Calling a Spade a Spade
Culture, one term 9:30 AM
by Nick Stone of Drawnlines Politics.
This weekend is our local gay pride weekend, and as the festivities loom I find it an oddly appropriate time to tackle a topic that has weighed heavily on me for quite some time. This is about the issue of fairness and even-handedness.
Last year's local pride parade included our local chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans. I wasn't a member at the time, still lost deep in the mourning process over the end of the Clinton campaign. But even then, I couldn't help but snark at what a shame it is to watch twinks, bears, and drag queens parade down the street in a beautiful mix of unity and contrast characterized by the rainbow flag, only to imagine the hostility of the crowd that reportedly booed and launched projectiles at the Log Cabin Republicans all down the parade route. A good friend of mine even had his car vandalized during the festivities, no doubt due to his car being the only one in the parking lot with a McCain/Palin bumper sticker. Was that change we can believe in? Was that rising above old politics? Was that the new era of cooperation we were promised? And perhaps most importantly, why is it that none of the colors on that beautiful motley flag not have any room for gay Republicans? Does diversity mean everybody, *asterisk* or does it mean everybody, period?
You know a double standard when you see one, but few examples stand out quite as starkly as sharply as those steaming piles lobbed from the left.
William F Buckley Jr. once rightly declared, "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." On the left, the elitist groupthink mentality is rampant. There is a terrible blindness to this reality and worse yet, an unwillingness to tackle it where it rears its ugly head. This is the truth that dare not speak it's name, lest ye be cast out. Trust me, I know first hand.
Colin Powell was lauded for coming across the divide and supporting Barack Obama. So was Christopher Buckley, William's son. Then there was the rise of the so-called "Obamicans," the Democrat's counter to the right's "Reagan Democrats" who came over to support Reagan over Carter in 1980 and again against their own Mondale in 1984. But while the Left was was busy patting themselves on the back for pilfering the endorsements of Republicans in 2008, many failed to point out that they were busy lambasting their own previous vice-presidential candidate, Joe Lieberman, for campaigning for John McCain. Where Powell was thoughtful and post-partisan, Lieberman as hateful, rogue, and misguided. If you got the email from the Obama campaign the night of the RNC where Lieberman spoke, you know the smear I'm talking about. If you saw the news clips of the Democratic Caucus trying to force Lieberman out, you know what I'm talking about. And if you're a Democrat that didn't support Barack Obama, you know the type of directly hateful and insidious personal attacks against you that I'm talking about.
Why is it fair that the current president railed against wasteful spending and the atrocity of the doubling of our federal debt in 8 years under Bush, but then himself spent as much money as had ever been spent in the history of our nation up to his inauguration within his first 100 days? Why is it ok that his so-called stimulus package repelled more Democrats than it attracted Republicans, but then the Republicans were allegedly just practicing politics as usual and hindering bipartisanship? The White House's own projections show that the stimulus won't produce any more jobs than laissez-faire economic policies in the long run, so why not just keep our children's money? Why is it unfair to call that out?
For the past 8 years we had prisoners in Guantanamo, military tribunals, a hold on release of torture photos, and a hard line against Iran and North Korea and these policies were evil and misguided. Now that the current president has largely done an about-face from his naive campaign rhetoric, why are these policies mysteriously now considered necessary and appropriate for our national security? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad President Obama was man enough to rise above rhetoric and put the security of our nation first after sitting in the briefings and actualizing the difference between campaigning and governing. For that he deserves credit. But think back for a minute to a time where people like me and Joe Lieberman and John McCain said that Obama's campaign rhetoric was naive and inappropriate. We were regarded as racists, bigots, and fools back then. And these very policies were considered failed, inappropriate, and dangerous. Yet, here we are.
Thinking back again, how is it possibly fair that Sarah Palin was an unqualified VP candidate because of her so-called lack of experience. While conceding the point that being the governor of Alaska has zero to do with getting foreign policy credentials, I'm going to ask what Barack Obama's foreign policy experience was. As Chair of the European Affairs Subcommittee, he called exactly ZERO hearings (and was called out for that by Hillary Clinton during the Ohio debate). Other than campaigning in front of crowds a la John Kennedy, I can think of zilch that qualified Obama as a foreign policy expert. Wait, that's not true. He also directed his campaign during the the Ohio primary against Clinton to lobby the Canadian government to stay quiet about his rhetoric on NAFTA on the grounds that it was merely campaign rhetoric and would never come to fruition.
Are you appalled yet? If not, you're not paying attention. Let it be pointed out one more time that we're talking about the bottom of one ticket with no foreign policy experience contrasted with the top of the other ticket. Why is it fair that the bottom of the Republican ticket was shishkabobbed with a greater voracity than the top of the Democratic ticket?
If you answered unfair media coverage, you're right. Notice how much more you heard about seeing Russia from Palin's house (which she didn't say, Tina Fey did) than you ever heard about Barack's 57 state campaign (excluding Alaska, oddly enough) or Biden's memories of seeing President FDR on TV in 1929 (he wasn't president for three more years and practically nobody had TV's, not to mention Biden wasn't born). If you answered natural inclination to double standards for the left and right, you're correct again. If you thought to yourself that it's racist to question the first serious black presidential candidate, you're especially right.
People largely assured themselves it was ok to harangue Palin because her runningmate was older than a typical presidential candidate. Forget for a moment that the McCain campaign released his physical records that clearly stated that there was absolutely no reason to fear his health. The big question that should unnerve liberals where they live is this:
Why is ageism ok and racism not? How is it ok to get away with the demonstrably sexist campaigning that the Obama camp engaged in against Clinton only to allege racism for their own shortcomings? Can Obama freely call his white grandmother a typical white person and those who refuse to pull the lever for him bitter working-class people who cling to their religion and guns? How is it ok to freely discriminate against a candidate because they're a few years older than the norm but otherwise in very good health? Why is that better than voting for someone who looks like you? How much peace pipe do we have to smoke before we prioritize forms of discrimination?!
How do you rationalize to yourself, "I know that FDR was wheelchair bound and Kennedy was high on amphetamines the majority of his presidency, but that McCain guy..." ?!?!?!
I, for one, renew my pledge here and now to speak out for truth and fairness regardless of the angry left. On this blog you'll hear a voice for every single color of that rainbow, sans-asterisk. And if I see the president behind me in line for the ATM, I'll definitely keep one hand on my wallet at all times.
That's because I've seen the way he governs, not because he's black - you racist bastards.
This weekend is our local gay pride weekend, and as the festivities loom I find it an oddly appropriate time to tackle a topic that has weighed heavily on me for quite some time. This is about the issue of fairness and even-handedness.
Last year's local pride parade included our local chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans. I wasn't a member at the time, still lost deep in the mourning process over the end of the Clinton campaign. But even then, I couldn't help but snark at what a shame it is to watch twinks, bears, and drag queens parade down the street in a beautiful mix of unity and contrast characterized by the rainbow flag, only to imagine the hostility of the crowd that reportedly booed and launched projectiles at the Log Cabin Republicans all down the parade route. A good friend of mine even had his car vandalized during the festivities, no doubt due to his car being the only one in the parking lot with a McCain/Palin bumper sticker. Was that change we can believe in? Was that rising above old politics? Was that the new era of cooperation we were promised? And perhaps most importantly, why is it that none of the colors on that beautiful motley flag not have any room for gay Republicans? Does diversity mean everybody, *asterisk* or does it mean everybody, period?
You know a double standard when you see one, but few examples stand out quite as starkly as sharply as those steaming piles lobbed from the left.
William F Buckley Jr. once rightly declared, "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." On the left, the elitist groupthink mentality is rampant. There is a terrible blindness to this reality and worse yet, an unwillingness to tackle it where it rears its ugly head. This is the truth that dare not speak it's name, lest ye be cast out. Trust me, I know first hand.
Colin Powell was lauded for coming across the divide and supporting Barack Obama. So was Christopher Buckley, William's son. Then there was the rise of the so-called "Obamicans," the Democrat's counter to the right's "Reagan Democrats" who came over to support Reagan over Carter in 1980 and again against their own Mondale in 1984. But while the Left was was busy patting themselves on the back for pilfering the endorsements of Republicans in 2008, many failed to point out that they were busy lambasting their own previous vice-presidential candidate, Joe Lieberman, for campaigning for John McCain. Where Powell was thoughtful and post-partisan, Lieberman as hateful, rogue, and misguided. If you got the email from the Obama campaign the night of the RNC where Lieberman spoke, you know the smear I'm talking about. If you saw the news clips of the Democratic Caucus trying to force Lieberman out, you know what I'm talking about. And if you're a Democrat that didn't support Barack Obama, you know the type of directly hateful and insidious personal attacks against you that I'm talking about.
Why is it fair that the current president railed against wasteful spending and the atrocity of the doubling of our federal debt in 8 years under Bush, but then himself spent as much money as had ever been spent in the history of our nation up to his inauguration within his first 100 days? Why is it ok that his so-called stimulus package repelled more Democrats than it attracted Republicans, but then the Republicans were allegedly just practicing politics as usual and hindering bipartisanship? The White House's own projections show that the stimulus won't produce any more jobs than laissez-faire economic policies in the long run, so why not just keep our children's money? Why is it unfair to call that out?
For the past 8 years we had prisoners in Guantanamo, military tribunals, a hold on release of torture photos, and a hard line against Iran and North Korea and these policies were evil and misguided. Now that the current president has largely done an about-face from his naive campaign rhetoric, why are these policies mysteriously now considered necessary and appropriate for our national security? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad President Obama was man enough to rise above rhetoric and put the security of our nation first after sitting in the briefings and actualizing the difference between campaigning and governing. For that he deserves credit. But think back for a minute to a time where people like me and Joe Lieberman and John McCain said that Obama's campaign rhetoric was naive and inappropriate. We were regarded as racists, bigots, and fools back then. And these very policies were considered failed, inappropriate, and dangerous. Yet, here we are.
Thinking back again, how is it possibly fair that Sarah Palin was an unqualified VP candidate because of her so-called lack of experience. While conceding the point that being the governor of Alaska has zero to do with getting foreign policy credentials, I'm going to ask what Barack Obama's foreign policy experience was. As Chair of the European Affairs Subcommittee, he called exactly ZERO hearings (and was called out for that by Hillary Clinton during the Ohio debate). Other than campaigning in front of crowds a la John Kennedy, I can think of zilch that qualified Obama as a foreign policy expert. Wait, that's not true. He also directed his campaign during the the Ohio primary against Clinton to lobby the Canadian government to stay quiet about his rhetoric on NAFTA on the grounds that it was merely campaign rhetoric and would never come to fruition.
Are you appalled yet? If not, you're not paying attention. Let it be pointed out one more time that we're talking about the bottom of one ticket with no foreign policy experience contrasted with the top of the other ticket. Why is it fair that the bottom of the Republican ticket was shishkabobbed with a greater voracity than the top of the Democratic ticket?
If you answered unfair media coverage, you're right. Notice how much more you heard about seeing Russia from Palin's house (which she didn't say, Tina Fey did) than you ever heard about Barack's 57 state campaign (excluding Alaska, oddly enough) or Biden's memories of seeing President FDR on TV in 1929 (he wasn't president for three more years and practically nobody had TV's, not to mention Biden wasn't born). If you answered natural inclination to double standards for the left and right, you're correct again. If you thought to yourself that it's racist to question the first serious black presidential candidate, you're especially right.
People largely assured themselves it was ok to harangue Palin because her runningmate was older than a typical presidential candidate. Forget for a moment that the McCain campaign released his physical records that clearly stated that there was absolutely no reason to fear his health. The big question that should unnerve liberals where they live is this:
Why is ageism ok and racism not? How is it ok to get away with the demonstrably sexist campaigning that the Obama camp engaged in against Clinton only to allege racism for their own shortcomings? Can Obama freely call his white grandmother a typical white person and those who refuse to pull the lever for him bitter working-class people who cling to their religion and guns? How is it ok to freely discriminate against a candidate because they're a few years older than the norm but otherwise in very good health? Why is that better than voting for someone who looks like you? How much peace pipe do we have to smoke before we prioritize forms of discrimination?!
How do you rationalize to yourself, "I know that FDR was wheelchair bound and Kennedy was high on amphetamines the majority of his presidency, but that McCain guy..." ?!?!?!
I, for one, renew my pledge here and now to speak out for truth and fairness regardless of the angry left. On this blog you'll hear a voice for every single color of that rainbow, sans-asterisk. And if I see the president behind me in line for the ATM, I'll definitely keep one hand on my wallet at all times.
That's because I've seen the way he governs, not because he's black - you racist bastards.
Posted by Nick Stone
on 9:30 AM.
Filed under
Posts
There are entirely too many things wrong with your post to comment on each one. Perhaps its the fact that Log Cabin Republicans openly support a party which has done nothing but try to halt the addition of rights to gays and lesbians? Granted there are some exceptions, but your average Republican finds homosexuality to be abhorrent and wrong. The Republican party platform openly states they are promoting "traditional family values," which is simply code for "not allowing gays and lesbians to get married." Granted, the President does not support gay marriage, either, but at least is open to discussing GLBT issues and granting equal rights.
My biggest qualm with your most recent tirade is that you argue there was a double standard that Obama had less than or equal to the foreign policy experience of Sarah Palin, and she was hounded for this, while he was elected. You're right on the face of it, except Obama was elected to a national office (US Senator) and spent four years in that position, where he was required to vote on issues related to national security and interests. As such, he was privy to intelligence reports and other things the Governor was not.
Moreover, if Sarah Palin had kept her mouth shut, she might have had a fair case that it was a double standard. Except it became painfully clear during the election process that she didn't have a CLUE regarding foreign policy. She never even got her passport until a year before she ran for VP. At least Obama was educated enough to understand the basics and learn what he needed to. Instead you had Palin talking about being able to see Russia from Alaska, as a reason she could understand complex foreign relations (never mind the fact that the distance between Anchorage and Moscow is farther than Anchorage and New York City). Oh, and she actually said this. Tina Fey only quipped that it she could see Russia from her house, rather than from the state itself. This was only further amplified after the election when it became public that her handlers had to teacher many of the things we learn in elementary school -- the woman thought Africa was one country, for crying out loud.
I'm sorry but you can't tell me that the media wouldn't have had a field day had Obama gotten up there and stated that he knew how to handle North Korea, since growing up in Hawaii, he was from the state that was in closest proximity to the Hermit Kingdom (Hawaii to Pyongyang is roughly the same distance from Anchorage to Moscow).
In terms of Lieberman/Powell..there was a major difference. Colin Powell did ONE thing to support Obama. He went on Meet the Press, said he was supporting Obama, gave a impassioned and reasoned response as to why. Lieberman, on the other hand, decided he was going to support McCain, started campaigning for him and started essentially bashing Obama, a member of his own party, on the campaign trail. One took a temperate, mature tone. While the other did everything he could to get his old friend elected. There was a far cry in their actions and rhetoric, so once again, your "double standard" ideas fall apart when you realize the two situations are nowhere near the same.
On the whole, I agree with your post. Anonymous unfortunately continued the party line, that of the Democrat Party. The truth is that there is little difference between the two parties. The answer is not found in any of the status quo political parties. I feel so bad when I see people blindly following either party; not everyone in the parties blindly follows, but these people are the miniscule minority. Despite the variety of color, I haven't found the rainbow flag to be inclusive, particularly of anyone who is pro-life or Republican -- this is the blind faith held for the Democrats. It's this deception and self-deception that holds us back. I feel solidarity with all people and don't cringe or shun when I hear that they have a position different than mine.
How is the President interested in granting equal rights if he's not willing to allow us to get married? I'm sick of Obama's separate-but-equal line, his fierce-urgency-of-now stance until it comes to doing anything for us. I didn't vote for him and never will. The man's as fake as his threat that the Republicans would try to scare people away from Obama by saying he looked funny on the money. The only one I see using true fear mongering is Obama, as evidenced by his urgency to pass stimulus, urgency to pass health care. Of course, the true hilarity comes in when this gets juxtaposed with his "go-slow" approach to gay rights -- so far we've gotten what we already had! Progress.
Anonymous must believe any anti-Palin thing ever said. I wonder if he or she is so quick to believe all the anti-Obama stuff. Apparently not. I guess it's more pick-and-choose, I-believe-what-I-want-to-believe illusionary lifestyle that seems so popular in this community. I guess there is no media bias.
If we want change, we have to make it. Obama is and as far as I'm concerned always was going to be more of the same. What real liberty and security? Stop growing government. Let's get back to smaller government, one that doesn't have the revenue to persecute us because it's not collecting tax dollars hand over fist.
As far as the vitriol toward McCain and Palin supporters or anyone not supporting Democrats (it's not just directed toward Republican supporters), I hope that everyone would speak out against it. There's a lot of hypocrisy in this community, hypocrisy that only serves to divide. We're represented everywhere. We are diversity and that diversity should be fully respected. If you're not going to be a responsible community member by showing everyone a basic level of respect (a basic tenet in that would be to not destroy others' property), don't attend events about community, diversity, unity, and rights. Log Cabin Republicans should not be shunned or disrespected because they have different beliefs. I think some people won't be happy until we all believe the same thing. Yeah, they'll never be happy.
Anon - I take issue with your comment that I follow the Democratic "party line." Especially as it relates to Sarah Palin. What did I say about the Governor that was factually incorrect? I wanted to like her at first. I really did. Instead, once your peeled away her "aw schucks" demeanor that made her so appealing to most Republicans, she made it painfully clear that she had no place, at the time, on a national stage. She had only been out of the country once (didn't even bother to get her passport until 2007), believed she knew the inner-workings of Russia thanks to her proximity to that country (she said, it. tina fey did not make that up. i can provide quotes) and it later became clear that she didn't know that Africa was a continent.
To add icing on the cake, her understanding of domestic issues outside of Alaska was also somewhat questionable. She couldn't name a US Supreme Court case that she disagreed with (even though her own State and Attorney General was on the loosing side of Alaska vs. The United States of America just several months earlier). She thought the Vice President was "in charge" of the Senate, even though that job only has two responsibilities, to cast a tie breaking vote ONLY in the case of a tie and to fill in for the President, should he not be able to discharge his duties.
Say what you will about President Obama's qualifications or a media double standard, but had he done ANY of these things or shown that kind of ignorance, you can bet the media would jump on him (much in the same way that they have jumped on Biden's gaffes).
Sarah Palin didn't know Africa was a continent? Because unnamed campaign insiders said so? She recently got a passport. And? At least she wasn't using it to make a grandiose speech in Europe or attach a copycat presidential seal to her lectern. That's right, a person who spent a few years in another country in childhood qualifies as a foreign policy expert. If he was so good at foreign policy, why hadn't he held a committee meeting? The passport thing is ridiculous given how few Americans have a passport or had a passport before the recent change to laws regarding re-entering the U.S. took affect. It's not okay anymore to be in the majority, not when it's the regular folks in that majority.
A lot of the questions asked of Palin simply weren't asked of Obama. This may not be bias because it's of course true that they were running for a different office. That was the part that was forgotten -- that they indeed were running for a different office, yet they were compared. She of course had more executive experience, which probably would have counted, except that she's from a state with a small population (never mind that it's the largest in terms of size), i.e. small-town America, which no one could ever care about -- after all, where's the media market out there? Obama was riding out his lead. Why chance it?
I would agree that the Vice President is in charge of the Senate. When it comes down to it, he's the one that would make the ultimate decision, as you noted.
Fantasy world. Obama had his own gaffes, but the media barely covered them. The blog mentioned some, but you, like the media, conveniently forgot them. I didn't support Obama and actually had a "ABO - Anyone But Obama" mantra, but I did expect him to be evaluated fully. Palin got more scrutiny in a shorter period of time -- some of it positive, but most of it focused on tearing her down. How many media folks did you see sent to Chicago or Indonesia or Hawaii or Obama's aunt's house? Where were the interviews with people in Obama's state or former teachers, etc.? Non-existent. How many stories did I see about Palin's children or undeniably tabloid junk about her son not being hers? How many people even knew who the Obama kids were?
Here's a tip -- I'm not a Republican, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve fair media treatment. I'll continue to speak out against all the political parties until they're gone.
Let's get down to it, though. The point isn't the criticism because it clearly works both ways. I like my president to respect human rights (i.e., no abortion), know how many states there are (not more than fifty), and so forth. Was Sarah Palin the best choice? Was McCain? Was Biden? Was Obama? You've chosen to in my mind unfairly criticize Palin, unfair because you associate Obama with experience that simply isn't there. Maybe you don't toe the party line, but you're sure sounding like the other pro-Messiah liberals that took no issue belittling Palin's "measly" executive experience, etc. when Obama had none. It can go on and on, and that's the point. It doesn't stop until we hold ourselves to a higher standard.
We're asking for sincercity, dialogue, and respect instead of snarls, outcasting, and destruction of property. The unfair treatment of Republicans by the media and Democrats is in many ways the side issue -- the fact is that the gay community is no more inclusive than any other that seeks to push out those that don't agree with its inner mainstream thought. Being a gay Republican in a group of gay non-Republicans is like being a gay in an antagonistic heterosexual environment. It might be fine for you to live as you desire in your own house, but it's not acceptable to act like that in a social situation, not when you're coming together to separate something you hold in common. In other words, our community is no different -- bigots abound. There are more than big-government gays.
The term "big-government gays" is just precious and should be copyrighted.
Seriously.
At any rate, the point of this post was NOT about the merits of Sarah Palin. It was on the merits of equity of treatment, consideration for other points of view, and rising above thinking that discrimination against us is horrible while discrimination against the other guy is excusable.
Thank you both for your thoughts. I really do love the back and forth, even in disagreement.