Harry Sidhu, Log Cabin Republicans and the Fight for Traditional Marriage
Posted by: Mike Spence | 05/08/2008 12:06 PM
It seems that the best thing to happen for the ProtectMarriage.com Initiative on the GOP side was to have The Log Cabin Club issue endorsements of candidates for state office.
Immediately many candidates endorsed the initiative that the Log Cabin Club opposes.
But the response from the Log Cabin Club has been puzzling. I do need to add that some of the posts may have been changed or added to in the 12 hours between when I wrote this piece and it was scheduled to be posted.
One Response attributed to anonymous, but someone that seemed to have inside info said, "Our endorsement process was on a case by case basis and focused most of all on issues related to being in favor of lower taxes, limited government and public safety. Because gays and lesbians have almost every right there is in California (other than marriage but that's inevitable) there is less need to focus on "gay issues" because there is nothing left legislators can do in future about that...."
So the Log Cabin Club didn't care what position candidates had on gay issues only taxes? I find that hard to believe.
The other approach was to go after their previous endorsed candidates that tried to distance themselves, from the endorsement or at least blame their consultants.
James Vaughn said:
Log Cabin Republicans Remind Harry Sidhu "You Asked for Our Help and Support"
Laguna Hills, CA - Log Cabin Republicans responded to a press release from Assembly candidate Harry Sidhu regarding his statement about a Log Cabin Republican endorsement as follows:
"Harry Sidhu's consultants need to remember that he asked our past Chairman John Karczynski Ferguson to host a fundraiser for his campaign. Mr. Sidhu is very familiar with John's involvement with Log Cabin Republicans and when asked how we could support him, he suggested a fundraiser, which was promoted on the OCGOP.org web site. We know that his consultants are behind this and find it sad that there are still people today who feel the need to shriek like a second grader talking about cooties whenever something gay related comes up. Log Cabin Republicans still thinks Mr Sidhu is the better choice for the district, home to California Log Cabin Director James Vaughn, but hopes when elected he develops more sophisticated taste in the people he chooses to work for him.
"Our endorsement was based on his fiscal conservatism and his decency in how he's worked with Log Cabin Republican members like John Karczynski Ferguson and we hope the childish antics of his consultants don't cost him this seat by turning off decent voters who value their gay and lesbian neighbors, friends and family."
Interesting. If the Log Cabin Club is not about gay issues, than they shouldn't care what Harry does, but I guess they do. Which brings us back that this organization is all about gay issues. They may be anti-tax etc.... but they do support same sex marriage. And that becomes the issue for candidates endorsed by them and especially those with no voting record on these issue like Harry Sidhu.
Their own blog views talking about these issues as a smear tactic. Which again tells me it is all about gay marriage and not the other issues, the Log Cabin leadership says they are all about. As for Harry he has a little more to explain, he can't keep swinging back and forth on traditional marriage and support from the Log Cabin Club and its key leadership.
BTW: A shout out to the Log Cabin Leadership for their endorsement of my CRA Presidency. The downside is I'm not running again. Otherwise I'm sure it would have helped me like it is Harry Sidhu.
Immediately many candidates endorsed the initiative that the Log Cabin Club opposes.
But the response from the Log Cabin Club has been puzzling. I do need to add that some of the posts may have been changed or added to in the 12 hours between when I wrote this piece and it was scheduled to be posted.
One Response attributed to anonymous, but someone that seemed to have inside info said, "Our endorsement process was on a case by case basis and focused most of all on issues related to being in favor of lower taxes, limited government and public safety. Because gays and lesbians have almost every right there is in California (other than marriage but that's inevitable) there is less need to focus on "gay issues" because there is nothing left legislators can do in future about that...."
So the Log Cabin Club didn't care what position candidates had on gay issues only taxes? I find that hard to believe.
The other approach was to go after their previous endorsed candidates that tried to distance themselves, from the endorsement or at least blame their consultants.
James Vaughn said:
Log Cabin Republicans Remind Harry Sidhu "You Asked for Our Help and Support"
Laguna Hills, CA - Log Cabin Republicans responded to a press release from Assembly candidate Harry Sidhu regarding his statement about a Log Cabin Republican endorsement as follows:
"Harry Sidhu's consultants need to remember that he asked our past Chairman John Karczynski Ferguson to host a fundraiser for his campaign. Mr. Sidhu is very familiar with John's involvement with Log Cabin Republicans and when asked how we could support him, he suggested a fundraiser, which was promoted on the OCGOP.org web site. We know that his consultants are behind this and find it sad that there are still people today who feel the need to shriek like a second grader talking about cooties whenever something gay related comes up. Log Cabin Republicans still thinks Mr Sidhu is the better choice for the district, home to California Log Cabin Director James Vaughn, but hopes when elected he develops more sophisticated taste in the people he chooses to work for him.
"Our endorsement was based on his fiscal conservatism and his decency in how he's worked with Log Cabin Republican members like John Karczynski Ferguson and we hope the childish antics of his consultants don't cost him this seat by turning off decent voters who value their gay and lesbian neighbors, friends and family."
Interesting. If the Log Cabin Club is not about gay issues, than they shouldn't care what Harry does, but I guess they do. Which brings us back that this organization is all about gay issues. They may be anti-tax etc.... but they do support same sex marriage. And that becomes the issue for candidates endorsed by them and especially those with no voting record on these issue like Harry Sidhu.
Their own blog views talking about these issues as a smear tactic. Which again tells me it is all about gay marriage and not the other issues, the Log Cabin leadership says they are all about. As for Harry he has a little more to explain, he can't keep swinging back and forth on traditional marriage and support from the Log Cabin Club and its key leadership.
BTW: A shout out to the Log Cabin Leadership for their endorsement of my CRA Presidency. The downside is I'm not running again. Otherwise I'm sure it would have helped me like it is Harry Sidhu.
CATEGORY:
33rd Senate District, FEATURE
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
Now we've got some sizzle! I appreciate that the CRA is always tackling the substative issues of the day and will flog a horse to death years after everyone else has moved on. I think this is the primary reason Republican registration has declined since the CRA manfully and nakedly wrestled control of the party from those effete country club RINOs. Too many people are afraid to face the growing threat of the Log Cabinite right. Who needs their silly ole money anyway? We can campaign on IDEAS and win or lose (ok mostly lose) the CRA is always right!
Mike,
Who cares if the Log Cabin Republicans support Harry? This is so typical of the sad state of our party. This has virtually nothing to do with either candidate's ability to represent this district.
We really didn't care about gay issues when it came to Walters and sidhu. If anything, Mimi has a record of pro-gay votes we could point to, but Sidhu didn't. On marriage, Mimi Walters and Hilary Clinton have the same views on gay marriage so that wasn't an issue for us.
It also didn't matter whether Walters or Sidhu was endorsed because ALL THE GAY ISSUES ARE OVER. All except marriage of course. And that will be decided by the courts or the ballot measure in Novemebr or both. So it doesn't matter what the candidates views on marriage are. In the case of Sidhu, since we had some members supporting his campaign FOR NON GAY REASONS we picked him. We picked Sidhu over Walters also beause she voted against a tax cut for senior citizens. That kind of pro-tax vote cost her the endorsement ultimately. So really it's all very simple. I know you guys can't get over the fact that we won the gay wars and have moved on, but we have. Now we are no different than YRs or CRs. We're a group that has something in common demographically who want Republicans to win. Now all we need is for the rest of the party to get over the gay stuff.
Does that mean the luaus at the Convention are over? I really love those! I met these two muscular guys and we had the most insightful discussion on federal ethanol subsidies.....
Hypocrites! You gays at the Log Cabin are full of crap. You are single issue just as much as a pro-lifer is. Your sexuality plays a big part in your decisions and is the MAIN part of your groups purpose. If it were true that you mainly look at a person's fiscal positions, then why were solid fiscal conservatives like Bob Huff, Dennis Mountjoy, Joel Anderson, Jeff Miller and Ben Lopez all given NO, as in negative endorsements, not nuetral?!!! They are all anti-tax, anti-spending Republicans with track records and statements to prove it. They would side with you on a tax issue any day. But wait, could it be that Huff co-sponsored the anti-SB 777 campaign? That Mountjoy carried pro-marriage bills and anti-gay education bills while in Sacramento? That Jeff Miller was a local workhorse for the Prop 22 campaign and recent marriage amendment? That Ben Lopez works for Lou Sheldon and was given credit my your gay ally Mark Leno for stopping gay marriage in 2005? I bet it was all of the above that these men did not get your support. How is you can support someone like Anthony Adams, who is the new "Mountjoy" of the Assembly when it comes to being vocal on gay issues and fighting you tooth and nail and then reject someone like Joel Anderson? They are both as conservative on the issue of gays and solidly anti-tax!!! You guys (excuse me...girls) are hypocrites.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds (and other muscles)
Hypocrites!! You're right, and I think Jubal is also hypocrite and gay, not that anything is wrong with that. He's always acting like a girl, always on PMS, always wining about this and that no matter what Sidhu does, he is full of crap, and I agree with other poster who noticed that Jubal is on Me-Me's payroll, who is by the way a hypocrite too, a racist and a lier. I think if he came out of the closet, he would be a much happier person. Until then he will continue being frustrated and bitchy. By the way I know a guy, who've done just that. He said he used a psychotherapist who helped him along the way. I can find out his contact info for Jubal to help him smooth the transition.
I am very proud of my president, Mike Spence, for standing up for conservative values. Unfortunately, we have individuals in the Republican Party trying to tear them down and laugh at them. Shame on Harry Sidhu for his duplicity!
Here's to more CRA involvement in this race. CRA can and will make the difference here. Protect marriage, vote Mimi Walters for State Senate.
I watched the u-tube debates with the Tustin Logo in the background that someone linked up here a couple of days ago. Mimi Walters looks pretty darn conservative to me; and extremely professional. Harry Sidhu came off as kind of a happy-go-lucky kind of guy that really was not tuned into the issues enough to answer the questions in a coherent fashion. I'm voting for Mimi. She's a pro. You might want to watch those u-tube debates, there are several segments. Then come up with an honest evaluation of the responses from both candidates. If you are being "candid" you will see the differences and support Mimi.
GO MIMI!
Anyone watch these?
If you attended the CRA endorsement convention at OCGOP headquarters, you would have seen Mimi clean Harry's clock. All Harry could do was talk about his own story, not about the important state issues that will affect us all.
Mimi knew what she was talking about, she was poised, she took pride in her two years of 100% CRA-rated voting record. She spoke to us about our issues.
No need for YouTube. I saw experience and professionalism before that.
- Proud Member of CRA
Yes, I was at the CRA endorsing convention too and was quite impressed with Mimi. I was suggesting the u-tubes for those who have no way to compare the two candidates. IT becomes rapidly apparent who the better candidate is.
As a senior citizen I would not vote for Mimi Walters because of her record of votes against a tax cut for senior citizens.
Due to my traditional values I would not vote for Mimi Walters because of her record of pro-gay votes.
I agree with the poster that Mimi Walters is as conservative as Hilary Clinton.
Like many real estate agents Mimi Walters might be good at selling herself, meaning her services, but when it comes to selling a house they are no good.
Trust me, it is not wise to choose whom to vote for based on who looks good or talks smooth.
If you are being "candid" you will see the real differences and support Harry Sidhu.
'Facta Non Verba' = 'Deeds Not Words'
GO HARRY!
I agree with 'FACTA NON VERBA'. Even though Harry Sidhu has a shorter track record, but HIS RECORD IS CLEAN and he has proven to be a fighter for the best interests of taxpayers.
GO HARRY!