The California Chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans has made their endorsements in GOP primaries for State Legislature, and they are raising some eyebrows…
First and foremost, straight (if I may use that word in a post about gay Republicans) off of the Log Cabin website is this statement under “Why We Exist” —
Great – we get it. And to the credit of California Log Cabin Director James Vaughn, he and his organization are virtual Energizer Bunnies when it comes to pushing the gay and lesbian agenda within the GOP.
So when Vaughn’s Log Cabin organization released their list of endorsements, it has more "gravitas" than in previous cycles because the assumption (especially given the "Why We Exist" statement above) is that if they endorse in a primary, it is because the candidate they endorse will take them closer to their vision of "gay equality" or that some other candidate in the primary is so against their agenda that they need to stop them from getting the GOP nomination. I suppose it’s also possible that they have endorsed some candidates (especially incumbents) as a matter of spreading good will (such as their endorsement of hardliner Mike Villines, who is the Assembly Republican Leader).
Anyways, you can see ALL of the CA Log Cabin endorsements here.
It’s a bit convoluted with a section for their endorsed candidates, then they have a section of "acceptable" candidates, then a "no endorsement" section and a "no endorsement-neutral" section.
Some of their more interesting (and controversial) endorsements include:
For State Senate
SD 33: Harry Sidhu over Mimi Walters
SD 37: Russ Bogh over John Benoit
For State Assemby
AD 2: Pete Stiglich over Jim Nielson
AD 3: Sue Horne over Dan Logue
AD 10: Paul Hegyi over Jack Sieglock and David Sander
AD 15: Judy Lloyd over Scott Kamena* and Robert Rao
AD 64: Brian Nestande over Kelly McCarty
AD 71: Neil Blais over Jeff Miller
I am happy to extend an invitation to the California Log Cabin Republicans if they would like to elaborate more as to why they endorsed any of these eight specific candidates above. Also, I extend an invitation to any of the candidates endorsed, or not endorsed, above to send me comment which I will happily post.
The irony is that all of the GOP candidates above are running in pretty conservative districts (with the exception of AD 15) — Proposition 22 (defining marriage as being between a man and a woman) passed with big numbers in all of them. We’ll see how these endorsements "play out" as these are all heated primaries (perhaps with the exception of AD 2 where I haven’t seen much major opposition to Nielson pan out).
Just for the heck of it, I e-mailed former Assemblyman Russ Bogh about his endorsement from the group, and also dropped a note to his opponent for the State Senate, Assemblyman John Benoit…
FROM BOGH
Jon this is what they sent me today via email. [See below.]
.“California Log Cabin Republicans endorsed you because of your positions on taxes and limited government and not because of your so called gay positions.”
I did not fill out this questionnaire and I did not seek the endorsement.
They also endorsed a number of other strong conservatives as you are well aware.
My position that Marriage should only be between a man and a woman has never changed and my vote record proves it.
With some research I think you’ll find that over the last 4 years I believe they have endorsed a number of incumbent legislators, including both Benoit and I unsolicited.
Russ
Dear Assemblyman Bogh,
I am please to inform you that the Board of Directors of California Log Cabin Republicans has endorsed your election to State Senate District 37.
California Log Cabin Republicans endorsed you because of your positions on taxes and limited government and not because of your so called gay positions.
We wish you the best on your election.
Respectfully,
[California Log Cabin Republicans]
FROM BENOIT
I’m sure Russ is proud to have earned this group’s endorsement.
This week, I’m proud to have earned the endorsement of conservative former Senator and Assemblyman Ray Haynes who represented a large portion of the 37th Senate District.
(* They do note that Kamena is "acceptable" – whatever that means. H/T to Shane Goldmacher over at Capitol Alert who penned on this subject here.)
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.