Romney Meets with Black People

This morning, presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney spoke before the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Folk People (NAACP).  I didn’t get a chance to watch the video, but I have read most of the text of the speech.  I encourage you to do the same before listening to the chattering class (on either side) later tonight on cable news.  Read it for yourself.  Big props to Kathleen McKinley of the Houston Chronicle for posting the entire transcript.  Wasn’t able to find it anywhere else.

Thank you, Bishop Graves, for your generous introduction. Thanks also to President Ben Jealous and Chairman Roslyn Brock for the opportunity to be here this morning, and for your hospitality. It is an honor to address you.

I appreciate the chance to speak first – even before Vice President Biden gets his turn tomorrow. I just hope the Obama campaign won’t think you’re playing favorites.

You all know something of my background, and maybe you’ve wondered how any Republican ever becomes governor of Massachusetts in the first place. Well, in a state with 11 percent Republican registration, you don’t get there by just talking to Republicans. We have to make our case to every voter. We don’t count anybody out, and we sure don’t make a habit of presuming anyone’s support. Support is asked for and earned – and that’s why I’m here today. MORE…

Quote of the Day

“Mr. Boehner comes out and says, Rush’s language was inappropriate. Using a salad fork for your entree, that’s inappropriate. Not this stuff. I mean, and Rick Santorum says well, what he says was absurd, but an entertainer is allowed to be absurd. No. It is the responsibility of conservatives to police the right in its excesses, just as the liberals unfailingly fail to police the excesses in their own side. And it was depressing, because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”

— George Will, on This Week, ripping Republican leaders for their weak response to Rush Limbaugh calling Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a “slut.”

Federal Court Says DOMA Unconstitutional

Another day, another victory for equality. Today, Judge Jeffrey White, a George W. Bush appointee to the federal bench, declared the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional as it applied to Karen Golinski.

A great analysis by Ari Ezra Waldman of Towleroad.com. Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2012/02/domaanalysis.html#ixzz1nDOPOhjQ

DC GOP Event with Rep. Jo Ann Emerson

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson with DC GOP Chairman Bob Kabel

Last evening, I attended a wondeful reception put on by the Advisory Council of the DC Republican Committee.  It was at the lovely home of Linwood and Connie Tipton on Capitol Hill.  The featured guest was Missouri Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson.

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson with DC Log Cabin President Robert Turner

Jo Ann, as she insisted I call her, is the first Republican woman to represent Missouri in Congress.  She serves as the Chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia and its budget.  Jo Ann has long been an advocate of keeping Congress out of DC’s interal governance and management as much as possible.

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson with School Board Member Pat Mara

One of the key issues she touched upon in her talk last night, was passing a one year bill that would give complete control of the DC budget (minus dollars for abortions) to the DC Council.  This would allow for the District to not be held hostage in the instance of any budget stops or continuing resolutions at the federal level.

Many locally will balk at the restrictive abortion language that she is including, but this is a win and a definite move in the direction of local autonomy.  To use the Voltairian phrase often quoted by the President, we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

GOP Debate at the Reagan Library

Last night’s Republican Presidential Candidate’s debate at the Reagan Library, sponsored by MSNBC and Politico was an interesting one hour and 45 minutes.  Because of the number of candidates participating – eight – enough attention to specific details were not afforded.  But it did help to highlight some of the shining moments from the second tier candidates.

Being his first debate since entering the race, all eyes were on Texas Governor Rick Perry.  How would he do?  Could he maintain his front-runner status, or would he take a major tumble?  How would he respond to attacks on his record?  Would he stand on statements he has made recently about social security and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke?

Quick take-aways from last night:

(1)  It is indeed a two-man race. Everything else is just a side show.

(2)  Michelle Bachmann has quickly fading into the 2nd tier

(3)  Ron Paul has his supporters. He will lose very little, but will gain very little.

(4)  Herman Cain has an interesting flat tax plan

(5)  While Jon Huntsman seems like the adult, he’s clearly running to be either a) Perry’s running mate or b) the nominee in 2016.

(6)  Newt needs to be the Secretary of Ideas for who ever wins

(7)  Rick Santorum is irrelevant…and frothy.

One final note: on Rick Perry’s Ponzi scheme comments, the media clearly wants to scare seniors and those who are not paying close attention to the race.  Last night, Perry said, “It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids that are 25 or 30 years old today, you’re paying into a program that’s going to be there.”  I believe that is an accurate statement.  But you will only hear the media report on the first part of that statement.

Now I’m not one to feel the need to defend an Aggie, on that issue, he has my support.  My favorite Perry line last night was “maybe it’s time to have some provocative language in this country…”

And lastly, I couldn’t help but juxtapose people’s reactions the moment the debate turned to the capital punishment.  When moderator Brian Williams said, “Your (Perry) state has executed 234 death row inmates,” he got loud applause from the audience.  The blogosphere and Twitterverse were incredulous.  They couldn’t understand why the audience would applaud Perry’s execution tally.  All I have to say is “Death penalty rocks!”

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.

DADT vs. Obamacare

Yes, I know that is an unseemly title, but bear with me.

Chew on this.  Now, I’m not a lawyer.  Nor do I play one on TV.  But I find it very hard not to ask this question: how can one say that the federal court striking down Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is an activist court, then turn around and cheer that same court system for striking down the major part of Obamacare?

For the record, I would like to see BOTH of them go the way of the dodo bird.

Dear Senate GOP: Stay out of DC Politics

Back in January on these pages, I wrote a post about a report from the Washington Post that congressional Republicans had filed an amicus brief in DC Superior Court calling for a voter referendum on whether to legalize marriage equality in the District.

In that post, I respectfully asked congressional Republicans to BUTT OUT!  I concluded with State’s rights and local control are tenets of our party.  HONOR THAT!

Today, in the wake of the Senate health care reform bill becoming law, and the changes that are currently being made to it via reconciliation, that same issue has now reared its ugly head in the United States Senate.

As I first read in the DCist, “The New York Times has started posting all the Senate Republican amendments to the health care reform bill, and, surprise, surprise, one of them concerns the District of Columbia’s same-sex marriage law.”

The Bennett amendment – SA #3568 – is said to protect the Democratic process and the right of the people of the District of Columbia to define marriage.

So tell me, Senator Bennett, is the Democratic process not at work when a city council, duly elected by the people of its city, passes a law in which you are in favor?  Wait!  Don’t answer that.  I suppose I already know your answer.

Again, to Republican leaders I say, that as a member of the DC Republican Committee and Vice President of the DC Log Cabin Republicans, I respectfully ask congressional Republicans to BUTT OUT!  State’s rights and local control are a tenet of our party.  Honor that!

Hey Tea Partyer, STFU

I want to take a quick moment to address the nasty tone that was present yesterday at the Tea Party demonstration on Capitol Hill.  Simply put, if true, it disgusts me!

According to the Washington Post,

“Members of the Congressional Black Caucus said that racial epithets were hurled at them Saturday by angry protesters who had gathered at the Capitol to protest health-care legislation, and one congressman said he was spit upon. The most high-profile openly gay congressman, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), was heckled with anti-gay chants.”

The denigration of the rhetoric that is being used must stop at once.  It matters not if you agree or disagree with one’s political philosophy.  You don’t shout out “nigger” and “faggot” at your political enemy!

What’s more, this was done on the eve of the 45th anniversary of the successful Selma march to Montgomery.

I may disagree with most things that Congressman John Lewis (D-GA) believes in, but one thing is a fact.  He is an American hero for standing up for equal rights and civil rights at a time when doing so caused his life to be threatened.

What occurred yesterday unfortunately shifts the conversation away from the core message of the Tea Party movement, to that of talking about these racist and homophobic comments.

To those idiots who will likely hide behind the freedom of speech, SHUT THE FUCK UP!

It’s Now or Never!

“It’s now or never!” At least that’s the word from House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH).  I was at an event last night at the Capitol Hill Club on behalf of the Log Cabin Republicans, and during the event, Leader Boehner came in and spoke to the gathered masses for a few minutes.

As to be expected, he was asked about the prospects of the health care bill that has now been in limbo for months and months.  Boehner said that Pelosi currently did NOT have the votes.

I asked about the comment of Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) earlier that the House may postpone the vote until after the Easter break.  That is when the Leader said, “It’s now or never!”

He went on to explain that if they don’t have the votes by this weekend, they most definitely won’t get them after returning home from facing their constituents.

Only time will tell.