Gay pundit Andrew Sullivan supports the OP. First he explains why he saw the ad as gay-baiting :
Then, Sullivan goes on to deplore the lack of response from Democrats. (BTW Montana Democrats continued to run the ad, even after it was criticized.):
He deplores the lack of response from gay-rights orgnizations:
He deplores the lack of response from media:
You may disagree with the OP, but it’s not provocation or trolling. It’s the way a lot of observers see things.
Link to cite for above post: http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?switch=black_white&dish_inc=dish_blog.html
So then by that reasoning, if the Democratic candidate hadn’t intended it as homophibic, then everything’s ok, right?
Personally, I think the hair, the suit and the decor make him look like the husband from Emmanuelle. As for the guy getting his hair done, I know that guy’s done porn.
So, the local gay rights people are bothered more by Taylor’s wussy response to the ad than by the ad itself? “Stand up and fight like a man”, in other words? And so Gay-Pundit-Andrew-Sullivan has a problem with the way the Locals are handling it? Gee, those silly Local People, don’t they know anything about Gay Rights or Gay Pride? Does Gay-Pundit-Andrew-Sullivan have to tell them everything?
And am I the only one noticing that apparently Gay-Pundit-Andrew-Sullivan firmly believes that any time a man applies cosmetics to another man, that the first guy is definitely gay?
Wow, I’ll have to pass this along to the Hollywood Makeup Artists and Hair Stylists Union, Local 706. I’m sure they’ll be glad to know that all the males nominated for Emmys for makeup this year are actually gaaaaaay.
Oooh, Todd and Nick and Randy and Justin, you bad boys, you… And those are just the makeup guys–wait till you hear the list of hairstylists…Michael and Sean and Stephen and, oooh, there’s another Randy, that must be a “gay” name…
:rolleyes:
Sublight, the specific point I was addressing was the use of “supposed.” I personally don’t think Armey’s statement is OK and I don’t believe his excuse. However, he never acknowledged intentionally using a slur, and there’s no way to prove what was in his mind, so I think the use of the modifier was not inappropriate.
Whether that Montana ad was homophobic is in the eye of the viewer. Here’s one salty reaction:
http://janegalt.net/2002_10_06_janegalt_archive.html#85549437
Duck Duck Goose, I appreciate your post. However, it confounds noticing that a malicious stereotype has been used with endorsing the malicious sterereotype.
By my count, it will take two more reminders that Dick Armey has at least twice slurred Barney Frank on the basis of his sexual orientation before december will acknowledge the possibility that Armey is, ya know, a little bit hostile towards gays.
I don’t know about the ad, I had trouble watching because the background music kept making me want to get up and shake, shake, shake… shake my booty!
Finally! Proof that the spot is gay!
IAS did you read the articles and view the commercial? As silly as it looks now the offending commercial was for a salon/school he owned in the early 80’s.
IN the post right above yours I wrote,
Is anyone else amused to find december (who has chastised various groups for taking offense when none or little was offered) relying on the words of “Gay pundit Andrew Sullivan” to decide when something is offensive? In any other context, would we not expect to find december shaking his head at the foolishness of Mr. Sullivan for trying to make something of nothing, simply to further an agenda?
I guess principled stands are only what we expect of other people.
**You haven’t let me down! Look at this wonderful list of excuses.
**
If this post really sums up what you think those posters said, then you are beyond help.
Unlike this ad, their posts are written RIGHT HERE on this page. It just takes a second to scroll back and forth to check things out.
You either have a reading comprehension probem or are blinded by your agenda.
Either way, I don’t need to bother checking out the commercial after seeing how bad you are at interpreting things.
Personally, I think this ad is very telling.
The description of the ad in no way screams “homophobia” at me: the gold chain, hairy chest look is one I associate with sleazy straightboys, not with gay men.
But it’s fascinating how some conservatives are so cynical that they’re willing to find some special-interest group willing to support them in a bizarre case like this. I guarandamntee you that December has never quoted a gay pundit who was criticizing a Republican.
No. For some conservatives, gay rights and similar issues are no more than tools to be used callously and deceptively in partisan bickering.
Fascinating point, December!
Daniel
I Am Not A Moderator. 
The assertion “This ad = homophobic” is NOT adequately proven. Do THAT and then we’ll talk about if it’s ok for certain groups to be homophobic and if it’s wrong for others. Nothing further needs to be added until someone PROVES this ad was meant to, AND EFFECTIVE AT, invoking homophobic responses in a significant number of the viewers.
Then the debate becomes, “Was it despicable to use these tactics to undermine your opponent?”(note this has no partisan slant) Still not a very interesting question. You’ll probably see mostly “yes” responses with a few people who believe anything is fair game in a political race.
Enjoy,
Steven
[homophobic bigot] But, but, but… he has a BEARD! You can’t be gay if you have a BEARD! Damn Democrats sending mixed messages! Burn in hell![/homophobic bigot]
Enjoy,
Steven
When Mr. Sullivan’s parents decided to name him “Gay Pundit,” they were pretty much locking in his future career.
Sua
Yea, and poor Dick Armey never had a chance. 
Others can judge the credibility of Gay-Pundit Sullivan but I would like to point out that Democratic-Blogger Kaus is not a Democrat in any meaningful sense of the world. If you scroll down the link that December provides you will see that he appears to spend most of his energy bashing the NY Times, Paul Krugman and the Democrats.
BTW this thread has provided me some of my best laughs in ages. In addition to the ad itself, there was the Senate candidate who turned blue. And somehow I had never realized till now what a truly unfortunate name Dick Armey has. Not that the joker doesn’t deserve it.
Please, folks, let’s show some respect and use his full name: Dick “Like A Baby’s” Armey.
DanielWithrow makes the same point I was aiming at:
“I guarandamntee you that December has never quoted a gay pundit who was criticizing a Republican . . . . For some conservatives, gay rights and similar issues are no more than tools to be used callously and deceptively in partisan bickering.”
I’d simply alter that statement about “some conservatives” and “similar issues” to make it reciprocal, and say that politicans in general have a hard time not appearing cynical when they criticize their opponents for behavior or stances that they themselves would not really oppose. Unless you’re talking about Jon Kyl or Andrew Sullivan, a self-proclaimed conservative asking us to believe that he is outraged by ‘homophobia’ is just not convincing; is elimination of homophobia really at the top of most conservatives’ agenda (again, note that I am not opining on whether it should or shouldn’t be – just that it probably ranks below tax cuts, etc. for the rank and file, and I would certainly WAG for most Montana GOPers)? Does Mr. Taylor have a track record we haven’t heard of of ever mentioning the word “homophobia” before yesterday? My original suggestion to December’s approach was that it hurts, not helps, GOP credibility to take <this particular approach> or choose <this particular (stupid) battle> for attacking perceived Dem. hypocrisy. I’m still wondering what’s the more politically-consistent, credible way to attach such hypocrisy.
My interest in this question is, as I note, not partisan (at the moment anyhow): I thought it was equally a non-starter tactically for Dems. to attack GWB for alleged espionage shortcomings pre 9/11, as there is almost no one in the world up till now who has accused the Bush family (certainly Bush pere) or Republicans of insufficient enthusiasm for spying and cloak-and-dagger activities, and its been the Dems. who’ve over the years questioned such clandestine activity.