Rep. Eric Cantor: GOP Needs to Be Inclusive on Gay Issues?
Filed by: Waymon Hudson
March 2, 2009 12:00 PM
Someone needs to tell the Republicans that their messaging is a little all over the place. Karl Rove must be gnashing his teeth in his lair at Fox News. Even after RNC Chairman Michael Steele said "No, No, No" to gay rights and Rush Limbaugh (the "voice of the Party") blasted progressive rights and politics at the CPAC, House minority whip Eric Cantor is singing a (slightly) different tune.
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Cantor gave a vague "we need to be more inclusive" answer to a question on gay rights:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But Governor Huntsman says that you're not going to be reaching out to broaden the base of the party, reaching out to young people who've left the Republican Party in droves, unless you do have that positive agenda on the environment, unless you move to the middle on issues like gay rights. Are you prepared to do that in the House?
CANTOR: There is no question the Republican Party has to return to be one of inclusion, not exclusion. And we are a party with many ideas. And we have in that a commitment to make sure that we have positive alternatives, if we don't agree with this administration or the House Democrats, and to continue to put those ideas forward.
Somehow I don't feel convinced at Cantor's non-answer... Video after the jump.
First, the "return to inclusion" comment seems completely disingenuous and like a bunch of political fluff. The Repubs have never been inclusive, especially of LGBT folks, and no amount of revisionist history will change that.
I'm also not as heartened as other bloggers by Cantor's words. It's pure spin- make a bland general statement (and NEVER say the word "gay"), then pivot to some bipartisan, "party of ideas" talk. I wonder if Cantor will be "more inclusive" when it comes to some of the pro-equality legislation coming up. Somehow, I doubt it.
Excuse me if I don't do a happy dance for a non-statement.
« Prop. 8 - it's not about us, it's about you | Home | Between You and I »
Yeah, It was more of a ignore that part of the question, than a non-answer. I saw the show yesterday. And just for a second, maybe less, I thought old Cantor, go: "Oh sh*t". But, he just kepy talking, giving a general amorphous response to the GOP needing to broaden its message and base,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH...I just shook my head, and changed the channel...
steve tabarez | March 2, 2009 1:04 PM
Reply to this comment
Forget ever being invited as inclusive in the GOP. Just forget it!
Bigots are bigots and they only like their own kind...more bigots. Of course then having same sex on the down low.
Creeps!
Davyd | March 2, 2009 1:44 PM
Reply to this comment
I'm not sure who said it recently, perhaps Michael Steele, but apparently the standard GOP message concerning "inclusion" goes something like this: (Pretend they actually use the word "gay", although I agree that they almost never do without choking.) "Gays and lesbians aren't going to agree with us on every issue, nor should they expect us to compromise on our bedrock principles. But where they can agree we welcome them." Translated "If you are gay or lesbian but who you are really isn't all that important to you after all, but you agree with us on, say, financial issues, by all means we welcome your self-renunciation and your becoming one of us.......despite yourself."
Don Sherfick | March 2, 2009 6:52 PM
Reply to this comment
The repuglycunts change with the wind. They have no ideals that are firm beliefs. What's next? More compassion? Brace yourselves.
ewe | March 2, 2009 6:55 PM
Reply to this comment
Isn't Cantor a closet case?
Bil Browning | March 2, 2009 11:05 PM
Reply to this comment
I HAVE THOUGHT THAT VERY SAME THING, BIL! THAT'S SO FREKIN FUNNY. EVERY TIME I SEE HIM THAT'S THE WHAT MY OLD GAYDAR IS PINGING OF MY BRAIN. I'M STILL LAUGHIN...
steve tabarez | March 2, 2009 11:23 PM
Reply to this comment
Yeah, this is nothing. Of course Cantor wants it to be the party of inclusion - to include a vote from every American. Whether they'll change their policy beliefs to get those votes is another question.
Alex Blaze | March 3, 2009 5:47 AM
Reply to this comment