As we’ve noted on more than one occasion, all too many on the gay left — as well as some of their straight allies — are ever ready to call opposition to gay marriage as hate speech. Their reaction to prominent defenders of traditional marriage, like Chick-fil-A’s president Dan Cathy, resembles that of their reaction to certain prominent Republicans, from Ronald Reagan in the 1980s to Newt Gingrich in the 1990s to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin in the 2000s, to the Koch Brothers in the current decade.

Some have developed quite a habit of using harsh language to decry what they describe as “hate”.  Indeed, more often than not, their language seems far more hateful than that of the supposed haters.  Like the loyal citizens of George Orwell’s Oceania, they seem to delight in venting their negative emotions upon those deemed enemies of the party.  Yet, their venting does seem to last longer than two minutes.

Mr. Cathy’s unapologetic advocacy of traditional marriage made him — and his chicken chain — an appropriate target to which certain leftists could direct their venom.  This whole hullabaloo seemed more about the need of some to vent than about the merits (or lack thereof) of the target’s arguments.

No wonder that Glenn Reynolds, like a good number of social moderates and libertarians, doesn’t think the response to this venting, AKA Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day . . .

can be interpreted as opposition to gay marriage, so much as a response to bullying. But I do think that the bullying has probably tainted the gay-marriage brand, which is too bad. The gay-marriage argument is already winning — there’s no need to engage in Rahm Emanuel-style attacks, and doing so merely invites pushback. And, frankly, I’m happy to live in a country where people’s response to bullying is to push back.

It is those very “Rahm Emanuel-style attacks” that served as the tipping point for many social libertarians (including yours truly).  As blogging law professor William A. Jacobsen put it:

The threat to free speech represented by the actions of the liberal political leaderships in Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, D.C., New York, and Philadelphia should be the ultimate wake up call. (more…)

To get a sense of hot our friends in the mainstream media, check out this screen capture from Yahoo!’s home page this morning:

First, note that they lead with two stories critical of the surging Republican candidate. Wonder if Yahoo! ran this many stories critical about a surging Democratic candidate four years ago as a then-freshman U.S. Senator from Illinois rose in the polls. The article is amusing, particularly for the spin of writer Ryan J. Foley:

His links to the Koch brothers could undercut his outsider, non-political image among people who detest politics as usual and candidates connected with the party machine.

Says who? Did they interview any conservatives excited by his outsider appeal? Or just peddling this notion of Koch Brothers as nefarious insiders prevalent among left-wing bloggers, agitators and Beltway pundits as well as their flacks in the mainstream media?

Seems that ties to these entrepreneurial siblings are troublesome only to these folks on the left. We don’t hear from any conservatives about his such links could undercut his appeal. Indeed, Mr. Foley fails to quote anyone from the conservative rank-and-file or Tea Party activist who are concerned about these “links.”

(From now on, we need to ponder the use of “could” when referencing Republican candidates in the mainstream media.)

To justify the possibility of undercutting (suggested by that “could”, the writer only quotes a left-wing activist:

To some liberals, Cain’s rise with the help of AFP shows the incredible influence that outside groups controlled by super-wealthy individuals with specific agendas can have on the political process.

“Herman Cain is the first presidential corporate spokes-candidate,” said Scot Ross, a liberal activist who leads One Wisconsin Now, which has often mocked AFP as a front group for corporate interests.

Emphasis added.  To some liberals? Interesting how this AP writer tends to frame his coverage of the Republican campaign.

UPDATE:  John Hinderaker also takes note of the same slanted AP article and offered: (more…)

Over at the Huffington Post, they’re huffing and puffing about a new film about the Koch Brothers made by Xanadu-filmmaker Robert Greenwald who faults those libertarian entrepreneurs to raise the Social Security retirement age.  For the star witness in his “echo chamber” (his word* not mine), the director of the 1980 box office bomb turns to Bernie Sanders, the only self-professed socialist in the United States Senate.

To show just how the Koch Brothers want to “destroy Social Security,” Greenwald/Sanders provide quotes from positions papers published by (and clips of scholars who work for) think tanks which the Koch Brothers support.  But, get this, not a single one of them says he wants to defund Social Security (or otherwise repeal the New Deal program).  They just warn of its coming insolvency (seems to me that those who warn of a program’s insolvency want to save it, not destroy it) or advocating reducing the retirement age to reduce its costs (which would serve to make the program more solvent).

Scholars at conservative and libertarian think tanks aren’t the only ones who favor raising the retirement age.  According to the left-wing web-site Talking Points Memo, the president’s own fiscal commission favors indexing “the retirement age to longevity — i.e., increase the retirement age to qualify for Social Security — to age 69 by 2075.”

In 2007, Joe Biden, the man Obama would tap the following year as his running mate “told the AP in ’07 he was open to discussions about raising the cap.”  On more than one occasion, Howard Dean also said he was open to raising the retirement age for Social Security.

So, we’re supposed to believe because scholars at think tanks funded by the Koch Brothers favor an idea put forward by the president’s fiscal commission, once embraced by Howard Dean and considered by Joe Biden, the libertarian philanthropists want to “destroy” Social Security.  Methinks some on the left are a little bit too eager to demonize “corporate interests” (as Sanders calls ‘em) funding small-government causes.

Wonder if Mr. Greenwald has any plans to look into the corporate interests backing big-government causes.

It seems the Koch Brothers have become to folks like Greenwald what George W. Bush once was and Sarah Palin now is to a number of folks on the left, their demon du jour.  In honor of those Koch haters, we inaugurate today a new category, KIDS (Koch Industries Derangement Syndrome).

* (more…)