iowahawk has found a transcript of Howard Dean’s appeal to homophobic Republicans: It’s the Homos, Stupid!
[W]e would like to take this opportunity to start a dialog with you, the conservative “values voter,” by addressing an issue of vital importance to all of us — the growing Republican homo menace.
It gets worse. Listen to Howard Dean as iowahawk has him say the following:
What we have found so far has been shocking. You may have already read the disgusting story of Mark Foley, the Florida Republican gay pervert congressman who spent night after night on the godless internet discussing unnatural sex acts and interior decoration with innocent underaged pages. And now our investigators have learned that Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig is less interested in Boise than he is in “boy-sies.” Now that his sickening secret is out, the good conservative folks of Idaho can send this pansy packing to San Francisco where he can be Potato Queen in the the next pride parade.
Sadly, though, this is just the tip of the GOP gayberg. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the mincing minnie who ran the GOP’s Foley coverup? A former high school “wrestling coach.” California governor Arnold Schwartzenegger? A curious fondness for flexing his oiled pecs while parading around in a pair of skimpy Speedos. “Dick Armey”? You do the math.
You have to agree, there’s definitely something very gay about a Dick Armey.
[Note for the irony-challenged: the following post is irony. Thank you. -- The Mgmt.]
I hear there’s a Republican Senator who has been voting against affirmative action . . . but one of his ancestors is BLACK!!!
And he hasn’t told anyone. Worse, he goes around allowing himself to be photographed as a “white” person. While, all the while, he has an ancestor who is BLACK!!!
It’s not the race, it’s the hypocrisy.
[Irony alert ends here.]
The above fictional nonsense makes about as much sense as that Larry Craig deal, don’t you think?
UPDATE: OK, this is too subtle for some of my readers, so let me explain the joke and make the argument in a straightforward way. I’ll do it in the extended entry. If you get it, you can stop here. If you don’t get it, and you need it explained, then click on “more” . . .
Here’s what Democrats should say if they want to obtain a cheap and cynical political advantage from the Larry Craig controversy:
I am saddened that Larry Craig is having alleged details of his personal life brought out into the open. I think it’s a shame that our politics have become so personal. However, this does highlight the GOP’s closed-minded policies when it comes to addressing how we treat sexual orientation as a matter of public policy.
That’s how it’s done. You decry the gross invasion of someone’s personal life.
Then you take advantage of it.
To the extent Democrats speak about this at all, that’s a close approximation of what they’ll say.
Sure, unadulterated outrage is the decent reaction. But where’s the political advantage in that?
P.S. I understand the Rick Ellensburgs of this world are saying that it’s all about the hypocrisy. This is just a dishonest hook on which they can hang their glee at what they perceive as an embarrassment to a Republican.
If you can show me where Larry Craig has denounced homosexuality as deviant or immoral, and you can prove he is homosexual, you’ve got a good hypocrisy charge. But if the only thing you’ve got is his votes against gay marriage or special rights for homosexuals, then you’ve got nothing. Plenty of homosexuals oppose both.
Glenn Greenwald and company are using the hypocrisy charge as a phony justification for thuggery on private matters. They should be ashamed.
There’s an interesting story by Andrew Selsky in the Associated Press on Gitmo at this link. The whole thing is worth reading, but readers of this blog will be particularly interested in this passage:
An Army nurse who said he worked at its medical facility for a year until last May wrote in a blog that he wouldn’t hesitate to kill a former detainee if he saw him in his town.
“I can tell you that if I ever saw a detainee face-to-face here in the States, I would immediately assume that I was targeted and do my best to kill them without further warning,” wrote the soldier, who would be identified only by his nickname, Stashiu.
Here’s the really weird part: the author of the AP piece, Andrew O. Selsky, commented on Stashiu’s series of posts under the handle “Ace.”
Details in the extended entry.
Clint Taylor has this American Spectator piece about Susan Lindauer. “[D]eeply disturbed fantasist” or traitor? You be the judge.