Wednesday, October 18, 2006
|
|
Who's Really Being Outed?
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
1:14 PM
|
|
I’m sorry if this topic causes embarrassment to Larry Craig and his family, but I assume by now they’ve figured out that politics in 2006 is a thoroughly rotten business. Still, there’s nothing new under the sun. Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr fought a duel when their personal animosity reached a tipping point. In short, the Republic will survive the odious presence of Mike Rogers and Glenn Greenwald.
I haven’t heard from a single conservative who gives a hoot about Larry Craig’s sexuality. I assume he’s straight as do most readers, but the overwhelming sentiment we all share is indifference.
But this story is an important one because it reveals so many pathologies of the left. Sadly, the Larry Craig “outing” reveals what the left has become.
THE FIRST LEFT WING PATHOLOGY “OUTED” by the Craig story is the relentless meanness that characterizes modern day liberalism. This is an old topic, and doesn’t deserve revisiting. If there are still people out there who think lefties lose elections because they’re too gosh darn nice, there’s nothing left to say that will convince them otherwise.
More interesting is what this line of attack tells us about the left’s beliefs regarding the right. The left strongly believes that conservatives detest homosexuals and will be disgusted by the presence of a Lavender Mafia in the GOP tent. I can understand how they would reach this conclusion – certain chronic right wing embarrassments like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have historically fed such a notion.
But if those on the left actually knew more practicing Christians, they would know that the stuff about condemning the sin but loving the sinner isn’t mere lip service. If the members of the left actually knew the people that they so casually and easily defame, they would also understand that infinite forgiveness is a hallmark of America’s Christian community.
In short, this entire offensive rests on notions hatched in the left wing echo chamber without any dissenting voices available to disabuse the strategists of the their faulty assumptions. If the left actually took the time to understand the dynamics of the community they so loathe, they would know that professional Outing Scumbag Mike Rogers will inspire the Republican base, not the opposite.
BUT MOST DAMNING OF THE LEFT is the casual assumption of group-think that this exercise demonstrates. The logic is that if you’re gay, you must therefore support gay marriage. What’s more, you must support everything that someone like Glenn Greenwald supports. To do otherwise evidences self-hatred and a betrayal of the cause.
Parenthetically, a word about my personal views: I have nothing against gay marriage. While I abhor the idea of such a controversial subject being decided by fiat by a gaggle of Massachusetts judges, I don’t consider gay marriage a threat to the union and would vote for any referendum that legalized it.
That being said, I understand the arguments against gay marriage. Some people I respect very much (hell, most of the people I respect very much) disagree with me on this. And while I disagree with them, I know that their beliefs are formed in good faith.
But it is the leftists’ assumption that opposition to gay marriage is the exclusive province of bigoted heterosexuals, self-hating homosexuals and venal Republicans. This has long been a misstep of many liberals – they reflexively assume that people who disagree with them are evil. I remember in the 1980’s liberals were convinced that conservative Reagan supporters wanted to incinerate the world. They refused to even entertain the notion that we wanted no such thing, but instead thought we had a better way to prevent such a disaster.
In the Greenwald/Rogers worldview, it is simply impossible to be gay and oppose gay marriage. Glenn Greenwald is always quick to tout his massive intellect. Let’s see if he can get his mind around this:
I have Cystic Fibrosis. My continued survival depends on medical advances. And yet I oppose embryonic stem cell research. Amazing, isn’t it? In this instance, I put principle ahead of self-interest. And I’m no saint. Good people live their lives routinely putting principle ahead of self interest.
THE MOST DEPRESSING THING about Greenwald and his ilk is that their sincerity is unquestionable. They truly believe that they have a monopoly on decency and goodness and that no person of good faith could possibly disagree with them.
The irony is that it’s always people like Greenwald and Rogers who blast President Bush for having a simplistic Manichaean world view that divides the world into good and bad. Look in the mirror, guys.
Complaints? Compliments? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.
|
|
Wasn't opposition to interracial marriage also in good faith? (Answer: yes. Evil beliefs can be held in good faith.)
I'm not comfortable with "outing" -- mainly because I think it's someone's own business if he wants to be a closeted homosexual -- but I have to admit I'd feel worse if Craig were being "outed" as something bad. There's nothing wrong with being homosexual, so it's not the same as calling him a Communist, say. And it's certainly not comparable to the way conservatives called Clinton things that were genuinely bad, like a rapist or a traitor. So while the left may not be gosh-darn nice, they still don't approach the right on the gosh-darn awful scale. |
|
...I don't think the stem-cell research comparison works. You are not a hypocrite, because you don't want the research to be available to anyone *including yourself.*
A gay politician who votes against prohibiting discrimination by sexual orientation (as Craig did) is basically denying others the things that he wants for himself. *He* doesn't want to be discriminated against for being gay, but it's OK for it to happen to other people. A better comparison would be a politician voting for an abortion ban who then goes out and has an abortion herself. |
|
"And it's certainly not comparable to the way conservatives called Clinton things that were genuinely bad, like a rapist or a traitor. So while the left may not be gosh-darn nice, they still don't approach the right on the gosh-darn awful scale."
Sure you're right! You'd never hear a liberal call Bush, Hitler, baby-killer, war-monger, retard, etc. |
|
umm... being gay might not be considered bad by you, but when you are married to a woman and are being outed with the accusation that numerous gay partners identified you, that is an attack. unless you consider fraud, adultery, and a gaggle of other moral problems ok.
dean: touche!
|
|
|
I live in Idaho and I am NOT a big fan of what I call the Senator from Big Ag because of his indifference to the illegal alien issue. That being said, my secretary's daughter was one of his staffers for over 18 months and she says that the whole story about Craig being gay is made of whole cloth. |
|
True, and that's a big objection to what was said about Craig: it was in fact accusing him of something bad (adultery). I won't try to defend that, because it's wrong.
Ozymandias - The thing is that the people who called Clinton a rapist and murderer were high-level pundits, talk-show hosts and even politicians. GOP politicians actually argued that Vince Foster had been murdered. When similar accusations against Bush come from Democratic politicians (I haven't heard anything comparable except the McCaskill comment about him letting people drown), then we'll talk. |
|
|
A tiny minority of Americans, (radical homosexuals), demand the redefinition of an institution, (marriage), and then call those who don't support their delusion "homophobes", "hypocrites" and "evil". I've tried to figure out how this is supposed to be a persuasive argument but the best I can come up with is that they're a joke. |
|
|
How dare you accuse liberals of meanness when the Republican Party and politacal operators like you draw a huge amount of support from the demonization of gay people -- demonization that destroys people's lives and families. This is a perfect example of the twisted logic that is destoying America. Larry Craig is a hypocrite willing to destroy other gay people for his own personal gain. Pointing out that hypocrisy is nothing but self-defence. |
|
I can't believe it!!!!
I have been waiting for years for at least one conservative to show some reasonableness and admit "certain chronic right wing embarrassments like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson."
This is the first responsible thing I have ever heard a conservative say.
Thanks Dean, you have moved up about a quarter of a notch in my respect list. |
|
|
It's easy to say most anything if you don't support it with facts. Yes, I've heard the cocaine-running, Foster-murdered, rapist theories too. Since you seem to be aware of all these high-level conservative politicians that accused Clinton of these things, please name one or two will you? |
|
First, Jimmy's Attack Rabbit, followed by RichB.
Congratulations RichB for maniacally proving Carter's Killer Bunny's point. Please show us how or where homosexuals have been 'demonized' by Dean or 'the Republican Party'.
I'm sure you can find an individual Republican or two as exceptions proving the rule.
Oh, and please remember that neither hysterical laughter or a failure to send birthday party invitations are acts of demonization. |
|
Mike Rogers has been quite accurate in his outing activities. Are you going to argue that any of these people aren't gay?
US Representatives
Rep. Ed Schrock (VA)
Rep. David Drier (CA)
Rep. James McCrery (LA)
Rep. Mark Foley (FL)
US Senators
Sen Barbara Mikulski (MD)
Senior GOP Staff
Jay Timmons, NRSC
Dan Gurley, RNC
Jay Banning, RNC
Senior Senate Staffers
Robert Traynham, Santorum
Jonathan Tolman, Inhofe
Kirk Fordham, Martinez
Dirk Smith, Lott
John Reid, Allen
Paul Unger, Allen
Linus Catignani, Frist
Senior House Staffers
Jim Conzelman, Oxley
Lee Cohen, Hart
Robert O'Conner, King
Pete Meachum, Brown-Waite
Bush Staff
Israel Hernandez
Jeff Berkowitz
And as for why the accusations are anonymous, who in their right mind would admit to having sex with Larry Craig? |
|
http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/look/burton/
"Dan Burton thinks the White House bugs his phone. Dan Burton is so convinced Vince Foster was murdered that he brought a pistol into the backyard of his Indiana home and reenacted the crime -- reportedly with a pumpkin standing in for Foster's head."
This guy was the head of the "House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight" (back when the House still did oversight). But hey, we all know John Conyers would be a really crazy Committee chairman... |
|
"Please show us how or where homosexuals have been 'demonized' by Dean or 'the Republican Party'.
I'm sure you can find an individual Republican or two as exceptions proving the rule."
Like, maybe, George Bush who supported Texas anti-sodomy laws making it legal for the police to break down your door and arrest you in your own house for just being gay?
|
|
I find this offensive:
"But if those on the left actually knew more practicing Christians, they would know that the stuff about condemning the sin but loving the sinner isn’t mere lip service. If the members of the left actually knew the people that they so casually and easily defame, they would also understand that infinite forgiveness is a hallmark of America’s Christian community."
This implies that there are no Christians on the left, that none of those on the left who call themselves Christian are practicing Christians, and/or that people on the left have no right to call themselves part of the Christian community. I am not even Christian, and I find that offensive.
You are making the same mistake many liberals make: lumping everyone on the other side into some radical stereotype. Isn't that what you were writing against, the liberals lumping all conservatives into one gay-hating stereotype? In the future, you should try not to do the exact thing you are ranting about, because it makes you look ignorant. You should start out by assuming that liberals are just as different from one another as conservatives are, and stop assuming the same untrue things about us that you are complaining we assume about you.
Those of us with brains over here on the left know that not all Republicans are homophobic religious nuts, just as those of you with brains over there on the right know that not all Democrats are immoral atheists. Do not let yourself fall into the trap of letting a few loud idiots form your opinion of what half the nation is like.
It's as if half of America--half of all liberals and half of all conservatives--have suddenly forgotten that the adult way to deal with injury is forgiveness, not revenge. So, I forgive you for implying that there are no liberal Christians, because I think you spoke before you thought, and it was an honest mistake. Perhaps if enough of us start forgiving each other for having different beliefs, we can put aside this divisiveness and start understanding one another again. |
|
From America's Anchorman, Rush Limbaugh:
"There's a Washington consulting firm that has scheduled the release of a report that will appear, it will be published, that claims that Vince Foster was murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton, and the body was then taken to Fort Marcy Park."
If he's America's Anchorman, then America's in even worse shape than I thought. (What he said above would be the equivalent of a left-wing host hyping a report that said that Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks or some such crazy thing.) |
|
Dean, you really hit the mark here, as is obvious from the screeching hysterical comments from liberals.
What a stupid argument - Rogers was right the first TWO times he outed somebody, ergo he is right about Larry Craig. Give me a break. And that list is totally weak. Any active Republican or Democrat in Washington could give you dozens more. They don't, because THEY DON'T CARE! Only delusional liberals like Mike Rogers think conservatives actually care who is and isn't homosexual. He is desperate to draw out some "hate" reaction. Makes you wonder who is really the self-hating homosexual here. |
|
"Only delusional liberals like Mike Rogers think conservatives actually care who is and isn't homosexual"
Maybe you should take a look at the top of Townhall.com's website, where you will find:
Why electing Rick Santorum matters
"I'd like to know what specifically pro-life things Casey is willing to vote for. Because I've been to his Web site and I can't see any information there." This is not just jousting on my part. Bob Casey says he's against gay marriage, but he's also opposed to every possible way to stop gay marriage -- not only a federal marriage amendment, but a state marriage amendment for Pennsylvania, too. And these days many people feel they have a right to redefine the most basic words (such as "marriage"). Why not "pro-life," too?
Lest you've forgotten, Santorum has argued that the state should have the right (if not moral obligation) to arrest gay people in their own homes just for being gay.
From Santorum's interview with the Associated Press concerning the Texas sodomy ban case before the Supreme Court (a ban supported by George Bush):
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," Santorum said.
|
|
Snap,
"Wasn't opposition to interracial marriage also in good faith? (Answer: yes. Evil beliefs can be held in good faith.)"
There you go again, perfectly illustrating Dean's point:
"This has long been a misstep of many liberals – they reflexively assume that people who disagree with them are evil."
We think you guys are idiots and moral avoidists. You think we're evil. Is it any surprise that your view makes you meaner? "Evil" is worse than "idiot."
|
|
Let me add that there have been homosexuals in high ranking Republican jobs since the administration of Ronald Reagan - as governor of California. There were gays in Reagan's White House, gays in the administration of Bush I, and gays in this Administration.
If all of these people are not stampeding out of the closet to support gay marriage, maybe that is more of a commentary on the need for gay marriage than on the principles of these gay people or the acceptance of gays by conservatives. I wonder if any liberals would even consider that possibility. |
|
RichB,
"Lest you've forgotten, Santorum has argued that the state should have the right (if not moral obligation) to arrest gay people in their own homes just for being gay."
The quote you provided doesn't show that Santorum argued that the state SHOULD have the right to arrest people in their homes "just for being gay." He argued that nothing in the Constitution can rightly be interpreted as providing a right to consensual sexual conduct. Which it doesn't. The "right to privacy" depends on the infamous "penumbras and emanations" (read: political preferences of a group of 1960s-1970s-vintage justices).
You will recall that Justice Thomas, who voted against finding a Constitutional right to sodomy, described the Texas law under challenge as "an uncommonly silly law" which should not have been enacted. That's democracy, though: the people can occasionally be stupid.
You guys seem genuinely puzzled that large numbers of people should object to having their long-held religious beliefs branded "evil" and bigoted. Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't, but you can't whack people with a stick and then shriek "STOP DEMONIZING ME!" when they argue back. |
|
|
You just made my point. Opposition to same-sex marriage does not equal hatred of homosexuals. Nothing in Senator Santorum's comments or Maggie Gallagher's column signifies hatred of homosexuals. The law was called the Defense of Marriage Act, not the Burn Homos At The Stake Act. I get that liberals can't distinguish between the two. But that is your problem, not mine. |
|
TheProudDuck:
Well, some beliefs *are* evil. Do you not agree that being in favor of a legal ban on interracial marriage is an "evil" belief? That doesn't mean everybody who believed it was evil. In the '60s, polls showed that something like 70% of Americans were against interracial marriage (more than are currently against gay marriage!), and I don't think 70% of Americans are evil. But some views are just morally wrong even if the people who hold them are acting in good faith. |
|
I am going to make a generalization and I do not want your forgiveness . . . .
It appears the only people who care about your race, religion, sex or sexual preference seem to be the so called open minded libs. They do it all in the so called name of equality but out of their own ignorance only divide the public by race, religion, sex or sexual preference into groups, creating the appearance of a poor and down trodden that they can prey off at election time !
|
|
|
*evil* is sawing someone’s head off while being video taped. I would maybe use words like *misguided* or *backward* to describe opposition to interracial marriages. Also, it wasn’t only the evil rethuglican whites who were opposed to interracial marriages back in the day. |
|
|
I believe the women who were raped by Clinton actually made those claims. Pundits repeated them. I don't recall Dole or anyone else official ever saying those things about the President Bill Clinton (who has no law license because he was impeached and was accused of being sexually aggressive and abusive by many women). Oh I'm sorry was I too mean? |
|
As I respect your opinions and you mine, I must point out the stench of relativism in this particular one.
Would it be a threat to the union to vote for legalizing polygamy? (Harry Reid votes for Gay marriage and against legalizing polygamy). Why? What's the difference?
Would it be a threat to the union to vote for a new nationwide school curriculum teaching our children that it's ok to lie? Or any other "sin" that Christians try in vein to avoid?
Legalizing gay marriage only puts this country, with its beautiful history of creating laws that have a moral and/or biblical foundation, on the slippery slope to nihilism.
Now...I understand that non-Christians feel this is bs, that each person should have their own moral compass...but really, if that is the case, considering they wouldn't teach their own children that it is ok to lie to them, don't you feel that your position is quite hypocritical?
|
|
Ever seen this argument?:
"Here's a quote from someone at (kos) or (lgf) therefore the entire (left) (right) wing is (something bad)."
It's lazy generalization, the kind you're indulging in here by pretending everyone left of Karl Rove outed Mr. Craig and not one irresponsible man.
Greenwald's a lightning rod for folk like you because his MO's different. He says "I believe (X) to be true: here are many examples and links that illustrate the belief.
He does this time and again, routinely providing the back-up that is so conspicuously absent in the chin-stroking essays of those who despise him.
No wonder you guys hate him so much. And no wonder none of you ever get around to addressing what he actually writes. |
|
the dems have done it again, calling Steele a 'slave' and thinking that outing gay men is going to get the dems votes or suppress Republican votes.
They have blown it.
This is their Weldon moment. |
|
Post mortem liberalism defined as post-modern liberalism has been with us the past 25 years. The ideological underpinnings and assumptions died over 20 years ago, but the vestige of a decayed and bankrupt body still writhes and jerks.
Bereft of original thought, creativity, and analytical insight it has long sense lost visionary focus, and consequently, the leaders needed to keep it dynamic.
Of course its residual body is still with us, but rather than being peopled by the best and brightest, it is the housing of the corrupt and naive; leaders who know it is bankrupt but still use it to attain power (see Clinton), and those who don't know any better (see Gore).
So in its corruption and blindness it resorts to personal attacks because it does not have recourse to any other type of persuasion.
Thus disgusting displays like the "outing" of a Senator from Idaho.
This country will surely be better off when Liberalism discards its old body of ideas and starts to do the hard conceptual and visionary work it so desperately needs, so as be relevant beyond just throwing rocks at everything it doesn't like.
I'll likely still not agree with its premise, but I'll at least be able to respect it. |
|
According to the blackmailer, public policy HAS NOT been determined based on who the legislator allegedly has sex with.
This, the left calls a scandal.
|
|
|
That's quite a throng of conservatives you've listed as examples. |
|
The real problem is plural marriage, which was a foundation of paganism, which the West represents a turn away from. If you can marry a man in one state and a woman in another, and then go to a third and claim to be a threesome, a foundation of the West - the democractization of marriage, in a sense, where there's a chicken in every pot and a wife available somewhere for every man - will have been broken.
Moreover, civil unions, as soon as enacted, will be used by straights, more than gays, as a sort of marriage lite. Civil unions are therefore a greater threat than gay mariiage. The law should say each of us can marry one person. That's the key to preserving the essence of what is valuable and virtuous in Western Civ. |
|
|
That might end a lot of this bickering. If Greenwald had to face the possibility someone might call him out-he might be a little more polite. |
|
|
RichB- Really who cares! Do you really believe that all conservatives in the republican party do research on the sex lives of people before they cast their vote. Rogers has been less than entertaining and he does more harm than good. It's just one more example of a radical liberal engaging in politics of destruction and it never works. |
|
|
The idea that conservative voters just "don't care" about the sexual orientation of their leaders is really laughable. Just like the California voters did not care whether Senator Bruce Herschensohn visited a strip club. Oh, yeah, I forgot, he LOST that election, didn't he? I have no doubt that there are lots of conservative Christian voters who really don't care about the sexual orientation of their leaders. But certainly there is another large group that does care. Why else did the Bush-Cheney campaign work so hard to make Cheney's gay daughter virtually invisible during the campaign? And, if I recall correctly, Hugh Hewitt called Kerry's mention of the Cheney’s daughter a dirty trick designed to turn off evangelical voters. Why is it a "dirty" trick if there is no stigma to being gay? Would it be a dirty trick if someone "outed" a right-hander as being a secret lefty? Of course not. Some voters must care about this, or else no one would care |
|
I'll concede that Burton was a bit batty, but you've got lots of those, so its a moot point.
And the Limbaugh quote you cited was merely a statement of fact: "Some group is releasing some press release." Limbaugh has also said similar things along the lines of "Code Pink has issued a press release...", but that doesn't mean he's endorsing the content of their press release. What an absurd argument!
And RichB...
**"[On 'demonizing gays'] George Bush who supported Texas anti-sodomy laws making it legal for the police to break down your door and arrest you in your own house for just being gay?"
Are you serious? An anti-sodomy law, which has probably been around for more than a century, is somehow meant to indicate that GWB has "demonized gays"? Is that really the best you can come up with?
You, like Greenwald, are arguing with strawmen using horribly miscontrued facts or half-truths. |
|
Exactly what business is it of anyone concerning a public personalitie's child's sex life: whether he or she is heterosexual or gay; is permiscuous or virgin; has an STD or is as clean as the driven snow.
What can possibly be more pathetic than to attmept to score political points by delving into someone's explicitly private life who in no way shape or form asked for or deserves such scrutiny.
Whether or no you believe there might be a stigma or not is none of your business, and therefore is foul, pathetic, and scurolous; regardless of whether you are tar and feathering someone as a prude, gay, or hopelessly hetero and monagomous and therefore a hypacritcal clone.
It's not all about you. Everyone here on this planet is not fodder for your self gratification.
Or to put it another way why would you go after someone's child if you didn't hope to score political points. |
|
Hey, I never said I supported "outing" the child of a politician. Mary Cheney was already "out" when Edwards mentioned her in the VP debate. While I cannot claim to read Edwards' mind, I always thought his purpose was to humanize gays, to make it harder to stigmatize them. After all, if Cheney's daughter is gay, maybe some voters would re-think their prejudices. Remember, Dick Cheney's immediate response was to express gratitude to Edwards, not outrage. Later the Bush campaign realized that there was political mileage to be had in faux outrage, so Mrs. Cheney was trotted out to call Kerry a "bad man."
I'm inclined to agree that if Mary Cheney had been in the closet, it would not be right to out her. But she was out and, I believe, has recently published a book about her role in the Bush Cheney campaign. Certainly we are not dealing with Mary Cheney's "explicitly private life," as you put it. If she is "out," would it be wrong for the media to report that fact, and if so, why? If not, why is it wrong for a politican to comment on it?
What really bothered me about Dick Cheney was that he had so little loyalty to his own daughter that he had her work in the campaign but tried to keep her out of sight for fear of alienating voters.
My original post addressed a different point, Barnett's claim that the "overwhelming sentiment" of conservatives regarding the sexual preference of a Senator is "indifference," and that this type of disclosure will actually "inspire the Republican base, not the opposite." I think that's, at best, wishful thinking. Do you disagree?
|
|
|
Great post & very amusing comments. I would say that that the Democrats have shot their bolt if they think that calling someone "gay" is a bad thing. On the other hand, Dean, if you really support gay marriage, then you will probably also be interested in "gay triangles", which are geometric shapes exactly the same as regular triangles except they have four sides. |
|
Dale,
I am sure we all have our own impressions about why Edwards referenced Mary Cheney. I was watching the debate and I saw it as an amazingly crass attempt to create a wedge between evangelical voters and the Bush/Cheney ticket. Edawards, being a skilled trial attorney, knows how to pick his words and craft an attack to appear to be a defense. He knew exactly what he was doing and went ahead and did it.
I notice that you did not even bother to mention Kerry's far less skillful repeat. After the reception accorded Edwards' remarks, you have to have an amazing ability to suspend disbelief to accept the references as anything other than attacks - coordinated by the highest level of the Democratic Party and put forward by its candidates for the presidency.
And you are wrong in your claim that Cheney was trying to 'hide' his daughter. She was very active and outgoing during the campaign. She came to my town for an appearance and I heard her interviewed on the radio numerous times.
I think if one attempts to fairly characterize Cheney's behavior with regard to his daughter, it is clear that he is a loving and protective father. He knows that he can and will take shots as a candidate for high office, but his family, especially his children, should not have to because of him.
The issue for most conservatives, is not what a person's particular proclivities are, but rather how one acts upon them. The Republican base cares about someone being an open and aggressive womanizer far more than it does about what a homosexual does in his or her private life. And too many Democrats feel that the private is public. Unless it is is to their perceived advantage to try to cover up for a Democrat or tar a Republican.
To claim that there is moral equivalency between inter-racial marriage, whatever that is, and homosexual marriage is a red-herring as well as risible and misleading. The overriding principle for and behind marriage is the creation and nuturing of children. That object is, as a matter of natural fact, unobtainable outside of the union of a man and a woman. |
|
"You bastards"
tsk-tsk... such language.
"have this little mindset"
I'll thank you for not diminishing my mindset.
"that you get to set the rules, which mean[s]..."
I love it when they tell us what we mean. It's so helpful. By "getting" to "set" "the rules", I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it means "we get to set The Rules."
"...that anyone on your side gets a 'pass' regardless of what they do, while you run your so-called 'morality' on your opponents as a tool to wreck them."
This strikes me as one of those times where a person pointing a finger has 3 pointing right back at himself...
Gerry Studds wasn't too wrecked.
Mark Foley who was merely alleged to have done the things that Congressman Studds ACTUALLY did got no pass whatsoever.
"Too bad, shitheads."
tut-tut...
"You're hoist on your own petards now, and you're going down the tubes."
What a nasty mixed metaphor. I'd hate to see the size tubes this poster has that a person hoist upon a petard would also fit down it. Ick.
"I suggest you all start slinking back to that stinking swamp you oozed out of and get back under your rocks, because Justice is coming, and you're all in the sights."
Hmm... that sounds like a threat of violence.
"We're going to de-Republicanize America the way we de-Nazified Germany 60 years ago."
Sure thing, Pink-Boy. Whatever you say. |
|
From our dear friend "Truth" Teller:
"We're going to de-Republicanize America the way we de-Nazified Germany 60 years ago."
What "way" is that? Hanging the leadership, jailing the middle echelons, barring all former Republicans from public life? Remind me again which side is supposed to be the closet Nazis here?
Fortunately, not all liberals are like this guy, but he's got plenty of company in being pink on the outside, brown underneath. (I was trying to think of a nasty slurry metaphor like "oreo" or "apple," but the closest I could get was "inside-out steak" -- steak's normally pink on the inside (unless you're my misguided beef-charring mother-in-law) and brown outside.) |
|
Okay - So the republican party "mastermind" Karl Rove didn't pander to the religious base during the last election by pushing gay marriage bans in the several states to increase conservative voter turnout? I didnt hear numerous republican leaders on the daily news shows running up to the election constantly squack on and on how "traditional" marriage was under attack by "activist judges." None of that happened? Was that all some really long and really pathetic dream?
Honestly, i dont give a flying sh*t who is or isn't gay. But to say the republican party, as a whole, has not pandered to the anti-gay segment of their own party is simply a LIE. You want an example,how about the Sup Court nominee process? Alito- Roberts - anybody?? Republican bloggers were jumping with joy and predicting - no less- that not only would roe v. wade be overturned (more pandering to the religious base) but gay marriage prohibitions would be sure to be upheld by the Sup Ct if a case were to get there. These "conservative" judges would reign in the activist (read: liberal) judges for years to come, overturn precedent, and make all their republican dreams come true. Plzzz. If the republican party didnt pander to their base on fear: 1) of terrorists 2)gay people and 3)immigrants - - what pray tell would they run their campaign on? Fiscal responsibility? An ability to competently handle international diplomacy?
If religion is the opiate of the masses, then it would appear fear is the brown-tar heroin of the masses. Get ready for rehab beginning Nov 7.
|
|
"They truly believe that they have a monopoly on decency and goodness and that no person of good faith could possibly disagree with them."
I think that the Left self-identifies in exactly this manner: "We are THE people who care." Period. That is the definition of their politics.
You cannot reason with true believers.
|
|
Windy: So are you saying that judges are NOT likely to impose gay marriage? Tell that to Massachusetts.
Look, pard, YOU guys are the ones who raised the gay-marriage issue. YOU are the ones actively trying to have those with whom you disagree labelled bigots. YOU are proposing the radical change in the status quo -- and then you accuse us of "pandering" for not just rolling over and letting you have your way.
News flash: People disagree. They generally have principled reasons to do so. You have principled reasons (I presume) for wanting gay marriage instituted. Whether you accept that my reasons for opposing you are similarly principled is your business, but regardless, I'll assure you they are.
Nobody would be talking about "gay marriage prohibitions" if people, the majority of whom would rather keep marriage the way it is and resent your self-righteous characterization of that position as "evil," did not have a reasonable perception that the courts are likely to ignore their preferences, and impose gay marriage by judicial fiat. I would rather that not happen. I doubt I would lose too much sleep if they did -- I don't "fear" the prospect by any measure -- but I'm not just going to roll over and concede the day to you, either. You make your argument, and I'll make mine; in the end, we'll see who's convinced more voters.
I love how, when liberals push their agenda, it's Advancing The Noble Cause and Keeping An Eye On The Prize, but when conservatives defend what they believe in, it's "pandering." You seem like you'd be much happier in a country without an opposition. There's a word for that kind of country.
And don't give me that crap about "fear," when your side has been waxing hysterical about an imminent decline of America into honest-to-George fascism. Please. We're so short of even the freedom-threatening excesses of FDR and Wilson that it's laughable -- and we arguably face a greater threat. (Hmm...Islamic fanatics with the demonstrated capacity to kill thousands vs. a few incompetent Galleanists with handmade bombs.) |
|
I would say that while we are short of the "freedom-threatening excesses of FDR and Wilson," the threat of fascism is greater because it is more open-ended. We will never be, to use Dean Barnett's immortal words, "perfectly safe." We will never erradicate evil, nor even place it in a box. And yet, the Republicans and the current President act as though the presence of risk and the presence of evil in the world compells us to take drastic measures into some indefinite future. Actually, they act this way because it is politically beneficial--to their eternal dishonor.
At least with FDR and Wilson's wars, there were no grandiose objectives about ridding the world of evil-doers or transforming the hearts of men. Sure there was idealistic talk, but it did not govern our exit strategy. Since the GWOT has devolved into a Republican re-election gimmick, it behooves them to string it out indefinitely. Hopefully, 2006 will be the year when the American electorate tells Republicans to stop beating that horse and get serious for a friggin change. If not, it will come in 08 or 10 or 12. At some point, the ugly realities of politically motivated warfare become too obvious to ignore.
Additionally, both FDR and Wilson came from a background that had deep respect for our democratic traditions. This generation of Republicans are so consumed with their own sense of moral entitlement that they think it is better for our country if they win with a cheat than lose fairly. Seriously, you Republicans. What is better for America? The GOP winning under shady circumstances and continuing to govern? or the Dems winning one fair and square? And given this authoritarian disrespect for democratic traditions, how can there not be greater susceptibility to fascism than in previous eras?! In all honesty, I don't especially think this generation of Americans has the civic character and moral equipment for democracy. When it comes to our civic life, we have been running on fumes, on the residue of what our ancestors built up. Most Americans today respect power far more than they respect ideas. That's just a fact--and it permeates our media, our politics, our culture. Its bad for democracy, though.
As for gay marriage, it seems unfair that gay couples would have to subsidize straight couples. The first principle in morality is the ability to put yourself in someone elses shoes (yes, it trumps a personal relationship with Jesus). The argument for treating gay people with equity and fairness springs from the first moral principle. Still, cultural norms are hard things to break, and more often than not, they should not be broken. It is a shame that conservatives need to personally know someone who is gay (a nephew, an aunt, a good family friend) for the issue to finally resonate with them. It is a lack of character, in my opinion, that something has to happen to your personally for you to see the logic. But in the final analysis, cultural change occurs from the bottom-up. The rubber hits the road in politics with fiscal policy, and so this "gay marriage" this is just a bunch of sand in the air. Gay people should hold off on their cultural demands and join with the Democracy to bring about fiscal choices that are more in-line with the public interest than, as we have seen with Republicans, private advantage. And in the meantime, we can accord these Christianist leaders and their Republican puppet-masters all the contempt that low character deserves. I know many decent Church-goers--in a semi-disciplined way, I'm one myself. And I know that while the antipathy towards gay people is rooted in something ignoble and uninteresting, these church-goers are almost uniformly nice guys and decent people. As a rule, I think conservatives are nicer in person than liberals, and liberals are nicer 'in the abstract.' Maybe a guy has only so much "nice" energy to give. But the exceptional souls are those who are nice both interpersonally and in the abstract. And Lord protect us from the soul who is not only a jerk in the abstract, like most conservatives, but also a jerk interpersonally.
Enough of this. Until next time..
|
|
North Shore,
Much of what you say is reasonable. But I don't think you really believe that the Republican base is so wonderfully open minded about, as they say, "sodomy." You accuse Edwards of a "crass attempt to create a wedge between evangelical voters and the Bush/Cheney ticket." You say that Mary Cheney had to "take shots" because of her father. You complain about "attacks [on Mary Cheney] coordinated by the highest level of the Democratic Party." If Edwards had mentioned that Mary Cheney was left-handed, would the words "crass," "attack" and "shot" have come to mind? I don't think so.
Remember it had been widely reported in the press that Mary Cheney was gay; she was out. So all Edwards did was take information that was widely available in the media and repeat it to a larger audience. Look, either a substantial part of the conservative base stigmatizes gays and lesbians, or it doesn't. If the conservative base is indifferent, as you claim, to the sexual preference of politicians, then why all the moral indignation about the allegedly despicable Democratic tactics? Let's be honest: if the same discussion had occurred at a city council debate in, e.g., Berkeley, no one would have been accused of dirty tricks because Mary Cheney's sexual orientation would not be perceived as a negative, certainly not as scandalous.
To believe your argument, you have to believe that the Democratic party, with all its consultants, polls and focus groups, is completely clueless, and has this wholly erroneous belief that some members of the Republican base would be put off by this, but, golly, there just aren't any Republicans like that. Republicans like you, on the other hand, know that their base is just as open minded on this topic as a bunch of San Franciscans, but also know that the Democrats aren’t in on this secret, and, being despicable, are willing to publish Mary Cheney's lesbianism in the mistaken belief that someone cares. The poor clueless Democrats just don’t realize that no one on the right cares. Certainly no one on the left cares. Heck, no one at all cares. No reason to even debate whether Title VII should be amended to protect gays and lesbians because discrimination against gays (unlike, say, discrimination based on sex) is no more common than discrimination against tall people. Hallelujah!
The truth, of course, is rather simpler: there is homophobia in the Republican base. See, e.g., B-Rob's post above. Of course, it is becoming less socially acceptable to be honest about such beliefs, just as it is no longer socially acceptable to make racist remarks in public. So now the official line has become we’re “indifferent.” I hope so. But if there were no stigma, there would be no basis for attacking the Democrats for their allegedly despicable tactics. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
Dale--lives of course get in the way of the fun of politics. Or we might say snooze you loose. So although a myriad of thoughtful issues (and unfortunately rock throwing) has intervened since our previous posts, with apologies, I'll confine this post to your reply, and those who stayed on point. No offense to anyone who wanted to go after other salient points.
You asked me to read your post again-consider it done. You must concede, I think, that dedicating half your original post to Mary Chaney does indeed (by the way the pompous voice can be too much fun to ignore) make her and the circumstance of her celebrity central to your argument.
But I concur; she was only the proof of your argument, or the other half of your original post. Something intrinsically wrong don't you think using a child of a politician as a proof? I think you do.
Did you know that Edward's sister is a virgin spinster? Should Republicans use her as an example in a debate seen by hundreds of millions of people around the globe as an example of moral rectitude; a counter weight to a Western Pop culture steeped in a celebration of salacious sexual lassitude that leads to disease and death! It's no secret to family, friends, acquaintances, that she is opposed to the nihilist holy grail of existential existence--free sex. Surely Republicans would be justified in using her as an exemplum of metaphysical moral priority in a presidential debate.
Or would you be stunned if Dick Cheney said "well you know your spinster sister who's a 40 year old virgin is a wonderful woman, and she is who she is and we all admire her for the life choices she has made. She is extraordinarily brave in living who she is and living her morality. And we support you for supporting her virginity."
Surely you understand it doesn’t matter what Dick Cheney’s response was. Surely you understand it doesn’t matter what motive you impute to Mary's parent's indignation. Edward's and later Kerry's (thank you North Shore--I forgot) motive is null and void. Their verbal act was vile, despicable, disgusting. It wasn't about you or me, or Mary's parent's or Kerry or Edwards. It was about decency; it was about Mary Cheney. It was about self-respect. Men or women who have none will have none for others and that is what Kerry and Edwards displayed all too candidly.
Too the nabobs--I'm lying about Edward's sister. I don't even know if he has one.
Dale, I confess I did not know Mary was gay. I was unaware that she had gone before the nation and proclaimed her sexual orientation. Was she on Barbara Walters, or perhaps the view? Did she have an interview with King, Blitzer, or was she on the Factor?
I have been a bit of a political junkie in my life being a democratic delegate for ol' Jessie in the days of Dukasis; which is not to say that her preference wasn't known by many, but I don't think that it was as widely known as you infer.
Of course you and I both know that the fact she is writing a book after the cat-is-out-of-the-bag is irrelevant.
Don't you think America is a great country! Here we are talking about sexuality and not being thrown into jail like we would in an Islamic one, or possibly would be in Europe.
Now as to the other half of your orginal post.
|
|
"The idea that conservative voters just 'don't care' about the sexual orientation of their leaders is really laughable."
Indeed there will be conservative voters that will not vote in this election because they disapprove of certain life styles and activities, but of course there will be liberal ones as well. That MSM is fixated on who is doing whom doesn't mean they have had the impact they have arrogantly presumed for themselves.
Or to put it another way, Dean is right.
Side Bar: Yo nabobs and rock throwers: cursing does not make you sophisticated or urbane; it merely makes you obnoxious and vulgar. Oh and lest I forget---ohhhhhhh soooo boring!!!!!!!!!
Now then, lets see, the Democrats we were assured after 2004 had to reach out to Church going Americans. Pelosi, Reed and sundry were out there explaining the trinity to the faithful. They were quoting passages from the bible. Their handlers and strategizers were saying, "you have to reach out to "Traditionally Religious Americans." We heard Democrats talking about their "mythio-cultural roots" which is none to amusing because they don't even understand their secular humanist ones.
In any case I confess, I'm at a loss, if we accept your premise that Religious Conservatives will be put off by the homosexual issue as it pertains to personal conduct, that it will in the end be an ingratiating and confidence building bridge from the Democratic Party to Religious Conservatives. Or is it that the rhetoric of Pelosi and Reed was just a hypocritical mantra never meant to be taken seriously by anyone. Nope I don't think so--at least at the time. I just think that they believe their political fortunes will be enhanced if they disgust the religious right. Of course that means that they have the integrity and self-respect of a windsock. How that exactly makes them fit for leading the country is more esoteric than I can sound.
Now accepting that the betting chips are on the table, don’t you think it is a bit desperate? Democrats are betting that religious conservatives will be so disgusted that there are gay Republicans that they'll prefer gay Democrats holding legislative power. Or has the Democratic Party purged itself of its gay members? You can see that the premise is absurd on its face.
By the way is that the intent of the "outers"? Do they hope to purify the Republican Party by 2008 so that the "religious right" will return to the fold and come out in over-whelming numbers to ensure another four to eight years of Republican rule? (Just asking?) Is the country really better off having a Republican Party purged of gay members? How about moderate Democrats? Should they be purged? Should they be outed? Because you and I both know that there are Democrats in contested areas that could be made uncomfortable if they had to deal with sexuality issues. (No I'm not saying I have some insider information--just the odds of the thing.) Should they have too? If illegal--yes. If not--no. Assuming the politician doesn't make it an issue on his or her own terms in the first place. Then it doesn't matter what we think, but is rather a matter of public consciousness.
So why is Dean right? Well it has to do with sociology, anthropology, and culturiology (or some such). It has to do with birds of a feather flocking together, etc.
The most conservative Americans tend to live in the most conservative areas of the country: for obvious reasons. Those who don' have a marginal impact on political races. So if you turn off the most implacable conservative in the most conservative district there are still far too many to turn a vote in the favor of a Democrat.
On the other hand the urbane republicans that tend to be more flexible on such issues (if for no other reason than necessity, or the ameliorating effect of a helter skelter social dynamic) will not and do not care, and in fact will be off-put and energized by the "dirty tricks."
But what about the Senate races? The dynamics are far too large to be actually affected by a minuscule disaffected few that would rather see an even more liberal consciousness take power than the present one they may perceive as too worldly.
It is unreasonable to suggest that someone who is holding a pot that is too hot will say, "here take this it's too hot, give me that burning coal instead."
Thank God we live in a country such as ours where we can participate in the rough and tumble expression of ideas and not die for it.
Cordially, |
|
Anyone who is still on this page should link back to Glenn Greenwald, where he points out that he never defended the outing of Larry Craig or said the other things attributed to him by Barnett which, in Barnett's view, renders Greenwald an "odious presence."
Don't expect an apology (or meaningful reply) from Barnett.
|
|
|
Something else to chew on. Merely anecdotal, but I have Democratic friends who have never voted Republican in their lives. You know what--they're not going to vote. Now why do you suppose that is? |
|
I say Rove et al pandered to the base because I truly believe that they really are not worried about a few thousand gay couples ruining marriage for the entire world. Look at the f-in facts. Marriage as an institution is bordering on a joke. More than half of all marriages end in divorce, multiple divorces, step-children, and all that baggage are the NORM. What possible damage would gay people do to this "sacred" institution? When i see or hear a bill frist, m.d. or rick santorum discuss this issue, its like their trying to scare little kids. Unfortunately, many sheeple fall for it. And i know hysterics are thrown on both sides of the aisle, but on this issue its particularly pathetic. Not as pathetic as the Terry Schiavo fiasco mind you(whatever happened to States rights conservatives anyway?) but pathetic nonetheless.
You want to know what bugs you, in my humble opinion? Your alleged conservative party is no longer a conservative party. Its a fiscally irresponsible, big government pile of incompetence and stupidity certified on high by God. Dick Cheney is borderline retarded, okay? He still thinks Baghdad is a good vacation spot because the U.S. armed forces keep doing such a good job.(i am not harping on the soldiers here) Despite 100 violent deaths a fricking day - its still "things have never been better." Better for what? Halliburton & KBR? Your party's leaders are in constant denial of reality. The American people KNOW THIS. We hear what they say, and we look around and wonder, what the f-ck is this guy talking about? Is this guy even on the same planet?
And as far as liberals calling repubs fascist, well - that is the wrong term. Tyrants is the correct term. For, as soon as President Bush signed the recent detainee treatment act he became a tyrant. A law that allows the executive branch to declare anyone, u.s. citizen or not, an enemy combatant and lock them up and have the option of offering them a military trial or simply holding them incommunicado- and possibly convicting them on evidence that was beaten out of them - well -that my friend is the essence of Tyranny.
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."
|
|
Are you suggesting that because Rove did "X", to publicly accuse another person of being a homosexual is justified?
Or are you saying that because Rove did "X", it makes it a "good political strategy" to publicly accuse Sen. Craig of being a homosexual?
|
|
Can you cite what part of the law signed by Bush authorizes him to designate a US citizen an enemy combatant?
|
|
LibPat:
"At least with FDR and Wilson's wars, there were no grandiose objectives about ridding the world of evil-doers or transforming the hearts of men."
Grandiose objectives like "making the world safe for democracy"? Heck, one of the major critiques of Bush is that he's too Wilsonian and insufficiently Kissingerian.
Nobody is being placed on trial for arguing against the war (as much as antiwar romantics desperately wish would happen -- if not to them directly -- so they could have their Maquis fantasies of fighting a real tyranny fulfilled. Wilson and FDR both did. The Great Sedition Trial of 1944 was pretty much a dress rehearsal for McCarthyism, without even the mitigating factor that at the people prosecuted for their opinions were in direct communication and cooperation with a hostile foreign power.
Instead of seeing reds under every bed, you're seeing browns in every raum. (My run of ghastly metaphors and Cochranesque rhymes continues.) If we didn't go fascist, or its Rooseveltian equivalent, under FDR, when virtually the entire world was despairing of the sustainability of democracy and capitalism during the Depression, we aren't going to now. Honestly, if you even take a shallow scan of history, I honestly don't see how you could honestly state that the government is more repressive than it has been in the past, or that it is on a trajectory that will return us to 1917 or 1942 any time soon.
I don't know precisely what policies you consider especially repressive, so I can't address any of them specifically. But as to each such policy, I challenge you to do some fair-minded research and determine whether there were existing analogues to those policies pre-Bush. If you're bothered by counterterrorist agencies' ability to order the production of business/library records, look into the government's long-standing administrative subpoena power. Look at the World War II enemy combatant cases.
|
|
"The first principle in morality is the ability to put yourself in someone elses shoes."
Says you. As a good postgrad-educated relativist, I might say who elected you the Pope in charge of ranking principles of morality? Empathy is ONE of the first principles of morality, but THE first? Well, that's something for a late night debate.
Let's say I put myself in, say, Mark Foley's shoes. Society has decided (fairly and accurately, in my opinion) that affairs between grown men and teenagers is a no-no. Wasn't always so (see ancient Greece), but it is now. Foley might find it unfair that other people, who don't have the same (apparently) innate, unusual preferences as he does, should have the power of denying him sexual fulfillment. I say tough beans. Putting myself in Foley's shoes doesn't mean I have to approve of what he does in them.
Right here is where the more dishonest gay advocates say I'm comparing gays to pedophiles. Yawn. Look, obviously a loving relationship between two guys is miles-away more morally preferable than a relationship between an older man and a teenager. They're not the same thing at all. Their only similarity lies in their both being expressions of sexuality -- a category whose continuum runs from a committed marital relationship (or whatever relationship, or relationships, you place at the right end of the spectrum) all the way through the nastiest thing a person could imagine. (And they're capable of imagining quite a bit. Especially Germans, for some reason.)
I do not believe it is "evil," as some do, to make the moral judgment that rather than incur the massive intellecutal transaction costs of evaluating the relative moral merit of each of the infinite variations of sexual experience, from marital congress to romps with elk, we should draw a very simple line under the ideal, tolerate deviations from that ideal so long as "no one gets hurt" (there's a lot of play in that phrase, but that's another story), and actively disfavor destructive sexual behavior.
One doesn't need to invoke Jesus (who happened to recommend more or less the same approach) to arrive at this position. You could argue for it on the basis of pragmatism or positivism, and judge that the psychological costs that may be imposed on some people from the fact that society at large thinks their sexual behavior is less than ideal are acceptable in light of the benefits to be gained from putting a few simple, easily understood brakes on sexual libertinism generally, which could be argued to have adverse consequences to society as a whole.
|
|
Well, first of all I agree that this is a great country. And thanks for your civil tone (well, except for calling me “daft”).
As to your hypothetical, you are correct, it would be unjustified and wrong to mention that Ms. Edwards is a spinster in this situation. But change the hypothetical. Assume that Edwards had requested that the Solicitor General file a brief in a case (in which the United States was not a party) in an unsuccessful attempt to keep the Supreme Court from invalidating a law which provided that that spinsterhood was a crime for which Ms. Edwards could go to prison. And assume that a significant part of Mr. Edwards’ base is evangelicals who believe that “The Bible is not ambiguous at all about spinsterhood. It is condemned as an abomination in both the Old Testament and New. .” ( See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52522 ) And assume that spinster aids to Edwards confide to the press that Edwards “is not spinsterphobic, he is just playing to his spinsterphobic base.” ( See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901931_pf.html) And Edwards is a man of so little loyalty to his sister that he won’t lift a finger to oppose the laws that make his sister a criminal for being, well, an unmarried virgin.
Under this scenario, I believe that while reasonable persons could differ, the balance shifts the other way. The potential “embarrassment” or whatever to Ms. Edwards (who is an “out” spinster) from being discussed in the debate is certainly a negative. But I think it is outweighed by the huge potential benefit in opening the eyes of deluded Edwards followers to realize that perhaps people like poor Ms. Edwards should not be stigmatized and criminalized for conduct that really harms no one.
Look, you can express all the outrage you want over the use of a politicians’ family member, but it happens all the time. Just go to the top of the web page. There you will find Hugh Hewitt expressing admiration for Rush Limbaugh. The same Rush Limbaugh who used to endlessly ridicule homosexuals with his “gay community updates.” The same Rush Limbaugh you used to make jokes about Kitty Dukakis’s suicide attempts. The same Rush Limbaugh who, through a visual, called the 13-year old Chelsea Clinton a “dog.” That is just mean for meanness stake, without the justification that it was necessary to make a larger political point. And certainly most of the readers of this blogs are, like Hugh, big fans of Rush. So I certainly think however “despicable” Edwards comments allegedly were, they are benign compared to those of Rush.
Look, it’s an article of faith among left wing blogs and right wing blogs that the other side has a virtual monopoly on “meanness.” Well let me break the news to you (are you sitting down?): they are both wrong about that.
And let’s take out the element of a innocent third party “victim”. Dean’s post addresses the Larry Craig situation. Personally, I don’t like phonies. Anecdote: California politician Willie Brown was asked if he would consider running for President. He said he would not consider this because of his “Gary Hart lifestyle.” In other words, he is a playboy. Fine. If Willie Brown wants to stay in California and hold whatever elective offices are available to playboys like him, fine, I have no problem with that. But if he decides to run for President, enters into a marriage of convenience and pretends to be a solid family man in public, while carrying on his playboy lifestyle in private (straight or gay), I don’t like that. I kind of want him exposed. So whether or not it was right for some blogger to “out” Larry Craig, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for Craig, to the extent he is presenting himself to the voters as something he is not. (This, of course, assumes that the report is true; I obviously have a ton of sympathy for the guy if he is a faithful husband who was wrongfully accused.)
|
|
Your argument that Dean is right that the l’affair Craig will help Republicans is so technical that it proves nothing.. I have no opinion as whether the distribution of tolerant Republicans and intolerant Republicans among house districts is such that the net benefit will, as you say, go to the Republicans. Time will, I suppose, tell. However, if you are reduced to such a technical argument, you are really undermining Dean’s broader point, which, as I took it, was that the Republican base is so incredibly loving and tolerant and that the deluded Democrats just don’t get that.
If the Republican base is so tolerant, why did Bush go out of his way to attempt to preserve Texas’s right to criminalize homosexuality. Sure, there’s a small group of egg-head legal scholars who don’t like the sodomy laws, but their sense of the proper balance between federal and state powers is offended if states don’t have the power to pass anti-sodomy laws. But let’s be honest, that’s not what motivates the Republican base. If that were the case, the statements of indignation over the Supreme Court’s arrogance in Lawrence v. Texas would always be accompanied by even louder denunciations of the Texas legislature for passing such an evil (no, not “silly,” evil) law. Somehow I don’t recall hearing much of that. In fact, the Republican base had no truck for the states rights position in the Terri Shalvo, medical marijuana and assisted suicide cases. So let’s not kid ourselves. The outrage over Lawrence v. Texas was about something more than federalism and strict constructionsim, and that something was, well, homosexuality. Does anyone disagree?
As to the rest of your post, I think much of it goes way beyond anything I was trying to address. I’m not very knowledgeable as to what bible verses Reed or Pelosi have been slipping into their speeches, or even what their actual (or purported) religious beliefs are. But if they are guilty of pandering to Christian conservatives, I don’t see that Bush and Cheney is any better. At least they aren’t trying to uphold laws that put American citizens in jail for behavior their own children engage in without recourse. There is just no way around the fact that that is disturbing.
|
|
|
|
Dale- I think we've had a fine go at expressing our point of views. Though this thread is pretty dormant, I think I owe you a last reply. Particularly as we've gotten to the crux of the matter, but more on that later.
First a concurring observation: nope there is no monopoly on meanness--or as I might say rock throwing. Obviously, the medium and the generic topic incites passion and the hurly burly tumble of fired up debate. Some is fun. Some is crass. Some is thoughtful. And far too much is just rock throwing.
At times for most and almost always for some, I think, the tenor of debate and the desire to jump-in acts like an intense adrenaline rush. Not always easy to control, that! And even if not intended, it doesn't take much to go from fun to rock throwing, or from thoughtful to crass. And the truth is, some rock throwers deserve to have some rocks thrown back at them.
Be that as it may none of us are infallible.
So touching on the lesser issues let me begin with my too "technical analysis." I may have been too wordy or obtuse for my own good. So let me put this way: the liberals who would be most bothered by Pelosi and Reed's pandering to religious conservatives and consequently be tempted not to vote, or vote Green (or some such) are to any significant degree found in the most liberal areas like NY, Berkley, LA, SF, etc. And the truth is it doesn't really matter if they vote or not because there is such a large majority of left-of-center voters in those areas that the loss of their votes won't have any impact on Congressional races, and next to none on a Senatorial one.
As you move away from those areas the democrats become as a group less liberal and frankly don't care if Pelosi and Reed pandered. They won't rebel on that issue. And there aren't enough hard core leftists to make a difference. Inverse the equation and ditto for the Republicans.
There is a difference don't you think between a serious politician and a commentator/entertainer. A politician speaking publicly and on the record has greater responsibility as regards his speech than someone say like Al Franken. Even so, Limbaugh had no business dragging Chelsea into the political fracas, particularly in such a self evidently mean way. But I'm also pretty certain he has apologized more than once for his egregious malfunction in judgment (but I don't recall one from Kerry and Edwards).
As I'm sure you hear nothing but bile from Limbaugh, I can assure you I hear nothing but bile from Al Franken and Bill Maher.
But of course they are entertainers whose canvass is politics, which isn't to say they aren't serious about their convictions, but that their obligations, responsibilities, and mandate is not that of a true politician.
Further, as hybrid entities made from politics and entertainment, they are bound to suffer the sin of entertainment: excess. But excess when crossed with politics can be a very explosive brew. None of us is of course infallible, but having said that there are those purportedly on "my side" that I can't abide.
Just a short note on Shalvo: I was always astounded by the central justification for allowing her to starve to death. Pardon my paraphrase: "Her mind is so completely void of self awareness that she'll have absolutely no awareness of her own death--no pain, no anxiety, no fear." Really? Then it stands to reason that she couldn't have possibly suffered more by staying alive. Recall it was the pathetic state of her mind--of being trapped in such a diminished body/brain that we were all told that it would be a mercy killing, but by their own reasoning--if sincere--that couldn't possibly be true. So then there was no justification for her husband not to hand over her care to her parents, as they were willing to assume complete financial responsibility. If the above is the case then she was starved, at best, for nothing more than narcissism.
As it's getting late, this post is long, and you've raised a number of issues, I'm going to give just a couple of brief replies to a couple of the issues and then just move on to the heart of the thing.
Whatever else may be said of tolerance, it is not a self-evident moral good. The term does not have moral or ethical value without being in relationship to a term that does have value. That is tolerance is a descriptive term with neutral value.
A "Living Constitution" that has its meaning so attenuated that it snaps deprives the People of self rule and ultimately the Republic of justice.
The People then are cast into Lewis Carroll’s "Looking Glass" where philosopher kings rule by fiat and even if originally benign will over time become tyrants, because the will of the people is lost. The People will not even know what their will is, except that it is in opposition and without a medium.
Democrats hide their intolerance of the individual behind categories: such as race, sex, and sexuality.
To the heart of the matter: I empathize with your position, but I can't agree with it, nor I suspect will you agree with mine.
I will grant you that in magnitude my hypothetical does not rank with your actual event. However ethical magnitude is a useful measurement when measuring similar items, and is specifically useful when applied to situational ethics.
There is nothing wrong with situational ethics when applied as a subordinate of an a priori ethical position. However an untethered situational ethic can become very dangerous to any social fabric because extended to its logical conclusion it ends in the mere preference of the individual as the primary justification. That is, it becomes pathological.
Most of us of course don't carry it that far, but most of us also don't examine the assumption that guides our situational ethics. We just assume that what we believe is good and therefore what ever promotes that good must also be good.
I'm not claiming I know how you decide your ethical questions. But in the argument you make with reference to Mary Cheney you do make a utilitarian one. Mary the person disappears replaced by Mary the symbol that will "raise awareness." I believe that you are sincere in your motive, but I also believe that you see there is something very wrong with that.
You may think that the benefit out ways the cost. Your motive may be good, but I have no such confidence that Edwards and Kerry's motive was so intended. But really this is beside the point.
By Edwards, by Kerry, Mary was turned into a symbol and exploited without her consent to be a political tool to batter their enemies with. Mary as a person was and is irrelevant to them. She was useful as a tool.
I think we can all acknowledge that politicians and those who seek publicity willingly submit themselves into the sublimating process of being a symbol--in fact politicians covet it. However, exploiting a person, your opponent's child to make political points is crass and disgusting.
And it does ultimately show a lack of self respect when you do so premeditatedly: Most of us do not like to think of ourselves as that covetous of our desires, but exploiting others without their consent leaves us no doubt as to who we are.
We'll have to get to the Craig/Greenwald thing at another time--assuming other events don't swamp that controversy.
Good health to you and yours.
By the way I may have been a little daft in calling you daft, but then none of us are infallible.
|
|
Just want to say thanks for the discussion and I'll let you have the last word.
Dale |
|
|
|