Here's another religious right leader admitting that "traditional values voters" are so bigoted that they might not vote for Bush solely because his running mate has a gay daughter:
"I think it is part of a strategy to suppress traditional-values voters, to knock 1 or 2 percent off in some rural areas by causing people to turn on the president," said Gary Bauer, a conservative Christian who ran for president four years ago.
Do they not realize what their words mean? Are they really that stupid? Or don't they care?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
This post from November 26, 2004 was my fourth (out of five), and longest, analysis of the 2004 election. With Balkans and Creationism sprinkled in. How did it stand the test of time over the past two years?
Oftentimes, an outside observer can see what a native observer cannot. The native is too…
This post from November 26, 2004 was my fourth (out of five), and longest, analysis of the 2004 election. With Balkans and Creationism sprinkled in. How did it stand the test of time over the past 3.5 years?
Oftentimes, an outside observer can see what a native observer cannot. The native is too…
Rusty Lopez has reacted to my post about Bush backing away from the Federal Marriage Amendment with this strangely myopic post. He says:
Speaking of venturing out of the "ghetto," Ed Brayton, over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, seems to think that because President Bush is now not pushing…
The LA Times has a story about some religious right leaders pushing for gays to be purged from the Republican Party. In the wake of the Foley scandal, there are increasing calls to get gay people out of the party entirely.
"The big-tent strategy could ultimately spell doom for the Republican Party…
And just think, people like this who can't even string a coherent thought together will be voting in the election. Happens every time of course, but this election they all seem to be pouring out of the woodwork. Or maybe it's just so noticeable all of a sudden because the blogging community is now so prominent.
Honestly, I think that people in the 'moderate' right wing view the crazy-bigot wing of their party the same people in the mainstream left view people who'll be voting for Nader- as well meaning but implactical and unrealistic. They don't object to the homophobic sentiment, just to the fact that it's an unworkable policy at the moment. If Cheney weren't what he is to the extent that he is, his daughter might have been a liability even in the eyes of those moderates, even among those not ruled by their prejudice because they would happily cater to their less tolerant bretheren to win the election. How did it come to this?
The "compassionate" religious right who claim to love gays, but not approve of their actions is relatively new. Traditionally they would outright condemn gays to hell. I'm surprised that they are starting to go so far as to say that they don't hate gays, which is a step up from just 10 years ago. It's a complete fabrication, of course they still hate gays, but a step is a step.
You have a point Mathew. They are still hate gays, but now they HAVE to lie about it. That's an indicator that it is no longer socially acceptable to openly condemn homosexuality. Obviously, I'm still not remotely happy with the state of things but you are right, a step is a step.
Honestly, I think that people in the 'moderate' right wing view the crazy-bigot wing of their party the same people in the mainstream left view people who'll be voting for Nader- as well meaning but implactical and unrealistic. They don't object to the homophobic sentiment, just to the fact that it's an unworkable policy at the moment. If Cheney weren't what he is to the extent that he is, his daughter might have been a liability even in the eyes of those moderates, even among those not ruled by their prejudice because they would happily cater to their less tolerant bretheren to win the election.
This is where I will part company with you. I don't think that most people outside of the hardcore fundamentalists are virulently anti-gay and keep that covered up. For most, I suspect it is primarily a fear of change and a need to conform to their peer group. I fully expect the same thing to happen with this bigotry as happened with racial and ethnic bigotries in the past (anti-black, anti-Irish, anti-Catholic, etc): once there starts to be general societal acceptance, sparked by winning legal recognition, the majority of people will probably lose their biases for the most part, and the largest part of the next generation will look back on the bad old days with a mixture of bemusement and astonishment. Today it seems inconceivable that just a generation ago, allowing blacks to marry whites, or even to be allowed to eat at the same restaurants and stay at the same hotels as whites, was a matter of enormous emotion and controversy. But it's true. I think you would have found the same percentages supporting anti-black legislation less than 40 years ago as you find now supporting anti-gay legislation, where today if you tried to repeal the Civil Rights Act you'd be seen as so far outside the mainstream of society as to be borderline insane. Things really do change, and the perceptions of the majority of people change along with them. What is mainstream bigotry today will, I think, be confined to a minority 25 years from now just as real racism is today confined to an obnoxious little subset of the polity.
And those Irish still just make everybody so angry....
I'm having quite a good time watching this whole thing. It's actually fun now to read right wing rants and watch Fox because they can't help but discuss this. And watching them try to gingerely stumble around in this minefield they've created makes me so happy I'd do damn near anything for Kerry in return. I really feel I owe him. I'd draw the line at switching teams for his pleasure...but I think I could be persuaded to give him a kick ass hot oil massage.