November 05, 2004

Is it time to out GOP gays?

Clearly, Rove and BushCo were strategically successful with using gay marriage fear-mongering as a strategic tool, especially in black and evangelical Hispanic churches.

I’m not gay myself, but …

I think any gay or lesbian who actively worked for Bush’s election, whether through a PAC, the RNC, RNCC, RNSC, Congressional or Congressional committee staff of GOP congressmen riding on Bush’s coattails, etc., should be outed. They aren’t in a position to object, anyway, since they just committed moral slow suicide.

This is war, and it’s year-round, not seasonal. It’s every year, not just one out of four.

If Bush and Rove want to play scorched-earth divide and conquer strategy, there’s only one way to fight back. Lincoln knew that in the Civil War, and part of why he canned McClellan, beyond the man’s slowness, was his namby-pamby ideas on how to wage the war.

I don’t have any contacts at national gay and lesbian rights organizations, nor, above all, at gay-oriented publications, but surely somebody reading this does.

And, any outings need to be done beyond these media. Folks who work for such magazines and newspapers surely have contacts in the mainstream media.

And, if the New York Times won’t run stuff like this, the National Enquirer will. Hell, somebody like Larry Flynt, just like with the Bob Livingston situation, would help stir the pot on this one.

When I tested this on Daily Kos with a poll, 90 percent were in favor of outings.

November 03, 2004

The bigotry of soft bigotry

I hope the Democrats don't fall into this mistake just because the gay marriage issue, and false phone push calls over it, were a factor in the election.

Because, if Democrats do soft-pedal this civil right too far in the name of chasing after votes from black churches, I see two problems.

The lesser, morally, is the political problem. Truly active gays and lesbians may look to Greens more than Democrats.

The bigger issue is that, in pursuing this strategy, Democrats would be participating in the "bigotry of soft bigotry," to paraphrase the Chimpster, by co-signing the refusal of many black church leaders to be honest about black male homosexuality, black sex on the lowdown, and the resultant rise in AIDS among black women.

The bigotry of soft bigotry

I hope the Democrats don't fall into this mistake just because the gay marriage issue, and false phone push calls over it, were a factor in the election.

Because, if Democrats do soft-pedal this civil right too far in the name of chasing after votes from black churches, I see two problems.

The lesser, morally, is the political problem. Truly active gays and lesbians may look to Greens more than Democrats.

The bigger issue is that, in pursuing this strategy, Democrats would be participating in the "bigotry of soft bigotry," to paraphrase the Chimpster, by co-signing the refusal of many black church leaders to be honest about black male homosexuality, black sex on the lowdown, and the resultant rise in AIDS among black women.

Post-election (Christian) triumphalism and the fourth person of the Trinity

Need I say more? It's already apparent among a couple of people at my office.

Quick Kerry post-morten

Bad candidate. Worse campaign manager. Anti-coattails drag down Dems in House, Senate.

For 2004:
• Get a governor, if one is available, or at least a senator with more of a record than BCCI.
• Social Security, Social Security, Social Security; scream it until the cows come home, both in Florida and in Midwestern states with lots of oldsters.
• Get a candidate who actually is a closer, and has a campaign manager who is one.
• Like it or not, voters vote on personality, and Kerry's didn't light enough sparks.
• DON'T be tempted to slide right, like a "rough beast, slouching toward Bethlehem."

As for me? I'm voting Green as long as the Dems don't have a real presidential candidate or a real national strategy.