There are signs that, as is usual in non-presidential year congressional elections, the party in power (the Democrats) are headed toward losing a substantial number of seats in 2010. Respected pollster Charles Cook provides this analysis.
Given the Democrats' misdirected spending binge, yielding trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, and their bumbling efforts to fix the nation's banking crisis, it's likely the GOP could retake the House and pick up several seats in the Senate, robbing the Democrats of their near filibuster-proof super-majority.
Which is just to say, this may be a quickly passing moment when the Democrats have near-supreme power with the White House and Congress. If we are ever going to get the party that gay people have chosen to fund and support to do anything substantial on our behalf - with repealing don't ask, don't tell and the Defense of Marriage Act at the top of the legal-equality agenda - now is the time.
As we get closer to 2010, the Democrats are going to get increasingly hesitant to raise our issues. This is it; and if "it" doesn't happen, that means the Democrats get to fundraise on our issues for years to come, while we get to write them checks while listening to campaign rhetoric about how inclusive they are.
More. In the comments, "avee" responds to "BoBN" thusly:
BobN: For folks who constantly complain about the "trough" of Democrat-led government, you sure complain loudly when the slop isn't doled out pronto!
Avee: No, Bob, I'm not asking for billions, er, trillions in taxpayers' money; just equal rights under the law. See, I'm not a Democrat. Just asking for equal legal rights.
36 Comments for “Clock Ticking on Democrats’ Hegemony”
posted by Bobby on
Remember when the democrats where complaining about republicans wasting too much money? Remember when THEY where talking about fiscal responsibility?
Obama is making things worse! The American people are slowly realizing they have elected a charlatan and a phony. Everything Obama touches turns to shit.
Sara Pallin would be doing a great job if she was president. And someday, she will be.
posted by avee on
Where was the outcry from the professional activists when Obama made no mention of gay issues in his State of the Union address, while delivering a laundry list of new big-government initiatives? As Steve has noted before, one of Obama’s first moves was to pay back women’s groups by signing a lawsuit-promoting wage gender parity bill. HRC’s Joe Solmonese was invited to attend the signing. That’s what we got for our support!
posted by BobN on
For folks who constantly complain about the “trough” of Democrat-led government, you sure complain loudly when the slop isn’t doled out pronto!
It’s been two freakin’ months.
As for “wage gender parity”, don’t you remember that a lot of gay people are lesbians?
posted by Carl on
Hasn’t Stephen Miller been saying for years that Democrats will not work for gay rights? And now, a few highly questionable polls come out and it’s time to tell us that Republicans are coming back and Democrats better start moving on gay issues? I’m sure you don’t believe they will. I think this post would have been better if it had just focused on Democrats losing control of Congress and not even brought up gay legislation. I think that part felt very tacked on.
And of course this brings up the question in that why, even when the GOP are at a low point and many of their traditional allies like the NRA and Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street have started supporting more Democrats, they still continue to not make any effort to get the votes of gays. It can’t be because we don’t support the GOP enough, because they are still working hard to get the votes of black voters, Latino voters, in spite of their stronger and stronger movement towards the Democrats. Indeed, the RNC chair was elected in large part because he was black, and elected with the help of moderate Republicans, and what do we get in response? We’re told that civil unions go against the foundation of America.
If we really do believe that Republicans are going to get Congress back, then maybe we should talk more about expecting some of the support from them that they’re willing to show to other groups that have been far less supportive of them than gay voters have been.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It can’t be because we don’t support the GOP enough, because they are still working hard to get the votes of black voters, Latino voters, in spite of their stronger and stronger movement towards the Democrats.
One, black voters alone are probably three to five times the number of gay voters, with Latinos being an even larger proportion.
Two, black and Latino voters have demonstrated that they can vote on issues other than their minority status, while gay voters have demonstrated rather the opposite.
Three, related to Two, gay and lesbian voters have demonstrated that they vote, not based on actions or behaviors, but solely on political affiliation. After all, when gay organizations support and endorse FMA supporters and state constitutional amendments, and when gays fully support and endorse a Party head who discriminates against gays in employment as did Howard Dean, then really, it makes it obvious that the only way Republicans could ever attract gay voters is to change their party affiliation.
Four, given the witch-hunting and hatemongering that the gay community carries out against gay Republicans and conservatives, such as wishing death on their children and trying to get them fired from their jobs, it makes it patently obvious that gays want nothing to do with Republicans at all.
Hence, no need to waste the effort and money.
posted by Bobby on
“It’s been two freakin’ months.”
—Yes, and Obama has “accomplished” a lot in those two freakin’ months.
Republicans who are going “moderate” are traitors to the party and are lacking common sense. Bush NEVER governed by polls, he didn’t make decisions based on mob mentality. Just because people are angry with the economy doesn’t mean we have to destroy capitalism and let the government decide what wages and bonuses private companies can give their employees.
Suze Ormon has a wonderful segment called “Can I afford it?” I would love have Obama call her show and ask if we can afford Obama’s spending bill.
Even she would have to scream: DENIED! You cannot afford it!
And I’m sick of hearing the democrats saying that fixing this economy is gonna take 2 years or more. If they’re so smart, then they would know that the only way to fix the economy is this.
1. Lower corporate taxes and income taxes in a significant way. Not 5%, not 10%, 50%! Lower taxes brings properity which allows the government to collect more taxes. That’s how Bush got us out of the recession after 9/11.
2. Stop bailing out bad industries. Banks where given billions and they’re not lending, AIG instead of declaring chapter 11 and not paying bonuses, took money and paid bonuses which where under contract.
3. Don’t sign spending bills if they’re not perfect. If it’s full of pork and measures that don’t work, then it’s not perfect, so return it to congress and have them fix it.
4. Lower capital gains instead of increasing them. Investing in the stock market has become a gamble, raising capital gains discourages people to take that risk. This is elementary.
posted by Jorge on
Two, black and Latino voters have demonstrated that they can vote on issues other than their minority status, while gay voters have demonstrated rather the opposite.
That’s ridiculous. FIVE percent of blacks voted for McCain, vs. 27% of gays and 31% of Hispanics. As for Latino vs. gay voters, contrast these results from 2004, where the party and/or candidate had a much different reputation on key gay and Latino issues, and you find Latinos dropped their support (by 12%) a lot more than gays increased their support (4%).
Getting back to seriousness (sheesh!), look, so far the Obama administration and super-Democratic congress are doing a bleak job at the same time they running a leftist government. This is why the fact that we are third priority in Democratic governments means we may as well be not on the agenda at all. We just are not politically powerful.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Steve, you might say that the Democrats are the worst party on gay issues, except for all the others.
ND30 wrote, “given the witch-hunting and hatemongering that the gay community carries out against gay Republicans and conservatives, such as wishing death on their children and trying to get them fired from their jobs, it makes it patently obvious that gays want nothing to do with Republicans at all.”
“The gay community” has of course done no such thing. ND30 routinely blames the entire gay community for any terrible thing he can find any gay person or group doing. And he ignores the fact, previously noted, that one-fourth of self-identified gay voters consistently vote Republican. All that aside, it’s bizarre to fault gays for not being more enthusiastic about a party that has had us squarely in its crosshairs for years.
As for Steve’s swipe about the Democrats’ “spending binge,” Alan Wolfe writes in the latest issue of The New Republic: “Conservatives seem to think that any increase in the size of government means a step toward socialism. But, if this is the case, then George W. Bush ought to come out of the closet as a socialist. It is not just that Bush spent uncountable sums on his Iraqi adventure. Nor is it that he put Keynes to shame by spending money he did not have. Bush, at least at the start of his presidency, wanted to be known for his compassion and sponsored reforms of both Medicare and education that, had a Democrat proposed them, would have been widely denounced by conservatives as socialism run rampant. Socialism, in the Republican imagination, is only something Democrats do, never something they themselves do.”
posted by Carl on
“That’s ridiculous. FIVE percent of blacks voted for McCain, vs. 27% of gays and 31% of Hispanics. As for Latino vs. gay voters, contrast these results from 2004, where the party and/or candidate had a much different reputation on key gay and Latino issues, and you find Latinos dropped their support (by 12%) a lot more than gays increased their support (4%).”
Thanks for summing this up. I understand the point of courting black voters, but even in 2004, the strongest year in ages where Republicans could have gained a foothold with blacks, especially socially conservative blacks, they still barely broke double digits. And those days are long gone, post-Katrina, post-Obama. Meanwhile, in 2004, a year where gays had less reason than ever to vote for Republicans (at least on social issues), the level of support was barely down from 2000, a year when Bush ran as more of a moderate.
I understand that black or Latino voters make up much more of the population than gays, but even then, every 2 years, every 4 years, I see gay voters giving a solid level of support to the Republican Party, even when they are barely acknowledged.
The mindset frequently pushed regarding gays and Republicans is, “What can gays do to get Republicans to support them/Why should Republicans support gays, gays are so mean to them”. Yet I don’t believe the election results match up to this mindset. It would be nice if, instead of always hearing about how gays have hitched themselves to the Democrats and they’d better hope for some success, there was more talk about the many gay and lesbian Americans who work hard for Republican ideals and yet the main response they get is somewhere between, “I have a gay friend,” and saying that civil unions go against the foundation of America.
posted by Bobby on
Richard, you’re right, Bush wasted plenty of money and conservatives criticized him plenty for it.
But Obama is wasting even more money. It’s as if he wanted to be 100 times worse than Bush when it comes to spending.
As for the Iraq war, Obama is moving the conflict to Afghanistan. I guess war is ok as long and the country has no oil.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
“The gay community” has of course done no such thing.
Facts demonstrate otherwise, Rosendall, and there’s even more than that to show it.
Meanwhile, as for your quote from the New Republic, it has a short memory; quite a few Republicans DID scream “socialism” in response to the Medicare prescription drug program and No Child Left Behind, and complained about the cost of both. All that’s happening here is that Obama Party syncophants are desperately trying to cover the fact that you screamed about Bush’s “unsustainable deficits” and “excess spending”, but now are trying to justify the fact that your Obamamessiah and the Obama Party to which you have pledged your complete fealty are doing three to five times as much of both. I can hardly wait for your rant about the necessity of raising taxes while you slavishly support and endorse people like Pete Stark, Charles Rangel, and others who don’t pay them, or your whining about influence peddling and lobbying in the financial industry when you support and endorse Barney Fag and Maxine Waters using their positions to bail out banks that would benefit them personally.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
For those who hate cutting and pasting, here is a clickable link to my article,
“Mike Rogers and the Ethics of Outing”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
As another example of my heterodoxy, I consider the bonus tax bill passed by the U.S. House last week to be a bill of attainder.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And, Rosendall, as I pointed out in that very thread, you once again seemingly find something morally wrong with an issue after you’ve spent years supporting and endorsing it — just like the ILGA and its support of pedophile groups.
The reason you and Barney Fag suddenly developed some sense of morality relative to outing in September of 2007, Richard, is because the gay community and its members like Rogers, Aravosis, Signorile, and Matt Foreman who you had been funding, supporting, and encouraging to get gay Republicans and conservatives publicly pilloried and thrown out of their jobs for the past three years were suddenly turning on you because of the changes to ENDA, and you wanted some human shields.
Conservative and Republican gays are not that dumb.
Indeed, my most recent column, which you can find in the right-hand column of IGF’s home page, calls for reforms in the PEPFAR program, and I did not seek White House approval before writing it. I don’t know why Obama would take a different view, but it is possible, in which case we would have a disagreement.
Shorter version: “If Obama ever did anything wrong, I would disagree with him, but he hasn’t, so I don’t.”
Oh, and marriage equality? Well, I guess it’s not homophobic to oppose it, then. Care to correct all your fellow Obama Party gays like Fag who says that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigoted religious homophobe?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, smugly purporting to show the ridiculous of my statement that an entity called “the gay community” has not carried out witch-hunting and hatemongering against Republicans, links to a few examples about some gay people engaging in hatemongering. But ND30 knows perfectly well that I am not for a moment denying those things. I am disputing his insistence on blaming the entire gay community for those things. The gay community is not monolithic, as the existence of IGF demonstrates.
On the subject of outing, I have written critically about it on IGF:
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/31344.html
Given ND30’s apparently Manichean worldview, he will probably claim that my article endorses outing by not denouncing it with sufficient vehemence. But claiming something does not make it true, and other readers can judge for themselves.
Given ND30’s eagerness to point out that some Republicans were critical of Bush’s big spending, it is odd that he insists on treating Democrats as monolithic. As a matter of fact, I never screamed about the things he says “you screamed about” (using the Royal you, as I sometimes put it). I have never endorsed Pete Stark, Charlie Rangel, or Maxine Waters, much less slavishly. I like Rangel well enough, but do not think he should be above the law. I consider Rep. Waters obnoxious and given to extremism; indeed, I made fun of her in the opening paragraph of an article I wrote in 2002 for Log Cabin’s Liberty Education Forum, titled “Adventures in the Race Trade.” Try explaining, by the way, how a lockstep leftist (as you bizarrely persist in trying to paint me) could have written such a piece.
I have written in praise of Barney Frank (and that is his name, not “Fag”), but I have also stood toe-to-toe with him, such as at a GLAAD event years ago when I defended then Rep. Connie Morella (R-MD). Barney said, “She’s a complete disaster,” to which I replied, “She has the same HRC scorecard rating [89, as I recall] as your minority leader (Dick Gephardt).” This made Barney really mad. I attended a fundraiser and gave money to Rep. Morella, and was sorry when she was beaten by Chris Van Hollen after Maryland Democrats redistricted her out of a seat.
As I have pointed out before, I do not for a moment regard President Obama as a messiah. I do think he is a gifted political figure, and I support him, but I have not sworn “complete fealty” to him. Indeed, my most recent column, which you can find in the right-hand column of IGF’s home page, calls for reforms in the PEPFAR program, and I did not seek White House approval before writing it. I don’t know why Obama would take a different view, but it is possible, in which case we would have a disagreement. We already disagree on marriage equality, since I am for it and he is on record against it.
I am not sure why ND30 thinks it terribly clever to attribute views to me which I have not expressed. What does that prove, other than ND30’s own boorishness?
posted by avee on
BobN complains: For folks who constantly complain about the "trough" of Democrat-led government, you sure complain loudly when the slop isn’t doled out pronto!
No, Bob, I’m not asking for billions, er, trillions in taxpayers’ money; just equal rights under the law. See, I’m not a Democrat. Just asking for equal legal rights.
As for "wage gender parity", don’t you remember that a lot of gay people are lesbians.
The pay equity law is a gift to trial lawyers to shake down employers. Pay discrimination has been against the law for quite some time. This anti-business, pro-litigation monstrosity is only something that Democratic Party hacks would love.
posted by Amicus on
The truth of the matter is while the Democrats would give gay and lesbians some slices from the loaf of equality, the GOP would deny them the crumbs.
The names of Republican office holders who speak out on behalf of gay and lesbian issues are few … Specter, Snow, Collins, Huntsman, Schwarznegger. Even Rudy Guiliani sold his soul to the Religious Right.
All of the out gay GOP office holders could fit in a Ford Explorer. Their Democratic counterparts number more than a 100.
The late Republican Gov. Lee Dreyfuss of Wisconsin signed into law one of the first state laws outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The sitting Republican governor of Vermont said he would not sign the proposed gay marriage law, a law that originated in the state legislature.
Obama is far from perfect on gay issues, but would McCain be better? Or Romney? Or Palin?
While I have great hopes for Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah, I am not holding my breath that the GOP will take gay and lesbian issues seriously (unless to take away their rights).
Where is the next Lee Dreyfuss?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, Amicus just did the best job of demonstrating why gays are not taken seriously of any of the posters here.
I mean, why would you bother talking to someone who demonstrates so convincingly that he doesn’t care how homophobic Obama Party members are because Republicans will always be worse?
The day that gays will start being taken seriously is the day that gays like Amicus stop trying to blame Republicans for Obama Party behavior and hold Obama Party members to the same standards of behavior that they do Republicans.
Which means that you should be calling Barack Obama a homophobe for opposing gay marriage.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, pointing to your own past mischaracterizations and insults does nothing to refute me. It does provide a reminder of why I request that comments be blocked on my IGF pieces now, because your utter refusal to practice minimal civility or honesty creates far too low a signal-to-noise ratio. And why do you stoop to such a cheap and vulgar epithet for Barney Frank? How does that make your case?
ND30 wrote, “the gay community and its members like Rogers, Aravosis, Signorile, and Matt Foreman who you had been funding, supporting, and encouraging to get gay Republicans and conservatives publicly pilloried and thrown out of their jobs for the past three years were suddenly turning on you because of the changes to ENDA, and you wanted some human shields.”
None of this is the least bit true. I have argued extensively with Rogers and Foreman, rebuked Aravosis, and was personally attacked by Signorile years ago in one of his columns. I have not funded any of these people. As I recall from 2007, Aravosis and Foreman were on opposite sides of the intramural ENDA fight. But you are someone who takes a thoughtful column of mine criticizing Rogers for the practice of outing as somehow proving my position to be the opposite of what it plainly is. Thus you insist that I’ve “spent years supporting and endorsing” something when I already disproved that charge multiple times. To call you unscrupulous is an understatement. I stand by what I wrote, not your mischaracterizations of it. One wonders what cause other than feeding your own pathologies could possibly be served by such obsessive slandering of others–particularly in light of your own hiding behind a pseudonym.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I am not sure why I would want to call Obama a homophobe on account of my disagreement with him on SSM, unless I were trapped in some alternate reality game scripted by ND30. As an activist I have long been in the habit of dealing with imperfect politicians, giving both credit and criticism as appropriate. I have found this approach productive. Since ND30 hides behind a pseudonym, who knows what results he has gotten from operating the Bile Channel (All Bile All the Time!). But for all ND30’s obfuscations, Democrats by and large have a far better record on gay issues than Republicans. Some of us last year described Obama’s far better gay-related positions and record as compared with McCain’s. That was in the context of deciding who was the better candidate on gay issues, not a discussion on a proposed canonization. ND30’s air of unreality reminds me of the South Park episode when Cartman and friends spend weeks playing World of Warcraft (or whatever it is) around the clock. That’s fine, let us know how it works out for you.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
BTW, while I think it’s better to focus on Scalia’s ideological extremism and hypocrisy (explain how strict constructionism led to the SCOTUS intervention in Bush v. Gore), it is amazing to see ND30, in the midst of his own vituperations, acting shocked, shocked at others’ name-calling. Somehow we are not supposed to notice Republicans’ relentless anti-gay slanders, but let a Democrat give them back a tiny bit of their own medicine and ND30 gets the vapors. Please.
posted by Jorge on
The truth of the matter is while the Democrats would give gay and lesbians some slices from the loaf of equality, the GOP would deny them the crumbs.
The problem I have sometimes with, frankly, even the Log Cabin Repubicans is that all too often they fall into the trap of defining gay rights and progress more as a measure of legal equality than social and political equality.
Even in the best of times, Republicans will never be the same as Democrats in embracing legal rights for gays because Republicans are very suspicious of civil rights legislation, period. If gays already have many of the same legal rights as everyone else why do we need new legislation? Hate crimes is the most sensible example of this, a case where gay rights legislation at this time is largely symbolic but could lead to many side effects which would bug conservatives. Republicans tend to extend the same reasoning to DADT (“why don’t you just shut up about your homosexuality?”–and that wasn’t even a Republican) and to marriage.
I mean, I get the whole thousand rights thing and all, but in this day and age wouldn’t it be better to just be left alone?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I have argued extensively with Rogers and Foreman, rebuked Aravosis, and was personally attacked by Signorile years ago in one of his columns.
Mhm, Rosendall; in 2007, of course, AFTER you had spent three years funding and supporting their hate campaigns — which you claimed you knew nothing about in 2004, despite it being all over the Washington news.
I am not sure why I would want to call Obama a homophobe on account of my disagreement with him on SSM
Because you call Republicans who disagree with you on same-sex marriage homophobes.
After all, it’s the disagreement, isn’t it? Certainly it’s not the political affiliation, right?
And why do you stoop to such a cheap and vulgar epithet for Barney Frank?
Cheap and vulgar epithet for a cheap and vulgar person, as was shown with his public statements in support of attacking Sarah Palin’s family, claiming that her husband was having incestuous sex with her daughters, and that her child wasn’t hers. It suits him remarkably well, and calls attention to the only thing he has that in any way supports his position in the Obama Party, which puts minority status ahead of competence and intelligence and supports outright influence-peddling and corruption by minorities like Fag and his ally Maxine Waters.
And then, Rosendall, as invariably happens when you are losing an argument, you start whining about pseudonyms.
particularly in light of your own hiding behind a pseudonym
Since ND30 hides behind a pseudonym
The reason why I use a pseudonym is simple; there is really no reason to make it easy for you, your fellow gay liberals like Fag, and your paid goons like Aravosis, Rogers, and Signorile to abuse me personally as, like I’ve pointed out, you’ve done to so many others who dared to disagree with you.
The people in the blogosphere who have proven trustworthy and fair know my identity and what I’ve done. You are neither.
posted by Carl on
“I mean, I get the whole thousand rights thing and all, but in this day and age wouldn’t it be better to just be left alone?”
The problem is what the definition of being left alone should be. To many social conservatives, that means gays should live heterosexual lives if they want to adopt a child, if they want to get a legally recognized relationship, if they want to know their sexual orientation won’t cost them their job. Some are still trying to get sodomy laws back on the books, so that even that right to privacy would be subject to arrest.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, you are a bitter and delusional man. Frankly, anyone who would set aside my published record and believe your falsehoods about me is unmoored from reality like you. But defending oneself against slanders, and calling a boorish and unscrupulous man boorhish and unscrupulous, does not begin to compete with your font of slanders. I criticize you for what you say on these boards; you, by contrast, persist in making false claims, such as saying I have funded people with whom I have long and publicly disagreed. What is the basis for those assertions? You just say whatever sounds good to you. But your paranoia is the cherry on top. There you are, crouched in your undisclosed location. As for trustworthiness and fairness, you are strangers to them.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
“Paranoia”, Rosendall, would be better saved to describe people who don’t get the kinds of lovely emails and comments that I do, or are unfamiliar with the sort of things that are done to gay conservatives’ families by your fellow liberal gays.
What is the basis for those assertions?
The obvious fact that you dislike gay Republicans and conservatives. Add to that Barney Fag’s public pronouncement that attacks on peoples’ families are perfectly all right, and it becomes more than obvious.
Meanwhile, on that same thread, your modus operandi was called out quite nicely.
Richard does not take any criticism of his views as legitimate and he always professes to be misrepresented. He alone is allowed to stereotype, certainly not anyone else. You’ll notice Alex, that Richard doesn’t allow anyone to comment on his wrtings here, and that should speak volumes to his openness and desire to hear the views of others.
posted by Jim on
A brief slightly-off-topic aside: I enjoy reading this blog, even though I frequently disagree with its stances. I get that you guys want to assert your independent thinking and don’t want to be lumped in with the sheep that you condescendingly refer to as “the gay community.” But you ARE gay, right? It’s often rather hard to tell. You’re not Fred Phelps, or the American Family Association, or any of the many queer-hating organizations out there — or are you? The only folks I’ve EVER heard call Barney Frank “Barney Fag,” since the hideous Armey coined the phrase, are the avid queer-haters — and this blog. Are you one and the same? Looks that way from here. Why exactly do you boys hate yourselves so very, very much? It’s quite sad, really.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The only folks I’ve EVER heard call Barney Frank “Barney Fag,” since the hideous Armey coined the phrase, are the avid queer-haters — and this blog. Are you one and the same? Looks that way from here. Why exactly do you boys hate yourselves so very, very much? It’s quite sad, really.
Amazingly enough, I’ve found that calling Barney Fag that — because, given his corrupt, incompetent, criminal leanings and the fact that he uses his sexual orientation as an excuse for them — is quite empowering and liberating. It makes it clear that, despite our being of the same sexual orientation, I don’t have to like or support what he does, and I can call it out as such. My principles are in control, not my sexual orientation.
Of course, Jim, you’ve been brainwashed to believe that in order to have self-esteem, you must endorse and support everything that your fellow gays do and never once criticize or say anything less than flattering about them. It’s not your fault, really; very few gay people have the strength of character to rise above their minority identity and actually be able to call other gays out for foolish and criminal behavior, especially when you consider how abusive the gay community is towards those who do.
Tell me; are you really happy with the fact that you have to support and endorse Fag’s corruption and criminal behavior? Doesn’t it bother you to have to defend someone who used his Congressional position to facilitate a prostitution ring and lied on references to employers about his sex partners simply because he’s gay?
posted by Pat on
Amazingly enough, I’ve found that calling Barney Fag [sic] that — because, given his corrupt, incompetent, criminal leanings and the fact that he uses his sexual orientation as an excuse for them — is quite empowering and liberating.
NDT, calling someone “fag” is empowering and liberating? Okay. As long as IGF allows such nasty epithets, whatever. The thing is, one can state and believe that one is corrupt, incompetent, and has criminal leanings without resorting to transforming that person’s name to “Fag.” Should all person’s, straight or gay, be called “Fag” if they are corrupt, incompetent, etc.?
I get your point about not endorsing and supporting all gay persons like Barney Frank, simply because they are gay (although I don’t think Jim or anyone else here was saying otherwise). If they do bad things, they should be called on it. But to throw epithets as well?
posted by KK Bloom on
Wow, so calling someone “fag” reveals your “strength of character?”
Jim, everyone on this site isn’t prone to flinging invectives to prove their point. Just one class-free individual.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Should all person’s, straight or gay, be called “Fag” if they are corrupt, incompetent, etc.?
Not necessarily, Pat; it really fits only those who, like Barney Fag, use their sexual orientation as an excuse for all of the above, and who scream that any criticism of their behavior is based on “homophobia”.
Since Barney Fag wants to make an issue of his sexual orientation, I think the world should know that the reason he behaves as he does is because he’s a fag, and the fact that he’s a fag makes him instantly competent, completely incorruptible, and immune from criticism.
People use “Doctor” or “Esquire” in their title to reflect their academic achievement; I title Barney Fag based on the only thing that is apparently of value about him and which he brandishes as his excuse for everything.
posted by dalea on
Just wondering how the Republicans could come back. Where I live, in SoCal, there are no Republicans on the ballot below the statewide and senate offices. The choice is between a Democrat and a Green, which is interesting. Understand that this situation repeats all over the country: Republicans are simply disapearing as a viable party.
posted by Bobby on
“Since Barney Fag wants to make an issue of his sexual orientation”
—Fag is not a sexual orientation, when Ann Coulter referred to John Edwards as a fag, she meant it to mean weak and prissy, which John Edwards is!
I think we can insult people with something better than fag. The exception is Obama, I call him “magical negro” because that’s what liberal Los Angeles Times writer called him in an article and because the media worships him for being America’s first black president. I don’t call him a n-gg-r because that’s racial and I don’t hate Obama for being black, I hate him for being a socialist that uses the race card.
Now, if you want to insult Barney, you can call him that dirty Banking Queen or something like that. My opinion.
posted by Pat on
Not necessarily, Pat; it really fits only those who, like Barney Fag [sic], use their sexual orientation as an excuse for all of the above, and who scream that any criticism of their behavior is based on “homophobia”.
I definitely understand your dislike of Barney Frank, NDT, no problem there. The thing is, what difference does it make how he excuses his bad behavior? What epithet should Frank be called if he used his religion, eye color, handedness as an excuse instead?
Anyway, I expressed my objection. I’ll leave the moderators to decide on its appropriateness.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What epithet should Frank be called if he used his religion, eye color, handedness as an excuse instead?
I’m not sure about the last two, but isn’t “_____ – ist” the standard insult the gay left is throwing at religious people these days?
The thing is, what difference does it make how he excuses his bad behavior?
How do you think “I’m gay, I don’t have to follow the laws and you’re homophobic if you say I do” plays in terms of how other people view gays, Pat?
posted by Pat on
I’m not sure about the last two, but isn’t “_____ – ist” the standard insult the gay left is throwing at religious people these days?
Maybe so, but that wasn’t my question. What would you call someone who excuses their bad behavior on their religion.
How do you think “I’m gay, I don’t have to follow the laws and you’re homophobic if you say I do” plays in terms of how other people view gays, Pat?
First of all, without getting into a debate as to whether Barney Frank is guilty of all the bad things you are saying (and for the moment, I’m conceding that point), because that’s beside the point. However, I doubt very much that Frank’s position is a) I am gay, and because of it, I don’t have to follow laws, and b) You are homophobic if you say I’m not allowed to break the law because of my sexuality. He is contending that he did NOT break any laws. Granted, he may be lying through his teeth. But he wouldn’t be the first time that someone broke a law, and denied that they did so.
But now, even if I concede this additional point about Frank (“I’m gay, I don’t have to follow the laws and you’re homophobic if you say I do”), I’m not sure how other people view gays. It would be unfortunate if all gays are disparaged because of an alleged crook. There’s a lot of bad people out there belonging to various communities. For example, in NYC there these clown godfather characters that still run around. Guess what, they proclaim they are innocent too. They may even say that because they are Italian, they are getting a raw deal. And many people even believe that these godfather clowns are innocent. Does that mean I should view all Italians with disdain?
What’s interesting is I hear the argument that conservatives pride themselves about the character of individuals, and not communities. Now you apparently are saying the opposite.