October 04, 2006

The Gay-Baiting Left

They can call it a "big tent" party all they want, but by their actions, it's rather clear that what liberals are hiding under is just another name for a large white sheet:

There's a list going around. Those disseminating it call it "The List." It's a roster of top-level Republican congressional aides who are gay.

On CBS News on Tuesday, correspondent Gloria Borger reported that there's anger among House Republicans at what an unidentified House GOPer called a "network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the Speaker a disservice." The implication is that these gay Republicans somehow helped page-pursuing Mark Foley before his ugly (and possibly illegal) conduct was exposed. The List--drawn up by gay politicos--is a partial accounting of who on Capitol Hill might be in that network.

I have a copy. I'm not going to publish it.

Not going to publish it? He's just going to mention the positions held by those on the list, as well as which Congressional offices they work for. David Corn's the kid in class who claimed he didn't "tattle" even as he pointed at the other kids. The "List" was compiled by liberal activists over the course of several years.

There is a vile, bullying aspect at play here in the left as they once again attack a minority group for daring to wander off of what Democrats feel are the borders of their liberal plantation.

A black conservative? Must be a race traitor. Let's call him Sambo, or better yet, stalk him.

A gay conservative? Let's invoke the 3/5 compromise, because gay conservatives don't have full citizenship.

Nothing like whipping up on an uppity minority to get that liberal superiority Jones satisfied.

One of these days, voters in different minority groups are going to realize that by giving the overwhelming supermajority of their votes to one party, no matter how they are treated by that party, that they've made themselves a political non-entity. They've taken themselves completely out of play, and given aware their power.

Only once both parties have the think that they could gain or lose their votes as values-based individuals and families—and not a monolithic special interest groups—will they have any real power as people.

It never amazes me that liberals abuse those they claim to represent. It only amazes me that those they abuse put up with the abuse.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at October 4, 2006 03:42 PM | TrackBack

they once again attack a minority group for daring to wander off of what Democrats feel are the borders of their liberal plantation.

. . . because if anyone knows which plantation these "minorities" belong on, it's someone who goes by "Confederate Yankee."

Now that you've diagnosed the false consciousness of gays, blacks and other minorities who cling inexplicably to the Democratic Party, perhaps you could explain how the Republicans are offering a better deal?

I suppose it's hardly worth pointing out that a vast gulf separates (a) the design and promotion of policies that systematically and openly discriminate against gay people for being gay; and (b) a list compiled by party activists to document the hypocrisy of gay-baiting political figures. However mean-spirited "the list" may be, it isn't gay-baiting.

Posted by: Captain Howdy at October 4, 2006 04:00 PM

Gay-baiting? Oh, that'd be Kerry/Edwards 'revealing' that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian while wearing that 'but I'm not judging' smirk.

Discriminating against gay people? Oh, that'd be anyone who opposes the 'more equal than the other animals' theory of hate-speech while gays refer to the majority of the population as breeders? That'd be the idea that marriage needs to be defined as one man and one woman as the basis of an ordered society; that the outliers do not get to re-define for the rest of society one of the building blocks of that society?

Republicans may not offer a better deal, but Conservatives certainly do, in that we appraise on individual merits not group identity, and today the Republican party is where you find Conservatives and Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Bobby Jindahl, Mary Cheney, Tammy Bruce and on and on. And these are the people the Left and the Democrats constantly berate as traitors.

Mike Ross is the guy behind outing gay Republicans and their staff and it is indeed blackmail as far as gays who don't support the homosexual agenda.

Posted by: Cindi at October 4, 2006 04:22 PM

Correction: that'd be Mike Rogers.

Posted by: Cindi at October 4, 2006 04:25 PM

And these are the people the Left and the Democrats constantly berate as traitors.

I hate to tell you this, but since you clearly don't actually speak to (or read anything written by) "the Left" or "the Democrats," you should know that most of us just aren't that preoccupied with Mary Cheney and the rest of the folks on your list. We really aren't.

As for the rest of your illiterate outburst, I couldn't make heads or tails of much of what you wrote. But I would gently remind you that sodomy laws -- which I suspect more "conservatives" than liberals support -- discriminated against people as a group (until, much to the dismay of most "conservatives," the Supreme Court struck those laws down); theocratic marriage laws -- which I suspect more "conservatives" than liberals support -- discriminate against people as a group by denying them literally hundreds of legal advantages that are available through no other means than marriage.

You can claim that conservatives judge people on their "individual merits," but no matter how you slice it, many of the laws that "conservatives" support do no such thing. No matter how meritorious a gay man is, he can't marry the person of his choosing. You can support those laws or not -- I really couldn't give a squirt -- but don't embarrass yourself by claiming that conservatives only see individuals.

Posted by: Captain Howdy at October 4, 2006 05:17 PM


You wear your ignorance on your sleeve.

The Democrats--and liberals in general--don't accuse those they disagree with of being traitors. That despicable practice is entirely the province of the right wing.

The idea really sucks, doesn't it? So why don't you guys stop doing it for a while?

Posted by: Doc Washboard at October 4, 2006 09:05 PM

Doc -

The Democrats--and liberals in general--don't accuse those they disagree with of being traitors. That despicable practice is entirely the province of the right wing.

to betray:

To deliver into the hands of an enemy by treachery or fraud, in violation of trust; to give up treacherously or faithlessly; as, an officer betrayed the city.

traitor (plural traitors)

One who violates his allegiance and betrays his country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to an enemy, or yields up any fort or place intrusted to his defense, or surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished; also, one who takes arms and levies war against his country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country.
Hence, one who betrays any confidence or trust; a betrayer.

""He betrayed this country!" Mr. Gore shouted into the microphone at a rally of Tennessee Democrats here in a stuffy hotel ballroom. "He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."

The speech had several hundred Democrats roaring their approval for Mr. Gore, the party's 2000 standard-bearer."

Wrong again Doc.

Posted by: SouthernRoots at October 4, 2006 09:28 PM


Posted by: aja10024 at October 4, 2006 11:03 PM

You are really reaching CY and I am enjoying these nice reads!

However, I do give Republicans credit. Once again, Democrats are stupidly playing their game, talking their politics, fighting their fight. Mainly, discussion is dominated by security and war on terror and none of the other issues except the news of the day (Foley). How 'bout some discussion on economics, healthcare, port security, immigration, deployment of troops to catch that black sheep Saudi terrorist responsible for 9/11? I hear crickets!

When you have nothing else to run on....that's what you have to do. Gay baiting, Clinton did this, Clinton did that ten years ago! What is next? Carter? JFK?

The countdown to neutralization continues......Get ready for our great system of government to bring us back into check. Thank God.

Posted by: Johnny at October 4, 2006 11:09 PM

Typical of the'reality-based' community. Attack, call names but don't address the argument. Feh.

Posted by: Cindi at October 4, 2006 11:28 PM

Typical of the'reality-based' community. Attack, call names but don't address the argument. Feh.

Actually, Cindy, I addressed your "argument" to the degree that I could figure out what exactly you were trying to say amid the stream of non-sentences you coughed onto the screen there.

And Southern Roots -- let's stick to the topic here. CY (and Cindy) accused "the Left" of baiting gays and duping "minorities" into voting for their candidates. Cindy, furthermore, accused "the Left" of being consumed with fury at the "traitors" like Condi Rice and Mary Cheney -- "minorities" who vote Republican. Neither claim has any evidence to support it.

As for the issue of "traitors," we all know the difference between calling someone a "traitor" and claiming that someone has "betrayed the country." It's a subtle difference, but it's meaningful. When the Right accuses someone (as I often hear folks like Michael Reagan doing on talk radio and cable news) of providing "aid and comfort to the enemy," they're actually using the language of Federal treason statutes -- and they're directly citing laws that provide for the execution of "traitors." To my knowledge, Gore was not suggesting that Bush be arrested for violating those laws.

Oops, I've strayed from the topic.

Posted by: Captain Howdy at October 4, 2006 11:54 PM

No, you didn't address anything. Can't understand what I wrote? Stop moving your lips as you read.

Posted by: Cindi at October 5, 2006 01:31 AM

The rhetoric of Michael Rogers (and similar ilk) is disturbingly like that in the Turner Diaries or Hunter(another book the guy who wrote TD did).

To the lefties, yes, I've read both TD and Hunter, have you? Do you know what is actually contined within?

How could you support anyone espousing that TD brand of race traitor rhetoric like Rogers does?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 5, 2006 01:31 AM

How interesting. "Liberals" attacking people they nominally support because of their politics. i guess identity politics goes only so far.

It is almost as if they didn't believe what they say.

Jews have been getting it from the Ds for a long time (Al Sharpton, McKinney, etc.) and still vote lock step D.

A word to the wise - after a while people begin to notice.

Posted by: M. Simon at October 5, 2006 05:34 AM

SouthernRoots, it's always a sign of impending disaster when someone has to resort to the, "Webster's defines [insert whatever word you don't understand] as..." gambit. Yes, I get it. You had to find some way to twist what Gore said as being equal to the incessant attacks of Limbaugh et al., so you used your book skills. As an English teacher, I applaud you for looking something up.

I stand corrected.

Let me restate. The Reich Wing is responsible for 99.999% of all accusations of treason. I exaggerated the last one-thousandth of a percent for dramatic effect.

Further, Gore may have used a rhetorical flourish in a speech, saying that the Republicans are "betraying" the nation. It is the Republicans themselves, however, who come out and directly accuse Progressives of treason and suggest that they are liable for prosecution. Let's just begin with your buddies O'Reilly and Pat Robertson.

Daring to suggest that the Progressives do it more than the Reich Wing is only a sign of intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

Game, set and match, my friend.

Why do you hate America?

Posted by: Doc Washboard at October 5, 2006 08:08 AM


By calling names and refusing to refute your opponents' points, you are doing precisely what you are contemptuously accusing your opponents of doing.

In the reality-based community, we call that "irony." Sometimes we call it "cowardice." Whatever. You choose the one that fits.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at October 5, 2006 08:22 AM

You know why cant we just call a spade a spade this is rediculous both sides of the aisle are corrupt. This is just another example of how politicians in general have conviluted the entire system to promote their own agenda.

I am a republican but I dont agree with everything they have done and say. On the same token some of the things that the democrats say are true.

So like I said let just call this what it is politics at its finest in our great country (pun intended)

Posted by: 81 at October 5, 2006 08:58 AM

Don't waste your time people. This is just another example of the fallacious logic of the left. Merely because they've baptised their ideology with the word "liberal," they feel that they're automatically free from bigotry. And anyone who suggests anything to the contrary is attacked as being "intellectually bakrupt." There's no amount of evidence you can throw their way. They refuse to look past their self-righteous talk long enough to see the hypocrisy of their actions.

Roger Simon said it perfectly, "...does anyone think it is ironic that so-called progressives who excoriated eavesdropping on terrorists are feasting on the publication of supposedly confidential email and IMs? You can forget about privacy. It no longer exists, if it ever did. The Patriot Act, if you think about it, is on some levels a joke, the Constitution a sideshow. The craven and rapacious stalk the corridors of power egged on by a loathesome media as hypocrisy rules and child abuse rears its ugly head with the age of consent debated by people whose only interest is their own ambitions."

Oh, and you don't have to try to debate me on this. We'll just agree to disagree. I don't think anyone's changing any minds here today.

Posted by: Granddaddy Long Legs at October 5, 2006 09:03 AM

Roger Simon said it perfectly . . .


No, I won't try to change your mind on this because you clearly haven't got one.

As proof of this, I'll just ask you to explain what the last sentence in that quotation from Roger Simon's actually means.

Posted by: Captain Howdy at October 5, 2006 11:09 AM

Doc-where in the above posts did I call anyone a name? I didn't.
There's no sense in repeating myself to someone who claims they 'can't' understand what I've written because I'm 'illiterate'. What's to refute - that I'm not illiterate? He didn't address my points.

Posted by: Cindi at October 5, 2006 06:46 PM