Gay Patriot Header Image

Gay Lefty Uses Bush-Bashing In Manhattan Borough Election

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 9:39 pm - August 30, 2005.
Filed under: Bush-hatred

This pretty much reinforces everything I’ve been saying about how the “mainstream” gay leaders have joined forces with the “hate America first” crowd of Bush-bashers.

Just what on earth does this ranting prove about Mr. Ellner’s capabilites to be Manhattan Borough President?

Watch the nutty ad here.

UGH! Chad… please do something about this on Election Day, okay?

-Bruce (GayPatriot) – gaypatriot2004@aol.com

Share

51 Comments

  1. Damn! If I only lived in Manhattan and not Queens I’d so vote for him. Thanks for the info. I’ve bookmarked his link. ;-)

    Comment by gaycowboybob — August 30, 2005 @ 10:33 pm - August 30, 2005

  2. I’ll see what I can do. My former landlords in Brooklyn, umm… have “connections”.

    I also know of some Russian folk that I could collect a favor from. :)

    I love how the ad goes from bashing Bush, to a poorly photoshopped picture of him “naked” and then right to the oh-yeah-and-here’s-my-partner-(that’s-right-I’m-gay) ending. Is the partner running for something too? Why is he in the ad?

    He shoulda’ used me: “And here’s some random guy that picked up a flyer of mine off the ground in Central Park one day.” ::Fade to black::

    When was the last time you saw a straight candidate for anything end their political ad with, “And this is my wife/husband.”

    Shameless attempt to get the gay vote. And unfortunately it’ll work.

    Comment by Chad — August 30, 2005 @ 11:17 pm - August 30, 2005

  3. What a humorous ad. He’s a candidate for Manhattan Burough President, yet he feels the need to discuss National Policy in his ad rather than explaining to the citizens of New York how his LOCAL policies will work. And yeah, the “oh, by the way, I’m gay” revelation at the end was priceless. But, I agree with the previous comment — it’s a cheap way to lure the gay vote, but it will work.

    Comment by Neil — August 31, 2005 @ 12:06 am - August 31, 2005

  4. At first, I assumed the people on the steps behind him at the end were his campaign staff. Then it hit me — there’s a straight couple and a lesbian couple behind him. You know, to show how diverse he is.

    Also, the gestures while he’s walking look quite forced.

    But, honestly, he’s running for borough president… of course it’s going to look a bit clunky. I suppose next for fun we could go back and look at the posters he put up when he was running for student council president.

    Hard to get worked up about this when Charlie Rangel is comparing the Iraq War unfavorably to the Holocaust.

    Comment by Clint — August 31, 2005 @ 1:01 am - August 31, 2005

  5. This pretty much reinforces everything I’ve been saying about how the “mainstream” gay leaders have joined forces with the “hate America first” crowd of Bush-bashers.
    =========================
    I see nothing here about hating America first. Nothing.

    &

    Just what on earth does this ranting prove about Mr. Ellner’s capabilites to be Manhattan Borough President?
    =============================

    1) He says Bush promotes life (anti abortion, anti stem cell) yet sends soldiers to die. Simple polar diametric. Abortion, stem cell research and sending local soldiers to war are all local issues. Valid points.

    2) Stated that Bush has an unfunded mandate for “No Child Left Behind”. Local tax issues are valid as well as all unfunded mandates. All Valid points.

    3) States that Bush claims to be a uniter but isn’t. Well, I can see there hasn’t been a whole lot of uniting round here. Then he states that “the Emperor has no clothes”‘ Valid points even if the comparisson is a bit trite.

    4) Thn Brian does a laundry list of personal values wich are PROGRESSIVE. He seems honest and direct. More valid points even if you disagree with his point of view.

    5) The fact that he is running as an openly gay man says more about his character than those that deride him for this. Open, honest and direct. More points.

    Jeebus he LOOKS like a Republican. Yuck…..

    All in all AN EXCELLENT ADVERT!

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — August 31, 2005 @ 2:02 am - August 31, 2005

  6. “Jeebus he LOOKS like a Republican. Yuck..”

    Chandler…bigotry is hateful ignorance.

    Would you say the same to my gay friends, who were once Democrats, who voted for Bush?

    Comment by syn — August 31, 2005 @ 6:20 am - August 31, 2005

  7. I have no problem with Ellner running as an openly gay man. My problem is that he’s shamelessly running as an openly gay man. Most ads like this, the viewer remembers the last thing they see. And that’s Ellner, proclaiming to the world that, “Look!! I have a partner!!”

    The gay rights group and 99% of the lefties would shit themselves if a Republican candidate reinforced the fact he or she is of a “traditional” relationship. How then is it right for a Democrat to promote his “progressive” one?

    Comment by Chad — August 31, 2005 @ 7:57 am - August 31, 2005

  8. GIVE ME A BREAK!

    Yeah, bringing up President Bush is out of place for a borough race.
    (BUT, in an appropriate race the Bush comments would be appropriate and NOT Bush-Bashing. (Valid Points))

    Other than that I don’t ANYTHING wrong with this ad.
    Especially to those of you bitching about the gay pandering vote. I can’t count the times I’ve had to watch some uptight MORAL Republican candidate introduce me to his “Family” (Wife & Kids) in thier ads.

    Comment by MarkP — August 31, 2005 @ 7:59 am - August 31, 2005

  9. Good post, Bruce.

    And for those who don’t see anything inherently wrong with the ad, I can only state that you’ve lost your perspective, ability to discern, and you’ve failed the #1 test in political advertising: clear message, stated repeatedly. Ellner’s clear message: “I’m combative and looking for a fight –why can’t I belittle the President?” Even citizens in NYC want representation that will make sure the street lights come on, the trash gets collected, and the cops aren’t always on the take.

    This kind of rambling, off-topic political ad MAY work for Hollywood wanna-b-producers–where logic, common sense, and reality have never been viewed as assets– but it doesn’t work to advance a political message. If being combative gets votes, then every politician would be airing 1970′s era “Walking Tall” ads like this –they aren’t.

    I trust Mr Ellner has buckets of money from the Left ’cause he wasted it here.

    Chandler: go back to hawking scripts, you suck as a political commentator.

    Comment by Matt-Michigan — August 31, 2005 @ 9:28 am - August 31, 2005

  10. That ad had zero substantial material. Mr. Ellner basically started with a standard Democratic critique of the President and then moved on to some vague description of him being a Progressive figure. He then ended his ad with a comment about his partner.

    Hardly a very impressive ad. Now I don’t know about Manhattan politics. But I would hope that New Yorkers elect substance not cheap stylistic ads.

    Comment by Justin — August 31, 2005 @ 10:20 am - August 31, 2005

  11. Matt-Michigan-

    One point you may have missed is that the candidate’s main hurdle is not a main election in which he needs to get 50%, but the Democratic primary in which he needs to get more votes than any of the other 9 candidates — among Manhattan Democrats, in an off-year election.

    That produces entirely different requirements. And he’s not one of the two best funded candidates out of the ten.

    Comment by Clint — August 31, 2005 @ 10:22 am - August 31, 2005

  12. Chad,

    What about candidates that pose shamelessly with their Sears catalog wife and kids? What’s the difference?

    Comment by GayCowboyBob — August 31, 2005 @ 10:23 am - August 31, 2005

  13. Chandler-

    Bizarre, as usual. THIS is a list of “progressive values”????

    (1) “We tell you how we feel.”
    (2) “We don’t make apologies for what we believe.”
    (3) “And we’re not afraid of a fight.”

    Laudable sentiments, of course, but how can you tell whether the speaker is more likely to protest the war, firebomb a research lab or block access outside an abortion clinic?

    Comment by Clint — August 31, 2005 @ 10:27 am - August 31, 2005

  14. Justin-

    It’s worth pointing out that the job he’s running for is fairly similar to “stuffed hat”.

    Anything important in the city is managed by the city government, not the borough government.

    Comment by Clint — August 31, 2005 @ 10:28 am - August 31, 2005

  15. Yuck! I just think the guy’s creepy and the ad’s completely contrived to the point of hilarity. To me, he comes off like a fey little weiner trying to do the tough-walkin’ and tough-talkin’ routine. Like a ballerina pretending to be a dock worker. Or Brian Ellner pretending to be George W. Bush. Simply priceless.

    And in a particularly classy move, we get to meet his loving “partner, Simon” at the end just to make sure we all know how aboslutely gay, Gay, GAY he is. (Because don’t we all want to know exactly who our political candidates are having sex with?) I was half expecting him to shove his tongue down his lover’s throat for added emphasis.

    If this guy loses it’ll be a shame but only because Simon seems like a good wife and would probably have made a lovely First Lady.

    Comment by glisteny — August 31, 2005 @ 10:49 am - August 31, 2005

  16. Heck, it’s New York. I think in NY, slow taxi drivers are more popular than George W Bush and Manhatten is the centre of Democratic, liberal NY.

    Comment by Justin — August 31, 2005 @ 10:59 am - August 31, 2005

  17. My problem with it GCB is that it’s an obvious attempt to use his minority status as a homosexual to get votes. “Sears catalog” candidates don’t have to pander in such a way because they’re in the majority. They’re not going to win any more votes by showing off their wife and kids.

    I would’ve prefered Ellner focused on issues in the ad rather than play the Gay Card. Honestly… aren’t all the gay-rights advocates going around proclaiming that we’re no different from anyone else? If that’s the case, then why the need to show your partner in a political ad?

    Go ahead and be an openly gay candidate for public office. I’m all for that. But don’t use your openly gayness to get me to vote for you.

    Comment by Chad — August 31, 2005 @ 11:05 am - August 31, 2005

  18. It is really pathetic. What could I add to others’ comments? He’s cute, but he can’t tell the Borough voters a single thing he’ll do for them. LOL.

    It will be interesting to see if it works or not. And, if the election’s close, I’m positive that GCB having bookmarked him will tip the balance, and ultimately prove to be the beginning of Bush’s impeachment and the world-historical triumph of so-called “progressive” ideals. ;-)

    Comment by joe — August 31, 2005 @ 12:22 pm - August 31, 2005

  19. #5 – “I see nothing here about hating America first. Nothing.”‘

    If you weren’t so slow, Chandler, you would have picked up on the fact that it is a Bush-bashing ad, and, in much previous commentary and posts (not part of this thread), Bruce has analyzed the hard-core “hate Bush first” people as also being implicitly or explicitly “hate America first” type of people. It’s a pity that you’re so slow on the uptake that you need this kind of background context explained to you.

    Comment by joe — August 31, 2005 @ 12:51 pm - August 31, 2005

  20. Please excuse me – I should have said “virulently Bush-bashing” ad. Cheap shots, bad points, bad graphics, etc. I’m all for sensible / constructive criticism of Bush where it’s due. I shouldn’t have to explain stuff like that either, but with Chandler, I’m sure I have to.

    Comment by joe — August 31, 2005 @ 12:58 pm - August 31, 2005

  21. Chandler: go back to hawking scripts, you suck as a political commentator.
    Comment by Matt-Michigan
    =====================
    Matt-MI,
    I may suck as a political commentator because all I was doing was content analasys. Plainly and simply.

    &

    “I see nothing here about hating America first. Nothing.”‘
    If you weren’t so slow, Chandler, you would have picked up on the fact that it is a Bush-bashing ad, and, in much previous commentary and posts (not part of this thread), Bruce has analyzed the hard-core “hate Bush first” people as also being implicitly or explicitly “hate America first” type of people.
    ===================
    What a bunch of horse shit. Linking people who hate bush with those that hate America is just Right wing propaganda. Keep on saying it because somebody is going to believe it. I love America. I love everything that makes me a American. However demonizing your opponent has been the delight od many since the dawn of man. However, I am also an American that is not bling to some pretty bad things America has done. It is called being a realist. Thank you for hilighting that realism is ant-American.

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — August 31, 2005 @ 1:17 pm - August 31, 2005

  22. Didn’t I see Simon on CNN outside the ranch in Crawford? Isn’t that where the tough anti-Bush wives and mothers congregate?

    Comment by njz — August 31, 2005 @ 1:18 pm - August 31, 2005

  23. cute, but dumb as a box of hair.

    Comment by libertarianobserver — August 31, 2005 @ 2:18 pm - August 31, 2005

  24. …and I’m referring to Mr. Ellner, not the ad.

    Comment by libertarianobserver — August 31, 2005 @ 2:20 pm - August 31, 2005

  25. I seem to recall an ad bush had back before the last election where it is him and Laura sitting out on the porch of their ranch in Crawford (if we had only known that is where they would be spending the majority of their time for the following four years) and he specifically talks about his wife laura and what they believe in in very general terms. So don’t think heteros or republicans aren’t interested in showing you how straight or married or how white bread their spouses and family life are. *shrug* why does anyone care is what i want to know? it’s a less than interesting position that you’re only talking about because the candidate is in fact GAY GAY GAY and is probably the only reason you saw his ad in the first place.

    Comment by Britton — August 31, 2005 @ 2:32 pm - August 31, 2005

  26. I wonder what Tip O’Neill would say about this ad.

    I’m hoping against hope the gay vote in NYC will recognize that this ad is CHEESY and that they will find someone else to vote for. There must be tons of Democratic candidates for Borough President other than this guy. Perhaps that is just too much to ask.

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — August 31, 2005 @ 2:39 pm - August 31, 2005

  27. There is also an out lesbian running. I have heard good things about her. But then again I haven’t seen her ad. And lord knows a 30 second ad is all one needs to judge someone’s ability to do the job.

    Comment by Britton — August 31, 2005 @ 2:50 pm - August 31, 2005

  28. Patrick Rothwell–

    There are 9 other Democratic candidates — one of whom is also gay.

    Comment by Clint — August 31, 2005 @ 2:50 pm - August 31, 2005

  29. I also find it humorous this guy shows that he is somewhat upstanding in the sense he’s not a tina whore running around screwing anything that will bend over and puts a somewhat respectable image of a gay male in a monogamous relationship and so many of you who have the audacity to think it’s exactly those respectable gays that should be a model for how gays should act so straights will respect us are blasting him for pointing out that he’s in what appears to be a monogamous and “normal” (by straight standards) relationship. Isn’t that what you guys want from the gays? I’ve heard it time and time again on here. Then again, you think being a Democrat isn’t respectable so I guess he isn’t such a model for the gay community in terms of getting respect from heteros because he is a “fey little weiner” who loathes George Bush.

    Comment by Britton — August 31, 2005 @ 2:53 pm - August 31, 2005

  30. Chad,

    Am I missing something?

    I would’ve prefered Ellner focused on issues in the ad rather than play the Gay Card.

    Did being openly gay somehow become an asset when I last blinked?

    Comment by GayCowboyBob — August 31, 2005 @ 3:04 pm - August 31, 2005

  31. I think you have a valid point there Britton. The gay community needs to have better role models, and Ellner (politics aside) seems to fit that nicely. My beef is with the ad, however. It’s so obviously a ploy to get the gay vote. Stuck right at the end (the last thing you’ll remember), with no attempt to even make it fit with whatever the rest of his message was. I don’t have a problem that he’s gay. I don’t have a problem with him having a partner. I don’t have a problem that he’s a Democrat.

    I have a problem with him using his sexual orientation to try and get votes.

    Comment by Chad — August 31, 2005 @ 3:07 pm - August 31, 2005

  32. GCB, c’mon…. He’s running for Manhattan Borough President. In this case, yes… it’s an enormous asset.

    Comment by Chad — August 31, 2005 @ 3:20 pm - August 31, 2005

  33. Hmmm, the ad certainly didn’t seem to fit with the office he’s running for. What does foreign policy have to do with being Manhattan Borough President? Nothing. Of course its much easier to play the ‘hate bush’ game and pander to the anti-war crowd than it is to actually campaign on ideas and merit. As for his husband appearing at the end, showing off the spouse is a staple of politics.

    He is a cute candidate though :-)

    Comment by Queer Conservative — August 31, 2005 @ 4:54 pm - August 31, 2005

  34. Um, Chad, I know it’s more gay friendly here in the city but I think it’s fairer to say that to heterosexuals it’s less of an issue, so maybe a neutral factor, rather than some bonus. The voters in the city are not going to the polls thinking “oh he’s just like Will Truman. I’m sure he’s very organized.”

    Perhaps it’s a plus to the gay vote, but as someone pointed out, there are two or three other gay candidates in the race, so what’s the point?

    What I think oddest is that the partner doesn’t seem to have a last name. “And this is my partner…Simon.” Simon what?

    Comment by GayCowboyBob — August 31, 2005 @ 4:55 pm - August 31, 2005

  35. Have the other gay candidates released ads proclaiming their gayness and paraded their partners about town? I honestly don’t know. It’s a serious question.

    Comment by Chad — August 31, 2005 @ 5:09 pm - August 31, 2005

  36. It just reminded me of a funny scene in the movie Jeffrey.

    Patrick Stewart is describing two guys at a pride rally talking to a reporter. “So they’re saying to the reporter (in a deep manly-man voice)’Hi I’m Steve and I’m a lawyer, and this is my partner Bob and he’s a doctor. I just want to say that not everyone in the gay community is a limp-wristed sissy’ and all I could think was ‘Ewwww! Get her!’”

    Comment by GayCowboyBob — August 31, 2005 @ 5:12 pm - August 31, 2005

  37. I don’t think the comments are out of place about him parading his partner out at the end of the ad. But I think it’s funny that it seems a double standard. I think it’s pretty repulsive anytime any candidate does that. We’re not voting for their spouse or kids.

    But suddenly when a gay candidate does it, it’s somehow MORE offensive? I don’t think so. It’s just as odd.

    Comment by GayCowboyBob — August 31, 2005 @ 5:15 pm - August 31, 2005

  38. GCB-

    He doesn’t need to get a substantial fraction of the voters in Manhattan to vote for him.

    He needs to get enough people out to the Democratic Primary that he gets more votes than any of the other __9__ candidates.

    In 2001, the last equivalent election, turnout in the Democratic Primary was around 200,000 voters.

    It’s likely that there are more than twice that many gay men living in Manhattan, most of them Democrats. And quite a few of them probably hate President Bush, and think Ellner’s cute. He could easily take the win by just getting one fifth of the voters in this narrow demographic to get to the polls for an off-year primary.

    So, strategically — this commercial might be spot on. (I assume it’s not his whole strategy, of course.) Remember that he’s got to take on two more prominent, better financed candidates in the primary, plus several others at his level.

    .

    Re: the Miss Manners question — should he say, “this is my partner Simon” or “this is my partner Simon (Jones)” — single name, much classier. (It’s what any politician introducing his wife would say — and you don’t want to end on a note that leaves people wondering whether he’s just your boyfriend or you’re making a point of the fact that you’re not allowed to marry…)

    Comment by Clint — August 31, 2005 @ 5:17 pm - August 31, 2005

  39. I hope when some of you referred to this clown as “cute”, you’re meaning it in the same sense that kittens are “cute”. Well, groomed, yes. But “cute”??? Uh, no. He looks like what former Sen. Bob Kerrey and Count Chocula would spawn if they mated. Yuk!

    Personally, I don’t find pale, underfed bois with the ubiquitous gay-flip hairdo even remotely attractive. But I live in DC so maybe I’m just jaded. We have more than our fair share of A/F clones in suits pretending to be grown ups.

    Comment by glisteny — August 31, 2005 @ 5:59 pm - August 31, 2005

  40. DC has the JR’s J. Crew clones that fill the city. You know, the ones that are like vampires. They’re only gay after the sun goes down.

    Comment by GayCowboyBob — August 31, 2005 @ 6:08 pm - August 31, 2005

  41. “But suddenly when a gay candidate does it, it’s somehow MORE offensive? I don’t think so. It’s just as odd.”

    Only when the ad is as unskillfully done as this ad is, not just in introducing the partner, but in the irrelevant anti-Bush screed and the “I’m a Noo Yawk local boy/favorite son” routine when in fact the local boy is an ex big-firm law firm associate with Ivy League degrees, etc. etc . The whole ad – all of it – is absurdly heavy-handed and -er- lame. But, since the ad gets people talking, I guess it must be a success in that sense! I wouldn’t be surprised if someone like Barney Frank agreed with what the ad was trying to accomplish, but didn’t like the actual execution.

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — August 31, 2005 @ 6:42 pm - August 31, 2005

  42. What I don’t get is why he introduced his partner at the last minute. I am fine and supportive of openly gay candidates for office. But it looked like he added the scene with his partner at the last moment, in a desperate appeal for sympathy from New Yorkers.

    Comment by Justin — August 31, 2005 @ 6:56 pm - August 31, 2005

  43. God, you guys are harsh and unreasonably so. That’s all I have to say.

    Comment by GayCowboyBob — August 31, 2005 @ 7:42 pm - August 31, 2005

  44. I stand by my original assessment — clunky, compared to a senate race spot, but it’s for borough president. I still don’t think most of the complainers here understand what an incredibly minor post that is.

    The mayor of a small town has far more responsibility. Most people in Manhattan will ignore this row in the primary, and vote it based on party in the real election. So, a “look at me!! look at me!!” ad campaign makes a great deal of sense.

    Comment by Clint — August 31, 2005 @ 8:45 pm - August 31, 2005

  45. States that Bush claims to be a uniter but isn’t. Well, I can see there hasn’t been a whole lot of uniting round here.
    What a bunch of horse shit. Linking people who hate bush with those that hate America is just Right wing propaganda.

    Actually Chandler, if you weren’t such a lying points whore, you’d know that Bush has made several attempts to unite. However, due to the intense hatred by he left, he always gets screwed over for doing it.
    Speaking about being united, it wasn’t so long ago you Maxi-pads claimed, incessantly, that the left has never been more united. Then the truth comes out that they are more divided than ever.
    You can spin and lie all you want in response, but you should save it for another blog where folks will actually swallow your BS.

    If this guy loses…
    Comment by glisteny

    C’mon Glisteny. Liberals don’t lose anymore. They “almost won”.
    I’m sure now-a-days, they would change history to reflect how Mondale “almost won” against Reagan and do so with a straight face.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 1, 2005 @ 2:31 am - September 1, 2005

  46. #43

    What’s amazing about that comment, GCB, is that you apparently don’t notice or grasp first how **Ellner’s ad** is harsh and unreasonably so…….Triply because he is only running for Borough President (not U.S.).

    To paraphrase Barry Goldwater’s comment, when Jerry Fallwell was being similarly pompous and destructive: Ellner needs a swift kick in the ass.

    Comment by joe — September 1, 2005 @ 10:27 am - September 1, 2005

  47. I like the Count Chocula comparison. :-)

    Yesterday someone said something about how we’re judging Ellner on a single 30-second ad. I wanted to answer by pointing that Ellner wants us to judge him on this single 30-second ad. (Enough for us to give him votes or money. Even if he’s planning a long ad campaign, he knew when he made the ad that many borough residents and potential supporters will only ever see this one.)

    Comment by joe — September 1, 2005 @ 10:37 am - September 1, 2005

  48. P.S. and here’s where I get pompous, having to spell stuff out for our slowest members…..Of course Ellner wanted to judge him positively. But asking for our money or votes in a 30-second ad is still asking us to judge him in a 30-second ad, and if he really wanted our positive judgments, he should have made a much, much more positive ad.

    Comment by joe — September 1, 2005 @ 10:48 am - September 1, 2005

  49. Typo – “of course Ellner wanted US to judge him positively….”

    Comment by joe — September 1, 2005 @ 10:48 am - September 1, 2005

  50. but he can’t tell the Borough voters a single thing he’ll do for them.

    I guarantee he’ll be wanting his hand in your pocket – and it ain’t gonna be for no reacharound.

    Euphemisms like “progressive values” == I plan on hitting your wallet till you squeal like a stuck pig.

    Comment by Ploof — September 15, 2005 @ 7:17 pm - September 15, 2005

  51. [...] On my trip out, I was stuck in Dulles for about 5 hours, and made some friends who were in the same situation who’d been on my flight from C’ville. I was lamenting the lack of anything entertaining to do in Terminal C, and my new friends said that it was nothing compared to the horror that is Terminal G. Can’t say that I disagree – one blogger has called it a Hot Tarmac Warehouse, one has quipped that the G stands for God-awfuland another has said: I’m sitting in the hellhole that is terminal G at Dulles Airport. Now I have a vague idea what immigrants at Ellis Island felt like, especially because some of the PA announcements I’m hearing must be in a foreign language. [...]

    Pingback by polyglot conspiracy » Blog Archive » What’s not apparent in English — March 11, 2006 @ 5:56 pm - March 11, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.