Over at Cato, IGF contributor David Boaz notes that Sen. Jim DeMint, writing in the WSJ, makes a strong case for letting different states make different policy choices. "Centralized government infringes on individual liberty and...problems are best solved by the people or the government closest to them." If "choices look different in South Carolina, Maine and California," why, that's just fine.
Except when it's not. DeMint, of course, favors a national ban on same-sex marriage. No word from the Senator on how he squares the circle. We're waiting. This kind of blatant illogicality, in combination with a callous attitude toward the needs of gay individuals and couples, is part of what cratered Republicans' credibility.
More: Here's what else has Republicans looking toxic to young people and moderates: one of their leading national spokespeople, Joe the Plumber, calls gays "queer" and says he would not let them "anywhere near" his children. Lots of Republicans will be wincing privately at this almost refreshingly direct expression of bigotry, but let's see how many repudiate Joe Wurzelbacher publicly. Will the folks at the National Organization for Marriage, who are so quick to call gay-rights advocates out for incivility, defend Wurzelbacher as a victimized truth-teller?
He is for federalism, though. Maybe he'll come out against the Marriage Protection Amendment. Hold your breath.
10 Comments for “Why Republicans Are in Trouble, Chapter 748”
posted by Bobby on
Way before Joe the Plumber called gays queer he was ridiculed and attacked by the liberal media for having common-sense views when it comes to economics and taxation.
By the way, this was Joe’s answer.
“In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary?it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do?what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.”
I do admit his statements are somewhat puzzling, how can you have friends that you don’t want near your children? If you can’t trust them near your children, then they’re clearly not friends.
posted by BobN on
I do admit his statements are somewhat puzzling, how can you have friends that you don’t want near your children? If you can’t trust them near your children, then they’re clearly not friends.
Not so puzzling, Bobby. He doesn’t much like folks like you and me.
And he refers to his “gay friends” in the past tense.
One last point. “how can you have friends that you don’t want near your children?” Of course, he CAN trust them. He CHOOSES not to, because he’s prejudiced.
“If you can’t trust them near your children, then they’re clearly not friends.” No. If YOU don’t trust your friends, then YOU’RE clearly not their friend.
Hence the past tense, I suspect.
posted by Bobby on
Thanks for explaining, BobN.
Don’t you find it funny how people today need to justify their biases with lines like:
“Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins.”
You’ll never find me saying something like that.
posted by revchicoucc on
This interview appeared in the evangelical magazine Christianity Today. I’ve read the whole interview. More baffling to me than anything he said is why CT, or any religious magazine, would interview Mr. Wurzelbacher for any reason. At no point in the interview does he speak about his personal faith or even what church he belongs to. Someone has hired a very good publicist. Why is any one paying attention? I shall ask that of myself once I’m done paying attention.
posted by Rob on
Of course, afterall, you are a Jew damned to the deepest layer of the Nine Hells. 😉
Seriously though, would you have Joe the Plumber as your friend Bobby?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It always amuses me that gay liberals act surprised over things like this.
After all, the gay community supports teaching gay sex to five year olds.
The gay community supports dressing toddlers as sex slaves and taking them to sex fairs to “show off”, insisting that doing so is an “educational experience” and that anyone who opposes it is “close-minded”.
The gay community fights age-of-consent laws and insists that having sex with children seventeen years younger than you are is “common” in the gay community.
Obama Party politicians hire and support gay people who take long lunch breaks to have sex with “hot” hairless boys — although Obama Party politicians like Nancy Pelosi scream that gay people who instant-message teenagers are sexual predators who should be kept away from children.
And how do we know the gay community supports this behavior? Because they get upset at the people like Wurzelbacher who point it out, rather than the gay people who are doing such things.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
End hyperlink.
posted by Pat on
NDT, where did Joe the Plumber point out these things about gay people? He didn’t. I’d agree with you if Wurzelbacher said that people shouldn’t be pedophiles, fight age of consent laws, dress their children as sex slaves, etc., and then criticized Wurzelbacher for saying those things. It didn’t happen.
You bring up the same points of criticism, and I agree with them (except for the partisan hyperbole that is included with it). It’s okay to criticize Wurzelbacher’s asinine bigotry as well. Especially when it’s the actual topic of the post, unlike the other things you mentioned.
Oh, regarding the pedophile staffer, there doesn’t appear to be evidence that his pedophilia was supported by the people who hired him (if so, they should be fired as well). I would say that he, as well gay people who instant-message teenagers sexually explicit garbage, should be kept away from children.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’d agree with you if Wurzelbacher said that people shouldn’t be pedophiles, fight age of consent laws, dress their children as sex slaves, etc., and then criticized Wurzelbacher for saying those things.
Problem is, Pat, every single one of the people I mentioned claimed that the reason people were against what they were doing is because those people are “homophobic”.
Since the gay community is arguing that it is “homophobic” to oppose teaching gay sex to five year olds, dressing children as sex slaves and take them to sex fairs, and fighting age of consent laws, and that people who oppose all of these things do so out of “homophobia”, what is being made absolutely clear is that all of these actions are part and parcel of being homosexual.
Bluntly put, Pat, you are surrounded by a gay community that uses sexual orientation as an excuse for flat-out pedophilia and worse, and the only thing you can do is claim that anyone who doesn’t ignore it like you do is an “asinine bigot”. Instead of attacking the pedophile gays, you attack the people who point them out.
Why don’t you seek to destroy the gay pedophiles’ lives the way you do Wurzelbacher and Carrie Prejean? Why don’t you namecall and try to publicly humiliate those who oppose age-of-consent laws like you do those who don’t support gay marriage? Why don’t you demand that gay parents who dress their children as sex slaves be stripped of their parental rights, publicly shamed, and have their assets taken away like you do for religious parents? Why don’t you publicly ridicule those gays who promote teaching five-year-olds gay sex in schools in the same way you ridicule those people who point out that gays promote teaching five-year-olds gay sex in schools?
posted by Bobby on
“Seriously though, would you have Joe the Plumber as your friend Bobby?”
—Of course! He’s a fascinating person and unlike Alan Keyes, not a complete homophobe, although I do find it insulting that he wouldn’t trust me with his children, that’s an issue we’d have to discuss.
Besides Rob, actions speak louder than words when it comes to friendship, ideological beliefs mean nothing when they call you on the phone, spend time with you and care about how you’re doing. As long as they can put up with you, they’re great people.