Gays Gone Republican
Back in September, on the heels of Ken Mehlman’s coming out, and the entire McCain camp — sans McCain himself — coming out in support of same-sex marriage, I asked, “Is Gay Republican The New Black?” Well, fast-forward to election day exit polls, and the answer is a resounding, “Yes.” It seems that gays are just as human as the the rest of society, and, despite all logic, can vote in large numbers against their self interests. Or, are they?
In “GOP: Gay Old Party? More gays voted Republican than in 2008,” the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart writes, “If you want more data that gay men and lesbians are pretty much just like everyone else — worried about the economy, freaked out about the direction of the country and perhaps ticked at the slow pace of change with regard to their civil rights — get a load of this exit poll result.”
Here it is — based on CNN’s exit polls.
In 2006, one in four self-identified gay men and lesbians voted Republican. That number dropped to one in five during the presidential election of 2008. This year, that number jumped dramatically. Amplified by a new, out loud and proud gay Tea Party PAC, GOProud — whose nationally-noted tony Manhattan fund raising party was headlined by extreme homophobe Ann Coulter — gay men and lesbians voted against their better interests one-third of the time. In other words, an astonishing thirty-one percent of self-identified gay men and lesbians voted Republican on Tuesday.
There is no doubt some politically-aware Republicans are courting the gay vote. This week, the day after the election, former GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani came out — in contrast to his 2007 position — in support of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and finding a way to praise the Log Cabin Republicans. Back when he was elected, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said his GOP needed to do a better job of wooing candidates and voters who support marriage equality.
Amanda Terkel in The Huffington Post adds, “I have been very concerned over these last two years that the connection between the gay rights community and the Democratic Party is in danger of being broken, because I think expectations were set so high as a result of the 2008 election, and people are extremely disappointed,” said Richard Socarides, a former assistant to President Clinton and senior White House adviser on gay rights.”
“More conservatives have been speaking out in favor of gay rights as the issue becomes more mainstream amongst the general public, and Republicans perhaps sense some vulnerability and dissatisfaction with Democrats.”
But the obvious question is, who are these people responding in exit polls? And, did “the gays,” frustrated by a perceived lack of action from their “fierce advocate” presidential candidate merely stay home and not vote?
The other obvious bit of information: in 2008, 56.8% of “possible” voters actually voted. In 2010, only 41.3% did.
The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne, Jr. adds, “Voters younger than 30 made up nearly a fifth of the electorate in 2008 but only about a tenth on Tuesday, according to network exit polls. This week’s verdict was rendered by a much older and more conservative electorate.”
It bears mentioning too, that, after the 2008 exit polls were “analyzed,” the “news” was that blacks were primarily responsible for passing Prop 8. (They were not.)
The truth of the matter is that in times of economic distress — and America is certainly is in one — people choose financial security over social agendas. “It’s the economy, stupid,” may be the most-true statement ever uttered in politics. Of course, the “stupid,” long-term, may apply to gays who vote for a political party that wants to put them in jail for being gay. The “stupid” may apply to gays who vote for a political party that wants to keep the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in place. The “stupid” may apply to gays who vote for a political party that continues to discharge them from the military, even after a federal court has ruled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” unconstitutional. The “stupid” may apply to gays who vote for a political party that wants to block legislation that would protect them from being fired because they are gay. The “stupid” may apply to gays who vote for a political party that is happy to take their money but works to deny them their inalienable civil rights.
The question becomes, which party are we talking about?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a staunch supporter of the Democratic Party. The GOP is merely pandering to the LGBT community. They can say they want to be more “inclusive” all they want. The proof is in the pudding, and their pudding comes without any rights for the LGBT community.
It’s time to get the Democratic Party to once and for all pander — and put their money where their mouth is — to “the gay agenda.”
For some, perhaps, it can feel liberating to berate their political leaders. At times, I certainly have done so — and with good reason. But there is a stark difference between being a critic of one’s own party — and country — and voting for the other side. The side, for instance, that wants, literally, to imprison us.
(Oh, if you actually like the shirt, yes, it’s for sale. No, I get nothing for telling you that.)
Subscribe to
The New Civil Rights Movement
// <![CDATA[
google_ad_client = “pub-6759057198693805”;
/* 468×60, created 10/21/10 */
google_ad_slot = “8507588931”;
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
// ]]>
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
|
Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.
Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”
“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”
In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”
He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”
“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”
“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”
“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”
The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.
“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”
Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”
Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.
Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) July 6, 2026
President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.
“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”
The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”
Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”
TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”
Critics blasted Trump.
“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.
One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”
Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”
The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.
According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.
Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”
“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”
Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”
Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.
Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.
The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.
“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.
The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.
“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”
Image via Reuters
Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation
Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs
One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won
Inside the Group Helping MAGA Voters Walk Away — And What Finally Pushed Them
