A diatribe at The Clyde Fitch Report blogsite tears into Kelsey Grammer, formerly of "Frasier" fame and currently co-starring in a Broadway revival of La Cage aux Folles. Grammer, a Republican who supported Rudy Giuliani for president in 2008, is promoting the soon-to-be-launched RightNetwork with a video riffing on big government, more taxes, and trillion dollar deficits. For this, the Fitch Report howls that Grammer is "a radical right-winger...putting his reactionary maw behind the RightNetwork, a new multiplatform venture that presumably aims to hurl the LGBT community all the back to the closet, stripped of whatever rights they may have won, and, for all we know, marked with ass tattoos just the way that William F. Buckley, Jr., wanted."
Nothing on the site, or in Grammer's video, warrants that assessment or suggests that the new "network" will be anti-gay. But like those who make up racist slurs to attack everyone who joins Tea Party protests against gargantuan government, truth has very little to do with it.
Everything we know about Grammer suggests he's gay-supportive (this Wall Street Journal profile calls him an "outspoken Republican" and "a supporter of same-sex marriage"). But I suspect the left's biggest fear is a limited government movement that is not socially reactionary.
Yet if only the intolerant get involved in the GOP, the Tea Parties, and conservative politics in general, it's clear that the right will stay predominantly intolerant forever, giving many on the left what they seem to want-a boogeyman party to fundraise against. That may be in their partisan interest, but it's not a strategy that bodes well for the expansion of our rights, especially given likely Republican gains in Congress come November.
35 Comments for “Tolerant Conservatives: The Left’s Worst Nightmare”
posted by Jorge on
After looking at what just happened with the immigration reform bill (very shortly after the would-be Senate Republican co-sponsor argued emphatically that it has no chance of passing in this political climate), it seems to me that it’s not much possible to get anything done *without* tolerant Republicans.
posted by Bobby on
Why the hell should we tolerate law-breakers, aka “illegal aliens”? You wanna come to this country? Follow the law! I’m sick and tired of hearing about “social justice,” what matters is “equal justice.” The same laws and the same standards and consequences for everyone. Besides, there are too many legal immigrants patiently waiting for their greencards, the last thing the system needs is more backlog.
posted by Mark F. on
“I suspect that the left’s biggest fear is a limited government movement that is not socially reactionary.”
Well, they have little to fear regarding any sort of limited government these days. If you think any major Republican politician outside of Ron Paul is in favor of limited government you have a weird definition of limited government.
posted by Lori Heine on
I am being direly warned, on almost a daily basis, about the swamp full of right-wing, reactionary crocodiles I am supposedly wandering into because I’ve switched from being a Democrat to being a Libertarian.
It rather reminds me of Mr. Edwards, on “Little House on the Prairie,” who used to tell scary stories about the “Hide-a-Behind.” The children were supposed to be afraid of it, and not go out at night because it would get them.
Everyone on the Right — without exception — must be feared by gays, or we might not stay on the reservation. “Boooo!” we’re being warned, “the Right-wing Hide-a-Behind is out there lurking!”
The real Hide-a-Behind may very well be tolerant conservatives. I think we need to encourage them, ally ourselves with them and work with them. I agree that this is the key to defeating Leftist charlatanry in this country.
posted by Jorge on
Why the hell should we tolerate law-breakers, aka “illegal aliens”? You wanna come to this country? Follow the law! I’m sick and tired of hearing about “social justice,” what matters is “equal justice.” The same laws and the same standards and consequences for everyone. Besides, there are too many legal immigrants patiently waiting for their greencards, the last thing the system needs is more backlog.
This is old ground, and it’s irrelevant. We all know you’re not a moderate. Do you agree with me that it’s impossible to get stuff done without the persuadable right or not?
posted by Jimmy on
“Do you agree with me that it’s impossible to get stuff done without the persuadable right or not?”
I suppose it depends on what stuff you’re talking about, Jorge. Are you talking about GLBT stuff?
On another note, this is interesting.
posted by Matt C on
Indeed – in an interview with Kelsey Grammer in last Friday’s (4/23) Wall Street Journal, Grammer is identified as a supporter of same-sex marriage!
posted by Jorge on
I’m talking about anything political, and I think I can stand on it. I suppose I think the Hispanic interest group constituency has some things in common with the GLBT interest group constituency, only they should have an even easier time getting laws passed that benefit them.
posted by Leonard Jacobs on
Dear Mr. Miller:
Thank you for your analysis in drag. Let’s clear a few things up, so your relationship to the truth may remain unstained.
1 — I published the quote from the New York magazine profile of Grammer in which he tried his level best not to address the gay marriage question. Responding “Oh, right. Of course. You know I wasnât even thinking of that. Isnât it funny?” does not constitute gay-marriage support. Asked directly about gay marriage, Grammer said, “Why is the government involved at all? If two men marry or two women marry, fine, go ahead, itâs not my issue. But when governments get involved, it just becomes more confusing.” So what, exactly, is Grammer gunning for? Are you aligning yourself with Grammer’s argument that marriage in the U.S. has been “confusing” for the last two centuries, since the founding of the government? Really?
2 — As for what Grammer told the Journal (this is in reply to one of your comments), this is the quote: “I’m not a big proponent of big government being in charge of weddings.” Please explain how “big government” is “in charge” of weddings. It’s a license, dude. A frickin’ license. That’s all. That’s not “in charge.” What will you people want next? No birth certificates? Do you believe your birth certificate, filed with the âbig government,â infringed upon your rights as an infant? Really? Of course, eliminate âbig governmentâ-run birth certificates and Iâll guess weâll finally dispose of the birthers, then. Net plus.
3 — (This is also in reply to one of your comments) Suggesting that “big government” is “in charge” of weddings implies that “big government” instructed my dear friends Marc and Kate what kind of wedding to have, where to have it, when to have it, whom to invite, and so forth, which is manifestly untrue. Ditto my dear friends Steven and Luis. And I have neither read nor heard Grammer himself say “I support gay marriage” — it was Ellen Gamerman, who bylined the Q&A for the Journal, who characterized Grammer as a “supporter of same-sex marriage.” Frankly, he’s a supporter of “leave me alone.” If heâs a real libertarian, then Grammer shouldnât have such a difficult time with all those marbles in his mouth, right?
4 — Do not characterize what I want (“a boggie-man party to fundraise against”). First, the word is “boogie-man,” so do me a big favor and spell-check. Second, I don’t fundraise for the Democratic party. Third, I’d welcome a moderate and tolerant Republican party — if you got to know me, which you wouldn’t have the guts to do now, I suspect, you’d know that I’m not a far-left liberal and hardly a shill for the Democrats. What I believe is fundamental: Grammer filmed a video endorsing this network and there is nothing about the radical right-wing that tells me there will be anything but intolerance, including the inevitable direct or implied antigay invective, coming from the mandarins that will determine its programming. Grammer is hitching his sails to a party whose social-conservative menu would hurl the LGBT community back a few hundred years if it could. I am restating this because I believe it to be true. You say the equivalent of “Well, hey, it’s all right, he’s a fiscal conservative and a social moderate.” I say no, that is not all right. Would you aver that Albert Speer was a dazzling architect who happened to be a National Socialist?
Your reply to this comment, if there is one, will be telling. For one thing, it will tell me just how tolerant you are.
posted by Debrah on
TO Leonard Jacobs–
First of all, I don’t know Mr. Miller except from his commentary here, nor do I need to know him to say that your splenetic comments do not warrant a reply.
You offer this right out-of-the-gate:
“Thank you for your analysis in drag.”
***************************************
As well as your ridiculous and superfluous spell check rendezvous
You see, this is something that turns people off and reveals your inability to argue without ad hominem when someone says something with which you are in disagreement.
And then the other person will be forced to come in for a cyber “b!tch slap” and things never get beyond that stage.
Could it be that you secretly comprehend that you should keep your mouth shut and allow Grammer—whose own sad personal history reads like part horror story and part comedy—or anyone else their opinions on marriage of any type?
I’d say that his “hands-off” position represents most of us in this country who are not against SSM, but quite frankly think the whole idea of two men walking down the aisle is the height of comedy……..
…….while at the same time getting all teary-eyed and going after dumb 20-something beauty queens who won’t glorify gay male sex as the greatest thing on earth.
Spewing vitriol toward anyone who is not an overt “cheerleader” for this quest does nothing but conjure shades of the greasy Perez Hilton.
Nice touch that you brought in a few of your “dear friends” who might ostensibly be heteros. That shows you’re not as insular as you seem in other areas.
Good for you!
Your comments remind me so much of overbearing heterosexual men who go after women with gross misogyny as a way to cover for the fact that their doses of Cialis cannot assist a eunuch.
Whether Grammer gave an endorsement or simply milquetoast support for SSM will be of little consequence.
The real turn-off is that so many gays bring this issue into every forum they can and contaminate the proceedings as well as destroy good will…….
……..and make themselves appear to be intolerant fruits, themselves.
You will not force valiant and enthusiastic support of SSM on anyone. Not even the current generation of youth who will reach voting age in the next few years.
These are issues about which people of all generations have fluctuating and varying points-of-view.
Parsing the words of Mr. Miller and attacking him in such a way does little to change opinions.
In fact, I have always been very dispassionate about SSM and never got into the debate until recently when this issue was rammed down the throats of some people and a productive atmosphere and relationships were needlessly destroyed.
If not for such an experience from some of the gay male booty-chasing men, I might have even been more supportive of this cause.
SSM is not “real” marriage, but we can pretend. This is a quest for financial gain and for forced “dignity” of a lifestyle that most gay men, themselves, do not honor.
Most people are like Grammer—live and let live.
But please find another appellation for it other than “marriage”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
“Will be” is future tense, which means it hasn’t happened.
Or, put differently, we can support imprisoning all black children, because the odds are good that several of them “will be” criminals when they get older.
You can come up with a lot when your only requirement for fact is that you can imagine it. How does that fit in with your claim to be a “journalist”, Mr. Jacobs? Of course, we should remember that you are an Obama Party journalist, which means you can forge whatever you like and call it news; I suppose it would be no surprise that you would turn to imagination and call it factual.
posted by Matt C on
I posted the comment about KG “supporting” SSM. I realize he didn’t directly say that and that his “support” was the reporter’s word. But I’m betting the reporter clarified he supports and went with the “what do i care” quote b/c that’s more quotable. That is, why would she use a direct quote for “I support same-sex marriage”? In the context of that relatively short interview piece, she went with the quotable quote and paraphrased what he otherwise said, which indicates support.
posted by Bobby on
“This is old ground, and it’s irrelevant. We all know you’re not a moderate. Do you agree with me that it’s impossible to get stuff done without the persuadable right or not?”
—Depends on what you want to do. Have you heard of the cap and trade scheme? Did you know that Obama, Al Gore, Goldman Sachs, The Joyce Foundation, the Apollo Group, and other leftwing/union organizations are going to make huge profits if this pass? Did you know that some environmental groups oppose this? You think the right is going to support this scheme that will cost taxpayers billions?
Besides, the right didn’t complain when Obama wanted to expand oil drilling in the Atlantic, so it’s not that the right says no all the time. The problem is Obama is a socialist, 99% of his ideas are left-wing, I mean, when Ivanka Trump, a democrat, complains about the anti-business climate Obama is created, you should worry.
You need to watch Glenn Beck, it was GB who broke the story of how congress want to force Puerto Rico to have another referendum of to become a state, the catch is the question won’t be “do you want to become a state or remain a commonwealth” but “do you want a change from your current status.” See? They’re looking to fool the Puerto Ricans into becoming a state, which is gonna cost them billions in payroll taxes (they currently pay no federal taxes), and undermine their commonwealth which works for them. Why is Obama doing this? Power and control, if Puerto Rico becomes a state he’ll get 2 senators and 6 house members. So yes, the right has to say no, in fact, Puerto Ricans have voted on this issue three times and they have rejected statehood by great majorities. Then again, our fuhrer doesn’t care about little things like that.
posted by Throbert McGee on
My reading-between-the-lines guess is that Mr. Grammer probably prefers “same-sex civil unions” to “same-sex marriage” — in other words, he supports the status quo as it exists post-Prop 8. But he’s reluctant to say so directly, because among Equality-worshiping fundamentalists, the received wisdom is that anything short of “same-sex marriage” is a degrading slap in the face that sets gay rights back to the Stone Age, and that only a hateful homophobe could possibly support.
posted by BobN on
I’m not sure there’s much utility in arguing Mr. Grammer’s views. After all, when asked, regarding La Cage aux Folles, “Does the play have a political message?”, he replied, “I hope not.”
Now, either he hasn’t yet read the whole script (very unlikely), or he’s just not too bright.
(P.S. It strikes me as very odd casting to have him play Georges. With just a tweak of the “metrosexuality” he sometimes had fun with on Frasier, he would have made an interesting Albin. My God!!! I think I just made my first musical theatre observation! FINALLY!! Took a while for that gene to kick in.)
posted by Throbert McGee on
Bobby, you need to consider a third possibility: He knows that the script has various political implications, but he doesn’t want to prejudice ticket-buyers of any persuasion against the show!
I haven’t seen the Broadway version — only the Frawnch original and the remake with Williams and Lane. And my take is that La Cage is very pro-tolerance, but at the same time presents an outdated view of gay men as being “women trapped in men’s bodies” — i.e., it conflates transsexualism with homosexuality, which I see as a relic of the “Uranian” theory from the 19th century! Granted, this “third-sex” model was progressive for its time, in that it sought to replace the idea that homosexuality was just a freely-chosen sin indulged in by people who were naturally inclined to heterosexuality.
posted by Jorge on
Leonard Jacobs, I think your distorted analysis pretty much proves Stephen Miller’s point. Your expectations, your either you’re with us or against us attitude, are too far left for you to take anything positive from Kelsey Grammar, and I think that is a mistake.
You need to watch Glenn Beck
When I was on vacation the week after New Year’s, Beck devoted an entire week on the most obscure economic issue you could ever think of. It was like being in Ben Stein’s classroom with a jittery sugar-happy kid sitting behind you as he’s slowly dying of dehydration. I suppose I actually learned something (there’s a reason the right thinks the government does not know what it’s doing), but maybe those hours would have been better spent drinking soda and playing video games.
So I will leave Beck to you. The *last* time I was on vacation I read Supreme Court decisions–the short ones that no one covered. Much better use of my time.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, you need to consider a third possibility: He knows that the script has various political implications, but he doesn’t want to prejudice ticket-buyers of any persuasion against the show!”
—Don’t confuse BobN with Bobby, we’re not the same person.
“When I was on vacation the week after New Year’s, Beck devoted an entire week on the most obscure economic issue you could ever think of. It was like being in Ben Stein’s classroom with a jittery sugar-happy kid sitting behind you as he’s slowly dying of dehydration. I suppose I actually learned something (there’s a reason the right thinks the government does not know what it’s doing), but maybe those hours would have been better spent drinking soda and playing video games.”
—-The Beck show changes week by week, episode by episode. Watch it and you’ll learn the truth about FDR, how his National Recovery Act bankrupted small businesses, how the policies of Hoover, Roosevelt and others ruined the country, why we have an income tax, etc. This is important because the mistakes of the past are being repeated by Obama. Remember the radicals of the 1960s? Students for a Democratic Society? The Weather Underground? Those people are still alive and for the first time in history they have a president that sympathizes with them, meets with them and plots with them.
If you care about America and don’t want this country transformed into Finland, I’d advice you to watch Glenn Beck, at least watch the first 15 minutes, get a DVR and you’ll never have to waste time with the commercials. Remember, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance and right now Glenn Beck is the only one really watching the government.
posted by Throbert McGee on
D’oh! Sorry about that, dude. Despite our disagreements on some issues, you’re definitely not a nutsy-cuckoo liberal like BobN!
posted by Bobby on
“D’oh! Sorry about that, dude. Despite our disagreements on some issues, you’re definitely not a nutsy-cuckoo liberal like BobN!”
—Thanks, I also happen to like La Cage aux Folles, I don’t think it has any political content, and I love drag queens. I celebrate drag queens as entertainers, comedians, and really talented people who are extremely creative. I would never do drag of course, I’m too hairy, butch and uptight for such sort of things, but that doesn’t keep me from admiring them.
posted by Jorge on
The Beck show changes week by week, episode by episode. Watch it and you’ll learn the truth about FDR, how his National Recovery Act bankrupted small businesses, how the policies of Hoover, Roosevelt and others ruined the country, why we have an income tax, etc. This is important because the mistakes of the past are being repeated by Obama. Remember the radicals of the 1960s? Students for a Democratic Society? The Weather Underground? Those people are still alive and for the first time in history they have a president that sympathizes with them, meets with them and plots with them.
Stop! STOP! No more, please! Miranda, Brown, Hardwick, Bowers, graaah! You should read John Paul Stevens’ stirring defenses of the rights of the incarcerated even as he rules against them, and Clarence Thomas’s moving commentaries of laws and standards and generally MYOB. You would also gain a lot of confidence in how our justices are fiercely independent and meticulous while also trying to create much uniformity and teamwork, and learn that there are many strange ways to count to five. New principles about bankruptcy, student loans, suspects’ rights under Miranda, “capable of repetition, yet evading review” (an important part of Roe v. Wade), are being decided which shape or reaffirm our rights and laws.
posted by Bobby on
Jorge, the stuff you mention is important, but I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about 1960s radicals taking over the country.
posted by Leonard Jacobs on
Dear Debrah:
Your prejudice against the letter “O” in the spelling of your name says quite a bit. But frankly, I stopped reading your reply after the phrase “ostensibly heterosexual.” That said everything.
Dear North Dallas,
Calling me, in error, an “Obama Party journalist” says quite a bit about you, too. And your allusion to “mprisoning all black children” is, well, not shocking. Look in the mirror and slap yourself back to reality. Then do me a favor and keep slapping.
Dear Matt C,
So you’d acknowledge, then, that the journalist was making and interpreting information — not reporting it, right? For that is what you wrote, right?
Dear Jorge,
So I guess my information was wrong: It was not your sainted George W. Bush who, in the sole original notion of his risible lifetime, invented the “with us or against us” meme. I hope you get over your amnesia. Shame on you.
Dear Bobby,
The act of creating theater is fundamentally political. Is it not, for example, the exercising of First Amendment rights? Is La Cage not about how we define what is and is not a family, a father, a mother, a parent, a child, a marriage? If you can’t see that, then do us know how the latest episodes of Barney are turning out.
Love you all, even as you make me shamed of my America.
Leonard Jacobs
Editor, The Clyde Fitch Report
http://www.clydefitch.com
posted by Throbert McGee on
What the fucking fuck does that even mean!? And what is the “quite a bit” that Leonard thinks it says?
(Actually, I have a logical guess, but if he’s going to make an accusation, I’d rather he said it directly.)
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
Be our guest and try to explain Jacobs’ nutty…….yet foreboding and mysterious reply.
I have no idea what significance the dreaded letter “O” might hold.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Deb-sans-O-rah — I’d rather hold my tongue and watch Mr. Jacobs try to come up with a clever rationalization. I don’t want to HELP him by offering a better spin than what he was actually going for.
posted by Throbert McGee on
However, if Jacobs doesn’t come back to pour a bucket of enlightenment on us, I won’t leave you in suspense forever. So far, I’ve come up with six different interpretations for his comment about the “suppressed O” in your name, each more pretentiously Freudian than the last…
(The easy hypothesis is that he was merely calling you trailer-trash — as in, “Hi, darlin’, Ah’m Tyffani with a star over the i”. But as I said, I got five more theories.)
posted by Throbert McGee on
I’m still scratching my head over this one, too:
To me, this is as futile as arguing that “Gorbachev” is correct and “Gorbatchoff” is wrong. (In fact, they’re both completely defensible as romanizations of ÐоÑбаÑÑв — and from a phonetic point of view, the spelling with -tchoff is even the better one.)
In any case, the b-man is a creature of oral folklore whose written name occurs in multiple spelling variants. So without knowing how Miller pronounces the word, I wouldn’t presume to tell him how he ought to spell it.
posted by Throbert McGee on
And as long as I’m shooting a fat, comatose fish in a barrel of Jell-O:
Translation: Leonard Jacobs feels a desperate need to rationalize all the money he’s wasted by going to see Xanadu on Broadway a hundred and thirty times.
posted by Jorge on
Dear Mr. Jacobs:
For heaven’s sake, when I accuse you of something ridiculous, don’t admit to it!
If you can’t conceptualize or admit that there is a world of a difference between Kelsey Grammar and the Taliban, maybe you should not be publicizing such a thing.
posted by Bobby on
“The act of creating theater is fundamentally political. Is it not, for example, the exercising of First Amendment rights? Is La Cage not about how we define what is and is not a family, a father, a mother, a parent, a child, a marriage? If you can’t see that, then do us know how the latest episodes of Barney are turning out.”
—Some plays are more political than others, after all, most people who see Annie aren’t paying attention to how Herbert Hoover’s progressive policies caused the great depression in the first place, they also aren’t paying attention to the politics of a millionaire industrialist. I pay attention to that because I’m a big fan of politics as well as art, but the average Joe doesn’t spend $120 in Broadway tickets to be given a political lecture.
In fact, while plays like Evita have politics the average person who watches Evita will not bother to research who Evita Peron really was.
Jorge makes a great point about Xanadu, what the hell is political about that piece of garbage?
posted by Jorge on
I think you mean Throbert. The only Xanadu I know is… never mind.
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
You might need to move on to a few more interpretations.
I don’t think even Jacobs is that loony.
His infantile replies to all the commenters are, however, a bit shocking in their lack of coherence.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Aw, damn, Jacobs still hasn’t come back?
Anyway, here are some other possible things that Debrah’s “prejudice against the letter O” might say about her:
(1) She hates hOmOs so much that she refuses to have a vowel in common with us.
(2) She hates dem Oriental ching-chongs!
(3) She is such a reactionary right-winger that she had her name legally changed when Obama was elected.
(4) She is sexually frigid, and signifies her sour-grapes contempt for the unattainable “Big O” by excising the letter from her name.
(5) She secretly believes Oprah is the anti-Christ.
(6) She hates Jewish people. The original Hebrew spelling of the name is Dvorh ( ×Ö°Ö¼××Ö¹×¨Ö¸× ), so by removing the vowel “o” ( ×Ö¹ or vav in Hebrew), she “de-hebraicizes” the name — much as Iranian President Ahmedinnerjacket wants to de-hebraicize the entire Middle East!
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
A few of those passed through my mind.
Too funny!
My best guess is either (1) or (6).
Your (2)…..it’s “Asian”. “Oriental” is waaaay too un-PC.
Your (3)…..not possible since I supported the disappointing m-effer in 2008.
Your (4)…..is hilarious and it could be his limp-wristed way of debating a woman. LIS!
Your (5)…..is, IMO, something lame you’re using as filler.
But who knows, the guy is apparently koo-koo.