very much you can do with/about them.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really doubt that there is going to be any kind of purge, but it does present a rather interesting situation for the many facets of the Republican party.
The Supreme Court is set to hear an abortion case this term, which, as I understand it, is challenging a previous decision from 5 years ago. This is the first abortion related case testing Roberts's and Scalia's statements that they feel strongly about following precedent. If they don't overturn the previous decision, I think you're going to see even more reaction from the religious conservatives.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was commenting the other night that I felt like, in a different world, the coming elections ('06 and '08) should represent a grave threat to the Republican party. In a different (and dare I say better) world, they'd be looking at getting hammered so deep into a dark hole that it would take them decades to get out again. In that case, the solution would be to dissolve and then reform in a somewhat different configuration.
In this world, this doesn't seem likely. However, and this I think is at least a little sunshine, if the Democrats don't win or don't change things for the better in these elections, their party is finished.
If it comes out that, as some people suspect, large parts of the Republican party are using the Religious Right for their votes and pursuing a careful strategy of always never quite suceeding on the things they get riled up about, it's going to tear the Republican party apart. Even if that doesn't come out, the increasing tension between the various factions is like to cause some large shake ups.
Thinking about it, I've finally found my happy thought for American politics. I may soon witness the death of one or both of the main parties.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: twink: No, that's the point. I don't care.
You brought Clinton up; you have continually harped on him since doing so. You care enough to make unfounded accusations and unsupported assertions.
If you don't think this Foley business merits discussion, it would have been easy to say so without bringing Clinton into it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a Senate hearing in the context of a judicial confirmation is about the same level of seriousness/attention that was given Jones through her lawsuit. *shrug* Your opinion may vary.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: I think this is perfect! Anything that further fragments and drives people away from the decaying corruptness that the Republican party has become is a welcome thing! (Just as an aside I'd like to see people leaving in droves from both major parties. The Republicans just serve as better examples because of their supposed higher morals).
And then if we can yank the hot-pinko socialists out of the Democratic party, we can let both of the big parties rot in their own extreme agendas and get some people into office who have some sanity.
I mean, getting rid of Pat Buchanan on the right is good, but if we don't also get rid of the Barack Obamas on the left, the entire country shifts into leftie lunacy.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know enough about Obama, beyond the fact that he is considered very charismatic, I guess.
What do you find objectionable about him?
EDIT: I ask because this is likely the very first critical comment I have ever heard about him--and yet, it's such a strong negative comment. Not too lukewarm on that one, are you? Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
btw, In light of how far we have shifted to the right, I don't believe a shift to the left can be disastrous at this point--it would just be a move toward the center.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were repeated claims of pederasty against Clinton when he was governor? Are you sure you weren't getting stories about him and Michael Jackson mixed up? Or do you just not know what that word means?
DK -
Oh for the love of God. You REALLY think that if a Democrat were caught soliciting a young boy there wouldn't OUTRAGE FROM THE HIGH HEAVENS from the other side? Of course there would be! Saying that Republicans are getting a raw deal is bull. Maybe if they stopped messed up, there wouldn't be such a large build up of scorn towards them. Harry Reid messed up reporting on a land deal and it was a story, no one shoved it under a mat.
And coming from a supporter of the party that spent millions of dollars and years trying to find something to pin on Clinton, I think your entire party has a lot of gall to be outraged about actually being forced to own up to your own mistakes.
I for one do care about scandals. Not so much the Foley scandal, because that is I think either a criminal issue, or between Foley and the people in his district, but I won't hold the Republican party as a whole responsible for the actions of an individual.
But when the President screws up his job in some way and it becomes a scandal, I want to know what went wrong. Same thing for any of my own personal elected officials, and if other members of Congress are stealing from the government, I want to know about that too. These things ARE issues, and that issue is corruption.
Icarus -
Heh, I like the comment about moving left = moving towards the middle, and I echo your question about Barack Obama. Who really knows all the pieces of his personal platform? How many bills has he even voted on? What are his positions? I doubt most people know the answer to that. I also love hearing people talk about how insanely liberal Hillary is without being able to really give sufficient evidence to prove it. The woman votes centrist, quite frankly I believe she IS centrist. Whenever she votes for the military or whatever centrist/conservative issue of the day, people call it politics, when she votes on a left issue they say she's a bleeding heart liberal. Do facts and voting records even matter anymore?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this purge or purge wish, is just a symptom of the biggest problem any coalition government has when it plays extreme politics.
A house, or "big tent", divided can not stand.
Pix, this may actually work to your benefit. Many lawmakers and staff who are in the closet, or who are out but defending themselves to their religious voters, are pushing the most extreme anti-homosexual legislation. Removing them may actually result in fewer attacks homosexuals, freedom, and marriage.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
