With all due respect, I don’t think it’s any sort of cheap shot.
Like it or not, the GOP is a party where the bigots rule the roost. That’s not a slam; it’s fact.
So yeah, the anti-gays are Republicans. That’s no slam; that’s fact.
Yes, there are also gay Republicans, and straight Republicans who are in favor of legal equality for gays. But they cannot but be aware that their party belongs to the bigots.
If they want to stop playing with the bigots, there’s no reason why they couldn’t start a party of their own. There’s room for a party that’s in favor of low taxes, small government, a strong defense, and all that - and that has no place for the Falwell-Robertson-Dobson-LaHaye crowd. They’d be a lot more influential on their own than as part of the Bigot Party; they’d effectively be the swing vote in American politics, and would likely be able to call the tune.
But as long as they stay and vote Republican, they’re still part of the bigots’ strength of numbers, no matter how tenaciously they fight against the bigots within the GOP. That’s just the way the political math works, and no amount of ersatz political correctness can change the way the numbers add up.
My remarks and concern was on the broad generalization which just reinforces the polarization of the board and stops a good segment of both sides from hearing each other.
Bona Fide, Grade A Mr Republican-Speaker-of-the-House Cheap Shots like Hastert insinuates Soros’ money comes from drugs polarize this Board [and this country] infinitely more than my lame attempts at humor ever could.
And by cheap shot I mean, RTF’s newslink, not his OP.
I read the link, and it had someone else saying Falwell blamed gays for 9/11, not a direct, cited quote. Now I don’t doubt that it’s true. Falwell is almost as bad as Phelps for making Christians look like a bunch of doofuses. But does anyone have a link to a direct statement by Falwell about gays and 9/11?
If he can’t even talk about international trade without protest, what chance is there of someone actually being able to speak positively about gay rights at the GOP convention?
But there is definately a line between featuring people that merely oppose gay rights like full marriage status (few Democrats favor that) or support the FMA (some moderate Republicans do that) and featuring people who describe homosexuality as a plauge for which the struggle against is like that of the Nazis against all humanity.
Thanks for the info. I think. Jeez, I feel like wanting to throw up when I read crap like that. That’s like all the fliers Fred Phelps has, saying that when bad thinkgs happen to innocents, it’s because God punished them for their sins against his church.
Really. A few years ago a police helicopter crashed here in Topeka, and two officers died. Phelps reveled in it, saying “Their copter was hurled from the sky for the sins of the TPD against Westboro Baptist Church.”
Falwell has recently said that the only thing he would change about his statements are that he didn’t cite the “failing church” as being to blame as well.
You know, I have to admit, against my better judgment, that I sometimes feel sorry for the Reverend Phelps. It must be a terrible, souldraining burden to be the only true church in all the world.
When the Republicans get their way, and have us all stripped of our rights, and probably rounded up so we don’t spread our gay germs, those filthy, worthless Republican-voting faggots are the only ones who will deserve it.
So a gay man who wants to keep his tax refund has no business voting in his own economic interest? It has to be in solidarity with the people that share his sexual orientation?
A gay woman that believes she and her loved ones are safer from terrorism if Mr. Bush’s policies are followed should swallow that concern and vote in solidarity with people that share her sexual perference?
Gay rights are the single, most important, all-encompassing item on the political horizon?
