Colorado Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis’ chief communications director is Sean Duffy. A former deputy chief-of-staff for Gov. Bill Owens, Duffy supported the same-sex “domestic partnership” referendum on the 2006 ballot.
A December 2006 article in National Review claimed that Duffy was hired for the referendum effort by Tim Gill, Colorado’s wealthy homosexual activist who with Jared Polis and others has tried to buy up the state.
Regardless of Gill’s exact role in appointing him, there is no question Duffy served as executive director for Coloradans for Fairness and Equality.
Duffy also attacked the 2006 Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor, Janet Rowland, as “a clearly homophobic choice” when she ridiculed the idea of same-sex “marriage” by asking whether a man should be allowed to marry a sheep.
He appears to have been motivated by loyalty to his homosexual sister, so the issue is personal for him.
A Gill ally, whatever his competence and personal character, really shouldn’t be the media face for a potential GOP governor. After all, Gill told the DNC that the GOP is “full of bigots” who should be driven from power.
What Colorado Republican should overlook a highly placed staffer with the opinions of a CU-Boulder diversity trainer?
Rocky Mountain Right has noted the same problem with Duffy.
As for McInnis himself, he spoke to KHOW’s Caplis & Silverman last year about some of his positions.
Asked about the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), for which he had voted as a Congressman, McInnis responded with both a commitment and a non-commitment:
“I oppose gay marriage, [I’m] very clear about that. Civil unions, that’s not a big issue. Gay marriage is a big issue.”
It’s increasingly apparent that civil unions are intended to shift the debate and depict conservatives, or even 1990s liberals, as extremists for opposing them. Unprincipled but well-meaning moderates think the push will stop there, but the legal unions just create another foothold for the cultural left to suppress opposition to itself.
McInnis isn’t going to prove much of an adversary to Gill and company.
Indeed, Duffy’s placement in the Owens administration and the McInnis campaign suggests that Gill’s cohort already has a significant foothold. Seen in this light, accusations of Republican bigotry look like mere political theater.
Republican activists show little seriousness about moral conservatism in their personal lives and their philosophies. Their public appeals to it are opportunistic and shallow. What better way for Gill to advance his agenda than through the pretense that these are the people standing in the way of his vision?
Depict those who are unlikely to reverse your agenda as your most formidable opponents. Convince your real opposition to rally around compromised and wavering leaders. After a few small skirmishes, for appearance’s sake, take control of the field and accept the phony general’s surrender.
There seem few obvious ways to counter this phenomenon, if it is indeed what is happening. But skepticism towards a compromised leadership should be a start.
Update:
These concerns would be made redundant if McInnis doesn't win the GOP nomination. McInnis opponent Dan Maes won the majority of votes at the state assembly, a surprise only to those who have not observed McInnis' cool reception among party regulars.
4 comments:
So are you saying that opposition to gay marriage in the Republican party is mostly principled and not prejudicial?
I'm not sure how "principled" one is when one attacks two men or two women (whom one has never met) for wishing to make a commitment to each other while simultaneously cheating on one's wife, as Mark Souder recently did.
What about Bob Barr? What's he on now, his third marriage? Which one of those was he trying to "protect" when he supported DOMA?
Now, there's a certain level of hypocrisy among anyone who espouses a moral code: none of us are perfect and we all fail to live up to our own values 100% of the time.
The problem is that the rhetoric being spouted is so inflammatory: gays are trying to "destroy society, marriage and the family". The case is overstated (to put it mildly).
(Of course, this doesn't just come from politicians: Jimmy Swaggart, the infamous preacher who was caught with a prostitute still rails against gays.)
So, when criticisms are leveled by people who so flagrantly trash the principles they claim to uphold and who are so demonstrative in their condemnation of others for violating those same principles, do you understand why it rings of bigotry?
Wow Rob!
Can you tell me why you are suggesting that Kevin is a bigot just because some other poeple are?
Do you know anything about him? Or are you just prejudiced?
"So are you saying that opposition to gay marriage in the Republican party is mostly principled and not prejudicial?"
I have no prejudice against prejudice, only erroneous prejudice. Principled prejudice is not an oxymoron for me. "Bigot" has become one of the most useless words of the modern era. Opposition to same-sex "marriage" isn't unique to the Republicans, nor should it be.
"I'm not sure how "principled" one is when one attacks two men or two women (whom one has never met) for wishing to make a commitment to each other while simultaneously cheating on one's wife, as Mark Souder recently did."
I don't know what is meant here. Are you just tyring to say there is no principled criticism of the sexual misbehavior of homosexuals?
"The problem is that the rhetoric being spouted is so inflammatory: gays are trying to "destroy society, marriage and the family". The case is overstated (to put it mildly)."
The prominence of sexual deviance, of all varieties, is to my mind a sign that society has already been destroyed. Outside of the elite and the activists, homosexuals are being used by the destroyers, and not themselves destroying society. (Male homosexuals seem to be quite busy destroying themselves, and it is a scandal their deadly vices are treated more leniently than smoking.)
"So, when criticisms are leveled by people who so flagrantly trash the principles they claim to uphold and who are so demonstrative in their condemnation of others for violating those same principles, do you understand why it rings of bigotry?"
The vindictive homosexuals who so influence Hollywood and the big newspapers will always highlight hypocrisy of people who oppose them, and even make up stories.
I understand why a stultified populace in a pornographic age will call decent-minded people bigots. So did St. Augustine. Please don't attribute my disagreement to ignorance.
The good society is more hospitable to the Boy Scouts (and for that matter to chaste homosexuals) than to Tim Gill's ilk. If you don't, I suggest you reconsider.
"Can you tell me why you are suggesting that Kevin is a bigot just because some other poeple [sic] are?"
I didn't say that at all.
"Are you just tyring to say there is no principled criticism of the sexual misbehavior of homosexuals?"
Not at all. What I'm saying is that the many who oppose homosexuality have no moral credibility with which to condemn it when they themselves are (in a much more obvious way) "destroying" marriage by living in adulterous relationships or non-biblical marriages (2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.). (See Romans 2).
So, if I may ask, on what do you base your assessment that "gay men are destroying themselves"? Sure, some are, but do you actually know any? I do: some are pillars of their community. They have high-level corporate positions, on the boards of charities and some don't even smoke (or drink). I'm just wondering if you have an accurate view of the gay population, not one based on headlines from World Net Daily.
As you know, stereotypes are often based on truth. The problem is that they become demeaning (not to mention dishonest) when they're used to apply to an entire population of people whom one has never met. It's like saying that because black men make up a disproportionate percentage of the prison population (a fact), I should necessarily bolt my car doors if I even saw Clarence Thomas approaching it.
Post a Comment