counter statistics

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Log Cabin Republicans Endorsement of McCain/Palin

Chris Crain has an excellent post on the topic. Crain is no liberal.

Is political insanity running rampant among Republicans these days?

First, John McCain threw good sense to the wind and tapped Sarah Palin as his running mate, even though she is untested and astonishingly unqualified to be one septuagenarian heartbeat away from the presidency.

Now Log Cabin joins in the fall foolishness by going forward with an endorsement of the McCain-Palin ticket without even waiting to ask, much less get answers, about the Alaska governor’s unknown views on a range of issues important to gay Americans. We only learned today, for example, that she opposes hate crime laws.

(UPDATE: LCR told Reuters it is taking "a wait and see approach with Gov. Palin about her views on gay issues." Huh? A bit late for that at this point.)

My understanding is that Mike DuHaime, the McCain campaign's political director, thanked Log Cabin from the podium today at the group's luncheon. That's encouraging, though let's see if there's any acknowledgment from the podium of the convention itself. Then again, why wouldn't the political director say thanks? The LCR nod helps confuse voters into believing McCain is a "compassionate conservative" on social issues, and he had to do next to nothing to get it.

(UPDATE: DuHaime told Congressional Quarterly the Log Cabin endorsement is "very helpful" because McCain is "running an inclusive campaign." I rest my case.)

It’s as if our gay Republican friends forgot the basic politics of the carrot and the stick. Now that McCain and Palin are happily chomping away on the endorsement carrot that Log Cabin could have kept dangling in front of them, all they’re left with is the stick. With apologies to my friends among their number, including my beloved co-blogger Kevin, gay Republicans aren’t exactly known for carrying a big stick.

With the Log Cabin endorsement in hand, the pressure is off Palin to commit either publicly or privately to what some accounts suggest is her “openness to anti-discrimination legislation.” If McCain is elected, inside support from Palin might be the best shot at avoiding a veto of workplace protection, since the “inclusive” senator from Arizona has voted against such legislation multiple times.

Cynics will no doubt see the rushed endorsement as a desperate ploy by Log Cabin to gain entree into the GOP’s “big tent,” a concept that gay and pro-choice Republicans have demonstrated a much greater commitment to than has the rest of the party.

***snip****

This important nugget courtesy of Marc Armbinder:

A CBS News / New York Times poll finds that 48% of Republican delegates support either gay marriage or civil unions for gay people.

With very encouraging numbers like that, Log Cabin ought to have raised the bar on what it takes to win their backing, especially considering McCain opposes absolutely any form of recognition, including largely symbolic domestic partnership registries by local governments and not-so-symbolic D.P. benefits by any level of government or public universities and the like.

1 comments:

Howard said...

KUDOS TO THE NEW YORK POST !!!
Once again ... if you compare McCain/Palin's track record with Obama/Biden's, it's no contest. McCain/Palin are a hundred times more qualified to lead this country. McCain/Palin show scores of actual achievements and solid service to America, while once again, Obama's track record is one of excessive absences from his responsibilities, and all talk with no actual experience, or contributions to America. Like Governor Palin has pointed out ... Obama had the time to write two memoirs, but never wrote one piece of significant legislation ... not even when he was in the state legislature. Regarding earmarks, and the economy ... If Obama gets elected, his irresponsible and clueless ideas for shifting America's wealth would turn the U.S.A. into a third world country, with businesses laying off employees to keep their doors open. Obama's ideas for national security would de-fang America and make us weak, putting us at the mercy of the world's tyrants.