Friday, September 12, 2008

I'm trying to ignore politics until Thanksgiving, when I'll get all the turkey I need.

Nonetheless, I need someone to explain this to me.

18 comments:

MedicMatthew said...

Gah. It is taking all of the strength I can conjure to avoid discussing politics, particularly as related teh gayz

chall said...

sometimes one group will resent themselves and then endorse someone who promises to help them "become normal"....

that is the only reason I can see since I don't get it. Then again, I have somewhat of a problem understanding women (or men with daughters) who are sayingan absolute no to abortion even when the life of the women is in danger.

Ahistoricality said...

It's not a free-floating non-partisan gay organization: it's the Log Cabin Republicans.

What are they going to do, endorse Bob Barr? The only reason for them to threaten to walk away from the party is if they think there's any room for negotiation, and the selection of Palin -- and the party platform, which is pretty rough -- makes it very clear that there really isn't. Either they walk away -- and I'm sure individuals have, like Andrew Sullivan -- or they play nice hoping that they'll lose less that way.

Egg said...

"Don’t worry, there are others there,” Kolbe said of gays in the House. “We just need to make them feel more comfortable.”

He's so right! A few names come to mind.. Craig, Foley.

To these people, "inclusive" means that other people are tolerant of being in the same room as them.

Aidan said...

The Log Cabin Republicans are an example of something called "self-loathing". This is also the phenomenon behind "Jewish Republicans" and "Women for Palin". It's very, very sad and, at least from my reading of current literature, can only be cured with the administration of aversion therapy and ECT. So if you see a log cabin republican, scream "John McCain", kick 'em in the nuts, and zap em with a tazer. It's for their own good

texasinafrica said...

They don't like taxes. That pretty much sums it up.

Anonymous said...

Now, now, kids -- kicking gays in the nuts? FWIW, the LCR's hated Mitt Romney so much that they made a point of publicly endorsing him in the Deep South. And that's pretty funny.

Miss Kitty said...

[shaking head after reading article]

That's even more fucked up than putting Palin on the ticket in the first place.

Aidan said...

Anon -- I'm not violent or homophobic. It's therapy. It's for their own good.

Anonymous said...

There really is not much to explain. It turns out that being addlepated is an equal-opportunity state of mind. It pays no heed to race, religion, culture, socioeconomic status, or sexual preference.

Carina said...

I've never understood that group. Never.

LabRat said...

As has been pointed out, they are Republicans, and in those terms, McCain and Palin are pretty good- they're both against meddling with the law to harass gays, McCain against a Constitutional anti-same-sex-marriage amendment, and Palin having refused to sign off on an Alaskan bill banning benefits to same-sex domestic partners on the grounds that it was against the state's constitution.

As for "self-hating", none of the gay conservatives I know strike me as such. In a political environment that produces the same posture (against same-sex marriage, maybe pro-civil-union- only Dick Cheney in 2004, ironically, refused to come down against same-sex marriage) across both tickets, having gay rights as your highest political priority doesn't always leave you with many real options.

Stingray said...

You all mean to tell me that there's a group of people out there with positions and considerations OTHER than their sexual orientation, who might come to a decision based on those non-sexual preferences that does not appear to jive with what occurs in their pants? HERESY! Y'all are just pulling my leg. Obviously the only consideration a gay person would have is based strictly and solely on that gayness and NOTHING ELSE. Anything else would be silly now, wouldn't it?

Anonymous said...

stingray--to support the republican party which uses gays as a divisive tool at best, or wants to legislate against their equal rights (at worst?) because that party will "protect" wealth? Yeah, I guess it makes sense.
ewd

LabRat said...

ewd- Let's leave aside for a moment what should be obvious- that the GOP includes a lot of policy positions beyond gay-bashing and "wealth protection"- and act as though "wealth protection" were the only conceivable reason a gay person might vote Republican.

Right now, statistically speaking, gay people are very disproportionately college-educated and relatively wealthy. This is based on polling data, so it's a logical assumption that it's not so much that you're more likely to be gay if you're well-educated and well-off than it is that you're more likely to be gay and out of the closet. Might that wealth and education put a gay person in a position- free of dependency on their family, in a white-collar work environment that may be less likely to be overtly homophobic- that makes being an honest gay American, free to be themself, a much less hazardous thing to do?

Chas S. Clifton said...

"Patrick Sammon, the president of the Log Cabin Republicans, said the most important reason for the group’s support was McCain’s opposition twice in the last decade to a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage."

I don't see any self-loathing there.

News flash: sexual preference is not always linked to political preference!

Ahistoricality said...

I don't know if this will deepen or lift your confusion, AP, but it's worth a look on this subject.

landsnark said...

Republican success has been largely founded on their ability to gather single-issue voters ("family values," lower taxes, gun rights, anti-abortion, death penalty, owls vs. jobs, etc.) These are just a group of people whose single issue is different from the one we might expect. I don't think it has anything to do with self-loathing.

It's stupid, but it doesn't have to be about self-loathing.

I know a guy who openly declares that he really doesn't like anything else the Republicans stand for, but he votes for them because the Liberals want to take his guns away. Is that better or worse?