Staying the Closet Carries A Huge Cost

Coming out of the closet can be difficult and traumatic - something that I know first hand and which many blog entries on this blog in its early years give witness too.  I still receive e-mails (and occasionally even telephone calls) from men who are struggling in the closet that want advice but who are too afraid of what they will lose if the are honest with themselves and their families.  Unfortunately, these individuals too often do not factor in the costs of not coming out: self-loathing, strained family relationships, spouses deprived of a straight spouse, and much more.  I can honestly say that I think I'd rather die than ever go back in the closet and live the way I once did.  Hopefully, with societal attitudes changing, it will be easier for future generations to avoid the trap of the closet.  But for many already denying who they are, comments by Lord Browne, former chair of British Petroleum are worth listening to.  Gay Star News reports on Browne's remarks about the closet.  Here are highlights:

Lord Browne of Madingley, who was outed by a newspaper in May 2007 after it discovered details of his relationship with a man, spoke movingly today at a leading business and diversity conference in London.

The annual EurOUT 2014 conference – now in its fourth year – was held at the London Business School, Regents Park. The event is aimed at tomorrow’s business leaders; both students and recent alumni.

A British peer, Lord Browne remained professionally in the closet for his entire business life. Away from work, he also chose to reveal his secret to very few people in his personal life either.

Since that time, he has spoken out about the huge amount of energy it took him to remain in the closet. He has also recently published a book, The Glass Closet, exploring his business life, his decision not to come out, and interviewing others – both those in and out of the closet – who work in the business world.

To a packed auditorium, Lord Browne was asked by one student whether he could understand some of those assembled choosing to stay in the closet. Lord Browne’s advice was unequivocal:

‘I would say to them it is not a valid choice. Think of the cost of it. The cost will be huge, and it’s an unnecessary cost in today’s environment. The cost is unimaginably high, and it changes everything.’

Reflecting from his resignation from BP – a company that he is widely credited with transforming during his time as Group Chief Executive (1995-2007) – he said that he felt the newspaper revelations would prove the end of him. Instead, he was ‘overwhelmed’ by the huge number of letters he received with message of support.

‘Thousands of letters. Tragic letters. Some from straight people that had been roasted by the press, others who’d been in jail in the 50s for being gay – it was a year of experience reading those letters. Humbling. All those fears I'd had of losing everything … nothing changed. People continued to invite me to things. Suppliers still approached me about doing business.’

‘I was born when being gay was illegal and my mother, a holocaust survivor, had rules: never tell anyone a secret as they might use it against you, and never reveal being part of a minority as when the going gets tough, the majority bash the minority.

‘When you’re in a high-profile position, you have a duty to be authentic and clear on who you are. I wasn’t.’

He said that he felt business schools have a duty to teach students about the value of diversity in a business context.

‘Schools need to instill in them how long it takes to build teams of people, and to understand what inclusion means. And that it’s not something that can merely be delegated to HR. The moment they take charge of it, as opposed to the CEO taking charge of it, it goes wrong.’

In the world of global organizations, he acknowledged that some sectors, such as finance, were doing better than others when it came to diversity and inclusion, and that gas and oil companies were among the worst – partly because some are state-owned by countries that have poor records in regard to LGBT rights. However, he said that he felt things were slowly changing, and singled out his former company, BP, as one organization that had made great progress since his departure.

 Despite the upheaval of my coming out, I believe that I've come a better parent.  It's hard to be genuine when you are filled with self-hate and lying to the world about who you are.   And when you are happy with who you are, that comes across in all of your relationships.

The Right's "Religious Freedom" Is Hurting Everyone’s Freedom

Faced with demographic and generational changes that are eroding the power and control of the Christofascists and the far right over other people's lives, these toxic individuals are seeking to establish a category of special rights for themselves to the detriment of the civil rights of others.  Sadly, Republicans are only too happy to jump on this band wagon as they continue to stack the GOP's future on the dwindling ranks of angry white far right Christians,  A piece in The Daily Beast looks at how this trend - which is still alive in many states - threatens the rights of the rest of us.  Here are highlights:

It’s not clear that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer looked much beyond the vociferous objections of the business community when she vetoed a law that would have permitted commercial enterprises to scorn gay and lesbian customers on the basis of their owners’ professed religious convictions. It was a prudent veto, endorsed by the state’s Republican establishment—by Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake, and even by several legislators who suddenly urged Brewer to block the very law they had just voted for. Marriott Hotels joined the opposition—and so did a once and again member of its board named Mitt Romney.


In fact, far more was at stake here than whether Apple would continue to build its new sapphire glass plant in Mesa or whether the next Super Bowl would be played as scheduled in Arizona. The dangers were real: The NFL had shifted the 1993 Super Bowl to the Rose Bowl when the state refused to observe the Martin Luther King Holiday. The reaction of the league, major corporations, and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce was commendable as well as understandable: Their position was good for business, and companies like Apple have been in the forefront of equal treatment for gay and lesbian employees.

But the Arizona bill represented something more—the continuation of an overreaching campaign waged in the name of “religious freedom” that has profound implications for the future and fate of a pluralistic America. As E.J. Dionne observed in Commonweal, “the promiscuous resort to conscience objections” threatens “the ongoing effort to balance robust protections for faith groups on the one hand with the need for laws of general application on the other.”

That’s also exactly what’s happened with the Catholic bishops’ misguided assault on Obamacare. . . . “Ninety-eight percent of sexually active American Catholic women practice birth control and 78 percent of Catholics think a ‘good Catholic’ can reject the bishops’ teaching…” Thus the official church—except for those pesky nuns at the Catholic Hospital Association—insists on imposing a doctrine on countless non-Catholic employees that most of its own members disdain, and even though the church-affiliated institutions in question don’t have to finance a scintilla of coverage for birth-control services.

This “promiscuous” invocation of religious freedom would deny equal rights to those with different religious convictions—or none. The Arizona law, and similar statutes proposed in other states, would extend the claim to an extreme that logically could sanction discrimination far beyond the LGBT community.

[S]hould a fundamentalist hotelkeeper be able to refuse a room to an unmarried couple? And what if the couple is mixed-race? A conscience exemption could offer cover for the oldest and most odious form of discrimination in America.

[T]here is the long history of “a religious and biblical case for segregation.” Indeed the trial judge who ruled in favor of Virginia’s antimiscegenation law in 1967 called on God as his validator: The Almighty had put distinct races on different continents because “he did not intend the races to mix.” The Supreme Court reversed the ruling and invalidated the Virginia law—and federal law generally prohibits racial discrimination.

State statutes can’t alter that, even if cloaked in sacerdotal rationalization. But if the Arizona law had been signed, or if its ilk proliferates, there will be predictable calls for the same kind of conscience exemption at the federal level. Wary advocates could settle for just going after gays; but that would run afoul of the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision by singling out a suspect class in the absence of any compelling governmental interest. To have any chance to survive a court challenge, the exemption would have to be general.

Conscience clauses have their place: Ministers, rabbis, and priests should not be required to officiate at a same-sex marriage in violation of their faith. Miscarrying this into the commercial sector is another matter altogether. A commercial transaction does not confer ethical approbation on a customer. And nondiscrimination is, or should be, a seamless garment—and discrimination a seamless evil.

The great question here is whether we can learn to live together as a country in all our increasing diversity. A clear majority of Americans already favor marriage equality—or soon will. Churches don’t have to. They can teach and preach their doctrines without trying to write them into law—as the Catholic Church has by declining, at least in this country, any attempt to turn the “sin” of divorce into an illegal act.

[P]luralism, respect for one another, a will even against the will of many and settled patterns of prejudice to bring down barriers and open up freedom are the only ways America can work and live up to its defining principles.

Religious freedom is not in peril in this country today; the specter that can imperil our future is a misuse of religion that could menace our freedom.

Religion has been and continues to be used for great evil.  The Christofascists are free to worship how they want and to believe what they want, but they do not get to inflict their views on others through the civil laws or special rights granted to them. 

Gov. Jan Brewer Vetos Arizona "Turn Away the Gays" Bill

Apparently realizing that the Arizona GOP was on the verge of losing business community support and the potential cancellation of major events and conventions, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed SB 1062 which would have given Christofascists and Christofascist owned businesses to refuse to serve or provide services to gays - and potentially anyone else that they disapproved of based on "sincere religious belief."  Here is the text of Brewer's veto statement:

"Good evening, and thank you for joining me here today. 

"I am here to announce my decision on Senate Bill 1062. "As with every proposal that reaches my desk, I gave Senate Bill 1062 careful evaluation and deliberate consideration. I call them like I see them, despite the cheers or boos from the crowd. 

"I took the time necessary to make the RIGHT decision. I met or spoke with my attorneys, lawmakers and citizens supporting and opposing this legislation. "I listened ... and asked questions. 

"As Governor, I have protected religious freedoms when there is a specific and present concern that exists in OUR state. "And I have the record to prove it. 

"My agenda is to sign into law legislation that advances Arizona. "When I addressed the Legislature earlier this year, I made my priorities for this session abundantly clear…

"Among them are passing a responsible budget that continues Arizona's economic Comeback."From CEOs - to entrepreneurs - to business surveys - Arizona ranks as one the best states to grow or start a business. 

"Additionally, our IMMEDIATE challenge is fixing a broken Child Protection system."Instead, this is the first policy bill to cross my desk. "Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific and present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona. I have not heard of one example in Arizona where a business owner's religious liberty has been violated. 

"The bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences.  "After weighing all of the arguments, I vetoed Senate Bill 1062 moments ago. 

I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve.  "It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want. 

"Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value, so is non-discrimination. 

"Going forward, let's turn the ugliness of the debate over Senate Bill 1062 into a renewed search for greater respect and understanding among ALL Arizonans and Americans. "Thank you."

Not surprisingly, the Center for Arizona Policy, a far right Christian organization and the main backer of SB 1062 is not happy with the result and gave a very disingenuous and dishonest response in an effort to mask the anti-gay animus that was the real motivation behind SB 1062:

"Today's veto of SB 1062 marks a sad day for Arizonans who cherish and understand religious liberty. SB 1062 passed the legislature for one reason only: to guarantee that all Arizonans would be free to live and work according to their faith. Opponents were desperate to distort this bill rather than debate the merits. Essentially, they succeeded in getting a veto of a bill that does not even exist.

"When the force of government compels one to speak or act contrary to their conscience, the government injures not only the dignity of the afflicted, but the dignity of our society as a whole.  "SB 1062 made certain that governmental laws cannot force people to violate their faith unless it has a compelling governmental interest-a balancing of interests that has been in federal law since 1993. 

The religious beliefs of all Arizonans must be respected and this bill did nothing more than affirm that. It is truly a tragic day in our state and nation when lies and personal attacks can over shadow the truth."

 Meanwhile, even though SB 1062 has been vetoed, its passage may come back to haunt many Arizona Republicans.  Here are excerpts from the Arizona Republic:

But pollsters and candidates for office say the issue isn’t likely to disappear from the political conversation any time soon.

In an election year in which Arizonans will select a governor, attorney general and state and congressional lawmakers, SB 1062 will be part of the campaign-trail conversation, they say.

With campaigns already under way, candidates are quickly calculating how to best explain their positions on the divisive bill, which would offer a legal defense for individuals and businesses that face discrimination lawsuits if they can prove they acted upon a “sincerely held religious belief.”

Its impact will vary depending on the race and other issues that surface between now and the fall elections. But some political observers expect Republican candidates who face competitive August primaries will have to walk a political tightrope on SB 1062 between the moderates in their party and the social conservatives.

Others expect Democrats, who widely oppose SB 1062, to hammer Republicans on the issue as an example of a party that’s out of step with mainstream society.

And some say anger among opponents could translate into young and gay voters turning out in droves for Democrats in November’s general election.

In Arizona’s most hotly contested races for Congress, SB 1062 could become fodder for campaign ads and mobilizing donors and volunteers, despite Washington not having a say on the state legislation.

Democrats seized quickly on the outcry. They criticized Republican candidates for supporting the bill — or not taking a stand — and blasted notices to supporters to urge Brewer to veto the bill.

Some campaign watchers speculated GOP challengers could lose support from the business community, while comments on candidates’ social-media accounts overwhelmingly ran against the bill.

May SB 1062 come back and bite many Republicans in the ass and cause severe hemorrhaging of voter support. 

Will the Virginia GOP Splinter Over Gay Marriage and LGBT Equality?

At the national level there is a smoldering civil war going on within the GOP  between the Christofascist/Tea Party element (which is basically a single group) and the Wall Street and big business element which views the Christofascists/Tea Party with much deserved scorn and sees it as a force driving the GOP to a permanent minority party status within a generation or less.   The Virginia GOP to date has been less divided and much more inclined to slavishly follow the dictates of the hate merchants and theocrats at The Family Foundation and its equally heinous smaller affiliates within the state.  There are signs that this may be changing, especially now that Virginia's urban areas cannot vote the knuckle dragging, spittle flecked rural areas where the Christofascists/Tea Party have the most power.  What The Family Foundation wants and demands is simply becoming more and more toxic to urban voters and the business community.  This was exemplified in last November's election when the Republican mayor of Virginia Beach and many business leaders switched and backed Terry McAuliffe.   A piece in Blue Virginia looks at the splintering elements in the Virginia GOP.  Here are excerpts:

[H]ere in Virginia, we may now be seeing a Republican schism, if not a splintering, over a key "social issue" - namely, gay marriage (and LGBT equality, more broadly). What brought this to the surface in recent days was Attorney General Mark Herring's announcement that Virginia would no longer defend the anti-gay-marriage ("Marshall-Newman") amendment in court. On the Democratic side, this announcement was greeted overwhelmingly with praise and celebration. . . . On the Republican side, though, the reaction has been all over the place, from foaming-at-the-mouth rage to pro-forma condemnation to "meh" to actual support for what Mark Herring did. A few examples. 

1. Foaming-at-the-Mouth Rage: Predictably, raging homophobe and theocrat Del. "Sideshow Bob" Marshall went NUTS, talking about "a Pearl Harbor attack on the people of Virginia" and ranting that "the advocates for this are the gay, lesbian, BISEXUAL and transgendered...well the bisexuals have to have at least one of each to be satisfied." Marshall was joined by 30 fellow GOP delegates in condemning what Mark Herring said (although interestingly, there are 36 other GOP delegates who did NOT join "Sideshow Bob"). In addition, "Sideshow Bob" was joined by the even-more-extreme-if-that's-humanly-possible Sen. Dick Black, who ranted, "I don't know what the difference between a dictatorship and this is." Finally, Marshall and Black were joined by...let's just say, some of the more excitable, less moderate voices in the Virginia right-wing blogosphere, . . . 

2. Pro-Forma Condemnation: I'd put Mark Obenshain in this category, along with RPV Chair Pat Mullins, both of whom basically stomped their feet a bit, talked about how they were "disappointed" at Herring's announcement, about how it has "the potential to deprive Virginians on both sides of this important issue of the legal scrutiny the matter clearly merits," blah blah blah. . . . politically, they had to throw SOME red meat to their far-right-wing, theocratic base. And they did...sort of.

3. "Meh": In this category, I'd put the 36 GOP delegates who did NOT sign "Sideshow Bob" Marshall's letter, along with mainstream Republicans like Brian Schoeneman (who basically argued that Herring was within his rights to do this, whatever one thinks about the issue being debated) and Bill Bolling (who stayed out of it completely, as far as I can determine). Note that you also didn't hear anything on this from the Chambers of Commerce, the NOVA Technology Council folks, and other non-theocratic, pro-business Republicans. 

4. Outright Support for What Herring Did: Here, we've got conservative and libertarian-inclined bloggers like Mason Conservative, who explained why "Mark Herring Is Right," and how he's even "glad Herring is forcing us to deal with this." Wow - actual sanity and reason from the right! :) In this same category, we've also got Republican blogger D.J. McGuire, who argued strongly that "Mark Herring was well within his mandate to do what he did, that Herring clearly "has an obligation to both the Federal and the state constitutions," and that on the merits, "adjusting and expanding marriage (for that is what same-sex-marriage advocates wish) would be beneficial."

Over time, continuing to prostitute itself to the likes of Victoria Cobb and other hate merchants is going to cost the Virginia GOP dearly.  I say this as a former Republican who exited the GOP - as did all of my extended family - years ago at this point (and the youngest generation in the family is even more anti-GOP). I concur with the author of the piece at Blue Virginia:

Let's just hope that this continues, that the GOP jettisons its theocrats, bigots, and other extremists, and that the once-great Party of Lincoln (and Eisenhower, etc.) recovers its past sanity.

The Christofascists need to become both political and social outcasts who respectable politicians and decent people give wide berth to and avoid whenever and wherever possible.

Local Hospital Visitors Find White Supremacist Literature on Cars

Compared to Southwest Virginia the Hampton Roads area of Virginia is downright liberal.  That said, there are nonetheless many far right crazies and outright racists to be found in the area.  If you doubt me, check out the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of hate groups and see how many are based in Hampton Roads.  That said, these folks usually maintain a fairly low profile in the larger public.  However, yesterday visitors to the Norfolk General and Children's Hospital of the Kings Daughters parking garage facility - which is about 6 blocks from my office - found white supremacist literature (see the image above) on their cars.  It goes without saying that these folks don't like gays either.  It's a frightening reminder of how far we still need to go in Virginia.  WVEC-TV 13 has details:

People visiting Eastern Virginia Medical Campus Sunday night returned to their cars to find what appeared to be recruitment literature for a white supremacist group.

"This is bull crap," said one person who was at Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters to see her nephew. She asked not to be identified after finding the paper in a plastic baggie on her windshield.

The papers were left in cars in the parking garage located at the corner of West Olney Road and Children's Lane.

13News Now contacted spokeswomen for Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters and Sentara Norfolk General Hospital. They made security aware of the situation so that the literature could be removed.

No doubt those distributing this trash see themselves as "godly Christians" as well.   I doubt they vote Democrat.  Meanwhile, this kind of bullshit does nothing to help attract progressive new businesses to the region.

Indiana - The Next Gay Marriage Battleground

With all the excitement over recent court rulings in Ohio, New Mexico and Utah it is easy to overlook the coming battle in Indian where the Christofascists and their political prostitutes in the Indiana GOP are finding themselves pitted against the business community (not to mention non-religious extremists) in the battle over passage of an anti-gay state constitutional amendment.  The business community recognizes that making Indiana more anti-gay is not a winning formula for economic prosperity, especially with more and more states providing marriage equality.  An article in the New York Times looks at the battle between the business community and the spittle flecked, knuckle dragging Neanderthals of the GOP base in Indiana.  Here are highlights:

INDIANAPOLIS — Dominated by Republicans and steeped in traditional values, Indiana seemed among the least likely places to become a battleground in the nation’s debate over same-sex marriage when the legislature overwhelmingly chose in 2011 to push forward a state constitutional amendment barring gay couples from marrying.

But in the two years since, the landscape has shifted as voters, lawmakers and courts began recognizing same-sex marriage in places like Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey and New Mexico and as the United States Supreme Court declared parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. In just the past few days, a federal judge struck down a ban on same-sex marriage in Utah, home of the Mormon Church, and a federal appeals court rejected a request to halt the marriages on Tuesday. A federal judge in Ohio found that same-sex marriages should be recognized on death certificates. 

So suddenly Indiana, where lawmakers in the coming weeks are expected to call for the second vote needed to put a ban before voters in the fall elections, is now in a far more tense, unpredictable and closely watched spot than anyone here had imagined — a test case in whether a state will impose new limits on same-sex marriage in this fast-moving political and legal environment.

“What happens in Indiana is critical,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage,  . . . . Supporters of same-sex marriage, however, are pouring money and effort into defeating the measure in Indiana, a possibility that seemed unthinkable not long ago but one that advocates now insist is conceivable.

As lawmakers prepare to return for a new legislative session in January, it is an especially awkward spot for Republicans, who dominate both chambers of the General Assembly. With an election year ahead and the risk of primaries in May, the issue is pitting socially conservative groups, who are urging a constitutional ban, against sometime allies in the state’s business community, who say a ban could cause Indiana economic harm. 

Few Republicans now seem eager to talk about the issue, and some legislative aides said it was not entirely certain who would formally file the legislation in January.

To hear some Democrats tell it, many Republicans here would just as soon see the issue fade away, as they ponder navigating between socially conservative primary voters and a broader array of voters in a general election. 

“The tables have turned on this issue, and the Republican members are at a loss about what to do about it,” said Representative Scott Pelath, the House minority leader. “They’re quaking in their boots about what will happen if they don’t pass this thing. But they’re fearful about what will happen down the road if they do.”

Complicating matters is the language of the proposed amendment itself, which opponents say goes beyond banning marriage to threatening all legal arrangements allowing rights to same-sex couples. In addition to defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Indiana’s amendment says, “A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.” 

On the ground here, the fight is already fierce. More than 30 paid field workers from Freedom Indiana, an anti-ban campaign supported in part by business interests like Eli Lilly and Company and Cummins Inc., are pressing voters to contact their lawmakers, even as conservative groups have issued leaflets aimed at churchgoers.

[N]o one on either side can be certain what Indiana voters would do. While constitutional bans easily passed in many states years ago, public opinion has shifted.

Here, polling on the issue is mixed. At least one recent poll, a WISH-TV/Ball State Hoosier Survey, suggested that 58 percent of state residents polled were opposed to the idea of amending the Indiana Constitution but that people were nearly equally split on whether to legalize same-sex marriage. 

 Ultimately,if the Indiana GOP passes the measure this year, the voters in Indiana will have to decide between (i) modernity and equality under the U.S. Constitution or (ii) religious based bigotry and the embrace of hate and bigotry.  Should they choose the latter, it will not enhance the states image in the business community and in the eyes of large progressive corporations.

Alabama - A Test Case of Whether the Tea Party Can Be Killed

It's ironic that business interest within the GOP could not see the monster they were allowing to be created when the Christofascists and later the Tea Party (which mostly Christofascists hiding behind a different moniker) were allowed to infiltrate the GOP base.  Now that the cancer of these people is causing the GOP to suffer metastasizing cancer like symptoms, the GOP business community has seemingly finally begun to wake up and try to reclaim the GOP from the crazy people.  Will it work?  Only time will tell.  A piece in the New York Times looks at a struggle in my old home town of Mobile, Alabama, to stop a lunatic Tea Party candidate.  Note how the bulk of the Tea Party supporters are far right Christians.  Here are story excerpts:

With only days to go before a special Republican primary runoff for Congress here in South Alabama, the national business lobby is going all in. 

In the first test of its post-government-shutdown effort to derail Tea Party candidates, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce put on a rally on Tuesday in the warehouse of an aluminum plant to show its support for Bradley Byrne, a lawyer and former Republican officeholder. 

Companies as diverse as Caterpillar and AT&T have also sent in a last-minute flurry of donations. The goal, backers of Mr. Byrne said, is to elect not just a Republican, but the right kind of pro-business one. 

Dean Young, the Tea Party-backed businessman who is running against Mr. Byrne, seems only to be reveling in his opponent’s establishment, big-money support, repeatedly praising Senator Ted Cruz of Texas for leading the way to the government shutdown and saying that if he wins it will be in the face of “the entire Republican establishment.” 

Republican consultants and voters here say that the zeal of Mr. Young’s Christian conservative supporters puts the outcome of the runoff at even odds, suggesting that the fight over control of the Republican Party is likely to be long, hard and unpredictable. 

It is a reality that has some of the Washington lobbyists and political consultants who are helping orchestrate the anti-Tea Party push concerned, particularly given that extreme conservatives tend to be more reliable voters. 

Mr. Young’s voters are drawn by his declaration that homosexuality “always has been, always will be” wrong, his full backing of using a government shutdown “to stop Obamacare,” and his insistence that people “have the right to acknowledge God in schools and in the public square.”

Supporters of moderate Republican candidates worry about whose voters will turn out.

They [business interests] are increasingly concerned that a core group of anti-establishment conservatives in the House is threatening to derail their agenda, not just in terms of keeping the government open for business, but also when it comes to passing a comprehensive new immigration law, revising the nation’s tax code and making changes to the health care law, instead of just trying to kill it. 

Rob Engstrom, the chamber’s national political director, explained this strategy on Tuesday, when he flew in to endorse Mr. Byrne, standing on a stage next to him at the warehouse in Foley. 

“The No. 1 goal of the U.S. Chamber’s political program is to protect the pro-business majority in the House of Representatives,” Mr. Engstrom said to the crowd. “In addition to protecting that majority, we are also very interested in what is the composition of that majority. We want to find candidates who come from the private sector, we want to find candidates who come from the chamber family.” 

Recent elections in Alabama have proved that politicians with a strong Christian conservative following can win big races, even when significantly outraised. Aware of this, some in the Byrne camp have quietly reached out to Democrats, hoping to attract non-Republicans to the polls. But it is unclear whether that will happen, or would be enough.  

As the Christofascists have risen in power in the Alabama GOP, the state has become crazier and crazier.   Indeed, in some ways Alamaba was more moderate during George Wallace last term as governor than it is now.  That's pretty scary.

GOP Voters and Business Interests Abandoning Congressional Republicans

I am asked at times why, if I write an LGBT blog, I concentrate on trashing the Republican Party so often.   The answer is simple.  The GOP has aligned itself with the most vicious and nasty of the anti-gay far right and heinous Christofascist hate groups - e.g., check out the parade of GOP members of Congress through the Values Voter Summit in D.C. this weekend - with the result that exposing the lies and hypocrisy is part and parcel with exposing the lies and hypocrisy of the enemies of LGBT rights and equality.  And, therefore, the lower the GOP falls, the better the prospects for advances in LGBT rights and equality.  But I digress.  It seems that the cretins rocket scientists not in the Tea Party never factored in the reality that they and their agenda might be radioactive with normal (translate sane) GOP voters and the business interests that have historically helped bankroll the Republican Party.  You know things are bad when even Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is dishing the Congressional GOP. As Think Progress reports, the fever ridden swamp that is today's GOP base is driving away GOP voters and business interests.  Here are excepts:

As the government shutdown enters its eleventh day and the nation races towards a possible default, a growing number of Republican lawmakers, leaders, and voters are publicly blaming Congressional Republicans for the budget impasse. Though they fault President Obama for failing to negotiate with Congress, as the public mood sours, some within the GOP are hurriedly distancing themselves from the mess in Washington.

“It’s time for someone to act like a grown-up in this process,” former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu (R) told the Associated Press. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) agreed, remarking on Monday that “This is not how we should operate. It shouldn’t be about people fighting and yelling.’ “The bottom line is we need that money in our economy to save rural hospitals and jobs in the rural areas,” Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) told the Arizona Daily Star on Thursday, criticizing the GOP’e effort to defund the Affordable Care Act. 

The criticism comes as an Associated Press-GfK poll released Wednesday showed that “three-quarters of Republicans nationally said their party in Congress deserves a moderate degree or most of the blame for the shutdown” and a NBC/Wall Street Journal survey reported that just 24 percent of Americans now have a favorable view of Republicans — the lowest figure in the poll’s history.
In yet another sign of trouble for the GOP, business interests are also showing signs of discontent, signaling a possible rift with Republicans ahead of the 2014 mid-term elections. 

Iowa Republicans “are recruiting a pro-business Republican to challenge six-term conservative Rep. Steve King (R), a leader in the push to defund the health care law,” the Associated Press reports and party establishment leaders in Michigan are threatening to recruit and fund challengers to Rep. Justin Amash (R) and other Tea Party aligned candidates.

A report released earlier this week found that the shutdown is disproportionately affecting Republican-leaning states like Virginia, Alaska, and Alabama, which have higher concentrations of federal employees and federal contracts. 

I continue to urge Virginia voters to send a resounding message to the Congressional Republicans by voting a straight Democrat ticket on November 5, 2013 and send the GOP statewide slate down in a landslide defeat.

More Good News: Cuccinelli's Growing Money Woes

The main groups that have heretofore catapulted Ken Cuccinelli into politics have been far right religious extremists best exemplified by The Family Foundation, a sinister organization with ties to hate groups and anti-contraception extremists, and the ignorant and racist Tea Party elements in Virginia.  But Cuccinelli's slavish obedience to the frightening agenda of these factions has alienated business interest that recognize that giving Virginia of a state that wants to institute a modern day Inquisition is not good for business (Virginia Beach Mayor Will Sessoms seemingly recognizes that tourists avoid destinations deemed too extreme).  The result has been business leaders either jumping aboard the Terry McAuliffe campaign or at minimum, not giving money to Cuccinelli who has had to rely on out of state money.  But that hasn't been enough.  A piece in Politico looks at Cuccinelli's worsening money woes.  Here are excerpts:

Ken Cuccinelli is getting crushed on the Virginia airwaves, and it’s probably only going to get worse – a major factor thwarting the Republican’s hopes of a comeback in a governor’s race that’s been slipping away.

The left has spent $7.5 million more on television than the right up to this point, according to sources tracking the air war. The totals are $20.2 million from Democrats and affiliated outside groups to $12.7 million from the Republicans and their allies.

The attorney general is himself a relatively weak fundraiser who never adequately cultivated the major donors he needed in the business community. He’s also running against former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, one of the most prolific fundraisers in modern political history.

A string of polls showing Cuccinelli trailing — including a POLITICO poll conducted over the weekend that had him down by 9 points — has only made it harder to raise cash, while deterring some outside groups from spending as much as they might have in the year’s marquee contest.

The result is that Cuccinelli’s campaign has been making smaller and smaller ad buys over the past three weeks.

McAuliffe has already reserved about $2 million in airtime over the final four weeks, while Cuccinelli has not reserved any time past this week. The Democrats, for instance, claimed $700,000 of choice broadcast airtime for the final week of the race in the state’s four largest markets, according to the Virginia Public Access Project. Cuccinelli operatives note that they have placed their buys on a week-to-week basis since April.

The disparity doesn’t mean the race is over for Cuccinelli, but it’s an enormous obstacle in a race that’s already tilted heavily against him. The simple reality is that TV ads matter a lot in a big state, where a limited number of voters get to see the candidates in person and with broadcast media that many Republicans see as predisposed to favor Democrats.

This helps explain why 56 percent of likely voters hold an unfavorable view of Cuccinelli in the POLITICO poll, compared to 34 percent who view him favorably.

I personally hope that (i) Cuccinelli goes down to a crushing defeat that ends his political career and (ii) that post election he comes out of the closet - no one is so hysterically anti-gay unless they are a serious self-loathing closet case.

Are Some GOP Business Interests Out to Kill the Tea Party?

While the greed driven billionaire Koch brothers continue to fund some of the most extreme elements of the Tea Party and ultra far right in the GOP, some business interests are finally waking up to the fact that destroying the federal government and eliminating all government regulations may not, in fact, be in their best interests.  Some seemingly now want to recruit candidates to run against GOP Tea Party extremists.  If they proceed with this plan, it will result in an epic civil war with the lunatic and largely Christofascist party grass roots.   A piece in the Washington Post looks at this hopeful development.  Here are highlights:

Nearly three years after a band of renegade congressmen brought the tea party insurgency to Washington, there are early rumblings of a political backlash in some of their districts.

But within Grand Rapids’ powerful business establishment, patience is running low with Amash’s ideological agenda and tactics. Some business leaders are recruiting a Republican primary challenger who they hope will serve the old-fashioned way — by working the inside game and playing nice to gain influence and solve problems for the district. They are tired of tea party governance, as exemplified by the budget fight that led to the shutdown and threatens a first-ever U.S. credit default.

Similar efforts are underway in at least three other districts — one in the moneyed Detroit suburbs and the others in North Carolina and Tennessee

The races mark a notable shift in a party in which most primary challenges in recent years have come from the right.

The notion that there might be some energy from the radical center, the people whose positions in the conservative mainstream are more center-right but who are just furious about the dysfunctionality of government — that’s different.”

“It’s people popping up organically in these districts,” LaTourette said. “The traditional governing wing of the Republican Party is fed up with this dysfunction, this ‘no’ to everything, this refusal to engage the other side to find solutions.”

Here in Amash’s Grand Rapids district, several well-known executives who are said to have promised their support to Ellis did not respond to requests for interviews. But Katie Packer Gage, a former senior aide to Romney and a Michigan GOP operative, said, “The business community in Grand Rapids has been completely disenchanted with Amash.”

Frankly, I fear that this belated awakening to the need to kill the Frankenstein monster that has been created may be a case of too little, too late.  Killing the GOP as a major party may yet be the only real solution.

Fairfax Chamber of Commerce Backs Democrat Statewide Ticket

As the last post underscores, Ken Cuccinelli and his Christofacsist climate denying running mates are a threat to Hampton Roads' economy and long term future.  Today, the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce endorsed Democrats Terry McAuliffe, Ralph Northam and Mark Herring.  For non-Virginians, Fairfax County has the largest economy of any city or county in the Commonwealth of Virginia.  Combined with the neighboring Arlington and Alexandria, it has nearly one third of Virginia's population and is a main economic powerhouse for the Virginia.  That the Fairfax Chamber endorsed the entire Democrat ticket speaks volumes about how the GOP slate will be bad for business and seek to drag Virginia backward in time to when racism and homophobia were state sanctioned policy and women were subordinate citizens.  Here are highlights from the Richmond Times Dispatch:

The political arm of the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce has endorsed the Democratic ticket for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general.

The coveted endorsement of NOVABizPAC -- which backed Republican Bob McDonnell in 2009, is a key pickup for Democrat Terry McAuliffe.

Today's announcement follows a contentious, chamber-sponsored televised debate between McAuliffe and Cuccinelli Wednesday that saw each portray the other as unfit for the Executive Mansion.

A news release issued by NOVABizPAC said McAuliffe won the endorsement "based on his pro-business policy positions and proposals."

"Mr. McAuliffe was a major supporter of Governor McDonnell’s landmark transportation funding legislation and a consistent supporter of rail to Dulles," airport, Jim Corcoran, Fairfax chamber president and a trustee of NOVABizPAC, said in the release.

 

The organization also endorsed Sen. Ralph S. Northam, D-Norfolk, for lieutenant governor over GOP rival E.W. Jackson, and Sen. Mark Herring, D-Loudoun, for attorney general over Republican Sen. Mark Obenshain of Harrisonburg.

In other endorsements, NOVABizPAC favored Northam based on his support for the Fairfax Chamber's legislative priorities and for his "record and experience in the Virginia Senate."

The group endorsed Herring for "serving the Northern Virginia business community well in the state Senate," and highlighted Herring's "commitment to Virginia's right to work laws, Governor McDonnell's landmark transportation funding plan and economic development initiatives."

Virginia does not need to return to the 1950's - or preferably the 1850's in the eyes of the many white supremacists now in the Virginia GOP base - and the Fairfax Chamber recognized this reality.

 

Virginia Businesses Aren’t Buying Cuccinelli

During the gubernatorial debate last weekend between GOP candidate Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli and Democrat Terry McAuliffe, the always sexually obsessed Kookinelli who wants to police Virginia bedrooms laughed at McAuliffe's stated concern that social extremism such at that espoused by Cuccinelli would be bad for Virginia economically.   Apparently, many Virginia business leaders, while not thrilled by McAuliffe, see him as a lesser of two evils and are withholding support from Cuccinelli.  A piece in Time looks at the issue.  Here are excerpts:

Bloomberg, citing the Virginia Public Access Project, reports that of [Governor Bob] McDonnell’s top 25 individual donors, only 10 so far have contributed to Cuccinelli.

“I have yet to meet a business leader that says they will support Cuccinelli, which is surprising because Republicans are usually supported by business leaders,” says Gary Shapiro of the Arlington-based Consumer Electronics Association, who supported Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain “loudly and financially” in their respective runs for the presidency. “In my 35 years of Virginia, Attorney General Cuccinelli, if he became governor, would definitely be the most conservative. He makes [Governor Bob] McDonnell look left-wing,” Shapiro continued. “McAuliffe is definitely the lesser of two evils.”

“Most of the Virginia business leaders who I know are moderate Republicans,” says Bill Crutchfield, the founder of his eponymous consumer electronics retailing company based out of Charlottesville. “We believe that Ken Cuccinelli is far to the right of our philosophical comfort zone…Our state’s economic development could be adversely impacted if socially extreme candidates take over our government.” Crutchfield supported the Romney-Ryan ticket and spoke at one of their rallies last year.

Cuccinelli’s social views have made national news, with Jay Leno and Whoopi Goldberg ripping him this week for his stance on anti-sodomy laws. Cuccinelli has also been trying to overturn a federal court ruling that found the law, which outlawed oral and anal sex, unconstitutional.

“There is some concern that Terry McAuliffe is too close to organized labor. He needs to dispel that perception,” said Crutchfield. “Since Terry McAuliffe has never held political office, it is hard to know if he is a moderate or liberal Democrat. However, if Terry McAuliffe can demonstrate that he is a moderate, I suspect that a large number of Virginia’s business leaders will support him.”  Shapiro agreed with Crutchfield.

Both candidates have some baggage, but at least McAuliffe is not batshit crazy and making Virginia a laughing stock on a regular basis.   Moreover, America and the world are changing, yet Kookinelli and the Virginia GOP want to take Virginia back to some early 1950's vision of a time when blacks were segregated, gays were deep in the closet, and women were not expected to be much more than stay at home mothers.   That is not a winning approach in today's world.

Virginia GOP Business Leaders Defecting to McAuliffe

The Family Foundation's GOP "dream ticket" - nightmare ticket for anyone sane - for statewide office in 2013 seems to be causing more and more rational conservatives to jump on board Terry McAuliffe's campaign.  Unlike the delusional Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli, E.W. Jackson and Mark Obenshain, these individuals realize that theocratic batshitery and out right insanity at the highest levels of state government is not good for business and it's not good for Virginia.  The latest defection comes in the form of Bruce Thompson, a Virginia Beach developer and major business player in Virginia Beach, Virginia's most populous city, who has previously been a GOP appointee to state boards and commissions.   The Virginian Pilot looks at Thompson's decision.  Here are highlights:

The newest addition to Terry McAuliffe's roster of Republican supporters is Bruce Thompson, a Virginia Beach developer previously appointed to a key economic development post by Gov. Bob McDonnell.

Thompson's backing, announced Friday by the Democrat's campaign, follows a string of endorsements by GOP business leaders McAuliffe trumpeted this week to reinforce for his contention that many corporate figures favor his vision for Virginia over Republican nominee Ken Cuccinelli's ideas.

"I am supporting Terry because I know he will focus on diversifying Virginia’s economy and put in place policies that attract and keep the best businesses here in Hampton Roads and across the Commonwealth," said Thompson, who recently inked a deal to acquire the Cavalier Hotel.

Thompon gave $25,000 to McAuliffe during the two-month fundraising period that ended May 29.

As the article notes, Thompson is in good company.  The Washington Post names some of the other former GOP supporters who are fleeing the inanity of the TFF dream ticket:

Milt Peterson, a major Washington-area real estate developer, and Jan Schar, the former president of the Virginia Federation of Republican Women, are the latest local figures to announce their public support for McAuliffe. On Monday, the Democrat’s campaign revealed that homebuilder Dwight Schar and Northern Virginia businessman Earle Williams were also backing his bid.

But the latest McAuliffe endorsements are unusual in that they come from people who have supported and donated to Republicans in the past. (Peterson and Williams have given to candidates from both parties, but both have contributed more to the GOP.)   Some of them have not had kind words for Cuccinelli.

“Virginia does not desire candidates who are so completely disconnected from the average Virginian that they are unable to leave their ideology and political views at the front door of their elected office,” Jan Schar said in a statement issued by the McAuliffe campaign.

“Ken Cuccinelli’s ideological agenda has divided Virginians and blocked progress on education and transportation for long enough,” Dwight Schar said. “Cuccinelli’s focus on extreme social issues will distract from urgent economic matters and make Virginia less welcoming to business.”

Will Bill Bolling Play Spoiler in Virginia?

Candidly, I do not like either Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli or Bill Bolling.   Both are extreme far right candidates when it comes to the issues of gay rights, women's rights, voter disenfranchisement generally,immigration and many other issues.  However, unlike Kookinelli, Bolling is not certifiably insane or - in my opinion a self-loathing closet case who channels his own self-hatred against normal gays - utterly detached from objective reality.    Naturally, since Bolling is (A) not an insane religious fanatic and (B) supported the recently passed transportation funding legislation, he is anathema to the Christofascists and Tea Party loons who worship Kookinelli.  Should Bolling decide to run as an independent for governor of Virginia, the impact could be complicated, but all things considered, I suspect the Democrat candidate will end up benefiting the most.  Bolling may be trying to position himself as a moderate Republican, but his voting record shows otherwise. A piece in Politico looks at the complicated electoral impact of a Bolling candidacy.  Here are highlights:

You’d think Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling’s ongoing flirtation with an independent bid for Virginia governor would be setting off alarms in GOP nominee’s Ken Cuccinelli’s world.
But it’s not necessarily a given that Bolling would sink the Republican nominee and throw the election to Democrat Terry McAuliffe. Experts say, and polling in the race shows, that the effects of a Bolling candidacy could be more complicated than that.

“The assumption at first was that Bolling would simply split the Republican vote and help McAuliffe, but now I think that’s seen as very simplistic,” said University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato. “Both of these candidates, McAuliffe and Cuccinelli, have big vulnerabilities … so for Bolling, the trick is going to be to pull [support] equally from both of them.”

While it would be premature to put much stock in polling at this stage of the race, early surveys show Bolling drawing support in roughly equal measures from Cuccinelli and McAuliffe.

Though they’re reluctant to say it, Democrats believe that as more voters start tuning in to the race, moderate Republicans will be turned off by Cuccinelli’s positions on social issues and look to Bolling instead. If Bolling could siphon enough support away from Cuccinelli on the right and among independents, it would leave ample opening for McAuliffe to win the race with support from Democrats.

Bolling has worked in recent months to position himself as a moderate Republican, criticizing Cuccinelli’s rhetoric and even casting the tie-breaking vote with Democrats in the state senate on voter ID legislation last month. As a result, he’d appeal to Republicans who like current Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell but may see Cuccinelli as too far to the right.

But for Cuccinelli backers, polling so far of a hypothetical three-way race suggests that Bolling would also pull support from moderate Democrats who have doubts about McAuliffe – and thus be less of a threat to Cuccinelli. In that case, Bolling’s entrance into the race could be a wash or even help Cuccinelli, if Bolling took more support from moderate Democrats than he does from moderate Republicans.

Guernsey speculated: “If Bolling were the candidate, you’d probably see the business community come out very aggressively on his side.”   Bolling could also appeal to suburban voters who are turned off by Cuccinelli’s positions on social issues but might not be sold on McAuliffe as an acceptable alternative.   “It’s really those high-income, highly educated suburban and exurban voters who would be open to [Bolling],” Sabato said. “They don’t agree with Cuccinelli’s social issue positions, but they don’t really take to McAuliffe.”

Bolling, for his part, says he’s not sure for whom he’ll cast his ballot if he doesn’t run. But speaking with POLITICO recently, the lieutenant governor suggested that McAuliffe’s message is closer to the one Bolling would deliver if he were a candidate.

“I think [McAuliffe] is attempting to run a mainstream campaign and I applaud him for that,” Bolling said. “His challenge is that people don’t know him and he’s going to have to define himself in this campaign. Mr. Cuccinelli faces a different challenge. His challenge is that people do know him and unfortunately, a lot of them view him as being too extreme.”

Sabato said he expects Bolling’s decision to come down to money and whether he can raise enough to compete – something Bolling has actively been exploring since the end of the state legislative session.  “If the response is cool with donors I don’t think he’ll run,” Sabato said. “If he’s hitting the jackpot with some of these donors, I think he will.”

Regardless of what Bolling does or doesn't do, for the sake of Virginia's future, it is imperative that Ken Cuccinelli be defeated.