Part 1 of 2
Part 2 of 2
Simi Valley, CA – Former First Lady Nancy Reagan and The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library played host to eight GOP Presidential candidates Wednesday night in Simi Valley, California. It was Texas Governor Rick Perry’s first debate after announcing he would run for President and many Republican activists were eager to see how he would perform. The early debate centered on Mitt Romney and Rick Perry who jabbed at each other’s records as Governors. Perry, who leads in national polls, tried to criticize Romney for implementing Romneycare, the Massachusetts healthcare insurance reform law that many conservatives think is too similar to Obama’s healthcare reform initiative. But Romney forcefully defended his record and turned the conversation to jobs and his private sector experience to turn the economy around.
Perry went after Romney’s accomplishments on creating jobs. “He (Romney) had one of the lowest job creation rates in the country,” Perry said. “As a matter of fact, we created more jobs in the last three months in Texas than he created in four years in Massachusetts.” Romney quickly shot back noting that Texas has no state income tax, a Republican supreme court and a Republican legislature. “George Bush and his predecessor created jobs at a faster rate than you did, Governor,” Romney said.
While Rick Perry didn’t make any gaffes, he didn’t impressive the hundreds of Republican activists who came to watch either. Perry survived.
“I was really waiting for Perry,” said one long time Republican fundraiser who flew in from New York. “He came in very confident, kind of cocky, and finished deflated. I think he is realizing this is going to be a long and hard road to the nomination.”
Jon Huntsman, Jr. out-performed himself from the last debate and gave his campaign a much needed boost. Huntsman, whose previous debate performance was roundly criticized as weak, surprised many activists by displaying never before seen confidence. Huntsman easily spoke of economic issues and the American spirit and seemed comfortable this time. But Michelle Bachmann struggled to get noticed. Fresh off the announcement that campaign guru Ed Rollins would be stepping down from running the Bachmann campaign’s day to day operations, Bachmann surprised the crowd when she criticized President Obama for supporting NATO’s Libya mission.
“Bachmann started to sound more like Ron Paul,” one California Republican said. The question and answer on Libya was one of the only foreign policy questions and answers of the night.
NBC News, which co-hosted the debate with POLITICO, was roundly criticized by bloggers and pundits for the moment in the debate where they invited a Telemundo reporter onto the stage to ask a question about immigration. Mary Katherine Ham of the Daily Caller tweeted, “NBC: “Thank you, Anchor w Hispanic Surname. We are now finished with the immigration portion of this debate. You may leave.” And Matthew Hurt of Arlington, Virginia tweeted, “Connie Chung will be on later to ask a question about China. #reagandebate #subtleracism”
Newt Gingrich demonstrated why he was elected Speaker of the House in 1994 by uniting the Republican presidential candidates against a common enemy – President Obama. Gingrich also got the applause line of the night from those in the debate hall when he proclaimed that English should be the official language of the United States. Gingrich also went after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke saying, “I think he’s been the most inflationary, dangerous and power-centered chairman of the Fed in the history of the Fed.”
But at the end of the evening it was clear that the Republican nomination for President is between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. Unless someone else enters the race.
The Advocate’s cover story by Kerry Eleveld on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is riddled with inaccuracies, hype and spin. Eleveld’s piece and The Advocate’s continuous partisan political coverage contributes to the erroneous and dangerous assumption that all Democrats are good and all Republicans are bad on LGBT issues. Eleveld failed to quote one single dissenting opinion from the spin Clinton staffers spun her. While there is no question that Clinton has built on the changes made by Secretary Condi Rice for LGBT staffers at State (and should be applauded for that progress), the premise that the Bush State Department team was hostile and the Clinton team has done all it can do is flat wrong. A more nuanced and balanced piece would have given it greater credibility.
Here are a few of the facts you didn’t get from Eleveld. I feel compelled to correct the record:
- Clinton has the same stance on gay marriage as Rice and Dick Cheney. Eleveld’s excuse-making for Clinton’s stance by saying “she wasn’t taking any political bait” or was trying not to cross her boss is ironic given that Bush Administration officials were not allowed the same courtesy or treatment for their differing views.
- Changes to passport regulations for transgendered people were designed and begun under Bush and Rice. DAS Brenda Sprague says it but Eleveld gives Clinton the credit. Eleveld’s use of the word “apparently” to refer to this fact is offensive to those of us who worked at State under Bush and made progress on LGBT issues. Give credit where credit is due.
- Mark Bromley is a Democrat who worked for liberal Senator Russ Feingold. His characterization of his conversation with an unnamed Bush Administration official three years ago is presented without evidence because it isn’t true. Eleveld failed to check the facts on his assertions.
- Pat Kennedy is a friend of mine whom I have worked closely with for several years. While I fought to make changes at State during the Bush years to extend certain rights and privileges for my partner, Kennedy was part of the team that stonewalled and ultimately denied my repeated demands and ignored my follow–up requests. It’s also important to note that neither Bromley nor any other LGBT activist helped my cause at the time.
- Eleveld’s characterization of Clinton’s weak Ugandan response is laughable and defies logic. Clinton’s State Department handled the Ugandan situation as Rice’s State Department handled most every LGBT issue that arose in Africa – through quiet diplomacy as not to offend another government. To subscribe pure motives to Clinton’s hushed strategy but not to Rice’s is fantasy and beguiles decades of State Department practices. Cheryl Mills may think back-channeling is something new but I can assure you it is not.
- Highlighting the fact that Clinton knew a staffer’s name carrying her bags for a week hardly seems remarkable or note worthy. The story was gratuitous.
- Claiming that the highest ranking openly gay official under Clinton is a deputy assistant secretary level employee is embarrassing given the premise of the article and the excuse making Eleveld does for Clinton’s failed promise to appoint one person to her senior team to cover LGBT issues. Rice’s State Department had higher ranking openly gay officials than this State Department has. They were just never highlighted by The Advocate.
Over the last months, conservatives have complained to The Advocate for its inaccurate and glowing coverage of Obama Administration official Susan Rice, its lack of coverage of John Bolton’s support for DADT and gay marriage, and it’s whitewashing of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s failed 2 years of dominance. The Advocate has never responded to the questions raised.
This past week, singer/songwriter Sophie B. Hawkins three times reached out to The Advocate to highlight the gay conservative group GOProud’s event in Washington, DC where Hawkins performed. All phone calls and emails from Hawkins and her team were systematically and completely ignored. This disregard for conservative activism by Advocate staffers has sadly been the norm and only further distorts the political problems LGBT people face. It’s time The Advocate stop painting Democrats with a perfect brush and start highlighting the efforts of gay conservatives working to limit government’s involvement in LGBT people’s lives. Haven’t the last 2 years of total Democratic domination in Washington proven that the recycled stories and tired headlines of how wonderful Democrats have been on LGBT issues are wrong?
My friend Richard Grenell, the longest serving American spokesman in U.N. history, a true environmental activist (he’s the guy we went to the Gulf with), and important public relations person, invited me to sing the National Anthem at a lunch for Mattie Fein. I didn’t know a thing about her but I always learn from Richard, and I love the challenge of painting a picture with that profoundly relevant song. I walked in with my guitar and saw Ambassador John Bolton in the diverse crowd, including a soldier from Iraq and business people from Syria and many other countries.
It was a very soulful group; they listened intently as I set up the song in 1814 from the point of view of Francis Scott Key looking at Fort McHenry, as Washington burned. They joined in singing with their hands over their hearts, and I felt rather humbled by the moment. My first impression of Mattie Fein was that she was unconventional, and she is. A pro choice, pro Gay republican, focused on keeping business in her district of California, and she’s running against multi millionaire career politician Jane Harman, who can’t be doing much right ‘cause Cali’s in the pits.
John Bolton was as far from what I thought he’d be as I might have been to him. He was measured, humorous, poetic, insightful, unpredictable and at the core, a true humanitarian. I asked him his view on immigration and he said we need to return to the Melting Pot philosophy, meaning to let everyone in as long as everyone can be Americanized. He said we need more people from all over the globe to keep this country great, to keep our edge, but immigrants need to be 100% American AND 100% whatever their heritage is. He said make legalized immigration easier, and focus on integration so we have generations and generations of diverse people who love this country. He is in every sense worldly and he expresses his appreciation of global relationships in every sentence, yet he believes America, the place in the heart, the mind and the soil, is still worth protecting. He talked about mistakes made during the Bush era, not defensively, because he is looking ahead, and he does believe a nuclear Iran is the greatest threat to destabilizing world safety.
I used to cringe at the Ambassador because I was so angry at our pre-emptive attack on Iraq, and before that I protested Clinton and Gore about the WTO. Now I express opposition to the Obama administration over legislation and his do nothing approach to the Gulf. I guess I’m just not a party girl. I like the individual. My nickname in high school was WW for wild woman, I’d come to an apartment full of stoned teen-agers, dance in the strobe light and leave. My favorite part was walking home alone on the granite sidewalks. I don’t want to be liked, (of course I want to be loved madly), but most of all I can’t stand feeling controlled. Having to be a Democrat or a Republican is giving up my freedom of thought. I appreciate being able to meet politicians and ask them questions, like when I met Hillary and was inspired to work like heck for her, and then when I met Bill and “got it”. I loved being open to Ambassador John Bolton and feeling how much he wants to give not just to Americans but to all people, and Mattie Fein, I like how out of the box she is. I like walking away feeling connected but not indebted.
I don’t want any country to be sold out by it’s leaders, and you know where it starts? When the people sell out to a party, mind, body and soul, and then the party sells out to the illete. I believe that’s happened for the last twenty years, at least. Again, I’m not a party girl and I’ve certainly never been a sell out, and I have a feeling the time is getting ripe for, dare I say it, Mr. and Mrs. Smith to go to Washington.
Best and Good Luck! Sophie B.
Voters across the country are holding out-of-touch politicians accountable for their years of egocentric decisions and callous indifference to constituents. Southern California Democrat Jane Harman exemplifies the politician that voters are tired of. Harman’s career in Congress may very well end in California’s primary election on June 8th.
What is clear to district voters is that Harman’s silly and childish public fight with Speaker Nancy Pelosi has neutered her ability to be effective in introducing or passing legislation. Its clear Harman won’t work with Republicans and can’t work with her own party’s leadership. She has single-handedly alienated most everyone she needs to be an effective voice for the people in her coastline Los Angeles district. Harman’s self-proclaimed expertise on national security issues has also become a thorny issue for the conservatives who think she isn’t tough enough and the liberals who think she is too tough. Harman is proof that if you are everything to everyone then you’re a soul-less politician without a base. Harman’s television commercials comically mention no issues but instead show pictures of the district with upbeat music playing while her name is splashed on the screen – a constant reminder to voters that we don’t know who she is or what she stands for after 8 terms in Congress. But voters have tired of being ignored by the multi-millionaire Congresswoman who failed to hold any legitimate town hall meetings on Obama’s healthcare plan even though voters in the district were calling for them. Harman, the richest Democrat in Congress, just ignored the requests and petitions from voters and kept a low profile during the debate. Harman likes to pay attention to the voters closer to her elections.
But California’s unique election process offers voters the chance to classify themselves as “Declined to state” instead of choosing between Republican or Democrat. Harman’s district, which runs from San Pedro to Venice, has one of the highest concentrations of voters classified as “declined to state” in all of California. The independent and unaffiliated voters of the district will decide who represents Los Angeles’ coastal communities in Washington, DC for the next Congress. And the timing couldn’t be more perfect for Harman to lose her seat in the primary election of June 8th. Email chains and community buzz have Democrats and Republicans joining together to dump Harman in the primary by voting for Marcy Winograd. For Democrats, Winograd is a grassroots liberal more connected to the traditional base and willing to listen to the activists of the party. For Republicans, Winograd presents an obvious and stark contrast to their conservative principles of lower taxes and personal responsibility.
Winograd’s tough grassroots campaign has forced Harman to ignore the healthcare debate and call for higher taxes and defense spending cuts despite the fact that her district is home to some of the Nation’s most respected defense contractors. Winograd has effectively outed Harman’s liberal policies at a time when voters are concerned with the traditional tax and spend tactics of this Congress.
Waiting for Winograd or Harman after June 8th, is Mattie Fein. Fein is the best hope for Republicans to take back the district and a rising star in Republican politics. Fein is smart, humble, funny and wildly experienced. She is a mother who speaks comfortably about job creation in the casual beach community of Venice as well as national security policy in the halls of Congress.
Fein will blunt Harman’s self-proclaimed expertise on intelligence and national security issues by challenging Harman’s quixotic ideas of dealing with terrorists. And Fein’s approachability and personality are more in tune with the beach culture of the district than Harman’s limousine liberal attitude.
Without even trying Harman has actually succeeded in uniting the parties together – they are now united to defeat her.
Middle America Cheers For Sandra Bullock
Listening to National Public Radio handicap the Academy Award Best Actress Nominees, it’s clear that media and Hollywood elites think the movie The Blind Side has too much mass appeal and not enough edginess to win any serious awards. Within hours of the announcement of Oscar nominations, the Hollywood press had mostly condescending analysis of Sandra Bullock’s portrayal of Leigh Anne Tuohy, a real-life suburban woman who intervenes in a troubled teenager’s life. ABC News went so far to ask on February 3, “Does Sandra Bullock Deserve an Oscar for Blind Side?” For the super-cool Hollywood types, Leigh Anne is just too simple. For them, straight forward and inspiring is boring. They think church-attending Republicans from the South are not hip enough for an Academy Award. However, despite the fact that Bullock’s performance continues to inspire millions of moviegoers around the world, few filmmakers in Hollywood seem impressed enough to reward her an Oscar.
The divide between those who attend movies and those who make movies has never been wider. While serious Hollywood types spend most of their time, energy and money on movies that trivialize the experiences of middle America, middle America spends its time and money on movies that celebrate what it is to be an American. Capitalism is good for Hollywood executives, but it’s under assault in the scripts being written. American military men and women are celebrated as heroes on Main Street, but they are overwhelmingly portrayed as killers in the movies that Hollywood produces. And while Hollywood is tremendously liberal, the rest of America is not.
But middle America is fighting back. Millions of people have responded to The Blind Side and Sandra Bullock’s performance in such a way that many of the traditional Hollywood types have been forced to take notice. If there is one thing that Hollywood understands, it is money. Variety reported in early January that The Blind Side brought in $208.5 million in its 7th week of release, making it the first picture in history driven solely by a female star to break the $200 million domestic box office mark. Sandra Bullock is America’s star, not Hollywood’s. We have responded to her performances over the years because she is inspiring and talented. America loves Bullock’s real humility, fun personality and true generosity. Bullock gives generously to crisis’ like her $1 million dollar gift to the Tsunami Relief effort in Indonesia, more to Hurricane Katrina relief and recently the Haiti earthquake fund – all without seeking media attention for it. She is funny, beautiful and refreshingly normal. Bullock is not from a Hollywood dynasty or family, she is someone from your family.
For the millions of moviegoers who have seen The Blind Side, it’s more than a blockbuster movie. For them, Bullock is a hero who doesn’t wait for others to respond or a government program to kick in before she helps a young man in need. The Blind Side speaks to America’s sense of right and wrong, and Bullock’s portrayal of Leigh Anne Tuohy is a suburban anthem that continues to inspire and cajole men and women to help change someone’s life. For millions of Americans, The Blind Side is more accurately America than the highly celebrated movie Precious. The Blind Side is the conservative response to Hollywood’s fêted Precious. While Precious was gritty and edgy, Bullock’s performance in The Blind Side was just as real. Bullock could have easily given in to the usual Hollywood portrayal of a southern Christian woman by overdoing the sappiness and creating a condescending caricature of life in the suburbs when you have a southern accent. But Bullock knows real suburban America because that is where she came from. The brilliance of The Blind Side is that the characters weren’t over the top in the usual Hollywood way. The characters were real – real Americans struggling to change their world.
While many in Hollywood dismiss the life experiences of everyday Americans as trivial or unglamorous, Bullock’s performance in The Blind Side celebrates real Americans. America doesn’t need to be taught by Hollywood, Hollywood could use some lessons from real Americans. Sandra Bullock just may be the one person is Hollywood that could bridge the ever-growing gap between the two.
Robert Gibbs Thanks Chuck Todd For The Great Coverage
Watching Chuck Todd on The Today Show the morning after President Obama’s first State of the Union speech one would think that we have a divided Congress. If you were linked to Chuck Todd on his Facebook page during the speech then you would have also seen several status updates about watching Republicans sitting down during standing ovations or looking sour during some of the President’s policy announcements. Todd and The Today Show have completely missed the reality of Washington’s power game and have instead proven to be the go-to guy and morning show for this White House. Their consistent voice for Obama’s hope and change tour reached its climax this morning with their report on last night’s State of the Union speech.
Todd’s report, the lead story for The Today Show, focused on the few times in Obama’s speech where he tried to reach out to the Republicans. Todd never mentioned once how Obama started the speech by blaming Bush for our current problems and how he consistently blamed the previous Administration for a banking collapse, large deficits and an economy in the tank. For a President with all of the power in Washington, Obama’s speech was antagonistic and full of excuses. Someone needs to remind Todd that the President’s party overwhelmingly controls Congress and could have passed any piece of change legislation they wanted this past year. Why Todd continues to focus on the minority party is more than disturbing, it’s biased. The President’s first year has been a failure, the worst first year performance by any President, and the blame goes squarely on his own party and his ability to lead them.
While The Today Show cameras kept showing the Democrats standing and clapping for Obama’s speech and the Republicans seated, voters were led to believe that it was the Republicans fault that this past year has been a disaster in Washington.
Not to be outdone by Todd, Meredith Vieira jumped in to pile on too. Speaking with Vice President Joe Biden, Vieira asked “What risk do Republicans run if they remain the party of NO?” Biden, of course, had an answer and stayed on message by emphasizing how when the Obama Administration took office they brought America “back from the abyss”. No one challenged Biden with the facts: larger deficits, unemployment at an all-time high and his own party controlling all of Washington.
Todd and Vieira also pointed out Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s silent frustration with being called-out by the President when he mouthed the words “No, that’s not true” while the NBC cameras went to slow motion to emphasize the point. But the fact that the President of the United States was so partisan throughout his speech, blamed Bush for his problems and publicly attacked the Supreme Court on national television for their most-recent decision while they had to sit there and be silent was never mentioned on-air.
When it was Matt Lauer’s turn to jump in he also stayed on the theme that Republicans are to blame for this President’s disastrous first year and low approval ratings. Lauer emphasized the “political divide in congress right now” without pointing out that if there is a political divide then it’s because the Democrats can’t agree among themselves on what to do or how to do it.
Since Todd, Vieira and Lauer obviously don’t understand that the Democrats have unprecedented influence in Congress, here’s a reminder: there are 255 Democrats and 178 Republicans in the House; and there are 56 Democrats and 41 Republicans in the Senate. Todd should start putting the White House and its party of power under scrutiny and stop force-feeding the American people with the White House’s message that their first year’s failure is anyone’s fault but their own.
Liberal Elites See No Problem With Reid
Watching Gwen Ifill, Al Sharpton and a plethora of African American news reporters and academics on MSNBC defend and excuse Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s racial slight makes you realize why the Democratic Party can take black voters for granted. There are absolutely no consequences for liberal elites to have differing public and private views on political issues. The Democratic Party even went so far to dismiss the disparaging comments by Joe Biden about Barack Obama being clean and articulate to nominate and confirm him as Vice President at their convention. Today, the sitting Vice President stands as the symbol of liberal elite’s racial double standard.
It is troubling, however, why African American voters (and gay and lesbian voters too) give unwavering and unconditional support to a political party that ignores them once the fundraising is over. Keeping issues of race and equality squarely in the political sphere relegates the important topics to partisan bickering. Politics is a competitive sport after all.
There is also absolutely no question that there is a Democratic double standard with Reid’s recent racial remarks as compared to the last time a Majority Leader made regrettable comments. Trent Lott’s unfortunate comment at a 100th Birthday Party actually didn’t say anything specific about race issues – the linkage was made by the media to suggest that the compliment honoring Strom Thurmond meant something that could be a code phrase supporting Strom’s previous segregation stance. While the linkage was a jump, it made many people uncomfortable that a leader in the Senate was above reproach on race issues.
Reid’s offensive comments, however, were actually specific to race. No extrapolation needs to be made to understand the derogatory words. What’s even more ironic is that Reid’s remarks were about the leader of his own political party. If Reid would have made the same remarks about a Republican then he would be under more political pressure to resign. However, liberal elites being who they are, the condescending remark by the leader of the Senate was quickly excused by most every Democrat, the President and the Congressional Black Caucus members.
What is clear is that Democratic elites talk privately one way with each other and another way publicly about race issues. Watching liberal elites justify the Reid remark this past weekend (see Al Hunt on This Week) and draw differences with Trent Lott’s non-racial comment about race was as ridiculous as Al Sharpton dismissing the comment on Fox News or Gwen Ifill’s outrageous defense of Reid’s comments on NBC. Liberal elites are tripping over themselves to justify the Reid comment. It’s also clear that the unwavering support to the Democratic Party by African-Americans, women and gays and lesbians feed into these public/private pronouncements on political issues. These groups need to look long and hard at the lessons we have learned this past weekend about the Senate Majority Leader’s racial comments and the rush by Democratic leaders to excuse them. It’s clear that Democrats don’t have to pay attention to the concerns of these groups and can take them for granted.
Another lesson we learned this weekend is that Republicans are not safe discussing the issue of race but Democrats are. The double standard we see based on political party sends the message that Republicans best keep their mouths shut on the issue but Democrats are able to freely discuss sensitive racial matters and are even given a pass on any comments they make that seem offensive. Democrats successfully keep the issue of race as a political issue and thereby relegate it to something we should disagree on.
If Trent Lott was forced to resign as a Senate leader then there is no question that Reid must too. If the liberals now want to dismiss Reid’s comments and instead talk about whether or not we have put too much attention on political gaffes, they should have brought this important subject up during the Trent Lott leadership debate. Today, Republicans get to choose whether to publicly call for Reid’s resignation or whether to use the opportunity to talk about mistakes and forgiveness. The liberal elites, however, will undoubtedly be huddling privately to discuss the matter.
So What Will Pelosi Do About DC Gay Marriage?
By Richard Grenell
Nancy Pelosi represents the gayest congressional district in the United States. She also happens to be the most powerful person, woman or man, in the House of Representatives. With one simple directive she can force 435 Members of Congress from across the United States to vote on any piece of legislation she wants. Healthcare legislation, immigration reform, tax increases or gay marriage are all issues that Speaker Nancy Pelosi can choose to have voted on by Congress. She could schedule a vote at 3 a.m. and members would be expected to appear. She alone gets to decide what the House of Representatives votes on and when it votes. But will Pelosi pass the DC gay marriage bill — one of her district’s most important issues — before the end of the year? What is she waiting for? She has the power to do it immediately and DC needs Congressional approval to move forward with equal rights for all citizens.
Nancy Pelosi also has a Democratic partner over in the Senate in Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid has the same power in the Senate with the 100 members that Nancy Pelosi has in the House of Representatives. Together, Pelosi and Reid have a Democratic President in Barack Obama. It isn’t an overstatement to say that these three Democrats – Pelosi, Reid and Obama – can force any issue to a vote and make that issue a law. All Pelosi, Reid and Obama have to do is get their own party to go along with their ideas – no Republicans are needed to go along with the Pelosi-Reid-Obama agenda. Not one Republican is needed to enact new laws. None. Zero.
So why aren’t these three Democrats passing new laws and making changes? Where is the gay marriage law they promised when they were put in charge and the Republicans were run out of office?
The answer, of course, is and has always been that America is not ready for gay marriage. Nearly every public poll taken has shown that the electorate, albeit the public at large, is not ready. Pelosi, Reid and Obama are only reading public opinion surveys when they delay votes on gay issues. Even California, the most liberal state in the nation, wasn’t able to get the electorate to see the value of equal rights for all. But the Nation’s Capital has and now needs Pelosi’s support.
What is needed to pass gay marriage is not a Democratic majority – this past year has proven that to be true – but politicians and judges comfortable enough to ignore what the majority of the voters want and do what is uncomfortable, unpopular – and morally right. Equal rights should not be debatable and certainly should not be put to a vote of the people. Would we ask the electorate to vote on whether or not Catholics and Protestants should marry? Of course we would not. The Catholic Church or the local evangelical church should not be forced to bless the new union of a divorced woman if they don’t want to. But civil governments don’t make the same distinctions. While religious institutions should be able to pick and choose which unions they bless, civil governments should issue marriage licenses to all couples.
But the more that the gay leaders raise money for and give unconditional support to Democratic politicians, the more Democratic leaders are encouraged to take gay marriage voters for granted. Anyone who is still holding out for the Democrats to be the gayest political party is now part of the problem. The more gay marriage is made a political issue the longer gays will be treated as less than and unequal. Equal rights should not be a partisan political issue so why are all gay leaders in one political party?
Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have to pay attention to gays because there is no price to pay for ignoring them.