My Greatest Blogging Disappointment
One of the greatest disappointments I have had about blogging is that after putting time and thought into a serious post which I hope will generate serious discussion, some reader will comment and dwell on some particular in the post while ignoring my argument altogether or attack me for something I didn’t say or bring up some beef he has with the Bush Administration, the GOP, or conservatives in general. And in some cases, either our defenders (or even Bruce or myself) will take issue with that critic and then lead the discussion away from the subject of the post. The conversation that I had hoped to engender would, alas, not come to pass.
Not until 75 hours after I had asked for examples of Log Cabin criticizing Democrats when a reader, 59 comments into the thread, provided one. This is not to say that we haven’t had good discussions without ad hominems which have gone off topic (from the post to which they’re attached) because we have, even in the thread to that post on Log Cabin. It’s just to lament that we don’t always generate the kind of discussion this medium can and (in my mind) should inspire.
Earlier today, I deleted a comment where the critic refused to address the substance of the post, misrepresented my position in a recent post and then smirkingly recited a list of Democratic talking points. That wasn’t the only thing he misrepresented. Clearly, like a number of our critics, this reader, who hides behind his anonymity, is more interested in attacking us than in engaging us. I have always wondered at those readers who spend so much time on this blog only to pay so little attention to the points we raise, wondering instead (as did that reader) why we didn’t talk about what he wants us to talk about.
If he doesn’t like what we have to say and prefers we blog about something else, there are other countless blogs he can read which may address items of his concern. Not only that. The very tone of some of these critics is not one of argument but of animosity.
In my recent post on Ken Blackwell, I raise, what I believe, is one of the most pressing issues for gay Republicans — what do we do when our party nominates a candidate with whom we agree on the issues, but who publicly attacks gays. Even if Michigan-Matt is right (that Blackwell’s “comments were taken out of context . . . and misconstrued“) and that question doesn’t apply to Ohio’s gubernatorial nominee this year, the dilemma remains. Only a handful (Matt among them) chose to take my point seriously. Alas, that others used the post as an excuse to bait rather than as a means to understand gay Republicans.
To be sure, many of our critics — and our defenders — have used the comments thread to promote a serious discussion of a great variety of issues, not always limited to the issue addressed in the post. Perhaps I go on too much about this, but there are few things I enjoy more than a good conversation, particularly with those who have different views than my own. As an undergraduate, my favorite Political Science professor was a Marxist whom I visit whenever I return to Williamstown. In my last semester in law school, I chose a course with my second favorite law professor (one of the most liberal members of the U-VA Law faculty) over one (which met at the same hour) with my favorite professor (a conservative) because I thought I could learn more from teacher with whom I frequently disagreed.
I would hope that our critics who visit this blog regularly would come here for a similar education. And while there are a handful who do — and who raise thoughtful objections to our ideas — all too many would rather attack us than understand us. And that is truly unfortunate. An unhappy sign of a decline in civil discourse.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
36 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
So, how ’bout that Barry Bonds… JK
I think it is the nature of the blogging beast. And it’s directly proportional to the size of your readership. No matter how much you wish to have a thread that stays on topic, or IS on topic for that matter, it is unlikely to occur. Many individuals commenting see any thread on a blog, especially those on blogs promoting political / sociological POV’s alien to their own, as their own personal megaphone. There are no rules, or in the immortal words of Al Gore; “… there is no legal controlling authority…”. Boil it down to free speech. “I can say what I want and you can’t stop me! So there!!!”.
I bet, though, if you quantize your posts on the criteria of importance, say London bombings vs the Log Cabin criticizing Democrats, I will bet that the the thread of the former is typically more cohesive and pertinent to it’s parent than the latter.
But what do I know. Despite my semi- best efforts, I am still a pool and spa repairman.
Comment by sonicfrog — May 14, 2006 @ 11:09 pm - May 14, 2006
If Blackwell were running for monarch, I’d concede your point. But he isn’t. He’s running for governor, in a state dominated by RINOs, both in state and federal government. Blackwell is the best thing that could happen to Ohio, and his stances on gays are irrelevant.
Comment by rightwingprof — May 15, 2006 @ 8:38 am - May 15, 2006
Dan, while it’s tough to control the tenor of debate in the public square of civil discourse, about the only useful tool you have –aside from the moral persuasion found in this very post on the topic– is to delete those comments which you deem grossly inappropriate for the thread.
Just like in real life, sometimes people go off on tangents which bear fruit of and within themselves… but it may be off topic, not germane, or otherwise inappropriate to the thread’s subject. Does that hurt discussion? Nawh, probably not. Does it hazard a misdirection of the thread as one commenter glums onto another’s in a slaphappy slide into depravity? Yep, but you can always get the topic back in line with a reminder –as you’ve done recently.
I’d offer you be less concerned about the tangents and sidebar discussions –trying to control all that might not be worthwhile and may only lead to your growing frustration and even more frustration on the part of critics who seek to publish their comment here.
Relax a bit. Encourage debate. Post thoughtful ideas and let the public square operate… and, I’d argue, let it self-regulate rather than demostrate a heavy hand on your part. It comes down to ‘trust thy readers”. I don’t know about your blog specifically, but in general, political and social blogs have 4-7 readers for each posted comment.
Let the readers read. Let the commenters comment. You take care of producing thoughtful, searching, insightful posts. JMHO
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 15, 2006 @ 10:34 am - May 15, 2006
Fair enough as far as it goes. But as someone who has not commented often here, but has dropped by now and then, there does appear to be a double standard applied here. You often accuse your critics of not responding to your arguments and that may be true at times but your response to criticism is often just to label something “moonbat” a term the blog uses often in place of analysis. Even more disturningly you often attack critics for remarks whereas you never (that I have seen) called on some of your supporters who repeatedly call people “fucktards” or other such terms. The tone of the comments is often set on a downward spiral by your supporters, not your critics.
Comment by Brendan Flynn — May 15, 2006 @ 12:33 pm - May 15, 2006
#0 – Dan, with respect, your complaint here seems weak and wordy, not an instance of what I would call strong leadership. Nor do you sound very appreciative of your supporters.
If you want a particular type of discussion to become the rule on GP: ask for it effectively. I.e., put a few pithy, short guidelines into the standard comment entry window, then enforce them over time.
Tammy Bruce may be a good source model (adapt to fit GP). From her comment window:
Tammy Blog Posting Rules:
No profanity.
No personal attacks.
Remember, this is a family blog. Presume a young person will read your comment and post accordingly.
Obscene and abusive remarks will be deleted. Silly or annoying remarks may be deleted, depending on the moderator’s mood.
#4 – As for “moonbat”, and “BDS” for that matter, they are simply too convenient a shorthand for them to not be used by regulars here who endure the same long-refuted fallacies, warrantless canards and accusations again and again from, well, from the moonbats. If Dan would like the terms to not be used, he can say so plainly. If he doesn’t, and if it should happen that I personally use it and you don’t care for that, avoid my future comments.
Comment by Calarato — May 15, 2006 @ 4:53 pm - May 15, 2006
#4 – I do think you are right about “fucktard” type of language being bad usage. (For the record, I have been one of the ones to ask its users to stop. Even if not on every occasion.)
Comment by Calarato — May 15, 2006 @ 5:11 pm - May 15, 2006
Brendan in #4, please review my comments and those to which I reply. I do use the term moonbat from time to time, but can’t remember a single time I called one of my critics a moonbat. Quite simply, you’re wrong to say that I respond to criticism by labeling others moonbats. I have mocked those who engage in rants — or misrepresent more points, but more often than not have made great efforts to address the points raised by my critics even (at times) those who unfairly attack me.
And when I have attacked the level of discourse on this log, I have made clear hat I refer to my supporters as well as my critics when I fault those who engage in name-calling, writing in one post:
So, please, read my posts before accusing me of double standards.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 15, 2006 @ 5:23 pm - May 15, 2006
And there’s the problem, GPW.
Brendan and his ilk exist to put you on the defensive, and frankly, you’re very responsive to it.
But you don’t need to be. If he wants to claim that you called somebody a moonbat, he can bring forth the evidence to that effect.
Meanwhile, those of us who are here regularly know you’re the least-prone of any of the bloggers or commenters on here to go off on a wild tear — and aside from that, even if you did, we’d correct you.
You’re a good writer, an excellent philosopher, and a great thinker. Don’t waste time with people who want to namecall and make accusations. Post what you want to post, say what you want to say, and answer what you want to answer.
The only person to which you owe anything, blogwise, is yourself.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2006 @ 7:00 pm - May 15, 2006
Dan, I’m only guessing, but I think Brendan in #4 is confusing you with Bruce, who often calls people “moonbats” — even before they’ve made comments. If Brendan isn’t a regular reader he might not pay much attention to the difference between “GayPatriot” and “GayPatriotWest” on the author line. And it’s also possible he used “you” in reference to the blog rather meaning you personally.
And, Brendan, if you are still around, while Bruce (GayPatriot) does occasionally resort to some name-calling, I cannot recall an instance when Dan (GayPatriotWest) has done that.
I believe strongly that readers who post comments would more likely stick to the subjects of your posts if there was at least one “open thread” every day. To cite an example: I’d like to follow-up a discussion with John in IL that took place several days ago, but I doubt that many readers, including John in IL, are checking for new comments at that old post. And I don’t want to go off-topic in the comments for the newer posts.
An occasional “open thread” would also provide a forum for the leftists and rightwingers to let off steam and go at each other on any topic without cluttering the comments for a specific post topic.
Comment by Trace Phelps — May 15, 2006 @ 11:43 pm - May 15, 2006
#9: You are correct, I was using the term “you” as reference to the blog in general. I knew there were two separate bloggers GP and GPW and I think my criticism is more appropriate to GP–my apology.
As for Calaroto’s comment that ““moonbat” is simply shorthand for “long refuted fallacies” by moonbats well all well and good, but don’t pretend you are making a rational argument when you use such terms. It is no different someone on the left as referring to a gay conservative as “self-hating”. Both may be true but you have not proved anything by throwing out such terms as if they are evidence.
Comment by Brendan Flynn — May 16, 2006 @ 8:34 am - May 16, 2006
There’s no reason to make a rational argument that has been made many thousands of times over the last thirty years.
Comment by rightwingprof — May 16, 2006 @ 10:42 am - May 16, 2006
#10 – Fair enough Brendan… And likewise, don’t you pretend that the majority of your cohorts are remotely willing to listen to rational argument.
Comment by Calarato — May 16, 2006 @ 10:59 am - May 16, 2006
P.S. Here’s one index of the problem for you.
Michael Moore’s movies (including Fahrenheit 9-11, Bowling for Columbine and others) have long since been demonstrated to be fantasy movies. Yet we still get people here repeating frauds / canards from his movies.
In a long stay here, I have yet to find one such person (Michael Moore repeater) who either accepts or provides information of value.
“Moonbat” would be shorthand for them among others: people who by definition are not open to rational argument and likely to be a waste of time if one should attempt it.
Of course calling them “moonbat” is not rational argument! The whole point of the term being to indicate (or warn others) that, in the user’s estimation, rational argument is not possible with them.
Here’s my point – Rational argument presupposes certain conditions. It’s a kind of “trade” of good information among participants. It pre-supposes that participants are able to recognize (that is, listen to) good information, and ideally, able to offer some in return. It can’t and doesn’t kick in, unless one is a masochist, without those preconditions.
Comment by Calarato — May 16, 2006 @ 11:43 am - May 16, 2006
“Moonbat” would be shorthand for them among others: people who by definition are not open to rational argument and likely to be a waste of time if one should attempt it.
okay but one could with equal justifiction refer to rightwingprof and his ilk (to use ND30′s term) as a self hating gayconsidering his support for Ken Blackwell. Actually I think the latter is far more justified as it is difficult to find a more openly homophobic candidate than Blackwell.
Comment by Brendan Flynn — May 16, 2006 @ 2:09 pm - May 16, 2006
Actually I think the latter is far more justified as it is difficult to find a more openly homophobic candidate than Blackwell.
That depends on how you define “homophobic”.
For instance, Howard Dean recently said exactly the same thing as Blackwell — that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman, thus implying that gays are second-class citizens who are not fit to marry.
John Kerry said in 2004 that banning gay marriage was “doing what’s right”; indeed, he wholeheartedly endorsed state constitutional amendments to do just that, including one in his home state of Massachusetts that would have completely undone the existing state of gay marriage, all because of his “traditional” and “religious” beliefs and because gays were “born that way”, implying that gays are legally inferior by birth.
Do those qualify as “homophobic”?
Are you willing to say that, if they do, that all gay supporters of John Kerry and Howard Dean are “self-hating”?
This will be where you demonstrate whether or not you qualify as a “moonbat”, Brendan. Since you have established that opposing gay marriage makes one “homophobic”, you may apply it in a rational fashion to all individuals who do so.
Or, you can open the door to the fact that gays may with perfect right consider OTHER factors in their decision-making, which neatly eviscerates your “he’s supporting Ken Blackwell, so he’s self-hating” theorem.
And, when you are regularly subjected to these types of criticisms by liberals and Democrats, you will understand why they are usually lumped into the “moonbat” category.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 16, 2006 @ 2:57 pm - May 16, 2006
#14 – Would you like a rational argument about it?
If I were giving you a rational argument, I would say we have to begin by defining the term, “self-hating”. Then apply the definition impartially to different people/circumstances.
To me, it means the person either (1) appears to hate what he himself is, or/and (2) makes alliances with those who hate what he is.
Michael Moore clearly hates rich American white males – exactly what he, Michael Moore, is. Therefore he can be termed “self-hating”.
I have never seen rightwingprof appear to hate gay men. However, rightwingprof may be willing – perhaps; we’d have to confirm with him! – to make alliances with SOME who hate gay men. Leave it as an open question for now.
I have seen Gay Establishment or Gay Left types make alliances with gay-hating Islamists – or, at the very least, be surprisingly willing to remain silent on the crimes of gay-hating Islamists, and simultaneously going overboard (into irrational territory) in tearing down President Bush who defends us all from gay-hating Islamists. I can only conclude that the Gay Establishment or Gay Left people I have in mind here are, in fact, self-hating.
Comment by Calarato — May 16, 2006 @ 3:29 pm - May 16, 2006
P.S. So the term “self-hating” could actually be rational description or rational argument; the devil is in the details.
In the hands of Gay Lefties I have seen here, “self-hating” is rarely if ever a rational descriptive term. Generally they throw it at gays here who, in fact, (1) do not hate gays (or themselves), and (2) don’t hesitate to make clear their differences with any who do hate gays.
I truly believe President Bush does NOT hate gays. He has been a NET improvement for gays, over President Clinton. Bush has followed most of the same policies as Clinton (who promised us his own FMA, if DOMA should prove not strong enough), and on the balance of policies, Bush has actually been better than Clinton – such as Bush’s tripling of AIDS spending. (Not to mention again Bush’s greater clarity and resolve in the fight against gay-hating Islamo-fascists.) Bush is, of course, wrong about the FMA. I oppose the FMA strongly and I don’t hesitate to tell anyone who will listen.
Comment by Calarato — May 16, 2006 @ 3:40 pm - May 16, 2006
“This will be where you demonstrate whether or not you qualify as a “moonbat”, Brendan. Since you have established that opposing gay marriage makes one “homophobic”, you may apply it in a rational fashion to all individuals who do so. ”
But I never said that opposing gay marriage is homophobic and that seems to be the least of Ken Blackwell’s homophobia. Blackwell has made remarks about gay people as essentially deviant and immoral. That stikes me as being a bit beyond opposition to gay marriage. It is absolutely true as many of the posters on this site repeatedly claim many democrats have opportunistically sold out gays, but as a political party it is undeniable that it is the republicans more than the democrats who use homophobia as a way of turning out their base. Yes, Clinton is responsible for DADT but remember the context: Right after his first election Clinton moved to lift the ban on gays and lesbians in the military and was attacked by the right wing for doing so and eventually capitulated and we ended up with DADT–I am no great fan of Bill Clinton but for conservative gays to repeatedly and gleefully recite this without looking at the historical contect in which DADT arose is hypocritical at best.
As to whether I am labelled a “moonbat”, well I am secure enough in my intellectual capabilities and political beliefs to not really care what you might think.
Comment by Brendan Flynn — May 16, 2006 @ 4:09 pm - May 16, 2006
But I never said that opposing gay marriage is homophobic and that seems to be the least of Ken Blackwell’s homophobia.
How can something be designated “the least of” that when you claim it isn’t that in the first place?
Blackwell has made remarks about gay people as essentially deviant and immoral.
So what? John Kerry and Howard Dean essentially said gays should be made legally inferior because of a trait with which they say gays are born. Bill Clinton called his signing of DADT and DOMA “defending American values”, essentially saying that gay rights are antithetical to American values.
Why should I get upset over Blackwell’s remarks, when I was told by the gay left and gay Democrats that Clinton, Kerry, and Dean were “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 16, 2006 @ 5:03 pm - May 16, 2006
#18 – I am going to agree to this partial extent: Reasonable people can disagree about gay marriage, but I draw a line at comparing (or equating) gays to any of these groups: murderers, pedophiles, woman-oppressing polygamists, and animal-fuckers (for lack of a better noun).
So if Ken Blackwell just opposes gay marriage, then I just say, well, we disagree. But if Ken Blackwell has crossed my other line and made it a key part of his campaign, I’d say he has to be stopped.
#19 – It depends what Ken Blackwell said, but IF he said something sufficiently bad NDT, you should get upset regardless of whatever hypocrisy the Democrats are neck-deep in.
Comment by Calarato — May 16, 2006 @ 5:08 pm - May 16, 2006
LOL…Calarato, there’s upset and then there’s upset.
As an out and open gay conservative, I can quite honestly tell you that there’s NO name I haven’t been called by either left or right. I’ve had my looks, my sexuality, my partner, my house, my home life, my sex life, my dating life, my job, my career, my religion and other things all described in language that would cause a sailor to run shrieking off, screaming for Mommy.
Amazingly enough, I’ve noticed something; despite all the things they say about me, none of it changes me or who I am. Nor does it change the opinion of the people who know me and who I care about. The only people it tends to affect are the ones who dislike me anyway and would regardless of my actions.
In short, sticks and stones. Start throwing those and THEN I’ll get excited. If I got pissed at every not-nice thing people say to me, I’d never have time to make the bed.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 16, 2006 @ 6:03 pm - May 16, 2006
I know
I’m saying 2 wrongs don’t make a right; the fact that Democrats are neck-deep in hypocrisy (and they are) isn’t an excuse not to hold Blackwell to account *IF* he has crossed a line. (I really don’t know that much about him, one way or the other.)
Comment by Calarato — May 16, 2006 @ 7:12 pm - May 16, 2006
Back on self-hatred (Brendan, yes I noticed you didn’t have a response to #16-17)…
This book I am reading by a gay author makes abundantly clear that Muslim immigrants in Europe despise everything about the Europeans – including liberalism, individualism, women’s rights, and democracy per se – yet Europeans continue to put themselves and America down to the same Muslim immigrants and unwisely pander to them.
Now THAT illustrates the true meaning of “self-hating”.
Liberal Europe is apparently in the process of committing a vast, ultimately tragic, slow suicide.
Comment by Calarato — May 16, 2006 @ 9:37 pm - May 16, 2006
Trace in #9
To cite an example: I’d like to follow-up a discussion with John in IL that took place several days ago, but I doubt that many readers, including John in IL, are checking for new comments at that old post.
I did check for a while (I do have to work for a living). I’m assuming you are talking about the (off topic) Blackwell thread. Feel free to followup at any time (just give me a heads up when you do).
Comment by John in IL — May 17, 2006 @ 12:17 am - May 17, 2006
Back on self-hatred (Brendan, yes I noticed you didn’t have a response to #16-17)…
To be honest it was not clear to me exactly what your point was so I did not feel any great need to respond. Also if you remember, I was not condoning the use of calling gay conservatives “self hating”. I was simply saying, and continuing to believe, that it is a term that is equally useful as the term “moonbat” which many people here seem to use any position to the left of George Bush’s.
As for whether George Bush–or any politician who presumably we don’t know– personally hates gays or not strikes me as a rather stupid debate. All we know is about a politician is what policies they support and quite frankly for you to state that George Bush is a net improvement for gays strikes me as ludicrous. If gay conservatives want to say that as conservatives they are concerned with a wide variety of issues and gay rights are just one among many and on balance they support republicans that is fine. I feel the same way on the left. I am gay and concerend about gay rights but I am also concerned about many other matters equally perhaps more.
But to go from this position to a claim that George Bush is better for gays strikes me as entering fantasy land. Many republicans including George Bush have intentionally and openly used “gay marriage” as a wedge issue to elect and promote socially conservative policies”. It is certainly true that many democrats don’t have much spine on these matters but for the most part they are responding to republican baiting on these issues and not afformatively pushing them on their own. As I noted above, DADT was a direct result of republican opposition to Clinton’s attempt to lift the military ban, an important fact often igored by gay conservatives. DOMA likewise was signed by Clinton but designed by conservatives. I am no great fan of Bill Clinton but your analysis of who is better for gays completely ignores which party is pushing an anti-gay agenda and which party is responding to it, albeit oftentimes hypocritically I would agree.
Comment by Brendan Flynn — May 17, 2006 @ 9:27 am - May 17, 2006
It is certainly true that many democrats don’t have much spine on these matters but for the most part they are responding to republican baiting on these issues and not afformatively pushing them on their own.
I always love hearing this same excuse.
Tell me, Brendan; why don’t the Democrats stand up for gays?
Easy answer; because they don’t have to do it. They will get your undying money, support, and excuses for any of their actions because you’ll always blame the Republicans instead.
Republicans ARE better for gays because they’re more honest. Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry openly lied to the gay community, took tens of millions of gay dollars, and went right out and used it to promote their own homophobic beliefs and policies.
They do that because they know you are incapable of criticizing them without saying “but Republicans are worse”, which effectively negates the criticism and rationalizes undying support for them.
To Calarato’s point, this is why I no longer particularly care. Democrats are liars and homophobes who pretend to like gays and repeatedly screw us over, as history has and continues to prove. I’ll take an honest homophobe like Blackwell ANY day, who gets no gay money or real support, over a crypto-homophobe like John Kerry, who wants exactly the same thing but who manipulates the Brendans and HRCs of the world into giving him millions of dollars and endorsements to do it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 17, 2006 @ 3:09 pm - May 17, 2006
“They will get your undying money, support, and excuses for any of their actions because you’ll always blame the Republicans instead.”
Calm down ND30!! Unless you are sending checks to the democrats under my name, I can assure you I have not sent any money to the democrats. Actually, the last candidtate I contributed to was Robert Reich’s campaign for governor of Massachussetts. But I am sure you have some explanation as to why he is crypto-homophobe who manipulated me into donating money to help him and others push their secret homophobic policies. So you support “Honest homophobes”; the bar of acceptance for gay republicans from their elective representatives gets lower every day. What next? Testimonials from people how they met George Bush and he did not spit on them?
Comment by Brendan Flynn — May 17, 2006 @ 4:31 pm - May 17, 2006
But I am sure you have some explanation as to why he is crypto-homophobe who manipulated me into donating money to help him and others push their secret homophobic policies.
You could do worse than Reich; however, he was at best a long-shot candidate whose appeal for “gay marriage” was designed primarily as a fundraising ploy, just like Bill Clinton. This is borne out by the fact that Reich worked for and supported Kerry enthusiastically throughout the 2004 campaign, despite Kerry’s support for stripping gays of rights via state constitutional amendments, even in Massachusetts.
If you’d like to make an excuse for that, go right ahead; however, it would run into the fundamental issue you’ve been avoiding, namely why it’s not antigay for Democrats to work on antigay campaigns.
So you support “Honest homophobes”; the bar of acceptance for gay republicans from their elective representatives gets lower every day.
That would be more convincing of an insult if you weren’t yelling UP at me from the swamp of homophobic Democrats in which you and your fellow liberals are buried.
I have zero trouble calling homophobia what it is, Brendan; I’ve been doing it for years.
You merely have the perspective of someone who cannot admit, flatly, that Democrats are homophobes even when they carry out blatantly-homophobic actions that you would condemn in anyone else.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 17, 2006 @ 5:44 pm - May 17, 2006
#25 – “…quite frankly for you to state that George Bush is a net improvement for gays [over how Bill Clinton was] strikes me as ludicrous….”
Well, I gave you my reasons in #17. I gave you a rational argument. I noted where Bush and Clinton’s policies are identical and where they are different. (Gay marriage is NOT one of the ones where they are different or where Clinton was at all better.) You have not refuted it what I said.
The closest you have come in #25 is to claim that Republicans – and, by implication, NOT Democrats – have used gay marriage as a wedge issue. I needn’t give you a detailed counter-argument on that, as it is all over this thread. Fact: Democrats also use gay marriage as a wedge issue.
You said, “As I noted above, DADT was a direct result of republican opposition to Clinton’s attempt to lift the military ban, an important fact often igored by gay conservatives. DOMA likewise was signed by Clinton but designed by conservatives.”
Both claims factually incorrect, Brendan. DADT was designed by Democrats in Congress – remember Sam Nunn? DOMA was bi-partisan, or in response to a Clinton proposal.
“…your analysis of who is better for gays completely ignores which party is pushing an anti-gay agenda and which party is responding to it…”
So Brendan – You SERIOUSLY don’t think that John Kerry meant what he said, when, in the 2004 campaign, he said “”The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position.” — ? (trying to conceal laughter – Sorry)
Comment by Calarato — May 17, 2006 @ 8:58 pm - May 17, 2006
Oh, and further, remember that DADT was designed and promoted by a Democratic MAJORITY in both houses of Congress. It was pre-1994.
If Republicans were so evil and awful about “gays in the military”… and if the Republican position was so obviously wrong and evil and awful… then tell me Brendan… Why didn’t the Democrats use their CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITY, PLUS PRESIDENCY, PLUS NYT EDITORIAL POWER at that time to stand up for us and tell evil Republicans the obvious truth?
There is simply no excuse for the Democrats’ behavior. They held ALL the political cards at the time, yet still went out of their way to screw us actively.
It is ludicrous for you to blame DADT in any way on conservatives or Republicans. (DOMA, I’ll grant, was more bi-partisan.)
Comment by Calarato — May 17, 2006 @ 9:14 pm - May 17, 2006
ND30 & Calarato:
You are both on gay republican auto pilot: any criticism of your party is met with the refrain that some democrats are homophobic too. I have been very clear that I am not terribly supportive of the democrats on the whole and more than willing to admit that many, perhaps most, can be fairly hypocritical on gay & lesbian issues and multiple other issues also. Yet despite having said that repeatedly, ND30 can only respond that (does he he have secret knowledge perhaps) I am in democratic party swamp and giving money to the democrats. Likewise, Calarato can only say that some democrats were bad on DADT also. I never disputed this. My point was that Clinton did try to end the military ban and this move backfired and yes some demoncrats were involved, but the most fierce opposition came from the Joint Chief of Staffs, especially Colin Powell. Any my memory, though I will admit I have not looked this recently, that almost all opposition to DADT and the admittedly
Comment by Brendan Flynn — May 18, 2006 @ 8:43 am - May 18, 2006
You are both on gay republican auto pilot: any criticism of your party is met with the refrain that some democrats are homophobic too.
Unfortunately, as even you have admitted NOW, that IS the truth — and indeed, that a great many Democrats are homophobic.
In short, fix your own problems first.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 18, 2006 @ 1:56 pm - May 18, 2006
“In short, fix your own problems first.”
But as I have repeatedly said I have no allegiance to the democratic party, but it seems clear from your repeated insistence on this point, you can’t believe that someone might be disgusted with the republicans and not be a democratic party hack. My point–and I don’t think it is that controversial unless you live in the parallell universe where “honest homophobes” are the best you can hope for–is that on the whole the democrats don’t use gays as a wedge issue in the manner republicans routinely do. Are there examples of democrats who do so? Of course, but I am talking about as a matter of standard operating procedure. just look at the Senate Comm. vote today on gay marriage–it broke down on party lines.
Again if gay republicans want to say that they are republicans because on balance they support republican policies on most matters despite their positions on gay issues, I would disagree with your politics but it is a position that one can reasonably articulate. I would own up to that position myself from the left. There are issues that do matter to me more than gay issues including gay marriage. What is frustrating and somewhat amusing is the mental contortions and gymnastics that some of you and other posters perform to convince yourself and others that in some convoluted way it is the democrats who are the more homophobic party or that Clinton that was worse than Bush on these issues. Quite frankly this seems up there with the Hillary murdered Vince Foster right wing.
Comment by Brendan Flynn — May 18, 2006 @ 4:54 pm - May 18, 2006
But as I have repeatedly said I have no allegiance to the democratic party, but it seems clear from your repeated insistence on this point, you can’t believe that someone might be disgusted with the republicans and not be a democratic party hack.
I put it this way, Brendan; I don’t believe you.
You see, if you had “no allegiance”, you wouldn’t have to constantly defend the decisions of the Democrats with your “buts”. You would be able to call them out as homophobes specifically.
I have repeatedly challenged you to declare Dean, Kerry, and Clinton to be homophobic using your own standards, since they oppose gay marriage and support stripping gays of legal rights because of a characteristic with which they are born.
You have shuffled, jived, danced, and used every excuse in the book to avoid it, the most popular of which is to generalize to “standard operating procedure”, even though, given the remarks of Democratic leaders, that constitutes stripping gays of rights through legal means.
For someone who owes the Dems “no allegiance”, you sure are bent on defending them, even when by your own standards they are blatantly homophobic.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 18, 2006 @ 6:29 pm - May 18, 2006
“I put it this way, Brendan; I don’t believe you.”
Well that about sums it up–doesn’t it? You can’t have an argument so you claim something is not true even though you have no evidence to the contrary. I assure you it is true and, quite frankly, why you would think I would be lying about this is somewhat baffling. But with the exception, as I noted earlier, of Robert Reich and some local candidates, I have never contributed money to a democrat and certainly not to the democratic party. (I have given money to abortion rights groups as well as some anti-war groups–which I assume is certified proof of my moonbattery). I have often voted for democrats who I don’t especially like–John Kerry is a good example–because on a number of issues (including but not limited to gay issues) I prefer them over republicans.
Not surprisingly you fail to respond to my point about the Senate vote today which is a perfect example of the basic point I have been trying to make. The vote split on straight (so to speak) party lines. The republicans vote as a block on an issue that plays to the conservative base and used gays as a wedge issue. The democrats for all their problems did not do so. Are some of the democrats who voted against it personally homophobic? For all I know perhaps they are and maybe even some of the republican who voted in favor are not personally homophobic. But this is politics and we can’t know the inner workings of their minds, what we have are votes and positions on policies. But obviously you prefer to live with blindfolds and fingers in your ears while chanting Bush good! Democrats bad! Click your heels as often as you want, but it does not change reality. I am probably close to getting banned from this site so perhaps it is time to sign off. But for waht it is worth I really was trying to engage in a serious discussion, but that is impossible if I state my position and your response is to tell me that is not my position.
Comment by Brendan Flynn — May 18, 2006 @ 8:27 pm - May 18, 2006
I have often voted for democrats who I don’t especially like–John Kerry is a good example–because on a number of issues (including but not limited to gay issues) I prefer them over republicans.
I quote what I said at the very beginning of this:
Or, you can open the door to the fact that gays may with perfect right consider OTHER factors in their decision-making, which neatly eviscerates your “he’s supporting Ken Blackwell, so he’s self-hating” theorem.
I’m glad you finally got around to it.
If you honestly believe that, Brendan, then we’re fine. But, given your criticisms above when I stated that, I don’t believe that you do. Your preference is one set of rules for others and one set for yourself.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 19, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - May 19, 2006