Log Cabin Republicans Endorse Giuliani... Well... Sort Of.

The Log Cabin Republicans (which they tell me is an actual, real organization of gay Republicans. Seriously! They have a website and everything) have launched a fun ad campaign against Mitt Romney. The ad follows closely in the 'satirical endorsement' footsteps of my own commercial, 'Gays For Giuliani.'

When I produced my ad, I felt totally uncomfortable hitting someone from the right. It's just weird for me to attack someone for being (or in Rudy and Romney's case - once being) correct on an issue. But, I did it, only because the idea of President Giuliani is much scarier to me than a few lame gay jokes.

The Log Cabin Republicans actually love Rudy Giuliani though. Why? Who knows. Rudy is the exact same social-moderate-turned-friend-of-the-Christian-Right that Romney is.

Whatever their reasoning, the LCRs have produced an attack ad against Mitt Romney which represents an endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. They know they can't endorse Giuliani publicly because it would only hurt him. So, they attack his closest rival.

My only question to the Log Cabin Republicans is, how can you be part of a primary process in which your very endorsement would all but sink your favorite candidate? That's just gay.

Defending Mitt Romney on Youtube Two Weeks Ago

Follow Ryan J. Davis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ryannewyork

Comments

[FeelinGroovy]

Love the gays for giuliani! :) We need a lesbians for Hillary and OJ fans for Obama ;)

Edwards '08

[didereaux]

They, the LCR, need look no further than Rudy's new innovation for raising campaign funds...mixes entertainment with message...
promo here:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1027/1480721870_a1e9a33d96_o.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12461951@N03/

Use the whole line including the @N03/ the HuffPo Dollar Store blogware can't handle that sort of line.

... ;)

[AndreaSue]

I agree that it is important for there to be a gay and/or Christian presence amongst Republicans so that the right doesn't totally "tip the boat" if you will, but I also don't think that gays should simply lean or vote Republican for that reason. You should just go with what you believe in. If you inwardly a Democrat but you pretend to be a Republican because the conservative right "needs you", then you're really just defeating your own cause.

[djreedps]

I am a very liberal, atheist, gay man. A lot of my friends have said things like "Why are there Log Cabin Republicans when their party hates them?"

My response to that question is, "We need gay Republicans and gay Christians."

Think of it this way. How likely would a straight, right-wing, evangelical christian sit down and talk with a gay liberal atheist like me? Not likely at all. However, the same right-wing person may be more inclined to sit down with an equally right-wing, christian Republican despite the fact that Republican is gay. I, as a liberal, have NO chance to change the minds and abolish the ignorance of people who are ideologically 180 degrees from me.

So that is why Log Cabin Republicans is an important organization for gay people. But I do agree that the LCR probably should not endorse candidates until the Republican party stops hating gay people.

[DGreatOne]

I guess that having Clinton give us "don't ask, don't tell" and the federal Defense of Marriage Act is the Democrat's way of telling us they love us.
Thank God for the Log Cabin Republicans! 25% of the gay vote went to George W Bush in 2004. It's hard to believe that not all people agree with every remedy, inside and outside gay politics, that is offered by liberal Democrats.

[deedrdo]

YOU may think it's an important organization for gay people but the people in my gay world think being a log cabin republican makes about as much sense as belonging to jews for hitler.

they will never never ever get the republican party to five them one political, civil or political concession. but those poor little self-loathing 'mo's just won't give it up.

the log cabiners i've talked to say they do it because 'i'm fiscally conservative, that's why i'm a republican. we can all clearly see that that's no longer a viable tenant of the GOP. so now they just go around begging ANYONE to take their check to make them feel socially viable.

honestly, i think they all need some serious therapy.

do NOT lick the boots of your oppressor, ever.

[BUSHsurvivor]

As a gay man I totally agree!

[dadw5boys]

Log Cabin Republicans must have missed that one of their own is running for President.
RON PAUL stands for all the values of the Log Cabin Republicans. What is their problem?
Oh he does not go Pandering to the Religious Right?
Ron Paul WILL NOT PANDER HIS IDEALS, they are NOT FOR SALE.

[Steamboater]

The Log Cabin Republicans are a bad joke. They always have been. They want Giuliani as president because they think he now supports gay rights, when in fact left to Giuliani his supreme court nominee would guarantee any gay rights suit brought before the supreme court sunk to the bottom of the barrel. What fools they are.
You have idiots in all parties however. Dems have their war mongers, anti-semites and racists and homophobes etc but thankfully not as many as the republican party. .

[Qbear]

Democrat Convention's Cocktail Parties will ALL have the following signs featuring Larry Craig's face, or Bob Allen's face, or DiFatta's face

and the caption

"who do you have to blow to get a drink in here?"

[soundoff]

LOL Qbear. As Larry the cable guy would say: "Now that's funny, I don't care who you are." Right? Perhaps the Log Cabin crew can get a hold of those pictures of Giuliani in drag at the 'Gay Pride' party in NYC, when he was mayor, after the 'Gay Pride' parade he walked in. Personally, I think Rudy is a lot better looking with a wig and in drag than as is. Heck, some of the gay Dems might even vote for him, if he'll start dressing in public, as he does in the closet. LOL.

[Steamboater]

You know, considering the republican convention is going to be held in Minneapolis, I wouldn't be surprised if that bathroom is closed or even torn down before the convention.

[edweird]

Alot of these "Log Cabin" types are gay men with a right wing ideology. They tend to be upper class and they will throw the rest of the gay community under the bus as long as they can get that tax cut. They are big here in Dallas and I can only describe them as pretentious, snotty, and unable to relate to gays who are black, hispanic, uneducated, or disowned by their families.

[Qbear]

Those Republican A-Queens are the same in New Orleans....they can't speak for any lesbians...cuz they don"t know any.

[BUSHsurvivor]

So true Ed!

[Qbear]

The difference between Rudy and Mittler for gays isn't mysterious or subtle. Rudy attended LGBT Pride and moved in with a gay couple during his divorce. This is more important to me that a gay couple was WILLING to house Rudy.
Mittler lied to queers, with his brochures and articles, never attended Pride, and has no apparent gay friends. Then Mittler dragged forward an ugly racist 1913 anti-inter racial law to prevent out state couples from marrying in MA. This held back marriage nationwide for Bush to stock the Supreme Court with BIGOTS like Roberts and Alito who will deny gay equality 30 years.
Gays might prefer Hillary or Obama to Rudy, but Mittler we will actively sabotage.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1210139/RomneyGayFlyer1.jpg

[LeaderofMen]

So what about a few fair-minded Republicans currently in office or on benches. As we've seen, they're as scarce as hen's teeth. They are a dying breed and they are being run out of office as quickly as the majority of Repiglicans can unelect them - or bury them in basements.

Log Cabin Republicans are no different than the battered wife who continues to go back to her battering husband. After all, Republicans have a freakin' plank in their platform that is strictly anti-gay.

The only possible reason for gays to be Republicans is that they love abuse.

Well... some love abuse. After all, we get heaps of it from society at large. Some adult gay men and women grew up trying to pretend that daddy approved of them only if they were straight. The psychology of 'gay Republicans' is fascinating. They prove their pathological condition by donating time, money and expertise to support an entire segment of the population, eg Republicans, that hates them more than they hate anything in the world. Even broccoli.

[Freedoms Friend]

Rudy is wearing the largest pair of flip flops in the history of politics, guns, abortion, gays,McGovern, many more too numerous to mention.
Someone give the man a beach, he is a loser.

[HollywoodBill]

The Revival Tent Republicans, epitomized by Bush and Company, and Dobson and his minions, haven't always had control of the GOP. There is a long, rich tradition in the Western states and their brand of libertarian Republicanism, with its belief in the individual that is attractive to many gays. Let's not forget that before Barney Frank, there was Jim Kolbe, a gay Republican US Representative from AZ who, while he didn't run openly as a gay man at first, handily won reelection four times after that.

Let's also not forget that in the 6-3 Lawrence v Texas decision that finally eliminated sodomy laws, four of the Justices who voted to decriminalize the anti gay laws were Republican appointees. Not all Republicans are part of the Taliban wing of the GOP.

That said, I don't understand the LCRs support of Guiliani. Guiliani has already given away the store by promising the snake handling Republicans to appoint "strict constructionist" judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas--two of the Justices who were in the dissenting opinion in the Lawrence v Texas case. This isn't a case of veering right for the primaries and then back to the center for the general election. Giuliani actually tends to keep his campaign promises.

Romney was interesting as Governor of Massachusetts, but his pandering to the moralizing busybody brigade of the GOP renders him unacceptable. As does Giuliani. November 08 is all about judicial appointments. The Revival Tent Republicans must be defeated next November.

[countingthedays]

Re: Lawrence v Texas. Yes, four of the six in the majority vote were nominated by republicans. But two of those four are gone, and they were replaced with Alito and Roberts. Methinks if this case came to the court again, it would turn out to be yet another 5-4 decision, but this time in favor of Texas.

As much as I hate the seven years of this idiot's term of playing president, I must endure another 20 or so of his supreme court nominees. That is the worse evil.

[HollywoodBill]

Actually, only one of the four Republicans who ruled that Lawrence v Texas had to go is no longer with SCOTUS, Sandra Day O'Connor. The other five are very much still there (Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, as well as the the two Dem appointees, Ginsburg and Breyer. Of the three who voted against Lawrence, Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist, it's only the Chief Justice Rehnquist who is also gone.

The dynamics of the court have indeed changed, but there is no reason to assume that any of the five Justices would change their opinion.

However, there is no question that the legacy that keeps on giving is the appointment of SCOTUS and other judicial nominations. And here, Giuliani has already promised the store to the Revival Tent Republicans and therefore is unacceptable. The LCRs really need to do some research before they endorse anyone. Refusing to endorse anyone could be a useful tool to the 30% of gays (according to CNN) who indeed do vote Republican.

[massimo1]

A much better, more poignant question is, why do these particular gay people INSIST on crashing the party that loathes them? I know, I've heard the standard patter that they could never be part of the tax and spend democrats, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum. Or could it be they are just projecting their self-loathing? As long as the log cabin crowd identify themselves as gay first, they will have a better chance with the more receptive and welcoming democrat party - and arguing for change in economic and other policies there - than they would trying to get republicans to honestly and truly accept them for who they are. They will only be accepted (e.g., USED) for their votes, nothing more. And, by the way, it is the republicans and their misconceived fiscal policies that are sinking the economy, not the democrats.

[Dantheman99]

I am very disappointed in Rudy. He supported Civil Unions and the principle of equality rights and responsibilities for gays and lesbians in America. Now he is watering this down to appeal to bigots.

I was hoping that he would have the courage to face down the anti-gay bigots who have so much power in the party.

He could just say, I'm for Civil Unions, get over it and move on.

Romney is worse. I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth. He won't even stand behind the health care compromise he helped bring about in Massachusetts. He seems like someone who will say anything to anyone and spend any amount of money to become President.

Unfortunately, I think he's going to end up the Republican nominee. Fortunately, Romney will then lose in a landslide to Hillary. Well, however "fortunate" that turns out to be.

[Stevelagain]

Hillary went to a lesbian college and filled the Clinton whitehouse with lesbian friends, I think you are going to love the Hillary Whitehouse.

[Stevelagain]

Christians will not support a man that kills millions of babies.

If Rudi wins the republican nomination­.....Hilla­ry will Waltz into the Whitehouse because many conservatives will simply not vote for the office of president. AND, many may stay home they are so discouraged and thus hand the democrats more gains in 08.

And why didn't Newt run? Lets get real, he thinks Hillary has a lock on it and there is nothing any Republican can do to stop her.

[cuthbertallgood]

Newt?
He is the man who dumped his wife while she was in the cancer ward, for a younger woman.
He's an admitted adulterer, a hypocrite who publically condemed Bill Clinton for doing something Newt himself was doing at the same time.
No Independents would vote for him. No Democrats. No married women or women who want to be married. The actual Christians would not vote for him either.
He is not running due to a vast lack of popularity, a long history of debauchery and double speak.

[Steamboater]

Newt isn't running because he's poison to the electorate and he knows it. The only reason he would run is because then he would have a chance to get his big mouth into the debates and therefore feed is pasty-faced ego.
As for Christians, you and the rest of the right wing fundies don't have all exclusive rights and privilegdes to Chistianity. There's plenty, in fact more Christians who really give a damn about the quality of life of a woman and accept her choice to have an abortion if she wants one.

[wmbear]

WHAT ABOUT A MAN WHO'S KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IRAQIS...

That doesn't seem to stop a lot of so-called "Christians" from supporting George W. Bush. In fact, that seems to be where most of his support comes from....

[BamaRainbow]

Well, as none of the candidates have actually killed any babies (real or theoretical), I don't see why you're in such a snit.
As for the abortion issue and supporting legal and safe abortions, what effin' business is it of yours? Don't cancer cells have a "right to live" (even if they kill you)? Don't intestinal parasites have a "right to life" (even if they might kill you--or at least, make you wish you were dead)? A FETUS is NOT a human being. Even in the Bible, there is NO guaranteed "right to life"; hell, Cain effin' murdered his brother, yet Yahweh PROTECTED that murderer from being killed--but that aside, a woman's womb didn't harbor a child under Jewish law until the "quickening" (i.e., when the baby first kicks and shows signs of life). Until then, a pregnant woman who was injured and had a miscarriage was only due reparations (or more precisely, her husband was due the payment) for HER OWN injuries. The miscarriage itself was only factored in IF a fully-formed child were expelled as a result of the injuries. (If the pregnancy continued to birth, and the child were still-born, the person who'd injured the woman was not liable.)