Fake Gay Conservatives in Our Comments Section
In the very title of my post yesterday celebrating the rescue of Captain Phillips and the elimination and capture of his captors, I lauded the operation as the President’s “first military success.” In the body of the post, I offered the Democrat kudos, praised him on his success, said he “got this one right.” I gave him credit for ordering the rescue plan (which given what I have since learned may have been overgenerous praise).
And yet despite all that praise, one of our readers, Bill, calling himself a “gay conservative,” said in the comments that I had given “him only the most grudging credit for having ‘signed off’ on the rescue.” Grudging credit? I commended the Democratic incumbent at least four times (five if you count the title). I guess ol’ Bill just missed what he didn’t want to read so he could more easily smear me.
The more I thought about his comment, the more I recalled Andrew Breitbart’s Op-Ed on how some on the left use the comments section of conservative blogs to discredit us:
Read the comment sections of right-leaning blogs, news sites and social forums, and the evidence is there in ugly abundance. Internet hooligans are spewing their talking points to thwart the dissent of the newly-out-of-power. . . .
Uninvited Democratic activists are on a mission to demoralize the enemy – us. They want to ensure that President Obama is not subject to the same coordinated, facts-be-damned, multimedia takedown they employed over eight long years to destroy the presidency – and the humanity – of George W. Bush.
Now, Bill is not the first critic to call himself a gay conservative (or gay Republican) and proceed to lambaste us, usually, as in Bill’s case by misrepresenting what I actually said.
So, no, Bill, I don’t believe you. I believe you only consider yourself a gay conservative when commenting on gay conservative blogs. If you had been sincere in your criticism, you would have acknowledged the genuine (and perhaps overgenerous) praise I offered the president. But, you’re not here to offer genuine criticism, you’re here on a different mission.
And I for one won’t be demoralized, but further emboldened. The more people like you try to sow dissension in our ranks, the stronger will become our resolve to stand true to and speak out for our principles.
When the president dithers, we will fault him. In the days leading up to yesterday’s bold action by our men in uniform, it certainly appeared he was dithering. And if the president authorizes a policy which leads to success, as he did yesterday, then I’ll join other conservative bloggers in praising him.
But, don’t come here and call yourself a gay conservative when all you can do is criticize and fault us for not doing do something we actually did. Your failure to take note of the praise I offered the President shows that you come here armed with talking points, seize on one comment I made while ignoring the rest of the post.
We’re onto your game. Just calling yourself a gay conservative doesn’t make you one nor does it convince anybody else who’s used to the well-worn tactic of many of those on your side of the political aisle to masquerade as conservatives so as to undermine us.
36 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
(chuckle of satisfaction)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 13, 2009 @ 5:29 pm - April 13, 2009
I still question that. The article I read this morning said something to the effect that the Dear Teleprompter authorized “appropriate” force. It’s hard to know what that means, but it sounded like our good Navy officers were the ones who decided it would be “appropriate” to kill the pirates.
As justification, our officers cited the fact that the pirates were pointing AK-47s at the hostage. Umm… wouldn’t pointing a gun at a hostage be standard hostage-keeping technique? My point is not that our good Navy officers overreacted – they didn’t – but that they seem rather concerned to explain themselves and establish what is appropriate, suggesting a lack of support (at least to my ear) from the highest echelons in Washington.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 13, 2009 @ 5:34 pm - April 13, 2009
ILC, your criticism helps make my point. I praise the president such that my conservative readers criticize me from the right while a reader claiming to be a gay conservative faults me for not praising the Democrat enough.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 13, 2009 @ 5:39 pm - April 13, 2009
No problem, GPW. And I just read the following on Powerline:
So, more disagreement from your right flank
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 13, 2009 @ 5:49 pm - April 13, 2009
The Obama Regime handled the Alabama Maersk hostage situation with reason and sanity. Since there has been so little of either quality in his presidency so far, one ought to give them credit where credit is due.
Comment by V the K — April 13, 2009 @ 5:59 pm - April 13, 2009
Obama’s supporting the military use of deadly force reminds me of William Frawley advising the judge in Miracle on 34th Street. It was a purely political decision.
This situation was a win/win for Obama……SO YES your praise was OVERLY generous.
Obama takes credit for the success BUT would have readily passed the buck onto the military if the rescue attempt had failed.
Real success will occur when Obama speaks out and puts responsibility on the countries and companies that have been paying bribes all along.
The United States will now take the lead in protecting ALL vessels unilaterally therefore inviting criticism from the cowards that have allowed these thugs to operate for way too long.
I wonder if the MSM will get possession of the video of the snipers killing these criminals. I am confident if the operation had failed they would surely bang the drum of discontent.
I could not help notice the reporter from CNN asking again and again if this operation would increase violence in the future. Not a word of “deterrence” by showing the thugs ZERO tolerance.
I have ranted too long…..
I am unapologetically American and proud of our military.
Obama has NOT shown that he is proud nor honorable in this decision.
Comment by jentex — April 13, 2009 @ 6:24 pm - April 13, 2009
Damn. I’ve been found out.
Comment by Ignatius — April 13, 2009 @ 6:34 pm - April 13, 2009
I can’t decide if the Astroturfers’ blatant transparency is the funniest or saddest thing I’ve ever seen on the web.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 13, 2009 @ 7:18 pm - April 13, 2009
It would be funny, if it wasn’t so tedious.
Looking back, I always thought Limbaugh’s “Seminar Callers” was a bit overblown. But, recently, I’ve seen it in action and I’ve seen it destroy whole blogs. They will keep doing it, sadly, because it works.
Keep up hope, though. Remember that Milton’s Satan ultimately could never win the argument. Mainly, because he lied…
Best wishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — April 13, 2009 @ 7:20 pm - April 13, 2009
It just kills you people that Obama didn’t fail. It drives you straight up the wall. The facts are that Obama authorized use of force on Friday night, and again on Saturday morning. The second authorization was needed because they’d moved more forces into the area and we’re planning a wider operation if the one we all heard about didn’t work. That’s why there were two authorizations.
It speaks volumes that so-called “conservatives” both here and elsewhere on the Internet are trying to put an anti-Obama spin on all of this. Good luck with that.
Comment by Terrible Leftist — April 13, 2009 @ 7:24 pm - April 13, 2009
Ah, Terrible Leftest can’t read… again.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 13, 2009 @ 7:32 pm - April 13, 2009
I think I know what really frosts our more liberal commentators. They can’t handle that we compliment President Obama when he gets one right.
Because they’re so stuck on the conservative = evil meme, they just can’t handle it, because it challenges their worldview.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 13, 2009 @ 7:37 pm - April 13, 2009
Shouldn’t Terrible Leftist be all upset about Obama bin Biden’s War Machine brutally murdering three teenagers in their War of Choice against dark-skinned peoples? And isn’t killing pirates a distraction from hunting Osama bin Laden? Last I say, pirates didn’t have nothin’ to do with 9-11. Why did Obama take his eyes off the ball?
Comment by V the K — April 13, 2009 @ 7:39 pm - April 13, 2009
I can’t tell if that’s directed at my comments or not. If it is, it’s a pretty serious misreading of what I said. Oh well… another day, another freaked-out, hyper-ventilating misreading from the Left.
1) Where’s your cite?
2) What kind of force? “Appropriate” force? (i.e., something vague) Or something more firm?
Again, please give your cite. In the spirit of doing that, here’s a repeat of the Reuters cite I gave earlier for my comments:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090413/ts_nm/us_somalia_piracy_94
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 13, 2009 @ 7:43 pm - April 13, 2009
Heh
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 13, 2009 @ 7:44 pm - April 13, 2009
When I first read your compliment, I thought you had gone off the deep end. However, I realized you were being genuine in offering it for Obama. Unfortunately, it is as you said…The Left cannot allow you to win…
Comment by Duffy - Native Intelligence — April 13, 2009 @ 8:03 pm - April 13, 2009
TGC, it’s both. Both funny and sad.
Funny because it’s so obvious.
Sad because they spend so much time on sites they claim to hate. Imagine how you’d feel about a guy who keeps going over to his ex-boyfriend’s house and faults the ex- for rejecting him.
Hey, maybe I just saw a movie about such folks last night when I watched Eastwood’s directorial debut–Play Misty for Me.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 13, 2009 @ 8:09 pm - April 13, 2009
I guess you’ll have to stop counting the days that pirates have held an American hostage. I can see you gay patriots now: Damn, the guy handled it perfectly. Worse luck next time!
Comment by Terrible Leftist — April 13, 2009 @ 8:26 pm - April 13, 2009
In the very title of my post yesterday celebrating the rescue of Captain Phillips and the elimination and capture of his captors, I lauded the operation as the President’s “first military success.“ In the body of the post, I offered the Democrat kudos, praised him on his success, said he “got this one right.†I gave him credit for ordering the rescue plan (which given what I have since learned may have been overgenerous praise).
That last part is important — anyone that would heap praise on Obama for what happened yesterday is being ridiculous. It’s not like he was monitoring the situation from his control room and had a direct line into the snipers’ ears and yelled ‘FIRE!’ at the precise moment. That’s not how the military works. He gave blanket authorization to the highly-trained professionals at the scene who came up with and executed their own plan. As far as I’m concerned, they’re spending way too much time praising Obama in the media and not enough time praising the commanders, who deserve pretty much all of the credit. This was never a Presidential-level situation.
Unfortunately, and I know this was another poster, but this blog, others like it, and conservatives on television dragged Obama into this, sensing an opportunity to blast his foreign policy/national security credentials during and after the hostage situation, which was assumed would inevitably go wrong. From my perspective, a lot of you guys were chomping at the bit for this to go wrong so you could jump all over Obama for it. That’s definitely the vibe I get when I re-read the ‘AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE: DAY FOUR’ post.
Since you guys have been asking lately why no one takes you seriously, why no one believes anything you do is legitimate, I think you could most definitely learn some things from conservative coverage of the past few days’ events. Charitably – you guys are a joke. Not so charitably – you were anticipating the death of an American hostage to make a point about Obama that wouldn’t have even made sense in the first place.
Comment by Levi — April 13, 2009 @ 8:47 pm - April 13, 2009
It’s not like he was monitoring the situation from his control room and had a direct line into the snipers’ ears and yelled ‘FIRE!’ at the precise moment.
So, unless he pulled the trigger himself, he gets no credit? He’s a commander-in-chief, not a Navy SEAL. Obama himself has been scrupulously careful NOT to take credit, and the White House isn’t out there doing the sort of post-game cheering that you just know you’d have been out of a Republican administration if something like this had happened.
I think Obama deserves quite a bit of credit here. He handled this in exactly the way you’d want a president to handle it. In public, he shut up. In private, he followed it very closely, and twice authorized the use of force, and gave specific orders about things that the Navy should not allow the pirates to do (reach land, remove the captain from the raft).
True, it was a small incident, but one that struck a nerve. On a scale of 1 to 10, anyone but a hyper-partisan wingnut would give him a 10. We know that the wingers are willing to heap scorn when things go wrong, as they did on Clinton for the loss of 19 lives in Somalia in 1993. But when things go right, they turn around and say the Democratic president had nothing to do with it.
It’s the typical logic turned upside down. For the Republicans, success is cause for embarassment. Failure has many fathers, while success is an orphan. You look all over the Internet today, and wingnuts are falling all over themselves to deny Obama any credit for his steady leadership in a tense situation. What transparent bullshit.
Comment by Terrible Leftist — April 13, 2009 @ 9:05 pm - April 13, 2009
So, unless he pulled the trigger himself, he gets no credit? He’s a commander-in-chief, not a Navy SEAL. Obama himself has been scrupulously careful NOT to take credit, and the White House isn’t out there doing the sort of post-game cheering that you just know you’d have been out of a Republican administration if something like this had happened.
I’m just noticing a glaring disparity in the media between the amount of credit he’s getting and the amount of credit he actually deserves. The ironic thing about it is that disparity has undoubtedly swelled because of all the conservatives beating their chests like morons the past couple of days.
I mean whatever he did, he obviously did right, but it’s not like it was too tricky a puzzle. From the perspective of people trying to release hostages, it’s hard to imagine a more ideal hostage situation. Bush probably could have pulled this one off.
Speaking of Bush, your point about how conservatives would have reacted if this had happened a year ago is spot-on. He’d probably have dug up the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner and had himself flown onto an aircraft carrier again.
Comment by Levi — April 13, 2009 @ 9:25 pm - April 13, 2009
TerLef, do you even read the posts here? Dan and Nick have complimented the president’s authorization to use force. And complimented the navy for doing it.
It’s Levi, the leftest loony, who beleives that some rights are more important than others, who loves insulting Gov Palin, but won’t hold President Obama to the same standards, and who believes that Iraq was a conspiracy by BushCheneyHaliburton to covertly free the Iraqi people and have the gaul to support the (democratic) signed goal of regime change in Iraq from 1998 who is critizing the use of force.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 13, 2009 @ 9:25 pm - April 13, 2009
If Republicans wanted my vote in the past 30 years, they should have asked for it, or at least not insulted those whom I love (and me) by questioning my very right to exist.
The Republican party is like an elephant carcass that’s stinking up they entire country.
Effff the GOP forever.
(And, a Spanish court is looking in to indictments against six members of the Bush adminstration for TORTURE… which kind of puts some icing on that rancid Bush cake.)
Comment by Anne Reginald — April 13, 2009 @ 10:41 pm - April 13, 2009
I mean whatever he did, he obviously did right, but it’s not like it was too tricky a puzzle. From the perspective of people trying to release hostages, it’s hard to imagine a more ideal hostage situation. Bush probably could have pulled this one off.
One of the hallmarks of a real professional is to make it look easy. It’s the amateurs who huff and puff and then don’t get the job done. You know, like George W. Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Comment by Terrible Leftist — April 13, 2009 @ 10:41 pm - April 13, 2009
Long story short, from TLeftist and Levi: A lot of blah, blah, blah. Just their hot gas and fulminating; no new details; no cite.
Now *that* is a joke. And a very defensive one.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 13, 2009 @ 11:13 pm - April 13, 2009
As a concerned, Christian conservative, I enjoy reading this site for your unique takes on conservative and Republican values. But, I am concerned. You never seem to give Obama credit for all the good he has done (e.g. his stimulus). If only you could give him the recognition he deserves, I’m sure that GayPatriot would be my first stop every day.
Comment by Moby — April 14, 2009 @ 2:45 am - April 14, 2009
Hey Levi, you can take your projection and cram it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 14, 2009 @ 2:45 am - April 14, 2009
Look, Levi and Terrible Leftist, at the end of the day, we don’t daydream about fellating the Dear Leader, and you do. End of story.
Comment by V the K — April 14, 2009 @ 6:25 am - April 14, 2009
“Anne”
So you’re going to be rallying against the current administration about their use of torture, rendition, denial of Habius Corpus and other policies continuing under their watch? Really?
Comment by The Livewire — April 14, 2009 @ 6:53 am - April 14, 2009
Miss Reginald (#23) asks a legitimate question, even if it is under three layers of snark.
"If Republicans wanted my vote in the past 30 years, they should have asked for it…"
The reason 1.8 million self-identified lesbians and gays, more than 1 in 4 nationally, voted for McCain in the last election cycle is precisly because conservatism treats us – treats all Americans – as individuals. It also proposes policy solutions that help us as individuals: personal responsibility, entrepreneurship, strong defense, low taxes, community-based solutions and a healthy support of federalist experimentation.
Shelby Steele, speaking of conservative appeal to african-americans, spoke to these points much more elequently than I ever could:
"What drew me to conservatism years ago was the fact that it gave discipline a slightly higher status than virtue. This meant it could not be subverted by passing notions of the good. It could be above moral vanity. And so it made no special promises to me as a minority. It neglected me in every way except as a human being who wanted freedom. Until my encounter with conservatism I had only known the racial determinism of segregation on the one hand and of white liberalism on the other — two varieties of white supremacy in which I could only be dependent and inferior."
He concludes:
"The appeal of conservatism is the mutuality it asserts between individual and political freedom, its beautiful idea of a free man in a free society. And it offers minorities the one thing they can never get from liberalism: human rather than racial [and sexual] dignity."
Indeed, the genius of right-thinking people everywhere is that, once we arrive as proud and productive Americans, without hyphens, we will truly have made it. The GOProud organization is terrific first step. I’m salivating at the prospect.
Comment by MFS — April 14, 2009 @ 8:38 am - April 14, 2009
Hi, everyone! Bill, here, the poster of the original comment that inspired this post.
First, let me thank GayPatriotWest for taking my comment seriously and responding. I appreciate the clarification and the defense of GPW’s position and I welcome it.
Second, I really, really, and truly am a gay conservative. I don’t know how to prove this to you other than to say that you will not find in my post any of the tell-tale signs of a lefty troll. I did not, for example, make some blunderbuss attack on this site’s positions nor did I make any generalized defense of Obama.
My point was simply that it is wrongheaded and ultimately self-defeating to adapt a mindset in which everything Obama does is wrong (e.g., He should have attacked the pirates already!; America held hostage!; Why did he wait 4 days?) or if right, then belittled (e.g., Well, he signed off on force, but big deal Well, he authorized force, but why were we negotiating with these people anyway?).
If you take that view, which is precisely the mirror image of the Angry Left’s approach to GWB, then pretty soon everyone except the true believers will just tune your criticism out. And that is not what GayPatriot wants, I am sure.
Finally, I was reacting not just to GPW’s particular post on the rescue, but what I felt was the prior obnoxious implicit comparison with the 1980 hostage crisis (and a sort of glee that was being taken in Obama’s predicament with respect to the pirate stand-off) as well as the comments here giving Obama little or no credit for doing the right thing. If the standoff had developed and played itself out exactly the same way six months ago, i.e., on GWB’s watch, the posts and the comments would have been different, I would bet.
I appreciate that GPW has clarified that criticism or praise of Obama will be doled out as justified based on performance and results. That is all I wanted to hear. I hope the commenters here follow that lead, and I will do the same.
Comment by Bill — April 14, 2009 @ 4:54 pm - April 14, 2009
Um, I didn’t realize you had to be gay to post on the blog.
My bad. Sorry.
I also disagree…. I don’t think Obama deserves any credit for this outcome, and it wasn’t a “national security” test. This was four thugs in a lifeboat with an unarmed civilian hostage. The “national security” test for Obama is what happens next and how he chooses to deal with it. Does he develop a policy to combat piracy (we know he’s working on dealing with taking away our “privacy” here at home) and send a signal that civilians and commerical operators should be able to operate in international waters without being threatened? Or does he continue to not have any policy and just fiddle until the next “event”? That is the “test”. So far, Obama hasn’t demonstrated that he has developed any “policy” to deal with any other national security issues. The pundits keep talking about his “strategies” in Afghanistan and Iraq, but a “strategy” is not an over-arching policy. Strategy and tactics can not be formulated until the “policy” is elucidated. He hasn’t down that yet. From my perch, he’s just reacting to “distractions” and hasn’t gotten an handle on anything…at all.
Obama “delegated” ….. in other words, he let the military commander on the scene make the choices. That’s not leadership. The longer this dragged out, the more I believed that Obama was actually giving direction to the Navy to “stand down”, so I am relieved to find out that this wasn’t the case. However, this scenario should have been over in less than 24 hrs. It’s no different from scenarios domestic SWAT teams respond to all the time.
The fact that this got dragged out for four days is egg on Obama’s face, not cause for praise and congratulations.
Comment by Gulliver's Gal — April 14, 2009 @ 6:38 pm - April 14, 2009
Look, Levi and Terrible Leftist, at the end of the day, we don’t daydream about fellating the Dear Leader, and you do.
No, you dream of teabagging!
Comment by Terrible Leftist — April 15, 2009 @ 1:13 am - April 15, 2009
Obama “delegated†….. in other words, he let the military commander on the scene make the choices.
What was he supposed to do, put on a pair of swim fins and jump in himself?
However, this scenario should have been over in less than 24 hrs. It’s no different from scenarios domestic SWAT teams respond to all the time.
Um, it took a while to get destroyer to the area. Then they had to negotiate with the pirates. Why? Because the negotiations produced the pirates’ assent to be towed behind the ship in much calmer waters. It was the calm waters that allowed the SEALs to set up the kill.
Now, you frothing “patriot,” when are you going to stop hating your own country, anyway? What is it with the wingnuts in this country, anyway? How many electoral slaughters will it take before you realize that the majority of Americans see straight through what you’re doing?
Comment by Terrible Leftist — April 15, 2009 @ 1:18 am - April 15, 2009
#32 – “Um, I didn’t realize you had to be gay to post on the blog.
My bad. Sorry.”
No, GG. All you have to be is clear, coherent and able to make a point, unlike some of our other posters (hello, Terrible Leftist). Sexual orientation is not a prerequisite, unlike some colleges and universities’ sponsored student groups.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 15, 2009 @ 11:19 am - April 15, 2009
Oh that federal debt!…
The chart on the right has been posted at various blogs and serves to highlight the dramatic increase in the debt taxpayers will ultimately have to pay. I wish I could give credit to the chart creator, but I don’t……
Trackback by Sleepless in Midland — April 21, 2009 @ 10:32 am - April 21, 2009