Damning Praise
Sullivan takes on the Texas GOP.
If you want to know why someone who loved Ronald Reagan can no longer support the Republican Party, then the extremism of George W. Bush's own party in his home state is Exhibit A. Republicans who say that these people do not represent the GOP as a whole can prove this by taking them on. But they won't, will they? They never do.
For the record, I anticipate the normal share of wingnuts at the State Convention. Also for the record, I'll be there. Still on the record, I've yet to be accused of holding fire for calling anyone a wingnut if the shoe fits.
Comments
Robison is a partisan hack who should not be in charge of a news bureau for a major newspaper. But it's the Chron, so he is.
We all know Andrew Sullivan's one issue.
We all know the Texas GOP's position on that one issue.
The GOP's position hasn't wavered on Sullivan's favorite activity. If that's the only issue that matters to him, he is affiliated with the wrong party.
Posted by: Kevin Whited | June 7, 2004 02:36 PM
Great dodge on the facts, unless you are suggesting that Robison made up them. Hey, why bother with arguments and issues when you can just attack a reporter and a conservative gay writer.
The hijacking of the Republican Party by the religious right will be the ruin of that party. The religious right might have helped the ascension of the Republicans to power in the 80s, but it is not the party itself. When you chase away the Andrew Sullivans and Michael Linds, you're creating a party for a theocracy.
Posted by: Tx Bubba | June 8, 2004 12:01 AM
"When you chase away Andrew Sullivans"?
Kevin approached that point quite clearly: Sullivan's most important view is not the view shared with die-hard conservatives. It so happens that I agree with Sullivan on that particular issue, but it's not as though he and I can claim to be shocked that a the Republican Party has "moved to the right." It hasn't actually, it just hasn't moved left with the Massachusetts liberal judiciary. Just because the liberals have moved further left doesn't make it the right's fault that they're suddenly further away.
I strongly object to the Texas GOP plank on gays. I really wish it would move to the left. But the Texas GOP platform has always been far more radical than the party and it's rarely adheded to. Pointing it out every two years and pretending to be shocked and act as though this is something new and therefore foreboding is a bit disingenuous.
Posted by: R. Alex | June 8, 2004 05:25 PM
No, Alex, it's not disingenuous to point to the platform, not when the president and the Congressional leaders hail from the state that produced this platform and others like it. It's just evidence how far the religious right takes the party and how far out of the mainstream it is.
The idea that the GOP is the party only for die-hard conservatives will ruin the party, and I can't say that I'll be disappointed. There's a reason that Jeffords and McCain have problems with the GOP as it have moved to the right. The gay issue is just sympomatic of the problem, as seen in North Carolina. Gays have been increasingly voting Republican, but it seems that the GOP is bent on catering only to the religious right. So much for claims of a "big tent" at Republican conventions. And don't forget the origins of the Log Cabin Republicans, when Reagan opposed an anti-gay ballot in California. There has obviously been some outreach to gay Republicans, as evidenced by the Republican Unity Coalition. Obviously, the GOP doesn't mind the gay vote, but it now clearly seems that there will be no real inclusion of gays in the Republican Party--election without representation sounds like what gay Republicans are facing.
Posted by: Tx Bubba | June 8, 2004 06:58 PM