C'mon Ron, smile for the camera next time.
Select your facts carefully, as you did, and you can come to almost any conclusion you want... as you did.
What's interesting is that Log Cabin did NOT endorse their candidate in 2004, and the vitriol and hate coming from the likes of you didn't cease. They could endorse Obama tomorrow and the likes of you would still hate them to the core. Why should they want to try pleasing the gay left when it doesn't matter what they do? The likes of you will always hate them (as evidenced by your history of written work).
Democrats gave us DOMA. Democrats gave us DADT. Democrats promise to pass ENDA and can't do it without significant Republican support.
Perhaps if the likes of you stopped carrying water so blindly for your side on the left, something might actually get done. Short of that, you can continue to display your intellectual laziness by following Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid to the gallows, with nothing to show for it.
Poor VaSportGuy, hoping that the right wing will someday wake up and support equality (not just for gay folk but for all people). Only the left has been willing to address these issues. In Europe, in particular, the gay movement came out of the left and is still part of the left. Only people like VaSportGuy and the Log Cabin Republicans think that somewhere, deep down, Francisco Franco was in favor of gay rights. And the Republicans' Southern Strategy really isn't racist, right?
DOMA and DADT were largely the results of Clintonian triangulation. Some gay people should think that over as they try to dazzle us with stories of Bill and Hill and their residual fantabulousness. If it looks like a conservative, quacks like a conservative, it may, lo and behold, be a conservative.
Being a gay conservative is a moral impossibility. It recalls black conservatives. What do conservatives want? Separate water fountains? Police raids on nelly bars? Greater income inequality and declining health care for those not nice enought to be able to pay their premiums?
On the other hand, Mike, I wish you weren't dancing on the grave so much. It makes you look a tad silly, neh?
JJ
Predictably, you miss the point.
It is true that Republicans, collectively, haven't been very heplful on gay issues. That's not the debate. Where you and I differ is that I would like that fact to change. You would prefer to score a political point rather than advance the cause.
Where you and I differ is that I don't blindly accept the crap that is routinely given to our movement by the Democrats, and then cheer them wildly because they say the word "gay" in a speech once in a while.
The facts remain: Democrats gave us DOMA. Democrats gave us DADT (Sam Nunn openly admits he fired gay people because they were gay, and he's on Obama's short list!). The two biggest legislative priorities for our movement were offered -- and defended -- by Democrats. They were done for political expedience. Yet there all you lefties are, cheering and cheering and cheering them for kicking you in the teeth.
It is a free country, to be sure. You are entitled to be anything you want to be, including intellectually lazy.
Thumbs up to JJ on all counts. VaSportGuy needed only to utter his final sentence (Short of that, you can continue to display your intellectual laziness by following Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid to the gallows, with nothing to show for it.) for us to really get his drift, which is, the one who dies with the most stuff (money) wins. To that end, conservatives are willing to go to any length, including the dessimation of the middle class, as long as we all keep THEIR investment accounts bulging at the seams.
Silly VA: some of us despise Republicans simply on the basis that beyond all the bullshit they all represent the dedicated explotation of weaker people , countries, the earth. The fact that there are BushDemocrats like Pelosi only amplifies the deviousness of repiggie ways.
Not everyone is Democratic for any reason other than that it is the most liberal voting option. The swing of political beliefs in reality goes much farther left , like the rest of the world to e.g democratic socialism., which if the U.S. becomes a viable democracy, if it servives, will be the status quo.
The U.S. is only the last holdout of proto fascism, the log cabins beiing a confused cadre who believe that they can be rock and water at the same time.
va. sport guy is a liar. doma and dadt were crafted by the new republican majority in the mid 90's. remember newt gingrich and the "contract with america" nonsense? i remember when clinton took office that colin powell, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, threw a hissy fit when the clinton folks starting talking about a reversal of the military gay ban. clinton caved when certain members of his own party, notably sam nunn, sided with the repiggie congressional majority. i am so sick of these log cabinette morons that carry water for the repiggie trash.
The remark about Mike "dancing on the grave" is just so bizarre: As G Vidal said not that long ago : Americans are so deficient of memory that anything past last Monday, confounds them. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. It's always handy for people with a horseshit past to complain so as to get another pass. When the base and structure of a building are rotten, additions just make the next tumble all the worse. The rebublican party has reached a position where the only way they can continue is to lie.
They woun't be different because we forget the past. How insane
Evangenital is a prime example of what I've said. Of course you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts.
DADT was signed into law in 1993. Both chambers in the Congress were soundly controlled by Democrats, not Republicans. And of course, President Clinton was hardly a Republican.
The gay left whips themselves (pun intended?) into thinking that Bill Clinton was the Messiah, when in reality, he was a politically expedient man who urinated all over gays just like everyone else. But go ahead, Evangenital, and think that Newt led on this law. This was a gift given solely by the Democrats.
Even with this knowledge of the facts, the gay left will be out there cheering and cheering, wishing they could have done what Monica did.
This debate is tiresome.
Democrats are mediocre at best on gay issues. Republicans are worse. Pick your poison.
To claim otherwise is partisan bullshit, and who really wants to hear it?
Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about a particularly vicious scum-sucking traitorous queer who also--not coincidentally--happens to be a Republican operative.
If you can come up with a comparable Democratic shit, by all means enlighten me.
Go suck off Charlie Crist, "VaSportGuy" (too gutless to use his own name.)
We must never forget vermin like Arthur Finkelstein.
VASportGuy sounds like the reincarnation of Lucius Beebe. (Or to be really cruel, Roy Cohn: Bully, Coward, Victim.) He thinks that by cuddling up to the elite rich straights, they'll throw him a few bones and thus elevate him over the common herd. In other words, he will lie like a rug about who gave us DOMA and DADT and pretend that Jesse Helms was the Patron Saint of Leather Daddies, because he wants his goddam tax cuts and nothing else matters. Not gays, not straights, not our crumbling schools, bridges and other infrastructure. Nothing.
Oh I get it, I like to fuck men so I'm a Democrat?
You partisan hacks make me laugh. Our common goal, whatever our political beliefs, should be to remove homosexuality as a wedge issue from both parties.
(That said, this Finkestein clown should be ashamed of himself. Signorile has every right to call him on his hypocrisy. It infuriates me that he is benefiting from laws passed in spite of his best efforts.)
Finally, some reason. This isn't about taking sides. The intellectually lazy (many of whom have responded here) only assume that because Democrats talk a good game, that they also do the walk.
Both sides need to do what they can to remove LGBT topics as wedge issues. I'm merely pointing out that the Dems have done more than their fair share of wedging on our issues, and yet most of the gay left don't even know they just got screwed. They were too happy to be invited to the right cocktail party to know they are only being used.
As for Log Cabin, they are hardly perfect. My only original point was that four years ago they opted to not endorse President Bush, and the venom from gay partisans (similar to what is posted above) didn't wane a bit. The fact is most on the gay left prefer electoral success than success in the LGBT movement.
Here's an interesting read, from that conservative bastion, The Advocate: http://advocate.com/issue_story_...6887.asp?
page=1
I don't get the logic.
The Log Cabin Republicans failed to endorse a presidential candidate in one election and that makes them heroes of the LGBT cause?
The Texas Republican Party's platform regarding homosexuality:
"Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between
persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits.
We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."
This is the same state Republican Party that has barred even the organized presence of the Log Cabin Republicans from their state conventions.
There is a vast gulf between withholding their endorsement from their parties sitting president and actually doing anything effective to advance the cause of civil rights among the LGBT community.
And the Log Cabin Republicans have a lot of ground to make up before calling them on their bullshit is anything but truth.
However, I will say the bringing the Cabins into the conversation was perhaps diluting the message.
Jesse Helms was an evil, wicked man and a horrific legislator. Arthur Finkelstein was his criminal accomplice.
LCR is merely an ineffectual house organ for humanizing the the Republican Party, in no way near the league of those two evil fuckers.
Speaking of intellectual sloth, VaSportGuy, you conveniently ignore that DOMA was passed by an overwhelmingly Republican Congress (House and Senate) in 1996, then signed by Democrat Bill Clinton, so neither party brought them to us singlhandedly. The most accurate summation of the major party alignment was made by an earlier poster who said (my paraphrase) that Republicans are evil on gay issues where Democrats are merely mediocre.
All good points.
Here's what I don't get, and never will. Democrats were not always the party of the LGBT. We are better for them having changed, thanks to lots of work, lobbying, etc.
While Republicans have been slower, there has been movement. California, as evidenced by the Advocate story I liked above, is proof of a Republican judges and a Governor validating the work of the assembly.
Log Cabin is working to change the Republican Party. It's daunting. It's difficult. It's certainly thankless. It might even be impossible. Yet why do people who are trying to change the way people think about LGBT people invite such hatred from their own kind? My fear remains (a validated fear, I'm afraid) that most on the gay left want Republicans to stay the way they are so they can have a political whipping post. They don't want the progress. If they did want the progress, their venom and invective might well be aimed at Republicans in general, but certainly not their own people who happen to call themselves Log Cabin.
Not sure about anyone else, but if I hear VaSportGuy use the tired phrase 'intellectually lazy' one more time, I will scream. Worse, nothing he writes tells me he's 'intellectually rigorous'. It's so easy to cast those kinds of aspersions. Sounds like repub frat boy learned a phrase he likes a lot and needs to use it in all but one of his posts, multiple times in each, to insinuate that he has something over the rest of us. Just another pompous blowhard, in my estimation.
Mike, thanks so much for fighting against pigs like Arthur Finkelstein. He's even worse than Terry Dolan or Roy Cohn, and yet happy to take advantage of the civil rights that others have fought for. This type of lurking, secretive slime is the worst of the worst.
Dear Mike and David,
I have been feeling very depressed about the lack of historical memory about Jesse Helms - the pain and cruelty that he imposed on us and our dead friend.
One thing I have learned is that people with power get away with enormous evil - on both personal and political levels. They are almost never held accountable - and that in fact, that is the definition of unjust power- to not have consequences for your actions.
So, I am very grateful to you for making record.
Yours, Sarah S.
Interesting that conservative gays trash clinton and the left, yet are happy to reap the benefits of the work that is done by LGBT activists. Finklestein helped vilify and destroy gay rights, then "quietly" married his partner to reap the benefits of marraige, all the while he and his right wing friends worked to block his right to marry. I imagine that while VASPORTS guy calls us "intellectuallly lazy", he is just plain lazy. LIkely doing nothing for the advancement of the rights of gay people, but if and when he finds a partner, will be the first one to hop on the marraige train so that he can protect his "hard earned assets" from being taxed when he dies and reap the hundreds of other rights that come with civil marraige.
Easy to call people names... hard to actually do something to advance the plight of gay people in this homophobic country.
While people can write volumes on the evil this man brought to the world allow me to share a lighter story at the bastard's expense.
Back in 1993 I used to hang out with a great group of guys in Northern Virginia, just a few miles from DC. All of us were gay and in our early 20s and had only recently come out. One of the core group members had the misfortune of living next door to the senator from hell. Despite the proximity to evil, we often hung out on that street with other gay neighbors for BBQs, parties, etc. Looking back it's so ironic that Helms lived in such a gay cul de sac.
Anyhoo... it was several days before the Gay and Lesbian March on Washington and my friends and I were caught up in the excitement and euphoria of the upcoming event. In anticipation of the March I had purchased a roll of rainbow stickers (slightly smaller in size that the ones we often see today) and in a particularly gleeful moment I stuck one on the rear bumper of Helms's car. I'm proud to say that Senator Helms showed his gay pride for about two months before the sticker was taken off.
Clinton is a huge disappointment in many ways, an amoral pol. Helms was evil. Finkelstein is an evil pol whore. Both parties have bad people though Republicans are worse. I am proud to be a fiscally conservative socially liberal progressive gay man who thinks for himself and is not threatened by people with different points of view. I do not think attacking VASports guy is warranted.
mike - Perhaps then, VaSportsGuy should not have fired the opening salvo, calling those he disagrees with intellectually lazy. Actually, that's all you did, call a bunch of people names. Say something worthwhile if you want praise.
Buddy -- yep you are right that I did label and call Helms and Finkelstein names. I agree that that is not constructive or helpful. I was typing on my blackberry and was trying to speed up a slow painful plucking (won't call it typing) process.
Labeling and calling names was intellectually lazy of me. So much for shorthand. I apologize for that.
I enjoy reading comments to blogs and media articles, but I really do not like the name calling of other commenters or attacking other commenters or simplifying arguments and principles into labels like "liberal" or "conservative" then presuming that what is denoted by a label is automatically in all ways bad.
I agree with Matt Taibbi that those labels are really meaningless anymore anyway because no one agrees on what they mean or who is what. I think it is better to comment on or criticize beliefs and positions rather than tar someone with a label.
I am guilty of that though when I try to shorthand what I believe in -- for what it is worth I would criticize myself for making broad statements such as "Republicans are worse." Mea culpa.
For what ever it is worth -- I voted for Clinton in 1992 and again in 1996 -- I thought he was better than the alternatives.
Also by the way, Helms also tried to bankrupt and ruin the United Nations -- a flawed institution for sure but Helms went too far. Helms did a lot of things I disagree with.
Thanks for the clarification. I really had no problem with your position on Helms as the man. He was most of what you said he was. What gets unproductive, in my opinion, is then using that as evidence that "Republicans are bad" when there is plenty of evidence of gay hating on the left.
I enjoy the blog. Keep up the good work.
You are right...McCain has his Charles Keating, but the Democrats have Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, and Franklin Raines of FANNIE & FREDDIE fame/no need for regulation!?!? What's a girl to do?
Commenting by HaloScan
