Is there anyone here who is a staunch supporter of Bush who is gay?I for one am not a supporter because of his issues against gays.The fact that he is strongly against gay marriage also is a big factor of why I really strongly dislike this man. This man has issues with gays but at least I can spell nuclear instead of him who spells and says it like nucular!

Only self hating gays would support Bush. His stands on gay rights, the war and human rights in general are appalling. He is a total psychopath.

Oh, I'm sure we'll find the self-deprecating among us on this message board. To stand with Bush on nearly any issue would be emboldening him, the enemy, as he has put it so succinctly.

I despise the man and nearly everything he represents. To me, he is the enemy. I hate to even think Hugo Chavez could potentially be right when he talked about Bush being the Devil.

There is nothing wrong with a gay republican. Well, nothing *more* wrong about a gay republican than a straight republican.

Last I checked, the policies of the major political parties in the US involved more than gay rights. Perhaps the gay republican believes strongly in supply side economics or pro-life issues or an aggressive (I say reckless) foreign policy.

Now of course, it takes a large ability of holding one's nose to be able to vote for someone who doesn't consider you to be a full human being...

I work in a county government office which is probably 80% democrat.I do consider myself a democrat as well.However it was quite disheartening to find out that there are secretly quite a few democrats who are homophobic.I guess the only thing I can say about Republicans is that they don't really try to hide their homophobia like some democrats do.

I never thought I'd quote "Queer As Folk" on anything (sorry, great 1st season, it just went downhill from there) but the Brian character said it best when he said "there are politicians who hate you to your face, and those who hate you behind your back." Guess which ones are the democrats?

In the Logo debate thread, I think Illini fan summed it up best when he explained why he was going to skip the whole show:




The gay community just embracing the democratic party by default can be frustrating, especially when former candidates like John Kerry and current ones like Edwards, Richardson, Obama and Clinton still say they don't want gay marriage, but are OK with civil unions, since that's the exact same stance many republicans take. Granted they may not be complete a$$hol@s like Bush (is that even possible?) by actually trying to ammend the Constitution, but how much better is that stance, anyway?

It's merely picking betwen the lesser of two evils. It's easy for Kucinich and Rovell to come out in favor of gay marriage because they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination. Unfortunately, the frontrunners like Clinton, Obama and Edwards can't afford to alienate swing voters or those Republican voters who are so disgusted with their leadership that they might vote Democrat this time. An issue like gay marriage is still such a major issue for some of these folks.

That said, personally I couldn't care if they call it marriage or civil union. If I'm afforded the exact same rights, then they can call it dustbunny for all I care. To me, marriage is the religious term and means squat to me. If the Catholic churches or the Jewish temples want to ban our ceremonies, that is their right. But with the supposed separation of church and state, the government should still allow us to tie the knot with the same rights and priveledges as any couple married in a church.

Well said George! Will you dustbunny me?

Well I always thought I'd be the one asking, but yes Maddog yes, a thousand times yes, I will dustbunny you!

I'm sorry, but I am now and forever AGAINST gay dustbunnying.

Those politicians who say they're for "equality" but who would accept civil unions instead of marriage need to be asked: if (for one example) the Social Security regulations provide that only married people can get spouse's benefits, or widow/widower's benefits, just HOW does a civil union provide true equality?

I guess that means we'd spend our honeymoon under the bed?

Who cares? I'm focusing on that avatar of yours instead, avalon. Who is that hot stud?

I totally agree.

While I doubt that I (we) would ever take advantage - if you want to call it an "advantage" - of gay marriage, I think the principle is important.

That a politician is willing to sacrifice the rights of one group for political gain is cruel and cynical, not to mention cowardly, if they believe that gay people are equal human beings.

If they think we are something less - or separate but equal - then they probably do not think very deeply.

I'm sure there would still be plenty of divorces which would make a lot of attorneys very happy.

You the man....
I totally agree with your reply....politics in general makes me puke....

I agree that civil unions are a great ideal. And as long as they are equivalent to marriage before the law they are an adequate solution.

But if you make two cakes that are exactly the same then call one chocolate while you call the other German Double Chocolate Pound Cake or some such, you're going to sell a lot more of the one with the fancy name.

If folks buy civil unions and find out they've got marriage instead, they are going to end up with buyer's remorse and eventually return the product.

If we want to separate church and state we have to be honest about what we're selling. Let everyone have marriage or no reference to the term "marriage" anywhere in the law.

I think even the most fundamentalist Supreme Court, or perhaps especially such a court, would have to agree with that.

Give them chocolate cake. If they don't buy it, then at least we know they truly don't like the stuff

What's w/ the dustbunnying goin 'round these parts lately? If people aren't getting dustbunnied, there's been lots of dustbunny proposals lately?

Towleroad - Free Speech

Bit of a discussion on Towleroad about Cyd being a Republican with a crush on Ronald reagan and a supporter of Ann Coulter.

That's because he is.

Cyd's Blog

It must suck being a political prostitute.

Cyd's a true believer.

I don't understand how he can defend Coulter, or people like her, either, but...

He has always been upfront about his politics, and his writing have always been very consistant.

His original commentary and original criticism are almost as good as A Sullivans.

He's not a knee jerk Kool Aid drinker.

I don't agree with him on a lot of stuff, but at least I can respect his positions.

BTW - He hasn't posted on his Blog in quite a while - since July sometime - wonder why?

R

You're joking, right? I mean about the "almost as good as A[ndrew] Sullivan," an Oxford and Harvard-trained political scientist and accomplished author who, for all his many faults, has vigorously denounced Bush, the administration's torture practices, and wingnuttery for years now.

I didn't say I agreed with him, I usually disagree with him.

But when Cyd does his own thinking and analysis, he can be quite good sometimes.

The real problem I find on his site is that I think he doesn't do enough of his own analysis; way too much is straight party line politics rather than real reasoned analysis. Frequently you have to hunt.

The other problem I see is that Cyds writings are that he is too 'set in stone'; Sullivans writings have evolved over time as his understanding and views have matured. Cyd's are still a little bit raw and unbending. Its not so much that he doesn't give any credit to Liberals - though he doesn't; its that he doesn't usually acknowledge the problems and inconsistancies of the conservative right either.

But it's like comparing apples and pears.

R

I didn't assert or infer that you "agreed" with him. I asked about the comparison to Andrew Sullivan, who also carries water for a version of conservatism (or perhaps "classical liberalism"), but is a very smart, nuanced commentator nevertheless. I've never seen anything approach this kind of suppleness of thought in Cyd's commentaries on politics, either on here or on his blog or in his newspaper columns. Maybe I'm missing something, so please point out a few pieces that might enlighten me, because I do respect your opinions.

What do you think about a gay person who continues to support homophobes like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and the W administration? Seriously?

There used to be some pretty smart rightist commentators on these boards. GMG and William1865 immediately come to mind. GMG and I usually disagreed, but he knew his law and a whole lot more. (How many non-black, non-conservatives on this board know anything about black history?) William1865 has a sharp wit, and while we always clashed, I can say he could come back with zingers and could be quite original. What I found so disappointing about all the right-leaning gay commentators on the P&R boards was how blinded they were by partisanship to what an awful president Bush obviously was, both before September 11--when Outsports' boards were set up--and afterwards. Again and again people on the left pointed this out and were shot down. When the Iraq War was gearing up, yet again the folks on the right trusted W, but it was clear then, as now, THAT HE WAS LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH.

I still don't grasp the attraction to this man and his policies, except in a very partisan sense, since he is not only a pathological liar, but actually has defied numerous alleged conservative ideological tenets, and has ruled close to something like a latter-day Stalin, but with scary religious overtones underpinning all of it. The Vice President is so Stalinistic it boggles the mind.

Thus when people parrot conservative tenets, I have to ask, do you really believe this stuff or are you just a partisan robot, because on the one hand he's defied a great deal of what your ideology, as expressed in theory and policy, claims to be about, and yet on the other hand your president has enacted these supposed conservative policies, via a right-wing political machine, and managed to prove that "conservatism" and "neoconservatism" are, in the real world, utterly disastrous.

Word, Fantomas.

The sheeple that used to frequent these boards can’t even pretend to make excuses for their bigoted heroes anymore. They’ve all gone into retirement, like so many other Republicans these days. It’s impossible to defend the indefensible.

If you have ever read anything I have written here on the board since GBII was first nominated then you will know how much I despise the man and his politics. I have little respect for his blind apologists.

No I do not think Cyds writing is equal to A Sullivans, I believe I stated that "His original commentary and original criticism are almost as good as A Sullivans." - That is when he writes thoughtfully about his own experiences and viewpoints, and why he has developed them. An few examples of this can be found at Cyd's site.

I haven't always agreed with A Sullivan either.

You do not have to agree with a person to respect that person. Especially if they are considered and sincere in their reasoned beliefs .

The primary reason that the R's are so screwed now is because they so arrogantly demonized and alienated so many parts of our society by dismissing their beliefs and thoughts as stupid, uneducated, and irrelevant. I'm afraid I see a rising tide of the same kind of dismissal now coming from the most liberal Democrats.

The only way to persevere in the long run is by building a coalition of the disparate majority, people with vastly differing views on many topics, on the few really important things we can agree on and accomplish.

Dis respecting and automatically dismissing one another for their differing views will only lead to even worse alienation and a quagmire of incompetence and bullying by opportunistic politicians bent on divisiveness for their own personal gain.


Rob

Speaking of dear Ann Coulter, not only doesn't she like gays apparently she doesn't have a very high regard for women either.

"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women."

Funny, I thought she was supposed to be a woman.......

Again, Rob, that's *not what I wrote.* I didn't use the word "equal," and you made the comparison. "Almost as good" is a statement of quality, isn't it? I've read Cyd's blog, BTW, and mentioned it in my earlier post. I do read every word of your responses, so please read mine.

In terms of supporting Bush, you have no need to defend or apologize. I know you're not a supporter of his. As for Bush, Cheney and rest, I don't even despise them. I just wish they had never been foisted on us, first in an illegal power move, and then again in 2004. The destruction this administration has done in so many ways will take a generation to repair. The sad thing is we have a weak opposition party, the Democrats, who are so afraid of their own shadow when they're not selling out to the very interests that back the Republicans that I sometimes wonder how we'll repair things. Electing Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, etc., would be excellent, but we still have to deal with the Congress, which even under Democratic control keeps getting rolled and has people like Joe Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein, who might as well be Republicans!



This is why I mentioned GMG and William1865, who is still on Outsports, though he doesn't post here. I often disagreed with them--perhaps 90% with GMG and close with William1865, but I still respect their opinions. I often left their replies with something to think about.

As for the Republicans, they have been demonizing their opponents for years now. Surely you're aware of this. They made "liberal" a curseword back in 1980, and it's only got worse since then. Lee Atwater and others turned politics into a game of personal vicious destruction, and they succeeded, for a while. (Look at how they made Michael Dukakis, a veteran, into a laughingstock over that tank photo. Was it really that bad? No, but they ground that in, because as Atwater said, he wanted to "strip the bark" off the Democratic opponent.) They couldn't stop the election of Bill Clinton twice, but look what they did nevertheless: they ran investigations for the entire length of his term, culminating in an attempted impeachment. They slandered this man, savaged him and his wife, and even AFTER he left office they kept trying to tear him to pieces. On top of which, they then installed this walking disaster, and look at what he and the Republican Congress wrought.

No, they are where they are because their politics and policies are terrible and DO NOT WORK. They don't, and they used the USA, Iraq, and Afghanistan as their personal laboratories for 6 years, and look at the results. (From the anti-science party, though, should we be surprised?) And they *still are not telling the truth about anything!* Look at the breaking news about Gonzales and those torture memos! Didn't Bush get on TV and say the US "doesn't torture" people? Of course he was lying, but did he think the truth wouldn't get out? I mean, we're not all total cretins, though they keep playing us like we are. This is why this man's support hasn't broken 40% in two years. People ARE FED UP, including some longtime Republicans.

As far as I know, liberal Democrats do not control *anything.* At all. They still do not control the Congress. If they did, Bush and Cheney would have been impeached, the troops would be home, ENDA would have passed months ago, there'd be no qusetion about SCHIP or the gutted FISA law or any of the other things that Blue Dog Democrats and DINOs like Feinstein have enabled. Do you think "liberal" Democrats agree with the government spying on us like Stalin's Russia? Do you think real conservatives do either? Isn't such government intrusion the very ANTITHESIS of what conservatism is supposed to be about?

Supporting crap like or the total neglect of a major American city like New Orleans or launching wars based on lies or trying to push laws to strip a husband of his rights over his brain-dead wife and so forth are why the Republicans are "screwed."



On the whole, I agree with you. However, if the issue is a coalition that supports bad policies, I'm sorry, but I'm off that wagon. We have a global environmental crisis going on, and our government is playing games with our future. If a coalition wants to ensure that we work to address global warming in a serious way, that's fine. If it's to keep letting business have the final say, that's a problem. Just like Medicare, which is a looming disaster. If a coalition wants to address funding Medicare and the health care crisis seriously, that's one thing. If a coalition is going to continue the status quo while passing cruel pro-insurance industry, anti-consumer "tort reform" and bankruptcy laws, then that's a problem.

It's the policies that are the key, not some nebulous, kumbaya-style bipartisanship. Right wing politics have succeeded beyond the Republicans' wildest dreams. However, when it comes to right-wing ideology and right-wing policies, as the Republicans have made very clear from 2000-2006, THEY. DO. NOT. WORK.

Very funny little video (approx. 2 minutes):

Out, by Mark Fiore

We live in such reactive times. The right reacts to the left and vice versa almost constantly...as if there's no middle ground to be reached. The victim of our political system is the country: from the $70 million dollar tax payer funded witch hunt of Clinton to the war in Iraq, our partisan politics has decimated the credibility, reputation, and environment of the USA. We're in deep shit but people still want to waste time debating a complete and utter parasite like Coulter or O'Reilly. They're as divisive as anyone out there - they're a huge part of the problem. Our two party system is dead. Let's find a new way.

Bryan, you're so right!

Bill Clinton, as quoted in the Guardian (Oct. 5):

"Mr Clinton argues that American voters are tiring of a politics and media that have been under the sway of "the most ideological, rightwing element of the Republican party", leading to a national climate in which "three-dimensional reality" has been turned into "two-dimensional cartoons, and then [the rightwing media] try to get people to divide up on the basis of whether you like the cartoon or not ... I want the American people to stop rewarding the ideological wing of the Republican party, so we can have a centre-left party and a centre-right party and they can have real debates about real things."

Nat