Gay Patriot Header Image

Defining a political party by the boorish behavior of an anonymous isolated individual

When someone on the right behaves boorishly, our friends in the media highlight the incident and pronounce that such behavior defines the GOP, the Tea Party or the conservative movement.  When a liberal behaves in a similar manner, his boorish behavior is just that, boorish behavior, signifying nothing, perhaps just an overzealous individual subject to the passions which, from time to time, overwhelm us all.

It seems that some on the left are just waiting for a conservative to behave badly, so they can use his bad behavior to define the party.  Shortly after an individual booed a gay soldier asking a question at last week’s Republican debate, liberals rushed to make this anonymous lout the face of the Republican Party, with a liberal friend on Facebook posting this dishonest slogan:

Dishonest and perhaps prejudiced as it ascribes to an entire political party the rude actions of one individual. Some Democrats insist that a number of people booed. I watched the clip of the question several times and heard two, possibly three, people booing. Ann Althouse, who did the same, stands by her perception that “only one person audibly” yelled “boo.”

Despite this likely lone boor, the media, John Hinderaker laments, “won’t let the facts get in the way.” Seems there were more people shushing and/or criticizing the boor:

I was at the debate, in the audience on the right hand side about halfway back (here’s my tweet of the video screen that was right in front of us). The person who booed was just a few rows in front of us. The booing got an immediate and angry reaction from nearly everyone sitting around him, who hissed and shushed at him. Lots of loud gasps, “Shhhh!” “No!” “Shut up, you idiot!” etc.

There were more people in this Republican audience criticizing the lout(s) who booed a soldier than there were louts booing. A more accurate description (than the one provided in the image above) of the Republican crowd would be that even Republicans seek to silence and criticize man who boos a gay soldier.

But that just doesn’t fit the narrative.

Contending that “Republicans need to push back hard against this distraction tactic,” Hinderaker reminds us that

On a near-constant basis, Democratic Congressmen blurt out outrages far worse than those attributed to anonymous citizens who attend GOP debates, yet the newspapers will never try to make those absurdities the dominant narrative of the Democratic Party. Republicans need to call the Left’s tactic out for what it is–a disgraceful effort to smear the Republican Party and to distract voters from the key issues of the 2012 campaign.

Wonder if those so quick to condemn Republicans for the behavior of this one (or perhaps two) boor will attempt to define Democrats by the outrageous statements of their elected officials.

Barney, you’ve got a lot of differentiating to do.

UPDATE:  Seems even the president is in on the dishonest portrayal of the event:

At a fundraiser in San Jose yesterday, President Obama slammed the crowd at the Fox/Google GOP debate for booing a gay soldier, projecting the behavior of a few rude audience members onto more than 5,000 debate-goers and the entire GOP.

And here I thought Obama was the grown-up in the room.

Share

73 Comments

  1. So, in the end, Mike, you happily vote for the party that will bankrupt the country and destroy the economy because Republicans won’t pander to your need for self-esteem.

    Or put differently, V the K, Mike doesn’t care about anything other than his sexual orientation. He has no interest in taxes, spending, government waste, regulatory cost, the economy, or national defense; all he cares about, the sole thing on which he judges anyone, is based on how they pander to his sexual orientation.

    And that nicely demonstrates why so many Republicans don’t think gays should be put in the military or that gays should be required to put their duty ahead of their sexual orientation (as DADT requires); they are aware that gays like Mike make decisions based, not on what is best for the troops or the situation, but solely on what is best for their sexual orientation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 27, 2011 @ 2:29 pm - September 27, 2011

  2. That’s pretty much the shape of it, NDT. The gay left would be happy to see America disgraced, impoverished, and reduced to a Road Warrior level of civilization as long the The Lord Humongous recognized same-sex marriage rights.

    Comment by V the K — September 27, 2011 @ 2:38 pm - September 27, 2011

  3. #52: “That’s pretty much the shape of it, NDT. The gay left would be happy to see America disgraced, impoverished, and reduced to a Road Warrior level of civilization as long the The Lord Humongous recognized same-sex marriage rights.”

    Actually, V the K, they’re not even THAT principled. The gay left would be happy to see America disgraced, impoverished, and reduced to a Road Warrior level of civilization as long the The Lord Humongous’ belief that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman is “evolving.”

    Comment by Sean A — September 27, 2011 @ 2:55 pm - September 27, 2011

  4. To pick up off an earlier thread, I often disagree with the Democratic Party in my urban area.

    But of course, none of that matters, because there’s no chance in hell you’ll ever vote against them because you hate Republicans so much.

    We understand what a bigot you are, Mike. And that’s also what the Republican Party understands — that gays like yourself are helpless, brain-dead bigots who will rationalize anything, including booing, harassing, and attacking troops and paying terrorists to kill them, as long as the group/party involved endorses “gay rights”.

    That’s what makes this funny. Gays like you didn’t give a rat’s ass about gay soldiers being booed when it was your Obama Party doing it. In fact, you openly supported calling gay soldiers “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” in their own country. Your Pelosi supported it, your Reid supported it, and your Barack Obama especially supported it.

    You think we don’t recognize that? You think you can just lie? Or more precisely, do you even think at all, or do you just blindly and mindlessly repeat your Obama Party talking points?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 27, 2011 @ 3:01 pm - September 27, 2011

  5. Lindsay Miller writes
    http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/09/weve-always-been-serving-why-repeal-of-dadt-matters-anyway/245628/

    I’ve noted with interest that many of the news stories covering the repeal find room to mention that the military’s rules of conduct regarding public displays of affection — they’re forbidden while a soldier is in uniform — remain unchanged. When so many reporters bring up something that should go without saying, I suspect that it’s indicative of an underlying anxiety. In this case, the elephant in the room is the pervasive belief in our society that being homosexual or bisexual is somehow much more sexual than being straight. This leads to other bizarre assumptions, like that gay soldiers won’t be able to control themselves around their same-gendered colleagues, or that only the specter of unemployment can keep LGB people from spontaneously making out with each other on street corners.

    This creates a double standard wherein same-sex relationships are inappropriate in a way that straight relationships are not. No reasonable person would be offended by a man putting a photo of his wife on his desk, but if the photo is of his husband, suddenly a pall of tawdriness covers the whole scene. A picture of a heterosexual partner suggests commitment, monogamy, evenings spent in front of the television with Vietnamese take-out; a picture of a homosexual partner suggests gay sex. And to a certain breed of homophobe, the only thing worse than having gay sex is causing someone else to think about gay sex. This is why they’re uncomfortable allowing anyone to mention homosexuality in the military — or school, or church, or in front of their grandparents: because they can’t separate the everyday, innocuous content of LGB relationships from the disconcerting possibility of sexual deviance.

    For the hundreds or thousands of gays and lesbians forced to hide their partners’ existence for the past 18 years, the secrets they kept had less to do with uncontrolled sexuality than with the many small domestic joys that make up a long-term relationship. Reading the testimony of one lesbian military couple who were afraid even to go to the grocery store together, I felt tears come to my eyes. It’s all too easy for me to imagine being the invisible partner in such an arrangement, and the thought breaks my heart. To force LGB service members to hide such an essential part of themselves is simply cruel — there’s no other word for it. Allowing that cruelty to come to an end need not threaten anyone’s peace of mind, as long as they understand that the relationships which came to light last Tuesday are fundamentally the same as those which straight soldiers enjoy. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual soldiers are not demanding the right to wave their sex lives in anyone’s faces. Like the rest of us, they simply want to take their partners grocery shopping without fear.

    Comment by rusty — September 27, 2011 @ 4:13 pm - September 27, 2011

  6. GOP gay rights group fights against gay troop ban

    Patrick Guerriero, who was Log Cabin’s president from 2003 to 2006 and is now registered as an independent, recalled how it wasn’t just liberal gay activists who objected. Fellow Republicans also were upset by “a lawsuit against the U.S. military, against Bush’s Department of Defense.”

    Guerriero said the group was compelled to act after receiving letters, calls and e-mails from gay service members in Iraq discussing the difficulty of having to be pretend to be who they weren’t.

    At the time, Republicans were debating whether to pass a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage.

    “People forget the climate we were in. There was no legislative road map,” he said. “We thought it was important to have it be nonpartisan and even have a Republican angle to it, that that would send a more powerful message to the courts and perhaps Congress.”

    Cooper, who became president of the group two months before the trial began this summer before Judge Virginia Phillips in Riverside, Calif., said he was always optimistic. “There’s been a general cultural shift that’s been helpful to us,” he said.

    Cooper said the fight shows Republicans are not always the enemy. “I’m not going to deny the fact that there have been years and times when the Republican party has not been friendly to the gay voter,” he said, “but that’s changing.”

    He said he has shared his secret with his closest Army friends and keeps it quiet around others whom he feels do not need to know. And he pointed out that President George W. Bush knew his sexual orientation when the 39-year-old Army captain served under him.

    “I don’t think I’ve been protected,” he said in a telephone interview from his Washington D.C. office.

    The Florida native, who says generations of his family have served in the military, continues to serve untouched, and has been speaking out about his experience across the country.

    Cooper said fellow service members have been discharged after having their e-mails searched, their diaries read and letters analyzed. He knows of others who are also openly gay and serving in some capacity.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-10-21-gays-in-military_N.htm

    Comment by rusty — September 27, 2011 @ 4:20 pm - September 27, 2011

  7. This leads to other bizarre assumptions, like that gay soldiers won’t be able to control themselves around their same-gendered colleagues, or that only the specter of unemployment can keep LGB people from spontaneously making out with each other on street corners.

    Mainly because people are quite familiar with how LGBT people insist that sexually harassing their coworkers is perfectly normal and how being fired for doing so is homophobic.

    That is public information. I fail to see how one can state it is “bizarre” when you have clear, documented, photographic proof of how gays and lesbians and their Obama Party handlers agitate and scream that sexual harassment is normal behavior for gays.
    To force LGB service members to hide such an essential part of themselves is simply cruel — there’s no other word for it.

    Nice try, but since we have an all-volunteer military, there’s nothing cruel about it.

    No one forced them to live under those circumstances. No one forced them to serve. They made that choice to do so, and now they’re whining and crying about the consequences of their choice.

    And this was particularly hilarious.

    Lesbian, gay, and bisexual soldiers are not demanding the right to wave their sex lives in anyone’s faces.

    Except for the ones demanding Pride parades and whatnot for them to wave their sex lives in everyone else’s face.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 27, 2011 @ 5:21 pm - September 27, 2011

  8. Oh, Miss Rita, you certainly on a roll. . .funny how you miss this from Miller in the Atlantic article

    >> And to a certain breed of homophobe, the only thing worse than having gay sex is causing someone else to think about gay sex.<<

    Dan, so glad you find so much humor. It is good to laugh.

    Comment by rusty — September 27, 2011 @ 6:25 pm - September 27, 2011

  9. and now Miss Rita Beads, aka NDT

    Statement on the End of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
    For Immediate Release
    September 20, 2011
    Statement on the End of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
    Statement of Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director

    (Washington, D.C.) – “Today marks the end of the failed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Lost in the shuffle of self-congratulating by the politicians and the activist class are the men and women really responsible for this day: the brave gay and lesbian service members.

    “The reason Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed was because of the distinguished record of the gay and lesbian members of our Armed Services. The reality of their heroism and service stood in sharp contrast to the fear-mongering and lies of those who fought tooth and nail against this repeal. It is their sacrifices and brave service in defense of our nation that should be celebrated today.

    Comment by rusty — September 27, 2011 @ 6:36 pm - September 27, 2011

  10. “Yeah, they’re wrong to call for repeal of repeal,” Why, B. Daniel? What egregious human rights violation did DADT inflict on gays in and/or out of the military? No one has ever articulated that. Instead, opposition to DADT seemed to boil down to gays being “forced” to lie about their “true selves”. That, apparently, was the horror that repeal is supposed to stop. Yet, most gay soldiers were fully aware of DADT BEFORE they joined America’s ALL VOLUNTEER army. They knew about the policy, so the only people “forcing” them to lie about their “true selves” were themselves. If they didn’t like DADT they didn’t have to join the military. It’s as simple as that.

    The repeal of DADT had nothing to do with civil rights or wanting to make the military better. This was a battle in the culture war; a test by the secular progressives to see how far they’ve come in their goal to extinguish traditional, Bible-based values. And repeal revealed that not all Christophobic, libertine, iconoclastic secular progressives are liberal. Many professed conservatives are in that camp, too. And they’re fighting hard to make the entire conservative movement a conduit for that world view. And a hostile place for people like me. That’s the real goal of DADT repeal.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — September 27, 2011 @ 8:07 pm - September 27, 2011

  11. Seane-Anna, I’m not sure why you’re interpreting Dan’s disagreement with the DADT policy as Dan believing that DADT was an egregious human rights violation. But I do agree with you on one point. DADT was the policy for the past 18 years. Anyone who joined the military did so voluntarily. But we have a tradition in this country that allows people to disagree and challenge any policy. This may not be a tradition in the Bible, but it has always been so in this country.

    And a hostile place for people like me. That’s the real goal of DADT repeal.

    Maybe for you it is. Yikes, it must be an awful time to be alive for you. Well, if things get too bad for you in this country, keep in mind citizenship is voluntary as well.

    And repeal revealed that not all Christophobic, libertine, iconoclastic secular progressives are liberal.

    Interesting comment. So Dan, and other conservatives that supported repeal are Christophobes?

    Comment by Pat — September 28, 2011 @ 7:34 am - September 28, 2011

  12. rusty,

    Re your Jimmy LaSalva cut and paste. Why does he say it ‘failed’? Because it was repealed? Because it was unpopular?

    Sherman’s march was unpopular (to a Southerner) but it hardly failed when he stopped.

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 28, 2011 @ 7:39 am - September 28, 2011

  13. LW. . . not sure why Jimmy chose his wording for the release. It wasn’t like he had a ‘rush’ job to respond to the end of DADT. But guess you have the links to GOProud and I am sure you could send Jimmy a note to request his explanation.

    Maybe it started with Bob Barr
    “As a conservative Republican member of Congress from 1995 to 2003, I was hardly a card-carrying member of the gay-rights lobby. I opposed then, and continue to oppose, same-sex marriage, or the designation of gays as a constitutionally protected minority class. Service in the armed forces is another matter. The bottom line here is that, with nearly a decade and a half of the hybrid “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to guide us, I have become deeply impressed with the growing weight of credible military opinion which concludes that allowing gays to serve openly in the military does not pose insurmountable problems for the good order and discipline of the services.

    Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2007/06/former_congress.html#ixzz1ZFezDdJQ

    The issue exploded during Clinton’s first week as President, triggered by those in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill opposed to his campaign pledge to reverse an executive order barring gays and lesbians from serving. “The issue is whether men and women who can and have served with real distinction should be excluded from military service solely on the basis of their status,” Clinton said at the time. “And I believe they should not.”

    http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-09-21/news/27075974_1_gay-soldiers-gay-bars-gay-advocates

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1707545,00.html#ixzz1ZFggXVCc

    And Clinton. . .
    “Do you ever regret it as a policy?” CBS News Anchor Katie Couric asked former President Bill Clinton on Tuesday, hours after a GOP filibuster prevented Democrats from advancing a defense spending bill tied to repealing the ban on openly gay soldiers serving in the military.

    “Oh, yeah,” Clinton responded. “But keep in mind, I didn’t choose this policy.”
    Clinton says he only adopted the restriction for the armed forces after it became clear both the House and Senate were going to adopt an absolute ban on gays in the military unless he put something like “don’t ask, don’t tell” in place.

    Comment by rusty — September 28, 2011 @ 9:08 am - September 28, 2011

  14. But don’t worry LW. . .DADT repeal won’t affect you or create

    S-A’s ‘a hostile place’
    You are safe. I am sure if SA choses not to become an ex-pat,

    she will surely find someplace off the grid in a great commune of like-mind folk.

    Comment by rusty — September 28, 2011 @ 9:12 am - September 28, 2011

  15. But we have a tradition in this country that allows people to disagree and challenge any policy.

    Except when it’s one Pat doesn’t like, as we see with his demand here:

    Well, if things get too bad for you in this country, keep in mind citizenship is voluntary as well.

    That’s what is really hilarious about bigots like Pat. He wants absolute tolerance and acceptance of everything he does, but insists that anyone who disagrees with him has no right to do so or demand changes in policy and should leave the country instead.

    And remember, Pat, you and your fellow bigots established with your whining about Koran-burning that it is always wrong to offend religious people and that their demands should trump any demands for other peoples’ freedom or rights.

    So again, practice what you preach. Since you advocate curtailing the rights of others to avoid upsetting Muslims, curtail your own to avoid offending Christians.

    Or is the problem, again, that you simply have to rationalize why you discriminate against Christians?

    Interesting comment. So Dan, and other conservatives that supported repeal are Christophobes?

    Not necessarily. They’re just allowing themselves to be used by Christophobes.

    Such as yourself, Pat, with your demands that Christians should just shut up and leave the country. Why should anyone believe your actions are not motivated by animus towards Christians?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2011 @ 12:03 pm - September 28, 2011

  16. 62.rusty,

    Re your Jimmy LaSalva cut and paste.

    This is an illuminating argument tactic on the part of gay leftists, Livewire.

    The reason rusty quotes this is because rusty projects onto others the fact that he, like the vast and overwhelming majority of gay and lesbian people and liberals, is incapable of disagreeing with or condemning other liberals. Thus, he thinks that gay conservatives or other conservatives can be shut up by quoting the words of another conservative back at them.

    This won’t be the first time that I disagree with Jimmy LaSalvia, and it certainly won’t be the last. I’ve met with him, I’ve disagreed with him to his face, and we both understand each other. That’s what being healthy and intelligent adults with opinions are.

    That concept is quite beyond rusty. He’s been indoctrinated into the necessity for absolute ideological purity and the belief that if he were to criticize or disagree with other liberals in any other way, he’d be an Uncle Tom and the equivalent of a race traitor.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2011 @ 12:08 pm - September 28, 2011

  17. Oh NDT. . .

    >Thus, he thinks that gay conservatives or other conservatives can be shut up by quoting the words of another conservative back at them.<

    It will be a cold day in hell when someone like me will ever convince someone like you to shut up.

    But, I don't ever expect you to 'quiet yourself', in fact, I expect you to rattle on and on and on and on. I for the most part, find your views, opinions and observations interesting and enlightening.

    But really Miss Rita, sometimes you go beyond your painting with broad strokes in depicting folk with dissenting opinions, it almost seems you are using a firehouse to get your point across. But hey, more power to you Sistah.

    Comment by rusty — September 28, 2011 @ 12:32 pm - September 28, 2011

  18. Thus, he thinks that gay conservatives or other conservatives can be shut up by quoting the words of another conservative back at them.

    The left is a cult, and they follow their leaders. They assume our side does the same. Also, they fail to recognize that appealing to authority is a fallacious form of argument; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

    Only a brainwashed cultist would think otherwise.

    Comment by V the K — September 28, 2011 @ 12:43 pm - September 28, 2011

  19. 63&64

    I’ll have to shoot off an e-mail when I get home.

    And, I need to add that I’m offended your post seems to accuse me of the same attitude as Seane-Anna. I will wait and see what happens, but my little brother’s main concern of the guy service beside him can shoot straight.

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 28, 2011 @ 2:22 pm - September 28, 2011

  20. Was not my intention to offend at all LW, 63 was my response to your Query, 64 was more of a reflection of Pat’s comment to SA,
    My sincerest apologies since you feel offended

    Comment by rusty — September 28, 2011 @ 2:45 pm - September 28, 2011

  21. NDT wrote a comment addressing Pat. I’m not sure which “Pat” he is referring to, because his comments do not reflect or address my comments. I didn’t notice another person posing as Pat. If NDT is referring to my post, it is simply another example of NDT deliberately or ignorantly misinterpreting a post as is his SOP. If you are not a regular reader, you may not be aware of that. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — September 28, 2011 @ 3:00 pm - September 28, 2011

  22. Rather hard to do, Pat, when I quoted you directly. That’s why there are those entire sections of my post in italics.

    You told Seane-Anna if she didn’t like it to leave the country. I’m just challenging you to practice what you preach. You demand that everyone else change to accomodate you, but then you insist that people have no right to make changes and should just leave the country instead.

    All you’re doing, Pat, is demonstrating why you’re not fit for military service. And since you always blame your homosexuality for your behavior rather than your own choices, you’re demonstrating nicely why there should be a blanket ban on gays and lesbians serving.

    DADT’s great advantage was that it prevented gays and lesbians from using their sexual orientation to demand special treatment and make excuses for bad behavior. If you wanted to serve, you had to subordinate your personal choices to the military mission. Plenty of gays and lesbians made the choice to do so.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2011 @ 3:43 pm - September 28, 2011

  23. 72.Rather hard to do, Pat, when I quoted you directly. That’s why there are those entire sections of my post in italics.

    Yep, you are quite adept of still misinterpreting when you quote, provide links, etc. And once again, you’re additional comments referring to me are all incorrect. Some things never change. You continue to project your own bigotries onto others. Feel free to quote and use italics when you show how off base you are. If Seane-Anna believes that I told her she should leave the country, I will address her. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — September 28, 2011 @ 3:55 pm - September 28, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.