Gay Patriot Header Image

Social Psychology, Politics, and Disgust

I saw this item at Reason.com the other day.  It’s a short piece reflecting on a video of a speech by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt talking about how one’s “sensitivity to disgust” is supposedly some sort of predictor of one’s political views.  I haven’t watched the whole video yet, but the speech was given at the Museum of Sex in New York City, so some amount of its content seems designed to appeal to the audience that would be attending a speech in that location.

Jim Epstein at Reason.com summarizes the key points of the speech as follows:

“Morality isn’t just about stealing and killing and honesty, it’s often about menstruation, and food, and who you are having sex with, and how you handle corpses,” says NYU social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who is author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics.

Haidt argues that our concern over these victimless behaviors is rooted in our biology. Humans evolved to feel disgusted by anything that when consumed makes us sick. That sense of disgust then expanded “to become a guardian of the social order.”

This impulse is at the core of the culture war. Those who have a low sensitivity to disgust tend to be liberals or libertarians; those who are easily disgusted tend to be conservative.

The full video of the speech is available at the above link.

My reaction to all this is that it 1). depends on how one defines conservative, and 2). it depends on what kinds of things one labels or considers to be examples of disgust.

With respect to point 1)., I think that a large portion of the conservative coalition is rather heavily libertarian-leaning, and it just makes more sense for us to identify as conservative and vote for Republicans because  the Libertarian party seems doomed to remain a fringe party, at least as long as that party’s leadership continues to endorse an isolationist or head-in-the-sand approach to foreign policy.  Now while it may be the case that many traditional “social conservatives” have a “high sensitivity to disgust” with respect to issues of sex, I’m not even convinced that that is as widely the case as Haidt’s remarks suggest.  I’ve heard socially-conservative Christian ministers talk about sex in ways that show they may have a better understanding of the variety of human sexual experience than many academics who claim to be experts on the subject.

On the other hand, with respect to point 2)., I can find many, many examples of “disgust” fueling the attitudes of liberals and leftists.  One could begin by looking at their intense hatred of Sarah Palin and anyone like her.  Some of that hatred, I would argue, was fueled by a disgust at the lives of anyone who doesn’t live the life of a modern liberal in a major coastal city.

Most modern liberals are disgusted by hunting, by the people who shop at Wal-Mart, by the petroleum industry, by the food industry, by the military, by evangelical Christians, and by the reality of life in small-town, rural America.  James Taranto and British Philosopher Roger Scruton call it “oikophobia”: it is a worldview which accepts or excuses the transgressions of select special-interest groups or of non-western cultures, while it judges the familiar by a harsh standard and condemns them with expressions of disgust at the nature of their lives.

Meme of the Week: Crazy Cat Lady Liberals

My last post generated a lot of great discussion, which is still continuing.  I hope to highlight or focus on some of the strands of that discussion in future posts, but for now I thought I’d emphasize one passage with the hope of turning it into the conservative meme of the week.

Our commenter Crosspatch wrote a number of very detailed and thoughtful responses, but one paragraph of this comment is worth highlighting for expressing a cogent critique of modern liberals which everyone can understand:

Many Democrats are to people what cat ladies are to cats. The cat lady can not stand the thought of those poor kitties out there all on their own in the dead of winter so she takes them in to “take care of” them. The cats end up being packed into slums as she micromanages them but the task becomes too much, requires too much overhead, and living conditions begin to deteriorate as they are in Detroit. The cat lady isn’t really doing it to help the cat because the cat would probably have a much better quality of life if she had left it alone. She is doing it to help HERSELF not feel bad. Liberals often don’t do things to actually help people so much as they do it to make themselves feel better, like they are doing something about a problem. If you try to explain to them that they are actually doing a disservice to those they are trying to help, you are treated just like any other person who points out a flaw in a “fundamentalist’s” logic. You are attacked and ostracized.

When I was quickly skimming through the many comments, I originally glossed over that paragraph, but subsequent comments by Chris H. and Bastiat Fan made me take a closer look at it.

One of the themes of Crosspatch’s comments has to do with the ways in which the leftist media and the educational establishment both set the ground rules and expectations for debate and discussion of issues to make it difficult for conservatives to respond.

One way conservatives can fight against this, it seems to me, is to generate as many powerful and accessible counter-narratives as we can to begin to change the way people view both conservative and liberal ideas.

The Crazy Cat Lady Liberal meme has that power.  Although I found a reference to a similar idea from a column by John Hawkins that appeared last march the idea hasn’t caught on widely yet, and it’s time we see to it that it does.  (As an aside, it should surprise no one that there really are crazy cat lady liberals who are proud of being both of those things.)

Social Liberalism: Going Too Far

A few weeks ago, a reader at Instapundit found an interesting passage in the archives which Glenn Reynolds had first quoted in February 2002.  I made note of the passage because it seemed to fit so well with both the social liberalism theme and also with the distinction (increasingly hard to recognize in the age of Obama, I admit) between liberals and leftists to which I made reference in my last post.

The passage is from an article by Judith Lewis entitled “Why I’m Not a Protestor” that appeared in the LA Weekly on Jan. 30, 2002:

And whatever these perfect strangers from Kentucky stood for, however distant they were from the causes of global minimum wage, clean energy and sustainable peace, they were still able to treat people who shared almost none of their values without contempt. We were able to do the same, and to us, that was a hugely political act.

But it is the kind of political act for which the current crop of activist groups — from the Voters Rights March to Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center — have increasingly little patience. Faced with dissenting views or even devil’s advocacy from newspaper reporters, they grow hostile and deny access. When I’ve collaborated with activists on the left, as I did recently on a Web site, I’ve found them willing to censor discussions or use ridicule when certain words make them uncomfortable. When I’ve written about them, they’ve been unhappy that I’ve focused on their personal struggles and not exclusively on the issues, and as a member of the media, I’ve endured their suspicion and scorn. Were these people ever to actually run the country, I complained loudly in the summer of 2000, while I was up in Malibu covering the Ruckus Society’s direct-action training camp, it would be a bona fide fascist dictatorship.

Although the LA Weekly article ends by reiterating the writer’s allegiance to leftist goals and ideals, she intends it as a warning to her fellow liberals and leftists that they need to learn to work and play well with others.  Despite her moment of clarity, she is unable to recognize that the leftist activist class is extreme and intolerant because leftist philosophies inevitably end up there.

The passage came to mind again when I saw this recent interview with Juan Williams at the Daily Caller.  In the interview, Williams talks about what he learned from his firing by NPR:  the liberal media will “shut you down, stab you, kill you, fire you” if you disagree, he tells Ginni Thomas.

Both examples remind me of the many political change stories that Neoneocon has collected and written about over the years.  Although neither Judith Lewis (in the LA Weekly article) nor Juan Williams have abandoned their belief in leftist ideas, both have experienced a key element of leftism that has inspired many others to look more closely at conservative ideas and conservative thinkers.

In other words, the ingrained tendency of the left to go too far often unsettles the willingness of individuals to continue to believe in the narrative of a beneficent and well-intentioned politics–a belief which, however unfounded, is one of the hallmarks of social liberalism.   At least that has been my experience.

What have our readers observed?  Were any of you political changers?  Was there something about the anger, intolerance, and extremism of the leftist activist class that inspired you to question your views or, alternately, that made you more resolute in your conservative beliefs?

New Tax Threatens Dancing In Seattle, Gays To Riot?

News from the world of the absurd…..

Hallie Kuperman loves to dance. But what she loves even more is sharing this passion with visitors to her social dancing club, the Century Ballroom.

Hallie purchased the vintage dancing space 16 years ago, turning it into a Seattle institution. The Century Ballroom not only teaches swing, tango and the foxtrot, it also hosts cabarets and other live performances for an eclectic crowd of all ages. The club’s trendsetting owner has become a prominent and beloved figure in the community.

Business was swinging until a surprise bill arrived from Washington’s Department of Revenue. The state agency decided to reinterpret an obscure old tax, audited the Century Ballroom, and demanded a check for $92,000.

Read the WHOLE THING at FreedomWorks by my blogger friend Jon Gabriel.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Social Liberalism: The Power of Slogans

The first post in my ongoing, periodical series about “social liberalism” generated a lively discussion (which was still continuing last time I checked).  I had originally planned a second post about the implications of the socially-perpetuated nature of liberalism on both the arguments (or lack thereof) and pundits that seem to dominate on the left side of the political spectrum.  I still think that’s a fascinating topic, and I plan to write more about that in the future.

For the time being, though, I’d rather call attention to this noteworthy post by Bookworm which I learned of as a result of this post by Neo-neocon.  Bookworm’s post is about the need for conservatives to focus largely on messaging which captures something that Malcolm Gladwell refers to as “the stickiness factor.”  Bookworm explains:

The Stickiness Factor?  That’s what it sounds like:  it’s a message that doesn’t just amuse or intrigue people for a mere minute.  Instead, it sticks with them and, even more importantly, makes them act.  During the Bush years, the Dems came up with a great one:  No War for Oil.  The fact that this slogan had little relationship to the facts, or that a ginormous number of people stuck it on the back of their gas-guzzling SUVs was irrelevant.  Those four words convinced too many Americans that the Republicans were fighting wars on behalf of Standard Oil.

She goes on to reflect on examples similar to the kinds of things I was reflecting on as I imagined some of my future posts on the socially-coercive power of contemporary liberalism:

The Progressive penchant for ignoring facts undoubtedly makes it easier for them to come up with the pithy slogans and posters that sweep through Twitter, Facebook, Google+, and email chains before ending up on tens of thousands of bumper stickers that subliminally drill into every driver’s head. People could laugh when reading “Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot,” never mind that George Bush was a highly educated, accomplished man with an academic record better than or equal to his opponents’.

Conservatives used to have pithy sayings (“Live free or die,” “I regret that I have but one life to give for my country,” “That government is best that governs least”), but we don’t seem to have come up with any clever ones lately.  As you may recall, during John McCain’s failed candidacy, his slogan — “Country First” — managed to leave supporters cold, while allowing opponents to mumble about racism.  I doubt that we’ll ever get another “I like Ike,” but we can certainly do better than Romney’s “Believe in America,” which sounds more like the beginning of a fairy tale than it does a rousing call to the ballot box.

And finally, there’s the Power of Context, which at its simplest level means that a message has to capture the zeitgeist.  People have to be primed and ready to receive the message.  In 2012, Americans, fed on decades of anti-capitalist education and entertainment, were more than ready to believe that Romney was a dog-abusing, woman-hating, religious nut who wanted to enslave poor people and blacks.  Thirty years ago, people would have laughed at this message.  Last year, there were too many people who thought it made a good deal of sense.

(Read the whole thing.)

Conservative thinkers may have some level of disdain for the demagogic nature of most political slogans, but one can’t deny their force or their effectiveness.   People on the left, for instance, love to make assertions about “social justice,” “sustainability,” and lately “gun violence” which rarely stand up to close scrutiny, but the mere application and repetition of the terms is usually enough to persuade a certain sector of the population that these must be serious ideas deserving of merit.

Bookworm argues that conservatives need to focus more on generating catchy and timely messages  and that doing so will help advance our ideas more effectively.  I think it’s a great point.  Conservatives are certainly capable of it:  the early Tea Party rallies were filled with all kinds of clever signs and slogans, but the creative force of that movement seems to have dispersed lately.   How can we reignite it?

A Social Disease?

I work in a very liberal environment, and over the past few years, I have come to wonder at the fact that the vast majority of the folks I have kept in touch with from high school, college, and graduate school are overwhelming left-leaning.  Until recently, I even found logging on to Facebook depressing, simply because the vast majority of my Facebook “friends” are Obama voters.

Although I can understand how and why I ended up with such a large collection of liberal friends, acquaintances and colleagues–from about the age of 16 through my late twenties I fancied myself a “moderate,” and I have spent most of  my adult life in or on the margins of the academic world–I can’t help but feel dismayed that so many of the folks I know have clung to the leftism of their youth with the zeal of the true believer.

Blogger Assistant Village Idiot has written many excellent posts over the years on the nature of what he considers “tribal” thinking when it comes to political, social and cultural identity.  He wrote a great one two weeks ago where he reflected on the nature of contemporary liberalism as primarily a social phenomenon:

I have declared many times that liberalism is more of a social than an intellectual set of beliefs.  Certainly, liberalism is enforced socially rather than intellectually (though the claim of intellectual superiority remains, and is in fact part of the pressure).

He goes on to cite examples from the current TV show Portlandia which illustrate the techniques of liberal social “enforcement” at work through the application of “self-righteousness,” the use of “public shaming,” and the threat of being “cut off from the group.”   Read the whole thing, and be sure to watch some of the clips, too, if you’re not familiar with the show already.

Most readers of GayPatriot are more than familiar with the shock, disbelief and horror (along with much more mean-spirited and vitriolic reactions) voiced by “liberals” when we express conservative views or even when we question standard liberal talking points and “conventional wisdom.”   Likewise, I’m sure most of us have had the experience of referring the seemingly more open-minded among them to an article, website, book or movie which they never even look into.  One reason for their reactions is that, because of the social conditioning perpetuated by aggressive liberals and the propagandizing of the educational establishment, most contemporary liberals aren’t prepared to engage intellectually with ideas outside of a narrow range of approved opinions, and so they quickly turn to insults, name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and other forms of invective. (more…)

Barack Hussein Obama: War Criminal

Well, that is what we would be hearing if there were a Republican President with this same war-mongering record of death.

Drone strikes dramatically increased after US President Barack Obama took office in 2009. There were only five drone strikes in 2007, but the number rose to 117 in 2010 before declining to 46 last year. Exact casualty figures are difficult to verify. Most of those killed are militants, but some civilians have also been killed.

More innocent children have been killed by the drones of Tyrant Boy-King Barack Hussein Obama than by the guns of Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, James Holmes, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris combined. By far.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Are Americans Really As Selfish and Resentful as Statists Seem To Think?

In Jamelle Bouie’s WaPo piece of this past Wednesday, she acknowledges that “there’s no doubt Democrats know that — barring a hike to pre-Reagan levels — there’s not much revenue to gain from restoring upper-income taxes to Clinton-era levels. And when it comes to deficit reduction, full employment — and robust growth — is the best solution.” Rather, she seems to be arguing on behalf of these Statists, it’s an issue of fairness that we should seek to eat the rich…even if it ends up hurting our country (extrapolation mine).

If that sounds familiar, it’s because it is:

Bouie’s conclusion is worth quoting in toto, if for no other reason than to pose a question about the character of our Nation:

If upper-income tax hikes serve a purpose, it’s to slow the income gains of the wealthiest Americans, who — for the past decade — have reaped the lion’s share of gains from economic growth.

If the presidential election did anything, it put inequality on the table as a national issue, and the fiscal cliff is one battle — albeit, by proxy — in a larger fight. And, unlike most issues in politics, the lines are clear — Republican disregard for inequality is matched by Democratic attempts to, however gently, apply the breaks.

(Emphasis mine)

So the question is this: Are we, as a Nation, really as vindictive and myopically spiteful as Bouie would suggest we are? And to what degree does the re-election of a man who so cavalierly (and eloquently!) expressed a desire to enforce his version of “fairness”—even at the expense of harming the economy—prove her right in that contention?

(HT, the indefatigable Reason blog)

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)

Media Elites Have No Shame…Nor Sense of Irony

Pity poor David Gregory of NBC News. His real crime is against intellectual honesty and integrity.

I agree with The Wall Street Journal this morning in their unsigned editorial (behind firewall, sorry), calling the notional indictment of the old-school media journo “nonsensical”. (For background on the issue, see here, and here.)
But allow me to expand on their thoughts…

The real authorities who should be after Gregory, if they existed, are the irony cops. Set aside the lost irony of an inside-the-beltway elitist self-righteously mocking Wayne LaPierre’s idea of sending armed guards to America’s schools while sending his kids to a school with…um, eleven armed guards. That sort of subtlety can easily be missed even by someone whose job it is to communicate and use the English language.

But imagine if Mr. LaPierre had been a little more astute last week when confronted with the illegal 30-round magazine Mr. Gregory was flaunting on national TV. I imagine his elevator wit has him saying something like this:

You know, David, I see you blatantly brandishing that 30-round magazine here in the District of Columbia and I know—as I’m sure you do yourself—that possession of such is a criminal offense. Now, I disagree with the law, so I’m surely not going to be a hypocrite and suggest you be hauled away to jail in the way you suggest others should be for having that. I at least do have the courage of my convictions…a courage I only wish you shared.

However, your flagrant violation of the law offers all your viewers two very telling lessons: First, that when elites like yourself speak on your high horses about denying others their rights, it rarely ever affects you. After all, that magazine is illegal in DC, but possessing it would serve your purpose, so you seem to have come across one yourself, haven’t you? Secondly, just look at how useless such laws are anyway. I’m not going to try to goad you into revealing your source, David. But I imagine you didn’t just walk into the CVS and pick that up, did you? Seems someone along the line must have disregarded and broken the law, doesn’t it?

Perhaps if those who deem themselves the arbiters of the “dialog” we’re supposed to be having about gun violence in America today were in any way interested in actually having a “dialog”, we could get somewhere.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)

Gay Groups Capitulate To Obama… Again

Let’s file this under the category: “If This Nominee Was President Bush’s…”

OutServe-SLDN Statement on Hagel Apology

(Washington, DC) Army veteran and OutServe-SLDN Executive Director Allyson Robinson released the following statement in reaction to an aplogy issued today by former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel for remarks made in 1998. The apology was reported by Washington Post.

“We are pleased that Senator Hagel recognized the importance of retracting his previous statement about Ambassador Hormel and affirming his commitment to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal and LGBT military families. We look forward to learning more about his commitment to full LGBT military equality as this nomination and confirmation process unfolds,” she said.

The hypocrisy of gay groups and their lickspittle use of kneepads when it comes to anything-Obama is more than revolting at this point.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Understanding “greed”

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:23 pm - December 7, 2012.
Filed under: Arrogance of the Liberal Elites

America’s Largest Gay Publication Runs Bigoted Op-Ed

Imagine opening an issue of Newsweek and reading this:

Hispanic women are today’s version of Uncle Tom. They give their time, money and voices to a political group that aids in oppression. To me, it’s as if, in 2012 you heard of an African American writing a check to support the KKK or of a Jewish person defending the work of skinheads.

There would be outrage, no? This is some of the worst hate-speech you can possibly imagine. It marginalizes and ostracizes people, not unifies and divides.  It continues to Balkanize America, not bring us together to find common ground.

This isn’t a passage from Newsweek, it is from this week’s Advocate MagazineAnd here’s how it really reads.

Do gay Republicans who voted for a party that says marriage is only between a man and woman believe they themselves are not worthy of love? Do gay Republicans who voted for a party that says gay people should not be allowed to adopt children believe they themselves are not worthy of family? And what would gay Republicans, who voted for Mitt Romney’s version of America, do when their beloved jobs that gave them their beloved money were taken away from them because they were gay? Who would they call: Lambda Legal, HRC… Ghostbusters?

I have heard gay Republicans say they vote according to their fiscal needs. So basically a vote is cast for their bank account while they remain spiritually bankrupt. What does it say about someone who puts money and monetary possessions above one’s self, spirit and equal rights?

Gay Republicans are today’s version of Uncle Tom. They give their time, money and voices to a political group that aids in LGBT oppression. To me, it’s as if, in 2012 you heard of an African American writing a check to support the KKK or of a Jewish person defending the work of skinheads.

This type of hate speech against one for one’s political beliefs has got to stop.  “It Gets Better” only if you are a self-loathing American gay liberal who hates his nation and wants to submit to a Government and surrender one’s identity for The Greater Good, or the Savior Obama.  The Gay “Rights” movement is no more than a front for anti-American, left-wing propoganda. 

 The Gay Left and its twisted principles of “tolerance” are summarized perfectly in this vile piece of garbage written by a bigoted, ignorant, closed minded, half-twit actor with no original thoughts of his own.

The Advocate should be ashamed that it is peddling in this garbage — but unfortunately it is merely the megaphone for the Gay Left and it’s angry, never-ending hate toward America.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Jerry Brown’s scorn for wealth creators

California was once a trend-setting state.

Today, however, it seems only to cling to ideas long since proved worthless.  Businesses are fleeing the state.  Storefronts on once bustling commercial thoroughfares sit vacant for want of retail tenants.  The unemployment rate remains above 10%.

And our governor doesn’t seem to have much respect for those who build enterprises and create jobs.  Contending that the passage of Proposition 30 last week marks “the start of a broader movement to increase taxes on the rich“, Jerry Brown said

Revenue means taxes, and certainly those who have been blessed the most, who have disproportionately extracted, by whatever skill, more and more from the national wealth, they’re going to have to share more of that. . . . And everyone is going to have to realize that building roads is important, investing in schools is important, paying for the national defense is important, biomedical research is important, the space program is an indicator of the world leader – all that takes money.

Ah, but Jerry, before that referendum passed, we were already taxed enough to pay for such things.  And other states manage to pay for roads, schools and etc., with much lower tax rates than we had before Prop 30 passed.  The issue is not the absence of revenue, but the excess of bureaucracy and the superabundance of benefits for government employees.

But, his suggestion about the state’s (supposed) revenue shortfall is only part of what is troubling in the once and current governor’s statement.  By using the verb, “extract,” to explain how wealthy citizens acquired their wealth, he all but dismisses their accomplishment, sounding scornful toward their achievement.

He seems to be suggesting that the “wealthy” extracted income from a fixed pool of national wealth, as if said pool existed in some remote locale — and they were the most conniving in accessing it and “extracting” the wealth already there.  They didn’t access the wealth, they created it, generally through their hard work and ingenuity. (more…)

SiriusXM Gay Leftist Host Michelangelo Signorile
Issues Apology, Of Sorts

Here is Bully Signorile’s attempt at apologizing, printed in full.

On Wednesday I challenged a gay caller, Wess, who expressed his support for Mitt Romney. While expressing the thought that any gay person who votes for Romney is doing himself harm, I began an analogy in the wrong place. After the caller said he voted for Romney, I said he should just get some arsenic, make a potion, and take it, which would be more painless. Not because I thought he should kill himself—I do not think gay Romney supporters should kill themselves—but because voting for someone who is committed to undermining your rights is a self-destructive behavior.

Any gay person who votes for Romney is undermining his own life, his own rights, and the lives and rights of all other LGBT people. And let’s be clear: It is Romney, with his bigoted positions (“Some gays are actually having children. It’s not right on paper. It’s not right in fact.”),who feeds a culture of hate that leads to gay teen suicides.
 
At first, I was criticized by angry, sometimes vile Romney supporters on Twitter while Obama supporters on the show and on Twitter seemed to get the point I was trying to make and defended me. I was defensive initially too, including yesterday on the show, pointing out that I was using a metaphor. We can get lost in the partisan fog of war during a heated election battle.
 
But after talking with friends over dinner last night, and after reading Andrew Sullivan’s take this morning, I can now see that my statement was not just jarring but offensive—certainly in the current climate of gay teen suicides. Sullivan is not some far-right gay Romney supporter; indeed, Sullivan and I are on the same side in the current political climate. We both support Obama and, contrary to Sullivan’s rather silly characterization of me as “far left,” he and I are actually in the same place on many issues these days, even including the role of ACT UP and direct action. We certainly agree on the issues of bullying and teen suicide, issues about which I’ve been very outspoken and passionate. If Sullivan didn’t get the point I was trying to make then I must have made it very badly.
 
I’m not making excuses, but sometimes, when you’re on the radio for four hours a day, things come out backwards. Live talk radio is essentially thinking out loud and sometimes our thoughts come out garbled. Again, I’m not making excuses, and certainly listeners have a right to expect that someone who hosts a radio show is going to be a little better at thinking out loud than the average person. And I like to think that I usually am. But it seems that all my engines weren’t firing this week. Like a lot of New Yorkers, I was operating on little sleep, with hurricane fatigue, and displaced family and friends. It was a recipe for total botch up. And I botched this one.
 
My apologies to Wess, and to my listeners.

 Posted by Signorile at9:26 AM

My shorter translation of Signorile’s statement: “Gay Romney supporters are still scum and should die, I was just tired and got caught on tape.  I’m not making excuses, but actually I am.  Also, I was ashamed into apologizing by Andrew Sullivan of all people.”

My longer take on this is that Signorile got his ass chewed out by his bosses at SiriusXM yesterday.  He was awfully arrogant and defiant towards me on Twitter during the time he was on the air.  But suddenly about 5pm, he got silent.  I think The Man who signs his check got involved.

There is no doubt that this is another win for the conservative blogosphere!  Signorile has always been like this.  I know, since he has treated me to the same treatment in the past and I was an invited guest.  So he is “sorry” because he got caught.  Typical progressive bullshit apology.

I have $100 sitting on my desk and will give it to the next person who documents that Signorile’s treatment of gay conservatives hasn’t changed.  The bet is for the next 30 days.

In the meantime, thanks very much to our reader Tim for exposing Signorile’s hate.  I will be providing Tim with a gift from our blog as well.

Now you may discuss.

UPDATE from comments on my $100 wager: 

No, Paul.  I have $100 on my desk for audio proof that Signorile STILL berates gay conservatives.  He will not change.  Maybe today or tomorrow, but he is a mean spirited radical.

He will spout off and demean and bully a gay conservative.  I have $100 waiting here for the proof that his apology was bullshit.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

GM: The Deadbeat of America

I post, you decide.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

The Blood of Stevens, Smith, Doherty and Woods Is On Obama

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Republicans Caught In Astounding Voter Fraud Scheme

Ooops!  Got that wrong.  My bad.

The son of a prominent Virginia congressman agreed to help an undercover reporter forge documents in what he thought was an illegal voting effort aimed at re-electing the president, a just-published video reveals.

After raising legal and practical concerns, Patrick Moran, son of Virginia Democrat James Moran, encouraged the reporter to create phony utility bills that would allow others to cast multiple votes in the November 6 election.

Supporters of stronger voter ID laws seized on the video as evidence of widespread corruption among liberal get-out-the-vote organizations.

“What he’s doing is soliciting fraudulent voter registrations and fraudulent ballots, and that’s a federal crime,” said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. “Even attempting to do that is federal crime — you don’t have to go through with it. Attempting it is a crime.”

This tweet from Ben Domenech pretty much puts the cherry on top. And you may watch the glorious video as well.

 

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan whom Congressman Jim Moran once called “jerky”): O’Keefe Video Spurs Son to Resign from Moran’s Campaign

A Tale of Two Recoveries

I swear the Romney/Ryan campaign is paying attention to what the conservative bloggers are talking about.  I remember watching John McCain in 2008 and screaming at the TV something like — “Hey you idiot… why didn’t you bring up [this topic] — it is all the blogs are talking about!”

Now during each debate this year, I scream something like – “Mitt must be reading my Twitter timeline!  He knew that [non-covered MSM fact or story].”

Last night I had a number of moments, but one was most important.  Many of us in the conservative blogosphere have been contrasting the Obama “Recoversession” to the actual Reagan Recovery.  It is a tale of stagnant growth and meager employment versus robust quarterly growth and the fastest job growth in post-WWII America.

Romney laid it out last night and I cheered at my TV.  Glenn Reynolds has a great graphic this morning at Instapundit that further illustrates the stark (and I mean damned-ass stark) contrast between Obama and Reagan on economic recovery.  If these are the “three decades of problems in our economy” that Obama whines he inherited — please bring more!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

The massive miscalculation of Biden’s rude strategy

At least since the dawn of the television era, image matters in politics.  In reading reactions to Joe Biden’s performance in last week’s debate, particularly those of women, I have begun to wonder if his boorishness will stick in peoples’ proverbial craws, making it increasingly unlikely that they’ll vote Democratic this fall.

Earlier today, Ed Driscoll linked Jim Barnett’s sense of how Biden’s behavior may play out over time:

There is now the long, long reverberation in social media, where the basic debate footage serves as raw material for mash-ups and parodies and treatments for the rest of the election cycle and beyond. And Biden’s performance, which won him some tactical advantage in the debate, has set him up as the target for rich satire and a way that Ryan’s conventional performance didn’t and cannot do. His performance is comic gold, and although within hard-core Dem/left circles he will be celebrated as the warrior, everywhere else, and especially for basically apolitical young YouTube viewers, he will be the jackass supreme. I suspect that by Election Day, the various parodic videos will have had a larger viewership than the debate itself. By this criterion, the tactic was a massive miscalculation.

Emphasis added.

The White House Disinformation Campaign about Benghazi

This flat-out lying to the American public by the Obama Administration is beyond the pale.

So President Obama can stand up for “Big Bird”… but our Ambassador and three other dead Americans in Benghazi were just “bumps in the road.” Roger that, Barack.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)