Elizabeth Warren, as Fauxcahontas

This is the most hilarious title I’ve seen for the Democratic Massachusetts Senate candidate to date.  Take a look at the article from the Boston Herald.

Senatorial wannabe Elizabeth Warren, aka Fauxcahontas, said she listed herself as a minority in law school directories because she was hoping to meet others with Native American roots. So isn’t it a shame that Liz took a pass on last weekend’s 17th annual Harvard Powwow????  more…

White Minorities

Elizabeth Warren has stepped in it! No, she hasn’t lied, cheated or stole (that we know of), but she has told the truth.

A month ago, the Boston press revealed that the Massachusetts Democratic Senatorial candidate had labelled herself as a minority law professor, citing the fact that she’s 1/32 Native American.

What’s more, Politico revealed this week that Harvard University went as far as to label her a “diversity hire.”  But here’s the best: her response.  Warren explained that she listed herself for nearly a decade as a minority law teacher to connect with others “like” her.  HA!

She fits in just well up in Massachusetts with that African-American, Teresa Hines Kerry.

I think it’s time to write another check to Senator Scott Brown!

On Toby Quaranta

Toby (right) with his husband, Drew

This morning, a good friend of mine won a hotly contested election against an establishment candidate, a candidate who had the backing of the Wilson Building.  Oh wait, that support carries as much weight as a Michelle Bachmann endorsement.

In spite of last minute shenanigans surrounding the credentialing of voters, Toby Quaranta is the new President of the DC Young Democrats.  As you can imagine, Toby and I agree on very little politically.  But Toby is a young man who has fresh ideas, is committed, dedicated, and will go places.  He argues on the issues and rarely ventures into hyperbole.

Congratulations Toby!  I look forward to sparring with you politically, and drinking with you socially.

Cynthia McKinney — SHE’S BAAAACK!

Well, she wants to come back.

Many of you remember former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, the an ex-Democrat who once got into a scuffle with a Capitol police officer, and then called everybody and their mamma a racist.  She is reportedly planning to run for her old House seat in Georgia.

Crazy McKinney plans to run in the 4th Congressional District as a Green Party candidate.  You may recall McKinney left the Democratic Party in 2007 and was the Green Party’s presidential nominee in 2008.  She was defeated in the 2006 Democratic primary by Hank Johnson, who is still around today.

Let the crazy begin!

How Liberal Media Bias can Hurt Gays

Co-written by Mike Hubbard.

Some things are true even if Fox News says they are so, and one such truth is that most of the mainstream media are solidly on the left. This may be in the interest of the gay left, but not necessarily in the best interest of the gay community as a whole.

The 24-hour news media thrive on conflict. After all, if there were no conflicts, there would be very few (if any) stories. The trouble with liberal bias is the story tends to be the same rehashed struggle of good liberals against bad conservatives.

First off, goodness and badness are bipartisan. Neither side has a monopoly on vice or virtue.  It might be comforting to think that your side is always the good guys, but if you think so then you’re lying to yourself. If your news sources range from NPR to MSNBC to Daily Kos, you’re misleading yourself as much as the person who gets all his news from Fox and Townhall and Rush Limbaugh.

Second, just because liberals are often better than conservatives on gay issues doesn’t mean that they always are. We at Log Cabin Republicans know this, which is why a significant number of our press releases are critical of our party. When liberal bias gets involved, however, the news gets seriously warped.

When Cindy McCain, the wife of former GOP presidential candidate John McCain, mentioned that many if not most Republicans aren’t motivated by anti-gay feelings, some people on the left jumped on her comments. It’s worth noting that she is right: plenty of conservatives have gay friends and family (or are gay themselves) and vote for Republicans because of other issues.

Nevertheless, some liberals wanted to score political points. They pointed to anti-gay Republicans and ask if Mrs. McCain had been paying attention. That she has participated in the pro-gay NoH8 campaign seems to have either passed these liberals by, or mattered little to them.

It is certainly true that many conservatives and Republicans could improve their gay rights record—but so can some liberals and Democrats. Mitt Romney has deservedly taken some grief for, as governor of Massachusetts, sending friendly proclamations to gay Pride parades, and letters to Log Cabin, and then, as a presidential candidate, running as Mr. Anti-Gay Marriage.

But liberals have let slide a state senator Barack Obama being in favor of gay marriage and a President Obama “struggling” (his press secretary’s word) or “evolving” (his words to an HRC dinner) with the issue. To hold presidents and presidential candidates to the same standard would seem to be elementary journalism.  But liberal bias hangs conservatives out to dry while letting liberals off the hook — when on the hook is where they belong.

Two years ago, when Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, not much was done. Nancy Pelosi famously said, “not now,” when asked about repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and passing a trans-inclusive employment nondiscrimination bill. There was very little uproar, in the press or by activists. There were, of course, a few exceptions. Back then, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force said, “We have heard that the official whip is completed and that there are enough votes to pass ENDA in committee and in the House.” Today, we still await passage of ENDA. But now, it is Republicans who get the blame for it.

As we have said before, each day, we discover more moderate and conservative Republicans all over the country who are coming to the realization that inclusion does win.

We’re lucky to have true pioneers like the state legislators in New York, Washington, New Jersey, and closer to home, Maryland, who voted for marriage equality, including Maryland state Sen. Allan Kittleman. Nationally, we have great allies and champions in Congress. We need more. Electing more inclusive Republicans to Congress is the most important mission of Log Cabin Republicans.

Media bias keeps us from seeing the world as it is. Some conservatives are friendly to gays, just as some liberals aren’t. When we tolerate biased media, we’re tolerating self-deception. It seems as though liberal interests are not the same as gay interests. Liberal or conservative, we should agree that media bias doesn’t help gays.

Robert Turner is president of the D.C. chapter of Log Cabin Republicans. Reach him at robert.turner@dclogcabin.org or @DCBigPappa on Twitter. Mike Hubbard is a board member of the D.C. chapter of Log Cabin. Reach him at mike.hubbard@dclogcabin.org or @mikeahub.

Homophobia is a Problem for Both Parties

In 1992, Bill Clinton campaigned hard for gay votes and made promises to end discrimination. He backslid. The anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act passed both houses of Congress with lopsided, bipartisan majorities and was signed into law by none other than President Clinton.

Homophobia is a bipartisan problem and therefore requires a bipartisan solution.  Namely, that bigotry toward gay people is unacceptable and that we are equal to straight people both legally and morally. It’s an imperfect analogy, but just as racists are repudiated, so too should homophobes be ostracized — wherever they arise, in whatever party.

We obviously aren’t there yet. Democrats have improved more than Republicans have, but they’re in danger of backsliding. Consider a state Senate race in Virginia pitting a Democratic incumbent, Janet Howell, against a gay Republican, Patrick Forrest. It’s a close race between the long time legislator and a first-time campaigner who has knocked on 30,000 doors.

Howell has a decent pro-gay rights record. But a Democratic volunteer was caught on tape claiming that Forrest will push a “homosexual agenda in our children’s schools.” As a member of the Fairfax County Textbook Selection Committee, Forrest has said that there’s “too much Marx” in textbooks. That might be an agenda — but a homosexual one? It’s an egregious misrepresentation of his views, particularly since Forrest isn’t running as a gay Republican but rather as someone who cares about traffic congested Northern Virginia and public transit and the budget and who happens to be gay.

More seriously, without defining “homosexual agenda,” Howell’s supporter who made the remarks invites projection: She could mean anything from rainbow flags to pedophilia. She has attempted a smear that affects not just Forrest but all gay men. Will she get away with it? Some people, but not enough, are criticizing Howell’s campaign.

The Washington Blade has reported this incident, Log Cabin Republicans has fired off press releases, and the Victory Fund has sent out e-mails on Forrest’s behalf. Good as these groups are, they aren’t enough. It’s troubling that the Human Rights Campaign and Stonewall Democrats have been silent; it’s worse that the Virginia Partisans (Northern Virginia’s equivalent to Gertrude Stein) have endorsed Howell. The gay groups seem to have an unholy alliance with mainstream media outlets like The Washington Post that haven’t deigned to cover this. Gay people cannot tell a newspaper to cover a bigot, but it ought to be news when a major newspaper covers up bigotry.

Yet when major gay rights organizations stay silent, something else might be at work.  It is no secret that Democrats are generally friendlier than Republicans toward gays. But that does not mean that Democrats always are better friends, nor does it mean that they are always in the right.

In politics, if something works, other people (from both sides) will keep doing it. Take, for example, negative advertising. Despite many voters’ complaints about it, it keeps being used because it works.  In this state Senate race, a Democrat has stooped to gay baiting to win a race; if it works, we’ll surely see more anti-gay smears used against both Republicans and Democrats.

Forrest is running this race to win, being honest about who he is, proudly running as a Log Cabin Republican with the endorsement of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund. He has based his campaign not on who he is but on issues: fiscal conservatism, transportation policy and improving the 32nd District of Virginia. Now that he is a threat, Democrats want to punish him for it. Being criticized for positions is what politics and the First Amendment are all about; we wouldn’t have it any other way. But Howell has allegedly turned to smears and innuendo and everything ugly about politics. Many qualified gay people don’t run for office precisely because of the politics of slander, which Howell is accused of practicing and which the Virginia Partisans, the Washington Post and others are enabling.

If gay activists and the liberal media won’t stand up for a gay Republican against homophobic politics, then Log Cabin Republicans will. We cannot let the politics of personal destruction prevail. Patrick Forrest deserves our support.

We hope that we aren’t in danger of engendering more legalized bigotry like DOMA.  But when Democrats use anti-gay slurs, we’re backsliding. It’s true enough that many straight people have a homophobia problem, but if gay people turn a blind eye to bigots, we deserve their contempt.

What Happened in NY-09

First of all, I have not been following this race at all outside of the last few days.  I‘ve had more important things on my mind, like my birthday coming up next week (I love gifts!).  That being said, I would like to offer some thoughts on the special election in New York’s 9th Congressional district.

No matter what pontification you hear from professional and novice (like me) talking heads, Bob Turner won this election because of one thing; one person; one issue: BARACK OBAMA!  The polling, especially from Democratic firms easily show that.

Yes, there are a few minor issues (minor to the voters of that district) that had some effect as well.  They were Israel, marriage, and residency.  The 218 year old NY-09 district, which currently spans from the outer boroughs of Brooklyn to Queens, hasn’t sent a Republican to Congress since 1923.  This was not only Anthony Weiner’s seat, but it was also the seat of now-Senator Chuck Schumer and former VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro.  But back to the issues.

This special election was all about jobs and the President.  It was clearly a rebuke of Obama’s stewardship of the economy.  Simply saying that he “inherited this mess” ain’t working any more.

Of note, there is the large population of Orthodox Jewish voters in the district.  So the president’s position that Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders comes into play as well.  Then there is the issue of marriage equality.  Democrat David Weprin was a State Assemblyman who voted to bring marriage equality to the empire state (for that, I thank him).  And finally, there was a small problem of Weprin not being a resident of the district.

Now granted, a Public Policy Polling poll indicated last week that voters in NY-09 oppose same-sex marriage 45%-41%, that’s hardly outside of the margin of error.  And as much as the National Organization for Marriage would like to believe, their $75k in mailers wasn’t the end-all-be-all of contributions from groups outside towards the district.  In fact, according to OpenSecrets.org, Democratic-aligned groups spent $676,900 in the race – 88% of all money spent by outside groups.

I must say, I agree with one part of NOM’s press release last night — marriage is an issue that is not going away.  They are correct.  But they will see that the longer it remains an issue, the less support they will have.  Frankly speaking, their demographics are dying off; much like the notch babies (that wasn’t very PC of me).

Had this race been closer, then I could easily see how marriage, Israel, and residency would have played a greater role.  But with the Associated Press calling it an eight point victory for Turner, those are merely fringe issues.

As political guru Stu Rothenberg said to the Washington Post, “Make no mistake about it, the albatross around Weprin’s neck is named Obama, and Democrats who value honesty will tell you privately that the president’s 37 percent approval rating in the district is making it difficult for Weprin to win a race that in almost any other time would be a slam dunk.”

I now have two questions: (1) will we soon see a presidential trip to Israel or a State dinner on their behalf? And (2) does this now mean I am a Congressman?  HA!

Obama’s Pending Jobs Speech

For anyone who is currently following the 2012 campaign, it was obvious from the moment it was announced yesterday why the White House picked next Wednesday for the President to give his address to the nation about his jobs plan.

They want to show President Obama talking about jobs and the economy while the GOP contenders are talking about politics.

More concertedly, the White House surely wants to rain on the Perry parade and blunt his momentum.

Both NBC and Politico, the sponsors of next week’s debate at the Reagan Library were moving ahead with the debate, but were likely to have adjusted the start time around Obama’s speech.

In a gutsy move that easily prevailed, Speaker Boehner offered an alternative date for the President.  The blogosphere and Twitterverse immediately went apoplectic.  Democratic consultant Donna Brazile tweeted, @donnabrazile “Here we go again. The President is asking for a Joint Session to discuss jobs, jobs, jobs. And how did Mr Boehner reply? Just say no.”

Of course Boehner didn’t just say no, he merely proposed another date. The Left is so quick to be disingenuous.

But here’s a question for Ms. Brazile and her cohorts: For the last year and a half, the President has said that he was going to focus on jobs, jobs, jobs; even creating the President’s Council on Jobs & Competitiveness, where he admitted that those “shovel-ready projects weren’t so shovel-ready.”  What’s become of this council?  Why have they only had two meetings?  Why wasn’t this speech performed given two weeks ago when he first said he had a plan?  If it is so important for this speech to be delivered, why didn’t they do so BEFORE he went on vacation?

But let’s look at the real problem.  The White House has done a poor job rolling out this campaign speech.  They hyped it too early.  They waited too long.

The White House says Thursday won’t work because of football.  But then they capitulate.  Did they really think that if people won’t watch the President give another speech because of football they will watch him over Wipe Out or a rerun of House?  Or will images of the President vacationing and golfing in Martha’s Vineyard still be etched in people’s minds?

To many, it’s a mute point, as liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias tweeted, @mattyglesias “EXCLUSIVE: No matter which day Obama delivers its speech, ratings will be low and impact minimal.”  Smells like the bigotry of low expectations to me.

No pro-choice litmus test for Victory Fund

The following is an op-ed I wrote for the Washington Blade.  It was published on Friday.  It will also be distributed to the Swish Edition on Monday.

——————————————————

I had the pleasure of attending the Victory Fund’s National Champagne Brunch last week. It was a day of firsts. It was my first time going, and it was their first time at the Washington Hilton. They were celebrating their 20th anniversary. There was a wonderful performance to start the day from the D.C. Cowboys. The speeches were good and not too long. And thanks to David Perruzza and JR.’s, the Champagne was definitely flowing. It was indeed a great afternoon of celebration.

The work that the Victory Fund does is important. We need more gays and lesbians serving in elective office. We need to build leaders who today will run for the city councils and state houses so that tomorrow, they can run for governor, Congress and even the White House.

Victory Fund endorses candidates who have gone through a vetting process to ensure that the candidate has a serious campaign and that they’ve demonstrated a real path to electoral success.  There are not many, but Victory Fund does endorse a few Republicans each cycle.

Their mission is simple: “To change the face and voice of America’s politics and achieve equality for LGBT Americans by increasing the number of openly LGBT officials at all levels of government.”

However if you look closer, in a bit of mission creep, they add in a few caveats that are limiting. They almost always endorse pro-choice candidates. In fact, to my knowledge, they’ve only endorsed one pro-lifer in recent history — Dan Hill, who ran for the General Assembly in Nevada last year.

Now this column is not intended to start a discussion about abortion. Let’s save that for another day. But is it wise to couple being gay with being pro-choice? Of course not. Although it is true that the inspiration to create the Victory Fund comes from EMILY’S List, that’s where the similarities should end.

In limiting the scope of their field, Victory Fund risks circumventing its very own mission – electing more out LGBT people to office.

While abortion is a very important issue to many in the LGBT community, it is not, nor should it be, what defines us. The one thing that should define us is our goal to bring full equality to all LGBT Americans.

What would be next in this mission creep? Only supporting out gay and lesbian pro-choice candidates who are pro-union, left-handed, recycle and support federal funding for National Public Radio? Now that’s just silly.

Unlike other national organizations in our communities with big budgets, Victory Fund has done a good job showing that it’s not a political arm of the Democratic National Committee.

But it needs to understand that being pro-life is not bad for the gay cause. And what would happen if science were to ever discover the “gay gene?” Would everyone in the community suddenly become pro-life so parents don’t abort babies who have “it?” Again, silly.

My message to Victory Fund is simple: Get rid of the pro-abortion plank in your vetting process and move on. Chuck Wolfe, Victory Fund’s executive director, said it best at the Sunday brunch about the type of people we need to help get elected: “Not just out candidates, but outstanding candidates.” Some of them just might be pro-life. And that should be OK. There should not be a litmus test other than being out and proud and having a credible campaign with a chance of success. That’s the winning ticket.

More Hypocrisy: Blood Libel

Yesterday, in the New York Times, former Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), who lost his reelection bid for a fouteenth term last November, said the following in an op-ed…

“We all lose an element of freedom when security considerations distance public officials from the people. Therefore, it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation.”

Huh!  A funny thing happened on the way to the Times.  Just before he was ousted from Congress, Kanjorksi said this about then-candidate Rick Scott (R-FL), who successfully ran for Governor of Florida…

“That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida. Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.”

Hypocrite, party of one?