You have commented 275 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Dems to Homos: Put A Sock In It In 2006
...Folks, we're seeing the official recloseting of the Democrats in terms of gay visibility and outreach. If you had any illusions that the 2006 iteration of the Democratic party isn't ready to throw gays under the bus (but take homo cash), here's convincing evidence to chew on...
That's one of the problems with not standing for anything. You end up selling out your allies and partners for minimal short term gain, until you have none left.
Posted by:Anonymoose

#25  I hope you are right, tw! But I never underestimate the ability of Repubs to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Posted by: 2b   2006-03-05 23:13  

#24  #14 OTR?
Posted by: incarnate of lee atwater   2006-03-05 22:56  

#23  I'm with you, TW. I look at the internet every morning to see in the balloon has gone up yet.

My expectation is that events will outpace the election. There is just too much sabre rattling from the crazies for something not to go wrong.
Posted by: SR-71   2006-03-05 21:18  

#22  Watch our for pecker tracks during erection season.
Posted by: Captain America   2006-03-05 19:57  

#21  I'm not so sanguine about Democratic Party prospects in the 2006 election ... I was listening to "Yes, yes, don't tell me," a current events quiz show on one of the local NPR stations, (I preened myself upon knowing all the answers! except about the Playboy Bunny who married that ancient Texas millionaire, and whose fight for the estate is going to the Supreme Court) and they had Peggy Noonan as their charming celebrity phone-in contestant. One of the hosts actually asked her how she would advise a party completely out of power, with no chance of returning because they don't have a message, what they should do. The host emphasized this point several times as he posed the question -- they have no message, so how can they seduce voters -- and he laughingly agreed with Ms. Noonan that they weren't likely to win any elections based on their own lack of positions.

lotp, if you're right about timing, I'm going to have to work extra hard at not being all over nerves in the meantime. And I might as well apologize upfront againgst the time when I fail -- I promise I won't mean it, so I hope I'll be forgiven.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-03-05 19:42  

#20  exactly - thanks Frank.
Posted by: 2b   2006-03-05 18:49  

#19  Andy S became a one-trick pony. If the Jihadis promised gay marriage he'd be licking their curly-toed slippers. He USED TO BE rational
Posted by: Frank G   2006-03-05 18:36  

#18  clarification: He sold his soul for the dem party and because the Republican party refused to meet his timeline on political acceptance of gay issues.

sheesh. I'm done.
Posted by: 2b   2006-03-05 18:31  

#17  and one more comment - I don't care about people's sexual orientation. My original comment was specific towards Andrew Sullivan because I used to follow him way back before he came down with BDS. He sold his soul for the dem party and because the party refused to meet his timeline on political acceptance of gay issues. So he became Bush's most frantic critic. My comment was meant towards him - not towards gays in general.
Posted by: 2b   2006-03-05 18:28  

#16  Anonymoose, I wish I could stretch my pay like that. :)

Seriously, hope they both take care, and thanks.
Posted by: Desert Blondie   2006-03-05 18:10  

#15  tw - I should have been more clear, I was referring to #4, not you. I know you better than that.

I'm so tired of the liberal lies and sell outs. This is just another one. I could go on about their lies - but this is just one more. They are basically pretending to be conservatives because that is what you need to be to get elected - suddenly they are hunting, Christians, for family values, tougher on the WOT, for border controls etc. But elected they will do exactly the opposite. They've been gloating about this tactic on some of the dem blogs.

Honestly, I think their lies will pay off this year. I suspest the Republicans will get their behinds kicked because they have gotten greedy with their success in the war on terror and are trying to push other parts of the conservative agenda that they would never try to push if they're heads weren't so swollen by the circus that has become the dem party.

But most of the people don't pay attention and the WOT is something that they just wish would go away. They will be distracted by the bread and circuses, and will believe the promises that the Dems will not only not deliver - but will cause the US to go down the same road of self-destruction that Europe is facing - for the very same reasons... corruption, selling out, blame, and a belief that oh, yes, you can have it all if you just say it should be so.

Posted by: 2b   2006-03-05 18:04  

#14  I knew two gay guys I have the utmost of respect for. I also think they would be welcomed guests here, except they are still OTR, and need to remain anonymous. I will give some hints, and see if you can guess what they do for a living?

Both are skinny and muscular. They do a lot of hiking in very mountainous terrain. They travel the world extensively, and to some rather atypical tourist destinations. Between them they speak seven languages. One is American, the other German, and they have work visas from Switzerland.

One is an expert photographer, the other an expert with electronics with considerable medical background. They don't seem to be troubled by local or regional instability, even in places regarded as dangeous or hostile.

Amazing how they afford all that travel, just working as day laborers in Switzerland a month or two during the winter, usually.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-03-05 17:38  

#13  Yup. Make your vote and defend it in front of the voters in November. Same squeeze play as last time. Rove's biggest asset is Ahmadinnerjacket in Tehran.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-03-05 17:33  

#12  NS - the early summer "Iran - are you with us or with them" offensive on Congress?
Posted by: Frank G   2006-03-05 17:27  

#11  If Bush wants to take any action without UN approval, he needs to put the Congresscritters' feet to the fire before the election. Otherwise nothing will get done before 2009. I wonder if we'd even respond if a plane crashed into the Sears Tower.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-03-05 17:21  

#10  Andy's tied up, all atwitter over the Oscars and how many Brokebutt Mtn will win....
Posted by: Frank G   2006-03-05 17:16  

#9  tw, I think that if Bush has his choice, any necessary action won't come until after the Fall elections. But events might force his hand.
Posted by: lotp   2006-03-05 17:15  

#8  I think quite a few more conservatives like me who have strong libertarian like inclinations and are for non-government mandated "social justice" feel that discrimination against anyone is evil.

We are for equal rights not superior rights. We are not for changes in the social structure that are too socailly disruptive to society. Gay marriges are socially disruptive. Race, gender are like each other when it comes to "human rights". Sexual orientation is not completely similar. Therfore society has a say about "gay' marriages."Gays" can be given legal rights to many of the things marriage grants couples with the "marriage" part.
Posted by: SPoD   2006-03-05 17:08  

#7  I didn't mean to imply that you're homophobic, 2b. I never got the sense that you were, although admittedly I tend not to notice the unsaid... and sometimes even not the slightly ambiguous.

I think there's something in the air -- lots of us (me included!) are a bit on edge lately. I hope whatever it is happens soon, or Dr. Steve is going to have to start administering calming teas wholesale, with me at the front of the line, ready to mainline the stuff. ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-03-05 14:35  

#6  Gays consider themselves regular people now. some of 'em even vote conservative.

is that to imply that to mock my comment as somehow homophobic? Yeah, that's profound and typical. This is just one more example of the left standing for absolutely nothing. At least the conservatives are honest - even if you don't agree with them. They basically state what they think - do what you want in the privacy of your homes, - but we aren't going to approve civil unions and we don't think that the military is ready for open homosexuality.

The left has dumped the homosexuals by the side of the road and said, hey thanks, but you guys weren't as popular as we thought you were. Hope you don't mind the walk, but we still love you.

I think it's rich. It has nothing to do with a stance on homosexuality, it has to do with watching Andrew Sullivan sell his soul for acceptance. Now he doesn't even get that from the dems. He just gets a promise of, "sure I cheat on ya, honey - but at least I'll pretend to love ya in private".

Now that's an abusive relationship.
Posted by: 2b   2006-03-05 14:16  

#5  Regular people, indeed. Some of them have even posted here at Rantburg. :-)
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-03-05 13:40  

#4  Gays consider themselves regular people now. some of 'em even vote conservative.

Posted by: Hupomoger Clans9827   2006-03-05 12:51  

#3  This is rich. NO word from Andy Sullivan yet.

Posted by: 2b   2006-03-05 10:03  

#2  True Believers[tm] will always drink the koolaid.

See the Dems. See the Dems run. Run Dems run.

And just who voted for the reestablishment of the Patriot Act?

[I first voted against it, before I voted for it] Kerry, who days before was on Koskiddieland for donations.

Barbara Boxer

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Abraham Lincoln

which of course tells you who the full time fools are. I think the Reps have figures out the old concept that you don't have to be faster than the bear when he's chasing you. You just have to be faster than someone else [Dems] in the group.

Posted by: Glomort Claviger7613   2006-03-05 09:19  

#1  I don't see how this can possibly help the Dems.

It's obviously a bid to win back the support of labor union, lunch-pail Reagan Democrats. "See, we really ARE mainstream, so you can vote for us again (and get your $20.00 per week that your union boss promised)."

This is no different than the noises being made by Dems like Carville about how the party really DOESN"T want strict gun control any more. Pfeh.

The problem with this approach is threefold. First of all, thanks to the 'net, enough of what these people have said in the past is widely available and can be disseminated quickly and thoroughly. Those who have always supported the radical gay agenda will be outed (as it were) quickly. This isn't 1989, when the MSM has absolute control over the information stream.

Secondly, the Dems are already demographically in trouble and to diminish their core voters even by a small amount in an attempt to attract unsure support from another source will likely result in lower overall support at the ballot box.

Thirdly, from a PR standpoint, this can only hurt them. To gays, this will seem like betrayal; they may not vote Repub, but they may not vote at all. The Reagan Democrats aren't going to be snowed, either. Nobody with intelligence greater than that of a mosquito will actually believe that most Dems have changed their mind about the radical gay agenda, any more than gun owners actually believe that Dems have somehow miraculously discovered the joys of the Second Amendment.

While many gays will reason that no matter how bad the Dems are, the Repubs are worse, may will not. A policy change like this will likely end up hurting rather than helping the Dems.
Posted by: no mo uro   2006-03-05 06:58