Last weekend, I noticed that the Alec MacGillis hit piece on Scott Walker in The New Republic, which was mostly racial politics, had some material that I believe was intended to float the rumor that Scott Walker is a closeted gay man.
And today, here's CNN reporting that Former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer recently said in an interview:
"If you were just a regular person, you turned on the TV, and you saw Eric Cantor talking, I would say — and I'm fine with gay people, that's all right — but my gaydar is 60-70 percent."Now, I had to Google Schweitzer's name to find out that he's a Democrat, so that CNN article is also an example of another much more well-documented trend: mainstream media omitting the party affiliation of a Democrat who says or does anything bad or stupid (or submerging the party affiliation under enough boring paragraphs that it's as good as omitted).
"Don't hold this against me, but I'm going to blurt it out. How do I say this ... men in the South, they are a little effeminate... They just have effeminate mannerisms."
Anyway, why would Schweitzer say something so stupid? It makes no sense. Should non-gay people be talking about their "gaydar"? Who brags about 60-70% gaydar? That seems like a high fail rate. And if he's not himself looking for sexual adventures, how does he know whether he's right or not, especially as he's purporting to detect gayness in men who are not openly gay? And, worst of all, if he thinks Southern men are just effeminate, doesn't that imply that Cantor would fall within the 30-40% who set off Schweitzer's gaydar but are not gay? I guess Schweitzer — who admits he knows he's just blurting crap out — just wanted to say that Cantor seems gay and then to take it back by saying, oh, but he's Southern, and Southern men always seem gay to me — which gratuitously insults both Southern men and gay men (and, in a way, women!).
How could Schweitzer go that badly wrong? Where did all that come from. Here's my suspicion. He operates with a backroom culture where people really do talk like that. The idea of floating the rumor that a Republican politician is gay comes up all the time, as does the idea that Southern men seem gay because they are effeminate. But the strategy would be to say something that puts the idea in our head without actually saying it. It's not the talking point, but the secret notes behind the talking point. Schweitzer just blurted out the secret notes.
Schweitzer seems to be really dumb. The trick is to do it in a smart way, so it's deniable and the person calling you on it seems delusional or weird. For example, back in 2005, I blogged about how I thought that the NYT tried to create the impression that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was gay. I pointed to a lot of things about the NYT's presentation, including a photo layout that included Roberts wearing plaid pants. I got pushed back, ridiculed for talking about plaid pants. The NYT had the deniability it sought if, in fact, it sought to put that idea in my head.
This is a technique that requires some skill and subtlety, so if there is an idea in that Democratic Party backroom to screw up Republicans with gay rumors, they'd better take care who they let into that room. They've got to keep that kind of strategizing in the closet. They'd better have some good radar about who's too dumb/inarticulate to work that game. They've got to filter out the Schweitzers.
Meanwhile, you've got MacGillis (on Walker) and the writers and editors who put together that John Roberts piece. These are people who are capable of playing a subtler game, and that's the game I'm watching... in case it's really happening.
I need a good tag for this trend watch, but for now I'll revive the old "plaidgate."
ADDED: I think Obama used this technique on Romney back in April 2012.
AND: I've decided to make the new tag "homophobia politics."
पोस्ट्स
७२ टिप्पण्या:
It makes sense if you understand that progs believe their own bushwa. In prog-world, conservatives and Christians are so virulently homophobic that the slightest insinuation that someone might be gay will make us cast them into the outer dark forever. Their own intolerance makes them believe this will be an effective tactic.
Democrats and liberals have been doing this for years, many years. Alger Hiss's supporters even outed Whittaker Chambers in an effort to save Hiss.
Middle school.
Reminds me of girls gossiping about which boy is the cutest. Mindless chatter.
Or boys rating girls on looks.
One thing if an individual wants to acknowledge his or her own orientation for matters of practicality, but guessing for entertainment value is useless.
It's like asking someone if they are dating anyone. If they ate seeing someone special, they'll tell you without asking.
Why do they think this is an issue? There are a diverse range of dysfunctional behaviors, which does not begin and end with a homosexual predisposition. It's not an issue, unless there is an effort to normalize their dysfunctional behavior. It's not an issue, unless it's a progressive condition in a society, in humanity. This should be self-evident.
That said, there are far worse dysfunctional behaviors which are progressive in our society and in humanity, which are exhibited by a diverse class of people, beginning with heterosexual women and men. People need to recognize their circumstances, accept responsibility, and make better choices for themselves and those affected.
Propogayda?
Oh, one more thing. I think that all politicians, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc. are excessively gay. They party like it's 1999. Obama is particularly gay.
It's interesting to see how the left, with its pro-gay agenda, is really "homophobic." I understand they may be insinuating that Republicans are "closeted" but it still has the connotation that it is shameful.
Projection is so common on the left that it is no surprise.
You know you can't write about this without also spreading the various rumors. You must be playing the "subtler game".
That game was never played more subtly, though, than with "tail-gunner Joe". McCarthy himself campaigned on the slogan "Congress needs a tail-gunner."
"Who brags about 60-70% gaydar? That seems like a high fail rate."
That's not what he's saying. He's saying Cantor scores 60–70% on a "gayness" scale.
No, the Democrats never do anything like that, The conservatives have crafted together a system of "dog whistles" that rival Esperanto, but if the Democrats don't say something in 20 point type...
"Or boys rating girls on looks"
We can't help it. It is uncouth to talk about it where mixed company may overhear or find out. I am sure you girls have similar types of discussions.
You want to know why Dem's keep prattling on about dog-whistles?
Because it's standard practice for *them*, so why wouldn't it be for everyone else.
1) Accusations of hypocrisy work against Republicans (though not nearly as well against Democrats).
2) Republicans are believed by many to hate gay people axiomatically.
3) Gay Republican politicians are portrayed as repressed (and repressive) hypocrites.
4) The suggestion that a Republican politician might be gay is a useful form of political attack.
QED
It's a little like the left's pro-black agenda. It is no compliment that the blacks can't make it without affirmative action and all the favors bestowed by the Democrats.
The only people I've ever heard talking about having gaydar are all gay. I've never heard a straight person claiming to have gaydar. Did he just out himself?
PS. I forgot to add:
- If Republicans axiomatically hate gay people, insinuating that a Republican politician is gay is likely to erode support for that politician among GOP voters.
- If gay Republicans are assumed by Democrats to be repressed and repressive, insinuating that a Republican politician is gay is likely to strengthen prejudices among Democrat and independent voters against otherwise reasonable and competitive GOP politicians.
Prejudice! It's not just for straight, white, conservative males, any more! (As if it ever were.)
If they "filter out the Schwietzers" they'll have no one left.
Read the lefty blogs today - Schweitzer turned off a whole lotta Democrats with these comments, even those who counted themselves supporters.
Nothing emerging about it. They've been doing it to Rick Perry for years. Paul Begala used to do that in high school student body elections.
Brian Schweitzer is running for President in 2016?
Is against ObamaCare...wants single payer.
Is a big coal guy!
Yeah, that'll work.
My moron meter is at 100%
Your gay slur gaydar is turned up way too high. You are getting way too many false positives.
And of course the "journalist" allowing this kind of insinuation never asks the obvious question: Why is this important to know with respect to how he governs? How is a person's private life -- be they gay straight or indeterminate -- in any way relevant?
I don't remember the details, so forgive if I get something wrong. A couple of weeks ago, Fox interviewed an openly gay Republican who won the primary for his Congressional district. The usual rainbow and left leaning groups that should at least be neutral on him being gay are going all out with attack that include not so subtle hints that he is gay with a partner.
The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds at all. Worse, the MSM lets them get away with it.
Gay baiting is always cool when a Democrat does it.
The way male politicians backbite and gossip and do the "frenemies" thing is pretty gay, if you ask me.
Now, I had to Google Schweitzer's name to find out that he's a Democrat, so that CNN article is also an example of another much more well-documented trend: mainstream media omitting the party affiliation of a Democrat who says or does anything bad or stupid (or submerging the party affiliation under enough boring paragraphs that it's as good as omitted).
In the Cold War days, one handy way to tell if a country was communist was to see if it had the words "people" or "democratic" in their name. If they did, they were almost certainly communist.
Likewise, if an article doesn't mention a politician's political party, its a good bet the politician is a Democrat, especially if the article is in any way negative. The InstaPundit uses the tag "Guess the Party" for these kinds of stories. If the story is negative and the politician is a Republican, you'll likely see the party affiliation mentioned repeatedly in the first paragraph.
"Republican Congressman Joe Blow, (Republican-red state), who is a Republican, was denounced for making remarks that enlightened people disagreed with. Republican Blow, a Republican, should be ashamed of his Republican self."
If any national politician seems gay, it's President Obama.
@tim in Vermont
Acne, dirty nails, bad breath, greasy hair....
Yeah, we judged boys. It takes awhile for boys to develop and catch on that girls like hygiene.
Actual gays are allowed, morally, to point to their gaydar. Gay-friendly folks take some part, though not 100%, of this moral legitimacy.
I'm neither gay nor leftist, but I'm not anti-gay.
Bob's 4th Law states that "If you think a man is gay, he is."
What about gay guys who claim extremely sensitive gaydar? That's a thing, Professor.
(Of course, it's the Clinton News Network doing this).
Although frankly, I DO see a VP nom in this guy's near future...
"
If any national politician seems gay, it's President Obama."
Shhhhhhh
"Anyway, why would Schweitzer say something so stupid?"
1. He is stupid.
2. He's gotten so much positive press he thinks he is bulletproof.
3. He's a real homophobe and no longer able to hide the fact.
4. He's an asshole.
5. He's an actual homophobe (refrain).
These are cumulative reasons not multiple choice.
And speaking of choice, apparently if you are a Republican politician you are not allowed to be gay and choose not to acknowledge the fact.
the starting point, of course, is that for the Party there is no such thing as truth or falsehood, there is only Lenin's maxim, "Kto, kogo." [who, whom] anything that serves the Party is good and true, anything harmful to the party is evil and must be killed. Schweizer hopes to ascend to the top of the Politburo, and striking a blow at the Main Enemy will help him.
Sounds to me like a subtle replay of the winning "the GOP are the rich guys" play.
Common folks are plain men and plain women. Gay folks are never satisfied with being common folks.
Throwing in southern men is a play on the faux landed aristocracy style still displayed in smaller southern towns. Aristocrats can act any old way they choose.
Also in the interview, Schweitzer compares fellow Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic senator from California who chairs the Intelligence Committee, to a prostitute.
Think he is considering re-entering politics any time soon?
What was the point of an interview with him?
Best as I remember, gov., Brokeback Mountain wasnt about rednecks and it wasnt filmed in Mississippi.
I always thought Cantor sounded gay.
Sweitzer sets off my Clinton-dar. I don't know if he has a zipper problem, but he is the same kind of sleazy, slimy phony bubba guy. Dumber than Clinton, though.
I missed that Romney " marvelous" post back then, but it is ironic considering that rumor has it that Obama is on the down low, as they say.
I have a picture in my mind of post-White House Obama in a caftan on the beach, drink in hand, at his secluded, walled Hawaii mansion, the sunset gorgeous, his ex-wife far, far away, doing some burly-nippled hustling in the Senate's cold marble halls.
Schweitzer just nuked any national aspirations he had with stupid words that are either idiocy or the worst attempt to smear someone ever. What a fool.
Schweitzer was the left's cute flyover mascot, no more. I never bought the redneck western persona he put on to be governor here, which he didn't use in prior campaigns, but he's apparently stuck with it now,
Anecdote: The people who refer to me as "gay" as an insult are almost, monolithically, shooting from the left of the political field.
being a cisgender, heteronormative fascist, my own gaydar may be less than state of the art. however, I have often suspected that Pres. Urkel is a bit light in his loafers, and a peter-puffer.
This is an instance of a statist eunuch stepping on his phantom dick.
"with stupid words that are either idiocy or the worst attempt to smear someone ever."
-- Embrace the power of "and."
So... dead girl or live boy?
I'm trying to figure out which he was pictured in bed with. You know, the pictures that the Hillary campaign must have in order to convince him to do something like this and kill his chances at the presidency.
The southern accent is pretty gay sounding too.
I marched with tons of southern gays for many years and they combo of gay voice and southern voice was really gays.
Gays out here with the Boston accent actually sound tough...love at first hearing.
Here's a big piece about Schweitzer in the National Journal. Includes some discussion of sex with goats.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-gonzo-option-20140618
Southerners act effeminate?
That's one of the more intriguing theories I've seen.
Your gay slur gaydar is turned up way too high. You are getting way too many false positives.
A Republican saying, verbatim, the same thing, would be incredibly homophobic.
Let's be honest --- I know it's tough for you, Freder.
Also, as Coulter said, Republicans oppose gay marriage. Democrats hate gay people.
You don't see a lot of Republicans calling Democrats homos. One or two, but it is rare.
Southerners act effeminate?
That's one of the more intriguing theories I've seen.
Your gay slur gaydar is turned up way too high. You are getting way too many false positives.
A Republican saying, verbatim, the same thing, would be incredibly homophobic.
Let's be honest --- I know it's tough for you, Freder.
Also, as Coulter said, Republicans oppose gay marriage. Democrats hate gay people.
You don't see a lot of Republicans calling Democrats homos. One or two, but it is rare.
Has anybody thought to get Fen's opinion on this situation?
Has everybody noticed that Fen is exceedingly accurate?
Democratic name-calling, is all. Raycist, war on women, now gay. I wonder how they'll top this,
"Tea baggers."
Male Republicans under fire as "gay" should just cop to it. Admit to everyone that they're lesbians and get it all out in the open...
The only people I hear making racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic remarks these days are progressive Democrats. They think that they won't be called on their bigotry because so many blacks, gays, and Jews vote Democratic. It's a preemptive variation on the old "I'm not a bigot. Some of my best friends are . . . ."
Black, gay, and Jewish Democrats just assume that Republicans are even more bigoted than progressive Democrats. The thinking seems to be that bigotry is not progress, the Republicans oppose many of the schemes that Democrats call progress, and so the Republicans must favor bigotry. Also, the Democrats want the government to give people stuff, which allows Democrats to feel generous.
Writers of plays such as Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote and Donald Windham were southern effeminate men who were also masters of self promotion on arrival in NYC... which is really what a Playwrite does.
The southern politician type is also a master of self promotion. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Because the left really believes being gay is a negative. They use their pet victim groups - they will praise them and stroke them, but deep down, they despise them.
I don't know about the rest of it, but 'doing some burly-nippled hustling' is a new favorite phrase.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. This coming from men who pee sitting down.
Early on as the TEA Party was gaining popularity, a liberal from the TP media called them teabaggers. All the liberal men immediately started giggling uncontrollably while conservative men just scratched their heads, wondering what was so funny.
After learning what the word meant, I began wondering why liberal men knew so much about gay sex practices (although I already knew).
Schweitzer also had this to say about Sen. Diane Feinstein, a fellow Democrat, and her views on intelligence gathering:
"She was the woman who was standing under the streetlight with her dress pulled all the way up over her knees [i.e, acting like a streetwalker]. And now she says, 'I'm a nun,' when it comes to this spying. I mean, maybe that's the wrong metaphor — but she was all in!"
If you'd googled (or been aware of) more, you'd find out he's from Montana.
That might have saved you (and the world) umpteen paragraphs, but then the joy of discovering those things would have been deprived to the world!
Seriously, it's not a "trend". There are other aspects that go into someone and what they think than just political affiliation.
And for the record, he said Southerners are gay, not Republicans.
Which they kind of are.
The Dems use this strategy in the hope the Republican candidates they've targeted will respond in a way that offends significant voting blocks, allowing the Dems to launch full-out personal attacks on the Republicans as haters and homophobes and racists, etc., etc., etc. If the Republican opposition falls for the trap, they end up on the defensive throughout the campaign instead of focussing on other issues. The willing collaboration of the MSM is critical to the success of the Dem election strategy. Abetted by the MSM, the Dem misdirection works to divert voters' attention away from the gigantic mess Liberals have made of government at every level. It is to make the election about the favorite "-isms" and the "-ists" labels the Progs use to smear other people. To the classic "divide and conquer" class warfare of old, the Dems now add the mix of race and gender and sexual orientation.
Heckfire--what's so wrong with a "wide stance" in the mens room?
It's okay if you're Barney Frank--but bad, bad, bad if you're a GOP Congress critter.
People say that Obama was more happy and relaxed back when Reggie Love was around. I don't know if there is anything to that or not.
Maybe TNR was trying to insinuate that Scott Walker is a latent homosexual.
The personification of this is the Colonel Fitts character in the movie 'American Beauty." He has nazi memorabilia, persecutes his sensitive son, and ultimately explodes in homicidal rage.
Both homosexuality and, for that matter, homophobia have roots separate from those of political orientation. I don't think there's any politician in America, including Barney Frank, who has caught more anti gay flack than Lindsey Graham. And poor Michelle Bachman's husband wasn't even in politics, and he got dumped on relentlessly.
"I always thought Cantor sounded gay." - Titus
I will take your word for it, but it never occurred to me. Turns out though, that the fact that I opposed Cantor because he was pushing the Chamber of Commerce's cheap labor agenda makes me hate gay people, along with all of my racism.
"Rhythm and Balls" (today!) said...
If you'd googled (or been aware of) more, you'd find out he's from Montana...
Whatever that means, you should know, MONTANA URBAN LEGEND!
It makes me think of the gay, effeminate men in the Army of the Confederacy.
I think this is deflection and projection from the Democrats' gay problem. No one appears more gay that Barack Hussein Obama, he and his faghag wife's obession with white male homosexuals, the obvious lesbianism of Hillary!, WJC's womanizing outside of his marriage, Chuck Schumer, etc.
Notice that they did not actually mention the one real closeted homosexual, Lindsey Grahamnesty. They know that he does what he is told because they are holding it over him.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा