Loony Homophobes--and the Presidents Who Love Them

That get your attention? Good.

I hereby retract my previous comparison of the far-right, disgustingly homophobic Family Research Council to International ANSWER. The FRC may be slightly less insane than ANSWER, but a little research confirmed what I suspected: they have thousands, and I mean thousands, of times more influence on the Republican party than ANSWER has on the Democrats.

When John Kerry delivers a video greeting to ANSWER's annual conference; when he sends Tom Daschle, John Edwards (or another likely candidate for attorney general), and Bob Shrum (or whoever the equivalent of Karl Rove is) to make flattering speeches in person; when Democratic Congressmen make a conscious effort to do well on ANSWER's Congressional Report Cards--then we can talk about whether or not they're equivalent. Because that's what Bush has done for the FRC:

2002
Excerpts from Karl Rove's remarks to the Family Research Council's annual Washington Briefing in March of of 2002, from a Washington Post article:

"We're not going to have a pleasant day today [in the Senate]," Rove told the Family Research Council at the Willard Hotel, according to a tape recording given to The Washington Post by an attendee. ". . .This is not about a good man, Charles Pickering. This is about the future. This is about the U.S. Supreme Court. And this is about sending George W. Bush a message that 'You send us somebody that is a strong conservative, you're not going to get him.'

"Guess what?" Rove added. "They sent the wrong message to the wrong guy."

In addition to sounding a defiant note on judicial nominations, Rove's speech set out a broad agenda for cooperation between the administration and the Christian right.

"There'll be some times you in this room and we over at the White House will find ourselves in agreement, and there'll be the occasion when we don't. But we will share a heck of a lot more in common than we don't. And we'll win if we work together far more often than the other side wants us to," Rove told the group of about 250 Christian political activists from around the country."

2003
In March of 2003, Rove--who can't have been pleased about tape recordings of his words being sent to the Washington Post--didn't show for the FRC's annual briefing. But Bill Frist and John Ashcroft did, and George W. Bush sent his regards in a video greeting.

Unfortunately, I can't find a reasonably objective news story about the 2003 event. But I found this very disapproving report from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and this very approving report from a conservative editorial writer in a local upstate NY newspaper called the Valley News. The writers are on opposite sides of the fence, but they are quite consistent in their description of what was actually said at the meeting.

Both sources describe Ashcroft's and Frist's speeches, and the growing influence of FRC's Congressional scorecoards:

Senate Republican leaders such as Frist, Don Nickles (R-Okla.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) hold perfect ratings on the FRC scorecards, as do House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). All told, 91 House members and 19 senators aced the FRC finals in the last Congress.

FRC Vice President for Govern­mental Affairs Connie Mackey, a former Pat Buchanan presidential campaign worker, told the gathering that Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.) and his Values Action Team caucus are among the Religious Right’s chief allies. The caucus picked up 18 new members after the last election, she said, giving the bloc additional influence in Congress.

Mackey said some members of Congress vote FRC’s way because they fear a negative ranking on the group’s scorecards.

One Tennessee member of Congress reportedly told Mackey, “Look, just tell me how to vote.”(source: Americans United for Separation of Church and State)

The Family Research Council’s Vote Scorecard is receiving greater and greater attention on Capitol Hill no doubt because members of congress are coming to a greater understanding that FRC stands for the same principles and public-policy preferences as do a majority of common, decent Americans voters) back home in communities such as our own here in rural and small-urban upstate New York. While a plethora of left-wing ideologues lobby feverishly in Washington spinning radical positions in such a way as to make them seem more "mainstream" than they really are, the Family Research Council moves steadily forward representing "main street" America with honesty, integrity, and dignity. Clearly, a growing number of congressional representatives are noticing. (source: Valley News).

(By the way, according to this link, Marilyn Musgrave, the lead sponsor of the "compromise" marriage amendment that Bush is going to support, received a True Blue Award in 2003. I do not believe her reassurances for one second that it will not touch civil unions.)

The Valley News notes that "Friday evening’s presentation included a surprise greeting via videotape from President George W. Bush, who offered his congratulations to the Family Research Council upon reaching its twentieth anniversary."

This year he may appear in person. The Family Research Council's 2004 Washington briefing/gay-bash-apalooza will be from March 17-20. The FRC website's description of the event lists "White House briefing at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building" as one of the highlights of the event, and lists President Bush as an invited speaker. I don't know if that means he's accepted their invitation.

Hey conservatives--this administration does not and will never respond to pressure from people like me. If you don't like this, it's up to people like you to stop it.

Comments

[Thorley Winston]

First, I must say I am delighted that Katherine is neglecting both her studies and work in the law clinic to post this bilge. Every FRC post means another illegal alien might get deported back to their country of origin because Katherine was worrying that a FRCer was hiding under her bed. (j/k)

Second, please fix the formatting.

Third, looking at the substance of the Washington Post story:

As the Senate Judiciary Committee was voting Thursday evening to reject U.S. District Judge Charles W. Pickering for an appellate court position, presidential adviser Karl Rove was telling an influential Christian political action group that President Bush would continue to nominate conservatives as federal judges.

"We're not going to have a pleasant day today [in the Senate]," Rove told the Family Research Council at the Willard Hotel, according to a tape recording given to The Washington Post by an attendee. ". . . This is not about a good man, Charles Pickering. This is about the future. This is about the U.S. Supreme Court. And this is about sending George W. Bush a message that 'You send us somebody that is a strong conservative, you're not going to get him.'

"Guess what?" Rove added. "They sent the wrong message to the wrong guy."

Good for him. The judiciary is in the Top Five reasons, this neo-libertarian supports reelecting Bush(1) Charles Pickering was an extremely well-qualified judge with one of the lowest reversal rates in the nation, a unanimous well-qualified rating from the left-of-center ABA, and a generally conservative (reading “constructionist”) judicial philosophy.

In addition to sounding a defiant note on judicial nominations, Rove's speech set out a broad agenda for cooperation between the administration and the Christian right.

"There'll be some times you in this room and we over at the White House will find ourselves in agreement, and there'll be the occasion when we don't. But we will share a heck of a lot more in common than we don't. And we'll win if we work together far more often than the other side wants us to," Rove told the group of about 250 Christian political activists from around the country.

Does not sound like much in the way of a “a broad agenda for cooperation” when you preface your comments by saying “there'll be some times you in this room and we over at the White House will find ourselves in agreement, and there'll be the occasion when we don't.”

Sounds more like a case of saying “we’re going to tick you off on some things but you’re stuck with us because the other guys will give you nothing” – a message which no doubt is being felt amongst the GLBT politicos who are supporting John “I don’t support ‘gay marriage’ and everybody knows it” Kerry.

During the speech and subsequent question-and-answer session, Rove promised that the White House would push welfare reforms that encourage families and marriage.

Pretty scary stuff. Welfare reform that encourages marriage as opposed to the previous 30 years of welfare which encouraged out-of-wedlock births and single parenthood?!! Quick somebody call the ACLU and the AUfSoCaS! They’re building a theocracy and oppressing the wymyn!! Can the burning of heretics and non-believers(2) not be far behind?

BTW: the real comparison is not between the FRC and ANSWER, it is between the FRC and MoveOn.org, Al Sharpton’s group in New York, the PFAW, et al. Frankly, I have always considered it a sign that a person is on the fringe of their side of the political spectrum when they find themselves spending time watching what their opposite numbers on the other fringe are up to as anything more than intellectual curiosities and sources of humor. ;)

TW

(1) The other four of course being national security, entitlement program reform, the undisputable fact that any of the other Democrats is worse than Bush on spending and trade, and Karl Rove promised me Haliburton money to vote for Bush and promote him on this blog.

(2) Y/T is a g-dless atheist as befits any good Objectivist.

[Bird Dog]

Conservative and Christian, yes. Extremist on par with ANSWER? No.

[Moe Lane]

Formatting fixed; sorry to jump the gun on you like that, Katherine, but it was affecting the entire site.

[Katherine]

thanks, sorry, that's what I get for trying to post from the public library during a legislative recess. over and out.

[Moe Lane]

De nada and stay cool.

[carpeicthus]

I'm so glad your "leaving" has come replete with air-quotes.

[carpeicthus]

Maybe I should unlock my friends-only post about how my small-town upstate New York village had more gay lovin' per capita than any place I've ever lived, and I now hail from a little burg called New York City. I just love it when heads explode from cognitive dissonance.

[Jesurgislac]

Conservative and Christian, yes. Extremist on par with ANSWER?

Far more extremist, Bird Dog: they want to impose the new version of Prohibition on the country.

Katherine, fascinating though these posts are, and greatly though I appreciate them, get back to work.

[Thorley Winston]

Bird Dog wrote:

Conservative and Christian, yes. Extremist on par with ANSWER? No.

True, I do not recall the FRC ever coming down in support on the side of the terrorists like ANSWER.

BTW, since MoveOn.org is being bankrolled by the Democrat’s main money">http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/1/132047.shtml">money man, their influence is undoubtedly greater in the Democratic Party than the FRC is in the Republican Party. More importantly, their agenda and views are more reprehensible since I do not recall the FRC ever trying to create a currency melt down (as Soros tried to do when he attacked the British pound a few years ago) or trying to get the taxpayers to bail out Enron as Robert Rubin (D-Citigroup) tried to do. ;)

[carpeicthus]

You're really stretching, T.W. MoveOn managed to do all that before it even existed? Wow. And MoveOn may have a lot of pull with some parts of the electoriate -- namely the Net-savvy ones that you're likely to encounter, but their nowhere near as entrenched as the FRC yet in the party establishment. Keep swinging.