Apparently the exploration of hypocrisy within the opposition party which held absolute power over this nation for the last 6 years is…hypocritical??

We do a pretty thorough job here of exploring Democratic hypocrites, too. It’s well past time that we took apart the hypocrites within the so-called party of Lincoln, too.

Late to the party, sorry.

But this topic is inappropriate for this blog.

Bwa-hahahahahaha. Just had to say that, Pach.

…And an aside for paulie: A gay man asked in this post why a closeted gay has allowed himself to be co-opted to the detriment of other gays; if you cannot understand how this absolutely is not gossip and essential to understanding the toxicity of the current Republican Party and the Bush administration, try modeling this another way by inserted the word African-American for gay or woman for gay or Jewish for gay or pick some other minority group label. Why would any minority member sell out and roll over on the rest of their minority group, and for that matter, on all other minority groups?

Is the Republican Party today, straight or gay, black or white, male or female, really just “I’ve got mine, you can go to hell”? Because that’s what this post is really all about.

If you can’t grok this, you are not forced to read this post. Skip it and move on.

I think you’ve nailed why it’s appropriate to examine such issues on this blog…since so many members of the Republican Party act against what many of us see as obvious facets of their identity. This is true of women, blacks, Hispanics, etc. They are used as “representations” of the “openness” of the Party at the same time that party is acting virulently against women, blacks, Hispanics, etc. think Coulter, Rice, Clarence Thomas, Lynn Swann, Abu Gonzalez, etc. How many of these even have used their minority status to obtain affirmative action moneys, or have acted as representatives of their minority status group (as did Mary Cheney).

The fact is the Party will fast track these folks into positions of power because they ARE icons. In the other party they are simply going to be one of millions of that group, and merit (or other aspects of electability) will trump the fact that they are members of that group.

Want power…be a mediocre Black Republican. You can even say stupid things and get away with it.

Gays are a bit different, since they aren’t held up as icons of the parties “openness” (though Dick and Lynne Cheney tried to change that for very personal reasons). But unlike other minorities gays can remain closeted, and thus if they are already born with connections to the Republicans will find it hard to deviate.

billyjoe @ 56

Why do some gay men and women become Republicans?

1. They are born into families whose Republican voting tradition is multi-generational. So much so that it might be harder coming out to their parents and extended family as a Democrat than as a gay man or woman.

2. For die-hard Republicans, allegiance to their party trumps their sexuality. The traditions and ties to conservative politics are strong and consuming and always take precedence over just about everything.

I admit such views are hard for most people to fathom. But look at the recently outed guy who runs Tom Tancredo’s Web site, and even Mary Cheney. Perfect examples of everything Ive described here.

Right. Gay men and women become Republicans for the same reasons anyone else becomes a Republican.

Yeah, I think that for many people sexuality is a loweer priority than other things. And many people who grow up in Conservative households are already sexually repressed. Straights are constantly bombarded with attitudes about “controlling sexual urges”, especially before marriage. Thus if one was gay, one would simply think that these were urges that had to be controlled. Sex isn’t necessarily supposed to be pleasurable…it’s for procreation.

Running around with girls and having sex would be discouraged, as would bragging about ones sexual exploits. Finding a niche within those Republicans who were conservative Christians would be pretty easy, ’cause talking about sex wouldn’t happen that much.

And then one is constantly hanging around a “male world”, with guys that are primmed metrosexuals.

After marriage, sex might happen less than in a true heterosexual pairing…but the other partner might not inquire about the low rate of intercourse and think her role as mother and wife were fulfilled through other tasks.

If sexual activity ever occurred it would simply be hidden, by both parties (since the other would likely be a conservative with a lot to lose if the act was revealed). It’s not likely they would have “consenting adult” sex with an “out” Democrat who would talk about it.

Back when Bush Sr. was Ambassador to China in the late 1970’s son Dubya, still single and known for his wild partying and boozing (if not other intoxicants) travelled to Beijing to visit Mom and Dad for a few months. He is reported to have said to buddies that he went “to date the pretty commy China dolls”.

So he WAS CRUISING…and one can bet the House that the Chinese Intelligence agencies used the same methods that a) the Warsaw Pact Spy agencies used to infiltrate Western diplomatic missions and, b) the they would find using sexual informants part of the traditional Chinese Mandarin espionage techniques.

So it’s likely that the People’s Security Agency threw Bush some bait…pretty girls, or young transexuals, and got him in a hotel with a see-through mirror. The Chinese probably know all about Dubya’s secret fantasies…as he was able to play them out in Technicolor!

Bush asserts that Chinese girls wouldn’t “go out with me”…so it’s clear he was on the hunt, and the Chinese spys would have noticed this “propenisity” of the Bush-boy to girls in Mao jackets and blue caps!

This would explain why Bush has out-Nixoned Nixon when it comes to the PRC. They are now “official” allies in the “war against terror”, he virtually kissed their garbanzos when that US spy plane was forced down in Hainan and dismantled for all its technology.

And why he doesn’t bat an eye when it comes to any Human Rights violations. ‘Course Marvin, Neil, Daddy George and Uncle Prescott are all invested heavily in China or are making money as “advisors” to mainland Chinese companies run by relatives of the Chinese Central Committee. And then there’s the fact that the Chinese are essentially buying up the US debt with all that money we are putting into their economy from the Trade Deficit!

So maybe Bush is a real “Manchurian Candidate” with red-mail being held up against him.

You’ve re-formulated the witch-hunt, gave it a gooey, smeary center of homophobia, and wrapped it in a crunchy, hypocritical candy coating.

Well-done, left blogosphere, well done!

WG

Lacking a Gaydar to rely on, I went to teh Google.

Senator Larry Craig gay

377,000 hits.

Senator Lindsay Graham gay

262,000 hits.

Senator Mitch McConnell gay

123,000 hits.

So.

Sorry, but this misuse of Google stats always irritates me. The first search gets way more hits because Larry is a common name. To get anything more meaningful (and none of this is at all scientific anyway), you need to put the names in quotes. So we get:

Senator “Larry Craig” gay = 36,000 hits
Senator “Lindsay Graham” gay = 19,000 hits
Senator “Mitch McConnell” gay = 95,000 hits

therefore McConnell has been outed the most? No, because many of those hits will just refer perhaps to anti-gay legislation, and McConnell has maybe been more active, or may just be a more high-profile pol now. So we try:

Senator “Larry Craig” = 177,000 hits
Senator “Lindsay Graham” = 66,000 hits
Senator “Mitch McConnell” = 405,000 hits

OK, what can we deduce? The winner is, ta-da, Lindsay Graham! The reason? The hits mentioning “gay” are 29% of the total, as opposed to 23% for McConnell and 20% for Craig. I know, I know, I need to get a life. But please can we stop doing the Google searches without quotes around the name?

However, if you can put that assumption aside and just look at someone’s values and goals on their own (sexual proclivity aside), why wouldn’t many gays be “conservative,” and thus identify with the GOP? Sure, they have to put up with a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and look the other way when the conservative demagogues are flailing gay marriage,etc., but many gays’ dreams are of a petite bourgeois nature.

Pardon the stereotypes, but if you are a successful interior designer or fashion designer or, uh, politician, your client base is rich people who you want to keep rich so they can keep hiring you and, hopefully, make you rich as well.

Mix a good helping of self-loathing into it all and you get hypocritical gay Republicans.