I am busy working on a couple pieces on the Pennsylvania primary and the Democratic race for the White House which I’d like to post before the polls close today in the Keystone State, so won’t give this the attention it deserves right now, but wanted to alert you to a Log Cabin release which deserves broad circulation.
In a recent piece on gay Republicans in “Out” magazine, the “reporter” Charles Kaiser “failed to talk to one single gay Republican for the article. Our friend Chris Crain, hardly a Republican he (but fair to Republicans on his blog and in person) took note:
But talk about an appallingly bad job… Author Charles Kaiser (“The Gay Metropolis”) was the one tasked with shedding some insight on the phenomenon of closeted gay Republicans. So who did he talk to: Barney Frank, outing activist/ blogger Mike Rogers, an unnamed Democratic political consultant and a gay Washington Post reporter.
What about an actual living, breathing gay Republican (closeted or otherwise)? Wouldn’t they be at least relevant? Could Kaiser not find the number for Log Cabin?
I’ll have more to say on this later, particularly some thoughts about the “reporter” th magazine chose to write this piece. And wondering why some gay journalists, playwrights and screenwriters feel they can write about gay Republicans without ever talking to gay Republicans.
Kudos to Log Cabin for exposing the anti-Republican bias in gay media. And kudos to our friend Chris Crain for the fairness of his blogging.
In a similar vein, I plan on doing a story about gay African-Americans in the conservative movement, but I’m only going to interview Farrakhan, Jackson, Sharpton and Rev. Wright.
That should be a fair and balanced piece, right?
Thought so.
Regards,
Peter H.
Or Peter, how about a story on gay activists and only interview James Dobson, Paul Cameron and Lou Sheldon?
They interview Mike freakin’ Rogers? This is really like interviewing the KKK about Martin Luther King without talking to Dr. King.
And yes, I am equivocating Rogers with the Klan.
About 1-in-5 gays are Republican based on the polling in the last few Presidential elections; yet if you read the Gay Press literally you’d think it was 1-in-20 or less….a sparse, hapless and confused minority smaller relatively than that of the gay community on the American population at-large.
I’ll yield that the gay communities in the big coastal cities are probably more Democratic-supporters, just as their straight neighbors are; but out in the Red States and in the small towns where Gays stay for business or family reasons…rather them emigrating to the ghetto…there’s more support for small government, low taxes, small-business small-R republicanism rather than social activism and the leftist world-view that fuel the Act-Up and Move-On crowd.
If you are a lazy journalist, which most are I suspect, it’s too much work to get off the stool at the local gay latte’ joint and seek-out a truer cross-section of the G/L community.
And Ted, recall, the Advocate cover story immediately after the 2004 election. They did not interview one person who had supporter that year’s winner, even though nearly 1-in-4 gays backed him.
#5 – Dan, that reminds me of the old story after 1972 when a NYT writer stated IN ALL SERIOUSNESS that she was surprised at the Nixon landslide because (in her words) “nobody I know voted for him.”
Talk about elitism! It’s almost as bad as B. Hussein Obama’s “bitter” remark.
And yes, I use his middle name because IT IS his middle name. Deal with it.
Regards,
Peter H.
*Ahem*
What’s really remarkable is Kaiser’s lack of ability to stay on topic. This article tells me that he had an assignment to right about Gay Republicans but had no clue how. He also obviously had to write X number of words and didn’t know how to fill the void. My guess is he couldn’t figure out how to get beyond “Gay Republicans Suck, End Of Story!”
I would fire Kaiser, not because of the subject, but the piss poor way he wrote it.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen an article in a major publication wandering all over the place like this. I’d expect this kind of crap in the local, liberal, free rag. What’s even more interesting is OUT’s Contact Us page keeps coming up blank.
Once again, it is the Republican party that has taken OFFICIAL anti-gay positions. You can hardly fault gays for returning the bias.
I didn’t start out hating on the GOP. I WAS a moderate Republican. They are the ones who dropped the hate on me. I can give as good as I get.
Once again, it is the Republican party that has taken OFFICIAL anti-gay positions. You can hardly fault gays for returning the bias.
Yeah, we can.
Because, oddly enough, gays seemingly have no problem endorsing and supporting as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” Democrats who brag about having the “same position” or supporting the same laws as the Republicans who gays have screamed take “anti-gay positions”.
What amazes me, Houndentenor, is that you think a party that lies to gays, takes money from gays, and then turns right around and supports positions that gays scream are “antigay” is somehow better for gays than one that doesn’t promise gays anything that it doesn’t promise anyone else, doesn’t seek out or demand gay money, and generally doesn’t bother.
In short, you like someone who pretends to like you, mooches from you, and then does nasty things about you behind your back more than you do someone who tells you up front that they don’t really like you and doesn’t take your money.
To paraphrase Stewie Griffin, “Do gays like it when you treat them like crap?”
Plus I have to ask.. who are the people who seek to destroy you if they find out you’re gay and they dont agree with you?
The Democrats
Who are the people who think it’s proper to dismiss anything you have to say because they disagree with you by telling everyone you’re gay?
The Democrat/Leftists
Who are the people who think that because a man was gay that all his communication with males should be monitored?
Democrats
Democrats are anti-gay in very personal and hateful ways.
You were a liberal.
Well that’s tolerant and compassionate. I thought liberals were supposed to be better than that instead of bitter, vindictive queens.
Just consider the moral and ethical depravity lurking in that statement. In effect, it’s saying:
1) It’s OK for gays to be demented and unfair, if they feel someone has been demented or unfair with them. Two wrongs make a right, basically. And,
2) It’s OK to be anti-gay if you just don’t say it, and take gay money. (Like the Democrats)
Houndentenor, can I ask why you attached your comment #9 is to this post?
If it is true, what you say, shouldn’t the author of the article have posed those questions to gay Republicans before writing the piece? For that is the point of the post, that he didn’t talk to gay Republican when writing about them.
Maybe one can’t fault gays for returning the bias, but the piece wasn’t about anti-Republican bias in the gay community (though its author certainly provides an example of such bias), but about gay Republicans.
Get the difference?