Fox News article:
Zeroing in on concerns among some groups of gay voters, a YouTube.com video directed by a New York writer, theater director and part-time political activist takes aim at Rudy Giuliani and raises questions over the former mayor's support for gay Americans....What crap! Davis is a Democrat, interested in destroying Giuliani and showing his contempt for Republicans by revealing a despicable belief that they hate gay people and that their hatred can be stoked by images of actors behaving according to gay stereotypes. Decent Democrats should condemn Davis's video campaign, "Gays for Giuliani." It's blatantly homophobic. And I condemn Fox News as well, for reporting the story the way it did, illustrating it with a stock photograph of Giuliani in drag that lacks any sufficient connection to belong in a professional journalistic report on the video campaign.
The purpose, says Ryan Davis, the director, is to point out what he calls the disconnect between what Giuliani has stood for in the past and what he is saying on the campaign trail. Davis, a gay Democrat, never has supported or worked for Giuliani (he worked for Howard Dean's presidential campaign in 2004), but he said at least he used to respect Giuliani's positions.
Giuliani was "over-the-top in support of gay rights, and then pulled back," Davis said.
Republicans should resist being baited by this sort of trash and should take note that Democrats are afraid of their front-runner -- afraid enough to deal in stereotypes that offend their values. Or are you going to tell me that Davis is an independent operative, doing his own thing? Then condemn him!
AND: Some people are saying they don't see how the ad is homophobic. Please. Picture an ad about Barack Obama with black actors behaving in an equivalent exaggerated racial style and going on about how much they love him for providing them with some benefit. It would obviously be racist.
Posts
208 comments:
1 – 200 of 208 Newer› Newest»Gays are a non-issue. I could care less who they support. Pandering to their disputed claim to victimhood and entitlement is politics at it's lowest.
The important aspect of a person's studied opinion is how he/she, heshe, reached that opinion and how well it withstands the rigors of open debate.
Awww. Poor Rudy!
How dare a gay Democrat exploit the rabid homophobia of the Republican base to help sink his campaign!
A Rudy presidency would be a catastrophe, and one good way to avoid it is to point out that he's not an anti-gay bigot. That's a good thing, don't get me wrong, but it's poison in a Republican primary.
Most of them don't even know he's pro-choice.
Ok, so democrats should condemn the video and republicans should resist being baited, but what about us independents? It all just seems silly to me.
I see some major homophobia among some on the radical left who delight in bashing gay people when they cross the line to the right and who use outing as a weapon for political perfidy; viz: the attack on McGee for whistle blowing TNR, or LOS calling posters on this site gay.
There are clearly some homophobes on the right wing; there are also, apparently, some homophobes on the left wing. It isnt just a left wing right wing thing. And given Rudy's obvious support among republicans, the marriage thing and the gay thing isnt going to work and will probably backfire; eg, the Kedwards attack on Mary Cheney.
Doyle claimed: Most of them don't even know he's pro-choice.
And you know this, how?
And given Rudy's obvious support among republicans
Which he owes largely the fact that most Republicans still don't know where he stands on their "moral issues."
But who knows, maybe they're just so enamored of his 9/11 performance that they'll forgive anything.
Ahh, Doyle? That link is from early February.
Mike -
That link should help. Notice that when they are told about his pro-civil union, pro-choice views, 42% say it either makes them less likely to support him (25%) or say it's a dealbreaker (18%). (41% say no effect and 13% say it makes them more likely to vote for him).
On the whole, Rudy definitely wants these things on the down low, so to speak.
Oh right, and Republicans are such quick studies!
I realize this is kind of off-topic, but why do people think Giuliani will be good on defense and foreign policy? Is it really because of New York being attacked? Suddenly this confers a worldview that makes him suitable for the White House? Am I taking crazy pills? How is this possible? It's the exact reverse of saying Edwards doesn't really care about poor people because he's rich. And it's the same people saying these things. Amazing.
Seriously, everyone talks about his performance on and after 9/11. But other than saying reassuring things, what did he do that makes him such a good presidential candidate?
Yes, it's a stupid ad, with shady morals. Not that there's a direct line, or that this excuses that, but there were young republican operatives standing outside black churches just before the 2004 election, pretending to be gay activists, holding up posters urging people to vote for Kerry because he would help put through gay marriage.
We are seeing a lot of people pretending to be something they are not. From the "Gays for Giuliani" to people posting idiotic messages purporting to be from one side or another. For instance, I suspect that the person who asked if global warming might have caused the Minneapolis bridge collapse was actually a global warming skeptic who was trying to pass him or herself off as a moonbat environmentalist.
So what do we need? More transparancy, and more skepticism.
But with that, is anyone going to believe someone who claims to be in the middle anymore? You who say that you're moderate or undecided are just posing, from the perspective of those who see the world neatly diveded into to camps.
Okay Mike, here's a fresher poll.
I think it's interesting that the background music was "The West Wing". Did he need permission to use that?
Call me dense, but how is the ad homophobic? I can see that it plays to fears of people who have pre-judged gays, but calling it homophobic seems over the top to me.
Is homophobia just a codeword for something that can be perceived as anti-Gay? (And is it even anti-Gay, or just anti-Rudy?)
Homophonbia?
I see some obvious hypocrisy on the part of DHIMMIcRATs certainly, but no obvious homophobia.
Shouldn't someone be saying something, umm like bad about gays in order to qualify for the grand title of homophobe?
If Rudy was for gay partnerships back in the day, then it's a simple matter of public record. If he has changed his mind, let him say so now.
That some flaming 'mo DHIMMIcRAT is trying to sink Rudy is about as ironic a comment on the blatant evil to which DHIMMIcRATs will rise as you're going to get.
I certainly see a catalog of vileness. I just don't see the homophobia.
"I could care less who they support."
If we are a non-issue then why don't you care less?
Ok, pedantic, I'm sorry.
Anyway, I'm tired of being used as a political bludgeon by some politicians on either side of the debate. Keep your filthy political fingers off of me.
Liberals like to say they're pro-gay just because, well, it seems so like progressive and open and non-Republican! But I've met with plenty of sublimated and not-so-sublimated anti-gay sentiments on the left spectrum. The truth is, if you play their game, and keep quiet until they tell you to speak, the political left will "embrace" you. But talk out of order, or say the wrong thing, or vote for the wrong person, and they'll throw you to the lions faster than Rick Santorum.
I don't want to be "embraced" by any politician, I don't want to play out the same tired Andrew Sullivan style dime-store emotional psychodrama for the benefit of someone's campaign.
This is a silly political game and as I said, I'm tired of being the pawn.
If you actually read that article, Doyle, it doesn't make your case very well. The Republicans who are most likely not to know Giuliani's stance on abortion are those who don't care about abortion as an issue. Those who do care are more likely to know. What a surprise.
Uh, my only "case" is that being pro-choice and pro-civil unions are net negatives in a Republican primary, which isn't a case so much as it is an obvious fact.
Ann vents: What crap! Davis is a Democrat, interested in destroying Giuliani and showing his contempt for Republicans by revealing a despicable belief that they hate gay people and that their hatred can be stoked by images of actors behaving according to gay stereotypes.
The republicans have used gay marriage politically to mobilize their base and demonize dems. Dems have used the gay issue to attack pubs. Using anybody for political gain is not an act of love, that's for sure.
Nonetheless, Ann....your outrage is interesting.
Call me dense, but how is the ad homophobic? I can see that it plays to fears of people who have pre-judged gays, but calling it homophobic seems over the top to me.
I think it is because they picked the swishyist flaming gay guys that they could find, with the stereotype lisp, to be in the ad. Instead of using ordinary gay/homosexual people who don't usually act like this. They are pandering to what they think are the hot button stereotypes that conservatives have. Unfortunately, the maker of the ad must hold those same stereotypes himself to make such a stupid ad.
The issue is a non issue for me as well.
When the dems are already trashing Rudy, you know they are running scared. This is where being a contrarian really pays off!
Doyle said...
"Most of them don't even know he's pro-choice."
What's your citation for that?
"A Rudy presidency would be a catastrophe...."
As Ann said, I love that you're so terrified of Giuliani that you'll use any weapon - even if offensive to your own values - to try and stop him. And as Roger observed, you people are sickeningly hypocritical. You screech allegations of racism and homophobia on the right, but as soon as a black or a gay has the temerity to wander off the liberal reservation, if they don't play a good little house homo to the "correct" political views for that category of people, they're treated by the left with all the hatred and revulsion you claim they get from the right. "You, a black man!" "You, a homosexual!" -- "You, a law professor!" See how it fits together?
Palladian said...
"Liberals like to say they're pro-gay just because, well, it seems so like progressive and open and non-Republican! But I've met with plenty of sublimated and not-so-sublimated anti-gay sentiments on the left spectrum. The truth is, if you play their game, and keep quiet until they tell you to speak, the political left will "embrace" you. But talk out of order, or say the wrong thing, or vote for the wrong person, and they'll throw you to the lions faster than Rick Santorum."
Exactly.
but as soon as a black or a gay has the temerity to wander off the liberal reservation
Uh, which black or gay has wandered off the reservation here? What are you talking about?
Giuliani is backpedaling on his support for gay unions, he's in favor of keeping Don't Ask Don't Tell--he's clearly trying to run to the right. Why do that, if not to pander to the GOP base that has time and again made its desire to see gay people's rights restricted? The outrage over Democrats pointing out the overt and undeniable homophobia of a key part of the GOP voting base is ridiculous.
When the dems are already trashing Rudy, you know they are running scared.
Campaign season is in full swing, in case you haven't noticed, and Rudy is the leading Republican candidate (if you don't count "none of the above").
Wouldn't it be weird if he weren't subjected to ridicule? Especially since he's such a ridiculous figure?
Original Mike said...
"I think it's interesting that the background music was "The West Wing". Did he need permission to use that?"
Well, they presumably would, but since they're carrying water for partisan liberal interests, I doubt anyone involved in TWW (which at its best was a beautifully scripted, beautifully acted and beautifully shot liberal masturbatory fantasy, and at its worst was horrendously, tooth-gratingly awfully-written so-so acted and beautifully shot liberal masturbatory fantasy, one that was fearless in its partisan water-carrying and occasionally even resisted the temptation to crude stereotypes of republican characters) is going to complain.
I thought you had to be a Native American to wander off the reservation...although if you visit the tribal photo gallery at the Pequot museum at the Mohegan Sun casino...I guess it could work.
This is a perfect example of what makes gays so mean (politically), and why, for the nonce, I'm tuning them all out. Having said that, it's another example of the occasional brilliance to be seen on the Left. You gotta give it to 'em (gays) -- a refined sense of humor.
Doyle: not on this issue but to name a few: Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, and on the gay side, most recently McGhee from TNR. And although he is neither gay nor black, there is also a guy named Joe Lieberman who might have some thoughts on this.
Doyle said...
"Uh, which black or gay has wandered off the reservation here? What are you talking about?"
You ask a black or gay republican how they get treated by people who consider themselves liberals. Racism and homophobia are absolutely in all circumstances a terrible and unacceptable thing in the liberal worldview, it seems - unless, that is, they're directed at someone who isn't a liberal. In which case, it's all fair game.
Trooper York - you're right. "Plantation" would have been a much more exact analog.
Ann, surely you're familiar with the parable/fable of a scorpion and a frog/turtle.
I simply love cultural stereotypes--both the overblown Type I statements that ALL X ARE Y or equally faulty Type II statements that NOT ALL X ARE Y. The former generalizations are invariably gratuitous. The latter often try to mask a reasonable generalization by accusing the opposition of Type I generalization.
Surely not all Republicans are gay-bashers--some, like Diane Ravitch, are even gay themselves. But one only need to recall the Log Cabin Republicans flap during the Bush 2000 campaign. In case you don't recall, Ravitch dared to speak out to the campaign about Bush refusing to meet the LCR reps and was immediately "eased" out of the campaign. She also was shut out of her projected nomination to be the next Secretary of Education, being replaced instead by the utterly incompetent Rod Paige.
So, no, "Republicans" are not necessarily homophobic, gay-bashing bigots. Bur the Republican Party is. Just remember the three Gs of Republican politics.
The ad is not homophobic, it's just dumb. It's not going to change any smart Republican's mind (there are some) about their support for Giuliani because the ad is so obviously disingenuous and cutesy.
It's also dumb because it makes Democrats look snarky and that they are willing to pimp out gay stereotypes (please, the queen with the sweater at the piano?) in order to miscategorize Rudy.
Using gay stereotypes to (unsuccessfully) prove a point is no more homophobic than the Wayans brothers on In Living Color were racist. We can always poke fun at our own. On the other hand, the ad does hope to play on other peoples' homophobia, and that's kind of fun...because there are plenty of dumb Republicans...but they weren't suppporting Rudy anyways...they were all on team Tancredo and Brownback, right?
Trust...Rudy is a fine anti-gay candidate for the right wingers, and he will do anything and everything they want in order to get elected.
Add me to the list of people who don't get the outrage here.
The video uses humor -- not wildly effective humor, but humor nonetheless -- to take a political shot at a candidate. The candidate in question took position "A" when it was politically advantagous, and now shifts his balance when that original stance is politically disadvantageous. It's an outrage to call 'hypocrisy' on that? Why?
And it's 'homophobia' for some gay guys to spoof gay stereotypes? Since when? Remove all the gays who goof on gay sterotypes, the blacks who do the same with black stereotypes, the Jews ditto, the men ditto, the women ditto, you throw every comic in America on unemployment.
Sorry, but this is in bounds.
You ask a black or gay republican how they get treated by people who consider themselves liberals.
1) It would take a long time to assemble a statistically significant sample of black or gay Republicans.
2) How is this ad evidence of homophobia? Is it homophobia if its target is a straight man and the real butt (no pun intended) of the joke is the "social conservative" base Rudy's trying to pander to?
Look at all the sexist comments directed at Althouse or any conservative woman by the "sensitive"
"feminist" liberals.
And nothing is more pathetic than listening to some liberal white man babble on about whether Obama or Rice is "Black enough".
I'm curious, were you this adamant that Republicans should condemn the Harold Ford ad playing to southern fears of miscegenation - an ad paid for by the RNC? Why should Democrats condemn an ad not put out by Democrats?
Imagine how ruthlessly homophobic the Left would get if it's a Giuliali/Dreier ticket in 2008.
But it's okay if you're just exposing the hypocrisy of others. Something that I think has been the defense of more than one televangelist.
Paddy:
First we'd have to imagine the left as ruthlessly homophobic at all.
Original Mike..did you catch Rudy's latest you tube commercial...you can just barely hear the strains of Luther singing...I want to dance with my father again…..talk about counterintuitive..sheer brilliance.
Doyle: Jeff Gannon
Who is behind this?
The left, which is truly frightened by a Giuliani candidacy because he possesses the capacity to actually win the whole thing. That's why they work so hard to destroy him. His family, his wife, his record, and any cheap shot, distortion, or outright lie about him is fine in their eyes because he's gotta be taken out. Likewise with Fred Thompson. These two have gravitas and charisma that could catch on with the electorate, and the left recognizes that. They must be destroyed.
With Giuliani it informs on a different level, because his history is that of being pretty much a social liberal on many if not most things. Of all the Repubs running he has the most in common with much of the leftist agenda, so, if they were being honest and true to themselves, of all of the Repubs he would be the most acceptable to them. They should be thrilled that he's got such a good shot. What gets revealed is that their core beliefs aren't what's important to them. Partisan politics is what matters to them.
First of all lighten up lady. I didn't see you going off in the 2004 election when the NRCC send out fliers saying that if John Kerry was elected gays would be married and the bible would be banned with a picture of two men kissing and the bible with a big X over it. And this was sent out by Ken Mehlman, a homosexual, representing the National Republican Committee.
When Bush spoke to his "select crowds" during the 2004 election the biggest applause he got was regarding constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage so if some gays might think that some republicans are anti-gay you may understand.
Lastly, I hope this ad does run. It's hilarious and gay and bitchy. Let's see how they respond to it in South Carolina and the other shit hole states in the south.
And the ad is not homophobic. A straight person is not entitled to say what is and is not the definition of homophobic-sorry not eligible.
The left, which is truly frightened by a Giuliani candidacy because he possesses the capacity to actually win the whole thing.
We are scared of Giuliani, because he's crazy and is the logical successor to one of the worst Presidents of this republic. Hell yeah, I'm scared. Read his answers on Foreign Policy or his views on authoritarianism and tell me that he's not scary. Giuliani will be Bush with a bigger God complex but without the ranch.
It also seems like those now whining about how mean we are to Giuliani, forget widely held support of Republicans for Purple Heart stickers, or calling Hillary a lesbian or calling Bill a rapist. This video is tame in comparison to what guys like Hannity and Limbaugh will use if Hillary is the nominee.
Titus13 claimed: And this was sent out by Ken Mehlman, a homosexual, representing the National Republican Committee.
I find that hard to believe. Evidence?
Titus13 = DTL? could it be? lets see: ultra provincial, world consists of the five boroughs, and arrogantly queer (am I allowed to use queer I mean, as a devout heterosexual).
This has been an ongoing trope not just of the left but also of supporters of other candidates. Giuliani's not the front-runner because people don't know his history or his stances. When they find out "x" he'll be done and the real front-runner Mitt/McCain/RONPAUL... will come to the fore.
Rudy's still leading national polls, has the best overall favorables of any presidential candidate for either party, and continues to get great receptions in areas where he "shouldn't". How many big media articles have gone over this? I've seriously lost count, just as I have of the Corner posts that claim that he isn't really leading.
The number of hit pieces trying to derail a primary campaign of a Republican candidate is shocking. Of course we haven't seen such an open race in a long time, and the Dems and the journalists (but I repeat myself) want to save their fire for the general. Bush's DUI was the prototypical late hit. They could have used it earlier but were saving their fire so that it wouldn't be an old issue by the time of the big dance.
This highlights a difference betwee the parties, whereas the main utility of oppo research for the Dems is to find dirt for late hits in general elections that risk being dealt with, while republicans tend to want to highlight the varying positions of Dems between the primaries and the general, something that tends to last. Rep ethics attacks against Dems tend to fail - see Clinton - while policy tends to work - Dukakis, with too many examples to list. Dem policy attacks haven't been successful - see Kerry - but ethics have (or at least came bloody close, see Bush's DUI, and they did manage to win the popular vote, which was unepected at the time).
If one is opposed to bigotry and discrimination, one should be opposed to bigotry and discrimination. To do otherwise just makes one an arm of a given party and reduces one's credibility as an honest broker. The NAACP is an obvious example of an organisation that once was moral and principled but has since become partisan (ABA also). People interested in getting sexuality out of politics should be happy with Giuliani as President and Candidate. He supports them and is doing the minimum possible to make himself acceptable to social conservatives. "I have lots of gay friends" is very different from "I moved in with a gay couple I'm close to when I got divorced for a couple of months, and I'm frequently in drag in political skits". Compare this with John Edwards' "not personally comfortable with gays" but doing the minimum necessary to qualify as a Democrat Pres Candidate.
If you truly want to advance gay interests, look to the Club for Growth (or the Gay software entrepreneur who was profiled earlier this year on his political fundraising work) as a model. They go after people they see as being bad on their issues, almost always sitting incumbents of "their" party, and don't support someone just cause of the tribe. The CFG will support whoever is best on their issues - almost always a Republican, but that's because of the impact of Dem primaries and interest groups. CFG does not try to get a worse Dem nominee so that a Republican yet to be named has a better shot at winning as these gay groups are trying to.
Here's a scan of the RNC mailer, Original Mike. Note the PAID stamp on the right hand side and the return address in the center. They used them in more states than just Arkansas. I got one in Iowa.
Thanks, Trevor, though I remain skeptical.
Yes.
That "yes" was the answer to "Shan said...
I'm curious, were you this adamant that Republicans should condemn the Harold Ford ad playing to southern fears of miscegenation - an ad paid for by the RNC? Why should Democrats condemn an ad not put out by Democrats?"
The ad is tacky and a little confusing and I don't think it achieves its goals very well, but I don't think its homophobic.
Its offensive in that it paints Republicans as bigots. But it comes off as a parody to entertain liberals who would never vote for Giuliani anyway, not as something designed to persuade conservatives.
Its a silly thing to get outraged over, especially given the extensive non-satirical exploitation of antigay prejudice by the conservative movement in recent years.
I'm taken by the general observation that this ad is so stupid and so wrong and a lot of levels that no one should see it ever ever ever...it can be foun don utube at...da da da...see for yourself.
What we are looking at besides a tasteless waste of time and attention is a perfect example of how the internet can work.
ann's last comment about the Harold Ford ad and this one coupled with the "faux noise indignation" just pours gas on this little fire.
I dont like Rudy very much at all. i think his moral compass went on the fritz a long time ago. that said, i don't like this kinda thing much at all..less than Rudy in fact and perhaps what we are seeing is how well some can use the new technology and its electronic residence effective.
I never thought Rudy hated Gays, i thought he just hated Black people.
This struck me as satire, though certainly with a political purpose of some type, and, lo and behold, when I went to poke about I found this CNN interview with Ryan Davis from earlier this month. (He's directly asked, by the way, about being called homophobic.)
Also, note that, unless I'm very much mistaken (see here), Davis is himself in the "ad," portraying the
"interviewee" who's had the five domestic partners.
I thought the ad was a little silly. I don't like the use of gay people or scare tactics on either side of the aisle. I wouldn't hesitate to support a gay candidate or a candidate who supports gay rights. And I'm not in (any of) the target demo(s) for this ad.
But I'm not sure it's accurate to call this homophobic, though whether it will whip up homophobic feelings in certain places/sectors in any meaningful way (or in any measure that doesn't already exist) is an open question.
AND: Some people are saying they don't see how the ad is homophobic. Please. Picture an ad about Barack Obama with black actors behaving in an equivalent exaggerated racial style and going on about how much they love him for providing them with some benefit. It would obviously be racist.
That analogy might work if this ad were suggesting that Giuliani is gay, but its not. I think a closer analogy using racial stereotypes might involve the debate over immigration reform, another issue which Giuliani has also gotten more conservative on of late. In that case the comparable ad might be made by a liberal Latino supporter of immigration reform (say, Carlos Mencia) using stereotypes of illegal immigrants praising Giuliani for helping them get across the border in time to give birth to triplets for free in an emergency room, etc., employing the kinds of racist stereotypes of illegal immigrants that are associated with opponents of immigration reform.
I'm not making an argument about immigration reform or saying that its opponents are racist. I'm must saying that this would be a more analogous "racist" ad, but that I think the ad would be offensive for its negative (if satirical) portrayal of conservatives, not for being racist.
Serious question, Althouse: What would be "an equivalent exaggerated racial style"? Which behavioral stereotype (equivalent one)? Be specific, please.
Picture an ad about Barack Obama with black actors behaving in an equivalent exaggerated racial style and going on about how much they love him for providing them with some benefit. It would obviously be racist.
But is the equivalent to racist when considering gays actually homophobic? I could see homosexist (heterosexist?) or better, just sexist.
I just don't buy that those who discriminate against gays are afraid of them. I'm probably being too literal.
Reader: I think we know what a black racial stereotype looks like and how an appeal might be made to racists to hate a candidate by showing how much these stereotypes love him.
The standards have been raised (lowered?) by the left to the point at which you HAVE to at least pay lip service to caring rabidly about___ (fill-in-the-blank: Global Warming, the Poor, Gay Rights, etc.)
It's not enough for these things to be a "non-issue"--as they are for most conservatives/libertarian types. If you're not on-board, you're automatically a hater, denier, etc.
Reader: I think we know what a black racial stereotype looks like and how an appeal might be made to racists to hate a candidate by showing how much these stereotypes love him.
But that's the difference. This ad does not show homophobes how much gays love Giuliani. Unlike the Harold Ford ad, this ad seems so clearly satirical to me, making fun of homophobia and homophobes.
It would take a long time to assemble a statistically significant sample of black or gay Republicans.
Well, Doyle, I have 2 friends who happen to be gay and conservative/libertarian. They're not crazy about the Republicans' (and Democrats') stance on gay marriage, but it is not an all-consuming issue for them. And I know I remember hearing several times during the last election that approximately 25% of gay Americans vote R. So my friends aren't that tiny a minority.
I think it's weird you assume they don't exist. And I'm sure you are sorry the gays aren't the big, giant borg you want them to be, all thinking and acting alike, and all conveniently voting D.
WaPo's article on this has some interesting bits, including some in the second page.
I have to laugh.
First off, gay Democrats and liberals, including leaders of organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign and employees of the DNC have fully endorsed and supported and continue to endorse and support FMA supporters and those who applaud similar state constitutional amendments.
Second off, the maker of the ad has, to my knowledge, said not word one about Howard Dean pandering to the evangelicals the maker supposedly hates.
In short, all that this ad does is to demonstrate that whether or not gay liberals and Democrats consider a person "homophobic" has nothing to do with their actions and everything to do with their political affiliations -- and that what they call antigay bigotry in one person they call "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive" in another.
And as far as how the "tolerant" liberal left treats gays who have different political opinions, my favorite example is how they responded to the birth of Mary Cheney and Heather Poe's baby -- including numerous statements of how they hoped Mary would die AND the baby would die.
I began my political career as a right-wing conservative. In high school I published an on-line magazine called 'The Conservative Teen E-Zine' and was John McCain's Maryland Youth Coordinator, while he ran for President in 1999.
Republicanism wore off of me, once I spent time in the real world, and I proudly voted for Al Gore in 2000.
In 2003, I left New York and went to work for former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, in his presidential bid. I had a ton of different jobs, but did a lot of photography as a member of a thirty-six state grassroots tour called the Drive for Democracy. Check out some of the pictures I took here and here.
After Dean lost, I ran a short lived Congressional campaign for Harry Sampson in Maryland's District One. I also directed several progressive commercials for BlogPAC.Org, one of which was honored by The American Association of Political Consultants.
This election cycle I worked as Mark Green's Director of Internet Organizing during his failed attempt to be Elliot Spitzer's replacement.
In November 2006, I was lucky enough to volunteer for Jim Webb's Virginia Senate Campaign and be a part of the Democratic House takeover.
I'm not working for a presidential candidate this cycle, nor have I decided who I'm supporting. I'll be continuing with more liberal video work, in the vein of 'Gays For Giuliani.'
From Davis' self-description of himself and politics.
Cynical, more than perhaps, but I'm still not convinced on the "homophobic" front.
Interesting, the vein of betrayal that, at least by implication, runs through Davis' bio--and etc. That may (or may not!) be off point, but still.
Calling this ad homophobic is like calling Jonathan Swift a cannibal.
Over here we've just had an eleven year old shot dead by a thirteen year old - a bicycle-by shooting.
Frankly I couldn't at this point care who shags whom, when, how or with what.
1) Will Rudy's pro-gay stance hurt him with republicans? Probably. . .the life issues are important to the base. Bush won in 2004 because of the "values voters".
2) the only vaguely "homophobic" part of the ad is when the guy refers to his "five domestic partnerships". . .using the conservative equation of homosexuality and promiscuity.
Perhaps North Dallas 30 would be so kind as to re-write his 2:20p post in English...I have a hard time figuring out what language you are using here.
Thanks a bunch.
"And the ad is not homophobic. A straight person is not entitled to say what is and is not the definition of homophobic-sorry not eligible."
This from a person who posts the most offensive sexual comments toward the proprietor of this blog.
You're not homosexual (judging from all the things you say about tits and so forth) so why the hell do you get to judge what's "homophobic" either? By your own standards, you're ineligible to judge so shut up.
I dislike the word "homophobic" for reasons I stated here, so I wouldn't call anything "homophobic". I do agree, however, that this ad is playing upon the perceived biases of Republicans, no matter how much the maker says it was "ironic" or "just a joke". There is no "just a joke" defense anymore; ask Michael Richards.
Again, I'm tired of being used a political projectile to be hurled by one side or the other when they need an issue that's basically meaningless in the scheme of the president's powers but carries a lot of political weight. It's cheap and hateful when the Republicans do it, and just as cheap and hateful when so-called liberals do it.
Long story short, hdhouse, Ryan Davis is making offensive ads to try to brand Giuliani a hypocrite......even as Davis and his fellow gay Democrats support the behavior and stances they accuse Giuliani of having as being "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive" when Democrats do them.
Rudy's a lying piece of shit.
While constantly touting his fabulous post-9/11 leadership, he actually spent twice as much time at Yankee games than he did at ground zero.
This jerk has plenty more skeletons in his closet to come...just hide and watch.
"This jerk has plenty more skeletons in his closet to come...just hide and watch."
Right, because when you don't have any actual ideas, or when you subscribe to a political philosophy that you can't talk about because if you did the voters would soundly reject you, you might as well start digging in closets looking for dry old bones. But maybe voters are tired of being tossed bones dug out of people's closets. Maybe they want something with some meat on it.
Maybe they want something with some meat on it.
Bernie Kerik?
But maybe voters are tired of being tossed bones dug out of people's closets...
Maybe, and I wish, but I wouldn't bet on it.
North Dallas 30...
1 more try please...I got the first part that Rudy is a hypocrite .. on that we agree..but the second part of your post lost me...
Regarding the discussion earlier in this thread about how Republicans still don't realize what Giuliani's views on abortion and gay marriage are, and how they'll never support him when they find out, here's something Charles Krauthammer said yesterday on TV:
KRAUTHAMMER: But what is really interesting, I think, is the Giuliani effect. This is a guy who defies gravity. Everybody expected six months ago that, yes, he was high in the numbers because people associate him with 9/11. But when Republicans discover how socially liberal he is, his numbers will plummet. And they have not.
And people, I think, are aware of his positions on abortion, et cetera, and I think that the answer is that Republicans are grown up, and they understand that a president is not going to have a revolution in social affairs. Reagan did not on abortion. It is not going to happen.
And what is important is the war on terror. Democrats are not reliable. Giuliani is a guy who in a Democratic year, which is going to be in 2008, could win. After all, he is a guy who won reelection twice in Sodom and Gomorrah.
[Of course, he didn't win re-election twice, but you get the point.]
reader_iam...
yes we are all tired of old bones..amazingly enough I heard Sean Hannity just the other day talking about Hillary and "futures" swindle and Bill being a serial rapist...hmmmm
Sodom and Gomorrah
Ann! Your new home town!
I believe you are all quite mistaken...you can be sure that the homosexual community is much more concerned with having more meat in it...not more meat on it.....please be aware that clarity is to prized in our political discourse.
I agree with HD--I dont think there is going to be anything new on HRC. Nor do I think any of Bill's misdeeds are going to stick; and if used, will create a sympathy effect. The public, I suspect, has made its mind up on the Clintons--And pretty much the same with Guiliani. I have a feeling that this extended primary season is going to bring about dirt/mud fatigue, and the candidates, by the time the general rolls around, will have to talk about the issues, because the dirt is so banal and dated.
Spare me the cattle futures, rapist, white house travel and whitewater stuff. (and I assure you I am not a particular admirer of the Clintons--I just think HRC is the one Democratic Candidate I want in the white house if it has to be not Rudy.
I want some of what Doyle is smoking if he thinks social conservatives are not going to vote for Rudy just because he is not a social conservative. Unlike Doyle, I know quite a few social conservatives and I every one of them would vote for Rudy over Hillary or Obama or Edwards. Yeah, he wouldn't be their first choice - but he is better than the Dem options.
MadisonMan said...
But is the equivalent to racist when considering gays actually homophobic?
This has been covered on this blog before.
Whatever its original meaning, "homophobia" now clearly refers to the sexuality version of racism.
The ad was screamingly funny. I esp. loved the guy who said, "I have had no less than five domestic partners," and then showed it to us with his hand, five fingers!
Subtle and hilarious.
But is Rudy genuinely the front-runner?
I think that that's Mitt Romney. He wins all the straw polls by about ten points. Don't those matter?
Rudy would nevertheless have a better overall chance.
At any rate, I think the ad was a lot of fun.
"you can be sure that the homosexual community is much more concerned with having more meat in it...not more meat on it"
So what've you got in your deli, Troop?
Lots of fish my friend lots of fish...but you should always stock up with your friends favorites when they visit your deli...or your blog...its just neighborly ya know.
"What crap!" (Althouse 8/24/07)
"Whatever we write reflects on our intellectual soundness" (Althouse 7/28/06)
How does not worshipping gays compute to hating them?
Sorry Paddalpuch I am a mo, just didn't think I needed to share but seen as though you asked...
Also, Althouse are you going to condem the NRC flier send out in 2004 to Iowa and Arkansas voters? This was actually sent out from the Republican National Committee. I should know my parents got one.
And you ask, "who is behind this"? I'll tell you who is behind it. A couple of queens in NYC who have a good sense of humor. Or is it actually some left wing conspiracy-are Hilary's finger prints on it? Obama? Elizabeth Edwards? Quick research please this is obivously a joint effort to derail Rudy-or just a funny ad that some queen put up on youtube. The ad is hilarious and not homophobic. The mos love it-sorry we do Mary. Stop being so indignant and upset about an youtube video.
It would be nice to see in South Carolina though or some other shithole in the south and see what kind of response it gets. I am sure none of those republican voters hate the gays so they would appreciate the humor in it.
Maybe you can track down those queens in NYC and torture them?
And gay men can talk about tits-sorry-I like tits.
One last thing-many gays are pissed off from what was done to them in the last election by the republicans. All of the constituitional amendment talk just in order to get votes was disgusting. 50 years from now when this country is more evolved future generations will look at those tactics as repulsive.
Check out the views of the younger generation-they like the gays-uh oh republicans you may want to change some of your strategies regarding elections because gay baiting is going to start to look pretty slimey pretty soon. Some of the old guard need to start dieing off though and then it will be a brand new day.
Oh and regarding my previous comments on tits. I do love them all of my gal pals (not other mos) let me feel them and play with them.
They jump up and down for me with their shirts off and I do the same with my pants off. We have shaved each others privates and cuddle in bed naked.
We have actually painted each others naked bodies.
That's the cool thing about a gay and his girls-nothing threatening, all fun and completely open.
My official greeting with my girls is to inspect the tits, feel them, check out the bra and evaluate.
Oh and straight guys-my girlfriends are hot. NYC hot. Sorry.
One of my favorite things to do is bra shop with my girls.
The tactic here of trying to harm republican politicians who are sympathetic to gay rights, if successful against Rudy, will backfire and cause damage to the cause going forward.
It will become much more dangerous for republican candidates to express support for gay rights. These candidates (or people who think they might be candidates in the futuer) won't become democrats, if that's the progressives' wish. They will just no longer publicly support gay rights, and blame the gay activists for causing the problem in the first place.
The public's acceptance of and support for issues like gay marriage been increasing as a result of support from moderate republicans for years. That will stall and regress if ads like these become common and are successful in derailing moderate republican candidates.
Holy moly Batman...Isaac Mizrahi is posting on the Althouse blog
I just don't understand why they got Truman Capote impersonators to do that ad.
They don't strike me as gay so much as bizarre cartoon characters.
There are some really, really hateful people who are gleefully unrepentant about it and exuberantly in-your-face about it.
And a number of them are posting like mad on this thread.
It is a spectacle, not unlike watching swarms of bugs devouring the carcass of a dead bird, or perhaps a weekend's competition at the Vick farm.
"NYC hot."
That's like saying Mississippi smart.
But then I'm from Reagan and on my back into LotusLand for the weekend.
"Oh right, and Republicans are such quick studies!"
About as quick as Democrats, it seems to me.
Hyperpartisans on both sides are about as sharp as a bowling balls.
Roger
thank you for your support and concurrence on this. I am in complete agreement with your point that if mud is the currency of the campaign the body politic might take to the streets with sticks and clubs.
I do offer that the jury is still out on knowing all about Rudy there is to know just because of the newness factor but time will tell and if he is HRC's opponent it might prove to be interesting but I'm not betting on either right now...frankly thinking that Rudy has more of a chance at the nomination than Hillary does.
"A straight person is not entitled to say what is and is not the definition of homophobic"
What strange views you have.
Reader: this ad is all about trying to pin the gay cooties on Giuliani, so I conclude that it trades in homophobia (for lack of a better word).
I don't like Giuliani. Should he become the GOP nominee, I hope that the debate is about ideas, not skeletons. But if all the Dems have is to attakc him for his past, they will surely lose, and I won't shed a tear.
I'm reminded of an ad that ran during a congressional campaign in 1994. An actor, portraying a black man with a street-wise accent, thanked the incumbent congressman for supporting midnight basketball. Was that ad racist? I think so, and I'm applying similar standards when I look at this ad.
Only difference is that no campaign has paid for this ad to be produced/broadcast.
By the way, did anyone catch the Giuliani letter that Andrew Sullivan reprinted today? Not that there's anything homophobic about that.
Any gay who even considers voting for a Republican should have their head examined.
One last thing-many gays are pissed off from what was done to them in the last election by the republicans. All of the constituitional amendment talk just in order to get votes was disgusting.
Except when it's Democrat candidates who are doing it and proudly proclaiming it.
Heck, even just last year, leaders of the so-called "Human Rights Campaign" and gay staffers of the DNC were openly endorsing and supporting FMA supporters.
Perhaps some of those "pissed-off" gays can explain why they give millions of dollars and proclaim as "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive" Democrat candidates who do exactly the same thing they call "disgusting" elsewhere.
EB:
I tried to point this out earlier (with link), but I think one of the actors (the one who was playing the guy who'd had five domestic partners) was the director himself, a guy involved in theatre as well as activism, who said--I think in the WaPo article I linked earlier--that he'd grabbed a few friends to put the video together.
So I don't know about "they," and I think the director, in a number interviews, explained the "why"--whether he's being disingenous or not, whether the explanations seem valid or not, and etc.
peter ho said: "I hope that the debate is about ideas, not skeletons."
Don't count on it...and when I mention Rudy's, I'm referring to things that relate to mismanagement, corruption and pure bullshit.
Two nights ago I read a quote from Hannity, commenting on the Whitewater investigation and Hillary's commodities profits.
Now THAT'S what I call...CURRENT.
My take is not the same as Althouse's, but I have to say, upon reflection, that if the director is in that film, he really did play up a stereotype given what his demeanor, gestures & etc. are in the video of the CNN interview.
Thank you for the link. I believe, though, that you are holding Democrats to a much higher standard. Democrats should "condemn" an ad put out by an independent operator, while you were mum on what the Republican outcry should be on an ad put out by the Republican Naitonal Committee. Which is fine, but should be pointed out.
Any gay who even considers voting for a Republican should have their head examined.
Lucky Old Son, thank you for demonstrating exactly what an earlier commenter meant when he said the left attacks gays and other "oppressed" minorities who don't support the Democratic Party.
How can you speak for an entire group of people?
Or, perhaps more to the point, what kind of spoiled monster were you allowed to become as a child that would give you the arrogance to even think you could speak for such a large group of people?
Some people look at the gigantic gap between rhetoric and performance in Democrats and are tired of being played for saps. What's the Democratic Party's big achievement in gay rights? Since 1965, what has the Democratic Party really done for blacks? What have they ever done for Latinos? Here's what: Demonized their opponents as bigots and scared them into voting the way they want. Republicans are regularly accused of scare-mongering (and there's truth to it), but year after year it's the Dems who run scare-mongering campaigns aimed at senior citizens, minorities, gays and women. Then they get elected and do nothing for these loyal voters. Nothing.
Picture an ad about Barack Obama with black actors behaving in an equivalent exaggerated racial style and going on about how much they love him for providing them with some benefit. It would obviously be racist.
Well, duh -- Obama's a Democrat. If you made an ad like that about Condi Rice, on the other hand, it wouldn't be racist at all. You're allowed to attack Republicans by any means necessary, after all.
Titus13 = DTL? could it be? lets see: ultra provincial, world consists of the five boroughs, and arrogantly queer - Roger
No. Unlike lazy Roger, I actually - you know - have a job. And I work at it during the day.
But now we know the following:
Roger = Anti-gay bigot
What's the Democratic Party's big achievement in gay rights?
Actually lots.
- At the forefront of anti-discrimination laws for gays.
- At the forefront of equality in marriage for gays. They kept it legal in Massachusetts. The California Senate and Assembly voted to legalize it (vetoed by a gay governor). Legalized civil unions in Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire, etc.
- At the forefront of legalizing gay sex. I will note that George Bush, to this very day, still publicly favors jailing gay people for having sex in the privacy of their own homes. Democrats favor keeping Lawrence V. Texas. Every single Republican politician running for President favors repealing Lawrence V. Texas with the exception of maybe Giuliani and Ron Paul.
- At the forefront of allowing gays to serve in the military. It was Democrats who led the way for gays in the military in 1994, although they only achieved the half-step of DADT, which was still better than the prior policy (the military will ask and pry and kick you out even if you deny)
And this ad is not homophobic. And it is funny to see the biggest anti-gay bigots, the ones who want to repeal Lawrence V. Texas and jail gay people, who want to dictate who I can marry, trying to determine what's homophobic. Sorry, just as the KKK doesn't get to decide what's racist. Anti-gay bigots don't get to decide what's homophobic.
John Stodder said..."Lucky Old Son, thank you for demonstrating exactly what an earlier commenter meant when he said the left attacks gays and other "oppressed" minorities who don't support the Democratic Party."
Either you're not real bright or you don't understand English.
There's nothing in my statement that even remotely resembles an "attack" on gays.
Republicans most certainly do not support gay rights and if one is gay...that would tend to make me believe anyone who is of that persuasion who votes Republican may need help understanding why it is not a wise decision.
And I think you already know that, but just wanted to bloviate.
Sorry - that should have read "Republican governor", not "gay governor".
Despite rumours that that may indeed be the case . . .
downtownlad wrote: And this ad is not homophobic. And it is funny to see the biggest anti-gay bigots, the ones who want to repeal Lawrence V. Texas and jail gay people, who want to dictate who I can marry, trying to determine what's homophobic.
dtl: do you include our hostess in this blanket statment regarding those who disagree with you asto the nature of this ad?
And why is Ann silent when her friend Eugene Volokh says that gays are trying to recruit straight people to become gay?
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_08_21-2005_08_27.shtml#1124731507
Of course, this is just a repeat of slurs from the religious right that the gays are trying to recruit your children by molesting them.
Oh - at least he didn't say gays are diseased. Oops, he did.
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1124839415.shtml
Why is Ann silent about this, yet up in arms about a freaking youtube video that is obviously satire?
I haven't seen one post where Ann has criticized a Republican for being anti-gay. Yet there's been quite a few posts criticizing Democrats for being anti-gay.
This is absurd.
dtl: do you include our hostess in this blanket statment regarding those who disagree with you asto the nature of this ad?
No. Ann is not anti-gay AT ALL and she has credibility on this subject. She is allowed to think the ad is homophobic, and indeed, I think she is truly offended by it.
However, I do think Ann is reluctant to criticize Republicans, and her fellow bloggers, when they are being anti-gay. And I honestly don't know why that is. Maybe because deep down, she knows the conservative blogs would turn on her, if she dared to call one of them anti-gay (which they would).
dtl: I'll give you the factual point that Althouse seems to ignore certain things that eminate from the right. But there's a lot in the world, and I don't think it's fair for me to expect a blogger to address it all. Nor do I think that it's fair to speculate much about why Ann turns her attention this way or that.
I have different expectations of a professional writer/blogger. I don't put Althouse in that category.
Every so often, there are things that happen that I wish Althouse would address. The prosecution of Georgia Thompson, for instance. But I don't let that diminish what I come here for.
I'm here because I enjoy the Ann's take on the things she observes, and I like the give and take in the comments section.
emanate
I will add though that this ad has nothing to do with gay rights.
Giuliani's record on gay rights is commendable. And while he's backtracked, it's been minimal.
But Giuliani might be the most electable Republican. So if they can bring him down, it increases the chances of the Democrats taking the Presidency.
That's the purpose of the ad.
If your main issue was gay rights, you would not want to bring Giuliani down. You'd prefer to have Giuliani against Obama.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_08_21-2005_08_27.shtml#1124731507
A person would have to be pretty far off the deep end to find anything objectionable at that link.
Peter - This is Ann's blog and she can write about whatever the hell gets her fancy. I don't disagree there.
It was more of a question.
I dunno, maybe she doesn't expect much from Republicans on gay rights - and thus gives them a pass, because she deems it a non-event.
Wrong Revenant. Not if you know anything about history.
In 1977, Florida's Dade County (now Miami-Dade County) passed a human-rights ordinance that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Anita Bryant led a highly publicized campaign to repeal the ordinance. The campaign was waged based on "Christian beliefs regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality and the perceived threat of homosexual recruitment of children and child molestation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Bryant
He was using code words there. Code words which have a disgusting connotation.
Wrong Revenant. Not if you know anything about history.
In 1977, Florida's Dade County [snip]
Irrelevant. Volokh wasn't referring to or defending that incident or the sentiments behind it.
Your paranoia simply caused you to confuse Volokh's innocent observation -- that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, try to convince people of uncertain sexuality that their way is the better one -- with homophobia.
Similarly, your paranoia caused you to parse Volokh's observation of the hard scientific *fact* that sex with a gay man is vastly more likely to give you an HIV infection than sex with a straight man as some sort of claim that "gays are diseased".
"And why is Ann silent...."
The assumption that I notice everything is wrong...
And obviously I understand that the ad is a satire, otherwise the title of the post would say "pro-Giuliani" not "anti-Giuliani." The ad is homophobic because it has actors pretending to be what is assumed to be the sort of gay person that anti-gay people hate. It is trying to undermine support for Giuliani by scaring imagined bigoted voters. This is not an ad aimed at Democrats and people who support gay rights, because if it was, it would not portray gay people with this kind of super-effeminate, swishy stereotype. It is deliberately using homophobia to influence homophobes. It is trading in homophobia. Imagine an equivalent ad that would use black actors exaggerating the mannerism and speech patterns that racists use to disparage black people. That would be racist, even if the people making the ad favored the advancement of black people.
DTL, you've really gone off the deep end on this one.
Gay adults trying to convince other adults to have gay sex is, of course, a real phenomenon and has nothing to do with child molestation or fear of child molestation.
That's not true any more than a 45-year-old man trying to get into a 20-year-old woman's pants is a child molester (despite what a certain strain of feminists seems to think).
This talk about code words is just a way to intimidate people into not talking about a subject. A subject that YOU constantly bring up, just to tell us we're not allowed to talk about it.
My dear Ann Altman,
You know, I have thought a lot about homosexuality (and lesbianism) and it is my considered opinion that,while it happens,a great deal of the problem lies with that aberrant,unreal and also self-defeating doctrine/dogma known as feminism.
In no way do I support any of the nonsense propounded by gays (and lez). Nor do I support ANY of the SPECIAL "rights" granted to these poor human beings (some of whom actually may be unable to help themselves -whether or not such a
condition is caused by genetic, mutational,hormonal...factors which are the result of chemi- cals/hormone-mimicers in the water we drink,the food we eat or the air we breath -or some other cause). But I think that many so-wrongly- called "gays" are being misinformed and manipulated by the very foun- ding myth/conception of feminism, that men and women are equal. And in addition,I believe that the ma- jority of people thus alledgedly afficted express such in totally inappropriate ways -and do so as a result of feminism's total lack of reality,today especially.
Whoever said that men and women are equal was talking through his or her hat...for they are not; nor will they ever be. But because this nonsense is and has been voiced as the/a truth,other nonsense is also voiced as being the truth...inclu- ding that gays and lez should be treated just like "ordinary" men and women -whether as individuals or as couples.
Sex and the sexual urge/drive is something sui-generis and just happens (and I know all about this for two reasons: I spent nearly 20 years as a defense attorney in the Criminal and Family Courtts of NYS handling all sorts of cases in- cluding child sexual abuse and rape AND I am a TBI/Traumatic Brain Injury survivor with many disabilities,including hyper-sexua-
lity).But the sex-drive is also shaped by the way we learn -or are taught/formed- to think about sex and/or motivation...and about how to deal with it,especially when it is over-whelming. In today's world restraint and self-discipline,a particularly masculine characte- ristic,are no more a part of our vocabulary...largely because of feminism. And another unintended consequence of feminism is that it is responsible for so many of the major problems our world faces today that I am astounded it could be so harmful.
No,today all women (as is normal)
are in a daze and men (who are supposed to help women think beyond the end of the month and in between the end of the month and the fore- ver-after future) are no help whatsoever. And again this is largely because of the confusion sowed by feminism which has resulted in men being and becoming pussies,pansies... and "gays". It is ironical,but women are responsible for their own unhappi- ness -as well as the major problems we face in today's world.
Therefor,I think that our world should be re-educated about the differences between men and women.
And that such pussies as Rudy Giuliani -and the rest of the crowded field of U.S. Presiden-
tial candidates (especially the Democrats)- should be re-educated about the differences between men and women. Indeed,all men and women should be so re-educated,
And you too,Ann,should get with it and realize and admit how wrong you and the feminists are.
Tom
Dear Ms. Altman...condolences on the death of your father Robert...he was a great director and a good man.
dtl: I understant that Democrats might want to bring down Giuliani, but Democrats have a horrible record of doing this sort of thing. It's really best to leave it to the right-wing to bring down their own.
Seriously, when have Democrats (in presidential campaigns) made inroads through mudslinging? You have to go all the way back to 1964.
You have to go all the way back to 1964.
You have to go "all the way back" to the 2006 elections.
Digging up dirt on the Republican leaders of the impeachment campaign didn't exactly hurt them either.
Oh! I was reading the item title as ``Giulianiad,'' like Dunciad, owing to strange Firefox spacing.
An apropos Alexander Pope allusion.
The Giulianad. Wikipedia glosses the Dunciad The poem celebrates the goddess Dulness and the progress of her chosen agents as they bring decay, imbecility, and tastelessness to the kingdom of Great Britain.
Rev, you'll have to do better. I was speaking specifically of mudslinging as an effective tool in presidential elections. I just don't think the Democrats know how to do it. Your citation of the 2006 Foley scandal does not contradict me.
Please note that I did not claim that the Democrats have pristine hands when it comes to mudslinging.
As for Foley, I don't think that scandal did any major damage to the GOP. The scandal didn't have legs, and efforts to tie this scandal to any of the House leadership failed, despite fairly good evidence that they were warned about Foley's behavior in the past. Hastert didn't sweat reelection, did he? Reynolds had a fight on his hands for a while, but he retained his seat.
I think Foley moved on to old news pretty quickly. In the past year, I've heard more about the old Barney Frank scandal than I've heard about Foley.
Peter - I don't care if this backfires. I would take Giuliani over any Republican candidate any day of the week.
I voted for him for mayor every time after all.
But seriously - this is a freaking youtube video. Give me a break.
And Daryl - don't flatter yourself. Straight guys are fat, smelly, and age quickly. Gay people do not try to recruit straight people. Not only would it be pointless. But gay people have taste - and thus would never fall for a straight man. Straight men are lucky that straight women don't care about looks.
I have learned that Althouse will not condem republicans for some of the anti-gay rhetoric they have used through the years. These tactics came directly from the top as Bush preached hatred of gays through the entire 2004 campaign and is likely how he won Ohio. And I am sorry but Bush nor Rove really gave a shit about gay marriage they just saw it as a wedge issue that would sway many voters. It wasn't going to actually win the vote in the house or senate and Bush and Rove knew this but kept preaching the gospel of hate.
Just a couple of democrats supported the constitutional amendment and the republicans almost unanimously supported
it.
But not a peep from Althouse our "friend". Not a peep from Althouse regarding the disgusting circular sent to voters. But she is up in arms about some youtube video that some queens in NYC put up on the web-wow.
I agree that the reason that Althouse doesn't "condem" any of these comments is because it may have her fall from grace in the republican/conservative blogger arena. But she still supports the gay, really she does. Touche.
I have learned to live with it and still enjoy coming here. I love Althouse but am disappointed that she doesn't bitch more about republicans attempt to throw the gay under the bus. Her blog, her choice. I still like her tits and glad she is my city.
Someone mentioned that I only know about the 5 burroughs-that is incorrect-I only know about NYC. Brooklyn if I have to visit a friend and of course Fire Island. So I guess I am a professional homosexual. I tend to be the weird creepy guy (from Sex and the City) that rarely leaves the city. I ran as well as was chased away from my small city in the midwest and I have found my lover-my city. Many people don't understand the commitment. I have traveled throughout the country and hate most of it-sorry I do-their a bunch of freaks. The only cities I will travel to are Miami, San Francisco, LA, Boston, Chicago. It feels safe in those cities. I think small town fags are weird. Oh and of course evil Europe I absolutely love.
Now I have to run and get my pussy out tonight. I got a great pump at the gym and am ready for some great sex. Love ya!
Come to the Chelsea Piers tonight Althouse. It is hot tonight and it will be packed!!!!
In all fairness titus, Ann did condemn Fox News in this post.
Oh and I don't necessarily consider myself a "democrat". I am a rich, successful fag who would consider voting for Giulani.
By the way my new Prada black strapped tennis shoes with my fabulous g star jeans and diesel tankie look cool. Shows the pecs and arms and is definitely "athletic drag". I have a feeling I am going to hit paydirt tonight. I may write later to let all of you know of my success or (cringe) failure-but that generally doesn't happen.
I voted for him before in NYC as well voted for Bloomberg-but are republicans in the city aren't like the southern republicans-they actually like the gay. I know Bloomberg isn't a real republican.
Love Althouse's tits and do love womens tits-yummy-delicious.
Titus14: Not Philly?
one other thing vet 66 mentioned that gays claim to be a victim or entitlement-I have never considered myself a victim or have a sense of entitlement.
I consider myself a tough ass bitch who would love to take on some breeder and beat the shit out of him. Also, I worked for everything I have. A penthouse in Chelsea (not cheap), a timeshare in Fire Island, an amazing job with incredible salary, an ass you could bounce quarters off of, great friends, supportive family, and most important a great chest and arms. And I am 32-not bad.
Yea I would go to Philly-acceptable definitely. And Seattle too. Oh and Montreal and Toronto-definitely.
I have been everywhere in this country-those are my choices and those are the big cities my other friends fled to.
Althouse I do love you....now defend us more we are victims and entitled!!!
Oh one more thing I didn't put any deodorant on tonight--the NYC gays like the smell of bo-it is sexy and masculine-absolutely no cologne or deodorant in my world!!!
I did shower though my pussy is clean as a whistle.
tc said..."My dear Ann Altman,
You know, I have thought a lot about homosexuality (and lesbianism) and it is my considered opinion that,while it happens,a great deal of the problem lies with that aberrant,unreal and also self-defeating doctrine/dogma known as feminism."
Okay, can we ALL say...knuckle dragging moron??
*And think about it. This idiot may even VOTE.
titus,
enough...we know.
but, hey...maybe you should start a band with singers who wear uniforms.
A construction workers outfit is not technically a uniform...please be more precise
"This is not an ad aimed at Democrats and people who support gay rights, because if it was"
I think you are wrong on this, Ann.
Heck, just look at your comments. Granted, we don't know that your commenters are representative of much of anything, but for a message board, I'll bet it does better in that way than most.
Do you see Republicans muttering that they can't support Rudy because of his... um, yeah.
Or do you see the hardcore Democratic partisans (plus one or two others) all in a-titter because this ad plays to the stereotypes they hold about Republicans?
This ad won't convince a single Republican to change their vote (or, if that is hyperbole, it will convince an immeasurably small number to do so).
Heck, it won't even get seen by enough to do that.
But what it will do is rile up the partisan hacks (luckyoldson, Doyle) and the truly passionate about gay rights (downtownlad). It will raise their fighting spirits. Might even convince them to work harder, or send in some dough.
In general, ads by Democrats are for Democrats, and ads by Republicans are for Republicans.
Maybe, some day, someone will make an ad for me, or people like me.
I'm not holding my breath.
"So if they can bring him down, it increases the chances of the Democrats taking the Presidency.
That's the purpose of the ad."
I agree that the ad is to increase the chances of Democrats taking down the Presidency.
I just think it is more about riling up the troops and raising money, than a serious attempt to bring Giuliani down. If it is the latter, it shows a stunning lack of understanding about how people think.
But let me ask you something, dtl. Doesn't it bother you that they are using these stereotypes to advance their agenda (to elect more Democrats)? Because if so, it will make it hard for me to feel like I should rally to your side the next time there is someone engaging in stereotyping or mockery and you complain.
I'll be your ally in saying knock the shit off, but not if it is done selectively.
Freudian slip there-- I should have said "taking the Presidency" or "taking down Giuliani."
I munged them together, but then I have already made it clear that he is my preferred candidate (for now).
Maybe, some day, someone will make an ad for me, or people like me.
Hm. Never thought of the topic in that way.
Might be a double-edged sword. I suppose you could say it would mean your--what would be the word? Niche? Demo? POV? Open to suggestion, since I can't think of one that exactly obtains--matters and that it's being paid attention to. On the other, it would mean ... pretty much the same thing, which also means you'd be pegged and slotted and targeted and all that stuff. Be careful what you wish for?
Anyway, interesting thing to contemplate, in the abstract. For myself, I tend to ignore ads unless I'm a) engaged in analyzing them, for one reason or another or 2) deliberately clicking on them from time to time, out of general principal, on sites whose free content I appreciate.
***
Hey, what WOULD be the ideal ad for people here? I mean, individually. If someone were to set out to make a political ad for you what would it look like, be like?
It doesn't bother me, because it's done by a gay man who favors gay rights.
I don't get bothered if a rapper uses the N word. But I am bothered when a white person uses it, especially in a pejorative matter.
Context matters.
I consider myself a tough ass bitch who would love to take on some breeder and beat the shit out of him.
So--the male pronoun aside and speaking more, if not symbolically, then abstractly--would this explain why you've written some of the--stuff to/with reference to Ann on this site?
You lose me there.
You don't have a problem with it because it's a gay person using it for a gay agenda?
I saw a completely different issue/story here earlier. Basically, some bar instituted a "no fat chicks" rule.
Rob at Say Anything doesn't like the rule, but then says "Personal feelings aside, however, it seems to me perfectly reasonable for private businesses or bars to keep fat people out. After all, they’re allowed to keep smokers out. Hell, in most places these days they’re required to keep smokers out. Why not fatties too?... And before anyone asks me if I think businesses should be allowed to discriminated based on race or religion or gender, let me say “yes, they should.” It wouldn’t be a decision I’d make as I’d want my business to transact with as many paying customers as possible, but I’m not one to favor laws preventing idiots from being idiots... Businesses can’t afford to be racist lest they be picketed out of business."
I guess that while I think we have changed, I don't think that we have changed all that much. One of the reasons that people don't accept the same sort of segregationalist bullshit we used to is because we used the brute force of government to change the culture. I don't like big government, but ignoring that very positive result of government is foolhardy. I think Rob at Say Anything is missing the point that if you tolerate bigotry, you get more of it than if you don't tolerate it.
While not quite the same, I think it is relevant. You are ok with slurs and stereotypes and, frankly, bigotry if you think it advances a particular party. I think that means that bigotry is being tolerated more than it should, and the result will therefore be more bigotry than would exist if people took a more consistent stance and refused to turn the other cheek when people are playing the gay card, or the race card, or the sex card, etc.
I don't care if people are bigots as long as they admit it and as long as there equality before the law.
I have no problem with a restaurant excluding gay people, black people, fat people, etc. That's freedom for ya.
It's bigoted to discriminate - and I'll call them on that, but people have the right to be bigots.
And I don't have qualms about segregation. Most gay people choose to self-segregate, because they rightly realize that most straight people are anti-gay bigots.
Myself, 90% of my friends are straight. But I think that's only because I live in New York City where people are tolerant.
My family is in New Jersey, and I don't really associate with them any more than I have to, because they're bigots.
"Hey, what WOULD be the ideal ad for people here? I mean, individually."
It would have lots of cleavage. And almost no partisan spin.
Say what the positions are, while showing me the titties.
The fun part is that when I was young enough for that to be what you would expect, I was too proper. Now I am old and don't give a damn!
dtl,
I think that you are making the same mistake that Rob at Say Anything is making, which is that you really are not appreciating how shitty it would be for you, or for whatever group we are talking about, if we had the libertarian ideal.
I guess it is just a different way of looking at things. One looks at the past and says "things could never be like that again." Another looks and says "things will be exactly like that again unless we prevent it." It's the logic behind the old adage of never tearing down a fence until you know why it was built.
I'm a gay man in an anti-gay bigoted country. How much shittier could it possibly get?
Really.
And guess what enigmaticcore? Discrimination against gay people is already LEGAL in 2/3's of the states. You do realize that don't you?
I think that this "New York writer, theater director and part-time political activist" should be given a government grant, an endowment so that he'd be able to become a full-time political activist & use his, um, talent to produce more of this stuff which has caused so much discussion. I mean we should be more interested in politics, shouldn't we?
And I think further that if he doesn't get one he would be a victim. A victim of spending on The War, a victim of tax cuts for the rich, a victim of whatever is the latest in victimology as perceived by the PC police. All those victims of the federal government’s inability to increase spending for such grants since it is trying to avoid enacting more punitive taxes on non victims, if there are any left.
And I think that Prof A should be given a Big Government Endowment for her blog
DTL: I respond with trepidation (and no ill-will, for what that's worth, specifically or generally; as well as full acknowledgment that, being a heterosexual female, I can't speak for the world you experience; and without approving institutionalized discrimination), but really:
How much shittier could it possibly get?
Really.
It could be a lot shittier in countries and/or cultures where you would be in far more peril, even if you were closeted and mute.
Or even in this country, circa not so many decades ago.
Not justifying or excusing anything, but I AM sayin':
OK, now I am gone for the night.
Turn off your computers girls and get on the dance floor! Mr. DJ is waiting.
As my favorite artist (fosse) say....it's showtime!!!!!
Peter,
Sorry -- I managed to miss the fact that you were limiting your statement to Presidential campaigns.
Still, Gore got a *big* boost out of revealing Bush's DUI convictions at the last minute. That's the reason he won the popular vote; Bush had had a comfortable lead until that story broke. So I wouldn't say the Democrats aren't good at mudslinging, even in Presidential races.
Titus14's way of saying "Take off with us ..."
Snap. Snap.
(ba-bump. ba-bump. babump.)
I'm a gay man in an anti-gay bigoted country. How much shittier could it possibly get?
What are you -- twelve? It has been much "shittier" for American gays within recent memory.
Quit wallowing in self-pity and do something constructive. Like, for example, not personally confirming homophobes' worst stereotypes of gay men as hetero-hating sociopaths anymore?
Man, I've always loved that Fosse piece, its mains and its margins and the "Frank Sinatra would never record it" bit and all.
Of course, Titus14 could be referring literally to the "It's showtime, folks" bit(s)/meme--in which case, there's a different meta, which, depending on your point of view, could take on a different cast.
OK, I am back. Thanks so much for the Fosse clip...yes I meant "it's showtime folks". "Take off with us"-we used to pretend we were Fosse dancers in college and did that entire number-my jazz hand is fierce-fingers spread wide. Love Gwen Verndon-how gay is that?
Well do you all want to know how my night was???? Fruitful. I had my diesel tanky off in 5 minutes and was on the dance floor with some hot guy from brazil, also shirtless. Smooth chests surrounding me to the pounding beat of some sort of crap that gets our bodies going. I did the guy from Brazil in the cab and then was over him. I don't like having anyone in my bed. I was called handsome, people were grabbing my arms and tits and ass....uh-affirmation.
The best part of NYC you ask???? Every kind of food delivered at all hours of the night.
I am having the most delish gnocchi with a light vodka cream sauce and a caprese salad.
Still love the youtube gays for giuliani-it's hilarious, not homophobic-get over it. Love Althouse's tits and other women's tits-yummy!!! I might vote for Rudy-he's a New Yorker, a tough son of a bitch and would be a good change from Bush. He would certainly be a different kind of republican than we have seen in the past and I like that. He's got lots of baggage but we all do and that's what makes him interesting. His current wife has nice tits too.
Good night all it was a pleasure speaking with you tonight.
Got to catch the boat to Fire Island in 4 hours...where's my cucumbers for my eyes?
I missed this post:
Titus13 said...
"When Bush spoke to his "select crowds" during the 2004 election the biggest applause he got was regarding constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage so if some gays might think that some republicans are anti-gay you may understand."
I have two gay friends who tried to attend a Long Island "closed/public" event with t-shirts saying, alternatively, We are life partners and was turned away.
I thought Rudy was right when he was mayor for intimating that gay-bashing or gay discrimination was simply against the law of the land and implying that it was trite, silly, stupid and a sign of intellectual immaturity....as in worry about yourself not someone else's emotional life.
I am not heartened to see him circling his wagon around a different campfire on this issue as it makes him just 'one among many' when he could have done the opposite and stood for what he said he once believed in.
If you wonder why the gay community or for that matter much of the straight community dislikes this discourse is that gays are used as props much like bush uses the military now.
simply by standing in front of a group demonstrates no understanding of their issues. it is words and more important consistent deeds that indicate resonance and i'll thank rudy to get back to that or get lost.
Davis is a Democrat, interested in destroying Giuliani and showing his contempt for Republicans by revealing a despicable belief that they hate gay people
Uh, excuse me?
Who made gay marriage an issue? As in "the scary gay people are going to ruin Western civilization, so we need a constitutional ammendment prohibiting gay marriage?"
Last time I looked it was Republicans.
You're a disingenuous dickhead, Ann.
90% (that is just a 'for instance' number and not real) of the GOP doesn't think one way or another about gays...they have gay friends, they don't bemoan them, it is what it is. NO ONE CARES on a collective basis. I have no friends of either GOP or DEM or INDE conviction who give a shit one way or another unless pressed personally as in "would you date a gay or would you live with a gay" and even then most I know don't give a shit. My daughter had gay male roomates off and on thru college and early work and frankly I felt her safe and protected by them as roomies and never gave it a second's thought even though I am part of a generation that you would think "should care".
Ann Althouse is in no way a dickhead on this issue. NO WAY. She has tossed out a good topic and it has drawn rich discussion. don't call her a dickhead for doing so. call yourself a putz for such an inane contribution to the discourse.
you remind me of someone in church during the offering....himmm plate seems a little lean today...i won't tithe....actually won't give a red cent because if this is all these people care about supporting their church i won't help them by contributing.
Please. Picture an ad about Barack Obama with black actors...It would obviously be racist.
Please, right back at'cha.
The assumptions behind this comparison do not work.
Supposed homophobia is not in the same ball park as racism.
Gay activists have worked very hard over the years to convince Americans that their plight is the next black. It is not.
The comparisons don't wash.
A black person playing a role in a political ad would have no choice but to appear as wait for it a black person.
An extremely squishy fem gay person who appears in a political ad practically swirling a feather boa in the air makes a choice to appear flagrantly gay.
Once again, don't be dense Althouse. This ad did not say one negative thing about gays. It was political hypocrisy as venal as any we've seen in American politics, but it is not homophobic and it certainly does not equate to racism.
People who do not want to give Blacks an equal opportunity at a place at the American Success Table are racist.
People who do not support gay marriage in any of its forms are not necessarily homophobes.
"How much shittier could it possibly get?"
I think you are making my point. You don't think it could possibly be worse for gay men like yourself.
The fact is, it was worse for gay men like yourself not all that long ago.
What can I say? There is a lot of cruelty in the world, and even in the US. I wish there wasn't. But I believe there is less than there used to be, and part of the reason is that society is less tolerant of that sort of BS than it used to be. As such, tolerating that BS when one finds it politically convenient works against that dynamic.
Does any one else recall the "Thanks for Midnight Basketball" radio ads during the 1994 campaign?
Simels is back in the vortex! LOL.
If you can't deal with the fact that the Republicans are the Official Party of Homophobia, that's your problem.
But it's true. Sorry.
I think that Pete Stark makes that assertion a bit tenuous, Steve. "You little fruitcake". "Cocksucker."
Open your eyes and stop being a partisan hack. Both parties suck. One might suck more in some areas than the other, but rest assured the other sucks just as much in other areas. And neither deserves our unwavering support nor our blind advocacy.
dtl,
I didn't even think about it when I brought up Stark to simels, but I think he is a good case for what I was talking about above.
Do you think it is helpful or harmful to gays to have, in Congress, members gay-baiting each other? To have disagreements in policy met with one saying to the other "you little fruitcake" or "cock sucker?" But Stark is a liberal, so that makes it ok?
If we want shit to stop, we have to stop tolerating it just because we think the guy is fighting what we consider to be the good fight. Tolerated use legitimizes use in general.
Ann Althouse said...
Simels is back in the vortex! LOL.
Oh, like I couldn't have guessed that's what you were going to say.
Jesus, lady, what are you -- eleven years old?
steve simels said..."If you can't deal with the fact that the Republicans are the Official Party of Homophobia, that's your problem."
If you can't deal with the fact that nominating Giuliani would upset your reliance on the "fact" that the Republicans are the Official Party of Homophobia, that's your problem. And this ad is all about that little problem of yours that you don't want to talk about. The Republicans slike you who believe such things.
You know, a person should probably not complain that someone else is acting childish when the very first comment that person makes on a thread is a fine example of schoolyard vulgarity and namecalling:
"You're a disingenuous dickhead, Ann."
Or is your argument going to be that is not what an eleven-year-old might say, but more like what a thirteen-year-old might?
Heal thyself, doctor!
If you can't deal with the fact that nominating Giuliani would upset your reliance on the "fact" that the Republicans are the Official Party of Homophobia, that's your problem.
If Giuliani continues to move away from his pro-gay positions in order to get that nomination, his nomination will confirm not upset that fact, Ann.
Mommiee look at me...MOMMIEE look at me....MOMMIEE LOOK AT ME....MOMMIEE LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Ann, I can understand that you might prefer Giuliani. He is not particularly socially conservative and he claims to be strong on national defense... a combination after your own heart.
However, you may have noted that the ad used against Ford was 'shameful' but you did not call on any republican to condemn it in the post you referred us to.
You also wrote:
If you can't deal with the fact that nominating Giuliani would upset your reliance on the "fact" that the Republicans are the Official Party of Homophobia, that's your problem.
Ann, resorting to bizarro world hypotheticals. How did RG do in the Iowa Caususes?
Republicans don't hate gays? No shit. Now that's news. Maybe it's not literal "hate" but just a casual persecution not based on hate bit opportunism.
Must be why Republicans keep passing anti-gay legislation and making gays the target of their animnus.
Hard to understand how that grey matter between Althouse's
I know you are, Steve, but what am I?
After reading this very interesting and sometimes hilarious string of comments I need to comment.
Titus mentioned that he is gay and he has girlfriends who he touches their breasts. I don't understand this. What desire would a gay man or straight woman have to do something like that?
Would a straight woman allow a gay man to touch her breasts because it isn't "threatening"? Would something like that be enjoyable for either of them? It sounds kind of degrading to me. I have read that their are many close relationships between gay men and straight women but that seems to be unusually close and just weird.
Any woman out there would you allow a gay man to touch your breasts? Ann, would you?
Titus14 said...
"The only cities I will travel to are Miami, San Francisco, LA, Boston, Chicago."
Speaking on behalf of every other city in America - we'll take that as a kindness. And don't think it's because you're gay - we don't care. It's because you're terribly self-involved, and you're just not interesting enough to pull that off.
venga,
You need to get around. Your comments and mystified reaction is hard to believe at this point in time.
Whether Rudy likes gays, supports gay rights or whatever...when I mentioned "skeletons" in Rudy's closet, this is the kind of bullshit he throws out that I was referring to:
By MICHAEL COOPER
Published: August 25, 2007
Rudolph W. Giuliani has been broadcasting radio advertisements in Iowa and other states far from the city he once led stating that as mayor of New York, he “turned a $2.3 billion deficit into a multibillion dollar surplus.”
Skip to next paragraph
The assertion, which Mr. Giuliani has repeated on the trail as he has promoted his fiscal conservatism, is somewhat misleading, independent fiscal monitors said.
In fact, Mr. Giuliani left his successor, Michael R. Bloomberg, with a bigger deficit than the one Mr. Giuliani had to deal with when he arrived in 1994. And that deficit would have been large even if the city had not been attacked on Sept. 11, 2001.
The man is a liar.
I wrote: "If you can't deal with the fact that nominating Giuliani would upset your reliance on the "fact" that the Republicans are the Official Party of Homophobia, that's your problem. And this ad is all about that little problem of yours that you don't want to talk about. The Republicans slike you who believe such things."
Sorry about that last sentence. I cut something. It was supposed to say something like " The Republicans shound vote for Giuliani to stick it to Democrats like you who believe such things."
Beth said "If Giuliani continues to move away from his pro-gay positions in order to get that nomination, his nomination will confirm not upset that fact, Ann."
What position is he taking that is homophobic? And how about the way all the Democrats reject gay marriage? Why don't you call that homophobic?
Mindsteps said..."Ann, I can understand that you might prefer Giuliani. He is not particularly socially conservative and he claims to be strong on national defense... a combination after your own heart. However, you may have noted that the ad used against Ford was 'shameful' but you did not call on any republican to condemn it in the post you referred us to."
You're being ridiculous! I completely condemned the ad! All you're saying is that I didn't happen to use the rhetoric of calling for others to join me in the condemnation. You thought I'd ignored ignored something and I proved I didn't. Why don't you gracefully say you're sorry you assumed I'm only vigilant about the offenses of Democrats?
Anybody who thinks Ann is not a Republican is kidding themselves.
She tries to represent herself as some kind of open and fair-minded "independent," but that a crock.
I have idea why.
One would think an attorney of her stature would have the guts to stand up for what she believes.
Mindsteps said..."Ann, I can understand that you might prefer Giuliani. He is not particularly socially conservative and he claims to be strong on national defense... a combination after your own heart. However, you may have noted that the ad used against Ford was 'shameful' but you did not call on any republican to condemn it in the post you referred us to."
You're being ridiculous! I completely condemned the ad! All you're saying is that I didn't happen to use the rhetoric of calling for others to join me in the condemnation. You thought I'd ignored ignored something and I proved I didn't.
Ann:
This is mind-steps. First of all, I challenge you to find where I indicated that you ignored something (or anything for that matter). If you are going on the attack, at least aim at the right person.
You're a stickler for words when it serves you and you become fuzzy with words when it serves you. It is standard operating procedure for many politicians, and not very admirable.
Speaking of gays, marriage and family...
The lowest divorce rates are largely in the blue states: the Northeast and the upper Midwest. And the state with the lowest divorce rate was Massachusetts, home to John Kerry, the Kennedys and same-sex marriage.
In 2003, the rate in Massachusetts was 5.7 divorces per 1,000 married people, compared with 10.8 in Kentucky, 11.1 in Mississippi and 12.7 in Arkansas.
What position is he taking that is homophobic?
I'm thinking is points to the nub of the disconnect I'm experiencing.
The original ad, put forth by a gay man as explained by him, did not seem homophobic to me--that is, I, didn't, and don't, think its maker is homophobic, nor do I, or did I, think its content is homophobic. Now, exploiting homophobia, I can see (and I believe I alluded to that earlier.)
Taking advantage of or catering to homophobia--there's an excellent argument for that. But here's the thing: to the degree that Guiliani's backing off from his previous record, his previous actions, even his own personal views, he's catering to homophobia. By downplaying or watering down his views or positions, or playing up certain positions, or whatever because he thinks that will improve his chances among certain constituencies within (and even without, but mostly within) the Republican Party, he's taking advantage of homophobia.
At least, all those things can be legitimately argued.
Truly, I think the distinctions I've laid out here are what's being missed, or disregarded. You may not agree with that. That doesn't mean you're "wrong," or being something that's worth a dismissive "Please.". But the opposite is ALSO true. They're not invalid distinctions to make, and it's not an invalid POV to undertake that sort of political ad analysis. And the people doing so are not automatically deserving of a dismissive "Please." either.
You truly see no value in the distinctions? Or how, looked at that way (even if you don't agree with the conclusion), how it's possible to see Guiliani and the ad-makers as sharing the same dance floor?
What position is he [Guiliani] taking that is homophobic?
As needed, to achieve his goals, Guiliani, a politician, is willing to cater to those parts of the Republican base which are susceptible to homophobia by backing off from his previous approach order to avoid playing to their fears and bigotries.
Davis, an activist (and I think it's important, in context, to note that he's gay), in order to achieve his goals, is willing exploit the homophobia of those parts of the Republican base which are susceptible by playing to their fears and bigotries.
Is this really about either of these individuals being homophobic or taking homophobic positions? Or is it about something else?
Post a Comment