Perhaps Paul Babeu, the Arizona sheriff and former Romney campaign manager, should spend more time studying the Republican Party's approach to gay rights. The former U.S. serviceman turned law enforcement officer, who by all accounts has lived an exemplary life, has a blaringly obvious blindside.
Babeu is currently embroiled in a scandal involving a Mexican immigrant male with whom he admittedly carried on a secret three-year relationship. At present, the details remain unclear, but the story seems to embody the classic characteristics of a love affair gone wrong: hard feelings became harsh accusations. Following the demise of their relationship, "Jose," the man identified as Babeu's ex-lover, has accused the sheriff of threatening him with deportation as a tactic to secure his silence.
Babeu, who is currently running for Congress on the GOP ticket, achieved national notoriety as a new, youthful face of Tea Party conservatism when, in 2010, he appeared in a reelection campaign advert for Senator John McCain. The now-infamous commercial focused on border control and featured Babeu alongside McCain urging President Barack Obama to "complete the danged fence." Babeu, who rode the post-2008 Tea Party wave into office, joined Governor Jan Brewer and the state's Republican-majority legislature in pushing for a strict anti-immigrant (read: "anti-Hispanic") platform, causing Arizona to become the stage for a trifecta of xenophobia, GOP politics, and anti-Obama sentiment. The relatively unassuming patriot, who previously served in Iraq as a member of the Army National Guard, bought into a reenergized Republican platform of national security, traditional values, and "taking back the country." In the face of growing concern over violence among Mexican drug cartels, and a flailing U.S. economy still struggling to provide jobs for American workers -- let alone illegal immigrants -- the GOP's aggressive message resonated.
But Babeu had a secret, and one he seems to have been all too happy to keep until forced to admit. Publicly, Babeu supported conservative, Republican dogma, which is all too often anti-gay-rights in general and anti-gay-marriage in particular. Privately, he has been perusing gay dating websites and engaged in romantic relationships with other men. This wouldn't be newsworthy except for its inherent hypocrisy and political significance amidst a Republican presidential primary race defined by culture wars. Abortion, women's contraceptive rights, and gay marriage have each become fodder for Republican debates and policy proposals, all in the name of Christian ideals and American exceptionalism.
In a recent interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Paul Babeu naively suggested that the Republican candidates would agree with him that his personal life should not be infringed upon by the government. This is where the wave of cognitive dissonance presents an overwhelming tide. Either Babeu has no idea how aggressively far-right the modern Republican Party has become in the Age of Obama, or he has chosen willful ignorance, like too many openly gay Republicans.
Santorum made it clear there should be no public policy effort at the federal or state level to support, protect, or promote the interests of gay Americans. Mitt Romney has articulated his disappointment with President Obama's decision to repeal DADT, the antiquated U.S. military policy that excluded gays from serving openly. Romney went further by attacking Obama's directive to the Justice Department to cease defending DOMA, which allows states to ignore and disregard gay marriages that have been granted in another state or territory. Gingrich is equally static on the issue of gay marriage, despite currently being with his third wife, following two messy extramarital affairs and divorce. Ron Paul, hailed as the ambassador of libertarian idealism and freedom from government control, continues to spout the well-rehearsed line that marriage should be only "between one man and one woman." In what political universe is Paul Babeu living?
If love, family, God, and country are the central tenets of his faith and patriotism, then he appears sorely misguided. Today's GOP is as anti-gay as it is anti-abortion and anti-Obama. Babeu's insistence on supporting a political party forcefully opposed to issues that affect his personal happiness and govern his individual choice either reflects a deep-seated self-hatred and internalized homophobia or mirrors the broader hypocrisy of the modern Republican Party: namely, saying one thing but meaning another, using lies in defiance of facts, and promoting propaganda as a platform for political consciousness.
Babeu's opponent for the Congressional seat, Arizona State Senator Ron Gould, is now poised to gain more support in a relatively conservative district. Babeu, 43, had remained tacit on his public stance for gay rights, but following the revelation of his gay affair, he said, "I can be a supporter and get out and help articulate as we progress as a culture and a society." The logic behind such a statement is clearly flawed, as gay rights activists and organizations continue to work toward equality in civil rights, achieving real success from Washington to Maryland, California to New York. Babeu and his ilk remain trapped in a past that ignores progress, as if American culture and society has not already moved on beyond where the Republican mindset sits stunted. Countless European nations, and even South Africa, the former cradle of apartheid, have embraced gay rights. When will the so-called freedom-loving, compassionate conservatives in America come around to the idea? And why do gay Americans like Paul Babeu cling to GOP ideology and rhetoric that are specifically designed to deny people like him the fullness of an American dream and great American love story?
Follow Edward Wyckoff Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/wyckoffwilliams
But hypocracy seems to be stock in trade in the Republican party---so one might argue that Log Cabin Republicans are just falling in line with a time honored GOP tactic.
1. only a small percentage of GOP are hard headed religious fanatics.
2. Many are just sucking it up to the Corporate well moneyed for the sake of well money and power, and influence and havn't a religious bone in their body even if they say they do.
3. Most are not social conservative as they are fiscally conservative.
4. There are allot of fiscally conservatives that will hang on to the GOP even if their moal conservative values don't line up. They realize in the end the moral war was lost and its taking the religious side of the GOP a bit to long to assimulate that fact but eventually they will.
You should take a look at the Gingrinch speaking at a church in Georgia thread, for more than ample proof.
#3 is just an outright falsehood. Three out of the 4 current 'contenders' signed the so-called "Marriage Pledge", and a vast majority of the frightwing are of one accord on that matter - or America would have had true Liberty and Justice for ALL a LONG, long time ago.
In my view, "Do not sin" is a personal :: not a political :: objective. Indeed, much of classical liberalism--especially its language of human rights and equality before and under the law--was and remains largely, though not totally, based on the political and legal principle of "Do no harm." And, further, the idea of "Do no harm" largely arose out of conflict with the authoritarian natures of governments based on "Do not sin" because that personal injunction was applied holus-bolus to limit the personal freedoms of just about everyone.
Perhaps the surprising support for Santorum is not indicative of 'hard headed religious fanatics", but I can see no other reason for his intemperate language than its appeal to those whom he believes are majority Republicans.
I am uncertain what you mean by your last sentence that the 'moral war was lost'. Could you elaborate?
I am uncertain what you mean by your last sentence that the 'moral war was lost'. Could you elaborate?
I am uncertain what you mean by your last sentence that the 'moral war was lost'. Could you elaborate?
The War the christian right had waged to keep things like gay marriage and the sexual revolution of the 60's at bay and at least illegal for the most part as was the case for many decades before.
There is a distinct difference between personal choice and oath to an office.
* Dr. Paul doesn't condone heroin use as a personal choice, but defends the right of an individual to make their own decisions as part of his oath of office.
* Paul doesn't condone racism or bigotry, but defends the 1st Amendment rights of individuals of freedom of non-violent expression.
* Paul believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but defends the law of private contracts between two willing parties.
Paul will never take heroin, become a bigot, nor marry a man -- but defends the individual's rights to make their own decisions. You can add examples of raw milk, marijuana, holistic medicine, etc...
You talk about "anti-Obama sentiment" by Republicans but if you read just about any post or comment on HuffPo you will see anti-Bush sentiment. What is the difference? Does looking in a mirror bother you much?
39.8 Blacks are on welfare today.
17.6 Hispanice are on welfare today.
2.4 Asians are on welfare today.
Now tell me between the one full percentage point difference then the other because of the unemployment insurance running out for the middle class white workers are not just one point behind Blacks. If the poor are not taken care of they will rise up in increasing crime. Social injustices and well you would start seeing things on tv here that you had seen on Tv for London. And a social shift would accure that would again drive racism thru the roof.
It's just like any abusive relationship; specifically the one in where the woman is in 'love' with the drunken and violent man. The woman is beaten up, gets black eyes, missing teeth and the like; and then as an apology the man buys the woman a box of chocolates or something and all is forgiven. At the same time the woman's sentiment in this relationship is "He's a wonderful man really, he just has a temper."
To anyone looking in at such a relationship we often question at how this woman could possibly stand by this horrible man's side despite all the abuse, at how she can excuse all the horrible things about him.
I can only suggest that gay Republicans are essentially 'cheap', a box of chocolates and all is forgiven.