14% Of Gays Voted For Trump In 2016. Anyone Know What Percentage Of Jews Voted For Hitler?

I spend hours a day speaking with candidates all around the country. listening to their rationale about why Blue America should endorse them and help them raise money. Sometimes it's an absolute joy-- like meeting brilliant, refreshing and sincere progressives who I know will make such a difference when they're in Congress. It's how I felt when I spoke to AOC, to Alan Grayson, to Donna Edwards, Rashida Tlaib, Ted Lieu, Pramila Jayapal, Jamie Raskin, Ro Khanna and, more recently to Andy Levin, Kim Williams, Mike Siegel, Eva Putzova, Audrey Denney, Jamaal Bowman, Shan Chowdhury, Rachel Ventura... I better stop now or I'll fill up this whole page.

But you know what drives me crazy when I talk to candidates-- when they show a like of courage, stupidity, greasy careerism... when they show me they get their talking points from Fox News, the DCCC, EMILY's List or the Republican Party. Don't we have enough people in Congress wasting seats with mindsets made from that garbage? Yesterday I wasted hours on the phone talking with Democratic congressional candidates who wanted to tell me how conservative their districts are and how progressive ideas could never win-- how Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal and raising the minimum wage would kill their campaigns. When I take the time to try to make one understand why he was getting it all wrong about raising the minimum wage, he got all huffy and said, "Well, that's your opinion" and then cited one of the most right-wing morons in Congress-- who is likely about to lose her seat because she's pissed off her own base so badly by voting with the GOP-- as proof of why raising the minimum wage was a bad idea. His mind was made up. He has zero chance of winning the seat.

But if you think the GOP doesn't have a team sitting around coming up with narratives and talking points-- as does the DCCC-- I suggest you read this piece Steve Contorno wrote for the Tampa Bay Times yesterday, Memo reveals a House Republican strategy on shootings: downplay white nationalism, blame left. "Congressional Republicans," wrote Contorno, "recently circulated talking points on gun violence that falsely described the El Paso massacre and other mass shootings as 'violence from the left.' A document obtained by the Tampa Bay Times and sent by House Republicans provides a framework for how to respond to anticipated questions like, 'Why won’t you pass legislation to close the ‘gun show loophole’ in federal law?' and 'Why shouldn’t we ban high-capacity magazines?' The answers are boilerplate Republican arguments against tougher gun restrictions. But it also included this question: 'Do you believe white nationalism is driving more mass shootings recently?' The suggested response is to steer the conversation away from white nationalism to an argument that implies both sides are to blame."

“White nationalism and racism are pure evil and cannot be tolerated in any form," the document said. “We also can’t excuse violence from the left such as the El Paso shooter, the recent Colorado shooters, the Congressional baseball shooter, Congresswoman Giffords’ shooter and Antifa."

U.S. Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Palm Harbor, included the talking points in a newsletter that he emailed this week to his Florida constituents. His spokeswoman Summer Robertson said they were “provided by the House Republican Conference," the caucus arm in charge of devising messaging strategy for its members. The conference’s internal strategies are not usually made public.

The Dayton shooter, a conveniently dead KKK supporter has been painted as a Bernie and Elizabeth Warren supporter by Trump and the GOP. He shot and killed his transgender brother in the murder spree (who was reported to be a girl by the media. Contorno reported that despite the GOP talking points-- often reported as facts by the media-- "Extremist-related murders have spiked in the last year, according to the Anti-Defamation League, and the vast majority-- 73 percent-- are committed by right-wing extremists and white supremacists. Not a single extremist-related murder in the United States last year was carried out by 'the left.'... FBI Director Christopher Wray recently told Congress 'a majority of the domestic terrorism cases we’ve investigated are motivated by some version of what you might call white supremacist violence.'" That's the opposite of what Republican officials, Fox News and Hate Talk radio use to brainwash their moron victims. It's a damn shame when Democrats running for Congress get caught up in the rinse cycle.

I was born into a Jewish family that was very anti-fascist, primarily because of the shared Jewish experience of the Holocaust, which was not a "both sides" kind of thing, just an example of right-wing racism gone amuck. So it really pains me to see Jews buy into the whole Republican/Trumpist thing-- and there are plenty who do for one reason (selfishness, stupidity, racism, greed) or another (Israel). There are still people alive today who can when there were a few Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto who joined Group 13. Horrorfying... but you know what's even more insane than a Jew revitalizing the whole kapo idea? Gays doing the same thing today. Ever hear of the Log Cabin Republicans? Gwen Aviles wrote a piece about then yesterday for NBCNews.com, Gay Republican Group Endorses Trump In Reversal From 2016. "The Log Cabin Republicans, the nation’s largest collective of LGBTQ conservatives, has officially endorsed the re-election of President Donald Trump-- after its board of directors voted against endorsing him in 2016-- stating that Trump has advanced LGBTQ rights and helped the GOP move past 'culture wars' during his tenure. In a Washington Post OpEd published on Thursday evening, Robert Kabel, chairman of the group, and Jill Homan, its vice president, wrote that 'for LGBTQ Republicans, watching the 2016 GOP convention before Donald Trump was like a dream fulfilled' and marked the beginning of Trump removing gay rights 'as a wedge issue from the old Republican handbook' and 'taking bold actions that benefit the LGBTQ community.'" Sounds like an alternative universe? It is. Sad that these people are so incredibly stupid or-- much worse-- kapo-like.

The group, which announced new board leadership in March, cites Trump’s commitment to end HIV/AIDS in 10 years, which was met both was cautious optimism and flat-out skepticism, and his work with Richard Grenell, the openly gay U.S. ambassador to Germany, to encourage other nations to end the criminalization of homosexuality, as examples of his dedication to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community.

It also states that other Trump policies, which were not specifically delineated as LGBTQ policies, such as his tax cuts, trade deals and “hard line on foreign policy,” have benefited gay Americans.

Though the Log Cabin Republicans are lending their support to Trump, the group said that it does not agree with all of his and his administrations’ actions, including the so-called transgender military ban.

“We are committed to letting all qualified Americans serve in the military,” the Log Cabin Republicans wrote. “We oppose the transgender service restriction and will continue to press the administration to reconsider.”

The Log Cabin Republicans endorsement of Trump comes as it marks a reversal from its 2016 stance.

The former president of the Log Cabin Republicans, Gregory T. Angelo, has been critical of policies enacted under Trump in the past. Three years ago, he issued a statement against Trump’s election platform, which he called “the most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s 162-year history.”

“Opposition to marriage equality, nonsense about bathrooms, an endorsement of the debunked psychological practice of ‘pray the gay away’-- it’s all in there,” he wrote at the time. “This isn’t my GOP, and I know it’s not yours either.”

Yet, Angelo appears to have had a change of heart, writing on Twitter Thursday night that the Log Cabin Republicans’ endorsement of Trump should have come in 2016.

Not all members of the Log Cabin Republicans agree with the group's assessment of Trump's track record on LGBTQ issues.

Jordan Evans, who became the only openly transgender Republican elected official after she was elected the Town Constable of Charlton, Massachusetts, in 2017, said she was "extremely upset" by the group's endorsement.

"I'm awestruck that they would endorse Trump, given his track record that's been nothing but detrimental to the LGBTQ community," Evans said. "Especially because we have another Republican candidate-- Bill Weld-- so to not even give him a chance or to wait to make an endorsement until after the RNC convention is unexplainable."

Evans added that the group's endorsement was indicative of the "greater disconnect" between Republicans and LGBTQ individuals and that it would make it harder for the Log Cabin Republicans to collaborate with other queer groups who were already "weary" to work with them.

"We keep falling back on the queer issues of yesterday, but we need to approach this new horizon, which includes fighting for public accommodations and transgender rights," Evans said. "We should be focusing on how we can have an effective voice, not going backwards."

A number of gay Democrats have also disavowed the endorsement.

“Hey @LogCabinGOP, that endorsement seems even more #%** stupid today...,” Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Sims, D-Philadelphia, wrote on Twitter.

“You’re an embarrassment. And a sympathizer for a racist, queerphobic regime,” Jonathan D. Lovitz, senior vice president of the National LGBT Chamber of Commerce, wrote in response to a tweet from Richard Walters, the chief of staff for the Republican National Committee, sharing news of the endorsement. “History will always remember where people like you and the @LogCabinGOP stood.”

In addition to the president’s contentious transgender military policy, which bars transgender personnel from serving openly and denies them access to gender-affirming medical care, the Health and Human Services Department proposed a new rule in May suggesting that federal laws banning sex discrimination in health care don’t apply to patients’ “gender identity."

United States citizenship has also been denied to some children of LGBTQ couples, and just this week, the Trump administration unveiled a proposed rule that would greatly expand the exemption that allows religious entities to ignore anti-discrimination laws by broadening the definition to include federal contractors that declare themselves to be religious-- a rule that LGBTQ advocates have decried as a license to discriminate.

While the Log Cabin Republicans are a significant endorsement for Trump, LGBTQ voters are a reliable part of the Democratic base, according to exit polls. In the 2018 midterm elections, over 80 percent of LGBTQ people said they voted for the Democrat in their local federal election, while just 17 percent voted for the Republican. And in 2016, 78 percent of LGBTQ voters said they voted for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, while just 14 percent reported supporting Donald Trump.

There are lots of gays in Congress. The Democrats, with just a very few exceptions from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, are all fine with their identity and out of the closet. None of the Republicans are "out." All of them-- from Jason Smith (R-MO) and Adrian Smith (R-NE) to Lindsey Graham (R-SC), #MoscowMitch (R-KY) and Patrick McHenry (R-NC) are homophobic, self-loathing, deceitful closet cases who vote against the LGBTQ community whenever they have the opportunity and who have become practiced liars, not just about their sexual identity, but about everything!

Grindr Comes To Politics... Florida First, Of Course

(click)

My friend Irwing is a real looker-- looker like in head-turner. Everybody loves Irwing, regardless of gender. But whenever he's in my car there's this constant buzzing coming out of his pocket. The other day I asked him what it was and he pulled out his iPhone and showed me the popular gay hook-up application Grindr. I'm sure if I was born 30 years later I would be all over it too-- although I noticed scholarly author Daniel Mendelsohn enthusing over it in an Out featurette this week-- and he's around my age. And now it looks like at least two of Florida's less savory corporate hacks, corrupt insider Debbie Wasserman Schultz and lifelong Republican-posing-as-a-Democrat Patrick Murphy, have taken to Grindr like ducks to water. Just click on that image on the right. 

So now Grindr's not just about hooking up with loose boys; it's also about hooking up with loose politicians. And while Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan stood solidly behind the Indiana Senate candidate of their party who said women get pregnant from rapists because its God's will and they should grin and bear it, he did have the gay Republican organization disavow their claims that he promised the Log Cabin boys and girls to support ending ENDA in return for their endorsement. Don't look for this photo to show up on Grindr any time soon under "Grindwhores:"

UPDATE: It's Official-- Grindr Comes Out Of The Closet... Politically

The company founder and CEO, Joel Simkhai is urging Grindr users to get involved politically. He sent my friends who use his app a message suggesting them go to the Grindr website where they find this message:

Today Grindr officially announces its plan to mobilize gay men as a political bloc in the 2012 elections by delivering geo-targeted messages about equality issues to its 1.5 million U.S. users-- and to call those users to action. Grindr for Equality, a social effort developed by Grindr, is this call to action, informing gay men in the United States about the issues, urging them to vote for candidates based on those issues, and getting out their vote in order to have a decisive impact on this upcoming election.

Grindr for Equality will work to enhance GLBT rights this election season by doing the following:

• Creating awareness regarding GLBT equality issues being voted on in November;

• Encouraging Grindr users to register to vote, providing them with sources that’ll show them nearby poll locations, and prompting them to vote when the time comes; and

• Promoting knowledge of those presidential candidates and state and local candidates who support GLBT initiatives.

Grindr for Equality is about rallying Grindr’s mobile user base of gay men into a nationwide force of informed citizens who vote with equality as their unified goal. Grindr for Equality will utilize Grindr’s geo-location capabilities to deliver targeted in-app messages that spur users into action and produce noticeable change in November’s elections.

“We must elect not only a president but representatives and senators who are supportive of our community and our equality,” said Joel Simkhai, founder and CEO of Grindr. “Local elections have national impact, so we want to use Grindr as a tool for mobilizing and connecting gay men around the country to help make a combined national impact.”

The outcome of this November’s national elections will be decided in several swing states, and Grindr for Equality will use geo-targeted messaging to reach gay men in those states. Dozens of elections will impact the direction of Congress, so Grindr for Equality’s will work to ensure the gay voice is represented in those elections. Gay men won’t be heard unless they vote-- and driving them to vote this fall starts with raising awareness about GLBT issues on the ballots.

For example, Grindr for Equality will alert Grindr users in Minnesota to a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that has been proposed and encourage them to contact their local representatives. Additionally, Grindr for Equality plans to assist Ohio and North Carolina advocates who are working to lift their states’ bans on same-sex marriage.

“All elections are won or lost on the local level,” Simkhai said. “There is no election or town too small to have a gay voice. We’ll use Grindr to unite gay men across the country, make that voice grow louder and have a nationwide impact.”

Barney Frank Has An Important Message For The LGBT Community

A vote for Tisei is a vote for this duo leading Congress

John Boehner, who the DCCC made sure would have no opponent of his own to force him to campaign in Ohio, has been stumbling around the country, getting drunk and doing fundraisers for vulnerable Republican incumbents and for promising GOP challengers who will help him carry out the toxic right-wing agenda. He even wandered up to Massachusetts to campaign for the conservative gay Republican, Richard Tisei. I was wondering if he and Gay Victory Fund head Chuck Wolfe and Boehner campaign together for Tisei.

We've been explaining why the LGBT community should stick with progressive incumbent John Tierney and not support Tisei just because he's finally come out of the closet. For one thing, Tierney has a better LGBT voting record than Tisei-- not to mention a better everything else voting record as well! Yesterday Barney Frank, the most distinguished openly gay Member of Congress went much deeper in an essay, DO THE MATH-- PARTY MATTERS IN THE FIGHT FOR LGBT EQUALITY. Below is Barney's entire essay:

The upcoming elections will be the most important in our history from the standpoint of legal equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. In decades, there has not been a sharper distinction between the two parties on any issue than there is today on LGBT legal equality. President Obama, the Democratic platform, and the overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress support abolishing the restriction on federal recognition of same-sex marriages in states that have proposed them, and support an employment non-discrimination act that is fully transgender inclusive. Mitt Romney, the Republican platform, and more than 90% of Congressional Republicans strongly oppose them.

I have been asked by many people why I inject partisanship into the effort to advance our rights. The answer is statistically very clear: it is not those of us who support LGBT equality who have made this a partisan issue; it is the modern Republican Party in its current extremely conservative mode that has done so. If you take Mitt Romney, Speaker John Boehner and Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell at their word, no legislation advancing our rights has any chance of passage if these men control any of the three branches of the federal government. And if Mitt Romney is President, and especially if he has a compliant Republican Senate Majority, we can expect Supreme Court vacancies to be filled with more Antonin Scalias. Romney’s decision to make Robert Bork one of his primary advisors on judicial issues guarantees this-- Bork is the only person I can think of who has held federal judicial office who outdoes Scalia in his venom against us.

Given that, if you care strongly about LGBT issues the case for voting Democratic is very clear. I recognize that there are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people who put LGBT rights behind other issues in deciding how to vote. Some wealthy gay men and women who live in states where there are many protections apparently feel that their lives are already well-protected against prejudice and that it is more important to pass new tax cuts for the rich, or to block action on climate change, or to oppose reductions in military spending. But the facts are clear: there is simply no logical basis whatsoever for arguing that voting for Republicans this year is a good way to advance LGBT legal equality.

Yet the Log Cabin Republicans argue exactly that. Given the stakes for our rights in this election, it is important to examine their rationale.

First, the facts should be established. The Log Cabin Republicans have consistently endorsed candidates for Congress who are collectively far less supportive of our rights than most Democratic members of Congress, and in all but one case that I can think of-- Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in Florida-- the Congressional candidates backed by the Log Cabin Republicans are less supportive, in many cases by significant percentages, than the Democrats opposing them.

An example of this disparity comes from the current very important debate over our right to marry people of the same sex. There are four states where referenda will be held on this subject in November-- Maryland, Minnesota, Maine and Washington. There are 34 members of Congress from those four states. Of the 22 Democrats, 21 publicly support our right to marry and are urging their constituents to vote that way in the referenda. Of the 12 Republicans, none support us, while 10 are opposed and two have refused to take a public position. It is important to note that among those who are publicly opposing us are two Members of Congress, David Reichert of Washington and Erik Paulsen of Minnesota, who have been recipients of Log Cabin endorsements in the past. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who for the second time is refusing to help us win a same-sex referendum in Maine, nonetheless is held up by the Log Cabin Republicans as the best example of the kind of candidate they back. I understand that it is difficult to get people to be supportive of our rights in some states, but Washington state, Minnesota and Maine are among the most progressive states in the country. The failure of the Log Cabin Republicans to produce a single Congressional supporter of same-sex marriage in these three states is indicative of their inability to produce results.

I applaud efforts to persuade Republicans to become more supportive of LGBT rights, but I object when the Log Cabin Republicans claim far more success in this regard than they’ve actually had, and when they thus mislead people into voting for unsupportive Republicans on the premise that doing so will somehow advance LGBT rights.

A similar pattern is clear in the list of Republican Congressional candidates that the Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed. Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, who represents South Miami Beach, Florida and other areas, is the only Republican who is equally supportive of us as more than 100 Democrats. Her voting record is not 100%, but she is very close. Currently, there are three other Republicans in the House who have been much more supportive than not-- Congresswoman Biggert at 70%, Congresswoman Hayworth at 71%, and Congressman Hanna at 76%. While these are nice numbers, they are clearly in the cases of Ms. Hayworth and Mr. Hanna lower than their Democratic opponents. Ms. Hayworth defeated John Hall whose record was 90%. She is currently opposed, by the way, by Sean Maloney, an openly gay, prominent official in the Clinton and Cuomo administrations who would certainly be a 100% vote, 30 points higher than Ms. Hayworth. Mr. Hanna at 71% defeated Mike Arcuri at 87%.

Unfortunately, Ros-Lehiten, Hayworth and Hanna represent the strongest cases for Log Cabin endorsements. In the current Congress, there are ten other members of the House who have been endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans but who have far worse records. Here is the list with their voting record as compiled by the Human Rights Campaign: Bass- 15%, Jenkins- 0%, Reichert- 0%, Stivers- 0%, Dold- 35%, Fitzpatrick- 5% Dent- 0%, Paulsen- 0%, Bono-Mack- 45%, Reed- 0%.

It is important to note that these are not only meager percentages, but in every case but one, the Democratic opponents of these people either did score or would score much higher.

To repeat where repetition is appropriate-- six of the candidates the Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed this year have 0% on the Human Rights Campaign LGBT scorecard.

If your major focal point is LGBT rights, why would you support someone with a poor or mediocre record on that issue against someone with a far better one? The Log Cabin answer is that doing so represents an important step towards persuading more Republicans to break with their anti-LGBT positions. I admire that objective, but I am very critical of the way in which they seek to achieve it.

The primary error of the Log Cabin Republicans is to settle for far too little from their candidates in terms of LGBT support. I am reminded again of the comment by their Executive Director, Clarke Cooper, who said that he was pleased with the selection of Paul Ryan-– who has an almost unanimous record of opposition to our issues-– because Ryan was “willing to engage” with them. The Log Cabin Republicans also argue that they have succeeded in lowering the amount of anti-LGBT rhetoric in the Republican conventions and elsewhere. That is not the basis for a self-respecting and effective political movement.

What the Log Cabin Republicans could be doing is to let Republicans know that they agree with them on economics, foreign policy, the environment etc., and that they are prepared to be supportive of those Republicans who move in the right direction on LGBT issues. That would probably result in continued endorsement of Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, but not too many others. The argument that these Republicans should be rewarded because they are willing to stand up at least part of the time for us in difficult political circumstances is obliterated by the fact that in virtually every case they are running against Democrats who are far more supportive. In the 2010 election which gave control of the House to the Republican Party, some of the Log Cabin-backed candidates unseated Democrats who were 100% supportive on our issues. It can hardly be argued that these Republicans would not have been elected if they had been as supportive of LGBT issues as the Democrats they defeated.

As I mentioned earlier, the second part of the Log Cabin Republicans’ mistaken approach is that they are misleading people by giving them the impression that the Log Cabin Republicans are far more successful than they have been. A series of headlines this summer began with a proclamation by the Log Cabin Republicans that they were going to have an influence on the Republican National Committee’s party platform. The series culminated with an article pointing out that ultimately, the Log Cabin Republicans had zero effect on the Republican platform which was as opposed to us on every single issue as it is possible to be.

The last variant of this argument-- supported recently by the Victory Fund-– is that we have to give the Republicans time. The Victory Fund argued recently that gay Republican Richard Tisei, running for Congress in Massachusetts, was trying to do now what I had begun 25 years ago, namely to begin to move an anti-gay party in the right direction. Parenthetically, I acknowledge with some gratitude their apparent view that I am much younger than I am; in fact it was 40 years ago that I introduced the first gay rights-– as we then called it-- legislation in Massachusetts history. Although it is true that at the time neither party was very good on our issues, by 1987-- 25 years ago-- the Democrats had already begun significantly to improve while the Republicans had not. For example, the major issue important to our community in the 1980s was the effort to get a federal response to AIDS both in treatment and in research, and the major obstacles to this were a series of amendments by right-wing Republicans, supported by most Republicans, that would have imposed outrageous and intrusive homophobic conditions on this. It was the Democratic leadership with some Republican support that mobilized to beat them back; even 25 years ago there clearly was a difference and the Democrats were the better party.

Thus, I believe that the Log Cabin Republicans are creating a false equivalence to argue that what I was doing in the 1980s is parallel to what the Log Cabin Republicans and the politicians they support are doing now. At no point did I ever urge people to vote for for members of the party that was worse than the other party. In two cases, where there was an anti-gay Democrat running against a pro-gay Republican, I supported the Republican-- that was in the district in Connecticut held by Stu McKinney who was opposed in his last term by an anti-LGBT Democrat, and when that Democrat ran against Chris Shays to succeed McKinney, I made my support for Shays very clear. But by the 1980s Democrats were more supportive than the Republicans and becoming even more supportive. In fact, that is a trend line that has continued-– the country has gotten less prejudiced; the Democrats have become more supportive faster than the country as a whole, while the Republicans have regressed.

I also have found it odd that the Victory Fund stated that Mr. Tisei and other pro-Republican LGBT activists were starting now to do what I was doing 25 years ago. Why weren’t they doing it 25 years ago? Was there some rule that said they couldn’t start until now?

In fact, the Log Cabin Republican Club was founded more than 20 years ago. My point is not that they should not have been trying all of these years to make the Republican Party better, but they should not pretend that they have succeeded when in fact they have failed-- and when the Republican Party is, if anything, worse than it was before. As for Mr. Tisei, it was not that he was ignoring LGBT issues 20 years ago-- as a Republican member of the state legislature, he attacked his opponent, a Democrat, for supporting the rights of adoption by lesbian and gay people, and opposed an anti-discrimination law. I am glad he has now changed his position on these issues, but there is no reason I can think of why he might not have done that earlier.

If the Democrats win the Presidency, the House and the Senate, I am confident that we will have on the agenda a repeal of that section of DOMA which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriage rights and a fully-inclusive ENDA. With Democratic majorities, they will clearly pass the House and we’ll have the support of the President. It will also pass the Senate if there are Democratic majorities, unless blocked by a Republican filibuster. Given the likelihood that 90% or more of Republicans will support a filibuster on DOMA or ENDA, the more Democrats elected in November, the likelier we are to win on both of these critical issues. I wish that these issues were not partisan, but overwhelming Republican opposition to our issues has made party affiliation predictive of whether or not there will be progress on our issues, and therefore it would be mindless to ignore political party.

And a central point regarding the Log Cabin Republicans bears repeating-– you do not persuade people to change their behavior by rewarding it. Continuing to support Republicans who fall far short of significant support for our efforts to achieve legal equality in cases where they are running against Democrats who are fully supportive, reinforces the bad behavior; it does not change it.

I have one final point regarding the Victory Fund. I have been a supporter of the Victory Fund from its inception, and I think electing openly LGBT people to office is significant. We defeat prejudice by letting people know who we are, and by being in visible positions and at the table when decisions are made. But I have never thought it wise to announce to incumbent elected officials who are strong and energetic supporters of our issues, that should they be challenged by someone who is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender we will abandon them. And that is a principle to which I have always adhered-- including with lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender primary opponents of Democrats. Former Democratic Congressman Tony Beilenson of California was an early and staunch supporter. When he was opposed by an openly gay activist in a primary, I strongly supported Beilenson on the principle that it is subversive of our efforts to win if we tell incumbents that no matter how supportive they are, if they happen not to be gay or lesbian they will lose our support.

So my support for John Tierney over Richard Tisei is based only in part on the fact that if the Democrats take back the House we have a very good prospect of legislative victories, while if Mr. Tisei succeeds in keeping John Boehner as Speaker, we have not. It is also because I do not think it is appropriate for us to go to John Tierney and others, solicit their support-- and in the case of John, receive it wholeheartedly-- but tell them that we may withdraw our support for them not because of anything under their control but because they have the wrong sexual orientation.

Barney has always supported the Victory Fund. I have never. I've watched them destroy one gay progressive candidate after another with their refusal to ever back any grassroots fighters-- most recently Trevor Thomas (D-MI) and Ed  Potosnak (D-NJ). When Barney was still backing them I had already pegged them as another worse-than-useless insider suck-up outfit that was 90% about the career aspirations of the management and 10% about equality for the LGBT community. They exist on massive contributions from a small handful of gay millionaires and they are contemptuous of the LGBT grassroots. These are their donors. I wonder which one made them back Tisei over Tierney. From what I can tell all these donors have given hugely and generously to Democrats and Democrats and more Democrats... except Weston Miliken (but he hasn't given to any Republicans either).

VAN AMERINGEN, HENRY

NEW YORK, NY 10011

VAN AMERINGEN FOUNDATION

02/08/12

$75,000

BOHNETT, DAVID

BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212

BARODA VENTURES LLC

05/02/12

$50,000

HORMEL, JAMES C

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94101

EQUIDEX INC.

04/19/12

$50,000

HARMSWORTH, ESMOND V

BOSTON, MA 02116

ZACHARY SHUSTER LLC

02/08/12

$50,000

MILIKEN, WESTON F

CHICAGO, IL 60660

SELF

03/30/12

$50,000

JOHNSON, JAMES M

NEW YORK, NY 10013

JOHNSON FAMILY FOUNDATION

04/24/12

$30,000

MILIKEN, WESTON F

CHICAGO, IL 60660

SELF

04/03/12

$30,000

ELMENDORF, STEVE A

WASHINGTON, DC 20009

ELMENDORF STRATEGIES

03/14/12

$25,000

ANSIN, RONALD M

HARVARD, MA 01451

RETIRED

01/31/12

$10,000

In a blow underlining the rights of all Americans, the president completes his evolution on same-sex marriage

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years, as I talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf, and yet feel constrained, even now that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is gone, because they're not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

-- a clip posted by ABC News from the interview
with Robin Roberts on tomorrow's Good Morning America

by Ken

As I write, we don't have an embeddable clip yet, as ABC is saving its scoop for this evening's World News With Diane Sawyer and tonight's Nightline (which would certainly make sense if ABC had done something to earn the scoop beyond being selected by the White House). Well, no doubt within a matter of hours there will be clips all over the damned place, and I for one don't mind taking a moment to read the president's remark.

(Wasn't it just the other week that Andy Borowitz was joking about the potential disaster to the president's reelection campaign of his confounding habit of speaking in actual sentences? This one's a beaut!) [For the record, the Borowitz Report in question was "Obama's Use of Complete Sentences Stirs Controversy (Could Imperial Reelection Hopes, Experts Say," from April 28.]

The ABC News post goes on to report:

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states' deciding the issue on their own. But he said he's confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters' comfort with the concept.

"It's interesting, some of this is also generational," the president continued. "You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same-sex equality or, you know, sexual orientation, that they believe in equality. They are much more comfortable with it. You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we're talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn't dawn on them that somehow their friends' parents would be treated differently. It doesn't make sense to them and, frankly, that's the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective."

There's a certain amount of bitterness in some LGBT circles that the president finally publicly completed his famous "evolution" on the issue of same-sex marriage just too late for any possible impact on the resounding North Carolina vote in favor of the literally hateful -- since it truly isn't about anything except hate -- Amendment One, banning even civil unions in the state.

However, the North Carolina vote was always a lost cause. This in no way lessens my admiration for the people who fought so valiantly to keep the margin as respectable as it finally was. But the president has done something concrete and surely more valuable: seized control of the news cycle on same-sex marriage from the self-shaming North Carolinians. Today when the subject of same-sex marriage comes up, it's not Amendment One people are talking about.


I ALWAYS HAVE A HARD TIME EXPLAINING HOW THIS
ISN'T JUST A "GAY" OR "GAY AND LESBIAN" OR "LGBT" ISSUE

It's an issue of basic human rights, the sort of thing that's supposed to be automatically guaranteed to all Americans. And the people who are most violently against it are also the people most violently against the rights of anyone who doesn't subscribe to their often-sociopathic orthodoxies. (For a laugh, or a cry, you might check out chapter and verse in RightWingWatch's post, "Religious Right Slams Obama for Backing Marriage Equality.")

UPDATE: WELL, D'OH! I may have a hard time explaining how this isn't just a "gay" or "gay and lesbian" or "LGBT" issue, but if I'd had the common sense simply to direct you to the "first comments" (immediately following!) from Blue America-endorsed congressional candidates Trevor Thomas, Eric Griego, Darcy Burner, and Norman Solomon, they do a pretty darned good job of explaining it from their wide variety of perspectives. Rather an impressive collection of thoughts, I think -- and a long way from your standard campaign boilerplate. I hope you'll read them all.


HOWIE HAS PASSED ALONG FIRST COMMENTS
FROM BLUE AMERICA-ENDORSED CANDIDATES

I'm sure more will be coming in, but these names will be especially familiar to DWT readers. (Remember, your contributions to help send these people -- and others like them -- to Congress are indispensable in counteracting those zillions of dollars in corporate and kook cash befouling the electoral process. Please check them out here.)

TREVOR THOMAS (who's openly gay)
Michigan's 3rd Congressional District

What the president said today is that equal rights truly means equal rights for all. I believe that's what it says in the Constitution, and it's certainly what I believe in my heart. Like President Ford, who also believed in equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, we must continue to champion fairness and opportunity for everyone. Our young people still struggle with issues related to sexual orientation and many of them face bullying and harassment. I applaud the president for standing up for equal rights, and will work with the administration to make sure that America's freedoms are cherished and protected.

State Sen. ERIC GRIEGO
New Mexico's 1st Congressional District

President Obama just spoke out in support of full marriage equality for LGBT citizens. As a long-time supporter of marriage equality, l applaud his decision -- let's work to end all discrimination. Now it's time for Congress to do something about it. In Washington, I will be a part of making marriage equality a reality for all Americans.

In the State Senate, I worked to defeat the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I also led the fight to pass the Domestic Partnership Bill, HB 603, because I believed it was the first step towards ending discrimination. In Congress, I will support the passage of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act and work to fully repeal DOMA. I will also work for full separation pay for service members who were honorably discharged but had their separation pay cut in half because of Don’t Ask, Don't Tell.

DARCY BURNER
Washington State's 1st Congressional District

I am thrilled that President Obama just announced his full support for marriage equality. When two consenting adults fall in love and want to get married, we should be wishing them their happily ever afters and throwing bird seed.

The next battle is here in Washington to defend the state's new marriage equality law on the ballot. Washington could be the first state to approve marriage equality by popular vote -- but we will see tremendous resistance. The same institutions we've seen fighting against women's access to birth control are fighting to dictate who may fall in love. But our decisions about our families are personal, and shouldn't be subject to the whims of politicians or anyone else.

I am committed to do my part. I have always stood firm in support of marriage equality. Government should treat everyone fairly. Send me to Congress, and I will fight not only to repeal the blatantly unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act so that all marriages are treated equally, but also to extend all federal benefits to every married couple in the country.

NORMAN SOLOMON
California's 2nd Congressional District

President Obama's endorsement of gay marriage is controversial nationwide. But new steps for human rights always are.

The first time I went on a picket line -- to integrate a whites-only apartment complex -- the concept of fair housing was controversial. That was in 1966.

Today, while some Democrats like to talk about reaching across the aisle, I advocate reaching toward the stars of our ideals.

That's how civil rights laws became reality. And that's how we can make marriage equality the law of the land.

For a long time, visitors to our campaign website have found this unequivocal statement: "All Americans should be accorded equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity."

And: "I support the right to marry for all consenting adults. The so-called Defense of Marriage Act should be repealed."

And: "I strongly support passage of an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to prohibit discrimination against gay, lesbian, and transgender workers."

If you send me to Congress, you can be sure I'll keep pushing the envelope -- with a steadfast and crystal-clear message inside -- on behalf of human rights for all.

THE DAY'S FUNNIEST (OR MOST INFURIATING) NOTE
COMES FROM CLUELESS LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS
(With honorable mention to the Unmentionable Willard Inc.)

The LCRs, you'll recall, are the organized Republicans who theoretically favor gay and lesbian rights. They're in high dudgeon today, denouncing the president for the timing of his announcement, with copious crocodile tears over the North Carolina vote:

That the president has chosen today, when LGBT Americans are mourning the passage of Amendment One, to finally speak up for marriage equality is offensive and callous," said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director. "Log Cabin Republicans appreciate that President Obama has finally come in line with leaders like Vice President Dick Cheney on this issue, but LGBT Americans are right to be angry that this calculated announcement comes too late to be of any use to the people of North Carolina, or any of the other states that have addressed this issue on his watch. This administration has manipulated LGBT families for political gain as much as anybody, and after his campaign's ridiculous contortions to deny support for marriage equality this week he does not deserve praise for an announcement that comes a day late and a dollar short."

Apart from being idiotically wrong on the facts, R. Clarke shows truly stupefying chutzpah in blasting President Obama without devoting a whisper of consideration to the man R. Clarke and his fellow LCRs will presumably be supporting in the November presidential contest. That creature, the unspeakable Willard Inc., wasted getting on the record his opposition, not just to same-sex marriage, but to civil unions.

WILLARD SEZ: "This is a very tender and sensitive topic"

Is there a dumber life form on the planet? Or is he just the shiftiest?


WOULD YOU LIKE TO THANK THE PRESIDENT?

There are bound to be a bunch of online tributes, petitions, etc. Here's a way organized by ThinkProgress to thank the president for taking his stand.

#

After Congress Fails to Repeal, Judge Ends Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

I'm biting my tongue to keep from blasting President Obama for the "fierce advocacy" he never showed a trace of. But now a federal judge has finally told him and the Pentagon, which he supposedly controls-- just kidding-- "NO MORE!" No more lies and hypocrisy. And no more of this shameful policy carried out in our names.

Every time I talk to Blue America endorsed congressional candidate Ed Potosnak he wants to talk about his ideas for reforming the education system. He seems very dedicated to the idea that unless we have an educated population we'll continue to fall behind better educated societies in all fields. He's right, of course, and that's very much why he's running for Congress. Lord knows his opponent, Wall Street shill and career politician Leonard Lance, doesn't care a whit about education one way or the other... as long as the cost can be held down. But Ed is one of the sharpest progressives running this year and he's also the only openly gay Blue America endorsee. So... while so many people in the LGBT community were fuming at the Washington Post this week for desecrating
National Coming Out Day by publishing a hate screed by deranged professional homophobe Tony Perkins, we asked Ed to give us a reaction to the overturning of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Now That's An Order! Not A Military One, Or An Executive One, But Finally One To End Don't Ask Don't Tell

-by Ed Potosnak, Candidate For Congress, NJ-07

On September 9, 2010, Judge Virginia Phillips ruled that the military’s disgraceful “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy is unconstitutional. Judge Phillips followed that ruling with an order yesterday to the Department of Defense to halt any enforcement of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” While the policy should be completely removed from the books, this is an important step in the right direction. Our judicial system has recognized a homophobic, discriminatory policy for what it is: a violation of the First and Fifth amendments of the Constitution. 
 
As an American, I am so grateful for the service of the young men and women in uniform and the sacrifices that they and their families make. At a time when we are trying to bring two wars to a close and bring our troops home safely and securely, it shouldn’t take a court order to halt the dismissal of qualified troops. Lieutenant Dan Choi, a distinguished graduate of West Point serving our military honorably as a much-needed Arabic linguist, was dismissed because he admitted that he was gay. Katie Miller, a cadet who ranked at the top of her class at West Point, left the Army to live a life of integrity rather than continue to live a lie. It is ridiculous that we have spent the last 17 years dismissing skilled men and women and turning away patriotic recruits who refused to hide who they are.
 
Earlier this year, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, testified before Congress, “No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.” I call upon the President and the Justice Department to find the remarkable political courage showed by Admiral Mullen and act in the best interests of our fighting men and women, rather than their own political interests. The President must allow the judge’s order to stand without appeal. The safety and honor of our men and women in military should be of paramount concern. Allowing all of our men and women in uniform to serve openly and honestly will ensure that those who are most qualified are able to do their jobs without fear of reprisal or dismissal.
 
My opponent, Congressman Leonard Lance, voted against the repeal of DADT… supporting an unconstitutional policy that jeopardizes our national security and violates the civil rights of thousands of soldiers. He voted to continue the policy that has cost us nearly $100 million in recruitment and retention costs, discharged 13,000 soldiers from active duty, and institutionalized homophobia and harassment within our armed forces. I have been saying for months that Congressman Lance is on the wrong side of the issues… with Judge Phillips’ ruling, he is now on the wrong side of the Constitution as well.



UPDATE From Potosnak Headquarters

Although the turgid DCCC is too busy trying to rescue doomed Blue Dogs (so they can continue opposing the Democratic agenda), the much more vibrant and meaningful PCCC just endorsed Ed Potosnak's campaign against Wall Street puppet Leonard Lance. This could help push Ed's neck-and-neck race over the top. If you can afford to, please consider making a donation to Ed's campaign today at the Blue America ActBlue page.

Conservative Gay Lawmakers Reject A Degrading Life In The Closet

I got to watch the Parliamentary debate over the first Iraq War when a friend of mine, a member of the House of Commons, invited me to sit in for the day and then have lunch in the members dining room. It was an enjoyable and stimulating experience, primarily dominated by Margaret Thatcher. My friend, though, was a gay Conservative. Honestly, I can't remember if he was in the closet or out of the closet-- at least politically. Everyone who knew him certainly knew he was as gay as wrapping paper. Of course the same could have been said of Mark Foley (R-FL), David Dreier (R-CA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) before they were outed. "Everyone" knows they're gay-- except the dullards in the Republican base who haven't a clue.

Today GOProud, the Republican Party's far right-wing version of the mainstream conservative gay Republicans (the Log Cabin Republicans), pointed proudly that the number of openly gay Conservatives in the House of Commons could treble. Nice that they're celebrating, but I wonder if they've ever thought about asking our own conservatives why it's such a taboo to embrace their sexuality on this side of the pond.

Lindsey Graham and David Dreier still think they're fooling someone about being straight. I don't see GOProud mentioning that South Carolina is on the verge of being the first state in the country with a gay Republican Governor and a gay Republican Lt. Governor, albeit two closeted ones. Of course not every gay conservative politician is from South Carolina-- even if they do have the most per square mile. Is GOProud proud of Adam Schock (R-IL)? Patrick McHenry (R-NC)? Adrian Smith (R-NE)? Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)? Mitch McConnell (R-KY)? Or are they spending all their time cheering the Brits-- and violent and vicious Utah homophobe and anti-gay crusader rabbit, Jason Chaffetz?

GOProud members, if there are any, could do worse than reading Sarah Hepola's Gay Men Go To Hell, an interview with God Says No author James Hannaham about "religious repression, life in the closet and sex in the bathroom," at today's Salon. And while they're over at Salon, an even more direct must-read, Behind Washington's Closet Door which traces political closet queenery from American Conservative Union chairman Bob Baumann (R-MD)-- who was arrested for soliciting sex from a 16 year old boy while serving in Congress-- to more recently outed gay Republicans like Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), Larry Craig (R-ID), Jim McCrery (R-LA) and Charlie Crist (R-FL) is also available. Let's celebrate all the out conservatives in the British Parliament after David Dreier, Charlie Crist, Lindsey Graham and Patrick McHenry say "So what; there's nothing wrong with it-- and I'm terribly sorry for all the pain I caused gay families with my viciously homophobic votes in the past. I'll make up for it in the future."

McCain's Daughter Warns Of Imminent GOP Civil War-- And Tattoos And Hybrids For Conservatives

It wouldn't be as bloody as Texas Governor Rick Perry's lead balloon of seceding from the Union and sparking another real Civil War, but Meghan McCain warned at the Log Cabin convention yesterday that her party is on the brink of their own civil war. (Interestingly, the gay Republicans have just broken into two warring factions, an extreme right version having formed their own "less gay-oriented," more selfishness-oriented entity called GOProud opposing the Log Cabin Repugs which McCain and GOP consultant Steve Schmidt addressed this weekend.)

This morning we talked about the ferocious and potentially deadly Republican civil war over immigration reform and yesterday we watched as far right extremist Gresham Barrett (R-SC) was mercilessly booed and heckled by further right and even more extremist GOP teabaggers on Friday.

The California Republican Party has erupted into a full blown civil war between mainstream conservatives and ideological extremists from beyond the fringe. They are trying to recall several of their own elected officials and one far right congressman, Devin Nunes, demanded that the state's Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, resign. Up in Alaska the Republican Senate president and House speaker joined with a bipartisan majority of state legislators to reject Governor Sarah Palin's choice of bizarre and extremist loon Anthony Ross as Alaska Attorney General. There's barely a state in the Union without a fratricidal bloodletting in GOP-land. It's wrecking the party in Pennsylvania, New York, Kansas, Minnesota, Florida, Colorado and even Utah (despite Rich Frank's claim today that the Mormons have grown all warm and fuzzy and mainstreamish)! Today's GOP stands for nothing but obstructionism... to everything. There's nothing left for them to talk about but secession and cow farts.

Their own base is deserting them in a fit of unfocused rage and ratings-generating ad revenues. As the torment the South Carolina teabaggers put Barrett through showed, the teabaggers are like a genie the GOP and their media allies let out of the bottle. It may be harder to get it back in again.

If Republicans are thinking these are the guys who are going to be manning their phone banks in 2010, the ones who are going to be knocking on doors, or coughing up checks for the RNC-- they better think again. These folks are gone. They've left the reservation-- a lot of them left it back in 1992-- and they're not going to come back.  

This was a Ron Paul crowd. This was a Constitution Party crowd. This was a third party all the way crowd. Campaign for Liberty wasn't just helping out with the show-- this was their show, and any GOP candidate who thought guys waving "Pelosi Sux" signs were an automatic win, missed the zeitgeist of this group by a Bob Barr Country mile.

So back to Meghan for a moment, who probably does not speak for her father, the senator-- at least not entirely. She's still using far right icons Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham as foils in her huge and successful publicity barrage. And the 24-year old blogger and soon-to-be author told the Log Cabin convention that in a battle between the reactionary forces of the past (the Coulter/Ingraham wing) and the more progressive forces of the future, there's "a war brewing in the Republican Party."

Most of the old school Republicans are scared shitless of that future... I feel too many Republicans want to cling to past successes…I think we're seeing a war brewing in the Republican Party. But it is not between us and Democrats. It is not between us and liberals. It is between the future and the past… I am concerned about the environment. I love to wear black. I think government is best when it stays out of people's lives and business as much as possible. I love punk rock. I believe in a strong national defense. I have a tattoo. I believe government should always be efficient and accountable. I have lots and lots of gay friends. And yes, I am a Republican.

Meghan complains Karl Rove is stalking her-- on Twitter; he's just a tweet-talkin' guy.

Gay Republicans Splitting Into Spatting Factions-- God's Plan?

Right-wing radio host John Batchelor's funeral oration over the rotting corpse of the Republican Party was my favorite read of yesterday. And as he points out, the Democrats, alas, had nothing to do with it; it was malicious suicide. I'd recommend you read the whole thing-- which is why I have that link up top. But here's a taste:

The Republican Party is dead like Lehman Brothers and Robert E. Lee, not to be revived by TARP, Rupert Murdoch, or a surge of feverish nationalism. The present financial collapse makes it plain to see that the Republican Party did not die recently at the hands of the clever Democrats, but rather in 1933 at the hands of cowards, sycophants, and snobs who regarded the awesome Democratic victories in 1930 and 1932 as a “smear” of Herbert Hoover and a “panic.” Since the Great Depression I, the Democrats have been the electorate’s default choice, the politicians who rule as if America was simultaneously a school district, a union hall, a junior-year-abroad seminar, and a PAC. The Republicans who pop up now and again thrive in the empty-quarter counties of the West or in the so-called Old South, which is better understood as Confederacy Lite.

...Vigilant Democrats worry today that the Republican Party is only playing possum, or that it can be revived by extraordinary means such as a Martian invasion. In fact, the GOP is a mummy-wrapped skeleton sitting in its own chilly mausoleum of bilious resentments and creepy sentimentality. What remains to call themselves Republicans are baldly badly educated or just prankish Confederate re-enactors-- chubby men in gray and butternut suits with gold buttons and feather-tipped hats, clanking down stairs with shiny sabers. A handful of them are just boors from the South who look poorly on horseback and wave unread Bibles while calling for Billy Sunday to rise like the gold market.

...The party’s death 76 years ago was never more obvious than over the last six months of the financial crisis. The Democrats sensibly blamed the feckless, bootless Bush administration for the collapse of the markets. Tongue-tied Bush and dyspeptic Cheney defended themselves with grunts and sarcasm before they surrendered to Congress by sending out the plutocrat Hank Paulson with a plan called TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program). A breathing Republican Party would have brought out the flintlocks, boarded the windows, and settled down for a defense of the republic. Instead, the Republican leadership in the House and Senate rushed to grab the pork bribery and vote with the Democrats. John Boehner, Roy Blunt, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, and Judd Gregg distinguished themselves as dhimmis and were later rewarded by the victorious Democrats by being granted parakeet cages for offices in the new Congress. The House Republicans now boasts that they voted a goose egg against the stimulus package, but this was just the twitching of the corpse. The truth about the House Republicans-- cowards, sycophants, and snobs just like 1930’s lot-- is illustrated by the fact that 85 of them voted for the ludicrous AIG bonus-confiscation bill written on the back of a parking ticket.

If you've ever heard more than 10 minutes of Batchelor's show, you know he's a right wing fanatic. But he's hardly the only one who's sickened by the Republican Party these days. New polling shows that while President Obama's approval rating has climbed from 67% to 68%, the Republican Party is viewed even more unfavorably than it was last week. Last week only 65% of Americans thought they sucked. This week it was up to 66%. And while 18% still view the Republican congressional caucus favorably, John Boehner's and Miss McConnell's unfavorable ratings have continued to climb-- 58 think Boehner is the worst person in the world and 56% think Miss McConnell is.

Of course if you're a free mouseketeer marketeer and you don't believe in polls, you might prefer to read the tea leaves presented by the market itself. This list comes from Amazon.com and relates to hard-covered autographed copies of the books:

• Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope ($2,000)
• Ronald Reagan, An American Life ($900)
• Bill Clinton, My Life ($300-$500)
• Hillary Clinton, Living History ($300-$500)        
• Joe Biden, Promises To Keep ($300-$500)
• Jimmy Carter, Keeping Faith ($300-$500)
• John McCain, Faith of My Fathers ($300-$500)
• Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth ($150-$250)
• George H.W. Bush, All The Best, George Bush ($150-$250)
• Bill Richardson, Between Worlds: The Making of an American Life ($75-$100)
• Colin Powell, My American Journey ($75-$100)

But here's the best part... signed copies of Bill O'Reilly's The O'Reilly Factor and Newt Gingrich's Lessons Learned The Hard Way, go for just $25, or the same as the list price of the book, so the autograph is essentially free. In fact, there's a huge glut of $23 signed O'Reilly books. The list for the book itself is exactly $23.

 
Another sign o' the times for the right is that a dissident faction of gay conservatives is launching a rival group to the traditional voice of gay Republicans: the Log Cabin Republicans. Yes, there's a gay break-up in the GOP. And while Charlie Crist (R-FL), David Dreier (R-CA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Mark Foley (R-FL) will probably stick with the traditionalists at the Log Cabin, don't be surprised if the more extremist closet queens in the GOP-- your Patty McHenrys (NC), Aaron Schocks (IL) and Adrian Smiths (NE) find it more comfy with GOProud the drooling neo-nazis a bit further to the right.

They won't officially come out til Wednesday but gay Republican Washington-- between 20 and 30% of Capitol Hill-- is all atwitter over the new organization which claims to better represent the fringy far right elements of gay Republican world. Apparently Tim Gill, a progressive, has been providing the Log Cabin queens with about one-third of their budget an, like all good Republicans, they sold out immediately. One disgruntled gay wingnut who left the Log Cabin queens for the GOProud queens said gay Republicans need an organization that spends more time talking about tax policy and how the traditional GOP greed and selfishness agenda is a perfect fit for gay Republicans. “There hasn’t been a voice for … gay conservatives for the last five months, really, in Washington. And so as that time has lapsed, that was when we made the assessment and determined the need for an organization in Washington and put the pieces in place to make that happen.” He said GOProud plans to fight Congress' and Obama’s push for higher taxes and work for the repeal of the estate taxes. Perhaps they need to meet Blanche Lincoln. Many gay Republicans, especially DC closet queens, love the name Blanche. People close to Mitch McConnell have been calling him Blanche for years., although the Kentucky closet case prefers them not to do that in public places-- and never when Senator Lincoln is around, which these days is very often. Anyway, the new gay Repugs say their priority will not be gay legislation, just the greed and selfishness stuff. Our own gay art director in West Palm Beach found the perfect little film clip for the unveiling of the new Republican gays. Enjoy:



Meanwhile, McCain's daughter is urging the GOP to get more gay friendly-- for their own good. (And not the Mark Foley-Larry Craig-Patrick McHenry kind of "gay friendly.") I wonder if she's made any headway with dad.