by hilzoy
Via AmericaBlog, Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media has finally figured out how Democrats produced the Mark Foley scandal. Astonishingly, he concludes that it’s not George Soros. No: it’s clarified yak butter gays who have infiltrated the Republican party!!!!
“The complex nature of the “dirty trick” against the Republicans over the Mark Foley scandal is beginning to emerge. It doesn’t involve a George Soros-funded group or emails that had been in the possession of the media or shopped around by Democratic operatives. Instead, the GOP has played a trick on itself. The party brought so-called gay Republicans into positions of power in Congress only to realize that the confidential information they held about a secret gay network was political dynamite that could backfire.
At this point in the scandal, the issue is not whether there was such a network, but how big it is. CBS Evening News correspondent Gloria Borger reported the emerging belief that “a group of high-level gay Republican staffers were protecting” Foley. A New York Times story by Mark Leibovich confirmed that gay Republicans have occupied “crucial staff positions” in Congress and “have played decisive roles in passing legislation, running campaigns and advancing careers.””
Really? There are gay Republicans? Who knew?
But what, you might wonder, does this have to do with how Democrats produced the Foley scandal? Well, apparently, gay Republicans are actually clarified yak butter closeted Democrats!
“If you are getting the idea that gay Republicans may be closeted Democrats, then you are beginning to understand how the Mark Foley scandal could have been a Democratic Party dirty trick. (…)
So if the gay Republicans are not really Republicans, what are they? One veteran observer of this network told AIM that the Foley scandal should make it crystal clear that the gay Republicans are in reality “liberal activists” who want to use the party to advance the same homosexual agenda embraced by the Democrats.
Ominously, the Foley scandal suggests that this network has inside information about the sexual behavior of members of Congress and their staffers that can be exploited in order to create scandals at a moment’s notice. Only now are House Republican leaders like Dennis Hastert beginning to understand the trap they may have gotten themselves into. They thought they were being tolerant and diverse and constructing a “big tent” when they were giving gay Republicans important positions of power. It is now apparent that this power has been used to sabotage the party from within. Conservatives who blame Soros, the media or the Democrats for this debacle are whistling past the graveyard, which happens to be near the place where Hastert made his statement the other day that staffers will be fired “if there was a cover-up.” (…)
It seems appropriate to note that one of the few Republicans financially supported by the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, the pro-Democratic group to which Trandahl made his contributions in 2000, was Rep. Jim Kolbe. Was the first “openly gay” Republican member of Congress a closeted Democrat as well? It’s certainly the case that he started acting more like a Democrat once his secret life was exposed. He has, for example, become a prominent advocate of gays in the military and has denounced the proposed federal amendment protecting traditional marriage.
It is also beyond dispute that the current scandalous state of affairs will outlive the Foley scandal unless the secret network of bludgeon and blackmail is exposed.
An investigation of Kolbe, 64, is obviously warranted. He may be retiring from Congress, but his camping trip with 17-year-old male pages seems to be at least as questionable as the Foley Internet messages. Let’s hope knee-jerk Republican defenders don’t try to defend that trip as just a “friendly” excursion.
It’s early in the probe, but we may be looking at emerging evidence of a homosexual recruitment ring that operated on Capitol Hill. It’s time to get beyond partisan politics and follow the evidence wherever it leads. Our media should not be intimidated by charges of “gay bashing.” They must lead the way in getting to the bottom of this terrible abuse of power.”
Accuracy in Media isn’t some small, obscure outfit. It’s one of the organizations funded by Richard Mellon Scaife. Such Republican luminaries as Midge Decter and Charlton Heston sit on its National Advisory Board. It is, in a word, plugged in. And apparently it takes the view that all gays are Democrats, more or less in virtue of being gay. This is a view that I normally associate with Democrats, and I normally try to discourage it, thinking that it must be rough to be someone who is both gay and sympathetic to the Republican party’s other positions, and that any such person presumably knows all about the Republican party’s track record on gay issues, and does not need the rest of us to lecture him or her, or to indulge our stereotypes at his or her expense. I plan to avoid this view all the more now, since I don’t really want to have anything in common with Cliff Kincaid, apart from those properties that go with our membership in the same species.
Sheesh.
I think Charlton Heston is dead.
I will say: a network of closeted gay Republicans who are really secret Democrat operatives able to spring sex scandals on the public at the drop of a hat: this is a brilliant plan. This has to happen. Can we get MoveOn on this?
That’s what I hate about the Dems, they just can’t keep a secret plan a secret. Someone is always blabbing and giving away the game. No wonder they can’t win…
and that any such person presumably knows all about the Republican party’s track record on gay issues
Well, except that the Republican party’s track record on gay issues is active and ongoing – and the few gay Republicans who have expressed their views actually seem to be partially or completely unaware of that track record. (Mary Cheney in a recent interview seemed to be unaware that the Republicans in the Virginia state government had recently passed a law denying her and her partner the right to make private legal contracts giving them some of the same rights as married couples, for example.)
I, I, wha-, ju-, who, uh, but, um, uh, er.
Well I guess I’m speechless.
Actually, two points: (1) whatever Kincaid’s smoking, please email me and let me know where I can get some; and (2) he posts fairly well for someone in a rubber room.
Oh, and, did this make it to Limbaugh yet?
OT – the British Army Chief is a loser defeatist.
it makes me sad to think an idea like that could be taken seriously at all.
Dunno what the big deal is all about: Republicans cannot possibly ever be gay, so they’re either closeted Dems or even Greens. What’s so difficult about that?
And of course there’s the timing to consider; it practically guarantees that this is a DNC dirty trick.
Foley Scandal Price of Tolerating Gay Republicans?
Accuracy In Media editor Cliff Kincaid believes the Foley scandal is the price Republicans have paid for pretending that gay sickos can actually be real Republicans:
The complex nature of the dirty trick against the Republicans over the M…
Actually, the better explanation is that gay Republicans are crab people.
I thought this was a joke, a parody of how wingnuts think, until I got to hilzoy’s explanation at the end.
How do Log Cabin Republicans feel about this?
Ugh, I think that’s pretty much what Kincaid is proposing.
Ugh, I think that’s pretty much what Kincaid is proposing.
Someone should alert Matt and Trey so they can sue for copyright infringement.
Yikes, there’s more. From The Nation:
Charlton Heston suffers from Alzheimers but his hands remain warm and living.
Everything Kincaid writes is true. After all, Bush I infiltrated the Republican Party and raised taxes, proving Kincaid’s point about infiltration. Plus, Bush I went camping with young people who wanted to raise taxes. It’s not hard to imagine what kind of liberal Democrat tomfoolery went on under the pup tent.
The passengers of Flight 93 gave their lives so that Osama Bin Laden and Dinesh D’Souza couldn’t carry out the rest of their evil plot to cleanse and crush corrupt western culture by exterminating teh ghees at the Capital. We know why too, don’t we? Gays had infiltrated the passengers. Little did the hijackers know there were others flying with an agenda.
I have $500 for the guy or gal who punches D’Souza’s and/or Kincaid’s lights out on someone’s national talk news show. No debate, no free exchange of views, no back and forth. Just half a sentence or so out of either’s mouth and they are knocked out cold.
It would be the “civil”ized thing to do.
create scandals at a moment’s notice
Gosh, and here I’ve been so critical of the Democrats’ deficiencies in long-term planning! Turns out they had it well in hand all along, planting seeds that would let them harvest a scandal at just the right moment. Sure, most of the Dem leaders were too shell-shocked (or newly unemployed) after the 1994 elections to react, but clearly some of our evil geniuses began to think ahead… way ahead.
And to think they didn’t even try to spring this one in 2004, when you might imagine we could have used any little boost at the polls. What restraint.
And to think they didn’t even try to spring this one in 2004
Well, there was a doozy of a scandal in 2004; maybe that used up all of the collective imagination and financial resources.
Hey, if all gay Republicans (no matter how closety) are now officially Democratic, doesn’t that mean that the Democratic party now has control of both Houses, and there has to be a big switcharound of the Majority and Minority seats on the committees?
Obviously, the new Democrats ought to be marked in some way so everyone knows they’re really Democrats even if they keep protesting they’re Republicans. A pink triangle fabric badge sewn onto their clothing would be traditional.
“is, in a word, plugged in. And apparently it takes the view that all gays are Democrats, more or less in virtue of being gay.”
Tremble, Kinkaid, all teh conservative gays are remotely-programmed Democrat sleeper agents. We just use the “trigger phrase” at the appropriate time, and BWWAAAHAHAH!
(It’s all the subliminal messages we planted in ABBA songs.)
I agree with Nell about the brilliance of this plan, but I would go further.
Surely the cunning and discipline needed to carry out such a complex long-term plan (with no casualties and very low costs!!) is just what the country needs in dealing with its enemies. So anyone who buys this story ought to strongly support the Democrats.
I thought that the subliminal messages in “Money, Money, Money” were particularly amusing (they were decoded in last month’s copy of The Gay Agenda):
If you play it backwards at just the right frequency, you find that someone was adding some little frivolous extras to the original long-term plan. Who could have believed that Bush could be persuaded to do that in the Oval Office? And with whom?
And apparently it takes the view that all gays are Democrats, more or less in virtue of being gay. This is a view that I normally associate with Democrats,…
Uh, isn’t this is a view taken pretty exclusively by Repubs?
Most Dems I know feely accept that many gays are Repubs. Heck, the fact that there are plenty only shows that being gay has nothing to do with a point of view or lifestyle choice. Indeed, since Dems typically believe that gayness is innate, they readily accept that gays can choose be Republicans (whereas anti-gay Republicans cannot seem to understand why a Republican would “choose” to be gay).
I do wonder about the cognitive dissonance of being gay and choosing to be Republican, especially in view of this hate screed highlighted in this post. Sure, one can join a party without embracing all of its positions, but embracing a party that actively demonizes you?
dmb: I was thinking of the various times (mercifully, not many) I’ve winced as some liberal has asked some conservative gay person: but how can you, a gay person, possibly be a Republican??? — I think it’s easier for us to fall into this because we are, um, more likely to be attuned to the shortcomings of the Republican party and its views. Republicans, by contrast, seem to me more likely than Democrats to think something like: gays are bad; therefore they must be Democrats.
I should also say clearly that “people who hold view X are more likely to belong to political party Y” does not imply anything like “most Ys believe X”, and I do not mean it to imply this. I imagine that most Aryan supremacists are Republicans (if they’re members of either party), but not that Aryan supremacism is common among Republicans. Ditto apologists for the USSR among Democrats.
I was thinking of the various times (mercifully, not many) I’ve winced as some liberal has asked some conservative gay person: but how can you, a gay person, possibly be a Republican???
Well, yes. The Republican party regards GLBT people as second-class citizens at best, as cheap meat when they need to feed their Christian supporters at worst. You’ve here cited an example of Republicans treating other gay Republicans as cheap meat, rather than fellow party members.
That some GLBT people nevertheless support the Republican party is a sad fact of life. The Log Cabin Republicans exist.
In my own country, even after the Conservative government passed the nakedly homophobic Section 28 law, some GLBT people continued to support the Conservative party (as some broke away from it). I heard then people asking openly gay Tories how can you: and both they and we understood that this was asking How can you support a party that declares you to be a second-class citizen? not an insistance that they had to support some other party really.
Dmbeaster’s quite right to call you out on this. You’ve just plain misunderstood.
I think there seems to be more Gay Republicans than Black Republicans, and Repugs are way more hostile to Gays.
Maybe it has something to do with visability.
Can I take it no-one else saw this week’s Drawn Together?
Or even visibility.
SOD: I think there seems to be more Gay Republicans than Black Republicans, and Repugs are way more hostile to Gays.
Depends how you look at it. There’s no active movement within the Republican party to systematically disenfranchise GLBT Americans: there’s no active movement within the Republican party to systematically deny Black Americans the right to marry. Being openly homophobic is a lot more acceptable in the US (and in the UK) than being openly racist is, but I think the hostility is still there, however expressed.
Thus, my comment about visibility.
It is hard to hide blackness, however hiding sexual orientation seems easier.
It seems that many Gays in the Republican Party view their own sexual orientation as a “state-of-being” or minor sexual convention, worth/meant hiding.
Or
They just don’t take the hatred exhibited by their own party members all that serious.
Within the Black community, seeing a Black person with the (R) next to their name is a tantamount to a Black Man with a Confederate flag t-shirt.
Not impossible, but…
“I was thinking of the various times (mercifully, not many) I’ve winced as some liberal has asked some conservative gay person: but how can you, a gay person, possibly be a Republican???”
Argh, I have so many stories. 🙂
“Being openly homophobic is a lot more acceptable in the US (and in the UK) than being openly racist is, but I think the hostility is still there, however expressed.”
An interesting study would be the actions of bigoted people in different parties. I don’t hear many homophobic comments from Democrats. I sometimes hear them from Republicans (which always draws the fun “I didn’t realize you felt that way about me.” This can be an interesting way to come out of the closet because there is usually a moment of confusion while they process what “felt that way about me” could mean before they realize I’m saying that I’m gay).
When it comes to racism (and I fully admit that it could be because Republicans are more careful as opposed to less racist) I hear shockingly racist comments from Democrats all the time (often gay Democrats) but very rarely from Republicans. I live in California, so the comments tend to be about Mexicans rather than black people. But it is an interesting (though possibly local) phenomenon.
I hear shockingly racist comments from Democrats all the time but very rarely from Republicans
though i don’t keep a ledger, i don’t think i’ve noticed a difference, among people i know – there are people on all sides who are happy to spit out a stinker now and then.
Teh Ghee also has that whole religious thing against it, whereas Teh Blak doesn’t.
SOD: It seems that many Gays in the Republican Party view their own sexual orientation as a “state-of-being” or minor sexual convention, worth/meant hiding.
I’ve also encountered right-wing gay men (all those I personally encountered were gay men, though I know the state of mind exists in lesbians/bisexuals/transgendered people, too) who were of the opinion that restrictive or discriminatory laws on GLBT people were necessary and right. (Florence King is one of my favorite lesbian writers, though I deplore her politics: she’s been very funny – and very wrong! – about how lesbians ought not to associate ourselves politically with gay men.)
But my impression is that most GLBT people who support a party that regards them at best as second-class citizens believe that they are the exception to the rule – that the laws being passed by the party they support don’t actually affect them personally in any way, and so don’t matter. Mary Cheney’s ignorance of her and her partner’s precarious legal situation in Virginia is – I bet – based safely on the fact that as Dick Cheney’s daughter, it’s unlikely that anyone will seriously try to apply those laws to her. Though given Lynn Cheney’s expressed opinion about homosexuality, if Mary Cheney’s partner survives her, I wouldn’t bet that the Cheney family would treat her as their widowed daughter-in-law, whatever Mary’s views might have been.
An interesting study would be the actions of bigoted people in different parties. I don’t hear many homophobic comments from Democrats. I sometimes hear them from Republicans (which always draws the fun “I didn’t realize you felt that way about me.” This can be an interesting way to come out of the closet because there is usually a moment of confusion while they process what “felt that way about me” could mean before they realize I’m saying that I’m gay).
Heh. My mom holds quite forthright feminist opinions, while looking like your typical rather conservative matron: she gets a good deal of pleasure out of surprising people who make anti-feminist comments in front of her, expecting her to agree with them.
But of course you hear homophobic comments from Republicans fairly often – as we all do – just not usually where you’re in a position to reply to them. When you are, it must be very satisfying…
When it comes to racism (and I fully admit that it could be because Republicans are more careful as opposed to less racist) I hear shockingly racist comments from Democrats all the time (often gay Democrats) but very rarely from Republicans. I live in California, so the comments tend to be about Mexicans rather than black people. But it is an interesting (though possibly local) phenomenon.
In the UK, my impression is that for any politician to make a racist comment (or even a comment that can be interpreted as racist, as Jack Straw’s recent comment about Muslim women wearing veils) is to risk political suicide. Ordinary people making racist comments exist on both right and left, but it’s not socially acceptable – neither in the mainstream media, and certainly not in the social circles I move in, either socially or at work, both mixed and gay. Even the British National Party keeps having to detach itself from explicitly racist comments or campaigners, and the BNP is a party that was founded on the racist principle that England ought to be populated exclusively by white people. (They have since, rather unsuccessfully, branched out into Scotland and Wales.)
“Gay Republicans May be Closeted Democrats”
This is precisely the sort of garbage I warned about with Foleygate; it is driving down support for the GOP with mid-terms looming, but the expected group slander of gays from Bush-supporting quarters unhappy with the damage is here — in rancid, full
My father used to be pretty homophobic, very evangelical and Latino, however when it came to politics he was insistent on political party. So a lesbian atheist with a (D) would get his vote over straight Christian with a ®. It seems the late 80’s changed all that (not for him, though). My father is still very evangelical and Latino, a typical anti-intellectual leftist. But all the family members that came out of the closet really changed his attitude.
I should say my father is pretty afro-latino.
I was thinking of the various times (mercifully, not many) I’ve winced as some liberal has asked some conservative gay person: but how can you, a gay person, possibly be a Republican???
Yeah, I empathize with the wince reaction — as if a gay Republican needs a further dose of non-acceptance. But being who we are and not going to the Republican cocktail parties, I wonder how often Republicans, in shock to discover a gay person in their midst, asks: but how can you, a gay person, possibly be a Republican?
And even though the exact same words are being spoken, there is a definite difference in intention behind the words.
This is my favorite bit:
I’m not exactly sure why. Something like the faux shock that Republican staffers and congresspeople were actually allowed to occupy important positions! And actually allowed to play a role in passing legislation! Like the alternative was they’d be locked in the basement and only allowed to make sandwiches.
Dmbeaster: I wonder how often Republicans, in shock to discover a gay person in their midst, asks: but how can you, a gay person, possibly be a Republican?
I doubt this happens all that often. It’s a favorite contention of homophobes that gay people are really much happier being treated as second-class citizens – that, for example, no decent gay person would ever want to be allowed to marry someone of the same gender – and I would imagine that while a homophobic Republican might be disconcerted at discovering that a fellow-Republican was gay and a decent person, it would merely confirm them in their belief that decent gay people like to be treated as inferiors.
And here all this time I thought Seb was just another conservative. Little did I suspect that he was a sleeper agent working for a homosexual cabal at the dark heart the DNC.
Hmm. This really makes me rethink Seb and Jes’s relationship. Does this mean that Jes is actually Seb’s handler and their very public disagreements are all engineered to cement Seb’s cover?
Fiendishly clever.
Does this mean that Jes is actually Seb’s handler and their very public disagreements are all engineered to cement Seb’s cover?
Curses! Rumbled.
Nous, I’m sorry you had to discover that. We are going to need your real name and address so that Jesurgislac can send the very very friendly people over to help you out. 🙂
People, people, it’s time to get beyond partisan politics and follow the evidence wherever it leads. If a cabal of gay Democrats have infiltrated the Republican party, and are attempting to undermine the GOP with dirty tricks while advancing a pro-gay Democratic agenda and orchestrating a homosexual recruitment ring, then that is a thoroughly non-partisan problem that we all need to work together to deal with.
So not only are we living in a parody, we are living in a parody of a John le Carre novel.
Think of the selfless devotion of Mark Foley: willing to sacrifice a promising political career for the sake of the country…
I’ve never heard of Cliff Kincaid, but he does strike me as being an idiot. Maybe he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express in Key West.
Relevant via Sully: SoS Rice refers to new global AIDS coordinator’s partner’s mother as the former’s “mother-in-law”, a pretty explicit embrace of the marriage-like qualities of their relationship. Which goes to show, again, that the people at the top really have no problem with homosexuals personally, but also have no problem throwing them on the pyre if it leads to votes.
This Kincaid fellow was…serious? I thought this came from the Onion.
ral: So not only are we living in a parody, we are living in a parody of a John le Carre novel.
I know! And I so wanted to be written by Amanda Cross.
Nope, definitely Le Carre. The Spy Who Came out of the Closet, maybe?
“(or even a comment that can be interpreted as racist, as Jack Straw’s recent comment about Muslim women wearing veils)”
Muslims are a “race”?
Well, Christopher Shays believes that Abu Gharaib was all about sex, not torture. Maybe Kincaid thinks his Party needs a little less man-on-man and a little more dog-on-man.
Gary, you didn’t know that Muslim is a race now? Color me suprised. Or at least ethnographically classify me as surprised.
I don’t believe anyone referred to Muslims as a race, just that racist comments were made about them.
Seems odd to be taking the other side of this argument, but here we are.
“And here all this time I thought Seb was just another conservative. Little did I suspect that he was a sleeper agent working for a homosexual cabal at the dark heart the DNC.”
Gosh, I wish I was GLBT so I could join the conspiracy. I guess I’ll just have to settle for volunteering and making the coffee at Conspiracy HQ.
Let’s work the conspiracy lather up more. The CIA (which as we all know is full of liberal fifth columnists) had its MKULTRA program on “brainwashing” in the early 1960s. Pretty soon after that was Stonewall aand the demostrations at the APA to get the DSM amended. Coincidence? I think not.
Think about it: CIA-MKULTRA attempts at brainwashing: exposure to drugs, loud noise, repetitive suggestions, sensory disorientation. Sound familar? Yup – any dance club. Another CIA [liberal] plot!
Call Regnery! I’ve got a red-hot idea for a book!
“Gary, you didn’t know that Muslim is a race now?”
Who’s winning?
“I don’t believe anyone referred to Muslims as a race, just that racist comments were made about them.”
To act in a racist way, one presumably has to a) believe in the concept of human “races”; and b) make a comment (or act on the basis of) based on someone’s alleged membership in such a “race,” does one not?
If I say “you’re such a honky!,” I’m making a racist utterance. If I say “you’re such a poopy-head!,” I’m not being a racist unless I’m also postulating that there is a race of human poopy-heads. (Which is faintly tempting, I admit.)
Insulting someone on the basis of their religion is bigoted, and insulting someone for being Muslim is anti-Islamic, but unless there’s a “race” of Muslims, it can’t be racist.
And specifically — I suspect you’ve not followed the Straw controversy, which may be throwing you off — the wearing of a veil is a practice not of any alleged “races,” but specifically of Islam. I’m not aware of anyone complaining that Jack Straw was saying anything about anyone’s “race,” but some have complained variously that his comment was divisive, bigoted, un-called-for, Islamophobic, intolerant, etc.
But, to be sure, Britons do tend to use “racist” is all sorts of odd and generic and sweeping ways, to an American ear. I shan’t make more of it.
“Gosh, I wish I was GLBT so I could join the conspiracy.”
All at once, or in sequence?
“The CIA (which as we all know is full of liberal fifth columnists) had its MKULTRA program on ‘brainwashing’ in the early 1960s.”
Fifties, to be picky.
Of course, there are now allegations that Jose Padilla was given LSD; I say it’s unkind to assume that They weren’t just trying to get him to turn on, tune in, and drop out.
It seems to me (and if you knew me you’d know why that’s an immense qualifier, but anyway) that the Pubs picked up a lot of gay support back in the early 90s when the left, such as it was, ceded libertarianism, and when you’re young and gay, “leave me alone” is a pretty appealing philosophy. Anybody else remember that week-long stretch when political correctness was an actual thing and not just an all-purpose straw boogeyman for the conservative movement? Drove a lot of us rightward–or, more to the point, anti-leftward–and we didn’t come to our senses until we were out in the world a while. I think guys like Sullivan just never got past their resentment over speech codes.
I’m sure nobody under 30 or over 35 has any idea what I’m talking about, but read Brock’s “Blinded by the Right”–I actually thought I was remembering college politics from those days wrong until I read that. Plus he’s gay, which wasn’t my point, but I guess it fits in with the whole…
I swear there was a germ of an actual point rattling around in my head when I started writing this. Anybody want some part-time work doing Verbose-Flake-to-English translation?
“Anybody else remember that week-long stretch when political correctness was an actual thing and not just an all-purpose straw boogeyman for the conservative movement?”
Was that before or after the mid-Seventies, when it was an ironic leftist joke playing off Maoists?
After. It came during a period historians refer to as “back when me and my art fag buddies were surrounded by the type of chafing liberals that don’t actually exist anymore except in the most reactionary South Park episodes.”
I assume that was a swipe, but this is as good a time as any to thank you for your “disappear me, bitches” post back when they passed that detainee bill. Glad nobody took you up on it.
“I assume that was a swipe”
More of a different perspective, is all. After all, I am over 35. (48 in three weeks, actually.)
“I assume that was a swipe, but this is as good a time as any to thank you for your ‘disappear me, bitches’ post back when they passed that detainee bill. Glad nobody took you up on it.”
Give ’em time.
(Of course, that was just the lefty equivalent of the “Fighting 101st Keyboarders,” you realize. Yelping on a blog doesn’t actually require much bravery. Anger and frustration, though, I got.)
And thanks. (I posted more and various stuff today and yesterday, incidentally, folks; not much on politics, though, and nothing terribly brilliant, but nonetheless I mention, since once again I see that 98% of my “readers” are random Google searchers.)
The proper word would probabely be bigot, not racist, but over here muslims are mostly subjected to comments like that. People of colour are next; gays not so much since they are on the whole assumed to be as varied ad heterosexuals. In actual fact I’ve often (very seriously) stated that being a gay men was less hampering that being a female in the Netherlands.
When I read these ‘gay conspiracy’ comments originally I actually assumed that the person making the statements was in the fringe of the republican party. Does this post mean that he is to be viewed as more respectable than that?
You don’t have to be a “media critic” to play this game; why, you can be the Majority Leader!
I’ve bolded the truthful part.
The link; via Atrios.
I’m surprised nobody’s picked up on my favourite bit of Kincaid’s lunacy:
Gay politician comes out, begins supporting gay rights. Ergo, he must be a Democrat! Cliff, isn’t it more likely that he started acting more like a gay person?
thy father was a pastry cook!
thy mother stole the ghee!
(prizes for first id–and no googling)
Certainly Kipling, I think Kim.
aw c’mon–you didn’t even give the others a chance to make some *wrong* guesses first.
yeah–it’s Kim. Somewhere in the first page or two, as well, so you don’t even have to read the whole thing.
I’ve always suspected that there are more salacious undertones to the insult (i.e. that the legal possession of some clarified butter may not be the entire issue). It’s always interesting to see how Kipling sneaks in sex around the edges of his Victorian tales.