Are Republicans really anti-gay?

Sen. McCain's daughter, Meghan, writes in support for "A Gayer GOP"... She makes very good points:

The Log Cabin Republicans’ mission "is to work within the Republican Party to advocate equal rights for all Americans, including gays and lesbians." The group is centered on core Republican values, such as limited government, individual liberty and responsibility, an economy based in free markets, and a strong national defense. And in the spirit of the GOP’s founding beliefs—personal freedom and liberty—they are dedicated to securing full equality for gays and lesbians in America to create a stronger, larger, and more-unified GOP.

What I found most interesting about the Log Cabin Republicans is where and when they got their start: in California, during the late '70s. At the time, much of the progress made in securing equal rights for gays was drawing a backlash. A successful movement to overturn antidiscrimination laws in Dade County, Florida, was led by singer Anita Bryant. States like Arkansas and Oklahoma prohibited gays from teaching jobs. And a California Republican state senator suggested a proposition for voters to keep gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools. (At one point, the initiative was leading in polls with more than 60 percent of voters supporting it.) In the end, voters rejected the proposition in November 1978, by a margin of more than a million votes. While several prominent Democrats and Republicans rallied to secure its defeat, one Republican in particular helped turn the tide—former California Governor Ronald Wilson Reagan.

She's absolutely correct about those Republican values. Also, bonus on bringing up the tidbit about Reagan's fight for gay rights. But President Bush's eight years have brought about an unexpected split among the GOP: the "social conservatives" no longer identifying with the "political conservatives," the Republican Party we know today. And that's one of the reasons Meghan's father lost to Barack Obama. Disillusioned conservatives punished the GOP by not voting or worse yet, voting for Obama.

Perhaps the Republican's message on gay issues isn't clear enough? The anti-gay backslash stemmed primarily from gay activists' agenda of redefining marriage on a national level. Marriage is an institution established way prior to the gay rights movement. Most Americans don't care what adults do in their own homes and in their own times, but most Americans aren't ready to accept a family with two "married" daddies or mommies. More importantly, gays today enjoy the same civil liberties as everyone else. It's left to the states to determine how they want to treat marriage and that's just fine. The Constitution says nothing about the federal government defining marriage, so it's reasonable that this decision is left to the state legislatures.

I applaud Ms. McCain's effort in turning the GOP into a more gay-friendly political party, but should that be the focus of party leaders? There is comfort in knowing about the existence of the Log Cabin Republicans and gay conservatives. After all, we hardly ever hear about pro-life liberals. Doesn't that clearly illustrate the Republican Party's wider acceptance? Let's hope her efforts do not end up being a distraction to the core GOP agenda.

GOP distancing from Gov. Palin?

Should some staff members of Gov. Palin's office be fired? Or is there a deeper meaning in all of this? The annual Senate-House GOP dinner to be held in June now turns to Newt Gingrich as its keynote speaker instead of the Alaskan governor.

Hopefully this is just an amateurish mistake made between her PAC and her staff in the governor's office. The GOP should not distance itself from the former V.P. nominee. She still has star power and a loyal following among conservatives.

Gov. Palin testing waters for 2012 run?

There has been reports of robocalls to Iowa and New Hampshire residents polling about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Nobody knows who is behind this, but I'm sure the governor will know about the results. Is America ready for Palin after her defeat alongside Sen. John McCain?

The trouble with Palin has been her narrow audience base. She's a big hit with conservatives, but in order to win votes you have to be a big hit with the majority, not just the base crowd. The only way I can see her presidential dream come to fruition is for the current administration to screw up big time. And I mean BIG TIME. That means President Obama puts us in a much worse position than even now. Yes, this financial mess is bad, but it has not punched a hole in Obama's popularity yet. It hasn't been six months yet, so who knows what the next 3.5 years will bring?

Additionally, Republicans have a good chance at regaining seats in the 2010 elections. Expect to see rising stars, and therefore, potential Palin opposition, within the GOP after the 2010 momentum. Palin would have to re-evaluate her chances then.

Flipping Emanuel's seat to red

The special election to fill the House seat IL-5 vacated by Rahm Emanuel is on April 7, 2009. It is Rosanna Pulido (R) vs. Mike Quigley (D). Unfortunately, the Illinois GOP isn't giving her the attention and support she deserves, so it's up to us to spread the word. Turning this seat to red would definitely rub the Democrats the wrong way, and who wouldn't want to do that?!

We wish Ms. Pulido good luck!

Criticizing GOP RFP is counterproductive

A few days ago the GOP released an RFP asking for bids to revamp its website. Since the RFP's release, the blogosphere -- both left and right -- is filled with criticisms about the effort. Erick Ericson of RedState thinks it's "RNC Fail" and predicts GOP's "Technology Death"; The Next Right has its share of disapprovals. Hooray! More juicy stuff for the Leftobloggers to write about!

Okay guys, I know you and people you know can do a much better job with the RFP and with creating a kick-ass GOP site. So can the high school student who lives across the street. That's beside the point...

The Republican Party realizes it is behind in today's technologies and from the RFP, at least it knows what's out there. Are we helping it to get there? Or are we just pounding its face some more? The GOP doesn't need any more embarrassing blog posts. It's already been through the valley of embarrassment after the 2006 and 2008 elections. And with the election of Steele to chair the RNC, selection of Gov. Jindal to rebuke President Obama's address, and putting out this RFP, we know the GOP is serious about regaining influence and power. Let's help it get there constructively, online.

But my opinion is that it has to take much more than a fancy new website. The conservative movement is alive and well. The GOP must understand that it needs to reach out to the pundits and bloggers supporting the conservative movement. Show that the party cares about the ordinary citizens who spend their own money, energy, and time to spread the conservative word. The party is not alone.

Is the White House wise to target Limbaugh?

The Democrats think they've got Rush Limbaugh where they want him. Apparently this all started when James Carville and Stanley Greenberg ran an poll in October to discover that Limbaugh was hugely unpopular among the younger voters. The conservative talk show host continued his criticisms against Obama even after his election, and now top Democrats and the White House see a golden opporunity to paint him as the leader of the GOP, while brushing aside RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

First I got to ask: Why are the Democrats marginalizing Mr. Steele, a fine black politician who's worked his way up to earn the respect of his peers to lead the Republicans during these troublesome years for the party? The Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves!

While the Leftosphere is cheering on the latest assaults on Limbaugh, the Rightosphere is welcoming this classic battle of Liberalism vs. Conservatism. On the liberal corner of the ring, there is the mainstream media, the White House, the Democratic Congressmen and Senators, and all the crazies who start their day with coffee and Huffington Post. The other corner of the ring sits one of radio's giants, commanding an audience of millions on a daily basis, and not to mention his great contribution to the conservative movement.

Will it be a fair fight? Of course not. But that doesn't matter. Battles are never fought fairly, and only the strong will survive.

Most conservative bloggers are betting on Limbaugh crushing the opposition like an ant. If the Obama White House was a business, then it'd probably suffer the same fate as Air America. To me this pick-on-Rush strategy is a miscalculation on the White House's part, and the Democrats are just going to convert more folks into Rush's army. The economy hasn't gotten better and probably won't get any better during the Obama presidency, and people are going to realize that perhaps wanting Obama to fail was a valid point...

Sen. Bunning threatens own GOP

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) isn't too happy with his leadership discouraging him to run for re-election in 2010. Allegedly the Senator from Kentucky is threatening to resign and allow the state's Democratic governor to appoint a replacement. God forbid if that happens because we'll be looking at a Democratic super-majority of 60 seats in the Senate. The GOP definitely doesn't need a distraction like this right now...

Schwarzenegger's GOP

While acknowledging bodybuilder-turned-actor-turned-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's political success, Matt Welch of Reason highlights his failures and warns the Republican Party:

Republicans in 2009 are in a mess of their own making. If they interpret the Democrats’ sweeping victory as a clarion call to foray further into religiously inspired, Terry Schiavo–style politics that uses government as a lever to manipulate and control other people’s lives, then they will deserve their exile from power.

But it will take more than just eschewing cultural conservatism and adopting the Democrats’ interventionist economic approach to refresh the Republican brand. There is room right now for an opposition party that emphasizes what the governing party does not: freedom, as both the ultimate goal and the means to achieve it.

If Republicans use government to manipulate and control people's lives, then Democrats also do the same, albeit in a different fashion. Democrats manipulate and control people's lives by burdening them with higher taxes. They fight for the freedom to abort a fetus and pass laws that fund organizations supporting that devious cause. Eventually they also want you to drive "green" vehicles because the planet is warming (never mind the snow storms throughout the country), and again, pass laws for taxpayers to fund themselves out of a regular automobile. Is that not manipulation and control?

Welch thinks the Republicans need to be more like Democrats in order to regain power. That may be the case to spell the GOP's demise. However, it is a fact that many conservative voters chose Obama/Biden simply to send a message to the GOP, and that these voters still understand that the Republicans can still check-balance the Democrats (recall the high-profile Georgia Senate race). Conservatives are wandering the desert in search of a home, and as long as the GOP leaders can prove themselves to return to conservative politics, I don't see a problem for the Republicans in the future.

The GOP big government (failed) experiment

Richard A. Viguerie writes a good piece in the L.A. Times about Republicans' path and acceptance of Big Government:

Over the last eight years, President Bush sought to tame Big Government and turn it to conservative ends. The administration experimented with the belief -- as expressed by Huckabee, Gerson and Kristol -- that Republicans and conservatives would do better by rejecting small-government conservatism and accepting Big Government. For generations, Democrats had bribed people to vote for them with one Big Government program after another, so Republicans did the same (No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, endless deficits and, finally, the bailouts). The results of the experiment are now in: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, President-elect Barack Obama.

Indeed. Look where the Republicans are now, and look how disgruntled the conservatives are. Is there hope in reversing the Big Government trend? History tells a pessimistic story, that often government does not shrink. It all boils down to indirect vote buying. The Republicans thought they could pull such Democrat-inspired moves to win voters, but the maneuvers backfired big time. Seriously, the Republicans have nothing even close to Democrats' social programs, so what makes them think they could compete against Democrats in government programs? (Okay, maybe President Bush came close.) Do Republicans want to blur the lines between them and the Democrats? I sure hope not.

The GOP should embrace Small Government once again as Ronald Reagan did. It's also a way for the new GOP to distinguish itself from the old and from the liberals. The party may not win the fight, but as Viguerie points out "if we do not fight, we guarantee defeat."

Gingrich rains on Palin's parade

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich isn't that impressed with Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin, especially about her prospects in the 2012 presidential election. He categorizes Palin as "a significant player" for the GOP in the years to come, among "20 or 30 significant players," such as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Utah Gov. John Huntsman, and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels.

One thing is for sure: Gingrich wants attention directed towards the Republican governors in hopes of a sound victory in 2010. It's clear he wants to see the governors shape the state politics in the coming years, win in 2010, then prepare for the victory in 2012. The big question is who will emerge as the leader?

Vote, with vengeance or principles?

Let's face it: many conservative voters are in a bind this year in choosing the next president. Conservatives are not thrilled with Sen. John McCain, but casting a vote to the opposing candidate, the furthest-left ever in American history, would cause countless sleepless nights. Many people will go the "lesser of two evils" path and stick with McCain. 

Then there are those who will vote blue (and turn blue as well?) to punish the GOP for its failure to reign in government largess and the prolonged war in Iraq. That's the mentality of Radley Balko who'd voted Republican in 1996 and 2000, but voted Democrat in 2004. His frustration is clear as he pens in Reason "Why the Republicans Must Lose":

...The Republican Party has exiled its Goldwater-Reagan wing and given up all pretense of any allegiance to limited government. In the last eight years, the GOP has given us a monstrous new federal bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security. In the prescription drug benefit, it's given us the largest new federal entitlement since the Johnson administration. Federal spending—even on items not related to war or national security—has soared. And we now get to watch as the party that's supposed to be "free market" nationalizes huge chunks of the economy's financial sector.

Agreed, agreed, and agreed. But even Mr. Balko understands "This isn't to say that Barack Obama would be any better." So why vote for the "more of the two evils"?

His argument is simply... revenge. Wake up call. Punishment for the GOP. Let the Republicans have it for four years and hopefully they'll come out better and stronger. But guess what? Politicians, Republican or Democrat or whatever, won't suffer as much as the everyday folks, supposedly the "Joe the Plumbers" across America.

Your vote, that piece of paper so honored in a democratic society, is not really a weapon. Don't think of it as a firecracker that'll get a politician's undivided attention. Rather, think of a vote as a reflection of your beliefs and principles. Cast your vote because you agree with Obama or share McCain's agenda.

Don't throw away that vote simply because of your vengeful partisanship.

RNC releases fact sheet on Obama-Ayers

Today the GOP posted details of Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers on its website in an effort to bring it into focus within 30 days of the election. Ayers is a self-proclaimed domestic terrorist, and although never convicted, has admitted to the criminal deeds of bombing the Pentagon, NYC Police HQ, and other government offices.

Why Obama associated himself with this man of questionable character is certainly fair game in a presidential campaign. Do Americans care if the president befriended a radical who's unrepentant about hurting innocent lives? I would say so.

But there are those who doesn't think it matters, or at least not anymore. Howard Wolfson declares the race over in The New Republic:

Perpetually fretting Democrats will not want to accept it. The campaigns themselves can't afford to believe it. Many journalists know it but can't say it. And there will certainly be some twists and turns along the way. But take it to a well capitalized bank: Bill Ayers isn't going to save John McCain. The race is over.

The financial crisis on Wall Street has quieted McCain's voice against Obama's foreign policy and national security experience. Main Street voters are now more worried about their pension funds, 401(k) plans, and keeping their jobs.

I hope opinions like Mr. Wolfson's would only energize the conservative voters to turn out on November 4. The race is over when you cast your vote, not when somebody pens an article.

The editors of The New Yorker wants Obama to become president, while spewing the usual leftist arguments against the Bush administration's economic and foreign policies. There's too much fat in their endorsement column. Even a liberal would fall asleep reading that article of redundancy... Yes, we know you have BDS, please move on.