With the Mideast in meltdown and the stock market tanking, GOP social conservatives have declared that it's to be "values week" in the House, which will focus on a meaningless vote on the federal anti-gay marriage amendment (going nowhere since it was shot down in the Senate), as well a bill to protect the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance from court challenges. They may find that they've gone too far during a time of actual crisis.
On the lighter side, Jeff Gannon hits the mark.
House vote update. The amendment vote in the House failed to get the needed two-thirds majority for passage (which would only have been a symbolic victory). Democrats, to their credit, held firm (although I note that Georgia's leftwing, race-baiting, and frankly crazy Rep. Cynthia McKinney failed to vote, despite her Human Rights Campaign primary endorsement). Meanwhile, 202 Republicans voted for passage while only 27 libertarian, RINO or gay Republicans voted no.
34 Comments for “Panderfest.”
posted by JC on
I don’t know why gay non-leftists are venerating Jeff Gannon. He has a sordid past (to say the least) and his writings in the Gay press are mediocre at best.
But then again, that description can fit a lot of people:)
posted by Bill from FL on
You CAN’T be serious. Have you ever read Jeff Gannon’s website? He cannot decide if he is a self affirming gay man or a self hating Roy Cohn Ultra lite. Did you see his advocate interview when asked about his sexuality he said it was a “private matter”?
The Closet half-sister democrats may be alot, but at least their voting record doesn’t make them a hycocrite. As an example, Jim Mc Greevey generally was gay friendly (I am from NJ and lived there when he came out) in the state senate and as governor. Corrupt, stupid, disgraceful, pandering, and everything else but generally not a hypocrite as governor.
posted by Avee on
re McGreevey: To vow to serve and uphold the laws and then violate them (through corruption) is pretty hypocritical in my book. I don’t care that he was “good on gay issues.” I hate it when gays use that to excuse the inexusable, and don’t realize how that weakens us in the public view.
As for Gannon, I agree with everything he says (and then some) in the linked article.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Avee, I agree with you, on Gannon and McGreevey.
You’re not alone on this site.
posted by Paul on
I’m not really surprised with our GOP-controlled government. What productive action have they taken lately? I’d say it has been years since they have accomplished anything. I really hope people have realized just what a mess they’ve made of things. Hopefully, big changes are in store in November.
Paul.
pdcook.blogspot.com
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
It would probably be smarter of Gannon/Guckert if he cheerfully admitted to his rent-boy past (especially since so many of us have seen his spread-eagle nude photo from that military-escorts website in which as I recall he charged $1000 for a weekend), and said, “What of it?”
Anyway, I found some of his comments amusing, but for someone in a glass house he sure throws a lot of stones. Rather like Dubya, come to think of it.
I have not been impressed by his op-eds in the Blade. He specializes in scorn, which (while some of his targets are deserving enough) is not aiming terribly high.
posted by Charles in charge on
You can’t hit the mark if you don’t leave a mark…remember -no Marks just IMPRESSIONS” The impression I was left with was slimy non-hot, non-military, cream filled twinky.
Either way, your opinion is WAY off base.
posted by ghost on
I thought he seemed very feminine too. Not at all what I expected. He didn’t like those Whitehouse questions. Maybe we’ll get the story one day (not from him i’m sure) but unfortunately it will probably be like JFK – he’ll have to be dead first and only ID-able by dental work. yikes.
posted by Bobby on
“He specializes in scorn”
—So does St. Cindy Sheehan, you know, the Holy Mother of Marx, and I don’t see you criticizing her.
What’s wrong with scorn? Liberals say horrible things about conservatives and traditionalists all the time. Don’t expect us to be nice.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I don’t know what’s more ridiculous — the left-wing “outrage” which gave Guckert (his real name) undue and undeserved notoriety, or the knee-jerk impulse of the right wing to defend and promote him simply because he’s one of them.
Perhaps one of these days, quality will matter in the old parties.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Bobby wrote: “—So does St. Cindy Sheehan, you know, the Holy Mother of Marx, and I don’t see you criticizing her.”
Huh? Who cares about Cindy Sheehan? There are about 5 billion other people I also haven’t criticized. What does that have to do with anything?
Bobby wrote: “What’s wrong with scorn? Liberals say horrible things about conservatives and traditionalists all the time. Don’t expect us to be nice.”
First, a race for the bottom is a good way to tear things down, but a poor way of building anything. Second, why are some people so determined to assume there are two and only two “sides” and that anyone who criticizes someone identified as right-wing must therefore be (starkly and cartoonishly) left-wing? If I were left-wing I would not be published on IGF.
Gannon/Guckert was a right-wing shill. If you think that’s fine, so be it, but then don’t complain when other people notice.
I did not condemn all scorn. I said that specializing in it is not aiming very high. If you want to see some useful alternatives to an approach of scorn, scorn, and more partisan scorn, you can find many examples in the IGF collection. Scorn is certainly a legitimate rhetorical weapon, but a good writer should have more than that in his arsenal.
posted by Bobby on
Good points, Richard. Unfortunately, there are two sides because that’s how the media and the politicians frame the issues. To HRC there are always two sides, to the GOP is the same, and to the democratic party they just change their positions all the time.
“I voted for the war in Iraq before I voted against it.” John Kerry.
Not everything Gannon (his nom-de-plume) has scorn. But even if it did, why do you focus on how he argues instead of what he says?
The world cares too much about apperances. Clinton was a liar and people loved him because he was such a great speaker. Bush was a terrible speaker, and before 9/11, people on the left hated him for that.
I don’t care about style, if Gannon, Coulter, or Limbaugh have something interesting to say, I’ll listen to it. I suppose others on the left do the same with Garofalo, Moore, and other liberals with questionable speaking abilities.
posted by Randy R. on
Uh, mom of 6, homosexuality is neither liberal or conservative. It just is. I don’t particularly care whether your religion brands it a sin, but it’s time for you to get a clue: being gay isn’t a choice. We are made gay, just as you are made straight.
As for being ashamed of making money off of homosexuality, are you just as ashamed of people who make money off of homophobia?
posted by Randy R. on
As for Jeff Gannon, I am simply amazed at his audacity. Here is a man for for months while at the center of the storm of his illegal ‘daily’ pass to the White House that lastest for a year and a half, he never would confirm whether he was gay or not. Now he complains about gays who are not completely out! If ever there was a hypocrite, it is Jeff Gannon.
posted by Randy R. on
Now back to Stephen Miller’s comments:
Yep, Congress is pandering. Every poll shows that the biggest concerns of citizens are the war in Iraq, high gas prices and the economy. Gay marriage and flag burning aren’t even on the radar screen. So why is congress spending time on side issues instead of grappling with the real ones?
probably because they haven’t a clue as to what to do with them, and scaring conservatives moms with six children is a whole lot easier. And it brings in donations.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
there are two sides because that’s how the media and the politicians frame the issues
Yes, and we shouldn’t think for ourselves — let’s let the media do it for us instead.
why is congress spending time on side issues instead of grappling with the real ones
Because they’re scared of a shellacking in the upcoming elections, which is more than likely. Of course, idiot Democrats will assume that’s a “mandate” for their non-policies, rather than their sheer luck at sitting in opposition when the country was being run by such an incompetent cabal as the Republicans.
posted by bill from fl on
Dear Very Conservative Mother of 6.
First of all, why are you wasting your time on this apparently unconservative gay blog?
Second, why aren\\’t you submitting graciously to your husband? Are you sure you are conservative enough?
Third, Are you certain you are following your bible very literally?
Fourth? 6 kids are a handful. Are any of them in need of you?
If you answered No to any of these questions, maybe you are not conservative enough.
There is plenty conservative about being gay. Not openly gay, maybe but there is. You don’t have to be heterosexual to think for yourself, know that the welfare state is stupid, and that the free market is important. How dare you just come in here and turn your nose up because you think we are inferior!
Instead of coming in here and namecalling, why don’t you shut up and get back in the kitchen where you belong you nasty STUPID COW!!!! PS Surrender your voting card!
posted by 03RUK on
1. I can’t believe people like conservative mother for 6 still believe homosexuality is a choice and not a state of nature.
2. With respec to the former governor of New Jersey (the one I held my nose and voted for against JC Mayor Brett Schundler) I have to agree with Mr. Gannon. Jim McGreevey married someone he obviously could remain faithful to, cheated on her and then appointed his lover to a high-security need job without the appropriate background check.
He prosstituted himself to the Catholic church, his family and the voters to further his political career. Then, when he got caught in numerous political scandals (these are very common in my state), he uses his own shame in his sexual nature as a front to mask the real motive for his resignation.
I sincerely hope (but also doubt) Mr. McGreevey will tell us whether his willingness to sell his soul to people like conservative mother of 6 made it easier for him to sell it to the crooks in this state or if it was the reverse.
posted by Timothy on
It looks like the Very Conservative Mother of Six was deleted. Darn. I wasn’t able to read her post and I had a question for her: whether her six were all boys.
She may find it interesting that studies show that the more sons a mother has, the higher likelihood the next son will be gay. So if she has 6 boys now, she may want to think about how many will be introducing her to their husband in a few years. She also may want to reconsider whether she’s a big fan of birth control (I’m guessing not). I can’t imagine what will go through her mind if she gets pregnant again and finds out she’s having a boy. Poor thing.
posted by Very conservative mother of six on
This is the very conservative mother of six:
I was deleted I’m sure because I have yet to meet a homosexaul that can tolerate truth: i.e. that sodomy is unexceptable regardless of whether you “love” your partner. It does put an end to the circle of life. I’ll give you a pass on this if you’re an athiest (at least an athiest would not be a hypocrite in this matter).
ALL morally “conservative” [read LCR] homosexuals ESPECIALLY GANNON are hypocrites of the worst sort and should be ignored completely.
I have four boys and two girls. All are “gay,” NONE are homosexual.
posted by Mark on
Mother of 6:
What’s your view on masturbation?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
sodomy is unexceptable regardless of whether you “love” your partner
Well, let’s put aside the Biblical argument, which indicates the sin of Sodom was its non-hospitality, and focus on other elements.
First of all, “partner” is a gender-neutral term. Is it “unexceptable” for a wife to provide her husband with oral sex? Is it “unexceptable” for a husband to eat out his wife? Something tells me that most conservative married couples wouldn’t see it that way.
Secondly, I “love” how right-wingers always put quotes around various terms when doling out their venom towards others. In other words, you can never really “love” your “partner” like *I* love my husband. Did you ever consider that most of us don’t care what you think? It is, despite the efforts of you and your right-wing bretheren, still a free country.
And like the prior comments suggest, there’s a rather significant possibility that one of your sons or daughters is gay. Will you show your “love” for that person by treating him with the same hate you spew on an internet bulletin board towards people you don’t even know? If so, what puts you in the moral position to judge others? After all — your “love” for your kids is obviously conditional. That’s not love at all, that’s just rhetorical convenience.
I don’t pity you, you’re too far gone. I do pity your children and other people with whom you have to interact on a regular basis.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I have to agree with Mr. Gannon. Jim McGreevey married someone he obviously could remain faithful to, cheated on her and then appointed his lover to a high-security need job without the appropriate background check. He prosstituted himself to the Catholic church
But is “Jeff Gannon” (James Guckert is his real name) in any position to slam someone for “prostituting himself?”
Speaking personally, the behavior of both Gannon and McGreevy was irresponsible. That doesn’t mean I have much of a right in regulating it, nor does it say they should care what I think.
But on the other hand, should I care what one real prostitute thinks about the activities of another intellectual prostitute? Nah.
posted by Bill from FL on
No, \\”Very Conservative mother of 6\\” I doubt you were deleted because \\”we cannot stand the truth\\”. You probably were deleted because people were just not interested and don\\’t need to be berated by your rubbish.You have actually met homosexuals? Where? Be glad I am not one of the ones you met, because I would not tolerate your \\”truth\\” just like you will not tolerate my TRUTH.
Funny you say \\”you have never met a homosexual who could stand the truth\\” No, we just cannot stand your theocratic garbage that has been jammed down our throats. Just like the \\”witches\\” of Salem HAD to be hanged because they just WERE NOT \\”GODLY\\”!
So again with your circle of life crap. It sounds like a box of bull to me. What if you were barren? Would that make you or your husband any less of a person? And judging by all the unwanted, neglected, abandoned kids these days, I would say the circle of life is pretty wide and fruitful. Why don\\’t you adopt a few of them since I am not supposed to? Oh and while you are being a godly and submissive woman with Christ at the head of your home, is your husband providing properly for you, or is the government? Tell us just how moral and godly you are!!!
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
On the other hand, why delete her posts?
Let them stand on their own “merits” or lack thereof. Deleting politically incorrect stuff is just like something the lefties who Miller doesn’t like would do.
posted by Randy R. on
Hey Conservative Mom!
You have four boys? Wow, sounds pretty hot. Can I meet any of ’em? Down in my neck of the woods, we could use a few more homos at the bars (stricktly pickups for sex, of course. We homos have no interest in them after they did their duty), and so we need to recruit a few more. Surely, out of four boys, we can get one or even two to go gay!
Also, my toaster-oven went kaput, and I need a new one. Much obliged!
posted by Randy R. on
But seriously Conservative Mom, do you know much research you are wasting? Here you are, married to a man, and you surround yourself in a website devoted to gay issues. You in the midst of a whole host of gay men! And who knows better how to properly satisfy a man than a gay man?
Look, whether you give your husband blowjobs or not, you know it wants it, and you know you could do better. Our staff of gay men here at Independent Gay Forum stand ready and willing to give you the advice you need to have your husband never fantasize about Britney or JLo ever again! (Or at least for a few weeks).
Just remember what you conservatives always preach: gay sex is so mindblowingly fantastic that once you experience it, you will never go back to heterosexual sex ever again. (That’s why it’s so easy to convert, you see). So take your own advice and find out exactly WHY it’s always so good, and apply it to your own situation. Believe me, your husband will be so ecstatic over your new-found skills, he’ll brag to everyone at church, and soon your minister will be sending everyone to this website to help their marriages become sexually satisifying once again.
“Praise the Lord for the gays!”
posted by Attmay on
You actually used “The Circle of Life” to justify your unmitigated BS? Now you’re using “The Lion King” to back up bigotry?
Get off this board and stop breeding you no-talent baby factory.
posted by Attmay on
And by the way, your position on homosexuality is IDENTICAL, word for word, to that of Osama bin Laden.
posted by raj on
Randy R. | July 18, 2006, 10:05am |
So why is congress spending time on side issues instead of grappling with the real ones?
probably because they haven’t a clue as to what to do with them, and scaring conservatives moms with six children is a whole lot easier. And it brings in donations.
Correct on both.
Northeast Libertarian | July 20, 2006, 10:26am | #
On the other hand, why delete her (very conservative mother of six’s) posts?
Probably to try to discourage people from responding to what is an obvious troll. For a reason that amazes me, people on the Internet seem to have a genetic pre-disposition to respond to comments by obvious trolls, which diverts attention from the subject matter of the thread to the ravings of the troll. I’ve seen it happen on virtually every message board and comment thread that I’ve observed. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t a complete waste of time and bandwidth.
On the subject matter of the post, regarding Gannon/Guckert’s appearance at the Log Cabin Republicans’ shindig, it seems to me that his appearance says more about LCR than anything about him. Sure, he’s a whore–he proved that with his “journalistic” career. I really don’t give a tinker’s damn whether he is or was a male prostitute, but it is interesting that the people running the Republican party’s “Talon News Agency” (news? hardly) apparently were too stupid to check out who they were hiring. But it strains credulity to even figure out why the LCR would hire him to give a speech at their shindig.
Then again, it strains credulity to figure out why Triangle Media, which operates Washington and NY Blades, Southern Voice, and other properties, would hire him to write columns for them. They must be really hurting to have to resort to such silliness. So must the LCR, for that matter.
posted by raj on
03RUK | July 18, 2006, 12:39pm |
Regarding McGreevy and his resignation:
He prosstituted himself to the Catholic church, his family and the voters to further his political career. Then, when he got caught in numerous political scandals (these are very common in my state), he uses his own shame in his sexual nature as a front to mask the real motive for his resignation.
This is correct, but what I find really obnoxious is the fact that some of the national gay-rights organizations hailed his “coming out,” instead of slamming him for being the hypocrite and crook that he obviously was. He wasn’t gay. He was a heterosexual (actually, he had two children by two successive wives) who had homosexual dalliances on the side. The homosexual dalliances on the side did not make him gay. He gave gay people a bad name, and the national gay-rights organizations should have villified him.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
it strains credulity to figure out why Triangle Media, which operates Washington and NY Blades, Southern Voice, and other properties, would hire him to write columns for them
Well, keep in mind that media these days is all about *creating* the news rather than *reporting* it.
From the ‘War on Christmas” to “Weapons of Mass Destruction” to the “gay marriage debate”, the media anointed itself the kingmaker and newsmaker long ago. Why should it be different for gay media?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Previous post truncated. . .
The media loves contrarian-for-contrarian’s sake homosexuals who bash away at their hated bretheren and represent an “alternative” (which is often all which is presented in the mainstream media). Look at Norah Vincent, Tammy Bruce, Guckert/”Gannon,” etc. for proof of that.
Unfortunately, the smarter alternative libertarian, conservative, moderate, etc. gays rarely get to participate, since a screaming match between Uravshi Vaid and Norah Vincent, followed up with a wink from the newscaster and a coy “aren’t those homos just sooooo cutely nutzo?” gets lots of ratings.
posted by Craig2 on
According to one rather silly female godbot, a Ms. Christine Darg, of the Battalion of Debbies, their deity took objection to a recent Jerusalem Gay Pride march, and so decided to rain missiles down on them Israelis to teach them a lesson.
Oh, and even if Hezbollah does agree with these Pentecostal fringers aabout gay rights, they’re radical Islamists and want the wrong sort of theocracy…
Craig
Wellington
New Zealand