Okay, if I were a betting man, I'd still wager that Obama takes it and the Democrats extend their gains in Congress. But that result isn't anywhere near as certain as before McCain's strategically brilliant (yes, politically speaking, brilliant) selection of Sarah Palin, which unleashed the unvarnished hatred and elitism of the angry left with the predicable result of prodding non-elite America to give the GOP another look.
Not only are some national polls now giving McCain a slight edge (and a slightly bigger lead among likely voters), but according to Gallup the battle for Congress suddenly looks competitive. Per Gallup, "If these numbers are sustained through Election Day-a big if-Republicans could be expected to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives."
Which is to say, the LGBT beltway activists' commitment to a one-party roll of the dice is looking like an even more high-risk proposition that it was a few weeks ago.
Further thoughts. Leaving aside the enthusiasm among African-Americans for the first major-party black presidential nominee, this race increasingly is about the urban/urbane/secular vs. those who aren't. Palin didn't have an abortion. She (like the president they detest) prays for God's guidance (the "religious nut" who proclaims, "I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side"). She doesn't have an Ivy League degree. She, in short, challenges the left's sense of entitlement to rule based on its perceived cultural superiority.
But the LGBT movement is, for all intents and purposes, an appendage of the cultural and political left (for many good historical reasons; primarily being homophobia fueled by religious intolerance and provincial conservatism). Yet, as I've argued, failure to make gaining inroads among conservative-minded independents a key strategy, and instead focusing on achieving victory by and through the hoped-for ascendancy of the political left, has rendered the gay movement deeply vulnerable to the reversals that result when the center-right majority expresses its antipathy toward elite left-progressive opinion (as when majorities vote to overturn the pro-gay decisions of liberal courts).
Two op-eds, worlds apart. B. Dan Blatt of GayPartiot.net on the lack of personal animosity toward gays at the Republican convention (Proud to be a Republican). And Joan Garry, former head of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), attacking gay Republicans (Chickens are voting for Colonel Sanders) and demonstrating why, under her tenure, GLAAD completely failed to reach out to the American center and instead devoted itself to honoring, ad nauseum, the cultural left.
47 Comments for “A Turning Tide?”
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, in the old days they used to call that effect “coattails” and it lead to countless victories for the GOP when they had a seachanging, strong candidate at the top of the ticket.
I hope it’s happening again, but it is way too early to predict –even for pollsters.
posted by ETJB on
(1) How many of these polls are likely voters versus voters? What is their margin of error and how many people were included and what questions were asked?
(2) Yes, Mcain’s VP choice was a brilliant political choice because Palin has the insider media experience to craft an image of a; ‘straight talking, independent minded woman with a common, down home charm’.
Yet the choice was not too surprising, and does not really represent a cultural shift on LGBT-rights.
(3) Few States are competitive in the presidential race and ever fewer Congressional races are competitive. That is generally how members in both parties prefer it.
(4) Unless public opinion changes in certain Congressional districts, for example, then it probably going to be a case — in certain races — of a Republican who goes out of his or her way to be anti-gay and a Democrat who does not go out of his or her way to be ant-gay, but has little interest in gay rights.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET phoned home and got some new talking points –only these aren’t the usual ones from the gayLeft manure pile; these just show a huge deficit in basic political knowledge.
“Few States are competitive in the presidential race and ever fewer Congressional races are competitive. That is generally how members in both parties prefer it.”
Few states? Well, try not to share that with Michigan (which is competitive), Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, Washington (a liberal blue state that has McCain-Palin tied with BarryO’Biden), Missouri (which is going blue for governor by 12-15 points) has tipped to McCain-Palin this week by 5 points, New Mexico where McCain had been trailing is now 3 points to McCain-Palin, Colorado (where Obama had been up by 9 points) is now neck-2-neck and on and on.
I guess by “few states” our alien visitor meant California, Massachusetts and Vermont? Newsflash, ET/RichardJ, by election day nearly every state will have proven to be a key battleground state except for 6-7 which will remain solidly in one party or another’s hand.
As for Congressional races, those are mostly turning on how economic conditions have affected the individual districts… there are 78 Congressional races that are too close to call for pollsters, about 23 governor races and 7 Senate races.
Wow, you ought to rewrite PaulSimon’s song “Don’t know much about history; Don’t know much biology; Don’t know much about the science book; Don’t know much about the French I took”
and you can now add, don’t know much about politics.
And people pay YOU to write? OMG, that’s fraud.
posted by Jorge on
I may have said this before, but I think the appropriateness of a McCain endosement is a toss-up. The only thing I disagree with in Garry’s article is her refusal to recognize that.
And what people seem not to realize time and time again is that you’re going to have gays voting Republican no matter what. I think by the time you get 23% or so of gays voting for Bush in 2004 the gay community has to resign itself to the fact that gay Republicans are going to push LCR in directions many gays don’t like.
I’ve been listening to people calling the left elitist and the media biased for several years now, but I’ve been shocked at the AP’s coverage of Sarah Palin. Very biased, almost ridiculous. They missed a lot of opportunities by attacking her loony caricature that they could have used attacking her far right almost caricature.
posted by Bobby on
McCain made a brilliant choice. He could have picked yet another moderate, or a big bore like Lieberman, or someone without charisma, instead, he picked a woman that millions of men and women can relate with.
"And what people seem not to realize time and time again is that you’re going to have gays voting Republican no matter what"
—Unless a Republican is advocating a crusade against gays, unless he’s a real hardcore homophobe, there’s no reason to fear voting Republican. McCain is not Pat Buchanan!
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Palin’s fitness for office aside, McCain’s choice of her was tactically brilliant. Whether it was strategically brilliant remains to be seen. The state-by-state polls show that the election is a toss-up. The country has been right of center for a long time, and appeals to the proud ignorance of a certain cohort of the electorate are often effective, as McCain & Co. have lately shown.
Speaking of which, notwithstanding the hopes and desires of the left (as distinguished from liberals and centrists), it has not been much political influence in a long time. People love to talk about Nancy Pelosi and her San Francisco values, but her choice for House Majority Leader was John Murtha, and her choice for VP was Chet Edwards. Indeed, to the extent that Democratic congressional campaign strategists have found a winning strategy, it consists of pushing moderate-to-conservative Democrats in moderate-to-conservative districts. So political reality (they already had the progressive districts, which were not enough for control) pulls them to the right despite the fact that the leaders’ own views are more to the left.
Given that the right has more influence and power, it is the excesses of the right that should cause us greater concern. Certain people hereabouts are determined to sidetrack every discussion with personal insults, but the assault on science by the Bush Administration, and its penchant for pushing an educational policy based on ginning up phony controversies and then demanding that schools teach the controversy instead of science, threatens to harm America’s competitiveness. McCain, in choosing Palin, has shown his eagerness to pander to the dominant know-nothing wing of the GOP. I join Steve in regretting the self-marginalization of the gay left as illustrated with regularity by GLAAD. Indeed, I spent a few hours Thursday evening on Sirius Left satellite radio taking apart a self-marginalizing-leftist host from its sister channel, Sirius OutQ. MM cannot appreciate such things because he lumps everyone to his own left together and is too enamored of his own bile. But the counterproductive and self-defeating politics of the far left, given their well-earned lack of political influence, are of less concern to serious Americans at this point than the damage threatened by the far right. (And BTW, I am done trying to conduct a conversation with MM, so he can have the last word.)
posted by ETJB on
Their are many valid points to be critical of almost any organization. People tend to be the ones running organizations and people are not perfect; they have their own prejudices, sterotypes, personal agendas, pettyness, and personal drama.
Blindly following leftist or rightist dogma is probably not a good idea. Yet, people still worship Karl Marx, Ayn Rand, and the media loves to find the most obnixious and emotional leftist and rightist people to put on the air.
GLAAD does a lot of good work and frankly I think we should not confuse working with ‘moderates’ or ‘Independents’ and blindly worshipping the Republican Party. The GOP is not run by moderates and has very few Indepenent ideas or thinkers running the show.
posted by Jorge on
But the counterproductive and self-defeating politics of the far left, given their well-earned lack of political influence, are of less concern to serious Americans at this point than the damage threatened by the far right.
Fair set of points but I cannot agree with them. If Americans fear the far left more than the far right, you have to ask why.
I cannot agree that policies like supporting the teaching of creationism in public schools (to take the most extreme position) is more threatening to American society than such things as punishing wedding photographers who refuse to perform gay weddings. One is a direct attack on liberty and free speech, one is an attempt to impose a religious ideology through democratic means that preserve our rights.
To put it another way, the moral majority can be voted out of office at the drop of a hat, but if the far left wins, because of their methods of silencing dissent, that will be a tyrranical rule that will be much more difficult to shake off.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET phones home from the BarryO’Biden campaign to share this tidbit of partisan nonsense: “The GOP is not run by moderates and has very few Indepenent ideas or thinkers running the show.”
BZZZZZZZZZZT. Wrong-o, my little alien friend.
In a CBS/NYTimes poll of the GOP convention delegates, the delegates –who, as group of political animals (in a good sense) fully understand the political spectrum of liberal-moderate-conservative far, far better than you, a majority of delegates put McCain as being either moderate or liberal on the 3 pt continuum.
Nearly 64% of the delegates said his views paralleled their views.
McCain was elected as the GOP nominee because of overwhelming support of GOP liberals, GOP moderates and political independents in more than 37 states.
Now, what was that partisan nonsense about the “evil GOP” from the guy who sockpuppets for RichardJ on the weekends?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
RichardJ offers, “McCain, in choosing Palin, has shown his eagerness to pander to the dominant know-nothing wing of the GOP.”
This, of course, coming just a sentence or two after his pompous bloviating about how terrible it is that people aren’t willing to give others the benefit of the doubt, not willing to be thoughtful and kind.
And King Richard, taking off the sockpuppet artistry known as ET, declares that McCain-Palin are “appealing” to the “ignorant voters”.
Pompous, inflated windbag wins another one for BarryO.
You really must think about editing some of your spews, King Richard. Those gayLeft Democrat petticoats aren’t a pretty sight on chicken legs like yours.
posted by Mark on
Speaking of “ad nauseum,” Stephen “One-note” Miller repeats last week’s post…. again.
posted by ETJB on
Okay, once again the gay conservatives misreprsent and stereotype what people who are Democrats and or progressive think. While at the same time bein offended when such things are done to them.
Progressives have no problem with religious freedom and or expression. If people want to seek spirtual or moral guidence from God or some other higher power, that is their right. What we are opposed to, is the erosion of Church-State seperation, or the government requiring people to subscribe to a set of religious or sectarian beliefs.
Progressives have no problem with a pregant woman choosing life. We feel that pregannt women have a right to choose to have children or not have children.
By all means; LGBT Republicans should associate and try and persuade their party to change its views on LGT-rights. Yet, the party does not seem too intersted in offending a core group of voters who feel that homosexuality is immoral and ouaught to remain a serious crime.
Socially moderate and libertarian minded Republicans probably support certain gay right issues. At the federal level, these type of GOPers pretty much lost or gave up power to the social conservatives/reactionaries.
For a group like the Log Cabin Republicans to be effective, it has got to figure out a way to get more of these type of GOPers running for office and voting in their primaries.
Otherwise, (with few exceptions) the GOP is simply not going to abandon the ultra-socially conservative voters for gay voters. Period.
Most LGBT voters are NOT going to vote for Republicans, unless they have a more socially liberal or libertarian philosophy. In the free market place of ideas, most gay voters often do not want to buy what the GOP is selling.
If more socially liberal GOPers ran for public office, and rasied more public heck against the religious right, that might change among LGBT people, especially among those who are also white and in the higher income bracket.
My suggestion; the Log Cabin Republicans or some other like-minded group needs to find lots of socially liberal or libertarian Republicans to run for public office, especially at the State and Federal level. They need not be LGBT, although that would help.
So, how about it? How many gay Republicans here, for example, are willing to run for public office?
posted by Rob on
Although gays and lesbians only consist of 5% of voters in total, compared to the 30% of born-again Christians, I just wonder how both groups compare in purchasing power.
ETJB, don’t bother with Michigan-Matt. The way he’s going at it, he’ll just be pushing more moderate and independent gays away from the GOP, despite of his so-called insight that things are changing in his party.
posted by Jorge on
Progressives have no problem with religious freedom and or expression. If people want to seek spirtual or moral guidence from God or some other higher power, that is their right. What we are opposed to, is the erosion of Church-State seperation, or the government requiring people to subscribe to a set of religious or sectarian beliefs.
Progressives have no problem with a pregant woman choosing life. We feel that pregannt women have a right to choose to have children or not have children.
Then, WHY has there been such ridiculous virtriol against Sarah Palin for those very reasons?
Raising insane alarm bells about her church and its supposed associations and wacky beliefs. But is it not her right to believe whatever she chooses? For all that the leftist blogs and the media went into Sarah Palin’s church, how much of the wacky stuff did they find in her history of governance? ONE example highlighted by Time (I think it was Time). Worth arguing over. NOTHING ELSE.
And WHY have there been such vicious rumors and comments surrounding her pregnancy and birth of her fifth child? That it’s really her daughter Bristol’s child? That she’s somehow unfit to be Vice President because she decided to get pregnant at age 43, because she’s raising five children including a special needs child. You know this would not be the case if Sarah Palin were a pro-choice Democrat.
These are NOT actions that speak of a belief in people’s liberty to make their own personal choices. We are talking about people who are trying to punish Sarah Palin for nothing more than her personal life.
Since these are not your beliefs, ETJB, I would like to know what you are doing to challenge those who espouse them.
To answer your question, I do put my money where my mouth is, but I am not a politician.
posted by ETJB on
I have not seen and “virtriol” response against Sarah Palin because she had a baby. Nope. None.
Progressives are not upset that she had a baby, but that she does not feel that other people do not have the same right to have children or not have children that she takes for granted.
Progressives are not upset that she had a disabled baby, but rather that she will use the baby to claim to understand special needs children, to cover up the cuts in disability and child care related social services she will likely back.
Progressives do not just live in ‘urbane’ cities. We live in cities and small towns and everything in between. Many of us are people of faith.
Progressive respect Sarah Palin’s right to religious freedom, and feel that all Americans should have a similar right to chose and express their own religion and to be treated fairly by the government.
‘Wacky’ beliefs? Well, let us see here. Depending on who you ask. She might belong or use to belong to a Church that supports the ex-gay movement and believes that Jewish people are going to hell. I say, that such beliefs are far beyond just being, “ah, sucks wacky”.
Yeah, it is her right to believe what she wants to believe — provided she respects the equal right of others — without GOVERNMENT harassment or discrimination.
The U.S. Constitution does not really have much to say about the rights of candidates, but as long as we have a free press, major party candidates are going to get a light shone on them.
Will Sarah Palin use her position, if elected, to deny religious liberty or equal protection to Americans? Will she ask for privacy for herself, but deny it to others?
Not all of the scrutiny or rumors have come from progressives. Her supposed ties to a fringe third party came from a leader of that particular party and a long-time researcher on third parties and the law.
Many Independents and moderates are having to take a second look at Sarah Palin, in light of the new information.
posted by ETJB on
Being a VP or a Governor is — typically — a full time job.
I do want to know, if you got kids, — be you a man, woman or transgender — who is going to take care of them.
If you are a female candidate and your husband takes care of the kids or you are lucky enough to have the funds to hire a nanny — great! Say so.
posted by Bobby on
“I do want to know, if you got kids, — be you a man, woman or transgender — who is going to take care of them.”
—It’s none of your business, it’s not your family. Plenty of working women, including women in the media, hold high profile jobs and manage to raise their families just fine. I find the sexism appalling. Besides, kids are raised well in all kinds of conditions, some are sent to military boarding schools, some are raised by grandparents, nannies, single-parents, aunts, uncles, etc.
Some people can do it all. And besides, every politician has secretaries, assistants, interns, cabinet members. Do you really think it’s a hard job?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
‘Wacky’ beliefs? Well, let us see here. Depending on who you ask. She might belong or use to belong to a Church that supports the ex-gay movement and believes that Jewish people are going to hell. I say, that such beliefs are far beyond just being, “ah, sucks wacky”.
Let’s see; Barack Obama supports and endorses churches that support the ex-gay movement and himself belongs to a church that supports and endorses those who believe Jewish people are going to hell.
I have not seen and “virtriol” response against Sarah Palin because she had a baby. Nope. None.
Bologna.
I do want to know, if you got kids, — be you a man, woman or transgender — who is going to take care of them.
Funny, never was an issue for you with Obama. Only with Palin.
I say that should be called what it is.
posted by Rob on
Say NDT, since you’re here, there’s something serious I’d like to ask you. From what you’ve stated previously, you live in California, so I’m wondering what have you done to oppose proposition 8. Yesterday, I scanned your blog for proposition 8, and nothing came up, unlike BoiFromTroy who writes about it consistently,encourages people to donate to organizations opposing it, and of course to vote no. What about you? Have you been talking with your religious conservative friends about opposing proposition 8? Have you done anything to oppose proposition 8? If not, why?
posted by ETJB on
If you are running for public office it my business, to the extent it involves a question of the ability of the candidate — male, female or transgender — to balance their famiily with their job.
It is really a simple question to answer and if privacy is your concern, public service is probably not your must ideal career choice. If you got kids and want to enter public life, great! Your ability to balance the two — with a spouse, partner, extended family and or a hired help — helps us — the voter know that you can manage being a politican with your family life.
It certainly was an issue for Obama and it would be for the various Independent and minor party candidates, if they were viable choices. Obama skillfully shared with the general public enough about his family so that we knew he can balance his job with his family.
Obama has made it clear that he does not support the prejudical comments of his pastor, Palin and McCain seem leery of publically rebuking the prejudical comments from their CHurch or major religious supporters.
Palin has a professional background in media, and in public service. She should know how to make her views clear to the voters. She could very easily grant an interview where he talked about her views on people of different faiths or about gay people, etc.
posted by Bobby on
“If you are running for public office it my business, to the extent it involves a question of the ability of the candidate — male, female or transgender — to balance their famiily with their job.”
—That question is never asked of male politicians and even liberal women politicians. Nancy Pelosi has 5 kids, where’s the outrage about her being speaker of the house? A job with a lot more hours than that of the vice president.
posted by Robert Funk on
So Sarah Palin doesn’t have a degree from an Ivy League school. Well, neither does Joe Biden–he went to the Univ. of Delaware, and his law degree is from Syracuse U, not an Ivy League school. George W. Bush, on the other hand, has degrees from two Ivy League schools and his father, who was Reagan’s VP, also had an Ivy League. So who is redefining what for whom?
posted by Pat on
—That question is never asked of male politicians and even liberal women politicians. Nancy Pelosi has 5 kids, where’s the outrage about her being speaker of the house? A job with a lot more hours than that of the vice president.
Bobby, I agree with you about the double standard here regarding women. Even if it was Obama with five children, including an infant with special needs, the issue about who is taken care of the kids would not be asked of him. Regarding Nancy Pelosi, whether or not being Speaker is more work than being VP, if she was running for VP, she would have been asked the same questions about the children, especially if one of them was an infant.
posted by Pat on
As for the religion, I think too much is being made out of it from both sides. Belonging to a church that has certain immoral beliefs does not mean that the person shares the same beliefs, and more importantly, does not mean that these beliefs will shape their policies regarding these issues. For example, I know a lot of Catholics who do not buy into all of the Catholic doctrine, especially regarding gay rights and birth control.
So forget about the churches, the flag pins, or whatever other irrelevant, but hyperbolic, nonsense that comes up. What are these candidates public positions on these policies?
posted by MIchigan-Matt on
ET writes: “By all means; LGBT Republicans should associate and try and persuade their party to change its views on LGT-rights.”
Well, I guess if the gayDemocrats here actually believed that, it’d be terrific.
But they don’t; in the face of facts, reason and truth, they’ll cling to their talking points like… like… well, do we really need to channel BarryO’s San Francisco moment about clinging?
When taken to task in another thread over the gayDemocrats’ claim that “Sarah Palin’s church is anti-gay”, they learned she wasn’t a member, the Pastor ran the ad to help advance understanding within his chruch because he was concerned about the lack of commpassion evinced by some of his flock, and the “support” proving the church was anti-gay was 1 ad out of 67 run in that bulletin. There were no buses being lined up to force gays to attend, they are no gay concentration camps in Alaska.
Then, when facts and reason got in the way of their claims, the gayDemocrats here said “It doesn’t matter. She’s anti-gay anyway”.
When the gayDemocrats here tried to infect this blog with the whacked gayLeft claim that Mayor Palin tried to ban books like Harry Potter and pro-gay books, they learned she never banned a single book, she asked the librarian a simple administrative question if the city-employee got a request from a citizen, how would she respond.
Of course, we also learned that the list those gayDemocrats offered included books that weren’t even published when Palin was mayor… but let’s not let facts get in the way. The gayDemocrats said “Well, she’d would have tried to ban books, that’s what all those religious types want. Just like Nazis.”
When the gayDemocrats carried the water for the DemocratLeft with the nonsense about Palin “wanting the schools to teach Creationism” in science class, it turned out that Palin didn’t want anything of the sort and it isn’t a part of the mandated science curriculum in Alaska. Turns out, she said she hoped that teachers would engage in an honest, forthright debate about Intelligent Design and the Theory of Evolution if a question arose in class –and treat the discussion with respect. I don’t agree with IntelligentDesign advocates, but I can tell you as a former science teacher, what I believe personally is immaterial when it comes to treating all students with respect and decency in the classroom… and that’s all that 5-time Mom and Governor Palin wanted in Alaska’s classrooms. gayDemocrats here would like us to believe it’s the choice of religion vs science; which, of course, is a false choice.
Whether it’s the gayDemocrats spurious claims that Palin’s church is anti-gay, Palin banned books, Palin wants to force IntelligentDesign on science teachers, Palin cut special needs funding in schools or Palin tried to drown her child in a hotel bath tub… it’s all blather and calculated misrepresentations.
Just like the latest anti-McCain ad by the BarryO’Biden campaign that takes aim at his physical handicap by projecting the notion that he’s so old, he can’t even send emails. The gayDemocrats forget that when you’ve had your arms, shoulder blades, hands and wrists broken in torture by VietCong thugs, it’s hard to hold them level and type emails on a keyboard… and still get all that you need to get accomplished in a day as a Congressman, Senator or prez hopeful.
The gayDemocrats here keep on carrying the waterpail for the Democrat Masta and proving they’re beyond reach when it comes to embracing reason, facts or relevant truth. For them, it’s “He’s too old, she’s evil and BarryO’s whispered promises are worth far more… just forget Kerry’s whispers, Gore’s whispers, Clinton’s whispers, etc.”
It’d be great if the gayDemocrats here actually believed some of their lofty claims of tolerating diversity of opinions in politics, but the truth is they don’t want anything of the sort. They want to continue their monopoly over gayVotes and hegemony of our gay culture.
Like this claim from ET “Palin has a professional background in media, and in public service. She should know how to make her views clear to the voters. She could very easily grant an interview where he talked about her views on people of different faiths or about gay people, etc.”
But she did. And she answered and explained to CharlieGibson. And, to you and other gayDemocrats here, it didn’t matter because you’re stuck carrying the waterpail for the Democrats and you can’t be seen thinking outside the box.
It’s a shame that the very people who hyped the “We’re the one we’ve been waiting for” can’t seem to get out of the politics of personal destruction that was trademarked by SlickWilly.
What a sham.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Well, I guess I’ll break my pledge to respond to another cynical comment by MM. He suggests that my observation about “the dominant know-nothing wing of the GOP” is a personal insult. In fact, it is simply a description of the GOP’s aggressive know-nothingism as exemplified by my comment in the previous sentence that “the assault on science by the Bush Administration, and its penchant for pushing an educational policy based on ginning up phony controversies and then demanding that schools teach the controversy instead of science, threatens to harm America’s competitiveness.”
It is a nice try for MM, who appears to be delighted with what the GOP is doing, to attack others for pointing it out. But even MM surely recognizes the differences between criticizing a political party for a well-established pattern of behavior (an example of which is cited) and lobbing personal insults at an individual–insults that are not at all necessary to make his point. Further nastiness from MM, which is as reliable as the sun rising in the morning, will not change the observable fact that I have been far more restrained and civil than he. But yes, of course, what I just wrote is immediately negated if fighting back against such nastiness truly negates it. But taking that position amounts to setting up the rules in a way that automatically hands victory to the most unprincipled boor in any discussion. And that, judging by McCain’s campaign, is a key part of the GOP playbook in this election. Well, those of us who are appalled by what the GOP is doing to this country ARE going to fight back. In fighting the slime, one inevitably gets slime on oneself. We will clean ourselves up later, but the GOP this cycle has made it plain that slime is its main product. Pointing out this fact does not make me a Rovian myself. But again, if you’re saying so over and over again makes it true, then sure. I only hope that enough voters see through the Republican lies and smears. What is amazing is that McCain does precisely what he accuses Obama of doing–putting his personal ambition ahead of the national interest.
posted by ETJB on
M&M/S&M/Richard II;
There is big difference between trying to change the GOP and blindly voting for candidates who are totally, 100%, opposed to LGBT rights.
Saran Palin herself has refused to publicly state what Church she did and does belong to. McCain was equally coy about it. They can easily clear this entire matter up with an interview or a press conference.
Setting aside her Church membership or its support of an ex-gay group, she opposes giving same-sex couples ANY legal rights. She is not saying, “Well I oppose SSM, but support civil unions (Obama) or even DP benefits. If she walks like a duck, talks like a duck…
Palin did grant an interview, but she did not clear these issues up and was not really sure what the Bush doctrine was.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET offers: “There is big difference between trying to change the GOP and blindly voting for candidates who are totally, 100%, opposed to LGBT rights.”
Well, I didn’t know that either McCain or Palin were “totally, 100%, opposed to LGBT rights.” I know that McCain’s view on the #1 gayLeft agenda item, namely gay marriage, was substantially the same as BarryO’s. But isn’t BarryO’Biden the team for gays??? Yeah, I thought I’d heard that rumor somewhere…. except on the gayLeft’s #1 issue.
LCRs? Of course, ET, you need to maintain that the LCRs represent an evil “chickens voting for Col Saunders” kind of mentality when all I pointed out was the LCRs had little standing within the GOP because they were willingly co-opted by the same kind of political hegemonists that Stephen Miller points to in this thread’s article. But, then, you can’t really handle facts and keep an eye on those gayDemocrat talking points, can you?
You say “McCain is equally coy about what church he belongs to”… not true, but don’t let the facts get in the way of your waterpail carrying duties for the gayDemocrats. McCain’s been going to NP Baptist for about 14 years now… he does it in a low key manner. His pastor has been pressing him to be more public in his testaments while in church, which McCain, he says, isn’t comfortable with… and that may be more about generational perspectives than an unwillingness to see God’s redemptive force even in guys like you, ET. McCain hasn’t done the full immersion adult baptism that this sect of Baptist Church natl requires… but that’s true of nearly 70% of the adults in the congregation who consider that church home for them. Frankly, if I had to do a full adult immersion to “prove” myself as a member, I doubt I’d do that for the same reasons.
And, really ET, can anyone –even you– doubt the sincerity of McCain’s or Palin’s faith? Comparing their faith to BarryO’s strangely non-Christian “faith”… which sounds a lot more like faith in self, not in God… or Biden’s ConvenientCafeteriaCatholism is like comparing the strength of stainless steel to wet pasta… Barryo’Biden lose widely and wildly in that comparison.
Frankly, we all know that with guys like you and the fevered crowd on the gayLeft, it doesn’t matter what McCain or Palin say, you’ll take the smallest point and try to bat it into major controversy… like you’ve done with Palin’s loving acceptance of gays, Palin’s role as a Mom, McCain’s war record –which some on the gayLeft have called a fabrication given that he wasn’t a combat pilot but just an unlucky bomber anonymously dropping horrors down on innocent people from the relative safety of 28,000 ft– and countless other issues.
The simple truth is that McCain and Palin both worship regularly in a church and think of God as an important force in their lives. Your side, on the other hand, thinks of God as an evil oppressor of our true gay character… a restraint on your free, unfettered expression of self.
Like I’ve tried to point out to some of the IGF writers here (hint: Catholic bigot King Richard) God isn’t a problem for gays and we shouldn’t demean our gay brethern who attend, worship or believe in something greater than self and ego.
The issue remains, Sarah Palin and McCain represent a seachange moment within the GOP –they’re both there because of the heavy influence of moderates, liberals and independents in the GOP open state primaries. The GOP convention was sans anti-gay rhetoric. The GOP campaign isn’t going to use gay marriage to beat anyone over the head, except for the fakery of gayDemocrats backing BarryO. And McCain took a highly public, natl moment on 9/11 to singularly pay tribute to a gay American hero… and that’s got the fevered gayLeft and gayDemocrats foaming. And guys like you claiming that Mark Bingham was a turncoat traitor to all that is LiberallyGay.
I guess it’s to be expected. When the rats discover the ship is moving away from the dock, they’ll eat each other to get down the ropes and back on dry land. You’re really no different.
It is a culture shift and a turning tide. The LCRs endorsement of McCain-Palin help it along. McCain and Palin’s attitude of acceptance and welcome to gays prove it.
Now, if the gayDemocrats really want to strike a blow for gay civil rights and move the GOP further to the center and moderation toward gays, they’ll help the GOP land a knock-ou punch to the religiousRight within the Party by helping us elect McCain-Palin.
It’s a worthy cause greater than one’s self.
And you won’t be throwing away your vote on another losing Democrat team on gay civil rights… like you did with Kerry-Edwards, Gore-Liberman, Clinton-Gore, Dukakis-Bensten or Mondale-Ferarro.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
King Richard pontificates from his high horse: “Well, those of us who are appalled by what the GOP is doing to this country ARE going to fight back. In fighting the slime, one inevitably gets slime on oneself. We will clean ourselves up later, but the GOP this cycle has made it plain that slime is its main product.”
King Richard, before climbing up on that high horse of yours, you might want to make sure the cinch is tied first…
http://horses.about.com/od/choosingandusingtack/ss/tiecinch.htm
it saves you from looking like a fool and falling off the horse again. I gotta add, between you and your new sockpuppet ETJB, you guys are all hat, no cattle… and no cinch.
You complained that the Bush WH was trying to force religion into the science classroom and your sockpuppets here have tried to lay that same charge on Sarah Palin.
No one is trying to force religion into the classroom. In Alaska’s case, the Governor wanted to underscore for science teachers and administrators that if or when a question arises in classes on the Theory of Evolution, that they treat with respect a student’s question about Intelligent Design. Take the moment to teach both, debate honestly, inform students –not indoctrinate them.
To you, King Richard, there’s no difference between inform and indoctrinate since you have assigned yourself the role of enforcer of the OneTrueGayCreed.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
As a candidate for Governor, Palin pledged not to push for changes in Alaska’s curriculum. And she didn’t.
As a parent with kids in public school, she has NOT –that’s a NOT, King Richard– met with the kids’ school staff and demanded equal footing in science class for Intelligent Design and the Theory of Evolution.
I guess, King Richard, what you really want is a Democrat to be elected NO MATTER WHAT THE TANGENTIAL OR ANCILLARY EFFECT ON GAY CIVIL RIGHTS… because you are a Democrat partisan and you want a Democrat in the WH.
Which is great. I want a GOPer.
Just quit trying to use the gay civil rights movement to buttress your partisan self-interest.
It’s as easy and honest as that. Or can’t you see that from your mighty, whitey high horse?
Gosh, I wish I had a nickel for every time some self-absorbed liberal Leftie tried to tell the world why THEIR right is the correct right and the only right answer.
Come to think of it, isn’t that exactly what links you to BarryO… this pompous, self-absorbed fixation on enforcing your world view on everyone else?
Whoops, you sort of sound like the GayLeft complaining about farRight religious whackjobs… could that be the Oslo Syndrome? (wink).
Check your cinch, King Richard, you keep falling off that mighty, whitey high horse of yours.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
King Richard contends: “(And BTW, I am done trying to conduct a conversation with MM, so he can have the last word.)”
And then, King Richard, loses his grip on the mighty, whitey high horse he’s been a’ridin and falls to Earth… by posting another incoherent blather of a defense of gayDemocrats hoeing da’row for da’Masta.
King Richard, I -on the other hand- have no problem leaving the last word to others as I demonstrated here and elsewhere often… even when it meant giving you the last word in a haranguing diatribe of Catholic bigotry and religion bashing.
It’s ok, King, sometimes the subjects are far better men than the divinely-elected leadership of the realm.
posted by ted on
Fortunately not all of the gay eggs are in one box, a surprisingly large number of us are LCR, and aside from intelligently endorsing McCain, which his campaign manager accepted right there at the NRConv, we actively work with the most conservative senators and representatives, patiently and effectively representing our reasoning and beleifs aobut the origins of our sexuality in a very non threateneing and respectful way – so much so in fact that LCR got the marriage ammendment k’o’d. So much for Rules For Radicals. Decent people, gays especially, are fighting back at the senseless hate-filled rhetoric of the so-called radicals, working for real change with people, instead of trying to dominate and enslave.
posted by Jorge on
I have not seen and “virtriol” response against Sarah Palin because she had a baby. Nope. None.
Pay closer attention to politics.
I can’t improve on NorthDallasThirty’s and Bobby’s responses here. Have you changed your mind about the double standard and the vitriol? What do you plan to do to improve the situation? Right now you are enabling it.
It seems to me that, whether you want to admit it or not, you do have a problem with Sarah Palin’s religious beliefs and her personal life choices, and you think they are negative references on her qualifications for the job of vice president. You are justifying investigating and questioning Palin on topics that should be off-limits.
posted by Bobby on
“Regarding Nancy Pelosi, whether or not being Speaker is more work than being VP, if she was running for VP, she would have been asked the same questions about the children, especially if one of them was an infant.”
—I disagree, the right debates people on the issues. The right would attack her for her gun control votes, for radical things she has said, for her anti-war beliefs, but they would never attack her for being a mother and having 5 kids.
The left isn’t interested in debate, they’re interested in agreement. If you don’t believe me, look at the attacks against college professors that don’t believe in global warming. Al Gore simply said “the debate is over” and that’s that. Franky, it’s very easy to be a leftist when every major program on TV and every major newspaper supports you. I can’t even enjoy pseudo-libertarian Bill Maher anymore, can’t enjoy The Daily Show, can’t stand Larry King. Other than ABC’s John Stossel and Fox News, all the media is leftist.
That’s why when Hillary Clinton complained of the sexism against her campaign, even the left turned against her with such vitriol that even Rush Limbaugh started defending Hillary!
And forget about Geraldine Ferraro, her liberal credentials are over. Never mind that she supports abortion, affirmative action, and every other liberal policy. She dared to speak the truth about sexism, and now she’s persona non-gratta anywhere else but Fox News.
posted by BobN on
“Now, if the gayDemocrats really want to strike a blow for gay civil rights and move the GOP further to the center and moderation toward gays, they’ll help the GOP land a knock-ou punch to the religiousRight within the Party by helping us elect McCain-Palin.”
Hah! You are priceless. Palin has energized the religious right. She’s their pick.
Frankly, I’m surprised you don’t go one step further and, in the words of your new political hero, urge us to “get right with God”. For the sake of the country, of course. Hey, if it would work for a pipeline, imagine what it could do for the national debt!
posted by BobN on
Aren’t Nancy Pelosi’s children in their 30s???
posted by BobN on
I stand corrected. They’re in their 40s, except one who turns 40 next year.
Turning 40 was kinda tough for me. I can see why she might need her mommy….
posted by Craig2 on
As someone who had a ‘special needs’/intellectually disabled cousin, I applaud Ms Palin’s decision to bring her pregnancy to term.
However, what makes you think that pro-choicers (left *or* right) would condemn her choice to do so? I’m getting rather tired of generalisations made about the pro-choice side of the abortion debate.
Yes, there are libertarian pro-choicers. Yes, there are pro-choicers who have intellectually disabled relatives, and yes, if someone makes that choice, they are entitled to as much organisational *and* governmental support to help to bring up their child as they need.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Michigan-Matt on
BobN joins the drive by potshooters with: “Hah! You are priceless. Palin has energized the religious right. She’s their pick.”
Maybe I am priceless, BobN; I guess that’s better than the few trinkets of silver the Democrats had to pay to get gayDemocrats wildly ecstastic about their candidate’s mumbled reference to hosptial visits as a gay civil rights action item.
Nawh, the truth is that the gayLeft and gayDemocrats here could help moderate, progressive and independents strike a blow to the religiousRight’s influence in the GOP by helping McCain-Palin win.
Of course, if the gayDemocrats here can accept a candidate who doesn’t support gay marriage, anything’s possible. Eh?
posted by Robert Funk on
I’m a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight (pardon the expression)…..
* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you’re “exotic, different.”
* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.
* If your name is Barack you’re a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you’re a maverick.
* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you’re well grounded.
* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black Presid ent of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate’s Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran’s Affairs committees, you don’t have any real leadership experience.
* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you’re qualified to become the country’s second highest ranking executive.
* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you’re not a real Christian.
*If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you’re a Christian.
* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state’s school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you’re very responsible.
* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family’s values don’t represent America’s.
* If you’re husband is nicknamed “First Dude”, with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn’t register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
OK, much clearer now
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Robert, glad you’ve got that new pair of BarryO’Biden blinders firmly tied to your head… you’ll need them for the bumpy ride downhill over the next 50 days.
Wow –what a long ride downhill from the projected high this summer by DNC Chair ScreaminHowieDean of at least 30-35 points for “our guy (BarryO) in a year that “easily favors any Democrat”… to now potentially losing Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania –where they still cling to the guns and religion– and being vulnerable in New York and new Jersey??? Yeow, that slide is going to bumpy, Robert. Tie on those blinders of yours.
Of course, you could just be like RichardJRosendall here and complain that if BarryO’Biden loses it’ll be because of those stupidly simple-minded voters who couldn’t see “… through the Republican lies and smears” and the ungrateful “Hillary Clinton supporters”.
posted by Jorge on
It’s not all crazy politics, Robert Funk.
I notice you didn’t say a single negative thing about Palin in your post.
posted by Bobby on
“If you’re husband is nicknamed “First Dude”, with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn’t register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.”
—A lot more Americans can relate to that
than to a so-called genious who edited the Harvard Law review and graduated from that college. Secession? Southerners are gonna love that! Even today there are southerners who would be happy to see Dixie rise again. In fact, many states have secession movements, including Texas and I think Vermont. DWI? Remember this country elected a former pothead (Bill Clinton) and a former coke-freak (George W. Bush). A DWI is perfectly excusable.
In fact, Obama himself tried crack, cocaine and pot. Seriously, a DWI is a joke compared to the things other politicians have done.
posted by Mike A. on
"But the LGBT movement is, for all intents and purposes, an appendage of the cultural and political left"
Let’s parse that statement: "LGBT movement" includes IGF, LCR, GLAA, and GLIL, as well as comparatively moderate pundits such as Andrew Sullivan, Chris Crain, and possibly Doug Ireland. Strangely, none of the aforementioned organizations receives much in the way of donations — does Stephen Miller really mean "money" instead of "movement"?
"Cultural and political left" could hardly be a broader, vaguer, or more pejorative description of anyone who values individual freedom, efficient government operation of infrastructure and emergency services, freedom of small businesses from the tyranny of state corporatism (think AIG, Fannie Mae), equal opportunity (not quotas) for people who are born into working-class or alternative families, and fiscally responsible conflict resolution. I don’t find the word choices within these vague generalizations to be either informative or enlightening.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, other evidence of “turning the tide” within the GOP can be found in an interview day before yesterday of Veep 2nd Lady, Lynne Cheney.
She was asked by Harry Smith of ABC, a guy who appears to have problems getting out the word “gay” in a question to Lynne Cheney, if Mrs Cheney wished that her daughter Mary should have the privilege to marry like George Takei and Brad Altman.
http://www.georgetakei.com/
Lynne, just like her hubbie, said forcefully and strongly that the freedom to marry and be happy is a freedom that ought to extend to all Americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g44yDTwo9oI&feature=user
We often hear on IGF, especially from the gayLeft and gayDemocrat apologists, how evil the GOP is and it’s no secret that the farLeft loathes Mr Cheney for his unparalleled defense of American safety, the military and conservative principles.
But here we are, in the midst of a campaign in which there is no difference between the two leading candidates on the #1 issue of gay marriage, and we’ve had a staunch, proud advocate inside the White House for 8 years with little support or recognition from the gay community for Cheney’s position.
Lynne reminds Harry Smith that her hubbie made his opinion on gay marriage very clear during the 2000 Veep debates.
It’s too bad neither BarryO nor McCain can make such a forceful, honest statement about the value of freedom and its application to all -gay, str8 or inbetween.
The other thing is that Harry Smith must be pulling for the smae award for condescending sneers that went last week to Charlie Gibson in his pompous “gotcha” game with Gov Sarah Palin.
Listen to the dismissive derision in Harry Smith’s uberLiberal “uh-huh” when Lynne answers his attempt at gotcha.
posted by ETJB on
Trust me, the question of being able to balance your family life and your career IS asked of male politicns and liberal, pro-chocie women. To suggest otherwise is just a bold face lie that should get you kicked out of the no-spin zone.
Yes, the question may be asked differently, and some of that is sexism, but not all of it. Male candidates have traditionally used their family as part of their campaign; to present a “traditional, wholesome, nuclear family image.” Thus the question gets asked and answered. Note that a male candidate who is single or going through a divorce is probably at a slight disadvantage.
Yet, it should be noted that the U.S. Constitution has no real mention of any sort of ‘candidacy rights’ nor do most state constitutions. Few women are in the upper power positions of the mass media. Hence, if their was blatant sex discrimination, their is little that could be done about it.
Yet, not all of it is sexism. When you have a hardcore anti-feminist suddenly living a feminist life-style (i.e. she goes off to work and the husband stays home) people are going to take notice of that and wonder if its hypocritical.
Likewise, its great that Palin decided to have and keep her special needs child, but that does not excuse what she does or does not do in terms of government aid to special needs/disabled people and their families.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET, my long-fingered alien botanist, you need to stick to collecting plants and focus on catching that ride back home.
You can claim just about anything you want to believe is a good defense of the oft’times sexist treatment Sarah Palin has received at the hands of the biased MSM and gayLeft and Democrat bloggers… but the simple truth is that BarryO’s team –and BarryO specifically– has engaged in sexist, demeaning treatment of women throughout the campaign… and they keep doing it with Sarah Palin’s entry now. BarryO: (paraphrase) “Now lookie here, sweetie, we’re going to take care of those questions a little later” to a professional, female journalist.
HillaryClinton and hundreds of thousands of PUMAs will cite chapter and verse for you, if you visit their sites.
The very 1st question in the CharlieGibson interview of Palin brings the issue into screaming technicolor.
The very first press conference after BarryO announced his exploratory committee in Oct 2007, no concerned questions about the vast hole he’d be creating in his family… no questions about whether or not he could be a Dad and still run a tough race… no question about is he a fit Dad because if he wasn’t, he shouldn’t be running for Prez.
When BarryO announced in Springfield on that cold clear weekend day in February of this year, not a single word about his family or his wife, not a word about how the kids will get to school or tap class or Brownies. Not a single word in his speech –none, nada, nothing about his family and what social networks he and his wife had put into place to protect the girls and make sure the family weathered the race.
And the first press conference that followed his historic announcement, were these “grave and serious” concerns mentioned? Nope… just a lot of questions about dividing the Party by challenging Hillary Clinton.
Were the questions asked of Bill Richardson?
Nope.
Were the questions asked of JoeyBiden?
Nope.
Were the questions asked of Chris Dodd?
Nope.
Were the questions asked of John Edwards?
Nope.
Were the questions even asked of the fattest non-candidate in the race this year, namely Al”SaveUs”Gore?
Nope.
Look, my long fingered botanist friend, I’m not suggesting these questions should even be asked… but when it’s done just to the female candidates, it’s sexist. When it’s done like CharlieGibson did it to Sarah Palin, it’s offensively sexist and to think that someone like you, who contends he’s in favor of gay civil rights, would condone and excuse that kind of conduct just shows us how far astray you’ll wander in order to rationalize anti-feminist sentiments like you express here.
Honest, you need to focus on the catching the ride back home, ET.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET phones in this zinger: “When you have a hardcore anti-feminist suddenly living a feminist life-style”
You have GOT to be kidding??? You have the gall to describe Sarah Palin as a hard-core anti-feminist or her life now as “feminist”??
Hey, ET, lesson for you. Sarah Palin is an avid outdoors enthusiast. She’s an athlete. She’s a hard working Mom and got into politics to improve her community –not like Biden, who got into politics because he was insufferably bad at practicing law but a real good draft dodger.
Take off your partisan hack blinders and get a message that hasn’t invaded even BarryO’s thick skull yet: women in America who achieve greatness don’t have to be feminists. And they don’t have to be anti-feminists. They are just women.
Just like with gays. We don’t all have to be gay militants or gayDemocrat lefties to be gay.
Sometimes, ET/RichardJ or whomever, you really are incredibly dense. Incredibly.