Ah. But it really wasn't about outing gay Republicans...Follow

Ahh, I see.

A single nutcase with a blog is somehow indicative of the motivations of anyone who happens to vote for the same candidates he does.

Gotcha.

1.) Not that this "liberal strategy" is right or fair, but the Republicans bring it on themselves whenever they tout themselves as the party of morality, and the Christian Right pompously declares homosexuality a sin (but don't hate the sinner!).

2.) No one listens to Air America anyway. This is probably why they have internet bloggers for guests.






Edited, Oct 13th 2006 at 5:50pm PDT by Jawbox

It's odd becuase it's not the Conservatives who are making a big deal out of gays in the Republican party. It's the Liberals. It's funny because the assumptions that many Liberals have are being shown to be incredibly false, but instead of realizing that, they keep going forward as if maybe if they can push the "Gays are in the Republican party!" statement hard enough, they'll eventually get the right wing to do "something". I'm kinda seeing it go like this:

LWNJ (left wing nut jobs): Hey! Look that the Congressman Foley. He was flirting with male pages!!!
RW (right wing): Ok. Yeah. He really shouldn't do that because pages shouldn't be subject to sexual advances by Congressmen. We'll take steps to prevent that kind of stuff.
LWNJ: Um... But that means Foley was GAY! See. He's a man. And the pages were male...
RW; Your point?
LWNJ: But. Doesn't that get the religious right outraged?
RW: Because he's gay? Um... This is the 21st century you know.
LWNJ: But he's Gaaaaayyyyy... And I'll bet there are other gay guys in the Republican party that you don't even know about.
RW: Yeah. Probably. We really don't care though.
LWNJ: No. I'm sure you're just saying that. We know that you guys really secretly hate gays.
RW: Um. Whatever floats your boat. Shouldn't we be concentrating on things that matter, like the economy or war in Iraq?
LWNJ: Hey. Look. We found some more in the closet gay guys in your party!
RW: Well, that was pretty rude of you. Most people respect the decision of gay folks to be in the closet if they want.
LWNJ: Ah. So you're upset that they're gay. We knew it!!!
RW: No. We just think you guys are morons is all....


Dunno. Something like that anyway.



Ah. You know that? Or you just assume that?

See this is what I'm really trying to get you to understand. There's this assumption that the "left" is "good for gays" and the right isn't. And so, no one on the Left would feel the need to stay in the closet, while those on the right do so out of fear of their own party or something.

This is the assumption this blogger is operating on. I think he's wrong. I know for a fact that not all gay people define themselves by their sexuality. Not all of them choose their political affiliation based on which one *seems* more gay friendly. And finally, not all gay people feel that the agenda of the Left is the direction gay folks really need to go in.

The core assumption is that the agenda of the Right is automatically anti-gay. Thus, anyone who's gay and Conservative, must be either supressing his own gayness, or being forced to conceal it for some reason. But that only follows if you assume that agenda of the Left is the only valid one that gay people might choose to follow. Guess what? Not every gay person believes in gay marriage. Not every gay person wants "special rights". In fact, I'd argue that most gay people just want to live their lives without anyone giving any special notice to the fact that they're gay. And I'd imagine a strong reason for many gays to stay in the closet, especially one's involved in politics, is because if they come out, they become "the gay politician", and they're going to be expected to have specific positions on issues that they may not particularly agree with or want to get involved with in the first place.


Ever consider that gay politicians may want to push agendas on economics? Or the environment? But if they're openly gay, guess what? They're roped into every gay issue. They're roped into every gay function.

My issue with this whole thing is that it derives from incredibly flawed assumptions about why people do what they do. You can argue that it's just this one blogger, but my arguement is that while many people might not do exactly what he's doing, the core assumptions he's acting on *are* held by many people on the left. At least, I haven't seen anyone on the left condemn him for it yet...



Really? But I thought it wasn't a "strategy". Just one blogger, right?

Edited, Oct 13th 2006 at 6:22pm PDT by gbaji

In all of his posts, it wasn't until that phrase that you came to that conclusion?

No clue what Prickly City is or what you're talking about.




Sure. Why do you suppose that is Joph? Could it be because many commentators on the left realized the exact same thing I did on day one of the Foley scandal?

That it was really about trying to embarass the Right by outing members of their party that were gay. When it didn't work with Foley, they went right to looking for more, figuring that if they keep at it, they'll gain something. Somehow...


Also. While he's been *trying* to do this for some time, since the Foley thing, it appears he's suddenly gained a whole buch of new information about who is gay in the Republican party, and gained a lot of media coverage. Coincidence? Or part of a planned attack that I'm pretty sure is going to backfire horribly?. If there wasn't some sort of "out gay republicans" agenda, then why is he suddenly getting media play? Why would this be considered relevant to anything? The only common point is the outing of gay Republicans. So that *must* be the media interest, right? Clearly, I'm not the only person who made that connection...


I just find it amusing that my first impression of the Foley issue seems to have been right on the money. I said it was about outing gay Republicans hidden behind the veneer of protecting teens. And sure enough, as soon as it starts to become apparent that the "protect our kids" angle isn't really working in the media, we start seeing direct attacks just to out gay Republicans.


I swear, the worst enemy of the Liberals is themselves. They just can't help their own nature. Could have kept quiet on this and maybe gotten away with the Foley thing, but noooooo. They had to take that extra step. And IMO, it's going to kill them.

Since when is outing hypocrites bad?

Sigh. I'll say it again:

Your statement assumes that a Conservative agenda with regards to gay issues is automatically "anti-gay", and that any gay Republican must be a hypocrite by extension.

Isn't it the height of assumption to believe that gays must be Liberals, or they're somehow hypocritical? It's funny, because I state over and over that this is the false belief being perpetrated by the Left, everyone argues that I'm wrong, but then people repeatedly post statements like this that prove what I'm saying is correct.


The whole thing is about this assumption folks. Everything.

Edited, Oct 13th 2006 at 9:14pm PDT by gbaji

Ya right, like Gbaji hasn't heard of the only conservative comic in the entire paper. That little fox is a ***** anyway.






Can you name any Republican Senators that openly support gay marriage? I think it's not hypocritical so much as to not support your people for the sake of power. It should also be poited out that many "pink elephants", that is the openly gay Republicans in Washington, are more geared towards fiscal conservatism, while they are totally opposed to the Republican's views on their rights, as well as their treatment of their lifestyle.


Gays are just the new African-Americans 40 years later. I think it's sad their representatives in Congress don't "have a dream..."



Does that make you against gay rights?


Oh and,
Gay Republican Senator = Rufus on The Boondocks

Why is this forum enthralled and consumed by this singular poster?

There are more productive endeavors.

Bah.

What an awful story about Sara Evans, she was getting pretty good on the show too. =[

Not this "right winger", and not any other ones I know either. I didn't realize that once I support things like tax cuts I immediately hate gays...that's kinda cool. I like that it also assumes I care whether or not they're "married".

Quick stance on that whole deal, they can get married sure, but not in a church until the pope deems it so. Seperation of church and state remember? Now, on the flip side, the government has a responsibility to its people to provide equal rights to its citizens, and as such should provide the same rights for any "union", "marriage", "legal get together", whatever you want to call it.

This issue is so insanely retarded it boggles my mind, how it is even an issue in the first place...dunno. But it is, and lets not assume that once you cross that center line toward the right you pick up a bat and go gay hunting, mmk? God, you're all a bunch of ****.

Ed. By the way, I am not a supporter of any organized religion. Also, let's not pretend that only big bad Christianity doesn't allow gay marriages either, all asshat major religions don't for the most part. Are we going to force it on Muslims too? Jews? Don't make me laugh, we can't even draw cartoons of Mohammed.



Edited, Oct 14th 2006 at 10:39am PDT by xtremereign

I have been told my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.

Oh, were you talking about Gbaji?

I wouldn't say automatically, but I'd say usually.


And by usually, I probably mean 9.99 times out of 10.