Archive for the ‘Log Cabin Republicans’ Category

Log Cabin Republicans and Liberty Education Forum cordially invite you to our Reunite & Relaunch party on Friday, April 19th in Washington, DC!

Reconnect with old colleagues, make new friends from across the country and celebrate the dawn of a new day for Log Cabin Republicans and Liberty Education Forum!

Log Cabin Republicans has come a long way since our founding over 30 years ago. In the last three months alone, we ran three full-page ads in some of our nation’s top newspapers, we were featured on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News (including The O’Reilly Factor), and we are aggressively engaged in lobbying efforts for marriage equality and equal rights for all.

But as Ronald Reagan famously said: You ain’t seen nothing yet!

No gay Republican organization has the history and record of accomplishment of Log Cabin Republicans, and at our Reunite & Relaunch celebration, we will be unveiling a new image, a new brand, and a new message to show America that we are more relevant and necessary than ever.
And we want you to be a part of it!

Whether you’re a current member, former member, local Chapter Leader or an aspiring advocate, we want you there. Log Cabin Republicans exists today because of the tremendous effort of so many people over so many years. It wouldn’t be a celebration without you!

So mark your calendar and join us as we come together to celebrate our progress and toast to our future. Together, we can kickstart a new era of Log Cabin Republicans!
Gregory T. Angelo
Interim Executive Director
Log Cabin Republicans

P.S. The LCR National Board of Directors Meeting will be held on the following day, Saturday, April 20th. LCR members are invited to attend a morning session in which the organization’s strategic plan will be presented. There will also be a tutorial on Blackbaud offered for chapter members.

Log Cabin Republicans

1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 850
Washington, D.C. 20005


Read Full Post »

This does seem rather picayune when compared to the usual Democratic and Republican campaign funding scandals and lies, from Obama’s unregulated on line donations from foreigners to the Democratic Party’s fake memes like the war on women, to the Benghazi cover up, to HRC’s fake doctor’s notes, etc etc.

The gay GOP group confirms the ad was funded by outside donors, but refuses to identify them or their cause
Barack Obama with Senator Chuck Hagel, 2009
President Barack Obama with Senator Chuck Hagel in 2009; until controversy erupted, Hagel was thought to be the president’s likely nominee to be the next secretary of defense. Photograph: Jim Young/REUTERS
Last Thursday, the gay GOP group Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) placedfull-page ad in the New York Times that attacked Chuck Hagel as anti-Israel and anti-gay and urged President Obama not to appoint him as Defense Secretary. This was quite a strange event for multiple reasons.
First, full-page ads in the NYT are notoriously expensive, particularly for a small, poorly-funded group like LCR; published rates indicate that such an ad can cost well in excess of $100,000, though some discounts are possible with flexible dates (five years ago, the published rate for a black-and-white full-page political ad was $142,000). Second, LCR – whichtouts itself as “the only Republican organization dedicated to representing the interests of LGBT Americans and their allies”- has virtually no demonstrated prior interest in Israel; the only mention of that country on its entire website is as part of a laundry list of nations which allow gay and lesbians to serve in the armed forces, while its only substantive position on Iran policy is a tepid 2010 statement advocating a single 2010 bill for increased sanctions, something which Obama supported and signed (the group did lend its name to a coalition against Iranian nuclear proliferation).Third, since when does LCR – which endorsed McCain/Palin in 2008 and Mitt Romney with his abundant anti-gay advocacy in 2012 – oppose GOP officials on the ground that they have some anti-gay aspects to their record?
All of those facts made me deeply curious about what prompted LCR to place this ad and, especially, who funded it. That curiosity was heightened by another fact: a favorite tactic of neocons – who have led the smear campaign against Hagel – is to cynically exploit liberal causes to generate progressive support for their militaristic agenda. They suddenly develop an interest in the plight of gay people when seeking to demonize Iran, or pretend to be devoted to women’s rights when attempting to sustain endless war in Afghanistan, or become so deeply moved by the oppression of Muslim factions – such as Iraqi Shia – when it comes time to justify their latest desired invasion.
As it so often does, this tactic has worked magically here, as numerous progressives who do actually care about gay issues – from Rachel Maddow to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force – dutifully popped up to attack the neocons’ number one public enemy. Andrew Sullivan is right that this is a classic technique of the neocon smear campaign – recruit progressives to their cause with exploitation of unrelated issues – and he’s also right that Hagel’s record on gay issues is hardly uncommon or unusually disturbing for DC officials (particularly given his apology and disavowal). Indeed, very few of these progressives had difficulty supporting Obama in 2008 despite his opposition to same-sex marriage on this warped ground: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God is in the mix.” But the LCR ad is designed to rile up progressives against Hagel by making it appear that Good Liberals oppose the former Senator for reasons having nothing to do with his heresies on Israel (just as so many Good Liberals were convinced to support the attack on Iraq, and will do the same with an attack on Iran, on the ground that the war advanced their Liberal Values).
As a result, I posed several questions to LCR about the funding and motive behind this ad. In response, the group’s Executive Director, R. Clark Cooper, confirmed that LCR did not pay for the ad out of its existing funds. Rather, he said, the ad campaign “is being funded by a number of donors”. But he not only refused to identify any of those donors, but also has thus far refused to say whether those “donors” are from the self-proclaimed “pro-Israel” community and/or are first-time donors to LCR: in other words, whether these donors are simply exploiting gay issues and the LCR to advance an entirely unrelated agenda as a means of attacking Hagel.
As for why LCR would suddenly object to the anti-gay record of Hagel despite a history of supporting more virulently anti-gay Republicans, Cooper claimed that “LCR is particularly concerned about Chuck Hagel as a potential Defense Secretary because of the role he would play in continuing to oversee the implementation of open service of the military.” But he did not respond to my follow-up inquiry about why, then, LCR endorsed Mitt Romney – who has long supported Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and other anti-gay measures – as President. Why would this group be so moved by concerns about a possible Defense Secretary’s anti-gay record that they take out a full-page ad against him in the New York Times, but just three months ago endorsed someone who is at least as anti-gay for the position of Commander-in-Chief, which obviously has far more influence on such policies than a Defense Secretary?
What makes this all the more inexplicable is that, a couple of weeks before the LCR ad was placed, the very same R. Clark Cooper spoke out in praise of Hagel to the Gay City News:

“I recall working with Senator Chuck Hagel and his staff during the Bush administration and he was certainly not shy about expressing his criticisms. But despite his criticisms,Hagel voted with us most of the time and there was no question he was committed to advancing America’s interests abroad. As for his nomination to be secretary of defense, it is well worth noting that Senator Hagel is a combat veteran who has hands-on experience in the field. The battlefield is not just theory for him.”
At some point thereafter, LCR decided not only that Hagel must be publicly smeared as anti-gay and anti-Israel, but that the group just had to take an extraordinary and incredibly expensive step – a full-page ad in the New York Times – to do so. And then magically, the substantial funding for that anti-Hagel ad materialized.
While I agree with those who insist that a Hagel nomination would not meaningfully change administration policy, the goal of the anti-Hagel smear campaign is to ensure that there can be no debate and no diversity of views on Israel when it comes to top government officials. That was the same objective that drove the successful effort to torpedo the 2009 appointment by Adm. Dennis Blair of life-long foreign service diplomat (and periodic Israel critic) Chas Freeman to a position within the National Intelligence Council. Gay advocates are the exploited tools in this effort. We should at least have some transparency about that fact.


Adm. Blair nominated Chas Freeman to a position on the National Intelligence Council (as its Chair), not the “National Security Council” as the original column inaccurately indicated.

Read Full Post »

Dan Savage, or rather Keenan Houlahan, the plumbing advice columnist whose internalized homophobia led him to abandon his given name of Keenan Houlahan as too faggoty,  for the masculine comic book hero moniker “Dan Savage,” has once again sought media attention, calling a gay political group “faggots” for endorsing someone not his choice for President.

In particular he called them “house faggots,” which is probably projection, given Democratic party gays’ long tradition of sucking up slights, evasions and half-measures, while bending over and spreading their wallets for politicians who otherwise ignore them.

It was kind of an odd charge though, since the group he was attacking, GOProud, is not a membership organization, and has an advisory board heavy with heterosexuals, like author Margaret Hoover and taxpayer advocate Grover Norquist.  How can these people be house faggots when they aren’t even faggots?

One supposes he was aiming at the group’s director, Jimmy LaSalvia, and founder, Chris Barron, who are bonafide (as it were) homosexuals, or perhaps its staff, a uniformly delectable group of college age gay interns (I have visited their Capitol Hill office).  The curiosity there is that Chris Barron did not endorse Romney, but instead is supporting Libertarian presidential candidate Governor Gary Johnson, and was indeed a Johnson delegate this May at the Libertarian Party nominating convention.  Further the GOProud advisory board endorsement was not unanimous, and even the endorsement they did issue had a heavy context of “gay people are more than simply gays, they also are taxpayers who need jobs and a president who will not lie to them, hence Barack Obama fails on all counts,” and for those who are two party faithful, only one “hold your nose” or “hope he evolves” choice remains (and Romney’s history is certainly one of … evolutions).

The gay trolls who live in the leftover blogosphere are in their usual ferment.  Too ugly to leave their basements for a gay bar or film festival, they sit at home all night on their PCs typing howlers in worship of their hero Keenan Houlahan.  The comments at the leftoid RawStory are particularly laughable.  The author manages not to know or report any of the facts I laid out (GOProud board may be mainly straights, Barron a Libertarian not supporting Romney, etc.).  The insectoid readers continue on, discussing Log Cabin Republicans, which is (1) not GOProud, (2) a membership organization, and (3) has, I believe, not (yet) endorsed Romney.  And of course these poor anencephalic poofters (no doubt doubly anencephalic, actually) begin barking about how white gay males who are part of the 1% identify with the ruling class, even as these leftoid pole smokers defend their master’s use of predator drones to kill gay children in Arabia, his placing of gay and lesbian Americans on his Presidential kill list, and his bailout of crony capitalists who control the Federal Reserve System.  And even while gay white male Keenan Houlahan strokes these sheeple and laughs all the way to the bank and his White House dinners with their money.

Good thing so many of them will not breed.

From Mediaite:

Dan Savage Calls Gay Conservative Group GOProud ‘House Faggots’ For Romney Endorsement


Columnist and co-creator of the It Gets Better project Dan Savage called a gay conservative group “faggots” after the group endorsed Mitt Romney Wednesday.
GOProud endorsed Romney in a news release and said they would commit “significant resources” to his campaign. The group describes itself as “a national organization of gay and straight Americans seeking to promote freedom by supporting free markets, limited government, and a respect for individual rights.”
“Most gay Americans – like their straight counterparts – are not better off than they were four years ago,” Jimmy LaSalvia, GOProud executive director, said in a statement endorsing the Republican nominee. “The truth is that gay people are living in the disastrous failed Obama economy too.” Savage tweeted a link to a story about the groups endorsement, mocking them as “GOP house faggots” for “grab[bing] their ankles, right on cue.”
LaSalvia said the group opposes Romney’s support of a federal marriage amendment and acknowledged the group’s endorsement was not unanimous with two members of its board voting against it.
“For far too long, the gay left in this country has been allowed to dictate what they believe qualify as ‘gay issues,’” LaSalvia said in the statement. “We think that jobs, the economy, healthcare, retirement security and taxes are all ‘gay issues,’ and on every single one of those issues, Mitt Romney is light years better than President Obama.”
GOProud has not officially released a statement on Savage’s tweet, but co-founder Christopher Barron responded on his site: “Apparently, faggot is an entirely appropriate slur as long as Dan Savage is slinging it and gay people who you don’t agree with are on the receiving end. It gets better my ass.”

Read Full Post »

David Lampo, a longtime activist with the Virginia chapter of Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) and publications director at the libertarian Cato Institute, is author of a new book, A Fundamental Freedom: Why Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians Should Support Gay Rights, scheduled to be released on June 16 by Rowman & Littlefield.
Lampo spoke to the Charlottesville Libertarian Examinerabout the book at the 2012 Capital Pride festival on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, where he was promoting the book at the LCR information table.
He describes his book, A Fundamental Freedom, as “a primer about gay rights for Republicans [and] all right-of-center voters.”

GOP’s ‘bad reputation’
The Republican party, he explained, “has a bad reputation regarding gay rights and I thought it was time that somebody try to explain the concept and the philosophy behind [gay issues] from someone who shares their basic, fundamental political values.”
He felt it was important that “rather than liberals or leftists preaching at them about gay rights from the Left, I thought that somebody on the Right, specifically [someone] with a libertarian perspective, should address the issue with them.”
As might be expected, given the subtitle, the book is “primarily about gay issues, mostly at the federal level,” Lampo noted, as well as “the constitutional issues involved with the Tenth Amendment, DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act], a federal marriage amendment, and issues like that.”
The author explained that he was “inspired to write” A Fundamental Freedom last year, “at the beginning of the Republican presidential nomination process, because a lot of the comments and policies advocated by most of the candidates were so outrageous — yet they rarely got any kickback from more mainstream or socially tolerant Republicans.”

Endless material
Lampo said that he “just got tired of the lack of a response to the most radical statements from people like Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum.”
Although there was, he said, “a never-ending amount of material coming out of the presidential nominating process,” he finished writing the book last fall before taking it to a publisher.
Lampo pointed out that some of the contestants for the GOP presidential nomination were more supportive on gay-rights issues than others, including former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
In those cases, he said, “I usually contrast their positions with what most of the candidates said and did.”
The book’s last chapter, he explained, includes a “score card of all the major Republican candidates,” giving each a grade on a scale of A to F.
“Of course,” he noted, Huntsman and Johnson “and even Ron Paul do pretty well, but most of the others [received] Fs.”
DADT and libertarians
If one were to look for supportive Republicans on gay-rights issues, Lampo recommended going first to the Republicans in Congress who voted to repeal the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) policy of excluding openly gay members of the armed forces.
There were eight GOP Senators who voted to repeal DADT, including Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Richard Burr of North Carolina. Five Republicans in the House of Representatives voted for repeal: Judy Biggert of Illinois, Anh Cao of Louisiana, Charles Djou of Hawaii, Ron Paul of Texas, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.
“It was their votes that actually got it repealed,” Lampo asserted.

Read Full Post »

Mitt Romney speaking before attendees at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Mitt Romney swept a series of GOP presidential primaries this week as news surfaced that Newt Gingrich will suspend his campaign on Tuesday.
With Romney poised to wrap up the Republican nomination — and ready to pivot to the general election contest — his campaign announced the appointment of a gay man, Richard Grenell, to serve as national security and foreign policy spokesman.
The developments this week raise questions about whether the Log Cabin Republicans will endorse Romney for president, despite his promise to pursue a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage, among other anti-gay positions he’s articulated during the primary season.
The debate over whether to endorse Romney could prove thorny for Log Cabin. On one hand, the organization is likely to feel pressure from its Republican base to throw its support behind the party’s standard-bearer in the general election. On the other, Romney has backed anti-gay positions during the primary season, including support for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country and a pledge to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.
Christian Berle, Log Cabin’s deputy executive director, said the board will make the endorsement decision in advance of the Republican National Convention in Tampa Bay, Fla., this August.
“The endorsement of any candidate is something Log Cabin Republicans takes very seriously, particularly when it comes to a presidential nominee,” Berle said. “Staff and the board of directors will take the next several months to review Gov. Romney’s record and his vision for leading the country. Log Cabin Republicans will maintain its battle focus on building a stronger, more inclusive GOP.”
If history is any guide, then Log Cabin may withhold support for Romney because of his support for the federal amendment. Log Cabin endorsed George W. Bush in 2000. But in 2004, the group created a national stir when it withheld its endorsement of Bush’s re-election due to the president’s support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In a 22-2 vote, the Log Cabin board decided to withhold the endorsement.
Log Cabin’s then-president Patrick Guerriero explained the decision not to endorse Bush in an op-ed piece published in the Los Angeles Times.
“This year, despite our loyalty to the party of Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln, we have decided, after significant discussion, to withhold our endorsement of President Bush,” Guerriero wrote. “It was a difficult choice, but our integrity requires it, and the Republican Party’s future will be stronger because of it.”
Although other concerns were cited, the primary reason for withholding support for Bush was his call for Congress to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment to send to the states for ratification.
“The constitutional amendment would not only ban gay marriage, it would also jeopardize civil unions and domestic partnerships,” Guerriero said. ”The president’s support of an unnecessary and discriminatory constitutional amendment ignores the party’s belief in state autonomy and disregards the nation’s reliance on federalism. Using the Constitution as a campaign tool weakens our nation’s founding document and erodes our party’s proud tradition of equality and liberty.”
In many ways, Romney’s views mirror those of Bush in 2004. Romney signed a pledge from the National Organization for Marriage to back a Federal Marriage Amendment, defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court and establish a commission on “religious liberty” to investigate the alleged harassment of same-sex marriage opponents. NOM has endorsed Romney, whose Free & Strong America political action committee donated $10,000 to the organization as it sought passage of California’s Proposition 8.
Log Cabin has an awkward history with Romney. In 2007, Log Cabin ran an ad against Romney in Iowa attacking him for not being conservative enough. It included footage of Romney running for U.S. Senate and expressing pro-choice views and distancing himself from former Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. A message at the end of the ad says it came from Log Cabin, but the Blade reported in 2008 that it was financed by Gill Action Fund.
“For years, he’s fought conservatives and religious extremists,” a female voice in the ad states. “Mitt Romney opposed the gun lobby, even Ronald Reagan. … A record fighting the religious right, a pro-choice record, Massachusetts values: Mitt Romney.”
But despite his support for a federal amendment, Romney’s anti-gay positions aren’t as extreme as other GOP candidates who competed against him for the Republican nomination. In a December interview with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register, Romney said he’s “not planning” on working to reinstate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” unlike the other candidates such as former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. Additionally, Romney said that although he backs a Federal Marriage Amendment, he doubts the political wherewithal exists to pass it.
Meanwhile, Romney’s decision to hire Grenell, who’s gay and a former Bush administration official, as his national security and foreign policy spokesman, was viewed as a pivot to the political center now that the primary season is ending. Grenell has come under fire for speaking out on Twitter against women, Democratic officials and the Gingriches. Around 800 tweets were reportedly deleted from his account.
Log Cabin threw its support behind Republican presidential nominee John McCain in 2008. In a 2008 Q&A with the Washington Blade, McCain said he’d establish a national AIDS strategy and would welcome a review of a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — although the lawmaker was the primary opponent of repeal during the 2010 legislative effort. As a U.S. senator, McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment and didn’t run for president supporting the measure.
Many gay Republicans and Log Cabin chapter leaders declined to comment when contacted by the Washington Blade about whether Log Cabin should endorse Romney. In a leaked email dated April 13 obtained by the Blade, Log Cabin’s national staff told its chapter leaders not to speak to the Blade about the endorsement.
“We have been informed that Chris Johnson of the Washington Blade is reaching out to our chapter leaders with questions regarding the potential for Log Cabin Republicans to endorse Mitt Romney,” the email reads. “Please redirect Mr. Johnson to the national staff on this issue. No endorsement decision has been made, and it is in the best interest of our organization to refrain from comment at this time.”
Still, a handful of gay Republicans voiced support for the idea of a Romney endorsement when contacted by the Blade.
Bob Kabel, who’s gay and chair of the D.C. Republican Party, responded favorably when asked if he believes the national gay organization should throw its support behind Romney.
“I do think Log Cabin should endorse Romney,” Kabel said. “Romney has a good track record as governor of Massachusetts on gay issues, including appointing a number of openly gay officials in important positions. Other than on marriage, which we have a strong disagreement about, he is actually quite good on gay issues and, in addition, I think Log Cabin would support him because of his background and proven ability to understand the economy and create jobs. That what’s important to so many people, including gay people.”
Although Kabel touts Romney’s work on gay issues in Massachusetts, many LGBT advocates have criticized him for working to block legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and resurrecting a 1913 law preventing non-residents from marrying in the Bay State. According to MassEquality, Romney abolished the Governor’s Commission on GLBT Youth and rescinded an executive order prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in the state workforce. Another Republican, former Gov. William Weld, had put those measures in place.
Jim Driscoll, a gay Nevada-based activist who served on the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS during the Bush administration, also called on Log Cabin to endorse Romney. Driscoll is a Romney supporter who donated to his campaign — both in 2008 and 2012 — and supported him during the Nevada caucuses.
“I think they should endorse him,” Driscoll said. “It looks to me as if the only issue there is the marriage amendment. This isn’t something that I’ve followed closely, but it seems to me that there’s very little chance that that marriage amendment can pass. It’s kind of a dead issue. I don’t see that it has any momentum. And I suspect that while [Romney] formally favors it, he’s not going to lift his little finger to do anything to see that it passes.”
Outside groups on the right and left had their own views on whether Log Cabin should get behind Romney.
Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of the gay conservative group GOProud, refrained from directly saying whether Log Cabin should endorse Romney.
“It’s not for me to opine on whether Log Cabin Republicans should or should not endorse Gov. Romney,” LaSalvia said. “It should be noted, however, that in 2004 they emphatically stated that they could not endorse a candidate who supported a Federal Marriage Amendment, and in 2008 they spent more than $100,000 to run television and radio ads attacking Mitt Romney.”
Jerame Davis, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, said “any credible organization” working for the LGBT community “cannot and should not endorse Mitt Romney,” but noted the question of an endorsement will likely be a difficult one for the organization.
“Log Cabin is in a very precarious situation when it comes to endorsing Mitt Romney,” Davis said. “On the one hand, if they do endorse Romney, they are sending a clear signal to the rest of the LGBT community that being partisan hacks is more important than standing up for LGBT equality. On the other hand, if they don’t endorse Romney they become largely irrelevant in the debate about who will be the next president. Not only would this give their rivals, GOProud, an opening to out flank them on the right, but it would also be problematic for their executive director, who happens to sit on the RNC finance committee.”
Former Log Cabin leaders were reluctant to weigh in on whether the organization should endorse Romney. Guerriero, who after leaving Log Cabin served as head of Gill Action Fund, didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment. He’s now a partner at Civitas Public Affairs Group.
Patrick Sammon, who headed Log Cabin during its decision to endorse McCain and is now a filmmaker, declined to comment.
But Rich Tafel, who founded the organization and led it from 1993 to 2003, said in an email to the Blade that the organization, “will probably endorse Mitt Romney.”
“Mitt is a moderate, which is [why] he’s had a tough time this primary,” Tafel said. “He has a history of supporting gays and appointing them, which makes him unique among the GOP candidates. He has a 45 percent chance of winning so LCR has a responsibility to ensure it has a role with him should he win. He’ll need to move back to the middle to win this.”

Read Full Post »

Congressman Jim Kolbe * R. Clarke Cooper * Trevor Potter
Invite You to a Fundraising Reception with

Sheriff Paul Babeu
Republican Candidate for Congress (AZ-04)

Tuesday, April 24th
5:30 – 7:30 PM

The Home of Jim Kolbe & Hector Alfonso
519 E. Capitol Street SE
Washington, DC 20003

Suggest Contribution:

$1,000 PAC * $500 Individual * $250 Young Professional

Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu is a rising star in conservative politics. Chosen “Sheriff of the Year” by the National Sheriff’s Association in 2011, Babeu has gained prominence for his work securing the border and reforming law enforcement in Pinal County.

An Iraq War veteran, Babeu served for over 20 years in the Army National Guard. In his race for Arizona’s 4th Congressional District, Babeu has won the support of leading Republicans and was warmly welcomed at the Conservative Political Action Conference this year.

In short, Sheriff Babeu is a successful conservative Republican. He is also gay.

Sheriff Babeu follows in the tradition of many conservatives who have stood up in communities, town halls, and in Congress for what’s right for the American people. Following in the mold of the late Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), Arizonans have long supported the best candidate for office, regardless of their sexual orientation, including Log Cabin member and longtime Congressman Jim Kolbe (R-AZ).
Simply by being who we are – unapologetically pro-gay and unapologetically conservative – Log Cabin Republicans like Sheriff Babeu are helping to secure the freedoms America stands for, and that’s something we can all be proud of.
Contributions to Paul for Congress Committee are not tax deductible as charitable contributions. Contributions are subject to the limitations andprohibitions of federal law: multicandidate PACs may contribute up to $5,000 per election; non-multicandidate PACs and individuals may contribute up to $2,500 to per election. The primary and the general are deemed to e separate elections. Contributions from corporations, labor unions, national banks, foreign nationals, federal government contractors or the funds of any other person or entity are prohibited.
Paid for by Paul for Congress
Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to collect and report the name, address, occupation and employer of each person whose aggregate contributions exceed $200.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »