There is nothing that will top Ken Mehlman, former RNC chair, who led the Republicans while they were trying to convince Americans that gay people were trying to ruin the country while also being a gay man. Your self-esteem has to be rock bottom to do what he did.

tkihshbt wrote:

There is nothing that will top Ken Mehlman, former RNC chair, who led the Republicans while they were trying to convince Americans that gay people were trying to ruin the country while also being a gay man. Your self-esteem has to be rock bottom to do what he did.

And so yet another GOP strategist comes out of the closet to point out the hypocrisy within conservatism these days and it elicits less soul searching among conservatives than when a new Tom Clancy novel comes out.

Last edited by Max (12/24/2010 11:06 am)

JV wrote:

Ken Mehlman may be able to speak to the motives of Republican leadership, but I don't believe he can speak to those of conservatives.

It goes without saying that no one person can speak for 'conservatives'.  Surely among those Americans who consider their selves conservatives are those who oppose equal rights for gays, but within that group, many are in favor of equal rights for gays, and some, of course, are gay themselves.  Just as importantly, how many of those who oppose equal rights for gays do so because they have had their opinion successfully formed and reformed by decades of gay-bashing by GOP strategists like Brook and Mehlman?  And if the GOP leadership had spent the past 30 years preparing Americans for the day when gays would have equal rights, how would attitudes towards gays be different among today's self-identified conservative?

This is particularly relevant with regard to Muslims, and Muslim-bashing.  Gays maybe account for 5-10% of the public, but Muslims number over a billion people worldwide, and the cynical conservative strategists are snickering among themselves that they have successfully snookered American conservatives into accepting that waging war against a virtually inexhaustible supply of enemies is in America's best interests.

tkihshbt wrote:

Scott Brown is going to get a Teatard primary challenge in 2012 because his vote for the repeal of DADT has pissed them off royally.

My only question is this: what the hell do taxes have to do with gay people? Nothing, of course, and this is more evidence that the Tea Party is nothing more than a more purified version of the Republican party as put together by Reagan. If Teatards loved their Constitution and civil liberties so much, then gay people would never be on the radar.

It's all part of the less government mantra, TK. You're left alone to bask in the bliss of your freedom, as our forefathers intended, unless what you're doing offends Sean Hannity. Then we have to amend the Constitution to stop it.
Keep your criticism of the Teabaggers on the down low, though. We need to encourage these people long enough so Sarah Palin will run for President in two years. She'll either get crushed as a Republican, or as a third party candidate draw enough votes away from the GOP nominee to let Obama win a second term.

forsberg_us wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

let Obama win a second term.

I think I just threw up in my mouth.

I know, I know. It's hard to get used to the guy who ended up with the most votes actually being inaugurated, but every once in awhile it happens in that office.

forsberg_us wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

let Obama win a second term.

I think I just threw up in my mouth.

So, Fors, I haven't been enthralled with Obama's performance thus far.  But looking back on any policy that is old enough for us to actually have a fair judgement on, what conservative policies of the past 30 years have actually done any good, and compare those with the ones that were very arguably bad? 

A good case of this will be fighting gay rights.  Little by little the country changes its values (about everything, by the way) and the opposition to gays is now low, less than a majority on many specific gay rights issues (e.g. repeal of DADT).  Gays will acheive equal rights some day, that we can all see.  But conservatives have dug their heels in the sand and continue to use it as a phony wedge issue, seemingly free of any concern that some day someone will say, "You were wrong on gay rights, and you're wrong on . . . . "  On which policies has the GOP done demonstrable good for the country?

Last edited by Max (12/29/2010 8:51 pm)

artie_fufkin wrote:

I've always thought that if Benjamin Franklin was somehow resurrected and dropped into the present, the thing that would fascinate him the most is the microwave oven. "I can put popcorn in here and cook it in two minutes?!?" And he'd probably spend a lot of his free time in strip clubs. Franklin was a horny bastard.

Indeed.  I don't know his work well, but I believe he wrote on the joys of both older women and of the servant class. 

In fact, reading your post it suddenly caused me to reflect on his famous quote, 'all cats are gray in the dark,' and it suddenly dawned upon me that perhaps history has preserved only the P.G. version of his quote, and perhaps what he actually said was along the lines of "all pussies are gray in the dark."

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

I think I just threw up in my mouth.

So, Fors, I haven't been enthralled with Obama's performance thus far.  But looking back on any policy that is old enough for us to actually have a fair judgement on, what conservative policies of the past 30 years have actually done any good, and compare those with the ones that were very arguably bad? 

A good case of this will be fighting gay rights.  Little by little the country changes its values (about everything, by the way) and the opposition to gays is now low, less than a majority on many specific gay rights issues (e.g. repeal of DADT).  Gays will acheive equal rights some day, that we can all see.  But conservatives have dug their heels in the sand and continue to use it as a phony wedge issue, seemingly free of any concern that some day someone will say, "You were wrong on gay rights, and you're wrong on . . . . "  On which policies has the GOP done demonstrable good for the country?

I could just as easily flip that and ask you what Liberal policy has done demonstrable good for the country.  There are several issues that I think would benefit the country, but few if any stand a real chance of ever being implemented because the government would have to cede way too much control. I'm not naïve enough to think that's ever going to happen. 

You continue to harp on the issue of gay rights. I'm sure you're correct that opposition to gay rights is low, but within the majority how many would answer "don't care.". Count me in that group. I don't care one way or the other. I suspect most opposition stems more from religious belief than political (although there is certainly a correlation between religion and politics). As someone with no religious leanings, the issue of gay rights is of little to no consequence to me. Same with abortion rights. I'm not likely to get pregnant anytime soon, so I reaaly don't care either way.

I do find it funny that you reference the fact that the people who oppose gay right as being in the minority as if that means they should simply accept the majority position and move past it. This President didn't have any problem ramming through a health care bill that wasn't and isn't supported by the majority, but it seems that the minority thinks it knows better on that issue.

I'm sure if a poll was taken 50 years ago, the majority would have been against interracial marriage. Seems kind of silly today, doesn't it?
And if you go back 150 years, the majority probably didn't have a problem with slavery.

artie_fufkin wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

So, Fors, I haven't been enthralled with Obama's performance thus far.  But looking back on any policy that is old enough for us to actually have a fair judgement on, what conservative policies of the past 30 years have actually done any good, and compare those with the ones that were very arguably bad? 

A good case of this will be fighting gay rights.  Little by little the country changes its values (about everything, by the way) and the opposition to gays is now low, less than a majority on many specific gay rights issues (e.g. repeal of DADT).  Gays will acheive equal rights some day, that we can all see.  But conservatives have dug their heels in the sand and continue to use it as a phony wedge issue, seemingly free of any concern that some day someone will say, "You were wrong on gay rights, and you're wrong on . . . . "  On which policies has the GOP done demonstrable good for the country?

I could just as easily flip that and ask you what Liberal policy has done demonstrable good for the country.  There are several issues that I think would benefit the country, but few if any stand a real chance of ever being implemented because the government would have to cede way too much control. I'm not naïve enough to think that's ever going to happen. 

You continue to harp on the issue of gay rights. I'm sure you're correct that opposition to gay rights is low, but within the majority how many would answer "don't care.". Count me in that group. I don't care one way or the other. I suspect most opposition stems more from religious belief than political (although there is certainly a correlation between religion and politics). As someone with no religious leanings, the issue of gay rights is of little to no consequence to me. Same with abortion rights. I'm not likely to get pregnant anytime soon, so I reaaly don't care either way.

I do find it funny that you reference the fact that the people who oppose gay right as being in the minority as if that means they should simply accept the majority position and move past it. This President didn't have any problem ramming through a health care bill that wasn't and isn't supported by the majority, but it seems that the minority thinks it knows better on that issue.

I'm sure if a poll was taken 50 years ago, the majority would have been against interracial marriage. Seems kind of silly today, doesn't it?
And if you go back 150 years, the majority probably didn't have a problem with slavery.

I suspect if you could go back and take those polls, you'd find that there was a group of for opposed, a group of people in favor and a significant group who were largely indifferent.  I believe that if you took a poll regarding gay rights you'd probably get similar results if "don't care" was offered as an option.

Having said that, I do think there is one significant difference and that's the religious implications.  First off, let's be clear off my position on this--I'm an atheist, and I personally believe that organized religion serves a much greater detriment to society than it does a benefit.  But that's my belief.  I don't expect anyone to agree with me, nor do I attempt to persuade people to agree with me or denigrate those who disagree.

For a lot of people, the act of homosexuality is a mortal sin.  In fact, this might be one of the few issues that fundamentalist Muslims and Christians can agree on.  It's a pretty big leap for the government to come forward and tell a pretty broad range of people that they have to basically ignore their religious teachings because the government has decided what's in society's best interest.  I've not researched the issue, but I suspect that most of the opposition to gay rights comes from people with strong religious beliefs that find homosexuality offensive.  Not being one of those people, the entire issue is a non-issue for me.

I do believe, however, that the issue of DADT is a little different in that I'd personally be much more willing to defer to the military's position on this issue.  If the military leaders were to agree that openly gay men/women serving in the military would have no or a minimal adverse effect on the military's readiness, then DADT should be repealed.  But if those same leaders were to tell us that having openly gay men/women would have a significant adverse effect, and could support that position with some sort of objective data, then I think it's a bit reckless for a bunch of politicians to think they know better than the military leaders themselves.

One last thing.  Max has mentioned several times his belief that the US presence in the Middle East acts as our own worst enemy when it comes to terrorist recruitment.  Don't you think the same argument can be made when it comes to gay rights?  It seems to me that the more attention given to the issue, the more likely you are to push people from the "don't care" category into the "opposed" category.  I suspect that a lot of people are simply growing tired of hearing about it.

Also (OK, this time it really is one last thing), I would think the gay community could do itself a favor by playing less to the stereotypes a lot of people hold regarding the gay community.  Perhaps it's the media's depiction of it, but it strikes me that everytime I see coverage of a Pride parade or some other gay rights event, the images I see are of some guy in an extravagent drag costume or a guy in assless chaps.  I'm not old enough to remember the civil rights marches, but I'm guessing Dr. King didn't have a lot of people who showed up in black-face carrying a watermelon.  I would think the gay community could do a better job presenting itself to the public as the normal, professional people that they are rather than playing to the stereotypes.

forsberg_us wrote:

One last thing.  Max has mentioned several times his belief that the US presence in the Middle East acts as our own worst enemy when it comes to terrorist recruitment.  Don't you think the same argument can be made when it comes to gay rights?  It seems to me that the more attention given to the issue, the more likely you are to push people from the "don't care" category into the "opposed" category.  I suspect that a lot of people are simply growing tired of hearing about it.

That's exactly the point.  My argument is that the GOP seizes the xenophobic fear of different people and harnesses it to their political advantage.  if their platform was so good for America, why do they need to find these "phony cultural wedge issues" that they will be wrong on in 20-50 years time?

And FWIW, that is "Max likes to repeat the US military's own estimate the US presence in the Middle East acts as our own worst enemy when it comes to terrorist recruitment."

Last edited by Max (12/30/2010 11:14 am)

Max wrote:

the media focuses on spectacle.

To whit, a million snowmen and women in the world and today's news focuses on the snow penis:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/29/indiana-snow-penis-news_n_802414.html

Max wrote:

Many people would agree with you, but the important caveat, I argue, is 'where did you see it?'  On the TV or internet, probably.  And as Dubya so correctly pointed out, that news is filtered.  A parade of a bunch of straight-looking normal people doesn't get the media's attention.  Why do you think PETA has naked models to protest for animal rights?  What is the relationship?!?  None.  But everyone loves to look at naked models and the media focuses on spectacle.

Actually, I've seen a few of PETA's naked models and they were nothing worth looking at.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "media," but a parade involving a large group of people, even people dressed in regular clothes, but with a cause to advocate is going to make the local news channels.  At least it does around here.  I work across the street from the Old Courthouse and Keiner Plaza which are frequently the site of local protests.  Pretty much anytime I see a protest of any significant size, it makes the news.

The bigger question I would ask is does the increased exposure further the cause.  In the case of PETA, when you see a naked model chained to a street lamp, does it make you want to become a greater advocate for animal rights or does it make you think that the people at PETA are a bunch of raving lunatics?  Me personally, I choose the latter.